| Literature DB >> 27526102 |
Ta-Kang Liu1, Yu-Cheng Wang2, Laurence Zsu-Hsin Chuang1, Chih-How Chen1.
Abstract
The abundance of the eastern Taiwan Strait (ETS) population of the Chinese white dolphin (Sousa chinensis) has been estimated to be less than 100 individuals. It is categorized as critically endangered in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Thus, immediate measures of conservation should be taken to protect it from extinction. Currently, the Taiwanese government plans to designate its habitat as a Major Wildlife Habitat (MWH), a type of marine protected area (MPA) for conservation of wildlife species. Although the designation allows continuing the current exploitation, however, it may cause conflicts among multiple stakeholders with competing interests. The study is to explore the attitude and opinions among the stakeholders in order to better manage the MPA. This study employs a semi-structured interview and a questionnaire survey of local fishers. Results from interviews indicated that the subsistence of fishers remains a major problem. It was found that stakeholders have different perceptions of the fishers' attitude towards conservation and also thought that the fishery-related law enforcement could be difficult. Quantitative survey showed that fishers are generally positive towards the conservation of the Chinese white dolphin but are less willing to participate in the planning process. Most fishers considered temporary fishing closure as feasible for conservation. The results of this study provide recommendations for future efforts towards the goal of better conservation for this endangered species.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27526102 PMCID: PMC4985060 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161321
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1The proposed Chinese white dolphin Major Wildlife Habitat (MWH) in Taiwan.
Fishing ports: 1. Long-feng; 2. Wai-pu; 3. Tong-shiao; 4. Wu-chi; 5. Lun-wei-wan; 6. Wang-gong; 7. Bo-zi-liao.
Demographic data of the respondents in the questionnaire survey (n = 97).
| Items | Number | |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 96 |
| Female | 1 | |
| Experience | < 5 years | 4 |
| 5–10 years | 11 | |
| 10–15 years | 17 | |
| 15–20 years | 13 | |
| 20–25 years | 15 | |
| > 25 years | 37 | |
| Age | 30–39 yo | 2 |
| 40–49 yo | 21 | |
| 50–59 yo | 45 | |
| > 60 yo | 29 | |
| Vessel | Sampan | 25 |
| PVC pipe raft | 56 | |
| Tonnage < = 5 | 9 | |
| Tonnage 5–9 | 1 | |
| Tonnage > = 10 | 6 | |
| Fishing technique | Gillnet | 62 |
| Trawling | 6 | |
| Pole and line | 27 | |
| Other | 2 | |
Fishers' opinion about the Chinese white dolphin population and their sighting frequency (n = 97).
| Item | Frequency | Percentage (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feeling about the fluctuation of the Chinese white dolphin population | Increase a lot | 3 | 3.3 |
| Increase slightly | 1 | 1.1 | |
| No Change | 40 | 44.4 | |
| Decrease slightly | 13 | 14.4 | |
| Decrease a lot | 33 | 36.7 | |
| The frequency that that Chinese white dolphins were sighted | Jan ~Mar | 27 | 10.4 |
| Apr ~ Jun | 136 | 52.0 | |
| Jul ~Sep | 68 | 26.1 | |
| Oct ~ Dec | 13 | 4.9 | |
| Cannot recall which month | 17 | 6.5 | |
| Total | 261 | 100.0 | |
Fishers' opinion about the impact of the Chinese white dolphin on the fishery (n = 97).
| Items | Frequency | Percentage (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect on landings when Chinese white dolphin is nearby | No change | 21 | 23.3 |
| Decrease slightly | 17 | 18.9 | |
| Decrease a lot | 52 | 57.8 | |
| Relation between the gradual decline of fishery resources in general and foraging of Chinese white dolphin | Significantly related | 1 | 1.0 |
| Related | 11 | 11.3 | |
| No comment | 6 | 6.2 | |
| Not related | 37 | 38.1 | |
| Significantly not related | 42 | 43.3 | |
| Ever heard of bycatch of the Chinese white dolphin | Sometimes | 3 | 3.1 |
| Rare | 9 | 9.3 | |
| No | 85 | 87.6 | |
Fishers' attitude towards the conservation of Chinese white dolphin (n = 97).
| Items | Frequency | Percentage (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Support for the conservation of Chinese white dolphin | Strongly agree | 30 | 30.9 |
| Agree | 44 | 45.4 | |
| No opinion | 19 | 19.6 | |
| Oppose | 3 | 3.1 | |
| Strongly oppose | 1 | 1.0 | |
| Whether fishers should participate in the planning of Chinese white dolphin MPA | Strongly agree | 21 | 21.6 |
| Agree | 26 | 26.8 | |
| No opinion | 23 | 23.7 | |
| Disagree | 21 | 21.6 | |
| Strongly disagree | 6 | 6.2 | |
| Willingness to work for the conservation of Chinese white dolphin | Strongly agree | 5 | 5.2 |
| Agree | 32 | 33.0 | |
| No opinion | 26 | 26.8 | |
| Disagree | 30 | 30.9 | |
| Strongly disagree | 4 | 4.1 | |
| Participate in the hearing or workshop related to the conservation of Chinese white dolphin | Agree | 57 | 58.8 |
| No opinion | 35 | 36.1 | |
| Disagree | 5 | 5.2 | |
Fishers' opinion related to feasible fishery management and the possible fishery restrictions they approve for the conservation of Chinese white dolphin (n = 97).
| Fishery restrictions | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Set up no-take zone for ecologically significant area | 49 | 50.5% |
| Seasonal closure | 61 | 62.9% |
| Total allowable catch | 13 | 13.4% |
| Fishing gear restriction | 48 | 49.5% |
| Other measures | 10 | 10.3% |
| Disapprove the above | 7 | 7.2% |
| Total | 188 | 193.8% |
Statistical hypothesis testing for fishers using different fishing techniques and their opinion regarding the conservation of Chinese white dolphin (n = 62).
| Test | Null hypothesis | Significance (p < 0.05) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | H0: Fisher using different fishing techniques may have the same opinion regarding to the planning of Chinese white dolphin MPA. | Not Reject H0 (p = 0.811) |
| 2 | H0: Fisher using different fishing techniques may have the same opinion in their willingness to participate in the public hearing related to the planning of Chinese white dolphin MPA. | Not Reject H0 (p = 0.488) |
| 3 | H0: Fisher using different fishing techniques may have the same opinion in their willingness to assist in the conservation of the Chinese white dolphin. | Reject H0 (p = 0.001) |
| 4 | H0: Fisher using different fishing techniques may have the same opinion for restricting the use of the gillnet for the conservation of Chinese white dolphin. | Reject H0 (p = 0.000) |
| 5 | H0: Fisher using different fishing techniques may have the same opinion regarding other fishers' compliance to the conservation measure. | Not Reject H0 (p = 0.363) |
Differences in views among the fishers who employed different fishing techniques (n = 62).
| Opinion of fisher using different fishing techniques | Gillnet | Pole and line | Chi-square | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fishers’ involvement of discussion before the planning of Chinese white dolphin MPA | Yes | 30 | 15 | 0.42 |
| No comment | 15 | 6 | ||
| No | 17 | 6 | ||
| Willingness to participate in the public hearing related to Chinese white dolphin MPA | Yes | 35 | 18 | 1.43 |
| No comment | 24 | 7 | ||
| No | 3 | 2 | ||
| Willingness to assist in the conservation of the Chinese white dolphin | Yes | 18 | 18 | 14.14 |
| No comment | 17 | 7 | ||
| No | 27 | 2 | ||
| Opinion for restricting the use of the gillnet | Approve | 15 | 23 | 35.53 |
| No comment | 5 | 4 | ||
| Oppose | 42 | 0 | ||
| Other fishers will comply to the conservation measures of the government | Yes | 27 | 10 | 2.03 |
| No comment | 14 | 10 | ||
| No | 21 | 7 | ||