An official website of the United States government
ABSTRACT Much received wisdom in the conservation literature is that individual connections across community boundaries undercut natural resource management. However, when multiple communities access the same resource, these long‐distance relationships could generate interdependence and trust to motivate engagement in collective action to manage the resource. To test this, we interviewed 1317 people in 28 fishing villages in Tanzania about their participation in managing open‐access fisheries and their social relationships in each village accessing the fishery. People with more friends in other villages trusted more people in those villages and were more likely to participate in collective action to manage the shared fishery, such as reporting others for destructive fishing practices. These results show that long‐distance relationships may be a useful foundation upon which to build conservation efforts that cross community boundaries and bolster sustainable resource use.
more »
« less
Friends near and afar, through thick and thin: Comparing contingency of help between close-distance and long-distance friends in Tanzanian fishing villages
- Award ID(s):
- 2020501
- PAR ID:
- 10482589
- Publisher / Repository:
- Elsevier
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Evolution and Human Behavior
- Volume:
- 44
- Issue:
- 5
- ISSN:
- 1090-5138
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 454 to 465
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Recent interest in codifying fairness in Automated Decision Systems (ADS) has resulted in a wide range of formulations of what it means for an algorithm to be “fair.” Most of these propositions are inspired by, but inadequately grounded in, scholarship from political philosophy. This comic aims to correct that deficit. We begin by setting up a working definition of an 'Automated Decision System' (ADS) and explaining 'bias' in outputs of an ADS. We then critically evaluate different definitions of fairness as Equality of Opportunity (EOP) by contrasting their conception in political philosophy (such as Rawls’s fair EOP and formal EOP) with the proposed codification in Fair-ML (such as statistical parity, equality of odds and accuracy) to provide a clearer lens with which to view existing results and to identify future research directions. We use this framing to reinterpret the impossibility results as the incompatibility between different EOP doctrines and demonstrate how political philosophy can provide normative guidance as to which notion of fairness is applicable in which context. We conclude by highlighting justice considerations that the fair-ML literature currently overlooks or underemphasizes, such as Rawls's broader theory of justice, which supplements his EOP principle with a principle guaranteeing equal rights and liberties to all citizens in a free and democratic society.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2022.09.004
