Table 1
Review of studies in the literature about TURFs. There are few studies that provide analysis based on data regarding stocks, production, income, etc. describing its performance through integral analysis. Studies analyzed N = 123, period from 2000 to 2019.
| Characteristics of the Studies reviewed | Number |
|---|---|
| Studies containing reviews without own data | 123 |
| Studies in Chile with own data | 63 |
| Studies in the world with own data | 60 |
| Case Studies | 58 |
| Studies containing a sample of TURFs for some area | 58 |
| Studies containing a census of TURFs for some area (as our study) | 7 |
| Conceptual studies, without specific data analysis | 12 |
| Studies including the analysis of indicators for one or some ambits | 100 |
| Studies containing an integral analysis for diverse indicators (as our study) | 23 |
Figure 1
Study site. Each TURF is shown by a point (black) in the regions of Atacama and Coquimbo.
Figure 2
Number of TURFs by species declared as target species in the regions of Atacama (III) and Coquimbo (IV). The dotted line indicates the total number of TURFs in each region of analysis.
Table 2
Indicators analyzed by each ambit and their meaning.
| Ambit | Indicator | Variables | Equation or value estimation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Population | Abundance | Number of individuals in the TURF Surface area of the TURF | a = N*ha–1 Where N stands for the total number of individuals in the TURF, and ha for the surface area of the TURF expressed in hectares |
| Condition index | Individual sizes and weights of each individual above commercial size (Table 3) | CI= Weight/Lengthb Where b is the exponent of the potential equation of the height-weight relationship obtained from the annual monitoring reports. | |
| Sizes structures | Average size Percentile 95% of the population size structure Percentile 5% of the population size structure | Average size= Σ sizes/number of individuals analized. Percentile of 95% = size above the 5% of biggest individuals of the population are. Percentile of 5% = size below the 5% of smallest individuals in the population are. | |
| Production | Captures | Number of individuals or kilos extracted per hectare | C= N*ha–1; Kg*ha–1 Where N stands for the total number of individuals captured and Kg the total weight of the all the individuals captured. ha is the surface area of each TURF in hectares. |
| Yield | Number of individuals necessary to produce one Kg (1000g) of product | Yield = 1000/P Where P is the average weight (in grams) of commercial size individuals. To obtain that average weight, the length-weight relationship of population sampled each year was used, using the following equation: P = a*(LT)^b Where a and b are values of the length-weight relationship equation obtained from the annual monitoring reports, LT is commercial size that depends on each species analyzed and P is the average weight of each individual of commercial size (Table 3). | |
| Capture/Quota ratio | Capture Quota | Ratio = Capture/Quota Represents the proportion of the allowed quota that is extracted of each species each year, which fluctuates between 0 and 1. | |
| Economic | Number of users | Formally inscribed users | Number of artisanal fishermen formally associated with each TURF according to the official register. |
| Total income | Value per individual or per Kg of each species captured Number of individuals or Kg captured of each species | Total Income = Σ of the total value of each species captured each year, summed over all species in each TURF ($). | |
| Per capita income | Total annual Income Total annual costs Number of users | Per capita Income= (Total income-Total cost)/Number of users | |
| Social | Schooling | Years of formal education of fishermen | Schooling = Σ years in formal education of fishermen/Number of fishermen interviewed. |
| Housing quality | Housing type of artisanal fishermen associated to each TURF. | See Table 4. | |
| Institutional | TURF activity | Years since TURF creation (age of the TURF) Years with extractive activity | Activity= (Active years)/(Total years TURF)*100 Where “Active years” was estimated as number of years with extraction activity. “Total years TURF” was number of years that TURF has existed since the baseline study (ESBA) was made: Total years TURF = 2015- year of completion of ESBA. |
| Commitment | Number of annual meetings of the organization in charge of the TURF | Commitment= Σ meeting held in 12 months informed by different fishermen asked/Number of fishermen interviewed | |
| Compliance | Years since TURF creation (age of the TURF) Number of annual reports | Compliance= (Number of annual reports)/(Total years TURF)*100 Where number of reports represent the amount of annual monitoring reports, which have been formally delivered to SUBPESCA by each organization. “Total years TURF” represents the age of the TURF since formal creation. | |
| Shared responsibili-ties | Existence of commettees in the organization associated to each TURF Actual activity of each committee | This indicator was categorized. There are commettees and they work = 3; There are commettees but mostly do not function = 2; There is no committee =1. Shared responsabilities = Σ of categorical numbers given to each answer given by fishermen asked/Number of fishermen interviewed. |
Table 3
Minimum commercial size of TURF main fisheries resources.
| Main resource | Minimum size |
|---|---|
| Loco (Concholepas concholepas) | 100 mm peristomal opening length |
| Lapa negra (Fissurella latimarginata) | 65 mm shell length |
| Lapa rosada (Fissurella cumingi) | 65 mm shell length |
| Erizo rojo (Loxechinus albus) | 70 mm diameter |
| Macha (Mesodesma donacium) | 60 mm shell length |
| Ostión del norte (Argopecten purpuratus) | 90 mm shell length |
| Huiro negro (Lessonia berteroana) | 20 cm adhesive disc |
| Huiro palo (Lessonia trabeculata) | 20 cm adhesive disc |
Table 4
Artisanal fishermen housing quality. Access type to basic services of electricity and drinking water: if they were provided by public network or by an alternative system. Housing situation: if one or several families lived in the same house. Housing type: if it is owned or not. If it was owned, a distinction was made between owning the land or not.
| Access to basic service | Housing situation | Type of property | Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| With basic service by public network | Particular | Own | 12 |
| With basic service by public network | Particular | Own on private land | 11 |
| With basic service by public network | Particular | Not own | 10 |
| With basic service by public network | Collective | Own | 9 |
| With basic service by public network | Collective | Own on private land | 8 |
| With basic service by public network | Collective | Not own | 7 |
| No basic service by public network | Particular | Own | 6 |
| No basic service by public network | Particular | Own on private land | 5 |
| No basic service by public network | Particular | Not own | 4 |
| No basic service by public network | Collective | Own | 3 |
| No basic service by public network | Collective | Own on private land | 2 |
| No basic service by public network | Collective | Not own | 1 |
Table 5
TURF’s situation and qualification criteria for the analyzed indicators.
| Indicator | Criteria | TURF situation | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abundance 95% Percentile 5% Percentile Average size Condition index Captures Capture-Quota ratio Total income Percapita income Number of user | Tendency to be maintained over time | Sustainable | 3 |
| Tendency to increase or fluctuate over time | Poorly sustainable | 2 | |
| Tendency to decrease over time | Unsustainable | 1 | |
| Yield | Tendency to be maintained over time | Sustainable | 3 |
| Trend towards better performance | Poorly sustainable | 2 | |
| Trend towards worse performance | Unsustainable | 1 | |
| Schooling | Greater than 8,8 years – obligatory schooling in Chile is 8 years | Sustainable | 3 |
| Between 4 and 8,7 years | Poorly sustainable | 2 | |
| Less than 4 years | Unsustainable | 1 | |
| Housing quality | Greater than 7 according Table 4 | Sustainable | 3 |
| Between 4 and 7 according Table 4 | Poorly sustainable | 2 | |
| Less than 4, according Table 4 | Unsustainable | 1 | |
| TURF activity | Greater than 90% | Sustainable | 3 |
| Between 60% and 90% | Poorly sustainable | 2 | |
| Less than 60% | Unsustainable | 1 | |
| Commitment | Greater than 9 meetings | Sustainable | 3 |
| Between 4 and 9 meetings | Poorly sustainable | 2 | |
| Less than 4 meetings | Unsustainable | 1 | |
| Compliance | Greater than 90% | Sustainable | 3 |
| Between 60% and 90% | Poorly sustainable | 2 | |
| Less than 60% | Unsustainable | 1 | |
| Responsibilities’s distribution | There are commettee and they work | Sustainable | 3 |
| There are commettee but mostly do not function | Poorly sustainable | 2 | |
| There are no commettee | Unsustainable | 1 |
Figure 3
Population indices of the TURFs of the Atacama and Coquimbo regions, based on the abundance, size structure and condition index of their main resources. The n represents the TURFs with available information for the analysis in each case. A) Frequency distribution of the different indices. Horizontal bars represent the mean, standard deviation and range of indices for each region B) Proportion of TURFs (%) in the different states.
Table 6
Statistics used to assess the performance of TURFs in each ambit, using the t-test for independent samples when appropriate.
| Ambit | Test | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Population | t | 1.9864 | 0.1701 |
| Productive | t | 1.9890 | 0.9316 |
| Economic | Mann-Whitney | 3.7500 | 0.0002 |
| Social | t | 1.9966 | 0.2996 |
| Institutional | Mann-Whitney | 0.5883 | 0.5563 |
Figure 4
Productive situation of the TURFs of Atacama and Coquimbo regions, based on the capture, capture/quota ratio and yield of their main resources. The n represents the TURFs with available information for the analysis of this aspect. A) It shows the number of TURFs regarding their performance in Atacama and Coquimbo. Horizontal bars represent the mean, standard deviation and range of indices for each region. B) Shows the proportion of TURFs (%) that presented the different states.
Figure 5
Economic situation of the TURFs of the Atacama and Coquimbo regions, based on total income, per capita income and number of users. The n represents the TURFs with available information for the analysis of this aspect. A) Shows the performance levels of TURFs in Atacama and Coquimbo. Horizontal bars represent the mean, standard deviation and range of indices for each region. B) Shows the proportions of TURFs (%) that presented the different states.
Figure 6
Social situation of the TURFs of the Atacama and Coquimbo regions, based on schooling and housing quality of artisanal fishermen associated with this management system. The n represents the TURFs with available information for the analysis of this aspect. A) Shows the number of TURFs with different performances in Atacama and Coquimbo. Horizontal bars represent the mean, standard deviation and range of indices for each region. B) Shows the proportion of TURFs (%) that presented the different states.
Figure 7
Institutional situation of the TURFs of Atacama and Coquimbo regions, based on their activity, compliance, commitment and shared responsibilities. The n represents the TURFs with available information for the analysis of this aspect. A) Shows the performance levels of TURFs in Atacama and Coquimbo. Horizontal bars represent the mean, standard deviation and range of indices for each region. B) Shows the proportion of TURFs (%) that presented the different states.
Figure 8
General performance of TURFs in each analyzed ambit in Atacama (III) and Coquimbo (IV) regions.
Figure 9
Cluster analysis of the TURFs of Atacama and Coquimbo regions: 7 groups were found and each number corresponds to a TURF of the analysis.
Figure 10
Principal Component Analysis with the 7 groups established by the cluster analysis. Four components (PC1; PC2; PC3 y PC4) were analyzed. A: Shows components PC1 and PC2. B: Shows components PC3 and PC4. Most TURFs belong to group 2, which was characterized by intermediate performance in all areas of study.
Figure 11
TURFs sustainability groups in Atacama and Coquimbo regions. The number inside each bar indicates the number of TURFs in each group.
Figure 12
Number of TURFs (%)and information availability for each ambit analyzed. The number inside each bar indicates the number of TURFs in the group.