Research

INTRODUCTION

Climate-driven environmental changes are already impacting small-scale fisheries (SSF) worldwide (Elías Ilosvay et al. 2022). Increasing sea surface temperature, sea-level rise, changes in precipitation patterns, ocean acidification, and increased frequency of storms are impacting marine ecosystems and threatening the livelihoods of coastal communities worldwide (Hanich et al. 2018, Oremus et al. 2020, Elías Ilosvay et al. 2022). Recent frameworks on climate change describe a wide range of responses according to the severity of climate change impacts going from not adapting (remain), to reinforcing the social-ecological system (SES) they are part of (cope or adapt), to transforming the SES (transform) when impacts are highly severe or intolerable (Dow et al. 2013, Fedele et al. 2019, Ojea et al. 2020, Barnes et al. 2020a). The basis of these frameworks is that SES can become a fundamentally new system (transform) when the existing one becomes untenable (Gunderson and Holling 2002, Walker et al. 2004, Folke et al. 2010, Dow et al. 2013). Existing research suggests that transformation will be needed in some coastal regions given that maximum catch potential and fisheries revenue will dramatically decrease by the 2050s and coping or adaptive responses may not be sufficient (Lam et al. 2016, Fedele et al. 2019, Cheung et al. 2021).

Transformative responses can be adopted across different scales and aim at reducing the root causes of vulnerability. For this study, we defined them as planned or reactive individual actions that lead to modifications in the system’s structure, functions, and social-ecological, cultural, political, or economic relations, potentially altering the existing SES (Reyers et al. 2018, Fedele et al. 2019, Barnes et al. 2020). Transformative responses can include a wide range of actions in which, for example, livelihood diversification represents a shift away from complete reliance on SSF and exiting SSF a definitive break from this reliance (Folke et al. 2010, Barnes et al. 2020, Ojea et al. 2020). Livelihood diversification is known to be adopted by fishers in response to poverty, low catches, and environmental and climatic instability, which is expected to increase under climate change (Allison and Ellis 2001, Coulthard 2008, Muallil et al. 2011). It alters social-ecological relationships because it represents the departure from (near) complete dependence on traditional marine resource-based activities (Barnes et al. 2020) but allows fulfilling basic financial, social, and cultural needs in times of fishery decline and/or other environmental stressors (Muallil et al. 2011, Fedele et al. 2019, Salgueiro-Otero et al. 2022a). However, if these fisheries crises worsen, fishers have been reported to seek out new ways of living and completely exit SSF, ultimately uprooting their dependence on marine resources (Coulthard 2008, Frawley et al. 2019, Ojea et al. 2020). Fishers leaving SSF can fracture communities by breaking networks and transforming relationships (Elías Ilosvay et al. 2022). Exiting SSF might also not be possible in places where opportunities are limited (FAO 2018). It is therefore crucial to understand the level of exposure at which fishers decide to diversify as opposed to exiting the fishery and which factors are driving fishers’ decisions.

Many factors can influence fishers’ behavior in response to climate change. To this date, no clear relationships have been found between increasing exposure to climate hazards and transformative responses. The analysis of these relationships is complex because other factors, such as the socioeconomic and cultural context of the fisher, may be impacting fishers’ decisions (Elías Ilosvay et al. 2022). Early studies viewed fishers’ decision to exit SSF as an equilibrium between fishing cost and revenue (Pradhan and Leung 2004, Bucaram and Hearn 2014, Cordón Lagares et al. 2016, Kiyama and Yamazaki 2018). More recently, this perspective has been broadened through the implementation of the resilience framework, which considers how social, economic and psychological factors affect decisions when resources are affected (Cinner et al. 2011, Muallil et al. 2011, Daw et al. 2012, Salgueiro-Otero et al. 2022a). From a resilience framework perspective (Cinner and Barnes 2019, Barnes et al. 2020, Salgueiro-Otero et al. 2022a), SES resilience refers to the capacity of the system to tolerate, absorb, cope with, adjust to, evolve, and transform with changing social or environmental conditions to recover from impacts, taking advantage of new opportunities (Folke et al. 2010, Cinner and Barnes 2019, Ojea et al. 2020, Reyers et al. 2022).

Various resilience authors propose diverse key factors that enhance or hinder transformation of SES (Olsson et al. 2010, Wilson et al. 2013, Wolfram 2016). However, these frameworks provide a rather disperse set of factors and there is no unified transformative capacity framework that allows for cross-studies and regional comparison. Additionally, these frameworks often focus on the assessment of transformative capacity at the regional and community level and may be unsuitable to understand transformative responses at the individual level (Wilson et al. 2013, Wolfram 2016, Reyers et al. 2018). One of the most recent overarching frameworks shows that the resilience of a SES is influenced by six dimensions, also referred to as adaptive capacity domains: (1) the assets that people can draw upon, (2) the flexibility to change strategies, (3) the ability to organize and act collectively, (4) learning to recognize and respond to change, (5) the socio-cognitive constructs that enable or constrain human behavior, (6) the agency to determine whether to change or not (Cinner et al. 2018).

Despite the growing focus on SSF adaptation to climate-driven impacts and adaptive or transformative capacity, our understanding of the relationship between progressively sustained exposure to climate hazards and the specific factors driving transformative responses among fishers remains limited (Barnes et al. 2020, Salgueiro-Otero et al. 2022a). The present study contributes to fill this research gap by exploring a novel dataset comprising 437 in-person surveys from 6 fishing communities in the state of Nayarit, Mexico, to understand why fishers engage in livelihood diversification and exiting fisheries behavior. The coast of Nayarit has been previously identified as a climate change hotspot (Elías Ilosvay et al. 2022), where climate change impacts have already been experienced and perceived by the local communities (Delgado Landey 2020). Coastal climate change hotspots are regions displaying extreme exposure to single or compounded climate-related hazards relative to other coastal regions worldwide (Turco et al. 2015, Elías Ilosvay et al. 2022). Here, we aim to (1) empirically investigate Nayarit fishers’ willingness to implement two transformative responses (look for a new main livelihood but keep fishing or completely exit the SSF) in response to two climate change impact intensity scenarios (50% and 75% progressive catch volume decrease); and (2) unravel how their individual adaptive capacity (social, economic, and psychological factors) is influencing their decisions to adopt different transformative responses using a survival analysis (Cox 1972, Breslow 1975). Our ultimate intention is to provide information that contributes to the design of policy interventions that increase the resilience of SSF communities and advances our knowledge in the understanding of fishers’ resilience under climate change.

METHODS

Case study

Small-scale fishers in Nayarit mainly use fiberglass vessels with outboard motors and a maximum length of 12 meters. The SSF is multi-species and is subject to the seasonal availability of the marine resources (Furlong Estrada 2013). Fishers mostly use low to medium-selective fishing gears; most commonly gillnets and longlines.

The SSF management regime in Nayarit follows a limited entry structure (Ojea et al. 2017). Based on the recommendations provided by the Mexican Institute of Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture (IMIPAS, Spanish acronym), the National Fisheries and Aquaculture Commission (CONAPESCA, Spanish acronym) establishes the number of commercial fishing permits allowed, which can be attached to one or more specific vessels (CONAPESCA 2022). However, the increase in fishers during recent years and the limited number of permits in Nayarit means that the majority of fishers work illegally, leaving them vulnerable to confiscation of gear and boats and without access to national economic support programs (Delgado Landey 2020). Alternatively, fishers can gain access to a commercial fishing permit by being members of a fishing cooperative or work with a patron (also known as permisionario), who often also provides fishers with vessels, gear, and other necessities such as bait, ice, fuel, and/or credits.

Sampling sites and data collection

A survey instrument was designed in Spanish to cover (1) the perceived impacts of environmental variables and fishing catch changes, i.e., current climate change impact level; (2) social, economic, and psychological background of fishers through adaptive capacity indicators; (3) adaptation responses performed already and transformative responses stated for future impact scenarios. It combined a series of multiple-choice, Likert scale, and open-ended questions, allowing us to complement the quantitative analysis with fishers’ qualitative observations. We applied the survey in 6 fishing communities along the coast of the state of Nayarit, Mexico: Boca de Camichín (n = 93), Boca del Asadero (n = 49), San Blas, Chacala (n = 201), La Peñita de Jaltemba (n = 39), and la Cruz de Huanacaxtle (n = 70; Fig. 1). We selected fishing communities covering most of the coast of Nayarit with similar fishing practices, equipment, and management. The communities in the northern-most part of the state did not meet these conditions and were consequently not selected for our study.

The survey was conducted in two phases. First, we visited each community for one week to make initial observations and test the pre-defined semi-structured survey. Then, the final survey was implemented via face-to-face interviews in all six communities from September to November 2021 with the help of two trained local interviewers. The individual small-scale fishers were randomly approached at fishing landing ports and markets, resulting in a total sample of 457 fishers that represented 10–49% of the approximated total population of fishers per community (Appendix 1, Table 1). It is important to note that these numbers are approximate because the total number of fishers was estimated based on a census conducted at all warehouses (also known as bodegas) in each community, due to the presence of many illegal fishers. Therefore, the percentage of fishers represented may vary.

Climate change perceptions and transformative responses

Climate-driven species redistribution alone is predicted to reduce the maximum catch potential and fisheries revenue of coastal regions in the Pacific coast of Mexico in the future (Lam et al. 2016, Cheung et al. 2021). Fishers in Nayarit are already observing climate-induced environmental changes (Delgado Landey 2020) and perceived catch decreases of 50% in the last decade, which was associated to a combination of global environmental changes and local stressors such as overfishing and pollution. Considering the observed climate-driven changes and declining fisheries catches in Nayarit, alongside predictions of worsening conditions, we focused on potential future scenarios of climate-driven catch reductions.

To elicit the current climate change impact level, we collected the participants’ perception of the environmental changes they have observed over the last decade. We then openly asked them how they would individually respond should their current catch hypothetically decrease gradually by 50% (half) and then by 75% (three quarters) in the near future, which fishers directly associated with income decrease. Although other studies have analyzed a larger combination of catch reduction scenarios (e.g., 10, 30, or 60%; Cinner et al. 2009, Daw et al. 2012, Salgueiro-Otero et al. 2022a), these two scenarios were optimal to avoid respondent fatigue, according to the pre-tests, because of the complexity of multiple hypothetical scenario conceptualization.

For this analysis, we focused on two main transformative responses: (1) look for a new main livelihood but keep fishing as a secondary economic activity, and (2) completely exit the SSF. If the fisher only mentioned to “look for a new livelihood” as his/her response to the hypothetical scenario, the response was recorded as looking for a new main livelihood without necessarily leaving SSF. In other words, responses were recorded as exiting SSF only when respondents specifically said so. If the participant decided to exit the SSF in the first scenario the second scenario was omitted.

Individual adaptive capacity

Based on Cinner and Barnes’ (2019) framework and past adaptive capacity studies, we developed 35 adaptive capacity indicators encompassing 6 adaptive capacity domains: assets, flexibility, learning, organization, socio-cognitive constructs, and agency (Appendix 1, Table 2). This framework captures the human capacities to adapt to social and environmental changes, it also presents similarities with transformative capacities proposed by other transformation studies (Olsson et al. 2010, Wilson et al. 2013, Wolfram 2016) and has been effectively tested for transformation by Barnes et al. (2020) and Salgueiro-Otero et al. (2022a).

People are generally thought to be more resilient to social-ecological changes if they can access different financial, technological, and other types of assets (Cinner and Barnes 2019). Assets, however, can also enhance people’s ability to exploit natural resources and reduce their flexibility (Daw et al. 2012). Flexibility refers to the capacity of individuals to cope with changes by switching between strategies (Cinner et al. 2018, Cinner and Barnes 2019). It allows people respond to, for example, climate-related changes by changing fishing strategies or enter to a new occupational sector either temporarily or permanently (Badjeck et al. 2010, Barnes et al. 2020).

The way people “organize” plays a key role on the resilience of a SES system (Olsson et al. 2010, Barnes et al. 2017) in which formal and informal relationships can shape how people share knowledge, cooperate, and have access to assets (Barnes et al. 2016, Salgueiro-Otero et al. 2022b). Relationships, such as patron-client relationships, in which the patron typically provides access to loans, markets, and other forms of support in exchange for the fishers’ labor, present great power imbalances and can greatly impact fishers’ decision toward resource exploitation (Ferrol-Schulte et al. 2014, Miñarro et al. 2016, Nunan et al. 2020). Although patron-client relationships often play an integral role in fishing households, little research addresses how these relationships influence fishers’ resilience.

“Learning” to recognize change, attribute it to its causes, and assess possible response strategies by accessing different kinds of knowledge (formal education, local ecological knowledge, or specific training activities) allows people to cope and innovate in the face of environmental change (Shaffril et al. 2017, Cinner et al. 2018, Cinner and Barnes 2019). The resilience of a SES is also affected by subjective risk perceptions, personal experiences, and cognitive biases, collectively referred to as socio-cognitive constructs (Cinner and Barnes 2019). The “agency” domain refers to people’s free choice to mobilize their adaptive capacities to actively respond to social-ecological changes (Cinner and Barnes 2019). For example, the household size or the ability to participate in decision making have been found to affect individual climate change responses (Mugi-Ngenga et al. 2016, D’agata et al. 2020). Additionally, perceptions of (in)equality can significantly affect an individual’s motivation to adapt or transform by influencing their perception of fair chance of success, as well as their sense of self-esteem and self-efficacy (Cinner and Pollnac 2004, Salgueiro-Otero et al. 2022a).

We used Spearman correlation to remove strongly correlated (ρ > 0.4) indicators (Akoglu 2018). This resulted in four indicators removed from further analysis (fishing experience, having an alternative livelihood, number of years spent in the community, and vessel ownership; Appendix 2). Even though alternative livelihood would be a relevant variable for the analysis, we did not include it because it was highly correlated to SSF dependency. We decided to keep SSF dependency because it provided insights not only into whether an alternative livelihood contributed to the fishers’ income, but also into the level of that contribution.

The remaining indicators (n = 31) were then normalized using min-max normalization to preserve the relationships among the original data values. We used principal component analysis (PCA) for dimensionality reduction as proposed by (Cinner et al. 2012) with the “prcomp” function in R 4.1.2 (R Core Team 2023). To do this, we estimated the minimum number of dimensions (principal components) at which the number of adaptive capacity indicators no longer drastically increased (Appendix 1, Fig. 1). This resulted in a set of 12 principal components, which accounted for 78.6% of the variance. Finally, we included the indicators that explained at least 75% of the variance in each of the 12 principal components reducing the number of indicators to a final set of 19 (Table 1).

Survival analysis

First, Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s test for multiple comparison (FSA package; Ogle et al. 2023) was employed to test if the proportion of fishers responding that they would either diversify and/or exit the fishery significantly changed among the different catch scenarios using R 4.1.2 (R Core Team 2023).

We then used survival analysis to study the factors influencing fishers’ decision to either diversify their livelihoods or exit the fishery under different levels of impact. Survival analysis, originally developed for cancer clinical trials and medical research (Peto et al. 1976), has since expanded to other applications and disciplines, such as event history analysis in social sciences (Mills 2010, Allison 2014) or duration analysis in economics and fisheries (Alcon et al. 2011, Cordón Lagares et al. 2016, Gémar et al. 2016).

We estimated two separate mixed-effect Cox proportional hazard models to explore which factors increased or decreased the likelihood of two fishers’ transformative responses (looking for a new main livelihood and exiting the SSF) under hypothetical increasing catch reduction scenarios through time (t₁ = 50% reduction, t₂ = 75%). We decided to conduct a shared mixed-effects model using the coxme package (Thernau 2022) in R 4.1.2 (R Core Team 2023) to account for differences across the communities the fishers lived in. Adaptive capacity indicators were used as fixed effects and the community each fisher belonged to as a random effect (Appendix 1).

Unlike traditional survival models focusing on the time of occurrence of an event, we were interested in the level of impact (magnitude) required for an event (response) to happen. Therefore, we replaced the time-to-event by the magnitude-to-event as the response variable, represented by the catch decrease (impact magnitude) required for a transformative response (event) to happen. For this, we assumed that, under constant sensitivity, higher impact magnitude levels are directly linked to stronger climate change hazards (Field et al. 2014, Fritzsche et al. 2014), and that climate change hazards and impacts (i.e., catch decrease) will increase over time (Ayala-Bocos et al. 2016, Free et al. 2020, Lee et al. 2023).

In survival analysis, all subjects should be as comparable as possible at the starting point (Kartsonaki 2016). Consequently, fishers who had already left the fisheries at the time of the survey (n = 12) were removed from the database (n = 445). Additionally, the model does not allow for missing data so that we also excluded any observation that had missing values for any of the adaptive capacity indicators used in this study (n = 8). As a result, we analyzed a total of 437 surveys.

The Cox proportional hazard model also assumes that the covariate levels remain constant over time, meaning that the explanatory variables influence the likelihood of an event occurring but not the timing of the event (proportional hazards assumption, HP; Kuitunen et al. 2021). To meet this assumption, the adaptive capacity indicators that did not meet the HP (p < 0.05) were systematically removed from each model. This resulted in the removal of one adaptive capacity indicator (access to credit) in the new main livelihood cox model, and three factors (bonding interactions, environmental future perception, and participation in decision making) in the exit SSF cox model (Table 1).

Despite 25% of fishers reporting the participation of other household members in SSF, this correlation did not seem to affect the model results. Specifically, adding the presence of other household members involved in SSF as a binary variable to the model did not show any significant effect (Appendix 1, Table 3).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Among the interviewed fishers, only two were women, and the ages ranged from 18 to 84 years old, with an average age of 45 years. Most fishers reached primary school (40%) while 32% finished high school. Sixty-four percent mentioned not having any alternative livelihood besides SSF, and most fishers earned between Mex$1100–Mex$2000 Mexican pesos (US$64–US$116; 37%) and Mex$2100–Mex$3000 (US$122–US$175; 32%) per week. Fifteen percent earned up to Mex$1000 (US$58) per week while 17% earned more than Mex$3000 (US$174) per week.

Climate change impacts perceptions

According to the small-scale fishers across the six communities, the seasonal changes in the water temperature (cold and warm water periods) along the coast of Nayarit influence the availability of the fish species. Sixty-four percent of fishers mentioned having observed an increase in sea temperature in the last decade. Many of them stated that, nowadays, sea temperatures are becoming more extreme, and the warm water period starts earlier and lasts longer. Among various impacts, this is causing fewer fish to approach the coast and leading to changes in the arrival seasons of specific fish species (e.g., Coryphaena hippurus and Scomberomorus sierra). For example, a fisher in Boca de Asadero explained:

With the high temperatures, the fish do not come to the surface [...] the larvae of many species used to come to the shore to grow but now the water is very warm.

Additionally, several fishers stated that the extreme high sea temperature is spoiling the fish. Another fisher in Boca de Asadero stated:

Five days ago, 510 kg of fish was spoiled by the hot water.

Ninety-one percent of fishers reported that their catches had decreased by half over the past 10 years (Appendix 1, Fig. 2). Fishers’ observations show the complexity and multifaceted reality of the local impacts of climate change on SSF and how they are affecting the fishing livelihoods of depending coastal communities.

Climate change transformative responses

Under a 50% catch decrease scenario, 35% of fishers mentioned they would look for a new main livelihood, and only 15% would exit SSF. These percentages increased significantly under the 75% decrease scenario with 52% for fishers responding by looking for a new main livelihood (Chi-squared = 297.65, p < 0.001, df = 2) and 32% exiting (Chi-squared = 169.38, p < 0.001, df = 2; Fig. 2; Appendix 1, Table 4, Fig. 3). Although, our results are consistent with previous studies in which fishers increasingly tend to seek out new ways of livelihoods as fishery conditions worsen, the proportion of fishers exiting under such high catch decrease scenario is low in comparison to other studies (Coulthard 2008, Cinner et al. 2009, Salgueiro-Otero et al. 2022a) indicating the high dependency of small-scale fishers to fishing as their livelihood in these communities.

Having an alternative livelihood can allow fishers to absorb the economic loss caused by climate change without having to completely give up fishing (Daw et al. 2012). Our results clearly show that most fishers were willing to look for a new main livelihood before leaving the SSF altogether. One reason for this could be the central role of SSFs for food security in these coastal communities; something that was commented on by the Nayarit fishers. For example, during the Covid-19 pandemic fishers from the six communities expressed that they were not able to sell the fish, however, fishing allowed them to feed their families throughout the hardest periods of the pandemic. This may also be, however, a sign for a poverty trap (Cinner et al. 2009) in which staying in the fishery is the only option for the fishers due to low adaptive capacities and complex socio-political scenarios, perpetuating poverty among fishing communities (Cinner et al. 2009, Muallil et al. 2011).

It is also important to consider that fishing is often more than just an occupation to fishers. Ninety-six percent of fishers mentioned to be proud of being a fisher, and 71% learned how to fish from a family member, showing a strong job attachment. Previous research shows that although strong job attachment and enjoyment can enhance adaptation, it also makes fishers reluctant to adopt transformative responses (Marshall et al. 2007, Muallil et al. 2011).

New main livelihood and adaptive capacity

According to the results of the Cox proportional hazards model, two variables from the organization and agency adaptive capacity domains significantly contributed to livelihood diversification: linking interaction and job diversity self-efficacy (Fig. 3; Appendix 1, Table 5). Linking interactions refer to the relationship between fishers and institutions and have been described as critical for transformative responses (Barnes et al. 2017). Previous studies have found that linking ties can provide fishers access to resources and/or knowledge beyond the scope of the community (Barnes et al. 2017) and/or empower fishers as a result of gaining agency through this relationship over the fishery decisions (Marín et al. 2012).

On the other hand, perceived self-efficacy refers to the extent to which people believe they are capable of doing specific tasks (Bandura et al. 1997) and is considered crucial in understanding human behavior, such as climate change adaptation (Bandura 2011, Ung et al. 2016). Self-efficacy beliefs can be self-enhancing or self-debilitating (Bandura 2011). For example, several respondents expressed a feeling that

fishing is the only thing that I know how to do

a belief that could be undermining their likelihood to adopt transformative responses such as looking for a new main livelihood.

Two variables significantly decreased the likelihood of diversifying livelihoods: bonding interactions (organization domain) and fishing permit (agency domain). Bonding ties allow for knowledge and information sharing while fostering knowledge co-production and mutual learning within a group, which can facilitate the adoption of technologies or other adaptive strategies (Barnes-Mauthe et al. 2015, Gong et al. 2018). Strong bonding ties among fishing groups have been found to decrease the probability of transformative responses among fishers (Salgueiro-Otero et al. 2022b). They can provide a strong sense of identity and belonging and enhance people’s occupational identity and perceptions of adaptive efficacy by, for example, sharing increasing expenses and risks (Marshall et al. 2012, Barnes et al. 2017, Franklin and Velusamy 2020). Therefore, bonding ties can reduce peoples’ willingness to adopt transformative responses such as looking for a new livelihood (Barnes et al. 2017, Salgueiro-Otero et al. 2022a). Many fishers in Nayarit did express strong feelings of comradeship, especially with fishers experiencing economic hardship.

We also found fishing permits to be negatively related to livelihood diversification. To be able to fish as an economic activity, small-scale fishers in Mexico need to apply to CONAPESCA for a commercial fishing permit. Among the respondents, only 14% had a personal fishing permit. According to the fishers, the access to permits in Nayarit is not only limited in number, but also involves high costs due to the travel and stay expenses involved with the application and the subsequent loss of profit by losing one or more days of fishing. However, fishers without fishing permit not only risk penalties by the authorities, but also have limited access to resources and welfare support for fishers provided by the government. Therefore, the high investment required and the power that comes with a fishing permit (Crona and Bodin 2010) might have inclined permit holders to opt against diversifying their occupation even in the face of extreme catch decrease scenarios.

Exit SSF and adaptive capacity

Fishers who were members of a fishing cooperative, interacted more frequently with fishing institutions (linking interactions), and had higher formal educational attainment were more likely to exit SSF in scenarios of decreasing catches (Fig. 3; Appendix 1, Table 5). Additionally, those involved in patron-client relationships or who felt more capable of conducting a job outside SSF (job diversity self-efficacy) also exhibited a higher likelihood of exiting SSF.

Both linking interactions with fishing institutions and job diversity self-efficacy had similar positive effects on fishers’ likelihood to exit SSF as they did for starting a new main livelihood response. Additionally, formal educational attainment increases people’s options to enter the larger economy through greater occupational opportunities (Bailey 1982, Cinner et al. 2009). A high formal educational attainment can also be coupled with a higher self-efficacy, possibly increasing fishers’ readiness to exit SSF when facing low catch decrease scenarios.

Belonging to a fisheries cooperative increased fishers’ readiness to exit SSF (Fig. 3; Appendix 1, Table 5). Small-scale fisheries cooperatives in Mexico are a form of social organization with the purpose of satisfying the individual and collective basic needs of the fishers through the fishing activity, distribution and commercialization of the marine resources, and consumption of goods and services (Aguirre Rodriguez 2018). Even though fisheries cooperatives can function as strong social and organizational support, fishers mentioned that after the only SSF cooperative existing in Nayarit, called La Única (Cooperativa Adolfo López Mateos S.C.L), was dissolved in 1990 (Aguirre Rodriguez 2018), most of the new independent cooperatives that were subsequently created rather functioned as family businesses and/or as patrons (Salinas and Crispín 2010, Delgado Landey 2020). Currently, the limited number of permits available, the lack of control over local organizations, and the limited access to stable markets by the cooperative associations has generated a feeling of disappointment and mistrust among coastal fishers in Nayarit (López Sánchez et al. 2018, Delgado Landey 2020). This might explain why small-scale fishers within a cooperative had a higher likelihood to exit under the hypothetical proposed scenario of decreasing catch volume.

When fishers do not own a personal fishing permit, they have the option to access one by entering into a patron-client relationship. The majority of fishers (67%) are part of this social organization scheme. This structure seems to have an impact regarding responses to climate-driven effects because we found the likelihood of fishers exiting the fishery under low catch scenarios increased for patron-client relationships. Patron-client relationships are viewed in opposing lights across the literature. On the one hand, this relationship can provide fishers with means of production, such as a fishing permit, informal credit, and usually unaffordable material capital (e.g., boat, fishing gear, gasoline, or ice) fostering social ties between the patron and the client built on trust, kinship, and a feeling of obligation (Ferse et al. 2012, Basurto et al. 2020). On the other hand, it can trap the fisher in a system of debt, dependency, and power asymmetry that feeds back on itself (Ferrol-Schulte et al. 2014).

Our results point to an effect in which the patron-client arrangement may reduce the ability of fishers to survive in the fishery under a catch decrease scenario. One reason could be that the current structure of the system builds strong power relations and dependencies that compromise fishers’ agency. Additionally, the low investment and highly compromised agency of fishers in patron-client relationships might be increasing their readiness to exit SSF.

The factors keeping fishers from exiting included local ecological knowledge (LEK) inheritance (learning domain) and belonging to an SSF association (organization domain). Having acquired local ecological knowledge from a family member can create a stronger job attachment to fisheries, beyond income and livelihood ties, associating fishing with identity and family heritage (Pollnac et al. 2001, Pollnac and Poggie 2006). The level of attachment people have can affect their decision to adopt transformative responses (Marshall et al. 2007), and changes in a person’s occupation can mean the loss of an important part of their self-identity (Twigger-Ross and Uzzell 1996, Marshall et al. 2012).

Fishers who belonged to fisheries associations were less likely to leave the SSF with increasing catch decrease scenarios (Fig. 3; Appendix 1, Table 5). Civil organizations (OSCs - Spanish acronym) in Mexico, such as fisheries associations, are groups formed by individuals who organize themselves voluntarily to defend, attend to, or intervene in causes of common interest, which, unlike cooperatives, do not seek economic profit (Instituto Nacional de Desarrollo Social 2018). In other words, their purpose is social and community based. Only two fishing associations were mentioned by the participants in the six communities, and both were located in San Blas (Asociación de los Pescadores de la Dársena Derecha and Asociación de Pescadores Dársena Izquierda). Fishers explained how, in the event of collective or individual difficulties, the members of the association organized themselves to support the fisher or fisher’s family in need, or to jointly address a collective issue. Small-scale fisheries associations, based on bonding ties, seem to act as a safety net for fishers by providing them with social, legal, and economic support. This may increase fishers’ adaptive self-efficacy to climate change and consequently increase their willingness to adapt (Barnes Truelove et al. 2015), decreasing fishers’ readiness to leave the fisheries (Salgueiro-Otero et al. 2022b).

Important indicators belonging to the assets and socio-cognitive constructs domains did not have any significant effect on fishers’ transformative behavior. People are generally viewed as more resilient when they have access to assets in times of change (Cinner and Barnes 2019), however, building assets might enhance peoples’ ability to exploit natural resources or reduce their flexibility and so increase the vulnerability of the SES (Cinner et al. 2018). In the case of Nayarit, the fishers had a similar economic context, access to credits, and governmental help, possibly explaining why no effect was observed. However, the importance of permit and patron-client relationships shaping fishers’ transformative responses might reflect how fishing assets such as boats, motors, or gear might play an important role in the fishers’ transformative responses. By providing access to fishing assets needed to implement more adaptive responses (e.g., change gear and target new species), they may be reducing fishing willingness to, for example, look for a new main livelihood. However, when the situation becomes unsustainable due to the low investments made by the fishers, and the fact that the fishing assets do not belong to them, there is a higher likelihood of exiting the fishery. Future research could focus on how fishing assets affect the decision-making behavior of small-scale fishers in Nayarit.

Risk attitudes and personal experiences can affect people’s preparedness to take action in the face of environmental change (D’agata et al. 2020, Barnes et al. 2020). In our analysis, we found no evidence that awareness of past environmental changes and environmental future perception were related to fishers’ responses. However, we only investigated a limited number of predictors and further information on fishers’ experience with extreme events and more severe past impacts could provide more information on how this domain affects the transformative behavior of small-scale fishers in Nayarit (Barnes et al. 2020).

Climate change transformation and adaptive capacity

There is growing acceptance that both adaptation and transformation are part of the resilience of a SES. In this context, the SES progresses from coping (resisting) and adapting (incremental adaptation) to transforming when the existing system becomes untenable (Folke et al. 2010, Dow et al. 2013, Fedele et al. 2019, Ojea et al. 2020). An alternative resilience perspective views transformation as a nonlinear systemic change or regime shift, challenging the assumption that adaptation and transformation are linear on a temporal and spatial continuum (Reyers et al. 2018). This literature argues that the capacities for building each of them are distinct and may even hinder the other (Marshall et al. 2012, Reyers et al. 2018).

Social-ecological system transformation may not necessarily follow a linear continuum at the community or local level, however, and in agreement with past literature, we found that fishers transformative responses do increase as the level of exposure rises (Daw et al. 2012, Salgueiro-Otero et al. 2022a). Although transformative responses are mainly described as anticipatory, the transformative responses of fishers in our study were rather reactive or even forced by the hypothetical catch decrease scenarios presented to them, i.e., as a result of a hypothetical intolerable risk (Walker et al. 2004, Dow et al. 2013, Reyers et al. 2018).

The scope of our study did not allow us to determine the extent to which these individual transformative responses can actually lead to a transformation of the collective SES. It has been suggested that individual behaviors can shape collective responses (Dow et al. 2013) but there is a notable lack of empirical evidence on this subject. Understanding how the individual transformative responses of fishers impact the overall resilience of the SES could help to prevent adverse outcomes that may exacerbate vulnerability to climate change (Folke et al. 2010, Wilson et al. 2013) while paving the way for ocean transformations.

Our findings provide strong evidence of how adaptive capacities affect fishers’ transformative responses (Cinner and Barnes 2019). There are numerous frameworks describing the factors driving transformation (Olsson et al. 2010, Wilson et al. 2013, Wolfram 2016), however, this approach allowed us to test an overarching adaptive capacity framework that covers a broad spectrum of social factors that provide resilience (Cinner and Barnes 2019). Revenue and assets were until recently considered to be one of the most important factors driving fishers’ adaptive capacity and responses (Daw et al. 2012, Bucaram and Hearn 2014, Cordón Lagares et al. 2016). However, in our study, other domains such as learning and organization (Cinner and Barnes 2019) played a more central role in driving fishers’ individual transformative behavior.

The adaptive capacity framework proposed by Cinner and Barnes (2019) helped us to unravel the factors leading to certain transformative actions by evidencing how the current management system in Nayarit’s SSF is affecting fishers’ adaptive capacity. Fisheries governance structure and regulations can alter the adaptive capacity of a social-ecological system through harvest access rules and incentives that drive fishers’ behavior (Ojea et al. 2017). In the case of the SSF in Nayarit, we found that even at the individual scale, transformation draws on resilience from multiple scales (Folke et al. 2010). Our results show a clear relationship between fishers’ decisions to adopt transformative responses to low catch scenarios with both the asymmetric access to fishing permits and the resulting community organization structures with stark power imbalances resulting from the current governance context in Nayarit.

The effect of power relationships on responses to environmental changes is often overlooked in the climate change adaptation and resilience literature (Crona and Bodin 2010, Pelling and Manuel-Navarrete 2011, Salgueiro-Otero et al. 2022b). Even though the adaptive capacity framework proposed by Cinner and Barnes (2019) provides a broad spectrum of social metrics affecting the resilience of a SES, it does not allow for the direct accounting of, for example, power-relations of the SES and other context-specific information beyond the individual level. Our findings suggest that future studies using this framework should incorporate the structural characteristics of SES, especially the social organization within fishing communities. Governance structures, such as fishing cooperatives and patron-client relationships, appear to play a pivotal role in shaping transformative behavior. Patron-client relationships have been viewed as non-cooperative, in which the focus tends to be on meeting immediate demand and securing favorable buying terms with patrons, often at the expense of long-term sustainability (Basurto et al. 2013, Ferse et al. 2014). Conversely, fishing cooperatives are seen as more cooperative self-governance arrangements, allowing fishers to collectively legalize their activities, access broader markets, and develop sustainable management systems (Basurto et al. 2013). In the case of Nayarit, governance could improve their situation by prioritizing the creation of accessible pathways for legalizing the fishing activity, particularly through the promotion and strengthening of cooperatives. However, more empirical evidence is needed to determine whether fishing cooperatives indeed enhance fishers’ individual and collective adaptive capacity, compared to patron-client relationships.

In this study, the Cox proportional hazards model allowed us to quantify the impact of climate change at which fishers adopt two transformative responses, along with the economic, social, and psychological factors driving their decisions. However, this quantitative approach has limitations in fully capturing the relationships between these factors and the decision-making processes of fishers. To address this, qualitative data gathered during face-to-face interviews provided deeper insight into these behaviors. Future studies replicating this analysis would benefit from adopting mixed-method approaches that incorporate more qualitative and participatory techniques. These approaches would complement the quantitative models and adaptive capacity indicators, leading to a more comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms behind fishers’ transformative behavior.

CONCLUSION

Despite the growing importance of transformation in climate change resilience, there is still limited information on the factors driving transformative responses and how to make transformational change happen deliberately (Reyers et al. 2018). As the climate changes, reactive transformative responses may become inevitable, and it is necessary to explore options that help SES to steer away from undesirable outcomes (Folke et al. 2010). The Pacific coast of Mexico, including the coast of Nayarit, is already being and will be heavily affected by the loss of abundance and poleward movement of many marine species (Ayala-Bocos et al. 2016, Oremus et al. 2020). This puts the economic and food security of the state’s coastal communities at risk. Our study highlights how climate change impacts can expose underlying social structures and power relations, such as SSF cooperatives and patron-client relationships, which are crucial to Nayarit’s SSF resilience. Specifically, Nayarit’s case shows the need for governance systems to formalize illegal fishing activities and promote cooperative-based management because these governance structures play a key role in fishers’ transformative behavior, even at an individual level. Future studies emphasizing the interplay between governance and climate change resilience could provide more information to policy makers and governments to ensure the sustainability and livelihood of SSF in the face of climate change.

LITERATURE CITED

Aguirre Rodriguez, C. 2018. Las cooperativas pesqueras del norte y costa norte de Nayarit y el desarrollo económico local desde la perspecitva de sus dirigentes. Thesis. Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit, Nayarit, Mexico. http://dspace.uan.mx:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/2020

Akoglu, H. 2018. User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine 18(3):91–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001

Alcon, F., M. D. de Miguel, and M. Burton. 2011. Duration analysis of adoption of drip irrigation technology in southeastern Spain. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 78(6):991–1001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.02.001

Allison, E. H., and F. Ellis. 2001. The livelihoods approach and management of small-scale fisheries. Marine Policy 25(5):377–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-597X(01)00023-9

Allison, P. D. 2014. Event history and survival analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452270029

Ayala-Bocos, A., H. Reyes-Bonilla, L. E. Calderón-Aguilera, Ma. D. Herrero-Perezrul, and P. C. González-Espinosa. 2016. Proyección de cambios en la temperatura superficial del mar del Golfo de California y efectos sobre la abundancia y distribución de especies arrecifales. Revista Ciencias Marinas y Costeras 8(1):29–40. https://doi.org/10.15359/revmar.8-1.2

Badjeck, M.-C., E. H. Allison, A. S. Halls, and N. K. Dulvy. 2010. Impacts of climate variability and change on fishery-based livelihoods. Marine Policy 34(3):375–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.08.007

Bailey, C. 1982. Small-scale fisheries of San Miguel Bay, Philippines: occupational and geographic mobility. Institute of Fisheries Development and Research, College of Fisheries, University of the Philippines in the Visayas, Quezon City, Philippines; International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines; and the United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan, Tokyo, Japan. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12348/3561

Bandura, A. 2011. A social cognitive perspective on positive psychology. Revista de Psicología Social 26(1):7–20. https://doi.org/10.1174/021347411794078444

Bandura, A., W. H. Freeman, and R. Lightsey. 1997. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy 13(2):158–166. https://doi.org/10.1891/0889-8391.13.2.158

Barnes, M. L., Ö. Bodin, A. M. Guerrero, R. R. J. McAllister, S. M. Alexander, and G. Robins. 2017. The social structural foundations of adaptation and transformation in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 22(4):16. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09769-220416

Barnes, M. L., J. Lynham, K. Kalberg, and P. Leung. 2016. Social networks and environmental outcomes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(23):6466–6471. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523245113

Barnes, M. L., P. Wang, J. E. Cinner, N. A. J. Graham, A. M. Guerrero, L. Jasny, J. Lau, S. R. Sutcliffe, and J. Zamborain-Mason. 2020. Social determinants of adaptive and transformative responses to climate change. Nature Climate Change 10(9):823–828. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0871-4

Barnes-Mauthe, M., S. A. Gray, S. Arita, J. Lynham, and P. Leung. 2015. What determines social capital in a social-ecological system? Insights from a network perspective. Environmental Management 55(2):392–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0395-7

Barnes Truelove, H., A. R. Carrico, and L. Thabrew. 2015. A socio-psychological model for analyzing climate change adaptation: a case study of Sri Lankan paddy farmers. Global Environmental Change 31:85–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.12.010

Basurto, X., A. Bennett, A. Hudson Weaver, S. Rodriguez-Van Dyck, and J.-S. Aceves-Bueno. 2013. Cooperative and noncooperative strategies for small-scale fisheries’ self-governance in the globalization era: implications for conservation. Ecology and Society 18(4):38. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05673-180438

Basurto, X., A. Bennett, E. Lindkvist, and M. Schlüter. 2020. Governing the commons beyond harvesting: an empirical illustration from fishing. PLoS ONE 15(4):e0231575. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231575

Breslow, N. E. 1975. Analysis of survival data under the proportional hazards model. International Statistical Review/Revue Internationale de Statistique 43(1):45–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/1402659

Bucaram, S. J., and A. Hearn. 2014. Factors that influence the entry-exit decision and intensity of participation of fishing fleet for the Galapagos lobster fishery. Marine Policy 43:80–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.05.005

Cheung, W. W. L., T. L. Frölicher, V. W. Y. Lam, M. A. Oyinlola, G. Reygondeau, U. R. Sumaila, T. C. Tai, L. C. L. Teh, and C. C. C. Wabnitz. 2021. Marine high temperature extremes amplify the impacts of climate change on fish and fisheries. Science Advances 7(40):eabh0895. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abh0895

Cinner, J. E., W. N. Adger, E. H. Allison, M. L. Barnes, K. Brown, P. J. Cohen, S. Gelcich, C. C. Hicks, T. P. Hughes, J. Lau, N. A. Marshall, and T. H. Morrison. 2018. Building adaptive capacity to climate change in tropical coastal communities. Nature Climate Change 8:117–123. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0065-x

Cinner, J. E., and M. L. Barnes. 2019. Social dimensions of resilience in social-ecological systems. One Earth 1(1):51–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2019.08.003

Cinner, J. E., T. Daw, and T. R. McClanahan. 2009. Socioeconomic factors that affect artisanal fishers’ readiness to exit a declining fishery. Conservation Biology 23(1):124–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01041.x

Cinner, J. E., C. Folke, T. Daw, and C. C. Hicks. 2011. Responding to change: using scenarios to understand how socioeconomic factors may influence amplifying or dampening exploitation feedbacks among Tanzanian fishers. Global Environmental Change 21:7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.001

Cinner, J. E., T. R. McClanahan, N. A. J. Graham, T. M. Daw, J. Maina, S. M. Stead, A. Wamukota, K. Brown, and Ö. Bodin. 2012. Vulnerability of coastal communities to key impacts of climate change on coral reef fisheries. Global Environmental Change 22(1):12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.09.018

Cinner, J. E., and R. B. Pollnac. 2004. Poverty, perceptions and planning: why socioeconomics matter in the management of Mexican reefs. Ocean and Coastal Management 47(9):479–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2004.09.002

Comisión Nacional de Acuacultura y Pesca (CONAPESCA). 2022. Permiso de pesca comercial. Comisión Nacional de Acuacultura y Pesca, Gobierno de México, Mexico City, Mexico. http://www.gob.mx/tramites/ficha/permiso-de-pesca-comercial/CONAPESCA291

Cordón Lagares, E., F. García Ordaz, and J. J. García del Hoyo. 2016. The determinants that cause small-scale vessels to exit fishing: the case of the Spanish small-scale purse seine fishery. Fisheries Research 181:155–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2016.04.015

Coulthard, S. 2008. Adapting to environmental change in artisanal fisheries — insights from a South Indian Lagoon. Global Environmental Change 18(3):479–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.04.003

Cox, D. R. 1972. Regression models and life-tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 2(34):187–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4380-9_37

Crona, B., and Ö. Bodin. 2010. Power asymmetries in small-scale fisheries: a barrier to governance transformability? Ecology and Society 15(4):32. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03710-150432

D’agata, S., E. S. Darling, G. G. Gurney, T. R. McClanahan, N. A. Muthiga, A. Rabearisoa, and J. M. Maina. 2020. Multiscale determinants of social adaptive capacity in small-scale fishing communities. Environmental Science and Policy 108:56–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.03.006

Daw, T. M., J. E. Cinner, T. R. McClanahan, K. Brown, S. M. Stead, N. A. J. Graham, and J. Maina. 2012. To fish or not to fish: factors at multiple scales affecting artisanal fishers’ readiness to exit a declining fishery. PLoS ONE 7(2):e31460. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031460

Delgado Landey, F. 2020. Conocimientos tradicionales y prácticas pesquero-artesanales en San Blas, Nayarit. Thesis. Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit, Nayarit, México. http://dspace.uan.mx:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/2325

Dow, K., F. Berkhout, B. L. Preston, R. J. T. Klein, G. Midgley, and M. R. Shaw. 2013. Limits to adaptation. Nature Climate Change 3:305–307. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1847

Elías Ilosvay, X. É., J. García Molinos, and E. Ojea. 2022. Stronger adaptive response among small-scale fishers experiencing greater climate change hazard exposure. Communications Earth and Environment 3(1):246. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00577-5

Fedele, G., C. I. Donatti, C. A. Harvey, L. Hannah, and D. G. Hole. 2019. Transformative adaptation to climate change for sustainable social-ecological systems. Environmental Science and Policy 101:116–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.001

Ferrol-Schulte, D., S. C. A. Ferse, and M. Glaser. 2014. Patron-client relationships, livelihoods and natural resource management in tropical coastal communities. Ocean and Coastal Management 100:63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.07.016

Ferse, S. C. A., M. Glaser, M. Neil, and K. Schwerdtner Máñez. 2014. To cope or to sustain? Eroding long-term sustainability in an Indonesian coral reef fishery. Regional Environmental Change 14(6):2053–2065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0342-1

Ferse, S. C. A., L. Knittweis, G. Krause, A. Maddusila, and M. Glaser. 2012. Livelihoods of ornamental coral fishermen in South Sulawesi/Indonesia: implications for management. Coastal Management 40(5):525–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2012.694801

Field, C. B., V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, and L. L. White. 2014. Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part a: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415379

Folke, C., S. R. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Chapin, and J. Rockström. 2010. Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society 15(4):20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03610-150420

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2018. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2018: meeting the sustainable development goals. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/6fb91ab9-6cb2-4d43-8a34-a680f65e82bd/content

Franklin, B. S., and Ma. Velusamy. 2020. Vulnerability of marine fishermen to nature-driven stressors. Journal of Critical Reviews 7(05):536–538.

Frawley, T. H., E. M. Finkbeiner, and L. B. Crowder. 2019. Environmental and institutional degradation in the globalized economy: lessons from small-scale fisheries in the Gulf of California. Ecology and Society 24(1):7. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10693-240107

Free, C. M., T. Mangin, J. G. Molinos, E. Ojea, M. Burden, C. Costello, and S. D. Gaines. 2020. Realistic fisheries management reforms could mitigate the impacts of climate change in most countries. PLoS ONE 15(3):e0224347. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224347

Fritzsche, K., S. Schneiderbauer, P. Bubeck, S. Kienberger, M. Buth, M. Zebisch, and W. Kahlenborn. 2014. The vulnerability sourcebook: concept and guidelines for standardised vulnerability assessments. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Bonn and Eschborn, Germany.

Furlong Estrada, E. 2013. Evaluación de la pesquería artesanal de tiburón en Nayarit, México, mediante análisis de riesgo ecológico, de resiliencia en las especies más abundantes y pesquero-social. Dissertation. University of Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico. http://repositorio.cucba.udg.mx:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/5850

Gémar, G., L. Moniche, and A. J. Morales. 2016. Survival analysis of the Spanish hotel industry. Tourism Management 54:428–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.12.012

Gong, Y., H. Li, M. Parks, J. Pang, and C. de Fraiture. 2018. The role of social capital for farmers’ climate change adaptation in Lancang River basin in China. Climatic Change 149(1):75–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2057-2

Gunderson, L. H., and C. S. Holling. 2002. Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island, Washington, D.C., USA.

Hanich, Q., C. C. C. Wabnitz, Y. Ota, M. Amos, C. Donato-Hunt, and A. Hunt. 2018. Small-scale fisheries under climate change in the Pacific Islands region. Marine Policy 88:279–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.011

Instituto Nacional de Desarrollo Social. 2018. Registro federal de las OSC. Instituto Nacional de Desarrollo Social, Gobierno de Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico. http://www.gob.mx/indesol/acciones-y-programas/registro-federal-de-las-osc

Kartsonaki, C. 2016. Survival analysis. Diagnostic Histopathology 22(7):263–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mpdhp.2016.06.005

Kiyama, S., and S. Yamazaki. 2018. The impact of stock collapse on small-scale fishers’ behavior: evidence from Japan. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 75(12):2241–2254. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2017-0091

Kuitunen, I., V. T. Ponkilainen, M. M. Uimonen, A. Eskelinen, and A. Reito. 2021. Testing the proportional hazards assumption in cox regression and dealing with possible non-proportionality in total joint arthroplasty research: methodological perspectives and review. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 22(1):489. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04379-2

Lam, V. W. Y., W. W. L. Cheung, G. Reygondeau, and U. R. Sumaila. 2016. Projected change in global fisheries revenues under climate change. Scientific Reports 6(1):32607. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32607

Lee, H., K. Calvin, D. Dasgupta, G. Krinner, A. Mukherji, P. Thorne, C. Trisos, J. Romero, P. Aldunce, K. Barrett, G. Blanco, W. W. L. Cheung, S. L. Connors, F. Denton, A. Diongue-Niang, D. Dodman, M. Garschagen, O. Geden, B. Hayward, C. Jones, F. Jotzo, T. Krug, R. Lasco, J.-Y. Lee, V. Masson-Delmotte, M. Meinshausen, K. Mintenbeck, A. Mokssit, F. E. L. Otto, M. Pathak, A. Pirani, E. Poloczanska, H.-O. Pörtner, A. Revi, D. C. Roberts, J. Roy, A. C. Ruane, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, R. Slade, A. Slangen, Y. Sokona, A. A. Sörensson, M. Tignor, D. van Vuuren, Y.-M. Wei, H. Winkler, P. Zhai, and Z. Zommers. 2023. Synthesis report of the sixth assessment report (AR6). Sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Cambridge, New York, USA. https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/

López Sánchez, M., R. del Bosque Dávila, V. Gutiérrez Macías, J. Clemente Hernández, M. Otero, G. Abraham, and E. Resendiz. 2018. Línea de base del sector pesquero y acuícola: programa de fomento a la productividad pesquera y acuícola (CONAPESCA). SAGARPA, Gobierno de Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico, Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), San José, Costa Rica. https://www.agricultura.gob.mx/sites/default/files/sagarpa/document/2019/01/28/1608/01022019-linea-base-del-programa-de-fomento-la-productividad-pesquera-y-acuicola.pdf

Marín, A., S. Gelcich, J. C. Castilla, and F. Berkes. 2012. Exploring social capital in Chile’s coastal benthic comanagement system using a network approach. Ecology and Society 17(1):13. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04562-170113

Marshall, N. A., D. M. Fenton, P. A. Marshall, and S. G. Sutton. 2007. How resource dependency can influence social resilience within a primary resource industry. Rural Sociology 72(3):359–390. https://doi.org/10.1526/003601107781799254

Marshall, N. A., S. E. Park, W. N. Adger, K. Brown, and S. M. Howden. 2012. Transformational capacity and the influence of place and identity. Environmental Research Letters 7(3):034022. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034022

Mills, M. 2010. Introducing survival and event history analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446268360

Miñarro, S., G. Navarrete Forero, H. Reuter, and I. E. van Putten. 2016. The role of patron-client relations on the fishing behaviour of artisanal fishermen in the Spermonde Archipelago (Indonesia). Marine Policy 69:73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.006

Muallil, R. N., R. C. Geronimo, D. Cleland, R. B. Cabral, M. V. Doctor, A. Cruz-Trinidad, and P. M. Aliño. 2011. Willingness to exit the artisanal fishery as a response to scenarios of declining catch or increasing monetary incentives. Fisheries Research 111(1-2):74–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2011.06.013

Mugi-Ngenga, E. W., M. W. Mucheru-Muna, J. N. Mugwe, F. K. Ngetich, F. S. Mairura, and D. N. Mugendi. 2016. Household’s socio-economic factors influencing the level of adaptation to climate variability in the dry zones of Eastern Kenya. Journal of Rural Studies 43:49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.11.004

Nunan, F., D. Cepić, P. Onyango, M. Salehe, E. Yongo, B. Mbilingi, K. Odongkara, E. Mlahagwa, and M. Owili. 2020. Big fish, small fries? The fluidity of power in patron-client relations of Lake Victoria fisheries. Journal of Rural Studies 79:246–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.08.021

Ogle, D. H., J. C. Doll, A. P. Wheeler, and A. Dinno. 2023. Package FSA: simple fisheries stock assessment methods. R Foundation for Computational Statistics, Vienna, Austria. https://fishr-core-team.github.io/FSA/authors.html#citation

Ojea, E., S. E. Lester, and D. Salgueiro-Otero. 2020. Adaptation of fishing communities to climate-driven shifts in target species. One Earth 2(6):544–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.05.012

Ojea, E., I. Pearlman, S. D. Gaines, and S. E. Lester. 2017. Fisheries regulatory regimes and resilience to climate change. Ambio 46(4):399–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0850-1

Olsson, P., Ö. Bodin, and C. Folke. 2010. Building transformative capacity for ecosystem stewardship in social-ecological systems. Pages 263–285 in D. Armitage and R. Plummer, editors. Adaptive capacity and environmental governance. Springer, Berlin, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12194-4_13

Oremus, K. L., J. Bone, C. Costello, J. García Molinos, A. Lee, T. Mangin, and J. Salzman. 2020. Governance challenges for tropical nations losing fish species due to climate change. Nature Sustainability 3(4):277–280. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0476-y

Pelling, M., and D. Manuel-Navarrete. 2011. From resilience to transformation: the adaptive cycle in two Mexican urban centers. Ecology and Society 16(2):11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04038-160211

Peto, R., M. C. Pike, P. Armitage, N. E. Breslow, D. R. Cox, S. V. Howard, N. Mantel, K. McPherson, J. Peto, and P. G. Smith. 1976. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. I. Introduction and design. British Journal of Cancer 34(6):585–612. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1976.220

Pollnac, R. B., and J. J. Poggie, Jr. 2006. Job satisfaction in the fishery in two southeast Alaskan towns. Human Organization 65(3):329–339. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.65.3.3j2w39a21tq3j4l1

Pollnac, R. B., R. S. Pomeroy, and I. H. T. Harkes. 2001. Fishery policy and job satisfaction in three southeast Asian fisheries. Ocean and Coastal Management 44(7–8):531–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0964-5691(01)00064-3

Pradhan, N. C., and P. Leung. 2004. Modeling entry, stay, and exit decisions of the longline fishers in Hawaii. Marine Policy 28(4):311–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2003.09.005

R Core Team. 2023. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.r-project.org/

Reyers, B., C. Folke, M.-L. Moore, R. Biggs, and V. Galaz. 2018. Social-ecological systems insights for navigating the dynamics of the Anthropocene. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 43(1):267–289. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085349

Reyers, B., M.-L. Moore, L. J. Haider, and M. Schlüter. 2022. The contributions of resilience to reshaping sustainable development. Nature Sustainability 5(8):657–664. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00889-6

Salgueiro-Otero, D., M. L. Barnes, and E. Ojea. 2022a. Transformation in times of climate change: what makes a fisher diversify livelihoods? Frontiers in Marine Science 9:888288. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.888288

Salgueiro-Otero, D., M. L. Barnes, and E. Ojea. 2022b. Climate adaptation pathways and the role of social-ecological networks in small-scale fisheries. Scientific Reports 12(1):15526. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18668-w

Salinas, S. V., and Á. S. Crispín. 2010. Perspectiva territorial de la pesca en la Costa Chica de Guerrero. Investigaciones Geográficas, Boletín del Instituto de Geografía (71):43–56. https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0188-46112010000100005

Shaffril, H. A. M., A. Abu Samah, and J. L. D–Silva. 2017. Adapting towards climate change impacts: strategies for small-scale fishermen in Malaysia. Marine Policy 81:196–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.032

Thernau, T. 2022. Package coxme: mixed effect cox models. R Foundation for Computational Statistics, Vienna, Austria. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/coxme/index.html

Turco, M., E. Palazzi, J. von Hardenberg, and A. Provenzale. 2015. Observed climate change hotspots: observed climate change hotspots. Geophysical Research Letters 42(9):3521–3528. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063891

Twigger-Ross, C. L., and D. L. Uzzell. 1996. Place and identity processes. Journal of Environmental Psychology 16(3):205–220. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1996.0017

Ung, M., I. Luginaah, R. Chuenpagdee, and G. Campbell. 2016. Perceived self-efficacy and adaptation to climate change in coastal Cambodia. Climate 4(1):1. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli4010001

Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter, and A. P. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9(2):5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00650-090205

Wilson, S., L. J. Pearson, Y. Kashima, D. Lusher, and C. Pearson. 2013. Separating adaptive maintenance (resilience) and transformative capacity of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 18(1):22. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05100-180122

Wolfram, M. 2016. Conceptualizing urban transformative capacity: a framework for research and policy. Cities 51:121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.11.011