Fisheries management tools to support coastal and marine spatial planning: A case study from the Northern Gulf of California, Mexico.

A management approach was developed that combined spatial and non-spatial tools to inform a Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning Process (CMSP) in the Puerto Peñasco-Puerto Lobos Coastal Corridor, Northern Gulf of California, Sonora, Mexico. Four fisheries management tools were applied with an emphasis on ecosystem level management for eleven small-scale fisheries. Two spatial management tools, using a spatial prioritization approach, were combined with a permit regularization process, a non-spatial quota prioritization, and a tradeoff analysis in a novel way: • Locally Managed Marine Areas were developed, these are spatial areas where individual community fishermen are assigned the rights to harvest and manage specific fisheries within defined geographic areas. • Fishery refuges that incorporate information on fisheries, ecological importance, and connectivity. • A non-spatial quota prioritization process using a framework for the integrated assessment of stocks, encompassing a vulnerability analysis, a sustainability analysis, and a management framework analysis. • A trade-off analysis of the combination of these different management tools, using an Atlantis ecosystem model for the northern Gulf of California, that tested the ecosystem effects of alternative scenarios to assess benefits in support of ecosystem-based management.

A meta-analysis of the relationship between individual assessments and job performance.

Though individual assessments are widely used in selection settings, very little research exists to support their criterion-related validity. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted of 39 individual assessment validation studies. For the current research, individual assessments were defined as any employee selection procedure that involved (a) multiple assessment methods, (b) administered to an individual examinee, and (c) relying on assessor judgment to integrate the information into an overall evaluation of the candidate's suitability for a job. Assessor recommendations were found to be useful predictors of job performance, although the level of validity varied considerably across studies. Validity tended to be higher for managerial than nonmanagerial occupations and for assessments that included a cognitive ability test. Validity was not moderated by the degree of standardization of the assessment content or by use of multiple assessors for each candidate. However, higher validities were found when the same assessor was used across all candidates than when different assessors evaluated different candidates. These results should be interpreted with caution, given a small number of studies for many of the moderator subgroups as well as considerable evidence of publication bias. These limitations of the available research base highlight the need for additional empirical work to inform individual assessment practices. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).