Table 1.

Access mechanisms determined in the focus groups, guided by Ribot and Peluso (26)

Type	Mechanism	Description	Response	Analysis (PCA % explained)
Rights-based	Rights-based access*	The formal (de jure), or informal but adhered to (de facto), rights and restrictions on fishing	Open access, 0; restricted access, 1	Rights, NA
Social and institutional	Access to authority**	Levels of trust in, and participation with, local and national authorities, based on (i) how much they trusted relevant members of authority and (ii) whether they engaged with members of authority in any groups or organizations	(i) 5-point Likert scale	Authority, one factor (42%)
			(ii) yes, 1; no, 0
Social and institutional	Access through social identity**	Social identity was measures as (i) meanings, how strongly respondents identified with seven statements conveying the meanings associated with being a fisher; (ii) heritage, whether respondents grew up in a fisher family; and (iii) attachment, how attached the respondent was to the marine environment [as (a) occupational connections, (b) occupational importance, and (c) dependents] (48).	(i) 5-point Likert scale	Meanings resulted in two factors, place-based (26%) and identity (20%)
			(ii) True, 1; false, 0	Heritage, NA
			(iii) (a) number of connections, 0–3; (b) order of importance, 1–3; (c) dependents, 0–9	Attachment, one factor (31%)
Social and institutional	Access via the negotiation of social relations**	Social relations were measured through levels of (i) trust [in (a) fishers and (b) community members] and (ii) participation [in (a) community events and (b) resource management decisions (37)]	(i) 5-point Likert scale	Three factors, trust in fishers (18%), trust in community (25%), and participation (15%)
			(ii) (a) yes, 1; no, 0
			(b) no attendance, 0; passive, 1, participation, 2
Knowledge	Access through knowledge**	We assessed knowledge about (a) ecological processes, (b) local knowledge transfer, (c) species, (d) weights at maturity, and (e) years at school	(a and b) 5-point Likert scale	Two factors, local ecological knowledge (35%) and education (16%)
			(c and d) true, 1; false, 0; (e) years at school
Economic	Access to markets*	Markets were measured by the average price of fish as sold in the nearest market	$/kg	NA
Economic	Access to technology**	Technology was measured as capital invested in the gears owned by the fisher (49)	Scale 1–4 investment required. Spear guns, US$4.6; line, US$6.9; trap, US$33.9; net, US$200.6	Technology, NA
Economic	Access to capital**	Capital was measured to include (i) income, (ii) expenditure, and (iii) a material style of life index (MSL). MSL calculates a wealth score based on material possessions. Our MSL index examined 15 items: types of walls, roof, and floor in house; how they cooked (gas, charcoal, or firewood); lighting (e.g., light bulbs, hurricane, or kerosene lantern); any transport (car, motorcycle, bicycle); and whether they had piped water, a generator, electricity, a fan, a refrigerator, a television, a DVD, a radio or cassette player, and a mobile phone (37).	(i and ii) $/fortnight (iii) presence, 1; absence, 0	Capital, one factor (59%)
Economic	Access to labor and labor opportunities**	Occupations were measured to include occupational diversity, and household occupation multiplicity, determined from the activities (i.e., jobs) that people did that brought food or income into their homes (50). We calculated the number of (i) jobs in which respondents were engaged, (ii) jobs in which members from their household were engaged, and; (iii) different types of jobs in which people in the household engaged.	Number of (i) personal jobs, 0–5; (ii) household jobs, 0–5; (iii) different jobs in the household, 0–5	Occupations, one factor (72%)

Access mechanisms fall into a broad type, a description is given, response scale used, and PCA.

^*n = 28 communities.

^**n = 374 individual interviews sampled.