- Email: [email protected]
Coral reef livelihoods
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Coral reef livelihoods Joshua Cinner Coral reefs support the livelihoods of millions of people, overwhelmingly in developing countries. As reefs become increasingly overfished, scientists and managers frequently suggest that dependence on reef fisheries needs to be reduced. Yet, attempts to do so often fail spectacularly and even result in perverse outcomes because the nature of coral reef livelihoods is often poorly understood. Here, I discuss two emerging threads of social science research that are helping to better shape our understanding about coral reef livelihoods. First is a growing appreciation of the non-material benefits that coral reef fisheries provide to people. Coral reefs contribute to people’s identity, lifestyle, and social norms, which create a strong attachment to fishing that can keep people in a fishery. Second, a growing body of research is exploring the role of livelihood diversity in collectively organizing to solve overfishing, complying with fisheries and protected area management, fishing intensity, and willingness to exit the fishery. Importantly, current theory and empirical research does not always support the notion that diversification of livelihoods will lead to reduced fishing effort or lower environmental impacts on coral reefs. Addresses ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4810, Australia Corresponding author: Cinner, Joshua ([email protected])
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 7:65–71 This review comes from a themed issue on Environmental change issues Edited by Georgios Tsounis and Bernhard Riegl For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial Received 10 July 2013; Accepted 28 November 2013 Available online 28th December 2013 1877-3435/$ – see front matter, # 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.025
Economic and food security benefits of coral reefs Globally, coral reefs provide tropical coastal societies with critical economic, livelihood, and food security benefits. Global estimates suggest that reefs provide some $375 billion worth of goods and services [1]. Much of this value is derived from support for substantial tourism markets for diving and snorkeling, shoreline protection, and, of course, fisheries [2]. There are some six million people, overwhelmingly in developing countries, who depend on coral reef fisheries www.sciencedirect.com
for their livelihoods [3]. Some estimates suggest that reef fisheries contribute on average about one-quarter of the total fish catch in developing countries [4]. Reef fish are also an important source of animal protein, lipids, and micro-nutrients [5]. In the poorest countries in Africa and south Asia, artisanal fisheries (including but not limited to reef fisheries) make up more than half of the essential protein and mineral intake for over 400 million people [6]. Likewise, fish accounts for some 50–90% of animal protein in the diet of rural communities in some Pacific Island countries and territories [7]. Despite the importance of healthy reefs for economies and food security, many coral reefs around the globe are managed as an open access resource and consequently have been severely overfished [8,9]. Overfishing can have top–down effects that cascade through the ecosystem and potentially flow on to society through reduced yields and quality of fish [10,11]. In response to prevalent overfishing, many leading scientists, conservation organizations, and managers call for fishing pressure to be reduced so that reef ecosystems can rebuild [12]. An often-proposed solution to reducing fishing pressure is to provide fishers with alternative livelihoods. Examples of alternative income activities commonly attempted in coastal communities include mariculture (e.g., seaweed farming), aquaculture (i.e., fish ponds), terrestrial agricultural projects, tourism (particularly SCUBA diving and snorkeling), and working as a park ranger [13]. Yet, alternative income projects in reef fisheries often fail spectacularly and can even result in perverse outcomes [13,14,15]. For example, in the Philippines, the economic opportunities afforded by seaweed farming projects attracted migrants from other areas, ultimately resulting in more coastal fishers [13]. These failures arise, in part, because of poor understandings about fishers’ livelihoods perpetuated by pervasive assumptions that are rarely accurate. These include the assumptions that people only fish as an occupation of last resort and that people would give up fishing if a more economically viable alternative were available. Yet in practice, these assumptions rarely hold true in part because they fail to consider issues such as people’s strong attachment to fishing and the important role of economic diversification in the livelihood strategies of rural households.
Attachments to fishing: lifestyle and identity For those who make their living from the sea, giving up fishing is rarely a desirable prospect because they are often attached to more than simply the material economic value generated by the activity [16]. Many analytical and Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 7:65–71
66 Environmental change issues
conceptual models assume that profit is the main motivation behind fishing and that people will stop fishing when it becomes unprofitable. However, reef fisheries not only provide income and subsistence needs for people, but can also contribute to their cultural or personal identity. In some areas, coral reefs can provide the basis for culturally important events such as feasts and ceremonies [17–19] and fulfill other important societal needs [20]. Reefs and particular reef fishing can also form a key part of people’s personal identity and lifestyle [21]. For example, in Australia, Marshall et al. [22] found that nearly 90% of commercial reef fishers on the Great Barrier Reef felt that fishing was more than just a job, and could not think of a job they would rather do. In Jamaica, employment in the fishery provided aspects of freedom and independence that have important cultural values in the context of a post-slavery society that were not generally available to unskilled workers in the tourism or salaried employment sectors (pers. Observation, Peace Corps Jamaica 1996– 1998). A comparative study of fishers from 10 villages in the Philippines found that the most cited reasons for involvement in the fishery were the potential for a windfall (i.e., a very big catch) and enjoyment, while the least cited reasons were income, reliability, and that they had no other options, respectively [14]. Of course, attachment to fishing varies with the social, cultural, and economic context. In Egypt, 88 out of 89 fishers surveyed could not imagine a job they would rather do than fishing [23]. In contrast, only 21% of fishers from Rodriguez Island, Mauritius did not want to change occupations [24]. In addition, there may also be social, economic, institutional, and cultural barriers that keep people in the fishery. For example, in the Pulicat lagoon in India, fishers were locked into a declining prawn fishery because of the caste system and by a property rights system that limits access to the most productive fishing grounds [25]. Specifically, the local caste system created considerable social prestige associated with one particular type of fishing gear; other fisheries and occupations were stigmatized because they were associated with lower social castes and consequently shunned by members of upper castes. Likewise, the property rights system actually locked people into the fishery because fishers would forfeit their monopolistic access if it was not continually used. Thus, fishers had to continue fishing to maintain their exclusive access (which occasionally resulted in profit windfalls), even though overall profits had reportedly dropped 10-fold. Together, these studies on the social and cultural importance of reef fishing as a livelihood highlight how many reef fisheries are far from an occupation of last resort. Reef fishers often receive a lot more than money from their work: they receive enjoyment, identity, prestige, and a Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 7:65–71
lifestyle. Critically, a key feature of these types of nonmaterial benefits is that they are typically not tradable, which means that income incentives (such as potentially better money working a different job) are not necessarily likely to induce behavioral change. As a result of these non-material benefits, some people may be willing to continue fishing even when it is no longer economically viable. Importantly, endogenous social issues such as preferences, norms, and prestige are dynamic and do change over time; however, this change tends to be slower than the time scales over which fisheries are collapsing.
Livelihood diversification in coastal communities Livelihood diversification refers to the fact that people, particularly in poor rural areas, often employ a range of strategies to meet their financial, social, and cultural needs. In many coastal areas, fisheries form part of diverse household livelihood portfolios [26–28,29]. Unraveling the causes, and consequences, of livelihood diversification is critical to understanding the important role that coral reef fisheries play in coastal societies. Livelihood diversification is often part of a deliberate strategy of risk spreading under uncertainty [30]. This means that just because an alternative occupation becomes available, people may not necessarily reduce fishing. For example, seaweed farming and alternative income projects meant to reduce fishing pressure in Indonesia and Philippines were mainly taken up by women and children rather than the male fishers, resulting in household incomes being supplemented, rather than pressure from the fishery being diverted [13]. Recent research has begun to show the connections between fishing and other occupations in novel ways [31] (Figure 1). In addition, livelihood diversity can impact a range of ways that people interact with natural resources such as coral reefs, but sometimes these relationships can run counter to the assumptions that providing fishers with alternative livelihoods will improve ecological conditions. Specifically, the degree to which individuals and households have diverse livelihood portfolios can impact the following key aspects of sustainability: (1) Participation in (and benefits from) collective action arrangements, such as community-based management. A number of studies have shown that people are more willing to become involved in, and reap the associated benefits from, collectively organizing to reduce overexploitation when their livelihoods are more dependent on the resource they are trying to manage [32–35] [but see [35] for a contrary example]. Thus, alternative livelihood projects may actually help make people less willing to invest time and energy in local fisheries management solutions. Likewise relationships between livelihood diversification and www.sciencedirect.com
Coral reef livelihoods Cinner 67
Figure 1
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Some six million people, such as these fishers from the coast of Kenya, earn a living from coral reef fisheries.
compliance with fisheries management regulations are not always straightforward [32,36,37]. For example, Cinner et al. [32] studied compliance in 42 co-managed fisheries across five countries and found that resource users perceived lower levels of compliance with co-management rules when livelihood portfolios were more diverse, suggesting that people may be more willing to comply with regulations when their livelihoods depend on it. (2) Fishing intensity. Studies from fishing communities around the world show the complicated relationship between diverse livelihood portfolios and people’s environmental impacts [14,38–40,41]. For example, fishers in coastal Kenya who had other onshore employment opportunities fished less prudently; they used more destructive gear and concentrated effort on inshore grounds where coral reefs www.sciencedirect.com
occur [38]. However, in the Philippines, fishers who were involved in alternative employment had lower fishing effort compared to other fishers [41]. Seaweed farming projects introduced as alternative income for fishers in the Philippines found that seaweed farming reduced the number of fishers in some villages, but increased fisher numbers in others, outcomes that were related to socioeconomic conditions in the different villages [14]. (3) Whether people are willing to exit the fishery. Several studies have begun investigating how fishers would respond to scenarios of declining resources, and the whether having a diverse livelihood portfolio influences this decision [42–44]. To date, the results are heterogeneous. For example, in Kenya Cinner et al. [42] found that people with multiple occupations were 3 times more likely to exit a declining fishery, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 7:65–71
68 Environmental change issues
whereas [38] found no sign that fishers with onshore occupations were more willing to give up fishing. Slater et al. [45] found that livelihood diversification weakly supported staying in a declining fishery. However, in the most comprehensive study of its kind, Daw et al. [44] found that having more occupations also increased the likelihood of exiting the fishery across five countries in the western Indian Ocean. Together these studies highlight the complex relationships between occupational diversity and people’s interaction with the environment. These complexities ensure that adopting a one-size-fits-all strategy of providing alternative livelihoods as a blanket solution to reducing fishing pressure is likely to result in poor or even perverse outcomes. This does not mean that all alternative livelihood programs are doomed, though. On the contrary, under the right social and economic conditions, targeted alternative livelihoods have big payoffs for both people and ecosystems. For example, MacNeil and Cinner [46] found that people’s perceived benefits from collaborative management arrangements (frequently referred to as co-management) were related to an interaction between poverty and livelihood diversity (Figure 2). Specifically, the poor who had seven jobs were 50% more likely to view co-management positively compared to those who had just one job. However, the opposite relationship was evident for wealthier households: the wealthier households with seven jobs were less likely to view co-management positively than those with just one job. Thus, investments in increasing livelihood diversity are likely to have high payoffs when appropriately targeted (i.e., to the left of the intersection of the occupational lines in Fig. 2), but can also have perverse outcomes if inappropriately targeted (i.e., to the right of the intersection). This example highlighted how the local context — in this case poverty — can help target alternative livelihood programs to increase their efficacy. Additionally, from an economic perspective, diversification (where it increases incomes and cash flow) will have differential impacts on the environment depending on whether ecological impacts are being limited by a ‘shortage’ of capital or labor. Diversification is likely to lead to increased effort in the fishery in situations where catch is limited by capital (because people will likely divert assets earned outside the fishery into harvesting the fishery), but lead to reduced effort in situations where catch is limited by labor. Thus, targeting of diversification programs needs to incorporate people’s motivations for fishing, the benefits and satisfactions they receive (such as lifestyle, subsistence, and so on), and their skills and capacities (i.e., do they have the ability to engage in the proposed livelihood), and consider the role of labor and capital in the fishery (Figure 3). Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 7:65–71
Figure 2
Fishery
Gleaning
Mariculture
Cash crops
Subsistence farming
Fish trading
Informal sector
Other
Tourism
None
Salaried employment Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Increasingly tools such as network analysis are being used to better understand how household livelihoods are comprised of a range of occupational sectors, such as fishing, farming, and tourism. This network map of the livelihoods of hundreds of households from periurban communities in Kenya illustrates how households engaged in fishing also regularly participate in subsistence farming, the informal sector, and fish trading. In this network map (referred to as a livelihood landscape), the size of a node indicates the relative involvement in that occupational sector (larger node means more people are involved). The links between occupations are indicated by arrows. The direction of the arrows indicates the priority of ranking. Thus, an arrow into an occupation indicates that the occupation was ranked as less important than the occupation the arrow came from. The thickness of the arrows corresponds to the proportion of households being engaged in the higher ranked occupation that are also engaged in the lower ranked occupation. The proportion of the node that is shaded represents the proportion of people who ranked that occupation as a primary occupation. Adapted from [31].
A future research agenda for coral reefdependent livelihoods Coral reef-dependent livelihoods operate at the intersection of complex ecological, environmental, and social processes. In this article, I have highlighted some of the emerging social science research on key aspects of why people fish, and remain in the fishery even as stocks and profits decline below economic viability. However, these issues are often not considered by donors, managers www.sciencedirect.com
Coral reef livelihoods Cinner 69
Figure 3
P(positive livelihood)
1.0
0.8 Seven jobs 0.6
0.4 One job 0.2
0.0
–1.05
0
1.05
2.1
Wealth poor
better off Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
On the basis of a study of 42 coastal communities across Kenya, Tanzania, Madagascar, Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea, this figure shows how the probability of perceiving positive livelihood outcomes from fisheries co-management arrangements (y-axis) changes based on the interaction between household wealth (x-axis; measured as a principal component score of household material possessions such as owning a TV, refrigerator, and radio) and the number of occupations that household is engaged in (indicated by the line color; darker red lines indicate estimates for those with more jobs in the household). Lines represent model-estimated relationships. This figure shows that for the poor, having more diverse livelihoods increases the probability of comanagement initiatives being beneficial for their livelihoods, whereas for the better off, having more diverse livelihoods decreases the probability. Adapted from [46].
and policy-makers when developing policies aimed at reducing fishing pressure, which is why many such programs fail to achieve tangible conservation benefits. Although these livelihood issues are most directly relevant to policy tools such as alternative livelihoods, they also apply to many other forms of fisheries management, including gear-based management (i.e., people may get more satisfaction or prestige from, say, spearfishing versus trap fishing), marine reserves, and property rights. In short, effectively managing coral reef fisheries will depend on developing more comprehensive understanding of people’s livelihoods, driven by analyses of the incentives, constraints, and aspirations that drive people’s behavior. I suggest an interdisciplinary coral reef livelihoods research agenda focused on two emerging themes: (1) Motivations & values in a changing seascape. Specifically, researchers need to examine people’s motivations to fish, identity, and other social benefits associated with www.sciencedirect.com
the fishery and how these are influenced by both climate change and socioeconomic transformations (such as changes in governance, population, and increasing marketization of resources) [31,47]. Understanding whether and how coral reef-dependent livelihoods will be resilient to change will also require determining the degree to which specific social benefits (such as food production, identity, and lifestyle) depend on ecological integrity versus social and institutional conditions. The prevailing supplyside assumption is generally that higher environmental quality will result in more social benefits, but relationships may be non-monotonic with certain livelihood benefits (such as social status and identity) perhaps being relatively inelastic to resource degradation [25]. Furthermore, important research on environmental entitlements have shown that people’s capacity to benefit from nature is also dependent on the social and institutional mechanisms that provide them with access to the resource [25,48,49]. Indeed, research is desperately needed to better understand how coral reef livelihoods are influenced by both the flow of ecological goods and services and the social and institutional mechanisms that provide people with access to coral reef resources. (2) Power and distribution of benefits. Issues surrounding the distribution of access, benefits, and power are central to understanding whether and how fishers may be willing to support or adopt specific management arrangements that involve changes to their livelihoods (such as alternative livelihoods or a marine reserve) [50]. Researchers need to better understand how issues such as livelihood diversification and attachment play a role in how people are socially and politically positioned in coral reef fisheries: who are the marginalized versus the powerful (i.e., part-time or full-time fishers, middlemen or fishers, migrants or residents) and how does this influence people’s willingness or ability to adapt to management measures? To date, most fisheries analyses are done at an aggregate level (i.e., whether there would be overall profits or losses at the scale of the fishery as a result of certain policy) and fail to examine the political ecology of fisheries (i.e., who benefits and loses from different policy arrangements). Certain management initiatives may increase overall profits for a community, but concentrate the wealth toward those that already have it, potentially further marginalizing the already disenfranchised [32,51]. Thus, an important part of this will require conducting research at a disaggregated scale to understand who are the winners and losers from existing and planned livelihood arrangements.
Conclusions Livelihood-related issues, such as people’s attachment to fishing and the diversity of their livelihood portfolios, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 7:65–71
70 Environmental change issues
Hardin G: The tragedy of the commons. Science 1968, 162:1243-1250.
have profound implications for the conservation and sustainable use of coral reefs. Yet, there is surprisingly little research that has focused on understanding reefdependent livelihoods. What we do know is complex and sometimes counterintuitive. The common narrative in marine conservation is that reefs would be more sustainable if less people used them, thus we should seek to reduce people’s dependence on coral reefs through programs like alternative income projects. This simplistic narrative sounds logical and very attractive, but it is rarely accurate because it ignores the key reasons why people fish, and the role of livelihood diversification in collective action and compliance. Indeed, under some circumstances, reducing people’s dependence on reef resources can make them less willing to comply with management initiatives and less willing to engage in collective action to help solve resource management problems. In this review, I have tried to show that the ways in which livelihoods interact with environmental sustainability depend a lot on context. In some instances, the context can be household scale poverty, while in others it can be whether there are shortages of labor or capital. This context dependency means that there is no silver bullet to reducing people’s dependence on reef resources that can be applied to all situations. Attempts to change people’s livelihoods must begin by understanding them.
9.
Acknowledgements
18. Johannes RE: The renaissance of community-based marine resource management in Oceania. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 2002, 33:317-340.
Support was provided by the Australia Research Council. Thanks to C. Barrett, C. Hicks, N. Marshall, and J. Kittinger for helpful comments on an early version of this manuscript.
References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as: of special interest of outstanding interest 1.
Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Grasso SF, Hannon M, Limburg B, Naeem K, O’Neill S, Paruelo VJ et al.: The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387:253-260.
2.
Moberg F, Folke C: Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosystems. Ecol Econ 1999, 29:215-233.
3. Teh LS, Teh LC, Sumaila UR: A global estimate of the number of coral reef fishers. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e65397. This is the first paper to quantify the number of people globally who are engaged in coral reef fisheries.
10. Dulvy NK, Freckleton RP, Polunin NVC: Coral reef cascades and the indirect effects of predator removal by exploitation. Ecol Lett 2004, 7:410-416. 11. Trebilco R, Baum JK, Salomon AK, Dulvy NK: Ecosystem ecology: size-based constraints on the pyramids of life. Trends Ecol Evol 2013, 28:423-431. 12. Worm B, Hilborn R, Baum JK, Branch TA, Collie JS, Costello C, Fogarty MJ, Fulton EA, Hutchings JA, Jennings S et al.: Rebuilding global fisheries. Science 2009, 325:578-584. 13. Sievanen L, Crawford B, Pollnac R, Lowe C: Weeding through assumptions of livelihood approaches in ICM: seaweed farming in the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean Coast Manage 2005, 48:297-313. 14. Hill NAO, Rowcliffe J, Koldewey HJ, Milner-Gulland EJ: The interaction between seaweed farming as an alternative occupation and fisher numbers in the Central Philippines. Conserv Biol 2012, 26:324-334. This paper quantitatively examines the efficacy of seaweed farming as an alternative livelihood option across several villages over time in the Philippines. 15. Pomeroy RS, Parks JE, Balboa CM: Farming the reef: is aquaculture a solution for reducing fishing pressure on coral reefs? Mar Policy 2006, 30:111-130. 16. Bavinck M, Pollnac R, Monnereau I, Failler P: Introduction to the special issue on job satisfaction in fisheries in the global South. Soc Indicat Res 2012, 109:1-10. 17. Cinner JE, Marnane M, McClanahan TR: Conservation and community benefits from traditional coral reef management at Ahus Island, Papua New Guinea. Conserv Biol 2005, 19:1714-1720.
19. Jupiter S, Weeks R, Jenkins A, Egli D, Cakacaka A: Effects of a single intensive harvest event on fish populations inside a customary marine closure. Coral Reefs 2012, 31:321-334. 20. Vaughan MB, Vitousek P: Mahele: sustaining communities through small-scale inshore fishery catch and sharing networks. Pac Sci 2013, 67:329-344. 21. Monnereau I, Pollnac R: Which fishers are satisfied in the Caribbean? A comparative analysis of job satisfaction among Caribbean lobster fishers. Soc Indic Res 2012, 109:95-118. 22. Marshall NA, Tobin RC, Marshall PA, Gooch M, Hobday AJ: Social vulnerability of marine resource users to extreme weather events. Ecosystems 2013, 16:1-13. 23. Marshall NA, Marshall PA, Abdulla A, Rouphael T: The links between resource dependency and attitude of commercial fishers to coral reef conservation in the Red Sea. Ambio 2010, 39:305-313. 24. Peterson AM, Stead SM: Rule breaking and livelihood options in marine protected areas. Environ Conserv 2011, 38:342-352.
4.
Jameson SC, McManus JW, Spalding MD: In State of the reefs: regional and global perspectives. Edited by Jameson SC. 1995.
25. Coulthard S: Adapting to environmental change in artisanal fisheries — insights from a South Indian Lagoon. Global Environ Change 2008, 18:479-489.
5.
Kawarazuka N, Bene C: Linking small-scale fisheries and aquaculture to household nutritional security: an overview. Food Secur 2010, 2:343-357.
26. Bene C, Hersoug B, Allison EH: Not by rent alone: analysing the pro-poor functions of small-scale fisheries in developing countries. Dev Policy Rev 2010, 28:325-358.
6.
Dulvy N, Allison E: A place at the table? Nat Rep Clim Change 2009, 3:68-70.
7.
Bell JD, Kronen M, Vunisea A, Nash WJ, Keeble G, Demmke A, Pontifex S, Andre´foue¨t S: Planning the use of fish for food security in the Pacific. Mar Policy 2009, 33:64-76.
27. Bene C: When fishery rhymes with poverty: a first step beyond the old paradigm on poverty in small-scale fisheries. World Dev 2003, 31:949-975.
8.
Newton K, Cote IM, Pilling GM, Jennings S, Dulvy NK: Current and future sustainability of island coral reef fisheries. Curr Biol 2007, 17:655-658.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 7:65–71
28. Allison EH, Ellis F: The livelihood approach and management of small-scale fisheries. Marine Policy 2001, 25:377-388. 29. Ferrol-Schulte D, Wolff M, Ferse S, Glaser M: Sustainable livelihoods approach in tropical coastal and marine social– ecological systems: a review. Mar Policy 2013, 42:253-258. www.sciencedirect.com
Coral reef livelihoods Cinner 71
30. Barrett CB, Reardon T, Webb P: Nonfarm income diversification and household livelihood strategies in rural Africa: concepts, dynamics and policy implications. Food Policy 2001, 26:315-331.
42. Cinner JE, Daw T, McClanahan TR: Socioeconomic factors that affect artisanal fishers’ readiness to exit a declining fishery. Conservation Biology 2009, 23:124-130.
31. Cinner J, Bodin O: Livelihood diversification in tropical coastal communities: a network-based approach to analyzing ‘livelihood landscapes’. PLoS ONE 2010, 5:e11999.
43. Cinner JE, Folke C, Daw T, Hicks CC: Responding to change: Using scenarios to understand how socioeconomic factors may influence amplifying or dampening exploitation feedbacks among Tanzanian fishers. Global Environmental Change 2011, 21:7-12.
32. Cinner JE, McClanahan TR, MacNeil MA, Graham NAJ, Daw TM, Mukminin A, Feary DA, Rabearisoa AL, Wamukota A, Jiddawi N: Comanagement of coral reef social-ecological systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012, 109:5219-5222.
44. Daw TM, Cinner JE, McClanahan TR, Brown K, Stead SM, Graham NAJ, Maina J: To fish or not to fish: Factors at multiple scales affecting artisanal fishers’ readiness to exit a declining fishery. PLoS ONE 2012, 7:e31460.
33. Agrawal A: Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Dev 2001, 29:1649-1672.
45. Slater MJ, Napigkit FA, Stead SM: Resource perception, livelihood choices and fishery exit in a Coastal Resource Management area. Ocean Coast Manage 2013, 71:326-333.
34. Ostrom E: Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1990, . 35. Zanetell B, Knuth B: Participation rhetoric or community-based management reality? Influences on willingness to participate in a Venezuelan freshwater fishery. World Dev 2004, 32:793-807. 36. Pollnac R, Crawford B, Gorospe M: Discovering factors that influence the success of community-based marine protected areas in the Visayas, Philippines. Ocean Coast Manage 2001, 44:683-710. 37. Hauck M: Rethinking small-scale fisheries compliance. Mar Policy 2008, 32:635-642. 38. Hoorweg J, Wangila B, Degen A: Artisanal Fishers on the Kenyan Coast: Household Livelihoods and Marine Resource Management. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP; 2009. 39. Fabinyi M: The intensification of fishing and the rise of tourism: Competing coastal livelihoods in the Calamianes Islands, Philippines. Hum Ecol 2010, 38:415-427. 40. Dressler WH, Fabinyi M: Farmer Gone Fish’n? Swidden decline and the rise of grouper fishing on Palawan Island, the Philippines. J Agrarian Change 2011, 11:536-555. 41. Muallil RN, Cleland D, Alin˜o PM: Socioeconomic factors associated with fishing pressure in small-scale fisheries along the West Philippine Sea biogeographic region. Ocean Coast Manage 2013, 82:27-33.
www.sciencedirect.com
46. MacNeil AM, Cinner JE: Hierarchical livelihood outcomes among co-managed fisheries. Global Environ Change 2013, 6:1393-1401. This paper quantitatively examines how people’s perceptions of benefits from co-management are influenced by interactions between wealth and dependence on fishing. 47. Falk A, Szech N: Morals and Markets. Science 2013, 340:707 711. This novel paper demonstrates how the presence of markets can erode people’s willingness to uphold moral behavior, such as damage to others. The authors examined whether people would rather receive money or save the life of a mouse destined to be destroyed, finding that people were much more willing to let the mouse be destroyed in the presence of markets. 48. Leach M, Mearns R, Scoones I: Environmental entitlements: dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource management. World Dev 1999, 27:225-247. 49. Sen A: Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1982, . 50. Mascia MB, Claus CA: A propert rights approach to understanding human displacement from protected ares: the case of marine protected areas. Conserv Biol 2009, 23:16-23. 51. Be´ne´ C, Belal E, Baba MO, Ovie S, Raji A, Malasha I, Njaya F, Andi MN, Russell A, Neiland A: Power struggle dispute and alliance over local resources: analyzing ‘democratic’ decentralization of natural resources through the lenses of Africa Inland fisheries. World Dev 2009, 37:1935-1950.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 7:65–71
ScienceDirect Coral reef livelihoods Joshua Cinner Coral reefs support the livelihoods of millions of people, overwhelmingly in developing countries. As reefs become increasingly overfished, scientists and managers frequently suggest that dependence on reef fisheries needs to be reduced. Yet, attempts to do so often fail spectacularly and even result in perverse outcomes because the nature of coral reef livelihoods is often poorly understood. Here, I discuss two emerging threads of social science research that are helping to better shape our understanding about coral reef livelihoods. First is a growing appreciation of the non-material benefits that coral reef fisheries provide to people. Coral reefs contribute to people’s identity, lifestyle, and social norms, which create a strong attachment to fishing that can keep people in a fishery. Second, a growing body of research is exploring the role of livelihood diversity in collectively organizing to solve overfishing, complying with fisheries and protected area management, fishing intensity, and willingness to exit the fishery. Importantly, current theory and empirical research does not always support the notion that diversification of livelihoods will lead to reduced fishing effort or lower environmental impacts on coral reefs. Addresses ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4810, Australia Corresponding author: Cinner, Joshua ([email protected])
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 7:65–71 This review comes from a themed issue on Environmental change issues Edited by Georgios Tsounis and Bernhard Riegl For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial Received 10 July 2013; Accepted 28 November 2013 Available online 28th December 2013 1877-3435/$ – see front matter, # 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.025
Economic and food security benefits of coral reefs Globally, coral reefs provide tropical coastal societies with critical economic, livelihood, and food security benefits. Global estimates suggest that reefs provide some $375 billion worth of goods and services [1]. Much of this value is derived from support for substantial tourism markets for diving and snorkeling, shoreline protection, and, of course, fisheries [2]. There are some six million people, overwhelmingly in developing countries, who depend on coral reef fisheries www.sciencedirect.com
for their livelihoods [3]. Some estimates suggest that reef fisheries contribute on average about one-quarter of the total fish catch in developing countries [4]. Reef fish are also an important source of animal protein, lipids, and micro-nutrients [5]. In the poorest countries in Africa and south Asia, artisanal fisheries (including but not limited to reef fisheries) make up more than half of the essential protein and mineral intake for over 400 million people [6]. Likewise, fish accounts for some 50–90% of animal protein in the diet of rural communities in some Pacific Island countries and territories [7]. Despite the importance of healthy reefs for economies and food security, many coral reefs around the globe are managed as an open access resource and consequently have been severely overfished [8,9]. Overfishing can have top–down effects that cascade through the ecosystem and potentially flow on to society through reduced yields and quality of fish [10,11]. In response to prevalent overfishing, many leading scientists, conservation organizations, and managers call for fishing pressure to be reduced so that reef ecosystems can rebuild [12]. An often-proposed solution to reducing fishing pressure is to provide fishers with alternative livelihoods. Examples of alternative income activities commonly attempted in coastal communities include mariculture (e.g., seaweed farming), aquaculture (i.e., fish ponds), terrestrial agricultural projects, tourism (particularly SCUBA diving and snorkeling), and working as a park ranger [13]. Yet, alternative income projects in reef fisheries often fail spectacularly and can even result in perverse outcomes [13,14,15]. For example, in the Philippines, the economic opportunities afforded by seaweed farming projects attracted migrants from other areas, ultimately resulting in more coastal fishers [13]. These failures arise, in part, because of poor understandings about fishers’ livelihoods perpetuated by pervasive assumptions that are rarely accurate. These include the assumptions that people only fish as an occupation of last resort and that people would give up fishing if a more economically viable alternative were available. Yet in practice, these assumptions rarely hold true in part because they fail to consider issues such as people’s strong attachment to fishing and the important role of economic diversification in the livelihood strategies of rural households.
Attachments to fishing: lifestyle and identity For those who make their living from the sea, giving up fishing is rarely a desirable prospect because they are often attached to more than simply the material economic value generated by the activity [16]. Many analytical and Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 7:65–71
66 Environmental change issues
conceptual models assume that profit is the main motivation behind fishing and that people will stop fishing when it becomes unprofitable. However, reef fisheries not only provide income and subsistence needs for people, but can also contribute to their cultural or personal identity. In some areas, coral reefs can provide the basis for culturally important events such as feasts and ceremonies [17–19] and fulfill other important societal needs [20]. Reefs and particular reef fishing can also form a key part of people’s personal identity and lifestyle [21]. For example, in Australia, Marshall et al. [22] found that nearly 90% of commercial reef fishers on the Great Barrier Reef felt that fishing was more than just a job, and could not think of a job they would rather do. In Jamaica, employment in the fishery provided aspects of freedom and independence that have important cultural values in the context of a post-slavery society that were not generally available to unskilled workers in the tourism or salaried employment sectors (pers. Observation, Peace Corps Jamaica 1996– 1998). A comparative study of fishers from 10 villages in the Philippines found that the most cited reasons for involvement in the fishery were the potential for a windfall (i.e., a very big catch) and enjoyment, while the least cited reasons were income, reliability, and that they had no other options, respectively [14]. Of course, attachment to fishing varies with the social, cultural, and economic context. In Egypt, 88 out of 89 fishers surveyed could not imagine a job they would rather do than fishing [23]. In contrast, only 21% of fishers from Rodriguez Island, Mauritius did not want to change occupations [24]. In addition, there may also be social, economic, institutional, and cultural barriers that keep people in the fishery. For example, in the Pulicat lagoon in India, fishers were locked into a declining prawn fishery because of the caste system and by a property rights system that limits access to the most productive fishing grounds [25]. Specifically, the local caste system created considerable social prestige associated with one particular type of fishing gear; other fisheries and occupations were stigmatized because they were associated with lower social castes and consequently shunned by members of upper castes. Likewise, the property rights system actually locked people into the fishery because fishers would forfeit their monopolistic access if it was not continually used. Thus, fishers had to continue fishing to maintain their exclusive access (which occasionally resulted in profit windfalls), even though overall profits had reportedly dropped 10-fold. Together, these studies on the social and cultural importance of reef fishing as a livelihood highlight how many reef fisheries are far from an occupation of last resort. Reef fishers often receive a lot more than money from their work: they receive enjoyment, identity, prestige, and a Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 7:65–71
lifestyle. Critically, a key feature of these types of nonmaterial benefits is that they are typically not tradable, which means that income incentives (such as potentially better money working a different job) are not necessarily likely to induce behavioral change. As a result of these non-material benefits, some people may be willing to continue fishing even when it is no longer economically viable. Importantly, endogenous social issues such as preferences, norms, and prestige are dynamic and do change over time; however, this change tends to be slower than the time scales over which fisheries are collapsing.
Livelihood diversification in coastal communities Livelihood diversification refers to the fact that people, particularly in poor rural areas, often employ a range of strategies to meet their financial, social, and cultural needs. In many coastal areas, fisheries form part of diverse household livelihood portfolios [26–28,29]. Unraveling the causes, and consequences, of livelihood diversification is critical to understanding the important role that coral reef fisheries play in coastal societies. Livelihood diversification is often part of a deliberate strategy of risk spreading under uncertainty [30]. This means that just because an alternative occupation becomes available, people may not necessarily reduce fishing. For example, seaweed farming and alternative income projects meant to reduce fishing pressure in Indonesia and Philippines were mainly taken up by women and children rather than the male fishers, resulting in household incomes being supplemented, rather than pressure from the fishery being diverted [13]. Recent research has begun to show the connections between fishing and other occupations in novel ways [31] (Figure 1). In addition, livelihood diversity can impact a range of ways that people interact with natural resources such as coral reefs, but sometimes these relationships can run counter to the assumptions that providing fishers with alternative livelihoods will improve ecological conditions. Specifically, the degree to which individuals and households have diverse livelihood portfolios can impact the following key aspects of sustainability: (1) Participation in (and benefits from) collective action arrangements, such as community-based management. A number of studies have shown that people are more willing to become involved in, and reap the associated benefits from, collectively organizing to reduce overexploitation when their livelihoods are more dependent on the resource they are trying to manage [32–35] [but see [35] for a contrary example]. Thus, alternative livelihood projects may actually help make people less willing to invest time and energy in local fisheries management solutions. Likewise relationships between livelihood diversification and www.sciencedirect.com
Coral reef livelihoods Cinner 67
Figure 1
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Some six million people, such as these fishers from the coast of Kenya, earn a living from coral reef fisheries.
compliance with fisheries management regulations are not always straightforward [32,36,37]. For example, Cinner et al. [32] studied compliance in 42 co-managed fisheries across five countries and found that resource users perceived lower levels of compliance with co-management rules when livelihood portfolios were more diverse, suggesting that people may be more willing to comply with regulations when their livelihoods depend on it. (2) Fishing intensity. Studies from fishing communities around the world show the complicated relationship between diverse livelihood portfolios and people’s environmental impacts [14,38–40,41]. For example, fishers in coastal Kenya who had other onshore employment opportunities fished less prudently; they used more destructive gear and concentrated effort on inshore grounds where coral reefs www.sciencedirect.com
occur [38]. However, in the Philippines, fishers who were involved in alternative employment had lower fishing effort compared to other fishers [41]. Seaweed farming projects introduced as alternative income for fishers in the Philippines found that seaweed farming reduced the number of fishers in some villages, but increased fisher numbers in others, outcomes that were related to socioeconomic conditions in the different villages [14]. (3) Whether people are willing to exit the fishery. Several studies have begun investigating how fishers would respond to scenarios of declining resources, and the whether having a diverse livelihood portfolio influences this decision [42–44]. To date, the results are heterogeneous. For example, in Kenya Cinner et al. [42] found that people with multiple occupations were 3 times more likely to exit a declining fishery, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 7:65–71
68 Environmental change issues
whereas [38] found no sign that fishers with onshore occupations were more willing to give up fishing. Slater et al. [45] found that livelihood diversification weakly supported staying in a declining fishery. However, in the most comprehensive study of its kind, Daw et al. [44] found that having more occupations also increased the likelihood of exiting the fishery across five countries in the western Indian Ocean. Together these studies highlight the complex relationships between occupational diversity and people’s interaction with the environment. These complexities ensure that adopting a one-size-fits-all strategy of providing alternative livelihoods as a blanket solution to reducing fishing pressure is likely to result in poor or even perverse outcomes. This does not mean that all alternative livelihood programs are doomed, though. On the contrary, under the right social and economic conditions, targeted alternative livelihoods have big payoffs for both people and ecosystems. For example, MacNeil and Cinner [46] found that people’s perceived benefits from collaborative management arrangements (frequently referred to as co-management) were related to an interaction between poverty and livelihood diversity (Figure 2). Specifically, the poor who had seven jobs were 50% more likely to view co-management positively compared to those who had just one job. However, the opposite relationship was evident for wealthier households: the wealthier households with seven jobs were less likely to view co-management positively than those with just one job. Thus, investments in increasing livelihood diversity are likely to have high payoffs when appropriately targeted (i.e., to the left of the intersection of the occupational lines in Fig. 2), but can also have perverse outcomes if inappropriately targeted (i.e., to the right of the intersection). This example highlighted how the local context — in this case poverty — can help target alternative livelihood programs to increase their efficacy. Additionally, from an economic perspective, diversification (where it increases incomes and cash flow) will have differential impacts on the environment depending on whether ecological impacts are being limited by a ‘shortage’ of capital or labor. Diversification is likely to lead to increased effort in the fishery in situations where catch is limited by capital (because people will likely divert assets earned outside the fishery into harvesting the fishery), but lead to reduced effort in situations where catch is limited by labor. Thus, targeting of diversification programs needs to incorporate people’s motivations for fishing, the benefits and satisfactions they receive (such as lifestyle, subsistence, and so on), and their skills and capacities (i.e., do they have the ability to engage in the proposed livelihood), and consider the role of labor and capital in the fishery (Figure 3). Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 7:65–71
Figure 2
Fishery
Gleaning
Mariculture
Cash crops
Subsistence farming
Fish trading
Informal sector
Other
Tourism
None
Salaried employment Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Increasingly tools such as network analysis are being used to better understand how household livelihoods are comprised of a range of occupational sectors, such as fishing, farming, and tourism. This network map of the livelihoods of hundreds of households from periurban communities in Kenya illustrates how households engaged in fishing also regularly participate in subsistence farming, the informal sector, and fish trading. In this network map (referred to as a livelihood landscape), the size of a node indicates the relative involvement in that occupational sector (larger node means more people are involved). The links between occupations are indicated by arrows. The direction of the arrows indicates the priority of ranking. Thus, an arrow into an occupation indicates that the occupation was ranked as less important than the occupation the arrow came from. The thickness of the arrows corresponds to the proportion of households being engaged in the higher ranked occupation that are also engaged in the lower ranked occupation. The proportion of the node that is shaded represents the proportion of people who ranked that occupation as a primary occupation. Adapted from [31].
A future research agenda for coral reefdependent livelihoods Coral reef-dependent livelihoods operate at the intersection of complex ecological, environmental, and social processes. In this article, I have highlighted some of the emerging social science research on key aspects of why people fish, and remain in the fishery even as stocks and profits decline below economic viability. However, these issues are often not considered by donors, managers www.sciencedirect.com
Coral reef livelihoods Cinner 69
Figure 3
P(positive livelihood)
1.0
0.8 Seven jobs 0.6
0.4 One job 0.2
0.0
–1.05
0
1.05
2.1
Wealth poor
better off Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
On the basis of a study of 42 coastal communities across Kenya, Tanzania, Madagascar, Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea, this figure shows how the probability of perceiving positive livelihood outcomes from fisheries co-management arrangements (y-axis) changes based on the interaction between household wealth (x-axis; measured as a principal component score of household material possessions such as owning a TV, refrigerator, and radio) and the number of occupations that household is engaged in (indicated by the line color; darker red lines indicate estimates for those with more jobs in the household). Lines represent model-estimated relationships. This figure shows that for the poor, having more diverse livelihoods increases the probability of comanagement initiatives being beneficial for their livelihoods, whereas for the better off, having more diverse livelihoods decreases the probability. Adapted from [46].
and policy-makers when developing policies aimed at reducing fishing pressure, which is why many such programs fail to achieve tangible conservation benefits. Although these livelihood issues are most directly relevant to policy tools such as alternative livelihoods, they also apply to many other forms of fisheries management, including gear-based management (i.e., people may get more satisfaction or prestige from, say, spearfishing versus trap fishing), marine reserves, and property rights. In short, effectively managing coral reef fisheries will depend on developing more comprehensive understanding of people’s livelihoods, driven by analyses of the incentives, constraints, and aspirations that drive people’s behavior. I suggest an interdisciplinary coral reef livelihoods research agenda focused on two emerging themes: (1) Motivations & values in a changing seascape. Specifically, researchers need to examine people’s motivations to fish, identity, and other social benefits associated with www.sciencedirect.com
the fishery and how these are influenced by both climate change and socioeconomic transformations (such as changes in governance, population, and increasing marketization of resources) [31,47]. Understanding whether and how coral reef-dependent livelihoods will be resilient to change will also require determining the degree to which specific social benefits (such as food production, identity, and lifestyle) depend on ecological integrity versus social and institutional conditions. The prevailing supplyside assumption is generally that higher environmental quality will result in more social benefits, but relationships may be non-monotonic with certain livelihood benefits (such as social status and identity) perhaps being relatively inelastic to resource degradation [25]. Furthermore, important research on environmental entitlements have shown that people’s capacity to benefit from nature is also dependent on the social and institutional mechanisms that provide them with access to the resource [25,48,49]. Indeed, research is desperately needed to better understand how coral reef livelihoods are influenced by both the flow of ecological goods and services and the social and institutional mechanisms that provide people with access to coral reef resources. (2) Power and distribution of benefits. Issues surrounding the distribution of access, benefits, and power are central to understanding whether and how fishers may be willing to support or adopt specific management arrangements that involve changes to their livelihoods (such as alternative livelihoods or a marine reserve) [50]. Researchers need to better understand how issues such as livelihood diversification and attachment play a role in how people are socially and politically positioned in coral reef fisheries: who are the marginalized versus the powerful (i.e., part-time or full-time fishers, middlemen or fishers, migrants or residents) and how does this influence people’s willingness or ability to adapt to management measures? To date, most fisheries analyses are done at an aggregate level (i.e., whether there would be overall profits or losses at the scale of the fishery as a result of certain policy) and fail to examine the political ecology of fisheries (i.e., who benefits and loses from different policy arrangements). Certain management initiatives may increase overall profits for a community, but concentrate the wealth toward those that already have it, potentially further marginalizing the already disenfranchised [32,51]. Thus, an important part of this will require conducting research at a disaggregated scale to understand who are the winners and losers from existing and planned livelihood arrangements.
Conclusions Livelihood-related issues, such as people’s attachment to fishing and the diversity of their livelihood portfolios, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 7:65–71
70 Environmental change issues
Hardin G: The tragedy of the commons. Science 1968, 162:1243-1250.
have profound implications for the conservation and sustainable use of coral reefs. Yet, there is surprisingly little research that has focused on understanding reefdependent livelihoods. What we do know is complex and sometimes counterintuitive. The common narrative in marine conservation is that reefs would be more sustainable if less people used them, thus we should seek to reduce people’s dependence on coral reefs through programs like alternative income projects. This simplistic narrative sounds logical and very attractive, but it is rarely accurate because it ignores the key reasons why people fish, and the role of livelihood diversification in collective action and compliance. Indeed, under some circumstances, reducing people’s dependence on reef resources can make them less willing to comply with management initiatives and less willing to engage in collective action to help solve resource management problems. In this review, I have tried to show that the ways in which livelihoods interact with environmental sustainability depend a lot on context. In some instances, the context can be household scale poverty, while in others it can be whether there are shortages of labor or capital. This context dependency means that there is no silver bullet to reducing people’s dependence on reef resources that can be applied to all situations. Attempts to change people’s livelihoods must begin by understanding them.
9.
Acknowledgements
18. Johannes RE: The renaissance of community-based marine resource management in Oceania. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 2002, 33:317-340.
Support was provided by the Australia Research Council. Thanks to C. Barrett, C. Hicks, N. Marshall, and J. Kittinger for helpful comments on an early version of this manuscript.
References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as: of special interest of outstanding interest 1.
Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Grasso SF, Hannon M, Limburg B, Naeem K, O’Neill S, Paruelo VJ et al.: The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387:253-260.
2.
Moberg F, Folke C: Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosystems. Ecol Econ 1999, 29:215-233.
3. Teh LS, Teh LC, Sumaila UR: A global estimate of the number of coral reef fishers. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e65397. This is the first paper to quantify the number of people globally who are engaged in coral reef fisheries.
10. Dulvy NK, Freckleton RP, Polunin NVC: Coral reef cascades and the indirect effects of predator removal by exploitation. Ecol Lett 2004, 7:410-416. 11. Trebilco R, Baum JK, Salomon AK, Dulvy NK: Ecosystem ecology: size-based constraints on the pyramids of life. Trends Ecol Evol 2013, 28:423-431. 12. Worm B, Hilborn R, Baum JK, Branch TA, Collie JS, Costello C, Fogarty MJ, Fulton EA, Hutchings JA, Jennings S et al.: Rebuilding global fisheries. Science 2009, 325:578-584. 13. Sievanen L, Crawford B, Pollnac R, Lowe C: Weeding through assumptions of livelihood approaches in ICM: seaweed farming in the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean Coast Manage 2005, 48:297-313. 14. Hill NAO, Rowcliffe J, Koldewey HJ, Milner-Gulland EJ: The interaction between seaweed farming as an alternative occupation and fisher numbers in the Central Philippines. Conserv Biol 2012, 26:324-334. This paper quantitatively examines the efficacy of seaweed farming as an alternative livelihood option across several villages over time in the Philippines. 15. Pomeroy RS, Parks JE, Balboa CM: Farming the reef: is aquaculture a solution for reducing fishing pressure on coral reefs? Mar Policy 2006, 30:111-130. 16. Bavinck M, Pollnac R, Monnereau I, Failler P: Introduction to the special issue on job satisfaction in fisheries in the global South. Soc Indicat Res 2012, 109:1-10. 17. Cinner JE, Marnane M, McClanahan TR: Conservation and community benefits from traditional coral reef management at Ahus Island, Papua New Guinea. Conserv Biol 2005, 19:1714-1720.
19. Jupiter S, Weeks R, Jenkins A, Egli D, Cakacaka A: Effects of a single intensive harvest event on fish populations inside a customary marine closure. Coral Reefs 2012, 31:321-334. 20. Vaughan MB, Vitousek P: Mahele: sustaining communities through small-scale inshore fishery catch and sharing networks. Pac Sci 2013, 67:329-344. 21. Monnereau I, Pollnac R: Which fishers are satisfied in the Caribbean? A comparative analysis of job satisfaction among Caribbean lobster fishers. Soc Indic Res 2012, 109:95-118. 22. Marshall NA, Tobin RC, Marshall PA, Gooch M, Hobday AJ: Social vulnerability of marine resource users to extreme weather events. Ecosystems 2013, 16:1-13. 23. Marshall NA, Marshall PA, Abdulla A, Rouphael T: The links between resource dependency and attitude of commercial fishers to coral reef conservation in the Red Sea. Ambio 2010, 39:305-313. 24. Peterson AM, Stead SM: Rule breaking and livelihood options in marine protected areas. Environ Conserv 2011, 38:342-352.
4.
Jameson SC, McManus JW, Spalding MD: In State of the reefs: regional and global perspectives. Edited by Jameson SC. 1995.
25. Coulthard S: Adapting to environmental change in artisanal fisheries — insights from a South Indian Lagoon. Global Environ Change 2008, 18:479-489.
5.
Kawarazuka N, Bene C: Linking small-scale fisheries and aquaculture to household nutritional security: an overview. Food Secur 2010, 2:343-357.
26. Bene C, Hersoug B, Allison EH: Not by rent alone: analysing the pro-poor functions of small-scale fisheries in developing countries. Dev Policy Rev 2010, 28:325-358.
6.
Dulvy N, Allison E: A place at the table? Nat Rep Clim Change 2009, 3:68-70.
7.
Bell JD, Kronen M, Vunisea A, Nash WJ, Keeble G, Demmke A, Pontifex S, Andre´foue¨t S: Planning the use of fish for food security in the Pacific. Mar Policy 2009, 33:64-76.
27. Bene C: When fishery rhymes with poverty: a first step beyond the old paradigm on poverty in small-scale fisheries. World Dev 2003, 31:949-975.
8.
Newton K, Cote IM, Pilling GM, Jennings S, Dulvy NK: Current and future sustainability of island coral reef fisheries. Curr Biol 2007, 17:655-658.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 7:65–71
28. Allison EH, Ellis F: The livelihood approach and management of small-scale fisheries. Marine Policy 2001, 25:377-388. 29. Ferrol-Schulte D, Wolff M, Ferse S, Glaser M: Sustainable livelihoods approach in tropical coastal and marine social– ecological systems: a review. Mar Policy 2013, 42:253-258. www.sciencedirect.com
Coral reef livelihoods Cinner 71
30. Barrett CB, Reardon T, Webb P: Nonfarm income diversification and household livelihood strategies in rural Africa: concepts, dynamics and policy implications. Food Policy 2001, 26:315-331.
42. Cinner JE, Daw T, McClanahan TR: Socioeconomic factors that affect artisanal fishers’ readiness to exit a declining fishery. Conservation Biology 2009, 23:124-130.
31. Cinner J, Bodin O: Livelihood diversification in tropical coastal communities: a network-based approach to analyzing ‘livelihood landscapes’. PLoS ONE 2010, 5:e11999.
43. Cinner JE, Folke C, Daw T, Hicks CC: Responding to change: Using scenarios to understand how socioeconomic factors may influence amplifying or dampening exploitation feedbacks among Tanzanian fishers. Global Environmental Change 2011, 21:7-12.
32. Cinner JE, McClanahan TR, MacNeil MA, Graham NAJ, Daw TM, Mukminin A, Feary DA, Rabearisoa AL, Wamukota A, Jiddawi N: Comanagement of coral reef social-ecological systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012, 109:5219-5222.
44. Daw TM, Cinner JE, McClanahan TR, Brown K, Stead SM, Graham NAJ, Maina J: To fish or not to fish: Factors at multiple scales affecting artisanal fishers’ readiness to exit a declining fishery. PLoS ONE 2012, 7:e31460.
33. Agrawal A: Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Dev 2001, 29:1649-1672.
45. Slater MJ, Napigkit FA, Stead SM: Resource perception, livelihood choices and fishery exit in a Coastal Resource Management area. Ocean Coast Manage 2013, 71:326-333.
34. Ostrom E: Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1990, . 35. Zanetell B, Knuth B: Participation rhetoric or community-based management reality? Influences on willingness to participate in a Venezuelan freshwater fishery. World Dev 2004, 32:793-807. 36. Pollnac R, Crawford B, Gorospe M: Discovering factors that influence the success of community-based marine protected areas in the Visayas, Philippines. Ocean Coast Manage 2001, 44:683-710. 37. Hauck M: Rethinking small-scale fisheries compliance. Mar Policy 2008, 32:635-642. 38. Hoorweg J, Wangila B, Degen A: Artisanal Fishers on the Kenyan Coast: Household Livelihoods and Marine Resource Management. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP; 2009. 39. Fabinyi M: The intensification of fishing and the rise of tourism: Competing coastal livelihoods in the Calamianes Islands, Philippines. Hum Ecol 2010, 38:415-427. 40. Dressler WH, Fabinyi M: Farmer Gone Fish’n? Swidden decline and the rise of grouper fishing on Palawan Island, the Philippines. J Agrarian Change 2011, 11:536-555. 41. Muallil RN, Cleland D, Alin˜o PM: Socioeconomic factors associated with fishing pressure in small-scale fisheries along the West Philippine Sea biogeographic region. Ocean Coast Manage 2013, 82:27-33.
www.sciencedirect.com
46. MacNeil AM, Cinner JE: Hierarchical livelihood outcomes among co-managed fisheries. Global Environ Change 2013, 6:1393-1401. This paper quantitatively examines how people’s perceptions of benefits from co-management are influenced by interactions between wealth and dependence on fishing. 47. Falk A, Szech N: Morals and Markets. Science 2013, 340:707 711. This novel paper demonstrates how the presence of markets can erode people’s willingness to uphold moral behavior, such as damage to others. The authors examined whether people would rather receive money or save the life of a mouse destined to be destroyed, finding that people were much more willing to let the mouse be destroyed in the presence of markets. 48. Leach M, Mearns R, Scoones I: Environmental entitlements: dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource management. World Dev 1999, 27:225-247. 49. Sen A: Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1982, . 50. Mascia MB, Claus CA: A propert rights approach to understanding human displacement from protected ares: the case of marine protected areas. Conserv Biol 2009, 23:16-23. 51. Be´ne´ C, Belal E, Baba MO, Ovie S, Raji A, Malasha I, Njaya F, Andi MN, Russell A, Neiland A: Power struggle dispute and alliance over local resources: analyzing ‘democratic’ decentralization of natural resources through the lenses of Africa Inland fisheries. World Dev 2009, 37:1935-1950.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 7:65–71