ArticlePDF Available

The Spaces of Social Capital: Livelihood Geographies and Marine Conservation in the Cayos Cochinos Marine Protected Area, Honduras

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

En este artículo se estudia la relación existente entre el capital social del hogar y la utilización de los recursos marinos en la Área Marina Protegida de Cayos Cochinos. En recientes trabajos sobre la función del capital social para facilitar los esfuerzos comunitarios de conservación se han destacado las distintas maneras en que un nivel sólido de este activo puede dar lugar a resultados conservacionistas positivos. En contraste, en este escrito se sostiene que la formación del capital social y su utilización en el nivel del hogar pueden dar lugar a una geografía de utilización de recursos que discrepa con las restricciones zonales de recursos que suelen tipificar las áreas de cogestión de la conservación. A partir de estudios etnográficos y de encuestas sobre la Reserva Marina de Cayos Cochinos, en este trabajo se muestra cómo los recursos marinos contribuyen a que las familias de pescadores de la comunidad Garifuna consoliden relaciones de confianza y reciprocidad que a su vez les permiten acceder a los recursos marinos y a movilizarlos espacialmente de manera discrepante con la geografía del plan expuesto para la gestión de la Reserva.
Content may be subject to copyright.
29
Revisiting a Honduran Landscape
Journal of Latin American Geography, 8 (1), 2009
The Spaces of Social Capital: Livelihood Geogra-
phies and Marine Conservation in the Cayos Cochi-
nos Marine Protected Area, Honduras
David Lansing
Department of Geography
The Ohio State University
Abstract
This article explores the relation between a household’s social capital and its use of ma-
rine resources in the Cayos Cochinos Marine Reserve. Recent writings on social capital’s
role in facilitating community conservation efforts have highlighted the ways in which
strong levels of this asset can produce positive conservation outcomes. In contrast, this
paper argues that social capital formation and use at the household level can produce a
geography of resource use that runs counter to the zoning-based resource restrictions
that often typify co-managed conservation areas. Drawing on ethnographic and survey
work from the Cayos Cochinos Marine Protected Area, this paper shows how marine
resources help Garifuna fishing families build networks of trust and reciprocity, which in
turn allows them to access marine resources and mobilize them across space in ways that
are at odds with the geography of the reserve’s stated management plan.
Keywords: social capital, conservation co-management, livelihoods, Honduras
Resumen
En este artículo se estudia la relación existente entre el capital social del hogar y la uti-
lización de los recursos marinos en la Área Marina Protegida de Cayos Cochinos. En re-
cientes trabajos sobre la función del capital social para facilitar los esfuerzos comunitarios
de conservación se han destacado las distintas maneras en que un nivel sólido de este ac-
tivo puede dar lugar a resultados conservacionistas positivos. En contraste, en este escrito
se sostiene que la formación del capital social y su utilización en el nivel del hogar pueden
dar lugar a una geografía de utilización de recursos que discrepa con las restricciones zon-
ales de recursos que suelen tipificar las áreas de cogestión de la conservación. A partir de
estudios etnográficos y de encuestas sobre la Reserva Marina de Cayos Cochinos, en este
trabajo se muestra cómo los recursos marinos contribuyen a que las familias de pescado-
res de la comunidad Garifuna consoliden relaciones de confianza y reciprocidad que a su
vez les permiten acceder a los recursos marinos y a movilizarlos espacialmente de manera
discrepante con la geografía del plan expuesto para la gestión de la Reserva.
Palabras clave: capital social, cogestión de la conservación, medios de vida, Honduras
Introduction
In the middle of the day, a young Garifuna sherman named Hugo1 was return-
ing from a morning of shing in Honduras’ Cayos Cochinos Marine Protected Area.
Before he reached his home on the tiny island of Chachahuate, however, he landed his
small dugout canoe on a deserted stretch of beach on Isla Mayor, the largest island in the
area. After getting out of his canoe, he soon came across a nest of sea turtle eggs. Upon
nding this nest Hugo promptly began loading the eggs into his boat, only to be caught
by reserve guards patrolling the area. If the guards and reserve ofcials had followed the
30 Journal of Latin American Geography
letter of the law, Hugo would have lost his boat and spent six months in jail. Instead,
reserve ofcials took the eggs he collected to an incubator, with the hope that some will
still hatch, banned the sherman from this particular island, and sent him home. This
seemingly prudent decision, sensitive to both the needs of sea turtles and Hugo’s wife
and children, was met with incredulity by Hugo. When asked what he thought about the
guard’s actions, he complained that by not allowing him to keep the eggs, the guards hurt
not just him, but his friends and family with whom he was going to share the eggs.
Hugo is not alone in his negative feelings toward conservation rules that, on the
surface, seem sensible. An opinion survey taken by the author in 2004 found that 77% of
surveyed- residents on Chachahuate (which is located within the Cayos Cochinos Marine
Protected Area) (Figure 1) believed that they lived better before the creation of the re-
serve (n = 31; see Table 1). This is a striking nding in light of the fact that 87% of those
surveyed support some sort of formal protection for the area. Interviews with residents
revealed a common sentiment that industrial shing boats have severely depleted the sh
stocks of the Cayos Cochinos, and it is only through legal protection that they can be
kept out. While over half (55%) of Chachahuate’s residents said that there are the same
amount or more sh and lobster today than before the creation of the reserve, 90%
agreed that it was easier to obtain resources before the park’s creation. In other words,
residents support a protected area in theory, and many even recognize the benets of a
protected area for improving sh stocks, however, the deleterious livelihood impact of
specic conservation rules has resulted in negative views toward the reserve.
These contrasting opinions about the Cayos Cochinos Marine Protected Area
(hereafter CCMPA) reect a paradox in conservation management: there is often support
for the general idea of natural resource protection, but not necessarily for the specic
restrictions that accompany conservation policy. This paradox extends beyond the case
of the Cayos Cochinos. The inability to translate a general desire for resource protection
into active support for specic restrictions and regulations has long bedeviled conserva-
tion efforts worldwide (Elliot et al. 2001; Campbell and Vainio-Mattila 2004). In response
to these problems, the last 25 years have seen the rise of a variety of conservation co-
Table 1: Opinion survey of Chachahuate residents (n = 31)
Question
%
Yes
%
No
% No
response
Did you live better before the creation of the
protected area? 77 10 13
Was it easier to obtain the resources you need
to live before the park? 90 3 7
Has the park has created problems in your life? 61 39 0
Has the lobster ban hurt your income? 65 35 0
Are there today, ten years later, more fish and
lobster? 55 45 0
Do you believe that it is worthwhile to continue
protecting the Cayos Cochinos? 87 10 3
The park employees help the community? 13 87 0
The park benefits the community in some way? 19 77 3
31
The Cayos Cochinos Marine Protected Area, Honduras
Figure 1: Location of the Cayos Cochinos and study sites of Nueva Armenia and
Chachahuate. Other villages with a presence in the reserve include Sambo Creek and
Río Esteban.
management plans, often accompanied by spatially-based policies, such as buffer zones,
in order to integrate the goals ecosystem management and the needs of local resource
users (Stevens 1997; Western and Wright 1994). These efforts have had mixed success at
best, often alienating a number of groups whose livelihoods depend on accessing these
territories (Few 2001; Neumann 1997).
Perhaps recognizing the politically untenable nature of this type of policy, others
in the conservation community have stressed the importance in harnessing local com-
munity support for co-managed areas. It is within this context that social capital has
increasingly been highlighted as a way to facilitate the production of successfully man-
aged conservation spaces, in which local actors not only abide by conservation rules, but
actively participate in their creation and enforcement (Ostrom 1990; Pretty and Smith
2004; Jentoft et al. 2007). The concept of social capital has, by now, become well known.
While its denition can be a point of debate and confusion (Harriss and de Renzio 1997),
32 Journal of Latin American Geography
it is commonly understood as a term that tries to capture the often nebulous social rela-
tions that translate into collective and individual benets. Relations of trust, networks of
reciprocity and exchange, collectively understood norms, and the recognition of com-
mon rules are all aspects of social capital that have been highlighted by researchers that
are important to long-term conservation success (cf. McCay and Jentoft 1996; Pretty
and Ward 2001; Uphoff and Wijayaratna 1999). A number of scholars have argued that
strong levels of social capital frequently translates into the presence of a robust civil soci-
ety, through which meaningful connections between the state or an environmental NGO
can be made in order to establish a co-management framework (Krishna and Uphoff
1999; Rudd et al. 2003; Adger 2003).
These writings often emphasize the workings of social capital at the institutional
or community scale, with comparatively less attention paid to how this asset is formed
and mobilized at the household level. In light of the continued conicts between local
resource users and conservation planners, and the increasing attention paid to the role of
social capital in community-based conservation, I aim to re-focus the concept of social
capital as it is presently employed in the conservation literature, from the community
scale to that of the household. Following writings concerning with the “network” ap-
proach to social capital (cf. Woolcock and Narayan 2000), which focuses on the social
networks that build upon social relations within and between groups, I conceptualize
household social capital as the utilization of social networks of trust, reciprocity, and
exchange by individuals within and between households in order to mobilize resources
for the purposes of building and sustaining a household’s livelihood. This view of social
capital is in contrast to what Woolcock and Narayan (2000) have described as the com-
munitarian or institutional view of social capital (what I refer to here as community
social capital), where relations of trust and reciprocity between people translate into
collective benets such as strong civil society institutions, or responsive modes of local
governance. While many of the building blocks of each type of social capital may be
similar (e.g. relations of trust, reciprocity, common norms), I suggest the key distinction
between the two is that the function and outcomes of this asset are different depending
on the scale in which they employed, where social capital formed and mobilized at the
scale of the household can potentially produce forms of resource use that are not neces-
sarily congruent with practices of resource management that are formulated at the scale
of institutions. I make this conceptual distinction not to argue that one form is somehow
superior to the other, but rather, to draw attention to the scalar differences in how this
asset is formed and used. Doing so, I hope to facilitate a dialogue between conservation
policy makers and cultural and political ecologists, who have long demonstrated the im-
portance of household-level informal networks toward shaping patterns of resource use,
and take a small step toward recognizing that robust local institutions are necessary, but
not sufcient, for the long-term viability of a conservation area. Drawing on empirical
work from the Cayos Cochinos, I hope to demonstrate that a household’s social capital
produces spatial patterns of resource use that are often at odds with the zoning plans and
buffer zones that are often proposed as a more geographic way of making conservation
co-management “work”.
In the following section, I offer a brief review of the ways in which social capital has
been analytically conceptualized as a community based asset in the conservation literature.
I then draw on work from cultural ecology, the “sustainable livelihoods” literature, and mi-
gration studies to reconceptualize social capital as a household-level asset. In the second
section, I describe the study site and my research methods for understanding household-
based social capital. In section three I present ethnographic and household survey evidence
which demonstrates the ways in which the livelihood spaces are shaped by a household’s
33
The Cayos Cochinos Marine Protected Area, Honduras
social capital. In the nal section I discuss ways in which these spaces are incongruent with
the current spatially-based restrictions of the co-management plan for the Cayos Cochinos.
Social Capital, Conservation Co-management, and the Spaces of Rural
Livelihoods
The last twenty-ve years has seen both the proliferation of conservation areas
(Zimmerer et al. 2004), as well as explicit attempts to incorporate the needs of local
resource users within these territories (Campbell and Vainio-Mattila 2004; Zimmerer
2000). While, in theory, co-management and integrated conservation and development
projects (ICDPs) are supposed to be win-win situations, where local communities enjoy
the benets of long-term, sustainably managed natural resources, the political process
of creating these territories has been criticized on a variety of fronts, including: poorly
dened notions of what constitutes participation (Few 2001; Wells and Brandon 1993);
economic and participatory components that fail to substantially improve economic con-
ditions or local participation (Brenner and Job 2006; Campbell and Vainio-Mattila 2004;
Mehta and Kellert 1998); an overly broad understanding of what constitutes a commu-
nity (Agrawal and Gibson 1999); and the dominance of views of ecologists over that of
local stakeholders (Campbell 2002). The territorial outcomes of these projects, and their
impacts on local communities, have also been extensively critiqued (e.g. Peluso 1993;
Neumann 1998; Turner 1999; Robbins et al. 2006). Efforts at co-managed conservation
spaces have resulted in conservation efforts that attempt to accommodate community
needs, but instead often fail to fully engage with the complex social and political dynam-
ics of these communities in a way that assures broad-based support (e.g. St. Martin 2001;
Daniels and Bassett 2002).
An increasing number of writers within the conservation literature have begun to
point to social capital as a way to overcome many of these difculties. Drawing on the
“classic” characteristics of social capital, as developed by Coleman (1988) and Putnam et
al. (1993), a number of writers have argued that social bonds of norms, trust, and reci-
procity minimizes self-interested behavior that results in over-use of natural resources
(e.g. Ostrom 1990; Pretty and Ward 2001). The existence of high levels of connectedness
between individuals and groups, along with high levels of trust and reciprocity lays the
groundwork through which common rules, norms and sanctions within a community
can emerge (McCay and Jentoft 1998). This view of social capital’s role in commons
management has resulted in an inux of empirical work dedicated to examining the
link between a community’s social capital and conservation successes (e.g. Anderson et
al. 2002; Pretty and Smith 2004). Such studies have covered a diversity of conservation
efforts such as: wildlife protection (Wagner et al. 2007), rangelands management (Arnold
and Fernández-Giménez 2007), sustainable forestry (Mukherjee 2002), sheries manage-
ment (Rudd et al. 2003), lake protection (Kramer 2007), sustainable agriculture (Uphoff
and Wijayaratna 1999), and wetland protection (La Peyre et al. 2001).
The importance of social capital has also appeared frequently in writings on sh-
eries and marine protected areas (e.g. Adger 2003; Sekhar 2007; Rudd et al. 2003). Recent
scholarship on the establishment of marine protected areas has recognized the impor-
tance of embedding rules and regulations within the community (Jentoft et al. 2007;
McCay and Jentoft 1998). A common theme through these writings is that without the
support of community norms and rules, there is little likelihood of the long term gover-
nance success of a marine protected area. Adger (2003), for example, argues that social
capital provides the adaptive capacity necessary for the sustainable harvest of marine
resources, with social capital playing multiple roles, depending on the relative strength
of the state and local institutions. In a context with strong institutions and strong state
34 Journal of Latin American Geography
involvement, the interconnectedness between groups that is often a hallmark of social
capital can serve as the “glue” that allows these groups to work effectively together. In a
context where either the state or formal institutions are weak, informal social networks
can serve as important avenues for decision making in sheries management (see also
Bennett et al. 2000; Cooke et al. 2000).
Collectively these works suggest that a community’s social capital can lead to
conservation success, however, these studies tend posit social capital as one of many
causal variables, resulting in what Agrawal (2001) laments as “thin” case studies of natu-
ral resource management, with little attention paid to the complex social relations that
produce community norms and networks of reciprocity that have been identied as so
important. In addition, there is rarely engagement with the ways in which social capital
might lead to conservation failure. In light of the extensive critiques centering on the
difculties that co-managed conservation spaces have encountered over the years, it is
instructive to think through the ways in which social capital might undermine, rather
than facilitate, the management of conservation areas. For this, I argue that it is use-
ful to think about how social capital is formed and used at the scale of the household.
Household Social Capital
The idea that social capital can be an individual asset is not new. The original
formulation of the idea of social capital by Bourdieu (1985) conceives of the relations
that people build with each other as something that is intentionally done in order for
that individual to benet later. Similarly, Coleman (1988) argued for the importance of
social capital in terms of the benets they bring to individuals. Beginning with Robert
Putnam’s work on civic traditions in Italy, however, the idea of social capital has a com-
munity asset has taken root where, as Alejandro Portes (2000) puts it: “A subtle transition
took place…where social capital became an attribute of the community itself. In its new
garb, its benets accrued not so much to individuals as to the collectivity as a whole…”
(p. 3). This is not to say that the individual cultivation of and benets from social capital
is no longer recognized by writers on the subject. Instead, social capital has come to
be commonly described as a community-held asset, with effects felt at the level of the
community.
What are the implications for conservation spaces when the focus of one’s analy-
sis is “scaled down” and social capital is viewed as an asset that is held and cultivated by
households? There are writings across a number of disciplines that point to a connection
between a household’s social capital, the geography of its use of natural resources and
its livelihood activities. While rarely addressing social capital explicitly, a substantial body
of work by cultural ecologists points to the signicance of household level bonds of
trust and labor exchanges for agrarian households (e.g. Netting 1993; Wilk 1997). These
labor exchanges often help produce the emerging spatial patterns of land use in a com-
munity. Richard Wilk (1997), for example, shows how the coupling of community work
groups with community norms of usufruct land tenure produces the complex patchwork
of land use among Kekchi Mayan communities in southern Belize. Other writers have
shown how a household’s social support networks are actively cultivated through activi-
ties such as gift giving (Berry 1993; Godoy et al. 2007). Social networks have been shown
to facilitate other activities, such as rain forest extraction, as well as expand the geograph-
ic scope in which these products can be traded (Coomes and Barham 1997; McSweeney
2004a). McSweeney’s work in the Honduran Mosquitia shows how a household’s social
networks facilitates access to certain rain forest resources (McSweeney 2004b), and how
a household’s embeddedness in wider social relations allows for these products to be
traded more widely across space (McSweeney 2004a).
35
The Cayos Cochinos Marine Protected Area, Honduras
A number of writers, utilizing the “sustainable livelihoods” framework, have more
explicitly identied social capital as an important asset for households, where social capi-
tal is one of a suite of capitals (nancial, physical, natural etc.) that households possess
and use in building a livelihood (e.g. Ellis 2000; Bebbington 1999; Bury 2004; Turner
2007). Bebbington (1999), for example, highlights the ways in which a household’s social
capital can help it access resources through its linkages with both institutions and other
individuals (see also Bebbington and Perreault 1999). Finally, a number of studies on
migration offer probably the most explicit account of how a household’s social capital
and the spatiality of household livelihoods intersect. Studies have demonstrated the im-
portance of an individual’s social networks in facilitating migration (Portes and Sensen-
brenner 1993; Portes 1997; Silvey and Elmhirst 2003), and how migration transforms
households and communities through remittances (Bilsborrow and Okoth-Ogendo
1992; Massey 1990; Massey and Basem 1992), often resulting in new patterns of land use
and resource extraction in home communities (Gould 1994). In addition, arriving mi-
grants can disrupt community-held social capital, transforming the use and management
of natural resources (Curran 2002: Lutz and Scherbov 2000). Curran (2002), for example,
argues how individually held social capital can help facilitate migration to coastal areas,
giving these new arrivals access to marine resources while potentially disrupting long-
established community norms of commonly held resources.
Collectively, these diverse works point to linkages between a household’s social
capital, its access to resource use, and livelihoods that are sectorally and spatially diverse,
where one’s social capital helps facilitate the geographic reach of one’s access to resourc-
es, and allow for a diversity of income-earning activities, with some occurring in other
communities. This often means that a household’s embeddedness in wider social net-
works is a critical means by which one is able create a geographically diverse livelihood,
helping to mitigate the damage that future unforeseen events may have. If a household
loses its agricultural crops due to ooding, for example, it can still survive to plant again
if that same household is receiving remittances from another community. In this way,
social capital can be understood as, what Frank Ellis (2000) has termed called, a “spatially
diverse means of support” for households.
The idea of a spatially diverse livelihood mirrors one of the key assumption in the
livelihoods literature, which is that household are actively utilizing their various assets to
engage in diverse activities in ways that allow for them to be exible enough to withstand
future shocks or disruptions (cf. Bebbington 1999; Ellis 2000; Scoones 1998). While
this literature is mostly concerned with sectoral diversication, here one can see how a
geographic diversity can be useful as well. Here I suggest that an individual’s social net-
works of reciprocity and exchange, and the relations of trust and common norms that
hold them together, constitute a form of social capital that is a critical asset in helping
marginalized households secure a livelihood that is composed of diverse income earning
activities. This diversity is achieved, in part, through mobilizing resources across space,
and taking advantages of differences between places in earning a living, resulting in a
particular “livelihood geography” for households.
Understanding how a household’s social capital can facilitate access to resources
while producing geographically diverse livelihoods can further inform critiques of spa-
tially-based conservation plans by providing a window on the dynamic mechanisms by
which the livelihoods of local resource users unfold in a way that conict with the static
conservation geographies of buffer zones and no-take areas. There have already been a
number of scholars who have shown how the day-to-day management of resources by
local users results in a geography of resource use that is complex, dynamic and exible
(e.g. Berkes 1999; Rocheleau and Ross 1995; Walker and Peters 2001), which is often
36 Journal of Latin American Geography
obscured by the abstract spaces of conservation (e.g. Rocheleau 1997; Daniels and Bas-
sett 2002). Here, I wish to show how these livelihood spaces are both produced by, and
enable, a household’s social capital. I argue that by conceptualizing social capital as a
household asset, and showing the livelihood spaces it produces, one can turn much of
the recent writings on conservation and social capital on its head, where relations of trust
and reciprocity are not a means by which local communities come to gain acceptance of
a zoning plan, but instead, show how the often hidden geographies of resource use can
produce conict with a conservation area. This can allow for a ne-grained understand-
ing of why there is so-often a disconnect between proposed conservation restrictions
and the support of local resource users. Doing so can help provide a means to engage
scholars and policy makers who stress the importance of social capital in conservation
co-management, but often overlook the sources of some of the negative consequences
of these policies.
In order to understand the link between a household’s social capital and its liveli-
hood geography I will draw on empirical work in the Cayos Cochinos in order to answer
the following questions. First, in what ways does a household’s social capital help facilitate
a geographically diverse livelihood? Second, what ways does a household’s social capital
allow for access to marine resources? Third, what is the relation between a household’s
use of marine resources, and the maintenance of its social capital?
Study Site and Methods
The Cayos Cochinos Marine Protected Area (CCMPA) is located along the North
coast of Honduras and includes two small islands and thirteen coral cays. The Cayos
Cochinos are used as shing grounds by Garifuna communities located along the main-
land. Two communities (Nueva Armenia and Río Esteban) have their own permanent
settlements within the reserve, while another community (Sambo Creek) has a temporary
shing camp on one of the small cays. There is a primary school located in Río Este-
ban’s settlement on Cayo Mayor, which is attended by children from Chachahuate as
well. Chachahuate, the focus of this paper, is a small cay approximately 150 meters long
and 50 meters across, lacking in potable drinking water and electricity. It was originally
a temporary shing camp for residents of Nueva Armenia, but has over time, morphed
into a permanently occupied cay with approximately 100 full-time residents, a number
of small stores, and 35 permanent structures of mostly thatch roof houses (eld survey
2004),2 making it the largest Garifuna settlement in the Cayos Cochinos. Nueva Armenia
has a population of 1,500 inhabitants (INE 2001) and sits on a low-lying, swampy area
near the mouth of the Río Papaloteca. Approximately ten kilometers of ocean separate
Nueva Armenia from Chachahuate.
The Garifuna are an ethnic group located primarily along the Caribbean coasts
of Honduras and Belize with a few villages on the Caribbean coasts of Guatemala and
Nicaragua. There are also signicant numbers of Garifuna located in the United States
(Gonzalez 1988; Palacio 2002). The wide dispersal of Garifuna populations is indicative
of this group’s long history of adaptation and migration. Since being forcibly displaced
from St. Vincent to the island of Roataan in the 18th century, both shing and migration
have been a central feature of Garifuna life. After arriving on the Honduran mainland,
Garifuna men were almost immediately employed as soldiers in the Spanish army, an oc-
cupation that allowed time for shing (Gonzalez 1997). The year 1832 marked the arrival
of the rst large-scale migration of Garifuna to Belize, after the defeat of the conserva-
tive Spanish forces that many Garifuna had supported (Gonzalez 1988). Since this time,
there has been continuing contact and movement between Garifuna populations in
37
The Cayos Cochinos Marine Protected Area, Honduras
Figure 2: Schematic map of the zoning plan implemented by the Honduran Coral Reef
Fund. [Map based on the zoning plan presented in the Cayos Cochinos management
plan (HCRF 2004)].
Honduras, Belize, and Guatemala, driven by the ongoing search for wage-earning and
trading opportunities (Palacio 2002), a pattern that has continued today with Garifuna
migration extending to the United States (Gonzales 1988; Palacio 2002).
The CCMPA has its beginnings in 1993, when the Cayos Cochinos Biological
Reserve was established by a presidential decree, which initially placed a moratorium on
the extraction of all marine life in an area of ve miles in every direction from the central
cay (Brondo and Woods 2007). Soon thereafter, navy patrols began enforcing these rules.
After an outcry by local and national Garifuna organizations, the government modied
the ban to allow for “subsistence shing” so long it does not include nets or diving
for lobster. In addition, Garifuna were prohibited from using any trees in the area for
building or repairing their homes. In 2004, the size and shape of the CCMPA changed,
when it was expanded to its present size of 485.3 km2 (HCRF 2004; see Figure 1). This
expansion was accompanied by a new management plan, which included spatially-based
zoning restrictions (Figure 2). These restrictions include a middle zone that encompasses
the islands and is a permanent “no-take” area, while the outer zones are designated as
38 Journal of Latin American Geography
rotating “no-take” areas where shing is either banned or temporarily allowed, depend-
ing on the time of year. This plan also includes an area where lobster diving is allowed
for part of each month. This management plan was formulated by members of the
Honduran Coral Reef Fund (hereafter HCRF) with extensive technical input from the
World Wildlife Fund. According to the management plan, the no-take area is designed
to provide a spawning ground for juvenile sh while the seasonally rotating no-shing
zones are designed to provide further protection for critical coral habitat in the area.
Other restrictions from the previous management plan also apply: no lobster diving with
tanks, no shing with nets, no hunting of sea turtles or harvesting their eggs. Human
concerns are generally reected through two mechanisms. First, the rotating exceptions
to the shing bans in the outer-zones are meant to accommodate “subsistence shing.”
Second, three areas within the no-take zone are designated as places that local shermen
can use in times of bad weather (as identied by the HCRF). This second accommoda-
tion was added after the zoning plan was presented by the HCRF to representatives of
local communities, who pointed out the difculty that many shermen would have mak-
ing it to the approved outer shing areas in times of choppy seas.
During my interviews with the management of the HCRF, the managers indicated
a great deal of pride in the pains that they have made in incorporating local communi-
ties into the design and implementation of the management plan. They stressed that
the management plan was formulated in consultation with “community leaders”, along
with extensive outreach efforts and development projects that have been undertaken
with local communities. Such projects have included building a latrine on the island of
Chachahuate (which has since fallen into disuse), a pig-raising project in Nueva Armenia,
environmental education activities among all communities affected by the reserve, and
scholarships for local students.
As indicated in the introduction, the management plan is very unpopular among
residents of Chachahuate and Nueva Armenia. The process for formulating the manage-
ment plan was commonly derided by local residents. One common complaint was that
the “community representatives” were not locally elected leaders, but rather hand-picked
by HCRF, and were people that did not represent the community’s interests. Community
meetings about the new management plan were held, but only after the plan was formu-
lated. In addition to problems associated with creating this plan, there are a number of
points of concern about the plan itself. One principal concern is that the geography of
shing in the reserve is often determined by the weather, especially among the majority
of shermen who use small dugout canoes, and a plan that imposes such large territorial
restrictions over the best shing grounds, is unrealistic for most shermen. Other restric-
tions, such as the bans on conch and turtle, long-time staples in the Garifuna diet, were
likewise seen as too heavy-handed.
An examination of the management plan shows that ecosystem priorities clearly
took precedence in forming the geography of the zoning plan (cf. HCRF 2004). Each
restrictive zone is described in terms of their ecosystem function. The core no-take area,
for example, has extensive information on its importance as a habitat for juvenile sh,
while the outer zones are all characterized in terms of the coral habitat that they encom-
pass. The characteristics of shermen in the reserve are discussed, but in a separate sec-
tion, and only in terms of the commercially protable sh that they harvest, and the ways
in which their activities might be depleting the sh stocks in the Cayos Cochinos. While
reserve ofcials recognize that there is a complex and dynamic relationship between
shing families on the cays and their villages on the mainland, this is not reected in the
management plan. There is no mention of how, for example, the resource restrictions of
the CCMR might affect the livelihoods of mainland families.
39
The Cayos Cochinos Marine Protected Area, Honduras
In order to understand the ways in which household social capital and resource use
intersect, I draw on ethnographic and survey work carried out in July and August 2004. I
conducted a household survey on Chachahuate (n = 28) among all households living on
Chachahuate during this time. I interviewed the household head and asked about income
sources, household assets, family structure, and social ties. In addition, I conducted in-
depth semi-structured interviews among residents of both Chachahuate (n = 15), Nueva
Armenia (n=15), and managers at the HCRF (n = 3). Finally, I accompanied a number of
shermen on lobstering and shing trips. In the following sections, I present results that
are a mix of statistical evidence from the household survey as well as ethnographic sup-
porting detail. This mix of qualitative and quantitative evidence is intended to be comple-
mentary, and overcome one of the key barriers in research on social capital, which is that
its central qualities - such as networks of reciprocity and norms of trust - are difcult to
assess for the researcher. Past research on social capital tends to be measurement by proxy,
with a resulting body of work that empirically evaluates social capital in terms of institu-
tions which serve largely as indirect indicators of this asset (Bebbington 1999). My use of
survey data is intended to provide a broad picture of the ways in which households or-
ganize their income earning activities, while supporting ethnographic detail digs into the
specic mechanism by which a household’s social capital helps facilitate these activities.
Social capital’s livelihood spaces
Home to an island store, the island’s two-way radio, and the general gathering
place for most residents on the island, it didn’t take me long to see that Myrna’s house
is the social hub of Chachahuate. After a few more days on the island, it was easy to see
that Myrna was heavily invested in trading goods between Chachahuate and the main-
land. Despite the lack of electricity, her store is always well stocked with ice cold sodas
and beers. In addition, she frequently purchases sh and lobster on the island and ships
them to the mainland for resale as often as two or three times a week. She also took care
of people’s houses while they were away by renting them out to visiting tourists, and sells
them meals using the sh that her husband catches. The diversity of activities that Myrna
engages in is not unusual for this island. Table 2 shows the different income activities
that households engage in, along with households’ primary income source. While the
most common activities are shing (86%) and catching lobster (68%), there are a number
of other activities that are indirectly related to marine extraction in which a substantial
number of households participate. Selling prepared food on the island, for example, is
an activity that 43% of households do. Myrna is also an example of a household that is
able to engage in a number of activities without owning a boat. Myrna only owns a small,
run-down dugout canoe, which she rarely uses. Instead, Myrna has been able to sustain a
livelihood on this island that is based primarily on shipping goods across space by relying
on her extensive network of friends on the island who carry these items for her.
As would be expected for life on a tiny cay lacking in fresh water, rewood, and
electricity, boats play a key role in the maintenance of livelihoods and the mobilization of
resources on Chachahuate. Boats are a necessity for not only access to the island but also
for shipping necessary goods and supplies between the island and the mainland. There
are two main types of boats on Chachahuate. Cayucos (Figure 3) are small, two-person
dugout canoes that are powered by either a small sail or paddle. A trip from Chachahuate
to Nueva Armenia in a cayuco takes from four to six hours and their small size makes
it difcult to carry more than small quantities of sh and supplies. Canoas (Figure 4) are
larger dugout canoes that can hold up to ten people or more and are powered by a
40 Journal of Latin American Geography
Table 2: Household demographic and activity information (n = 28)
small diesel motor. A canoa trip between Chachahuate and the mainland takes about one
hour. In general, when one wants to carry lobster traps and ferry goods and supplies
between the mainland and the island, canoas are usually used (eld observation).
While boats are indispensable for life on this island as a whole, examples like
Myrna’s show that, for individual households, supporting an island-based livelihood that
involves moving resources across space is not necessarily dependent upon the type of
boat that one owns. Table 3 lists differences in household livelihood activities by boat
type. Despite the differences between these two boats, there are relatively few differences
in livelihood activities between cayuco and canoa owning households. The only signi-
cant difference is with lobster trapping, where canoa owning households are signicantly
more engaged. Other activities that would seem to require a larger boat, such as sh
mongering (buying sh on the island, and reselling on the mainland) show no signicant
differences in participation between cayuco or canoa owning households.
Here we can see the role that a household’s networks of social support play in
supporting a livelihood that encompasses moving resources across space. Fish monger-
ing is an activity in which moving marine resources across space is absolutely essential,
yet ownership of the physical asset that facilitates this the most (a canoa) does not play
a signicant role in the ability of someone to carry out this activity. This trend is fur-
ther conrmed by a logistic regression on the probability that a household engages in
sh mongering (Table 4). The household’s type of boat ownership was not a signicant
predictor for sh mongering and, surprisingly, the number of times a month a house-
hold member visits the mainland was a negative predictor for this activity (p = .015). In
other words, the more often a household on Chachahuate has physical contact with the
mainland, the less likely it is to engage in an activity that, by denition, requires contact
with the mainland.
Mean
Age household head 35
# in household age 15-65 2.1
# in household age <15 1.8
times/months visits mainland 2.4
% that own property on mainland 64
Presence of income generating
activityb Mean %
Primary income
source Mean %
Fishes 86 Fishes 36
Traps lobster 68 Traps lobster 18
Dives for lobster 50 Fish Mongering 18
Fish mongering 39
Tourism
employment 14
Sells food supplies 18 Very Diversified 14
Sells prepared food 43
Tourism employment 11
Rents out house 14
41
The Cayos Cochinos Marine Protected Area, Honduras
Figure 3: Cayuco with sail (photo by author).
This counterintuitive nding becomes clearer when one situates this activity with
respect to the role a household’s social capital plays in facilitating this livelihood strategy.
A closer look at Myrna’s example shows how she is able to use both her ties on the
mainland and on the island in order to sustain a livelihood that extends across space
via sh-mongering, despite a relative lack of physical assets. 3 Myrna’s sister, Rosa, who
lives on the mainland, handles the resale of sh on the mainland, and buys and sends
supplies back to Myrna for her store. Fish and goods are shipped several times a week
(eldnotes, 2004). All of this is done without using any of their own small cayucos, but
rather, through shipping sh on other people’s boats and in other people’s coolers. De-
spite maintaining livelihoods that are, in large part, depending on shipping goods across
space, neither of these women own the necessary boats to do so.
Here Myrna is able to draw on a network of boat-owners, who carry her sh and
supplies between the two places. Myrna is also able to use these boats without any form
of direct compensation. Myrna explained to me that she only uses the same three or four
people to ship her sh and supplies. When I asked her why this is so, she responded: “My
sh go with people I trust, so I know they will arrive.” While the relationship between
Myrna and her canoa-owning friends is one certainly based on trust, the other key feature
42 Journal of Latin American Geography
of social capital, reciprocity, is not as obvious. Talking with the boat owners that move
Myrna’s supplies, it was clear that they are not paid for their services. “I’m going that way
anyway”, was a common response to the question of why the carry her sh and supplies.
After spending some time on the island, however, it became apparent that other, more
hidden forms of reciprocity were at play.
As mentioned before, Myrna’s house served as something of a social hub on the
island. It was the only place to get a cold beer, and was the center of the all-important
two-way radio. In addition, Myrna acted as something of a rental agent for people who
had houses on the island, but weren’t currently living in them. She would maintain these
houses and rent them out to tourists. While at rst glance, it might seem that Myrna
was able to act as a store owner and sh monger thanks to the goodwill of a few canoa
owners.
Figure 4: Canoa getting ready for a trip to the Cayos Cochinos (photo by author).
A closer look reveals that Myrna occupies an important place on the island: the
center of communication with the mainland, the source of a cold drink, and someone
who will look after your house if you leave for a few months. In many ways, Myrna’s ac-
tivities allow for a slightly easier life on the island, and by doing so, one could argue that
it is the boat owners that are in debt to Myrna for making their time on the island a little
more comfortable. One sherman expressed just such a sentiment to me (with a cold
43
The Cayos Cochinos Marine Protected Area, Honduras
beer in his hand): “Why do I carry Myrna’s things? Because if I didn’t we wouldn’t have
anything cold to drink.” There are no doubt small favors and gifts that occur between
Myrna and the boat owners, actions that are all but impossible for an outside researcher
to see or track. What can be seen, however, is that Myrna’s livelihood is clearly facilitated
by her social ties, which in turn, helps her to form a livelihood that allows her to occupy
an economic role on the island that further strengthens these same connections.
Social capital and access
Boat Borrowing
The example of Myrna and Rosa demonstrates how a livelihood based on mobi-
lizing resources across space is facilitated through strong social networks. The example
of young men on the island who engage in lobster trapping are an example of social
capital mobilizing a household’s labor supply across space. Every lobster season attracts
single men to Chachahuate who do not own their own boats, but are still able to trap and
dive for lobster by entering into a relationship with a patrón. A typical patrón relationship
is one in which the patrón will provide a canoa and lobster traps to two men, who are
then obligated to sell all of their lobster back to the patrón at a set, below market, price.
This is not an uncommon arrangement: 40% of all households have patrón borrower
living with them. Of all canoa using individuals, 55% are in a patrón relationship.
While this is a more formalized economic relationship that allows men, who have
few physical assets of their own to earn money for their households on the mainland,
the familiar traits of trust and reciprocity are important for facilitating this activity. Inter-
views with patróns on the island reveal the importance of trust between the patrón and
his client. The client is entrusted with the care of all of the equipment he is loaned, and
to be honest about how much lobster his traps generate. Patróns have indicated that the
primary consideration in who they will hire is how well they know that person, whether
it is through a previous relationship or a family connection. In addition, as seasonal
residents on the island, clients must nd a place to live on the island. This is no simple
task. The island is small, and with most houses already occupied, clients generally need to
enter into an arrangement with an already-established household on the island. It is not
surprising then that the majority of lobster clients on Chachahuate stay with distantly-
related family members (e.g. cousins, aunts) who are permanent residents on the island.
This is a reciprocal relationship for both parties. The client gets a place to stay, while the
family that hosts the lobster sherman now has access to the benets of a canoa.
One of these benets is increased contact with the mainland. While households
engaged in sh mongering are less likely to visit the mainland, the opposite is true with
households that have a boat borrower living with them. Table 5 shows that boat-bor-
rowing households visit the mainland more often than non-boat borrowing households.
Households with boat-borrowers living with them visit the mainland, on average, roughly
three times more per month more than households without boat-borrowers living with
them (3.15/month for boat borrowers vs. 1.14/month for non-borrowers). In addition,
a higher percentage of boat-borrowing households regularly send sh to Nueva Armenia
than households without boat borrowers (88% for boat borrowers vs. 55% for non-
boat borrowers). These differences indicate that the presence of a boat-borrower in the
household helps to facilitate a livelihood option that allows for mobilizing sh resources
across space.
44 Journal of Latin American Geography
Table 3: Activity differences between households that own cayucos or canoas.
Cayuco (n =
16)a
Canoa (n =
9)
p-
valueb
Number in household 4.2 3.86 .856
Average age of boat (years) 5 11.5 .124
Presence of income activity (percentage)c
traps lobster 56 100 .027*
dives for lobster 50 56 .789
fishes 100 89 .361
buys/sells fish 38 44 1
sells food supplies 19 11 1
sells prepared food 44 11 .182
tourism employment 19 0 .280
rents house 19 11 1
Primary source of income (percentage group)
fishing 63 34 .226
traps lobster 6 44 .041*
buys/sells fish 6 11 1
tourism employment 19 0 .281
very diversified 6 11 .527
Percentage that owns property on Nueva
Armenia 69 44 .671
Percentage that regularly sends fish to Nueva
Armenia 63 33 .226
Average number of times per month visits
Nueva Armenia 1.99 2.75 .561
Percentage with other related households on
Chachahuate 50 44 .789
a Some canoa households also own a cayuco. Cayuco households only own cayucos.
Statistics exclude three households that lack any boats.
b Fisher’s test for percentage variables; Mann-Whitney test for numeric variables
c Defined as: member of household has engaged in this activity in previous month
p-value significance * <.05
45
The Cayos Cochinos Marine Protected Area, Honduras
p-value significance
*<.05
Table 4: Logistic regression on household’s probability in engaging in fish-mongering
(buying and reselling fish).
a Fisher’s test for percentage variables; Mann-Whitney test for numeric variable.
p-value significance ** < .01
Table 5: Differences in mainland ties between household by presence/
absenceof boat-borrower living with household.
Dependent variable
Household engages in fish
mongering
N 28
Chi-square 21.048
p-value 0.002
Pseudo-R2 0.739
Independent Variables Coefficient p-value
Constant -2.047 .517
Age of household head 0.001 .981
years living on Chachahuate (household
head) 0.126 .187
times/months visits mainland -1.302 .015*
owns cayuco 1.13 .518
owns canoa 2.57 .211
Households without
boat borrower (n =
20)
Households with
boat borrower (n =
8) p-valuea
Percentage that own
property on Nueva
Armenia 60 75 .669
Percentage that regularly
send fish to Nueva
Armenia 55 88 .194
Average number of
times/month visits
Nueva Armenia 1.4 3.15 .002**
Percentage with other
related household on
Chachahuate 45 63 .678
46 Journal of Latin American Geography
Fish Exchanges
While strong social ties can help people access and mobilize marine resources, the
importance of sh exchanges show how these same resources help to build and maintain
these ties. While certain commercially valuable species such as lobster or snapper were
almost always packed with ice and shipped to the mainland for sale, other less valuable
species were often given away (in addition to being consumed). One day I observed a
sherman come back to the island with a fty pound jewsh (Epinephelus itajara), sell the
bulk of the sh (30 pounds) to the research station on Cayo Menor (where scientists and
guards live), keep some for himself, and give the rest away to seven other households on
the island (eldnotes, 2004). Such distributions were not uncommon. On another day,
I accompanied a sherman who, while shing outside of the reserve, found a dead sea
turtle caught up in his net, along with several small species of shark. Upon returning
to Nueva Armenia, this sherman immediately sold the lobster he found in his net to
a middleman waiting on shore. By the time he made it up river to the village, word had
already gotten back that he had a turtle. Our boat was greeted by a phalanx of people
lining the riverbank, some giving wild hand gestures that they are ready to take home a
piece of meat. The turtle’s head was given to a nephew, the sharks were given away to ve
different people (none of whom were family members), and the rest of the turtle meat
was split evenly with his neighbor, who happened to be Myrna’s sister, Rosa.
When I asked people why they shared their catch with someone, their answers
were usually a terse reply along the lines of “because she’s a good person” or “it’s my
custom’.” Interviews, however, show that this sharing is one of a long-line of close eco-
nomic ties between people. For example, the man who shared most of his turtle meat
with Rosa is a former resident of the island, and long-time go-between for Myrna and
Rosa’s sh mongering activities. He no longer has his own boat (he lost it during hur-
ricane Mitch), and instead relies on borrowing others’ boats so he can set his nets.
These forms of reciprocity show how a number of marine resources have “non-
economic” value, one that is rarely recognized by the reserve’s management plan. The less
commercially valuable species are frequently a form of social currency on both the island
and mainland. Nowhere, however, are these practices recognized in the management plan.
Instead, the management plan’s treatment of marine resources in the context of human
use almost always concerns the most commercially valuable species, with the justication
for the zoning plan centered around maintaining the viability of these species in the re-
serve, with the reserve providing “spillover” benets to the wider regional shing industry.
I point this out here to highlight how the management plan’s “blindness” to many of the
ways in which marine resources can be valuable resulted in a number of restrictions, such
as bans on turtle hunting and the spatial exclusion zones, which have ultimately proven to
be some of the principal sources of tension between residents and the reserve managers.
Social Capital, Livelihoods and Conservation in Context
Households who rely on the resources of the Cayos Cochinos are constantly
maintaining a livelihood geography that is considerably different from the co-manage-
ment spaces of buffer zones and no-take areas that characterize this management plan.
Figure 5 shows a schematic representation of the types of resource ows between the
mainland and the island and the types of ties that island residents maintain with the main-
land. This geography of resource use is dramatically different from the ecosystem-based
geography of spatially-based shing and lobstering zones that is in the management plan
(Figure 2). This suggests an incongruence between the livelihoods of local residents and
the priorities of the management plan that cannot be overcome simply through stronger
engagement between the HCRF and local institutions. Instead, this difference suggests
47
The Cayos Cochinos Marine Protected Area, Honduras
a need to re-think the ways in which conservation territories are designed and how local
communities and conservation organizations interact. While I am certainly not the rst
to make this point (cf. Daniels and Bassett 2002; Zimmerer 2000), I wish to contribute
to this critique by offering three insights as to how understanding a household’s social
capital can help inform a more inclusive conservation area.
First, some households on the Cayos Cochinos utilize social capital as a way to
overcome a lack of physical assets and build a livelihood whose activities extend well past
the reserve boundaries. This is illustrated in the case of Myrna’s household, whose mem-
bers rarely sh, but instead, is part of a broader social network in which sh are moved
from the island to the mainland through various social networks. The presence of these
types of households mean that the effects of conservation restrictions not only reach
shing dependent families of the Cayos Cochinos, but also reverberate back through
social support networks that extend to the mainland. This has important implications
for the types of people in a community a conservation organization should engage, and
the manner in which they should be approached. It is necessary but insufcient, for
example, to work with a community shermen’s group. When drafting co-management
plans one should also consider households that might, on the surface, appear to lack the
means to extract resources from a reserve, but are able to do so due to their household
social networks. Taking into account the needs and priorities of such families is a rst
step toward a more constructive engagement between conservation organizations and
local residents.
Second, the effect of social capital is variable and allows households to access dif-
ferent resources in different ways, resulting in restrictions that have highly variable effects
within a community. Young men from the mainland who enter into a patrón relationship
are essentially members of mainland households who use their social networks on the
Cayos Cochinos in order to help their families on the mainland through their lobstering
activities. Fish buyers, however, generally live on Chachahuate all year, and use their con-
nections to the mainland to help build their livelihood on the island. These are groups
that use their social capital to mobilize resources across space with different goals: one
is using the Cayos Cochinos as a supplement to a mainland livelihood, while the other
is using the mainland as a supplement for their island-based livelihood. The implication
for co-management is that it is not enough to simply expand the geographic scope of
community engagement, the HCRF is already engaged with mainland communities, but
rather to incorporate a broader recognition of why and how certain households use
marine resources in the Cayos Cochinos. For example, lobster diving restrictions might
disproportionately affect mainland households who have sons in a patrón relationship.
Targeting these families for input on lobstering restrictions, or for possibilities for alter-
native incomes, could lessen the negative impacts of conservation restrictions.
Third, social capital is an asset that is continually maintained, with some marine
resources serving as a key role in building this asset. This has important implications
for conser vation efforts that are often focused on accommodating the nancial needs
of shermen by formulating detailed management plans for species such as lobster, but
impose blanket restrictions on socially valuable animals like turtles. In the case of the
HCRF there has been a great deal of energy expended on educating local residents on
the importance of preserving nesting grounds of turtles, without recognizing the role
that turtle eggs and turtle meat often play in building social capital. The poaching of
turtle eggs by shermen like Hugo is not just a matter of residents who don’t “get” the
conservation message of the HCRF, but also one of conservation scientists and man-
agers failing to understand Hugo’s motivation for collecting the eggs in the rst place.
Recognizing that marine resources are often times valuable in ways that go beyond sub-
48 Journal of Latin American Geography
Figure 5: Resource flows and ties between mainland and island.
sistence or money is a rst step toward bridging the disconnect that one of-
ten sees between those of conservation managers and those of local residents.
Conclusion
While this paper deals with only one community in the CCMR, the insights pre-
sented here can contribute to understanding why attempts at conservation co-man-
agement have failed around the world. The case of the Cayos Cochinos suggests that
the very same aspects of social capital that are often celebrated by conservation policy
researchers can also become a source of non-compliance and friction when used by
households in the pursuit of maintaining a livelihood. By investigating how a house-
hold’s social capital produces a geographically diverse livelihood, a very different story
49
The Cayos Cochinos Marine Protected Area, Honduras
about the problems of co-management emerge than if I had focused on how social
capital strengthens institutions and local civil society. The complex and diverse patterns
of marine resource use that emerge show how difcult it is to implement a successful
co-management plan that engages with homogenized social entities like “communities”
or “shermen groups.” I am not denigrating the importance of a robust civil society in
engaging with the political process of commons management. What I am suggesting is
that a community with the classic hallmarks of strong social capital, strong community
norms and high levels of trust, does not mean that conservation co-management ef-
forts will necessarily succeed. Instead of producing a robust civil society, these elements
of social capital, when formed and mobilized by individual households can produce
patterns of resource use that are at odds with conventional conservation co-manage-
ment geographies. A similar analytic approach – where social capital is understood at
the scale of the household - can be used in other cases of conservation co-management
in order to show that local residents are often hostile to conservation rules, not be-
cause they fail understand the benets of conservation, but because their geographically
and socially complex uses of resources fails to nd expression in a management plan.
Notes
1 All personal names in this paper are pseudonyms.
2 They are, however, still residents of Nueva Armenia. Since ties to the mainland are
necessary for survival on this island, Chachahuate can be thought of as more of an ex-
tension of the mainland village, than a separate village. The legal status of this island has
been the source of ongoing legal disputes between one non-Garifuna man who claims
sole legal title of a the cay (along with a number of other cays in the Reserve), and the
community who claims that communal title has been granted to residents of Nueva Ar-
menia. This is one of a number of land disputes between Garifuna communities, none
of which held formal land title before 1992, and individuals who have come to own parts
of the Cayos Cochinos. (for more details on this, see Brondo and Woods 2007).
3 While one could, in theory, do this with a smaller cayuco, it is in fact rarely done, since
the fish are usually packed in ice-filled coolers, which require a larger canoa to transport.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the people of Nueva Armenia and Chachahuate for their good-
will and patience during my time in their communities. Similarly, the managers of the
HCRF were very helpful and accommodating. This paper benefitted from the insightful
comments of Kendra McSweeney, Becky Mansfield, Bram Tucker, and two anonymous
reviewers on earlier drafts of this article. I also thank Jeff Olson for help with the maps.
All errors remain my own.
References
Adger, W. N. 2003. Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change.
Economic Geography. 79(4): 387-404.
Agrawal, A., and C. C. Gibson. 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of
community in natural resource conservation. World Development 27(4): 629-649.
Agrawal, A. 2001. Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resourc-
es. World Development 29(10): 1649-1672.
50 Journal of Latin American Geography
Anderson, C. L., L. Locker, R. Nugent. 2002. Microcredit, social capital and common
pool resources. World Development 30(1): 95-105.
Arnold, J. S., M. Fernández-Giménez. 2007. Building social capital through participatory
research: an analysis of collaboration on Toho O’odham tribal rangelands in Arizona.
Society and Natural Resources 20(6): 481-495.
Bebbington, A. 1999. Capitals and capabilities: A framework for analyzing peasant vi-
ability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World Development 27(12): 2021-2044.
Bebbington, A., and T. Perreault. 1999. Social capital, development, and access to re-
sources in Highland Ecuador. Economic Geography. 75(4): 395-418.
Bennett, E., A. Neiland, E. Anang. 2001. Towards a better understanding of conflict
management in tropical fisheries: evidence from Ghana, Bangladesh and the Caribbean.
Marine Policy 25: 365-376.
Berry, S. 1993. No condition is permanent: The social dynamics of agrarian change in sub-Saharan
Africa. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.
Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred Ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and resource management.
Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.
Bilsborrow, R. E., and H. W. O. Okoth-Ogendo. 1992. Population-driven changes in land
use in developing countries. Ambio 21(1): 37-45.
Bourdieu, P. 1985. The forms of capital. In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology
of Education, J. G. Richardson (ed.). pp. 241-58. New York: Greenwood.
Brenner, L. and H. Job. 2006. Actor-oriented management of protected areas and ecot-
ourism in Mexico. Journal of Latin American Geography 5(2): 7-28.
Brondo, K,V. and L. Woods. 2007. Garifuna land rights and ecotourism as economic
development in Honduras’ Cayos Cochinos Marine Protected Area. Ecological and Envi-
ronmental Anthropology. 3(1): 2- 18.
Bury, J. 2004. Livelihoods in transition: transnational gold mining operations and local
change in Cajamarca, Peru. The Geographical Journal 170(1): 78-91.
Campbell, L.M. and A. Vainio-Mattila. 2004. Participatory development and community-
based conservation: Opportunities missed for lessons learned? Human Ecology 31(3): 417-
437.
Campbell, L.M. 2002. Sustainable use of marine turtles: Views of conservation experts.
Ecological Applications 12(4): 1229-1246.
Coleman, J. 1988. Social capital and the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology. vol. 94: S95-S120 (Suppl.).
Cooke, A.J., N.V.C. Polunin, K. Moore. 2000. Comparative assessment of stakeholder
51
The Cayos Cochinos Marine Protected Area, Honduras
management in traditional Fijian fishing-grounds. Environmental Conservation 27: 291-299.
Coomes, O. T., and B. Barham. 2004. Rain forest extraction and conservation in Amazo-
nia. The Geographical Journal 163(2): 180-188.
Curran, S. 2002. Migration, social capital, and the environment: considering migrant se-
lectivity and networks in relation to coastal ecosystems. In Lutz, Prokawetz, and Sander-
son (eds.), Population and Environment: Methods of Analysis. New York: Population Council.
Daniels, R. and T. J. Bassett 2002. The spaces of conservation and development around
Lake Nakuru National Park, Kenya. The Professional Geographer 54(4): 481-490.
Elliott, G., B. Mitchell, B. Wiltshire, I. A. Manan, and S. Wismer. 2001. Community par-
ticipation in marine protected area management: Wakatobi National Park, Sulawesi, In-
donesia. Coastal Management 29: 295-316.
Ellis, F. 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Few, R. 2001. Containment and counter-containment: planner/community relations in
conservation planning. The Geographical Journal 167(2): 111-124.
Godoy, R., V. Reyes-Garcia, T. Huanta, W.R. Leonard, R.G. Olvera et al. 2007. The role
of community and individuals in the formation of social capital. Human Ecology 35: 709-
721.
Gonzalez, N. S. 1988. Sojourners of the Caribbean: Ethnogenesis and Ethnohistory of Garifuna.
University of Illinois Press: Urbana and Chicago.
___________. 1997. Garifuna of Central America. In The Indigenous Peoples of the Carib-
bean, pp. 200-205 S. W. Wilson (ed.). University Press of Florida: Gainsville.
Gould, W. 1994. Population growth, environmental stability and migration in western
Kenya from Malthus to Boserup. In B. Zaba and J. Clarke (eds.), Environment and Popula-
tion Change, pp. 247-268. Liege, Belgium: International union for the Scientific Study of
Population.
Harriss, J. and P. de Renzio. 1997. ‘Missing link’ or analytically missing? The concept of
social capital: an introductory bibliographic essay. Journal of International Development 9(7):
919-937.
Honduran Coral Reef Fund (HCRF) 2004. Plan de Manejo del Monumento Natural Marino
Archipiélago Cayos Cochinos, Honduras. 2004-2009. Cayos Cochinos. La Ceiba, Honduras:
WWF Centroamérica.
Instituto Nacional de Estadistica de Honduras (INE). 2001. Censo de Población y Vivienda
2001.
Jentoft, S., T. C. van Son, and M. Bjorkan. 2007. Marine protected areas: a governance
system analysis. Human Ecology 35: 611-622.
52 Journal of Latin American Geography
Kramer, D. B. 2007. Determinants and efficacy of social capital in lake associations.
Environmental Conservation 34(3): 186-194.
Krishna, A., and Uphoff, N. 1999. Operationalising Social Capital: Explaining and measuring
mutually beneficial collective action in Rajathan, India. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
La Peyre, M. K., I. A. Mendelssohn, M. A. Reams, P. H. Templet, J. B. Grace. 2001. Iden-
tifying determinants of nations’ wetland management programs using structural equa-
tion modeling: an exploratory analysis. Environmental Management 27(6): 0859-0868.
Lutz, W., and S. Scherbov. 2000. Quantifying vicious circle dynamics: The PEDA mod-
el for population, environment, development and agriculture in African countries. In
Dockner, E.J., R. F. Hartl, M. Luptacik, and G. Sorger (eds.), Optimization, Dynamics, and
Economic Analysis. Essays in Honor of Gustav Feichtinger, pp. 311-322. Heidelberg, Germany:
Physical-Verlag.
Massey, D. 1990. Social structure, household strategies, and the cumulative causation of
migration. Population Index 56(1): 3-26.
Massey, D. S. and Basem, L. C. 1992. Determinants of savings, remittances, and spending
patterns among United-States migrants in four Mexican communities. Sociological Inquiry
62(2): 185-207.
McCay, B. and S. Jentoft. 1996. From the bottom up: Participatory issues in fisheries
management. Society and Natural Resources 9: 237-250.
____________. 1998. Market or community failure? Critical perspectives on common
property research. Human Organization 57(1): 21-29.
McSweeney, K. 2004a. Approaching rural livelihoods through systems of exchange: the
dugout canoe trade in Central America’s Mosquitia. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 94(3): 638-661.
___________. 2004b. Forest product sale as natural insurance: The effect of household
characteristics and the nature of shock in Eastern Honduras. Society and Natural Re-
sources 17(1): 39-56.
Mehta, J. N., and Kellert, R. 1998. Local attitudes toward community-based conservation
policy and programmes in Nepal: A case study in the Makalu-Barun Conservation Area.
Envrionmental Conservation 25(4): 320-333.
Mukherjee, N. 2002. Measuring social capital: Forest protection committees in West Ben-
gal. Economic and Political Weekly: 2994-2997.
Netting, R. McC. 1993. Smallholders, Householders: Farm families and the ecology of intensive,
sustainable agriculture. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Neumann, R. P. 1997. Primitive Ideas: Protected Area Buffer Zones and the Politics of
Land in Africa. Development and Change 28: 559-582.
Using GIS on the United States-Mexico Border 53
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Palacio, M. 2002. Dangriga BZ or USA?: Outmigration experiences of a Garifuna com-
munity. Paper presented at Belize Country Conference. November 21-24, 2002. Belize
City.
Peluso, N.L. 1993. Coercing conservation? The politics of state resource control. Global
Environmental Change 3(2): 199-216.
Portes, A. 1997. Immigration theory for a new century: Some problems and opportuni-
ties. IMR 31(4): 799- 825.
_______. 2000. The two meanings of social capital. Sociological Forum 15(1): 1-12.
Portes, A. and J. Sensenbrenner. 1993. Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the
social determinants of economic action. American Journal of Sociology 98(6): 1320-1350.
Pretty, J. and H. Ward. 2001. Social capital and the environment. World Development 29(2):
209-227.
Pretty, J. and D. Smith. 2004. Social capital in biodiversity conservation and management.
Conservation Biology 18(3): 631-638.
Putnam, R.D., Leonardi, R. and Nanetti, R.Y. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Tradi-
tions in Modern Italy. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Robbins, P. K. McSweeney, T. Waite, and J. Rice. 2006. Even conservation rules are made
to be broken: implications for biodiversity. Environmental Management 37 (2): 162-169.
Rocheleau, D. 1997. Shared spaces and sub-divided interests in the uncommons: gen-
dered forests, tree farms and gardens in the agroforests of Zambrana-Chacuey. CPR
Digest 40: 1-6.
Rocheleau, D. and L. Ross. 1995. Trees as tools, trees as test: struggles over resources in
Zambrana-Chacuey, Dominican Republic. Antipode 27 (4): 407-428.
Rudd, M., M. H. Tupper, H. Fulmer, G.C. van Kooten. 2003. Policy Analysis for Tropical
Marine Reserves: Challenges and Directions Fish and Fisheries 4: 65-85.
Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. IDS Working
Paper, No. 72.
Sekhar, N.U. 2007. Social capital and fisheries management: the case of Chilika Lake in
India. Environmental Management 39: 497-505.
Silvey, R., and R. Elmhirst. 2003. engendering social capital: women workers and rural-
urban networks in Indonesia’s crisis. World Development 31: 865-79.
St. Martin, K. 2001. Making Space for Community Resource Management in Fisheries.
54 Journal of Latin American Geography
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91(11): 122-142.
Stevens, S., ed. 1997. Conservation through Cultural Survival: Indigenous peoples and protected
areas. Washington: Island Press.
Turner, M.D. 1999. No space for participation: pastoralist narratives and the etiology
of park-herder conflict in southeastern Niger. Land Degradation and Development.
10: 345-363.
Turner, S. 2007. Small-scale enterprise livelihoods and social capital in eastern Indonesia:
ethnic embeddedness and exclusion. The Professional Geographer. 59(4): 407-420.
Uphoff, N. and Wijayaratna. C.M. 1999. Demonstrated benefits from social capital: the
productivity of farmer organizations in Gal Oya Sri Lanka. World Development 28, 1875-
1890.
Walker, P., and P. Peters. 2001. Maps, metaphors, and meanings: boundary struggles and
village forest use on private and state land in Malawi. Society and Natural Resources 14: 411-
424.
Wagner, M.W., U. P. Kreuter, R.A. Kaiser, R. N. Wilkins. 2007. Collective action and social
capital of wildlife management associations. Journal of Wildlife Management: 1729-1738.
Western, D., and Wright, R.M., eds. 1994. Natural Connections: Perspectives in community-Based
Conservation. Washington: Island Press.
Wells, M.P., and Brandon, B. 1993. The principles and practice of buffer zones and local
participation in biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22(2-3): 57-162.
Wilk, R. 1997. Household Ecology: Economic change and domestic life among the Kekchi Maya in
Belize. Northern Illinois University Press, DeKalb, Illinois.
Woolcock, M., and D. Narayan. 2000. Social capital: implications for development theory,
research, and policy. The World Bank research Observer 15 (2): 225-249.
Zimmerer, K. S. and R. E. Galt., and M. V. Buck. 2004. Globalization and multispatial
trends in the coverage of protected-area conservation (1980-2000). Ambio. 33(8): 520-
529.
Zimmerer, K. S. 2000. The reworking of conservation geographies: nonequilibrium land-
scapes and nature-society hybrids. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90(2):
356-369.
... Several studies have shown how the household livelihoods approach is key for understanding resource user livelihood strategies, and the implications of these strategies for conservation and development agendas [21,24,[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. More specifically, the approach is a basis for examining livelihood processes and provides insight into how new resource management policies may differentially affect households. ...
... More specifically, the approach is a basis for examining livelihood processes and provides insight into how new resource management policies may differentially affect households. For example, in Honduras, household social capital through kinship networks and informal institutions shaped marine resource extraction that conflicted with management spaces of an MPA and "fails to find expression in the management plan" [30] (p. 49). ...
... Comparison between household typologies and the 2013 fishery agreement indicates contradictions that resonate well beyond the Cassurubá case study. As in other studies [30,33], new institutions conflict with resource user extraction strategies suggesting that investigation of livelihood practices and strategies of households is either non-existent, poorly obtained, or disregarded when establishing MPA institutions leading to unintended impacts on resource users. Furthermore, Brazil's national fishery laws impede fisherfolk's ability to overcome these shocks by finding alternative streams of income. ...
... Marine conservation design and management also increasingly incorporate cultural considerations, which include local or traditional knowledge (Drew, 2005;Aswani and Lauer, 2006), diverse perceptions of cultural values related to the marine environment (Klain and Chan, 2012;Blake et al., 2017), cultural practices (e.g., harvesting, management) or customs (Cinner and Aswani, 2007;Aswani, 2017), as well as species or areas that are important for cultural uses or identity (Poe et al., 2014;Gee et al., 2017). Additional social considerations that might be taken into account in marine conservation include: human well-being in local populations (Biedenweg et al., 2016;Ban et al., 2019;Gollan et al., 2019), the quality of social relations or levels of conflict (Young et al., 2016;Rosales, 2018), gender equality (Baker-Médard, 2017; Kleiber et al., 2018), social agency and empowerment of local groups (Lansing, 2009;Diedrich et al., 2017), and of the social adaptive capacity of local resource users to new restrictions on access or to new livelihood opportunities (Armitage, 2005;Bennett et al., 2014;Maldonado and del Pilar Moreno-Sánchez, 2014;Cinner et al., 2018a). While integrating social considerations into marine conservation and planning is recognized as important, the practice is still relatively nascent compared to biophysical considerations and there is substantial variation in approaches and application across sites Grimmel et al., 2019). ...
Article
Full-text available
Marine conservation design and fisheries management are increasingly integrating biophysical, socio-economic and governance considerations. Integrative approaches are adopted to achieve more effective, equitable, inclusive, and robust marine policies and practices. This paper describes a participatory process to co-produce biophysical, socio-economic, and governance principles to guide the design and management of marine reserves in three regions of Mexico: the Pacific region of the Baja California Peninsula, the Gulf of California, and the Mexican Caribbean. The process of coproducing the principles included convening a coordination team, reviewing the science, convening multi-stakeholder workshops, developing and communicating the principles with key practitioners and policy makers, and supporting uptake and application to policy and practice. Biophysical principles were related to: habitat representation and risk spreading; protecting critical, special and unique areas; incorporating connectivity; allowing time for recovery; adapting to changes in climate and ocean chemistry; and considering threats and opportunities.
... Marine conservation design and management also increasingly incorporate cultural considerations, which include local or traditional knowledge (Drew, 2005;Aswani and Lauer, 2006), diverse perceptions of cultural values related to the marine environment (Klain and Chan, 2012;Blake et al., 2017), cultural practices (e.g., harvesting, management) or customs (Cinner and Aswani, 2007;Aswani, 2017), as well as species or areas that are important for cultural uses or identity (Poe et al., 2014;Gee et al., 2017). Additional social considerations that might be taken into account in marine conservation include: human well-being in local populations (Biedenweg et al., 2016;Ban et al., 2019;Gollan et al., 2019), the quality of social relations or levels of conflict (Young et al., 2016;Rosales, 2018), gender equality (Baker-Médard, 2017; Kleiber et al., 2018), social agency and empowerment of local groups (Lansing, 2009;Diedrich et al., 2017), and of the social adaptive capacity of local resource users to new restrictions on access or to new livelihood opportunities (Armitage, 2005;Bennett et al., 2014;Maldonado and del Pilar Moreno-Sánchez, 2014;Cinner et al., 2018a). While integrating social considerations into marine conservation and planning is recognized as important, the practice is still relatively nascent compared to biophysical considerations and there is substantial variation in approaches and application across sites Grimmel et al., 2019). ...
Article
Full-text available
Marine conservation design and fisheries management are increasingly integrating biophysical, socio-economic and governance considerations. Integrative approaches are adopted to achieve more effective, equitable, inclusive, and robust marine policies and practices. This paper describes a participatory process to co-produce biophysical, socio-economic, and governance principles to guide the design and management of marine reserves in three regions of Mexico: the Pacific region of the Baja California Peninsula, the Gulf of California, and the Mexican Caribbean. The process of co-producing the principles included convening a coordination team, reviewing the science, convening multi-stakeholder workshops, developing and communicating the principles with key practitioners and policy makers, and supporting uptake and application to policy and practice. Biophysical principles were related to: habitat representation and risk spreading; protecting critical, special and unique areas; incorporating connectivity; allowing time for recovery; adapting to changes in climate and ocean chemistry; and considering threats and opportunities. Socio-economic principles focused on: integrating the social context, local aspirations, and human-environment interactions; considering economic and non-economic uses, promoting an equitable distribution of costs and benefits, and respecting and maintaining cultural identity and diversity. Governance principles prioritized establishing and ensuring legitimacy and institutional continuity; implementing collaborative and adaptive management; and, promoting effective management. The paper also examines early efforts to implement the principles, next steps to promote further uptake and application in Mexico, and lessons learned from the process. Thus it provides insights into a practical process and a set of principles that are valuable to inform marine conservation and fisheries management processes elsewhere.
... In addition, strong criticism has been leveled toward the management of the Monumento Natural Marino Archipiélago de Cayos Cochinos because the ecological studies have not incorporated social aspects that involve the native Garífunas communities of the archipelago (Brondo and Bown 2011), and they have even been considered to be enemies by the agents of conservation, tourism, and the Honduran state (Loperena 2016). Therefore, we suggest that the studies should consider evaluating the entire ecosystem from an eco-social (holistic) perspective (e.g., social capital, conservation co-management, eco, and research-tourism), taking into account the recommendations of Lansing (2009), Crabbe (2010, Brondo andBown (2011), andLoperena (2016). This recommendation should improve the understanding of the driving variables that determine sustainable scenarios of management and conservation of the coral reef ecosystems of Cayos Cochinos. ...
Article
The Cayos Cochinos archipelago forms part of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System (MBRS) and is one of the first marine protected areas (MPAs) created in Honduras in 1993. However, it has endured historical fishery exploitation prior to protective efforts. The objective of this study was to evaluate the fish assemblages of the archipelago from an ecological and functional diversity perspective in order to test the hypothesis that the low live coral cover, reduced habitat complexity, and overfishing have decreased the biological, ecological, and functional diversity of fish. Our results indicate that the fish assemblages have a high species richness and ecological diversity, compared with other reefs of the MBRS. The sub-massive corals sustain the fish ecological and functional diversity, while leafy corals were associated with low functional diversity. Also, we identified sites with fish assemblages that are in good condition (e.g., Roatan Bank), which can be considered to be a control point for the evaluation of other sites within this MPA. Unfortunately, we also identified sites that were overexploited (e.g., Salamandinga), with low live coral cover and reduced habitat complexity, which also generated a low ecological and functional diversity. This study highlights a functional approach to evaluate fish assemblage conservation in MPAs. This work revealed that habitat complexity loss and overfishing negatively affect functional fish diversity.
... Social capital may also be influential in shaping conservation attitudes through the exchange of information, lowering of transaction costs, and reinforcing social bonds and norms (Pretty & Smith, 2004). Social capital can also have a negative effect on natural resources, such as facilitating the subversion of resource management restrictions (Lansing, 2009) or have no effect at all (Duit, Hall, Mikusinski, & Angelstam, 2009;Grafton & Knowles, 2004). ...
Article
Participation in conservation programs is often viewed as a necessity, but understanding of this participation is limited. This research takes a different approach by also examining participation in non-conservation-related activities. Questionnaires (N = 339) were administered in four Brazilian coastal communities where the national sea turtle conservation project conducts monitoring and outreach. Employing social capital as a conceptual framework, measurements included participation in civic, community, and social activities along with group participation and collective action. Confirmatory factor analysis was used for validating measures of social capital and conservation perceptions. Structural equation modeling indicated that social capital has a positive relationship with participation in sea turtle conservation, suggesting that general levels of participation and community norms of participation could be just as influential as conservation perceptions to engage communities in conservation. Information gained by deconstructing participation may be used to design and target conservation programs, improving overall participation.
Article
Full-text available
Using the case of Costa Rica, this paper examines how ′carbon′ became an identifiable problem for that state. We trace how, during the 1980s, rationalities of financialisation and security arose in this country that allowed for Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) to emerge as an economic and political mechanism. Our central thesis is: this period initiated a government project of securing a viable future for the nation′s resources by linking them to global financial markets and international trade. This project of achieving resource security through economic circulation introduced new financial logics into forest management, as well as new modes of calculating the value and extent of the forest. These ways of framing resources found expression in the nation′s PES programme that is now central to the state′s goal of achieving carbon neutrality. Today, Costa Rica′s carbon flows are becoming territorialised as part of the nation′s atmosphere, biomass, people, and economy. This paper shows how carbon′s territorialisation did not begin with a concern for the climate, nor did it occur through diffusion of global climate policy to Costa Rica. Instead, carbon′s rise can be traced to locally specific ways of coping with the problem of resource security.
Article
In this book, the authors examine the governance of marine protected areas (MPA), and in particular they compare two different forms of governance - co-management (CM) and adaptive co-management (ACM). CM is characterized by the decentralization of the decision-making process, incorporating the governed as well as the government. ACM is characterized by the dynamic process whereby co-management decision-making is made continuously responsive to the changing ecological and socio-economic circumstances of the MPA. The authors carry out a comprehensive critical analysis of CM and ACM before applying these concepts to the case study of the Cayos Cochinos Marine Protected Area off Honduras to assess two successive management cycles, 2004-9 and 2008-13. The area was designated as an MPA in 1993, a governmental decision which was met with resentment by local communities. CM was introduced in 2004 to involve these local stakeholders in the decision-making process, but achieved limited success. In an attempt to deal with these deficiencies, ACM was adopted in the second management plan in 2008, but whereas the position of the local communities improved, it tipped the scales too far away from conservation. A third management plan is currently being prepared that promises to strike a better balance between ecological and socio-economic objectives. A central theme of the book is to examine how far the CCMPA adhered to the principles of CM and ACM respectively in its first two management plans.
Article
This article explores the potential contribution of a feminist ethics of care to livelihoods approaches. Current critiques argue that considerations of material outcomes have been prioritized at the expense of social well-being. I argue that autonomy and independence frame our current approaches to understanding how people support themselves. This has obscured the interdependent and contingent nature of connections that found our social lives and reduced social connections to an instrumental role. The potential for taking a care-full approach to livelihoods is examined through the unfolding negotiations of livelihood strategies between an elderly woman and her daughter-in-law in rural northern Ghana.
Article
This article examines why some kinds of households are positioned to take advantage of carbon offset projects that target secondary forest fallow. It does so by assessing the results of two offset projects targeting this land use in the Cabécar Indigenous Reserve, Costa Rica. For one project, it finds that a small group of male landowners have most of the land in fallow; however, the presence of this land use is subsidized by the productivity of female land in cash-crop production. In the second project, payments were targeted toward land in the area's fertile floodplain, and resulted in an exclusion of some households from the area's dominant livelihood activity: cash-crop production. These results demonstrate the difficult trade-offs involved in designing equitable and attractive offset projects.
Article
This essay examines some of the pitfalls in contemporary immigration theory and reviews some of the most promising developments in research in this field. As a data-driven field or study, immigration has not had to contend with grand generalizations for highly abstract theorizing. On the contrary, the bias has run in the opposite direction, that is toward ground-level studies of particular migrant groups or analysis of official migration policies. As the distillate of past research in the field and a source of guidance for future work, theory represents one of the most valuable products of our collective intellectual endeavor. Ways to foster it and problems presented by certain common misunderstandings about the meaning and scope of scientific theorizing are discussed.
Article
Recent studies have examined social and cultural perceptions of spatial relationships, with particular attention to contests over boundaries. Countermapping offers a technique to defend local rights in these contests. However, this approach may inadequately represent certain complex sociospatial ideas. Specifically, although recent studies emphasize contests over the legitimacy or location of boundaries, the case studies from Malawi in this article illustrate equally important nonterritorial struggles over the meanings - the de facto rules and practices - of boundaries. These struggles, embedded in local history and culture, involve efforts to "untie" resource rights from territorial claims. These strategies would be poorly represented or even obscured in mapping efforts focused on redrawing linear boundaries. This suggests a need to critically examine of the use of mapping and map metaphors in social analysis and practice.
Article
Both realism and justice demand that efforts to conserve biological diversity address human needs as well. The most promising hope of accomplishing such a goal lies in locally based conservation efforts -- an approach that seeks ways to make local communities the beneficiaries and custodians of conservation efforts.Natural Connections focuses on rural societies and the conservation of biodiversity in rural areas. It represents the first systematic analysis of locally based efforts, and includes a comprehensive examination of cases from around the world where the community-based approach is used. The book provides: an overview of community-based conservation in the context of the debate over sustainable development, poverty, and environmental decline case studies from the developed and developing worlds -- Indonesia, Peru, Australia, Zimbabwe, Costa Rica, the United Kingdom -- that present detailed examples of the locally based approach to conservation a review of the principal issues arising from community-based programs an agenda for future action
Article
Future changes in climate pose significant challenges for society, not the least of which is how best to adapt to observed and potential future impacts of these changes to which the world is already committed. Adaptation is a dynamic social process: the ability of societies to adapt is determined, in part, by the ability to act collectively. This article reviews emerging perspectives on collective action and social capital and argues that insights from these areas inform the nature of adaptive capacity and normative prescriptions of policies of adaptation. Specifically, social capital is increasingly understood within economics to have public and private elements, both of which are based on trust, reputation, and reciprocal action. The public-good aspects of particular forms of social capital are pertinent elements of adaptive capacity in interacting with natural capital and in relation to the performance of institutions that cope with the risks of changes in climate. Case studies are presented of present-day collective action for coping with extremes in weather in coastal areas in Southeast Asia and of community-based coastal management in the Caribbean. These cases demonstrate the importance of social capital framing both the public and private institutions of resource management that build resilience in the face of the risks of changes in climate. These cases illustrate, by analogy, the nature of adaptation processes and collective action in adapting to future changes in climate.