Content uploaded by Johann Stiepani
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Johann Stiepani on May 06, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations
from the Faculty of Science and Technology 2397
Changing Coastlines of the Indo-Pacific
Local livelihoods and use of ecosystem resources from
a social-ecological systems perspective
JOHANN STIEPANI
ACTA UNIVERSITATIS
UPSALIENSIS
2024
ISSN 1651-6214
ISBN 978-91-513-2116-5
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-526284
Dissertation presented at Uppsala University to be publicly examined in Hambergsalen,
Villavägen 16, Uppsala, Thursday, 30 May 2024 at 09:00 for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy. The examination will be conducted in English. Faculty examiner: Professor
Simon Bush.
Abstract
Stiepani, J. 2024. Changing Coastlines of the Indo-Pacific. Local livelihoods and use of
ecosystem resources from a social-ecological systems perspective. Digital Comprehensive
Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 2397. 86 pp.
Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. ISBN 978-91-513-2116-5.
This thesis analyzes the impacts of global environmental change upon the interactions and
connections between coastal ecosystems and small-scale fishers. The analysis builds on social
and ecological data, obtained in four locations including: Unguja Ukuu, Zanzibar (Paper I);
Malalison island, the Philippines (Paper II); Batan, the Philippines (Paper III); and Penang,
Malaysia (Paper IV). Each of these locations is currently impacted by processes of global
environmental change that challenge the sustainability of local livelihoods based on natural
capital. These processes of global environmental change include environmental degradation
(Papers I-III), and mangrove degradation due to land use change (Papers III-IV). Papers I-II
focus on gleaning as a specific example of a coastal livelihood and found that gleaners over
time struggle with local declines of the species they target. In Paper II gleaning was found to
be important as a supplemental livelihood activity when local people were unable to perform
regular SSF livelihood activities due to disturbances caused by e.g. typhoons. Environmental
degradation was also present within the multi gear SSF at Batan (Paper III) within the mangrove
estuary. Within the context of both Papers III-IV land use change fragmented the coastal
ecosystems which likely impacted the biodiversity and structure of a mangrove forests. In
conclusion, this thesis highlights an array of stressors that threaten these social-ecological
system of small-scale fishing villages, in particular their coastal ecosystems found at their
fringe. This work confirms the importance for local coastal management to understand different
components of a SES to strengthen local livelihood security. Future work and management of
these coastlines and livelihoods that are based on their environments need both ecological and
social data to enable sound management. Alternative livelihoods could be one strategy to reduce
dependency of livelihoods on SSF.
Keywords: Coastal ecosystems, Coral Reefs, Gender, Indo-Pacific, Livelihoods, Mangroves,
Seagrass, Small-Scale Fisheries (SSF), Social-ecological Systems, Sustainability
Johann Stiepani, Department of Earth Sciences, Natural Resources and Sustainable
Development, Villavägen 16, Uppsala University, SE-75236 Uppsala, Sweden.
© Johann Stiepani 2024
ISSN 1651-6214
ISBN 978-91-513-2116-5
URN urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-526284 (http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-526284)
Dedicated to Ange Raharivololoniaina. Rest in Peace.
List of Papers
This thesis is based on the following papers, which are referred to in the text
by their Roman numerals.
I. Stiepani, J., Jiddawi, N. and Mtwana Nordlund, L. (2023) ‘Social-
ecological system analysis of an invertebrate gleaning fishery on the
island of Unguja, Zanzibar’, Ambio 52: 140–154. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01769-1
II. Stiepani, J., Sandig, A. and Blicharska, M. (2023) ‘The Where, the
How, and the Why of the gleaning fishery: Livelihoods, food security,
threats and management on the island of Malalison, Philippines’,
Ocean & Coastal Management 244: 1-10. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106806
III. Stiepani, J., Boonstra W.J., Sadaba, R.B., Blicharska, M. Exploring
the local context of mangrove fragmentation. An analysis of liveli-
hood security and potential for mangrove conservation in Batan, the
Philippines (Submitted manuscript)
IV. Stiepani, J., Gillis, L., Chee, S., Pfeiffer, M. and Nordhaus, I. (2021)
‘Impacts of urbanization on mangrove forests and brachyuran crabs
in Penang, Malaysia’, Regional Environmental Change 21: 1-13.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-021-01800-3
Papers I, II, IV are published Open Access under a Creative Commons Attrib-
ution (CC BY 4.0) license. Paper III is a submitted manuscript.
My contribution: In Papers I-IV, I made substantial contributions to the re-
search design, data sampling, analysis of the data, writing and publishing as
corresponding author in Papers I-III. I led the writing of the original drafts
submitted of Papers I-IV. Co-authors provided oral and written inputs to the
respective papers. I had assistance and received help with brainstorming, writ-
ing, and editing to complete the original drafts and during rounds of revisions.
I also received help with the curation and analysis of the various data sets,
specifically with the statistics in Papers I-IV; for example, the codification of
household survey data and descriptive statistics in Papers I-III, as well as eco-
logical data sets and statistics in Papers I, IV. In terms of experimental design,
each sampling design was set up with the assistance of local counterparts and
correspondence, and with fieldwork planning, then replanning and adjustment
with assistance of co-authors via e-mail, Whatsapp, or various social media.
Together with editing collaborators, I created visualizations of social-ecolog-
ical systems figures in both Papers I and III. Additionally, co-authors created,
supervised, and amended several of the maps and dataset produced. Some of
the work’s related outputs were to fulfil goals and deliverables of a larger pro-
ject.
Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Research rationale and questions ......................................................... 1
1.2 Thesis structure .................................................................................... 6
2. Theoretical background .............................................................................. 7
2.1. Livelihoods .......................................................................................... 7
2.2. Ecosystem services .............................................................................. 9
2.3. Social-ecological systems.................................................................. 11
3. Methodology ............................................................................................. 14
3.1 Paper I ................................................................................................ 15
Ecological assessment of the intertidal zone ....................................... 15
Data analyses ....................................................................................... 16
Gleaning landing surveys: Interviews and catch assessments ............. 16
Household survey ................................................................................ 16
Focus session with invertebrate gleaners and fishers .......................... 17
Governance system analysis ................................................................ 17
3.2 Paper II ............................................................................................... 17
Participatory mapping .......................................................................... 18
Household survey ................................................................................ 18
Data analysis ........................................................................................ 19
3.3 Paper III .............................................................................................. 20
Mangrove species survey ..................................................................... 20
Household survey ................................................................................ 20
3.4 Paper IV.............................................................................................. 21
Mangrove species survey ..................................................................... 22
Mangrove crab collection .................................................................... 22
Abiotic parameters collection .............................................................. 22
Classification of mangrove catchment area ......................................... 23
Data analyses ....................................................................................... 23
4. Overview of the Indo-Pacific and study sites ........................................... 25
4.1. Unguja Ukuu, Zanzibar ..................................................................... 27
4.2. Malalison island, Philippines ............................................................ 28
4.3. Batan, Philippines .............................................................................. 29
4.4. Penang, Malaysia .............................................................................. 30
5. Summary of key results ............................................................................ 31
5.1 Paper I: Social-ecological system analysis of an invertebrate
gleaning fishery on the island of Unguja, Zanzibar ................................. 31
5.2 Paper II: The Where, the How, and the Why of the gleaning
fishery: Livelihoods, food security, threats and management on the
island of Malalison, Philippines ............................................................... 32
5.3 Paper III: Exploring the local context of mangrove fragmentation.
An analysis of livelihood security and potential for mangrove
conservation in Batan, Philippines ........................................................... 34
5.4 Paper IV: Impacts of urbanization on mangrove forests and
brachyuran crabs in Penang, Malaysia ..................................................... 35
6. Discussion ................................................................................................. 37
6.1. Importance of coastal ecosystems to SSF livelihoods ....................... 37
6.2. Threats to local coastal environments: Environmental degradation
and mangrove fragmentation .................................................................... 39
6.3. The risk of social-ecological traps and suggestions for
management ............................................................................................. 42
6.4. Limitations ........................................................................................ 45
7. Conclusions ............................................................................................... 46
Acknowledgments......................................................................................... 48
Appendix ....................................................................................................... 49
Appendix 1 Gleaning landing survey interview form .............................. 49
Appendix 2 Household survey interview form ........................................ 51
Appendix 3 Protocol for focus session ..................................................... 54
Appendix 4 Protocol for participatory mapping ....................................... 55
Appendix 5 Household survey interview form ....................................... 58
Appendix 6 Household survey interview form ....................................... 65
References ..................................................................................................... 68
Abbreviations
CPR Common Pool Resource
SES Social - Ecological System
SIDS Small Island Developing States
SSF Small - Scale Fisheries
1
1. Introduction
1.1 Research rationale and questions
Although coastlines only constitute a small percentage of our terrestrial and
maritime ecosystems, they contain crucial habitats for a large number of
species, and hence are pivotal for human wellbeing (Costanza et al., 2014;
Lau et al., 2019). For instance, seagrass meadows cover less than 0.1-0.2%
of our ocean’s floor (Duarte, 2002), yet they can store more carbon than
any terrestrial forest considering organic carbon within the soil (Four-
qurean et al., 2012). Coral reefs cover less than 0.2% of ocean’s surface
(Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2019; Souter et al., 2021), but support 25% of all
marine life (Fisher et al., 2015). Likewise, the cumulative area of mangrove
forests is relatively small, covering 147,000km2 – about the size of Bang-
ladesh (Leal and Spalding, 2022), but provide an estimated annual value
of $65 billion USD for the regulating service of flood protection alone
(Menéndez et al., 2020).
Due to their abundant natural resources, ecosystem services, and rich
biodiversity (Barbier, 2017; Koch et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2014), a large part
of the world’s population continues to reside along coastlines, with 2.15
billion people living in the near-coastal zone and 898 million living in the
low-elevation coastal zone (Reimann et al., 2023). Coastlines provide hab-
itats and nurseries for economically and ecologically valuable species that
support livelihoods of local people with both subsistence needs and in-
comes from work, e.g. in fisheries and tourism (Barbier, 2017; Costanza et
al., 2014, 1997; Teh and Pauly, 2018). In addition to these direct benefits,
coastal ecosystems also act as natural buffers against storm surges and ex-
treme weather events, protecting the coastline from erosion and siltation,
while also providing carbon and climate regulation, as well as the cycling
of nutrients within the environment (Alongi, 2002; Barbier, 2017; Brander
et al., 2012; Costanza et al., 2014, 1997).
Coastlines and the ecosystems they contain are especially important for
local communities in the tropical of the Indo-Pacific, where people often
have limited access to income opportunities beyond their immediate envi-
ronment (Barbier, 2010; FAO, 2024; Roscher et al., 2022; Selig et al.,
2019). The Indo-Pacific region spans the Indian Ocean, the Western and
2
Central Pacific Ocean, and the seas connecting the two bodies of water. It
is known for the high species richness of coral, seagrass, and mangrove
vegetation when compared to other geographical regions (Alongi, 2002;
Miller et al., 2018; Roberts et al., 2002; Short et al., 2007). It follows that
the Indo-Pacific also features extensive and diverse SSF which provide
livelihoods to millions of people (Béné et al., 2016; FAO, 2023a; Kawa-
razuka and Béné, 2010; Sowman et al., 2014; Weeratunge et al., 2014).
While SSF livelihoods are generally important throughout the global
sphere, these SSF livelihood sources are often peoples’ sole options in the
Indo-Pacific (Jones et al., 2022; Kolding et al., 2014; Salayo et al., 2008;
Stacey et al., 2021). Alongside fishing as an occupation, the value chain of
SSF includes a diversity of other jobs related to the transportation, pro-
cessing, vending or mongering of fish (Drury O’Neill et al., 2018; FAO,
2023a; Manyungwa et al., 2019), as well as to the construction and mainte-
nance of boats and gear for fishing (Bapat and Kurian, 1981; Herrón et al.,
2020).
Gleaning, i.e. the collection of marine organisms near shore, such as
algae, invertebrates, and other fisheries resources (Fig 1.) is a type of SSF
that is particularly important for households living in the Indo-Pacific’s
coastal areas (Crawford et al., 2010; Furkon et al., 2020; Tilley et al., 2021;
Weeratunge et al., 2010). Gleaning encompasses a variety of different col-
lection methods, for example: gleaning by hand or using simple gear, such
as buckets, sticks, or knives (Andréfouët et al., 2013; del Norte Campos et
al., 2005; Villarta et al., 2021). Gleaning is performed in a variety of dif-
ferent coastal ecosystems including mangrove forests, coral reefs, seagrass
meadows, mud flats, rocky shorelines, and sandy beaches (del Norte Cam-
pos et al., 2023; Dumilag and Javier, 2022; Furkon et al., 2020; Grantham
et al., 2021; Nieves et al., 2010). Gleaners, most of whom typically are
women, operate according to different fishing styles: some are selective by
targeting only certain species; others are opportunistic and collect any spe-
cies they can catch (del Norte Campos et al., 2005; Furkon et al., 2020).
3
Figure 1. Images of gleaning practices and catches from the Indo-Pacific.
Gleaning has been documented as a livelihood activity within the Indo-
Pacific’s fishing villages, in such countries as Indonesia (Furkon et al.,
2020), the Philippines (del Norte Campos et al., 2023; Villarta et al., 2021),
Madagascar (Andréfouët et al., 2013; Barnes and Rawlinson, 2009), the
Solomon Islands (Barclay et al., 2018), Kenya (Alati et al., 2020), Vietnam
(Hue Le, 2008), Tanzania (Pike et al., 2024), and East Timor (Grantham et
al., 2020; Tilley et al., 2021). In many of these case studies, gleaning in
coastal ecosystems served as an important – or even the sole – livelihood
activity. In order to secure the livelihoods of individuals and entire house-
holds, there is an overall high dependency of fishing villages on gleaning.
While there is a known occurrence of gleaning along the coastline of the
Indo-Pacific in many communities, there are no regional estimates for the
number of people dependent upon this livelihood activity. Furthermore,
gleaning is neither formally recognized as an SSF nor is it included in
coastal resource management.
A major problem facing gleaners (and SSF more generally) is the risk
of degradation. This risk has often been presented as a “tragedy of the com-
mons” (Hardin, 1968). Because coastal environments are typically com-
mon pool resources (CPR), they are non-excludable and rivalrous. This
means that: (1) CPR are not typically owned by one person but are rather
open to all within a community; and (2) one person’s usage diminishes
benefits for the rest of the community. Due to these characteristics, the
gains of the exploitation of a CPR tend to benefit individual users, while
the costs of usage fall upon the entire group. In the absence of management
4
rules or enforcement (whether formal or informal), this can create an in-
centive for individuals to increase their usage, potentially leading to over-
exploitation, and causing the CPR to collapse (Cinner, 2011, 2009; Gough
et al., 2020) or to shift into an alternative ecological regime. The latter can
happen when fisheries (both subsistence and commercial) threaten marine
biodiversity (Belhabib et al., 2016; Costello et al., 2010). Such gradual ex-
ploitation can lead to ecosystem collapse or regime shifts as seen, for ex-
ample, on the coast of Africa (Belhabib et al., 2019, 2016) and Southeast
Asia (Pomeroy, 2012; Zhao and Jia, 2020). There are varieties of processes
that could lead to such declines in the CPR. One phenomena is called “fish-
ing down the food web” – when, due to their economic value, large preda-
tory fish are fished first, and when their stocks are depleted, smaller species
are targeted, leading to a process whereby fishers become gradually more
reliant for their livelihood security on smaller species and invertebrates
(Pauly, 1995). Certain types of SSF activities can be more selective when
targeting species; on the other hand, some SSF may target a high number
of species (Herrón et al., 2019; Karr et al., 2021). Multispecies SSF may
have a high fishing pressure on essentially all parts of the coastal food-web
and species that can be fished nearshore (Herrón et al., 2019; Karr et al.,
2021; Ojeda-Ruiz et al., 2019).
Because in reality local communities often prevent overuse through var-
ious, mostly informal, regimes of management, the work of Ostrom and
others has demonstrated that the tragedy of the commons is less frequent
than one may imagine. (Ostrom, 2008; Ostrom et al., 1994). The CPR lit-
erature based on Ostrom’s work highlights furthermore that environmental
degradation is not so much a result of individual rational decision-making,
and that there is never a simple causal relation between poverty and envi-
ronmental degradation (Béné and Friend 2011; Kamiyama et al. 2015; Nu-
nan 2015; Béné et al. 2016). Environmental degradation typically interacts
with a number of other challenges that threaten coastlines, local manage-
ment regimes, and the livelihoods they support (Allison et al., 2009; Glae-
ser and Glaser, 2010; Hernández-Delgado, 2015; Lam et al., 2020; Nunan,
2015; Ogutu-Ohwayo et al., 2016; Talukder et al., 2022; Yanda et al.,
2019), in particular land use change – the development of aquaculture, ag-
riculture, and cities – which contributes to the fragmentation and degrada-
tion of coastal ecosystems (Alongi, 2002; Bryan-Brown et al., 2020; Her-
beck et al., 2020). In addition, climate change and extreme weather events
linked to it further pressurize these ecosystems (Daw et al., 2009; Galap-
paththi et al., 2022; Lam et al., 2020; Perry et al., 2010; Speers et al., 2016;
Waycott et al., 2009).
5
The complex interactions between environmental degradation, and such
other processes as land use change and climate change are often not explic-
itly studied (see Nunan 2015 for an exception). Further knowledge is
needed to understand how local fisher communities and livelihoods are
both causing and responding to the complex threat of coastal degradation.
The aim of this thesis is to contribute to this literature through a study of
how the Indo-Pacific’s local fisher communities use coastal resources to
maintain livelihood security under the threat of environmental degradation
of coastal environments. Because information about regional SSF remains
only partially available (FAO, 2023a), this thesis has obtained basic data
through an interdisciplinary study of four different fisher communities and
their local environments. To achieve the aim of this study, and to comple-
ment existing knowledge, the following two main questions will be ad-
dressed:
1) How do small-scale fishers from the Indo-Pacific use coastal environ-
ments for livelihood security (Papers I-III), specifically, how does gleaning
contribute to livelihood security (Papers I, II)?
2) What coastal changes do small-scale fishers in the Indo-Pacific face (Pa-
pers I-IV), specifically, how does environmental degradation (Papers I-III)
and land use change impact local coastal environments (III-IV)?
6
1.2 Thesis structure
This thesis contains a comprehensive summary and four scientific publica-
tions. The comprehensive summary investigates the aforementioned two
research questions through seven sections. This first section contains an
introduction to both the research rationale and questions. The second sec-
tion outlines the theoretical background and framing that informs the data
collection and analysis for the four publications. The third section presents
the methodology, including presentations of each of the research methods
used in the four papers. The fourth section includes an overview of the
Indo-Pacific and details information surrounding the four study sites. The
fifth section summarizes the results. The sixth section discusses the com-
parative results of the papers in relation to each other and the literature,
while also considering the limitations of this research. The seventh section
presents conclusions of this work.
7
2. Theoretical background
This section describes the theoretical background that guided the research
presented in this thesis. It covers literature on livelihoods, ecosystem ser-
vices, and social-ecological systems. First, the concept of livelihoods and
the importance of ecosystems for livelihood security of small-scale fishers
is described. Then, the concept of ecosystem services is presented as a basis
for understanding of the different benefits that people obtain from natural
environments (particularly in coastal areas). Finally, the concept of social-
ecological systems is introduced to capture the interconnectedness of na-
ture and humans. Interpreting the dynamics of a SSF as a social-ecological
system allows for a holistic understanding of how the interdependency of
SSF livelihoods on coastal ecosystems is impacted by such challenges as
environmental degradation and land use change. It is expected that applied
and linked together, these three concepts – livelihoods, ecosystem services,
and social-ecological systems – allow for understanding livelihood secu-
rity, related to environmental dynamics, in the context of Indo-Pacific re-
gion’s changing coastlines.
2.1. Livelihoods
Livelihoods is a term that refers to a means of supporting one's existence,
especially in terms of subsistence, whether financial or vocational. A live-
lihood is thus related to the ability of individuals or households to obtain
the basic requirements for life, including (but not limited to) food, water,
and shelter. The renowned “sustainable livelihood framework” (Ellis,
1999, 1998; Ellis and Allison, 2004) conceptualizes livelihoods as a com-
bination of assets (natural, physical, human, financial, and social capital)
and activities. The approach also emphasizes the different degree to which
people can shape their livelihoods (Ellis, 1999). Local and global institu-
tions, and social relations mediate access to both assets and activities,
which together determine the living gained by the individual or household
(Ellis 1998).
8
A livelihood strategy considers a spectrum and blend of activities and
choices that people or households use to achieve livelihood security. In-
cluded are income generating activities; use of assets; investments and sav-
ings; the spending and management of incomes. The outcomes of these
livelihood strategies could result in improved or worsened food security,
poverty increase or reduction, lower or higher social status, or the accumu-
lation and decline of livelihood assets (Ellis, 1999; Ellis and Allison, 2004;
Nunan, 2022).
Livelihood security has been defined as adequate and sustainable access
to income and resources to meet basic needs. A livelihood is sustainable
when it can maintain and recover from stress, and shock and when it can
maintain or enhance people’s capacities and assets, while not undermining
the sustainability of natural environments (Chambers, 1995; Chambers and
Conway, 1992).
Livelihood adaptation refers to the ways in which people or households
change their livelihood strategies in reaction to global or local disturbances,
to preserve their livelihood security (Davies and Hossain, 1997; Liu et al.,
2022; Xu et al., 2019). Livelihood adaptation has been defined as the con-
tinuous process of “changes to livelihoods which either enhance existing
security and wealth or try to reduce vulnerability and poverty (Davies and
Hossain 1997, pp 5).” Livelihood adaptation is the mechanism for trying
to sustain one’s quality of life. Adaptation to secure livelihoods does not
necessarily lead to positive outcomes. Livelihood adaptation can be posi-
tive when done by choice, and helping to improve security, but it can also
lead to negative outcomes when adaptation is out of necessity and fails to
increase livelihood security.
Livelihood security and adaptation are important aspects to consider in
relation to small-scale fishers and coastal communities who are directly
dependent on their local environment for their subsistence and income. In
combination with a lack of alternative livelihoods options, this dependence
can invoke a persistent, intergenerational cycle of reinforcing feedbacks –
what has been called a trap – between poverty and environmental degrada-
tion (Björkvik et al., 2020; Boonstra et al., 2016; Boonstra and de Boer,
2014).
The sustainable livelihood framework includes people’s dependence on
nature considering “natural capital” – one of the five different capitals that
together constitute “livelihood assets” (Ellis and Allison, 2004). Natural
capital refers to any stock that yields a flow of goods (Costanza and Daly,
1992). It is an economic metaphor for Earth’s limited yet renewable stocks
of physical and biological natural resources (Millennium Ecosystem As-
sessment 2005). Because small-scale fishers directly depend upon coastal
9
environments, including nurseries and habitats, it is useful to consider more
closely how natural capital constitutes their livelihoods. The next section
therefore introduces and discusses the concept of ecosystem services, i.e.
contributions that derive from natural capital.
2.2. Ecosystem services
All humans are dependent upon nature for both material and non-material
needs (Barbier, 2017, 2010; Costanza et al., 2014, 1997). Nature’s material
and non-material contributions to sustain human life are often referred to
as ecosystem services (Costanza et al., 2014, 1997; TEEB, 2010). Ecosys-
tems services are defined as the direct and indirect contributions of ecosys-
tems to human wellbeing (TEEB, 2010). The ecosystem service framework
includes four different categories: (1) provisioning; (2) regulating; (3) sup-
porting; and (4) cultural ecosystem services. Provisioning ecosystem ser-
vices include the material and energy outputs from ecosystems (e.g. food,
raw material, fresh water). Regulating ecosystem services are provided by
ecosystem processes that help regulate biological and ecological phenom-
ena, e.g. cleaning the air and soil, providing protection from floods, pest or
disease control, carbon sequestration pollination, and erosion protection.
Supporting ecosystem services underpin other ecosystem services. For ex-
ample, ecosystems themselves provide living spaces for flora and fauna,
and allow for the maintenance of genetic diversity. Cultural ecosystem ser-
vices are non-material contributions people and society obtain from eco-
systems. Examples of cultural ecosystem services include opportunities
that natural environments offer for recreation, relaxation, tourism, aesthetic
appreciation, cultural inspiration, spirituality, and a sense of place. As they
are intangible, cultural ecosystem services differ from supporting, regulat-
ing, and provisioning services.
The sustainable long-term flow of ecosystem services depends upon the
functionality and resilience of the ecosystems in question, which, in turn,
depends (to a large extent) upon biodiversity (Cardinale et al., 2012; TEEB,
2010). The Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD) defines ‘biological
diversity’ as “the variability among living organisms from all sources in-
cluding, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the
ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within
species, between species and of ecosystems (UN, 1992).” While there are
still knowledge gaps concerning the ways in which biodiversity actually
provides ecosystem services, general agreement supports the understand-
10
ing that stable and biodiverse ecosystems are necessary for long term de-
livery of services (Harrison et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2017). An ecosys-
tem’s resilience is thus an important prerequisite for the delivery of eco-
system services (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010). Humans benefit from
ecosystems and their services in a variety of ways (Haines-Young and
Potschin, 2010). For example, the livelihoods of small-scale fishers not
only benefit directly from nutrition and income, but also indirectly from
coastal protection from extreme weather linked to climate change – all of
which are important aspects for their livelihoods (Nyström et al., 2012;
Selig et al., 2019).
Each species plays a valuable role within an ecosystem and contributes
to delivery of some ecosystem services. Coral reefs, mangrove forests, and
seagrass meadows provide coastal habitats to flora and fauna, which in turn
deliver important ecosystem services that support the livelihoods of fishers
(Barbier et al., 2008; Nyström et al., 2012; Selig et al., 2019; Wallner-Hahn
et al., 2022). This thesis focuses on invertebrate species (e.g. crabs, echi-
noderm, or molluscs), which are particularly important for gleaners (Papers
I-III) and are simultaneously considered to be ‘bioindicators’ (Prather et
al., 2013), i.e. species that can represent the health or resilience of an eco-
system (Papers I, IV). Different crabs species have been used as bioindica-
tors of degraded mangrove forests in Thailand (Macintosh et al., 2002),
Indonesia (Geist et al., 2012), and Malaysia (Ashton et al., 2003a). In man-
grove forests, for example, mangrove crabs are labelled as ‘ecosystem en-
gineers’ to emphasize their ability to maintain or modify their physical en-
vironment (Agusto et al., 2021; Lee, 2008, 1998). The burrows that these
crabs build impacts a number of biogeochemical processes that help regu-
late the mangrove ecosystem, including redox condition, sediment aera-
tion, and carbon cycling, and they contribute to heavy metal partitioning in
the sediment (Gao et al., 2024; Kristensen and Alongi, 2006; Xie et al.,
2022). Along with other invertebrates, the crabs are important to the food
web and link primary production to the higher trophic levels of the man-
grove forest (Kristensen, 2008; Werry and Lee, 2005).
As rich biodiversity and resilience are crucial for sustainable function-
ing of coastal areas and delivery of key services to local communities, there
is a need for the exploration of the interactions between biodiversity and
environmental degradation, including the resulting repercussions upon lo-
cal people’s livelihoods. The concept of social-ecological systems is used
to investigate the interactions between biodiversity and human exploitation
in further detail.
11
2.3. Social-ecological systems
The concept of social-ecological systems (SES) has been developed to un-
derstand interactions between social and ecological factors that compose
the biosphere (Berkes et al., 1998; Berkes and Folke, 1992; Folke et al.,
2016; Ostrom, 2009). Due to the fact that social and ecological processes
occur both at the multiple scales (from local to global) and over short and
long timespans, SES are complex and dynamic (Barnett and Anderies,
2014; Ostrom, 2009, 2007). Like SSF, SES are radically open to influence
and change from external pressures (i.e. global warming) which can mod-
ify interactions and feedbacks among their components (Biggs et al., 2021;
Ostrom, 2009, 2007; Perry et al., 2010). Conceptually, SES can be used to
make visible important social and ecological entities, their interactions,
outcomes, and feedbacks (Berkes et al., 1998; Colding and Barthel, 2019).
For example, the SES framework developed by Ostrom considers social-
ecological interactions as systems with different components including ac-
tors, resource units, resource systems, and governance systems (Fig. 2)
(McGinnis and Ostrom, 2014; Ostrom, 2009). A SES framework can be
used as a guiding tool to analyse the interactions and processes of the dif-
ferent social and ecological components. Furthermore, the concept of SES
can help to identify how changes in social-ecological interactions can
threaten livelihood security (Delgado-Serrano and Ramos, 2015; Ostrom,
2009; Ostrom et al., 1994). SSF can be thought of as SES with interactions
among the subsystems shaping the larger system they compose (Garcia and
Charles, 2007; Ostrom, 2009). The application of the SES framework in an
analysis of SSF can help to describe the dampening and reinforcing feed-
backs between social and ecological components that influence local peo-
ple’s livelihoods. Using a SES perspective thus allows for an understanding
of the connections between SSF livelihoods and their interdependencies on
coastal ecosystems (Papers I-III). It also allows for an understanding of the
interactions, outcomes, and feedbacks within the respective components of
SES (Papers I-IV). The SES framework can help to understand how liveli-
hood security may change in relation (or is interconnected) to the broader
context and many co-occurring dynamics in complex livelihoods systems.
SES studies of SSF have, e.g., outlined how overfishing may lead to a de-
cline in fish stocks that could affect the livelihoods of fishers, creating a
feedback loop (Boonstra and de Boer, 2014; Cinner, 2011; Kittinger et al.,
2013; Ostrom, 2009). For example, a study of the mud crab (Scylla sp.)
fishery in the Sundarban mangrove forest of Bangladesh used a SES per-
spective to identify reinforcing feedbacks between overfishing of the mud
crab, the dependency of local livelihoods upon mud crab fishery, and the
seasonal availability of the mud crab species (Miah et al., 2022). In parallel,
12
natural calamities occurring year-round (cyclones, storm surges, floods,
and heavy rain), poor enforcement of rules and regulations in the SSF, fre-
quent illegal and destructive fishing activities, social conflicts, and declin-
ing stock also contributed to these reinforcing feedbacks (Miah et al.,
2022).
Figure 2. Social-ecological systems framework composed of four interacting com-
ponents amended from McGinnis and Ostrom 2014. Illustration by M. W. Preston
from Outspoken images.
In combination with livelihood security and ecosystems services, the SES
concept offers a promising lens through which to explore how small-scale
fishers along the Indo-Pacific coast use local resources, their dependence
on natural capital, and how environmental changes can impact the liveli-
hood security of communities. Place-based studies that use a SES perspec-
tive can capture the details of local dynamics where local use interacts with
e.g. biodiversity loss or land use change (Biggs et al., 2021; de Vos et al.,
2019). Using a SES perspective when investigating ecological aspects (e.g.
species presence or species importance, Papers III-IV) can provide insights
into human influences on the structure and resilience of the SES (Papers I-
IV). Applying an SES approach requires, however, a wide range of meth-
ods, to address both ecological and social components of the systems in
13
question. As such, studies included in this thesis rely on a mixed-method
approach, whereby methods from both ecological and social sciences are
used are used alongside each other (see description of the methods for each
paper in Section 3 and Table 1).
14
3. Methodology
The previous section provided the theoretical framework to describe envi-
ronmental dynamics in relation to livelihood security in SSF in the Indo-
Pacific through the concepts of livelihoods, ecosystem services and SES.
This section describes the mixed-methods approach applied within each of
the four papers of the thesis.
A mixed-methods approach combines qualitative and quantitative re-
search methods within a single study (Biggs et al., 2021; Johnson and
Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Qualitative methods are used to describe, interpret,
and explain social reality and dynamics through the medium of language,
visuals, or sounds (Preiser et al., 2021). In this thesis, qualitative methods
were used to understand the perceptions, values, or motivations of individ-
ual fishers or groups of fishers. Methods for collection of qualitative data
include, amongst others, interviews, focus groups, participatory mapping
or (participant) observations. Qualitative methods are based in social sci-
ence approaches (de Vos et al., 2021) and are typically used to study people
in everyday situations by ordinary means (observation, talking, listening)
(Beuving and Vries, 2015). Quantitative methods consider data that is
measurable or countable. Quantitative methods can involve the collection
and analysis of numerical data to record meaning, patterns, and relation-
ships among data (Fetzer et al., 2021). Common for SES research, quanti-
tative data is used to interpreted ecological data or other numerical data
(Fetzer et al., 2021; Reynolds, 2021). An approach that combines both
qualitative and quantitative methods can be advantageous for SES re-
search, to understand the interactions and processes between human and
natural systems that benefits from a multidimensional perspective (Biggs
et al., 2021; Gallaher and WinklerPrins, 2016). In Papers I-IV both quanti-
tative and qualitative methods from ecological and social disciplines were
utilised to address the research aims (Table 1). The remainder of this sec-
tion gives an overview of methods used in Papers I-IV.
15
3.1 Paper I
In Paper I, qualitative and quantitative methods were used to understand
the different components of the SES that supports gleaning at Unguja
Ukuu. To understand the resource system and units of the SES that gleaners
use within the intertidal zone, seagrass vegetation (including characteristics
such as height, density, and species coverage) and associated invertebrate
assemblies were assessed through surveys of the intertidal zone (with the
help of a transect method). Three methods were used, including catch land-
ing surveys, household surveys, and a focus group discussion to investigate
the gleaners’ livelihoods and their SSF. The catch landing survey allowed
for an understanding of the species that the gleaners collected, their motives
for gleaning, their gear type, and demographic data. Household surveys
were conducted to investigate local livelihoods and food security in rela-
tion to gleaning, along with demographic data about the gleaners within the
community. To understand the current legal status of gleaning, along with
the status of coastal management the SSF, relevant policies were analysed.
Ecological assessment of the intertidal zone
The ecological survey was conducted to assess the abundance of inverte-
brates in the seagrass ecosystem, which gleaners collect at Unguja Ukuu,
Zanzibar. For this purpose, 33 individual transects (each 50 meters long)
were laid out in sets of three in the intertidal zone perpendicular to the shore
during spring low tide. Two different habitat types were selected for the
survey: vegetated areas dominated by seagrass (18 transects), and unvege-
tated areas (areas with less than 10% vegetation) (15 transects). For each
transect, the abundance of larger invertebrates (> 5 cm) was first recorded
along the transect line in a belt transect manner within 1 m. on each side of
the transect line (total of 100 m2 per transect). After the belt transect, 0.25
m2 quadrats were laid along the transect every 5 m. to record information
about the habitat. In each quadrat visual observations of seagrass coverage
(%), seagrass species composition (%), macroalgae coverage (%), and sub-
strate type were recorded. In four of the 0.25 m2 quadrats (at 0, 15, 35, and
50 m.) along each transect the abundance of small invertebrates (> 1 cm up
to 5 cm) was recorded. Species were identified to the lowest taxonomical
level possible in the field with a non-invasive visual approach. Further de-
tails on the ecological assessment can be found in Paper I.
16
Data analyses
All analyses were done using R4.0. Seagrass species frequency was calcu-
lated as the number of quadrats where the species occurred divided by the
total number of quadrats multiplied by 100. To compare the similarities of
invertebrate community composition between vegetated and unvegetated
transects, a one-way ANOSIM was conducted based on Bray–Curtis Sim-
ilarity Index with 9,999 Monte Carlo permutations after a 4th root trans-
formation of the invertebrate density data (Clarke and Green, 1988). A
SIMPER test was performed to reveal the contribution of each species to
dissimilarities of invertebrate densities between vegetated and unvegetated
transects (Clarke, 1993). To compare individual species densities between
vegetated and unvegetated transects, the Levene test was used to check for
homoscedasticity, and the Shapiro-Wilk test was used to check for normal-
ity in distribution of data. In case of homoscedasticity and normality of the
data, a t-test was used; otherwise, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test
was performed to compare urban and rural sites. Using descriptive statis-
tics, the gleaner landing survey’s and household survey’s acquired data was
analysed. The number of respondents and percentage of all participants in
the study were presented and visualized with Excel bar charts.
Gleaning landing surveys: Interviews and catch assessments
In total, landing surveys were conducted with 29 gleaners on the beach.
The survey consisted of two components. The first component was a semi-
structured interview conducted in Swahili with the aid of a translator, fol-
lowed by a second component – an assessment of the gleaner’s catch. The
interviews and catch assessment were held during spring low tide during
daytime – the most common time for gleaning. The interview forms can be
found in the Appendix 1 (Gleaning landing survey interview form). The
invertebrates were identified to species level (or lowest taxonomical level
possible with a non-invasive in-field visual approach) and abundances of
each species were recorded. Each landing survey lasted between 15–45
minutes. The interview regarded gleaning preferences (e.g. gear used,
gleaned ecosystem, duration of gleaning).
Household survey
In the form of semi-structured interviews, a total of 36 household surveys
were conducted with Unguja Ukuu gleaners. The interview form may be
found in the Appendix 2 (Household survey interview form). The inter-
17
views were conducted in Swahili with the assistance of a key fishery in-
formant and a translator. The gleaners who participated in the survey were
not necessarily the same individuals who contributed to the gleaning land-
ing survey. The semi-structure format of the interviews allowed for flexi-
bility in responses, as well as for follow-up questions. Photos were taken
when permitted to capture usages of gleaned catch at the household. Each
household interview lasted between 30–60 minutes.
Focus session with invertebrate gleaners and fishers
To solicit additional information on local SSF (including concerns about
coastal management), a focus session was held with local Unguja Ukuu
community members (14 gleaners and four fishermen). Two translators as-
sisted in the facilitation of the focus session that was held in Swahili. A
semi-structured protocol was used during the 150-minute focus session.
This protocol can be found in the Appendix 3 (Protocol for focus session).
Governance system analysis
The Fisheries Act 2010, the current legislation for all fisheries within the
Exclusive Economic Zone of Zanzibar, was thoroughly reviewed. The re-
view focused on identifying regulation of gleaning and the legality of all
known SSF activities at the site. Additionally, Zanzibar Fisheries Frame
Survey 2016 (MANLF, 2017) and a draft of Zanzibar Fisheries Survey
2020 (DFD, 2020) were reviewed to assess whether gleaning is considered
in government assessments and long-term monitoring of SSF in Unguja.
3.2 Paper II
In Paper II, quantitative and qualitative methods were used to understand
where, how, and why gleaning occurs on the island of Malalison, Philip-
pines (Table 1). A participatory mapping activity was conducted to under-
stand the spatial distribution of gleaning activities and in which ecosystems
they occurred, and to map other important features (e.g. buildings, infra-
structure) of the SES. Participatory mapping is a type of public participa-
tion that aims at developing spatial information through a group discussion
(Brown et al., 2018). Maps are powerful visualization tools that allow peo-
ple to express their local knowledge in intuitive ways (Cadag and Gaillard,
2012; Thiault et al., 2017). Additionally, a household survey was used to
18
understand the importance of gleaning for local people’s livelihoods along
with their perceptions of coastal change, and management needs.
Participatory mapping
The participants drew on four different maps, with each map representing
a particular type of information: different types of intertidal ecosystems;
gleaning sites; human constructions (e.g. buildings, infrastructure); and
natural areas. While some categories of information to be mapped were
pre-defined (e.g. seagrass meadows, coral reefs, or human settlements), the
participants could also suggest other categories. In addition, qualitative in-
formation from the participatory mapping was used to develop an under-
standing of each gleaning practice, including where gleaning most fre-
quently occurred, which ecosystems gleaners preferred, and if there was
environmental or seasonal variability. The participatory mapping activity
lasted approximately three hours and involved 24 adult participants (18
women and six men). The participants were selected from the sample of all
interviewees who took part in the study (see below), to represent the three
types of gleaning. The local community and officials of the barangay were
informed a week before the activity. To facilitate the process of mapping
and avoid unequal engagement of particular participants, the mapping ac-
tivity was assisted by the local translator and two field facilitators from the
Local Government Unit of Culasi. The facilitators’ role was to guide the
participants in the mapping task and to ensure equal possibilities for their
engagement. This was done via attention to any inequalities or preventing
attempts to dominate the mapping, and directing specific questions and re-
quests to less engaged participants, (i.e., asking them about the location of
particular gleaning grounds or ways of gleaning, or encouraging them to
mark things on the map themselves). Care was also taken by the researchers
and facilitators to not impose our own views and, in general, not to suggest
any answers to the participants. In addition, the facilitators were instructed
to listen to and motivate participants, without judgement of their percep-
tions and to help them feel comfortable to enable trust building (Morgan,
2019). Before the activity, oral consent was received from each participant.
The semi-structured protocol for the participatory mapping activity can be
found in the Appendix 4 Protocol for participatory mapping.
Household survey
The household survey included a total of 36 semi-structured interviews
with gleaners (27 women and nine men). The interviews took place at
19
gleaners’ residences. Respondents were identified with assistance from the
local translator and field facilitators from the Local Government Unit of
Culasi. The main criterion for selection was that, at the time of interview,
respondents had to be gleaning within the previous six-month period. To
ensure that the respondents represented a diversity of gleaners, (e.g. using
different gear types and gleaning in different locations), the interviewees
were selected with the assistance of local authorities familiar with the
gleaning on the island After a written consent (translated into local lan-
guage of Kinaray-a) was given to each interviewee, the interviews were
then conducted. The semi-structured interview protocol can be found in the
Appendix 5 (Household survey interview form). The semi-structured inter-
view protocol included three sections to understand specific components
of intertidal gleaning: (1) information on different gleaning activities; (2)
the importance of gleaning for livelihoods and food security; and (3) per-
ceptions of the coastal changes and desired management for intertidal
gleaning. The protocol included: (1) interviewee-selected questions with
pre-defined responses, e.g. frequency of gleaning (everyday, multiple
times a week, once a week, once a month, less than monthly) or equipment
used for gleaning (hands, sticks, bucket, bag, knife, rake, other); (2) ques-
tions to rank importance, e.g. importance of gleaning for livelihoods or
food security of the household (not important, important, very important);
(3) “yes-no” questions, e.g. whether the gleaning should be managed; (4)
open questions, e.g. to describe the perceived changes on the coast or per-
ceived threats.
Data analysis
The data acquired during the participatory mapping activity was used to
develop a so-called synthesis map. Based on participant consensus, this
map was used to demarcate intertidal ecosystems, sites for different types
of gleaning, natural areas, and infrastructure across the island of Malalison.
The results were mapped upon Google Earth satellite image from 2022.
The data acquired from the gleaner interviews was analysed using descrip-
tive statistics. The number of respondents and percentage of all participants
in the study was presented and visualized with Excel bar charts for the
questions with pre-defined response categories, as well as ranking and yes-
no questions. For comparison, results were separated by gender. Responses
to open questions were analysed using qualitative content analysis (Bry-
man, 2012), by inductively coding the responses into different categories,
e.g. type of threats or suggestions for management.
20
3.3 Paper III
In Paper III, qualitative and quantitative methods were used to understand
different aspects of the SES at Batan, the Philippines, including the tree
species diversity of the mangrove forest, importance of mangroves for live-
lihoods and mangrove resource use, as well as how people perceive coastal
change and the need for coastal management (Table 1).
Mangrove species survey
The survey of mangroves species was conducted through purposive vege-
tation sampling while walking in the selected mangroves forests (Altami-
rano et al., 2010; Mangaoang and Flores, 2019; Salk et al., 2020). The man-
grove species list was based on previous inventory of the local government
unit from the ten year coastal resource management plan in 2022 (Local
Government Unit, Batan, 2022), and was used to record the species that
were present, with the assistance of barangay officials, local government
unit staff, and local community members (i.e. fishers, fishpond operators,
and local resource users). Photos of each species were taken and morpho-
logical characteristics of leaves, flowers, propagules, roots structures, and
tree bark were noted and used in the identification of each individual spe-
cies. The species were identified using the “Handbook of Mangroves in the
Philippines – Panay” (Primavera et al. 2004). The endangered status of
each mangrove species was recorded based upon the International Union
for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red-list classification, as considered by
Polidoro et al. (2010). Each mangrove forest was surveyed in two consec-
utive days, and the survey lasted up to four hours in each site. In total, ten
sites were selected for the investigation of Batan’s mangrove forests’ tree
species richness.
Household survey
A total of 104 household surveys were conducted within the municipality
of Batan, using predominantly closed (and some open) questions (Ritchie
and Lewis, 2003). The villages surveyed included the island of Tabon
(n=32 surveys), Palay (n=19), Mambuquiao (n=19), Poblacion (n=16), and
Lupit (n=19) (Fig 6). The Local Government Unit (LGU) of Batan assisted
with facilitation of each household survey, contacting the villages and
providing a translator (in Aklanon) from the agricultural office. A formal
request was sent to the barangay captain and other barangay officials to
receive permission before conducting the household surveys. The inter-
viewees were selected by the barangay officials who chose participants
21
based on their availability on the day and time of the survey. The interviews
occurred either at the household of the participant within the village, or at
the village hall. Each of the interview surveys lasted between 30-60
minutes. Prior to each household surveys’ start, the interviewees were in-
formed about the purpose of the study, the potential outputs, as well as of
the confidentiality of their identity. Only persons over age 18 were inter-
viewed. At each household, one person was interviewed and provided their
own perspective and information on their respective household. Survey
forms were printed and data was collected in written form. The survey
questions are included in the Appendix 6 Household survey interview
form. The survey was used to collect information on socio-demographic
characteristics of the household, sources of livelihoods, usage of coastal
resources, perceptions on coastal change, and management needs, and al-
lowed for follow-up questions. Interview responses were analysed using
descriptive statistics, such as percentages by site and for the entire study
area. Responses to questions on the perceptions of coastal change and
coastal management were coded using qualitative content analysis ap-
proach (Bryman 2012) and subsequently grouped into different categories.
The categories were not pre-defined but rather emerged during the analysis.
For information on coastal changes, these categories included: environ-
mental change; changes within small-scale fisheries; and, changes within
the mangrove forest area. For information on coastal management, these
categories included: fishing related management; mangrove related man-
agement; and, other management.
3.4 Paper IV
In Paper IV, quantitative methods were used for assessing the biodiversity
within the mangrove forest of Penang, Malaysia (Table 1). A transect
method was performed to collect the vegetation and mangrove crab assem-
blages data to be compared between urban and rural study sites (Ashton et
al., 2003b; Geist et al., 2012; Hinrichs et al., 2009). Vegetation data (e.g.
species, tree height, girth and diameter at breast height, basal area, vegeta-
tion density) was recorded and crabs (e.g. abundance and biomass) were
collected by hand and identified, weighed, and measured to quantify the
effects urbanization on the crab populations (Ashton et al., 2003b; Geist et
al., 2012; Hinrichs et al., 2009).
22
Mangrove species survey
Vegetation data was collected within 12 10 m × 10 m quadrats (100 m2) at
each study site and data was collected along the tidal gradient with three
transect rows. Within each quadrat, all mangrove tree species and under-
story species were recorded.
Tree height was recorded to differentiate adult trees from juvenile trees.
All trees above 1.3 m were considered adults. Juvenile trees were further
separated into: saplings and seedlings. For adult trees, girth at breast height
(GBH) was recorded at the height of 1.3 m, which was then converted to
diameter at breast height (DBH, DBH = GBH/π) which was then used to
calculate basal area (BA, BA = π * DBH2/4). Stand basal area (SBA) was
calculated as the sum of all BA at each site (in cm2 m−2). (English et al.
1994).
All vegetation types were recorded in each 100-m2 plot to calculate den-
sity for each species present. Understory vegetation was measured in terms
of percentage covered in each 100-m2 plot, which was recorded by incre-
ments of 10%. Mangrove vegetation and understory plants were identified
by visual analysis of leaves, flowers, propagules, bark, and fruits using var-
ious mangrove identification manuals (Giesen et al., 2007; Kitamura et al.,
1997; Primavera et al., 2004).
Mangrove crab collection
Within each 100-m2 vegetation quadrat, one 0.72 m2 quadrat was placed at
the epicentre for collection of mangrove crabs. In each quadrat, all crabs
were collected, identified, weighed, and measured. For the manuals used
in the identification of the mangrove crab species, see Paper IV.
Abiotic parameters collection
To better understand the environmental factors of the mangrove, abiotic
factors were measured during the field survey at each quadrat prior to crab
collection. Water samples were taken from the burrows of the crabs at 0.2
m below surface within the quadrat. Salinity (PSU), dissolved oxygen con-
tent (mg l−1), temperature (°C), the acidity (pH), waste coverage on the
mangrove forest floor were also recorded. Percentage of waste covering
the substrate was recorded by integrals of 10. Substrate type was recorded
at each quadrat by visual observation. A rating scale to grade (from 1 to 4)
was used to indicate different grain sizes of substrate, from 1 indicating
smallest substrate particles (watery mud) to 4 indicating large particles
(rocks and stones).
23
Classification of mangrove catchment area
The borders of the catchment area of each study site were delineated in
Google Earth Pro v.7.3.1, with the digital elevation data from the area. Us-
ing Landsat and Copernicus satellite imagery, the land use in the catchment
areas was classified as mangrove forest, natural forest, agriculture, shrimp
farms, cleared and urban areas. Areas for these land uses were then calcu-
lated in Google Earth Pro v.7.3.1.
Data analyses
All analyses were completed using STATISTICA 13.0, R 3.4.3, and PAST
3.18. The Levene test was used to check for homoscedasticity, and the
Shapiro-Wilk test was used to check for normality in distribution of data.
In case of homoscedasticity and normality of the data, a t-test was used;
otherwise, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was performed to
compare urban and rural sites. Crab abundance, biomass, and mangrove
tree abundance data was considered each separately to calculate several
indices including the total number of species (S), Shannon’s index (H’)
(Shannon, 1948), Simpson’s index (1-λ) (Simpson, 1949), Margalef’s in-
dex (d) (Margalef, 1973), and Pielou’s evenness (J) (Pielou, 1966) Species
importance (IV) (English et al., 1997) was calculated for each mangrove
tree species to identify structural importance of each species. These indices
were calculated at different resolutions of the study, as in both for urban
and rural mangrove forests, considering all study sites. These different in-
dices are important for comparing different aspects of biodiversity of crab
and tree species that was collected during field work.
A one-way ANOSIM was conducted to compare IV of mangrove forest
species between urban and rural sites (Clarke and Green, 1988). Five sep-
arate SIMPER tests (similarity percentage analysis) were conducted to in-
vestigate forest structure (based on IV), crab biomass, crab density, abiotic
features, and the classification of land use data between urban and rural
sites (Clarke, 1993). Redundancy analysis (RDA) was performed to crab
abundance data using potential explanatory variables, consisting of all abi-
otic parameters, tree abundance data, and land use data (Borcard et al.,
2011). The final explanatory variables for the RDA model were selected
via a forward selection eliminating the variables abiotic, tree abundance
data, land use, and those land use types that had higher than 10 variance
inflation factors (VIF).
24
Table 1. Overview of the focus of research and the methods used in the four papers
that compose the thesis.
Focus of research Methods Components of
social-ecological
s
y
stem
Paper I Invertebrate gleaning as a
SES, which included identifi-
cation of: resource system
(the intertidal zone where in-
vertebrate gleaning occurs),
actors (invertebrate gleaners);
the resource unit (inverte-
brates); and the governance
system (the local governance
and management concerns
and regulations of inverte-
brate gleaning and co-occur-
ring SSF) in Unguja Ukuu,
Zanzibar.
Quantitative metho
d
Ecological assessment of
the intertidal zone
Quantitative and qualita-
tive methods
Catch landing survey as-
sessment, Household sur-
vey, Gleaning landing
surveys interviews
Qualitative methods
Governance system anal-
ysis, Focus session with
invertebrate gleaners and
fishers
Resource uni
t
, ac-
tors, resource sys-
tem, governance
system
Paper
II
The how, where and why of
intertidal gleaning in Malali-
son, Philippines. It reveals ge-
ographic occurrence on the is-
land, investigates the motiva-
tions behind gleaning and its
contribution to food security
and livelihoods, and explores
the gleaners’ perception of
change in the coastal zone
where gleaning occurs, the
perceived threats to the
coastal ecosystems, and de-
sired management for this
SSF.
Quantitative and qualita-
tive method
Household survey
Qualitative method
Participatory mapping
Resource uni
t
, ac-
tors, resource sys-
tem
Paper
III The local dynamics and con-
text of mangrove fragmenta-
tion, including a survey of
tree species and an investiga-
tion of mangrove use by the
locals, as well as their percep-
tions of coastal change and
management needs in Batan,
Phili
pp
ines.
Quantitative methods
Mangrove species survey
Quantitative and qualita-
tive method
Household survey
Resource unit, ac-
tors, resource sys-
tem
Paper
IV The biodiversity of mangrove
vegetation and crab assem-
blages of Penang, Malaysia to
explore the impacts of urban-
ization on mangrove forest
structure, mangrove crab as-
semblages, and abiotic condi-
tions by comparing urban and
rural stud
y
sites.
Quantitative methods
Mangrove crab collec-
tion, Mangrove species
survey, Abiotic parame-
ters collection, Classifica-
tion of mangrove catch-
ment area through remote
sensing
Resource unit, re-
source system
25
4. Overview of the Indo-Pacific and study
sites
This section gives an overview of the Indo-Pacific region and describes the
study sites for Papers I-IV. The term "Indo-Pacific" refers to the region
encompassing the Indian Ocean, and the Western and Central Pacific
Ocean (Fig. 3). The larger Indo-Pacific tropical region consists of such sub-
regions as East Africa, the Red Sea, Indo-Arabia, Eastern Indian Ocean,
Indo-Malaysia, and Oceania. With its exceptional marine biodiversity, the
Coral Triangle is a well-known biodiversity hotspot within the Indo-Pa-
cific. The heart of the Coral Triangle occupies just 3% of the surface area
of the tropical Indo-west and central Pacific, but contains 52% of its species
(Allen, 2008; Hoeksema, 2007). Additionally, the Indo-Pacific region is a
biodiversity hotspot for other coastal ecosystem, such as mangrove and
seagrass species (Polidoro et al., 2010; Short et al., 2007; Spalding, 2011).
As related to the rich biodiversity, the need for conservation of coastal eco-
systems within the Indo-Pacific region has been well documented (Brooks
et al., 2020; Unsworth and Cullen, 2010).
The ecosystem and biodiversity found along the Indo-Pacific’s coast-
lines provide a wide array of essential ecosystem services that are vital to
the livelihoods of SSF communities (Brander et al., 2012; Come et al.,
2023; Lau et al., 2019; Selig et al., 2019; Torre-Castro et al., 2008). Yet,
the Indo-Pacific region is also vulnerable to coastal degradation caused by
a complex interaction between overuse, poverty, and local management in
combination with land use change in particular, i.e., the development of
aquaculture, agriculture, and cities – that leads to the fragmentation and
degradation of coastal ecosystems (Alongi, 2002; Bryan-Brown et al.,
2020; Herbeck et al., 2020).
Atop of these challenges also come increasing threats from climate
change (FAO, 2024, 2023b). There exists a high variety of climate related
threats to livelihoods of SSF communities, such as: sea-level rise, increased
frequency of extreme weather events, ocean acidification, coastal erosion,
coral bleaching, depletion of local fish stocks, displacement of SSF com-
munities (Ashton, 2022; FAO, 2024; Grech et al., 2012; Lam et al., 2020;
Pratchett et al., 2011). These effects, in turn, influence SSF in a variety of
26
ways. Due to the warming of water, for example, it can significantly affect
the abundance and migratory behaviour of fish stocks (Anticamara and Go,
2017; Free et al., 2019; Lam et al., 2020). Ocean acidification can disrupt
marine ecosystems by being detrimental to the physiology of certain taxa
such as invertebrate species (Lam et al., 2020; Moore, 2015; Speers et al.,
2016). Extreme weather events, such as typhoons, are occurring at higher
frequencies and magnitudes which could further degrade these coastal eco-
systems, which, to reiterate, are important to SSF (Beirne et al., 2021;
Holden and Marshall, 2018). Many of these climate-related threats are an-
ticipated to worsen in the near- and more-distant futures, which places ad-
ditional pressure upon coastlines (IPCC et al., 2023; Toimil et al., 2020).
Fieldwork was conducted in Unguja Ukuu, Zanzibar (Paper I), Malali-
son island, Philippines (Paper II), Batan, Philippines (Paper III), and Pe-
nang, Malaysia (Paper IV) (Fig 3). The four sites were selected for prag-
matic reasons, i.e. access to local data and stakeholders and permission to
conduct research, interest and availability of counterparts, host organiza-
tions, contacts of co-authors and personal contacts and familiarity.
Figure 3. Location of the four study sites including Unguja Ukuu, Zanzibar (Paper
I), Malalison, Philippines (Paper II), Batan, Philippines (Paper III), and Penang,
Malaysia (Paper IV).
27
4.1. Unguja Ukuu, Zanzibar
This study was carried out on Unguja Island in the Zanzibar archipelago,
Tanzania (hereafter referred to as “Zanzibar”). The island of Zanzibar is a
semi-autonomous region of Tanzania, located approximately 50 km east of
the mainland of Africa (Fig. 4). Zanzibar is flanked by the Western Indian
Ocean to the east and the Zanzibar Channel to the west. As of 2017, the pop-
ulation of Zanzibar is 1.3 million within a land area of 2,462 km
2
(Khamis et
al., 2017). Much of the coastline consists of small-scale fishing villages
where local communities are highly reliant upon fisheries for livelihoods and
food security (Crawford et al., 2010; Jiddawi and Öhman, 2002; Pike et al.,
2022). These SSF operate within nearshore coastal areas placing continual
pressure on coastal and intertidal ecosystems (Jiddawi and Öhman, 2002;
Wallner-Hahn et al., 2016). Particularly, intertidal gleaning for invertebrates
is common across the island of Zanzibar (de la Torre-Castro and Rönnbäck,
2004; Fröcklin et al., 2014). In addition, tourism has swelled on the island
over the last several decades (Gössling et al. 2004; Benansio et al. 2016).
Figure 4. Map of study site Unguja Ukuu. Bottom right is an image of three glean-
ers accessing the seagrass dominated intertidal zone to collect invertebrates.
The coastal ecosystems present at Unguja Ukuu consist of seagrass mead-
ows, mangrove forests, and coral reefs (Khamis et al. 2017). Zanzibar has a
28
tropical climate with two distinct rainy seasons driven by the monsoon: one
from October to December (Kaskazi) and one from March to May (Kuzi)
(Khamis et al. 2017). Fieldwork was conducted in a rural fishing village Un-
guja Ukuu from June to August 2019. During the time of fieldwork, there
was a dry period with a few rainy days (Fig. 4).
4.2. Malalison island, Philippines
Malalison island is located in Culasi, Antique on the island of Panay (Fig 5).
Panay is the fifth largest island in the entire Philippine archipelago. Malalison
is a small island of ca. 54 ha with a population of 789 – up from 461 during
the 1990s (Villarta et al., 2021). Malalison is a small-scale fishing village
where the majority of livelihoods are dependent for their food security on
coastal resources (Amar et al., 1996; Villarta et al., 2021). In recent years, tour-
ism has increased – offering new livelihood possibilities to some of the island’s
inhabitants. The island has a variety of coastal ecosystems including rocky
shores, seagrass meadows with algae, and coral reefs (Baticados and
Agbayani, 2000; Garcia et al., 1998; Hurtado-Ponce et al., 1998; Villarta et al.,
2021). Fieldwork was conducted between March and April 2022.
Figure 5. Map of study site Culasi, Philippines on the island of Panay and an image
of sandy intertidal zone of the island of Malalison.
29
4.3. Batan, Philippines
Batan is a rural fishing village on the island of Panay located in the prov-
ince of Aklan (Fig. 6). As of 2022, the population of Batan is 32,032, with
a land area of 79.22 km
2
(Local Government Unit, Batan, 2022). The main
source of income for local people is from SSF whereby stationary fishing
methods (fish corral) are the most common form of fishing gear (Altami-
rano and Kurokura, 2010; Kamiyama et al., 2015). The coastal geomor-
phology of Batan is a semi-enclosed estuary leading to the Sibuyan Sea.
Batan’s coastal ecosystems include coral reefs, seagrass meadows and al-
gae mats, but mangrove forests are the most prevalent coastal ecosystem
(Altamirano and Kurokura, 2010; Altamirano et al., 2010; Local Govern-
ment Unit, Batan, 2022). Data for this study was collected between April
and May 2022.
Figure 6. Map of study site Batan, Philippines on the island of Panay and an image
of a fishpond situated in a mangrove forest.
30
4.4. Penang, Malaysia
After Kuala Lampur, Penang is the second largest city in Malaysia. Alt-
hough the city is highly developed, many of Penang’s inhabitants are reli-
ant upon the local mangrove system for their food security and livelihoods
(Nordhaus et al., 2019; Rahim et al., 2020). Present coastal ecosystems are
mangroves forests and seagrass meadows (Chee et al., 2017; Teoh and
Woo, 2021). The island is unique for possessing highly-developed, urban-
ized areas next to agricultural, rural areas (Abdul Hamid et al., 2019; Chee
et al., 2017). The three rural sites are Balik Pulau (BP); Permatang Pasir
(PP); Teluk Ayer Tawar (TAT); the three urban sites named Free Trade
Zone (FTZ); Jelutong (JEL); and Sungai Sembilang (SS). Penang has a vi-
brant and diverse culture, with three main ethnicities (Malay, Chinese, and
Indian) that make up the population (Rahbar and Abdul Wahid, 2010). The
island is located within the Strait of Malacca northwest off the peninsula
of Malaya and 4km offshore (Fig 7). Penang’s population is 1.7 million,
within 1048 km
2
of land. Fieldwork was conducted from June until August
2017.
Figure 7. Map of study site Penang, Malaysia and an image of the urban mangrove
forest of Jelutong.
31
5. Summary of key results
This section contains key findings related to the two main research ques-
tions. One of the questions focuses on the importance of coastal areas for
local livelihoods of small-scale fishers in the Indo-Pacific, through the ex-
ploration of invertebrate gleaning (Papers I-II) and the use of resources
from mangrove forests (Paper III). The second question focuses on the
coastal change, which local communities perceive to degrade coastal areas,
and could affect local use of resources and thus livelihood security (Papers
I-III). Fragmentation of natural ecosystems is an important driver of change
in relation to coastal areas – which is explored in more detail in the two last
papers (Papers III-IV), through the application of ecological surveys and
biodiversity assessments.
5.1 Paper I: Social-ecological system analysis of an
invertebrate gleaning fishery on the island of Unguja,
Zanzibar
This paper includes a study of invertebrate gleaning in Zanzibar’s village
of Unguja Ukuu. Ostrom’s SES framework was employed to investigate
the resource system (intertidal zone), users (gleaners and their gleaning
habits), resource units (invertebrates) and the governance system (regula-
tions linked to gleaning). The aim was to holistically understand inverte-
brate gleaning as a SES and its importance for livelihood security, and to
study gleaners’ perception of gleaning and how it is locally managed.
The results confirm that intertidal gleaning is important for local liveli-
hoods and food security. Gleaning was also important for cultural reasons:
the ring cowrie (Monetaria annulus) was used as a game piece in the tra-
ditional boardgame Bao, and income from gleaning was also used to buy
material for tailoring kanga dresses and to support cultural events such as
wedding and funerals. Gleaning was the only source of livelihood for 66 %
of the women in the study area. The income from gleaning offers women
financial capital to send their children to school, receive medical treat-
32
ments, or buy other foods. Gleaners also invested in a micro-financial or-
ganization locally referred to as Saccos Saving and Credit Co-operative
(SACCOS), which allowed for the development of alternative livelihoods,
through investments in small businesses, such as vegetable stands or other
small local shops.
Gleaning of invertebrates by foot was typically performed within the
seagrass ecosystem during low-tide. One invertebrate species, the ark clam
(Anadara antiquata), composed 50% of the catch but the gleaners collected
any species of value, resulting in total of 44 species for with the 36 gleaning
land surveys. A vast majority of gleaners (94%) stated that the intertidal
zone is being degraded primarily due to a decrease in the abundance of
invertebrates. The ecological survey of the catch that gleaners landed con-
firmed that economically important bivalves (Modiolus spp.) and gastro-
pods (Strombus spp.) were in decline. This indicates that common pool re-
sources are becoming scarce while there is an increasing reliance upon in-
vertebrate gleaning as livelihood activity. By illustrating the importance of
gleaning to local livelihoods and the challenges it currently faces linked to
decrease catches, the study concludes that there is need for including glean-
ing into local coastal resource management.
5.2 Paper II: The Where, the How, and the Why of the
gleaning fishery: Livelihoods, food security, threats
and management on the island of Malalison,
Philippines
This paper explores the intertidal gleaning fisheries and their importance
to livelihoods of local people on the island of Malalison, Philippines. This
paper particularly investigates how and where gleaning is conducted, mo-
tivations behind it, and its importance for local livelihoods and food secu-
rity. It also explores gleaners’ perceptions of the changes in the coastal
zone, what threats they see and what management they desire. Similar to
Paper I, this paper investigates livelihood security and coastal manage-
ment, but it adds an important spatial perspective via participatory map-
ping.
Three types of gleaning were observed on the island of Malalison:
gleaning while walking; gleaning while swimming or diving; and the col-
lection of algae (Fig 8). Each type of gleaning was located in different
coastal ecosystems. Walking while gleaning was done on the rocky shore-
line of the west coast, the collection of algae took place on the northeast of
33
the island, and the collection of invertebrates was performed while swim-
ming in the intertidal and subtidal coral reef on the southeast of the island.
All three types of gleaning were important to food security and livelihoods.
For 48.2% of the women, gleaning was their only source of livelihood,
while gleaning was a supplemental activity for men that was performed
when disturbance (such as typhoon, heavy weather, or cold water) pre-
vented them from obtaining their regular livelihood income activities (e.g.
vessel-based fishing or spearfishing). Gleaning was done mainly to support
food and livelihood security but for several interviewees gleaning was also
a form of recreation, and a traditional way of gathering food, important to
local culture. It was perceived that unregulated gleaning resulted in a de-
cline of two species: the tiger conch (Conomurex luhuanus) (27.7% of re-
spondents) and the little bear conch (Canarium urceus) (13.9% of respond-
ents). Respondents believed that typhoons and an increase of gleaners were
the most common threats to the coastal ecosystems where gleaning oc-
curred. Gleaning is not managed or regulated on the island but 61.8% of
the respondents found that management was needed as a way to reduce
overfishing, while 38.2% believed that gleaning should not to be restricted
in any way. Management and regulation measures that were desired by the
respondents who were positive about management included: restricting the
collection of juvenile species; preventing tourists from entering the glean-
ing areas; the implementation of a closed season for intertidal gleaning; and
monitoring of intertidal gleaning by the local government unit. Other sug-
gestions included: increasing possibilities for alternative livelihoods; pre-
venting the removal of rocks from gleaning areas; and more research on
gleaning.
34
Figure 8. A community map developed by the people of Malalison, including eco-
systems, human infrastructure, natural areas, and areas with different types of
gleaning.
5.3 Paper III: Exploring the local context of mangrove
fragmentation. An analysis of livelihood security and
potential for mangrove conservation in Batan,
Philippines
This research explores the local context of fragmentation through a study
of mangroves and their use in area of Batan, Philippines. It first records the
presence of each mangrove species in the mangrove forests. Second, it in-
vestigates how the mangroves are used by local people. Finally, it presents
how local people perceive coastal change and coastal management needs.
The study has shown that even a severely fragmented mangrove forests
can have a relatively high number of different mangrove tree species. The
vegetation survey listed twelve tree species. One endangered mangrove
species gapas-gapas (Camptostemon philippinense) was recorded. Another
mangrove species nipa palm (Nypa fruticans) was an important material
35
resource. Mangrove resources usage occurred at four of the five study sites.
Mangroves were used for roofing, traditional foods such as vinegar (suka),
wine (tuba), and food (e.g. coconut based ginataang). Local people per-
ceived a number of changes leading to degradation of the estuary, being
detrimental to local livelihoods. The changes observed were classified into
three main categories: environmental changes (such as an increase of
coastal erosion, flooding), changes of SSF (such as increased fishing pres-
sure and a decline in SSF resources), and changes of the mangrove forests
(such as forest area decline and increase of planting). In terms of the status
of the SSF, many respondents perceived less fisheries resources available.
With regard to management, the interviewees advocated for increased
mangrove reforestation efforts; more frequent coastal waste clean-ups; and
coastal zonation for fisheries. Most of the interviewees believed that there
was a need for management of the coastal zone, with the exception of the
people of Poblacion, where 75% of the interviewees believed that manage-
ment was not needed (which could have been linked to their negative ex-
periences related to displacement caused by creation of protected area
there). The management intervention that was most commonly suggested
was mangrove replanting as interviewees found that earlier and more re-
cent mangrove replanting was successful.
5.4 Paper IV: Impacts of urbanization on mangrove
forests and brachyuran crabs in Penang, Malaysia
This study explores the mangrove forest of Penang, Malalaysia. It deter-
mines the biodiversity of mangrove forests in this area, by assessing man-
grove vegetation and crab assemblages. It also compares biodiversity lev-
els between urban and rural mangrove forests. Finally, it investigates which
land use types, abiotic factors, and tree abundances explain best the com-
position of the mangrove crab assemblages.
In total, 5,853 trees were recorded, including 15 species from six differ-
ent mangrove families. A significantly higher number of tree species was
found in urbanized (13) compared to rural (7) mangrove sites. One grey
mangrove species (Avicennia marina) constituted 82.6% of all trees in this
study. In total, 43.2% (2544) of the mangrove trees were categorized as
juvenile (< 1.3 m) showing a high regeneration within the mangrove forest
of Penang. The total number of crab species encountered in the study was
13. Both, urban and rural sites had 12 crab species. Only four crab species
including two grapsid crabs (Parasesarma longicristatum and Parases-
arma eumolpe), the fiddler crab (Tubuca paradussumieri), and the silt crab
36
(Ilyogynnis microcheirum) showed significant differences in density be-
tween rural and urban sites. All other crab species contributed less to the
dissimilarity in crab density and biomass between urban and rural study
sites. Only three abiotic variables including waste, dissolved oxygen, and
salinity varied significantly between urban and rural sites. Considering all
abiotic factors, waste contributed 92.1% to the differences in variance be-
tween urban and rural sites (SIMPER test). Land use, abundance of a grey
mangrove species (A. officinalis), and the abiotic factor salinity were found
to be the factors that best explained the crab population at these sites.
37
6. Discussion
6.1. Importance of coastal ecosystems to SSF
livelihoods
The first section of the discussion focuses on the first research question:
“How do small-scale fishers from the Indo-Pacific use coastal environ-
ments for livelihood security?”, and in particular, “How does gleaning con-
tribute to livelihood security?”
Papers I-III found coastal ecosystems benefit people either directly
(through the delivery of provisioning ecosystem services) or indirectly (e.g.
providing habitats for fish local communities depend on). Coastal ecosys-
tems include rocky coastlines, seagrass meadows, mangrove forests or
coral reefs which provide habitats for algae, invertebrates and fish. Glean-
ers and other small-scale fishers, in turn, directly depend on these organ-
isms for their daily livelihoods. Indirectly these ecosystems also sustain
livelihoods through provisioning, e.g. mangrove forests supplying building
material for housing.
Papers I-II specifically focused upon intertidal gleaning, a type of SSF
that requires little equipment and can be done near the place of residence,
making it an accessible livelihood activity especially for people that lack
the capital that is required for other forms of SSF (Alati et al., 2020;
Crawford et al., 2010; de Guzman, 2019; de Guzman et al., 2019; Tilley et
al., 2021). Paper II illustrated that while the average income provided from
gleaning was well below the Philippine poverty threshold (CPBRD, 2024),
it was still substantial. Papers I-II also demonstrated that local people relied
on gleaning to different degrees. As reported in Papers I-II, gleaning was
in many instances the only livelihood option for local women, while others
were less reliant upon gleaning ecosystems since they had alternative live-
lihood options. Paper I’s study highlighted that women who gleaned used
this additional income to send their children to schooling or improved their
access to health care, to purchase household items or material for tailoring
Kanga dresses.
38
Paper II also demonstrates that some small-scale fishers glean the
coastal ecosystems as a supplemental livelihood activity when they are un-
able to perform regular SSF activities, e.g. during typhoons or when the
water is too cold for spearfishing (as the fishers do not want to risk to get
sick). This demonstrates that small-scale fishers “fall back” upon gleaning
or partake in gleaning as a subsistence SSF livelihood activity in reaction
to global or local disturbances, to preserve their livelihood. Only a few
other studies have shown that men may glean invertebrates, e.g. when fish
landings decline due to strong winds (Tilley et al., 2021), during an eco-
nomic crisis (Gillet 2009), or in general in difficult times when such a
“safety net” was needed (Wallner-Hahn et al., 2022). A good example of
the dynamic degree in which small-scale fishers rely on gleaning comes
from a study on Atauro Island, East Timor. This research shows a greater
relative importance of gleaning in the rainy season, making it into the only
SSF activity available for many households in this season (Grantham et al.,
2021).
Taking these studies together with evidence from Paper II lends support
for the idea that gleaning forms an important supplemental source of live-
lihood security. The possibility to perform gleaning during hardships indi-
cates that gleaning can be crucial to ensure the socio-economic resilience
of small-scale fishers, especially in relation to ongoing environmental
changes, such as the increased frequency of coastal storms and typhoons
due to climate change (FAO, 2023b; IPCC et al., 2023; Nakamura et al.,
2016).
Important to wellbeing, gleaning also has traditional and cultural values
to many communities across the Indo-Pacific beyond providing food secu-
rity and income (Grantham et al., 2020). For example, several respondents
in Paper I reported that gleaning not only provided a source of livelihood,
but also a social and recreational activity with friends and family. Moreo-
ver, income from gleaning also supported cultural events such as weddings
or funerals (Paper I). The cultural and social relevance of gleaning is like-
wise supported by studies of gleaners elsewhere, who report improved
physical and mental health from gleaning (Grantham et al., 2020; Treviño,
2022). Treviño (2022: pp 870), for example, claims that gleaners in North-
ern Ecuador have a deep connection with the mangroves and consider
themselves to be "part of the mangrove ecosystem”. The cultural value of
gleaning was also emphasized in a study of gleaning on the western coast
of Atauro. According to the authors, gleaning was considered as a treasured
activity that allowed for meaningful interactions with friends and families
in the presence of nature (Grantham et al., 2020). Taken together findings
39
in this thesis, as well as other studies, suggests that gleaning not only offers
resources to fulfil basic needs or livelihood security.
6.2. Threats to local coastal environments:
Environmental degradation and mangrove
fragmentation
While the coastlines of the Indo-Pacific provide numerous ecosystem ser-
vices and livelihoods options, as described in Papers I-III, they also face a
number of varying threats (as highlighted for each study area – Papers I-
IV). The following section of the discussion considers the second research
question: “What coastal changes do small-scale fishers in the Indo-Pacific
face?”, and specifically, “How does environmental degradation (Papers I-
III) and land use change impact local coastal environments?”
As perceived by the actors in the studies presented in Papers I-III, envi-
ronmental degradation reduced the availability of the common pool re-
sources, such as fish or invertebrates, in both coastal gleaning systems of
Unguja Ukuu, Tanzania (Paper I) and Malalison Island, the Philippines
(Paper II), and within the multi-gear SSF in the mangrove estuary of Batan,
Philippines (Paper III).
In the studies presented in Papers I-II, the majority of gleaners reported
that nowadays it took them longer to collect a sufficient volume of inver-
tebrates due to a decline in the abundance within the intertidal zone. For
example, the majority of gleaners interviewed in Paper I believed that there
has been a decline in the abundance of invertebrates within the intertidal
zone. Gleaning has been ongoing in this area for many decades with one
cockle species, the ark clam (Anadara antiquata), prominent in the catch
(Crawford et al. 2010), and the respondents reported the decline of this
species among other economically important species. Gleaners adapted to
this change by beginning to collect other species of value, so shifting from
a targeted gleaning to opportunistic gleaning (del Norte Campos et al.,
2005; Furkon et al., 2020).
This switch from targeting specific species to a more opportunistic style
of gleaning could explain the rich diversity of 44 species within the catch
landing survey (Paper I). Similarly, in the study presented in Paper II, the
gleaned catch was perceived as changing, whereby two species: the tiger
conch (Conomurex luhuanus) and little bear conch (Canarium urceus) be-
came less abundant within the intertidal zone. This confirms the findings
of two other studies, conducted in Malalison twenty years ago, by del
Norte-Campos (2003) and Villarta (2021) and which, taken together, gives
40
some understanding of differences in catch over time. Comparing these
studies revealed that after twenty years three species were no longer rec-
orded in the catch, including the mussel (Septifer excisus) and two pro-
tected species including the giant clam (Tridacna gigas) and black lipped
oyster (Pinctada margaritifer) (del Norte-Campos 2005, Villarta et al.
2021).
In Paper III, small-scale fishers also reported that their catches have
been in decline for several years. This perception of declining catches was
also reported in a study by Altamirano and Kurokura 2010 that found a
decline in the mean catch from 24 kg/day in the 1970s to 5 kg/day in 2000s
in the estuary of Batan. This has critical consequences for the people of
Batan, as although the catch was in decline, most local communities in Pa-
per III continue to rely heavily on them for their livelihoods with limited
choices for alternatives (Altamirano and Kurokura, 2010; del Norte Cam-
pos et al., 2023; Kamiyama et al., 2015).
The thesis highlights mangrove loss and fragmentation as drivers of
change contributing to the degradation of these coastal environments (Pa-
pers III-IV). A direct driver of mangrove loss and fragmentation is land use
change, most notably urban development and land conversion for uses such
as aquaculture and agriculture (Bryan-Brown et al., 2020; Goldberg et al.,
2020).
Of these two drivers, commodity-based land use change is the most
prevalent. Between 2000 and 2016, land use change and conversion of
mangroves to rice fields, shrimp farms, and oil palm plantations was re-
sponsible for 62% of global mangrove loss (Goldberg et al., 2020). Of these
human-driven losses, 80% occurred within six Southeast Asian countries,
including Indonesia, Myanmar, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and
Vietnam (Goldberg et al., 2020). Another example of this large scale con-
version comes from Cambodia where nearly 20% of the original mangrove
forests have been converted to aquaculture ponds and salt pans (Sharma et
al., 2020). While urbanization is admittedly not the greatest overall driver
of mangrove loss and fragmentation, at local scales it can be the dominant
cause, as demonstrated by studies of the mangrove forest loss throughout
the previous decades in coastal urban areas of Douala, Cameroon,
(Nfotabong-Atheull et al., 2013), the southeast coastline of Brazil (Ferreira
and Lacerda, 2016), and Singapore (Friess et al., 2019; Lai et al., 2015).
Moreover, there is also reason to expect that the overall impact of infra-
structure development and urbanization of the coastline on mangrove loss
and fragmentation will only increase since it is anticipated that between
2000 and 2030 urban populations in coastal areas will increase by 35-
102% (Neumann et al., 2015).
41
This thesis explores the change of the mangrove forests that were sub-
ject to land-use change and urbanization, in relation to local livelihoods
security. The research (Papers III-IV) confirms that mangrove ecosystems
are rich in biodiversity (crabs and mangrove trees) and support a variety of
livelihood activities through their natural resource. A more surprising find-
ing was that, contrary to common wisdom, the level of biodiversity in frag-
mented mangroves was not lower compared to biodiversity in more natural
mangroves (Papers III-IV). For example, the mangrove survey in Paper III
recorded 12 of mangrove tree species in Batan, Philippines and in Paper IV
15 tree species in Penang, Malaysia were recorded to be present from the
total of 69 known mangrove tree species (Saenger et al., 2019). This might
seem a rather poor score (only 17% of all known species present); however,
when compared to other studies of local mangrove forests, it seems to be
an average score. Biodiversity surveys done in Punta Mala Bay, Panama
(Benfield et al., 2005), Matang Mangrove Forest Reserve, Malaysia (Goes-
sens et al., 2014), Karachi, Pakistan (Saifullah et al., 1994), Nayarit, Mex-
ico (Palacios and Cantera, 2017), East Java, Indonesia (Isroni et al., 2019),
East Lombok, Indonesia (Zulhalifah et al., 2021), and Tanzania (Njana,
2020) recorded between 3 and 8 species. Still, other locations within the
Indo-Pacific have a higher tree species diversity. For example, studies of
Segara Anakan lagoon, Java, Indonesia (Hinrichs et al., 2009), Sarawak,
Malayasia (Ashton et al., 2003b), and Sultan Kudarat, Philippines (Man-
gaoang and Flores, 2019) recorded between 21 and 28 species. It should be
noted, however, that differences in research methods, research questions,
the size of mangrove forests, and localized effects of fragmentation could
have contributed to the different number of mangrove tree species reported
in each case study, which complicates the comparison.
Moreover, the biodiversity inventories also demonstrated that despite
coastal change and ecosystem degradation, local coastal environments con-
tinue to provide important habitats in the mangrove of Batan, for example,
the endangered tree species gapas-gapas (Camptostemon philippinense)
was present (Papers III-IV). Estimates from 2010 suggest that less than
1200 individuals of C. philippinense remain globally, which provides jus-
tification to extend conservation efforts to also include fragmented and de-
graded mangrove forests (IUCN, 2008; Polidoro et al., 2010). Likewise,
the biodiversity inventories that were performed for Paper IV also give rea-
son to reconsider common knowledge about biodiversity being marginal-
ized in urban environments. Paper IV demonstrates a significantly higher
number of tree species present in urban mangrove forests (14 tree species)
compared to rural forests (seven tree species). Additionally, Paper IV con-
sidered and assessed the crab population and compared their abundance
42
between urban and rural mangrove forests sites, revealing that certain crabs
such as the grapsid crab species (Parasesarma eumolpe) and the silt crab
species (Ilyogynnis microcheirum) were highly abundant in fragmented ur-
ban forests while another species of grapsid crab (Parasesarma longicris-
tatum) and a fiddler crab species (Tubuca paradussumieri) were more
abundant in natural forests. The next section will consider the implications
of these findings for management and conservation of coastal environ-
ments in the Indo-Pacific.
6.3. The risk of social-ecological traps and
suggestions for management
The findings from Papers I-III could possibly be considered as evidence
that these locations are suffering from a social-ecological trap. The combi-
nation of a direct dependence and dwindling resources may produce self-
reinforcing feedbacks – due to the scarcity and the lack of alternative in-
come opportunities (Hanh, 2022) people may be forced (“trapped”) to in-
crease exploitation efforts resulting in even more environmental degrada-
tion (Cinner 2011; Boonstra et al. 2016). It has been demonstrated that
pressure from environmental change onto the coastal environments threat-
ens to deepen social-ecological traps and may lead to increased dependency
on the SSF for livelihoods and increased competition for already limited
common pool resources (Armitage et al., 2011; Betcherman and Marschke,
2016; Hanh, 2022). Existence of such threats was also evident from the
material collected for this thesis. In addition to environmental degradation,
interviewees in all three studies (Papers I-III) reported a variety of other
changes that occurred within the coastal social-ecological system.
As such, the future management would do well to consider the possibil-
ities for alternative livelihoods to provide income and security for local
communities without jeopardizing the sustainability of coastal services
provision. Through the provision of alternative livelihoods, the reliance of
local communities on natural resources can be lessened. Development of
alternative livelihoods options is a conventional conservation strategy used
to reduce environmentally damaging activities (Hanh, 2022). One example
of the effect of the provision of alternative livelihoods comes from Paper I
where the gleaners from Unguja Ukuu developed a community-based mi-
cro-financial organization locally referred to as Saccos Saving and Credit
Co-operative (SACCOS). Microfinance is a mechanism to provide loans to
develop small business enterprises (Bezboruah, 2022). With SACCOS the
gleaners were able to borrow and invest in new businesses enterprises such
43
as selling vegetables or small stores and thus became less dependent on
gleaning. When effective, alternative livelihoods provide both social ben-
efits and benefits to the environment, therefore it can be seen as an ap-
proach that aims to break social-ecological trap dynamics. Examples of al-
ternative livelihoods that can be found in literature in relation to SSF com-
munities include tourism activities, aquaculture such as seaweed farming,
craft making, or bee keeping (Hill et al., 2012; Munthali and Mughogho,
1992; Sievanen et al., 2005; Triet, 2010). As seen in the Philippines and
Indonesia, the alternative livelihoods provided by seaweed farming can
raise the socioeconomic status of small-scale fishers by providing an alter-
native income, and reduce environmental impact by using less destructive
fishing techniques (i.e. fishing with the use of dynamite or cyanide) (Siev-
anen et al., 2005).
At the same time, alternative livelihood projects and initiatives can face
numerous challenges (Fröcklin et al., 2012; Hanh, 2022). For example,
some communities may have limited resources and capacity to adopt the
new livelihoods without proper training, infrastructure, and material or fi-
nancial support, or access to markets (Fröcklin et al., 2018; Gurney et al.,
2014; Hanh, 2022; Sievanen et al., 2005). There may also be an external-
support dependency, which may make livelihoods unsustainable in the
long term (Gurney et al., 2014). For example, one conservation attempt for
a Marine Protected Area in Indonesia showed that the positive impacts dur-
ing the implementation phase were not sustained over the long term (Gur-
ney et al., 2014). In this project several developments were being imple-
mented simultaneously including improved access to drinking water, live-
lihood training, and environmental education (Gurney et al., 2014). More-
over, alternative livelihoods such as aquaculture (fish ponds and farms)
may also have negative impacts on the local coastal areas and livelihoods,
for example, by increasing nutrient pollution, degrading the coastal envi-
ronment or blocking access to natural capital (Eng et al., 1989; Primavera,
2006; Yang et al., 2021). Often it is difficult to foresee the success of a
planned alternative livelihood developments as commonly a long term
monitoring is missing (Roe et al., 2015). Because of all these challenges it
is crucial that the introduction of alternative livelihoods involves recogni-
tion of the local context and exploration of both social and ecological con-
ditions and needs. Studies such as in this thesis provide detailed local in-
formation that can facilitate design of alternative livelihoods that take into
account local context, e.g. information on the ways in which local people
dependent on coastal resources (Papers I-III), such as knowledge on where
and how gleaning is conducted (Papers I-II).
44
One major finding of this work is the importance of conserving all re-
maining mangrove areas. Even coastlines that maybe impacted by different
developments such as urbanization or conversion to fish ponds can host
important biodiversity and thus provide ecosystem services for local peo-
ple. As such all remaining mangroves (as well as other coastal ecosystem
such as seagrass meadows and coral reefs) need to be considered in local
management plans, to prevent local extinctions and loss of diversity in the
coastal areas, that could in turn impact ecosystem services and local liveli-
hoods. Securing these livelihoods is important since as shown in Paper I-
III local people and their households are highly dependent on coastal re-
sources.
This work illustrates both the importance of the coastal SES for fishers
and the threats they are facing. These results support the urgent need for
improved management and planning of coastal areas in the Indo-Pacific, to
ensure continued support for local livelihoods, in the face of numerous
threats. The information provided in this thesis can be used as a starting
point to inform coastal resource management. For example, it shows that
gleaning is conducted in many different ways and in different environ-
ments, which can inform a more sustainable spatial planning in areas where
gleaning occurs. This type of knowledge is useful in the planning of man-
agement of the coastal zone and introducing management measures that
can be relevant just for each specific local SSF. The work also confirms the
importance of gleaning for women (Paper I-II), suggesting that any plan-
ning of coastal management needs to consider women’s perspectives. Yet,
their perspectives are still often undervalued despite that they may have
important knowledge on the different aspects of the SSF and the various
livelihood activities linked to the SSF value chain. In Sri Lanka, for exam-
ple, women are crucial for the post-harvest processing (e.g. sun drying or
salting) in the dry fish value chain (Galappaththi et al., 2023, 2021) while
in India women are important as seasonal employees for shrimp peeling,
grading and packaging of fish (Warrier, 2001). Women are also key actors
in pre-harvest activities such as in the mending of fishing nets and for the
preparation of fishing bait (Galappaththi et al., 2021; Hossain et al., 2015).
The consideration of women is also important for equity and empowerment
within the community, and as such to support a more inclusive coastal man-
agement (de la Torre-Castro, 2019; Harper et al., 2020, 2013; Weeratunge
et al., 2010).
45
6.4. Limitations
While this work has contributed to a more detailed understanding of local
interdependencies in the Indo-Pacific between coastal ecosystems, liveli-
hoods and the coastal environmental change, the studies were conducted at
one point in time only, which could limit the understanding of the dynamics
of social and environmental change. For example, the invertebrates that
inhabited the seagrass meadow (Paper I) and crabs within the mangrove
forest (Paper IV) were surveyed during low tide which may have impacted
the species recorded. The species inhabiting intertidal ecosystems may also
have daily, seasonal, yearly, or decadal variations that could be induced by
natural processes and anthropogenic pressures (García-Trasviña et al.,
2023; Olsson et al., 2012; Saulnier et al., 2019; Unsworth et al., 2007).
Additionally, fishing techniques, social norms, and attitudes to sustainable
practices may change over time based on the social-economic setting and
context (Cinner, 2009; Cinner et al., 2009; Cinner and McClanahan, 2006).
An inventory of perceptions of fishers within an SES, as explored in the
four studies, has been used as starting points for a deeper understanding of
the interdependencies between coastal ecosystems, livelihoods and the
threats of global environmental change. It remains important, however, to
be aware that local perceptions could be contentious due to, e.g., the shift-
ing baseline syndrome or memories bias (Daw et al., 2011; Johannes et al.,
2000; Papworth et al., 2009). A final limitation surrounds the pragmatic
selection of the research locations. Results would have been strengthened
if the selection would have further considered the social-cultural and envi-
ronmental diversity that characterises the Indo-Pacific coastlines.
46
7. Conclusions
Seafood is important. Protein from fish and other sea organisms make up
20% of the average animal protein intakes of 3.3 billion people. This per-
centage is typically higher for the Indo-Pacific region’s inhabitants residing
in countries like Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and numer-
ous Small Island Developing States (SIDS) where fish can contribute to
more than 50% of the average total animal intake per person (FAO, 2020).
It is also known that coastal ecosystems (such as, seagrass meadows, coral
reefs, and mangrove forests) support the seafood that contributes to the
livelihoods of millions of people along these coastlines (FAO, 2020;
2023a). This is again particularly true in the Indo-Pacific region, where
local livelihood security often depends directly upon the resources and ser-
vices that natural environments provide (Barbier et al., 2008; Jones et al.,
2022; Selig et al., 2019; Woodhead et al., 2019). This direct dependence
also makes the coastal livelihoods of the Indo-Pacific region vulnerable to
global change (FAO, 2024, 2023b, 2023a).
The aim of this thesis is to contribute to the literature on livelihood se-
curity for coastal people in the Indo-Pacific region through a study of how
local fisher communities in this area use coastal resources to maintain live-
lihood security in the face of environmental degradation. The results of this
study, based on interdisciplinary research of four different fisher commu-
nities and their local environments, complements the still partial body of
knowledge of coastal livelihoods in this region (FAO, 2023a) through the
provision of basic data. The thesis was conducted through combining a SES
perspective with the concepts of livelihood and ecosystem services, and a
multi-method approach.
Intertidal gleaning is one type of livelihood activity that the thesis ex-
plores in detail. For many women, intertidal gleaning is the primary (or
only) source of livelihood (Paper I-II). In contrast, many men rely on vessel
based SSF, or spearfishing, as a main livelihood activity and fall back on
gleaning as a supplemental source for their livelihoods when their regular
SSF activity is not possible. This result indicates the importance of glean-
ing for socio-economic resilience of the coastal communities in the Indo-
Pacific coping with environmental change.
47
In order to sustain gleaning and its important function for livelihood se-
curity, there is a need to address environmental degradation. Overall,
gleaning throughout the Indo-Pacific is poorly described or understood in
terms of its practices and dynamics, and their importance to livelihood se-
curity. Insights from Papers I-II provide knowledge of different types of
gleaning, their geographic location at local scales, and the tools used in the
harvest. Understanding fundamental aspects of these SSF can be essential
first steps to design management approaches that take into account local
contexts at the study sites of this thesis, and other similar locations across
the Indo-Pacific.
Papers III-IV provide insights into the local context of fragmentation
and degradation in mangrove social-ecological systems. In Paper III, it was
found that fragmented mangroves support local livelihoods directly
(through the delivery of provisioning ecosystem services) or indirectly (e.g.
through provision of important habitats for fish that local communities de-
pend on). At the same time fragmented mangrove forests can be important
habitats for biodiversity, including important endangered species (Paper
III) and rich crab communities (Paper IV) that are crucial for the function-
ality of these coastal ecosystems. The preservation of fragmented man-
grove sites (or other fragmented coastal systems) is thus critical to securing
local livelihoods and should be considered in decision-making processes.
Studies in Papers I-III provide some possible evidence of social-ecolog-
ical traps where the fishers have a high dependency upon natural capital to
secure their livelihoods. As seen in other studies, this is a common phe-
nomenon in many SSF throughout the Indo-Pacific (Cinner, 2011; Miah et
al., 2022). Loss of species and ecosystems could exacerbate these traps by
further degrading their ability to support livelihood security. This calls for
new strategies, such as development of alternative livelihoods, that would
make local people less depended on natural resources for their livelihoods,
at the same time decreasing coastal degradation.
The work in Papers I-IV indicates the importance of studies to under-
stand local context to support strategic planning of future management. In
the face of global changes and local effects, this becomes imperative for
securing sustainability of coastal livelihoods (de la Torre-Castro, 2019). As
global environmental changes continue to threaten the livelihoods of
coastal people in the Indo-Pacific region, these studies are more necessary
than ever. (FAO, 2023b, 2020).
48
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge several people who were key in the PhD the-
sis. First, I would like to thank my PhD supervisors Malgorzata Blicharska
and Wiebren Boonstra for helping me with my PhD! I would also like to
acknowledge everyone who assisted in the fieldwork, data collection, anal-
ysis that allowed for the science to happen. In Zanzibar, field assistants
Haula Haji and Saduni Mohammed, co-authors Lina Mtwana Nordlund
and Narriman Jiddawi, the local community fisherfolks and gleaners of
Unguja Ukuu. In the Penang, Malaysia I would like to thank Universiti
Sains Malayisa, Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies, and specifically,
Yee Jean Chai, Marcus Loh, and Amni Nabilah Mat Adam who provided
their assistance during the fieldwork, as well as co-authors Martin Pfeiffer,
Su Yin Chee, Lucy Gwen Gillis, and Inga Nordhaus. In the Philippines at
the study site of Malalison island, Culasi and the mangrove estuary of Ba-
tan, I would like to thank, University of the Philippines Visayas, Alice Joan
1Ferrer, Annabelle del Norte Campos, Karen Villarta, Switzel Lapara.
From the Local Government Unit (LGU) of Culasi I would like to thank
the Mayor of Culasi Jose Jeffrey Y. Lomugdang and co-author Alma San-
dig the field assist Samuel Sandig. From Batan, Aklan, the Philippines I
would like to thank the LGU of Batan, Mayor Michael R. Ramos, and Rose
Pacis among the other LGU employees. Figure 1. was drawn by Marie W.
Preston from Outspoken images. Thank you to Anissa Stocks, Emma Björ-
kvik and Sieglind Wallner Hahn for feedback on this thesis.
49
Appendix
Appendix 1 Gleaning landing survey interview form
1. Do you agree to participate in this study?
2. How old are you?
3. Fill in the gender (man/woman) First, we have some questions about
your gleaning habits
4. Why do you glean? (multiple choice: For extra income, Main income,
For food, To get more varied
diet, To collect bait, Curio, Nothing else to do, Social, Other)
5. What do you typically do with your catch? (multiple choice: Market in
the village, Town market,
International market, Home consumption, For curio trade, To make art or
jewellery, Bait, Other)
6. How many days a month do you glean?
7. For how many hours during one day do you typically glean?
8. Do you use any equipment when gleaning? (multiple choice: Hands,
Rock, Knife, Wooden stick,
Metal stick, Rake, Trap, Net, Mosquito net, Hand lines, Fishing rod, Boat
to go to gleaning site, Other)
9. What equipment do you typically use? (multiple choice: Hands, Rock,
Knife, Wooden stick, Metal
stick, Rake, Trap, Net, Mosquito net, Hand lines, Fishing rod, Boat to go
to gleaning site, Other
10. What is your favourite habitat to glean in? (multiple choice: Coral reef,
Deep water, Mangrove,
Mud, Sand, Seagrass, Algae, Other)
11. In which habitat do you get the most valuable catch (in monetary
terms)? (multiple choice: Coral
reef, Deep water, Mangrove, Mud, Sand, Seagrass, Algae, Other) We also
have some questions of the
gleaning you have done today.
12. For how many hours have you been gleaning today?
13. In which habitat/-s have you been gleaning today? (multiple choice:
Coral reef, Deep water,
50
Mangrove, Mud, Sand, Seagrass, Algae, Other)
14. Have you been gleaning in the seagrass today? Y/N
15. (if gleaned in seagrass) How many hours did you spend in the seagrass
today?
16. Is your catch today, larger, smaller, or the same size as you typically
catch? Multiple choice: Much
smaller, Smaller, Same size, Larger, Much larger)
17. What will you do with your catch today? (multiple choice: Market in
the village, Town market,
International market, Home consumption, For curio trade, To make art or
jewellery, Bait, Other)
18. (if they sell) How much money will you get for this catch today (on an
average day)? Local
currency or USD?
19. How many people have contributed to the collection of your catch?
Any additional comments from interviewee Any additional comment from
team interviewing If you have not been able to weigh and look at the catch
during the interview, please do so now.
20. May I please weigh your catch? Weigh catch and record the weight of
the whole catch in kilo (kg).
(100g=0.1kg)
21. May I please look a bit closer at your catch and spread it on a plastic
sheet and take pictures?
Investigate the catch, preferably on a plastic sheet, take photos and identify
species the catch to lowest taxonomical level possible. Start recording the
most common and "valuable" species. Take a picture of the whole catch.
Remember to include a ruler or something with a known length (and define
that length here above in the form) in all photos. Include your ID for the
catch (e.g. a note with date and time you started the interview)
51
Appendix 2 Household survey interview form
Introductory questions
1. Village/Sex/Age/Education
2. How many years have you performed seagrass gleaning?
3. Do you perform gleaning in any other ecosystem? (which one?)
4. Which ecosystem do you prefer? (and why?)
5. What is the main reason for gleaning in seagrass?
a. Income
b. Food for the household
c. Both
d. Other, please specify
Availability
6. What kind of invertebrates do you collect in the seagrass?
7. Has the variety changed over time?
a. Yes. If yes, please describe
b. No
c. I do not know
8. During the years you have performed seagrass gleaning in Unguja Ukuu,
do you think that the
catch has
a. increased? Why do you think it has increased?
b. decreased? Why do you think it has decreased?
c. remained the same?
d. I do not know
9. During the years you have performed seagrass gleaning in Unguja Ukuu,
do you think that the
number of people that perform gleaning has
a. increased? Why do you think it has increased?
b. decreased? Why do you think it has decreased?
c. remained the same?
d. I do not know
10. According to your knowledge, approximately how many people in Un-
guja Ukuu perform
seagrass gleaning?
Accessibility
11. How long do you have to walk during collection? (Hours)
12. If you could no longer access this area, what would you do?
a. Glean in another place
b. Stop to do gleaning
c. Try to do another activity (which one?)
d. I do not know
52
13. Is it difficult or dangerous to do seagrass gleaning here?
a. Yes. If yes, please specify why
b. No
c. I have no opinion
14. In your opinion, in which seagrass area do you find the best inverte-
brates? (e.g. best quality, biggest catch, best value)
15. Can you access that area?
a. Yes. If yes, please specify how
b. No. If no, please specify why
c. I do not know
16. What protein sources (foods) do you have access to?
a. Beef (every day/a few days a week/once a week/a few times a
month/other)
b. Lamb/goat (every day/a few days a week/once a week/a few times a
month/other)
c. Chicken/other poultry (every day/a few days a week/once a week/a few
times a
month/other)
d. Eggs (every day/a few days a week/once a week/a few times a
month/other)
e. Fish (finfish) (every day/a few days a week/once a week/a few times a
month/other)
f. Invertebrates (every day/a few days a week/once a week/a few times a
month/other)
g. Legumes, e.g. beans, lentils, peas, soy foods, peanuts - (every day/a few
days a week/once a week/a few times a month/other)
h. Tree nuts, e.g. cashew nuts, (every day/a few days a week/once a week/a
few times a month/other)
i. Bush meat (every day/a few days a week/once a week/a few times a
month/other)
j. Other
17. Are there any alternative livelihoods/incomes in your household?
a. Yes, If yes, please specify which (and who is performing this other live-
lihood: you, husband, children)
b. No
Utilisation and nutrition
18. What do you do with the catch?
a. Eat
b. Sell
c. Exchange for other foods
d. Other, please specify
19. If you sell the invertebrate / their by -product, what do you do with the
income?
53
20. How many people do you need to feed in your household?
21. Can you store your catch and eat it later?
a. Yes
b. No
c. I do not know
22. If you can store the invertebrates from seagrass, how is it done?
a. Smoked
b. Salted
c. Sun dried
d. Boiled
e. Cold storage: ice/fridge/freezer?
f. Other
Stability over time
23. Does the catch vary over the northeast monsoon (kaskazi) and southeast
monsoon (kusi)?
24. How many days a month do you glean in seagrass?
25. How many days a month do you glean in another ecosystem?
26. According to your opinion, is there anything that threatens the provi-
sion of seagrass invertebrates?
a. Industry
b. Tourism
c. Too many gleaners
d. Plastic
e. Waste water
f. Climatic conditions/weather
g. Ecological changes that decrease the invertebrates
h. Other. Please specify what
i. I do not know
27. Is there anything one can do to protect the invertebrates for future gen-
erations?
a. Yes. If yes, how do you think it should be protected?
b. No. If no, why don’t you think it can be protected?
c. No opinion/I do not know
28. How important do you think this seagrass gleaning activity is to provide
food/protein to your household (either by your own consumption, or
through providing income to buy other food/protein)
a. Very important
b. Important
c. Not so important
d. Not important at all
54
Appendix 3 Protocol for focus session
Section 1 – Changes to gleaning over time
● Have your experiences with gleaning changed over time?
● Are there differences in the species you collected when you first started,
to now?
● Have you noticed any particular species disappearing?
● Do you target any kinds of animals in particular? Are there certain ani-
mals which you can
gain a cash income from?
● How important is gleaning for both your household income, and for
providing food?
● Do you feel that gleaning provides you with a good livelihood?
● Has there been changes in the numbers of men gleaning?
Section 2 – Gleaning habitats
● Have you noticed any changes in the coastal areas where you glean?
● Which of these habitats do you feel are important for coastal areas?
Please give some reasons.
● What kind of changes have you noticed in the seagrass over time?
● What do you feel has driven these changes?
Section 3 – Gleaning Management
● Do you feel that gleaning gets enough attention from coastal managers?
● Have you noticed any attempts of management with gleaning, what were
they and how helpful do you think they were?
● What do you think could be done to help make gleaning activities more
sustainable, so that there are enough animals to collect into the future?
● What resources do you think could help with this?
● What problems do you see associated with developing a management
strategy for gleaning?
● Out of the following management strategies, which do you feel would be
the most achievable,
and helpful?
I. Minimum catch size limits
II. Limitations on the most damaging types of equipment
III. Local beach recorders who make records of catches
IV. Committees made up of gleaners to discuss issues and problem solving
V. Education workshops to learn more about the animals, and coastal eco-
systems
VI. Limits on total allowable catch
VII. Temporal and spatial closures of overharvested sites
55
Appendix 4 Protocol for participatory mapping
Participatory mapping activities
What are the ecosystems and human development on and surrounding the
island?
1) Mapping ecosystems of the island
Coral, sand, rock, seagrass, mangrove, shallow water, mud flat, deep-water
other.
2) Mapping human development on the island
Infrastructure – village, city centre, other human settlements, pier, boat
area, hotel, other structures.
Marine protected area
Where do you go most for gleanings? Does this ever change or do you have
multiple sites? If so, why?
Did you ever go gleaning elsewhere in times before? If so, why?
Where do most people go for gleaning?
Where is the best place to glean for invertebrates? Why is this the best
location to glean?
Are there certain locations where you can only find some invertebrates?
What species and where?
Do gleaning sites change based on seasons or for other reasons? Always
the same
Where do the tourist go on the island? Is it the same as the gleaning sites?
What are the threats to the gleaning areas? Please make a list? Then rank
those from highest to lowest based on group consensus.
56
Where are these threats occurring on the map? Label with corresponding
number from above.
What do you think can be done to protect the invertebrates?
What do you think can be done to protect the ecosystems where you glean?
Is there gleaning occurring within the Marine Protected Area (MPA)?
Using the following species list with the local community record the per-
spective of all species within the intertidal zone of the island of Malalison.
In particular record the coverage Catch per unit effort (CPUE), the availa-
bility of each species in one typical year per, and since the time period of
1990.
Anadara compacta
Angaria delphinus
Callistoctopus nocturnus
Canarium urceus
Clypeomorus bifasciata
Conomurex luhuanus
Conus caracteristicus
Conus litteratus
Conus textile
Cypraea tigris
Distorsio anus
Euprotomus aurisdianae
Geloina expansa
Lambis millepeda
Marcia hiantina
Monodonta confusa
Nerita albicalla
Nerita polita
Patelloida saccharina
Patelloida striata
57
Pharella acutidens
Scutarcaopagia scobinata
Tegillarca granosa
Trochus maculatus
Turbo chrysostomus
Umbonium vestiarium
58
Appendix 5 Household survey interview form
Date Interview number
Village
Consent to interview
Prior to the onset of this interview please read the following: “This survey
is a part of the research of Johann Stiepani a PhD student at Uppsala Uni-
versity. During this interview you will be asked about your household, the
local fisheries, and your livelihood. All data will be anonymous. The in-
formation of this interview will be used to support research that will be
used in scientific publications and potentially other academic outputs.
The survey will take 20-60 minutes approximately. At any time during
this you will be able to withdraw from the interview. Do you have any re-
maining questions? Are you willing and agreeing to participate in this in-
terview?”
Signed consent: ____________________________
Gender ( m / f ), age ________ size of household ________ Are you the
head of the house (yes/ no)
What is you highest level of education?
__________________________________________________
What is your religion?________________
Where are you originally from? ___________________
How long have you been living here? _______
How often do you glean? Everyday, multiple times a week, once a week,
once a month, less than monthly
How many days per month do you estimate you glean?
_____________________________________________
Do you glean all year or only during certain time periods? (All year / cer-
tain
times)_____________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
For how many hours on average?_________ Do you always glean in the
same location?__________
Please point this on the map. Did you glean elsewhere before? If so, why?
___________________________________________________________
How do you get to your gleaning site? walk, car, bicycle, public transport,
boat ________________
What is your main reason for gleaning? Food, livelihood/income, fishing
bait, other?
___________________________________________________________
Is gleaning your primary livelihood? (yes / no) other ?
______________________________________
59
Where do you sell your gleaned invertebrates?
____________________________________________
How do you store your gleaned invertebrates?
____________________________________________
How important is gleaning to you as a livelihood?
Not important, important, very important
Do you have another source of livelihood? (yes /
no)________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
_______________________
___________________________________________________________
_______________________
What is the total income to your family per month?
________________________________________
What is the income you have received from gleaning per month?
_____________________________
What is the main source of income to your family/house-
hold?______________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Have you become more reliant on gleaning in recent year? (Yes/no)
___________________________________________________________
If you could not glean what would you do instead for livelihood ?
___________________________________________________________
Since COVID19 has more of your livelihood/income depended on glean-
ing? (yes) (no) (no effect)
___________________________________________________________
Has COVID19 impacted other sources of livelihood/income to your fam-
ily? (yes) (no) (no effect)
___________________________________________________________
_______________________
Since COVID19 have your household become more reliant on gleaner for
food ? (yes) (no) (no effect)
Since the recent typhoon season has more of your livelihood depended on
gleaning (yes)(no) (no effect)
___________________________________________________________
What do you do with your gleaned goods? Eat, sell, trade for other food,
trade for other item, other
___________________________________________________________
Do you use any gear to glean? Hands, sticks, bucket, bag, knife, rake,
other
___________________________________________________________
Do you glean at night?_______________ what species______________?
Additional gear?_________
60
Are there certain times where you only glean for food? (Yes) (no)
___________________________________________________________
How much of your weekly protein is derived from gleaning (%)(0-
25)(25-50)(50-75)(75-100)
How much of your weekly protein is from fishing other than glean-
ing(%)(0-25)(25-50)(50-75)(75-100)
How much of your weekly protein is derived from non-fish protein(%)(0-
25)(25-50)(50-75)(75-100)
What are the proteins sources that are not fish?
___________________________________________________________
How important is gleaning to the food security of your household? Not
important, important, very important
___________________________________________________________
How old were you when you first gleaned for invertebrates?
_________________________________
Who taught you how to glean?
_________________________________________________________
Do you glean using the same gear as when you were younger?
_______________________________
Do you go gleaning alone now?________________ if not with who?
__________________________________________________________
What do you do with shells that are not sold or after cooking?
___________________________________________________________
Do you use any shells as toys, games, ornaments, household items, or cul-
tural value? (yes) (no)
___________________________________________________________
What are the main species do you target?
___________________________________________________________
Are these targeted species always available where you glean? (yes)(no) if
not why do you think they are not availa-
ble?________________________________________________________
What ecosystems are you gleaning in the most? Seagrass, mangrove,
coral, mudflat, sand, other
___________________________________________________________
Have you noticed any changes in the coastal areas where you glean? (yes)
(no) if yes how?
___________________________________________________________
Has the ecosystem (location) where you have gleaned degraded? (yes)
(no) If so, how?____________
___________________________________________________________
According to you opinion, is there anything that threatens the area or eco-
system where you glean?
___________________________________________________________
61
Has the species in the catch remained the same since you have been
gleaning? (yes), (no), (similar)
Have you noticed any particular species disappearing?
_____________________________________
According to you opinion, is there anything that threatens the inverte-
brates?
___________________________________________________________
Do you have to glean longer to get the same catch as before? (Yes)
(no)________________________
Is gleaning being managed in your location? (Yes)
(no)______________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Do you think gleaning should be managed? (Yes) (no)
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
What do you think can be done to protect the invertebrates?
___________________________________________________________
Are men gleaning ? (yes)(no) Do they glean less than
women?________________________________
If men glean what is the purpose? Food, livelihood/income, or bait,
other_______________________
How many gleaner do you think glean in the same location as you?
___________________________
Do you think there has been an increase of gleaners within the last 5
years? (yes) (no) remained the same?
___________________________________________________________
__________________
Map questions- Please place the letters below on the map of the final page.
Where do you live? H Where do you glean? X
Did you glean in other areas before? B Where do most people glean? M
Photos of each species will be shown to the interviewee. The interviewee
will be ask about the availability, seasonality, utilization, and their targeted
species. Availability refers to when you are gleaning you see these species
extremely rare (ER), rare (R), commonly (C), very common (VC). Tar-
geted refers to if you target these species yes or no. Seasonality refers to if
these specie vary by season are the species impacted by habagat wet season
June-Nov (H), the dry season amihan Dec-May (A), or no seasonal influ-
ence (NS)? Utilization refers to if the gleaned species is cooked (CO), sold
for livelihood/income (L), cultural value (CV), you can include more than
one reply. Other/ picture refers to if you are able to see these uses during
the household survey and are able to get a picture or further explanation.
62
availabil-
ity
season-
ality
utiliza-
tion
targeted Other /
Picture
Anadara compacta
Angaria delphinus
Callistoctopus nocturnus
Canarium urceus
Clypeomorus bifasciata
Conomurex luhuanus
Conus caracteristicus
Conus litteratus
Conus textile
Cypraea tigris
Distorsio anus
Euprotomus aurisdianae
Geloina expansa
Lambis millepeda
Marcia hiantina
Monodonta confusa
Nerita albicalla
Nerita polita
Patelloida saccharina
Patelloida striata
Pharella acutidens
Scutarcaopagia scobi-
nata
Tegillarca granosa
Trochus maculatus
Turbo chrysostomus
Umbonium vestiarium
Are there any other species from the list that you collect? Yes / no
____________________________
___________________________________________________________
______________________ Do you think seasonal influence the availabil-
ity of certain gleaned species? (Yes) (no)___ __________ If so how?
___________________________________________________________
______________
63
Habagat (rainy season )?
___________________________________________________________
___
Are you still able to glean during the rainy season? (Yes) (no)
_________________________________
64
65
Appendix 6 Household survey interview form
Date Interview number
Village
Consent to interview
Prior to the onset of this interview please read the following: “This survey is
a part of the research of Johann Stiepani a PhD student at Uppsala Univer-
sity. During this interview you will be asked about your household, the local
fisheries, and your livelihood. All data will be anonymous. The information
of this interview will be used to support research that will be used in scien-
tific publications and potentially other academic outputs. The survey will
take 20-60 minutes approximately. At any time during this you will be able
to withdraw from the interview. Do you have any remaining questions? Are
you willing and agreeing to participate in this interview?”
Signed consent: ____________________________
Gender ( m / f ), age ________ size of household ________ Are you the
head of the house (yes/ no)
What is you highest level of education?
__________________________________________________
What is your religion?________________
Where are you originally from? ___________________ How long have you
been living here? _______
How often do you glean? Everyday, multiple times a week, once a week,
once a month, less than monthly
How many days per month do you estimate you glean?
_____________________________________________
Do you glean all year or only during certain time periods? (All year / certain
times)________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
For how many hours on average?_________ Do you always glean in the
same location?__________
Please point this on the map. Did you glean elsewhere before? If so, why?
_____________________________________________________________
_______________________________________
How do you get to your gleaning site? walk, car, bicycle, public transport,
boat ________________
What is your main reason for gleaning? Food, livelihood/income, fishing
bait, other?
_____________________________________________________________
Is gleaning your primary livelihood? (yes / no) other ?
______________________________________
What is the primary livelihood of the household ?
_________________________________________
66
How important is gleaning to the food security of your household? Not im-
portant, important, very important
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________
How important is gleaning to you as a livelihood? Not important, important,
very important
Do you have another source of livelihood? (yes /
no)________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________
Have you become more reliant on gleaning/fishing in recent year? (Yes/no)
_____________________________________________________________
____________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________
How much of your weekly protein is derived from gleaning (%)(0-25)(25-
50)(50-75)(75-100)
How much of your weekly protein is from fishing other than gleaning(%)(0-
25)(25-50)(50-75)(75-100)
How much of your weekly protein is derived from non-fish protein(%)(0-
25)(25-50)(50-75)(75-100)
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________
What ecosystems are you gleaning in the most? Seagrass, mangrove, coral,
mudflat, sand, other
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________
Have you noticed any changes in the coastal areas where near where you
live? (yes) (no) if yes how?
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________
_____________________
According to you opinion, is there anything that threatens the coastal ecosys-
tems? Where are these threats occurring. Please locate on the map.
_____________________________________________________________
__________________________
_____________________________________________________________
___________________
Are coastal ecosystems being managed in your location? (Yes)
(no)___________________________
67
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________
Do you think coastal ecosystems should be managed? (Yes) (no)
_____________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________
What do you think can be done to protect coastal ecosystems ?
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________
When or why do you go into coastal ecosystems or use coastal resource?
______________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________
Do you use any coastal resource in your life ?
____________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
68
References
Abdul Hamid, F.A.Z., Abu Bakar, A.F., Ng, T.F., Ghani, A.A., Mohamad Zulkifley,
M.T., 2019. Distribution and contamination assessment of potentially harm-
ful elements (As, Pb, Ni, Cd) in top soil of Penang Island, Malaysia. Environ
Earth Sci 78, 616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-019-8626-0
Agusto, L.E., Fratini, S., Jimenez, P.J., Quadros, A., Cannicci, S., 2021. Structural
characteristics of crab burrows in Hong Kong mangrove forests and their role
in ecosystem engineering. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, Mangroves
and People: Impacts and Interactions 248, 106973.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2020.106973
Alati, V.M., Olunga, J., Olendo, M., Daudi, L.N., Osuka, K., Odoli, C., Tuda, P.,
Nordlund, L.M., 2020. Mollusc shell fisheries in coastal Kenya: Local eco-
logical knowledge reveals overfishing. Ocean & Coastal Management 195,
105285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105285
Allen, G.R., 2008. Conservation hotspots of biodiversity and endemism for Indo-Pa-
cific coral reef fishes. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosys-
tems 18, 541–556. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.880
Allison, E.H., Perry, A.L., Badjeck, M.-C., Neil Adger, W., Brown, K., Conway, D.,
Halls, A.S., Pilling, G.M., Reynolds, J.D., Andrew, N.L., Dulvy, N.K., 2009.
Vulnerability of national economies to the impacts of climate change on fish-
eries. Fish and Fisheries 10, 173–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
2979.2008.00310.x
Alongi, D.M., 2002. Present state and future of the world’s mangrove forests. Envi-
ronmental Conservation 29, 331–349.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892902000231
Alonso Aller, E., Eklöf, J.S., Gullström, M., Kloiber, U., Linderholm, H.W., Nord-
lund, L.M., 2019. Temporal variability of a protected multispecific tropical
seagrass meadow in response to environmental change. Environ Monit As-
sess 191, 774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7977-z
Altamirano, J., Kurokura, H., 2010. Failing inshore fisheries in Batan Estuary, Ak-
lan, central Philippines. Journal of Natural Studies 9, 13–21.
Altamirano, J.P., Primavera, J.H., Banaticla, Ma.R.N., Kurokura, H., 2010. Practical
techniques for mapping small patches of mangroves. Wetlands Ecol Manage
18, 707–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-010-9190-2
Amar, E.C., Cheong, R.M.T., Cheong, M.V.T., 1996. Small-scale fisheries of coral
reefs and the need for community-based resource management in Malalison
Island, Philippines. Fisheries Research 25, 265–277.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-7836(95)00439-4
Andréfouët, S., Guillaume, M.M.M., Delval, A., Rasoamanendrika, F.M.A.,
Blanchot, J., Bruggemann, J.H., 2013. Fifty years of changes in reef flat habi-
tats of the Grand Récif of Toliara (SW Madagascar) and the impact of glean-
ing. Coral Reefs 32, 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-013-1026-0
69
Anticamara, J.A., Go, K.T.B., 2017. Impacts of super-typhoon Yolanda on Philip-
pine reefs and communities. Reg Environ Change 17, 703–713.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1062-8
Armitage, D., Marschke, M., van Tuyen, T., 2011. Early-stage transformation of
coastal marine governance in Vietnam? Marine Policy 35, 703–711.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.02.011
Ashton, E.C., 2022. Threats to Mangroves and Conservation Strategies, in: Das,
S.C., Pullaiah, Ashton, E.C. (Eds.), Mangroves: Biodiversity, Livelihoods
and Conservation. Springer Nature, Singapore, pp. 217–230.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0519-3_10
Ashton, E.C., Hogarth, P.J., Macintosh, D.J., 2003a. A comparison of brachyuran
crab community structure at four mangrove locations under different manage-
ment systems along the Melaka Straits-Andaman Sea Coast of Malaysia and
Thailand. Estuaries 26, 1461–1471. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02803654
Ashton, E.C., Macintosh, D.J., Hogarth, P.J., 2003b. A baseline study of the diver-
sity and community ecology of crab and molluscan macrofauna in the Sema-
tan mangrove forest, Sarawak, Malaysia. Journal of Tropical Ecology 19,
127–142. https://10.1017/S0266467403003158
Bapat, S.V., Kurian, A., 1981. Present status and role of small scale fisheries of In-
dia. CMFRI Bulletin 30A, 13–21.
Barbier, E.B., 2017. Marine ecosystem services. Current Biology 27, R507–R510.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.03.020
Barbier, E.B., 2010. Poverty, development, and environment. Environment and De-
velopment Economics 15, 635–660.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X1000032X
Barbier, E.B., Koch, E.W., Silliman, B.R., Hacker, S.D., Wolanski, E., Primavera,
J., Granek, E.F., Polasky, S., Aswani, S., Cramer, L.A., Stoms, D.M., Ken-
nedy, C.J., Bael, D., Kappel, C.V., Perillo, G.M.E., Reed, D.J., 2008. Coastal
Ecosystem-Based Management with Nonlinear Ecological Functions and
Values. Science 319, 321–323. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1150349
Barclay, K., McClean, N., Foale, S., Sulu, R., Lawless, S., 2018. Lagoon liveli-
hoods: gender and shell money in Langalanga, Solomon Islands. Maritime
Studies 17, 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-018-0111-y
Barnes, D.K.A., Rawlinson, K.A., 2009. Traditional coastal invertebrate fisheries in
south-western Madagascar. Marine Biological Association of the United
Kingdom. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United King-
dom; Cambridge 89, 1589–1596.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0025315409000113
Barnett, A.J., Anderies, J.M., 2014. Weak feedbacks, governance mismatches, and
the robustness of social-ecological systems: an analysis of the Southwest
Nova Scotia lobster fishery with comparison to Maine. Ecology and Society
19.
Baticados, D.B., Agbayani, R.F., 2000. Co-management in marine fisheries in
Malalison Island, central Philippines. International Journal of Sustainable De-
velopment & World Ecology 7, 343–355.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500009470053
Beirne, J., Renzhi, N., Volz, U., 2021. Bracing for the Typhoon: Climate change and
sovereign risk in Southeast Asia. Sustainable Development 29, 537–551.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2199
70
Belhabib, D., Lam, V.W.Y., Cheung, W.W.L., 2016. Overview of West African
fisheries under climate change: Impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptive re-
sponses of the artisanal and industrial sectors. Marine Policy 71, 15–28.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.05.009
Belhabib, D., Sumaila, U.R., Le Billon, P., 2019. The fisheries of Africa: Exploita-
tion, policy, and maritime security trends. Marine Policy 101, 80–92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.12.021
Benansio*, J.S., Wolff, M., Breckwoldt, A., Jiddawi, N., 2016. Have the fishing
communities of Zanzibar Island benefited from increasing tourism develop-
ment? JDAE 8, 95–107. https://doi.org/10.5897/JDAE2016.0727
Béné, C., Arthur, R., Norbury, H., Allison, E.H., Beveridge, M., Bush, S., Campling,
L., Leschen, W., Little, D., Squires, D., Thilsted, S.H., Troell, M., Williams,
M., 2016. Contribution of Fisheries and Aquaculture to Food Security and
Poverty Reduction: Assessing the Current Evidence. World Development 79,
177–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.11.007
Béné, C., Friend, R.M., 2011. Poverty in small-scale fisheries: old issue, new analy-
sis. Progress in Development Studies 11, 119–144.
https://doi.org/10.1177/146499341001100203
Benfield, S.L., Guzman, H.M., Mair, J.M., 2005. Temporal mangrove dynamics in
relation to coastal development in Pacific Panama. Journal of Environmental
Management 76, 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.02.004
Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1992. A systems perspective on the interrelations between nat-
ural, human-made and cultural capital. Ecological Economics 5, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(92)90017-M
Berkes, F., Folke, C., Colding, J. (Eds.), 1998. Linking social and ecological sys-
tems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. ; New York, NY, USA.
Betcherman, G., Marschke, M., 2016. Coastal livelihoods in transition: How are Vi-
etnamese households responding to changes in the fisheries and in the econ-
omy? Journal of Rural Studies 45, 24–33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.02.012
Beuving, J., Vries, G.C. de, 2015. Doing qualitative research: the craft of naturalistic
inquiry. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.
Bezboruah, K.C., 2022. The Role of Microfinance in Mediating Livelihoods, in: The
Routledge Handbook on Livelihoods in the Global South. Routledge.
Biggs, R., Vos, A. de, Preiser, R., Clements, H., Maciejewski, K., Schlüter, M.,
2021. The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods for Social-Ecological
Systems, 1st ed. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003021339
Björkvik, E., Boonstra, W., Hentati-Sundberg, J., 2020. Why fishers end up in so-
cial-ecological traps: a case study of Swedish eel fisheries in the Baltic Sea.
Ecology and Society 25. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11405-250121
Boonstra, W.J., Björkvik, E., Haider, L.J., Masterson, V., 2016. Human responses to
social-ecological traps. Sustain Sci 11, 877–889.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0397-x
Boonstra, W.J., de Boer, F.W., 2014. The Historical Dynamics of Social–Ecological
Traps. AMBIO 43, 260–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0419-1
Borcard, D., Gillet, F., Legendre, P., 2011. Numerical Ecology with R. Springer,
New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7976-6
Brander, L., J. Wagtendonk, A., S. Hussain, S., McVittie, A., Verburg, P.H., de
Groot, R.S., van der Ploeg, S., 2012. Ecosystem service values for mangroves
in Southeast Asia: A meta-analysis and value transfer application. Ecosystem
Services 1, 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.003
71
Brooks, W.R., Rudd, M.E., Cheng, S.H., Silliman, B.R., Gill, D.A., Ahmadia, G.N.,
Andradi-Brown, D.A., Glew, L., Campbell, L.M., 2020. Social and ecologi-
cal outcomes of conservation interventions in tropical coastal marine ecosys-
tems: a systematic map protocol. Environmental Evidence 9, 9.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-020-00193-w
Brown, G., Sanders, S., Reed, P., 2018. Using public participatory mapping to in-
form general land use planning and zoning. Landscape and Urban Planning
177, 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.04.011
Bryan-Brown, D.N., Connolly, R.M., Richards, D.R., Adame, F., Friess, D.A.,
Brown, C.J., 2020. Global trends in mangrove forest fragmentation. Sci Rep
10, 7117. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63880-1
Bryman, A., 2012. Social Research Methods. OUP Oxford.
Cadag, J.R.D., Gaillard, J., 2012. Integrating knowledge and actions in disaster risk
reduction: the contribution of participatory mapping. Area 44, 100–109.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2011.01065.x
Cardinale, B.J., Duffy, J.E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D.U., Perrings, C., Venail, P.,
Narwani, A., Mace, G.M., Tilman, D., Wardle, D.A., Kinzig, A.P., Daily,
G.C., Loreau, M., Grace, J.B., Larigauderie, A., Srivastava, D.S., Naeem, S.,
2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11148
Chambers, R., 1995. Poverty and livelihoods: whose reality counts? Environment
and Urbanization 7, 173–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/095624789500700106
Chambers, R., Conway, G., 1992. Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts
for the 21st century. Institute of Development Studies (UK).
Chee, S.Y., Othman, A.G., Sim, Y.K., Mat Adam, A.N., Firth, L.B., 2017. Land rec-
lamation and artificial islands: Walking the tightrope between development
and conservation. Global Ecology and Conservation 12, 80–95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2017.08.005
Cinner, J.E., 2011. Social-ecological traps in reef fisheries. Global Environmental
Change, Symposium on Social Theory and the Environment in the New
World (dis)Order 21, 835–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloen-
vcha.2011.04.012
Cinner, J.E., 2009. Poverty and the use of destructive fishing gear near east African
marine protected areas. Environmental Conservation 36, 321–326.
Cinner, J.E., Daw, T., McClanahan, T.R., 2009. Socioeconomic Factors that Affect
Artisanal Fishers’ Readiness to Exit a Declining Fishery. Conservation Biol-
ogy 23, 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01041.x
Cinner, J.E., McClanahan, T.R., 2006. Socioeconomic factors that lead to overfish-
ing in small-scale coral reef fisheries of Papua New Guinea. Environmental
Conservation 33, 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892906002748
Clarke, K., Green, R., 1988. Statistical Design and Analysis for a Biological Effects
Study. Mar. Ecol.-Prog. Ser. 46, 213–226.
https://doi.org/10.3354/meps046213
Clarke, K.R., 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community
structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18, 117–143.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.1993.tb00438.x
Colding, J., Barthel, S., 2019. Exploring the social-ecological systems discourse 20
years later. Ecology and Society 24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10598-
240102
72
Come, J., Peer, N., Nhamussua, J.L., Miranda, N.AF., Macamo, C.CF., Cabral, A.S.,
Madivadua, H., Zacarias, D., Narciso, J., Snow, B., 2023. A socio-ecological
survey in Inhambane Bay mangrove ecosystems: Biodiversity, livelihoods,
and conservation. Ocean & Coastal Management 244, 106813.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106813
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg,
K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den
Belt, M., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capi-
tal. Nature 387, 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
Costanza, R., Daly, H.E., 1992. Natural Capital and Sustainable Development. Con-
servation Biology 6, 37–46.
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S.J., Ku-
biszewski, I., Farber, S., Turner, R.K., 2014. Changes in the global value of
ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change 26, 152–158.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002
Costello, M.J., Coll, M., Danovaro, R., Halpin, P., Ojaveer, H., Miloslavich, P.,
2010. A Census of Marine Biodiversity Knowledge, Resources, and Future
Challenges. PLOS ONE 5, e12110. https://doi.org/10.1371/jour-
nal.pone.0012110
CPBRD, 2024. FF2022-07: Poverty Statistics Update First Semester 2021 [WWW
Document]. URL https://cpbrd.congress.gov.ph/2012-06-30-13-06-51/2012-
06-30-13-36-50/1439-ff2022-07-poverty-statistics-update-first-semester-
2021 (accessed 3.11.24).
Crawford, B., Herrera, M.D., Hernandez, N., Leclair, C.R., Jiddawi, N., Masum-
buko, S., Haws, M., 2010. Small Scale Fisheries Management: Lessons from
Cockle Harvesters in Nicaragua and Tanzania. Coastal Management 38, 195–
215. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2010.483174
Davies, S., Hossain, N., 1997. Livelihood adaptation, public action and civil society:
a review of the literature. IDS Working Paper No. 57, Brighton: Insitute of
Development Studies.
Daw, T., Adger, W., Brown, K., Badjeck, M.-C., 2009. Climate change and capture
fisheries: potential impacts, adaptation and mitigation. Climate Change Im-
plications for Fisheries and Aquaculture: Overview of Current Scientific
Knowledge 107–150.
Daw, T.M., Robinson, J., Graham, N. a. J., 2011. Perceptions of trends in Seychelles
artisanal trap fisheries: comparing catch monitoring, underwater visual cen-
sus and fishers’ knowledge. Environmental Conservation 38, 75–88.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000901
de Guzman, A., 2019. Women in subsistence fisheries in the Philippines: The under-
valued contribution of reef gleaning to food and nutrition security of coastal
households. European Demographic Information Bulletin 34–40.
de Guzman, A., Sumalde, Z., Rance, G.M., Colance, M.D., Ponce, M.F., 2019. Con-
tribution of Gleaning Fisheries to Food Security and Nutrition of Poor
Coastal Communities in the Philippines. JESAM 58–71.
de la Torre-Castro, M., 2019. Inclusive Management Through Gender Consideration
in Small-Scale Fisheries: The Why and the How. Frontiers in Marine Science
6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00156
de la Torre-Castro, M., Rönnbäck, P., 2004. Links between humans and
seagrasses—an example from tropical East Africa. Ocean & Coastal Manage-
ment, Coastal Management Practices in the Western Indian Ocean Region 47,
361–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2004.07.005
73
de Vos, A., Biggs, R., Preiser, R., 2019. Methods for understanding social-ecologi-
cal systems: a review of place-based studies. Ecology and Society 24.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11236-240416
de Vos, A., Preiser, R., Masterson, V., 2021. Participatory data collection, in: The
Routledge Handbook of Research Methods for Social-Ecological Systems.
Routledge.
del Norte Campos, A.G., Burgos-Nuňeza, L., Lapara, S., 2023. Bivalve Gleaning
Fishery in Batan Estuary, Aklan, Western Visayas, Philippines. Philipp J Sci
152, 219–229.
del Norte Campos, A.G., Campos, W., Villarta, K., 2005. A Survey of Macro-inver-
tebrate Gleaning in the Batanes Bay Intertidal Area, Eastern Panay Island.
Science Diliman 11–20.
Delgado-Serrano, M. del M., Ramos, P., 2015. Making Ostrom’s framework appli-
cable to characterise social ecological systems at the local level. International
Journal of the Commons 9, 808–830. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.567
DFD, 2020. Department of Fisheries Development (DFD) 2020. Marine Fisheries
Frame Survey 2020, Zanzibar. Ministry of Blue economy and Fisheries Zan-
zibar. SWIOFish Project/World Bank. 51pp.
Drury O’Neill, E., Crona, B., Ferrer, A.J.G., Pomeroy, R., Jiddawi, N.S., 2018. Who
benefits from seafood trade? A comparison of social and market structures in
small-scale fisheries. Ecology and Society 23.
Duarte, C.M., 2002. The future of seagrass meadows. Environmental Conservation
29, 192–206. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892902000127
Dumilag, R., Javier, R., 2022. Ethnobotany of Medicinal Seaweeds of Ilocos Norte,
Philippines. Philipp J Sci 151. https://doi.org/10.56899/151.03.28
Ellis, F., 1999. Rural Livelihood Diversity in Developing Countries: Evidence and
Policy Implications. ODI Natural Resources Perspectives 40.
Ellis, F., 1998. Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification. The Journal
of Development Studies 35, 1–38.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220389808422553
Ellis, F., Allison, E., 2004. Livelihood diversification and natural resource access.
Overseas development group, University of East Anglia, UK.
Eng, C.T., Paw, J.N., Guarin, F.Y., 1989. The environmental impact of aquaculture
and the effects of pollution on coastal aquaculture development in Southeast
Asia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Pollution in the Far East 20, 335–343.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-326X(89)90157-4
English, S.A., Wilkinson, C., Baker, V., Australian Institute of Marine Science
(Eds.), 1997. Survey manual for tropical marine resources, 2. ed. ed. Austral-
ian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville.
FAO, 2024. The unjust climate : measuring the impacts of climate change on rural
poor, women and youth. FAO.
FAO, 2023a. Illuminating Hidden Harvests. FAO; Duke University; WorldFish ;
https://doi.org/10.4060/cc4576en
FAO, 2023b. The Impact of Disasters on Agriculture and Food Security 2023:
Avoiding and reducing losses through investment in resilience. FAO, Rome,
Italy. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc7900en
FAO, 2020. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020: Sustainability in
action, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA). FAO, Rome,
Italy. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9229en
Ferreira, A.C., Lacerda, L.D., 2016. Degradation and conservation of Brazilian man-
groves, status and perspectives. Ocean & Coastal Management 125, 38–46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.03.011
74
Fetzer, I., Piemontese, L., Rocha, J.C., Martín-López, B., 2021. Statistical analysis,
in: The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods for Social-Ecological
Systems. Routledge, London, pp. 252–269.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003021339-22
Fisher, R., O’Leary, R.A., Low-Choy, S., Mengersen, K., Knowlton, N., Brainard,
R.E., Caley, M.J., 2015. Species Richness on Coral Reefs and the Pursuit of
Convergent Global Estimates. Current Biology 25, 500–505.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.12.022
Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norström, A., Reyers, B., Rockström, J., 2016. Social-ecologi-
cal resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecology and Soci-
ety 21. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08748-210341
Fourqurean, J.W., Duarte, C.M., Kennedy, H., Marbà, N., Holmer, M., Mateo, M.A.,
Apostolaki, E.T., Kendrick, G.A., Krause-Jensen, D., McGlathery, K.J., Ser-
rano, O., 2012. Seagrass ecosystems as a globally significant carbon stock.
Nature Geoscience 5, 505–509. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1477
Free, C.M., Thorson, J.T., Pinsky, M.L., Oken, K.L., Wiedenmann, J., Jensen, O.P.,
2019. Impacts of historical warming on marine fisheries production. Science
363, 979–983. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau1758
Friess, D.A., Rogers, K., Lovelock, C.E., Krauss, K.W., Hamilton, S.E., Lee, S.Y.,
Lucas, R., Primavera, J., Rajkaran, A., Shi, S., 2019. The State of the World’s
Mangrove Forests: Past, Present, and Future. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.
44, 89–115. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033302
Fröcklin, S., de la Torre-Castro, M., Håkansson, E., Carlsson, A., Magnusson, M.,
Jiddawi, N.S., 2014. Towards Improved Management of Tropical Inverte-
brate Fisheries: Including Time Series and Gender. PLoS ONE 9, e91161.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091161
Fröcklin, S., de la Torre-Castro, M., Lindström, L., Jiddawi, N.S., Msuya, F.E.,
2012. Seaweed mariculture as a development project in Zanzibar, East Af-
rica: A price too high to pay? Aquaculture 356–357, 30–39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.05.039
Fröcklin, S., Jiddawi, N., de la Torre-Castro, M., 2018. Small-scale innovations in
coastal communities: shell-handicraft as a way to empower women and de-
crease poverty. Ecology and Society 23. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10136-
230234
Furkon, Nessa, N., Ambo-Rappe, R., Cullen-Unsworth, L.C., Unsworth, R.K.F.,
2020. Social-ecological drivers and dynamics of seagrass gleaning fisheries.
Ambio 49, 1271–1281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01267-x
Galappaththi, E.K., Susarla, V.B., Loutet, S.J.T., Ichien, S.T., Hyman, A.A., Ford,
J.D., 2022. Climate change adaptation in fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 23, 4–
21. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12595
Galappaththi, M., Collins, A.M., Armitage, D., Nayak, P.K., 2021. Linking social
wellbeing and intersectionality to understand gender relations in dried fish
value chains. Maritime Studies 20, 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-
021-00232-3
Galappaththi, M., Weeratunge, N., Armitage, D., Collins, A.M., 2023. Gendered di-
mensions of social wellbeing within dried fish value chains: insights from Sri
Lanka. Ocean & Coastal Management 240, 106658.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106658
Gallaher, C.M., WinklerPrins, A.M.G.A., 2016. Effective use of mixed methods in
African livelihoods research. African Geographical Review 35, 83–93.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19376812.2015.1105141
75
Gao, X., Gaitan-Espitia, J.D., Lee, S.Y., 2024. Regulatory role of sesarmid crabs in
nutrient dynamics and implications for the productivity of mangroves. Estua-
rine, Coastal and Shelf Science 298, 108655.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2024.108655
Garcia, L.M., Marte, C., Agbayani, R., 1998. The coral reefs of Mararison.
SEAFDEC Asian Aquaculture 20, 23–29.
Garcia, S.M., Charles, A.T., 2007. Fishery systems and linkages: from clockworks
to soft watches. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64, 580–587.
https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsm013
García-Trasviña, J.Á., Pech, D., Callejas Jiménez, M.E., De Jesus-Navarrete, A.,
2023. Diel variation of the epibenthic community associated with seagrasses
in a subtropical biosphere reserve. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 289,
108389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2023.108389
Geist, S.J., Nordhaus, I., Hinrichs, S., 2012. Occurrence of species-rich crab fauna in
a human-impacted mangrove forest questions the application of community
analysis as an environmental assessment tool. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf
Science 96, 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2011.10.002
Giesen, W., FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Wetlands International,
2007. Mangrove guidebook for Southeast Asia. FAO Regional Office for
Asia and the Pacific, Wetlands International, Bangkok?
Glaeser, B., Glaser, M., 2010. Global change and coastal threats: The Indonesian
case. An attempt in multi-level social-ecological research. Human Ecology
Review 17, 135–147.
Goessens, A., Satyanarayana, B., Stocken, T.V. der, Zuniga, M.Q., Mohd-Lokman,
H., Sulong, I., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., 2014. Is Matang Mangrove Forest in
Malaysia Sustainably Rejuvenating after More than a Century of Conserva-
tion and Harvesting Management? PLOS ONE 9, e105069.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105069
Goldberg, L., Lagomasino, D., Thomas, N., Fatoyinbo, T., 2020. Global declines in
human-driven mangrove loss. Global Change Biology 26, 5844–5855.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15275
Gössling, S., Kunkel, T., Schumacher, K., Zilger, M., 2004. Use of molluscs, fish,
and other marine taxa by tourism in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Biodiversity and
Conservation 13, 2623–2639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-2139-0
Gough, C.L.A., Dewar, K.M., Godley, B.J., Zafindranosy, E., Broderick, A.C.,
2020. Evidence of Overfishing in Small-Scale Fisheries in Madagascar.
Front. Mar. Sci. 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00317
Grantham, R., Álvarez‐Romero, J.G., Mills, D.J., Rojas, C., Cumming, G.S., 2021.
Spatiotemporal determinants of seasonal gleaning. People and Nature 3, 376–
390. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10179
Grantham, R., Lau, J., Kleiber, D., 2020. Gleaning: beyond the subsistence narra-
tive. Maritime Studies 19, 509–524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-020-
00200-3
Grech, A., Chartrand-Miller, K., Erftemeijer, P., Fonseca, M., McKenzie, L.,
Rasheed, M., Taylor, H., Coles, R., 2012. A comparison of threats, vulnera-
bilities and management approaches in global seagrass bioregions. Environ.
Res. Lett. 7, 024006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/2/024006
Gurney, G.G., Cinner, J., Ban, N.C., Pressey, R.L., Pollnac, R., Campbell, S.J.,
Tasidjawa, S., Setiawan, F., 2014. Poverty and protected areas: An evaluation
of a marine integrated conservation and development project in Indonesia.
Global Environmental Change 26, 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloen-
vcha.2014.04.003
76
Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem
services and human well-being, in: Raffaelli, D.G., Frid, C.L.J. (Eds.), Eco-
system Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 110–139.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750458.007
Hanh, T.T.H., 2022. Income diversification as a response to social-ecological traps:
A case study of small-scale fisheries and aquaculture in the Tam Giang la-
goon, Central Viet Nam. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Uppsala.
Hardin, G., 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162, 1243–1248.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
Harper, S., Adshade, M., Lam, V.W.Y., Pauly, D., Sumaila, U.R., 2020. Valuing in-
visible catches: Estimating the global contribution by women to small-scale
marine capture fisheries production. PLOS ONE 15, e0228912.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228912
Harper, S., Zeller, D., Hauzer, M., Pauly, D., Sumaila, U.R., 2013. Women and fish-
eries: Contribution to food security and local economies. Marine Policy 39,
56–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.10.018
Harrison, P.A., Berry, P.M., Simpson, G., Haslett, J.R., Blicharska, M., Bucur, M.,
Dunford, R., Egoh, B., Garcia-Llorente, M., Geamănă, N., Geertsema, W.,
Lommelen, E., Meiresonne, L., Turkelboom, F., 2014. Linkages between bio-
diversity attributes and ecosystem services: A systematic review. Ecosystem
Services 9, 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.006
Herbeck, L.S., Krumme, U., Andersen, T.J., Jennerjahn, T.C., 2020. Decadal trends
in mangrove and pond aquaculture cover on Hainan (China) since 1966: man-
grove loss, fragmentation and associated biogeochemical changes. Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science 233, 106531.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2019.106531
Hernández-Delgado, E.A., 2015. The emerging threats of climate change on tropical
coastal ecosystem services, public health, local economies and livelihood
sustainability of small islands: Cumulative impacts and synergies. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 101, 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol-
bul.2015.09.018
Herrón, P., Castellanos-Galindo, G.A., Stäbler, M., Díaz, J.M., Wolff, M., 2019. To-
ward Ecosystem-Based Assessment and Management of Small-Scale and
Multi-Gear Fisheries: Insights From the Tropical Eastern Pacific. Front. Mar.
Sci. 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00127
Herrón, P., Kluger, L.C., Castellanos-Galindo, G.A., Wolff, M., Glaser, M., 2020.
Understanding gear choices and identifying leverage points for sustainable
tropical small-scale marine fisheries. Ocean & Coastal Management 188,
105074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.105074
Hill, N. a. O., Rowcliffe, J.M., Koldewey, H.J., Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2012. The In-
teraction between Seaweed Farming as an Alternative Occupation and Fisher
Numbers in the Central Philippines. Conservation Biology 26, 324–334.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01796.x
Hinrichs, S., Nordhaus, I., Geist, S.J., 2009. Status, diversity and distribution pat-
terns of mangrove vegetation in the Segara Anakan lagoon, Java, Indonesia.
Reg Environ Change 9, 275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-008-0074-4
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Pendleton, L., Kaup, A., 2019. People and the changing nature
of coral reefs. Regional Studies in Marine Science 30, 100699.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2019.100699
77
Hoeksema, B.W., 2007. Delineation of the Indo-Malayan Centre of Maximum Ma-
rine Biodiversity: The Coral Triangle, in: Renema, W. (Ed.), Biogeography,
Time, and Place: Distributions, Barriers, and Islands, Topics In Geobiology.
Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 117–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
1-4020-6374-9_5
Holden, W.N., Marshall, S.J., 2018. Chapter 24 - Climate Change and Typhoons in
the Philippines: Extreme Weather Events in the Anthropocene, in: Samui, P.,
Kim, D., Ghosh, C. (Eds.), Integrating Disaster Science and Management.
Elsevier, pp. 407–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812056-9.00024-5
Hossain, M., Belton, B., Thilsted, S., 2015. Dried fish value chain in Bangladesh.
WorldFish, Bangladesh and South Asia Office, Dahaka, Bangladesh.
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24362.77762
Hue Le, V.T., 2008. Gender, Doi Moi and Coastal Resource Management in the Red
River Delta, Vietnam, in: Gender and Natural Resource Management.
Routledge.
Hurtado-Ponce, A.Q., Chavoso, E.A.J., Parami, N.P., 1998. Assessment of the sea-
weed-seagrass resource of Mararison Island, Culasi, Antique, Philippines*.
Phycological Res 46, 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-
1835.1998.tb00111.x
IPCC, Calvin, K., Dasgupta, D., Krinner, G., Mukherji, A., Thorne, P.W., Trisos, C.,
Romero, J., Aldunce, P., Barrett, K., Blanco, G., Cheung, W.W.L., Connors,
S., Denton, F., Diongue-Niang, A., Dodman, D., Garschagen, M., Geden, O.,
Hayward, B., Jones, C., Jotzo, F., Krug, T., Lasco, R., Lee, Y.-Y., Masson-
Delmotte, V., Meinshausen, M., Mintenbeck, K., Mokssit, A., Otto, F.E.L.,
Pathak, M., Pirani, A., Poloczanska, E., Pörtner, H.-O., Revi, A., Roberts,
D.C., Roy, J., Ruane, A.C., Skea, J., Shukla, P.R., Slade, R., Slangen, A.,
Sokona, Y., Sörensson, A.A., Tignor, M., Van Vuuren, D., Wei, Y.-M., Win-
kler, H., Zhai, P., Zommers, Z., Hourcade, J.-C., Johnson, F.X., Pachauri, S.,
Simpson, N.P., Singh, C., Thomas, A., Totin, E., Arias, P., Bustamante, M.,
Elgizouli, I., Flato, G., Howden, M., Méndez-Vallejo, C., Pereira, J.J., Pichs-
Madruga, R., Rose, S.K., Saheb, Y., Sánchez Rodríguez, R., Ürge-Vorsatz,
D., Xiao, C., Yassaa, N., Alegría, A., Armour, K., Bednar-Friedl, B., Blok,
K., Cissé, G., Dentener, F., Eriksen, S., Fischer, E., Garner, G., Guivarch, C.,
Haasnoot, M., Hansen, G., Hauser, M., Hawkins, E., Hermans, T., Kopp, R.,
Leprince-Ringuet, N., Lewis, J., Ley, D., Ludden, C., Niamir, L., Nicholls,
Z., Some, S., Szopa, S., Trewin, B., Van Der Wijst, K.-I., Winter, G., Wit-
ting, M., Birt, A., Ha, M., Romero, J., Kim, J., Haites, E.F., Jung, Y., Stavins,
R., Birt, A., Ha, M., Orendain, D.J.A., Ignon, L., Park, S., Park, Y.,
Reisinger, A., Cammaramo, D., Fischlin, A., Fuglestvedt, J.S., Hansen, G.,
Ludden, C., Masson-Delmotte, V., Matthews, J.B.R., Mintenbeck, K., Pirani,
A., Poloczanska, E., Leprince-Ringuet, N., Péan, C., 2023. IPCC, 2023: Cli-
mate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II
and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC,
Geneva, Switzerland. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647
Isroni, W., Islamy, R.A., Musa, M., Wijanarko, P., 2019. Short Communication:
Species composition and density of mangrove forest in Kedawang Village,
Pasuruan, East Java, Indonesia. Biodiversitas Journal of Biological Diversity
20. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d200626
78
IUCN, 2008. Camptostemon philippinense: Duke, N., Kathiresan, K., Salmo III,
S.G., Fernando, E.S., Peras, J.R., Sukardjo, S., Miyagi, T., Ellison, J.,
Koedam, N.E., Wang, Y., Primavera, J., Jin Eong, O., Wan-Hong Yong, J. &
Ngoc Nam, V.: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010:
e.T178808A7612909. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010-
2.RLTS.T178808A7612909.en
Jiddawi, N.S., Öhman, M.C., 2002. Marine Fisheries in Tanzania. AMBIO: A Jour-
nal of the Human Environment 31, 518–527. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-
7447-31.7.518
Johannes, R.E., Freeman, M.M.R., Hamilton, R.J., 2000. Ignore fishers’ knowledge
and miss the boat. Fish and Fisheries 1, 257–271.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2000.00019.x
Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., 2004. Mixed Methods Research: A Research
Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher 33, 14–26.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014
Jones, B.L.H., Unsworth, R.K.F., Nordlund, L.M., Eklöf, J.S., Ambo-Rappe, R.,
Carly, F., Jiddawi, N.S., La Nafie, Y.A., Udagedara, S., Cullen-Unsworth,
L.C., 2022. Dependence on seagrass fisheries governed by household income
and adaptive capacity. Ocean & Coastal Management 225, 106247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106247
Kamiyama, R., Miyata, T., Kurokura, H., Ishikawa, S., 2015. The impact of distribu-
tion change on fisheries in Southeast Asia: a case study in the Batan Estuary,
Aklan, Central Philippines. Fish Sci 81, 401–408.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12562-015-0855-x
Karr, K.A., Miller, V., Coronado, E., Olivares-Bañuelos, N.C., Rosales, M., Naretto,
J., Hiriart-Bertrand, L., Vargas-Fernández, C., Alzugaray, R., Puga, R., Valle,
S., Osman, L.P., Solís, J.C., Mayorga, M.I., Rader, D., Fujita, R., 2021. Iden-
tifying Pathways for Climate-Resilient Multispecies Fisheries. Front. Mar.
Sci. 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.721883
Kawarazuka, N., Béné, C., 2010. Linking small-scale fisheries and aquaculture to
household nutritional security: an overview. Food Sec. 2, 343–357.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-010-0079-y
Khamis, Z.A., Kalliola, R., Käyhkö, N., 2017. Geographical characterization of the
Zanzibar coastal zone and its management perspectives. Ocean & Coastal
Management 149, 116–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oce-
coaman.2017.10.003
Kitamura, S., Anwar, C., Chaniago, A., Baba, S., 1997. Handbook of mangroves in
Indonesia—Bali and Lombok. International Society for Mangrove Ecosys-
tems, Okinawa.
Kittinger, J.N., Finkbeiner, E.M., Ban, N.C., Broad, K., Carr, M.H., Cinner, J.E.,
Gelcich, S., Cornwell, M.L., Koehn, J.Z., Basurto, X., Fujita, R., Caldwell,
M.R., Crowder, L.B., 2013. Emerging frontiers in social-ecological systems
research for sustainability of small-scale fisheries. Current Opinion in Envi-
ronmental Sustainability, Open issue 5, 352–357.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.008
Koch, E.W., Barbier, E.B., Silliman, B.R., Reed, D.J., Perillo, G.M., Hacker, S.D.,
Granek, E.F., Primavera, J.H., Muthiga, N., Polasky, S., Halpern, B.S., Ken-
nedy, C.J., Kappel, C.V., Wolanski, E., 2009. Non-linearity in ecosystem ser-
vices: temporal and spatial variability in coastal protection. Frontiers in Ecol-
ogy and the Environment 7, 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1890/080126
79
Kolding, J., Béné, C., Bavinck, M., 2014. Small-scale fisheries, in: Governance of
Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp.
317–331. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118392607.ch22
Kristensen, E., 2008. Mangrove crabs as ecosystem engineers; with emphasis on
sediment processes. Journal of Sea Research, Mangrove Macrobenthos Spe-
cial Issue 59, 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seares.2007.05.004
Kristensen, E., Alongi, D.M., 2006. Control by fiddler crabs (Uca vocans) and plant
roots (Avicennia marina) on carbon, iron, and sulfur biogeochemistry in man-
grove sediment. Limnology and Oceanography 51, 1557–1571.
https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2006.51.4.1557
Lai, S., Loke, L.H.L., Hilton, M.J., Bouma, T.J., Todd, P.A., 2015. The effects of ur-
banisation on coastal habitats and the potential for ecological engineering: A
Singapore case study. Ocean & Coastal Management 103, 78–85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.11.006
Lam, V.W.Y., Allison, E.H., Bell, J.D., Blythe, J., Cheung, W.W.L., Frölicher, T.L.,
Gasalla, M.A., Sumaila, U.R., 2020. Climate change, tropical fisheries and
prospects for sustainable development. Nat Rev Earth Environ 1, 440–454.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0071-9
Lau, J.D., Hicks, C.C., Gurney, G.G., Cinner, J.E., 2019. What matters to whom and
why? Understanding the importance of coastal ecosystem services in devel-
oping coastal communities. Ecosystem Services 35, 219–230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.12.012
Leal, M., Spalding, M., 2022. The State of the World’s Mangroves 2022. Global
Mangrove Alliance.
Lee, S.Y., 2008. Mangrove macrobenthos: Assemblages, services, and linkages.
Journal of Sea Research, Mangrove Macrobenthos Special Issue 59, 16–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seares.2007.05.002
Lee, S.Y., 1998. Ecological role of grapsid crabs in mangrove ecosystems: a review.
Mar. Freshwater Res. 49, 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1071/mf97179
Lee, S.Y., Primavera, J.H., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., McKee, K., Bosire, J.O., Cannicci,
S., Diele, K., Fromard, F., Koedam, N., Marchand, C., Mendelssohn, I.,
Mukherjee, N., Record, S., 2014. Ecological role and services of tropical
mangrove ecosystems: a reassessment. Global Ecology and Biogeography 23,
726–743. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12155
Liu, W., Cheng, Y., Li, J., Feldman, M., 2022. Livelihood adaptive capacities and
adaptation strategies of relocated households in rural China. Frontiers in Sus-
tainable Food Systems 6.
Local Government Unit, Batan, 2022. 10 Year Coastal Resource Management Plant
CY 2013-2022.
Macintosh, D.J., Ashton, E.C., Havanon, S., 2002. Mangrove Rehabilitation and In-
tertidal Biodiversity: a Study in the Ranong Mangrove Ecosystem, Thailand.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 55, 331–345.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ecss.2001.0896
Mangaoang, C.C., Flores, A.B., 2019. Inventory of mangroves in Katunggan Coastal
Eco-Park, Sultan Kudarat Province, the Philippines. Bonorowo Wetlands 9.
https://doi.org/10.13057/bonorowo/w90202
MANLF, 2017. Zanzibar Marine Fisheries Frame Survey. 2016. Census Report. De-
partment of Fisheries Development, Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Re-
sources, Livestock and Fisheries, Zanzibar. 63pp.
80
Manyungwa, C.L., Hara, M.M., Chimatiro, S.K., 2019. Women’s engagement in
and outcomes from small-scale fisheries value chains in Malawi: effects of
social relations. Maritime Studies 18, 275–285.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-019-00156-z
Margalef, R., 1973. Information theory in ecology. La teoría de la información en
Ecología.
Maslow, A.H., 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 50, 370–
396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
McGinnis, M.D., Ostrom, E., 2014. Social-ecological system framework: initial
changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Society 19.
Menéndez, P., Losada, I.J., Torres-Ortega, S., Narayan, S., Beck, M.W., 2020. The
Global Flood Protection Benefits of Mangroves. Sci Rep 10, 4404.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61136-6
Miah, Md.R., Hossain, M.M., Islam, M.M., 2022. Assessing Sustainability Aspects
of Mud Crab (Scylla sp.) Fishery and Its Link to Social-Ecological Traps in
the Bangladesh Sundarbans. Coastal Management 50, 346–371.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2022.2078176
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program) (Ed.), 2005. Ecosystems and human
well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Miller, E.C., Hayashi, K.T., Song, D., Wiens, J.J., 2018. Explaining the ocean’s
richest biodiversity hotspot and global patterns of fish diversity. Proceedings
of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 285, 20181314.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.1314
Moore, C., 2015. Welfare Estimates of Avoided Ocean Acidification in the U.S.
Mollusk Market. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 40, 50–62.
Morgan, D.L., 2019. Basic and Advanced Focus Groups. SAGE Publications, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071814307
Munthali, S.M., Mughogho, D.E.C., 1992. Economic incentives for conservation:
beekeeping and Saturniidae caterpillar utilization by rural communities. Bio-
divers Conserv 1, 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00695912
Nakamura, R., Shibayama, T., Esteban, M., Iwamoto, T., 2016. Future typhoon and
storm surges under different global warming scenarios: case study of typhoon
Haiyan (2013). Nat Hazards 82, 1645–1681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-
016-2259-3
Neumann, B., Vafeidis, A.T., Zimmermann, J., Nicholls, R.J., 2015. Future Coastal
Population Growth and Exposure to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Flooding - A
Global Assessment. PLOS ONE 10, e0118571. https://doi.org/10.1371/jour-
nal.pone.0118571
Nfotabong-Atheull, A., Din, N., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., 2013. Qualitative and Quanti-
tative Characterization of Mangrove Vegetation Structure and Dynamics in a
Peri-urban Setting of Douala (Cameroon): An Approach Using Air-Borne
Imagery. Estuaries and Coasts 36, 1181–1192.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-013-9638-8
Nieves, P.M., de Jesus, S.C., Macale, A.M.B., Pelea, J.M.D., 2010. An Assessment
of Macro-Invertebrate Gleaning in Fisheries on the Albay Side of Lagonoy
Gulf. Kuroshio Science 4, 27–35.
Njana, M.A., 2020. Structure, growth, and sustainability of mangrove forests of
mainland Tanzania. Global Ecology and Conservation 24, e01394.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01394
81
Nordhaus, I., Siriwardane-De Zoysa, R., Gillis, L.G., Chee, S.Y., Chong, L., Firth,
L., Han, A., Kwang, S.Y., Stiepani, J., Sturgeon, A., Suppiah, R.A., Swee
Yeok, F., 2019. The Future of Mangroves in Penang, Malaysia: Bridging Sci-
ence, Policy and PerspectivesThe Future of Mangroves in Penang, Malaysia:
Bridging Science, Policy and Perspectives.
https://doi.org/10.21244/ZMT.2019.001
Nunan, F., 2022. Livelihoods: Concepts and frameworks, in: The Routledge Hand-
book on Livelihoods in the Global South. Routledge.
Nunan, F., 2015. Understanding poverty and the environment: analytical frame-
works & approaches. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, London ; New
York.
Nyström, M., Norström, A.V., Blenckner, T., de la Torre-Castro, M., Eklöf, J.S.,
Folke, C., Österblom, H., Steneck, R.S., Thyresson, M., Troell, M., 2012.
Confronting Feedbacks of Degraded Marine Ecosystems. Ecosystems 15,
695–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-012-9530-6
Ogutu-Ohwayo, R., Natugonza, V., Musinguzi, L., Olokotum, M., Naigaga, S.,
2016. Implications of climate variability and change for African lake ecosys-
tems, fisheries productivity, and livelihoods. Journal of Great Lakes Research
42, 498–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2016.03.004
Ojeda-Ruiz, M.A., Marín-Monroy, E.A., Galindo-De la Cruz, A.A., Cota-Nieto, J.J.,
2019. Analysis and management of multi-species fisheries: Small-scale fin-
fish fishery at Bahía Magdalena- Almejas, Baja California Sur, Mexico.
Ocean & Coastal Management 178, 104857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoa-
man.2019.104857
Olsson, J., Bergström, L., Gårdmark, A., 2012. Abiotic drivers of coastal fish com-
munity change during four decades in the Baltic Sea. ICES Journal of Marine
Science 69, 961–970. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fss072
Ostrom, E., 2009. A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Eco-
logical Systems. Science 325, 419–422. https://doi.org/10.1126/sci-
ence.1172133
Ostrom, E., 2008. The Challenge of Common-Pool Resources. Environment: Sci-
ence and Policy for Sustainable Development 50, 8–21.
https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.50.4.8-21
Ostrom, E., 2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. PNAS 104,
15181–15187.
Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., Walker, J., 1994. Rules, Games, and Common-pool Re-
sources. University of Michigan Press.
Palacios, M.L., Cantera, J.R., 2017. Mangrove timber use as an ecosystem service in
the Colombian Pacific. Hydrobiologia 803, 345–358.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-017-3309-x
Papworth, S.K., Rist, J., Coad, L., Milner‐Gulland, E.J., 2009. Evidence for shifting
baseline syndrome in conservation. Conservation Letters 2, 93–100.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00049.x
Pauly, D., 1995. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends
in Ecology & Evolution 10, 430. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-
5347(00)89171-5
Perry, R.I., Ommer, R.E., Barange, M., Werner, F., 2010. The challenge of adapting
marine social–ecological systems to the additional stress of climate change.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2, 356–363.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.10.004
82
Pielou, E.C., 1966. The measurement of diversity in different types of biological col-
lections. Journal of Theoretical Biology 13, 131–144.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(66)90013-0
Pike, F., Jiddawi, N.S., de la Torre-Castro, M., 2022. Adaptive capacity within tropi-
cal marine protected areas – Differences between men- and women-headed
households. Global Environmental Change 76, 102584.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102584
Pike, F., Jiddawi, N.S., Nordlund, L.M., 2024. Intertidal gleaning fisheries: Recog-
nising local-scale contributions and management scenarios. Marine Policy
162, 106059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106059
Polidoro, B.A., Carpenter, K.E., Collins, L., Duke, N.C., Ellison, A.M., Ellison, J.C.,
Farnsworth, E.J., Fernando, E.S., Kathiresan, K., Koedam, N.E., Livingstone,
S.R., Miyagi, T., Moore, G.E., Nam, V.N., Ong, J.E., Primavera, J.H., Sev-
erino G. Salmo, I.I.I., Sanciangco, J.C., Sukardjo, S., Wang, Y., Yong,
J.W.H., 2010. The Loss of Species: Mangrove Extinction Risk and Geo-
graphic Areas of Global Concern. PLoS ONE 5. https://doi.org/10.1371/jour-
nal.pone.0010095
Pomeroy, R.S., 2012. Managing overcapacity in small-scale fisheries in Southeast
Asia. Marine Policy 36, 520–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar-
pol.2011.10.002
Pratchett, M.S., Munday, P., Graham, N.A.J., Kronen, M., Pinca, S., Friedman, K.,
Brewer, T., Bell, J.D., Wilson, S., Cinner, J.E., Kinch, J., Lawton, R., Wil-
liams, L., Chapman, L., Magron, F., Webb, A., 2011. Vulnerability of tropi-
cal Pacific fisheries and aquaculture to climate change: summary for Pacific
island countries and territories. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Nou-
mea, New Caledonia.
Prather, C.M., Pelini, S.L., Laws, A., Rivest, E., Woltz, M., Bloch, C.P., Del Toro,
I., Ho, C.-K., Kominoski, J., Newbold, T.A.S., Parsons, S., Joern, A., 2013.
Invertebrates, ecosystem services and climate change. Biological Reviews 88,
327–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12002
Preiser, R., Garcia, M.M., Hill, L., Klein, L., 2021. Qualitative content analysis, in:
The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods for Social-Ecological Sys-
tems. Routledge.
Primavera, J.H., 2006. Overcoming the impacts of aquaculture on the coastal zone.
Ocean & Coastal Management, Selected Papers From the East Asian Seas
Congress 2003, Putrajaya, Malaysia 49, 531–545.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2006.06.018
Primavera, J.H., Sadaba, R.B., Lebata, M.J.H.L., Altamirano, J.P., 2004. Handbook
of mangroves in the Philippines: Panay.
Rahbar, E., Abdul Wahid, N., 2010. Ethno-Cultural Differences and Consumer Un-
derstanding of Eco-Labels: An Empirical Study in Malaysia. JSD 3, p255.
https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v3n3p255
Rahim, F.F., Abdulrahman, S.A., Maideen, S.F.K., Rashid, A., 2020. Prevalence and
factors associated with prediabetes and diabetes in fishing communities in pe-
nang, Malaysia: A cross-sectional study. PLOS ONE 15, e0228570.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228570
Rehren, J., Samoilys, M., Reuter, H., Jiddawi, N., Wolff, M., 2020. Integrating Re-
source Perception, Ecological Surveys, and Fisheries Statistics: A Review of
the Fisheries in Zanzibar. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture 0, 1–
18. https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2020.1802404
83
Reimann, L., Vafeidis, A.T., Honsel, L.E., 2023. Population development as a driver
of coastal risk: Current trends and future pathways. Cambridge Prisms:
Coastal Futures 1, e14. https://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2023.3
Reynolds, H.C., Karen Esler, Dominic A.W. Henry, Penelope Mograbi, Albert Nor-
ström, Chevonne, 2021. Ecological field data collection, in: The Routledge
Handbook of Research Methods for Social-Ecological Systems. Routledge.
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J. (Eds.), 2003. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social
science students and researchers. Sage Publications, London ; Thousand
Oaks, Calif.
Roberts, C.M., McClean, C.J., Veron, J.E.N., Hawkins, J.P., Allen, G.R., McAllis-
ter, D.E., Mittermeier, C.G., Schueler, F.W., Spalding, M., Wells, F., Vynne,
C., Werner, T.B., 2002. Marine Biodiversity Hotspots and Conservation Pri-
orities for Tropical Reefs. Science 295, 1280–1284.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1067728
Roe, D., Booker, F., Day, M., Zhou, W., Allebone-Webb, S., Hill, N.A.O., Kumpel,
N., Petrokofsky, G., Redford, K., Russell, D., Shepherd, G., Wright, J., Sun-
derland, T.C.H., 2015. Are alternative livelihood projects effective at reduc-
ing local threats to specified elements of biodiversity and/or improving or
maintaining the conservation status of those elements? Environmental Evi-
dence 4, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-015-0048-1
Roscher, M.B., Eriksson, H., Harohau, D., Mauli, S., Kaltavara, J., Boonstra, W.J.,
van der Ploeg, J., 2022. Unpacking pathways to diversified livelihoods from
projects in Pacific Island coastal fisheries. Ambio 51, 2107–2117.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01727-x
Saenger, P., Ragavan, P., Sheue, C.-R., López-Portillo, J., Yong, J.W.H., Mageswa-
ran, T., 2019. Mangrove Biogeography of the Indo-Pacific, in: Gul, B., Böer,
B., Khan, M.A., Clüsener-Godt, M., Hameed, A. (Eds.), Sabkha Ecosystems:
Volume VI: Asia/Pacific, Tasks for Vegetation Science. Springer Interna-
tional Publishing, Cham, pp. 379–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
04417-6_23
Saifullah, S.M., Shaukat, S.S., Shams, S., 1994. Population structure and dispersion
pattern in mangroves of Karachi, Pakistan. Aquatic Botany 47, 329–340.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3770(94)90062-0
Salayo, N., Garces, L., Pido, M., Viswanathan, K., Pomeroy, R., Ahmed, M., Sia-
son, I., Seng, K., Masae, A., 2008. Managing excess capacity in small-scale
fisheries: Perspectives from stakeholders in three Southeast Asian countries.
Marine Policy 32, 692–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2007.12.001
Salk, C., Chazdon, R., Waiswa, D., 2020. Thinking outside the plot: monitoring for-
est biodiversity for social-ecological research. Ecology and Society 25.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11223-250107
Saulnier, E., Brind’Amour, A., Tableau, A., Rufino, M.M., Dauvin, J.-C., Luczak,
C., Le Bris, H., 2019. Seasonality in coastal macrobenthic biomass and its
implications for estimating secondary production using empirical models.
Limnology and Oceanography 64, 935–949.
https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.11086
Selig, E.R., Hole, D.G., Allison, E.H., Arkema, K.K., McKinnon, M.C., Chu, J., de
Sherbinin, A., Fisher, B., Glew, L., Holland, M.B., Ingram, J.C., Rao, N.S.,
Russell, R.B., Srebotnjak, T., Teh, L.C.L., Troëng, S., Turner, W.R., Zvoleff,
A., 2019. Mapping global human dependence on marine ecosystems. Conser-
vation Letters 12, e12617. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12617
84
Shannon, C.E., 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System
Technical Journal 27, 379–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-
7305.1948.tb01338.x
Sharma, S., MacKenzie, R.A., Tieng, T., Soben, K., Tulyasuwan, N., Resanond, A.,
Blate, G., Litton, C.M., 2020. The impacts of degradation, deforestation and
restoration on mangrove ecosystem carbon stocks across Cambodia. Science
of The Total Environment 706, 135416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sci-
totenv.2019.135416
Short, F., Carruthers, T., Dennison, W., Waycott, M., 2007. Global seagrass distri-
bution and diversity: A bioregional model. Journal of Experimental Marine
Biology and Ecology, The Biology and Ecology of Seagrasses 350, 3–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2007.06.012
Sievanen, L., Crawford, B., Pollnac, R., Lowe, C., 2005. Weeding through assump-
tions of livelihood approaches in ICM: Seaweed farming in the Philippines
and Indonesia. Ocean & Coastal Management, Sustainability of Integrated
Coastal Management 48, 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oce-
coaman.2005.04.015
Simpson, E.H., 1949. Measurement of Diversity. Nature 163, 688–688.
https://doi.org/10.1038/163688a0
Smith, A.C., Harrison, P.A., Pérez Soba, M., Archaux, F., Blicharska, M., Egoh,
B.N., Erős, T., Fabrega Domenech, N., György, Á.I., Haines-Young, R., Li,
S., Lommelen, E., Meiresonne, L., Miguel Ayala, L., Mononen, L., Simpson,
G., Stange, E., Turkelboom, F., Uiterwijk, M., Veerkamp, C.J., Wyllie De
Echeverria, V., 2017. How natural capital delivers ecosystem services: A ty-
pology derived from a systematic review. Ecosystem Services 26, 111–126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.06.006
Souter, D., Planes, S., Wicquart, J., Logan, M., Obura, D.O., Staub, F., 2021. Status
of coral reefs of the world: 2020 report. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Net-
work (GCRMN)/International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI).
Sowman, M., Sunde, J., Raemaekers, S., Schultz, O., 2014. Fishing for equality:
Policy for poverty alleviation for South Africa’s small-scale fisheries. Marine
Policy 46, 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.12.005
Spalding, M., 2011. World Atlas of Mangroves. Routledge, London.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849776608
Speers, A.E., Besedin, E.Y., Palardy, J.E., Moore, C., 2016. Impacts of climate
change and ocean acidification on coral reef fisheries: An integrated ecologi-
cal–economic model. Ecological Economics 128, 33–43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.04.012
Stacey, N., Gibson, E., Loneragan, N.R., Warren, C., Wiryawan, B., Adhuri, D.S.,
Steenbergen, D.J., Fitriana, R., 2021. Developing sustainable small-scale
fisheries livelihoods in Indonesia: Trends, enabling and constraining factors,
and future opportunities. Marine Policy 132, 104654.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104654
Talukder, B., Ganguli, N., Matthew, R., vanLoon, G.W., Hipel, K.W., Orbinski, J.,
2022. Climate change-accelerated ocean biodiversity loss & associated plane-
tary health impacts. The Journal of Climate Change and Health 6, 100114.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joclim.2022.100114
TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the
Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recom-
mendations of TEEB.
85
Teh, L.C.L., Pauly, D., 2018. Who Brings in the Fish? The Relative Contribution of
Small-Scale and Industrial Fisheries to Food Security in Southeast Asia.
Frontiers in Marine Science 5.
Teoh, V.Y.J., Woo, S.P., 2021. The diversity of echinoderms in the seagrass mead-
ows of Penang Island, Malaysia. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 711,
012012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/711/1/012012
Thiault, L., Collin, A., Chlous, F., Gelcich, S., Claudet, J., 2017. Combining partici-
patory and socioeconomic approaches to map fishing effort in small-scale
fisheries. PLoS ONE 12, e0176862. https://doi.org/10.1371/jour-
nal.pone.0176862
Tilley, A., Burgos, A., Duarte, A., dos Reis Lopes, J., Eriksson, H., Mills, D., 2021.
Contribution of women’s fisheries substantial, but overlooked, in Timor-
Leste. Ambio 50, 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01335-7
Toimil, A., Losada, I.J., Nicholls, R.J., Dalrymple, R.A., Stive, M.J.F., 2020. Ad-
dressing the challenges of climate change risks and adaptation in coastal ar-
eas: A review. Coastal Engineering 156, 103611.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2019.103611
Torre-Castro, M. de la, Björk, M., Eklöf, J., Rönnbäck, P., 2008. Seagrass Im-
portance in Food Provisioning Services: Fish Stomach Content as a Link be-
tween Seagrass Meadows and Local Fisheries. 1 7.
https://doi.org/10.4314/wiojms.v7i1.48257
Treviño, M., 2022. “The Mangrove is Like a Friend”: Local Perspectives of Man-
grove Cultural Ecosystem Services Among Mangrove Users in Northern Ec-
uador. Hum Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-022-00358-w
Triet, T., 2010. Combining biodiversity conservation with poverty alleviation - a
case study in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Aquatic Ecosystem Health &
Management 13, 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/14634980903566667
UN, 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity, Treaty Series No. 30619. United Na-
tions, Rio de Janeiro.
Unsworth, R.K.F., Cullen, L.C., 2010. Recognising the necessity for Indo-Pacific
seagrass conservation. Conservation Letters 3, 63–73.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00101.x
Unsworth, R.K.F., Wylie, E., Smith, D.J., Bell, J.J., 2007. Diel trophic structuring of
seagrass bed fish assemblages in the Wakatobi Marine National Park, Indo-
nesia. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 72, 81–88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2006.10.006
Villarta, K., Del Norte Campos, A.G.D.N.C., Burgos-Nuñeza, L., 2021. Reassess-
ment of the Mollusc Gleaning Fishery in Malalison Island, Antique Province,
West Central Philippines. AFS 34.
https://doi.org/10.33997/j.afs.2021.34.3.004
Wallner-Hahn, S., Dahlgren, M., de la Torre-Castro, M., 2022. Linking seagrass
ecosystem services to food security: The example of southwestern Madagas-
car’s small-scale fisheries. Ecosystem Services 53, 101381.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101381
Wallner-Hahn, S., Molander, F., Gallardo, G., Villasante, S., Eklöf, J.S., Jiddawi,
N.S., de la Torre-Castro, M., 2016. Destructive gear use in a tropical fishery:
Institutional factors influencing the willingness-and capacity to change. Ma-
rine Policy 72, 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.07.001
Warrier, M.V.S., 2001. Women at Work: Migrant Women in Fish Processing Indus-
try. Economic and Political Weekly 36, 3554–3562.
86
Waycott, M., Duarte, C.M., Carruthers, T.J.B., Orth, R.J., Dennison, W.C.,
Olyarnik, S., Calladine, A., Fourqurean, J.W., Heck, K.L., Hughes, A.R.,
Kendrick, G.A., Kenworthy, W.J., Short, F.T., Williams, S.L., 2009. Acceler-
ating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. PNAS
106, 12377–12381. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905620106
Weeratunge, N., Béné, C., Siriwardane, R., Charles, A., Johnson, D., Allison, E.H.,
Nayak, P.K., Badjeck, M.-C., 2014. Small-scale fisheries through the wellbe-
ing lens. Fish and Fisheries 15, 255–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12016
Weeratunge, N., Snyder, K.A., Sze, C.P., 2010. Gleaner, fisher, trader, processor:
understanding gendered employment in fisheries and aquaculture. Fish and
Fisheries 11, 405–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00368.x
Werry, J., Lee, S.Y., 2005. Grapsid crabs mediate link between mangrove litter pro-
duction and estuarine planktonic food chains. Marine Ecology Progress Se-
ries 293, 165–176. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps293165
Woodhead, A.J., Hicks, C.C., Norström, A.V., Williams, G.J., Graham, N.A.J.,
2019. Coral reef ecosystem services in the Anthropocene. Functional Ecol-
ogy 33, 1023–1034. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13331
Xie, T., Wang, A., Li, S., Cui, B., Bai, J., Shao, D., 2022. Crab contributions as an
ecosystem engineer to sediment turnover in the Yellow River Delta. Frontiers
in Marine Science 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.1019176
Xu, D., Deng, X., Guo, S., Liu, S., 2019. Sensitivity of Livelihood Strategy to Live-
lihood Capital: An Empirical Investigation Using Nationally Representative
Survey Data from Rural China. Soc Indic Res 144, 113–131.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-2037-6
Yanda, P.Z., Mabhuye, E., Johnson, N., Mwajombe, A., 2019. Nexus between
coastal resources and community livelihoods in a changing climate. J Coast
Conserv 23, 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-018-0650-9
Yang, P., Zhao, G., Tong, C., Tang, K.W., Lai, D.Y.F., Li, L., Tang, C., 2021. As-
sessing nutrient budgets and environmental impacts of coastal land-based aq-
uaculture system in southeastern China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environ-
ment 322, 107662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107662
Zhao, X., Jia, P., 2020. Towards sustainable small-scale fisheries in China: A case
study of Hainan. Marine Policy 121, 103935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar-
pol.2020.103935
Zulhalifah, Z., Syukur, A., Santoso, D., Karnan, K., 2021. Species diversity and
composition, and above-ground carbon of mangrove vegetation in Jor Bay,
East Lombok, Indonesia. Biodiversitas Journal of Biological Diversity 22.
https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d220455
Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis
Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from
the Faculty of Science and Technology 2397
Editor: The Dean of the Faculty of Science and Technology
A doctoral dissertation from the Faculty of Science and
Technology, Uppsala University, is usually a summary of a
number of papers. A few copies of the complete dissertation
are kept at major Swedish research libraries, while the
summary alone is distributed internationally through
the series Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala
Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology.
(Prior to January, 2005, the series was published under the
title “Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations
from the Faculty of Science and Technology”.)
Distribution: publications.uu.se
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-526284
ACTA UNIVERSITATIS
UPSALIENSIS
2024
