Adaptive Capacity of Fishing Communities at Marine Protected Areas: A

Transcription

1 Electronic Supplementary Material Adaptive Capacity of Fishing Communities at Marine Protected Areas: A Case Study from the Colombian Pacific Rocio del Pilar Moreno Sanchez, Jorge H. Maldonado Annex: Rationale and methodology used for the construction of the index of adaptive capacity. Based on Maldonado and Moreno (in press). Adaptive Capacity (AC) depends on the interaction among different types of variables, which act simultaneously in a dynamic context and reflect strategies, capacities and assets available to households for coping with changes and disturbances (Smit and Pilifosova 2001). Most operative developments of AC include both physical elements (infrastructure, material wealth, technology) and social/institutional elements (human capital, political legitimacy, institutional strength) (Eiken and Lemos, 2006). Determinants of AC could be organized into six categories (Economic resources, Technology, Information and Skills, Infrastructure, Institutions and Equity (Smith and Pilifosova, 2001). The adaptive capacity index we use in this study, is based on the AC s determinants proposed by Smith and Pilifosova and follows closely some indicators suggested by McClanahan et al. (2008; 2009) and Cinner et al. (2010), which have been adjusted, complemented and framed on AC literature. The general structure of the Index of Adaptive Capacity is based on three dimensions: Socioeconomic (SN), Institutional (IN) and Socio-ecological (SE). In turn, each dimension comprises three indicators whose rationale and description are shown in Tables A.1, A.2 and A.3 Next, a framework for the construction of the dimensions and indicators is presented.

2 Socioeconomic dimension (SN) The Socioeconomic dimension incorporates social and economic characteristics of households and communities that shape their relationship with natural environment and confers them the ability to face disturbances. It comprises three indicators (See Table A.1): Poverty (POV), Public Infrastructure (INF) and Occupational Characteristics (OCC). Table A.1. Indicators and sub-indicators for socioeconomic dimension, methods and rationale for the use of each of them. Ind. Sub-indicator Methods Rationale Basic needs satisfaction POV1- Poverty -POV- Poverty Perception POV2- Material Stile of Life POV3- Based on the standardized approach for estimating a multidimensional poverty measurement in Latin America: the Unsatisfied Basic Need Index (Feres and Mancera, 2001; Lora, 2005). Its value ranges from 1 to 100 and reflects the proportion of households in a community which exhibits at least one out of five of the following conditions: 1) inadequate housing, 2) inadequate access to clean water and sewage, 3) economic dependence, 4) presence of children who do not attend school and 5) households with critical overcrowding. Household heads report, on a scale from 1 to 10, its own perception about its household s wellbeing relative to the others at the community. This value is multiplied tenfold to obtain a score to further get the indicator at the household level. POV2 is calculated as the average of individual measurement for the N surveyed households. Principal component analysis method for carrying out a factor analysis of selected households assets (McClanahan et al. (2008) and Cinner et al. (2010);18 household assets are included distributed between household appliances (e.g. refrigerator, TV, DVD player, blender, fan, radio, stove, stereo, power generator and bicycle) and productive assets (sewing machine, freezer, long lines, fishing nets, fishing single lines, boats, outboard motors). Weights from principal component analysis are used to calculate a score for each component k and each household i, MSOL k i; scores are standardized on a scale. Given the comprehensive and multidimensional nature of the UBNI, it is a good proxy for several of the AC s determinants proposed in previous literature. Poverty perception allows considering not only a formal poverty measurement, but also the households perceptions about their own wellbeing relative to others in the same community. The Material style of life is a proxy for wealth and reflects accumulated physical private capital as a result of livelihood strategies (Pollnac and Crawford 2000, McClanahan et al. 2008); it can also be seen as an input for maintaining or improving livelihood strategies.

3 Infrastructure -INF- Occupational characteristics OCC- Infrastructure -INF- Occupational diversity OCDI- Occupational mobility - OCMO- Presence (absence) in the community of a set of 11 public infrastructure items (McClanahan et al. (2008); Cinner et al. (2010): health center, hospital, elementary school, high school, roads, piped drinking water, sewerage, public electricity, solid waste collection, adequate solid waste disposal and natural gas. Ten (10) points were assigned to the presence of each item; the greater the number of services to which the community has access, the higher the score. If a community has 10 or the full 11 services, it will obtain the maximum 100 points. OCDI for each household i is estimated first, as the ratio between the number of different main economic activities carried out by household members and the number of total members of the household with any economic activity. Then, Occupational diversity sub-indicator (OCDI) is calculated as the average of OCDI i for N surveyed households. Occupational Mobility (OCMO) is calculated as the proportion of interviewed household heads that voluntarily changed their main economic activity given that they wanted to change this activity. Community public infrastructure offers an idea about the presence of government institutions and provision of public goods. Occupational characteristics reflect the variety and number of economic activities that are carried out in a community, the portfolio of economic activities. OCMO demonstrates the real ability or ease of moving from one economic activity to another. Lack of human or financial capital, for instance, may limit the ability of resource users to shift from their current economic activity, based on extraction of resources and characterized by risk and unstable income, to another economic activity, but less resourceintensive.

4 Institutional dimension (IN) Institutional dimension reflects formal and informal rules and norms that govern relationships among individuals and between them and external institutions, for controlling access to and use of- resources and natural capital they depend on. Given that social capital involves several dimensions and variables, and that the ability of a community to adapt to external institutions is favored by the legitimacy of those institutions, we propose to include three indicators at the institutional dimension of IAC (See Table A.2): Structural social capital (SSC), Cognitive social capital (CSC) and Community perception about MPAs (PAP). Table A.2. Indicators and sub-indicators for institutional dimension, methods and rationale for the use of each of them. Ind. Sub-indicator Methods Rationale Community organization -SSC1- Structural Social Capital SSC- Organizational density -SSC2- Expectations about networks and mutual support level 1- SSC3- Expectations about networks and support level 2 - SSC4- SSC1 is estimated at community level; the total number of existent organizations in the community is determined and converted into the scale, using a transformation that allows valuing the presence of community organizations positively, but at a decreasing rate. Organizational density SSC2 sub-indicator is calculated first at the household level as the share of household members (above 15 years) who report that they belong to any community organization. Then, SSC2 is calculated as the average of households values. SSC3 is initially calculated at household level (SSC3i), based on household-head answer to the following single-choice question (adapted from Grootaert and Van Bastelaer 2002): If there were a problem affecting the entire village, for instance a reduction in the amount of fish in the sea, who do you think would work together to deal with this situation? None (a): 0 points. Fishing organizations (b): 1/3 points All fishermen (c), local government (d): 2/3 points. Community Council (e), Communal Board (f), all people from the community (g), religious organizations (h), or external agents (i): 1 point. Answers receive a score ranging from 0 to 1, increasing as the support for dealing with the exposed situation comes from larger and further networks. SSC3 is then estimated as the average of SCC3i. SSC4 is calculated first at household level (SSC4i), based on household-head answer to the following single-choice question (adapted from Grootaert and Van Bastelaer 2002): If the school in this village went without a teacher for, say, six months or more, who do you think would meet to solve this problem?: None (a): 0 points. Structural social capital refers to relatively objective and externally observable social structures, such as networks, associations, and institutions, and the rules and procedures they embody (Uphoff 2000, Grootaert and Van Bastelaer 2002).

5 Cognitive Social Capital CSC- Collective action - SSC5- Solidarity -CSC1- Cooperation -CSC2- All parents (b): 1/3 points. Association of parents (c), religious organizations (d), other local community organizations (e), or local government (f): 2/3 points. Community Council (g), Communal Board (h), all people from the community (i), or others outside the community (j): 1 point. Answers receive a score ranging from 0 to 1, increasing as the support for dealing with the exposed situation comes from larger and further networks. SSC4 is then estimated as the average of SCC4i. SSC5 is calculated first at household level (SSC5i), based on household-head answer to the following single-choice question (adapted from Grootaert and Van Bastelaer 2002): Last year, how often have you met with other members of this village to discuss resolving common problems? Never (a): 0 points Once (b): 1/3 points Twice (c): 2/3 points More often (d): 1 point Answers receive a score ranging from 0 to 1. SSC5 is then estimated as the average of SCC5i. Estimated first at household level (CSC1i), based on household-head answer to the following question (adapted from Grootaert and Van Bastelaer 2002): Suppose a family in the village were impacted by an extreme event, such as the household-head death or illness. Who do you think they could turn to for help? Family (a): 1/4 points Neighbors (b) or close friends (c): 1/2 points Religious leader (d), community leader (e), political leader (f), the police (g), a middleman (h), or a community organization to which the family belongs (i): 3/4 points Other community organization (j), local government (k), Community Council (l), Communal Board (m), or all people from the community (n): 1 point. Answers receive a score ranging from 0 to 1, increasing as the support for dealing with the exposed situation comes from larger and further networks. CSC1 is then estimated as the average of CSC1i. Estimated first at household level (CSC2i), based on household-head answer to the following question: Suppose your friend faces these alternatives (adapted from Grootaert and Van Bastelaer 2002): a) Own a 10-hectare farm single-handedly or b) Own a 25-hectare farm jointly. Which would he prefer? Cognitive social capital incorporates subjective and intangible elements such as norms of behavior, shared values, reciprocity, and trust (Grootaert and Van Bastelaer 2002).

6 Perception about MPAs PAP- Trust -CSC3- Perception about the existence of MPAs on own-household wellbeing -PAP1- and on community s wellbeing PAP2- Alternative a: 0.5 points Alternative b: 1 point Answers receive a score ranging from 0 to 1. CSC2 is then estimated as the average of CSC2i. Estimated first at household level (CSC3i), based on household-head answer to the following question (adapted from Grootaert and Van Bastelaer 2002): _If you and your spouse leave the village for2 days. Who would care for your children? Extended family (a): 1/3 points A neighbor or a friend: 2/3 points Any person from the community or other: 1 point None or do not have any children: 0 points. Answers receive a score ranging from 0 to 1. CSC3 is then estimated as the average of CSC3i. PAP is estimated first at household level PAPi, measured using questions that ask household heads to grade in a 1-10 scale both, the existence of a MPA on own-household wellbeing (PAP1i) and the existence of a MPA on community s wellbeing (PAP2i). The two grades are averaged for obtaining the household-level indicator (PAPi). To obtain the Community Perception on MPAs (PAP), the indicator estimated at the household level (PAPi) is multiplied tenfold and averaged for N households. A higher grade on the perception implies a more positive effect of MPAs on household and community s wellbeing, and so, greater legitimacy of that external institution and greater the ability of local resource users to adapt to its implementation.

7 Socio-ecological dimension (SE) The socio-ecological dimension captures both the relationships between communities and the surrounding natural environment and the ability to anticipate perturbations that affect natural capital they depend on. SE does not pretend to capture explicitly ecological factors; instead, it reflects actual and hypothetical interactions between social and ecological systems as relevant elements that confer adaptive capacity. This dimension includes some of the indicators proposed previously by McClanahan, Cinner and others (McClanahan et al. 2008, Cinner et al. 2009a, Cinner et al. 2009b, McClanahan et al. 2009, Cinner et al. 2010). The socio-ecological dimension of the IAC is made up of three indicators (See Table A.3): Resource-use dependence (RUD), Awareness about ecological processes (AEP) and Ability to anticipate disturbances (AAD). They do not have sub-indicators. Table A.3. Indicators for socio-ecological dimension, methods and rationale for the use of each of them. Ind. Methods Rationale Dependence on Resource Use -RUD- Awareness on ecological processes AEP- RUD is estimated at community level as the complement of ratio between the number of members in the community whose main economic activity is related to the use or extraction of natural resources (NRRW) and the total number of members of the community engaged in any economic activity (TW). The ratio between NNRW and TW shows the dependence on natural resources for generating income. The indicator is calculated as the fraction of nonresource-dependent workers. For estimating and analyzing different issues associated to the Awareness on ecological processes (AEP), Maldonado and Moreno (Forthcoming) propose adjusting Cinner et al. (2010)- to incorporate four questions: Have sea-fish in the last 10 years increased, reduced or stabilized? Perception about condition of fisheries Which is the main cause of sea-fish reduction? Knowledge about what is affecting the fish stock in the sea Who has responsibility for this reduction? Knowledge about responsibilities How to increase sea-fish stocks? Knowledge about solutions (k=4) AEP is estimated first at household level (AEPi) for those households who think that the amount of the fish at sea, during the last ten years, has reduced, by applying Principal component analysis (PCA) of the answers to the three subsequent open-ended questions (k=2,3,4). Open answers for each question are grouped into thematic categories. Categories for each question are scored and weighted- using the component analysis and then standardized on a 0-1 scale. Standardized scores from the answers are averaged to provide a final value for each household i, AEPi. Finally, AEP (at community level) is calculated as the average of AEP i for N surveyed households. Shows the extent to which local-communities livelihoods are dependent on the surrounding natural environment. It reflects the flexibility of households livelihoods to adapt when perturbations affect natural capital (Cinner et al. 2009a) and can also be seen as a measure of risk spreading. A community exhibits more adaptive capacity when the members depend less on natural resources. AEP approaches the capacity to learn as an enhancer of adaptive capacity of communities to the establishment of MPAs. When resource users know, recognize and understand the ecological processes and the effects that their own and others - activities generate on the ecosystems and species, management interventions for modifying declining paths might be more effective and legitimate (Ostrom 1990, Olsson and Folke 2001, Becker and Ghimire 2003, Aswani and Hamilton 2004, Ostrom 2005).

8 Ability to anticipate changes AAD- AAD for each household i (AADi), takes different values depending on household heads answers to a hypothetical scenario in which a 75% decline in catches occurs (McClanahan et al. (2008); Cinner et al. (2010)). Individuals should choose among a variety of alternative activities they think they are able to shift to, in order to satisfy both food and other basic needs of the household. Scores assigned to each category of answers are: Continue fishing, do nothing or migrate out the community: 0 points. Move to an activity based on natural resources extraction: 1/3 points. Move to agricultural activities: 2/3 points. Move to commercial, manufacturing or service-related activities (including activities related with non-consumptive and sustainable use of natural resources): 1 point. Household s scores are averaged for each question and then averaged between them. Communities that can react to external changes by adapting easily to other activities are more resilient, and therefore exhibit greater adaptive capacity.