Perspectives in coastal human ecology (CHE) for marine … · 2019-12-14 · Coastal Human Ecology (CHE). It is important to note that human ecology as a ﬁeld that studies the ecology

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biological Conservation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon

Review

Perspectives in coastal human ecology (CHE) for marine conservation

Shankar AswaniDepartments of Anthropology and Ichthyology and Fisheries Science, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords:Actionable scholarshipCoastal human ecology (CHE)Marine conservationResearch frontiers

A B S T R A C T

Coastal human ecology (CHE) is a mixture of different theoretical and thematic approaches straddling betweenthe humanities and social and natural sciences which studies human and coastal/marine interactions at the local-scale and through intense fieldwork. Topics of interest include human coastal adaptations past and present; thehistorical ecology of fisheries and future implications; local forms of marine governance and economic systems;local food security and livelihoods, and indigenous/local ecological knowledge systems among many researchthemes. In this paper, I explore different strands of CHE in the study of tribal, artisanal, and small-scale industrialfisheries from the mid-90s onward that can contribute to the foundational knowledge necessary for designingand implementing successful coastal fisheries management and conservation programs. Marine conservation hasoften failed due to a lack of understanding of the fine grained marine human-environmental interactions at thelocal scale. In this context, I also examine developing and future research directions in CHE, and discuss theirpotential contribution for filling the gap in existing approaches to actionable scholarship in marine conservation.The strength of many CHE approaches lies in their potential for bridging humanism and natural science, and thusCHE approaches are well equipped to address many of the challenges faced by marine conservation practitionerstoday.

1. Introduction

Coastal and nearshore marine ecosystems are severely threatenedby human activities. While this threat is spread across all habitat types(Halpern et al., 2007), coral reefs are among the most vulnerablecoastal ecosystems in the world (e.g., Bruno and Selig, 2007). Multipleanthropogenic stressors such as marine pollution and sedimentation,overfishing, ocean acidification, plastics, sea level rise, etc. are severelyimpacting the oceans and coasts (e.g., Crain et al., 2008), and this de-gradation is likely to worsen as the human population continues togrow and move to the coast (e.g., Neumann et al., 2015). From a re-search perspective, dealing with human driven threats to coasts andoceans will require mustering and combining a number of natural andsocial science disciplines to improve marine habitat management andincrease the effectiveness of local interventions. Paying attention to theinteractions between humans and the environment for resource man-agement and conservation has been recognized for decades (e.g.,Mascia et al., 2003; Mace, 2014), with economic approaches beingemphasized in mainstream management and conservation (e.g., eco-system services [see Hare, 2016]).

In recent years, various papers have exalted the importance of other‘environmental’ (Moran, 2010) and ‘conservation’ ‘social sciences’(Bennett et al., 2017) for informing biological management and

conservation. Bennett et al. (2017) provide an exhaustive array of ap-proaches in the social sciences that are important to consider in in-forming biological conservation, and more recently, Bennett (2019) hasalso explained the role of marine social science for the same purpose.Generally, these positive reviews focus on social and cultural ap-proaches that seek to understand human consciousness and rationalityas the principal driver to explain human behavior vis-à-vis the en-vironment. Less attention, however, is given to research regarding thebiological and evolutionary underpinnings of actual human behavior,cognition, and environmental use, which is also important to consider.Levi and Poe (2017) and Aswani et al. (2018) conceptualize the en-vironmental social sciences for informing marine conservation in thecontext of the Anthropocene, albeit the arguments are general re-commendations rather than specific prescriptions for local conserva-tion. Scaling-down, which is necessary for concrete conservation in-terventions and outputs, requires a more theoretically focused andactionable scholarship/science (Palmer, 2012), or what I refer to asCoastal Human Ecology (CHE). It is important to note that humanecology as a field that studies the ecology of humans (e.g., their nu-trition, health, foraging, cooperative behavior, population dynamics,etc. [as other living organism]) has been around for more than a cen-tury and its practice has crisscrossed a number of disciplines and topicsin the natural and social sciences (and has often been named

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.05.047Received 26 February 2019; Received in revised form 13 May 2019; Accepted 23 May 2019

E-mail address: [email protected].

Biological Conservation 236 (2019) 223–235

Available online 04 June 20190006-3207/ © 2019 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).

T

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00063207

https://www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.05.047


mailto:[email protected]


http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.biocon.2019.05.047&domain=pdf

differently). Its use for understanding coastal and marine-humans in-teractions has been identified by Ruddle (1996), Castilla (1999) andmore recently by Jennings et al. (2009) and Berkes (2015) amongothers, but more details regarding its contemporary breadth and po-tential for informing marine conservation is necessary.

Most of what I call CHE is a hybrid of natural and social sciencesand, for the most part, it cross-fertilizes humanism, social sciences, andecology/human ecology more intensively than the other conservationor environmental social sciences, albeit all these are deeply interrelatedand draw concepts and methods from each other. CHE draws fromtheories, concepts, and methods from archaeology, paleoecology, an-thropology, human geography and ecology, evolutionary ecology, be-havioral science, experimental/environmental economics, climate sci-ence, zoology, oceanography, and marine biology among others. CHEexamines different dimensions of human and coastal/marine interac-tions (of both individuals and groups), and focuses on local-scale pro-cesses and on intense and long-term fieldwork using a combination ofinterdisciplinary qualitative (e.g., participatory observation and open-ended interviews) and quantitative (e.g., focal follows, cost-benefit andnutritional analyses, time allocation studies, etc.) field methods. It isalso important to note that CHE studies also include case studies ofother aquatic environments including riverine and lake habitats, but inthis paper I retain the epithet ‘coastal’ because the brunt of these studiesare in coastal and nearshore marine contexts.

Why should CHE be treated differently than other natural or en-vironmental/conservation social science approaches? And what canCHE provide that is missing in the marine conservation tool box? CHE isspecifically designed to study how humans adapt (i.e., biologically,cognitively, culturally) and transform (i.e., ecologically, socio-economically, and politically) coastal and nearshore marine environ-ments, as well as discerning how humans closely interact with otherbiological organisms and ecological communities, while simultaneouslystudying how these adaptations and transformations themselves re-ciprocally influence individuals and human systems alike. So, CHEseeks to unveil theoretically the proximate and ultimate causation me-chanisms that shape human environmental cognition and behaviour. Byunderstanding how and why local individual and group coupled human-nature processes evolve, function, and transform marine coastal andmarine environments, CHE researchers (which may not call themselvesas such) can better understand the nuances of socioeconomic, political,cultural, and ecological interactive processes at the local scale. In amore general way, traditional strands of CHE (e.g., human behavioralecology, micro-economic behavior, territoriality studies, indigenousknowledge systems, etc.) can converge research encompassing theconcerns in humanism and the natural sciences, and therefore can insome ways lead to the disciplinary consilience (Wilson, 1998), or the“interdisciplinarity” that most people today understand as fundamentalfor addressing the difficult challenges in marine and terrestrial con-servation.

This kind of research somewhat differs from the more widely usedlarger-scale and more holistic attempt to understand coupled humanand natural marine systems under the umbrella of socio-ecologicalsystems (SES) theory (e.g., Folke, 2006; Berkes, 2015), or an approachin which the “system” is the unit of analysis and is an approach epis-temologically similar to the 1960s “ecosystems approach” in the socialsciences (e.g., Rappaport, 2000 [1968]). CHE shares many concepts andobjectives with SES but it is epistemologically closer to Steward's(1955) “culture ecology,” thus differing from SES in its units of analysis(often actor-based but not always [scale]), theoretical scope (often, butnot always, underpinned by neoDarwinian principles), and field researchmethods (relying on observational/behavioral data rather than ex-clusively on perceptual survey data). While CHE is well suited forbuilding conservation interventions from the ground up due to its lo-cocentric perspective, SES can provide a bigger picture scenario andthus CHE and SES should be conceptualized as complementary and notantagonistic approaches.

From an applied perspective, CHE researchers can use this fine-grained knowledge (e.g., details of human marine foraging behaviorsand indigenous knowledge systems) for employing a common languagethat can build better partnerships with natural scientists and localcommunities for local resource management and/or conservation. Thisis important because many community-based marine conservationprograms have failed or barely survived (e.g., in Melanesia [e.g., Foaleand Manele, 2004]) as a consequence of the frequent lack of detailedsocio-cultural and ecological knowledge about human-environmentalinteractions at the local scale. This information can also be scaled-upfrom the local to the global (through cross-cultural analysis of parallelor dissimilar case studies) (e.g., Cinner et al., 2016), which is significantbecause international and global conservation strategies are often incomplete disjuncture with resident understandings and what occurs orneeds to occur locally. Finally, coastal and nearshore ecosystems, whichare at the interface between land and the open sea, as well as the oceanitself, present a set of management challenges that general conservationapproaches on land are unsuitable for. Humans adapt and interact withthe coasts and the oceans in different ways than on the mainland, in-cluding how they view and deploy mobility and navigational knowl-edge, the way they conceptualize and exploit marine resources (pastand present), and the kinds of coastal and marine property systems thathave developed to use and access marine resources among other di-mensions.

In this paper, I explore different strands of research that I groupunder the umbrella of CHE (which can belong to other disciplines suchas archaeology, human geography, ecological anthropology, environ-mental science, or environmental sociology) (Fig. 1) from the mid-90sonward, and illustrate how various strands of CHE research in the studyof tribal, artisanal, and small-scale industrial fisheries can complementand fill gaps in the existing foundational knowledge (e.g., current SESapproaches) that is necessary for designing marine conservation stra-tegies. I also examine developing and future research frontiers in thebranching ecology of human dimensions as they relate to CHE, anddiscuss their potential contribution to marine conservation. The criteriafor grouping different strands of CHE in this paper approximategroupings presented by Barnes et al.'s (2013) in a discussion of thecontributions of anthropology to the study of climate change. Theseinclude: (1) the historical context of human-marine interactions, asunderstanding the past is key to address current environmental pro-blems; (2) studies of contemporary ecological dynamics, socio-eco-nomic behavior/institutions, cultural and societal values, political re-lations, and governance institutions that inform our understanding ofhuman-marine interactions for marine conservation (which I dis-aggregate into various categories and sub-categories), and (3) the morewidely used strand of research that examine human-marine interrela-tions as complex adaptive systems under a rapidly changing environ-ment and climate for building social and ecological resilience.

The selection of this non-exhaustive set of CHE themes (Fig. 1) andcase studies for marine conservation is also based on my 27 year ex-perience in CHE research and in leading or involvement in environ-mental management and conservation programs in Oceania, Africa, andmore recently in Macaronesia (Canary Islands). Finally, it is importantto note that advocating for detailed CHE research locally does not dis-miss the importance of regional or global research/meta-analyses, asBruno et al. (2019) have, for instance, demonstrated the inefficiency oflocal reef closures in sustaining ‘managed resilience’, thus showing thatlocal research and action alone are insufficient, and that global analysesof reef protection strategies locally are necessary to show that efforts tocurtail CO2 are more urgent than ever. In a different example, Cinneret al. (2016) use a number of case studies to show that healthier coralreefs occur in regions that still have effective local governance, such ascustomary management systems, and where there are high levels oflocal engagement in management. What detailed CHE research can dois provide better social and ecological baseline data/case studies forscaling-up and producing more accurate global analyses and

S. Aswani Biological Conservation 236 (2019) 223–235

224

concomitantly better local and global conservation policy. In addition,advocating for local CHE research is not necessarily promoting localresource management control exclusively, as research is showing thefrequent failure of community-based projects in conserving marineecosystems (e.g. Foale and Manele, 2004).

2. Maritime interactions across space and time

History matters in conservation. Studying ancient human adapta-tion to marine and aquatic environments is a foundational topic forunderstanding coastal human ecological deep history—and history isfundamental for grasping context and local trajectory. There are severalhistorical study areas in CHE which are relevant for marine conserva-tion.

2.1. Archaeology and coastal adaptations (ACA)

Conceptualizing ancient human adaptations to marine and aquaticenvironments requires an archaeological and historical understanding.Coastal archaeological research on shell middens and other anthro-pogenic features in the landscape have been fundamental for under-standing human dispersal and adaptation to coastal environmentsaround many regions of the world. Erlandson (2001) suggests thatPleistocene archaeology reveals the significance of aquatic and mar-itime adaptations and their profound impacts on human dispersion andthe development of cultural complexity across many coastal societies inthe world. Such adaptations extend millennia into the past, with re-search in South Africa showing that the use of marine coastal resourcesby early Homo sapiens extends as far back as the Middle Pleistocene oraround 160 thousand years ago. Coastal adaptation and persistentconsumption of shellfish and other marine invertebrates by early hu-mans in South Africa, therefore, may have had cognitive and behavioralimpacts on human evolution (Jerardino and Marean, 2010) and

influenced human population growth and the out-of-Africa diaspora ofour species (Klein and Steele, 2013).

Based on the analysis of stable isotope of human skeletons, Sealy(2006) has suggested that between 4500 and 2000 BP South Africancoastal foragers consumed large quantities of high-trophic-level marinemammals in addition to large quantities of marine mollusks, thusshowing that resource dependency of San or San like foragers extendedbeyond terrestrial and marine invertebrate resources. What this re-search shows is that maritime human adaptations have not occurred inresource poor areas or as marginal adaptations, but generally occurredin relatively productive coastal ecosystem and commonly resulted in anumber of demographic and socio economic factors including high-population densities, sedentism, societal cooperation, and inter- andintra-resource completion and warfare that have had profound impactsof human evolution and cultural development (see Erlandson, 2001).Other research in this field has investigated the ecological effects andsustainability implications of California Chumash Indian fishing stra-tegies (fishing up the food web rather than down) over a period of 12thousand years (Erlandson et al., 2009); resource use patterns andsettlement configurations in northwest Australia prior to the Holocene(Veth et al., 2016); and shown that Paleoindians in Alaska were con-suming anadromous salmon as early as 11.500 BP, thus providingevidence that these people were not only “big-game” hunting foragers(Halffman et al., 2015) among many other studies.

Recent and promising research for understanding human resourceuse across space and time encompass (1) the more accurate dating ofthe earliest sustained (prior to 160 thousand years ago) consumption ofmarine resources (i.e., beyond opportunistic foraging) (e.g., Jerardino,2016), (2) a better understanding of the significance (or not) of marineresources during periods of glaciation when terrestrial productivity mayhave been affected, particularly surveying areas of abrupt bathymetrywhich may have been less affected by sea level changes (e.g., Fisheret al., 2010), and (3) studying the role or marine resources in terms of

Fig. 1. Arrow length and thickness indicates the-matic, theoretical, and methodological proximity ofa research topic to core CHE interests. Legendclockwise: ACA (Archaeology and CoastalAdaptations), INS (Indigenous NavigationalSystems), HE (Historical Ecology), HBE (HumanBehavioral Ecology), EE (Experimental Economics),FS (Food Security), PE (Political Ecology), CMT(Coastal Marine Tourism), EFC (Ethnography ofFishing Communities), MPA (Marine ProtectedAreas), MTS (Marine Territorial Systems), LEK(Local Ecological Knowledge), MSS (MarineSocioecological Systems), ECC (Environmental andClimate Change), and PDD (Proximate and DistalDrivers).


225

the resilience, vulnerability, and persistence/disappearance of humanpopulations along coastal fringes.

2.2. Indigenous navigational systems and trade networks (INS)

This area of study is closely linked to the archaeological study ofcoastal adaptations but differs somewhat in its focal and experimentalnature. The archaeological study of human navigation and coastaladaptation strategies stretches back for decades and in the context ofshipwreck/nautical and underwater archaeology, George Bass' seminalresearch stretched across the Mediterranean to provide a uniquewindow into the ancient past of maritime cultures (e.g., Bronze Age)through the in situ excavation of ancient shipwrecks (e.g., Bass, 1986).Building upon the Polynesian experimental navigation promoted byFinney (1994) and others, archaeologist and ehnohistorians have pon-dered on the nature of Austronesian colonization of near and remoteOceania by ancient marine voyagers, and concomitant terrestrial-marine environmental impacts (e.g., Kirch and Green, 2001). Otherresearch on navigational systems and exchange networks has includedan analysis of prehistoric Western North American Chumash navigationand the development of social complexity (Arnold, 1995), and the studyof the South China Sea interaction and trading spheres since the IronAge (Hung et al., 2013) among a vast literature on the subject. Eth-nographic and ethnohistorical accounts of seafaring and trade networksalso comprises of a large literature including the work Ammarell (1999)on the conceptualization and application of navigational knowledgeamong the Bugis of Indonesia; Feinberg's (2003) work on AnutanPolynesian navigation and culture and society, and Agius (2012)combination of various sources of evidence to build an ethnographicaccount of seafaring and its persistence in the Arabian Gulf and Omanover the last century and a half.

In recent novel research, Thomson et al. (2014) have utilized theDNA of ancient Polynesian chickens to better understand navigationalpathways of human colonization around Oceania. Similarly, Thorsby(2016) has used genetics to investigate the unrecorded human inter-population prehistoric encounters and concomitant genetic, linguistic,and cultural relations between Native Americans and Pacific Islanders.In other parts of the world, for instance, the Danish NOW project hasintegrated the work of archeologists, anthropologists, and biologists tounderstand ancient resource use patterns and human movements acrossthe Artic over thousands of years (NOW Project, 2017).

2.3. The historical ecology of fisheries and seascapes (HE)

Marine historical ecology has shown how pre-historic and historichuman exploitation of particular resources have transformed theecology of particular regions, and mounting historical ecological evi-dence suggest that humans have radically reduced the numbers of largemarine mammals and other fish and invertebrates across most coastaland marine ecosystems in the planet (e.g., Roberts, 2010). In a seminalcollaborative research between fisheries and archaeological scientists,Jackson et al. (2001) showed that human fisheries overexploitation ofsuper abundant fisheries resources has led to serious modifications ofmarine ecosystems through trophic cascade effects. In other work,Sáenz-Arroyo et al. (2006) used the accounts of travelers to reconstructthe size distribution and abundance of marine fauna in the Gulf ofCalifornia, Mexico, between the 16th and 19th centuries. Their analysisshows that categorizing the accounts of missionaries, adventurers, andothers as anecdotal and overblown is erroneous and that such knowl-edge of past richness is necessary to reflect on the trajectories of speciesabundance and for setting the right management targets for their pre-servation and recovery today. Similarly, McClenachan (2009) usesphotographic archives of recreational fishers in Key West, Florida toshow a drastic decrease in mean size and weight of targeted speciesbetween 1956 and 2007.

At a larger scale, Braje et al. (2017) used a combination of methods

to study the deep history of human-environmental interactions in is-lands across Polynesian, the Mediterranean, California, and the Car-ibbean. They suggest that human ecological impacts of primary andsecondary colonization not always resulted in island ecological de-gradation, and that understanding the asymmetric progression andtransformation of ecological niches across islands spatio-temporally canbetter guide conservation efforts today.

Promising areas of research include the work of Kittinger et al.(2015) who employ interdisciplinary research to suggest ways of: (1)recovering endangered species and ecosystems, (2) managing andconserving fisheries, and (3) educating the public about historicalchanges in the environment. Other research in understanding the nor-malization of changing human perceptions of resource abundance, orshifting baselines (see Pauly, 1995), can explain why people are ac-cepting of the ongoing and irreversible loss of terrestrial and marinebiodiversity.

2.4. Contributions to marine conservation

Basically, marine archaeology provides lessons from the past, whichare fundamental to grasp local and regional human-environmental in-teraction trajectories. This knowledge can inform present day marineconservation strategies for building resilience in vulnerable human andecological communities that are experiencing rapid ecological change(as this has also occurred in the past). In terms of navigational research,understanding ancient and present pathways for human movementsand trade is important for conceptualizing the socio-economic path-ways of marine resource use and exchange, and the concomitant im-plications of this knowledge for conservation in the past, the present,and into the future. Finally, conceptualizing the marine historicalspatio-temporal variability of resources in the context of human ex-ploitation can unmask the trajectory of conceptual shifting baselinesand assist in restoring and managing aquatic resources more efficientlynow and into the future. Evidence indicates that intimate knowledge ofcultural and ecological history, from ancient to recent events, is im-portant to develop successful conservation projects today. This is illu-strated by McClanahan and Omukoto (2011) who show the relevance ofcomparing pre-European colonization historical and modern fish cap-tures in Kenya for the purpose of designing marine conservation pro-grams in the region. In another context, failing to grasp the historicalcomplexity of indigenous marine tenure rights and their evolution overtime when designing marine protected areas (MPAs) in the SolomonIslands, or in Oceania more generally, is a recipe for conservationfailure. Various projects in the region have collapsed due to, in part, alack of grasping the historical complexity of indigenous tenure rights byconservation practitioners (see Aswani et al., 2017).

3. Ecological and economic behavior in marine environments

Conceptualizing human micro- ecological and economic behavior incoastal marine ecosystems is of fundamental importance for theirconservation.

3.1. The behavioral and evolutionary ecology of marine foragers (HBE)

Human behavioral ecology (HBE) uses an evolutionary theoreticalframework to study the relationship between human behavior and anexisting ecological context for recognizing the ultimate causes ofhuman behavior. In a marine context, optimal foraging theory (OFT)models have been used to understand human foraging propensities inmarine diet breadth (food choices) (e.g., Thomas, 2007) and patchchoice (habitat selection) (e.g., Aswani, 1998; Sosis, 2002) to measureforaging behavior and possible (or not) incipient resource managementand conservation implications. They have also been used to gauge theforaging practices of past cultures in an archaeological context, asKennett (2005) has done to reconstruct Chumash diet and foraging


226

strategies in the Channel Islands, California or Nagaoka (2002) forprehistoric subsistence change in New Zealand.

Research on artisanal fishers has used foraging theory to study thespatial mobility of Ecuadorian shellfish foragers and relate their re-source patch rotation not only to sustainable resource use but also tothe maintenance of common property institutions (Beitl, 2015). Alvardand Nolin (2002) have examined subsistence sperm-whale hunting anddiscovered that cooperative behavior among fishermen yielded a higherper capita caloric return than fishing individually, and hence hinting atthe causes for the evolution of cooperative hunting among humanmarine foragers. Approaches like Cost Signaling Theory (CST) have alsobeen used to show how hunters in Meriam, Torres Strait (Australia)“signal” their underlying abilities as hunters, risk-takers, and leaders bygenerously giving away their turtle hunts in public feasting and waitingfor no reciprocation by their friends and kin (Bird et al., 2001). Otherevolutionary approaches have dealt with resource provisioning inmaritime contexts but have not relied in behavioral models per se tounderstand human activities. Henrich and Henrich, 2010) have usedcultural evolutionary models to show that many Fijian food taboos heldby pregnant women are for marine species that are toxic, and examinefamilial transmission of this knowledge to explain patterns of Fijiansocial learning and resource management consequences.

Current areas of research in this field are expanding rapidly in-cluding: (1) a closer rapprochement between HBE and evolutionarybiology (Nettle et al., 2013) for a more complete understanding ofhuman adaptations in marine environments and behavioral variance indiverse ecological contexts (e.g., tropical, temperate, artic) and (2) theuse of more rigorous sampling, data collection, and statistical techni-ques to test predictions of forging models like the Marginal ValueTheorem (MVT) that are yet to be rigorously tested with marine for-agers. This kind of research can help to develop innovative and rigorousmethods to better understand the spatial mobility, fishery economicstrategies, and responses to the alteration of food webs (e.g., resultingfrom climate change and overfishing) of fishers.

3.2. Experimental economics in fisheries (EE)

Experimental economics in fisheries is used to study cooperativebehavior in the collective management of small-scale fisheries. For in-stance, Aswani et al. (2013) examined the effect of various socio-eco-nomic variables (e.g., age, education, ethnicity, occupational status,etc.) in prompting cooperative behavior among fishers in the RovianaLagoon, Western Solomon Islands. They employed a Public Goods Game(PGG) to understand people's propensity to cooperate or not in a si-mulated common property fishing context. Similarly, Lopez et al.(2012) used various “framed” field experiments in fishing communitiesin the Colombia Caribbean to gauge whether cooperative behavior wasmore or less likely to occur in the context of imported “regulatorypressure” or “pro-social emotions,” with the latter being found to bemore significant than the former. Revollo-Fernández et al. (2015) re-searched gender roles and propensity to cooperate in resource man-agement in coastal fishing communities of Baja California, Mexico.Using various game theory laboratory and field experiments, the au-thors revealed that women had a greater proclivity to cooperate infisheries management than men when sanctions and social reprimandswere announced in the experiments, thus suggesting the important roleof women in resource management.

Future research in this new field will have to develop more realistictools/methods to understand the cooperative behavior and social in-terconnectivity of actors and institutions in fisheries governance atlocal, regional, national, and international scales.


Marine human behavioral and evolutionary ecology research canexplain the underlying causes of human behavior in resource use and

foraging cooperative behavior (beyond cultural ideas and perceptions),and this type of detailed micro-ecological information, which is rarelycollected, can really inform the design of marine resource managementand conservation projects locally (see Heinen, 1992). For example, inmy own work, we have imported research results of an OFT analysis offishing behavior (Aswani, 1998) into a GIS database for visualizing thespatio-temporal mobility of foragers, and in turn, using such informa-tion for designing spatio-temporal MPAs that protect marine stocks (inpart) while having the least negative effect on food security and live-lihoods (see Aswani and Lauer, 2006; cf. Aswani et al., 2017 for un-derstanding problems with conservation work in Melanesia). In a si-milar context, Sanchirico and Wilen (2001) have used bioeconomicmodelling to understand the spatial mobility and dynamics of fishers,and shown how such knowledge can assist in marine reserve design andcreation. Experimental economics in fisheries, on the other hand, candiagnose stakeholders' propensity to cooperate (or not) under differentinstitutional arrangements, particularly as people are subjected to thepressures of environmental and climatic change. Understanding localcooperative strategies, or lack thereof, are of great importance forpredicting the success or failure of any management or conservationprogram. This has been illustrated by Barnes et al. (2019) who haverecently shown that cooperation (through communication regardinggear use, fishing locations, etc.) between competitors enhances con-servation outcomes across a number of regions in the world.

4. Socio-cultural behavior in marine environments

Research in this area include a wide span of research that is relevantto marine resource use, management, and conservation includingfishing ethnographies, coastal and marine tourism, the political ecologyof fishing and aquaculture, and coastal food and livelihoods securityand sovereignty.

4.1. Ethnographies of fishing communities (EFC)

Current ethnographies, mainly drawn from the anthropology offishing communities, include studies on socialization and social re-production, psychological factors in fishing, identity, class differentia-tion, gender, cultural heritage and ritual performance, health, andtransnationalism and globalization among other areas of research. Ofrelevance to CHE (i.e., for documenting and uncovering proximate levelcausation processes, or ‘culture’ in marine ecological contexts), for in-stance, includes work such as Pollnac et al. (2012) who identify anumber of psychological factors globally (such as notions of ‘adventure’and ‘self-reliance’) that are related to fishermen's stout reluctance toexist a fishery even when resource scarcity leads to lowering incomes.In a different context, Walker's (2001) research on gender differentia-tion in Ghana fisheries, for instance, shows how well intended devel-opment projects to empower women actually can have the oppositeeffect. Walker describes how loan schemes for women and variouschanges in the law have resulted in the breakdown of traditional genderroles, economic networks, and livelihood strategies; this leading to aunrestrained exploitation of marine resources.

Cultural heritage has also been an area of research including thework of Nadel-Klein (2003) who studied the comodization of cultureand heritage in coastal Scotland as communities reinvent themselves tomitigate the impacts of North Atlantic fisheries demise. Other researchhas explored the health effects of HIV-AIDS of fisher folk households inAfrica and SE Asia, and has argued for the need to better understand thecultural intricacies of HIV transmission in these communities in order toameliorate its spread and impact (Allison and Seeley, 2004); humanhealth an important factor in understanding well-being in human-en-vironment coastal interactions. In a global scale, anthropological stu-dies are problematizing issues associated with commodity chains,markets, and commercialization strategies in fisheries. For instance,Bestor (2001) studied the activities in Tokyo's Tsukiji seafood market to


227

better conceptualize the cultural specificity of a locality (the fishmarket) in the context of global flows of capital and commodity chainsin the international seafood trade, which have serious implications formarine resource management and conservation.

Current research in this area is producing interesting ethnographies.For instance, Moore (2012) in a maritime multispecies ethnography isexamining the role of lionfish as an alien species introduced into theCaribbean and how local fishermen are reacting economically andsymbolically to the challenges and opportunities that invasive speciesproduce both in natural and social spaces. Recently, Pauwelussen andVerschoor (2017) have proposed the concept of “amphibiousness” tobetter conceptualize the local understanding of the interface betweenmarine foragers and their coral reefs in Indonesia. Such ontologicalshift, they argue, can better achieve marine conservation outreach goalsat the interface between science, technology, and society (STS). In arecent edited volume, Levin and Poe (2017) are examining the multipleecological, socioeconomic, political, cultural, and symbolic pathwaysthat fishing communities are facing to adapt in the context of the An-thropocene, which is an increasingly challenging epoch, as the humanpopulation continues to swell and the marine environment to rapidlydegrade.

4.2. Coastal and marine tourism (CMT)

The study of coastal and marine tourism is important because thisactivity is an economic driver in many coastal nations, and is known tohave pronounced local effects (e.g., Diedrich, 2007; Miller, 1993), withparticular implications for conservation, as both a driver for resourcedegradation and preservation. Frequently, these impacts have beenrecorded as being socially and environmentally negative (e.g., Wong,1998), and these deleterious effects are likely to exacerbate with thelooming impact of climate change related processes such as sea levelrise and coastal erosion (Moreno and Becken, 2009).

Other research on marine tourism has examined issue such the re-lationship between tourism and conservation and resource manage-ment in coastal Papua New Guinea (West, 2006), the strengthening ofsocial bonds and trust among communities in Dominica to cope withrising tourism (Holladay and Powell, 2013), the relationship betweeneducational programs and local perceptions of tourism in coastalThailand (Bennett and Dearden, 2014), and the use of participatorymapping and GIS to map incipient resource use conflicts and tourism inthe Solomon Islands (Aswani et al., 2015). Current and interesting re-search in this area includes research on the social and ecological vul-nerabilities of coastal communities to marine tourism development insmall islands states (e.g., Gough et al., 2010), and studies of human-cetacean interactive trajectories, and both their deleterious and positiveeffects (e.g., Orams, 1997) among other research frontiers.

4.3. The political ecology of fishing and aquaculture (PE)

Political ecology is a useful lens to examine the often asymmetricrelations of power between local actors, involved scientists and con-servationists, policy makers, and donors, whose competing interestsoften affect the outcomes of conservation practices. Scholars usingpolitical ecology have been able to assess why even well-intentionedmanagement schemes designed with consideration for local stake-holders (but without a proper assessment of existing power asymme-tries, among other things) may end up as “social” failures (e.g., Christie,2004). For instance, Campbell (2007) has used a political ecology fra-mework for studying asymmetries in power relations between localstakeholders and outside agents involved in turtle conservation in CostaRica, and her research has helped foster the conceptualization of a morejust and stakeholder-centered turtle conservation project in the region.Other research has examined the relationship between aquacultureproduction and mangroves, the unequal access to resources amongstakeholders with the often governmental favoring of industry over

local stakeholders, and the transformation of local common propertyrights in Indonesia (Armitage, 2002).

Novel research includes Le Heron et al. (2016) who present ways tofoster non-sectarian groups of stakeholder who actively remove theirdisciplinary and worldview biases for tackling ‘wicked problems’ inmarine conservation. Future research in political ecology will have tofurther investigate how local, national, and international stakeholdersconceptualize, identify, choose, or conform (or not) to the im-plementation of marine regulations and governance systems.

4.4. Coastal food and livelihoods security and sovereignty (FS)

An important concern in CHE research are issues of food securityand sovereignty among fisher folk around the world, particularly in thedeveloping world were economic uncertainty and poverty traps aremore profuse (Cinner et al., 2009). Allison and Ellis (2001) propose thata “livelihood approach,” which examines how fisher folk cope with andadapt to environmental and economic changes, is needed to better in-form management decisions in small-scale fisheries around the devel-oping world. Fabinyi et al. (2017) have also shown how a nuancedanalysis of Philippines fishing communities can unmask the in-completeness of a discourse about food security and fish abundance,and shown that policy makers need to better understand the multiplepathways of trade and peoples socioeconomic networks if marineconservation and food security is to be achieved in the global south.Understanding, for instance, the social dynamics of segregated in-formation networks in the long-line fishery in Hawaii would have fa-cilitated inter-network communications between different stakeholders,which would have prevented the by-catch of thousands of sharks(Barnes et al., 2016).

Other research has dealt with the issue of marine food sovereignty,or the capacity of small-scale fishers to control the production, dis-tribution and consumption of marine products in lieu of national ormultinational corporations, and that the rights of small scale fishers arebetter protected by governments like in South Africa (e.g., Sowman andCardoso, 2010). Recently, for instance, Cisneros -Montemayor et al.(2016) conducted a global assessment of almost 2000 coastal in-digenous communities across 87 countries to show the fundamentalimportance of marine resources to coastal indigenous communities, andadvocate for the recognition and protection of indigenous knowledgeand production systems to enhance the livelihood sovereignty of thesevulnerable communities. In this context, Barbesgaard (2017) has re-cently shown that small-scales fishers, whether indigenous or not, areincreasingly becoming politically active to protect their rights and foodsovereignty, as they fight national and international attempts at oceangrabbing in the name of blue growth.

Present promising research includes venues by which people at-tempt to secure their food security and sovereignty in small-scalefisheries (e.g., Fabinyi et al., 2017). Further work will be required tounderstand the multiple coping pathways of coastal peoples' as they areincreasingly faced by food insecurity fostered by resource degradationand the effects of climate change (e.g., global marine hotspots). In thissense, there is a need to understand the micro-ecological interactions offishers and ciguatera poisoning (Ruddle, 1996) to better gauge theconsequences of this dinoflagellate toxin to local health and livelihoods.Also, attention will need to be given on how social asymmetries (e.g.,gender, ethnicity, class, etc.) in coastal marine resource dependentcommunities influence food security coping strategies among othersubjects.


First, natural scientists often misunderstand the nature of ethno-graphic work often as a result of different academic languages andtheoretical paradigms between social and natural scientists. However,ethnographic studies, which often use painstaking qualitative data


228

collection methods (e.g., participant observation, open-ended inter-views, life-histories, etc.) as well as survey/quantitative data for un-derstanding local processes, can open venues for developing sharingknowledge networks for better communication between coastal devel-opers and local communities as well as regional and national authoritiesfor appropriate and inclusive resource management and conservation.They can also inform the public of commodity chains, markets, andcommercialization strategies in fisheries to better inform consumersabout the consumption of vulnerable and/or endangered marine spe-cies. Finally, ethnographies can take a closer look at the effects of cli-mate change not only on the socio-economic or environmental aspectsof fishing communities, but also on the effects to their social and cul-tural identity (e.g., sense of place), which have an effect on how peopleinteract with the environment.

Second, marine tourism research can provide information for de-veloping tourist initiatives that minimize local conflicts and assists inameliorating environmental impacts. Third, political ecology canidentify existing power asymmetries between stakeholders interactingin any marine resource management and conservation arena, and alsoin aquaculture, and show how such differences can lead to marine re-source degradation or not. That is, it can unmask the various roles ofplayers involved in environmental use, degradation, and managementfor improving resource management approaches and environmentaljustice locally, particularly in political contexts where corruption isendemic. In this context, Finkbeiner et al. (2017) have used politicalecology to critically evaluate the Malthusian narrative in the analysis ofoverfishing by the poor and marginalized, and have examined the rootcauses of resource degradation (e.g., technology and the unhingedconsumption by developed countries), and suggest ways for using thisknowledge for improving fisheries policies around the world. Finally,research on coastal livelihoods can furnish information to better protectvulnerable coastal populations and environments. That is, the publicand policy makers need to understand the multiple coping pathways ofcoastal peoples' as they are increasingly faced by livelihood insecurityand health threats fostered by rouge fleets, resource degradationthrough political corruption, and the effects of climate change. Thiskind of local livelihood research can assist in global analyses, such asBéné et al. (2016) research on the connection between local fisheriesand aquaculture with poverty alleviation, which shows that this link isstill inconclusive.

5. Marine knowledge and governance systems

A vast literature that closely intersects with CHE is on humanmarine indigenous ecological knowledge and governance systems, andthis work is important for informing the design of marine protectedareas (MPAs) and other marine resource management and conservationprograms locally.

5.1. Marine local and indigenous ecological knowledge (LEK)

Marine indigenous, traditional, and local knowledge (or LEK) hasdeveloped over time as people interact with their natural environment,and these socially and culturally embedded knowledge systems aredynamic and co-evolving with social and ecological changes (Berkes,2015). Research around the world has shown the importance of doc-umenting LEK for grasping fishers' decision-making processes as theyinteract with the marine environment (Johannes, 2002). Marine har-vesting (and its concomitant environmental effects) is constrained bythe flow of information between fishers and the environment, thevariability of spatio-temporal events, and the asymmetric distributionof target species across marine environments. For instance, Silvanoet al. (2006) have shown the importance of coastal Brazilian eth-noichthyology to understand patterns of migration of many commercialspecies and attendant fishermen's foraging decisions, and for pairingthat knowledge with scientific research for the management of local

stocks.Other researchers are also incorporating LEK into GIS databases to

document and better comprehend fishers' marine cognition and spatio-temporal resource use and access, and to use this knowledge to buildpartnerships with local communities for marine resource conservation(e.g., Stoffle et al., 1994). For instance, researchers have used partici-patory GIS for demarcating and cataloguing Miskito Indians reefs inNicaragua (Nietschmann, 1995), and to produce habitat maps withGrenadine Islands fishing communities that were informative to re-source managers (ecologically valuable) and which represented localperceptions of habitat use and distribution (Baldwin and Oxenford,2014). Other work has mapped local perceptions of environmental andclimate change in Madagascar, and evaluated how these perceptionsare influenced by markets, religion, and NGOs among other forces(Lemahieu et al., 2018)

The inclusion and empowerment of LEK for enhancing resourcestewardship (through such measures as MPAs) and for building resi-lience to human generated environmental and climate change hasgained prominence (e.g., Alexander et al., 2011; Narchi and Price,2015). In this context, researchers have increasingly examined thematch between LEK and scientific knowledge for gauging their corre-spondence, and practical applicability to management and conservationin a rapidly changing environment, and for empowering local and in-digenous communities (e.g., Garcia-Quijano, 2007). Other current areasof research include growing calls for the documentation, inclusion, andempowerment of LEK for enhancing resource stewardship (throughsuch measures as Marine Protected Areas [MPAs]) and for buildingresilience to natural disasters and to human generated environmentaldisturbances and climate change (e.g., Mercer et al., 2010). Other re-searchers have examined the relationship between LEK (as “rules ofthumb”) and the selection of marine habitats and preys across spatio-temporal variability, or as suggested by Peloquin and Berkes (2009),discerning the way fishers deal with multiple variables at multiplesscales during foraging.

New research is also looking at the erosion of marine LEK and itsconsequences. For instance, Patankar et al. (2015) have shown therapid decline of traditional authority and marine management (in-clusive of local knowledge) in the Nicobar Archipelago (India) six yearsfollowing the 2004 tsunami has resulted in institutional decline locally.This calls for the urgent attention not only to LEK documentations butalso for helping coastal small-scale and indigenous communities toempower their knowledge systems vis-à-vis uninterested governmentsand predatory fisheries multinationals.

5.2. Marine territorial systems and co-management (MTS)

Like the study of knowledge systems, research on the sub-theme ofmarine territoriality has a long standing tradition and includes a vastliterature in anthropology and human geography alone (e.g., Kishigamiand Savelle, 2005). Generally, these systems are informal or formalmeans by which coastal people and communities' appropriate sea spaceto limit resource use and access using a wide range of territorial stra-tegies (Ostrom, 2009). Past and present attention has focused on therole of customary marine/sea tenure (e.g., Hviding, 1996), informal(e.g., Durrenberger and Pálsson, 1987) and formal Territorial UserRights in Fisheries (TURFs) (e.g., Gelcich and Donlan, 2015), and therole of small-scale fishers' organization, e.g., cooperatives (Jentoft,1989) or cofradías (Bavinck et al., 2015), in co-management for reg-ulating the access and use of marine resources in open or commonproperty systems.

Oceanic customary sea tenure systems are generally inclusive tribalterritorial domains that often extend from island mountain peaks acrossthe lagoons and reefs and into the open ocean. Research has shown thatthese are context-dependent and historically situated customary rightsover sea space designed to control the use, access to, and transfer ofmarine resources through various strategies (see Cinner and Aswani,


229

2007). In SE Asia, studies include research topics such as the interplaybetween customary and national laws in fishery conflicts and theadaptation of marine tenure in the design of marine protected areas,including work in Indonesia (Adhuri, 2013) and the Philippines (Weekset al., 2010).

Other areas of research on marine common property and open ac-cess resources have been the study of the development of informal andformal territoriality in artisanal and commercial fisheries. For instance,Acheson's long-term research (Acheson, 2003) has shown how afterdecades of informal territorial strategies for “capturing the commons,”Maine lobster fishermen have been able to politically and formallyactivate some state-sanctioned regulations for controlling the lobsterfishery, while simultaneously maintaining informally, and oftenthrough illegal means, control of their lobster fishing grounds. Simi-larly, Begossi (1995) has shown how informal ownership of fishingspots at Búzios Island, Brazil has been used to regulate territorial in-terloping by outsiders. Other researchers have focused on governmentsanctioned formal TURFs, and these have been characterized as effec-tive for managing invertebrate resources and small-scale fisheries. InSouth America, for instance, research in Chile, Mexico, and Brazil haveshown that TURFs can be successful socially and biologically at sus-taining coastal fisheries (e.g., Gelcich and Donlan, 2015). Similarly,other research has been social and political investigations on the de-velopment of co-management systems across the world (e.g.,McGoodwin, 1995; Pinkerton, 2011). Today, an array of co-manage-ment regimes exist with different control balances and managementstrategies among different stakeholders, and are less or more successfulat creating sustainable fisheries and fishing societies (Sen and Nielsen,1996).

Research frontiers in this topic are rapidly moving in various di-rections. For example, various authors have examined ways of com-bining different customary and modern territorial arrangements fordeveloping hybrid governance and co-management systems(e.g.,Aswani and Ruddle, 2013), community-based marine protected areasnetworks (e.g., Weeks et al., 2010), and disaster management plansusing LEK (e.g., Mercer et al., 2010) as examples. For instance, Weeksand Jupiter (2013) have illustrated how Fiji's approach of combiningtraditional systems of coastal tenure management and modern co-management systems has become a successful model for marine con-servation to be followed by other Island states. Gelcich and Donlan(2015) have been tracking the evolution of relatively young territorialsystems such as formal TURFs and co-management systems in SouthAmerica to gauge their resilience to socioeconomic changes, surges inresource scarcity, the effects of climate change, and other socio-economic and biophysical fluctuations. In regions where customarysystems have never been recognized or even properly recorded, such asin a post-apartheid South Africa, researchers are documenting tradi-tional tenure systems and finding ways to bridge them with currentmunicipal, regional, and national legislation to improve rural liveli-hoods of coastal peoples (e.g., Sunde et al., 2013). Finally, Pauwelussen(2015) expanding on Wilson's (2006) work has shown the mismatchbetween social and biological interconnectivity in the context of tra-ditional Indonesia marine trade networks and the designation of marineconservation.

5.3. Marine protected areas and social and ecological impacts (MPA)

Researchers have not only been interested in the ecological impactsof MPAs, but also the social and economic ones. For instance, in a wideanalysis of marine and terrestrial protected areas, West et al. (2006)examine globally the political processes in the implementation andgovernability of protected areas that often result in people's displace-ment from the land and sea, conflict and violence, and asymmetricpower relationships, and reflect on how protected areas shape people'slives and living spaces. These kinds of analyses are extremely importantbecause they show that issues of social and economic equity are of

paramount importance in people's concerns of MPAs and their con-comitant acceptance, or not, of management (Blount and Pitchon,2007). This is demonstrated in Christie's (2004) research in Philippinesand Indonesia coastal communities, which shows that MPAs that havebeen deemed to be biologically successful in the short term are in factsocial failures—a situation that threatens the aimed long-term biolo-gical success of MPAs. Simply, if people don't cooperate conservationtargets cannot be achieved, and as pointed out by Ferse et al. (2010)local peoples need to be seen as allies and not enemies, and properlyintegrated into community-based natural resource management plan-ning and monitoring, as there is no other option.

Current and growing areas of CHE inquiry of MPAs include interestin the social and economic impacts of MPAs and how they intersectwith ecological ones, including such factors as food security, health,resource rights, employment and income opportunities, and communityorganization and cohesion (Mascia et al., 2010). Others, like Jentoftet al. (2012) have also examined how people's perceptions of the socialand economic impacts of MPAs in Spain structure their acceptability ornot of these management regimes, and call for a critical evaluation ofpeoples' cultural perceptions of MPAs to better guide their design andimplementation process. Similarly, Bennett and Dearden (2014) haveshown that most communities in Andaman Coast of Thailand have anegative perception of MPAs resulting from their views of negligibleeconomic, subsistence, and governability benefits.


Documenting and understanding local knowledge systems can allowfor ways to better integrate LEK and Western science for building cul-turally sensitive ways of designing and implementing natural resourcesmanagement and conservation policies locally. This is particularpoignant because the repercussions of ignoring LEK (whether one be-lieves that it is useful for conservation or not) have grave consequences,as both biological and cultural (biocultural) diversity are inter-connected (Maffi, 2005), and are fundamental for both ecosystemhealth and human adaptive resilience to stochastic and anthropogenicdriven climatic and environmental change. On the other hand, under-standing local governance systems can lead to a nuanced understandingof variability in tenure systems and assist in the creation of co-man-agement or hybrid marine management systems (e.g., CMT-EcosystemBased Management [EBM]) for more environmental successful and so-cially just conservation programs.

Failure to understand the nature of local tenure systems and thecomplexity of polycentric and nested tenure rights has led to marineconservation problems in Melanesia in (e.g., Foale and Manele, 2004;Aswani et al., 2017). Finally, a critical study of MPAs stakeholders canuncover how indiscriminately applying conservation policies can resultin people's displacement from their adjacent marine territories, possibleconflict and violence, and asymmetric power relationships betweendifferent stakeholders (e.g., tourist service providers and local fishers).This kind of case study research can assist in the study of MPAs invarious regions of the world, as Pollnac et al. (2010) have shown thatrule compliance and concomitant ecological benefits are often asso-ciated with a complex combination of socio-economic and politicalfactors rather than merely to enforcement and/or MPA rules. Thus aCHE analysis of MPAs can help the public and policy makers to ame-liorate conflicts and, more generally, for creating MPA networks thatcarefully integrate local knowledge and governance systems into MPAdesign.

6. Marine interactions in complex adaptive systems

In the last two decades' complex adaptive systems thinking underthe umbrella of socio-ecological systems (SES) theory has grown inmany social and environmental sciences. As mentioned, CHE sharesmany concepts with SES but differs in its units of analysis, theoretical


230

scope, and field research methods. Nevertheless, because SES is inter-ested in the interaction between natural and social processes operatingat diverse spatio-temporal scales, it intersects with CHE in many waysand needs to be included in this discussion.

6.1. Marine socioecological systems (MSS)

SES research is often conducted by multidisciplinary teams andoften relies on modelling tools for its analysis. For instance, Österblomet al. (2013) use model-based scenarios to couple human and marinesystems to better forecast management actions in the future to sustainmarine socioecological systems. In another example, Cinner et al.(2012) have proposed the use of Ostrom's (2009) diagnostic frameworkfor understanding the conditions that cause problems or create oppor-tunities in the governance of small-scale coral reef fisheries. Regulatoryefforts in marine ecosystems have separated ecological and social dy-namics failing to account for the integrated essence of human-naturesystems, and the effects of key synergies and trade-offs such as theecological legacies of historical livelihoods and ocean/land uses (Berkeset al., 2008). The following decade will see the burgeoning of SES ap-proaches to analyze and model human interactions in marine ecosys-tems. Recent research is already analyzing the social and economicfactors that result in differences in people's ideas and perceptions ofecosystem services (e.g., Hicks and Cinner, 2014), using participatorymodelling and scenarios approaches to estimate trade-offs betweenmorally incommensurable values (or “taboo” trade-offs) in tropicalfisheries (e.g., Daw et al., 2015: 1), and gauging perceptual asymme-tries in peoples estimations of environmental and climatic change(Ensor et al., 2018).

6.2. Environmental and climate change and coastal vulnerability (ECC)

The study of environmental and climate change and associatedcoastal vulnerability is often framed under SES theory (e.g., Cinneret al., 2012), albeit not all CHE research on this topic is couched in thisframework. Current CHE concerns include understanding the inter-connectedness of social, economic, and political systems with ecologicalones, and to identify the cultural factors and processes which makeadaptation to these transformations more or less likely, and which makepeople's experiences to climate change multifaceted (e.g., Crate andNuttall, 2016). For instance, Lazrus (2012) proposes a framework tostudy population responses to climate change in small islands that ex-amines local knowledge and concomitant agency to adapt to change,local perceptions of risk and vulnerability, and issues related to en-vironmental justice, equity, and power. Others have used archaeology(e.g., Morrison and Addison, 2008) and ecological anthropology (e.g.,Berkes and Jolly, 2002) to analyze longitudinal responses of marineharvesters to climate change.

6.3. Proximate and distal drivers of resource use (PDD)

Am emerging area of research in SES is understanding the role ofproximate and distal drivers in marine resource use and management, orthe importance of direct impacts, such as overfishing vis-a-vis thosewhich have indirect effects, such as governance structures or globalmarkets, on marine ecosystems (Cinner and Kittinger, 2015). For in-stance, Hicks et al. (2016) have examined a number of distal socialdrivers (e.g., new markets, technological innovations, etc.) that canlead to ecosystem shifts across a number of marine environments, andsuggest ways to identify these social drivers as early indicators of im-pending resource degradation for better policy designation. Similarly,Brewer et al. (2013) show how Solomon Islands reef fisheries, parti-cularly vulnerable species, are significantly impacted by populationgrowth and foreign markets. In new research, Forster et al. (2017) ex-amine differences among stakeholders in their perception of the effectof proximate and distal drivers on Caribbean coral reefs, and highlight

the importance of analyzing perceptual social data for better resourcemanagement.


SES research can conceptualize dynamics and causal flows in cou-pled human and natural coastal systems at various spatial, temporal,and organizational scales, and this knowledge can help design man-agement regimes that better respond to climate and environmentalchange hazards and opportunities (in some case). Detailed CHE studiescan help to better understand lower scale processes and hence enhancea SES analysis as it is scaled up to regional, national or internationalscales (i.e., feed into SES analyses more accurate localized social andecological data). In the context of climate change and vulnerabilityresearch, CHE can show how local and indigenous peoples around theworld experience and respond to climate change, and this again canfeed into SES analyses. This can furnish a broader understanding of howclimate change affect household food security, well-being, and healthamong other topics (e.g., Crate, 2011), and allow for developingadaptive marine conservation response plans that include local world-views, perceptions, and concerns. Finally, understanding the role ofproximate and distal drivers can provide better information regardingthe actual causes of marine resource degradation and this, in turn, maybetter inform policy for marine conservation.

7. Discussion

Coastal human ecology (CHE) as defined in this paper is an ap-proach that crisscrosses various disciplines and themes to study humanbehavioral, cognitive, and cultural coastal adaptations, and also ex-amines human driven ecological, socioeconomic, and political trans-formation of coastal and nearshore marine ecosystems. SimultaneouslyCHE studies how and why these environmental adaptations and trans-formations themselves reciprocally affect individual and human systembehavior (i.e., anthropogenic environment feedback loops). Indeed,most of the CHE research presented in this paper pertains to tribal,artisanal, and small-scale industrial fisheries because studying large-scale global industrial fishing poses a number of methodological andtheoretical challenges for CHE, which are not intractable as demon-strated by studies in urban human ecology, but CHE is better suited forscaling down and examining local processes. Yet a lococentric approachis fundamental if there is to be any hope for concrete conservationactions and outputs, as global treaties and conservation targets (e.g.,Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD]) are failing given the rapidrecorded decline of all Earth's ecological systems (Ripple et al., 2017).CHE is not a panacea for marine conservation, but a fine scale approachto discern the nuances of socioeconomic, political, cultural, and eco-logical interactive processes. In addition, there is no concrete empiricalevidence (beyond case studies) to demonstrate that what I call CHE ismore effective than other approaches for informing marine conserva-tion. Yet, given that hundreds of millions of people still depend onartisanal fisheries and that the most biodiverse ecosystems, such ascoral reefs, are found mostly in undeveloped regions, resorting to re-search approaches and tools that can more realistically describe re-sident human-marine interactions to inform conservation does not seemto be that farfetched.

While the prevailing SES paradigm in environmental studies canprovide a comparatively more holistic approach to studying human-environmental interaction, CHE approaches are more appropriate forscaling down locally. Unlike a SES analysis, which often relies on local/regional/national survey data (e.g., people's perceptions and secondaryrationalizations of past, present or future behavior) to feed its models orfor calculating aggregate indices, most CHE depends on a combinationof qualitative and quantitative methods that painstaking record localperceptions/attitudes and behaviors over time. This detailed andlongitudinal effort often contrasts with the snap-shot data collection


231

methods that are frequently used by SES researchers on rapid visits tocommunities and regions. Nevertheless, SES provides a general “bigpicture” framework in which CHE studies can be incorporated to betterconceptualize, measure, and/or forecast human-ecological interactionsat various spatial and temporal scales, thus providing more reliable datafor SES models. Integrating CHE data into SES models and analyses alsoincreases the number of management levers and probability of suc-cessful implementation of management policies and actions (Plaganyiper. comm.) (see Fig. 2 for an example). These approaches, therefore,are complementary.

Unfortunately, the number of CHE researchers is declining for var-ious reasons. Within the social sciences and humanities this is often theresult of university departments in the Northern and Southern hemi-sphere focusing on humanistic training and relegating scientific/naturalscience and interdisciplinary research to a minor role or to none at all.What's more, there is a generalized antagonism against ecological andnaturalist thinking when dealing with human beings, which is bizarregiven our scientifically established evolutionary history. As a result,resource economists and other natural scientists are now viewed as thebearers of the “social” component or analysis in the understanding ofhuman-environmental interactions in marine ecosystems (Pauly, 2006).On the other hand, natural scientists have marginal social sciencetraining and are often not articulate in the details of human ecology,which is so necessary for understanding local human-environmentcoupled processes. In addition, students today regardless of discipline,are generally unwilling to spend 12months in the field (for varioussocioeconomic and cultural reasons), which is the minimum time thatresearchers should spend in the field, as generally understood by seniorCHE academics. A year fieldwork requirement is to observe a full an-nual cycle and thus be able to capture all the spatio-temporal variationin human behavior vis-à-vis the marine environment. Regrettably, there

is no short-cut for gaining the necessary detailed CHE data to informmarine conservation, and universities, donors, and governments needto invest in long-term CHE research—the best research often beingdecadal—if they are to gain useful local data for theory/knowledgebuilding and for practical and real conservation interventions on theground.

To encourage a new generation of committed CHE researchers, in-terdisciplinary training within the auspices of disciplinary boundarieswill need to intensify. For example, marine science program studentscould get simultaneous training in marine ecology and fisheries an-thropology, while anthropology or human geography students inter-ested in resource management/conservation and food security could betrained in fisheries science and management, and marine ecology moregenerally. These types of cross-fertilizing engagements, which are al-ready occurring at various research institutions (although not deeplyenough in my opinion), could happen either through joint inter- andmultidisciplinary training programs, or through co-supervision withfisheries biologists for social science students, or alternatively anthro-pologists/human geographers for marine science students as an option.In essence, both humanities/social science and natural science studentsneed a broader training to be able to communicate CHE effectively withscientific and local communities (e.g., communicating science in aculturally appropriate way), policy makers, and the public more gen-erally. This is particularly poignant because as pointed out by E. OWilson (1998), disciplinary consilience is of fundamental importance toaddress current social and ecological problems, and in this respect CHEis, in principle, well equipped for building bridges between the huma-nities and natural sciences.

Fig. 2. Conceptual qualitative SES model of intermediate complexity incorporating different CHE data for considering 2 spatial areas and links with human systems.Model can also be constructed as a quantitative model of current ecosystem services losses, and simulate a “post climate change scenario” (projections) for marineresources in coral reefs (Courtesy of Eva Plaganyi).


232

8. Conclusion

For informing marine conservation, CHE research on itself is notenough and a wider intervention for conservation will require the in-tensification of transnational activities such as ocean global scientificresearch, marine nature video production, the use of social media, ci-tizen science and networks, and so forth. However, CHE researchers arewell positioned to build bridges between local worldviews and liveli-hood requirements and global biodiversity conservation needs.Environmental social scientists generally are good translators of largerdrivers of planetary environmental change (e.g., globalization, moder-nization, etc.) and local socioeconomic, cultural, and historical pro-cesses that define people's ideas and behaviors (Aswani et al., 2018;Bennett et al., 2017). CHE researchers particularly can use their skillshoned from on-the ground long-term research to scale-up from the localto the global, as often international and global conservation strategiesare in complete discrepancy with local people's understandings andobjectives. Solving overfishing, ocean acidification, rising sea levels, theexpansion of hypoxic zones and plastics in our oceans will require asocietal effort that neither natural nor social scientists can solve alone,and international, regional, and local interventions will be needed. Inthis sense, CHE researchers through their long-term engagements withpeople and nuanced understanding of their social and ecological sys-tems can provide, in part, the foundational knowledge that is so ne-cessary for environmental education and to perhaps begin changing ourenvironmental attitudes for saving the oceans. It is also time to stoppretending that “big science” and international environmental treatiesalone can solve environmental problems locally. Perhaps we need toreinvigorate research traditions (e.g., human and culture ecology) thatscale down to uncover micro-ecological and micro-socioeconomicprocesses, and using this actionable knowledge to build marine con-servation programs one at the time (whether governance is community-based, top-down, or a hybrid), and then use cross-case and cross-cul-tural examples to scale-up to regional, national, and international in-terventions.

Acknowledgements

I want to thank Antonietta Jerardino and Andrea Sáenz-Arroyo forcomments on drafts of this paper.

References

Acheson, J.M., 2003. Capturing the Commons: Devising Institutions to Manage the MaineLobster Industry. Upne.

Adhuri, D.S., 2013. Selling the Sea: A Study of Conflict over Marine Tenure in Kei Islands,Eastern Indonesia. ANU Press.

Agius, D.A., 2012. Seafaring in the Arabian Gulf and Oman: People of the Dhow.Routledge.

Alexander, C., Bynum, N., Johnson, E., King, U., Mustonen, T., Neofotis, P., Oettlé, N.,Rosenzweig, C., Sakakibara, C., Shadrin, V., Vicarelli, M., 2011. Linking indigenousand scientific knowledge of climate change. BioScience 61, 477–484.

Allison, E.H., Ellis, F., 2001. The livelihoods approach and management of small-scalefisheries. Mar. Policy 25, 377–388.

Allison, E.H., Seeley, J.A., 2004. HIV and AIDS among fisherfolk: a threat to ‘responsiblefisheries'? Fish Fish. 5, 215–234.

Alvard, M.S., Nolin, D.A., 2002. Rousseau's whale hunt? Coordination among big-gamehunters. Curr. Anthropol. 43, 533–559.

Ammarell, G., 1999. Bugis Navigation. Yale University Southeast Asia Studies.Armitage, D., 2002. Socio-institutional dynamics and the political ecology of mangrove

Forest conservation in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Glob. Environ. Chang. 12,203–217.

Arnold, J.E., 1995. Transportation innovation and social complexity among maritimehunter-gatherer societies. Am. Anthropol. 97, 733–747.

Aswani, S., 1998. Patterns of marine harvest effort in Southwestern New Georgia,Solomon Islands: resource management or optimal foraging? Ocean Coast. Manag.40, 207–235.

Aswani, S., Lauer, M., 2006. Incorporating fishermen's Local Knowledge and Behaviorinto Geographical Information Systems (GIS) for Designing Marine Protected Areas inOceania Human Organization. vol. 65. pp. 80–102.

Aswani, S., Ruddle, K., 2013. Design of realistic hybrid marine resource managementprograms in Oceania. Pac. Sci. 67, 461–476.

Aswani, S., Gurney, G.G., Mulville, S., Matera, J., Gurven, M., 2013. Insights from ex-perimental economics on local cooperation in small-scale fisheries management.Glob. Environ. Chang. 23, 1402–1409.

Aswani, S., Diedrich, A., Currier, K., 2015. Planning for the future: mapping anticipatedenvironmental and social impacts in a nascent tourism destination. Soc. Nat. Resour.28, 703–719.

Aswani, S., Albert, S., Love, M., 2017. One size does not fit all: critical insights for ef-fective community-based resource management in Melanesia. Mar. Policy 81,381–391.

Aswani, S., Basurto, X., Ferse, S., Glaser, M., Campbell, L., Cinner, J.E., Dalton, T.,Jenkins, L.D., Miller, M.L., Pollnac, R., Vaccaro, I., 2018. Marine resource manage-ment and conservation in the Anthropocene. Environ. Conserv. 45, 192–202.

Baldwin, K., Oxenford, H.A., 2014. A participatory approach to marine habitat mappingin the Grenadine Islands. Coast. Manag. 42, 36–58.

Barbesgaard, M., 2017. Blue growth: savior or ocean grabbing? J. Peasant Stud. 45,130–149.

Barnes, J., Dove, M., Lahsen, M., Mathews, A., McElwee, P., McIntosh, R., Moore, F.,O'reilly, J., Orlove, B., Puri, R., Weiss, H., 2013. Contribution of anthropology to thestudy of climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3, 541.

Barnes, M., Bodin, Ö., McClanahan, T., Kittinger, J., Hoey, A., Gaoue, O., Graham, N.,2019. Social-ecological alignment and ecological conditions in coral reefs. Nat.Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09994-1.

Barnes, M.L., Lynham, J., Kalberg, K., Leung, P., 2016. Social networks and environ-mental outcomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 6466–6471.

Bass, G.F., 1986. A Bronze Sge shipwreck at Ulu Burun (Kaş): 1984 campaign. Am. J.Archaeol. 269–296.

Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S., Pascual-Fernández, J.J., Marciniak, B., 2015. Interactive coastalgovernance: the role of pre-modern fisher organizations in improving governability.Ocean Coast. Manag. 117, 52–60.

Begossi, A., 1995. Fishing spots and sea tenure: incipient forms of local management inAtlantic Forest coastal communities. Hum. Ecol. 23, 387–406.

Beitl, C.M., 2015. Mobility in the mangroves: catch rates, daily decisions, and dynamics ofartisanal fishing in a coastal commons. Appl. Geogr. 59, 98–106.

Béné, C., Arthur, R., Norbury, H., Allison, E.H., Beveridge, M., Bush, S., Campling, L.,Leschen, W., Little, D., Squires, D., Thilsted, S.H., 2016. Contribution of fisheries andaquaculture to food security and poverty reduction: assessing the current evidence.World Dev. 79, 77–196.

Bennett, N.J., 2019. Marine social science for the peopled seas. Coast. Manag. 47. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2019.1564958.

Bennett, N.J., Dearden, P., 2014. Why local people do not support conservation: com-munity perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance andmanagement in Thailand. Mar. Policy 44, 107–116.

Bennett, N.J., Roth, R., Klain, S.C., Chan, K., Christie, P., Clark, D.A., Cullman, G., Curran,D., Durbin, T.J., Epstein, G., Greenberg, A., 2017. Conservation social science: un-derstanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biol.Conserv. 205, 93–108.

Berkes, F., 2015. Coasts for People: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Coastal and MarineResource Management. Routledge.

Berkes, F., Jolly, D., 2002. Adapting to climate change: social-ecological resilience in aCanadian western Arctic community. Conserv. Ecol. 5, 18.

Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. (Eds.), 2008. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems:Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press.

Bestor, T.C., 2001. Supply-side sushi: commodity, market, and the global city. Am.Anthropol. 103, 76–95.

Bird, R.B., Smith, E., Bird, D., 2001. The hunting handicap: costly signaling in humanforaging strategies. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 50, 9–19.

Blount, B.G., Pitchon, A., 2007. An anthropological research protocol for marine pro-tected areas: creating a niche in a multi-disciplinary cultural hierarchy. Hum. Organ.66, 103–111.

Braje, T.J., Leppard, T.P., Fitzpatrick, S.M., Erlandson, J.M., 2017. Archaeology, historicalecology and anthropogenic island ecosystems. Environ. Conserv. 44, 286–297.

Brewer, T.D., Cinner, J.E., Green, A., Pressey, R.L., 2013. Effects of human populationdensity and proximity to markets on coral reef fishes vulnerable to extinction byfishing. Conserv. Biol. 27, 443–452.

Bruno, J.F., Selig, E.R., 2007. Regional decline of coral cover in the indo-Pacific: timing,extent, and subregional comparisons. PLoS One 8, e711.

Bruno, J.F., Côté, I.M., Toth, L.T., 2019. Climate change, coral loss, and the curious caseof the parrotfish paradigm: why don't marine protected areas improve reef resilience?Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 11, 307–334.

Campbell, L.M., 2007. Local conservation practice and global discourse: a politicalecology of sea turtle conservation. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 97, 313–334.

Castilla, J.C., 1999. Coastal marine communities: trends and perspectives from humanexclusion experiments. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 280–283.

Christie, P., 2004. Marine protected areas as biological successes and social failures inSoutheast Asia. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 42, 155–164.

Cinner, J., Aswani, S., 2007. Integrating customary management into marine conserva-tion. Biol. Conserv. 140, 201–216.

Cinner, J.E., Kittinger, J.N., 2015. 22 linkages between social systems and coral reefs. In:Ecology of Fishes on Coral Reefs, pp. 215.

Cinner, J.E., Daw, T., McClanahan, T.R., 2009. Socioeconomic factors that affect artisanalfishers' readiness to exit a declining fishery. Conserv. Biol. 23, 124–130.

Cinner, J.E., McClanahan, T.R., Graham, N.A.J., Daw, T.M., Maina, J., Stead, S.M., et al.,2012. Vulnerability of coastal communities to key impacts of climate change on coralreef fisheries. Glob. Environ. Chang. 22, 12–20.

Cinner, J.E., Huchery, C., MacNeil, M.A., Graham, N.A., McClanahan, T.R., Maina, J.,et al., 2016. Bright spots among the world's coral reefs. Nature 535, 416–419.


233

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(19)30362-3/rf0005
















































https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09994-1
















https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2019.1564958

https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2019.1564958
















































Cisneros -Montemayor, A.M., Pauly, D., Weatherdon, L.V., Ota, Y., 2016. A global esti-mate of seafood consumption by coastal indigenous peoples. PLoS One 11, e0166681.

Crain, C.M., Kroeker, K., Halpern, B.S., 2008. Interactive and cumulative effects of mul-tiple human stressors in marine systems. Ecol. Lett. 11, 1304–1315.

Crate, S.A., 2011. Climate and culture: anthropology in the era of contemporary climatechange. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 40, 175–194.

Crate, S.A., Nuttall, M. (Eds.), 2016. Anthropology and Climate Change: From Encountersto Actions. Routledge.

Daw, T.M., Coulthard, S., Cheung, W.W., Brown, K., Abunge, C., Galafassi, D., Peterson,G.D., McClanahan, T.R., Omukoto, J.O., Munyi, L., 2015. Evaluating taboo trade-offsin ecosystems services and human well-being. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 6949–6954.

Diedrich, A., 2007. The impacts of tourism on coral reef conservation awareness andsupport in coastal communities in Belize. Coral Reefs 26, 985–996.

Durrenberger, E., Pálsson, G., 1987. Ownership at sea: fishing territories and access to searesources. Am. Ethnol. 14, 508–522.

Ensor, J.E., Abernethy, K.E., Hoddy, E.T., Aswani, S., Albert, S., Vaccaro, I., Benedict, J.J.,Beare, D.J., 2018. Variation in perception of environmental change in nine SolomonIslands communities: implications for securing fairness in community-based adap-tation. Reg. Environ. Chang. 18, 1131–1143.

Erlandson, J.M., 2001. The archaeology of aquatic adaptations: paradigms for a newmillennium. J. Archaeol. Res. 9, 287–350.

Erlandson, J.M., Torben, C.R., Braje, T.J., 2009. Fishing up the food web? 12,000 years ofmaritime subsistence and adaptive adjustments on California's Channel Islands. Pac.Sci. 63, 711–724.

Fabinyi, M., Dressler, W.H., Pido, M.D., 2017. Fish, trade and food security: moving be-yond ‘availability’ discourse in marine conservation. Hum. Ecol. 45, 177–188.

Feinberg, R., 2003. Polynesian Seafaring and Navigation: Ocean Travel in Anutan Cultureand Society. Kent State University Press.

Ferse, S.C., Costa, M.M., Manez, K.S., Adhuri, D.S., Glaser, M., 2010. Allies, not aliens:increasing the role of local communities in marine protected area implementation.Environ. Conserv. 37, 23–34.

Finkbeiner, E.M., Bennett, N.J., Frawley, T.H., Mason, J.G., Briscoe, D.K., Brooks, C.M.,Ng, C.A., Ourens, R., Seto, K., Switzer Swanson, S., Urteaga, J., 2017. Reconstructingoverfishing: moving beyond Malthus for effective and equitable solutions. Fish Fish.18, 1180–1191.

Finney, B.R., 1994. Voyage of Rediscovery: A Cultural Odyssey through Polynesia.University of California Press.

Fisher, E.C., Bar-Matthews, M., Jerardino, A., Marean, C.W., 2010. Middle and LatePleistocene paleoscape modeling along the southern coast of South Africa. Quat. Sci.Rev. 29, 1382–1398.

Foale, S., Manele, B., 2004. Social and political barriers to the use of marine protectedareas for conservation and fishery management in Melanesia. Asia Pac. Viewp. 45,373–386.

Folke, C., 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systemsanalyses. Glob. Environ. Chang. 16, 253–267.

Forster, J., Turner, R.A., Fitzsimmons, C., Peterson, A.M., Mahon, R., Stead, S.M., 2017.Evidence of a common understanding of proximate and distal drivers of reef health.Mar. Policy 84, 263–272.

Garcia-Quijano, C.G., 2007. Fishers' knowledge of marine species assemblages: bridgingbetween scientific and local ecological knowledge in southeastern Puerto Rico. Am.Anthropol. 109, 529–536.

Gelcich, S., Donlan, C.J., 2015. Incentivizing biodiversity conservation in artisanal fishingcommunities through territorial user rights and business model innovation. Conserv.Biol. 29, 1076–1085.

Gough, K.V., Bayliss-Smith, T., Connell, J., Mertz, O., 2010. Small island sustainability inthe Pacific: introduction to the special issue. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 31, 1–9.

Halffman, C.M., Potter, B.A., McKinney, H.J., Finney, B.P., Rodrigues, A.T., Yang, D.Y.,Kemp, B.M., 2015. Early human use of anadromous salmon in North America at11,500 y ago. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 12344–12348.

Halpern, B.S., Selkoe, K.A., Micheli, F., Kappel, C.V., 2007. Evaluating and ranking thevulnerability of global marine ecosystems to anthropogenic threats. Conserv. Biol. 21,1301–1315.

Hare, L., 2016. The Anthropocene trading zone: the new conservation, big data ecology,and the valuation of nature. Ecol. Soc. https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2015.060107.

Heinen, J.T., 1992. Human behavioural ecology and environmental conservation.Environ. Conserv. 19, 105–116.

Henrich, J., Henrich, N., 2010. The evolution of cultural adaptations: Fijian food taboosprotect against dangerous marine toxins. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 277,3715–3724.

Hicks, C.C., Cinner, J.E., 2014. Social, institutional, and knowledge mechanisms mediatediverse ecosystem service benefits from coral reefs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111,17791–17796.

Hicks, C.C., Crowder, L.B., Graham, N.A., Kittinger, J.N., Cornu, E.L., 2016. Social driversforewarn of marine regime shifts. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 252–260.

Holladay, P.J., Powell, R.B., 2013. Resident perceptions of socialecological resilience andthe sustainability of community-based tourism development in the Commonwealth ofDominica. J. Sustain. Tour. 21, 1188–1211.

Hung, H.C., Nguyen, K.D., Bellwood, P., Carson, M.T., 2013. Coastal connectivity: long-term trading networks across the South China Sea. The Journal of Island and CoastalArchaeology 8, 384–404.

Hviding, E., 1996. Guardians of Marovo Lagoon: Practice, Place, and Politics in MaritimeMelanesia. University of Hawaii Press.

Jackson, J.B., et al., 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal eco-systems. Science 293, 629–637.

Jennings, S., Kaiser, M., Reynolds, J.D., 2009. Marine Fisheries Ecology. John Wiley &Sons.

Jentoft, S., 1989. Fisheries co-management: delegating government responsibility tofishermen's organizations. Mar. Policy 13, 137–154.

Jentoft, S., Pascual-Fernández, J.J., De la Cruz Modino, R., Gonzalez-Ramallal, M.,Chuenpagdee, R., 2012. What stakeholders think about marine protected areas: casestudies from Spain. Hum. Ecol. 40, 185–197.

Jerardino, A., 2016. On the origins and significance of Pleistocene coastal resource use inSouthern Africa with particular reference to shellfish gathering. J. Anthropol.Archaeol. 41, 213–230.

Jerardino, A., Marean, C.W., 2010. Shellfish gathering, marine paleoecology and modernhuman behavior: perspectives from cave PP13B, Pinnacle Point, South Africa. J.Hum. Evol. 59, 412–424.

Johannes, R.E., 2002. The renaissance of community-based marine resource managementin Oceania. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33, 317–340.

Kirch, P.V., Green, R.C., 2001. Hawaiki, Ancestral Polynesia: An Essay in HistoricalAnthropology. Cambridge University Press.

Kishigami, N., Savelle, J.M. (Eds.), 2005. Indigenous Use and Management of MarineResources. Senri Ethnological Studies No. 67 National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka,Japan.

Gedan, K.B., Blight, L.K., 2015. In: Kittinger, J.N., McClenachan, L. (Eds.), MarineHistorical Ecology in Conservation: Applying the Past to Manage for the Future.University of California Press.

Klein, R.G., Steele, T.E., 2013. Archaeological shellfish size and later human evolution inAfrica. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, 10910–10915.

Lazrus, H., 2012. Sea change: island communities and climate change. Annu. Rev.Anthropol. 41.

Le Heron, R., Lewis, N., Fisher, K., Thrush, S., Lundquist, C., Hewitt, J., Ellis, J., 2016.Non-sectarian scenario experiments in socio-ecological knowledge building for multi-use marine environments: insights from New Zealand's Marine Futures project. Mar.Policy 67, 10–21.

Lemahieu, A., Scott, L., Malherbe, W.S., Mahatante, P.T., Randrianarimanana, J.V.,Aswani, S., 2018. Local perceptions of environmental changes in fishing communitiesof Southwest Madagascar. Ocean Coast. Manag. 163, 209–221.

Levin, P.S., Poe, M.R., 2017. Conservation for the Anthropocene Ocean: InterdisciplinaryScience in Support of Nature and People. Academic Press.

Lopez, M.C., Murphy, J.J., Spraggon, J.M., Stranlund, J.K., 2012. Comparing the effec-tiveness of regulation and pro-social emotions to enhance cooperation: experimentalevidence from fishing communities in Colombia. Econ. Inq. 50, 131–142.

Mace, G., 2014. Whose conservation? Science 345, 1558–1560.Maffi, L., 2005. Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Annual Reviews of

Anthropology 34, 599–617.Mascia, M.B., Brosius, J.P., Dobson, T.A., Forbes, B.C., Horowitz, L., McKean, M.A.,

Turner, N.J., 2003. Conservation and the social sciences. Conserv. Biol. 17, 649–650.Mascia, M.B., Claus, C., Naidoo, R., 2010. Impacts of marine protected areas on fishing

communities. Conserv. Biol. 24, 1424–1429.McClanahan, T.R., Omukoto, J.O., 2011. Implications of modern versus historical fish-

eries catches for marine protected area goals. Conserv. Biol. 25, 945–955.McClenachan, L., 2009. Documenting loss of large trophy fish from the Florida keys with

historical photographs. Conserv. Biol. 23, 636–643.McGoodwin, J., 1995. Crisis in the world's Fisheries: People, Problems, and Policies.

Stanford University Press.Mercer, J., Kelman, I., Taranis, L., Suchet-Pearson, S., 2010. Framework for integrating

indigenous and scientific knowledge for disaster risk reduction. Disasters 34,214–239.

Miller, M.L., 1993. The rise of coastal and marine tourism. Ocean Coast. Manag. 20,181–199.

Moore, A., 2012. The aquatic invaders: marine management figuring fishermen, fisheries,and lionfish in the Bahamas. Cult. Anthropol. 27, 667–688.

Moran, E., 2010. Environmental Social Science: Human-Environment Interactions andSustainability. John Wiley & Sons.

Moreno, A., Becken, S., 2009. A climate change vulnerability assessment methodology forcoastal tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 17, 473–488.

Morrison, A.E., Addison, D.J., 2008. Assessing the role of climate change and humanpredation on marine resources at the Fatu-ma-Futi site, Tutuila Island, AmericanSamoa: an agent based model. Archaeol. Ocean. 43, 22–34.

Nadel-Klein, J., 2003. Fishing for Heritage: Modernity and Loss along the Scottish Coast.(Berg).

Nagaoka, L., 2002. The effects of resource depression on foraging efficiency, diet breadth,and patch use in southern New Zealand. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 21, 419–442.

Narchi, N.E., Price, L.L. (Eds.), 2015. Ethnobiology of Corals and Coral Reefs. Springer.Nettle, D., Gibson, M.A., Lawson, D.W., Sear, R., 2013. Human behavioral ecology: cur-

rent research and future prospects. Behav. Ecol. 24, 1031–1040.Neumann, B., Vafeidis, A.T., Zimmermann, J., Nicholls, R.J., 2015. Future coastal po-

pulation growth and exposure to sea-level rise and coastal flooding - a global as-sessment. PLoS One 10 (3), e0118571.

Nietschmann, B., 1995. Defending the Miskito reefs with maps and GPS: mapping withsail, SCUBA, and satellite. Cultural Survival Quarterly 18, 34–36.

NOW Project, 2017. Department of Anthropology, University of Copenhagen. https://now.ku.dk/.

Orams, M.B., 1997. Historical accounts of human-dolphin interaction and recent devel-opments in wild dolphin based tourism in Australasia. Tour. Manag. 18, 317–326.

Österblom, H., et al., 2013. Modeling social—ecological scenarios in marine systems.BioScience 63, 735–744.

Ostrom, E., 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecologicalsystems. Science 325, 419–422.

Palmer, M.A., 2012. Socioenvironmental sustainability and actionable science. BioScience62, 5–6.


234































































https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2015.060107



































































































https://now.ku.dk/

https://now.ku.dk/









Patankar, V., D'Souza, E., Alcoverro, T., Arthur, R., 2015. Erosion of traditional marinemanagement systems in the face of disturbances in the Nicobar archipelago. Hum.Ecol. 43, 697–707.

Pauly, D., 1995. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends inEcology and Evolution 10, 430.

Pauly, D., 2006. Major trends in small-scale marine fisheries, with emphasis on devel-oping countries, and some implications for the social sciences. Maritime Studies 4,7–22.

Pauwelussen, A., Verschoor, G.M., 2017. Amphibious encounters: coral and people inconservation outreach in Indonesia. Engag. Sci. Technol. Soc. 3, 292–314.

Pauwelussen, A.P., 2015. The moves of a Bajau middlewoman: understanding the dis-parity between trade networks and marine conservation. Anthropol. Forum 1–21.

Peloquin, C., Berkes, F., 2009. Local knowledge, subsistence harvests, and social–ecolo-gical complexity in James Bay. Hum. Ecol. 37, 533–545.

Pinkerton, E. (Ed.), 2011. Co-Operative Management of Local Fisheries: New Directionsfor Improved Management and Community Development. UBC Press.

Pollnac, R., Christie, P., Cinner, J.E., Dalton, T., Daw, T.M., Forrester, G.E., Graham, N.A.,McClanahan, T.R., 2010. Marine reserves as linked social–ecological systems. Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 18262–18265.

Pollnac, R.B., Bavinck, M., Monnereau, I., 2012. Job satisfaction in fisheries compared.Soc. Indic. Res. 109, 119–133.

Rappaport, R.A., 2000. [1968]. Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a NewGuinea People. Waveland Press.

Revollo-Fernández, D., Aguilar-Ibarra, A., Micheli, F., Sáenz-Arroyo, A., 2015. Exploringthe role of gender in common-pool resource extraction: evidence from laboratory andfield experiments in fisheries. Appl. Econ. Lett. 1–9.

Ripple, W.J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T.M., Galetti, M., Alamgir, M., Crist, E., Mahmoud, M.I.,Laurance, W.F., and15,364 scientist signatories from 184 countries, 2017. Worldscientists' warning to humanity: a second notice. BioScience 67, 1026–1028.

Roberts, C., 2010. The Unnatural History of the Sea. Island Press.Ruddle, K., 1996. Geography and human ecology of reef fisheries. In: Polunin, N.V.C.,

Roberts, C.M. (Eds.), Reef Fisheries. Chapman & Hall Fish and Fisheries Series, vol 20Springer, Dordrecht.

Sáenz-Arroyo, A., Roberts, C.M., Torre, J., Cariño-Olvera, M., Hawkins, J.P., 2006. Thevalue of evidence about past abundance: marine fauna of the Gulf of Californiathrough the eyes of 16th to 19th century travelers. Fish Fish. 7, 128–146.

Sanchirico, J.N., Wilen, J.E., 2001. A bioeconomic model of marine reserve creation. J.Environ. Econ. Manag. 42, 257–276.

Sealy, J.C., 2006. Diet, mobility, and settlement pattern among Holocene hunter gath-erers in southernmost Africa. Curr. Anthropol. 47, 569–595.

Sen, S., Nielsen, J.R., 1996. Fisheries co-management: a comparative analysis. Mar. Policy20, 405–418.

Silvano, R.A., MacCord, P.F., Lima, R.V., Begossi, A., 2006. When does this fish spawn?Fishermen's local knowledge of migration and reproduction of Brazilian coastalfishes. Environ. Biol. Fish 76, 371–386.

Sosis, R., 2002. Patch choice decisions among Ifaluk fishers. Am. Anthropol. 104,583–598.

Sowman, M., Cardoso, P., 2010. Small-scale fisheries and food security strategies incountries in the Benguela current Large Marine Ecosystem (BCLME) region: Angola,Namibia and South Africa. Mar. Policy 34, 1163–1170.

Steward, J.H., 1955. The Concept and Method of Cultural Ecology. Bobbs-Merrill ReprintSeries in the Social Sciences.

Stoffle, R.W., Halmo, D.B., Wagner, T.W., Luczkovich, J.J., 1994. Reefs from space: sa-tellite imagery, marine ecology, and ethnography in the Dominican Republic. Hum.Ecol. 22, 355–378.

Sunde, J., Sowman, M., Smith, H., Wicomb, W., 2013. Emerging proposals for tenuregovernance in small-scale fisheries in South Africa. Land Tenure Journal 1.

The Island Chumash: Behavioral Ecology of a Maritime Society. University of CaliforniaPress.

Thomas, F.R., 2007. The behavioral ecology of shellfish gathering in Western Kiribati,Micronesia 1: prey choice. Hum. Ecol. 35, 179–194.

Thomson, V.A., et al., 2014. Using ancient DNA to study the origins and dispersal ofancestral Polynesian chickens across the Pacific. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111,4826–4831.

Thorsby, E., 2016. Genetic evidence for a contribution of Native Americans to the earlysettlement of Rapa Nui (Easter Island). Front. Ecol. Evol. 4, 118.

Veth, P., Ward, I., Manne, T., 2016. Coastal feasts: a Pleistocene antiquity for resourceabundance in the maritime deserts of North West Australia? The Journal of Island andCoastal Archaeology 1–16.

Walker, B., 2001. Sisterhood and seine-nets: engendering development and conservationin Ghana's marine fishery. Prof. Geogr. 53, 160–177.

Weeks, R., Jupiter, S.D., 2013. Adaptive comanagement of a marine protected area net-work in Fiji. Conserv. Biol. 27, 1234–1244.

Weeks, R., Russ, G.R., Bucol, A., Alcala, A.C., 2010. Incorporating local tenure in thesystematic design of marine protected area networks. Conserv. Lett. 3, 445–453.

West, P., 2006. Conservation Is our Government Now: The Politics of Ecology in PapuaNew Guinea. Duke University Press.

West, P., Igoe, J., Brockington, D., 2006. Parks and peoples: the social impact of protectedareas. Annual Reviews of Anthropology 35, 251–277.

Wilson, E.O., 1998. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. Abacus, London.Wilson, J.A., 2006. Matching social and ecological systems in complex ocean fisheries.

Ecol. Soc. 11, 9.Wong, P.P., 1998. Coastal tourism development in Southeast Asia: relevance and lessons

for coastal zone management. Ocean Coast. Manag. 38, 89–109.


235





















































































Documents

Perspectives in coastal human ecology (CHE) for marine … · 2019-12-14 · Coastal Human Ecology (CHE). It is important to note that human ecology as a ﬁeld that studies the ecology