"The Ocean is our Farm": Marine Conservation, Food Insecurity, and Social Suffering in Southeastern Tanzania

Kamat, Vinay R.

doi:10.17730/humo.73.3.f43k115544761g0v

Cited by 51 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At smaller scales, people may experience improvements in well-being in the face of ecosystem degradation, when this enhances the opportunities for human development (e.g., Wunder 2001). Conversely, conservation may enhance ecosystems with little benefit, or even harm to the well-being of local people, for example by exclusion from reserves (Dowie 2011, Kamat 2014 or where "ecosystem disservices" such as crop raiding by wild animals impact local farmers (Woodroffe et al 2005). Such examples of a negative relationship between ecosystem health and human wellbeing may represent temporal or spatial effects, either that degradation will impact the well-being of people in the future, or in other places, or that benefits from ecological enhancement take time to materialize or are enjoyed by distant beneficiaries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Elasticity in ecosystem services: exploring the variable relationship between ecosystems and human well-being

Daw¹,

Hicks²,

Brown³

et al. 2016

E&S

155

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Although ecosystem services are increasingly recognized as benefits people obtain from nature, we still have a poor understanding of how they actually enhance multidimensional human well-being, and how well-being is affected by ecosystem change. We develop a concept of "ecosystem service elasticity" (ES elasticity) that describes the sensitivity of human well-being to changes in ecosystems. ES Elasticity is a result of complex social and ecological dynamics and is context dependent, individually variable, and likely to demonstrate nonlinear dynamics such as thresholds and hysteresis. We present a conceptual framework that unpacks the chain of causality from ecosystem stocks through flows, goods, value, and shares to contribute to the well-being of different people. This framework builds on previous conceptualizations, but places multidimensional well-being of different people as the final element. This ultimately disaggregated approach emphasizes how different people access benefits and how benefits match their needs or aspirations.Applying this framework to case studies of individual coastal ecosystem services in East Africa illustrates a wide range of social and ecological factors that can affect ES elasticity. For example, food web and habitat dynamics affect the sensitivity of different fisheries ecosystem services to ecological change. Meanwhile high cultural significance, or lack of alternatives enhance ES elasticity, while social mechanisms that prevent access can reduce elasticity.Mapping out how chains are interlinked illustrates how different types of value and the well-being of different people are linked to each other and to common ecological stocks. We suggest that examining chains for individual ecosystem services can suggest potential interventions aimed at poverty alleviation and sustainable ecosystems while mapping out of interlinkages between chains can help to identify possible ecosystem service trade-offs and winners and losers. We discuss conceptual and practical challenges of applying such a framework and conclude on its utility as a heuristic for structuring interdisciplinary analysis of ecosystem services and human wellbeing.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Elasticity in ecosystem services: exploring the variable relationship between ecosystems and human well-being

Daw¹,

Hicks²,

Brown³

et al. 2016

E&S

155

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Areas affected primarily by ocean-based threats are priorities for MPA designation, OECMs, or broad-scale policy responses such as strictly enforced fisheries regulations. However, many of these areas also support highly productive fisheries, meaning regulations can fail in the face of intense opposition from fishers ( 40 ). Overcoming these challenges will require identifying which species and ecosystems are most vulnerable to ocean-based impacts, and thus require strict protection to prevent extinctions, and also identifying where conservation outcomes can be achieved while allowing sustainable resource extraction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Area requirements to safeguard Earth’s marine species

Jones

Klein

Grantham

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite global policy commitments to preserve Earth's marine biodiversity, many species are 1 in a state of decline. Using data on 22,885 marine species, we identify 8.5 million km 2 of 2 priority areas that complement existing areas of conservation and biodiversity importance. 3New conservation priorities are found in over half (56%) of all coastal nations, with key 4 priority regions in the northwest Pacific Ocean and Atlantic Ocean. We identify where 5 different conservation actions, ranging from marine protected areas to broader policy 6 approaches, may best overcome anthropogenic threats to these areas. This analysis shows 26-7 41% of the ocean (depending on targets used for species representation) needs to be 8 effectively conserved through a combination of site-based actions and wider policy responses 9 to achieve global conservation and sustainable development agendas. 10 11 One Sentence Summary: 12At least 26% of the ocean needs a combination of site-based conservation and wider policy 13 responses to achieve global conservation goals. 14 15 16

show abstract

“…In Indonesia, no significant gender differences were found in wellbeing in a 15 year impact evaluation of MPAs (Gurney et al 2015). By restricting fishing, MPAs may reduce household food security, which has the potential to disproportionately and adversely affect women as they are forced to take on additional responsibilities to provide for their families (Kamat 2014, Moshy et al 2015. In other instances, however, the extent to which households depend on fishing or other factors, appears to matter more than gender in influencing household food insecurity outcomes (Darling 2014).…”

Section: Capture Fisheries and Aquaculturementioning

confidence: 99%

How does gendered vulnerability shape the adoption and impact of sustainable livelihood interventions in an era of global climate change?

Call

Sellers

2019

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Though many studies have long considered the broad social implications of climate change, researchers have only recently started to consider the gendered unevenness of the global landscape of vulnerability, exposure, and adaptive capacity to environmental stressors and shocks. Historically, policies and interventions addressing natural resource-based livelihoods have rarely considered underlying gender dynamics despite the global pervasiveness of gendered disparities in both economic opportunities and welfare outcomes. Methods/Design. Using two electronic databases, Web of Science and Scopus, we conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed academic literature describing livelihoods policies or interventions that included documentation of gendered impacts. We focused on natural resource-based livelihoods most likely to be affected by climate change, centering on interventions targeting agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture, and forestry. Review Results/ Synthesis. We identified 131 relevant articles, most of which focus on adoption or participation in interventions rather than outcomes. In general, women are less likely than men to engage with sustainable livelihoods interventions. When women do engage, some researchers have documented income and food security gains as well as improvements in environmental indicators in the shortterm. However, these initiatives have also been found to increase women's labor burden without corresponding gains in income. Few studies measure longer-term effects of women's engagement on welfare and environmental outcomes, a key gap in the literature. Additionally, relatively few studies explore the intersectional impacts of initiatives, such as the added burdens of ethnicity, class, education, or other differences that modify gender disparities. Discussion. Climate change has gendered impacts on natural resource-based livelihoods. In general, existing initiatives designed to increase livelihood resilience fail to reduce gender disparities and improve women's livelihoods. Greater attention should be paid to gender when designing sustainable livelihoods policies and interventions in order to increase adoption and participation, negotiate trade-offs, improve environmental conditions, and promote broadly beneficial welfare outcomes.

show abstract

"The Ocean is our Farm": Marine Conservation, Food Insecurity, and Social Suffering in Southeastern Tanzania

Cited by 51 publications

References 31 publications

Elasticity in ecosystem services: exploring the variable relationship between ecosystems and human well-being

Elasticity in ecosystem services: exploring the variable relationship between ecosystems and human well-being

Area requirements to safeguard Earth’s marine species

How does gendered vulnerability shape the adoption and impact of sustainable livelihood interventions in an era of global climate change?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About