Impacts of aquaculture on social networks in the mangrove systems of northern Vietnam

Abstract

a b s t r a c tMangrove systems are one of the most complex and productive ecosystems on Earth, providing crucial livelihood support to coastal communities in developing countries. However, mangrove systems are being degraded and lost at an alarming rate globally. In Vietnam, the principal threat to mangrove systems is their conversion to aquaculture. Historically, mangrove system dependent communities (MSDC) have responded to change through their livelihoods and social networks, using social capital to self-organise and access crucial livelihood resources. However, little is known about the impact of different degrees of aquaculture on MSDC livelihoods and social networks, and what this means for the resilience of these communities and their ability to self-organise in response to change. Using a quantitative approach based on empirical household survey data, we assess the association between aquaculture and the livelihoods and social networks of three coastal communities of northern Vietnam. Results indicate that greater degrees of aquaculture are associated with: greater income inequality and lower livelihood diversity; and larger and less dense social networks. The increased influence of marketbased relations associated with greater degrees of aquaculture has implications for resilience through the socio-economic differentiation and fragmentation of MSDC networks, which reduces social capital and the ability to self-organise in response to change. A diversity of network ties is required in order to connect various groups within MSDC. This can enable shared identification and understanding of the issues facing mangrove systems in order to facilitate self-organisation, and foster the resilience necessary for the sustainable governance of mangrove systems.

Social networks and the resilience of rural communities in the Global South: a critical review and conceptual reflections

“…Case studies reviewed include, for example, work on social networks as part of rural livelihood strategies (Kadigi et al 2007, Torkelsson 2007, Nygren and MyattHirvonen 2009, Ekblom 2012, Rindfuss et al 2012, Goulden et al 2013, Baird and Gray 2014, recovery from climate risks (Bosher et al 2007, Rotberg 2010, Islam and Walkerden 2014, 2015, climate-change adaptation (Scheffran et al 2012), and sustainable resource management (Downey 2010, Zimmerer 2014, Abizaid et al 2015, Katikiro et al 2015, Orchard et al 2015.…”

“…Metaphorical approaches that refer to either the existence or the decline of social networks as an explanatory variable of resilience are more frequent than in other strands (Kadigi et al 2007, Ekblom 2012, Scheffran et al 2012, da Costa et al 2013, Zimmerer 2014, Katikiro et al 2015. Structurally explicit approaches, drawing on methods of SNA (Downey 2010, Cassidy and Barnes 2012, Lyle and Smith 2014, Abizaid et al 2015, Orchard et al 2015 are more frequent than in the strand of agricultural innovation but less frequent than in the governance strand.…”

“…Studies tend to concentrate on the village level (Cassidy and Barnes 2012, Islam and Walkerden 2014, Lyle and Smith 2014, Abizaid et al 2015, though there are also studies emphasizing the role of social ties that extend beyond the community (Ekblom 2012, Rindfuss et al 2012, Scheffran et al 2012, Gallego and Mendola 2013, Islam and Walkerden 2015, Orchard et al 2015. Network analysis: The main level of analysis is that of the individual, in this case, households, whereas structurally explicit studies also give attention to the network level (Cassidy andBarnes 2012, Lyle andSmith 2014).…”

“…Network analysis: The main level of analysis is that of the individual, in this case, households, whereas structurally explicit studies also give attention to the network level (Cassidy andBarnes 2012, Lyle andSmith 2014). Frequently addressed characteristics include tie reciprocity and tie strength, the latter being operationalized either as bonding ties of kinship and bridging ties of neighborhood and friendship (Islam andWalkerden 2014, 2015), or as bonding ties within the community and bridging ties to actors outside the community (Rotberg 2010, Baird and Gray 2014, Islam and Walkerden 2014, 2015, Orchard et al 2015. Compared to other strands, there is a stronger focus on network context, including social institutions and socioeconomic changes (Torkelsson 2007, Nygren and MyattHirvonen 2009, Baird and Gray 2014, Katikiro et al 2015, Orchard et al 2015.…”

“…Frequently addressed characteristics include tie reciprocity and tie strength, the latter being operationalized either as bonding ties of kinship and bridging ties of neighborhood and friendship (Islam andWalkerden 2014, 2015), or as bonding ties within the community and bridging ties to actors outside the community (Rotberg 2010, Baird and Gray 2014, Islam and Walkerden 2014, 2015, Orchard et al 2015. Compared to other strands, there is a stronger focus on network context, including social institutions and socioeconomic changes (Torkelsson 2007, Nygren and MyattHirvonen 2009, Baird and Gray 2014, Katikiro et al 2015, Orchard et al 2015. Structurally explicit studies focus on structural characteristics such as density, hierarchy, and the centrality of particular households (Downey 2010, Cassidy and Barnes 2012, Lyle and Smith 2014, Orchard et al 2015.…”