2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.04.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Weeding through assumptions of livelihood approaches in ICM: Seaweed farming in the Philippines and Indonesia

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
157
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 146 publications
(167 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
2
157
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A number of studies have corroborated the positive socioeconomic impacts of seaweed farming in countries as diverse as the Philippines, Indonesia, Tanzania, India, Vietnam and the Pacific Islands (Arnold, Bindu, 2011;Msuya, 2006;My, 2011;Namudu & Pickering, 2006;Pettersson-Löfquist, 1995;Sievanen et al, 2005;Zamroni & Yamao, 2011). Although carrageenophytes are not a direct source of food, their culture has been shown to increase food security in farming villages because their revenue-earning potential is greater than that of alternative agricultural enterprises (Beveridge et al, 2010;Espaldon et al, 2010;Gupta, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…A number of studies have corroborated the positive socioeconomic impacts of seaweed farming in countries as diverse as the Philippines, Indonesia, Tanzania, India, Vietnam and the Pacific Islands (Arnold, Bindu, 2011;Msuya, 2006;My, 2011;Namudu & Pickering, 2006;Pettersson-Löfquist, 1995;Sievanen et al, 2005;Zamroni & Yamao, 2011). Although carrageenophytes are not a direct source of food, their culture has been shown to increase food security in farming villages because their revenue-earning potential is greater than that of alternative agricultural enterprises (Beveridge et al, 2010;Espaldon et al, 2010;Gupta, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Alternative livelihood programs may fail to deliver expected or desired outcomes due to a number of factors including lack of linkage between development and conservation [77,127], local capacity barriers [76,160], unaccounted for values related to traditional livelihoods [86,161,162], and economic factors such as shifting input costs and access to markets [51,73,82]. Successful development of livelihood alternatives may also simply encourage in-migration [163] or lead to the re-investment of newfound income in fishing [76,164] which will both lead to increasing pressure on local resources. Most authors concur that focusing on a portfolio of substitutable and interchangeable resource-based and non-resource-based livelihoods is more effective than using any single strategy [35,77,86,93,126,127].…”
Section: Alternative Livelihoods: Enhancement and Diversificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this contextual setting, Krause et al (2015) showed that most socio-economic analysis to date deal mainly with the effects of salmon or shrimp farming, and to a lesser extent with e.g. Pangasius and Tilapia, as well as filter feeders (such as Crassostrea gigas) and seaweeds (such as Kappaphycus alvarezii and K. striatum as well as Eucheuma denticulatum) (see Buanes et al 2004;Barton and Fløysand 2010;Fröcklin et al 2012;Stonich and Bailey 2000;Joyce and Satterfield 2010;Sievanen et al 2005;Buchholz et al 2012). In order to promote the sustainable co-existence of uses and, where applicable, the appropriate apportionment of relevant uses in the offshore realm, a framework should be put in place that consists at least of the establishment and implementation by Member States of maritime spatial planning, resulting in plans.…”
Section: Socio-economic Dimensions Of Aquaculture-a First Typologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, questions pertaining to the inter-relationships between community impacts, right of access, ownership, taxation, liabilities for the negative repercussions from the environmental effects on society, and ethical issues, to name but a few, have remained largely untackled in a comprehensive, integrated manner . As a result, the socio-economic consequences of aquaculture operations are often poorly understood and repercussions such as poaching not fully anticipated (see examples given in Barrett et al 2002;Bunting 2004;Fröcklin et al 2012;Isaksen and Mikkelsen 2012;Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2013;Sandberg 2003;Sievanen et al 2005;Varela 2001). In many cases the omission of relevant stakeholders and social concerns in aquaculture development projects has contributed to inequity, social conflicts and violence (Martinez-Alier 2001;Nagarajan and Thiyageasan 2006;Varela 2001).…”
Section: Socio-economic Dimensions Of Aquaculture-a First Typologymentioning
confidence: 99%