Figure 1
Tasajera and Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta, Colombia.
Source: Map produced by Dr. Guiying Li. Center for Global Change and Earth Observations. Michigan State University.
Figure 2
Revised Social-Ecological System (SES) framework with multiple first-tier variables. Source: McGinnis and Ostrom 2014.
Table 1
Extension of the social, economic, and political settings proposed by this study.
| Social, economic, and political settings (S) | |
| S1 – Economic development | |
| S1.1 | Road development |
| S1.2 | Farming and livestock development |
| S1.3 | Agro-industrial development |
| S2 – Demographic trends | |
| S2.1 | Forced displacement of civilians |
| S3 – Political stability | |
| S3.1 | Internal armed conflict |
| S3.1.1 | Military and police forces |
| S3.1.2 | Illegal armed groups |
| S3.1.2.1 | Guerrillas |
| S3.1.2.2 | Paramilitaries |
| S3.1.2.3 | Emerging Criminal Bands (BACRIM) |
| S3.2 | Common crime |
| S3.3 | Drug trafficking |
| S3.4 | Political violence |
| S3.5 | Corruption |
Figure 3
Fishermen’s opinions about responsibility for the changes in and the conservation of Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta (CGSM).
Table 2
Main factors affecting collective action according to the SES diagnostic.
| Influencing factors | |
|---|---|
| – | Political instability of the region caused by the presence of different armed groups (S3). |
| – | Great fear by fishermen of the violence exerted by armed groups in this region (S3). |
| – | Precarious living conditions of dwellers that depend on CGSM (S). |
| – | Weakening of social capital from constant armed conflict (A6). |
| – | Highway and road development in the Caribbean region that altered the hydrological regime of CGSM (S1). |
| – | Expansion of farming, livestock, and agro-industrial sectors in the region (S1), which has caused a severe degradation to CGSM and generated conflicts (I4) among different actors present in Eco-region CGSM. |
| – | Limited knowledge that fishermen have about CGSM (A7), which in turn does not allow them to make predictions (RS7) about its future productivity (RS5). |
| – | Belief of some fishermen (A7) that the lagoon will always have fish. |
| – | Belief that because the State (GS1) caused the deterioration of the ecosystem, it should also do something to protect it. |
| – | High dependence on the fishery resources (A8) due to the lack of income alternatives. |
| – | Coercion toward the new generation of leaders (A5). |
| – | Distrust (A6) of fishermen in past/traditional leaders (A5). |
| – | Lack of formal and informal monitoring and sanctioning processes regarding the fishery in CGSM (GS8). |
| – | Absence of State agencies that control the fishery in the lagoon and protect the people (GS1). |
| – | Lack of a committee or community council where fishermen collectively can create, change, or discuss rules regarding the fishery in CGSM (GS6). |
| – | Effects generated by the external aid of NGOs (GS2) and State agencies (GS1). |
| – | Unclear boundaries (RS2) due to the connections between CGSM, the Caribbean Sea, and SNSM’s rivers. |
| – | Continuous mobility of species (RU1) and their spatial distribution (RU7). |
| – | Size of the lagoon (RS3), which is very large in terms of transportation for the fishermen given the technology they use. |