Figure 1:
(A) Indonesia and location of Lombok. (B) Lombok and location of study site near the Sekotong Peninsula. (C) Satellite image over our three study sites Madak, Empol and Bertong. Top of the image is the mouth of the estuary into open water. Aquaculture ponds can be seen as square farming plots (Map data: Google, DigitalGlobe).
Figure 2:
(A) Seaweed harvested with a float. (B) Prawns and crabs naturally occurring in pond-canal network. (C) Milkfish. (D) Shrimp, naturally occurring. (E) Pond (green), canal (red) with manual water exchange gate (orange). (F) Salt production in dry ponds. (All photos taken by authors)
Table 1:
The social-ecological systems (SES) framework (McGinnis and Ostrom 2014).
| Social, Economic, and Political Settings (S) | |
| S1 – Economic development. S2 – Demographic trends. S3 – Political stability. S4 – Other governance systems. S5 – Markets. S6 – Media organizations. S7 – Technology. | |
| Resource Systems (RS) | Governance Systems (GS) |
| RS1 – Sector (e.g. water, forests, pasture) | GS1 – Government organizations |
| RS2 – Clarity of system boundaries | GS2 – Nongovernment organizations |
| RS3 – Size of resource system | GS3 – Network structure |
| RS4 – Human-constructed facilities | GS4 – Property-rights systems |
| RS5 – Productivity of system | GS5 – Operational-choice rules |
| RS6 – Equilibrium properties | GS6 – Collective-choice rules |
| RS7 – Predictability of system dynamics | GS7 – Constitutional-choice rules |
| RS8 – Storage characteristics | GS8 – Monitoring and sanctioning rules |
| RS9 – Location | |
| Resource units (RU) | Actors (A) |
| RU1 – Resource unit mobility | A1 – Number of relevant actors |
| RU2 – Growth or replacement rate | A2 – Socioeconomic attributes |
| RU3 – Interaction among resource units | A3 – History or past experiences |
| RU4 – Economic value | A4 – Location |
| RU5 – Number of units | A5 – Leadership/entrepreneurship |
| RU6 – Distinctive characteristics | A6 – Norms (trust-reciprocity)/social capital |
| RU7 – Spatial and temporal distribution | A7 – Knowledge of SES/mental models |
| A8 – Importance of resource (dependence) | |
| A9 – Technologies available | |
| Interactions (I) | Outcomes (O) |
| I1 – Harvesting | O1 – Social performance measures |
| I2 – Information sharing | O2 – Ecological performance measures |
| I3 – Deliberation processes | O3 – Externalities to other SESs |
| I4 – Conflicts | |
| I5 – Investment activities | |
| I6 – Lobbying activities | |
| I7 – Self-organizing activities | |
| I8 – Networking activities | |
| I9 – Monitoring activities | |
| I10 – Evaluative activities | |
| Related ecosystems (ECO) | |
| ECO1 – Climate patterns. ECO2 – Pollution patterns. ECO3 – Flows into and out of SES | |
Figure 3:
The standard deviation of the water parameters measured in the sampled ponds. Ponds are represented as dots. Variation is generally shown to be dependent on the distance from the coast, up the canal network. Distance was measured from the center of the pond to the coast.
Figure 4:
Histograms of the frequency distribution of the average water parameter measurements for the ponds.
Figure 5:
Correlation matrices between cumulative pond scores at the first tier level of the SES framework (every first-tier variable given the same weight). Axis labels refer to the 1st tier concepts GS (Governance System), A (Actors), RU (Resource Units), RS (Resource System) and I (Interactions). Trend lines are fitted with linear regression and the shaded area refers to the 95% confidence intervals. Models marked with an asterisk are statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 6:
(A) Spatial distribution of cumulative pond scores. (B) Number of ponds in each score category.
Appendix I
Indicators, normalized data ranges and weights used to calculate pond level scores. Each indicator is categorized by its relationship to the 1st and 2nd tier concepts of the SES framework. Theoretical importance of each indicator in the case context is shown.
| First tier | Second tier | Indicator | Theoretical importance | Normalized data (transformed) * Original data | Weight Second tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RS | Size (RS3) | Pond size | Pond size reflects production capacity. | 1.00 – 54876 m2 0.90 – 10696.8 m2 0.75 – 6970.5 m2 0.50 – 4073.5 m2 0.25 – 3072 m2 0.10 – 1822.5 m2 0.99 - 667 m2 | 1/4 |
| RS | Productivity (RS5) | Kg of milkfish | Higher productivity indicates suitable pond conditions and leads to higher income. | 1.00 – 1125 kg year-1 0.90 – 785 kg year-1 0.75 – 450 kg year-1 0.50 – 258 kg year-1 0.25 – 1 36.5 kg year-1 0.10 – 100 kg year-1 0.00 - 0 kg year-1 | 1/4 |
| RS | Predictability of system dynamics (RS7) | Flooding | Floods damage ponds and growing conditions. Economic and labor losses incurred. | 1.00 – Never floods. 0.00 – Floods at least once a year. | 1/8 |
| Drying out | Drying out prevents aquaculture. | 1.00 –Never dry. 0.00 – Dry at least once a year. | 1/8 | ||
| RS | Location (RS9) | Distance from coast | Shorter distance along the canals leads to better water supply and more stable water parameters | 1.00 - 25 m 0.90 - 259 m 0.75 - 1000 m 0.50 - 1489 m 0.25 - 1835 m 0.10 - 2027 m 0.00 - 2164 m | 1/4 |
| GS | Network structure (GS3) | Group member | Membership provides access to subsidies and training. | 1.00 – Member of a group. 0.00 – Not a group member | 1/2 |
| GS | Property rights (GS4) | Ownership | Investment and conservation is more likely with owners (Acheson, 2006). Greater autonomy and are more likely pass it to future generations. | 1.00 – Owner of pond property 0.00 – Does not own. | 1/4 |
| Cost | Rent or profit sharing is an economic cost and implies a lack of autonomy. | 1.00 – Does not have to pay for pond use. 0.00 – Has to pay to use the pond. | 1/4 | ||
| RU | Resource units (RU) | Species grown | Multiple commodities increases earnings and resilience to prices and pond conditions. | 1.00 – milkfish, seaweed, salt and shrimp/crab. 0.50 – milkfish + 0.17 for each additional. | 1/3 |
| RU | Growth/ replacement rate (RU2) | Number of harvests | Indicates productivity and the potential earnings. | 1.00 – 4.5 harvests year-1 0.90 – 3 harvests year-1 0.75 – 2.5 harvests year-1 0.50 – 2 harvests year-1 0.25 – 2 harvests year-1 0.10 – 1.6 harvests year-1 0.00 - 0 harvests year-1 | 1/3 |
| RU | Economic value (RU4) | Income | Higher earnings indicate higher economic security. Higher earnings from aquaculture also make the continued use of this livelihood more likely. | 1.00 – 72,000,000 IDR year-1 0.90 – 19,600,000 IDR year-1 0.75 – 10,000,000 IDR year-1 0.50 – 6,250,000 IDR year-1 0.25 – 3,000,000 IDR year-1 0.10 – 1,000,000 IDR year-1 0.00 - 0 IDR year-1 | 1/3 |
| A | Leadership/Entrepreneurship (A5) | Leader | Group leadership indicates a certain level of social standing competence, influence or motivation. | 1.00 – Individual is a group leader. 0.00 – Individual is not a leader. | 1/10 |
| Entrepreneurship | The openness to sea cucumber cultivation indicates an interest in new aquaculture activities | 1.00 - Interest in sea cucumber cultivation 0.00 - No interest in sea cucumber cultivation | 1/10 | ||
| A | Social capital (A6) | Theft | Theft reduces harvest potential, predictability and trust (Agrawal, 2003). | 1.00 – Theft does not occur. 0.00 – Theft does occur. | 1/5 |
| A | Knowledge of SES (A7) | Perception of mangrove | The perception indicates knowledge of condition and importance for flood and erosion mitigation. | 1.00 – Mangroves are important. 0.50 – Important elsewhere. 0.00 – Not important. | 1/5 |
| A | Dependence (A8) | Number of livelihoods | High dependence on a livelihood higher likelihood to invest and cooperate with others. | 1.00 – High dependence, only livelihood. 0.50 – Medium, multiple livelihoods. 0.00 – Low, less important for livelihood. | 1/5 |
| A | Technologies available (A9) | Access to a pump | A pump can be used to regulate water levels in the pond in order to avoid drought or flood and the associated harvests losses and infrastructure damages | 1.00 - Access to a pump 0.00 - No access to a pump | 1/5 |
| I | Information sharing (I2) | Teaching aquaculture to next generation in the family | Teaching aquaculture to the next generation increases the livelihood that it will be practiced in the future | 1.00 - Teaches aquaculture as livelihood to children 0.00 - Does not teach aquaculture to children | 1/2 |
| Investment activities (I5)Investment activities (I5) | Hours spent working at pond per day | The more hours can be spent working at the pond, the better it can be maintained. More time investment also shows a willingness to invest in the livelihood | 1.00 - 7 hour day-1 0.90 - 6 hours day -1 0.75 - 5 hours day -1 0.5 - 3 hours day -1 0.25 - 1.5 hours day-1 0.10 - 0.75 hours day-1 0.00 - 0 hours day-1 | 1/12 | |
| I | Purchasing of fertilizer | Purchasing of fish feed, fish fry and seaweed seed show ability and willingness to invest in aquaculture practices aimed at increasing production | 1.00 - does purchase fertilizer 0.00 - does not purchase fertilizer | 1/12 | |
| I | Purchasing of fish feed | 1.00 - does purchase fish feed 0.00 - does not purchase fish feed | 1/12 | ||
| I | Purchasing of fish fry | 1.00 - does purchase fish fry 0.00 - does not purchase fish fry | 1/12 | ||
| I | Purchasing of seaweed seed | 1.00 - does purchase seaweed seed 0.00 - does not purchase seaweed seed | 1/12 | ||
| I | Receives government subsidies | Reception of government subsidies (mostly in the form of fish fry or seaweed seed) means that less personal investment needs to be made | 1.00 - does receive subsidies 0.00 - does not receive subsidies | 1/12 |