Copyright © 2010 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.
Bush, S. R., P. A. M. van Zwieten, L. Visser, H. Van Dijk, R. Bosma, W. F. De Boer, and M. Verdegem.
2010. Scenarios for resilient shrimp aquaculture in tropical coastal areas. Ecology and Society 15(2): 15.
[online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art15/
Synthesis
Scenarios for Resilient Shrimp Aquaculture in Tropical Coastal Areas
Simon R. Bush 1, Paul A.M. van Zwieten 1, Leontine Visser 1, Han van Dijk 1, Roel Bosma 1,
Willem F. de Boer 1, and Marc Verdegem 1
ABSTRACT. We contend there are currently two competing scenarios for the sustainable development of
shrimp aquaculture in coastal areas of Southeast Asia. First, a landscape approach, where farming techniques
for small-scale producers are integrated into intertidal areas in a way that the ecological functions of
mangroves are maintained and shrimp farming diseases are controlled. Second, a closed system approach,
where problems of disease and effluent are eliminated in closed recirculation ponds behind the intertidal
zone controlled by industrial-scale producers. We use these scenarios as two ends of a spectrum of possible
interactions at a range of scales between the ecological, social, and political dynamics that underlie the
threat to the resilience of mangrove forested coastal ecosystems. We discuss how the analytical concepts
of resilience, uncertainty, risk, and the organizing heuristic of scale can assist us to understand decision
making over shrimp production, and in doing so, explore their use in the empirical research areas of coastal
ecology, shrimp health management and epidemiology, livelihoods, and governance in response to the two
scenarios. Our conclusion focuses on a series of questions that map out a new interdisciplinary research
agenda for sustainable shrimp aquaculture in coastal areas.
Key Words: coastal fisheries; governance; livelihood decision making; mangrove; shrimp-aquaculture;
social-ecological systems; South-East Asia; trans-disciplinary research; WSSV disease
INTRODUCTION
Penaeid shrimps (Litopenaeus vannamei and
Peneaus monodon), which comprise around 80% of
total farmed shrimp production (FAO 2009), have
emerged as one of the most valuable, globally traded
aquaculture products, as well as one of the most
emotive and politically polarizing production
systems in coastal areas (Stonich and Bailey 2000,
Béné 2005, Vandergeest 2007). The enormous
growth of shrimp production from 1,600 t in 1950
to close to 4.5 million t in 2006 at a value of just
under US$18 billion (FAO 2009) has been achieved
with a concurrent reduction in mangrove area in
some countries of between 50 to 80%, leading to
considerable loss of biodiversity and coastal
ecosystem function (Valiela et al. 2001, Alongi
2002, Manson et al. 2005b). The most severe
damage coincided directly with the rapid expansion
of shrimp production during the 1990s (Primavera
1997, Hall 2004). In the 2000s overall productivity
has continued to grow, but at a lower rate, largely
due to the higher incidence of disease and, in a
1
Wageningen University
number of countries, the lower productivity of
extensive farming systems (Vaiphasa et al. 2007).
The ‘boom crop’ nature of shrimp production (see
Hall 2003) has meant that the promise of high
returns on investment has gradually been tempered
by riskier returns in global markets and increasing
levels of social and ecological uncertainty and
vulnerability.
The global nature of shrimp trade has also meant
that these uncertainties and vulnerabilities emerge
at the complex intersection of changing
international market conditions, such as food safety
and quality standards, and ecological feed-back
mechanisms, such as disease incidences and
epidemics (Kautsky et al. 2000, Barbier and Cox
2004, Oosterveer 2006). Conversely, the resilience
of shrimp culture systems, broadly defined as the
capacity to maintain their integrity when responding
to external changes and feedbacks within their wider
coastal social-ecological systems (Holling 2001,
Folke 2006), is therefore codetermined by a
multitude of decisions made by producers and
Ecology and Society 15(2): 15
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art15/
fishers in relation to economic, political, and
ecological conditions at a range of scales. How
producers make decisions related to livelihoods and
production is therefore dependent on an interrelated
set of local to global institutions, as well as by their
ability to adapt to changes in the natural resource
base of the aquatic production systems.
The specific details of the boom in shrimp
aquaculture differ considerably among countries,
but the challenges that farmers face, in terms of
production risks, have gradually converged (Lebel
et al. 2002, Hall 2004). International demand for
shrimp in international markets is unlikely to abate
as many economic forecasts predict an increase in
the consumption of shrimp in the mid to long-term
that can only be met by aquaculture. As a result of
the ‘sustainable seafood’ debates in the US and EU
(e.g., Iles 2007, Bush 2010), a shift from
confrontation to active engagement with the
industry has taken place, largely through the
development of a range of national state and global
private production standards (Béné 2005,
Vandergeest 2007). These standards have taken a
number of forms, ranging from the FAO Code of
Conduct for Responsible Aquaculture and the
Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific’s
(NACA) Best Management Practices, to country
specific standards, such as Thai Quality Shrimp,
retail owned quality standards, such as GlobalG.A.
P., and finally NGO-led initiatives, such as WWF’s
Shrimp Aquaculture Dialogue, which will feed into
the newly established Aquaculture Stewardship
Council (Corsin et al. 2007, WWF 2007). There is
considerable variation between the standards, but
all have the common goal of organizing the
multitude of uncertainties associated with shrimp
production into verifiable metrics that can be
translated into risk management.
We contend that the rise of the sustainable seafood
debate and global proliferation of quality standards
has led to essentially two opposing scenarios
emerging over how best to manage shrimp
production in order to ensure both social and
ecological resilience in coastal areas. The first is
that shrimp aquaculture is integrated into intertidal
landscapes so that the ecological functions of
coastal mangroves are maintained, diseases
controlled, and production kept in the hands of
poorer small-scale producers who make up the
majority of production (Fitzgerald 2002, Primavera
2006, Vandergeest 2007, Islam 2009). The second
scenario entails closing the aquaculture system to
the surrounding environment thereby eliminating
the flow of effluent and spread of disease, as well
as locating production behind the intertidal zone,
thereby avoiding alteration of estuarine and
mangrove habitats (Boyd and Clay 2002, FAO et
al. 2006, Phillips 2006). A consequence is that given
the generally high investment needed for these
systems, small-scale producers are unlikely to
participate.
The two scenarios are not mutually exclusive
alternatives but rather the ends of a spectrum of
contested ideas around current effects of and
solutions to shrimp production in coastal
ecosystems. The following first elaborates these
scenarios as an entry point from which to start
understanding the scaled interaction between the
ecological, social, and political dynamics that pose
possible threats to the resilience of mangrove
forested coastal ecosystems. We then identify key
concepts that contribute to our analytical toolkit
such as resilience, uncertainty, and risk, as well as
the organizing heuristic of scale, and explore how
they can contribute to an interdisciplinary
understanding of sustainable use and management
of coastal resources. This is followed by an
integrated assessment of the scenarios by
identifying the linkages and feedback between four
empirical social-ecological dynamics: (1) mangrove
ecosystems and estuarine fisheries, (2) shrimp
disease and pond management, (3) local livelihood
decision making, and (4) state and market
governance arrangements. Together these dynamics
and concepts help us to develop a framework for
elaborating the complex interactions between
ecological and societal processes and their influence
over governing shrimp production to either
landscape integrated or closed system approaches.
COASTAL AQUACULTURE SCENARIOS
Landscape integrated systems
Small-scale shrimp aquaculture systems are an
important source of nutrition and income for coastal
communities. A way of ensuring their sustainability
is to integrate them into the mangrove and estuarine
habitats. Silvofisheries, a form of low-input
aquaculture that integrates mangrove tree culture
with brackish water aquaculture, offers such a
scenario. Two basic models of silvofisheries exist
with mangroves either within or outside the pond
system at specific pond-mangrove area ratios; a
Ecology and Society 15(2): 15
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art15/
variety of designs exist across Southeast Asia
(Fitzgerald 2002). All systems attempt to balance
conservation issues with optimizing economic
profitability (Primavera 2000). Hatchery reared
seed is often supplemented with low-input farming
techniques such as allowing natural recruitment of
wild juveniles through tidal flushing. Expected
benefits of landscape integrated systems include
minimization of contamination by pond effluents of
the coastal ecosystem, provision of higher quality
supply of water for shrimp farming, and the
maintenance of coastal fisheries.
In integrated forestry-fisheries-aquaculture systems,
mangroves function as biofilters for pond effluents
(Vaiphasa et al. 2007). Farm density is important so
as to not exceed the capacity of the environment to
assimilate waste flushed from the ponds during low
tide. Mangroves adjacent to intensive ponds can be
used to process nutrients from pond effluents.
Mangroves inside ponds can play a similar role, but
in addition provide shading and food for shrimps
and fish (Primavera and Esteban 2008). In landscape
integrated systems, the inflow of pathogens through
surrounding tidal water cannot be avoided. Farmers
may stock specific pathogen free (SPF) post-larvae
to reduce disease risks. Diseases may be controlled
by optimizing seasonal environmental conditions
such as temperature and salinity, next to hygiene,
nutrition, and feeding. Increased incidence of White
Spot Disease (WSD) of shrimp, a disease caused by
a virus officially known as White Spot Syndrome
Virus (WSSV; Vlak et al. 2005), is associated with
both low and high water temperature, suboptimal
salinity and pH, heavy rainfall, and presence of
carrier organisms in pond, water, or feed. On the
one hand, suboptimal conditions weaken the
immune response of shrimp, and on the other hand,
the load of viruses and other harmful bacteria
changes under influence of environmental and
management conditions (Phuoc et al. 2009,
Tendencia et al. 2009). Recent research showed that
mortality due to WSSV increases in presence of
Vibrio (Phuoc et al. 2009). Ageing pond soils
gradually become more reduced, accumulate toxic
compounds, and acidify (Avnimelech and Ritvo
2003). During culture, wastes accumulate faster
than the amount mineralized, making it necessary
to dry and oxidize the pond bottom between culture
cycles. Harrowing or ploughing of the pond bottom
accelerates this process (Beveridge et al. 1994).
As mangroves play an important role as a nursery
area for coastal fishes (Mumby et al. 2003, Manson
et al. 2005b), the integration of ponds with
mangroves in intertidal zones is seen as a means of
maintaining the productive capacity of nearby
coastal fisheries without compromising the
productivity of shrimp aquaculture. These
‘ecologically integrated’ mangrove-friendly aquaculture
technologies are amenable to small-scale, familybased operations and are also accessible to poorer
members of coastal communities who have only
limited access to finance and are largely dependent
on open-access resources (Luttrell 2006). In
addition, dispersed trade and processing industries
absorb a large number of poor rural producers,
especially women (Islam 2009). By leaving these
producers to operate within the mangroves, their
already vulnerable livelihoods are supplemented
with potentially appropriate aquaculture technologies
that can contribute to the sustainable development
of coastal areas. Landscape integrated systems may
therefore have the potential to support coastal
ecosystem conservation while maintaining highincome potential shrimp aquaculture for coastal
communities (Binh et al. 1997, Macintosh 1998).
The complex nature of these production systems
may require both state regulation and private
certification to develop methodologies for
monitoring and evaluating their ongoing performance.
Some efforts have been undertaken to formulate
codes of conduct and private standards governing
the area of mangrove inside and outside ponds,
health and safety requirements, and levels of
chemical pesticide use for sustainable use of
mangrove and adjacent coastal areas (e.g., ACC
2005, Bagarinao and Primavera 2005, GlobalG.A.
P. 2007). For these initiatives to be successful it is
increasingly recognized that state and private
institutions need to supplement existing customary
arrangements with microfinance and new technical
capacities and technologies. Furthermore, the
success of such initiatives is dependent on coastal
communities being rewarded through either
improved market access or price premiums for niche
organic, fair trade, or environmental friendly
products.
Closed systems
One way to minimize the negative effects of shrimp
aquaculture on coastal mangroves and wetlands is
to invest in super-intensive, closed recirculation
systems and move ponds out of the intertidal zone.
Production in these systems ranges from less than
Ecology and Society 15(2): 15
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art15/
8,000 kg/ha to more than 20,000 kg/ha per crop
(Otoshi et al. 2009). Such high production per unit
area without water exchange presents several
advantages over conventional shrimp aquaculture,
including greater potential for mechanization, fewer
logistical problems in pond operations, and less
effluent. Closed systems also enable better control
of disease in broodstock and more efficient use of
water through effective waste water treatment
(Kongkeo 1997). Because these intensive systems
are not located in mangrove and estuarine areas,
coastal environments are maintained and the
productivity of coastal fisheries is no longer directly
influenced by shrimp farm activities.
Only very recently, intensive shrimp-culture
recirculation systems have become commercially
viable (Otoshi et al. 2006). Basic elements that
appear to be crucial to the success of these systems
include: small lined ponds, aeration, and disease
resistant strains of omnivorous shrimp species.
Some intensive systems operated in various
Southeast Asian countries also have limited water
exchange and attempts have been made to close
them to the surrounding environment, including the
influence of large temperature changes caused by
exposure to sun and rain (Kongkeo 1997). Although
closed recirculation systems are, with few
exceptions, operated as pilot operations, their higher
efficiencies have led Boyd and Clay (2002) to
suggest that if they are “ ... suitable for general
adoption by shrimp producers around the world,
[they] could provide a more environmentally
responsible method of shrimp production.”
Because of the high cost of investment required,
small-scale shrimp producers are less likely to be
able to participate, thereby significantly reducing
the proliferation of shrimp ponds built on marginal
land in intertidal mangrove forests. Producers that
are able to adopt these intensive practices could
benefit from more stable production output as a
result of improved disease, feed, and broodstock
management. At a societal level, the disruption to
existing coastal livelihoods would be offset by the
improved reliability of intensive shrimp production,
which would increase global competitiveness and
provide a source of foreign export exchange (FIAS
2006). New employment opportunities could also
arise in these farms as well as in processing
companies, while other employment could be
generated through coastal restoration programs.
Given the continued growth of the sector, these
intensive systems could lead to the improved well-
being of coastal communities by decreasing the
destructive development of extensive pond culture
in coastal areas.
By promoting closed-system production, governments
would need to reallocate agricultural land for shrimp
production and, with the assistance of companies
and NGOs, facilitate the transfer of required
aquaculture technologies and techniques. A
significant burden would be placed on governments
to relocate coastal shrimp farmers who are moved
out of shrimp production and establish alternative
livelihood programs outside of mangrove areas.
Because of the large venture capital needed and the
tendency for vertical integration in largely
transnational companies, the state’s role would be
to facilitate investment (Neiland et al. 2001).
Certification would play an increasingly important
role in restructuring the shrimp industry, rewarding
more streamlined and higher quality shrimp
production with access to lucrative European and
North American markets.
ANALYZING SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL
SYSTEMS
The two scenarios challenge us to think about the
key dynamics that influence the sustainability of
shrimp production, but offer little analytical power
by themselves. This section discusses resilience and
the associated concepts of uncertainty, risk, and
complexity, focusing on the analytical power they
hold for understanding the potential of landscape
integrated and closed-systems for ecosystems and
livelihoods in coastal areas. Reducing the
uncertainty and risk of resource users and rebuilding
the resilience of social-ecological systems have
emerged as key normative objectives for
responsible management of coastal areas (Nicholls
and Branson 1998, Adger et al. 2001). To structure
how, where, and through whom these objectives
might be reached, the analytical heuristic of scale is
also introduced to help organize and elaborate the
complexity of coastal areas, including what might
be seen as multiple ‘resiliences’ that can be
described when zooming in from landscapes to
single units such as fishers and producers, ponds,
mangrove forests, and estuaries.
Resilience has emerged from the ecological
concepts of complexity, co-evolution, and multiple
equilibria (Odum 1975, Norgaard 1994, Holling
2001, Costanza 2003) to provide an integrative
Ecology and Society 15(2): 15
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art15/
theory for understanding combined socialecological systems. The theory emerged through
recognition that more than one steady state or
equilibrium can exist in a specified system and has
led to the study of the shifts and responses to internal
and external drivers of system change (Holling
1973). The resilience perspective has led
researchers to focus on the magnitude of external
disturbances to a system that can be absorbed or
buffered without leading to fundamental changes of
its functional, human and nonhuman, characteristics
(Berkes et al. 2003). The theory is now being used
to understand the capacity of social-ecological
systems to absorb recurrent disturbances by
examining how interactions, processes, and
feedbacks inhibit or facilitate change from one
system state to another (Adger et al. 2005, Folke
2006).
The concept of resilience has evolved from the
technical and ecological sciences to engage and
incorporate social systems. Technical or ‘engineering
resilience’ focuses on the efficiency of a system to
return to a stable state. Ecologists have largely
focused on the robustness of systems to buffer
themselves from shock and disturbance or
adaptively realign themselves into different states
(Folke 2006). Social resilience has been described
as the capacity of humans, either individual or
communities, to withstand external shock from
wider economic, political, or cultural perturbations
(Adger 2000). Berkes and Folke (1998)
demonstrate, through an analysis of natural resource
management practices, that the social and the
ecological mutually constitute each other through
processes of interaction. Change is an inherent
property of this interaction from which new patterns
emerge. This two-way interaction requires a
breakdown of the distinction between the two
domains. In doing so the concept of resilience not
only highlights the effect of human activities on
ecosystems, and vice-versa, but also the memory,
learning, and purposive adaptation of socialecological systems that are necessary for
transformation and innovation (Walker et al. 2004).
Central to understanding the resilience of a complex
social-ecological system is the identification of the
components that enable self-organization and
adaptation in response to risk factors that force
changes in the stability or integrity of both social
and ecological systems (Folke et al. 2002, Adger et
al. 2005). Self-organization is predominantly an
ecological concept that is used, for example, to
understand how diversity, aggregation, and
endogenous formation can enhance opportunities
for a system to adapt (Levin 1998). Understanding
society in a similar way has faced resistance from
those who believe it naturalizes complex social
processes and ignores notions of risk, uncertainty,
and the agency of social actors to make decisions
(Nadasdy 2007). Decision making may therefore be
better understood, according to Lebel et al. (2006),
as the capacity to cope with uncertainty, the
openness to learning, the acceptance of the
inevitability of change, and the ability to treat any
intervention as experimentation or ‘adaptive
management’. The challenge then becomes to
institutionalize the ‘adaptive capacity’ within a
social-ecological system by supporting collaboration,
pluralism, and linkages between multiple types of
stakeholders, diversity of interests represented,
multiple perspectives on the problem domain, and
connections across multiple scales and levels
(Armitage et al 2008). Resilient systems are
therefore not only those which have the capacity to
maintain their functional interactions, but rather
those that have the ability to adapt to external change
and evolve through learning. Conversely systems
unable to maintain functional interactions and a
poor capacity for institutionalized learning may
have very little capacity to respond to external
pressure.
The resilience of a system is closely related to the
temporal and spatial scale at which it is defined.
Although socially constructed and relational, i.e.,
dependent on human observation (Howitt 1998), the
choice of scale provides observers a framework with
which to order the temporal and spatial
characteristics of a system, including its’ selforganizing or institutionalized adaptive capacities.
Furthermore, the scales of organization within a
system define the relationships between the parts
that constitute and distinguish the whole (Cash and
Moser 2001). For example, to distinguish between
various interacting processes, observational units
for the transmission of WSSV are defined between
shrimp in ponds, between shrimp ponds in a coastal
area, and as an epidemic across regions such as
Southeast Asia. Each scale has its own constituent
level of resilience against infection. Observations
at one scale find their explanation in processes at
smaller scales, yet are contained in and constrained
by processes at higher levels within coastal socialecological landscapes and beyond to global
processes (Armitage and Johnson 2006). Recognizing
the possibility of multiple ‘resiliencies’ at a range
Ecology and Society 15(2): 15
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art15/
of temporal and spatial scales enables us to
distinguish sets of internal and external social and
ecological factors influencing shrimp aquaculture
development in coastal environments.
Understanding self-organization and adaptation to
pressures emanating from interdependent scales is
a useful framework for understanding complex
social-ecological systems, but only provides a
partial view when analyzing processes of change.
The landscape and closed system scenarios are by
definition normative, i.e., based on the agency of
competing values and claims of relevant actors.
Understanding ecosystem change in its wider spatial
and temporal context therefore requires understanding
how individual and collective decisions are made in
response to decisions about uncertainty and risk.
Single events of change can then be understood with
reference to the level from which it originates and
the scale at which it operates. In order to understand
and predict local changes in coastal fish or shrimp
communities it is therefore necessary to understand
the source of these risks, how they are
communicated through social, economic, cultural,
and political networks, how they influence decision
making, and finally, what influence they have over
the resilience of social-ecological systems.
SHRIMP AQUACULTURE AS A COMPLEX
SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM
We will now turn to a discussion of the landscape
integrated closed aquaculture system scenarios as
complex social-ecological systems. Resilience,
uncertainty, and risk are used to understand these
two scenarios with respect to (1) the interaction
between coastal landscapes and shrimp farming,
and (2) the management of shrimp disease; and
social processes of decision making in the context
of (3) coastal livelihoods, and (4) governance.
1. Shrimp farming as a landscape forming
practice
Four observations are often reiterated and illustrated
in the general and scientific literature on the use of
mangrove ecosystems by shrimp aquaculture: (1)
pond systems remove mangrove forests and with
that impact, populations of marine and estuarine
organisms; (2) water pollution from ponds
negatively effects adjacent mangrove ecosystems;
(3) shrimp farming depends on wild stocks of gravid
females; and (4) the increased incidence of WSD
has led to the abandonment and extension of ponds
in new mangrove areas. However, these
observations give limited guidance to whether and
at what scale shrimp farming can be successfully
integrated to maintain ecological functions in
mangrove forest landscapes. Correlations over large
scales suggest ecological patterns of linkages
between mangroves and coastal benthic and pelagic
systems, while detailed knowledge of ecological
processes is available for some parts of the
mangrove ecosystem, in particular the benthic
habitats of the forests. However, the ability to scale
down processes established at large scales or scale
up patterns observed at small scales through these
ecological studies to the scale of landscapes is
tenuous at best and the strength and spatial scale of
the linkages between mangroves with coastal
ecosystems is largely unresolved. This is
problematic as it is at the landscape scale that
decisions are to be made on the integration of shrimp
farming in coastal ecosystems.
Mangrove conversion for shrimp culture represents
a trade-off with coastal fisheries production as
mangrove forests are considered critical nursery
habitats for the juvenile stages of commercially
important species of fish and invertebrates. At large
spatial scales (>100-1000 km) linkages between
mangrove extent and coastal fisheries production
for penaeid shrimp have been detected through
correlative approaches (Manson et al. 2005a,
Manson et al. 2005b). However, there is little
reliable empirical evidence that a reduction in the
functions of mangrove ecosystems results in lower
coastal fisheries production (Mumby et al. 2003).
Reliable predictions of the implications of habitat
loss or degradation on animal populations and
fisheries production at smaller spatial scales (<100
km – estuarine catchments) are difficult because of
the current limited understanding of habitat
connectivity within coastal landscapes (van
Zwieten et al. 2006). As fish use multiple habitats
in the coastal zone, the loss or degradation of one
type of habitat is likely to influence the value of the
others. Therefore, size, location, and connectivity
of habitats that support fish resources are important
elements in considering the relationship with
production and recruitment to fisheries.
Tides, waves, and currents, as well as the spatial and
temporal dimensions of disturbance, all play a role
in the extent to which estuarine areas can
rehabilitate. Undisturbed estuaries have large areas
Ecology and Society 15(2): 15
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art15/
with oxidized sediments, whereas ponds in the same
areas always have reduced sediments with
considerably altered benthic communities. The
combination of these changes means that abandoned
ponds are rarely taken back into production again,
regardless of farming strategies such as fallowing.
Although there is evidence that within 12 years after
rehabilitation with a single mangrove tree species
benthic communities are able to return to states
indistinguishable from natural forest reserves
(Macintosh et al. 2002), there has been limited
experience with soil rehabilitation over larger scales
and shorter time periods. A range of questions
remain about the relationship between shrimp
aquaculture, tidal flows, benthic communities, and
the resilience of soils to regenerate. These include:
the effect of closing off an estuarine soil from tides
and waves for shrimp culture on benthic
communities; the effects of farm management on
the structure and development of benthic
communities both within and outside ponds; the
feedbacks from the benthic community to the
estuarine soil and forests through burrowing,
recycling, and filtering; and an understanding of the
temporal and spatial scale of the reversibility of
effects.
Mangrove ecosystems can fulfill their key role in
shrimp farming and as coastal nurseries for fisheries
even when large parts of the forest have disappeared.
For instance, Loneragan et al. (2005) describe stable
landings of shrimp in areas of Malaysia where
mangrove had been maintained as well as increases
in landings in adjacent areas of degraded
mangroves, perhaps because of migration of prawns
from adjacent areas. Thus at a larger scale, the
mangrove ecosystem can be viewed as being built
up from subsystems or areas that ‘switch’ between
alternative states of degraded soils with no trees to
forested land with stable ecosystem functions. At a
lower spatial scale these components are merely
adjacent to each other. At the higher scale the spatial
arrangements of the components within the system
becomes important. Indeed, the spatial arrangement
and the total area covered by shrimp ponds affect
the key role mangroves have in supporting the
shrimp industries and the local fisheries. In fact, low
levels of fragmentation might even increase fish
catches (Hindell and Jenkins 2005), indicating that
a spatially explicit analysis is required before
prediction can be made (Eggleton et al. 2004,
Pittman et al. 2004). The spatial configuration and
the extent of the different components of the
ecosystem are thus important attributes in analyzing
the ecological resilience of coastal marine
communities at various scales in a landscape
integrated mangrove forest-shrimp farming system.
In the closed system scenario, the mangrove
ecosystem gets taken out of the equation. Linkages
between shrimp farming and coastal ecology will
still exist but at a distance from the actual production
system, as for instance: the fisheries for gravid
females; the possibilities for crustacean diseases to
enter the culture system from the wild and the fish
meal required for shrimp feed. However, when the
reproductive cycle of shrimp gets closed and
genetically modified disease resistant strains of
shrimp are developed, the first two linkages will
disappear.
2. Disease management of shrimp production
systems
The resilience of a production system is dependent
on the ability of a producer to reduce a system’s
exposure to disease vectors and to manage
environmental factors so that the capacity of the
shrimp to co-exist with the pathogen is maximized.
Broader environmental conditions such as
temperature, dissolved oxygen, salinity, soil
condition, influence vulnerability to diseases both
as stress factors for shrimp, reducing its defense
mechanisms, and as determinants of virulence and
transmission of pathogens (Lightner et al. 1998).
Evidence indicates that populations of wild
organisms such as crustaceans, insect larvae,
copepods, and polychaetes in tropical coastal areas
act as a reservoir for infectious diseases (Flegel
2006). Given the high motility of these wild
populations they may also act as an effective vector
of the disease between ponds and also between
unconnected coastal areas. The resilience of
production systems is therefore dependent on: (1)
the isolation of a system from a disease, (2) its
internal resistance once it has been infected, and (3)
secondary risks associated with management
measures to decrease their vulnerability. In case of
WSSV, this also requires further details on the
etiology of the disease, the effect it has on
production, as well as the specificity of the tests to
detect it to define resilience.
The total exclusion of pathogens is technically
difficult and expensive, and though closure reduces
the risk of infection it does not mean the system has
a higher resilience to catastrophic change should a
Ecology and Society 15(2): 15
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art15/
pathogen enter. As known from a range of intensive
systems, including pigs and poultry, the internal
capacity or ‘self-organization’ to respond to
diseases is small and infection with a pathogen can
lead to catastrophic mortality. Conversely, open
production systems, in which shrimp are
continuously exposed to a diversity of organisms,
may have a higher capacity to adapt to the stress
from diseases, reducing the probability of complete
stock loss, though the evidence for the rescue effect
of diversity is small (Suzan et al. 2006, 2008).
However, in dense cultivation areas this potential
tolerance is offset by the higher risk of direct
transmission through wild populations of
macroinvertebrates, soil, or water exchange.
Soil structure in ponds is an important
environmental factor affecting shrimp health as
shrimp live in sediments during a large part of their
life-cycle. As in agriculture, pond soils can be
partially managed through water exchange, mixed
cropping, fallowing, harrowing, drying, and
sediment removal. However, over time all
aquaculture ponds accumulate sediments in the
form of a flocculent layer of varying thickness that
can be considered as a microbiological laboratory
with an oxygen gradient that is more or less fully
oxidized at the top and highly reduced at the bottom.
Shrimp health and resistance to pathogens seems
highly dependent to changes in this flocculent layer,
in particular the main cultured species Macrobrachium
rosenbergii, Litopenaeus vannamei, and Penaeus
monodon. Each of these species exhibits specific
behavior and tolerance to adverse water quality in
relation to the flocculent layer. Although difficult
to standardize measurements to assess effects on
shrimp health and productivity, it appears that
shrimp avoid low oxygen areas requiring measures
to reduce sediment development (Meijer and
Avnimelech 1999). Disease risks can be further
reduced by appropriate soil management measures
between harvests when ponds are emptied of water
(Yu et al. 2006).
Risk management relates to both the producers’
knowledge about aspects of a production system
that are likely to increase the exposure to infection,
and the cost and benefits of management in order to
prevent a disease outbreak. Maintaining soils,
choosing temperature to stock and harvest, and
understanding the seasonal nature of the incidence
of pathogens in the wild populations of mobile
organisms such as crabs, macroinvertebrates, and
wild shrimp, are some of the management aspects.
Closed systems may be less vulnerable to infection,
but the probability of infection has to be weighed
against the cost of isolation, i.e., adequate
management systems are in place to ensure disease
free broodstock and water exchange is biosecure.
Without these the biosecurity of the closed system
is nonexistent.
In comparison, open systems are relatively low cost
and the relative availability of land in mangrove
areas gives more opportunity to producers to simply
extend the area of production once their ponds are
infected. However, this has lead to the exponential
increase of pathogens in the surrounding waters and
wild crustacean populations leading to extensive
clearing of mangroves to maintain production.
Decisions over disease management also lead to
considerable economic risk as evidenced by the
US$4-6 billion loss of Penaeus monodon through
Asian countries between 1992 and 2001 (Lightner
2005). International pressure for food quality and
safety coupled with poor management decisions
increased the risks associated with shrimp farming.
To combat the increased prevalence of disease,
producers increased their use of antibiotics. Poor
application of these chemicals has led to the higher
resistance of pathogens as well as higher
concentrations of residual chemicals in exported
shrimp. As many of these chemicals are restricted
substances in the EU and US, producers have found
themselves excluded from lucrative global markets
(Bush and Oosterveer 2007). The scale and locality
of risk in shrimp farming is therefore linked from
local to global scales. The application of chemical
substances may reduce the risks associated with
diseases, but if unmanaged, may also increase
producer’s vulnerability to market regulation.
3. Decision making under uncertainty
The resilience of a household, i.e., its ability to
maintain a viable livelihood, is comprised of a
complex portfolio of assets and income streams, the
continuation of which is subject to the capacity to
make decisions under uncertainties associated with
changing weather patterns, the risk of disease,
market prices, and political change. At the same
time, the resilience of the mangrove areas, on which
the household depends, may be characterized by
complex interactions within and between mangrove
forests, estuaries, and coastal zones which are
characterized by a high uncertainty from natural
Ecology and Society 15(2): 15
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art15/
variation. Within such social-ecological systems
decision making is an iterative process in which
producers and other actors constantly adjust their
livelihoods to changing conditions based on the
assessment and reassessment of the stocks of assets
and capabilities at their disposal, given
environmental conditions (Marschke and Sinclair
2009). Before understanding the effectiveness of
governance mechanisms to steer towards open or
closed production systems, livelihoods need to be
understood in the context of how decisions deal with
risk under conditions of uncertainty.
Analyzing these iterative decision making
processes under conditions of uncertainty moves
beyond linear livelihood diversification models to
focus on ‘pathways’ of decision making. Rather
than measuring the success or failure of a livelihood
relative to a predefined goal, these pathways
comprise a series of iterative decision events based
on external influences and environmental context
(De Bruijn and Van Dijk 2004). Livelihoods are
therefore understood in the context of external
driving forces that determine the risk associated
with acquiring adequate access and control over
assets and capabilities. These external events may
be environmental, such as local flood events or
disease outbreaks, or social, such as changing
dynamics with local credit and kinship relations or
global market fluctuations (Marschke and Berkes
2006). Normative strategies such as diversification
should be understood in terms of the wider context
in which they can be fulfilled. Whether a producer
can develop a successful closed or landscape
integrated aquaculture system is therefore
dependent on the wider context within which
capacities and assets are operationalized.
In open landscape integrated systems the
uncertainties of producers are largely based on
daily, seasonal, and longer term environmental
variability and local and domestic market
fluctuations. To adapt to these external risks,
producers make iterative decisions on how to use
and adapt their capabilities and assets to change their
aquaculture practices, diversify to other off-farm
activities, or exit production all together. In doing
so producers are able to offset the risks associated
with shrimp production with gains in alternative
activities. Shrimp producers across Southeast Asia
who are successful with as few as one in eight shrimp
crops, because of disease and market fluctuations,
often avoid bankruptcy by offsetting these losses
with income streams from alternative on and off-
farm sources (Luttrell 2006, Hue and Scott 2008).
The challenge is to identify the external social and
environmental factors that enable or constrain
producers and, given their endowment of assets and
capabilities, understand how they avoid the risk of
failure by making either pre-emptive or reactive
decisions over production.
If producers are unable to develop a pre-emptive
strategy, they are less able to either resist
unfavorable change, mould events to minimize their
exposure to change, or innovate ex post to take
advantage of changed circumstances. Open
landscape integrated farms, assuming they are
small-scale and local in origin, may adapt under
these circumstances through a range of coping
strategies including communal mechanisms of
insurance through social and familial support
networks to mitigate risk and loss (Adger et al. 2005,
Marschke and Berkes 2006, Bodin and Crona 2008).
A more extreme response may be the decision to
exit from farming and/or migrate for labor
opportunities. If the catastrophic change in shrimp
farming is due to disease outbreaks or acidified soils,
then producers may decide to access new mangrove
areas, so beginning the cyclical process of socialecological destruction so strongly associated with
shrimp aquaculture in Southeast Asia. In
comparison, closed-system farmers, assuming their
farms are larger in scale and that they are unable to
extend to new areas because of cost, may decide to
close down their operations and shift their capital
into new industries. Alternatively, assuming they
are larger and/or wealthier, they may decide on a
strategy of innovation to provide a pre-emptive and
purposeful transformation to more secure
production, or more desirable market advantages
with higher returns.
As the level of production increases and their access
to national, regional, and global markets improves,
producers have considerable incentive to intensify.
However, in doing so they must consolidate their
time, effort, and financial resources, thereby
reducing the diversity of their livelihood portfolios.
Shrimp producers in Thailand who followed this
path in the 1990s benefited with income streams of
up to 15 to 16 times higher than their former
diversified rice-based livelihoods (Flaherty et al.
1999, Flaherty et al. 2000). These systems may be
less vulnerable to disease and environmental
perturbation than landscape integrated systems if
they can be successfully isolated. But the higher
investment required for closed systems, their
Ecology and Society 15(2): 15
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art15/
increased dependence on external inputs through
international markets, and the vagaries of
intensification exposes them to new risks. Recent
examples include the billions of dollars lost as a
result of WSD in the last decade and the volatility
of export markets (Lightner 2005, Loc 2006).
Governing shrimp production in order to steer
producers toward either closed or open systems
therefore requires an understanding of the external
driving forces, both environmental and social, that
set producers on specific decision making pathways
and the implications these pathways have for the
broader resilience of coastal social-ecological
systems.
4. Steering toward resilience
Effective governance arrangements face the
challenge of promoting resilient forms of shrimp
production by facilitating producers to develop the
capacity for both timely and adaptive responses that
enable them to respond to external drivers of change.
As state policy and legislation is less able to adapt
to rapidly changing demand from global markets,
shrimp production practice has expanded beyond
the rate at which coastal ecosystems can maintain
either social or ecological resilience (Armitage and
Johnson 2006). Likewise, local natural resource
management institutions, which have evolved
through the long-term engagement of coastal
communities, have also been eroded by rapid market
integration or captured by political elites (Stonich
and Bailey 2000, Hall 2004, Islam 2009). The two
scenarios posited in this paper face considerably
different challenges. However, steering towards
either an open or closed system requires new ways
of (re)engaging state, community, and marketbased institutions that have often until now
supported the expansion and widely perceived
mismanagement of coastal environments.
In recent years there has been a proliferation of new
governance arrangements focused on the definition
and enforcement of shrimp quality standards.
Recent reviews of the various initiatives on offer
reveal more than 30 sets of standards with varying
objectives ranging from fair trade to organic and
sustainable production (Corsin et al. 2007, WWF
2007). Most of the standards are combinations of
state, such as Thai Quality Shrimp (see Oosterveer
2006), multilateral, such as The Consortium (see
FAO et al. 2006), and nongovernmental
organizations, such as the WWF Aquaculture
Dialogues (see WWF 2007). Likewise their
enforcement has shifted sole responsibility for
legitimacy away from the state to include private
and NGO-based boards, review panels, and
certification bodies. As these new governance
arrangements become more common, the challenge
for research is to determine how quality standards
can be flexible enough to deal with the range of
uncertainties producers face, while at the same time
providing an equitable but rigorous steering
mechanism toward sustainable production.
The system of provision for shrimp across the globe
is set to change in response to the decision by large
retailers in Europe to sell only environmentally
certified seafood in their shops by 2012. This
transforms sustainability-based quality standards
from what is until now largely a voluntary labeling
initiative to a system that has the potential to
transform the shrimp industry. What implications
this holds for producers is as yet unclear. Until now
the majority of quality standards have been
successful in countries with traceable, informationrich production systems. However, less success has
been met in countries where producers have poorer
capacity for compliance and the cost of certification
is prohibitive (Klooster 2005, Guthman 2007, Islam
2008). Efficient systems for governing food safety
and product related quality are already in place, but
these extend predominantly to processing
companies. It is highly likely that shifting regulation
from the factory to the farm will require engaging,
and in many cases redefining, the social and
economic relations of production which determine
the adaptive capacity of producers.
As environmental and social standards are adopted
throughout the shrimp industry, a range of new
capabilities will be required by producers to
maintain market access. However, given the
experiences of other sectors, such as forestry
(Klooster 2005), it is unlikely that small-scale
producers will be able to meet these requirements
without more participatory implementation,
monitoring, and evaluation. In landscape integrated
systems, area-based certification methodologies
may prove more effective to reduce the cost and
more adequately account for the ecological
interactions with surrounding coastal habitats.
Managing the risk of these aquaculture systems
requires new methodologies for including the
uncertainty of environmental monitoring evaluation
(Power 2007), including what are coming to be
known as social or ‘risk based’ auditing methods.
Ecology and Society 15(2): 15
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art15/
To increase compliance, these methodologies may
seek better interaction with existing communal
resource management arrangements that govern
access to coastal resources such as water, tidal
flows, and wild seed (Vandergeest 2007). In closed
systems, environmental standards are likely to be
more effective given their internally controlled and
monitored production. Existing social standards
based on UN and International Labour Organization
conventions would remain adequate enough to
cover the conditions of employees. However, more
attention is needed to determine whether and how
standards could evaluate grievances between
surrounding communities over issues such as access
to coastal resources.
two poles that are more sustainable than current
systems. This paper has elaborated the complexity
of shrimp production systems and the requirements
of rebuilding social-ecological resilience in coastal
areas. The first challenge is to understand the
complexities and uncertainties of these systems to
coordinate decision making at farm, community,
and regional scales to mitigate existing and potential
effects. The second challenge is to ensure that any
governance mechanism that seeks to coordinate
these decisions are able to provide strategic
simplifications that adequately translate and
communicate the interlinkages between the
resilience of ponds, coastal ecosystems, and the
communities that exploit them.
In order to develop governance arrangements that
can effectively steer producers to either closed or
open systems we need to understand how producers,
as well as market and state actors, respond to
external drivers of change. Compared to the
territorial and somewhat fossilized nature of state
regulation, state and private quality standards have
potential to provide timely response to rapidly
expanding international markets and decisions of
producers as they adapt to changing social,
environmental, and economic circumstances.
However, it is yet to be seen whether certification
developed through lengthy deliberations with
stakeholders, as currently seen with the WWF
aquaculture dialogues (see Boyd et al. 2005), will
be adaptive and inclusive enough over time. To
effectively steer producers toward either closed or
landscape integrated systems we need to better
understand the interaction between state, market,
and community based governance mechanisms,
from local to global scales, to determine what
combinations best foster resilience of coastal socialecological systems.
To address these challenges we now turn to the
implications the two scenarios hold for various
disciplinary approaches and outline a set of key
questions for ongoing research. In short, we ask how
research in ecology, epidemiology, and shrimp farm
management, livelihoods and global markets can
contribute to our understanding of how to rebuild
coastal shrimp aquaculture as a resilient socialecological system in the context of decision making
at all levels of governance.
CONCLUSION: AN EMERGING
RESEARCH AGENDA
The closed and landscape integrated scenarios
provide a polar dichotomy that represent competing
visions of rebuilding resilient tropical coastal
environments. There are no definitive answers to
whether either of them is better, nor can it be clearly
outlined in general which scenario is more
achievable or what the steps are toward achieving
transitions to more resilient farming and use of
coastal resources. Instead, there is likely to be a
range of systems along a spectrum between these
Ecosystem health and fishery productivity in coastal
waters are dependent on functioning coastal
mangrove forest. Based on our current
understanding it is not clear whether open landscape
integrated shrimp farming can have a positive or
neutral effect on biodiversity and the productive
functions of the coastal zone. Failure to detect and
respond to effects may be because of a lack of
capacity to engage with and understand the
perceptions of stakeholders and/or the inherent
difficulties in detecting effects and attributing
changes on coastal fish communities to multiple
causes (Van Densen 2001, van Zwieten et al. 2006).
A central question is at what scale and extent can
shrimp farming be successfully integrated in
mangrove ecosystems without affecting the
production function of ponds and surrounding
biodiversity? What indicators as well as reference
and target levels can be developed for this? From a
biodiversity perspective a negative effect may be
tolerated if effects do not change the adaptive
capacity of the mangrove ecosystems to maintain
the resilience of coastal environments and their
associated productive capacity. Alternatively, the
most effective means of ensuring the ecological
functions of mangrove areas is to develop closed
systems outside mangrove areas.
Ecology and Society 15(2): 15
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art15/
The diversity of open landscape integrated systems,
although not mitigating uncertainty, may be more
likely to advance both the social and ecological
capacity for self-organization and increased disease
resilience, though it is unlikely that WSD will be
contained within these approaches to aquaculture
development. Fostering internal self-organization
in these systems, however, often requires drastic
changes through a process in production practices.
This may come at a cost to short-term income and
therefore stay out of reach of a large proportion of
producers. Still, the question remains why the
practice of silvofisheries, landscape integrated
shrimp farming, is not widespread in Southeast Asia
and mangroves continue to be lost (Tong et al.
2004). Alternatively, questions also remain as to
whether closed systems offer a possible avenue for
disease resilient shrimp production. These systems
may be better protected from pathogens, but also
highly engineered systems are never fail-safe and
lead to an ever increasing need for external
intervention, e.g., screening of seeds, certification
of hatcheries, that increases complexity and
vulnerability. Investing in this form of production
may force further investment in engineered
solutions and complex maintenance systems to
keep-up the security and resilience of the system.
The resilience of producer’s livelihoods is
dependent on their capacity to make decisions in
response to external forces. Coastal areas inhabited
by shrimp ponds are in flux, based on the
compounded factors of disease, changes in
ecological function, and fluctuation in trade. Given
this, questions remain as to whether producers are
able to meet the increasingly complex demands set
out for integrated sustainable shrimp production
after the mangrove areas have deteriorated by their
production system. This requires asking what the
internal and external factors are that would drive
producers to: (1) develop alternative aquaculture
systems that are ecologically, financially, and
socially sound; (2) diversify production into new
areas; or (3) seek employment in intensive farms
located outside of mangrove areas.
The international nature of the shrimp trade and the
perceived failure of governments to deal adequately
with the negative social and environmental effects
of shrimp production have led to new forms of
governance. As governance shifts from local to
global and from the state to the market, it is
increasingly important to develop governance
arrangements that can adequately deal with the
drivers of change in complex systems and promote
environmentally and socially desirable outcomes.
How effective new governance arrangements such
as state and private quality standards can be depends
on the degree to which they can steer producers to
new forms of production. Research therefore needs
to focus on the extent to which emerging governance
arrangements can translate the complexity of socialecological systems outlined above into standards or
regulations that can foster the producers to amend
or change their practices. This means we need to
better understand what practices need to be changed,
but also who is more likely to develop the necessary
skills needed to gain and maintain access to
international markets: small-scale landscape
integrated farmers or industrial-scale closed system
producers? Is there an inherent bias for intensive
production systems over extensive systems? If so,
what new roles should state and private sector actors
fill in terms of extension and enforcement? Asking
such questions might even lead us to ask whether it
is possible to promote social and ecological
resilience without difficult trade-offs.
Responses to this article can be read online at:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art15/
responses/
Acknowledgments:
The paper was developed after a series of meetings
during summer, winter, and spring 2007-2008 with
Rini Kusumawati, Bambang Gunawan, Audrie
Siahainenia, Desrina Haryadi, Tran Thi Thu Ha,
Tran Thi Phung Ha, Nguyen Huu Nghia, Tran Thi
Tuyet Hoa, Tuyen Ngo Xuan, and Eleonora
Tendencia, PhD students of the RESCOPAR
program, and their supervisors from Wageningen
University in which we discussed the concepts
outlined in the paper. They are all thanked for their
contributions to the discussion. The Interdisciplinary
Research Fund (INREF) of Wageningen University
funded the research. Paul A.M. van Zwieten and
Roel Bosma received additional funding through the
MANGROVE research program (EU-FP6-STREP
contract 003697).
Ecology and Society 15(2): 15
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art15/
LITERATURE CITED
Aquaculture Certification Council (ACC). 2005.
Aquaculture facility certification: Guidelines for
BAP standards. Aquaculture Certification Council,
Kirkland, Washington, USA .
Adger, W. N. 2000. Social and ecological resilience:
Are they related? Progress in Human Geography
24:347-364.
Adger, W. N., T. P. Hughes, C. Folke, S.
Carpenter, and J. Rockstrom. 2005. Socialecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science
309:1036-1039.
Adger, W. N., P. M. Kelly, and N. H. Ninh, editors.
2001. Living with environmental change: social
vulnerability, adaptation and resilience in Vietnam.
Routledge, London, UK.
Alongi, D. M. 2002. Present state and future of the
world's mangroves. Environmental Conservation
29:331-349.
Armitage, D., and D. Johnson. 2006. Can
resilience be reconciled with globalization and the
increasingly complex conditions of resource
degradation in Asia coastal regions? Ecology and
Society 11(1): 2. [online] URL: http://www.ecology
andsociety.org/vol1/iss1/art2/.
Armitage, D., M. Marschke, and R. Plummer.
2008. Adaptive co-management and the paradox of
learning. Global Environmental Change 18:86-98.
Avnimelech, Y., and G. Ritvo. 2003. Shrimp and
fish pond soils: processes and management.
Aquaculture 220(1-4):549-567.
Aquaculture Certification Council (ACC). 2005.
Aquaculture facility certification: guidelines for
BAP standards. Aquaculture Certification Council,
Kirkland, Washington, USA.
Bagarinao, T. U., and J. H. Primavera. 2005.
Code of practice for sustainable use of mangrove
ecosystems for aquaculture in southeast Asia.
Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center
(SEAFDEC), Aquaculture Department, Iloilo,
Philippines.
Barbier, E. B., and M. Cox. 2004. An economic
analysis of shrimp farm expansion and mangrove
conversion in
80:389-407.
Thailand.
Land
Economics
Béné, C. 2005. The good, the bad and the ugly.
Development Policy Review 23:585-614.
Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke, editors.
2003. Navigating social-ecological systems:
building resilience for complexity and change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Berkes, F., and C. Folke, editors. 1998. Linking
social and ecological systems: management
practices and social mechanisms for building
resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK.
Beveridge M. C. M., A. Wahab, and S. Dewan.
1994. Effects of daily harrowing on pond soil and
water nutrient levels and on rohu fingerling
production. Progressive Fish-Culturist 56:282-287.
Binh, C. T., M. J. Phillips, and H. Demaine. 1997.
Integrated shrimp-mangrove farming systems in the
Mekong Delta of Vietnam. Aquaculture Research
28:599-610.
Bodin, Ö., and B. I. Crona. 2008. Management of
natural resources at the community level: exploring
the role of social capital and leadership in a rural
fishing community. World Development 36:2763-2779.
Boyd, C., A. McNevin, J. Clay, and H. Johnson.
2005. Certification issues for some common
aquaculture species. Reviews in Fisheries Science
13:231-279.
Boyd, C. E., and J. W. Clay. 2002. Evaluation of
Belize aquaculture, Ltd: a superintensive shrimp
aquaculture system in Belize. World BankB/
NACA/WWF/FAO Consortium Program on
Shrimp Farming and the Environment.
Bush, S. R., and P. Oosterveer. 2007. The missing
link: intersecting governance and trade in the space
of place and the space of flows. Sociologia Ruralis
47:384-400.
Bush, S. R. 2010. Governing ‘spaces of interaction’
for sustainable fisheries. Tijdschrift voor Sociale en
Economische Geografie 101:305-319.
Cash, D. W., and S. C. Moser. 2001. Linking global
and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and
Ecology and Society 15(2): 15
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art15/
management processes. Global Environmental
Change 10: 109-120.
Corsin, F., S. J. Funge-Smith, and J. Clausen.
2007. A qualitative assessment of standards and
certification schemes applicable to aquaculture in
the Asia-Pacific region. RAP Publication 2007/25.
FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific,
Bangkok, Thailand.
Costanza, R. 2003. A vision of the future of science:
reintegrating the study of humans and the rest of
nature. Futures 35:651-671.
De Bruijn, M., and H. Van Dijk. 2004. The
importance of socio-cultural differences and of
pathway analysis for understanding local actors in
A. J. Dietz, R. Ruben, and A. Verhagen, editors. The
impact of climate change on drylands. Springer,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Eggleton, M. A., K. B. Gido, W. J. Matthews, and
G. D. Schnell. 2004. Assessment of anthropogenic
influences on littoral zone aquatic communities of
Lake Texoma, Oklahoma Texas, USA. Ecohydrology
and Hydrobiology 4:103-117.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2009.
The State of world fisheries and aquaculture (Sofia),
2008. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific
(NACA), United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), World Bank Group (WB), and the
World Wildlife Fund (WWF). 2006. International
principles for responsible shrimp farming.
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the
Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific
(NACA), United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), the World Bank Group (WB), and the
World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Bangkok, Thailand.
Foreign Investment Advisory Service (FIAS).
2006. Improving Indonesia's competitiveness: case
study of textile and farmed shrimp industries.
Volume 1. Foreign Investment Advisory Service,
International Finance Corporation and World Bank.
Fitzgerald, W. J. 2002. Silvofisheries: integrated
mangrove forest aquaculture systems. in B. A.
Costa-Pierce, editor, Ecological Aquaculture: The
Evolution of a Blue Revolution. Blackwell Science
Ltd, Oxford, UK.
Flaherty, M., B. Szuster, and P. Miller. 2000. Low
salinity inland shrimp farming in Thailand. Ambio
29:174-179.
Flaherty, M., P. Vandergeest, and P. Miller. 1999.
Rice paddy or shrimp pond: tough decisions in rural
Thailand. World Development 27:2045-2060.
Flegel, T. W. 2006. Detection of major penaeid
shrimp viruses in Asia, a historical perspective with
emphasis on Thailand. Aquaculture 258: 1–33.
Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a
perspective for social-ecological systems analysis.
Global Environmental Change 16:253-267.
Folke, C., S. Carpenter, T. Elmqvist, L.
Gunderson, C. S. Holling, and B. Walker. 2002.
Resilience and sustainable development: building
adaptive capacity in a world of transformations.
Ambio 31:437-440.
GlobalG.A.P. 2007. Integrated farm assurance:
documents shrimp (English). [online] URL: http://
www.globalgap.org/cms/front_content.php?idart=378
&idcat=48 &lang=1 &client=1.
Guthman, J. 2007. The Polanyian way? Voluntary
food labels as neoliberal governance. Antipode
39:456-478.
Hall, D. 2003. The international political ecology
of industrial shrimp aquaculture and industrial
plantation forestry in southeast Asia. Journal of
Southeast Asian Studies 34:251-264.
Hall, D. 2004. Explaining the diversity of southeast
Asian shrimp aquaculture. Journal of Agrarian
Change 4:315-335.
Hindell, J. S., and G. P. Jenkins. 2005. Assessing
patterns of fish zonation in temperate mangroves,
with emphasis on evaluating sampling artefacts.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 290:193-205.
Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and stability of
ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 4:1-23.
Ecology and Society 15(2): 15
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art15/
Holling, C. S. 2001. Understanding the complexity
of economic, ecological, and social systems.
Ecosystems 4: 390-405.
Howitt, R. 1998. Scale as relation: musical
metaphors of geographical scale. Area 30:49-58.
Hue, L. T. V., and S. Scott. 2008. Coastal livelihood
transitions: socio-economic consequences of
changing mangrove forest management and land
allocation in a commune of central Vietnam.
Geographical Research 46:62-73.
Iles, A. 2007. Making the seafood industry more
sustainable: creating production chain transparency
and accountability. Journal of Cleaner Production
15(6):577-589.
Islam, M. S. 2008. From pond to plate: towards a
twin-driven commodity chain in Bangladesh shrimp
aquaculture. Food Policy 33(3):209-223.
Islam, M. S. 2009. In search of white gold:
environmental and agrarian changes in rural
Bangladesh. Society and Natural Resources
22:66-78.
Kautsky, N., P. Ronnback, M. Tedengren, and M.
Troell. 2000. Ecosystem perspectives on
management of disease in shrimp pond farming.
Aquaculture 191:145-161.
Klooster, D. 2005. Environmental certification of
forests: the evolution of environmental governance
in a commodity network. Journal of Rural Studies
21:403-417.
Kongkeo, H. 1997. Comparison of intensive shrimp
farming systems in Indonesia, Philippines, Taiwan
and Thailand. Aquaculture Research 28:789-796.
Lebel, L., J. M. Anderies, B. Campbell, C. Folke,
S. Hatfield-Dodds, T. P. Hughes, and J. Wilson.
2006. Governance and the capacity to manage
resilience in regional social-ecological systems.
Ecology and Society 11(1): 19. [online] URL: http:
//www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art19/.
Lebel, L., N. H. Tri, A. Saengnoree, S. Pasong, U.
Buatama, and L. K. Thoa. 2002. Industrial
transformation and shrimp aquaculture in Thailand
and Vietnam: pathways to ecological, social, and
economic sustainability. AMBIO: A Journal of the
Human Environment 31(4):311-323.
Levin, S. A. 1998. Ecosystems and the biosphere as
complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems 1:431-436.
Lightner, D. V. 2005. Biosecurity in shrimp
farming: pathogen exclusion through use of spf
stock and routine surveillance. Journal Of The
World Aquaculture Society 36:229-248.
Lightner, D. V., K. W. Hasson, B. L. White, and
R. M. Redman. 1998. Experimental infection of
western hemisphere penaeid shrimp with Asian
White Spot Syndrome Virus and Asian yellow head
virus. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health
10:271-281.
Loc, V. T. T. 2006. Seafood supply chain quality
management: the shrimp supply chain quality
improvement perspective of seafood companies in
the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. University of
Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Loneragan, N. R., N. Ahmad Adnan, R. M.
Connolly, and F. J. Manson. 2005. Prawn landings
and their relationship with the extent of mangrove
and shallow waters in western peninsular Malaysia.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 63.
Luttrell, C. 2006. Adapting to aquaculture in
Vietnam: Securing livelihoods in a context of
change in two coastal communities in C. T. Hoanh,
T. P. Tuong, J. W. Gowing and B. Hardy, editors.
Environment and livelihoods in tropical coastal
zones. CAB International, Oxford, UK.
Macintosh, D. 1998. Mangroves and coastal
aquaculture sustainability. Pages 242-251 In
Aquaculture Sustainability and the Environment.
Report on a regional study and workshop. ADB/
NACA, Bangkok, Thailand.
Macintosh, D. J., E. C. Ashton, and S. Havanon.
2002. Mangrove rehabilitation and intertidal
biodiversity: a study in the Ranong mangrove
ecosystem, Thailand. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf
Science 55:331-345.
Manson, F. J., N. R. Loneragan, B. D. Harch, G.
A. Skilleter, and L. Williams. 2005a. A broad-
Ecology and Society 15(2): 15
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art15/
scale analysis of links between coastal fisheries
production and mangrove extent: a case-study for
northeastern Australia. Fisheries Research 74:69-85.
Odum, E. P. 1975. Ecology: the link between the
natural and social sciences. Second edition. Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, London, UK.
Manson, F. J., N. R. Loneragan, G. A. Skilleter,
and S. R. Phinn. 2005b. An evaluation of the
evidence for linkages between mangroves and
fisheries: a synthesis of the literature and
identification of research directions. Oceanography
and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 43: 483 513.
Oosterveer, P. 2006. Globalization and sustainable
consumption of shrimp: consumers and governance
in the global space of flows. International Journal
of Consumer Studies 30:465-476.
Marschke, M., and A. J. Sinclair. 2009. Learning
for sustainability: participatory resource management
in Cambodian fishing villages. Journal of
Environmental Management 90:206-216.
Marschke, M. J., and F. Berkes. 2006. Exploring
strategies that build livelihood resilience: a case
from Cambodia. Ecology and Society 11: 42 [online]
URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/
art42/.
Meijer, L. E., and Y. Avnimelech. 1999. On the use
of micro-electrodes in fish pond sediments.
Aquacultural Engineering 21:71-83.
Mumby, P. J., A. J. Edwards, J. E. Arias
Gonzales, K. C. Lindeman, P. G. Blackwell, A.
Gall, M. I. Gorczynska, A. R. Harborne, C. L.
Pescod, H. Renken, C. C. C. Wabnitz, and G.
Llewellyn. 2003. Mangroves enhance the biomass
of coral reef fish communities in the Caribbean.
Nature 427:533-536.
Nadasdy, P. 2007. Adaptive co-management and
the gospel of resilience. in D. Armitage, F. Berkes
and N. Doubleday. Adaptive co-management,
collaboration, learning, and multi-level governance.
UBC Press, Vancouver, Canada
Neiland, A. E., N. Soley, J. B. Varley, and D. J.
Whitmarsh. 2001. Shrimp aquaculture: economic
perspectives for policy development. Marine Policy
25:265-279.
Nicholls, R. J., and J. Branson. 1998. Coastal
resilience and planning for an uncertain future: an
introduction. The Geographical Journal 164:255-258.
Norgaard, R. B. 1994. Development betrayed; the
end of progress and a coevolutionary revisioning
for the future. Routledge, New York, NY, USA.
Oosterveer, P. 2007. Global governance of food
production and consumption: issues and challenges.
Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, U.K.
Otoshi, C. A., C. M. Holl, D. R. Moss, S. M. Arce,
and S. M. Moss. 2006. Super-intensive RAS trial
yields encouraging shrimp harvest at Oceanic
Institute. Global Aquaculture Advocate 9:64-65.
Otoshi, C. A., L. R. Tang, D. R. Moss, S. M. Arce,
C. M. Holl, and S. M. Moss. 2009. Performance of
Pacific white shrimp, Penaeus (Litopenaeus)
Vannamei, cultured in biosecure, super-intensive,
recirculating aquaculture systems. in C. L. Browdy
and D. E. Jory, editors. The rising tide. Proceedings
of the World Aquaculture Society on sustainable
shrimp farming in Veracruz, Mexico. World
Aquaculture Society.
Phillips, M. J. 2006. Regional study on economic
opportunities in shrimp farming in West Africa: an
initial review. Technical Working Paper 3:
Environmental aspects and sustainable development.
Prepared for the Sahel and West Africa Club
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD). Bangkok, Thailand.
Phuoc L. H., M. Corteel, N. C. Thanh, H.
Nauwynck, M. Pensaert, V. Alday-Sanz, W. V.
den Broeck, P. Sorgeloos, and P. Bossier. 2009.
Effect of dose and challenge routes of Vibrio spp.
on co-infection with white spot syndrome virus in
Penaeus vannamei. Aquaculture 290:61-68.
Pittman, S. J., C. A. McAlpine, and K. M.
Pittman. 2004. Linking fish and prawns to their
environment: a hierarchical landscape approach.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 283:233-254.
Power, M. 2007. Organized uncertainty: designing
a world of risk management. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, UK.
Primavera, J. H. 1997. Socio-economic impacts of
shrimp culture. Aquaculture Research 28:815-827.
Ecology and Society 15(2): 15
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art15/
Primavera, J. H. 2000. Integrated mangrove aquaculture systems in Asia. Integrated Coastal
Zone Management Autumn:121-128.
Primavera, J. H. 2006. Overcoming the impacts of
aquaculture on the coastal zone. Ocean and Coastal
Management 49:531-545.
Primavera J. H., and J. M. A. Esteban. 2008. A
review of mangrove rehabilitation in the
Philippines: successes, failures and future
prospects. Wetlands Ecology and Management 16:345-358.
Stonich, S. C., and C. Bailey. 2000. Resisting the
blue revolution: contending coalitions surrounding
industrial shrimp farming. Human Organization
59:23-36.
Suzan, G., J. T. Giermakowski, E. Marce, H.
Suzan-Azpiri, B. Armien, and T. L. Yates. 2006.
Modelling hantavirus reservoir species dominance
in high seroprevalence areas on the Azuero
Peninsula of Panama. American Journal of Tropical
Medicine and Hygiene 74:1103-1110.
Suzan, G., E. Marce, J. T. Giermakowski, B.
Armien, J. Pascale, J. Mills, G. Ceballos, A.
Gomez, A. A. Aguirre, J. Salazar-Bravo, A.
Armien, R. Parmenter, and T. Yates. 2008. The
effect of habitat fragmentation and species diversity
loss on hantavirus prevalence in Panama. Annals
of the New York Academy of Sciences 1149:80-83
Tendencia, E. A., R. H. Bosma, R. Usero, and A.
J. J. Verreth. 2009. Effect of rainfall and
atmospheric temperature on the prevalence of
whitespot syndrome virus (WSSV) in pond cultured
Penaeus monodon. Aquaculture Research 40:1-4.
Tong, P. H. S., Y. Auda, J. Populus, M. Aizpuru,
A. Habshi, and F. Blasco. 2004. Assessment from
space of mangroves evolution in the Mekong Delta
in relation to extensive shrimp farming.
International Journal of Remote Sensing
25:4795-4812.
Vaiphasa, C., W. F. de Boer, A. K. Skidmore, S.
Panitchart, T. Vaiphasa, N. Bamrongrugsa, and
P. Santitamnont. 2007. Impacts of shrimp pond
waste materials on mangrove growth and mortality:
a case study from Pak Phanang, Thailand.
Hydrobiologia 591:47-57.
Valiela, I., J. L. Bowen, and J. K. York. 2001.
Mangrove forests: one of the world's threatened
major tropical environments. BioScience 51:807-815.
Van Densen, W. L. T. 2001. On the perception of
time trends in resource outcome: its importance in
fisheries co-management, agriculture and whaling.
Twente University, Enschede, The Netherlands.
van Zwieten, P. A. M., A. S. Sidik, Noryadi, I.
Suyatna, and Abdunnur. 2006. Aquatic food
production in the coastal zone: data-based
perceptions on the trade-off between mariculture
and fisheries production of the Mahakam Delta and
Estuary, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. In C. T.
Hoanh, T. P. Tuong, J. W. Gowing and B. Hardy,
editors. Environment and livelihoods in tropical
coastal zones: managing agriculture - fishery aquaculture conflicts. CABI Publishing, Oxford,
UK.
Vandergeest, P. 2007. Certification and communities:
alternatives for regulating the environmental and
social impacts of shrimp farming. World
Development 35:1152-1171.
Vlak, J. M., J. R. Bonami, T. W. Flegel, G. H.
Kou, D. V. Lightner, C. F. Lo, P. C. Loh, and P.
W. Walker. 2005. Nimaviridae. Pages 187-192 in
C. M. Fauquet, M. A. Mayo, J. Maniloff, U.
Desselberger, and L. A. Ball, editors. Virus
Taxonomy. Eighth Report of the International
Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter, and
A. P. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and
transformability in social-ecological systems.
Ecology and Society 9: 5 [online] URL: http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/ .
WWF 2007. Aquaculture dialogues overview.
WWF International. [online] URL: http://www.wo
rldwildlife.org/what/globalmarkets/aquaculture/
aquaculturedialogues.html
Yu, R., P. Leung, and P. Bienfang. 2006. Optimal
production schedule in commercial shrimp culture.
Aquaculture 254:426-441.