A Comparison of Vulnerability Risks and Conservation Perceptions between Mariculture, Fishery and Ecotourism Livelihood Groups in a Multi-Use MPA in Indonesia

Hatim Albasri and Jesmond Sammut
Additional contact information
Hatim Albasri: Center for Fisheries Research, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Jakarta 14430, Indonesia
Jesmond Sammut: Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia

Sustainability, 2021, vol. 13, issue 22, 1-17

Abstract: Different livelihoods have different vulnerability risks and influences on the management of marine protected areas (MPAs). This research aimed to compare the seasonal, trend and shock livelihood vulnerability indicators (LVIs) of three dominant livelihood groups and the groups’ perceptions towards supporting MPA conservation efforts. The Anambas Archipelago MPA was selected as the study site. A total of 66 respondents from the three major groups were selected using stratified random sampling and interviewed using a questionnaire containing 14 LVIs. The responses were standardised and aggregated using functional relationships. The groups’ perceptions were determined using frequency distribution and thematic analyses (NVIVO 10). The LVI composite values showed that fishers were the most vulnerable (0.65), followed by fish farmers (0.62) and ecotourism operators (0.47). Fishers and fish farmers expressed high vulnerability due to their dependency on the coastal resources. The ecotourism operators had low vulnerability due to their lower dependency on natural resources, smaller impacts from seasonal weather, low involvement in resource conflicts and greater political support. The three groups supported the MPA regimes despite differences in their knowledge of the MPA restrictions on their livelihood practices. The study’s findings provide key alternative strategies to address the vulnerability risks of the three major groups and to increase their support for conservation goals in similar MPAs.

Keywords: vulnerability risk; small-island MPA; livelihood; mariculture; perception (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/22/12897/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/22/12897/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:22:p:12897-:d:684686

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().