Interactions between Coastal and Marine Ecosystems and Human ...

Sara Curran, Anuradha Kumar, Wolfgang Lutz and Meryl Williams

Interactions between Coastal and Marine Ecosystems and Human Population Systems: Perspectives on How Consumption Mediates this Interaction DILEMMAS OF POPULATION, ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT In the 1980s and 1990s, there was widespread belief among environmentalists and lay people that uncontrolled population growth was responsible for environmental degradation of all types. This neo-Malthusian belief originally surfaced in the publication of The Population Bomb by Ehrlich and Ehrlich in the late 1960s, which interpreted the unprecedented high growth rate experienced in that decade in an alarmist tone (1–3). In ensuing years this belief, combined with work on carrying capacity and a growing environmental movement, led to the seemingly commonsense conclusion that high growth, and high fertility in particular, are destructive for the environment. The rhetoric often is shrill (see various Worldwatch Institute publications in the 1990s), and extends beyond academia and the NGO sectors (4). Scientific research, however, has not shown a definitive link between population growth or size and environmental decline. A growing body of work indicates that neo-Malthusian assumptions about environmental change may be misleading (5). Numerous critics have pointed out that consumption of resources by citizens of the global North is at least as important in explaining environmental degradation as population growth (6, 7). On the other hand, growing consumer demand in developing countries also portends threats to the environment (e.g. the growing middle class in China and India), and does not contradict statements about how high population growth is a cause of environmental degradation (8, 9). In other words, the sheer number of people does not on its own explain the dire state that many ecosystems are in—how people and institutions use those resources, or consume them, is as important (10). The organization of consumption then becomes a key mediating factor. The issue of consumption, how to measure it, and its relationship to resource use is poorly understood (11) and has many different definitions, some of which are culturally subjective and depend on the social and economic aspirations of the consumer (12, 13). Considering consumption of the Earth’s natural resources, the concept needs to be evaluated in terms of its rate versus the regenerative rate of the resource being consumed. In addition, there are very few studies that link population change, environmental change, and resource consumption in a meaningful manner. The dearth of good research on this topic is not surprising. For one thing, the topic spans at least three major disciplines (demography, ecology, and economics) and requires an integrated approach to theory, data collection, and analysis. Since much of the interest has concerned the loss of tropical resources and growing populations in the global South, the knowledge generated needs to be useful for governments and citizens there. Yet, the consumption of those resources is often for markets in the global North, making it necessary for northern institutions and citizens to be aware of the consequences of their actions and for policy solutions that overcome free-rider costs (e.g. citizens of the global North free riding on the resources of the global South (7) ). Finally, there must be a strong connection to policy in or264

der to make the research useful in conserving the environment and improving the quality of life of the people who depend on it. One strategy to overcome the complexities of understanding links among human population systems, ecosystems, and consumption is to focus on one set of dynamics on each end of the equation, and vary some of the mediating factors and the contexts within which they interact. It is to this end that The MacArthur Foundation’s 6-year funding program was directed. Through funding a variety of case studies that focused on migration (as one key component of population dynamics), and coastal or marine ecosystems, the program planned an approach to understanding the dilemmas of population, environment, and consumption and enable future research and policy directions. Coastal ecosystems were selected for a variety of reasons. The Rio Conference in 1992 drew special attention to them. They are of particular interest because a growing proportion of the world’s population lives near a coast (14–16), although mostly in cities. Over the next century global warming threatens to impose dramatic constraints on land use as world sea levels rise (14, 17). Coastal ecosystems are among the most rich and diverse in the world, providing important global functions (ecosystem services) for marine ecosystems and atmospheric composition. Finally, coastal ecosystems have proven more difficult to manage through privatization or market relations. Coastal waters, beaches, and tidal plains can be organized either as openaccess systems, or more likely, some form of common property relations (18), increasing their vulnerability to disruption as a result of human migration in or out of the ecosystem. Besides providing ecosystem services, coastal ecosystems as sites for human economic development put in sharp relief competing human demands for multiple, and not always compatible, uses, such as water for industrial purposes, space for shipping and ports, fishing, tourism, and salt, sand or coral for consumption and building. Thus, they represent a particular challenge for understanding how changing human population structure affects ecosystem sustenance, and consequently human well-being. HUMAN INFLUENCES ON COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS Coasts presently support a large share of the Earth’s population, and this share is growing faster than that of other ecosystems. In 1995, 39% of the world’s population lived within 100 km of a coast, on just 20% of the Earth’s land area (19). There is evidence that in many countries, coastal populations are growing faster than those in other areas, although this is more often an article of faith than rigorous demographic analysis (20). Echoing Malthusian concerns, Hinrichsen called population growth in the coastal zone “the ultimate threat” (15). Most fisheries throughout the world are now recognized as heavily exploited, and many are overexploited to a serious extent (21–23). This is especially true in the Asian region (24), where many coastal fish stocks are down to only 10% to 30%

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2002 http://www.ambio.kva.se

Ambio Vol. 31 No. 4, June 2002

of the biomass that existed before the start of heavy fishing three decades ago (25). The very species composition of the fish communities has changed, as larger and more valuable fish have been taken (26, 27) and smaller, faster-growing, and less valuable species now dominate. The marine ecosystems that form fisheries habitat are deteriorating due to deliberate destruction for other uses or as sinks for the world’s refuse. Half the world’s wetlands disappeared in the 20th century (21); 60% of worldwide coral reefs are threatened, with 80% in Asia, the worst affected region, under severe threat (28); mangrove destruction has been rampant; the flows of most rivers are now interrupted by dams or will be over the next 10 to 50 years; the competition for fresh water running to the sea is intense, even as its quality is polluted by industrial, agricultural, urban, and environmental contamination. The small island developing states of the Pacific, Indian Ocean, and Caribbean face particular challenges on the coasts, which typically represent their whole territory. International attention to coastal ecosystems is marked by concerns about stewardship at the national and sub-national levels. The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development devoted a chapter to the coastal zone in its final report. Later, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) singled out coastal zones and marine ecosystems as a special area for assessment attention because of their vulnerability to the effects of climate change (29). Given the centrality of coastal ecosystems to human activity and to global biological health through its productive ecosystem services, Hinrichsen points out that “[u]ltimately,…all of humankind is coastal” (15). Although the phenomenon of differential human population growth along the coasts is not well understood in most countries, the reasons are thought to lie in the accessibility of coastal lands that attract ports, industries, cities, and economic opportunity. Many coastal lands and their adjacent seas, including tropical coasts, are ecologically productive, biologically diverse, and climatically and physically attractive. The ecological and biological characteristics attract fishers, farmers, and fish farmers, and the amenity and beauty attracts tourists and recreational enthusiasts. Indirect effects of inland peoples are felt on the coasts through the downstream movement of pollutants, sediment, and nutrients from inland sources. The burgeoning human uses of and effects on coastal areas has caused increasing concern for the state of coastal resources, and their sustainability and future existence. These effects are not well understood in many coastal ecosystems, and in many countries even the extent of the coastal zone is poorly mapped (19). The state of the coastal environment is most critical for those who dwell along the coast, but it is also important for all citizens of coastal states because of the effects on national economic well-being. Better knowledge about the relationships among population, coastal environments, and consumption is absolutely essential if we are to arrive at adequate policies and management systems. Vibrant economic activity in the coastal zones of the world, and the effects of accompanying human population growth, have led to much research, many environmental assessments, and much management and policy action over the years. However, surprisingly little of this has been directed to better understanding who is populating the coasts, what resources they are using, and how demographic factors such as migration and fertility affect consumption and the coastal environment. In the United States, demographic concerns are rarely incorporated into new management schemes for coastal ecosystems. Commencing more than 30-years ago, rising environmental awareness and eventual frustration about the declining state of natural resources by marine scientists and fisheries managers led to the development of new efforts in coastal management, supported by newsletters, scientific journals, meetings, conferences, and planning and management activities. Similar efforts now Ambio Vol. 31 No. 4, June 2002

have spread around the world and can be adequately grouped under the title “integrated coastal management” (30). Sorensen highlighted the importance of the many interpretations of the term “integrated”: horizontal – across economic sectors and government agencies; and vertical – of different levels of government from local to international, across land and sea, across scientific disciplines, and across the research, planning, and management spectrum (31). Thus, the need for integrated approaches has been well recognized in coastal management and its supporting research. However, as the management schemes have spread to other places they face growing challenges, especially in the global South and especially around population growth. The studies that led to and support integrated coastal management practices have focused strongly on the institutional, environmental, economic, and resource status aspects of the areas managed (31, 32). Population questions themselves get little more than general mention, and demographic knowledge, policy, and analysis skills are rarely listed among the capacity needs (33). Demographers and ministries overseeing population policies have had little special involvement in the integrated coastal management movement, and consequently their insights are not brought to bear on the questions. Indeed, given the novelty of population and consumption studies in coastal areas, there is little understanding yet of how the population research results and policies would be used in integrated coastal management. The papers in this volume, however, show that demographic factors, especially migration, are major factors in people’s use of coasts. POPULATION DYNAMICS: HUMAN MIGRATION The 20th century saw historically unprecedented growth in human population numbers. The world’s population grew from 1.6 billion at the beginning of the century to 6.1 billion in 2000. During the late 1960s, global population growth was peaking at a record rate of about 2% a year. But the absolute number of people added each year continued to grow up to the 1980s due to the expanding base to which the growth rate was being applied. This “population explosion” was a consequence of the beginning of the demographic transition in the developing countries. This transition is an apparently universal process during which death rates start to decline as a consequence of improving living conditions and better health care. With death rates dropping and birth rates staying high or even increasing due to women’s better health status, population growth (the growth rate being the difference between the birth and the death rate) accelerates. Demographic transition then continues with birth rates also starting to fall after a certain lag—as an adjustment to higher child survival, general modernization of society, and a mental transition in which family limitation becomes part of conscious decision making. Today’s industrialized countries generally had their mortality declines starting in the 19th century, with the bulk of the fertility declines occurring during the early 20th century. In today’s developing countries the mortality decline abruptly started after World War II, and was precipitous. Due to universal and very early marriage in these countries, fertility also tended to be much higher than in pre-transitional Europe; this early phase of the demographic transition resulted in very high growth rates of 3% to 4% per year. Such rates imply a doubling of population size in just about 20 years. But the demographic transition also has been taking its course in the developing world, and—with significant regional differentials—global fertility has been declining for the past 20 years. Even in Africa, which is slowest in this universal process, fertility declines now seem to have started almost everywhere. Currently, fertility is already below the “replacement level” of 2.1 children in countries with 45% of the world population. These trends imply, with high probability, that future world population growth will come to an end during the 21st century


265

(34), and as a consequence the population age structures will become significantly older. But it is important to notice that this trend is very uneven in different parts of the world. The population momentum in sub-Saharan Africa means a doubling of population during the next 25 years. In South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, population increases will be greater in the next quarter century than in the preceding one. In Eastern Europe, meanwhile, population size already has entered a decline. Such differentials are also very significant within countries. Urban areas and coastal areas are expected to increasingly become centers of gravity of population increase. This will be due mostly to internal (rural-urban) migration since birth rates are already lower in developing regions. Hence with the coming end of global population growth, very significant growth still is expected in urban and coastal areas, particularly in developing countries. This pattern of population dynamics, and particularly its migration component, also is influenced by environmental factors— such as climate conditions, food supply, and easy access—but has important effects on coastal ecosystems. How do these two systems, the human population and the ecosystem, influence each other? Generally speaking, coastal ecosystems can well exist in a sustainable manner without the existence of the human species. Human populations, on the other hand, are critically dependent on functioning ecosystems for their most basic life-support systems (i.e. food, clean air, and clean water), as well as

many other environmental services that improve the quality of life. This asymmetry in mutual dependence makes the human population in principle more vulnerable than the ecosystem. Throughout the centuries humans have developed strategies, technologies, and institutions to diminish this vulnerability and improve their quality of life. Over most of human history these mechanisms have not significantly affected ecosystems. During recent decades, however, these influences have increased dramatically and now not only threaten the functioning of the ecosystems themselves but also may increase the vulnerability of the human population. Figure 1 depicts some key elements of this interaction. The human population consists of individuals living in a defined territory with a certain age and sex distribution, certain socioeconomic and educational levels, certain occupations, and, in some cases, even relevant cultural or ethnic stratifications. The size and composition of such a given population changes over time through the demographic factors of fertility (birth rates), mortality (death rates), and migration (movements into or out of the area). Differential intensities of these changes for different segments of the population—e.g. one ethnic group having a higher birth rate than another, or the characteristics of immigrants being significantly different from those of the resident population— also change the composition of the population over time. In addition, socioeconomic development within the community it-

Figure 1. Schematic relationship between human population systems and coastal ecosystems.

266



self—e.g. improving school enrollment or the introduction of new industries—also changes the composition of the population and alters the way in which the human system interacts with the natural ecosystem in the specific coastal area considered. When studying such population-environment interactions it is important to recognize that what matters for the environment is the sum of the activities of the members of the population with a given size and structure, and not the individual components of change directly. In other words, it is not the birth rates that directly affect the ecosystem, nor is it the process of migration itself (except for the CO2 emissions or other immediate effects of the transport), but rather it is what specific fertility and migration patterns do to the size and structure as well as the institutions of the human population system that then results in certain influential human activities. In our case of coastal systems this is mostly through changes in land use and land cover (e.g. mangrove deforestation), fishing or harvesting from the ecosystem, and pollution from other human activities. The human population affects the ecosystem, but it also profits from it through a wide range of ecosystem services, direct harvesting being only one aspect. When studying the complex interactions between population dynamics and the ecosystem it is important to consider the functioning mechanisms of the full system and not single out one specific factor of change (e.g. only study migrants without considering the dynamics of the resident population) while disregarding the way in which this factor affects the full system that then interacts with the other system. Having said this, it is of course useful and often efficient to pay closer attention to one specific factor and analyze it for studies in which it is of particular importance, as long as the rest of the system is not ignored. For the set of studies on coastal ecosystems discussed in this volume, the key population factor to be given special attention is clearly migration. In the context of population-environment analysis, migration should be defined in the broadest sense. It not only refers to permanent resettlement, but also includes seasonal migration, circular flows, and even tourism. All these movements change the population size and structure in the study areas, and affect the local ecosystem in one way or the other. In this context it is necessary to have a careful view about where people spend what proportions of their time, and what they do during this time that may have consequences on the ecosystem. In particular it is useful to look at specific settlement patterns. Do the people live in a concentrated fashion, or is their settlement more dispersed? It is not always clear which settlement pattern is more benign to the ecosystem, but the mechanisms of ecological changes are often very different for alternative settlement structures. Besides considering the varying types of migration, there are particular dimensions of migration central to the study of the population-consumption-environment phenomenon. These dimensions include migrant selectivity; linkages (social, political, and economic) between migrant origin communities and migrant destination communities; the purpose for migration; the different time horizons between migrants and nonmigrants; and remittance income flows from migrants to origin communities. Migrant selectivity refers to who migrates, specifically migrants’ age, sex, human capital, and financial capital characteristics. Understanding these characteristics provides insights regarding migrants’ consumption patterns of ecosystem services. Identifying the linkages between migrant origins and destinations helps explain the ability of migrants to assimilate the social, economic, political, and cultural mores of a destination. It also affects the time horizons with which they view their resource consumption. Longer time horizons are understood to influence choices about investments in and consumption of ecosystem services. These linkages also affect the flow of migrants from one place to another—the more social and relationship ties beAmbio Vol. 31 No. 4, June 2002

tween places, the greater the flow of migrants (35). Finally, the flow of money from migrants back to households and communities of origin influences consumption in migrant origins, and may relieve pressures on or shift consumption patterns of some ecosystem services (36). To varying degrees the case studies throughout this special issue reflect the numerous ways in which migration influences consumption of ecosystem services. LINKING POPULATION AND ENVIRONMENT THROUGH CONSUMPTION The dilemma for research and policies concerned with the relationship between population and the environment is ultimately about how to improve standards of living for all without diminishing the capabilities for maintenance or further improvement for future generations of humans. In other words, it is about how population is linked to sustainable development, and how sustainable development is linked to ecological outcomes. The critical mediating factor in both these questions is the organization of resources for production and consumption. The difficulties faced by both academics and policy makers is that the causality between population and development is disputed and so is the linkage between development and the environment. Thus, drawing a causal link between population and the environment requires overcoming at least two theoretical and empirical hurdles. This special issue of Ambio is organized to explicitly address the important role of consumption for mediating the relationship between population and environment. We build on a recent volume addressing methodological approaches to understanding population and environment, which shows how central consumption practices are to any analysis of the topic. Lutz and colleagues show how consumption practices vary across populations, and contribute to our understanding of how population systems are linked to ecosystems (37). In this issue, we first present three case studies that highlight how consumption can be differently organized through technology either efficiently or inefficiently (38–40). We highlight how the political, legal and social arrangements of entitlements , specifically common property resource management regimes, mediate between human migration and the ecosystem (41–43). Finally, in the third set of case studies, we highlight how prices, economic subsidies, and markets mediate the relationships between migration and the ecosystem (44–47). The cases illustrate dimensions of these preceding points, but also reveal a complexity of factors (perhaps inherent in the case study approach), which challenge generalizations, at the same time they demand acknowledgement. The largest challenge presented is the globalized and growing world demand for and trade in coastal ecosystem services and products. This special issue of Ambio highlights such products and services as shrimp (38– 40), sea cucumbers (41), fish (42–44), mangroves (45–46), and tourist beaches (47).

References and Notes 1. Ehrlich, P. and Ehrlich, A. 1995. The Population Bomb. Cutchogue, Buccaneer Books, N.Y. 2. Wilson, E.O. (ed.). 1988. Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 3. Keyfitz, N. 1991. Population and development within the ecosphere: One view of the literature. Population Index 57, 5–22. 4. For example, the PLANet Campaign, an advertising endeavor, makes a direct link between contraceptive use and saving tropical rainforests. 5. Leach, M. and Fairhead, J. 2000. Challenging neo-Malthusian deforestation analyses in west Africa’s dynamic forest landscapes. Populat. Develop. Rev. 6. Durning, A. 1992. How Much is Enough? The Worldwatch Environmental Alert Series, W.W. Norton, New York. 7. Dasgupta, P. 2002. Is contemporary economic development sustainable? Ambio 31, 269–271. 8. Brown, L.R. and Kane, H. 1994. Full House: Reassessing the Earth’s Population Carrying Capacity. The Worldwatch Environmental Alert Series, W.W. Norton. New York. 9. World Resources Institute 1995. Natural Resource Consumption. World Resources 1994–1995. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. 10. Jolly, C. and Torrey, B.B. (eds). 1993. Population and Land Use in Developing Countries. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 11. National Research Council. 1997. Environmentally Significant Consumption: Research Directions. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.


267

12. United Nations Development Program. 1997. World Development Report. New York. 13. Cohen, J.E. 1995. How Many People Can the Earth Support? Norton, New York. 14. Cohen, J. and Small, C. 1998. Hypsographic Demography: The Distribution of Human Population by Altitude. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. 15. Hinrichsen, D. 1998. Coastal Waters of the World: Trends, Threats, and Strategies. Island Press, Washington, DC. 16. Long, L. 1990. Population by the Sea. Population Today 18, 6–8. 17. Doos, B.R. 1997. Can large-scale environmental migrations be predicted? Global Environ. Change 7, 41–61. 18. Berkes, F. and Folke, C. 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press, New York. 19. Burke, L., Kura, Y. Kassem, K. Revenga, C. Spalding, M. and McAllister, D. 2001. Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems: Coastal Ecosystems. World Resources Institute. Washington, D.C. Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 stated that “More than half the world’s population lives within 60 km of the shoreline, and this could rise to three quarters by the year 2020.” 20. Cohen et al. (20) challenge similar estimates, using 1994 GIS-based population figures, and estimated that 37% of the world population lived within 100 km of a coastline, 44% within 150 km and 49% lived within 200 km. ICLARM (unpublished statistics) used similar methods for particular developing countries and found large differences among countries. For example, the percentages living within 60 km of a coastline are: southeast Asian and Pacific island countries – 80–100%, India – 14%, China – 13%, west African states – 47%. Cohen, J.E., Small, C. Mellinger, A. Gallup, J. and Sachs, J. 1997. Letter, Science, 278, 1211–1212. 21. Food and Agriculture Organization 2001. World Fisheries and Aquaculture Atlas (CDROM) FAO, United Nations, Rome, Italy. 22. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources 1999. Strategic Plan 2000–2010 ICLARM-The World Fish Center, Manila, PI. 23. Williams, M.J. 1996. The Transition in the Contribution of Living Aquatic Resources to Food Security. International Food Policy Research Institute: Food Agriculture and the Environment Discussion Paper No 13, 41. 24. Hongskul, V. 1999. Into the Next Millennium: Fishery Perspective. FAO/RAP Working Paper Series 1(3). 25. ICLARM- The World Fish Center 2001. Final Report: Sustainable Management of Coastal Fish Stocks in Asia. The World Fish Center, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 26. Pauly, D. and Christensen, V. 1995. Primary production required to sustain global fisheries. Nature. 374, 255–257. 27. Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R. and Torres Jr., F. 1998. Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279, 860–863. 28. Bryant, D., Burke, L., McManus, J. and Spalding, M. 1998. Reefs at Risk: A Map-based Indicator of Threats to the World’s Coral Reefs. World Resources Institute, International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, World Conservation Monitoring Center and United Nations Environment Programme, Washington, D.C. 29. McCarthy, J.J., Canziani, O.F. Leary, N.A. Dokken, D.D. and White, K.S. 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1032. 30. Sorensen, J. 1997. 25th Anniversary invited paper: National and international efforts at integrated coastal management: Definitions, achievements, and lessons. Coastal Mgmt 25, 3–41. 31. Chua, Thia-Eng 1998. Lessons learned from practicing integrated coastal management in southeast Asia. Ambio, 27, 599–610. 32. Christie, P. and White, A.T. 1997. 25th Anniversary invited paper: Trends in development of coastal area management in tropical countries: From central to community orientation. Coastal Mgmt 25, 155–181. 33. International Workshop on Integrated Coastal Management (IWICM) 1996. Enhancing the Success of Integrated Coastal Management: Good Practices in the Formulation, Design, and Implementation of Integrated Coastal Management Initiatives. GEF/ UNDP/IMO, Quezon City, Philippines. 34. Lutz, W., Sanderson, W. and Scherbov, S. 2001. The end of world population growth. Nature 412, 543–545. 35. Massey, D. 1990. Social structure, household strategies, and the cumulative causation of migration. Population Index 56, 3–26. 36. Curran, S.R. 2002. Migration, Social Capital, and the Environment: Considering Migrant Selectivity and Networks in Relation to Coastal Ecosystems. In: Population and Environment: Methods of Analysis, Population and Development Review. Lutz, W. Prskawetz, A. and Sanderson, W. (eds). A supplement to Volume 28, 89–125. 37. Lutz, W., Prskawetz, A. and Sanderson, W. (eds). 2002. Population and Environment: Methods of Analysis, Population and Development Review. A supplement to Volume 28. 38. Lebel, L., Tri, N.H., Saengnoree, A., Pasong, S., Buatama, U. and Thoa, L.K. Industrial transformation and shrimp aquaculture in Thailand and Vietnam. Ambio 31, 311– 323. 39. Bremner, J. and Perez, J. Human migration and the sea cucumber crisis in the Galapagos Islands. Ambio 31, 306–310. 40. Marquette, C.M., Koranteng, K.A., Overå, R. and Bortei-Doku Aryeetey, E. 2002. Small scale fisheries, population dynamics and resource use in Moree, Ghana. Ambio 31, 324– 336. 41. Aswani, S. 2002 Assessing the effects of changing demographic and consumption patterns on sea tenure regimes in the Roviana Lagoon, Solomon Islands. Ambio 31, 272– 284. 42. Gammage, S., Benítez, M. and Machado, M. 2002. Property rights, multiple stakeholders and competing demands: The challenges of mangrove management in El Salvador. Ambio 31, 285–294. 43. Noronha, L., Sreekesh, S., Qureshy, L., Kazi, S., Nairy, S. and Siqueira, A. 2002. Goa: Tourism, migrations, and ecosystem transformations. Ambio 31, 295–302. 44. Barbier, E. and Cox, M. 2002. Economic and demographic factors affecting mangrove loss in the coastal provinces of Thailand, 1979–1996. Ambio 31, 351–357. 45. Adger, W.N., Mick Kelly, P., Winkels, A., Huy, L.Q. and Locke, C. 2002. Migration, remittances, livelihood trajectories, and social resilience. Ambio 31, 358–366. 46. Kramer, R.K., Simanjuntak, S.M.H. and Liese, C. 2002. Migration and fishing in Indonesian coastal villages. Ambio 31, 367–372. 47. Naylor, R.L., Bonine, K.M. Ewel, K.C. and Waguk, E. 2002. Migration, markets, and mangrove resource use on Kosrae, Federated States of Micronesia. Ambio 31, 340– 350.

268

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for their generous support of the research projects reported herein and for the support of the compilation, editing, and publication of this special issue through a grant to the Office of Population Research at Princeton University. We would also like to gratefully acknowledge the superb project assistance provided by Melanie Adams of the Office of Population Research at Princeton University, copyediting provided by Florence Barone, the excellent and diligent research assistance of Susan Cassels, project assistance by Michael Chokr, the outstanding organizational support for our roundtable discussion provided by Louise Cross of the Faculty of Economics at Cambridge University, the very efficient and timely mapping assistance provided by T. Wangyal Shawa of the GeoSciences Library at Princeton University, technical assistance provided by Emily Dodge of the OPR computing core, and Elisabeth Kessler of Ambio for her continued and valued support shepherding us through this project. The United Nations conferences in the 1990s included: Earth Summit—Rio de Janeiro, 1992; World Conference on Human Rights—Vienna 1993; ICPD— Cairo, 1994; World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction—Yokohama, 1994; Global Conference on Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States—Bridgetown, 1994; World Summit on Trade Efficiency— Columbus, OH, 1994; World Summit for Social Development—Copenhagen 1995; Conference on Straddling & High Migratory Fish Stocks—New York, 1995; Fourth World Conference on Women—Beijing, 1995; Second United Nations Summit on Human Settlements —Istanbul, 1996; World Food Summit— Rome, 1996; Ninth Session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development—South Africa, 1996. Exceptional synergies did emerge across some of the UN summits, e.g. Cairo and Beijing and Vienna and Cairo.

Sara R. Curran is Assistant Professor of Sociology and Director of Undergraduate Studies in Sociology at Princeton University. She researches population and environment issues, globalization, gender and family demography, migration, and Thailand. Curran received her PhD in Sociology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, MS from North Carolina State and BS in Natural Resources from the University of Michigan. Her address: 153 Wallace Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA. E-mail: [email protected] As Senior Program Officer at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Anu Kumar was responsible for grant making in the area of population, consumption, and the environment. Anu holds a PhD in anthropology and a Masters in Public Health from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her areas of expertise include women’s reproductive health, South Asia, and qualitative research methodologies. She is currently Executive VicePresident of IPAS, an international women’s health organization. Her address: IPAS, 300 Market Street, Suite 200, Chapel Hill, NC 27516, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Wolfgang Lutz is Leader of the Population Project at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Laxenburg, Austria, Director of the Institute for Demography of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, and Adjunct Professor in Demography and Social Statistics at the University of Vienna. Lutz received his PhD and MA in Demography at the University of Pennsylvania, USA. His research interests include fertility, the family, population and environment. His address: IIASA, Population Program, Schlossplatz 1, A-2361, Laxenburg, Austria. Meryl Williams was appointed Director General of ICLARM – The World Fish Center, in 1993. She holds a PhD in Zoology and a Masters Degree in Literary Studies (mathematical statistics). She was previously Director of the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and Executive Director of the former Bureau of Rural Resources in the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Canberra. She is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, a board member of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a member of the FAO Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research and an advisory committee member for the MacArthur Foundation Population, Consumption and Environment initiative. Her address: ICLARM, World Bank Center, Jalan Batu Maun, Batu Maung, 11 Bayan Lepas, MALASIA. E-mail: [email protected]

