DATOS DE CONSUMO REALES DE AGUA EN LA ZONA

To gather background information, preliminary visits and structured interviews were conducted in the three villages on Koh Klang in October 2016. During this period, a total of 21 interviews with key informants were performed. Interviewees were recruited using the snowball technique (Bryman 2016), and included the local government head of Klong Prasong, village heads (n = 2), inshore fishers (n = 6), local leaders of environmental groups (n = 2), fishers and mangrove resource collectors (n = 11). The interviews lasted for approximately 60 minutes and were conducted in Thai with the aid of an interpreter. Informants were questioned about how they interact with the coastal

ecosystem, their views on coastal ecosystem health, and the causes of ecosystem change over their lifetime. Each interview was conducted either in an individual’s home or in a community building. In addition, to provide a deeper understanding of local ecosystem use, several days were spent with inshore fishers and mangrove users to observe how they interact and use the local coastal ecosystems.

6.2.2.2 Workshops

Following the preliminary visit to the study site in October 2016, 8 workshops were conducted with residents living on Koh Klang over a three-week period in April 2017. The workshops focused on two of the three villages on the island: Village 1 (Ban Ko Klang) and Village 3 (Ban Klongkam). Selection of the two villages was based on the following criteria: (i) differences in the proximity to and ease of access to mangrove and coastal resources, and (ii) differences in the type of primary livelihood activities people were engage in. Village 3 is located in close proximity to the mangrove forests and main beach area, and these resources are the primary source of income for many villagers. Whereas, village 1 is located further from the beach and main mangrove area on the island, and local people are involved in a wider range of livelihood activities, such as rice culture and the tourism industry.

A total of 72 individuals from the 2 villages participated in the workshops. The participants from each village were split into four groups representing different ages and occupations. The total sample was divided first into age groups segmenting the

population into two generations: <35 years and >35 years. The two groups in each village were then split by occupation, representing groups of people who were primarily engaged in work related to the use of local natural resources (e.g. fisher, farmer), and groups of people who were primarily engaged in activities not related to the use of local natural resources natural (e.g. taxi boatman, market seller). Thus, comparisons could be made between different groups of people. Comparisons were based on the variables; (i) age (experience of ecosystems), (ii) occupation (engagement with ecosystems for livelihood), (iii) space (distance to physical features), and place (village of residence). Across all workshops, the age of participants ranged from 17 to 77 years old. Groups were formed of a mixture of both male and female participants at differing male:female ratios. All participants had resided in the study area all their life. A description of the workshop participants is shown in the Appendix.

Various participatory activities were conducted during the workshops to elicit local ecological knowledge about (1) ecosystem features, (2) the status of the ecosystem features over time, (3) drivers of ecosystem change, and (4) definitions of ecosystem health. Participatory map drawing (McCall and Minang 2005) of ecological features on the island and participatory timeline building of trends in the status of the ecosystem were used during the workshops to aid discussions.

All workshops were conducted in Thai, with the assistance of a translator, and were recorded with the participants’ permission. To enable comparisons to be made across each group, each workshop followed the same structure (Morgan et al. 1998), however the conversations were freely conducted, giving opportunity for the exploration of the participants’ knowledge. An informal setting also offered the opportunity to observe and gain insight into the local setting and every-day life activities in the villages.

6.2.3 Data analysis

6.2.3.1 Definitions and drivers of ecosystem health

The workshops were recorded and transcribed with the assistance of a translator. Data from the transcripts, maps and graphs were coded (Saldana 2015) using NVivo 12 software and explored using comparative analysis. Initially, the data was examined to identify common themes and patterns of words used, and their frequency. Pre-defined codes were then applied to the data to explore emerging patterns, ideas and notions of ecosystem health. The pre-defined codes and sub-codes used in the analysis are presented in Table. The codes were based on characteristics of the definition and description of ecosystem health from the literature. Costanza (1992) states that definitions of ecosystem health should account for scales of space and time and combine; (i) a description of the system, (ii) measures of system resilience, balance, organisation (diversity, connectivity), and vigour (metabolism, productivity), and (iii) weighted factors to compare the system components in terms of function and

sustainability. Following this, comparative analysis of the themes of discussion and the types of words used (Ragin 2014) was conducted across study sites, age groups,

occupation groups, and groups that vary by their distance to physical features. In the results section presented below, codes are used when displaying quotations in order to identify the individual by age (Younger (<35)/ Older (>35)), occupation (ecosystem related (ER)/ Non-ecosystem related (NER)) and place of residence (Village 1(V1)/ Village 3(V3).

Table 6.1. List of codes and sub-codes used in the analysis of data on the perception of ecosystem health among workshop participants on Koh Klang. Designed following Costanza (1992) definitions of ecosystem health.

Codes Sub-codes

System Components Species, physical features (forest, beach, sea), seasons

Measures of Resilience Overall system performance, ecological status, influences/stress on health, environmental change, human impacts

Measures of Balance Stability of seasons, species abundance, diversity and distribution

Measures of Organisation Diversity of species, structure, connectivity, predictability Measures of Vigour Fertility, productivity

Ecosystem function and sustainability

Function and sustainability to humans, and to other components of the system

6.2.3.2 Perception of coastal ecosystem services

Further coding of the transcripts was conducted using NVivo 12 software to explore how local people value the ecosystem in relation to the ecosystem services provided. The transcripts were coded based on four ecosystem service types: Provisioning, Cultural, Regulating, and Supporting, as they are categorised by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report (MA 2005). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report defines Provisioning services as ‘Products obtained from ecosystems (e.g. food

and water)’, Cultural services as ‘Non-material benefits obtained from ecosystems (e.g. cultural heritage)’, Regulating services as ‘Benefits obtained from regulation of

ecosystems (e.g. climate regulation and water purification)’, and Supporting services as

‘Services needed for the production of all other ecosystem services (e.g. nutrient

cycling)’. To analyse the relative importance of different ecosystem services to each

workshop group, the number of times a given ecosystem service (such as nursery habitat or wood provision) was mentioned was summed for each group. Differences in the mean frequency of mentions of each ecosystem service type were then statistically compared across the different groups (defined by age, occupation, and place of

residence) using Welch’s independent t-test. All statistical tests were computed in the R statistical program.

6.3 Results