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 en-
vironmentalists and lay people that uncontrolled population
growth was responsible for environmental degradation of all
types. This neo-Malthusian belief originally surfaced in the pub-
lication 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 of-
ten 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 assump-
tions about environmental change may be misleading (5). Nu-
merous critics have pointed out that consumption of resources
by citizens of the global North is at least as important in explain-
ing environmental degradation as population growth (6, 7). On
the other hand, growing consumer demand in developing coun-
tries also portends threats to the environment (e.g. the growing
middle class in China and India), and does not contradict state-
ments about how high population growth is a cause of environ-
mental degradation (8, 9). In other words, the sheer number of
people does not on its own explain the dire state that many eco-
systems are in—how people and institutions use those resources,
or consume them, is as important (10). The organization of con-
sumption then becomes a key mediating factor.
The issue of consumption, how to measure it, and its relation-
ship to resource use is poorly understood (11) and has many dif-
ferent 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 re-
sources, 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 meaning-
ful manner. The dearth of good research on this topic is not sur-
prising. For one thing, the topic spans at least three major disci-
plines (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 gen-
erated 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 or-
264 © Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2002
http://www.ambio.kva.se
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 con-
sumption 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 mi-
gration (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 im-
pose dramatic constraints on land use as world sea levels rise
(14, 17). Coastal ecosystems are among the most rich and di-
verse in the world, providing important global functions (eco-
system services) for marine ecosystems and atmospheric com-
position. 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 open-
access 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 hu-
man 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 under-
standing how changing human population structure affects eco-
system 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 evi-
dence 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). Echo-
ing 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 ex-
tent (21–23). This is especially true in the Asian region (24),
where many coastal fish stocks are down to only 10% to 30%
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 com-
munities has changed, as larger and more valuable fish have been
taken (26, 27) and smaller, faster-growing, and less valuable spe-
cies 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 re-
gion, 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 pol-
luted by industrial, agricultural, urban, and environmental con-
tamination. The small island developing states of the Pacific, In-
dian Ocean, and Caribbean face particular challenges on the
coasts, which typically represent their whole territory.
International attention to coastal ecosystems is marked by con-
cerns about stewardship at the national and sub-national levels.
The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and De-
velopment devoted a chapter to the coastal zone in its final re-
port. 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 vulnerabil-
ity 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 coun-
tries, the reasons are thought to lie in the accessibility of coastal
lands that attract ports, industries, cities, and economic oppor-
tunity. 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 farm-
ers, 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, sedi-
ment, 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 eco-
nomic 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, surpris-
ingly 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 con-
sumption and the coastal environment.
In the United States, demographic concerns are rarely incor-
porated 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, sup-
ported by newsletters, scientific journals, meetings, conferences,
and planning and management activities. Similar efforts now
Ambio Vol. 31 No. 4, June 2002 © Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2002
http://www.ambio.kva.se
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 gov-
ernment agencies; and vertical – of different levels of govern-
ment from local to international, across land and sea, across sci-
entific disciplines, and across the research, planning, and man-
agement spectrum (31). Thus, the need for integrated approaches
has been well recognized in coastal management and its support-
ing 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 manage-
ment practices have focused strongly on the institutional, envi-
ronmental, 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 poli-
cies 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 hu-
man population numbers. The world’s population grew from 1.6
billion at the beginning of the century to 6.1 billion in 2000. Dur-
ing the late 1960s, global population growth was peaking at a
record rate of about 2% a year. But the absolute number of peo-
ple 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 begin-
ning 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 liv-
ing 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. De-
mographic transition then continues with birth rates also start-
ing to fall after a certain lag—as an adjustment to higher child
survival, general modernization of society, and a mental transi-
tion in which family limitation becomes part of conscious deci-
sion 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 univer-
sal 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 be-
come significantly older. But it is important to notice that this
trend is very uneven in different parts of the world. The popu-
lation 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 ar-
eas and coastal areas are expected to increasingly become centers
of gravity of population increase. This will be due mostly to in-
ternal (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 mi-
gration 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 spe-
cies. Human populations, on the other hand, are critically de-
pendent on functioning ecosystems for their most basic life-sup-
port systems (i.e. food, clean air, and clean water), as well as
Figure 1.
Schematic relationship
between human
population systems and
coastal ecosystems.
266 © Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2002
http://www.ambio.kva.se
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 dra-
matically and now not only threaten the functioning of the eco-
systems 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 ter-
ritory with a certain age and sex distribution, certain socioeco-
nomic 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), mor-
tality (death rates), and migration (movements into or out of the
area). Differential intensities of these changes for different seg-
ments of the population—e.g. one ethnic group having a higher
birth rate than another, or the characteristics of immigrants be-
ing significantly different from those of the resident population—
also change the composition of the population over time. In ad-
dition, socioeconomic development within the community it-
Ambio Vol. 31 No. 4, June 2002
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 mi-
gration patterns do to the size and structure as well as the insti-
tutions of the human population system that then results in cer-
tain 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 ecosys-
tem, and pollution from other human activities. The human popu-
lation 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 func-
tioning mechanisms of the full system and not single out one
specific factor of change (e.g. only study migrants without con-
sidering the dynamics of the resident population) while disre-
garding 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 par-
ticular importance, as long as the rest of the system is not ig-
nored. For the set of studies on coastal ecosystems discussed in
this volume, the key population factor to be given special atten-
tion is clearly migration.
In the context of population-environment analysis, migration
should be defined in the broadest sense. It not only refers to per-
manent resettlement, but also includes seasonal migration, cir-
cular 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 nec-
essary 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 use-
ful 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 di-
mensions include migrant selectivity; linkages (social, political,
and economic) between migrant origin communities and migrant
destination communities; the purpose for migration; the differ-
ent time horizons between migrants and nonmigrants; and re-
mittance income flows from migrants to origin communities.
Migrant selectivity refers to who migrates, specifically mi-
grants’ age, sex, human capital, and financial capital character-
istics. Understanding these characteristics provides insights re-
garding migrants’ consumption patterns of ecosystem services.
Identifying the linkages between migrant origins and destinations
helps explain the ability of migrants to assimilate the social, eco-
nomic, political, and cultural mores of a destination. It also af-
fects the time horizons with which they view their resource con-
sumption. 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 be-
Ambio Vol. 31 No. 4, June 2002 © Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2002
http://www.ambio.kva.se
tween places, the greater the flow of migrants (35). Finally, the
flow of money from migrants back to households and commu-
nities 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 rela-
tionship between population and the environment is ultimately
about how to improve standards of living for all without dimin-
ishing 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 sus-
tainable development is linked to ecological outcomes. The criti-
cal 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, draw-
ing a causal link between population and the environment re-
quires 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 vol-
ume addressing methodological approaches to understanding
population and environment, which shows how central consump-
tion 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 arrange-
ments 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 pre-
sented 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 be-
tween 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 Se-
ries, 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 Car-
rying 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 Coun-
tries. 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 Hu-
man 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 fig-
ures, and estimated that 37% of the world population lived within 100 km of a coast-
line, 44% within 150 km and 49% lived within 200 km. ICLARM (unpublished statis-
tics) used similar methods for particular developing countries and found large differ-
ences among countries. For example, the percentages living within 60 km of a coast-
line 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 (CD-
ROM) 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 Work-
ing 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 fish-
eries. 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, Interna-
tional Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, World Conservation Moni-
toring 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. Cli-
mate 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 develop-
ment of coastal area management in tropical countries: From central to community ori-
entation. Coastal Mgmt 25, 155–181.
33. International Workshop on Integrated Coastal Management (IWICM) 1996. Enhanc-
ing the Success of Integrated Coastal Management: Good Practices in the Formula-
tion, 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 Mi-
grant 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. Indus-
trial 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 pat-
terns 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 In-
donesian 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 © Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2002
http://www.ambio.kva.se
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 outstand-
ing 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 Devel-
oping 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 Na-
tions Summit on Human Settlements —Istanbul, 1996; World Food Summit—
Rome, 1996; Ninth Session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and De-
velopment—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: curran@Princeton.edu
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 Vice-
President of IPAS, an international women’s health
organization. Her address: IPAS, 300 Market Street,
Suite 200, Chapel Hill, NC 27516, USA.
E-mail: KumarA@ipas.org
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: m.j.williams@cgiar.org
Ambio Vol. 31 No. 4, June 2002