Environmental change and resource access in aquatic food systems: a Photovoice case study of Cambodian fisheries

Abstract

Ecosystem services and the biodiversity that supports them directly provision food and livelihoods to millions around the world within environments increasingly facing multifaceted changes. Yet the perspectives of resource users on the value of those resources and the challenges they face amid social-ecological change are still too often poorly understood. In this study, we use Photovoice methodology and a social-ecological systems perspective to understand the value of access to fish resources and the impacts of changing access for small-scale fishing communities in Cambodia. Contrasting the perspectives of households in different ecological settings, including adjacent to the Tonle Sap Lake and within its floodplain, revealed stark differences in the experiences of regulation enforcement and fisheries management for communities that had viable alternatives to fishing compared to those without options beyond fishing. The study addresses the need to understand both the lived experiences of those on the frontlines of environmental changes, and to disentangle the heterogeneous experiences across and within communities to improve resource management and community support in complex, changing social-ecological systems.

INTRODUCTION

The ecosystem services upon which we all rely have long been recognized as providing critical support for human well-being (Carpenter et al. 2009, Agarwala et al. 2014, Selig et al. 2018). Yet within many communities environmental change threatens the future of these vital resources that support direct access to food and livelihoods for millions around the world (Pörtner et al. 2021). Although communities and individuals are key stakeholders in managing ecosystem-based adaptations to environmental change (New et al. 2022), structural inequalities and power imbalances impact who is most vulnerable and how they are able to participate in such adaptations (Ma et al. 2014). Freshwater fisheries exemplify these interactions.

Wild fisheries in inland waters have long provided a critical source of nutrition, as well as food and job security for communities on their shores. Freshwater ecosystems are an established source of biodiversity: freshwaters comprise 1% of Earth’s water, yet are home to some 40% of the world's fish species and contributed 13.3 million metric tons of fish to global harvests in 2019 (FAO 2022). Reported catch, however, often omits small-scale inland fisheries, which are overlooked in international reporting (Funge-Smith and Bennett 2019). While better documenting of catch quantities and biodiversity within small-scale fisheries is of critical importance, so too is appreciating the perspectives of the people who live nearby to, work in, and rely on global freshwater fisheries. A growing understanding of the role that catch from small-scale fisheries plays in household consumption and livelihoods highlights how these critical ecosystem services contribute to human well-being and underpin regional food systems (Fluet-Chouinard et al. 2018, Lynch et al. 2020, Robinson et al. 2022).

Cambodia’s Tonle Sap Lake and surrounding floodplain support one of the most productive (Funge-Smith and Bennett 2019) and biodiverse (Baran et al. 2014) freshwater ecosystems. Cambodia’s inland fish harvest ranks fifth in the world (FAO 2020). Further, fish provide more than 50% of the average animal protein intake in Cambodia (FAO 2020). Yet monitoring of the Cambodian dai fishery since 1997 has shown a downward trend in catch (Ngor et al. 2018). Declines in fish catch have been attributed to overfishing (Ngor et al. 2018) and flood extent (Halls and Hortle 2021), possibly driven by interacting effects of climate change, seasonality, and land use change on hydrology (Pokhrel et al. 2018). Complex socio-environmental dynamics, such as intensification of rice farming and habitat fragmentation, climate change (Fiorella et al. 2021b, Hoang et al. 2016), and dams on the Mekong River (Pokhrel et al. 2018) further threaten biodiversity, productivity, and local access to fish in the Tonle Sap Lake and its floodplain. These shifts have ramifications across Cambodia’s fisheries, including the Mekong, Tonle Sap Lake, and within the rice field and flooded forest ecosystems throughout the flood plain.

The governance of Cambodian fisheries today arises from a long history of marginalization and intensifying pressures faced by small-scale fishing communities. Historically, Cambodian fisheries were governed by a “lot” system that granted large fishing concessions to harvesters and awarded fishery rights to the highest bidder (Dina and Sato 2015, Kim et al. 2019). As the Khmer Rouge regime rose to power, however, its oppression of Cambodian people focused on mandating rice production and largely prohibited fishing, enabling fishery resources to recover (Dina and Sato 2015). When the Khmer Rouge was pushed out, the lot system returned and soon allowed substantial fishing by foreign interests (Dina and Sato 2015). In March 2012, however, the fishing lot system was abruptly abolished to secure fishers’ votes in a close national election and lots were converted to community fishing grounds (Dina and Sato 2015). Yet large-scale, illegal commercial fishing has long infringed on community rights to community fishing grounds. Communities have documented nets more than 1000 m long blocking waterways in order to collect fish, illegal cutting of the sensitive flooded forest habitats that are critical to fish spawning, as well as use of electric fishing methods that indiscriminately kill fish (Bandler 2018). In 2019, within the complex context of environmental change, community governance, and limited regulation enforcement, we seek to make visible the experience of small-scale fishing communities.

Contextualizing the catch of small-scale fishers and the challenges they face is fundamental to managing aquatic resources and understanding the true value of small-scale fisheries on biodiversity. Such perspectives provide relevant information about social conflicts and inequities that result from unequal distribution of, and access to, natural resources by different groups. It can also redress concerns about equitable planning for environmental and climate change (Bennett et al. 2015). Rural communities in Cambodia are on the frontlines of socio-environmental changes, and their understanding of the value of aquatic biodiversity in communities and the ways it is being threatened are fundamental to the governance of these systems and the well-being of people that depend on them. This study documented local perceptions of both the role of inland fisheries in the lives of Cambodian households, and the challenges faced by small-scale fishing families in these systems.

We used Photovoice, a community-based participatory research method of photo elicitation accompanied by interviews and focus groups (Wang and Burris 1994, Catalani and Minkler 2010), to allow community members to identify, depict, and describe the values and obstacles they perceived within their own small-scale inland fisheries. Uncertainty about the impacts of external and environmental changes is often highest for small-scale producers in low-income settings (e.g., Kao et al. 2020). Further, full-time fishers and those that integrate fishing within a portfolio of livelihoods activities are active within the system (Sok 2019), making them well-placed to share a diversity of perspectives and issues faced by small-scale fisheries in the context of uncertainty and environmental change. The Photovoice methodology centers the experiences of these community members and provides a unique vantage point for them to communicate about issues of greatest concern to them. We take a social-ecological systems approach to understand the ways community members perceive their well-being within the system while recognizing the integration and feedbacks between natural and social systems (De Garine-Wichatitsky et al. 2021). Our approach positions small-scale fishing communities in Cambodia as the starting point in generating knowledge on the value of natural systems and biodiversity to resource users and as central stakeholders in the sustainable management of these systems.

Our approach responds to calls for social science research in fisheries (Barclay et al. 2017, Bennett et al. 2017) and builds on successful efforts using Photovoice to understand dynamics within small-scale fisheries (Pierce 2020, Simmance et al. 2022). In doing so, we use Photovoice to document the place-specific, situated experiences of fishing community members. Such perspectives are fundamental to creating a robust understanding of interactions between livelihoods and environmental change, and ultimately underlie successful resource management. We aimed to incorporate community knowledge, perspectives, and experiences through Photovoice methodology with the following objectives: (1) to place local communities as the main source of knowledge on social-ecological dynamics to depict and elucidate their perspectives and experiences on the complex relationships between human well-being and natural resources; (2) to understand place-based and gender differences in how communities value and experience fish and other aquatic resources; and (3) to depict and describe challenges impacting access to aquatic resources.

METHODS

Study Context

This research project was a collaborative effort between a group of Cambodian and United States (US) researchers and was conducted with the guidance and support of the Center for Khmer Studies. The Center for Khmer Studies promotes research and international scholarly exchange to strengthen Cambodian cultural and educational structures and bridge historical and contemporary experiences for the Khmer people. Photovoice was identified as a methodology of interest to the Center for Khmer Studies, and US and Cambodian students worked together to implement the research project within the Siem Reap region.

Four communities were purposively selected to capture diversity of fishing activities. Selections were made in partnership with the Center for Khmer Studies, with advice from WorldFish. All villages were located within Siem Reap province, a provincial capital and Cambodia’s second largest city. Two villages were adjacent to the Tonle Sap Lake located about 30-50km from Siem Reap, while two villages within the rice field fisheries were approximately 50 km from Tonle Sap Lake.

Communities Adjacent to Tonle Sap Lake

During the wet season, there is annual flooding of the Tonle Sap Lake as monsoon rains and waters from the Mekong River swell the lake to cover up to five times the dry season area (Chea et al. 2016). The flooding that is produced during these monsoon seasons provides a habitat that maintains an incredible diversity of aquatic species, including fish and other aquatic animals. The resulting wetlands, streams, channels, rice fields, and flooded forests provide a vital source of food, nutrition, and livelihood for the millions of Cambodians populating these areas (Campbell et al. 2006). Households within this floodplain experience substantial seasonal shifts to their way of life, livelihoods, and transportation across these seasons. For instance, homes are built on stilts to accommodate the flood, and communities adjacent to Tonle Sap Lake become a “floating village” where the only mode of transportation is by boat. Fishing patterns shift across these periods as well, with seasonal regulations for some species, varied fishing methods, and shifting accessibility and desirability of fishing habitats.

Communities Within Rice Field Fisheries

Located further away from the Tonle Sap Lake (~50 km), these villages are embedded in Cambodia’s rice field fisheries, a unique habitat that includes rivers, rice fields, tributaries, and annual and seasonal water bodies (Freed et al. 2020). While they do not experience the same degree of flooding, these communities experience seasonal influxes of water that are managed across the landscape and drive strong seasonal patterns. To improve fishery productivity and provide a refuge source of fish, these communities use Community Fish Refuges (CFRs), which are protected areas designed to support and increase fish populations (Joffre et al. 2012). However, fish availability varies considerably between individual CFRs and with changing annual conditions (Fiorella et al. 2019). Within rice field fishing communities, households typically engage in a suite of livelihood activities, including agricultural production, fishing, fish preservation methods, and other activities (Teh et al. 2019, Wang et al. 2023).

Participant Selection

This study included participants (n = 37) from 24 households in four different fishing villages adjacent to the Tonle Sap Lake and from communities within its floodplain to examine multiple settings in which people engage with aquatic biodiversity in Cambodia. We focused on participants whose lives and livelihoods were highly intertwined with the seasonal patterns of fishing. Our study took part during the dry season, in July–August 2019. When possible, men and women from the same household were included in the study.

To address the power dynamics that exist between researchers and communities, community chiefs were approached regarding the study and provided information about the study activities, including that photographic data would be returned to communities and focus group discussions would facilitate the processing of group experiences. This process facilitated the opportunity for communities and/or chiefs to share findings with local commune governments, should they elect to.

Chiefs identified active fishing households within their communities, who were invited to join the study. The reception of researchers was positive, both among chiefs and research community members, who were interested in sharing their experiences.

Ethical Review

The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Cornell University Committee on Human Research and the Ethical Review Committee and our partners at the Center for Khmer Studies. Participants were provided with a small token of appreciation for their time and participation.

Photovoice Process

Photovoice is a methodology that combines the elicitation of photos, interviews about them, and community discussion of the images and emergent themes, with the goal of generating community empowerment and action (Wang and Burris 1994). We aimed to allow participants to depict and give voice to the contexts, challenges, and values they wished to share and discuss within their community about their fishing livelihoods. Given the context of governance within the study region and to avoid concerns about false hopes for social change (e.g., Johnston 2016, Liebenberg 2018), we focused on outcomes related to individual empowerment and understanding of community challenges and assets (Fig. 1), adapted from the Photovoice process described by Catalani and Minkler (2010).

Photovoice training workshops were conducted in each community at the start of the research process. All participants and the village chief attended the workshops. The workshops were conducted in Khmer and provided instruction on conceptual elements of Photovoice (e.g., project goals), ethical issues (e.g., consent, avoiding photographs of people), and technical dimensions (how to use the camera, who to contact with any problems, composition; Catalani and Minkler 2010). Participants were asked to document “the story of fish diversity in your life.” Prompts were given to ask participants to show where fish fit into their livelihoods, cooking, food, or other activities.

Participants, including those from the same household, were each provided with a digital camera. They used the camera to document images on the topic for 5–6 days, including weekdays and weekends, to capture the range of their interactions with fish in their daily lives. Participants returned following this period to take part in interviews about the photographs with the Cambodian and US research team. All interviews were conducted individually, even when two participants from the same household participated. Participants selected 1–3 photographs to discuss during the interview and to share during the focus group discussions. Interviews used an adapted SHOWeD method (Wang 1999) to capture what participants see (S), what is really happening (H), how it relates to their (“our”) lives (O), why the situation exists (We), what could be done about (D), and to title the photograph. All individual interviews were audio recorded.

Following the individual interviews, we conducted six gender-divided focus groups; four of the focus group discussions were conducted within each community adjacent to Tonle Sap Lake (i.e., 2 focus groups with female participants, 2 focus groups with male participants), and two were conducted with combined communities within the rice field fisheries due to smaller numbers of participants (i.e., 1 focus group with female participants, 1 focus group with male participants). Each group had 5-10 participants. The gender division allowed for participants to feel more comfortable speaking freely about gendered experiences. The focus groups offered a space for participants to share their selected photographs and reflect on themes that emerged across photographs, with a focus on individual empowerment and the challenges and assets of the community. All focus group discussions were audio recorded.

Data Analysis

Audio data from the individual participant interviews and focus group data were reviewed with Khmer translators and transcribed into English. Identifiable features of photographs were blurred to protect the identity of participants and their communities.

Textual data were analyzed by two members of the US research team using Atlas.ti. An initial codebook was jointly developed by Khmer translators and US researchers based on initial reflections on interviews and focus groups. We used descriptive coding to generate additional codes based on content from the transcripts (Saldaña 2009). As new codes emerged during the coding process, the codebook was further refined and expanded and previously coded transcripts were re-reviewed with the refined codebook. To assess reliability and consistency in coding, both coders coded 10 of the interviews and discussed the application of each code to ensure consistency and updated the codebook as necessary. Forty-one thematic codes were applied to the data. The most common codes were the following: Fishing income, meaning the income generated directly from fishing activities; Seasonality, reflecting the flood-pulse seasonality within the system; Alternative livelihoods, including the breadth of non-fishing activities participants discussed; Fish consumption, including fish, mollusks, and other aquatic foods discussed as a food source; and Fish biodiversity, reflecting the diversity of fish and other aquatic species within the ecosystem and/or diets.

The codes were used to identify key themes from the interviews. Thematic memos were used to collate data and quotations and to link the qualitative data to the visual data from participant photographs. Memos were used to bring together thematic areas across different interviews, and the thematic memos formed the basis for the results section.

RESULTS

Participant Demographics

Our study engaged participants in two communities around the Tonle Sap Lake and two communities within the rice field fisheries (Table 1). The gender of participants was balanced, with the exception of community 4 where only one woman elected to participate. All participants were married, and all identified as Khmer. Across communities, participants had similar educational attainment with the majority completing some primary school. Across all participants, the average age was 44 and participant ages ranged from 25–64. While 15 participants were over 50, only 6 were under 30, reflecting a skew to older individuals in our sample that we suggest is a response of input of village leadership in our recruitment strategy and community demographics reflecting out-migration of younger generations.

Fishing activities and alternative livelihoods differed substantially between communities adjacent to the Tonle Sap Lake and within the rice field fisheries. Men and women in communities adjacent to the Tonle Sap reported their households were predominantly engaged in year-round, full-time fishing. Participants from rice-field fishing communities were part-time fishers and most engaged in a range of other livelihood activities.

Households self-assessed their economic situation and reported relatively higher economic well-being than would be expected based on subsequent interview findings. This reporting may be due to convening in a group context (though participants responded in private to these questions), the noise around a singular measurement of economic well-being, and/or that the self-assessed measure of economic well-being is a measure of perception rather than experience or income.

Value of Natural Resources

In all communities, fish provided a key source of nutritious food and supported community members’ livelihoods. These dual values often positioned fisheries and the benefits they provided as central to community perspectives on well-being. One participant encapsulated this sentiment, saying, “The biodiversity of fish provides me with many benefits. It provides food for my family, and helps me with expenses like putting my children in school and buying other necessary materials.” (man, 47y, Tonle Sap community)

Participants believed that fish consumption was a vital component to their diets. A male participant (57y) in a community adjacent to the Tonle Sap Lake stated that “the diversity of fish and the biodiversity surrounding my community is vital to my family’s survival. The various types of fish and other aquatic animals can provide my family with enough food and good nutrition.” Another participant stated that “When we eat fish, it keeps us in good health. It is better than eating vegetables” (woman, 26y, Tonle Sap community). Fish consumption was also perceived as important to maintaining good health: “Fish are important because I eat them every day and I don’t get sick...Fish have vitamins and other things...They help us remain healthy” (woman, 36y, Tonle Sap community). Participants described the nutritional value of fish and how those nutrients supported participants to carry out their daily activities.

The diversity of fish that participants caught were evident in the images of diverse species and meal preparations shared (Fig. 2). Women and children prepared fish depending on the size and quantity of their fish catch. Fish were smoked, dried, or turned into fish paste so that they may be preserved for when the catch was small. Participants captured images of the wide diversity of fish species caught and used by households, including fish from a range of sizes and species, as well as crabs and mollusks. Opportunities for fish preservation were also highlighted. As one participant stated, “[Fish] has a lot of benefits, such as for food and keeping as fermented food for other season[s]” (male, 35y, rice field fishery community).

Household members worked together to catch, prepare, and sell fish. Across all communities, participants expressed that men did the majority of fishing, women and children prepared the fish, and women took surplus catch to market for sale. The sale of catch was underscored as providing for the family, including school fees and needs of children. Participant images mirrored these sentiments, with women and men often depicting the work they did to prepare or catch fish, respectively, including sorting and sale of fish (Fig. 2).

Both men and women espoused the pride they felt in making use of fish to support their families (Fig. 2). Many of the female participants were proud to show the significance of their roles and expertise in preparing a variety of meals for their family, regardless of the type or size of the fish caught that day. They were also proud to describe their pivotal role in earning an income for their family by sorting and selling fish at market. Male participants’ pride materialized in statements about their “honest occupation” as a fisher. Multiple male participants displayed photographs signifying the importance of fishing for their livelihoods. As one male participant explained, “I took this picture because I want you to know that I only earn income solely from my occupation as a fisherman” (male, 57y, Tonle Sap community). Another participant discussed a photo of his friend holding a net in a location where they have been fishing since he was a boy, he stated, “I feel happy because this photo represents an honest occupation due to my devotion of counting on my absolute effort to provide for my family” (male, 26y, Tonle Sap community).

The “struggle”

Despite the diversity of fish and importance of fishing for livelihoods, the precarity of that provisioning was also repeatedly articulated by participants given the uncertainty of catch (Fig. 3). One participant described this uncertainty by stating, “I keep 1kg for eating in the morning and 1kg for dinner. And I sell the rest. Some days, I catch a lot like 10kg. Some days, I don't catch any.” (woman, 48y, Tonle Sap community).

There was also a clear bifurcation regarding the challenges of fishing between communities. The communities adjacent to the Tonle Sap Lake were more concerned about the future of their livelihoods and described feeling constrained by their location given fewer alternative occupational opportunities. As one Tonle Sap Lake-adjacent participant stated, “I feel happy when I make a big catch and sad when I make a small catch. I’m sad when I make a small catch because I can’t earn enough money to pay for expenses like my children schooling and provide for my family” (man, 46y). Similarly, another participant shared, “This picture is very important to me [because] I see the variety of fish I catch in one day. The significance of this picture [is it] shows my struggle of life as a fisherman, meeting unexpected difficulties, but only able to earn little income” (man, 57y, Tonle Sap community). Likewise, in describing a picture of the meal she had prepared, one participant stated, “It shows the struggle of our survival and our poor living conditions. It shows that we are poor” (woman, 57y, Tonle Sap community). The struggle of the life of a fisherman is due to a multitude of issues, but seasonal changes were a recurring challenge described by many participants from these villages. As one participant stated, “dry season is a challenging season to catch fish due to shallow water. The population of fish is declining during the dry season” (male, 26y, Tonle Sap community). When the heavy rainfall ends and the lake begins to recede, the dry season begins and the access to fish shifts, possibly due to natural migration of fish during the dry season as well as the effects of cumulative fishing effort over the course of the dry season reducing fish populations.

In contrast, communities further from the lakeshore and adjacent to the rice field had a wider variety of alternative livelihood activities they engaged with, particularly within the dry season when lake levels fell (Fig. 4). Alternatives included rearing pigs, raising chickens, cultivating rice fields, collecting lotus flowers, repairing nets, or growing long beans, oranges, or morning glory. One participant explained that “income from selling pigs [that] can substitute the loss of income from fishing and trapping eels, when we can’t catch a lot of them” (woman, 56y, rice field fishery community). Participants described a wider range of aquatic species, including crustaceans, mollusks, crabs and plants, as a source of income, as well as a source of nutritional intake. Further from the lakeshore, participants described consuming crabs, clams, and eels.

Concerns About Fishing Livelihood Longevity and Changing Environmental Conditions

Fishers expressed deep concerns about the viability of their livelihoods amid declining fish catch, environmental change, and threats of illegal fishing. These challenges extended beyond those of the annual seasonal changes, and they were seen as an existential threat to fishers’ incomes and diets given year-over-year declines in fish availability. One participant stated that “I feel that I catch less quantity of fish because of declining fish population. The significance [is that it] shows my struggle of life as a fisherman, meeting unexpected difficulties, but only able to earn little income” (man, 57y, Tonle Sap community). Another participant from a Tonle Sap-adjacent community stated that “it is different because we have a huge loss of fish this year. Previous years, there was an abundance of fish so we had enough to feed our families. But this year, there is a decline of fish. My family barely has anything to eat” (woman, 57y, Tonle Sap community). Participants were concerned about water levels, damming of the Mekong, deforestation, and population growth. The enforcement of fishing regulations was of particular concern in the communities adjacent to the Tonle Sap Lake, including both calls to reduce illegal fishing and provide leniency to small-scale fishers like themselves.

Participants vocalized a noticeable decrease in the water level of the Tonle Sap Lake and flood extent in recent years. They expressed that this was because of a shortening duration of the wet season and because of a decrease in the amount of rain. Community members that solely relied on fishing and had no alternative income struggled given related reductions in fish availability. Some participants also attributed the water level declines to damming of the Mekong. As one participant explained, “They stop the water at the dam from the Mekong River flowing here. That’s why there is a reduction of fish. It has been three years that we have less fish” (woman, 57y, Tonle Sap community). Community members claimed recent damming impacted both water levels and reduced the flow of fish, including many migratory fish, into Tonle Sap Lake.

Deforestation also emerged as a concern. Participants noticed fellow community members cutting down trees to construct ponds and farm crops. This practice also destroyed the flooded forests that fish rely on for shelter and breeding habitat in the wet season. One participant described the impact of this, “People also cut down the forest which is what the fish need for breeding. There are a lot of people who cut down trees to dig up ponds...There are very little trees left” (woman, 36y, Tonle Sap community). Another participant echoed this concern stating “they cut and burn the forest to use the land for farming. During the breeding season, fish don’t have shelters to breed. Us fishermen depend on the forest because when the water comes, fish have shelters to breed” (man, 40y, Tonle Sap community). For a couple of participants in rice field villages, the impact of pesticide usage in the rice fields on fish was a substantial concern as well.

Several participants also attributed fish declines to growing fishing pressure and illegal fishing. Increasing fishing pressure was attributed to community growth and to influx of outsiders. One participant explained that “increasing population within my community increases competition for people who fish as an occupation. This causes the fish population to decline rapidly” (man, 57y, Tonle Sap community). In contrast, others felt fishing pressure was from outsiders. As another participant explained, “there are not a lot of fish for us small-scale fishermen to catch anymore because of the enormous quantity of fish caught by the Vietnamese illegal fishermen on a daily basis” (woman, 52y, Tonle Sap community).

For fishers who relied on the Tonle Sap Lake, contrasts were drawn between fishers who used small-scale methods, including stationary nets that ostensibly do not harm fish populations, and those fishers that use large-scale methods, including trawling nets. Participants felt that the presence of large-scale fishers acutely impacted what they could catch. As one participant explained, “since we only use stationary fishing traps, we can only count on luck. It is a non-forceful type of fishing equipment. We can’t force the fish to swim into the trap” (woman, 57y, Tonle Sap community). In contrast, the large-scale methods allowed fishers to cover vast areas and pursue fish using motorized boats and dragging nets. Timing of fishing also drew contrasts. As the participant continued, “Because I rely entirely on fishing as an occupation, I still fish during the prohibited period. However, I only use legal fishing methods.” Participants conceded some of their methods technically violated rules about mesh sizes and fishing seasons, but explained they were needed to sustain their livelihood and meet the immediate needs of their families. As one participant explained, “The people from the fisheries, often destroy our fishing traps. It is the season that fishing is prohibited. But if we don't do it, we won't have anything to eat” (man, 28y, Tonle Sap community).

Concerns about the illegality of fishing was closely tied to higher efficiency and scale of harvest. As one participant noted, “there is a reduction of fish not because of the dry season. It is more because of illegal fishing and the equipment they use” (woman, 36y, Tonle Sap community). This highlighted conflicts between both short and longer-term trade-offs that participants and their communities were faced with, including meeting immediate needs during the dry season and having robust fish populations available during the wet season. A lack of alternatives for those residing in communities adjacent to Tonle Sap Lake underscored the necessity of continuing to fish, despite regulations. As one Tonle Sap-adjacent participant described, “Although my fishing trap is illegal because of the small net holes, it’s a non-forceful fishing method. Because this method is stationary, the chance that I will make my catch is unpredictable. Unlike some people living farther away from the lake, here we don’t have rice farms or other agriculture farms that can earn us extra income” (man, 46y, Tonle Sap community).

Addressing Declining Fish Catch and Environmental Change

In the experiences of participants, an interactive set of challenges beset fisheries: seasonal fluctuations in fish availability, year-over-year declines in fish availability, and regulations impacting fish catch, which was sometimes described as overly stringent in restricting their fishing methods and other times as insufficient in restricting the actions of others. These factors interacted to produce a challenging situation for fishers, with the causes often intertwined in their described experiences.

Reducing illegal fishing was seen as an important strategy to improve livelihoods in these fishery communities, and fishers expressed urgency and, at times, despair. One Tonle Sap-adjacent participant stated:

I want them [the government] to know that we have a reduction of fish. I want them to help my community and help in many things to make things better. I want them to stop illegal fishing in the Tonle Sap Lake because there is very little fish. I want them to intervene and stop illegal fishing or else we won't have any more fish in the future.(woman, 48y, Tonle Sap community)

“Illegal” fishing came to mean overfishing or use of destructive methods (e.g., electro-fishing) for many. One participant advocated:

I want the government to make sure there is no illegal fishing because we have a reduction of fish. Because they use big equipment to fish, that's why we don't catch a lot of fish...My net is laid in one place. Their net is used to chase the fish all the time. I am afraid it can never get better. If the government is really good, they will find a way to prohibit the use of bigger equipment for fishing.” (woman, 36y, Tonle Sap community)

This quote exemplifies how fishers used “illegal” not to refer strictly to the fishing regulations in place, but the scale and impact of fishing; large-scale, intensive methods were often described as illegal and small-scale methods were not, even as small-scale fishers acknowledged they were breaking the rules by fishing during the dry season.

Despite sympathies with the broad goal of enforcement of fishing regulations, participants also raised concerns that current actions of fishery managers were irrational and poorly targeted. Participants across the communities vocalized wanting leniency from fishery authority figures and a rebalancing of authorities’ efforts to focus on large-scale and illegal fishing efforts, rather than the gears of small-scale fishers. This sentiment was explained by one participant who said “Because our survival and livelihood is solely dependent on fishing, I want them to have leniency toward us by not destroying our fishing equipment” (woman, 57y, Tonle Sap community). Small-scale fishers were acutely aware of their positionality within the fishery as those reliant solely on fishing had few alternatives but to break the rules.

Enforcement of fishing prohibitions and gear restrictions during the dry season emerged as a particular concern within communities adjacent to the Tonle Sap Lake: “I want the people from the fisheries to be more understanding and lenient. I don't want them to destroy my fishing traps. I want to be able to fish easily. Also, there is a reduction of fish. A lot of people are fishing and there is a lot of illegal fishing using bigger equipment” (man, 28y, Tonle Sap community). The participant continued to highlight the importance of leniency for small-scale fisheries and accountability for larger-scale fishing operations: “I want the people from the fisheries [enforcement agents] to be more understanding and lenient. I don’t want them to destroy my fishing traps. I want to be able to fish easily. Also, there is a reduction of fish. A lot of people are fishing and there is a lot of illegal fishing using bigger equipment.” Participants saw this threat to their livelihoods and well-being in contrast with the larger-scale fisheries’ interests, and they did not think the small-scale fishing would harm the fish during the breeding (dry) season.

Participants believed that authorities overlooked or did not penalize the individuals who used illegal electrocution methods or large-scale fishing because those individuals effectively hid from authorities by going far out on the lake or fishing in the middle of the night to avoid punishment. This meant that those harms were not redressed. As one participant stated “I have encountered a challenge. These days, there is a reduction of fish. There are people using illegal equipment and a lot of electrocution. It kills a lot of fish, so it is difficult to find fish in the rice fields and the river” (male, 56y, rice field fishing community).

Participants were fervent in their concerns about the future of the fishery, even though some participants were fearful of reprimand by the government for speaking out against them. Despite misgivings, participants largely wanted the authorities to help. One participant made it clear that he “wants the law strengthened because I catch less and less from year to year and I want them to care more about the biodiversity because [I am] afraid that species will rapidly keep declining, [becoming] endangered, and even extinct” (man, 57y, Tonle Sap community). They shared their daily struggle as fishers to elevate their plight and the challenges faced with declining fish catches: “I want them [the government] to know that Tonle Sap Lake nowadays does not have fish. I don't want them to just assume and say people living near the lake can catch a lot of fish. I want them to see how much fish we actually can catch. There is not even enough fish to sell” (woman, 36y, Tonle Sap community).

Participants also described successes that could be built on moving forward. Within one of the rice field fishery communities, several participants discussed fish conservation. Government action on this front was evident; one participant explained, “In the past three years, the government had fish for conservation [in Community Fish Refuges] and when water came up [in the wet season], the fish will be released. I want them to keep doing that so more fish can be found” (man, 35y, rice field fishery community). The government demarcation of Community Fish Refuges received extensive support from WorldFish and regional NGOs to enhance the biophysical capacity to augment fish populations and foster community governance of these ponds (Joffre et al. 2012, Fiorella et al. 2019). Several participants also urged the continuation and expansion of this program, saying, “I have seen them conserving fish here before and I want them to continue” (woman, 59y, rice field fishery community) and “I want more community fish refuges or ponds” (woman, 32y, rice field fishery community). This provides opportunities to continue advancing efforts to support these communities in ways that aligns with their values and that is sensitive to their needs. Of note, however, these opportunities were only available within the rice field fishery communities that already had more diverse livelihoods in contrast to the communities adjacent to the lake that lacked this critical support structure.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

As social-ecological systems research increasingly integrates human well-being into its perspectives, Photovoice has been highlighted as a key tool for unpacking how ecosystem change impacts well-being (Masterson et al. 2018) and the value of inland fisheries specifically (Simmance et al. 2022). Our findings align with these studies and extends this understanding to focus on how aquatic food systems interact with the natural environment and are threatened by its changes. The voices of the most vulnerable resource users and the complexity of the risks and stressors they face are often under-appreciated (e.g., Barratt and Allison 2014, Humphries et al. 2019) and poorly integrated into traditional scientific knowledge (Agrawal 1995, Islam and Berkes 2016). By capturing and contrasting, across communities and genders, the perspectives and experiences of communities facing changes within their livelihoods and food access, this paper gives voice to these perspectives. Illuminating such perspectives is fundamental to appreciating the value of aquatic resources, advancing the effectiveness of resource management, and improving outcomes and livelihoods for people dependent on these resources.

Recent research has highlighted the diversity of fish species and the nutrient content provided by these diverse species, including the many small indigenous species within Cambodian fisheries (Byrd et al. 2020, Hicks et al. 2019, Golden et al. 2021b). Photovoice methodologies allowed participants to articulate the utility of that diversity in their lives and its contributions to nutrition and food security within their communities. The Cambodian food system as described by our participants is highly interwoven with the natural environment. Decisions about where to fish and how to fish are integrally tied to the species harvested and then prepared. The richness of dishes that comprise the cuisine are a point of pride. These findings extend the evidence provided by the high economic valuation of Cambodian fisheries (Israel et al. 2007) and trade-offs between the value of fisheries and other demands for freshwater (e.g., hydropower; Intralawan et al. 2018). Yet, at the same time that participants underscored the high value of the fishery, they also outlined threats to the ecosystem, the struggle to provide sufficient harvests for food and income, and the conflicts between small-scale harvests and large-scale fishing that loom for fishers within the communities we worked with.

The connections participants made between fishing methods, their livelihoods, and threats to the ecosystems provided a rich picture of these aquatic food systems and the tremendous challenges resource users operating within them face. Within these fishing communities, a range of environmental threats are well documented. Climate change, land use change, and dams on the Mekong River (Pokhrel et al. 2018) are key drivers of shifting conditions for people living and working in the region around Tonle Sap Lake. Within these communities, the seasonal flood-pulse of water is a vital driver of fishery productivity, yet also one acutely threatened by already ongoing trade-offs made in upstream energy production (Pittock et al. 2017). Of note, Cambodia is among the last nations reached by the Mekong’s waters, making its fishers acutely vulnerable to changing water and fish access (Golden et al. 2019). By integrating the value of biodiversity in their lives and the challenges they face in maintaining access, navigating regulations, and visioning a future where resources will be sufficient for their families and communities, participants underscored the entanglement of their needs and the range of threats they are encountering.

As a comparative tool, Photovoice helped to demonstrate the sharp differences in context faced and assets available within the two types of communities studied and the more subtle differences that emerged between men’s and women’s perspectives and work. Photovoice provided tools that underscored that communities have starkly different experiences even within the same ecosystem. Appreciating the range of perspectives and contrasts between them, represented within and across communities, is imperative to reaching fishery management goals and providing viable alternatives that integrate resource users’ needs and goals.

In this case, communities highly dependent on Tonle Sap Lake faced much higher degrees of threat and acutely lacked alternatives. This positionality meant that interactions with fishery regulations were heightened and tense, and that fishers perceived few, if any, alternatives to fishing during illegal seasons. The Cambodian government’s 2022 effort to redress illegal, large-scale fishing could potentially benefit such fishers (UCA News 2022, Khmer Times 2022), though reports suggest that the crackdown has hit communities with increased enforcement and potentially amplified hardships (Flynn 2022). Further research into the community impacts and opportunities to provide supportive measures as fisheries recover will be critical alongside increased regulation enforcement.

Communities within the rice fields had a higher degree of diversification, positioning fishing as among their livelihood activities but not the sole one. In our study, fishers described active diversification strategies to balance and supplement livelihoods and to buffer a changing ecosystem. Further, the communities we engaged within the rice fields had recently participated in programming to support Community Fish Refuges or inland protected areas designed to increase fish availability (Joffre et al. 2012, Fiorella et al. 2019). Their positive feelings about this effort permeated their sense of the ecosystem’s future ability to provision fish to their communities and suggested the power of community supported efforts for fish production. In contrast, it was clear that communities adjacent to the Tonle Sap Lake were in particular need of additional strategies and engagement in fishing policy actions.

The perspectives garnered here could support improved programs within both Tonle Sap and rice field fishery communities. Efforts by the government and WorldFish to continue to bolster the Community Fish Refuge program were widely supported by participants who felt the refuges had increased their catch and the viability of fishing livelihoods. Critically, within Tonle Sap fishing communities, supportive programs are urgently needed for communities facing a high degree of fishery regulation with few alternatives. Such programs could particularly redress the few opportunities that community members have during seasons with the most restrictive fishing prohibitions, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and its variable and global impact within fishing communities (Fiorella et al. 2020, Fiorella et al. 2021a, Okronipa et al. 2023) and the context of increased regulation enforcement (Flynn 2022). In addition to the community conversations generated by this project and their relevance for local efforts to support fishing communities, data from this study were returned to communities and local leaders to share findings with local commune governments and mobilize future support for these communities.

This study focuses on a limited subset of communities adjacent to the Tonle Sap Lake and within its floodplain. Our findings are thus not necessarily generalizable to other communities within this region or more broadly, although multiple villages and participants shared similar perspectives. Our study was also limited by the fact that we captured participant perspectives during a single season, and both experiences in general and the gendered aspects of participant experiences may differ in other times of the year. Further, our recruitment strategy provided us a breadth of experiences, including by gender and village, but skewed toward older individuals. Future research may consider exploring generational differences by age as younger individuals may have different experiences with fishing livelihoods in the region.

Despite these limitations, the study provided insight into the experiences of fishers in Cambodia and the relationship and challenges they faced in social and ecological ecosystems. With changing environments and calls for increases in fish production and its sustainability (Gephart et al. 2021, Naylor et al. 2021, Golden et al. 2021a), it is critical to consider both environmental and social and economic experiences of key stakeholders. A sustainable and equitable food system must simultaneously account for the heterogeneous experiences across and within communities to improve resource management, support communities faced with complex social-ecological systems, and meet the needs of communities most negatively impacted by changes in these systems.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We gratefully acknowledge the community participants that shared their photographs and insights to cocreate this research. We also thank Mariacamila Garcia Estrella and Vannarin Sar for their support of the fieldwork in this study. We are grateful to the Center for Khmer Studies, and especially Natharoun Ngo, Sreypich, and Samedy Suong, for their facilitation of this work. National Geographic and Cornell University's Expanding Horizons and Master of Public Health Program provided financial support for this project.

DATA AVAILABILITY

This manuscript does not include code. All qualitative and photo data is protected by human subjects protocols and cannot be posted online. Please contact the corresponding author to provide information about intended uses; access to anonymized data from this study will be provided for all uses that comply with our IRB approval. We thank National Geographic and Cornell University's Expanding Horizon and Master of Public Health Program for financial support of this project.

Corresponding author:

Kathryn Fiorella

[email protected]

Table 1. Participant demographics.

	Adjacent to Tonle Sap Lake		Rice field fisheries
Community identifier	1	2	3	4
N	10	10	10	7
Female	5 (50%)	5 (50%)	5 (50%)	1 (14%)
Average (range)	42.6 (34–57)	41.5 (26–57)	48.1 (26–64)	43.8 (25–61)
Married	10 (100%)	10 (100%)	10 (100%)	7 (100%)
Fishing  Full-time year round  Full-time seasonal  Part-time year round  Part-time seasonally	7 (70%) 2 (20%) 1 (10%) -	9 (90%) - 1 (10%) -	2 (20%) - 2 (20%) 6 (60%)	2 (29%) - 3 (42%) 2 (29%)
School completed  None  Some primary  Primary  Some secondary  Secondary	2 (20%) 5 (50%) 1 (10%) 1 (10%) 1 (10%)	1 (10%) 7 (70%) 1 (10%) 1 (10%) -	4 (40%) 3 (30%) 1 (10%) 2 (20%) -	2 (29%) 5 (71%) - - -
Average num. people in the household (range)	6.8 (4–12)	7.6 (4–12)	4.8 (2–8)	4.3 (2–7)
Average num. children in the household (range)	3.6 (1–12)	4.0 (1–8)	1.3 (0–3)	2 (0–3)
Other livelihood activities  None  Rice farming  Vegetable farming  Boat maintenance  Wage labor  Raising livestock	8 (80%) 2 (20%) - - - -	8 (80%) - - 2 (20%) - -	- 5 (50%) 2 (20%) - - -	1 (14%) 1 (14%) 1 (14%) - 1 (14%) 2 (29%)
Self-assessed economic situation†  Very poor  Poor  Moderate	2 (20%) 4 (40%) 4 (40%)	- - 10 (100%)	- 1 (10%) 9 (90%)	4 (57%) 1 (14%) 2 (29%)
† Very Poor = There is sometimes even not enough food available. Poor = Have no food problems and only sometimes problems to buy clothes. Moderate = Enough money for food, clothes, health care, school.

References

Agarwala, M., G. Atkinson, B. P. Fry, K. Homewood, S. Mourato, J. M. Rowcliffe, G. Wallace, and E. J. Milner-Gulland. 2014. Assessing the relationship between human well-being and ecosystem services: a review of frameworks. Conservation & Society 12(4):437-449. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.155592

Agrawal, A. 1995. Dismantling the divide between Indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change 26(3):413-439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.1995.tb00560.x

Bandler, K. 2018. Illegal fishing around the Tonle Sap. Focus on the Global South. Bangkok, Thailand.

Baran, E., P. Chheng, V. Ly, J. Nasielski, S. Saray, B. Touch, and J. Tress. 2014. Fish resources in Cambodia (2001-2011) in Brod S. and R. Sandoval, editors. Atlas of Cambodia. Save Cambodia’s Wildlife, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Barclay, K., M. Voyer, N. Mazur, A. M. Payne, S. Mauli, J. Kinch, M. Fabinyi, and G. Smith. 2017. The importance of qualitative social research for effective fisheries management. Fisheries Research 186(2):426-438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2016.08.007

Barratt, C., and E. H. Allison. 2014. Vulnerable people, vulnerable resources? Exploring the relationship between people’s vulnerability and the sustainability of community-managed natural resources. Development Studies Research 1(1):16-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/21665095.2014.904079

Bennett, N. J., R. Roth, S. C. Klain, K. Chan, P. Christie, D. A. Clark, G. Cullman, D. Curran, T. J. Durbin, G. Epstein et al. 2017. Conservation social science: understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation 205:93-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006

Byrd, K. A., S. H. Thilsted, and K. J. Fiorella. 2020. Fish nutrient composition: a review of global data from poorly assessed inland and marine species. Public Health Nutrition 24(3):476-486. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980020003857

Campbell, I. C., C. Poole, W. Giesen, and J. Valbo-Jorgensen. 2006. Species diversity and ecology of Tonle Sap Great Lake, Cambodia. Aquatic Sciences 68:355-373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-006-0855-0

Carpenter, S. R., H. A. Mooney, J. Agard, D. Capistrano, R. S. DeFries, S. Diaz, T. Dietz, A. K. Duraiappah, A. Oteng-Yeboah, H. M. Pereira, et al. 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106(5):1305-1312. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808772106

Catalani, C., and M. Minkler. 2010. Photovoice: a review of the literature in health and public health. Health Education & Behavior 37:424-451. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198109342084

Chea, R., C. B. Guo, G. Grenouillet, and S. Lek. 2016. Toward an ecological understanding of a flood-pulse system lake in a tropical ecosystem: Food web structure and ecosystem health. Ecological Modelling 323:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.11.014

De Garine-Wichatitsky, M., A. Binot, J. Ward, A. Caron, A. Perrotton, H. Ross, H. T. Quoc, H. Valls-Fox, I. J. Gordon, P. Promburom, et al. 2021. "Health in" and "health of" social-ecological systems: a practical framework for the management of healthy and resilient agricultural and natural ecosystems. Frontiers in Public Health 8:616328. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.616328

Dina, T., and J. Sato. 2015. The cost of privatizing the commons: overlapping property systems in Tonle Sap, Cambodia. International Journal of the Commons 9(1):261-280. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.483

FAO. 2020. State of the world's fisheries and aquaculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

FAO. 2022. FishStatJ - Software for Fishery and Aquaculture Statistical Time Series.

Fiorella, K. J., E. R. Bageant, M. Kim, V. Sean, V. Try, H. J. MacDonell, E. Baran, Y. Kura, A. C. Brooks, C. B. Barrett, et al. 2019. Analyzing drivers of fish biomass and biodiversity within community fish refuges in Cambodia. Ecology and Society 24(3):18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11053-240318

Fiorella, K. J., E. R. Bageant, L. Mojica, J. A. Obuya, J. Ochieng, P. Olela, P. W. Otuo, H. O. Onyango, C. M. Aura, and H. Okronipa. 2021a. Small-scale fishing households facing COVID-19: the case of Lake Victoria, Kenya. Fisheries Research 237:105856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2020.105856

Fiorella, K. J., E. R. Bageant, N. B. Schwartz, S. H. Thilsted, and C. B. Barrett. 2021b. Fishers’ response to temperature change reveals the importance of integrating human behavior in climate change analysis. Science Advances 7(18):eabc7425. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abc7425

Fiorella, K. J., J. Coffin-Schmitt, K. M. Gaynor, G. H. Gregory, R. Rasolofoson, and K. L. Seto. 2020. Feedbacks from human health to household reliance on natural resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet Planetary Health 4(10):e441-e442. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30199-6

Fluet-Chouinard E., S. Funge-Smith, and P. B. McIntyre. 2018. Global hidden harvest of freshwater fish revealed by household surveys. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(29):7623-7628 . https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1721097115

Flynn, G. 2022. Fisheries crackdown pushes Cambodians to the brink on Tonle Sap lake. Mongabay, August 2022. https://news.mongabay.com/2022/08/fisheries-crackdown-pushes-cambodians-to-the-brink-on-tonle-sap-lake/

Freed, S., Y. Kura, V. Sean, S. Mith, P. Cohen, M. Kim, S. Thay, and S. Chhy. 2020. Rice field fisheries: Wild aquatic species diversity, food provision services and contribution to inland fisheries. Fisheries Research 229:105615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2020.105615

Funge-Smith, S. and A. Bennett. 2019. A fresh look at inland fisheries and their role in food security and livelihoods. Fish and Fisheries 20(6):1176-1195. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12403

Gephart, J. A., P. J. G. Henriksson, R. W. R. Parker, A. Shepon, K. D. Gorospe, K. Bergman, G. Eshel, C. D. Golden, B. S. Halpern, S. Hornborg et al. 2021. Environmental performance of blue foods. Nature 597:360-365. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03889-2

Golden, J. Z. Koehn, A. Shepon, S. Passarelli, C. M. Free, D. F. Viana, H. Matthey, J. G. Eurich, J. A. Gephart, E. Fluet-Chouinard, et al. 2021a. Aquatic foods to nourish nations. Nature 598:315–320 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03917-1

Golden, J. Z. Koehn, B. Vaitla, C. DeSisto, H. Kelahan, K. Manning, K. J. Fiorella, M. Kjellevold, and S. H. Thilsted. 2021b. Aquatic Food Composition Database. Harvard Dataverse. https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId= https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/KI0NYM

Golden, C. D., A. Shapero, B. Vaitla, M. R. Smith, S. S. Myers, E. Stebbins and J. A. Gephart. 2019. Impacts of mainstream hydropower development on fisheries and human nutrition in the lower Mekong. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00093

Halls, A. S. and K. G. Hortle. 2021. Flooding is a key driver of the Tonle Sap dai fishery in Cambodia. Scientific Reports 11:3806. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81248-x

Hicks, C. C., P. J. Cohen, N. A. J. Graham, K. L. Nash, E. H. Allison, C. D’Lima, D. J. Mills, M. Roscher, S. H. Thilsted, A. L. Thorne-Lyman, et al. 2019. Harnessing global fisheries to tackle micronutrient deficiencies. Nature 574:95-98. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1592-6

Hoang, L. P., H. Lauri, M. Kummu, J. Koponen, M. T. H. van Vliet, I. Supit, R. Leemans, P. Kabat and F. Ludwig. 2016. Mekong River flow and hydrological extremes under climate change. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 20(7):3027-3041. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3027-2016

Humphries, A. T., L. I. Josephs, M. K. La Peyre, S. Hall and R. D. Beech. 2019. Vulnerability of resource users in Louisiana's oyster fishery to environmental hazards. Ecology and Society 24(3):37. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11101-240337

Intralawan, A., D. Wood, R. Frankel, R. Costanza, and I. Kubiszewski. 2018. Tradeoff analysis between electricity generation and ecosystem services in the Lower Mekong Basin. Ecosystem Services 30:27-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.007

Islam, D., and F. Berkes. 2016. Indigenous peoples’ fisheries and food security: a case from northern Canada. Food Security 8:815-826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-016-0594-6

Israel, D. C., M. Ahmed, E. Petersen, Y. B. Hong, and H. M. Chee. 2007. Economic valuation of aquatic resources in Siem Reap Province, Cambodia. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 31(1):111-135. https://doi.org/10.1300/J064v31n01_10

Joffre, O., M. Kosal, Y. Kura, S. Pich and T. Nao. 2012. Community fish refuges in Cambodia: Lesson learned. Lessons Learned Brief 2012-03. WorldFish, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Johnston, G. 2016. Champions for social change: Photovoice ethics in practice and 'false hopes' for policy and social change. Global Public Health 11(5-6):799-811. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2016.1170176

Kao, Y.-C., M. W. Rogers, D. B. Bunnell, I. G. Cowx, S. S. Qian, O. Anneville, T. D. Beard, A. Brinker, J. R. Britton, R. Chura-Cruz, et al. 2020. Effects of climate and land-use changes on fish catches across lakes at a global scale. Nature Communications 11:2526. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14624-2

Khmer Times. 2022. Authorities crackdown on large-scale illegal fishing in Tonle Sap. Khmer Times, August 2022. https://www.khmertimeskh.com/501132868/authorities-crackdown-on-large-scale-illegal-fishing-in-tonle-sap/

Kim, M., E. Bageant, S. Thilsted and K. Fiorella. 2019. Community Management of Fish Refuges in Cambodian Rice Field Fisheries. In: Krueger C., W. Taylor and S.-J. Youn (eds) From catastrophe to recovery: stories of fishery management success. Bethesda, Maryland: American Fisheries Society.

Liebenberg, L. 2018. Thinking critically about photovoice: achieving empowerment and social change. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918757631

Lynch, A. J., V. Elliott, S. C. Phang, J. E. Claussen, I. Harrison, K. J. Murchie, E. A. Steel and G. L. Stokes. 2020. Inland fish and fisheries integral to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Sustainability 3:579-587. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0517-6

Ma, S., L. N. Perch and S. A. Zakieldeen. 2014. Livelihoods and poverty. Pages 793-832 in Field C. B., V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken et al., editors. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Masterson, V. A., S. L. Mahajan and M. Teng. 2018. Photovoice for mobilizing insights on human well-being in complex social-ecological systems: case studies from Kenya and South Africa. Ecology and Society 23(3):13. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10259-230313

Naylor, R. L., A. Kishore, U. R. Sumaila, I. Issifu, B. P. Hunter, B. Belton, S. R. Bush, L. Cao, S. Gelcich, J. A. Gephart et al. 2021. Blue food demand across geographic and temporal scales. Nature Communications 12:5413. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25516-4

New, M., D. Reckien, D. Viner, C. Adler, S.-M. Cheong, C. Conde, A. Constable, E. Coughlan de Perez, A. Lammel, R. Mechler, B. Orlove, and W. Solecki. 2022. Decision making options for risk management. Pages 2539–2654 in H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama, editor. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.026

Ngor, P. B., K. S. McCann, G. Grenouillet, N. So, B. C. McMeans, E. Fraser and S. Lek. 2018. Evidence of indiscriminate fishing effects in one of the world’s largest inland fisheries. Scientific Reports 8:8947. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-27340-1

Okronipa, H., E. R. Bageant, J. Baez, H. O. Onyango, C. M. Aura, and K. J. Fiorella. 2023. COVID-19 experiences of small-scale fishing households: The case of Lake Victoria, Kenya. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.987924

Pierce, J. M. 2020. Photovoice: documenting lives in aquaculture and fisheries through a gendered photo lens. Gender, Technology and Development 24(1):131-154. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718524.2020.1732663

Pittock, J., D. Dumaresq, and S. Orr. 2017. The Mekong River: trading off hydropower, fish, and food. Regional Environmental Change 17:2443-2453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1175-8

Pokhrel, Y., M. Burbano, J. Roush, H. Kang, V. Sridhar and D. W. Hyndman. 2018. A review of the integrated effects of changing climate, land use, and dams on Mekong River hydrology. Water 10(3):266. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10030266

Pörtner, H., D. C. Roberts, H. Adams, I. Adelekan, C. Adler, R. Adrian, P. Aldunce, E. Ali, R. A. Begum, B. Bednar-Friedl et al. 2021. IPCC WGII Sixth Assessment Report: Technical Summary.

Robinson, J. P. W., D. J. Mills, G. A. Asiedu, K. Byrd, M. d. M. Mancha Cisneros, P. J. Cohen, K. J. Fiorella, N. A. J. Graham, M. A. MacNeil, E. Maire et al. 2022. Small pelagic fish supply abundant and affordable micronutrients to low- and middle-income countries. Nature Food 3:1075-1084. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00643-3

Saldaña, J. 2009. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Selig, E. R., D. G. Hole, E. H. Allison, K. K. Arkema, M. C. McKinnon, J. Chu, A. de Sherbinin, B. Fisher, L. Glew, M. B. Holland, et al. 2018. Mapping global human dependence on marine ecosystems. Conservation Letters 12(2):e12617. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12617

Simmance, F. A., A. B. Simmance, J. Kolding, K. Schreckenberg, E. Tompkins, G. Poppy, and J. Nagoli. 2022. A photovoice assessment for illuminating the role of inland fisheries to livelihoods and the local challenges experienced through the lens of fishers in a climate-driven lake of Malawi. Ambio 51:700-715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01583-1

Sok, K., P. Méral, D. Pillot, S. Defossez. 2019. Ecosystem services from Tonle Sap Flood Pulse: spatial and economic analysis in Aek Phnom and Sangkae Districts of Battambang Province, Cambodia. Pages 123-151 in Stewart M. C. P., editor. Water and power. Advances in Global Change Research vol. 64. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90400-9_8

Teh, L. S. L., N. Bond, K. Kc, E. Fraser, R. Seng, and U. R. Sumaila. 2019. The economic impact of global change on fishing and non-fishing households in the Tonle Sap ecosystem, Pursat, Cambodia. Fisheries Research 210:71-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2018.10.005

UCA News. 2022. Cambodian PM orders crackdown on illegal fishing in Mekong. UCA News, March 2022. https://www.ucanews.com/news/cambodian-pm-orders-crackdown-on-illegal-fishing-in-mekong/96654

Wang, C. and M. A. Burris. 1994. Empowerment through Photo Novella: portraits of participation. Health Education Quarterly 21(2):171-186. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819402100204

Wang, C. C. 1999. Photovoice: a participatory action research strategy applied to women’s health. Journal of Womens Health 8(2):185-192. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.1999.8.185

Wang, Q., K. Byrd, S. Thilsted, C. Navin, M. Kim and K. Fiorella. 2023. Nutrition and food safety of a locally-processed fish product in Cambodia. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 25(3):73-81. https://doi.org/10.14321/aehm.025.03.73