Hum Ecol (2013) 41:153–164
DOI 10.1007/s10745-012-9553-9
Livelihood Diversity, Food Security and Resilience
among the Caiçara of Coastal Brazil
Natalia Hanazaki & Fikret Berkes & Cristiana S. Seixas &
Nivaldo Peroni
Published online: 12 December 2012
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012
Abstract To analyze the relationships between local live-
lihoods and vulnerability to food insecurity, using a resil-
ience approach, we interviewed 350 households from seven
mixed-heritage Caiçara communities in Paraty, Brazil. Fishing
was a livelihood activity for 70 % of the households, and the
main declared activity for 16 %. Fishing was combined with
other activities such as day-wage jobs, tourism, agriculture,
and commerce. Livelihood activities were not homogeneously
distributed among communities, and a higher proportion of
fishing households were found in generalist communities.
Food insecurity appeared to be transitory (and not chronic),
and fishing is central to food security. Small-scale fisheries
cannot be seen in isolation from the diversity of activities that
make up the livelihood portfolios of coastal communities. In
view of rapid change in the area, pressures from protected
areas, large-scale fisheries, tourism development and economic
change in general, threaten the resilience of Caiçara liveli-
hoods, with implications for future food insecurity.
Keywords Small-scale fisheries . Food security .
Vulnerability . Atlantic forest
Introduction
In many rural areas of the world, people make a living based on a
diverse portfolio of activities and resources (Bailey and Pomeroy
N. Hanazaki (*) : N. Peroni
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis,
Santa Catarina, Brazil
e-mail: natalia@ccb.ufsc.br
F. Berkes
Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Canada
C. S. Seixas
NEPAM–Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas,
São Paulo, Brazil
1996; Ellis 2000). A livelihood is looking for opportunities to do
many things, diversifying activities and relationships (Chambers
1997), and mobilizing a range of assets (Allison and Ellis 2001).
Those who have access to a greater diversity of assets have a
greater range of options and the flexibility to shift their livelihood
strategies as needed. The sustainability of these livelihoods
depends not only on maintaining assets of natural resources
but also on the ability to cope with and recover from shocks
and stresses. Here we focus on the diversity of livelihood
activities by a coastal population in Brazil, and implications
for livelihood resilience and food security.
The term livelihood has been used widely since Agenda 21
of the United Nations Conference on Environment and De-
velopment (Earth Summit) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992; it is
considered to provide a better descriptor than “employment”
for resource-dependent rural communities. According to Ellis
(2000: 10), “a livelihood comprises the assets (natural, phys-
ical, human, financial and social capital), the activities, and the
access to these (mediated by institutions and social relations)
that together determine the living gained by the individual or
household.” The emphasis on livelihoods is helpful in under-
standing processes of sustainable development, as the liveli-
hood approach helps ground sustainability by bringing social
issues to the foreground and highlighting development dilem-
mas from the point of view of the local people.
In a seminal paper, Chambers and Conway (1992: 6)
suggested that “a livelihood is sustainable when it can cope
with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or
enhance its capabilities, assets and entitlements, while not
undermining the natural resource base”. The sustainable
livelihoods concept has resulted in the creation of elaborate
frameworks, and dominant themes have included the con-
sideration of the assets of the poor, dealing with them as
clusters of interrelated capitals, or as livelihood strategies
used by people (Bebbington 1999). The notion of coping
with and recovering from stresses and shocks lies at the
heart of the Chambers and Conway (1992) definition, point-
ing out that sustainability of livelihoods depends on the
154
ability of people to deal, not with some “average” condition,
but with the “lean seasons”, natural disasters, unfavorable
government policies, and generally difficult times. Thus,
sustainable livelihoods require options and flexibility, cap-
tured by the concept of resilience. Diversification of liveli-
hood, especially the diversity in the use of “natural capital” in
the Bebbington (1999) framework, is important in this regard
because it is an effective way for dealing with risk and vul-
nerability (Turner et al. 2003) and for building resilience
(Marschke and Berkes 2006).
The resilience aspect of sustainable livelihoods, although
explicit in the Chambers and Conway definition, has re-
ceived relatively little attention. Resilience offers a lens with
which to understand stresses and shocks in social-ecological
systems, and specifically the dynamics of livelihoods of
resource-dependent rural people (Berkes et al. 2003). Framing
livelihood issues in resilience terms provides new insights
regarding the ability to reduce vulnerabilities (Schwarz et al.
2011), to cope with adversity (Marschke and Berkes 2006),
and to help evaluate development policies (Robinson and
Berkes 2010). Resilience may be thought of as “insurance”
in the livelihood system (Coomes et al. 2010), and may be
incorporated into management objectives, for example, as part
of the “primary fisheries management” of Cochrane et al.
(2011) whereby social and ecological resilience is considered
an integral part of ensuring food security and planning poverty
reduction.
Defined as “the capacity of a system to absorb distur-
bance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still
retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and
feedbacks” (Walker et al. 2004), resilience is the capacity of
a social-ecological system to continually change and adapt,
and yet remain within critical thresholds (Gunderson and
Holling 2002). Hence, it characterizes a system’s ability to
deal with change. Adaptability, as part of resilience, is the
capacity to adjust responses to changing external drivers
(e.g., globalization, government policies) and internal pro-
cesses (e.g., population increase, out-migration), and there-
by allow for development along the current trajectory
(stability domain). Transformability, by contrast, is the ca-
pacity to cross thresholds into a new trajectory, for example
when a community of fisheries is transformed into a com-
munity of tourism workers (Folke et al. 2010).
Inspired by the concept of ecological niche, we use a
measure of diversity, or heterogeneity, to analyze the gener-
alization and specialization of the communities. Diversity
indices were used in human ecology especially to compare
the niche breadth related to animal protein consumption or
to food consumption in general (Hardesty 1975; Begossi
and Richerson 1993; Cavallini and Nordi 2005; Hanazaki
and Begossi 2000). Here we use the Shannon-Wiener index as
a measure of heterogeneity (Magurran 1988) as an additional
tool to understand the diversity of livelihood activities.
Hum Ecol (2013) 41:153–164
We follow the entitlement terminology of Sen (1981):
direct entitlement (e.g., a family grows its own food or
catches its own fish); indirect entitlement (e.g., a family
uses income to purchase food); and transfer entitlement
(e.g., a family obtains donated food). Famine or food inse-
curity could occur when entitlements are disrupted and a
household cannot switch to another way of obtaining food.
People may experience a loss of direct entitlement when, for
example, crops fail or people lose access to resources; an
indirect entitlement loss could occur, for example, through
unemployment or rising food prices. Sen’s entitlement
framework is useful because it disaggregates the reasons
why a person or group may become vulnerable, and allows
for the substitution of indirect for direct entitlements (and
vice versa) for example when an artisanal fisher family starts
to obtain tourism income and buys increasingly greater parts
of their food.
Small-scale fisheries can have an important contribution
to poverty alleviation and food security (Berkes et al. 2001).
We follow Béné et al. (2007) to use the 1996 World Food
Summit definition of food security as “a condition when all
people, at all times, have physical and economic access to
sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary
needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”.
Food insecurity may affect people at various levels of social
organization (individual, household… national) and may be
temporary (transitory) or permanent (chronic). In this paper,
we deal with food security at the household and community
levels and with vulnerability in the limited sense of vulner-
ability to food insecurity.
We have two main objectives. First, we describe and
analyze the diversity of livelihood activities in Caiçara com-
munities from the Southeast coast of Brazil and its signifi-
cance for local resilience. Second, we discuss the relationships
between local livelihoods and vulnerability to food insecurity.
Caiçara are people with mixed origin from Portuguese colo-
nists and Amerindians, living along the Southeastern Brazilian
coast, who still retain subsistence activities directly related to
the exploitation of natural resources, such as fishing and
shifting cultivation (Adams 2000; Begossi et al. 2010).
Area and People
Paraty is a coastal municipality located at the southern part
of Rio de Janeiro State, Southeastern Brazil (between 22o
54′S to 23o 22′s and 44o 31′W and 44o 53′W). Paraty was an
important port for trading goods and gold from the Brazilian
countryside between the 16th century and the late 19th cen-
tury. The current economy of the municipality is based on
tourism, services and fishing. The whole area is located in
the Atlantic Forest region, which makes it important for
biodiversity conservation purposes. Since there are several
fishing communities, the Paraty area is a focus of recent
Hum Ecol (2013) 41:153–164 155

governmental and nongovernmental efforts on issues related the targeted sample size (Bernard 1994). The number of
to management of small-scale fisheries. interviews in each community is summarized in Table 1.
The total population of the municipality is about 37 000 The average duration of interviews was 23 min. Households
and most people live in the urban area (74 %) (IBGE 2001). usually represent nuclear families with an average of about
The rural population is distributed in several communities, four persons.
including fishing communities along the coast. This study is Data analysis used mostly descriptive statistics and percen-
focused in two main regions of Paraty, including Caiçara tages. Qualitative information collected during fieldwork was
communities with different degrees of involvement in fish- used to check the answers given by the interviewees. We
eries, tourism and small-scale agriculture (Begossi et al. accessed and compared the Shannon-Wiener index of diversity
2010). The first one is located in the southern part of the (base log 10) (Magurran 1988) using the software Ecosim 7.72
municipality and comprises the communities of Trindade, (Gotelli and Entsminger 2011). We considered the diversity of
Praia do Sono and Ponta Negra. Trindade has been a tourism livelihood activities in each community given by the number
spot since the 1980’s and still has several families involved of households involved with different numbers of activities,
with fisheries. Praia do Sono and Ponta Negra are accessible which varied from 14 to 16 per community. The sampling unit
only by boat or walking trail, and Ponta Negra is the most was the household, and the abundance levels were compared
isolated community included in this research. The second with the smaller samples through rarefaction, with confidence
region is located in the central part of the municipality and levels intervals of 95 % due to the different sample sizes.
comprises the communities of Barra Grande, Praia Grande
and Ilha do Araújo. Barra Grande is the most urbanized one,
where fishers use a small river to reach the sea. Ilha do Results
Araújo is an island close to the mainland, facing Praia
Grande. Additionally we included Tarituba due to its impor- Livelihood Diversity
tance as a fishing community in the northern part of the
municipality. Overall, fishing is the single most important livelihood
activity, both as the main activity of the household and as
Data Collection and Analysis a complementary livelihood activity (Fig. 1). Fishing is the
main declared livelihood activity in 16 % (57) of the house-
Community selection was based on previous data from holds. Fifty-two percent (182) mentioned it as one of the
Begossi et al. (2010) and on a set of criteria including the livelihood activities taking place in the household. However,
following: a) the presence of shifting agriculture and fishing 32 % (111) of the households did not consider themselves as
as part of the community economic activities at different fishers. Among the total sampled households, fishing was
levels; b) different degrees of isolation: we included both mentioned as one livelihood activity by almost 70 % of the
easy accessible communities and communities that are ac- households (Fig. 1). This proportion varied by community;
cessible only by boat or trail; c) different degrees of tourism from 18 % in Barra Grande to 93 % in Ilha do Araujo
development; d) regional representativeness, including com- (percentages in Praia Grande: 32; Tarituba: 35; Trindade:
munities from the southern, central and northern part of the 46; Praia do Sono: 72; Ponta Negra: 75).
municipality. Tarituba was included mainly for regional
representativeness.
Table 1 Community size, number of sampled households, and the
Data were collected through interviews based on struc-
total sampled population in each community
tured questionnaires (Bernard 1994) in 350 households car-
ried out by a research team (questionnaires are available Community Estimated Households Total
from the first author). Each interview was preceded by an household sampled sampled
number population
explanation about the research goals to obtain informed
consent; formal consent was also discussed with leaders of Tarituba (TA) 70 34 124
each community. The questionnaires had four main parts: Barra Grande (BG) 318 76 309
household information; fishing activity details; local food Praia Grande (PG) 80 44 193
production and food security indicators; and life quality and Ilha do Araujo (IA) 118 54 215
future prospects. The questionnaire was pre-tested in June Trindade (TR) 228 70 228
2010 and applied between June and July 2010. Praia do Sono (PS) 112 40a 178
Since the size of the communities varies from less than Ponta Negra (PN) 48 32 140
50 households to more than 300, we defined the sample size Total 974 350 1387
in each community assuming 10 % of sampling error (based
a
on Bernard 1994). We did systematic sampling according to 11 refusals, 17 closed houses, 13 empty houses
156
Fig. 1 Main livelihood
activities (self-declared) and
complementary livelihood
activities (chosen from a list) in
345 rural households in Paraty
municipality, Brazil. Data in
percentages
Other important activities were tourism, day wage jobs,
and commerce. Some day wage jobs and commerce were
directly related to tourism, for example wage jobs as house-
cleaners for summer cottages; shops for tourists; shops
selling construction material used for building new cottages;
and people working in bars and restaurants. Tourism-related
activities were more relevant in Trindade, Ilha do Araujo
and Praia Grande. Construction appeared as a main activity
in 10 % of the households, and people who worked in
construction as an additional activity usually did so on a
day-wage basis. Other activities included a wide array of
occupations, such as driver, autonomous worker, net weav-
er, carpenter, mechanic, door-to-door salesperson and musi-
cian. More than 45 % of the households had some income
from retirement and pension. Small-scale farming was con-
centrated in a few places, such as Ponta Negra and Barra
Grande, and nearly absent in other communities such as
Tarituba. Marine invertebrate gathering, crewing in larger-
scale fisheries, non-timber forest products (NTFP) extrac-
tion, and handicraft making were often supplementary in-
come sources not mentioned as main livelihood activities.
This array of livelihood activities is not homogeneously
distributed among communities. Table 2 shows the gradient
from the more generalist communities to the more special-
ized, according to the number of households involved with
different numbers of activities. Ponta Negra, Praia do Sono
and, to some extent, Praia Grande, are generalist communi-
ties, with a higher diversity of households involved in dif-
ferent numbers of livelihood activities and a more even
distribution of the number of activities among the house-
holds. In these communities, we observed households un-
dertaking from one to eight different activities. At the other
extreme, Tarituba and, to some extent, Ilha do Araújo, were
less diverse in terms of number of livelihood activities, i.e.,
they were the more specialized communities. In general, a
higher proportion of fishing households were found in the
more diverse communities, with Ilha do Araújo showing a
remarkable exception.
Hum Ecol (2013) 41:153–164
Despite being the main livelihood activity for the studied
communities as a whole, fishing was rarely the unique
activity of a household. Only 1 % of 182 households relied
exclusively on fishing. Fishing households on average had
four activities (mean03.94, SD01.41). That is, fishing was
combined with three, up to seven, other activities. In
descending order, these activities were: day-wage jobs
(46 %), tourism (43 %), agriculture (32 %), and commerce
(28 %) (Table 3).
Among livelihood assets, we analyzed food produc-
tion as natural capital (Fig. 2), and asked about household
production for nine items directly used for household con-
sumption or sale or both. Less than 0.5 % of fish, shellfish,
bitter manioc, banana and other fruits were produced exclu-
sively for sale.
Fish was produced by 58 % of the households, varying
from 29 % in Tarituba to 83 % in Ilha do Araújo. Shellfish
production came from aquaculture and invertebrate gather-
ing and was reported by 30 % of the households (range from
3 in Tarituba to 44 % in Trindade). Chicken and fowl
production was present in 27 % of the households, and
appeared to be more important in more isolated communi-
ties such as Ponta Negra (47 %) and Praia do Sono (40 %).
Even though reported by only 13 % of all households, the
production of bitter manioc was highly important in Ponta
Negra, with 44 % of the households producing it. This
production does not occur throughout the year, but the
seasonal processing of bitter manioc is an important com-
munity activity (which was even more important in the past)
strengthening social relations through community exchange
networks. In all other communities, less than 11 % of house-
holds produced bitter manioc, due to reasons such as lack of
land or lack of processing mills. The production of manioc
flour has traditionally used communal mills (casas de farinha),
a mode of production related to the reciprocity in the cultiva-
tion of manioc in shifting cultivation.
Sweet manioc was reported in 28 % of the households,
varying from half of Ponta Negra households to none in
Hum Ecol (2013) 41:153–164 157

Table 2 Diversity of livelihood activities measured by Shannon-Wiener index (diagonals, bold) and comparisons of rarefacted samples between
each pair of communities

Shannon PN PS PG TR BG IA TA

PN 1.844
PS ns. 1.818
PG ns. ns. 1.785
TR * * ns. 1.724
BG * * * * 1.606
IA * * * * ns. 1.569
TA * * * * * ns. 1.368

PN Ponta Negra (n032), PS Praia do Sono (n040), PG Praia Grande (n044), TR Trindade (n070), BG Barra Grande (n076), IA Ilha do Araújo (n054),
TA Tarituba (n034)
*Significant differences with 95 % of confidence interval for a rarefacted sample; ns.0no significant differences

Tarituba. Vegetables (32 %), banana (63 %), and other fruits
(59 %) were more important in Barra Grande (51, 61, and
70 % respectively) and Ponta Negra (28, 84, and 75 %,
respectively) than in Tarituba (6, 26, and 24 %, respectively).
The explanation is that Barra Grande is the most distant from
the sea, and also has a lower proportion of fishers (Table 4).
Ponta Negra, by contrast, is the most isolated community and
more dependent of local resources, as reflected in the depen-
dence of NTFP harvest such as medicinal plants (59 %)
(Fig. 2).
Other assets mentioned as produced by the households,
in low proportions, were sugarcane, beans, maize and spices
such as annatto. From Fig. 2 we infer that several house-
holds rely on purchased or received items for food security.
Table 5 provides data on the distribution of the fish catch.
On the whole, some 97 % of households that fish reported
consuming their own fish, with a smaller percent selling
their catch. Local sharing was also high, except for Barra
Grande, the community with the lowest proportion of fish-
ers. In this community, fishing was less important than other
activities such as agriculture, commerce, tourism, or con-
struction; thus fish production was low, with small surpluses
to share or sell. Most communities reported the role of
fishing as an indirect entitlement; especially Ponta Negra
and Ilha do Araújo, with high percentages of sales to fish
markets and middlemen.
Food Security and Vulnerability
Fishing seems to be the key to food security in the study
area. The fish caught by the households is distributed to
household consumption (direct entitlement of Sen 1981),

Table 3 Complementarity of fishing and other livelihood activities

Fishing and… Total (n0192) PN (n023) PS (n029) PG (n029) TR (n039) BG (n021) IA (n041) TA (n010)

Day wage 46 26 45 79 38 62 46 20
Tourism 43 48 66 37 44 19 44 30
Agriculture 32 43 34 21 49 38 12 20
Commerce 28 17 72 21 26 24 15 10
Homemaker 23 43 17 37 8 19 29 10
Inv. gathering 23 26 7 47 23 14 24 20
Other 23 17 17 42 18 14 32 10
Retired/pensioner 20 17 17 21 28 24 17 0
Handicrafts 16 17 34 26 13 10 7 10
Pvt. sector empl. 14 9 10 16 5 43 12 10
Pub. sector empl. 8 9 3 0 8 10 10 20
Crew industrial fish. 7 17 21 0 0 0 5 10
NTFP extraction 6 22 3 5 5 0 5 0
Construction 3 0 0 5 0 19 2 0

PN Ponta Negra, PS Praia do Sono, PG Praia Grande, TR Trindade, BG Barra Grande, IA Ilha do Araújo, TA Tarituba
Data in percentage
158 Hum Ecol (2013) 41:153–164

Fig. 2 Livelihood assets

related to food production in the
households, for nine selected
items. Data in percentage
(n0350)

shared with relatives and neighbors (transfer entitlement), or
sold to fish markets, middlemen, restaurants or directly to
tourists (indirect entitlement) (Table 5). In fact, all house-
holds who fished in four of the seven communities in the
study area (Praia do Sono, Trindade, Barra Grande and
Tarituba) consumed their own fish. Three-quarters of fishing
households shared with relatives and over two-thirds with
neighbors and friends, indicating the importance of sharing
networks.
A key question regarding food security, households were
asked if they suffered any food shortage in the previous 12-
month period. Figure 3 shows that in the area as a whole,
only 27 % reported a food shortage at some point in the last
annual cycle.
Since food exchange networks seem to be important, as
shown by the data on fish catch distributions, we asked
households if they have given food, or received food, from
other households (Fig. 4). Looking at all food products,
about half of the families in the study area “sometimes” or
“often” gave food or received food. There were somehow
greater numbers of food-donating households than receiving
households. Three communities in particular (Trindade,
Tarituba, Praia Grande) seemed to have a high percentage of
households receiving food.
What are the alternatives to food exchanges when a
household lacks food? Table 6 indicates that only a minority
of families (15 %) “never lacked food”; nearly two-thirds
(63 %) said that they “can always buy” as needed, and
another 19 % mentioned they “sometimes can buy”. These
results highlight the importance of indirect entitlements (Sen
1981) as a function of the growing wage income from tourism
and other sources. Only 3 % relied on food donations or Sen’s
(1981) transfer entitlements when lacking food. Table 5 also
helps identify the vulnerable households: the 3 % who rely on
donations and perhaps many of the 19 % who can “buy only
sometimes” when short of food. These households are vulner-
able to such factors as changes in the sharing ethic, employ-
ment opportunities, and food prices.

Table 4 Livelihood diversity in perspective

Discussion
Communities Percentage of Livelihood Main source
households diversity of livelihood The argument we build here connects livelihood diversity,
involved in fishing resilience and food security. Food security concerns all
Ponta Negra 72 1.84 Fishing
people, at all times, having physical and economic access
Praia do Sono 72 1.82 Fishing
to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food (Béné et al. 2007).
The diversity of livelihood activities is a key characteristic
Praia Grande 66 1.79 Mix: Day wage,
fishing of the study area and of Caiçara people in general (Begossi
Trindade 56 1.72 Mix: tourism, et al. 2010; Hanazaki et al. 2007), and of many rural
commerce societies in the world (Ellis 2000; Coomes et al. 2010).
Barra Grande 28 1.60 Mix: Day wage, The innovation in our paper is that we measure this diversity
agriculture, to help analyze specialist and generalist strategies among
commerce
communities and households, and trade-offs among activities.
Ilha do Araujo 76 1.57 Fishing
Much of the diversity is oriented to local food production, but
Tarituba 29 1.37 Mix: commerce, an important part is also oriented to cash production essential
fishing
for the functioning of the mixed economy.
Hum Ecol (2013) 41:153–164 159

Table 5 Distribution of fishing

catch in households that Total PN PS PG TR BG IA TA
reported it
Consumed by the household 97 96 100 82 100 100 98 100
Share with relatives 75 74 79 82 90 43 71 82
Share with neighbours/friends 69 70 79 64 93 21 63 64
Sell to fish markets/middlemen 55 83 59 45 10 21 83 55
PN Ponta Negra, PS Praia do
Sono, PG Praia Grande, TR Sell to restaurants 34 48 48 36 40 0 22 36
Trindade, BG Barra Grande, Sell to others in the community 21 17 21 27 13 29 22 27
IA Ilha do Araújo, TA Tarituba Other 29 22 34 9 37 7 37 27
Data in percentage N 159 23 29 11 30 14 41 11
of households

Using the parallell with the ecological niche concept, it is
clear that complementarity occurs between fisheries and
these other activities at the household level, but there is a
small “niche overlap” with some activities such as construc-
tion, NTFP harvesting, and crewing in larger-scale fisheries.
At the community level though, it is worth noting that such
“niche overlap” is rare. Exceptions include crewing in Ponta
Negra and Praia do Sono; NTFP extraction in Ponta Negra,
and construction in Barra Grande. One possible explanation
for the first case is that traditionally, in isolated Caiçara
communities such as Ponta Negra and Praia do Sono, young
men who do not have much working opportunity leave the
community to work as a crew member in large-scale fisheries,
while part of the family stays in the community practicing
small-scale fishing (Futemma and Seixas 2008).
The fact that Ponta Negra is the most isolated community
with no road access may help explain household depen-
dence both in fisheries and NTFP products. This isolation
has an indirect influence on NTFP harvest and use of shift-
ing cultivation because difficulty of access means lower
intensity of monitoring and enforcement. For additional
evidence, Ponta Negra has the second highest percentage
of fishers who are also farmers (Table 3). The third excep-
tion may be explained by the fact that Barra Grande is the
most urbanized of the communities studied, it has only river
access to the sea, and is also the one with the lowest
proportion of fishing households (28 %) (Table 4). Hence
the few fishermen in the community are likely to work in
construction as a complementary source of income.
Medicinal plants have been known as a key livelihood
asset in Caiçara communities (Begossi et al. 2002; Hanazaki
et al. 2000). We made a distinction between bitter manioc
and sweet manioc varieties due to the different role of each
in the food system and in mode of production (Peroni et al.
2007). Bitter manioc is usually cultivated in clearances
within the forest (roças) and needs to be processed into
flour (to reduce the cyanogenic content) before consump-
tion, while sweet manioc can be cultivated both in home-
gardens and in roças and can be eaten directly as a boiled
root crop (Emperaire and Peroni 2007). Manioc flour and
the boiled manioc roots are traditional food sources in
several parts of lowland South America. We separated ba-
nana from other fruits due to its importance as a cash crop in
the Atlantic forest coast.
We observed a small proportion of households producing
manioc flour, a traditional component of Caiçara diet. Given
the difficulty of doing shifting cultivation in the Atlantic
Forest especially after the 1980’s due to restrictions imposed
by environmental regulations, and changing livelihoods,
collective activities have almost disappeared (Peroni and
Hanazaki 2002). The Caiçaras have maintained a high di-
versity of bitter as well as sweet manioc varieties. But

Fig. 3 Food shortages during

the last 12 months, according to
interviewed households. Dark
grey no; light grey yes. Total
(n0350), PN Ponta Negra
(n032); PS Praia do Sono
(n040); PG Praia Grande
(n044); TR Trindade (n070);
BG Barra Grande (n076);
IA Ilha do Araújo (n054);
TA Tarituba (n032).
Data in percentages
160 Hum Ecol (2013) 41:153–164

Fig. 4 Food exchanges. Total

(n0350), PN Ponta Negra
(n032); PS Praia do Sono
(n040); PG Praia Grande
(n044); TR Trindade (n070);
BG Barra Grande (n076);
IA Ilha do Araújo (n054);
TA Tarituba (n032). Data
in percentages

cultivating sweet varieties (rather than the bitter) has be-
come more easy because they do not depend on roças and
because processing is not needed (Hanazaki et al. 2006).
The livelihood portfolio as a whole appears to provide
flexibility and options; that is, it provides resilience (Marschke
and Berkes 2006; Schwarz et al. 2011). At the time of the
household livelihood surveys, food security did not appear to
be a problem. But to the extent that the various components of
the livelihood portfolio essential to Caiçara livelihoods (e.g.,
fishing and small-scale agriculture) are coming under pressure
in various ways, loss of livelihood diversity will translate into
loss of resilience, leaving certain groups vulnerable to food
insecurity. In the coastal communities of Paraty region, small-
scale fishing used to be the dominant activity with the excep-
tion of the more urbanized areas of the city. However, in the
sample of seven Caiçara communities we studied, nearly one-
third of the households did not fish at all; among most of the
rest of the households that did, fishing was not the main
activity but one of a mix of livelihood activities. Only 1 %
of fishing households relied exclusively on fishing; 99 %
reported at least one other livelihood activity.
Yet, these Caiçara communities are strongly marine-
oriented. For example, in the squid (Loligo plei and L.
sanpaulensis) season, November to March (Postuma and
Gasalla 2010) nearly everyone (man, woman and child)
takes part in squid jigging from canoes in communities such
as Trindade (Robson Possidônio, pers. comm.) and Ponta
Negra (Carpenter 2011). This activity is “taken for granted”,
as is coastal shellfish gathering (often by children) and may be
under-represented in the household survey results (Carpenter
2011). Despite these activities, relatively few people consid-
ered themselves as “fishers”, sometimes due to a comparative
perception with neighbors and relatives who really do make
their major income from fishing.
The unusual feature of the study area is that it is charac-
terized by an economy of exchange networks, especially for
fish, and diversity of livelihood activities, even though it is
relatively close to the two largest urban centers of Brazil (the
cities of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro). Some of the food
production goes for sale, but almost always serves direct
consumption by the producing households themselves or
through their exchange networks. Some assets, such as fish,
and less frequently bitter manioc, banana and other fruits,
can be used as indirect entitlements to generate cash to buy
other things (Sen 1981). Considering that the regular Caiçara
meal consists of rice, beans, manioc flour, and a source of

Table 6 Answers to the ques-

tion: What do you do when there Total TR PS PN BG PG IA TA
is a lack of food in your house?
Nothing 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
Food given by neighbors or relatives 3 3 3 8 0 6 2 0
PN Ponta Negra, PS Praia do Sometimes we can buy 19 10 33 28 18 23 26 3
Sono, PG Praia Grande, TR We can always buy 63 79 38 52 74 71 63 41
Trindade; BG Barra Grande, IA We never lack food 15 9 28 8 8 0 9 56
Ilha do Araújo, TA Tarituba
N 315 70 40 25 65 35 46 34
Data in percentages
Hum Ecol (2013) 41:153–164
animal protein (mainly fish, but also chicken and meat)
(Hanazaki and Begossi 2000; 2003; MacCord and Begossi
2006), it is clear that several food items need to be purchased,
such as rice and beans, which are not produced locally.
It is worth mentioning that before connecting with re-
gional markets, the Caiçara meal relied on locally produced
items such as fish and manioc flour, and some crops such as
sweet potatoes and beans; rice was not part of their tradi-
tional food until the last decades of 20th century. Thus, local
food security heavily depends on external sources as well,
and the means to buy from those sources. Nevertheless,
subsistence practices have remained strong in these com-
munities, for example, by maintaining a high diversity of
manioc varieties despite the high risk of losing this
genetic resource and the knowledge to manage this di-
versity (Sambatti et al. 2001; Peroni and Hanazaki 2002).
Livelihood activities that generate a cash income are
important in the overall mix. These include various kinds
of wage jobs (private and public sector jobs, construction
work, day-wage labour), retirement and pension income,
income from commercial activities (e.g., stores), and in-
creasingly important, tourism income. This whole set of
activities shows a diversity of livelihoods, which could be
subdivided even further, especially when gendered special-
ization is taken into account. For example, the major cate-
gory of tourism-related income among the women of Ponta
Negra is housekeeping, while among men it is boat trans-
portation, that is, moving tourists between Laranjeiras and
Ponta Negra or between Praia do Sono and Ponta Negra
(Carpenter 2011); whereas in Praia Grande for example it
would be boat rentals to tourists. By contrast, it seems that
despite having a high proportion of fishers, Ilha do Araújo
do not have as many opportunities to diversify when com-
pared to other communities where fishing is also a strong
option, such as Ponta Negra and Praia do Sono. Two factors
may help to explain this point: first, part of this small island
has become a private tourist estate, restricting access of local
people; second, the rest of this small island is relatively
densely populated when compared with other communities,
hence there is not much land left for harvesting or shifting
cultivation.
Since the diversity of livelihood activities depends in part
on how far the researcher chooses to subdivide categories,
the actual numerical value of the diversity index by com-
munity (Table 2) is not as important as the relative value.
What is important, however, is the use of the diversity index
to assess the diversity of livelihood portfolios by community
to identify generalist/specialist communities in a compara-
tive way. The diversity index helps identify and evaluate
pros and cons of generalist vs. specialist strategies. It is
expected that a greater generalization of activities in a given
community can result in more versatile options in a dynamic
environment. On the other hand, greater specialization in a
161
few activities can result in a more refined knowledge built
on these few activities. Most important, communities are not
homogeneous, with some having most households involved
in fishing activities, while in others this proportion is re-
versed. Tourism is growing strongly in all communities and
is the major source of income. In other words, even when
fishing is the main economic activity in terms of the number
of households involved in the activity, there is a perception
in communities such as Ponta Negra that the amount of
money generated by tourism is higher than by fishing.
However, this is less expected in communities with fewer
households involved with tourism, such as Barra Grande
and Praia Grande. Some communities (Ponta Negra, Praia
do Sono, Trindade) have more diverse array of activities,
resulting in more flexibility considering the community as a
whole (Table 4).
The analysis of the diversity of livelihood activities
allows us to evaluate its consequences for resilience, which
is all about flexibility and options (Gunderson and Holling
2002; Berkes et al. 2003). In spite of tourism being impor-
tant in some communities when compared to others, live-
lihoods in places such as Ilha do Araujo may be less resilient
from the point of view of flexibility: fisheries is strong, but
livelihoods are not as diverse as in other communities, hence
there are fewer options to explore. Here resilience thinking
produces the same conclusion as sustainable livelihoods
analysis (Bebbington 1999): richer the set of capitals, great-
er the diversity of assets, and greater range of options and
flexibility.
A corollary to this argument is that the single most
important natural capital is also the most important capital
to conserve. In the present case, it is fisheries that provide
the strongest natural asset to assure the entitlements related
to food security (or conversely, to reduce the vulnerability to
food insecurity). The important contribution of the small-
scale fisheries to food security of coastal populations, as
argued by Béné et al. (2007), is very clear in our case when
we observe the proportions directly consumed by house-
holds in all communities. The small-scale fishery is under
pressure from competition from larger-scale trawlers and
seiners, and from area closures related to protected areas
along the coast and around islands (Begossi et al. 2010), a
common situation with small-scale fisheries worldwide
(Chuenpagdee 2011). As well, small-scale agriculture and
especially bitter manioc production (which uses shifting
cultivation) is under pressure from the enforcement of pro-
tected areas in the last decades. Here we have to consider
that protected areas can have both a positive and a negative
impact on social indicators such as food security, with
protected areas negatively affecting at least some groups of
fishers (Mascia et al. 2010).
Food exchange networks have a major role in strength-
ening community cohesion because they affect the
162
interactions among resources and resource users (Anderies
et al. 2004). Table 5 shows that only 3 % of households
relied on food donations. Yet, 75 % of fishing households
shared with relatives and 69 % with neighbors and friends
(Table 4). Our interpretation of these findings is that food
exchange is not only about looking after the poor; a very
large component of food sharing is about building commu-
nity cohesion, social networks and social capital (Pretty and
Ward 2001). Such sharing, in turn, contributes to household
and community-level resilience because it makes it possible
to deal with lean seasons and difficult times – to “cope with
and recover from stresses and shocks” (Chambers and
Conway 1992: 6).
Overall, only about one-quarter of households reported a
food shortage in the previous 12-month period. Two com-
munities, Ponta Negra and Praia do Sono, may be consid-
ered vulnerable because they had higher rates of food
shortage, but these shortages may be temporary and due to
lack road access, rather than a problem of resource shortage
or exchange network failure. In this sense, is interesting to
see that in Ponta Negra, the most isolated community, with a
high proportion of fishing households and high livelihood
diversity, has the highest incidence of food shortages but
also one of the highest percentage of food received. Vulner-
able households are present in every community and may be
identified in terms of their response to the question of how
they deal with food shortages. As much as one-fifth of all
households may be vulnerable to food insecurity because
they do not seem to produce enough for themselves and can
“buy only sometimes” what they need.
A full resilience analysis is beyond the scope of this
paper, and there are many variables in addition to livelihood
options to be considered. Moreover, the scale of analysis
matters because processes at different scales will be differ-
ent. To illustrate, at the regional level, the overall human
well-being seems to be stable or increasing, even though the
natural capital of the resource base seems to be declining
(Begossi et al. 2010). The situation in Paraty has parallels to
the paradox revealed by the results of the Millennium Ecosys-
tem Assessment that indicated increasing global human well-
being despite declining ecosystem services (Raudsepp-Hearne
et al. 2010).
In the Paraty region as a whole, well-being may be
increasing due to greater cash incomes from tourism and
wage employment, since indirect entitlements are substitut-
able for direct entitlements (Sen 1981). But certain commu-
nities such as Tarituba and Ilha do Araújo that have lower
livelihood diversity (Tables 2 and 4) have fewer livelihood
options and likely less resilience. More cash income will
buy more food, as long as someone is producing that food,
but it can leave a community less resilient to cope with food
supply shocks, along with a loss of exchange networks that
provide security. Thus, drivers having positive impacts at
Hum Ecol (2013) 41:153–164
one level may have opposite impacts at another level, mak-
ing it important to try to understand livelihoods and well-
being at finer spatial scales (Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010).
A higher robustness in a regional scale can be reached with
better links within the household/community level and be-
tween communities (Anderies et al. 2004).
Conclusions
The central questions in this study about livelihoods and
resilience are relevant to the issue of food security which has
become a policy focus in international development. The
answers to the diagnostic questions we posed in the house-
hold questionnaire indicate that vulnerability to food inse-
curity does not affect all regions in the same way; within a
region, it does not affect all communities in the same way;
and within a community, it does not affect all households
equally. On the other hand, at the regional level, it is not
clear how people in different communities are formally or
informally connected through flows of information or mate-
rials, or if the networks that exist in communities are
connected with other food exchange networks.
Another way to understand the relation among liveli-
hoods, food security and resilience at different levels of
analysis is the following: at the household level, a shortage
on fish catch may have a severe impact on a household that
depends mostly on fishing for its livelihood. The same may
be said for a crop shortage in relation to those few house-
holds that depend mostly on small-scale agriculture. Never-
theless, for those households with other livelihood options
that generate cash income, shortages in fish catch or crop
harvest may not be so disruptive. At the community level,
shortage of fish catch is likely to affect the resilience of
communities with lower diversity of livelihood options and
high dependence on fishing, but not the resilience of other
communities that either have higher diversity of livelihood
options or lower diversity of livelihood option but also
lower dependency on fishing.
Issues of local livelihoods and vulnerability to food inse-
curity can be interpreted at the community level, but there
are also important differences among and within communi-
ties that should be taken into account. The identification
with fishing is strong in almost all communities, reflecting
the historical and cultural importance of this activity, as well
as its continuing contribution to local livelihoods and food
security. However, small-scale fisheries cannot be seen in
isolation from the diversity of activities that make up the
livelihoods of coastal communities. On a regional scale,
livelihoods may seem similar at a first glance, but this only
hides differences within and between communities, and
their vulnerability to food insecurity in the face of pressures
from protected areas, large-scale fisheries, tourism
Hum Ecol (2013) 41:153–164
development and economic change in general. In view of
rapid change in the area, livelihood data collected in these
communities represents a baseline against which future live-
lihood resilience and food security may be measured.
Acknowledgments We thank the team who assisted in data collec-
tion: L.G. Araujo, M. Giraldi, L.A. Cavechia, F.S. Bueloni, I. M.
Martins, C.J. Idrobo, R.R. Freitas, L. Garuana and L. Carpenter. We
acknowledge R. Possidônio and M. Giraldi for additional field obser-
vations, and thank families and communities included in this study.
The research was supported by the International Research Chairs
program (Dr. Alpina Begossi, PI) of the International Development
Research Centre (IDRC) of Canada, project “Community-based re-
source management and food security in coastal Brazil”, with additional
support from FAPESP. N. Hanazaki and C.S. Seixas thank CNPq for their
productivity scholarships (306895/2009-9 and 308480/2009-0).
References
Adams, C. (2000). Caiçaras na Mata Atlântica: Pesquisa Científica
Versus Planejamento Ambiental. Annablume/FAPESP, São Paulo.
Allison, E. H., and Ellis, F. (2001). The Livelihoods Approach and
Management of Small-Scale Fisheries. Marine Policy 25: 377–
388.
Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A., and Ostrom, E. (2004). A Framework
to Analyze the Robustness of Social-Ecological Systems from an
Institutional Perspective. Ecology and Society 9: 18.
Bailey, C., and Pomeroy, C. (1996). Resource Dependency and Devel-
opment Options in Coastal South East Asia. Society and Natural
Resources 9: 191–199.
Bebbington, A. (1999). Capitals and Capabilities: A Framework for
Analyzing Peasant Viability, Rural Livelihoods and Poverty.
World Development 27: 2021–2044.
Begossi, A., and Richerson, P. J. (1993). Biodiversity, Family Income
and Ecological Niche: A Study on the Consumption of Animal
Foods on Búzios Island (Brazil). Ecology of Food and Nutrition
30: 51–61.
Begossi, A., Hanazaki, N., and Tamashiro, J. Y. (2002). Medicinal
Plants in the Atlantic Forest (Brazil) Knowledge, use, and Con-
servation. Human Ecology 30: 281–299.
Begossi, A., Lopes, P. F., de Oliveira, L. E. C., and Nakano, H. (2010).
Ecologia de Pescadores Artesanais da Baía de Ilha Grande.
FAPESP/RiMa, São Carlos.
Béné, C., Macfadyen, G., and Alison, E.H. (2007). Increasing the
Contribution of Small-Scale Fisheries to Poverty Alleviation and
Food Security. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 481.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C. (eds.) (2003). Navigating Social-
Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and
Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Berkes, F., Mahon, R., McConney, P., Pollnac, R. C., and Pomeroy, R.
S. (2001). Managing Small-Scale Fisheries: Alternative Direc-
tions and Methods. International Development Research Centre,
Ottawa.
Bernard, H. R. (1994). Research Methods in Anthropology – Qualita-
tive and Quantitative Approaches, 2nd ed. Altamira Press, Walnut
Creek.
Carpenter, L. (2011). Livelihoods and gender: a case study on the coast
of southeastern Brazil. Master’s thesis, University of Manitoba,
Winnipeg. http://www.umanitoba.ca/institutes/natural_resources/
canadaresearchchair/thesis/CarpenterMNRM2012.pdf (accessed
27 February 2012)
163
Cavallini, M. M., and Nordi, N. (2005). Ecological Niche of Family
Farmers in Southern Minas Gerais State (Brazil). Revista Brasileira
de Biologia 65: 61–66.
Chambers, R. (1997). Whose Reality Counts: Putting the First Last.
Intermediate Technology Publications, London.
Chambers, R., and Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods:
practical concepts for the 21st century. Institute for Development
Studies Discussion Paper No. 296.
Chuenpagdee, R. (ed.) (2011). World Small-Scale Fisheries. Contem-
porary Visions. Eburon, Delft, The Netherlands.
Cochrane, K. L., Andrew, N. L., and Parma, A. M. (2011). Primary
Fisheries Management: A Minimum Requirement for Provision
of Sustainable Human Benefits in Small-Scale Fisheries. Fish and
Fisheries 12: 275–288.
Coomes, O. T., Takasaki, Y., Abizid, C., and Barham, B. L. (2010).
Floodplain Fisheries as Natural Insurance for the Rural Poor in
Tropical Forest Environments: Evidence from Amazonia. Fisher-
ies Management and Ecology 17: 513–521.
Ellis, F. (2000). Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing
Countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Emperaire, L., and Peroni, N. (2007). Traditional Management of
Agrobiodiversity in Brazil: A Case Study of Manioc. Human
Ecology 35: 761–768.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., and
Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience,
Adaptability and Transformability. Ecology and Society 15(4): 20.
[online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art20/.
Futemma, C. R. T., and Seixas, C. S. (2008). Há Territorialidade na
Pesca Artesanal da Baía de Ubatumirim (Ubatuba, SP)? Questões
Intra, Inter e Extra-comunitárias. Biotemas 21: 125–138.
Gotelli, N.J., and Entsminger, G.L. (2011). EcoSim: Null Models Software
for Ecology. Version 7.0. Acquired Intelligence Inc. & Kesey-Bear.
Gunderson, L. H., and Holling, C. S. (eds.) (2002). Panarchy: Under-
standing Transformations in Systems of Humans and Nature.
Island Press, Washington DC.
Hanazaki, N., and Begossi, A. (2000). Fishing and Niche Dimension
for Food Consumption of Caiçaras from Ponta do Almada
(Brazil). Human Ecology Review 7: 52–62.
Hanazaki, N., and Begossi, A. (2003). Does Fish Still Matter? Changes
in the Diet of two Brazilian Fishing Communities. Ecology of
Food and Nutrition 42: 279–301.
Hanazaki, N., de Castro, F., Oliveira, V. G., and Peroni, N. (2007).
Between the Sea and the Land: The Livelihood of Estuarine
People in Southeastern Brazil. Ambiente e Sociedade 10: 121–136.
Hanazaki, N., Tamashiro, J. Y., Leitao-Filho, H. F., and Begossi, A.
(2000). Diversity of Plants Uses in Two Caicara Communities
from the Atlantic Forest Coast, Brazil. Biodiversity and Conser-
vation 9: 597–615.
Hanazaki, N., Peroni, N., and Begossi, A. (2006). Plants to eat and to
heal in the ethnobotany of native inhabitants from the Amazon
and the Atlantic Forest (Brazil) In: Eating and Healing: Tradition-
al Food as Medicine. Haworth Press, v.1, pp. 54–73.
Hardesty, D. L. (1975). The Niche Concept: Suggestions for its use in
Human Ecology. Human Ecology 3: 71–85.
IBGE 2001. Fundação Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística.
Base de dados por Município. http://www.ibge.gov.br
MacCord, P. L., and Begossi, A. (2006). Dietary Changes Over
Time in a Caicara Community from the Brazilian Atlantic
Forest. Ecology and Society 11(2): 38. [online] URL: http://
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art38/.
Magurran, A. (1988). Ecological Diversity and its Measurement.
Croom Helm, London.
Marschke, M. J., and Berkes, F. (2006). Exploring Strategies That
Build Livelihood Resilience: A Case from Cambodia. Ecology
and Society 11: 42. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.
org/vol11/iss1/art42/.
164
Mascia, M. B., Claus, C. A., and Naidoo, R. (2010). Impacts of Marine
Protected Areas in Fishing Communities. Conservation Biology
24: 1424–1429.
Peroni, N., and Hanazaki, N. (2002). Current and Lost Diversity of
Cultivated Varieties, Especially Cassava, Under Swidden Culti-
vation Systems in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Agriculture, Eco-
systems and Environment 92: 171–183.
Peroni, N., Kageyama, P. Y., and Begossi, A. (2007). Molecular
Differentiation, Diversity, and Folk Classification of “Sweet”
and “Bitter” Cassava (Manihot esculenta) in Caiçara and Caboclo
Management Systems (Brazil). Genetic Resources and Crop Evo-
lution 54: 1333–1349.
Postuma, F. A., and Gasalla, M. A. (2010). On the Relationship
Between Squid and the Environment: Artisanal Jigging for Loligo
plei at Sao Sebastiao Island (24 S), Southeastern Brazil. ICES
Journal of Marine Science 67: 1353–1362.
Pretty, J., and Ward, H. (2001). Social Capital and the Environment.
World Development 29: 209–227.
Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G. D., Tengo, M., Bennett, E. M.,
Holland, T., Benessaiah, K., MacDonald, G. K., and Pfeifer, L.
(2010). Untangling the Environmentalist’s Paradox: Why is Hu-
man Well-Being Increasing as Ecosystem Services Degrade? Bio-
Science 60: 576–588.
Hum Ecol (2013) 41:153–164
Robinson, L. W., and Berkes, F. (2010). Applying Resilience
Thinking to Questions of Policy for Pastoralist Systems:
Lessons from the Gabra of Northern Kenya. Human Ecology
38: 335–350.
Sambatti, J. B. M., Martins, P. S., and Ando, A. (2001). Folk Taxon-
omy and Evolutionary Dynamics of Cassava: A Case Study in
Ubatuba, Brazil. Economic Botany 55: 93–105.
Schwarz, A.-M., Béné, C., Bennett, G., Boso, D., Hilly, Z., Paul, C.,
Posala, R., Sibiti, S., and Andrew, N. (2011). Vulnerability and
Resilience of Remote Rural Communities to Shocks and Global
Changes: Empirical Analysis from Solomon Islands. Global En-
vironmental Change 21: 1128–1140.
Sen, A. K. (1981). Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlements and
Famines. Clarendon, Oxford.
Turner, B., Kasperson, R., Matson, P., McCarthy, J., Corell, R.,
Christensen, L., Eckley, N., Kasperson, J., Luers, A., Martello, M.,
Polsky, C., Pulsipher, A., and Shiller, A. (2003). A Framework for
Vulnerability Analysis in Sustainability Science. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 100(14): 8074–8079.
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S., and Kinzig, A. (2004).
Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social-
Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society 9: 5. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/.