Research

INTRODUCTION

Globally, communities are in the presence of environmental changes affecting food security, water resources, and biodiversity (Piao et al. 2010, Bellard et al. 2012, Wheeler and Von Braun 2013). Coastal communities specifically are at risk because both the productivity of fisheries and agricultural land at the land-sea interface is decreasing because of global change (Islam et al. 2014, Ahmed et al. 2019). Declines in productivity can also occur simultaneously during, for example, strong El Niño Southern Oscillation events (Cottrell et al. 2019). One way to face threats affecting the livelihoods of communities is building adaptive capacity. Adaptive capacity has been defined as the ability of individuals or systems to respond and anticipate changes and take advantage of these lessons (Adger 2006, Bennett et al. 2014, Galappaththi et al. 2019). The adaptation response involves the ability to draw on past experiences to manage current challenges and to apply those insights in preparing for future conditions (Brooks and Adger 2005). It is a central concept within vulnerability and resilience frameworks, addressing how communities can prepare for and navigate environmental and socioeconomic changes (Engle 2011). Theoretical frameworks have been developed to describe and measure adaptive capacity through multiple domains and indicators (Bennett et al. 2012, Cinner et al. 2018, Hu and He 2018, Galappaththi et al. 2019). Cinner et al. (2018), for example, identify five domains of adaptive capacities for tropical coastal communities: (1) assets, (2) flexibility, (3) social organization, (4) learning, and (5) agency. Meanwhile Galappaththi et al. (2019) propose a framework where local knowledge is an explicit domain. This framework is composed by six domains: (1) place, (2) human agency, (3) collective action and collaboration, (4) institutions, (5) learning and feedback, and (6) Indigenous and local knowledge systems. In particular, Galappaththi et al. (2019) specify that local knowledge serves not only as a repository of ecological knowledge, but also as an enabler of adaptive strategies that allow communities to cope with social-ecological challenges.

The value of knowledge systems has been frequently highlighted as playing a potentially important role in determining adaptive capacity (Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2015, Ruiz-Mallén et al. 2017, Popovici et al. 2021). Knowledge held by communities has been called in different ways, namely, local ecological knowledge (LEK), traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), and Indigenous ecological knowledge (IEK). Although these terms broadly refer to the information obtained and accumulated over time by local people about the environment and natural resources (Johannes et al. 1983, Berkes 1993, 1999, Gadgil et al. 1993, Charnley et al. 2007), there are differences in their origin. For example, IEK spans generations of knowledge holders, and goes beyond ecological understanding, incorporating cultural and spiritual values that underpin human-nature relationships (Jessen et al. 2022). Acknowledging the importance of different knowledge types, we refer in this study to the knowledge held by local communities as “local knowledge” because it involves a broader set of knowledge that includes not only ecological knowledge, but also cultural aspects. The potential role of local knowledge to build adaptive capacities of communities is recognized as an important key to respond to and anticipate changes. Studies have showed that local knowledge can be useful in risk reduction (Hiwasaki et al. 2014, Audefroy and Sánchez 2017), allows adaptation in feeding habits in response to climate change (Berkes and Jolly 2001), and may contribute to food security of communities converting the agri-food system into a sustainable food system (Lara et al. 2019). Knowledge from coastal communities plays a key role in determining fishers’ responses that consider both land and sea interactions. Thus, identifying the role different attributes, including local knowledge, play in determining responses of communities at the land-sea interface is fundamental to further improve the adaptive capacities of communities in line with their livelihood strategies.

Building and evaluating adaptive capacity and its different dimensions will be fundamental to understand the dynamics of social-ecological systems that operate at the interface of the land and the sea. As part of this, it is important to understand how adaptive capacity connects to individual responses to environmental change. These responses, such as intensifying, or stopping resource-based activities as a consequence of changing resources, can create highly varied feedback for both marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Research has shown adaptive capacities can have high variability between individuals and within communities (Cohen et al. 2016). For example, access to assets helps to generate responses at the individual level, however, at the community level it is not crucial for adaptive capacity (Green et al. 2021). Similarly, the response of fishers varies according to the level of exposure to environmental changes (Ilosvay et al. 2022). Despite this, there is still little research on attributes and indicators that may be relevant in establishing adaptive capacity for individuals and communities that live at the land-sea interface.

Adaptive capacity frameworks, such as those proposed by Cinner et al. (2018) and Galappaththi et al. (2019), can guide the operationalization of adaptive capacity and help to identify the role of different indicators, including local knowledge, therein. This is especially relevant in the context of the land-sea interface, where supporting and provisioning ecosystem services are at risk from interacting changes on sea and on land, and where there is little inclusion of local knowledge (Barceló et al. 2023). Accordingly, the question we address in our study is how do different dimensions of adaptive capacity, including local knowledge of coastal communities at the land-sea interface, contribute to the adaptive capacities of individuals and their subsequent responses to changes. To address this, we will evaluate the adaptive capacity, including local knowledge indicators in addition to other indicators to evaluate how these dimensions influence responses to environmental changes. Our goal is to understand how indicators of adaptive capacity influence both past and future responses when dealing with different environmental threats at the land-sea interface.

METHODS

Social-ecological context

Our study was carried out in Niebla and Corral, located on the Valdivian coast in southern Chile. We conducted interviews with six coastal communities: Niebla, Isla del Rey, Amargos, Huape, Chaihuín, and Huiro (Fig. 1). Communities have a long history of strong attachment to both the land and the sea, and depend on forestry, agriculture, livestock, and marine resources as part of their livelihoods. The region is surrounded by vast areas of native forests, although a considerable portion of these forests have been replaced by exotic tree plantations and agriculture. However, local communities rely primarily on marine resources provided by small-scale fisheries. These include species of shellfish (e.g., gastropods, keyhole limpets, bivalves, sea urchins, barnacles) and algae (e.g. kelps; Castilla and Fernandez 1998). Fishers in these communities belong to associations that have been granted exclusive access rights, in the form of Territorial User Rights for Fisheries (TURF), for the purpose of managing benthic species. Before the implementation of these management areas throughout the country in the 1990s, there was an emblematic case of the collapse of one of the most important marine resources for the income of local communities: the case of the gastropod, the “loco” (Concholepas concholepas). Loco landings declined between 1980 and 1988, which finally collapsed, resulting in the closure of the loco fishery between 1989 and 1992. This provided a window of opportunity for benthic resource management (Castilla and Fernandez 1998, Gelcich et al. 2010). The case of the loco is not an isolated case and reflects the situation of many fishery resources. At present it has been demonstrated that fisheries in Chile have exceeded the normal limits of operation and many are overexploited or collapsed (Marquet et al. 2022). These cases show that coastal communities at our study sites have had to respond or adapt to negative changes in resource availability in the past and that this is at risk of happening again in the future.

The research was carried out after receiving approval from the ethical and scientific committee of social sciences, arts, and humanities of the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile (Reference ID 210322009). Participation in the study was voluntary, and the participants had the right to decline to answer any questions and withdraw from the study at any time. Informed consent was obtained from the participants after ensuring the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses.

Adaptive capacity indicators

We developed adaptive capacity indicators by adapting existing frameworks to the local context. We drew on Cinner et al. (2018) and Galappaththi et al. (2019) to identify key dimensions of adaptive capacity for coastal communities. These frameworks were selected because they were suited for the operationalization and inclusion of local knowledge as a key dimension. We then identified locally relevant indicators for each dimension based on information gathered during a scoping trip in 2019, combined with existing literature from the study area (van Holt 2012, van Holt et al. 2017, Parga León 2020) and interviews with key informants. Finally, we developed a semi-structured interview protocol to operationalize on the following dimensions of adaptive capacity: (a) agency, which evaluated individual capacity to act as a change agent in their livelihoods; (b) assets, which measured access to resources such as multiple jobs, financial loans, and savings ability; (c) social capital, assessing community engagement through associations, leadership, decision making, and information sharing; (d) institutions, focusing on institutional interactions with communities, such as receiving subsidies or training, which reflect the role of institutional processes, including governmental programs; and (e) local knowledge, which explored knowledge of species present in the territory and their values and uses of each species named. Drawing on the dimensions and questions proposed by Cinner et al. (2015), Díaz-Reviriego et al. (2016) and Cinner et al. (2018), our indicators for each dimension of adaptive capacity were selected based on their relevance to the study question and adapted to the local context (Table 1). Data were collected between July 2021 and December 2022. We conducted 99 semi-structured interviews with local communities in Niebla (n = 20), Isla del Rey (n = 11), Amargos (n = 13), Huape (n = 20), Chaihuín (n = 21), and Huiro (n = 14). All interviews were conducted in the local language, Spanish, which allowed for clear communication. We initially interviewed leaders of communities and then used snowball sampling (Cohen and Arieli 2011) to identify additional interviewees, focusing on active fishers, both male and female. All interviews were conducted individually.

Past response and hypothetical scenarios

The history of fisheries collapses in the study area, and recent declines in the availability of marine resources, enabled us to examine the response to both historic and hypothetical changes in marine resources. First, based on their perception, we asked interviewees if there had been an event in the past that significantly impacted their ability to earn a living and income from marine resources and what subsequent actions they took in response. We then explored future and hypothetical responses to change. We asked the fishers what actions they would take if their regular income from marine resources decreased by 20% or 50% over a sustained period of time, based on the estimated income they receive from these activities. Respondents were given a set of actions to choose from in response to past and hypothetical changes. These actions were derived from Cinner et al. (2009, 2011) and included: continuing with their current fishing methods; fishing harder by changing their fishing location, gear, or extra-effort; reducing effort in fishing and practicing another activity; or stopping their fishing activities entirely and focusing on other livelihood options. By employing this approach, we aimed to capture different strategies employed by interviewees in response to varying income scenarios, fostering a deeper understanding of their decisions.

Determinants of fisher response

We assessed the relationships between adaptive capacity indicators and fisher responses by employing a binary coding system. The five dimensions of adaptive capacity (agency, assets, social capital, institutions, and local knowledge) served as predictor variables using their respective indicators (Table 1). For example, within the local knowledge dimension, we used the four indicators: local land knowledge, local sea knowledge, local land-sea knowledge, and diversity of values. Fishers’ responses were categorized as either 0 or 1, each representing distinct attitudes to fishing as a livelihood following a decrease in marine resources. A response was assigned the value of 0 if the interviewee expressed a determination to persist or intensify their current fishing practices. Conversely, a response received a value of 1 if the interviewee indicated a shift toward diversifying their activities on land or completely exiting fishing activities, signifying a willingness to reduce fishing efforts and explore other livelihood options. These responses encompass a wide range of factors, including emotional attachment to fishing, financial considerations, and individuals’ assets and knowledge, which collectively influence their decisions to either continue fishing or diversify their livelihoods for greater stability. This approach allowed us to grasp the multifaceted nature of adaptive capacity in the context of the fishing activity.

Data analysis

We used descriptive statistics to summarize the distribution of the different dimensions of adaptive capacity (see Table 1). To create a typology of individuals with similar values in terms of their adaptive capacity indicators, we first normalized the data by transforming it to values between 0 and 1 for each indicator. We then used Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to examine the correlations between the indicators. From the PCA, we selected three factors with an eigenvalue greater than or equal to 1 to run a hierarchical cluster analysis. Eigenvalues were used as a predictor for the fishers’ response. We used a spider plot to visualize the adaptive capacity of different clusters. For past response and hypothetical scenarios, descriptive statistics were employed to understand the response of fishers. To statistically assess the determinants of fisher response to change, we employed a multiple regression model analysis with binomial response for each scenario: past response, hypothetical declines of 20%, and of 50%. The evaluation of multiple regression was carried out using stepwise model selection using Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) to help us fine-tune our model to determine which variables best describe the fishers’ responses. All data were managed and analyzed using R Studio (RStudio v. 2021.09.0 + 351).

RESULTS

Social-ecological context

A total of 99 interviews were conducted, comprising 68 male participants and 31 female participants. The average age of the interviewees was 52.3 years (min = 20, max = 84), with a median of 52 years. Most people in the Valdivian coastal area were born there and have spent most of their lives in their respective communities, with the mean and median length of residence being 41.6 and 43 years, respectively. Only 5 interviewees came from another region. Most people have been living in the same community or a neighboring community within the same Valdivian coast. All interviewees came from families who made their livelihoods from activities connected to the sea and the land.

Adaptive capacity indicators

Overall, 76% of interviewees agreed or completely agreed that they have agency, based on the question “Can my actions be changing agents in the productivity of my activities or livelihoods?” (Fig. 2a). In terms of assets, respondents had an average of 4.69 jobs, with a median of 4 jobs, which included both land-based and sea-based jobs (min = 1, max = 10). In terms of access to credit and savings, 55% of interviewees agreed or completely agreed that it is easy to access a financial loan, 40% agreed or completely agreed that it is easy to save money, and 35% agreed or completely agreed that it is difficult to save money (Fig. 2b). In relation to social capital, interviewees belonged to more than one association (mean of 1.72, min = 0, max = 6), which includes the Rural Drinking Water Committee, Neighborhood Committee, Fisher's Union, Sports Club, and Rural Committee. Furthermore, 50% of respondents have held a representative position in the community during the last 5 years, while 87% of people shared information and/or tools associated with their livelihoods and activities. In terms of participation in decision making, 82% of interviewees agreed or completely agreed that they actively participate and feel involved in decisions (Fig. 2c). Regarding institutions, our results indicate that most respondents had infrequent interactions with mentioned institutions, with 82% of respondents indicating rare interactions (defined as less than once a year) with the mentioned institutions. Specifically, 95% reported rare interactions with donor agencies, 78% with private companies, 81% with regional governments, 76% with financial institutions, 67% with NGOs or scientific organizations, 39% with the municipality, and 49% with other communities. Notably, the National Fishery Service was an exception, with 57% of respondents reporting regular interactions (defined as at least once a month). Additionally, 67% of respondents agreed and completely agreed that they had accessed subsidies in the last 5 years, whilst 85% had not accessed training opportunities (Fig. 2d). In terms of local knowledge, interviewees demonstrated a high knowledge of terrestrial and marine species when asked to free-list known species (a mean of 9 and 9.8 species, respectively, out of a possible maximum of 10 species). Regarding species that have a relationship with both the land and sea, respondents were less knowledgeable and named an average of 4.2 species, out of a possible maximum of 10 species. The most frequently mentioned terrestrial species were domestic species such as cows and sheep, although native species such as puma (cougar) and olivillo (tree) were also among the most frequently mentioned. On the marine side, species such as the Chilean abalone, the snoek, and the sea urchin were the most frequently mentioned. Finally, respondents named an average of 5.9 uses or values of nature (min = 1, max = 15) associated with different species (Fig. 2e). The most mentioned were commercial, consumption, construction, and medicinal uses and values. Values such as conservation, resilience, and cultural values also emerged in the interview.

The cumulative proportion of the first five components of PCA explained 55% of the variation of the data and the first two axes explained a total of 29.1% (Fig. 3a). This analysis allowed the classification of individual typologies, from which we identified three clusters that displayed differential indicators of adaptive capacity (Fig. 3b, Appendix 1). Cluster 1 is mainly defined by the social capital dimension, including social capital, leadership, participation in decision making, and social networking and the lowest values associated with local knowledge. This cluster comprises 40 interviewees, and it had the highest values of overall adaptive capacity (we named this cluster “Local Leadership”; Appendix 1). Cluster 2 is primarily defined by high values on indicators of local knowledge. For example, in comparison to other clusters, Cluster 2 has the highest values for knowledge of land and sea species, as well as knowledge of species that have a land-sea relationship and higher different types of values associated with nature. This cluster comprises 22 interviewees (named “Heritage Custodians”; Appendix 1). Finally, Cluster 3 is characterized by the dimension of assets, comprising individuals with high values of occupational mobility, access to credits, and savings. This cluster overall has the lowest overall adaptive capacity (named “Asset Agiles”; Appendix 1) and comprises 37 individuals.

Past response and hypothetical scenarios

Fishers reported different behaviors in response to past and hypothetical declines in income from marine resources (Fig. 4). Following a historic past decline in income from marine resources, 50% of the respondents said that they continued fishing: 24.4% fished as they had been doing, and 25.6% increased their fishing effort. Among the other 50%, 33.7% of the respondents reduced their fishing effort, opting for another activity, while the remaining 16.3% stopped fishing to engage in a different activity. In hypothetical scenarios with a 20% decline in income from marine resources, 57.2% of individuals said they would continue fishing, and this decreased to 39.1% at a 50% decline in income. At a 20% decline in income, 4.5% of respondents said they would stop fishing, which increased to 29% at a decline of 50%. At 20% and 50% declines, 38.3% and 31.8%, respectively, would reduce their effort, 28.5% and 20.9%, respectively, would fish harder. These results indicate that the fishers’ responses to a hypothetical 20% decline in income from marine resources resembles the past responses to changes in income from marine resources. A noticeable difference in behavior could emerge with a substantial decline in marine resources, including an adoption of strategies that diversify away from fishing activities.

Determinants of fisher response

For elucidating a fisher’s response to change, we employed different predictor variables based on the adaptive capacity framework: agency, assets, social capital, institutions, local knowledge, and from participants’ responses generated three clusters of individuals. Our results for the fisher’s past response revealed that the model with best fit includes only variables from local knowledge dimension (AIC = 129.13). This model incorporated diversity of values and local land-sea knowledge. However, it is noteworthy that only the local land-sea knowledge exhibited statistical significance (p = 0.017; Table 2). This indicates that a profound understanding of species with land-sea relationships influenced the continuation of fishing practices or fishing harder in the past. Similar to past response, the best model for a hypothetical scenario involving a 20% decline in fisheries also included only variables from the local knowledge dimension (AIC = 117.22). The model included both local sea knowledge and diversity of values, but only diversity of values showed statistical significance (p < 0.05; Table 2). A higher diversity of values indicates that individuals have the capacity to diversify their fishing activities by engaging in other land-based activities in response to a 20% reduction in marine resources. By recognizing the significance of diverse values, communities can harness this understanding to explore alternative livelihoods beyond fishing, thus ensuring resilience and sustainability in the face of declining marine resources. In the hypothetical scenario of a 50% decline in income from fisheries, the best model (AIC = 112.71) comprises variables such as savings, participation in decision making, institutions, and local knowledge of land species. All variables, except savings and institutions, demonstrate statistical significance (p < 0.05; Table 2). This suggests that a stronger connection with institutions and a deep understanding of land species enable a diversified response, facilitating the exploration of land-based activities that could generate income for the interviewees. Based on the conversations around the semi-structured interviews, the reasons for continuing in fishing are mainly age (older fishers are more unlikely to shift to an activity related to land-based resources) and their historical relationship with fishing and diving activities, which date back to their childhood. Those interviewees whose response was to abandon the activities at sea either partially or totally, indicated that they would diversify into jobs such as cutting and selling wood.

DISCUSSION

Adaptive capacity indicators

Our findings reveal a high level of heterogeneity in the adaptive capacity of fishers and in fishers’ responses to historic past and hypothetical declines in marine resources. By assessing adaptive capacity indicators and employing cluster analysis, we have identified three types of individuals based on their adaptive capacity. The first cluster, which we name “Local Leadership,” comprises individuals who actively participate in decision-making processes, and who support and advocate for local communities. The second cluster, named as “Heritage Custodians,” brings together people who have deep knowledge of their local environment and have a diverse number of values. Finally, the third cluster, named “Asset Agiles,” comprises individuals with high occupational mobility, access to credit and savings, who excel in skillfully and rapidly building their assets. These typologies provide valuable insights into the diverse indicators of adaptive capacity displayed by individuals. Similar to our results, Ruiz-Mallén et al. (2017) showed different typologies of households according to their indicators of adaptive capacity: commoners, vulnerable, leaders, and subsidized. The vulnerable individuals, who present the lowest overall adaptive capacity, had the highest value for local knowledge and in this case, this indicator becomes the most important for the adaptive capacity of these individuals because of the low values of the other indicators. In our case, the “Heritage Custodians,” who presented highest values for local knowledge, showed low values for agency, occupational multiplicity, institutional relations, and social capital, but overall, this cluster did not show the lowest values for adaptive capacity (Fig. 3b, Appendix 1). The low levels of adaptive capacity of the Tsimane' community and in particular of vulnerable groups may be due to the fact that they live mainly within the biosphere reserve, which gives them more local knowledge, but on the other hand they have less access, which limits other indicators. (Ruiz-Mallén et al. 2017). Likewise, within the typology of “Local Leadership,” indicators encompassing access to credit and savings were low but leadership, agency, participation in decision making, and social networking were the highest. Meanwhile “Asset Agiles” showed low values for values of nature, subsidies, and leadership, but higher values for access to credit and occupational multiplicity (Appendix 1). Our findings suggest that although individuals in the coastal community show heterogeneity and social differentiation, all groups show similar levels of adaptive capacity and high levels of local knowledge, which may be a fundamental factor in the fisher response.

Overall, indicators such as social capital, training, institutional relations, and values of nature were low, while agency, access to credit, and local knowledge were the indicators with higher values. Our results are consistent with other studies in coastal communities. In Tanzania, Pike et al. (2022) found that the contribution of agency to adaptive capacity was high, while the influence of social capital was low. These results are similar to other studies (e.g., Cinner et al. 2011, 2015) revealing the importance of agency for people to take actions. Although other indicators of adaptive capacity may be high, these in conjunction with low agency may result in low adaptive capacity. Individuals with more agency can mobilize other indicators of adaptive capacity to respond to environmental change and shape futures (Coulthard 2012, Cinner et al. 2018). Our results showed high levels of agency for individuals, emphasizing the fact that the individual’s own actions can be an agent of change to improve their livelihoods. Therefore, an individual’s agency can be taken as a starting point and facilitator for adaptation measures.

The operationalization of local knowledge within the adaptive capacity framework, as proposed by Galappaththi et al. (2019), presents a significant challenge that requires attention. Although various cases have acknowledged the utilization of local knowledge for adaptive capacity, many of these studies have failed to integrate quantitatively local knowledge with other dimensions of adaptive capacity, in addition to measuring its role for a response. Our study demonstrates the considerable value of including local knowledge alongside the other indicators of adaptive capacity to address the challenges in the land-sea interface. The knowledge held by members of local communities bears significant resemblance in importance to agency as a fundamental catalyst for enabling effective responses to change. Local knowledge empowers individuals and communities to navigate the unique complexities of the land-sea interface, as it provides essential context, and a comprehensive understanding of the challenges at hand. For example, in the Solomon Islands, a participatory three-dimensional model integrated local knowledge, incorporating information about local resources and fishing sites. This approach allowed the community to visualize risks and empowered them to collaboratively plan adaptation strategies and manage resources effectively (Leon et al. 2015). Therefore, knowledge of terrestrial species, as well as the diversity of values found, and the diverse uses of each species enables coastal community members to plan and move to other activities. For example, the fishers at our study site, point out that during the loco closed season or when fishing is bad, they go to the forest to harvest wood to sell as firewood, or allocate more time to domestic livestock or tourism. Therefore, their knowledge, and particularly their utilitarian and instrumental uses and values of land-based species and practices, can facilitate the response to abandoning fishing activity, moving to land-based activities. This emphasis on local knowledge underscores the broader relevance of this approach in fostering adaptive capacity across diverse communities. For vulnerable communities in particular, local knowledge in medical systems, such as the expertise of women in the use of medicinal plants, plays a crucial role in building adaptive capacities, providing more healthcare options to treat ailments (Díaz-Reviriego et al. 2016). Likewise, some interviewees mentioned certain tree species like canelo (Drimys winteri), and when asked about their values or uses, they highlighted the medicinal potential of these species. Furthermore, as noted by Granderson (2017) in Pacific communities, local knowledge can build adaptive capacity by observing and predicting weather, as changes in rainfall and temperature regimes lead to shifts in the planting calendar. Equally significant, local knowledge contributes to networks of social relations, fostering values like “rispek” (respect) and traditional hierarchies, which enable collective action to effectively respond to environmental changes. Therefore, local knowledge can enhance adaptive capacity by acting on other dimensions of adaptive capacity. For example, knowledge about particular species or practices will also enable participation in related groupings and later decision making, in addition to having the knowledge to apply for training and subsidies. Our approach in understanding local knowledge through naming species and use of these species helps us to understand the role of local knowledge in responsiveness. This is precisely why our work emphasizes the operationalization of a framework, incorporating local knowledge, to obtain a more comprehensive view of the adaptive capacity of local communities.

Past response and hypothetical scenarios

Fishers’ responses are important for understanding how indicators of adaptive capacity, including local knowledge, can influence the reactions of individuals in diverse circumstances. The response of individuals to past experiences and their subsequent response after these situations is by no means standardized, given that each individual experience is personal, and the degree of decline experienced by the individual is contingent upon various contextual factors such as, age, time of residence in the community, and diversity of livelihoods. However, these experiences, especially in our study site and in the Chilean context of small-scale fisheries, may serve as useful guides in predicting hypothetical future behavior. Particularly noteworthy is the observation that a shift in the magnitude of a decline in income from marine resources (from 20% to 50%), could be met with a much higher level of diversification away from fishing (from 42.8% to 60.9% of interviewees), including a greater proportion of people (from 4.5% to 29%) who would be willing to stop fishing. This underscores how responsive fishers’ behavior is to changes in the environment that impact on their livelihood. Communities in the Valdivian coast not only show a diversity of jobs as we showed, but also for some individuals land-based activities are the most important source of income (Barriga Parra et al. 2022, Barceló et al. 2024). Factors that could determine the decision to continue, reduce effort, fish harder, or stop fishing are multiple. For example, communities in the Indian Ocean that have a higher diversity of livelihoods and a lower catch value are more likely to abandon fishing (Daw et al. 2012). Globalization, access to new markets, and land connectivity has allowed the diversification of livelihoods to be more efficient as an income opportunity, and therefore, to adopt exit and entry decisions (Kramer et al. 2017). Both cases identify how the diversification of livelihoods facilitates the decision to abandon fishing, as occurs in our study, where it is more feasible for interviewees, having experience and knowledge of land-based activities, to decide to abandon fishing. For example, many respondents mentioned that it would not be difficult to dedicate part or all of their time to land-based activities such as agriculture or tourism, as they already have some previous knowledge. However, some inhabitants, particularly the elderly, despite having the knowledge and tools to carry out activities on land, have decided not to abandon fishing because of their cultural attachment to the sea. Finally, similar to our results, Cinner et al. (2009) found that the greater the magnitude of decline, the greater the probability of abandoning the activity, but in that case, the main predictor was household wealth. Our results show that in the past, having local land-sea knowledge was associated with people who continue fishing and face past threats. However, the magnitude of past threats is contingent upon various contextual factors, which were not captured in this study, for example, changes in abundance of marine resources in different TURFs because of external factors such as use of chemicals in clear-cut operations (Van Holt et al. 2017; Interviewee from Huiro 2021). Therefore, while past responses guide us to understand future scenarios, further information on a particular past event would be needed to provide a more holistic understanding of how this local knowledge helps to face threats.

Determinants of fisher response

In the hypothetical scenarios, different indicators of adaptive capacity were significant predictors of fishers’ individual responses. When presented with a hypothetical decline of 50% in income from marine resources, individuals that scored highly on their ability to save, their involvement in participatory decision making, and interactions with institutions were more likely to explore alternative land-based occupations. These findings align with previous studies that have identified wealth as a significant predictor of individuals transitioning away from fishing activities to engage in land-based activities (Kramer et al. 2017). Therefore, indicators like savings or support from institutions and local communities may be crucial in exploring land-based activities in the face of future threats that reduce marine resources. This suggests that in addition to local knowledge, fishers may need financial and technical support to engage with land-based activities as a more stable livelihood option than fishing. Moreover, our results highlighted that local knowledge was the most influential dimension for both scenarios of hypothetical decline. Specifically, the diversity of values and local land knowledge were relevant predictors in reducing fishing efforts and engaging in other side activities, and completely stopping fishing in both the hypothetical declines of 20% and 50% of marine resources. These findings suggest that such knowledge, in particular knowledge of land species, could prove valuable for fishers to diversify into land-based activities. A high level of knowledge is related to a diversity of values and uses that may allow a diversification of livelihoods for coastal communities (Barceló et al. 2024). Understanding values is essential for sustainable use and management of natural resources and species (Etongo et al. 2017). Therefore, local knowledge and values may be considered as a key domain enabling fishers’ responses. The potential mismatch between local knowledge and the rate of environmental change is a challenge for safeguarding local knowledge, especially for older and vulnerable people. As we noted in our interviews, older fishers, who generally maintain higher levels of local knowledge, are the most resistant to changing livelihoods because their cultural attachment to traditional practices may limit their willingness to adapt or diversify livelihoods. Despite this, it is important to transmit their knowledge to the rest of the community. Maintaining the transmission of knowledge may enable an adaptive response under futures scenarios of change, such as climate change.

Limitations of the study

Our study had some limitations in terms of the methods used to measure some indicators of adaptive capacity. The complexity of agency and its relationship to the other dimensions has been quantified with different approaches (Rubio et al. 2021, Wongbusarakum et al. 2021). Therefore, assessing the agency dimension with a single indicator may not fully reflect the complexity of the concept. Similarly, although free-listing provides valuable insights into the breadth of local knowledge, it offers a partial understanding of its depth, particularly regarding practical application. There may be a mismatch between holding the knowledge of how to use a species, and the ability to put it into practice (Reyes-García et al. 2007). Therefore, although free-listing captures a theoretical knowledge, further exploration should require qualitative techniques for this inquiry. However, despite these limitations, one of the strengths of this study lies in its ability to analyze different indicators in conjunction with local knowledge in two ecosystems, to explore differences in responses in different scenarios, all of which provides an assessment of adaptive capacities. Finally, our study focused mainly on marine activities, which could hinder having a better perspective of what happens at the land-sea interface in terms of mobility and response of the inhabitants to changes in the environment, e.g., decrease in land resources.

Final reflections

Our approach, which involves assessing indicators of adaptive capacity and subsequently exploring response scenarios, offers a valuable means of comprehending the intricate and multifaceted process of determining an individual’s response to change in coastal communities. We employed historic past and hypothetical future scenarios to effectively evaluate fishers’ willingness and ability to respond to changes in marine resources. Our results highlight that multiple interdependent domains of adaptive capacity may be relevant when predicting, managing, and/or enabling fishers’ responses. In particular, our results show the importance of local knowledge in the adaptive capacity of individual fishers and their potential responses to environmental change that may diminish the natural resources of local communities. Although the novelty of this study is the measurement of local knowledge in conjunction with other indicators and the testing of hypothetical scenarios, we recognize the limitations in measuring indicators such as local knowledge or agency, which present greater complexity than can be captured through free-listing and single quantitative measures. Future research must address these limitations by including the complexities of local knowledge in these theoretical frameworks of adaptive capacity, through participatory methodologies that account for skills and uses in innovative and adaptive ways (Coelho-Ferreira 2009, Sauini et al. 2020), reflecting cultural integration and ecological knowledge.

Our study underscores the critical importance of incorporating and measuring local knowledge and other indicators into the framework for building adaptive capacity, particularly for vulnerable communities facing constraints such as low job diversity and low economic income. Local knowledge, as our results demonstrate, is not merely an indicator but also has the potential to serve as a pivotal catalyst, enabling people with lower scores on other indicators of adaptive capacity to strengthen their ability to respond effectively to environmental challenges. Our results may suggest that as the severity of change increases, such as with a hypothetical 50% decline, additional indicators of adaptive capacity become significant, underscoring the complex and dynamic nature of these interactions. This study is a step toward better understanding how local knowledge can be a catalyst for responding to change in a way that supports the well-being and adaptive strategies of coastal communities.

LITERATURE CITED

Adger, W. N. 2006. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16(3):268-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006

Ahmed, I., S. Ayeb-Karlsson, K. van der Geest, S. Huq, and J. C. Jordan. 2019. Climate change, environmental stress and loss of livelihoods can push people towards illegal activities: a case study from coastal Bangladesh. Climate and Development 11(10):907-917. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2019.1586638

Audefroy, J. F., and B. N. C. Sánchez. 2017. Integrating local knowledge for climate change adaptation in Yucatán, Mexico. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 6(1):228-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2017.03.007

Barceló, M., M. Tengö, J. A. Simonetti, and S. Gelcich. 2024. Exploring links between local knowledge, values and livelihoods in land-sea interface: insights on emerging tradeoffs and change in Southern Chile. Ecosystems and People 20(1):2329562. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2024.2329562

Barceló, M., C. A. Vargas, and S. Gelcich. 2023. Land-sea interactions and ecosystem services: research gaps and future challenges. Sustainability 15(10):8068. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108068

Barriga Parra, J., G. Saavedra Gallo, G. Blanco Wells, and M. Navarro Pacheco. 2022. Sistema Agromarino Alimentario Localizado: historias, propuestas y dificultades del caso de Huape, región de Los Ríos, Chile. RIVAR 9(25):17-36. https://doi.org/10.35588/rivar.v9i25.5413

Bellard, C., C. Bertelsmeier, P. Leadley, W. Thuiller, and F. Courchamp. 2012. Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecology Letters 15(4):365-377. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01736.x

Bennett, N. J., P. Dearden, G. Murray, and A. Kadfak. 2014. The capacity to adapt?: Communities in a changing climate, environment, and economy on the northern Andaman coast of Thailand. Ecology and Society 19(2):5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06315-190205

Bennett, N., R. H. Lemelin, R. Koster, and I. Budke. 2012. A capital assets framework for appraising and building capacity for tourism development in aboriginal protected area gateway communities. Tourism Management 33(4):752-766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.08.009

Berkes, F. 1993. Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective. Pages 1-10 in J. Inglis, editor. Traditional ecological knowledge: concepts and cases. Canadian Museum of Nature/International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and resource management. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Berkes, F., and D. Jolly. 2001. Adapting to climate change: social-ecological resilience in a Canadian western Arctic community. Conservation Ecology 5(2):18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00342-050218

Brooks, N., and W. N. Adger. 2005. Assessing and enhancing adaptive capacity. Pages 165-181 in B. Lim and E. Spanger-Siegfried, editors. Adaptation policy frameworks for climate change: developing strategies, policies and measures. UNDP and Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Castilla, J. C., and M. Fernandez. 1998. Small-scale benthic fisheries in Chile: on co‐management and sustainable use of benthic invertebrates. Ecological Applications 8(sp1):S124-S132. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(1998)8[S124:SBFICO]2.0.CO;2

Charnley, S., A. P. Fischer, and E. T. Jones. 2007. Integrating traditional and local ecological knowledge into forest biodiversity conservation in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management 246(1):14-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.03.047

Cinner, J. E., W. N. Adger, E. H. Allison, M. L. Barnes, K. Brown, P. J. Cohen, S. Gelcich, C. C. Hicks, T. P. Hughes, J. Lau, N. A. Marshall, and T. H. Morrison. 2018. Building adaptive capacity to climate change in tropical coastal communities. Nature Climate Change 8(2):117-123. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0065-x

Cinner, J. E., T. Daw, and T. R. McClanahan. 2009. Socioeconomic factors that affect artisanal fishers’ readiness to exit a declining fishery. Conservation Biology 23(1):124-130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01041.x

Cinner, J. E., C. Folke, T. Daw, and C. C. Hicks. 2011. Responding to change: using scenarios to understand how socioeconomic factors may influence amplifying or dampening exploitation feedbacks among Tanzanian fishers. Global Environmental Change 21(1):7-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.001

Cinner, J. E., C. Huchery, C. C. Hicks, T. M. Daw, N. Marshall, A. Wamukota, and E. H. Allison. 2015. Changes in adaptive capacity of Kenyan fishing communities. Nature Climate Change 5(9):872-876. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2690

Coelho-Ferreira, M. 2009. Medicinal knowledge and plant utilization in an Amazonian coastal community of Marudá, Pará State (Brazil). Journal of Ethnopharmacology 126(1):159-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2009.07.016

Cohen, N., and T. Arieli. 2011. Field research in conflict environments: methodological challenges and snowball sampling. Journal of Peace Research 48(4):423-435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343311405698

Cohen, P. J., S. Lawless, M. Dyer, M. Morgan, E. Saeni, H. Teioli, and P. Kantor. 2016. Understanding adaptive capacity and capacity to innovate in social-ecological systems: applying a gender lens. Ambio 45:309-321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0831-4

Cottrell, R. S., K. L. Nash, B. S. Halpern, T. A. Remenyi, S. P. Corney, A. Fleming, E. A. Fulton, S. Hornborg, A. Johne, R. A. Watson, and J. L. Blanchard. 2019. Food production shocks across land and sea. Nature Sustainability 2(2):130-137. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0210-1

Coulthard, S. 2012. Can we be both resilient and well, and what choices do people have? Incorporating agency into the resilience debate from a fisheries perspective. Ecology and Society 17(1):4. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04483-170104

Daw, T. M., J. E. Cinner, T. R. McClanahan, K. Brown, S. M. Stead, N. A. J. Graham, and J. Maina. 2012. To fish or not to fish: factors at multiple scales affecting artisanal fishers’ readiness to exit a declining fishery. PLoS ONE 7(2):e31460. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031460

Díaz-Reviriego, I., Á. Fernández-Llamazares, M. Salpeteur, P. L. Howard, and V. Reyes-García. 2016. Gendered medicinal plant knowledge contributions to adaptive capacity and health sovereignty in Amazonia. Ambio 45:263-275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0826-1

Engle, N. L. 2011. Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global Environmental Change 21(2):647-656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.019

Etongo, D., I. N. S. Djenontin, M. Kanninen, and E. K. Glover. 2017. Assessing use-values and relative importance of trees for livelihood values and their potentials for environmental protection in Southern Burkina Faso. Environment, Development and Sustainability 19(4):1141-1166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9787-6

Fernández-Llamazares, Á., I. Díaz-Reviriego, A. C. Luz, M. Cabeza, A. Pyhälä, and V. Reyes-García. 2015. Rapid ecosystem change challenges the adaptive capacity of local environmental knowledge. Global Environmental Change 31:272-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.001

Gadgil, M., F. Berkes, and C. Folke. 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22:151-156.

Galappaththi, E. K., J. D. Ford, and E. M. Bennett. 2019. A framework for assessing community adaptation to climate change in a fisheries context. Environmental Science and Policy 92:17-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.11.005

Gelcich, S., T. P. Hughes, P. Olsson, C. Folke, O. Defeo, M. Fernández, S. Foale, L. H. Gunderson, C. Rodríguez-Sickert, M. Scheffer, R. S. Steneck, and J. C. Castilla. 2010. Navigating transformations in governance of Chilean marine coastal resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107(39):16794-16799. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1012021107

Granderson, A. A. 2017. The role of traditional knowledge in building adaptive capacity for climate change: perspectives from Vanuatu. Weather, Climate, and Society 9(3):545-561. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-16-0094.1

Green, K. M., J. C. Selgrath, T. H. Frawley, W. K. Oestreich, E. J. Mansfield, J. Urteaga, S. S. Swanson, F. N. Santana, S. J. Green, J. Naggea, and L. B. Crowder. 2021. How adaptive capacity shapes the Adapt, React, Cope response to climate impacts: insights from small-scale fisheries. Climatic Change 164:15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-02965-w

Hiwasaki, L., E. Luna, Syamsidik, and R. Shaw. 2014. Process for integrating local and indigenous knowledge with science for hydro-meteorological disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in coastal and small island communities. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10:15-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.07.007

Hu, Q., and X. He. 2018. An integrated approach to evaluate urban adaptive capacity to climate change. Sustainability 10(4):1272. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041272

Ilosvay, X. É. E., J. G. Molinos, and E. Ojea. 2022. Stronger adaptive response among small-scale fishers experiencing greater climate change hazard exposure. Communications Earth and Environment 3:246. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00577-5

Islam, M. M., S. Sallu, K. Hubacek, and J. Paavola. 2014. Vulnerability of fishery-based livelihoods to the impacts of climate variability and change: insights from coastal Bangladesh. Regional Environmental Change 14(1):281-294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0487-6

Jessen, T. D., N. C. Ban, N. X. Claxton, and C. T. Darimont. 2022. Contributions of Indigenous knowledge to ecological and evolutionary understanding. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 20(2):93-101. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2435

Johannes, R. E., P. Lasserre, S. W. Nixon, J. Pliya, and K. Ruddle. 1983. Traditional knowledge and management of marine coastal systems. International Union of Biological Sciences, Paris, France.

Kramer, D. B., K. Stevens, N. E. Williams, S. A. Sistla, A. B. Roddy, and G. R. Urquhart. 2017. Coastal livelihood transitions under globalization with implications for trans-ecosystem interactions. PLoS ONE 12(10): e0186683. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186683

Lara, L. G., L. M. Pereira, F. Ravera, and A. Jiménez-Aceituno. 2019. Flipping the tortilla: social-ecological innovations and traditional ecological knowledge for more sustainable agri-food systems in Spain. Sustainability 11(5):1222. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051222

Leon, J. X., J. Hardcastle, R. James, S. Albert, J. Kereseka, and C. D. Woodroffe. 2015. Supporting local and traditional knowledge with science for adaptation to climate change: lessons learned from participatory three-dimensional modeling in BoeBoe, Solomon Islands. Coastal Management 43(4):424-438. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2015.1046808

Marquet, P. A., A. Gaxiola, M. Isidora, Á.-T. Andrés Pica-Téllez, S. Vicuña, A. Alaniz, G. Etcheberry, D. González, V. Jara, and L. Menares. 2022. Las tres brechas del desarrollo sostenible y el cierre de la brecha ambiental en Chile: oportunidades para una recuperación pospandemia más sostenible y con bajas emisiones de carbono en América Latina y el Caribe. Documentos de Proyectos (LC/TS.2022/35). Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), Santiago, Chile.

Parga León, Á., 2020. An experience of displacement in corral. Alpha 2020(50): 335-343.

Piao, S., P. Ciais, Y. Huang, Z. Shen, S. Peng, J. Li, L. Zhou, H. Liu, Y. Ma, Y. Ding, P. Friedlingstein, C. Liu, K. Tan, Y. Yu, T. Zhang, and J. Fang . 2010. The impacts of climate change on water resources and agriculture in China. Nature 467(7311):43. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09364

Pike, F., N. S. Jiddawi, and M. de la Torre-Castro. 2022. Adaptive capacity within tropical marine protected areas - differences between men- and women-headed households. Global Environmental Change 76:102584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102584

Popovici, R., A. G. de L. Moraes, Z. Ma, L. Zanotti, K. A. Cherkauer, A. E. Erwin, K. E. Mazer, E. F. B. Delgado, J. P. P. Cáceres, P. Ranjan, and L. S. Prokopy. 2021. How do indigenous and local knowledge systems respond to climate change? Ecology and Society 26(3):27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12481-260327

Reyes-García, V., N. Marti, T. Mcdade, S. Tanner, and V. Vadez. 2007. Concepts and methods in studies measuring individual ethnobotanical knowledge. Journal of Ethnobiology 27(2):182-203. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771(2007)27[182:CAMISM]2.0.CO;2

Rubio, I., J. Hileman, and E. Ojea. 2021. Social connectivity and adaptive capacity strategies in large-scale fisheries. Ecology and Society 26(2):42. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12395-260242

Ruiz-Mallén, I., Á. Fernández-Llamazares, and V. Reyes-García. 2017. Unravelling local adaptive capacity to climate change in the Bolivian Amazon: the interlinkages between assets, conservation and markets. Climatic Change 140(2):227-242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1831-x

Sauini, T., V. S. da Fonseca-Kruel, P. B. Yazbek, P. Matta, F. Cassas, C. da Cruz, E. H. P. Barretto, M. A. dos Santos, M. A. S. Gomes, R. J. F. Garcia, S. Honda, L. F. D. Passero, B. E. Conde, and E. Rodrigues. 2020. Participatory methods on the recording of traditional knowledge about medicinal plants in Atlantic forest, Ubatuba, São Paulo, Brazil. PLoS ONE 15(5):e0232288. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232288

Van Holt, T, 2012. Landscape influences on fisher success: adaptation strategies in closed and open access fisheries in southern Chile. Ecology and Society 17(1):28. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04608-170128

Van Holt, T., B. Crona, J. C. Johnson, S. Gelcich. 2017. The consequences of landscape change on fishing strategies. Science of the Total Environment 579:930-939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.052

Wheeler, T., and J. Von Braun. 2013. Climate change impacts on global food security. Science 341(6145):508-513. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239402

Wongbusarakum, S., M. Gorstein, R. Pomeroy, C. L. Anderson, and A. Mawyer. 2021. Mobilizing for change: assessing social adaptive capacity in Micronesian fishing communities. Marine Policy 129:104508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104508