Endenese Fisheries: Exploratory Findings on Environmental Perceptions, Fish Effort, and Overfishing in Eastern Indonesia 39 Research Communication where the current research takes place, poverty ex- tends to one third of the population (Monk et al. 1997; Resosudarno and Jotzo 2009). But, most signifi- cantly, limitations in management and development approaches have impaired the understanding of local fishermen's role in environmental degradation. A strict bioeconomic perspective has prevented the eradication of damaging fishing practices such as bombs and cyanide-potassium (Lowe 2006). The con- tinuous use of non sustainable practices has, in return, resulted in very limited foreign investment, a condi- tion that further exacerbates poverty and environmen- tal pressure (Halim 2002). Over the last decades, scholars have noted that fishery managers and government officers often work under the assumption that maximization and self- interest are the main motivations behind the alloca- tion of fishing effort (Allison and Ellis 2001; Cordell 1974; Perry et al. 2003). This assumption is deeply rooted in the idea that fisheries, when not regulated, are open access systems where everybody's property Introduction Fisheries in Southeast Asia have experienced an un- precedented expansion in the last half-century (Semedi 2001). As a consequence, the catch per unit of effort has dropped significantly in many regions of the Indian and Pacific Oceans (Boomgaard 2005; Butcher 2004, 2005; Henley and Osseweijer 2005). Reports from conservation and intergovernmental organizations attribute stock depletion to overfishing and damaging fishing practices (Ingles et al. 2008; UNEP 2008). In an attempt to regulate endangered resources, countries like Indonesia have engaged in decentralization, community-based and ecosystem management approaches (Satria and Matsuda 2004; Williams and Staples 2010). Many of these efforts have encountered difficul- ties in dealing with the large-scale illegal trade of aquatic resources (Fox 2005; Heazle and Butcher 2007). They have also failed at recognizing the inequi- ties in fishing capacity that are so common in Eastern Indonesia. In the province of Nusa Tenggara Timur, Endenese Fisheries: Exploratory Findings on Environmental Percep- tions, Fish Effort, and Overfishing in Eastern Indonesia Victoria C. Ramenzoni Author address: Department of Anthropology, The University of Georgia. 259 Baldwin Hall, Jackson Street. Athens, Georgia, US. 30602. vramenz@uga.edu Received: September 24, 2012 Volume 4:39-51 Published: March 8, 2013 © 2013 Society of Ethnobiology Abstract: Fishing fleets in South East Asia have recently experienced unprecedented expansion. Consequently, catches and regional diversity have dramatically decreased throughout the Indian Ocean. Regional governments and conservation organ- izations blame the local fishermen and their use of damaging fishing practices for the present state of resources. However, many of these institutions endorse a narrow perspective on bioeconomic governance and human action (rational action choice) that compromises the understanding of resource use and exploitation among small-scale fisheries. Over the last few decades, there is a growing recognized tradition that points to the importance of ecological systems of knowledge, uncer- tainty representation, and traditional skills, in conceptualizing processes of environmental decision-making and the likeli- hood of introducing successful sustainability practices. In line with this perspective, this article presents preliminary fin dings regarding resource use decision-making processes among Endenese fishing villages in central Flores Island, Indonesia. Grounded on 22 months of ethnographic, experimental and ecological research (semistructured interviews, participant ob- servation, visual surveys, probability and uncertainty assessments), and exploring local cognitive representations of marine processes, climate, ichthyology and the role of luck, this article discusses the current economic representations of small -scale fishers as avid maximizers. It concludes by emphasizing the need to further explore the role of mental models and beliefs regarding uncertainty in motivating fishing effort to design adequate conservation and governance programs. Key Words: small-scale fisheries, luck, uncertainty representation, decision-making, traditional ecological knowledge 40 Research Communication becomes nobody's (Feeny et al. 1990; Gordon 1954; McCay 1981). It also stems from the way human be- havior is characterized by economic formalizations. Bioeconomic models of Maximum Sustainable Yield and Optimal Foraging Theories or Marginal Value Theorem (Smith 1983; Winterhalder and Smith 2000) explain individual decisions and conservation practices through rational action choice (Gowdy 2008). These models have been relatively successful in generating simple, parsimonious, and generalized ex- planations consistent, in some cases, with field obser- vations and ethnography (Winterhalder 1981, 1996). At the same time, Optimal Foraging Theories (OFT) have been widely criticized for remaining inat- tentive to the social embeddedness of decision- making processes concerning subsistence practices. Critics have targeted OFT's assumptions about opti- mality and rational action, stressing its restrictions in dealing with dynamic choices (Foley 1985; Gigerenzer 2008; Gigerenzer and Brighton 2009; Houston et al. 1988; Mangel and Clark 1986; McCay 1981). Remain- ing for the most part inattentive to advances in the studies of decision making under uncertainty (but see Mangel 1990; Mithen 1989, 1990; Wilke 2006), the role of information as constraining efficiency has been left unexplored. OFT has marginally addressed psychological and social preferences (Aswani 1998). Although it is indisputable that commercial fisher- ies in Southeast Asia are creating unnatural pressures on fish stocks (Butcher 2004; Ellis 2009; Helfman 2007), the responsibility of small-scale fisheries in the current decline of marine biodiversity cannot be es- tablished with certainty. Because decision making processes explaining fishing effort are multifaceted and extend beyond simple economics (Bene and Tewfik 2001; McGoodwin 1990), it is necessary to address local interests, systems of values, and adapta- tion strategies in order to fully comprehend the im- pact of fishermen in their environment (Allison and Ellis 2001; Ludwig et al. 1993; Mc Ilgorm et al. 2010). To that end, building from a cognitive and ecolog- ical anthropology perspective, this article presents preliminary findings regarding information, local eco- logical knowledge and decision making processes ex- plaining fishing effort of Endenese fishing communi- ties in the island of Flores, Indonesia. Positioned on the northern margins of the Savu sea, Ende has been known for its prodigious catch and marine biodiversi- ty (Fox 1977; Monk et al. 1997; Roos 1877; van Such- telen 1921; Weber 1902). It has remained marginal- ized from investment and economic development (Butcher 2004). But, with drops in production landings throughout the Indo-Pacific region, coral bleaching, and climate change, new plans have been drafted that include the creation of one of the largest marine protected areas in the Coral Triangle (TNC 2009). Unfortunately, in- formation on the state of marine resources in the Savu is very fragmented. There is a dearth of knowledge on the way local communities use and rep- resent the marine ecosystem (Munasik et al. 2011) and a wide propensity to blame local fishermen for the current state of environmental degradation. In order to explore perceptions and decisions about the environment, resource use, and climate change, I conducted ethnographic research, using semistructured interviews and participant observation, in June-July 2009, November 2010-January 2011, and June 2011-December 2012 in Pulau Ende, Ipy and Arubara. Preliminary findings indicate that the quanti- ty of fish has decreased in Ende Bay over the last 50 years and that significant changes have been observed by the local fishermen in sea surface temperature and wave activity (Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Ende 1985-2011). In addition, findings suggest that deci- sions regarding fishing effort combine assessments of sailing conditions, knowledge of prey availability, and weather patterns. Interviews regarding traditional knowledge and ecological assessments have showed that decision making is not conducted under condi- tions of perfect knowledge. The major explanation given for variability in resource exploitation and moti- vations to go fishing is luck (rezeki). There is not a clear notion of risk or of probability quantification. This latter finding challenges the univocal characteri- zation of fishermen as optimizers and rational actors. It also suggests that studying local perceptions of en- vironmental uncertainty is crucial when assessing the patterns of ecological variability of an area to design sustainable management strategies. Ende Ende city is a mid-sized port surmounting to approxi- mately 17,000 people (Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupat- en Ende 2010), and the capital of the district. Across the bay from the city is Pulau Ende, a small island that includes seven villages with a total of 8,000 people and about 1500 fishermen. Coastal Endenese have a complex origin. They reflect a mix between local hinterland groups (i.e., Ata Lio and Ata Nage Keo`), Javanese and Chinese traders, 41 Research Communication Bimanese warriors, Sumbanese slaves, and migrant Bugis, Butonese and Makassarese fishermen from Sulawesi (Dietrich 1983; Knaap and Sutherland 2004; Nakagawa 1984, 1996; Needham 1968, 1980; Sareng Orin Bao 1969; Tule 2004). Islam spread in the 16th century through trade and resulted in the consolida- tion of Buginese cultural traits to the expense of local characteristics (Edjid 1979). Buginese traits include a unique syllabic alphabet system named Bahasa Lota (Banda 2005; Roos 1877; van Suchtelen 1921), com- plex descent myths (Pelras 1996), food prescriptions, birth and wedding ceremonies, and an intricate sym- bolism and set of ritual practices that link social rep- resentations of the house and the boat (perahu, sampan) (Chou 2003; Sopher 1965; Southon 1995). Also among these traits is the practice of mencari rezeki or the search for fortune (nggae ka) as a way to explain one's decisions in all aspects of life (Acciaioli 2004; Pelras 1996). Anthropologists have explored Coastal Endenese groups incidentally while studying kinship rules, mag- ic, and agricultural practices of hinterland communi- ties (Forth 1998; Nakagawa 1984, 1996; Needham 1968; Tule 2004). Historians have devoted some at- tention to the illegal trade of slaves and pirating activ- ities carried out by the Endenese in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Dietrich 1983; Knaap and Sutherland 2004; Needham 1968, 1980). During this time, the Endenese were a powerful force that en- gaged in commerce activities throughout the entire eastern Indo-Pacific region. After Dutch military in- tervention in the early twentieth century, Ende be- came famous as Sukarno’s exile destination. At that time, Endenese had already endured the transition to a local agricultural economy under colonial pressure and became both politically and commercially isolat- ed. Nowadays little seems to have changed. In comparison to other parts of Indonesia like Kalimantan or Java, development programs have pro- gressed at a slower rate in Flores (Resosudarmo and Jotzo 2009). In Ende, fishing is still carried out by traditional boats (sampan) or smaller motor boats with 4 ½ to 1 inch fishing nets. Activities are mostly for subsistence or small-scale trade as there is no industry operating in the district or external investment to sup- port the improvement of the fishing gear. Bigger fish are sold at the town markets of Mbongawani, Senggol, and Wolowona along with octopus (Octopus spp. Octopodidae), squids and scal- lops (Amusium spp. Pectinidae), manta rays (Dasyatis spp. Dasyatidae), Mobula spp. Mobulidae, Myliobatidae spp. Mobulidae, and sharks (Alopia spp. Alopiidae, Charcharinus spp. Charcharinidae, Isurus spp. Lamni- dae), anchovies and sardines (Sardinella gibbosa Bleeker Clupeidea, Sardinella lemuru Bleeker Clupeidae, Dussumeria acuta Valenciennes Clupeidea). A common list of species includes flying fishes (Cypselurus spp. Exocoetidae), sail fishes and marlins (Istiophorus spp. Istiophoridae, Makaira indica Cuvier Istiophoridae, Makaira mazarra Lacepède Istiophoridae, Xiphias gladius Linnaeus Istiophoridae, Istiophorus platypterus Shaw Istiophoridae), tunas (Thunnus maccoyii Castelnau Scombridae, Thunnus obesus Lowe Scombridae, Thun- nus tonggol Bleeker Scombridae), skipjacks (Euthynnus affinis Cantor Scombridae, Katsuwonus pelamis Linneaus Scombridae), needle fishes (Tylosorus spp. Belonidae), scads (Caesio caerularea Lacepède Caesionidae, Caesio cuning Bloch Caesionidae), snappers (Lutjanus spp. Lutjanidae), and grouppers (Cromileptes altivelis Inna- mura and Yabe Serranidae, Eponephelus tauvina Forsskål Serranidae). Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Climate Change: Why Optimization is Not “Rational” One of the key criteria among Optimal Foraging Models and Rational Action Choice is the idea that decisions are always made considering the whole set of alternatives at hand. Optimization is the result of a sound evaluation of outcomes in terms of all possible options and their assigned probability (Gigerenzer et al. 1999). From a cognitive approach, however, ra- tional action choice entails a set of psychological skills and preferences that is far from being realistic (Gigerenzer 2008; Gladwin 1971, 1980; Quinn 1978). For example, it implies the ability to have perfect knowledge about the environment or to clearly con- ceptualize the probability values of different choices and alternatives in terms of risk perception (Mithen 1989, 1990). This misconstruction of skills and prefer- ences is the result of a lack of studies on the cognition of fishing decision-making processes (Bene and Tew- fik 2001; Colfer et al. 1999). In marine environments, choice is always riddled with uncertainty (Acheson and Wilson 1996; Hilborn and Mangel 1997; Mangel and Clark 1983). The amount of fish present in a particular fishing spot cannot be readily or accurately ascertained, weather conditions are hard to predict, and probabilities are not always easily perceived (Gladwin 1971; Quinn 1978). Dynamic ecosystems, rapid choices, and chang- ing conditions in the socioeconomic environment all 42 Research Communication constrain the structure in which decisions need to be made and render the idea of an exhaustive considera- tion of alternatives implausible. Far from perfect knowledge, research has shown that people rely on local mechanisms of prediction and ecological knowledge to secure livelihoods and adaptation (Godoy et al. 2009; Orlove et al. 2002; Tucker 2007b). Much of this knowledge has been formalized in systems of predictive cues that encom- pass fishermen’s experiences and observations over centuries (Bjarnason and Thorlindsson 1993; Cordell 1974; Paolisso 2002). In other cases, knowledge has remained implicit or embedded in cultural practices (Dove 1993; Rappaport 1968). Over the last half century, with climate change and advanced environmental degradation due to in- tensification of extractive practices, ecological pat- terns have been altered. While uncertainty has affect- ed the efficacy of local belief systems, in some regions this has not undermined their use. Predictive cues are consistently incorporated into scientific forecasts among African and Indian farmers to anticipate droughts and plan crops (see Acharia 2010; Pareek and Trivedi 2010; Roncoli et al. 2001, 2002). This has not been the case in Ende. Despite the fact that there are no available forecasts even at the regional level, former predictive mechanisms have become unreliable and their use by younger genera- tions less frequent. But, as it will be argued later, this does not indicate that fishermen do not rely on envi- ronmental cues or that they remain unaware of envi- ronmental patterns and uncertainty sampling costs (van Oostenbrugge et al. 2001). Through interviews and surveys among Endenese fishermen, I was able to determine that an informal system of weather forecasting and maritime condi- tions was in place well before the introduction of en- gines and fishing intensification in the 1980s. In con- versations and fishing trips, I was able to record a thorough body of environmental and climatic infor- mation in terms of cues or signs of the marine ecosys- tem. The association of environmental indicators to fish stocks would permit a fisherman to estimate presence or absence of fish, weather events, and cur- rents. In spite of being frequently used, this knowledge remains fragmented and to some level implicit making elicitation an arduous process. Difficulties might be rooted in the fact that even older fishermen have now begun to challenge the certainty of predictions. Thirty to forty years ago weather conditions could be determined with moder- ate exactitude before going to sea, and predictions on stocks and climate could extend to longer periods of time like seasons. Nowadays, such knowledge is rare and might only be applicable if the frame in which decisions are made is modified or new patterns of variability can be detected that encompass previous cues. One good example of the changes in the efficacy of predictive knowledge can be found in the use of fishing calendars. According to most fishermen, it is widespread knowledge that fishing patches are select- ed on the basis of an annual calendar regulated by the monsoon seasons and moon phases that permits them to calculate the presence and abundance of cer- tain species. In this system, winds and sea water tem- perature might be the most important factors deter- mining catch, unit of effort, and sailing conditions. But as a consequence of increased climatic alterations, the onset of the dry and wet monsoon seasons has changed (see Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Ende for climatic data; Aldrian and Susanto 2004; Hamada et al. 2002). This has brought many interviewees to mention the impossibility of relying on calendars any- more to establish with certainty the availability of fish species. They say, “Ikan tidak kenal musim lagi”1 (“Fish do not know seasons anymore”). In fact, in the 1980s, precipitation events would commonly start in October and continue until late March (Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Ende 1984- 2010). These were preceded by a reduction of the strength in the eastern trade winds (angin timur) and an intensification of western and northern winds (angin barat, angin utara). With the wet monsoon, changes in currents and sea water temperatures would increase the availability of species like small tunas, squids, and anchovies. However, according to the fishermen, in the last 2 years the western winds, which inaugurate the wet season, lack strength. The onset of the rainy season has been delayed until December and short- ened its duration. This seems to indicate a significant change in climatic patterns that affect marine species in terms of life histories and biomass. Most signifi- cantly, it is the opposite of what would be normally expected as a result of the current transitional period (2010-2011) between El Niño and La Niña condi- tions, maybe signaling the beginning of new precipita- tion and temperature patterns. These environmental and climatic alterations not only affect coastal communities by increasing the fre- 43 Research Communication quency of extreme events such as typhoons, destruc- tive storms and beach abrasion. But they have also resulted in increased crop failures and reduced catch- es that have long term impacts on the population's morbidity and mortality rates. With changes in bio- mass affecting total catches and ultimately reducing incomes, families have lower possibilities of diversify- ing their diets and paradoxically consume less and less fish. Environmental uncertainty combined to eco- nomic instability has created new challenges that many fishermen do not feel prepared to deal with. Under these conditions, it would be reasonable to assume that the change in patterns of variability has affected the competency of traditional forecasting cues and contribute to their progressive disappear- ance as fishermen perceive their fallibility. Yet, far from a simple interpretation, these inter- views also suggest that previous weather-related knowledge and fishing experience have been refor- mulated and are still being consolidated in new associ- ations and re-associations of cues. Some fishermen indicated that they pay attention to stars and clouds (shapes, positions, movements and colors) and at- mospheric phenomena like lightning to determine wind conditions that might affect fishing. In some cases, fishermen pay attention to the presence of ma- rine life (zooplankton) to predict currents and winds, and to fishing feeding behavior to anticipate possible fishing spots. These cues might not be new, though the temporal decision making frame in which they are applied has changed. With fishing seasons presenting a higher uncer- tainty on the occurrence of winds and certain fish species, fishermen have begun to target multiple spe- cies by diversifying fishing tools. They have also in- corporated some small innovations like the use of colorful baits, a practice that is common in other are- as in Sulawesi. And most significantly, they have al- tered their pattern of activities in the wet season. Be- fore, fishermen would remain at home for a period of forty days (in December, January, and February) while strong western and northern winds would prevent navigation. Nowadays, fishermen go fishing through- out the year, staying occasionally for periods of one or two weeks when storms hit the region. The fre- quency of their trips has, thus, changed. In addition, with the changes in marine activities from trade to a more fishing based subsistence, their trips and dura- tion have shortened considerably. However, the reason why optimization might not account for behavior in Ende is not only in terms of cognitive skills and the demands that perfect knowledge imposes in dynamic contexts (high cogni- tive costs when decisions need to be quick in a fast changing environment). Indeed, one might argue that changes in predictive systems might reflect an ongo- ing process of adaptation to develop more accurate representational beliefs and towards achieving optimi- zation. One could also even argue that optimization towards catch maximization might occur under con- straints, or that fishing effort could be best explained by satisficing or ameliorating principles (Mithen 1989, 1990; Simon 1957). But, as it has been the case for OFT, such line of reasoning cannot be readily tested or empirically assessed (Foley 1985; Gigerenzer et al. 1999; Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier 2011). Optimization might not be a rational choice ac- cording to Endenese standards, as the main factor explaining the motivation to go fishing might lie not in a profit-driven mentality or in a risk-reduction per- spective, but in a more comprehensive approach to uncertainty and life that defies a clear cut probability conceptualization. As a matter of fact, the most important decision an Endenese fisherman has to face is to determine whether to stay fishing or to return given climatic conditions. This process, which combines the analysis of a number of cues like clouds, current strengths, and the behavior of other fishermen, is not single handedly explained by expertise or by the expectation of the fish to be caught that day (harapan). Similarly, tools or fishing gear do not seem to be the main cause behind catch numbers. Many interviewees when in- quired about the role of previous experience and type of fishing equipment indicated that even those that have many years at sea or that employ motor boats with many nets can from time to time return empty handed. Previous research has established that risk reduc- tion and the avoidance of losses can be an important motivation behind the time spent fishing (Ammarell 2002; van Osteenbrugge et al. 2001). But in Ende, some fishermen are willing to stay at sea under ad- verse conditions if the catch might be certain, whereas others might favor an early return even when condi- tions are safe and the fish are eating. Therefore, evi- dence collected so far suggests that risk preference, experience, expertise, and gear do not completely ac- count for the motivations inspiring fishing effort and decision-making. 44 Research Communication The major explanation that is willingly given for variability of fishing effort and success is luck (rezeki). This concept is rooted in Islamic, Endenese, and Buginese traditional beliefs and rituals (Acciaioli 2004; Ammarell 2002; Pelras 1996). Its causality is complex. According to most interviewees, only god can deter- mine the conditions in which luck occurs (“peraturan dikirim oleh Allah”) and only he knows (“hanya Allah yang tahu”). Because marine environments, as well as any other ecosystem, are the result of god’s creation, they remain unpredictable or random in terms of hu- man perception (“laut sembarang”). The ocean is but a big puzzle (“taka teki”). In spite of the highly variable conditions sur- rounding fishing, fishermen can still try to grasp a limited understanding of the ocean that permits them to catch what has been granted for their subsistence. To that end, luck, catch and climate are all related in a system of signs that is given by god to interpret. These climatic signs, described previously as a system of traditional knowledge, are not straightforward and their predictive validity is not fixed. They are effective only with a certain probability. Thus, natural events are not completely predictable as such in this narra- tive of luck. The decision to go fishing is indeed inspired in the idea that luck cannot be procured by other means but being a hard worker (harus berusaha) and diligent (rajin). But, overall, one cannot do anything to in- crease luck with certainty, but go to sea and search for fortune (“Rezeki tidak bias tambah, hanya mencari cari ikan”). Formal practices that might result in better luck refer to respecting the daily five prayers (sholat) as es- tablished in the Qur'an, and having a pure heart (hati murni). Luck can also be favored from prayers on Monday, Thursday, and Friday (Jum'at) nights that involve the burning of wood in front of the house (kemenyan). Furthermore, fishermen follow the adat (rules) set by the ancestors when building boats or venturing on new enterprises to sea, these are all con- nected to luck. Dreams also hold an important place among some fishermen as they are considered an in- dication of future success sent by god. Other ways in which luck is sent by god include the finding of precious objects (kulavu, barang gaib), though in some cases these might be connected to demons (djins). This practice is associated by more religious fishermen to pagan beliefs (kafir) from the time when the ancestors were around (nenek moyan) and is considered very close to sin (termasuk sirik, dosa). In fact, some informants indicated that they would rather have nothing to do with precious objects as they might provide short term luck at the expense of a huge loss (sometimes human life). According to them, the devil (iblis) walked the earth way before hu- manity, and has clever ways of deceiving people. If one transgresses god’s rules by engaging with magic objects risks eternal damnation for there is no for- giveness for such sin. The belief in magic objects as such is common among Endenese that have connec- tions with Lionese groups or that reflect an Endenese -Lionese descent. Finally, luck is also associated with following old adat rules when fishing for some species of coral fish (‘ikanasa’, Serranidae and Lutjanida spp.). According to such prescriptions, fishermen cannot talk, smoke, cook, or eat when fishing on one of these patches or they would risk making the fish angry. Overall, it is interesting to observe, that next to the use of weather cues, this traditional body of knowledge and rules related to luck has become sparse among the newer fishermen who do not be- lieve (“Orang tidak percayaa lagi”) or follow the estab- lished rules (“Tidak ikut peraturan dari dulu”). As one of the elder fishermen states, the lack of fish or failure in the catch can be the result of not respecting the for- mer ways: “Harus percayaa atau tidak dapat ikan. Dulu biasa per bulan perahu penuh, sekarang tidak yakin. Dua atau tiga hari lagi, habis” (“One must believe in order to catch fish. Before, boats used to be full throughout the month when returning from fishing. Now, after 2 or 3 days there is no more fish”). In conclusion, one could say that the evidence presented here is not entirely incompatible to explana- tions of fishing effort by maximization practices. At the individual level, risk preferences and non-verbal processes of probability perception (unconscious) might still result in optimization over the long term. However, it is crucial to emphasize that luck as the main motivation behind fishing effort places rewards in a future afterlife and not in the achievement of ma- terial success. In addition, this narrative of luck im- plies a certain attitude towards nature that shapes the perception of ecological patterns. But luck also de- fines suitable rules on how to interact with an envi- ronment and which expectations are valid. This, in turn, constrains decision-making processes and re- source use practices. Therefore, local perceptions of environmental un- 45 Research Communication certainty and nature are key to understanding what lies behind resource exploitation, along with religious beliefs and cultural values. Therefore, they should be addressed by government agencies and conservation institutions to design culturally sound management practices. I will further discuss the implications of these findings for rational theory and environmental policies in future articles. Conclusions In summary, preliminary findings suggest the im- portance of ecological knowledge in fishing effort, decision-making, and the existence of different atti- tudes towards the use of marine resources in Ende. Exploratory interviews indicate so far that neither conservation organizations nor the local government actively incorporate local ecological knowledge when drafting management plans for Ende, and they as- sume that fishermen are mostly driven by their own maximization of interests. Nonetheless, in a world where climate change threatens to reshape the global ecology and economy of marine-human ecosystems (Badjeck et al. 2009; Cheung et al. 2009), conservation and management initiatives need to look at the local to understand why certain choices are made before assuming, as they usually do, that cost-benefit rationales apply uniform- ly. Because complex problems require insightful solu- tions, conservation and governmental institutions should forge a multidisciplinary methodological and theoretical perspective to engage local needs and vul- nerabilities. Cognitive and behavioral studies of decision- making in small societies can inform such endeavors by telling about the local impacts of overarching poli- cies and the strategies devised to represent environ- mental uncertainty (Colfer et al. 1999; Tucker 2007a). Future research will explore these issues and ponder the importance of how different conceptions of the marine environment across generations and stake- holders (baselines) ultimately constrain local respons- es and livelihoods. Acknowledgements This research was supported by the Lemelson/ Society for Psychological Anthropology Pre- Dissertation Fund, made possible by a generous do- nation from Robert Lemelson, The Georgia Oceans Health Initiative Fellowship (NOAA), and the Dean's Award from the University of Georgia. Also by a Na- tional Science Foundation Dissertation Improvement Grant. Declarations Permissions: IRB obtained and recently renewed through the University of Georgia. Permissions ob- tained from the Indonesian Government: RISTEK (Kementarian Riset dan Teknologi Indonesia) and Propinsi NTT, Kabupaten Ende, Kecamatan Ende Selatan. Sources of funding: Dissertation Improvement Grant from the National Science Foundation. Lemelson Fellowship from the Society for Psychological An- thropology, American Anthropological Association. Georgia Oceans and Human Health Fellowship from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency. The Dean’s Award from The University of Georgia. Conflicts of interest: None declared. References Cited Acciaioli, G. 2004. From Economic Actor to Moral Agent: Knowledge: Fate and Hierarchy among the Bugis of Sulawesi. Indonesia 78:147-179. Acheson, J. M. and J. A. Wilson. 1996. Order Out of Chaos: The Case for Parametric Fisheries Manage- ment. American Anthropologist 98:579-594. Aldrian, E. and R. D. Susanto. 2003. Identification of Three Dominant Rainfall Regions within Indonesia and their Relationship to Sea Surface Temperature. International Journal of Climatology 23(12):1435-1452. Allison, E. H. and F. Ellis. 2001. The Livelihoods Ap- proach and Management of Small-Scale Fisheries. Marine Policy 25(5):377-388. Ammarell, G. 2002. Knowing When to Set Sail: Prac- tical Knowledge and Simple Heuristics in Bugis Navigational Strategies. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 158(2):191-223. Aswani, S. 1998. Patterns of Marine Harvest Effort in SW New Georgia, Solomon Islands: Resource Man- agement or Optimal Foraging? Ocean and Coastal Management 40(2/3):207-235. Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Ende. 1984 to 2011. Ende Dalam Angka. Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Ende, Ende, Flores, Indonesia. Badjeck M. C., E. H. Allison, A. S. Halls and N. K. Dulvy. 2009. Impacts of Climate Variability and Change on Fishery-Based Livelihoods. Marine Policy 34(3):375-383. Doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2009.08.007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.08.007 46 Research Communication Bene, C. and A. Tewfik.. 2001. Fishing Effort Alloca- tion and Fishermen's Decision Making Process in a Multi-Species Small-Scale Fishery: Analysis of the Conch and Lobster Fishery in Turks and Caicos Islands. Human Ecology 29(2):157-186. Bjarnason, T. and T. Thorlindsson. 1993. In Defense of a Folk Model: The ‘Skipper Effect’ in the Ice- landic Cod Fishery. American Anthropology 95:371– 394. Boomgaard, P. 2005. Resources and People of the Sea In and Around the Indonesian Archipelago, 900- 1900. In Muddied Waters: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on the Management of Forests and Fisheries in Island Southeast Asia, edited by Peter Boomgaard, David Henley and Manon Osseweijer, pp.97- 120. KITLV Press, Leiden, The Netherlands. Butcher, J. G. 2004. The Closing of the Frontier: A Histo- ry of the Marine Fisheries of Southeast Asia c.1850-2000. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore. Butcher, J. G. 2005. The Marine Animals of South East Asia: Towards a Demographic History 1850- 2000. In Muddied Waters: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on the Management of Forests and Fisheries in Island Southeast Asia, edited by Peter Boomgaard, David Henley and Manon Osseweijer, pp. 63-96. KITLV Press, Leiden, The Netherlands. Cheung, W. W. L., V. W. Y. Lam, J. L. Sarmiento, K. Kearney, R. Watson and D. Pauly. 2009. Global Ma- rine Biodiversity Impacts under Climate Change Scenarios. Fish and Fisheries 10(3):235-251. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2008.00315.x. Chou, C. 2003. Indonesian Sea Nomads: Money, Magic, and Far of the Orang Suku Laut. Routledge Curzon, London. Colfer, C. P., R. Wadley and P. Venkateswarlu. 1999. Understanding Local People’s Use of Time: A Pre- Condition for Good Co-Management Environmental Conservation 26(1):41-52. Cordell, J. 1974. The Lunar-Tide Fishing Cycle in Northeast Brazil. Ethnology 13:379-392. Dietrich, S. 1983. Flores in the Nineteenth Century: Aspects of Dutch Colonialism on a Non-Profitable Island. Indonesian Circle 31(June):39-58. Dove, M. 1993. Uncertainty, Humility, and Adapta- tion in the Tropical Forest: The Agricultural Augury of the Kantu. Ethnology 32(2):145-167. Edjid, H. 1979. Tiga Ratus Tahun Kerajaan Ende. 1638- 1962. Unpublished manuscript, Fakultas Keguruan Universitas Negeri, Nusa Cendana, Ende, Flores, Indonesia. Ellis, R. 2009. Tuna: Love, Death, and Mercury. Vintage Books, Random House Books, New York. Feeny, D., F. Berkes, B. McCay and J. M. Acheson. 1990. The Tragedy of the Commons: Twenty-Two Years Later. Human Ecology 18(1):1-19. Foley, R. A. 1985. Optimality Theory in Anthropolo- gy. Man 20:222-242. Forth, G. 1998. Beneath the Volcano: Religion, Cosmology and Spirit Classification among the Nage of Eastern Indone- sia. KITLV Press, Leiden, The Netherlands. Fox, J. 1977. Harvest of the Palm: Ecological Change in Eastern Indonesia. Harvard University Press, Cam- bridge, MA. Fox, J. 2005. In a Single Generation: A Lament for the Forests and Seas of Indonesia. In Muddied Wa- ters: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on the Man- agement of Forests and Fisheries in Island Southeast Asia, edited by Peter Boomgaard, David Henley and Manon Osseweijer, pp. 43-60. KITLV Press, Lei- den, The Netherlands. Gigerenzer, G. 2008. Rationality for Mortals. How People Cope with Uncertainty. Oxford University Press, New York. Gigerenzer, G. and H. Brighton. 2009. Homo Heuris- ticus: Why Biased Minds Make Better Inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science 1(1:)107-144. Gigerenzer, G., P. M. Todd and the ABC Group. 1999. Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart. Oxford University Press, New York. Gigerenzer, G. and W. Gaissmaier. 2011. Heuristic Decision Making. Annual Review of Psychology 62:451- 482. Gladwin, H. 1971. Decision Making in the Cape Coast (Fante) Fishing and Fish Marketing System. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Department of Anthropolo- gy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Gladwin, C. 1980. A Theory of Real-Life Choice: Ap- plications to Agricultural Decisions. In Agricultural Decision Making, edited by Peggy Barlett, pp. 45-83. Academic Press, New York. Godoy, R. A., V. Reyes-Garcia, V. Vadez, O. 47 Research Communication Magvanjav, W. R. Leonard, T. McDade, S. Kumar, J. Iqbal, D. Wilkie, S. Tanner and T. Huanca. 2009. Does Culture Affect the Present? The Effect of Future Weather on the Current Collection of Plant- ed Crops and Wildlife in a Native Amazonian Soci- ety of Bolivia. Human Ecology 37(5):613-628. Gordon, H. S. 1954. The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery. The Jour- nal of Political Economy 62(2):124–142. Gowdy, J. 2008. Behavioral Economics and Climate Change Policy. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organ- ization 68:632-644. Halim, A. 2002. Adoption of Cyanide Fishing Prac- tice in Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management 45:313-323. Hamada, J., M. D. Yamanaka, J. Matsumoto, S. Fukao, P. A. Winarso and T. Sribimawati. 2002. Spatial and Temporal Variations of the Rainy Season Over In- donesia and Their Link to ENSO. Journal of the Me- teorological Society of Japan 80:285-310. Heazle, M. and J. G. Butcher. 2007. Fisheries Deple- tion and the State in Indonesia: Towards a Regional Regulatory Regime. Marine Policy 31(3):276-286. Helfman, G. 2007. Fish Conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC. Henley, D. and M. Osseweijer. 2005. Introduction. Forests and Fisheries in Island Southeast Asia. His- tories of Natural Resource Management and Mis- management. In Muddied Waters: Historical and Con- temporary Perspectives on the Management of Forests and Fisheries in Island Southeast Asia, edited by Peter Boomgaard, David Henley and Manon Osseweijer, pp.1-42. KITLV Press, Leiden, The Netherlands. Hilborn R. and M. Mangel. 1997. The Ecological Detec- tive: Confronting Models with Data. Princeton Universi- ty Press, Princeton, NJ. Houston, A., C. W. Clark, J. M. McNamara and M. Mangel. 1988. Dynamic Models in Behavioural and Evolutionary Ecology. Nature 332:29-34. Ingles, J., J. Flores and I. Musthofa. 2008. Getting off the Hook: Reforming Tuna Fisheries of Indonesia. World Wildlife Foundation, Coral Triangle Initiative. Knaap, G. and H. Sutherland. 2004. Monsoon Traders: Ships, Skippers and Commodities in Eighteenth-Century Makassar. KITLV Press, Leiden, The Netherlands. Lowe, C. 2006. Wild Profusion: Biodiversity Conservation in the Indonesian Archipelago. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ Ludwig, D., R. Hilborn and C. Walters. 1993. Uncer- tainty, Resource Exploitation, and Conservation: Lessons from History. Science 260:17-36. Mangel, M. and C. W. Clark. 1983. Uncertainty, Search, and Information in Fisheries. Journal of the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas 43:93 -103. Mangel, M. and C. W. Clark. 1986. Towards a Unified Foraging Theory. Ecology 67:1127-1138. Mangel, M. 1990. Dynamic Information in Uncertain and Changing Worlds. Journal of Theoretical Biology 146:317-332. McCay, B. J. 1981. Optimal Foragers or Political Ac- tors? Ecological Analyses of a New Jersey Fishery. American Ethnologist 8:356-382. McGoodwin, J. R. 1990. Crisis in the World’s Fisheries: People, Problems, and Policies. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Mithen, S. J. 1989. Modeling Hunter-Gatherer Deci- sion Making: Complementing Optimal Foraging Theory. Human Ecology 17(1):59-74. Mithen, S. J. 1990. Thoughtful Foragers: A Study of Prehis- toric Decision Making. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. Monk, K. A., Y. de Fretes and G. Reksodiharjo- Lilley. 1997. The Ecology of Indonesia. Volume V: The Ecology of Nusa Tenggara and Maluku. Periplus Editions, Hong Kong. Munasik, H., A. T. P. Adri, R. Wibowo, Y. Kiswantoro, Fajariyanto and H. Sofyanto. 2011. Kondisi Terumbu Karang di Taman Nasional Perairan Laut Sawu. Provinsi Nusa Tenggara Timur Workshop Sosialisasi Peraturan Gubernurtentang Pengelolaan Terumbu Karang. Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program, Provinsi NTT, Kupang, Indonesia. Nakagawa, S. 1984. "Endenese." In Muslim Peoples: A World Ethnographic Survey, edited by Richard V. Weekes, pp. 251-253. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT. Nakagawa, S. 1996. "Endenese." In Encyclopedia of World Cultures. Available at: http:// www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2- http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3458000787.html http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3458000787.html 48 Research Communication 3458000787.html. Accessed on March 22, 2010. Needham, R. 1968. Endeh: Terminology, Alliance, and Analysis. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde 124:305-35. Needham, R. 1980. Principles and Variations in the Structure of the Sumbanese Society. In The Flow of Life: Essays on Eastern Indonesia, edited by James J. Fox and Monni Adams, pp. 21-47. Harvard Press, Boston, MA. Orlove, B. S., J. C. H. Chiang and M. A. Cane. 2002. Ethnoclimatology in the Andes. American Scientist 90:428–435. Paolisso, M. 2002. Blue Crabs and Controversy on the Chesapeake Bay: A Cultural Model for Understand- ing Watermen’s Reasoning about Blue Crab Man- agement. Human Organization 61(3):226-239. Pareek, A. and P. C. Trivedi. 2010. Cultural Values and Indigenous Knowledge of Climate Change and Disaster Prediction in Rajasthan, India. Indian Jour- nal of Traditional Knowledge 10(1):183-189. Pelras, C. 1996. The Bugis. Blackwell, Oxford, Eng- land. Quinn, N. 1978. Do Mfantse Fish Sellers Calculate Probabilities in their Heads? American Ethnologist 5:206-226. Rappaport, R. A. 1968. Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Resosudarno, B. P. and F. Jotzo, F. 2009. Working with Nature against Poverty. ISEAS, Singapore. Roncoli, C., K. Ingram and P. Kirsben. 2001. The Costs and Risks of Coping with Drought: Liveli- hood Impacts and Farmer’s Responses in Burkina Faso. Climate Research 19:119-132. Roncoli, C., K. Ingram and P. Kirsben. 2002. Reading the Rains: Local Knowledge and Rainfall Forecast- ing Among Farmers of Burkina Faso. Society and Natural Resources 15:411-430. Roos, S. 1877. Iets over Endeh. Tijdschriftvoor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 24:481-582. Sareng Orin Bao, P. 1969. Nusa Nipanamapribumi Nusa Flores: Warisanpurba. Nusa Indah, Ende, Flores, In- donesia. Satria and Y. Matsuda. 2004. Decentralization of Fish- eries Management in Indonesia. Marine Policy 28:437 –450 Semedi, P. 2001. Close to the Stone, Far from the Throne: The Story of a Javanese Fishing Community, 1820s-1990s. Benangmerah, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Simon, H. A. 1957. Models of Man: Social and Rational. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Smith, E. A. 1983. Anthropological Applications of Optimal Foraging Theory: A Critical Review. Current Anthropology 24:625-651. Sopher, D. 1965. The Sea Nomads: A Study of the Mari- time Boat People of Southeast Asia. National Museum, Singapore. Southon, M. 1995. The Navel of the Perahu. Australian Centre for Agricultural Research, Australian Nation- al University, Canberra, Australia. Tucker, B. 2007a. Applying Behavioral Ecology and Behavioral Economics to Conservation and Devel- opment Planning: An Example from the Mikea For- est, Madagascar. Human Nature 18:190-208. Tucker, B. 2007b. Perception of Interannual Covaria- tion and Strategies for Risk Reduction among Mikea of Madagascar. Human Nature 18:162-180. Tule, P. 2004. Longing for the House of God, Dwelling in the House of the Ancestors: Local Belief, Christianity, and Islam among the Kéo of Central Flores. Academic Press, Fribourg, Switzerland. UNEP. Nellemann, C., S. Hain and J. Alder, eds. 2008. In Dead Water : Merging of Climate Change with Pollution, Over-Harvest, and Infestations in the World’s Fishing Grounds. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID, Arendal, Norway. Available at: http:// www.unep.org/pdf/indeadwater_lr.pdf. Accessed on March 4, 2013. van Oostenbrugge, J.A.E., W. L. T. van Densen and M. A. M. Machiels. 2001. Risk Aversion in Allocat- ing Fishing Effort in a Highly Uncertain Coastal Fishery for Pelagic Fish, Moluccas, Indonesia. Cana- dian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Sciences 58:1683-1691. van Suchtelen, B. C. C. M. M. 1921. Endeh (Flores). Papyrus, Weltevreden. Weber, M. 1902. Siboga Expedite I. Introduction et De- scription de l'Expedition. E.J. Brill, Leiden. Williams, M. J. and D. Staples. 2010. Southeast Asian http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3458000787.html 49 Research Communication Fisheries. In Handbook of Marine Fisheries Conservation and Management, edited by R. Q. Grafton, R. Hil- born, D. Squires, M. Tait, and M. Williams, pp. 243- 257. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. Winterhalder, B. 1981. Foraging Strategies in the Bo- real Forest: An Analysis of Cree Hunting and Gath- ering. In Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies: Ethno- graphic and Archaeological Analyses, edited by B. Win- terhalder and E. A. Smith, pp. 66-98. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Winterhalder, B. 1996. A Marginal Model of Tolerat- ed Theft. Ethology and Sociobiology 17:37-53. Winterhalder, B. and E. A. Smith. 2000. Analyzing Adaptive Strategies: Human Behavioral Ecology at Twenty-Five. Evolutionary Anthropology 9:51-72. Biosketch Victoria Ramenzoni is a Ph.D. candidate at the Universi- ty of Georgia in the Environmental Anthropology De- partment. She is a NSFDIG fellow and a GOHI/NOAA fellow. Victoria is a behavioral ecologist who is interest- ed in studying how cognitive skills are shaped by evolu- tion and environments. Her focus is on decision making under uncertainty, weather prediction, TEK, climate change and small scale fisheries. Notes 1 I use italics underscored to distinguish words in Ba- hasa Indonesia and Endenese. 50 Research Communication Appendix1.Map. Attribution: copyright by Ewesewes at id.wikipedia under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Modified by Victoria C. Ramenzoni. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lokasi_Nusa_Tenggara_Timur_Kabupaten_Ende.svg 51 Research Communication Appendix2.Map. Attribution: copyright by Sadalmelik at id.wikipedia under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Modified by Victoria C. Ramenzoni. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flores_Topography.png