EXPERIENCE, KNOWLEDGE AND THE TECHNOLOGYCHOICES OF SHRIMP FARMERS IN THAILAND ANDVIETNAM

Dr.Amnuay Saengnore and Dr.Louis Lebel

ABSTRACTIt is frequently asserted that as farmers gain in experience or obtain more accurate and scientific knowledge that theircapacity to manage shrimp ponds more sustainable is enhanced. Conversely, those with little experience and poorknowledge are often characterized by unsustainable practices. In this paper we explore the relationships betweeninformation, sources and quality of knowledge about the environment and the technology choices and practices of shrimpfarming businesses in Thailand and Vietnam. We do this by developing an initial set of indicators of ecological, social, andeconomic sustainability of pond-level practices and explore associations with experience, knowledge, and technologyvariables with alternative explicit path models. Our findings suggest that information directly affect sources and quality ofknowledge, as well as subsequent technology choice and the relative sustainability of farming practices in terms ofecological, social, and economic sustainability. Relationships were not identical in Vietnam and Thailand reflectingdifferences in access to and sources of information and the overall structure of the industry in the two countries.

KEYWORDSExperience, Knowledge, Technology choice, Sustainability and Shrimp farmers

1 INTRODUCTION

That the shrimp aquaculture industry in many parts of the world needs be significantly transformed if itis to become sustainable, ecologically, socially and economically should no longer be a point of debate. Thisissue is: can it be done; and, if so, how? Trying to do so is worthwhile, because the industry has contributedsignificant income generation in various parts of the world, and could potentially have contributed a lot more,and more fairly. Moreover, some of the environmental impacts that arise out of poor practices appear to betechnically solvable without undermining business competitiveness. As commodity with a long and complexchain of inputs, processing and trade (Lebel et al. 2002), there are important issues of governance andsustainability that stretch well before and beyond the outgrowth pond stage.

In this paper, however, we focus on the decision behavior of farmers who manage crops of larvae inoutgrowth ponds. That farmers, investors, government agencies, local communities and those concerned withenvironmental conservation disagree about what is acceptable trade-off in the pursuit of sustainability should notcome as a surprise. For farmers, investors and government agencies concerned with financial expansion andexport revenue, sustainability of shrimp aquaculture focuses on the maintenance of at least the current level ofproduction and income, The desirable situation for most investors is to see an increase in financial returns overtime, keeping up with, or ideally, outpacing alternative investments. To social activists, it is a program ofdevelopment that is sensitive to the question of social equity. For those who are concerned primarily withenvironmental conservation, sustainable shrimp aquaculture refers to shrimp production that has minimalnegative impacts on the environment and can be maintained at a level that does not cause progressiveenvironmental degradation. Regardless of the details of the ultimate balance between these various objectives,improvements towards sustainability are likely to involve information, knowledge and technology choice.

Generally, age of shrimp farmers is used to indicate that a demographic factor influences manydependent variables such as shrimp farming knowledge, technology choices, and sustainable shrimp culture.Research consistently suggests that people’s ages are important in determining behavior (Schiffman and Kanuk,1991). Accordingly, young people active to working, quickly understanding knowledge and technology usagemore than elderly people do. However, education of shrimp farmers is a social variable that greatly influences

2

their performance as farm managers to the prospects of sustainability becoming an important principle or criteriafor decisions. Moreover, shrimp farmers have had a long experience in aquaculture and they are also enthusiasticto learn and practice advanced technologies. They always have new ideas for development or modification andthey are eager to run these experiments by themselves.

Information is any experience or contact that adds new meaning or some how changes events, lives orexperiences. An increment of information leads to a modification in the existing knowledge structure, whichgives rise to a new knowledge structure as the old structure is modified with new knowledge (Low, 2000).Technology is “knowledge or how to do things”. The choice of technology strongly influences the basic structureof the business. (Steele, 1988). For example, it is frequently asserted that as farmers gain in experience or obtainmore accurate and scientific knowledge that their capacity to manage shrimp ponds in a more sustainable way isenhanced. Conversely, those with little experience and poor knowledge are often characterized as havingunsustainable practices. Today there is a wide range of technologies and management practices in use, especiallyin places in which more conventional, low input, systems persist in combination with more intensified systems.In this paper we explore the relationships between information sources, knowledge about management and theenvironment and the technology choices and practices of shrimp farming enterprises in Thailand and Vietnam.

We propose four alternative models for how information, knowledge, experience and wealth influencetechnology choice and sustainability of shrimp farming practices (Figure 1). Taking each of these models in turn:

Technocratic extensions – The information needed for sustainable practices lies with experts, in stateagencies or (large firms?) and if you follow their lead you will choose to intensify production systemsand this will lead to more sustainable practices.Farmers Know Best – There is no replacement for experience. Farmers learn from their ownexperiences and those of others and it is this experience that leads them to more appropriate technologychoices for their context and sustainable practices.Multiple Knowledge Sources – Shrimp aquaculture is a knowledge intensive production system and tosucceed at it you have to prepared to take information from multiple sources and combine it in ways thatsuit your own context. This lead to more appropriate technology choices and sustainable practices.Practices improve with wealth – To do shrimp farming properly you need a lot of funds (and perhaps,must work at large scales) to get the knowledge required, use the best technology and as a resultpractices will be more sustainable. Poor farmers are not sustainable.

In this paper we set out to explore which, if any, of these models appeared to have been operating in Thailand orVietnam.

2 METHODOS

2.1 SAMPLE AND SURVEYThe findings reported in this study are based on field surveys, quantitative and in-depth interviews, and

analysis of secondary data. We conducted a detailed random survey of 827 shrimp farmers in 5 regions: northernVietnam (n = 99; Quang Ninh); southern Vietnam (n = 303; Ca Mau, Bac Lieu); central Vietnam (n = 121;Khanh Hoa); eastern peninsular Thailand (n = 239; Nakhon-sri-tammarat, Surat Thani, Songkla); and westernThailand (n = 65; Krabi and Trang). The surveys were conducted during roughly one week in each regionbetween September and December 2000, except for Khanh Hoa, which was in August 2001. Most interviewswere with the pond owners (90%), many of whom were also day-to-day managers, and the rest were with aknowledgeable pond manager (8.5%) or a senior worker (1.5%). The detailed questionnaire covered farmers'personal and household socioeconomic characteristics; general features of the shrimp farm and its management;production costs and yields; and environmental knowledge, attitudes, and practices.

2.2 VARIABLES AND ANALYSISA subset of variables was used to describe aspects of information, experience, knowledge, technology

choice and sustainability (Table 1). Principal component factor analysis was used to further reduce the datasetsfor some sets of variables. The two-step approach to structural equation modeling recommended by Andersonand Gerbing (1988) was used to test the proposed models.

3

Figure 1 Four alternative models for how information, knowledge, experience and wealth influence thetechnology choices and sustainability of shrimp farming practices.

4

Table 1 Variable Definition for the Path Model of Sustainable Shrimp Culture and the Measurement of theVariables

Description Operational Definite

Full years of age Counting the last date of birth of the person Education The highest level of education Experience in shrimp culture

The number of year in shrimp culture

The access to shrimp culture Information

Know shrimp culture information from each of the 7 sources of the information = 1 and not know it = 0,all the values are calculated by a principal components factor analysis with Kaiser normalization andVarimax

Farm income Summing farm income in last crop (Thousand USD) with formula that Farm Income = (Yield x Price) -(Cost of Larvae + Feed + Operation Cost)

The total score of shrimp knowledge

Calculated in percentage by the formula number of correct answer ÷ total number of question (n=14).There are two part of knowledge: (1) Environment/Ecological (2) Farm practice/Management Knowledge

Technology choices

Select to use shrimp technology each of the 7 choices = 1 and not use = 0, all the values are calculated bya principal components factor analysis with Kaiser normalization and Varimax

Ecological sustainability

Select to practice treatment of water each of the 7 treatments = 1 and not practice = 0, all the values arecalculated by a principal components factor analysis with Kaiser normalization and Varimax

Social sustainability

Has social activity each of 5 activities = 1 and not has = 0, all the values are calculated by a principalcomponents factor analysis with Kaiser normalization and Varimax

Economic Sustainability

Calculated by a principal components factor analysis with Kaiser normalization and Varimax with twovariables: (1) Shrimp yield in the last crop (Kilogram per hectare) and (2) Number of successful operationin 5 crop of shrimp culture

We analyzed the association between ever having had sustainability in shrimp farming such as withfactor score of sources of information, education, and a small set of other variables using path analysis (Table 1).The structural model consists of seven exogenous variables, which are shrimp farmers’ age, education,experience in shrimp culture, the access to shrimp culture information, farm income, the total score of shrimpknowledge and technology choice. However, the model show in Figure 2 can be represented by structuralequations that correspond to the seven endogenous variables.

Figure 2 A Path Model Showing the Main Theoretical Variables and Connection between the Variables.

5

3 RESULTS

The results are organized as follows. We first summarize the variation found within and betweenlocations in Vietnam and Thailand for some of the key variables in our study, and then we present the results ofvarious multiple regression models and their interpretation in a path analysis framework. In addition, descriptivestatistics for the variables examined and the resulting factor in this study were presented in Table 2 and Table3.

3.1 EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCEIt is not accurate to characterize shrimp farmers in Thailand or Vietnam as uneducated or inexperienced.

In our survey we found the education levels of shrimp farmers varied widely, as measured by the percentagecompleting primary school: in western peninsular Thailand (54%), southern Vietnam (58%), eastern peninsularThailand (72%), northern Vietnam (90%), and central Vietnam (93%). In central Vietnam (54%) more than halfthe farmers had completed a secondary degree or higher, and in northern Vietnam (39%) and eastern peninsularThailand (39%) levels also were high (Lebel et al. 2002). Jitsanguan et al. (1993) observed at a site in PakPhanang that we also studied that the less educated farmers who fail first when an area becomes environmentallydegraded. Our own results suggest that education and training or experience can provide the farmers to maintainboth intensive production and carrying capacity of the environment.

In Vietnam farmers had an average of about 8.5 years' experience as shrimp farmers, compared with 9.5in Thailand. Previous occupations varied among locations (Lebel et al. 2002). In Thailand about 13% had beenrice farmers, 28% had been fishermen and the remainder came from various other occupations or had beenunemployed. On the other hand, in Vietnam, 40% had been rice farmers and 7% had been fishermen. Mean ageof farmers in Thailand (38) was slightly less than in Vietnam (42).

3.2 INFORMATION SOURCESAlthough education and experience do not differ in a consistent way between Thailand and Vietnam,

sources of information about shrimp farming do. Farmers in east and western peninsular Thailand getinformation from multiple sources, including friends and relatives, government extension officers, magazinesand books, TV and radio, growers associations, product distributors, and training courses. On average they used4.3 sources in comparison to 3.8 in central Vietnam, 3.0 in northern Vietnam, and only 2.2 in southern Vietnam.In part, this reflects the differences in information needs, and lack of government support for those practicingsemi-intensive production methods. In Ca Mau in southern Vietnam; the lack of information appeared to beparticularly acute. The only sources of information interviewees acknowledged at levels similar to those in theother areas were high reliance on friends and relatives (ca. 90%), and about half from television and radio. Thisis a critical point because there currently is a rush to develop nurseries and intensified shrimp ponds, butknowledge, equipment, and management systems have not yet "arrived" in 2000-1.

3.3 KNOWLEDGE AND TECHNOLOGY CHOICEA principal economic factor influencing knowledge and technology choice is income that can be defined

as many ways. In the study, we can define as farm income from sale of shrimp. Basically, the income iscorrelated positively with knowledge and technology choice. In other words, rising income of the farms willresult in an increase in communication devices, and investment in technology in farms. In our surveys, all farmsin western and eastern peninsular Thailand and central Vietnam had adopted intensified system and the averageof culturing period per crop is similar that it is 3.18, 3.75, and 3.58 months per crop respectively. In addition, theaverage of farm income from sale of shrimp per year in Thailand (28,150 USD) is higher than farm income inVietnam (15,150 USD). Because all shrimp farms in Thailand using intensive production methods produced,meanwhile those in northern and southern Vietnam continue to practice a variety of semi-intensive system.

Technical knowledge of production methods is essential to the industry’s development. Moreover,essential knowledge of farmers on good management practices is required. Several studies shown that manyfarmers do not have access to information sources. This is one of the greatest obstacles to generate new technicalknowledge of production methods and therefore to development of more sustainable practices. The governmentorganization responsible for extension work is Department of Fisheries. Research by state supported universitiesand fisheries research centers also are important in both countries. Private organization also have to generate andaccumulate knowledge especially the private sector in Thailand has played a much larger role in research and

Table3 Factor Analysis Interpretation of Source of Information, Technology Choice, Ecological, Social, and Economic Sustainability: Case Study in Vietnam (n = 506)

Factor/Item Description Mean SD Eigenvalue /Loading Factor

1. Source of InformationFactor 1 Academic Agents 2.052

Government extension officer .22 .42 .809Training course and seminar .28 .45 .731Shrimp growers association / network .06 .24 .499

Factor 2 Mass Media and Printed Matter 1.120TV and Radio .57 .50 .863Newspaper, magazine and book .59 .49 .792

Factor 3 Informal Agents 1.059Friend and relatives .92 .26 .680Product distributor / sellers .10 .31 .6712. Technology Choice 3.857Use antibiotic .30 .46 .862Chemical to clean water .32 .47 .857Chemical to treat disease .32 .47 .847Stocking density 10.51 13.81 .774Use feed and support feed .24 .43 .688Use lime to manage water pH .55 .50 .668Test stock density .57 .50 .3793. Ecological Sustainability

Factor 1 Aquatic Plant Blooms 1.523Algae / plankton / aquatic plant blooms inrearing ponds .11 .31 .833Aquatic plant blooms in water bodies .06 .23 .785

Factor 2 Pond carrying capacity 1.378Pond area per yield .07 .26 .816Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) 2.34 3.73 .789

Factor 3 Keep producing and Water bodies 1.083Quality of water bodies discharge .24 .43 -.677Expected years to keep producing 6.70 6.19 .558Sediment loads in pond .45 .50 .5464. Social Sustainability

Factor 1 Improve Family Living and Assets 1.659Improve living of family .92 .27 .837Buy major new assets .74 .44 .743Temporarily separate living from family .69 .46 .696

Factor 2 Improve emotion and credit 1.101Without tension in family .47 .38 .699Have not any large outstanding loans .57 .50 .5655. Economic Sustainability 1.08Yield 808.03 1416.85 .735Successful operation 2.29 1.30 .735

Table2 Factor Analysis Interpretation of Source of Information, Technology Choice, Ecological, Social, and Economic Sustainability: Case Study in Thailand (n = 293)

Factor/Item Description Mean SD Eigenvalue /Loading Factor

1. Source of InformationFactor 1 Mass Media and Printed Matter 1.907

TV and Radio .44 .50 .784Newspaper, magazine and book .63 .48 .753Product distributor / sellers .73 .45 .453

Factor 2 Formal Agents 1.059Training course and seminar .54 .50 .780Government extension officer .36 .48 .752

Factor 3 Informal Agents 1.040Shrimp growers association / network .78 .41 .691Friend and relatives .90 .30 -.5742. Technology Choice 3.730

Factor 1 Chemicals used 1.788Chemical to treat disease .95 .22 .797Chemical to clean water .88 .33 .790Use antibiotic .91 .29 .542Use lime to manage water pH .92 .27 .385

Factor 2 Stocking and feed 1.129Test stock quality .55 .50 -.690Stocking density 63.72 20.49 .657Use feed and support feed .95 .21 .4103. Ecological Sustainability

Factor 1 Pond carrying capacity 1.999Pond area per yield .0005 .001 .896Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) 1.83 4.42 .847Sediment loads in pond .26 .44 -.498

Factor 2 Aquatic Plant Blooms 1.777Algae / plankton / aquatic plant blooms inRearing ponds .87 .34 .892Aquatic plant blooms in water bodies .66 .47 .804

Factor 3 Keep producing and Water bodies 1127Expected years to keep producing 11.51 7.04 .778Quality of water bodies discharge .83 .37 .6234. Social Sustainability

Factor 1 Improve Family Living and Assets 1.431Improve living of family .96 .19 .792Temporarily separate living from family .75 .44 .644Buy major new assets .75 .43 .616

Factor 2 Improve emotion and credit 1.099Without tension in family .60 .49 .760Have not any large outstanding loans .40 .47 .6535. Economic Sustainability 1.041Yield 4468.57 2140.77 .735Successful operation 3.76 1.23 .735

7

development than in Vietnam, because many of the major input supply companies are based in Thailand. In oursurveys, we found that the total score of knowledge for shrimp farming in Vietnam (60%) is higher than inThailand (58%). The average score of technical knowledge of production of Thai shrimp farmer (53%) is higherthan in Vietnam (50%), but the average score of environmental knowledge of shrimp culture in Vietnam (28%)is higher than in Thailand (25%).

The technology choice for shrimp culture varies from location to location, depending on the level oftechnology applied. However, the important factors to be considered for successful shrimp culture are waterquality (pollution problems) and production inputs, such as feed, fry and culture management. The quality ofshrimp feed is determined by its nutrient composition, method of processing and storage. Excessive feedingcaused a drastic drop in water quality, particularly dissolved oxygen content. The uneaten feed and shrimpexcreta settled on the pond bottom, causing an increase in the organic content, which in turn resulted in ananaerobic zone.

Farmers to be added to pond water to improve water quality commonly apply chemicals such as zeoliteaand lime. Zeolite absorbs hydrogen sulphide and ammonia to decrease the water turbidity, while lime increasesthe pH of water and sediment. Additionally, the group of tetracycline, oxytetracyclin, oxolinic acid,sulfanilamide, chloramphenicol, nitrofurans, fluoroquinolones, and norfloxacin has a toxic effect and residuesmay be dangerous for shrimp, hence residues affected shrimp quality and in turn the consumers.

Stocking density is determined by a number of factors including pond size, quality of the available watersupply, the type of technology used by the farm and the level of production desired. The goal of the farmer is,understandably, to achieve the greatest possible production to maximize profits. In many instances, farmers stocktheir ponds at a very high density and test their stock quality.

Major items of expenditure for shrimp producers are feeds, post-larvae, and chemicals. A breakdown ofproduction costs of the farms surveyed in Thailand in 2000-01 is 11.8% for post-larvae, 30.8 % for feed and10.29% for chemicals. On the other hand, the major items of expenditure for shrimp producers in Vietnamespecially in Nha Trang are higher than in Thailand (15.14% for post-larvae, 44.86 % for feed and 10.62% forchemicals). In addition, the survey data showed that in Thailand more than 88% of farmers use each of thetechnology choice such as 100% use artificial and support feed, 88% use chemical to clean water, 95% usechemical to treat disease, 91% use some antibiotics, and 92% add lime to pond. On the other hand, farmers inVietnam use each of technology choice less than in Thailand. In sum, farmers need greater knowledge of thecircumstances in which use of feed, antibiotics and other chemicals can be beneficial, and to be informed of thepotentially detrimental effects of prophylactic antibiotic use.

3.4 SUSTAINABILITYWater quality is one of the most important factors in the ecological sustainability. Water during farming

operations is of reasonable quality, but poorer quality effluent may be discharged during harvest and followingharvest when ponds are cleaned and the sediment removed. Because of the properties of the effluent, changes inthe chemistry and community ecology of the receiving waters may occur where there is limited water exchangein receiving water. However, the waste from intensive shrimp farms can still impact on local water qualitythrough excess feeds, fertilizers, chemicals and antibiotics. The measured water quality parameters were BOD,phosphorus and nitrogen (NACA, 1994). Unfortunately, we can not measure water quality parameters, becauseof budget and time constraints. In this study, we indirectly measure water quality by observed the algae,plankton, and aquatic blooms in rearing water and in water bodies. Moreover, we gather the farmers’ behavior ofpost-treatment of water discharge, and pond carrying capacity. The carrying capacity of a pond is generallydefined as the maximum density of shrimp. The carrying capacity varies depending on numerous factors,including features of pond site, water quality and exchange, and pond management practices.

In our survey, we found that shrimp pond in Thailand can be observed algae, plankton and aquatic plantblooms in rearing pond (87%) and in any of the water bodies into which farmers discharge water from rearingpond (66%). Moreover, shrimp farmers 83% have ever had any problems with saltation or sediment loads in anyof the water bodies into which they discharge water from their rearing ponds. On the other hand, shrimp farmersin Vietnam have ever had any problems with saltation or sediment loads about 24% and we observed algae,plankton and aquatic plant blooms in rearing pond (11%) and in any of the water bodies into which farmersdischarge water from rearing pond (6%).

8

The industrialization of shrimp aquaculture affects on family and living of shrimp farmers. Among thosesurveyed, 90% or more at all sites shown that shrimp farming had helped improve their standards of living.Many farmers had recently purchased major assets 75% at all sites. Farmers, however, approximately one half(40% to 57%) had obtained loans, most frequently from banks or agricultural cooperatives. Additionally, shrimpfarmers in Thailand temporarily separate from their family 75% but in Vietnam is less than Thailand (69%).Meanwhile, 60% of shrimp farmers in Thailand operate farming without tension in their family and it is higherthan in Vietnam (47%).

The effects on production of the Intensification trend in Thailand can be seen in the greatly increasedyields per unit area in Vietnam, as in most other countries in Southeast Asia, overall production yields generallyhave been much lower as many farms still use only semi-intensive systems. The intention of many of thesefarmers, however, was to further intensify their production systems: in northern Vietnam (90%), southernVietnam (52%), central Vietnam (45%), eastern peninsular Thailand (34%) and western peninsular Thailand(26%). On average of production from shrimp farming in Thailand (4,468.57 Kg/ha) is higher than in Vietnam(808.03 Kg/ha) about 5 times.

Production, however, is very unstable. In our surveys, 74% of farmers overall had experienced a majorcrop failure (lose production). Disease is probably the single most important factor limiting production in theindustry. Fluctuations in market prices also may contribute to boom and bust patterns. Price increases followingdisease outbreaks attract new producers to try their luck. In Nha Trang, farmers indicated that land prices rosedramatically between the end of 2000 and the middle of 2001 as a result of changes in shrimp prices. InThailand, abandonment of ponds after a few years because of disease or declining productivity is common, butthese ponds sometimes are reused when prices are high again. In our survey, we found that shrimp farmers inThailand have ever failed on average 3.76 crops in the last of 5 crops that it is more than average in Vietnam(2.29 crops in the last of 5 crops).

3.5 PATH ANALYSIS MODELThe model shown in Table 4 and Table 5 can be broken down into 8-9 sets of equations. As Table 4 case

study in Thailand shown, the knowledge equation indicated that education of shrimp farmers and access toinformation from formal agents is highly statistically significant with the farmers' knowledge. Considering incase study in Vietnam, the variables that determine the farmers' knowledge are farmers’ experience and access toinformation from mass media. For the equation of technology choice in Thailand, it was found experience,source of information from informal agents and environment knowledge are the most important in the equationof technology for stocking and feed. However, case study in Vietnam, the variable of education and farm incomealso affected the technology choice.

The structure equation for ecological sustainable consisted in three equations. These equations bothThailand and Vietnam show an influence of the farmers' education and experience. The structure equation forsocial sustainability consists also in two equations. These equations show an influence of the farmers' experienceon social sustainability. In addition, there is a structure equation show that farm income affected on family livingand assets (case in Vietnam). Moreover, case in Vietnam, we found that some variable was not only shrimpfarms' experience but also knowledge and technology choice affected on improving farms’ emotion and theircredit. However, the structure equations of economic sustainability in Thailand, we found that farmers’education, experience, farm income and technology for chemical usage are important variable affected on theeconomic sustainability. On the other hand, case study in Vietnam farmer’s experience, farm income, andknowledge affected on the economic sustainability.

The overall structure of a relatively full path analysis model is shown in Figure 3. In the case ofThailand, the overall structure of the path model is shown that the farmers’ education directly affect to bothecological sustainability (aquatic plants blooms) and economic sustainability and indirect affect on them viaenvironment knowledge. Additionally the farmers’ experience is effect directly and indirectly via technology ofchemicals used to social sustainability (family living) and economic sustainability. Moreover, source ofinformation from informal and formal agents indirectly affect on sustainability via knowledge and technology.The relationships in case of Vietnam are similar in case of Thailand but the factors of ecological sustainabilityand social sustainability in case of Vietnam are different from case in Thailand. The path models in case ofVietnam are shown that the farmers’ knowledge affect directly and indirectly via technology choice onecological sustainability (pond carrying capacity and keep producing) and social sustainability (farmers’ emotionand credit).

9

10

Figure 3 Comparison of Full Statistical Structure Models Case Study in Thailand (Left Column) and Vietnam(Right Column)

a. Ecological Sustainability

b. Social Sustainability

c. Economic Sustainability

11

4 DISCUSSION

In this study, we identified a number of factors that we believed would be influential in determiningshrimp farm sustainability. The results indicate that our proposed model provides an acceptable fit on the data.More specifically, of the structural equations in case of Vietnam. Our results supported the population variablesthat were farmers’ age and education in the structural equation, positive relationship between education and bothof knowledge and technology choice but negative relationship between age and farm yield. The positiverelationship observed here suggests that should support the persons who educated at least secondary schoolcomplete or equivalent starting shrimp farming. Because of the education level was the basis for them totransform information to knowledge and select technology choice. Some farmers who educated lower than thelevel, they can create their knowledge via formal or academic agents especially in Vietnam, the important sourceto access to information for their knowledge was mass media and printed matters. Our results also supported thepredicted, positive relationship between farm income and technology choice. It is important to note that thefarmers who earn higher farm income will use many technology choices in farm. Thus, in the intensifiedsystems, technology choice is a factor to increase their yields per unit area, but the costs per kg of shrimp werehigher and shrimp price per kg was lower as farm income also was low.

Our results also supported the predicted, positive relationship between farmers’ experience and shrimpfarming sustainability. This relationship is consistent with the idea that the shrimp farmers have had a longexperience in aquaculture and they are also enthusiastic to learn and practice advanced technologies. Theyalways have new ideas for development or modification shrimp farming especially water quality in the pond andoutside pond and also improved their living and economic status. However, The knowledge and technologychoice necessary to improve their living and farm yield.

Specifically, this study suggests that there appears to be need for education of farmers regarding theeffects of use technology. The techniques, technology and experience necessary to reduce environmentalpollution whist maintaining high production was often complex and farmers with less educated may haveproblems understanding them. The development and adoption of sustainable practices will require thecooperation of government and farmers. Thus, widespread information and knowledge of farmers on goodmanagement practices and technology usage are required. The study has shown that many farmers do not haveaccess to information sources. This is one of the greatest obstacles to change within the production sector of theshrimp industry and therefore to the development of more sustainable practices. The Government organizationresponsible for extension work is DOF. Private organizations and local shrimp networks also have trainingprograms and produce information . More effective training programs and systems of information disseminationneed to be developed.

It is important to consider our findings in light of several limitations associated with this study. First,because this was across-sectional study, our ability to draw causal inferences is limited. Second, this study wasdesign to examine shrimp farm sustainability; it had some limitations relating to measurement issues directly toecological, social and economic sustainability. Finally, this study was limited on shrimp system. As such, mostof shrimp system in Thailand was intensify system but in Vietnam was extensive and semi-intensive polyculturesystems. Despite these limitations, this study contributes to our understanding of shrimp farming maintain theirwater pollution, family living and economic. In order to identify the priority areas for research, the shrimpfarmers of knowledge system and decision making to use technology are not discussed. In addressingsustainability of shrimp farming, it is important to go beyond the search for solutions to improve the knowledgeand technology choice for production within the pond.

5 CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses suggest that education and experience can provide farmers with not only certain knowledgebut also technology usage to maintain intensive production and shrimp farming sustainability. The relationshipbetween the level of experience of farmers and the shrimp farming sustainability, we expected that the longer afarmer had been operating, the more skills he or she would have acquired and the greater the farmingsustainability would be. However, we found the knowledge and technology choice can provide the farmers toimprove their family living and increase their farm yield and successful farm operation.

12

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis research has been primarily supported by Grant No. 60176 from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthurFoundation to Louis Lebel, Chiang Mai University.

REFERENCESAnderson, J.C., and Gerbing, D.W. (1988) “Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and

recommended two-step approach”. Psychological Bulletin, 103: pp.411.

Burton-Jones, Alan. (2001). Knowledge, Capitalism: Business, Work and Learning in the New Economy.London: Oxford University Press.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (1988). Aspects of FAO’s policies, programs,budget and activities aimed at contributing to sustainable development. Document to the ninety-fourthsession of the FAO council, Rome, 15-25 November 1988. Rome, FAO, CL94/6.

Jitsanguan, T., Mungkin, N. and Claithong, W. (1993). Sustainable coastal resource management in Thailand:the case study of shrimp cultivation at Pak Panang Bay. Research paper submitted to Asian FisheriesSocial Science Research Network (AFSSRN). Thailand.

Lebel, Louis. (2002). Chiang Mai Workshop on Sustainability Science: knowledge, technology and institutes forsustainability transitions in Asia. Chiang Mai, Thailand, 4-6 February 2002.

Lebel, L., Tri, N.H., et al. (2002). "Industrial Transformation and Shrimp Aquaculture in Thailand and Vietnam:Pathways to Ecological, Social and Economic Sustainability?” Ambio.31 (4): pp.317.

Low Linda. (2000). Economics of Information Technology and the Media. Singapore: World ScientificPublishing.

NACA (Network of Aquaculture Centers in Asia-Pacific) (1994). Impact of shrimp farming on the environment:study I. Sixth Meeting of the Governing Council (GCM-6) of NACA, Beijing. China, 162p.

Saengnoree, A., Buatama,U., Tri, N.H., Pasong S., and Lebel, L. (2001). “A preliminary analysis of shrimp farmmanagement practices in Thailand and Vietnam.” Global change and Sustainable Development inSoutheast Asia, A SARCS Regional Science-Policy Conference, Chiang Mai, Thailand 17-19 February2001.

Schiffman, Leon G. and Leslie Lazer Kanuk. (1991). Consumer Behavior 4th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Steele, Lowell W. (1988). Managing Technology. New York: McGraw-Hill.