CASE STUDY

Social-ecological analysis of integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems in Dedza, Malawi

Jessica L. Blythe

Received: 7 March 2012 / Accepted: 12 December 2012 / Published online: 22 December 2012� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Abstract Through the case of integrated agriculture-aquaculture in rural Malawi, this

paper argues that hybrid research can reveal new interactions in social-ecological systems

not evident when studies by social or natural methods independently. While recent research

acknowledges the social and natural dimensions of aquaculture systems, studies often create

an artificial divide by attempting to address each aspect in isolation. Social science research

has overlooked the biophysical aspects of aquaculture, while scientific research has uncrit-

ically accepted orthodox explanations of environmental outcomes without addressing the

social contexts of such systems. The social component of this research reveals that fish

farmers in Malawi are rejecting practices which do not work in the local context (fertilization

with pond mud) and adopting strategies that do work (irrigation with pond water). The

physical component of this research compliments the social by elucidating that irrigation

with pond water resulted in higher soil nutrient and moisture content. The paper concludes

that small-scale aquaculture can make significant contributions to rural household food and

income security in Africa and that hybrid research methods can improve our abilities to

investigate the complex, connected nature of social-ecological systems.

Keywords Social-ecological systems � Integrated agriculture-aquaculture �Malawi � Africa

1 Introduction

Despite decades of research and development programs, adoption of small-scale aqua-

culture across sub-Saharan Africa remains relatively low. As research on small-scale

aquaculture began to spread throughout the continent in the 1980s and 1990s, many

researchers focused primarily on the biophysical processes of aquaculture systems (Pauly

et al. 1988; El-Sayed 1990). These early research programs prioritized the elements of

J. L. Blythe (&)Department of Geography, University of Victoria, PO Box 3060 STN CSC,Victoria, BC V8W 3R4, Canadae-mail: jlanders@uvic.ca

123

Environ Dev Sustain (2013) 15:1143–1155DOI 10.1007/s10668-012-9429-6

production, such as pond construction, water quality, fish breeding and growth, and dis-

seminated aquaculture techniques through rural Africa via extension agents (Suresh 1992;

Brummett and Noble 1995). However, adoption rates remained low and ponds were often

abandoned once extension work ended (Brummett et al. 2008). This limited success led

researchers to re-examine small-scale aquaculture research programs. A subsequent wave

of academics proposed that understanding the complex social interactions of the farming

systems was also critical (Harrison et al. 1994; Edwards 1998). This research acknowl-

edged that aquaculture takes place in social, economic and political contexts and that

research should explore these interactions in order to effectively understand how aqua-

culture systems function (Bailey 2008). Recently, researchers increasingly recognize that

reductionist approaches, on either end of the social/ecological spectrum, cannot deal

adequately with complex phenomena comprising the interacting variables of small-scale

fish farming systems (Costa-Pierce 2008). At the heart of these inquiries must be the

recognition that aquaculture systems are most appropriately characterized as complex,

interacting social-ecological systems and that attempts at delineation between social and

natural systems are artificial and arbitrary (Berkes et al. 2003).

To examine the range of social and ecological factors, and their interactions, on small-scale

farm systems, it is necessary to broaden conventional research approaches (Edwards 2007).

This paper analyzes the case of integrated agriculture-aquaculture (IAA) on small-scale farm

systems in Malawi using a multidisciplinary approach, which combined semi-structured

interviews, focus groups and soil nutrient analysis. In the literature, the integration of social

and ecological research methodologies is referred to as hybrid research (Kwan 2004). The

paper draws on the case study to support the central argument that by employing a hybrid

research approach, researchers can reveal novel and complex interactions in social-ecological

systems not evident when studied by social or natural methods independently. The two

objectives of this paper are as follows: (1) to assess the social and ecological impacts of IAA on

small-scale farm systems in Malawi and (2) to explore the value added in employing a hybrid

research approach for understanding the dynamics of integrated social-ecological systems.

1.1 Integrated agriculture-aquaculture

Small-scale aquaculture has long been proposed as a foundation for effectively addressing

food insecurity and poverty in sub-Saharan Africa (Brummett and Noble 1995). Many

development programs have thus promoted small-scale aquaculture as a low-cost method

for increasing rural farm productivity in order to address a combination of challenges for

rural farmers such as poor infrastructure, inadequate institutional support and low fertilizer

availability (Hishamunda and Ridler 2006). With this aim, the World Fish Centre has been

working in Malawi since the early 1980s, with the Department of Fisheries, the University

of Malawi and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs, on the

dissemination of IAA (Brummett and Jamu 2011).

Integrated agriculture-aquaculture is based on the concept of integrated resource man-

agement. It can broadly be defined as the linkages between two or more farming activities,

of which at least one is aquaculture (Edwards 1987). Generally, an IAA system consists of a

small pond stocked with locally appropriate fish. Materials available on the farm, such as

crop residues, are used as pond inputs (Brummett and Noble 1995). Rather than merely

producing fish, the pond is thus designed to increase farm efficiency by maximizing inter-

actions between farm components. According to Edwards et al. (1988), an output from one

subsystem in an integrated farming system, which otherwise may have been wasted,

becomes an input to another subsystem resulting in a greater efficiency of output of desired

1144 J. L. Blythe

123

products from the land and water under a farmers’ control thus increasing farmers’ food

and income security. In addition, the integration of aquatic and terrestrial farm components

with low trophic level species increases resource efficiency and sustainability and avoids

environmental harm associated with larger aquaculture production (Primavera 2006).

1.2 Hybrid research approach

Recent research acknowledges the social and ecological dimensions of rural aquaculture

systems, yet studies often create an artificial divide by attempting to address each aspect

in isolation (Bailey 2008). Edwards (1998) identified that most aquaculture scientists have

been educated in biology, or specifically zoology, and their attention is focused on the fish and

its immediate aquatic environment. Social research approaches, on the other hand, have

emphasized factors such as resource allocation, property rights, marginalization of local

people and the limitations of a Western natural scientific research approach alone in exploring

the social complexities that characterize rural African farming communities (Leach and

Mearns 1996; Peet and Watts 2004). Therefore, researchers are emphasizing the validity of

hybrid research approaches and thus looking to both social and ecological methods for

the specific strengths, tools and insights they can bring to a research design (Edwards 2007;

Soto et al. 2008). Pertinent for our concern in this paper, hybrid research is defined as research

that challenges the separation of research methodologies and bridges the gap between social

and ecological research by acknowledging that most aquaculture research questions require

investigation through both approaches (Massey 1999; Whatmore 2002; Kwan 2004). The

hybrid research approach employed in this paper relies on three assumptions: first, that social

and ecological research methodologies use different tools and produce different types of

information; second, that the information produced by different methodologies can be

complementary; and third, that by combining the information produced by different meth-

odologies, researchers can develop new and complex understandings of small-scale farm

systems not evident when studied by social or natural researchers separately.

The call for hybrid research approaches for aquaculture analysis is grounded in the

recognition that fish ponds are embedded in social-ecological systems and connected to

the farmer, the farm environment and the larger regional, national and international social

and political contexts (Edwards 2007). Hybrid approaches for aquaculture, therefore,

require a framework that addresses production technology, environmental factors and

social and economic drivers, as well as researchers with experience in biology, ecology,

environmental science, economics and sociology (Bailey 2008). We draw on the critical

theoretical contributions of several authors concerning hybridity (Batterbury et al. 1997;

Whatmore 2002; Kwan 2004). These researchers have led the way in developing the

concepts of hybridity. However, much of the previous work on hybrid research has been

theoretical rather than empirical. This article, therefore, draws on insights emergent from a

case study to add empirical evidence to the growing group of scholars who are calling for

integrated studies of coupled human and natural systems (Liu et al. 2007).

2 Methods

2.1 The study area

Malawi is a small, densely populated, land-locked country located in southern Africa.

Poverty in Malawi is pervasive, particularly in rural areas, with over half of the population

Social-ecological analysis of integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems 1145

123

living below the poverty line. Agriculture is the major source of income for rural house-

holds, yet land holdings are small and productivity is generally low. The majority of the

rural poor are heavily reliant on low-input production of maize on small landholdings

where soil fertility is declining (Sanchez 2002).

The case study was located in the Dedza district, which is situated 50 km southwest of

the capital city, Lilongwe, in central Malawi (Fig. 1). Site selection was carried out jointly

by local researchers and extensions agents. Just over 646,000 people live in Dedza, 54.5 %

of the population is classified as poor and 20.9 % as ultra poor (NSO 2008). Agriculture is

the predominant profession, and the majority of work in Dedza is unpaid or mlimi. While

Fig. 1 Map of the study area in Dedza, Malawi. Black dots indicate IAA farms sampled in this research

1146 J. L. Blythe

123

smallholder farming systems normally comprise a variety of vegetables and a few livestock

for household consumption and sale in local markets, the cropping system in Dedza is

dominated by maize, the staple food crop in Malawi. Dedza is located at 1,270 m above

sea level (Young and Goldsmith 1977). The high altitude results in a fairly benign climate.

Mean annual temperature is 18 �C, and total mean annual precipitation, based on a ten year

record from 1996 to 2005, in Dedza is 896 mm (NSO 2008). Almost the entirety of total

annual rainfall in the country falls during the rainy season, from November to April. The

unimodal rainfall pattern generally limits farmers to one planting season per year. Maize is

planted around November, at the beginning of the rainy season, and harvested in April or

May. The growing season in Dedza ranges from 150 to 180 days per year (Moriniere and

Chimwaza 1996). The soils in Dedza are deep, dark red to yellowish red sandy clays

(Young and Goldsmith 1977).

More than 90 % of the fish cultured in Malawi are tilapia (FAO 2005). Fish ponds,

averaging 200 m2 or less, are typically hand dug and filled by diverting stream water.

Aquaculture in the country is characterized as extensive, meaning pond inputs consist

mainly of boosting phytoplankton growth through fertilization with animal manure or

household waste products. The context of the current study is the aftermath of a 5-year

development project, through which IAA was introduced to approximately 80 small-scale

farmers in Dedza, Malawi (Concern Universal 2006).

2.2 Overall organization of the study

The research consisted of a social component followed by an ecological component. The

social component of the study was scheduled first so that the farmers could voice their

experiences, which were then used to guide the ecological component. Specifically, the

social component was used: (1) to provide an understanding of the fish farming practices

that were working successfully in Dedza, (2) to identify fish farming techniques that were

challenging farmers and adaptations that farmers had made in response to those challenges

and (3) to contribute to the development of ecological research questions which were

reflective of the range of fish farming practices in Dedza.

2.3 The social component

The research was conducted by an interdisciplinary research team during April and May

2007. The research team comprised of two researchers (one local natural scientist and one

international social scientist), a local extension agent (who had worked with the farmers

during the Concern Universal project), a local field technician and an international research

assistant. The social impacts of IAA on farm systems were investigated by triangulating

several qualitative and quantitative techniques, known as a Q-squared approach (Parker

and Kozel 2007). First, semi-structured interviews, especially adapted for the study of

small-scale marine resource dependent communities, were conducted with 45 IAA farmers

(McGoodwin 2001). Second, focus groups with IAA farmers facilitated in-depth discussion

on fish farming techniques and practices (Creswell 2007). A non-random, snowball sam-

pling approach was used to generate interview participants, because only a subset of the

population participates in fish farming. Participation in the research was, therefore, based

on farmer’s involvement in IAA and their willingness to participate.

The information gathered included farmers’ characteristics (gender, age, traditional

authority), pond characteristics (dimensions, age, species of fish cultured) and farm

management practices (stocking density, fertilizer application, pond productivity estimates,

Social-ecological analysis of integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems 1147

123

fish market price). In addition, farmers were asked to describe the benefits and challenges

they encountered in regard to their fish ponds. The goal of this line of questioning was to

elicit a description of actual events and experiences from the respondents. Farm charac-

teristics were tabulated in Excel, and descriptive statistics were calculated.

2.4 The ecological component

Of the 45 farmers interviewed, 30 were randomly selected for soil sampling to be con-

ducted on their farms. Studies have shown that soil nutrient levels are lowest just after the

harvest; therefore, soil samples were conducted in May to coincide with the end of the

harvest when nutrient levels would be lowest (Phiri et al. 1999). Composite soil samples

were collected from maize fields. Fields had been either irrigated with pond water (n = 15)

or not irrigated with pond water (n = 10). No irrigation information was available for 5 of

the 30 farms sampled.

At the Bunda College of Agriculture, University of Malawi, a portion of each soil

sample was immediately analyzed for soil moisture content. The remaining soil was air-

dried, grounded and passed through a 2-mm-mesh-diameter sieve. Soil pH was determined

by combining dry, ground soil in 1:2.5 soil/distilled water ratio and measuring pH with

standard reference electrodes while stirring to maintain the soil in suspension, as this

method has been recommended for the analysis of soils associated with fish ponds (Thunjai

et al. 2001). The rest of the dried soil samples were transported to York University,

Canada. Total Kjeldahl-N was determined on 0.25–1.0 g soil samples according to

Bremmer and Mulvaney (1982). Mehlich 3 extractable P, K?, Zn, Mg2? and Ca? were

determined (Mehlich 1984). Data were analyzed with R software using two-tailed t tests.

Irrigated soils were compared to the control (non-irrigated) soils for nutrient and soil

moisture content. Statistical inference was based on the 95 % confidence intervals.

3 Results

3.1 Social impacts of IAA in Dedza

The farmers interviewed resided under the authority of two Group Village Headmen,

all under the same Traditional Authority in southern Dedza. The age distribution ranged

from 18 to 90 years. The majority of ponds were owned and operated by males. Tilapia

(Tilapia rendalli or Oreochromis shiranus) were being cultured in all ponds. Among

respondents, half (49 %) owned livestock. Twelve farmers owned chickens, four owned

goats, pigs or rabbits, and three farmers owned cattle. Animal manure was collected in

50-kg bags and applied to ponds on average of once a month. Household waste consisted

mainly of maize husks and kitchen and vegetable remains and was applied to ponds on

average of 2–3 kg per day. Farmers harvested an average of 22.3 kg of tilapia per year

and could sell fish locally for 86 MWK per kilogram (equivalent to 0.61 USD, based on

the mean exchange rate during the time of the research of 1 USD = 140.68 MWK).

However, the majority (78 %) of respondents consumed their fish domestically. Table 1

summarizes farmers’ descriptions of key farm characteristics, fish pond production and

outputs.

Farmers identified food security as the primary benefits of their fish ponds. In addition,

they highlighted a number of secondary benefits, including crop irrigation with pond water

and fertilization with pond mud. Farmers also explained that once the Concern Universal

1148 J. L. Blythe

123

project had finished, they had organized themselves into fish clubs. These clubs would

provide fingerlings to any farmer in the district who built and filled a fish pond with water.

Informal interviews with extension agents in Dedza highlighted a second rational behind

the fish clubs. Extension agents explained that farmers were aware that NGOs and other

donor agencies were more likely to engage in future projects in areas where formal groups

were already established; therefore, they organized themselves into fish clubs. Challenges

associated with IAA farms included predation (primarily from birds and otters), lack of

nets, high cost of inputs, such as maize bran, and inconsistent extension work.

3.2 Impacts of IAA on soil nutrient levels

Chemical and physical properties of soils were measured for two land use categories,

irrigated soil and non-irrigated soil, and in two soil segments, 0–20 cm (topsoil) and

20–40 cm (subsoil). Table 2 presents a summary of mean soil properties in the two land

use categories. In the topsoil, mean nitrogen levels were significantly higher in irrigated

soils than in non-irrigated soils. Mean magnesium and calcium levels in the topsoil were

also significantly higher in irrigated soils than in non-irrigated soils and were above the

critical levels for maize growth (Snapp 1998). No significant differences were found

between land use categories in the subsoil.

Table 1 Key farmer and fishpond characteristics as describedby respondents in semi-structuredinterviews (n = 45)

Attributes Description

Farmer characteristics

Average farmer age (years) 36.3

Male owned ponds (%) 82

Pond characteristics

Average pond area (m2) 198.2

Average pond age (years) 1.38

Pond production system

Average fingerling stocking density per m2 1.9

Average manure application (kg/ha/mnth) 3436

Average household waste application (kg/ha/mnth) 4387.5

Pond outputs

Average fish yield per harvest (kg/ha) 1115

Table 2 Mean chemical and physical properties of soil from maize fields that had been irrigated (n = 15)and non-irrigated (n = 10) with water from small-scale tilapia ponds in Dedza, Malawi

Soil

depth

(cm)

Treatment N

(g kg-1)

P

(mg kg-1)

K?

(mg kg-1)

Mg2?

(mg kg-1)

Ca?

(mg kg-1)

Zn

(mg kg-1)

pH Soil

moisture

(%)

0–20 Irrigated 3.62* 12.48 0.48 685.80* 1640.47* 3.66 5.55 39.81

Non-

irrigated

2.48* 18.90 0.54 454.60* 875.90* 4.83 5.25 36.40

20–40 Irrigated 3.14 10.37 0.278 665.00 1572.07 2.25 5.55 44.64

Non-

irrigated

2.36 15.94 0.433 469.40 938.20 3.81 5.25 35.01

* Significant difference at p \ 0.05

Social-ecological analysis of integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems 1149

123

4 Discussion

4.1 Social and ecological impacts of IAA on farm systems

The social component of the study yielded a composite picture of IAA and the ways in

which farmers adapt their fish ponds to work within their larger farm system. Farmers

harvested an average of 1,115 kg of tilapia per hectare. These yields are similar to pro-

duction from extensive fish ponds in Kenya that received similar fertilizer quantities,

indicating that ponds in Dedza are producing expected yields for low-input aquaculture

systems (Kipkemboi et al. 2007). The majority of fish were used for domestic consumption

and only as a minor source of income, which is consistent with other small-scale fish

production (Phong et al. 2007; Dey et al. 2010). Considering the current levels of poverty

and hunger in rural Malawi, these results suggest that integrated fish ponds could have an

important role to play in contributing to household food security in these regions.

In addition to the primary benefits of IAA, farmers reported a positive effect of IAA on

farm resource flow efficiency. By incorporating ponds into their farm systems, farmers

gained access to an on-site water source that can be used for crop irrigation. This appli-

cation is particularly significant in Malawi, where water and nutrients are the most limiting

factors in maize production, the country’s staple food (Nkhoma and Mulwafu 2004). This

finding, which is explored in detailed below, suggests that IAA technology can make

potential contributions rural households in Malawi and should, therefore, continue to be

explored in research programs.

Fertilization with sediments from pond bottoms is commonly cited as one of the sec-

ondary benefits of small-scale fish farming particularly in countries like Malawi where

chemical fertilizers are rarely affordable in rural areas (Kapanda et al. 2005; Concern Uni-

versal 2006). Since pond bottoms are a major sink for nutrients, the general idea is that when

ponds are drained for harvesting, mud is collected from the bottom of the pond and used as

fertilizer for farmers’ crops to increase nutrient levels and organic matter in the soils (Ritvo

et al. 2002; Thunjai et al. 2004). Concern Universal (2006) published this technique as one of

the benefits of fish farming resulting from their Dedza Sustainable Livelihoods Program.

Their annual report states that ‘‘[f]armers are able to harvest fish three times a year and in

addition the soil from the ponds is being used as manure for horticultural crops. This use of

waste produce reduces the cost of production and increases yields’’ (Concern Universal

2006, 6). During semi-structured interviews, seven farmers indicated that they were using

pond mud to fertilize their crops. As a result, the research team planned to compare nutrient

levels in soils that had been fertilized with pond mud with nutrient levels in soils that had not

been fertilized with pond mud in the physical component of this study.

Toward the end of May, our research team assembled soil sampling equipment and

travelled to the fields that had reportedly received pond mud as fertilizer. As the first

sample was about to be collected, the farmers began to talk with the extension agent. What

emerged from the conversation was admission that, although extension workers had taught

the technique of fertilization with pond mud as part of the Concern Universal project, none

of the farmers were practicing this technique. Soil sampling was stopped, and a focus

group discussion was held. In the focus group, farmers explained that to drain their ponds

and collect pond mud was inefficient for several reasons. First, draining the pond is a very

time- and labor-intensive procedure. Maize fields need to be fertilized early in the growing

season during an already labor-intensive time of the year. Farmers explained that the time

and labor required for this technique was not worth the trade-off, particularly since a

relatively small amount of fertilizer would be produced. Second, most farmers did not have

1150 J. L. Blythe

123

access to shovels or wheelbarrows, making collection and transportation of pond sediments

even less efficient. The farmers explained that one technique which was working for them

was irrigation with pond water using buckets, watering cans or treadle pumps. The

majority of farmers irrigated their crops every other day using watering cans. Based on the

information gathered during this focus group discussion, we modified the ecological

component of the study. Rather than comparing nutrient levels in soils that had been

fertilized or not fertilized with pond mud, we compared nutrient levels in soils that had

been irrigated or not irrigated with pond water.

This interaction supports the proposition, emergent from the development literature, that

farmers are continually experimenting, adapting and innovating (Chambers 2008). From

the 1990s onwards, participatory and people-centered research approaches have become

the standard in most agricultural research and development programs (Chambers 1987;

Rocheleau 1994). Farmers are great innovators and possess in-depth knowledge of local

biotic and abiotic environments. However, farmers’ knowledge and experimentation are

still undervalued in a large majority of the IAA literature. Brummett (1999), for example,

suggests that in Malawi ‘many farmers have little or no education and are not comfortable

with mathematical analyses or explanations of soil chemistry’ (316). In contrast, our

research findings suggest that farmers in Dedza are making active and informed decisions

about resource flows on their farms. In accordance with Peet and Watts (2004), the results

demonstrate that farmers are not passive recipients of agricultural packages, but will select

elements from technological complexes to suit their constantly changing circumstances.

When asked about major challenges associated with IAA technologies, fish farmers

identified predation, lack of equipment, lack of knowledge on fish feed production, theft and

high cost of inputs as major barriers. At a local scale, the formation of fishers’ groups may help

address some of these challenges, such as monitoring for theft or sharing of pond production

knowledge. At a regional and national scale, these challenges will require adaptive man-

agement and extension support from government or NGOs. In order to continue to improve

IAA development and extension programs, the challenges identified by farmers should serve

as important entry points for future research. By identifying some of the major challenges

associated with fish farming in rural Malawi, we contribute to the ongoing research discussion

concerning rural aquaculture as IAA continues to spread throughout the continent.

The results of the social phase enabled the research team to guide the subsequent

ecological phase. Results from the soil analysis indicated that mean nitrogen, magnesium

and calcium levels were significantly higher in irrigated soils than in non-irrigated soils.

Moreover, mean nitrogen levels were of similar magnitude to levels elsewhere in Malawi

in soils that received organic fertilizer but lower that levels observed in soils that received

chemical nitrogen fertilizer (Phiri et al. 1999). These results have important implications

for rural farm productivity given that low soil nitrogen levels have become the most

limiting nutrient for maize production in Malawi (Saka et al. 1995). Additionally, many

rural farmers cannot afford chemical fertilizers, which often limits them to low produc-

tivity and can contribute to food insecurity and poverty (Snapp 1998). In Malawi, the

majority of farmers rely on rain-fed farming or very limited forms of irrigation (Nkhoma

and Mulwafu 2004; NSO 2008). The results of the ecological component suggest that IAA

has the potential to contribute to increased soil nutrient and moisture levels on resource

poor farms. Furthermore, the ecological research component contributed a valuable sub-

stantiation of irrigating crops with pond water, an adaptive technique being practiced by

fish farmers in Dedza. Increased awareness of the linkages between fish ponds, farmers’

decisions, soil nutrients and crop productivity is critical for research and development

programs aimed at improving food security in rural Africa.

Social-ecological analysis of integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems 1151

123

4.2 Contributions of hybrid research in studying social-ecological systems

The hybrid research approach added significant value to this study. The sequential phasing of

the social and ecological components allowed the research team to fully capture the

advantages of the hybrid research approach. By leading with the social component, the team

was able to gain insights on the adaptations farmers were making to their IAA systems which

lead to the development of an ecological component that was appropriate to actual field

conditions. The subsequent soil analysis helped us validate one of the significant social

findings, the impact of irrigation with pond water, and provided an opportunity to corroborate

the farmers’ resource integration logic. Rural livelihoods in Africa are complex and require a

combination of research methodologies in order to fully capture the linkages between the

diverse activities and processes (Edwards 2007). Employing hybrid research approaches

allows researchers to capture this complexity and develop more holistic research programs

and recommendations that will contribute toward more effective policies.

Development policy is not always reflective of practice (Mosse 2005). For example,

much of the published literature on IAA is produced within discreet project timelines and

budgets that are misaligned with the continuous lives of small-scale farmers. This mis-

alignment can result in fragmented representations of aquaculture systems in IAA litera-

ture, which can contribute to misdirected research or development programs. We argue that

the hybrid research approach allowed our research team to expose a misalignment between

policy and practice on IAA in Malawi. Possibly as a result of the time spent building

relationships with IAA farmers during the social component, farmers explained that they

were modifying a technique they had been taught by Concern Universal extension agents,

crop fertilization with pond mud, in favor of crop irrigation with pond water. We

acknowledge that collaborative social-ecological research can be constrained by time,

funding and epistemological and methodological differences (Evely et al. 2008). Indeed,

the current case study has a relatively small sample size and the ecological component is in

some ways limited by a number of these constraints. However, we argue that employing a

hybrid research approach is an effective way to increase the efficiency of limited field time

and potentially lessen misalignments between IAA policy and practice.

Finally, it should be noted that employing a hybrid research approach is not universally

applicable. Choosing a research strategy is context dependent, and opportunities for

integrated research are dynamic. What works at one point in time will eventually change

and become inappropriate and, conversely, what is perceived not to be relevant today may

be appropriate tomorrow. However, when addressing small-scale aquaculture systems in

Africa, we contend that a hybrid research approach has the potential to make positive

contributions to IAA research.

5 Conclusion

Integrated agriculture-aquaculture farms are complex, interactive systems linked as much

to the physical farm environment as to the social and economic systems surrounding

smallholder farmers. Small-scale farmers are constantly navigating social-ecological sys-

tems. In response to social or economic drivers, they make decisions about pond man-

agement which influence the physical environment and vice versa. This study showed how

a hybrid research approach, which combines social and ecological research methodologies,

can address the multiple dimensions of fish farming systems and result in novel under-

standings of IAA systems. The social dimension of this research revealed that fish farmers

1152 J. L. Blythe

123

in Dedza abandoned practices which did not work in the local context (fertilization with

pond mud) and developed strategies that did work (irrigation with pond water). Addi-

tionally, while fish ponds are a valued source of protein for farmers’ households in Dedza,

farmers’ abilities to increase pond production and sell fish for income are constrained by

factors such as high cost of pond inputs and inconsistent extension support. The ecological

component complemented the social by substantiating that irrigation with pond water

resulted in higher soil nutrient in farmers’ fields. We, therefore, argue that a hybrid

research approach will be more successful in addressing aquaculture systems on the typ-

ically diverse small-scale farms in developing countries than either conventional social or

ecological approaches alone.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank the research participants from Dedza, Malawi, for sharing theirtime, ideas and experiences with me. I gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Margaret Anderson, TalyDrezner, Emmanuel Kaunda, Jackson Langat, Timothy Njovu, Kylee Pawluk, Robin Roth and Ben Stewart.I would like to thank Bunda College of Agriculture and York University for support during field andlaboratory work. Finally, this paper benefitted from the comments of three anonymous reviewers.

References

Bailey, C. (2008). Human dimensions of an ecosystem approach to aquaculture. In D. Soto, J. Aquilar-Manjarrez, & N. Hishmandu (Eds.), Building an ecosystem approach to aquaculture (pp. 37–46).Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings no. 14.

Batterbury, S. P. J., Forsyth, T. J., & Thomson, K. (1997). Environmental transformations in developingcountries: Hybrid research and democratic policy. The Geographical Journal, 163, 126–132.

Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2003). Navigating social-ecological systems. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Bremmer, J. M., & Mulvaney, C. S. (1982). Nitrogen total. In A. L. Page (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis (pp.595–624). Madison: American Society of Agronomy.

Brummett, R. E. (1999). Integrated aquaculture in sub-Saharan Africa. Environment, Development andSustainability, 1, 315–321.

Brummett, R. E., & Jamu, D. M. (2011). From researcher to farmer: Partnerships in integrated aquacultureagriculture systems in Malawi and Cameroon. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 8,282–289.

Brummett, R. E., Lazard, J., & Moehl, J. (2008). African aquaculture: Realizing the potential. Food Policy,33, 371–385.

Brummett, R. E., & Noble, R. (1995). Aquaculture for African smallholders. Penang: ICLARM.Chambers, R. (1987). Sustainable livelihoods, environment and development: Putting poor rural people

first. Sussex: IDS discussion paper no. 240.Chambers, R. (2008). Revolutions in development inquiry. London: Earthscan.Concern Universal. (2006). Malawi annual report 2004–2005. Blantyre: Concern Universal.Costa-Pierce, B. (2008). An ecosystem approach to marine aquaculture: A global review. In D. Soto,

J. Aquilar-Manjarrez, & N. Hishmandu (Eds.), Building an ecosystem approach to aquaculture(pp. 81–115). Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings no. 14.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. London:Sage Publications.

Dey, M. M., Paraguas, F. J., Kambewa, P., & Pemsl, D. E. (2010). The impact of integrated aquaculture-agriculture on small-scale farms in Southern Malawi. Agricultural Economics, 41, 67–79.

Edwards, P. (1987). The concept of integrated systems in lower input/sustainable agriculture. AmericanJournal of Alternative Agriculture, 11, 148–152.

Edwards, P. (1998). A systems approach for the promotion of integrated aquaculture. Aquaculture Eco-nomics & Management, 2, 1–12.

Edwards, P. (2007). Research approaches to support development. In A. J. van der Zijpp, J. A. J. Verreth, LeQuang Tri, M. E. F. van Mensvoort, R. H. Bosma, & M. C. M. Beveridge (Eds.), Fishponds in farmingsystems (p. 213). The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.

Edwards, P., Pullin, R. S. V., & Gartner, J. A. (1988). Research and education for the development ofintegrated crop-livestock-fish farming systems in the tropics. Manila: ICLARM.

Social-ecological analysis of integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems 1153

123

El-Sayed, A. M. (1990). Long-term evaluation of cotton seed meal as a protein source for Nile tilapia,Oreochromis niloticus (Linn). Aquaculture, 84, 315–320.

Evely, A. C., Fazey, I., Pinard, M., & Lambin, X. (2008). The influence of philosophical perspectives inintegrative research: A conservation case study in the Caingorms National Park. Ecology and Society,13(2), 52.

FAO. (2005). National Aquaculture Sector Overview: Malawi. Rome: FAO.Harrison, E., Stewart, J. A., Stirrat, R. L., & Muir, J. (1994). Fish farming in Africa, what’s the catch?

London: DFID.Hishamunda, N., & Ridler, N. B. (2006). Farming fish for profits: A small step towards food security in sub-

Saharan Africa. Food Policy, 31, 401–414.Kapanda, K., Matiya, G., N’gong’ola, D. N., Jamu, D., & Kaunda, E. (2005). A logit analysis of factors

affecting adoption of fish farming in Malawi: A case study of Mchinji rural development program.Journal of Applied Sciences, 5, 1514–1517.

Kipkemboi, J., Van Dam, A. A., Ikiara, M. M., & Denny, P. (2007). Integration of smallholder wetlandaquaculture-agriculture systems (fingerponds) into riparian farming systems on the shores of LakeVictoria, Kenya: Socio-economics and livelihoods. The Geographical Journal, 173(3), 257–272.

Kwan, M. (2004). Beyond difference: From canonical geography to hybrid geographies. Annals of theAssociation of American Geographers, 94, 756–763.

Leach, M., & Mearns, R. (Eds.). (1996). The lie of the land: Challenging received wisdom on the Africanenvironment. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S. R., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E., et al. (2007). Complexity of coupledhuman and natural systems. Science, 317, 1513–1516.

Massey, D. (1999). Space-time, ‘science’ and the relationship between human and physical geography.Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 24, 261–277.

McGoodwin, J. R. (2001). Methods for studying the cultures of small-scale fishing communities. In J.R. McGoodwin (Ed.), Understanding the cultures of fishing communities: A key to fisheries man-agement and food security. Rome: FAO Technical Paper 401.

Mehlich, A. (1984). Mehlich 3 soil test extractant: A modification of Mehlich 2 extractant. Communicationsin Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 15, 1409–1416.

Moriniere, L., & Chimwaza, S. (1996). Malawi vulnerability assessment and mapping baseline 1996.Lilongwe: USAID.

Mosse, D. (2005). Cultivating development: An ethnography of aid policy and practice. London: PlutoPress.

Nkhoma, B. G., & Mulwafu, W. O. (2004). The experience of irrigation management transfer in twoirrigation schemes in Malawi, 1960s–2002. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 29,1327–1333.

NSO. (2008). Statistical year book. Zomba: National Statistics Office.Parker, B., & Kozel, V. (2007). Understanding poverty and vulnerability in India’s Uttar Pradesh and Bihar:

A Q-squared approach. World Development, 35(2), 296–311.Pauly, D., Moreau, J., & Prein, M. (1988). A comparison of overall growth performance of tilapia in open

waters and aquaculture. In R. S. V. Pullin, T. Bhukaswan, K. Tonguthai, & J. L. Maclean (Eds.), Thesecond international symposium on tilapia in aquaculture (pp. 469–479). Bangkok, Thailand:ICLARM.

Peet, R., & Watts, M. (Eds.). (2004). Liberation ecologies: Environment, development, social movement.London: Routledge.

Phiri, R. H., Snapp, S., & Kanyama-Phiri, G. Y. (1999). Soil nitrate dynamics in relation to nitrogen sourceand landscape position in Malawi. Agroforestry Systems, 47, 253–262.

Phong, L. T., Tri, Le. Quang., Udo, H. M. J., Nhan, D. K., van Mensvoort, M. E. F., van der Zijpp, A. J.,et al. (2007). Integrated agriculture-aquaculture in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam: An analysis of recenttrends. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, 4(2), 51–66.

Primavera, J. H. (2006). Overcoming the impacts of aquaculture on the coastal zone. Ocean and CoastalManagement, 49, 531–545.

Ritvo, G., Shitumbanuma, V., & Samocha, T. (2002). Changes in the concentration of nutrients and otherchemical properties of shrimp ponds soils as a function of pond use. Journal of the World AquacultureSociety, 33, 233–243.

Rocheleau, D. (1994). Participatory research and the race to save the planet: Questions, critique and lessonsfrom the field. Agriculture and Human Values, 11, 4–25.

Saka, A. R., Green, R. I., & Ng’ong’ola, D. H. (1995). Soil management in sub-Saharan Africa. Malawi:World Bank.

Sanchez, P. A. (2002). Soil fertility and hunger in Africa. Science, 295(5562), 2019–2020.

1154 J. L. Blythe

123

Snapp, S. S. (1998). Soil nutrient status of smallholder farms in Malawi. Communications in Soil Scienceand Plant Analysis, 29, 2571–2588.

Soto, D., Aquilar-Manjarrez, J., & Hishmandu, N. (Eds.). (2008). Building an ecosystem approach toaquaculture. Rome: FAO fisheries and aquaculture proceedings no. 14.

Suresh, A. V. (1992). Effect of stocking density of water quality and production in red tilapia in a recir-culated water system. Aquacultural Engineering, 1, 11–20.

Thunjai, T., Boyd, C. E., & Boonyaratpalin, M. (2004). Bottom soil quality in tilapia ponds of different agein Thailand. Aquaculture Research, 35, 698–705.

Thunjai, T., Boyd, C. E., & Dube, K. (2001). Pond soil pH measurement. Journal of the World AquacultureSociety, 32(2), 141–152.

Whatmore, S. (2002). Hybrid geographies: Natures, cultures and spaces. London: Routledge.Young, A., & Goldsmith, P. F. (1977). Soil survey and land evaluation in developing countries a case study

in Malawi. The Geographical Journal, 143, 407–431.

Social-ecological analysis of integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems 1155

123