The capacity of local people in the lagoon is likely suitable
enough to share equal benefits among beneficiaries.
Therefore, they indicated strongly their perceptions on the
new system application. Even thought majority of local
people propose a new strong extractive reserve, but they
should think about the distribution of effects from the
system. What are the probable distributional effects of the
proposed policy design? Charles (1988, 281) reviews some
critiques of limited entry regulatory mechanisms in fisheries
and points out that “there may be losses as well as gains
from limited-entry programs” concerning their social consequences.
It is clear that some people’s well-being will
decline when implementing an extractive reserve, but the
cumulative decline may be at least compensated for by the
corresponding cumulative welfare gains received by other
people. For example, some local fishers may directly
benefit from this management approach through increased
incomes, while other local residents, tourists, and fishers
from outside may indirectly benefit from it through the
improved long-term ecological sustainability of the Lagoon.
In the case of Sre Ambel Lagoon, it is likely fishers from
outside are the ones whose well-being will decrease. The
majority of fishers from outside do not make their living
from fishing (i.e., recreational fishers) and are often
wealthier than full- and part-time local fishers. Therefore,
though more socio-economic research needs to be conducted
on the distributional effects, it is expected that
limiting access to the Lagoon in the proposed manner will
improve local fishers’ well-being without decreasing the
welfare of fishers from outside by an amount that is harmful
and thus unfair.