Information from the abstract
Port expansion strengthens trade connectivity and economic growth, but its socio-ecological costs are often concentrated in fishing communities dependent on coastal space and locally embedded livelihoods. Existing research documents the impacts of port expansion but provides less explanation of why fishing communities exposed to the same broader development context follow different trajectories. Accordingly, this study asks why some fishing communities resist or adapt under the same broader port-development context while others experience heightened vulnerability and decline, using a qualitative comparative case study of five fishing communities around Laem Chabang Port, Thailand, based on 40 semi-structured interviews. The findings show that exposure alone does not explain community outcomes. Divergence reflects how social disruption interacts with the configuration and mobilisation of bonding, bridging, and linking social capital and with governance responsiveness. Strong internal cohesion supported adaptation when connected to durable external relationships and comparatively responsive governance, whereas relational capacity remained limited where institutional access, participation, or substantive responsiveness was weak. These configurations produced five trajectories: organised adaptation, capped resilience, managed decline, underpowered adaptation, and operational vulnerability. Socially sustainable port development therefore requires attention to relational capacity, institutional access, and meaningful participation alongside physical exposure.
Why this record is monitored
This record has an Impact Signal of 79/100 based on recency, source, collaboration, and bibliographic signals. It prioritizes monitoring and is not a judgment of research quality.
Related topics: Coastal Management and Development · Maritime Ports and Logistics · Coastal and Marine Management
Thai researcher and institutional participation
Pipattawade Wannaree · Kasetsart University
Data limitations
This page is a bibliographic record based on abstract-level information, not a full analysis or quality assessment. Verify the DOI and original article before citation.