or under use from the perspective of the researcher.
Classification of ponds was further complicated by adoption of rotational cropping. For example, three farmers in Chachoengsao and eight in Chanthaburi indicated they rotated shrimp crops with crops of other aquatic organisms. These multi-use ponds were neither strictly dedicated to intensive shrimp culture, nor were they completely converted. Pond classification was therefore based on use of the pond on the day of site visit. At another time, the same pond could be classified another way.
A number of farmers indicated they had not ceased to be shrimp farmers, even when they had not seeded shrimp for a number of seasons or had converted to other aquaculture. For example, Mr. Chaiya of Chachoengsao indicated on the questionnaire that shrimp and fish were main sources of income. He explained the majority of his income was from fish, but also stated he had never stopped shrimp culture. Although his income was from another product, he still considered himself in the shrimp industry, and his ponds, although full of fish, were still shrimp ponds.
Land uses measured at the time of this study offered a snapshot of the relative levels of abandonment and conversion. The study identified the uses of 3240 rai (547 ha) of former shrimp ponds. An estimated 77 ha (14%) of recorded ponds across all study areas were abandoned. Nearly twice as much area was still being used for intensive shrimp culture (140 ha), and more still had been converted to polyculture (161 ha). Two housing developments constructed on
