Toward a model for fisheries social impact assessment.
Pollnac, Richard B. ; Abbott-Jamieson, Susan ; Smith, Courtland 等
Introduction
For many years experienced fisheries social scientists have
discussed developing a fisheries model for social impact assessment
(SIA) that would be more compatible with the approaches taken by
fisheries biologists and economists when assessing potential effects of
management actions. They suspected that fishery management council (FMC)
members might see social impact assessments as more useful if those
assessments were provided in a format analogous to fisheries
economists' and fisheries biologists' formats.
This point was given further support by Sharp and Lach's
(2003) survey of Federal and state fishery managers and decision makers
in the Pacific Northwest. They were asked about their knowledge of how
to incorporate the social values of fishing communities into planning
and decision-making. The authors concluded that it is unlikely that
community information can be used in fishery plan development or
amendment processes when it is presented in a qualitative, descriptive
format.
Stimulated by this discussion, the Office of Science and Technology
of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service invited a group of
marine fisheries social scientists with expertise in social science
modeling, quantitative methods, and marine fisheries impact assessment
to create a conceptual model for predicting the social impacts of
fishery management action alternatives using a limited set of
quantitative and qualitative indicators. The resulting model was to be
suitable for social impact assessment, and it was to include a dependent
measure or output that would be analogous to the economists' use of
jobs, income, or total economic output in their models.
This paper presents the results of the first phase of this
group's work. Well-being was selected as the dependent measure for
marine fisheries social impact assessment in this model. While this
model is not the only possible approach to social impact assessment, it
does open a door to a room that is closer to those currently occupied by
marine fisheries economists and their biologist counterparts.
Historical Background
Social impact assessment began as a field in the 1960's as
people became more concerned with human impacts on the environment
(Finsterbusch and Freudenberg, 2002:408). The National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (1) called for analyzing the impact of human
actions on the environment when designated changes were contemplated.
Early NEPA guidelines emphasized environmental assessment and did not
require SIA's. Few government agencies had yet invested in the
social science expertise to do SIA's. Social scientists, however,
continued to perfect SIA methodologies (Shields, 1974; Finsterbusch and
Wolf, 1977; Finsterbusch et al., 1983; Burch and DeLuca, 1984;
Freudenberg, 1986; Barrow, 1997; Becker 1997; Burdge, 1994, 2004;
Vanclay, 2003; Taylor et al., 2004).
Preparation and passage of the Fishery Conservation and Management
Act of 1976 (now the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act or MSFCMA, also referred to as the MSA (2)) led to
efforts to gather social data and to carry out impact analysis
specifically for fisheries (OSU, 1978; Acheson et al., 1980). The
National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA-NMFS, 1994, 2001, 2006), in
association with social scientists, has been developing SIA approaches
since the 1980's. (3) SIA methods were also being developed in
other areas of resource management (Kogut, 1976; USDOT, 1982; Bryan,
1984). (4)
The 1990's brought recognition that progress on environmental
problems was neither rapid nor successful in part because social and
cultural dimensions of resource management were not being given
sufficient emphasis. The U.S. Forest Service gathered social scientists
from many agencies to develop common SIA approaches (ICGPSIA, 1994). By
1997, SIA became required in many Federal programs. (5) The
Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for SIA
published revised SIA guidelines and principles in 2003 (ICGPSIA, 2003).
In marine resource management, lack of success with fishery
management led to changes in the fishery management process and passage
of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) of 1996. National Standard 8 of
the SFA requires explicit consideration and minimization of community
impacts. The NMFS (1998) subsequently published National Standard 8
Guidelines (6) and has directed efforts toward community profiling to
serve as an informed basis from which to begin SIA. While economists had
been on NMFS staff since its incarnation as the Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries in 1956 (Hobart, 1995), and one anthropologist or sociologist
had been in Headquarters since 1974, NMFS hired its first regional
social scientist (other than economists) in 1992. By 2005, each NMFS
region except the Southwest had at least one such social scientist,
signaling a new agency effort to develop its capability to meet its
obligations to examine sociocultural regulatory impacts (Colburn et al.,
2006).
Objectives
Building on previous government experience and an extensive
literature on SIA, our effort takes SIA for marine resource management a
step further. Our goals include making SIA more quantitative and useful.
First, data derived through SIA should be amenable to comparison across
space and time and should be cross-referenced with biophysical and
economic data.
Biophysical and economic data are typically more quantitative than
the social science data currently collected for SIA. The quantitative
natures of biophysical and economic data facilitate the comparison of
datasets collected in disparate spatial and temporal frames. To obtain
quantitative social science data for comparative purposes that can be
linked with biophysical and economic data, variables need to be
identified, defined, and operationalized in a consistent way, and
sufficient data must be gathered to make comparisons statistically and
scientifically defensible. Operationalization means measuring variables
in a way that is replicable, reliable, accurate, and valid. It means the
measure is comprehensible to all researchers conducting SIA.
The approach presented here emphasizes the fact that humans are an
important component of marine ecosystems. NMFS has committed itself to
developing ecosystem-based approaches to marine resource management (7)
(NMFS, 1999), an approach compatible with the approach presented here.
The current NOAA working definition of an ecosystem is "... a
geographically specified system of organisms (including humans), the
environment, and the processes that control its dynamics". (8)
Another goal is to develop an SIA model that is fully compatible with
ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management.
Well-Being, the Dependent Measure
The SIA model for marine resource management is designed to predict
changes in well-being. Well-being refers to the degree to which an
individual, family, or larger social grouping (e.g. firm, community) can
be characterized as being healthy (sound and functional), happy, and
prosperous.
One might argue that changes in economic welfare, such as changes
in income or wealth are adequate measures of well-being. Social
scientists, however, have shown that fishing and interaction with marine
resources is much more than solely an economic activity (Acheson et al.,
1980; Anderson, 1980; Smith, 1981; McCay et al., 1993; Bunce et al.,
2000). Well-being is affected by a large number of sociocultural and
economic variables that are impacted by management decisions, making it
a suitable measure in this context (Colfer and Byron, 2001; Eckersley,
et al., 2001; Gullone and Cummins, 2002; Suh and Deiner, 2003). There is
a substantial literature on this widely used construct as well as on its
operationalization at the individual, community, and national levels of
analysis. It has the advantage that it can be measured in multiple ways
using established and publicly available indicators for different levels
of analysis (Sharpe, 1999; Ryan and Deci, 2001; Sirgy, 2002; Zumbo,
2002), and it can be related to the narrower economic measures of
welfare.
SIA Procedure
The first step carried out by an analyst in an SIA is a scoping
process to determine the sociocultural variables relevant to the
management questions (NMFS, 2001). This can lead to initial sketches of
the sociocultural system that may be affected by the management action.
Management actions will affect a range of social entities including
individuals, firms, families, and communities (9), and therefore the SIA
must attend to these as distinct units of analysis.
Special attention should be given to social groups that may gain or
lose from the management choices made. These populations may not always
be readily visible at public hearings or on newspaper op-ed pages.
Scoping, theretore, requires an assessment of each part of the
sociocultural system that is likely to be affected, with specific
attention to any marginalized populations because environmental justice
issues may also be involved.
Of primary concern is measuring how the well-being of system
participants will change. The objective is not to include every
sociocultural element in the system: it is to do an initial assessment
that identifies the critical populations that have a significant stake
in the management action and the issues of concern to these populations
that may increase or decrease their well-being.
The next step following the scoping process is to operationalize
the relevant variables by defining the variables in a way that
facilitates measurement. (10) A variety of instruments available for
these assessments are given in the appendix. Limited financial
resources, time constraints, and staff skill level might further limit
the variables and measures chosen.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
More important than simply identifying variables, however, is
discerning the relationships among them. This is because the impact on
one variable or variable set may be transmitted to another linked
variable or variable set through cumulative processes, feedback loops,
and other systematic relationships. These relationships can exist both
within single levels of analysis (e.g. the community) and across levels
of analysis (e.g. the individual, the family, and the community). Some
of these relationships are explored in the following sections.
General Fishery SIA Model
The general marine resource SIA model presented in Figure 1 depicts
the sociocultural system, showing that external forces influence
management strategies, which, in turn, influence human activities with
regard to marine resources. These changes in activities impact
satisfaction with the activities, and this influences aspects of
individuals and the communities in which they live, as illustrated by
the individual and social attributes (Fig. 1). The arrows in this figure
reflect interrelationships (cause-effect, resonance, cumulative impacts)
between these classes of variables that will be explained below as the
general model is developed for commercial, subsistence, and recreational
fisheries.
SIA in Three Types of Fisheries
Although there are many ways to classify U.S. fisheries, fishery
managers identify three categories: commercial, subsistence, and
recreational fisheries, and their subtypes. We consider how SIA can be
conducted for each of these three kinds of fisheries. The examples that
follow build from descriptions of the general ecosystem and illustrate
relationships among variables that impact well-being. In the most
general of formulations, a fishery is a system in which humans are
linked to "fish."
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
Commercial Fisheries
First, we will examine potential impacts of management on
commercial fishermen (11) and shore side entities that constitute the
commercial sector (e.g. processors and dealers, ice houses, etc.), as
well as the commercial sector of the marine recreational fishery,
including charter boat operators, party boat operators, guides, marina
operators, bait and tackle dealers, and other entities appropriate to
the SIA.
The simplified model (Fig. 1) presents some rather obvious
relationships, and Figure 2 identifies for illustrative purposes a few
of the specific variables included in each of the general categories in
Figure 1. A more comprehensive list of variables can be found in the
appendix. We argue that external forces, such as population pressure,
declining fish stocks, environmental activism, and climate change
influence the management of fisheries. In turn, management, which can
impact fishing targets, times, techniques, numbers of fishermen, and
other variables (the appendix lists activity attributes) has an
influence on various attributes of the occupation of fishing.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
Impacts of the changes will vary according to attributes of the
impacted fishery, fishermen, and community--some are more resilient (see
glossary) than others. Smith et al. (2003), for example, discuss some
factors influencing differential resilience of fishing families impacted
by the Florida net fishing ban, and Gilden et al. (1999) discuss Oregon
fishing communities' differential ability to cope in the face of
complex regional changes. Individual and social resilience are
complicated variables that represent an ability to cope with change, and
they are related to other social and psychological variables including
social support systems (both familial and external), self-esteem, and
perceived control (Mederer, 1999). Additionally, Mederer (1999) notes
that resilience is not a fixed attribute, but results from interaction
between family and individual attributes and external circumstances.
Individual fishermen accustomed to a fishery with one set of
attributes must then become accustomed to changes, some of which may
impact their level of activity satisfaction and ultimately their
well-being. In the instance of an occupation like commercial fishing we
will refer to the activity satisfaction of individuals as job
satisfaction, which is more commonly used in the literature. A great
deal of research (Apostle et al., 1985; Pollnac and Poggie, 1988;
Gatewood and McCay, 1990; Binkley, 1995; Pollnac et al., 2001) has
linked job satisfaction to 1) individual attributes such as mental
health and longevity, and 2) social problems such as family violence,
absenteeism, and job performance (Fig. 3 gives a more complete list of
impacts (12)).
While job satisfaction is an important aspect of all occupations,
it is especially significant with regard to a fishery--including both
commercial fishermen and commercial sectors of the recreational fishing
industry (e.g. charter boat operators and fishing guides). The structure
of job satisfaction among these groups manifests a common component (13)
that is not always found in other occupations--a self-actualization
component that includes "adventure" and "challenge"
(Smith, 1981; Apostle et al., 1985; Pollnac and Poggie, 1988; Gatewood
and McCay, 1990; Binkley, 1995; Pollnac, et al., 2001; Pollnac and
Poggie, 2006).
These concepts have been described by fishermen as including the
thrill of the hunt, the challenge of facing the power and expanse of the
sea, and the overall adventure of pitting oneself against the elements
and finding fish.
These attitudes towards the occupation of fishing are found in the
U.S. east coast, Canada, Southeast Alaska (see Pollnac and Poggie,
2006), Southeast Asia (Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia: Pollnac et
al., 2001), and Central America (Pollnac and Ruiz-Stout, 1977).
Pollnac and Poggie (1980) suggest that this is an attitude shared
by most fishermen. For example, in response to a question asking a
sample of fishermen (n=153) from 11 villages what they like about
fishing in comparison to other occupations, the most frequent response
category was "sport-pleasure" (35%) followed by
"income" (31%) and "independence" (16%). With regard
to the "sport-pleasure" category, fishermen actually said that
fishing is like a sport. They emphasized the sporting aspect of
struggling with fish as well as the pleasurable aspects of being on the
sea and in the fresh air (Pollnac and Ruiz-Stout, 1977).
These components of job satisfaction are related to a personality
trait that serves to adapt fishermen to the dangers and risks of their
occupation (see Pollnac et al., 1998 and Pollnac and Poggie, 2006 and
the references therein). Overall, an extensive literature supports the
contention that fishermen manifest the personality traits of being
adventurous, active, aggressive, and courageous (Poggie and Gersuny,
1974; Pollnac, 1988; Binkley, 1995).
We are not arguing that it is only these personality traits that
result in individuals choosing to become fishermen. They also enter the
occupation as a means of making money, because their family or friends
arc fishermen, and/or because it is a traditional occupation in their
community.
What we do argue, however, is that individuals not manifesting
these personality traits would not be satisfied with the risks to
personal safety and production associated with the dangers, challenges,
and uncertainty of the occupation (as illustrated by the arrow from
"individual attributes," which includes personality, to
"job satisfaction" in Fig. 2) and would either be less
efficient as fishermen or drop out of the occupation entirely (Binkley,
1995; Pollnac et al., 1998). This could then increase the percentage of
fishermen manifesting these traits.
Management measures which influence aspects of fishing (e.g.
quotas, time limits, numbers of days fishing available, and a myriad of
other constraints on many aspects of the fishing activity), will have
differential impacts on job satisfaction, ranging anywhere from negative
to positive, depending on the action. Regulations that require fishermen
to spend either more or less time than usual at home can impact not just
job satisfaction but family life, and both are important components of
well-being. Regulations requiring large capital investments can limit
investments in other important areas such as vessel maintenance, the
fishermen's homes, and their children's education--all
impacting well-being. Changes that result in the loss of fishing
opportunities, however, will have the greatest negative impacts, as
alternative income projects are often problematic for this group
(Pollnac et al., 2001; Sievanen et al., 2005; Pollnac and Poggie, 2006).
Social problems associated with job dissatisfaction, as well as
other variables mentioned above, can impact aspects of community
structure including community solidarity and levels of compliance with
fishery regulations. In turn, levels of compliance can feed back and
impact aspects of fishery management. Further, other aspects of
community structure, such as occupational structure, can impact activity
attributes. Community power structure, which might include powerful
fisheries organizations, can directly influence management as well as
the external forces that influence management. Finally, individual
attributes, social problems, and community structure all have an effect
on well-being.
A familiar example of the relationships between some of the
variables in Figure 2 would be the external forces (e.g. industry
organizations) that have influenced managers in some areas to implement
individual fishery quotas (IFQ's) (management). In Alaska this was
accomplished with the Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus
stenolepis)/sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) IFQ program, which climinated
the short "derby fishing" (14) seasons, and spread fishing out
over a longer period (activity attributes). Interviews conducted as part
of a research project in Southeast Alaska in 2002-03 (cf. Pollnac and
Poggie, 2006) indicated that in some fisheries in Alaska, the IFQ also
led to a decrease in crew size (activity attributes) since there was no
longer a need for a large crew to maximize catches in a short period, as
there had been during the short pre-IFQ management fishing season. With
the catch spread out over a longer period, the seasonal changes in the
fishery (15) (activity attributes) were also influenced. Further, with a
smaller crew the owner could rely on a few family members, reducing the
need to hire nonfamily crew members (activity attribute), and in turn
reducing the occupational mobility of those not coming from fishing
families (social-community attributes, individual attributes). In
addition, the cost of an IFQ became so large (activity attributes) that
many young people lost the hope of ever accumulating enough capital to
enter the fishery (individual attributes), hence restricting their
occupational mobility (social-community attributes). Many former
crewmembers were forced to leave the fishery (social-community
attributes, social problems); some also lost hope of ever becoming a
boat owner (individual attributes), hence impacting fishery employment
level (social-community attributes, social problems). Relationships
between these variables are shown in Figure 4, which illustrates the
impacts of these changes in the occupation on other important variables
including well-being.
The changed occupation structure of the impacted communities has
resulted in greater social stratification, with relatively well-off IFQ
holders (some holding multiple permits) gaining more power in the
community and increasing their influence on management, at the expense
of unemployed crew members and those who have been unable to accumulate
multiple permits (social-community attributes, social problems). Thus,
the well-being of the IFQ holders increased while that of the unemployed
former crew decreased.
Fishermen forced out of the industry who have moved into other
occupations, as well as those who see no chance to improve their
position in the fishery, have decreased job satisfaction with its
attendant negative impacts, including decreases in well-being. Those
with IFQ's have increased job satisfaction (individual attributes)
and well-being. Hence, well-being has improved for some and decreased
for others (cf. Pollnac and Poggie, 2006). Loy (2006) reports on a
similar situation developing in a new quota fishery for the Alaskan
Bering Sea/Aleutians Islands king and Tanner crab fishery (Paralithodes
camtschaticus, P. platypus, Lithodes aequispinus, L. couesi,
Chionoecestes bairdi, C. opilio, C. tanneri, and C. angulatus), which
has not only IFQ's but also individual processing quotas
(IPQ's) for processors. Similar problems associated with IFQ's
in other fisheries have been noted by Childers (2007). Discussion
concerning measurement and analyses of these variables is found in the
appendix.
Subsistence Fisheries
Subsistence fishing refers to fishing activity directed at
capturing fish for consumption rather than sale. The simplest example
would involve a person who captures fish for consumption by his or her
nuclear household. (16) More complex examples involve capture and
distribution networks of families with no sale involved. For example,
Magdanz et al. (2002), conducting research in Wales and Deering, Alaska,
using network analyses, identified eight production and distribution
networks in Wales and six in Deering. Networks averaged 5 households
(range 2 to 11) and 17 individuals (range 2 to 41).
Further, the simplest cases of subsistence fishing involve
production of fish for human food, thus reducing the costs of feeding a
family. Sometimes, however, the harvest is used to feed animals
essential to subsistence activity. For example, in the Kotzebue District
of Alaska, about 9% of the subsistence salmon harvest for 2003 was used
to feed sled dogs, which was down from a high of between 29 and 34% in
1995-97 (Georgette et al., 2004).
In more complex but also relatively common cases, especially those
involving distribution networks, the producers gain prestige and social
security, rather than monetary income, by providing for networks of
consumers (Kishigami, 2005; Stewart, 2005), and the act of sharing
reinforces intra-group solidarity and cooperation so essential among
subsistence peoples (Freeman. 2005; Stewart, 2005). The best producers
harvest more than they and their immediate families need, and they share
the excess with relatives and other people in the community,
contributing to their relative prestige, and perhaps more importantly,
to a sense of community and cooperation among the people of the
community (Magdanz et al., 2002).
Finally, among some peoples, a subsistence-based lifestyle is an
important aspect of cultural identification, and the product itself may
form an essential part of specific cultural activities (Norris, 2002).
Other than the preceding aspects of subsistence fishing, which are
vastly more important in this sector than in commercial fishing (Fig.
2), many of the same issues identified for assessing the commercial
fishery apply.
An example will help illustrate some of the relationships between
the variables included in Figure 2 as well as the subsistence-specific
variables discussed above relating to our model. The Makah Nation
members in Washington, like many of the original inhabitants of the
northwest coast of North America, have a long tradition of seal
(Callorhinus ursinus, pre-1900; Phoca vitulina and Zalaphus
californianus today (17)) hunting stretching for thousands of years into
the prehistoric past (Sepez, 2001). (18) Seal products formed a
significant and desired part of the diet, and the hunting and
distribution of these products were important elements in a communal
distribution system, confirming social relationships and bestowing
prestige on the hunters.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
This tradition and its associated knowledge led the hunters to be
hired as crew members on sealing schooners in the late 1860's,
eventually purchasing their own boats and gear in the 1890's. This
resulted in a high level of well-being for the Makah.
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
During the 1890's the United States began regulating sealing
through international agreements, and seizures of Makah boats occurred
despite the fact that the Treaty of Neah Bay gave the Makah the right to
fish, whale, and seal in accustomed grounds, and Makah well-being
declined. (19)
The Makah, contending that the treaty gave them the right to hunt,
continued sealing, leading to further seizures. This resulted in a
generalized distrust of both government resource management and
commitment to treaty rights. This brief history provides the background
to help explain the social impacts of interrelationships between efforts
to manage seal populations and aspects of Makah society and culture in
the 20th century. Figure 5 models the relationships discussed in the
following example.
In the first part of the 20th century harbor seals were considered
pests by society at large (i.e. not the Makah), in part due to their
voracious consumption of other marine life (external forces). From the
1920's up until 1960 in Washington and 1970 in Oregon, bounty
programs were implemented by the states (management), and Makah hunters
could collect a bounty for each seal as well as keep seal products for
consumption. Later perceptions of marine mammals as being in danger of
extinction, as well as a developing belief in the larger society that
these mammals are somehow special (external forces) led to the passage
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in 1972. This resulted in
prohibiting the Makah from harvesting seals for any purpose, including
the retention of incidental catch (management).
The Makah, believing that the Treaty of Neah Bay gave them the
right to harvest seals for subsistence, continued to hunt (social
problems) resulting in citations and confiscation of the seals
(management). Due to these enforcement activities, scaling was reduced
(activity attributes), denying hunters a pursuit they enjoyed (activity
satisfaction) and one that provided them with food and prestige in the
community (social-community attributes).
Seal products thus became scarce in the community distribution
system, reducing an important contributor to social solidarity and
social security (social-community attribute). The reduced availability
of seal products in the community also negatively impacted nutrition and
dietary satisfaction (individual attributes). Violations of the ban,
however, continued (social problems), both covertly by changing sealing
times and locations (activity attributes) and overtly, with seal being
consumed at community parties (social problems). These continuing
violations contributed to a scofflaw attitude regarding official U.S.
Government management efforts (individual attribute, social problem).
Taken together, all these factors contributed to a decreased sense
of both individual and social well-being. Reinterpretation of the MMPA
in 1994 led to amendments, once again allowing Native American groups to
harvest marine mammals as provided in their treaty rights, hence,
beginning the process of reducing the negative impacts that occurred as
a result of the original act.
Recreational Fisheries
We turn now to those who fish for other than commercial and
subsistence reasons. For convenience, we employ recreational fishing as
a cover term to denote leisure-based fishing which includes the most
casual forms of fishing, the most serious forms of fishing by sportsmen,
and also the "expense fishing" of those who fish for pleasure
but sell their catch to cover some costs.
Recreational fishing takes place in a variety of settings. Variants
on the recreational fishing theme include: 1) anglers fishing from their
own boats, 2) anglers fishing from shore (e.g. on piers, beaches,
riverbanks), 3) anglers who rent boats that they operate, 4) anglers who
fish on charter boats (see glossary) with captains and crew, 5) anglers
who fish on party boats (see glossary) with captains and crew, and 6)
anglers who fish in tournaments and derbies.
As pointed out earlier, commercial and subsistence fishermen often
congregate and reside in villages, communities, small towns, and
neighborhoods. Although recreational fishermen do, at times, dwell in a
particular geographic region, they arc also very likely to be widely
distributed. In many instances of fishery management, recreational
fishermen arc better regarded analytically as a community of interest
than as a place-based community.
Recreational fishing has enormous value to participants and those
who provide direct services and equipment, as well as local communities.
While recreational fishing is frequently discussed in terms of its
economic value, it also has important social and cultural values (Smith,
1980). (20) The sociocultural value of recreational fishing can be
measured on multiple levels including relationships associated with the
fishing trip itself and with the experience of fishing (e.g. with family
or friends), with distribution of the catch, and with talking about
fishing, i.e. "fish talk." There arc also benefits to the
individual such as fulfilling psychological needs like independence,
risk taking, relaxation, and identity affirmation (Smith, 1980; Ditton
et al., 1992; Fedler and Ditton, 1994; Ditton. 1996; Fedler, 2000;
Ditton and Sutton, 2004).
To illustrate the kinds of analytical questions an SIA might
address in the context of a recreational fishery, we draw upon events in
southern California between 1998 and 2003 that resulted in the
designation of a network of marine protected areas (MPA's) in the
Channel Islands area. The simplified fishery SIA model (Fig. 2) is again
our starting point, and the specific variables in the following example
are illustrated in Figure 6. The Channel Islands of interest--which
include the islands of San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, Anacapa, and
Santa Barbara--lie off the California cities of Santa Barbara and Los
Angeles.
The islands and the adjacent marine environment have long been
valued for their considerable fishing resources and wildlife amenities.
In 1980, Federal actions created the Channel Islands National Park and
also the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS). (21) The
park boundary extends to 1 n.mi. off the islands; the sanctuary boundary
extends to 6 n.mi. offshore (management).
Beginning in the late 1990's, a combination of
special-interest-group initiatives (external forces), innovative state
legislation, and natural resource management actions culminated in the
creation of a network of MPA's (management) in California waters
(NMPAC, 2003; Bernstein et al., 2004). In 1998, the California Fish and
Game Commission (CFGC), which sets fishery policy for California state
waters, received a recommendation from a group of citizens (including a
very prominent recreational fisherman) who had formed the Channel
Islands Marine Resources Restoration Committee to set aside 20% of a 1
n.mi. zone around the northern Channel Islands for no-take marine
reserves (external forces).
In response to this request and in recognition of the need for a
community process, CINMS and the California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG), which implements CFGC policies, developed a joint Federal/state
partnership to examine MPA issues in the sanctuary. (22) In 1999,
California enacted the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). This landmark
legislation established a legal mandate for the creation of a system of
MPA's (management).
In 1999, the Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC), an advisory group to
the sanctuary manager, created a stakeholder-based community group
called the Marine Reserves Working Group (MRWG). This group in turn
created a Science Advisory Panel and a Socioeconomic Advisory Panel
(management). In 2000, both panels recommended the creation of at least
one reserve (but not more than four) comprising between 30 and 50% of
the representative habitat in each area.
In reference to this recommendation, the socioeconomic panel
(Davis, 2001, cited in NMPAC, 2003:31), estimated that a closure of 50%
of the sanctuary would result in a maximum potential loss of about 50%
in fishing industry revenue for both the commercial and recreational
sectors (management). In 2001, MRWG reported to SAC that while members
agreed on MPA goals, objectives, and issues (i.e. ecosystem
biodiversity, socioeconomic issues, sustainable fisheries, natural and
cultural heritage, and education) the group could not agree on one
unified spatial recommendation. Importantly, two MRWG members
representing recreational fishing constituencies sharply disagreed with
recommendations from the Science Advisory Panel. In response, SAC
forwarded all materials developed by MRWG and its two panels to the
CINMS manager (management).
In 2001 CINMS and CDFG developed a preferred alternative based on
the work of the MRWG and advisory panels and presented this to the CFGC
(California Department of Fish and Game, 2006:64). In October 2002--and
after extensive public review and discussion--the Commission approved
the preferred alternative. This established a MPA network consisting of
1) ten (no-take) state marine reserves, 2) a state marine conservation
area permitting limited recreational fishing off of Santa Cruz Island,
and 3) another state marine conservation area permitting limited
recreational and commercial fishing off of Anacapa Island. The total
area protected with the system equaled 19% of the state waters within
the sanctuary (Ugoretz, 2002:E-2; sce also National Marine Protected
Areas Center and NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2003:25-50). The
state's MPA network went into effect 9 April 2003 (NOS, 2003:27990)
(management).
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
The combined external forces and management actions discussed above
have led to changes in areas where recreational fishermen may fish
(activity attributes). One observer has argued that the substantial and
prolonged media attention (external forces) to the creation of no-take
reserves has inhibited the recruitment of recreational fishermen
(Osborn, 2005:12) and also changed demand for recreational fishing
providers (social-community attributes, activity attributes).
The potential loss of confidence in the fishery management regime
among some recreational fishermen may precipitate social problems such
as noncompliance. When all of the interactions of forces discussed above
are taken into account, we believe that it is probable that the marine
reserve process has negatively affected the activity satisfaction and
well-being of some recreational fishermen, although this has not been
directly assessed. At least on the perceptual level, some recreational
fishermen may see the potential for their well-being to be reduced.
Subsequent research can try to determine whether these perceptions are
real. Relationships between all these variables are depicted in Figure
6.
Discussion
In this paper, we have introduced a general model for social impact
assessment in the context of fishery management, especially as conducted
by Federal and state executive agencies in the United States. Our model
creates opportunities for social research tailored to examine (e.g. by
correlation, by causality, via prediction and simulation) the interplay
of an array of social variables (e.g. individual and community
attributes, social problems, job and other satisfactions, policy
decisions), and their effect on community and individual well-being.
Although the model allows the analyst to study how these variables
are related to one another, the most obvious overarching use of the
model calls for the treatment of these social factors as independent
variables that collectively influence the key dependent variable
well-being. In elaborating on our model, we demonstrated that social
impact assessment takes one of three analytical forms depending on
whether the fishery in question is commercial, subsistence, or
recreational.
This SIA model is heuristic and can be used to develop a truly
quantitative model. Other researchers, in other contexts, have used all
of the variables included in the model, and methods have been developed
to quantitatively evaluate them at some level of measurement (nominal,
ordinal, and interval). However, the variables have not been assessed
together in terms of the model presented here. Ideally, some form of
causal modeling should be used to test the heuristic model. Such a test
would require obtaining data on included variables and testing the model
using accepted methods (Blalock, 1964; Asher, 1983; Lieberson, 1985).
This could result in a predictive model that would allow one to
change parameters in one part of the model and determine effects in the
variable of interest (i.e. well-being). This process would also result
in quantitative assessment of the relative importance of variables
proposed for the model, perhaps resulting in some reduction in data
needs. It is important to base assessments of the relative importance of
different variables on quantitative evidence rather than unsubstantiated
predictions.
We offer several recommendations regarding fishery applications of
SIA. First, we believe this SIA model is useful as a foundation.
Nonetheless, we stress that fishery SIA should not depend on any rigid
obedience to one model, but it must continue to evolve methodologically
in response to changing fishery realities.
Second, we must remember that fishery SIA is a requirement of
Federal and other law to ensure that the best available science is
provided to policymakers. (23) It is important to understand that SIA is
a procedure to describe and predict the sociocultural impacts on
selected human populations. It should not be used as a weapon to
strategically manufacture "winners" in the policy arena. SIA
conclusions are a specification of impacts and may be either negative or
positive or both, and may be of major or minor significance. In the
final analysis, SIA results are simply factors among others related to
economic, biological, and habitat conditions to be considered by fishery
managers in determinations of fishery management alternatives.
Third, we need to point out that the kind of SIA analysis outlined
here requires data be compiled on many variables for which data are not
now available (see appendix) at either the community, or, where
appropriate, the individual level. Collection of these data requires
NMFS to invest substantially in data collection and compilation and in
new research. The recent expansion of the sociocultural analysis program
began less than 5 years ago, and while its current funds have allowed it
to begin compiling baseline information in each NMFS region (24), it
will need substantially more funding and staff to collect the wider
array of data required by this model. Good quality sociocultural
analysis is no less expensive than good quality economic analysis or
fish stock assessment. (25)
In conclusion, we note that SIA is a method that needs to grow in
rigor and in its ability to evaluate relationships between variables. It
is our expectation that with advances in social science theory and
quantitative methodology, SIA will evolve in a manner that supports
sound fisheries policy making and management. While commercial and
recreational fishing will remain central foci of fisheries management,
we envision a broader set of problems to which SIA in marine resource
management and conservation is valuable. For example, increasing
attention is being given to marine protected areas, open ocean
aquaculture, ocean-based energy resources, and marine resource dependent
tourism, such as whale watching. In the future, we foresee expanded
application of SIA to these and other emergent marine resource
management issues. The model presented here provides advice and
recommendations that can also be applied to these issues.
APPENDIX: Evaluation of SIA Variables
For marine resource SINs, we recommend first constructing a table
to facilitate systematic identification of both the units of analysis
and the relevant variables for assessing impacts. Typically, units of
analysis (e.g. individuals, firms, communities, tribes, regions) are the
rows, while SIA variables are the columns.
Appendix Table 1 provides a comprehensive list of variables from
which to choose those relevant for a particular SIA. It includes
constructs, associated variables, and some measurement options for each.
The long-term objective is to work toward agreement among marine social
scientists on consistent operational definitions and standard, accepted
measures for each. Consistent operationalization of SIA variables is
necessary for making comparisons both across marine resource management
SIA's and across time within a resource management SIA.
Some of the variables are in fact indices. Establishing defensible
indices is difficult, but can be done by building an index based on work
already completed. This appendix, the NOAA (1998, 2001) MSA National
Standards and SIA operational guidelines, and historical examples
(Pomeroy et at., 1997; Pollnac, 1998; Pollnac and Crawford, 2000; Berkes
et al., 2001) all provide a basis for developing useful indices. (26) In
all cases, the measures should enable global comparisons. What should be
situation specific is the effort to explain the direction and magnitude
of change in the index of well-being for particular individuals or
groups of individuals at a particular point in time. Explaining why the
index has risen or fallen or projecting future trends is the most useful
outcome of SIA. The commercial, recreational, and subsistence examples
provided in this article illustrate the system's approach and
templates as applied to representative marine resource management
problems.
Meta-Methodological Considerations
Levels of Measurement
Data should be obtained at the most precise level of measurement
appropriate to the variable under consideration to facilitate
statistical analyses. It is understood, however, that availability of
information or funds to gather information may result in varying levels
of precision. Hence, a useful database should accommodate different
levels of measurement and provide descriptions of the methods used to
facilitate appropriate interpretation of the data (Pollnac, 1998).
For example, the relative degree of solidarity in a community could
be based on counts of cooperative organizations, churches, social
organizations, and their membership. The total number of organizations,
or total membership in such organizations, could be analyzed relative to
the total population of a community. This value would be the most
precise measure of relative solidarity across communities.
Alternatively, where such statistics are not available, the figure
could be based on informant interviews where fishermen and other
community members would be asked to list and rank the top five
communities in terms of solidarity. Modal ranks for each community could
be determined and used as a ranking of relative importance. In this case
the level of measurement would be ordinal and not as precise as the
previous measure. Nonetheless, it can be used in statistical analysis.
Sometimes information sources will use concepts such as low,
medium, high, or some variant of these concepts to indicate a level of
importance or use. Despite the fact that these are evaluative concepts,
not numbers, they can be converted to numbers signifying an ordinal
value. For example, the concepts none, low, medium, and high can be
converted to the ordinal values 0, 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
It is extremely important that the direction (in terms of relative
amount) of the ordinal values be known. For example, when ranking tasks
are performed (e.g. ranking the relative levels of solidarity as in the
example above), the top ranked community in terms of solidarity is
usually given the rank of "number one" and the least important
"number five," or whatever the total number ranked ends up to
be. In terms of the direction of these numbers as related to the concept
"importance" the numbers are the inverse (in terms of ordinal
quantity reflected by 1, 2, 3, etc.) of the actual ordinal quantity.
Correlational analyses using ranks where one is "most
important" can be potentially misleading since if this variable is
entered into a correlation analysis with another variable where a higher
number equals a higher level of the variable, the sign in the result
will be negative when the correlation is in fact positive. Hence, in all
cases in this database where the ordinal quantity of the concept being
measured is higher than another ordinal quantity, the numeric value
assigned will be higher.
Finally, continuing with the relative solidarity example, in some
cases the source of information may only indicate several communities as
having a high degree of solidarity with no ranking. Here we have a
simple dichotomy where a given community has solidarity or not--a simple
yes/no, limited choice. This type of information is better than none at
all, and it can also be used in statistical analysis; hence,
accommodation will be made for it in the database. Therefore, each
indicator, as appropriate, will have fields for different levels of
measurement.
Perceptions
In the description of the variables, remember that there is often
more than one measure of a given variable. We often move from actual
observation using instruments or our senses, to official records, to
triangulated key informant interviews, to individual perceptions.
Ideally, the method used to evaluate perceptions of phenomena such as
aspects of family and social problems, job satisfaction, level of
community conflict, or ability to work together will be able to take
advantage of the human ability to make graded ordinal evaluations.
For example, one has the ability to evaluate real world objects in
terms of some attribute such as size and not only make the judgment that
one is larger than the other, but also that one is a little larger,
larger, much larger, or very much larger. Human behavior is based on
graded ordinal judgments, not simply a dichotomous judgment of present
or absent. For example, a person is more likely to take action if they
perceive that an activity will benefit them "greatly" in
contrast to "just a little." This refined level of measurement
allows one to make more refined assessments concerning fisheries
management impacts, as well as permitting use of more powerful
statistical techniques to determine relationships between perceived
impacts and potential predictor variables. There are several techniques
that can be used to evaluate individual perceptions of the indicators we
have identified.
One commonly used procedure for measuring degree of satisfaction or
dissatisfaction is a Likert-type scale. In this procedure, the
researcher asks the subjects to report how satisfied or dissatisfied
they are with certain aspects of their occupation, community, or living
conditions. If they respond "satisfied," they are then asked
if they are "very satisfied," "satisfied," or
"just a little satisfied." The same procedure is applied to a
"dissatisfied" response.
Including the "neither" or neutral response, results in a
7-point scale, with 1 indicating very dissatisfied and 7 very satisfied.
This is more an example of a semantic differential (Osgood et al.,
1957). Respondents would be requested to make these judgments for two
time periods: today and pre-implementation of the fishery management
procedure. Clearly, this would be a cumbersome, time-consuming process
with more than just a few indicators. Additionally, the technique might
prove to be unreliable for uncovering minor changes between time periods
due to the size of the categories used.
Another technique is a visual, self-anchoring, ladder-like scale,
which allows for finer ordinal judgments, places fewer demands on
informant memory, and can be administered more rapidly (Cantril, 1963).
The subject is shown a ladder-like diagram with multiple steps, Where
the first step represents the worst possible situation.
For example, with respect to community harmony, the first step
would indicate a community with a great deal of conflict, and where
community members are involved in a great deal of verbal conflict over
various issues such as school taxes, waterfront planning, immigrant
populations, etc. The highest step would be described as a conflict free
community in which town meetings are characterized by pleasant
interaction, where consensus is easily achieved, no issues exist
dividing the population, and peaceful interaction is normal.
In a fisheries application, the subject would then be asked where
on a ladder (ruler, scale, whatever is appropriate for the subjects
involved) the local area is today (the self-anchoring aspect of the
scale). The subject would then be asked to indicate where it was before
implementation of the fishery management procedure or some other earlier
period to establish a baseline. The difference between the two time
periods is the measure of change.
The two techniques described above do not provide the same
information. The information is similar, but subject to slightly
different interpretations. For example, a position on the self-anchoring
scale does not necessarily indicate satisfaction or dissatisfaction, and
we might be in error if we interpret a scale value above the mid-point
as indicating individual satisfaction.
Likewise, satisfaction with an attribute (e.g. income) does not
tell us where in the perceived range of income the individual places
himself/herself. The self-anchoring scale, however, is both easier to
administer and more sensitive to the changes we need to evaluate. For
some applied examples see Pollnac and Crawford (2000).
While this discussion assumes that a sample of individuals will be
interviewed, focus groups and/or scoping meetings are also commonly
used. Social psychology researchers have demonstrated, however, that
group responses are influenced by the most powerful or persuasive group
members, distorting individual attitudes, beliefs, and values.
Nevertheless, the same methods can be applied to a group for a consensus
response.
It is suggested, however, that if the group is literate, they be
given a printed questionnaire. In all cases, the responses will only
reflect group or sample membership, which may not be representative of
the target population. Local constraints sometimes require the SIA
analyst to rely on opportunistic sampling, rather than on stratified
random samples. Even in the opportunistic sampling situation, every
attempt should be made to include members of all previously identified
relevant populations.
Appendix Table 1.--SIA model variables.
Construct
group Constructs Variables (1)
External 1. Population Demographic statistics compared
forces pressure over time, population migration
patterns
2. Stakeholder No. of environmental NGO-
pressure generated lawsuits; no. of news
media articles discussing
related public pressure; no. of
related organized meetings,
other events; no. business
associations expressing
interest; treaty rights
3. Marine Fish stock levels; sea mammal
resource population levels; other
levels marine resources
4. Marine Price; non-market value
resource
value
Management 5. Management Complexity of management
structure
6. Regulations Fairness, complexity, restric-
tiveness, and effectiveness of
regulations
7. Management Public involvement in
inclusiveness management processes
8. Enforcement Levels/types of enforcement
and compliance and noncompliance with activ-
ity regulations, whether
formal or informal
Activity 9. Annual rounds Structure of annual round
attributes
10. Fishing units/ Vessel/gear type combinations
gear types
11. Fishing Method/mode combinations
method/mode of fishing: 1) shore-based,
including man-made and natural
structures (e.g. beach,
pier, jetty, bridge); 2) party/
charter boat; 3) private/rental
boat; 4) commercial vessel
12. Resource Harvest level or activity
use level intensity (including avidity),
perceptions of abundance.
Where feasible identify by
mode (i.e. commercial,
recreational. or subsistence)
13. Resource Distribution, processing, and
use patterns consumption patterns; social
networks (including references
to reciprocity and other
commercial and noncommercial
forms of exchange); mar-
keting chains (including
references to vertical and
horizontal integration)
14. Cost of For each vessel/gear type
entry combination obtain costs of new
and used vessels/gear, license
and other fees (e.g. dock
fees), and cost of property/
access rights; trip expenses
(e.g. cost breakdown of
transportation, bait, gear,
ice, lodging, food, fees);
training time expenses;
insurance, financing
15. Ownership Individual owner demographic
patterns profiles, including age, sex,
residency, income, education,
total years participating
in activity; corporate owned
vessels, include years in
business, number of vessels
owned, a rating or ranking
measure of size of business
using gross income or proxy
measure as possible, location
of incorporation of business
and principal place of
business, number of employees
16. Participation For each activity type obtain
structure information about participants,
including number; positions/
roles (e.g. owner captain,
captain, engineer, cook,
deckhand, shell shucking,
ritual specialist) as
appropriate; participant
hierarchy; general participant
selection criteria (e.g.
kinsmen if available, friends,
levels of skill); and partici-
pant demographic infor-
mation (including residence)
17. Safety Level of safety of the activity
18. Physical Condition and adequacy of
resources/ activity-related physical re-
infrastructure sources/infrastructure
19. Activity Mobility within an activity;
mobility alternative activities
(including jobs, recreation,
and subsistence); and
substitutability
Activity 20. Activity Level of satisfaction derived
satisfaction satisfaction from or associated with
participation in the activity
Individual 21. Participant Participant demographic
attributes characte- profiles, including age, sex,
ristics residency, income. education,
total years participating in
activity
22. Mental Mental health condition of
health, individuals
individual
23. Physical Physical health condition
health, of individuals
individual
24. Resilience, Capability of individuals to
individual cope successfully in the face
of significant adversity or
risk
25. Personality Distinctive behavioral
traits regularities across diverse
life situations through time
Social- 26. Demographic Demographic statistics for
community characte- place-based and activity-based
attributes ristics communities
27. Social Type and degree of social
stratification stratification and differences
in place-based and activity
communities
28. Power People, public and private
structure organizations and institutions
who have influence or authority
within the place-based and
activity communities
29. Occupational Occupational structure of
structure place-based and activity
communities
30. Income/ Proportion of income from
benefit activity, and/or proportion of
activity-related product in
diet (Note: Benefit in this
context is defined as
subsistence use of activity-
related products.)
31. Dependence Level of dependence of place-
based community, house-
holds and families on the
activity [Note: A current
working NMFS definition is:
Dependence is a measure of the
level of participation in a
fishery relative to other
community activities, and
relative to all other
communities linked to fishing
in some way (Norman et al. (3))].
32. Engagement Level of engagement of place-
based community, house-
holds and families on the
activity [Note: A current
working NMFS definition is:
Engagement is a measure of
the level of participation
relative to the overall level
of participation in a
fishery (Norman et al. (3))]
33. Community Levels of solidarity in place-
solidarity based and activity communities
34. Physical Physical health condition of
health- place-based and activity com-
community munities
35. Mental Mental health condition of
health- place-based and activity com-
community munities
36. Cultural The role of activity and marine
heritage and environment in history,
spirituality, self-represen-
norms/values tation/identity, and knowledge
production
37. Resilience- Capability of coping
community successfully (resilience) in
face of significant adversity
or risk in place-based and
activity-based communities,
families, and households
Social 38. Social Social problems in place-based
problems problems and activity communities
and families
39. Conflict Level of conflict in place-
based and activity communities
(both within and between
groups) and in families
40. Regulatory Levels/types of noncompliance
non-compliance with activity regulations,
whether formal or informal, in
place-based and activity
communities
Well-being 41. Index of Levels of well-being in place-
attributes well-being based and activity based com-
munities, families, and
individuals
Construct Suggested
group Constructs measurement strategies
External 1. Population U.S. Census, comparing
forces pressure population figures over time
for locations of interest;
Federal government reports
documenting changes in
population patterns; state and
local websites for locations of
interest
2. Stakeholder Develop an index of pressure
pressure from publicly available infor-
mation including no. of NGO-
generated lawsuits, content
analysis of relevant NGO
websites, content analysis of
news media, and other relevant
archival resources
3. Marine Specific species or species
resource complex; state and/or Federal
levels fish stock assessments for
regions of interest; Federal
and state sea mammal population
estimates; Federal/state esti-
mates other marine resource
levels
4. Marine NMFS Market News; various
resource governmental and non-
value governmental price and market
surveys; sample survey; archi-
val resources
Management 5. Management 1) Sample survey of perceptions
structure of complexity of the man-
agement structure; 2) index
including, for example, number
of gears managed per year,
number of species managed
per year, number of management
measures introduced per
year; number of governance
bodies involved; 3) count of
jurisdictional entities
6. Regulations 1) Sample survey of perceptions,
2) archival sources (e.g.
news media, lawsuits, NGO, and
other scorecards)
7. Management 1) Sample survey of perceptions,
inclusiveness 2) archives or observations:
counts of public comments in
documents and number/type of
participants at public meetings
8. Enforcement 1) Sample survey/structured
and compliance interviews/triangulated key
informant interviews of
individual reports and/or
perceptions (including
questions about behaviors of
others), 2) archival data
(e.g. review fisheries law
enforcement reports and news
media; numbers of citations and
infractions, normalized for
nonuniform levels of
enforcement coverage;
creel survey reports)
Activity 9. Annual rounds Sample survey/key informant
attributes interviews regarding activ-
ity types (marine and non-
marine) by month and location.
Locations of activities should
be mapped, using place
names and results of mapping
exercises-translated to GIS
10. Fishing units/ Sample survey; open-ended/
gear types structured interviews/pile
sorting/consensus analysis;
observation-based empirical
methods; agency effort and
permit data; official license/
port/harbor data, if available;
observation to ground truth
other methods. If conflicting
data from various sources, a
census may be necessary. Fishing
gear taxonomies have been
developed by states, interstate
commissions, and Federal
fisheries managers and vary by
region and source.
11. Fishing Sample survey; open-ended/
method/mode structured interviews/pile
sorting/consensus analysis;
observation-based empirical
methods; MRFSS; official permit
license/port/harbor data,
if available; observation to
ground truth other methods. If
conflicting data from various
sources, a census may be
necessary
12. Resource 1) Sample survey, open-ended
use level and structured interviews,
2) NMFS landings data, state
landings data, subsistence
databases, MRFSS, counts of
infrastructure, DAS, CPUE,
vessel counts, license and
permit data, other relevant
data-bases
13. Resource 1) Sample surveys; network
use patterns analysis; in-depth interviews;
triangulated key informant
interviews, 2) archival, public
information on marketing chains
14. Cost of 1) Triangulated key informant
entry interviews (fishermen, ves-
set/gear salespersons), surveys,
in-depth interviews, 2)
archives or observations:
classified advertisements,
party/charter fees, marina slip
expense, rental boat fees,
launch/ramp fees, license fees,
pier fees, lodging costs, etc.
Some elements of cost of entry
captured in agency economic
data collections
15. Ownership 1) Sample survey/triangulated
patterns key informant interviews;
2) public statistics; 3) Coast
Guard vessel registry data;
4) state vessel registry data;
5) Federal and state permits
databases; 6) Dunn & Bradstreet
business registry; state
business registries
16. Participation 1) Sample survey/triangulated
structure key informant interviews
including SSN (can't require
it) or crew ID number (only
Alaska has crew licenses),
vessel ID currently employed,
location of owned vessel/plant
currently employed in (and
plant ID no.), individual or
corporate ownership, current
ports of landing, 2) licenses
and other databases
17. Safety 1) Sample survey/individual
reports on perceived safety/
likelihood of risk-taking
behavior, 2) Coast Guard records
(CASMAIN files), state records,
harbormaster records nor-
malized for level of
enforcement coverage
18. Physical 1) Sample survey of perceptions;
resources/ triangulated key informant
infrastructure interviews (including Chamber
of Commerce members,
fishermen, harbormaster, etc.);
2) number of docks, cold
stores, distribution and
marketing facilities, gear and
vessel supply and maintenance
facilities, marinas, marine
repair, marine supply, party/
charter boat operations, boat
rentals, bait and tackle shops,
marine electronics shops,
boatyards, boat lifts, boat
storage, boat sales, pay piers,
ramps and associated
infrastructure, public access
sites, fishing clubs and
associations, dockside motels/
lodging, number of hospitals
and other health care
facilities, airports, marine
ports, factories by industry,
major roads, etc.; archival
research on comprehensive plans
and economic studies of angling
in the community
19. Activity 1) Sample surveys/interviews/
mobility triangulated key informant
interviews/free listing/pile
sorting (including current and
former activity participants)
on perceived/preferred/poten-
tial alternate activities,
existing activity structure,
activity participants' education
and training, social/political
capital, physical capital,
social stratification, power
structure; 2) counts and
archival data on available
industries/jobs, avail-
able formal and informal
training and retraining programs
and their participation rates,
etc.
Activity 20. Activity Sample survey/individual reports
satisfaction satisfaction including aesthetics,
perceived quality/health of the
resource, job satisfaction,
trip satisfaction, desire to
continue participating, desire
for children and grandchildren
to continue participating,
recent vessel and/or equipment
purchase
Individual 21. Participant 1) Sample survey/triangulated
attributes characte- key informant interviews, 2)
ristics public statistics, 3) crew
licensing data where available
22. Mental Sample survey/self report
health, instruments on stress-related
individual disorders and treatment (e.g.
depression, stress, drinking,
psychosomatic illnesses,
anxiety, self-esteem issues,
psychiatric care, and
counseling)
23. Physical Sample survey/individual report
health, instruments of physical
individual health (including heart disease,
injuries, diet/nutrition defi-
ciencies/adequacy, especially
for subsistence, etc.)
24. Resilience, Sample survey including work
individual history and training, religios-
ity, self esteem, available
support systems, perceived
levels of stress, perceived
ability to cope, sources of
income, level of education,
etc.; key informant interviews
25. Personality Sample survey using standardized
traits self-report personality trait
assessment instruments; relevant
questions from Driver (2),
master list of items for
recreational experience
preference scales and domains;
interviews.
Social- 26. Demographic 1) Sample survey of residence
community characte- patterns, location of activi-
attributes ristics ties in relation to residence;
2) U.S. Census, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, community
strategic plans including
total population, sex, age,
race, ethnicity, origins and
language, housing, owner/renter
status, education, employment,
housing tenure, housing
mortgage status, religious
affiliation; official
license/port/harbor data over
time, if available; license
plate counts from public
launches and dock parking
lots; licensing databases and
other archival data
27. Social 1) Sample survey on percep-
stratification tions/self-reports including
income; education; access to
social/physical capital and
resources; triangulated key
informant interviews; 2) con-
struct gini-coefficient (or
coefficient of variation,
quartile measures) for a)
distribution of property
values (from tax assessment
records, if available, and if
not, a visual survey of
houses/property), b)
distribution of income based
on estimates for different
jobs as associated with data
from occupation structure of
the community, c) census data
on educational and income
levels, d) archival data on
zoning/land use patterns and
plans, including comprehensive
community planning documents
28. Power 1) Sample survey of
structure perceptions; triangulated key
informant interviews and
network analyses re. informal
power structure, 2) archival
data on formal power structure
(e.g. news media, official
town documents); observational
studies (informal power
structure)
29. Occupational 1) Sample survey of employment
structure history (e.g. occupations
held, reasons for entry and
exit, levels of remuneration);
triangulated key informant
interviews; 2) employment by
sector and subsector from town
records, Chamber of Com-
merce, local office of
employment security, official
license/port/harbor data
30. Income/ 1) Sample survey of households
benefit on income, employment
and other benefits (e.g. role
of activity in diet and
nonmonetary transfers) from
the activity; 2) gross
community product by sector
and subsector from tax data,
utilities, gross receipts,
etc.; 3) use of resource in
prestige rankings, esta-
blishing and reinforcing
familial/extra familial
social networks; 4) use of
resource in redistribution
systems
31. Dependence Archival data, databases (see
indicators listed in Norman
et al. (3))
32. Engagement Archival data, databases (see
indicators listed in Norman
et al. (3)).
33. Community 1) Sample survey (including
solidarity questions on strength of net-
works, sociopolitical voice,
cultural homogeneity/heteroge-
neity, kinship ties, connec-
tivity between migrants,
definition and sense of
community, social capital,
participation in expressive
culture including events such
as blessing of the fleet and
fishing tournaments); network
analysis; 2) number of
cooperative organizations,
churches, social organiza-
tions, etc. and their
membership; network density
(connectivity measure),
observed participation in
expressive culture including
events such as blessing of
the fleet and fishing
tournaments; public presence
of material culture such as
sculptures, pictures, or
other memorabilia celebrating
the community
34. Physical Community physical health
health- survey; prevalence and inci-
community dence rates from public
health records (local, county,
state, CDC) on infant deaths,
number childhood immuniza-
tions, health of workforce,
etc.
35. Mental Prevalence and incidence
health- rates from public health
community records (e.g. state, county,
local databases, CDC) of
stress-related disorders and
treatment (e.g. depression,
stress, drinking,
psychosomatic illnesses,
anxiety, self-esteem issues,
psychiatric care and
counseling); sample surveys
on community mental health;
triangulated key interviews
with local healthcare
professionals
36. Cultural 1) Sample surveys including
heritage and perception of activity impor-
norms/values tance to community, beliefs
about marine ecosystems,
attitudes toward marine
ecosystems, environmental
attitudes, cultural
importance of marine
ecosystems: triangulated key
informant interviews on
traditional ecological
knowledge and local activity
knowledge (e.g. local
fisheries knowledge) and
religious/spiritual beliefs/
institutions; 2) archival
data (e.g. newspapers,
Chamber of Commerce
information, environmental
historical documents,
iconography)
37. Resilience- 1) Place-based community
community index based on items such as
job diversity; distance to
county seat; distance to state
highway; distance to
interstate highway; distance
to regional center for retail
shopping, medical care, and
financial services; cultural
commonality/ethnic
homogeneity; number of
associations and organiza-
tions; number of members in
associations and organiza-
tions; perceptions of
leadership quality/proactive
orientation; community
attractiveness; evidence of
past adaptations to nonlocal
change affecting community;
2) activity-based community
index based on items such as
no. of activity-related
businesses, support industries
and associations; no. of
members in associations;
level of recruitment of
activity participants; trends
in activity-related resource
levels and regulations/
restrictions on access to
these resources; cost of
entry; no. of permits per
vessel for commercial fishing
Social 38. Social 1) Sample survey/structured
problems problems interviews/triangulated key
informant interviews
(including social workers,
police, etc.); 2) public
statistics (local, county,
state, CDC) including
spouse abuse incidents, crime
incidents, alcohol abuse
counts, drug abuse counts,
poverty rate, number of
children on reduced price
lunches at schools, literacy,
oral fluency in English,
unemployment rates; archival
data from local newspapers
39. Conflict 1) Sample surveys/structured
interviews/triangulated key
informant interviews, 2)
police reports, news media,
court cases filed, agendas
from town board meetings
40. Regulatory 1) Sample survey/structured
non-compliance interviews/triangulated key
informant interviews of
individual reports and/or
perceptions (including
questions about behaviors of
others); 2) archival data
(e.g. review fisheries law
enforcement reports and news
media: numbers of citations
and infractions, normalized
for non-uniform levels of
enforcement coverage;
creel survey reports)
Well-being 41. Index of 1) Sample survey of
attributes well-being perceptions/self-reports
including a) happiness
(individual, familial, and
communal), b) empow-
erment, c) self-esteem, d)
satisfaction with aspects of
living conditions, e)
satisfaction with
relationships (familial,
communal), etc.; 2)
Quantitative indicators of
the change in objectively
measured well-being index
(e.g. Human Development
Index, Index of Social Well-
being, Canadian Well-Being
Index, Oregon Progress
Indicators) and/or dis-
tributions for variables
such as community, family, or
individual living conditions,
stature, wealth, or power
(1) Get temporal comparative data 1980 to present where possible.
(2) Driver, B. L. 1983- Master list of items for recreation experience
preference scales and domains. USDA For. Serv. Rocky Mt. For. And Range
Exp. Sta., Ft. Collins, Colo. Unpubl. Doe., 10 p. Online at
http://wilderdom.com/html/DriverREPScales.doc, accessed 1 May 2007.
(3) Norman, K. , J. Sepez, H. Lazarus, N. Milne. C. Package, S.
Russell, K. Grant, R. Petersen, J. Primo, E. Springer, M. Styles,
B. Tilt, and I. Vaccaro. 2006. Community profiles for West Coast and
North Pacific fisheries-Washington, Oregon, California, and other U.S.
states. NMFS-NWFSC, NOAA, 625 p. Online at http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/
research/divisions/sd/communityprofiles/Supplemental_Community
Profiling_Document_DRAFT.pdf, accessed 6 May 2007.
Acknowledgments
The SIA Modeling Workshop was held at Belmont Conference Center,
Elkridge, Md, 11-12 March 2004. Participants, in alphabetical order,
included Susan Abbott-Jamieson (convener), James M. Acheson, Shankar
Aswani, Patricia M. Clay, E. Paul Durrenberger, Peter Fricke, Henry P.
Huntington, Jeffrey C. Johnson, Kathi Kitner, Marc L. Miller, Bryan
Oles, Michael K. Orbach, Richard B. Pollnac, and Courtland L. Smith. The
authors wish to thank Linda Putz for providing workshop facilitation and
Rosemary Kosaka for providing workshop support.
Literature Cited
Acheson, J. M., R. B. Pollnac, J. J. Poggie, and J. A. Wilson.
1980. Study of social and cultural aspects of fisheries management in
New England under extended jurisdiction (3 vol., 271, 111, 389 p.).
Natl. Sci. Found. and Univ. Maine, NSF grant AER77-06018, Wash., D.C.,
and Orono, Maine.
Anderson, L. G. 1980. Necessary components of economic surplus in
fisheries economics. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37(5):858-870.
Apostle, R. L., L. Kasdan, and A. Hanson. 1985. Work satisfaction
and community attachment among fishermen in southwest Nova Scotia. Can.
J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42(2):256-267.
Asher, H. B. 1983. Causal modeling. 2nd edit. Sage Publ., Beverly
Hills, Calif., 97 p.
Baker, C. 2004. Behavioral genetics. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., Wash.,
D.C., 131 p.
Barrow, C. J. 1997. Environmental and social impact assessment: an
introduction. Edward Arnold, Lond., 310 p.
Becker, H. 1997. Social impact assessment: method and experience in
Europe, North America and the developing world. Social Res. Today, vol.
10. UCL Press, Lond., 260 p.
Berkes, F., and C. Folke, 1998. Linking social and ecological
systems for resilience and sustainability, In F. Berkes, C. Folke, and
J. Colding (Editors), Linking social and ecological systems: management
practices and social mechanisms for building resilience, p. 1-25.
Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.
--, R. Mahon, P. McConney, R. B. Pollnac, and R. Pomeroy. 2001.
Managing small-scale fisheries: alternative directions and methods. Int.
Develop. Res. Centre, Ottawa, Can., 309 p.
Bernstein, B., S. Iudicello, and C. Stringer. 2004. Lessons learned
from recent marine protected area designations in the United States.
Rep. to Natl. Mar. Protect. Areas Cent., NOAA, Natl. Fish. Conserv.
Cent., Ojai, Calif.
Binkley, M. 1995. Risks, dangers and rewards in the Nova Scotia
offshore fishery. McGill-Queen's Univ. Press, Montreal, 192 p.
Blackhart, K., D. G. Stanton, and A. M. Shimada. 2005. NOAA
fisheries glossary. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSF/SPO-69, 61
p.
Blalock, H. M., Jr. 1964. Causal inferences in nonexperimental
research. Univ. N.C. Press, Chapel Hill, 200 p.
Bryan, H. 1984. A guide to social analysis--U.S. Forest Service
Training Manual. Mimeo. USDA For. Serv., Off. Environ. Coord., Wash.,
D.C., 206 p.
Bunce, L., P. Townsley, R. Pomeroy, and R. Pollnac. 2000.
Socioeconomic manual for coral reef management. Australian Inst. Mar.
Sci., Townsville, Queensland (for GCRMN, IUCN, NOAA, UNEP, and Environ.
Agency Jpn.), 251 p.
Burch, W. R., and D. R. DeLuca. 1984. Measuring the social impact
of natural resource policies. Univ. New Mex. Press, Albuquerque, 216p.
Burdge, R. J. (Editor). 1994. A conceptual approach to social
impact assessment. Social Ecology Press, Middleton, Wise., 256 p.
--. 2004. A community guide to social impact assessment, third ed.
Social Ecology Press, Middleton. Wise., 192 p.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2006. California
Marine Life Protection Act: Appendices to the Master Plan (revised draft
21 July 2006) (Including Appendix H. Summary of Recent and Ongoing
Processes Related to the Marine Life Protection Initiative, p. 60-68
[revised November 2004], 190 p. Online at
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/ pdfs/APP_entire_MLPA.MP.pdf (accessed 1
May 2007). For separate chapters, appendices, and updates, see
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ mrd/mlpa/masterplan2006.html (accessed 1 May
2007).
Cantril, H. 1963. A study of aspirations. Sci. Am. 208(2):41-45.
Childers, H. 2007 The 3 keys to IFQs: allocation, allocation,
allocation. Natl. Fisher. 87(12):21.
Colburn, L., S. Abbott-Jamieson, and P. M. Clay. 2006.
Anthropological applications in the management of federally managed
fisheries: context, institutional history, and prospectus. Hum. Organ.
65(3):231-239.
Colfer, C. J. P., and Y. Byron (Editors). 2001. People managing
forests. Resour. Future Press, Wash., D.C., 352 p.
Davis, J. 2001. Science as a central tool in planning marine
reserves: case study of the Channel Islands.MPANews2: 10(May). Online at
http:// depts.washington.edu/mpanews/MPA19. htm#Channel (accessed 28
July 2006).
Ditton, R. B. 1996. Understanding the diversity among largemouth
bass anglers. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 16:135-144.
--and S. G. Sutton. 2004. Substitutability in recreational fishing.
Human Dimensions Wildl. 9(2):87-102.
--, D. K. Loomis, and S. Choi. 1992. Recreation specialization:
reconceptualization from a social worlds perspective. J. Leisure Stud.
24(1):35-51.
Driver, B. L. 1983. Master list of items for recreation experience
preference scales and domains. USDA For. Serv. Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, Colo. Unpubl. doc., 10 p. Online
at http:// wilderdom.com/html/DriverREPScales. doc, accessed 1 May 2007.
Eckersley, R., J. Dixon, and B. Douglas. 2001. The social origins
of health and well-being. Camb. Univ. Press, Camb., U.K., 368 p.
Faragher, E. B., M. Cass, and C. L. Cooper. 2005. The relationship
between job satisfaction and health: a meta-analysis. Occup. Environ.
Med. 62(2):105-112.
Fedler, A. J. 2000. Participation in boating and fishing: a
literature review. Rep. prep. for Recreational Boating Fish. Found..
Alexandria, Virg., Sept. 2000, 63 p.
--and R. B. Ditton. 1994. Understanding angler motivations in
fisheries management. Fisheries 19(4):6-13.
Finsterbusch, K., and W. R. Freudenburg. 2002. Social impact
assessment and technology assessment. In R. E. Dunlap and W. E.
Michelson (Editors). Handbook of environmental sociology, p. 407-447.
Greenwood Press, Westport, Conn.
--, L. G. Llewellyn, and C. P. Wolf (Editors). 1983. Social
assessment methods. Sage Publ., Beverley Hills, Calif., 318 p.
--and C. P. Wolf (Editors). 1977. Methodology of social impact
assessment. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, Pa., 387 p.
Freeman, M. M. R. 2005. Just one more time before I die: securing
the relationship between Inuit and whales in the arctic regions. In N.
Kishigami and J. M. Savelle (Editors), Indigenous use and management of
marine resources, p. 59-76. Senti Ethnol. Stud. 67, Natl. Mus. Ethnol.,
Osaka, Jpn.
Freudenburg, W. R. 1986. Social impact assessment. Annual Rev.
Sociol. 12:451-478.
Gatewood, J. B., and B. J. McCay. 1990. Comparison of job
satisfaction in six New Jersey fisheries. Hum. Organ. 49(1):14-25.
Georgette, S., D. Caylor, and E. Trigg. 2004. Subsistence salmon
harvest summary northwest Alaska 2003: Norton Sound District. Port
Clarence District, Kotzcbue District. Alaska Dep. Fish Game, Div.
Subsistence, Juneau & Kawerak, Inc., Nome, 46 p.
Gilden, J. (Editor). with F. D. L. Conway, S. Cordary, L. Cramer,
C. Kinley, G. Goblisch, and C. Smith. 1999. Oregon's changing
coastal fishing communities, Oreg. State Univ. Sea Grant Rep.
ORESU-O-99-001, 82 p.
Gullone, E., and R. A. Cummins (Editors). 2002. The universality of
subjective well-being indicators: a multidisciplinary multinational
perspective. Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, Netherl., 196 p.
Heslop, P., G. D. Smith, C. Metcalfe, J. Macleod. and C. Hart.
2002. Change in job satisfaction. and its association with self-reported
stress, cardiovascular risk factors and mortality. Social Sci. and
Medicine 54(10): 1589-1599.
Hobart, W. L. (Editor). 1995. Baird's legacy: the history and
accomplishments of NOAA's national marine fisheries service,
1871-1996. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tcch. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-18, 47 p.
ICGPSIA. 1994. Guidelines and principles for social impact
assessment, Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles
for Social Impact Assessment. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo.
NMFS-F/ SPO-16. 26 p.
--. 2003. Principles and guidelines for SIA in the USA. Impact
Assess. Proj. Appraisal 21(3):231-250.
Kishigami, N. 2005. Co-management of beluga whales in Nunivak
(Arctic Quebec), Canada. In N. Kishigami and J. M. Savelle (Editors),
Indigenous use and management of marine resources. Senri Ethnol. Stud.
67:121-144. Natl. Mus. Ethnol., Osaka. Jpn.
Kogut, M. A. 1976. Social impact assessment: an annotated
bibliography. Dep. Ecol., Olympia, Wash., 30 p.
Krebs, C. J. 1989. Ecological methodology. Harper & Row. N.Y.,
654 p.
Lieberson. S. 1985. Making it count: the improvement of social
research and theory. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley, 257 p.
Loy, W. 2006. Crab in question: crew members and others in new
quota fishery want to know: what's rational about this? Natl.
Fisherman 86 (12):34-37.
Magdanz, J. S., C. J. Utermohle, and R. J. Wolfe. 2002. The
production and distribution of wild food in Wales and Deering, Alaska.
Div. Subsistence, Alaska Dep. Fish Game, Juneau, Tech. Pap. 259. 179 p.
McCay, B., J. B. Blinkoff, R. Blinkoff, and D. Bart. 1993. Fishery
impact management project: rep., pt. 2, phase 1, to the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council. Mid-Atl. Fish. Manage. Counc., Dover, Del.,
179 p.
Mederer; H. 1999. Surviving the demise of a way of life: stress and
resilience in northeastern fishing families. In H. I. McCubbin, E.
Thompson. A. I. Thompson, and J. A. Futrell (Editors), The dynamics of
resilient families: resiliency in families, vol. 4, p. 203-235, Sage
Publ., Thousand Oaks, Calif.
NOAA, National Marine Protected Areas Center (NMPAC), and NOAA
Coastal Services Center (NCSC). 2003. Marine Protected Area (MPA)
process review: Case studies of five MPA establishment processes.
NOAA/NOS Train. Tech. Assist. Inst., Charleston, S.C., 125 p. (Online at
http://mpa.gov/pdf/helpfulresources/mpalessons-learned.pdf, accessed 1
May 2007.)
NMFS. 1998. Magnuson-Stevens Act provisions; National Standard
Guidelines. Fed. Regist. 63(84):24211-24237. Online at http://www.
st.nmfs.gov/stl/econ/cia/natstand-final.pdf, accessed 22 August 2005.
--. 1999. Ecosystem-based fishery management. A report to Congress
by the ecosystems principles advisory panel, David Fluharty, chair. U.S.
Dep. Commer., NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver Spring, Md. Online at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/EPAPrpt.pdf, accessed 2 May 2007.
--. 2001. NMFS Operational Guidelines--Fishery Management Process
Appendix 2(g), Guidelines for Assessment of the Social Impact of Fishery
Management Actions. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv.,
Silver Spring, Md. Online at http://www.nmfs.
noaa.gov/sfa/reg_svcs/social_impact_assess. htm, accessed 23 July 2006.
NOS. 2003. Announcement of intent to initiate the process to
consider marine reserves in the Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary; Intent to prepare a draft environmental impact statement.
Fed. Regist. 68(99): 27989-27990. Online at http://frwebgate.access.
gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2003_
register&docid=fr22my03-60.pdf, accessed 4 May 2007.
Norris, F. 2002. Alaska subsistence: a National Park Service
management history. Dep. Inter., Natl. Park Serv., Alaska Support
Office, Anchorage, 306 p.
Osborn, B. 2005. Ocean parks: part 11. United Anglers of Southern
California Fall Newsl. Online at http://www.unitedanglers.com, accessed
13 July 2006.
Osgood, C. E., G. J. Suci, and P. H. Tannenbaum. 1957. The
measurement of meaning. Univ. Ill. Press, Urbana, 342 p.
OSU. 1978. Socio-economics of the Idaho, Washington, Oregon and
California coho and chinook salmon industry. Oreg. State Univ., Dep.
Agric. Resour. Econ., Oreg. Sea Grant, Corvallis. 390 p.
Poggie, J. J., and C. Gersuny. 1974. Fishermen of Galilee. Mar.
Bull. 17, Univ. Rh. 1., Kingston RI, l16 p.
Pollnac, R. B. 1988. Social and cultural characteristics of fishing
peoples. Mar. Behavior Physiol. 14(1):23-39.
--. 1998. Rapid assessment of management parameters for coral
reefs. Coast* Resour. Cent.. Univ. R.I.. Narragansett, 199 p. Online at
http://www.crc.uri.edu, accessed 2 May 2007.
--and B. R. Crawford. 2000. Assessing behavioral aspects of coastal
resource use. Coast. Resour. Cent., Univ. R.I., Narragansett, 139 p.
Online at http://www.crc.uri.edu, accessed 13 July 2006.
--and J. J. Poggie. 1980. Perceptions of the occupation of
small-scale fishermen. In J. G. Sutinen and R. B. Pollnac (Editor),
Small scale fisheries in Central America: acquiring information for
decision making, p. 243-265. Int. Cent. Mar. Resour. Manage., Univ. of
R.I., Kingston.
--and--. 1988. The structure of job satisfaction among New England
fishermen and its application to fisheries management policy. Am.
Anthropol. 90(4):888-901.
--and--.2006. Job satisfaction in the fishery in two southeast
Alaskan towns. Hum. Organ. 65(3):329-339.
--,--and S. L. Cabral. 1998. Thresholds of danger: perceived risk
in a New England fishery. Hum. Organ. 57(1):53-59.
--, R. S. Pomeroy, and I. H. T. Harkes. 2001. Fishery policy and
job satisfaction in three southeast Asian fisheries. Ocean Coast.
Manage. 44(7-8):531-544.
--and R. Ruiz-Stout. 1977. Artisanal fishermen's attitudes
toward the occupation of fishing in the Republic of Panama. In R. B.
Pollnac (Editor). Panamanian small scale fishermen, 88 p. Univ. R.I.
Mar. Tech. Rep. 44. Univ. R.I., Kingston, 88 p.
Pomeroy, R. S., R. B. Pollnac, B. M. Katon, and C. D. Predo. 1997.
Evaluating factors contributing to the success of community-based
coastal resource management: the central Visayas regional project-1,
Philippines. Ocean Coastal Manage. 36(1-3):97-120.
Ryan, R. M., and E. I. Deci. 2001. On happiness and human
potentials: a review of research on hedonic aud cudonaimonic well-being.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52:141-166.
Sepez, J. 2001. Political and social ecology of contemporary Makah
subsistence hunting, fishing and shellfish collecting practices. Ph.D.
Dissert. Univ. Wash., Seattle, 249 p.
Shannon, C. E., and W. Weaver 1949. The mathematical theory of
communication. Univ. Ill. Press, Urbana, 125 p.
Sharp, S., and D. Lach. 2003. Integrating social values into
fisheries management: a Pacific Northwest study. Fisheries 28(4): 10-15.
Sharpe, A. 1999. A survey of indicators of economic and social
well-being. Background paper prepared for Canadian Policy Research
Networks, Ottawa, 73 p. Online at http://epe. lac-bac,
gc.ca/100/200/300/cprn/english/sie_ e.pdf, accessed 12 July 2006.
Shields, M. A. 1974. Social impact assessment: an analytic
bibliography. Report to the U.S. Army Engineer. U.S. Army Engineer
Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, Paper 74-P6, 129
pages. Online at http://
stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&m
etadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA003245, accessed 30 April 2007.
Sievanen, L.. B. Crawford, R. B. Pollnac, and C. Lowe. 2005.
Weeding through assumptions of livelihood approaches in ICM: seaweed
farming in the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean Coast. Manage.
48(3-6):297-313.
Sirgy, M. J. 2002. The psychology of quality of life. Kluwer Acad.
Publ., Drodrecht, Netherl., 296 p.
Smith, C. L. 1980. Attitudes about the value of steelhead and
salmon angling. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 109(3):272-281.
--. 1981. Satisfaction bonus from salmon fishing: implications for
economic evaluation. Land Econ. 57(2): 181-194.
Smith, S., S. Jacob, M. Jepson, and G. Israel. 2003. After the
Florida net ban: the impacts on commercial fishing families. Soc. Nat.
Resour. 16(1):39-59.
Stewart, H. 2005. The fish tale that is never told: a
reconsideration of the importance of fishing in Inuit societies. In N.
Kishigami and J. M. Savelle (Editors). Indigenous use and management of
marine resources, p. 345-361. Seari Ethnol. Stud. 67, Natl. Mus.
Ethnol., Osaka, Jpn.
Suh, E. M.. and E. Deiner. 2003. Culture and subjective well-being.
MIT Press, Camb., Mass., 365 p.
Taylor, C. N., C. H. Bryan, and C. G. Goodrich. 2004. Social
assessment: theory, process and techniques. Taylor Baines and Assoc.,
Christchurch, New Zealand, 194 p.
Ugoretz, J. 2002. Marine protected areas in the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration's Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary. Final 2002 environmental document, Vol. 1, California
Department of Fish and Game http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/ci_
ceqa/pdfs/summary.pdf, 5 p. and http://www.
dfg.ca.gov/mrd/ci_ceqa/pdfs/chapter2.pdf, 18 p. For all chapters,
appendices, and updates, see, http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/ci%5Fceqa/ #vol1
(accessed 1 May 2007).
USHEW. 1973. Work in America: report of a special task force to the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. MIT Press, Camb., Mass.,
262 p.
USDOT. 1982. Social impact assessment: A sourcebook for highway
planners. U.S. Dep. Transportation, Fed. Highway Admin., Off. Res.
Develop., Environ. Div., Wash., D.C., 525 p. Natl. Tech. Inform. Serv.,
Springfield, Virg., PB83209452.
Vanclay, F. 2003. International principles for social impact
assessment. Impact Assess. Proj. Appraisal 2 l(1):5-11.
--. 2006. Principles for social impact assessment: a critical
comparison between the international and U.S. documents. Environ. Impact
Assess. Rev. 26(1):3-14.
Zumbo, B. D. 2002. Advances in quality of life research 2001.
Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, Netherl.
Glossary
Activity satisfaction: The degree to which one's needs or
wants are fulfilled in the conduct of a specific activity.
Charter boat: Any vessel-for-hire engaged in recreational fishing
and hired for a charter lee by an individual or group of individuals
(for the exclusive use of that individual or group of individuals),
which results in that vessel being unavailable for hire to any other
individual or group of individuals during the period of the charter
(Blackhart et al., 2005).
Job satisfaction: See activity satisfaction--carrying out a job is
a type of activity.
Party boat (also called a head boat): Any vessel-for-hire engaged
in recreational fishing and hired (or leased, in whole or part) for a
per-capita fee on a first-come, first-served basis (Blackhart et al.,
2005).
Perceived control: The degree that one feels that they have
influence over events impacting some area of concern.
Resilience: The ability of a system to absorb perturbations by
adapting to environmental changes (Berkes and Folke, 1998). With regard
to humans, it can be defined as the degree to which an individual,
family, or community can cope with change without becoming
dysfunctional.
Self-esteem: The degree to which one has pride in or respect for
oneself.
Social support system: The method by which a social institution
such as the family, community, or some larger social group, provides
assistance or encouragement to an individual or other social
institution.
Well-being: The degree to which an individual, family, or larger
social grouping (e.g. community) can be characterized as being healthy
(sound and functional), happy, and prosperous.
(1) See http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm, accessed
25 May 2006.
(2) See http://www.nmffs.noaa.gov/sfa/sustainable_
fishereries_act.pdf, accessed 25 May 2006.
(3) An online version for NMFS of the I994 ICGPSIA Guidelines and
Principles for Social Impact Assessment can be found at http://www.nmfs.
noaa.gov/sfa/social_impact_guide.htm, accessed 2 May 2007.
(4) See Bowen, Palmer. 1980. Social impact assessment forest
planning and decision making: Technical review draft. USDA, For. Serv.,
Northern Region, Missoula, Mont., for an additional reference.
(5) See the United States General Services Administration's
1997 Call-in Fact Sheet at http://www.
gsa.ene.com/factsheet/0397/03_97_9.htm, accessed 12 August 2005. An
alternative reference http://www.epa.gov/super fun
d/action/guidance/SlLitRevFinal.pdf, accessed 24 July 20116, contains a
table comparing actual numbers of SIA's done by agency 1979-1994.
(6) See http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st 1/econ/cia/sia/nat
stand-final.pdf, accessed 5 May 2007.
(7) See http://ccosystcms.noaa.gov/whats_ncw.htm, accessed 25 May
2006. Current presentations on developing NMFS's ecosystem based
management programs arc given here.
(8) The parenthetical phrase "including humans" does not
appear in the NOAA Fisheries Glossary (Blackhart, et al., 2005)
definition of ecosystem (p. 11), however it has been included in the
definition at least since 2003 appearing in internal memos from the NMFS
Chief Scientist to others outside NMFS, and is part of the definition
used in diverse presentations to diverse audiences. This emphasizes that
humans are among the organisms whose behavior must be considered when
studying marine ecosystems. For example see Stephen Murawski's 19
May 2006 presentation "Ecosystems approaches to management: The
EGT's work in progress", online at http://
ecosystems.noaa.gov/whats_new.htm, accessed 25 May 2006.
(9) Communities can be spatial, occupational, interest-based,
cultural, or ethnic. With reference to the MSA, communities designated
under National Standard 8 must be place-based, but communities based on
other criteria may be appropriate for the general social impact
assessment required for all communities involved in fishing.
(10) It is important to note here that one of the bases for
people's behavior is perception, even though those perceptions
sometimes deviate from other empirical measures.
(11) Following the convention of most people who fish, we employ
the term "fishermen" to denote both males and females.
(12) USHEW (1973) gives an important early discussion on heart
disease and psychosomatic illness relationships to work. Subsequent
research continues to confirm a relationship between aspects of
occupation or work conditions and cardiovascular disease as well as
other diseases. Faragher et al. (2005) provides a recent meta-analysis
of the literature on the relationship between job satisfaction and
health including cardiovascular disease, and Heslop et al. (2002) is a
longitudinal study of the relationships between job satisfaction,
cardiovascular risk factors, and mortality. An extensive literature
exists in this area.
(13) Other components found among fishermen, such as "basic
needs" like safety, cleanliness, and earnings, are also commonly
found associated with other occupations (per references cited in
footnote 12).
(14) Derby fishing is a fishery of brief duration during which
fishermen race to take as much catch as they can before the fishery
closes. This typically leads to congested fishing grounds and unsafe
fishing conditions, as well as lower quality fish and lower prices per
pound.
(15) Annual round is another commonly used term for seasonal
changes in fishing activity.
(16) In the context of subsistence fishing, "consumption"
has two meanings. For some subsistence fishermen, fish provide food
(i.e. nourishment in the form of protein and fats) for the body. For
others, fish provide food (i.e. spiritual and ritual nourishment) for
the soul. Both kinds of subsistence fishing are proper objects of SIA.
(17) The Makah's seal hunting has usually encompassed several
species at any given time. See J. Sepez, In press, Historical Ecology of
Makah Subsistence Foraging Patterns, J. Ethnobio., and M. Etnier and J.
Sepez, In press, Changing patterns of sea mammal exploitation among the
Makah. In D. Papagianni, R. Layton, H. Maschher (Editors), Time and
change: archaeological and anthropological pcrspcctivcs on the long term
in hunter-gatherer societies, Oxbow Books, Oxford, U.K., for a full
discussion of historical and current Makah seal hunting.
(18) For specific references concerning aspects of Makah seal
hunting discussed here consult Sepez (2001). We would like to thank the
author for her willingness to discuss this section as it was being
written and lot reviewing the final product.
(19) The assessment of Makah relative well-being is made based on
Sepez's (2001) research, and includes personal communication with
her specific to this issue.
(20) Driver (1983) provides a valuable master list of items and
domains of experience for exploring recreation fishermen's
preferences.
(21) Public Law 96-199 created the Channel Islands National Park.
The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary was designated under the
authority of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of
1972. Pub.L. 92-532. See Fed. Regis., 45(193): 1980, Rules and
Regulations, p. 65200.
(22) Discussion here is limited to Phase I (1999-2003) which
concerned Channel Island National Marine Sanctuary waters under state
jurisdiction. Phase II which concerns CINMS waters under Federal
jurisdiction still continues.
(23) In a recent article, Vanclay (2006) compares the principles of
U.S. and international approaches to SIA, and concludes that the U.S.
approach as described in ICPGSIA (2003), is
"positivist/technocratic" in contrast to the "democratic,
participatory, and constructivist" approach of the international
SIA community (Vanclay. 2003). While the approach adopted by some in the
international community has its attractions, social impact assessment
work conducted for management actions by U.S. Federal agencies including
fisheries must continue to use the best available science until such
time as the relevant laws are changed to require something else.
(24) For examples, see the new Alaskan community profiles at
http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Quarterly/ amj2004/amj04feat.pdf, accessed 11
July 2006, and the Gull of Mexico Community profiles at
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/economics/economics.htm, accessed 11 July
2006. Similar profiles are nearing completions for other NMFS regions.
Colburn et al. (2006) provides a more complete description of the
developing program.
(25) Currently, U.S. Fishery Management Council administrative
processes often include last minute changes in proposed regulations,
thus restricting the ability of analysts to carry out ideal SINs such as
those implied by this conceptual model. Without changes to the
regulatory process itself. it will remain difficult to meet the ideal.
(26) Other disciplines have constructed indices that are now
commonly used. Economists constructed gross domestic product and
unemployment as economic health measures. The index of consumer
satisfaction is an economic bellwether, based on response to survey
questions. Ecologists developed the Shannon-Weaver (1949) index of
diversity (Krebs, 1989). Even temperature is a constructed index in
which some societies use a Fahrenheit and in others a Celsius scale.
Richard B. Pollnac is with the Marine Affairs Department, Washburn
Hall, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881-0817 (email:
rpo4903u@postoffice.uri.edu). Susan Abbott-Jamieson is with the National
Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Office of Science and Technology, 1315
East West Hwy SSMC 3, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Courtland Smith is with
the Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University, 238 Waldo Hall,
Corvallis, OR 97331-6403. Marc L. Miller is with the School of Marine
Affairs, University of Washington, 3707 Brooklyn Ave. NE, Seattle, WA
98105-6715. Patricia M. Clay is with the National Marine Fisheries
Service, NOAA, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA,
mailing address: NOAA/NMFS/ST5, 1315 East West Hwy, SSMC 3, Silver
Spring, MD 20910. Bryan ties is with IM Systems Group, 7313 Trescott
Ave., Takoma Park, MD 20912. Opinions and conclusions expressed or
implied are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
the views or policy of the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA.
