Personal tools
Document Actions

S Aswani Model (part 1)

24 May. 2006 Draft


Richard B. Pollnac, Courtland Smith, Marc L. Miller,

Susan Abbott-Jamieson, Patricia M. Clay, Bryan Oles,


SIA Modeling Workshop Participants

Introduction Social impact assessment (SIA) began as a field in the 1960s as people became more concerned with human impacts on the environment (Finsterbusch and Freudenberg, 2002:408). The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1968 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 SIAs. But policy makers correctly reasoned in the 1970s that evaluating change to the environment would also require social assessment. Few government agencies had yet invested in the social science expertise to do SIAs. 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; Burdge, 1995, 2004; 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 MSA) led to efforts to gather social data and do impact analysis specifically for fisheries (OSU, 1978; Acheson et al., 1980). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA-NMFS, 1994, 2001, 2004), in association with social scientists, has been developing SIA approaches since the 1980s. SIA methods were also being developed in other areas of resource management (Kogut, 1976; Bowen, 1980; USDOT, 1982; Bryan, 1984).

The 1990s brought recognition that progress on environmental problems was

neither rapid nor successful in large part because social and cultural dimensions of resource management were not being given sufficient emphasis. The US Forest Service gathered social scientists from many agencies to develop common SIA approaches (ICGPSIA, 1994). By 1997, SIA became required in many federal programs (USGSA, 1997). 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. NOAA (1998b) subsequently published National Standard 8 Guidelines and has directed efforts toward community profiling to serve as an informed basis from which to begin SIA. While economists had been on National Marine Fisheries Service (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 the first regional social scientist (other than economists) in 1993. By 2005, each NMFS region except the Southwest had at least one such social scientist

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 scientific 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 and that can be linked with biophysical and economic data, variables need to be identified 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 (NOAA, 1999, 2006), 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” (Murawski, 2006). Although we do not elaborate the links to the biophysical marine environment in this discussion, an example of new research that is doing this is Johnson's and his colleagues' (Johnson et al., 2006). They have recently begun examining the activity attribute “fishing unit and gears” (see figure 2, pg. 4) which they link to specific species (e.g., “pots-eels”, “gill nets-croakers”) and conceptualize as keystone behaviors in the human behavioral system which they then examine as part of Core Sound, North Carolina's food web structure through network analysis methods.

Ecosystems are dynamic—their components are interrelated and changing. 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; 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.

SIA Procedure The first step in an SIA is a scoping process to determine the sociocultural variables relevant to the management question (NOAA, 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, and therefore the SIA must attend to these as distinct units of analysis.

Special attention should be given to social groups who may gain or lose from the management choices made. These populations may not always be readily visible at public hearings or on the op-ed pages. Scoping, therefore, requires an assessment of each part of the sociocultural system that is likely to be affected, with specific attention to the marginalized populations. 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, but 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.

Following the scoping process, the next step is to operationalize the relevant variables by defining the variables in a way that facilitates measurement. It is important to note here that people behave on the basis of perceptions, despite the fact that these perceptions sometimes deviate from other empirical measures. A variety of instruments are available for these assessments (see Appendix). It should be noted that limited financial resources, time constraints, and staff skill level might further delimit the variables and measures chosen. More important than simply identifying variables, however, is to discern the relationships between them.

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, which has an influence on aspects of individuals and the communities in which they live, as illustrated by the individual and social attributes in figure 1. The arrows reflect interrelationships between these classes of variables that will be explained below.

SIA in Three Types of Fisheries In the most general of formulations, a fishery is a system in which humans are linked to “fish.” Although there are many ways to classify fisheries, fishery management in the US identifies three categories: commercial, subsistence, and recreational fisheries, and their subtypes. In this section, 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.

1. Commercial Fisheries We will first examine potential impacts of management on commercial fishermen and shore side entities that constitute the commercial sector, e.g., processors and dealers, ice houses, and so forth, 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 (figure 1, above) presents some rather obvious relationships, and figure 2 identifies a few of the specific variables included in each of the general categories in figure 1 for illustrative purposes. A complete listing of variables can be found in the appendices to this paper. It is argued that external forces, such as population pressure, declining fish stocks, environmental activists, and climate change influence the management of fisheries. In turn, management, which can impact fishing targets, times, techniques, numbers of fishermen and other variables (see appendices for a complete list of activity attributes) has an influence on various attributes of the occupation of fishing. 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 ban. 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. Nevertheless, individual fishermen accustomed to a fishery with one set of attributes must now 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 (see figure 3 for a more complete list of impacts).

While job satisfaction is an important aspect of all occupations, it is especially significant with regard to the 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 that is not usually 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 et al., 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. It is argued here that these components of job satisfaction are related to a personality configuration that serves to adapt fishermen to the dangers and risks of their occupation (see Pollnac et al., 1998 and the references therein). Overall, an extensive literature supports the contention that fishermen manifest the personality characteristics of being adventurous, active, aggressive, and courageous (Poggie and Gersuny, 1974; Pollnac, 1988; Binkley, 1995). Individuals not manifesting these personality characteristics 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 figure 2) and would either be less efficient as fishermen or drop out of the occupation entirely (Binkley, 1995; Pollnac et al., 1998)-- thus increasing the percentage of fishermen manifesting these characteristics.

These adventurous, active, aggressive, and courageous fishermen can be viewed as risk-takers or high self-testers. It is important to note that not all fishermen will manifest these traits to the same degree, but they are relatively consistent traits as reported in the literature (Pollnac and Poggie, 1988; Gatewood and McCay, 1990; and Binkley, 1995; Pollnac et al., 2006). Fishermen's job satisfaction, need for adventure being one component, has been related to other characteristics including age, marital status, years of formal education, years of fishing experience, aspects of occupational status, fishing port, and type of fishing.

What is important for our understanding of social impacts is that this personality configuration is more than a preference; it is at the core of the self-identity of many fishermen (Pollnac et al., 2006). Individuals do not simply elect to be risk takers: the adventuresome, risk-taking type is a product of both environment and inheritance. This personality configuration has been related to a latent factor identified as an externalizing disposition (Hicks et al., 2004; Baker, 2004; LeGrand et al., 2005). It is also related to problematic behavior such as substance abuse, antisocial, oppositional and hyperactive behavior, but as LeGrand et al. (2005) note, it can also be expressed in ways that are useful to society, e.g., rescue workers, fire fighters, and police officers. Pollnac et al. (2006) add fishermen to this list. Their need for adventure and risk is satisfied by their current involvement in the fishery with its accompanying risks to both production and personal safety.

Further, management changes can have a differential impact on job satisfaction among different classes of individuals (e.g., age category, marital status, vessel ownership status; see Pollnac and Poggie, 1988; Binkley, 1995), resulting in the problems indicated in figure 3. It is also possible that those with an externalizing disposition who are denied their traditional occupational means of expression will manifest the more problematic expressions of this disposition unless appropriate alternatives are provided.

These social problems 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.

An example may help illustrate the relationships between some of the variables included in Figure 2. To use an example familiar to most readers, external forces (e.g., overfished stocks and environmental activists) have influenced managers in some areas (e.g., Alaska) to implement individual fishery quotas or IFQs (management), eliminating short seasons of “derby fishing” and spreading out fishing over a longer period (activity attributes). In some fisheries in Alaska, the IFQ led to a decrease in crew size (activity attributes) since there was no need for a large crew to maximize catches, as there had been during the short open season of pre-ITQ management. The catch being spread out over a longer time period also influenced the annual rounds (activity attributes). Further, with a smaller crew the owner could rely on a few family members, reducing the need to hire non-family into the crew (activity attributes), 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 men 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 illustrated in Figure 4 (Pollnac, 2002, 2003).

Figure 4 illustrates the impacts of these changes in the occupation on other important variables. The changed occupation structure of the impacted communities has resulted in greater social stratification with rich IFQ holders gaining more power in the community and increasing their influence on management, at the expense of unemployed crew members (social-community attributes, social problems). 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, while those with IFQs have increased job satisfaction (individual attributes). Hence, well-being has improved for some and decreased for others (Pollnac, 2002, 2003; Loy, 2006). Discussion concerning measurement and analyses of these variables is found in Appendices 1 and 2.

2. 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. 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 the former and six in the latter community. Networks averaged five 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 nine percent of the subsistence salmon harvest for 2003 was used to feed sled dogs, which was down from a high of between 29 and 34 percent in 1995-1997 (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 (Stewart, 2005; Kishigami, 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 (Norriss, 2002). Other than the preceding aspects of subsistence fishing, which are vastly more important in this sector than in commercial fishing (figure 2), many of the same issues identified for assessing the commercial fishery apply. The following example will illustrate the applicability of our general model to the subsistence fishery.

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. The Makah, like many of the original inhabitants of the Northwest Coast of North America, have a long tradition of sealing stretching for thousands of years into the prehistoric past (Sepez, 2001). Seal products formed a significant and desired part of the diet, and the hunting and distribution of these products were an important element in a communal distribution system, confirming social relationships and bestowing prestige on the hunters. This tradition and its associated knowledge led the hunters to be hired as crew on sealing schooners in the late 1860s, eventually purchasing their own boats and gear in the 1890s. During the 1890s the USA 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. The Makah contending that the treaty gave them the right to seal, continued violations leading to further seizures resulting 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 6 below, models the relationships discussed in the following example.

In the first part of the 20th Century harbor seals were considered a pest, in part due to their voracious consumption of other marine life (external forces). From the 1920s up until 1960 in Washington and 1970 in Oregon, bounty programs were implemented (management), and Makah hunters could collect a bounty for each seal as well as keep seal products for consumption. Perceptions of marine mammals as endangered, 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, which resulted in prohibiting the Makah from harvesting seal 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 seal for subsistence continued to hunt (social problems) resulting in citations and confiscation of the seal (management). Due to this enforcement, sealing activities were reduced (activity attributes), denying hunters an activity they enjoyed (activity satisfaction) and one that provided them with prestige in the community (social-community attributes). Seal products became scarce in the community distribution system, reducing an important contributor to social solidarity and social security (social-community attribute). The reduction in sealing also reduced availability of seal products in the community, negatively impacting 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 contribute to a scofflaw attitude regarding official US 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. The interrelationships between these variables are illustrated in figure 6.

3. 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 and operate them themselves, 4) anglers who fish on charterboats (see glossary) with captains and crew, 5) anglers who fish on partyboats (see glossary) with captains and crew, and 6) anglers who fish in tournaments and derbies.

As we have pointed out in earlier sections of this paper, 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 are also very likely to be widely distributed. In many instances of fishery management, recreational fishermen are 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. The sociocultural value of recreational fishing can be measured on multiple levels, e.g., 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 talking about fishing (“fish talk”). There are also benefits to the individual such as fulfilling psychological needs, e.g., independence, risk taking, relaxation, and identity affirmation.

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 which resulted in the designation of a network of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the Channel Islands. The simplified fishery SIA model (figure 2, page 4) is again our starting point, and the specific variables in the following example are illustrated in figure 8. The Channel Islands of interest—which include the islands of San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, Anacapa, and Santa Barbara—lie offshore the California coastal 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, and have been labeled “the American Galapagos.” In 1980, federal actions created the Channel Islands National Park and also the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS). The park boundary extends to one nautical mile offshore of the islands; the sanctuary boundary extends to six nautical miles offshore (management).

Beginning in the late 1990s, 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 MPAs (management) in state waters (Ortega, 2002; NMPAC, 2003, and Bernstein et al., 2004). In 1998, the California Fish and Game Commission (FGC), which sets fishery policy, 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 percent of a one-mile 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 (DFG), which implements FGC policies, developed a joint federal/state partnership to examine MPA issues in the sanctuary. In 1999, California passed into law the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). This landmark legislation established a legal mandate for the creation of a system of MPAs (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, the science and socioeconomic panels recommended the creation of at least one reserve (but not more than four) comprising between 30 and 50 percent of the representative habitat in each area. In reference to this recommendation, the socioeconomic panel (Davis, 2001 cited in NMAC, 2003: 31) estimated that a closure of 50 percent of the sanctuary would result in a maximum potential loss of about 50 percent 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 DFG developed a single, preferred alternative and presented this to the California Fish and Game Commission. FGC approved this recommendation in 2002, and in 2003 ten state no-take marine reserves, one state park only allowing recreational fishing, and one state marine conservation area limited to recreational and/or commercial fishing were created. These MPAs encompassed 19 percent of the state waters within the sanctuary (management).

The combined external forces and management actions discussed above have led to changes in areas where recreational fisherman may fish (activity attributes). One observer of the scene 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).

When all of the interactions of forces discussed above are taken into account, 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. Finally the potential loss of confidence in the fishery management regime among some recreational fishermen may precipitate social problems such as non-compliance. 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 US. 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). 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 in nature.

To conclude, we offer several recommendations regarding fishery applications of SIA. First, we believe our model is useful as a foundation for SIA. Nonetheless, we stress that fishery SIA should not depend on any rigid obedience to our model, but must continue to evolve methodologically in response to changing fishery realities. Looking ahead, we call attention to four challenges for SIA analysts armed with our model:

  1. Parallel and coordinated SIAs of the three fisheries (and also lives of non-fishermen) for allocation decisions.

  2. Studies of diversification into other fisheries and elsewhere (tourism, other industries) because many fisheries are in ecological and economic decline.

  3. Responses to new fishery-related legislation (MPA regime, …).

  4. Responses to special social problems associated with catastrophic ecological and social change caused by hurricanes, tsunamis, and other disasters.

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. 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.

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 policy making and management.

Future applications Marine resources in the United States have been managed mainly to promote commercial enterprise. While commercial fishing will remain an important aspect of fishery management, we envision a broader set of problems to which SIA in marine resource management is valuable. Clearly, SIA can and must be applied to fisheries management and the assessment of fishery management plan alternatives and amendments. In addition, SIA should be an important consideration for a host of marine resource management and conservation issues. 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 be applied to these issues.


Activity satisfaction: The degree to which one's needs or wants are fulfilled in the conduct of a specific activity.

-->Charterboat[Author ID3: at Tue May 23 15:50:00 2006 ]: -->A boat available for hire, normally by a group of people for a short period of time. A charter boat is usually hired by anglers[Author ID2: at Tue May 23 15:50:00 2006 ]. -->[Author ID3: at Tue May 23 15:50:00 2006 ]

Job satisfaction: See activity satisfaction--carrying out a job is a type of activity.

Partyboat (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.

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. Appendix. Evaluation of SIA Variables

For marine resource SIAs, 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

TableA1 below 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 SIAs 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 done. This appendix, the NOAA (1998, 2001) MSA National Standards and SIA operational guidelines, and historical examples (e.g., Pomeroy et al., 1997; Pollnac, 1998; Pollnac and Crawford, 2000; Berkes et al., 2001) all provide a basis for developing useful indices. 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 above illustrate the systems approach and templates as applied to representative marine resource management problems.

Meta-methodological considerations

Levels of measurement The goal will be to obtain data at the most precise level of measurement appropriate to the variable under consideration, in order 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, 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, 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, high can be converted to the ordinal values 0, 1, 2, 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 one, two, three, 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 It should be noted in the description of the variables 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 seven-(or other) point scale (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, this results in a seven-point scale, with 1 indicating very dissatisfied and 7 very satisfied. 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 (see 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 a community crime rate, the first step would indicate a community with a great deal of crime, a community where it is not safe to walk the streets at any time of the day. The highest step would be described as a crime free community in which adults and children could safely walk the streets at any time of the day, where houses and vehicles are left unlocked. The subject would then be asked where on this 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 pre-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 him/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 stratified random samples. Even in the opportunistic sampling situation, every attempt should be made to include members of all previously identified relevant populations.



(Sent In Separate File)



Acheson, James M., et al. 1980. Study of Social and Cultural Aspects of Fisheries Management in New England Under Extended Jurisdiction (3 volumes and appendices). Washington, DC and Orono, ME: National Science Foundation and University of Maine (NSF grant no. AER77-06018)

Anderson, Lee G. 1980. Necessary components of economic surplus in fisheries economics. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:858-870.

Apostle, R.L., L. Kasdan and A. Hanson. 1985 Work satisfaction and community attachment among fishermen in southwest Nova Scotia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42:256-267.

Baker, C. 2004 Behavioral Genetics. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Barrow CJ. 1997. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment: An Introduction.

Berkes, F., R. Mahon, P. McConney, R.B. Pollnac and R. Pomeroy 2001 Managing

Small-Scale Fisheries: Alternative Directions and Methods. Ottawa: International

Development Research Centre.

Bernstein, Brock, Suzanne Iudicello, and Charles Stringer. 2004. Lessons Learned from Recent Marine Protected Area Designations in the United States. Report to the National Marine Protected Areas Center NOAA. Ojai, California: the National Fisheries Conservation Center.

Binkley, M. 1995 Risks, Dangers and Rewards in the Nova Scotia Offshore Fishery. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Bowen, Palmer. 1980. Social impact assessment for forest planning and decision making: technical review draft. Missoula, Mont.: USDA, Forest Service, Northern Region.

Bryan, Hobson 1984. A guide to social analysis - U.S. Forest Service training manual. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, Office of Environmental Coordination

Bunce, Leah, P. Townsley, R. Pomeroy and R. Pollnac. 2000. Socioeconomic manual for coral reef management. Townsville, Queensland: Australian Institute of Marine Science (for GCRMN, IUCN, NOAA, UNEP, and the Environment Agency of Japan).

Burch, W.R. and D.R. DeLuca 1984. Measuring the Social Impact of Natural Resource Policies. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.

Burdge, Rabel J. 2004. A community guide to social impact assessment. Third Edition. Middleton, WI: Social Ecology Press

Burdge, Rabel J. (ed.) 1995. A conceptual approach to social impact assessment. Middleton, WI: Social Ecology Press

Cantril, H. 1963 A study of aspirations. Scientific American 208:41-45.

Davis, J. 2001. “Science as a Central Tool in Planning Marine Reserves: Case Study of the Channel Islands, MPA News 2: 10 (May). Website:

Finsterbusch, Kurt and William R. Freudenburg. 2002. Social Impact Assessentment and Technology Assessment. Pp. 407-447. In Riley E. Dunlap and William E. Michelson (Eds.) Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Wesport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Finsterbusch, Kurt; Lynn G. Llewellyn and C.P. Wolf (Eds.) 1983. Social assessment methods. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications

Finsterbusch, Kurt and C. P. Wolf (eds). 1977 Methodology of social impact assessment. Stroudsburg, Pa. : Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.

Freeman, M.M.R. 2005. “Just one more time before I die”: Securing the relationship between Inuit and whales in the Arctic regions. In Kishigami, N. and J.M. Savelle (eds.) Indigenous Use and Management of Marine Resources. Senri Ethnological Studies 67:59-76. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.

Freudenburg, William R. 1986. Social Impact Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 12:451-478

Gatewood, J.B. and B.J. McCay 1990 Comparison of job satisfaction in six New Jersey fisheries. Human Organization 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, Kotzebue District. Juneau, AK: Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence & Kawerak, Inc.

Hicks, B.M., R.F. Krueger, W.G. Iacono, M. McGue and C.J. Patrick. 2004 Family transmission and heritability of externalizing disorders: A twin-family study. Archives of General Psychiatry 61:922-928.

Hobart, W.L., ed. 1995. Baird's Legacy: The History and Accomplishments of NOAA's

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1871-1996. NOAA Technical Memorandum


ICGPSIA (Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment). 1994. Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment. Seattle, WA: US Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-16)

Johnson, Jeffrey C., Joseph J. Luczkovich, Lisa M. Clough, David Griffith, Brian Chevront. 2006. Incorporating Humans in Ecosystem-Based Models of Fishery Management. North Carolina Sea Grant College Program, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Kishigami, N. 2005. Co-management of Beluga whales in Nunivak (Arctic Quebec), Canada. In Kishigami, N. and J.M. Savelle (eds.) Indigenous Use and Management of Marine Resources. Senri Ethnological Studies 67:121-144. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.

Kogut, Merry A. 1976. Social impact assessment : an annotated bibliography. Publisher Olympia, Wash. : Dept. of Ecology.

Krebs, C. J. 1989.  Ecological methodology.  New York: Harper & Row.

LeGrand, Lisa N., Iacono, William G.; McGue, Matt. 2005 Predicting addiction. American Scientist 93 (March-April. 140-147.

Loy, Wesley 2006 Crab in question: Crew members and others in new quota fishery want to know: what's rational about this? National Fisherman 86(12):34-37.

Magdanz, James S., Charles J. Utermohle, and Robert J. Wolfe 2002 The Production and Distribution of Wild Food in Wales and Deering, Alaska. Technical Paper 259 Division of Subsistence Alaska Department of Fish and Game Juneau, Alaska.

McCay, Bonnie, J. B Blinkoff, R Blinkoff, D Bart. 1993. Fishery Impact Management Project: Report, Part 2, Phase 1, to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Dover, DE: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council

Mederer, H. 1999 Surviving the demise of a way of life: Stress and resilience in Northeastern fishing families. In (McCubbin, H.I., E. Thompson, A.I. Thompson, and J.A. Futrell, eds.) The Dynamics of Resilient Families: Resiliency in Families Vol. 4:203-235.

Murawski, Stephen. May 19, 2006. Ecosystems Approaches to Management: The EGT's Work in Progress. NOAA Ecosystem Goal Team (May 25, 2006).

National Marine Protected Areas Center (NMPAC) (in cooperation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Services Center). 2003. Marine Protected Area (MPA) Process Review: Case Studies of Five MPA Establishment Processes. Charleston, South Carolina: NOAA Coastal Services Center, National Marine Protected Areas Center, and Training and Technical Assistance Institute.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. Ecosystem-based fishery management. A report to Congress by the Ecosystems Principles Advisory Panel. U.C. Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, MD.

NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service. 1994. Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment. (August 12, 2004).

-------------. 1998. Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; National Standard Guidelines. Federal Register 63(84):24211-24237. (August 22, 2005).

-------------. 2001. “NMFS Operational Guidelines - Fishery Management Process Appendix 2(g), Guidelines for Assessment of the Social Impact of Fishery Management Actions."

-------------. 2006. Preliminary Report. External Ecosystem Task Team Report to NOAA Science Advisory Board: Evolving an Ecosystem Approach to Science and Management Throughout NOAA and its Partners (May 25, 2006).

Norriss, F. 2002. Alaska Subsistence: A National Park Service Management History. Anchorage: National Park Service.

Osborn, Bob. 2005. “Ocean Parks: Part II,” United Anglers of Southern California [Fall Newsletter].

Ortega, Tony. 2002. “Fish Story: Is Overfishing Ruining the Waters Around the Channel Islands, Known as North America's Galapagos? Scientists Say Yes, but Local Fishermen Don't Seem to Care. Los Angeles Times. 28 March.

OSU, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 1978. Socio-economics of the Idaho, Washington, Oregon and California Coho and Chinook Salmon Industry. Corvallis, OR: Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Oregon State University and Oregon Sea Grant.

Poggie, J.J. and C. Gersuny 1974 Fishermen of Galilee. Marine Bulletin 17. Kingston RI: University of Rhode Island.

Pollnac, R.B. 1988 Social and cultural characteristics of fishing peoples. Marine Behavior and Physiology 14:23-39.

Pollnac, R.B. 1998 Rapid Assessment of Management Parameters for Coral Reefs. Narragansett, RI: Coastal Resources Center, URI. (can be accessed at

Pollnac, R.B. 2002 Unpublished field notes based on interviews in Petersburg and Craig, SE Alaska, May-June 2002.

Pollnac, R.B. 2003 Unpublished field notes based on interviews in Petersburg and Craig, SE Alaska, May-June 2003.

Pollnac, R.B. and B.R. Crawford 2000 Assessing Behavioral Aspects of Coastal Resource Use. Narragansett, RI: Coastal Resources Center, URI. (can be accessed at

Pollnac, R.B., J.J. Poggie, and S. Macinko 2006. Job satisfaction in the fishery in two southeast Alaskan towns. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Pollnac, R.B. and J.J. Poggie 1988 The structure of job satisfaction among New England fishermen and its application to fisheries management policy. American Anthropologist 90:888-901.

Pollnac, R.B., J.J. Poggie and S.L. Cabral 1998 Thresholds of danger: Perceived risk in a New England fishery. Human Organization 57(1. 53-59.

Pollnac, R.B., R.S. Pomeroy and I.H.T. Harkes 2001 Fishery policy and job satisfaction in three southeast Asian fisheries. Ocean and Coastal Management 44:531-544.

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 and Coastal Management 36(1-3):97-120.

Sepez, J. 2001 Political and Social ecology of Contemporary Makah Subsistence Hunting, Fishing and Shellfish Collecting Practices. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Shannon, C. E., and Weaver, W. 1949.  The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana IL: University of Illinois Press.

Shields, Mark A. 1974. Social impact assessment: an analytic bibliography. Providence, RI: Brown University; Springfield VA: National Technical Information Service, U.S. Dept. of Commerce.

Smith, Courtland L. 1981. "Satisfaction Bonus from Salmon Fishing: Implications for Economic Evaluation," Land Economics 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,” Society and Natural Resources 16:39-59.

Stewart, H. 2005. “The fish tale that is never told: A reconsideration of the importance of fishing in Inuit societies,” in Kishigami, N. and J.M. Savelle (eds.) Indigenous Use and Management of Marine Resources. Senri Ethnological Studies 67:345-361. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.

Taylor, C. N., C. H. Bryan, Goodrich, Colin G.. 2004. Social Assessment: Theory, Process and Techniques. Christchurch, New Zealand: Taylor Baines & Associates.

USDOT (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Offices of Research & Development, Environmental Division). 1982. Social impact assessment: a sourcebook for highway planners / prepared for. Publisher Washington, DC: The Division; Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service.

USGSA (United States General Services Administration). 1997. Call-in Fact Sheet. (August 12, 2005). (no longer accessible-SAJ) see below alternative reference, has table comparing actual numbers of SIAs done by agency 1979-1994.

Supplemental Bibliography

American Fisheries Society 1993. Handbook of sources and applications of fisheries social science information. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 1997. Prioritized Research Needs in Support of Interjurisdictional Fisheries Management. Washington, DC: Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Special Report no. 62)

Becker, Henk. 1997. Social impact assessment: method and experience in Europe, North America and the Developing World. UCL Press, London.

Binkley, M. 2002 Set Adrift: Fishing Families. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Brainerd, Theophilus et al. 1996. "A Report to ASMFC Committee on Economics and Social Sciences: Commercial Sector Reference Document on Identification and Prioritization of Economic and Sociocultural Data Elements." Mimeo, November 26, 1996. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, DC.

Centaur Associates, Inc. 1979. Phase 1 report on social and economic information for management of marine recreational fishing - identification of data needs and priorities for data collection. Washington, DC: National Marine Fisheries Service, Resource Statistics Division

Christie, P., B.J. McCay, et al. 2003. Toward Developing a Complete Understanding: A Social Science Research Agenda for Marine Protected Areas. Fisheries. Volume 28, Number 12. Pages 22 to 26.

Clay, Patricia M. 1993. "Fisheries Social Science Gathering: Informal Roundtables on Current Research." Mimeo. NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA

Council on Environmental Quality 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President

Council on Environmental Quality 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President

Development Sciences, Inc. 1980. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Conservation Zone: Fisheries Socio-Economic Inventory (5 volumes). Dover, DE: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council

Finsterbusch, Kurt 1980. Understanding social impacts - assessing the effects of public projects. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications

Finsterbusch, Kurt and C.P. Wolf 1981. Methodology of social impact assessment. Stroudsburg, PA: Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company

Flynn, Cynthia 1983. "Interface and complementarity between economic analysis and social impact analysis." In Maurice E. Voland and William A. Fleischman (Eds.) Sociology and Social Impact Analysis in Federal Resource Management Agencies. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, Office of Environmental Coordination

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 1993. Forest ecosystem management: An ecological, economic and social assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office

Fricke, Peter H. and John R. Maiolo 1978. Public perceptions of the ARGO MERCHANT oil spill. Washington, DC: NOAA National Ocean Service

Fricke, Peter H. 1990. Community profiles related to the halibut fishery off Alaska: Report to the North Pacific Fishery management Council. Anchorage, AK: North pacific Fishery Management Council

Gatewood, John B. and Bonnie J. McCay 1988. Job Satisfaction and the Culture of Fishing: A Comparison of Six New Jersey Fisheries. Maritime Anthropological Studies 1(2. 103-128

Hall-Arber, M., C. Dyer, J. Poggie, J. McNally and R. Gagne. 2001. New England's Fishing Communities. MITSG 01-15. Cambridge, MA: MIT Sea Grant College Program.

Hall-Arber, Madeleine 1993. Social impact assessment of amendment #5 to the Northeast multispecies fishery management plan. Cambridge, MA: MIT Sea Grant College Program (Report no. MITSG-93-25)

Impact Assessment, Inc. 1990. Community Profiles Developed for the Social Impact Assessment of the Inshore/Offshore Amendment Proposal. Anchorage, AK: North Pacific Fishery Management Council

Impact Assessment, Inc. 1991. Social Adaptations to Changes in the Fishing Industry in the Santa Barbara Channel Area. Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service

Impact Assessment, Inc. 1994. Community Profiles Developed for the Proposed License Limitation Program in the Alaskan Groundfish Fisheries. Anchorage, AK: North Pacific Fishery Management Council

Impact Assessment, Inc. 1997. Rapid socioeconomic evaluation of the proposed marine conservation district, St. John, United States Virgin Islands. Hato Rey, Puerto Rico: Caribbean Fishery Management Council

Impact Assessment, Inc. 1998. Inshore/Offshore-3: Socioeconomic Description and Social Impact Assessment. Anchorage, AK: North Pacific Fishery Management Council

Johnson, Jeffrey C. et al. 1986. Recreational Fishing in the Sounds of North Carolina: A Socio-economic Analysis. Raleigh, NC: University of North Carolina Sea Grant College Program (Report no. UNC-SG-86-12)

Johnson, J.C. and M.K. Orbach 1990 A fishery in transition: The impact of urbanization on Florida's spiny lobster fishery. City and Society 4(1. 88-104.

Kearney/Centaur 1991. Social Impacts of the Factory Trawler Fleet. Seattle, WA: American Factory Trawler Association

McCay, Bonnie J. and Carolyn F. Creed. 1987. Crews and Labor in the Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog Fleet of the Mid-Atlantic Region: A Report to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station (Journal Series no. J-26418-1-87)

Miller, David C. 1981. "Methods for Estimating Societal Futures." In Finsterbusch and Wolf (Eds.) op.cit, pp. 153-162

Millsap, William (ed.) 1984. Applied social science for environmental planning. Boulder, CO: Westview Press

Multispecies Groundfish Fishery in New England and the Mid-Atlantic Regions. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service (Contract no. 50-DGNF-5-00008)

NOAA, Coastal Services Center. 2005. Social Assessment and Social Impact Assessment. (August 9, 2005).

North Pacific Fishery Management Council 1994. Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review for License Limitation Alternatives for the Groundfish and Crab Fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands. Anchorage, AK: North Pacific Fishery Management Council

Petterson, John S. 1992. "Theoretical and methodological standards: A strawman framework for social impact assessment." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting, Rural Sociological Society (August 16, 1992)

Smith, Courtland L. and Robert McKelvey. 1986. "Specialist and Generalist Roles for Coping with Variability" North American Journal of Fisheries Management 6(1):88-99.

Taylor, David A. 1992. Documenting Maritime Folklife: An Introductory Guide. Washington, DC: Library of Congress, American Folklife Center (Publication no. 17)

Thomas, J. Stephen; Lee Maril and E. Paul Durrenberger (Eds.) 1989. Marine Resource Utilization: A Conference on Social Issues. Mobile, AL: University of South Alabama Publication Services

Thomas, J. Stephen et al. 1995. Gulf Shrimp Fishermen on the Eve of Bycatch Regulations. St. Petersburg, FL: US Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service (MARFIN report no. NA37FF0049)

USDA Forest Service 1998. Guidelines for Conducting Social Assessments within a Human Dimensions Framework. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, Office of Environmental Coordination.

US Environmental Protection Agency 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA/630/R-95/002F).

Voland, Maurice E. and William A. Fleischman (Eds.) 1983. Sociology and social impact analysis in Federal natural resource management agencies. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, Office of Environmental Coordination.

Wenner, Lambert N. (ed.) 1984. Issues in social impact analysis -- interagency symposium proceedings. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, Office of Environmental Coordination.

Wenner, Lambert N. (ed.) 1984. Social science information and resource management - interagency symposium proceedings. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, Office of Environmental Coordination

The SIA Modeling Workshop participants in alphabetical order included Susan Abbott-Jamieson, James M. Acheson, Shankar Aswani, Paricia 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.

See for current presentations on NMFS's developing ecosystem based management program (May 25, 2006).

Communities can be spatial, occupational, interest-based, cultural, or ethnic. With reference to the MSA, communities under National Standard 8 must be place based, but communities based on other criteria may be appropriate for general social impact assessment.

Following the convention of most of the people who fish, we employ the term “fishermen” to denote both males and females

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.

For specific references concerning aspects of Makah sealing discussed here consult Sepez (2001).

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 continues to this day.

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 index of diversity (1949; Krebs, 1989). Even temperature is a constructed index in which some societies use a Fahrenheit and others a Celsius scale.


Figure 3. Impacts of job satisfaction.

by Elise Granek last modified 11-10-2006 13:36

Built with Plone