Michael Jepson

Social Indicators of Gentrification Pressure in Fishing Communities: A Context for Social Impact Assessment

The use of social indicators in this analysis of coastal communities enhances the evaluation of the combined impacts of changes in fisheries management regulations and gentrification for fisheries social impact assessments. Increasing population pressure, declining fish stocks, and the attractiveness of natural amenities have all led to demographic shifts and economic transformations for many coastal communities dependent on fishing. This impact of “gentrification” on the commercial fishing industry often precipitates a move toward non-marine based economies that can displace local residents and their dependence on fishing as a way of life with resulting impacts to local economies and cultures. Drawing on the United States Census, National Marine Fisheries Service, and other secondary data sources, social indicators were developed for 2,948 coastal communities in the Eastern United States and Gulf Coast and were used to evaluate gentrification pressure in select communities highly engaged in fishing. We anticipate this methodology, when groundtruthed and then combined with time-series assessments, will lead to improvements in the assessment of fishing community vulnerability and resilience for the conduct of fisheries social impact assessments.

Creating a Community Context for the Fishery Stock Sustainability Index

Abstract Federal fisheries managers are required by National Standard 8 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to consider the social and economic impacts of their proposed regulations on fishing communities. For social impacts, this is often achieved by intensive qualitative research techniques. Efforts have been underway to utilize more quantitative measures that rely on secondary data. Secondary data relies upon information that has already been collected; usually for another purpose. Unfortunately, this often means that direct measures of variables of interest to fisheries managers are often unavailable. Utilizing the Fishery Stock Status Index, this research develops two new indicators from a manipulation that directly measures the sustainability of the fish species a community relies upon for income. These two new measures could be of great assistance to fisheries managers as they assess the impacts of regulatory change.

Meeting National Standard 8: Ground-truthing Social Indicators of Fishing in South Atlantic Coastal Communities

National Standard 8 of the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Management Act mandates that fi sheries managers consider a community’s dependence on fi sheries when crafting regulations. This article compares fi ndings regarding dependence on commercial and recreational fi sheries from direct observations and interviews in 21 U.S. South Atlantic communities to fi ndings from publicly available data sources such as the U.S. census. The comparisons revealed that, in over 80% of the 21 ports examined, data developed from direct observations and interviews and those developed from publicly available data sources yielded similar National Standard 8 and South Atlantic Fisheries Based on fi eld research in 21 South Atlantic coastal communities reaching from Wanchese, N.C., to Palm Beach Shores, Fla., this article compares data from direct observations and interviews in the communities to data from publicly available sources such as fi sheries statistics and the U.S. census, providing baseline information for social impact assessments, fi sheries management plans, and other policy initiatives. The study emerged from ongoing attempts to meet the mandate of National Standard 8 (50 CFR Ch. VI (01 Oct 10 Edition: §600.345:60): “Conservation and management measures shall...take into account the importance of fi shery resources to fi shing results. Where there were large discrepancies between the two sets of fi ndings, in most cases, the ports were located in large metropolitan areas where fi shing constituted a small proportion of the economy. These fi ndings indicate that the use of publicly available data sources is an effi cient way for fi sheries managers and others to meet the mandate of National Standard 8 in a timely fashion, yet they also suggest that rapid ethnographic procedures can aid in characterizing fi shing communities that differ in terms of size, rural vs. urban settings, gentrifi cation, resilience, and other features that could assist fi shery managers in evaluating the impacts of fi shing regulations. communities by utilizing economic and social data that are based upon the best scientifi c information available...” While concern for fi shing communities is secondary to the concern for rebuilding and maintaining healthy fi shery resources, National Standard 8 (NS8) nevertheless demands that social and economic data be developed to address questions such as a community’s dependence on or engagement with fi shery resources, its ability for sustained participation in fi sheries, and whether or not a Fishery Management Plan or policy initiative will adversely affect the community. National Standard 8 defi nes a fi shing community as “a community that is substantially dependent on or substantially engaged in the harvest or processing of fi shery resources to meet social and economic needs, and includes fi shing vessel owners, operators, and crew, and fi sh processors that are based in such communities. A fi shing community is a social or economic group whose members reside in a specifi c location and share a common dependency on commercial, recreational, or subsistence fi shing or on directly related fi sheries-dependent services and industries (for example, boatyards, ice suppliers, tackle shops)” (50 CFR Ch. VI (1 Oct 10 Edition: §600.345:61). The 21 fi shing communities we profi led range from small, unincorporated communities like Wanchese and Sneads Ferry, N.C., to large metropolitan areas like Wilmington, N.C., Charleston, S.C., Savannah, Ga., or the heavily populated strip of south Florida coast around Palm Beach Shores. In addition to those just mentioned, the others were: Hatteras Village, Beaufort, Morehead City, Atlantic Beach, and Wrightsville Beach in North Carolina; Little River and Murrells Inlet in South Carolina; Brunswick, St. Simons Island, and St. Marys in Georgia; and Fernandina Beach, St. Augustine, Cape Canaveral, Sebastian, Ft. Pierce, and Palm Beach Shores in Florida (Fig. 1).