Identifying Fishing Dependent Communities
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IDENTIFYING FISHINGFISHING---DEPENDENTDEPENDENT COMMUNITIES: DEVELOPMENT AND CONFIRMATION OF A PROTOCOL Photo by Michael Jepson By Steve Jacob, Michael Jepson, Carlton Pomeroy David Mulkey, Chuck Adams, and Suzanna Smith A MARFIN project and report conducted by the Department of Family, Youth and Community Sciences, University of Florida and prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Region. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this research was to develop a definition of fishing dependent communities and a protocol for identifying such places. Identification of communities in Florida is complicated by the fact that many places are unincorporated and do not have community-level data available for decision-making. Using a protocol based on central place theory, federal and state fishing permit data and census employment data were aggregated at the zipcode level to sort population centers and their surrounding hinterlands into central places for the entire state of Florida. Zipcode was a good choice for the basic unit of aggregation because it is the only geographic identifier for many forms of commercial and recreational fishing data, it is a relatively small unit of measure, and its boundaries form a service delivery area. Defining communities by central place fits well with the elements of community identified by Wilkinson (1991). This is because central places are territorially based and people live and meet their day-to-day needs in such places. The inclusion of central place (center and hinterland) ensures that those in hinterlands and more rural places are captured in a reasonably complete local society, one that can provide most basic needs and organize common interests and needs of residents. To account for the embedded nature of economic linkages in fishing communities, we used regional economic multipliers for employment to estimate the number of jobs that were directly and indirectly related to fishing in each community. Using the dataset we developed for the aggregated communities and through an extensive literature review, we defined dependence as 15% of employment derived from the fishing sector. This threshold of dependence is consistent with research by USDA ERS on other forms of natural resource dependence. We included data on certain commercial fishing sectors and identified five commercially dependent communities in the state of Florida with 1996 data. These were: 1. Steinhatchee 2. Apalachicola 3. Panama City 4. Ochopee/Everglades City 5. Panacea In addition to the commercially dependent fishing communities, we identified seven communities that were recreationally fishing dependent. However, we do not have complete confidence in our recreational indicators and do not recommend that they be used for anything other than a demonstration of the protocol if better data were available. Using data from 1994 and 1996, six communities were chosen for rapid assessment and survey research to test if locals agreed on our assessments of their community’s fishing dependence and community boundaries. The research confirmed the protocol’s results, and the reality of community residents agreed with our results. i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................ ii LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................... vi TABLE OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................. xii Section 1.0: PURPOSE............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Magnuson-Stevens Act and Description of the Problem................................................ 1 1.2 Florida Fishing Community Project Objectives ............................................................. 2 Section 2.0: GOAL 1. TO DEFINE AND IDENTIFY FISHING-DEPENDENT COMMUNITIES AND THEIR RESIDENTS. .................................................................. 3 2.1 Objective 1. To develop a concrete and objective definition of fishing-dependent communities that applies to Florida and other states.................................................................. 3 2.1.1 Literature Review: Defining Community ............................................................... 3 2.1.2 Literature Review: Natural Resource-Dependent Communities ............................ 4 2.1.3 Literature Review: Identifying and Defining Natural Resource Dependent Communities........................................................................................................................... 9 2.1.4 Literature Review: The Relevance of Central Place Theory ................................ 10 2.2 Initial Definition of Fishing Dependent Communities ................................................. 10 2.3 Objective 2. To develop a reliable protocol for quantitatively identifying fishing- dependent communities that applies to Florida and other states............................................... 11 2.4 Methodological Approach ............................................................................................ 11 2.4.1 Zipcode Aggregation ............................................................................................ 14 2.4.2 Data Aggregation.................................................................................................. 15 2.4.3 Community Profile and Rapid Assessment .......................................................... 19 2.4.4 Telephone Survey ................................................................................................. 20 2.5 Project Management ..................................................................................................... 22 Section 3.0: FISHING DEPENDENCE.................................................................................... 23 3.1 Economic Multipliers and Commercial Fishing Dependency...................................... 23 3.2 Recreational Employment and Dependency................................................................. 25 3.3 Commercial and Recreational Fishing Dependent Communities in Florida. ............... 27 Section 4.0: GOAL 2. TO EMPIRICALLY EVALUATE THE DEFINITION OF FISHING- DEPENDENT COMMUNITIES AND THE IDENTIFYING PROTOCOL................... 31 4.1 Objective 1. To develop a typology that differentiates Florida fishing-dependent communities into categories based on region and economic structure..................................... 31 5.1 Cedar Key ..................................................................................................................... 33 5.1.1 History................................................................................................................... 33 5.1.2 Census Demographics........................................................................................... 35 5.1.2.1 Age Distribution................................................................................................35 5.1.2.2 Housing Units Information ............................................................................... 35 5.1.2.4 Racial Distribution............................................................................................ 36 5.1.2.5 Educational Attainment.................................................................................... 36 5.1.2.6 Industry ............................................................................................................. 36 5.1.2.7 Average Salary.................................................................................................. 39 5.1.3 General and Fishing Employment for 1994 and 1996.......................................... 39 5.1.3.1 Fishing Employment for 1994 and 1996 .......................................................... 39 5.1.4 Key Informant Interviews..................................................................................... 41 ii 5.1.4.1 Cedar Key Telephone Survey Demographics................................................... 42 5.1.4.2 Dependency....................................................................................................... 42 5.1.4.3 Community ....................................................................................................... 45 5.1.4.4 Net Ban ............................................................................................................. 48 5.2 Marathon....................................................................................................................... 49 5.2.1 History................................................................................................................... 49 5.2.2 Census Demographics........................................................................................... 50 5.2.2.1 Age Distribution................................................................................................50 5.2.2.2 Housing Units Information ............................................................................... 52 5.2.2.3 Racial Distribution............................................................................................ 52 5.2.2.4 Educational Attainment.................................................................................... 52 5.2.2.5 Industry