The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Electronic Theses and Dissertations Fogler Library 5-2021 Marine Aquaculture in Maine: Understanding Diverse Perspectives and Interactions at Multiple Scales Melissa L. Britsch University of Maine, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/etd Part of the Biology Commons, Environmental Studies Commons, Marine Biology Commons, and the Sociology Commons Recommended Citation Britsch, Melissa L., "Marine Aquaculture in Maine: Understanding Diverse Perspectives and Interactions at Multiple Scales" (2021). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 3354. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/etd/3354 This Open-Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MARINE AQUACULTURE IN MAINE: UNDERSTANDING DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES AND INTERACTIONS AT MULTIPLE SCALES By Melissa Linn Britsch B.S. Oregon State University, 2017 A THESIS Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science (in Marine Biology & Marine Policy) The Graduate School The University of Maine May 2021 Advisory Committee: Heather Leslie, Associate Professor of Marine Sciences, Co-Advisor Joshua Stoll, Assistant Professor of Marine Policy, Co-Advisor Damian Brady, Associate Professor of Marine Sciences Christine Beitl, Associate Professor of Anthropology Copyright 2021 Melissa Linn Britsch ii MARINE AQUACULTURE IN MAINE: UNDERSTANDING DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES AND INTERACTIONS AT MULTIPLE SCALES By Melissa Linn Britsch Thesis Advisors: Dr. Heather Leslie & Dr. Joshua Stoll An Abstract of the Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science (in Marine Biology & Marine Policy) May 2021 Coastal oceans are changing and experiencing increased use. The social and ecological benefits of healthy coastal oceans are well documented and include habitats for marine species, storm protection, and recreational opportunities (MEA, 2005). As the impacts of human activities are recognized, questions about how ocean spaces should be used are becoming more common. These questions are complex and involve many tradeoffs. Understanding the values people hold about uses, and how activities and ecosystems overlap, is critical for weighing tradeoffs and improving future management. I use the northeastern U.S. state of Maine to study human interactions with coastal oceans. Maine is biologically productive and hosts commercial fishing, aquaculture, tourism, and renewable energy industries. I explore perspectives about aquaculture development at a statewide scale (Chapter 1), and intersections among scientific literature, human activities, and ecosystems in two estuaries in midcoast Maine (Chapter 2). Understanding these small-scale interactions is important for improving local management and can also provide information for larger-scale conversations. In Chapter 1, I focus on Maine’s aquaculture industry. I use the Q method to describe perspectives about aquaculture held by people who are familiar with the industry, and areas of consensus and disagreement among them. I identified four perspectives: the Aquaculture Optimists, the Aquaculture Anchors, the Aquaculture Historian, and the Aquaculture Agnostics. These groups valued Maine’s marine economy and felt aquaculture could play a role, but disagreed about the scope of the industry and the distribution of benefits. They also had different perspectives about the role of local communities in siting aquaculture farms. Understanding perspectives can contribute to dialogue about the future of the aquaculture industry in Maine and globally. In Chapter 2, I review literature about the Damariscotta River Estuary (DRE) in midcoast Maine. The DRE hosts three research institutions and is heavily studied on diverse marine science-related topics. This literature review supports a participatory mapping project using local ecological knowledge to map the spatial overlaps of shellfish and human use activities in the DRE, as well as observed changes and their causes. Preliminary results from the mapping study are in Appendix E. In the literature review, I describe the publications, their themes, locations, and the years in which they were published. I discuss missing themes and compare our literature review themes to a preliminary analysis of the participatory mapping project interview data. This identifies knowledge gaps about the estuary and highlights areas for future research. The large amount of data provides a valuable baseline for documenting change over time and shows the value of examining literature at an estuary-wide scale. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I have many people I would like to thank for their support and encouragement during my masters degrees. First, I would like to thank my advisors, Dr. Heather Leslie and Dr. Joshua Stoll, for giving me the opportunity to work with them as a graduate student and for supporting me during the last three years. I am grateful for the opportunities they have given me and for the opportunity to learn from them. I am also grateful to my labmates for their support and encouragement over the last three years, especially Marina Cucuzza and Sarah Risley, who were close collaborators for the research described in Chapter 3, Appendix E, and Appendix G. I want to thank Dana Morse for giving me my first introduction to Maine’s aquaculture industry and for teaching me so much about it – that context has been invaluable. I also want to thank everyone who is part of the Darling Marine Center community for their support and for making it such a wonderful place to work. I want to thank Randy Lackovic, the Darling Marine Center Librarian, for helping me find documents and for sharing his previous literature reviews about the Damariscotta River, which were incredibly helpful for identifying additional papers. I appreciate all of the people who helped design and test my two studies, including Dr. Marissa McMahan, Caitlin Cleaver, Dr. Chris Davis, Dr. Kate Beard-Tisdale, Dr. Tony Sutton, Gabby Hillyer, Sean O’Neill, Robbie Downs, Matt Lutkus, and Dr. Kara Pellowe. None of this would have been possible without my many study participants sharing their time and knowledge about Maine and its coastal economy and I have learned so much from them. Finally, I would like to thank my family and my partner, James Manahan, for their love and support through this process. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ x LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTERS 1. THESIS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Context .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research questions and thesis organization ............................................................... 2 2. DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES ON AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT IN MAINE ............................................................................................. 4 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Methods ......................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.1 Aquaculture in Maine ......................................................................................... 7 2.2.2 Q method: understanding perspectives on aquaculture development ................ 8 2.2.3 Research design .................................................................................................. 9 2.2.4 Research implementation ................................................................................. 10 2.2.5 Analysis ............................................................................................................ 11 2.2.5.1 Initial analysis ....................................................................................... 11 2.2.5.2 Secondary PCA .................................................................................... 13 2.3 Results .......................................................................................................................... 13 iv 2.3.1 Four perspectives on aquaculture development ............................................... 15 2.3.1.1 Aquaculture optimists ........................................................................... 15 2.3.1.2 Aquaculture anchors ............................................................................. 18 2.3.1.3 Aquaculture historian ........................................................................... 20 2.3.1.4 Aquaculture agnostics .......................................................................... 21 2.3.2 Areas of consensus and disagreement .............................................................. 22 2.4. Discussion & Conclusions ........................................................................................