New England’s Fishing Communities (HTML Version)
Complete PDF Version
(warning: large file)

Madeleine Hall-Arber, PhD
Chris Dyer, PhD
John Poggie, PhD
James McNally, PhD
Renee Gagne
Human Ecology Associates

This report takes several approaches to identifying New England's fishing communities and ranking their dependency. One approach is based on a regional consideration of fisheries-related employment compared to alternative employment. Another approach focuses on fishing structure complexity and degrees of individual communities' gentrification, and finally, the third approach offers community profiles that detail individual ports' characteristics with some attention to stakeholders' views on their community, way of life, institutions, and fisheries management.


Table of Contents

1.0. Introduction (PDF version of 1.0 - 5.0)

2.0. Conceptual Framework
2.1. A Regional Ecosystem Approach
2.2. Space and Place in Human Ecosystems
2.3. The Natural Resource Region
2.4. The Natural Resource Community as a Regional Base Unit
2.5. Forms of Capital
2.6. Total Capital and the NRR
2.7. Externalities to the NRR
2.8. Flows and changes in total capital
2.9. Case Study of the New England Groundfish Fishery
2.10. Developing an NRR Model for New England

3.0. Measuring Fishing Dependency and Externalities in the New England NRR
3.1. Using Dependency Ratios
3.2. Fishery Dependency Ratios
3.3. Externalities Affecting Dependency Measures
3.4. Fishermen Individual-Level Characteristics and Dependence
3.5. Precautions in Defining Dependency
3.6. Establishing Dependency by Sub-Region
3.7. Summary

4.0. Vulnerability, Infrastructure and Gentrification among Fishing Dependent Communities
4.1. Historical and Total Capital
4.2. Measuring Infrastructure
4.3. Classification of Community Sample by Categories
4.4. Gentrification and Loss of Infrastructure

5.0. Preface to Subregion and Port Profiles

5.1. Connecticut (PDF version)
5.1.1 New London County Stonington New London/Groton
5.1.2 Southwestern coast fishing clusters Bridgeport

5.2. Rhode Island
(PDF version)
5.2.1. Washington County Judith/Galilee
5.2.2. Newport County Jamestown Newport Tiverton Sakonnet Point

5.3. New Bedford/South Shore (PDF version)
5.3.1. Bristol County New Bedford Fairhaven Westport

5.4. Cape Cod and the Islands (PDF version)
5.4.1. Barnstable County Sandwich Hyannis Chatham Provincetown
5.4.2. Dukes County (Martha’s Vineyard) Vineyard Haven

5.5. Boston Area (PDF version)
5.5.1. Suffolk County Boston Harbor
5.5.2. Plymouth County Plymouth Scituate

5.6. Gloucester / North Shore
(PDF version)
5.6.1. Essex County Gloucester Rockport Marblehead

5.7. New Hampshire Seacoast
(PDF version)
5.7.1. Rockingham County Hampton/Seabrook Portsmouth Isle of Shoals

5.8. Southern Maine (PDF version)
5.8.1. York County Kennebunkport/Cape Porpoise

5.9. Lower Mid-Coast Maine (PDF version)
5.9.1. Lincoln County South Bristol Boothbay Harbor
5.9.2. Sagadahoc County Georgetown Phippsburg
5.9.3. Cumberland County Portland Harpswell

5.10. Upper Mid-Coast Maine (PDF version)
5.10.1. Hancock County Stonington/Deer Isle
5.10.2. Waldo County
5.10.3. Knox County Rockland Vinalhaven

5.11. Downeast Maine (PDF version)
5.11.1. Washington County Beals Island and Jonesport Cutler Eastport Lubec

6.0 Summary (PDF version)
6.1. Defining community
6.1.1. Themes
6.1.2. Sub-region summaries

7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations (PDF version)

8.0 Literature (PDF version)

The research upon which this report is based was funded by the Marine Fisheries Initiative (MARFIN) Grant #NA87FF0547. This is a slightly revised version of the project’s final report entitled "Fishing Communities and Fishing Dependency in the Northeast United States."

A sincere thank you to all of the key respondents who so generously donated their time to try to impart an understanding of their industry and their communities to the researchers. We have tried to record the disparate views expressed without losing a sense of the whole.

Thanks too to our reviewers, some of who were asked to read large portions of the manuscript and some of who were asked to read only specific sections. All reviewers offered useful additions and corrections. The mistakes that remain, of course, are our own. We would like to thank (in alphabetical order): Robin Alden, Rodney Avila, Nancy Balcom, Rollie Barnaby, David Beutel, Keith Bisson, Ralph Boragine, Albert Carver, Judith Harris, Grace Lee, Carl Masi, Charles Saunders, Barbara Stevenson, Mary Beth Tooley, and John Williamson. Keith Bisson and Debra Shrader also conducted some of the key respondent interviews and we thank them.

Thanks to students Mark Grant, Carol Miu, Peter Scott, Robert Mason and Michael Abbey for early enthusiasm, some interviews, help with tape transcription and for company on the long road trips.