WELL-BEING AS AN INDICATOR: WELL-BEING AS AN INDICATOR: A MARINE RESOURCE A MARINE RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONMANAGEMENT APPLICATION

Courtland SMITH - Oregon State UniversityCourtland SMITH - Oregon State University

Patricia M. CLAY - NOAA FisheriesPatricia M. CLAY - NOAA Fisheries

AAA Meetings, November 2007

http://margaux.grandvinum.se/SebTest/wvs/articles/folder_published/article_base_56

Ingelhart & Klingemann 2000:168

Well-beingempty zone

Ingelhart & Klingemann 2000:176

0

5

10

15

20

25

Least Most

Life Satisfaction

Per

cen

t

Life Satisfaction from World Values Survey, n= 42,601 (Inglehart et al. 1998:34)

Skew = -0.65

(van Praag and Ferrer-I-Carbonell 2004:45)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

General Satisfaction

Per

cen

t

E German

W German

SkewE Germany -0.50W Germany -1.00

Income distributions Oregon, Clatsop & Lincoln counties, Astoria, Newport, & Coquille Tribe

Source: city & county US Census & survey

Oregon 1.171.17

Astoria 1.201.20

Clatsop 1.231.23

Newport 1.381.38

Lincoln 1.381.38

Coquille 1.451.45

Skew

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

<15 15-25 25-35 35-50 50-75 >75

Income

Per

cen

t

Oregon

Astoria

Clatsop

Newport

Lincoln

Coquille

Coquille

Oregon

1994 data from National Opinion Research Center (1999), n= 2627, Question 157, range 0 to 4, not too happy to very happy, US population averaged by income class, <10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, >75k, correlation is 0.20.

(Easterlin 2001:468)0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 20 40 60 80 100

Income

Hap

pin

ess

Hi subjectiveHi subjective

Lo objectiveLo objective

Hi subjectiveHi subjective

Hi objectiveHi objective

Lo subjectiveLo subjective

Lo objectiveLo objective

Lo subjectiveLo subjective

Hi objectiveHi objective

Objective, etic, material well-being

Su

bje

ctiv

e, e

mic

, p

erce

ived

wel

l-b

ein

g

Direction of improving well-being

lo

hi

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Material Well-being

Qu

alit

y o

f L

ife

Mill Workers

US

Fishermen

1976

1971

1966

Point Judith, Rhode Island mill worker/fisher comparison (Poggie and Gersuny 1974)

Deckhand

The Nova Scotia offshore fishery (Binkley 1995:9, 75)

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

0 1 2 3 4 5

Income

Sel

f-A

ctu

aliz

atio

n

Midshore and trawlers differ significantly at p<0.01. Captain and crew differ at p<0.05

Crew Captain

Trawler

Midshore

1

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5

Survival/Security

Sel

f-ac

tual

izat

ion Bay

Oyster

Clam

Scallop

Dragger

Longline

Six New Jersey gear types (Gatewood and McCay 1990:21)

No significantdifference existsbetween the six gear groups

Aftermath of the1994 Coho Closure

(Smith and Gilden 2000; Smith et al. 2000; Gilden and Smith 1996 a, b)

Oregon Troll

OR and WA Gillnet

Troll 0.110.11

Gillnet 0.680.68

Overall satisfactionskew

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

much worse worse no change better much better

Overall Satisfaction

Per

cen

t

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

much worse worse no change better much better

Overall Satisfaction

Per

cen

t

Gilden and Smith 1996a, b

Am Indians

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Income Ratio

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Watershed Coordinators Students Lawyers

Trollers

Gillnetters

Tribe

Comparisons with trollers and gilllnetters in Gilden and Smith (1996a, b)

Differences with trollers and gillnetters are significant at p<0.01

Self-Actualization/Identity

Belonging/Place

Physiological/Basic needs/Occupation

+

-

Wikipedia

Factor analysis, commercial fishers, charter boat operators, and fish plant workers, Petersburg and Craig, Alaska, n=135 (Pollnac and Poggie 2006:332)

Pollnac and Poggie 2006:334-335

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

Basic Needs

Sel

f A

ctu

aliz

atio

n Commercial

Craig

Petersburg

Processor

Charter

Differences are significant at p<0.02, except for commercial and Craig

Factor analysis commercial and recreational fishermen, n=1336 (Smith 1981:186)

Smith 1981:186-188

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

Occupation

Iden

tity

>5 MT Troll

Commercial

<1 MT Troll

Recreation

Angler

Differences between recreation and commercial are significant at p<0.001

ConclusionsConclusions

Objective-etic-material vs subjective-emic-perceptual comparisons Objective-etic-material vs subjective-emic-perceptual comparisons are supported in numerous studiesare supported in numerous studies

Extensive subjective anthropological research on fishing groups, Extensive subjective anthropological research on fishing groups, objective well-being less measuredobjective well-being less measured

Lack comparison with non-fishers and across timeLack comparison with non-fishers and across time

Better sampling and common measures are neededBetter sampling and common measures are needed

Individual data lacking, little recognition that objective, material Individual data lacking, little recognition that objective, material distributions are positively skewed and subjective, perceptual ones distributions are positively skewed and subjective, perceptual ones are negatively skewedare negatively skewed

Fishing groups more often in high objective and high subjective Fishing groups more often in high objective and high subjective quadrantquadrant

Powerlessness from being managed or controlled lowers the Powerlessness from being managed or controlled lowers the subjective well-being measuresubjective well-being measure

AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgments

NOAA Fisheries (NMFS), Office of Science and NOAA Fisheries (NMFS), Office of Science and TechnologyTechnology

NOAA Office of Sea Grant, Oregon Sea Grant NOAA Office of Sea Grant, Oregon Sea Grant ProgramProgram

Review by Fred SerchukReview by Fred Serchuk