Update on EBFM for Chesapeake Bay

Update on Species and Quantitative Ecosystem Teams

The Striped Bass Species Team is moving forward with compiling options for pursuing formal publication of the Striped Bass Biological Background and Issues Briefs. The Menhaden Species Team completed their work on their Briefs; these were sent out to the Quantitative Ecosystem Teams (QETs) where they will be used as a foundation for identifying performance measures and development of reference points. The Blue Crab Species Team is currently submitting briefs and MD Sea Grant is starting the editing and packaging process before they will be distributed to the QETs for use in their work. The Alosines Species Team met in College Park, MD on September 17^th & 18^th for a very productive workshop. The Team formulated a work plan for completing the Biological Background and Issues Briefs and has started working toward draft outlines to discuss during their next call on November 6, 2009.

The Socioeconomics Quantitative Ecosystem Team (QET) met on September 15^th where they began discussing possibilities for moving the Human Ecology Maps they created forward through developing an inventory of existing work on valuation of fisheries in the Chesapeake Bay. A product such as this would help in identifying gaps where valuation information is needed and would be a useful tool for managers in making decisions which inevitably involve difficult and complex tradeoffs. The Socioeconomics QET also produced an eco-labeling report for the focal species in the Chesapeake Bay (click here for a pdf). Additionally, the team’s stakeholder interview project is underway. This effort will canvass stakeholder views on the status of the Bay ecosystem. The Foodwebs QET met on September 28^th to discuss progress to date on their team work plan, they are compiling proposals (due Oct 27) to identify staff, funding, and data needs for accomplishing tasks within their work plans. The Habitat Suitability QET will meet on October 5^th to discuss work plan development and team assignments.

This month’s perspective, submitted by Troy Hartley and Alesia Read, provides an introduction to social network analysis and its potential for moving EBFM forward. Troy Hartley is the Virginia Sea Grant Director and a member of the Socioeconomics QET. Alesia Read is Troy Hartley’s PhD student at the University of New Hampshire but is also serving as the Interim Fisheries Coordinator for Maryland Sea Grant.

Perspective - Social Network Analysis and its Potential for Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management in the Chesapeake Bay

Troy Hartley, Virginia Sea Grant and Alesia Read, Maryland Sea Grant

Social Network Analysis (SNA) is not a new concept; network theory has been used for many years in the fields of Business and Marketing (Borgatti et al. 2009). What is new is how it is being applied and used in the natural resource and public administration fields to assess stakeholder interactions, institutional landscapes, and governance network dynamics, including features of integration, coordination, and synchronization of government activities that are important in ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM). Governance networks are not strict organizational hierarchies; but rather are voluntary. These networks pursue some common objectives (e.g., development of a fishery management plan), use coordinating tools such as meetings, communication rules and procedures to make decisions, and have discrete divisions of labor and responsibilities (Agranoff 2007).

Social network analysis, and the network approach, views social relationships as interconnected actors (individuals or organizations)—also called nodes—through links within a network structure and function that can be graphically mapped and measured with increasingly user-friendly software based upon graph theory (Tichy et al. 1979; Marsden 1990). With regard to EBFM, network analysis could be used to visualize and measure the informal and formal structures (comprised of individuals and organizations) that are involved in EBFM planning in the Chesapeake Bay, exploring the pathways of information flow, the bridging function served by individuals or organizations in mitigating information flow, the resilience of networks to alteration, and the potential for new connections that can enhance coordination and integration. Network maps are created through survey, interview, and/or other measures of communication actions (e.g., email, web site visits, wiki use, etc.) Many different characteristics of links between actors can be examined, e.g., communication frequency, perceptions (e.g., trustworthiness, credibility), importance of information, etc. Networks can be analyzed quantitatively to assess connectivity of individuals or groups of individuals (e.g., section within an organization, stakeholder group, etc.). Connectivity measures include assessments of the bridging roles individuals might be playing, how close individuals are to others, how dense the overall network is, who is serving equivalent network functional roles, etc. .

Examples of Network Maps:

Network maps depict (A.) a traditional hierarchical organization of a department Krebs 2007 – (www.orgnet.com) and (B.) how work actually is done within the department.

1. Multiple stakeholder, ecosystem-level planning – Use of SNA to identify the different stakeholder groups involved in the Chesapeake Bay, you may ask which stakeholders are missing or which stakeholders are most (or least) involved, or are most well connected?

2. Cross-jurisdictional management goals – What cross-jurisdictional connections are already occurring, where is there potential for greater integration, potentially identifying where duplication of effort is occurring.

3. Human use mapping – Developing a network map adds the institutional landscape to a human use map and thus aids in identifying jurisdictional gaps and needs for coordination.

4. Habitat restoration in coastal ecosystems – Network maps including habitat restoration organizations will illustrate the relationship between restoration, regulated human uses, and jurisdictional authorities; are habitat restoration activities being informed by fisheries management, what new partnership opportunities might exist?

5. Co-management strategies – Measuring existing relationships through SNA will facilitate discussions for potential co-management opportunities.

6. Adaptive management as an approach to learning from management actions – Monitoring network function and structure over time provides feedback on governance network performance. Network structure ebbs and flows dependent in part on the activities underway; however monitoring the network enables more active management to build additional network connections and capacity to meet emerging needs.

In sum, there are many areas where social network analysis tools could potentially be used to move forward EBFM planning efforts, particularly in the Chesapeake Bay. It is a new empirical tool for coastal and marine resource management, and as such the field and its specific applications are evolving rapidly. This perspective was meant to provide a brief overview of SNA and its potential. Are there specific ways that you see social network analysis could be used in EBFM planning in the Chesapeake Bay?

References