A Cultural Analysis: Knowledge, Values, and Chesapeake Oysters

1. A Cultural Analysis: Knowledge, Values, and Chesapeake Oysters By Dr. Michael Paolisso Nicole Dery Department of Anthropology University of Maryland, College Park Presented to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources July 28, 2005

2. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to Evaluate Oyster Restoration Alternatives • The State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia are considering the introduction of the oyster species Crassostrea ariakensis into the tidal waters of Maryland and Virginia. • The objective of the introduction, coupled with continued restoration efforts of the Bay’s native oyster (Crassostrea virginica), is to restore the Chesapeake Bay oyster population to a level that will provide self-sustaining harvests comparable to harvests in the 1920-1970 time period. • Historical figures indicate that the annual harvest of Chesapeake Bay oysters for the 1920-1970 period averaged 4.9 million bushels.

3. Proposed Action & Alternatives • Introduce C. ariakensis and discontinue native oyster restoration efforts • Continue current oyster restoration and repletion plans • Expand and accelerate native oyster restoration plans • Implement a temporary harvest moratorium and oyster industry compensation program • Establish and/or expand State-assisted, managed and regulated aquaculture operations using the native oyster • Establish State-assisted, managed, or regulated aquaculture operations using a suitable triploid, non-native oyster species • Introduce and propagate an alternative oyster species other than C. ariakensis or an alternative strain of C. ariakensis • Consider a combination of alternatives

4. Cultural Analysis for EIS • Groups vary in their interpretation and valuation of the risks and benefits associated with the proposed EIS actions and alternatives. • People use existing and implicit cultural models to assist them in understanding the issues that arise in response to the proposed action and alternatives. • These cultural interpretations and valuations will play an important role in determining behavior: public support of oyster restoration plans, consumption of oysters, participation in oyster restoration programs, involvement in oyster commercial fishery.

5. Culture, Cognition, and Cultural Models • Culture: “whatever it is one has to know or believe to operate in a manner acceptable to its members.” • Cognitive anthropology: focus is on the way knowledge is used in ordinary life and how that knowledge is organized in thought. • Culture is partially “in the mind” • “Cultural models are presupposed, taken for granted, models of the world that are widely shared by the members of a society that play an enormous role in their understanding of that world and their behavior in it (Holland & Quinn 1987).”

6. Methods • Literature Review • Including published and unpublished information regarding socio-economic impacts of non-native introductions and a review of biological, ecological, political, and economic issues surrounding oyster restoration • Open-ended Key Informant Interviews • 23 interviews were conducted with skilled professionals from stakeholder groups • Informal Conversations • Conducted in settings such as restaurants and docks in both Maryland and Virginia • Survey Questionnaires • 420 agreement surveys • Various Forms of Data Analysis • Qualitative Data Analysis, Frequency Analysis, Consensus Analysis

7. Survey Sample

8. Survey Questions(22 Questions Total)

11. Summary Findings from Agreement Survey • General agreement that restoration as practiced has not worked, although high levels of “don’t knows” for public and recreational fishers. • General agreement that with time and new approaches native oyster restoration could work. • All five stakeholder groups reported that oyster restoration should have both ecological and industry goals, with some uncertainty as to which should be primary. • Ecological restoration is understood at various scale levels across stakeholder groups.

12. Summary Findings from Agreement Survey (continued) • Management options of harvest moratorium with compensation and reserves elicit mixed support across all stakeholder groups (except watermen for compensated moratorium). • Agreement that restoration with native oysters should continue, with some “don’t knows” for public and recreational fishers. • Agreement that the native oyster’s place in the natural and cultural history of the Bay is a key consideration for restoration. • Strong agreement that we currently don’t know enough about non-native oyster to use it for restoration, with the exception of watermen who expressed mixed agreement and disagreement.

13. Summary Findings from Agreement Survey (continued) • Agreement that scientific findings will reduce concerns about possible negative consequences of using a non-native oyster for restoration. • Agreement that we should continue aquaculture of native oyster for growers and watermen and to increase understanding. • Agreement that we should continue aquaculture of non-native oyster for growers and watermen and to increase understanding. • Aggregated harvest data do not capture the economic and cultural identity significance of oysters at watermen household and community levels. • Watermen will expend more effort if more oysters are available, but they express concern about market.

14. Cultural Consensus Analysis • Formally states: shared patterns of agreement reflects shared knowledge • Allows for estimation of individual knowledge levels (cultural competence) • Uses factor analysis • If consensus, strong loading on first factor (3:1 ratio with second factor)

15. All Stakeholder Groups(Experts (“Don’t Knows” Removed)) EIGENVALUES FACTOR VALUE PERCENT CUM % RATIO ------- -------- ------- ------- ------- 1: 47.959 46.3 46.3 1.576 2: 30.422 29.3 75.6 1.203 3: 25.295 24.4 100.0 ======= ======== ======= ======= ======= 103.675 100.0 Analysis: No Cultural Consensus: It would be better if the first factor accounted for more than 3 times the variance of the second. • Note: Variables correlated with underlying factors is their “factor loading”. “Factor loadings” squared = individual variance; sum of squared factor loadings = eigenvalue.

16. Scientists EIGENVALUES FACTOR VALUE PERCENT CUM % RATIO ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- 1: 8.913 64.6 64.6 3.107 2: 2.869 20.8 85.3 1.418 3: 2.024 14.7 100.0 ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= 13.806 100.0 Analysis: Cultural Consensus; First Factor More Than Three Times Second Factor

17. Scientists’ Cultural Competence Estimated Knowledge of each Respondent 1 KNOWLE • ----- • 1 0.65 14 0.05 Std. Dev.: 0.285 • 2 0.75 15 0.66 Average: 0.512 • 3 0.56 16 0.89 • 4 0.66 17 0.30 • 5 0.63 18 0.11 • 6 0.77 19 0.87 • 7 0.55 20 0.78 • 8 0.00 21 0.58 • 9 0.28 22 -0.13 • 10 0.42 23 0.90 • 11 0.30 24 0.45 • 12 0.41 25 0.89 • 13 0.31 26 0.65

18. Watermen EIGENVALUES FACTOR VALUE PERCENT CUM % RATIO ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- 1: 20.649 59.7 59.7 1.976 2: 10.451 30.2 90.0 3.009 ======= ======= ======= ====== Environmentalists EIGENVALUES FACTOR VALUE PERCENT CUM % RATIO ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- 1: 6.140 50.9 50.9 1.458 2: 4.213 34.9 85.8 2.452 ======= ======= ======= ====== Recreational Fishers EIGENVALUES FACTOR VALUE PERCENT CUM % RATIO ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- 1: 11.432 47.5 47.5 1.363 2: 8.385 34.8 82.4 1.974 ======= ======= ======= ===== Seafood Eating Public EIGENVALUES FACTOR VALUE PERCENT CUM % RATIO ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- 1: 15.053 58.9 58.9 2.347 2: 6.415 25.1 84.0 1.568 ======= ======= ======= ====== Analysis: No Cultural Consensus

19. Watermen Grouped By License State Virginia EIGENVALUES FACTOR VALUE PERCENT CUM % RATIO ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- 1: 7.905 69.2 69.2 3.582 2: 2.207 19.3 88.5 1.680 3: 1.313 11.5 100.0 ======= ======= ======= ======= 11.425 100.0 Analysis: Consensus; First Factor More Than Three Times Second Factor Maryland EIGENVALUES FACTOR VALUE PERCENT CUM % RATIO ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- 1: 13.386 60.6 60.6 2.126 2: 6.298 28.5 89.0 2.601 3: 2.422 11.0 100.0 ======= ======= ======= ======= 22.106 100.0 Analysis: No Consensus

20. Conclusions • Little cultural consensus, except among scientists and a subset of watermen • High levels of uncertainty (up to 50% “Don’t Know”) • Ceteris paribus, prefer the native oyster for ecological, economic and cultural reasons • Restoration has different meanings to different stakeholder groups • Oyster is changing roles: from food/industry to ecological services • Sustained importance at the community level for watermen • The oyster is culturally loaded; not just a biological organism in an ecosystem whose harvest supports watermen communities

21. Policy Significance • We have agreement across stakeholders on key topics, but also the presence of uncertainty in knowledge and viewpoints. Situation: Pre-paradigmatic and unstable. • Little shared cultural knowledge in the form of cultural models. Cannot assume that rationale or reasoning for viewpoints are similar across or within groups. Result: risk of unexpected stakeholder response to policy because of lack of cultural consensus (exception scientists, VA watermen). • Oyster restoration is a vector for wide-ranging education and collaboration focused on Bay ecology, economy, and culture. Policies need to accommodate agreements and disagreement, uncertainty, and other Bay restoration and management issues. • Continued integration of perspectives from ecology, economics and anthropology in the assessment of risks and benefits of native and non-native oyster restoration. Oysters could be a model of interdisciplinary research and policy development.