In our Research Highlights blog series, we debut newly published fisheries research by our women of fisheries colleagues. If you have research you would like to highlight and share with our readers, submit a nomination form here! 

---

Bratton, R., S. Dowling-Guyer, J. Vaske and J. Jackman. 2024. Seals, sharks, and social identity: ocean management preferences and priorities. Frontiers in Conservation Science 5:1390680.

Success often comes with its challenges. 

For most people alive today, sharing the coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts with seals and sharks is something new and perhaps concerning. In reality, however, white sharks and gray and harbor seals were once common residents before being nearly extirpated by humans by the 1970s. In 1972, the Marine Mammal Protection Act prohibited the killing of seals, which were perceived to be in competition with commercial fishing and targeted by state-funded bounty hunting. By the 1990s, seals were back and numbering in the tens of thousands. Then, federal and state laws enacted in the late 1990s and early 2000s protected white sharks from harvest in waters that extend 200 nautical miles from shore. With seals and white sharks now re-established in these waters, it was inevitable that human-wildlife conflicts, including interactions with commercial fishing, would become more common. To further complicate matters, people tend to flock to the beach during the warmer summer months, increasing the risk of shark encounters for swimmers and surfers. 

With the increasing potential for human-wildlife conflicts and safety concerns, it was important to learn more about the people most likely to be affected.

That brings us to the current study, which was part of a large collaborative project involving Salem State University, Center for Animals and Public Policy of the Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, University of Massachusetts Boston, Atlantic White Shark Conservancy, Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance, and Center for Coastal Studies. Rachel Bratton, who assisted with this project as part of her graduate work at the University of Massachusetts Boston, explains, “The study was motivated by conversations between social scientists, biologists, and conservation educators about a mutual need for greater understanding of the human dimensions aspect of seal and shark conservation and management on Cape Cod.” 

For this part of the project, the research team examined how stakeholder support for different management priorities and actions is influenced by their social identity. 

Social identity theory is based in psychology and refers to how people group themselves in terms of factors like religion, gender, political beliefs or even sports teams. In a conservation context, these groups could be fishers, environmentalists, scientists, or local residents. In theory, the more a particular group is impacted by a management action, the stronger their sense of identity to that group. Rachel further explains, “In fisheries management, social identity theory can be used to explain how intergroup conflicts shape and sometimes impede decision-making processes. These groups often share fundamental values for ecosystem health and sustainable harvest allowances but disagree over the best management practices to achieve these goals. Also, these groups have likely had very different historical interactions with fisheries managers, all of which impacts trust in managers and decision-making processes.’ 

But people are complex and rarely fit into neatly defined boxes.

In the summer of 2021, the research team administered a survey to Cape Cod residents, commercial fishers, and tourists. In addition to questions about social identity, the survey also measured support for different aspects of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and agreement with different rationales for seal and shark management – for example, support of lethal seal management in the case seals are interfering with fishing or lethal shark management to reduce population size. 

What they found was that survey respondents could be grouped into three social identity groups: 1) non-consumptive users; 2) mixed consumptive and non-consumptive users; and 3) neither. All three supported the Marine Mammal Protection Act, although to varying degrees. Non-consumptive users supported managing the ocean in the interests of wildlife and the ecosystem more than the mixed group but showed less support for managing the ocean for human interests like fisheries and tourism. Also, the non-consumptive group showed the most opposition for the lethal management of seals and sharks and the mixed group showed the least. 

Interestingly and an important note for conservationists, the commercial fishers in this study comprised the mixed consumptive and non-consumptive group, indicating this group has a mixed identity and holds pro-conservation and pro-wildlife views. 

Polarization among groups and “us vs them” thinking can impede efforts to find solutions. But, as this study points out, there are often overlapping identities and common ground that can help bring people together and make solutions possible. As Rachel notes, “Managers can use social identity theory and other social science tools to understand the beliefs and perceptions of specific groups, which can be used to shape messaging and frame conversations in a way that will resonate most strongly with that group. The same approach can be used to understand the root causes of intergroup conflict and identify paths to resolution, or other solutions to enhance the productivity of decision-making.” In this case, all of the target groups surveyed exhibited ocean conservation values, a common ground that can be emphasized in outreach efforts. These efforts are already underway. Results and lessons learned from this study were communicated to many groups in the Cape Cod area, including natural resource managers, those in the tourism and fishing industries, and through local media channels. 

Finding the common ground is critical for collaboration and conflict resolution. Studies like these that utilize social science to learn more about different stakeholder groups and find common ground will be increasingly important in the future. Rachel adds, “Conservation social science and human dimensions is quickly growing as a field. There is a push overall in conservation to improve understanding and consideration of stakeholder groups, including divisions between groups, in management.” She is excited to be part of this growing movement as an Assistant Research Scientist in the Center for Conservation Social Science Research at the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 

Conservation success stories sometimes come with challenges, but with some effort, we can find ways to forge a path forward together.

The full manuscript can be found and downloaded here (open access):
doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2024.1390680

Project website:
seagrant.whoi.edu/sealshark/