Introduction

Local environmental stewardship supports resilience of social-ecological systems through a wide range of actions that benefit both environmental and human wellbeing (Bennett et al. 2018; Mathevet et al. 2018). These actions vary widely across scale, ecosystems, and participants, while also supporting a broad range of goals. Examples of stewardship actions range from participation in voluntary beach clean ups (Jorgensen et al. 2021) and managing urban green spaces and community gardens (Krasny and Tidball 2012) to far-reaching global efforts aimed at sustainable use of marine resources (FAO 2015). While the concept of stewardship has been largely defined in terms of actions related to ecological conservation, it has also been considered in a broader sense to include actions that sustain human relationships with the environment, including the use of the environment and its resources (e.g., Bennett et al. 2018). These actions can come in the form of political engagement and advocacy, and have been shown to increase knowledge exchange and relationship-building among resource users, scientists, and managers (Runnebaum et al. 2019; Randolph 2004; Van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2006).

Stewardship has been recognized as a component of building adaptive capacity of fisheries and fishing communities facing myriad stressors. The adaptive capacity of a system refers to “people’s ability to anticipate and respond to change; to recover from and minimize the consequences of change; and to take advantage of new opportunities” (Smit and Wandel 2006, summarized by Barnes et al. 2020, p. 823). Fishers’ extensive place-based knowledge guides stewardship practices that involve deliberate choices to fish in ways that may afford conservation benefits, but are not required by regulations. For example, commercial and recreational rockfish fishers in Alaska and Washington, USA, have collected bathymetric data to avoid areas known to produce high bycatch, reduced targeting of larger, older fish, and used deep-water release mechanisms to minimize release mortality before they were required by regulation (Sawchuk et al. 2015; Beaudreau et al. 2018; Gordon et al. 2022). In Scotland, fishers in the Loch Torridon prawn fishery created their own voluntary code of conduct, where the fishers have agreed upon maximum numbers of sets, traps, and fishing days per year (Bennett and Hough 2008). In addition to the more concrete benefits accrued by stewardship, these actions are a way for fishers to express care for a natural resource that is crucial to their way of life, and that they hope to support (Hart 2021).

Despite its many benefits, stewardship may be constrained in fisheries that are impacted by a range of social and environmental pressures. The ability of fishery participants to take stewardship actions and the effectiveness of these actions are influenced by “the speed, scale, severity, complexity, and predictability of the social and ecological changes that are occurring” within a system (Bennett et al. 2018, p. 604). Accordingly, the decreased predictability of fisheries systems resulting from climate change (Brander 2007), alongside the complexity associated with these changes could limit the stewardship capacity of fisheries systems. Social factors, such as age, financial status, and employment, may all impact the extent to which individuals participate in environmental stewardship, or the specifics of what stewardship actions they choose to take (Clinch 2021). Additionally, institutional and cultural barriers in fisheries management may inequitably limit stewardship in the form of policy engagement for communities and individual fishers (Krupa et al. 2020). Understanding the capacity for stewardship within fisheries systems requires understanding of factors that motivate and constrain environmental stewardship actions, and consideration of how multiple stressors may impact the prevalence and effectiveness of these actions.

These issues are relevant to Alaska fisheries, which are affected by overlapping environmental, socioeconomic, and regulatory pressures (Beaudreau et al. 2019) that may have implications for individual and collective stewardship capacity. Climate change is negatively impacting many culturally and commercially important species, including Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) and several species of crab (Irvine and Fukuwaka 2011; Crozier et al. 2021; Szuwalski et al. 2021). Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) runs have declined throughout the state (Jones et al. 2020) and several salmon species have undergone significant declines in body size since the 1970s (Oke et al. 2020). Crab fisheries in Alaska have also experienced declines, with the 2022 closure of the Bering Sea crab fishery (ADF&G 2022) sparking particular concern (Fedewa et al. 2020; NOAA 2022). Marine heatwaves have had far-reaching impacts on these systems, including smaller and thinner Chinook salmon due to a shift in prey availability (Cavole et al. 2016), as well as declines in commercial harvest of salmon and groundfish species throughout the Gulf of Alaska (Suryan et al. 2021). As climate change increases variability within the ocean (McGowan et al. 1998) scientific uncertainty also increases, thereby requiring greater responsiveness in governance (McIlgorm et al. 2010). This highlights the importance of forward-thinking, flexible management strategies that draw from fishers’ knowledge of environmental change and stewardship practices. These stewardship practices are informed by experiential and generational knowledge of fishers about their local ecosystems (Johannes et al. 2000). Understanding the role of local environmental stewardship within a stressed system will allow for a greater understanding of the overall stewardship capacity, or the factors enabling and limiting stewardship actions by fishery participants, and how they can best be supported by management institutions (Bennett et al. 2018).

In this study, we explored local environmental stewardship within state-managed fisheries near Juneau in northern Southeast Alaska (Fig. 1), where commercial fisheries are already experiencing the effects of climate change. Juneau, as the state capital with a large presence of government institutions, offers a useful case study for examining intersections of stewardship with formal management institutions in Alaska fisheries (e.g., Gordon et al. 2022). We applied an integrative analytical framework developed by Bennett et al. (2018) to explore the dimensions of local environmental stewardship, which they defined as “actions taken to protect, care for, or responsibly use the environment in pursuit of environmental and/or social outcomes in diverse social–ecological contexts” (p. 599), for Juneau-area fisheries. Within this framework, the outcomes of stewardship depend on the social-ecological context in which stewardship takes place, which includes actors (individuals or groups), their motivations for stewardship, and their capacity to take action (Bennett et al. 2018). A number of forms of capital, including social, cultural, financial, physical, and institutional may influence an individual’s ability to take stewardship actions, the efficacy of these actions, and the overall stewardship capacity of the system (Bennett et al. 2018). We use the framework to address three objectives: 1) document fisher-led stewardship actions and ways that small-boat commercial fishers engage formally and informally with local management, 2) explore the role of fishery management agencies in facilitating collaboration and communication with fishers in the Juneau area, and 3) understand local perspectives on gaps in stewardship capacity within the fishery system and how fishers' stewardship can be better supported in order to work towards desired ecological, social, and economic outcomes.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Map of the study area in Southeast Alaska, USA. We conducted interviews in Juneau, the capital of Alaska. Commercial salmon regulations are established for individual fishing districts; most salmon fishers we interviewed fish primarily within Lynn Canal, in Districts 11 and 15. Map created by C.J. Sergeant and used with permission

Full size image

Study system

Commercial fisheries in Juneau provide important economic value to the city and to individuals, with an estimated ex-vessel value of $20.7 million for all Juneau based fisheries in 2018 (CFEC 2021). Commercial fisheries are also an important job source in Juneau, with 384 commercial fishing permit holders, 376 full year crew license holders, and 604 home-ported vessels in 2017 (ADF&G 2023c). The most prominent small-boat commercial fisheries include salmon (hand troll, power troll, drift gillnet, purse seine) with 143 active permit holders, Dungeness, king, and tanner crab with 29 active permit holders, halibut with 71 active permit holders, and sablefish with 18 active permit holders (CFEC 2020).

Fisheries in state waters (within 3 nmi of shore) are managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) based on regulations set by the Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF). Regulations set by BOF are based on proposals submitted by Advisory Committees (AC), ADF&G, or any individual or organization who would like to propose a management change. These proposals, along with relevant analyses and written and oral testimony, are presented at regional meetings to the BOF members, who have been appointed by the governor (ADF&G 2023a). Once decisions are reached by a majority vote of the seven BOF members, ADF&G begins to implement and enforce any new regulations within their regions. Meetings occur on a three year cycle, with a meeting in every region happening once per cycle (ADF&G 2023a). Within this study we focus on fishers who identify their main fishery as either salmon or crab, with the majority of salmon fishers in Juneau participating in the drift gillnet fishery. Notably, salmon fisheries in Alaska are strongly influenced by salmon hatcheries, which release more than one billion fish each year and have been “designed to minimize wild stock interactions and enhance fisheries” (ADF&G 2023b)Footnote 1.

Methods

Positionality

The research team is a mix of early- and mid-career authors who completed this work at the University of Washington. We hold shared values around the importance of community engagement and fishers’ knowledge in management, which influenced our research questions and approach. Our perspectives are also shaped by our experiences living and working in rural, coastal communities in the northern U.S. AHB lived in Juneau, Alaska, for nearly a decade until shortly before the start of this study and drew from her personal and professional ties to Southeast Alaska fishing communities in the development of this research. EDS worked in several areas in Southeast Alaska for a total of about a year prior to the research, including Juneau, and EM was raised in coastal Maine and has worked in rural community development.

Research participants and semi-structured interviews

Within the social-ecological system of Juneau-area commercial fisheries, major actors include commercial fishermen, ADF&G management staff, and other participants in the seafood sector, including individuals involved in hatchery production, processing, and marketing. We conducted semi-structured interviews (Bernard 2018) with individuals from across these groups and aimed to draw from a diverse set of perspectives within the Juneau-based seafood sector, with a focus on local fisheries. Potential interview participants were initially contacted by mailing invitation letters and study information sheets to 2022 salmon drift gillnet and Dungeness crab pot permit holders (97 individuals). Initial participants from the commercial fishing industry, fishing associations, and management agencies were also recruited through existing contacts of a coauthor (AHB) who had lived and conducted fisheries research in Juneau for 9 years. We also posted flyers and held a community meeting at a public library in Juneau to discuss the project and invite participation (June 2022). Subsequent participants were contacted via snowball sampling (Bernard 2018), in which interviewees recommend other participants based on relevant knowledge and industry experience. Interviews took place during two research trips to Juneau during June 2022 and July 2023, and over Zoom from July 2022 to November 2022. Following the completion of interviews and analysis, interview participants were invited to a virtual presentation to discuss the results and provide feedback. Participants also had an opportunity to review a draft manuscript and provide feedback before journal submission.

Interviews were designed to gather insights about fisher-led stewardship actions, formal and informal engagement between fishers and managers, and the effects of current fishery stressors on stewardship capacity (Appendix 1). A first set of questions focused on gaining an understanding of the participants’ background and experiences in Alaska fisheries. For fishers and other members of the seafood sector, we asked questions about all relevant experience, including years in each fishery, regions, seasons, gear types, and target species, as well as any other ways individuals had gained their knowledge of commercial fisheries. For management staff, questions were similar, focused on understanding various positions held within their organization, and the species/regions managed. The next set of questions focused on gaining an understanding of stewardship actions being taken within small boat commercial fisheries in Juneau, as well as fisher-management interactions. This included questions about specific stewardship actions or fishing practices geared towards conservation, when and how fishers engaged with agency staff, both formally and informally, and what could be done by management to improve inclusion of fishers’ ideas and concerns. For management staff, this section involved asking how they had previously engaged stakeholders in their work, in what contexts managers informally interacted with fishers, and whether these conversations or concerns expressed by fishers influenced management decisions. The last section of the interview was based on gaining a better understanding of the changing nature of Juneau-area fisheries, and involved asking questions about the biggest challenges participants’ fisheries are currently facing, whether they had concerns about their (or others’) ability to participate in their fishery long term, and what they thought could be done to address these issues. Interviews were conducted by 2–3 researchers (EDS, AHB, EM), with one researcher leading the interview by primarily asking questions and the other researchers taking hand-written notes and asking clarifying or follow-up questions. The research was approved by the University of Washington Institutional Review Board (IRB ID: STUDY00015546). Before interviews began, researchers reviewed an informed consent form with participants, and explained steps taken to ensure data privacy and precautions taken to ensure anonymity of interview participants. Interviews were recorded with permission, then transcribed for use in thematic content analysis.

Thematic content analysis

Interviews were coded and analyzed using inductive and deductive coding schemes (Braun and Clarke 2006). Deductive coding is based on previous research themes, frameworks, or research questions, whereas inductive coding analyzes data based on themes that are identified while going through the data, rather than fitting data into pre-existing coding frames or the researcher’s own preconceived notions (Braun and Clarke 2006). An initial set of deductive codes were created, based on the local environmental stewardship framework of Bennett et al. (2018; Table 1). Following this framework, the context of a social-ecological system serves as the backdrop for stewardship actors, their motivations, and the various forms of capital present with the system. Each of these factors then influences what specific stewardship actions are taken, as well as the overall stewardship capacity of the system (Bennett et al. 2018). The forms of capital that either enable or limit the ability of individuals and groups to take effective stewardship actions, as identified by Bennett et al. (2018), are social, cultural, financial, physical, human, and institutional. We created codes to understand the system context, particularly fishery stressors, actors within the system, their motivations for taking or not taking stewardship actions, and the various forms of capital. Lastly, we coded stewardship actions already being taken by fisheries participants. Outside of this framework, we also synthesized goals for the fishery and solutions to stewardship limitations proposed by interview participants, as a way to understand how the long-term stewardship capacity of the fishery system could be increased.

Table 1 Coding scheme based on local ecological stewardship framework by Bennett et al. (2018)
Full size table

Initial codes were changed, modified, or broken into smaller-subcodes throughout the beginning of the coding process in an inductive manner, in order to better understand and communicate the specific nuances of interview themes. An example of this includes the code “stewardship actions” being broken into sub-codes “conservation actions”, “political engagement”, and “knowledge production,” to more specifically categorize the different types of stewardship actions occurring. The codebook was developed collaboratively by coauthors and refined over time in order to increase clarity. The codebook development process was also iterative, with codes changing slightly to better reflect recurrent themes as more interviews were analyzed (Creswell and Creswell 2023). Coding was performed by the lead author (EDS) using Atlas.ti 9, with discussion with other authors to ensure consistency in interpretation and comprehensiveness of themes. A cumulative code frequency plot was used to determine that code saturation had been reached with the number of interviews (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Cumulative code frequency plot showing the cumulative number of unique codes generated with each additional interview. Interview order was randomized and resampled to generate a smooth curve; the black line is the mean and gray shaded band is the 95% confidence interval of 1000 permutations. Code saturation is seen to occur around 10 interviews

Full size image

Results

Results are organized following the structure of Bennett and coauthors’ (2018) local environmental stewardship framework to understand the Juneau-area fisheries system through the lens of stewardship (Fig. 3). First, we summarize the environmental and socioeconomic fisheries stressors described by interviewees as part of the background context, or setting, for stewardship actions. Next, we describe the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for taking stewardship action or deterrents to action, as well as the specific stewardship actions being taken by interview participants. We examine how these stewardship actions are impacted by several types of assets and their interactions, particularly social, financial, and institutional capital. Lastly, potential solutions or goals given by participants are described, to better understand what productive change within this system might entail. Taken together, each of these individual components address our objectives, and enable us to understand the various factors impacting the stewardship capacity of this system (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Social-ecological system of Juneau-area commercial fisheries, viewed through the lens of stewardship. Fisheries stressors directly impact various forms of capital within the fishery. These forms of capital, in combination with actors’ motivations, together produce the stewardship capacity of the fishery

Full size image

Description of interview participants

We interviewed 22 participants for this study (18 interviews with individuals, 2 interviews with pairs). We use the term fishermen to describe interview participants who currently participate in commercial fisheries. This reflects the language that the men and women who were interviewed used to describe themselves. Commercial fishermen (12) primarily participated in salmon and crab fisheries in the Juneau area. Agency staff (6) and other fisheries professionals involved in gear group associations, processing, marketing, and hatchery management (6) all had components of their work focused around Juneau-area fisheries. Three interviewees had experience in both commercial fisheries and other seafood sector employment. Six interviewees self-identified their gender as female (27%) and 16 as male (73%); all self-identified as white. Twenty-one participants listed Juneau as their city/town of residence, and one participant listed another community in Southeast Alaska. The age range of participants was 32 to 80 years old. Interview duration ranged from approximately 45 to 90 min.

Stressors affecting Juneau-area fisheries

Fisheries stressors represent specific concerns expressed by interviewees that impact Juneau-area fisheries and were broadly categorized as environmental, socioeconomic, and management-related stressors. Environmental stressors mentioned by fishermen, other fisheries professionals, and agency staff were similar. Interviewees drew from their knowledge of scientific studies and from direct observation, describing changing ocean conditions due to climate change (e.g., warming waters and ocean acidification) and associated ecological responses, such as changes in salmon run timing. They also commonly noted reduced salmon abundance overall, less predictability in salmon returns compared to past years and the associated decline in catch, and effects of hatchery salmon on wild fish. However, some stressors were exclusively expressed by fishermen, including increased sea otter populations eating Dungeness crab and the impact of trawl bycatchFootnote 2 on fish stocks. Socioeconomic stressors mentioned by fishermen and fisheries professionals included ex vessel price variability, revenue not keeping up with inflation, seafood being viewed as a “luxury item” that consumers are more likely to stop buying during difficult economic times, and both the high startup and operating costs to participate in the fishery. Less frequently, interviewees noted issues with a lack of racial and gender diversity among fishermen, as well as the power and social dynamics that consistently benefitted older fishermen of a higher socioeconomic status. Management-related stressors included the inability to complete “adequate” sampling at ports and processors, concerns about a lack of influence within the BOF process, reduced time and area of the fishery, and future regulatory uncertainty. Management stressors discussed less frequently included complication of managing salmon across international borders (i.e., under the Pacific Salmon Treaty), and the difficulty of explaining changes in regulations to fishermen when there are discrepancies with what they are seeing on the fishing grounds.

While many stressors affected multiple fisheries, including those in a much broader area than Juneau, stressors and their interactions were also seen as affecting individual fisheries in specific ways. As explained by one gillnet fisherman when asked about the biggest challenges his fishery faced, “It’s definitely like price variability, abundance, and then, this fishery in particular—Southeast gillnet—has had just like, a series of declines in both of those things at times” (Interview 04). Other interviewees expressed that they were not only concerned about current stressors, but also future unknowns. One fisheries professional with experience in seafood marketing described the challenge of navigating multiple sources of uncertainty, saying, “I think it’s just staying on top of a constantly shifting situation. And there’s so many unknowns. There’s so much we don’t know. As far as like, how a lot of it’s unprecedented. So trying to plan for things that we sort of haven’t seen before” (Interview 06). An ADF&G staff member highlighted combined ecological and economic pressures, noting a challenging mix of “uncertainty of the fish that are gonna come back, if you’re going to be able to pay off all your loans, if you’ll ever be able to afford to own your own boat, to purchase your own permit” (Interview 07). Environmental, socioeconomic, and institutional pressures within this system collectively inform the specific stewardship actions that fishery participants take, and may also limit their capacity for doing so.

Motivations and current stewardship actions

Fishermen and other fishery professionals expressed varying motivations for stewardship actions, as well as deterrents to stewardship (Table 2). This section reflects specifically fishermen’s motivations and stewardship actions, as these were discussed most prevalently during interviews. Motivations can be understood as either intrinsic (relating to personal morals and beliefs) or extrinsic (relating to external rewards or benefits). Participants also expressed their reasons for engaging in stewardship actions, which we coded as stewardship deterrents. Intrinsic motivations expressed by fishermen included hope for future generations to continue fishing, a sense of responsibility for the ecosystem, a drive to make a living harvesting a sustainable natural resource, and the desire to highlight knowledge and perspectives of small-boat fishers. Extrinsic motivations expressed by fishermen included wanting to avoid increased regulations, an interest in improving fishing efficiency (waste reduction), and a hope that stewardship efforts will increase future economic viability of the fishery. Stewardship deterrents for fishermen included lack of time due to holding multiple jobs outside of fishing, concerns that they will not be “heard” by the management system, and the cost of traveling to meetings to advocate for their fishery, each of which were expressed by multiple fishermen.

Table 2 Motivation types identified within Juneau-area commercial fisheries. Two types of motivation are referenced: intrinsic (relating to personal morals and beliefs) and extrinsic (relating to external rewards or benefits). Stewardship deterrents identify reasons participants described for not participating in stewardship actions
Full size table

Current stewardship actions described by interviewees could be categorized as conservation actions, knowledge production, and political engagement. Conservation actions included suggesting areas for managers to close based on Chinook salmon catch rates, cutting halibut loose instead of shaking them off the hook to prevent jaw injuries in released fish, releasing female crab upside down so that the eggs are not harmed when they hit the bottom, releasing live Chinook salmon caught in gillnets because they were not the target species, choosing to fish in a fishery that selectively targets hatchery salmon, and switching to gear types with lower bycatch (e.g., switching from longline to pot gear for groundfish; NOAA 2024a). As a terminal area fishery, the salmon drift gillnet fishery was repeatedly referred to as a low bycatchFootnote 3 fishery by both fishermen and management staff, and described as “a super clean fishery compared to a lot” by one fishery participant. Several interviewees noted that specific fishing practices focused on ecological conservation were likely less common or necessary in salmon fisheries because of the low rates of incidental catch.

Examples of knowledge production as a form of stewardship included fishermen volunteering to assist ADF&G with sampling studies, fishermen sharing knowledge with management of where they had the highest catch rates of Chinook salmon to inform time and area closures, advocating to ADF&G for improvements in biological data collection and inputs to population estimation models, and educating seafood consumers on the sustainability and regulations of fisheries.

Stewardship through political engagement was by far the most common example of local ecological stewardship shared by interview participants. These political engagement actions included expressing needs and concerns to ADF&G staff, participating in AC meetings, submitting regulatory proposals, attending or providing testimony at BOF meetings, and participating in fishing associations and advocacy organizations. One ADF&G staff member described what fishermen expressing their concerns to management might look like, and noted the importance of it, saying, “In general, fishermen are usually the first ones to bring their concerns to the department. It’s interesting, because they’re the ones that see what’s going on. It can be, you know, a shrimp fishery, where they’re like, these shrimp are small, and they’re already females. That means you’ve over harvested them” (Interview 19). These types of actions are particularly important in ensuring the continued use of and access to these resources, as they are often taken with the goal of ensuring that time and area closures, or changes in allocation across sectors, did not lower harvest so significantly that the fishery is no longer economically viable.

Forms of capital affecting stewardship

Various forms of capital within a fishery system can enable actors to participate in stewardship actions, ultimately affecting the overall stewardship capacity of the fishery. Conversely, the absence of such assets can limit stewardship capacity. In coding interviews, the forms of capital we most commonly identified were social capital, financial capital, and institutional capital (Table 3). Here, we discuss these forms of capital as they relate to Juneau-area fisheries, as well as the ways in which they are enabled or limited by existing social-ecological dynamics, as described by interview participants.

  1. 1.

    Social capital

Table 3 Forms of capital that enhance the capacity of individuals or groups to take stewardship actions within Juneau-area commercial fisheries. The forms of capital are ordered from the highest to lowest code frequency within interviews
Full size table

Social capital encompasses informal and formal relationships within the system that support stewardship. Social capital between fishermen and managers was enabled by several factors, including existing institutional arrangements that provide opportunities for interaction within formal decision-making bodies and in informal settings. Fishermen noted the ability to share their concerns and knowledge of management practices with agency staff on a regular basis through office visits or phone calls, and the ability for individual fishermen to attend task force meetings where management staff meet with fishermen to go over regulations for the upcoming season, provide explanations for changes, and respond to questions or concerns from fishermen. Most fishermen, even those who expressed concerns or tension with management, noted that agency staff are a part of the broader local community and viewed fishermen and agency staff as two groups who share “a common goal.” Opportunities for fishermen to talk with agency staff outside of formal settings were noted as being particularly important by some fishermen. As one fisherman with leadership experience in fishing associations explained, “We encourage people to go to [meetings held by ADF&G]… outside the meetings, it’s also a good opportunity to sit down with those guys [ADF&G staff] and have a beer and get to know them a little bit, and really be frank. And it’s without any repercussions or anything like that” (Interview 14). In Juneau these informal interactions were noted as occurring fairly often by a majority of both ADF&G and fishermen, largely because of management’s presence in the small city.

Agency staff also described factors that contribute to social capital, including time spent at the docks and on the water talking to fishermen, providing assistance or giving feedback on fishermen’s BOF proposals, actively working to include a diverse set of stakeholders at meetings, sending out information to fishermen ahead of meetings so they are not met by surprises, and maintaining ongoing and long-term relationships with individual fishermen. A specific example was given by a staff member, who described the value of engagement with fishermen on the fishing grounds, saying, “Basically every day that there’s an opening [of the drift gillnet fishery] we’re out there on the grounds chatting with them, so we have a pretty good rapport with local fishermen” (Interview 01).

Factors limiting social capital between fishermen and management were frequently noted by interviewees. The major, recurring factor noted by agency staff was fishers’ lack of knowledge or trust about why managers are making certain decisions. Fishermen also discussed their experiences of inaction by ADF&G in response to concerns expressed by fishermen, and implementation of rules or regulations that do not align with fishermen’s experiences and observations. For example, one fisherman described a time when crabbing was shut down in a single district because of the low numbers reported back. However, the decision for crabbing in this area to be shut down was based on total catch, and did not factor in how effort differed between the different regions. As a result, fishermen were left unable to fish in an area where they had been experiencing high catch rates.

Despite the fact that both groups are broadly working towards similar goals of fishing sustainably while allowing for the most opportunity, one commercial fisherman said, “It’s a complicated relationship. And there’s a natural tension,” adding that conversations between fishermen frequently include sentiments towards ADF&G such as, “They never get it right, we always know better, we don’t get enough time [to fish], we don’t get enough area, there’s more fish than they think… the list goes on and on and on and on” (Interview 03). A lack of social cohesion between fishers and managers may reduce overall stewardship capacity by limiting communication and knowledge-sharing between these groups.

Interviewees also noted limitations in social capital among fishermen, or between different groups of fishermen, that arose from differences in opinions or ethical stances related to fishing (e.g., views on hatchery production, preferred target species, and bycatch), differences in financial status, sexism within the fleet, and a feeling that many fishermen are only looking out for themselves, rather than the overall good of the fishery. Additionally, this sense of limited social capital was attributed to the overall culture of the fleet, with one fisherman referring to the fleet as “pretty fractious” and noting that “small boat fishermen are notoriously, and to a fault, independent” (Interview 02). Limited social capital among fishers may negatively impact the stewardship capacity of this fishery by creating barriers to fishermen advocating for the needs of themselves and their fisheries. Instead of coming together to express their needs as a unified entity, fishermen’s concerns expressed to management were described by the same fisherman as “random scatter shots coming out of a series of individuals, which is increasingly easy to ignore” (Interview 02).

Interview participants discussed the hypothetical benefits of having a more socially cohesive local industry, such as presenting more unified arguments to management bodies, or collaborating on cohesive proposals for BOF meetings. The importance of improving social capital between fishermen and BOF members was also discussed. Both agency staff and fishermen identified informal conversations between fishermen and BOF as opportunities that could be influential in management decisions. Notably, interviewees shared that these important social connections exist in other fisheries, but that they are uncommon in Juneau small boat fisheries.

  1. 2.

    Financial capital

Financial capital, referring to the availability of financial resources accessible to an individual or a group, was brought up frequently – often as a source of concern – by many of the interviewees. Overall, examples of financial capital that enable the stewardship capacity of the local system were not discussed by participants. Instead, when talking about financial capital as an enabling factor for stewardship capacity, examples were given for fisheries, fleets, and communities outside of Juneau. Fishermen referenced financial capital as a way that other fleets are able to pay for lawyers and lobbyists to help maintain or enhance their allocations. As one fisherman described, “I think that the wealthier fisheries definitely have better access to regulators [BOF and ADF&G staff], and that drives policy. And like, those of us who have had to take second jobs or whatever it is to make this thing go, don’t have the extra time to organize, to develop the kind of financial war chest that you need to compete in that arena” (Interview 04). Another noted that other fishery sectors were able to increase their allocations through lobbying activities and donations to political campaigns, but that salmon gillnetters would never be in a position to do something similar. When talking about higher earning fisheries, one fisherman noted that when there are disagreements within the fleets, “there’s enough money on the line where even all those same people can put their differences aside and see the dollars. Like…we gotta work together to get these dollars” (Interview 05). As a result, participants in these fisheries are better able to come together and express their needs and desires to management. This is in contrast to the smaller, lower earning fishery where, “it’s just not a big enough fishery for that to happen. We’re still fighting amongst each other” (Interview 05). This is a concrete example of the type of power that financial capital affords certain groups of fishermen, but not others.

Juneau-area fishermen we interviewed often described either their own financial capital, or the financial capital of their fleet as being low or lower than other fleets. Specific financial concerns expressed by fishermen included shifting allocation of salmon among different commercial fishing gear-groups as a major limiting factor in building their fleet’s financial capital, as well as the high variability in ex-vessel prices. One salmon gillnet fisherman told us, “You gotta give people a living wage… enough needs to be allocated to small-boat fisheries that they can make a go” (Interview 04) and another described the biggest stressor he was currently facing as “reallocation…of the salmon resource itself… the Board of Fish process, they’re having fish allocated away” (Interview 16). Financial stress was expressed by many fishermen, with several specifically saying that in its current status, staying in the fishery was not financially viable as a sole source of income. However, there were examples fishermen gave of their own individual strategies enabling financial capacity, including several moving towards more direct-marketing sales and developing relationships with a more diverse set of potential buyers. One fisherman specifically noted that moving to direct to consumer sales would not have been possible had his wife not been retired and able to assist him. Financial stability was discussed as being directly important for several reasons, including the ability to diversify a fishing portfolio through buying new permits and gear, and to be able to continue fishing even in years with lower salmon runs. Additionally, lower financial capital and a need to supplement income from fishing at both an individual and fleet level was discussed as a reason for fishermen seeking jobs outside of the seafood industry during the offseason. Several fishermen also expressed that they would like to see ADF&G be able to do more research, or specific projects, but were aware of limited agency budgets. Knowledge and data gaps that arise as a result of agency budget limitations contribute to skepticism from the fleet and can challenge the ability of ADF&G staff to make informed decisions.

  1. 3.

    Institutional capital

Institutional capital refers to what each actor is able to do through currently established management processes and regulations that enhance the stewardship abilities of these actors. Both fishermen and agency staff discussed ways that “sustainability” is built into the overarching framework of fishery management in Alaska. One agency staff explained this, saying, “It’s laid out in our core mission—as the Division of Commercial Fisheries that’s like our core mission statement… and we try to structure our fisheries so that we have [done this]” (Interview 01). A component of this system is the public process of management at the BOF, which many of the interviewees in all groups have participated in to some degree, through their ACs, developing BOF proposals, and commentary at BOF meetings. Less frequently mentioned than engagement through the aforementioned bodies was service on the board of directors for hatchery associations. As explained by an ADF&G staff member, hatchery boards of directors, which include unpaid, elected stakeholder representatives, “make all the financial decisions and all production decisions for our hatchery programs.” The staff member described public engagement benefits to this system, noting that “the fishermen are making the decisions for the fishery” (Interview 19). All of these opportunities for formal engagement serve as institutional capital for fishermen that is built into the fishery management system.

Despite the opportunity for public engagement in formal institutions of management, the limitations of the BOF process were often discussed. An ADF&G staff person described the disconnect that can exist between the BOF and local decision-making by ADF&G, saying, “They say it’s a large public process, but then when the public and Fish and Game agree on it, and the Board denies it, that kind of caught me off guard. How is this a large public process? Like this has been a huge heated issue for years and years and now we have public buy-in, we did the analytics on it, we’re comfortable with it, let’s provide some opportunity, let’s create some new management tools…and it was still denied” (Interview 08). Even when there is agreement between managers and fishermen at the local level, it is not necessarily formalized by the BOF. In this way, institutional capital of both fishermen and local managers is limited by this process. This sentiment was echoed by many fishermen, who noted their frustration with the low level of influence they felt they were able to have at BOF meetings. While institutional capital may appear high initially, many fishermen and several agency staff noted ways in which it is more limited in practice.

  1. 4.

    Interactions among social, financial, and institutional capital

In many instances, social, financial, and institutional capital were all seen to be closely linked with one another. A strong capacity in any one of these was described as having a direct, positive influence on the others. Similarly, a limited capacity in any one of these was seen as having a negative effect on the others. In this way, a lack of capital or the presence of capital in any one of these areas may act as the beginning of a feedback loop, either supporting or constraining other forms of capital further and further over time. As described by one commercial fisherman, “In all politics, it’s the same thing. It’s like, whoever has the most money and can buy the most time is going to get the best representation” (Interview 10). The best representation can then go on to advocate for increased allocation, or increased access to fishery resources, thus allowing the fishermen to make more money. Limited social capital between fishermen was also identified as inhibiting institutional capacity, as fishermen are less likely to come together and collectively advocate for their needs. Instead, when there are weak social connections among fishermen of the same fleet, there are scenarios where they may be advocating for different outcomes from management, rather than coming together as a united front. The large variation in views of what would benefit Juneau fisheries, in combination with variable financial capacity among fleets and individuals, further limits the social cohesion of these fishermen.

Additionally, it was laid out clearly how increased financial capital can benefit social capital. One interview participant noted that they had heard stories about fishermen in higher earning fisheries taking BOF members out on multi-day hunting trips, adding, “It’s going to help you… You’re going to make some friends. They’re going to have some sway in your direction, when that meeting comes up” (Interview 10). Higher financial capital was described as allowing for an increase in social connections. This social capital, particularly between fishermen and managers, was then described as increasing institutional capacity, as fishermen were better able to successfully advocate for regulation changes that were in their favor. Conversely, lower financial capital limited institutional capital in several ways; for example, less fishing-related income often required working an additional job, resulting in less time to engage in institutional processes such as BOF meetings.

Opportunities for building stewardship capacity

Interviewees identified a number of potential avenues for improving economic and environmental sustainability of their fisheries. These solutions were offered as a response to fishery stressors, as well as to strengthen financial, institutional, and social capital in Juneau small-boat fisheries. These are largely informed by individuals’ specific backgrounds and beliefs, and, at times, solutions suggested by some individuals were contradicted by others.

One solution proposed by multiple fishermen was to reduce reliance on hatchery fish within salmon fisheries. Conversations around hatcheries often sparked strong opinions from individuals who explained that many in the industry had different viewpoints than theirs. Proponents of hatchery enhancement noted its importance in maintaining fishing opportunities for commercial and recreational fisheries. Others raised concerns about the potential adverse impacts of hatchery-produced salmon on wild fish and the intersection of hatcheries and political interests. One commercial fisherman proposed that “the solution is to get the sort of politics and the money and political interests who are lobbying for hatcheries out of the conversation, and just have an actual conversation about wild salmon and hatchery production interactions and what’s really happening…reduce hatchery production, not eliminate, but like get back into balance with what’s actually sustainable” (Interview 13). A common viewpoint expressed by fishermen we interviewed was concern about the impacts of current hatchery release numbers on natural-origin stocks.

Increased advocacy from gear group associations was brought up by several fishermen as a way to address multiple concerns, including providing an avenue to advocate specifically for equitable allocations. Gear group associations were viewed as ideally being a more accessible avenue for fishermen’s needs or concerns to be more readily or easily communicated to management. Additionally, gear group associations serve as a pathway for fishermen to express concerns to management without needing specific social relationships in place, essentially bypassing some of the otherwise needed social capital. This was seen as being the ideal role of gear groups from fishermen, but several expressed that this was not the current reality.

Few concrete solutions were given to most environmental stressors listed by interview participants, but one that was brought up repeatedly by both fishermen and managers was improved tools for integrating climate change responses into management. These more nimble management tools would allow for more adaptive management to be made, which is seen as important because, as explained by an ADF&G manager, “a lot of our regulations have been in place since the ‘90 s or early 2000s… and the fisheries have changed, climate has changed, the environment has changed…we always need to progress forward and adapt to what’s changing, cause the environment’s going to change no matter what we do, so we need to adjust policy to reflect that” (Interview 08). Integrating climate change responses into management was viewed as something for which there was an immediate need.

Making BOF meetings more accessible and the BOF process more trustworthy were discussed by many fishermen and managers as a way to more effectively translate the needs of fishing communities into policy. Several potential mechanisms for this goal were proposed, including ensuring that BOF members are from diverse backgrounds and sectors, making meetings more financially accessible, depoliticizing the process, and ensuring BOF members have sufficient background knowledge of fisheries across the state.

Other less commonly proposed solutions included improved seafood marketing in order to stabilize price fluctuations year to year, increasing shoreside infrastructure to support fisheries, increasing diversity within the fishing industry (both of fishermen and management) in order to incorporate a wider range of viewpoints and experiences when dealing with current challenges, permit buyback programs to decrease fishing pressure, and increasing the presence of impartial observers on fishing boats.

Discussion

This work serves as a case study of a fishery social-ecological system viewed through the lens of local ecological stewardship, but our findings reflect complex challenges that small-scale commercial fisheries are facing more broadly. Our study contributes insight into the role of stewardship in a system facing a variety of overlapping environmental, economic, social, and institutional pressures. Low social, financial, and institutional capital within some sectors of the Juneau-area commercial fleet was seen as a multifaceted stressor that limits the potential for local stewardship by small boat commercial fishers. Despite these challenges, fishery participants still engage in stewardship, including actions based around ecological conservation, knowledge production, engagement with management, and fishery advocacy. Participants described a number of potential actions to address immediate challenges while also enhancing the stewardship capacity of the system. This case study highlights the work and knowledge that fishermen, fisheries professionals, and agency staff put into keeping these small boat commercial fisheries continuously viable.

Political engagement as stewardship

A number of stewardship actions taken by fishers are not motivated by a sense of hope or the promise of direct benefits from these actions, but rather, because there are few other options if they want to continue participating in their fishery. This was mainly true of political engagement, particularly surrounding BOF meetings and regulatory proposals. As one ADF&G staff person explained, at BOF meetings “you see people who come to the meeting and it’s like, kind of life or death to them” (Interview 07), because their culture or livelihood could be drastically impacted at any moment. If they are not there to advocate for the allocation or regulations that would enable them to continue fishing, those might get taken away. The common conceptualization that “if you aren’t at the table, you’re on the menu,” holds true in the context of fisheries management decisions here. If certain gear groups or sectors are not represented during BOF meetings, this could translate into reduced opportunity. As interviewees explained, allocative decisions that reduce harvest opportunity for a fleet can strongly impact the financial viability of staying in that fishery for its participants. Juneau fishers and fisheries have access to higher financial and institutional capital than many other smaller communities off the road system in Southeast Alaska. Structural inequities within the management system that create barriers to participation by rural, Alaska Native fishers are well documentedFootnote 4 (Reedy-Maschner 2013; Krupa et al. 2020; Donkersloot et al. 2020; Gordon et al. 2022). The importance of representation in decision-making has been documented in small-scale fisheries globally (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2022) and in other contexts, such as international climate policy (Bamsey and Rowley 2015). If members of a group are not present during these political processes to advocate for their needs, they may end up in a worse position than they were previously.

These issues relate to what Clinch (2021) referred to as stewardship stemming from a “have to” standpoint, or what Stengers (2015) called “cold panic” guardianship (p. 32). In Clinch’s 2021 study of environmental stewardship under an austere government in the UK, residents living alongside a frequently flooding river took a wide variety of stewardship actions to help combat the detrimental social and environmental effects of flooding. However, these stewardship actions were taken due to a lack of government support or funding to mitigate these damages, so there was a sense that “you ‘have to’ carry on and look after your environment even though there are no resources to support you” (2021, p. 252). Within Juneau fisheries, some participants described having to spend their time advocating for management decisions that will allow them to continue participating in their fishery, despite time and financial constraints that make access to meetings challenging. On one hand, the relatively high rates of political engagement described by interviewees could be interpreted as a signal that the current system is working as it should; on the other, understanding the extent to which participants feel no other option but to participate in political processes is critical for assessing whether additional support structures are needed to increase stewardship capacity as a whole. Barriers to engagement in the BOF process described by interviewees echo findings of Gordon et al. (2022) and Krupa et al. (2020), who noted that their study results indicated “the existence of serious barriers to diverse and inclusive public participation” (Krupa et al. 2020, p. 625). This is particularly clear when looking at the strong influence financial and social capital have on institutional capital. Fishermen from high earning fisheries and/or with political connections often have greater access to BOF members, which can confer additional benefits in the context of management decisions. Systemic concerns may not be visible when only considering stewardship actions on their own, and the greater socio-political landscape must also be taken into account.

Notably, fishers in this system unanimously spoke of the importance of participating in their fisheries in a way that supports their continuous viability. This mindset prioritizes a collective common future, one where they, as well as others, can continue to make a living through commercial fishing, and pushes against the prominent narrative of fisheries as inherently, and exclusively, capitalist (St. Martin 2005). While the dominant discourse in fisheries economics suggests that “private rights to resources will ensure an attitude of stewardship amongst capitalists” (St. Martin 2005, p. 63), fishers in this system, and the stewardship actions they take, are not wholly individualistic. However, while interviewees expressed a desire to move towards what may be referred to as a community economy, or “a set of economic practices that explicitly foregrounds community and environmental wellbeing” (Strauss 2019), the broader institutional structures and various social-ecological stressors makes this difficult.

Fishers and community: the role of social capital

Social capital has been shown to directly influence stewardship capacity in other systems, similar to what we found for Juneau fisheries. For example, Turnbull et al. (2020) found that the size of a person’s social network is a significant predictor of environmental stewardship actions at a coastal site in Australia. They found that having a large local social network was associated with being what they refer to as an “uber steward”, or someone who takes a particularly high number of stewardship actions. Our results suggest that in Juneau, fishermen operate within small, fleet-based social networks that are not always tightly connected among fleets or sectors within the seafood industry. This may contribute to lower overall stewardship capacity, not in terms of the frequency or extent of stewardship actions being taken, but by the effectiveness of these actions (e.g., lack of united voice with respect to some management decisions). Dissonance within social systems can directly work against individuals’ and groups’ abilities or choices to take stewardship actions. In a Nova Scotia fishing community, even though fishermen were facing a common set of problems, tensions among fishermen within the fleet continued to grow, as “differences in scale of fishing operation, fishing technology and geography split people apart” (Barnett and Eakin 2015, p. 111). In Juneau, fishermen acknowledged the strong tensions present among individuals or groups of fishers in the system. Social cohesion is particularly important for successful engagement with fisheries management (Pinkerton 1989; Pinkerton et al. 2014). The importance of social networks and cohesion may hold true even further afield than just social relationships of fishermen within the fleet, as the wider community of Juneau was not viewed as a “fishing community” by most interview participants. Participants conveyed the community centered around fishing as “diluted” by tourism and government sectors, in part because of the lower relative economic reliance on commercial fishing compared to smaller, more rural communities in Southeast Alaska. Several interview participants pointed to limited infrastructure in place to support fishing. These factors, among others, contribute to a lack of strong social identity as a fishing community.

Our research identified the additional challenge of how limited social capital can, in turn, negatively impact financial and institutional capital of commercial fishers. Interview participants discussed examples where they felt fishermen were working against one another because of a lack of strong relationships within the fleet, rather than working together towards a common goal. This was seen as impacting important management decisions, such as allocation among gear groups. Other work points towards social capital impacting information sharing within social networks (Mueller et al. 2008), decision-making (Lin 1999), the overall adaptive capacity of a fishing community (Lavoie & Himes-Cornell 2019), and fisheries management outcomes (Gutiérrez et al. 2011).

Stewardship in the context of climate change

Resilience and adaptive capacity in fishing communities have been the subject of substantial research in recent years, both in Alaska (Himes-Cornell & Kasperski 2015; Beaudreau et al. 2019; Franklin et al. 2019), and worldwide (Mozumder et al. 2018; Silas et al. 2020; Haugen et al. 2021). This focus is particularly pressing in light of global climate change, and agencies and non-governmental organizations have invested substantial effort in developing frameworks for "climate-ready" fisheries (Bell et al. 2020). Many of the stressors Juneau is facing are similar to those affecting fishing communities elsewhere, including changing ocean conditions leading to lower target species abundances (Field & Barros 2014; Colburn et al. 2016), economic concerns due to reduced price or market factors (Prosperi et al. 2019), and regulatory changes (Lavoie & Himes-Cornell 2019). These combined pressures are, in some cases, spurring new forms of stewardship by small-scale fishers. For example, one interviewee described local efforts to develop a new fishery for magister armhook squid (Berryteuthis magister), a species that is increasing in the region due to climate change (e.g., https://www.magistersquidalaska.com/). For others, stewardship in the context of climate change was viewed as supporting broader policies needed to reduce carbon emissions. Responses to climate change and other overlapping stressors – and a community’s ability to adapt, cope, or react (Green et al. 2021) – may be affected by community-level support systems. While there is a commercial fishing presence in Juneau, nearly all interview participants were equivocal about identifying Juneau as a fishing community, instead characterizing it by the presence of tourism and government, as well as the lack of visibility or support for commercial fishers. Therefore, the various forms of advocacy described by fishery participants may support the overall adaptive capacity of commercial fisheries in the area.

Stewardship and salmon hatcheries

Adding to the complexity of understanding the role stewardship plays within Juneau-area commercial fisheries is the large reliance on hatchery-born salmon. A majority of fishermen we interviewed participated in the salmon drift gillnet fishery, which, with few exceptions, primarily targets hatchery-origin fish. Because of this, regardless of what conservation-based stewardship actions are taken, these fish will continue to be produced and caught by fishermen. Therefore, stewardship in this fishery means engaging in a wider range of actions than only “fishing clean” and releasing bycatch. This may explain why many interviewees identified stewardship actions more broadly, such as actions to reduce carbon emissions, political advocacy to support fishing community viability, and knowledge exchange across institutions. In addition, different fishery participants had vastly different views of what stewardship looks like in a fishery largely reliant on hatchery fish (although the salmon fishermen we interviewed unanimously agreed on the importance of preserving wild stocks). Perspectives on hatcheries in Alaska range widely, with respect to both their benefits and costs (Harrison and Gould 2022). Similarly, while several fishermen expressed concerns that hatcheries are directly harmful to wild salmon stocks, other interviewees noted their importance in preserving wild stocks. An individual involved in salmon enhancement described the importance of hatcheries, saying, “[Hatcheries are] here so that people can have a livelihood, and so that there can still be a sustainable protein in the world, and I think that part of the hatchery story is missed a lot of time, like thinking about the future of sustainable foods” (Interview 09). Salmon hatcheries have been seen to play important roles in local economies and community well-being in Alaska, while simultaneously raising major concerns for the impacts on wild stocks (Harrison and Gould 2022). As a result, what one person might view as stewardship (i.e., being part of the system that produces hatchery salmon), might directly contradict what another person views as crucial for this system to continue. Similarly, while some fishermen viewed stewardship as focusing their fishery on wild-born fish, other fishermen viewed stewardship as avoiding or releasing wild-born fish and instead catching mainly hatchery-origin fish. Understandings of how best to care for both the natural resource and the community are contradictory, and at times even contentious.

Formal and informal pathways to increase stewardship capacity

In viewing fisheries through the lens of local environmental stewardship, we highlight fishermen’s knowledge and the important role fishers play in keeping fisheries continuously viable. Despite the many stressors Juneau fisheries are experiencing, people in the local fishing industry continue to put extensive time, effort, and care into these fisheries. Stewardship efforts are important to support, as they improve the adaptive capacity of the system, while simultaneously working towards more equitable and transparent governance (Mahon et al. 2008; Medeiros et al. 2014). Based on the interviews we conducted, we see many concrete ways stewardship capacity can be supported by fishery management agencies, especially in terms of helping to increase knowledge exchange and interactions between fishermen and management. These include more informal, day-to-day opportunities for engagement (e.g., during license renewals and pre-season meetings), empowering fishermen to be more involved in data collection for the agency, and increasing opportunities for collaborative research. Many of these directly support both formal and informal interactions between fishers and management, and may provide opportunities for commercial fishers to build social capital over time. As social capital is so closely linked with both financial and institutional capital, increasing this one form of capital may have a measurable effect for fisheries participants. Importantly, each of these actions come directly from interview participants. While some require time, effort, and funding, most would not necessitate restructuring of the current management system. While there are still many broad-scale stressors that are difficult to address, these suggestions serve as actionable, community-centered efforts that would begin to address a variety of local concerns. Despite increasing stressors on fisheries across Alaska, there are still many concrete actions that can be taken to support fishing communities in Juneau and the broader Southeast Alaska region.