Article

Field Methods
2015, Vol. 27(3) 300-315
ª The Author(s) 2014
A Method for Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Measuring Fishing DOI: 10.1177/1525822X14552221
fmx.sagepub.com

Effort by Small-scale
Fish Aggregating
Device (FAD) Fishers
from the Commonwealth
of Dominica
Michael Alvard1, Ethan McGaffey2,
and David Carlson1

Abstract
We used global positioning system (GPS) technology and tracking analysis
to measure fishing effort by marine, small-scale, fish aggregating device
(FAD) fishers of the Commonwealth of Dominica. FADs are human-
made structures designed to float on the surface of the water and attract
fish. They are also prone to common pool resource problems. To identify
free riders with respect to specific FADs, we need to compare the cost
expended for FAD construction versus the benefit fishers extract from
their use of the FADs. From August to December 2012, we placed GPS
devices on a sample of fishing trips to track movement and measure

1
Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
2
Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA

Corresponding Author:
Michael Alvard, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station,
TX 77843, USA.
Email: alvard@tamu.edu
Alvard et al. 301

variation in fishers’ fishing efforts at a set of seven FADs off the Atlantic east
coast of central Dominica. The method produces high-resolution data to
determine how much time different fishers use different FADs.

Keywords
foraging, technology, patches, Caribbean

Introduction
The ease with which human movement can be tracked using global positioning
system (GPS) technology has led to a surge in applied applications in areas such
as transportation, logistics, military security, marketing, and intelligence gath-
ering (Theiss et al. 2005). Real-time tracking of assets such as school buses,
fishing trawlers, smart phones, or pets is now common (Chadil et al. 2008;
Mazinan 2007; Modsching et al. 2007). The use of relatively inexpensive,
small, and sensitive GPS devices has led to recent concomitant emergence
of academic fields of study that focus on the movement of organisms. The
advent of large amounts of high-resolution data has stimulated movement anal-
ysis in Geographic Information System (GIS) sciences (Laube et al. 2009;
Laube and Purves 2011) and movement ecology in the field of ecology (Nathan
et al. 2008; Shamoun-Baranes et al. 2012); these are associated with a develop-
ing range of analytic techniques for examining movement in general (Breed
et al. 2012; Buchin et al. 2011). Applications using the new technology in eth-
nographic contexts in the field of anthropology have been gradually developing
and show promise (Furusawa 2012; Moritz et al. 2010; Pebsworth et al. 2012).
We report on methodology used to collect data about the movement of
small-scale fishing boats and analyze those data to characterize fishing
effort. The methodology uses small GPS devices, Google Earth (GE) soft-
ware (Google 2009), and behavioral observation to learn about the fishing
behavior of small-scale fishers from a medium-sized landing site at Desa
Ikan (pseudonym), a village along the east coast of the Commonwealth
of Dominica. The work is part of a larger project designed to test hypotheses
about sociality in the context of technological innovation associated with
the introduction of fish aggregating devices (FADs) to the fishery.

Study Site and Participants

The research was conducted in the community of Desa Ikan located in St.
David Parish (population 6,043; Central Statistical Office 2011) on the rural
302 Field Methods 27(3)

east coast of the island nation of the Commonwealth of Dominica and site of
a medium-sized fish-landing site. Desa Ikan has a population of around 100
and is somewhat smaller than the two villages located approximately 1 km
to the north and south along the coast, each with a population of around
500–700 people. The rural inhabitants of Desa Ikan have been characterized
as marginalized, open, noncorporate peasantry (Trouillot 1988), although
folks are modernizing rapidly. Most families practice small-scale, part-
time farming supplemented with limited wage labor (Quinlan 2003) and
remittances. The secondary fish-landing site in Desa Ikan is host to fishers
and boat owners who live in Desa Ikan proper, the neighboring villages, and
other nearby communities.
In contrast to industrial fishers, small-scale fishers like those in Dominica
typically go to sea with small boats and small crews, bring to bear lower
capital investment and limited technology, and serve local markets. In
Desa Ikan, boats (13–24 ft long) are constructed with wood or wood rein-
forced with fiberglass and powered with two-stroke outboard motors that
range from 15 to 85 hp motors (mode ¼ 48 hp). Crews range from one to
three men. Trips are diurnal and rarely last more than 12 hours or travel
more than 50 km from shore. Fish are sold locally, in nearby communities,
or is transported approximately 45 km by road to Roseau, the capital.
There is no export market in Dominica.
Fish catching varies with space and time at Desa Ikan, but we discerned
three general strategies. The first is year-around, nearshore, shallow-water,
hook and line, bank fishing for demersals like red snapper. Second, spring
‘‘channel fishing’’ involves hunting for schools of dolphinfish (Coryphaena
hippurus) and other pelagics and capturing them with hook and line in the
deepwater off the banks. Finally, since 1999, FAD fishing has become com-
mon in the summer and fall.

FADs
Unknown in Dominica before 1987, FADs were not used regularly until
around 1999. Many species of fish are attracted to patches of floating debris,
and FADs are designed to mimic the salient character of this flotsam (Gomes
et al. 1998). Moored FADs, like those used in Dominica, are human-made
structures anchored in deepwater with floats, tarps, and nets floating at the
surface placed to attract fish and create resource patches at known locations
(Dempster and Taquet 2004; Gooding and Magnuson 1967). A more
detailed discussion and images of Dominican FAD technology can be found
in the ancillary material posted here (http://fmx.sagepub.com/supplemental).
Alvard et al. 303

FADs significantly reduce search time, effort, and fuel costs for fishers. In
Dominica, large coastal and migratory pelagic fish, particularly yellowfin
tuna (Thunnus albacares), and blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) are now tar-
geted by the FAD fishers when in the past, these species would be very diffi-
cult for Dominican fishers to find on a regular basis (Fisheries Division 2008).
In many places where they are used, including Dominica, FADs are
prone to common pool resource (CPR) dilemmas. A CPR is one where
there is competition for the resource and it is difficult to keep others away
(Acheson and Gardner 2010; Ostrom et al. 1994). In Dominica, once deployed
in the open ocean, it is difficult to monitor and exclude fishers, referred to
locally in Dominica as pirates who have not contributed to FAD production
or maintenance, from free riding on the efforts of those who have (Defoe
2007). Most FAD fishers have been accused of being pirates at one point or
another. In Dominica, piracy is an issue both within and between communities,
and its prevalence varies with location and over time. In spite of this CPR
dilemma, FAD technology has now spread to most of the fish-landing sites
on island of Dominica. The goal of the larger project is to learn how Domin-
ican FAD fishers achieve the level of cooperation that they do albeit in the
context that structurally favors free riding.
To test hypotheses about how cooperation is maintained to the extent
that it is, we need to understand how fishers actually provision and use
FADs. In this article, we report on how we used GPS technology and track
analysis to measure fishing effort at the FADs, in this case, measured as the
amount of time allocated at FAD patches.

Methods
GPS Technology
GPS is a technology developed originally as an aid to navigation (Spencer et al.
2003). Receivers use satellite transmissions to calculate the latitude, longitude,
and altitude of the receiver. The devices that we used were models GT-31 and
BGT-31, manufactured by LOCOSYS Technology Inc., and sold by a number
of vendors in the United States and elsewhere. The two models differ only by
the BGT-31’s Bluetooth capability, which was not used or evaluated during
this project. The devices are marketed to outdoors people such as hang gliders
and surfers. The devices are relatively light and small (90 H  58 W  24.5 D
mm; 98 g), although they are by no means the smallest or lightest such tracking
device. The devices are waterproof and float. We housed them in Pelican brand
hard plastic waterproof cases (Pelican 1010; 196 g). The fit was not perfect, and
304 Field Methods 27(3)

the devices were stabilized in the case with two rubber stoppers to prevent
movement. Together with the case, the package weighed around 294 g. Each
case, device, and associated secure digital (SD) card were marked with an ID
number for data management purposes.
The devices use SiRF Star 3 high-sensitivity, low-power GPS chips ener-
gized with a built-in lithium-ion polymer rechargeable battery. The device
sports an SD slot, and the data were stored on a 2 gigabyte SD card. A typ-
ical file for a day of fishing ranged between 3 and 6 megabytes. Output data
format is NMEA 0183, an industry standard. The rechargeable batteries
avoid the logistics problems associated with single-use battery supply. The
manufacturers claim that in low power mode, the device will function
48 hours on one 4-hour charge. Our field experience confirmed this capa-
bility; one device left on collected data for 46 hours before shutting down.
The average fishing trip was approximately 8.5 hours, so the devices could
be used to collect data over the course of many days without recharging.
With respect to position accuracy, the manufacturer reports a 95% probabil-
ity that the reported position will be within the area of a circle with a radius
of 10 m around the actual location. Field experience indicates that level of
accuracy was easily achieved, as the unobstructed conditions of the open
sea were ideal for satellite reception.
On a typical data collection day, the researcher arrived at bayside early
enough to see off the earliest fishers. The compact nature of the devices and
their placement in the rugged and waterproof housing provided by the
Pelican cases made placement on the boats easy. Most fishers kept a variety
of items included lunches, cell phones, and their own GPS devices in water-
proof tubs. Devices were turned on and placed in a tub or handed to the
fisher. The devices did not experience any problems receiving a signal
though the two layers of plastic. Fishers returned from the sea in the after-
noon when we retrieved the devices. Boat owners were given a fee of 10EC
(US$3.7) for each trip they carried a GPS device.
We set the devices to collect data at 1-second intervals, though the inter-
val could be set to longer periods. The generated data are a time series with
associated spatial coordinates. The data have fine spatiotemporal scale and
describe each fishing trip in detail. The graphical output is a track that rep-
resents location for the series of X, Y points in time.

GPS Track Editor and Google Earth

To visualize the behavior of the boats, each day the data from the GPS
devices were transferred via SD card to a computer where each track
Alvard et al. 305

was examined in GPS Track Editor, a free software product from Map-
Sphere (2012). GPS Track Editor was used to edit out pre- and post-trip
data points from each track; the file was then imported into GE, a free
software product from Google (2009). GE is well known for allowing
users to view a variety of detailed satellite images around the earth.
GE will also accept GPS data that can be overlaid on top of the satellite
imagery. In this way, movement tracks were viewed across the seascape
at a variety of spatial scales. One can also display GPS tracks across
space and time, animating tracks at different scales of temporal resolu-
tion: 1 second ¼ 10 minutes, 1 second ¼ 1 minute, and in real time.
GPS Track Editor was more useful than GE for identifying time stamps
for particular points in a track (e.g., the boat’s arrival and departure
time for an FAD visit).

Ground Truth via Focal Follows

On selected days, GPS data collection was supplemented with simulta-
neous behavioral observations during focal follows. Used extensively in
the field of behavioral ecology to study foraging behavior, focal follows
are a method where a focal subject is followed for a period of time and
is often associated with a specific task, like hunting, and various types
of data recorded (Bird et al. 2009). In this case, 23 fishing trips were
observed while simultaneously collecting GPS data on the movements
of the boat. The observer used event sampling to record behavioral
changes or events germane to the research question (Altmann 1974).
Salient events included departure, travel, motor on, motor off, fishing
and navigation behaviors, and encounters with floating debris, birds,
FADs, and other boats. One key to the method is that the observer’s
timepiece and the GPS device were temporally synchronized. While
GPS devices measure space, they do so via very accurate clocks. Match-
ing the observers’ timepiece to the GPS device allows a very accurate
correspondence between the subsequent GPS track and what was
observed during the trip. Synchronizing time is useful because it allows
locations of various observed behaviors to be mapped accurately, and it
allows for characteristic track features to be matched with specific beha-
vior. This technique might be considered a type of ground truth com-
mon to analyses that use remotely sensed data (Li and Zhang 2012).
Ground truth refers to data collected at an actual location that can be
related to data collected at a distance, via satellites for example (Jensen
2007).
306 Field Methods 27(3)

Track Analysis
One of the key methods of movement analysis involves parsing tracks into
segments (Nathan 2008) based on spatiotemporal criteria such as location,
speed, heading, and curvature (Buchin et al. 2011). The spatiotemporal cri-
teria are chosen to correspond to behaviors of interest. Correspondence is
accomplished using domain knowledge, a term from information science that
refers to expert knowledge (Hjørland and Albrechtsen 1995). Fishers have
domain knowledge and can examine a track and indicate periods of travel,
pursuit, search, drifting, and periods of FAD fishing. Direct observation by
a research observer or ground truth is also a kind of domain knowledge.
Based on domain knowledge and theory, we developed expectations
with regard to what segments should look like for behaviors of interest. For
example, foraging theory predicts that foragers in patchy environments
should conduct area-restricted search (ARS; Kareiva and Odell 1987) once
a patch is found. ARS is defined by a decrease in speed and an increase in
sinuosity of movement (Benhamou 1992). When traveling between patches
or back to a central place, rather than searching, the forager is expected to
travel more quickly and more linearly (Charnov 1976).

Sample
The goal of the data collection method is to measure the amount of time each
boat and its crew allocated fishing on each FAD over the sample period; these
values will be used as a measure of fishing effort in subsequent analysis.
From August 29 through December 15, 2012, 496 boat trips were observed
with a boat trip counted when a boat and its crew leave and return to bayside
at Desa Ikan. The mean number of trips per day was 6.6, with a range of 1–12
trips. Trip duration is known for 450 trips. For 351 of the 496 trips, GPS recei-
vers were placed on boats before they left the landing site at Desa Ikan to
record their motions during the fishing trips out to sea. For 23 of these trips,
ground truth was simultaneously collected during time-synchronized focal
follows where an observer recorded behavioral observations.

Results
Effort at FADs
Sixteen boats made 95% of trips out of a total of 22 boats that ever fished.
Not all boats fished at FADs and among those that did, some did more than
others. Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the sample of 496 trips
Alvard et al. 307

Table 1. FAD and non-FAD Trips Originating from Desa Ikan.

Mean and SD Estimated Mean Distance

Number Time Traveled Hours Traveled per
Trip Type of Trips per Trip (hour) Fished Trip (km)

FAD 176 9.4 1,655 113

SD ¼ 1.4, n ¼ 176 n ¼ 33
Non-FAD 320 6.9 2,172 30
SD ¼ 2.6, n ¼ 274 n ¼ 12
Total 496 7.9 3,827 91
SD ¼ 2.5, N ¼ 450 n ¼ 45
Note: FAD ¼ fish aggregating devices.

Table 2. FADs Utilized by the Fishermen at Desa Ikan during the Study Period.

FADID Drop Date Distance (km) from Desa Ikan Depth (m)

8 unknown 28.4 1,177

4 March 22, 2012 48.3 2,282
3 March 24, 2012 34.5 1,546
2 June 29, 2012 31.8 1,347
13 October 8, 2012 34.8 1,250
15 October 23, 2012 42.8 1,677
12 December 21, 2012 41.4 1,882
Note: FAD ¼ fish aggregating devices. Depths were obtained from Google Earth (2009). Loca-
tions are indicated in Figure 1.

comparing FAD trips to non-FAD trips. FAD trips accounted for 176 out of
all trips (176/496 ¼ 35%) from Desa Ikan. The 176 FAD trips involved nine
boats and 26 different crew members, although only 15 men and six boats
accounted for 95% of the trips. Clearly, some boats and men specialized in
FAD fishing. Of the 176 FAD trips, 151 were tracked using GPS. Two hun-
dred eighty-nine FAD visits were recorded from the 176 FAD trips. Some
trips involved trips to more than one FAD.
Table 2 identifies the set of FADs that the fishers targeted during the
sample period. These FADs were set out between 32 km and 48 km from
the shore at depths ranging from *1,200 to 2,200 m. Data for ocean depth
were collected from GE (Google 2009) that gets its bathymetry data from
Scripps Institution of Oceanography and its partners. FAD fishermen corro-
borate the good resolution of the data.
308 Field Methods 27(3)

Figure 1. Map of Dominica showing representative track of FAD trip described in

the text. Locations of FADs listed in Table 2 are indicated. The two insets show details
of the tracks of each of the FADs that were visited. FAD ¼ fish aggregating devices.

Figure 1 maps the location of these FADs along the east coast of the
island; also presented is a GPS data track for a representative FAD trip that
occurred on October 01, 2012, to two of the FADs, FAD3 and FAD2. We
used GE to extract event timing and duration by observing the animated track
in conjunction with the indication of time. Like other FAD trips, this partic-
ular track indicates long, straight, directed travel at 20–30 km/hour to and
from the FAD patches. The boat left Desa Ikan at 5:28 a.m., arrived at FAD3
at approximately 8:13 a.m., where the fishers fished for 2 hours and 22 min-
utes; it moved on to FAD2 arriving at 10:47 a.m., where it fished until
Alvard et al. 309

12:57 p.m., when it returned and arrived at Desa Ikan at 2:16 p.m. Total dis-
tance traveled was 103 km over the course of 7 hours and 50 minutes.
The insets, scaled at a magnitude of approximately 20 times in Figure 1,
show in detail the tracks at each of the FADs. Direct observations during the
23 focal follows in combination with the associated visual representation of
the GPS track data, like those exemplified in Figure 1, indicate that move-
ment around FADs is characterized by reduced travel speed and increased
sinuosity over a prescribed area (1–2 km in diameter). These were the track
characteristics at times corresponding to the observer’s reports that the fish-
ers were fishing at FADs. The visual representation was provided by GE
and GPS Track Editor. These data support the prediction of ARS in the
patchy seascape used by the fishers of Dominica (Kareiva and Odell 1987).
The tracks at the two FADs in Figure 1 show this clearly, especially when
placed in contrast to the long, strait, directed, and higher speed track segments
associated with travel.
The tracks at the FADs illustrate two behaviors as described by fishers
and observed during focal follows: drift fishing and trap setting. Drift fish-
ing is characterized by slow speeds where the engine is off or idling and the
boat is moving slowly with the current as the fishers use hook and line to
catch bait or other smaller fish. These behaviors correspond in the tracks
to repeated, straight, often parallel, and slow segments across the proscribed
area. These tracts are parallel because they are following the surface current
that tends to remain constant over FAD visits.
While setting traps, fishers use meter-long floats (referred to as fenders)
attached to a length of line (~100 m) and a baited hook (live flying fish and
small tuna are preferred). The fishers set traps up-current from the FAD and
they float down-current past the FAD head where, if no fish takes the bait,
the fishers collect them (wrap) and the process is repeated. Trap setting and
wrapping occur at opposite ends of the patch space, and the tracks are char-
acterized by the back and forth movements of the boats at medium and drift
speeds around the FAD head as traps are set and collected and drift fishing
occurs.
After determining what FAD behavior looks like on the GPS tracks with
associated reports from focal follows, we used GE and then GPS Track Edi-
tor to visually identify FAD visits for the balance of the tracks and were able
to calculate the time that each boat fished at each FAD over the sample
period. GE required animating the track and observing the timer to see when
the boat entered and then left the FAD. When GPS Track Editor hovered
over any point, its speed, time, and date were produced, so time spent on
FAD was more quickly calculated.
310 Field Methods 27(3)

For the sample period of 75 days, Table 3 presents the number of visits
and the number of hours fished at each FAD for each boat. A total of 260
FAD visits were documented with GPS. An additional 29 FAD visits were
identified from post-trip interviews; for these visits, a GPS device was not
aboard and no time on FAD was calculated. In order to complete the sample
for time on FAD, the mean time fishing on each FAD for each boat for the
missing cases was calculated, and these values were used to replace the
missing data and to calculate the time spent on each FAD for each boat.
The data show that there is considerable variability in how FADs are
used by fishers. Some FADs are visited more often than others. FAD8 was
placed by fishers from another community and not often used by fishers
from Desa Ikan during the sample period. FAD12, FAD13, and FAD15
were deployed from Desa Ikan during the sample period so had less oppor-
tunity to be fished. Newly set FADs take time to attract a community of fish
and as a result are often fallowed for a period of time when they might be
visited for monitoring but not heavily fished. FADs 4, 3, and 2 were
deployed in the first half of the year and received most boats’ attention. Just
prior to the sample period, two FADs, 11 km and 16 km out at sea—were
lost and unavailable to the fishers during the sample period.
Some boats allocated more time at some FADs than others. It is clear that
the fishers who provision an FAD are its primary users though there is much
variability. FAD provisioning is a group activity, with various partners con-
tributing more or less. There are generally a small number of men associ-
ated with one or two boats who sense ownership of a particular FAD
because the plan to drop FAD originates with them. These men lead by
coordinating activities, and they contribute the most material and labor to
FAD’s realization.

Discussion
GPS technology holds great methodological promise for field data collec-
tion. It can provide high-resolution data on movement, and through careful
analysis, an understanding of behaviors associated with the movement.
Although the results we present are specific to research on FADs in Domin-
ica, they are illustrative of how GPS data, track segmentation, and direct
behavioral observations can be used together to answer anthropological
questions. These methods have broad applicability. A good example is how
these methods have been used to test models of grazing intensity among
pastoralist groups (Adriansen and Nielsen 2005; Moritz et al. 2012; Sonneveld
et al. 2009). By recording the grazing behavior of individual cows carrying
 Table 3. Fishing Effort at FADs by Boats from Desa Ikan.

Boat ID

B1 B22 B4 B7 B8 B9 B14 B17 B18 Total

FAD FAD3 7 (7)4 (2) 40 (36) 16 (15) 1 (1) — 27 (23) 10(10) 17(17) 122 (111)
30.4 hours
19.3 142.8 hours 41.4 hours 3.9 hours 124.5 hours 38.3 hours 36.9 hours 437.5 hours
hours
FAD2 10 (10) 2 (2) 29 (27) 25 (24) — 2 (2) 10 (9) 10 (9) 6 (4) 94 (87)
46.3 hours 2.2 hours 52.7 hours 62.7 hours 2.71 14.8 hours 40.5 hours 11.7 hours 233.6 hours
hours
FAD4 — 2 (1) — — — 1 (1) 10 (8) — 36 (31) 49 (41)
5.7 hours 1.49 42.5 hours 192.1 hours 241.8 hours
hours
FAD13 — — 1 (1) 15 (14) — — — — — 16 (15)
2.7 hours 29.4 hours 32.12 hours
FAD15 — — — — — 1 (1) 6 (4) — — 7 (5)
2.50 5.8 hours 8.3 hours
hours
FAD8 — — — — — — — — 1 (1)
1 (1)
0.37 hours
0.37 hours
Total n ¼ 17 n ¼ 8 (5) n ¼ 70 (64) n ¼ 56 n ¼ 1 (1) n ¼ 4 (4) n ¼ 53 (44) n ¼ 20 N¼ 289
n ¼ 60 (53)
(17) (53) (19) (260)
76.7 hours 27.2 198.2 hours 133.5 3.9 6.7 hours 187.6 hours 78.8 hours 240.7 hours 953.7 hours
hours hours hours

Note: FADs ¼ fish aggregating devices. GPS ¼ global positioning system. Data in the table’s cells show the number of visits to each FAD for each boat followed in
parentheses by the number of GPS-observed visits. Also indicated below the number of visits are the estimated numbers of hours each boat fished at each FAD.
The cells highlighted in gray indicate a particular FAD’s primary provisioners.

311
312 Field Methods 27(3)

GPS devices, the researchers learned that herd speed is highly correlated
with grazing intensity. Observers noted grazing rate while herd speed was
measured with the GPS. The researchers found that slower track segments
were associated with grazing behavior and segments of greater speed were
associated with travel. The data on herd grazing effort were used to test
hypotheses about how pastoralists would use a newly reopened flooded
pasture region in Cameroon.
For the research in this article, tracks describing movement of the Desa
Ikan fishing boats were segmented into parts corresponding to behaviors
germane to the research questions pertaining to FAD fishing. Track seg-
ments where FAD fishing was observed during focal follows had character-
istic motion profiles that are easily identified visually and were used to
recognize FAD visits on trips with GPS data but no observer and no focal
follow data. As mentioned, FAD fishing produces a distinctive pattern of
sinuosity and slower speed at a proscribed location that was easy for us
to identify visually from the tracks of otherwise unobserved fishing trips.
Different research questions might require identifying and distinguishing
the track profiles of different behaviors—say, kangaroo hunting versus bird
hunting that might not be so easily distinguished visually. Promising, ana-
lytic methods are being developed that work to distinguish a variety of
behaviors using GPS track data (Buchin et al. 2011). For example, Pap-
worth et al.’s (2012) recent article describes algorithms applied to GPS data
collected during Waorani foraging trips that can distinguish between hunt-
ing and nonhunting trips. This methodology promises to provide high-
quality data about behaviors in situations where it may be too costly or
logistically difficult to directly observe the behaviors of interest.

Acknowledgment
We thank the fishers at Desa Ikan, the St. David’s Fishers’ Cooperative, the staff at
the Fisheries Division, and Dr. Andrew Magloire, chief fisheries officer.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding was provided by a grant from
the Program to Enhance Scholarly and Creative Activities, Texas A&M, Office of
Alvard et al. 313

the Vice President for Research, and a post-Ph.D. research grant from the Wenner-
Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.

References
Acheson, J., and R. Gardner. 2010. The evolution of conservation rules and norms in
the Maine lobster industry. Ocean and Coastal Management 53:524–34.
Adriansen, H. K., and T. T. Nielsen. 2005. The geography of pastoral mobility: A
spatio-temporal analysis of GPS data from Sahelian Senegal. GeoJournal 64:
177–88.
Altmann, J. 1974. Observational study of behavior: Sampling methods. Behaviour
49:227–67.
Benhamou, S. 1992. Efficiency of area-concentrated searching behaviour in a con-
tinuous patchy environment. Journal of Theoretical Biology 159:67–81.
Bird, D. W., R. B. Bird, and B. F. Codding. 2009. In pursuit of mobile prey: Martu
hunting strategies and archaeofaunal interpretation. American Antiquity 74:3–29.
Breed, G. A., D. P. Costa, I. D. Jonsen, P. W. Robinson, and J. Mills-Flemming.
2012. State-space methods for more completely capturing behavioral dynamics
from animal tracks. Ecological Modelling 235:49–58.
Buchin, M., A. Driemel, M. van Kreveld, and V. Sacrist. 2011. Segmenting trajec-
tories: A framework and algorithms using spatiotemporal criteria. Journal of
Spatial Information Science 3:33–63.
Central Statistical Office. 2011. 2011 Population and Housing Census. Roseau,
Dominica: Commonwealth of Domnica. http://www.dominica.gov.dm/cms/
files/2011_census_report.pdf (accessed October 16, 2013).
Chadil, N., A. Russameesawang, and P. Keeratiwintakorn. 2008. Real-time tracking
management system using GPS, GPRS and Google Earth. 5th International Con-
ference on Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer, Telecommunications
and Information Technology, Krabi, Thailand. ECTI-CON 2008 1:393–96.
Charnov, E. L. 1976. Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theoretical
Population Biology 9:129–36.
Defoe, J. 2007. National report of Dominica: FAD management systems and their
impact on fisheries sustainable development. Second meeting of the WECAFC
ad hoc working group on sustainable moored FAD fishing, Guadeloupe, July
5–10, FAO Fisheries Report N 683.
Dempster, T., and M. Taquet. 2004. Fish aggregation device (FAD) research: Gaps
in current knowledge and future directions for ecological studies. Reviews in
Fish Biology and Fisheries 14:21–42.
Fisheries Division. 2008. Fisheries industry census of Dominica. Ministry of Agri-
culture, Fisheries and Forestry, Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica.
314 Field Methods 27(3)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/111942350/Report-Fisheries-Industry-Census-of-
Dominica-FINAL-20090511-pdf (accessed October 11, 2013).
Furusawa, T. 2012. Tracking fishing activities of the Roviana population in the
Solomon Islands using a portable global positioning system unit and a heart rate
monitor. Field Methods 24:216–29.
Gomes, C., R. Mahon, W. Hunte, and S. Singh-Renton. 1998. The role of drifting
objects in pelagic fisheries in the southeastern Caribbean. Fisheries Research
34:47–58.
Gooding, R., and J. Magnuson. 1967. Ecological significance of a drifting object to
pelagic fishes. Pacific Science 21:486–97.
Google. 2009. Google Earth [Software]. Mountain View, CA: Google, Inc.
Hjørland, B., and H. Albrechtsen. 1995. Toward a new horizon in information sci-
ence: Domain-analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science
46:400–25.
Jensen, J. 2007. Remote sensing of the environment: An earth resource perspective.
New York: Prentice Hall.
Kareiva, P., and G. Odell. 1987. Swarms of predators exhibit ‘‘preytaxis’’ if individ-
ual predators use area-restricted search. American Naturalist 130:233–70.
Laube, P., M. Duckham, and A. Croitoru. 2009. Distributed and mobile spatial com-
puting. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 33:77–78.
Laube, P., and R. S. Purves. 2011. How fast is a cow? Cross-scale analysis of move-
ment data. Transactions in GIS 15:401–18.
Li, N., and Z. Zhang. 2012. Crowd behavior analysis based on velocity field simpli-
fication. Gaojishu Tongxin/Chinese High Technology Letters 22:490–96.
MapSphere. 2012. GPS Track Editor [v.1.08 beta (build 106)]. http://www.gpstrack-
editor.com (accessed November 1, 2012).
Mazinan, A. H. 2007. Specific persons surveillance using satellite technique. 2007
International Conference on Intelligent and Advanced Systems, Kaula Lumpur,
Malaysia. ICIAS 2007: 474–78.
Modsching, M., R. Kramer, M. Riebeck, A. Stark, K. Ten Hagen, and J. Kawalek.
2007. Field trial on the efficiency and user experience of GPS based state of the
art navigational systems for pedestrians. 4th Workshop on Positioning, Navi-
gation and Communication 2007, Hannover, Germany. WPNC’07—Workshop
Proceedings, 129–34.
Moritz, M., Z. Galehouse, Q. Hao, and R. B. Garabed. 2012. Can one animal repre-
sent an entire herd? Modeling pastoral mobility using GPS/GIS technology.
Human Ecology 40:623–30.
Moritz, M., E. Soma, P. Scholte, N. Xiao, L. Taylor, T. Juran, and S. Kari. 2010. An
integrated approach to modeling grazing pressure in pastoral systems: The case
of the Logone floodplain (Cameroon). Human Ecology 38:775–89.
Alvard et al. 315

Nathan, R. 2008. An emerging movement ecology paradigm. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105:19050–51.
Nathan, R., W. M. Getz, E. Revilla, M. Holyoak, R. Kadmon, D. Saltz, and P. E.
Smouse. 2008. A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal move-
ment research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America 105:19052–59.
Ostrom, E., R. Gardner, and J. Walker. 1994. Rules, games, and common-pool
resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Papworth, S. K., N. Bunnefeld, K. Slocombe, and E. J. Milner-Gulland. 2012.
Movement ecology of human resource users: Using net squared displacement,
biased random bridges and resource utilization functions to quantify hunter and
gatherer behaviour. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3:584–94.
Pebsworth, P. A., A. J. J. MacIntosh, H. R. Morgan, and M. A. Huffman. 2012. Fac-
tors influencing the ranging behavior of Chacma baboons (Papio hamadryas ursi-
nus) living in a human-modified habitat. International Journal of Primatology
33:872–87.
Quinlan, M. 2003. From the bush: The frontline of health care in a Caribbean vil-
lage. New York: Cengage Learning.
Shamoun-Baranes, J., E. E. Van Loon, R. S. Purves, B. Speckmann, D. Weiskopf,
and C. J. Camphuysen. 2012. Analysis and visualization of animal movement.
Biology Letters 8:6–9.
Sonneveld, B. G. J. S., M. A. Keyzer, K. Georgis, S. Pande, A. Seid Ali, and A.
Takele. 2009. Following the Afar: Using remote tracking systems to analyze pas-
toralists’ trekking routes. Journal of Arid Environments 73:1046–50.
Spencer, J., B. G. Frizzelle, P. H. Page, and J. B. Vogler. 2003. Global Positioning
System: A field guide for the social sciences. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Theiss, A., D. C. Yen, and C. Y. Ku. 2005. Global positioning systems: An analysis
of applications, current development and future implementations. Computer
Standards and Interfaces 27:89–100.
Trouillot, M. 1988. Discourses of rule and the acknowledgment of the peasantry in
Dominica, W. I. 1838–1928. American Ethnologist 16:704–18.