Understanding women’s participation in Northeastern oyster aquaculture

Abstract

The increasing participation of women aquaculture producers brings diverse perspectives and innovative solutions to the industry in the Northeastern United States. However, without baseline demographic data of the workforce, we lack comprehensive understanding of resource management, distribution of benefits, and equitable access to the seafood system. A mixed methods approach including a survey and the participatory research method, photovoice, was implemented to characterize demographics and understand gender dynamics of the Maine and New Hampshire oyster aquaculture industry. A gender analysis was conducted to investigate how women access resources and navigate barriers to participation as oyster producers. The food systems concept was used to investigate a gender division of labor in the oyster aquaculture industry. Results indicate that established gender norms create systemic barriers for women-owned oyster businesses including gender discrimination and insufficient access to funding, targeted training, and farm equipment. Women leveraged female-led social networks to learn about growing methods that addressed affordability, occupational safety, and production efficiency on their farms. To maintain autonomy over decision making and avoid gendered outcomes, women participate in all activities of the food system, from oyster production to market sales, indicating no gender division of labor. This paper argues that women oyster farmers experience gender-specific obstacles due to cultural norms of the maritime industry that have traditionally supported only men. More work is required to build data informed policy mechanisms and institutional support systems that ensure equitable participation.

1 Introduction

Aquaculture is the fastest growing food production sector across the globe and provides half of all seafood for human consumption (FAO, 2024). As of 2024, the United States (US) imports around 80 percent of consumed seafood, and the sector is poised for expansive growth as demand for seafood escalates (Campbell et al., 2021; USDA, 2024). The US federal government is working to enhance domestic seafood production and build a diverse blue economy workforce that is inclusive and equitable (Exec. Order No. 13921, 2020; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2024; United States, President, 2020). As social equity goals emerge across seafood institutions, understanding how benefits are distributed across the seafood system by different resource users is critical. Exploring participation through a gender lens may provide a key pathway to understanding what is needed to reach these goals.

In the small-scale fisheries and aquaculture setting, when countries improve their gender equity outcomes, food production systems gain higher levels of economic growth and social well-being (Weeratunge et al., 2010; Njuki et al., 2022). When gender-based barriers to participation in seafood systems are lower, seafood prices are reduced and communities have more access to healthy protein sources (Hicks et al., 2022). Despite the benefits, little progress has been made toward gender equity as women still face fundamental barriers to participation and access to resources in seafood value chains (Brugere et al., 2023; FAO, Duke University, and WorldFish, 2023).

Understanding how gender shapes opportunities for access to the seafood workforce, social relations, and power structures is necessary to reach gender equity outcomes. The food systems approach is increasingly used as a mechanism to research gendered participation in the seafood system given the well documented gender division of labor (Simmance et al., 2021; Rice et al., 2024; Smith et al., 2024). The conceptual framework of food systems encompasses all activities that relate to the production, processing, distribution, preparation, and consumption of food along with broader socio-economic and environmental concerns related to each activity (HLPE, 2017). The term ‘seafood system’ is used here to characterize the activities involved in aquatic foods that contribute to seafood diets.

Globally, women are present at all sectors of the seafood system but most dominantly found in the post-harvest and processing sectors where they make up half the workforce (Rao et al., 2024; FAO, 2024; Kruijssen et al., 2018; FAO, 2017). The research context for the role of gender in the seafood sector has largely taken place in developing countries where this type of work is often considered an extension of housework, or catch is for subsistence use only, therefore women are unpaid and not included in data collection for these duties (Gephart et al., 2020; Kleiber et al., 2015; FAO, Duke University, and WorldFish, 2023). Gender shapes access to resources and participation in food systems and supply chains (Kruijssen et al., 2018; Weeratunge et al., 2010). Gender is shaped by social relations in small scale fisheries development contexts where women are marginalized by cultural and institutional context specific barriers (Kleiber et al., 2015; Rice et al., 2024). This case study research sought to understand how gender influences participation in oyster production in an emerging aquaculture industry.

Maine and New Hampshire provide a case study to analyze the social components of aquaculture development which may be applied to other regions in the US that are experiencing social-ecological systems change and seafood system access challenges. Maine is an example of successful aquaculture development for the nation, which includes growth of local seafood production, utilization of working waterfront infrastructure, and opportunities for employment in the seafood workforce (Britsch et al., 2021; Cleaver et al., 2024; Knapp and Rubino, 2016; Campbell et al., 2021). Concurrently, the Gulf of Maine is encountering ocean change at an accelerated rate, with shifts in the ecology, economics, and social dynamics impacting wild capture fisheries (Cleaver et al., 2024; Bricknell et al., 2021; Stoll et al., 2019). Aquaculture may be an opportunity to continue livelihoods on the water and maintain access to the seafood system (Cleaver et al., 2024). However, the state’s commercial fishing legacy remains the dominant use of ocean space, with little interest from fishermen to extend access to other users (Lemoine et al., 2025). In state waters, the Maine shellfish sector is expanding rapidly – it is the largest aquaculture employer and has tripled the farm sales revenue since 2014 (Maine Aquaculture Association, 2026). Harvest value has also grown in New Hampshire, by an average of 86% per year in the past decade (New Hampshire Sea Grant, 2026). Maine supports high numbers of women and non-binary aquaculturists, comprising 24% of the industry’s workforce (Maine Aquaculture Association, 2026). When seafood industry develops and new, more expensive technologies are introduced to maximize profit, women often are the first to lose access to resources and decision making abilities (Rao et al., 2024; Gopal et al., 2020). The literature calls for stakeholder engagement and a place-based approach to research to incorporate social equity in data collection, policy, and programs for sustainable fisheries and aquaculture development (Rice et al., 2024; House et al., 2023; Froehlich et al., 2021; Campbell et al., 2021).

Most literature on gender dynamics in seafood is focused in the Global South (Baker-Médard, 2024; Ferguson, 2021; Kawarazuka et al., 2017). There is a small research base on the role of women in the seafood sector in the US (Szymkowiak, 2020; Calhoun et al., 2016; Knott et al., 2025; Veo and Johnson, 2026). Demographic data such as gender is not systematically collected by state and federal agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Kleiber et al., 2024; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2024). The data gap is largely due to institutional barriers including data privacy policies, lack of trained staff in social science expertise, and prioritization of biological and economic data for fisheries management (Kleiber et al., 2024; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2024). A basic understanding of women’s contributions to the seafood system, for example quantitative labor data in both formal and informal roles across the value chain, is necessary to achieve social equity goals (Harper et al., 2026; Brugere et al., 2023). With a sampling bias that does not accurately capture the distribution of gender across the domestic seafood system, decision-makers and researchers have an incomplete picture of women’s experiences. The industry is at the beginning stages of evaluating power dynamics and social norms that shape gender roles in the seafood system.

A limited body of research has analyzed gendered participation in the Maine aquaculture sector, with a focus on fisheries transitions to seaweed and bivalve production and aquaculture training programs (McClenachan and Moulton, 2022; Veo and Johnson, 2026). The research demonstrated institutional barriers for women’s participation in commercial fisheries and aquaculture, with aquaculture being more socially equitable. However, researchers have yet to conduct a gender analysis and identify gender norms of the oyster industry in the region. An even smaller subject area for research, though much needed, includes an intersectional approach to consider other demographic variables such as race, and how they interact to influence power dynamics and access to resources (Colwell et al., 2017; Ferguson, 2021; Knott et al., 2025). Large data gaps in the domestic seafood workforce, especially the processing sector where women are often concentrated, hinders the ability for equity research that investigates basic working conditions (Knott et al., 2025). In social-ecological systems research focused on equity in resource use, there is a growing trend in using participatory based methodologies to engage research partners as resource users and community members (Bennett et al., 2021; House et al., 2023).

This research placed the experiences of women at the center of analysis to highlight the unique challenges of women-owned oyster farming operations and the many resources they leverage to keep their businesses thriving in Maine and New Hampshire. The gender analysis characterized workforce demographics and focused on the role of gender in oyster aquaculture by exploring the differences in access to resources and experiences of barriers for men, women, and non-binary industry members. A photovoice case study was used to assess how women experience gender dynamics in aquaculture production and use tools like a social network to navigate the maritime industry’s antiquated social norms.

2 Materials and methods

To identify demographic information and gender-based barriers and resources for oyster farmers in Maine and New Hampshire, a mixed methods approach was implemented with a survey and photovoice case study. No sex-disaggregated data are available for oyster aquaculture producers in either state to inform analyses of gender differences or improvements for gender equity (New Hampshire Fish and Game, 2020; Maine Department of Marine Resources, 2026; McClenachan and Moulton, 2022; Lord et al., 2025). Oysters were the chosen species to focus research on given their ability to restore coastal habitats with ecosystem services such as water quality improvement, nutrient removal, and habitat availability (Coen et al., 2007). These marine food products are also some of the most environmentally responsible choices for consumers, and they are in high demand (Gephart et al., 2020; Stoll et al., 2019). Gender analysis examines relations between men, women and non-binary individuals and the applicable gender norms in the study setting (March et al., 1999; Barclay et al., 2017). The research objective was to identify the demographic characteristics of the oyster farming workforce, understand how women access the seafood system as producers, and determine any gender-based resources and barriers. The participatory research method, photovoice, uses visual storytelling to offer rich and diverse information within a data poor subject area, in this case, women’s experiences as oyster aquaculture producers. Qualitative methods are applicable for context specific research in fisheries and aquaculture settings is place-based and focused on equity (Harper et al., 2026; Szymkowiak and Rhodes-Reese, 2020). Research was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, therefore the entirety of the project was conducted remotely via online resources to connect with participants safely. More information is provided in Supplementary material.

2.1 Study site

Since the 1970s, the state of Maine has been a national focus area for aquaculture with a variety of species cultivated including salmon (Salmo salar), blue mussels (Mytilus edulis), the Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica), and seaweed (Saccharina latissimi and Alaria esculenta) (Britsch et al., 2021). As of 2023, the industry maintains an economic value of $208 million (Maine Aquaculture Association, 2026) and operates at a small scale within state waters, with the oyster industry maintaining 1,700 acres of leases (Maine Aquaculture Association, 2023). The New Hampshire oyster aquaculture industry is also operating at smaller scales, with 80 acres of oyster farms contributing a total of $4.7 million in economic value (NH Shellfish Farmers Initiative and NH Sea Grant, 2022) (Figure 1).

Figure 1

2.2 Oyster aquaculture survey

The survey focused on gaining a preliminary understanding of the role of gender in oyster aquaculture, including perceived gender-based resources and barriers for men, women, and non-binary farmers. To gain information on the aquaculture workforce, participants self-identified demographics including gender, age, race, education, as well as information on farm ownership and industry experience.

2.3 Oyster aquaculture survey recruitment

The survey was implemented via email between August and October 2021. Survey participants were identified with publicly available state agency aquaculture lease data (New Hampshire Fish and Game, 2020; Maine Department of Marine Resources, 2026) and business name and contact information from the Maine Oyster Trail website (Maine Oyster Trail, 2026). Although lease data was used to build the sample, participants were asked to identify farm ownership level because holding rights to grow oysters does not equate to business ownership. Due to the unknown probability of selection into the sample, there are no survey weights, and these results do not represent the entirety of oyster aquaculture farmers in Maine and New Hampshire. However, of the total contacted oyster farmers (n = 77), 39 participated in the survey for a response rate of 53%. There are a total of 39 cases for the analytic sample, which is a subset of the larger survey with a total of 46 cases. This research is focused on gender related experiences, so cases were removed if survey participants left the gender identification question blank, selected “I prefer not to answer,” or did not complete the entirety of the survey.

2.3.1 Maine survey recruitment

For Maine, 20 leaseholders were randomly identified out of a total of 285 leaseholders listed in the Maine DMR Open Data site. An additional 10 leaseholders were identified via non-probability purposive sampling from the Maine DMR Open Data site based on the following criteria: (1) oyster industry stakeholder including harvesters and seed producers, (2) at least 1 year of business operation, and (3) known or suspected use of a social network. Purposive sampling was used because the survey was a recruitment technique for the second phase of the research project, the photovoice case study.

2.3.2 New Hampshire survey recruitment

All oyster aquaculture leaseholders with publicly available contact information in New Hampshire as of 2021 were selected (n = 13) for the survey in a non-random, non-probability based sample from the New Hampshire Fish and Game 2020 Marine Aquaculture Compendium.

2.4 Photovoice

The photovoice method is a participatory research approach developed by Wang and Burris (1997) that is based in feminist theory and documentary photography. A photovoice project includes photography, written narratives, in-depth interviews, and a focus group (Simmance et al., 2016; Wang and Burris, 1997) (Figure 2). Photovoice methodologies have been successfully implemented in fisheries and aquaculture research (Funk et al., 2022; Simmance et al., 2016; Bennett and Dearden, 2013). Given women’s often invisible role in seafood systems, photovoice is an appropriate tool that can be used to empower women to share their experiences with an audience that has not traditionally included women (Pierce, 2020).

Figure 2

For this exploratory case study, a purposive sampling technique recruited a total of (n = 4) participants via the gender analysis survey where (n = 10) women participants indicated interest in participating in further research. The sampling frame was based on the following criteria: (1) woman owned/operated business in Maine or New Hampshire, (2) commercial oyster aquaculture production, (3) demonstrated use of a social network. A 60-min photovoice training was provided via the Zoom platform for participants to learn about the methodology, photo documentation and qualitative research ethics, and informed consent (IRB # FY2022-23).

The participants were given the prompt to share their experiences as oyster farmers. Data collection occurred from November 2021 through February 2022 with photo documentation (n = 6) photos and descriptive narratives about each scenario depicted for a total of (n = 40) photos and narratives for analysis. One-on-one interviews and the focus group were conducted on Zoom for 60 minutes during the spring of 2022. The culmination of the photovoice project is a public exhibit of the participant photographs and narratives. For this case study, the participants chose a website, which is available at https://sites.usnh.edu/risingtidephotovoice/. More information on the interview protocol and the photobook may be found in Supplementary material.

2.5 Data analysis methods

Quantitative analysis of survey results consisted of descriptive statistics and chi square analysis in SPSS software to determine if gender was associated with demographic characteristics, participant role in the food system, and the following resource and barrier variables: people, organizations and networks; funding opportunities; gear; and training programs (Table 1). The chi square analysis identified that gender was strongly associated with gender discrimination (p < 0.001), so the survey results were analyzed by gender.

A codebook was developed for qualitative analysis based on the variables from the literature review, as well as emergent themes presented in the analysis via grounded theory (Corbin and Strauss, 1990). The social-ecological systems theory, institutional analysis and development framework (Ostrom, 2009; Ostrom, 2011; Johnson et al., 2019), gender analysis variables (March et al., 1999), access theory (Ribot and Peluso, 2003), and the food systems framework (HLPE, 2017) were selected for an interdisciplinary conceptual framework found in the Supplementary material. Once thematic analysis was complete, Ribot and Peluso’s (2003) ‘mechanisms of access’ were used to characterize resources and barriers including access through social identity, labor and market opportunities, social relations, capital, technology, and knowledge. The access mechanism of authority did not emerge in the thematic analysis other than via social network actors such as state agency staff and harbormasters. The results section below includes the mechanisms of access and associated variables for analysis.

3 Results

3.1 Demographic data: access through social identity

The research team surveyed (n = 26) men and (n = 13) women and non-binary oyster aquaculture producers. 33% of survey participants identified as a woman and/or non-binary and 66% identified as a man. For racial identification, 100% of participants identified as white/Caucasian. The most common age was 35–44, with 39% of participants in the age range. The majority of participants (76%) have 4–10 years of industry experience.

3.2 Participant roles in the seafood system: access to labor and market opportunities

The food systems framework was used to determine if there was a gender division of labor in the oyster aquaculture sectors of Maine and New Hampshire. Regardless of gender, participants engaged in all sectors of the seafood system from production to market. It is important to note that 100% of women and non-binary participants from the survey and photovoice case study engaged in the production sectors of the oyster aquaculture operation. 61% of women and non-binary survey participants (n = 8) and 46% of men (n = 12) were sole proprietor of their aquaculture business. An individual may hold the rights of an aquaculture lease or license and not be a business owner. The chi-square analysis indicated no significant association between participant gender and farm ownership (p = 0.341). 100% of the photovoice participants were business owners, and three of the women have shellfish dealers’ licenses.

Throughout any given workday, the photovoice participants conducted a diverse array of tasks from harvesting oysters to bringing them to market. Women described participation in all seafood system activities to maintain access and control over decision making, with one photovoice participant explaining “I also did not want anyone to tell me what time I could go out and use my equipment and where I could use it. I want autonomy.” Some women participants have specifically chosen not to scale up their businesses in order to have access and control over farm resources. With women not only working as producers, but taking on the diversity of food system activities themselves, these results indicate there is no traditional gender division of labor that often occurs in small scale fisheries and aquaculture settings.

3.3 Resources and barriers

3.3.1 People, organizations, and networks: access to social relations

The survey provided insight into how different genders interact with their social networks and share information. The social network barrier for women in this case study stemmed from working in a male dominated industry. Participants described aquaculture as “old boys club” and an industry that “does not feel inclusive or accessible to young self-starting women like myself.” Opposition from landowners and challenges cooperating with the state agencies were a common barrier across all participants, regardless of gender. Female participants highlighted a general lack of support from aquaculture organizations either due to low capacity or lack of appropriate representation and an intimidation factor. One photovoice participant explained, “I am just more comfortable asking questions of another farmer that I know as opposed to trying to get through an association that might be a bit more intimidating.” The low number of women-owned farming operations and the geographic separation between them was also a barrier.

The gender analysis survey indicated the importance of a social support network for all involved in oyster farming to overcome challenges with market and the volatility of environmental conditions. 100% of women and non-binary respondents (n = 13) and 88% of men (n = 26) identified people, organizations, and networks as a tool to help their businesses get started or thrive. Actors within social networks varied by gender; women and non-binary respondents indicated use of “friends, fisherman, harbormaster,” other oyster farms in the area, and organizations such as Maine Aquaculture Association, Small Business Association, SCORE, and the Maine Family Shellfish Cooperative. The male participants also identified other oyster farmers, however their responses highlighted a greater diversity of institutional actors such as Maine Sea Grant, Gulf of Maine Research Institute, the Island Institute, and the University Maine and New Hampshire. The women participants relied more on informal social network actors, such as other nearby oyster farmers rather than the larger organizations that support aquaculture on the statewide level. These results indicate that aquaculture institutions may be gender blind, only serving the interests of men in the industry.

For women, the most frequently discussed resource involved the social relationships they have built within their aquaculture community. One photovoice interviewee explained the interconnectedness of her social network: “my business relies on so many other people, not just market, but also on the gear, boat, and the dock side of things too so that if anything happens to their business, that affects mine as well.” Another photovoice participant chose her farm and business location based on the social network she had established in the area. Self-organizing activities were a tool oyster farmers use to fill in labor gaps on their farm. If participants could not afford farm equipment to enhance production efficiency or did not have the finances to hire employees, they turned to their social networks to share equipment and labor. Technology transfer within the social network was fundamental to the success of the participant’s oyster businesses. Specifically, the participants focused on making connections with other women to learn more cost-effective growing methods with fewer financial barriers to access the local seafood system.

3.3.2 Funding opportunities: access to capital

Access to funding was gendered; 69% of women and non-binary survey respondents indicated capital as a resource to obtain loans, equipment, and lease rights for their farm operations, while only 27% of men did. Access to capital is a resource because oyster farmers need it to operate, and women experienced greater challenges to obtain it. Notably, one woman provided a response about her financial circumstances: “I do not qualify for most funding due to lack of assets” while one man wrote “none” and another noted “we are self-funded and have not applied for or taken ANY government grant money.” Limited access to capital was a barrier for 61% of women and non-binary participants to start up their oyster businesses. For example, participants discussed challenges with scaling to a sustainable size due to lack of capital for purchasing leases, equipment for mechanization, hiring staff, and accessing product marketing and distribution networks. “Being a single parent woman with limited income and working a full-time job – I’ve yet to find any other funding sources other than myself – this has been a barrier.” Women faced these challenges due to lack of grant writing knowledge, inability to qualify for loans, and a general paucity of funding available for women working in male-dominated sectors like the seafood industry. To overcome financial barriers, women participants relied on their spouses for farm financing, free labor from friends and family members, and collaboration with other oyster farmers nearby such as a shared lease space or farm gear.

Navigating the lack of access to capital also involved innovative gear types and oyster growing methods that are more affordable and not necessarily the industry standard equipment. The skiff shared in the photovoice documentation describes how the affordable boat is used to access an intertidal farm with bottom seeding cultivation (Figure 3). One photovoice participant discussed access to capital for mechanization on her farm: “I think that finding equipment that can do the same job for less money is important for access, for efficiency. Like I said, autonomy, I think that’s valuable.” The photovoice participant had a custom-built oyster tumbler that she designed for her body characteristics and boat dimensions. She had the machine designed and shipped up from Florida for less than half the price of options in the Northeast. Another photovoice participant shared how she uses shared leases and equipment with another oyster farmer to save money. In Figure 4, the participant captured her daughter helping with oyster seed at the shared upweller. An upweller is an advantageous nursery system for juvenile oysters that expedites growth and reduces mortality during the grow out process. When discussing the photo, she explained that “capital is definitely part of it and is a barrier. If I were doing this completely on my own as a startup, being able to afford a space like this…I could not.”

Figure 3

Figure 4

3.3.3 Gear: access to technology

Gear was both a significant barrier and a resource for participants. Gear such as oyster farming equipment, vessels, navigation, and clothing designed for the marine environment are essentials for a successful farm operation. 54% of women and non-binary participants and 46% of male survey participants indicated gear as a resource to operate their businesses on the water. The photovoice case study found evidence that oyster farm design must be affordable, efficient, and manageable for the participant’s body size to be successful for women and non-binary individuals.

Beyond the common challenge of the price of gear for oyster operations, for women specifically, equipment, growing methods, and farm design were barriers related to gear. Even basic access to durable, warm, waterproof clothing that fits appropriately was a barrier that can keep women from working on the water year-round (Figure 5). In the photo captured in Figure 5, the research participant explained “if I had the proper gear, I would work all year long…being uncomfortable every day where you are working is just when it wears on you.” Sizing challenges with equipment for mechanization such as oyster tumblers were a common theme and kept women from being comfortable at work (Figure 6). While explaining the photo in Figure 6, the participant noted “I think that we need to see more advancements in technology that allow things to be mechanized and sized appropriately so that we can do this without bodily harm and actually be effective.”

Figure 5

Figure 6

To overcome these barriers, women use alternative growing methods such as bottom seeding to avoid occupational health and safety risks that stem from hauling heavy gear and flipping cages. They also can start farming operations with lower financial barriers and avoid debt for gear purchases. One photovoice participant noted that representation of different farm equipment, like her small skiff in Figure 3, is important for bringing new members to the workforce “when people see me working on this boat, they feel like if I can do it, that they can do it too.”

Women are acquiring lease sites in unique, intertidal locations to use different growing techniques that do not require depth specifications and in turn provide safer working conditions when alone in the nearshore environment. On farms that use industry standard gear, women have developed innovative ways to use the equipment safely and efficiently, either by acquiring custom tumbler machines designed for their height and boat or by hiring women staff to work collaboratively on heavy lifting days. One photovoice participant explained, “being able to employ other women and working with other women to come up with creative ideas to like flip a cage together, it’s an example of us overcoming this barrier of hard manual labor.” Women navigate this challenging environment by designing their farms in a way that works best for their physical abilities.

3.3.4 Training programs: access to knowledge

50% of women and non-binary survey participants and 23% of men respondents identified training programs as a barrier, which indicates a gender-based challenge for the trainings offered for oyster aquaculture. One woman survey respondent noted there are “zero training opportunities specifically geared toward women and minorities and their specific challenges and needs” and another indicated the program they participated in was “alienating.” Of the two photovoice participants that completed a training program, the barriers they experienced included course material that did not align with their business plan and goals, a lack of representation of diverse aquaculture stakeholders in instructors and guest speakers, as well as being the only woman participant in the program and a lack of “like-minded thinkers for why I need to be successful.” Women respondents noted that the organizations did not represent their interests for business growth, and the programs did not provide cost effective growing methods or farm equipment for smaller body sizes. One photovoice participant recalled her experience, “I was the only woman participant. I just felt really, really out of place, because the way I conduct business is so different from the way that they want me to conduct business. I felt like I’m not doing things right if I’m not scaling up and fit in this mold.” Furthermore, the programs tended to push the necessity of scaling up farming operations, which for most women is not accessible due to lack of funding. These results indicate that aquaculture institutions have designed training programs with only men in mind, therefore unintentionally creating gender blind programming.

42% of the male participants and 33% of the women and non-binary survey respondents identified trainings as a resource. Men indicated a diversity of training resources compared to their female counterparts. Rather than training programs, the women and non-binary respondents identified other oyster farmers and self-motivated learning as a resource. If the participant did not go through a program, they gained information through collaboration with other oyster farmers in the area. While the training can be an important resource for some, it is not a critical resource for the participant’s farm success.

3.3.5 Gender norms: access through social identity and social relations

46% of the women and non-binary survey respondents and 100% of photovoice participants have experienced gender discrimination during their work on an oyster farm compared with 0% of men. The chi square analysis of survey data determined that gender was strongly associated with differential treatment on an oyster farm (p < 0.001). The analysis also indicated a strong association between participant gender and experiences of differential treatment on an oyster farm (p < 0.001). Photovoice participants indicated three common gender norms that impacted their work: (1) the perception of the maritime industry as a space only for men, (2) the expectation of women to maintain childcare responsibilities, and (3) differential treatment as a woman.

First, without representation in the industry, gear and equipment has been designed with only men in mind (Figures 5, 6). Photovoice participants discussed the working waterfront as an ‘intimidating space’ with heightened gender norms. For example, members of the general public questioning the research participant on her ability to operate and trailer boat vessels without help from her male counterpart (Figure 7). Second, one photovoice participant is a mother and the primary childcare provider for the family. She noted “it’s been a lot easier, I think as an aquaculturist, to be a mom than it would be if I were still commercial fishing. In part, it’s because I work for myself and so I can bring my daughter.” In Figure 4 she discussed how as an oyster farmer her work is closer to shore, allowing her to build a schedule around the school day and also bring her daughter out on the water to learn maritime skills. Finally, with the growing presence of women in producer roles in the working waterfront, the social norm of masculinity may be challenged. Women shared “we are just treated differently. Sometimes that’s better, sometimes that’s worse.” Whether it be “fatherly criticism” or the consistent questioning from the general public, the research participants have grown used to proving themselves to be valuable members of the community. Autonomy is strived for to avoid gendered outcomes. When discussing business operations, one photovoice participant noted “I look up to these women who are truly independent.”

Figure 7

Women navigated these barriers in innovative ways including informal, women-led social networks that work “cooperatively together” and help them claim identity as a farmer. As one photovoice participant noted, “I surround myself with women in general, and I wonder if part of it is because I want to make sure people know it’s my farm.” These results reveal gender norms as an additional barrier that shape access and create gender-specific challenges for women as oyster producers.

4 Discussion

The research findings demonstrate how and why women’s participation in oyster farming may be different from their male counterparts. The photovoice method was used to analyze the ways in which women oyster farmers built their businesses to have control over decision-making processes and access to specific resources that enhance their oyster farming operation. Participatory methodologies like photovoice may increase community engagement in data collection, and decision-making processes, and can also be a tool for women’s empowerment (House et al., 2023; Pierce, 2020; Barclay et al., 2017). Women in this study are impacted by gender-based barriers including lack of access to institutional support such as grants, and training programs, gear types and growing methods, and gender norms.

This research collected demographic characteristics of a sample of oyster aquaculture participants in Maine and New Hampshire. Aquaculturists in the region are well educated, middle aged, and reported 4–10 years of industry experience, highlighting characteristics of a strong foundation for the future aquaculture workforce. The lack of racial diversity in the sample reflects the broader seafood workforce in Maine and New Hampshire (SEA Maine, 2024; Whitmore and Safford, 2020). An updated demographic analysis of the Maine aquaculture workforce was conducted by the Maine Aquaculture Association in 2026 (Maine Aquaculture Association, 2026). At a minimum, fisheries and aquaculture institutions must collect gender-disaggregated data alongside their traditional biological and economic priorities to obtain inclusive data driven management (Rice et al., 2024; Harper et al., 2026). The gender data gap perpetuates gender blind policies and programs that are formed without acknowledging the influence of gender norms on social relations (Lawless et al., 2019; Lau et al., 2021).

The aquaculture communities in Maine and New Hampshire uphold supportive relationships among sea farmers. The community of stakeholders represents a vital asset for all involved, a sentiment broadly reflected in the results of this study. One shared challenge that oyster farmers noted was the tedious leasing process and opposition from landowners, which has been recognized as an important indicator to achieve for social license of aquaculture operations from other researchers in the region (Whitmore et al., 2022). Across all respondents, the cost of purchasing farming equipment emerged as a shared obstacle regardless of gender.

A food system approach was implemented to position women in the seafood supply chain to determine if there is a gender division of labor. Aquaculture is still small scale in Maine and New Hampshire, with smaller lease sizes and a shorter, more local supply chain. In this research, a gender division of labor was not demonstrated – women participate in all sectors of the value chain to maintain autonomy over decision making. The findings indicate that women and non-binary participants strive to own and operate their farms, by accessing labor and markets to benefit as producers and control gendered outcomes. This contrasts with literature on women’s roles in seafood value chains in the development setting (Rao et al., 2024; Kruijssen et al., 2018; Kleiber et al., 2015), in North American fisheries (Szymkowiak, 2020) and agriculture (Sachs et al., 2016) where women are disproportionally represented in lower value sectors such as seafood processing (Knott et al., 2025) and are not business owners or producers.

The aquaculture sector in the Northeast stands out for its significant participation of women as producers, which has allowed for the development of informal support networks. Just like in Maine and New Hampshire, women use networks in seafood systems around the world to gain access to markets, knowledge transfer, capacity building, and advocacy outlets (Gopal et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2024; Gallardo-Fernández and Saunders, 2018). Furthermore, by building alternative networks of women farmers, the participants have created their own support systems to address the gender-specific challenges of oyster farming, which larger aquaculture institutions are still working to accommodate. Women’s networks can be leveraged as a tool to cultivate gender equity in the seafood industry, a finding that echoes other research in the US (Veo and Johnson, 2026; McClenachan and Moulton, 2022; Calhoun et al., 2016).

Access to capital revealed the greatest gender discrepancy in the data. Male survey respondents largely did not identify challenges with acquiring capital for their farming operations, while women and non-binary participants expressed challenges with acquiring grants and loans to fund farm leases and licenses, equipment for mechanization, and to employ staff to scale farm operations. Women navigated funding challenges by using low cost growing methods like bottom seeding, and support from friends and family rather than paid staff. Obstacles for women entrepreneurs to access capital is an established barrier of gender equity in the global workforce (UN Women, 2024). Based on these findings, the aquaculture industry may improve equity outcomes by offering subsidies such as reduced lease and licensing fees or adopting a loan program similar to USDA’s Loans for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers program (Todd et al., 2024; USDA Farm Service Agency, 2019).

Access to technology such as oyster farming gear and equipment was a barrier for women. Technology such as mechanized farm equipment influences the ability of women oyster farmers to produce oysters efficiently and with minimal occupational safety risks. Existing literature on gender dynamics in fisheries and aquaculture confirm that women use different gear types, fish in different locations, and target different species (Szymkowiak and Rhodes-Reese, 2020; Rice et al., 2024; Kleiber et al., 2015).

Training programs were a barrier for women as they felt alienated in a male-dominated learning environment, with course curriculum on farm design, scaling farm operations, and business strategies that did not align with their needs. In STEM learning environments, underrepresented groups such as women and minorities have similar challenges with representation, biases, intimidation, and social stigmas (Hurtado et al., 2009; Bloodhart et al., 2020). In fisheries contexts, researchers have found that working conditions, including social norms, and fisheries institutions are also designed around an ‘exclusively male workforce’ and a ‘male perspective’ (Gustavsson et al., 2021; Arismendi and Penaluna, 2016; Zhao et al., 2013). Access to knowledge about oyster farming has traditionally favored men with what (Ribot and Peluso, 2003) call “specialized knowledge” maritime skills. The lack of relevant training opportunities experienced by women in this case study sheds light on the ways in which institutions have developed gender-blind aquaculture support systems (Veo and Johnson, 2026; Lord et al., 2025; Knott et al., 2025). Future research may continue analysis of gender in the aquaculture sector with other species and broaden the scope to include commercial fishing and the shoreside sector.

Most women and non-binary participants in the study experienced differential treatment based on their gender while working in the aquaculture industry. Participants in Veo and Johnson’s (2026) study on women’s experiences in Maine aquaculture training program also have experienced gender discrimination based on social identity and social relations in the industry. Gender based violence and sexual harassment is pervasive in the seafood industry and can limit women’s ability to participate equitably and safely (Briceño-Lagos and Monfort, 2018; Mangubhai et al., 2023; Gustavsson et al., 2021; Hicks et al., 2022). Gender discrimination is perpetuated by gender norms of the maritime industry, a traditionally masculine environment where women lack representation and recognition in the working waterfront space and across seafood systems broadly (FAO, Duke University, and WorldFish, 2023; Gustavsson et al., 2021; Kleiber et al., 2015). Gender discrimination impacts women’s experiences but also has pervasive impacts on the sector broadly by reducing productivity, entrepreneurship, and innovation (FAO, 2024; Arismendi and Penaluna, 2016). The results of this study reveal opportunities to improve both physical and social workplace safety for the seafood workforce in the region. To build inclusive aquaculture institutions and transform gendered systems, the experiences of women must be acknowledged in policy and programs.

Other research in Maine found women’s participation rates greater in aquaculture compared to lobster fishing, highlighting a greater potential for gender equity and inclusivity for the industry (McClenachan and Moulton, 2022). Nationally, women commercial fishers represent just 5.5% of the workforce (Posadas, 2025). In Maine, commercial fishing has a limited entry system for licenses. In the Maine lobster fishery, individuals may wait over 10 years before acquiring permits (Johnson and Mazur, 2018). Women may have less access to fishing rights and decision making capabilities due to institutional norms such as catch shares and cultural norms of passing down fishing rights and skillsets to men in the family (Gerrard and Kleiber, 2019; Szymkowiak, 2020; McClenachan and Moulton, 2022). There are no aquaculture ‘professionalization schemes’ for harvesting rights that are based on tenure at sea and family fishing history (Szymkowiak, 2020). Aquaculture has a lower barrier to entry – women can run their own businesses and have full autonomy over decision making to avoid unequal power dynamics bolstered by gender norms of the seafood industry.

The research findings mirror that of women’s participation in agriculture via the Feminist Agrifood Systems Theory, developed by Sachs et al. (2016) in which women farmers use innovative ways to overcome barriers in access to capital, growing methods, and farm design through alternative support networks. The agriculture sector can further be looked to for examples of supporting women and minority farmers via the USDA initiatives such as the Census of Agriculture that systematically collects demographic information for the US agriculture workforce (USDA Farm Service Agency, 2019; Todd et al., 2024). These efforts have allowed for an intersectional approach to research on inequities in food production (Horst and Marion, 2019), and have informed targeted workforce development and funding opportunities – something the US seafood sector currently does not have the ability to complete.

The research has limitations. First, the small sample size from the publicly available aquaculture lease datasets in Maine and New Hampshire only identifies individuals who hold access to rights to harvest aquaculture products, overlooking other essential workforce actors such a farm hands, crew, and contract workers of which the survey only reached three individuals. Acquiring the rights to farm oysters does not establish lease and license holders as business owners or even working participants on the farming operation. Second, the lease data does not include gender as a variable, so gender of participants for recruitment were assumed based on name and secondary analysis of business websites. Finally, economic assessment such as farm harvest value was not included in the gender analysis and is an area for future research on the role of gender for aquaculture development in the US.

Progress has been made to support underrepresented groups in the region’s industry since this research project began (Lord et al., 2025). Experiences of women participants in the Aquaculture in Shared Waters course were analyzed to develop a gender responsive training program in the 2024 Women in Aquaculture Series (Veo and Johnson, 2026). The training program was led by women instructors, with curriculum covering topics such as farm design, navigation, and tools for managing harassment on the water. The Maine Women and Nonbinary in Aquaculture network was also formed to carve out space for knowledge transfer in a comfortable learning atmosphere and bring together women and non-binary farmers that are often geographically separated (Maine Aquaculture Innovation Center, 2026). Workforce development opportunities like the Minorities in Aquaculture Internship Program and the Maine Aquaculture Apprentice Program are also pathways for individuals to get experience on farms and enter the workforce (Minorities in Aquaculture, 2026; Maine Aquaculture Association, 2026). While these initiatives are an encouraging step toward gender equity in the state’s aquaculture development, equity cannot be operationalized until there is baseline demographic data of the seafood workforce to build gender inclusive policy and programming (Harper et al., 2026; Kleiber et al., 2024; Rice et al., 2024).

4.1 Conclusion

Gender norms influence the ability for women to benefit from resources they need to operate their oyster farms by shaping access to capital, relevant training programs, labor opportunities, and farming gear. The region’s industry is in the beginning stages of an arduous path ahead to dismantle the culture of maritime masculinity. Women use social networks as a tool to support their gender-specific needs, filling gaps where aquaculture institutions fail to accommodate due to gender-blind policies and programs stemming from insufficient data collection to quantify their contributions to the seafood system. Potential actions to address these issues include investing in women’s support networks, establishing financing opportunities for women and minority owned aquaculture businesses, and baseline demographic data collection of the seafood workforce by state and federal agencies. Gender analysis and participatory research are tools academics and resource managers can use to better understand access for those underrepresented in domestic seafood production. Future work on the role of gender in the domestic seafood system is critical to develop policies that support an equitable and sustainable US seafood sector.

References

• 1

  ArismendiI.PenalunaB. E. (2016). Examining diversity inequities in fisheries science: a call to action. Bioscience66, 584–591. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biw062

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  Baker-MédardM. (2024). Feminist Conservation: Politics and Power in Madagascar’s Marine Commons. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 3

  BarclayK.VoyerM.MazurN.PayneA. M.MauliS.KinchJ.et al. (2017). The importance of qualitative social research for effective fisheries management. Fish. Res.186, 426–438. doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2016.09.030

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  BennettN. J.DeardenP. (2013). A picture of change: using photovoice to explore social and environmental change in coastal communities on the Andaman coast of Thailand. Local Environ.18, 983–1001. doi: 10.1080/13549839.2012.748733

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  BennettN. J.KatzL.Yadao-EvansW.AhmadiaG. N.AtkinsonS.BanN. C.et al. (2021). Advancing social equity in and through marine conservation. Front. Mar. Sci.8:711538. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.711538

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  BloodhartB.BalgopalM. M.CasperA. M. A.Sample McMeekingL. B.FischerE. V. (2020). Outperforming yet undervalued: undergraduate women in STEM. PLoS One15:e0234685. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234685,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  Briceño-LagosN.MonfortM. C. (2018). Putting Gender Equality on the Seafood Industry’s Agenda. Paris: International Organization for Women in the Seafood Industry.

  • Google Scholar

• 8

  BricknellI. R.BirkelS. D.BrawleyS. H.Van KirkT.HamlinH. J.Capistrant-FossaK.et al. (2021). Resilience of cold water aquaculture: a review of likely scenarios as climate changes in the Gulf of Maine. Rev. Aquac.13, 460–503. doi: 10.1111/raq.12483

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  BritschM. L.LeslieH. M.StollJ. S. (2021). Diverse perspectives on aquaculture development in Maine. Mar. Policy131:104697. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104697

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  BrugereC.BansalT.KruijssenF.WilliamsM. (2023). Humanizing aquaculture development: putting social and human concerns at the center of future aquaculture development. J. World Aquac. Soc.54, 482–526. doi: 10.1111/jwas.12959

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  CalhounS.ConwayF.RussellS. (2016). Acknowledging the voice of women: implications for fisheries management and policy. Mar. Policy74, 292–299. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  CampbellL. M.FairbanksL.MurrayG.StollJ. S.D’AnnaL.BinghamJ. (2021). From blue economy to blue communities: reorienting aquaculture expansion for community wellbeing. Mar. Policy124:104361. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104361

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  CleaverC.JohnsonT. R.HanesS. P. (2024). Challenges and opportunities for integrating aquaculture with commercial fishing in Maine. Mar. Policy170:106407. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106407

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  CoenL. D.BrumbaughR. D.BushekD.GrizzleR.LuckenbachM. W.PoseyM. H.et al. (2007). Ecosystem services related to oyster restoration. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.341, 303–307. doi: 10.3354/meps341303

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  ColwellJ. M. N.AxelrodM.SalimS. S.VelvizhiS. (2017). A gendered analysis of fisherfolk’s livelihood adaptation and coping responses in the face of a seasonal fishing ban in Tamil Nadu & Puducherry, India. World Dev.98, 325–337. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.04.033

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  CorbinJ. M.StraussA. (1990). Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual. Sociol.13, 3–21. doi: 10.1007/BF00988593

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  FAO (2024). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2024: Blue Transformation in Action. Rome: FAO.

  • Google Scholar

• 18

  FAO, Duke University, and WorldFish (2023). Illuminating Hidden Harvests: The Contributions of Small-Scale Fisheries to Sustainable Development. Rome: FAO.

  • Google Scholar

• 19

  FergusonC. E. (2021). A rising tide does not lift all boats: intersectional analysis reveals inequitable impacts of the seafood trade in fishing communities. Front. Mar. Sci.8:625389. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.625389

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  FroehlichH. E.GentryR. R.LesterS. E.CottrellR. S.FayG.BranchT. A.et al. (2021). Securing a sustainable future for US seafood in the wake of a global crisis. Mar. Policy124:104328. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104328

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  FunkL.WilsonA. M. W.GoughC.BrayneK.DjerryhN. R. (2022). Perceptions of access and benefits from community-based aquaculture through photovoice: a case study within a locally managed marine area in Madagascar. Ocean Coast. Manag.222:106046. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106046

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  Gallardo-FernándezG. L.SaundersF. (2018). “Before we asked for permission, now we only give notice”: women’s entrance into artisanal fisheries in Chile. Marit. Stud.17, 177–188. doi: 10.1007/s40152-018-0109-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  GephartJ. A.GoldenC. D.AscheF.BeltonB.BrugereC.FroehlichH. E.et al. (2020). Scenarios for global aquaculture and its role in human nutrition. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac.29, 122–138. doi: 10.1080/23308249.2020.1782342

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  GerrardS.KleiberD. (2019). Women fishers in Norway: few, but significant. Marit. Stud.18, 259–274. doi: 10.1007/s40152-019-00132-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  GopalN.HapkeH. M.KusakabeK.RajaratnamS.WilliamsM. J. (2020). Expanding the horizons for women in fisheries and aquaculture. Gend. Technol. Dev.24, 1–9. doi: 10.1080/09718524.2020.1736353

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  GustavssonM.FrangoudesK.LindströmL.BurgosM. C. Á.de la Torre-CastroM. (2021). Gender and blue justice in small-scale fisheries governance. Mar. Policy133:104743. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104743

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  HarperS. J.WilliamsM.KleiberD.AxelrodM.MangubhaiS.TorellE.et al. (2026). Designing gender-inclusive data systems in small-scale fisheries. Ambio55, 245–259. doi: 10.1007/s13280-025-02250-5,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  HicksC. C.GephartJ. A.KoehnJ. Z.NakayamaS.PayneH. J.AllisonE. H.et al. (2022). Rights and representation support justice across aquatic food systems. Nat. Food3, 851–861. doi: 10.1038/s43016-022-00591-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  HLPE (2017). Food Systems. A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, 152.a. Available online at: https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/i7846e

  • Google Scholar

• 30

  HorstM.MarionA. (2019). Racial, ethnic and gender inequities in farmland ownership and farming in the US. Agric. Hum. Values36, 1–16. doi: 10.1007/s10460-018-9883-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  HouseJ.KleiberD.SteenbergenD. J.StaceyN. (2023). Participatory monitoring in community-based fisheries management through a gender lens. Ambio52, 300–318. doi: 10.1007/s13280-022-01786-3,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  HurtadoS.CabreraN. L.LinM. H.ArellanoL.EspinosaL. L. (2009). Diversifying science: underrepresented student experiences in structured research programs. Res. High. Educ.50, 189–214. doi: 10.1007/s11162-008-9114-7,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  JohnsonT.BeardK.BradyD.ByronC.CleaverC.DuffyK.et al. (2019). A social-ecological system framework for marine aquaculture research. Sustainability11:2522. doi: 10.3390/su11092522

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  JohnsonM. R.MazurM. D. (2018). A mixed method approach to understanding the graying of Maine’s lobster fleet. Bull. Mar. Sci.94, 1185–1199. doi: 10.5343/bms.2017.1108

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  KawarazukaN.LockeC.McDougallC.KantorP.MorganM. (2017). Bringing analysis of gender and social–ecological resilience together in small-scale fisheries research. Ambio46, 201–213. doi: 10.1007/s13280-016-0814-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  KleiberD.HarrisL. M.VincentA. C. J. (2015). Gender and small-scale fisheries: a case for counting women and beyond. Fish Fish.16, 547–562. doi: 10.1111/faf.12075

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  KleiberD.TerryJ.ElliotS.SelgrathJ.ColburnL.CurtisR.et al. (2024). NOAA and demographic data collection. NOAA Tech. Memo. TM-PIFSC-163. 77. doi: 10.25923/kw71-b22

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  KnappG.RubinoM. C. (2016). The political economics of marine aquaculture in the United States. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac.24, 213–229. doi: 10.1080/23308249.2015.1121202

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  KnottC.LozanoA. G.MaldonadoM. M.SwartzW.TranK.Eslava-BejaranoJ. (2025). Why seafood processing labor matters to emerging blue economies in the United States. Marit. Stud.24:30. doi: 10.1007/s40152-025-00426-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  KruijssenF.McDougallC. L.van AsseldonkI. J. M. (2018). Gender and aquaculture value chains: a review of key issues and implications for research. Aquaculture493, 328–337. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2017.12.038

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  LauJ. D.KleiberD.LawlessS.CohenP. J. (2021). Gender equality in climate policy and practice hindered by assumptions. Nat. Clim. Chang.11, 186–192. doi: 10.1038/s41558-021-00999-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  LawlessS.CohenP.McDougallC.OriranaG.SiotaF.DoyleK. (2019). Gender norms and relations: implications for agency in coastal livelihoods. Marit. Stud.18, 347–358. doi: 10.1007/s40152-019-00147-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  LemoineH. R.MichaelisA. K.LesterS. E. (2025). Fishing to farming livelihood diversification: perceptions from commercial fishers and shellfish farmers in the United States. People Nat.7, 2038–2050. doi: 10.1002/pan3.70089

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  LordN.VeoJ.MoeserA.WhitmoreE.MoultonA. (2025). Gender equity in Maine’s aquaculture industry: navigating data gaps to build gender responsive programming and networks. Front. Ocean Sustain.3:1628822. doi: 10.3389/focsu.2025.1628822

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  Maine Aquaculture Association (2023) Maine aquaculture 101. Available online at: https://maineaqua.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/MAINE-AQUACULTURE-101.pdf (Accessed July 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 46

  Maine Aquaculture Association (2026). Maine Aquaculture Apprenticeship Program. Available online at: https://maineaqua.org/apprenticeship/ (Accessed July 26, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 47

  Maine Aquaculture Association (2026). Maine Aquaculture Sector Survey Report 2026. Available online at: https://maineaqua.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Maine-Aquaculture-Sector-Survey-Report-2026_pdf (Accessed July 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 48

  Maine Aquaculture Innovation Center (2026). Get Involved. Available online at: https://maineaquaculture.org/get-involved/ (Accessed July 18, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 49

  Maine Department of Marine Resources (2026). Aquaculture leases. Available online at: https://dmr-maine.opendata.arcgis.com/search?tags=aquaculture

  • Google Scholar

• 50

  Maine Oyster Trail (2026). Available online at: https://maineoystertrail.com/ (Accessed July 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 51

  MangubhaiS.BarclayK.LawlessS.MakhoulN. (2023). Gender-based violence: relevance for fisheries practitioners. Fish Fish.24, 582–594. doi: 10.1111/faf.12747

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  MarchC.SmythI.MukhopadhyayM. (1999). A guide to Gender-Analysis Frameworks. Oxford: Oxfam.

  • Google Scholar

• 53

  McClenachanL.MoultonA. (2022). Transitions from wild-caught fisheries to shellfish and seaweed aquaculture increase gender equity in Maine. Mar. Policy146:105312. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105312

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  Minorities in Aquaculture (2026). Internship Program. Available online at: https://www.mianpo.org/mia-internships (Accessed July 26, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 55

  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM] (2024). Assessing Equity in the Distribution of Fisheries Management Benefits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 56

  New Hampshire Fish and Game (2020) Marine Aquaculture Compendium. Concord, NH: Department of New Hampshire Fish and Game.

  • Google Scholar

• 57

  New Hampshire Sea Grant (2026). Oysters. Available online at: https://seagrant.unh.edu/our-work/aquaculture/oysters (Accessed July 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 58

  NH Shellfish Farmers InitiativeNH Sea Grant (2022) Oysters. Available online at: https://seagrant.unh.edu/our-work/aquaculture/oysters (Accessed July 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 59

  NjukiJ.EisslerS.MalapitH.Meinzen-DickR.BryanE.QuisumbingA. (2022). A review of evidence on gender equality, women’s empowerment, and food systems. Glob. Food Secur.33:100622. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100622

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  OstromE. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science325, 419–422. doi: 10.1126/science.1172133,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  OstromE. (2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Stud. J.39, 7–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  PierceJ. M. (2020). Photovoice: documenting lives in aquaculture and fisheries through a gendered photo lens. Gender Technol. Dev.24, 131–154. doi: 10.1080/09718524.2020.1732663

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  PosadasB. C. (2025) The Changing Demographic Profiles of U.S. Commercial Fishermen Vol. 15 No. 1 Mississippi State University Extension and Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Publication MASGP-25-058-01. January 15, 2025. Available online at: https://extension.msstate.edu/newsletters/mississippi-marketmaker (Accessed July 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 64

  RaoN.HooperL.GrayH.GristN.ForsterJ.BremnerJ.et al. (2024). A systematic review of the impact of post-harvest aquatic food processing technology on gender equality and social justice. Nat. Food5, 731–741. doi: 10.1038/s43016-024-01034-6,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  RibotJ. C.PelusoN. L. (2003). A theory of access. Rural. Sociol.68, 153–181. doi: 10.1111/j.1549-0831.2003.tb00133.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  RiceE. D.GondweE.BennettA. E.OkangaP. A.Osho-AbdulgafarN. F.FakoyaK.et al. (2024). The future of gender research in small-scale fisheries: priorities and pathways for advancing gender equity. Fish Fish.25, 401–408. doi: 10.1111/faf.12814

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  SachsC. E.BarbercheckM. E.BrasierK. J.KiernanN. E.TermanA. R. (2016). The Rise of Women Farmers and Sustainable Agriculture. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 68

  SEA Maine (2024). SEA Maine Roadmap for the Marine Living Resource Economy. Available online at: https://www.seamaine.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/SEA-Maine-Roadmap-full-version.pdf (Accessed July 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 69

  SimmanceF. A.CohenP. J.HucheryC.SutcliffeS.SuriS. K.TezzoX.et al. (2021). Nudging fisheries and aquaculture research towards food systems. Fish Fish.23, 34–53. doi: 10.1111/faf.12597

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  SimmanceA.SimmanceF.KoldingJ.MadiseN. J.PoppyG. M. (2016). “In the frame: modifying photovoice for improving understanding of gender in fisheries and aquaculture,” in Global Conference on inland Fisheries, ed. FAO (Rome: FAO), 77–89.

  • Google Scholar

• 71

  SmithH.BasurtoX.St. MartinK. (2024). Enacting food system transformation through the small-scale fisheries guidelines. Marit. Stud.23:2. doi: 10.1007/s40152-023-00339-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  StollJ. S.LeslieH. M.BritschM. L.CleaverC. M. (2019). Evaluating aquaculture as a diversification strategy for Maine’s commercial fishing sector in the face of change. Mar. Policy107:103583. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103583

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  SzymkowiakM. (2020). Genderizing fisheries: assessing over thirty years of women’s participation in Alaska fisheries. Mar. Policy115:103846. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103846

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  SzymkowiakM.Rhodes-ReeseM. (2020). Addressing the gender gap: using quantitative and qualitative methods to illuminate women’s fisheries participation. Front. Mar. Sci.7:299. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.00299

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  ToddJ. E.WhittC.KeyN.MandalayO. (2024). An overview of farms operated by socially disadvantaged, women, and limited resource farmers and ranchers in the United States (Report No. EIB-266). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. doi: 10.32747/2024.8254670.ers

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  United States, President (2020). Executive Order 13921: Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness and Economic Growth. Federal Register, 85, 28471–28477. Available online at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/12/2020-10315/promoting-american-seafood-competitiveness-and-economic-growth (Accessed July 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 77

  UN Women (2024). Facts and Figures on economic Empowerment. Available online at: https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/economic-empowerment/facts-and-figures (Accessed July 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 78

  USDA (2024) Aquaculture. Available online at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/aquaculture/ (Accessed July 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 79

  USDA Farm Service Agency (2019) Farm Service Agency Loans for Socially Disadvantaged Applicants. Available online at: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sda_loans-fact_sheet-aug_2019.pdf (Accessed July 15, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 80

  VeoJ.JohnsonT. R. (2026). Enhancing training and workforce opportunities for women in shellfish and seaweed aquaculture in Maine (USA). Marit. Stud.25:31. doi: 10.1007/s40152-025-00473-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  WangC.BurrisM. A. (1997). Photovoice: concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Educ. Behav.24, 369–387. doi: 10.1177/109019819702400309,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  WeeratungeN.SnyderK. A.SzeC. P. (2010). Gleaner, fisher, trader, processor: understanding gendered employment in fisheries and aquaculture. Fish Fish.11, 405–420. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00368.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  WhitmoreE. H.CutlerM. J.ThunbergE. M. (2022) Social License to Operate in the Aquaculture Industry: A Community-Focused Framework. doi: 10.25923/htvb-s306

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  WhitmoreE.SaffordT. (2020). Inter-organizational ties, community, and the emergence of an oyster industry in New Hampshire. J. Rural Community Dev.15, 115–135.

  • Google Scholar

• 85

  ZhaoM.TyzackM.AndersonR.OnoakpovikeE. (2013). Women as visible and invisible workers in fisheries: a case study of northern England. Mar. Policy37, 69–76. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2012.04.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar