As a disclaimer, the data were collected by a researcher in Grenada, and I am not the one who is best-positioned to summarize the data. That said, the basic details are that all fishing activities by approximately 13 boat captains were documented for about one year. The captains have the option of choosing from about 9 fishing sites, but there are rules about the order in which boats can fish at these sites, largely determined by queuing according to time of arrival. The outcomes (n = 998) of each fishing episode are known (in terms of how much fish were caught by boat j) – which is a positively skewed distribution – along with the date and time and the length of the fishing episode. But there is no way to know what the expected productivity of unexploited sites would be at time t. The sites are all close enough that weather should be similar across sites, but there may be ecological aspects of the bays that mean some sites are more or less productive at different times.
After fishing at a site, captains have the option of getting in line for another turn at that site, or switching to a different site. Based on what I’ve seen of the data, these decisions could be reconstructed (with some moderate coarseness in the time frames at which these decisions were documented). I haven’t looked too closely at summary statistics, but according to the researchers, it seems common for captains to cluster together at productive sites . . . unless things get too crowded, at which point some will disperse to look for less crowded sites. (Fortunately, it seems that there is no fishing by other captains who were not in the study population, so the distribution of boats at any particular time is knowable, albeit with some measurement uncertainty.)