What question did this study set out to answer?

This study evaluates the effectiveness of various assessment frameworks for fisheries sustainability by integrating social and ecological dimensions.

May 11, 2026

Integrating Social and Ecological Dimensions in Fisheries Sustainability: A Comparative Analysis of Assessment Frameworks

Key Points

This study evaluates the effectiveness of various assessment frameworks for fisheries sustainability by integrating social and ecological dimensions.
Compared four frameworks: FIP-SRAT, Rapfish, PIS, Healthcheck.
Consolidated 179 indicators into 29 integral indicators classified by SES subsystems.
Conducted similarity testing (ANOSIM) and cluster analysis.
No significant overall differences between frameworks but strong variations in social and ecological components.
Three integral indicators common across all frameworks: governance evaluation, responsibilities definition, and targeted population assessment.
FIP is most widely implemented, especially in Latin America, while PIS has limited case studies.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Conventional fisheries assessments, traditionally based on production and structural models, have shown limitations in addressing the complexity of fisheries. Holistic approaches that integrate ecological, social, and governance dimensions are increasingly promoted under the ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF) and the social‐ecological systems (SES) framework. This study compares four frameworks: (1) Fishery Improvement Projects with the Social Responsibility Assessment Tool (FIP‐SRAT), (2) Rapfish, (3) Principles for Investment in Sustainable Wild‐Caught Fisheries (PIS), and (4) Healthcheck, evaluating their objectives, indicators, and alignment with Ostrom's SES subsystems and EAF. A total of 179 specific indicators (132 social, 47 ecological) were consolidated into 29 integral indicators and classified by SES subsystems. Analyses included similarity testing (ANOSIM) and cluster analysis. Results show no significant differences between frameworks overall, but strong differences between social and ecological components and among subsystems, with social indicators predominating. Three integral indicators, definition of responsibilities, evaluation of governance mechanisms, and targeted population assessment, were common to all frameworks. Literature review revealed uneven application: FIP is most widely implemented, particularly in Latin America, while PIS lacks published case studies. Although each framework emerged from distinct institutional and geographic contexts, all contribute to advancing EAF principles by addressing dimensions absent in conventional assessments, such as human rights, equity, and governance quality. However, differences in metrics and indicator coverage may limit comparability. These findings highlight the potential and challenges of integrating social and ecological dimensions in fisheries assessment, and the need for adaptive, context‐sensitive frameworks to support fisheries sustainability.

KI fragen

Bookmark