Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Marine Life Science & Technology logoLink to Marine Life Science & Technology
. 2024 Oct 2;6(4):713–721. doi: 10.1007/s42995-024-00251-z

Designing an assessment tool for integrated evaluation of sustainable fisheries in China

Qi Ding 1,2, Xiujuan Shan 1,2,✉, Xianshi Jin 1,2, Harry Gorfine 3, Jiting Sun 4
PMCID: PMC11602921  PMID: 39620090

Abstract

Fisheries are social-ecological systems. Evaluating the sustainability of fisheries requires methods to measure performance from ecological, economic, social, and governance aspects. Whereas a number of multi-dimensional evaluation tools such as fishery performance indicators (FPIs) have been used for assessing fishery management systems, fishery management practices and data availability are likely to differ substantially among fisheries in different countries. This makes it at least somewhat problematic to precisely adapt this methodology to fisheries within a given country. This study constructed a practical tool to evaluate and compare fishery systems in China. On the basis of an established indicator library and the FPIs tool, indicators in the newly developed tool for comprehensive fisheries evaluation were selected according to the management objectives, data availability, and the authority of relevant indicators. The sustainability assessment tool for Chinese fisheries (SAT-fish) provides a three-tier hierarchical framework covering 60 indicators, of which 48 indicators were extracted from the FPIs tool and 12 indicators were associated with policy statements. Applicability and comprehensiveness of this tool in comparison with six other well-established frameworks were investigated. This tool offers a promising new method to assess the sustainability of fishery systems in China, with great potential to guide Chinese fisheries towards a higher level of sustainability.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42995-024-00251-z.

Keywords: Pillars of sustainability, Multidisciplinary evaluation, Fishery management, Fishery performance indicators, China

Introduction

Fisheries are complex systems, which require explicit consideration of ecological, economic, social and governance aspects in both their assessment and management (Benson and Stephenson 2018; Bennett et al. 2021; Voyer et al. 2017). Evaluating the performance of fisheries across a range of multi-dimensional metrics under existing management strategies may demonstrate which aspects of fisheries management are successful and which need to be improved (Garlock et al. 2022; Marco et al. 2021; Stephenson et al. 2018). Based on the above information, managers may make adaptations to arrive at a system that achieves specified ecological, social and economic goals. Several frameworks, such as Pressure-State-Response (PSR) and Driving forces-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR), have been used in evaluating the broad sustainability of fisheries (Berrios et al. 2022; Mangi et al. 2007; Ou and Liu 2010). However, the interpretation given to each PSR or DPSIR category differs in existing studies, and as a result when applying the above approaches in practice, results may not be comparable among different fisheries because different indicators are often used in assessing their sustainability (Gari et al. 2015; Martins et al. 2012). It is worth emphasizing that the above approaches often require large quantities of data, but many developing countries, including China, lack adequate fishery statistics and survey data to satisfy this requirement, thus limiting their application in comprehensive fisheries evaluations.

Fishery performance indicators (FPIs) are designed to be cost-effective, quantitative, accurate, comparable, and applicable to both data poor and data rich fisheries systems. FPIs have been adopted widely by researchers and international organizations, such as the FAO and the World Bank, in assessing the sustainability of fisheries systems (Anderson et al. 2015; Asche et al. 2018; Chu et al. 2012; Danielsen et al. 2021; Gentner et al. 2018). FPIs evaluate performance of a fishery through 122 metrics, which have been designed to capture important aspects of ecological, economic and social sustainability in fisheries. A major advantage of the FPIs is their ability to establish meaningful comparisons across management systems, and make inferences about how to improve fishery outcomes (Chu et al. 2017; Marco et al. 2021). The FPIs tool had been applied to 149 fisheries worldwide by the year 2020, of which 37% of case study fisheries were located in Asia, 24% in Africa, 23% in North America, 7% in Europe, 6% in South America and 3% in Oceania. It is worth noting that up to 65% of case studies were conducted in developing countries (Eggert et al. 2021).

China has the largest fisheries production in the world, with 9.5 million tons of annual domestic marine catches, and approximately 126,000 registered fishing vessels in 2022 (Fisheries Bureau of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs 2023). Marine fisheries contribute substantially to livelihoods and food security by redressing gaps in household income and availability of fish supplies (Han 2018; Su et al. 2020). The FPIs tool is designed as a one-size-fits-all methodology and has been widely used to assess and compare fisheries systems in different parts of the world. However, there are some specificities of fisheries industries, such as alternative livelihoods and fishers’ resilience, that the methodology cannot fully capture (Bucaram 2016). Besides, a few metrics, such as proportion of harvest with a third party certification and spatial management in the FPIs tool, are not included in China’s official statistics, thereby rendering acquisition of necessary data as difficult to impossible. These issues make it at least somewhat problematic to precisely adapt this methodology to fisheries in China. Therefore, when applying the FPIs tool to evaluate the performance of China’s domestic fisheries, some metrics must be modified and improved to accord with the actual circumstances of the development and management of its fishing industry.

This study constructed a practical tool to evaluate and compare fisheries systems in China. The development process was carried out through: a) analyzing the available literature on comprehensive fisheries evaluation on a global scale to obtain the tools that have been proposed; b) establishing a candidate indicator library by conducting a comparative analysis of the commonly used tools put forward in the literature; and c) deleting inappropriate metrics from FPIs then adding a number of indicators with associated policy statements. This study aims to support the efforts of the Chinese government wishing to monitor progress towards sustainable development of marine capture fisheries.

Materials and methods

Literature analysis

A systematic review of the literature was conducted, via the ISI Web of Science (WOS) database, which is an indexing service that provides a comprehensive search of the scientific literature. To ensure a wide breadth of results, searches were ‘topic searches’, which search for titles, keywords and abstracts of documents (Johnson et al. 2013). Search terms included in the topic search were: Comprehensive Fisheries Evaluation OR Fishery Triple Bottom Line OR Fisheries Sustainability Indicators. All the articles published until February 2023 have been included in the selection.

From an initial search of these terms, a total of 852 articles were identified. We screened this collection with a two-steps analysis. First, we analyzed all the articles to identify if they included developed tools or frameworks that examine ecological, social and economic aspects of sustainability in fisheries. Second, if no tools had been proposed, we analyzed whether an integrated bio-socioeconomic fishery analysis had been conducted.

Metrics selection

According to the well-established multi-dimensional evaluation tools identified from the literature, a candidate indicator library was established through integrating all the identified indicators. This study developed an assessment tool linked to the ecological, social, economic, and governance dimensions in the Chinese context. The tool that we developed is largely adapted from the FPIs, expanding on this method by conducting a metrics selection process as illustrated in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Decision tree for selection of indicators that assess the sustainability of fishery systems

First, in terms of the 122 indicators in the FPIs, many indictors such as proportion of harvest with a third-party certification, harvest rights, and participation are not applicable for assessing fisheries in China. Therefore, this study omitted those indicators that did not conform to existing fishery management practices in China.

Second, a screening process of the remaining indictors was then carried out. Indicators selected were those for which one could plausibly hypothesize a change in indicator status resulting from a fishery management intervention rather than external factors.

Third, in terms of the remaining indicators in step two, all those that could be measured with available data or that could be monitored were added in the final assessment tool, so as to make our results comparable to those of other fisheries currently in the global FPIs database.

Fourth, development priorities for China’s fishing industry are guided by overarching national development plans, the most relevant of which are the Five-Year Plans for National Fisheries Development of the People’s Republic of China. In fully considering China’s national conditions and the requirements of fishery performance evaluation, combined with the previously established candidate indicator library, this study added those indicators that measure the specific management objectives into the newly developed tool to achieve greater efficiency. The choice of indicators was based on three criteria: ease and objectivity of scoring, availability of data, and suitability for capturing the dynamics and reality of the fishery systems to be evaluated.

Parameterization of the indicators

When implementing the FPIs, all the indicators were scored from 1 to 5 using criteria for each level that are designed to be easy to apply across a wide range of fisheries (Anderson et al. 2015). As with the FPIs tool, indicators in the newly developed assessment tool were scored on a semi-quantitative standardized scale from 1 to 5 based on expert assessment or primary data when available, which represents the worst to the best possible scenarios in sustainability terms. Scoring criteria for indictors obtained from the FPIs were sourced from the FPI manual (Anderson et al. 2016). For the remaining indicators included in the newly developed assessment tool, scoring criteria were established based on the available literature or documents.

Results

Our Web of Science search highlighted 852 potential articles to examine. After a detailed screening, we identified nine commonly used tools or frameworks for monitoring sustainable development in fisheries in a comprehensive way, including FAO Fishery Sustainable Development, Fisheries Performance Indicators, Rapfish, Métier Sustainability Index, Canadian Fisheries Research Network (CFRN) framework, VALDUVIS tool, Australian Fisheries Healthcheck, Pressure-State-Response (PSR), and Driving forces-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR). Despite various studies applying the PSR or DPSIR frameworks to fisheries, the interpretation given to each PSR or DPSIR category differs among these studies, and as a result the indicators used to support fishery management also vary considerably. Therefore, only the first seven tools and frameworks were included for further analyses.

Before delving into the comparison of the seven tools, this study firstly examined their objectives. The FAO sustainable development framework provided sustainability indicators for fisheries generally. Fisheries Performance Indicators is designed for evaluating and comparing the world’s fisheries management systems and it evaluates performance of a fishery via 122 metrics. Rapfish is a novel multidisciplinary rapid appraisal technique for evaluating the comparative sustainability of fisheries, and sustainability is described by a set of 44 indicators. The Métier Sustainability Index is created for the assessment of sustainability of different fishing tactics (métiers) from data-poor fisheries, and comprises 25 indicators that refer to the “health” of fisheries. The CFRN framework is developed for comprehensively assessing the sustainability of Canadian fisheries, and elements that form the framework were derived from Canada’s laws and acts as well as from international commitments in relation to sustainable fisheries. The VALDUVIS tool was developed to assess and monitor the sustainability of Belgium’s fisheries via 14 indicators. The Australian Fisheries Healthcheck is designed to provide summary information about the performance of Australian fisheries against a total of 50 indicators.

We then compared the seven tools in terms of their structures, measurement indicators and ability to provide comparative results for different fisheries worldwide. For comparison of structures, the elements of each framework were allocated among the four pillars (ecology, economy, social and governance) according to their most relevant match. The FAO sustainable development framework, FPIs, Rapfish, Métier Sustainability Index, CFRN framework and Australian Fisheries Healthcheck provide a more comprehensive assessment among ecological, social, economic and governance pillars of sustainability as compared to the VALDUVIS tool which focuses only on the first three pillars. It is noteworthy that only FPIs and Rapfish are applicable to both data poor and data rich fisheries systems, whereas the other five tools applied mostly to data-rich fisheries.

We also examined whether appropriate indicators have been developed to assess the defined criteria. Results showed that only criteria for the main dimensions are incorporated into the FAO sustainable development framework, and the CFRN framework only provides the candidate performance indicators for each candidate objective. Therefore, we focused on the remaining five tools with specific indicators for measuring the level of sustainability. Indicators covering the four dimensions (pillars) of sustainability are presented in Fig. 2. The Australian Fisheries Healthcheck exhibits a more balanced distribution of indicators across the four pillars of sustainability relative to the other four assessment tools, which are heavily focused on ecological or governance dimension. For example, in the FPIs tool, the number of indicators included in the ecological, economic, social, and governance dimensions were 8, 29, 31, and 54 respectively. For the evaluation methodology currently in use by each of the evaluation tools, sustainability in the FPIs and Rapfish tools was described quantitatively by a set of defined criteria represented in a numerical analysis by a set of scored attributes. The Métier Sustainability Index was designed using the classic “green–yellow–red” traffic light approach, and the VALDUVIS tool developed a scoring methodology for each indicator with quantified values were rescaled to a score between 0 (worst case) and 100 (best practice). In contrast, the Australian Fisheries Healthcheck did not provide detailed judgements related to fishery performance currently.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Comparison of the number of indicators included in the ecological, economic, social, and governance dimensions in the five commonly used tools, A fishery performance indicators (FPIs), B Rapfish, C VALDUVIS tool, D Australian Fisheries Healthcheck, E Métier Sustainability Index

To better understand the similarities and differences among the selected evaluation tools, we examined the indicators that had been identified and developed in each pillar of sustainability (ecological, economic, social and governance). Comparative analysis revealed that indicators varied considerably among the five tools. Supplementary Table S1–S4 summarizes the indicators covering the ecological, economic, social, and governance aspects in the five tools. Specifically, of the 28 indicators associated with the ecological aspect, 15 were selected in more than one tool, and only 5 were selected in more than two tools. Likewise, for the economic aspect, merely five: total fishing revenue, annual total revenue volatility, annual price volatility, commoditization, and profitability, out of 44 indictors applied to more than one tool. In the social dimension, harvest safety, proportion of nonresident employment, age structure of harvesters and animal welfare protections applied in more than one tool, out of 53 indictors. Only 2 out of 81 indictors applied in more than one tool for the governance aspect, specifically governance quality and legality.

To construct a practical tool to evaluate and compare fisheries systems in China, this study expanded on the FPIs tool to include those indicators with relevant supporting statements from China’s national fishery development plans, and to omit indicators that did not conform to existing fishery management practices in China. This study focused on assessing the performance of the fishing industry specifically, thus metrics on trade and post-harvest (processing) sectors were excluded. Indicators selected were those that accord with the actual circumstances of the development and management of fishing industry in China, and meanwhile, for which one could plausibly hypothesize a change in indicator status resulting from a fishery management intervention rather than external factors. After a detailed screening of the 122 indicators in the FPIs tool, we retained 48 indicators. Additionally, an indicator library was established through integrating all the indicators identified in Supplementary Table S1-S4.

The Five-year Plans for National Fishery Development set out key tasks to be implemented for the subsequent five years in China. The most recent is the 14th Five-year Plan (2021 − 2025) for National Fishery Development. Sustainable development of the domestic marine fishing industry in China is currently hindered by the problems associated with high fishing pressure, high numbers of fishers, and a low degree of organization and autonomy among the fisheries community. After a thorough analysis of the 14th Five-Year Plan, potential indicators with associated policy statements were identified and selected from the above indicator library. A total of 12 indicators were selected, including immature catch, fish size, habitat impact, subsidies, opportunity for alternative livelihoods, climate-related adaptive capacity, alternatives, legality, fleet capacity in relation to resource, selective gear, reporting, and protected species mitigation (Supplementary Table S5). Scoring criteria for these 12 indicators were determined in accordance with relevant literature. Coupled with the 48 indicators extracted from the FPIs tool, a sustainability assessment tool for integrated evaluation of fisheries in China (SAT-fish) was developed (Fig. 3), which included 60 indicators representing four evaluation fields (ecological, economic, social, and governance).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

The 60 indicators used for the construction of the sustainability assessment tool for Chinese fisheries (SAT-fish)

Discussion

Sustainability is a broad and complex concept with varying definitions, a well-designed management system accounting for a diverse suite of factors involved in social, economic, ecological and governance arrangements appears to be a key to realizing the full benefits from a fishery (Belschner et al. 2019; Rindorf et al. 2017). Having the world’s largest labor force employed in the fishing sector globally while experiencing depleting fishery resources in its coastal waters, the Chinese government has been increasingly emphasizing sustainable fishery management in recent years (Shen and Heino 2014; Su et al. 2021). The 14th Five-year Plan (2021 − 2025) for National Fishery Development clearly aimed to develop an indicators system for assessment of marine fishery resources and promote the formation of a development pattern so that fishing capacity can be matched to resource productivity (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs 2021). In this study, a practical tool to evaluate and compare fisheries systems in China has been constructed. The SAT-fish tool provides a three-tier hierarchical framework covering 60 indicators. The tool presented here linking the management objectives with relevant performance indicators could increase the effectiveness and capability of evaluating the sustainability of fisheries, so as to be useful in management decision support.

Much of the available information on fishery performance is focused on the ecological dimension (Hilborn et al. 2020; Liu et al. 2023; Salas et al. 2007). There is growing recognition that management policies of fishery resources should be multidimensional (Costello et al. 2020; Marshall et al. 2018). Despite some assessment tools such as FPIs having been applied in assessing the triple bottom line of Chinese fisheries (Liu et al. 2021), there is ample scope and a strong policy-driven imperative for improvement. A few indicators included in the FPIs, such as excess capacity and proportion of harvest managed with rights-based management, are not applicable to existing fishery management practices in China. Realistically, fishery management practices and data availability are likely to differ substantially among fisheries in different countries. To assess the performance of fisheries systems within a given country, there is a need to take the current status of the country’s fishing industry into consideration. There have been some efforts to develop country-specific evaluation tools, namely, the Australian Fisheries Healthcheck (Hobday et al. 2019), CFRN framework (Stephenson et al. 2019), and VALDUVIS tool (Kinds et al. 2016). Yet little research has been done in this area for Chinese fisheries.

The SAT-fish tool provides a more balanced structure in terms of the number of indicators from among the four pillars of sustainability as compared to the FPIs which focus on the governance dimension. A systematic comparison of the different evaluation tools reveals that all four of the other assessment tools do not incorporate metrics to measure the performance of trade and processing sectors. While undoubtedly important, typically a relationship between these outcomes and fishery management is not straightforward. Therefore, the indicators selected in the newly developed tool were those that comprehensively measure the performance of China’s fishing industry. To better document the sustainability of Chinese fisheries and provide targeted information to support fishery management, this study identified a list of potential indicators based on Chinese policy statements and added them to the newly developed tool. Aspects measured by these indicators, such as habitat impact (Brown et al. 2019), subsidies (Sumaila et al. 2019), alternatives (Teh and Sumaila 2013) and protected species mitigation (Gray and Kennelly 2018) are management objectives not only of relevance to China but also to fisheries globally.

Multi-dimensional evaluation yields a more accurate impression of what works and what does not in a fishery, but it can be challenging to obtain enough data to cover all aspects (Chávez et al. 2021; Teh et al. 2020). Particularly in developing countries, these data requirements may be especially difficult to satisfy (Kleisner et al. 2013). Most Chinese fisheries are currently data-poor or data-limited (Su et al. 2022). The FPIs tool could be applied to both data-poor and data-rich fisheries and all the indicators are coded on a 1 to 5 scale based on expert assessment. It is important to emphasize that there are limitations and challenges to the use of the FPIs tool, mostly because in some cases expert assessments are used as a proxy for data (Bucaram 2016). The SAT-fish tool is largely adapted from the FPIs tool, expanding on it to include indicators with associated policy statements and omitting indicators that did not conform to existing fishery management practices in China. To the greatest extent possible, the indicators included in the developed tool should be calculated using available data, thus ensuring the validity of the results of the assessment.

The non-weighted approach has been widely used in the literature to assess the sustainability of an entire socio-ecological system (Halpern et al. 2012; Jimenez et al. 2021; Juwana et al. 2012; Xu et al. 2020). This weighting inherently implies that the indicators contribute equally to the overall sustainability score. In reality, this is unlikely to be the case. The objectives of fishery management are likely to differ substantially among different types of fisheries. Different priorities for action in terms of fishery management can be recognized in different regions, depending on the perceived importance of different pressures and vulnerabilities (Smith et al. 2019). This study focused on constructing a practical tool to evaluate and compare fisheries systems in China. Thus, the determination of appropriate weights for each pillar of sustainability has not yet been addressed in any detail because it requires extensive discussion among fisheries managers and policy makers. A more detailed analysis of the implications of different indicator weights is an important topic for future research. To improve the assessment and management of China’s fisheries to achieve sustainable outcomes, marine capture fisheries could be divided into three major components, namely, small-scale (artisanal and subsistence), industrial and recreational fishery sectors, with assignment of specific weights to the different sectors according to their importance and priority.

Effective fisheries management should broadly consider the sustainability of an entire socio-ecological system, which is also the focus of the tool which we have developed. The SAT-fish tool can be used by the government and fishery managers in China to identify areas for improvement in fishery management, and it has utility for understanding how a well-managed fishery will perform, and how far the fisheries being assessed are from the benchmark for a currently well-managed fishery. To provide better guidance on fishery management and ensure the validity of the assessments, enhancing data collection about fisheries in China, not only ecological but also socioeconomic data is of great importance. Additionally, the performance of the fishing industry could be assessed every 3 years or more frequently if required, so as to gain insights into the complex dynamics of the four dimensions and to identify the extent of progress and challenges in moving towards sustainable fisheries in China.

Conclusion

Fisheries systems include both fish and people, which require explicit consideration of ecological, economic, social and governance aspects of both assessment and management. This study provides a first step towards the development of an assessment tool for integrated evaluation of sustainable fisheries in China. The newly developed tool (SAT-fish) comprises a three-tier hierarchical framework covering 60 indicators, linking management objectives with relevant performance indicators so as to be useful for management decision support. The application of this tool can give a clear picture about the ecological, social and economic situations associated with the fishery management systems, which can be used to monitor progress towards sustainable fisheries in China.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 30 KB) (29.4KB, docx)

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.32202936), the Science and Technology Innovation Foundation of Laoshan Laboratory (Grant No. LSKJ202203803), the Special Funds for Taishan Scholars Project of Shandong Province and the Innovation Team of Fishery Resources and Ecology in the Yellow Sea and Bohai Sea (2023TD01). Data and samples were collected onboard of R/V "Lanhai101" implementing the open research cruise NORC2023-01 and NORC2024-01 supported by NSFC Shiptime Sharing Project (project number: 42249901 and 42349901). We also thank the anonymous reviewers for constructive comments that improved this manuscript.

Author contributions

QD: conceptualization and writing-original draft; XSJ: methodology and validation. XJS: visualization and formal analysis; HG: investigation and validation; JTS: validation.

Data availability

Data will be made available on reasonable request.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflicts of interests.

Animal and human rights statement

This work does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Footnotes

Special Topic: Fishery Science and Technology.

References

  1. Anderson JL, Anderson CM, Chu J, Meredith J, Asche F, Sylvia G, Smith MD, Anggraeni D, Arthur R, Guttormsen A, McCluney JK, Ward T, Akpalu W, Eggert H, Flores J, Freeman MA, Holland DS, Knapp G, Kobayashi M, Larkin S et al (2015) The fishery performance indicators: a management tool for triple bottom line outcomes. PLoS ONE 10:e0122809 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson JL, Anderson CM, Chu J, Meredith J (2016) Fishery performance indicators manual (Version 1.3). http://isfs.institute.ifas.ufl.edu/projects/new-metrics/fpi-manual.
  3. Asche F, Garlock TM, Anderson JL, Bush SR, Smith MD, Anderson CM, Chu J, Garrett KA, Lem A, Lorenzen K, Oglend A, Tveteras S, Vannuccini S (2018) Three pillars of sustainability in fisheries. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115:11221–11225 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Belschner T, Ferretti J, Strehlow H, Kraak SBM, Döring R, Kraus G, Kempf A, Zimmermann C (2019) Evaluating fisheries systems: a comprehensive analytical framework and its application to the EU’s common fisheries policy. Fish Fish 20:97–109 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bennett NJ, Schuhbauer A, Skerritt D, Ebrahim N (2021) Socio-economic monitoring and evaluation in fisheries. Fish Res 239:105934 [Google Scholar]
  6. Benson AJ, Stephenson RL (2018) Options for integrating ecological, economic, and social objectives in evaluation and management of fisheries. Fish Fish 19:40–56 [Google Scholar]
  7. Berrios F, González JE, Campos L, Campbell DE, Bonnail E (2022) Brown algae (Lessonia nigrescens, species complex) fisheries of northern Chile evaluated through the DPSIR approach: Social and economic impact of management strategies. Ocean Coastal Manage 224:106198 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown CJ, Broadley A, Adame MF, Branch TA, Turschwell MP, Connolly RM (2019) The assessment of fishery status depends on fish habitats. Fish Fish 20:1–14 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bucaram SJ (2016) Baseline assessment eastern Pacific Ocean tuna fisheries using the fisheries performance indicator methodology. Report prepared for the World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC. https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/common_oceans/docs/EPO_FPI%20_report.pdf
  10. Chávez C, Dresdner J, González N, Leiva M, Quiroga M (2021) The performance of shared fish stock fisheries under varying institutional and socioeconomic conditions: evidence from the South Eastern Pacific Anchoveta Fishery. Mar Pol 125:104262 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chu J, Garlock TM, Sayon P, Asche F, Anderson JL (2017) Impact evaluation of a fisheries development project. Mar Pol 85:141–149 [Google Scholar]
  12. Chu J, Anderson JL, Anderson CM (2012) Evaluation of new fishery performance indicators (FPIs): a case study of the blue swimming crab fisheries in Indonesia and Philippines. ARD 52, The World Bank Group, Washington, D.C. (100 pp). https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1524330/evaluation-of-new-fishery-performance-indicators-fpis/2210282/
  13. Costello C, Cao L, Gelcich S, Cisneros-Mata MÁ, Free CM (2020) The future of food from the sea. Nature 588:95–100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Danielsen R, Anderson CM, Agnarsson S (2021) Trawling for triple bottom line results: applying the fishery performance indicators in the Faroe Islands. Mar Pol 125:104250 [Google Scholar]
  15. Eggert H, Anderson CM, Anderson JL, Garlock TM (2021) Assessing global fisheries using fisheries performance indicators: introduction to special section. Mar Pol 125:104253 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fisheries Bureau of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (2023) China Fisheries Statistical Yearbook 2023. China Agricultural Press, Beijing [Google Scholar]
  17. Gari SR, Newton A, Icely JD (2015) A review of the application and evolution of the DPSIR framework with an emphasis on coastal social-ecological systems. Ocean Coastal Manage 103:63–77 [Google Scholar]
  18. Garlock T, Anderson JL, Asche F, Smith MD, Camp E, Chu J, Lorenzen K, Vannuccini S (2022) Global insights on managing fishery systems for the three pillars of sustainability. Fish Fish 23:899–909 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gentner B, Arocha F, Anderson C, Flett K, Obregon P, van Anrooy R (2018) Fishery performance indicator studies for the commercial and recreational pelagic fleets of the Dominican Republic and Grenada. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No.1162, Rome.
  20. Gray CA, Kennelly SJ (2018) Bycatches of endangered, threatened and protected species in marine fisheries. Rev Fish Biol Fish 28:521–541 [Google Scholar]
  21. Halpern BS, Longo C, Hardy D, McLeod KL, Samhouri JF (2012) An index to assess the health and benefits of the global ocean. Nature 488:615–620 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Han Y (2018) Marine fishery resources management and policy adjustment in China since 1949. China Rural Econ 9:14–28 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hilborn R, Amoroso RO, Anderson CM, Baum JK, Branch TA (2020) Effective fisheries management instrumental in improving fish stock status. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 117:2218–2224 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hobday AJ, Hartog JR, Ogier E, Thomas L, Fleming A, Hornborg S (2019). Healthcheck Phase 2, FRDC Project 2016/060. Available at: FRDC. https://www.frdc.com.au/project/2016-060
  25. Jimenez ÉA, Gonzalez JG, Amaral MT, Fredou FL (2021) Sustainability indicators for the integrated assessment of coastal small-scale fisheries in the Brazilian Amazon. Ecol Econ 181:106910 [Google Scholar]
  26. Johnson AE, Cinner JE, Hardt MJ, Jacquet J, McClanahan TR, Sanchirico JN (2013) Trends, current understanding and future research priorities for artisanal coral reef fisheries research. Fish Fish 14:281–292 [Google Scholar]
  27. Juwana I, Muttil N, Perera BJC (2012) Indicator-based water sustainability assessment—A review. Sci Total Environ 438:357–371 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kinds A, Sys K, Schotte L, Mondelaers K, Polet H (2016) VALDUVIS: an innovative approach to assess the sustainability of fishing activities. Fish Res 182:158–171 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kleisner K, Zeller D, Froese R, Pauly D (2013) Using global catch data for inferences on the world’s marine fisheries. Fish Fish 14:293–311 [Google Scholar]
  30. Liu L, Chu J, Anderson JL, Xu J (2021) Sustainability comparisons in the triple bottom line for Chinese fisheries. Mar Pol 125:104259 [Google Scholar]
  31. Liu H, Peng D, Yang HJ, Mu Y, Zhu Y (2023) Exploring the evolution of sustainable fisheries development: focusing on ecological, environmental and management issues. Ecol Inform 75:102004 [Google Scholar]
  32. Mangi SC, Roberts CM, Rodwell LD (2007) Reef fisheries management in Kenya: Preliminary approach using the driver–pressure–state–impacts–response (DPSIR) scheme of indicators. Ocean Coastal Manage 50:463–480 [Google Scholar]
  33. Marco J, Valderrama D, Rueda M (2021) Evaluating management reforms in a Colombian shrimp fishery using fisheries performance indicators. Mar Pol 125:104258 [Google Scholar]
  34. Marshall KN, Levin PS, Essington TE, Koehn LE, Anderson LG, Bundy A, Carothers C, Coleman F, Gerber LR, Grabowski JH, Houde E, Jensen OP, Möllmann C, Rose K, Sanchirico JN, Smith ADM (2018) Ecosystem-based fisheries management for social–ecological systems: renewing the focus in the United States with next generation fishery ecosystem plans. Conserv Lett 11:e12367 [Google Scholar]
  35. Martins JH, Camanho AS, Gaspar MB (2012) A review of the application of driving forces–Pressure–State–Impact–Response framework to fisheries management. Ocean Coastal Manage 69:273–281 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (2021) The 14th Five-year Plan for National Fishery Development. http://www.moa.gov.cn/govpublic/YYJ/202201/t20220106_6386439.htm (accessed 1 March 2023).
  37. Ou CH, Liu WH (2010) Developing a sustainable indicator system based on the pressure–state–response framework for local fisheries: A case study of Gungliau. Taiwan Ocean Coastal Manage 53:289–300 [Google Scholar]
  38. Pitcher TJ, Lam ME, Ainsworth C, Martindale A, Nakamura K, Perry RI, Ward T (2013) Improvements to Rapfish: a rapid evaluation technique for fisheries integrating ecological and human dimensions. J Fish Biol 83:865–889 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Rindorf A, Dichmont CM, Thorson J, Charles A, Clausen LW, Degnbol P, Garcia D, Hintzen NT, Kempf A, Levin P, Mace P, Maravelias C, Minto C, Mumford J, Pascoe S, Prellezo R, Punt AE, Reid DG, Röckmann C, Stephenson RL et al (2017) Inclusion of ecological, economic, social, and institutional considerations when setting targets and limits for multispecies fisheries. ICES J Mar Sci 74:453–463 [Google Scholar]
  40. Salas S, Chuenpagdee R, Seijo JC, Charles A (2007) Challenges in the assessment and management of small-scale fisheries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Fish Res 87:5–16 [Google Scholar]
  41. Shen G, Heino M (2014) An overview of marine fisheries management in China. Mar Pol 44:265–272 [Google Scholar]
  42. Smith SL, Karasik R, Stavrinaky A, Uchida H, Burden M (2019) Fishery socioeconomic outcomes tool: a rapid assessment tool for evaluating socioeconomic performance of fisheries management. Mar Pol 105:20–29 [Google Scholar]
  43. Stephenson RL, Paul S, Wiber M, Angel E, Benson AJ, Charles A, Chouinard O, Clemens M, Edwards D, Foley P, Jennings L, Jones O, Lane D, McIsaac J, Mussells C, Neis B, Nordstrom B, Parlee C, Pinkerton E, Saunders M et al (2018) Evaluating and implementing social–ecological systems: a comprehensive approach to sustainable fisheries. Fish Fish 19:853–873 [Google Scholar]
  44. Stephenson RL, Paul S, Wiber M, Angel E, Benson AJ, Charles A, Chouinard O, Edwards D, Foley P, Lane D, McIsaac J, Neis B, Parlee C, Pinkerton E, Saunders M, Squires K, Sumaila UR (2019) Integrating diverse objectives for sustainable fisheries in Canada. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 76:480–496 [Google Scholar]
  45. Su S, Tang Y, Chang B, Zhu W, Chen Y (2020) Evolution of marine fisheries management in China from 1949 to 2019: How did China get here and where does China go next? Fish Fish 21:435–452 [Google Scholar]
  46. Su M, Wang L, Xiang J, Ma Y (2021) Adjustment trend of China’s marine fishery policy since 2011. Mar Pol 124:104322 [Google Scholar]
  47. Su S, Tang Y, Kritzer JP, Chen Y (2022) Using systems thinking to diagnose science-based fisheries management in China. Mar Pol 138:104974 [Google Scholar]
  48. Sumaila UR, Ebrahim N, Schuhbauer A, Skerritt D, Li Y, Kim HS, Mallory TG, Lam VWL, Pauly D (2019) Updated estimates and analysis of global fisheries subsidies. Mar Pol 109:103695 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Teh LCL, Sumaila UR (2013) Contribution of marine fisheries to worldwide employment. Fish Fish 14:77–88 [Google Scholar]
  50. Teh LCL, Ota Y, Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Harrington L, Swartz W (2020) Are fishers poor? Getting to the bottom of marine fisheries income statistics. Fish Fish 21:471–482 [Google Scholar]
  51. Voyer M, Barclay K, McIlgorm A, Mazur N (2017) Using a well-being approach to develop a framework for an integrated socio-economic evaluation of professional fishing. Fish Fish 18:1134–1149 [Google Scholar]
  52. Xu Z, Chau SN, Chen X, Zhang J, Li Y, Dietz T, Wang J, Winkler JA, Fan F, Huang B, Li S, Wu S, Herzberger A, Tang Y, Hong D, Li Y, Liu J (2020) Assessing progress towards sustainable development over space and time. Nature 577:74–78 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 30 KB) (29.4KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on reasonable request.

Articles from Marine Life Science & Technology are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES