research article on fisheries

• Search by keyword
• Search by citation

Page 1 of 4

First record of a reticulated toadfish, Arothron reticularis (Tetraodontiformes: Tetraodontidae), in Korea

A single specimen of Arothron reticularis (398 mm in total length), belonging to the family Tetraodontidae, was collected in the coastal waters off Hansan island using a set net in May 2019. The morphological cha...

• View Full Text

Juvenile fish assemblages in the Jinju Bay region, Korea

Assemblages of juvenile fish and associated abiotic parameters were investigated inside and outside Jinju Bay in southern Korea, on a monthly basis from December 2014 to November 2015. Fluctuations in water te...

Response of body color change rearing under different light intensity conditions in farmed red spotted grouper, Epinephelus akaara

Fish body color is one of the major factors that determine the commercial value of farmed fish, to understand for coloration mechanisms. The expression of melanin-related genes is according to the developmenta...

Nutritive value and digestibility of macronutrients from sheep and alpaca skin hydrolysates as a new alternative in juvenile rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) feeding

The protein source from fish meal is very important in trout feeding, but it is expensive and very scarce. Alternative nutrient sources are required to achieve sustainability as trout production rapidly grows ...

In vitro and in vivo anti-inflammatory activities of a sterol-enriched fraction from freshwater green alga, Spirogyra sp.

Inflammation plays a crucial role in the pathogenesis of many diseases such as arthritis and atherosclerosis. In the present study, we evaluated anti-inflammatory activity of sterol-rich fraction prepared from Sp...

An assessment of post-harvest fish losses and preservation practices in Siavonga district, Southern Zambia

Fish is an extremely perishable food product which requires proper handling soon after harvest. The present study was aimed at assessing post-harvest fish losses and preservation practices in Siavonga district...

Effects of butaphosphan and cyanocobalamin mixture on immunity and stress in olive flounder, Paralichthys olivaceus

The study evaluated the effects of a butaphosphan and cyanocobalamin mixture on the immune system and stress in olive flounders, Paralichthys olivaceus .

Ishige okamurae reduces blood glucose levels in high-fat diet mice and improves glucose metabolism in the skeletal muscle and pancreas

Brown alga ( Ishige okamurae ; IO) dietary supplements have been reported to possess anti-diabetic properties. However, the effects of IO supplements have not been evaluated on glucose metabolism in the pancreas an...

Quality assessment and acceptability of whiteleg shrimp ( Litopenaeus vannamei ) using biochemical parameters

This study aimed to provide a basic standard for assessing freshness and acceptability of whiteleg shrimp ( Litopenaeus vannamei ).

On-farm evaluation of dietary animal and plant proteins to replace fishmeal in sub-adult olive flounder Paralichthys olivaceus

High demand and low supply of fishmeal due to overexploitation of fisheries resources have resulted in a dramatic increase in the price of this ingredient. Olive flounder ( Paralichthys olivaceus ) commercial feed ...

Effects of antioxidant enzymes and bioaccumulation in eels ( Anguilla japonica ) by acute exposure of waterborne cadmium

This study was conducted to evaluate the acute effects of waterborne cadmium exposure on bioaccumulation and antioxidant enzymes in eels ( Anguilla japonica ) and to determine the median lethal concentration (LC 50 )...

Application of tylosin antibiotics to olive flounder ( Paralichthys olivaceus ) infected with Streptococcus parauberis

Olive flounder, Paralichthys olivaceus , is an economically important aquaculture species in Korea. Olive flounders have been heavily damaged by streptococcal infections every year and are treated with antibiotics...

First record of Bathygobius hongkongensis (Perciformes: Gobiidae) from Jeju Island, Korea

Six specimens of Bathygobius hongkongensis were collected for the first time from the eastern coast of Jeju Island, Korea, in September–November 2017. This species is characterized by a pectoral fin with free ray...

Oceanographic indicators for the occurrence of anchovy eggs inferred from generalized additive models

Three generalized additive models were applied to the distribution of anchovy eggs and oceanographic factors to determine the occurrence of anchovy spawning grounds in Korean waters and to identify the indicat...

Ontogenetic comparison of larvae and juveniles of Diaphus garmani and Benthosema pterotum (Myctophidae, Pisces) collected from Korea

During June 2017, we collected two postflexion larvae (6.01 and 7.56 mm in standard length [SL]) and two juveniles (7.72 and 9.62 mm SL) belonging to Myctophidae in the waters of Jejudo Island. Those four indi...

Reproductive biology of common carp ( Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus, 1758) in Lake Hayq, Ethiopia

This study was conducted in Lake Hayq between January and December 2018. The objectives of this study were to determine the growth, condition, sex ratio, fecundity, length at first sexual maturity ( L 50 ), and spaw...

Conservation potential of North American large rivers: the Wabash River compared with the Ohio and Illinois rivers

Large rivers are ecological treasures with high human value, but most have experienced decades of degradation from industrial and municipal sewage, row-crop agricultural practices, and hydrologic alteration. W...

Dietary inclusion of mealworm ( Tenebrio molitor ) meal as an alternative protein source in practical diets for rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) fry

An 8-week feeding trial was designed to evaluate the potential of yellow mealworm (MW; Tenebrio molitor ) as a locally available nutrient-rich feedstuff for rainbow trout fry ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ).

Tracing the origin of fish without hatchery information: genetic management of stock enhancement for mangrove red snapper ( Lutjanus argentimaculatus ) in Taiwan

Stock enhancement is considered to be a valuable approach for restoring fishery resources. Because no specific official institution in Taiwan is responsible for the production of fry, the released fry are purc...

Tide-induced changes in marine fish cage-shape cause changes in swimming behavior of cultured chub mackerel ( Scomber japonicus )

We performed field measurements of the behavioral changes in cultured chub mackerel ( Scomber japonicus ) caused by tide-induced changes in the shapes of their small-sized tetragonal fish cages. The field measureme...

Dietary inclusion effect of yacon, ginger, and blueberry on growth, body composition, and disease resistance of juvenile black rockfish ( Sebastes schlegeli ) against Vibrio anguillarum

To minimize the use of antibiotics and to obtain a more sustainable fish culture and aquaculture industry, development of alternative natural source of immunostimulant to replace antibiotic in aquafeed is high...

Optimal growth conditions and economic analysis of sea cucumber releasing

We tried to find the optimal growth conditions of sea cucumber and to analyze the economic effectiveness of the sea cucumber seedling release project in Korea. We first examined the optimal growth conditions o...

Establishment of an analytical method for butaphosphan (BTP), a stress-attenuating agent, and its application in the preliminary pharmacokinetic evaluation of residues in olive flounder Paralichthys olivaceus

Butaphosphan (BTP) has recently been introduced into the Korean aquaculture sector as a stress-attenuating agent. In this study, a sensitive chemical analytical method was established for the detection of BTP ...

Comparison of fucosterol content in algae using high-performance liquid chromatography

Fucosterol is a compound commonly found in algae that has various biological activities. The purpose of this study was to develop a high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) validation method for fucostero...

Padina boryana , a brown alga from the Maldives: inhibition of α-MSH-stimulated melanogenesis via the activation of ERK in B16F10 cells

The present study investigates the potent skin whitening ability of ethanol extract from the brown alga, Padina boryana (PBE) which was collected in the shores of Fulhadhoo Island, the Maldives, and its specific ...

In vitro screening of elastase, collagenase, hyaluronidase, and tyrosinase inhibitory and antioxidant activities of 22 halophyte plant extracts for novel cosmeceuticals

Halophyte plant (HPs), a salt-resistant flora, has been reported to provide several health benefits, but the knowledge of its cosmeceutical potential is still ambiguous. Here, 70% ethanol extracts of 22 HPs co...

Response of appetite-related genes in relation to the rearing water temperature in red spotted grouper ( Epinephelus akaara )

Growth of fish is controlled by various environmental factors, including water temperature (WT). WT is also a major factor that affects the eating behavior of fish. In this study, we studied the relationship b...

Role of the insulin-like growth factor system in gonad sexual maturation in Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas

The IGF system plays important roles in controlling growth, development, reproduction, and aging of organisms.

Effects of three different dietary plant protein sources as fishmeal replacers in juvenile whiteleg shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei

As the cost of fishmeal continues to rise, there will be a need to optimize the diet by minimizing dietary fishmeal inclusion in aquafeed. In this study, a 7-week experiment was conducted to evaluate soybean m...

Effect of water temperature on protein requirement of Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch) fry as determined by nutrient deposition, hemato-biochemical parameters and stress resistance response

Dietary protein requirements are dependent on a variety of factors and water temperature is one of the most important abiotic factors affecting protein requirement of fish. This study was, therefore, conducted...

Comparative assessment of age, growth and food habit of the black-chinned tilapia, Sarotherodon melanotheron (Rüppell, 1852), from a closed and open lagoon, Ghana

The black-chinned tilapia, Sarotherodon melanotheron , is the most abundant fish species in the Nakwa (an open lagoon) and Brenu (a closed lagoon) in the Central Region of Ghana. Aspects of the life history charac...

Potential of fascaplysin and palauolide from Fascaplysinopsis cf reticulata to reduce the risk of bacterial infection in fish farming

Marine natural products isolated from the sponge Fascaplysinopsis cf reticulata , in French Polynesia, were investigated as an alternative to antibiotics to control pathogens in aquaculture. The overuse of antibio...

Risk-based approach to develop a national residue program: prioritizing the residue control of veterinary drugs in fishery products

Veterinary drugs are widely used to protect production-related diseases and promote the growth of farmed fish. The use of large amounts of veterinary drugs may have potential risk and cause adverse effects on ...

Validation of housekeeping genes as candidate internal references for quantitative expression studies in healthy and nervous necrosis virus-infected seven-band grouper ( Hyporthodus septemfasciatus )

In the present study, we evaluated four commonly used housekeeping genes, viz., actin-β, elongation factor-1α (EF1α), acidic ribosomal protein (ARP), and glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) as int...

The antihyperlipidemic effect of alginate-free residue from sea tangle in hyperlipidemic rats

In order to assess the high value-added use of the alginate-free residue of sea tangle, an animal study was performed to evaluate the functional activities and key compounds present. In the animal study, sea t...

Microbial contamination including Vibrio cholerae in fishery auction markets in West Sea, South Korea

The monitoring of pathogens of fishery auction markets is important to obtain safe fishery products regarding hygiene and sanitation. In this study, aerobic, coliform, Escherichia coli , and Vibrio cholerae were m...

Effects of replacing fish oil with palm oil in diets of Nile tilapia ( Oreochromis niloticus ) on muscle biochemical composition, enzyme activities, and mRNA expression of growth-related genes

Due to the continuous demand for fish coupled with decline in capture fisheries, there is the need to increase aquaculture production to meet the demand. Aquaculture is faced with high cost of feeding since fi...

Evaluation of sea mustard ( Undaria pinnatifida ) sporophylls from South Korea as fucoidan source and its corresponding antioxidant activities

Sporophylls from sea mustard, Undaria pinnatifida , which are by-products in seaweed production industries, were taken from Hansan Island, Tongyeong, and Gijang, Busan, and investigated for their fucoidan content ...

Effects of taurine supplementation in low fish meal diets for red seabream ( Pagrus major ) in low water temperature season

Taurine is a conditional essential amino acid for fish. A study was conducted to investigate the compensating effect of supplemental taurine in diets for red seabream ( Pagrus major ) on impaired growth performance...

Characterization of antioxidative peptide purified from black eelpout ( Lycodes diapterus ) hydrolysate

The functional peptides from protein hydrolysates of various fishery sources have been identified such as antioxidant activity. The main intention of this study was purification and characterization of antioxi...

Study of pathogenicity and severity of Lactococcus garvieae isolated from rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) farms in Kohkilooieh and Boyerahmad province

Lactococcus garvieae is one of the most important risk factors in the rainbow trout culture. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify and detect strains isolated from rainbow trout suspected of having...

Effect of Garcinia kola seeds supplemented diet on growth performance and gonadal development of Oreochromis niloticus juveniles breed in ponds

Despite the favorable geo-climatic potential of Cameroon, the national production of tilapia remains low due to poor tilapia growth reported by fish farmers. One of the underlying reasons is the early female m...

Regulation of adductor muscle growth by the IGF-1/AKT pathway in the triploid Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas

We investigated the insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1)/AKT signaling pathway involved in muscle formation, growth, and movement in the adductor muscle of triploid Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas . Large and sm...

Identification of sex-specific SNPS in burbot Lota lota using RAD sequencing: conservation and management applications

The development of sex-specific genetic assays in a species provides both a method for identifying the system of sex determination and a valuable tool to address questions of conservation and management import...

Exploration of genetic diversity of Bacillus spp. from industrial shrimp ponds in Vietnam by multi-locus sequence typing

Bacillus is a diverse genus consisting of more than 200 species with extensive genetic diversity. Their beneficial effects in industrial shrimp farming have been well documented. However, little is known about th...

Synergistic effects of autochthonous probiotic bacterium and Mentha piperita diets in Catla catla (Hamilton, 1822) for enhanced growth and immune response

Two dietary experiments were performed to evaluate the impact of the herb Mentha piperita as a dietary supplement on Catla catla . In Experiment 1, fingerlings (0.45–2.60 g) were fed on diets supplemented with M. ...

Biochemical toxicity of Corexit 9500 dispersant on the gills, liver and kidney of juvenile Clarias gariepinus

Corexit 9500 is a dispersant commercially available in Nigeria that is used to change the inherent chemical and physical properties of oil, thereby changing the oil’s transport and fate with potential effects ...

Identification of Vibrio species isolated from cultured olive flounder ( Paralichthys olivaceus ) in Jeju Island, South Korea

Olive flounder ( Paralichthys olivaceus ) is the major species developed for aquaculture in South Korea. Over the long history of olive flounder aquaculture, complex and diverse diseases have been a major problem, ...

Chemical compositions and biological activities of marine invertebrates from the East Sea of South Korea

Marine invertebrates are well known as pivotal bioresources with bioactive substances such as anti-inflammatory sterols, antitumor terpenes, and antimicrobial peptides. However, there are few scientific report...

Stock identification of minor carp, Cirrhinus reba , Hamilton 1822 through landmark-based morphometric and meristic variations

Wild fish populations stock is continuously diminishing in the Indo-Ganges river basin, and the population status of most fishes is unidentified. The identification of the population status and the conservatio...

Official journal of

Korean Society of Fisheries and Aquatic Science

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

ISSN: 2234-1757

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 20 June 2022

Sustainable small-scale fisheries can help people and the planet

• Sheryl L. Hendriks 0

Sheryl L. Hendriks is professor of food security and head of the Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development at the University of Pretoria, South Africa.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Women in the fishing village of Ngor Dakar in Senegal unload part of the catch from a traditional fishing boat. Credit: Nic Bothma/EPA/Shutterstock

You have full access to this article via your institution.

More than three billion people rely on the ocean to make a living, most of whom are in developing countries. For some 17% of the world’s population, fisheries and aquaculture provide the main source of animal protein. For the least-developed countries, fish contributes about 29% of animal protein intake; in other developing countries, it accounts for 19% 1 .

As the global population increases, the demand for seafood is expected to rise, too. Already, Africa and Asia have seen fish production double over the past few decades. Globally, fish consumption is set to rise by around 15% by 2030 2 .

Although ocean ecosystems are strained by climate change, overfishing and more, studies nevertheless suggest that seafood can be expanded sustainably to meet future food demands 3 . Last year, international efforts promoting this approach included the Blue Food Assessment (a joint initiative of 25 research institutions) and the United Nations Food Systems Summit.

Success will depend on small-scale fisheries. Small operations tend to deliver both food and income directly to the people who need them most, and locals have a strong incentive to make their practices sustainable. What’s more, these fisheries can be remarkably efficient. Almost everything that hand-to-mouth fisheries catch is consumed. By contrast, around 20% of the fish caught by industrial fleets is estimated to be wasted, mainly because of unwanted by-catch 4 . So, whereas large-scale operators land more fish, small-scale fisheries provide a larger share of the fish that is actually consumed.

Small fishers rarely have the right resources to expand their operations, or even to survive. If they do scale up, they might lose some of their current advantages or engage in the same harmful practices as do large commercial fisheries. Managed with care, however, small fisheries could provide win–wins for livelihoods and the environment. Making this happen should be high on the agenda at the UN Ocean Conference in Lisbon this month .

As someone who has studied food security and policymaking for decades, here I suggest ways to support and strengthen artisanal fishing operations.

Small reforms

The potential and importance of small-scale fisheries has been increasingly recognized over the past decade. In 2014, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) provided voluntary guidelines to support sustainable small-scale fisheries, aimed at improving food security and eradicating poverty. A forthcoming report by the FAO, Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and the non-profit organization WorldFish, headquartered in Penang, Malaysia, will conclude a remarkable initiative to collate case studies, questionnaire results and data sets to help get fishers a seat at policymakers’ tables. The UN General Assembly has declared 2022 the International Year of Artisanal Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Most nations already have management policies for marine ecosystems that provide for small-scale fisheries. In India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Sri Lanka, for example, there is a ban on trawling within about 8 kilometres of the coastline to prevent industrial fishers from scooping up large catches, which protects those regions for local fishers. Countries such as Costa Rica ease access by exempting small-scale fisheries from licences, and Angola exempts subsistence and artisanal fishers from paying licensing fees 5 .

Five priorities for a sustainable ocean economy

But this is not enough. Small-scale fishers’ rights to access are often poorly defined, ineffectively enforced or unfairly distributed 4 . The boundaries of exclusive economic zones (EEZs) — the parts of the coast belonging to a given nation — are often poorly policed, and large-scale vessels regularly swoop in and take sea life through bottom trawling, something that small fishers seldom practice. Large-scale bottom-trawlers account for 26% of the global fisheries catch, with more than 99% of that occurring in the EEZs of coastal countries 6 . Even when there are well-meaning policies to protect local fishers, foreign vessels can take advantage. For instance, a 2018 investigation by the Environmental Justice Foundation in London found that around 90% of Ghana’s industrial fishing fleet was linked to Chinese ownership, despite Ghanaian laws expressly forbidding foreign ownership or control of its boats. Clearer definitions of the terms fisher, fishing and fishing vessel to make provisions for small-scale operators could help, in part, to avoid such abuse.

Government subsidies also require reform. One estimate found that large-scale fishers receive about three-and-a-half times more subsidies than small-scale fishers do 7 . This widens the existing advantages of large operations in terms of vessels and gear, infrastructure (including cold storage), processing capacity and access to cheap fuel. By giving large-scale fishers the capacity to catch even more, it can have the perverse effect of encouraging overfishing 8 . Instead, subsidies and other funds should be directed towards small-scale fishers to let them expand their access to markets, while keeping them from adopting the negative practices of large-scale operations.

More for consumption

The total global loss and waste from fisheries is estimated at between 30% and 35% annually 1 . This could increase as smaller operations broaden their markets. A 2015 estimate of the Volta Basin coast in West Africa attributed 65% of fish-production losses to a lack of technology and good manufacturing practices, and to a lack of infrastructure such as decent roads and cold storage 9 . The study found that fish were rarely lost to physical damage during the process; most waste resulted from spoilage. Such losses limit the sale of fish locally and to distant markets.

Public and private investment in cold-storage facilities and processing equipment (such as for drying, fermentation, pickling or smoking) could help. Current funding for fishery conservation projects comes from development partners, regional banks, the World Bank, private foundations and other agencies — with some entities also providing microloans to small-scale fisheries — but these efforts are uncoordinated and inadequate.

One promising strategy is to pair international or national funding with direct contracts for feeding programmes linked to schools, hospitals and similar facilities. Such arrangements would provide small fisheries with large, consistent markets and storage infrastructure that boosts local consumption and does not incentivize overfishing.

Artisanal fishers at a fish-processing cooperative in Santa Rosa de Salinas, Ecuador. Credit: Camilo Pareja/AFP/Getty

Other strategies pair local fishers with conservation efforts. As fishing operations scale up, fish entrails and other waste cannot simply be thrown into the sea: care must be taken not to contaminate the environment. One option is to fund ecosystem-restoration projects that also benefit local fisheries. For example, the Mikoko Pamoja (Mangroves Together) project in Gazi Bay, Kenya, restores and conserves degraded mangrove forests, which act as nurseries for young fish. The restoration thus earns saleable carbon credits while enhancing nearby fishery grounds for the local community.

Consumers could support small fisheries by buying local, because shorter supply chains mean more income for the fishers. The use of ecolabels — which seek to promote sustainably managed fisheries by certifying that a product has a reduced environmental impact — could also encourage consumer adoption, and help consumers to make informed choices.

However, such certification is costly to obtain and maintain, and requires compliance, monitoring and reporting. Certification can distort market opportunities, effectively excluding small enterprises from entering international markets. These programmes can also have unintended consequences: most certification programmes focus on environmental sustainability and pay less attention to social responsibility elements, such as fairness in access to resources, markets and wages.

Instead, simple incentive programmes could be implemented by funders, managers and local governments trying to promote sustainable fisheries. For example, local markets could display a rating system for individual fishers or small entrepreneurs. This could include various elements of sustainability other than environmental ones — such as providing information on the type of fishing gear, location of the catch and freshness. Promoting the rating as a social responsibility concept would inform consumers of the need to support sustainable fisheries. The rating system could be conducted by community members trained in inspection and enforcement.

Local control

Diverse efforts are needed to protect small fisheries’ access and to boost local consumption and reduce waste, and must be tailored to local community conditions. The 2021 UN Food Systems Summit was a ‘people’s summit’ that elevated roles for Indigenous peoples and civil-society groups, yet the voice of fishing communities was notably absent.

Few governments take an integrated approach to the development, implementation and enforcement of policies. For example, policies governing urban development tend not to consider the implications on the ocean, fish and fishers. In the late 2000s, for instance, fishers were initially denied access to traditional public fishing zones along the beach front in Durban, South Africa, following upgrades to the port and the development of a private marina and hotel. (Fishers later reclaimed some of the zones after protests and engagement with the authorities 10 .)

Can aquaculture overcome its sustainability challenges?

Cooperatives can help on several fronts: by coordinating fishing activities, sharing information (about weather, sea conditions or fish movement) and advocating effectively for human and social rights. For instance, CoopeSoliDar, a small-scale fisheries management cooperative in San José, Costa Rica, has helped to strengthen collective action to sustainably use molluscs, alleviate poverty and strengthen the representation of women and young people in community decision-making. Governments can help by creating a legal framework to establish cooperatives and include them in decisions to manage marine resources.

Local communities can also stand up for themselves. For example, a class action by a group of 5,000 artisanal fishers in South Africa in 2004 argued against a policy they said did not give them recognition or access to food and fishing rights that were established in the country’s constitution. The court ruled in the group’s favour in 2007, and the resulting legal framework granted small-scale fishers collective community fishing rights, recognizing community members as bona fide fishers 11 .

Integrated inputs

Small fisheries do not operate in isolation. Unlike terrestrial resources, the ocean is an extensive, global commons without clear territorial boundaries. Issues as diverse as climate change, ocean acidification, overfishing and pollution by nutrients and plastics and other chemicals all affect local fishers. But such system interactions get scant attention when fisheries policies focus on a single seafood stock or individual fishing area.

Whereas the concept of integrated land management has been part of the development agenda for a few decades, integrated marine management is only now emerging. To work, it must involve all relevant stakeholders, including small-scale fishers.

A context-specific strategy in the Seychelles is a leading example of such integration. Communities, financing partners and the government worked together to create the Seychelles Marine Spatial Plan Initiative, which protects 30% of the archipelago’s waters and boosts climate resilience. The Seychelles faces significant threats from rising sea levels and warmer air and water temperatures that put fisheries, infrastructure, tourism and its rich biodiversity at risk.

In an example in the Coral Triangle region (encompassing Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, the Solomon Islands and East Timor), local communities gave their input to a marine protection plan. This led to a greater understanding of how practices such as overfishing and taking undersized stock sustains marine and coastal resources, and how managing these helps to address food security, climate change and threats to marine biodiversity. Such cooperation between fishing communities and governments in managing marine protected areas is essential to the preservation of future fish stocks (see go.nature.com/3xvkqxj ).

Fishers should be actively engaged in relevant meetings held by the UN and national and local councils, so that they can weigh in on matters that affect fishing access, their livelihoods and environmental concerns. Both fishers and organizers must help to build empowerment mechanisms to make sure their voices are heard, such as providing translation services and scheduling meetings at accessible locations. This is important not just for the fishers’ human rights, but also because much can be learnt from artisanal fishers’ local knowledge.

Moves that would, for instance, restrict the fishing season or areas so that stocks or biodiversity can recover should include compensation mechanisms that will secure fishers’ cooperation and livelihoods. Social-protection measures such as food and income assistance can also help to tide fishers over.

When fish swim in schools, they move more efficiently, forage better and are protected from predators. The same might be said for small-scale fishers, but those networks should extend to local and international communities, too. Collaborative problem-solving and an integrated food system can deliver seafood protein, sustainably, to a world that increasingly needs it.

Nature 606 , 650-652 (2022)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01683-2

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020: Sustainability in Action (FAO, 2020).

Google Scholar  

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development & the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. OECD–FAO Agricultural Outlook 2021–2030 (OECD–FAO, 2021).

Costello, C. et al. Nature 588 , 95–100 (2020).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

High-level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition. Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture for Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE, 2014).

Nakamura, J., Chuenpagdee, R. & El Halimi, M. Mar. Policy 129 , 104568 (2021).

Article   Google Scholar  

Steadman, D. et al. New Perspectives on an Old Fishing Practice: Scale, Context and Impacts of Bottom Trawling (Blue Ventures, 2021).

Schuhbauer, A., Skerritt, D. J., Ebrahim, N., Le Manach, F. & Sumaila, U. R. Front. Mar. Sci. 7 , 539214 (2020).

Hopewell, K. & Margulis, M. E. Nature Food 3 , 2–3 (2022).

Diei-Ouadi, Y. et al. Strengthening the Performance of Post-Harvest Systems and Regional Trade in Small-Scale Fisheries: Case Study of Post-Harvest Loss Reduction in the Volta Basin Riparian Countries . FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1105 (FAO, 2015).

Maharaj, B. Local Econ. 32 , 744–762 (2017).

Nthane, T. T., Saunders, F., Gallardo Fernández, G. L. & Raemaekers, S. Sustainability 12 , 743 (2020).

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Related Articles

• Developing world

China’s Yangtze fish-rescue plan is a failure, study says

News 20 MAY 24

Climate policy must integrate blue energy with food security

Correspondence 09 JAN 24

Forecast warns when sea life will get tangled in nets — one year in advance

News 05 DEC 23

Open access is working — but researchers in lower-income countries enjoy fewer benefits

Nature Index 11 JUN 24

China seeks global impact and recognition

Nature Index 05 JUN 24

Why China has been a growing study destination for African students

Tenure-Track Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor

Westlake Center for Genome Editing seeks exceptional scholars in the many areas.

Westlake Center for Genome Editing, Westlake University

Subeditor, Nature Magazine

About the Brand Nature Portfolio is a flagship portfolio of journals, products and services including Nature and the Nature-branded journals, dedic...

New York City, New York (US)

Springer Nature Ltd

Faculty Positions in Bioscience and Biomedical Engineering (BSBE) Thrust, Systems Hub, HKUST (GZ)

Tenure-track and tenured faculty positions at all ranks (Assistant Professor/Associate Professor/Professor)

Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou)

Faculty Positions at the Center for Machine Learning Research (CMLR), Peking University

CMLR's goal is to advance machine learning-related research across a wide range of disciplines.

Beijing, China

Center for Machine Learning Research (CMLR), Peking University

Postdoctoral Research Fellows at Suzhou Institute of Systems Medicine (ISM)

ISM, based on this program, is implementing the reserve talent strategy with postdoctoral researchers.

Suzhou, Jiangsu, China

Suzhou Institute of Systems Medicine (ISM)

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Management Effectiveness of the World's Marine Fisheries

* E-mail: [email protected] .

Affiliations Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States of America, Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

† Deceased.

Affiliation Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Affiliations Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, Institut de Ciènces del Mar, ICM-CSIC, Passeig Marítim de la Barceloneta, Barcelona, Spain

Affiliation Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica Sperimentale–OGS, Sgonico-Zgonik, Italy

Affiliation Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Affiliation Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Affiliation Biodiversity and Macroecology Group, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom

• Camilo Mora, 
• Ransom A. Myers, 
• Marta Coll, 
• Simone Libralato, 
• Tony J. Pitcher, 
• Rashid U. Sumaila, 
• Dirk Zeller, 
• Reg Watson, 
• Kevin J. Gaston, 

• Published: June 23, 2009
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000131
• Reader Comments

Ongoing declines in production of the world's fisheries may have serious ecological and socioeconomic consequences. As a result, a number of international efforts have sought to improve management and prevent overexploitation, while helping to maintain biodiversity and a sustainable food supply. Although these initiatives have received broad acceptance, the extent to which corrective measures have been implemented and are effective remains largely unknown. We used a survey approach, validated with empirical data, and enquiries to over 13,000 fisheries experts (of which 1,188 responded) to assess the current effectiveness of fisheries management regimes worldwide; for each of those regimes, we also calculated the probable sustainability of reported catches to determine how management affects fisheries sustainability. Our survey shows that 7% of all coastal states undergo rigorous scientific assessment for the generation of management policies, 1.4% also have a participatory and transparent processes to convert scientific recommendations into policy, and 0.95% also provide for robust mechanisms to ensure the compliance with regulations; none is also free of the effects of excess fishing capacity, subsidies, or access to foreign fishing. A comparison of fisheries management attributes with the sustainability of reported fisheries catches indicated that the conversion of scientific advice into policy, through a participatory and transparent process, is at the core of achieving fisheries sustainability, regardless of other attributes of the fisheries. Our results illustrate the great vulnerability of the world's fisheries and the urgent need to meet well-identified guidelines for sustainable management; they also provide a baseline against which future changes can be quantified.

Author Summary

Global fisheries are in crisis: marine fisheries provide 15% of the animal protein consumed by humans, yet 80% of the world's fish stocks are either fully exploited, overexploited or have collapsed. Several international initiatives have sought to improve the management of marine fisheries, hoping to reduce the deleterious ecological and socioeconomic consequence of the crisis. Unfortunately, the extent to which countries are improving their management and whether such intervention ensures the sustainability of the fisheries remain unknown. Here, we surveyed 1,188 fisheries experts from every coastal country in the world for information about the effectiveness with which fisheries are being managed, and related those results to an index of the probable sustainability of reported catches. We show that the management of fisheries worldwide is lagging far behind international guidelines recommended to minimize the effects of overexploitation. Only a handful of countries have a robust scientific basis for management recommendations, and transparent and participatory processes to convert those recommendations into policy while also ensuring compliance with regulations. Our study also shows that the conversion of scientific advice into policy, through a participatory and transparent process, is at the core of achieving fisheries sustainability, regardless of other attributes of the fisheries. These results illustrate the benefits of participatory, transparent, and science-based management while highlighting the great vulnerability of the world's fisheries services. The data for each country can be viewed at http://as01.ucis.dal.ca/ramweb/surveys/fishery_assessment .

Citation: Mora C, Myers RA, Coll M, Libralato S, Pitcher TJ, Sumaila RU, et al. (2009) Management Effectiveness of the World's Marine Fisheries. PLoS Biol 7(6): e1000131. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000131

Academic Editor: Callum Roberts, University of York, United Kingdom

Received: November 4, 2008; Accepted: May 7, 2009; Published: June 23, 2009

Copyright: © 2009 Mora et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: Funding to CM, RAM, and BW was provided by the Sloan Foundation through the Future of Marine Animal Populations Project. KJG holds a Royal Society-Wolfson Research Merit Award. Funding to RUS was provided by the Pew Fellowship for Marine Conservation. Funding to DZ, RUS, and RW was provided by the Pew Charitable Trust, Philadelphia through the Sea Around Us Project. Funding to MC was provided by the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement #GA-2008-219265 for the implementation of ECOFUN Project. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Abbreviations: EEZ, exclusive economic zone; L index , loss of energy in the ecosystem; P sust , probability of sustainability of reported catches

Introduction

Fisheries play an important role in the global provision of food, directly accounting for at least 15% of the animal protein consumed by humans and indirectly supporting food production by aquaculture and livestock industries [1] , [2] . Demand for fish is expected to grow given escalating animal protein demands in developing countries and the rapidly increasing human population [1] – [4] . However, reported global marine fisheries landings have declined by about 0.7 million tonnes per year since the late 1980s [5] , with at least 28% of the world's fish stocks overexploited or depleted, and 52% fully exploited by 2008 [1] . Severe reductions in abundance can change population genetic structure [6] , harm the recovery potential of stocks [7] , trigger broader ecosystem changes (e.g., [8] – [10] ), threaten livelihoods [1] , and endanger food security [11] and efforts towards the reduction of hunger [11] , [12] . Given the different ecological and socioeconomic consequences of a global fisheries crisis, a number of international efforts have sought to improve management in the hope of moving towards sustainable marine fisheries (sensu Pauly et al. [13] ). Some of these initiatives, which incorporated to varying degrees the improvement of marine fisheries management, include the United Nations Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries from the Food and Agriculture Organization [14] , the Convention on Biological Diversity ( http://www.cbd.int/ ), and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment ( http://www.millenniumassessment.org ). Although these initiatives have received broad acceptance, the extent to which corrective measures are implemented and effective remains poorly known [15] – [17] . Using a survey approach, validated with empirical data and enquiries to fisheries experts, we quantified the status of fisheries management in each nation worldwide that has an exclusive economic zone (EEZ). We also related our measurements of management effectiveness to a recently developed index of fisheries sustainability. To our knowledge, these results represent the first global assessment of how fisheries management attributes influence sustainability, while providing a baseline against which future changes can be quantified.

Results and Discussion

Approach and validation.

We evaluated the effectiveness of national fisheries management regimes by quantifying their degree of compliance with a well-recognized set of conditions necessary for sustainable fisheries: (1) robust scientific basis for management recommendations, (2) transparency in turning recommendations into policy, (3) capacity to enforce and ensure compliance with regulations, and minimizing the extent of (4) subsidies, (5) fishing overcapacity, and (6) foreign fishing in the form of fisheries agreements [8] , [14] . The extent to which individual countries met or were affected by these conditions was quantified using a set of normative questions assembled in an Internet survey, which was systematically distributed to fisheries experts worldwide. Over 13,000 experts were contacted as part of this survey, of which 1,188 responded from each country bordering the ocean (i.e., EEZ; see Materials and Methods for additional details on areas surveyed). Experts were mostly fisheries managers, university professors, and governmental and nongovernmental researchers. Despite these diverse backgrounds, responses were highly consistent within each country (i.e., where multiple responses were given, 67% of experts chose the same answer to any given question and 27% chose the next closest response; Figure 1A and 1B ) and in accordance with independent empirical data (we found a strong correlation between experts' opinions and empirical data [ r  = 0.74, p <0.00001, n  = 28 countries; Figure 1C ]). Justification, extended results, and discussion on the reliability and validity of the experts' data are presented in Materials and Methods . We also used a Monte Carlo simulation approach to include score uncertainty estimates in the results. We provide the main results and general conclusions in the text; full results are presented in Figures S1 , S2 , S3 , S4 , S5 and http://as01.ucis.dal.ca/ramweb/surveys/fishery_assessment/ .

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

Validity refers to the degree to which the responders' answers approach the truth. Reliability refers to the extent to which different experts agreed in their answers. (A) Using countries for which duplicated responses were obtained, we show the frequency distribution of the Pearson correlation coefficients contrasting each responder to other responders in the same country. (B) depicts the frequency with which responders chose the same score or the next closest choice. Dotted lines in the plot indicate the confidence limits of a null model in which the levels of agreement were measured when choices were made randomly. The confidence limits are based on 1,000 repetitions of this null model. The error bars indicate standard deviation. (C) Using empirical data collected by another study [15] , we show the similarities between our expert-based score and an empirically based score for a particular question (see Materials and Methods ). The diagonal line indicates the 1:1 ratio.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000131.g001

Scientific Robustness

Critical to the success of fisheries management is the scientific basis on which management recommendations are made [18] , [19] . Preventing the collapse of fisheries and ecosystem-wide impacts requires scientific advice in which uncertainty is minimized by using skilled personnel, models that include, not only the dynamics of fished stocks, but also their embedded ecosystems, and high-quality and up-to-date data (such that reliable recommendations can be adapted as conditions and stocks fluctuate). Alternatively, the effects of uncertainty can be minimized by applying precautionary approaches in the face of limited knowledge [18] , [20] . Of the world's 209 EEZs analyzed, 87% have scientific personnel who are qualified (e.g., with Ph.D.- or Masters-level education, or have participated in training courses or relevant conferences) to perform fisheries assessments and provide science-based management advice ( Figure S1A ), approximately 7% use holistic models as the basis of management recommendations (i.e., including a broad set of biological and environmental data on fisheries to enable ecosystem-wide understanding of fisheries drivers and impacts; see Figure S1B ), 61% carry out frequent assessments to ensure the effectiveness of existing management measures ( Figure S1C ), and 17% implement precautionary approaches for at least some species ( Figure S1D ). We summarized all responses that pertain to “scientific robustness” on a linear scale using multidimensional scaling. (Multidimensional scaling is an ordination method that uses the similarities and dissimilarities among responses to reduce the number of variables analyzed. This facilitates the assessment and visualization of patterns from several dimensions into one. Very simplistically, this is analogous to calculating an average of the different scores for each country; see Materials and Methods .) The resulting scale ranged from 0 to 1, and we divided it into four quarters (i.e., from 0 to 0.25, from 0.25 to 0.5, from 0.5 to 0.75, and from 0.75 to 1, with the lowest quarter indicating the worst combination of attributes and the top the best). We found that 7% of all EEZs rank in the top quarter of such a scale ( Figure 2 , countries depicted in Figure 3A ), which account for approximately 9% of the world's fisheries catches and approximately 7% of the world's fished stocks (data are for 2004; see details in Figure S2 ). Distinguishing between high- and low-income countries using per capita Gross Domestic Product (i.e., 2007 per capita Gross Domestic Product larger or smaller than US$10,000, respectively), we found that high-income countries ranked significantly higher on the scale of scientific robustness (Mann-Whitney U test: p <0.00001, Figure S1E ).

Effectiveness is defined in terms of scientific robustness, policymaking transparency, implementation capability, and extent of fishing capacity, subsidies, and access to foreign fishing. Each attribute was quantified with a set of questions, whose answers were summarized into a single scale using multidimensional scaling (see Materials and Methods ). For display purposes, each scale was divided into four quarters aligned from worst- to best-case scenarios (each quarter is color coded as indicated at the bottom of the figure). Our assessment of fishery management effectiveness started with the classification of all analyzed EEZs among the four quarters on the scale of scientific robustness. The EEZs within each of those quarters were then classified among the four quarters on the scale of policymaking transparency, and then those EEZs classified among the quarter of the next attribute, with the subdivision continuing until all EEZs were classified in all attributes. The size of the bubbles is proportional to the number of EEZs classified in each quarter. For purposes of display, subsidies, overcapacity, and fishery access agreements were summarized in a single scale with multidimensional scaling; full results are provided in the Figure S1 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000131.g002

These figures depict the results of experts' opinions on the valuation of scientific robustness (A), policymaking transparency (B), implementation capability (C), subsidies (D), fishing capacity (E) and access to foreign fishing (F). (G) depicts the probability that fisheries in each EEZ are sustainable ( P sust ) in 2004.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000131.g003

We note that a recent study indicated the success of catch shares, as individual transferable quotas, in preventing fisheries collapses [21] . This strategy has been implemented primarily in the EEZs of New Zealand, Australia, United States, Iceland, Chile, and Peru, which are all countries with robust scientific capabilities ( Figure 3A ). Our results indicate that the global adoption of individual transferable quotas should be considered with caution given that their underlying success rests on the scientific robustness of the implemented quotas and that few countries meet that condition ( Figure 3A ).

Policy Transparency

Guidelines to improve the acceptance and compliance with fishing regulations recommend that decisions be based on the best available scientific evidence and follow a transparent and participatory process [8] , [14] , [22] , [23] . Unfortunately, the process of policymaking can be subjected to substantial political pressures, perhaps including corruption. In our survey, management authorities from 92% of the EEZs consider scientific recommendations in formulating policies ( Figure S1F ), and in 87%, all stakeholders are consulted or their opinions considered ( Figure S1G ). Yet in 91% of all EEZs, regulations commonly face economic or political pressures to increase allowable catches or to implement regulations that err on the side of risk rather than caution ( Figure S1I ), whereas a surprising 83% of EEZs are thought to face corruption or bribery ( Figure S1H ). Of all EEZs, 26% rank in the top quarter of a scale of “policymaking transparency,” which summarizes, through multidimensional scaling, the attributes of considering scientific advice, participation, pressures, and corruption ( Figure S1J , countries depicted in Figure 3B ). Only 1.4% of all EEZs are in the top quarter on the combined scales of scientific robustness and policymaking transparency ( Figure 2 ), which together accounted for 0.85% of the world's fisheries catch and 1.1% of the world's fished stocks ( Figure S2 ). There were no significant differences between low- and high-income countries with respect to policy transparency ( Figure S1J ). However, the underlying mechanism was different, with low-income countries facing more corruption ( p <0.00001, Figure S1H ) and less commonly incorporating scientific advice ( p <0.005, Figure S1F ), whereas high-income countries faced slightly more political pressures ( p <0.05, Figure S1I ).

Implementation Capability

One of the biggest challenges in fisheries management lies in the implementation and enforcement of regulations [23] . Poverty, unemployment, available infrastructure for control and surveillance, the severity of penalties for violations, and participation in policymaking are all likely influencing the level of compliance with regulations. Proper enforcement through (1) adequate funding and equipment for the managing authorities, (2) patrolling of fishing grounds, and (3) tough penalties for infringements, occurs in 17% of all EEZs ( Figure S1K ; note that only ∼6% of all EEZs impose penalties that are sufficiently tough to deter violators). Not surprisingly, no EEZ was free of the effects of poaching ( Figure S1L , see also [24] ). On a scale of “implementation capability,” which summarizes, through multidimensional scaling, poaching and the different attributes of enforcement, we found that only approximately 5% of all EEZs are in the top quarter of such a scale ( Figure S1M , countries depicted in Figure 3C ). Only two relatively small EEZs, those of the Faeroe and Falkland Islands, were in the top quarter for all three indicators of scientific robustness, policymaking transparency, and implementation capability ( Figure 2 ), which combined, accounted for 0.80% of the world's fisheries catch and 0.48% of the world's fished stocks ( Figure S2 ). Better “implementation capability” is frequently more common among high- than low-income countries ( p <0.0001, Figure S1M ), which is mainly a consequence of better enforcement ( p <0.00001, Figure S1K ) and reduced poaching in the former ( p <0.002, Figure S1L ).

Extent of Subsidies, Overcapacity, and Foreign Fishing

When the structure of a management regime is weak, fisheries will be prone to overexploitation due to several factors. Three that have received particular attention are fishing capacity, subsidies, and access to foreign fishing fleets [8] , [23] , [25] , [26] . Open access to fishing (because of lack of effective management) leads to a “race for fish” that commonly increases fleet size and fishing power. This should reduce fish stocks, at which point fishing capacity should stabilize given decreasing profits from reduced catches [8] . Subsidies can override this mechanism by keeping fisheries profitable and encouraging overexploitation [8] , [13] . The picture is further complicated by fisheries agreements that allow foreign fleets to catch fish that are not caught by national fleets [25] , [26] . Unfortunately, such agreements are commonly made between developing coastal and island states (often with low capacity to assess stocks and to enforce regulations) and developed and heavily subsidized nations [25] . Recent analyses of current agreements indicate a high risk of overexploitation due to several reasons, including selling fishing rights on highly migratory stocks under bilateral agreements, selling access rights without specified catch limits, excessive by-catch, and distortion of reported catches, among others [25] , [26] . Such agreements are thought to develop coastal economies through monetary gains and local employment. In certain instances, revenues are also used to generate management plans; their effectiveness, however, is unclear given chronic weaknesses in fisheries governance and management systems [25] .

Our assessment of the extent of fishing capacity, subsidies, and access to foreign fishing fleets yielded the following results. We found that fleet sizes are quantified and regulated in 20% of the world's EEZs ( Figure S1N ), although in 93% of EEZs, fishing fleets face some level of modernization to catch fish more efficiently or cheaply ( Figure S1O ). Thus, although fishing capacity may be reduced in terms of fleet size, fishing power may remain constant or even increase due to technological improvements (i.e., fewer improved boats being more effective at catching fish). Effective controls on fleet size were more common among high-income than low-income EEZs ( p <0.02, Figure S1N ), but the former modernized their fleets more often than the latter ( p <0.00001, Figure S1O ). Using multidimensional scaling to summarize the results pertaining to “fishing capacity” (i.e., fleet size controls and fleet modernization), we found high-income EEZs having significantly higher fishing capacity than low-income ones ( p <0.02, Figure S1P , countries depicted in Figure 3E ). Fisheries sectors that rely to some degree on subsidies occurred in 91% of the world's EEZs ( Figure S1Q ; countries depicted in Figure 3D ), and more commonly among high- than low-income EEZs ( p <0.00001, Figure S1Q ) (see also [27] ). Access to foreign fishing is granted in 51% of all EEZs ( Figure S1R , countries depicted in Figure 3F ), and is more frequent in low- than high-income EEZs ( p <0.00001, Figure S1R ). In fact, our survey indicated that in 33% of the EEZs that are classified as low income (commonly, countries in Africa and Oceania), most fishing is carried out by foreign fleets from either the European Union, South Korea, Japan, China, Taiwan, or the United States ( Figure S3 ). No single EEZ meets the best standards (i.e., top quarter of the scales) of scientific robustness, policymaking transparency, and implementation capability while being free of the effects of excess fishing capacity, subsidies, or access to foreign fishing ( Figure 2 ).

Extent and Management Control of Recreational and Small-Scale Fisheries

The notion that industrialized fishing practices are solely responsible for the global fisheries crisis has been challenged by evidence of the significant effects of recreational and small-scale commercial or subsistence fisheries (e.g., [28] , [29] ). Although less intensive per unit area, small-scale and recreational fisheries can be far more extensive spatially. Small-scale and recreational fisheries are important in 93% and 76% of the world's EEZs, respectively ( Figure S4 ), and small-scale fisheries are increasingly more predominant among low-income EEZs whereas recreational fisheries are more predominant in high-income countries ( p <0.0001, Figure S4 ). Of the world's EEZs, 40% collect at least some data on small-scale fishing, and 13% on recreational fishing; 30% impose regulations on the size of fish caught in small-scale fishing, and 29% do so for recreational fishing, 7% regulate the number of fish caught in small-scale fishing, and 15% do so for recreational fishing, whereas 10% limit the number of fishers in small-scale fisheries, and 3% do so for recreational fishing ( Figure S4 ). These management measures are more frequent in high- than low-income EEZs ( Figure S4 ). Measures to regulate small-scale and recreational fishing are clearly limited and could prove detrimental to food supply and sustainability if they continue to operate outside the control of fisheries management institutions.

Overall Management Effectiveness

To provide a general overview of fisheries management effectiveness, we averaged all scores on the scales of scientific robustness, policymaking transparency, implementation capability, fishing capacity, subsidies, and access to foreign fishing. We excluded the effects of small-scale and recreational fisheries, recognizing that their lack of management would extensively reduce the scores. Only 5% of all EEZs were in the top quarter of this scale ( Figure S1S , countries depicted in Figure 4 ), with high-income EEZs having significantly better overall management effectiveness than low-income ones ( p <0.00001, Figure S1S ). A sensitivity analysis indicated that the difference between high- and low-income EEZs was driven mainly by foreign fishing agreements, which disproportionally reduced the average score of low-income EEZs. Excluding foreign fishing access leads to similarly low average scores between high- and low-income EEZs ( Figure S1S ). Similar average scores are, however, explained by different mechanisms, namely excessive fishing capacity and subsidies in high-income EEZs and deficient scientific, political, and enforcement capacity in low-income EEZs ( Figure S1 ).

This map shows the average, for each surveyed area, of their scores on the scales of scientific robustness, policymaking transparency, implementation capability, fishing capacity, subsidies, and access to foreign fishing.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000131.g004

Effect of Fishery Management on Fisheries Sustainability

One final question that we addressed in this study is to what extent the different attributes of fisheries management analyzed here relate to the actual sustainability of fisheries. We addressed this question using a recently developed method to quantify the probability that ecosystems are being sustainably fished ( P sust ). This metric assesses the probability that the ratio between the biomass losses due to fishing (i.e., total catch) expressed in primary production equivalents and the primary production of the area in which the catch was taken is sustainable (see Materials and Methods , [30] , [31] ). We found that this metric is particularly useful to differentiate misinterpretations in landings data when used as an indicator of fisheries status ( Figure S5 ). The metric, for instance, differentiates between countries in which increasing landings (a possible symptom of good fisheries status) are sustainable or not, and between countries in which declining landings (a possible symptom of overfishing or enhanced management [32] ) are indicative of the sustainability of fisheries or not ( Figure S5 ). We used classification/regression tree analysis to identify the most likely management attributes that affect the probability of fisheries sustainability; we also included country wealth (i.e., the distinction between high and low income) in the classification tree to analyze differences in fisheries sustainability due to this factor.

Of all management attributes analyzed (i.e., scientific robustness, policymaking transparency, implementation capability, fishing capacity, subsidies, and access to foreign fishing) plus taking into account country wealth, we found that variations in policymaking transparency led to the largest difference in fisheries sustainability. We found that EEZs ranked in the upper best quarter on the scale of transparent policymaking (i.e., EEZs where scientific advice is considered and followed, all parties are consulted and considered, and where corruption and external economic and political pressures are minimal [see Figure S1F–S1I ]) show the largest probability of having sustainable fisheries compared to EEZs ranked in any of the other three quarters ( Figure 5 ). The probability of sustainability in policy transparent EEZs was 88% compared to 73% in others ( Figure 5 ). We also found that subsidies have an additional negative effect on fisheries sustainability among EEZs with nontransparent policy systems. We found that the probability of fisheries sustainability in nontransparent EEZs was reduced from 78% to 67% due to the effects of even modest subsidies ( Figure 5 ) (i.e., EEZs ranked in the first three quarters on the scale of subsidies or EEZs in which fisheries sectors are dependent minimally to almost entirely on subsidies).

Results of a classification tree aimed to identify the most likely fishery management attributes related to the sustainability of fisheries. In a classification/regression tree, the factor that maximizes differences in fisheries sustainability is placed at the root of the tree, and the EEZs in each of its quarters are separated into different branches. This method repeatedly tests for significant differences among the EEZs in each branch in the remaining attributes and stops when no significant difference exists in any attribute within the EEZs of any branch (see Materials and Methods ). The results shown here include the linking between the probability of fisheries sustainability ( P sust ) and each of the management attributes analyzed: scientific robustness, policymaking transparency, implementation capability, fishing capacity, subsidies, access to foreign fishing, and country wealth.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000131.g005

The significant effect of policymaking transparency on fisheries sustainability likely relates to the fact that this particular attribute forms the core of the fisheries management process. Firstly, it determines the extent to which scientific advice will be translated into policy, whereas transparent and legitimate participation of involved parties is likely to promote compliance with regulations [22] . Our findings indicate that policymaking transparency is likely to work as a “sustainability bottleneck” through which other positive attributes of fisheries management are filtered. For instance, we found that scientific robustness did not influence the sustainability of fisheries. This may be because, in the process of policymaking, scientific advice may be overridden due to socioeconomic costs and political or corruption pressures. The recent catch quotas for Mediterranean Bluefin tuna ( Thunnus thynnus ) established by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas may serve as an example. In this particular case, robust and well-founded scientific advice recommended to maintain catches at 15,000 tonnes per year and to close the fisheries during two spawning months; yet the policy was set at 22,000 tonnes per year, with fishing allowed during critical spawning months. This is a case in which scientific robustness may not necessarily result in sustainability due to significant pressures in the process of policymaking. We also found that variation in implementation capabilities did not have much effect on fisheries sustainability. This result can also be explained by the effect of policymaking transparency. If the policymaking process is participatory and legitimate, it is likely that even poorly enforced systems will move towards sustainability because of voluntary compliance [22] . In contrast, some systems may strongly enforce regulations, but if the regulations were flawed during the process of policymaking, good enforcement may not bring about sustainability either. If the establishment of regulations includes scientific advice and follows a participatory mechanism, it is likely that fisheries will be tightly regulated, regardless of who carries out the fishing, which may also explain the lack of significance of fishing capacity and international fisheries agreements on fisheries sustainability. This is not to say that fishing capacity and foreign fishing access do not have impacts on fisheries sustainability but rather that their effects are moderated by the policymaking process (i.e., fishing capacity and access agreements may have different effects on sustainability in situations that are tightly regulated compared to those that are not). Finally, our results indicate how deficiencies in the process of policymaking can leave fisheries vulnerable to overexploitation due to the effect of subsidies. It is known that subsidies can override possible fishing controls exerted by economic benefits (see section above on subsidies; [8] , [13] , [27] ). We presume, however, that this effect is likely to be more pervasive in nontransparent systems given that fishing remains poorly controlled or regulated and allowed to fluctuate more freely, depending largely on subsidies.

Concluding Remarks

Improvements to fisheries management have been incorporated into international initiatives, which have received broad acceptance (e.g., [14] , [15] ). Unfortunately, our study shows that there is a marked difference between the endorsement of such initiatives and the actual implementation of corrective measures. The ongoing decline in marine fisheries catches [5] , [9] , [33] – [36] and the ecological and socioeconomic consequences of a fisheries crisis call for a greater political will of countries worldwide if further fisheries declines and their wider consequences are to be prevented. Effective transfer of improved scientific capacities to policy, achieved through a transparent and participatory process, will be more important than ever in stabilizing our food supply from the sea and preventing unnecessary losses due to management deficiencies. Current projections suggest that total demand for fisheries products is likely to increase by approximately 35 million metric tonnes by 2030 (∼43% of the maximum reported catch in the late 1980s) [3] , [4] and by approximately 73% for small-scale fisheries by 2025 [35] . This contrasts sharply with the 20% to 50% reduction in current fishing effort suggested for achieving sustainability [30] , [36] , and implies that regulators may face increasing pressures towards unsustainable catch quotas. Given that the demand for fish lies outside the control of conventional fisheries management, other national and international institutions will have to be involved to deal with poverty alleviation (inherently improving management, Figure S1 ) and stabilization of the world's human population (to soften fisheries demand), if pressures on management are to be prevented and sustainability achieved.

Materials and Methods

Conditions analyzed.

We considered factors broadly recognized as critical for the sustainable management of fish stocks (by sustainability, we mean sustainable catches and not social, economic, or institutional sustainability and the like, which at times are also associated with fisheries management and often dominate policy decisions). The factors considered in the present analysis were categorized into those related to the robustness of scientific recommendations, transparency in the process of converting recommendations into actual policy, the capability to enforce and ensure compliance with regulations, and the extent of fishing capacity, subsidies, and access to foreign fishing. Each of these attributes was evaluated with a set of questions whose answers could be categorized in a hierarchical order from worst- to best-case scenarios. In cases where several questions applied to the same attribute, we summarized all responses into a single scale using multidimensional scaling. Multidimensional scaling is an ordination method that uses similarities and dissimilarities among variables to reduce them to a specific number of dimensions. Here, we used the anchored multidimensional scaling method developed by Pitcher and Preikshot [37] . In this method, hypothetical countries are generated with the worst- and best-case scenarios for each question and used as normative extremes of a scale on which real countries are ranked. The approach also incorporates uncertainty using a Monte Carlo simulation tool based on the maximum and minimum possible for each score [38] . A copy of the software is available on request.

Fishery Management Regimes Analyzed

We focused our assessment on fishery management conditions for all ocean realms under the sovereignty of a defined coastal territory. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [39] , the protection and harvesting of coastal resources rest within the 200-nautical mile EEZ of each coastal state. There are, however, exceptions, such as the European Union, whose fisheries regulations are mandated by the Common Fisheries Policy but whose enforcement is the responsibility of the member states; member states also differ in their fishing capability and possibly in their compliance with regulations. Similarly, many countries have overseas territories, which may or may not have autonomous control of the regulation of their fisheries, and consequently, there may be variations in the effectiveness of their management regimes. For instance, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, French Guiana, French Polynesia, French Southern and Antarctic lands, New Caledonia, Saint Martin, Reunion, Guadeloupe, and Martinique all are under the sovereignty of France, which furthermore has direct control over its own Atlantic and Mediterranean coast; yet all of these zones have different management conditions. To consider these differences in fishery management regimes, zones managed under the same entity (e.g., the European Union) or zones in different parts of the world belonging to the same sovereignty (e.g., overseas territories of France, United Kingdom, and United States) were analyzed separately. We also included zones that may not be technically defined or recognized as EEZs under the United Nations (e.g., division among coastal states of the Baltic Sea and Black Sea). In total, 245 such zones exist in the world (see Figure 3 ), which excludes conflict zones (e.g., the Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands, and Southern Kuriles). Out of those 245 zones, we were unable to gather data for isolated islands under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom (i.e., Ascension, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, South Georgia, and the South Sandwich Islands and Tristan da Cunha) and France (Clipperton Atoll) for which neither contacts nor information was available. We also excluded Monaco and Singapore; interviewees at local authorities (Coopération Internationale pour l'Environnement et de Développement in Monaco and the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority in Singapore) in both of these countries claimed that although marine fishing occurs, it was minimal and considered insufficient to motivate governmental regulation. The final database contained complete data for 236 zones. Although all data are reported in Figures 3 and 4 , the statistics reported in the text were based on 209 inhabited zones for which per capita Gross Domestic Product data exist; that excluded uninhabited and isolated atolls to prevent biases due to the fact that we could not get data for all such areas (i.e., United Kingdom and France, see above).

For each of the attributes analyzed (i.e., scientific robustness, policymaking transparency, enforcement capability, fishing effort control, subsidies, and access to foreign fishing), we created a set of questions whose answers could be ranked on a scale from worst- to best-case scenarios. The resulting survey included 23 multiple choice questions and was posted on the Internet ( http://as01.ucis.dal.ca/ramweb/surveys/fishery_assessment/ ) in five different languages (i.e., English, Spanish, French, Portuguese, and German). We searched for contacts (email addresses and phone numbers) of fishery experts for all coastal territories in the world. Our sources of information were reports on scientific and administrative meetings relevant to fisheries, Web pages of nongovernmental organizations, Web pages of fishery management organizations in each territory, and proceedings of international conferences on fisheries. The final directory included contact information for 13,892 people. We sent personalized emails using recommendations of email marketing companies to prevent filtering of emails by local servers and promote participation. The survey started in April 2007 and was completed in April 2008. For zones where we did not receive an email response, we carried out phone interviews with local experts, and both email and phone queries were done until at least one full set of responses was available for each zone. We received 1,188 positive responses including at least one from each country with ocean access. Multiple responses for the same zone were averaged.

Justification of the Approach and Assessment of Responders' Reliability and Validity

Expert opinion surveys have been very popular in social, medical, political, and economic sciences [40] , and some examples exist in fisheries studies (e.g., [41] ). In fisheries research, expert opinions have been categorized as a “highly reliable” method given that overall, it works as a form of “peer review approach” and, for some crucial issues, is the only knowledge available (see [42] ). The approach is also cost-efficient and relatively fast. The collection of empirical data for an analysis of this scale could prove ineffective because country-scale data are patchy, in most cases inaccessible through traditional searching engines, and because old data may not describe current conditions. For these reasons, we chose the survey of local experts to acquire data.

The quality of expert opinion surveys relies on the consistency of responders and their understanding of the issues. These problems are defined as reliability and validity [40] , which in statistical terms are analogous to precision and accuracy. The former basically considers the extent to which responders agree in their responses and the latter the extent to which the responses approach the truth. Evaluation of data reliability and validity also allows assessment of the extent of expert biases, which may arise for different reasons (e.g., cultural differences, patriotism, opposition to governmental institutions, etc.). Our assessment of reliability and validity was as follows:

Reliability.

To test the extent of consistency among responders, we used data from EEZs for which duplicated responses were received. We performed individual Pearson correlations between each responder and the group of responders (recommended by Fleiss [40] ). We also tested the significance of the levels of agreement by comparing the actual levels of agreement among responders with the levels of agreement expected when choices were made randomly (see Figure 1 ). Analyzing 259 independent responses for 17 EEZs, we found a high level of agreement among responders, with over 72% of the cases showing Pearson correlation coefficients greater than 0.8 ( Figure 1A ). This was due to the fact that in 67% of the cases, the responders chose exactly the same score for any given question, and in 27%, the nearest choice ( Figure 1B ). Only in 5% of the cases did the responders differ by more than one choice, and in 0.4%, they chose opposite scores ( Figure 1B ). The levels of agreement and disagreement were significantly higher and lower, respectively, than those expected by chance ( Figure 1B ). These high levels of agreement are very likely due to the fact that questions were general and the possible responses relatively broad. Under these conditions, responses by different responders are most likely to converge on similar or closely related scores.

The survey allowed questions to be left unanswered so that responders could answer only the questions they knew about. Most commonly, responders voluntarily, and at times upon our request, gave contact information for other people better placed to provide missing answers. To address the issue of validity, our survey included a question on the extent to which countries are rebuilding depleted fish stocks, an issue explicitly covered by The United Nations Code of Conduct (Article 7, clause 7.6.10), and evaluated in a survey carried out by Pitcher et al. [15] . The scores from the two different sources (i.e., expert-based and empirically based) for the countries in common were rescaled from 0 to 1 for comparison, and similarities evaluated using a Pearson correlation. This analysis was based on 28 countries for which empirical data were available and reliable to assign an empirical score. The results of this analysis indicated a strong correlation between expert opinion and empirical data ( r  = 0.74, p <0.000006, Figure 1C ), although expert opinion tended to overestimate the extent to which countries are rebuilding their depleted fisheries ( Figure 1C ). Thus, the overall statistics provided here should likely be considered a conservative (more optimistic) view of the actual situation.

Quantification of Fisheries Sustainability

The metric we used to quantify fisheries sustainability has been recently published in two independent publications [30] , [31] , but not applied to the landings of any country. Here, we provide a brief description of its rationale and calculation, but extended details are provided by Libralato et al. [31] and Coll et al. [30] .

Linkage between Management Effectiveness and Fisheries Sustainability

Data on fisheries sustainability was quantified for the year 2004 and linked to the effectiveness of fisheries management using a classification/regression tree. A classification tree tests for significant differences in fisheries sustainability among the quarters of each attribute (note that the first and fourth quarters are the extremes of a scale from worst- to best-case scenarios for each attribute; see Figure 2 ). The attribute that maximizes differences among quarters (i.e., smallest p -value) is placed at the root of the tree and the EEZs in each of those quarters separated in different branches. Subsequently, the EEZs in each branch are tested for significant differences among quarters of the remaining attributes. The attribute that maximizes differences among quarters is placed at the base of the branch and the EEZs in each of those quarters separated in upper branches. The process is repeated until no differences are found within each branch in any remaining attribute. This analysis included all attributes considered in this study: scientific robustness, policymaking transparency, implementation capability, fishing capacity, subsidies, access to foreign fishing, and country wealth (i.e., 2007 per capita Gross Domestic Product larger or smaller than US$10,000, respectively). Given the inflation of Type I errors due to multiple comparisons, significance was set at p <0.01.

Supporting Information

Variations in the number of countries with different qualities in their fishery management attributes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000131.s001

(0.48 MB PDF)

Discrimination of the world's fisheries catch and fished stocks according to different fishery management attributes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000131.s002

(0.84 MB TIF)

Countries with the largest use of foreign fishing access agreements.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000131.s003

(9.31 MB TIF)

Global extent of recreational and small-scale fisheries and the frequency of countries imposing different types of regulations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000131.s004

(0.50 MB TIF)

Robustness of the metric used to assess fisheries sustainability.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000131.s005

(7.05 MB TIF)

Extended acknowledgements of the participants.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000131.s006

(0.04 MB DOC)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the numerous people worldwide that participated in the survey (see Text S1 ), Justin Breen for implementing the survey on the Internet, and Colette Wabnitz, Martin Sperling, Sergio Floeter, Diego Barneche, and Daniella Frensel for translating the survey into different languages. We also thank Cassandra de Young for helpful comments.

Author Contributions

The author(s) have made the following declarations about their contributions: Conceived and designed the experiments: CM RAM KJG BW. Analyzed the data: CM MC SL. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: RUS DZ RW. Wrote the paper: CM MC SL TJP RS DZ RW KJG BW. Collected data: CM.

• 1. FAO (2009) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2008. Rome (Italy): FAO Fisheries Department. 162 p.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 3. Pinstrup-Andersen P, Pandya-Lorch R, Rosegrant MW (1997) The world food situation: recent developments, emerging issues, and long-term prospects. 2020 Vision Food Policy Report. Washington (D. C.): International Food Policy Research Institute. 36 p.
• 4. Delgado CL, Wada N, Rosegrant MW, Meijer S, Ahmed M (2003) Outlook for fish to 2020: meeting global demand. Food Policy Report. Washington (D. C.): International Food Policy Research Institute. 28 p.
• 12. World Health Organization (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: health synthesis. A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Geneva (Switzerland): WHO Press. 53 p.
• 14. FAO (2000) Code of conduct for responsible fisheries. Rome (Italy): FAO. Available: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/v9878e/v9878e00.HTM . Accessed May 19, 2009.
• 16. DeYoung C, editor. (2006) Review of the state of world marine capture fisheries management: Indian Ocean. FAO technical paper #488. Rome (Italy): Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 458 p.
• 19. Walters CJ, Martell SD (2004) Fisheries ecology and management. Princeton (New Jersey): Princeton University Press. 399 p.
• 25. Mbithi Mwikya S (2006) Fisheries access agreements: trade and development issues. ICTSD Natural Resources, International Trade and Sustainable Development Series Issue Paper No. 2. Geneva (Switzerland): International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. 58 p.
• 34. FAO (2000) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2000. Rome (Italy): FAO Fisheries Department. 144 p.
• 38. Kavanagh P, Pitcher TJ (2004) Implementing Microsoft Excel software for Rapfish : a technique for the rapid appraisal of fisheries status. Fisheries Centre Research Reports. Volume 12 no. 2. Vancouver (Canada): University of British Columbia. Fisheries Centre Research. 75 p.
• 40. Fleiss JL (1981) Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd edition. New York (New York): John Wiley.
• 45. Kelleher K (2005) Discards in the world's marine fisheries: an update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 470. Rome (Italy): FAO Fisheries Department. 134 p.
• 46. Bray K, editor. (2000) A global review of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Expert consulting on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Rome (Italy): FAO Fisheries Department. 53 p.

Goals, challenges, and next steps in transdisciplinary fisheries research: perspectives and experiences from early-career researchers

• Point-of-View
• Published: 05 August 2022
• Volume 33 , pages 349–374, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Elizabeth A. Nyboer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3004-009X 1 ,
• Andrea J. Reid 2 ,
• Amanda L. Jeanson 1 ,
• Rachel Kelly 3 , 4 ,
• Mary Mackay 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ,
• Jenny House 7 ,
• Sarah M. Arnold 8 ,
• Paul W. Simonin 9 ,
• Mary Grace C. Sedanza 10 , 11 ,
• Emma D. Rice 12 ,
• T. E. Angela L. Quiros 13 ,
• Andrea Pierucci 14 ,
• Kelly Ortega-Cisneros 15 ,
• Julia N. Nakamura 16 ,
• Valentina Melli 17 ,
• Stella Mbabazi 18 ,
• Mariana S. L. Martins 19 ,
• Anne Brigette B. Ledesma 20 ,
• Clara Obregón 21 , 22 ,
• Chepkemboi K. Labatt 23 , 24 ,
• Andrew N. Kadykalo 1 ,
• Michael Heldsinger 25 , 26 ,
• Madeline E. Green 5 , 6 ,
• Jessica L. Fuller 27 ,
• Milagros Franco-Meléndez 28 , 29 ,
• Matthew J. Burnett 30 ,
• Jessica A. Bolin 31 ,
• Solange Andrade-Vera 32 &
• Steven J. Cooke 1  

7004 Accesses

12 Citations

21 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Fisheries are highly complex social-ecological systems that often face ‘wicked’ problems from unsustainable resource management to climate change. Addressing these challenges requires transdisciplinary approaches that integrate perspectives across scientific disciplines and knowledge systems. Despite widespread calls for transdisciplinary fisheries research (TFR), there are still limitations in personal and institutional capacity to conduct and support this work to the highest potential. The viewpoints of early career researchers (ECRs) in this field can illuminate challenges and promote systemic change within fisheries research. This paper presents the perspectives of ECRs from across the globe, gathered through a virtual workshop held during the 2021 World Fisheries Congress, on goals, challenges, and future potential for TFR. Big picture goals for TFR were guided by principles of co-production and included (i) integrating transdisciplinary thinking at all stages of the research process, (ii) ensuring that research is inclusive and equitable, (iii) co-creating knowledge that is credible, relevant, actionable, and impactful, and (iv) consistently communicating with partners. Institutional inertia, lack of recognition of the extra time and labour required for TFR, and lack of skill development opportunities were identified as three key barriers in conducting TFR. Several critical actions were identified to help ECRs, established researchers, and institutions reach these goals. We encourage ECRs to form peer-mentorship networks to guide each other along the way. We suggest that established researchers ensure consistent mentorship while also giving space to ECR voices. Actions for institutions include retooling education programs, developing and implementing new metrics of impact, and critically examining individualism and privilege in academia. We suggest that the opportunities and actions identified here, if widely embraced now, can enable research that addresses complex challenges facing fishery systems contributing to a healthier future for fish and humans alike.

Similar content being viewed by others

Using Transdisciplinary Research Solutions to Support Governance in Inland Fisheries

The principles of transdisciplinary research in small-scale fisheries, transdisciplinary science for small-scale fisheries.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Fisheries science as a research discipline has made important intellectual contributions to some of the world's most complex environmental and societal challenges. Western fisheries science was initially developed to support the management of economically valuable commercial fisheries in the global north, focusing primarily on biological factors that regulate fishery productivity, or on stock assessment models to establish maximum sustainable yield and high economic output (Beverton and Holt 1957 ; Halliday and Pinhorn 1996 ; Halliday and Fanning 2006 ). Fisheries research and management now span diverse ecosystems around the globe in the service of various fisheries sectors (e.g., small-scale, ceremonial, recreational).

More recently, fisheries have been characterized as social-ecological systems (Ommer and Perry 2011 ), which address the complex interactions and multi-way feedbacks that exist among diverse actors, target species, and ecosystems (Schlüter et al. 2012 ). The study and management of fisheries are thus characterized by high levels of uncertainty. Widespread and rapid changes in the world’s aquatic ecosystems alter social-ecological relationships and can have profound effects on the livelihoods and lifeways of local communities (Andrews et al. 2020 ). The challenges facing fisheries as an industry, livelihood, and research discipline span disparate yet interconnected topics including governance, economics, food security, poverty alleviation, biodiversity conservation, climate adaptation, and social justice (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2019 ). These complex challenges have been recognized in the fisheries literature as ‘wicked problems’ (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009 ; Turgeon et al. 2018 ); i.e., problems characterized as multi-dimensional, difficult to define, evolving, having competing and intrinsically diverse interests and conflict types, and without a single or immediate solution (Rittel and Webber 1974 ).

It is widely accepted in current fisheries research that no single discipline, source of knowledge, sphere of experience, or area of expertise can independently address the ‘wicked problems’ faced by fisheries (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009 ; Haapasaari et al. 2012 ; Glavovic et al. 2015 ). For example, finding equitable and sustainable solutions for communities coping with large-scale environmental change (e.g., climate change) may require integration of community-based knowledge (e.g., local knowledge of ecosystem function), and data from social sciences (e.g.,., decision making processes, social dynamics of adaptation), economics (e.g., impact on value chains), political science (e.g., policy creation, governance theory), and ecology (e.g., responses of the biological community to environmental stress). Indeed, such questions necessitate a broad integration of perspectives across academic disciplines and knowledge systems. In some cases, local ecological knowledge (e.g., experiences, perceptions, stories, anecdotal information) has improved governance of fisheries resources by providing otherwise elusive insights that add to our collective understanding of the social-ecological dynamics of fishery systems (examples in Johannes et al., 2000 ; Azzurro 2011; Eckert et al., 2018). Although some fisheries challenges may have straightforward solutions, the complexity of many of these  problems  demand that fisheries research ‘transcend science’ by drawing on diverse knowledges. In this way, the research process and outcomes can better attend to the needs and values of diverse rights holders, local communities, practitioners, resource managers, and decision-makers (Cvitanovic et al. 2015 ; Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2019 ; Reid et al. 2020 ; Barnes et al. 2021 ; Kadykalo et al. 2021a ). The uptake and application of transdisciplinary methodologies are increasingly recognized as effective at finding solutions to complex and dynamic problems facing fisheries and developing equitable and legitimate management approaches (Turgeon et al. 2018 ). Transdisciplinarity extends beyond multi- and interdisciplinary methodologies that incorporate collaborative elements and integrate data across academic disciplines (Klein 1990 ) to support cooperative approaches and partnerships which enable knowledge exchange across science-policy-practice divides (Turgeon et al. 2018 ; Bennett 2019 ; Kelly et al. 2019 ; Barnes et al. 2021 ).

Transdisciplinary approaches have spurred the development of new frameworks for managing and studying fisheries, many of which have roots or direct parallels with long-standing approaches to looking after fisheries (e.g., Indigenous fisheries that commonly manage whole systems and are inherently adaptive; Berkes 2018 ). Two of these frameworks, i.e., ecosystem-based fishery management (Macher et al. 2021 ) and adaptive co-management (Armitage et al. 2010 ; Stöhr et al. 2014 ), emphasize the need for integrative approaches that move beyond just biological considerations and consider the social, ecological, economic, and institutional dimensions of fisheries (Turgeon et al. 2018 ). Within these frameworks, the roles of scientists have shifted. Researchers must become fluent in diverse disciplinary ‘languages’ (Andrews et al. 2020 ), learn complex communication skills (Macher et al. 2021 ), navigate when their voices are critical and when they are not as useful (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2019 ), and learn how to respectfully combine and uphold the validity of multiple knowledge types (Steelman et al. 2019 ; Reid et al. 2020 ; Barnes et al. 2021 ). In addition, researchers are taking on new responsibilities at the science-policy-practice interface (Cvitanovic et al. 2015 ; Fabian et al. 2019 ; Kadykalo et al. 2021b ) and must learn how to frame their findings in a way that is relevant to decision-makers. Engaging in transdisciplinary fisheries research (TFR) requires substantial investments in time and training to navigate the co-production of knowledge with diverse partners who may have different management goals, accessibility to information, and communication styles or needs (Mauser et al. 2013 ; Evans and Cvitanovic 2018 ; Kelly et al. 2019 ; Andrews et al. 2020 ).

These demands can be intense, particularly for early career researchers (ECRs) (Chapman et al. 2015 ; Turgeon et al. 2018 ; Kelly et al. 2019 ). Despite widespread calls for transdisciplinary research, there are still barriers in personal, financial, technical, and institutional capacity to carry out and support TFR. Proper training can be difficult to offer and access, and opportunities to discuss common goals and strategize best practices are limited. To provide a forum for such critical dialogue, we held a global collaborative workshop for ECRs who work or aim to work in TFR. The objective of the workshop was to gather the perspectives of ECRs to identify big picture goals for the field, characterize and understand the main barriers for conducting TFR, and identify actions for researchers and institutions that can enable TFR. The goal of this paper is to share reflections from that workshop to spark dialogue and prospective thinking on the goals, challenges, and future potential for this expanding field.

Our workshop took place on September 21, 2021, as part of the World Fisheries Congress (WFC) in Adelaide, Australia (held virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic). We assembled a diverse international team of fisheries researchers in early career stages who use or aspire to use transdisciplinary methodologies in their work. We define ‘early career’ to include graduate students in Master’s or PhD programs, as well as professionals in the first five years following their highest degree.

After registering for the WFC, participants could sign up for the workshop online on a first-come first-served basis (with a limit of 20 spots in the initial registry) if they qualified as an ECR and identified the ongoing or potential for transdisciplinary research in their field. Other participants were recruited via targeted invitation to offer spots to ECRs who missed the online sign-up window, and to fill gaps in global representation (although still drawn from within the WFC pool). Targeted recruitment (led by EAN) involved reading titles and abstracts of registered WFC participants and emailing invitations to individuals who fit the target demographic. In total there were 29 participants: four organizers (EAN, AJR, ALJ, SJC), 16 sign-ups, and nine recruits. Among the recruits were two individuals (RK, MM) who were asked to co-lead the workshop based on their expertise in the field. All participants who contributed to the activities before, during and after the workshop are co-authors on this manuscript, with representation from 26 countries across six continents (Fig.  1 a, Appendix A1). Most participants were in the academic system at the graduate student or postdoctoral level, although some participants hailed from the consulting, practitioner, government, and non-governmental (NGO) sectors (Fig.  1 b). The types of freshwater and marine fisheries represented were from the commercial, small-scale, Indigenous, subsistence, recreational, and aquaculture sectors (Fig.  1 c) as defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO 2012).

A Countries of residence and/or research location of the author team. Countries shaded blue (darker tones) are where members of the author team reside and/or carry out research. Countries shaded orange (lighter tones) are where members of the author team conduct research but do not reside. See Appendix A1 for full list. B Career stages and sectors of participants. C Types of fisheries represented by participants in the workshop (participants could choose more than one)

The organizers and workshop facilitators aimed to foster inclusivity, diversity, and equitability as much as possible. To reduce language barriers, we used online translation tools (e.g., Google Translate ) to translate all written documents and communications into requested languages and employed closed captioning during the Zoom session. Additionally, we provided live technical support during the Zoom meeting, and saved all video recordings, chat logs, and transcripts to share with participants after the meeting. Multiple models of participation outside of the live workshops were offered to participants to accommodate individuals with poor internet connections or time zone conflicts. For example, we used online forms, interactive ‘Mural’ boards ( https://www.mural.co/ ), and opportunities for post-workshop reflections (via e-mail).

The exercise of building the knowledge base for this article proceeded in three stages: (i) a pre-workshop individual brainstorming session, (ii) a three-hour live Zoom ( https://zoom.us/ ) event (i.e., the workshop), and (iii) post workshop reflections and writing. For the brainstorming session, each participant was asked to complete an online survey via Google Forms in the week prior to the workshop to provide details about research interests and thoughts on two key questions. These questions were:

Based on your experience as an ECR, what do you believe are key goals for TFR in the future? Think about intellectual challenges and important areas of future research to guide the field and to produce knowledge that is important for sustainable fishery systems.

What are some challenges faced by ECRs working in transdisciplinary settings? How can these barriers be overcome? For each challenge, please identify a possible solution

The brainstorming session provided time to contemplate discussion points and ensured that all voices were heard regardless of whether people could not attend the workshop or preferred to be less vocal in the workshop setting. Responses were submitted up to one day before the workshop. Responses were then read by two organizers (ALJ, EAN) and rapidly collated and categorized into four key themes for each discussion question before the workshop (Appendix A2).

For the workshop, we established an ethical and respectful community of practice by opening with a land acknowledgement (led by AJR) that invited participants to reflect on the place they were joining from, recognizing the unique and enduring relationship that exists between Indigenous Peoples and their traditional land and territories. We felt such acknowledgements were important steps to recognizing the need to reduce the harms of colonialism—especially in transdisciplinary fisheries research which is partially concerned with reconciling relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples, and nature. Participants were then given time to introduce themselves and their personal research backgrounds to the group. One hour was allotted per question to consider and discuss thoughts on each topic. First, a summary of the online responses (led by ALJ) was presented, and then participants were assigned to three breakout groups. Workshop leaders guided the discussion and kept notes, and participants could provide input orally or by using interactive Mural boards to write down key points. A short plenary followed each breakout period to share highlights. The workshop closed with reflective words from a later career mentor and established TFR colleague (SJC).

After the workshop, a systematic analysis was conducted on all outputs. The Mural boards from each breakout group were first analyzed separately by categorizing ‘sticky notes’ into themes within each board (Appendix A3). Perspectives from the three Mural boards were then combined and grouped into larger categories including: goals , barriers, considerations for researchers , and actions for ECRs, established researchers, and institutions . To ensure all participants’ points and concerns were captured accurately, the Zoom video recordings were transcribed in full. A codebook was developed through inductive processes and refined over two rounds of coding (conducted by EAN, Appendix A4). The first round of coding was used to categorize and summarize the data into broad themes, and the second round was used to focus on specific sub-themes and categories that emerged from the Mural board analysis. Subsequently, the responses from the Google Form were cross-checked with themes and categories that emerged from the workshop.

The ECRs in the workshop (i.e., the authors, herein referred to as ‘we’) provide a synthesis of perspectives emerging from the Google Form , Zoom workshop, and post-workshop reflections. We outline big-picture goals for TFR as a field and match each goal with high-level considerations for researchers conducting TFR. Next we discuss key barriers to conducting TFR and identify several specific actions for ECRs, established researchers, and institutions that can enable this type of work (Fig.  2 ). We include three boxes with examples of extant strategies or new models of action for how changes to current norms can be made; boxes are based on participants’ experiences.

Diagram outlining key points in each of the part of the manuscript: goals and considerations, barriers, and actions that can enable TFR

Given the broad range of perspectives and contexts represented in our workshop, goals, considerations, barriers, and actions that we present are unsurprisingly generic. We acknowledge that variations in political situation, governance approach, industry standard, and economic capacity among fisheries, regions, countries, continents, and the global north vs. global south mean that translating our suggestions into achievable actions will look different across geographies and contexts. Barriers and challenges will be substantially higher in regions with less support and funding for TFR (i.e., much of the global south). We further acknowledge that despite our collaborative approach, the group of people whose views are presented here does not entirely represent the perspectives and experiences of all global ECRs. Our team was drawn from individuals able to attend an online international congress, and thus excludes those without access or resources to attend. Despite these limitations, we observed parallel experiences and congruity of responses among participants. This manuscript was developed collaboratively with all authors (i.e., workshop participants); the views presented below are thus broadly representative of the experiences of the ECRs who attended this workshop, and likely have relevance in the broader context of TFR.

Workshop outcomes

A first critical step to any fisheries research project will be to determine whether transdisciplinary approaches are indeed necessary to answer the question at hand. We suggest researchers should use a transdisciplinary approach any time there are diverse and competing ways of understanding the problem (cause, effect, and solution), and when outcomes carry high stakes for multiple actors (Pohl and Hadorn, 2007 ). The following goals, considerations, barriers, and actions assume that a transdisciplinary approach has already been determined to be appropriate for a given research agenda.

Big-picture goals and considerations for transdisciplinary fisheries research

We identified that crucial aims for TFR are to dismantle traditional disciplinary and institutional silos through processes of co-production, and to find innovative solutions to complex fishery problems by forming novel alliances and collaborations among interested partners. Below we outline four big-picture goals that fit under these aims along with considerations that can help researchers achieve those goals.

Goal 1: Embody transdisciplinary approaches during all stages of research

Consideration 1: be open-minded and adaptable, goal 2: ensure fisheries research is inclusive and equitable, consideration 2: critically evaluate the research process and our role within it, goal 3: design fisheries research so that it is credible, relevant, actionable, and impactful., consideration 3: be solutions-oriented, goal 4: consistently and clearly communicate with all partners throughout a project, consideration 4: communicate in ways that are sensitive to cultural and sectoral differences, barriers to conducting transdisciplinary fisheries research.

Although the big picture goals and considerations outlined above are useful for framing the direction of TFR, we also identified several barriers to conducting transdisciplinary work. Discussion of barriers was prominent during the workshop; however, we summarize them in three key points as details on barriers have been addressed in several recent works (Hein et al. 2018 ; Jarvis et al. 2020 ; Kelly et al. 2019 ; Österblom et al. 2020 ).

Barrier 1: Institutional inertia leads to lack of support for TFR

The incongruity between intention and action described above for academic institutions also emerged in the realm of funding opportunities (Sievanen et al. 2012 ; Said et al. 2019 ), a barrier that was especially relevant for those of us living in developing countries that are already limited in research funds. We discussed difficulties in finding grants tailored to transdisciplinary work as well as lack of financial support to conduct dissemination of findings and community engagement. Generally, the sentiment was that funding systems are stagnant despite a purported desire to change. Funding agencies claim to be advancing transdisciplinary research; however, review and evaluation committees tend to favour straight-forward, low-risk projects that can be easily evaluated and measured for success. This is an example of culture within a system (sensu Schein 2017 ) reinforcing institutional and disciplinary norms.

Barrier 2: Lack of recognition for the additional time and emotional labour involved with TFR

Barrier 3: lack of mentorship and few opportunities for development of skills required to be effective transdisciplinary fisheries researchers, actions for ecrs, established researchers, and institutions to enable transdisciplinary fisheries research.

In the following section we outline several key actions that can be taken by ECRs, established researchers, and institutions to help overcome barriers and enable TFR. We supplement these sections with three boxes outlining concrete strategies or new models for enacting change based on our experiences.

Actions for early career researchers

Ecr action 1: develop a peer mentorship and/or community mentorship network, box 1—development of peer mentorship networks.

Peer mentoring can provide a much-needed opportunity for ECRs to learn how to become more transdisciplinary researchers, providing training and support to move away from traditional academic working styles which are often highly hierarchical and centered on individual success. Peer mentoring can be done as groups or in pairs and provides academic, career, social and psychological benefits (Lorenzetti et al., 2019 ). The additional challenges faced by transdisciplinary researchers make peer mentorship particularly useful because it allows ECRs to cultivate long-term supportive professional relationships (Kensington-Miller, 2018 ), which are essential when traditional mentor/mentee relationships fall short. Peer mentorship also provides additional emotional support and encouragement (McGuire and Reger 2003 ), and assists ECRs with developing research skills and navigating academic institutions (Lorenzetti et al., 2019 ) ECRs at the Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods (RIEL) at Charles Darwin University established a reading group to learn together about intersectional feminist values and how to apply them within the context of academia and environmental research. The group combines Mac Namara et al.’s ( 2020 ) peer mentoring model with a book club structure. Members take turns choosing topics for discussion, enabling them to consider how to work as researchers and support one another. Topics have included power dynamics encountered as ECRs, how success is measured in academia, and how to improve representation of marginalized voices. Learning together about the structural and cultural barriers faced by ECRs reveals the shortcomings of traditional approaches to academia. The group functions as a place to build relationships, share anxieties and successes, and learn from others’ perspectives and approaches. The network also provides a safe space for voices to be heard and for critiques and self-reflection to occur. The lack of hierarchy in these relationships enables ECRs to learn together and construct their own work culture away from their own disciplines (Kensington-Miller, 2018 ).

ECR Action 2: Clearly describe and communicate processes and methods used in TFR

Actions for established researchers, established researcher action 1: be available for consistent and holistic mentorship, established researcher action 2: make space for ecr voices, actions for institutions.

Institutional changes are among the most difficult to enact due to institutional inertia and bureaucracy, but they are also perhaps the most transformative given the scale on which they occur. The ideas we present here are lofty, but sorely needed to realize the promise of TFR.

Institution Action 1: Be willing to critique and dismantle academic individualism and the academic “superiority complex”

Box 2—a case study on reimagining lab hierarchies.

The “Centre for Indigenous Fisheries” (CIF; launched in January 2021) at the University of British Columbia comprises a team of researchers who work together as just that – a team . The CIF’s research is not about any one person, it’s about all. As such, the group collectively decided against naming the lab after any one team member. Each student in the CIF belongs to a research project that is partnered with Indigenous communities and/or organizations. Most students work in paired contexts, where they can support one another on interrelated aspects of a larger project or program. Students develop independently as well as collectively, receiving context-specific training and research support through these interactions, and each week team meetings are led by a student coordinator to discuss project progress. It is through this multi­layered mentorship model, which will soon be bolstered by an Indigenous Advisory Council for the CIF (launching in 2022), that student training needs are fulfilled to become well-rounded, highly skilled, and independent yet deeply collaborative researchers that are needed to solve the problems we face today. By following this model, students receive extensive training and guidance from academics, their diverse advisory committees, the communities they engage with, specialized departmental courses that are co-developed with Indigenous partners, as well as one another (see Box 1 ). This nested approach is fluid and non­hierarchical, where students find mentors in their supervisor(s) and advisors, instructors, peers, practitioners, and partners to suit different stages of their research process and meet the needs that arise along their learning experience (Fouché and Lunt 2010 ). This both minimizes risk for students and can help alleviate mentor/mentee power imbalances that might exist or arise (Jones and Brown 2011 ).

Institution Action 2: Establish functional education and mentorship programs for ECRs in TFR

Institution action 3: build funding structures that support all parts of tfr.

Funders need to critically examine how they solicit and evaluate research funds and rethink who is represented on selection committees (e.g., include non-academics) (Nyboer et al. 2021 ). Finally, funding for TFR needs to be allocated more equitably and in ways that do not reinforce the usual reward schemes based on publications as the primary measure of impact. Having strategic funding opportunities for the global south or those from racialized or Indigenous communities is essential for realizing what TFR can offer. This is even more important to TFR in some developing countries where funding is limited and tends to adhere to more mainstream approaches. A good example of such funding is the Global Challenges Research Fund- UK Research and Innovation Network that focuses on marine cultural heritage and uses arts and humanities to produce less traditional yet impactful research outputs. Funded projects have produced crafts, music videos, children's books, 3D models, museums, expeditions, cultural festivals, and community boat building associations among other things that promoted their way of life.

BOX 3—ArcticNet as an institution looking to make chang e

ArcticNet is an example of an institution (although not specifically fisheries focused) that has evolved over time to promote transdisciplinary research and support ECRs in this field. ArcticNet is a research network established in 2003 that supports natural, social, and health science in the Canadian Arctic and stands out from similar networks by turning their transdisciplinary language around synergy, knowledge exchange, training, and communication into concrete actions. For instance, ECRs can access funding to attend training to develop their understanding of Indigenous perspectives and how to engage in ethical research. Inuit ECRs with non-academic backgrounds can apply for dedicated funding that supports community-led research and receive support from regional Inuit advisors who also review research proposals and promote community and Inuit perspectives across the Network. Results are shared with both northern residents who can receive support to attend the annual scientific meeting (ASM) for free, and policymakers through regional summary reports that include ECR results. Such steps from a large institution support and inspire ECRs, and the results of these changes are obvious and visible. For example, the ASM has shifted from a standard scientific conference to one where most posters rely on plain language and visuals to share results. There are line-ups to access the community-based presentation sessions, and a dedicated ‘Student Day’ features career development panels and research elevator pitches. Everyone from field assistants to Professors Emeritus dance the night away to an Inuk band after the conference banquet.

Institution Action 4: Critically rethink and implement new ways of measuring impact

In this paper, we synthesize the perspectives and experiences of ECRs from around the world who work (or aim to work) in TFR. Although we acknowledge that TFR is not the only effective  approach to fisheries research, it has been shown to be successful at finding solutions to complex and dynamic problems since it is adaptable and responsive to specific challenges in a wide variety of contexts. The findings of our workshop aligned well with outcomes of aseveral recent papers investigating this topic (e.g., Turgeon et al. 2018 ; Kelly et al. 2019 ; Andrews et al. 2020 ; Sellberg et al. 2021 ). Each of these pieces  addressed the common theme that, although TFR is widely acknowledged as critical to bridge science-policy-practice boundaries and to address the ‘wicked problems’ facing fisheries, support for this work is lacking. There is a disconnect between the expectations placed upon ECRs to be the generation that 'fixes the problem', and the actual support that is provided to do so; this can manifest in declines in mental health with ECRs making serious personal sacrifices in the face of demands to uphold scientific rigour, societal impact, community engagement, and self-care (Sellberg et al. 2021 ). Barriers to TFR revolve largely around current academic structures, cultures, and metrics of impact that do not uphold or recognize efforts required to support TFR (Singh et al. 2019 ). Here we suggest several avenues that can and should be enacted now to lower these barriers. A critical finding that bears further recognition is that barriers to achieving these actions are higher in low-to-middle income countries. Researchers already experiencing discrimination for other reasons (e.g., race, gender) will be further disadvantaged. Networks, academic / mentorship support, and funding are especially necessary in the global south where coastal populations are disproportionately more reliant on fisheries for food security and employment (Golden et al. 2016 ), where fewer research funds are available (Weyl et al. 2021 ), and where mentorship opportunities are lacking. It is critical that researchers from the high-income countries facilitate redistribution of funds via collaborations and partnerships in LMICs and ensure equitable sharing of benefits including access to resources. An noteworthy outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic is that the normalization of virtual conferences has allowed for increased inclusivity across various groups (e.g., different income brackets, global north vs. global south, ECR vs. established professional) (Davids et al. 2021 ). In our workshop this format was powerful. It highlighted that the day-to-day tasks of conducting TFR are profoundly different given various contexts,  and that best practices will vary based on the research question, location, groups involved, and team size. On the other hand, the striking similarity and congruence in perspectives highlight the common goals and considerations we share as transdisciplinaryECRs despite our widespread geopolitical experiences. Fisheries science as a discipline has evolved and grown from its historical quantitative and natural science origins toward a broader, holistic, systems-oriented view that embraces both ecological and human dimensions. Here we argue that it is time for all actors in fisheries research to take action to support and uphold the value of these approaches.

Andrews EJ, Harper S, Cashion T, Palacios-Abrantes J, Blythe J, Daly J, Eger S, Hoover C, Talloni-Alvarez N, Teh L, Bennett N, Epstein G, Knott C, Newell SL, Whitney CK (2020) Supporting early career researchers: insights from interdisciplinary marine scientists. ICES J Mar Sci 77:476–485

Article   Google Scholar  

Armitage D, Berkes F, Doubleday N (2010) Adaptive co-management: collaboration, learning, and multi-level governance. UBC Press, Vancouver

Google Scholar  

Azzurro E, Moschella P, Maynou F (2011) Tracking signals of change in Mediterranean fish diversity based on local ecological knowledge. PLoS ONE 69:e24885. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024885

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Barnes HM, Harmsworth G, Tipa G, Henwood W, McCreanor T (2021) Indigenous-led environmental research in Aotearoa New Zealand: beyond a transdisciplinary model for best practice, empowerment, and action. AlterNative 17:306–316

Bennett NJ (2019) Marine social science for the peopled seas. Coast Manag 47:244–252

Berkes F (2018) Sacred ecology. Routledge, New York

Beverton RJH, Holt SJ (1957) On the dynamics of exploited fish populations. Fish Investig 19:1–533

Bobek E, Tversky B (2016) Creating visual explanations improves learning. Cogn Res Princ Implic 1(1):27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-016-0031-6

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Brandt P, Ernst A, Gralla F, Luederitz C, Lang DJ, Newig J, Von Wehrden H (2013) A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol Econ 92:1–15

Brasier MJ, McCormack S, Bax N, Caccavo JA, Cavan E, Ericson JA, Weldrick CK (2020) Overcoming the obstacles faced by early career researchers in marine science: lessons from the marine ecosystem assessment for the Southern Ocean. Front Mar Sci 7:692

Britz PJ, Hara MM, Weyl OLF, Tapela BN, Rouhani QA (2015) Scoping study on the development and sustainable utilisation of inland fisheries in South Africa, Volume 1: Research Report. WRC Report No TT 615/1/14, South Africa

Chapman JM, Algera D, Dick M, Hawkins EE, Lawrence MJ, Lennox RJ et al (2015) Being relevant: practical guidance for early career researchers interested in solving conservation problems. Global Ecol Conser 4:334–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/jgecco201507013

Christian K, Johnstone C, Larkins JA, Wright W, Doran MR (2021) A survey of early-career researchers in Australia. Elife 10:1–19

Chuenpagdee R, Jentoft S (2019) Transdisciplinarity for small scale fisheries governance, analysis, and practice, vol 21. MARE Publication Series. Springer, New York, p 479

Book   Google Scholar  

Cooke SJ, Rytwinski T, Taylor JJ, Nyboer EA, Nguyen VM, Bennett JR, Smol JP (2020) On “success” in applied environmental research—What is it, how can it be achieved, and how does one know when it has been achieved? Environ Rev 28:357–372

Cooke SJ, Nguyen VM, Chapman JM, Reid AJ, Landsman SJ, Young N, Hinch SG, Schott S, Mandrak NE, Semeniuk CA (2021a) Knowledge co-production: a pathway to effective fisheries management, conservation, and governance. Fisheries 46:89–97

Cooke SJ, Nguyen VM, Young N, Reid AJ, Roche DG, Bennett NJ, Bennett JR (2021b) Contemporary authorship guidelines fail to recognize diverse contributions in conservation science research. Ecol Solut Evid 2:e12060

Cundill G, Roux DJ, Parker JN (2015) Nurturing communities of practice for transdisciplinary research. Ecol Soc 20:22

Cvitanovic C, Hobday AJ, van Kerkhoff L, Wilson SK, Dobbs KA, Marshall N (2015) Improving knowledge exchange among scientists and decision-makers to facilitate the adaptive governance of marine resources: a review of knowledge and research needs. Ocean Coast Manag 112:25–35

Cvitanovic C, Shellock RJ, Mackay M, van Putten EI, Karcher DB, Dickey-Collas M et al (2021a) Strategies for building and managing ‘trust’ to enable knowledge exchange at the interface of environmental science and policy. Environ Sci Policy 123:179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/JENVSCI202105020

Cvitanovic C, Mackay M, Shellock RJ, van Putten EI, Karcher DB, Dickey-Collas M (2021b) Understanding and evidencing a broader range of ‘successes’ that can occur at the interface of marine science and policy. Mar Policy 134:104802

Davelaar D (2021) Transformation for sustainability: a deep leverage points approach. Sustain Sci 16:727–747

Davids R, Scheelbeek P, Sobratee N, Green R, Häesler B, Mabhaudhi T, Chatterjee S, Venkateshmurthy NS, Mace G, Dangour A, Slotow R (2021) Towards the three dimensions of sustainability for international research team collaboration: learnings from the sustainable and healthy food systems research programme. Sustainability 13(22):12427

Davies SW, Putnam HM, Ainsworth T, Baum JK, Bove CB, Crosby SC, Bates AE (2021) Promoting inclusive metrics of success and impact to dismantle a discriminatory reward system in science. PLoS Biol 19(6):e3001282

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Dlouhá J, Heras R, Mulà I, Salgado FP, Henderson L (2019) Competences to address SDGs in higher education—a reflection on the equilibrium between systemic and personal approaches to achieve transformative action. Sustainability 11(13):3664

Eigenbrode SD, O’Rourke M, Wulfhorst JD, Althoff DM, Goldberg CM, Merrill K, Morse W, Nielsen-Pincus M, Stephens J, Winowiecki J, Bosque-Pérez NA (2007) Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. Bioscience 57:55–64. https://doi.org/10.1641/B570109

Evans MC, Cvitanovic C (2018) An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers. Palgrave Commun 41:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0144-2

Fabian Y, Bollmann K, Brang P, Heiri C, Olschewski R, Rigling A, Stofer S, Holderegger R (2019) How to close the science-practice gap in nature conservation? information sources used by practitioners. Biol Cons 235:93–101

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) (2012) Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. FAO, Rome

Filyushkina A, Ryu H, Kadykalo AN, Murali R, Campagne CS, Washbourne CL, Peter S, Saidi N, Sarzynski T, Pisa PF, Ávila-Flores G, Amiar T (2022) Engaging at the science -policy interface as an early-career researcher: experiences and perceptions in the field of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Ecosyst People (In Press) 00:000–000

Fisher JR, Wood SA, Bradford MA, Kelsey TR (2020) Improving scientific impact: how to practice science that influences environmental policy and management. Conserv Sci Pract 2(7):e210

Fouché C, Lunt N (2010) Nested mentoring relationships: reflections on a practice project for mentoring research capacity amongst social work practitioners. J Soc Work 10(4):391–406

Frisk E, Larson KL (2011) Educating for sustainability: competencies & practices for transformative action. J Sustain Educ 2(1):1–20

Gale AP, Chapman JO, White DE, Ahluwalia P, Williamson AKJ, Peacock KR, Cooke SJ (2021) On embracing the concept of becoming environmental problem solvers: the trainee perspective on key elements of success, essential skills, and mindset. Environ Rev e-First. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2021-0040

Glavovic B, Limburg K, Liu KK, Emeis KC, Thomas H, Kremer H et al (2015) Living on the margin in the Anthropocene: engagement arenas for sustainability research and action at the ocean–land interface. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:232–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/jcosust201506003

Golden C, Allison EH, Cheung WWL, Dey MM, Halpern BS, McCauley DJ, Smith M, Vaitla B, Zeller D, Myers SS (2016) Fall in fish catch threatens human health. Nature 534:317–320

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Haapasaari P, Kulmala S, Kuikka S (2012) Growing into interdisciplinarity: how to converge biology, economics, and social science in fisheries research? Ecol Soc 17:6. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04503-170106

Halliday RG, Fanning LP (2006) A history of marine fisheries science in Atlantic Canada and its role in the management of fisheries. Proc Nova Scotian Inst Sci 43:159–183

Halliday RG, Pinhorn AT (1996) North Atlantic fishery management systems: a comparison of management methods and resource trends. J Northwest Atl Fish Sci 20:1–144

Hansson S, Polk M (2018) Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: the usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact. Res Eval 27(2):132–144

Hein CJ, Ten Hoeve JE, Gopalakrishnan S, Livneh B, Adams HD, Marino E, Weiler CS (2018) Overcoming early career barriers to interdisciplinary climate change research. Wires Clim Change 9:e530

Hernandez-Aguilera JN, Anderson W, Bridges AL, Fernandez MP, Hansen WD, Maurer ML, Ilboudo Nébié EK, Stock A (2021) Supporting interdisciplinary careers for sustainability. Nat Sustain 4:374–375. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00679-y

Hobday AJ, Spillman CM, Eveson P, Hartog JR (2016) Seasonal forecasting for decision support in marine fisheries and aquaculture. Fish Oceanogr 25:45–56

House J, Kleiber D, Steenbergen DJ, Stacey N (2022) Participatory monitoring in community-based fisheries management through a gender lens. Ambio. 00:000-000.

Jarvis RM, Borrelle SB, Forsdick NJ, Pérez-Hämmerle KV, Dubois NS, Griffin SR et al (2020) Navigating spaces between conservation research and practice: are we making progress? Ecol Sol Evi. https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-831912028

Jeanson AL, Soroye P, Kadykalo AN, Ward TD, Paquette E, Abrams AE, Cooke SJ (2020) Twenty actions for a “good Anthropocene”—perspectives from early-career conservation professionals. Environ Rev 28(1):99–108

Jentoft S, Chuenpagdee R (2009) Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem. Mar Policy 33:553–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/jmarpol200812002

Johannes RE, Freeman MM, Hamilton RJ (2000) Ignore fishers’ knowledge and miss the boat. Fish Fish 1(3):257–271

Jones R, Brown D (2011) The mentoring relationship as a complex adaptive system: finding a model for our experience. Mentor Tutor Partnersh Learn 19(4):401–418

Kadykalo AN, Cooke SJ, Young N (2021a) The role of western-based scientific, indigenous and local knowledge in wildlife management and conservation. People Nat 3(3):610–626. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan310194

Kadykalo AN, Buxton RT, Morrison P, Anderson CM, Bickerton H, Francis CM et al (2021b) Bridging research and practice in conservation. Conserv Biol 35(6):1725–1737. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi13732

Karcher DB, Cvitanovic C, Colvin RM, van Putten IE, Reed MS (2021) Is this what success looks like? Mismatches between the aims, claims, and evidence used to demonstrate impact from knowledge exchange processes at the interface of environmental science and policy. Environ Sci Policy 125:202–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/JENVSCI202108012

Kelly R, Mackay M, Nash KL, Cvitanovic C, Allison EH, Armitage D et al (2019) Ten tips for developing interdisciplinary socio-ecological researchers. Socio-Ecol Pract Res 1:149–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-019-00018-2

Kemp A (2013) Collaboration vs individualism: what is better for the rising academic? Qualit Rep 18(100):1–8

Kensington-Miller B (2018) Surviving the first year: new academics flourishing in a multidisciplinary community of practice with peer mentoring. Prof Dev Educ 44(5):678–689

Klein JT (1990) Interdisciplinarity: history, theory, and practice. Wayne State University Press, Detroit, Michigan

Klein JT (2009) Creating interdisciplinary campus cultures: a model for strength and sustainability. Wiley, San Francisco

Lang DJ, Wiek A (2021) Structuring and advancing solution-oriented research for sustainability. Ambio 51:31–35

Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P et al (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7:25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11625-011-0149-X/TABLES/3

Lewis JM, Ross S, Holden T (2012) The how and why of academic collaboration: disciplinary differences and policy implications. High Educ 64(5):693–708

Lorenzetti DL, Shipton L, Nowell L, Jacobsen M, Lorenzetti L, Clancy T, Paolucci EO (2019) A systematic review of graduate student peer mentorship in academia. Mentor Tutor Partnersh Learn 27(5):549–576

Mac Namara SC, Rauh AE, Blum MM, Russo N, Green MA, Nangia S (2020) Peer mentoring for women in STEM. In: ASEE virtual annual conference content access, June 2020

Macher C, Steins NA, Ballesteros M, Kraan M, Frangoudes K, Bailly D, Bertignac M, Colloca F, Fitzpatrick M, Garcia D, Little R, Mardle S, Murillas A, Pawlowski L, Philippe M, Prellezo R, Sabatella E, Thebaud O, Ulrich C (2021) Towards transdisciplinary decision-support processes in fisheries: experiences and recommendations from a multidisciplinary collective of researchers. Aquat Living Resour 34:13. https://doi.org/10.1051/alr/2021010

Mackinson S (2022) The fall and rise of industry participation in fisheries science – a European story. ICES J Mar Sci. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsac041

Mauser W, Klepper G, Rice M, Schmalzbauer BS, Hackmann H, Leemans R, Moore H (2013) Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:420–431

McGuire GM, Reger J (2003) Feminist co-mentoring: a model for academic professional development. NWSA J 15:54–72

McPhearson T, Raymond CM, Gulsrud N, Albert C, Coles N, Fagerholm N, Vierikko K (2021) Radical changes are needed for transformations to a good Anthropocene. Urban Sustain 1(1):1–13

Miller TR, Wiek A, Sarewitz D, Robinson J, Olsson L et al (2014) The future of sustainability science—a solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain Sci 9:239–246

Monroe JB, Baxter CV, Olden JD, Angermeier PL (2009) Freshwaters in the public eye: understanding the role of images and media in aquatic conservation. Fisheries 34(12):581–585. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446-3412581

Nash JM, Collins BN, Loughlin SE, Solbrig M, Harvey R, Krishnan-Sarin S, Spirito A (2003) Training the transdisciplinary scientist: a general framework applied to tobacco use behavior. Nicotine Tob Res 5:S41–S53

Nyboer EA, Nguyen VM, Young N, Rytwinski T, Taylor JJ, Lane JF, Cooke SJ (2021) Supporting actionable science for environmental policy: advice for funding agencies from decision makers. Front Cons Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2021.693129

Ommer RE, Perry RI (2011) Social-ecological systems in fisheries. In: Ommer RE, Perry RI, Cochrane K, Cury P (eds) World fisheries: a social-ecological analysis. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Österblom H, Cvitanovic C, van Putten I, Addison P, Blasiak R, Jouffray JB, Bebbington J, Hall J, Ison S, LeBris A, Mynott S, Reid D, Sugimoto A (2020) Science-industry collaboration: sideways or highways to ocean sustainability? One Earth 3:79–88

Pannell JL, Dencer-Brown AM, Greening SS, Hume EA, Jarvis RM, Mathieu C, Mugford J, Runghen R (2019) An early-career perspective on encouraging collaborative and interdisciplinary research in ecology. Ecosphere 10:e02899

Pohl C, Hadorn GH (2007) Principles for designing transdisciplinary research. Oekom Verlag, Zurich, Switzerland

Pooley SP, Mendelsohn JA, Milner-Gulland EJ (2014) Hunting down the chimera of multiple disciplinarity in conservation science. Conserv Biol 28(1):22–32

Ravenscroft J, Liakata M, Clare A, Duma D (2017) Measuring scientific impact beyond academia: an assessment of existing impact metrics and proposed improvements. PLoS ONE 12(3):e0173152

Reid AJ, Eckert LE, Lane J-F, Young N, Hinch SG, Darimont CT, Cooke SJ, Ban NC, Marshall A (2020) “Two-Eyed Seeing”: an indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management. Fish Fish 22:243–261

Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1974) Wicked problems in man-made futures: readings in society, technology, and design. Hutchinson Educational, London

Said A, Chuenpagdee R, Aguilar-Perera A, Arce-Ibarra A, Gurung T, Bishop B, Leopold M, Márquez-Pérez A, de Mattos SM, Pierce G, Nayak P, Jentoft S (2019) The principles of transdisciplinary research in small-scale fisheries: analysis and practice in transdisciplinarity for small-scale fisheries governance. Publication Series, New York

Schein EH (2017) Organizational culture and leadership, 5th edn. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken

Schlüter M, McAllister RRJ, Arlinghaus R, Bunnefeld N, Eisenack K, Hölker F, Milner-Gulland EJ, Müller B (2012) New horizons for managing the environment: a review of coupled social-ecological systems modeling. Nat Resour Model 25:219–273

Sellberg MM, Cockburn J, Holden PB, Lam DPM (2021) Toward a caring transdisciplinary research practice: navigating science, society, and self. Ecosystems and People 17:292–330

Sherman S (2011) Changing the world: the science of transformative action. Positive psychology as social change. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 329–345

Sievanen L, Campbell LM, Leslie HM (2012) Challenges to interdisciplinary research in ecosystem-based management. Conserv Biol 26:315–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01808.x

Singh GG, Farjalla VF, Chen B, Pelling AE, Ceyhan E, Dominik M et al (2019) Researcher engagement in policy deemed societally beneficial yet unrewarded. Front Ecol Environ 17(7):375–382

Smith LT (2021) Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books Ltd, London

Steelman TA, Andrews E, Baines S, Bharadwaj L, Bjornson ER, Bradford L, Cardinal K, Carriere G et al (2019) Identifying transformational space for transdisciplinarity: using art to access the hidden third. Sustain Sci 14:771–790

Steiner G, Posch A (2006) Higher education for sustainability by means of transdisciplinary case studies: an innovative approach for solving complex real-world problems. J Clean Prod 14:877–890

Stöhr C, Lundhold C, Crona B, Chabay I (2014) Stakeholder participation and sustainable fisheries: an integrative framework for assessing adaptive co-management processes. Ecol Soc 19:14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06638-190314

Stokols D (2014) Training the next generation of transdisciplinarians. In: O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Eigenbrode S, Wulfhorst J (eds) Enhancing communication & collaboration in interdisciplinary research. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA, pp 56–81

Strasser B, Baudry J, Mahr D, Sanchez G, Tancoigne E (2019) “Citizen science”? Rethinking science and public participation. Sci Technol Stud 32:52–76

Turgeon K, Hawkshaw SCF, Dinning KM, Quinn BK, Edwards DN, Wor C, Parlee CE et al (2018) Enhancing fisheries education and research through the Canadian fisheries research network: a student perspective on interdisciplinarity, collaboration, and inclusivity. FACETS 3:963–980

Weyl OLF, Barkhuizen L, Christison K, Dalu T, Hlungwani HA, Impson D, Sankar K, Mandrak NE, Marr M, Sara JR, Smit NM, Tweddle D, Vine NG, Wepener V, Zvavahera M, Cowx IG (2021) Ten research questions to support South Africa’s Inland fisheries policy. Afr J Aquat Sci 46:1–10. https://doi.org/10.2989/1608591420201822774

Whitmer A, Ogden L, Lawton J, Sturner P, Groffman PM, Schneider L et al. (2010) The engaged university: providing a platform for research that transforms society. Front Ecol Environ 8: 314–321

Wilson ME, Laufer AE, Howard EM, Wong-Ala JATK (2021) Lessons from the trenches: students’ perspectives of their own marine transdisciplinary education. Front Mar Sci 7: 592368

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Daniel Ten Veen for volunteering to provide live technical support during the Zoom event. We also thank the organizing board at the World Fisheries Congress (WFC) for supporting this workshop, and especially Jane Ham for all direct communication with WFC. We are grateful to our mentors who have encouraged and enabled our development as transdisciplinary researchers. Funding was provided to EAN by the Fonds de Recherche du Quebec – nature et technologie grant number 295667.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, Carleton Technology and Training Centre, Ottawa, ON, 4440KK1S 5B6, Canada

Elizabeth A. Nyboer, Amanda L. Jeanson, Andrew N. Kadykalo & Steven J. Cooke

Centre for Indigenous Fisheries, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, The University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canada

Andrea J. Reid

Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, 7005, Australia

Rachel Kelly & Mary Mackay

Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, 7000, Australia

CSIRO Oceans & Atmosphere, Castray Esplanade, Battery Point, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia

Mary Mackay & Madeline E. Green

Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 49, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia

Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Ellengowan Dr, Casuarina, NT, 0810, Australia

Jenny House

Independent, Fort Simpson, NWT, Canada

Sarah M. Arnold

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, 215 Tower Road, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

Paul W. Simonin

Graduate School of Fisheries and Environmental Sciences, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, 852-8521, Japan

Mary Grace C. Sedanza

Institute of Aquaculture, College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of the Philippines Visayas, 5023, Miagao, Iloilo, Philippines

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

Emma D. Rice

Field Science Center for Northern Biosphere, Akkeshi Marine Station, Hokkaido University, Hokkaidô, Japan

T. E. Angela L. Quiros

COISPA Tecnologia & Ricerca, Stazione Sperimentale Per Lo Studio Delle Risorse del Mare, Bari, Italy

Andrea Pierucci

Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

Kelly Ortega-Cisneros

Strathclyde Centre for Environmental Law and Governance (SCELG), University of Strathclyde Law School, Glasgow, UK

Julia N. Nakamura

DTU Aqua, National Institute of Aquatic Resources, North Sea Science Park, 9850, Hirtshals, Denmark

Valentina Melli

Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries, Entebbe, Uganda

Stella Mbabazi

Fisheries Ecosystems Laboratory (LabPesq), Oceanographic Institute, University of São Paulo (USP), Brazil - Praça do Oceanográfico, 11 - sala 107 - Cidade Universitária, São Paulo (SP), Brazil

Mariana S. L. Martins

Institute of Fisheries Policy and Development Studies, College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of the Philippines Visayas, 5023, Miagao, Iloilo, Philippines

Anne Brigette B. Ledesma

Environmental and Conservation Sciences, College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Murdoch University, 90 South St, Murdoch, WA, 6150, Australia

Clara Obregón

Harry Butler Institute, Murdoch University, 90 South St, Murdoch, WA, 6150, Australia

School of Geography and Environmental Sciences, Ulster University, Cromore Rd, Coleraine, BT52 1SA, UK

Chepkemboi K. Labatt

Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute-KMFRI, Ocean and Coastal Systems, PO Box 81651-80100, Mombasa, Kenya

Department of Marine Science, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand

Michael Heldsinger

RPS Group, Oceans and Coastal Sector, Level 2/27-31 Troode St, West Perth, WA, 6005, Australia

Department of Biological Sciences, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

Jessica L. Fuller

Programa de Doctorado en Ciencias con mención en Manejo de Recursos Acuáticos Renovables, Departamento de Oceanografía, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción, Chile

Milagros Franco-Meléndez

Centro de Investigación Oceanográfica COPAS-Sur Austral, EPOMAR, Departamento de Oceanografía, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción, Chile

Centre for Functional Biodiversity, School of Life Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

Matthew J. Burnett

School of Science, Technology and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLD, Australia

Jessica A. Bolin

Charles Darwin Research Station, Charles Darwin Foundation, Puerto Ayora, Galápagos Islands, Ecuador

Solange Andrade-Vera

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth A. Nyboer .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests in the publication of this work.

Data availability

No new data were generated for this study.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

1. List of countries where workshop participants live and/or conduct research

2. Summaries of participants' responses to the online Google Forms presented during the workshop.

Discussion Question 1: Based on your experience as an ECR, what do you believe are key goals for TFR in the future? Think about intellectual challenges and important areas of future research to guide the field and to produce knowledge that is important for sustainable fishery systems.

Include transdisciplinary perspectives during all stages of research

Engage with diverse stakeholders to understand non-academic needs, concerns, and requirements.

Co-design and co-produce studies with all relevant stakeholders, rights holders, and decision makers.

Engage with fisheries as socio-ecological systems for a holistic approach to finding solutions.

Ensure fisheries research is inclusive, relevant, and equitable

Consider social context and potential socio-environmental and/or intersectoral conflicts.

Addresses inequalities and empower marginalized and/or vulnerable groups.

Engage in bias recognition and reduction at both individual and institutional levels.

Ensure research itself is not part of the problem (i.e., research does not exclude marginalized voices).

Ensure fisheries research is impactful, solution oriented, and transformative

Implement transdisciplinary fisheries research within management (i.e., government agencies).

Build trust with stakeholders and rights holders (example: sign non-disclosure agreements).

Paying specific attention to the concrete on-the-ground research impacts; people on the ground should be assessing impact.

Improve and promote communication between researchers, policy makers, and fisheries managers

Include communication with policy/decision makers during postgraduate training.

Encourage alternative communication formats (i.e., policy briefs, infographics) that are more targeted for management, practitioners, and policy makers.

Discussion Question 2 : What are some challenges faced by ECRs working in transdisciplinary settings? How can these barriers be overcome? For each challenge, please identify a possible solution.

Institutional inertia and barriers lead to lack of support for transdisciplinary research

Facilitate access for ECRs to transdisciplinary mentors.

Provide more financial support for ECRs in transdisciplinary research.

Improve opportunities for interdisciplinary education at universities and in professional development settings.

Lack of opportunity for skill development to engage in transdisciplinary research

Create more mentoring programs for transdisciplinary research in universities and beyond.

Ensure opportunities for ECRs to engage with end-users, policy makers, stakeholders, and rights holders.

Provide ECRs training in facilitation and negotiation, interpersonal skills, stakeholder engagement, policy

Lack of funding opportunities and recognition for transdisciplinary research

Incentivize transdisciplinary fisheries research through grants, awards, recognition schemes, job opportunities; but exercise caution around attracting shallow attempts at these approaches.

De-emphasize disciplinary metrics of evaluation.

Ensure alternative metrics for measuring ‘success’ amongst ECRs.

Acknowledge the extra time required to understand multiple discipline and knowledge structures, and to engage in co-production.

Lack of transdisciplinary networks for ECRs

Encourage networking through transdisciplinary conferences and other activities.

Share transdisciplinary research opportunities more widely with ECRs.

Create regional/global collaborative networks that mobilize ECR research and outputs and amplify younger researcher voices.

Recognizing who can contribute in these settings vs. who doesn’t have access; how do we build the network out in equitable ways?

Link to categorized Mural board

https://app.mural.co/invitation/mural/wfc2021ecrworkshop0407/1631924266000?sender=uc9876a0592cbf094c3530448&key=afa22fdc-49d2-43bc-880a-91dfa8012031

1. Embody transdisciplinary approaches during all stages of research

dismantle traditional disciplinary and institutional silos

co-create new knowledge

novel alliances and collaborations

1.1 Engage with fisheries as socio-ecological systems for a holistic approach to finding solutions.

push to appreciate social science findings

ensure qualitative data is collected properly

understand the sociocultural contexts

1.2 Co-design and co-produce studies with all relevant stakeholders, rights holders, and decision makers.

include bottom-up communication

encourage new ways of listening

communication and collaboration

build trust

don’t make assumptions about what is important to stakeholder

2. Ensure fisheries research is inclusive (legitimate), relevant (salient), credible, and equitable

1.1 Understand non-academic concerns.

social context

socio-environmental and/or intersectoral conflicts

1.2 Address inequalities and empower marginalized and/or vulnerable groups

bias recognition and reduction

methods used do not exclude marginalized voices

non-tokenistic

3. Ensure fisheries research is impactful, solution oriented, and transformative

3.1 Define goals through co-development

collaborative problem identification

ensure knowledge translation

3.2 Build trust with stakeholders and rights holders

4. Consistently and clearly communicate with policy makers, fisheries managers, governing bodies, communities, and all other relevant stakeholder groups

4.1 Communicate science to the public, to policy makers, managers, stakeholders

4.2 Develop alternative communication formats

re-envision research outputs

encourage engagement

B. CHALLENGES/BARRIERS

1. Institutional inertia and barriers

1.1 Academic isolation – don’t fit in anywhere

Bullet Bullet no clear departmental home

1.2 Mismatch between institutional (university) ambition and support

universities don’t have structures in place

limits on advisory committee makeup

institutional incentives for fast, low-risk project

1.2 Individualism and individual glory promoted

PIs and authors on papers must be individuals and not community groups

difficult to come into community contexts and not seem self-serving

1.3 Disciplinary norms within fisheries

favours quantitative approaches

inherent condescension within the academy towards non-academics

academic innovation of TD approaches questioned

1.4 Lack of funding opportunities (ambition mismatch, like universities)

difficulties finding grants

lack of funding allocated for project scoping and communication

lack of equitable funding for global south vs. global north

1.5 Lack of transdisciplinary networks for ECRs

lack of support network

struggles to connect and collaborate

Lack of recognition for the time and emotional labour

2.1 Longer timescales required to allow for integration and trust relationships with communities

little support for low-campus-residency models

Acknowledging the extra time required for funding and degree requirements

2.2 Metrics for valuing TDFR are not oriented in a way that facilitates good process

2.3 Emotional labour and energy required

Bullet relationship building and conflicts with a community group stakeholder

2.4 Pressure of having to know all disciplines

Lack of mentorship and few opportunities for development of skills

3.1 Knowledge translation workshop facilitation, community engagement

communication issues

communication suggestions

3.2 How to do research with impact; ‘best practices’ guides not available.

buzzwords – how to enact them

3.3 Extra work / burden of having to unlearn institutional structures/norm

3.4 Need to self-advocate

4. Other struggles

4.1 Disconnect between expectations felt by ECRs and perceived support

4.2 Mental health in terms of security and job security

lack of space for ECR voices

wo rse for minority groups

C. HOW TO ACHIEVE GOALS

1. Be self-reflexive and honest in the research process

honest and transparent about our methods,

self reflexive

positionality

equity and humility

develop shared languages

2. Be open minded and adaptable

willing to evolve

accept that you might never reach consensus -

shift norms within academic systems to transition towards locally led research

continual feedback and communication at each point.

3. Be solution oriented

actionable change that can implemented on the ground

focus stakeholder needs and requirements

documenting and sharing how we do TDFR

align goals with longer term projects

4. Communicate in ways that are sensitive across culture and sector

ask partners how they would like the research to be communicated

D. ACTIONS TO LOWER BARRIERS

1. Build up mentorship network (ECR)

initiate co-mentorship or peer-mentorship

networking through conferences

community mentorship

develop a best practices guide.

communicate social processes and methods used in TFR

Reforming fisheries education

2. Be available for good mentorship (Senior)

facilitate access to transdisciplinary mentors

create opportunities for ECRs to engage with non-academic partners

training in facilitation and negotiation

stakeholder engagement skills

3. Allow junior voices to be heard (Senior)

we must be problem solvers

lack of opportunity to make those changes.

4. Be willing to critique academic superiority (institution)

critique individualism

not everything is there to be studied

deconstructing academia is innovation

5. Build functional education and mentorship programs (institution)

mentoring programs for transdisciplinary research

improve opportunities for transdisciplinary learning

reform fisheries education towards more practical frameworks.

incentivize TD projects

ensure adequate mentorship.

build institutional flexibility to amplify marginalized

6. Support all parts of TFR (institution)

formal recognition of the time it takes

financial support for ECRs in TFR

grants, awards, recognition schemes

financial support for knowledge exchange

strategic funding opportunities for the global south

7. New ways of measuring impact

promote, appreciate, value

de-emphasize disciplinary metrics

value engagement

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Nyboer, E.A., Reid, A.J., Jeanson, A.L. et al. Goals, challenges, and next steps in transdisciplinary fisheries research: perspectives and experiences from early-career researchers. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 33 , 349–374 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-022-09719-6

Download citation

Received : 11 January 2022

Accepted : 08 July 2022

Published : 05 August 2022

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-022-09719-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Social-ecological systems
• Sustainability
• Knowledge transformation
• Co-production
• Institutions

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Journal Menu

• Fishes Home
• Aims & Scope
• Editorial Board
• Reviewer Board
• Topical Advisory Panel
• Instructions for Authors
• Special Issues
• Sections & Collections
• Article Processing Charge
• Indexing & Archiving
• Editor’s Choice Articles
• Most Cited & Viewed
• Journal Statistics
• Journal History
• Journal Awards
• Society Collaborations
• Editorial Office

Journal Browser

• arrow_forward_ios Forthcoming issue arrow_forward_ios Current issue
• Vol. 9 (2024)
• Vol. 8 (2023)
• Vol. 7 (2022)
• Vol. 6 (2021)
• Vol. 5 (2020)
• Vol. 4 (2019)
• Vol. 3 (2018)
• Vol. 2 (2017)
• Vol. 1 (2016)

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

Assessment and Management of Fishery Resources

Special issue editors, special issue information.

• Published Papers

A special issue of Fishes (ISSN 2410-3888). This special issue belongs to the section " Fishery Economics, Policy, and Management ".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 31 August 2024 | Viewed by 1401

Share This Special Issue

Dear Colleagues,

Fishery resources are important part of marine resources, which are of great significance to the survival and development of human beings. Fishery resources provide a rich source of food for human beings and play an important role in maintaining ecological balance and protecting biodiversity. Therefore, it is of great significance to study fishery resources.

The purpose of this Special Issue is to collect manuscripts on the analysis and research of fishery resources, including but not limited to the following aspects: (1) stock assessment using different methods, including acoustic assessment, model assessment, stock assessment based on big data, and stock assessment with data loss; (2) research on the relationship between fishery resources and ecological environment and the related fishery resources protection measures; (3) research on the economic value of fishery resources and fishery policies; (4) interdisciplinary research in multiple fields such as biology, ecology, and environmental science focusing on fishery resources; and (5) research on the safety of fishery resources and the quality and safety of fishery products.

Dr. Yuan Li Dr. Chongliang Zhang Prof. Dr. Xuefeng Wang Dr. Kui Zhang Dr. Zengguang Li Guest Editors

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website . Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form . Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Fishes is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

• fishery resources
• stock assessment
• fishery policies
• marine biodiversity
• big data computing
• fisheries conservation

Published Papers (2 papers)

Graphical abstract

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

New research details economic, nutritional impact of global recreational inland fishing

A new paper explores the critical role that inland recreational fisheries play in providing affordable nutrition, and how climate change threatens that access.

• David Fleming

11 Jun 2024

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Copy address link to clipboard

It is a sight of summer: Along the banks of rivers and streams throughout Virginia, recreational fishers will cast lines into the water, hoping that a fish will take the bait. In urban towns and cities such as Roanoke or Charlottesville, the same lines dangle from bridges or freshwater wharfs.

All of these activities are currently catagorized as "recreational fishing," but for many fishers in the U.S. and around the world, the act of fishing in freshwater is not a leisurely pursuit but a way to provide critical sustenance and nutrition for individuals, families, and communities.

An expansive new paper, co-authored by Assistant Professor Elizabeth Nyboer of the College of Natural Resources and Environment and published in the journal Nature Food , reveals the underrecognized extent that inland recreational fisheries provide food and nutrition to people as well as offers insight on their vulnerability to future climate challenges.

Nyboer collaborated on the project with numerous researchers and agencies, including lead author Abigail Lynch of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Climate Adaptation Center, Holly Embke of the USGS Midwest Climate Adaptation Center, and Louisa Wood of the University of Portsmouth.

“The most impactful finding of this paper is putting, for the first time, an actual number behind how many recreationally caught freshwater fish are being eaten and quantifying their nutritional and economic contributions on a global scale,” said Nyboer. “Our data shows that recreational fishing contributes 11.3 percent of the overall freshwater fish catch worldwide.”

That percentage – which allows researchers to estimate the total consumption value of global inland recreational fishing is $9.95 billion – challenges the notion that recreationally caught fish are of negligible consequence for nutritional and economic benefit.

“The word ‘recreational’ implies leisure, it means fun,” said Nyboer, who teaches ichthyology in the Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation . “Because of that description, recreational fisheries are not currently conceptualized or managed as a food resource, and there is very little data on the expanded role they play nutritionally, economically, and from a human science perspective. What we’re doing with this study is challenging that perspective and revealing the complex roles of inland recreational fishing on a global scale.”

From forgotten file cabinets to a global data set

To put a number to the economic and nutritional contributions of global recreational inland fishing, Nyboer utilized previous research that she conducted to develop a species-specific count of inland recreational harvests globally. That research, published in the journal Scientific Data , quantified the catch quotas for 192 species of fish across 81 countries, utilizing a range of data collection methodologies to develop a global map of consumption of recreationally caught freshwater fish.

“To collect that data, we spent hours on the phone, arranging meetings and talking to people all over the world,” said Nyboer, an affiliated faculty member of the Global Change Center . “I talked to 40 or 50 fisheries managers, boat captains, recreational fishing guides, and people in government offices to get information and data on recreational fishing in their countries.”

The data set, as Nyboer recalled, was culled from forgotten places.

“Some of the data we got was just sitting in filing cabinets that had never been digitized,” she said. “We’d get actual photographs of pieces of paper, and they’d tell us it was from a study conducted in, say, 2009. It took our team a couple of years, but we were able to assemble this really unique data set on recreational fish harvest and consumption.”

The data that the research team collected provided a critical foundation of knowledge about inland recreational fishing, demonstrating that it played a large role in the livelihoods of landlocked populations around the world and that it was possible to develop a clear vision of recreational fish harvest and consumption on a global scale.

A new framework of sustenance, instead of recreation

In the current paper, Nyboer and other participating researchers were able to develop that earlier data set further. Their efforts resulted in a global vision of inland recreational fishing that reveals the nutritional and economic values of inland fisheries across 56 countries, findings which contribute to the United Nations’ Zero Hunger Sustainable Development Goal to safeguard food security while improving nutrition.

To reflect global concerns over food access, Nyboer prefers and advocates for an alternative term – "provisional fishing" – to describe fishing activities that are done for reasons that extend beyond recreation.

“Just citing one example, urban shore angling is on the rise all over the U.S., and many of those participants are fishing to eat what they catch,” said Nyboer. “There is also often a cultural component. Many are participating because catching and consuming fish is an important part of their cultural or social identity.”

That transition, from thinking about recreational fishing as a purely leisure-based pursuit to thinking about it as multidimensional resource, is one of the shifts in thinking that Nyboer and the research group hopes to foster. A better understanding of how freshwater resources are being utilized can lead to better management of those resources.

“Going forward, one of the central questions is how can countries, governments, and communities better account for individuals who tend to get overlooked when fishing is understood through the lens of ‘recreation,’” Nyboer said. “If all of your management decisions and fishing regulations are geared to improve fishing experiences only for typical sport fishers out on boats looking to catch large fish, you might inadvertently limit or marginalize those fishing for smaller or more diverse catches from the shore.”

Nyboer said the challenges of assessing inland fishing are reflective of a tendency to sideline the experiences of certain groups.

“There is an important social justice angle to all of this research,” she said. “Globally, most of the populations who engage in what we are calling ‘provisioning fisheries’ are those in lower income brackets who tend to be excluded from any kind of decision-making or data collection processes. However, their reliance on this resource, the potential risks and benefits of their engagement, and the non-negligible number of fish being caught and consumed, are all important reasons why they shouldn’t be overlooked.”

Nyboer stresses that putting numbers – some 1.3 million tons of inland fish consumed annually, estimated to be worth approximately $9.95 billion – is a key motivator to getting governments to take notice.

“That’s why this data set is so valuable,” she said. “Often, governing bodies need numbers to allow them to put new policies into action or to better inform the decisions they make.”

A warmer planet, and new challenges

Rising temperatures present another looming challenge to inland fisheries, particularly in regions where food scarcity will be impacted significantly by climate change. In such regions, there is an urgent need to develop management plans that will protect fish populations while still providing food resources for nations and communities that are already experiencing scarcity.

To understand just how inland fisheries will be impacted by climate change, Nyboer utilized the traits of specific fish species – considering dimensions such as thermal tolerances and seasonal cues for behavior – to estimate the sensitivity and adaptive capacities of fish species around the globe.

From those data, the research group developed county-level vulnerability scores for fish consumed from recreational fisheries, with fish in Iceland, New Zealand, Denmark, and Kenya showing particularly high risks of vulnerability. The group cross-referenced that vulnerability assessment against variables that included the nutritional and economic contributions that inland recreational fishing provides to people.

Nyboer hopes that participating in collaborative research with global partners will be a catalyst for achieving a better understanding of inland recreational fisheries around the world, as well as better policies to mitigate a critical – and critically underrecognized – food resource.

“We’re working on building a global network of researchers,” said Nyboer. “There’s a lot of work happening in dispersed ways, but I get a lot of researchers reaching out to talk about how their work connects to ours, so it feels like a mass movement is building towards understanding recreational fishing in a new and more coherent way.”

Collaborating universities and agencies for this paper include the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Climate Adaption Science Center and Midwest Climate Adaptation Science Center, Carleton University (Canada), University of Portsmouth (UK), The Nature Conservancy (UK), Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, the Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (Germany), Humboldt University of Berlin (Germany), the National University of San Martin (Argentina), the University of Hull (UK), the Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research (Australia), Charles Sturt University (Australia), the Institute for Evaluations and Social Analyses (Czech Republic), Rhodes University (South Africa), the South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity, and George Mason University.

Related stories

Researchers confirm scale matters in determining vulnerability of freshwater fish to climate changes

Memories of fishers reach beyond the data

Zeke Barlow

540-231-5417

• Blacksburg, Va.
• Climate Change
• College of Natural Resources and Environment
• Complex Problems
• Conservation
• Data and Decisions
• Fish and Wildlife Conservation
• Freshwater Ecology
• Global Change Center
• Global Systems Science
• Good Health and Well-Being
• International Impact
• International Research
• Life on Land
• One Health Frontier
• Research Frontiers
• Sustainability
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Urban Natural Resources
• Virginia Tech Global Distinction
• Zero Hunger

Related Content

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

The Overfishing Problem: Natural and Social Categories in Early Twentieth-Century Fisheries Science

Gregory ferguson-cradler.

Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Lillehammer, Norway

This article looks at how fisheries biologists of the early twentieth century conceptualized and measured overfishing and attempted to make it a scientific object. Considering both theorizing and physical practices, the essay shows that categories and understandings of both the fishing industry and fisheries science were deeply and, at times, inextricably interwoven. Fish were both scientific and economic objects. The various models fisheries science used to understand the world reflected amalgamations of biological, physical, economic, and political factors. As a result, scientists had great difficulty stabilizing the concept of overfishing and many influential scholars into the 1930s even doubted the coherence of the concept. In light of recent literature in history of fisheries and environmental social sciences that critiques the infiltration of political and economic imperatives into fisheries and environmental sciences more generally, this essay highlights both how early fisheries scientists understood their field of study as the entire combination of interactions between political, economic, biological and physical factors and the work that was necessary to separate them.

Introduction

Perhaps no problem was as vexing for fisheries scientists at the turn of the twentieth century as the question of overfishing. When did overfishing occur? How could overfishing be identified? Were there different kinds of overfishing? What could be done to ameliorate it? The overfishing question was central to the new field of fisheries science and marked the fault lines around which research programs were initiated and institutions organized. While disagreements raged about the diagnosis, implications, and causes of overfishing, there seemed to be rough consensus along the lines of the definition given by Dutch fisheries scientist and senior figure in European fisheries research P. P. C. Hoek (1851–1914) in 1905: “Overfishing can be understood to be too severe fishing, and this means that more fish or better qualities of fish were taken away than natural production can replace” (Hoek 1905 , p. xiii). In an 1894 article, Friedrich Heincke (1852–1929), a German biologist, similarly defined overfishing as the condition in which pressure on a population of fish was intense enough that the yearly production of new fish decreased, leading to a constant reduction in population (Heincke 1894 ). C. G. Johannes Petersen (1860–1928), head of the Danish Biological Station, in 1903 argued simply that overfishing was a decrease in the population of fish due to human activity (Petersen 1903 ). More frequently, however, early fisheries scientists discussed overfishing broadly, assuming its general outlines while papering over disagreements on its exact meaning and implications.

The assumption of a general definition was due in no small part to the fact that the term overfishing invariably implicated descriptive and normative conceptions of both natural and social worlds: it concerned the actions and interactions of fish and humans. The result was a scientific category that arose as a hotly contested assemblage of practices and styles of reasoning across social and epistemic boundaries. Natural science, the fishing industry, political economies of fish products, and geopolitics all influenced the ways in which the concept of overfishing was articulated and where it was identified to be taking place. It is no secret that, in the words of historian Carmel Finley, “fishing [is] always about more than fish” ( 2011 , p. 81). Indeed, what would it even mean for fishing to be only about fish? Political, economic, and social interests are invariably deeply interwoven into the foundation of any sort of discussion or negotiation about fisheries. Fisheries science itself has seen the grafting and borrowing of models and assumptions from areas of knowledge as distinct as demography and insurance, economics, forestry, and physics (Smith 2007 ; Hubbard 2006 , 2013 , 2014a , b , 2018; Kingsland 1985 ).

In historical perspective, the development of fisheries science generally fits within a broader scholarship on quantification, statistics, and standardization in both history and sociology of science, and it is closely connected with the influential concepts of governmentality and high modernism . Theodore Porter ( 1995 , 2012 ) has argued that new human sciences—particularly fields related to social, administrative, and economic management—came into being in the nineteenth century, portending a new basis for organizing social life. Society was to be grounded in rational thought instead of history and custom. In the context of democratic societies with burgeoning public spheres, a kind of valueless objectivity was sought to keep mass society at bay and provide efficient administration. An allied view, although different in chronology and mechanism, is that of Michel Foucault and related arguments of James Scott focusing on apparatuses of government to manage people and resources. Foucault highlighted an early modern philosophy of government whereby principles of wise management of the family and household—the economy in its original sense—were introduced into political practice to govern (Foucault 2000 , p. 207). For Scott, eighteenth-century Prussian forestry was an example of the activity of a new sort of state that required mechanisms to survey its territory and population in ways that necessarily reduced complex, local, “thick” descriptions to synoptic, highly simplified, large-scale maps legible to an outsider. Representatives of the state thus reduced a blinding array of complexity to a small number of data points of state interest (Scott 1998 ).

In fisheries science, the drive to simplify nature by means of models devised through state-sponsored science with the goal of increasing and, indeed, maximizing catches has frequently had disastrous consequences for both humans and nature (Rozwadowski 2002 ; Cushing 1988 ; Taylor 1999 ; Bolster 2012 ; McKenzie 2010 ). Much of this literature is deeply critical of fisheries administration and postwar regimes of catch maximization and rationalization that sacrificed conservation for economic and geopolitical gains (Finley 2011 ; Hubbard 2014a , b ; Mansfield 2004 ). Much work is grouped around the topic of technocracy , showing how fisheries science over the twentieth century incorporated progressively more quantitative and statistical techniques that gave the discipline an unhealthy overconfidence in the quality of its models, with tragic results as the models could not reflect the extreme non-linear complexity of fish population dynamics (Bavington 2010 ; Finlayson 1994 ). Furthermore, fisheries biologists and economists grew increasingly into their roles as technocrats, enmeshed in state apparatuses and cultivating a sense of superiority over the technically and mathematically unenlightened. Thus, they became more and more detached from everyday experiences of citizens (Cushman 2013 ). Many scholars have also found the connection of fisheries biology with economics unfortunate, showing how economists invaded the biologists’ turf, gained supremacy, and even rewrote the biologists’ history (Hubbard 2018). Accordingly, this is believed to have blinded fisheries scientists to the “economic ideals of efficiency, conservation, and modernization [that] have shaped fisheries biology and its goals” (Hubbard 2014a , b , p. 377).

More broadly, the idea of the commodification of nature , and, recently, neo-liberalization of nature, have become motivating topics of interest within the social sciences, activism, and larger public discourses that have been sharply critical of treating nature as just another economic object to be exploited within capitalist economies (Castree 2008 ; Telasca 2017 ; Merchant 1980 ; Worster 1977 ; Sandel 2013 ; Unmüßig 2014 ; Francis II 2014 ). The largest academic discussion on this topic has taken place in geography, based on Marxian and Polanyian approaches, including theories of accumulation, fetishization, and Polanyi’s notion of “fictitious commodities”: objects treated as commodities although they are not explicitly created for the market (St. Martin and Hall-Arber 2008 ; Mansfield 2004 ). The drive to “marketize everything,” again in the deeply influential Polanyian framing, triggers a “double movement” of social organization and resistance to expanding markets (Castree 2008 , p. 144). This discussion comes frequently in response to “free-market environmentalism” that seeks to use market-based mechanisms for administration and protection of nature and natural resources, thus treating nature, according to this critique, as only of economic value (Anderson and Leal 2005 ; Andersen and Libecap 2014 ; see also Sabin 2013 ; Anker 2007 ).

Drawing on this literature, this essay focuses on the early twentieth-century history of overfishing as the key concept in the newly institutionalized discipline of fisheries biology. Fish, fisheries, and fisheries science have always already been political, economic, and social. 1 I draw on debates in Western European fisheries science, particularly those that immediately preceded and subsequently took place under the auspices of the International Committee for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), an international organization founded at the turn-of-the-century to further cooperation in marine research. Scientific, political, and economic understandings all congealed in fisheries science through specific practices, both physical as well as theoretical and analytical (Collins 1992 ; Warwick 2003 ; Shapin 2010 ). As this essay will make clear, separating biological and physical from social, economic, and political factors did not come naturally or easily.

Geopolitics, Institutions, and Epistemology

In 1894, Friedrich Heincke, director of the German Biological Station on the island of Helgoland, published one of the earliest attempts to explicitly define and measure overfishing. Continuing the discipline-building and boundary work of the previous decades, Heincke began by staking the claim of fisheries science to the issue of overfishing. The question of whether overfishing was truly occurring in the North Sea, he wrote, “can only be resolved by comprehensive and scientific methods” (Heincke 1894 , p. 1). Events of the last several decades had, he summarized, made research on overfishing vital and yet almost completely ignored. At the same time, the fishing industry on the North Sea had grown by leaps and bounds in its capacity to catch and to market fish (Heincke 1894 , p. 5).

Technological innovations had fundamentally altered supply chains of fish products and led to booming household demand. Prior to the nineteenth century, fresh fish had been available for consumption on the coast, while further inland excessive transportation costs due to spoilage made it a “diet of the lord.” Traditional methods of preservation—included drying, salting, pickling, and curing—made transportation possible, though consumption was nonetheless limited in large parts of pre-industrial inland Europe (Teuterberg 2009 , pp. 191–192). New technologies for preserving fish, as well as railroads and the means of quickly transferring the catch, made fish available to a much larger population and greatly increased demand. The canning technique of full preservation in the late nineteenth century allowed fish to be canned and retain their typical taste for up to a decade. Fresh fish could be preserved through artificial refrigeration and transported by rail quickly and cheaply to cities. The processing industry also began marketing partially prepared fish preserves that were already skinned, boned, and gutted (Teuterberg 2009 , pp. 202–206; Tereshchenko 1917 , pp. 13–14). Simultaneously, mechanization of the fishing industry had begun in the 1860s with the use of steam winches to haul up trawling nets. This allowed for nets of significantly greater dimensions to be deployed at lower depths and retrieved more quickly than those hauled up by hand. Nets that were lighter, did not entangle, and collected fish in a single cavity that could be emptied all at once rather than requiring removal of fish one-by-one, also increased capacity and cut down on required labor. By the end of the nineteenth century, many fisheries were dominated by steam-powered trawlers.

Skyrocketing demand and subsequent increased investment in fishing equipment created previously unimagined fishing capacity. The effect of this new technology on fisheries was far from certain for Heincke, though he noted that fishing communities in Helgoland were convinced that steam trawling was decimating local fisheries. This, he argued, was precisely the sort of claim that required the expertise and scientific knowledge of a newly professionalized science of fisheries. Heincke discounted the fishermen's knowledge of the seas—and their subsequent pleas for regulation of the fishing industry—in two ways. First, the distribution of the catch was unimportant to the general public weal, which was interested only in overall production. Even if it was true, as it clearly was, that small-scale fishers were harvesting smaller yields than previously, this in and of itself was of little concern. Local Helgoland residents had already largely shifted to other spheres of employment, he argued. Second, even if declining yields were occurring industry-wide, this was “by no means evidence of a reduction in overall fish stocks ( Bestände )” (Heincke 1894 , p. 7). 2 Falling yields could have two causes: natural and artificial. By natural reductions, Heincke had in mind theories of herring migration, much discussed in his time, that sought to explain the well-known historical instances of abrupt and seemingly random disappearance and reappearance of herring in the waters of northern Europe (Smith 2007 , chap. 1).

Artificial reductions were quite another thing. An increase in the numbers and capacity of predator populations could greatly reduce a population of fish. Given the fertility of fish—fisheries scientists often emphasized the ability of fish to produce untold thousands of eggs—a certain level of predation could be supported so long as a majority of fish were allowed to reach reproductive maturity. Under such conditions, a population of fish might decrease only slightly or not at all, while a similar amount of food ( Nahrungsmenge ) would simply be split up among a greater number of smaller individual fish. Danger would arise only when a sizable proportion of smaller fish was destroyed by predators such that a severely limited number reached the age of reproduction. “From here on out, the quantity of yearly-produced fry will steadily decline, which, despite the now unimpaired access to sustenance, will no longer suffice to keep the stock at its previous aggregate weight and with ever greater speed will lead toward complete destruction ( Untergang ). In our case we call this decrease in fish stocks 'overfishing '” (Heincke 1894 , p. 9).

Despite his dismissive attitude to the general public ( Jedermann ), Heincke concluded that overfishing was, indeed, taking place due to inordinate destruction of fish fry by the German and English fishing industries, especially trawling that both harvested fish of all sizes and disfigured spawning grounds. From a political-economic ( volkswirtschaftlich ) standpoint, the expansion of trawling had increased the amount of nutrition available to the population, especially in Germany. But from the perspective of a “sea economy” ( meerwirtschaftlich ), trawl fishing represented an “irrational method, that in certain areas is becoming a fishery of plunder ( Raubfischerei ) in the full sense of the word” (Heincke 1894 , pp. 11–12). He noted that what was needed were internationally coordinated regulations, which were already popular among coastal populations, especially in England, though frequently for the wrong, that is to say non-scientific, reasons (Heincke 1894 , pp. 12–14). Throughout, Heincke emphasized overfishing as a scientific category, a framing he used to devalue knowledge of laypeople and appropriate expertise and influence for trained scientists.

Politically, the time seemed propitious for an international agreement. The word overfishing had first been coined in 1854 in British research commissions (Smith 2007 , p. 117, chap. 3). By the turn of the century, it had been calqued into other languages, including German ( Überfischung), Norwegian ( overfiske), and Russian ( perelov ). 3 The meaning of the word in different languages was roughly equivalent, which is to say, up for grabs. Most of the second half of the nineteenth century had featured government commissions, newly qualified fisheries scientists, and expeditions responding to complaints from local fishing populations frequently coming to the conclusion that there were no dangers of depletion and no need for regulation. By the 1890s, however, a number of states, according to Heincke, had accepted the need to research the question, and he considered eventual regulation to be a fait accompli following general agreement on the matter in negotiations at a 1891 international fishing conference in London (Heincke 1894 , p. 2).

The next major international fisheries conference highlighted tensions between those who hewed to Heincke's notion of overfishing and others who saw in changing yields merely natural population fluctuations. The conference was convened in 1899 in Bergen, Norway, regarded by many as the “classical sea fishing country” (Decker et al. 1901 , p. 3). Germany, Denmark (including Iceland and the Faroe Islands), Russia, England and Scotland, Finland, France (including Tunisia), Belgium, Austria, Romania, the USA, Sweden, and Norway (the latter two separately, despite being still formally unified) sent representatives to what was billed as the first of many future fisheries congresses. The occasion took place in the spirit of fin-de-siècle internationalism and optimism in the power of science to promote the common good.

At the same time, the proceedings showed a fault line in the young discipline, which the German delegates Heincke, Hermann Henking (1858–1942), and W. Decker, a Hamburg fisheries official, suggested was the unspoken third rail of the conference. “The increasingly burning question of overfishing of the sea and international protective regulations disappeared almost completely into the background because Norway, due to its particular situation and its mode of fishing … occupies a wholly isolated position and has for the moment little or no interest in this question” (Decker et al. 1901 , p. 3). Indeed, the young but already dominant player in Norwegian fisheries science, Johan Hjort, spoke at the congress only of the importance of studying fluctuations and variations in yields and fish stocks in connection with environmental fluctuations such as the Brückner sunspot cycle (Brunchorst 1899 , p. 126). In the end, the German delegates suggested that the congress might have benefited from avoiding the contentious issue. The time simply had not yet arrived for an objective, dispassionate ( objektiv , leidenschaftslos ) discussion. By their count, just one delegate had so much as motioned toward the issue when he briefly touched upon it during a presentation on the English steam-powered fishing industry (Decker 1901 , pp. 4–10).

The Norwegian preference for explaining fisheries fluctuations as the result of natural cyclical variations—first in migration patterns and later in fluctuating population sizes—had begun in the 1860s with the investigations of Axel Boeck and Georg Ossian Sars on the two classic model species of Norwegian fisheries science: herring and cod. The assumption that herring migrated long distances, coupled with Sars's discovery that cod had free-floating eggs, led to the conviction that overall fish stocks must be constant. With such copious numbers of eggs produced every year in overwhelming excess of the number needed to regenerate the population, Sars argued that an identical number of fry would reach maturity every year (Schwach 2011 , pp. 35–39). Instead, it was their location that was subject to change. Later, a different cause was identified: catches were directly related to potentially large, natural changes in fish reproduction from year to year (Schwach 2011 , pp. 47–50). Explaining and predicting the causes of natural variations in fish populations remained the dominant question of Norwegian fisheries science and provided the model for management of fishing resources until the collapse of the Norwegian herring industry in 1968 initiated a reorientation of Norwegian fisheries science and management (Schwach 2011 , p. 47; Smith 2007 , pp. 11–14).

Many at the Bergen conference had called for greater international cooperation in fisheries research. As a result, a permanent body to coordinate international fisheries research, the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES), was founded in 1902. ICES was organized primarily as a body that would coordinate research and compile statistics. A short-lived central laboratory in Kristiania (Oslo), Norway, headed by well-known Norwegian scientist and explorer Fridtjof Nansen, worked to standardize measurements, methods, and scientific instruments, but ICES did not generally conduct research. While it could facilitate communication and common planning, it did not have any control over research vessels or facilities. Equipment and salaries of all but the small handful of core ICES officers were the financial responsibility of individual member states (Rozwadowski 2002 , chap. 1; Smith 2007 , chap. 4).

The organizational structure of ICES mapped onto the existing topography of theory and practice in ocean sciences. Hydrographers and biologists immediately went their separate ways and functioned in considerable isolation from one another for several decades (Rozwadowski 2002 , p. 42). Within the biological section, two main committees were formed: Committee A, chaired by Hjort, to study migrations and natural fluctuations in fish stocks, and Committee B, tasked with overfishing. There was considerable overlap in membership of the two committees, although it is notable that there were no Norwegian delegates on Committee B. The two committees were pre-programmed to provide different answers to the same question: what was the status of fish stocks and why?

Categorizing and Evidence: How to Study Fish

In his welcoming address to ICES delegates at the council's first meeting in 1902, Danish Foreign Minister Johan Deuntzer impressed upon the assembled delegates that it was time for marine science to move “from theory to practice ” (Conseil Permenant International pour l'Exploration de la Mer 1902 , p. 3). The fundamental goal of ICES was to address the practical concerns of people engaged in the economic exploitation of the seas. Since the late nineteenth century, governments both inside and outside the future ICES had increasingly looked to fisheries science for guidance in managing and exploiting fisheries. This created new impulses to theorize overfishing and to create, collect, and sort data that could be mobilized for scientific analysis. That neither theory nor data was prior to the other nor autonomous from one another will come as no surprise to historians, sociologists, and philosophers of science who have long been accustomed to notions of theory-laden data.

This section steps back from the immediate question of overfishing to look at the categories and evidence in the young science of fisheries. These were subsequently utilized in formulating notions of overfishing. Lorraine Daston has observed the difficulties of creating new categories in human populations where new statistical reference classes can only be formed if “one is first convinced that [their members] in fact possess enough commonalities to constitute a class, as opposed to a miscellany” (Daston 2008 , p. 8). Categories cannot be created willy-nilly; they must be based on some logic. Subsequently, they have consequences for how we think about and order our world. As this section will show, social practices and concepts were deeply interwoven with those taken to be objectively “scientific.” This had clear implications for the kinds of evidence accepted and the categories and theories structuring fisheries science. As shown below, there could be no referent—fish or populations of fish—that did not involve humans too.

Categories in fisheries science formed through a process of communication between scientists, the fishing industry, and consumers. In The Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, Ludwik Fleck ( 1979 ) devoted considerable attention to communication between scientific experts, amateurs, and the general public. Fleck proposed his idea of the “thought collective” as an entity in existence whenever people exchanged thoughts, thus constituting a collective that “is transient and accidental, forming and dissolving at any moment” (Fleck 1979 , p. 109). But, he also allowed that some collectives were far more stable, such as the medieval guilds. Stable thought collectives, he continued, generally consist of a small esoteric circle of experts and a larger exoteric circle surrounding it. Alternately, rather than concentric circles, constellations of thought collectives may also consist of any number of intersecting and overlapping circles. Inter-collective communication, he wrote, “always results in a change in the currency of thought” (Fleck 1979 , p. 109). A change in the meaning of words communicated between collectives was unavoidable. Deborah Coen has insightfully argued that, for Fleck, the role of exoteric thought collectives—amateurs and the general public—was of vital importance in the production of scientific knowledge and “one of the most profound and little appreciated of his insights” (Coen 2012 , p. 121). For Fleck, words and concepts were continuous but never stable in inter-collective communication and across the “gradation,” in Coen's turn of phrase, from esoteric to exoteric and the general public. Fisheries science provides the opportunity to think about communication not just between coherent thought collectives but between collectives of practice—scientists, fishermen, and participants in fishing economies.

In 1902, the first meeting of the scientific committees of ICES took place. In both Committee A and B, members moved to capitalize on the possibilities offered by ICES to construct a synoptic statistical picture of the northern European seas. Aware that the committees were yet untested and had no actual authority over the fisheries services and biological stations and vessels of the member-states, delegates of both committees made plans to use ICES as a central collection point for data. Data would be gathered in the same way as previously and forwarded to ICES to be collected by the chairperson (called the convener), with possible collation and standardization to come later. Each country would continue to use the gear and methods it had hitherto used. When Scottish representative D'Arcy Thompson suggested that an attempt be made to standardize the size and form of trawls used to collect samples, Henking and Heincke replied that this would not only be impossible but also undesirable given that “the experiments could not be ascribed any quantitative value” in the first place (Conseil Permenant International pour l'Exploration de la Mer 1902 , p. 105). The value of such unstandardized statistics seemed, for the German delegates, to reside in the “qualitative” information given in the data—sizes of individual fish, weights, market values of the fish, geographic location of the catch, and so on. Inability to directly compare German and Scottish trawling data in a quantitative way was not at this point a problem for some ICES members.

The biologists in ICES then considered how statistics should be gathered. They first drew a line between biological data and commercial data. The Overfishing Committee outlined three ways in which fisheries researchers should obtain purely biological, “scientific” data that was not based on commercial yields. The first option was scientific trawling in fishing grounds. Such trawling experiments were designed to imitate commercial trawling. Equipment on scientific fisheries vessels was to be as similar to industry standards as possible. What made trawling experiments scientific was that scientists would conduct them with more precise records taken of geographic location and environmental conditions and more reliable counts of the fish hauled. Data points not usually recorded by the industry were also to be collected. A second method was to conduct experiments, as pioneered by C.G. Johannes Petersen, at the Danish Biological Station in Kattegat, the semi-enclosed body of water between Denmark and Sweden that forms the straits between the Baltic and North Seas. By this method, attendants at biological stations caught fish, threaded a metal wire attached to an identification tag through the fish's undersides, and released them. Promise of a monetary reward was clearly indicated on the tag to encourage fishermen to return them promptly in case of capture. Fishing intensity, too, could be estimated by calculating how many released fish were caught and how quickly. Third, egg-counting methods initiated in the 1880s by Victor Hensen in Kiel could be used to make inferences about population numbers (Mills 1989 , chap. 1; Lussenhop 1974 ). Beyond these scientific methods, ICES scientists also used statistics from the fishing industry. These had the major weakness of being recorded by fishermen who lacked the rigor and precision of scientists and trained assistants and did not always use the data points that biologists sought, such as time and place of catch. On the other hand, they had the advantage of being numerous. While ICES scientists could be dismissive of data gathered by fishermen, most also recognized that industry data was essential and that the cooperation of fishermen would be needed and could generally be counted upon (Conseil Permenant International pour l'Exploration de la Mer 1902 , p. 187).

Biologists made some attempts to record industry statistics according to their own preferred scientific categories. A Scottish representative in 1903 noted that, in Scotland, statistical officers worked aboard many fishing boats to record information such as number of hours actively engaged in fishing and exact catch locations. Based on this, scientists could then create charts divided into squares of one-degree of latitude and longitude showing the abundance of fish derived from catches and total fishing time. Such detailed mapping, however, involved a statistical officer making separate inscriptions on top of industry data and was more expensive than most fisheries research institutions could afford. Henking reported that he too had attempted this but had given up making such geographically accurate charts. Instead, he found it more expedient to return to the usual practices of making charts divided into the geographical categories known and used by fishermen (Conseil Permenant International pour l'Exploration de la Mer 1902 , pp. 107–108).

Much more frequently, industry data were translated or simply imported wholesale into the biologists’ statistics. Fundamental categories were sometimes adopted from the fish trade with little debate. Length, for instance, was recorded by industry according to market categories—small, medium, and large. These categories were widely used in fisheries science as well. When these categories changed in Britain in the first decade of the twentieth century, and the category of extra small was included in market prices, commercial statistics duly reflected the change. Writing an article on statistical analysis several years later, Bjørn Helland-Hansen, a mathematically-inclined oceanographer assisting with biological statistics, prefaced his study by clarifying that he was only dealing with biological statistics, that is, data gathered on fisheries research vessels, not trade data. But while his length data were all in centimeters, he calculated the market sizes, including the new extra small size, and used the market categories throughout his presentation and analysis of the statistics, thus importing and translating scientific data into commercial categories (Helland-Hansen 1909 ). Clearly, many seeking a scientific approach to fisheries still thought in the categories of the fisheries industry.

Scientists were aware of the different categories of data and were often intent on keeping them separate. There was, nonetheless, a considerable gray area between the two, and it was not always easy to say if a certain category was a scientific or industry standard. At the first meeting of ICES in 1903, delegates worked through the implications of size-divisions that scientists had inherited from industry. Heincke noted that in Germany the commercial sizing distinctions essentially coincided with the biological distinction between sexually mature and immature fish. Dutch delegate and ICES General Secretary Hoek disagreed; it appeared to him that the committee was conflating two very separate categories and things, “the immature fish of the biologist and the undersized fish of the fisherman” (Conseil Permenant International pour l'Exploration de la Mer 1903 , p. 135). The committee chair and coordinator of the statistical collation effort, Walter Garstang of Great Britain, quickly replied that he “was of the opinion that the study of the two problems could practically not be separated” (Conseil Permenant International pour l'Exploration de la Mer 1903 , p. 135). For Garstang, one of the most senior members of the committee, this most important of markers in the life cycle of fish—the threshold of maturity and marketability—simply could not be disentangled into scientific and industry categories. It was indelibly both.

Thus, commercial and biological data and categories intermingled virtually inseparably in the early decades of fisheries science. Even those who did not want to use industry data found it impossible to ignore completely. Others thought the task of disentangling them was impossible, while still others believed using commercial and political categories would be beneficial to producing worthwhile knowledge.

What is Overfishing?

In ICES's first year of existence, Committee B member and Danish Biological Station head Petersen published an article descriptively and provocatively called “What is Overfishing?” in a British fisheries journal. The paper set up the following hypothetical situation. Imagine, Petersen wrote, a biologically self-contained area of sea in which statistics suggest the value of a total yearly catch is decreasing with every year. Fishing intensity and price of commodities remain unchanged. The physical conditions have remained constant, or at least not changed unfavorably. If the decrease in yields can be ascribed to humans, he wrote, overfishing is taking place. Take, then, another “hypothetical,” that will be called fish “P” (whose characteristics just happened to be identical to the Kattegat plaice). As has been observed with plaice, the total yields and average length of “P” have been decreasing yearly. Is overfishing occurring? It depends. Perhaps this was due to newly initiated fishing of accumulated stocks that had not been hitherto subjected to industry. “Annual decreasing catch is not strictly an example of over-fishing, at any rate it is only an exceptional kind of overfishing, which is inevitable, and to some degree desirable,” he argued (Petersen 1903 , p. 588). But there were three other kinds of possible, less-desirable overfishing: overexploitation of mature fish that impaired reproduction at stable levels, fishing that reduced the overall size of fish such that they were no longer “sufficiently saleable,” and the destruction of immature fish, which had no market value in any case, as the by-catch of another industry (Petersen 1903 , p. 591). Market conditions and prices were central and essential to the analysis; without them, the entire concept lacked coherence. Further, overfishing was not inherently bad or good; it was both unavoidable and sometimes desirable that such fishing happen (Fig.  1 ).

Petersen’s graphic model of fish populations based on length (on the horizontal axis), population size (on the vertical axis), with size dividing mature and immature fish clearly marked (Petersen 1903 , p. 595)

Another approach to the overfishing problem came in an article authored a year later by a young British biologist Harry Kyle. Like Petersen and Heincke, Kyle sought to disentangle the question of overfishing from that of decreasing yields. Just as decreasing yields do not indicate overfishing, overfishing could be present, he argued, even during periods of increasing yields. Kyle's major argument, however, was to focus on overfishing as a “practical and economic problem, which has to be measured not in terms of quantity but in terms of value, i.e., of the capital employed and income earned” (Kyle 1905 , p. 4). His study was squarely based on statistics in hand rather than Petersen's studiously maintained hypothetical. The statistics that he was most interested in were those with monetary value of the fish built-in—not the total catch per boat per day but rather total value of catch per day. The question depended on “the most economical boat, gear, mode of working as well as the demand for fish in the country” (Kyle 1905 , p. 15). Kyle's version of overfishing was not directly linked to populations of stocks or yields but was a relationship of the quality (understood as size expressed in either weight or length of individual fish) and quantity of aggregate yield in market prices. Theoretically, he suggested, one could mathematically measure precisely when overfishing began, but this calculation would have to be constantly updated to track changing market prices for fish. In short, overfishing could be said to be present “when the average catch had so diminished all around that it no longer paid the fishermen to work” (Kyle 1905 , p. 15).

Kyle then sought to mediate between varying arguments as to whether the Kattegat plaice fishery was in decline. To do this, he separated “the overfishing aspect” from the “biological or scientific aspects of the matter,” which is to say the population dynamics of fish stocks (Kyle 1905 , p. 20). Evaluating a claim of Petersen's that the Kattegat plaice fishery had reached its peak in the 1890s and had been declining ever since, he cross-tabulated total plaice yields of the previous decade with average prices per kilogram to calculate total yields of plaice by weight. The complications of making such calculations were numerous: the exact origin of the catch was not always clear, plaice statistics might include a small and variable portion of other fish, and so on. For the Danish side (Kattegat is a shared fishing ground between Denmark and Sweden), the total yield was obtained in Danish kroner, which then had to be converted into weight. Average historical conversion factors, however, were available to convert only between value in Danish kroner and quantity, not average or total weight. Another set of historical conversion factors was needed to convert length to weight because the average weight had been decreasing—from 7.5 kg per score of fish in 1889 to 6.25 kg in 1903. Each conversion contained considerable uncertainty. His conclusion was that the size of fish had decreased, prices had increased, and fishing had intensified, but total yearly yields in weight remained constant. There was a difference, then, between depletion of fish stocks (a biological measure) and overfishing (a biological/socio-economic category). One did not necessarily imply the other. Here, depletion had not happened—aggregate yields remained steady. Was this a case of overfishing? “In the case of the Kattegat plaice fishery, it may be said, that the amount of fishing has been practically overfishing, or at least within the borders of overfishing, for a number of years. In other words, overfishing may result in the decrease of fish and a cessation of a fishery, or it may not” (Kyle 1905 , p. 24). Overfishing was, at best, a notion of considerable plasticity.

Added to the amorphousness of the concept of overfishing, Kyle suggested that even a fishery that was not being overfished might be irrationally managed. Large plaice were worth some three times more per unit of weight than were small plaice. In this case, why not harvest the same aggregate weight in only large fish? Furthermore, he argued that it was precisely the increase in fishing that led to a decrease in size and, thus, a further decrease in cost of small fish. Why increase fishing effort only to drive down the price? This was “doubly irrational” (Kyle 1905 , p. 58). Far from their seemingly stable definitions, in practice overfishing and rational fishing were moving targets. Fisheries scientists agreed on some, but not all, factors that needed to be considered to account for overfishing. Different people privileged different indicators, statistics, and theoretical constructions.

Since the first meeting of Committee B on overfishing, several delegates to ICES had noted the concern of their governments that focusing on overfishing was unlikely to lead to practical solutions to declining yields. Hoek noted that the Dutch government was uneasy about the committee for this very reason, while Henking denounced the “impracticality ( Unzweckmässigkeit ) of the unfortunately overused word 'overfishing'” (Conseil Permenant International pour l'Exploration de la Mer 1903 , p. 135). Both suggested that, in the context of ICES, the overfishing question was not the right one to ask. In the following years, other voices joined in the chorus that overfishing was simply too complex. In addition to this was the practical political problem of funding. ICES had formed for a provisional three years, after which member governments expected to see practical results. Delegates on the Committee decided that it would be wise to shift the stated goal of the Committee to a topic in which obvious progress could be made in a short period of time. The Overfishing Committee became the Plaice Committee.

There was also a split in the ICES bureaucracy between those privileging big commercial data sets and the smaller, but presumably more accurate and reliable, data created by trawling experiments, tagging, and egg counting. Again, this was a preference that had intertwined economic, political, and scientific aspects and implications. Those like Petersen—the majority in Committee B—preferred “scientific” data. Indeed, while Committee B had initially been responsible for collecting trade statistics, this duty had been spun off to the ICES Bureau, the permanent staff of the Council, consisting of the President, Vice-President, General-Secretary, and scientific staff: the physicist-hydrographer Martin Knudsen and biologist Kyle. Kyle was also a member of Committee B as a delegate from the UK. In 1907, delegates of this committee announced that they had collected a sizable portion of “scientific” data resulting from a relatively new method of determining the age of fish—counting the calcified rings of the otolith, a bone in the inner ear of fish, just as one would count the rings of a tree. Heincke announced that he had compiled data from over 6000 otolith readings, a particularly large sample. Kyle argued that such data should be curated by the Bureau rather than Committee B, given that the Bureau specialized in methods of investigation dealing mathematically with large sets of data. This finding was swiftly dismissed by committee chair Garstang, who significantly out-ranked Kyle, and a compromise position was reached that the data would be shared by the Bureau and the committee (Conseil Permenant International pour l'Exploration de la Mer 1906 , p. 22). But behind this quick compromise stood a fuzzy and negotiable boundary, bureaucratic and epistemic, on who would administer what sort of data.

Looking back in 1928 on the first years of ICES, Kyle argued that only large data sets gathered from across ICES and recorded in standardized format could have led to definitive answers to the overfishing problem. He recounted how, when ICES was founded, biologists preferred to work in small areas on strictly delineated problems, and “the wide synoptic view which international statistics give was foreign and unreliable” (Kyle 1928 , p. 1). After a year-long effort that culminated in a statistical compilation by Hoek and himself in 1905, Kyle claimed that biologists were at last convinced that statistics could and should be the single-most important part of international cooperation. However, since that time, international efforts to collect comparable cross-country statistics, including average weight and place of catch, had failed. Moreover, statistical summaries reported by individual countries had declined in quality, demonstrating that biologists once again doubted the power of international statistics to solve major problems in fisheries science. Kyle recounted in detail the failure of the ICES central bureau to coordinate an international effort to measure fish in fish markets in an attempt to discern if average size of caught fish was decreasing, a key data point in the overfishing question. In Kyle’s telling, the blame lay squarely on England for refusing to participate (Kyle 1928 , pp. 1–4). Disregarding the subjective nature of this account, it testifies clearly to the continuing tension in fisheries science over what constituted useful and practical evidence.

By the late 1920s, the problem of overfishing seemed to have been reconsidered and rearticulated as not so much the guiding question of fisheries science, but as simply the outcome of irrational management of fisheries. Earlier scientists had called attention to decreases in numbers of large fish in yields, in total yields, in sizes of average catch per boat per outing, or pointed to other supposed indicators of overfishing. By 1928, Kyle argued, a second phase had begun. The last decades had shown that levels of fishing had remained roughly similar, even after greatly reduced exploitation during the war. This did not seem like overfishing. “Clearly, the word also contains a hidden bias, which hinders the calm, non-partisan consideration of past events. In fact, we should more properly speak of fisheries of greater or lesser intensity and study the consequences comparatively” (Kyle 1928 , p. 29). Overfishing, for Kyle, was not the right category of analysis at all; instead, he seemed to be suggesting something akin to the collective strategy of the 1899 Bergen conference, where overfishing as an explicit topic was taken off the table, allowing agreement and discussion over other issues to proceed.

Finally, Kyle tackled a perennial problem in the plaice fishery: the problem of the small plaice, notably the same pivot made by ICES several decades prior. In an analysis bolstered by, but not dependent on, statistics, Kyle considered numerous data points and multiple possible explanations before reaching a detailed conclusion to the problem, based on both quantitative and qualitative evidence, and suggesting measures for amelioration. Twenty-five years earlier he had suggested that, theoretically, overfishing, at least in a biological sense, could be calculated using a handful of the most important fishing statistics. By 1928, while ruing the lack of statistical data, he was considerably more skeptical that natural processes could be reduced to a few numbers.

A different conclusion, albeit using an allied approach, was forwarded by E. S. Russell, a Scottish fisheries scientist active in ICES who would later become a significant philosopher of biology known for holism and support for Lamarckian genetics (Graham 1954 ; Roll-Hansen 1984 ). In an influential 1931 article entitled “The Overfishing Problem,” Russell, like Kyle, highlighted the extremely complex and variable conditions that must be considered in a discussion of overfishing. His, too, was to be a non-mathematical description of the problem. “It is my aim here,” he wrote, “to formulate in a simplified and general way, and without mathematical treatment, the broad facts of the case, to state in simple language those elementary principles that are at the back of everyone's mind who deals with the problem of the rational exploitation of fisheries” (Russell 1931 , p. 3).

Russell approached a fishery through the lens of accounting. He began with a simple hypothetical model of an ideal fishery. Consider, he posited, a self-contained stock of fish of a particular species and population forming an exploited fishery. Fish bigger than length l would be caught by fishing nets. What, he asked, would occur to the total weight of catchable stock S over one year of fishing? He duly divided the changes into “credit” and “debt” sides of a balance sheet. The total weight of all young fish surpassing length l (denoted by the variable A ) would be one source of credit. The catchable stock not caught during the year would continue to grow, adding G amount of total weight to the stock. On the debt side, the total weight of all fish caught ( C ) would need to be subtracted, as would the weight of all fish dying from other causes ( M ). The total weight of the fishery S 2 would be: S 2  =  S 1  + ( A  +  G ) − ( C  +  M ). “We start with working capital S 1 ; to this is added in the course of a year ( A  +  G ), and from it taken away ( C  +  M ). At the end of the year our working capital is S 2 , which will be greater than, equal to, or less than S 1 , according as income ( A  +  G ) has exceeded, equaled or fallen below expenditure ( C  +  M )” (Russell 1931 , pp. 9–10). Though expressed in terms of an accountant, such a presentation was not intended as a means for actually modeling a fishery but as a tool to think about natural resource use. The equation suggested the type of “thin,” synoptic description of high modernism discussed by Theodore Porter ( 2012 ), but every variable was “thickly” described—at length and in individual detail. Russell used this balance sheet to elucidate his understanding of rational exploitation. The aim of a rational fishery, he argued, was to maximize the annual yield (income) in a way that did not decrease carryover of capital from year to year. This was a financial view of nature, but with aggressively conservationist implications.

In her 1966 book Models and Analogies in Science, Mary Hesse argued that models and metaphors are fundamental to the process of scientific cognition. They connect systems or objects that have some shared traits (de Chadarevian and Hopwood 2004 ). Metaphors and models are made up of positive, negative, and neutral analogies: positive analogies are properties of the model known to correspond to observed entities (the “real” world), negative analogies are those that are known not to correspond, and neutral analogies are properties of the model about which not enough is known to posit their existence or absence in the world. For Hesse, the real power of models is in the neutral analogies, which can be productive by pushing scientists to explore their object of analysis in ways that might or might not hold (Hesse 1966 ). In fisheries science, however, the financial and economic metaphors were deeper than this. Interest on capital might have been a neutral analogy to the production of new biomass from a stock of fish. But this was more than simply an analogy because, for many, fish were in fact capital. This is perhaps why banking and balance-sheet accounting proved to be such resilient metaphors in fisheries science. It is also worth noting that precisely these metaphors were models for the most conservative and conservationist approaches to fisheries management. As observers of environmental science and administration, science studies scholars and environmental social scientists and humanists must be aware of both the creative flexibility and new perspectives models afford, as well as the dangers of complete or one-sided unbalanced monetization and utilitarianism.

In focusing on the practices of early fisheries scientists as they struggled toward a coherent concept of overfishing, this essay has emphasized the indelible interconnections between science, industry, and the market for fish products. How data was collected, what data was collected, how overfishing was theorized, and how fisheries were modeled were all assemblages of practice communicated across socio-epistemic boundaries. Statistically inclined biologists disagreed with field biologists about what sort of data constituted useful evidence. The concept of overfishing, too, was malleable beneath the most general notion that overfishing represented some sort of decrease in fisheries. What sort of decrease—in stocks, yields, monetary values, or profits—was still up in the air, although by the 1920s and 1930s scientists from across Europe, in both capitalist and socialist economies, increasingly attempted to crack the overfishing nut in terms of profit-maximizing rationality.

Much of the literature in environmental social sciences and humanities bemoans the infiltration of the political and economic imperatives into fisheries and environmental science and conceptions of nature more broadly. Whether it is the abstract mathematical models of population biology and fisheries economics, the prestige of academic economists, or geopolitical considerations, numerous scholars have depicted postwar fisheries and environmental sciences as being won over by technocracy and strictly economic conceptualizations of rational resource management. Economics and politics came to be prioritized over biology. Focusing on the first part of the twentieth century, this essay suggests that the distinction between these two domains—at the level of concept, modeling, and data collection—was, at best, murky for early fisheries biologists. Fish were—and are—both natural, biological beings and economically valuable potential assets. To that extent, attempts to push economics and politics out of fisheries biology for the sake of purely biological conservation models is to argue for a purity of fisheries along the lines of the concept of “wilderness” influentially critiqued by Cronan ( 1996 ) and White ( 1996 ). Just as this is not to deny that the natural world has value outside of its human utility, so too is it to recognize that as long as Homo sapiens have walked the Earth, they have been a component part of it. It seems reasonable that the models of fisheries science would, and should, reflect the biological, physical, economic, and political.

This account invites science studies scholars who examine fisheries to drill down and examine at a deeper level how these are infused in the practices, both physical and mental, of the science, and how scientific categories and objects are constituted and reconstituted. This entails a deeper and more explicit understanding of the models in use and how they are constructed and mobilized. There can be no final right answer in what the right measure of science, politics, economics, and social considerations should be in fisheries models. They reflect changing natural and social realities and norms. In the end, perhaps this is the crux of the matter. The categories and concepts of our present world are deeply ingrained in fisheries science. To reimagine economies and fisheries in a more equitable, conservationist, community-based, or democratic manner—an abiding and no doubt worthwhile goal—will take a science of fisheries that fully combines the study of the interactions between the physical, biological, and human worlds.

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank the participants of the Program Seminar in History of Science at Princeton University for extensive and helpful critique of an early version of this article, Michael Gordin for typically detailed and insightful comments, and two anonymous reviewers who significantly improved the argument and style of this essay.

Open Access funding provided by Inland Norway University Of Applied Sciences.

Declarations

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

1 In some sense, fishers, fisheries scientists, and administrators have long been aware of this. The word fishery as used by actors in this paper through the present usually denotes both a group of fish and the humans who harvest them delimited by some mix of geography, biological characteristics, and means of human exploitation or human use. It inherently involves both fish and humans, rather than simply a population—or stock—of fish, on the one hand, or just fishers, the fishing industry, and fish producers, on the other. I retain this usage here. McEvoy ( 1990 ) and Bavington ( 2010 ) are two of the best works of scholarship treating fishing from all these angles.

2 The concept of a stock is also one with a history. Similar and at times interchangeable with the concept of population, according to Sinclair and Solemdal ( 1988 ), “stock” also included emergent concepts of different races of fish, although this aspect goes unanalyzed there. Twenty-first century fisheries biologists credit Heincke for the first use of “stock” to refer to subgroups of a species possessing different physical traits (Booke 1999 ). Here, too, linguistic differences pointed in different directions. The German Bestand suggesting both inventory—along the lines of the English—as well as, in its financial meaning, portfolio , rather than individual share as in the English. To select just one more example, the Russian zapas (reserve) also has financial meaning, among others. For more on the history of the concept, see Bavington ( 2010 ) and for general remarks Telesca ( 2017 ).

3 In the diplomatic French used at international conferences and in multi-national documents, it remained, however, la diminuition du rendement de la pêche.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Anderson Terry, Leal Donald. Free Market Environmentalism for the Next Generation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson Terry, Libecap Gary. Environmental Markets: A Property Rights Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anker Peder. Science as a Vacation: A History of Ecology in Norway. History of Science. 2007; 45 (4):455–479. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bavington Dean. Managed Annihilation: An Unnatural History of the Newfoundland Cod Collapse. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bolster Jeffrey. The Mortal Sea: Fishing the Atlantic in the Age of Sail. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Booke Henry E. The Stock Concept Revisited: Perspectives on its History in Fisheries. Fisheries Research. 1999; 43 (1–3):9–11. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brunchorst, Jørgen, ed. 1899. Beretning om den Internationale Fiskerikongres i Bergen . Bergen: John Griegs Bogtrykkeri.
• Castree Noel. Neoliberalising Nature: The Logics of Deregulation and Reregulation. Environment and Planning A. 2008; 40 :131–152. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coen Deborah. Rise, Grubenhund : On Provincializing Kuhn. Modern Intellectual History. 2012; 9 (1):109–126. [ Google Scholar ]
• Collins Harry. Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. Chicago, IL, IL: University of Chicago, IL Press; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conseil Permenant International pour l'Exploration de la Mer . Procès-Verbeaux des Réunion. Copenhagen: Prèmiere Réunion; 1902. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conseil Permenant International pour l'Exploration de la Mer . Procès-Verbeaux des Réunion. Copenhagen: Prèmiere Réunion; 1903. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conseil Permenant International pour l'Exploration de la Mer. 1906. Procès-Verbeaux des Commisions Spéciales et des Sections, Rapports et Procès-Verbeaux 7. Copenhagen.
• Cronon William. The Trouble with Wilderness: Or, Getting back to the Wrong Nature. Environmental History. 1996; 1 (1):7–28. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cushing David. The Provident Sea. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cushman Gregory. Guano and the Opening of the Pacific World: A Global Ecological History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Daston Lorraine. Life Chances. Daedelus. 2008; 137 (4):5–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Chadarevian, Soraya and Hopwood, Nick, eds. 2004. Models: The Third Dimension of Science . Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Decker, W., F. Heincke, and F. Henning. 1901. Die Seefischerei Norwegens. Abhandlung des Deutschen Seefischerei-Vereins, Vol. 6. Berlin: Verlag von Otto Salle.
• Finlayson, Alan Christopher. 1994. Fishing for Truth: A Sociological Analysis of Northern Cod Stock Assessments from 1977–1990 . St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada: Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• Finley Carmel. All the Fish in the Sea. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, IL Press; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fleck, Ludwik. 1979. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, trans. Fred Bradley and Thaddeus Trenn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, IL Press.
• Foucault, Michel. 2000. Governmentality. In Power, ed. James Faubion, trans. Robert Hurley, 201–224. New York: The New Press.
• Graham, Michael. 1954. E.S. Russell, 1887–1954. ICES Journal of Marine Science 20 (2): 135–139.
• Heincke Friedrich. Die Ueberfischung der Nordsee und Schutzmaßregeln dagegen. Sonder Ausdruck Aus Den Mittheilungen Der Sektion Für Küsten- Und Hochsee-Fischerei. 1894; 3 :1–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Helland-Hansen Bjørn. Statistical Research into the Biology of Haddock and Cod in the North Sea. Conseil Permanent International pour l'Exploration de la Mer. Rapports Et Procès-Verbaux Des Réunions. 1909; 10 :1–62. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hesse Mary. Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press; 1966. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoek, P.P.C. 1905. Introductory Review to Appendices D-K. Conseil Permanent International pour l'Exploration de la Mer. Rapports et Procès-Verbaux des Réunions , Vol. 3: xiii.
• Hubbard Jennifer. A Science on the Scales: The Rise of Canadian Atlantic Fisheries Biology. Toronto: Toronto University Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hubbard Jennifer. Mediating the North Atlantic Environment: Fisheries, Biologists, Technology, and Marine Spaces. Environmental History. 2013; 18 (1):88–100. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hubbard Jennifer. Johan Hjort: The Canadian Fisheries Expedition, International Scientific Networks, and the Challenge of Modernization. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 2014; 71 (8):2000–2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hubbard Jennifer. In the Wake of Politics: The Political and Economic Construction of Fisheries Biology, 1860–1970. Isis. 2014; 105 (2):364–378. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kingsland Sharon. Modeling Nature: Episodes in the History of Population Ecology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, IL Press; 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kyle, Harry. 1905. Appendix K: Statistics of the Northern Sea Fisheries (Part II). Conseil Permanent International pour l'Exploration de la Mer. Rapports et Procès-Verbaux des Réunions, Vol. 3: 15.
• Kyle, Harry. 1928. Handbuch der Seefischerei Nordeuropas , Vol. 10, no. 4. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart.
• Lussenhop John. Victor Hensen and the Development of Sampling Methods in Ecology. Journal of the History of Biology. 1974; 7 (2):319–337. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mansfield Becky. Neoliberalism in the Oceans: “Rationalization”, Property Rights, and the Commons Question. Geoforum. 2004; 35 :313–326. [ Google Scholar ]
• McEvoy Arthur. The Fisherman's Problem: Ecology and Law in the California Fisheries , 1850–1980 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• McKenzie Matthew. Clearing the Coastline: The Nineteenth-Century Ecological and Cultural Transformation of Cape Cod. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Merchant Carolyn. Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution. New York: Harper One; 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mills Eric. Biological Oceanography: An Early History, 1870–1960. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; 1989. [ Google Scholar ]
• Petersen CG Joh. What is Over-fishing. Journal of the Marine Biological Association. 1903; 6 :587–595. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pope Francis II. 2014. Laudato Si: On Care for our Common Home . https://laudatosi.com/watch .
• Porter, Theodore. 1995. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Porter Theodore. Thin Description: Surface and Depth in Science and Science Studies. Osiris. 2012; 27 (1):209–226. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roll-Hansen, Nils. 1984. E. S. Russell and J. H. Woodger: The Failure of Two Twentieth-Century Opponents of Mechanistic Biology. Journal of the History of Biology 17 (3): 399–428. [ PubMed ]
• Rozwadowski Helen. The Sea Knows no Boundaries: A Century of Marine Science under ICES. Copenhagen: ICES; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell ES. Some Theoretical Considerations on the “Overfishing Problem” Journal Du Conseil Permanent International Pour L'exploration De La Mer. 1931; 6 (1):3–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabin Paul. The Bet: Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon, and Our Gamble over the Earth's Future. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandel Michael. What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwach, Vera. 2011. Til havs med vitenskapen: Fiskerirettet havforskning 1860–1970. PhD Diss., Det humanistiske Fakultet, Universitetet i Oslo.
• Scott James. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shapin Steven. Never Pure: Historical Studies of Science as if it Was Produced by People with Bodies, Situated in Time, Space, Culture, and Society, and Struggling for Credibility and Authority. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sinclair Michael, Solemdal Per. The Development of “Population Thinking” in Fisheries Biology between 1878 and 1930. Aquatic Living Resources. 1988; 1 (3):189–213. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith Tim. Scaling Fisheries: The Science of Measuring the Effects of Fishing, 1855–1955. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• St. Martin, Kevin, and Madeleine Hall-Arber. Creating a Place for “Community” in New England Fisheries. Human Ecology Review. 2008; 15 (2):161–170. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor Joseph. Making Salmon: An Environmental History of the Northwest Fisheries Crisis. Seattle: University of Washington Press; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Telasca Jennifer. Accounting for Loss in Fish Stocks: A Word on Life as Biological Asset. Environment and Society. 2017; 8 :144–160. [ Google Scholar ]
• Teuterberg Hans Jurgen. The Industrialization of Seafood: German Deep-Sea Fishing and the Sale and Preservation of Fish, 1885–1930. In: Segers Yves, Bieleman Jan, Buyst Erik., editors. Exploring the Food Chain: Food Production and Food Processing in Western Europe, 1850–1990. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols Publishers; 2009. pp. 191–211. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tereshchenko KK. Lesch Kaspiiskogo-Volzhskogo raiona, ego promysel i biologiia. Trudy Astrakhanskoi Ikhtiologicheskoi Laboratorii. 1917; 4 (2):1–159. [ Google Scholar ]
• Unmüßig, Barbara. 2014. Monetizing Nature: Taking Precaution on Slippery Slope. Great Transition Initiative. https://greattransition.org/images/Unmuessig-Monetizing-Nature.pdf . Accessed 21 Sept 2021.
• Warwick Andrew. Masters of Theory: Cambridge and the Rise of Mathematical Physics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, IL Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• White Richard. “Are You an Environmentalist or Do You Work for a Living”: Work and Nature. In: Cronon William., editor. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York: W. W. Norton & Company; 1996. pp. 171–185. [ Google Scholar ]
• Worster Donald. Nature’s Economy: The Roots of Ecology. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books; 1977. [ Google Scholar ]

How Much Do You Know About Illegal Fishing?

Take the quiz to test your knowledge about one of the top threats to the world’s ocean.

Navigate to:

• Table of Contents

Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing significantly harms not only fish populations and ocean health but also the people who rely on healthy fisheries for food and livelihoods. To draw attention to these threats, the United Nations in 2017 declared June 5  International Day for the Fight Against IUU Fishing .

To mark the occasion this year, The Pew Charitable Trusts is testing your knowledge of IUU fishing and its effect on the global seafood supply chain and the well-being of millions of people around the world.

If you answered 0-3 questions correct, you still need to get your sea legs.

Learn more about IUU fishing and how it impacts fisher safety and the sustainability of valuable fish stocks.

If you answered 4-6 questions correctly, you may have a future in maritime enforcement!

Impressive knowledge of illegal fishing, skipper! You’ve answered all questions correctly.

Fishing Company, Vessel Ownership Needs More Transparency

The commercial fishing industry brings in $141 billion a year, but tracing where and with whom the profits end up is nearly impossible because of opaque corporate structures employed by many large-scale fishing companies.

6 Facts You May Not Know About Illegal Fishing

Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing significantly harms not only fish populations and ocean health but also people—so much so that in 2017, the United Nations declared June 5 the International Day for the Fight Against IUU Fishing.

Over 100,000 Fishing-Related Deaths Occur Each Year

Fishing has long been known as one of the world’s most dangerous professions, but a new study by the FISH Safety Foundation, commissioned by The Pew Charitable Trusts, suggests that the problem far exceeds previous estimates.

Don’t miss our latest facts, findings, and survey results in The Rundown

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

MORE FROM PEW

• Review article
• Open access
• Published: 03 April 2023

Effects of kimchi on human health: a scoping review of randomized controlled trials

• Eunhye Song 1   na1 ,
• Lin Ang 2   na1 ,
• Hye Won Lee 3 ,
• Myung-Sunny Kim 4 ,
• You Jin Kim 5 ,
• Daija Jang 4 &
• Myeong Soo Lee   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6651-7641 2  

Journal of Ethnic Foods volume  10 , Article number:  7 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

19k Accesses

7 Citations

120 Altmetric

Metrics details

Kimchi is a Korean traditional fermented food which is one of the most popular ethnic fermented foods in Korea and consumed daily. The purpose of this review was to systematically evaluate all prospective clinical studies of kimchi and to estimate the effectiveness of kimchi for health in general. Three English databases, four Korean databases, and two clinical trial registries were searched until November 7, 2022. Two independent reviewers extracted and tabulated the data. The outcomes of this review were any health-related outcomes that studied on kimchi or kimchi-derived probiotics. Eleven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this review, with 638 participants enrolled in total and 608 participants completing the trials. Most of the included RCTs examined serum lipid profiles and clinical parameters and found that kimchi interventions showed decrease in serum lipids, cholesterols and body fats. Kimchi interventions may be safe and effective treatment option for the treatment of general health, obesity, and irritable bowel syndrome, regardless of the lack of adequate trials. In the future, research that can verify the conflicting results on the health benefits of kimchi should be conducted rigorously to provide the scientific basis for the benefits of kimchi.

Introduction

Fermented foods are part of the diverse food cultures found in various nations and areas around the world [ 1 ]. Fermentation has been used for centuries to extend the shelf life of food and has been linked to several health benefits [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]. They have received a lot of attention for their natural, nutritive, and functional qualities that support health [ 5 ]. In Korea, kimchi is an ethnic food, consumed daily with every meal [ 6 ], and an adult consumes about 50–200 g of kimchi per day on average [ 7 ].

The vegetables most frequently used to make kimchi are baechu cabbages ( Brassica rapa ) and radishes ( Raphanus raphanistrum ); however, other vegetables including cucumbers, spring onions, and other plants are also widely used, resulting in hundreds of different kimchi being consumed in Korea [ 6 , 8 ]. The fermentation of kimchi involves numerous microorganisms, especially lactic acid bacteria (LAB), and the microbial composition of kimchi differs based on the type and amount of ingredients being used in the making of kimchi. Among many microorganisms associated with the fermentation of kimchi, LAB are one of the predominant species with probiotic properties [ 7 , 9 ]. LAB that are commonly present and representative in kimchi include species of genera Lactobacillus , Leuconostoc , and Weissella [ 8 , 10 ].

Many studies have reported the beneficial effects of kimchi consumption. Kimchi has been found to exhibit anti-inflammatory properties [ 11 , 12 ], ameliorate cancer cachexia [ 13 ], induce apoptosis and prevent colon cancer [ 14 , 15 , 16 ], prevent atherosclerosis [ 17 ] and hepatic damage caused by high cholesterol [ 18 ], improve general metabolic parameters [ 19 , 20 ], fasting blood glucose and cholesterol [ 21 ], improve cognitive impairments [ 22 ], enhance immunity [ 23 ] and protect against atopic dermatitis [ 24 ]. With many beneficial effects, kimchi has been considered as a type of medicinal food [ 25 ]. Therefore, the purpose of this review was to systematically evaluate all randomized controlled studies related to kimchi and to evaluate the effectiveness of kimchi for health in general.

This review was registered on PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42018087375). The review was performed and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).

Search strategy

Three English and four Korean databases were searched for data retrieval. The databases searched in English were PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library; the databases searched in Korean were DBpia, Korean Studies Information Service System (KISS), ScienceOn (formerly, National Digital Science Library (NDSL)), and Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System (OASIS). The search was done from their inception until November 7, 2022. The search strategy included various terms of different kimchi types, fermented cabbage, and fermented vegetable.

Inclusion criteria and outcomes

Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included as they are regarded as the reference standard to scientifically and rigorously test the hypothesis on the effectiveness of interventions [ 26 ]. Other types of clinical studies such as cohort, cross-sectional, case reports or retrospective clinical studies were excluded. As this review did not focus on any specific population group, any participants with or without health conditions were eligible for inclusion. All RCTs that used kimchi or kimchi-derived probiotics as an intervention regardless of their comparators were included. Outcome measures for this review were any health-related outcomes, and additional outcomes were quality of life and adverse events.

Study selection and data extraction

Two review authors (ES and LA) independently performed the screening and selection of the searched records. All titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility. Full-text retrieval of included studies, data extraction, and data tabulation were also performed independently by two review authors. From the included studies, information regarding study design, participants, disease type, interventions, and outcomes were extracted. Any discrepancies were discussed with the third author (MSL).

Literature search

Searches from seven electronic databases and two trial registries identified 15,085 records, resulting in 8,551 records to be screened for inclusion after the removal of duplicates. The titles and abstracts were screened based on the inclusion criteria. The full-text of 111 records was then retrieved for further assessment, of which 100 records were excluded. A total of 11 studies were included in the scoping review (Fig.  1 ). The characteristics of the included studies are tabulated in Table 1 .

PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the screening process

Study characteristics

Eleven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this review, with 638 participants enrolled in total and 608 participants completing the trials. Most of the trials were conducted in Korea with the trial duration ranging from 7 days to 12 weeks. Five trials [ 21 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ] studied on healthy subjects, two trials [ 31 , 32 ] studied on obese subjects, one trial [ 33 ] studied on both healthy and obese subjects, one trial [ 34 ] studied on cancer patients, one trial [ 35 ] studied on prediabetic subjects, and one trial [ 36 ] studied on irritable bowel syndrome patients. In terms of intervention, five trials [ 21 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 36 ] used kimchi consumption, two trials [ 27 , 33 ] used kimchi supplement, and four trials [ 30 , 32 , 34 , 35 ] used kimchi-derived probiotics. In terms of control, seven [ 27 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 ] used placebo, four [ 21 , 29 , 31 , 36 ] used other types of kimchi, and one [ 28 ] used non-kimchi diet (Table 1 ).

Outcome assessment

Kimchi on healthy subjects.

In a clinical trial by Choi et al. [ 21 ], high amount consumption of kimchi compared to low amount consumption of kimchi improved serum lipid profiles and fasting glucose levels. Concentrations of fasting blood glucose (FBG), total glucose, total cholesterol (TC) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-C decreased in both groups. FBG was reduced in the high kimchi consumption group from 80.7 ± 5.4 mg/dL to 75.1 ± 6.0 mg/dL ( p  < 0.001), which showed a significant decrease compared to the low-intake group ( p  = 0.003).

Another trial by Kim and Park [ 29 ] investigated the effects of kimchi consumption (standard kimchi and functional kimchi) on healthy subjects and found improvements in dietary fiber intake. The functional kimchi group showed significant improvements in body fat percentage, skeletal muscle mass, TC, triglycerides (TG), LDL-C, adiponectin, and interleukin (IL)-6 ( p  < 0.05), and a significant improvement in HDL-C ( p  < 0.01), while the standard kimchi group showed significant improvements in LDL-C and adiponectin only ( p  < 0.05). The trial also revealed an increase in beneficial bacteria such as Faecalibacterium and Bifidobacterium and a decrease in harmful bacteria such as Clostridium and Escherichia coli ).

A trial by Han [ 30 ] investigated effects of kimchi-derived probiotics ( Lactobacillus plantarum ) on skin health of young healthy subjects in comparison with placebo. Skin pH was decreased significantly in the kimchi group from 5.18 ± 0.07 to 4.80 ± 0.06 at 12 weeks and showed a significant change compared to the control group ( p  = 0.025). The epidermal level of lactate (percent change) in the kimchi group was increased by 25.56 ± 13.65% while the control group showed 9.76 ± 9.70% decrease ( p  < 0.05). Epidermal levels of FAA were not changed in both groups, but those of FFA were lower in the kimchi group ( p  = 0.029).

In a trial involving healthy subjects and kimchi supplement by Choi et al. [ 27 ], kimchi supplement in comparison with placebo (rice powder pills) showed beneficial effects on controlling serum lipid profiles. The plasma TG concentration decreased from 115.2 ± 57.7 to 97.3 ± 52.3 mg/dL in the kimchi supplement group and the group’s average change in TG was 16.8% ( p  < 0.05), while plasma TG concentration increased from 98.5 ± 34.9 to 105.7 ± 32.9 mg/dL in the control group with the group’s average change in TG being 9.8% increase.

In another kimchi supplement trial by Song et al. [ 33 ], effects of kimchi supplement were investigated in comparison with placebo or no intervention. Kimchi was found to reduced body mass index (BMI), body fat percentage, and systolic blood pressure. TG was decreased in the kimchi supplement group by − 15.8 ± 10.7%, while TG was increased in the control group by 9.8 ± 15.8%. LDL/LDL-C was also decreased in the kimchi supplement group by − 6.7 ± 17.1%. Body weight, BMI, body fat mass, and body fat percentage decreased in all intervention groups compared to the control group.

However, in a trial by Lee et al. [ 28 ], the kimchi diet group in comparison with the non-kimchi diet did not show positive immunomodulatory effects. Between the two groups, lymphocyte subsets, pro-inflammatory cytokines, anti-inflammatory cytokines, and immunoglobulins did not show significant improvements.

Kimchi on obese subjects

In a trial by Han et al. [ 31 ], effects of fermented kimchi were compared with fresh kimchi. Waist circumferences and body fat percentage showed a significant decrease in the fresh kimchi group ( p  < 0.05), while HDL-C showed a significant improvement in the fermented kimchi group ( p  < 0.05). However, no significant changes were seen in clinical parameters between both groups. Fermented kimchi was found to influence metabolic pathways and immunity.

In a trial by Lim et al. [ 37 ], kimchi-derived probiotics ( Lactobacillus sakei ) in comparison with placebo were investigated. The trial found to reduce body fat mass by 0.2 kg in the kimchi group, while it increased by 0.6 kg in the placebo group. Waist circumference was significantly reduced in the kimchi group than in the placebo group ( p  = 0.013). Adverse events, including gastrointestinal discomfort, were mild.

In a trial by Yoon et al. [ 34 ] effects of kimchi on bowel function and quality of life in rectal cancer patients were investigated, and found no significant effect of kimchi-derived probiotics ( Lactobacillus plantarum ) in comparison with the placebo.

In a trial involving prediabetic subjects, Oh et al. [ 35 ] studied effects of kimchi-derived probiotics ( Lactobacillus plantarum ) compared with placebo. The 2h-PPG ( p  = 0.045) and HbA1c ( p  = 0.013) levels in the kimchi group were significantly reduced. No serious adverse effects were reported.

In a trial by Kim et al. [ 36 ], effects of kimchi on irritable bowel syndrome were compared by using kimchi with different properties: standard kimchi, Lactobacillus plantarum (nF1) added standard kimchi, and functional kimchi (Viscum album (mistletoe) extract added with Lactobacillus plantarum ). For IBS symptoms, all three types of kimchi groups had significant improvements in abdominal pain or inconvenience ( p  < 0.001), desperation ( p  < 0.001), incomplete evacuation ( p  < 0.001), and bloating ( p  < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences between the kimchi groups for improvement of overall IBS symptoms. For serum inflammatory cytokine levels, all three kimchi groups had significant improvements in tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α ( p  < 0.001). For other inflammatory factors, nF1 kimchi group and functional kimchi group showed significant improvements in IL-4 ( p  < 0.001), IL-10 ( p  < 0.001), IL-12 ( p  < 0.01).

Kimchi is a traditional Korean fermented vegetable dish that is stored and preserved in a special way. There are various pickled vegetable foods all over the world, but kimchi differs from other salted vegetables as they are first salted and then seasoned and fermented secondarily [ 38 ]. Korean kimchi was selected as the world’s top five healthiest foods along with Spanish olive oil, Japanese bean products, Greek yogurt, and Indian lentils. The reason for the selection of kimchi as a super food was based on the fact that it is rich in lactic acid bacteria, fiber, and various minerals and vitamins, which are beneficial for health and for cancer prevention [ 39 ].

Currently, various studies report the effectiveness of kimchi in improving overall health. A controlled clinical trial, [ 40 ] which was excluded from this review because it was not randomized controlled trial, involved 12 young female adults, 6 participants in each group. The trial interventions were low consumption of kimchi (15 g/day) and high consumption of kimchi (150 g/day) for 7 days, and reported the decrease in potentially harmful microorganism (such as Listeria and Clostridium, Enterobacter, Prevotella, and Shigella) percentage in the high-consumption group. There were 34 species of intestinal microorganisms whose percentage changes between the two groups were significantly different ( p  < 0.05). Thus, kimchi consumption was found to influence the formation of intestinal microbiota. Also, the functionality of kimchi as a probiotic is expected to improve with the increase in the percentage of kimchi LAB in the intestine.

One crossover study [ 19 ] excluded from this review investigated the effects of fermented kimchi on body weight and metabolic parameters in 22 overweight and obese patients in 2 sets of 4-week interventions with 2-week washout period. The clinical study found that the fermented kimchi group showed significant improvements in the waist-hip ratio, fasting blood glucose, total cholesterol, body fat percentage, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure ( p  < 0.05) in the fermented kimchi group compared to those in the fresh kimchi group. Even though fresh kimchi also showed significant improvement from initial value to final value in terms of body weight, BMI, body fat percentage, TG, E-selectin, and adiponectin ( p  < 0.05), fermentation of kimchi was found to provide more positive effects.

Similarly, another crossover study [ 20 ] of 2 sets of 8-week interventions with 4-week washout period investigated the effects of fresh and fermented kimchi in 21 participants with prediabetes. The parameters associated with prediabetes such as hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c), fasting insulin, insulin resistance, and Matsuda index (whole-body insulin sensitivity index) showed significant improvements within the group ( p  < 0.05) in both the fresh kimchi group and the fermented kimchi group. For quantitative insulin sensitivity check index and disposition index, only the fermented kimchi group showed improvements compared to before intervention ( p  < 0.05). Overall, the fermented kimchi group showed better effects on insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity than the fresh kimchi group.

In terms of anticancer and cancer prevention effects reported by previous studies, kimchi was found to have inhibitory effects of cancer cell growth for gastric cancer (AGS cell and KATOIII), lung cancer (A549 cell), colon cancer (HT-29 cell and HCT-116 cell), breast cancer (MCF-7 cell), liver cancer (HepG2 cell) and uterine cancer (Hela cell) [ 41 ]. Even though there are numerous cell and animal studies exploring anti-inflammation and anticancer effects of kimchi, clinical trial data on such effects are currently not available yet.

In this review, the included RCTs reported on lipid-lowering effects, colon health improvement, and anti-obesity effects of kimchi, although there were differences depending on the amount of kimchi consumed and the fermentation stage. Despite the differences in the types and amount of kimchi consumed, all kimchi consumption in general was found to have benefits in improving health. Other types of clinical studies have similar results which also support the effects of kimchi on body fat and serum lipid profiles [ 41 ].

For lipid-lowering effect, various animal studies support the effects of kimchi by inducing hyperlipidemia with a high-fat or high-cholesterol diet. In particular, the lipid-lowering effect of kimchi was reported by experimenting on obese rats and diabetic rats [ 42 , 43 , 44 ]. In other experiments with rabbits, the beneficial effects of kimchi were supported by demonstrating lipid inhibitory effect and changes of lipid content in various tissues [ 17 , 45 ]. In a cross-sectional study, the correlation between kimchi intake and lipid indicators showed a positive correlation with HDL cholesterol and a negative correlation with LDL cholesterol [ 46 ]. This further confirms the positive effects of kimchi consumption in improving serum lipid profiles.

Despite beneficial effects of kimchi, there were concerns about consuming salted vegetables that some studies addressed kimchi’s association with hypertension. However, a cross-sectional study [ 47 ] explored kimchi’s effects on hypertension among 20,114 participants using the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) data and found that consumption of kimchi was not associated with increased prevalence of hypertension (odds ratio: 0.87; 95% CI 0.70–1.08). In a community-based cohort study of 12-year follow-up [ 48 ], 5,932 participants were included and it also concluded that consuming kimchi was not linked to a higher risk of hypertension.

Kimchi is considered as probiotic food. Kimchi is made by fermentation process with many bacteria, but pathogenic and putrefactive bacteria are suppressed, leaving probiotic LAB as dominant one remaining [ 49 ]. Kimchi involves its ingredients to go through fermentation, but different LAB strains are found in different stages of kimchi fermentation and in different kimchi samples. Kimchi microorganisms vary depending on the ingredients, methods, and environment (such as acidity and temperature), and thus, its functionality may differ from kimchi to kimchi. Therefore, certain kimchi may have certain LAB strain that may work better on specific disease which can be investigated further for custom-made kimchi.

Various components and compounds found in kimchi provide health benefits. Kimchi has important nutritional and functional properties as kimchi includes vitamins, minerals, dietary fibers, probiotics, capsaicin, gingerol, chlorophyll, allyl compounds, benzyl isothiocyanate, indole compounds, thiocyanate, and beta-sitosterol [ 50 ]. Also, previous cell studies concluded that the kimchi LAB strains were sensitive to antimicrobial agents such as erythromycin, ampicillin, chloramphenicol, and benzylpenicillin [ 51 ] and that the LAB were not only safe for human consumption but also met the functional criteria [ 52 ]. Numerous studies support the beneficial effects of LAB, including anticancer effects and immune-stimulating effects [ 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 ].

There were several limitations in this review. The search for this review was restricted to English and Korean databases only, which may have resulted in several non-English and non-Korean studies to be overlooked. Also, the Korean terms of various types of kimchi are expressed in many different ways in English romanization letters, and due to lack of standardized terms, there are possibilities of missing studies.

Numerous clinical studies reported on the positive effects of kimchi. In particular, this review found that kimchi interventions may be safe and effective treatment option for the treatment of general health, obesity, and irritable bowel syndrome. However, questions have been raised about its health functionality due to the lack of adequate trials. In the future, research that can verify the conflicting results on the health benefits of kimchi should be conducted rigorously to provide the scientific basis for the benefits of kimchi.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Bell V, et al. One health, fermented foods, and gut microbiota. Foods. 2018;7(12):195.

Article   Google Scholar  

Das G, et al. Traditional fermented foods with anti-aging effect: a concentric review. Food Res Int. 2020;134:109269.

Şanlier N, Gökcen BB, Sezgin AC. Health benefits of fermented foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2019;59(3):506–27.

Marco ML, et al. Health benefits of fermented foods: microbiota and beyond. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2017;44:94–102.

Wilburn JR, Ryan EP. Chapter 1—fermented foods in health promotion and disease prevention: an overview. In: Frias J, Martinez-Villaluenga C, Peñas E, editors. Fermented foods in health and disease prevention. Boston: Academic Press; 2017. p. 3–19.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Hongu N, et al. Korean kimchi: promoting healthy meals through cultural tradition. J Ethn Foods. 2017;4(3):172–80.

Chang JH, et al. Probiotic characteristics of lactic acid bacteria isolated from kimchi. J Appl Microbiol. 2010;109(1):220–30.

Surya R, Lee AG-Y. Exploring the philosophical values of kimchi and kimjang culture. J Ethn Foods. 2022;9(1):20.

Patra JK, et al. Kimchi and other widely consumed traditional fermented foods of Korea: a review. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:1493.

Song HS, et al. Microbial niches in raw ingredients determine microbial community assembly during kimchi fermentation. Food Chem. 2020;318:126481.

Yu HS, et al. Anti-inflammatory potential of probiotic strain Weissella cibaria JW15 isolated from kimchi through regulation of NF-κB and MAPKs pathways in LPS-induced RAW 264.7 cells. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2019;29(7):1022–32.

Han KJ, et al. Antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effect of probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum KU15149 derived from Korean homemade diced-radish kimchi. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2020;30(4):591–8.

An JM, et al. Dietary intake of probiotic kimchi ameliorated IL-6-driven cancer cachexia. J Clin Biochem Nutr. 2019;65(2):109–17.

Han YM, et al. Dietary intake of fermented kimchi prevented colitis-associated cancer. J Clin Biochem Nutr. 2020;67(3):263–73.

Kim HY, et al. Kimchi protects against azoxymethane/dextran sulfate sodium-induced colorectal carcinogenesis in mice. J Med Food. 2014;17(8):833–41.

Yu T, et al. Kimchi markedly induces apoptosis in HT-29 human colon carcinoma cells. J Food Biochem. 2021;45(1):e13532.

Kim HJ, et al. 3-(4’-hydroxyl-3’,5’-dimethoxyphenyl)propionic acid, an active principle of kimchi, inhibits development of atherosclerosis in rabbits. J Agric Food Chem. 2007;55(25):10486–92.

Woo M, et al. Preventative activity of kimchi on high cholesterol diet-induced hepatic damage through regulation of lipid metabolism in LDL receptor knockout mice. Food Sci Biotechnol. 2018;27(1):211–8.

Kim EK, et al. Fermented kimchi reduces body weight and improves metabolic parameters in overweight and obese patients. Nutr Res. 2011;31(6):436–43.

An SY, et al. Beneficial effects of fresh and fermented kimchi in prediabetic individuals. Ann Nutr Metab. 2013;63(1–2):111–9.

Choi IH, et al. Kimchi, a fermented vegetable, improves serum lipid profiles in healthy young adults: randomized clinical trial. J Med Food. 2013;16(3):223–9.

Woo M, Kim MJ, Song YO. Bioactive compounds in kimchi improve the cognitive and memory functions impaired by amyloid beta. Nutrients. 2018;10(10):1554.

Yang SJ, et al. Antioxidant and immune-enhancing effects of probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum 200655 isolated from kimchi. Food Sci Biotechnol. 2019;28(2):491–9.

Kim HJ, Ju SY, Park YK. Kimchi intake and atopic dermatitis in Korean aged 19–49 years: The Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2010–2012. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2017;26(5):914–22.

Google Scholar  

Oktay S, Ekinci EK. Medicinal food understanding in Korean gastronomic culture. J Ethn Foods. 2019;6(1):4.

Hariton E, Locascio JJ. Randomised controlled trials—the gold standard for effectiveness research. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;125(13):1716–1716.

Choi S-H, et al. The effect of kimchi pill supplementation on plasma lipid concentration in healthy people. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr. 2001;30(5):913–20.

Lee H, et al. Immunomodulatory effects of kimchi in Chinese healthy college students: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Nutr Res. 2014;3(2):98–105.

Kim H-Y, Park K-Y. Clinical trials of kimchi intakes on the regulation of metabolic parameters and colon health in healthy Korean young adults. J Funct Foods. 2018;47:325–33.

Han S, et al. Dietary effect of Lactobacillus plantarum CJLP55 isolated from kimchi on skin pH and its related biomarker levels in adult subjects. J Nutr Health. 2019;52(2):149–56.

Han K, et al. Contrasting effects of fresh and fermented kimchi consumption on gut microbiota composition and gene expression related to metabolic syndrome in obese Korean women. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2015;59(5):1004–8.

Lim S, et al. Effect of Lactobacillus sakei , a probiotic derived from kimchi, on body fat in Koreans with obesity: a randomized controlled study. Endocrinol Metab (Seoul). 2020;35(2):425–34.

Song Y, Baek Y. Clinical study on the intake of kimchi pills on the lowering of blood lipids. Res Bull Kimchi Sci Technol. 2000;6:3.

Yoon BJ, et al. Effects of probiotics on bowel function restoration following ileostomy closure in rectal cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis. 2021;23(4):901–10.

Oh MR, et al. Lactobacillus plantarum HAC01 supplementation improves glycemic control in prediabetic subjects: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Nutrients. 2021;13(7):2337.

Kim HY, et al. Kimchi improves irritable bowel syndrome: results of a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study. Food Nutr Res. 2022;66:8268.

Lim S, et al. Effect of Lactobacillus sakei , a probiotic derived from kimchi, on body fat in Koreans with obesity: a randomized controlled study. Endocrinol Metab. 2020;35(2):425–34.

Ang L, et al. Chapter 17—kimchi and other fermented foods for gastrointestinal health. In: Bagchi D, Ohia SE, editors., et al., Nutrition and functional foods in boosting digestion, metabolism and immune health. New York: Academic Press; 2022. p. 235–53.

Raymond J. World's healthiest foods: kimchi (Korea); 2013. https://www.health.com/condition/digestive-health/worlds-healthiest-foods-kimchi-korea . 14 Nov 2022.

Kim J, et al. Changes in Korean adult females intestinal microbiota resulting from kimchi intake. J Nutr Food Sci. 2016;6(2):4172.

Kim B, et al. A survey of research papers on the health benefits of kimchi and kimchi lactic acid bacteria. J Nutr Health. 2018;51(1):1–13.

Park MY, et al. Lactobacillus curvatus KFP419 and Leuconostoc mesenteroides subsp mesenteroides KDK411 isolated from kimchi ameliorate hypercholesterolemia in rats. J Med Food. 2018;21(7):647–53.

Jo SY, et al. Characterization of starter kimchi fermented with Leuconostoc kimchii GJ2 and its cholesterol-lowering effects in rats fed a high-fat and high-cholesterol diet. J Sci Food Agric. 2015;95(13):2750–6.

Islam MS, Choi H. Antidiabetic effect of Korean traditional Baechu (Chinese cabbage) kimchi in a type 2 diabetes model of rats. J Med Food. 2009;12(2):292–7.

Jeon H-N, Kwon M-J, Song Y-O. Effects of kimchi solvent fractions on accumulation of lipids in heart, kidney and lung of rabbit fed high cholesterol diet. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr. 2002;31(5):814–8.

Kwon M-J, et al. Daily kimchi consumption and its hypolipidemic effect in middle-aged men. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr. 1999;28(5):1144–50.

Song HJ, Lee H-J. Consumption of kimchi, a salt fermented vegetable, is not associated with hypertension prevalence. J Ethn Foods. 2014;1(1):8–12.

Song HJ, et al. High consumption of salt-fermented vegetables and hypertension risk in adults: a 12-year follow-up study. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2017;26(4):698–707.

Park K-Y, et al. Health benefits of kimchi (Korean fermented vegetables) as a probiotic food. J Med Food. 2014;17(1):6–20.

Park KY, Kim HY, Jeong JK. Chapter 20—kimchi and its health benefits. In: Frias J, Martinez-Villaluenga C, Peñas E, editors. Fermented foods in health and disease prevention. Boston: Academic Press; 2017. p. 477–502.

Ji Y, et al. Functionality and safety of lactic bacterial strains from Korean kimchi. Food Control. 2013;31(2):467–73.

Ryu EH, Chang HC. In vitro study of potentially probiotic lactic acid bacteria strains isolated from kimchi. Ann Microbiol. 2013;63(4):1387–95.

Cuevas-González PF, et al. Protective role of lactic acid bacteria and yeasts as dietary carcinogen-binding agents—a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2022;62(1):160–80.

Shoukat S. Potential anti-carcinogenic effect of probiotic and lactic acid bacteria in detoxification of benzo[a]pyrene: a review. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2020;99:450–9.

Saez-Lara MJ, et al. The role of probiotic lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria in the prevention and treatment of inflammatory bowel disease and other related diseases: a systematic review of randomized human clinical trials. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:505878.

Liu C, et al. Anti-cancer substances and safety of lactic acid bacteria in clinical treatment. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:722052.

Lee J, Kim S, Kang C-H. Screening and probiotic properties of lactic acid bacteria with potential immunostimulatory activity isolated from kimchi. Fermentation. 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9010004 .

Download references

This research was funded by KM Science Research Division of Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine (KSN2022210).

Author information

Eunhye Song and Lin Ang have contributed equally as co-first authors

Authors and Affiliations

Global Cooperation Center, Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine, Daejeon, Korea

Eunhye Song

KM Science Research Division, Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine, Daejeon, Korea

Lin Ang & Myeong Soo Lee

KM Convergence Research Division, Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine, Daejeon, Korea

Hye Won Lee

Food Functionality Research Division, Korea Food Research Institute, Wanju, Jeollabuk-do, Korea

Myung-Sunny Kim & Daija Jang

Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, Cheongju, Korea

You Jin Kim

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: MSL and MSK; methodology: ES and LA; formal analysis: ES; investigation: HWL; data curation: ES and LA; writing—original draft: ES and LA; writing—review and editing: MSL, MSK, and DJJ; supervision: MSL; funding acquisition: MSL. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Myeong Soo Lee .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

DJJ, MSK, and MSL are the editorial board members of the journal but their role had no influence on the editorial process or decision. The authors declare no other competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Song, E., Ang, L., Lee, H.W. et al. Effects of kimchi on human health: a scoping review of randomized controlled trials. J. Ethn. Food 10 , 7 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42779-023-00173-8

Download citation

Received : 23 November 2022

Accepted : 20 March 2023

Published : 03 April 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s42779-023-00173-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Clinical evidence
• Ethnic food
• Health benefits

Journal of Ethnic Foods

ISSN: 2352-619X

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Company that bred beagles for research pleads guilty to neglect, ordered to pay record $35M fine

A company that bred beagles for medical research has agreed to pay a record $35 million and admitted it neglected thousands of dogs at its facility in rural Virginia. Four thousand beagles were rescued from the facility in 2022 and sent out for adoption all over the United States.

IMAGE DISTRIBUTED FOR THE HSUS - FILE - An HSUS Animal Rescue Team member carries a beagle into the organization’s care and rehabilitation center in Maryland on July 21, 2022, after the organization removed the first 201 beagles as part of a transfer plan from Envigo RMS LLC facility in Cumberland, Va. (Kevin Wolf/AP Images for the HSUS)

• Copy Link copied

A company that bred beagles for medical research agreed Monday to pay a record $35 million as part of a criminal plea admitting it neglected thousands of dogs at its breeding facility in rural Virginia.

Prosecutors said the penalties amount to the largest ever levied in an animal-welfare case.

The plea deal also bars the company that operated the facility, Envigo RMS, as well as parent company Inotiv, from breeding or selling dogs in the future.

The federal investigation of Envigo drew national attention in May 2022 when federal authorities conducted a search of the breeding facility in Cumberland County, Virginia, and found nearly 450 animals in acute distress.

The company later agreed to relinquish all 4,000 beagles at the facility, which were sent around the country for adoption.

U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia Christopher Kavanaugh, whose office prosecuted the case, said Monday after a plea hearing at federal court in Charlottesville that Envigo and Inotiv “prioritized profits and convenience over following the law.”

He said the company generated $16 million in revenue between 2019 and May 2022, when the search occurred, through the sale of 15,000 beagles over that time.

But he said the company refused to make the investments necessary to provide for the animals’ basic care. Cages were cleaned twice a month rather than every day as required. Animals were euthanized, including by direct injections to their heart, without sedation, he said. Dogs were routinely injured by getting their paws caught in flooring composed of metal grates that left space for paws to easily fall through. Food and water were lacking and unclean

Court records show that 300 puppies died over a seven-month stretch around 2021 for what was described as “unknown causes.”

He said the company continued to employ a veterinarian who had botched surgeries and oversaw numerous violations because executives believed it would be too difficult to find a replacement.

Todd Kim, assistant attorney general for the environment and natural resources division of the Justice Department, said Envigo “unlawfully enriched itself by failing to spend the necessary money for upgrades and by failing to hire enough trained and competent staff.”

The Cumberland facility, which employed nearly 40 people, has been shuttered. Kavanaugh said it was woefully understaffed to care for thousands of dogs.

The plea deal calls for an $11 million fine for violating the Animal Welfare Act and an $11 million fine for violating the Clean Water Act. The deal also requires Inotiv to spend $7 million over the next three years to improve its facilities and meet standards in excess of the Animal Welfare Act requirements.

The plea deal includes an admission that Envigo violated the Clean Water Act by discharging hundreds of thousands of gallons of improperly treated wastewater.

It also includes a $3.5 million for environmental repairs in Cumberland County and requires the company to pay the cost of a compliance monitor while it’s on probation, which will run for a period of three to five years.

The plea agreement also requires the companies to pay roughly $1.9 million to the Humane Society of the United States for assistance it provided to the investigation.

Prosecutors also said their investigation is ongoing and that criminal cases against individual employees remain possible.

West Lafayette, Indiana-based Inotiv issued what it called a “statement of contrition” Monday after the plea hearing.

“In committing the crimes identified in the charging document, and by not making the necessary infrastructure upgrades and hiring the requisite staff, we fell short of our standards for animal and environmental welfare and apologize to the public for the harm caused by our conduct, the company said. “In resolving this matter, we renew our commitment to maintaining the highest standards of animal care.”

• Research Areas
• Funded Projects
• NLP/LLM Interest Group
• Degree Programs
• Biomedical Informatics and Data Science Training Program
• Postdoctoral Biomedical Informatics Fellowship at the VA
• IMPAACT Fellowship

INFORMATION FOR

• Residents & Fellows
• Researchers

Taylor and Scottish Partners Receive £1 Million for Palliative Care Research

Andrew Taylor, MD, MHS , associate professor of biomedical informatics and data science and of emergency medicine, will work with partners in Scotland on a £1 million study to improve unscheduled end-of-life care.

The University of St Andrews has been awarded up to £1 million each by Scotland's Chief Scientist Office to conduct major research programs into population health issues. The grant, announced by Health and Social Care Secretary Neil Gray on June 4, will support an Applied Health Research Program focused on improving unscheduled care for people across Scotland in their last year of life. Collaborators include NHS Fife, NHS Highland / Highland Hospice, the Fife Community Advisory Council, the University of Edinburgh, and Yale University.

The project arose in the context of unprecedented strain on the country’s unscheduled care services due to workforce shortages, demographic change, and widespread multimorbidity (when a person has two or more long-term health conditions). In 2022, Accident & Emergency waiting times hit record levels and over a quarter-million calls to NHS24 went unanswered. Alongside these services, unscheduled care also includes General Practice Out-of-Hours (GPOOH) and the Scottish Ambulance Service (SAS).

Previous research has identified that one group of people who use such services frequently is those in their last year of life. Although it plays an essential role in the healthcare system, unscheduled care is often not the most appropriate option for this population, being necessarily reliant on a reactive approach to care without the benefit of more nuanced, anticipatory, and coordinated planning. The result can often be more fragmented, expensive and less effective care, causing unintended additional distress to patients in their last year of life and their families.

“We are very aware that use of unscheduled care services increases for a person with a palliative diagnosis in the last year of their lives,” said team member and Clinical Partnership Director for NHS Highland/Highland Hospice, Michael Loynd. “We need to understand if better identification of this population and different supports such as dedicated helplines can enable an alternative route of support.” As part of this process, a key objective of the research program will be to develop a single point of contact and care coordination for this vulnerable group.

This program will use machine learning to analyze existing healthcare data and predict future patterns of unscheduled care use by patients in their last year of life. This will in turn allow for the identification of such patients who may be in need of social care reviews, prescribing interventions, or other anticipatory care measures that would reduce their need for unscheduled care.

“The significant CSO funding awarded to the University of St. Andrews, along with NHS Fife, Yale University, and other key partners, signifies a transformative moment in end-of-life care research. At Yale, we are eager to lend our expertise in emergency medicine and artificial intelligence to this critical initiative," said Taylor. "This collaboration will not only aim to improve the quality of life for patients in their final year but also reduce the burden on unscheduled care services through pioneering anticipatory care models. This project offers a remarkable opportunity for cross-institutional collaboration, set to drive substantial enhancements in healthcare delivery and outcomes worldwide.”

The team’s research will not only benefit patients, first and foremost, but aims to improve NHS sustainability by reducing the unscheduled care workload. “Better identification of this group of people will facilitate improved NHS care, but it will also increase the capacity of emergency care services”, said Colin McCowan, Head of the School of Medicine’s Population and Behavioral Science research division.

With this significant grant from the Scottish Government, the University of St Andrews and its partners are poised to make a profound impact on the healthcare landscape in Scotland. By leveraging advanced machine learning techniques and a deep understanding of the challenges facing the unscheduled care system, this research aims to not only enhance the quality of life for patients in their last year of life but also ensure a more sustainable future for NHS services.

Members of the research team include Colin McCowan, Alex Baldacchino, Peter D. Donnelly, Sarah E. E. Mills, Veronica O'Carroll, Frank Sullivan and Joseph Tay Wee Teck from University of St Andrews; Peter Hall and Elizabeth Lemmon from University of Edinburgh; Michael Loynd from NHS Highland/Highland Hospice; Joanna Bowden, Rishma Maini, Christopher McKenna, Frances Quirk and Rajendra Raman from NHS Fife; and Andrew Taylor from Yale School of Medicine.

Taylor was named a University of St Andrews Global Fellow in 2023.

• Emergency Medicine

Featured in this article

• Andrew Taylor, MD, MHS Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine and of Bioinformatics & Data Science; Director of Artificial Intelligence and Data Science, Emergency Medicine

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Research: How Remote Work Impacts Women at Different Stages of Their Careers

• Natalia Emanuel,
• Emma Harrington,
• Amanda Pallais

Data on software engineers at a Fortune 500 company revealed that junior and senior women saw contrasting costs and benefits.

While much has been said about the potential benefits of remote work for women, recent research examines how working from home affects the professional development of female software engineers at a Fortune 500 company, revealing that its impact varies by career stage. Junior women engineers benefit significantly from in-person mentorship, receiving 40% more feedback when sitting near colleagues, while senior women face reduced productivity due to increased mentoring duties. Male engineers also benefit from proximity, but less so. The authors suggest that recognizing and rewarding mentorship efforts could mitigate these disparities, ensuring junior women receive adequate support remotely and senior women are properly compensated for their mentoring contributions.

Since the pandemic began, work from home (WFH) has at times been pitched as a means of supporting women in the workplace. This argument often focuses on WFH’s potential to help women juggle the demands of their jobs with the demands of their families. However, WFH’s impact on women’s professional development may vary over their careers. In our research, we explored how WFH impacts young women as they try to get a foothold in their careers and how it affects the often-invisible mentorship work done by more senior women.

• NE Natalia Emanuel serves as a research economist at the New York Fed.
• EH Emma Harrington is a professor at the University of Virginia.
• AP Amanda Pallais is a professor at Harvard University.

Partner Center

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Electric Cars Are Suddenly Becoming Affordable

More efficient manufacturing, falling battery costs and intense competition are lowering sticker prices for battery-powered models to within striking distance of gasoline cars.

By Jack Ewing

Alex Lawrence, a dealer in Salt Lake City who specializes in used electric cars, has seen a change over the last year in the kinds of customers who are coming into his showroom. They used to be well-heeled professionals who could drop $70,000 on a Rivian luxury pickup truck.

Recently, Mr. Lawrence said, customers have been snapping up used Teslas for a little over $20,000, after applying a $4,000 federal tax credit.

“We’re seeing younger people,” Mr. Lawrence said. “We are seeing more blue-collar and entry-level white-collar people. The purchase price of the car has suddenly become in reach.”

Regarded by conservative politicians and other critics as playthings of the liberal elite, electric vehicles are fast becoming more accessible. Prices are falling because of increased competition, lower raw-material costs and more efficient manufacturing. Federal tax credits of up to $7,500 for new electric cars, often augmented by thousands of dollars in state incentives, push prices even lower.

At the same time, technology is improving quickly and making electric vehicles more practical. Cars that can travel more than 300 miles on a fully charged battery are becoming common, and charging times are dropping below 30 minutes. The number of fast chargers, which can top up a battery in less than half an hour, grew 36 percent from April 2023 to April 2024.

Carmakers including Tesla, Ford, General Motors and Stellantis, the owner of Jeep, have announced plans for electric vehicles that would sell new for as little as $25,000.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .