Bias in Global Fishing Watch AIS data analyses results in overestimate of Northeast Atlantic pelagic fishing impact

Abstract The ability to pinpoint fishing activity in the world’s oceans has greatly improved over the past decades, a period in which both satellite-based vessel monitoring systems (VMS) and automatic identification systems (AIS) were introduced for fisheries control and maritime safety purposes, respectively. These data have been used extensively for fisheries research and have brought new insights into the spatial and temporal activities of many different fishing fleets. More recently, data products from Global Fishing Watch (GFW), derived from AIS data analyses, have boosted research. This is because GFW data resulting in identified fishing events is reported globally at high spatial and temporal resolution. However, working with pre-processed data comes with a risk because data scientists who may rely on GFW data products are unable to change the underlying assumptions used by GFW to define fishing events. In this study, we compare the fishing events identified by GFW with fishing events defined from self-sampling programmes on board two large pelagic fleets in the Northeast Atlantic. Within these self-sampling programmes, the exact position and time of hauls are meticulously reported, allowing for a comparison in both the number of hauls identified and the haul duration. Results reveal that the assumptions made by GFW to define fishing events lead to an overestimated duration of gear deployment within a range of 30%–380%, depending on the target species and vessel type. In addition, by comparing the self-sampling data with unprocessed VMS data, we demonstrate that it is likely that the activity in which vessels search for fish using sonar and echosounder equipment is mistaken for gear deployment. We recommend that authorities and GFW allow scientists free access to the unprocessed AIS data or that organizations such as GFW work closer with the fishing sector and scientific community to improve their data products.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
ICES Journal of Marine Science
Published
2025-03-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsaf033
Citations
9
Primary Topic
Marine and fisheries research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
9.95
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Bias in Global Fishing Watch AIS data analyses results in overestimate of Northeast Atlantic pelagic fishing impact

Martin A Pastoors, Katie Brigden, Steven Mackinson, Lennert van de Pol et al.
9 citations
ICES Journal of Marine Science
Marine and fisheries research
9.95
article

Bias in Global Fishing Watch AIS data analyses results in overestimate of Northeast Atlantic pelagic fishing impact

Martin A Pastoors, Katie Brigden, Steven Mackinson, Lennert van de Pol, Niels T. Hintzen, Hendrik-Jan Kaastra
article en
9 citations

Abstract

Abstract The ability to pinpoint fishing activity in the world’s oceans has greatly improved over the past decades, a period in which both satellite-based vessel monitoring systems (VMS) and automatic identification systems (AIS) were introduced for fisheries control and maritime safety purposes, respectively. These data have been used extensively for fisheries research and have brought new insights into the spatial and temporal activities of many different fishing fleets. More recently, data products from Global Fishing Watch (GFW), derived from AIS data analyses, have boosted research. This is because GFW data resulting in identified fishing events is reported globally at high spatial and temporal resolution. However, working with pre-processed data comes with a risk because data scientists who may rely on GFW data products are unable to change the underlying assumptions used by GFW to define fishing events. In this study, we compare the fishing events identified by GFW with fishing events defined from self-sampling programmes on board two large pelagic fleets in the Northeast Atlantic. Within these self-sampling programmes, the exact position and time of hauls are meticulously reported, allowing for a comparison in both the number of hauls identified and the haul duration. Results reveal that the assumptions made by GFW to define fishing events lead to an overestimated duration of gear deployment within a range of 30%–380%, depending on the target species and vessel type. In addition, by comparing the self-sampling data with unprocessed VMS data, we demonstrate that it is likely that the activity in which vessels search for fish using sonar and echosounder equipment is mistaken for gear deployment. We recommend that authorities and GFW allow scientists free access to the unprocessed AIS data or that organizations such as GFW work closer with the fishing sector and scientific community to improve their data products.

ICES Journal of Marine ScienceVol. 82(3)
Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences (NL), University of the Highlands and Islands (GB), Wageningen University & Research (NL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Marine and fisheries research
9.95
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.