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

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

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Environmental Policy and Governance
Published
2026-05-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.70090
Primary Topic
Coral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Juan Carlos Pérez‐Jiménez, Edgar Tórres-Irineo, Leonora Fernanda Mondragón-Sánchez
Environmental Policy and Governance
Coral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
article

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

Juan Carlos Pérez‐Jiménez, Edgar Tórres-Irineo, Leonora Fernanda Mondragón-Sánchez
article en

Abstract

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

Environmental Policy and Governance
Autonomous University of Campeche (MX), Escuela Superior de Artes de Yucatán (MX), Universidad Marista de Mérida (MX), El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (MX)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Coral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
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.