IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i3p644-d200915.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Developing Harvest Strategies to Achieve Ecological, Economic and Social Sustainability in Multi-Sector Fisheries

Author

Listed:
  • Sean Pascoe

    (CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Queensland Biosciences Precinct, 306 Carmody Rd, St Lucia, Brisbane 4067, Australia)

  • Toni Cannard

    (CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Queensland Biosciences Precinct, 306 Carmody Rd, St Lucia, Brisbane 4067, Australia)

  • Natalie A. Dowling

    (CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Hobart, Tasmania 7000, Australia)

  • Catherine M. Dichmont

    (Cathy Dichmont Consulting (CDC), Bribie Island 4507, Australia
    The College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Douglas QLD 4814, Queensland, Australia)

  • Sian Breen

    (Fisheries Queensland, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, GPO Box 46, Brisbane 4001, Australia)

  • Tom Roberts

    (Fisheries Queensland, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, GPO Box 46, Brisbane 4001, Australia)

  • Rachel J. Pears

    (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, PO Box 1379, Townsville, Queensland 4810, Australia)

  • George M. Leigh

    (Agri-Science Queensland, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, GPO Box 46, Brisbane 4001, Australia)

Abstract

Ecosystem based fisheries management (EBFM) provides a framework to achieve ecological, economic and social sustainability in fisheries. However, developing harvest strategies to achieve these multiple objectives is complex. This is even more so in multi-sector multi-species fisheries. In our study, we develop such harvest strategies for the multi-species Coral Reef Fin Fish Fishery (CRFFF) operating in the waters of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. The fishery includes recreational, charter and commercial sectors, and is a provider of regional employment and supplier of seafood to both local and export markets. We convened a series of stakeholder workshops and conducted surveys to identify stakeholder objectives and priorities, as well as potential harvest strategy frameworks for the fishery. These potential harvest strategies were assessed against the objectives using a further qualitative impact survey. The analysis identified which frameworks were preferred by different stakeholder groups and why, taking into account the different objective priorities and tradeoffs in outcomes. The new feature of the work was to qualitatively determine which harvest strategies are perceived to best address triple bottom line objectives. The approach is therefore potentially applicable in other complex fisheries developing harvest strategies which, by design, strive to achieve ecological, economic and social sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Sean Pascoe & Toni Cannard & Natalie A. Dowling & Catherine M. Dichmont & Sian Breen & Tom Roberts & Rachel J. Pears & George M. Leigh, 2019. "Developing Harvest Strategies to Achieve Ecological, Economic and Social Sustainability in Multi-Sector Fisheries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-21, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:3:p:644-:d:200915
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/3/644/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/3/644/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pascoe, Sean & Proctor, Wendy & Wilcox, Chris & Innes, James & Rochester, Wayne & Dowling, Natalie, 2009. "Stakeholder objective preferences in Australian Commonwealth managed fisheries," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 750-758, September.
    2. J. Hummel & Lotte Steuten & C. Groothuis-Oudshoorn & Nick Mulder & Maarten IJzerman, 2013. "Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening Techniques and Intention to Attend: a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(5), pages 499-507, October.
    3. Rick D. Stuart-Smith & Christopher J. Brown & Daniela M. Ceccarelli & Graham J. Edgar, 2018. "Ecosystem restructuring along the Great Barrier Reef following mass coral bleaching," Nature, Nature, vol. 560(7716), pages 92-96, August.
    4. Wang, Jiang-Jiang & Jing, You-Yin & Zhang, Chun-Fa & Zhao, Jun-Hong, 2009. "Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2263-2278, December.
    5. Mardle, Simon & Pascoe, Sean & Boncoeur, Jean & Gallic, Bertrand Le & García-Hoyo, Juan J. & Herrero, Inés & Jimenez-Toribio, Ramon & Cortes, Concepción & Padilla, Nuria & Nielsen, Jesper Raakjaer & M, 2002. "Objectives of fisheries management: case studies from the UK, France, Spain and Denmark," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 415-428, November.
    6. Van Ittersum, Koert & Pennings, Joost M.E. & Wansink, Brian & van Trijp, Hans C.M., 2007. "The validity of attribute-importance measurement: A review," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(11), pages 1177-1190, November.
    7. Thébaud, Olivier & Innes, James & Norman-López, Ana & Slade, Stephanie & Cameron, Darren & Cannard, Toni & Tickell, Sharon & Kung, John & Kerrigan, Brigid & Williams, Lew & Richard Little, L., 2014. "Micro-economic drivers of profitability in an ITQ-managed fishery: An analysis of the Queensland Coral Reef Fin-Fish Fishery," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 200-207.
    8. Thomas L. Saaty, 1986. "Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 841-855, July.
    9. Hayashi, Kiyotada, 2000. "Multicriteria analysis for agricultural resource management: A critical survey and future perspectives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 486-500, April.
    10. Doyle, John R. & Green, Rodney H. & Bottomley, Paul A., 1997. "Judging Relative Importance: Direct Rating and Point Allocation Are Not Equivalent," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 65-72, April.
    11. Bottomley, Paul A. & Doyle, John R., 2001. "A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 553-560, December.
    12. Soma, Katrine, 2003. "How to involve stakeholders in fisheries management--a country case study in Trinidad and Tobago," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 47-58, January.
    13. Wattage, Premachandra & Mardle, Simon & Pascoe, Sean, 2005. "Evaluation of the importance of fisheries management objectives using choice-experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 85-95, October.
    14. Pascoe, Sean & Mary Dichmont, Catherine & Brooks, Kate & Pears, Rachel & Jebreen, Edward, 2013. "Management objectives of Queensland fisheries: Putting the horse before the cart," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 115-122.
    15. Brooks, Kate & Schirmer, Jacki & Pascoe, Sean & Triantafillos, Lianos & Jebreen, Eddie & Cannard, Toni & Dichmont, Cathy M., 2015. "Selecting and assessing social objectives for Australian fisheries management," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 111-122.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pascoe, Sean & Doshi, Amar & Kovac, Mladen & Austin, Angelica, 2019. "Estimating coastal and marine habitat values by combining multi-criteria methods with choice experiments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Louisa Coglan & Sean Pascoe & Gabriela Scheufele, 2021. "Availability of Non-Market Values to Inform Decision-Making in Australian Fisheries and Aquaculture: An Audit and Gap Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-18, January.
    3. Dowling, Natalie A. & Dichmont, Catherine M. & Leigh, George M. & Pascoe, Sean & Pears, Rachel J. & Roberts, Tom & Breen, Sian & Cannard, Toni & Mamula, Aaron & Mangel, Marc, 2020. "Optimising harvest strategies over multiple objectives and stakeholder preferences," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 435(C).
    4. Chofreh, Abdoulmohammad Gholamzadeh & Goni, Feybi Ariani & Klemeš, Jiří Jaromír & Seyed Moosavi, Seyed Mohsen & Davoudi, Mehdi & Zeinalnezhad, Masoomeh, 2021. "Covid-19 shock: Development of strategic management framework for global energy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sean Pascoe & Renae Tobin & Jill Windle & Toni Cannard & Nadine Marshall & Zobaidul Kabir & Nicole Flint, 2016. "Developing a Social, Cultural and Economic Report Card for a Regional Industrial Harbour," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, February.
    2. Marttunen, Mika & Belton, Valerie & Lienert, Judit, 2018. "Are objectives hierarchy related biases observed in practice? A meta-analysis of environmental and energy applications of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(1), pages 178-194.
    3. Pascoe, Sean & Doshi, Amar & Kovac, Mladen & Austin, Angelica, 2019. "Estimating coastal and marine habitat values by combining multi-criteria methods with choice experiments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Lienert, Judit & Duygan, Mert & Zheng, Jun, 2016. "Preference stability over time with multiple elicitation methods to support wastewater infrastructure decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 746-760.
    5. Dowling, Natalie A. & Dichmont, Catherine M. & Leigh, George M. & Pascoe, Sean & Pears, Rachel J. & Roberts, Tom & Breen, Sian & Cannard, Toni & Mamula, Aaron & Mangel, Marc, 2020. "Optimising harvest strategies over multiple objectives and stakeholder preferences," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 435(C).
    6. Estévez, Rodrigo A. & Gelcich, Stefan, 2015. "Participative multi-criteria decision analysis in marine management and conservation: Research progress and the challenge of integrating value judgments and uncertainty," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1-7.
    7. Yang, Guo-liang & Yang, Jian-Bo & Xu, Dong-Ling & Khoveyni, Mohammad, 2017. "A three-stage hybrid approach for weight assignment in MADM," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 93-105.
    8. Roger Chapman Burk & Richard M. Nehring, 2023. "An Empirical Comparison of Rank-Based Surrogate Weights in Additive Multiattribute Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 55-72, March.
    9. Wiebke Mohr & Anika Rädke & Adel Afi & Franka Mühlichen & Moritz Platen & Annelie Scharf & Bernhard Michalowsky & Wolfgang Hoffmann, 2022. "Development of a Quantitative Preference Instrument for Person-Centered Dementia Care—Stage 2: Insights from a Formative Qualitative Study to Design and Pretest a Dementia-Friendly Analytic Hierarchy ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-21, July.
    10. Hojatollah Khedrigharibvand & Hossein Azadi & Dereje Teklemariam & Ehsan Houshyar & Philippe Maeyer & Frank Witlox, 2019. "Livelihood alternatives model for sustainable rangeland management: a review of multi-criteria decision-making techniques," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 11-36, February.
    11. Suk, Kwanho & Yoon, Song-Oh, 2012. "The moderating role of decision task goals in attribute weight convergence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 37-45.
    12. Ewa Roszkowska, 2020. "The extention rank ordering criteria weighting methods in fuzzy enviroment," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(2), pages 91-114.
    13. Hesham K. Alfares & Salih O. Duffuaa, 2016. "Simulation-Based Evaluation of Criteria Rank-Weighting Methods in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(01), pages 43-61, January.
    14. Rodrigo A. Estévez & Valeria Espinoza & Roberto D. Ponce Oliva & Felipe Vásquez-Lavín & Stefan Gelcich, 2021. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Renewable Energies: Research Trends, Gaps and the Challenge of Improving Participation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-13, March.
    15. Yang Zhang & Shuo-Fang Liu & Kun Wang, 2019. "Explorations of Charm Factors and Development of Fishing in Southern Taiwan Based on Miryoku Engineering and the Analytic Network Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-21, January.
    16. Kurka, Thomas & Blackwood, David, 2013. "Selection of MCA methods to support decision making for renewable energy developments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 225-233.
    17. Nayyar Hussain Mirjat & Mohammad Aslam Uqaili & Khanji Harijan & Mohd Wazir Mustafa & Md. Mizanur Rahman & M. Waris Ali Khan, 2018. "Multi-Criteria Analysis of Electricity Generation Scenarios for Sustainable Energy Planning in Pakistan," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-33, March.
    18. Dong, Yucheng & Liu, Yating & Liang, Haiming & Chiclana, Francisco & Herrera-Viedma, Enrique, 2018. "Strategic weight manipulation in multiple attribute decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 154-164.
    19. Marina Polykarpou & Flora Karathanasi & Takvor Soukissian & Vasiliki Loukaidi & Ioannis Kyriakides, 2023. "A Novel Data-Driven Tool Based on Non-Linear Optimization for Offshore Wind Farm Siting," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-17, February.
    20. Kumar, Abhishek & Sah, Bikash & Singh, Arvind R. & Deng, Yan & He, Xiangning & Kumar, Praveen & Bansal, R.C., 2017. "A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 596-609.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:3:p:644-:d:200915. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.