Sustainability Assessment of the Societal Costs of Fishing Activities in a Deliberative Perspective
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Subsistence—that is to say, the health, survival, and security of an organism.
- Goods and services in the commercial context. In both cases, we can be invested either positively or negatively in the distribution of capacities, opportunities, risks, and costs, either for individuals or groups. Ultimately, all sectors of society are concerned.
- Political dimension—the distribution within a society of the means of being part of a political process or of governance, which can be at any institutional level.
- Social link—the capacities of individuals to relate to other individuals and act according to the status and recognition of each person within the group, referencing communities, wealth, and issues of belonging, collective identity, and prestige; or, conversely, marginalization and exclusion.
- Ecological experience—the access or lack thereof to the various “environmental services” (natural resources, reception of waste, cognitive qualities, and support of life) and the symbolic meaning of such services.
- Autonomy and creation—the capacity of an individual or group to express freely and, by extension, to contribute to the capacities and opportunities of others, and to organize the life of society and the political process.
- Evaluation of the performance of fishing activity from a sustainability perspective;
- Comparison of the societal cost of fishing activities at the eco-region level;
- Comparison of the societal cost of fishing activities at the level of multiple eco-regions;
- A proposal of an economic evaluation of the societal cost of a fishing activity (in monetary terms).
2. Toward a New Approach for the Sustainability Assessment of Fisheries from a Deliberative Perspective
- Firstly, when the sustainability goal is affirmed, from which point of view the different dimensions of system feasibility and opportunity costs can be explored; and
- Secondly, when attention is given to the question of how to reconcile the diversity of sustainability concerns expressed by the spectrum of stakeholders in sustainability.
3. Sustainability Assessment of Métiers Using the KerBabel Representation Rack
- Knowledge-carriers’ axis: scientists (in EU, West Africa, Southeast Asia), institutions (FAO, OECD, WorldFish Center, Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (Senegal), the Secretariat of the Pacific Community);
- Performance issues axis: the analysis of the texts of the Johannesburg plan of implementation and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) and the interviews leads to the identification of six categories of criteria expressing preoccupations at the international level [32,33,34]. These performance issues of fisheries express the types of vulnerability and should help in guiding actions (see Table 2):
- Situation to be compared axis: eco-regions characterized by ecosystems of coastal upwelling (West Africa) and deltas (Southeast Asia).
4. Assessing the Societal Cost of Fishing Activities Using a Multi-Actor and Multicriteria Analysis
- Métiers axis: small ships (canoes and salans) and light gear, such as the different types of gillnets or hand lines, or the industrial export-oriented sector, equipped with trawlers, etc.;
- Performance issues axis: ecosystem health, sustainable livelihoods, social justice, food (security, safety, and sovereignty), profitability, regulations, and policies;
- Situation to be compared axis: eco-regions characterized by the ecosystems of coastal upwelling (West Africa) and the delta (Southeast Asia).
- [red = very bad];
- [dark red = bad];
- [white = medium];
- [green = good];
- [dark green = very good].
5. Comparing Métiers Profiles within the Southeast Asian Estuaries Eco-Region
6. Comparing the Métier Profiles of West Africa and Southeast Asian Estuary Eco-Regions
7. Discussion of the Indicators Used to Model Societal Cost in Sustainability Assessment: Toward a Monetarization of the Societal Cost
- -
- The indicator already has a value in monetary terms.
- -
- There is a monetization agreement for the indicator.
- -
- It is necessary to look for proxy indicators that will allow the indicator to be expressed in monetary terms.
- -
- It is necessary to produce the information in monetary terms; or
- -
- The indicator has no monetary expression.
8. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Issue | Indicator Title | Used X Time | CH1 | CH2 | CH3 | CH4 | CH5 | TH1 | TH2 | VN1 | VN2 | VN3 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ecosystem | Conservation of species | 9× | ||||||||||
Conservation of ecosystem | 9× | |||||||||||
Trophic level of catch | 5× | |||||||||||
Impact on ecosystem services | 3× | |||||||||||
Existence of juveniles in sufficient proportion | 1× | |||||||||||
The species is in a position to reproduce itself | 1× | |||||||||||
Food | Food security and safety | 10× | ||||||||||
Food sovereignty | 4× | |||||||||||
Fair use of natural resources | 1× | |||||||||||
Livelihoods | Income provided by fishing chain | 10× | ||||||||||
Employment provided by fishing chain | 10× | |||||||||||
Gender balance and equity—opportunities for women | 7× | |||||||||||
Basic material needs and health | 6× | |||||||||||
Freedom (place and control indicators) | 6× | |||||||||||
Self-actualization | 3× | |||||||||||
Extra income from tourism | 2× | |||||||||||
Policies | Efficiency of existing regulations | 9× | ||||||||||
Existence of illegal fishing activities | 9× | |||||||||||
Enforcement of law and regulations—effective inspection and surveillance, etc. | 9× | |||||||||||
Legal and institutional activities with regard to the fishery sector (sufficient or not) | 4× | |||||||||||
Subsidies to the fishery sector | 3× | |||||||||||
Profit | Economical profitability of fishing | 5× | ||||||||||
Total net income minus total net costs | 5× | |||||||||||
Revenue for this metier | 5× | |||||||||||
Total costs for métier | 5× | |||||||||||
Other occupation takes time and brings additional revenue | 1× | |||||||||||
Social Justice | There could be a salary or income link to catches | 4× | ||||||||||
Distribution of income | 4× | |||||||||||
Distribution of income along the chain | 4× | |||||||||||
Comparison of fishery income/other economic sectors | 3× | |||||||||||
Gender balance and equity—opportunities for women | 1× | |||||||||||
Extra income from tourism | 1× |
Appendix B
Issue | Indicator Title | Asian Countries (Used X Time) | African Countries (Used X Time) | GB1 | GB2 | GB3 | GB4 | GB5 | GN1 | GN2 | GN3 | GN4 | GN5 | GN6 | SE1 | SE2 | SE3 | SE4 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ecosystem | Conservation of ecosystem | 9× | 15× | |||||||||||||||
Conservation of species | 9× | 15× | ||||||||||||||||
Trophic level of catch | 5× | 3× | ||||||||||||||||
Existence of juveniles in sufficient proportion | 1× | 2× | ||||||||||||||||
Length–Frequency analysis of catches | - | 2× | ||||||||||||||||
Impact on ecosystem services | 3× | - | ||||||||||||||||
The species is in a position to reproduce itself | 1× | - | ||||||||||||||||
Food | Food security and safety | 10× | 15× | |||||||||||||||
Food sovereignty | 4× | 15× | ||||||||||||||||
Fair use of natural resources | 1× | - | ||||||||||||||||
Livelihoods | Employment provided by fishing chain | 10× | 15× | |||||||||||||||
Income provided by fishing chain | 10× | 14× | ||||||||||||||||
Gender balance and equity—opportunities for women | 7× | 7× | ||||||||||||||||
Freedom (place and control indicators) | 6× | 1× | ||||||||||||||||
Basic material needs and health | 6× | 1× | ||||||||||||||||
Self-actualization | 3× | - | ||||||||||||||||
Extra income from tourism | 2× | - | ||||||||||||||||
Policies | Legal and institutional activities with regard to the fishery sector (sufficient or not). | 4× | 14× | |||||||||||||||
Enforcement of law and regulations—effective inspection and surveillance, etc. | 9× | 14× | ||||||||||||||||
Existence of illegal fishing activities | 9× | 9× | ||||||||||||||||
Efficiency of existing regulations | 9× | 7× | ||||||||||||||||
Subsidies to the fishery sector | 3× | 6× | ||||||||||||||||
Existence of conflicts between different métiers | - | 4× | ||||||||||||||||
Profit | Economical profitability of fishing | 5× | 15× | |||||||||||||||
Total net income minus the total net cost | 5× | - | ||||||||||||||||
Revenue for this métier | 5× | - | ||||||||||||||||
Total costs for metier | 5× | - | ||||||||||||||||
Other occupation takes time and bring additional revenue | 1× | - | ||||||||||||||||
Social Justice | Distribution of income within the fishery sector | 4× | 15× | |||||||||||||||
Distribution of income along the chain | 4× | 14× | ||||||||||||||||
Gender balance and equity—opportunities for women | 1× | 8× | ||||||||||||||||
Organization of production, processing and distribution | - | 3× | ||||||||||||||||
Comparison of fishery incomes/other economic sectors | 3× | 3× | ||||||||||||||||
Fair use of natural resources | - | 2× | ||||||||||||||||
There could be a salary or income link to catches | 4× | - |
References
- FAO. La Situation Mondiale des Pêches et de L’aquaculture 2020; La durabilité en action; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Laurec, A.; Biseau, A.; Charruau, A. Modelling technical interaction. ICES Mar. Symp. 1991, 193, 225–234. [Google Scholar]
- Pech, N.; Samba, A.; Drapeau, L.; Sabatier, R.; Laloë, F. Fitting a model of flexible multifleet-multispecies fisheries to Senegalese artisanal fishery data. Aquat. Living Resour. 2001, 14, 81–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulrich, C.; Gascuel, D.; Dunn, M.R.; Le Gallic, B.; Dintheer, C. Estimation of technical interactions due to the competition for resource in a mixed-species fishery, and the typology of fleets and métiers in the English Channel. Aquat. Living Resour. 2001, 14, 267–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Douguet, J.-M.; Raharinirina, V.; O’Connor, M.; Roman, P. Construction d’un partenariat de connaissances sur les questions de justice environnementale: Exemple du projet européen EJOLT. Éduc. Relat. L’Environ 2016, 13, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- George, C. Testing for sustainable development through assessment. Environ. Impact. Asses. Rev. 1999, 19, 175–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fatema, U.K.; Faruque, H.; Salam, M.A.; Matsuda, H. Vulnerability Assessment of Target Shrimps and Bycatch Species from Industrial Shrimp Trawl Fishery in the Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akrour, S.; Grimes, S. Is the Ecological Footprint Enough Science for Algerian Fisheries Management? Sustainability 2022, 14, 1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coase, R.H. The Problem of Social Cost. J. Law Econ. 1960, 3, 1–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Failler, P.; Pan, H. Global value, full value and societal costs: Capturing the true cost of destroying marine ecosystems. Soc. Sci. Inf. 2007, 46, 109–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Pan, H.; Li, S.; Failler, P. An Integrated Socio-Economic and Ecological Framework for Evaluating the Societal Costs and Benefits of Fishing Activities in the Pearl River Delta. Open J. Mar. Sci. 2015, 5, 477–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garmendia, E.; Gamboa, G.; Franco, J.; Garmendia, J.M.; Liria, P.; Olazabal, M. Social multi-criteria evaluation as a decision support tool for integrated coastal zone management. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2010, 53, 385–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garmendia, E.; Prellezo, R.; Murillas, A.; Escapa, M.; Gallastegui, M. Weak and strong sustainability assessment in fisheries. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 70, 96–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dryzek, J.S.; List, C. Social Choice Theory and Deliberative Democracy: A reconciliation. Br. J. Political Sci. 2004, 34, 752–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Habermas, J. Droit et Démocratie. Entre Faits et Normes; Gallimard: Paris, France, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Elster, J. Deliberative Democracy; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Fishkin, J. Democracy and Deliberation; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Bohman, J.; Rehg, W. Deliberative Democraty; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Blondiaux, L. Le Nouvel Esprit de la Démocratie. Actualité de la Démocratie Participative; Seuil: Paris, France, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Arrow, K.J. Social Choice and Individual Values, 2nd ed.; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1963. [Google Scholar]
- O’Connor, M. The “Four Spheres” framework for sustainability. Ecol. Complex. 2006, 3, 285–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Connor, M. KerDST, Indicators & Deliberation-Knowledge Quality, Societal Choices, and Environmental Learning through Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues; Report, Cahiers du C3ED; C3ED-Université de Versailles St Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ): Paris, France, 2006; 33p. [Google Scholar]
- Pope, J.; Bond, A.; Hugé, J.; Morrison-Saunders, A. Reconceptualising sustainability assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2017, 62, 205–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ness, B.; Urbel-Piirsalu, E.; Anderberg, S.; Olsson, L. Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 60, 498–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, Y.-J.; Houle, J.E.; Akoglu, E.; Blanchard, J.L.; Bundy, A.; Coll, M.; Demarcq, H.; Fu, C.; Fulton, E.A.; Heymans, J.J.; et al. The specificity of marine ecological indicators to fishing in the face of environmental change: A multi-model evaluation. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 89, 317–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adrianto, L.; Matsuda, Y.; Sakuma, Y. Assessing local sustainability of fisheries system: A multi-criteria participatory approach with the case of Yoron Island, Kagoshima prefecture, Japan. Mar. Policy 2005, 29, 9–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frame, B.; O’Connor, M. Integrating valuation and deliberation: The purposes of sustainability assessment. Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Passet, R. L’économique et le Vivant; Payot: Paris, France, 1979; 287p. [Google Scholar]
- Passet, R. Les Grandes Représentations du Monde et de L’économie à Travers l’Histoire. De L’univers Magique au Tourbillon Créateur; Les Liens Qui Libèrent: Paris, France, 2010; 948p. [Google Scholar]
- Funtowicz, S.O.; O’Connor, M. The Passage from Entropy to Thermodynamic Indeterminacy: A Social and Science Epistemology for Sustainability. In Bioeconomics and Sustainability: Essays in Honour of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen; Mayumi, K., Gowdy, J., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 1999; pp. 257–286. [Google Scholar]
- Douguet, J.-M.; Andriamasinoro, F.; Morlat, C. Subjective evaluation of aggregate supply scenarios in the Ile-de-France region with a view to a circular economy: The ANR AGREGA research project. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 22, 123–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christensen, V. Ecopath with Ecosim: Linking fisheries and ecology. In Handbook of Ecological Modelling and Informatics; Jørgensen, S.E., Chon, T.-S., Recknagel, F.A., Eds.; WIT Press: Southampton, UK, 2009; pp. 55–70. [Google Scholar]
- Christensen, V.; Walters, C.J. Ecopath with Ecosim: Methods, capabilities and limitations. Ecol. Model. 2004, 172, 109–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bavinck, M.; Monnereau, I. Assessing the societal costs of capture fisheries: An exploratory study. Soc. Sci. Inf. 2007, 46, 135–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Douguet, J.-M.; O’Connor, M.; Peterson, A.; Janssen, P.; Van der Sluijs, J. Uncertainty Assessment in Deliberative Perspective. In Science for Policy: New Challenges, New Opportunities; Guimaraes Pereira, A., Funtowicz, S., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Delhi, India, 2009; pp. 15–47. [Google Scholar]
- Failler, P.; Pan, H.; Thorpe, A.; Tokrisna, R. On Macroeconomic Impact of Fishing Effort Regulation: Measuring Bottom-Up Fish Harvesters’ Economy-Wide Contribution. Nat. Resour. 2014, 5, 269–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pauly, D.; Christensen, V.; Walters, C. Ecopath, Ecosim, and Ecospace as tools for evaluating ecosystem impact of fisheries. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2000, 57, 697–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martinez-Alier, J. The Environmentalism of the Poor, a Study of Ecological Conflicts and Valuation; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2002; 328p. [Google Scholar]
- Douguet, J.-M.; O’Connor, M. Publicly Accountable Dialogue and Deliberation: Building Integrity around the question of Quality in Knowledge? Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 21. under press. [Google Scholar]
Integraal Steps | Description | Tools Mobilized |
---|---|---|
Step 1: What is the common problem? | Identification of key questions about the effects of fishing activities in different eco-regions | |
Step 2: Make the framing of the sustainability assessment explicit | In which ways do fishing activities constitute a problem of “social choice”? Who are the actors? What are the categories of performance issues to consider (e.g., sustainability of environmental services, economic viability, institutional feasibility)? What are the eco-regions within which fishing activities should be compared? (This step is based both on a more in-depth field study (including interviews) and on the literature.) | |
Step 3: Inform and represent the societal cost of the métier, in different eco-regions, using scientific and vernacular knowledge. | The actors, in this step, are knowledge-carriers. Through the identification of pertinent indicators, they contribute to the representation of the societal costs of fishing activities, according to different perspectives. | KerBabel Representation Rack |
Step 4: Evaluation by a multicriteria and multi-actor analysis of the societal cost of métiers in different eco-regions. | The actors, in this step, are stakeholders. They participate in the evaluation of fishing activities through the formulation of judgments to express, from their point of view, the variety of effects and societal costs of métiers. Part of this information can be expressed in monetary terms. | KerBabel Deliberation Matrix Monetary Assessment approach |
Step 5: Recommendations and communication | Recommendations and communication of the results of the study, not only to participants but also to the wider public. Then, the process moves from research to decision-making. | |
Step 6: Feedback on the experience | Feedback on the experience and on how the evaluation approach occurred. |
Performance Issues of Fisheries | Description | Vulnerability Dimensions |
---|---|---|
Ecosystem health | Emphasizing the impact of fishing activities on the conservation and restoration of species and ecosystems. | Ecological experience |
Sustainable livelihoods (employment, income, job satisfaction, and gender) | Focusing on poverty reduction, the creation of opportunities, access to assets, and the developing of an enabling environment. | Goods and services in the commercial context, social links |
Social justice (income distribution and equity) | Referring to the distribution and use of income and resources. This is highly dependent on the fisheries’ national and international economic structure and is closely related to the next issue (food security and sovereignty). | Social links, political dimension |
Food (security, safety, and sovereignty) | Referring to the availability of food to people in sufficient quantity and quality; food sovereignty being the right of people to define their own food consumption. | Autonomy and creation, political dimension |
Profitability | Measuring the capacity of fishing equipment, techniques, and people to generate enough profit to economically sustain their activities. | Goods and services in the commercial context |
Regulations and policies | Referring to the elaboration, implementation, and enforcement of legal rules, as well as voluntary mechanisms. | Political dimension |
Knowledge Carriers Axis: Scientist | |
---|---|
Conceptual Framework Axis: Ecopath/Ecosim model | |
Eco-regions axis | Performance Issue Axis: Ecosystem Health |
Southeast Asia eco-region | Ind. E01: Fishing resource biomass Ind. E02: Ecosystem richness Ind. E03: Gross efficiency of the catch (catch/net P.P.) Ind. E04: Mean trophic level of the catch. Ind. E05: Impact of fishing on other trophic levels |
West Africa eco-region | Ind. E01: Fishing resource biomass Ind. E02: Ecosystem richness Ind. E14: Capacity to maintain support services (primary production) Ind. E15: Capacity to maintain provisioning services (food, other) |
Eco-Region 1/Performance Issue 1/Métier 1 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Name of the Indicator | Value | Subjective Weight | Comment | Summary Conclusion |
Conservation of species | Bad | 15% | ||
Conservation of ecosystem | Good | 15% | Good | |
Trophic level of the catch | Good | 15% | ||
Impact on ecosystem services | Good | 20% | ||
Existence of juveniles in sufficient proportion | Good | 35% |
Code | Vessel | Gears | Target Species |
---|---|---|---|
TH1 | Trawler | Otter board trawl | Trash fish and demersal catches |
TH2 | Purse seiner | Anchovy purse seine | Anchovy |
CH1 | Trawler | Single and pair trawl | Blie scad, golden threadfin bream, big-eye perch, mullet, cutlassfish, jack mackerel, Pacific mackerel, conger eel, black scraper, squid, prawn |
CH2 | Trawler | Single and pair trawl | Crevalle jack, threadfish, large-head hairtail, shrimps, squid |
CH3 | Seine Boat | Purse seine | Shrimps |
CH4 | Canoe | Gill net | Golden threadfin bream, large yellow croaker, conger eel, black pomfret, cutlassfish, banded, tuna, tunny, big-eye perch, deep-sea bass, squid |
CH5 | Canoe | Hook and line | Golden threadfin bream, deep-sea bass, squid |
VN1 | Trawler | Trawl net | Demersal fish |
VN2 | Gill Boat | Gill net | Demersal fish |
VN3 | Trawler | Trawl net | Shrimps |
Code | Vessel | Gears | Target Species |
---|---|---|---|
SE1 | Pair of canoes | Purse seine | Sardinella, bonga, horse mackerel and chub mackerel |
SE2 | Canoe | Surrounding gill net | Sardinella and bonga |
SE3 | Canoe | Hand-line bottom ice-box canoe | Pandora, chub mackerel, catfish, seabream, biglip grount, snapper |
SE4 | Trawler | Coastal fish trawling | Crevalle jack, threadfish, large-head hairtail, shrimps, squid |
GB1 | Demersal fishery | Trawl | Demersal fish |
GB2 | Pirogue | Gill net | Demersal fish |
GB3 | Shrimp fishery | Trawl | Shrimps |
GB4 | Pirogue | Gill net | Shrimps |
GB5 | Simple monoxyle pirogue | Gill net | Ethmalose |
GN1 | Salan (artisanal) | Gill nets | Croacker |
GN2 | Salan (artisanal) | Gill nets | Bobo croacker |
GN3 | Salan boat | Drifting gill nets | 80% Ethmalosa |
GN4 | Salan (artisanal) | Handline and set longline with or without icebox | Snapper, emperor |
GN5 | Trawler | Fish trawling | Catfish, Bobo croaker, croaker |
GN6 | Trawler | Shrimp trawling | Shrimp |
Issue | Pertinence of the Issue for Monetizing | Indicators Chosen in a Deliberative Approach | Total Used (X Time) | Indicators for the Economic Valuation | Source | Economic Valuation of Costs (a + b) | Economic Valuation of Benefits (a + b) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Livelihoods | Pertinent for monetization | Employment provided by fishing chain | 25× | ||||
Income provided by fishing chain | 24× | ||||||
Gender balance and equity—opportunities for women | 14× | ||||||
Basic material needs and health | 7× | Basic material consumption (residents in the PRD) | (Wang et al., 2015) | 67,256 | |||
Basic material consumption (fisherman in the PRD) | 39,229 | ||||||
Health care (residents in the PRD) | 7049 | ||||||
Health care (fisherman in the PRD) | 6795 | ||||||
Freedom (place and control indicators) | 7× | Freedom and choice | (Wang et al., 2015) | 9132 | |||
Self-actualization | 3× | ||||||
Extra income from tourism | 2× |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Douguet, J.-M.; Failler, P.; Ferraro, G. Sustainability Assessment of the Societal Costs of Fishing Activities in a Deliberative Perspective. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6191. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106191
Douguet J-M, Failler P, Ferraro G. Sustainability Assessment of the Societal Costs of Fishing Activities in a Deliberative Perspective. Sustainability. 2022; 14(10):6191. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106191
Chicago/Turabian StyleDouguet, Jean-Marc, Pierre Failler, and Gianluca Ferraro. 2022. "Sustainability Assessment of the Societal Costs of Fishing Activities in a Deliberative Perspective" Sustainability 14, no. 10: 6191. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106191