Subjective Socioeconomic Status in Small-Scale Aquaculture: Evidence from Central-Southern Chile

Abstract

Socioeconomic status (SES) is a multidimensional concept that involves objective markers, such as income, education, and occupation, along with subjective data, which indicate how people perceive their socioeconomic position. Gaps and the lack of linear relationships in objective SES data have supported the need to include subjective markers. This study evaluates the effect of certain critical predictors on the subjective SES of small-scale aquaculture producers in Central-Southern Chile, addressing a gap in research. We explore the impact of income, education, occupational settings, social capital, and subjective health status on self-reports of current and future subjective socioeconomic status. We use primary data collected through a government-funded project. The fieldwork included a face-to-face survey implemented between February and March 2017 with 225 participants, all located in the Bio-Bio or Lagos regions of Chile. Bi-probit regression models were applied to test how the current and future subjective SES is affected by the following variables: engaging small-scale aquaculture production, having a secondary occupation, harvesting two or more different resources, maintaining extended social networks to cope with economic problems, subjective health status, average monthly income from aquaculture or fishery, perceptions about how difficult it is to find alternative work, and education as means for personal and occupational development. The results show that engaging in small-scale aquaculture positively affects current and future subjective socioeconomic status. Income is a robust predictor of present and future socioeconomic status. Education loses relevance on subjective SES later in life, whereas social capital gains importance.

1. Introduction

Even though aquaculture is broadly promoted as an opportunity to strengthen the economic viability of remote coastal areas by creating employment for local people, generating income for women and young adults, improving access to good quality food, and contributing to sustainable development goals (SDGs) [1,2,3], we know little about how people engaged in aquaculture activities perceive the impact of aquaculture on their well-being. This study adds to that understanding using what is commonly conceptualized in the literature as subjective well-being perception. Subjective socioeconomic well-being moves beyond the usual objective well-being indicators, such as income, educational levels, and occupational settings, and focuses on individuals’ evaluations and perceptions of their socioeconomic circumstances, providing valuable insights into people’s lives [4,5,6].

Although objective measures can offer essential information, subjective well-being captures individuals’ unique assessments of their quality of life [7]. For example, the most common objective indicators include measures of income and wealth (self-reported income data, tax records), education (highest level of education, years of schooling, and qualifications), employment and occupation (employment status, job stability), housing conditions (home ownership, access to affordable housing), and healthcare access (access to services, health insurance coverage). The most popular subjective indicators, on the other hand, capture different aspects of lived experience like life satisfaction (individuals’ evaluations of their economic circumstances), financial satisfaction (financial security or stress), job satisfaction (perceptions of employment circumstances, career prospects, and overall satisfaction with work), and happiness and emotional well-being (positive and negative affects related to people’s socioeconomic conditions) [8,9].

Understanding how individuals subjectively experience their economic circumstances recognizes individuals’ feelings of control, power, and social standing, which can significantly impact their well-being beyond the material aspects of their lives. Research has shown that individuals with higher socioeconomic status exhibit better physical and mental health, greater life satisfaction, and increased social engagement [10,11,12]. Moreover, subjective socioeconomic status (SSS) can reflect individuals’ access to resources, opportunities, and social support networks, all crucial in shaping overall well-being [13,14]. By studying subjective socioeconomic status, researchers can gain valuable insights into the subjective experiences, aspirations, and challenges that individuals face, enabling the development of interventions and policies that target the underlying factors influencing people’s well-being beyond objective measures alone [15,16].

Researchers agree on the limitations of relying solely on objective measures to comprehend individuals’ well-being and quality of life. The emergence of positive psychology and economic psychology has underscored the significance of understanding how individuals’ economic circumstances, income, and financial satisfaction impact their overall well-being [9,17]. In response, interdisciplinary fields, including sociology, economics, psychology, and public health have embraced subjective socioeconomic well-being as a vital research component. By incorporating subjective well-being measures and perspectives, these fields aim to understand individuals’ quality of life more comprehensively. Although there has been a trend toward subjective approaches to well-being in economics more broadly, including subjective measures for understanding overall well-being in small-scale aquaculture contexts is still new. In aquaculture, most attention has been given to environmental impacts (e.g., water pollution, disease transmission, and coastal wetland loss) of the ecosystem activity [18,19], rather than well-being impacts.

Searching for studies on the overall well-being of small farmers, we found some insights about the impact of aquaculture on the local economy and the socioeconomic development of remote geographical areas [3,20,21,22]. Other studies have evaluated the effect of the aquaculture industry on healthcare workers [2] and the socioeconomic benefits of performing aquaculture on people’s well-being [1,18,23,24,25]; however, no subjective well-being measures were included in this research.

A more specific search for “aquaculture and subjective well-being” revealed that most studies are situated in Asian contexts. There is some evidence about subjective well-being in mariculture and seaweed farmers in Ningde, China [18], self-reported life satisfaction in shrimp farmers in Bangladesh [26], life satisfaction in women engaged in small-scale seaweed harvesting in Indonesia [27], life satisfaction in areas dominated by export-oriented shrimp aquaculture in Bangladesh [26], and happiness in fishermen in Indonesia [28]. In contrast, literature focused on subjective socioeconomic status within South American and Chilean aquaculture is null.

Previous research has evaluated socioeconomic well-being in small-scale aquaculture (SSA) [23,24,29]. However, significant efforts have been focused on the aquaculture industry, observing the impact of the salmon industry installment on household income [20], on local socioeconomic development [21], and on local identity, traditions, and culture [30]. We genuinely believe that this research reduces the gap of knowledge for SSA.

It was also noted that all studies that measure subjective well-being in aquaculture involved the most common classical indicators: life satisfaction and happiness [18,26,28]; we, however, are interested in how people involved in SSA perceive their SSS. We maintain that the subjective socioeconomic dimension is particularly relevant for SSA in Chile for at least two reasons. First, although salmon is the dominant industry in aquaculture and is crucial for Chile’s economy, the emerging small-scale aquaculture sector has great socioeconomic relevance in creating jobs and increasing incomes, especially in locations with declining fishing activities [31]. Notably, part of Chile’s aquaculture industry, seaweed farming, showed the most rapid growth between 2000 and 2015, reaching 11% of total fishing landings by volume in 2015 [32]. Thus, SSA in Chile is seen as a viable and sustainable alternative for generating income while supporting marine conservation, alleviating poverty, and providing food security [23,24,33]. But what we seek to know is if such potential socioeconomic benefits are also subjectively experienced by small-scale fish farmers. This insight is critical in a context where the government is interested in promoting SSA as an alternative income-generating activity for fishers [34]. Second, there is evidence that incomes in SSA are usually lower than incomes generated by fishing activities. This wage gap is particularly evident when comparing Chilean seaweed farmers to holders of fishing quotas and, to a lesser extent, to holders of marine concessions [23,29].

We propose that bringing the subjective socioeconomic dimension into our analyses of Chilean aquaculture, where there is rapid but inequitable growth, can provide researchers and policymakers with a more complete understanding of the well-being impacts of SSA than using objective measures alone. Importantly, the association between objective and subjective socioeconomic status measures is not necessarily linear. A meta-analysis review found a slight correlation between household income and SSS, which decreases in societies with low population density and income inequality [35]. Using a sample of SSA producers and artisanal fishers, we estimate if household incomes explain SSS and if there are potential differences in SSS between these two agents.

To complement our estimates of household income in explaining SSS in SSA, we also explored how other relevant life dimensions explain SSS. To do so, we base our analysis on the capability approach, based on Amartya Sen’s works [36], which suggests that human well-being is the ability to take part in society in a meaningful way; therefore, subjective well-being results from an individual’s access to means and opportunities. In this paper, we hypothesize that having an occupation, a certain educational level, good health, and a high average monthly income, among other factors, are essential means for achieving a positive subjective socioeconomic status.

Next, we estimated what positive and significant predictors of SSS are. We also examined how such predictors vary across the course of people’s lives, testing which predictors are significant and which change or lose relevance over time. Then, we asked if the present socioeconomic status perception correlates to the future perspective on small-scale aquaculture producers. From these analyses, this study gives new knowledge about the contribution of the SSA on people’s subjective socioeconomic well-being and recommends some issues to be considered in future policies oriented toward SSA in Chile.

The paper is organized as follows: the Section 2 provides a conceptual framework; the Section 3 details methodology and the empirical strategy; the Section 4 describes the results; and the Section 5 discusses the results and provides the main conclusions.

2. Conceptual Framework

2.1. Why Does Subjective Socioeconomic Well-Being Matter?

Socioeconomic well-being is crucial for understanding people’s quality of life because it encompasses several fundamental lived experiences that substantially influence individuals and communities. Socioeconomic well-being addresses individuals’ access to essential resources, such as food, clean water, shelter, healthcare, and education [37,38]. It also influences standard of living, including factors such as income, employment opportunities, and housing conditions [38,39,40]. A higher standard of living generally translates into improved quality of life, as people can afford better goods and services, have permanent employment, and live in safer and more comfortable environments. It is also known that socioeconomic factors influence people’s health because those factors affect access to quality healthcare services, nutritious food, and a safe living environment. There is also evidence that because financial safety can provide more opportunities to get involved in social activities and cultivate support networks, good socioeconomic status allows people to build and maintain social connections and social engagement. Moreover, socioeconomic well-being can provide individuals with the means necessary for more personal agency in making decisions about their lives.

Over time, subjective socioeconomic well-being has been introduced in the research on quality of life because it recognizes the importance of individuals’ subjective experiences, perceptions, and evaluations of their socioeconomic circumstances. Subjective socioeconomic well-being, or subjective socioeconomic status (SSS), refers to individuals’ evaluations and views of their socioeconomic circumstances. It is essential for understanding people’s quality of life because it provides insights into their subjective experiences, happiness, and overall satisfaction with their socioeconomic situation. Although objective measures such as income, education level, and employment status provide valuable information about individuals’ material conditions, they do not entirely capture an individual’s well-being and satisfaction with life. Therefore, SSS combines objective indicators by focusing on individuals’ assessments of their quality of life [7,17].

Indeed, the importance of the individual perspective is one of the strongest reasons supporting the inclusion of subjective measures in research on well-being. Individuals are “the best judges” of their own well-being [38,41]. By considering individuals’ subjective experiences and views, researchers can observe unique factors influencing an individual’s quality of life. Quality of life is a multidimensional concept that involves various aspects of individuals’ lives, including their material conditions, social relationships, physical and mental health, and overall life satisfaction [10,42]. SSS provides researchers with a more comprehensive assessment by considering all these dimensions together. Furthermore, subjective well-being captures the influence of sociocultural and contextual factors on an individual’s quality of life because it takes into account individuals’ unique values, aspirations, and social norms across cultures [43,44,45]; thus, subjective measures allow for a more culturally sensitive understanding of quality of life.

From existing research on SSS, we can begin to recognize the impacts of high subjective well-being on many factors of an individual’s life. Reporting high subjective well-being reflects individuals’ ability to adapt and cope with socioeconomic challenges and setbacks. It considers their resilience, psychological resources, and coping mechanisms in the face of adversity. Even in challenging circumstances, individuals with higher subjective well-being may exhibit better overall life satisfaction and a greater sense of happiness, suggesting the importance of psychological factors in determining quality of life. Moreover, subjective socioeconomic well-being has been linked to various long-term outcomes, including physical and mental health, productivity, social engagement, and longevity. Individuals with higher subjective well-being tend to experience better health, stronger social connections, and greater success in various domains of life. Therefore, by better understanding subjective well-being, we can help identify areas for intervention and support that can lead to positive long-term outcomes and improved quality of life across populations.

Drawing on this last point, we can recognize the ways in which SSS has practical implications for policy interventions that improve individuals’ quality of life. By understanding the factors contributing to subjective well-being, policymakers can address not only objective socioeconomic disparities but also the subjective experiences of individuals. Policies can focus on enhancing factors like social support systems, work-life balance, community engagement, and mental health services, contributing to improved subjective well-being and overall quality of life.

Despite the clear benefits of subjective well-being analysis, the concept has critics and limitations. Some studies highlight that cultural biases can influence the concept of SSS. Well-being is subjective and can vary across cultures, making it challenging to develop universal measures that account for cultural differences [10,43]. Moreover, contextual factors influencing individuals’ well-being might affect SSS. For example, socioeconomic conditions and their impact on well-being may differ between geographical locations, sociopolitical contexts, and historical periods [43,44,46]. Researchers and policymakers need to account for these contextual factors to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach. To do so requires cross-cultural studies that consider cultural variations in defining and measuring well-being [45]. Additionally, context-specific indicators and measures that shape different populations’ unique socioeconomic conditions and cultural values can provide a more comprehensive understanding of subjective well-being.

Social comparisons also play a significant role in shaping individuals’ subjective socioeconomic well-being. How individuals perceive and evaluate their well-being is often influenced by comparing themselves to others in terms of socioeconomic status, achievements, and possessions. Critics argue that overly focusing on these comparisons may overshadow individuals’ true well-being and perpetuate a sense of inadequacy or discontent. In this sense, external markers of well-being might reduce other aspects of wellness, such as meaningful relationships, personal growth, and subjective experiences of happiness. By overly emphasizing socioeconomic comparisons, individuals may neglect their unique values, strengths, and sources of well-being that extend beyond material wealth and social status [4,43,44].

At a methodological level, critics of SSS argue that a broader set of indicators is needed to capture the multidimensional nature of socioeconomic well-being. Socioeconomic well-being indicators often focus on traditional economic measures, such as income and employment, while neglecting other relevant aspects, such as access to quality healthcare, housing, or environmental sustainability. Some empirical evidence shows that socioeconomic status (SES) is usually linked to income, educational attainment, and occupation. Indeed, these are the most common objective indicators for measuring SES [38,39,40]. Income is the access door to desired goods, services, and enjoyable experiences [37,38]. Education captures relevant sociocultural and psychological-related outcomes related to a positive quality of life as well as beneficial economic outcomes [47], and occupation has been used as a further proxy for objective SES because of its strong connection to income and educational level [48]. However, although extensive literature supports the relevance of those three classical indicators for understanding SES [49,50], the well-known income–education–occupation triad has been revisited and challenged [38,41], reinforcing the need to include other subjective measures in our analyses.

One final consideration in our choice of conceptual framework is that SSS usually relies on cross-sectional data, uncovering the dynamic nature of well-being and its changes over time. Longitudinal studies that track individuals’ well-being over extended periods are essential to understanding how socioeconomic circumstances affect well-being trajectories [4,6,15,16,51].

2.2. Combining Objective and Subjective Measures

Over time, researchers have recognized the limitations of relying solely on objective measures to understand individuals’ well-being and quality of life. The emergence of specific fields, such as positive psychology and economic psychology, has emphasized the importance of discovering how individuals’ economic circumstances, income, and financial satisfaction influence their overall well-being. Moreover, subjective socioeconomic well-being has been embraced by interdisciplinary fields, including sociology, economics, psychology, and public health. These fields have incorporated SSS measures and perspectives into their research to understand individuals’ quality of life and well-being more comprehensively. Researchers have developed SSS measures, such as self-reported questionnaires and surveys, to capture individuals’ evaluations and perceptions of their well-being. Advances in applied psychometric analysis techniques have allowed researchers to develop reliable scales to measure subjective socioeconomic well-being. Longitudinal and cross-cultural studies have explored how subjective socioeconomic well-being varies across different populations and contexts, which has supported conclusions that subjective well-being varies due to changes in people’s socioeconomic conditions.

Additionally, SSS research has influenced policy and development agendas. Governments and international organizations have recognized the importance of considering individuals’ subjective well-being, broadening their focus beyond purely economic indicators. Some well-known attempts to combine multiple objective and subjective indicators to provide a comprehensive approach to national policy are the Human Development Index (HDI) [6], the Better Life Index (BLI) [16], the Social Progress Index (SPI) [52], the Happy Planet Index (HPI) [53], and the World Happiness Report (WHR) [4]. These indices incorporate various indicators to assess well-being across different dimensions, including education, income, health, and living conditions. Furthermore, the emergence of comparative studies examining variations in SSS indicators across countries also shows the potential contribution of subjective measures for policy purposes [4,17,45,54,55].

Many empirical studies show that objective and subjective indicators reveal different aspects of people’s lives. The fundamental idea stemming from this research is that people’s socioeconomic status should not be exclusively understood as the absolute level of material resources a person possesses (commonly indexed by income level and educational attainments). Socioeconomic well-being should also involve people’s self-reported perceptions about their socioeconomic position within a particular society or context [38,41]. Including subjective measures allows researchers to evaluate other dimensions of human well-being that are hidden in most traditional objective measures. Although income and access to essential services are seen as “inputs”, life satisfaction, happiness, and subjective socioeconomic status are better understood as “outcomes” [35,50].

Associations between subjective (life satisfaction and happiness) and objective measures (income, education, and occupation) reflect the distance between a person’s means to access goods and services and how that person feels about that level of access [35]. Therefore, we can find people with low incomes and little formal education who are nonetheless quite satisfied with their socioeconomic status and overall subjective well-being [54,56]. Although it might seem a contradiction, this has been explained by the “social comparison theory”, which asserts that we compare our socioeconomic situation with those closest to us (e.g., family members, neighbors, etc.); therefore, it is not relevant how much a person has but how much they have in comparison to others in a similar socioeconomic position [35,57]. Moreover, there is evidence of people with low SES showing high life satisfaction and happiness levels because they assume their conditions are stable. They then take only a passive role in seeking to alleviate their poverty [58].

2.3. Subjective Socioeconomic Status Predictors

What affects people’s subjective well-being is a question that has been undertaken in many contexts; however, the potential predictors of subjective well-being depend on the theory underpinning the question. From the hedonic approach based on Diener’s positive psychological perspective (1984), subjective well-being predictors include certain demographic attributes (e.g., age, sex, marital status, etc.) and socioeconomic characteristics (e.g., income, employment, educational level, etc.). Under the same perspective, the eudaimonic approach includes other predictors related to psychological traits (e.g., engagement, meaning and purpose, self-esteem, optimism, resilience, and positive relationships) [59]. Finally, within the human development perspective developed by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum [60], subjective well-being results from processes such as equality of opportunity, personal freedoms, human agency, self-efficacy, ability to self-actualize, dignity, and relatedness to others. Our paper supports this human development approach, particularly because Sen’s theory proposes that even though there are many required capabilities for achieving maximum human potential, there are some essential means for cultivating well-being. Those means include having food, shelter, health, and the ability to engage in productive and valued activities, for example by having incomes, a job, and family networks [36,61]. Considering the data available for our research questions and local area, we used some variables as proxies for these essential means by people engaged in SSA.

In this paper, we assess how a set of essential capabilities might impact the SSS of people engaged in SSA. We expect positive effects on SSS for SSA producers who have a secondary occupation, harvest two or more natural resources, have higher incomes, and report having good perceptions of their educational level, social networks, and health status. Several studies have found that income, education, and occupation are the best predictors of SSS [49,50,62]. At the local level, Chilean social policy has established that income, education, and occupation are the primary factors for achieving a better quality of life [63,64]. In Amartya Sen’s words [36], these might be the essential functionings for developing capabilities and personal potential and, therefore, conditions for achieving high socioeconomic well-being.

To a lesser extent, some studies have addressed the role that social capital plays in individuals’ self-reported socioeconomic status. These studies indicate a positive correlation between subjective socioeconomic status and neighborhood cohesion, negative associations with a lack of support from friends [14,46], and positive impacts on widely subjective well-being [13]. To address this previous research in our study, we test the value of having help from someone outside of the family when coping with an economic, personal, or health-related problem.

2.4. Impact of the Present in Future SSS

It has been reported that socioeconomic factors during childhood are essential predictors of SSS in adulthood, even when controlling for contemporaneous socioeconomic conditions [10]. The relationship between health outcomes and subjective socioeconomic status has also been well researched, with results showing strong associations between these two factors over the course of people’s lives [10,11,42], even after controlling for education, income, and wealth [12,42].

According to a cross-national comparison, SSS is largely related to self-reported health, even among variations in income inequality and country affluence [65]. Though most of the literature indicates SSS as a robust predictor of health outcomes, because of access to education, material means, and related health services [42], some studies are arguing that health also influences how individuals rate themselves in socioeconomic terms [12]. Some longitudinal studies also have reported that SSS predicts both mental and physical health later in life [66] and that the probability of experiencing cognitive impairment later in life is higher when middle-aged people experience both poor subjective well-being and low incomes [67]. Therefore, we expect that having a second occupation, a positive perception of educational attainments, and a high average monthly income positively impact how small-scale aquaculture producers perceived their current SSS (CSSS) and future SSS (FSSS).

2.5. Why Study Subjective Socioeconomic Well-Being in the Context of Small-Scale Aquaculture?

By examining subjective socioeconomic well-being, we assess the impact of SSA activities on people’s livelihoods. Subjective well-being can capture the economic satisfaction and happiness experienced by small-scale aquaculture producers, indirectly informing us about individuals’ financial security, job satisfaction, and overall well-being [18,27]. Subjective measures also show satisfaction with the SSA activity, revealing if being engaged in small-scale aquaculture provides individuals with a sense of purpose and satisfaction [28]. By investigating how individuals in small-scale aquaculture perceive their socioeconomic status, we can shed light on their self-identity, aspirations, and motivations [23,68]. This understanding can help policymakers and researchers develop targeted interventions and support mechanisms to improve the well-being of individuals in this sector.

We can understand subjective measures and especially self-reported socioeconomic well-being as a good proxy for the sustainability of SSA activities in the long term [26,69]. Evidence supports that subjective well-being can reflect individuals’ attitudes and values towards environmental stewardship in small-scale aquaculture. Positive subjective well-being relates to pro-environmental concerns and behaviors [70]. Moreover, some sustainable aquaculture practices, such as minimizing pollution, conserving water resources, and preserving biodiversity, can positively influence individuals’ well-being and satisfaction with their involvement in aquaculture [69,71]. Other studies have found a positive relationship between SSS and related aquaculture knowledge and skills [28,68,72]. All these studies highlight the importance of acquiring and applying specific skills in aquaculture, which can lead to increased competence, personal growth, self-efficacy, and overall well-being among individuals engaged in SSA. Therefore, we expect that positive subjective well-being could lead to a sustainable aquaculture activity over time because people are deeply engaged and satisfied.

Additionally, small-scale aquaculture is often practiced within local communities, thus having socioterritorial influences. Because subjective socioeconomic well-being is self-reported, it captures individuals’ perceptions of their social relationships, community cohesion, and sense of belonging [22]. Therefore, we can indirectly observe how small-scale aquaculture contributes to community development, social capital, and overall community well-being. Indeed, subjective measures could improve the quality-of-life indicators in communities engaged in SSA, complementing other objective measures (e.g., income, productivity) and providing a broader understanding of the impact of SSA on individuals’ well-being, happiness, and life satisfaction.

By considering subjective socioeconomic well-being and its potential predictors in the context of small-scale aquaculture, policymakers, researchers, and practitioners can gain insights into the multidimensional impacts of aquaculture on individuals, communities, and the environment. This understanding can inform decision-making processes, promote sustainable practices, and support the development of small-scale aquaculture to improve the livelihoods of those involved in the activity. By aligning policies with the perceptions and needs of small-scale producers, interventions can be more effective in supporting their socioeconomic development.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Case Study: Small-Scale Aquaculture Producers

Chile has a highly productive marine ecosystem along its long coastline. That said, most small-scale aquaculture is concentrated in specific regions. Our fieldwork took place in the Bio-Bio and Los Lagos regions, which are the most important SSA region involved in $SSA$ by volume, value, and population [31]. Regions are located in the central-southern part of the country (between $37.4°$ S, $72.1°$ W and $41.9°$ S, $72.1°$ W, respectively), and these are characterized by the varied natural biogeographic conditions needed for diverse marine-based activities (i.e., zones exposed to open sea conditions, sheltered coves, inner sea protected areas, estuaries, access to markets). The economic structures in the areas are also diverse, involving many nature-based activities, such as agriculture, livestock farming, forestry, seafood extraction, and aquaculture. The principal species identified in $SSA$ are mussels (Mytilus chilensis) and “pelillo” seaweed (Agarophyton chilensis), which together cover 96% of all aquaculture farms in the sector [33]. Our study involves more than $70\%$ of small-scale aquaculture producers who cultivate “pelillo”, along with oysters and mussels to a lesser extent. They all work in the Los Lagos region and reported $SSA$ as their main occupational activity.

3.2. Data and Methodology

We use primary data collected by a large, government-funded project aimed at implementing a monitoring system to evaluate a set of aquaculture and fishery management programs from a socioeconomic perspective [73]. The fieldwork included face-to-face surveys that took place between February and March 2017 with several agents involved in artisanal and industrial fisheries and small-scale and industrial aquaculture. All surveys were implemented in the Bio-Bio and the Lagos regions. The total sample consisted of 225 participants—181 artisanal fishers and 44 aquaculture producers. The sampling procedure guaranteed that both agents were representative at both locations, thus effectively covering the priority zones for artisanal fishers (Talcahuano and Lebu in the Bio-Bio region and Huailahué, Dalcahue, Puerto Montt, and Rio Negro in the Lagos region) and aquaculture producers (Maullín and Ancud in the Lagos region). We defined producers in line with Chilean regulation, which means people who hold concessions with a cultivated surface equal to or inferior to 10 hectares. Basing our results on those 225 participants, we aim to understand small-scale aquaculture producers’ subjective socioeconomic well-being.

To measure current subjective socioeconomic status ($CSSS$), we asked participants, “Thinking about your and your family’s incomes, which of these statements best describes your current socioeconomic situation: 1 = I live comfortably; 2 = I cover my basic needs; 3 = I cannot cover my basic needs”. Next, we wanted to address the research question, “Is present socioeconomic status perception correlated to future expectations in small-scale aquaculture producers?” To do so, we tested the potential association of the above question with the future socioeconomic perception ($FSSS$) measured with the question, “Taking into account all of your expectations for old age, which of these statements best describes your future socioeconomic situation: 1 = I will live comfortably; 2 = I will cover my basic needs; 3 = I will not cover my basic needs”.

Additionally, we included a set of independent variables as potential predictors of both $CSSS$ and $FSSS$ to address the question, “Which dimensions are most significant for people performing small-scale aquaculture activities in Chile?” To do so, we used proxies of occupation as an objective indicator affecting $SES$. We then tested the impact of being affected by performing small-scale aquaculture ($SSA$) and having a secondary occupation ($SEC\_ACT$). In the same line, we included the monthly average income from aquaculture or fishery activities ($INCOME$). To complement the objective educational attainment measures available (e.g., years of schooling or educational degrees), we included the following subjective Likert question: “How much do you trust that your education will aid you in better personal development and future occupational outlook?” ($EDUCATION$). Additionally, we tested how $CSSS$ and $FSSS$ could be affected by collecting or harvesting two or more different resources ($DIVERSA$), the subjective perception about how difficult it would be to find another job if they ended their current activity ($SEARCH\_JOB$), the confidence producers had that others beyond their close family members would help them cope with problems ($PROBLEM$), and producers’ perceptions of their subjective health status ($HEALTH$). More details on the construction of these variables are available in

Table 1. List of variables included in the regressions.

Dependent Variables	Description
Current subjective socioeconomic status ($CSSS$)	Which of these statements better describes your current socioeconomic situation? (1 = I live with comfort, or I cover my basic needs; 0 = I cannot cover my basic needs)
Future subjective socioeconomic status ($FSSS$)	Taking into consideration all your expectations at the old age (60 years) Which of these statements better describes your future socioeconomic situation? (1 = I will live with comfort, or I will cover my basic needs; 0 = I will not cover my basic needs)
Independent variables	Description
$SSA$	Main activity (1 = small-scale aquaculture producer, 0 = artisanal fishers)
$SEC\_ACT$	Having a secondary occupation (1 = yes, 0 = no)
$DIVERSA$	Collecting or harvesting two or more different resources (1 = collecting or harvesting 2 or more resources, 0 = collecting or harvesting a single resource)
$INCOME$	Monthly average income from aquaculture or fishery activity (Chilean currency)
$EDUCATION$	How much trust do you have in your education as means for getting better personal development and future occupational perspective? (1 = I feel highly trusted or trusted, 0 = I do not feel trusted)
$SEARCH\_JOB$	How difficult is it to find another job if you let your current activity? (1 = It is highly difficult or difficult, 0 = It is not difficult)
$PROBLEM$	How much trust do you) have in getting help from someone outside your family when you have an economic, personal, or health-related problem? (1 = I feel highly trusted or trusted, 0 = I do not feel trusted)
$HEALTH$	How is your overall health status? (1 = Good or acceptable, 0 = poor)

.

A descriptive approach shows that most of the $SSA$ producers currently cover their basic needs, or they will satisfy them in the future. Moreover, the perception of not covering basic needs in the future increases. Otherwise, both current and future $SSS$ are better for $SSA$ than artisanal fishers. Regarding some occupational settings, $SSA$ are more likely to have a secondary occupation than fishers. Fish farmers perform artisanal activities as their main secondary activity, whereas fishers are focused on agricultural and commercial secondary activities. Those involved in commercial activities in particular are more resistant to moving into the aquaculture sector. In addition, $SSA$ producers are mostly focused on harvesting a single resource, evidencing a smaller diversification than artisanal fishers. Both SSA and fishers agree that it would be highly difficult or difficult to find another job, denoting low occupational mobility. $SSA$ producers seem to be slightly more confident than fishers in getting help from someone outside their family to cope with problems and in the power of education as a means for improving their opportunities. Finally, health status is positively perceived by both agents (

Table 2. Descriptive analysis.

Variable	$\mathit{SSA}$	Fishers
Current subjective socioeconomic status ($CSSS$)
1 = I live with comfort	5 (12.2%)	19 (10.6%)
2 = I cover my basic needs	30 (73.2%)	118 (65.6%)
3 = I cannot cover my basic needs)	6 (14.6%)	43 (23.9%)
Future subjective socioeconomic status ($FSSS$)
1 = I will live with comfort	2 (4.9%)	10 (5.6%)
2 = I will cover my basic needs	23 (56.1%)	78 (43.8%)
3 = I will not cover my basic needs	16 (39.0%)	90 (50.6%)
Having a secondary occupation ($SEC\_ACT$)	19 (43.2%)	44 (24.3%)
Collecting or harvesting two or more different resources ($DIVERS$)
1 = collecting or harvesting 2 or more resources	2 (5.4%)	102 (60%)
0 = collecting or harvesting a single resource	35 (94.5%)	68 (40%)
Monthly average income from aquaculture or fishery activity in Chilean pesos ($INCOME$)	$721,250	$2,659,678
Percentile 10%	$80,000	$120,000
Percentile 25%	$90,000	$320,000
Percentile 50%	$90,000	$1,000,000
Percentile 75%	$195,000	$2,075,000
How much trust do you have in your education as means for getting better personal development and future occupational perspective? ($EDUCATION$)
1 = I feel highly trusted	11 (27.5%)	77 (44.3%)
2 = I feel trusted	23 (65.0%)	69 (39.7%)
3 = I do not feel trusted	6 (7.5%)	28 (16.1%)
How difficult is it to find another job if you let your current activity? ($SEARCH\_JOB$)
1 = It is highly difficult	29 (69.0%)	117 (65.0%)
2 = It is difficult	11 (26.2%)	43 (23.9%)
3 = It is not very difficult	2 (4.8%)	20 (11.1%)
How much trust do you have in getting help from someone outside your family when you have an economic, personal, or health-related problem? ($PROBLEM$)
1 = I feel highly trusted	48 (12.8%)	5 (26.8%)
2 = I feel trusted	62 (64.1%)	25 (34.6%)
3 = I do not feel trusted	69 (23.1%)	9 (38.5%)
How is your overall health status? ($HEALTH$)
1 = Good	15 (36.6%)	86 (47.5%)
2 = Acceptable	21 (51.2%)	78 (43.1%)
3 = Poor	5 (12.2%)	17 (9.4%)
What is your work region? ($REGION$)
0 = Los Lagos	39 (88.6%)	85 (47.0%)
1 = Biobío	5 (11.4%)	96 (53.0%)

).

3.3. Empirical Strategy

We evaluated how $SSS$ is affected by a set of means related to having capabilities for being engaged in productive activities. We understood here that $SSS$ could be influenced by performing in small-scale aquaculture ($SSA$), having a secondary occupation ($SEC\_ACT$), the monthly average income from aquaculture or fishery activity ($INCOME$), a subjective proxy of good education ($EDUCATION$), collecting or harvesting two or more different resources ($DIVERSA$), the subjective perception about how much difficult is to find another job if they let their current activity ($SEARCH\_JOB$), the trust on being helped for others beyond close family members for coping with problems ($PROBLEM$), and the subjective health status perception (HEALTH). We also accounted for regional differences as a control variable.

We were also interested in how the current subjective socioeconomic status of small-scale aquaculture producers is associated with their future perception of socioeconomic status. To respond to the question, “Is the present perception of socioeconomic status correlated to future expectations in small-scale aquaculture producers?”, we assumed that present socioeconomic conditions experienced by the producers have a potential impact on their future expectations because current means and resources might eventually determine people’s awareness of the opportunities available later in life.

3.4. Bivariate Probit Model

Our research focuses on investigating how subjective socioeconomic status, current ($CSSS$) and future ($FSSS$), are explained by people’s relevant life dimensions, detailed in Table 2, where $CSSS$ and $FSSS$ are dummy variables ($1=$ I live comfortably or cover my basic needs and $0=$ I cannot cover my basic needs). First, we estimate a probit model as a baseline for both dependent variables, meaning the probability of $CSSS$ and $FSSS$ are a function of a range of characteristics of people’s lives. However, most independent variables are common in determining current and future socioeconomic status. Second, based on these insights, we propose the bivariate probit model, which is appropriate for testing the association between $CSSS$ and $FSSS$ due to its ability to handle endogeneity and measurement error issues. $SSS$ is based on individual perceptions and can be influenced by various factors, making accurate measurement challenging. A bivariate probit model allows for simultaneous estimation of two correlated binary outcomes. By accounting for potential endogeneity and measurement error, the model provides reliable estimates of the association between $CSSS$ and $FSSS$. It addresses biases and unobserved factors that may influence people’s perceptions and correct measurement errors, resulting in more accurate and robust findings [74]. Thus, current and future subjective socioeconomic status can be represented, respectively, by the following system of equations:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill CSS{S}_i^{*}& =& x_i^{{}^{\prime }}\beta +{\epsilon }_{1i},\hfill \\ \hfill FSS{S}_i^{*}& =& x_i^{{}^{\prime }}\beta +{\epsilon }_{2i}\hfill \end{array}$$

where x is a vector of the exogenous of the respondents’ socioeconomic characteristics, $\beta$ is a vector of weight corresponding to x, ${\epsilon }_i$ represents the unobserved stochastic errors that derive from individual preference, and $CSS{S}_i^{*}$ and $FSS{S}_i^{*}$ are latent variables reflecting the current and future subjective socioeconomic status, respectively.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill CSS{S}_i& =1 \mathbf{if} CSS{S}^{*}>0, 0 \mathrm{otherwise}, \hfill \\ \hfill FSS{S}_i& =1 \mathbf{if} FSS{S}^{*}>0, 0 \mathrm{otherwise}, \hfill \end{array}$$

with the errors defined as

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\begin{array}{c}{\epsilon }_{1i}\\ {\epsilon }_{2i}\end{array}& |& \begin{array}{c}{x}_1,x_2\end{array}\end{array}\right)\sim N\left[\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \rho \\ \rho & 1\end{array}\right)\right]$$

where ${\epsilon }_{li}$, with $l=\{1,2\}$, follows a bivariate normal distribution with mean zero, variance one, and covariance ($\rho$). We are interested in the statistical significance of the coefficient rho ($rho$), which represents the cross-equation error correlation coefficient, because it allows us to test whether $CSSS$ and $FSSS$ are interrelated—one of the main aims of this paper.

4. Results

Table 3. Probit and bi-probit regression models.

	Current Subjective Socioeconomic Status (CSSS)
	Probit regresion model		Bi-probit regresion model
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 5	Model 6
SSA	0.751 * (0.397)	0.618 (0.395)	0.846 ** (0.408)	0.728 * (0.413)
SEC_ACT	0.645 ** (0.298)	0.613** (0.301)	0.581 ** (0.290)	0.554 (0.294)
DIVERSA	0.077 (0.265)	0.161 (0.283)	0.113 (0.259)	0.190 (0.276)
SEARCH_JOB	−1.015 * (0.500)	−1.031 ** (0.497)	−0.896 * (0.469)	−0.892 * (0.456)
PROBLEM	0.116 (0.245)	0.081 (0.251)	0.039 (0.243)	0.004 (0.249)
HEALTH	0.455 * (0.254)	0.489 * (0.251)	−0.441 * (0.243)	−0.468 * (0.242)
INCOME	0.217 *** (0.072)	0.210 *** (0.074)	0.229 *** (0.074)	0.223 *** (0.075)
EDUCATION	0.794 ** (0.309)	0.798 ** (0.319)	0.759 ** (0.322)	0.765 ** (0.329)
REGION		-0.324 (0.276)		−0.287 (0.277)
CONS	0.146 (0.635)	0.339 (0.613)	0.072 (0.621)	0.226 (0.591)
Log pseudolikelihood	−75.2545	−74.55441	−104.16088	−103.91991
N	170	170	169	169
	Future Subjective Socioeconomic Status (FSSS)
	Model 3	Model 4
SSA	0.650 ** (0.288)	0.617 ** (0.293)	0.694 ** (0.289)	0.658 ** (0.293)
SEC_ACT	0.250 (0.227)	0.238 (0.227)	0.229 (0.227)	0.215 (0.227)
DIVERSA	−0.013 (0.237)	0.042 (0.241)	−0.023 (0.236)	0.032 (0.241)
SEARCH_JOB	−0.300 (0.344)	−0.289 (0.345)	−0.270 (0.351)	−0.259 (0.353)
PROBLEM	0.562 ** (0.226)	0.551 ** (0.227)	0.560 ** (0.223)	0.548 ** (0.225)
HEALTH	0.032 (0.226)	0.045 (0.227)	0.092 (0.224)	0.103 (0.225)
INCOME	0.080 *** (0.030)	0.080 *** (0.030)	0.077 *** (0.029)	0.077 *** (0.030)
EDUCATION	0.129 (0.301)	0.128 (0.306)	0.160 (0.313)	0.159 (0.319)
REGION		−0.151 (0.222)		−0.156 (0.224)
CONS	−0.698 (0.429)	−0.649 (0.438)	−0.758 * (0.453)	−0.705 (0.459)
Log pseudolikelihood	−105.25832	−105.04889	−74.982384	−74.363761
N	170	170	169	169
\athrho			0.537 *** (0.162)	0.528 *** (0.161)
Log pseudolikelihood full model			−174.12859	−173.48852

Standard errors in parentheses. * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.

summarizes four probit regression models (models 1–4) and two bi-probit models (models 5 and 6). The first two evaluate $CSSS$ as a dependent variable, controlling or not for region. The third and fourth models are testing $FSSS$ as a dependent variable, using the same control. Then, the fifth and sixth models are bi-probit, where the dependent variables are $CSSS$ and $FSSS$, respectively, as explained in the Data and Methodology section. The set of independent variables used in the regressions are $SSA$ (whether the producer’s main activity is small-scale aquaculture), $SEC\_ACT$ (if they have a second activity), $DIVERSA$ (if they collect 2 or more resources), $SEARCH\_JOB$ (how difficult they consider finding a new job), $PROBLEM$ (if they have external support or not), $HEALTH$ (how they consider their health status), $INCOME$ (average income from aquaculture), $EDUCATION$ (the influence of education on their futures), and we controlled by $REGION$ (if they work in the Bio-Bio region or in the Lagos region).

The null hypothesis of $\rho =0$ was rejected in all of the cases we examined, indicating that a bivariate probit analysis is an appropriate methodological approach for the empirical analysis. Furthermore, the results indicate that the current subjective socioeconomic status ($CSSS$) is significantly and positively influenced by engagement in aquaculture activities ($SSA$) and by having a secondary occupation ($SEC\_ACT$), with the primary effect coming from $SSA$. Conversely, $CSSS$ is significantly and negatively affected by the difficulty of finding alternative employment ($SEARCH\_JOB$) and health status ($HEALTH$), with $SEARCH\_JOB$ having the most pronounced negative impact on $CSSS$. The variables related to collecting two or more resources ($DIVERSA$), support during challenging situations ($PROBLEM$), personal development through education ($EDUCATION$), and regional factors as control variables ($REGION$) did not demonstrate statistical significance in any of the models with $CSSS$ as the dependent variable. These findings are consistent across models 1, 2, and the first part of the bivariate probit models 5 and 6.

On the other hand, when the dependent variable is the future subjective socioeconomic status ($FSSS$), we observe that being engaged in aquaculture activity ($SSA$), having trust in receiving assistance from individuals outside the family in times of trouble ($PROBLEM$), and income derived from aquaculture activity ($INCOME$) have a significant and positive impact on $FSSS$. Among these factors, the most influential effect is involvement in aquaculture activity, highlighting the sector’s importance in shaping individuals’ perceptions of future well-being. The variables for secondary occupation ($SEC\_ACT$), collection of multiple resources ($DIVERSA$), difficulty in finding a job ($SEARCH\_JOB$), health status ($HEALTH$), education for personal development ($EDUCATION$), and regional factors ($REGION$) did not demonstrate statistical significance. These findings align with models 3, 4, and the second part of the bivariate probit models 5 and 6.

Interestingly, many of the predictors that were found to be significant for the current subjective socioeconomic status ($CSSS$) lose their relevance when evaluating the future subjective socioeconomic status ($FSSS$), regardless of whether the region is included as a control variable. For instance, factors such as having a secondary occupation ($SE{C}_{A}CT$), the perceived importance of education ($EDUCATION$), the ability to find alternative employment ($SEARC{H}_{J}OB$), and even health status ($HEALTH$) do not significantly influence $FSSS$. But, the significance of utilizing social networks for coping with future economic problems ($PROBLEM$) becomes apparent. As expected, both income ($INCOME$) and involvement in aquaculture activity ($SSA$) remain robust predictors across models for both $CSSS$ and $FSSS$, regardless of whether regional controls are taken into account.

Overall, the results exhibit consistency between the probit models and the estimated bivariate probit models in terms of significance and trends, thus demonstrating the robustness of these models.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

We analyzed how some basic factors, such as performing SSA, having good health, having enough education, earning permanent incomes, and accessing social capital, impact the present and future SSS of small fish farmers in Chile. Overall, CSSS and FSSS are positively affected by working in small-scale aquaculture and having a high average monthly income level. That said, our results suggest that some factors are more relevant than others in explaining SSS throughout the course of people’s lives. According to our bi-probit models, how SSA producers perceive their current SSS significantly affects their future SSS perception. We found that having a high average monthly income, having a secondary occupation, maintaining a positive perception of education as a means of personal and occupational development, having a good health status perception, and believing it relatively easy to find another job have a positive impact on producers’ present subjective socioeconomic views.

The results suggest that higher income might provide individuals with increased financial security, allowing them to meet their basic needs and access better living conditions [35]. This improved economic status can contribute to stability and satisfaction, positively influencing their well-being [27,50]. Additionally, having a steady occupation in small-scale aquaculture can provide individuals with a sense of purpose, fulfillment, and identity. It offers opportunities for personal growth, skill development, and social connections within the activity, which can enhance producers’ subjective well-being [18]. Moreover, education improves individuals’ knowledge, competence, and self-efficacy, potentially enhancing people’s confidence in successfully performing a particular activity [23,41,56]. Education also opens doors to better employment prospects, higher income potential, and increased social status, which can further contribute to higher subjective socioeconomic well-being.

Good health is closely linked to overall well-being and quality of life. When individuals perceive themselves as being in good health, they often experience higher satisfaction and happiness [10,65]. The evidence supports that good subjective health status can contribute to a producer’s sense of vitality, energy, and overall positive outlook, which can spill over into other aspects of their lives, including their socioeconomic well-being. Moreover, good health might enable individuals to actively participate in aquaculture activities, perform tasks efficiently, and maintain productivity [2]. It reduces the likelihood of physical limitations, chronic illnesses, and absenteeism, allowing individuals to maximize their income potential and economic opportunities [62,66].

Additionally, there is a potential link between positive subjective health and social interactions within the community [14]. Healthy individuals are more likely to engage in social activities, create strong networks, and benefit from social support systems, which can enhance their overall well-being [75]. Furthermore, good health could be associated with lower healthcare costs and reduced financial burdens, providing individuals with more resources to invest in aquaculture enterprises and improve their socioeconomic conditions.

In terms of employment, having a secondary occupation might provide additional sources of income, which can contribute to the financial security and stability of people engaged in SSA. This increased income can enhance individuals’ sense of economic well-being and improve their overall subjective evaluation of their socioeconomic status [24,29]. Moreover, a secondary occupation can give individuals a sense of control and agency over their financial situation. It reduces reliance on a single income source and diversifies their economic activities, which can mitigate the risks associated with fluctuations in aquaculture yields or market conditions [23]. All of these factors might increase people’s sense of control and economic stability.

Additionally, having more job opportunities can lead to increased and better employment prospects, improving individuals’ earning potential and socioeconomic mobility [20]. It provides individuals with a sense of upward mobility and the opportunity to enhance their financial well-being, which can positively influence the overall subjective evaluation of their socioeconomic status. The latter point might be highly relevant for SSA because people frequently move within the sector doing several activities related to small-scale aquaculture, as well as artisanal fishery and even participating in the salmon industry [20,24,29,31,76].

Working in fisheries and agriculture are the main alternative employment options reported by our participants, which is consistent with previous evidence [24]. Although having more than one occupation might be seen as a financial stress condition, it could benefit SSA because the previous fishing experience may reduce the perceived risks in SSA and increase confidence in entering the activity [18,76]. Nevertheless, future policies must be cautious in promoting transitions from fishing to small-scale aquaculture. It is true that SSA provides an opportunity to reduce dependence on wild fisheries while providing alternative livelihoods for local communities [33,34,77]; however, fishers might be culturally and socioeconomically resistant to moving. Indeed, the few studies concerning this matter in Chile suggest that the government must facilitate a complementarity between both activities in a synergetic path [24] and tailor programs according to the particularities of each agent. For example, holders of fishing quotas are less likely to participate in SSA compared to holders of marine concessions [23].

We found that CSSS and FSSS are both positively affected by performing small-scale aquaculture activities. Our results differ from another study in which people engaged in seaweed farming in China reported lower satisfaction with their primary material and household security when compared to fishers [18]. According to our sample, fishers’ average monthly income is nearly four times higher than SSA, but it is also highly unequal. Related literature argues that in income-unequal contexts, SSS decreases [35]. Moreover, higher income expectations might decrease SSS because increases after reaching a certain threshold make no significant difference in subjective perception [58].

We hypothesized that a positive SSS in SSA is related to other important aspects beyond just the activity’s profitability. In previous studies, people engaged in SAA appreciated the lower income inequality in the sector when compared to mariculture activities and the lowest probability of profitability failures due to lower natural capital uncertainty and more controlled productive environments [18,24]. Other factors, such as the volatility of fish prices and low operating capital, are considered relevant sources of risk for undertaking aquaculture activity, but they remain lower than fishing and farming [76]. A positive SSS might also be associated with a better standard of living because fish farming usually does not replace fishing or agricultural activities but rather complements household income [24,76].

Interestingly, when we tested potential predictors of FSSS, most of the predictors that were significant for CSSS lost relevance, regardless of whether we controlled for the region. It is not crucial for producers to have a secondary occupation, positively perceive the power of education, or highly rate their ability to find another job; however, having social networks to cope with future economic problems gains significance. This finding needs to be explored more and empirically verified with further research. That said, we offer one intuitive explanation. Throughout the producers’ lifetimes, they give great importance to education and occupation as means of accessing a desirable socioeconomic status; in older ages, however, other aspects, such as social capital, gradually gain relevance. It is well evidenced that social connections can provide emotional support, reduce stress, and prevent social isolation, all of which can contribute to better overall health and well-being in old age. Social capital also helps people connect with and engage in valuable activities and objects, promoting a meaningful life [75].

We recommend a community-based approach in the sector to promote SSS later in life. Programs oriented at small-scale aquaculture in Chile should promote social engagement, social participation, and inter-generational interactions among producers. These inter-generational interactions might facilitate connections and knowledge sharing between older adults and younger generations, through activities such as mentoring programs and educational programs. Programs of this nature can foster social capital by promoting mutual understanding, building relationships, and facilitating exchanges of knowledge and skills between different age groups. Moreover, to account for the importance of previous fishing experience in promoting aquaculture, local policies should incorporate formal and systematic collaborations between artisanal fishers and small-scale aquaculture producers so that they can share experiences and develop collective projects.

As expected, income is the most robust predictor across models for both CSSS and FSSS, when controlling for region and not. Therefore, any policy focused on SSA should aim to generate and increase household income for people engaged in the sector. Having a reliable income is an essential means for achieving material well-being and also subjective socioeconomic well-being from both a current-day perspective and a future perspective.

In some aquaculture contexts, diversification helped reduce the economic losses faced when cultivating a single natural resource, particularly when that resource is exposed to unpredictable natural shocks. Moreover, diversification can provide opportunities for higher returns by investing in different resources with varying risk and return potential levels. Focusing on more than one resource can promote income stability by reducing reliance on a sole investment or sole income source. Individuals can create a more balanced and diversified income stream by diversifying investments across different resources. Diversification may also impact an individual’s income by affecting the costs and fees associated with managing diversified investments. Different investments may have different fees, such as management fees, trading costs, or transaction fees, which can impact overall investment returns and, in turn, affect individual income [78,79]. Despite the evidence, we found no significant impact on CSSS and FSSS when participants declared extracting or harvesting two or more different resources. A potential explanation for this result is most likely associated with the lack of diversification of our sample, a sample that extracts one resource almost exclusively (i.e., seaweed farmers).

Overall, our evidence supports an association between CSSS and FSSS [18,35,66,80]. When individuals perceive their present subjective socioeconomic well-being positively, they are more likely to have optimistic expectations for their future socioeconomic status. This positive perception can lead to confidence, motivation, and a belief that their current circumstances will continue to improve over time. It may also foster a proactive mindset, encouraging individuals to seek opportunities for growth, skill development, and advancement in small-scale aquaculture activities. Negative perceptions of current well-being, in contrast, may lead producers to dissatisfaction, frustration, and a lack of confidence in their ability to improve their circumstances. This negative perception can create a cycle of pessimism, where individuals may be less likely to invest in their small-scale aquaculture activities, seek opportunities for improvement, or actively engage in activities that can enhance their future socioeconomic well-being.

Current subjective socioeconomic status might influence individuals’ decision-making processes. Individuals who perceive their present well-being positively are more likely to make choices that align with their expectations for the future [35,66]. For example, they may invest in small-scale aquaculture activities, seek additional education or training, explore new market opportunities, and/or adopt more sustainable practices to enhance their long-term well-being. Conversely, individuals with negative perceptions of present well-being may be more risk-averse, hesitant to invest in their activities, and less likely to take proactive steps to improve their future well-being. In this regard, improving our knowledge of subjective well-being allows us to sustainably promote SSA.

Despite the contribution of this work, there are some limitations. We have no relevant sociodemographic information to control for variables such as age, sex, and educational level. According to the capability approach [36], some personal characteristics become sources of inequalities in achieving personal well-being. These attributes can restrict individuals’ opportunities and agency to develop their potential. According to such an approach, personal attributes contain fixed characteristics, such as sex, age, ethnicity, and other identities acquired over life transitions, such as getting married or becoming a parent. In the Chilean case, some individual characteristics are persistent sources of socioeconomic disparities within the population. Official national reports indicate income disparities differentiated by fixed individual attributes such as sex, age, and ethnicity [81]. National evidence shows lower incomes and poorer working and living conditions for those who are women, young, and/or elderly [16,82]. People from minoritized ethnic groups also report incomes and living conditions lower than the average Chilean population [81,83,84,85]. Health differences by gender have also been reported in national statistics. Although women have a higher life expectancy than men, they also have higher incidences of chronic illness and mental health problems, and report greater use of healthcare services than men [81].

Regarding well-being disparities by life transitions as individual endowments, evidence indicates poorer living conditions and incomes in single households. A significant economic vulnerability has been found in households led by women with children and solitary elderly people [81]. We expect, then, that living in a partnership should positively impact well-being, whereas being a parent would have an adverse effect. Further research must explore well-being disparities in people engaged in diverse small-scale aquaculture activities.

Further research should control for specific occupational settings, such as whether individuals have previous experience in fishing. This variable plays a significant role in understanding how occupational background influences individuals’ perceptions of their socioeconomic status within small-scale aquaculture. By comparing individuals with fishing experience to those without, researchers can understand how prior knowledge and skills acquired in the fishing industry impact SSS.

Furthermore, different species in aquaculture may vary in terms of their economic value, market demand, and profitability. These variations can influence individuals’ perceived socioeconomic status, with those involved in high-value species potentially perceiving their socioeconomic status more positively. By examining these species-specific differences, researchers can illuminate the intricate relationship between the specific productive activity, species diversity, and individuals’ SSS.

Finally, it is essential to incorporate a broader range of potential predictors related to the productive activity in which individuals are engaged. Factors such as income level, job stability, access to resources and markets, technological advancements, and support services significantly shape individuals’ SSS in SSA. Including these predictors in future studies will identify critical variables contributing to individuals’ perceptions of their socioeconomic well-being.