Typology of Fishing Grounds for Communal Fisheries Business in Korea: A Statistical Approach
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Data Collection and Variable Selection
- Demographic variables capture the size, age structure, and change dynamics of the cooperative membership and regional population.
- Economic variables describe the financial condition, resource availability, and production scale of the fishery operation.
- Public-interest variables assess environmental stewardship and community support activities.
2.3. Statistical Methods
2.3.1. Principal Component Analysis
- Factor 1: Fishery Management and Eco-Tourism Participation—This factor captures the level of engagement in environmental management programs, such as marine pest removal, fish seeding, coastal clean-up, and community participation in eco-tourism. It reflects proactive stewardship of marine resources linked to tourism-based income diversification.
- Factor 2: Production and Income Performance—This factor reflects the income-generating performance of fisheries, as measured by average income, income growth rate, production value, and the presence of full-time fishing members. It represents the economic viability of the cooperative.
- Factor 3: Cooperative Composition and Resource Size—This factor is associated with the structural aspects of a cooperative, such as total membership, proportion of elderly members, village population, and size of fishing ground. It describes the underlying demographic and physical scale of the fishery.
- Factor 4: Membership Dynamics and Youth Participation—This factor highlights active transitions in community composition, especially the share of younger members and membership growth, indicating generational renewal and organizational vitality.
- Factor 5: Alternative Economic Foundation—This factor relates to non-fishery income, availability of welfare facilities, and reliance on auxiliary income sources. It reflects the resilience of communities through diversification away from traditional fisheries.
2.3.2. Cluster Analysis
- Management-Tourism Type—Communities with high participation in fishery resource management and eco-tourism programs. They utilize their ecological engagement to support tourism-based income, balancing conservation with diversification.
- Self-Reliant Type—These cooperatives are economically robust, with high average income, production, and full-time fisher ratio. Their operations are stable and self-sustaining.
- Sustainable Type—Communities with strong structural foundations (size and resources), but aging populations. Their sustainability depends on demographic renewal and gradual adaptation.
- Growth-Oriented Type—Characterized by dynamic changes, including rising youth participation and expanding memberships. These communities show promising growth potential.
- Post-Fishery (Declining) Type—Cooperatives with weak engagement in fisheries, often relying on non-fishery income. They show signs of industrial and demographic decline.
3. Results
3.1. Overview of Factor Scores
3.2. Cluster Typology of Communal Fisheries
3.3. Regional Distribution and Policy Implications
4. Discussion
4.1. Tailored Strategies for Communal Fisheries Types
- Type A (Management/Experience-Oriented): These communities combine fisheries with tourism and are actively engaged in co-management and environmental stewardship. Policy support should focus on reinforcing their role as regional models of sustainable fisheries. This can be achieved through targeted subsidies for eco-friendly tourism infrastructure, capacity-building programs in marine conservation and tourism operation, and marketing support for branding local experiences. Special attention should be given to avoiding ecological overuse; thus, implementing carrying capacity assessments and rotational resource use systems is essential. Furthermore, these communities can serve as mentors for Type E or Type B communities, sharing best practices through inter-village networks.
- Type B (Fishery Self-Reliant): Dominated by traditional fishing practices, these villages require enhanced productivity and modernization. Introducing efficient fishing gear and aquaculture systems, supporting product diversification, and facilitating access to urban markets are critical steps. Additionally, technical support in processing, hygiene control, and cold chain logistics should be integrated into cooperative-level interventions. Youth engagement policies are vital—such as subsidies for gear purchase, cooperative membership fees, or housing support—to revitalize the aging workforce and ensure long-term sustainability. Local fisheries management committees could also be strengthened to support knowledge transfer between older and younger generations.
- Type C (Sustainable): As balanced and stable communities, they act as the backbone of Korea’s coastal fishery economy. Policies here should prioritize long-term stability over rapid transformation. Maintenance grants for physical infrastructure (ports, storage), periodic check-ins on governance, and mild incentives for small-scale innovation projects can prevent stagnation. Caution is needed to prevent complacency; thus, proactive monitoring of demographic and economic signals is recommended to preempt transitions toward decline. These communities should also be included in regional partnership programs to facilitate collaborative problem-solving across similar mid-tier cooperatives.
- Type D (Growth-Oriented): These are dynamic and potentially scalable communities experiencing demographic renewal and economic expansion. Their development hinges on removing regulatory friction, such as simplifying licensing processes and supporting farm expansion in compliance with environmental rules. Infrastructure investments—including road access, docking facilities, or logistics centers—should be prioritized. Strategic conflict mediation systems are also needed, as internal or external disputes may arise during growth. Finally, these communities are optimal pilot sites for national youth fisher programs and technical R&D dissemination. Additional policy efforts could support business incubators or innovation hubs in such locations to catalyze entrepreneurship.
- Type E (Post-fishery/Declining): This cluster is at risk of collapse, calling for a dual strategy of recovery and transition. In resource-rich but labor-poor communities, policies could institutionalize collaborative harvesting with neighboring cooperatives or professional divers through lease models. For severely aged communities, phased license retirement, pension schemes, or cooperative consolidation programs may be necessary. Select sites could be designated for ecosystem restoration, with parallel support for eco-tourism conversion. Robust social safety nets, retraining pathways, and targeted youth entrepreneurship grants will be essential to support both exit and renewal. Strategic planning tools such as feasibility assessments and regional transition roadmaps should be developed in conjunction with local governments.
4.2. Limitations and Future Research
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
ANOVA | Analysis of Variance |
KMO | Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Test |
KOSIS | Korean Statistical Information Service |
NFFC | National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives |
PCA | Principal Component Analysis |
References
- Ahn, B.C.; Lee, J.S. A Research on Categorizing the Fishing Village Fraternity and Comparing the Characteristics by Type. J. Fish. Bus. Adm. 2021, 52, 83–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons: Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, S.H.; Kim, B.; Ryu, K.; Jeong, J. Survey on the Status of Communal Fisheries and Institutional Improvement Research; Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries: Sejong, Republic of Korea, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Kwon, H.J. A Study on the Improvement of Fishing Village Management in Gyeongbuk Province; Gyeongbuk Development Institute: Daegu, Republic of Korea, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives. 2022 Survey on the Status of Fishing Village Cooperatives; National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives. Fishing Village Fraternity Classification and Status (2010–2020); National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Korean Statistical Information Service (KOSIS), Fisheries Statistics. Available online: https://kosis.kr (accessed on 16 April 2023).
- Chungcheongnam-do. Potential Evaluation of Blue Carbon in Coastal Areas; Provincial Government Report; Chungcheongnam-do, Republic of Korea, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, C.M.; An, J.E.; Choi, S. A Study on Improving the Use and Management of Fishing Grounds for Communal Fisheries Business; Korea Maritime Institute: Busan, Republic of Korea, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- An, J.E.; Park, S.H.; Jung, H.G. A Study on the Emergence of Sustainable Supply Chains and Response Types of Korean Seafood Exporters. J. Korea Trade 2024, 28, 61–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, S.R.; Oh, C.R. Economic Valuation of the Ecosystem Services in Seocheon Intertidal Mudflats. Environ. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2018, 27, 233–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryu, J.G.; Park, S.W.; Ko, D.H.; Yoon, Y.J. Study on the Revitalization of the Social Economy in Fisheries and Fishing Communities; Korea Maritime Institute: Busan, Republic of Korea, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Kang, Y. Formation Process of Self-Governing Institutions in the Common-Pool Resources in Korea: Focus on Self-Management Fishery Policy. J. Gov. Stud. 2016, 22, 101–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, C.M.; Lee, C.C.; Jeong, S.B.; Yoon, M.K.; Hwang, S.Y. Roadmap for Sustainable Mudflat Fisheries; Korea Maritime Institute: Busan, Republic of Korea, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- National Institute of Maritime Survey. Open Ocean Map. Available online: http://www.khoa.go.kr/oceanmap/main.do (accessed on 11 August 2023).
- Song, J.J. Statistical Analysis Methods for Writing Papers with SPSS/AMOS; 21C Books: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Shin, Y.M.; Jung, K.W. The Significance and Necessity of Reforming the Fishing Rights System as a Fisheries Management Tool. J. Fish. Mar. Sci. Educ. 2021, 33, 144–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.C.; Lee, C.S. An Analysis of Fisheries Efficiency by Locational Characteristics in Aquaculture-Based Fishing Cooperatives in Goheung-Gun. J. Fish. Bus. Adm. 2021, 52, 23–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives. Comprehensive Guide to Fishing Ground Management Regulations; National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2008. [Google Scholar]
Domain | Variable | Type | Description/Calculation Method |
---|---|---|---|
Demographic Structure | Total cooperative members (2020) | 5-point | Absolute value in 2020 |
Membership change rate (2015–2020) | 5-point | (2020–2015)/2015 | |
Ratio aged 71+ (2020) | 5-point | Members aged 71+/total members | |
Ratio aged ≤ 50 (2020) | 5-point | Members aged ≤ 50/total members | |
Total village population (2020) | 5-point | Regional population data from Statistics Korea (KOSIS) | |
Economic Characteristics | Avg. household income (2020) | 5-point | Mean income per household |
Income growth rate (2015–2020) | 5-point | (2020–2015)/2015 | |
Full-time fisher ratio | 5-point | Full-time members/total members | |
Communal fishing ground area | 5-point | Total licensed hectares | |
Dividend per member (2020) | 5-point | Cooperative dividend/member | |
Total fishery production (2020) | 5-point | Total seafood sales (₩) | |
Eco-tourism activity (2020) | 3-point | Survey-based index (cooperative responses) | |
Non-fishery income (2020) | 3-point | Presence of non-fishery economic activities | |
Public Interest | Fish seeding program participation (2020) | 3-point | Survey-based participation score |
Marine pest removal activity (2020) | 3-point | Survey-based participation score | |
Coastal cleanup effort (2020) | 3-point | Survey-based participation score | |
Welfare infrastructure presence (2020) | 3-point | Survey-based participation score |
Variable | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 | Factor 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Marine pest removal | 0.781 | 0.039 | −0.004 | 0.007 | 0.164 |
Coastal cleanup | 0.681 | 0.068 | 0.013 | −0.074 | −0.041 |
Fish seeding | 0.676 | −0.037 | 0.191 | −0.102 | −0.100 |
Eco-tourism activity | 0.599 | −0.028 | 0.049 | 0.087 | 0.004 |
Avg. income | −0.053 | 0.864 | −0.002 | 0.059 | −0.126 |
Income growth rate | −0.034 | 0.793 | 0.010 | −0.104 | 0.003 |
Production volume | 0.118 | 0.605 | 0.112 | 0.351 | 0.053 |
% aged 71+ | 0.023 | −0.137 | 0.804 | 0.157 | 0.030 |
Cooperative members | 0.042 | 0.046 | 0.744 | 0.476 | −0.036 |
Village population | 0.192 | 0.022 | 0.654 | −0.068 | −0.161 |
Fishery area | 0.010 | 0.187 | 0.531 | −0.177 | 0.228 |
% aged ≤50 | −0.087 | 0.241 | 0.066 | 0.656 | 0.059 |
Membership growth rate | −0.052 | −0.113 | −0.008 | 0.571 | 0.065 |
Welfare facilities | −0.203 | −0.116 | −0.087 | −0.433 | 0.422 |
Non-fishery income | 0.211 | 0.048 | −0.039 | 0.172 | 0.799 |
% full-time members | 0.175 | 0.340 | −0.134 | −0.007 | −0.401 |
Cluster Type | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 | Factor 5 | Count |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Management-Tourism | 2.37 | 3.66 | 2.02 | 1.62 | 2.24 | 151 |
Self-Reliant | 1.46 | 3.81 | 1.30 | 1.58 | 2.05 | 380 |
Sustainable | 1.84 | 1.98 | 2.27 | 1.94 | 1.63 | 150 |
Growth-Oriented | 1.38 | 3.75 | 1.49 | 2.89 | 2.04 | 119 |
Post-Fishery | 1.54 | 1.70 | 1.21 | 1.59 | 2.05 | 627 |
Cluster Type (Label) | Proportion of Cases | Key Characteristics (Factor Profile) | Notable Features and Examples |
---|---|---|---|
A. Management/Experience-Oriented | ~15% | F5 (Tourism/Alt. Economy) very high; F1, F2 around avg; F3 avg. | Active co-management, tourism, and experience programs; moderate size and income. Example: Coastal village with annual mudflat festival and resource enhancement projects. |
B. Fishery Self-Reliant | ~10% | F2 (Fishery Cap.) high; F3 slightly high (large membership); F5 low; F3 moderate-low. | Traditional fishing-focused communities, many full-time fishers, minimal tourism. Example: Remote island village reliant on seaweed and shellfish harvest for income. |
C. Sustainable | ~10–15% | Balanced: All factor scores near or slightly above average; F3 (Income) moderately high. | Steady communities with diversified but local activities, maintaining stability. Example: Village with small aquaculture, some tourism, stable membership, and income. |
D. Growth-Oriented | ~5–10% | F4 (Reg. Change) very high; F2 high; F3 high; F1 and F5 variable. | Growing communities with new population/economic influx, often near urban areas or specialized in high-value aquaculture. Example: Semi-urban fishing village developing abalone aquaculture park, attracting young workers. |
E. Post-fishery (Declining) | ~50% | F3 (Income) low; F2 low; F4 low (negative); F5 low; F1 low. | Aging, shrinking communities with minimal fishing activity remaining; many members retired or cooperative nearly defunct. Example: Distant island with only elderly fishers, communal tidal flat largely unused or leased out. |
Region | Total | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | Cluster 4 | Cluster 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nationwide | 1427 | 151 | 380 | 150 | 119 | 627 |
Gangwon | 64 | 15 | 20 | 0 | 2 | 27 |
Gyeongin | 58 | 11 | 6 | 21 | 1 | 19 |
Gyeongnam | 396 | 16 | 83 | 24 | 16 | 257 |
Gyeongbuk | 123 | 12 | 15 | 5 | 3 | 88 |
Busan | 19 | 2 | 12 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
Jeonnam | 540 | 47 | 187 | 35 | 89 | 182 |
Jeonbuk | 31 | 14 | 13 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
Jeju | 96 | 20 | 5 | 47 | 3 | 21 |
Chungcheong | 100 | 14 | 39 | 16 | 2 | 29 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 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
An, J.E.; Ma, C.M. Typology of Fishing Grounds for Communal Fisheries Business in Korea: A Statistical Approach. Fishes 2025, 10, 187. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10040187
An JE, Ma CM. Typology of Fishing Grounds for Communal Fisheries Business in Korea: A Statistical Approach. Fishes. 2025; 10(4):187. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10040187
Chicago/Turabian StyleAn, Ji Eun, and Chang Mo Ma. 2025. "Typology of Fishing Grounds for Communal Fisheries Business in Korea: A Statistical Approach" Fishes 10, no. 4: 187. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10040187
APA StyleAn, J. E., & Ma, C. M. (2025). Typology of Fishing Grounds for Communal Fisheries Business in Korea: A Statistical Approach. Fishes, 10(4), 187. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10040187