|Reference||Study Population||Study Designa||Outcome measuresa||Key findingsa|
|Kuster et al. ||
30 senior heads of households in 1982
59 households in 2002
Mean weekly household income and fish yield per capital.|
Daily fish intake per capita (g) and contribution of marine sources to protein intake.
Total annual landings of finfish decreased by 27 % from 1982 to 2002|
No significant change in yield of finfish per capita of population (96.9 kg per capita/year in 1982 to 93.7 kg capita/year in 2002)
Seafood remained the main source of protein between 1982 and 2002.
Consumption of canned fish increased from 9 g/man/day to 19 g/man/day
|Middlebrook & Williamson ||
Ucunivanua and Namatakula, Island of Viti Levu|
40 heads of households
Self administered household questionnaires
|Household income, source of income and household fishing activity||
Ucunivanua: Mean monthly household income of FJ$ 411.75 ± 73.51 (SD). Income generated through fishing activities (75 %), with 20 % from farming and 5 % from wage-paid jobs.|
Namatakula: Mean monthly household income of FJ$ 432.25 ± 54.65 (SD) a month. Income generated through wage-paid work (80 %), with 10 % from fishing and 10 % from personal business.
Navakavu fishing grounds, Rewa,|
118 heads of households
86 adult individuals (aged >21 years)
household and individual questionnaires
|Socio-demographic characteristics of household, household livelihood activities and household fishing activities||
Mean annual household income was FJ$ 2921.|
88.1 % of households engaged in fishing, 76.3 % in growing crops and/or gleaning.
The livelihood that generated the most cash and food overall was salaried work in Suva (32 % households) followed by fishing (27 %) and gleaning (20 %).
|Turner et al. ||
Lau Province, 25 experienced local fishers|
53 senior heads of households
Semi structured face-to-face interviews
|Time spent fishing, importance of fishing for income generation, patterns of fish consumption and awareness of ecological change within the local qoliqoli (fishing ground)||
No significant change in overall time spent fishing in the past 6–10 years.|
Income-generating activities had increased in importance over previous10 years relative to fishing activities
Consumption of fresh fish was significantly lower compared to estimates of past consumption (Z = −3.774, p < 0.001).
Greatest decline in fish consumption was associated with highest mean household income.
Of the 80–100 % of households that engaged in fishing, only 7 % of households ranked fishing as the primary household occupation.
|Albert et al. ||
Western Province and Guadalcanal Province|
Households in four villages with Fishing Aggregating devices (FADs)
monitoring of fishing activities
key informant interviews
Annual fish catch and contribution of FAD to fish catch|
Benefits and negative aspects of the FAD at the household and community level
Near shore FADs contributed 31–45 % of the total annual catch (mean 7500kgs).|
Perceived benefits from the FADs included: provided a source of family income, improved nutrition, more fish available for community events.
The negative aspect of FADs was a reduced contribution of fishers to household activities due to increased time spent fishing
|Papua New Guinea|
|Cinner et al. ||
51 households representatives
|Percent of households engaged in fishing and importance of fishing relative to other livelihood activities||>96 % of households were engaged in fishing and >76 % ranked fishing as their primary occupation. Due to the remoteness of the Island participants reported few opportunities to engage in other economic sectors.|
|Walker & Robinson ||
70 females and males (aged 18–84 years)
interviews with open-ended, semi-structured and structured questions
|Fishing activities including subsistence and commercial activities||
60 % of participants fished on average 2 days per week; 10 % did not fish at all.|
56 % of participants reported dependence on lagoon fishing for at least half of their food and/or cash income. 19 % ofparticipants considered themselves commercial fishers and 41 % subsistence fishers
|Kingdom of Tonga|
|Kronen & Bender ||
Individual adults (>15 years), households, key informants, 41 local fisherman
Households and individuals: structured questionnaires.
Key informant interviews
Fishermen: Semi-structured interviews
|a) Fishing practices including contribution of fish to livelihood and weekly fish consumption through||
Fisheries, agricultural production and handicrafts all contributed to income generation. Fisheries ranked higher than agriculture and handicrafts.|
Fisheries filled three main objectives: to secure subsistence, fulfil social obligations and contribute to the cash economy. Fishbwas consumed by entire community. 93 % of village also consume other seafood and 78 % consume canned fish.
|Federated States of Micronesia|
|Corsi et al. ||293 females aged 15–64 years located in Ponhpei||
Cross sectional study:|
27-item, 7-day FFQ
Knowledge, attitudes and practices questionnaire
Fish and meat consumption|
Cash expenditure on food; factors affecting food intake
79 % of participants reported frequent consumption of local fish/seafood. Local fish/seafood was consumed twice as frequently (4.8 days/week) compared to imported fish/seafood (2.4 days/week). Imported meats such as turkey tail were consumed more frequently 1.9 days/week) than local meats (1.3 days/week).8 % of participants reported their household relied on farming and fishing for their primary income 6 % relied on fishing alone.|
Household food expenditure for 77 % of participants was half or more of their monthly income
52 % of participants purchased local food for half or more than half of a month.
Consuming imported food was regarded as a sign of wealth and status by participants