Table 5 Characteristics and main findings of studies assessing the contribution of fishing to Pacific Islander livelihoods

Kuster et al. [45]

Ono-i-Lau Island

30 senior heads of households in 1982

59 households in 2002

Cross sectional

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 [61]

Ucunivanua and Namatakula, Island of Viti Levu

40 heads of households

Cross sectional

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.

O’Garra [60]

Navakavu fishing grounds, Rewa,

118 heads of households

86 adult individuals (aged >21 years)

Cross sectional

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. [42]

Lau Province, 25 experienced local fishers

53 senior heads of households

Cross sectional

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. [64]

Western Province and Guadalcanal Province

Households in four villages with Fishing Aggregating devices (FADs)

Cross sectional

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

Cinner et al. [63]

Ahus Island

51 households representatives

Cross sectional

Face-to-face interviews

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 [62]

Moorea

70 females and males (aged 18–84 years)

Cross sectional

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

Kronen & Bender [43]

Lofanga Island

Individual adults (>15 years), households, key informants, 41 local fisherman

Mixed methods

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. Fish^bwas consumed by entire community. 93 % of village also consume other seafood and 78 % consume canned fish.

Corsi et al. [37]

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