Marine recreational fisheries — current state and future opportunities

Abstract

Marine recreational fisheries (MRF) have important social and economic benefits, but can impact fish stocks and the environment. The diverse and dispersed nature of these fisheries makes them challenging to study; a lack of data has made it more difficult to include them in fisheries management and the varied motivations of fishers makes their response to management measures hard to predict. Research into MRF is growing rapidly, so this themed article set aims to bring together MRF research to highlight the current evidence base and identify future opportunities. New survey methods were presented alongside analyses of existing data, which highlighted issues with methods, reconstruction of missing data, and factors influencing catch and effort. The manuscripts demonstrated the biological and economic impacts of MRF, and its self-subsidizing nature was recognized. Novel approaches for management, including improving compliance, were identified. Finally, the lack of funding for MRF was highlighted. Key research gaps are: governance that embeds MRF in fisheries management; integration of novel approaches and traditional surveys; risk-based approaches to identify impacts; understanding fish welfare; management that balances economic, social, and biological impacts and allows allocation between sectors; and understanding social benefits and their impacts on management and compliance. 

future direction, knowledge gaps, sea angling, state of the art

Introduction

Marine recreational fisheries (MRF) are defined as “fishing of aquatic animals (mainly fish) that do not constitute the individual's primary resource to meet basic nutritional needs and are not generally sold or otherwise traded on export, domestic or black markets” (FAO, 2012). They have important economic and social benefits (e.g. Cisneros-Montemayor and Sumaila, 2010; Arlinghaus et al., 2015; Griffiths et al., 2017), but also environmental impacts, particularly on fish stocks (Coleman, 2004; Cooke and Cowx, 2004; Hyder et al., 2017, 2018; Radford et al., 2018; Lewin et al., 2019). However, governance of MRF is lacking; it is not embedded in the marine management and policy process of many countries (Arlinghaus et al., 2019; Potts et al., 2020). The diverse number of gears used (e.g. nets, pots, traps, lines) and the dispersed nature of the activity make monitoring difficult, and act as barriers to it being readily included in fisheries management (Griffiths and Fay, 2015; Hyder et al., 2017, 2018). In addition, MRF are often unlicensed, meaning that the participants are not accurately characterized (e.g. Hyder et al., 2017). Motivation for participating in MRF is diverse (Fedler and Ditton, 1994; Arlinghaus, 2006; Beardmore et al., 2011), making responses of fishers to management difficult to predict (Arlinghaus et al., 2017) and understanding (non-)compliance challenging (Bova, 2019). The need for all actors to take responsibility is essential to generate sustainable MRF (Cooke et al., 2019). As a result, social–ecological systems’ approaches to managing MRF (Hunt et al., 2013; Ward et al., 2016; Arlinghaus et al., 2017; Brownscombe et al., 2019) that are adaptive to change (e.g. climate - Townhill et al., 2019) are needed.

Generally, MRF are less well studied than commercial fisheries (Brownscombe et al., 2019; Cooke et al., 2019; Holder et al., 2020). Potts et al. (2020) identified the constituents of effective MRF governance, but research is needed to develop the methods and understanding to inform MRF decision-making before this can be achieved. Recent syntheses have highlighted potential approaches (Arlinghaus et al., 2019) and knowledge gaps (Brownscombe et al., 2019; Holder et al., 2020). Brownscombe et al. (2019) identified several key research themes: characterizing participation, social and economic value, monitoring, stock enhancement, minimizing biological impacts, and best angling practices. Holder et al. (2020) generated 100 key research questions on recreational fisheries under human dimensions, bioeconomics, resource monitoring, governance, management, catch and release, impacts, threats and sustainability, and outreach.

The objective of this themed article set (TS) is to bring together research about MRF and its interactions with commercial fisheries, to highlight the current evidence base and identify future opportunities to make progress in this field. Contributions were requested on the economic and ecological importance of MRF, inclusion in fisheries governance, traditional and novel monitoring approaches, incorporation in stock assessment, impact of catch and release, social and ecological trade-offs, behavioural responses to management, social and cultural benefits, and development of MRF-based tourism.

Research areas

For the purpose of this article, research into MRF is split into governance, data collection and surveys, impacts, economic and social benefits, management and compliance, engagement and communication, and funding. For each topic, the current state of knowledge is briefly summarized, new studies presented in this TS are summarized, and gaps for future work are highlighted. The high and broad general interest and current level of activity on MRF research is highlighted by the 74 expressions of interest in response to the call for papers, which led to the submission of 42 manuscripts and the publication of 19 in the TS (Table 1). More manuscripts were received on monitoring and impacts on stocks than economic and social benefits or management and compliance, with no submissions on governance or engagement (Table 1). The TS highlights the broad range of disciplines that are engaged in studying MRF and the need for more interdisciplinary studies.

Table 1.

Expressions of interest in response to the call for contributions to this TS, numbers of manuscripts submitted, and the numbers accepted by topic.

Topic	Interest	Submitted	Accepted
Governance	0	0	0
Data collection and surveys	32	21	8
Impacts of recreational fisheries on stocks	13	6	2
Economic and social benefits	14	8	3
Management and compliance	12	6	5
Engagement and communication	2	0	0
Funding	1	1	1
Total	74	42	19

Governance

Fisheries governance is a systemic concept relating to the exercise of economic, political, and administrative authority (FAO, 2020). However, the act of governing does not necessarily lie with government, but in many cases is interactive with public and private actors playing roles. It relates to different scales (international to local), orders (day to day management to underlying principles), elements (images, instruments, action), and styles (top down to co-management) (Kooiman et al., 2005). Governance includes the guiding principles and goals, organization and coordination, legal institutions and instruments, processes, actors, policies, plans, measures, and outcomes (FAO, 2020). MRF occupies a different position to both subsistence and commercial fisheries (a continuum between small- and large-scale fisheries—Johnson, 2006), which is reflected in how it is managed. There is a lack of explicit coverage of MRF within international fisheries law, yet legal instruments (e.g. UNCLOS) cover boat-based MRF (Diz et al., 2020). MRF is generally a national responsibility (Diz et al., 2020) as most MRF take place in coastal waters. However, the nature of management varies greatly between countries (Pita et al., 2018; Arlinghaus et al., 2019; Potts et al., 2020), which may relate to the different motivations for MRF. A recent review of governance found that recreational fisheries were identified in the main fisheries legislation of around two-third of the countries reviewed, yet few provided a clear definition and often not within the main legislation (Potts et al., 2020). Generally, recreational fisheries were not considered to be well managed and compliance was challenging (Potts et al., 2020). Effective recreational fisheries governance requires a clear legal definition, policy, co-management, monitoring, and cost recovery and must be adaptive (Potts et al., 2020). There were good examples of effective governance (e.g. United States, Australia—Potts et al., 2020), but policy reform was needed to ensure this for recreational fisheries (Arlinghaus et al., 2019). In this sense, MRF is comparable to small-scale fisheries that are also poorly defined, hugely diverse, data poor, and often not well represented (Pascual-Fernández et al., 2020). No papers were submitted to this TS on this topic, but more research is needed to develop effective fisheries governance structures that include MRF and commercial fisheries (Holder et al., 2020). This will involve interdisciplinary collaborations that include social, political, environmental, and legal researchers to address, alongside political will to fully embed MRF within fisheries and environmental management processes.

Data collection and surveys

Monitoring MRF activity is challenging due to the diverse and dispersed nature of the fishery. In addition, it is difficult to access participants due to a lack of lists of individual fishers to contact (e.g. licences) (Hyder et al., 2017, 2018). This means that there are often limited data on MRF, which make including biological impacts of MRF in assessments difficult and could affect the sustainable management of these fisheries (Hyder et al., 2014, 2017, 2018; Radford et al., 2018; Arlinghaus et al., 2019). In some countries, the economic and biological importance of MRF has been recognized for many years and appropriate data collection has been carried out (Ryan et al., 2016). For example, the US Marine Recreational Information Program has collected data on MRF since the 1980s with a focus on inclusion in stock assessments (NOAA, 2020).

Designing MRF surveys is complex as it often requires separate surveys of effort and catch per unit effort, both of which can be collected using a variety of onsite or offsite approaches (Pollock et al., 1994; Jones and Pollock, 2012). There are many potential biases that depend on the survey designs used; these include those related to recall, rounding, telescoping, non-response, and avidity (Pollock et al., 1994; ICES, 2010; Jones and Pollock, 2012). Surveys can be resource intensive, so it is important to continue to develop approaches that are efficient (Bellanger and Levrel, 2017). Taylor and Ryan (2020) compared list frames derived from telephone surveys and licence frames, showing that telephone surveys generated lower response rates. As a result, telephone surveys should be compared to licence frames where possible to ensure that a representative sample has been achieved using offsite methods (Taylor and Ryan, 2020). Vølstad et al. (2020) developed a new spatial sampling approach using Voronoi polygons that proved an efficient method for onsite sampling of MRF catches, where access points are on private land and the complexity and length of the coastline make intercepting anglers very difficult. Generally, MRF surveys are carried out at large scales, but information is needed to inform local management including marine spatial planning and marine protected areas. Lynch et al. (2020) assessed the utility of state-wide survey programmes to inform the management of Australian Marine Parks and found better spatial data and regional over-sampling would improve their utility.

Where surveys have been conducted regularly, it is important to try to understand the factors that influence participation (Arlinghaus et al., 2015), effort (Bian and Hartill, 2015), and catch rates. This can support reconstruction of times series for inclusion in stock assessment, provide insight into appropriate management measures, and inform development of the sport (e.g. increasing participation). Tate et al. (2020) tested a number of different generalized linear modelling approaches to standardize harvest rates by shore-based MRF over time in Western Australia. Standardized harvest rates derived from models were more consistent and precise, and could be used to make effective comparisons with thresholds set in harvest strategies. Spatial variation in catches is also important, so modelling techniques were tested using data from Western Australia (Navarro et al., 2020). The analysis showed spatial variation in catch rates, with consistency between the different modelling approaches tested (Navarro et al., 2020).

Response rates to traditional MRF surveys have decreased in recent years, making these methods more difficult. There has been a rise in novel approaches for data collection including citizen science (Hyder et al., 2015), digital cameras (Hartill et al., 2020), online and social media platforms (Monkman et al., 2018a, b, c), smartphone applications (Papenfuss et al., 2015; Jiorle et al., 2016; Venturelli et al., 2017; Gundelund et al., 2020), and digital images ( Monkman et al., 2019). However, many of them use non-probability sampling, so new methods are needed to relate and merge data with traditional surveys (Venturelli et al., 2017) and develop automated approaches to extract data (Monkman et al., 2018,b,c). Martin et al. (2020) used citizen science to monitor population trends in California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis), which is exploited by MRF, and reported a significant decline in numbers in the past decade. Sbragaglia et al. (2020) mined data from YouTube videos to assess recreational fishers targeting common dentex (Dentex dentex). Sbragaglia et al. (2020) found that spearfishers received more comments on their uploads than anglers, with larger fish generating higher social engagement and positivity. Recreational fishers often upload images of their catch to social media sites and fishing forums, so Monkman et al. (2020) investigated the potential to extract length measurements from photographs. Using fiducial markers as a reference size allowed accurate extraction of length measurements from photographs of the European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) (Monkman et al., 2020).

Despite the useful additions to current scientific understanding of monitoring data in this TS, there are still significant challenges. New research is needed that exploits effort and catch data from a broad range of fisheries to develop common approaches for the reconstruction and inclusion of MRF in stock assessment. Of particular importance is understanding how novel approaches to data collection can be used to address declining response rates to traditional surveys and support the evidence base for MRF, especially combining probability and non-probability sampling methods (see Cornesse et al., 2020).

Impacts of recreational fisheries

MRF can have substantial impacts on fish stocks (Coleman, 2004; Cooke and Cowx, 2004; Hyder et al., 2017, 2018; Radford et al., 2018; Lewin et al., 2019). This can occur via a number of different mechanisms including: high stock exploitation, selective harvesting causing demographic effects by shifting population structure and ecological effects by altering community structure, habitat destruction, unwanted catch and release mortality/disease, introduction of non-native species, and incidental catches of vulnerable species (Lewin et al., 2019). Removals by MRF can cause cascading trophic effects that may alter the structure, function, and productivity of marine ecosystems (Coleman, 2004). In particular, there is growing evidence of the importance of MRF in biomass removal that necessitates its inclusion in stock assessment and management measures, including separate quota allocations for MRF and commercial fisheries (Coleman, 2004; Cooke and Cowx, 2004; Hyder et al., 2017, 2018; Radford et al., 2018; Lewin et al., 2019).

Llorett et al. (2020) evaluated the fishing pressure exerted by the most common recreational and professional small-scale fishing practices on vulnerable target and bycatch species in coastal and offshore waters of the western Mediterranean. They found that, in coastal waters, nearly 50% of the total small-scale fisheries catch and nearly 20% of the total MRF catch were vulnerable species. In offshore waters, all MRF and small-scale fisheries (by)catch was made up of vulnerable species that included birds, cetaceans, elasmobranchs, and sea turtles. Their results highlight the need to differentiate between different fishing methods or gears when studying the fishing impacts on vulnerable species, but also the fact that MRF and small-scale fisheries, although considered “low impact fisheries”, may still pose a threat to vulnerable species.

Forecasting plays a critical role in the management of fisheries stocks, since it is important for testing potential management measure that underpins the decision-making process. Farmer et al. (2020) used statistical forecasting approaches to estimate MRF season lengths to maximize fishing opportunities, while constraining catch below legal limits. They applied this to a derby fishery for red snapper in which anglers race to catch as many fish as possible during a limited season and fishing ceases once the allowable harvest has been reached. Forecasting results indicated that the annual harvest limits for 2017 would be reached or exceeded with an open season of two days for private anglers and 48 days for the federal for-hire sector (charter and headboat). This approach supports identification of strategies to rebuild the stock and increase access.

A substantial portion of the fish caught by MRF is released (Ferter et al., 2013; Radford et al., 2018), either voluntarily or due to a regulatory obligation (Cooke and Sneddon, 2007), such as being below the minimum landing size. Releasing fish is thought to be beneficial to stock conservation by both fishers and fisheries managers as a proportion survive (Cooke and Sneddon, 2007; Arlinghaus et al., 2007a). There are studies both of post-release mortality (e.g. Muoneke and Childress, 1994; Bartholomew and Bohnsack, 2005; Lewin et al., 2006, 2019; Ferter et al., 2015) and sub-lethal impacts on the individuals that survive (e.g. Davie and Kopf, 2006; Campbell et al., 2010; Wilson et al., 2014; Watson et al., 2020). Sub-lethal impacts of catch and release fishing are generally not included in regulatory frameworks and are less well understood. Catching and releasing fish can reduce the energy available for growth, reproduction, and other physiological functions (Davie and Kopf, 2006; Watson et al., 2020), suppress feeding (Davie and Kopf, 2006; Siepker et al., 2006; Thompson et al., 2018), increase susceptibility to disease (Davie and Kopf, 2006), induce brood loss through nest abandonment (Hanson et al., 2007), and raise vulnerability to predation (Campbell et al., 2010). There is also debate about the ethics of MRF as capture will have some negative impact on fish welfare (Ferter et al., 2020). However, the morality of fishing practices is dependent on the individual’s motivation and human values, so cannot be addressed by natural sciences (Ferter et al., 2020). Studies are needed to understand the impact of MRF on fish welfare (e.g. sub-lethal effects) that can be used to evaluate and improve practices (Arlinghaus et al., 2007b; Ferter et al., 2020). Despite the relevance of catch and release and fish welfare in MRF, there were no submissions to this TS regarding these topics.

Robust regular multispecies surveys of MRF are required to collect data for use in stock assessments (Hyder et al., 2017). In addition, it is vital that approaches are developed to assess the impact of MRF on stocks, which could be done using risk assessment to generate priorities followed by inclusion in stock assessment to estimate fishing mortality. While many of the drivers for post-release mortality including barotrauma, air exposure, and hooking location are understood (e.g. Ferter et al., 2015; Lewin et al., 2018), species-specific estimates of post-release mortality are limited. This means that additional post-release mortality and sub-lethal effects studies are needed to ensure that the full impact of MRF is understood and can be used to improve fish welfare in MRF (Ferter et al., 2020).

Given the limited data available, methods are required to reconstruct time series and incorporate recreational data into stock assessments. This will allow fair and equitable allocation to be made between commercial and recreational fisheries and the generation of total allowable catches for recreational fisheries. This already occurs in some countries (e.g. Australia—Ryan et al., 2016), but is needed for a broader range of species across the globe.

Economic and social benefits

MRF have significant economic impacts (e.g. Henry and Lyle, 2003; Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2012; Armstrong et al., 2013; Wynne-Jones et al., 2014; Brownscombe et al., 2014; NMFS, 2016; Hyder et al., 2017, 2018, 2020; Roberts et al., 2017; Arlinghaus et al., 2019). In addition, there are many social benefits, including experiencing nature, spending time with friends and family, health and well-being, and environmental improvement (e.g. McManus et al., 2011; Armstrong et al., 2013; Brownscombe et al., 2014; Griffiths et al., 2017; Arlinghaus et al., 2019).

There are many ways to estimate the economic value of an activity or sector (Parkkila et al., 2010). Economic studies assess either the economic value from a social welfare perspective or the economic impact of the activity (Parkkila et al., 2010). Economic impact identifies the income that a particular project or industry brings to the area where it is located (Parkkila et al., 2010). For example, the total economic impact of MRF in Europe has been estimated to contribute around 10.5 billion euro supporting 99 500 full-time equivalents (Hyder et al., 2017); in the United States, in 2014 sea anglers contributed $60.6 billion in sales impacts generating $35.5 billion in value-added impacts and supporting 439 000 jobs (NMFS, 2016). This gives an idea of the impact of the sector on the economy, but does not inform how management can affect the value created by the sector. This is because complete cessation would only lead to a partial loss of the total economic impact generated as most anglers are likely to redistribute their spending to other leisure activities (e.g. Radford and Riddington, 2009). This is usually estimated by capturing the use and non-use value of MRF and how this might change under different management scenarios. Willingness-to-pay studies are usually applied (Parkkila et al., 2010) using either stated (e.g. Lew and Larson, 2014, 2015) or revealed (e.g. Bockstael et al., 1989; Prayaga et al., 2010) preference approaches. Lew and Seung (2020) measured economic contributions of MRF using a social accounting matrix and a resampling approach to generate error estimates. This was used to produce a regional economic impact estimate for the Alaskan marine charter boat fleet in 2011–2013 and 2015 that could be used to support decision-making (Lew and Seung, 2020).

MRF provides benefits beyond the economic impact, including health benefits (Griffiths et al., 2017). In addition, it generates direct income (e.g. taxes, licence sales) and indirect actions (e.g. marine pollution—Bate, 2001) that can be used to improve management of the marine environment. Pouso et al. (2020) used a travel cost method to estimate the use value of an estuary in the north of Spain. Better environmental conditions in the estuary increased both the use value of MRF and associated welfare, which covered some of the costs of improvement (Pouso et al., 2020).

MRF can interact with commercial fisheries, particularly inshore fleets, and be in competition for space with other human activities (e.g. windfarms) and conservation areas (e.g. MPAs). The drivers of these interactions are described in Kleiven et al. (2020), who argue that MRF are not subject to the same financial constraints as commercial fisheries. This implies that reduced catches are compensated by the value of the fishing experience at low stock levels, meaning that high activity levels of MRF can persist (Kleiven et al., 2020).

Beyond the data gaps, and how to address them, there is also the question of how to assess other benefits arising from MRF (e.g. human health). Quantifying subjective human dimensions of MRF is difficult, with psychometrically valid health-related quality of life measures one potential approach to assess physical and psychological health and social benefits (Griffiths et al., 2017). In addition, incorporating economic and social impacts in the decision-making around allocation decisions is needed. This is important as partitioning can impact on the benefits generated, especially where commercial and recreational fisheries compete for the same resource and parity in access does not exist.

Management and compliance

With the large number of people participating in MRF, and patchy distribution of effort, managing and governing MRF can be challenging (Arlinghaus et al., 2019). The difficulty in developing governance structures and management systems for MRF often leads to omission or poor definition in national fisheries regulations (Potts et al., 2020).

A key concern for managers is the level of acceptability of and/or compliance with management measures. MRF does not differ widely from commercial fisheries, where issues of acceptability of measures and compliance are also of concern. The management process has implications for the effectiveness of measures, and accounting for the human dimension is important (Fulton et al., 2011; Boonstra et al., 2017). Ban et al. (2020) found that compliance can significantly increase through publicizing management measures in commonly fished areas. Mackay et al. (2020) showed that “nudges”, based on a social norm, have the potential to increase the compliance with management measures in a laboratory setting. Thomas et al. (2020) gave fishers different options for maximum size limits of blue cod (Parapercis colias). Discard intentions were lowest and fisher satisfaction was greatest when the maximum size limit was high or removed, which could indicate better compliance (Thomas et al., 2020). Young et al. (2020) found that increasing angling opportunity and certainty around access, rather than catch rates, was preferable, so could potentially improve compliance.

Another challenge with the effective management of MRF is balancing the needs of both recreational and commercial fishers. Differences arise from the varied motivations for fishing (e.g. Fedler and Ditton, 1994; Arlinghaus, 2006). This difference in the two sectors’ views on how to effectively manage marine resources was taken up by Obregón et al. (2020); commercial fishers suggested an MRF licence and recreational fishers suggested a longer closed season as the best methods for reducing the fishing effort for blue crab (Portunus armatus). To resolve this conflict, Obregón et al. (2020) suggested developing management at a smaller spatial scale. The general concensus of the papers in this TS concerning effective management of MRF descibed the need for management measures to optimize fishers’ sense of satisfaction, which can only be done via both correct data collection and engaging with stakeholder groups.

Engagement and communication

Engaging with recreational anglers is beneficial to both the data collection and management processes, facilitating both higher response rates and increased compliance (Dedual et al., 2013; Fairclough et al., 2014; Brownscombe et al., 2019; Ban et al., 2020). This is primarily due to the difficulty in accessing the individual fishers as many are not represented by stakeholder groups, rather than a lack of willingness to participate (Brown et al., 2020). Engagement and communication with individual anglers and stakeholder groups to ensure that they are not only aware of, but also support management measures, is often the only option for fisheries management to ensure compliance (Dedual et al., 2013; Ban et al., 2020), primarily due to a lack of resources available for enforcement. Ensuring that MRF needs are considered throughout the management process may increase their sense of responsibility for the resource, which is essential for ensuring sustainable fishing (Cooke et al., 2019). Finally, engaging with the angling community is important for MRF surveys (Fairclough et al., 2014) as response rates to traditional survey approaches are declining making attaining a representative sample increasingly challenging. There were no papers in this TS that described new and better practices for accessing and engaging with the angling community. However, this is an important area for future work as the success of data collection and management rely on an engaged community that understands and wants to support management (Cooke et al., 2019; Potts et al., 2020).

Funding

Most robust MRF management systems include some form of cost recovery, usually in the form of a licence. This provides resources needed to manage the fishery, including administering the licence, monitoring catches, enforcement, stock enhancement, and fishery development. In addition, funding is obtained from many sources, including national and international research funding mechanisms, private funds, angling trade, and philanthropic donors. However, MRF is often excluded from fisheries funding. For example, as MRF is not recognized as a sector in Europe, it is not possible to acquire funding for development from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. In addition, there have been no calls for large research grants on MRF under the European Framework Programme. The lack of funding for MRF has been recognized in Europe by the European Parliament (European Parliament, 2018), as it may limit development and management. Challenges for the diversification of the European Fisheries Fund related to tourism were identified in Spain, with few projects on MRF funded and the need for commercial and MRF to work together to access funding (Miret-Pastor et al., 2020).

Conclusions

It was clear from the general interest in this TS (Table 1) that there is a lot of research currently underway on MRF. Much of this research is interdisciplinary, covering social, political, and biological sciences, which is needed due to the challenges of studying MRF. Despite this, MRF is still poorly covered in fisheries projects that tend to focus on commercial fisheries and key gaps in knowledge remain (Table 2). Progress is being made via research covering data collection, impacts, economic and social benefits, and management and compliance (Table 2). There are still knowledge gaps surrounding: clear governance that embed MRF in fisheries co-management; integration of novel approaches and traditional surveys; broader risk-based approaches to identify the impacts; understanding fish welfare and supporting best practice; approaches to management that balance economic, social, and biological impacts that allow fair and equitable allocation between sectors; and better understanding of social benefits and how this impacts management and compliance. Adequate funding is needed to be able to carry out this research.

Table 2.

Knowledge gaps in MRF research and the articles in this themed set that highlight them by topic area.

Topic	Knowledge gaps	Contribution
Governance	Inclusion of recreational fisheries in legislation and clear policy Novel transdisciplinary approaches for approaches for MRF	None
Data collection and surveys	New survey designs to improve data collection Analytical methods for dealing with missing data Models to improve understanding of the factors driving participation, effort, and catches Integration of novel methods into traditional survey programmes	Spatial sampling for at sea surveys (Vølstad et al., 2020) Impact of list frames (Taylor and Ryan, 2020) and downscaling of national surveys (Lynch et al., 2020) Models of catch rates (Navarro et al., 2020; Tate et al., 2020) Novel approaches to collect data (Martin et al., 2020; Monkman et al., 2020; Sbragaglia et al., 2020)
Impacts of recreational fisheries	Environmental impacts of MRF Fishing mortality generated by MRF Key priorities for MRF management Catch and release impacts, including sub-lethal effects	Forecasting fisheries impacts (Farmer et al., 2020) Impacts on vulnerable species (Lloret et al., 2020)
Economic and social benefits	Differences between commercial and recreational fisheries Economic impact estimation Non-market evaluation Frameworks for assessing trade-offs between biological, social, and economic impacts	Drivers behind the incentives to fish (Kleiven et al., 2020) Use of social accounting matrix (Lew and Seung, 2020) Positive relationship between environmental condition and the use value (Pouso et al., 2020)
Management and compliance	Approaches to management that generate appropriate benefits for MRF Engendering compliance and behavioural change	Angler utility (Young et al., 2020) Attitudes to regulation (Thomas et al., 2020) Intersectoral conflicts (Obregón et al., 2020) Compliance (Ban et al., 2020; Mackay et al., 2020)
Engagement and communication	Engagement in data collection and management to create responsible MRF Codesign approaches Dialogue with the angling community (e.g. developing best practice)	None
Funding	Access to broader funding mechanisms	Funding of MRF through European Fisheries Fund (Miret-Pastor et al., 2020)

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all the scientists who expressed interest in or submitted an article to this TS. In addition, the authors thank many ICES editors for managing all the manuscripts and the anonymous reviewers who provided comments.