Conservative Scoring Approach in Productivity Susceptibility Analysis Leads to an Overestimation of Vulnerability: A Study from the Hilsa Gillnet Bycatch Stocks of Bangladesh

Abstract

Despite different approaches used to assign the risk scores for missing information in productivity susceptibility analysis (PSA)—a widely used semi-quantitative risk assessment tool for target and non-target fisheries stocks—for the selected attributes of a given species, no formal comparison has been made between scoring approaches in terms of how well they can predict species vulnerability. The present study evaluated the PSA findings of 21 bycatch stocks of the Hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) gillnet fishery of Bangladesh using two different scoring approaches (the conservative scoring approach, CSA; and the alternative scoring approach, ASA) to determine the most reliable approach to minimize false estimates of species vulnerability. Our analysis revealed that the V scores increased by 0.0−0.20 with a mean value of 0.09 for 21 selected bycatches when CSA was applied. The inconsistency between the vulnerability (V)-score-suggested fishing status (V ≤ 1.8 = underfishing, V > 1.8 = overfishing) and the fishing status defined by exploitation rate (E > 0.5 = overfishing, E < 0.5 = underfishing) were 38.1% and 19.0% under CSA and ASA, respectively. Likewise, the consistency between the V-score-suggested fishing status and fishers’ perceived catch trends was found to be higher when using ASA than when using CSA. Our analysis suggests that CSA could overestimate species vulnerability. Therefore, ASA is more reliable than CSA in PSA, which may increase the confidence of fisheries stakeholders in PSA.