Fishing in the city for food—a paradigmatic case of sustainability in urban blue space

The paper addresses how urban blue spaces contribute to and depend on sustainable urban development by focusing on fishing in the city for food (FCF). Against a backdrop of accelerating urbanization and growing demands on ecosystems, the authors note that research and planning have largely prioritized green spaces while blue spaces remain underexamined. The study challenges the assumption that urban waters are insignificant for food provisioning, highlighting historical and contemporary roles of city waters in supplying fish. The authors propose FCF as a lens for examining issues of environmental sustainability and justice, including access to water, food, and recreation, human health, animal welfare, and biodiversity. They outline a three-part approach: (1) a literature review on FCF, (2) a European capitals quick scan on the occurrence and characteristics of FCF, and (3) an empirical illustration from Stockholm. The study aims to illuminate how urban dwellers use, interact with, and depend on urban blue ecologies, and to inform sustainable and just urban planning and governance.

Searches in Web of Science and Google Scholar used keywords such as urban fishing/angling, city fishing, subsistence fishing, and related terms, followed by forward and backward snowballing. An initial 285 broadly relevant publications spanning fisheries management, economics, history, aquatic science, risk studies, development studies, sustainability science, urban studies, anthropology, toxicology, sociology, leisure research, consumption studies, resource management, education, health planning, rural development, and geography (including grey literature) were screened. Applying inclusion criteria to focus on both “fishing for food” and “fishing in the city” yielded 135 FCF articles analyzed by topic, geography, and publication year. Key patterns: (1) Geographic skew—104 of 135 articles focused on the USA; other high-income contexts included Canada (2), Czech Republic (2), Germany (5). Upper-middle-income countries: Brazil (5), South Africa (6), Malaysia (1), Mexico (1), China (2). Few or no articles from low- and lower-income countries likely reflect under-research and limited indexation rather than absence of FCF. (2) Four strands: - Urban fisheries management (57 papers; 51 from USA): Emphasis on urban fishing programs (originating in 1969 in the USA) for access, recruitment, license revenue, stewardship; topics include stocking, education, recreational value, angler demographics/attitudes; rarely treat fish consumption or health risks. - Public health and risk (≈47 papers; 43 USA, 2 China, 1 South Africa, 1 Germany): Focus on contaminants (PCBs, dioxins, mercury/heavy metals) and pathogens; risk perceptions; effectiveness of consumption advisories; often addresses non-regulated urban fishing; calls to integrate contamination issues into programs; recommends tailoring advisories to ethnic groups. - Inequality/environmental justice (23 papers): Examines unequal access to safe food and fishing grounds; critiques advisory-focused approaches that overlook economic, cultural reliance on catch; emphasizes cleanup and protection of urban waters and participatory co-design with affected communities; documents displacement, marginalization, and criminalization of subsistence fishers through urbanization and gentrification (e.g., Brazil, South Africa, 19th-century USA). - Urban foraging (7 papers): Considers fishing within broader urban foraging; emphasizes plant-focused literature, with foraging as dietary diversification, connection to environment, political reclaiming of city, and alternative exchange practices; notes illegality in some places and emerging permissions elsewhere. (3) Cross-strand tensions and gaps: Management literature highlights benefits (access, stewardship), health literature emphasizes risks; justice literature urges structural approaches and community co-design; urban foraging and justice strands reveal criminalization and invisibility of FCF. Interdisciplinary integration is rare despite intertwined management, health, justice, and livelihood dimensions.

The study combines three components: (1) Literature review: Systematic keyword searches in Web of Science and Google Scholar, followed by forward/backward snowballing, inclusion criteria requiring both urban location and fishing for food, and analysis by topic, geography, and year, resulting in 135 FCF articles. (2) European quick scan: Exploratory, time-bounded mapping of FCF across European capitals (EU countries plus geographically European states; excluding transitional countries such as Russia and Turkey and microstates like Liechtenstein and Monaco). Short semi-structured telephone interviews (and some email) with staff at urban fishing shops near city centers and rivers (or, when unavailable, with sport fishing associations, guides, authorities, municipalities, or tourist offices). Interviews conducted in English, Dutch, or German (translators used in Rome and Prague). Themes: (i) whether people fish in the city (and where); (ii) who eats their catch; (iii) water ownership/access. Used responses to map occurrence and characterize eating vs. catch-and-release practices and regulations; intent was to demonstrate spread, not frequency, acknowledging potential biases (e.g., norms favoring catch-and-release). A total of 41 cities were included. (3) Stockholm case study: Repeated field observations and interviews between autumn 2018 and spring 2020. Conducted 37 field visits (ranging from 2 hours to full days) across seasons, days, and times; counted 383 people fishing and interviewed 106 fishers with informed consent. Most fieldwork occurred in Stockholm’s inner city (near the Parliament and City Hall), with occasional visits to other locations when fishers relocated seasonally (e.g., for Baltic herring). Methods included on-site observation, informal and semi-structured interviews capturing practices, motivations, ethics, perceptions of environmental/health risks, and knowledge of fish ecology.

- Literature review: FCF research is heavily US-centric (104/135 articles), with sparse coverage in low- and lower-income contexts. Four strands identified: urban fisheries management (57 papers, policy/stocking/recruitment focus; little on consumption/health), public health risk (≈47 papers; contaminants/pathogens, risk perception, advisories), environmental justice/inequality (23 papers; displacement, criminalization, structural inequities, participatory co-design), and urban foraging (7 papers; broader foraging context, often plant-focused). The strands overlap yet seldom cross-reference; interdisciplinarity is lacking despite intertwined issues. - European quick scan (41 capitals): Only Luxembourg and Nicosia reported no urban fishers (prohibitions/dry river). Three cities reported only catch-and-release (e.g., Tirana, Paris, Andorra la Vella; Paris and Andorra la Vella prohibit eating city-caught fish). In Germany and Switzerland, catch-and-release is prohibited on animal welfare grounds; fishing is allowed if the fish will be eaten. Across the remaining cities, FCF is widespread with variation in prevalence and practices: in some (e.g., Athens, Berlin, Bern, Helsinki, Kyiv, Riga, Tallinn) nearly all fishers eat their catch; in many others some do and some do not; in a few, few fishers eat their catch. Local ecology, adjacency to sea, and regulatory regimes shape practices. - Stockholm case: Diverse fishers (families, tourists, refugees, IT professionals, seasonal labor migrants, pensioners, youths) use central urban waters. Seasonal mobility and strong local ecological knowledge are evident (e.g., moving to target Baltic herring; awareness of microhabitats, salinity, vegetation, currents; perceived stock changes and parasites). Of 106 interviewed, a majority (73) reported keeping/eating their catch at least sometimes; others practice catch-and-release. Ethical views diverge: some consider harvesting unsustainable/unethical; others see catch-and-release as unethical due to fish suffering. Health risk perceptions vary: some avoid consuming city fish, others limit intake, and some view city fish as comparable or preferable to store-bought fish; target species can reflect cultural culinary preferences. Some fishers process surplus (pickling, frying, freezing) and share/trade within networks; for a few, FCF contributes to livelihoods. - Overall: FCF surfaces intertwined issues of access, food security, public health, animal welfare, biodiversity, and environmental justice, indicating the need for integrated, participatory, and context-specific governance and research.

Findings demonstrate that FCF is both widespread and multifaceted, linking urban ecological dynamics with social needs and justice concerns. The literature’s compartmentalization (management vs. health vs. justice vs. foraging) obscures how benefits (access to nature, food, recreation) and risks (contaminants, pathogens) co-occur and are experienced unevenly, often along lines of income, ethnicity, and migratory status. The European scan highlights regulatory variability (e.g., prohibitions on eating vs. bans on catch-and-release for animal welfare) and the presence of FCF across diverse urban contexts, while the Stockholm case shows a highly visible, diverse practice embedded in local ecologies, ethics, and informal food networks. Integrating fishers’ knowledge with scientific monitoring can improve understanding of urban aquatic biodiversity and fish population dynamics. Addressing FCF as a paradigmatic case of urban sustainability and environmental justice implies: (1) coupling analyses of benefits and risks with participatory engagement of affected communities; (2) assessing ecological impacts of FCF (and cumulative pressures with commercial fisheries) on urban fish populations and ecosystem resilience; (3) recognizing and studying the role of FCF in livelihood security, especially in under-researched low- and lower-middle-income settings; (4) incorporating animal welfare and ethical considerations into policy design; and (5) confronting stigmatization and criminalization by inclusive planning that accommodates temporal and spatial needs of diverse fishers. Planners and policymakers should involve both organized and informal fisher groups in co-designing governance of urban blue spaces to ensure legitimacy, equity, and effectiveness.

FCF functions as a powerful entry point to understand and govern urban blue spaces for sustainability and justice. The study documents that FCF is common across European capitals and richly varied in Stockholm, while the literature reveals significant geographic and thematic imbalances and fragmentation. The authors call for interdisciplinary research and participatory governance that integrate public health, ecological sustainability, livelihood considerations, and ethical/animal welfare dimensions. Urban planning should explicitly recognize food-related practices in blue spaces, protect equitable access to safe waters, include fishers’ knowledge in monitoring and management, and avoid policies that displace or criminalize subsistence users. Future research should prioritize: cross-strand integration of management, health, and justice perspectives; robust ecological assessments of FCF impacts; systematic investigation of FCF’s livelihood roles in diverse socio-economic settings; and development of inclusive, context-sensitive regulatory frameworks.

- The European quick scan is exploratory, intended to demonstrate spread rather than measure frequency or prevalence. - Geographic scope limited to European capitals (excluding transitional countries like Russia and Turkey and very small states), due to time constraints. - Reliance on informants (primarily urban fishing shop staff and related contacts) may bias reporting (e.g., norms favoring catch-and-release, potential underreporting of food-oriented fishing if perceived as unsustainable or illegal). - Literature coverage is uneven, with a strong bias toward high-income contexts (especially the USA) and limited visibility of research from low- and lower-income countries (potentially due to under-research or indexing). - The Stockholm case centers predominantly on inner-city sites and is based on 37 field visits within a specific timeframe, which may not capture all spatial-temporal variations.