Table 1. Sustainability attributes, scoring criteria, and references used in the RAPFISH analysis of Danish seine fisheries in Brondong. Attribute selection was based on established RAPFISH guidelines and prior studies, and further validated through expert judgment in Focus Group Discussions (FGD)

Dimension	Attribute	Score range	Scoring criteriz	References/Justification
Ecological (10)	Exploitation status	0–3	0 = under; 1 = fully; 3 = over-exploited	Fauzi & Anna (2005), Pitcher & Preikshot (2001)
	Recruitment variation	0–2	0 = CV < 40%; 1 = 40%–100%; 2 ≥ 100%	Kavanagh & Pitcher (2004), Pratama (2022)
	Trophic level change	0–2	0 = no decline; 1 = slow; 2 = rapid decline	Pauly et al. (1998), Wiyono et al. (2020)
	Migration range	0–2	0 = 1–2 jurisdictions; 1 = 3–4; 2 ≥ 4	Pitcher & Preikshot (2001)
	Collapse level	0–2	0 = none; 1 = slight; 2 = rapid/widespread	Kavanagh & Pitcher (2004)
	Catch size trend	0–2	0 = stable; 1 = gradual decline; 2 = sharp decline	Firdaus et al. (2021), Rizki et al. (2018)
	Immature catch proportion	0–2	0 = none; 1 ≥ 30%; 2 ≥ 60%	KKP (2015), Maulana et al. (2023)
	Discard/bycatch rate	0–2	0 ≤ 10%; 1 = 10%–40%; 2 ≥ 40%	Pitcher & Preikshot (2001), Wiyono et al. (2020)
	Catch species diversity	0–2	0 = 1–10; 1 = 10–100; 2 ≥ 100 species	Fitriani & Satria (2019), Pratama (2022)
Economic (10)	Fisheries levy contribution	0–2	0 = low; 1 = medium; 2 = high	BPS (2022), Fauzi & Anna (2005)
	Average wage	0–2	0 ≤ other sectors; 1 = equal; 2 ≥ other sectors	Firdaus et al. (2021)
	Entry restriction	0–2	0 = almost none; 1 = moderate; 2 = high	Pitcher & Preikshot (2001)
	Market access	0–2	0 = none; 1 = some; 2 = mixed/quota-based	Nurhidayah & Fauzi (2020)
	Alternative income	0–3	0 = subsistence; 1 = part-time; 2 = seasonal; 3 = full-time	Firdaus et al. (2021)
	Employment share	0–2	0 ≤ 10%; 1 = 10%–20%; 2 ≥ 20%	BPS (2022), Maulana et al. (2023)
	Ownership structure	0–2	0 = local; 1 = mixed; 2 = foreign	Fauzi & Anna (2005)
	Primary market	0–2	0 = local; 1 = national; 2 = international	Wiyono et al. (2020)
	Government subsidy	0–2	0 = none; 1 = partial; 2 = nearly full	KKP (2017)
	Fuel consumption	0–2	0 = low; 1 = medium; 2 = high	Rizki et al. (2018)
Social (10)	Fishing socialisation	0–2	0 = company-based; 1 = family; 2 = group-based	Fauzi & Anna (2005), Pratama (2022)
	New entrants (5 years)	0–2	0 ≤ 10%; 1 = 10%–20%; 2 ≥ 20%	Fitriani & Satria (2019)
	Capture sector size	0–2	0 ≤ 10% HH; 1 = 10%–30%; 2 ≥ 30%	BPS (2022)
	Environmental knowledge	0–2	0 = none; 1 = some; 2 = good	Firdaus et al. (2021)
	Education level	0–2	0 = below avg; 1 = avg; 2 = above avg	BPS (2022)
	Conflict level	0–2	0 = none; 1 = some; 2 = frequent	Pratama (2022)
	Local labour inclusion	0–2	0 = none; 1 = moderate; 2 = high	Fitriani & Satria (2019)
	Influence on regulation	0–2	0 = none; 1 = some; 2 = significant	Nurhidayah & Fauzi (2020)
	Fishery income share	0–2	0 ≤ 50%; 1 = 50%–80%; 2 ≥ 80%	Firdaus et al. (2021)
	Family participation	0–1	0 = no; 1 = yes	Fauzi & Anna (2005)
Technological (9)	Trip duration	0–2	0 ≤ 1 day; 1 = up to 1 month; 2 ≥ 1 month	Wiyono et al. (2020)
	Landing sites	0–2	0 = dispersed; 1 = semi-centralised; 2 = centralised	Fauzi & Anna (2005)
	Pre-sale processing	0–2	0 = none; 1 = some; 2 = extensive	Pitcher & Preikshot (2001)
	Onboard handling	0–3	0 = none; 1 = moderate; 2 = advanced; 3 = live tank	Kavanagh & Pitcher (2004)
	Gear selectivity	0–2	0 = low; 1 = moderate; 2 = high	Wiyono et al. (2020)
	FAD use	0–1	0 = no; 0.5 = bait only; 1 = with FAD	Pratama (2022)
	Vessel size	0–2	0 ≤ 8 m; 1 = 8–17 m; 2 ≥ 18 m	Rizki et al. (2018)
	Fishing power change	0–2	0 = none; 1 = gradual; 2 = rapid	Pitcher & Preikshot (2001)
	Gear externalities	0–2	0 = none; 1 = some; 2 = high	Firdaus et al. (2021)
Ethical (8)	Social/geographic closeness	0–3	0 = not close; 3 = close & dependent	Pitcher & Preikshot (2001)
	Fishery choice	0–2	0 = none; 1 = some; 2 = diverse	Fauzi & Anna (2005)
	Equity in practice	0–2	0 = ignored; 1 = considered; 2 = traditional basis	Firdaus et al. (2021)
	Governance fairness	0–4	0 = none; 4 = equal co-management	Nurhidayah & Fauzi (2020)
	Habitat mitigation	0–4	0 = major damage; 4 = strong mitigation	KKP (2015)
	Ecosystem mitigation	0–4	0 = major damage; 4 = strong mitigation	Rizki et al. (2018)
	Illegal fishing	0–2	0 = none; 1 = some; 2 = high	KKP (2017)
	Waste/disposal	0–2	0 = none; 1 = some; 2 = high	Firdaus et al. (2021)

References are indicative of literature sources and policy frameworks used for attribute justification. Attributes were finalized through validation in a stakeholder FGD.
RAPFISH, rapid appraisal for fisheries; CV, coefficient of variation; HH, households; avg, average; FAD, fish aggregating device; FGD, focus group discussion.