 Are marine reserves and harvest control rules substitutes or complements for rebuilding fisheries?Satoshi Yamazaki, Sarah Jennings, R. Quentin Grafton and Tom Kompas Resource and Energy Economics, 2015, vol. 40, issue C, 1-18 Abstract: Harvest control rules and no-take marine reserves are two management approaches increasingly advocated as effective means of rebuilding depleted fish stocks and averting the collapse of fisheries. We incorporate the two approaches into a bioeconomic model and evaluate how they act as substitutes and/or complements when used together in fisheries stock recovery plans. Simulations of the model with estimated parameters from an actual fishery show that the cost of adopting a harvest strategy of slow stock rebuilding can be offset or substituted by a no-take reserve. For each of the harvest strategies explored, we find there is a range of reserve sizes that can act as a complement in a stock recovery plan such that a no-take reserve improves both the profitability of fishers and average annual harvest during stock rebuilding. We demonstrate that a stock recovery plan that incorporates both harvest control rules and no-take reserves can simultaneously contribute to conservation, economic and socio-economic objectives of fisheries management. Keywords: Fisheries management; Harvest control rules; Marine reserves; Stock recovery plans (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:resene:v:40:y:2015:i:c:p:1-18 DOI: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2015.01.001 Access Statistics for this article Resource and Energy Economics is currently edited by J. F. Shogren and S. Smulders More articles in Resource and Energy Economics from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.