Are marine reserves and harvest control rules substitutes or complements for rebuilding fisheries?

Satoshi Yamazaki, Thomas Kompas, Sarah Jennings, Quentin Grafton

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    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.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1-18
    JournalResource and Energy Economics
    Volume40
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2015

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Are marine reserves and harvest control rules substitutes or complements for rebuilding fisheries?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this