Accounting for enforcement costs in the spatial allocation of marine zones

Davis, Katrina, Kragt, Marit, Gelcich, Stefan, Schilizzi, Steven and Pannell, David (2015) Accounting for enforcement costs in the spatial allocation of marine zones. Conservation Biology, 29 1: 226-237. doi:10.1111/cobi.12358

Author Davis, Katrina
Kragt, Marit
Gelcich, Stefan
Schilizzi, Steven
Pannell, David
Title Accounting for enforcement costs in the spatial allocation of marine zones
Journal name Conservation Biology   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1523-1739
Publication date 2015-02
Year available 2014
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1111/cobi.12358
Open Access Status Not Open Access
Volume 29
Issue 1
Start page 226
End page 237
Total pages 12
Place of publication Hoboken, United States
Publisher Blackwell Publishing
Collection year 2016
Language eng
Formatted abstract
Marine fish stocks are in many cases extracted above sustainable levels, but they may be protected through restricted-use zoning systems. The effectiveness of these systems typically depends on support from coastal fishing communities. High management costs including those of enforcement may, however, deter fishers from supporting marine management. We incorporated enforcement costs into a spatial optimization model that identified how conservation targets can be met while maximizing fishers’ revenue. Our model identified the optimal allocation of the study area among different zones: no-take, territorial user rights for fisheries (TURFs), or open access. The analysis demonstrated that enforcing no-take and TURF zones incurs a cost, but results in higher species abundance by preventing poaching and overfishing. We analyzed how different enforcement scenarios affected fishers’ revenue. Fisher revenue was approximately 50% higher when territorial user rights were enforced than when they were not. The model preferentially allocated area to the enforced-TURF zone over other zones, demonstrating that the financial benefits of enforcement (derived from higher species abundance) exceeded the costs. These findings were robust to increases in enforcement costs but sensitive to changes in species’ market price. We also found that revenue under the existing zoning regime in the study area was 13–30% lower than under an optimal solution. Our results highlight the importance of accounting for both the benefits and costs of enforcement in marine conservation, particularly when incurred by fishers.
Keyword Chile
Conservation planning
Linear programming
Marine stakeholders
Reserve design
Spatial optimization
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status Non-UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: Faculty of Science Publications
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 6 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 4 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Wed, 17 Feb 2016, 11:48:42 EST by Ms Kate Rowe on behalf of Learning and Research Services (UQ Library)