Use and Non-Use Values in an Applied Bioeconomic Model of Fisheries and Habitat Connections

Armstrong, Claire W.; Kahui, Viktoria; Vondolia, Godwin Kofi; Aanesen, Margrethe; Czajkowski, Mikołaj

doi:10.1086/693477

Cited by 23 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 45 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moyle & Evans (2008) included tourism values of whale watching in a model to inform policy, and discuss issues related to the economic benefits of switching from whale hunting to watching. Armstrong et al (2017) use an expanded bioeconomic model to show how non-use value of natural habitats impacts on optimal fishing activities, using cold water corals in Norway as an example. Hence, a combination of multiple benefits accruing from natural resource use may give different economic implications than predicted in the studies solely focusing on commercial harvest (Boncoeur et al, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Differing from these earlier studies on multi-benefits provided by MPAs, the tourism values included in our bioeconomic model are derived from a DCE. We surveyed tourists' preferences regarding biodiversity conservation obtained via the expansion of an MPA, an approach that to our knowledge has not been applied in the development of a bioeconomic MPA model earlier (see however Armstrong et al (2017) who insert non-use values estimated from a DCE regarding cold water coral protection into a bioeconomic model of optimal management of interactions between renewable and non-renewable resources). Furthermore, MPA size is in this model explicitly considered as one of the control variables together with the harvest.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trading Off Tourism for Fisheries

Xuan

Armstrong

2018

Environ Resource Econ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a deterministic bioeconomic model in which the creation of a marine protected area (MPA) is not only a fisheries management tool but also introduced in order to provide tourism amenity benefits. The theoretical model is illustrated with analysis of the Nha Trang Bay (NTB) MPA in Khanh Hoa province in Vietnam, where the anchovy purse seine fishery is considered.An amenity value function of the NTB MPA is estimated from a discrete choice experiment (DCE) among national tourists. A weighting parameter is added to the bioeconomic model to allow the establishment of a tradeoff between management preferences regarding the two sectors affected by the MPA, fisheries and tourism. Both the theoretical models and the empirical application show how the added amenity values affect optimal fishing practices as well as the identification of the optimal MPA size. Our applied analysis shows that contrary to the argument in most MPA studies with multiple stakeholders, the current management practice in Khanh Hoa prioritizes the fisheries sector heavily compared to tourism, despite high economic cost.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trading Off Tourism for Fisheries

Xuan

Armstrong

2018

Environ Resource Econ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…, Armstrong et al. ). Most existing research on non‐use values has focused on charismatic species such as marine mammals and turtles, or prominent ecosystem components such as corals (Börger et al.…”

Section: The Non‐market Benefits Of Marine Protected Areasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, Armstrong et al. ). Stated‐preference methods can be used to estimate these values but may be subject to bias because they are based on hypothetical scenarios and decisions.…”

Section: The Non‐market Benefits Of Marine Protected Areasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Non-use MPA benefits include existence and bequest values (Fig. 3), where the former is the benefit people obtain from knowledge of the continued existence of an MPA (Christie et al 2015), or environmental goods that are protected by an MPA, even when they will never visit the MPA or use its resources (Hoagland et al 1995, Armstrong et al 2017). Most existing research on non-use values has focused on charismatic species such as marine mammals and turtles, or prominent ecosystem components such as corals (B€ orger et al 2014).…”

Section: The Non-market Benefits Of Marine Protected Areasmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Estimating the economic benefits and costs of highly‐protected marine protected areas

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are an increasingly popular, but debated, management strategy to conserve marine biodiversity and ensure sustainable human use of the oceans. Economic studies can contribute to the debate about MPAs as a management option by evaluating their benefits and costs to society. In this paper, we outline how to evaluate the economic benefits and costs of MPAs and provide examples from the literature to demonstrate the methods described. We review challenges and opportunities of different economic methods. One key challenge is to meaningfully compare market and non‐market benefits of MPAs—this comparison is complicated by the scarcity of studies that quantify the non‐market benefits of MPAs. Another key challenge is to quantify how the value of marine areas may change with and without MPAs. Costs are often easier to estimate than benefits, but some costs—such as maintenance and compliance costs—are rarely recognized. Analytical choices will influence the identified economic costs and benefits of MPAs. For example, the spatial extent of analyses will influence what changes in underlying ecological processes are captured and conclusions about the equitable distribution of costs and benefits across society. For these reasons, it is important that managers are aware of the challenges and opportunities described here, so that they can obtain and use the best‐quality economic information to guide decision making about MPAs.

show abstract

Trading off nature for nature‐based solutions: The bioeconomics of forest management for wildlife, timber, and carbon

Ury,

Kotchen,

Schmitz

2024

Ecosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nature‐based solutions are attracting interest for their potential to enlist ecological processes as cost‐effective and safe ways to capture and store carbon in forest ecosystems. Such solutions often need to be implemented in landscapes in which there are longer established values for other ecosystem services including wildlife and timber production. Here we develop an integrative model that illustrates the inherent trade‐offs that will arise among the competing values for landscape space and how to resolve them. The analysis characterizes boreal forest ecosystem dynamics involving interactions among the main trophic compartments of an intact boreal ecosystem, aka “nature.” The model accounts for carbon accumulation via biomass growth of forest trees (timber), carbon loss due to controls from moose herbivory that varies with moose population density (hunting), and soil carbon inputs and release, which together determine the carbon sink strength of the ecosystem. We link the ecological dynamics with an economic analysis by assigning a price to carbon stored within the intact boreal forest ecosystem. We then weigh these carbon impacts against the economic benefits of timber production and hunting across a range of moose population densities. Combined, this carbon‐bioeconomic program calculates the total ecosystem benefit of a modeled boreal forest system, providing a framework for examining how different forest harvest and moose densities influence the achievement of carbon storage targets, under different levels of carbon pricing. The analysis shows that promoting nature‐based solutions merely for carbon storage may result in loss of a key part of “nature” via loss of the trophic structure and key functional controls in the ecosystem.

show abstract

Use and Non-Use Values in an Applied Bioeconomic Model of Fisheries and Habitat Connections

Cited by 23 publications

References 45 publications

Trading Off Tourism for Fisheries

Trading Off Tourism for Fisheries

Estimating the economic benefits and costs of highly‐protected marine protected areas

Trading off nature for nature‐based solutions: The bioeconomics of forest management for wildlife, timber, and carbon

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About