Digitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet

Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Benefits and costs of two temporary no-take zones
Umeå University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Umeå School of Business and Economics (USBE), Economics. Umeå University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Centre for Environmental and Resource Economics (CERE). Department of Forest Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden.
Umeå University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Centre for Environmental and Resource Economics (CERE). Umeå University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Umeå School of Business and Economics (USBE), Economics.
Umeå University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Centre for Environmental and Resource Economics (CERE). Department of Forest Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden.
Show others and affiliations
2020 (English)In: Marine Policy, ISSN 0308-597X, E-ISSN 1872-9460Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

Temporary no-take zones (NTZs) are increasingly introduced in Sweden as a fisheries management tool to restore populations of specific target species. This paper presents a cost-benefit analysis of two real case temporary NTZs closed during a 5–6 year period in the coastal zone of the Baltic Sea, using scenario analysis to account for uncertainty in both the biological and economic effects. A sensitivity analysis was added for certain key parameters. The results of the cost-benefit analyses for the two NTZs are positive in all scenarios relating to the most realistic case of no opportunity costs, i.e., assuming that all fishing activity could be relocated to adjacent areas without cost during the closed period. As an extreme case comparison, full opportunity costs were included, assuming that no fishing activity could be relocated to other areas during the closed period. One of the NTZs then exhibited a negative net result for most scenarios. For the other area the net result was positive even when the maximum opportunity costs of temporary lost fishing opportunities were included, largely depending on the strong positive change in the value of commercial fishing. By demonstrating potential costs and benefits of using temporary no-take zones in fisheries management this study may contribute to policy making, as well as to creating acceptance from stakeholder groups that incur short-term costs from closing areas to fishing.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2020.
National Category
Economics
Research subject
Economics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-168858DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103883OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-168858DiVA, id: diva2:1413907
Available from: 2020-03-11 Created: 2020-03-11 Last updated: 2020-03-11

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Brännlund, RunarCarlén, OlaPersson, Lars
By organisation
EconomicsCentre for Environmental and Resource Economics (CERE)
In the same journal
Marine Policy
Economics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 61 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf