Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Trading Off Tourism for Fisheries

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 25 September 2018

This article has been updated

Abstract

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 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 25 September 2018

    During the correction stage, the author requested that “302 be in line with NPV* and NPV*<Subscript>f</Subscript>” in Table 4.

Notes

  1. See Hannesson (1998) for more detailed explanation.

  2. The constant price of fish is a reasonable assumption when the species studied is traded in a large world market, of which the local harvest share is small as is the case here, and therefore does not impact price, and therefore fishers accept exogenous market prices.

  3. In this optimal control model, with α = 0, we follow Conrad (1999) where MPA size is not explicitly considered as a control variable, but utilized MPA size is reflected through varying the reserve size, m, in the applied analysis.

  4. Tourism development in the MPA contributes to the increase in use value of the MPA. However, when there is intensive and unregulated tourism development in MPAs, this can have direct or indirect negative impacts on marine species (e.g. sessile invertebrates) and habitats (i.e. seagrass beds, macroflora; see Milazzo et al. 2002 for more discussion). If this is the case, a function describing environmental damage could be included in the model to give a broader picture. However, in this study, the empirical data applied in the model comes from the NTB MPA, which we will assume has necessary solutions and regulations to limit the negative effects caused by tourism within the MPA, as indicated by Van (2013). We therefore do not include environmental damage from tourism in this model.

  5. Note that we do not use α here in the total net present value function, as the final net present values are only indirectly affected by α via the determination of the optimal stock, MPA and harvest sizes.

  6. As current Vietnamese open access fisheries result in many depleted fish populations as well as serious conflicts of interests among fishing groups (Pomeroy et al. 2007), it is imperative to assess more appropriate governance and management approaches for the fisheries operating in nearshore waters.

  7. Khanh Hoa Department of Capture Fisheries and Resources Protection (DECAFIREP), 2015.

  8. Khanh Hoa Deparment of Statistics.

  9. Khanh Hoa Department of Culture, Sports and Tourism.

  10. On 9/12/2014, the Khanh Hoa government issued some new regulations for the NTB MPA. Firstly, The NTB MPA core zone was expanded and named a strictly protected area; the buffer zone is also renamed as the ecological rehabilitation zone. Secondly, fishing is not allowed in either area. However, in this paper we use the secondary data before 2011 so we still keep the former NTB MPA scheme for our analysis.

  11. Source: NTB Border Defense, 2015.

  12. Thi et al. (2007) report that the intrinsic growth rates of anchovy species in southeast Vietnamese are relatively high, ranging from 0.53 to 0.90 per year. We choose the most conservative measure.

  13. 77% of all visitors to the NTB are Vietnamese tourists (Xuan et al. 2017), where the remainder are largely Chinese and Russian.

  14. The survey design is described in detail in Xuan et al. (2017).

  15. See Xuan et al. (2017) for the specification of the model, the discussion on selecting the distribution of random parameters, and measurement of consumer surplus, in detail.

  16. It is possible that tourists’ WTP for coral cover may be influenced by their preferences for environmental quality and fishermen job loss, we therefore include the interaction effects in the model to estimate the tourism value of different MPA management policies.

  17. The estimated parameters of the interactive variables between coral and job loss are excluded when calculating CS for different management scenarios, due to their being statistically insignificant. As indicated by Armstrong et al. (2017), all coefficient, significant or insignificant, could be included, this would however give a higher standard error.

  18. Though the good valued is a hypothetical core zone expansion of the NTB MPA, we chose not to include the MPA core zone size as an attribute, due to causality. That is, the increase in coral cover, environmental quality, and fishermen’s job losses can be seen as a result of an increase in the MPA core zone size. Hence, inclusion of the core zone size attribute may encourage respondents to try to understand the causal relations among attributes and potentially to simplify their decision making process, resulting in a reduction in marginal WTP for the other attributes (Bennett and Blamey 2001), which are indicated as the most important for tourists choosing to visit the NTB MPA.

  19. The value of the estimated parameter, b, indicates that when the size of protected area increases 1%, the average consumer surplus per individual increases by 0.148 USD.

  20. The study site is Khanh Hoa waters which includes the NTB MPA where the DCE survey took place. Hence the tourism value function will depend on the RZ size which is proportional to the total area of study, i.e. the Khanh Hoa inshore waters.

  21. Note that for the values of α greater than 0.537, the optimal values are unstable.

  22. The fishing effort in 2011 reported by Thuy and Flaaten (2013) was 581 vessels, while the optimal fishing effort calculated from the estimations of this study is E* = Y*/(q × 1*) = 120,182/(0.00069*545,085) = 319 vessels.

  23. Though the NTB MPA core zone size has been expanded in recent years, it comes nowhere close to the expansion our results suggest.

  24. At the current MPA core zone size (m = 0.56%), the values of the total NPV, the fisheries’ NPV, and the tourism NPV are 366; 300; and 66 million dollars, respectively.

References

  • Alban F, Appéré G, Boncoeur J (2008) Economic analysis of marine Protected Areas. A literature review. EMPAFISH Project Booklet, 3

  • Alexander RR (2000) Modelling species extinction—the case for non-consumptive values. Ecol Econ 35:259–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong CW (2007) A note on the ecological–economic modelling of marine reserves in fisheries. Ecol Econ 62:242–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong CW, Kahui V, Vondolia GK, Aanesen M, Czajkowski M (2017) Use and non-use values in an applied bioeconomic model of fisheries and habitat connections. Mar Resour Econ 32:351–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badalamenti F, Ramos AA, Voultsiadou E, Sánchez Lizaso JL, D’Anna G, Pipitone C, Mas J, Ruiz Fernandez JA, Whitmarsh D, Riggio S (2000) Cultural and socio-economic impacts of Mediterranean marine protected. Environ Conserv 27:110–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balmford A, Gravestock P, Hockley N, McClean CJ, Roberts CM (2004) The worldwide costs of marine protected areas. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:9694–9697. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0403239101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben HX, Tuyen HT, Hoang PK, Long NV, Tuan VS (2015) The status, tendency, and ability to recover coral biodiversity in the Nha Trang Bay. In: Vietnamse: Hiện trạng, xu thế và khả năng phục hồi đa dạng sinh học rạn san hô ở vịnh Nha Trang, vol 21. Institute of Oceanography, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, pp 176–187

  • Bennett J, Blamey R (2001) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Birol E, Karousakis K, Koundouri P (2006) Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: the case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece. Ecol Econ 60:145–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boncoeur J, Alban F, Ifremer OG, Ifremer OT (2002) Fish, fishers, seals and tourists: economic consequences of creating a marine reserve in a multi-species, multi-activitiy context. Nat Resour Model 15:387–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulte E, Folmer H, Heijman W (1998) Dynamic and static approaches to mixed good management: the case of minke whales in the Northeast Atlantic. Eur Rev Agric Econ 25:73–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christie P (2004) Marine protected areas as biological successes and social failures in Southeast Asia. Am Fish Soc 42:155–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(03)00290-3

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark CW, Munro GR (1975) The economics of fishing and modern capital theory: a simplified approach. J Environ Econ Manag 2:92–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conrad JM (1999) The bioeconomics of marine sanctuaries. J Bioecon 1:205–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dung LD (2009) Nha Trang Bay marine protected area, Vietnam: initial trends in coral structure and some preliminary linkages between these trends and human activities (2002–2005). Aquat Ecosyst Health Manag 12:249–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2012) Overview of the world’s anchovy sector and trade possibilities for Georgian anchovy products. Eurofish International Orgnization (February)

  • Foley NS, Armstrong CW, Kahui V, Mikkelsen E, Reithe S (2012) A review of bioeconomic modelling of habitat–fisheries interactions. Int J Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/861635

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafton RQ, Kompas T, Van Ha P (2009) Cod today and none tomorrow: the economic value of a marine reserve. Land Econ 85:454–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern BS (2003) The impact of marine reserves: do reserves work and does reserve size matter? Ecol Appl 13:117–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannesson R (1998) Marine reserves: what would they accomplish? Mar Resour Econ 13:159–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horan RD, Shortle JS (1999) Optimal management of multiple renewable resource stocks: an application to Minke whales. Environ Resour Econ 13:435–458. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008261710951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim Anh NT, Thuy NTT, Flaaten O (2007) Income sharing systems among purse seine fishermen in Cam Ranh and Nha Trang, Vietnam. Fish for the people 5

  • Latypov YY, Selin NI (2012) The composition and structure of a protected coral reef in Cam Ranh Bay in the South China Sea. Russ J Mar Biol 38:112–121. https://doi.org/10.1134/S106307401202006X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee JH, Iwasa Y (2011) Tourists and traditional divers in a common fishing ground. Ecol Econ 70:2350–2360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long NV, Tuan VS, Hoang PK, Tuyen HT, Khang NA, Quang TM, Hong PTK (2014) Coral Reefs in Van Phong Bay, Khanh Hoa Province: status and management perspectives. Collect Mar Res Works 20:121–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes PF, Pacheco S, Clauzet M, Silvano RA, Begossi A (2015) Fisheries, tourism, and marine protected areas: conflicting or synergistic interactions? Ecosyst Serv 16:333–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellin C, Aaron MacNeil M, Cheal AJ, Emslie MJ, Julian Caley M (2016) Marine protected areas increase resilience among coral reef communities. Ecol Lett 19:629–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merino G, Maynou F, Boncoeur J (2009) Bioeconomic model for a three-zone marine protected area: a case study of Medes Islands (northwest Mediterranean). ICES J Mar Sci J Cons 66:147–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Micheli F, Halpern BS (2005) Low functional redundancy in coastal marine assemblages. Ecol Lett 8:391–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00731.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milazzo M, Chemello R, Badalamenti F, Camarda R, Riggio S (2002) The impact of human recreational activities in marine protected areas: what lessons should be learnt in the Mediterranean sea? Mar Ecol 23:280–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moyle BJ, Evans M (2008) Economics development options for island states: the case of whale-watching. Int J Res Island Cultures 2:41–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Munro GR (1979) The optimal management of transboundary renewable resources. Can J Econ 12:355–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munro GR, Scott AD (1985) The economics of fisheries management. Handb Nat Resour Energy Econ 2:623–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oracion EG, Miller ML, Christie P (2005) Marine protected areas for whom? Fisheries, tourism, and solidarity in a Philippine community. Ocean Coast Manag 48:393–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.04.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phung NH, Van Quang V, Hoa TTH (2002) The fish eggs and larvae in coastal water of Khanh Hoa province. Collect Mar Res Works XII 12:205–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomeroy R, Parks J, Pollnac R, Campson T, Genio E, Marlessy C, Holle E, Pido M, Nissapa A, Boromthanarat S, Hue NT (2007) Fish wars: conflict and collaboration in fisheries management in Southeast Asia. Mar Policy 31:645–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2007.03.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quang VV (2008) Morphological development, distribution and transport of fish eggs and larvae of anchovy, blue stripes (Encrasicholina punctifer Fowler, 1938) in Khanh Hoa - Binh Thuan water. In Vietnamese: Đặc điểm hình thái phát triển, sự phân bố và vận chuyển của trứng cá và cá bột loài cá cơm sọc xanh (Encrasicholina punctifer Fowler, 1938) vùng biển Khánh Hòa - Bình Thuận’, Doctoral Thesis

  • Rakitin A, Kramer DL (1996) Effect of a marine reserve on the distribution of coral reef fishes in barbados. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 131:97–113. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps131097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodwell LD, Barbier EB, Roberts CM, McClanahan T (2003) The importance of habitat quality for marine reserve fishery linkages. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 60:171–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rondeau D (2001) Along the way back from the brink. J Environ Econ Manag 42:156–182. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.2000.1157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarrias M, Daziano R (2016) Multinomial logit models with continuous and discrete individual heterogeneity in R : the gmnl Package. gmnl Package in R (March), pp 1–41. https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.1.5194.0008

  • Schnier KE (2005) Biological “hot spots” and their effect on optimal bioeconomic marine reserve formation. Ecol Econ 52:453–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuhmann PW, Casey JF, Horrocks JA, Oxenford HA (2013) Recreational SCUBA divers’ willingness to pay for marine biodiversity in Barbados. J Environ Manag 121:29–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skonhoft A (2007) Economic modeling approaches for wildlife and species conservation. Ecol Econ 62:223–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.02.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skonhoft A, Johannesen AB (2000) On the problem of over- grazing (In Norwegian: om overbeitingsproblemet). Norsk Økonomisk Tidsskrift 114:151–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Son TPH, Ha LTT, Ben HX, Long VV (2008) A survey of distribution of coral reef ecosystems of Khanh Hoa coastal water as fundamental source for protection, restoration, and sustainable use. Applied Research. Instititue of Oceanography

  • Thi DV, Bat NK, Nguyen DV, Anh PV, Nghia NV, Ha VV, Thanh ND (2007) Anchovy stock assessment in southwest Vietnam, and the solutions for sustainable management. In Vietnamese: Đánh giá trữ lượng cá cơm vùng biển Tây Nam Bộ và đề xuất các biện pháp khai thác hợp lý. Research Institute of Marine Fisheries, Hai Phong, Vietnam

  • Thu HVT, Linh TNM, Duyen CTT, Tu HTNV, Tien TTT, Hung PV, Hai HP, Minh LD, Hien P (2005) Socio-economic impact assessment of the Hon Mun MPA project on local communities within the MPA. Hon Mun Authority, Nha Trang, p 54

    Google Scholar 

  • Thuy PTT, Flaaten O (2013) The backward-bending supply curve in fisheries-revisited. J Sustain Dev 6:15

    Google Scholar 

  • Tram Anh NT, Kim Anh NT, Thuy PTT (2012) Enhancing stakeholders’ role in the value chain for sustainable fisheries development: a case of anchovy fisheries in Vietnam, Fish for the people 10

  • Tuan VS, De Vantier LM, Long NV, Tuyen HT, Hoa NX (2002) Marine and Coastal Habitats of Hon Mun Marine Protected Area, Nha Trang Bay, Vietnam Baseline Survey, March–April 2002. Hon Mun Marine Protected Area Pilot Project Biodiversity Technical Report 5

  • Tuan VS, Long NV, Tuyen HT, Hoa NX, De Vantier LM (2005) Marine and Coastal Habitats of Nha Trang Bay Marine Protected Area, Khanh Hoa, Viet Nam: Reassessment 2002–2005. Biodiversity Report No 13, (13)

  • Van DH (2013) Solutions to improve the management of the exploitation and protection of fisheries resources in Nha Trang Bay Marine Protected Area. In: Vietnamese: Giải pháp nâng cao hiệu quả công tác quản lý khai thác và bảo vệ nguồn lợi thủy sản trong khu bảo tồn biển. Master Thesis

  • Viet DDH, Vinh VD, Chien PV, The ND (2014) Simulating the distribution of fish eggs and larvae within the Nha Trang Bay marine protected area. In Vietnamese: Bước đầu mô phỏng sự phát tán trứng cá, cá bột nhóm cá rạn san hô khu bảo tồn biển Vịnh Nha Trang. J Mar Sci Technol 14:368–377. https://doi.org/10.15625/1859-3097/14/4/5823

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells MP, McShane TO (2004) Integrating Protected Area Management with Local Needs and Aspirations. AMBIO A J Hum Environ 33:513–519. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-33.8.513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2016) http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FP.CPI.TOTL?locations=VN

  • Xuan BB, Sandorf ED, Aanesen M (2017) Informing management strategies for a reserve: results from a discrete choice experiment survey. Ocean Coast Manag 145:35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.05.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Ola Flaaten, Ngoc Quach Thi Khanh for their valuable comments on previous versions of the paper. Thanks to Erlend Dancke Sandorf and Margrethe Aanesen also, for their collaboration. Funding from the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) is acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Economic Faculty, Nha Trang University, 02 Nguyen Dinh Chieu, Nha Trang, Vietnam

    Bui Bich Xuan

  2. Norwegian College of Fishery Science, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, 9037, Tromsø, Norway

    Claire W. Armstrong

Authors
  1. Bui Bich Xuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claire W. Armstrong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bui Bich Xuan.

Additional information

The original version of this article was revised: “302 be in line with NPV* and NPV*f” in Table 4.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xuan, B.B., Armstrong, C.W. Trading Off Tourism for Fisheries. Environ Resource Econ 73, 697–716 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-018-0281-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-018-0281-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation