Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 64, Issue 4, pp 619–641 | Cite as

On the Benefits of Including Age-Structure in Harvest Control Rules

Article

Abstract

This paper explores the benefits of including age structure in the control rule (HCR) when decision makers regard their (age-structured) models as approximations. We find that introducing age structure into the HCR reduces both the volatility of the spawning biomass and the yield. Although the benefits are lower at a fairly imprecise level, there are still major advantages for the actual precision with which the case study is assessed. Moreover, we find that when age-structure is included in the HCR the relative ranking of different policies in terms of variance in biomass and yield does not differ. These results are shown both theoretically and numerically by applying the model to the Southern Hake fishery.

Keywords

Management strategy evaluation Harvest control rules  Reference points Stochastic age structured model 

References

  1. Baranov FI (1918) On the question of the biological basis of fisheries. Inst Sci Ichthyol Invest Proc 1(1):81128Google Scholar
  2. Beddington JR, Agnew DJ, Clark CW (2007) Current problems in the management of marine fisheries. Science 316(5832):1713–1716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beverton RJH, Holt SJ (1957) On the dynamics of exploited fish populations, fishery investigations series II, vol XIX. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Caddy JF, Mahon R (1995) Reference points for fisheries management. FAO fisheries technical paper no. 347, FAOGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark CW, Edwards G, Friedlaender M (1973) The Beverton-Holt model of commercial fisheries: optimal dynamics. J Fish Res Board Can 30(40):1629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cope JM, Punt AE (2007) Admitting ageing error when fitting growth curves: an example using the von Bertalanffy growth function with random effects. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 64(2):205–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Council Regulation COM (2011) 417, Final of 13 July 2011. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common Fisheries PolicyGoogle Scholar
  8. Da Rocha JM, Cervino S, Gutierrez MJ (2010) An endogenous bioeconomic optimization algorithm to evaluate recovery plans: an application to southern hake. ICES J Mar Sci 67:19571962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Da Rocha JM, Gutierrez MJ (2011) Lessons from the long-term management plan for Northern Hake stock: could the economic assessment have accepted it? ICES J Mar Sci 68(9):1937194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Da Rocha JM, Gutierrez MJ, Antelo LT (2012) Pulse vs optimal stationary fishing: The Northern stock of hake. Fish Res 121122:5162Google Scholar
  11. Da Rocha JM, Gutierrez MJ, Cervino S (2012) Reference points based on dynamic optimization: a versatile algorithm for mixed-fishery management with bioeconomic age-structured models. ICES J Mar Sci 69:660669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Da Rocha JM, Gutierrez MJ, Antelo LT (2013) Selectivity, pulse fishing and endogenous lifespan in Beverton–Holt models. Environ Resour Econ 54:139–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deroba JJ, Bence JR (2008) A review of harvest policies: understanding relative performance of control rules. Fish Res 210–223Google Scholar
  14. Dichmont CM, Denga AR, Punt AE, Venables W, Haddon M (2006) Management strategies for short lived species: the case of Australias northern prawn fishery. 2. Choosing appropriate management strategies using input controls. Fish Res 82:221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dichmont CM, Pascoe S, Kompas T, Punt AE, Deng R (2010) On implementing maximum economic yield in commercial fisheries. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:1621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diekert FK, Hjermann DO, Naevdal E (2010) Spare the young fish: optimal harvesting policies for North-East Arctic cod. Environ Res Econ 47:455475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Francis RLCC, Mace PM (2005) An evaluation of some alternative harvest strategies. New Zealand fisheries assessment report 2005/60.30pGoogle Scholar
  18. Grafton RQ, Kompas T, Hilborn RW (2007) Economics of overexploitation revisited. Science 318:1601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hannesson R (1975) Fishery dynamics: a North Atlantic cod fishery. Can J Econ 8:151–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hilborn R, Walters CJ (2001) Quantitative fisheries stock assesment: choice, dynamics and uncertainty. Chapman and Hall Inc., LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Horwood JW, Whittle P (1986) Optimal control in the neighborhood of an optimal equilibrium with examples from fisheries models. IMA J Math Appl Med Biol 3:129–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Horwood JW, Whittle P (1986b) The optimal harvest from a multicohort stock. IMA J Math Appl Med Biol 3:143–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kell LT, De Oliveira JAA, Punt AE, McAllister MK, Kuikka S (2006) Operational management procedures: an introduction to the use of management strategy evaluation frameworks. In The Knowledge Base for Fisheries Management. Dev Aquac Fish Sci 36:379–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kell LT, Mosqueira I, Grosjean P, Fromentin J-M, Garcia D, Hillary R, Jardim E et al (2007) FLR: an open source framework for the evaluation and development of management strategies. ICES J Mar Sci 64:640–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kompas T, Dichmont CM, Punt AE, Deng A, Che TN, Bishop J, Gooday P, Ye Y, Zhou S (2010) Maximizing profits and conserving stocks in the Australian northern prawn fishery. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 54:281–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parma AE (2010) In search of robust harvest rules for pacific halibut in the face of uncertain assessments and decadal changes in productivity. Bull Mar Sci 70:423–453Google Scholar
  27. Skonhoft A, Vestergaard N, Quaas M (2012) Optimal harvest in an age structured model with different fishing selectiviy. Environ Res Econ 51(4):525544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tahvonen O (2008) Harvesting age-structured populations as a biomass. Does it work? Nat Resour Model 21:525–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tahvonen O (2009) Economics of harvesting age-structured fish populations. J Environ Econ Manag 58:281–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tahvonen O, Quaas MF, Schmidt JO, Voss R (2013) Optimal harvesting of an age-structured schooling fishery environmental resource. Economics 54:21–39Google Scholar
  31. Voss R, Hinrichse HH, Quaas MF, Schmidt JO, Tahvonen O (2011) Temperature change and Baltic sprat. ICES J Mar Sci 68:1244–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Walters CJ, Matell SJD (2004) Fisheries ecology and management. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilen JE (1985) Bioeconomics of renewable resource use. In: Kneese AV, Sweeney JL (eds) Handbook of natural resource and energy economics, vol 1. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Fundamentos del Análisis EconómicoUniversidade de VigoVigoSpain
  2. 2.Centro de Investigación Económica, Instituto Tecnológico Autoónomo de México (ITAM)MéxicoMéxico
  3. 3.Environment DepartmentYork UniversityYorkUK

Personalised recommendations