Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 67, Issue 4, pp 661–681 | Cite as

Why are Fishers not Enforcing Their Marine User Rights?

  • Katrina J Davis
  • Marit E Kragt
  • Stefan Gelcich
  • Michael Burton
  • Steven Schilizzi
  • David J Pannell
Article

Abstract

Over-fishing is a global problem that damages the marine environment and compromises the long-term sustainability of fisheries. This damage can be mitigated by restricting catch or other activities which can occur in marine areas. However, such management is only effective when restrictions are enforced to ensure compliance. We expect fishers to help enforce restrictions when they have exclusive user rights and can capture the benefits of management. In a number of such cases, however, fisher participation in the enforcement of user rights is absent. In this analysis we used central Chile as a case-study to investigate why some fishers may not participate in enforcement even when they have exclusive territorial user rights for fisheries. We used a best-worst scaling survey to assess why fishers would choose not to participate in enforcement through monitoring their TURF management areas, and what would help to increase their participation. We found that the main reason fishers may not monitor is because they consider government policing of marine areas and punishment of poachers to be ineffective. Increased and timely responsiveness by government when poachers are detected and more stringent penalisation of poachers may lead to greater involvement in enforcement by fishers.

Keywords

Best-worst scaling Chile Marine management Monitoring  Small-scale fisheries TURFs 

References

  1. Anderson LG (1989) Enforcement issues in selecting fisheries management policy. Mar Resour Econ 6:261–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandin RM, Quiñones RA (2014) Impacto de la captura ilegal en pesquerías artesanales bentónicas bajo el régimen de co-manejo: El caso de isla mocha, chile. Lat Am J Aquat Res 42:547–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Byers J, Noonburg E (2007) Poaching, enforcement, and the efficacy of marine reserves. Ecol Appl 17:1851–1857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Castilla JC (1997) Chilean resources of benthic invertebrates: fishery, collapses, stock rebuilding and the role of coastal management areas and national parks. In: Developing and Sustaining World Fisheries Resources. The State of Science and Management. Second World Fisheries Congress. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia, pp. 130–135Google Scholar
  5. Castilla JC (2010) Fisheries in chile: Small pelagics, management, rights, and sea zoning. Bull Mar Sci 86:221–234Google Scholar
  6. Castilla JC, Defeo O (2001) Latin american benthic shellfisheries: emphasis on co-management and experimental practices. Rev Fish Biol Fish 11:1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cochran WG, Cox GM (1950) Experimental designs (Wiley Mathematical Statistics Series). Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Cudney-Bueno R, Basurto X (2009) Lack of cross-scale linkages reduces robustness of community-based fisheries management. PloS One 4:e6253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Czapiński J, Lewicka M (1979) Dynamics of interpersonal attitudes: positive-negative asymmetry. Pol Psychol Bull 10:31–40Google Scholar
  10. Davis K, Kragt M, Gelcich S et al (2015) Accounting for enforcement costs in the spatial allocation of marine zones. Conserv Biol 29:226–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Erdem S, Rigby D, Wossink A (2012) Using best-worst scaling to explore perceptions of relative responsibility for ensuring food safety. Food Policy 37:661–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Finn A, Louviere JJ (1992) Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. J Public Policy Mark 11:12–25Google Scholar
  13. Flynn TN (2010) Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best-worst scaling. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 10:259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ et al (2008) Estimating preferences for a dermatology consultation using best-worst scaling: comparison of various methods of analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol C7–76(8):1–12Google Scholar
  15. Flynn TN, Marley AAJ (2014) Best worst scaling: theory and methods. In: Hess S, Daly A (eds) Handbook of choice modelling. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  16. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2014) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2014. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  17. Gallic BL, Cox A (2006) An economic analysis of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing: key drivers and possible solutions. Mar Policy 30:689–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gelcich S, Castilla JC, Kaiser MJ et al (2008) Engagement in co-management of marine benthic resources influences environmental perceptions of artisanal fishers. Environ Conserv 35:36–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gelcich S, Edwards-Jones G, Kaiser MJ et al (2005) Using discourses for policy evaluation: the case of marine common property rights in chile. Soc Nat Resour 18:377–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gelcich S, Fernandez M, Godoy N et al (2012) Territorial user rights for fisheries as ancillary instruments for marine coastal conservation in chile. Conserv Biol 26:1005–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gelcich S, Godoy N, Castilla JC (2009) Artisanal fishers’ perceptions regarding coastal co-management policies in chile and their potentials to scale-up marine biodiversity conservation. Ocean Coast Manag 52:424–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gibson CC, Williams JT, Ostrom E (2005) Local enforcement and better forests. World Dev 33:273–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. González J, Stotz W, Garrido J et al (2006) The Chilean TURF system: how is it performing in the case of the loco fishery? Bull Mar Sci 78(3):499–527Google Scholar
  24. González Poblete E, Cerda D’Amico R, Quezada Olivares J et al (2013) Diagnóstico del Estado y tendencias de la pesca artesanal en Chile. Dept: Subsecretaría de Pesca y Acuicultura de Chile, ValparaisoGoogle Scholar
  25. Guidetti P, Milazzo M, Bussotti S et al (2008) Italian marine reserve effectiveness: does enforcement matter? Biol Conserv 141:699–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hatcher A, Jaffry S, Thebaud O et al (2000) Normative and social influences affecting compliance with fishery regulations. Land Econ 76:448–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hoffman S, Duncan G (1988) Multinomial and conditional logit discrete-choice models in demography. Demography 25:415–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jennings S, Marshall SS, Polunin NVC (1996) Seychelles’ marine protected areas: Comparative structure and status of reef fish communities. Biol Conserv 75:201–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones PJS (2001) Marine protected area strategies: issues, divergences and the search for middle ground. Rev Fish Biol Fish 11:197–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kalikoski DC, Vasconcellos M, Lavkulich L (2002) Fitting institutions to ecosystems: The case of artisanal fisheries management in the estuary of patos lagoon. Mar Policy 26:179–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lancsar E, Louviere J, Donaldson C et al (2013) Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: methods and an application. Soc Sci Med 76:74–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Louviere JJ, Flynn TN (2010) Using best-worst scaling choice experiments to measure public perceptions and preferences for healthcare reform in australia. Patient Patient Cent Outcomes Res 3:275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lundquist CJ, Granek EF (2005) Strategies for successful marine conservation: integrating socioeconomic, political, and scientific factors. Conserv Biol 19:1771–1778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marti J (2012) A best-worst scaling survey of adolescents’ level of concern for health and non-health consequences of smoking. Soc Sci Med 75:87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McClanahan TR, Glaesel H, Rubens J et al (1997) The effects of traditional fisheries management on fisheries yields and the coral-reef ecosystems of southern kenya. Environ Conserv 24:105–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Milazzo M (1998) Subsidies in world fisheries: a re-examination. In: World Bank Technical Paper. The World Bank, Washington DC, p. 86Google Scholar
  38. O’Ryan D (2014) Capital social en organizaciones de pescadores en chile central. Department of Ecology. Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, ChileGoogle Scholar
  39. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), (2013) The OECD handbook for fisheries managers: Principles and practice for policy design. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  40. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), (2006) Financial support to fisheries–implications for sustainable development in OECD Committee for Agriculture Fisheries. OECD, FranceGoogle Scholar
  41. Ostrom E (2005) Self-governance and forest resources. In: Shah PJ, Maitha V (eds) Terracotta reader: a market approach to the environment. Academic Foundation, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  42. Peeters G, Czapinski J (1990) Positive-negative asymmetry in evaluations: the distinction between affective and informational negativity effects. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 1:33–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pomeroy RS, Berkes F (1997) Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-management. Mar Policy 21:465–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Potoglou D, Burge P, Flynn T et al (2011) Best-worst scaling vs. Discrete choice experiments: an empirical comparison using social care data. Soc Sci Med 72:1717–1727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rife AN, Erisman B, Sanchez A et al (2013) When good intentions are not enough\(\ldots \)insights on networks of “paper park” marine protected areas. Conserv Lett 6:200–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rigby D, Burton M, Lusk JL (2014) Journals, preferences, and publishing in agricultural and environmental economics. Am J Agric Econ 97:490–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Robinson EJZ, Kumar AM, Albers HJ (2010) Protecting developing countries’ forests: enforcement in theory and practice. J Nat Resour Policy Res 2:25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Robinson EJZ, Lokina RB (2012) Efficiency, enforcement and revenue tradeoffs in participatory forest management: an example from tanzania. Environ Dev Econ 17:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ruddle K (1998) The context of policy design for existing community-based fisheries management systems in the pacific islands. Ocean Coast Manag 40:105–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Samoilys MA, Martin-Smith KM, Giles BG et al (2007) Effectiveness of five small philippines’ coral reef reserves for fish populations depends on site-specific factors, particularly enforcement history. Biol Conserv 136:584–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schlager E, Ostrom E (1992) Property-rights regimes and natural resources: a conceptual analysis. Land Econ 68:249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. SERNAPESCA (Servicio Nacional de Pesca y Acuicultura), (2015) GTI Area de manejo. Dept: Servicio Nacional de Pesca y Acuicultura, ChleGoogle Scholar
  53. Sethi SA, Hilborn R (2008) Interactions between poaching and management policy affect marine reserves as conservation tools. Biol Conserv 141:506–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sumaila R, Delagran L (2010) Subsidizing fisheries. World Trade Report 2010. World Trade OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  55. Sumaila UR, Khan A, Dyck A et al (2010) A bottom-up re-estimation of global fisheries subsidies. J Bioecon 12:201–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wallis P, Flaaten O (2001) Fisheries management costs: concepts and studies. IIFET 2000Google Scholar
  57. Wilen JE, Cancino J, Uchida H (2012) The economics of territorial use rights fisheries, or TURFs. Rev Environ Econ Policy 6:237–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy, School of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsUniversity of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia
  2. 2.Centre of Excellence for Environmental DecisionsUniversity of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia
  3. 3.Center of Applied Ecology and Sustainability (CAPES) & Centro de Conservación Marina, Departamento de Ecologia, Facultad de Ciencias BiológicasPontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile
  4. 4.Bren School of Environmental Science and ManagementUniversity of California Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations