Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Bioeconomic Modelling of Coastal Cod and Kelp Forest Interactions: Co-benefits of Habitat Services, Fisheries and Carbon Sinks

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

Abstract

Ecosystem-based fisheries management seeks to expand upon the traditional one-stock fisheries management measures by internalizing the effects of fishing on marine ecosystems, and accounting for biological interactions among marine resources. The fact that marine resources provide multiple, often competing benefits, makes the accomplishment of these ecosystem-based fisheries management objectives highly complex. In this paper, we develop a dynamic bioeconomic model to analyze the ecological and economic interactions between fisheries and renewable habitat where the habitat provides multiple ecosystem services. Specifically, a single resource manager seeks to maximize co-benefits of fishery-habitat interactions when the habitat is an exploitable marine resource, but also a dwelling place for commercial fish, enhancing the growth of the fish stock and providing regulating ecosystem services in the form of carbon sink for climate change mitigation. The optimal management rules for both fishery and habitat are derived and discussed. We also present an application of the model to analyze an integrated management of coastal cod and kelp forests in Norway, where regulations on commercial harvesting of kelp forests seek to protect fisheries. Both the theoretical model and the Norwegian application suggest substantial potential increases for both coastal cod and kelp forest stocks, with an attendant 8% increase in cod harvests, and about 1% reduction in kelp harvests. In addition, an optimal management regime that internalizes carbon sink co-benefits of kelp forests stores additional 300,000 tonnes of carbon.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

(Source of data: ICES 2016b)

Fig. 2

(Source of data: Institute of Marine Research, Norway)

Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aanesen M, Falk-Andersson J, Vondolia GK, Borch T, Navrud S, Tinch D (2018) Valuing coastal recreation and the visual intrusion from commercial activities in Arctic Norway. Ocean Coast Manag 153:157–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Akpalu W, Muchapondwa E, Zikhali P (2009) Can the restrictive harvest period policy conserve mopane worms in Southern Africa? A bioeconomic modelling approach. Environ Dev Econ 14:587–600

    Google Scholar 

  • Anneboina LR, Kumar KSK (2017) Economic analysis of mangrove and marine fishery linkages in India. Ecosyst Serv 24:114–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Anon (2000) Management plan for seaweed and kelp (In Norwegian; Forvaltningsplan for tang og tare)

  • Anon (2012) Lønnsomhetsundersøkelse for fiskeflåten 2016. [Profitability Survey on the Norwegian Fishing Fleet 2010.]. Fiskeridirektoratet, Bergen

    Google Scholar 

  • Anon (2017) Kelp (In Norwegian; Stortare). In Havforsksninrapporten, edited by Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway, p 195

  • Armstrong CW (1999) Sharing a fish resource: bioeconomic analysis of an applied allocation rule. Environ Resour Econ 13(1):75–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong CW, Eide A, Flaaten O, Heen K, Kaspersen IW (2014) Rebuilding the Northeast Arctic cod fisheries: economic and social issues. Arct Rev Law Politics 5:11–37

    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(4):351–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbier EB (1998) Valuing Mangrove-Fishery linkages: a case study of Campeche, Mexico. Environ Resour Econ 12:151–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbier EB (2000) Valuing the environment as input: review of applications to mangrove-fishery linkages. Ecol Econ 35:47–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbier EB (2003) Habitat-fishery linkages and mangrove loss in Thailand. Contemp Econ Pol 21(1):59–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbier EB (2007) Valuing ecosystem services as productive input. Econ Pol 22(49):177–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertocci I, Araujo R, Oliveira P, Sousa-Pinto I (2015) Potential effects of kelp species on local fisheries. J Appl Ecol 52:1216–1226

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodvin T, Steen H, Hansen HØ, Sannæs H, Bosgraaf S, Moy F (2015) Effeckt av tarehøsting på fish of skalldyr i Flatanger, Nord-Trøndelag 2012–2014. Report from Havforskningen Nr. 2-2015. Institute of Marine Research, Bergen. http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2015/01/nr._2-2015_flatanger_fisk-skalldyr_2014.pdf/nb-no

  • Chaundhuri K (1986) A bioeconomic model of harvesting a multispecies fishery. Ecol Model 32:267–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaundhuri K (1988) Dynamic optimization of combined harvesting of a two-species fishery. Ecol Model 41:17–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Christie H, Jorgensen NM, Norderhaug KM, Waage-Nielsen E (2003) Species distribution and habitat exploitation of fauna associated with kelp (Laminaria hyperborea) along the Norwegian coast. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 83:687–699

    Google Scholar 

  • Christie H, Norderhaug KM, Fredriksen S (2009) Macrophytes as habitat for fauna. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 396:221–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark CW (2005) Mathematical bioeconomics: optimal management of renewable resources, 2nd edn. Wiley, New Jersey

    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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayton PK (1972) Toward an understanding of community resilience and the potential effects of enrichments to the benthos at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica. In: Proceedings of the colloquium on conservation problems. Allen Press, Lawrence, KS

  • Eide A, Heen K (2002) Economic impacts of global warming: a study of the fishing industry in North Norway. Fish Res 56:261–274

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2008) Guidance on the methodology for carrying out cost-benefit analysis. The New Programming Period 2007–2013. Directorate-General Regional Policy

  • FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2019) FAO Yearbook. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics 2017. Rome: FAO

  • Flaaten O (1988) The economics of multispecies harvesting. Theory and application to the Barents Sea Fisheries. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Froehlich HE, Afferbach JC, Frazier M, Halpern BS (2019) Blue growth potential to mitigate climate change through seaweed offsetting. Curr Biol 29(18):3087–3093

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham MH, Kinlan BP, Druehl LD, Garske LE, Banks S (2007) Deep-water kelp refugia as potential hotspots of tropical marine diversity and productivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(42):16576–16580

    Google Scholar 

  • Gullestad P, Abotnes AN, Bakke G, Skern-Mauritzen M, Nedreaas K, Søvik G (2017) Towards ecosystem-based fisheries management in Norway - Practical tools for keeping track of relevant issues and prioritising management efforts. Mar Policy 77:104–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Gundersen H, Christie HC, Wit H, Norderhaug KM, Bekkby T, Walday MG (2011) Utredning om CO2-opptak I marine naturtyper. Norsk Institutt for Vannforskning, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Gundersen H, Bryan T, Chen W, Moy FE, Sandman AN, Sundblad G, Schneider S, Andersen JH, Langaas S, Walday MG (2016) Ecosystem services in the coastal zone of the Nordic Countries. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton J, Konar B (2007) Implications of substrate complexity and kelp variability for south-central Alaskan nearshore fish communities. Fish Bull 105:189–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Handå A, Forbord S, Wang X, Broch OJ, Dahle SW, Størseth TR, Reitan KI, Olsen Y, Skjermo J (2013) Seasonal- and depth-dependent growth of cultivated kelp (Saccharina latissima) in close proximity to salmon (Salmo salar) aquaculture in Norway. Aquaculture 414–415:191–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoel AH (2005) The performance of exclusive economic zones: the case of Norway. In: Ebbin SA, Hoel AH, Sydnes AK (eds) A sea change: the exclusive economic zone and Governacnce Instoiotutions for Living Marine Resources. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) (2016a) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch and effort: Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Ecoregions. Copenhagen. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/cod-coas.pdf

  • ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) (2016b) Report of arctic fisheries working group. International council for the exploration of the sea, Copenhagen. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2016/AFWG/05%20AFWG%20Report%202016%20-%20Sec%2002%20Cod%20in%20Subareas%201%20and%202%20(Norwegian%20Coastal%20Waters).pdf

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2006) Forest land 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsen T (1987) Coastal cod in Northern Norway. Fish Res 5:223–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahui V, Armstrong CW, Vondolia GK (2016) Bioeconomic analysis of habitat-fishery connections: fishing on cold-water coral reefs. Land Econ 92(2):328–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Kain JM, Jones NS (1971) The biology of Laminaria hyperborea. IV. Some Norwegian populations. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 51(2):387–408

    Google Scholar 

  • Løvås SM, Tørum A (2001) Effect of the kelp Laminaria hyperborea upon sand dune erosion and water particle velocities. Coast Eng 44:37–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Macpherson MF, Kleczkowski A, Healey JR, Hanley N (2017) Payment for multiple forest benefits alters the effect of tree disease on optimal forest rotation length. Ecol Econ 134:82–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin A, Landis E, Bryson C, Lynaugh S, Mongeau A, Lutz S (2016) Blue Carbon: nationally determined contributions inventory. GRID-Arendal, Arendal

    Google Scholar 

  • McConnell KE, Strand IE (1989) Benefits from commercial fisheries when demand and supply depend on water quality. J Environ Econ Manag 17(1989):284–292

    Google Scholar 

  • MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Mester-Gibbons M (1996) A technique for finding optimal two-species harvesting policies. Ecol Model 92:235–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Moy FE, Steen H (2014) Tareskogen yter til økosystem og industri. Havforskningsrapporten 2014:68–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Norderhaug KM, Christie H, Fosså JH, Fredriksen S (2005) Fish-macrofauna interactions in a kelp (Laminaria hyperborea) forest. J Mar Biol Soc UK 85:1279–1286

    Google Scholar 

  • Norges Råfisklag (2016) http://www.rafisklaget.no/portal/page/portal/NR

  • Pikitch EK, Santora C, Babcock EA, Bakun A, Bonfil R, Conover DO, Dayton P, Doukakis P, Fluaharty D, Heneman B, Houde ED, Link J, Livingston PA, Mangel M, McAllister MK, Pope J, Sainsbury K (2004) Ecosystem-based fishery management. Science 305:346–347

    Google Scholar 

  • Pope JG, Syme D (2000) An ecosystem based approach to the common fisheries policy: defining the goals. JNCC, Petersborough

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchirico JN, Springbord M (2011) How to get there from here: ecological and economic dynamics of ecosystem service provision. Environ Resour Econ 48:243–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Santelices B (2007) The discovery of kelp forests in deep-water habitats of tropical regions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(49):19163–19164

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivertsen K (1997) Geographic and environmental factors affecting the distribution of kelp beds and barren grounds and changes in biota associated with kelp reduction at sites along the Norwegian coast. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 54:2872–2887

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjøtun K, Fredriksen S, Rueness J (1998) Effect of canopy biomass and wave exposure on growth in Laminaria hyperborea (Laminariaceae Phaeophyta). Eur J Phycol 33(4):337–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Skonhoft A, Olaussen JO (2005) Managing migratory species that is both a value and a pest. Land Econ 81(1):34–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Smale DA, Burrows MT, Moore P, O'Connor N, Hawkins SJ (2013) Threats and knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: a northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecol Evol 3(11):4016–4038

    Google Scholar 

  • Smale DA, Burrows MT, Evans AJ, King N, Sayer MDJ, Yunnie ALE, Moore PJ (2016) Linking environmental variables with regional-scale variability in ecological structure and standing stock of carbon within UK kelp forests. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 542:79–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Steneck RS, Graham MH, Bourque BJ, Corbett D, Erlandson JM, Estes JA, Tegner MJ (2002) Kelp forest ecosystems: biodiversity, stability, resilience and future. Environ Conserv 29:436–459

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan Y, Jardine SL (2019) Considering economic efficiency in ecosystem-based management: the case of horseshoe crabs in Delaware Bay. Environ Resour Econ 72(2):511–538

    Google Scholar 

  • Tegner MJ, Dayton PK (2000) Ecosystem effects of fishing in kelp forest communities. ICES J Mar Sci 57:579–589

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas SC, Martin AR (2012) Carbon content of tree tissues: a synthesis. Forests 3:332–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Tol RSJ (2008) The social cost of carbon: trends, outliers and Catastrophes. Economics 2:2008–2025

    Google Scholar 

  • Vea J, Ask E (2011) Creating a sustainable commercial harvest of Laminaria hyperborea in Norway. J Appl Phycol 23:489–494

    Google Scholar 

  • Zivin J, Hueth BM, Zilberman D (2000) Managing multiple-use resource: the case of feral pig management in California Rangeland. J Environ Econ Manag 39(2000):189–204

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research work was conducted under the project “Sea urchin harvest: ecosystem recovery, integrated management of social-ecological system, ecosystem service and sustainability—ECOURCHIN” financed by FRAM Centre Flagship MIKON program. We are also grateful to an anonymous reviewer and Henning Steen of Institute of Marine Research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Godwin K. Vondolia.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1: Shape of x*(y), y*(x) and y**(x) Curves

Appendix 1: Shape of x*(y), y*(x) and y**(x) Curves

We derive the shapes of the optimal stock curves by taking the total derivatives of Eqs. (13) and (14). First, we differentiate Eq. (13) giving:

$$\frac{{dx^{*} }}{dy} = - \frac{{\left( {p_{1} - c_{1} \left( x \right)} \right)F_{xy} \left( {x,y} \right) + c_{1x} \left( x \right)F_{y} \left( {x,y} \right)}}{{\left( {p_{1} - c_{1} \left( x \right)} \right)F_{xx} \left( {x,y} \right) + c_{1xx} \left( x \right)F\left( {x,y} \right) + \delta c_{1x} \left( x \right)}}$$
(22)

Given that \(p_{1} - c_{1} \left( x \right) > 0\), \(F_{xy} \left( {x,y} \right) > 0\), \(F_{y} \left( {x,y} \right) > 0\) but \(c_{1x} \left( x \right) < 0\), the numerator can assume any sign. In addition, since \(F_{xx} \left( {x,y} \right) < 0\) but \(c_{1xx} \left( x \right) > 0\), the denominator can also assume any sign. Because of the negative sign on the RHS of Eq. (22), \(\frac{{dx^{*} }}{dy}\) is positive if and only if the numerator and denominator have opposite signs of each other. Starting with the case in which the denominator is positive, that is, \(\left| {c_{1xx} \left( x \right)F\left( {x,y} \right)} \right| > \left| {\left( {p_{1} - c_{1} \left( x \right)} \right)F_{xx} \left( {x,y} \right) + \delta c_{1x} \left( x \right)} \right|\). Then for \(\frac{{dx^{*} }}{dy} > 0\), the numerator must be negative. This requires that \(\left| {c_{1x} \left( x \right)F_{y} \left( {x,y} \right)} \right| > \left| {\left( {p_{1} - c_{1} \left( x \right)} \right)F_{xy} \left( {x,y} \right)} \right|\) and \(\left| {c_{1x} \left( x \right)F_{y} \left( {x,y} \right)} \right| > \left| {\left( {p_{1} - c_{1} \left( x \right)} \right)F_{xy} \left( {x,y} \right)} \right|\). Alternatively, if the numerator is positive, i.e.\(\left| {\left( {p_{1} - c_{1} \left( x \right)} \right)F_{xy} \left( {x,y} \right)} \right| > \left| {c_{1x} \left( x \right)F_{y} \left( {x,y} \right)} \right|\), then \(\frac{{dx^{*} }}{dy} > 0\) implies that \(\left| {\left( {p_{1} - c_{1} \left( x \right)} \right)F_{xx} \left( {x,y} \right) + \delta c_{1x} \left( x \right)} \right| > \left| {c_{1xx} \left( x \right)F\left( {x,y} \right)} \right|\).

Secondly, we differentiate Eq. (14) as:

$$\frac{{dy^{*} }}{dx} = - \frac{{\left( {p_{1} - c_{1} \left( x \right)} \right)F_{yx} \left( {x,y} \right) - c_{1x} \left( x \right)F_{y} \left( {x,y} \right)}}{{\left( {p_{2} - c_{2} } \right)G_{yy} \left( y \right) + \left( {p_{1} - c_{1} \left( x \right)} \right)F_{yy} \left( {x,y} \right)}}$$
(23)

Since \(p_{1} - c_{1} \left( x \right) > 0\), \(F_{xy} \left( {x,y} \right) = F_{yx} \left( {x,y} \right) > 0\), \(c_{1x} \left( x \right) < 0\) but \(F_{y} \left( {x,y} \right)\) is indeterminate, it means that the numerator is indeterminate. However, for the denominator, \(G_{yy} \left( y \right) < 0\), \(F_{yy} \left( y \right) < 0\) and both \(p_{1} - c_{1} \left( x \right) > 0\) and \(p_{2} - c_{2} > 0\), we can conclude that the denominator is strictly negative. With the negative denominator in conjunction with the negative sign makes it positive. Therefore, for \(\frac{{dy^{*} }}{dx}\) to be positive, then numerator must be positive. The numerator is only positive under three conditions: (1) \(F_{y} \left( {x,y} \right) = 0\), (2) \(F_{y} \left( {x,y} \right) > 0\) and (3) \(F_{y} \left( {x,y} \right) < 0\) but \(\left| {\left( {p_{1} - c_{1} \left( x \right)} \right)F_{yx} \left( {x,y} \right)} \right| > \left| {c_{1x} \left( x \right)F_{y} \left( {x,y} \right)} \right|\).

Finally, we differentiate Eq. (20) as:

$$\frac{{dy^{**} }}{dx} = - \frac{{\left( {p_{1} - c_{1} \left( x \right)} \right)F_{yx} \left( {x,y} \right) - c_{1x} \left( x \right)F_{y} \left( {x,y} \right)}}{{\left( {p_{2} - c_{2} } \right)G_{yy} \left( y \right) + \left( {p_{1} - c_{1} \left( x \right)} \right)F_{yy} \left( {x,y} \right) + p_{v} v_{yy} \left( y \right)}}$$
(24)

Since \(v_{yy} \left( y \right) < 0\), it means that \(\frac{{dy^{**} }}{dx}\) will be positive if the three conditions stated above for \(\frac{{dy^{*} }}{dx}\) to be positive hold.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vondolia, G.K., Chen, W., Armstrong, C.W. et al. Bioeconomic Modelling of Coastal Cod and Kelp Forest Interactions: Co-benefits of Habitat Services, Fisheries and Carbon Sinks. Environ Resource Econ 75, 25–48 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-019-00387-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-019-00387-y

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation