4.5 Article

Trade-offs between socioeconomic and conservation management objectives in stock enhancement of marine recreational fisheries

期刊

FISHERIES RESEARCH
卷 186, 期 -, 页码 446-459

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fishres.2016.05.031

关键词

Hatchery; Stocking; Value; Angling; Red drum

资金

  1. Integrated Graduate Education, Research, and Training program in Quantitative Spatial Ecology, Evolution, and Environment at the University of Florida
  2. National Academies, Gulf Research Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We used an integrated bio-economic model to explore the nature of tradeoffs between conservation of fisheries resources and their use for socioeconomic benefit, as realized through the stock enhancement of recreational fisheries. The model explicitly accounted for the dynamics of wild, stocked, and naturally recruited hatchery-type fish population components, angler responses to stocking, and alternative functional relationships that defined conservation and socioeconomic objectives. The model was set up to represent Florida's red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) fishery as a case study. Stock enhancement produced strong trade-offs characterized by frontiers indicating that maximizing socioeconomic objectives could only be achieved at great losses to conservation objectives when the latter were based exclusively on abundance of wild-type fish. When naturally recruited hatchery-type fish were considered equivalent to wild fish in conservation value, this tradeoff was alleviated. Frontier shapes were sensitive to alternative assumptions regarding how conservation objectives were formulated, differential harvesting of stocked and wild-type fish, and potential inherent stakeholder satisfaction from the act of stocking. These findings make more explicit the likely opportunity costs associated with recreational stock enhancement and highlight the utility of trade-off frontiers for evaluating management actions. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据