4.6 Article

Are Territorial Use Rights in Fisheries (TURFs) sufficiently large?

期刊

MARINE POLICY
卷 78, 期 -, 页码 189-195

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.01.024

关键词

Artisanal fisheries; Cooperation; Fish spillover; Nash equilibrium; Spatial property rights; Territorial Use Rights in Fisheries (TURF)

资金

  1. UC Mexus-CONACYT
  2. Latin American Fisheries Fellowship (LAFF)
  3. Fulbright Commission
  4. Chilean National Science and Technology Commission (CONICYT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Territorial Use Rights in Fisheries (TURFs) are gaining renewed attention as a potential tool for sustainable fisheries management in small-scale fisheries. This growing popularity comes despite the fact that there are still unresolved questions about the most effective TURF designs. One of the key questions is the role of TURF size in their efficacy both from ecological and social standpoints. This study explores the expected effects of existing TURF sizes on yields for TURF systems in Chile, Mexico and Japan. The expected effect of larval dispersal and adult movement on yields was simulated for TURFs in each system. The results show that the analyzed TURF systems fall into three main categories: (a) TURFs that are of adequate size to eliminate the expected negative effects of both adult and larval movement, (b) TURFs that are large enough to eliminate the expected negative effects of adult movement, but not the effects of larval dispersal, and c) TURFs that are too small to eliminate the expected impacts on yield of both adult and larval movement. These analyses suggest that either existing models of TURF performance are incomplete or that there is significant scope for improved performance with altered TURF designs. Considering these alternatives, empirical evidence from the TURFs deemed too small suggests that complementary management tools can enhance TURF performance when natural or social constraints prevent the construction of TURFs of optimal size.

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

4.6
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