4.7 Article

Maximum Economic Yield Fishery Management in the Face of Global Warming

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS
卷 154, 期 -, 页码 52-61

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.07.027

关键词

Renewable resources; Fishery bioeconomic model; Climate change; Climate scenarios; Adaptation; Shrimp

资金

  1. Belmont Forum [ANR-14-JPF1-0003]
  2. VOGUE
  3. ECOPE (PIG CNRS)
  4. OYAMAR (FEDER)
  5. ACROSS [ANR-14-CE03-0001]
  6. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-14-JPF1-0003] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper deals with fishery management in the face of the ecological and economic effects of global warming. To achieve this, a dynamic bioeconomic model and model-based scenarios are considered, in which the stock's growth function depends on the sea surface temperature. The model is empirically calibrated for the French Guiana shrimp fishery using time series collected over the period 1993-2009. Three fishing effort strategies are then compared under two contrasted IPCC climate scenarios (RCP 8.5 and RCP 2.6). A first harvesting strategy maintains the Status Quo in terms of fishing effort. A more ecologically-oriented strategy based on the closure of the fishery is also considered. A third strategy, which relates to Maximum Economic Yield (MEY), is based on the optimisation of the net present value derived from fishing. The results first show that 'Status Quo' fishing intensity combined with global warming leads to the collapse of the fishery in the long run. Secondly, it turns out that the Closure strategy preserves stock viability especially under the optimistic climate scenario. Thirdly, the MEY strategy makes it possible to satisfy bioeconomic performances requirements with positive stock and profit, once again, especially under the optimistic warming scenario. Consequently, MEY emerges as a relevant bioeconomic strategy in terms of adaptation to climate change but only in connection with climate change mitigation.

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

4.7
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