Accounting for tourism benefits in marine reserve design

Viana, Daniel F.; Halpern, Benjamin S.; Gaines, Steven D.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0190187

Cited by 25 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(66 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Another conclusion (which probably does not need to be explained) is that optimal reserves are prominent when intrinsic habitat value is high. This result is consistent with the findings of Viana et al (2017), who found the size of reserves should be larger with increasing tourism value, which was tied to increased stock density. In their analysis, however, tourism and fishing were essentially incompatible; that is, tourism only generated value when it occurred within a reserve.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Marine reserves and optimal dynamic harvesting when fishing damages habitat

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine fisheries are a significant source of protein for many human populations. In some locations, however, destructive fishing practices have negatively impacted the quality of fish habitat and reduced the habitat's ability to sustain fish stocks. Improving the management of stocks that can be potentially damaged by harvesting requires improved understanding of the spatiotemporal dynamics of the stocks, their habitats, and the behavior of the harvesters. We develop a mathematical model for both a fish stock as well as its habitat quality. Both are modeled using nonlinear, parabolic partial differential equations, and density dependence in the growth rate of the fish stock depends upon habitat quality. The objective is to find the dynamic distribution of harvest effort that maximizes the discounted net present value of the coupled fishery-habitat system. The value derives both from extraction (and sale) of the stock and the provisioning of ecosystem services by the habitat. Optimal harvesting strategies are found numerically. The results suggest that no-take marine reserves can be an important part of the optimal strategy and that their spatiotemporal configuration depends both on the vulnerability of habitat to fishing damage and on the timescale of habitat recovery when fishing ceases.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Marine reserves and optimal dynamic harvesting when fishing damages habitat

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are a number of other possible indicators that could show a change due to the implementation of the reserve. Notably, one often cited in the literature is additional benefits, such as tourism [51]. However, it is unlikely that the evaluated communities will experience tourism benefits due to their remoteness and the lack of proper infrastructure to sustain tourism.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An interdisciplinary evaluation of community-based TURF-reserves

Villaseñor-Derbez

Aceves‐Bueno

Fulton³

et al. 2019

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coastal marine ecosystems provide livelihoods for small-scale fishers and coastal communities around the world. Small-scale fisheries face great challenges since they are difficult to monitor, enforce, and manage, which may lead to overexploitation. Combining territorial use rights for fisheries (TURF) with no-take marine reserves to create TURF-reserves can improve the performance of small-scale fisheries by buffering fisheries from environmental variability and management errors, while ensuring that fishers reap the benefits of conservation investments. Since 2012, 18 old and new community-based Mexican TURF-reserves gained legal recognition thanks to a regulation passed in 2012; their effectiveness has not been formally evaluated. We combine causal inference techniques and the Social-Ecological Systems framework to provide a holistic evaluation of community-based TURF-reserves in three coastal communities in Mexico. We find that, overall, reserves have not yet achieved their stated goals of increasing the density of lobster and other benthic invertebrates, nor increasing lobster catches. A lack of clear ecological and socioeconomic effects likely results from a combination of factors. First, some of these reserves might be too young for the effects to show (reserves were 6–10 years old). Second, the reserves are not large enough to protect mobile species, like lobster. Third, variable and extreme oceanographic conditions have impacted harvested populations. Fourth, local fisheries are already well managed, and while reserves may protect populations within its boundaries, it is unlikely that reserves might have a detectable effect in catches. However, even small reserves are expected to provide benefits for sedentary invertebrates over longer time frames, with continued protection. These reserves may provide a foundation for establishing additional, larger marine reserves needed to effectively conserve mobile species.

show abstract

“…In addition to fisheries, the other main market benefits of MPAs that have been most documented are those related to tourism (Alban et al, 2008(Alban et al, , 2011Rees et al, 2015;Viana et al, 2017;Haines et al, 2018;Davis et al, 2019), although numerous models are theoretical. In fact, marine reserves, and the effects they produce on the ecosystem, have shown a great capacity to reconcile fishing with other activities like tourism (Pérez-Ruzafa et al, 2008b).…”

Section: Mpas Produce Economic Benefits For Local Populationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviewing the Ecosystem Services, Societal Goods, and Benefits of Marine Protected Areas

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are globally important environmental management tools that provide protection from the effects of human exploitation and activities, supporting the conservation of marine biological diversity, habitats, ecosystems and the processes they host, as well as resources in a broad sense. Consequently, they are also expected to manage and enhance marine ecosystem services and material, non-material, consumptive and non-consumptive goods, and benefits for humans. There is however certain confusion on what constitutes an ecosystem service, and it is not always easy to distinguish between them and societal benefits. The main nuance is that an ecosystem service is the aptitude an ecosystem has or develops naturally or as consequence of a management action, and that manifests through its own properties (productivity, diversity, stability, quality of its key parameters, etc.), while a societal benefit is the economic or other profitability (emotional, educational, scientific, etc.) that humans obtain from said service or quality. In this work, 268 publications, together with our own experiences in the different investigations carried out in the MPAs that are part of the BiodivERsA3-2015-21 RESERVEBENEFIT European project, have been selected, reviewed and discussed to analyze the knowledge status of the expected ecosystem services of MPAs and the societal benefits derived from them, sometimes providing information on their evidence, when they exist. We define and classify the effects of protection, ecosystem services and societal benefits and elaborate a conceptual model of the cause-effect relationships between them.

show abstract

Accounting for tourism benefits in marine reserve design

Cited by 25 publications

References 43 publications

Marine reserves and optimal dynamic harvesting when fishing damages habitat

Marine reserves and optimal dynamic harvesting when fishing damages habitat

An interdisciplinary evaluation of community-based TURF-reserves

Reviewing the Ecosystem Services, Societal Goods, and Benefits of Marine Protected Areas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About