Estimating the economic benefits and costs of highly‐protected marine protected areas

Abstract

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are an increasingly popular, but debated, management strategy to conserve marine biodiversity and ensure sustainable human use of the oceans. Economic studies can contribute to the debate about MPAs as a management option by evaluating their benefits and costs to society. In this paper, we outline how to evaluate the economic benefits and costs of MPAs and provide examples from the literature to demonstrate the methods described. We review challenges and opportunities of different economic methods. One key challenge is to meaningfully compare market and non‐market benefits of MPAs—this comparison is complicated by the scarcity of studies that quantify the non‐market benefits of MPAs. Another key challenge is to quantify how the value of marine areas may change with and without MPAs. Costs are often easier to estimate than benefits, but some costs—such as maintenance and compliance costs—are rarely recognized. Analytical choices will influence the identified economic costs and benefits of MPAs. For example, the spatial extent of analyses will influence what changes in underlying ecological processes are captured and conclusions about the equitable distribution of costs and benefits across society. For these reasons, it is important that managers are aware of the challenges and opportunities described here, so that they can obtain and use the best‐quality economic information to guide decision making about MPAs.

How far have we come? A review of MPA network performance indicators in reaching qualitative elements of Aichi Target 11

“…We found four indicators evaluating economic factors among MPA networks covering a range of spatial scales, however just one evaluated the adequacy of funding to implement a national system of MPAs (Gerhardinger, Godoy, Jones, Sales, & Ferreira, 2011). Evaluations considering both market and non‐market values need to be mainstreamed into MPA network effectiveness evaluations (Davis, Vianna, Meeuwig, Meekan, & Pannell, 2019). Furthermore, while social dimensions such as well‐being, equity, cultural contexts, and indigenous engagement are enjoying increased attention, means to measure the impact of MPA networks on these elements and their influence on MPA success are yet underrepresented (Corrigan et al., 2017).…”

Conserving spawning stocks through harvest slot limits and no‐take protected areas

“…2013, 2016; Davis et al. 2019), and over long periods, spillover could offset catch losses resulting from the reduction in area open to fishing (Goñi et al. 2010).…”

“…Ultimately, decision makers will need to decide what policy goals to pursue in the short and long term, particularly if it could take a decade or more for harvestable biomass to surpass levels under the fishing status quo. Any potential short-term loss, however, could be offset by other business opportunities (Sala et al 2013(Sala et al , 2016Davis et al 2019), and over long periods, spillover could offset catch losses resulting from the reduction in area open to fishing (Goñi et al 2010).…”

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

“…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).…”