TY - JOUR
T1 - The role of expenditure studies in the (mis)allocation of access to fisheries resources in Australia
AU - McPhee, Daryl
AU - Hundloe, Tor
PY - 2004
Y1 - 2004
N2 - Economic benefits are often the main reasons put forward for changing fisheries access and allocation arrangements between commercial and recreational fishers. An analysis of several case studies in Australia identifies that the purported economic benefits from reallocating access to fisheries resources from commercial to recreational fishers are based on inappropriate approaches to economic valuation including the "revenues argument" and the "cumulative-value argument". The allocating of fisheries resources (on an economic basis) in an area between recreational and commercial fishers should not be based on simple but erroneous comparisons between recreational fishing expenditure and the gross value of production of commercial fishing. Rather, it should be based on comparing the benefit of an extra fish, or extra few fish, to each sector. If one sector is found to have a higher benefit, a small change in access should be made in its favour and, if necessary, a further series of small changes until the extra benefit gained by that sector is equal to the benefit gained (or lost) by the competing sector. However, any allocation decisions should not just focus on economic issues, but should also consider the ecological impacts and social costs and benefits attributable to both fishing sectors.
AB - Economic benefits are often the main reasons put forward for changing fisheries access and allocation arrangements between commercial and recreational fishers. An analysis of several case studies in Australia identifies that the purported economic benefits from reallocating access to fisheries resources from commercial to recreational fishers are based on inappropriate approaches to economic valuation including the "revenues argument" and the "cumulative-value argument". The allocating of fisheries resources (on an economic basis) in an area between recreational and commercial fishers should not be based on simple but erroneous comparisons between recreational fishing expenditure and the gross value of production of commercial fishing. Rather, it should be based on comparing the benefit of an extra fish, or extra few fish, to each sector. If one sector is found to have a higher benefit, a small change in access should be made in its favour and, if necessary, a further series of small changes until the extra benefit gained by that sector is equal to the benefit gained (or lost) by the competing sector. However, any allocation decisions should not just focus on economic issues, but should also consider the ecological impacts and social costs and benefits attributable to both fishing sectors.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=46649095748&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/14486563.2004.10648596
DO - 10.1080/14486563.2004.10648596
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:46649095748
SN - 1448-6563
VL - 11
SP - 34
EP - 41
JO - Australasian Journal of Environmental Management
JF - Australasian Journal of Environmental Management
IS - 1
ER -