Article Figures & Data
Tables
Year SSB Catches CPUEa 2000 270 86 350 2001 310 102 372 2002 450 100 385 2003 458 98 372 2004 425 98 335 2005 369 97 301 2006 570 87 314 2007 525 96 391 2008 460 92 448 2009 317 88 n.a. Sources: ICES 2008; Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2008; ICES Advice 2008, Book 7; Portuguese General Directory of Fisheries and Aquaculture: Annual Reports 2000-2008.
Note: n.a., not available; SSB, spawning stock biomass; CPUE, catch per unit effort.
↵a Data only for the Portuguese fishery.
Parameter Value Intrinsic growth rate, r 0.5 Catchability, q 0.00000835 Carrying capacity, K, tonnes 2,480,387 Unit price, p, euros per tonne 585 Unit harvest cost, a, euros per unit effort 1,790 Sources: Solari et al. 2010; Da-Rocha et al. 2011; COM 2008; ICES 2010.
Type of Preference Fishers National Authorities ENGO Environmental 0.36 0.50 1 (0.48) Economic 0.36 0.28 0 (0.24) Social 0.28 0.22 0 (0.28) Source: Aanesen et al. 2013.
Note: Elicited preferences for environmental NGOs (ENGOs) are in parentheses, but in the model we use the simplified preferences to the left.
Unit Regulation Authorities Unit Regulation ENGO Aggregate Unit Regulation Optimal Effort Level Lump Sum Tax (million euros) Survey preferences One regulator − 23 — − 23 29,550 127 Two regulators − 2 − 390 − 392 29,950 138 Adjusted preferences One regulator 137 — 137 30,050 115 Two regulators 134 97 231 29,950 113 Note: ENGO, environmental NGO.
- Table 5.
Sensitivity Analysis: Percent Change in Equilibrium Effort and Regulation for a Partial 10% Increase in the Background Variables
p a p s r K q η One regulator Effort 0 0 0 0 9 0 - 10 0 Unit regulation 5 29 2 - 46 0 0 0 5 Two regulators Effort 0 0 0 0 9 0 − 10 0 Authorities regulation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 ENGO’s regulation 0 32 0 − 57 0 0 0 0 Note: ENGO, environmental NGO.
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.