Advancing ocean ecosystem conservation via property rights, rather than marine protected areas (MPAs)

IF 2.2 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Maritime Studies Pub Date : 2024-03-09 DOI:10.1007/s40152-024-00358-0
Gary D. Libecap
{"title":"Advancing ocean ecosystem conservation via property rights, rather than marine protected areas (MPAs)","authors":"Gary D. Libecap","doi":"10.1007/s40152-024-00358-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There is demand to protect at-risk fish species and ecosystems. Property rights regimes can be superior to spatial controls via Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) for doing so. Empirical cases from Australia and the US indicate that MPAs are inequitable, too large and restrictive, and controversial. These conditions lead to resistance and political pushback, threatening long-term budgets and conservation goals. A critique of MPAs is presented along with a range of property rights arrangements–common, community, private—and Coasean bargaining as alternatives. Outlined benefits are a.) Rights holders have a stake in conservation and are central in its design. They are more than respondents. b). Costs/benefits can be more equally distributed, including direct payments that include both costs of transition and contribution to public goods provision. c.) Spatial set-asides confront tradeoffs and hence, are more apt to be economically sited and designed. d.) Modifications can occur more smoothly through market exchange than through the political process. Durable global conservation efforts can be enhanced.</p>","PeriodicalId":45628,"journal":{"name":"Maritime Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Maritime Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-024-00358-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is demand to protect at-risk fish species and ecosystems. Property rights regimes can be superior to spatial controls via Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) for doing so. Empirical cases from Australia and the US indicate that MPAs are inequitable, too large and restrictive, and controversial. These conditions lead to resistance and political pushback, threatening long-term budgets and conservation goals. A critique of MPAs is presented along with a range of property rights arrangements–common, community, private—and Coasean bargaining as alternatives. Outlined benefits are a.) Rights holders have a stake in conservation and are central in its design. They are more than respondents. b). Costs/benefits can be more equally distributed, including direct payments that include both costs of transition and contribution to public goods provision. c.) Spatial set-asides confront tradeoffs and hence, are more apt to be economically sited and designed. d.) Modifications can occur more smoothly through market exchange than through the political process. Durable global conservation efforts can be enhanced.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过产权而非海洋保护区(MPAs)推进海洋生态系统保护
人们需要保护濒危鱼类物种和生态系统。在这方面,产权制度可能优于通过海洋保护区(MPAs)进行的空间控制。澳大利亚和美国的经验案例表明,海洋保护区不公平、面积过大、限制性过强,而且存在争议。这些情况导致了抵制和政治反弹,威胁到长期预算和保护目标。本文对海洋保护区进行了批判,并提出了一系列产权安排--共同产权、社区产权、私有产权--以及科斯讨价还价法作为替代方案。概述的益处有 a) 权利持有人与保护工作息息相关,是保护设计的核心。他们不仅仅是回应者。)成本/收益可以更平等地分配,包括直接付款,其中包括过渡成本和对提供公共产品的贡献。 c) 空间预留面临权衡,因此更有可能以经济的方式选址和设计。)与政治程序相比,通过市场交换可以更顺利地进行修改。可以加强持久的全球保护工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Maritime Studies
Maritime Studies ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
11.80%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: Maritime Studies is an international peer-reviewed journal on the social dimensions of coastal and marine issues throughout the world. The journal is a venue for theoretical and empirical research relevant to a wide range of academic social science disciplines, including anthropology, sociology, geography, history and political science. Space is especially given to develop academic concepts and debate. We invite original research papers, reviews and viewpoints and welcome proposals for special issues that make a distinctive contribution to contemporary discussion around maritime and coastal use, development and governance. The journal provides a rigorous but constructive review process and rapid publication, and is accessible to new researchers, including postgraduate students and early career academics.
期刊最新文献
The state of Louisiana’s freshwater commercial fishery: a study of fishermen’s attitudes towards fishing and their future Understanding group capabilities for small-scale tuna fishery certification in Indonesia Sustainability is in the details: empowering seafood consumers with informative labels Using qualitative research methods to understand how climate variability impacts the livelihoods of fishermen in coastal Ghana When all you have is a hammer - integration challenges in coastal zone planning
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1