@article{Davis:195718,
      recid = {195718},
      author = {Davis, Katrina and Pannell, David J. and Kragt, Marit and  Gelcich, Stefan and Schilizzi, Steven},
      title = {Accounting for enforcement is essential to improve the  spatial allocation of marine restricted-use zoning systems},
      address = {2014-01-09},
      number = {1784-2016-141901},
      series = {Working Paper},
      pages = {27},
      month = {Jan},
      year = {2014},
      note = {Please cite the peer-reviewed version of this working  paper. The paper has been published as:
Davis, K., M.  Kragt, S. Gelcich, S. Schilizzi, and D. Pannell. 2014.  Accounting for Enforcement Costs in the Spatial Allocation  of Marine Zones. Conservation Biology. DOI  10.1111/cobi.12358},
      abstract = {Growing industrial and consumer demands are negatively  affecting fish stocks, which are increasingly extracted  above sustainable levels. Successful management of marine  resources through restricted use zoning systems such as  reserves and territorial user rights schemes relies on  support from marine stakeholders; particularly coastal  fishing communities. Restricted use zoning results in both  management costs and benefits to stakeholders. To increase  support for management decisions these need to be taken  into account when designing optimal marine management. 
A  linear spatial optimisation model was developed to identify  zoning solutions which maximize fishers’ revenue, while  meeting conservation targets. Targets were based on maximum  population abundance levels for two invertebrate and three  reef fish species in Chile. Revenue was maximised by  allocating the study area to different management zones:  no-take, territorial user rights for fishing (TURFs), or  open access. Costs are incurred to enforce no-take and TURF  areas; but enforcement results in higher species abundance  by preventing poaching and overfishing. Several scenarios  were analysed to determine the impact of enforcement on  revenue. 
Results demonstrated net benefits from  enforcement: revenue under scenarios with enforcement was  approximately 50% higher than under scenarios without it;  and enforced-TURF areas were preferentially selected over  other zones. Enforcement costs are one of the chief reasons  that fishers in the study area stop actively managing  TURFS. However, our analysis demonstrates that the often  hidden benefits of enforcement far exceed the visible  costs. These findings highlight the importance of  accounting for both the benefits and costs of management in  marine spatial design; particularly as they relate to  marine stakeholders.},
      url = {http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/195718},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.195718},
}