meet Dorothy
meet Dorothy
(me)
I live in
Bergen
but come from
Indiana
I like to
&
I support
and I have a blog…
So friends & family can stay updated
www.dorothydankel.blogspot.com
and where interestedpeople cancomment on topics
www.dorothydankel.blogspot.com
I am a biologist…
and a PhDstudent in fisheriesmanagement
I am very interested in the social and economic sides of fisheries
Dorothy wants to make her science
relavant to those it affects…
we know there are conflicts of interest in marine resource management
I want to explore ways conflicts of objectives in fisheries can be resolved
Utility functions can serve as common language between stakeholders
uti
lity
my fish
uti
lity
my fish
but, stakeholders have differentideas about how fish can be useful!
vs.
therefore, natural conflicts of objectives between stakeholders arise
uti
lity
healthy fishstock
uti
lity
catch
Then Ray Hilborn wrote a paperabout fisheries conflicts…
Fishing Effort
Benefits(utility)
0 population crash
Hilborn (2007) ”Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives”
Marine Policy
Fishing Effort
Benefits(utility)
yield
0 population crash
Hilborn (2007) ”Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives”
Marine Policy
here is a typical yield curve with maximum sustainable yield (MSY) at the top
Fishing Effort
Benefits(utility)
yieldprofit
0 population crash
Hilborn (2007) ”Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives”
Marine Policy
the profit curve has a maximum point to the left of MSY due to increasing costs of fishing effort
Fishing Effort
Benefits(utility)
employmentyieldprofit
0 population crash
Hilborn (2007) ”Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives”
Marine Policy
here Hilborn describes employment as linearly increasing with increasing fishing effort
Fishing Effort
Benefits(utility)
employmentyieldprofit
ecosystem preservation
0 population crash
Hilborn (2007) ”Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives”
Marine Policy
but ecosystem protection linearly decreases with increasing fishing effort
Fishing Effort
Benefits(utility)
employmentyieldprofit
ecosystem preservation
zone of traditionalfisheries
management
0 population crash
Hilborn (2007) ”Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives”
Marine Policy
Fishing Effort
Benefits(utility)
employmentyieldprofit
ecosystem preservation
zone of newconsensus
zone of traditionalfisheries
management
0 population crash
Hilborn (2007) ”Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives”
Marine Policy
Fishing Effort
Benefits(utility)
employmentyieldprofit
ecosystem preservation
zone of newconsensus
zone of traditionalfisheries
management
0 population crash
Hilborn (2007) ”Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives”
Marine Policy
zone of traditionalfisheries
management
Fishing Effort
Benefits(utility)
zone of newconsensus
0 population crash
Dorothy asked herself:
zone of traditionalfisheries
management
Fishing Effort
Benefits(utility)
employmentyield
zone of newconsensus
0 population crash
Can I model this? Does the zone of consensus really exist?
I thought this would make a great summer project…
and Ulf and Mikko thought so, too!
and Ulf and Mikko thought so, too!
Let’s bring Dorothy down to IIASA this summer.
Mmmm…Ok.
So Dorothy stayed 90 days and 90 nights at the Schloss in Austria…
(not exactly this one, but similar…)
and came up with an idea that she wants to share with stakeholders
+ =Management
model
A model that quantitively describesRay Hilborn’s discussion on conflictsof interests in fisheries
In order to answer this question:
Can stakeholder conflicts of objectives be reconciled in
marine fisheries management?
Can stakeholder conflicts of objectives be reconciled in
marine fisheries management?
Dorothy J. Dankel1,2
, Ulf Dieckmann1
& Mikko Heino1,2,3
1Evolution & Ecology Program, International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Laxenburg, Austria
2Pelagic Research Group, Institute of Marine Research (IMR) Bergen, Norway
3Evolutionary Fisheries Ecology Program, University of Bergen, Norway
Utility modelPopulation model
+ =
Management modelSimplified modelling situation: don’t take terminology too seriously
The four utility components:PROFIT
EMPLOYMENTON LAND
EMPLOYMENTAT SEA
YIELD
ECOSYSTEM PRESERVATION(translated to stock level in the model)I show here a ray to illustrate that rays and skates are often caught as bycatch which is detrimental to the ecosystem
The four utility components:PROFIT
EMPLOYMENT
YIELD
STOCK LEVEL
The size of these pictures show how much weight each stakeholder places on the different utility components
What they care about:Modelled stakeholders:
Fishermen ”industrial””artisanal”
Society ”employment-oriented””profit-oriented”
Conservationists
What they care about:Modelled stakeholders:
Let’s go through each of the 5 stakeholders to get to know them and their differences
Remember! The size of the utility component pictures show how much preference each stakeholder places on each utility component
Two types of fishermen: industrial (large fishing vessels) & artisanal (small fishing boats)
What they care about:Stakeholders:
Fishermen
Two types of society: employment-orientedprofit-oriented
Society
What they care about:Stakeholders:
These two types of society may be thought of in a Norwegianperspective as the last two fisheryministers Norway has had: Helga Pedersen (current minister) & Svein Ludvigsen (past minister)
Society
What they care about:Stakeholders:
And finally, conservationists(commonly called eNGOs [environmental non-governmental organizations])
Conservationists
What they care about:Stakeholders:
Each modelled stakeholder has a preference for each of the 4 utilitycomponents
based on stakeholder consultation
Stakeholder preferences
assumptions: stakeholder group consensus
YIELD (tons)
EMPLOYMENT(days-year)
PROFIT (€)
STOCK LEVEL(spawning stock biomass, tons)
FISHERMEN”industrial”
0.2 0 0.8 0
”artisanal” 0.4 0 0.4 0.2
SOCIETY”employment-
oriented”0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3
”profit-oriented” 0.2 0.1 0.7 0
CONSERVATIONISTS 0.1 0.1 0 0.8
uti
lity
component
YIELD (tons)
EMPLOYMENT(days-year)
PROFIT (€)
STOCK LEVEL(spawning stock biomass, tons)
FISHERMEN”industrial”
0.2 0 0.8 0
”artisanal” 0.4 0 0.4 0.2
SOCIETY”employment-
oriented”0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3
”profit-oriented” 0.2 0.1 0.7 0
CONSERVATIONISTS 0.1 0.1 0 0.8
uti
lity
component
Stakeholder preferences
assumptions: stakeholder group consensus
Total weight of all components for each stakeholder = 1.0
Caveat: stated stakeholder preferences do not always
equal revealed stakeholder preferences…
So, back to Dorothy’s research question:
So, back to Dorothy’s research question:
is there a basis for reconciling conflicting objectives?
let’s look at some results
Utility components & their tradeoffswith higher fishing levels
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0Proportion harvested
Utility components & their tradeoffswith higher fishing levels
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0Proportion harvested
profit
Utility components & their tradeoffswith higher fishing levels
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0Proportion harvested
yield
profit
Utility components & their tradeoffswith higher fishing levels
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0Proportion harvested
yield
profit
employment based on effort
Utility components & their tradeoffswith higher fishing levels
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0Proportion harvested
yield
employment based on effort
profit
employment based on catch
Utility components & their tradeoffswith higher fishing levels
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0Proportion harvested
yield
employment based on effort
profit
stock level
employment based on catch
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Uti
lity
Proportion harvested
Stakeholder utilities
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Uti
lity
Proportion harvested
"industrialfishery"
"artisanal fishery"
Fishermen
Stakeholder utilities
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Uti
lity
Proportion harvested
“employment-oriented"
“profit-
oriented”
Stakeholder utilities
Society
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Uti
lity
Proportion harvested
"conservationists"
Stakeholder utilities
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Uti
lity
Proportion harvested
"conservationists"
"industrialfishery"
"artisanal fishery"
Stakeholder utilities
“employment-oriented"
“profit-
oriented”
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Uti
lity
Proportion harvested
"conservationists"
"industrialfishery"
"artisanal fishery"
Stakeholder utilities
“employment-oriented"
“profit-
oriented”
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Uti
lity
Proportion harvested
"conservationists"
"industrialfishery"
"artisanal fishery"
Stakeholder utilities
“employment-oriented"
“profit-
oriented”
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Uti
lity
Proportion harvested
"conservationists"
"industrialfishery"
"artisanal fishery"
Stakeholder utilities
“employment-oriented"
“profit-
oriented”
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Uti
lity
Proportion harvested
"conservationists"
"industrialfishery"
"artisanal fishery"
Stakeholder utilities
even with weight on employment , the”zone of new consensus” is clear
“employment-oriented"
“profit-
oriented”
to conclude…
The ”zone of new consensus” is illustrated in Dorothy’s simplified model even when employment is considered
So, what’s next?
What if I tried to model a real stock?
This is how stakeholder contact can help
Could this model work in the real world? application to North Sea herring or Western horse mackerel?
Feedback from stakeholders
could stakeholder groups provide mewith realistic stakeholder preferencesand costs of effort and employment?
Feedback from stakeholders
I look forward to hearing your feedback
Thanks for getting to know Dorothy and her project!
Acknowledgements
3 month stay at the Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) during the
Young Scientists Summer Program (YSSP) www.iiasa.ac.at
financed by the Norwegian Research Council
Thank you to the Evolution & Ecology Program & fellow YSSPers for insightful discussions
For more information, please contact Dorothy Dankel [email protected]
Top Related