MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A MODEL FOR THE BIOECONOMIC EVALUATION OF MARINE PROTECTED AREA SIZE AND PLACEMENT IN THE NORTH SEA

2002· article· en· W2006574430 on OpenAlexaff
Alasdair I. Beattie, U. Rashid Sumaila, Villy Christensen, Daniel Pauly

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural Resource Modeling · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarine protected areaFisheryFisheries managementMarine ecosystemBiomass (ecology)Marine reserveMarine conservationGroundfishHaddockEcosystem-based managementEconomic rentEnvironmental scienceEcosystemFishingEnvironmental resource managementEcologyEconomicsHabitatFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT. The use of marine protected areas (MPAs) as a basic management tool to limit exploitation rates in marine fisheries has been widely suggested. Models are important in predicting the consequences of management decisions and the design of monitoring programs in terms of policy goals. However, few tools are available that consider both multiple fleets and ecosystem scale dynamics. We use a new applied game theory tool, Ecoseed, that operates within a temporally and spatially explicit biomass dynamics model, Ecopath with Ecosim, to evaluate the efficacy of marine protected areas in the North Sea in both ecological and economic terms. The Ecoseed model builds MPAs based on the change in values of predicted economic rents of fisheries and the existence value of biomass pools in the ecosystem. We consider the market values of four fisheries operating in the North Sea: a trawl fishery, a gill net fishery, a seine fishery, and an industrial (reduction) fishery. We apply existence values, scaled such that their aggregate is similar to the total fishery value, to six biomass pools of concern: juvenile cod, haddock, whiting, saithe, seals, and the collective pool ‘Other predators’ that include marine mammals. Four policy options were considered: to maximize the rent only; to maximize the existence values only; to maximize the sum of the rent and existence values; and, finally, to maximize the sum of the rent and the existence values, but excluding only the trawl fleet from the MPA. The Ecoseed model suggests that policy goals that do not include ecological considerations can negatively impact the rents obtained by the different fishing sectors. The existence values will also be negatively impacted unless the MPA is very large. The Ecoseed model also suggests that policy goals based solely on existence values will negatively impact most fisheries. Under policy options that included ecological considerations, maximum benefits were derived from an MPA that covered 25–40% of the North Sea, placed along the southern and eastern coasts. Finally, the Ecoseed model suggests that an exclusion of the trawl fishery only from the MPA can provide small‐to‐substantial positive impacts to most species and fleets; this relative impact depends on level of interaction between the trawl fleet and the other fleets target species (e.g., through bycatch).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatural Resource ModelingSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207