Preferences for derelict gear mitigation strategies by commercial fishers
Introduction
Marine debris persists around the globe, contributing to a complex problem in fisheries worldwide [15], [44]. Calls for action to combat marine debris have resounded throughout international [51], national [34], and state [41] governing bodies. Each call has explicitly identified the need to reduce derelict fishing gear, a type of marine debris that consists of any fishing gear abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded [31]. Richardson et al. [44] estimated that 6% of all fishing nets, 19% of all traps and pots, and 29% of all fishing lines are lost around the world each year. Derelict fishing gear, in particular pots and traps, is responsible for significant ecological and economic impacts through increased entanglements and bycatch mortality, as well as damaging habitats that support marine fish and shellfish, reducing stocks of target and non-target species, and decreasing fishery profits [11], [19], [2], [4], [46], [56], [57]. Pots may become derelict when a vessel’s propeller strikes the buoy line, storms or strong currents move a pot or submerge the buoy making it difficult to locate, equipment fails, or pots are intentionally abandoned [4]. Numerous strategies have been developed to address the issue of derelict pots, but their effectiveness can be hindered by various factors, such as acceptability by commercial fishers and enforcement [31], [6]. Technological solutions also exist, but they are often too costly for commercial fishers to implement (e.g., using acoustic technology to mark pot locations for retrieval; [22], [27]). Strategies that engage stakeholders (e.g., surveys, task-forces, workshops) can improve the quality of management decisions [40] and may help increase acceptability and enforceability of efforts to address derelict fishing gear.
In the U.S., governments, academic institutions, non-governmental organizations, commercial fishers, and the public have worked together to combat the issue of derelict pots [27], [4], [5]. Pot and trap fisheries in the U.S. target a variety of valuable commercial species, such as American lobster Homarus americanus, blue crab Callinectes sapidus, Caribbean spiny lobster Panulirus argus, and Dungeness crab Metacarcinus magister. Most pot fisheries operate within the territorial waters of a state, and the majority of state laws only permit the pot’s owner or an authorized individual to remove pots, including derelict pots, complicating mitigation efforts. Managers and policymakers have implemented requirements in many areas that could reduce the abundance or impacts of derelict pots, for example, installation of bycatch reduction devices and escape panels, implementation of derelict pot removal programs, as well as limits on fishing effort and temporal and spatial gear use restrictions [12], [5]. In several fisheries, stakeholder engagement has been seen as important to successful implementation of these actions and other initiatives. For instance, commercial fishers have volunteered or been paid to assist in derelict pot location and removal programs, experiment with new gear modifications, recycle their old pots at facilities on land, and participate in gear buyback programs [21], [27], [5].
Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the U.S., located within Maryland and Virginia state borders. The waterbody supports diverse user groups, including recreational boaters and fishers, academic researchers and educators, the maritime transport industry, U.S. military, shellfish aquaculture operations, and commercial fishers targeting finfish and shellfish. Its commercial blue crab fishery supports over a thousand active fishers and is responsible for 30–40% of U.S. commercial harvests, with ex-vessel revenues valued at over US $100 million in 2016 [36]. Historically, the Chesapeake Bay commercial blue crab fishery has harvested the greatest abundance of blue crabs in the U.S., significantly contributing to the culture and economy of the region [24]. The present-day fishery generally begins in March and closes in November, and, according to the most recent assessment released in 2021, overfishing is not occurring and the blue crab population is not depleted [9]. Commercial blue crab fishers often hold licenses to participate in multiple fisheries, such as oyster Crassostrea virginica, conch Busycotypus canaliculatus, or striped bass Morone saxatilis, rotating their operations based on the season and markets [55]. Pots are the primary gear used, representing 95% of the harvest in the commercial blue crab fishery [53], and are constructed from two types of material: galvanized wire and vinyl coated wire. Recent estimates suggest that 12–20% of all licensed pots become derelict each year and approximately 145,000 derelict pots are thought to be present at any given time [4]. These derelict pots can reduce harvests of blue crab, continue to capture valuable recreational and commercial species, and create a navigational hazard for vessels [11], [4]. Analysis evaluating an extensive marine debris location and removal program in Virginia waters (2008–2014) found that removal of 34,408 derelict pots increased harvest by 13,504 MT over six years due to reduced competition between active and derelict gear [46].
In Virginia, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) manages the commercial blue crab fishery and enforces regulations on size, season, time of day, and daily harvest limits, as well as the number of pots permitted to be fished (licenses range from 85 to 425 pot limits), area closures, and installation of cull rings in pots to create openings for undersized crabs to escape. Since 2008, the VMRC and state policymakers have engaged with fishers to address the issue of derelict pots, but historical tensions and limited resources have produced obstacles to implementing successful, long-term mitigation activities. These obstacles were evident in January 2018, when fishers organized to lobby the Virginia legislature and defeated a proposed bill that would have required crab pots to incorporate an escape panel that degraded if the pot became derelict [45]. This bill would have increased costs for commercial fishers but lacked any incentive measures. Improved stakeholder engagement is therefore needed to understand and incorporate commercial fishers’ preferences into management decisions that address the problems produced by derelict pots.
Stated preference survey methods are frequently employed to identify the preferences of stakeholders in environmental policy settings, providing valuable information for managers and policymakers [20]. In particular, discrete choice experiments (DCEs) measure preferences by analyzing the tradeoffs that one makes when presented with different options defined by hypothetical attributes. DCEs have been used to evaluate fishers’ preferences and decision-making for policy or management options (e.g., size limits, harvest regulations, and quota allocations) in commercial [14], [54] and recreational fisheries [1], [17], [29]. More recently, DCEs have been used to assess public perceptions of marine debris on beaches and willingness to participate in beach clean-ups [30], [7], but we are unaware of any study that has quantified commercial fishers’ perceptions and preferences on activities that address derelict fishing gear. Furthermore, decision-making may be influenced by the type of incentive, whether monetary or non-monetary, depending on the context and specific behavior [18], [33]. For instance, fishers have been presented with various monetary (e.g., cost to fish) and non-monetary (e.g., biological outlook for the fish stock, size of fish, catch probability, and number of fish hooked and lost before landing) incentives in DCEs [1], [14], [17], [29], which may have different effects on decision-making when it comes to contributing to a public good [28].
Working collaboratively with commercial fishers, we gathered information on crabbing activity and derelict crab pots, while also evaluating management preferences related to mitigation alternatives in an effort to develop sustainable, stakeholder-driven solutions. The objectives of this study were to (1) identify commercial fishers’ perceptions of derelict crab pots, (2) measure their willingness to accept (WTA) and participate in activities to mitigate the negative effects of derelict crab pots, and (3) examine the effectiveness of monetary and non-monetary incentives to influence willingness to participate.
Section snippets
Methods
The study surveyed commercial crab fishers that were licensed to operate in Virginia waters in 2017 (Fig. 1). Stated preference surveys were used and consisted of two parts: (1) attitudinal and behavioral questions on fishing activity and derelict crab pots, in addition to demographic questions, and (2) a DCE where questions presented hypothetical mitigation activities or policy measures paired with incentives to address the issue of derelict pots. The DCE was then used to quantify
Survey response rate and non-DCE questions
There was a 42% response rate for the survey with 430 out of a potential 1,032 fishers returning the survey packet (Figure S.1). Survey responses were received through July 2019 and were representative of the license categories and states of residency observed in the population, as well as the 10 various survey versions (Pearson’s chi-squared tests, p>0.05).
Participants reported having 34 years (SE=0.8; n=414) of commercial crabbing experience on average, and 56% (n=416) of participants
Discussion
Willingness to participate in most derelict pot mitigation activities was low and non-monetary management incentives were generally ineffective in offsetting perceived costs for the average respondent. Thus, a combination of incentives, preferably a cash payment and “Pot limit increase,” would be necessary to encourage participation. Other than a cash payment, “Pot limit increase” was the most preferred incentive, even though fishers surveyed in the past supported enforcement of pot limits [43]
CRediT authorship contribution statement
James A. DelBene: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Andrew M. Scheld: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review & editing. Donna M. Bilkovic: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review & editing.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Office of Academic Studies at VIMS, the William & Mary Committee on Sustainability Green Fee Award, and Virginia Sea Grant (VASG) [grant number NA18OAR4170083]. We would like to thank J.C. Hudgins, Dan Knott, focus group participants, and the VMRC for their help with developing the survey, as well as Susan Stein (VIMS), Dave Malmquist (VIMS), Maxine MacLeod, Abigail Hils, Aileen Devlin (VASG), and Sean Fate (VIMS-ESL) for providing materials and helping to
References (57)
- et al.
Out of sight but not out of mind: harmful effects of derelict traps in selected U.S. coastal waters
Mar. Pollut. Bull.
(2014) - et al.
Derelict fishing gear in Chesapeake Bay, Virginia: spatial patterns and implications for marine fauna
Mar. Pollut. Bull.
(2014) - et al.
The social costs of marine litter along European coasts
Ocean Coast. Manag.
(2017) - et al.
Examining derelict pot impacts on harvest in a commercial blue crab Callinectes sapidus fishery
Mar. Pollut. Bull.
(2019) - et al.
Encouraging pro-environmental behaviours: a review of methods and approaches
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
(2021) - et al.
Fishery failure, unemployed commercial fishers, and lost blue crab pots: an unexpected success story
Environ. Sci. Policy
(2011) - et al.
Technologies for the marking of fishing gear to identify gear components entangled on marine animals and to reduce abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear
Mar. Pollut. Bull.
(2018) - et al.
Evaluating alternatives to reduce whale entanglements in commercial Dungeness Crab fishing gear
Glob. Ecol. Conserv.
(2019) - et al.
Stated preferences for size and bag limits of Alaska charter boat anglers
Mar. Policy
(2015) - et al.
Paying people to protect the environment: a meta-analysis of financial incentive interventions to promote proenvironmental behaviors
J. Environ. Psychol.
(2016)
Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review
Biol. Conserv.
Evaluating optimal removal of derelict blue crab pots in Virginia
US, Ocean Coast. Manag.
Evaluation of the importance of fisheries management objectives using choice-experiments
Ecol. Econ.
Using expert elicitation to estimate the impacts of plastic pollution on marine wildlife
Mar. Policy
Angler responses to potential harvest regulations in a Norwegian sport fishery: a conjoint-based choice modeling approach
North Am. J. Fish. Manag.
Internet, Mail, and Mixed-mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method
Fisher’s preferences and trade‐offs between management options
Fish Fish
Global distribution, composition and abundance of marine litter
Characterizing the preferences and values of U.S. recreational atlantic bluefin tuna anglers
North Am. J. Fish. Manag.
Ghost fishing by blue crab traps
North Am. J. Fish. Manag.
Cited by (5)
Microplastics in mariculture: Source, fate, and management
2023, Advances in Chemical Pollution, Environmental Management and ProtectionEnd-of-life fishing gear in Spain: Quantity and recyclability
2023, Environmental PollutionCitation Excerpt :Environmental education aimed at all value chain stakeholders can contribute to improving the management of these ocean plastic in port (Goodman et al., 2019), and also the opinion and preferences of fishers in deciding how to mitigate the impact of derelict gears. However, ocean literacy is often omitted from management strategies (DelBene et al., 2021). The fishing gear supply chain is complex and often country-specific; furthermore, little information is known on the stakeholders involved (OSPAR Commission, 2020).
The issue of microplastic in the oceans: Preferences and willingness to pay to tackle the issue in Australia
2022, Marine PolicyCitation Excerpt :Unfortunately, single-use plastic is the antithesis of what plastic was originally created for and represents one of the biggest threats for the marine environment [31]. Many studies have focused on the impact that single-use plastics have had on the marine environment, including plastic bags (e.g., [18,21]), plastic straws (e.g., [28]), plastic cups (e.g., [7]) and fishing equipment (e.g., [11,24,29]). Microplastics (MP), considered to be plastic particles less than 5 mm in diameter, have attracted recent research attention, particularly with respect to their impact on the marine environment (e.g., Bravo [9,22]).
The Impact of Force Majeure Provisions and Commercial Issues on Health Legal Ramifications: Moderating the Role of Public Health Emergency Situations
2023, International Journal of Cyber CriminologyAbandoned, Lost and Discarded Fishing Gear from the Fishing Sector of Kerala, India
2022, Ocean Science Journal