Elsevier

Marine Policy

Volume 132, October 2021, 104662
Marine Policy

Preferences for derelict gear mitigation strategies by commercial fishers

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104662Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Assessed commercial fishers’ preferences and perceptions of derelict fishing gear.

  • Most mitigation activities were considered too burdensome by fishers.

  • Fishers preferred monetary incentives over regulatory benefits.

  • Strong negative perceptions of derelict pots increased willingness to participate.

Abstract

Local, national, and international efforts to address the issue of derelict fishing gear are often limited by resources and costs. Managers and policymakers have implemented various preventative, impact reducing, and curative measures to decrease derelict fishing gear abundance and impacts, but stakeholder support is essential for success. To identify stakeholder preferences and the most efficient measures to address the issue of derelict blue crab pots in Chesapeake Bay, we distributed a stated preference survey with a discrete choice experiment to 1,032 licensed commercial fishers in Virginia and received a 42% response rate. The choice experiment consisted of hypothetical scenarios with two alternatives that included a combination of derelict pot mitigation activities potentially paired with incentives, and a third alternative for maintaining the status quo. The probability that the average respondent would participate in derelict pot mitigation activities ranged from 0.46 (SE=0.07) for “Recycle at facility on land,” to 0.03 (SE=0.02) for “Pot modification.” Willingness to accept estimates were similarly variable, ranging from US $61 (SE=129) to participate in “Recycle at facility on land,” to US $1,449 (SE=359) for “Pot modification.” Non-monetary management incentives (e.g., bushel limit increase, pot limit increase, or season extension) generally did not induce participation in mitigation activities; however, heterogeneity observed in preferences of fishers could be used to target different segments of the population to participate in specific actions. Addressing the complex problems caused by marine debris, especially derelict fishing gear, is costly, and understanding stakeholder preferences and decision-making can help identify the most cost-effective solution.

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)

  • M.S. Reed

    Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2008)
  • A.M. Scheld et al.

    Evaluating optimal removal of derelict blue crab pots in Virginia

    US, Ocean Coast. Manag.

    (2021)
  • P. Wattage et al.

    Evaluation of the importance of fisheries management objectives using choice-experiments

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2005)
  • C. Wilcox et al.

    Using expert elicitation to estimate the impacts of plastic pollution on marine wildlife

    Mar. Policy

    (2016)
  • Ø. Aas et al.

    Angler responses to potential harvest regulations in a Norwegian sport fishery: a conjoint-based choice modeling approach

    North Am. J. Fish. Manag.

    (2000)
  • D.M. Bilkovic, H.W. Slacum Jr, K.J. Havens, D. Zaveta, C.F. Jeffrey, A.M. Scheld, D. Stanhope, K. Angstadt, J.D. Evans,...
  • T. Bowling, State Derelict Fishing Gear Laws and Regulations. NSGLC-16-05-01. National Sea Grant Law Center,...
  • L. Brodbeck, Mechanisms to Support the Recycling/Reuse of Fishing Gear and the Prevention of Gear Becoming...
  • Chapter 4 VAC 20–880-10 et seq, "Pertaining to Hard Crab Pot Limits." Virginia Marine Resources Commission, 2008....
  • Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee, Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Advisory Report, 2021. (Chesapeake Bay Program,...
  • Y. Croissant, mlogit: Multinomial Logit Models. R package version 0.3–0, 2018. Available:...
  • J.A. DelBene, Investigating Economic Costs of Derelict Blue Crab Callinectes Sapidus Pots and Preferred Mitigation...
  • D.A. Dillman et al.

    Internet, Mail, and Mixed-mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method

    (2009)
  • M. Fitzpatrick et al.

    Fisher’s preferences and trade‐offs between management options

    Fish Fish

    (2017)
  • F. Galgani et al.

    Global distribution, composition and abundance of marine litter

  • S. Giordano, J. Lazar, D. Bruce, C. Little, D. Levin, H.W. Slacum Jr., J. Dew-Baxter, L. Methratta, D. Wong, R. Corbin,...
  • W.M. Goldsmith et al.

    Characterizing the preferences and values of U.S. recreational atlantic bluefin tuna anglers

    North Am. J. Fish. Manag.

    (2018)
  • V. Guillory

    Ghost fishing by blue crab traps

    North Am. J. Fish. Manag.

    (1993)
  • Cited by (5)

    • Microplastics in mariculture: Source, fate, and management

      2023, Advances in Chemical Pollution, Environmental Management and Protection
    • End-of-life fishing gear in Spain: Quantity and recyclability

      2023, Environmental Pollution
      Citation 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 Policy
      Citation 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]).

    View full text