Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 65, Issue 2, pp 357–387 | Cite as

Spatial Harvest Regimes for a Sedentary Fishery

  • Nikolaos Mykoniatis
  • Richard Ready


This paper investigates the role of harvest sanctuaries and reserves in the management of a sedentary fishery. An optimal control bioeconomic model is developed and optimized for native oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, US, that incorporates two positive externalities generated by oyster stocks: nutrient removal and provision of habitat for other benthic species. The model incorporates four management regimes that currently exist in the Bay: public grounds that are continuously harvested, aquaculture on leased grounds, sanctuaries that are never harvested, and reserves that are periodically pulse harvested. We find that if harvest effort in public grounds can be controlled, then that management regime unambiguously provides the highest social welfare. However, if harvest effort in public grounds cannot be controlled, then reserves provide the highest social welfare. Sanctuaries are part of the optimal mix of regimes only when harvest effort on public grounds cannot be controlled and a pulsed harvest is not feasible.


Bioeconomics Chesapeake Bay Harvest regimes Optimal control  Oysters Spillover effects 


  1. Anderson LG (2002) A bioeconomic analysis of marine reserves. Nat Resour Model 15(3):311–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball S (2013) The effects of improved water quality on an open access fishery: evidence from the Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Fishery. Working paper, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland, College ParkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergland O, Ready R, Romstad E (2006) Differentiating at the speed of light in a universe of trees and moose. In: Aronsson T, Axelsson R, Brännlund R (eds) The theory and practice of environmental and resource economics—essays in honor of Karl-Gustaf Löfgren: 202–224. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  4. Bockstael NE, McConnell KE, Strand IE (1989) Measuring the benefits of improvements in water quality: the Chesapeake Bay. Mar Resour Econ 6:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brock WA, Starrett D (2003) Managing systems with non-convex positive feedback. Environ Resour Econ 26:575–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carnegie R, Eugene M (2011) Declining impact of an introduced pathogen: Haplosporidium nelsoni in the eastern oyster in CB. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 432:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carpenter S, Ludwig D, Brock W (1999) Management of eutrophication for lakes subject to potentially irreversible change. Ecol Appl 9(3):751–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CBF (2010) Chesapeake Bay Foundation. On the brink: Chesapeake’s native oysters. What it will take to bring them back. Report. July 2010. Reference
  9. CBP (2011a) Chesapeake Bay Program. 2004 Oyster management plan. Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD. Reference Accessed 10 Nov 2011
  10. CBP (2011b) Chesapeake Bay Program. A watershed partnership: backgrounder. River flow, long-term trends and stream health in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, p 1–4. Reference Accessed 12 Nov 2011
  11. CBP (2012a) Chesapeake Bay Program. The 2012 Chesapeake Bay blue crab advisory report, table 3. Reference Accessed 15 March 2012
  12. CBP (2012b) Chesapeake Bay Program. Facts and figures. Reference Accessed 15 March 2012
  13. CBP (2012c) Chesapeake Bay Program. Chesapeake Bay watershed population. Reference Accessed 25 April 2012
  14. CBP (2013) Chesapeake Bay Program. Blue crabs. Reference Accessed 27 June 2013
  15. CBP (2014) Chesapeake Bay Program. Bad water and the decline of blue crabs in the Chesapeake Bay. Reference Accessed 19 Oct 2014
  16. Cerco CF, Noel MR (2006) Ecosystem effects of oyster restoration in Virginia habitat and lease areas. A report to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg MSGoogle Scholar
  17. Clark CW (1990) Mathematical bioeconomics: the optimal management of renewable resources. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Conrad JM, Clark CW (1987) Natural resource economics. Notes and problems. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Conrad JM (1999) Resource economics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cropper M, Isaac W (2011) The benefits of achieving the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads). A scoping study. RFF discussion paper 11–31Google Scholar
  21. Eckman JE (1996) Closing the larval loop: linking larval ecology to the population dynamics of marine benthic invertebrates. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 200:207–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hannesson R (1998) Marine reserves: what would they accomplish? Mar Resour Econ 13:159–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harding JM, Mann R (2010) Observations of distributions, size and sex ratio of mature blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus, from a Chesapeake Bay tributary in relation to oyster habitat and environmental factors. Bull Mar Sci 86(1):75–91Google Scholar
  24. Holland DS, Brazee RJ (1996) Marine reserves for fisheries management. Mar Resour Econ 11:157–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holland DS (2000) A bioeconomic model of marine sanctuaries on Georges Bank. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 57(6):1307–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jordan SJ, Coakley J (2004) Long-term projections of eastern oyster populations under various management scenarios. J Shellfish Res 23(63):72Google Scholar
  27. Ju SJ, Secor DH, Harvey HR (2001) Growth rate variability and lipofuscin accumulation rates in the blue crab Callinectes sapidus. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 224:197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kar TK, Chakraborty K (2009) Marine reserves and its consequences as a fisheries management tool. World J Model Simul 5(2):83–95Google Scholar
  29. Karp L, Sadeh A, Griffin WL (1986) Cycles in agricultural production. The case of aquaculture. Am J Agric Econ 68(3):553–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kasperski S, Wieland R (2009) When is it optimal to delay harvest? The role of ecological services in the northern Chesapeake Bay oyster fishery. Mar Resour Econ 24:361–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lipton D (2008) Economic benefits of a restored oyster fishery in Chesapeake Bay. J Shellfish Res 27(3):619–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mann R, Powell EN (2007) Why oyster restoration goals in the Chesapeake Bay are not and probably cannot be achieved. J Shellfish Res 26(4):905–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mikkelsen E (2007) Aquaculture–fisheries interactions. Mar Resour Econ 22:287–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller T (2001) Review of the soft and peeler fishery for blue crab in the Chesapeake Bay. Report of the BBCAC Technical Work Group Charrette in Solomons, MD, August 29–30. Table 1Google Scholar
  35. Miller TJ, Wilberg MJ, Colton, AR et al., (2011) Stock assessment of blue crab in Chesapeake Bay 2011. Final assessment report. Ref [UMCES] CBL 11–011Google Scholar
  36. Morgan C, Owens N (2001) Benefits of water quality policies: the Chesapeake Bay. Ecol Econ 39:271–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Murray TJ, Hudson K (2011) Virginia shellfish aquaculture situation and outlook report. Results of 2010 Virginia shellfish aquaculture crop reporting survey. Virginia sea grant marine extension program, Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceGoogle Scholar
  38. Nelson RH (2005) A bigger bang for the buck. Offsets and other cost-effective strategies for nitrogen reductions for the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland School of Public Policy. University of Maryland, College Park. Van Munching Hall, College Park MD 20742Google Scholar
  39. Newcome J, Provins A, Johns H, Ozdemiroglu E et al (2005) The economic, social and ecological services: a literature review. Final report for the Department for Environmental, Food and Rural AffairsGoogle Scholar
  40. Newell RIE (2004) Ecosystem influences of natural and cultivated populations of suspension-feeding bivalve molluscs: a review. J Shellfish Res 23(1):51–61Google Scholar
  41. Newell RIE, Fisher TR, Holyoke RR, Cornwell JC (2005) Influence of eastern oyster on nitrogen and phosphorus regeneration in Chesapeake Bay, USA. In: Dame R, Olenin S (eds) The comparative roles of suspension feeders in ecosystems. NATO science series: IV—earth and environmental sciences, vol 47. Springer, Netherlands, pp 93–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. NOEP (2012) National ocean economics program. Marine resources [online database]. Retrieved 20 March 2012 from
  43. North EW, Schlag Z, Hood RR, Li M, Gross T, Kennedy VS (2008) Vertical swimming behavior influences the dispersal of simulated oyster larvae in a coupled particle-tracking and hydrodynamic model of Chesapeake Bay. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 359:99–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pezzey JCV, Roberts CM, Urdal BT (2000) A simple bioeconomic model of a marine reserve. Ecol Econ 33:77–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Polovina JJ (1989) Artificial reefs: nothing more than benthic fish aggregators. CalCOFI rep. vol. 30Google Scholar
  46. Rhodes A, Lipton D, Shabman L (2001) A socio-economic profile of the Chesapeake Bay commercial blue crab fishery. Unpublished Technical Report, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. Available at
  47. Rotschild B, Ault JS, Goulletquer P, Heral M (1994) Decline of the Chesapeake Bay oyster population: a century of habitat destruction and overfishing. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 111:29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rugolo LJ, Knotts KS, Lange AM, Crecco VA (1998) Stock assessment of Chesapeake Bay blue crab (Callinectes sapidus Rathbun). J Shellfish Res 17(2):493–518Google Scholar
  49. Sanchirico JN, Wilen JE (2001) A bioeconomic model of marine reserve creation. J Environ Econ Manage 42:257–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sanchirico JN, Wilen JE (2002) The impacts of marine reserves on limited-entry fisheries. Nat Resour Model 15(3):291–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Santopietro GD, Shabman LA (1992) Can privatization be inefficient?: The case of the Chesapeake Bay oyster fishery. J Econ Issues 16(2):407–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Seierstad A, Sydsæter K (1987) Optimal control theory with economics applications. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Sharov AF, Vølstad JH, Davis GR, Davis BK, Lipcius RN, Montane MM (2003) Abundance and exploitation rate of the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) in Chesapeake Bay. Bull Mar Sci 72(2):543–565Google Scholar
  54. Smith MD, Crowder LB (2011) Valuing ecosystem services with fishery rents: a lumped-parameter approach to hypoxia in the Neuse River estuary. Sustainability 3:2229–2267. doi: 10.3390/su3112229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Termansen M (2007) Economics of scale and the optimality of rotational dynamics in forestry. Environ Resour Econ 37:643–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. USGS (2012a) U.S. Geological Survey. USGS Chesapeake Bay Activities. Measuring nutrient and sediment loads to Chesapeake Bay. Reference Accessed 15 March 2012
  57. USGS (2012b) U.S. Geological Survey. Chesapeake Bay River Input Monitoring Program (online database). Retrieved 15 March 2012 from
  58. U.S. EPA (2012a) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Chesapeake Bay TMDL. Appendix U. Accounting for the benefits of filter feeder restoration technical documentation. Strategies for allocating filter feeder nutrient assimilation into the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. Reference Accessed 18 April 2012
  59. U.S. EPA (2012b) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), executive summary. Reference Accessed 18 April 2012
  60. Van Mort Frans J, Ryer CH, Orth J (2003) Substrate selection by blue crab Callinectes sapidus megalopae and first juvenile instars. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 260:207–217Google Scholar
  61. VIMS (2012) Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Mollescan Ecology Program. Chesapeake Bay Oyster Population (CBOPE) Program (online database). Retrieved 20 March 2012 from
  62. Wesson J, Mann R, Luckenbach M (1999) Oyster restoration efforts in Virginia. Oyster reef habitat restoration: a synopsis and synthesis of approaches. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science. College of William and Mary, 118, chapter 8: 117–129Google Scholar
  63. Wieland R (2007) Managing oyster harvests in Mayland’s Chesapeake Bay. Prepared for: NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, Non-native oyster research programGoogle Scholar
  64. Wieland R (2008a) Costs and returns to oyster aquaculture in the Chesapeake Bay. Prepared for: The NOAA Chesapeake Bay Program Office non-native oyster research programGoogle Scholar
  65. Wieland R (2008b) Operating costs in the Chesapeake Bay oyster fishery. Main street economics. Submitted to: NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office. Grant titled: Supply and Management of oyster harvests in the Chesapeake BayGoogle Scholar
  66. Wieland R, Kasperski S (2008) Estimating net present value in the northern Chesapeake Bay oyster fishery. Prepared for NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office Non-native Oyster Research Program. 1–46Google Scholar
  67. Wilberg MJ, Livings ME, Barkman JS, Morris T, Robinson JM (2011) Overfishing, disease, habitat loss and potential extirpation of oyster in upper Chesapeake Bay. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 436:131–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yu R, Leung P (2006) Optimal partial harvesting schedule for aquaculture operations. Mar Resour Econ 21:301–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Maritime AdministrationTexas A&M UniversityGalvestonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural Economics and EconomicsMontana State UniversityBozemanUSA

Personalised recommendations