Dorothy Dankel explains her latest research on a bottom-up marine fisheries management model built on stakeholder preferences

2. meet Dorothy

3. meet Dorothy

4. (me)

5. I live in

6. Bergen

7. but come from

8. Indiana

9. I like to

11. &

13. I support

15. and I have a blog…

16. www.dorothydankel.blogspot.com
So friends
& family
can stay
updated

17. www.dorothydankel.blogspot.com
and
where
interested
people
can
comment
on topics

18. I am a biologist…

19. and a PhD
student in
fisheries
management

20. I am very interested in the social and
economic sides of fisheries

21. Dorothy wants to
make her science
relavant to those it
affects…

22. we know there are conflicts of
interest in marine resource
management

23. I want to explore ways conflicts of
objectives in fisheries can be resolved

24. utility
utility
my fish
my fish
Utility functions can serve as common
language between stakeholders

25. but, stakeholders have different
ideas about how fish can be
useful!

27. vs.

29. utility
utility
catch
healthy fish
stock
therefore, natural conflicts of
objectives between stakeholders arise

30. Then Ray Hilborn wrote a paper
about fisheries conflicts…

31. Hilborn (2007) ”Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives”
Marine Policy
Benefits
(utility)
0 population crash
Fishing Effort

32. Hilborn (2007) ”Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives”
Marine Policy
yield
here is a typical yield
curve with maximum
sustainable yield
(MSY) at the top
Benefits
(utility)
0 population crash
Fishing Effort

33. Hilborn (2007) ”Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives”
Marine Policy
yield
profit
the profit curve has a
maximum point to
the left of MSY due
to increasing costs of
fishing effort
Benefits
(utility)
0 population crash
Fishing Effort

34. Hilborn (2007) ”Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives”
Marine Policy
yield
profit employment
here Hilborn
describes
employment as
Benefits
linearly increasing
(utility)
with increasing
fishing effort
0 population crash
Fishing Effort

35. Hilborn (2007) ”Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives”
Marine Policy
yield
profit employment
but ecosystem
protection linearly
decreases with
Benefits
increasing fishing
(utility)
effort
ecosystem
preservation
0 population crash
Fishing Effort

36. Hilborn (2007) ”Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives”
Marine Policy
yield
profit employment
zone of traditional
fisheries
management
Benefits
(utility)
ecosystem
preservation
0 population crash
Fishing Effort

37. Hilborn (2007) ”Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives”
Marine Policy
yield
profit employment
zone of new zone of traditional
consensus fisheries
management
Benefits
(utility)
ecosystem
preservation
0 population crash
Fishing Effort

38. Hilborn (2007) ”Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives”
Marine Policy
yield
profit employment
zone of new zone of traditional
consensus fisheries
management
Benefits
(utility)
ecosystem
preservation
0 population crash
Fishing Effort

39. Dorothy
asked
herself:
zone of new zone of traditional
consensus fisheries
management
Benefits
(utility)
0 population crash
Fishing Effort

40. Can I model this?
Does the zone of
yield
consensus really
employment
exist?
zone of new zone of traditional
consensus fisheries
management
Benefits
(utility)
0 population crash
Fishing Effort

41. I thought this would make a
great summer project…

42. and Ulf and Mikko thought so, too!

43. Let’s bring
Dorothy down
to IIASA this
summer.
Mmmm…
Ok.
and Ulf and Mikko thought so, too!

44. So Dorothy stayed 90 days and
90 nights at the Schloss in
Austria…

45. (not exactly this one,
but similar…)

46. and came up with an idea that
she wants to share with
stakeholders

47. Management
+ = model

48. A model that quantitively describes
Ray Hilborn’s discussion on conflicts
of interests in fisheries

49. In order to answer this question:

50. Can stakeholder conflicts of objectives
be reconciled in
marine fisheries management?

51. Can stakeholder conflicts of objectives
be reconciled in
marine fisheries management?
1,2 1 1,2,3
Dorothy J. Dankel , Ulf Dieckmann & Mikko Heino
1
Evolution & Ecology Program, International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Laxenburg, Austria
2
Pelagic Research Group, Institute of Marine Research (IMR) Bergen, Norway
3
Evolutionary Fisheries Ecology Program, University of Bergen, Norway

52. Population model Utility model
+ =
Management model
Simplified modelling situation: don’t take
terminology too seriously

53. The four utility components:
YIELD
PROFIT
EMPLOYMENT
ON LAND
ECOSYSTEM PRESERVATION
(translated to stock level in the model)
I show here a ray to illustrate that rays and
EMPLOYMENT
skates are often caught as bycatch which is
AT SEA
detrimental to the ecosystem

54. The four utility components:
YIELD
PROFIT
The size of these
pictures show how
much weight each
stakeholder places
on the different EMPLOYMENT
utility components
STOCK LEVEL

55. Modelled What they care about:
stakeholders:

56. Modelled What they care about:
stakeholders:
Fishermen
”industrial”
”artisanal”
Society
”employment-oriented”
”profit-oriented”
Conservationists

57. 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

58. Two types of fishermen:
industrial (large fishing vessels) &
artisanal (small fishing boats)

59. Stakeholders: What they care about:
Fishermen

60. Two types of society:
employment-oriented
profit-oriented

61. Stakeholders: What they care about:
Society

62. These two types of society may be
thought of in a Norwegian
perspective as the last two fishery
ministers Norway has had:
Helga Pedersen (current minister)
& Svein Ludvigsen (past minister)

63. Stakeholders: What they care about:
Society

64. And finally, conservationists
(commonly called eNGOs [environmental non-
governmental organizations])

65. Stakeholders: What they care about:
Conservationists

66. Each modelled stakeholder has a
preference for each of the 4 utility
components
based on
stakeholder
consultation

67. Stakeholder preferences
utility YIELD EMPLOYMENT PROFIT STOCK LEVEL
-year
(tons) (days ) (€) (spawning stock
biomass, tons)
component
FISHERMEN
0.2 0 0.8 0
”industrial”
0.4 0 0.4 0.2
”artisanal”
SOCIETY
0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3
”employment-
oriented”
0.2 0.1 0.7 0
”profit-oriented”
0.1 0.1 0 0.8
CONSERVATIONISTS
assumptions: stakeholder group consensus

68. Stakeholder preferences
utility YIELD EMPLOYMENT PROFIT STOCK LEVEL
-year
(tons) (days ) (€) (spawning stock
Total weight of all components for
biomass, tons)
component
each stakeholder = 1.0
FISHERMEN
0.8
0.2 0 0
”industrial”
0.4 0.4
0 0.2
”artisanal”
SOCIETY
0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3
”employment-
oriented”
0.7
0.2 0.1 0
”profit-oriented”
0.8
0.1 0.1 0
CONSERVATIONISTS
assumptions: stakeholder group consensus

69. Caveat: stated stakeholder preferences do not always
equal revealed stakeholder preferences…

70. So, back to Dorothy’s
research question:

71. is there a basis
for reconciling
conflicting
objectives?
So, back to Dorothy’s
research question:

72. let’s look at some results

73. Utility components & their tradeoffs
with higher fishing levels
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0
Proportion harvested

74. Utility components & their tradeoffs
with higher fishing levels
1.0
profit
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0
Proportion harvested

75. Utility components & their tradeoffs
with higher fishing levels
1.0
profit
0.5
yield
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0
Proportion harvested

76. Utility components & their tradeoffs
with higher fishing levels
1.0
employment
based on effort
profit
0.5
yield
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0
Proportion harvested

77. Utility components & their tradeoffs
with higher fishing levels
1.0
employment
based on effort
profit
0.5
employment based on catch
yield
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0
Proportion harvested

78. Utility components & their tradeoffs
with higher fishing levels
1.0
employment
based on effort
profit
0.5
employment based on catch
yield
stock level
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0
Proportion harvested

79. Stakeholder utilities
1.0
0.5
0.0
Utility
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
Proportion harvested

80. Stakeholder utilities
1.0
Fishermen
0.5
quot;artisanal fisheryquot;
0.0
Utility
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
-0.5
quot;industrial
fisheryquot;
-1.0
-1.5
Proportion harvested

81. Stakeholder utilities
1.0
Society “employment-orientedquot;
0.5
0.0
Utility
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
“profit-
-0.5
oriented”
-1.0
-1.5
Proportion harvested

82. Stakeholder utilities
1.0
0.5
quot;conservationistsquot;
0.0
Utility
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
Proportion harvested

83. Stakeholder utilities
1.0
“employment-orientedquot;
0.5
quot;conservationistsquot;
0.0
Utility
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
quot;artisanal fisheryquot;
-0.5 “profit-
oriented”
quot;industrial
fisheryquot;
-1.0
-1.5
Proportion harvested

84. Stakeholder utilities
1.0
“employment-orientedquot;
0.5
quot;conservationistsquot;
0.0
Utility
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
quot;artisanal fisheryquot;
-0.5 “profit-
oriented”
quot;industrial
fisheryquot;
-1.0
-1.5
Proportion harvested

85. Stakeholder utilities
1.0
“employment-orientedquot;
0.5
quot;conservationistsquot;
0.0
Utility
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
quot;artisanal fisheryquot;
-0.5 “profit-
oriented”
quot;industrial
fisheryquot;
-1.0
-1.5
Proportion harvested

86. Stakeholder utilities
1.0
“employment-orientedquot;
0.5
quot;conservationistsquot;
0.0
Utility
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
quot;artisanal fisheryquot;
-0.5 “profit-
oriented”
quot;industrial
fisheryquot;
-1.0
-1.5
Proportion harvested

87. Stakeholder utilities
1.0
“employment-orientedquot;
0.5
quot;conservationistsquot;
0.0
Utility
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
quot;artisanal fisheryquot;
-0.5 “profit-
oriented”
quot;industrial
fisheryquot;
-1.0
even with weight on employment , the
”zone of new consensus” is clear
-1.5
Proportion harvested

88. to conclude…

89. The ”zone of new consensus” is illustrated
in Dorothy’s simplified model even when
employment is considered

90. So, what’s next?

91. What if I tried to model a real
stock?

92. This is how stakeholder contact
can help

93. Feedback from stakeholders
Could this model work in the real
world? application to North Sea
herring or Western horse mackerel?

94. Feedback from stakeholders
could stakeholder groups provide me
with realistic stakeholder preferences
and costs of effort and employment?

95. I look forward to hearing
your feedback

96. Thanks for
getting to
know
Dorothy
and her
project!

97. 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
dorothy@imr.no