Abstract
Ecological systems are dynamic and policies to manage them need to respond to that variation. However, policy adjustments will sometimes be costly, which means that fine-tuning a policy to track variability in the environment very tightly will only sometimes be worthwhile. We use a classic fisheries management problem, how to manage a stochastically varying population using annually varying quotas in order to maximize profit, to examine how costs of policy adjustment change optimal management recommendations. Costs of policy adjustment (changes in fishing quotas through time) could take different forms. For example, these costs may respond to the size of the change being implemented, or there could be a fixed cost any time a quota change is made. We show how different forms of policy costs have contrasting implications for optimal policies. Though it is frequently assumed that costs to adjusting policies will dampen variation in the policy, we show that certain cost structures can actually increase variation through time. We further show that failing to account for adjustment costs has a consistently worse economic impact than would assuming these costs are present when they are not.
Highlights
Ecological systems are dynamic and policies to manage them need to respond to that variation
The optimal solution without any adjustment cost is shown by the dashed grey line, with the policy induced by optimization under the given cost structure overlaid in solid blue
Policymakers managing ecological systems that vary in space and time must evaluate how much of that variation to reflect in management recommendations
Summary
Ecological systems are dynamic and policies to manage them need to respond to that variation. Costs of policy adjustment (here changes in fishing quotas through time) could take different forms. Whatever gains are available from fine-tuning a policy prescription to more closely reflect environmental variation should be traded off against potential costs associated with the more responsive approach to management this would require. To illustrate this tradeoff, we use an example from fisheries management. The bottom-left panel shows the catch quota (Total Allowable Catch or TAC, before being adjusted for overages or underages in the catch of each country in the previous year) for the stock as set by the relevant management agency (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) 2009). Reviews by Biais (1995) and Patterson (2007) document many cases where changes in catch quotas that a management agency set were more modest than changes that would be recommended just by considering variations in stock abundance
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.