Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-56f9d74cfd-dpvgk Total loading time: 0.317 Render date: 2022-06-27T14:01:16.512Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

The randomized response technique as a tool for estimating non-compliance rates in fisheries: a case study of illegal red abalone (Haliotis rufescens) fishing in Northern California

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

SARA G. BLANK*
Affiliation:
339 Walnut Avenue, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA
MICHAEL C. GAVIN
Affiliation:
School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand
*
*Correspondence: Sara G. Blank Tel: +1 831 998 3831 e-mail: saragblank@gmail.com

Summary

Illegal fishing has detrimental environmental and social impacts, but these effects are difficult to mitigate without reliable estimates of fisher non-compliance. Methods used by fisheries managers to estimate illegal fishing often require indirect estimation of poaching using biological, economic or sociological indicators. This study presents a unique application of the randomized response technique (RRT) for direct estimation of non-compliance in fisheries to the Northern California recreational red abalone (Haliotis rufescens) fishery. An anonymous paper-based compliance and sociodemographic survey of recreational fishers in Sonoma and Mendocino Counties estimated 29% non-compliance with the daily take limit, 23% with the minimum size limit, 19% with licensing laws and 15% with the annual take limit. RRT results also indicated how different sociodemographic characteristics related to non-compliance. Visitors had higher non-compliance rates than local fishers for all regulations except daily take limits, which an estimated 72% of locals violated versus 18% of visitors. High fisher awareness of regulations, fisher age, income and fishing experience did not appear to influence illegal take. RRT is a powerful tool which can aid conservation managers in prioritizing action.

Type
Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berrens, R.P., Bohara, A.K. & Kerkvliet, J. (1997) A randomized response approach to dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79 (1): 252266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchman, T.A. & Tracy, J.A. (1982) Obtaining responses to sensitive questions: conventional questionnaire versus randomized response technique. Journal of Accounting Research 20 (1): 263271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, M. (1999) An assessment of alternative methods of estimating the effect of the ivory trade ban on poaching effort. Ecological Economics 30: 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CDFG (2005) Abalone recovery and management plan (ARMP). Marine Region, California Department of Fish and Game, California Fish and Game Commission, USA.Google Scholar
CDFG (2007) California abalone information [www document]. URL http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/ab_info.aspGoogle Scholar
Chaloupka, M.Y. (1985) Application of the randomized response technique to marine park management: an assessment of permit compliance. Environmental Management 9 (5): 393398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, J.C. (1996) Comparing Environmental Risks: Tools for Setting Government Priorities. Washington, DC, USA: Resources for the Future: 176 pp.Google Scholar
Dowling, T.A. & Shachtman, R.H. (1975) Relative efficiency of randomized response models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 70 (349): 8487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faasen, H. & Watts, S. (2007) Local community reaction to the `no-take’ policy on fishing in the Tsitsikamma National Park, South Africa. Ecological Economics 64 (1): 3646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J.A. & Tracy, P.E. (1986) Randomized Response: A Method for Sensitive Surveys. Beverly Hills, CA, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furlong, W.J. (1991) The deterrent effect of regulatory enforcement in the fishery. Land Economics 67 (1): 116129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodstadt, M.S. & Gruson, V. (1975) The randomised response technique: a test on drug use. Journal of the American Statistical Association 70: 814818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, M. (1998) Lament for an Ocean: The Collapse of the Atlantic Cod Fishery. Toronto, Canada: McLelland and Stuart.Google Scholar
Hatcher, A., Jaffry, S., Thebaud, O. & Bennett, E. (2000) Normative and social influences affecting compliance with fishery regulations. Land Economics 76 (3): 448461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauck, M. & Sweijd, N.A. (1999) A case study of abalone poaching in South Africa and its impact on fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science 56 (6): 10241032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockings, M., Stolton, S. & Dudley, N. (2000) Evaluating Effectiveness: a Framework for Assessing the Management of Protected Areas. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series 6. Cambridge, UK: World Conservation Union.Google Scholar
Hønneland, G. (1999) A model of compliance in fisheries: theoretical foundations and practical application. Ocean and Coastal Management 42: 699716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughey, K.F.D., Cullen, R. & Moran, E. (2003) Integrating economics into priority setting and evaluation in conservation management. Conservation Biology 17: 93105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
I-Cheng, C., Chow, L.P. & Rider, R.V. (1972) The randomized response technique as used in the Taiwan outcome of pregnancy study. Studies in Family Planning 3 (11): 265269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalvass, P.E. (2006) 2005 economic summary statistics from telephone survey conducted by CSU Chico. Fort Bragg, CA, USA: California Department of Fish and Game, CA, USA.Google Scholar
Kalvass, P.E. (2007) 2006 red abalone catch and effort statistics. Unpublished report, California Department of Fish and Game, Fort Bragg, CA, USA.Google Scholar
Kalvass, P.E. & Geibel, J.J. (2006) California recreational abalone fishery catch and effort estimates for 2002 from a combined report card and telephone survey. California Fish and Game 92 (4): 157171.Google Scholar
Karpov, K.A., Haaker, P.L., Taniguchi, I.K. & Rogers-Bennett, L. (2000) Serial depletion and the collapse of the California abalone (Haliotis spp.) fishery. Fisheries Aquatic Science 130: 1124.Google Scholar
Kashiwada, J.V. & Taniguchi, I.K. (2007) Application of recent red abalone Haliotis rufescnes surveys to management decisions outlined in the California Abalone Recovery and Management Plan. Journal of Shellfish Research 26 (3): 713–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lensvelt-Mulders, G.J.L.M., Hox, J.J., van der Heijden, P.G.M & Maas, C.J.M. (2005) Meta-analysis of randomized response research: 35 years of validation. Sociological Methods Research 33: 319348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mak, K.K.W., Yanase, H. & Renneberg, R. (2005) Cyanide fishing and cyanide detection in coral reef fish using chemical tests and biosensors. Biosensors and Bioelectronics 20 (12): 25812593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCluskey, S.M. & Lewison, R.L. (2008) Quantifying fishing effort: a synthesis of current methods and their applications. Fish and Fisheries 9: 188200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittermeier, R.A., Myers, N., Thomsen, J.B., da Fonseca, G.A.B. & Olivier, S. (1998) Biodiversity hotspots and major tropical wilderness areas: approaches to setting conservation priorities. Conservation Biology 12 (3): 516520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries (2006) The State of Our Fisheries Annual Summary 2006 [www document]. URL http://www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/Publications/State+of+our+fisheries/default.htm?wbc_purpose=Basic%26WBCMODEGoogle Scholar
Patterson, K.R., Castello, M., Santos, M. & Barcia, M. (1990) Validation and re-computation of catch and effort data in the near-shore fleet of Ecuador for the period 1981–1989. Report, INP, Guayaquil, Ecuador: 47 pp.Google Scholar
Pitcher, T.J., Watson, R., Forrest, R., Valtysson, H. & Guenette, S. (2002) Estimating illegal and unreported catches from marine ecosystems: a basis for change. Fish and Fisheries 3 (4): 317339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riske, S. (2003) Abalone enforcement report 2002/03. Recreational Abalone Advisory Committee of the California Department of Fish and Game, Fort Bragg, CA, USA: 7 pp.Google Scholar
Riske, S. (2006) Abalone enforcement report 2006. Recreational Abalone Advisory Committee of the California Department of Fish and Game, Fort Bragg, CA, USA: 7 pp.Google Scholar
Schill, D.J. & Kline, P.A. (1995) Use of random response to estimate angler non-compliance with fishing regulations. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15 (4): 721731.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, J.N., Jacobson, S.K., Wald, K.D. & Gavin, M.C. (2007) Estimating illegal resource use at a Ugandan park with the randomized response technique. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 12 (2): 7588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, P.D & Collie, J.S. (1997) Patterns of population variability in marine fish stocks. Fisheries Oceanography 6 (3): 188204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, M.J. (2008) Coercion, voluntary compliance, and protest: the role of trust and legitimacy in combating local protest to protected areas. Environmental Conservation 35 (3): 200210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumaila, U.R., Alder, J. & Keith, H. (2006) Global scope and economics of illegal fishing. Marine Policy 30 (6): 696703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutinen, J.G. & Kuperan, K. (1999) A socio-economic theory of regulatory compliance. International Journal of Social Economics 26 (1–3): 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarr, R.J.Q. (2000) The South African abalone (Haliotis midae) fishery; a decade of challenge and change. Fisheries Aquatic Science 130: 3240.Google Scholar
Turpie, J.K., Heydenrych, B.J. & Lamberth, S.J. (2003) Economic value of terrestrial and marine biodiversity in the Cape Floristic Region: implications for defining effective and socially optimal conservation strategies. Biological Conservation 112 (1–2): 233251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahl, T. (1995) Are radar satellites cost-effective for maritime surveillance? Paper No. IAA-95-IAA.1.3.04, Proceedings of the 46th International Astronautical Congress, 2–6 October 1995, Oslo, Norway. International Astronautical Federation (IAF), Paris, France.Google Scholar
Warner, S.L. (1965) Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association 60 (309): 6369.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The randomized response technique as a tool for estimating non-compliance rates in fisheries: a case study of illegal red abalone (Haliotis rufescens) fishing in Northern California
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The randomized response technique as a tool for estimating non-compliance rates in fisheries: a case study of illegal red abalone (Haliotis rufescens) fishing in Northern California
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The randomized response technique as a tool for estimating non-compliance rates in fisheries: a case study of illegal red abalone (Haliotis rufescens) fishing in Northern California
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *