Digital Commons@Center for the Blue Economy
Not a member yet
256 research outputs found
Sort by
A Comparative Assessment of National Approaches to Defining the Ocean Economy
Get PDFThe development of an Ocean Economy Satellite Account (OESA) within the Industry Accounts of the National Income and Product Accounts is taking place at a time when there is increased attention to the measurement of the contribution of oceans to national and regional incomes in many countries. The question arises, therefore, about how the experience in other countries can inform the process in the U.S. The first part of this report presents a summary of discussions that took place at a symposium held at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in November 2017 on the subject of the measurement of oceans in national income accounts. It then presents a preliminary analysis of the industries and sectors that have been defined in twenty-five ocean economy studies for national governments and international organizations
Allisions, Collisions and Groundings: Estimating the Impact of the Physical Oceanographic Real Time System (PORTS(R)) on Accident Reduction
No full textReductions in the rates of domestic allisions, collisions and groundings (ACGs) are the result of technological advances as well as implementation of best practices in the maritime industry. This study estimates long-term gross benefits derived from expanded implementation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System (PORTS®) with respect to reductions in ACG rates in the United States. Following PORTS® installations that provided expanded coverage of U.S. ports and adjoining areas, concomitant decreases in accident rates occurred. While previous estimates suggested that between twenty and sixty percent of grounding accident reductions were due to PORTS®, current research suggests that up to half of ACG rate reductions were due to such installations. Annual gross benefits resulting from lowered ACG rates at PORTS® locations installed through 2016 were estimated to approach 180 million. If expanded to an additional 23 ports where economic justification might be made, up to 84 million
Valuing Coastal Beaches and Closures Using Benefit Transfer: An Application to Barnstable, Massachusetts
Get PDFEach year, millions of Americans visit beaches for recreation, resulting in significant social welfare benefits and economic activity. Considering the high use of coastal beaches for recreation, closures due to bacterial contamination have the potential to greatly impact coastal visitors and communities. We used readily-available information to develop two transferable models that, together, provide estimates for the value of a beach day as well as the lost value due to a beach closure. We modeled visitation for beaches in Barnstable, Massachusetts on Cape Cod through panel regressions to predict visitation by type of day, for the season, and for lost visits when a closure was posted. We used a meta-analysis of existing studies conducted throughout the United States to estimate a consumer surplus value of a beach visit of around $22 for our study area, accounting for water quality at beaches by using past closure history. We applied this value through a benefit transfer to estimate the value of a beach day, and combined it with lost town revenue from parking to estimate losses in the event of a closure. The results indicate a high value for beaches as a public resource and show significant losses to the town when beaches are closed due to an exceedance in bacterial concentrations
Characterizing the Ocean Economies of Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
Get PDFThe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) Economics: National Ocean Watch (ENOW) provides an annual time series of select employment, establishment, wage, and gross domestic product data for all 30 U.S. coastal and Great Lakes states as far back as 2005. As detailed in Section 4 of this report, ENOW covers 47 six-digit NAICS industries across the following six ocean- and Great Lakes– dependent sectors of the economy: Living resources Marine construction Marine transportation Offshore mineral resources • Ship and boat building Tourism and recreation
ENOW data play an important role in characterizing and determining the relative importance of the ocean economies of the U.S. states and sub-state regions, as well as enhancing our understanding of the economic impacts of natural and human-made disasters, such as hurricanes and oil spills. Most importantly, ENOW allows NOAA and other stakeholders to clearly describe the importance of the ocean and coastal economies and to access such information for policy development. This report characterizes the ocean economies of Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and assesses what information would be needed to develop an ENOW dataset for each of these Pacific Island Territories, none of which ENOW currently covers. Due to data availability issues similar to those faced in a prior NOAA effort to characterize the ocean economies of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (NOAA OCM 2016), and additional issues unique to these Pacific Island Territories, this study relied primarily on U.S. Census County Business Patterns (CBP) data, local datasets, and information from interviews to describe these three ocean economies.
Methods
The ERG team, under contract to NOAA, performed in-person interviews in Guam, American Samoa, and CNMI in January and February 2018 to better estimate the size of the ocean economy in each territory. Using a combination of U.S. Census CBP data, local data, and information from interviews, ERG developed establishment and employment estimates for industries in the six ENOW sectors as well as other related industries in these sectors that we deemed ocean-dependent in an island setting (referred to as ENOW+ in this report)
Navigating the Global Economy: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Massachusetts Maritime Economy
Get PDFThe Massachusetts Maritime Economy is comprised of 5,555 establishments that employ 90,482 workers, pay 6.4 billion in gross state product. These businesses are a significant economic driver in Massachusetts, representing 2.6 percent of the Commonwealth’s direct employment and 1.3 percent of its direct gross state product. 5,555 establishments 90,482 employees 6.4 billion gross state product Employment in the industry compares favorably with other major sectors of the state’s economy, including the Information and Manufacturing sectors. Growth in the Massachusetts Maritime Economy Was More Robust Than the Statewide Industry Total Growth in Massachusetts’ Maritime Economy was generally more robust than the state as a whole from 2005 to 2015; employment grew by 18.2 percent from 2005 to 2015, compared to 8.4 percent for the statewide industry total. Gross State Product (48.0% vs. 32.1%) and Real Gross State Product (36.7% vs. 11.4%) also increased significantly more than the state total, although the number of establishments grew at a slower pace. The Maritime Economy Grew Through the Great Recession The Massachusetts Maritime Economy exhibited fairly consistent employment and real GSP growth throughout the economic cycle. While the Maritime Economy experienced a slight downturn in employment and real GSP in 2009, both indicators returned to an upward trajectory just a year later and this trend continued through 2014 and 2015. The Massachusetts Maritime Economy Is a Significant Economic Driver The Massachusetts Maritime Economy generated a total statewide economic impact of 6.839 billion in labor income in 2015. Or put another way, with 3.924 billion in labor income (direct impacts), maritime related businesses supported an additional 2.915 billion in labor income in the Massachusetts economy (indirect and induced impacts).
Tourism & Recreation is the Largest Maritime Economy Sector
There are six major sectors in the Massachusetts Maritime Economy: Living Resources Marine Construction Offshore Minerals Ship & Boat Building & Repair Tourism & Recreation (Coastal) Transportation
Tourism & Recreation is by far the largest sector in terms of employment, although it accounts for a smaller share of total wages and gross state product. Conversely, the Marine Transportation sector, which includes Marine Technology, accounts for only 13 percent of employment, yet 35 percent of total wages and 35 percent of GSP, is primarily due to the high value of the products and services the sector provides. The Living Resources sector accounts for six percent of Maritime Economy employment. Employment in the sector has been declining since 2009, particularly in the fishing industry. Ship & Boat Building & Repair accounts for only small portions of employment and GSP due to the almost total absence of major ship and boat builders in the Commonwealth.
(One portion of executive summary--much more in total summary, see PDF
Economic Evaluation of Coastal Land Loss in Louisiana
Get PDFLouisiana has lost approximately 1,880 square miles of land over the past eighty years. Projections suggest that in a future without action, the next fifty years could result in the loss of 1,750 additional square miles of land area. As land loss continues, a large portion of the natural and man-made capital stocks of coastal Louisiana will be at greater risk of damage, either from land loss or from the associated increase in storm damage. We estimate the replacement cost of capital stock directly at risk from land loss ranges from approximately 3.5 billion with economic activity at risk ranging from 3.1 billion in output. Increases in storm damage to capital stock range from 133 billion with associated disruptions to economic activity ranging from an additional 23 billion in total lost output
Rethinking Our Global Coastal Investment Portfolio
Get PDFCoastal gray infrastructure, including roads, bridges, and buildings, is critical for communities, and we invest significantly in it. We also invest in the restoration and maintenance of coastal green infrastructure such as wetlands and reefs, which provide many services and benefits to human communities. However, the relative scale of financial investments in different coastal sectors – that is, our global coastal investment portfolio – remains poorly understood. We identify some of the major sources of funding for coastal green and gray infrastructure globally, including international aid funds; US public and private funds for coastal conservation, restoration and management; and private (insurance) and public funds spent on rebuilding after coastal storms. For the 10-year period from 2004-2013, we identify a total of US 198 billion in international aid funds for coastal grey infrastructure. Coastal storms during the same decade caused an estimated US 214 billion were insured losses, while $3.5 billion in international aid funds were spent on relief and reconstruction after these storm events. We conclude that funds for green infrastructure make up a small fraction – roughly three per cent – of global financial investments along coastlines. We identify the major funders in different coastal spending categories and discuss ways to move toward a more balanced investment portfolio that could benefit biodiversity, prevent billions of dollars of storm damage, and help protect the lives and livelihoods of coastal residents
The Economics of European Eel Management
Get PDFThe European eel stock is endangered. The European Union has, therefore, introduced strict policies to try to reverse the eel’s decline and reduce the threats to its survival. However, the European Union’s eel management policy has been implemented on a ‘one-size-fits-all’ basis, where all the affected countries have been given nearly identical targets, regardless of either the individual country’s costs for reducing damages to eels or its importance for the overall eel stock. In this paper, we draw on data from the different national eel management plans as well as from independent studies to compare the cost of measures to reduce eel mortality imposed in different countries. We compare the overall costs to those that could have been incurred with a union-wide, rather than fragmented, abatement program, and find that such a comprehensive management program would have been substantially cheaper and would have affected poorer member countries less
The Market Transfer Effect in the Hawaiian Longline Fishery: Why Correlation Does Not Imply Causation
Get PDFA lot of discussion and controversy has surrounded whether the “market transfer” effect in the Hawaii longline swordfish fishery occurred during the swordfish closure of 2001-2004, because of its potential impacts on sea turtle mortality. The primary academic work in support of the market transfer effect during the closure is a paper by Rausser et al. (2009): “Unintended Consequences: The Spillover Effects of Common Property Regulations.” In this paper, the authors claim to find evidence in support of the market transfer hypothesis.To our knowledge, no analysis has yet been undertaken to assess whether this analysis is sound, and yet it remains the principle academic work in support of the market transfer effect. It is cited frequently in hearings and briefings in which the case is made to reduce fishing restrictions on US fleets. Our analysis shows that Rausser et al. is flawed; the authors erroneously linked the increased catch by foreign fleets in the EPO to the Hawaii closure, when in fact there is no evidence of a causal relationship
Arctic Economics Workshop
Get PDFAbout this Report
This report serves as the official Summary final report to participants and the public, from the Arctic Economics Workshop, sponsored by the National Science Foundation grant issued July 2017. It is a summary of participant remarks, ideas, and suggestions from the workshop. It will also be included as an addendum to our official reports to the National Science Foundation to be issued Spring, 2018. After the initial section on background and introduction, the remaining report highlights the three keynote presentations and the introductory presentation by the hosts who presented the research undertaken for the Workshop. The discussions for all of these presentations and the rest of the meeting are presented in the Summary section of this report and the section on Research Questions. The follow up recommendations appear in the final section.
Background and Introduction
On November 6-8, 2018, an Arctic Economics workshop funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation1 was held on the Monterey campus of The Middlebury Institute of International Studies (MIIS) in Monterey, California. The workshop was convened to better understand the state of economic research about the Arctic, search for possible reasons for the relatively few publications by economists, and, throughout this meeting to find ways to encourage more research by economists about the Arctic. The workshop was organized by Dr. Judith Kildow of the Center for the Blue Economy (CBE) at MIIS and Professor Michael Goldstein of Babson College, and attended by 16 academic and government participants.
The time was ripe for such a workshop. Over two years ago, researchers at The Center for the Blue Economy began to measure and describe the economy of the Arctic as part of its focus on “The Blue Economy”.2 Unfortunately, despite notable searching by their team, there was a dearth of reliable, consistent data that could be used for time-series analysis or for serious economic study. However, in April 2017, the ECONOR III 2015 Update, 3 produced with funds from the Norwegian government, and with the support of the Arctic Council, was released and provided a treasure trove of economic data. Perhaps due to the previous lack of data, a literature review showed academic economists were writing far fewer articles on the topic than non-economists such as anthropologists, lawyers, political scientists, and sociologists.
The workshop was thus convened to be an exploratory examination of the status of economic research about the Arctic, particularly research done by credentialed economists as either sole authors or among interdisciplinary teams. The workshop gathered a diverse team of experts, some were focused on the Arctic, some were not; some were economists, and some were in related fields; some were academics, some were practitioners, and some were government experts, to discuss why so few economists were publishing works about the Arctic and what might be done to encourage such work