Abstract
In many countries, commercial and recreational fishing compete for access to marine resources. In some cases, recreational catch outweighs commercial harvest and may threaten species otherwise protected from commercial fishing. This has led to increasing calls for improved management of recreational fishing in the broader context of general fisheries management. As a result, fisheries managers face the challenge to decide how to allocate the available marine resources between competing uses. In this paper, we review and explain two common approaches that have been used to support recreational fishing allocation decisions. While economic activity analysis is an appropriate tool to assess how a change in resource allocation would affect regional economic activity (economic contributions and impacts), it is ill-suited to assess associated gains or losses in welfare of society as a whole (economic efficiency). Hence, economic activity analysis and social cost-benefit analysis complement each other, with each providing a different set of information answering a different set of questions. Unfortunately, both types of analysis use the term "economic value" suggesting that they are alternative approaches that provide the same information, whereas in fact they are not. If the objective of fishery managers is to ensure that society as a whole is made better off, the appropriate metric is economic value as defined by welfare economics. Under this definition, all goods and services provided by marine resources that are beneficial to humans have economic value. This includes non-use values such as the continued existence of an endangered marine species. The aim of this paper is to support managers and policymakers in allocating marine resources by reviewing relevant economic principles, concepts, and tools in the context of recreational fishing, including the use and challenges of estimating the non-market benefits generated by recreational fishing experiences.