Marine protected areas for spatially structured exploited stocks

Many harvested marine and terrestrial populations have segments of their range protected in areas free from exploitation. Reasons for areas being protected from harvesting include conservation, tourism, research, protection of breeding grounds, stock recovery, harvest regulation, or habitat that is uneconomical to exploit. In this paper we consider the problem of optimally exploiting a single species local population that is connected by dispersing larvae to an unharvested local population. We define a spatially-explicit population dynamics model and apply dynamic optimization techniques to determine policies for harvesting the exploited patch. We then consider how reservation affects yield and spawning stock abundance when compared to policies that have not recognised the spatial structure of the metapopulation. Comparisons of harvest strategies between an exploited metapopulation with and without a harvest refuge are also made. Results show that in a 2 local population metapopulation with unidirectional larval transfer, the optimal exploitation of the harvested population should be conducted as if it were independent of the reserved population. Numerical examples suggest that relative source populations should be exploited if the objective is to maximise spawning stock abundance within a harvested metapopulation that includes a protected local population. However, this strategy can markedly reduce yield over a sink harvested reserve system and may require strict regulation for conservation goals to be realised. If exchange rates are high, results indicate that spawning stock abundance can be less in a reserve system than in a fully exploited metapopulation. In order to maximise economic gain in the reserve system, results indicate that relative sink populations should be harvested. Depending on transfer levels, loss in harvest through reservation can be minimal, and is likely to be compensated by the potential environmental and economic benefits of the reserve.

Bioeconomic analysis of aquaculture's impact on wild stocks and biodiversity

Anderson theorizes that development of the aquaculture of a species of fish (also captured in an open-access fishery) favours the conservation of its wild stocks, if competitive market conditions prevail. However, this theory is shown to be subject to significant limitations. While this is less so within his model, it is particularly so in an extended one outlined here. The extended model allows for the possibility that aquaculture development can impact negatively on wild stocks thereby shifting the supply curve of the capture fishery, or raise the demand for the fish species subject both to aquaculture and capture. Such development can threaten wild stocks and their biodiversity. While aquaculture development could in principle have no impact on the biodiversity of wild stocks or even raise aquatic biodiversity overall, its impact in the long-term probably will be one of reducing aquatic diversity both in the wild and overall.

Short-term autocorrelation in Australian equities

This paper examines the statistical and economic significance of short-term autocorrelation in Australian equities. We document large negative first-order autocorrelation in individual stock returns. Preliminary results suggest this autocorrelation is economically significant, as two simple trading strategies based on the autocorrelation structure appear to yield large risk-adjusted returns. Further analysis, however, shows that these results are driven by the inclusion of small-capitalisation and low-priced stocks which are vulnerable to a number of market-microstructure-related problems. After revising the dataset to mitigate these problems, little evidence of economic significance remains.

Stock splits: Implications for investor trading costs

Stock splits are known to have a negative effect on market quality—while stock prices adjust consistently with the split's scale, the bid/ask spread and market depth do not. Two possible explanations for the relative increase in spread are that (i) splits cause an increase in market maker costs that are passed along to investors or (ii) splits provide a mechanism for market makers to increase excess profits. Using a robust econometric methodology, we find evidence of the latter, which raises questions about the motivation of the splitting practice. We also document that while NASDAQ spreads appear to adjust more fully than those of NYSE/AMEX stocks, NASDAQ spreads are higher in general.