Hostname: page-component-669899f699-cf6xr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T06:09:36.866Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marine resource projects for rural economic development policies in Chile: marine user rights and disruption costs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2025

Heidi J. Albers Open the ORCID record for Heidi J. Albers [Opens in a new window] ,
Carlos Chávez ,
Jorge Dresdner  and
Mauricio Leiva Open the ORCID record for Mauricio Leiva [Opens in a new window]
Heidi J. Albers
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA
Carlos Chávez
Affiliation:
Facultad de Economía y Negocios, Universidad de Talca, Talca, Chile Interdisciplinary Center for Aquaculture Research, Concepción, Chile
Jorge Dresdner
Affiliation:
Interdisciplinary Center for Aquaculture Research, Concepción, Chile Departamento de Economía, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción, Chile
Mauricio Leiva*
Affiliation:
Interdisciplinary Center for Aquaculture Research, Concepción, Chile Facultad de Economía y Negocios, Universidad del Desarrollo, Concepción, Chile Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Administrativas, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Concepción, Chile
*
*Corresponding author: Mauricio Leiva; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Governments offer resource user rights, such as individual and collective agricultural land rights, fishing quotas, and territorial user rights in marine activities, to induce economic development and efficient resource use. Yet, user rights and improved incomes do not always lead to project uptake, as in rural-rural migration. Marine user rights may differ from land tenure rights, especially when rights are individual or collective. We explore household survey data from Chile about participation in projects linking marine resource activities with user rights across payoff levels and commute/relocation ‘disruption’ costs. Households are more likely to participate in projects with low disruption costs and high incomes, yet many households reject lucrative projects. The household's existing user rights and the project's activity–rights pairs affect project participation levels, with differences across collective and individually-held rights. These results inform policy aimed at increasing incomes and resource use efficiency through marine resource projects with user rights.

Keywords

commute costseconomic developmentgeographical mobilitymarine user rightssmall-scale aquaculture

JEL classification

Q22: Fishery • Aquaculture Q32: Exhaustible Resources and Economic Development Q28: Government Policy
Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , First View , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Agbonlahor, MU and Phillip, DOA (2015) Deciding to settle: rural-rural migration and agricultural labour supply in southwest Nigeria. The Journal of Developing Areas 49, 267–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albers, HJ (2013) Spatial management of renewable natural resources. In Shogren, JF (ed.), Encyclopedia of Energy, Natural Resource, and Environmental Economics, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 119–123.Google Scholar
Albers, HJ, Baquedano, M, Chávez, C, Dresdner, J and Yubini, K (2021 a) Opportunities and challenges for small-scale aquaculture in southern Chile: the stakeholders’ perspective. International Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources 48, 259–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albers, HJ, Chávez, C, Dresdner, J and Leiva, M (2021 b) Prospects for small-scale aquaculture in Chile: user rights and locations. Marine Resource Economics 36, 389–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alston, LJ, Libecap, GD and Schneider, R (1996) The determinants and impact of property rights: land titles on the Brazilian frontier. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 12, 25–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anas, A, Arnott, R and Small, KA (1998) Urban spatial structure. Journal of Economic Literature XXXVI, 1426–1464.Google Scholar
Andam, KS, Ferraro, PJ, Pfaff, A, Sanchez-Azofeifa, GA and Robalino, J (2008) Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 16089–16094.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnason, R (2012) Property rights in fisheries: how much can individual transferable quotas accomplish? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 6, 217–236.Google Scholar
Bonzon, K, McIlwain, K, Strauss, CK and Van Leuvan, T (2010) Catch Share Design Manual: A Guide for Managers and Fishermen. Environmental Defense Fund. Available at https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/catch-share-design-manual.pdf.Google Scholar
Cancino, JP, Uchida, H and Wilen, JE (2007) TURFs and ITQs: collective vs. individual decision making. Marine Resource Economics 22, 391–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlo, G, Roesch, SC, Knight, GP and Koller, SH (2001) Between- or within-culture variation? Culture group as a moderator of the relations between individual differences and resource allocation preferences. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 22, 559–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chávez, C, Dresdner, J, Quiroga, M, Baquedano, M, González, N and Castro, R (2010) Evaluación socio-económica de la pesquería del recurso loco asociada al régimen de áreas de manejo, como elemento de decisión para la administración pesquera. Informe Final. Proyecto FIP, 2008–31 (in Spanish).Google Scholar
Chávez, C, Murphy, J and Stranlund, J (2018) Managing and defending the commons: experimental evidence from TURFs in Chile. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 91, 229–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chhatre, A and Agrawal, A (2008) Forest commons and local enforcement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 13286–13291.Google ScholarPubMed
Corporación de Fomento de la Producción (2016) Hoja de ruta Programa Estratégico Nacional Acuicultura: Resumen ejecutivo. Estudio ejecutado por UNTEC y financiado por la Corporación de Fomento de la Producción. Ministerio de Economía, Fomento y Turismo.Google Scholar
Cuthbert, C and Thomas, D (2021) Environmental change and migration as adaptation in rural economies: evidence from Zambia's rural–rural migration. Migration and Development 10, 359–387.Google Scholar
Deininger, K and Jin, S (2003) The impact of property rights on households’ investment, risk coping, and policy preferences: evidence from China. Economic Development and Cultural Change 51, 851–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresdner, J, Campos, N and Chávez, C (2010) The impact of individual quotas on technical efficiency: does quality matter? Environment and Development Economics 15, 585–607.Google Scholar
Heintzelman, M, Salant, S and Schott, S (2009) Putting free-riding to work: a partnership solution to the common-property problem. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 57, 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meinzen-Dick, RS and Di Gregorio, M (eds) (2004) Collective Action and Property Rights for Sustainable Development. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).Google Scholar
Ministerio de Defensa Nacional (2018) Decreto 9. Sustituye reglamento sobre concesiones marítimas, fijado por Decreto Supremo (M) No 2, de 2005” Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, Gobierno de Chile (in Spanish). Available at https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=1116315&idParte=9895547&id Version=2020-09-01.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peña, X, Vélez, MA, Cárdenas, JC, Perdomo, N and Matajira, C (2017) Collective property leads to household investments: lessons from land titling in Afro-Colombian communities. World Development 97, 27–48.Google Scholar
Platteau, J and Abraham, A (2002) Participatory development in the presence of endogenous community imperfections. Journal of Development Studies 39, 104–136.Google Scholar
Qin, P, Carlsson, F and Xu, J (2011) Forest tenure reform in China: a choice experiment on farmers’ property rights preferences. Land Economics 3, 473–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quynh, CNT, Schilizzi, S, Hailu, A and Iftekhar, S (2017) Territorial use rights for fisheries (TURFs): state of the art and the road ahead. Marine Policy 75, 41–52.Google Scholar
Robinson, EJZ, Albers, HJ, Ngeleza, G and Lokina, RB (2014) Insiders, outsiders, and the role of local enforcement in forest management: an example from Tanzania. Ecological Economics 107, 242–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruzzante, S, Labart, R and Bilton, A (2021) Adoption of agricultural technology in the developing world: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. World Development 146, 105599.Google Scholar
Salazar, C, Jaime, M and Quiroga, M (2021) Transition patterns of fishermen and land farmers into small-scale seaweed aquaculture: the role of risk and time preferences. Marine Resource Economics 36, 269–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salazar, C, Jaime, M, Cárdenas, R and Baquedano, M (2023) Women engagement, psychological traits, and gender gaps in the small-scale seaweed aquaculture in Chile. Reviews in Aquaculture 15, 1540–1553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subsecretaría de Pesca (Subpesca) (2019) Estado de situación de las principales pesquerías Chilenas, año 2018. Departamento de Pesquerías, Subdivisión de Administración Pesquera, Subsecretaría de Pesca y Acuicultura, Gobierno de Chile (in Spanish). Available at http://www.subpesca.cl/portal/618/articles-103742_recurso_1.pdf.Google Scholar
Tilman, AR, Dixit, AK and Levin, SA (2018) Localized prosocial preferences, public goods, and common-pool resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 5305–5310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vélez, MA (2011) Collective titling and the process of institution building: the new common property regime in the Colombian Pacific. Human Ecology 39, 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilen, JE, Cancino, J and Uchida, H (2012) The economics of territorial use rights fisheries, or TURFs. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 6, 237–257.Google Scholar
Wu, J and Plantinga, AJ (2003) The influence of public open space policies on urban spatial structure. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 46, 288–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Albers et al. supplementary material

Albers et al. supplementary material
Download Albers et al. supplementary material(File)
File 829.6 KB