1. Comprising ‘Offshore circalittoral sand’ (SS.SSa.OSa - A5.27), ‘Circalittoral mixed sediment’ (SS.SMx.CMx - A5.44) and ‘Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment’ (SS.SMx.OMx - A5.45).
2. Kenter, J.O., Bryce, R., Davies, A., Jobstvogt, N., Watson, V., Ranger, S., Solandt, J.L., Duncan, C., Christie, M., Crump, H., Irvine, K.N., Pinard, M. & Reed, M.S., (2013). The value of potential marine protected areas in the UK to divers and sea anglers. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
3. This potentially large and irreversible societal cost avoided is presented within the benefits section of the ‘do designate’ scenario (option 2) to avoid double counting the same impact.
4. Stating costs purely in terms of landed value would overstate the true economic cost of not fishing. If fishermen are prevented from catching fish they forgo the landed value of those fish but subsequently forgo the payment of intermediate costs such as fuel (it is assumed that no fishing activity is displaced).
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback