Using choice experiment designs to evaluate mitigation solutions to reduce whale-ship collisions

Type Article
Date 2021-02
Language English
Author(s) Sèbe MaximeORCID1, Nassiri Abdelhak1, Pendleton Linwood2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Affiliation(s) 1 : Univ Brest, Ifremer, CNRS, UMR 6308, AMURE, IUEM, 29280, Plouzané, France
2 : World Wildlife Fund, Global Science, Washington DC, USA
3 : Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
4 : Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
5 : Ifremer, CNRS, UMR 6308, AMURE, IUEM, 29280 Plouzané, France
6 : Ocean Data Foundation, Lysaker, Norway
Source Marine Policy (0308-597X) (Elsevier BV), 2021-02 , Vol. 124 , P. 104368 (10p.)
DOI 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104368
WOS© Times Cited 1
Keyword(s) Avoidance, Choice experiment, Preference, Shipping industry, Speed reduction, Whale-ship collision
Abstract

Whale-ship collisions represent a threat to some whale population survival. The shipping industry rarely adopts solutions to reduce the risk of collisions. This lack of compliance is partly due to the fact that previous work has failed to assess the economic and logistic constraints these solutions put on the shipping industry. Our work explored for the first time the logistical considerations affecting the adoption of whale-ship collision avoidance approaches by shipping companies. We used a choice experiment approach to assess the shipping industry’s preferences for mitigation solutions, by questioning ship crews. Amongst other things, our results demonstrated a preference for avoiding a high-density whale area instead of reducing speed in it, and a requirement for upstream information to plan the journey depending on these areas. Our findings could be used as guidelines for the implementation of mitigation solutions depending on situational characteristics (e.g., travel distance, area’s size) and provide insights for policy-making to reduce the risk of whale-ship collisions.

Full Text
File Pages Size Access
10 2 MB Access on demand
79 KB Access on demand
Author's final draft 39 1 MB Open access
Top of the page