Content uploaded by Iyadurai Jagadis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Iyadurai Jagadis
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Economic performance of artificial reefs deployed along Tamil Nadu coast,
South India
H. MOHAMAD KASIM, G. SYDA RAO, M. RAJAGOPALAN, E. VIVEKANANDAN,
G. MOHANRAJ, D. KANDASAMI, P. MUTHIAH, I. JAGDIS, G. GOPAKUMAR
AND S. MOHAN
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi - 682 018, Kerala, India
e-mail: hmkasim@hotmail.com
ABSTRACT
The economics of fishery from artificial reef (AR) and non-artificial reef (NAR) sites by gillnet and hooks & line was studied
during 2007-08 from 11 fishing villages in 6 coastal districts of Tamil Nadu. The Tamil Nadu State Fisheries Department
fabricated and deployed the reefs under the technical guidance of the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI).
Based on species composition in the catch, the annual gross income was estimated by multiplying each species/group catch
with the average landing centre price of the respective species/group. After deducting recurring expenditures on fishing
operation, maintenance, interest on capital/investment on reef, crew wages, depreciation on craft, gear and reefs, from the
gross income, the average net income of gillnet and hooks & line per unit operation from AR site were `1252 and `4650,
respectively; and from NAR site was `449 and `1919, respectively. On an average, the AR site offered economic benefit
which was higher by `1705.9 per unit compared to NAR site. Hooks & line units performed better than the gillnet units in
both the sites. The payback period towards repayment of AR establishment cost was only 0.21 year. In view of better
economic viability and short payback period, deployment of artificial reef is recommended in the near shore waters with
proper planning.
Keywords: Artificial reef (AR) site, Catch per unit effort (CPUE), Economic benefit, Non-artificial reef (NAR) site,
Payback period, Value per unit effort (VPUE)
Introduction
Increase in the number and efficiency of fishing craft
and gear has led to enhanced pressure on fishery resources
along the Indian coast (Devaraj and Vivekanandan, 1999).
Along the Tamil Nadu coast, destruction of a large number
of juveniles and several other human induced interventions
have impacted many fish stocks, raising the issue of
sustainability (Sathiadas et al., 2012). It is emphasised here
that, inshore areas (particularly < 10 m depth) harbours
seed resources of valuable species like yellowfin tuna,
seerfish, pomfrets, mackerel etc. It has been realised that
fishery resources need to be enhanced for sustaining the
sector. One of the options for reconstruction of coastal
ecosystems, strengthening biodiversity and enhancement
of fishery resources is deployment of artificial reefs in
nearshore waters (Adams et al., 2011). Artificial reefs (ARs)
are also used in fisheries to create fishing opportunities,
reduce user conflicts, save time and fuel, reduce fishing
effort, make locating fish more predictable, increase public
access and safety by deployment in nearshore sites and
increase fish abundance at deployment sites by attracting
dispersed fishes and producing new fish biomass (Stone,
1985; National Academy Press, 1988; Bohnsack, 1989).
In addition to the biological benefits that may accrue from
Indian J. Fish., 60(1) : 1-8, 2013
2
artificial reefs, reefs are deployed to provide benefits to
fishermen. Milon et al. (2000) suggest that a reef that is
not useful to people is not a successful reef. Considering
this, assessments of the economic benefits accruing from
artificial reefs to user communities are necessary. Such
information provides an insight into the degree to which
the public benefit is being served by reef deployment and
the economic consequences associated with reef use
(Adams et al., 2011).
Sporadic information is available on the experiences
and benefits of artificial reefs deployed along the Indian
coast (Bergstrom, 1983; D’Cruz, 1995; Philipose et al.,
1995). By deploying structures in the coastal waters
south off Chennai, Vivekanandan et al. (2006) demonstrated
the potential role of artificial reefs in resource enhancement
and economic benefits. They showed that the catches from
artificial reefs comprised of high quality fishes, enabling
fishermen realise better economic returns per unit effort
than the returns from non-reef areas. The performance of
AR was evaluated by them in a limited area by monitoring
the catches for a short period. To examine the overall
economic consequences of the artificial reef programme
undertaken by the Department of Fisheries, Government
of Tamil Nadu in technical association with Central Marine
2
Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI), we monitored the
performance of the artificial reefs from construction,
deployment and performance in terms of volume and value
of fish catches were monitored for a period of two years,
under the present study. As ensuring cost efficiency is vital
to maintain a sustainable reef programme, this paper focuses
on comparison of cost-benefit of fishing between artificial
reef and non-artificial areas.
Materials and methods
Department of Fisheries, Government of Tamil Nadu,
constructed and deployed artificial reefs along Tamil Nadu
coast, and conducted post-deployment monitoring with
technical support from Madras Research Centre of the
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute during 2007
and 2008. The ARs were deployed in the following 11 sites
in six districts: (i) Tuticorin district - off Vellapatti and
Vembar; (ii) Ramanathapuram district - off Villundi and
Thiruppalakudi; (iii) Pudukottai district - off
Gopalanpattinam and Kodimunai; (iv) Thanjavur district -
off Vallavanpattinam, Eripurakkarai and Kollukkadu;
(v) Nagapattinam district - off Thanrangambadi and
(vi) Cuddalore district - off Thalanguda (Fig. 1). The
geo-coordinates (latitude and longitude) of the sites selected
for deployment of artificial reefs, depth, distance from the
shore and the period of deployment are given in Table 1.
Three types of concrete structures (Fig. 2),
viz., i. ring module, ii. reef module, and iii. grouper module,
each with 70 units with a volume of 446.25 m
3
were
deployed in each site, spread in an area of 1000 m
2
. The
substratum provided by a single ring module was 10.2 m
2
,
the reef module 13.5 m
2
and the grouper module 16.04 m
2
.
The total substratum (which includes the height and
surface area of the modules) provided by the 210 units was
2781.8 m
2
. The cost for fabrication and deployment of
H. Mohamad Kasim et al.
Fig. 1. Map showing the 11 sites where artificial reefs were
deployed during the study
Table 1. Details on the longitude, latitude and depth of the sites selected for the deployment of artificial reefs in the near-shore waters
of the selected villages along the Tamil Nadu coast.
District Village Latitude Longitude Depth (m) Distance Month of
from shore deployment
Tuticorin Vellapatti 78
o
17’ 47.6"E 08
o
51’ 25.2"N 8.5 6 km Nov. 2006
Vembar 78
o
25’ 21.7"E 09
o
01’ 04.8"N 9.0 7 km Nov. 2006
Ramanathapuram Villundi 79
o
21’ 25.3"E 09
o
20’ 17.9"N 8.0 4 km April 2007
Thirupalakkudi 79
o
00’ 05.5"E 09
o
31’ 24.0"N 7.8 6 km April 2007
Pudukottai Gopalapattinam 79
o
14’ 35.1"E 09
o
52’ 46.5"N 8.5 6 km April 2007
Kodimunai 79
o
23’ 05.0"E 09
o
57’ 13.5"N 8.5 9 km April 2007
Thanjavur Vallavanpattinam 79
o
19’ 28.4"E 10
o
08’ 22.0"N 8.5 5 km April 2007
Kollukadu 79
o
20’ 34.0"E 10
o
11’ 34.6"N 7.5 6 km April 2007
Nagapattinam Eripurakkarai 79
o
23’ 45.9"E 10
o
14’ 22.4"N 6.5 6 km April 2007
Tharangambadi 79
o
54’ 02.7"E 11
o
00’ 38.4"N 18.0 3 km April 2007
Cuddalore Thalankuda 79
o
49’ 35.9"E 11
o
45’ 48.7"N 16.0 3 km April 2007
210 units in each site was 11,50,000. After deployment,
the maturation of the artificial reef structures was observed
to be six months from the time of deployment. Once the
artificial reefs were ready for the commencement of fishing
after the maturation period, commercial fishing by gillnet
as well as hooks & lines undertaken around the reefs
(AR sites) by the 11 villages was monitored for two years
during 2007 and 2008. For comparison, fishing by the two
gear types from the non-artificial reef sites (NAR) in the
3
same villages was also monitored. Fishing effort, catch and
catch composition from gillnet and hooks & line fisheries
(the major gears operated in AR sites), which were landed
at the 11 villages from AR and NAR sites were gathered
from
Fishery Resources Assessment Division, CMFRI. One
fishing operation, from the time the boat departed from and
returned to the landing centre is termed as one fishing unit.
The source location of catch was ascertained from the
fishermen at the time of landing the catches. Fish samples
were analysed to estimate species composition in the catches.
The cost of fishing operations and price of landed fish from
AR and non-AR sites were collected randomly during the
two year period at the 11 sites. The revenue realised from
the annual catch by a gear type was estimated by multiplying
the catch of each species/group with the prevailing price of
the respective species/group at the landing centre and then
by adding up the price of all the species/group for the year
(Kasim, 2009). Since the price depends on the type, size
and freshness of fish, the average price has been taken for
estimation of total value of the catches.
The economic costs, activities and benefits derived
from artificial reef projects can be measured and evaluated
by following cost effectiveness analysis. This method
determines to what extent the estimated cost of deployment
was realised in the actual reef deployment process
(Adams et al., 2011). With limited funds for reef
development, ensuring that, cost efficiency is maintained
is vital to a sustainable reef programme. Cost effectiveness
analysis will help to ensure that reef programmes are
completed within the optimum cost. In the present study,
cost effectiveness analysis was carried out inorder to
evaluate the artificial reef programme.
Results and discussion
Commercial fishing around the AR sites was carried
out using gillnet and hooks & line from motorised craft
with outboard engine (overall length: 7-10 m; engine
horsepower: 7-9). The location of the artificial reefs from
the shore varied between 1 and 5 km and was accessed by
the fishing vessels by sail if the wind was favourable, or by
motor in the absence of wind. Fishing was conducted, on
an average, for about 15 and 9 h in a day by gillnet and
hooks & line units, respectively and for about 250 days in
a year.
Catch per unit effort (CPUE) and Value per unit effort
(VPUE)
The areas considered for deployment of ARs were
actively exploited fishing grounds. During 2007 and 2008,
on an average 35,188 and 1,32,608 units of gillnet and
hooks & line units were operated annually in the AR and
NAR sites respectively, off the 11 villages (Table 2). The
corresponding fishing hours (gear soaking time) was
0.5 and 1.3 million h. The annual catch by the two gear
types was 6,305 t, valued at 3627.9 lakhs at the landing
centre price level. Nearly 21% of boat units from the 11
villages fished in the AR sites, realising 23.9% of the total
catch, and 20.8% of the total value. Among the two gear
types, gillnets contributed 77.1% to the total catch and
78.0% to the total value from the two sites. In the AR sites,
Economic performance of artificial reefs
Fig. 2. Three types of artificial modules used in the study (a) Ornamental fish module (b) Reef fish module (c) Grouper module
(a)
Diameter of each ring - 0.90 m
Height of the ring - 0.6 m
Weight of one module - 0.65 t
No. of modules in a cluster - 70
(b)
Height x Breadth x Length -1.5 m
Weight of one module - 0.75 t
No. of module in a cluster - 70
(c)
Height x Breadth x Length - 1.5 m
Weight of one module - 0.95 t
Diameter of inner pipes 0.30 m
No. of module in a cluster - 70
Table 2. Profile of gillnet and hooks & line fisheries in the 11 villages (the values are estimated annual average for the years 2007-08)
Parameters Gillnet Hooks & line
AR sites NAR sites AR sites NAR sites
No. of units 31477 120783 3711 11825
Fishing hours (10
3
) 469.2 1192.1 33.5 91.5
4
gillnets contributed 81.3% to the total catch, and 70.9% to
the total value. Thus gillnet was the predominant gear in
the AR as well as NAR sites.
Fishing effort expended in the AR sites by each of the
11 villages varied widely. The annual average number of
gillnet units ranged from 980 (Villundi) to 5862
(Eripurakkarai); and the 321 hooks & line units from 321
(Vembar) to 1437 (Gopalanpattinam). Considering this, the
catch per unit effort (CPUE) and value per unit effort
(VPUE) in the AR and NAR sites were determined for each
fishing village for the years 2007 and 2008. The CPUE
and VPUE also showed wide differences between the
villages (Table 3). On an average, the CPUE of gillnetters
was higher (39.1 kg) and the VPUE was substantially higher
( 5608) in the AR sites compared to the NAR sites
H. Mohamad Kasim et al.
Table 3. Catch-per-unit effort (CPUE, kg) and Value-per-unit effort (VPUE, `) recorded in the 11 villages during 2007 and 2008
Fishing village Hook & line Hook & line
Gillnet - CPUE (kg) Gillnet - VPUE (`) CPUE (kg) VPUE (`)
AR sites NAR sites AR sites NA sites AR sites NAR sites AR sites NAR sites
Vellapatti 28.5 16.6 1713 1501
Vembar 30.4 30.6 1447 1283 587.4 533.9 70123 42050
Villundi 44.5 31.9 1568 930 Hooks & line not operated
Thiruppalakudi 90.1 21.3 3598 971 Hooks & line not operated
Gopalanpattinam Gillnet not operated 11.7 24.4 301 596
Kodimunai 29.8 26.1 1747 2121 Hooks & line not operated
Vallavanpattinam 23.0 20.3 1506 1668 Hooks & line not operated
Kollukadu 31.3 26.1 1472 2226 Hooks & line not operated
Eriputakkarai 44.1 47.8 3028 3284 Hooks & line not operated
Tharangamabdi 30.6 41.7 1030 1355 35.7 76.0 915 1709
Thalanguda Gillnet not operated 45.4 139.8 1853 4454
Average 39.1 29.2 1901.0 1704.3 61.8 70.4 6653.8 4437.2
(30.1 kg and 4083). Pooled data from gillnets and hooks
& line showed that CPUE (Fig. 3), VPUE (Fig. 4) and
value of per kg fish (Fig. 5) were higher in the AR sites
compared to those of NAR sites.
Catch composition
The combined catch from gillnets and hooks & line
units consisted of 91 species from AR sites, and 101 species
from NAR sites. The fishing effort in AR sites
Fig. 3. Catch per unit effort from gillnet and hooks & line units
Fig. 4. Value per unit effort of catch from gillnet and
hooks & line units
Fig. 5. Value per kg of fish from gillnet and hooks & line units
5
(35,188 fishing units) was only about 26.5% of the effort
in NAR sites (1,32,608 units), but the species richness in
the catches from the AR sites was only marginally lesser
than that of the NAR sites. This indicates aggregation of
several species in the AR sites. Seerfish, portunid crabs
and barracuda were the major groups caught from the AR
sites, yielding high returns (Table 4).
Economic performance of ARs
The economic performance of gillnet and hooks &
line units at the AR and NAR sites was assessed by
comparing the net income of these units after deducting
operational and other related expenditures from the gross
revenue derived from the sale of fish catch in a year. As the
AR sites offered a limited area as fishing ground, only 3
fishers were engaged in fishing per unit operation with small
boats (overall length: 7 m). The NAR fishing ground is
extensive and hence, 5 fishers were engaged per unit
operation in comparatively larger boats (OAL: 10 m). All
the AR sites were very close to the coast and the fishers
could access these grounds with low fuel expenditure
whenever they used motorised boats. Otherwise, they used
either sails when the wind was favourable or oars for
Economic performance of artificial reefs
Table 4. Ten dominant species/groups (by value) caught in gillnets and hooks & line units
AR site Value (` in lakhs) NAR site Value (` in lakhs)
Scomberomorus commerson 46.3 Portunus pelagicus 109.6
Portunus sanguinolentus 16.8 Scomberomorus commerson 86.4
Sphyraena barracuda 4.9 Penaeus semisulcatus 28.5
Chirocentrus dorab 3.7 Sphyraena barracuda 20.8
Psammoperca waigaiensis 3.3 Stolephorus indicus 20.1
Pampus argenteus 2.7 Metapenaeus dobsoni 15.1
Arius spp. 2.5 Arius spp. 13.4
Portunus pelagicus 2.3 Lethrinus spp. 13.2
Caranx spp. 2.3 Fenneropenaeus indicus 13.1
Fenneropenaeus indicus 1.8 Metapenaeus stridulans 12.0
Table 5. Economic performance of a single gillnet unit based on the operation per day by 14 units in AR sites and 54 units
in NAR sites in 9 villages.
Recurring expenditure AR site NAR site Total (`)
Rate Total (`) Rate
Wages for 3 fishers ` 200 per day 600 5 fishers ` 200 per day 1000
Fuel 1 liter 50 6 liters 300
Depreciation to boat and net 10% on cost 60 10% on cost 60
Miscellaneous, Insurance etc. Approximate 10 Insurance etc. 20
Total expenditure per unit 720 Total expenditure per unit 1380
Revenue from fish catch
Gross revenue per unit 62073130/31477 1972 220869347/120783 1829
Net revenue per unit 1972-720 1252 1829-1380 449
Total net revenue 31477 units
b
@ 39409204 120783 units
b
@449 54231567
` 1252
a
from Table 2;
b
from Table 1
propulsion. Consequently the operational and other
expenditure per unit was higher for the gillnet units of
NAR sites than the units which operated in AR sites. Higher
gross income and lower operational expenditure have
resulted in a higher net income for the gillnet units of AR
sites than those of NAR sites (Table 5).
As in the case of gillnet units, higher gross income
and lower operational expenditure were evident in the
AR sites from hooks & line units also (Table 6). The catch
and revenue realised by hooks & line units were higher
than the gillnet units in both AR and NAR sites.
Economic benefit
Artificial reefs were established in 11 sites at a total
cost of `1,26,50,000 at the rate of `11,50,000 per site. The
accrued interest (12%) on establishment cost and
depreciation (5%) of artificial reefs was `21,50,500. The
depreciation and interest per unit was `61.1. There was
no maintenance cost for the reefs. After deducting the
eligible costs from the revenue realised per unit of gillnet
and hooks & line separately, the net revenue per unit of
gillnet and hooks & line was `1190.9 and `4588.0,
6
respectively (Table 7). The average net income for the two
gear types was `2889.9 and the additional benefit of
operating in the AR sites was `1705.9 per unit.
Payback period
The payback period was worked out by dividing the
total cost for the installation of artificial reefs at 11 sites by
the total economic benefits by both the gear types from
AR site i.e., Payback period: 126,50,000 / 600,27,209=0.21
year. The payback period is estimated to be a mere
0.21 year as shown above (Table 7). As the payback period
is short, fishers who intend to avail loan for the installation
of artificial reefs can easily return the loan.
Discussion
Hooks & line units have performed better than gillnet
units in both the AR and NAR sites. Narayanakumar et al.
(2009) also reported that the cost and earnings of single
day operations by hooks & line was better than the gillnet
units. Since the operating cost of the fishing units in the
AR sites in this study is much lower owing to less fuel and
labour involved, as compared to that of the NAR sites, the
net income is higher from AR sites.
The assessment of fisheries service provided by an
artificial reef at Chinnandikuppam, 20 km south of Chennai
by Vivekanandan et al. (2006) revealed that in 16 months,
the fishermen expended 3843.7 h of hooks & line fishing
in the AR ground and landed 6404 kg. The catch index was
14.2 kg m
-3
and the total income was 2.74 lakhs.
Comparatively, in the present study a single hooks & line
unit fished for 2821 h in 16 months, and produced
23,812.5 kg, which yielded an income of 21.4 lakhs. This
shows that the catch is 3.7 times more and the income is
7.82 times higher than that reported by Vivekanandan
et al. (2006). This may be owing to better performance of
the concrete reef structures with large surface area
(2781.8 m
2
)
employed in the present study, which might
Table 6. Economic performance of a single hooks & line unit based on the operation per day by 4 units in AR sites and
12 units in NAR sites in 4 villages.
Recurring expenditure AR site NAR site
Rate Total (`) Rate Total (`)
Wages for 3 fishers ` 200 per day 600 4 fishers ` 200 per day 800
Fuel 1 liter 50 6 liters 300
Cost of bait 1500 1500
Depreciation to boat and net 10% on cost 50 10% on cost 60
Miscellaneous, Insurance etc. Approximately 10 Insurance etc. 20
Total expenditure per unit 2210 Total Expenditure per unit 2680
Revenue from fish catch
Gross revenue per unit 25456885/3711 6860 54385822/11825 4599
Net revenue per unit 6860-2210 4650 4599-2680 1919
Total net revenue 31477 units
b
17256150 11825 units
b
@ ` 1919 22692175
@ ` 1252
a
from Table 2;
b
from Table 1
Table 7. Estimation of economic benefit by comparing the net income from fishing by two gear types in AR and NAR sites
Recurring expenditure AR site NAR site
Rate (`) Total (`) Rate Total (`)
Investment cost
Cost of AR structure 11,50,000 1,26,50,000 Nil
Interest on investment 12% 15,18,000 Nil
Depreciation 5% 6,32,500 Nil
Total depreciation + interest 21,50,500
Revenue
R1 GN net revenue per unit 1252 54231567
R2 H&L revenue per unit 4650 22692175
R3 Depreciation+Interest per unit I4/35188 61.1 76923742
R4 GN net revenue (R1-R3) 1190.9 0
R5 H&L net revenue (R2-R3) 4588.9 GN+H&L expenditure/unit 2030
R6 GN + H&L net income per unit 2889.9 GN+H&L revenue/unit 3214
R7 Economic benefit
` per unit R6-1184 1705.9 GN+H&L net income/unit 1184
Payback period (years) Cost/Net income I1/R7*35188 0.21 year
H. Mohamad Kasim et al.
7
have lead to higher biological production and better fish
catch. As in the present study, Vivekanandan et al. (2006)
also observed that the hooks & line operation in the AR
sites (71.3 kg h
-1
) was more remunerative than the gillnet
operation (52.5 kg h
-1
) in the NAR site due to aggregation
of high quality fish such as snappers, emperors and
carangids in the AR site. Better catch in the AR sites in this
study is attributed to the operation of gillnets along with
hooks & line, which is supported by the observation by
Vivekanandan et al. (2006) that, “had gillnet, trap and pot
been operated in the AR ground, it is possible that several
other groups would have been caught and the catch and
income would have been better”.
The payback period at Chinnandikuppam works out
to 1.22 years (Vivekanandan et al., 2006). Owing to better
performance of the ARs in this study, the payback period
is less than a year i.e., 0.21 year. Countries like Philippines,
Japan and Korea, where millions of cubic meters of ARs
have been deployed, the catch is reported to vary between
5 and 50 kg m
-3
(Rong-Quen Tan et al., 2003). Valiathura
along the Trivandrum coast in Kerala, where a number of
artificial fish habitats (ARs) were deployed, also showed
that the contribution by ARs in terms of value to the total
fish production of the village was higher by 6.9%, than the
quantity (2.8%)(D’Cruz, 1995). Devaraj (1997) suggested
that the ARs should be deployed rationally, in well-planned,
selected sites. This is proved to be true from the results of
the present study also, where the site selection was done
through appropriate underwater survey employing SCUBA
diving, and deployment of AR modules was done with
proper planning.
Limitations and benefits
It is often criticised that the artificial reefs aggregate a
wide variety of fishes at one place and are harvested
indiscriminately which may lead to overfishing in a short
duration of time. The fishing in the reef areas under this
project was customised to avoid overfishing by the fishers
by an institution building process in which a reef monitoring
committee was formed to regulate fishing in the reef area.
There is also a general view that the sea is used as a dumping
yard for scrap materials in the name of reefs. But in the
present programme, the reef structures have been designed
according to the behaviour of different species and further
the structures used were well designed concrete blocks with
more surface area to encourage various fouling organisms
to settle and colonise, leading to an increase in biodiversity
and biomass in the area.
The benefits derved are that the artificial reefs increase
the biodiversity and biomass leading to enhancement of
the ecosystem. Deployment of artificial reefs are better way
of ecosystem based fisheries management and they also
help to protect the nursery grounds, and thereby enhances
recruitment in a sustainable manner. Artificial reef areas
can also act as marine protected areas. Fish are available at
all the time near the shore. The voyage for fishing is very
short leading to saving of fuel, labour, time and expenditure.
The fish catch is comparatively fresh, of high quality and
of better size resulting in better income and economic
benefits. The social benefits are that the fishers are
empowered and get organised into an institution to manage
fishing activities and post-harvest interventions. There is a
social binding among the fishers in reef usage, which
reduces the conflict. Moreover, the artificial reefs prevent
trawling in a limited area and help the benthic fauna and
flora to revive and flourish which in turn enhances the
biomass.
Acknowledgements
The authors sincerely thank the Commissioner of
Fisheries, Joint Directors and other Staff of the Tamil Nadu
Fisheries Department for sanctioning the consultancy
project, as well as for the assistance rendered in fabrication
and deployment of the artificial reefs and also during the
study on impact of the reefs deployed, on the
socio-economics of the coastal fishery and fishers. We also
acknowledge the support rendered by the fishermen leaders,
fishers and others who worked hard with us, during the
study.
References
Adams, C., Lindberg, B. and Stevely, J. 2011. The economic
benefits associated with Florida’s artificial reefs. ADIS
Document No. FE 649. Food and Resource Economics
Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service,
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL. (http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/).
Bergstrom, M. 1983. Review of experiences with past and present
knowledge about fish aggregating devices. BOBP Working
Paper, 23: 35 pp.
Bohnsack, J. 1989. Are high densities of fishes at artificial reefs
the result of habitat limitation or behavioral preference? Bull.
Mar. Sci., 44(2): 631-645.
D’Cruz, T. 1995. Artificial fish habitats – Impact on artisanal
fisheries. South Indian Federation of Fishermen Societies,
Trivandrum, 57 pp.
Devaraj, M. 1997. Status of research in marine fisheries and
mariculture (role of CMFRI). CMFRI Spl. Publ., 67L:
35 pp.
Devaraj, M. and Vivekanandan, E. 1999. Marine capture fisheries
of India: challenges and opportunities. Curr. Sci., 76:
314-332.
Kasim, H. M. 2009. Artificial reef for the enhancement of
biological resources and livelihoods of fishermen. Fishing
Chimes, 29(5): 31-34.
Economic performance of artificial reefs
8
Milon, J. W., Holland, S and Whitmarsh, D. 2000. Social and
economic evaluation methods. In: W. Seaman Jr. (Ed.),
Artificial Reef Evaluation with application to natural marine
habitats. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida,. Narayanakumar,
R., Sathiadhas, R and Aswathy, N. 2009. Economic
performance of marine fishing methods in India. Mar. Fish.
Infor. Serv., T&E Ser., 200: 3-16.
National Academy Press 1988. Artificial reefs and fish aggregating
devices. In: Fisheries technologies for developing countries,
National Research Council, Washington DC, p. 85-114.
Philipose, K. K., Vivekanandan, E and Devadoss, P.1995. Artificial
fish habitats. CMFRI Technology Series, 8: 16 pp.
Rong-Quen Tan, Yu-Hsing Liu, Ching-Yichen, Min-Chang Wang,
Gwo-Shyh Song, Hong Cheng Lin and Kwang-Tsao Shao
2003. Effects of pile size of artificial reefs on the standing
stocks of fishes. Fish. Res., 63: 327-337.
Sathiadas, R., Narayanakumar, R. and Aswathy, N. 2012. Marine
fish marketing in India. Central Marine Fisheries Research
Institute, 276 pp.
Stone, R.B. 1985. National artificial reef plan. NOAA. Tech. Mem.
NMFS OF-6, Departement of Commerce, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Washington DC, 70 pp.
Vivekanandan, E., Venkatesan, S. and Mohanraj, G. 2006. Service
provided by artificial reef off Chennai: a case study. Indian
J. Fish., 53(1): 67-75.
H. Mohamad Kasim et al.
Date of Receipt : 10.11.2012
Date of Acceptance : 15.12.2012
