Recreational Values of Gulf Grouper John Whitehead, Appalachian State University Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Socioeconomic Panel Miami, Florida.
Post on 17-Dec-2015
214 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Recreational Values of Gulf Grouper
John Whitehead, Appalachian State University
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
Socioeconomic Panel
Miami, Florida
Thursday May 3, 2007
“Outline”
An overview of the MARFIN project Decisions made to date about MRFSS
data Progress report / future effort Preliminary results from the Gulf of
Mexico reef fish model
Angler Heterogeneity and Species-Specific Demand for Recreational Fishing in the Southeast United States*
Tim Haab (Ohio State University)Rob Hicks (College of William and Mary)Kurt Schnier (University of Rhode Island)John Whitehead (Appalachian State University)
*MARFIN #NA06NMF4330055
Previous NMFS/MRFSS Recreational Valuation Research
McConnell and Strand, 1994 Hicks, Steinbeck, Gautam, Thunberg,
1999 Haab, Whitehead, and Ted
McConnell, 2000 Haab, Hicks, Whitehead, 2004
Targeting behavior Compare various
angler targeting models
• single-species• aggregates of related
species• all species combined
We are considering:
We are considering:
Species substitutionEstimate angler willingness to
substitute to other species or species groups when fishing quality or fishing management changes
We will:
Estimate how willingness to substitute species might differ by angler typesocioeconomic factorspreferencesgear type (i.e., mode)
We will:
Provide species-specific estimates of economic value for: changes in fishing
quality management (e.g.,
size limits, bag limits)
To date:
We have identified the feasibility of demand modeling at the species level
Estimated two preliminary demand models
MRFSS 2000
LA to NC n = 70,781
Southeast 2000 (Limited Valuation Round) n = 42,079
Hook and line trips only (99%), day trips only (67%) [self-reported and < 200 miles one-way distance], delete missing values on key variables n = 18,709 +/-
Targets a species n=11,257 +/-
Fishing mode
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Shore
Party/Charter
Private/Rental
State of intercept
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
LA
MS
AL
FL (GoM)
FL (SA)
GA
SC
NC
Species
425 unique species caught by recreational anglers sampled by the MRFSS
15 species account for 82% of the targeting activity and 38% of the (type 1) catch
Target Behavior (Prim1)sign
Intercept + p < .01
Years fished + p < .01
Boat owner + p < .01
Shore mode - p < .01
Charter mode - p < .01
Days fished + p < .01
Wave 4 -
Wave 5 + p < .01
Wave 6 + p < .01
Gulf - p < .01
Traditional species groups
Big game 4%
Bottom fish 4%
Flat fish 5%
Small game 11%
Snapper - grouper 15%
Top target species of interest from RFP
Red drum 20%
Dolphin 6%
King mackerel 6%
Spanish mackerel 4%
Four demand models are being pursued
Florida Atlantic Big GameDolphinBig game fish
Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish“Snappers”Shallow water groupersRed snapper
Four demand models …
Inshore small game: Red drum, spotted seatrout, small game
Offshore small game: King mackerel, spanish mackerel, small game
GOM Reef Fish Intercept Sites (n = 1224)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
State
AL
FL
LA
MS
Target Species
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Target Species
Snappers
Groupers
Red snapper
“Snappers” (n = 160)gray snapper 48.13%
sheepshead 23.75%
white grunt 11.88%
black sea bass 3.75%
crevalle jack 3.75%
amberjack genus 1.88%
gray triggerfish 1.88%
snapper family 1.25%
yellowtail snapper 1.25%
atlantic spadefish 0.63%
blackfin snapper 0.63%
blue runner 0.63%
vermilion snapper 0.63%
Shallow water groupers (n = 725)
unidentified grouper 73.38%
gag 17.38%
red grouper 6.07%
grouper genus Mycteroperca 2.9%
black grouper 0.28%
Red snapper (n = 239)
Mode
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Mode
Party/Charter
Private/Rentalboat
Random Utility Models
Conditional Logit Nested Logit Mixed Logit Latent Class Model
Conditional Logit
Party/charter boatcounty sites
Private/rental boat county sites
Nested Logit
Party/charter Private/rental
Counties Counties
Variables
71 Species/Mode/Site choices Travel cost
[party/charter] TC = charter fee + driving costs + time costs
[private/rental] TC = driving costs + time costs
Quality 5-year historic (type 1) targeted catch rate Predicted type 1 catch rate
Number of MRFSS interview sites in the county
Conditional Logit
Coeff t-stat
tcfee -0.038 -30.58
snapper 0.077 7.41
grouper 1.178 29.71
redsnapper 0.628 22.87
Log(sites) 0.767 14.16
Mixed Logit
Coeff t-stat
tcfee_M -0.070 -28.04
tcfee_S 0.034 7.79
snapper 0.046 3.5
grouper 1.19 20.88
redsnapper 0.77 24.35
lognsite 0.66 11.93
Value of one additional fish per trip
Conditional Mixed
Snapper $2 $1
Grouper $31 $17
Red snapper $17 $11
Recreational value of an allocation change
$ = V x xHValue per fish = V Change in harvest = Current harvest = H
Gag
STATE MODE H Value
ALABAMA CHARTER 997 $16,944
ALABAMA PRIVATE/RENTAL 1,193 $20,276
WEST FLORIDA CHARTER 10,503 $178,551
WEST FLORIDA PRIVATE/RENTAL 29,971 $509,512
LOUISIANA CHARTER 304 $5,161
LOUISIANA PRIVATE/RENTAL 381 $6,475
Red Grouper
STATE MODE H Value
ALABAMA CHARTER 447 $7,602
ALABAMA PRIVATE/RENTAL 104 $1,765
WEST FLORIDA CHARTER 7,659 $130,203
WEST FLORIDA PRIVATE/RENTAL 12,012 $204,199
Contact
John Whitehead
Department of Economics
Appalachian State University
Boone, NC 28608
whiteheadjc@appstate.edu
http://www.appstate.edu/~whiteheadjc
top related