Upload
lilian-clark
View
216
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Developing Species-Specific Recreational Values for Allocation:
Snapper-Grouper in the Gulf of Mexico
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
Single Species Models
• Targeting behavior
• Species substitution
• Preference heterogeneity
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 (28% PRIM1 is missing)– n = 18,709 +/-
• Targets a species – n=11,257 +/-
Fishing mode
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Shore
Party/Charter
Private/Rental
State of intercept
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
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
Top target species of interest from RFP
Red drum 20%
Dolphin 6%
King mackerel 6%
Spanish mackerel 4%
Four demand models
• Florida Atlantic big game (dolphin)
• Gulf of Mexico reef fish (red snapper)
• Inshore small game (red drum)
• Offshore small game (mackerel)
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%
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%
90%
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• Trip cost
– [party/charter] TC = charter fee + travel cost + time costs
– [private/rental] TC = travel costs + time costs
• Quality– 5-year historic (type 1) targeted catch rate
• Number of MRFSS interview sites in the county
Table 1. Choice Frequencies
Mode Target Frequency
Party/charter Snappers 14
Party/charter Shallow Water Groupers 150
Party/charter Red snapper 84
Private/rental Snappers 108
Private/rental Shallow Water Groupers 575
Private/rental Red snapper 155
Table 3. Random Utility Models
Single Species
Conditional Logit Nested Logit
Coeff. t-stat Coeff. t-stat
Trip cost -0.04 -24.2 -0.11 -22.4
Grouper catch 11.10 20.07 5.78 6.00
Ln(sites) 0.87 14.86 0.51 7.53
Inclusive value 0.12 12.37
Choices 30 30
Cases 725 725
LL -1354 -1045
Table 3. Random Utility Models
Multiple Species
Conditional Logit Nested Logit
Coeff. t-stat Coeff. t-stat
Trip cost -0.04 -29.9 -0.10 -26.9
Grouper catch 3.27 27.41 3.11 15.83
Snapper catch 0.89 10.21 0.83 8.71
Red snapper catch 4.43 21.76 3.82 13.93
Ln(cites) 0.98 17.02 0.72 11.76
Inclusive value 0.14 14.79
Choices 71 71
Cases 1086 1086
LL -2377 -2028
WTP for 1 additional fish
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Grouper
S-Conditional
S-Nested
M-Conditional
M-Nested