IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/esr/wpaper/wp563.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Pike (Esox lucius) stock management in designated brown trout (Salmo trutta) fisheries: Anglers’ preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Curtis, John

Abstract

This paper examines anglers' preferences for active stock management of pike populations within designated wild brown trout fisheries in Ireland. While the policy of pike control has a long history, it is not without controversy and conflict. As the objective of pike control is the protection of trout stocks, a superficial view might be that trout anglers favour and pike anglers oppose such management intervention. Pike and trout anglers do not have homogeneous preferences; in fact, a substantial minority of pike anglers also fish for trout and vice versa. The current paper is the first to examine Irish pike and trout anglers' preferences over fishery attributes, including pike stock control methods. Preference data was elicited by means of choice experiments for pike and trout anglers and a latent class site choice model is used to estimate anglers' utility functions. Not surprisingly model results show that pike anglers do not support pike stock control and almost universally would choose fishing sites where there are no pike stock controls, all else equal. We find that the majority of trout anglers, 61%, are negatively disposed towards pike stock control, and all else equal, are more likely to choose fishing sites where pike stocks are not actively managed. A substantial minority of trout anglers (i.e. 39%) could be considered advocates of pike control, with about one-third of these being more extreme in their preferences, with site choice probabilities of such anglers being largely determined by the pike control management option.

Suggested Citation

  • Curtis, John, 2017. "Pike (Esox lucius) stock management in designated brown trout (Salmo trutta) fisheries: Anglers’ preferences," Papers WP563, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
  • Handle: RePEc:esr:wpaper:wp563
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.esri.ie/pubs/WP563.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
    2. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 1-30.
    3. Patrick, Wesley S. & Bin, Okmyung & Schwabe, Kurt A. & Schuhmann, Peter W., 2006. "Hatchery programs, stock enhancement, and cost effectiveness: A case study of the Albemarle Sound/Roanoke River stocking program 1981-1996," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 299-307, July.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, November.
    5. Provencher, Bill & Bishop, R.C.Richard C., 2004. "Does accounting for preference heterogeneity improve the forecasting of a random utility model? A case study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 793-810, July.
    6. Nick Hanley & W. Douglass Shaw & Robert E. Wright (ed.), 2003. "The New Economics of Outdoor Recreation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2712, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Nick Hanley & Sergio Colombo, 2011. "Incorrectly accounting for taste heterogeneity in choice experiments: Does it really matter for welfare measurement?," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2011/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    2. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    3. Sobolewski, Maciej & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2018. "Receiver benefits and strategic use of call externalities in mobile telephony markets," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 16-27.
    4. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Font, Antoni Riera, 2009. "Environmental diversity in recreational choice modelling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2743-2750, September.
    5. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2012. "Estimating the public benefits of mitigating damages caused by invasive plant species in a subsistence economy," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124421, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. Ruokamo, Enni, 2016. "Household preferences of hybrid home heating systems – A choice experiment application," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 224-237.
    7. Danny Campbell & David A. Hensher & Riccardo Scarpa, 2011. "Non-attendance to attributes in environmental choice analysis: a latent class specification," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(8), pages 1061-1076, December.
    8. Ndebele, Tom & Johnston, Robert J. & Newburn, David, 2020. "Transaction Costs and Household Adoption of Stormwater Best Management Practices," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304338, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Wiktor Budziński & Danny Campbell & Marek Giergiczny & Nick Hanley, 2017. "Spatial Heterogeneity of Willingness to Pay for Forest Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 705-727, November.
    10. Edel Doherty & Brendan Kennelly & Darragh Flannery & Stephen Kynes & John Considine, 2013. "Student preferences for assignment systems: Results from a discrete choice experiment in Irish universities," Working Papers WP052013, University of Limerick, Department of Economics, revised Sep 2013.
    11. Rungie, Cam & Scarpa, Riccardo & Thiene, Mara, 2014. "The influence of individuals in forming collective household preferences for water quality," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 161-174.
    12. Curtis, John & Brazil, William & Harold, Jason, 2019. "Understanding preference heterogeneity in electricity services: the case of domestic appliance curtailment contracts," Papers WP638, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    13. Richard Yao & Riccardo Scarpa & John Rose & James Turner, 2015. "Experimental Design Criteria and Their Behavioural Efficiency: An Evaluation in the Field," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 433-455, November.
    14. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    15. Broch, Stine Wamberg & Strange, Niels & Jacobsen, Jette B. & Wilson, Kerrie A., 2013. "Farmers' willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of their spatial distribution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 78-86.
    16. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Sobolewski, Maciej, 2016. "How much do switching costs and local network effects contribute to consumer lock-in in mobile telephony?," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 855-869.
    17. Ardeshiri, Ali & Safarighouzhdi, Farshid & Hossein Rashidi, Taha, 2021. "Measuring willingness to pay for shared parking," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 186-202.
    18. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    19. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny & Hynes, Stephen & van Rensburg, Thomas, 2012. "Labelling effects in discrete choice experiments," Working Papers 148831, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    20. Beville, Stephen T. & Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Hughey, Kenneth F.D., 2012. "Valuing impacts of the invasive alga Didymosphenia geminata on recreational angling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 1-10.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:esr:wpaper:wp563. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Burns (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esriiie.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.