IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/aareaj/117731.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing New Zealand recreational fishing and an assessment of the validity of the contingent valuation estimates

Author

Listed:
  • Wheeler, Sarah Ann
  • Damania, Richard

Abstract

This article presents estimates of the recreational value of fishing in New Zealand. The data was obtained from a large‐scale interview conducted at boat ramps across New Zealand. The results suggest that the recreational value of a species depends critically on the motives for targeting a particular species. Species targeted for eating purposes have marginal values that appear to closely reflect the market price of the fish (i.e. the opportunity cost). In contrast, those species which are sought mainly for recreational purposes, have a higher value. Furthermore, values for these fish types were found to be greatest for scarce species and large species of fish. The article examines the robustness of the estimates to determine whether strategic bias, embedding effects or hypothetical bias influence the results.

Suggested Citation

  • Wheeler, Sarah Ann & Damania, Richard, 2001. "Valuing New Zealand recreational fishing and an assessment of the validity of the contingent valuation estimates," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 45(4), pages 1-23.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aareaj:117731
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.117731
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/117731/files/1467-8489.00159.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.117731?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bishop, Richard C. & Samples, Karl C., 1980. "Sport and commercial fishing conflicts: A theoretical analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 220-233, September.
    2. McConnell, Kenneth E., 1979. "Values Of Marine Recreational Fishing Measurement And Impact Of Measurement," 1979 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, Pullman, Washington 278310, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Mary Jo Kealy & Robert W. Turner, 1993. "A Test of the Equality of Closed-Ended and Open-Ended Contingent Valuations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(2), pages 321-331.
    4. Carson Richard T. & Mitchell Robert Cameron, 1995. "Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 155-173, March.
    5. Cooper Joseph C., 1993. "Optimal Bid Selection for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 25-40, January.
    6. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    7. Trudy Ann Cameron, 1992. "Combining Contingent Valuation and Travel Cost Data for the Valuation of Nonmarket Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 302-317.
    8. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 1987. "A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 226-247, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lena Winslott Hiselius, 2005. "Using Choice Experiments to Assess People's Preferences for Railway Transports of Hazardous Materials," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1199-1214, October.
    2. Raguragavan, Jananee & Hailu, Atakelty & Burton, Michael, 2013. "Economic Valuation of Recreational Fishing in Western Australia: Statewide Random Utility Modelling of Fishing Site Choice Behaviour," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(4), pages 1-20.
    3. Rolfe, John & Prayaga, Prabha, 2006. "Estimating Values for Recreational Fishing at Freshwater Dams in Queensland," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 139896, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Xiaoyan Li & Yaxin Tan & Kang Tian, 2022. "The Impact of Environmental Regulation, Industrial Structure, and Interaction on the High-Quality Development Efficiency of the Yellow River Basin in China from the Perspective of the Threshold Effect," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-15, November.
    5. Hiselius, Lena Winslott, 2004. "Using Choice Experiments to Assess Peoples' Preferences for Railway Transports of Hazardous Materials," Working Papers 2004:6, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    6. Rodgers Makwinja & Ishmael Bobby Mphangwe Kosamu & Chikumbusko Chiziwa Kaonga, 2019. "Determinants and Values of Willingness to Pay for Water Quality Improvement: Insights from Chia Lagoon, Malawi," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-26, August.
    7. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    8. Hiselius, Lena Winslott, 2005. "Preferences regarding road transports of hazardous materials using choice experiments - any sign of biases?," Working Papers 2005:30, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    9. Stefan A. Hajkowicz, 2012. "For the Greater Good? A Test for Strategic Bias in Group Environmental Decisions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 331-344, May.
    10. Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Latham, N., 2011. "The Value of Recreational Inshore Marine Fishing," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115408, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    11. Farr, Marina & Stoeckl, Natalie & Sutton, Stephen, 2014. "Recreational fishing and boating: Are the determinants the same?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 126-137.
    12. Barbera, Mattia G., 2012. "Towards an Economic Valuation of the Hauraki Gulf: The Finding of an Eco-Cluster?," 2012 Conference, August 31, 2012, Nelson, New Zealand 136041, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    13. Rolfe, John & Prayaga, Prabha, 2007. "Estimating values for recreational fishing at freshwater dams in Queensland," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-18.
    14. Meginnis, Keila & Burton, Michael & Chan, Ron & Rigby, Dan, 2021. "Strategic bias in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).

    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. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    2. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    4. Hanemann, W. Michael & Kanninen, Barbara, 1996. "The Statistical Analysis Of Discrete-Response Cv Data," CUDARE Working Papers 25022, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    5. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    6. Smith, V. Kerry, 2000. "JEEM and Non-market Valuation: 1974-1998," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 351-374, May.
    7. repec:ags:aare00:123693 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. S. M. Chilton & W. G. Hutchinson, 1999. "Exploring Divergence Between Respondent and Researcher Definitions of the Good in Contingent Valuation Studies," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 1-16, January.
    9. Randall, Alan, 1998. "Beyond the crucial experiment: mapping the performance characteristics of contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 197-206, June.
    10. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 191-213, July.
    11. Henrik Andersson & Mikael Svensson, 2008. "Cognitive ability and scale bias in the contingent valuation method," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(4), pages 481-495, April.
    12. Daigee Shaw & Yu-Lan Chien & Yih-Ming Lin, 1999. "Alternative approach to combining revealed and stated preference data: evaluating water quality of a river system in Taipei," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 2(2), pages 97-112, June.
    13. Carson, R.T. & Mitchell, R.C. & Hanemann, W.M. & Kopp, R.J. & Presser, S. & Ruud, P.A., 1992. "A Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use Values Resulting From the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," MPRA Paper 6984, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Ruud Hoevenagel, 1996. "The validity of the contingent valuation method: Perfect and regular embedding," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 57-78, January.
    15. Hoehn, John P. & Loomis, John B., 1992. "Substitution Effects in the Contingent Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs: A Maximum Likelihood Estimator and Empirical Tests," Staff Paper Series 201147, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    16. Menon Martina & Perali Federico & Veronesi Marcella, 2017. "“Leaving No Child Behind:” Preferences for Social Inclusion and Altruism," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 17(3), pages 1-19, July.
    17. McDaniels, Timothy L. & Gregory, Robin & Arvai, Joseph & Chuenpagdee, Ratana, 2003. "Decision structuring to alleviate embedding in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 33-46, August.
    18. Martina Menon & Federico Perali & Marcella Veronesi, 2013. "Preferences for Social Inclusion: Empirical Evidence from Juvenile Rehabilitation in Italy," Working Papers 18/2013, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    19. Mariana Conte Grand & Martina Chidiak, 2010. "Cambios potenciales en los usos recreativos de la costa del río Uruguay ante la instalación de la planta de celulosa Fray Bentos: un ejercicio de valoración contingente," CEMA Working Papers: Serie Documentos de Trabajo. 432, Universidad del CEMA.
    20. John C. Whitehead & Timothy C. Haab & Ju‐Chin Huang, 1998. "Part‐Whole Bias in Contingent Valuation: Will Scope Effects Be Detected with Inexpensive Survey Methods?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 160-168, July.
    21. Atakelty Hailu & Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall, 2000. "Complements, Substitutes, Budget Constraints and Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(1), pages 51-68, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    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:ags:aareaj:117731. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.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.