IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v78y2002i4p522-538.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Two Econometric Approaches for Predicting the Spatial Behavior of Renewable Resource Harvesters

Author

Listed:
  • Martin D. Smith

Abstract

This paper analyzes spatial patterns of exploitation in the California sea urchin fishery using two different econometric approaches: a combined count data and SUR model of monthly observations and a micro-level Nested Logit model of individual harvester daily decisions. Each model is used to simulate the spatial distribution of fishing effort. The models are compared using goodness of fit measures and implications for management are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin D. Smith, 2002. "Two Econometric Approaches for Predicting the Spatial Behavior of Renewable Resource Harvesters," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(4), pages 522-538.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:78:y:2002:i:4:p:522-538
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/78/4/522
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Morey, Edward R. & Shaw, W. Douglass & Rowe, Robert D., 1991. "A discrete-choice model of recreational participation, site choice, and activity valuation when complete trip data are not available," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 181-201, March.
    2. H. Scott Gordon, 1954. "The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Chennat Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Classic Papers in Natural Resource Economics, chapter 9, pages 178-203, Palgrave Macmillan.
    3. Bockstael, Nancy E. & Opaluch, James J., 1983. "Discrete modelling of supply response under uncertainty: The case of the fishery," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 125-137, June.
    4. Morey, Edward R. & Waldman, Donald M., 1998. "Measurement Error in Recreation Demand Models: The Joint Estimation of Participation, Site Choice, and Site Characteristics," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 262-276, May.
    5. Rita Curtis & Robert L. Hicks, 2000. "The Cost of Sea Turtle Preservation: The Case of Hawaii's Pelagic Longliners," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1191-1197.
    6. Sanchirico, James N. & Wilen, James E., 1999. "Bioeconomics of Spatial Exploitation in a Patchy Environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 129-150, March.
    7. Martin D. Smith, 2000. "Spatial Search and Fishing Location Choice: Methodological Challenges of Empirical Modeling," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1198-1206.
    8. Daniel S. Holland & Jon G. Sutinen, 2000. "Location Choice in New England Trawl Fisheries: Old Habits Die Hard," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(1), pages 133-149.
    9. H. Scott Gordon, 1954. "The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 62(2), pages 124-124.
    10. Font, Antoni Riera, 2000. "Mass Tourism and the Demand for Protected Natural Areas: A Travel Cost Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 97-116, January.
    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. Hicks, Robert L. & Schnier, Kurt E., 2006. "A Spatial Model of Dolphin Avoidance in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21290, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Abbott, Joshua K. & Wilen, James E., 2011. "Dissecting the tragedy: A spatial model of behavior in the commons," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 386-401.
    3. Sultan, Riad, 2020. "Fishing location choice and risk preferences among small fishers – Implications for fisheries management policies," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 15(2), June.
    4. Martin D. Smith & Larry B. Crowder, 2011. "Valuing Ecosystem Services with Fishery Rents: A Lumped-Parameter Approach to Hypoxia in the Neuse River Estuary," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(11), pages 1-39, November.
    5. Hutniczak, Barbara & Münch, Angela, 2018. "Fishermen's location choice under spatio-temporal update of expectations," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 124-136.
    6. Smith, Martin D. & Sanchirico, James N. & Wilen, James E., 2009. "The economics of spatial-dynamic processes: Applications to renewable resources," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 104-121, January.
    7. C. Haynie, Alan & F. Layton, David, 2010. "An expected profit model for monetizing fishing location choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 165-176, March.
    8. Wilen, James E., 2000. "Renewable Resource Economists and Policy: What Differences Have We Made?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 306-327, May.
    9. Hicks, Robert L. & Schnier, Kurt E., 2008. "Eco-labeling and dolphin avoidance: A dynamic model of tuna fishing in the Eastern Tropical Pacific," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 103-116, September.
    10. Smith, Martin D. & Zhang, Junjie & Coleman, Felicia C., 2008. "Econometric modeling of fisheries with complex life histories: Avoiding biological management failures," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 265-280, May.
    11. Stafford, Tess M., 2018. "Accounting for outside options in discrete choice models: An application to commercial fishing effort," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 159-179.
    12. Håkan Eggert & Ragnar Tveteras, 2004. "Stochastic Production and Heterogeneous Risk Preferences: Commercial Fishers' Gear Choices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 199-212.
    13. Smith, Martin D. & Provencher, Bill, 2003. "Spatial Search In Commercial Fishing: A Discrete Choice Dynamic Programming Approach," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 21932, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Diane P. Dupont, 2010. "Fisheries economics: cutting a broad swath in the field of scientific inquiry," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(3), pages 259-263, July.
    15. Eggert, Håkan, 2006. "Fisheries Economics and 20 years with Marine Resource Economics: A Citation Analysis," Working Papers in Economics 203, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    16. Martin Smith & James Wilen, 2005. "Heterogeneous and Correlated Risk Preferences in Commercial Fishermen: The Perfect Storm Dilemma," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 53-71, July.
    17. Smith, Martin D., 2005. "State dependence and heterogeneity in fishing location choice," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 319-340, September.
    18. Eppink, Florian V. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2007. "Ecological theories and indicators in economic models of biodiversity loss and conservation: A critical review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 284-293, March.
    19. Sanchirico, James & Cochran, Kathryn & Emerson , Peter, 2002. "Marine Protected Areas: Economic and Social Implications," RFF Working Paper Series dp-02-26, Resources for the Future.
    20. Gardner Brown, 2000. "Renewable Natural Resource Management and Use Without Markets," Working Papers 0025, University of Washington, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q22 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Fishery

    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:uwp:landec:v:78:y:2002:i:4:p:522-538. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.