IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea12/124779.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Substitution, Damages, and Compensation for Anglers due to Oil Spills:The case of the Deepwater Horizon

Author

Listed:
  • Alvarez, Sergio
  • Larkin, Sherry L.
  • Whitehead, John C.
  • Haab, Timothy C.

Abstract

Oil spills and other anthropogenic environmental disasters have economic consequences that transcend losses of business revenue and property damages. Such non-market losses include those accrued by recreational users, as well as by individuals who hold passive use value for the affected environmental resources. We use a series of random utility models to examine the substitution patterns and welfare losses experienced by recreational saltwater anglers in the Southeast U.S. due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The use of a difference ratio to measure changes between pre- and post-spill preferences that allow us to discern substitution patterns in fishing season, catch, and site popularity. We also estimate monetary welfare measures for damages incurred by anglers, as well as the in-kind compensatory restoration that would be required to make anglers whole.

Suggested Citation

  • Alvarez, Sergio & Larkin, Sherry L. & Whitehead, John C. & Haab, Timothy C., 2012. "Substitution, Damages, and Compensation for Anglers due to Oil Spills:The case of the Deepwater Horizon," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124779, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea12:124779
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.124779
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/124779/files/Alvarez.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.124779?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. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    2. Kling, Catherine L. & Bockstael, Nancy & Hanemann, W. Michael, 1987. "Estimating the Value of Water Quality Improvements in a Recreational Demand Framework," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1594, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    3. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    4. 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.
    5. Hindsley, Paul & Landry, Craig E. & Gentner, Brad, 2011. "Addressing onsite sampling in recreation site choice models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 95-110, July.
    6. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    7. Timothy Haab & Robert L. Hicks & Kurt Schnier & John C. Whitehead, 2010. "Angler Heterogeneity and the Species-Specific Demand for Marine Recreational Fishing," Working Papers 10-02, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    8. Nicholas E. Flores & Jennifer Thacher, 2002. "Money, Who Needs It? Natural Resource Damage Assessment," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 20(2), pages 171-178, April.
    9. Thomas, Michael H. & Lupi, Frank & Harding, David B., 2010. "A Policy Tool for Evaluating Investments in Public Boat Ramps in Florida: A Random Utility Model Approach," 2010 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2010, Orlando, Florida 56531, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    10. Kaoru, Yoshiaki, 1995. "Measuring marine recreation benefits of water quality improvements by the nested random utility model," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 119-136, August.
    11. George R. Parsons & Mary Jo Kealy, 1992. "Randomly Drawn Opportunity Sets in a Random Utility Model of Lake Recreation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(1), pages 93-106.
    12. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    13. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    14. Daniel McFadden, 1977. "Modelling the Choice of Residential Location," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 477, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    15. George R. Parsons & Michael S. Needelman, 1992. "Site Aggregation in a Random Utility Model of Recreation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(4), pages 418-433.
    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. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    2. Backstrom, Jesse D. & Woodward, Richard T., 2017. "Using Qualitative Site Characteristics Data in Marine Recreational Fishing Models: A New Site Aggregation Approach," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258276, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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. Phaneuf, Daniel J. & Smith, V. Kerry, 2006. "Recreation Demand Models," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 671-761, Elsevier.
    2. Termansen, Mette & McClean, Colin J. & Jensen, Frank Søndergaard, 2013. "Modelling and mapping spatial heterogeneity in forest recreation services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 48-57.
    3. Termansen, Mette & Zandersen, Marianne & McClean, Colin J., 2008. "Spatial substitution patterns in forest recreation," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 81-97, January.
    4. Domanski, Adam, 2009. "Estimating Mixed Logit Recreation Demand Models With Large Choice Sets," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49413, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Agimass, Fitalew & Lundhede, Thomas & Panduro, Toke Emil & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "The choice of forest site for recreation: A revealed preference analysis using spatial data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 445-454.
    6. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene, 2004. "Destination Choice Models for Rock Climbing in the Northeast Alps: A Latent-Class Approach Based on Intensity of Participation," Working Papers 2004.131, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    7. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Font, Antoni Riera, 2009. "Environmental diversity in recreational choice modelling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2743-2750, September.
    8. Zandersen, Marianne & Termansen, Mette & Jensen, Frank S., 2007. "Evaluating approaches to predict recreation values of new forest sites," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 103-128, August.
    9. Marianne Zandersen & Mette Termansen & Frank S. Jensen, 2005. "Valuing New Forest Sites over Time: the Case of Afforestation and Recreation in Denmark," Working Papers FNU-80, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Aug 2005.
    10. Yu Yu & Nita Umashankar & Vithala R. Rao, 2016. "Choosing the right target: Relative preferences for resource similarity and complementarity in acquisition choice," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(8), pages 1808-1825, August.
    11. von Haefen, Roger H. & Domanski, Adam, 2018. "Estimation and welfare analysis from mixed logit models with large choice sets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 101-118.
    12. Backstrom, Jesse D. & Woodward, Richard T., 2017. "Using Qualitative Site Characteristics Data in Marine Recreational Fishing Models: A New Site Aggregation Approach," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258276, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Angel Bujosa & Antoni Riera & Robert Hicks, 2010. "Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 477-493, December.
    14. Beharry-Borg, Nesha & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2010. "Valuing quality changes in Caribbean coastal waters for heterogeneous beach visitors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1124-1139, March.
    15. D Rigby & M Burton, 2003. "Capturing Preference Heterogeneity in Stated Choice Models: A Random Parameter Logit Model of the Demand for GM Food," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0319, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    16. Dhakal, Bhubaneswor & Yao, Richard T. & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim, 2012. "Recreational users' willingness to pay and preferences for changes in planted forest features," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 34-44.
    17. Jara-Díaz, Sergio & Rosales-Salas, Jorge, 2017. "Beyond transport time: A review of time use modeling," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 209-230.
    18. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    19. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2014. "Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 84-96.
    20. Jegnie, Alemken & Hailu, Atakelty & Burton, Michael P., 2017. "Boat-based and other recreational fishing in Western Australia: Analysis of site choice, access values and bag limit effects," Working Papers 257167, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    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:ags:aaea12:124779. 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/aaeaaea.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.