IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare99/125029.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Value of Fish 'n' Trips to Recreational Anglers in Southern Western Australia

Author

Listed:
  • van Bueren, Martin

Abstract

Recreational fishing is one of the most popular forms of outdoor recreation in Australia, involving approximately a third of the population. As such, the recreational sector is a significant user of fish stocks and coastal areas. Allocating resources fairly and efficiently between recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, and other users has become a major issue in fisheries management. Because there is no market to signal the values of recreational fishing, there is a tendency for fish and access to beaches for recreation to be under-supplied. Managers are aware that recreational fishing provides substantial social and economic benefits, but do not have a good grasp of their magnitude or sensitivity to changing conditions. This paper presents the results of an empirical study which estimates the value of fishing trips made by a sample of shore anglers, together with their marginal values for several types of fish. Welfare estimates were obtained using a random utility model which infers values from anglers' observed choices of site and target species. The average consumer surplus from a day trip was estimated to range between $33 to $39, while improving catch rate by 50% increased the value of a trip by up to $4 depending upon the type of fish affected by the change. Based on the average number of fish caught per trip, this equates to a marginal value of $1.40 per fish. This study demonstrates that the random utility model is a promising new technique for deriving non-market values and assessing policies that allocate natural resources between user groups.

Suggested Citation

  • van Bueren, Martin, 1999. "The Value of Fish 'n' Trips to Recreational Anglers in Southern Western Australia," 1999 Conference (43th), January 20-22, 1999, Christchurch, New Zealand 125029, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare99:125029
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.125029
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/125029/files/vanBueren.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.125029?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. Yoshiaki Kaoru & V. Kerry Smith & Jin Long Liu, 1995. "Using Random Utility Models to Estimate the Recreational Value of Estuarine Resources," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(1), pages 141-151.
    2. Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 1994. "Habit Formation And Variety Seeking In A Discrete Choice Model Of Recreation Demand," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 19(01), pages 1-13, July.
    3. Lin, Pei-Chien & Adams, Richard M. & Berrens, Robert P., 1996. "Welfare Effects Of Fishery Policies: Native American Treaty Rights And Recreational Salmon Fishing," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 21(2), pages 1-14, December.
    4. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    5. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, 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. Farr, Marina & Stoeckl, Natalie, 2018. "Overoptimism and the undervaluation of ecosystem services: A case-study of recreational fishing in Townsville, adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 433-444.

    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. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    2. Susaeta, Andres & Lal, Pankaj & Alavalapati, Janaki & Mercer, Evan, 2011. "Random preferences towards bioenergy environmental externalities: A case study of woody biomass based electricity in the Southern United States," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1111-1118.
    3. Birol, Ekin & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2008. "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy:A European Perspective," MPRA Paper 38232, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Siikamki, Juha, 2001. "Valuing Benefits of Finnish Forest Biodiversity Conservation: Fixed and Random Parameter Logit Models for Pooled Contingent Valuation and Contingent Rating/Ranking Survey Data," Western Region Archives 321696, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    5. Scarpa, Riccardo & Chilton, Susan M. & Hutchinson, W. George & Buongiorno, Joseph, 2000. "Valuing the recreational benefits from the creation of nature reserves in Irish forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 237-250, May.
    6. Tran Huu Tuan, 2007. "Valuing the Economic Benefits of Preserving Cultural Heritage: The My Son Sanctuary World Heritage Site in Vietnam," EEPSEA Research Report rr2007072, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Jul 2007.
    7. Johnston, Robert J. & Duke, Joshua M., 2010. "Socioeconomic adjustments and choice experiment benefit function transfer: Evaluating the common wisdom," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 421-438, August.
    8. Alemu I, Jahson Berhane & Schuhmann, Peter & Agard, John, 2019. "Mixed preferences for lionfish encounters on reefs in Tobago: Results from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Grilli, Gianluca & Notaro, Sandra & Campbell, Danny, 2018. "Including Value Orientations in Choice Models to Estimate Benefits of Wildlife Management Policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 70-81.
    10. Yashoda & Reddy, B.V. Chinnappa, 2012. "Recreationists Willingness to Pay for Conservation of a Forest ecosystem: An Economic study of Basavana Betta State Forest, Karnataka state, India," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126888, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Mikolaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Jacob LaRiviere, 2015. "The Effects of Experience on Preferences: Theory and Empirics for Environmental Public Goods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(1), pages 333-351.
    12. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    13. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson, 2009. "Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 389-401, April.
    14. Kim, Sooil & Haab, Timothy C., 2005. "Generalized Estimation Methods for Non-i.i.d. Binary Data: An Application to Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19138, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Lupi, Frank & Feather, Peter M., 1997. "Using Partial Site Aggregation to Reduce Bias in Random Utility Travel Cost Models," Staff Paper Series 201220, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    16. Joan Mogas & Pere Riera & Raul Brey, 2009. "Combining Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments. A Forestry Application in Spain," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(4), pages 535-551, August.
    17. Mandy Ryan, 2004. "A comparison of stated preference methods for estimating monetary values," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(3), pages 291-296, March.
    18. Jong-Wen Wann & Chia-Yung Kao & Yu-Chen Yang, 2018. "Consumer Preferences of Locally Grown Specialty Crop: The Case of Taiwan Coffee," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-13, July.
    19. Flavio Boccia & Pasquale Sarnacchiaro, 2020. "Chi‐squared automatic interaction detector analysis on a choice experiment: An evaluation of responsible initiatives on consumers' purchasing behavior," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 1143-1151, March.
    20. 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.

    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:aare99:125029. 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.