IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/rffdps/10853.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Benefits and Costs of Fish Consumption Advisories for Mercury

Author

Listed:
  • Jakus, Paul M.
  • McGuinness, Meghan
  • Krupnick, Alan J.

Abstract

Mercury contamination of the Chesapeake Bay is a concern to health authorities in the region. We evaluate the economic and health effects of postulated recreational and commercial fishing advisories for striped bass on the Maryland portion of the bay. Awareness of and response to the advisory is estimated using a meta-analysis of the literature. Three values are estimated: welfare losses to recreational anglers, welfare losses in the commercial striped bass fishery, and health benefits. An estimate of percentage of consumer surplus loss is applied to the value of all fishing days in the bay to estimate recreational welfare loss. Welfare losses to the commercial fishery are estimated based on a model of supply and demand. Health benefits are estimated using estimated exposure and epidemiological relationships, and while potentially large, are highly uncertain. Results also suggest most individuals are below advisory standards ex ante, such that advisories should target high-frequency consumers.

Suggested Citation

  • Jakus, Paul M. & McGuinness, Meghan & Krupnick, Alan J., 2002. "The Benefits and Costs of Fish Consumption Advisories for Mercury," Discussion Papers 10853, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:rffdps:10853
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.10853
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/10853/files/dp020055.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.10853?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark Montgomery & Michael Needelman, 1997. "The Welfare Effects of Toxic Contamination in Freshwater Fish," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 211-223.
    2. James Eales & Catherine Durham & Cathy R. Wessells, 1997. "Generalized Models of Japanese Demand for Fish," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(4), pages 1153-1163.
    3. Parsons, George R. & Jakus, Paul M. & Tomasi, Ted, 1999. "A Comparison of Welfare Estimates from Four Models for Linking Seasonal Recreational Trips to Multinomial Logit Models of Site Choice," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 143-157, September.
    4. Eales, James S. & Roheim, Cathy A., 1999. "Testing Separability Of Japanese Demand For Meat And Fish Within Differential Demand Systems," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(1), pages 1-13, July.
    5. Janusz R. Mrozek & Laura O. Taylor, 2002. "What determines the value of life? a meta-analysis," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 253-270.
    6. Kahn, James R. & Kemp, W. Michael, 1985. "Economic losses associated with the degradation of an ecosystem: The case of submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 246-263, September.
    7. Helen May & Joanna Burger, 1996. "Fishing in a Polluted Estuary: Fishing Behavior, Fish Consumption, and Potential Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 459-471, August.
    8. Krupnick, Alan & Alberini, Anna & Cropper, Maureen & Simon, Nathalie & O'Brien, Bernie & Goeree, Ron & Heintzelman, Martin, 2002. "Age, Health and the Willingness to Pay for Mortality Risk Reductions: A Contingent Valuation Survey of Ontario Residents," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 161-186, March.
    9. Burtraw, Dallas & Krupnick, Alan & Austin, David & Stoessell, Terrell, 1998. "The Benefits of Air Pollutant Emissions Reductions in Maryland: Results from the Maryland Externalities Screening and Valuation Model," RFF Working Paper Series dp-99-05, Resources for the Future.
    10. Salvanes, K. & DeVoretz, D., 1993. "Household Demand for Fish and Meat Products: Separability and Demographic Effects," Discussion Papers dp93-05, Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University.
    11. W. Douglas Shaw & J. Scott Shonkwiler, 2000. "Brand Choice and Purchase Frequency Revisited: An Application to Recreation Behavior," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(3), pages 515-526.
    12. Johnson, F. Reed & Desvousges, William H., 1997. "Estimating Stated Preferences with Rated-Pair Data: Environmental, Health, and Employment Effects of Energy Programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 79-99, September.
    13. Jakus, Paul M & Shaw, W Douglass, 2003. "Perceived Hazard and Product Choice: An Application to Recreational Site Choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 77-92, January.
    14. George R. Parsons & A. Brett Hauber, 1998. "Spatial Boundaries and Choice Set Definition in a Random Utility Model of Recreation Demand," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(1), pages 32-48.
    15. Joshua D. Angrist & Kathryn Graddy & Guido W. Imbens, 2000. "The Interpretation of Instrumental Variables Estimators in Simultaneous Equations Models with an Application to the Demand for Fish," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 67(3), pages 499-527.
    16. Jakus, Paul M. & Downing, Mark & Bevelhimer, Mark S. & Fly, J. Mark, 1997. "Do Sportfish Consumption Advisories Affect Reservoir Anglers’ Site Choice?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(2), pages 196-204, October.
    17. Heng Z. Chen & Stephen R. Cosslett, 1998. "Environmental Quality Preference and Benefit Estimation in Multinomial Probit Models: A Simulation Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(3), pages 512-520.
    18. William H. Desvousges & F. R. Johnson & H. S. Banzhaf, 1998. "Environmental Policy Analysis With Limited Information," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1328.
    19. Paul M. Jakus & Dimitrios Dadakas & J. Mark Fly, 1998. "Fish Consumption Advisories: Incorporating Angler-Specific Knowledge, Habits, and Catch Rates in a Site Choice Model," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1019-1024.
    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. Shimshack, Jay P. & Ward, Michael B., 2010. "Mercury advisories and household health trade-offs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 674-685, September.
    2. Shimshack, Jay P. & Ward, Michael B. & Beatty, Timothy K.M., 2007. "Mercury advisories: Information, education, and fish consumption," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 158-179, March.
    3. Alexandra Erhardt & Carlos Rezende & Brian Walker & Dina Franceschi & David Downie, 2015. "Mercury concentrations and awareness in Campos dos Goytacazes, Brazil: baseline measures for examining the efficacy of the Minamata Convention," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(4), pages 517-525, December.
    4. Willson, Tina M. & Kazmierczak, Richard F., Jr., 2007. "The Public Health and Economic Impacts of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) Contaminants on U.S. Fisheries," 2007 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2007, Mobile, Alabama 34963, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    5. Jay Shimshack, 2004. "Are Mercury Advisories Effective? Inofrmation, Education, and Fish Consumption," Discussion Papers Series, Department of Economics, Tufts University 0423, Department of Economics, Tufts University.
    6. Hirotsugu Uchida & Cathy A. Roheim & Robert J. Johnston, 2017. "Balancing the Health Risks and Benefits of Seafood: How Does Available Guidance Affect Consumer Choices?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1056-1077.

    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. Jakus, Paul M & Shaw, W Douglass, 2003. "Perceived Hazard and Product Choice: An Application to Recreational Site Choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 77-92, January.
    2. Douglas J. MacNair & William H. Desvousges, 2007. "The Economics of Fish Consumption Advisories: Insights from Revealed and Stated Preference Data," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 600-616.
    3. 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.
    4. Jakus, Paul M. & Dowell, Paula & Murray, Matthew N., 2000. "The Effect Of Fluctuating Water Levels On Reservoir Fishing," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Sujitra Vassanadumrongdee & Shunji Matsuoka & Hiroaki Shirakawa, 2004. "Meta-analysis of contingent valuation studies on air pollution-related morbidity risks," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 6(1), pages 11-47, March.
    6. Larson, Douglas M. & Shaikh, Sabina L., 1999. "Empirical Specification Requirements For Two-Constraint Models Of Recreation Demand," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21629, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Murdock, Jennifer, 2006. "Handling unobserved site characteristics in random utility models of recreation demand," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 1-25, January.
    8. Spencer Banzhaf, H. & Burtraw, Dallas & Palmer, Karen, 2004. "Efficient emission fees in the US electricity sector," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 317-341, September.
    9. Cropper, Maureen L., 2000. "Has Economic Research Answered the Needs of Environmental Policy?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 328-350, May.
    10. Burtraw, Dallas & Bharvirkar, Ranjit & McGuinness, Meghan, 2001. "Uncertainty and the Cost-Effectiveness of Regional NOx Emissions Reductions from Electricity Generation," Discussion Papers 10846, Resources for the Future.
    11. Revesz, Richard & Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Environmental Law and Policy," Working Paper Series rwp04-023, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    12. Larson, Douglas & Shaikh, Sabina, 1999. "Empirical Specification Requirements for Two-Constraint Models of Recreation Demand," Western Region Archives 321713, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    13. Moeltner, Klaus & Boyle, Kevin J. & Paterson, Robert W., 2007. "Meta-analysis and benefit transfer for resource valuation-addressing classical challenges with Bayesian modeling," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 250-269, March.
    14. Yeboah, Godfred & Maynard, Leigh J., 2004. "The Impact Of Bse, Fmd, And U.S. Export Promotion Expenditures On Japanese Meat Demand," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19978, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. James Hammitt & Jin-Tan Liu, 2004. "Effects of Disease Type and Latency on the Value of Mortality Risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 73-95, January.
    16. 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.
    17. Huhtala, Anni & Pouta, Eija, 2006. "Discerning welfare impacts of public provision of recreation areas," Discussion Papers 11860, MTT Agrifood Research Finland.
    18. Trudy Cameron & J. DeShazo & Peter Stiffler, 2010. "Demand for health risk reductions: A cross-national comparison between the U.S. and Canada," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 245-273, December.
    19. Jung, Jione & Koo, Won W., 2002. "Demand For Meat And Fish Products In Korea," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19895, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. Corey A. Krabbenhoft & Susan Manente & Donna R. Kashian, 2019. "Evaluation of an Educational Campaign to Improve the Conscious Consumption of Recreationally Caught Fish," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consumer/Household Economics;

    JEL classification:

    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • Q22 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Fishery
    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources

    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:rffdps:10853. 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/rffffus.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.