Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byBrady Castleton Modified over 9 years ago
1
Angler Heterogeneity and Species- Specific Demand for Recreational Fishing in the Southeast United States Tim Haab (Ohio State University) Rob Hicks (College of William and Mary) Kurt Schnier (University of Rhode Island) John Whitehead (Appalachian State University) NAAFE Forum, May 18, 2009
2
Previous NMFS/MRFSS Recreational Valuation Research McConnell and Strand, 1994 Hicks, Steinbeck, Gautam, Thunberg, 1999 Haab, Whitehead, and Ted McConnell, 2000 Haab, Hicks, Whitehead, 2004
3
NMFS SE Nested Logit Model 3 Modes 4 Aggregate targets species 70 County level sites 1000+ alternatives Sequential estimation Mode / Target Sites
4
This project Single species Preference heterogeneity 70+ alternatives Full information maximum likelihood estimation Mode / Target Mode 1 Sites Mode 1 Sites Mode 2 Sites Mode 2 Sites
5
MRFSS 2000 Add-on LA to NC n = 70,781 Southeast 2000 (Limited Valuation Round) n = 42,079 Hook and line trips only (99%), day trips only (67%) [self-reported and < 200 miles one-way distance], delete missing values on key variables (28% PRIM1 is missing) n = 18,709 Targets a species n=11,257
6
Fishing mode
7
State of intercept
8
Species 425 unique species caught by recreational anglers sampled by the MRFSS 15 species account for 82% of the targeting activity and 38% of the (type 1) catch
9
Four sets of demand models Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish (n = 1086) “Snappers” Shallow water groupers Red snapper Florida Atlantic Big Game: Dolphin, big game (n = 823) Inshore small game: Red drum, spotted seatrout, small game (n=4353) Offshore small game: King mackerel, spanish mackerel, small game (n = 1531)
10
Red Snapper
11
Target Species
12
Target species (groups) Snappers (n=122) gray snapper48.13% sheepshead23.75% white grunt11.88% black sea bass3.75% crevalle jack3.75% amberjack genus1.88% gray triggerfish1.88% snapper family1.25% yellowtail snapper1.25% atlantic spadefish0.63% blackfin snapper0.63% blue runner0.63% vermilion snapper0.63% Groupers (n=725) unidentified grouper73.38% gag17.38% red grouper6.07% grouper genus Mycteroperca2.9% black grouper0.28% Red Snapper (n=239)
13
Mode
14
Choice Frequencies ModeTargetFrequency Party/charterSnappers14 Party/charterGroupers150 Party/charterRed snapper84 Private/rentalSnappers108 Private/rentalGroupers575 Private/rentalRed snapper155
15
Variables 71 Species/Mode/Site choices Travel cost [party/charter] TC = charter fee + driving costs + time costs [private/rental] TC = driving costs + time costs Quality 5-year historic (type 1) targeted catch rate Number of MRFSS interview sites in the county
16
Data Summary (n = 77,106) VariableMeanMinMax tc193.660.6670.14 tcfee234.370.6777.20 lognsite2.851.394.98 snapper0.06094.00 grouper0.1406.43 redsnapper0.09010.65 fee40.710107.06
17
Random Utility Models Snapper-Grouper Conditional Logit (with and w/out ASC) Nested Logit (with and w/out ASC) Latent Class Logit Random Parameter Logit [TCFEE] Snapper-Grouper Conditional Logit Nested Logit Latent Class Logit Random Parameter Logit [20” dolphin]
18
Conditional Logit: Choice Framework Party/charter boat, Private/rental boat County sites
19
Conditional Logit: Results VariableCoeff.t-ratioCoeff.t-ratio TC-0.04-29.91-0.04-29.26 Snapper0.8910.211.8611.19 Grouper3.2727.415.8723.09 Red snapper4.4321.765.0718.36 Ln(# sites)0.9117.021.1813.75 ASC x FFDAYS2NoYes 2 [df] 874[70]
20
Nested Logit: Choice Framework Party/charter Private/rental Counties
21
Nested Logit: Results VariableCoeff.t-ratioCoeff.t-ratio TC-0.10-26.91-0.11-24.87 Snapper0.838.711.769.69 Grouper3.1115.835.2812.13 Red snapper3.8213.934.2711.47 Ln(# sites)0.7211.760.677.28 IV0.1414.790.1413.42 ASC x FFDAYS2NoYes 2 [df] 781[70]
22
C1) C2) Mode-site Latent Class Logit: Choice Framework
23
Latent Class Logit: Results C1C2 VariableCoeff.t-ratioCoeff.t-ratio TC-0.36-11.84-0.02-21.75 Snapper0.965.750.989.15 Grouper14.3613.362.2624.18 Red snapper3.597.763.1520.92 Ln(# sites)-0.31-1.991.6225.75 Class prob.0.5870.413 Constant-0.58-3.18 FFDAYS20.021.77 BOATOWN1.367.40 YEARSFISH0.00-0.51
24
Random Parameter Logit: Choice Framework Party/charter boat, Private/rental boat County sites
25
Random Parameter Logit: Results VariableCoeff.t-ratioCoeff.t-ratio TC-0.04-17.98-0.04-27.22 Snapper0.8810.111.8211.12 Grouper3.0220.486.1434.29 Red snapper4.5919.954.7411.86 Ln(# sites)0.9116.891.1513.76 SD(Travcost + fee)0.014.140.001.33 ASC x FFDAYS2NoYes 2 [df] 913[70]
26
WTP for one additional fish: Groupers
27
WTP for one additional fish: Red Snapper
28
Dolphin
29
Dolphin Results VariableCLNLRPLLCL-1**LCL-2 TC-0.044-0.057-0.046-0.18-0.016 Pr(big)*4.768.14 8.34 [8.05] -2.6011.32 Pr(small)2.552.732.525.101.09 Big game6.218.577.07-6.516.21 Ln(# sites)-0.06 -0.025-0.05-0.32 *WTP $109 (17) $143 (17) $183 (21) -$14 (4) $697 (61) **Tier 1 probability increases with boat ownership and avidity, decreases with fishing experience.
30
Choosing across models: Y x π Logit Model Snapper- Grouper Dolphin Conditional33%29% Nested37%31% Latent Class53%45% Random Parameter 24%32%
31
Conclusions MRFSS supports only a few single species Models with preference heterogeneity statistically outperform baseline models Preference heterogeneity tends to raise WTP Latent class logit outperforms other models statistically based on a single criterion
32
Conclusions MRFSS supports only a few single species Models with preference heterogeneity statistically outperform baseline models Preference heterogeneity tends to raise WTP Latent class logit outperforms other models statistically based on a single criterion
33
Conclusions MRFSS supports only a few single species Models with preference heterogeneity statistically outperform baseline models Preference heterogeneity tends to raise WTP Latent class logit outperforms other models statistically based on a single criterion
34
Conclusions MRFSS supports only a few single species Models with preference heterogeneity statistically outperform baseline models Preference heterogeneity tends to raise WTP Latent class logit outperforms other models statistically based on a single criterion
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.