Developing Species-Specific Recreational Values for Allocation:

Snapper-Grouper in the Gulf of Mexico

Tim Haab (Ohio State University)Rob Hicks (College of William and Mary)Kurt Schnier (University of Rhode Island)

John Whitehead (Appalachian State University)

*MARFIN #NA06NMF4330055

Previous NMFS/MRFSS Recreational Valuation Research

• McConnell and Strand, 1994

• Hicks, Steinbeck, Gautam, Thunberg, 1999

• Haab, Whitehead, and Ted McConnell, 2000

Single Species Models

• Targeting behavior

• Species substitution

• Preference heterogeneity

MRFSS 2000

• 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 +/-

Fishing mode

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Shore

Party/Charter

Private/Rental

State of intercept

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

LA

MS

AL

FL (GoM)

FL (SA)

GA

SC

NC

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

Target Behavior (Prim1)sign

Intercept + p < .01

Years fished + p < .01

Boat owner + p < .01

Shore mode - p < .01

Charter mode - p < .01

Days fished + p < .01

Wave 4 -

Wave 5 + p < .01

Wave 6 + p < .01

Gulf - p < .01

Top target species of interest from RFP

Red drum 20%

Dolphin 6%

King mackerel 6%

Spanish mackerel 4%

Four demand models

• Florida Atlantic big game (dolphin)

• Gulf of Mexico reef fish (red snapper)

• Inshore small game (red drum)

• Offshore small game (mackerel)

GOM Reef Fish Intercept Sites (n = 1224)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

State

AL

FL

LA

MS

Target Species

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Target Species

Snappers

Groupers

Red snapper

“Snappers” (n = 160)gray snapper 48.13%

white grunt 11.88%

black sea bass 3.75%

crevalle jack 3.75%

amberjack genus 1.88%

gray triggerfish 1.88%

snapper family 1.25%

yellowtail snapper 1.25%

atlantic spadefish 0.63%

blackfin snapper 0.63%

blue runner 0.63%

vermilion snapper 0.63%

Shallow water groupers (n = 725)

unidentified grouper 73.38%

gag 17.38%

red grouper 6.07%

grouper genus Mycteroperca 2.9%

black grouper 0.28%

Red snapper (n = 239)

Mode

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Mode

Party/Charter

Private/Rentalboat

Random Utility Models

• Conditional Logit

• Nested Logit

• Mixed Logit

• Latent Class Model

Conditional Logit

Party/charter boatcounty sites

Private/rental boat county sites

Nested Logit

Party/charter Private/rental

Counties Counties

Variables

• 71 Species/Mode/Site choices• Trip cost

– [party/charter] TC = charter fee + travel cost + time costs

– [private/rental] TC = travel costs + time costs

• Quality– 5-year historic (type 1) targeted catch rate

• Number of MRFSS interview sites in the county

Table 1. Choice Frequencies

Mode Target Frequency

Party/charter Snappers 14

Party/charter Shallow Water Groupers 150

Party/charter Red snapper 84

Private/rental Snappers 108

Private/rental Shallow Water Groupers 575

Private/rental Red snapper 155

Table 3. Random Utility Models

Single Species

Conditional Logit Nested Logit

Coeff. t-stat Coeff. t-stat

Trip cost -0.04 -24.2 -0.11 -22.4

Grouper catch 11.10 20.07 5.78 6.00

Ln(sites) 0.87 14.86 0.51 7.53

Inclusive value 0.12 12.37

Choices 30 30

Cases 725 725

LL -1354 -1045

Table 3. Random Utility Models

Multiple Species

Conditional Logit Nested Logit

Coeff. t-stat Coeff. t-stat

Trip cost -0.04 -29.9 -0.10 -26.9

Grouper catch 3.27 27.41 3.11 15.83

Snapper catch 0.89 10.21 0.83 8.71

Red snapper catch 4.43 21.76 3.82 13.93

Ln(cites) 0.98 17.02 0.72 11.76

Inclusive value 0.14 14.79

Choices 71 71

Cases 1086 1086

LL -2377 -2028

WTP for 1 additional fish

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Grouper

S-Conditional

S-Nested

M-Conditional

M-Nested