Recreational Fishing and Other Water Based Recreation

download Recreational Fishing and Other Water Based Recreation

of 16

  • date post

    24-Feb-2016
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    38
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

description

Recreational Fishing and Other Water Based Recreation. Matt Massey and Steve Newbold National Center for Environmental Economics October 2011. Linkages from Water Quality to $. (1) The change in WQ affects fish population levels. (2) Changes in fish populations affect expected catch. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Recreational Fishing and Other Water Based Recreation

Slide 1

Recreational Fishing and Other Water Based RecreationMatt Massey and Steve NewboldNational Center for Environmental EconomicsOctober 2011

1National Center for Environmental EconomicsLinkages from Water Quality to $2National Center for Environmental Economics Water quality improves as a result of the TMDL(1) The change in WQ affects fish population levels(2) Changes in fish populations affect expected catch(3) Changes in expected catch affects (3a) utility per trip and (3b) the number of trips demanded (4) Changes in utility can then be monetized#1: Fish PopulationThe effect of changes in water quality on fish population levels will be captured in the EwE and Atlantis models discussed earlierWe will focus on the major recreational species in the bay (striped bass, bluefish, summer flounder, croaker, spot, white perch, tautog, and blue crabs)

The bay serves as a nursery for a number of species who spend significant portions of their adult lives outside of the BayAssume that Bay populations make up a certain percentage of total coastal populations Assume that a certain percentage of the stock returns to the Bay each year and the rest join the coastal populationsDevelop a model of coastal populations that includes Bay contributions3National Center for Environmental Economics#2-4: MRFSS IssuesWe will rely heavily on NOAAs MRFSS data for the other relationship linkagesStrand et al (1991), McConnell et al (1994), Hicks et al (1999), McConnell and Strand (1999), Haab et al (2006)

There are two components to the survey:In-person interceptsIdentifies anglers choice of fishing location and includes reported and observed catchTelephone surveysUsed to estimate effort and participation4National Center for Environmental Economics#2-4: MRFSS IssuesAs pointed out by the 2006 NRC review, the intercept sampling design of the MRFSS survey produces a non-random sampleIn the past, most studies have ignored the non-random sample issue which likely leads to biased estimatesNOAA has developed a weighting scheme designed to simulate a random sample. The weights should be available sometime next year.Hindsley, Landry, and Gentner (2011) have suggested a weighting method using propensity score weights

5National Center for Environmental Economics#2-4: MRFSS Issues6National Center for Environmental Economics

There are a lot of intercept sites in the Chesapeake Bay=~400

#2-4: MRFSS IssuesFor estimation aggregation of sites will be necessaryHow should sites be aggregated?Similarity of water body conditions?Proximity?Some combination of both?We will conduct sensitivity and goodness of fit testsHow the aggregation is done will be important because it will effect how site specific characteristics are constructed7National Center for Environmental Economics#2-4: MRFSS IssuesThe survey intercepts fishermen at the dock and not where they actually fishedIt is cheaper to travel on land than on water so it is standard to assume that fishermen will drive to a site near where they plan to fishHowever, once a fisherman leaves the dock they could potentially travel anywhere in the bay We plan to use questions on distance traveled to fish to define an average radius from the launch point that fishermen stay within

8National Center for Environmental Economics#2: Catch RatesUse MRFSS in-person intercept survey catch data to estimate expected catch rates (2) for all species or species groups at all sites on and near the bay

There are several methods of estimating expected catch that we are consideringCalculate average reported catch at each siteEstimate expected catch as a function of fish population by combining reported catch with historic trawl data, water quality, and other predictorsMcConnell et al (1995), Lipton and Hicks (2003), Massey, Newbold, and Gentner (2006).9National Center for Environmental Economics#2: Catch RatesCatch and effort restricting regulations may also effect expected catch. There are several options for incorporating regulationsSimplest option is to assume fishermen have the same value for fish they keep and fish they releaseThe effects of regulations would then be felt through the number of fish kept in the ecosystem modelsThe other option is to try to estimate the value of total expected catch and expected take-home catch separatelyRegulations would then impact both trip demand and fish populations

10National Center for Environmental Economics#3a: Site ChoiceIn order to estimate the effect of catch rates on fishing site choice we will use the MRFSS intercept survey data to estimate a RUM travel cost model of recreational fishing demand

Haab and McConnell (2002), Parsons (2003), Lipton and Hicks (2003), Massey, Newbold, and Gentner (2006)

Trips = f(TC, Catch Rate, Angler Characteristics, Water Quality, Site Specific Constant)

11National Center for Environmental Economics#3a: Site ChoiceWe would like to model fishermens decision on each choice occasion:Whether or not to go fishing (#3b) Then conditional on going fishing which site they choose (#3a)

However, the on-site intercept nature of the survey means that we never observe anyone choosing not to fishThe obvious option is to estimate a model that would model fishermens site choices conditional on them already having decided to take a trip

12National Center for Environmental Economics#3b: Participation RateWe would like to estimate (simultaneously if possible) site choices and participation decisions. A few potential options include:Estimate the participation and site choice parameters using a combination of the intercept data and data on total trips to sites and/or total trips from specific zip codes to sites, Using the estimated RUM coefficients and data on total number of fisherman, total trips taken, and number of choice occasions available to calibrate the values of the participation parameters neededIt may also be possible to predict changes in participation rates by estimating total trips taken as a function of annual catch rates or fish population sizes13National Center for Environmental Economics#4 WTP14National Center for Environmental EconomicsThe results of steps #1, #2, and #3 will then be combined to predict the changes in WTP across the years necessary for the TMDL to reach its final stateWQ affects fish populationFish populations affect expected catchExpected catch affects utility per trip and the number of trips takenThe number of trips taken affects fish populations.

Other Water Based Recreation15National Center for Environmental EconomicsFishing is clearly not the only water based recreation that takes place around the Chesapeake BayBoating, swimming, hiking, bird watching, hunting, Very little data exists on these activities howeverVisitation totals to a small percentage of Bay access sitesBoat registration recordsHunting licencesNSRE fresh and salt water recreation surveysOther Water Based Recreation16National Center for Environmental Economics1122 recreational sites identified141 sites have aggregate visitation dataIf enough data is available original estimation may be possibleBT also an option