IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v111y2015icp48-57.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Recreational diver preferences for reef fish attributes: Economic implications of future change

Author

Listed:
  • Gill, David A.
  • Schuhmann, Peter W.
  • Oxenford, Hazel A.

Abstract

This study sought to quantify the potential effects of changes in Caribbean reef fish populations on recreational divers' consumer surplus. Over five hundred tourist SCUBA divers were interviewed at seven sites across three Caribbean countries representing a diversity of individuals within the Caribbean dive market. A choice experiment was used to assess willingness to pay as a function of the abundance and size of reef fishes, the presence of fishing activity/gear, and dive price. Despite some preference heterogeneity both between and within sites, the results indicate that future declines in the abundance of reef fishes, and particularly in the number of large fishes observed on recreational dives, will result in significant reductions in diver consumer surplus. On the other hand, improvements in fish populations and reduced fishing gear encounters are likely to result in significant economic gains. These results can be used to justify investment in pre-emptive management strategies targeted at improving reef fish stocks (namely reducing unsustainable fishing activities and land-based reef impacts), managing conflicting uses, as well as to indicate a possible source of financing for such conservation activities.

Suggested Citation

  • Gill, David A. & Schuhmann, Peter W. & Oxenford, Hazel A., 2015. "Recreational diver preferences for reef fish attributes: Economic implications of future change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 48-57.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:111:y:2015:i:c:p:48-57
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915000178
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.004?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hensher, David A., 2010. "Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 735-752, July.
    2. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    3. George Parsons & Steven Thur, 2008. "Valuing Changes in the Quality of Coral Reef Ecosystems: A Stated Preference Study of SCUBA Diving in the Bonaire National Marine Park," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(4), pages 593-608, August.
    4. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    5. Brownstone, David & Small, Kenneth A., 2005. "Valuing time and reliability: assessing the evidence from road pricing demonstrations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 279-293, May.
    6. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    7. Bethany Cooper & John Rose & Lin Crase, 2012. "Does anybody like water restrictions? Some observations in Australian urban communities," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 56(1), pages 61-81, January.
    8. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, October.
    9. Edwards, Peter E.T., 2009. "Sustainable financing for ocean and coastal management in Jamaica: The potential for revenues from tourist user fees," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 376-385, March.
    10. Thur, Steven M., 2010. "User fees as sustainable financing mechanisms for marine protected areas: An application to the Bonaire National Marine Park," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 63-69, January.
    11. Chung, Jin Young & Kyle, Gerard T. & Petrick, James F. & Absher, James D., 2011. "Fairness of prices, user fee policy and willingness to pay among visitors to a national forest," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 1038-1046.
    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. Cati Torres & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Communicating research on the economic valuation of coastal and marine ecosystem services," DEA Working Papers 81, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Departament d'Economía Aplicada.
    2. Peng, Marcus & Oleson, Kirsten L.L., 2017. "Beach Recreationalists' Willingness to Pay and Economic Implications of Coastal Water Quality Problems in Hawaii," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 41-52.
    3. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    4. Weijerman, Mariska & Grace-McCaskey, Cynthia & Grafeld, Shanna L. & Kotowicz, Dawn M. & Oleson, Kirsten L.L. & van Putten, Ingrid E., 2016. "Towards an ecosystem-based approach of Guam's coral reefs: The human dimension," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 8-17.
    5. Grafeld, Shanna & Oleson, Kirsten & Barnes, Michele & Peng, Marcus & Chan, Catherine & Weijerman, Mariska, 2016. "Divers' willingness to pay for improved coral reef conditions in Guam: An untapped source of funding for management and conservation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 202-213.
    6. 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.

    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. Grafeld, Shanna & Oleson, Kirsten & Barnes, Michele & Peng, Marcus & Chan, Catherine & Weijerman, Mariska, 2016. "Divers' willingness to pay for improved coral reef conditions in Guam: An untapped source of funding for management and conservation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 202-213.
    2. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    3. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489, June.
    5. Wan Norhidayah W Mohamad & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2019. "The Status Quo In Discrete Choice Experiments: Is It Relevant?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 507-532, March.
    6. De Ayala Bilbao, Amaya & Hoyos Ramos, David & Mariel Chladkova, Petr, 2012. "Landscape valuation through discrete choice experiments: Current practice and future research reflections," BILTOKI Biltoki;2012-03, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    7. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    8. Peer, Stefanie & Knockaert, Jasper & Koster, Paul & Verhoef, Erik T., 2014. "Over-reporting vs. overreacting: Commuters’ perceptions of travel times," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 476-494.
    9. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    10. Sotirios Thanos & Mark Wardman & Abigail Bristow, 2011. "Valuing Aircraft Noise: Stated Choice Experiments Reflecting Inter-Temporal Noise Changes from Airport Relocation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(4), pages 559-583, December.
    11. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    12. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    13. Jan Vanstockem & Liesbet Vranken & Brent Bleys & Ben Somers & Martin Hermy, 2018. "Do Looks Matter? A Case Study on Extensive Green Roofs Using Discrete Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, January.
    14. Schuhmann, Peter W. & Mahon, Robin, 2015. "The valuation of marine ecosystem goods and services in the Caribbean: A literature review and framework for future valuation efforts," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 56-66.
    15. Tomás del Barrio Casto & William Nilsson & Andrés J. Picazo-Tadeo, 2013. "How wrong can you be, without noticing? Further evidence on speci cation errors in the Conditional Logit," Working Papers 1318, Department of Applied Economics II, Universidad de Valencia.
    16. Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr & Pascual, Unai & Etxano, Iker, 2012. "Valuing a Natura 2000 network site to inform land use options using a discrete choice experiment: An illustration from the Basque Country," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 329-344.
    17. 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.
    18. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    19. Longo, Alberto & Markandya, Anil & Petrucci, Marta, 2008. "The internalization of externalities in the production of electricity: Willingness to pay for the attributes of a policy for renewable energy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 140-152, August.
    20. Schmitz, Kim & Schmitz, P. Michael & Wronka, Tobias C., 2003. "Bewertung von Landschaftsfunktionen mit Choice Experiments," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 52(08), pages 1-11.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:111:y:2015:i:c:p:48-57. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.