Spatial regulations and endogenous consideration sets in fisheries
The implementation of spatial regulations has become a mainstay in fisheries management. These regulations have generated a sizable economics literature focused on the spatial behavior of fishermen. Fundamental to these studies is the consideration set (spatial alternatives) assumed by the researcher to be possessed by the decision agent. Often times this consideration set is assumed to be the entire spatial extent of the fishery. This research proposes the use of finite mixture modeling to endogenously estimate the formation of consideration sets and the method is applied to a unique spatial decision environment, the Atka mackerel fishery in the Aleutian Islands. Consideration sets are modeled using different macro-definitions of spatial regions to focus the micro-level spatial decision making within the fishery and to investigate the sensitivity of the results to alternative macro-level spatial definitions. Results illustrate the biases associated with traditional consideration set assumptions by estimating fishermen's valuations for different high-value sites within the Aleutian Islands under alternative consideration set assumptions. Furthermore, our results demonstrate how a model that assumes some structure on potential consideration sets reduces the dimensionality problems associated with other endogenous approaches to choice set definition.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Chiang, Jeongwen & Chib, Siddhartha & Narasimhan, Chakravarthi, 1998. "Markov chain Monte Carlo and models of consideration set and parameter heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 223-248, November.
- Robert L. Hicks & Kurt E. Schnier, 2006. "Dynamic Random Utility Modeling: A Monte Carlo Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 816-835.
- Haab, Timothy C. & Hicks, Robert L., 1997.
"Accounting for Choice Set Endogeneity in Random Utility Models of Recreation Demand,"
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,
Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 127-147, October.
- Timothy C. Haab & Robert L. Hicks, "undated". "Accounting for Choice Set Endogeneity in Random Utility Models of Recreation Demand," Working Papers 9608, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
- Timothy C. Haab & Robert L. Hicks, "undated". "Accounting for Choice Set Endogeneity in Random Utility Models of Recreation Demand," Working Papers 9710, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
- Train,Kenneth E., 2009.
"Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation,"
Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, December.
- Daniel S. Holland & Jon G. Sutinen, 2000. "Location Choice in New England Trawl Fisheries: Old Habits Die Hard," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(1), pages 133-149.
- Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James & Pakes, Ariel, 1995. "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-890, July.
- Hicks, Robert L. & Schnier, Kurt E., 2008. "Eco-labeling and dolphin avoidance: A dynamic model of tuna fishing in the Eastern Tropical Pacific," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 103-116, September.
- Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
- Rita Curtis & Robert L. Hicks, 2000. "The Cost of Sea Turtle Preservation: The Case of Hawaii's Pelagic Longliners," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1191-1197.
- Smith, Martin D. & Wilen, James E., 2003. "Economic impacts of marine reserves: the importance of spatial behavior," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 183-206, September.
- Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1990. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities: A Correction," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(1), pages 189-190, February.
- Roger Haefen, 2008. "Latent Consideration Sets and Continuous Demand Systems," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(3), pages 363-379, November.
- Robert L. Hicks & Ivar E. Strand, 2000. "The Extent of Information: Its Relevance for Random Utility Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(3), pages 374-385.
- 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.
- Steven T. Berry, 1994. "Estimating Discrete-Choice Models of Product Differentiation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 242-262, Summer.
- Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
- Hicks, Robert L. & Schnier, Kurt E., 2006. "AJAE Appendix: Dynamic Random Utility Modeling: A Monte Carlo Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics Appendices, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), November.
- George R. Parsons & Mary Jo Kealy, 1992. "Randomly Drawn Opportunity Sets in a Random Utility Model of Lake Recreation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(1), pages 93-106.
- Timmins, Christopher & Murdock, Jennifer, 2007. "A revealed preference approach to the measurement of congestion in travel cost models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 230-249, March.
- George R. Parsons & GAndrew J. Plantinga & GKevin J. Boyle, 2000. "Narrow Choice Sets in a Random Utility Model of Recreation Demand," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(1), pages 86-99.
- Swait, Joffre, 2001. "Choice set generation within the generalized extreme value family of discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 643-666, August.
- Smith, Martin D. & Zhang, Junjie, 2007. "Sorting Models in Discrete Choice Fisheries Analysis," 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon TN 9681, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:resene:v:32:y:2010:i:2:p:117-134. 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: (Dana Niculescu)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.