IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/resene/v32y2010i2p117-134.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatial regulations and endogenous consideration sets in fisheries

Author

Listed:
  • Hicks, Robert L.
  • Schnier, Kurt E.

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Hicks, Robert L. & Schnier, Kurt E., 2010. "Spatial regulations and endogenous consideration sets in fisheries," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 117-134, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:resene:v:32:y:2010:i:2:p:117-134
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928-7655(09)00069-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James & Pakes, Ariel, 1995. "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-890, July.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    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. Timothy J. Richards & Stephen F. Hamilton & Koichi Yonezawa, 2017. "Variety and the Cost of Search in Supermarket Retailing," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 50(3), pages 263-285, May.
    2. T. Randall Fortenbery & Steven C. Deller & Lindsay Amiel, 2013. "The Location Decisions of Biodiesel Refineries," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(1), pages 118-136.
    3. Wiktor L. Adamowicz & Klaus Glenk & J├╝rgen Meyerhoff, 2014. "Choice modelling research in environmental and resource economics," Chapters,in: Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 27, pages 661-674 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. repec:eee:jeeman:v:88:y:2018:i:c:p:159-179 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Zolfaghari, Alireza & Sivakumar, Aruna & Polak, John, 2013. "Simplified probabilistic choice set formation models in a residential location choice context," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 3-13.
    6. repec:eee:jeeman:v:88:y:2018:i:c:p:427-446 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Yamazaki, Satoshi & Jennings, Sarah & Quentin Grafton, R. & Kompas, Tom, 2015. "Are marine reserves and harvest control rules substitutes or complements for rebuilding fisheries?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 1-18.

    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: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). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505569 .

    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 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.

    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.