IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/nceewp/280840.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Effects of Water Quality on Coastal Recreation Flounder Fishing

Author

Listed:
  • Massey, Matt
  • Newbold, Steve
  • Gentner, Brad

Abstract

This paper describes a bioeconomic model of a coastal recreational fishery that combines standard models of fish population dynamics, recreational catch, and recreation site choice. The population model estimates the influence of water quality on overall fish abundance through the effects of dissolved oxygen (DO) on the survivorship of young juvenile fish. The catch model estimates the influence of fish abundance and water quality on anglers’ average catch rates. The recreation demand model estimates welfare effects and changes in trip demand from changes in catch rates. The bioeconomic model also accounts for the feedback on the fish population through changes in the overall harvest pressure in the recreational fishery on the fish stock. The population model is specified using data on survival and reproduction from the fisheries science literature and government reports, and the model is calibrated using average historic recreational harvest levels in and out of the study area and historic commercial harvest levels for the entire fishery. The catch model is estimated using data on a sample of anglers who fished for summer flounder, data on water quality conditions from 23 water quality monitoring stations, and fishery-independent data on fish abundance collected in bottom trawl surveys, all in Maryland’s coastal bays in 2002. The recreation demand model is estimated using data from a stated choice survey of anglers who fish for summer flounder on the Atlantic coast. The bioeconomic model is used to estimate the aggregate benefits to recreational anglers from several illustrative scenarios of changes in water quality. The results indicate that improving water quality throughout the range of the species could lead to substantial increases in the fish population and associated benefits to recreational anglers from increased catch rates. Water quality improvements confined to Maryland’s coastal bays alone would have much smaller impacts.

Suggested Citation

  • Massey, Matt & Newbold, Steve & Gentner, Brad, 2005. "The Effects of Water Quality on Coastal Recreation Flounder Fishing," National Center for Environmental Economics-NCEE Working Papers 280840, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:nceewp:280840
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.280840
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/280840/files/NCEE2005-03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.280840?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Trudy Ann Cameron, 1992. "Combining Contingent Valuation and Travel Cost Data for the Valuation of Nonmarket Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 302-317.
    2. W. Michael Hanemann, 1999. "Welfare Analysis with Discrete Choice Models," Chapters, in: Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling (ed.), Valuing Recreation and the Environment, chapter 2, pages 33-64, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Hocheol Jeon & Joseph A. Herriges, 2017. "Combining Revealed Preference Data with Stated Preference Data: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1053-1086, December.
    3. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & Jakub Kronenberg & Jeffrey Englin, 2019. "The Individual Travel Cost Method with Consumer-Specific Values of Travel Time Savings," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(3), pages 961-984, November.
    4. Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2004. "What's it worth? An examination of historical trends and future directions in environmental valuation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), pages 419-443, September.
    5. Michael Kremer & Jessica Leino & Edward Miguel & Alix Peterson Zwane, 2011. "Spring Cleaning: Rural Water Impacts, Valuation, and Property Rights Institutions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 126(1), pages 145-205.
    6. Massey, D. Matthew & Newbold, Stephen C. & Gentner, Brad, 2006. "Valuing water quality changes using a bioeconomic model of a coastal recreational fishery," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 482-500, July.
    7. Yongsik Jeon & Joseph Herriges, 2010. "Convergent Validity of Contingent Behavior Responses in Models of Recreation Demand," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 223-250, February.
    8. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    9. William Breffle & Edward Morey & Jennifer Thacher, 2011. "A Joint Latent-Class Model: Combining Likert-Scale Preference Statements With Choice Data to Harvest Preference Heterogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(1), pages 83-110, September.
    10. Cheng, Li & Lupi, Frank, 2016. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Water Quality Changes to Great Lakes Beaches," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235746, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    12. Wuyang Hu, 2008. "Modeling discrete choices with augmented perception hurdles," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 39(2), pages 257-267, September.
    13. Phaneuf, Daniel J. & Smith, V. Kerry, 2006. "Recreation Demand Models," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 671-761, Elsevier.
    14. Paul Hufe & Andreas Peichl, 2020. "Beyond Equal Rights: Equality of Opportunity in Political Participation," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 66(3), pages 477-511, September.
    15. Dan Yavorsky & Elisabeth Honka & Keith Chen, 2021. "Consumer search in the U.S. auto industry: The role of dealership visits," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 1-52, March.
    16. Laser, Falk & Hellwig, Michael, 2019. "Agony of Choice – Trading off Stability and Competition in the Banking Markets," VfS Annual Conference 2019 (Leipzig): 30 Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall - Democracy and Market Economy 203536, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    17. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    18. Cheng, Leilei & Yin, Changbin & Chien, Hsiaoping, 2015. "Demand for milk quantity and safety in urban China: evidence from Beijing and Harbin," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(2), April.
    19. Sebastian Heidenreich & Andrea Phillips-Beyer & Bruno Flamion & Melissa Ross & Jaein Seo & Kevin Marsh, 2021. "Benefit–Risk or Risk–Benefit Trade-Offs? Another Look at Attribute Ordering Effects in a Pilot Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(1), pages 65-74, January.
    20. Juan Carlos Suárez Serrato & Owen Zidar, 2016. "Who Benefits from State Corporate Tax Cuts? A Local Labor Markets Approach with Heterogeneous Firms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(9), pages 2582-2624, September.

    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:ags:nceewp:280840. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nepgvus.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.