IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nev/wpaper/wp201702.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Commercial fishing and outdoor recreation benefits of water quality improvements in the Chesapeake Bay

Author

Listed:
  • David M. Massey
  • Chris Moore
  • Stephen C. Newbold
  • Tom Ihde
  • Howard Townsend

Abstract

We estimated the economic benefits of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL to commercial fish harvesters and consumers, recreational anglers, and other outdoor recreators. To forecast the impacts of the TMDL on harvested fish and shellfish stocks in the bay and connected Atlantic coast waters, we used a summary of judgments from an expert panel and a multi-species model of Chesapeake Bay fisheries. We estimated benefits to consumers in commercial fish markets using a multi-stage inverse demand system, which models price as a function of exogenous supply and accounts for substitution possibilities between 13 different species and as many as five regions. Models were estimated using monthly harvest data from the years 1991 to 2011. The estimated parameters of the inverse demand systems were then used to calculate compensating and equivalent variation from the changes in harvests between the baseline and TMDL scenarios. To estimate producer surplus changes, we assumed that fishing effort will remain fixed at recent levels in each fishery, so harvesting costs do not increase due to the TMDL. The resulting estimates of commercial fishing benefits range between $3 and $26 million per year. We also examined the implications of alternative assumptions about the management regime in each fishery, including fixed effort, open access, and maximum sustainable surplus. We calculated benefits to recreational anglers using a linked participation and site-choice recreation demand model. The model was estimated using angler intercept survey data from the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS). Catch rates were calculated using historic reported catch from the MRFSS. We accounted for the sample selection bias caused by the non-random intercept survey sampling design using weights based on historic visitation frequencies at each intercept site. The intercept data were used to estimate a random utility site-choice model, and counts of trips from respondent zip codes were used to estimate a negative binomial participation model conditional on the inclusive value of all sites as estimated by the site-choice model. The resulting estimates of recreational fishing benefits range between $5 and $59 million per year. We used a separate recreation demand model to estimate the benefits associated with other outdoor recreation activities. The model was estimated using aggregate data on the total number of visitors to national and state parks in Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware. The aggregate visitation data alone are insufficient to estimate all parameters of the model, so these data were supplemented with survey data on the number of recreation trips taken to the Chesapeake Bay collected from a random sample of individuals in the study area. The marginal effects of water quality on recreators’ site choices were estimated in a second-stage regression, using estimates of site-specific constants from the first-stage site-choice model as the dependent variable and measures of average water quality conditions and other fixed site attributes as explanatory variables. The central estimates of the outdoor recreation benefits (exclusive of recreational fishing) are between $105 to $280 million per year.

Suggested Citation

  • David M. Massey & Chris Moore & Stephen C. Newbold & Tom Ihde & Howard Townsend, 2017. "Commercial fishing and outdoor recreation benefits of water quality improvements in the Chesapeake Bay," NCEE Working Paper Series 201702, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Jul 2017.
  • Handle: RePEc:nev:wpaper:wp201702
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/working-paper-commercial-fishing-and-outdoor-recreation-benefits-water
    File Function: First version, 2017
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chris Moore & Charles Griffiths, 2018. "Welfare analysis in a two-stage inverse demand model: an application to harvest changes in the Chesapeake Bay," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 55(3), pages 1181-1206, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Chesapeake Bay; water quality; TMDL; hypoxia; commercial fisheries; recreational fisheries; outdoor recreation demand model; inverse demand system; bioeconomic model;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q22 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Fishery
    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:nev:wpaper:wp201702. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Cynthia Morgan (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.