IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/apl/wpaper/13-21.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Recreation Demand Model of the North Carolina For-Hire Fishery: A Comparison of Primary and Secondary Purpose Anglers

Author

Listed:
  • John C. Whitehead
  • Christopher F. Dumas
  • Craig E. Landry
  • Jim Herstine

Abstract

In this paper we measure the recreational economic benefits of the for-hire recreational fishery in the coastal region of North Carolina. We estimate a single trip random utility model for primary purpose and secondary purpose anglers with data from a field survey of charter and head-boat passengers. We find that primary and secondary purpose anglers exhibit significantly different behavior with regards to cost. However, once costs are weighted for secondary purpose anglers the value of catch is not statistically different across groups. For primary purpose anglers, the willingness to pay per trip is between $1800 and $2000 for one additional billfish (per angler), between $55 and $65 for one additional coastal migratory pelagic fish, $39 for one additional mackerel, and the willingness to pay per trip for an additional snapper-grouper is between $61 and $94. The net economic value for a charter boat trip averages $624 per angler per trip, and net economic value for a head boat trip is $102 per angler per trip. Key Words:

Suggested Citation

  • John C. Whitehead & Christopher F. Dumas & Craig E. Landry & Jim Herstine, 2013. "A Recreation Demand Model of the North Carolina For-Hire Fishery: A Comparison of Primary and Secondary Purpose Anglers," Working Papers 13-21, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    • Handle: RePEc:apl:wpaper:13-21
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econ.appstate.edu/RePEc/pdf/wp1321.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abbott, Joshua & Maharaj, Vishwanie & Wilen, James E., 2009. "Designing ITQ programs for commercial recreational fishing," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 766-774, September.
    2. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    3. 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.
    4. Abbott, Joshua K. & Wilen, James E., 2009. "Rent dissipation and efficient rationalization in for-hire recreational fishing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 300-314, November.
    5. P. Joan Poor & Matthew Breece, 2006. "The contingent behavior of charter fishing participants on the Chesapeake Bay: Welfare estimates associated with water quality improvements," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(2), pages 265-278.
    6. John C. Whitehead & Christopher F. Dumas & Craig E. Landry & Jim Herstine, 2011. "Valuing Bag Limits in the North Carolina Charter Boat Fishery with Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Data," Working Papers 11-08, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. A Recreation Demand Model of the North Carolina For-Hire Fishery: A Comparison of Primary and Secondary Purpose Anglers
      by John Whitehead in Environmental Economics on 2013-10-01 14:24:19

    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. John C. Whitehead & Christopher F. Dumas & Craig E. Landry & Jim Herstine, 2011. "Valuing Bag Limits in the North Carolina Charter Boat Fishery with Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Data," Working Papers 11-08, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    2. Fenichel, Eli P. & Abbott, Joshua K., 2014. "Heterogeneity and the fragility of the first best: Putting the “micro” in bioeconomic models of recreational resources," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 351-369.
    3. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.
    4. Cropper, Maureen L. & Isaac, William, 2011. "The Benefits of Achieving the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads): A Scoping Study," RFF Working Paper Series dp-11-31, Resources for the Future.
    5. Knoche, Scott & Lupi, Frank & Suiter, Ashley, 2015. "Harvesting benefits from habitat restoration: Influence of landscape position on economic benefits to pheasant hunters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 97-105.
    6. Abbott, Joshua K. & Wilen, James E., 2009. "Rent dissipation and efficient rationalization in for-hire recreational fishing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 300-314, November.
    7. Robert A. Androkovich, 2015. "Recreational Visits to the Adam's River during the Annual Sockeye Run: A Travel Cost Analysis," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(1), pages 35-49.
    8. Verbic, Miroslav & Slabe-Erker, Renata, 2009. "An econometric analysis of willingness-to-pay for sustainable development: A case study of the Volcji Potok landscape area," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1316-1328, March.
    9. Fancello, Giovanna & Tsoukiàs, Alexis, 2021. "Learning urban capabilities from behaviours. A focus on visitors values for urban planning," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    10. John C. Whitehead, 2006. "Willingness to Pay for Low Probability, Low Loss Hazard Insurance," Working Papers 06-08, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    11. Giles Atkinson & Sian Morse-Jones & Susana Mourato & Allan Provins, 2012. "‘When to Take “No” for an Answer’? Using Entreaties to Reduce Protests in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 497-523, April.
    12. Xenarios, Stefanos & Amarasinghe, Upali A. & Sharma, Bharat R., 2011. "Valuating agricultural water use and ecological services in agrarian economies: evidences from eastern India," IWMI Reports 158839, International Water Management Institute.
    13. Bowker, James Michael & Starbuck, C. Meghan & English, Donald B.K. & Bergstrom, John C. & Rosenberger, Randall S. & McCollum, Daniel W., 2009. "Estimating the Net Economic Value of National Forest Recreation: An Application of the National Visitor Use Monitoring Database," Faculty Series 59603, University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    14. Otrachshenko, Vladimir & Tyurina, Elena & Nagapetyan, Artur, 2022. "The economic value of the Glass Beach: Contingent valuation and life satisfaction approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    15. Tuan, Tran Huu & Navrud, Stale, 2009. "Applying the dissonance-minimising format to value cultural heritage in developing countries," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(3), pages 1-17.
    16. Baral, Nabin & Rabotyagov, Sergey, 2017. "How much are wood-based cellulosic biofuels worth in the Pacific Northwest? Ex-ante and ex-post analysis of local people's willingness to pay," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 99-106.
    17. Gemechisa Yadeta Ayana, 2017. "Farmers’ Willingness To Pay For Soil Conservation Practices In Gobu Seyo District, Eastern Wollega Zone, Oromia National Regional State Of Ethiopia," International Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Research, Malwa International Journals Publication, vol. 3(3), June.
    18. Maria José Gil-Moltó & Claudio A. Piga, 2007. "Entry and Exit in a Liberalised Market," Rivista di Politica Economica, SIPI Spa, vol. 97(1), pages 3-38, January-F.
    19. 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.
    20. Kerstin K Zander & Gillian B Ainsworth & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Stephen T Garnett, 2014. "Threatened Bird Valuation in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.

    More about this item

    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:apl:wpaper:13-21. 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: O. Ashton Morgan (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deappus.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.