The Economic Importance Of Marine Angler Expenditures In

More documents

Recommendations

Info

For the same reason, summation of impact estimates across states would result in an underestimate of the total economic effects attributable to angler expenditures in each region. Consideration was given to constructing aggregate input-output models by region, but it was determined that the statistical procedures required to estimate participation for these new regions would have jeopardized the authenticity of the results. Given the nature of the MRFSS participation data it would be impossible to accurately estimate the proportion of out-of-region or non-resident participation. Thus, no attempt was made to use aggregate models to calculate the total regional impacts of angler expenditures, except at the national level where the MRFSS data can be used to estimate national participation, ignoring the small proportion of non-U.S. resident participants. Readers interested in determining region-wide values are cautioned that the summation of the state-level impact estimates would likely underestimate the total regional economic effects attributable to angler expenditures. It is difficult to compare the impacts generated from marine recreational fishing to those generated from commercial fishing and no attempt was made to do so here. Recreational impacts are often compared to the dockside value of commercial fisheries landings, but this comparison fails to recognize the value-added impacts associated with fish processors, wholesale fish dealers, and the retail markets where the commercial catch is sold to consumers. These forward linked sectors could add considerable sales, income, and employment impacts to those generated from commercial harvesting alone. Studies that attempt to compare the impacts generated from recreational fishing to those generated from the sale of seafood in commercial markets should attempt to incorporate all of the backward and forward linkages associated with the commercial harvesting of seafood. 16 Although input-output modeling is the most common approach for describing the structure and interactions of regional economies, it is prudent to be aware of its assumptions regarding linear production functions, constant relative prices, and homogenous sector output. These assumptions are of questionable validity, but are necessary in order to construct the technical coefficients used to determine the direct, indirect, and induced effects in an input-output model. In fact, Propst and Gavrilis (1987) considered these assumptions in their assessment of regional economic impact procedures 16 Recreational fishing may also generate additional sales, income, employment, and tax impacts through incidental purchases by nonfishing companions and the auxiliary expenditures that occur on trips that were part of a longer vacation. If these types of expenditures occur as a direct result of fishing, a case could be made that any comparison to the commercial sector should also include the impacts generated from these supplemental expenditures. 10 and concluded that the input-output approach can satisfy the widest range of information needs at high precision levels if primary data are supplied for final demand estimates (i.e., collected directly from anglers as was done for this study). Another caveat that deserves attention relates to the underlying purpose and use of input-output analysis. In particular, it is a positivistic model designed to identify patterns of transactions and the resource requirements and sector output requirements resulting from changes in economic activity. The input-output approach should not be considered a substitute for normative approaches such as benefit-cost analysis. Benefit-cost analysis seeks to determine whether resources are being put to their best use by examining the difference between total economic value and total costs. In the context of recreational fishing, total net economic value is generally defined as willingness to pay in excess of actual expenditures. Alternatively, input-output assessments reveal how actual expenditures affect economic activity within each sector of an economy. Finally, the effect of proposed management measures on the sales, income, employment, and taxes generated from angler expenditures depends upon the behavioral sensitivity of the affected anglers to regulations. If management restrictions result in a decrease in the overall number of recreational fishing trips, thereby lowering anglers’ total expenditures, there will be a reduction in the sales, service, and manufacturing sectors associated with recreational fishing expenses. In conjunction with appropriate demand models, these reductions could be estimated from the input-output models developed in this study. These demand models have only been empirically estimated for a small number of fisheries as the data collection efforts needed to estimate these models are time consuming and expensive. Some examples of this type of work include Hamel et al. (2002) covering Pacific halibut and salmon in the Lower and Central Cook Inlet, Alaska, and a 2000 effort by NMFS covering summer flounder in the Mid-Atlantic and New England regions (Gentner, personal commun., 2003). To increase the species and regions covered, NMFS currently has several stated preference surveys underway covering several key species in the South Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts. Regardless of the policy models available, there are many businesses that are directly or indirectly dependent upon recreational fishing expenditures and an attempt should be made to identify these needs when evaluating management alternatives that have the potential to alter recreational fishing effort. In the absence of appropriate demand models, sensitivity evaluations could be conducted with the models developed in this study to examine the potential effects of management actions on regional sales, income, employment, and taxes.
Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge the advice of Doug Olson of the Minnesota IMPLAN Group and the editorial comments provided by Fred Serchuk of the National Marine Fisheries Service in Woods Hole, MA, and Shannon Sullivan, a summer intern at National Marine Fisheries Service’s Office of Science and Technology. In addition, we extend our appreciation to the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey team in the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Office of Science and Technology Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division for their help in the design and implementation of the economic expenditure surveys which provided the basis for this study. Literature cited Bell, F., P. Sorensen, and V. Leeworthy. 1982. The economic impact and valuation of saltwater recreational fisheries in Florida. Florida Sea Gr. Coll. Progr., SGR- 47, Gainesville, 130 p. ASA (American Sportfishing Association). 2002. Sportfishing in America: values of our traditional pastime. American Sportfishing Assoc., Alexandria, VA, 12 p. CES (Consumer Expenditure Survey). 1998. Annual report. U.S. Dep. Labor, Bur. Labor Statistics, Div. Consumer Expenditure Surveys, 297 p. Gentner, B., M. Price, and S. Steinback. 2001a. Marine angler expenditures in the Southeast region, 1999. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-48, 66 p. Gentner, B., M. Price, and S. Steinback. 2001b. Marine angler expenditures in the Pacific Coast region, 2000. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-49, 66 p. Hamel, C., M. Herrmann, S. Lee, K. Criddle, and H. Geier. 2002. Linking sportfishing trip attributes, participation deci- sions, and regional economic impacts in Lower and Central Cook Inlet, Alaska. Annals Reg. Sci. 36:247–264. Kirkley, J., and D. Kerstetter. 1997. Saltwater angling and its economic importance to Virginia. Univ. Virginia, Virginia Sea Gr. Pub. VSG-97-04, Charlottesville, 71 p. Maharaj, V., and J. E. Carpenter. 1998. The 1996 economic impact of sport fishing in the United States. American Sportfishing Assoc., Alexandria, VA, 32 p. McWilliams, V., and G. Goldman. 1994. Commercial and recreational fishing in California: Their impact on the state economy. Dept. Agric. Resource Econ., Univ. Calif., Berkeley, 18 p. Miller, R. E., and P. D. Blair. 1985. Input-output analysis: foundations and extensions. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 464 p. Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 1997. IMPLAN professional: social accounting and impact analysis software. Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc., Minneapolis, 418 p. Propst, D. B., and D. G. Gavrilis. 1987. Role of economic impact assessment procedures in recreational fisheries management. Transact. Am. Fish. Soc. 116:450–460. Schorr, M. S., J. Sah, D. F. Schreiner, M. R. Meador, and L. G. Hill. 1995. Regional economic impact of the Lake Texoma (Oklahoma-Texas) striped bass fishery. Fisheries 20(5):14–18. SMDB (State and Metropolitan Area Data Book). 1998. SMDB 1997–1998 5 th edition. U.S. Bur. Census, Washington, DC, 268 p. Steinback, S. R. 1999. Regional economic impact assessments of recreational fisheries: an application of the IMPLAN modeling system to marine party and charter boat fishing in Maine. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 19:724–736. Steinback, S., and B. Gentner. 2001. Marine angler expenditures in the Northeast region, 1998. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-47, 72 p. Storey, D. A., and G. P. Allen. 1993. Economic impact of marine recreational fishing in Massachusetts. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 13:698–708. 11
Page 1 and 2: U.S. Department of Commerce January
Page 3 and 4: NOAA Professional Paper NMFS 2 The
Page 5 and 6: CONTENTS List of Tables . . . . . .
Page 7 and 8: LIST OF TABLES (continued) Table 21
Page 13: LIST OF TABLES (continued) Table 13
Page 16 and 17: normal course of household consumpt
Page 18 and 19: information on the types of camping
Page 20 and 21: services purchased in South Carolin
Page 22 and 23: ing NE states, however, there are v
Page 26 and 27: 12 Table 1 Angler expenditure categ
Page 28 and 29: CT Connecticut 14 Table 2 Total eco
Page 30 and 31: CT 16 Table 4 Total income generate
Page 32 and 33: CT 18 Table 6 Total economic impact
Page 34 and 35: DE Delaware 20 Table 8 Total econom
Page 36 and 37: DE 22 Table 10 Total income generat
Page 38 and 39: DE 24 Table 12 Total economic impac
Page 40 and 41: ME Maine 26 Table 14 Total economic
Page 42 and 43: ME 28 Table 16 Total income generat
Page 44 and 45: ME 30 Table 18 Total economic impac
Page 46 and 47: MD Maryland 32 Table 20 Total econo
Page 48 and 49: MD 34 Table 22 Total income generat
Page 50 and 51: MD 36 Table 24 Total economic impac
Page 52 and 53: MA Massachusetts 38 Table 26 Total
Page 54 and 55: MA 40 Table 28 Total income generat
Page 56 and 57: MA 42 Table 30 Total economic impac
Page 58 and 59: NH New Hampshire 44 Table 32 Total
Page 60 and 61: NH 46 Table 34 Total income generat
Page 62 and 63: NH 48 Table 36 Total economic impac
Page 64 and 65: NJ New Jersey 50 Table 38 Total eco
Page 66 and 67: NJ 52 Table 40 Total income generat
Page 68 and 69: NJ 54 Table 42 Total economic impac
Page 70 and 71: NY New York 56 Table 44 Total econo
Page 72 and 73: NY 58 Table 46 Total income generat
Page 74 and 75:
NY 60 Table 48 Total economic impac
Page 76 and 77:
RI Rhode Island 62 Table 50 Total e
Page 78 and 79:
RI 64 Table 52 Total income generat
Page 80 and 81:
RI 66 Table 54 Total economic impac
Page 82 and 83:
VA Virginia 68 Table 56 Total econo
Page 84 and 85:
VA 70 Table 58 Total income generat
Page 86 and 87:
VA 72 Table 60 Total economic impac
Page 89 and 90:
SOUTHEAST REGION TABLES Alabama Eas
Page 91 and 92:
Table 63 Total sales/output generat
Page 93 and 94:
Table 65 Total employment generated
Page 95 and 96:
Table 67 Federal and state tax impa
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Table 101 Total employment generate
Page 131 and 132:
Table 103 Federal and state tax imp
Page 133 and 134:
Table 105 Total sales/output genera
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143:
Page 146 and 147:
SCA Southern California 132 Table 1
Page 148 and 149:
SCA 134 Table 118 Total income gene
Page 150 and 151:
SCA 136 Table 120 Total economic im
Page 152 and 153:
NCA Northern California 138 Table 1
Page 154 and 155:
NCA 140 Table 124 Total income gene
Page 156 and 157:
NCA 142 Table 126 Total economic im
Page 158 and 159:
CA California (all) 144 Table 128 T
Page 160 and 161:
CA 146 Table 130 Total income gener
Page 162 and 163:
CA 148 Table 132 Total economic imp
Page 164 and 165:
OR Oregon 150 Table 134 Total econo
Page 166 and 167:
OR 152 Table 136 Total income gener
Page 168 and 169:
OR 154 Table 138 Total economic imp
Page 170 and 171:
WA Washington 156 Table 140 Total e
Page 172 and 173:
WA 158 Table 142 Total income gener
Page 174 and 175:
WA 160 Table 144 Total economic imp
Page 177 and 178:
U.S. TABLES United States CT DE ME
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
show all

The Economic Importance Of Marine Angler Expenditures In

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?