Recreational Fisheries Economics Program · 2017-09-18 · Recreational Fisheries Economics Program Office of Sabrina Lovell Science & Technology. Economics & Social Analysis Division

Recreational Fisheries Economics Program

Sabrina LovellOffice of Science & Technology

Economics & Social Analysis DivisionScience Program ReviewSeptember 26 – 28, 2017

.

OutlineOverview of the program

Data Collections

Research and Analysis

Strengths and Challenges

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 2

Definition of Marine Recreational FishingFor economic analysis at NOAA Fisheries,marine recreationalfishing is defined asfishing…


Forfinfish

(not shellfish)

Inopen ocean

or asaltwater

or brackish waterbody

Forsport or pleasure(not subsistence)


Recreational Fisheries Economics Program

The NOAA Fisheries Recreational Economics Program collects economic data, develops economic models, and conducts analyses in order to:

• Understand and predict the behavior of recreational anglers• Understand the outcomes of alternative management actions on recreational

fisheries and anglers• Estimate the level and distribution of net benefits derived from those fisheries• Describe the economic impacts associated with marine recreational fisheries

This research program directly supports NOAA Fisheries stewardship goal of maximizing benefits to the nation while ensuring the long-term sustainability of all living marine resources.

TOR 1


The Role of Science and Technology

Research

Data

• Conduct national surveys

• House national datasets

• Repository for survey materials

• Facilitiation role for Centers with MRIP, OMB, contracting

Research

• Set national priorities

• Annual RFP funding (~$400K)

• Economic impact modeling

• Collaborations with Centers

Coordination

• National level point of contact

• Lead national initiatives

• Knowledge sharing and transfer between HQ, Centers, external stakeholders

TOR 1; 2a,b,c

Management Questions


What factors influence participation in a fishery?

What characteristics of an angler or firm and fishing grounds influence the number of trips taken?

What is the economic value of the fishery?

What types of management measures are preferred by anglers or firms?

What are firms’ costs and angler expenditures?

What is the economic contribution of the fishery to coastal communities?

How may regulatory actions impact consumers and producers?

How to incorporate ecosystem management into fishery management?

Recreational Data Collections


Angler Expenditures

Revealed Preference

Stated Preference

For-Hire Cost and Earnings

Other surveys as requested

TOR 2a

Recreational Fisheries Economic Assessment Index

• Since 2013, updated annually by OST with input from the Centers• Adapted from Commercial Fisheries Economic Assessment Index• Useful for prioritizing which data collections/research should be funded in

upcoming year/years to keep coverage consistent• Part I: Data Collections (5 criteria)

• Angler Trip Expenditures, Angler Durable Expenditures• For-Hire: revenues, operating costs, fixed costs• Regional coverage, within prior 5 year period

• Part II: Assessments (5 criteria)• Angler trip expenditures by fishery• Economic impacts by fishery and by region• Economic Valuation by fishery and region• For-Hire net revenues by sub-region or fishery• For-Hire profit by sub-region or fishery


TOR 1; 2a

Recreational Fishing Surveys in the United States


Data generated by a series of regional surveys

National Marine Angler Expenditure Surveys


• Expenditures on fishing trips and fishing-related durable equipment

• Spending on different types of fishing (shore, private boat, for-hire)

• Spending by residents and non-residents of a state

Data collected

• Every 3-5 years, since 2006

• Nationwide – all coastal states

Frequency and Coverage

• Effort led by OST• Survey questionnaires

reviewed by all regions (PI, SW, NE additional input and review)

Development

Methodology

Sample Frame

• Target PopulationAnglers who fished in saltwater in past year in all coastal states

• Two Sample Frames1. Add-on to the MRIP Access Point Angler Intercept survey

• Atlantic states, FL, MS, ALAnd2. State fishing license frames for states not included in MRIP

• LA, TX, CA, WA, OR, AK, HI

Methods

• In-person interviews for trip expenditures

• Intercept states• Web and/or mail

• License frame states• Durable good questionnaire

for all states


• Partners providing sample frame or administration:

• MRIP (OST) • ASMFC, GSMFC• States of AK, CA, WA, OR, HI


Transportation(private, public, airfare, auto rental)

Charter fees, tips,& catch processing

Boat fuel & oil Boat rental

Access & parking Bait

Ice Lodging

Gifts & souvenirs Food(from grocery stores or restaurants)

Trip Expenditures Include:


32 annual categories including:• Tackle, rods/reels, & other gear• Camping equipment• Clothing• Binoculars• Taxidermy• Magazine subscriptions• Club Dues• License fees• Boat purchases/accessories & related expenses• Vehicle purchases & related expenses• 2nd home purchases & related expenses

Expenditures on Durable Goods

Demographic Data Includes


Age

Sex

Education

Income

Number of Years Fishing

Fisherman in St. Petersburg, FL

San Diego Sportfishing Expenditure Survey, 2016


• Collect angler expenditures on for-hire fishing trips to non-US waters (which are not included in national survey). No California fishing license requirement, therefore no coverage from the CA license frame survey.

• Compare the average angler expenditures spent on for-hire fishing in non-US waters from those fishing off California.

• Estimate the economic contribution per day for the San-Diego based fleet. from trips in non-US waters.

• Funded by OST, research in collaboration with SWFSC.• Results: 821 vessel-trips intercepted; 1990 complete surveys, 52% response

rate. Pilot study results indicate In-person survey most cost effective survey mode.

TOR 2a; 4

Expenses of Anglers Fishing for Highly Migratory Species

Highly Migratory Species include tunas, swordfish, billfish (marlin and sailfish), sharks

Research questions: Do HMS anglers have different expenditures compared to regular anglers? What does HMS fishing contribute to coastal economies?Atlantic and Gulf states permit holders

Private boat trips/anglers only, no shore or charter fishing trips for HMS

Analyzed trip and durable expenditures of HMS anglers by type of species targeted and regions

In partnership with Sustainable Fisheries/ HMS Division; data collected in 2011, 2014, 2016


TOR 2a; 4


Expenditure and For-Hire Data Collections

In field 2017: trip expenditure survey along Atlantic coast

and Hawaii

Data collected includes:• Vessel characteristics• Owner characteristics• Trip-based revenue• Trip length, species targeted• Variable, trip-based costs• Annual Fixed Costs• Attitudes on regulations and economic conditions

For-Hire Cost and Earnings Surveys

Current or Recent Cost and Earnings Surveys


• Southeast 2017 • South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico• Trip revenues and variable costs only• In field now

• Alaska 2016/2018 – Charter boats fishing for halibut• California 2013 – Complete, report under review• Hawaii 2013 – Complete, report under review• Ongoing: Collection of advertised prices from websites of

for-hire vessels in the Southeast

Revealed Preference Data Collected


Mode and location of fishing trip

Length of trip

Purpose of entire trip

Target species

Zipcode of residence

Number in fishing party

Revealed Preference Data Tools


Number in fishing party

OST’s MRIP Site Distance Database

Problem addressed: Calculating site distances and travel time for revealed preference models takes significant time and effort for each new model and requires special software

Solution: Create standardized database with one way road distances and travel time from all zipcodes within 150 of MRIP fishing site locations

Scope: All Atlantic and Gulf state sites included, as of 2013; site characteristics available from online MRIP site registry linked with Site ID code

TOR 2a,b


Stated Preference Data

Asks anglers to choose between hypothetical trips

with different characteristics and

costs(e.g. keeping vs releasing fish)

Results are used to model the willingness

to pay (economic value ) of anglers for

catching different species and different

regulations

Used in management analysis to estimate value of a fishery or

how changes in proposed regulations affect angler welfare

and angler fishing effort

2013 Gulf of Mexico Angler Survey• Joint study by NOAA Fisheries (SEFSC,

OST) and the GSMFC.• Goal: Update angler WTP estimates for

offshore species (dolphinfish, red snapper, groupers, king mackerel) in the Gulf of Mexico for private and charter anglers.

• Update models of the economic effects of proposed management alternatives on anglers.


TOR 2a,b; 4

2013 Study of Bait & Tackle Retail Stores


Objective of studyObtain a detailed picture of the bait and tackle industry serving marine recreational anglers.

• Data Collected• Gross sales (range), fishing sales & costs (%)• Sales by bait & tackle categories (%)• Fisheries targeted by customers• Collected 2013 data

• Independent stores & small local chains included

Study based on requests from stakeholders

Research and Analysis


• Estimation of angler expenditures • Economic impact modeling• Recent research publications nationwide• Bio-economic modeling

Estimating Total Expenditures


Avg. Trip Expenditures by state & mode

Num. of Tripsby state & mode

TotalTrip

Expenditures

Avg. Durable Expenditures

by stateNum. of Anglers

by state

TotalDurable

Expenditures

Economic Impact Models


Analysis at state and national level• Use survey data to estimate

expenditures• Create economic impact models • IMPLAN software • Survey results in NOAA Tech

Memo with average and total expenditures by expenditure category; total impacts by state and mode

• Sharing of models, data, and analysis programs to Centers TOR 2b,c; 5

Economic Contributions from Fishing

Expenditures used to estimate total output, value-added, household

income and employment contributions

Total Output =gross value of sales by businesses

within the economic region

Value added =labor income and profits supported by

recreational fishing expenditures

Employment =full and part-time jobs



• OST Publication: FEUS• Annual since 2006• OST recreational economics

program provides updated angler expenditures and economic impacts each year.

• Estimates used in many other NMFS publications, briefings, press releases, and Center-based analysis

TOR 5

Recent Expenditure and Impact PublicationsforNational Saltwater Agenda


• Lovell, S.J., J. Hilger, Scott Steinback, and Clifford Hutt. 2016. The Economic Contribution of Marine Angler Expenditures on Durable Goods in the United States, 2014. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-165.

• Hutt, Clifford, Sabrina Lovell, and Scott Steinback. 2015. The Economics of Independent Marine Recreational Fishing Bait and Tackle Retail Stores in the United States, 2013. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-151a, 123 p.

• Hutt, Clifford, Sabrina Lovell, and George Silva. 2014. The Economic Contributions of Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Anglers in New England and the Mid-Atlantic, 2011. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-147.

• Lew, Daniel K., and Chang Seung. "On the Statistical Significance of Regional Economic Impacts from Changes in Recreational Fishing Harvest Limits in Southern Alaska." Marine Resource Economics 29(3): 241-257, 2014.

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/economics/publications/recreational-pubs/index

Red text indicates publications with OST authors TOR 5

Recent Revealed Preference PublicationsforNational Saltwater Agenda


• Carter, D.W., S. Crosson, and C. Liese. 2015. NowcastingIntraseasonal Recreational Fishing Harvest with Internet Search Volume. PLOS ONE.10(9): e0137752.

• Lovell, S.J. and D.W.Carter. 2014. The use of sampling weights in regression models of recreational fishing-site choice. Fishery Bulletin. 112:243-252.

• Kuriyama K., J. Hilger, W. M. Hanemann. 2013. "A Random parameter model with onsite sampling for recreation site choice: An application to Southern California shoreline sportfishing." Environmental and Resource Economics, 56: 481-497.

TOR 2b;5

Recent Cost and Earnings PublicationsforNational Saltwater Agenda


• Carter, David W. 2016. The Prices for For-Hire Marine Fishing Trips in the Southeastern U.S. Collected from Websites: 2014 and 2015. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-694.

• Leonard, J. 2016. Washington and Oregon charter vessel survey: Methodology and results. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-134. doi:10.7289/V5/TM-NWFSC-134.

• Steinback S, Brinson A. 2013. The Economics of the Recreational For-hire Fishing Industry in the Northeast United States. US Department of Commerce, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Reference Document. 13-03.

Recent Stated Preference PublicationsforNational Saltwater Agenda


• Lew, Daniel K., and Douglas M. Larson. "Stated Preferences for Size and Bag Limits of Alaska Charter Boat Anglers." Marine Policy 61: 66-76, 2015.

• Anderson, L. E., S. T. Lee, P. S. Levin. 2013. Costs of Delaying Conservation: Regulations and the Recreational Values of Rockfish and Co-occurring Species. Land Economics, 89(2):371-385.

• David W. Carter & Christopher Liese (2012) The Economic Value of Catching and Keeping or Releasing Saltwater Sport Fish in the Southeast USA, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 32:4, 613-625.

Support for Bio-Economic Models: BLAST


2013 Northeast:

cod and haddock

2015 Northwest: salmon and groundfish

2016 Southeast: groupers in

GOM

Initial development by Initial model development by OST and NEFSC in 2009; support and funding by OST to continue NE model development and expand to other areas

TOR 3

Support for National Saltwater Recreational Fisheries Implementation Plan

Conducted 2013 National Saltwater Angler Surveyhttp://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/economics/fisheries/recreational/attitudes-and-preferences-of-anglers/index

Member of Recreational Coordinators Working Group

Provide data and analysis to Regional Snapshot factsheets and other communication products

Provide analysis as requested for briefings, meetings


TOR 2c; 4,5


Strengths

• Highly cooperative relationship with science centers and with other HQ divisions (SF/HMS, NOS)

• Close relationship with MRIP program

• Good relationship with external stakeholders and other agencies

Weaknesses

• Difficulty in identification of recreational fisherman

• Standardizing sample frames between regions

• Access to license frames in some states

• Response rates to voluntary surveys are declining


Opportunities

• Promote standardized models and data collections across Centers

• Web and mobile based apps for data collection

Threats

• Changes in MRIP and state survey programs

• OMB approvals• Budget cuts, increasing survey

admin costs• Center taxing of S&T project

funding

FEUS 2015http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/economics/publications/feus/fisheries_economics_2015/indexDurable Goods Survey 2014www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/economics/fisheries/recreational/angler-expenditures-economic-impacts/index

Bait & Tackle Studywww.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/economics/fisheries/recreational/Bait-and-Tackle/bt-survey-2014

Links to reports


http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/economics/fisheries/recreational/angler-expenditures-economic-impacts/index

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/economics/fisheries/recreational/bait-and-tackle/bt-survey-2014

mailto:[email protected]


Sabrina Lovell [email protected]

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/economics/fisheries/recreational/indexWebsite

For more information:

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Recreational Fisheries Economics Program · 2017-09-18 · Recreational Fisheries Economics Program Office of Sabrina Lovell Science & Technology. Economics & Social Analysis Division