Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-20T18:35:31.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A benefit-cost analysis of a red drum stock enhancement program in South Carolina

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2018

R. J. Rhodes ,
J. C. Whitehead ,
T. I. J. Smith  and
M. R. Denson
R. J. Rhodes*
Affiliation:
Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, College of Charleston, 66 George Street, Charleston, SC 29424-0001, USA, e-mail: [email protected]
J. C. Whitehead
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC 28608-2051, USA
T. I. J. Smith
Affiliation:
High Bred Farms, Inc., 3303 Plow Ground Road, Johns Island, SC 29455, USA
M. R. Denson
Affiliation:
Marine Resources Division, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, PO Box 12559, Charleston, SC 29422, USA
*
*e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recreational saltwater anglers from the mid-Atlantic through the Gulf of Mexico commonly target red drum. Due to concerns about overharvesting within South Carolina coupled with regional management actions, South Carolina explored the technical feasibility of stocking hatchery-produced juvenile red drum as a technique to augment the abundance of South Carolina stock. In order to assess a continued program, in 2005 a mail survey was used to collect data for estimating the economic benefits with the contingent valuation method. The theoretical validity of willingness to pay was assessed by comparison to the value of a change in red drum fishing trips that would result from the program. Benefits were compared to estimated, explicit stocking costs. We illustrate how a certainty recode approach can be used in sensitivity analysis. The net present values (NPVs) for the stocking program are positive suggesting that the program would have been economically efficient relative to no program.

Keywords

Q22Q26Q51benefit-cost analysisred drumSouth Carolinastock enhancementwillingness to pay
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , Summer 2018 , pp. 323 - 341
Copyright
© Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP) (2008). ACCSP Data Warehouse [SC Red drum fishing participants, 2005]. Accessed December 12, 2008. http://www.accsp.org/datacenter/datawarehouse.Google Scholar
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (2002). Amendment 2 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Red Drum. Fishery Management Report No. 38, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (2017). 2017 Review of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Fishery Management Plan for Red Drum (Sciaenops ocellatus): 2016 Fishing Year. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
Blomquist, Glenn C., Blumenschein, Karen & Johannesson, Magnus (2009). Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias using Follow-up Certainty Statements: Comparisons Between Probably/Definitely and a 10-point Certainty Scale. Environmental and Resource Economics, 43(4), 473–502.Google Scholar
Blumenschein, Karen, Blomquist, Glenn C., Johannesson, Magnus, Horn, Nancy & Freeman, Patricia (2008). Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment. The Economic Journal, 118(525), 114–137.Google Scholar
Cameron, Trudy A. (1988.). A New Paradigm for Valuing Non-market Goods using Referendum Data: Maximum Likelihood Estimation by Censored Logistic Regression. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 15(3), 355–379.Google Scholar
Cameron, Trudy A. (1991). Interval Estimates of Non-market Resource Values from Referendum Contingent Valuation Surveys. Land Economics, 67(4), 413–421.10.2307/3146548Google Scholar
Carson, Richard T. & Groves, Theodore (2007). Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 37(1), 181–210.10.1007/s10640-007-9124-5Google Scholar
Champ, Patricia A. & Bishop, Richard C. (2001). Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias. Environmental and Resource Economics, 19(4), 383–402.Google Scholar
Champ, Patricia A., Bishop, Richard C., Brown, Thomas C. & McCollum, Daniel (1997). Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods. Journal Environmental Economics and Management, 33(2), 151–162.Google Scholar
Darden, Tanya L., Walker, Matthew J., Brenkert, Karl, Yost, Justin R. & Denson, Michael R. (2014). Population Genetics of Cobia. (Rachycentron canadum): Implications for Fishery Management Along the Coast of the Southeastern United States. Fishery Bulletin, 112, 24–36.Google Scholar
Farrow, Scott & Viscusi, W. Kip (2011). Toward Principles and Standards for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Safety. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 2(3), 1–23.Google Scholar
Greene, William, H. (2003). Econometric Analysis. (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W. Michael (1989). Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Response Data: Reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 71(4), 1057–1061.10.2307/1242685Google Scholar
Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan (1987). A Satisfactory Benefit Cost Indicator from Contingent Valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 14(3), 226–247.Google Scholar
Hunt, Taylor L., Scarborough, Helen, Giri, Khageswor, Douglas, John W. & Jones, Paul (2017). Assessing the Cost-effectiveness of a Fish Stocking Program in a Culture-based Recreational Fishery. Fisheries Research, 186(2), 468–477.Google Scholar
ICF Jones & Stokes (2010). Hatchery and Stocking Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement. Final. January. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. Accessed October 10, 2017. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Hatcheries/EIR.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Wallace E., Denson, Michael R., Bridgham, Charles B., Collins, Mark R. & Smith, Theodore I. J. (2004b). Year-class Composition, Growth, and Movement of Juvenile Red Drum Stocked Seasonally in a South Carolina Estuary. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 24(2), 636–647.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Wallace E., Smith, Theodore I. J. & Denson, Michael R. (2004a). Stocking Red Drum: Lessons Learned. American Fisheries Society Symposium Series, 44, 45–56.Google Scholar
Johnson, Donn M., Behnke, Robert J., Harpman, David A. & Walsh, Richard G. (1995). Economic Benefits and Costs of Stocking Catchable Rainbow Trout: A Synthesis of Economic Analysis in Colorado. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 15(1), 26–32.Google Scholar
Johnston, Robert. J., Ranson, Matthew H., Besedin, Elena Y. & Helm, Erik C. (2006). What Determines Willingness to Pay per Fish? A Meta-analysis of Recreational Fishing Values. Marine Resource Economics, 21(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
Kalinowsky, Christopher Aaron, Curran, Mary Carla & Smith, Joseph W. (2016). Age and Growth of Rachycentron canadum. (L.) (Cobia) from the Nearshore Waters of South Carolina. Southeastern Naturalist, 15(4), 714–728.Google Scholar
List, John A. & Gallet, Craig A. (2001). What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? Environmental and Resource Economics, 20(3), 241–254.Google Scholar
Little, Joseph & Berrens, Robert (2004). Explaining Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-analysis. Economics Bulletin, 3(6), 1–13.Google Scholar
Loomis, John (2011). What’s to Know About Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation Studies? Journal of Economic Surveys, 25(2), 363–370.Google Scholar
Mercer, Linda P.(1984). A Biological and Fisheries Profile of Red Drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, Special Scientific Report 41, Morehead City, NC.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Robert Cameron & Carson, Richard T. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Moore, Mark A., Boardman, Anthony E., Vining, Aidan R., Weimer, David L. & Greenberg, David H. (2004). Just Give Me a Number!’ Practical Values for the Social Discount Rate. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(4), 789–812.Google Scholar
Newsome, Michael A., Blomquist, Glenn C. & Romain, Wendy S. (2001). Taxes and Voluntary Contributions: Evidence from State Tax Form Check-off Programs. National Tax Journal, 54(4), 725–740.10.17310/ntj.2001.4.02Google Scholar
Palmer, Ryan M. & Snowball, Jen D. (2009). The Willingness to Pay for Dusky Kob (Argyrosomus japonicus) Restocking: Using Recreational Linefishing Licence Fees to Fund Stock Enhancement in South Africa. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil, 66(5), 839–843.Google Scholar
Parsons, George R. (2017). The Travel Cost Model. In Champ, Patricia A., Boyle, Kevin J. & Brown, Thomas C. (Eds.), A Primer on Non-Market Valuation (2nd ed.). (pp. 187–234). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Patrick, Wesley S., Bin, Okmyung, Schwabe, Kurt A. & Schuhmann, Peter W. (2006). Hatchery Programs, Stock Enhancement, and Cost effectiveness: A Case Study of the Albemarle Sound/Roanoke River Stocking Program 1981–1996. Marine Policy, 30(4), 299–307.Google Scholar
Poe, Gregory L., Clark, Jeremy E., Rondeau, Daniel & Schulze, William D. (2002). Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 23(1), 105–131.Google Scholar
Responsive Management (2006). South Carolina Saltwater Anglers’ Participation in and Satisfaction with Saltwater Fishing and Opinions of Saltwater Fisheries Management: Volume 1 of 2. Conducted for the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Marine Resources Division. Responsive Management National Office, VA: Harrisonburg.Google Scholar
Rosenberger, Randall S., Collins, Alan R. & Svetlik, Julie B. (2005). Private Provision of a Public Good: Willingness to Pay for Privately Stocked Trout. Society & Natural Resources, 18(1), 75–87.Google Scholar
Smith, Theodore I. J., Jenkins, Wallace E. & Denson, Michael R. (1997). Overview of an Experimental Stock Enhancement Program for Red drum in South Carolina. Bulletin of Natural Research Institute for Aquaculture, (Supplement 3)109–115.Google Scholar
Smith, Theodore I. J., Jenkins, Wallace E., Denson, Michael R. & Collins, Mark R. (2004). Increasing Red Drum Abundance in South Carolina: Monitor, Regulate and Stock Hatchery Fish. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 44, 77–86.Google Scholar
Vossler, Christian A., Ethier, Robert G., Poe, Gregory L. & Welsh, Michael P. (2003). Payment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test. Southern Economic Journal, 69(4), 886–902.Google Scholar
Whitehead, John C. (1995). Willingness to Pay for Quality Improvements: Comparative Statics and Interpretation of Contingent Valuation Results. Land Economics, 71(2), 207–215.Google Scholar
Whitehead, John C. & Blomquist, Glenn C. (2006). Contingent Valuation and Benefit-cost Analysis. In Anna, Alberini & Kahn, James R. (Eds.), Handbook on Contingent Valuation (Iss. 66–91). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Whitehead, John C. & Haab, Timothy C. (2013). Contingent Valuation Method. In Shogren, Jason F. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Energy, Natural Resource, and Environmental Economics (pp. 334–341). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Wisner, Brian(2009). Stocked Trout Program: Cost Report. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Bureau of Fisheries, Pleasant Gap, PA.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Rhodes et al. supplementary material

Rhodes et al. supplementary material 1

Download Rhodes et al. supplementary material(File)
File 14.3 MB