SUMMARY REPORT OF METHODS AND
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THE 1994
NORTHEAST REGION MARINE RECREATIONAL ECONOMICS SURVEY
 |
Economist
Social Sciences Branch
NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service
Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Woods Hole, MA 02547
Graduate Research Assistant
Department of Marine Affairs
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objectives
CHAPTER 2
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
2.1 Add-On Economics Intercept Survey Instrument
2.2 Economic Telephone Follow-Up to Intercept Survey Instrument
2.3 Training and Data Collection
CHAPTER 3
SPORTFISHING BY SUBREGION
3.1 Demographic and Socio-economic Characteristics of Marine Recreational Anglers
3.1.1 Age
3.1.2 Education
3.1.3 Ethnicity
3.1.4 Household Income
3.1.5 Years of Experience
3.1.6 Expenditures
3.1.7 Boat Ownership
3.1.8 Trip Length
3.2 Preferences for Marine Recreational Fishing and Fishing Regulation Methods
3.2.1 Recreational Anglers Stated Preferences for Fishing Site Characteristics
3.2.2 Recreational Anglers’ Ranking of Fishing Compared to Other Outdoor Activities
3.2.3 Recreational Anglers’ Ratings of Reasons for Marine Fishing
3.2.4 Recreational Anglers’ Ratings of Fishing Regulation Methods
CHAPTER 4
SPORTFISHING BY MODE
4.1 Demographic and Socio-economic Characteristics of Marine Recreational Anglers
4.1.1 Age
4.1.2 Education
4.1.3 Ethnicity
4.1.4 Household Income
4.1.5 Years of Experience
4.1.6 Expenditures
4.1.7 Trip Length
4.2 Preferences for Marine Recreational Fishing and Fishing Regulation Methods
4.2.1 Recreational Anglers Stated Preferences for Fishing Site Characteristics
4.2.2 Recreational Anglers’ Ranking of Fishing Compared to Other Outdoor Activities
4.2.3 Recreational Anglers’ Ratings of Reasons for Marine Fishing
4.2.4 Recreational Anglers’ Ratings of Fishing Regulation Methods
CHAPTER 5
SPORTFISHING BY STATE
5.1 Demographic and Socio-economic Characteristics of Marine Recreational Anglers
5.1.1 Age
5.1.2 Education
5.1.3 Ethnicity
5.1.4 Household Income
5.1.5 Years of Experience
5.1.6 Expenditures
5.1.7 Boat Ownership
5.1.8 Trip Length
5.2 Preferences for Marine Recreational Fishing and Fishing Regulation Methods
5.2.1 Recreational Anglers Stated Preferences for Fishing Site Characteristics
5.2.2 Recreational Anglers’ Ranking of Fishing Compared to Other Outdoor Activities
5.2.3 Recreational Anglers’ Ratings of Reasons for Marine Fishing
5.2.4 Recreational Anglers’ Ratings of Fishing Regulation Methods
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Summary of Major Findings
6.1.1 Sportfishing by Subregion
6.1.2 Sportfishing by Mode
6.1.3 Sportfishing by State
6.2 Future Research
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
SPORTFISHING BY STATE AND MODE
A-1 MAINE
A-2 NEW HAMPSHIRE
A-3 MASSACHUSETTS
A-4 RHODE ISLAND
A-5 CONNECTICUT
A-6 NEW YORK
A-7 NEW JERSEY
A-8 DELAWARE
A-9 MARYLAND
A-10 VIRGINIA
APPENDIX B
ADD-ON ECONOMICS INTERCEPT SURVEY INSTRUMENT
APPENDIX C
TELEPHONE FOLLOW-UP TO INTERCEPT SURVEY INSTRUMENT
APPENDIX D
TELEPHONE SURVEY INSTRUMENT
INTRODUCTION
Two sportfishing surveys were conducted during 1994 in the Northeast Region (Maine to Virginia). Data from the surveys provided demographic and economic information on marine recreational fishing participants from Maine to Virginia. The purpose of this report is to document the socio-economic characteristics of these participants and to identify their marine recreational fishing preferences and their perceptions of current and prospective fishery management regulations. This information will be used to estimate statistical models of the demand for marine recreational fishing for eight important recreational species in a subsequent phase of the research.
This chapter presents a brief summary of trends in catch, participation, and effort, describes the need for more comprehensive economic information on marine recreational anglers and lists the objectives of the research. Chapter 2 presents the survey methodology, interviewer training procedures, and reports on response rates and sample sizes for different components of the survey. Chapter 3 presents the demographic and economic survey data by subregion, chapter 4 presents the data by mode, and chapter 5 by state. Chapter 6 summarizes the major findings and illustrates future work to be performed, and Appendix A provides statistical summary tables of the survey by state and mode.
Marine recreational fishing is one of the most popular outdoor recreational activities in America.[1] In 1992, the lowest level of participation during the last ten years, approximately 2.57 million residents of coastal states in the Northeast Region participated in marine recreational fishing in their own state (Figure1-1).[2] Participation increased approximately 5% in 1993 (2.7 million) and increased another 14% in 1994 (3.1 million), exceeding the ten-year average of 2.9 million. Although the total number of finfish caught in the Northeast Region has gradually declined over the past ten years (Figure1-2), effort (trips) has remained relatively stable. An estimated 22.4 million fishing trips were taken in 1994, up from 19.3 million in 1993 (Figure 1-3 ).
Historically, many Northeast fishery management plans that involve recreational fisheries have imposed harvesting restrictions that may not have had a significant impact on recreational catch, participation or effort. Typically, liberal size and bag limits have been implemented which likely affected the harvest of relatively few anglers and hence the quantity and frequency of trips. For example, the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Bluefish Fishery adopted in 1990 restricts recreational fishermen to a possession limit of ten bluefish. According to the analysis of the recreational fishery contained within the FMP[3], it was estimated that less than 7 percent of the anglers catching bluefish would be affected by the ten fish possession limit. Additionally, in the FMP for the summer flounder fishery, it was estimated that only 26 percent of anglers catching summer flounder would be affected by the proposed minimum size and bag limits.[4] It is likely that the effects of these management measures on catch, participation, and effort have been extremely small. However, since the abundance of bluefish, summer flounder, and other marine fish species in the Northeast Region are at or near historic lows, more restrictive measures on the current harvest and future expansion of recreational fishing can be anticipated.
Currently, in New England, amendments have been developed or are proposed for five Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) FMP’s which directly regulate recreational fisheries (summer flounder, winter flounder, herring, bluefish, and striped bass). Additional possession limits, size limits, quotas, and seasonal and area closures have been recommended to further reduce the take of these species. The Mid-Atlantic states will be required to come into compliance with an additional six ASMFC FMP’s that regulate recreational fisheries (red drum, spotted seatrout, weakfish, spot, croaker, and spanish mackerel) in the near future. Amendments are also proposed for many of the existing Federal FMP’s that affect recreational fisheries in the Northeast Region’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Additional possession limits, size limits, and quotas are proposed for Atlantic bluefish, mackerel, squid, butterfish, summer flounder, cod, and haddock.
Development of recreational management measures to achieve conservation goals requires a fair amount of social and economic information. While descriptive economics data are included in most ASMFC and Federal FMP’s, analyses are often constrained by a lack of appropriate economic data. Few economic evaluation studies evaluate the management changes managers are concerned about. Most recreational fishing analyses have focused on the entire recreation “good” measured in units such as “days fished” or “number of angling trips”.[56] While this information is appropriate for understanding the behavior of marine sport fishermen in the aggregate, it is not appropriate for situations where these values influence the management of recreational fisheries. Rather, marginal value estimates of sport caught fish (i.e., marginal consumers’ surplus)[7] are needed for individual species to analyze how user groups react to more or less fish.[8] In other words, value estimates should be measured in units such as “fish caught per trip,” rather than “days fished.” Information of this kind allows economists to analyze how changes in possession limits, size limits, quotas, and area closures affect the value anglers obtain from marine resources.
Currently, two public sector surveys collect information on marine recreational fishing in the Northeast Region: (1) the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS); and (2) the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (NSFHW). The information obtained from these surveys allow resource managers to track trends in catch rates, participation, and expenditures on marine recreational fishing but does not provide the necessary data for economic value assessments.
Recently in the Northeast, the NMFS increased efforts to collect economic data needed to evaluate the effects of fishery management regulations on marine recreational anglers. A comprehensive economic survey was designed to help fill the economic data and research gap in our knowledge of marine recreational fishing. The research is motivated by the idea that since more restrictive measures on the current harvest and future expansion of recreational fishing can be expected, a foundation needs to be developed in which future recreational policies can be evaluated.
Objectives of the economic study were to: (1) collect demographic and economic data on marine recreational fishing participants, and (2) to estimate statistical models of the demand for marine recreational fishing for eight important recreational species which are either currently managed or that are expected to be managed in the near future. The data will be used by economists, policy analysts, and other staff at the National Marine Fisheries Service to evaluate proposed management decisions that affect recreational fisheries. University and independent researchers will have access to the data upon request.
|
www.nefsc.noaa.gov |
Search |
Link Disclaimer |
webMASTER |
Privacy Policy |
(Modified Nov. 26 2004) |