Philip A. Meyer1
California Water Policy Center, U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service, 1230 “N” Street, Sacramento, California 95814, USA
ABSTRACT
This paper deals with issues stemming from the economic evaluation of potential recreational fishery losses where fishery resources are under public ownership, or where private ownership rights to fisheries have been established and may be damaged. Particular methodological questions considered include: evaluation of urban recreational fisheries; recreational satisfaction and the substitutability of recreational activities; sport species identification; divisibility of sport fishery product; and alternative requirements for the estimation of sportfishing dollar values using selling prices rather than the purchase price. Finally, statistical options for the treatment and reporting of non-numerical value responses are discussed. This paper integrates “dollar” and “non-dollar” approaches to sportfishing value, drawing data from recent theoretical and empirical work by the author and others in both the U.S. and Canada, and reports preliminary results of new field work conducted in urban California in the autumn of 1979.
RÉSUMÉ
Cette communication traite des résultats de l'évaluation économique des pertes potentielles de la pêche de loisir. Le cas où les ressources de la pêche sont la propriété du secteur public est envisagé, ainsi que celui où les droits à la propriété privée des pêcheries ont été établis et peuvent être compromis. Les questions méthodologiques particulières abordées incluent: l'évaluation de la pêche de loisir en zone urbaine; la satisfaction des loisirs et l'intersubstitution possible entre les activités de loisir; l'identification des éspèces sportives; les exigences alternatives pour l'estimation de la valeur “dollar” de la pêche sportive en utilisant les prix de ventes, plutôt que les prix d'achat. Finalement sont discutées des options statistiques pour le traitement et la communication de réponses à valeur non numérique. Cette communication intègre des approches à caractère monétaire et non-monétaire de la valeur de la pêche sportive, présente les résultats d'un travail théorique et empirique récent de l'auteur ainsi que d'autres travaux réalisés aux U.S.A. et au Canada, et rapporte les résultats préliminaires d'une nouvelle étude de terrain menée en région urbaine en Californie pendant l'automne 1979.
1 Current address: Meyer-Zangr. Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 965, Davis, CA 95616 USA.
INTRODUCTION OF TERMS
This paper will deal with methods for determining the value of recreational fisheries at risk, and will, therefore, be compensatory in focus. Further, because it deals with experience in the U.S. and Canada, where the greater part of recreational fishing opportunity is under public trusteeship, it will focus primarily upon methodologies associated with “public”2 recreational resources, where private market prices are either unavailable to the analyst, or do not offer a proxy for full recreational fishing values. Similarly, focus on Canada/U.S. values and decision-making will pay close attention to dollar measures of value, treating such indices as one categorization, and non-dollar indices as a second.
Compensation refers to the provision (or calculation) of a value amount equivalent to an actual/potential loss of fishery recreation. Restoration refers to the re-establishment of “normal” recreational fishery opportunities previously lost. The word normal has considerable significance for assessing value. To the extent that increases in recreational fisheries simply reestablish previous “normal” levels of opportunity, they represent post-facto compensation and should be so dealt with by the analyst. This will require the analyst to confront the existing infra-structure of social and economic investment by business and by citizens, and will likely produce a significantly different value result than if the increase in recreational opportunity is considered as enhancement above normal opportunity levels. As indicated, this paper reserves the term enhancement for increases in recreational opportunity above “normal” levels. Enhancement will be referred to in introductory sections, but will not provide a primary focus for this paper on compensatory value methodologies.
It has been noted that a definition of what is normal is critical to distinguishing, in a practical sense, between compensation/restoration on the one hand, and enhancement on the other. The author is aware of little empirical evidence that seems of use. Biologists have traditionally referred to time series and often impute “normality” to historic stock averages, but little in the way of underlying rationale is presented, and such averages are sensitive to choice of end points. From a social scientific perspective, limited evidence suggests that “normal” may be defined by human populations in terms of childhood experience, or, where area of residence changes, by “first” experience. This question will likely be finally settled by some combination of empirical inquiry and socio-political negotiation. The seeds of this process may already have been sown in California, where an environmental indexing system based upon historical abundances of striped bass is being utilized to make future decisions regarding the allocating of instream waters among alternative users (State Water Resources Control Board 1978).
Compensation “in kind” will not be here considered. While a legitimate (and perhaps preferred) technique where possible, it requires little from value methodology beyond a calculation of cost of replacement.
Finally, mitigation is defined either as the physical buffering of adverse impacts on recreational fisheries, or a provision of partial compensation for damage. In the first instance, it is of only indirect interest to value methodologists. In the second case, the issues posed for “partial compensation” are similar to those confronting the assessor of full compensation, and will be dealt with there.
AN EARLIER PERSPECTIVE FOR VALUING RECREATION
Early treatment of recreational fishery value in the U.S. and Canada was appropriate to its time. Heir to a frontier philosophy that viewed natures as broadly available over a vast land, and to a philosophical belief that the free exchange of goods between individual owner/appropriators was not only efficient, but even ethical, early analysts tended to view recreation from a distributive perspective. (Schumpeter 1965; Friedman 1965.) In this sense, the paramount questions concerned how much, and what type of recreation should various individuals or groups have, and how much should they pay for it. Where trade-off analysis of recreation was required, it tended to be site specific and non-quantitative, but natural recreational activities were not often given heavy weight in debate on scarcities. This approach worked well for a time and followed a predictable methodological path. On the social and philosophical side, eloquent statements on behalf of fish and wildlife values were periodically produced (Haig-Brown 1961; Wengert 1955). Those statements served well in demonstrating the philosophical depth of fishing values for Canadians and Americans, a fundamentally important aspect of the valuing process. On the quantitative side, analysis, largely economic, busied itself with the development of a (now) rich array of tools to assess demand for recreation, to identify which individual could pay the most for goods, services and opportunities, and for distributing or redistributing these generally available recreational products up to the point where the cost of distributing them just equalled the willingness of recipients to pay for them.
These legacies are still with us today. Eloquent qualitative statements are still being made describing the substance of recreational fishing (Anderson 1976; Clepper 1976). An economic treatment of recreational fishing resources as “available to the highest bidder,” whether user or pre-emptor is still the recommended technique in some jurisdictions (Environment and Land Use Secretariat 1977) and has been in others until very recently (U.S. Water Resources Council 1973.)
The setting within which these recreational value methodologies are being applied has been changing, however, particularly within the past few years. The essence of this change is now a preponderant awareness that fishing recreational opportunities are no longer generally available, to be divided up according to “ability to pay.” Rather, fishing resources are now seen as essentially scarce, as subject to the risk of further decline in abundance and diversity and, in some instances, as endangered. Evidence of this shifting view can easily be confirmed in legislation passed in the U.S. and Canada during the 1970's.3
THE NEED FOR METHODOLOGICAL CHANGE
Methodological change represents a response to the increasing scarcity of recreational fishing opportunity.
In countries where the majority of fishing recreational opportunity is owned privately, a shift to greater scarcity might not have required any significant change in methods for valuing or enhancing fishing opportunity. Presumably as values increased, private owners would demand more, prospective new owners would offer more and exchanges would take place only where a mutually satisfactory “full value” agreement was reached. But in North America, the greatest abundance of fishing resources is in public hands. Hence no “market” or similar process exists to automatically reflect value changes. It is therefore critical that methodologies created to simulate value reflect social concern and respond to social change.
The earliest indicators that methodological changes were needed to respond to shifting concepts of value came in the economic area but not from the economic practitioner. The general public, concerned about dwindling fishing resources, perceived traditional economic approaches to valuing recreational fisheries as inadequate and unfair, and often became vociferously opposed to value treatment in economic terms at all. This viewpoint is still entrenched among many conservationists today and is succinctly captured in a written comment received by the author while testing a dollar survey instrument presently being directed at fish and wildlife recreation values in California.
Who has the right to assign a dollar value to fish and wildlife? Who has a right to assign a dollar value to life? When we are talking about the number of fish in the Bay, we are talking about our own lives, and if this environment cannot support fish, how can it support us? (Anonymous student 1979.)
Some custodial fishery agencies have similarly acted to disavow traditional economic value methodology. The California Department of Fish and Game, for instance, has often refrained as a matter of policy from describing recreational fisheries in economic terms.
In our view, past procedures under the NED account have not provided for a fair and equal treatment of fish and wildlife resources, relative to other major beneficial users of water. If these practices were to continue, we could not recommend in conscience that our state support them. (California Department of Fish and Game 1979.)
Similarly, current efforts to amend the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act include the removal of economic calculus from that process, for reasons that are indicated below:
Federal agencies generally used a so-called “mandays” approach to deciding whether or not measures to ease the impacts of a project on fish and wildlife were justified. The number usually turned out to be too low … too low to justify the cost of buying substitute wildlife habitat or taking other mitigative measures. More often than not, the underlying values of wildlife habitat … the non-dollar values were ignored. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1979.)
At the same time, non-quantitative approaches to recreational value have also encountered difficulty. There, persons concerned with fishing futures have found that while recreational opportunities are threatened, so also are other resource based components of the North American lifestyle; so that while fish are scarce, so are water, oil and, on a global basis, food. This new world of multiple scarcities is establishing progressively tighter criteria for social choice. And eloquent statements concerning the value of fishing recreational opportunities are increasingly greeted with the response: “We know it's valuable, but what will it cost us?” So, during the same time that the relatively tigher, more quantitative approaches of economics have been judged by concerned individuals and agencies to lack value substance, non-quantitative approaches to value have been viewed by administrative and political decision makers as decreasingly productive of decisions and increasingly productive of confrontation and delay.
RESPONSES FROM TRADITIONAL ECONOMIC METHODOLOGY
How has value methodology responded to this requirement for change? It should surprise no one familiar with the inherently conservative nature of scientific inquiry, that one answer to this question is: “Slowly.” In the economic arena, as noted, analysis has historically focused on distribution, in developing proxy measurements for the value of public recreation. Thus, construction of demand curves utilizing direct measures of willingness to pay for recreational opportunity, or indirect observations of individual expenditures of money and time (travel and transfer costs), is well developed and has received wide usage and general acceptance among economists (Idaho Cooperative Fishery Unit 1973; and Dwyer et al. 1977). At the same time that these procedures were being developed and refined, however, some economists were becoming increasingly concerned with the seeming inappropriateness of the value product produced, at least where environmental losses were involved. This concern led, predictably, to a reexamination of both the theoretical basis for compensatory valuation, and of actual applied procedures being utilized to collect information on the recreational value of public goods. This reexamination has focused attention not only upon the conditions under which fishing recreational opportunities will be demanded and paid for, but on the conditions and costs under which they can be produced, or will be given up by present owners. There is, of course, nothing theoretically new in this concept. At a micro-economic level, the idea that exchanges take place in quantities and at prices determined by the interaction of willing buyers and sellers is a long established principle. More generally, and building on the works of Pareto, Kaldor, Hicks and Scitovsky, it is generally agreed among economists that in any decision shifting social welfare between groups (i.e., more estuary land fill development and less recreational fishing, or vice versa) gainers should be able to compensate losers (whether actual payments are made or not).4 This theoretical principle, and the resultant need to consider both “buyers” and “sellers” (or in the context of public fisheries recreation “demanders” and “offerers”) is clear and, I believe it fair to say, uncontested. The principle was reasserted in the public resources area by Mishan (1971, 1974), by a broad cross-section of American economists meeting in 1973 to explicitly consider the evaluation of recreational fisheries (Idaho Cooperative Fishing Unit 1973), and by Krutilla and Fisher (1975). Yet economic application is only now beginning a broad based response, and has not yet fully caught up.
This latitude seems the result of four interrelated factors or perceptions. The first has already been identified, and is associated with the conservative nature of science. The second is summarized in an article by Willig (1976). He agreed that it was theoretically necessary to distinguish between demanders and offerers when valuing public recreation. He observed, however, that recreation was likely to represent a relatively small component of what an average person viewed as important in life, that proxy measurement of recreational values was somewhat inexact, and consequently, that an estimate of “what people would pay” for (fishing) recreation was probably close enough to "what they would sell' their opportunity to fish for, that the first would generally provide a reasonable estimate of the second. This rationale continues to be used by some economists to justify valuation of fishing recreational losses by “willingness to pay” methods to the present day.
A third presumption, still evident in the applied thinking of some economists, has been that recreational fishing opportunities are not particularly distinct or unique, and consequently, that substitute activities are likely readily available where fishing opportunities are lost. In this way, reservoirs are sometimes offered to replace streamside, opportunities at distance are treated as replacement for fishing close to home, and waterskiing, diving, ping-pong, and so on become candidate substitutes for fishery recreation. This view is, of course, consistent with the one expressed previously, and reinforces the presumption that recreational fishing represents a relatively small portion of total social income for the public at large.
Finally, if one accepts the two previous presumptions, it is not an illogical next step to categorize persons who respond to fishing recreational value questions with answers that are very high, or infinite, as “irrational.” This practice has been widespread among many traditional analysts, and has served as a useful tool in confining empirical responses reported within the bounds of perceived theoretical reality.
4 For a general discussion of welfare issues, see Liebhafsky (1973).
EMERGING COMPENSATORY METHODOLOGY FOR VALUING FISHING RECREATION
Despite the general acceptance by economists of Willig's premise that “willingness to pay” approaches could be applied to recreational fishing losses, public and agency dissatisfaction with results continued, and empirical anomalies began to appear where questions more oriented to a “willingness to sell” approach were field tested. Some of this initial evidence was obtained almost by accident. In other instances, data was obtained by design, but results not strongly pursued for want of a trusted applied framework. For instance, Peter Bohm (1972) in a study conducted in Sweden, but widely quoted in North America, tested a variety of approaches to asking hypothetical value questions, using a controlled setting. In only one case (his approach VI) did he obtain a significantly different (and higher) answer. Bohm offered several explanations of this difference, none of them conclusive. With benefit of hindsight, however, it is my view that the wording of Bohm's question VI may represent a first (albeit inadvertent) step toward later compensatory field approaches. Similarly, Hammack and Brown (1974), Sinclair (1976) and Brookshire and Randall (1978), intentionally collected compensatory data, but seemingly were constrained by the traditional economic concerns previously identified from making a strong case for results. Meanwhile, several other authors had done similar work.5 In 1979, I summarized evidence from 9 studies of fish or similar nature based recreation, that had conducted both “willingness to pay” and “willingness to sell” (or a close variant) inquiry. The conclusion across all studies examined was:
… that in only the smallest product case … would difference between responses be typified as ‘relatively small’. For all other results, response to ‘willingness to sell’ or ‘public worth’ questioning is substantially greater than for ‘willingness to pay’ and seems to show a rough positive relationship to ‘size’ of product or product group … The Willig general case-namely that estimates of willingness to sell and to buy should generally be similar, cannot be sustained from available empirical data. (Meyer 1979.)
The magnitude of difference between value estimates across the range of natural recreational products considered by that summary article was observed to be between 3 and 20 times. Subsequent to publication of these findings, results of two further tests of demand and supply oriented recreational value approaches have become available (Bishop and Heberlein 1979; Knetsch and Weintrib 1979). These studies further confirm the significance of difference between “paying” and “compensating” approaches to recreational value.6
Coincident with the increased theoretical attention shown to considerations of supply for recreational resources,7 and the empirical challenge to application of Willig's general presumption to natural recreational opportunities at risk, several important institutional events have taken place. In 1974, the Fisheries and Marine Service, Environment Canada, in valuing potential losses in fishing recreational opportunity associated with a major flood control proposal on the Fraser River, presented first-cut compensating value estimates for fishing recreation and stood by them under intense pressure from more traditional methodologists (Environment Canada 1974). In 1978, the County of Los Angeles employed a similar modified compensatory technique to assist in evaluating the benefits of preserving a major recreational and nature conservancy on Santa Catalina Island (Center For Natural Areas 1978). During the same period of time, the California Department of Fish and Game, while still opposed in principle to the utilization of traditional economic value techniques, began to sue for environmental damages equivalent to habitat replacement costs (State of California vs Marcus, Alameda County Superior Court, October 1976). In fact, where compensation can be provided in kind and at site, this would seem to be a more direct method of proceeding.
More recently, in the spring of 1979, the U.S. Water Resources Council, a body with overview responsibility for advising on economic valuation procedures for projects with federal funding, issued a draft methodological document for public comment prior to updating its valuation requirements. This body, which stands near the center of applied economic thought in America, while citing the paucity of tested technique to measure compensating values for public recreation, stated:
If gains are valued as the aggregate amount that users are willing to pay (WTP) to enjoy the recreational gain, then losses should be valued as the aggregate of the minimum amount users would be willing to accept (WTA) to voluntarily accept the loss. (U.S. Water Resources Council 1979.)
In responding to this document, the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, laid the ground-work for what may hopefully be a final institutional step in the U.S. to provide a fuller and fairer economic treatment of fish and wildlife recreational value at risk.
WRC should place strong emphasis on the development of WTA procedures in its research priorities, and agencies are encouraged to develop such estimates where expertise and data allow. Anticipated procedures and study results should be forwarded to the WRC. Results should be supplied in full methodological detail, and the WRC should undertake to make these results generally available to other interested parties. At the end of three years, the WRC should conduct a further review of progress with regard to WTA estimating with a view to developing a more definitive recommendation. (Greenwalt 1979.)
The final response of the Water Resources Council to this proposal is not clear at the time of writing. Nor is it clear how long it will be before applied compensatory procedures for economic evaluation are developed to a level commensurate with those assessing “willingness to pay.” However, the issues are clear, and a potential course to redress deficiencies charted. To the extent that it is followed, economists should soon be able to more fully address public recreation value at risk, and to meet the legitimate concerns of affected agencies and individuals, identified earlier.
5 One of the earlier studies was by Pearse and Laub (1969).
7 For another, quite different approach, but again focusing on supply, see Sweitzer (1979).
VALUE AND SUBSTITUTABILITY
It was noted in introduction that part of the traditional legacy of assigning relatively low values to recreational fishing in Canada and the U.S. has been based upon the presumption that recreational fishing opportunities are not really very unique, and that if they are lost, the recreator can go down the road and pursue the same or another recreational activity at little cost. The word “presumption” is used advisedly, for again, little empirical evidence seems available. It is known from work in both Canada and the U.S. that recreators do tend to pre-select recreational opportunities on the basis of individual preference, previous activity experience, and the expected attributes of site (Meyer 1978b; Baum-gartner and Heberlein 1979). But the cross-elasticity approaches of economists have not been productive of useful empirical results with respect to substitutability of public recreation, while those of social psychology have proceeded largely through classification, and provided more in the way of description than analysis to date.
In 1978, I offered an alternative hypothesis in a study of two urban areas of Canada (Meyer 1978b). This study focused primarily on the balance of satisfaction that recreators might seek, treating activities as means, rather than ends. The ability of a range of recreational activities to provide particular satisfactions was identified. For instance, sport fishing was found to deliver significant amounts of health, quietude, nature contact, and relaxation. But the over-riding hypothesis that recreators seek a balance of excitement and calm, challenge and escape, and so on, was sustained by the data. Further, it was discovered that no two recreational activities provide exactly the same range of satisfactions, but that back-packing, hiking, mountain climbing, nature walks, swimming, and gardening provided satisfactions that were similar to sport fishing.
With respect to substitutability, the study concluded:
There are no pure substitute activities in recreation. Where recreators can adjust their activity mix in response to opportunity without losing the satisfactions they enjoy, they will likely be as well off. But where basic opportunity to achieve particular satisfactions is diminished, urban society will be worse off, regardless of activity pursued. Further, residents may not change the satisfactions they seek, but simply become frustrated, at cost to themselves and to society as a whole. (Meyer 1978, p.47.)
This finding focuses attention on natural capability. Where nature is relatively abundant, it suggests that substitutability between sport fishing at one location and another, or between sport fishing and other nature-related activities may be accomplished at relatively little cost. But where natural opportunity is diminished, the advocates for substitutability cannot have it both ways. If recreational fishing is treated as a close substitute for other nature-based recreational opportunities, but the total stock of those opportunities is diminished, then a loss of fishing recreation is a loss for the whole product group. Alternatively, if recreational fishing is considered to be significantly different than other nature-based recreational activities, then any loss incurred will be directly registered.
In sum, it is my view that the relevance of substitutability for a discussion of recreational fishing losses must rest on the demonstration that there is a range of similar “products” available and that these products are not being diminished in quantity or quality over time. In the context of present North American society, these would seem to be difficult conditions to demonstrate.
LOSSES TO FISHING RECREATION—AND RATIONALITY
As noted earlier, it was not difficult for economists who believed that recreational fishing was relatively unimportant to a person's total welfare, and who believed that even if it were, there were lots of substitutes around, to label high value responses to recreational fishing value questions as irrational. For economists using an ability (or willingness) to pay approach, this presumption was reinforced by the need to limit responses to an individual's disposable income. Hence, when a “high” response was obtained, the respondent was either “persuaded” to be more rational, the survey was “re-designed” to render response more rational, or the respondent was labelled “irrational”, and his answer discarded. In this way, right up to the present, it is not unusual to see economic analysts discarding between 30 and 50% of their data. And, of course, the 30 to 50% discarded are responses from those individuals who feel most strongly about the recreational fishing resource at risk.
Conversely, where it is perceived that value responses concerning recreational fishing opportunities at risk properly involve assessment of the offer (or selling) prices of present rights holders, the rationality problem becomes manageable. For while a public recreator's ability to pay will be limited by his income, his willingness to sell is under no such constraint. Thus, all value responses can be reported to the decision-maker, a practice that, in this author's view, is desirable in any event. In fact, even respondents who provide “infinite” responses can be reported, under a classification analogous to the private market's “not for sale.” Construction of such an offer curve allows the decision-maker to establish his own dollar value editing limit for parametric analysis of response, with responses below the edit level reported in a traditional dollar value mode, and that portion of the sample above the edit level being reported as “not offering their recreational fishing rights for sale” at the edit price (Meyer 1978a). In work that I am currently conducting in California, it would appear that “not for sale” may be close to a majority response today, where further losses of fish and wildlife are contemplated.
METHODOLOGIC RESPONSE IN THE NON-ECONOMIC AREA
Just as economics has moved, albeit slowly, to respond to changing fishing circumstance, and declining recreational capability, so sociologists, behavioral psychologists, medical practitioners and other non-economic professionals have moved to respond to the challenge of assessing contemporary recreational value at risk.
In my view, this response has achieved some successes on two fronts. First, as noted earlier, the philosophical eloquence of earlier conservationists stands undiminished today, and has a continuing effect on a problem and site specific basis. Second, a seemingly new value initiative is emerging focussing on the remedial qualities of natural recreation for the aged, the disadvantaged and the disabled. To date, these initiatives have also tended to be problem and site specific, likely reflecting the complexities of interactions between human and natural systems. In Los Angeles County, for instance, a 1 year program to expose handicapped persons to natural recreational experiences on Santa Catalina Island provided significant benefit to participants, while use of the same area to provide new experiences for troubled juveniles from urban centers demonstrated similarly impressive results. This latter group had, in many instances, never taken a boat ride or seen a live fish and literally did not know that such areas existed. Marked behavioral changes were evident, and many of the juveniles quickly became protective of this newly discovered environment (Weeks 1979). In Canada, similar results are evident through the Golden Rod and Reels, a fishing club for the elderly, operated at several centers in British Columbia. There, fishing trips, combined with regular meetings and lectures related to the outdoors, provide social and recreational opportunities for older citizens (Dodd 1979).
Attempts, primarily by sociologists, to develop a broader methodological response to fishery (and other) recreation values at risk have been, in my view, less successful. Proceeding primarily via statistical techniques for classification, methods such as factor and cluster analysis8 appear to lend considerable descriptive power to the value analyst but remain largely at the mercy of statistical assumptions used, and presumptions with respect to result. It is thus my conclusion that non-economic treatment of recreational fishing value can be applied with considerable benefit in some particular and defined circumstances, but that non-economic approaches to the trade-off of recreational fishing values, in general, are still struggling to develop an effective method for producing quantifiable results.
8 For a summary review of such techniques, see Phillips (1977).
A MIXED STRATEGY FOR THE VALUATION OF FISHING RECREATION
Rather than leaving the economist to struggle with capturing the essence of recreational fishing value, and the non-economist to struggle with quantification, a new and exciting research initiative is presently evident in both Canada and the U.S. where economists, sociologists, psychologists, legalists, and so on are taking a team approach to the study of recreational value (Meyer and Dolphin 1977; Bishop and Heberlein 1979; Knetch and Weintrib 1979). This approach has three inter-related payoffs. First, the social scientist's understanding of man combines with the economist's understanding of systems for exchange to enhance the value perceptions of each. Second, the differing perceptions and professional backgrounds of participants act to redefine (and usually broaden) conception of the value problem to fill in missing or ignored pieces. Finally, the incorporation of several alternative (economic and non-economic) value indicators in a single survey instrument, enhances the credibility of the instrument itself. As noted earlier, results from surveys of recreational fishing values are not always exact, and traditional science has often posed replication as a test of accuracy. But to resurvey human subjects is almost always expensive, uncertain, and has seldom been attempted. An alternative is offered by building a form of replication into the initial survey instrument. This can be achieved by seeking the same value signal in several different ways, some economic, some not, in the same survey or interview. This practice does not provide a parametric equivalence between value indices but makes possible, at a policy level, a general comparison of signals.
In sum, while the particular own-discipline problems of valuing recreation fisheries at risk require continued attention, it is in the area of the integration of economic and social value measurements that greatest opportunity may lie. For it is unlikely that the economics for valuing public recreational opportunity will ever be able to capture the full essence of the mystery of the marlin, the salmon, or the trout. Here non-economic description will likely do better, but will, in its turn, also fall short when explicit analysis of the benefits and costs of tradeoffs is required.
FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS FOR EVALUATION OF RECREATIONAL FISHERIES IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES
While this paper has provided an appraisal of some of the developments to date in valuing recreational fisheries at risk in the U.S. and Canada and particularly those of the past year or so, it seems important, in closing sections, to look ahead and to discuss perceptions of the valuation issues that may now be emerging as future methodological challenges. Three of these issues will be briefly discussed here: the increasingly urbanized nature of society in Canada and the U.S.; the increasing awareness of the need for ecosystems approaches to the study and management of fisheries; and the increasing complexity of interactions between human and natural systems with resultant increasing uncertainty concerning the conclusions stemming from scientific investigations of these interactions.
Urbanization and Recreational Fishing
Urbanization poses several questions to concern the recreational fishing valuer. First, because, in a statistical sense, total human value might be argued to be the sum of individual values; cities are where people reside, and therefore, where by far the greatest portion of the value associated with recreational fisheries resides as well. This is particularly relevant for compensatory evaluation, for while it may be convincingly argued that recreators must appear “at site” to realize value, recent work indicates that where losses of available natural opportunity are contemplated, citizens are usually strongly resistant, whether they presently appear on site or not. (Meyer 1978a; Center for Natural Areas 1978) In this sense, scientists who assess value concerning potential recreational losses “only at site,” may fail to represent a significant, or even the greatest portion of total human concern in their findings.
Second, studies of fishing recreation in or near urban areas are finding that the urban resident, unlike the traditional “sportsman” targeted in many past value studies, does not have a precise understanding of fishing sport species or their characteristics (Hartman 1980). Undoubtedly, he/she will be able to distinguish “big” fish from “small” ones and will likely attach generalized names to each. Beyond that, knowledge may not be extensive, however. This poses a major challenge to “by species” evaluation, and when study is directed to general urban populations, to the meaning of reported results. It is my consequent impression, that benefit may be obtained from directing a greater portion of value research toward valuation of “habitat” rather than of species. In methodological work presently underway on this subject in California,9 some initial impressions may be of interest. First, it appears that a significant number of (at least younger) Californians may value all species and be aware, in a general way, of the inter-connectedness of ecosystems. Second, when pressed to identify individual species of value, their initial choices may center on those they considered “endangered.” In this sense, supply considerations may become an important criterion for species selection. Finally, for some respondents, species heavily targeted by present users will be selected but perhaps not in all cases. It should be emphasized that these results are very preliminary. They nevertheless provide an interesting background for design speculation with respect to future valuing of urban recreational fisheries.
A third factor of likely importance to recreational fishing concerns the future perceptions of urban residents denied access to sport fishing. In one study, conducted in Vancouver and Victoria, Canada (Meyer 1978b), it was identified that adults who had not been exposed to sport fishing as children were 2,8 times less likely to sport fish than those who had.10 This statistic, when placed alongside those indicating a steady erosion of urban recreational opportunity, must pose a serious challenge to scientists and managers who expect society to keep the values of recreational fisheries fixed in their futures.
Finally, and in some degree consistent with the previous observation, I have very preliminary indication from present methods testing, that some respondents, that are resident in urban areas where fish and wildlife are relatively depressed, and where they are bombarded by industrial and commercial “information” concerning the “realistic limits of natural futures,” may still associate high values with recreational fishing, but may be setting their sights lower, to conform more to the perceived realism of the propagandists. It should be emphasized that this perception is speculative at the present time but it seems sufficiently threatening to warrant early examination, and the preparation of programs for remedy.
10 The comparable figure for hunting was 6,3 times.
Ecosystems and Recreational Fishing
It was noted in the previous section that both scientists and the general public are becoming increasingly aware of the interrelationships and inter-dependencies between the various components of ecosystems. Thus, while it is important to get a value handle on particular fish species that are being delivered as products to sportsmen, the valuator of recreational fisheries at risk must never lose sight of this inter-dependence and of the fact that risk may be heightened, or a target sports species lost, through impacts or events taking place elsewhere in that species' ecosystem. Chamberlin, in a recent paper, puts this concern succinctly:
… most current economic methods partition total resource values among ecosystem components in a linear and additive model. The fractional value of any system component is then inversely related to the complexity of the system. This procedure violates the ecosystem concept that there may be one or several components, in the absence of which the total system value becomes zero. A more realistic model would perhaps be based on a network structure of conditional joint probabilities which would include the uncertainty inherent in natural systems. (Chamberlin 1979.)
Chamberlin's proposed solution may be one of several. It seems clear, however, that some consideration of ecosystems interrelationships is important to the valuing of recreational fisheries at risk.
Uncertainty, Onus of Proof, and Value
A final topic of contemporary concern for the valuation of recreational fisheries at risk stems from the increasing complexity of interactions between ecological and human systems, and resultant uncertainty with respect to impact result. Bella (1974) has noted that while knowledge of man's impact upon ecosystems is increasing, the ability of our technological society to create and diversify impacts is increasing even faster. This divergence between what we know and what we need to know creates major difficulty for the treaditional scientist, who has long been willing to accept a cause and effect “onus of proof” for his result. Too often today that proof has not come forth within the time frame dictated by decisions, recreational fishing values have gone unstated or understated, and decisions unnecessarily adverse to recreational fisheries have been taken. If the trends identified here continue, and they likely will, uncertainty about impacts on threatened recreational fisheries may, in a scientific sense, continue to increase over time. If this is so, and valuation of recreational fisheries at risk is to be effective, it appears that the analysts will need to interface with practitioners of probability theory, decision theory and similar techniques that merge judgement and strategy with observed cause and effect (Bella and Meyer 1979).
SUMMATION
Change toward greater resource scarcity in Canada and the U.S. has acted, over the past several decades, to alter the nature of recreational fishing opportunity. This has required that the methods for valuing recreational fishing evolve as well. On the economics side, such evolution has involved the recognition that where public recreation values are lost, or may be lost, they must be valued as losses, using a compensatory methodology, and that failure to do so will generally lead to significant value understatement and to not reporting the value concerns of many citizens. Progress to resolve this deficiency has been slow, but is gaining momentum, both at a theoretical and at an institutional level and it can be hoped that economists may soon be able to offer fair and equal treatment of public recreational fishing resources.
At the same time, other social scientists have been developing their approaches, with most notable success in areas of description and of problem specific remedy. At present, however, economists, working alone, predictably fall short of capturing the essence of recreational fishery value, while social scientists encounter difficulties where trade-offs analysis is required. Economic and social scientists working together have had impressive success in backstopping each others' deficiencies, and this team technique offers major hope for the future.
In the future, analysts studying recreational fisheries at risk will need to be aware of, and deal with, several further emerging factors. Among these will be urbanization, with its challenge to traditional methods of product identification and to the survival of a broadly based recreational fishing constituency, the interrelatedness of ecological species and systems, which similarly pose new requirements for definition of recreational products and programs and increasing scientific uncertainty about actual impacts on ecosystems, and consequent need to interface with strategic applications incorporating judgement and environmental safety.
LITERATURE CITED
Anderson, S.H. (ed). 1976 Recreation—marine promise. Newport Beach, USC-SC-3. 232p.
Anonymous Student. 1979 Statement on dollar estimates of public recreational value. Davis, California. 1p.
Baumgartner, R. and T.A. Heberlein. 1979 Process, goal and social interaction differences in recreation: what makes an activity substitutable? Madison, U. of Wisconsin. 22p.
Bella, D.A. 1974 Fundamentals of comprehensive environmental planning, engineering issues. JPA ASCF 100(11).
Bella, D.A. and P.A. Meyer. 1978 Managing uncertainty on the shore. Victoria, Shore Management Symposium, Canadian Council of Resources and Environment Ministers. 23p.
Bishop, R.C. and T.A. Heberlein. 1979 Measuring values of extramarket goods: are direct measures biased? Pullman, Washington. Annual meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association.
Bohm, P. 1972 Estimating demand for public goods: an experiment. European Economic Review 3(1):111–130.
Brookshire, D.S. and A.J. Randall. 1978 Public policy alternatives, public goods and contingent valuation mechanisms. Laramie, University of Wyoming. 43p.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1979 Comments on the Water Resource Council's proposed rules and procedures for evaluation of benefits and costs in water resources planning (NED account). Los Angeles. 2p.
Center for Natural Areas. 1978 Santa Catalina Island conservation and recreation plan: general population survey-analysis and conclusions. Los Angeles. 44p.
Chamberlin, T.W. 1979 Instream ecosystem valuation problems in British Columbia. Annual Meeting of the Western Association for the Valuation of Ecosystems, Qualicum Beach, B.C. 9p.
Clepper, H. 1976 Marine recreational fisheries. Washington, D.C. Sport Fishing Institute. 174p.
Dodd, C.J.H. 1979 Personal communication. Victoria, Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Environment. 1p.
Dwyer, J.F., J.R. Kelly and M.D. Bowes. 1977 Improved procedures for valuation of the contribution of recreation to natural economic development. Urbana-Champaign, U. of Illinois. 218p.
Environment and Land Use Secretariate. 1977 Guidelines for benefit/cost analysis. Victoria, Province of British Columbia. 175p.
Environment Canada. 1974 An assessment of the effects of the System E flood control proposal on the salmon resource of the Fraser river system. Vancouver, Fisheries and Marine Service. 563p.
Friedman, M. 1965 Capitalism and freedom. Chicago, Phoenix Books. 202p.
Greenwalt, L.A. 1979 Memorandum on review of proposed procedures for evaluation of national economic develop (NED) benefits and costs in water resources planning (level C) and proposed revisions to the standards for planning water and related land resources. Washington, D.C., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (July 27) 4p.
Haig-Brown, R. 1961 The living land. Toronto, MacMillan. 260p.
Hammack, J. and G.M. Brown. 1974 Waterfowl and wetlands: toward bioeconomic analysis. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press. 295p.
Hartman, A.R. 1980 Southern California party boat anglers survey. Sacramento, California Department of Fish and Game, Admin. Rpt. No. 80-7. 33p.
Idaho Cooperative Fishery Unit. 1973 A report to the National Marine Fisheries Services on workshops in fishery economics at Moscow, Idaho and Madison, Wisconsin. Moscow, Idaho, U. of Idaho. 100p.
Knetsch, J. and A. Weintrib. 1979 Legal rules, efficiency and alternative measures of economic loss. Toronto, U. of Toronto, Faculty of Law. 31p.
Krutilla, J.V. and A.S. Fisher. 1975 The economics of natural environments. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., Johns Hopkins University Press, pp.25–28.
Liebhafsky, H.H. 1963 The nature of price theory. Homewood, Illinois, Dorsay Press. 562p.
Meyer, P.A. 1978a Updated estimates for recreation and preservation values associated with the salmon and steelhead of the Fraser River. Vancouver, Fisheries and Environment Canada. 35p.
Meyer, P.A. 1978b Recreation: a study of satisfaction and substitutability in recreation available to residents of urban British Columbia. Vancouver, Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Ministry of Recreation and Conservation. 102p.
Meyer, P.A. 1979 Publicly vested values for fish and wildlife: criteria in economic welfare and interface with the law. Land Economics 55(2):223–235.
Meyer, P.A. and D.R. Dolphin. 1977 A system for determining economic loss associated with estuary degredation. Coastal Zone Management Journal 3(4):385–404.
Mishan, E.J. 1971 The postwar literature on externalities: an interpretive essay. Journal of Economic Literature, 9(March):1–28.
Mishan, E.J. 1974 The economics of disamenity. Natural Resources Journal, 14(Jan.):55–86.
Pearse, P.H. and M.E. Laub. 1969 The value of the Kootenay Lake sport fishery: an economic analysis. Victoria, Department of Recreation and Conservation. 58p.
Phillips, S.D. 1977 Satisfaction and substitution in recreation: a pilot study. Vancouver, Fisheries and Environment Canada. 89p.
Schumpeter, J.A. 1963 History of economic analysis. New York, Oxford Press. 1207p.
Schweitzer, E.L. 1979 Wildlife values information-Forest Service requirements and availability, in a workshop on methods of assessing and categorizing values of wildlife. Tucson, U. of Arizona. 32p.
Sinclair, W.F. 1978 The economic and social impact of the Kemano II hydroelectric project on British Columbia's fisheries resources. Vancouver, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 235p.
State Water Resources Control Board. 1978 Environmental impact report for the water quality control plan and water right discussion-Sacramento-San Joaquin delta and Suisun marsh. Sacramento. 335p.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979 Fish and wildlife coordination act-proposed regulations-slide/tape script. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Water Resources Council. 1973 Establishment of principles and standards for planning. Federal Register 38:Part III, No. 174.
U.S. Water Resources Council. 1979 Procedures for evaluation of national economic development (NED) benefits and costs in water resources planning (level C) and proposed revisions to the standards for planning water and related land resources.
Weeks, R. 1979 Personal communication, Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, Department of Parks.
Wengert, N. 1955 Natural resources and the political struggles. New York, Random House. 71p.
Willig, R.D. 1976 Consumer's surplus without apology. American Economic Review, 66(Sept.): 589–97.
Jon R. Miller
Department of Economics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 USA
J. John Charbonneau
Division of Program Plans, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240 USA
ABSTRACT
The planning process being implemented for the upcoming 1980 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation is based on data needs for management and policy analysis. Focusing on resource management problems in preparation of the final survey design for 1980 will not only produce timely data but will ensure the availability of information for analyses that will enhance fish and wildlife management programs. Integration of habitat data with the survey results will produce a unique data base never before assembled. As a direct result of the efforts to produce usable data, a coordinated Great Lakes fishery report will be produced in cooperation with the Canadian Government and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
RÉSUMÉ
Le processus de plannification mis en place pour l'année à venir 1980 en ce qui concerne l'étude de la Pêche, Chasse et Loisirs Associés a la Nature, est basé sur un besoin en données pour la gestion et l'analyse de décision. La mise en exergue des problèmes de gestion des ressources dans la préparation du plan final d'étude pour 1980 ne fournira pas seulement des données opportunnes, mais encore rendra disponibles des informations pour des analyses qui mettront l'accent sur des programmes de gestion de la pêche et de la vie sauvage. L'intégration des données d'habitat avec les résultats de l'étude produira une base de données jamais encore assemblée. En temps que résultat direct des efforts visant à produire des données utilisables, un rapport coordonné à propos de la Pêche dans les Grands Lacs sera produit en coopération entre le gouvernement canadien et la Commission de la Pêche dans les Grands Lacs.
INTRODUCTION
This paper will review and discuss the U.S. experience with the national surveys of fishing and hunting. In particular, some insights gained from analysis of the 1975 survey will be discussed and related to modifications in design and content of the upcoming 1980 survey. Also discussed is a coordinated data gathering effort for the major fisheries of the Great Lakes. The coordinated design of the U.S. and Canadian surveys for 1980 will yield a common data base for use by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission in the management of Great Lakes fishery resources.
EVOLUTION AND EVALUATION OF THE U.S. NATIONAL FISHING AND HUNTING SURVEYS
At five year intervals since 1955 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has conducted a national survey of fishing and hunting. Prior to 1975 these surveys were primarily designed to produce estimates of the number of sportsmen, days of participation, and associated expenditures for broad activity categories, e.g., fishing in lakes, reservoirs, ponds, rivers, etc. The surveys were designed to produce statistically reliable results at the national level. Selected national totals were disaggregated into nine regional estimates to emphasize geographical variations in fishing and hunting activity. In an attempt to improve the usefulness of the survey data in wildlife management, the scope of the 1975 national survey was expanded in two ways. First, the sample size was increased in an attempt to gather enough data on hunters and fishermen to produce statistically reliable results for individual species of major recreational interest, e.g., bass, trout, salmon, etc. Second, estimation of categories of user statistics was designed to yield statistically reliable results on the individual state level. These two changes broadened immensely the scope and complexity of the national survey. In the remainder of this section, the survey design and analytical experience gained from the 1975 survey will be examined more closely. The insights gained from this closer examination should help other wildlife management agencies avoid some of the problems encountered with the methodology of the 1975 survey.
The 1975 survey was implemented in two stages. The first stage involved telephone interviews with approximately 100 000 households to screen the U.S. population for those individuals who had either hunted or fished in 1975. In the second stage, a mail questionnaire was sent to a sample of those who had reported, in the telephone interview, hunting or fishing activity. Using a random sample design with clustering, the 1975 survey attempted to estimate the number of hunters and fishermen, days of participation, and hunting-and fishing-related expenditures in each of the 50 U.S. states. For some of the species categories, there was little activity in some individual states, resulting in inadequate sample sizes.
The 1975 estimates were subject to two major kinds of potential bias. First, with a 37% response rate to the mail questionnaire, the non-respondents may have engaged in different kinds of hunting and fishing activities. Second, some estimates were based on the information provided only by those who stated an activity was their favorite hunting or fishing activity, thus leaving out a segment of the participants that may have had an influence on the final results. Either non-response and/or favorite activity bias could have resulted in serious misestimation of participation rates and economic values. With information on only the first and second favorite activity, a definitive statistical test of the amount of the bias was not possible. Therefore, to obtain statistically unbiased estimates of data on sportsmen's activities, the questionnaire used in the survey should be designed to obtain detailed responses for all participants in the activity; not just those who indicate it is a favorite activity. Also, a sampling statistician should be consulted to ensure a statistically reliable design for a follow-up survey of nonrespondents. The additional data obtained from the follow-up survey can be used to make appropriate adjustments to the results from the main survey.
POLICY STUDIES AS A BASIS FOR SURVEY DESIGN
The data from the 1975 survey were used in a number of studies directed toward fish and wildlife management policy issues. Examples include the estimation of the dollar value of recreational fishing and hunting to sportsmen and the importance of habitat for the pursuit of fishing and hunting activities. It is encouraging to note that analytical models using the 1975 data estimated values for days of fishing and hunting various species categories that are consistent with the relative popularity and challenge offered by these different game species. However, the potential biases in the survey suggest that the absolute quantitative level of the values may be suspect, and that wide application of those values should await further research.
In examining the importance of wildlife habitat on participation, habitat data derived from existing sources were integrated with user data from the national survey. In a study of waterfowl hunting, even with a relatively high degree of aggregation in the biological and environmental data (state totals), the results of the analysis indicated that the availability of habitat significantly affected the probability of participation. Furthermore, the analysis indicates there is a measurable effect on the number of days of participation during a year or season. Studies of participation in other activities using intrastate user samples and measures of wildlife availability yielded similar results. To pursue this analysis further, the 1980 survey will ask the participants for the location of their fishing and hunting activities, thereby enabling more precise correlations between habitat characteristics and user pressure. The results should provide better management information for the future.
The national surveys are used for planning by numerous governmental and private organizations. Consequently, the 1980 national survey is being designed with special attention to producing statistically reliable results. Based on this expected reliability of user data, a complementary set of data on wildlife and habitat characteristics will be compiled from existing sources on a state-by-state basis. Ultimately, the merging of these two sources of data will give fish and wildlife managers a complete overview of resource availability and user pressure. The use of this complementary data, heretofore unavailable, will improve the ability to formulate and recommend meaningful management strategies for the preservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources.
COORDINATION FOR A GREAT LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT DATA BASE
To design the 1980 national survey to meet state and national data needs numerous coordination meetings are being held. The use of management goals as a guide for survey design not only improves the applicability but should also increase the usefulness of the results as well. Recently, a meeting was held between U.S. and Canadian representatives under the auspices of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. The result was one of the most significant coordination activities planned for the 1980 survey. Both countries agreed upon a joint effort to compile a standardized data base for the management of the Great Lake fisheries. Working with representatives of the Canadian Government and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the fishery data and socio-demographic characteristics of the Great Lakes fishermen will be collected using compatible definitions, and therefore, the data can be combined to produce a single Great Lakes report. Specifically, the data collection instruments of both the U.S. and Canada will be reviewed by members of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and recommendations will be made to allow for the structuring of inclusive cross-tabulations of the data and the standardization of information on fishing days. These efforts are expected to produce a uniform data base that the Great Lakes Fishery Commission can draw upon for its management decisions. It is hoped that this coordinated effort will serve as a model and will lead to improved international management of the Great Lakes fishery resource.
Eugene L. Nakamura
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Panama City Laboratory, 3500 Delwood Beach Road, Panama City, Florida 32407 USA
ABSTRACT
Much information is needed to determine the best use of fish resources in the Gulf of Mexico. In the absence of an adequate knowledge of ecological relationships and of comparable economic values, socio-political forces will most likely play the most influential role in pursuading resource managers to favor recreational fishing as the best use.
RÉSUMÉ
Beaucoup d'informations sont nécéssaires pour déterminer le meilleur usage des ressources en poisson dans le Golfe du Mexique. En l'absence d'une connaissance adéquate des relations écologiques et de valeurs économiques comparables, des forces socio-politiques joueront très probablement le rôle le plus influent pour persuader les gestionnaires des ressources de favoriser la pêche de loisir en temps que meilleur usage.
1 Contribution Number 80-58PC, NOAA, NMFS, SEFC.
INTRODUCTION
Besides their value in an environmental context, marine fishery resources have multiple commercial and recreational uses. Although commercial fishing has traditionally been the principal focus for fishery management, economists and recreational interests in recent years have largely helped to create a change in management philosophy, from the commercially oriented concept of maximum sustainable yield to the more general, and difficult to define, concept of optimum yield (Larkin 1977; Roedel 1975). Consideration of marine recreational fishing in fishery management is now mandated by law (The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, referred to as PL 94–265), which requires that optimum yield be determined by computing maximum sustainable yield and modifying it “by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor.”
Non-exploitation has been advocated by some when fish stocks (1) serve as major food sources for more desirable species, (2) should remain undisturbed so they may be viewed esthetically, and (3) are in danger of extinction.
Recreational and commercial fishing occur in most fisheries. Because of historical usages of a resource by both groups and because of the necessity of management measures either after a conflict arises between the user groups or after catches decline, the question of the best use of the resource is not usually asked. Rather, questions of allocations and of fishing restrictions are asked with an underlying assumption that management is acting to conserve the resource.
Criteria for best use are difficult to establish owing to the difficulty of obtaining objective or quantitative comparability between the uses. Since the motivations and purposes of recreational and commercial fishing differ, landings, effort, value of catches, expenditures, etc., with which use is measured, cannot be justifiably compared. Managers, therefore, accept uses by both groups and decide how much, where, when, and in what manner each group will share the resource. Alternative food sources, food requirements, and trophic relationships in the ecosystem must be known, all of which require detailed, lengthy investigations.
The economic, socio-political, and ecological aspects of fisheries and how these factors have, and will, affect decisions on uses of resources in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico are discussed below.
ECONOMICS
Determining the value of a commercial fishery is somewhat easier than for a recreational fishery. Records are available for the value of commercial landings and processed products, whereas usually few records are available for a recreational fishery. The problem of determining the value of recreational fisheries has been discussed often in great detail with little agreement on a solution (Stroud and Clepper 1976; Bell 1978). Because marine fish resources are common property, much of the difficulty centers around the nature of the resource and the purpose of the activity. That is, they are not owned by any one person or corporation, and thus usage of the resource is not marketed.
The significance of marine recreational fishing in Florida has been shown by Bell (1979). He studied the primary and secondary impacts, that is, the jobs and incomes that have been generated, by both recreational and commercial fisheries in Florida. (He stressed the preliminary nature of his study, and also that recreational values are conservative while commercial values are not.) Bell estimated that in Florida in 1975 more than $851 million were spent by marine recreational fishermen, marine recreational fishing supported about 118 000 jobs, and user value of marine recreational fishing and associated activities was about $1,16 billion. In marine commercial fisheries in Florida in 1975, Bell estimated that about $160 million in final sales was produced (validity of comparing user value and final sales is not implied); the direct and indirect employment amounted to about 36 300 jobs.
In certain coastal counties where marine recreational fishing is generally a significant portion of marine recreation, a significant impact by recreational fishing is indicated. For example, in 1978 in Bay County, Florida, about 11% of the total employment in the county was related to marine recreation (Fernald et al. 1979).
Although the growth of tourism and population in Florida (see below) is occurring faster than in the other coastal states of the Gulf of Mexico, the general trend is the same in all of the coastal states. The economic impact of this trend will require greater consideration of recreational uses of fish stocks by marine resource managers in the future. This does not have to occur with a concomitant decrease in commercial fishing, however. Consumers of seafood would not have to be denied, as allowances could be made for the entry of recreational catches into commercial markets, a practice already existing along the coasts of the Gulf of Mexico (and which has been advocated by Beaumariage 1978).
SOCIO-POLITICS
In Florida, socio-political pressure has already produced legislation declaring the commercial sale of certain species (sailfish Istiophorus platypterus, snook Centropomus undecimalis, bonefish Albula vulpes, tarpon Megalops atlantica) to be unlawful. Thus, these species have indirectly been declared recreational. Texas is the only other gulf state that has legislated against the commercial sale of a marine species (the anadromous striped bass Morone saxatilis, which has been introduced into freshwaters in that state and is only occasionally reported from salt water).
A large number of marine species in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico are fished by U.S. recreational fishermen but not by U.S. commercial fishermen. In addition to those species listed previously, the following are included: blue marlin Makaira nigricans, white marlin Tetrapturus albidus, spearfish Tetrapturus pfluegeri, blackfin tuna Thunnus atlanticus, yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares, bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus, and many species of sharks. Many of these species have been caught in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico by foreign commercial fishermen. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (one of eight management bodies created by PL 94–265) and other councils have felt a great deal of pressure from marine recreational fishermen to take measures to prevent commercial fishing for these species.
The only marine fish harvested solely by commercial fishermen in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico is the gulf menhaden Brevoortia patronus, which is processed for fish meal and oil.
Political pressure from recreational fishing interests have had a considerable impact upon recreational and commercial fisheries for sciaenid fishes in the states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. In Louisiana commercial fishermen had been using monofilament gill nets with 4,7 cm (1½ in) mesh to catch spotted seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus. Recreational fishermen were able to get the law changed so that only gill nets made of materials other than monofilament and of a mesh size of 5,1 cm (2 in) or larger could be used. In Texas, recreational fishermen exerted pressure to have the regulations changed so that neither recreational nor commercial fishermen can use their trotlines on weekends. Trotlines are used for catching red drum Sciaenops ocellatus. Declines in catches of large red drum, increases in catches of small red drum, and the danger of entanglement between trotlines and boats, especially on weekends when boating is heaviest, aroused recreational fishermen to have the regulations changed, thus reducing significantly fishing effort and danger of entanglement. In Mississippi, recreational fishermen were influential in getting limitations on both fishing gear and catches of red drum by commercial fishermen; other coastal states have also experienced the influence of recreational interests in regulating their sciaenid fisheries.
Other fisheries presently receiving socio-political pressures to control or ban particular types of fishing gear are the king mackerel Scomberomorus cavalla fishery and the reef fish (primarily snappers and groupers) fishery, both in south Florida. In the former, recreational fishermen and hook-and-line commercial fishermen have been especially vocal in attempting to have the use of gill nets banned. They claim that the gill nets capture excessive amounts of fish, that gill-net caught fish are of poor quality, and that a significant portion of the fish that are gillnetted fall to the bottom and are wasted as the gill net is hauled aboard the boat. In the reef fish fishery, the recreational interests are attempting to have fish traps banned. They claim that the traps overfish, that they contain significant numbers of non-food fish, and that coral reefs are damaged by setting and retrieving the traps. Whether or not their arguments have merit, these factions are placing an impressive amount of political pressure upon fishery managers.
Moreover, demographic changes in the coastal areas will tend to favor recreational fishing in management decisions to a greater degree in the future. The population has been increasing largely by immigration of northerners, who find the southern climate more desirable. As an example, Bay County, in northwest Florida, had an increase in population from 42 689 in 1950 to 67 131 in 1960 to 75 283 in 1970. In 1980, the population is projected to be 103 500 and in 2000 it is projected to be 148 385. Also in Bay County, from 1960 to 1970, the net immigration of persons under 50 years of age was negative, whereas net immigration of persons over 50 years of age was positive. The percentage of persons 55 years of age and older increased from 10,5% in 1960 to 14,4% in 1970 to 19,3% in 1977 (Florida Department of Commerce 1979).
With the influx of citizens (retirees) with more spare time, many will probably fish recreationally. That a substantial portion of anglers in certain types of fishing are older citizens has already been shown. Anglers 60 years and older comprised 44% of the pier fishermen in St. Petersburg, Florida (Fable and Saloman 1974).
Tourism also increases recreational fishing. All gulf coastal states, many coastal counties in the states, and individual municipalities are promoting tourism to their respective areas. Included in the promotions are invitations to participate in recreational fishing. Also, the number of fishing tournaments held in the coastal areas has been increasing. For example, the number of billfish tournaments in the Gulf of Mexico increased from 6 in 1972 to 21 in 1979.
Thus, increasing populations in coastal areas, increasing numbers of retirees, and increasing tourism will exert greater pressure upon fishery resource managers to consider recreational fishing more favorably.
ECOLOGY
The ecological factors that would be most useful in deciding best use of resources are those concerning predator-prey relations. Little is known of the trophic interrelationships between species in a marine ecosystem and how fluctuations in the abundance of one species affects the abundance of another. Managers of marine fish stocks therefore have not been able to utilize predator-prey information in their decisions, which is in contrast to managers of freshwater fisheries (Stroud and Clepper 1979).
For example, a controversy exists over the discarding of by-catches in the shrimp fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. When shrimp fishermen empty their trawl catches on the deck of their boat, the shrimp are selected and the remaining by-catch is dumped overboard. Many critics believe that the discards (mostly juvenile fishes and crustaceans other than shrimp) should be used in some manner rather than “wasted.” Fishermen do not bring in the by-catch because it is not economically feasible. Others believe that the shrimp trawls should be redesigned to help prevent juvenile fish mortalities. Many of these by-catch fish consist of species whose adults are eagerly sought by both recreational and commercial fishermen. Some consumers of the discards are species of fish sought by recreational fishermen—king mackerel, Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus maculatus, cobia Rachycentron canadum, bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix—all of which are frequently caught near shrimp boats. Is decreasing or eliminating the by-catch and thereby allowing those marketable species to grow and enter commercial markets advantageous over providing “free meals” to predator species that are increasing their biomass at minimum energy costs (no pursuit required) and which are being fished by recreational fishermen? The comparative bio-economics of biomass conversion of the two situations could be helpful in management decisions.
Future controversies concerning the commercial harvesting of prey species, such as various species of clupeids and various species of small carangids, can be anticipated. In Louisiana particularly, recreational fishermen have already expressed concern about the commercial fishery for menhaden, claiming that excessive commercial exploitation is removing the forage for predator species sought by them. Information on trophic relationships, that is, “who eats whom” in what locations during which seasons, is now becoming available from research projects. Such information may prove to be important in assessing the impact of a decline in abundance of prey upon the feeding habits and behavior of the predators and would be extremely valuable to resource managers (Stroud and Clepper 1979).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The following persons were extremely helpful in providing comments, corrections, and suggestions: D. S. Beaumariage, J. T. Brawner, C. E. Bryan, W. W. Fox, Jr., P. Johansen, T. D. Moore, and H. E. Schafer.
LITERATURE CITED
Beaumariage, D.S. 1978 Fishing for fun and profit. Fisheries, 3(3):16,18,20,21.
Bell, F.W. 1978 Food from the sea: the economics and politics of ocean fisheries. Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press. 380p.
Bell, F.W. 1979 Recreational versus commercial fishing in Florida: an economic impact analysis. Policy Sciences Program. Tallahassee, Florida, Florida State University, 30p.
Fable, W.A., Jr. and C.H. Saloman. 1974 The recreational fishery on three piers near St. Petersburg, Florida during 1971. Mar. Fish. Rev., 36(10):14–18.
Fernald, E.A., K. Walby, S.J. Miller and J.P. Jones III. 1979 Marine-related recreation businesses and public facilities in Bay County, Florida. Florida State University System of Florida Sea Grant Program. Techn. Pap. No. 15, 82p.
Florida Department of Commerce. 1979 Bay County economic data. Tallahassee, Florida. 73p.
Larkin, P.A. 1977 An epitaph for the concept of maximum sustained yield. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 106(1):1–11.
Roedel, P.M. (Ed.). 1975 Optimal sustainable yield as a concept in fisheries management. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ., 9, 89p.
Stroud, R.H. and H. Clepper (Eds.). 1976 Marine recreational fisheries. Washington, D.C., Sport Fishing Institute, 174p.
Stroud, R.H. and H. Clepper (Eds.). 1979 Predator-prey systems in fisheries management. Washington, D.C., Sport Fishing Institute, 504p.
Jacques Pelletier
Ministère du Loisir, de la Chasse et de la Pêche, Direction de la Planification, 150 Boul. St-Cyrille, Québec, Canada
RÉSUMÉ
Le présent document fait état d'un modèle mathématique applicable à la répartition de la demande. Ce modèle, en plus d'être explicatif de l'état actuel de la situation, est apte à prédire comment se répartira cette demande dans le futur. Le modèle offre également la possibilité de simuler ce que devrait être la répartition de la demande en tenant compte des circonstances les plus probables selon le cours actuel des évènements. On peut étudier de cette façon les conséquences sur le système réel étudié selon qu'entre temps, telle ou telle composante aura été modifiée. Le modèle est analogique parce que sa conception est basée sur une analogie entre la réalité étudiée et une autre déjà formulée mathématiquement, soit la dispersion du flux des électrons dans un réseau électrique. Nous présentons de plus un exemple d'application de la simulation.
ABSTRACT
The estimate of the number of people and consequently the number of days of recreation devoted to the exploitation of fishery resources is certainly a parameter of prime importance for the manager of a given territory. But what is even more important, a projection of this parameter is required for the formulation of strategic development plans. In addition to the demographic studies, several authors have proposed, as a resolving factor, to establish the consumption pattern of the population sector using the resource. This is reflected by drawing up mathematical models of the laws governing the utilization of the resource generally based on observation of the situation during the preceding years. Subsequently extrapolated results are generated for the coming years on a ceteris paribus hypothesis. Now this hypothesis is often on too high a level compared with the rate at which fishing habits evolve, which has the effect of seriously handicapping the effectiveness of these models. These models are incapable of taking into account the changes likely to modify, either the access network to the water bodies or the supply of ichthyologic resources of a particular area, or again the level of demand on holidays, or a combination of these three factors. These new constraints led us to develop a model initially set up by Jack Berry Ellis of Michigan University (USA). This model, besides being explanatory of the present state of distribution of demand, is suitable for predicting how this demand will be distributed in the future. In addition, the model affords the possibility of simulating what the distribution of demand would be taking into account the most probable circumstances according to the present course of events. In this way we estimate the consequences on the actual system studied, according to whether in the meantime such or such restrictive measure has been applied, or such or such management project has been carried out. Finally, the model proposed is analogous because its conception is based on an analogy between the reality studied and another already formulated mathematically, that is to say the dispersion of the flux of electrons in an electric network.
INTRODUCTION
L'estimation du nombre de personnes et conséquemment du nombre de jours de récréation consacrés à l'exploitation de la ressource ichtyologique est sans contredit un paramètre de première importance pour la gestion d'un territoire de pêche. Bien plus, une projection temporelle de ce paramètre est même requise lors de l'élaboration des plans de développement. Or, une telle donnée ou chronologie est souvent difficile à établir.
Par delà les études démographiques, plusieurs auteurs ont proposé comme élément de solution d'établir, pour une plus ou moins longue période, la structure de consommation du segment de la population utilisatrice de la ressource, de modéliser mathématiquement les lois qui régissent l'utilisation de la ressource et d'extrapoler ces données pour les années à venir sous l'hypothèse “ceteris paribus”.
Bien que cette démarche donne des résultats intéressants, il est à craindre que cette dernière hypothèse soit souvent trop forte compte tenu par exemple, de la rapidité avec laquelle évolue les habitudes de pêche et les comportements de la population par rapport aux déplacements. Ainsi, fréquemment, ces modèles ne sont pas suffisamment puissants pour tenir compte des changements susceptibles de modifier soit le réseau d'accès aux plans d'eau, soit la disponibilité de la ressource ichtyologique d'une zone particulière, soit le niveau de la demande de jours de récréation ou une combinaison de ces trois éléments.
Cette conception nous a amené à développer un modèle mathématique initialement mis au point par Jack Berry Ellis de l'Université du Michigan (USA). Ce modèle en plus d'être explicatif de l'état actuel de la répartition de la demande, est apte à prédire comment se répartira cette demande dans le futur. Il offre également la possibilité de simuler ce que devrait être la répartition de la demande compte tenu des circonstances les plus probables selon le cours actuel des événements. Il est alors possible d'évaluer les conséquences sur le système étudié, en l'occurence la répartition de la demande d'utilisation de la ressource ichtyologique, selon qu'entre temps on aura appliqué telle ou telle mesure restrictive ou réalisé tel ou tel project d'aménagement.
Enfin, le modèle est analogique parce que sa conception est basée sur une analogie entre la réalité étudiée et une autre deja formulée mathématiquement, soit la dispersion du flux des électrons dans un réseau électrique.
LES ASSISES DU MODÉLE
L'analogie qui nous intéresse est celle qui fait correspondre le flux des jours-pêche par année pour un territoire donné au flux des électrons par seconde à travers un réseau électrique. Aux zones d'exploitation, nous faisons correspondre des appareils électriques, aux routes d'accès des fils électriques et aux centres de masse des populations des zones émettrices des sources de courant. Les deux variables fondamentales en électricité ont aussi leurs équivalents: au potentiel (volt) on fait correspondre la propension à pêcher et à l'intensité du courant (ampère) on fait correspondre le flux des jours-pêche par année dans le réseau.
Cette analogie est justifiée d'un point de vue théorique parce que l'activité de pêche comme le flux électrique dans un réseau répond aux six postulats fondamentaux de la théorie mathématique des graphes.
Dans le contexte de la présente recherche, ces six postulats peuvent s'énoncer de la façon suivante:
Le système doit être identifiable à un ensemble de composantes, à savoir: les sources, les liens, les destinations.
L'interaction entre les composantes doit avoir lieu en certains points précis.
Deux variables X et Y comme base du modèle de chacune des composantes et une équation reliant X et Y doit exister pour chacune des composantes.
Chaque composante est représentée par une arête dans un graphe linéaire.
La somme algébrique des variables Y correspondant aux arêtes d'un circuit est nulle (l'activité de pêche est une activité de circuit; tout pêcheur revient éventuellement chez lui, il n'y a pas de migration).
La somme algébrique des variables X correspondant aux arêtes d'une coupe est nulle (en principe, la propension à pêcher est nulle une fois que l'on a pêché).
Les deux derniers postulates sont connus en physique sous le nom de lois de Kirchoff et sont spécialement importants pour la résolution du système.
LA MODÉLISATION DES COMPOSANTES
Pour les origines, le flux émis, c'est-à-dire le nombre de jours de pêche, est estimé par divers sondages indépendants du présent modèle.
L'évaluation du flux à travers les liens routiers est fonction du potentiel de la source émettrice, du temps de parcourt du lien et du court direct (péage-traversier, etc.). Enfin, le flux aux destinations dépend de l'attractivité brute de la zone et d'un certain ratio de capacité.
De plus, afin d'assurer la résolution de l'algorithme mathématique, nous devons établir n autres équations mettant en relation le potentiel et l'intensité du courant. Ces équations sont obtenues par la construction de l'arbre du système constitué de toutes les arêtes reliant les sommets du graphes sans former de circuit.
Il est évident qu'un tel système peut rapidement devenir très complexe surtout si le nombre d'origines et de destinations augmente. L'utilisation de l'ordinateur s'impose donc pour la résolution du système d'équations. De plus, le recours à un programme informatique a été rendu nécessaire afin de mettre au point un processus de calibrage ou d'ajustement des prévisions issues du modèle pour une année de base, année pendant laquelle certaines observations ont pu être faites.
EXEMPLE D'APPLICATION
Considérons la région du Saguenay Lac St-Jean au Québec, où en 1978, il y avait en opération neuf zones d'exploitation contrôlées.
La fréquentation de même que l'origine des utilisateurs de ces territoires nous sont rendues disponibles grâce à un système de ceuillette de données aux postes d'acceuils de chacun de ces territoires. Nous disposons donc de toutes les données nécessaires à l'éstablissement de la structure de répartition de la demande d'utilisation de ces territoires sur la base de la demande exprimée en 1978.
Ainsi nous sommes en mesure de simuler l'effect sur l'utilisation actuelle des territoires accessibles aux pêcheurs, de l'ouverture d'une autre partie de territoire, d'un programme d'amélioration du réseau routier ou de la fermeture d'une ou plusieurs zones d'exploitation.
Considérons la demande exprimée en terme de jours de récréation pour les quatorze principaux centres de masse de population pour les neuf territoires visés par notre étude, l'attractivité de ces territoires en terme de rendement moyen par jour de pêche et les caractéristiques des trente et une composantes du réseau routier (Tableau 1). Enfin considérons le graphique de l'ensemble du système et l'arbre issu de ce système (Figs. 1 et 2 respectivement).
On peut observer au Tableau 2 le résultat simulé par notre modèle de la création d'une nouvelle ZEC Mars-Moulin sous l'hypothèse que cette dernière aura un rendement moyen par jour de pêche de 6,59.
Tableau 1. Données de base à l'établissement du modèle.a
| Centre de masse de population | Répartition de la demande actuelle en terme de jours de pêche | ||
| Abitibi | 630 | ||
| Outaouais | 157 | ||
| Montréal | 9 984 | ||
| Trois-Rivières | 630 | ||
| Beauce | 1 733 | ||
| Québec | 9 100 | ||
| Côte-Nord | 630 | ||
| La Baie | 13 550 | ||
| Chicoutimi | 73 631 | ||
| Alma | 24 500 | ||
| Roberval | 5 358 | ||
| Mistassini | 11 360 | ||
| Anse St-Jean | 3 151 | ||
| Sacré-Coeur | 3 151 | ||
| Zones des destinations | Rendement moyen | ||
| Onatchiway-est | 12,22 | ||
| Martin-Valin | 10,63 | ||
| Anse St-Jean | 8,55 | ||
| La Lièvre | 17,78 | ||
| Rivière-aux-Rats | 10,67 | ||
| La Boiteuse | 9,48 | ||
| Brébeuf | 5,43 | ||
| Des Passes | 11,31 | ||
| Chauvin | 8,88 | ||
DISCUSSION
La possibilité de prévoir l'effet, même simultané, de plusieurs modifications à un système, présente de nombreux avantages qui sont de nature à grandement faciliter le travail du plainificateur dans l'élaboration de ses politiques de développement. Nous n'insisterons donc pas d'avantage sur cet aspect préférant plutôt orienter la critique sur la nature même du modèle. Selon nous, la procédure que nous venons d'examiner sommairement présente l'avantage d'être basée sur des fondements théoriques éprouvés et dont la véracité est inébranlable. Toutefois, nous sommes aussi conscients que certains inconvénients sont susceptibles de limiter l'utilisation d'un tel modèle. Qu'ils nous suffisent de mentionner que cette procédure exige des données de base assez élaborées, qu'il ne peut être opéré par une personne non initiée à son fonctionnement mathématique et informatique.
Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Tableau 2. Résultats de la simulation.
| Zone d'exploitation contrôlée | Répartition actuelle de la demande (jours de pêche) | Répartition prévue de la demande (jours de pêche) | Répartition éffective (1979) |
| Onatchiway-est | 28 685 | 30 134 | 39 824 |
| Martin-Valin | 60 233 | 47 172 | 43 277 |
| Anse St-Jean | 3 946 | 13 880 | 11 991 |
| La Lièvre | 3 711 | 3 640 | 6 670 |
| Rivière-aux-Rats | 9 643 | 19 481 | 25 016 |
| La Boiteuse | 13 900 | 11 671 | 10 385 |
| Brébeuf | 16 533 | 6 251 | 4 000 |
| Des Passes | 13 582 | 3 386 | 2 274 |
| Chauvin | 7 332 | 19 370 | 17 349 |
| Mars-Moulin | 0 | 2 580 | 3 125 |
| Total | 157 565 | 157 565 | 163 911 |
En dépit de ces remarques, nous avons la conviction que cette démarche s'inscrit dans le cadre de développement de nouveaux outils de prévision, de planification et de simulation. En ce domaine, nous croyons que la prochaine décennie sera caractérisée par l'utilisation de plus en plus fréquente d'analogies, analogies qui le plus souvent seront physiques.
RÉFÉRENCES BIBLIOGRAPHIQUES
Ellis, J.B. 1965 The description and analysis of socio-economic systems by physical systems. Michigar State University, Ph.D. Electrical engineering.
Renous, M. 1973 Les modèles de simulation appliquée au tourisme et aux loisirs de plein air et leur intégration dans un système décisionnel. Rapport méthodologique No. 3. Vol. 1 M.T.C.P.
Therrien, G. 1976 Un modèle de simulation et une application conduisant à son extension. Université de Sherbrooke. Document interne.
