Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-747cfc64b6-9ng7f Total loading time: 0.255 Render date: 2021-06-14T19:48:26.918Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2018

R. J. Rhodes
Affiliation:
Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, College of Charleston, 66 George Street, Charleston, SC 29424-0001, USA, e-mail: rhodesr@cofc.edu
J. C. Whitehead
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC 28608-2051, USA
T. I. J. Smith
Affiliation:
High Bred Farms, Inc., 3303 Plow Ground Road, Johns Island, SC 29455, USA
M. R. Denson
Affiliation:
Marine Resources Division, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, PO Box 12559, Charleston, SC 29422, USA
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Get access

Abstract

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

Type
Article
Copyright
© Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP) (2008). ACCSP Data Warehouse [SC Red drum fishing participants, 2005]. Accessed December 12, 2008. http://www.accsp.org/datacenter/datawarehouse.Google Scholar
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (2002). Amendment 2 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Red Drum. Fishery Management Report No. 38, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (2017). 2017 Review of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Fishery Management Plan for Red Drum (Sciaenops ocellatus): 2016 Fishing Year. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
Blomquist, Glenn C., Blumenschein, Karen & Johannesson, Magnus (2009). Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias using Follow-up Certainty Statements: Comparisons Between Probably/Definitely and a 10-point Certainty Scale. Environmental and Resource Economics, 43(4), 473502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenschein, Karen, Blomquist, Glenn C., Johannesson, Magnus, Horn, Nancy & Freeman, Patricia (2008). Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment. The Economic Journal, 118(525), 114137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Trudy A. (1988.). A New Paradigm for Valuing Non-market Goods using Referendum Data: Maximum Likelihood Estimation by Censored Logistic Regression. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 15(3), 355379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Trudy A. (1991). Interval Estimates of Non-market Resource Values from Referendum Contingent Valuation Surveys. Land Economics, 67(4), 413421.10.2307/3146548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, Richard T. & Groves, Theodore (2007). Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 37(1), 181210.10.1007/s10640-007-9124-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Champ, Patricia A. & Bishop, Richard C. (2001). Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias. Environmental and Resource Economics, 19(4), 383402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Champ, Patricia A., Bishop, Richard C., Brown, Thomas C. & McCollum, Daniel (1997). Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods. Journal Environmental Economics and Management, 33(2), 151162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, Tanya L., Walker, Matthew J., Brenkert, Karl, Yost, Justin R. & Denson, Michael R. (2014). Population Genetics of Cobia. (Rachycentron canadum): Implications for Fishery Management Along the Coast of the Southeastern United States. Fishery Bulletin, 112, 2436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrow, Scott & Viscusi, W. Kip (2011). Toward Principles and Standards for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Safety. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 2(3), 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, William, H. (2003). Econometric Analysis. (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W. Michael (1989). Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Response Data: Reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 71(4), 10571061.10.2307/1242685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan (1987). A Satisfactory Benefit Cost Indicator from Contingent Valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 14(3), 226247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, Taylor L., Scarborough, Helen, Giri, Khageswor, Douglas, John W. & Jones, Paul (2017). Assessing the Cost-effectiveness of a Fish Stocking Program in a Culture-based Recreational Fishery. Fisheries Research, 186(2), 468477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICF Jones & Stokes (2010). Hatchery and Stocking Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement. Final. January. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. Accessed October 10, 2017. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Hatcheries/EIR.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Wallace E., Denson, Michael R., Bridgham, Charles B., Collins, Mark R. & Smith, Theodore I. J. (2004b). Year-class Composition, Growth, and Movement of Juvenile Red Drum Stocked Seasonally in a South Carolina Estuary. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 24(2), 636647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, Wallace E., Smith, Theodore I. J. & Denson, Michael R. (2004a). Stocking Red Drum: Lessons Learned. American Fisheries Society Symposium Series, 44, 4556.Google Scholar
Johnson, Donn M., Behnke, Robert J., Harpman, David A. & Walsh, Richard G. (1995). Economic Benefits and Costs of Stocking Catchable Rainbow Trout: A Synthesis of Economic Analysis in Colorado. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 15(1), 2632.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Robert. J., Ranson, Matthew H., Besedin, Elena Y. & Helm, Erik C. (2006). What Determines Willingness to Pay per Fish? A Meta-analysis of Recreational Fishing Values. Marine Resource Economics, 21(1), 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalinowsky, Christopher Aaron, Curran, Mary Carla & Smith, Joseph W. (2016). Age and Growth of Rachycentron canadum. (L.) (Cobia) from the Nearshore Waters of South Carolina. Southeastern Naturalist, 15(4), 714728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, John A. & Gallet, Craig A. (2001). What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? Environmental and Resource Economics, 20(3), 241254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, Joseph & Berrens, Robert (2004). Explaining Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-analysis. Economics Bulletin, 3(6), 113.Google Scholar
Loomis, John (2011). What’s to Know About Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation Studies? Journal of Economic Surveys, 25(2), 363370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercer, Linda P.(1984). A Biological and Fisheries Profile of Red Drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, Special Scientific Report 41, Morehead City, NC.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Robert Cameron & Carson, Richard T. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Moore, Mark A., Boardman, Anthony E., Vining, Aidan R., Weimer, David L. & Greenberg, David H. (2004). Just Give Me a Number!’ Practical Values for the Social Discount Rate. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(4), 789812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newsome, Michael A., Blomquist, Glenn C. & Romain, Wendy S. (2001). Taxes and Voluntary Contributions: Evidence from State Tax Form Check-off Programs. National Tax Journal, 54(4), 725740.10.17310/ntj.2001.4.02CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Ryan M. & Snowball, Jen D. (2009). The Willingness to Pay for Dusky Kob (Argyrosomus japonicus) Restocking: Using Recreational Linefishing Licence Fees to Fund Stock Enhancement in South Africa. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil, 66(5), 839843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, George R. (2017). The Travel Cost Model. In Champ, Patricia A., Boyle, Kevin J. & Brown, Thomas C. (Eds.), A Primer on Non-Market Valuation (2nd ed.). (pp. 187234). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patrick, Wesley S., Bin, Okmyung, Schwabe, Kurt A. & Schuhmann, Peter W. (2006). Hatchery Programs, Stock Enhancement, and Cost effectiveness: A Case Study of the Albemarle Sound/Roanoke River Stocking Program 1981–1996. Marine Policy, 30(4), 299307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poe, Gregory L., Clark, Jeremy E., Rondeau, Daniel & Schulze, William D. (2002). Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 23(1), 105131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Responsive Management (2006). South Carolina Saltwater Anglers’ Participation in and Satisfaction with Saltwater Fishing and Opinions of Saltwater Fisheries Management: Volume 1 of 2. Conducted for the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Marine Resources Division. Responsive Management National Office, VA: Harrisonburg.Google Scholar
Rosenberger, Randall S., Collins, Alan R. & Svetlik, Julie B. (2005). Private Provision of a Public Good: Willingness to Pay for Privately Stocked Trout. Society & Natural Resources, 18(1), 7587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Theodore I. J., Jenkins, Wallace E. & Denson, Michael R. (1997). Overview of an Experimental Stock Enhancement Program for Red drum in South Carolina. Bulletin of Natural Research Institute for Aquaculture, (Supplement 3)109115.Google Scholar
Smith, Theodore I. J., Jenkins, Wallace E., Denson, Michael R. & Collins, Mark R. (2004). Increasing Red Drum Abundance in South Carolina: Monitor, Regulate and Stock Hatchery Fish. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 44, 7786.Google Scholar
Vossler, Christian A., Ethier, Robert G., Poe, Gregory L. & Welsh, Michael P. (2003). Payment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test. Southern Economic Journal, 69(4), 886902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, John C. (1995). Willingness to Pay for Quality Improvements: Comparative Statics and Interpretation of Contingent Valuation Results. Land Economics, 71(2), 207215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, John C. & Blomquist, Glenn C. (2006). Contingent Valuation and Benefit-cost Analysis. In Anna, Alberini & Kahn, James R. (Eds.), Handbook on Contingent Valuation (Iss. 66–91). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Whitehead, John C. & Haab, Timothy C. (2013). Contingent Valuation Method. In Shogren, Jason F. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Energy, Natural Resource, and Environmental Economics (pp. 334341). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wisner, Brian(2009). Stocked Trout Program: Cost Report. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Bureau of Fisheries, Pleasant Gap, PA.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Rhodes et al. supplementary material

Rhodes et al. supplementary material 1

Download Rhodes et al. supplementary material(File)
File 14 MB

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

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

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

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

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

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

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *