Economic Evaluation of Inland Fisheries

Transcription

1 Economic Evaluation of Inland Fisheries Jacobs UK Ltd. Professor Ken Willis Rainbow Research For the Environment Agency & Defra

2 The study Module A: Welfare benefits of inland fisheries (Jacobs + Professor Ken Willis) Module B: An economic impact assessment of angling expenditure (Glasgow Caledonian University)

3 Use values Non-use values

4 Contents Design stage Contingent Valuation Method: WTP: Severe decline in salmon across E&W Choice Experiment: Valuing marginal changes Uses of results & Recommendations Small Health & Social Welfare component

5 Design stage 3 focus groups Pilot study Tension between: How results will be used & analysed How people think about rivers & fish

6 The Sample 911 face-to-face surveys Good cross-section by sociodemographics NW, SE, W. Midlands & Wales

7 Initial questions Uses of rivers Respondents perceive rivers as being in substantially worse state than our ratings imply (based on EA data) 51% believe they would personally benefit from increased fish stocks

8

9 The CVM question a viral disease might infect ALL of these rivers, causing a severe decline in all salmon populations across the country, with 95% of salmon being lost for at least 25 years to prevent this strict management measures would have to be funded by the public through income tax... Payment card Household WTP Every year for the next 25 years Over & above what you currently pay

10 Payment vehicles & Cheap Talk Payment vehicle: Income tax Water bills (if don t pay income tax) Cheap talk: Past surveys have shown [a tendency to overstate WTP] it is important that you state an amount you would really be prepared to pay, bearing in mind your financial constraints

11 Protest votes Why are you not prepared to pay an additional payment? e.g. The Government should pay 467 zero bids 274 excluded On reflection, how likely would you be to pay? (28) Sample size reduced to 594 Similar characteristics to original sample

12 WTP ( /household/year) Frequency WTP ( /household/year)

13 CVM results Mean WTP per household p.a. 350 million p.a. Present Value ~ 6 billion 25 Treasury Green Book rates

14 Econometric analysis of CVM results Identify influences on WTP Stage 1: Whether WTP or not Binomial logit Stage 2: How much? OLS Semi-log form, ln(wtp+1)

15 Analysis of CVM results Higher WTP for users: Boating / yachting Walking near rivers Angling as a motivation for WTP Individual characteristics: Income Educated to GCSE level Age Children

16 Analysis of CVM results (2) Negative results: No evidence of variation by region Fish suffering not a factor

17 Possible biases All in regions with salmon rivers ( Distance to nearest river had no effect ) Rural locations If included WTP for general river quality?

18 Individual rivers

19 Proportion assigned to individual river Top-down approach What proportion should be spent on measures in the [River Thames] specifically? Framing bias & substitution effects How this varies by characteristics WTP higher for longer rivers WTP not affected by: urban / rural protected status (SAC)

20 Distance decay WTP decreases as distance lived from river increases WTP 70km Distance (km)

21 Choice Experiment Marginal changes Improvements & degradations Simplified types of environmental change to: Good / Moderate / Poor / Dead Graphical representation of levels Random Parameters Model

22 Example choice card

23 Choice Experiment WTP similar magnitude to CVM result BUT only for 1 river: Embedding effect CVM results more robust & conservative Concentrate on relative magnitudes of WTPs: Attributes of roughly equal importance ( River Quality marginally less important) Loss aversion substantial

24 Relative WTP for different levels River quality Salmon Other Fish

25 Summary WTP to avoid severe decline in salmon across England & Wales = 350 million p.a. Users WTP higher Variation by sociodemographics % assigned to named river Distance decay CE: different types of change S-shaped curve Loss aversion

26 Users of Results Environment Agency enhance the contribution salmon & freshwater fisheries make to the economy Defra Environmental responsibilities + fish health Other national & regional decision makers: NAW, Natural England, CLG, the Department for Culture, Media & Sport, RDAs, OFWAT Others: water companies, angling organisations, anglers, Sport England, Sports Council for Wales, tourist boards,

27 Uses of Results Benefits transfers : Apply adjustment factors from CVM (characteristics) & CE (severity of change) Selecting measures, policies & priorities PR09 WFD Salmon Action Plans Fish disease contingency plans RIAs Advocacy Damage assessments Taxes / charges? Green accounting? Funding applications Awareness raising

28 Recommendations Disseminate outputs (e.g. using summary report) Use values and factors in appropriate situations: National value for preventing serious decline in salmon Values for individual rivers (use with caution) Factors for relative size of values for different levels of salmon, other fish & river quality Explore psychological, mental, health & social benefits Further work on angling consumer surplus values

29 Economic Evaluation of Inland Fisheries