Abstract
Over thirty five species of rockfish are found along Canada’s Pacific coast, some of which have been considered for listing under Canada’s Species at Risk Act. We estimate Canadians’ welfare for recovery of a representative Pacific rockfish species using referendum-style stated preference methods administered to a sample of the Canadian public via an internet panel. Hypothetical recovery programs were presented as options to a baseline of current management measures. The programs resulted in varying long term outcomes distinguished by species’ future population projections. An increase in household taxes for a fixed ten year period was employed as the proposed payment mechanism. The econometric analysis found positive and significant welfare measures for all management programs, as well as sensitivity to scope. Willingness to pay ranged from $48 - $180 per year per household depending on the recovery program valued. Welfare measures were found to differ significantly between those who believed their responses to be consequential and those who did not. The former provided measures that were significantly higher than the latter. We conclude with a discussion of the findings in relation to recent literature on consequentiality and incentive compatibility of stated preference questions.
Highlights
The introduction of Canada’s Species at Risk Act in 2002, and the regulatory requirements put forward by the Canadian Federal Government’s Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management, highlight the importance of accurate and complete benefit cost analyses (BCA) of species listing decisions
The results presented in this paper provide benefit estimates for the implementation of a range of management programs benefiting a rockfish species on Canada’s Pacific coast
The management programs involved actions and restrictions resulting in improved species status as defined by Canada’s Species at Risk Act
Summary
The introduction of Canada’s Species at Risk Act in 2002, and the regulatory requirements put forward by the Canadian Federal Government’s Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management, highlight the importance of accurate and complete benefit cost analyses (BCA) of species listing decisions. Questions The survey contained background questions on the Species at Risk Act and fishing industry involvement. These questions were included to allow researchers to evaluate impacts on WTP, and potentially identify heterogeneous effects of management programs on individuals or groups. Fishing Industry Involvement The survey asked whether respondents or any members of the respondents’ households presently or had previously worked in fishing-related industries, including processing plants, recreational fishing charters/tours, or commercial fishing or harvesting. The remainder of respondents preferred not to answer This level of industry and direct involvement with the species amongst respondents suggests that the values found will be largely passive use in nature
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
