economic benefit of the protection program for the steller sea lion

8
Marine Policy 26 (2002) 451–458 Economic benefit of the protection program for the Steller sea lion $ Kelly Giraud a, *, Branka Turcin b , John Loomis c , Joseph Cooper d a Department of Resource Economics and Development, University of New Hampshire, 312 James Hall, Durham, NH 03824, USA b International Arctic Research Center, Frontier Research System for Global Change, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA c Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA d Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, 1800 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA Received 15 April 2002; accepted 21 May 2002 Abstract This paper examines willingness to pay (WTP) for an endangered species across geographically nested samples using the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM). The three samples range from (1) the boroughs that contain critical habitat for the Steller sea lion to (2) the state that contains these boroughs to and (3) the entire United States. Depending on the assumptions of the model, WTP varies tremendously from sample to sample. WTP for the United States is the highest and it is the lowest for the boroughs. The null hypotheses that mean WTP estimates are greater then zero were rejected for the boroughs and the state but were not rejected for the United States based on the 95% confidence intervals. r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Endangered species; Steller sea lion; Contingent valuation 1. Specific objectives Natural resource agencies such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmo- spheric Administration (NOAA) are beginning to recognize that information on economic values rather than just economic impacts needs to be incorporated into decision making. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Northern Spotted Owl relied heavily on economic impact analyses, with only limited analysis budget devoted to collection of primary data on economic values [27]. Alternatively, wolf reintroduction to Yellowstone National Park EIS did include existence values for preservation of wolves along with traditional economic impact analysis [1]. The objective of this research project is to quantify the public’s economic value for the expanded protection program for the western stock of the Steller sea lion. This project may help fulfill Sections 1533(b)(2), 1535(d)(2), 1536(h)(1), and 1539(a)(2) of the Endan- gered Species Act (ESA) (US Code, Title 16, Chapter 35). The ESA mandates that economic and other social impacts be considered when making decisions regarding CHUs for a federally listed threatened or endangered species. 1.1. Background Population levels of the Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus) have declined by as much as 80% from the mid- 1970s to 1998 in the Alaska portion of the population. The causes of this decline are unknown but many scientists believe they may include environmental change and commercial fishing competition [2,28]. Because of the continued decline, the western stock of the Steller sea lion was listed as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act [3]. The designation of Critical Habitat Units (CHUs) has had the most profound impacts on trawl-based com- mercial fishing operations in the Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska and North Pacific Ocean [4]. The battle between fishers and Steller sea lion protection has been the hottest issue before the North Pacific Fisheries Manage- ment Council (NMFMC) for the past several years. In a recent court case a federal judge stated that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) ‘‘approved changes in management based solely on an attempt to minimize the $ The views presented in this paper are those of the authors, and not necessarily of their respective agencies. *Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Giraud). 0308-597X/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII:S0308-597X(02)00025-8

Upload: kelly-giraud

Post on 03-Jul-2016

213 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Economic benefit of the protection program for the Steller sea lion

Marine Policy 26 (2002) 451–458

Economic benefit of the protection program for the Steller sea lion$

Kelly Girauda,*, Branka Turcinb, John Loomisc, Joseph Cooperd

aDepartment of Resource Economics and Development, University of New Hampshire, 312 James Hall, Durham, NH 03824, USAb International Arctic Research Center, Frontier Research System for Global Change, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA

cDepartment of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USAdEconomic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, 1800 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA

Received 15 April 2002; accepted 21 May 2002

Abstract

This paper examines willingness to pay (WTP) for an endangered species across geographically nested samples using the

Contingent Valuation Method (CVM). The three samples range from (1) the boroughs that contain critical habitat for the Steller sea

lion to (2) the state that contains these boroughs to and (3) the entire United States. Depending on the assumptions of the model,

WTP varies tremendously from sample to sample. WTP for the United States is the highest and it is the lowest for the boroughs. The

null hypotheses that mean WTP estimates are greater then zero were rejected for the boroughs and the state but were not rejected for

the United States based on the 95% confidence intervals.

r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Endangered species; Steller sea lion; Contingent valuation

1. Specific objectives

Natural resource agencies such as the US Fish andWildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmo-spheric Administration (NOAA) are beginning torecognize that information on economic values ratherthan just economic impacts needs to be incorporatedinto decision making. The Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) for the Northern Spotted Owl reliedheavily on economic impact analyses, with only limitedanalysis budget devoted to collection of primary data oneconomic values [27]. Alternatively, wolf reintroductionto Yellowstone National Park EIS did include existencevalues for preservation of wolves along with traditionaleconomic impact analysis [1].

The objective of this research project is to quantify thepublic’s economic value for the expanded protectionprogram for the western stock of the Steller sea lion.This project may help fulfill Sections 1533(b)(2),1535(d)(2), 1536(h)(1), and 1539(a)(2) of the Endan-gered Species Act (ESA) (US Code, Title 16, Chapter

35). The ESA mandates that economic and other socialimpacts be considered when making decisions regardingCHUs for a federally listed threatened or endangeredspecies.

1.1. Background

Population levels of the Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopiasjubatus) have declined by as much as 80% from the mid-1970s to 1998 in the Alaska portion of the population.The causes of this decline are unknown but manyscientists believe they may include environmentalchange and commercial fishing competition [2,28].Because of the continued decline, the western stock ofthe Steller sea lion was listed as Endangered under theEndangered Species Act [3].

The designation of Critical Habitat Units (CHUs) hashad the most profound impacts on trawl-based com-mercial fishing operations in the Bering Sea, Gulf ofAlaska and North Pacific Ocean [4]. The battle betweenfishers and Steller sea lion protection has been thehottest issue before the North Pacific Fisheries Manage-ment Council (NMFMC) for the past several years. In arecent court case a federal judge stated that the NationalMarine Fisheries Service (NMFS) ‘‘approved changes inmanagement based solely on an attempt to minimize the

$The views presented in this paper are those of the authors, and not

necessarily of their respective agencies.

*Corresponding author.

E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Giraud).

0308-597X/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 3 0 8 - 5 9 7 X ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 2 5 - 8

Page 2: Economic benefit of the protection program for the Steller sea lion

impact on the fishing industry, without explicitlyconsidering what effect the changes would have onSteller sea lions’’ [5, p. 15]. The July, 2000 courtinjunction, instituting full closure of trawling in thebuffer zones around the CHUs has made this issue muchmore serious. The interaction between the Steller sealions and commercial fishing is likely to continue tofester for many reasons, including the fact that arigorous study of the benefits and costs of the Stellersea lion CHUs has not been undertaken. The opportu-nity cost of the CHUs is in foregone fishing activities [6].The direct cost of implementing, managing and mon-itoring the CHUs is paid by Federal Agencies, which isfunded by US federal taxes. It is important to see howthe welfare benefits of this CHU program compare withthe costs born onto the Alaskan trawlers and Americantaxpayers.

In the United States, endangered wildlife species andthe implications of a proposed protection plan arestudied in a manner outlined by the Endangered SpeciesAct [7]. A number of qualitative, quantitative andevaluative steps are taken in order to formulate anoptimal protection policy. First, biologists conduct apopulation assessment to determine if the species meritsfederal listing as an endangered species. If the species islisted, then a proposed recovery plan is developed basedon population distribution, ecological needs, publicfeedback and other components. Economic and othersocial impacts are also considered when making policydecisions. This research concerns part of the economicaspects that may be considered in making policydecisions regarding an endangered species. It shouldbe noted that the economic analysis conducted here isbased on the qualitative and qualitative analysisconducted by biologists (i.e. what is happening to theSteller sea lion population and how much of a decline isoccurring). Since the biological information is incon-clusive, the economic valuation is based on a high levelof biological uncertainty. While this may lead to largeconfidence intervals around the estimated benefits of aprotection program, it is important to gage the benefitsof the current state of knowledge in order to makeappropriate policy decisions.

2. Measurement of benefits of critical habitat and

endangered species

There are at least four different categories ofeconomic values that are provided by critical habitat.First is the direct use value. Second is the option value tovisit the critical habitat and possibly see the Steller sealion in the future. Third is the benefit from just knowingCHUs are protected as habitat for the Steller sea lion,increasing the likelihood that the sea lion will continueto exist. Fourth is the benefit from knowing that

preservation of CHUs today, leads to the availabilityof these areas and the Steller sea lion for futuregenerations. Collectively these on-site use, option,existence and bequest values are known as totaleconomic value [8].

The conceptual measure of a household’s benefits iswillingness to pay (WTP), the willingness and ability topay for the benefits received. That is, a person would notagree to pay more than the maximum benefits theyreceive from a good or public program. WTP is thefederally accepted measure of value for benefit-costanalysis [9] and Natural Resource Damage Assessment[10].

2.1. Contingent valuation method

The Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) is astandardized and widely used method for obtainingWTP for recreation, option, existence and bequestvalues [11]. CVM uses a questionnaire or survey tocreate a hypothetical market or referendum and thenallows the respondent to state or reveal their WTP. Thefirst part of a CVM survey describes the current andproposed quantity or quality of the resource in wordsand graphics. Next, the respondent is informed of howthey will pay for the proposed quantity. For example,will they pay in the form of higher taxes, higher pricesfor products made from the resource, or a higher utilitybill? The appropriate payment mechanism is the onethat has a realistic link to provision of the good and isperceived as fair by the respondent. Then the provisionrule is made clear: If a majority of the population agreesto pay, they get the proposed quantity/quality; or if amajority of the population does not agree to pay youremain at the current quantity/quality level.

There are several question formats that can be used toask WTP. The simplest question format is to directly askthe respondent to state or write down their maximumWTP. Since this can be a difficult task for respondentswho do not have well thought out values for the good,more recent CVM surveys ask respondents whether theywould pay a specific dollar amount. The dollar amountvaries among respondents. This closed-ended questionformat can be used in a voting format similar to atypical public goods referendum: If the ExpandedFederal Steller Sea Lion Recovery Program was theonly issue on the next ballot and it would cost yourhousehold $X in additional Federal taxes every year forthe next Y year(s), would you vote in favor of it?

Using statements of values from a survey as a measureof WTP is not without its critics. Validity is one concern;whether respondents would actually pay the dollaramounts they state or agree to pay in the survey. Therehave been several approaches to testing the validity ofstated WTP including comparison of values derivedfrom CVM surveys with values obtained using actual

K. Giraud et al. / Marine Policy 26 (2002) 451–458452

Page 3: Economic benefit of the protection program for the Steller sea lion

behavior valuation methods such as travel cost method[12], property values [13] and actual cash [12]. Thesestudies indicate that when surveying users of theresource, that CVM values can be equal to or at leastnot more than 25% greater than actual WTP.

Evaluating validity of survey responses for peoplethat do not use the resource and have no easilyobservable valuation behavior toward the resource inquestion is more difficult and definitive experimentaldesigns have yet to be formulated. At present, CVM isone of only a few methods capable of quantifying, indollar terms, the existence and bequest values to thenon-visiting general public. While there are legitimateconcerns about the degree of accuracy of CVMestimates of WTP for natural resources the public isunfamiliar with, CVM has been shown in empirical test–retest studies to be reliable [14,15,29].

CVM is recommended for use by Federal agenciesfor performing benefit-cost analysis and valuingnatural resource damages [9,10], and was upheld bythe Federal courts [16]. In the early 1990s, the NOAAset up a ‘‘blue ribbon panel’’, which concluded thatCVM can produce estimates reliable enough to be thestarting point for administrative and judicial determina-tions [17].

3. Study design

To fulfill the study objectives, we designed and usedthe same survey version with households living in threestudy areas: (1) the Alaskan Boroughs that containcritical habitat; (2) the entire state of Alaska; and (3) theentire United States. We used a sample of 1000 in eachof the three study areas. Based on population levels, theselected boroughs and the state of Alaska were ‘‘over-sampled’’ to provide a large enough sample of thoseregions.

To test the null hypotheses that WTP is greater thanzero, confidence intervals (CIs) of WTP are calculated.If the CIs do not include zero, then WTP for CHUs ofSteller sea lions has positive economic value and shouldbe included when calculating the national benefits ofendangered species management programs.

3.1. Basic survey format

Each survey contains detailed maps showing thelocation of the CHUs for the western stock of the Stellersea lion in Alaska with the no-trawl zones and thecurrent recovery effort described. This was followed byproposals to increase the protection for the Steller sealion that increased the restrictions on the commercialfishing industry and increased the level of research forlearning why the sea lion populations have beendeclining. The survey then proposed an Expanded

Federal Steller Sea Lion Recovery Program. House-holds were told if they agreed to pay, the currentprogram would expand. The survey explicitly stated thatbiologists are unsure why the sea lion populations havebeen declining and gave no guarantee that the expandedprogram would ensure species recovery. For a completecopy of the survey contact the authors.

Prior to undertaking focus groups, backgroundmaterial on the biological opinions regarding the declineof the Steller sea lion, its habitat, and current recoveryefforts was researched. From this information, mapsand worksheets were put together for use with focusgroups of the general public. Special emphasis was givento the current state of knowledge and which specificgroups are most affected by the program restrictions. Aseries of eight focus groups were held in April and May2000 in Fairbanks and Kodiak, Alaska. These focusgroups provided insight as to how to structure theinformation within the survey. They also suggestedtypes of information people desired. Individuals wantedto know which groups of people would be most affectedby the protection program and what was currentlyknown about the sea lion status.

Following the focus groups, a complete mail bookletwas developed and then reviewed by more than 30experts in Alaskan fisheries and marine biology. Next,the survey was pre-tested on a small sample of house-holds throughout the US, especially Alaska. Samples ofhouseholds were obtained across the contiguous US aswell as personal contacts in Valdez, Seward andAnchorage, Alaska. Each participant was asked toparticipate and was mailed or handed a questionnaire.Interviewers then contacted that person to recordanswers and solicit comments about the questions.Many respondents offered suggestions for improvingthe layout of information and suggested how to breakup the text with graphics. Feedback from these inter-views resulted in further refinements including designinga more explicit voting emphasis. Responses to the pre-test bid amounts formed the basis (along with previousresearch on the economic value of California andnorthern spotted owls) in establishing the bid amountsin the final survey.

4. Survey structure

4.1. Non-monetary measures of relative importance

Before directly asking whether a respondent wouldpay for an expanded recovery program, it is importantto allow the respondents an opportunity to reflect onwhy they might care about the coastal waters and theSteller sea lion. Cummings et al. [18] refer to this as‘‘researching your preferences’’, or in other words,collecting your thoughts on the topic. Residents of

K. Giraud et al. / Marine Policy 26 (2002) 451–458 453

Page 4: Economic benefit of the protection program for the Steller sea lion

Alaska have been exposed repeatedly to media coverageof the Steller sea lion issue. One issue, which was in thenews just prior to administering the survey, dealt withsevere limitations of Pollock fishing on the continentalshelf in Alaskan waters.

Due to the national attention associated with theNorthern spotted owl, all US residents have somefamiliarity with the resource extraction/jobs/endangeredspecies protection debate. Thus, part of our testregarding differences in WTP between the threepopulations relates to the local salience of this specificissue to respondents in the three areas. The first set ofquestions asked about the relative importance of federalprograms that provide protective measures for endan-gered species versus resources for extraction and jobs. Afive point Likert scale allowed individuals to agree ordisagree with a set of attitude questions to measure howutilitarian they were versus how preservation orientedthey were. This neutral response format (that precedesthe dollar valuation questions) will also aid in under-standing the WTP responses individuals provide later inthe survey.

Any CVM survey design involves three elements: (a)portrayal of the resource to be valued; (b) description ofthe particular mechanism to be used to pay for theresource; and (c) the question format used to elicit therespondent’s dollar amount of WTP.

In this case, the resource to be valued was anexpanded federal protection program that doubledresearch funding and increased the restrictions ofcommercial fishing around the western stock of theSteller sea lion’s CHUs in the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Seaand North Pacific Ocean. Respondents were given amap of the CHUs and the areas of restricted commercialfishing activity. They were given the official Steller sealion web page from the National Marine FisheriesService in case they wished to obtain more information.Respondents were reminded of the potential impacts toAlaskan coastal communities that depend on the fishingindustry as well as the potential benefits from theexpanded program.

This information was immediately followed bythe WTP question, which asked each householdhow they would vote. The individual then mustdecide if the value is worth at least this price. Thisreferendum format is recommended by the ‘‘blue ribbonpanel’’ on CVM [17]. The exact wording on thequestionnaire was:

Your chance to vote

If a majority of households in the US vote to approve

the proposed expanded Steller sea lion recoveryprogram the money would go into a fund that couldlegally be used only for this program.

If a majority of households in the US vote to not

approve the proposed expanded Steller sea lion recoveryprogram the limited current program would continue.

Policy makers want to know how YOU would votey

The dollar amount and payment duration, which areblank in this example, were filled in prior to sending thequestionnaire to the respondent. The final questionnairewas typeset into an eight-page booklet.

5. Statistical estimation

5.1. The logit model

Since the printed dollar amount varies across thesample of respondents, the voter referendum formatrequires the analyst to statistically trace out a demandlike relationship between probability of a ‘yes’ responseand the dollar amount [19]. The basic relationship is

Prob ðYesÞ ¼ 1 � f1 þ exp½B0 � 1B1ð$X Þ�g�1; ð1Þ

where B’s are coefficients to be estimated using the logitstatistical technique and $X is the dollar amount thehousehold was asked to pay. At a minimum, thecoefficients include the bid amount the individual isasked to pay. Additional coefficients may includeresponses to attitude questions or the respondent’sdemographic information such as age, education,membership in environmental organizations, etc.

From Eq. (1), Hanemann [20] provides a formula tocalculate the expected value of WTP if WTP must begreater than or equal to zero. The formula is

Mean WTP ¼ ð1=B1Þ*lnð1 þ eBo Þ ð2Þ

where B1 is the coefficient estimate on the bid amountand Bo is either the estimated constant (if no otherindependent variables are included) or the grandconstant calculated as the sum of the estimated constantplus the product of the coefficient estimates on otherindependent variables and times their respective means.

Ten different bid amounts ranging from $1 to $350were randomly assigned to survey respondents. Therange was picked such that at the low end, anyone thatvalued preserving the Steller sea lion and its habitat

If the Expanded Federal Steller Sea Lion RecoveryProgram was the only issue on the next ballot and itwould cost your household $ in additionalFederal taxes every year for the next year(s),would you vote in favor of it?(By law the funds could only be used for the Stellersea lion program.)

& YES & NO

K. Giraud et al. / Marine Policy 26 (2002) 451–458454

Page 5: Economic benefit of the protection program for the Steller sea lion

would very likely indicate they would pay $1–3, whilealmost no one was expected to pay $350 per year. Theseinitial or starting bid amounts were based on responsesto other threatened and endangered species programresults [21,22], and from our pre-tests.

5.2. Statistical testing of hypotheses

To test whether WTP is statistically different fromzero and whether WTP is different across geographicregions, confidence intervals around mean WTP werecalculated using the variance–covariance matrix [23]. Tocheck the representativeness of our returned surveysagainst the populations of the two regions, demographicquestions such as age, education, income, and sex wereasked.

6. Sample design

The questionnaire was sent to a random sample of1000 households in the Alaskan Boroughs that containCritical Habitat for the western stock of the Steller sealion. Another 1000 surveys were sent to Alaska house-holds statewide (distributed based on the state’s relativepopulations). An additional 1000 households across theentire United States were also sampled. Survey Sam-pling Inc., a company that specializes in providingrepresentative samples and one that has been frequentlyused by researchers in the past provided the sample. Theoverall survey design and mailing procedure followsDillman [24] Tailored Design Method (announcementletter, first mailing, reminder postcard, second mailing,third mailing). Each individual was sent a personalizedcover letter on university letterhead with an originalsignature. The first mailing was sent on September 12,2000, with a reminder postcard a week later. A secondmailing of the survey with a new cover letter was sent tonon-respondents on November 2nd. Later in the winter,non-respondents were sent a third mailing either by firstclass mail or Priority Mail. A dollar bill was includedwith the first mailing as a token of appreciation and to

increase the response rate. Both the outgoing and returnenvelopes had a first class postage stamp affixed tofurther distinguish the mailing from junk or bulk mail.

7. Results

In total, 1653 surveys, and after deleting undeliverablesurveys and deceased yielded a response rate of 63.6%.Response rates for United States, Alaska and Boroughs

samples were 51.16%, 70.22% and 68.93%, respectively.Initially, this research had about a 43.3% response fromthe first mailing and reminder postcard with financialincentives. The second mailing, along with the addi-tional contact yielded the remaining responses. Somepotential respondents may have become overwhelmedby all the attention to the Steller sea lion controversy.Some may have just tuned out further attention to theissue.

Table 1 compares the demographics of the threesamples to 2000 estimates of the population levels ofthese variables. As is typical in mail surveys, the sampleage and percentage of males is higher than actualpopulation levels. Due to Survey Sampling Inc. drawingthe majority of names from the phone books, which aretraditionally listed under the male’s name, the sampleover-represented males relative to females. Thesedifferences may be attributed to a number of thingsincluding the fact that households, rather than individuals

were sampled. Also, only individuals over 18 weresampled, leading to an upward weighting to the agelevels. There are measures that can be taken in order toproject sampled data onto actual demographics ifindividual WTP rather than household WTP is desired.

The respondents were asked about their prior knowl-edge of three issues related to Steller sea lions, Alaskancoastal communities and commercial Pollock fishing,with summary information shown in Table 2. Most ofthe respondents (86%) indicated prior knowledge of theSteller sea lion with almost as many having knowledgeof the commercial Pollock fishing industry (85.5% forall respondents). Further, 92% of the respondents had

Table 1

Comparison of demographics between sample and population

Alaska Boroughs Alaska statewide United States

Sample Popa Sample Popa Sample Popa

Average age 48.2 32.3 51.4 32.4 53 36.6

Mean income $62,770 $71,702 $75,692 $67,384 $65,542 $59,324

Household size 3.03 3.19 2.90 2.87 2.55 2.69

Gender

Males 77.6% 53.4% 81.6% 51.7% 65.3% 48.7%

Females 22.4% 46.6% 18.4% 48.3% 34.7% 51.3%

aSource: US Bureau of the Census [25].

K. Giraud et al. / Marine Policy 26 (2002) 451–458 455

Page 6: Economic benefit of the protection program for the Steller sea lion

read or heard about coastal Alaskan communities and86% had eaten white fish in the last 12 months.

Not surprisingly, more than 70% of residents in thecoastal communities have had a household memberworking in the commercial fishing industry at somepoint. This is very different from the 6.3% of house-holds with a history of work in the fishing industry inthe entire US sample. Knowledge of Alaska statewiderespondents was less than Alaska borough respondentsin every category. The Alaska statewide knowledgeholding was however higher than the US sample.

7.1. Identification of protest responses

In total, 53.7% voted NO to the referendum questionacross all 10 bid amounts. As is standard, a follow-upcheck question is asked after the WTP question todetermine if those refusing to pay represent a validrepresentation of their value or reflect a protest aboutsome feature of the simulated market [11]. This checkquestion had eight response categories, plus a ninthcategory titled ‘‘other’’. The first two and the eighthcategories represent valid refusals or zeros and areconsidered non-protests. These categories were:

1. The expanded Steller sea lion program is not worththis much money to me.

2. I am not willing to pay this amount, but I would bewilling to pay $ (fill in a dollar amount).

8. The length of payment is too long.

A total of 41.8% respondents who voted NOanswered one or more of these. These responses indicatethat they took the commitment to pay seriously.

The third through eighth categories represented whatare usually classified as protest or scenario rejectionresponses. These included:

3. It is unfair to expect me to pay for the expandedSteller sea lion program.

4. I believe that the expanded Steller sea lion programwill not help preserve this species.

5. I do not want additional restrictions placed oncommercial fishing in this area.

6. I am opposed to paying for more governmentprograms.

7. The loss to the coastal Alaskan communities andtheir economic livelihood is too large.

Responses to one or more of these comments totaled42.8%, with an additional 9.2% stating ‘‘other’’ reasonsthey chose NO. Reasons four through seven are usuallynot considered valid representations of the individualWTP, though they do represent valid concerns. Theseconcerns may include a rejection of the basic premise ofthe CVM market, some feature of the scenario,incorporating the costs of the program, other concernsabout the survey or generalized concerns about theoverall issue. Protest responses were left in the sample aszero values rather than adjusting their responses to themean WTP.

7.2. Statistical analysis—logit equations

Calculation of mean WTP from the referendaor dichotomous choice WTP questions involved useof a maximum likelihood approach applied to alogistic distribution [26]. Table 3 provides the coeffi-cients and standard errors for the multi-variate logitequations.

When expanding the sample to the population onecritical concern is the external validity or ability togeneralize the sample values to the population. This ispartly dependent on the representativeness of the sampleframe and the survey response rate. Our sample framewas a random sample of households in three nestedregions: Alaskan Boroughs with CHUs, Alaska state-wide and the entire United States. We make twoassumptions: (a) an observation with protest responses

Table 2

Comparison of respondents knowledge of the issue

Percentage who answered YES

Alaska Boroughs

(%)

Alaska statewide

(%)

United States (%)

Have you read or heard anything about the endangered Steller sea lion in

Alaska?

88.0 77.5 23.0

Have you read or heard anything about the commercial Pollock fishery in

Alaska?

87.1 80.2 12.9

Have you read or heard anything of the Alaskan coastal villages in the

Pacific, Bering Sea or Gulf of Alaska?

92.8 85.0 31.7

Have you eaten white fish in the last 12 months? (White fish includes fish

sticks, imitation crab, fish patties, etc.)

86.5 83.1 81.3

Including yourself, has anyone in your household ever worked (even part

time) in commercial fishing?

71.6 32.2 6.3

Are you a member of a conservation or environmental organization? 15.0 11.0 9.0

K. Giraud et al. / Marine Policy 26 (2002) 451–458456

Page 7: Economic benefit of the protection program for the Steller sea lion

represents zero value; and (b) non-respondents have aWTP of zero.

The WTP estimates can be expanded to the nationbased on the first generalization that the sample valuerepresents all households. Therefore, the estimate of$61.13 will be used as this represents the WTP afteradjusting for non-respondents. With 101,562,700 house-holds throughout the nation, and $61.13 value perhousehold, WTP totals about $6.2 billion for theexpanded federal protection program for the westernstock of the Steller sea lion. The confidence interval isfrom $5.8 billion to $16.17 billion.

8. Conclusion and directions for future research

The CVM was used to obtain estimates of WTP foran expanded federal protection program for the westernstock of the Steller sea lion. The survey, using a mailquestionnaire, obtained a 63.6% response rate amongthe three samples of US households. The entire USsample yielded a response rate of 61%. Using thedichotomous choice voter referendum format, theannual value per household was $100.22, adjusted to$61.13 to account for non-responses with the assump-tion that they represented a zero WTP for the expansionof the current Steller sea lion recovery program.Generalizing to the nation as a whole, expandedprogram is worth at least $5.8 billion annually to asmuch as $16.17 billion annually.

It should be stressed that this is not a completeeconomic analysis. The costs of the expanded federalprogram should be taken into consideration, as well asthe economic impacts to coastal communities. Costsinclude the government expenditures to maintain theexpanded program and the opportunity cost of theforgone fish harvests resulting from the expandedprogram. Economic impacts include things such as thechange in employment and the resulting changes to thetax base, retail sector, and so on. Both the cost studyand the economic impact study should be conducted

and analyzed before any policy recommendation can bemade.

There are a number of directions for future research.First, an analysis of temporal elasticity should beconducted to see how respondents discount futurepayments. In addition, an investigation of motivationfor voting YES or NO could be pursued. DecomposingWTP (or unwillingness as the case may be) can be usefulif ‘‘warm glow’’ effects or protest votes are a concern.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Ron Dearborn, Scott Smiley,and Quentin Fong for many things, including their helpin gathering background information and organizingfocus groups. Thanks also to Lovro Valcic, StefanieMoreland, Scott Bates, Melissa Lee-Hinojos, andMelinda Bruno for their unwavering (and mostlyunpaid) help in stuffing envelopes and entering data.Finally, we would like to thank all of the participants inthe numerous focus groups and pre-testing that gaveextremely good suggestions and constructive criticism.

References

[1] US Department of the Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service. The

Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park

and Central Idaho: Final Environmental Impact Statement,

Helena, MT, 1994. p. 4.21–7.

[2] Castellini M. Report of the Marine Mammal Working Group,

Workshop Summary: Addressing Marine Mammal and Seabird

Declines. Alaska Sea Grant Report 93-01, University of Alaska

Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, 1994.

[3] National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA. Commerce. 226.12

North Pacific Ocean, Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus).

Federal Register, vol. 59:28805, 1994. p. 107–57.

[4] Dearborn R. ‘Preface’ Workshop Summary: Addressing Marine

Mammal and Seabird Declines, Alaska Sea Grant Report 93-01.

University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, 1994.

[5] Gandel M. Feds, Industry Lose Steller Sea Lion Ruling. Pacific

Fishing Magazine, 1999.

Table 3

Multi-variate logit regression output

Borough sample Alaska sample US sample

Coefficient S.E. Coefficient S.E. Coefficient S.E.

Constant �0.4974 1.5122 �1.0628 1.6504 �4.5072 2.3146

Bid �0.0027 0.0019 �0.0058 0.0023 �0.0088 0.0026

Prospecies 1.0938 0.2646 1.1425 0.2670 1.7678 0.4623

Projobs �0.9560 0.2380 �0.8075 0.2584 �0.6673 0.3325

KnowPollock �0.9947 0.6029 �0.3318 0.5712 2.0342 0.9843

Chi-squared �83.0976 80.6198 68.8752

Mean WTP �$254.73 $40.41 $100.22

95% confidence interval �$9363.70–5685.60 $0.71–3959.80 $94.00–260.98

K. Giraud et al. / Marine Policy 26 (2002) 451–458 457

Page 8: Economic benefit of the protection program for the Steller sea lion

[6] Herrmann M, Criddle K, Greenberg J, Feller E. Estimated

economic impacts of potential policy changes affecting the total

allowable catch for Alaska Pollock. North American Journal of

Fisheries Management 1996;16(4):770–82.

[7] US Code. Endangered Species. Title 16 USC 35, 1972.

[8] Randall A, Stoll J. Existence value in a total valuation frame-

work. In: Rowe R, Chestnut L, editors. Managing air quality and

scenic resources at national parks and wilderness areas. Boulder,

CO: Westview Press, 1983.

[9] US Water Resources Council. Economic and Environmental

Principles for Water and related Land Resources Implementation

Studies, Washington DC, 1983.

[10] US Department of Interior. Natural resource damage assess-

ments; final rule. Federal Register 1986;51:27674–753.

[11] Mitchell R, Carson R. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The

Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future,

Washington DC, 1989.

[12] Bishop R, Heberlein T. Measuring values of extra-market goods:

are indirect measures biased? American Journal of Agricultural

Economics 1979;61(5):926–30.

[13] Brookshire D, Thayer M, Schulze W, d’Arge R. Valuing public

goods: a comparison of survey and hedonic approaches. Amer-

ican Economic Review 1982;72(1):165–76.

[14] Kealy M, Dovidio J, Rockel M. Accuracy in valuation is a matter

of degree. Land Economics 1988;64:158–70.

[15] Loomis J. Expanding contingent value sample estimates to

aggregate benefit estimates. Land Economics 1987;63(4):396–402.

[16] US District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. State

of Ohio v. U.S. Department of Interior. Case No. 86-1575, 1989.

[17] Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer E, Radner R, Schuman H.

Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal

Register 1993;58(10):4602–14.

[18] Cummings R, Brookshire D, Schulze W. Valuing public goods.

New Jersey: Rowan & Allenheld, 1986.

[19] Hanemann M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation

experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of

Agricultural Economics 1984;66(3):332–41.

[20] Hanemann M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation

experiments with discrete response data: reply. American Journal

of Agricultural Economics 1989;71(4):1057–61.

[21] Loomis J, Gonzalez-Caban A. Estimating the value of reducing

fire hazards to old growth forests in the pacific northwest: a

contingent valuation approach. International Journal of Wildland

Fire 1994;4(4):209–16.

[22] Giraud K, Loomis J, Johnson R. Internal and external scope in

willingness to pay estimates for threatened and endangered

wildlife. Journal of Environmental Management 1999;56(3):

221–9.

[23] Park T, Loomis J, Creel M. Confidence intervals for evaluating

benefits from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies.

Land Economics 1991;67:64–73.

[24] Dillman D. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method,

2nd ed.. New York: Wiley, 2000.

[25] US Bureau of the Census. Population Estimates Program,

Population Division. US Census Bureau, Washington, DC

20233, 2001.

[26] Welsh M, Bishop R. Multiple bounded discrete choice models.

Western Regional Project W-133 6th Interim Report, J. Berg-

strom, compiler, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 1993.

[27] Rubin, Jonathan, Gloria Helfand, John Loomis. A Benefit Cost

Analysis of the Northern Spotted Owl. Journal of Forestry

1991;89(12):2530.

[28] Mello, Susan. Wildlife Conservation: Stellar Sea Lion (Eumeto-

pias jubatus). Alaska Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK, 1997.

[29] Loomis, John. Comparative Reliability of the Dichotomous

Choice and Open Ended Contingent Valuation Techniques.

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1990;

18:7885.

K. Giraud et al. / Marine Policy 26 (2002) 451–458458