non-native salmon and trout recreational fishing in lake llanquihue, southern chile: economic...

This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]On: 29 August 2013, At: 07:09Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Reviews in Fisheries SciencePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/brfs20

Non-native Salmon and TroutRecreational Fishing in Lake Llanquihue,Southern Chile: Economic Benefits andManagement ImplicationsI. Arismendi a c & L. Nahuelhual b ca Escuela de Graduados, Facultad de Ciencias Forestales,Universidad Austral de Chile, Casilla, #567, Valdivia, Chileb Agricultural Economics Department, Universidad Austral de Chile,Casilla, #567, Valdivia, Chilec FORECOS Millennium Scientific Nucleus, Universidad Austral deChile, Casilla, #567, Valdivia, ChilePublished online: 06 Nov 2007.

To cite this article: I. Arismendi & L. Nahuelhual (2007) Non-native Salmon and Trout RecreationalFishing in Lake Llanquihue, Southern Chile: Economic Benefits and Management Implications, Reviewsin Fisheries Science, 15:4, 311-325, DOI: 10.1080/10641260701484655

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10641260701484655

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/brfs20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10641260701484655

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10641260701484655

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

09 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Reviews in Fisheries Science, 15:311–325, 2007Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1064-1262 printDOI: 10.1080/10641260701484655

Non-native Salmon and Trout Recreational Fishingin Lake Llanquihue, Southern Chile: Economic

Benefits and Management Implications

I. ARISMENDI1,3 AND L. NAHUELHUAL2,3

1Escuela de Graduados, Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad Austral deChile, Casilla #567 Valdivia, Chile2Agricultural Economics Department, Universidad Austral de Chile, Casilla#567 Valdivia, Chile3FORECOS Millennium Scientific Nucleus, Universidad Austral de Chile,Casilla #567 Valdivia, Chile

Lake Llanquihue (41◦ 08′S 72◦ 47′W) has the second largest water volume in SouthAmerica and is one of the most important recreational fishing destinations in Chile,accounting for 45% of the recreational fishing activity in the country. Simultaneously,the lake concentrates 33% of the non-native salmon and trout smolt farms which supportthe Chilean salmon aquaculture industry. We characterized the recreational fishingactivity at Lake Llanquihue and estimated its economic benefits. We used the TravelCost Method and count data techniques to estimate the recreational fishing demand ofanglers surveyed on site from 1995 to 1996. The main fishes captured were rainbowtrout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, by bank anglers (59%) and Coho salmon, O. kisutch, byboat anglers (57%). We obtained social welfare estimates that varied from 3,336,700US$ to 5,337,500 US$. These economic benefits indicate the importance of recreationalfishing compared to alternative uses of the lake, like smolt production, which in 1995–1996 generated net benefits from 19.2 to 36.9 million US$. The information obtainedfrom this study is pertinent to the management of recreational fisheries in the freshwaterecosystems of southern Chile.

Keywords recreational fishing, Lake Llanquihue, Chilean salmon aquaculture, eco-nomic benefits, travel cost method, count data techniques

Introduction

The increasing interest in measuring the economic benefits of recreational fishing is drivenby the need to secure the activity over other productive uses (Johnson et al., 2000; Layman etal., 1996; Henderson et al., 2000; Shrestha et al., 2002; Hunt et al., 2005) and improve recre-ational fisheries management decisions (Connelly and Brown, 1991; Shrestha et al., 2002;Chizinski et al., 2005; Arlinghaus and Mehner, 2005; Ferrer et al., 2005). The lack of publicacceptance of the social and economic importance of recreational fisheries results from therarely assessed socioeconomic benefits of recreational fisheries (Arlinghaus et al., 2002).Most of these values are difficult to measure since they cannot be quantitatively valued

Address correspondence to I. Arismendi, Escuela de Graduados, Facultad de Ciencias Forestales,Universidad Austral de Chile, Casilla #567 Valdivia, Chile. E-mail: [email protected]

311

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

09 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3

312 I. Arismendi and L. Nahuelhual

by the market economy, and they vary by culture and place (Postel and Carpenter, 1997).Around the world, recreational fisheries contribute significantly to annual Geographic Do-mestic Product. For example in Canada, New Zealand, and Argentina annual economicbenefits in 2005 reached near 2 billion US$, 800 million US$, and 150 million US$, re-spectively (Servicio Nacional de Turismo, SERNATUR, 2005a). In Chile, annual economicbenefits from recreational fishing have been estimated to range from 10 to 15 million US$(SERNATUR, 2005a).

Recreational fishing in Chile is based upon non-native fishes, given the lack of attrac-tiveness of native freshwater fishes as the target game species, mainly due to their small size(Campos, 1970; Arratia, 1978; Basulto, 2003). Beginning in 1890, the Chilean governmentgave priority to importing eggs of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown trout(Salmo trutta fario) from the United States and Europe for recreational fishing purposes(Campos, 1970; Arratia, 1978; Basulto, 2003). Since 1980, southern Chile received a num-ber of new exotic species to enhance salmon aquaculture activities. Included were Atlanticsalmon (Salmo salar), Coho salmon (O. kisutch), and Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) asdiscussed by Mendez and Munita (1989) and Basulto (2003). Since then, Chile has becomethe second largest world producer of farmed salmon, with exports that accounted for 1,721million US$ in 2004 (World Bank, 2005; Leon, 2006). The 10th administrative region ofsouthern Chile (41◦ 08′S to 72◦ 47′W) is the location of the highest concentration of salmonfarms, with over 80% of total salmon production (Bjorndal, 2001; Servicio Nacional dePesca, SERNAPESCA, 2004). Within this region, Lake Llanquihue and its affluents con-centrate 33% of all salmon and trout smolt farms and 10% of all freshwater hatcheries(Soto and Peralta, 2003; Leon, 2006). The first commercial aquaculture sites opened inPescado and Sur rivers (Lake Llanquihue affluents) in 1975 and 1976 (D’Ottone, 1987;Mendez and Munita, 1989; Basulto, 2003). Since then, smolt production has grown rapidly(SERNAPESCA, 1998, 2004; Subsecretarıa de Pesca, SUBPESCA, 2004). Smolt farms andhatcheries use the same lake area, with escaped fishes from salmon farming contributing tothe total captured stock by recreational anglers (Arismendi, 1997; Soto et al., 2001; Sotoet al., 2006). Simultaneously, recreational fishing may diminish the negative effects fromescaped aquaculture fishes, as escaped salmon and trout individuals captured by anglersmay help to control their populations.

Currently, Lake Llanquihue contains five naturalized (fishes which reproduce out oftheir native range) and escaped (fishes swimming freely outside their net-pens that havenot necessarily reproduced) salmon and trout species that maintain the recreational fishingactivity (Arismendi, 1997; Soto et al., 2002; Soto et al., 2006). The lake supports thehighest flux of recreational anglers within the 10th region, with an increase in the amountof purchased sport fishing licenses from 3,000 in 1991 to 8,000 in 2001 (Arismendi, 1997).Currently, both of these activities continue to grow; however, management policies aremainly concentrated on salmon aquaculture regulations (Gobierno de Chile, 1991) and donot consider local or regional components oriented toward recreational fisheries (Arismendi,1997).

At present, there is little information available about the dynamics and growth of recre-ational fishing in Chile (e.g., number and type of anglers, preferred fishing destinations, andcriteria for fishing site selection), and its economic benefits are largely unknown (Laymanet al., 1996; Schaerer and Sirven, 2001; SERNATUR, 2005a). Appropriate managementpolicies and strategies need to represent the features of the resource user groups, the fish-eries resources (Vigliano et al., 2000), and the monetary benefits that each group mayaccrue, especially when the users are also direct managers of the resources, as is the casewith anglers (Arlinghaus and Mehner, 2005).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

09 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3

Non-Native Salmon and Trout Recreational Fishing 313

The purpose of this study was to characterize recreational fishing in Lake Llanquihue,to estimate its economic benefits, and to derive some implications for future managementstrategies. Given the current pressures on the lake, the results provided by this study canbecome an important tool in recreational fishing management and help to prioritize man-agement activities around Lake Llanquihue and possibly other freshwater ecosystems insouthern Chile.

Material and Methods

Study Area

Lake Llanquihue (Figure 1) is located in the 10th administrative region of Chile withinthe Valdivian Rainforest Ecoregion (35◦S–48◦S; Veblen et al., 1983; Kalin-Arroyo, 1996),which maintains a meso-temperate humid and hyper-humid climate (Amigo and Ramirez,1998; Luebert and Pliscoff, 2005).

Lake Llanquihue has the second largest volume of all the lakes in southern SouthAmerica, with a total surface area of 871 km2 (Campos, 1984). It has a total drainage areaof 1,605 km2 and is located 51 m above sea level (Campos et al., 1988). It is classifiedas an Araucanian lake (Campos, 1984) of glacial origin with monomictic, temperate, andoligotrophic characteristics (Campos, 1984; Campos et al., 1986; Soto and Campos, 1996).The lake depends on rainfall as its freshwater source, which accounts for 50% of the totalwater input (Campos et al., 1988). Its main affluent rivers are Pescado, Tepu, and Blanco.

Figure 1. Map of Chile, enlargement of the 10th Region, and Lake Llanquihue basin showing thestudy area.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

09 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


Data Collection

In this study we used data from an on-site survey (Cryer and Maclean, 1991; Hilborn andWalters, 1992) which was administered to bank and boat anglers using hook and line fromSeptember 1995 to May 1996 (Arismendi, 1997). The survey was randomly stratified bytwo groups: weekends and holidays, and workdays (Monday to Friday, unless a holiday fellon those days). This covered 29% of the entire fishing season (15th of September to thefirst Sunday of May). Days sampled covered 56% of the holidays and weekends and 17%of the working days of the fishing season. The survey collected a variety of information onanglers such as age, income, years of fishing experience, years visiting the lake, place oforigin, distance traveled, transportation mode, travel time, ownership of a fishing license,type of gear, fishing effort, fishes captured, and catch per unit of effort (CPUE). Of a totalof 375 questionnaires conducted by Arismendi (1997), we used 272 samples, which did notexhibit unanswered questions, relevant for this study.

Travel Cost Method and Recreational Fishing Demand

The Travel Cost Method (TCM) is commonly used to obtain numerical values of non-marketcommodities such as open access areas or public outdoor recreational activities. The TCMis a revealed preference method, meaning that it uses actual expenditures by the visitors toestimate a demand curve from which economic benefits are calculated (Fix and Loomis,1998). The recreation demand function explains the visit frequency as a function of travelcosts and other explanatory variables such as site and socio-demographic characteristics(Freeman, 1995; Loomis and Walsh, 1997). It is assumed that a travel cost must be paid inorder to enjoy time spent at the site, and, consequently, without traveling to the site there isno recreational value associated for the consumer (McKean et al., 2001). In this study, visitfrequency was specified as follows:

Trips = β0 + β1Time + β2Cost + β3 I nc + β4Years + β5Site + β6Type (1)

The number of trips taken by each angler was represented by the variable Trips whichcorresponded to the annual reported trips from home to Lake Llanquihue. The explanatoryvariables included Time, which was the round-trip travel time to the lake. The variable Costcorresponded to the round-trip gas expenditures for the fishing trip. As recommended byCesario (1976) and McConnell and Strand (1981), both travel time and cost must be includedin the demand specification. The variable Inc was the angler’s monthly income. The variableYears indicated the number of years that the angler had been fishing at Lake Llanquihue.Site corresponded to the round-trip gas expenditures to an alternative site, specifically LakeRanco. This lake has similar characteristics to Lake Llanquihue and it is located 200 kmnorth. Type, was a binary variable that equaled 1 if the respondent was a bank angler and 0for boat angler.

Demand Estimation Technique

When on-site sampling techniques are used to collect data, a series of features occur thatdo not lend themselves to a standard demand specification. First, since all observed visitorshave taken at least the current trip, non-visitors are not observed, so the sample is truncatedat zero trips; second, sampling on site often generates endogenously stratified data, whichimplies oversampling those anglers who frequent the site regularly compared to occasional

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

09 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


visitors. Failure to correct for on-site sampling produces biased estimates of recreationdemand and any corresponding welfare measure (Shaw, 1988).

The non-negative and integer nature of recreational trip-counts suggests the form ofPoisson or Gamma distributions in the data and count data approach for analysis. In atypical recreation demand application, the Poisson model underpredicts the true frequencyof zeroes, overpredicts the true frequency of other small values, and underpredicts the truefrequency of large counts. This is called overdispersion and it is caused by unobservedheterogeneity in the population parameter (Sarker and Surry, 2004). Overdispersion in thedata stresses the use of Negative Binomial approaches (Devkota et al., 2005).

There have been a number of papers focused on controlling for intercept samplingin recreation demand analysis (Shaw, 1988; Englin and Shonkwiler, 1995; McKean et al.,2003; Martınez-Espeneira and Amoako-Tuffour, 2005). While more flexible approacheswhich allow for endogenous stratification correction in a Negative Binomial specificationhave been developed (Martınez-Espineira and Amoako-Tuffour, 2005), some authors pointout that correcting for choice-based sampling on top of zero-truncation does not make muchdifference in estimates (Ovaskainen et al., 2001; Englin et al., 2003).

In this study, truncated Poisson (TP) and truncated Negative Binomial (TNB) count dataregressions were estimated via maximum likelihood techniques (Hellerstain, 1992) usingthe computer software LIMDEP 7.0 (Econometric Software, Inc.). Both models addressedthe truncated and overdispersed nature of the data but did not account for endogenousstratification as convergence of the Negative Binomial regression corrected by endogenousstratification was not achieved.

Welfare Measures

The difference between what a commodity like recreational fishing trips actually costs(expenditures by anglers) and what anglers would be willing to pay for it is theoreticallydefined as the consumer surplus (CS) and represents the net benefit (i.e., the net economicvalue) to the anglers. Consumer surplus is the additional willingness to pay over the marketexpenditures.

Following Creel and Loomis (1990), in both count data regressions CS per trip wascalculated as the inverse of the travel cost coefficient (β2). Consumer surplus per seasonwas calculated as the CS per trip times the average number of trips per season taken by eachangler.

Total consumer surplus was calculated as consumer surplus per season times the totalnumber of anglers visiting Lake Llanquihue during the season. Since there were no availablerecords of the total number of anglers who visited the lake during the season of the survey,we used the number of fishing licenses sold in 1996 in the districts surrounding LakeLlanquihue, which equaled 3,050 (Arismendi, 1997).

Results

Characteristics of the Anglers

The analysis of the data allowed the identification of two types of anglers at Lake Llanquihue:bank anglers who represented 76.5% of the sample and boat anglers who represented theremaining 23.5%. Bank anglers fished on the shoreline around the lake and on the affluentrivers, while boat anglers fished only in the lake.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

09 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


Figure 2. Total flow of anglers visiting Lake Llanquihue divided by type and working/non workingdays over the fishing season (September 1995–May 1996). HW = holidays and weekends, WD =workdays.

Visitation rate by bank anglers was concentrated on holidays and weekends (1,187anglers) rather than on workdays (1,066 anglers; Figure 2). The month with the least occur-rence of bank anglers was September with 25 anglers, while March sustained the highestdensity with 588 anglers. Boat anglers were most abundant in summer months (Januaryand February), with 372 fishing boats observed at the lake. In each boat, there were 2.7individuals on average, which resulted in 5,524 anglers fishing from boats during the entireseason.

The average age of anglers visiting the lake was 40 years, with a wide range of anglingexperience from beginner to experienced (14 years and above). Bank anglers were onaverage 37 years old whereas boat anglers were 46 years old. Most anglers had more thantwo years of experience (96% of boat anglers and 86% of bank anglers) and those with twoto 10 years of experience were the most numerous group (31% of boat anglers and 47% ofbank anglers). There was a high site fidelity to Lake Llanquihue, with an average of sevenyears of fishing at the site. There were anglers with over 40 years of fidelity, reflectingthe historical significance of this lake as a fishing destination. Most anglers (89%) held anangling license and only 24% belonged to a fishing association.

Regarding origin, 71.7% of the bank anglers and 91% of the boat anglers were fromthe 10th region (radius of 300 km), and 13.5% of bank anglers and 9% of boat anglers werefrom the country’s capital, Santiago, located 1,000 km north. For bank and boat anglers, theprimary mode of transportation was by truck or car (72% and 92%). Round-trip average dis-tance for bank anglers was 700 km and for boat anglers was 280 km. The average round-triptravel time was 16.8 hours. In relation to the fishing equipment, bank anglers spent 368 US$on average, varying from 5 US$ to 8,587 US$, whereas boat anglers’ investment was 9,174US$ on average, ranging from 49 US$ to 61,339 US$.

Analysis of the data revealed that not all fishing was aimed at taking the fishes, as15% of bank anglers and 6% of boat anglers were practicing catch and release. There wasa wide variety of reasons for not taking captured fishes. Most important were the size and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

09 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


the specifications listed by law limiting the number of fishes captured. Specifically, the lawallowed one fish per day in Pescado River and three in Lake Llanquihue.

Regarding lures, most bank anglers preferred flies (74.5%), while boat anglers utilizedseven different types of lures and used flies in only 3.3% of the cases. For boat anglers,CPUE was 0.18 fish per hour and for bank anglers 0.07 fish per hour. The type of fishescaptured varied depending on the fishing technique. Rainbow trout, Coho salmon, andAtlantic salmon represented 59%, 31%, and 10%, respectively, of the total catch by bankanglers (505 total individuals captured). Coho salmon represented the majority of the catchby boat anglers at 57%, while rainbow trout and Atlantic salmon represented 35% and8% (5,944 total individuals captured). For both type of anglers, fishing effort measured aseffective fishing time was six hours per day on average.

Model Parameters and Welfare Estimates

Estimation of coefficients from the truncated count data regressions are presented in Table 1.The results show that most of the variables in the models were significant and had the

Table 1Parameter estimates of the truncated Poisson and Negative Binomial regressions

Truncated TruncatedPoisson Negative Binomial

Coefficient CoefficientVariable (Standard Error) P-value (Standard Error) P-value

One 2.02∗∗∗ 0.0000 2.06∗∗∗ 0.0000(0.63∗10−1) (0.25)

Time −0.56∗10−2∗∗∗ 0.0000 −0.57∗10−2 0.3337(0.13∗10−2) (0.59∗10−2)

Cost −0.16∗10−1∗∗∗ 0.0000 −0.10∗10−1∗∗∗ 0.0006(0.93∗10−3) (0.30810−)

Inc 0.47*10−4∗∗∗ 0.0000 0.51∗10−4∗∗∗ 0.0001(0.30∗10−5) (0.13∗10−4)

Years 0.20∗10−1∗∗∗ 0.0000 0.19∗10−1∗ 0.0669(0.20∗10−2) (0.10∗10−1)

Site 0.15∗10−1∗∗∗ 0.0000 0.91∗10−2∗∗∗ 0.0017(0.90∗10−3) (0.29∗10−2)

Type −0.67∗∗∗ 0.0000 0.53∗∗ 0.0184(0.55∗10−1) (0.23)

Overdispersion — 1.23∗∗∗ 0.0000parameter alpha

— (0.17)LLF −2358.032 −990.855RLLF −2812.490 −2358.032Pseudo R2 0.18 0.13

Standard errors in parenthesis; Legend:∗ p < 0.1; ∗∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗∗ p < 0.01.LLF: Log-likelihood function.RLLF: Restricted log-likelihood function.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

09 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


expected signs. The price and income coefficients had negative and positive signs, respec-tively, and were statistically significant at the 1% level in both regressions. All else beingequal, an increase in travel cost decreased the expected number of trips, whereas tripsincreased with income. The coefficients did not differ substantially in magnitude acrossregressions.

The coefficient on the time variable was significant only in the TP regression and hadthe expected negative sign indicating that, all else being equal, the time traveling to the sitedecreased the number of fishing trips. The magnitude of the coefficient on travel cost to thealternative site varied between regressions, and it was significant and positive indicatingthat Lake Llanquihue and Lake Ranco are substitute sites.

The coefficient on years fishing at Lake Llanquihue was positive and significant in theTP regression at all conventional levels. All else being equal, the higher the number of yearsfishing at the lake the higher the expected number of trips taken. In the TNB regression theP-value for the variable year was 0.0669 indicating that the coefficient was significant atthe 10% level but not significant at the 5% level. The coefficient on angler type was positiveand significant at conventional levels only in the TP regression suggesting that visitationrate increased if the angler was a bank angler. In the TNB regression the coefficient on yearsfishing at the site was significant at the 10% level.

In addition to the coefficients and their standard errors and P-values, pseudo R2

estimates for the TP and TNB regressions are presented in Table 1. Following Ovaskainenet al. (2001) the restricted log-likelihood (RLL) of the Poisson with restrictions β = 0and α = 0 was used as the restricted log-likelihood for both the TP and the TNB whencomputing the pseudo R2.

The R2 values from both regressions were small indicating that the explanatory power ofthe models was relatively low. However, low R2are not uncommon in this type of study. Thealpha parameter from the TNB regression was highly significant indicating that there was in-deed overdispersion in the data and suggests the use of the TNB distribution over the Poisson.

Table 2 provides estimates of CS per trip, per season, and total. The TP and TNB regres-sions predicted CS per trip of 62.5 US$ and 100 US$, respectively. Consumer surplus perseason varied from 1,094 to 1,750 US$, being higher in magnitude for the TNB regression.Total consumer surplus ranged from 3,336,700 to 5,337,500 US$.

Discussion and Conclusions

Recreational Activity at Lake Llanquihue

Recreational fishing is a relatively new activity in southern Chile and is mainly supportedby local anglers (Schaerer and Sirven, 2001; Niklitschek et al., 2002; SERNATUR, 2005a).

Table 2Consumer surplus per trip, per season and total measured in US dollars of 1996

Consumer Surplus Truncated Poisson Truncated Negative Binomial

Per trip 62.5 100Per seasona 1094 1750Total annualb 3 336 700 5 337 500

aPer season = 17.5*62.5 and 17.5*100.bTotal annual = CS per season*3 050.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

09 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


The highest flux of anglers occurs during summer months (January and February), whichcoincides with vacation time and better climatic conditions for fishing (e.g., low wind).Boat anglers are the most important group, representing 71% of the total flux of anglersduring the fishing season. This is different from other areas of South America where mostanglers prefer to fish from the shore or bank (Vigliano et al., 2000).

The years of experience and years of fidelity to Lake Llanquihue are lower in bankanglers probably because affluent rivers are short and narrow (Soto, 1993), resulting in anoverall lower density and flux of visitors during each fishing season. Conversely, the higheryears of experience of boat anglers could be related to the thrills of fishing (e.g., number offish strikes and size of fish), resulting in a higher frequency of trips (Vigliano et al., 2000).

While the fishing equipment used by boat anglers (e.g., boat, motor, and fish detectionequipment) is more extensive and costly than that used by bank anglers, this did not result ina higher fishing effort, which equaled six hours for both types of anglers. The fishing effortin other locations throughout the Americas is lower when compared to Lake Llanquihue(Bunt, 1991; Niklitschek et al., 2002; Ferrer et al., 2005). This could be explained by the factthat the lake is highly accessible and has been developed for tourist purposes. Likewise, itcontains the highest amount of salmon aquaculture sites and it maintains a large lake surfacearea.

The CPUE is higher for boat anglers, which indicates a higher efficiency in capture.Conversely, bank anglers use less diversity of lure which decreases their efficiency. Ad-ditionally, boat anglers can potentially cover a wider fishing area and can augment theirefficiency by using fish detection equipment (Arismendi, 1997). Finally, it is possible thatthe composition of species and the density of fishes are different in the lake compared to itsaffluent rivers resulting in different CPUE between both types of anglers.

Economic Values and Use Conflicts

In addition to the information on angler characteristics and preferences, the reliable de-sign of policies oriented toward freshwater resources management should be based on theknowledge of the costs as well as the benefits associated with maintaining the ecosystemfor a given use. In Chile access to lakes for sport fishing is not subject to any charge or fee,and, although the purchase of a fishing license is usually required, the price of such per-mits (6 US$/year) clearly underestimates the maximum willingness to pay by most anglers.Hence, the true value of sport fishing to the visitors is unknown and must be estimated usingnon-market valuation techniques.

On the basis of coefficient signs, TP and TNB count data regressions appear highlyrobust with no sign changes across specifications. Conversely, the recreation demand anal-ysis indicates important differences between both regressions regarding the magnitude ofthe coefficients and measures of welfare. As pointed out by Gourieroux et al. (1984), thePoisson regression model rarely fits in practice since in most applications the conditionalvariance is greater than the conditional mean. If the mean structure is correct but thereis overdispersion, the estimates are consistent but inefficient. Further, the standard errorswill be biased downwards, resulting in spuriously large probability values (Cameron andTrivedi, 1986) overestimating the significance of the variables. The downward bias of thestandard errors is clear from the results of the TP regression (Table 1). This bias is con-firmed by the high significance of the alpha parameter of the TNB regression. Hence, inthe present application the use of the TNB distribution is recommended in the estimationof the recreational fishing demand.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

09 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


The TNB regression produced significant coefficients for most of the variables includedin the model. The insignificance of the time variable could be attributed to the fact that mostanglers come from the 10th region, with generally short travel times. Furthermore, the highfidelity to the lake confirms that travel time can be of less relevance in the decision oftaking a fishing trip. The results support the importance of travel cost to the site and tothe alternative site on the frequency of visits to Lake Llanquihue. Likewise, the years offidelity increase the number of visits, which confirms the importance of the lake as a fishingdestination in southern Chile. The type of angler was also significant, with bank anglershaving a higher frequency of visits. This could be explained mainly by their proximity tothe lake.

The consumer surplus estimates we obtained are comparable to and usually higher thanthose found in similar studies and represent the values above and beyond the price (travelcost) that individuals pay to engage in recreational fishing. Freeman (1995) reported valuesper fishing trip that ranged from 85 to 416 US$ for San Francisco Bay, California, and from74 to 280 US$ for southern California. McKean et al. (2001) reported an average number ofsport fishing trips per year of 6.7, resulting in an average annual willingness to pay of 236US$ per angler. Shrestha et al. (2002) estimated consumer surplus values for the BrazilianPantanal that ranged from 540.5 to 869.6 US$ per trip, resulting in a total social welfarethat ranged from 35 to 56 million US$. Chizinski et al. (2005) reported an average per-dayconsumer surplus that ranged between 61 and 122 US$ per angler, depending on the wagerate fraction assigned to the opportunity cost of time.

Historically, Lake Llanquihue is significant to recreational fishing and generates sig-nificant economic values; it has also become essential for salmon and trout aquaculture.Other activities that may potentially conflict with sport fishing directly or indirectly areagriculture, forestry, and massive tourism (SERNATUR, 2005b; Instituto Nacional de Es-tadısticas, INE, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c). In the 10th region, from 1997 to 2004, agricultureand exotic tree plantations increased by 20.7% and 17%, whereas bovine and milk produc-tion increased by 5% and 18.6% (INE, 1998, 2005a, 2005c; Oficina de Estudios y PolıticasAgrarias, ODEPA, 2005). Similarly, from 1990 to 2005, human population and tourist visitsnear the Lake Llanquihue basin grew 24.5% and 8.9% (INE, 2005b; SERNATUR, 1998,2002, 2005b). This continual growth of potentially conflicting economic activities calls forthe measurement of economic values of each activity using the lake water resources andtheir comparison to recreational fishing values.

Salmon and trout smolt production in Lake Llanquihue for the period 1995–1996 wasapproximately 4,900 tons (unpublished information, SERNAPESCA). Considering a priceof 0.52 US$ per unit of Coho salmon and rainbow trout and 0.94 US$ per unit of Atlanticsalmon, we estimated that smolt production at Lake Llanquihue generates gross economicbenefits that can range between 21,233,333 US$ and 38,383,333 US$, for fishes weighing120 g each (NISA, Negocios Integrales, personal communication). With production costsof 0.0348 to 0.048 US$ per unit depending on the species (Bjorndal, 2001), net benefitsfrom smolt production were calculated to vary from 19,273,333 US$ to 36,962,333 US$.Although these values are higher than those from recreational fishing, some considerationsmust be taken into account. First, smolt production has become well established with in-tensive activity in Chilean lakes, inner seas, and fjords that are producing controversialenvironmental impacts (Soto et al., 2006). Conversely, recreational fishing is an emergentactivity that with proper management should not negatively impact water resources. Sec-ond, relative to competing uses, recreational fishing may be more economically efficient useof scarce regional, natural, human and financial resources having a larger impact to localdevelopment (Shrestha et al., 2002). Managers have to consider these trade-offs resulting

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

09 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


from water resources being allocated to different uses. Third, recreational fishing is oneof many recreational activities that can be practiced at the lake and therefore the valuesobtained in this study represent only part of the total economic value associated with thelake’s water resources being allocated to recreation. Finally, total consumer surplus was es-timated based upon the number of licenses sold in nearby locations during the study periodrather than upon the true number of anglers visiting the lake. As our results show, not allanglers in the sample held a license, and therefore the estimate of total consumer surplus isconservative and could be underestimated.

Non-Monetary Values

In this study, recreational fishing at Lake Llanquihue has been shown to generate sub-stantial economic benefits to anglers. Yet, it is important to recognize that these economicvalues correspond to recreational use values and represent only a part of the total value ofLake Llanquihue. The integration of the social and economic dimensions may contribute tobuilding up alliances with interested parties to limit damage to aquatic ecosystems, promoterehabilitation activities, and to strengthen the feedback among managers, stakeholders, andresource basis (Lewin et al., 2006). Fish resources also provide other fundamental ecosystemservices that are essential for ecosystem functioning and for human existence irrespectiveof whether humans are aware of it or not. Overall, angling provides a myriad of economic,social and ecological benefits to society, albeit the exact dimensions are often poorly knownor very difficult to quantify (Arlinghaus et al., 2002). Such services are often not relatedto any specific economic market value. Some examples are the regulation of food web dy-namics, recycling of nutrients, maintenance of genetic, species and ecosystem biodiversity,transport of nutrients, carbon and minerals, and provision of scientific and historical infor-mation (Holmlund and Hammer, 1999). Hence, our economic benefits estimates should beconsidered as lower-bound measures of the full benefits of Lake Llanquihue.

Implications for Recreational Fishing Management

In the case of Chile, the provincial policy of permitting unrestricted access by all user groupsto fishery resources remains the key unresolved issue threatening the future of recreationalfishing. Recreational fisheries management and regulations are based on a large regionalscale that includes one law with four articles covering the definition of fishing gear, fishingseasons, amount of take, and maximum fish size (Gobierno de Chile, 1991). Based on thesecriteria, only some locations in Chile have made slight modifications to aspects of this law. InArgentina, Vigliano et al. (2000) indicated that this approach, of one law for all locations, iserroneous because it does not consider the heterogeneity of anglers and fishing environmentswhich creates conflicts between different groups of anglers. At the same time in Chile,expenditures and willingness to pay seldom factor into the allocation of management effort.

In the case of Lake Llanquihue, approaches for effective management should considerenhancing fishing activity and factoring in economic values, amongst others. For example,Loomis (2006) determined that by increasing angler catch, other aspects such as angleruse, economic value, local jobs, and local income also increased. It is probable that withthe higher CPUE of boat anglers in Lake Llanquihue, increasing the angler catch wouldbenefit angler use and cause management strategies to increase economic value. Thus, anappropriate management strategy should promote the capture of salmon by anglers and theextension of the fishing season and fishing quota, especially for Coho and Atlantic salmon,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

09 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


which are among the salmon species that have not been found to reproduce in the affluentrivers (Arismendi, 1997; Soto et al., 2001; Soto et al., 2002; Soto et al., 2006).

On the other hand, for bank anglers who use lake edges and affluent rivers, benefitsmay increase by increasing individual fish size, as suggested by Lawrence (2005). Bankanglers declared that their primary fishing motivation was the size of the captured fish. Sincerainbow trout was the most frequently captured fish by bank anglers (59%), enhancing troutsize would probably increase angler visitation rate. Thus, a mixed regulation in affluentrivers based on catch and release for individual fishes of desired sizes (over 30 cm) and acatch-and-take fishery for individual fishes under 29 cm may attract more activity, especiallyin March and April (autumn) during trout migration (Soto et al., 2002, 2006), increasingeconomic benefits.

In this study, recreational fishing at Lake Llanquihue has been shown to generate sub-stantial economic benefits to anglers. To create recreational fishing management plans, localmanagers should rely on the economic value of recreational fishing to anglers to demon-strate the economic significance of fishery resources. Further, in making these decisions, it isnecessary to consider the characteristics and opinions of local anglers as they directly affectmanagement decisions. The results obtained in this study can be an important tool in recre-ational fishing management providing a framework for prioritizing management activitiesand expenditures at Lake Llanquihue and possibly other Chilean fresh water ecosystems.

Acknowledgments

Doris Soto helped to discover the importance of recreational fisheries, provided guid-ance during research development, and gave funds from within her project provided bythe Lakes Region Government (Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Regional). Miss BrookePenaluna helped direct the paper and provided substantial comments and translations. Dr.John Loomis contributed important comments that helped to improve the article. Twoanonymous reviewers provided helpful comments and suggestions.

References

Amigo, J., and C. Ramırez. A bioclimatic classification of Chile: Woodland communities in thetemperate zone. Plant Ecology, 136: 9–26 (1998).

Arismendi, I. La pesca deportiva en el lago Llanquihue y sus implicancias economicas y ecologicas.Tesis Escuela de Ingenierıa Pesquera. Universidad Austral de Chile. Puerto Montt. Chile. pp.128 (1997).

Arlinghaus, R., T. Mehner, and I. G. Cowx. Reconciling traditional inland fisheries managementand sustainability in industrialized countries, with emphasis on Europe. Fish and Fisheries, 3:261–316 (2002).

Arlinghaus, R., and T. Mehner. Determinants of management preferences of recreational anglers inGermany: Habitat management versus fish stocking. Limnologica, 35: 2–17 (2005).

Arratia, G. Comentario sobre la introduccion de peces exoticos en aguas continentales de Chile.Ciencias Forestales, Chile. 21–30 (1978).

Basulto, S. El largo viaje de los salmones: una cronica olvidada, Propagacion y cultivo de especiesacuaticas en Chile. Maval Limitada, Santiago, Chile. pp. 102 (2003).

Bjorndal, T. The competitiveness of Chilean Salmon Aquaculture Industry. Working paper Num37/01. SNF-project Num 5400 “Value added in the Norwegian Seafood Industry”. Centre forFisheries Economics. Discussion paper Num 7/2001, Norway. pp. 32 (2001).

Bunt, D. Use of rod catch effort data to monitor migratory salmonids in Wales. In: Catch EffortSampling Strategies: Their Application in Freshwater Fisheries Management, pp. 15–32 (I. G.Cowx, Ed.) London: Fishing News Books (1991).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

09 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


Cameron, A., and P. Trivedi. Econometric models based on count data: Comparisons and applicationsof some estimators and tests. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 1: 29–53 (1986).

Campos, H. Introduccion de especies exoticas y su relacion con los peces de agua dulce de Chile.Noticiario Mensual. Museo Nacional de Historia Natural, Chile. Ano XIV 162: 3–10 (1970).

Campos, H. Limnological study of Araucanian lakes (Chile). Verhandlungen Internationale Vereini-gung Limnologie, 22: 1319–1327 (1984).

Campos, H., C. Aguero, and W. Steffen. Segundo Encuentro Cientıfico sobre Medio Ambiente. Chile,Talca 4-8, Agosto. pp. 76–84 (1986).

Campos, H., W. Steffen, G. Aguero, T. Parra, and L. Zuniga. Limnological study of Lake Llanqui-hue (Chile): Morphometry, physics, chemistry, plankton and primary productivity. Archives ofHydrobiology, 81: 37–67 (1988).

Cesario, F. Value of time in recreation benefit studies. Land Economics, 52: 32–41 (1976).Chizinski, C., K. Pope, D. Willis, G. Wilde, and E. Rossman. Economic Value of Angling at a

Reservoir with Low Visitation. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 25: 98–104(2005).

Connelly, X., and X. Brown. Net economic value of the freshwater recreational fisheries of New York.Transactions of American Fisheries Society, 120: 770–775 (1991).

Creel, M.D., and J. Loomis. Theoretical and empirical advantages of truncated count data estimatorsfor analysis of deer hunting in California. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72:434–441 (1990).

Cryer, M., and G. Maclean. Catch for effort in a New Zealand recreational trout fishery—A modeland implications for survey design. In: Catch Effort Sampling Strategies: Their Application inFreshwater Fisheries Management, pp. 61–71 (I. G. Cowx, Ed.) London: Fishing News Books(1991).

Devkota, N., K. Paudel, R. Caffey, and L. Hall. The count data analysis of coastal recreation in Elmers’sIsland, Louisiana. SERA030: Southern Natural Resource Economics Committee. Annual Report(2005).

D’Ottone, E. Informe preliminar sobre el cultivo de especies salmonıdeas en la piscicultura Rıo Sur,Decima region, Chile. Revista Latinoamericana de Acuicultura, 34: 13–52 (1987).

Englin, J., and J. Shonkwiler. Estimating social welfare using count data models: An application underconditions of endogenous stratification and truncation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 77:104–112 (1995).

Englin, J., T. P. Holmes, and E. O. Sills. Estimating forest recreation demand using count data models.In: Forest in a Market Economy, pp. 341–359 (E. O. Sills, Ed.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers (2003).

Ferrer, O., E. Dibble, D. Jackson, and K. Rundle. Angling assessment of the fisheries of HumacaoNatural Reserve lagoon system, Puerto Rico. Fisheries Research, 76: 81–90 (2005).

Fix, P., and J. Loomis. Comparing the economic value of mountain biking estimated using revealedand stated preferences. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 41(2): 227–236(1998).

Freeman, A. The Benefits of Water Quality Improvements for Marine Recreation: A Review of theEmpirical Evidence. Marine Resource Economics, 10: 385–406 (1995).

Gobierno de Chile. Ley General de Pesca y Acuicultura N◦ 18,892. Chile. pp. 96. (1991).Gourieroux, C., and A. Monfort, A. Trognon. Pseudo maximum likelihood methods: Applications to

Poisson models. Econometrica, 52: 701–720 (1984).Hellerstain, D. The treatment of nonparticipants in travel cost analysis and other demand models.

Water Resources Research, 28(8): 1999–2004 (1992).Henderson, M., K. Criddle, and S. Todd. The economic value of Alaska’s Copper River personal use

and subsistence fisheries. Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin, 6(2): 63–69 (2000).Hilborn, R., and C. Walters. Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment: Choice, Dynamics and Uncer-

tainty. Chapman and Hall, New York. pp. 570 (1992).Holmlund C. M., and M. Hammer. Ecosystem services generated by fish populations. Ecological

Economics, 29: 253–268 (1999).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

09 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


Hunt, L., P. Boxall, J. Englin, and W. Haider. Forest harvesting, resource-based tourism, and re-moteness: An analysis of northern Ontario’s sport fishing tourism. Canadian Journal of ForestResources, 35: 401–409 (2005).

INE. Estadısticas Agropecuarias. Ano Agrıcola 1997/1998. Departamento de EstadısticasAgropecuarias. Instituto Nacional de Estadısticas, Santiago, Chile. pp. 75 (1998).

INE. Estadısticas Agropecuarias. Ano Agrıcola 2004/2005. Departamento de EstadısticasAgropecuarias. Instituto Nacional de Estadısticas. Santiago, Chile. pp. 112 (2005a).

INE. Compendio estadıstico. Instituto Nacional de Estadısticas. Santiago, Chile. Available inhttp://www.ine.cl/ (2005b).

INE. Evolucion, Situacion Actual y Perspectivas de la Produccion Pecuaria Nacional Perıodo2002–2005. Instituto Nacional de Estadısticas. Santiago, Chile. http://www.ine.cl/ine/canales/chile estadistico/estadisticas economicas /agropecuarias/agropecuarias.php (2005c).

Johnson, D., J. McKean, and R. Taylor. Estimating the value of recreation on the Snake river reservoirsusing disequilibrium travel cost model. Paper presented at the Western Agricultural Economicsassociation Annual Meetings, Vancouver, British Columbia. (2000).

Kalin-Arroyo, M., L. Caviares, A. Penaloza, M. Riveros, and A. Faggi. Relaciones fitogeograficasy patrones regionales de riqueza de especies en la flora del bosque lluvioso templado de Su-damerica. In: Ecologıa de los Bosques Nativos de Chile, pp. 71–100 (J. Armesto, C. Villagran,and M. Kalin-Arroyo, Eds.) Santiago, Chile, Editorial Universitaria (1996).

Lawrence, K. Assessing the value of recreational sea angling in South West England. FisheriesManagement and Ecology, 12: 369–375 (2005).

Layman, R., J. Boyce, and K. Criddle. Economic valuation of the Chinook salmon sport fishery of theGulkana river, Alaska, under current and alternate management plans. Land Economics, 72(1):113–128 (1996).

Leon, J. Synopsis of salmon farming impacts and environmental management in Chile. ConsultancyTechnical Report WWF (World Wildlife Fund). Valdivia, Chile. pp. 84 (2006).

Lewin, W., R. Arlinghaus, and T. Mehner. Documented and Potential Biological Impacts of Recre-ational Fishing: Insights for Management and Conservation. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 14:305–367 (2006).

Loomis, J., and R. Walsh. Recreation Economic Decisions: Comparing Benefits and Costs. SecondEdition. State College, PA: Venture Publishing (1997).

Loomis, J. Use of Survey Data to Estimate Economic Value and Regional Economic Effects of FisheryImprovements. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 26: 301–307 (2006).

Luebert, F., and P. Pliscoff. Bioclimas de la Cordillera de la Costa del centro-sur de Chile. In: Historia,Ecologıa y biodiversidad de los bosques costeros de Chile, pp. 60–73 (C. Smith-Ramirez, J.Armesto, and C. Valdovinos, Eds.) Santiago, Chile: Editorial Universitaria (2005).

Martınez-Espineira, R., and J. Amoako-Tuffour. Recreation Demand Analysis under trunca-tion, overdispersion, and endogenous stratification: An application to Gros Morne Na-tional Park. Economics, St. Francis Xavier University. http://econwpa.wustl.edu:8089/eps/em/papers/0511/0511007.pdf (2005).

McConnell, K. E., and I. E. Strand. Measuring the cost of time in recreational demand analysis: Anapplication of outdoor recreation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63: 153–156(1981).

McKean. J. R., J. Johnson, and R. Taylor. The Value of Sport Fishing in the Snake River Basinof Central Idaho. Selected Paper Western Agricultural Economics Association, 2001 AnnualMeeting, Logan, UT (2001).

McKean. J. R., J. Johnson, and R. Taylor. Measuring demand for flat water recreation using a two-stagedisequilibrium travel cost model with adjustment for overdispersion and self selection. WaterResources Research, 39(4): 1107–1014 (2003).

Mendez, R., and C. Munita. La salmonicultura en Chile. In: Fundacion Chile (Ed.). Santiago, Chile.pp. 229 (1989).

Niklitschek, E., M. Niklitschek, and E. Aedo. Manejo y administracion para la sustentabilidad y elmejoramiento cuantitativo y cualitativo de la pesca deportiva en rıos de gran atractivo turıstico enla XI region de Aysen. Informe de Avance Tecnico CT 02 20, Coyhaique, Chile. pp. 40 (2002).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

09 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


ODEPA. Compendio Estadıstico Silvoagropecuario 1990–2004. Oficina de Estudios y PolıticasAgrarias, Ministerio de Agricultura, Chile. pp. 163 (2005).

Ovaskainen, V., J. Mikkola, and E. Pouta. Estimating recreation demand with on-site data: An appli-cation of truncated and endogenously stratified count data models. Journal of Forest Economics,7(2): 125–144 (2001).

Postel, S., and S.R. Carpenter. Freshwater ecosystem services.In: Nature’s services, pp. 195–214 (G.Daily, Ed.) Washington, D.C., USA: Inland Press (1997).

Sarker, R., and I. Surry. The fast decay process in outdoor recreational activities and the use pfalternative count data models. American Agricultural Economics Association, 83(3): 701–715(2004).

Schaerer, J., and M. Sirven. El turismo rural en Chile. Experiencias de agroturismo en las Regionesdel Maule, La Araucanıa y Los Lagos. Red de Desarrollo agropecuario. Unidad de DesarrolloAgrıcola. Division de Desarrollo Productivo y Empresarial. CEPAL, Santiago de Chile, Seriedesarrollo productivo 112, pp. 75 (2001).

SERNAPESCA. Anuario estadıstico de pesca 1997. Servicio Nacional de Pesca, Chile. (1998).SERNAPESCA. Anuario estadıstico de pesca 2004. Servicio Nacional de Pesca, Chile. (2004).SERNATUR. Anuario de Turismo 1997. Servicio Nacional de Turismo, Chile. pp. 78 (1998).SERNATUR. Anuario de Turismo 2001. Servicio Nacional de Turismo, Chile. pp. 84 (2002).SERNATUR. Proyecto FDI Sistema Normativo para la calidad en turismo. Resumen Ejecutivo. Go-

bierno de Chile, Servicio Nacional de Turismo, Chile. pp. 10 (2005a).SERNATUR, 2005b. Anuario de Turismo 2004. Servicio Nacional de Turismo, Chile. pp. 95 (2005b).Shaw, D. On-site sample regression: Problems of non-negative integers, truncation, and endogenous

stratification. Journal of Econometrics, 37: 211–223 (1988).Shrestha, R., A. Seidl, and A. Moraes. Value of recreational fishing in the Brazilian Pantanal: A travel

cost analysis using count data models. Ecological Economics, 42: 289–299 (2002).Soto, D. Estudio del impacto de las actividades productivas y de servicio sobre el Lago Llanquihue.

Informe Intendencia Region de los Lagos, Chile, pp. 215 (1993).Soto, D., and H. Campos. Los lagos oligotroficos del bosque templado humedo del sur de Chile.

In: Ecologıa de los Bosques Nativos de Chile, pp. 317–334 (J. Armesto, C. Villagran, and M.Kalin-Arroyo, Eds.) Santiago, Chile: Editorial Universitaria (1996).

Soto, D., I. Arismendi, J. Sanzana, and V. Barrera. Evaluacion del potencial biologico de la pesca de-portiva en la decima region. Informe Tecnico F.N.D.R (Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Regional)X region, Chile. pp. 320 (2001).

Soto, D., I. Arismendi, and I. Solar. Estudio del ciclo reproductivo de las principales especies objetivode la pesca deportiva en la X Region. Informe Proyecto FIP 2000–24. Fondo de InvestigacionPesquera, Subsecretarıa de Pesca, Valparaıso, Chile. pp. 98 (2002).

Soto, D., and R. Peralta. Evaluacion del desempeno ambiental de centros de cultivo (Asociados aIntesal) a partir de encuestas y modelos, ano 2003. Documento Interno de trabajo. InstitutoTecnologico del Salmon, Chile. pp. 140 (2003).

Soto, D., I. Arismendi, J. Gonzalez, J. Sanzana, F. Jara, C. Jara, E. Guzman, and A. Lara. SouthernChile, trout and salmon country: invasion patterns and threats for native species. Revista Chilenade Historia Natural, 79: 97–117 (2006).

SUBPESCA. Informe consolidado de pesca y acuicultura 2004. Gobierno de Chile, Subsecretarıa dePesca, Unidad de Estudios Sectoriales, Chile. pp. 20 (2004).

Veblen, T., F. Schlegel, and J. Oltremari. Temperate broad-leaved evergreen forests of South America.In: Temperate Broad-Leaved Evergreen Forests, pp. 5–31 (J. D. Ovington, Ed.) Amsterdam:Elsevier (1983).

Vigliano, P., G. Lippolt, A. Denegri, M. Alonso, P. Macchi, and C. Dye. The human factors of the sportand recreational fishery of San Carlos de Bariloche, Rıo Negro, Argentina. Fisheries Research,49: 141–153 (2000).

World Bank. The Technology and Growth Series: Chilean Salmon Exports. Economic Policy Notes.Premier Notes October 103(34966): 1–4 (2005).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

09 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3

non-native salmon and trout recreational fishing in lake llanquihue, southern chile: economic...

Documents