The economic value of recreational fisheries in Nordic countries

Abstract

Recreational fishing, whether free or at cost, has an economic value. This value was measured in five Nordic countries based on a contingent valuation mail survey. Regression models were used to identify demographic characteristics, types of fishing patterns and differences in the countries’ management regimes that can explain both actual fishing expenditure and willingness to pay for the non‐market benefits by persons participating in fishing or enjoying the benefits derived by it. Net benefit, i.e. willingness to pay over and above actual expenditure was highest amongst those fishing. In Denmark, the small number of generalist fishermen get the highest benefit. In Finland results are mixed but sports fishermen benefit on average even more than generalists. Urban sports fishing raises the highest benefit in Iceland while in Norway the benefit is more equally spread, with occasional anglers and women reaping the least. In Sweden the mean benefit is the lowest in the Nordic countries but evenly distributed among categories of fishermen. In the Nordic countries combined, nationality explains willingness to pay as being Norwegian or Finnish increases benefit and being Icelandic reduces it. The non‐use value of recreational fisheries was elicited through posing questions on willingness to pay for the preservation of the existence of current fish stocks and current quality of recreational fishing to persons participating in fishing or enjoying the benefits derived from it. For those not fishing or people in general, the power of the models to explain willingness to pay for the existence of recreational fisheries was very weak. The benefit, i.e. willingness to pay, is higher if somebody in the household fishes. Educated, young, urban, well‐off citizens also put value on the non‐use of the resource.

Valuation of Ecosystem Services from Nordic Watersheds

“… review the policy impact of almost three decades of non-market valuation studies related to watersheds in the Nordic countries and evaluate the criteria for uptake of valuation estimates in policy and differences between countries  initiate comparative primary valuation studies to further demonstrate the use of the AQUAMONEY Guidelines for using economic valuation under the Water Framework Directive  undertake primary valuation studies across Nordic populations that are representative at national and county/regional level -for generic hypothetical policies -for other cultural services, following the example of NMC funding for valuation of recreational fisheries (Toivonen, Appelblad et al 2000)  fund site and project, policy, and measure specific valuation studies of populations within particular watersheds, and particular regulating services in watersheds studies using production function and damage function approaches  demonstrate possibilities and limitations in scaling available water body and watershed specific valuation studies for purposes of ecosystem capital accounting  initiate valuation studies that evaluate the spatial patterns of ES values and their dependence on distance, direction, scale and resolution, and implications for improvements in national accounting, priority-setting and instrument design  sponsor research on the design of economic instruments in the policy mix 2 of WFD "programmes of measures" for watershed management (such as payments of ES) -assessing their ecological effectiveness, benefits of derived ES, technical and transaction costs of implementation, distributional impacts and legitimacy, institutional and political barriers and opportunities for implementation  support the development of Nordic visualizations and illustrations of ecosystem services and in Nordic languages to help promote public awareness, as an alternative to economic valuation  promote similar reviews to VALUESHED of specific other ecosystems in Nordic countries (e.g. forests, coastal wetlands and open sea ecosystems), addressing interdependencies of valuation estimates between ecosystems (e.g.…”

“…Such a study has been carried out with NMC funding for recreational fisheries (Toivonen, Appelblad et al 2000), and could be repeated for other cultural services.…”

“…However, most valuation studies do not use the ES approach, but are included because of their relevance in this context. A study of the value of recreational fisheries was carried out in national samples from all Nordic countries (Toivonen, Appelblad et al 2000).…”

Economic valuation of the Emas waterfall, Mogi-Guaçu River, SP, Brazil

“…This is corroborated by the results without protest answers, in which the highest values would be paid by those people with the largest incomes as they are the most probable to be able to assume one more economic tax, besides appreciating the local. Toivonen et al (2004) studied the economical value of the recreational fishing in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), and also found a positive relationship between WTP and family income.…”

Marine Ecosystem Services

“…The value of recreation has been estimated in several recent studies, mainly together with non-use benefits (see Table 15). Some earlier studies conducted in Sweden have focused solely on recreational values (Soutukorva, 2001;Sandström, 1996), and the value of recreational fishing has been studied in Paulrud (2004), Söderqvist & Soutukorva (2005), and Toivonen et al (2000Toivonen et al ( , 2004. Some recent publications Ahtiainen et al, 2013) characterize and quantify marine and coastal recreation in the Baltic Sea area, but as they do not present estimates of marine recreation values, comparable information of values across countries is missing.…”