Corrigendum: A revealed preference approach to valuing non-market recreational fishing losses from the Deepwater Horizon spill (J.Environ. Manag. 145, 2014, 199-209), DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.06.031;A revealed preference approach to valuing non-market recreational fishing losses from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 145, Issue , 2014, Pages 199-209

  Alvarez, Sergio ^a,b   Larkin, Sherry L ^b   Whitehead, John C ^c   Haab, Tim ^d  

^a FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^c APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Deepwater Horizon; Non market valuation; Oil spills; Random utility model; Recreational fishing; Revealed preference

Indexed keywords

FISHERIES; MARINE POLLUTION; OIL SPILLS;

COMPENSATION MEASURES; DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILLS; DEEPWATER HORIZONS; MARINE OIL SPILLS; MIXED LOGIT MODELS; NON-MARKET VALUATION; RANDOM UTILITY MODEL; RECREATIONAL FISHINGS; REVEALED PREFERENCE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

COMMERCE;

ANGLING; COMPENSATION SYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; NUMERICAL MODEL; OIL SPILL; POLLUTION EFFECT; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; VALUATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ARTICLE; FISHING; OIL SPILL; PROCESS MODEL; UNITED STATES; ADVERSE EFFECTS; ECONOMICS; FISHERY; HUMAN; RECREATION; STATISTICAL MODEL;

UNITED STATES;

FISHERIES; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; PETROLEUM POLLUTION; RECREATION; SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES;

EID: 84904546950     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.09.029     Document Type: Erratum

References (42)

1. Bockstael N.E., McConnell K.E., Strand I.E. Recreation. Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality 1991, North Holland, New York. J.B. Braden, C.D. Kolstad (Eds.).
2. Bockstael N.E., Hanemann W.M., Kling C.L. Estimating the value of water quality improvements in a recreational demand framework. Water Resour. Res. 1987, 23:951-960.
3. Carson R.T., Mitchell R.C., Hanemann W.M., Kopp R.J., Presser S., Ruud P.A. Contingent valuation and lost passive use: damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2003, 25:257-286.
4. Carson R.T., Conaway M.B., Hanemann W.M., Krosnick J.A., Mitchell R.C., Presser S. Valuing Oil Spill Prevention: a Case Study of California's Central Coast 2004, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
5. Feather P.M. Sampling and aggregation issues in random utility model estimation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1994, 76:772-780.
6. Flores N.E., Thacher J. Money, who needs it? Natural resource damage assessment. Contemp. Econ. Policy 2002, 20:171-178.
7. Garza Gil M.D., Prada-Blanco A., Vazquez M.X. Estimating the short term economic damages from the Prestige oil spill in the Galician fisheries and tourism. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 58:842-849.
8. Greene G., Moss C.B., Spreen T.H. Demand for recreational fishing in Tampa Bay, Florida: a random utility approach. Mar. Resour. Econ. 1997, 12:293-305.
9. Grigalunas T.A., Anderson R.C., Brown G.M., Congar R., Meade N.F., Sorensen P.E. Estimating the cost of oil spills: lessons from the Amoco Cadiz incident. Mar. Resour. Econ. 1986, 2:239-262.
10. Haab T., Whitehead J.C., McConnell K.E. The Economic Value of Marine Recreational Fishing 2001, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-466.
11. Haab T., Hicks R.L., Schnier K., Whitehead J.C. Angler heterogeneity and the species-specific demand for marine recreational fishing. Mar. Resour. Econ. 2012, 27:229-251.
12. Haab T., McConnell K.E. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: the Econometrics of Non-market Valuation 2002, Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA.
13. Hausman J.A., Leonard G.K., McFadden D. Autility-consistent, combined discrete choice and count data model assessing recreational use losses due to natural resource damage. J.Public Econ. 1995, 56:1-30.
14. Hicks R.L., Gautam A.B., Van Hoorhees D., Osborn M., Gentner B. An introduction to the NMFS Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey with an emphasis on economic valuation. Mar. Resour. Econ. 2000, 14:375-385.
15. Hindsley P., Landry C.E., Gentner B. Addressing onsite sampling in recreation site choice models. J.Environ. Econ. Manag. 2011, 62:95-110.
16. Johnston F.D., Arlinghaus R., Dieckmann U. Diversity and complexity of angler behavior drive socially optimal input and output regulations in a bioeconomic recreational-fisheries model. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2010, 67:1507-1531.
17. Jones C.A. Use of non-market valuation methods in the courtroom: recent affirmative precedents in natural resource damage assessments. Water Resour. Update 1997, 109:10-18.
18. Jones C.A., Pease K.A. Restoration-based compensation measures in natural resource liability statutes. Contemp. Econ. Policy 1997, 15:111-122.
19. Kaoru Y. Measuring marine recreation benefits of water quality improvements by the nested random utility model. Resour. Energy Econ. 1995, 17:119-136.
20. Krinsky I., Robb A.L. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1986, 68:715-719.
21. Loureiro M.L., Ribas A., Lopez E., Ojea E. Estimated costs and admissible claims linked to the Prestige oil spill. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 59:48-63.
22. Loureiro M.L., Loomis J.B., Vazquez M.X. Economic valuation of environmental damages due to the Prestige oil spill in Spain. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 44:537-553.
23. Loureiro M.L., Loomis J.B. International public preferences and provision of public goods: assessment of passive use values in large oil spill. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2013, 56:521-534.
24. Lupi F., Feather P.M. Using partial aggregation to reduce bias in random utility travel cost models. Water Resour. Res. 1998, 34:3595-3603.
25. Mazzotta M.J., Opaluch J.J., Grigalunas T.A. Natural resource damage assessment: the role of resource restoration. Nat. Resour. J. 1994, 34:153-178.
26. McConnell K.E., Strand I.E., Blake-Hedges L. Random utility models of recreational fishing: catching fish using a Poisson process. Mar. Resour. Econ. 1995, 10:247-261.
27. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics 1974, Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
28. McFadden D. Modelling the choice of residential location. Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models 1978, North Holland, Amsterdam. A. Karlquist, L. Lundquist, F. Snickers, J. Weibull (Eds.).
29. Montagna P.A., Baguley J.G., Cooksey C., Hartwell I., Hyde L.J., Hyland J.L., Kalke R.D., Kracker L.M., Reuscher M., Rhodes A.C.E. Deep-sea benthic footprint of the deepwater horizon blowout. PLoS ONE 2013, 8(8):e70540.
30. Morey E.R., Shaw W.D., Rowe R.D. Adiscrete-choice model of recreational participation, site choice, and activity valuation when complete trip data are not available. J.Environ. Econ. Manag. 1991, 20:181-201.
31. National Marine Fisheries Service Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) 2012, Available at:, (accessed 28.01.13.). http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/recreational-fisheries/access-data/run-a-data-query/index.
32. Palmquist R.B., Phaneuf D.J., Smith V.K. Short run constraints and the increasing marginal value of time in recreation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2010, 46:19-41.
33. Parsons G.R., Kang A.K. Compensatory restoration in a random utility model of recreation demand. Contemp. Econ. Policy 2010, 28:453-463.
34. Parsons G.R., Kealy M.J. Randomly drawn opportunity sets in a random utility model of lake recreation. Land Econ. 1992, 68:93-106.
35. Parsons G.R., Needleman M.S. Site aggregation in a random utility model of recreation. Land Econ. 1992, 68:418-433.
36. Thomas M.H., Lupi F., Harding D.B. Apolicy tool for evaluating investments in public boat ramps in Florida: a random utility model approach. Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings, Orlando, FL 2010.
37. Train K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press, New York.
38. Upton H.F. The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and the Gulf of Mexico Fishing Industry 2011, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, Washington DC.
39. Van Biervliet K., Le Roy D., Nunes P.A.L.D. Acontingent valuation study of an accidental oil spill along the Belgian coast. Marine Resource Damage Assessment: Liability and Compensation for Environmental Damage 2005, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. F. Maes (Ed.).
40. Whitehead A., Dubansky B., Bodinier C., Garcia T.I., Miles S., Pilley C., Raghunathan V., Roach J.L., Walker N., Walter R.B., Rice C.D., Galvez F. Genomic and physiological footprint of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on resident marsh fishes. PNAS 2012, 109(50):20298-20302.
41. Whitehead J.C., Haab T. Southeast marine recreational fishery statistics survey: distance and catch based choice sets. Mar. Resour. Econ. 2000, 14:283-298.
42. Williams R., Gero S., Bejder L., Calambokidis J., Kraus S.D., Lusseau D., Read A.J., Robbins J. Underestimating the damage: Interpreting cetacean carcass recoveries in the context of the Deepwater Horizon/BP incident. Conserv. Lett. 2011, 4(3):228-233.