Sea Bass Angling in Ireland: A Structural Equation Model of Catch and Effort

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Abstract: The relationship between angling effort and catch is well-recognised, in particular that effort influences catch rates. But increased catch, which can be considered an attribute of fishery quality, may influence effort in terms of number of fishing trips. This suggests bi-directional feedback between catch and effort. In many travel cost applications little attention has been given to this endogeneity problem. In this paper we expand the application of structural equation models to address this issue by jointly estimating demand (effort) and catch functions. Using a cross-section dataset of sea bass anglers we propose two separate joint models. First, we include expected catch as an explanatory variable in the demand equation. In the second, we reverse the causality and use the expected number of fishing days as a covariate in the catch function. The two approaches produce similar model estimates, and perform better at predicting anglers' catch and effort than standard models. The findings confirm that 'catch & release' does not curtail fishing activity and that sea bass angling is highly valued. Furthermore higher catches result more days fished, on average in a 2:1 ratio. Whereas on average, an additional fishing day results in 3-4 additional bass caught. Terms of use: Documents in

Understanding Farmers’ Perceptions and Behaviors towards Farmland Quality Change in Northeast China: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach

“…Among the three types of land use behaviors, land input intensity and the selection of crop varieties make the greater contributions. This conclusion is consistent with the view of Helliwell [33] and Kong et al [51]. The first important implication for policymakers is that appropriate input structures and intensities can effectively increase land quality.…”

“…However, it is difficult for econometric models to fully describe the causal relationship among farmers' perceptions, behavioral decision responses, and farmland quality changes, due to their complex and mutual influences. Structural equation modeling (SEM) can better deal with the relationships between multiple causes and multiple results, as well as estimate the structure and relationships of factors simultaneously [33]. For the last few years, SEM has usually been used to analyze the complex relationships of soil ecosystems [34][35][36], water management [37], climate change [38], sustainable development [39,40], and so on.…”

Recreational angling demand in a mixed resource fishery

“…This indicates that larger expenses in durable goods are associated with a greater number of fishing days demanded. This was found in previous research in Ireland (Grilli, Curtis, Hynes, & O’Reilly, 2018; Hynes, Gaeven, & O'Reilly, 2017) and suggests that anglers spending money on equipment that presumably lasts for several angling seasons are more likely to fish more days. The club membership coefficient in NB1 was positive (0.231), which indicates that being a member of a fishing club increases the probability of fishing a higher number of days.…”

Investigating Accessibility of Social Security System (SSS) Mobile Application: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach

“…According to Siddiqui (2013), sample sizes for structural equation models with 10 to 15 indicators are typically in the 200 to 400 range [19]. The sample population was chosen using a proportionate stratified random sampling procedure with a minimum sample size of 200 respondents [20,21]. Researchers used an online calculator to have an accurate sample size, a priori sample size for structural equation models; 200 respondents were considered participants for the 60-item online questionnaire.…”