Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:48:43.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Location Choice Behavior of Gulf of Mexico Shrimpers under Dynamic Economic Conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Tao Ran ,
Walter R. Keithly  and
Richard F. Kazmierczak
Tao Ran
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
Walter R. Keithly
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
Richard F. Kazmierczak
Affiliation:
Center for Natural Resource Economics and Policy, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study uses a mixed logit model to analyze monetary and nonmonetary factors that influence location choice behavior of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico shrimpers. Shrimpers' responses to economic conditions are compared and contrasted for two periods related to changing economic conditions in the industry. Results show that even though shrimpers are generally revenue driven in choosing a fishing site, their past experience also plays an important role. Further, changes in economic conditions appear to exhibit an influence on the risk attitudes of some shrimpers.

Keywords

location choiceloyaltymixed Logitrisk averseshrimp fisheryQ2L2
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , February 2011 , pp. 29 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, L.G. “The Economics of Multi-purpose Fleet Behavior.” Essays in the Economics of Renewable Resources. Mirman, L.J. and Spulber, D.F., eds. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982.Google Scholar
Bockstael, N.E., and Opaluch, J. “Discrete Modelling of Supply Response under Uncertainty: The Case of the Fishery.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 13(1983):125–37.Google Scholar
Breffle, W.S., and Morey, E.R. “Investigating Preference Heterogeneity in a Repeated Discrete-Choice Recreation Demand Model of Atlantic Salmon Fishing.” Marine Resource Economics 15(2000):1–20.10.1023/A:1008336002697Google Scholar
Dupont, D.P. “Price Uncertainty, Expectations Formation and Fishers' Location Choices.” Marine Resource Economics 8(1993):219–47.Google Scholar
Eales, J., and Wilen, J. “An Examination of Fishing Location Choice in the Pink Shrimp Fishery.” Marine Resource Economics 2(1986):331–51.Google Scholar
Eggert, H., and Tveteras, R. “Stochastic Production and Heterogeneous Risk Preferences: Commercial Fishers' Gear Choices.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(2004):199–212.10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00572.xGoogle Scholar
Fader, P.S., Lattin, J.M., and Little, J.D.C. “Estimating Nonlinear Parameters in the Multinomial Logit Model.” Marketing Science 11(1992):372–85.10.1287/mksc.11.4.372Google Scholar
Guadagni, P.M., and Little, J.D. “A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data.” Marketing Science 2(1983):203–38.10.1287/mksc.2.3.203Google Scholar
Heckman, J.J. “Heterogeneity and State Dependence.” Studies in Labor Markets. Rosen, S., ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Hensher, D.A., and Greene, W.H. “The Mixed Logit Model: The State of Practice.” Transportation 30(2003):133–76.10.1023/A:1022558715350Google Scholar
Holland, S.D., and Sutinen, J.G. “Location Choice in New England Trawl Fisheries: Old Habits Die Hard.” Land Economics 76(2000):133–49.10.2307/3147262Google Scholar
Keane, M.P. “Modeling Heterogeneity and State Dependence in Consumer Choice Behavior.” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 15(1997):310–26.Google Scholar
Keithly, W.R., and Poudel, P. “The Southeast Shrimp U.S. Industry: Issues Related to Trade and Antidumping Duties.” Marine Resource Economics 23(2008):459–83.Google Scholar
Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D., and Swait, J. Jr. Stated Choice Methods, Analysis and Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 227–51.Google Scholar
Malhotra, N.K. “Comment: Testing the Homogeneity of Segments for Estimating Disaggregate Choice Models.” Marketing Science 6(1987):98–99.10.1287/mksc.6.1.98Google Scholar
Mistiaen, J.A., and Strand, I.E. “Location Choice of Commercial Fishermen with Heterogeneous Risk Preferences.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82(2000):1184–90.10.1111/0002-9092.00118Google Scholar
Nance, J., Keithly, W. Jr., Caillouet, C. Jr., Cole, J., Gaidry, W., Gallaway, B., Griffin, W., Hart, R., and Travis, M. “Estimation of Effort, Maximum Sustainable Yield, and Maximum Economic Yield in the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico.” Unpublished manuscript. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Nov. 2006.Google Scholar
Parsons, G.R., and Kealy, M.J. “Randomly Drawn Opportunity Sets in a Random Utility Model of Lake Recreation.” Land Economics 68(1992):93–106.10.2307/3146746Google Scholar
Revelt, D., and Train, K. “Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices: Households' Choices of Appliance Efficiency Level.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 80(1998):647–57.10.1162/003465398557735Google Scholar
Seetharaman, P.B. “Modeling Multiple Sources of State Dependence in Random Utility Models: A Distributed Lag Approach.” Marketing Science 23(2004):263–71.10.1287/mksc.1030.0024Google Scholar
Seetharaman, P.B. “State Dependence and Heterogeneity in Fishing Location Choice.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50(2005):319–40.10.1016/j.jeem.2005.04.001Google Scholar
Seetharaman, P.B. “Heterogeneous and Correlated Risk Preferences in Commercial Fishermen: The Perfect Storm Dilemma.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 31(2005):53–71.10.1007/s11166-005-2930-7Google Scholar
Swait, J., and Louviere, J. “The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit.” Journal of Marketing Research 30(1993):305–14.10.2307/3172883Google Scholar
Train, K.E. “Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People.” Land Economics 74(1998):230–39.10.2307/3147053Google Scholar
Train, K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Wilen, J.E., Smith, M., Lockwood, D., and Botsford, L. “Avoiding Surprises: Incorporating Fisherman Behavior into Management Models.” Bulletin of Marine Science 70(2002):553–75.Google Scholar