p.6
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
What demographic factors were controlled for in the survey of Western Australian residents?
Age and gender representation.
p.26
Statistical Analysis Techniques
What does ASC stand for in the context of the marine park alternative?
Alternative Specific Constant.
p.3
Choice Experiment Methodology
What is the purpose of a multiple discrete choice question in the context of marine parks?
To choose a preferred option among alternatives like Marine Park A, Marine Park B, or No Change.
p.3
Choice Experiment Methodology
What does the utility function in the choice experiment represent?
It represents an individual's preferences and underlying utility, part of which is known and part unknown to the analyst.
p.22
Public Support for Marine Conservation
What is essential for successful marine park planning?
Understanding the values and preferences of different community sectors.
p.4
Statistical Analysis Techniques
How is the probability of a respondent voting in favor of the marine park modeled?
Using the standard normal cumulative density function.
p.3
Choice Experiment Methodology
Which theory is applied to analyze choice experiment responses?
McFadden theory of random utility.
p.20
Willingness to Pay Estimates
What are the average amounts Western Australian households are willing to pay for 5%, 15%, and 45% sanctuary zone coverage in the Proposed South Coast Marine Park?
$71, $96, and $123 per year, respectively.
p.14
Statistical Analysis Techniques
Which model is preferred for estimating willingness to pay for sanctuary zones?
Model 4, as it has the lowest BIC and shows no modeling gains from including all levels of sanctuary zones.
p.10
Choice Experiment Methodology
What does the regression analysis suggest about preferences for sanctuary zones in marine parks?
There might be some heterogeneity in preferences among respondents.
p.3
Statistical Analysis Techniques
What is the formula for the utility from respondent n selecting alternative i?
U_nit = B'X_it + ε_nit, where B is a vector of estimated coefficients and X is a vector of attribute levels.
p.4
Statistical Analysis Techniques
What type of models are used for multiple discrete choice data?
Multinomial logit models.
p.12
Statistical Analysis Techniques
Which model is preferred for Marmion Marine Park based on the single binary choice data?
Model 3, as it has the lowest BIC.
p.15
Choice Experiment Methodology
What is the estimated cost coefficient in the probit models for the Proposed South Coast Marine Park?
-0.004*** (with standard error of 0.001)
p.14
Choice Experiment Methodology
What does the multiple discrete choice experiment encourage respondents to do?
Make trade-offs between different levels of sanctuary zones and additional features of marine park design.
p.26
Statistical Analysis Techniques
What is the estimated impact of cost on the multinomial logit model?
-0.005*** (consistent across all models).
p.24
Public Support for Marine Conservation
What was the main reason most respondents chose 'YES' to pay for marine parks?
I think we should create marine sanctuaries no matter what the cost (68 respondents).
p.6
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
How does the representation of University graduates in the sample compare to the Western Australian average?
University graduates are slightly over-represented.
p.5
Willingness to Pay Estimates
What is a potential bias in estimating population WTP?
Differences between the sample and the relevant population.
p.11
Statistical Analysis Techniques
What does OLS regression analyze in this study?
The relationship between respondent covariates and the percent of marine park that respondents think is the optimum amount of sanctuary zone.
p.10
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
How do respondents with marine-related jobs view sanctuary zones in Marmion Marine Park?
They nominated higher sanctuary zones compared to those without marine-related jobs.
p.27
Willingness to Pay Estimates
What was the most common reason for respondents selecting the status quo option?
I could not afford the cost (33%).
p.14
Public Support for Marine Conservation
What concern might respondents have had when answering the single binary choice question?
They may have worried that selecting the no-pay option could be interpreted as not supporting sanctuary zones.
What are the benefits of a Large Sanctuary Zone (45%)?
Large conservation benefits, large science benefits, and wider ecosystem resilience.
p.12
Statistical Analysis Techniques
What do Likelihood Ratio tests suggest about the levels of sanctuary zones?
Including all levels of sanctuary zone is statistically significant.
p.15
Choice Experiment Methodology
What does the constant policy estimate indicate in Model 1?
0.358*** (with standard error of 0.066)
p.6
Choice Experiment Methodology
What behavior did respondents indicate when they selected not to pay for the marine park option?
Exhibiting protest behavior.
p.2
Impact on Recreational and Commercial Fishers
What is the impact of Sanctuary Zones on recreational fishing?
Describes how many fishing sites inside the marine park are closed to fishing due to zoning.
p.6
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
What was the representation of households with children under 15 years in the sample compared to the Western Australia population average?
34% and 37% compared with 27%.
p.22
Statistical Analysis Techniques
What analysis techniques are planned for further understanding preferences for sanctuary zones?
Mixed logit and latent class models.
p.2
Willingness to Pay Estimates
How is the cost for managing the marine park funded?
Through increased State and Federal taxes collected from all Western Australian households.
p.1
Survey Data Collection
How were respondents assigned to the choice questions?
Each respondent was randomly assigned to one block of choice questions.
p.17
Statistical Analysis Techniques
What type of models were used to test the mean preferences?
Multinomial logit models.
p.27
Willingness to Pay Estimates
What is the main reason most respondents chose to pay for a marine park option?
The benefit is worth the cost to me (37%).
p.3
Choice Experiment Methodology
What is assumed about the choices made by respondents in the choice experiment?
Respondents are assumed to make choices that maximize their own utility.
p.12
Choice Experiment Methodology
How many choice questions did respondents see in the single binary choice experiment?
One choice question that placed sanctuary zones in each marine park (two questions in total).
p.22
Public Support for Marine Conservation
What do the surveys conducted in WA reveal about public support for sanctuary zones?
There is broad support for increasing the size of sanctuary zones and ensuring good visitor access.
What are Sanctuary Zones?
Areas of the ocean for biodiversity conservation where public access is encouraged for education, tourism, and scientific research, with no fishing or disturbance allowed.
p.20
Willingness to Pay Estimates
What is the estimated disutility associated with a marine park that has a high impact on commercial fishing?
$-29 and $-28 per household per year.
p.26
Impact on Recreational and Commercial Fishers
What does a negative impact on commercial fishing indicate in the model?
It suggests a decrease in commercial fishing viability at higher impact levels.
p.14
Impact on Recreational and Commercial Fishers
What additional factors are considered in the multiple discrete choice experiment?
Accessibility to the sanctuary zone from the shore and impacts to both commercial and recreational fishers.
p.18
Choice Experiment Methodology
What does a negative coefficient for 'Cost' in the logit model indicate?
As cost increases, the likelihood of choosing that option decreases.
p.8
Choice Experiment Methodology
What behavior does a 'Protester' respondent exhibit?
Always selects NOT to pay and answers follow-up questions on motivation.
p.4
Willingness to Pay Estimates
What is aggregated across households in Western Australia to estimate total value?
Willingness to pay for different marine park design features.
p.18
Marine Park Attributes
What does the coefficient for 'Shore access to sanctuary zones' indicate?
0.289*** (0.049), suggesting a positive impact.
p.11
Statistical Analysis Techniques
What does the note about low correlations between covariates suggest?
There is minimal multicollinearity among the respondent characteristics.
p.16
Choice Experiment Methodology
What is the primary focus of the multiple discrete choice experiment data?
Mean values for changes in utility regarding marine park design.
p.21
Willingness to Pay Estimates
What is the estimated aggregate willingness to pay for the 5% Sanctuary Zone in the Proposed South Coast Marine Park?
$53.1 million AUD [95% Confidence Interval: $30 million - $76.1 million].
p.16
Impact on Recreational and Commercial Fishers
What negative preferences did respondents show in the study?
Higher impacts to both recreation and commercial fishing.
p.17
Statistical Analysis Techniques
What did the restriction tests on model interactions suggest?
There are no statistical differences in mean preferences between the two locations.
p.14
Choice Experiment Methodology
What does the modeling suggest about people's sensitivity to the scope of sanctuary zones?
There is some choice insensitivity to scope for the level of sanctuary zones.
p.12
Choice Experiment Methodology
What is the focus of the single binary choice experiment?
Modeling stated preference results regarding sanctuary zones in marine parks.
p.26
Marine Park Attributes
How does shore access to sanctuary zones affect the model estimates?
It has a positive estimate, ranging from 0.217*** to 0.288*** across models.
p.14
Public Support for Marine Conservation
What might the observed scope insensitivity in the choice experiment indicate?
People may show general support for sanctuary zones without differentiating between levels.
p.1
Impact on Recreational and Commercial Fishers
What impacts are assessed in the context of sanctuary zones?
Impacts on recreational and commercial fishers.
What is the smallest Sanctuary Zone size level in the study?
Small (5%) with limited conservation and science benefits.
p.10
Public Support for Marine Conservation
How did recent visitors to Marmion Marine Park perceive the optimum percentage for sanctuary zones?
They thought the optimum percentage should be higher than those who had not visited in the last 5 years.
p.4
Public Support for Marine Conservation
What can generate bias in respondents' answers when using stated preference methods?
The hypothetical nature of the described goods or policy changes.
p.26
Impact on Recreational and Commercial Fishers
What is the estimated impact on recreation fishing at a LOW baseline?
0.178*** to 0.255*** across models.
p.10
Statistical Analysis Techniques
Was there a significant difference in the mean percentage of optimum zones between the two marine parks?
No, there was no significant difference.
p.26
Statistical Analysis Techniques
What does the term 'dummy' refer to in the context of the models?
It refers to categorical variables used in the analysis.
p.8
Willingness to Pay Estimates
What was the significant finding regarding the percentage areas respondents think should be sanctuary zones?
Respondents significantly reduced their percentage areas after completing the choice experiment.
p.13
Statistical Analysis Techniques
What does the cost coefficient indicate in the probit models?
It shows a negative relationship, with an estimate of -0.004***.
p.21
Willingness to Pay Estimates
What is the estimated willingness to pay for the 15% Sanctuary Zone in the Proposed South Coast Marine Park?
$96 AUD/year for 10 years [95% Confidence Interval: $53 - $138].
p.16
Statistical Analysis Techniques
What type of models were used to analyze the data for marine parks?
Preference space multinomial models with no interactions on the attributes.
p.16
Public Support for Marine Conservation
What was the public's preference regarding shore access to sanctuary zones?
Extensive shore access to the sanctuary zone was positively valued.
p.19
Choice Experiment Methodology
What does the estimate for a LARGE Sanctuary Zone (1.003) suggest?
It has a strong positive impact on the likelihood of choosing that option.
p.27
Willingness to Pay Estimates
What was a common protest reason among respondents for not wanting to pay?
I do not trust that the funds will be used for the purpose specified (8%).
p.22
Willingness to Pay Estimates
How does public valuation change when sanctuary zones include extensive shore protection?
It increases by between 19% and 57%.
p.14
Public Support for Marine Conservation
What is the purpose of the multiple discrete choice experiment in the context of the WA community?
To confirm the structure of preferences for sanctuary zones.
p.1
Policy Implications for Marine Parks
What constraint was imposed regarding the level of sanctuary zones and impacts on fishing?
A marine park with a SMALL, 5% level of sanctuary zones could not have HIGH impacts on either recreation or commercial fishing.
p.15
Survey Data Collection
How many observations were included in the models?
821 for Models 1 and 2; 760 for Models 3 and 4.
What was modified in the sanctuary zone attribute for the choice experiment?
The percentage of the LARGE network of marine sanctuaries was increased from 40% to 45%.
p.5
Survey Data Collection
What were the three parts of the survey?
Perceptions of marine conservation, stated preferences choice experiment, and socio-demographic questions.
p.19
Willingness to Pay Estimates
What is the estimated marginal sample willingness to pay for a 15% Sanctuary Zone?
$159 AUD/year for 10 years.
p.5
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
What demographic was targeted for the survey?
Western Australian residents over 18 years of age.
p.19
Choice Experiment Methodology
What does a negative estimate for cost (-0.005) indicate in the logit model?
As cost increases, the likelihood of choosing the sanctuary zone decreases.
p.19
Impact on Recreational and Commercial Fishers
What is the impact on recreational fishing categorized as LOW in the model?
0.144 (not statistically significant).
p.27
Willingness to Pay Estimates
What reason did 22% of respondents give for supporting marine sanctuaries?
I think we should create marine sanctuaries no matter what the cost.
p.5
Willingness to Pay Estimates
What assumption is made about non-respondents in the survey?
They are assigned a WTP of zero.
p.10
Impact on Recreational and Commercial Fishers
What was the opinion of fishers regarding sanctuary zones in the Proposed South Coast Marine Park?
Fishers suggested less sanctuary zone area compared to those who fish less than once a year or never.
p.22
Willingness to Pay Estimates
How much are Western Australian households willing to pay for larger sanctuary zones?
A$112 per household for Marmion Marine Park and A$123 for the Proposed South Coast Marine Park.
p.4
Willingness to Pay Estimates
How is willingness to pay estimated in this study?
As the inverse ratio between the marginal change in the attribute and the marginal utility of the cost attribute.
p.2
Marine Park Attributes
What does shore access to Sanctuary Zones indicate?
Whether the Sanctuary Zones can be accessed from the shore without needing a boat, affecting opportunities for education and tourism.
p.12
Willingness to Pay Estimates
What does the data suggest about respondents' willingness to pay for 40% coverage of sanctuary zones?
They are not willing to pay more than the 5% level.
p.11
Statistical Analysis Techniques
What does a negative estimate for 'Fisher' indicate in the context of the South Coast Marine Park?
Fisher respondents tend to prefer a lower percentage of sanctuary zone (-4.964**).
p.5
Survey Data Collection
What type of data was used in this study?
Survey data from online panels provided by reputable market research companies.
p.8
Choice Experiment Methodology
What does a 'Yae-say' respondent do?
Always selects YES to pay and answers follow-up questions on their reasons.
p.11
Statistical Analysis Techniques
What does the constant value represent in the regression analysis?
The baseline percentage of marine park as sanctuary zone when all covariates are zero.
p.23
Impact on Recreational and Commercial Fishers
Was there a significant difference between the two marine parks regarding Sanctuary Zones?
No significant difference.
p.5
Willingness to Pay Estimates
What approach is used to aggregate individual WTP estimates?
A straightforward aggregation of the marginal sample WTP estimates.
p.4
Statistical Analysis Techniques
What type of error distribution is assumed in multinomial logit models?
Type I extreme value distribution.
p.1
Choice Experiment Methodology
What method was used to design the choice questions for the study?
An efficient D-error design.
p.5
Willingness to Pay Estimates
How is mean household WTP calculated?
By multiplying willing to pay estimates by an indicative response rate.
p.5
Survey Data Collection
What was the completion rate for the survey?
60%, similar to another Australian study.
p.22
Choice Experiment Methodology
What methods are suggested for understanding community preferences in marine park planning?
Using economic non-market valuation and estimating willingness to pay.
p.4
Statistical Analysis Techniques
What criteria are used to compare model specification and fit?
Likelihood Restriction tests, AIC, and BIC.
p.19
Willingness to Pay Estimates
What is the estimated marginal sample willingness to pay for a 45% Sanctuary Zone?
$204 AUD/year for 10 years.
p.21
Public Support for Marine Conservation
What does the negative willingness to pay value indicate for the 45% Sanctuary Zone in Marmion Marine Park?
It indicates a negative perception or lack of support, with a value of -$21.9 million [95% Confidence Interval: -$40.9 million - (-$3.02 million)].
p.23
Impact on Recreational and Commercial Fishers
Was there a significant difference in the percentage of area for the South Coast Marine Park Sanctuary Zone based on the order of SBCE?
No significant difference.
p.11
Statistical Analysis Techniques
Which respondent characteristic has the highest positive estimate for the Marmion Marine Park?
Marine related job (11.529**).
p.4
Public Support for Marine Conservation
What issues are identified in respondents' answers that can affect stated preferences data?
Protest and yea-say responses.
p.2
Impact on Recreational and Commercial Fishers
What are the levels of impact on commercial fishing income due to Sanctuary Zones?
None (0%), Low (-5%), Medium (-25%), High (-50%).
p.19
Willingness to Pay Estimates
What is the estimated marginal sample willingness to pay for a 5% Sanctuary Zone?
$118 AUD/year for 10 years.
p.12
Choice Experiment Methodology
What will be tested further in the multiple discrete choice experiment?
Scope insensitivity regarding optimal amounts of sanctuary zones.
p.21
Willingness to Pay Estimates
What is the mean household willingness to pay for the 5% Sanctuary Zone in Marmion Marine Park?
$56 AUD/year for 10 years [95% Confidence Interval: $28 - $85].
p.16
Policy Implications for Marine Parks
What indicates that some impacts to recreational and commercial fishers are inevitable?
To achieve effective sanctuary zones, some impacts would be necessary for biodiversity conservation.
p.19
Willingness to Pay Estimates
What is the estimated marginal sample willingness to pay for shore access?
$40 AUD/year for 10 years.
p.21
Willingness to Pay Estimates
What is the aggregate willingness to pay for the 45% Sanctuary Zone in Marmion Marine Park?
$84.3 million AUD [95% Confidence Interval: $56.3 million - $112 million].
p.21
Willingness to Pay Estimates
What is the mean household willingness to pay for shore access in the Proposed South Coast Marine Park?
$24 AUD/year for 10 years [95% Confidence Interval: $12 - $36].
p.19
Impact on Recreational and Commercial Fishers
What is the impact on commercial fishing categorized as HIGH in the model?
-0.226 (statistically significant at p<0.10).
p.25
Public Support for Marine Conservation
How many respondents indicated they prefer not to pay for marine sanctuaries?
10 respondents indicated 'I prefer this option'.
p.25
Public Support for Marine Conservation
What percentage of respondents believed funding for marine sanctuaries should come from other sources?
26 respondents selected 'I believe funding for marine sanctuaries should come from somewhere other than my own pocket' (protest).
p.16
Choice Experiment Methodology
What limitation was noted regarding the experimental design?
Marginal utilities cannot be applied to certain situations, such as low sanctuary zones with high impacts.
p.25
Statistical Analysis Techniques
What does the Likelihood Ratio test suggest about the model fit for sanctuary zone percentage?
Using dummy variables for sanctuary zone percentage is a better model fit than using a continuous variable.
p.25
Public Support for Marine Conservation
How many respondents were identified as 'protest' voters?
63 respondents were identified as 'protest' voters.
p.25
Public Support for Marine Conservation
What was the response of 54 respondents who always voted to pay for a cost option?
They were identified as 'yae-sayers' who suggested they were not considering the options as presented.
p.25
Public Support for Marine Conservation
What was the main reason for respondents selecting 'NO' to pay for marine sanctuaries?
The most common reason was 'I could not afford the cost' with 47 respondents.
p.25
Statistical Analysis Techniques
What model specification provided the best fit for the marine park study?
Model 4 provided the best fit with a lower AIC for the dummy specification.
p.25
Public Support for Marine Conservation
What was the reason given by 16 respondents for not trusting the use of funds?
'I do not trust that the funds will be used for the purpose specified' (protest).
What is one attribute considered in the sanctuary zone design?
Shore accessibility to sanctuary zones.
