What was the mean percentage for all sample means regarding Sanctuary Zones?
50%.
What is the average amount Western Australian households are willing to pay for 5% sanctuary zone coverage in Marmion Marine Park?
$56 per year.
1/222
p.23
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What was the mean percentage for all sample means regarding Sanctuary Zones?

50%.

p.20
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What is the average amount Western Australian households are willing to pay for 5% sanctuary zone coverage in Marmion Marine Park?

$56 per year.

p.20
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What is the average willingness to pay for extensive shore access in Marmion Marine Park?

$32 per year.

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.27
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What percentage of respondents enjoy supporting environmental causes?

20%.

p.26
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What is the marginal willingness to pay for a 5% Sanctuary Zone?

$70 [35 - 105].

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.4
Statistical Analysis Techniques

What type of models are used to analyze single binary choice data?

Probit models.

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.8
Public Support for Marine Conservation

What percentage of respondents agree that Sanctuary Zones protect the marine environment?

85%.

p.17
Statistical Analysis Techniques

What was tested between the two marine park locations, Marmion and South Coast?

Mean preferences.

p.3
Choice Experiment Methodology

Which theory is applied to analyze choice experiment responses?

McFadden theory of random utility.

p.14
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What is the average willingness to pay for marine parks with sanctuary zones according to the proposed South Coast Marine Park?

$116.

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.4
Statistical Analysis Techniques

What distribution is assumed for the error in probit models?

Normally distributed.

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.6
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

What was the final sample size of the survey conducted among Western Australian residents?

1,054.

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.9
Public Support for Marine Conservation

What is the mean score for the importance of fishing for local economies?

3.89

p.20
Willingness to Pay Estimates

How much additional payment is estimated for moving from 5% to 45% sanctuary zones in the Proposed South Coast Marine Park?

$52.

p.9
Public Support for Marine Conservation

What is the mean score for the perception that fishing is damaging to local marine environments?

3.49

p.4
Statistical Analysis Techniques

What type of models are used for multiple discrete choice data?

Multinomial logit models.

p.11
Statistical Analysis Techniques

What is the estimated effect of being female on the optimum sanctuary zone percentage for Marmion Marine Park?

3.700*.

p.9
Survey Data Collection

How many respondents answered the question about the optimum area for Sanctuary Zones before the discrete choice experiment?

746

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.6
Choice Experiment Methodology

What percentage of the sample exhibited protest responses in the choice experiment?

6%.

p.24
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What percentage of respondents voted YES at the $50 tax bid level for South Coast?

56%.

p.9
Public Support for Marine Conservation

What is the mean score for the perception that Sanctuary Zones protect the marine environment?

4.27

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.18
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What is the estimated marginal sample willingness to pay for a 5% Sanctuary Zone?

$94 [47 - 141].

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.

p.11
Statistical Analysis Techniques

What is the significance level for the estimate of females in the South Coast Marine Park?

3.707* (p<0.10).

p.2
Sanctuary Zone Design

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.18
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What is the estimated marginal sample willingness to pay for shore access?

$53 [35 - 71].

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.18
Impact on Recreational and Commercial Fishers

What is the impact on recreational fishing with a LOW rating according to the model?

0.216** (0.097).

p.12
Choice Experiment Methodology

What phenomenon is suggested by the preference for the 15% level over 5% and 40%?

Scope insensitivity.

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.2
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What is the highest tax payment level mentioned for household contributions?

$400.

p.23
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What was the mean percentage of marine park area suggested for Sanctuary Zones before the SBCE?

53%.

p.17
Statistical Analysis Techniques

What type of models were used to test the mean preferences?

Multinomial logit models.

p.20
Willingness to Pay Estimates

How much more are households willing to pay to increase sanctuary zone coverage from 5% to 45% in Marmion Marine Park?

$56.

p.24
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What was the average proportion of respondents voting YES for South Coast in the single binary choice experiment?

51%.

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.24
Public Support for Marine Conservation

How many respondents indicated that the benefit is worth the cost to them?

42 respondents.

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.

p.2
Sanctuary Zone Design

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.24
Public Support for Marine Conservation

How many respondents ignored the cost when selecting 'YES'?

1 respondent.

p.6
Public Support for Marine Conservation

What percentage of respondents have visited the Proposed South Coast Marine Park region in the past 5 years?

28%.

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.18
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What is the estimated marginal sample willingness to pay for a 45% Sanctuary Zone?

$187 [125 - 249].

p.1
Choice Experiment Methodology

How many choice questions were created for the study?

48 choice questions.

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.27
Willingness to Pay Estimates

How many respondents selected 'Other' as a reason for not paying?

16 respondents (10%).

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.7
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

What percentage of respondents reported having children under 15 in the household?

34%.

p.7
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

What percentage of respondents in the single binary choice data work in a marine-related industry?

3%.

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.24
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What was the average proportion of respondents voting YES for Marmion in the single binary choice experiment?

52%.

p.9
Public Support for Marine Conservation

What is the mean score for the perception that Sanctuary Zones are annoying for local communities?

2.47

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.22
Public Support for Marine Conservation

Which group is often missing from marine park planning discussions?

The broader community.

p.6
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

What percentage of the sample goes recreational fishing at least once a year?

32%.

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.

p.2
Sanctuary Zone Design

What is the smallest Sanctuary Zone size level in the study?

Small (5%) with limited conservation and science benefits.

p.8
Sanctuary Zone Design

What is the average percentage respondents think should be designated as sanctuary zones in marine parks?

56%.

p.9
Survey Data Collection

How many respondents answered the question about the optimum area for Sanctuary Zones after the discrete choice experiment?

1,054

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.22
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What is the estimated aggregate value for larger sanctuary zones in Marmion Marine Park?

A$84.3 million.

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.12
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What is the statistically significant willingness to pay increase for sanctuary zones?

From 5% to 15%.

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.11
Statistical Analysis Techniques

What is the significance level for the estimate of 'Snorkeler' in the Marmion Marine Park?

5.672** (p<0.05).

p.13
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What is the estimated willingness-to-pay for the park with a 15% Sanctuary Zone?

$147 [100 - 194].

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.15
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What is the willingness-to-pay estimate for the park with a 15% Sanctuary Zone?

$102 [60 - 143]

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 percentage level of sanctuary zones is valued the highest by the WA public?

45%.

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.20
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What is the average willingness to pay for extensive shore access in the Proposed South Coast Marine Park?

$24 per year.

p.9
Public Support for Marine Conservation

What is the mean score for the belief that we do not need to do more to protect the marine environment in Australia?

2.25

p.6
Public Support for Marine Conservation

What percentage of respondents have visited the Marmion Marine Park in the past 5 years?

Around 64%.

p.26
Statistical Analysis Techniques

What is the log likelihood value for Model 1?

-8584.

p.18
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What is the estimated marginal sample willingness to pay for a 15% Sanctuary Zone?

$144 [80 - 208].

p.27
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What percentage of respondents believed funding for marine sanctuaries should come from other sources?

23%.

p.5
Survey Data Collection

What is the indicative response rate used in the study?

60%.

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.26
Statistical Analysis Techniques

What is the AIC value for Model 4?

15043.

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.

p.1
Sanctuary Zone Design

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.18
Statistical Analysis Techniques

What is the significance level for the 'LARGE - 45% Sanctuary zone' estimate?

*** p<0.01.

p.15
Statistical Analysis Techniques

What does the BIC value indicate for Model 4?

1014

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.23
Survey Data Collection

What was the sample size for the Multiple Discrete Choice Experiment (MDCE) before it was conducted?

308 respondents.

p.13
Statistical Analysis Techniques

What is the log likelihood value for Model 2?

-542.

p.7
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

What percentage of respondents aged 61-75 is represented in the multiple discrete choice data?

18%.

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.24
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What cost level was used in the pilot only?

$200 AUD.

p.8
Public Support for Marine Conservation

What percentage of respondents believe more should be done to protect Australia's marine environment?

70%.

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.11
Statistical Analysis Techniques

What is the R-squared value for the Marmion Marine Park model?

0.045.

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.8
Public Support for Marine Conservation

What percentage of respondents support the creation of sanctuary zones across at least 30% of the Proposed South Coast and Marmion Marine Park areas?

75%.

p.15
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What is the willingness-to-pay estimate for the park with a 5% Sanctuary Zone?

$76 [34 - 118]

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.15
Statistical Analysis Techniques

What is the AIC value for Model 3?

1006

p.7
Survey Data Collection

What is the sample size for the single binary choice data?

N=821.

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.7
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

What percentage of respondents aged 18-30 is represented in the single binary choice data?

22%.

p.13
Survey Data Collection

How many observations were included in Model 1?

821.

p.18
Survey Data Collection

What is the total number of observations in the model?

11,400.

p.15
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What is the average willingness-to-pay for the park?

$97 [73 - 120]

p.23
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What was the mean percentage suggested for Sanctuary Zones after the SBCE in the Marmion Marine Park?

49%.

p.13
Statistical Analysis Techniques

What does the term 'SE' stand for in the context of the estimates?

Standard Error.

p.7
Public Support for Marine Conservation

What is the percentage of respondents who have visited the Marmion Marine Park in the past 5 years?

64%.

p.16
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What was the average willingness to pay for extensive shore access in Marmion Marine Park?

$53.

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.12
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What percentage of sanctuary zones were respondents willing to pay for in Marmion Marine Park?

Between 5% and 40%.

p.22
Public Support for Marine Conservation

What percentage of the general public supports no-take sanctuary zones in proposed marine parks?

75%.

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.24
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What percentage of respondents voted YES at the $10 tax bid level for Marmion?

71%.

p.8
Sanctuary Zone Design

What was the average percentage of sanctuary zones respondents nominated after the choice experiment?

49%.

p.5
Willingness to Pay Estimates

How is mean household WTP calculated?

By multiplying willing to pay estimates by an indicative response rate.

p.1
Survey Data Collection

What was the sample size for the pilot study used to revise the design?

102 respondents.

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.23
Survey Data Collection

What was the sample size for the survey question regarding optimum area for Sanctuary Zones before the Single Binary Choice Experiment (SBCE)?

354 respondents.

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.7
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

What is the median household weekly income range reported?

$1,250 - $1,999.

p.13
Statistical Analysis Techniques

What is the AIC value for Model 3?

997.

p.13
Statistical Analysis Techniques

What is the significance level for the cost variable in the models?

*** p<0.01.

p.7
Public Support for Marine Conservation

What percentage of respondents go fishing at least once a year?

32%.

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.19
Statistical Analysis Techniques

What is the significance level for the SMALL Sanctuary Zone estimate?

*** (p<0.01).

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.10
Public Support for Marine Conservation

What percentage of fishers believe that at least 30% sanctuary zone would be optimal for the Proposed South Coast Marine Park?

75%.

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.18
Impact on Recreational and Commercial Fishers

What is the impact on commercial fishing with a HIGH rating according to the model?

-0.264** (0.118).

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.15
Statistical Analysis Techniques

What is the significance level for the estimates marked with ***?

p<0.01

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.5
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

How many relevant households in WA were estimated for taxation purposes?

752,492 households.

p.23
Statistical Analysis Techniques

What was the standard deviation (sd) for the mean percentage suggested before the SBCE?

23.

p.23
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What was the mean percentage suggested for Sanctuary Zones after the SBCE in the South Coast Marine Park?

48%.

p.13
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What is the estimated willingness-to-pay for the park with a 5% Sanctuary Zone?

$85 [43 - 127].

p.7
Public Support for Marine Conservation

What percentage of respondents have visited the proposed South Coast Marine Park in the past 5 years?

28%.

p.16
Willingness to Pay Estimates

How much were respondents willing to pay for 45% coverage of sanctuary zones in Marmion Marine Park?

$187 on average.

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.23
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What was the mean percentage suggested for Sanctuary Zones after the MDCE?

49%.

p.13
Willingness to Pay Estimates

What is the estimated willingness-to-pay for the park with a 40% Sanctuary Zone?

$63 [21 - 106].

p.7
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

What is the percentage of respondents with a university degree in the single binary choice data?

35%.

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.25
Survey Data Collection

What is the total number of respondents who participated in the survey?

119 respondents.

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).

p.1
Sanctuary Zone Design

What percentage of the marine park is designated as a sanctuary zone in the proposed South Coast and extended Marmion Marine Parks?

45%.

p.1
Sanctuary Zone Design

What is one attribute considered in the sanctuary zone design?

Shore accessibility to sanctuary zones.

Study Smarter, Not Harder
Study Smarter, Not Harder