Publication - Research publication

Management Of The Scottish Inshore Fisheries; Assessing The Options For Change

Published: 7 Jan 2015
Part of:
Marine and fisheries
ISBN:
9781785440427

An analysis of the impacts from different options for the management of the Scottish Inshore fisheries. In particular, the report provides an appraisal of scenarios related to restrictions on the use of mobile fishing gears within one and three nautical m

375 page PDF

8.9 MB

375 page PDF

8.9 MB

Contents
Management Of The Scottish Inshore Fisheries; Assessing The Options For Change
18 SCOTLAND'S RECREATIONAL SEA ANGLING

375 page PDF

8.9 MB

18 SCOTLAND'S RECREATIONAL SEA ANGLING

There is a broad spectrum of engagement with Recreational Sea Angling ( RSA). There are for example a small number of professional sea angling coaches and a substantial number who might be regarded as specialist and/or competition anglers. For these anglers, RSA is their primary leisure interest and they will travel extensively in pursuit of their specialism and/or to compete in competition. Their capital expenditure on equipment and boats can be high and days fished may well exceed 50 days per year. Some of these anglers target single species or specimen sized fish. They are most aware of changes in species diversity, size of fish and the general abundance of inshore fish stock. This group are most likely to fish outside Scotland if the relative quality of RSA is better overseas. There are also a range of pleasure anglers. A high proportion of this group live near the coast, they fish regularly on short visits to favoured local marks and may travel farther to fish when conditions are good. Many of these will be young people, and/or could have constraints on their ability to fish further afield. The easily accessible mark, typically a pier or headland, can be very important to this group. Similarly, local pleasure boat owners may keep a few rods on board which they use opportunistically. There are also visiting pleasure anglers. Families on coastal holidays or visiting family and friends may take the opportunity to fish for sea fish. These family groups can be quite content fishing for mackerel or relatively small fish. Also, many urban residents now own accommodation in Scottish coastal locations (second homes, mobile caravans, residential caravans and boats) and might engage in RSA during weekend breaks and short stays.

Clearly the fish stock requirements of these different groups will vary. A high probability of catching something is important for some groups; for others, species diversity or the availability of a particular species is the key characteristic. As a generalisation anglers prefer to catch larger rather than smaller fish of the same species, but other fish stock characteristics also matter.

18.1 Background

In 1973, the Scottish Tourist Board declared that, " Scotland is now recognised sea anglers as one of the most exciting sea angling countries in Europe." [43] Not only was Scotland an attractive proposition for sea anglers, the demersal fisheries of the Clyde were sufficient to attract anglers from England and overseas [44] . Up to the early 1980's the west coast of Scotland, and even the Clyde system, was capable of supporting a renowned recreational fishery predicated on large specimen fish and demersal species diversity. As outlined in Section 3 by the mid to late 1980's sea angling catches steadily declined. As the activity declined so did much of the infrastructure of RSA clubs as well as jobs in the supporting service industries.

Although Scottish RSA is believed to be much diminished it remains a popular coastal activity and, in refuge locations, it continues to attract travelling specialist anglers who are seeking a variety of species or to catch 'high status' fish like Shark, Tope and Skate.

Neither the current extent of sea angling, nor its current contribution was known until a study undertaken for the Scottish Government by Radford et al (2009). This study involved an Omnibus Telephone Survey of over 15,000 Scottish households, 501 sea anglers who responded to an Internet Survey and 215 face to face interviews with anglers and key stakeholders.

The study identified that, in Scotland, RSA is an activity carried out by all ages and classes roughly in line with the proportion in the population at large, though middle aged, skilled working men form a group somewhat larger than their proportion in the population. Young people, however, are relatively more likely to fish than their elders and men almost six times more likely than women. By its nature sea angling can be an activity for all the family and when women participate it is more often as part of the family experience.

The remit of study was to estimate the income and employment contribution of sea angling to Scotland and its regions. Scotland was divided into 9 regions largely based on the regions used by Visit Scotland. The regions are presented in the table below along with activity levels and expenditure.

18.1.1 Scottish and Regional RSA: Activity Levels and Expenditure

Radford et al estimated that 125,188 adults went sea angling in Scotland (plus some 23,445 juveniles). Nearly 43% of Scotland's population resides within 5 km of the shore and the RSA participation rate in these "coastal" areas is double that of inland areas.

The mean number of days fished by each person was 12.3 days per angler, though this figure masks significant variations with some anglers reporting over 200 or even 300 days per annum but 51% reporting less than 10 days. Glasgow and the West area has the greatest number of adult resident sea anglers in excess of 23,000.

Table 18.1.1 Estimates of Regional Sea Angling Activity and Expenditure (Radford et al).

Region Anglers from Region Total Angler Days in Region Annual Variable Expenditure in Region
(£'000s)
Capital Expenditure in Region
(£'000s)
Total Expenditure in Region
(£'000s)
Net Flow of Angler Days Net Expenditure Flow
(£'000s)
Argyll & Lochaber 5,825 252,615 £16,744 £5,879 £22,623 125,327 £11,308
Dumfries & Galloway 3,224 233,080 £16,247 £9,048 £25,294 215,777 £23,873
Glasgow and West 23,548 269,783 £16,481 £7,645 £24,126 {137,134} {£10,797}
North East Scotland 8,904 234,307 £9,818 £5,659 £15,477 99,134 £7,121
Northern Scotland 7,894 144,346 £8,909 £2,251 £11,160 29,889 £2,193
Edinburgh Fife and South East 20,455 250,868 £13,902 £12,994 £26,896 {79,792} {£1,618}
Western Isles 2,515 80,567 £5,518 £3,672 £9,190 46,196 £5,985
Orkney & Shetland 2,823 74,640 £3,949 £2,153 £6,102 46,258 £7,187
Visitors 50,000 NA NA NA NA {127,288} {£42,164}
Total 125,188 1,540,206 £91,567 £49,301 £140,868

From the Table above, the estimated total expenditure on sea angling across the whole of Scotland is £141m. There is significant variation in expenditure between some anglers. This applies, particularly, but not exclusively, to own boat anglers who spent as much as £10k per year and others (such as young people) spending less than £50 per year. The mean annual expenditure in Scotland by adult sea anglers was £1,500.

In the Table above, from the first column, it can be seen that Glasgow and the West had the greatest number of resident sea anglers (23,548 anglers). From column two, it also had the greatest number of angler days (269,783 days), despite relatively poor sea angling. From column five, Edinburgh Fife and the South East Region had the greatest total expenditure (£26.896m). Total expenditure on sea angling across the whole of Scotland was £140.868m

Column six informs that Glasgow and the West also had the greatest net export of angler effort (137,134 days). In contrast Dumfries and Galloway had the largest net inflow of sea angler effort (215,777 days), and the greatest net inflow of expenditure £23.873m

18.1.2 The Current Economic Impact of RSA to Scotland.

The table below summarises Radford et al estimates of RSA's current economic contribution in terms of jobs and income supported as well as and the net loss of income and employment if sea angling were to cease to exist.

Table 18.1.2 Economic Impact of Sea Angling (2009 prices)

Currently Supported Net Impact
Jobs Income (£'000s) Jobs Income (£'000s)
3,148 FTEs £69,670 1,675 FTEs £37,042

This above table shows that currently sea angling support 3,148 Full Time Job Equivalents ( FTE's) [45] and £69.67m annually of Scottish household income in the form of wages, self employment income, rents and profits i.e. Gross Value Added ( GVA).

This means that if RSA completely ceased in Scotland then 3,148 jobs and £70 m of income (i.e. GVA) would be lost. However, a proportion of the expenditure of sea anglers would likely be diverted elsewhere within Scotland and would create income and employment in other sectors. Despite this there would still be a Net Loss of at least 1,675 FTEs in Scotland and annual loss of £37 m in GVA. Clearly, if the status quo trajectory for inshore fisheries is a complete loss of species targeted by RSA then the net loss to Scotland could be substantial.

On the other hand, based on the estimates above, if Scotland were to achieve a 50% increase in sea angling activity levels this would safeguard a net minimum of 1,675 full time equivalent jobs ( FTEs) and, assuming linear relationships, could possibly add a further 840 FTEs.

Expansion of RSA in many Scottish locations has the potential to generate significant increases in socio-economic benefits. From society's perspective, development of RSA should be an attractive prospect because of the twin characteristics of a potentially significant and diverse flow of socio-benefits (increased income and employment, benefits to participants and other societal benefits) and a relatively low ecological impact, especially if catch and release is widely practised.

Notwithstanding the problem of the availability of fish to catch in some areas, there is significant capacity for expanding the socio-economic contribution of Scottish RSA. A network of sea angling clubs still exists and encourages sea anglers to develop their interest and participate in competitions. Scotland has many beautiful, peaceful, un-crowded angling areas, an extensive range of native sea species many of which are still available, a diverse shoreline and, particularly on the West Coast and the islands, safe sheltered coastal waters offering the possibility of all year round fishing. The coastal communities themselves have excess capacity of visitor accommodation. There is an infrastructure of breakwaters, harbours, piers and slipways and an emerging network of Scottish marinas for berthing and maintaining own boats.

18.1.3 The Potential Economic Impact of RSA to Scotland.

In Section 3.2, we described two status quo trajectories and indicative outcomes of the policy options. For the 0-3 NM restriction we define, a Major Transformative Effect as causing a 50% increase in RSA activity levels of all types. Technically, there is no evidence to unambiguously confirm that RSA activity in Scotland would increase by as much as 50% if the near shore were to undergo a major transformation. This is because in recent times, Scotland has not experienced increases in near shore fish stock abundance. There is therefore no formal direct Scottish evidence on the relationship between the increased availability of fish stocks and sea angler participation.

We can, however, be quite confident that when demersal stocks declined in the 1980's, RSA in Scotland also declined (see Sections 3.3 and 18.1 above). Compared with the early 1980's, across Scotland the current number of tackle shops, sea angling charter vessels, sea angling clubs and competitions would suggest that RSA in Scotland is a fraction of its former levels. As well as informal historical evidence, casual cross sectional observations suggest that RSA activity levels are sensitive to the availability of fish to catch. The spatial distribution of RSA effort across Scotland is largely dependent on the availability of fish. [46]

Against that background, a major transformative effect that substantially altered the number, variety and average size of demersal fish could, quite reasonably, increase RSA activity levels by 50%. The 50% should be regarded as illustrative but not unreasonable.

We are assuming a linear relationship between activity levels and income and employment effects, simply because we have insufficient information to substantiate another functional form. In this event the economic impact table would be as follows:

Table 18.1.3 Economic Contribution 50% Increase in RSA (2009 prices) [47]

Currently Supported Net Impact
Jobs Income (£'000s) Jobs Income (£'000s)
Current Impact [48] 3,148 £69,670 1,675 £37,042
Additional Impact [49] 1574 £34,835 837.5 £18,521
Total 4,722 £104,505 2,513 £55,563

"Some enhanced flow," as described in Section 3, is estimated for illustrative purposes as a 25% increase, whereas a 10% increase is described as a "Minimal Enhanced Flow". This generates the two tables below

Table 18.1.4 Economic Contribution 25% Increase in RSA (2009 prices)

Currently Supported Net Impact
Jobs Income (£'000s) Jobs Income (£'000s)
Current Impact 3,148 £69,670 1,675 £37,042
Additional Impact 787 £17,418 419 £9,261
Total 3,935 £87,088 2,094 £46,303

Table 18.1.5 Economic Contribution 10% Increase in RSA (2009 prices)

Currently Supported Net Impact
Jobs Income (£'000s)
Current Impact 3,148 £69,670 1,675 £37,042
Additional Impact 315 £6,967 168 £3,704
Total 3,463 £76,637 1,843 £40,746

The columns headed "currently supported" are descriptively interesting, but for decision making the more relevant estimate is net balance of jobs and income gained in RSA over the number of jobs and income lost elsewhere as RSA expenditure is diverted. In completing the scenario table below we therefore focus on the Net Impact. Please note the income figures below are in 2013 prices whereas 2009 prices are used in tables 18.1.3 -18.1.5.

Table 18.1.5 RSA's Potential Economic Impact on Scotland (2013 prices)

Impact Scenarios: / Status Quo Scenarios: Major Transformative Effect (50%) Some Enhanced flow (25%) Minimal Enhanced Flow (10%)
Jobs Income (£'000s) Jobs Income (£'000s) Jobs Income (£'000s)
Continued Decline to zero 2,513 £59,371 2,094 £49,476 1,843 £43,539
Stability 837.5 £19,790 419 £9,896 168 £3,958

18.2 The Current Economic Impact of RSA to IFG areas

The table below summarises the estimates for the eight regions. Note that the jobs and incomes lost would not be expected to sum to the Scotland equivalent figure because loss to one region normally results in gains in another and smaller loss to Scotland as a whole. [50]

Table 18.2.1 The Economic Impact of Sea Angling by Region

Currently Supported Net Impact
Jobs Income (£'000s) Jobs Income (£'000s)
Argyll & Lochaber 524 £8,446 392 £6,342
Dumfries and Galloway 534 £7,714 462 £6,670
Glasgow and West 523 £11,892 249 £5,657
North East Scotland 343 £7,319 226 £4,822
Northern Scotland 299 £5,009 167 £2,800
Edinburgh, Fife and South East 504 £11,866 397 £9,370
Western Isles 184 £3,172 117 £2,028
Orkney & Shetland 145 £2,498 96 £1,657

Radford et al used 9 regions loosely based on the regions used by Visit Scotland. It is necessary to reconfigure the Radford et al RSA regions to reflect the IFG areas. This requires the above regions to be split and reassembled.

18.2.1 Mapping RSA Regions to IFGs

Fortunately we were able to access the first part of the postcodes area (e.g. G84) along with the anglers region as revealed by the anglers identified by the telephone survey of 15,000 households (the RSA study's internet survey did not generate postcodes). GIS was used to allocate postcode areas to IFG's on the basis of shortest distance. The percentage of anglers in the sub-division was then calculated. For example for the RSA study, the Moray Coast was part of the North East Scotland Region (33.3%) had postcodes in the area. Thus, 33.3% of expenditures for the North East were allocated to the Moray and North Coast IFG, the balance were allocated to the East Coast IFG. Similarly the North West IFG consists of 42.8% of the expenditures of Northern Scotland plus 2.25% of the aggregate expenditure of the Argyll and Lochaber. The Orkney and Shetland region was split 52% Orkney, 48% Shetland. All the adjustments are summarised in the Table below.

Table 18.2.2 Table of RSA Regional Adjustments

IFG Relevant RSA Regions Adjustment
South West IFG Glasgow and West OK
Dumfries & Galloway OK
Argyll & Lochaber Excluding Ardnamurchan, Moidart, Morven, Knoydart Minus 2.25% of Argyll and Lochaber
North West IFG Northern Scotland, but Excluding Cape Wrath to Nairn Plus Ardnamurchan, Moidart, Morven, Knoydart from Argyle and Lochaber 42.86% of Northern Scotland Plus 2.25% of Glasgow and West
Moray Firth and North Coast IFG Cape Wrath to Nairn from Northern Scotland Plus North East Scotland Excluding Fraserburgh to Dundee 57.14% of North Scotland Plus 33.3% of North East
East Coast IFG Edinburgh, Fife and South East OK
Fraserburgh to Dundee From North East Scotland 66.67% of North East
Outer Hebrides Western Isles OK
Orkney Orkney & Shetland 48% of Orkney and Shetland
Shetland Orkney & Shetland 52% of Orkney and Shetland

18.2.2 RSA Activity and Expenditure Flows for IFG Areas

It was thus possible to reconfigure the RSA data to be consistent with IFG areas. The re-calculated activity levels and expenditure flow are presented in the Table below. The South West IFG has the biggest RSA element with 0.75m angler days and total expenditure of £71m. This is a reflection of the size of the area its very large population and the fact that Dumfries and Galloway and Argyll contain many RSA centres and hotspots. The net expenditure for this IFG area is low relative to the total. This is because a net outflow of sea anglers from Glasgow and the West has been bundled in with the Dumfries and Galloway which attracts anglers from Glasgow. The result is that much expenditure is simply a transfer within the region.

Table 18.2.3 RSA Activity and Expenditure flows for IFG Areas

IFG Anglers from Region Total Angler Days in Region Annual Variable Exp in Region (£'000s) Capital Exp. in Region (£'000s) Total Exp in Region (£'000s) Net Flow of Angler Days Net Exp Flow (£'000s)
South West IFG 32,451 749,163 £49,053 £22,425 £71,477 200,837 £24,101
North West IFG 3,529 68,182 £4,237 £1,112 £5,349 15,944 £1,223
Outer Hebrides 2,515 80,567 £5,518 £3,672 £9,190 46,196 £5,985
MF& NC IFG 7,476 160,504 £8,360 £3,171 £11,531 50,090 £3,624
Orkney 1,342 35,489 £1,878 £1,024 £2,901 21,994 £3,417
East Coast IFG 26,394 407,151 £20,451 £16,769 £37,219 -13,670 £3,132
Shetland 1481 39151 £2,071 £1,129 £3,201 24264 £3,770
Visitors 50,000 NA NA NA NA -127,288 -£42,164
Total 125,188 1,540,206 £91,568 £49,301 £140,868

18.2.3 The Economic Impact of RSA to IFG Areas

The table below provides the estimates of the current economic impact of RSA in each of the IFG areas.

Table 18.2.4 Current Economic Impact Of RSA In Each IFG Area..

Currently Supported Would be Lost
Jobs Income (£'000s) Jobs Income (£'000s)
South West IFG 1568 £27,841 1093 £18,510
North West IFG 141 £2,358 81 £1,359
Outer Hebrides 184 £3,172 117 £2,028
MF& NC IFG 285 £5,299 171 £3,206
Orkney 69 £1,188 46 £788
East IFG 733 £16,748 548 £12,586
Shetland 76 £1,310 50 £869

The estimates above for the IFG areas are the best that can be obtained though they are not as reliable as the regional estimates in the Radford at al RSA study. The reason for this is that the income and employment estimates are quite specific to the regions as defined. For example, the size of the region itself is important. A large region has stronger internal linkages so that firms are more likely to buy from firms within the region and pay wages to households resident in the region. For their part, households are more likely to source goods and services from local firms if the defined region is large rather than small. The stronger internal linkages of larger regions mean that the direct, induced and indirect effects associated with each pound of angler expenditure are much stronger. On the other hand, the larger the region the less likely that RSA expenditure would be diverted outside the region in the event of RSA demise, simply because there are more alternatives in a larger region. The analysis conducted by Radford et al was specific to each of their RSA regions and strictly they cannot be uncritically aggregated. There is a measure of re-assurance in the knowledge that one cannot readily conclude whether the consequence of aggregation is an over or under-estimate of RSA's true contribution to income and employment in IFG areas.

18.3 The Potential Economic Impact of RSA to IFG Areas

The procedure for estimating the potential impact follows that used to produce the Scottish economic impact estimates in table 18.1.5.

Table 18.3.1 RSA's Potential Economic Impact to IFGs (2013 Prices)

IFG AREA Impact Scenarios: / Status Quo Scenarios: Major Transformative Effect (50%) Some Enhanced flow (25%) Minimal Enhanced Flow (10%)
Jobs Income (£'000s) Jobs Income (£'000s) Jobs Income (£'000s)
South West Continued Decline to zero 1640 £29,668 1366 £24,724 1202 £21,756
Stability 547 £9,889 273.3 £4,945 109 £1,978
North West Continued Decline to zero 122 £2,179 101 £1,815 89 £1,597
Stability 41 £727 20.3 £363 8 £145
Outer Hebrides Continued Decline to zero 176 £3,250 146 £2,709 129 £2,384
Stability 59 £1,083 29.3 £542 12 £217
MF& NC Continued Decline to zero 257 £5,139 214 £4,283 188 £3,769
Stability 86 £1,713 42.8 £857 17 £343
Orkney Continued Decline to zero 69 £1,263 58 £1,053 51 £926
Stability 23 £421 11.5 £211 5 £84
East Coast Continued Decline to zero 822 £20,173 685 £16,811 603 £14,794
Stability 274 £6,724 137.0 £3,363 55 £1,345
Shetland Continued Decline to zero 75 £1,393 63 £1,160 55 £1,022
Stability 25 £465 12.5 £232 5 £93

18.4 Estimating RSA's NEV/ CBA Contribution: User Value

Section 17 above explained that Anglers' Consumers' Surplus was relevant and could be substantial and Sea Anglers' Option Value was relevant and could be significant. This section considers how these two can be estimated for Scotland and each IFG.

It is beyond the resources of this study to undertake primary research on these user values. The options are; either to simply acknowledge their relevance for decision making, or to explore using benefit transfer where estimates from other studies are imported. The problem is that there have been very few studies in Scotland of the current user values for sea angling in Scotland, or indeed the UK.

The next section briefly reviews current knowledge and considers the options for benefit transfer.

18.4.1 Review of Existing Knowledge: NEV of RSA .

A major study for the Scottish Environmental Link by Indurot (2012) estimated the benefits of a network of Scottish MPA's, including leisure and recreation. They first calculated the value to the UK of a range of environmental goods and services flows provided by the entire UK marine ecosystem. There were 13 specific flows identified (E1-E13). The valuation of each was based on benefit transfer. The table below provides the UK totals for two of these services (E9 and E11) which are relevant to this study

Environmental Service Annual UK value
Leisure and recreation (E9) £4,372,400,000
Non-user/Bequest Values (E11) £1,363,276,766

Once the aggregate UK value for each environmental service was established, the proportional contribution of each 35 different types of marine landscapes was estimated. For example, the contribution of aphotic reef landscapes to the UK's benefits from nutrient recycling is estimated to be 0.72%. For some services, such as leisure and recreation and non-user/bequest values there was no scientific basis for allocating the service flow across marine landscapes and each landscape was (arbitrarily) apportioned the same share of the total service flow value, i.e. 1/35th.

The proportion of each of the 35 landscapes protected by a Scottish MPA network was then estimated (eg 15.2% for aphotic reefs). Combing these proportions provides an estimate of the percentage of the benefits from each service flow (eg nutrient re-cycling) protected by Scottish MPA network (0.11% for aphotic reefs).

The next step was to estimate the marginal contribution of MPA network (s). Expert knowledge and existing literature was used to make a judgment about the effect of the MPA's network on the each landscape/habitats (eg aphotic reefs) capacity to deliver specific environmental goods and services (eg nutrient re-cycling). The judgment was based on a comparison between the protection scenario and a no-designation scenario. This was then converted into a percentage improvement compared with the current provision of that service (eg 90% improvement on current service flow)

The study considered three possible networks (A, G and I) and two management regime (Maintenance of Conservation Status ( MCS) and Highly Restrictive HR)). The benefits were considered over a 20 year period and their value was expressed both in a capitalized value (using a discount rate of 3.5%) and in terms of undiscounted mean annual benefits.

The overall capitalized benefits of designating a Scottish network of MPAs ranged between £6.3 billion and £10 billion, depending on the assessed network scenario and management regime combination. The undiscounted mean annual benefits range from £566 million to £758 million. Interestingly, the estimated benefits hardly increased when the more restricted management regime ( HR) was modeled. Indurot et al state that this is probably because both management regimes restrict the more damaging fishing gears such as bottom towed trawls and dredges.

The estimated benefits include both use and non-use values. The non-use values accounts for around 12%-14% of the overall on-site benefits, depending on the network scenario and the applied management regime; while use values (direct and indirect) sum up the remaining 86%-88%. These use values range between £5.5 billion and £8.9 billion, assuming a 3.5% discount rate over a 20 years period. These magnitudes completely dwarf the current NEV of use values generated by catching shellfish by whetever means.

Unfortunately, the leisure and recreational values seem to be based on angler expenditure rather than their consumers' surplus and therefore cannot be used in the context of this study. The Non-User/Bequest Values used by Indurot et al (2012) come from McVittie and Moran (2010) and are useful when we address the general public values in a later section.

More promisingly, Kenter et al (2012), investigated the recreational use and non-use values of UK divers and sea anglers for 25 Scottish potential Marine Protected Areas (pMPAs), 119 English recommended Marine Conservation Zones (rMCZs) and 7 existing Welsh marine Special Areas of Conservation ( SACs). They used a travel cost choice experiment to estimate the total annual recreational use values of anglers and divers. It assessed how marginal use values would increase through ecological improvement improving the quality of the existing angling and diving experience.

Respondent were asked to consider hypothetica l diving or angling sites with a range of environmental and recreational attributes including travel distance, which was used as a cost proxy. Since each hypothetical marine site was described in terms of its characteristics, this enabled an assessment of the components of the economic value of hypothetical sites. The choice experiment and modelling exercise therefore enables lower bound estimate of current recreational use value and marginal changes to this value under differing sets of management restrictions.

Benefit transfer was used to estimate the value of actual sites. Specifically the transfer of benefits from hypothetical sites to actual site was enabled by a matrix that matched habitats, species and other features of actual sites against the attributes of the hypothetical sites from the choice experiment and the values from contingent valuation (see below). Recreational use values for sites were calculated by multiplying individual WTP by visit numbers

For Scotland, the areas assessed currently provide an estimated £67 – £117 million in annual recreational user benefits (i.e. NEV) to divers and anglers.

Table 18.4.1 Annual Angler User Values (Kenter et al, 2012)

Visits (000s) Mean WTP per visit No Restriction No Dredge or Trawls No fishing at all No Dr/Tr/Anch/Moor
Low Upp Low Upp Low Upp Low Upp Low Upp
South Arran - - 43 - - - - - - - -
Clyde Sea sill 191 348 11 2,122 3,859 2,122 3,859 3,032 5,512 2,122 3,859
Lochs Duich, Long and Alsh 155 282 30 4,730 8,599 4,730 8,599 5,468 9,942 4,730 8,599
East Caithness Cliffs SPA - - 40 - - - - - - - -
Firth of Forth Banks Complex 104 188 18 1,908 3,469 1,908 3,469 2,401 4,365 1,908 3,469
Fetlar to Haroldswick - - 43 - - - - - - - -
Loch Creran 104 188 17 1,713 3,115 1,713 3,115 2,206 4,010 1,713 3,115
Upper Loch Fyne and Loch Goil 37 66 40 1,466 2,666 1,466 2,666 1,640 2,982 1,466 2,666
Loch Sunart 133 242 40 5,330 9,691 5,330 9,691 5,963 10,843 5,330 9,691
Loch Sween 39 71 31 1,203 2,188 1,203 2,188 1,388 2,524 1,203 2,188
Monach Islands - - 15 - - - - - - - -
Mousa to Boddam 41 75 40 1,669 3,034 1,669 3,034 1,866 3,392 1,669 3,034
Noss Head - - 21 - - - - - - - -
North-west Orkney - - 19 - - - - - - - -
North-west sea lochs and Summer Isles 96 174 31 2,917 5,305 2,917 5,305 3,372 6,131 2,917 5,305
Papa Westray - - 16 - - - - - - - -
Loch Sunart to the Sound of Jura 194 353 37 7,124 12,953 7,124 12,953 8,048 14,632 7,124 12,953
Small Isles 83 151 41 3,433 6,242 3,433 6,242 3,827 6,959 3,433 6,242
Turbot Bank - - 20 - - - - - - - -
Wyre and Rousay Sounds - - 16 - - - - - - - -
TOTAL 1,177 2,138 33.6m 61.1m 33.6m 61.1m 39.2m 71.3m 33.6m 61.1m
MEAN per site (20) 107 194 28.45 3,056 5,556 3,056 5,556 3,565 6,481 3,056 5,556

From the table below it can be seen that for Scotland the estimated annual angler user value (upper boundary) varies from £12.9 m for Loch Sunart to the Sound of Jura to £2.2 m for Loch Sween. These are very high annual values. The mean per trip WTP values seem reasonable, and based on sound research design and procedures. However, the estimated number of visitors is high. For example they estimate that, on average, 39 visits per individual UK sea angler just to the pool of the sites considered in their study. For Loch Sunart to the Sound of Jura it is estimated there would be between 194,000 and 353,000 sea angler visits per annum. This is between 13% and 23% of the total 1.54m of all Scottish RSA days estimated by Radford et al. Equivalent figures for Loch Sween were 39,000 to 71,000. The total number of angler visits to the 20 sites was between 1,177,000 and 2,138,000.

Even allowing for visits to multiple sites on a single angler day, these figures are not consistent with the total of 1.54m angler days across the whole of Scotland estimated by Radford et al. The estimates of Kenter et al were based on 422 sea anglers across the whole of the UK and they warn that the Scottish sample of anglers was too small. The Radford at al estimates were based on a sample of over 15,000 households, and over 700 sea anglers.

There might also be an issue over scaling. Kenter et al used the same procedure for angling and diving. The number of site visits was based on

"how often our participants stated they visited a random selection of 15 sites in their region in an interactive mapping application within the survey. To estimate visitor numbers to a site, the ratio of the total number of diver respondents in the relevant region who had been presented with the site over the number of divers who indicated they had actually visited the site in the past 12 months. We multiplied this with the ratio of the estimated total population of UK divers over the total number of diver respondents. This was then multiplied this by the total frequency of visits that respondents who were presented with the site had made to the site".

Because they used a lower and upper bound for the UK sea angler population (1.1m to 2m) they produced lower and upper bound of visits and visitors per annum. It thus appears they obtained a visit rate based on Scottish respondents but might have scaled visits using the UK population.

A further issue is that Kenter et al have estimated sea anglers' total willingness to pay, or Gross Economic Value (i.e. GEV). Above, we have argued that for decision making purposes NEV or more specifically Consumers' Surplus should be the relevant value. Because GEV ignores opportunity costs it does not reflect sea anglers' or society's welfare. For example it is perfectly possible to have a very high total WTP ( GEV) for an angling site which is very expensive to access because of its remoteness. The high cost (i.e. opportunity costs) mean few if any anglers visit, despite the attractive fishing on offer.

It would be theoretically possible to estimate sea anglers total Consumers' Surplus by subtracting the actual expenditure (£140.9m at 2009 prices, as estimated by Radford et al) from anglers' total WTP. Whilst, the estimates of Kenter et al relate to 20 sites, they have produced a mean WTP per sea angler visit of £28.45. Using the 1.540m visits estimated by Radford et al would suggest a total sea angler WTP of £42.813m, which is much less than the actual expenditure of £140.9m. Logically, the amount that anglers are willing to pay cannot be less than what they actually do pay. A further issue highlighted by Kenter et al is that they do not address the value of additional angler days that would be made as a result of these improvements.

We conclude that with respect to sea angler user values, this study cannot make use of the study by Kenter et al, despite its impressive scope and technical quality. As discussed later, there are other aspects of this study which provide some valuable insight.

There have been a number of studies carried out for fresh water but the only equivalent sea angling study was by Drew et al (2004). They used three methods to directly estimate anglers' consumers' surplus; Contingent Valuation ( CVM), The Travel Cost Method ( TCM) and a Choice Experiment ( CE). The Table below gives the results for the CVM. (2013 Prices)

Table 18.4.2 Estimates of Consumers Surplus (net WTP) from Contingent Valuation

Payment P.A. Days 2003 2013 [51]
Mean Per annum WTP/DAY WTP/DAY
Shore £380 67 £5.67 £7.06
Charter Boat £552 30 £18.40 £22.92
Own/Friends Boat £885 62 £14.27 £17.78

The alternative, and less reliable, TCM examines the demand function derived from the revealed relationship between travel costs and percentage of a zone participating. The net WTP is obtained from the estimated linear demand function. The reported WTP/trip figures are shown in the Table below.

Table 18.4.3 Estimates from TCM Analysis

Net WTP
2003 2013
Shore £26.45 £32.95
Charter Boat £42.01 £53.06
Own/Friends Boat £104.16 £131.56

Finally it is worth noting the results of the Choice Experiment. The key factors were species variety, quantity and quality. Unfamiliar species carried a substantial premium of between £10.40 and £14.70 (2013 prices). Size was important, with 27p extra WTP for every 1% increase in size. Surprisingly the number of fish was not significant. This probably reflects the survey locations where there were still numbers of fish to be caught. Drew et al suggest that CVM estimates are conservative. We therefore adopt the CV estimates for this study, whilst recognizing that they may understate angler benefits.

The Table below combines the boat/shore mix found for the Scotland and its regions by Radford et al with the WTP estimate from the CVM published by Drew et al.

Table 18.4.4 Current Consumer Surplus for RSA

Angler Days Consumer Surplus Day Total Consumer Surplus
Shore 721,611 £7.06 £5,094,574
Charter Boat 229,443 £22.92 £5,258,834
Own/Friends Boat 589,152 £17.78 £10,475,123
Total 1,540,206 £13.52 £20,828,530

This suggests the current NEV of Scotland's RSA to anglers is around £21 m per annum. This is low relative to spending on sea angling in Scotland of around £140 m. This estimate is informing us that if the cost of sea angling (tackle, fuel, etc ) increased by £21 m there would probably be very little RSA in Scotland. A similar outcome might be possible if the quality of the sea angling experience were to decline further and drag down anglers' willingness to cover the costs of their angling.

Normally we would expect to find relatively high levels of consumers' surplus in sea angling, simply because access is free. In contrast most freshwater anglers have to pay an owner for the right to fish. Other things being equal, the access payments that freshwater anglers have to pay simply reduces the anglers' consumers' surplus. A profit maximising freshwater fishery owner might endeavor to levy prices to capture as much of the freshwater angler's consumer surplus as possible, whilst of course leaving sufficient surplus that angler participation would continue. There is no owner capturing sea anglers' consumers' surplus and this should translate into high values for their consumers' surplus. Perhaps these low consumers' surplus estimates for a non-priced activity is simply a reflection of the relatively poor average quality of RSA in Scotland.

We know that all sea anglers will have a surplus (otherwise they would not participate), and we expected it to be high relative to angler expenditure. The results do not conform to our expectations. In any event, the current level of consumer surplus only matters for the baseline scenario predicting a continued decline. We also need to include the change in consumers' surplus which matters. This is discussed below.

18.4.2 The Potential Change to Anglers' Consumer Surplus in Scotland

Any increase in consumers' surplus could come from two sources. Firstly there maybe an increase in the number of sea angler days induced by better quality angling. As a result of any improvements to the inshore environment the value of the pleasure anglers would now obtain, (measured by the maximum amount they are willing to pay) is sufficient to warrant them committing more time and money to sea angling. We would have more angler days because existing anglers participate more or delay their exit from the activity and new sea anglers are recruited.

We can be certain that the amount they are willing to pay will be greater than the amount they are required to sacrifice (expenditure on travel, bait etc), otherwise they would not participate. In other words, the additional angler days will generate a consumer's surplus.

The relevant question is, what will be the consumer surplus associated with these new angler days. We know that it will not be zero. One possibility is to assume that it might be similar to the consumers' surplus that current angler days generate.

The second effect is that the quality of the existing angler days would be enhanced and this would also increase aggregate consumer surplus. We could explore these two effects separately and then combine them. Given the absence of suitable secondary data, we follow the procedure used to assess the possible consequences for income and employment [52] . Quite simply, we will explore the magnitude that might emerge with the illustrative 50%, 25% and 10% improvement in the flow of sea anglers' consumers' surplus from RSA.

Table 18.4.5 Estimated Changes in Anglers' Consumer Surplus: Scotland

Existing CS 50% Increase 25% Increase 10%Increase
Shore £5,094,574 £2,547,287 £1,273,644 £509,457
Charter Boat £5,258,834 £2,629,417 £1,314,709 £525,883
Own/Friends Boat £10,475,123 £5,237,562 £2,618,781 £1,047,512
Total £20,828,530 £10,414,266 £5,207,133 £2,082,853

The information in the above table is sufficient to complete the scenario table for Scotland

Table 18.4.6 RSA's Potential Impact Consumers' Surplus (Scotland Scenarios)

Impact Scenarios: / Status Quo Scenarios: Major Transformative Effect (50%) Some Enhanced Flow (25%) Minimal Enhanced Flow (10%)
Continued Decline to zero £31,242,796 £26,035,663 £22,911,383
Stability £10,414,266 £5,207,133 £2,082,853

18.4.3 Current Magnitude of Anglers' Consumers Surplus in IFGs Areas

The same procedure is used to estimate the anglers' consumers' surplus for the IFG areas. The Table below is constructed from data in the RSA study by Radford et al.

Table 18.4.7 Regional Sea Angling Activity by Type of Angling

Region Angler Days in Region Shore Own/Friends Charter
Argyll & Lochaber 252,615 118,729 103,572 30,314
Dumfries & Galloway 233,080 114,209 74,586 44,285
Glasgow and West 269,783 102,518 113,309 53,957
North East Scotland 234,307 128,869 67,949 37,489
Northern Scotland 144,346 62,069 63,512 18,765
Edinburgh, Fife and S.E. 250,868 125,434 107,873 17,561
Western Isles 80,567 35,449 32,227 12,891
Orkney & Shetland 74,640 34,334 26,124 14,182
Total 1,540,206 721,611 589,152 229,443

As before, it is necessary to reconfigure the above data to reflect the geographical areas covered by individual IFG's. This was explained in Section 18.2 above. The Table below presents the results.

Table 18.4.8 Consumers Surplus for Each IFG

IFG Angler Type Angler Days Consumer Surplus per Day Total Consumer Surplus
South West Shore 332,488 £7.06 £2,347,365
Charter Boat 127,798 £22.92 £2,929,130
Own/Friends Boat 288,877 £17.78 £5,136,233
Total 749,163 £10,412,729
North West Shore 29,571 £7.06 £208,771
Charter Boat 8,801 £22.92 £201,719
Own/Friends Boat 29,811 £17.78 £530,040
Total 68,182 £940,530
Outer Hebrides Shore 35,449 £7.06 £250,270
Charter Boat 12,891 £22.92 £295,462
Own/Friends Boat 32,227 £17.78 £572,996
Total 80,567 £1,118,728
MFNC Shore 78,379 £7.06 £553,356
Charter Boat 23,206 £22.92 £531,882
Own/Friends Boat 58,918 £17.78 £1,047,562
Total 160,504 £2,132,799
Orkney Shore 16,481 £7.06 £116,356
Charter Boat 6,807 £22.92 £156,016
Own/Friends Boat 12,540 £17.78 £222,961
Total 35,827 £495,334
East Coast Shore 211,390 £7.06 £1,492,413
Charter Boat 42,566 £22.92 £975,613
Own/Friends Boat 153,195 £17.78 £2,723,807
Total 407,151 £5,191,833
Shetland Shore 17,854 £7.06 £126,049
Charter Boat 7,374 £22.92 £169,012
Own/Friends Boat 13,584 £17.78 £241,524
Total 38,813 £536,585
Overall Total Shore 721,611 £7.06 £5,094,574
Charter Boat 229,443 £22.92 £5,258,834
Own/Friends Boat 589,152 £17.78 £10,475,123
Total 1,540,206 £20,828,530

18.4.4 The Potential Change to Anglers' Consumer Surplus in IFG Areas

The table below applies the 50%, 25% and 10% scaling to the estimated consumers' surplus estimates for each of the IFG areas.

Table 18.4.9 RSA's Potential Impact Consumers' Surplus in IFGs Areas

IFG Impact Scenarios: / Status Quo Scenarios: Major Transformative Effect (50%) Some Enhanced Flow (25%) Minimal Enhanced Flow (10%)
South West Continued Decline to zero
Stability
£15,619,094
£5,206,365
£13,015,911
£2,603,182
£11,454,002
£1,041,273
North West Continued Decline to zero
Stability
£1,410,795
£470,265
£1,175,663
£235,133
£1,034,583
£94,053
Outer Hebrides Continued Decline to zero
Stability
£1,678,092
£559,364
£1,398,410
£279,682
£1,230,601
£111,873
MFNC Continued Decline to zero
Stability
£3,199,199
£1,066,400
£2,665,999
£533,200
£2,346,079
£213,280
Orkney Continued Decline to zero
Stability
£743,001
£247,667
£619,168
£123,834
£544,867
£49,533
East Coast Continued Decline to zero
Stability
£7,787,750
£2,595,917
£6,489,791
£1,297,958
£5,711,016
£519,183
Shetland Continued Decline to zero
Stability
£804,878
£268,293
£670,731
£134,146
£590,244
£53,659

18.4.5 Current Anglers' Option (User) Value in Scotland

Kenter et al also used contingent valuation to estimate what they term the non-use values of anglers (and divers). As described above, non-use Values normally arise from the vicarious concerns or sympathy for sentient or non sentient natural assets, independent of their use. This is usually termed Existence Value (or GPNUV in this study). Since Kenter et al addressed their questions to users they are more likely to be capturing user values, in particular Option Value. It is theretically possible that users have vicarious concerns for species or habitats and therefore GPNUVs which are unrelated to their or anyone else's current or future use. Very careful survey design would be required to separate users' non-user vicarious concerns for the environment (ie (Existence value / GPNUV) from their self centred concerns about their future use (Users Option Value) or their offspring / future generations use Bequest (use) Value. In this study we will use the term Option (User) Value ( OV) to describe the Kenter et al Non User Value.

As part of the choice experiment exercise, two presented sites were selected at random and a contingent valuation question asked respondents' willingness to pay a one-off payment for future protection of the site and its natural features. It is uncertain whether users believed they were paying to eliminate the risk of the total demise of RSA activity at some time in the future, or paying just to preserve the site and its natural features.

The marginal option value of protecting sites was calculated on the basis of the contingent valuation results and was aggregated over UK sea angler and diver populations. GIS was used to account for distance decay, as participants valued nearby sites higher than sites further away.

The CVM results for anglers give an individual mean value per site of £4.77 for Scotland. When scaled, the CVM mean site value was between £5.3 and £9.5 m with the aggregate value across all sites estimated at £105-£191 m. No dredging/trawling added £15-£27 m to the aggregate value, no potting/gillnetting adding £18-£34 m, no anchoring/mooring would increase the base value by
£11- £21 m. These estimates are not annual values but based on a one-off payment by anglers.

Table 18.4.10 Annual Angler Non User Values (Kenter et al, 2012)

Mean Ind WTP No Restriction (£000) No Dredging or Trawling (£000) No fishing at all (£000) No Dr/Tr/Anch/ Mooring (£000)
Low Upp Low Upp Low Upp Low Upp
South Arran 6.39 7,032 12,786 7,987 14,522 8,213 14,933 7,757 14,104
Clyde Sea sill 5.29 5,819 10,580 6,632 12,058 6,824 12,407 6,436 11,702
Lochs Duich, Long and Alsh 5.23 5,752 10,458 6,557 11,921 6,747 12,268 6,363 11,569
East Caithness Cliffs SPA 5.18 5,702 10,368 6,501 11,821 6,690 12,164 6,309 11,471
Firth of Forth Banks Complex 4.04 4,441 8,074 5,092 9,257 5,246 9,537 4,935 8,972
Fetlar to Haroldswick 4.33 4,763 8,660 5,452 9,912 5,615 10,209 5,286 9,611
Loch Creran 4.67 5,136 9,339 5,869 10,670 6,042 10,985 5,692 10,349
Upper Loch Fyne and Loch Goil 5.97 6,565 11,936 7,465 13,573 7,678 13,961 7,248 13,179
Loch Sunart 5.61 6,170 11,218 7,023 12,770 7,225 13,137 6,818 12,396
Loch Sween 5.9 6,489 11,799 7,381 13,419 7,592 13,803 7,166 13,029
Monach Islands 4.12 4,528 8,232 5,189 9,434 5,345 9,719 5,030 9,145
Mousa to Boddam 4.03 4,432 8,058 5,082 9,240 5,236 9,519 4,925 8,955
Noss Head 3.62 3,984 7,244 4,581 8,330 4,723 8,587 4,438 8,068
North-west Orkney 3.09 3,400 6,181 3,928 7,142 4,053 7,369 3,801 6,910
North-west sea lochs and Summer Isles 5.08 5,583 10,152 6,368 11,579 6,554 11,916 6,179 11,235
Papa Westray 3.82 4,203 7,643 4,826 8,775 4,974 9,043 4,676 8,502
Loch Sunart to the Sound of Jura 6.11 6,723 12,224 7,642 13,894 7,859 14,290 7,420 13,492
Small Isles 5.53 6,082 11,059 6,926 12,592 7,125 12,955 6,723 12,223
Turbot Bank 3.6 3,957 7,194 4,550 8,274 4,691 8,529 4,407 8,013
Wyre and Rousay Sounds 3.87 4,256 7,738 4,885 8,882 5,034 9,153 4,733 8,606
TOTAL 105.0m 190.9m 119.9m 218.1m 123.5m 224.5m 116.3m 211.5m
MEAN per site (20) 4.77 5,251 9,547 5,997 10,903 6,173 11,224 5,817 10,577

The mean values for each site was scaled using the UK population of sea anglers. The lower population estimate was 1.1 m, the upper £2 m anglers. The (implied) average per angler for the one off payment to protect all 20 sites is £95.38 (ie option value). Even allowing for the distance decay function, the population of Scottish sea anglers probably should have been used to scale mean values. The Table below re-scales the totals for all 20 sites using the population of 125,200 Scottish sea anglers and visiting anglers as estimated by Radford et al [53] . This re-scaling obviates the need for lower and upper estimates.

Table 18.4.11 Mean WTP and Re-Scaled Totals for Scotland 20 Sites

Mean Ind WTP per site Mean WTP all 20 sites No Restriction (£000) No Dredging or Trawling (£000 No fishing at all (£000 No Dr/Tr/Anch/ Mooring (£000
£4.77 £95.38 £11,950,909 £13,646,800 £14,056,545 £13,237,055

The above values are one-off payments (ie capital values) and this study is initially denominated in annual flows. The UK Treasury guidance for appraising environmental evaluations suggests a discount rate of 3.5% and a 20 year time horizon. On this basis, £0.070175 (or £70.18) would be the annual sum receivable every year for 20 years which would be equivalent to a lump sum of £1.00 (or £1,000 today) receivable today. [54] The table below converts these one-off payments to annual values.

Table 18.4.12 Annual Mean WTP Values

Mean Ind WTP per site Mean WTP all 20 sites No Restriction (£000) No Dredging or Trawling (£000 No Commercial Fishing at all. No Dr/Tr/Anch/ Mooring (£000
£0.33 £6.70 £838,655 £957,664 £986,418 £928,910

This aggregate value does not seem to be very sensitive to changes in the restrictions and by implication chages in the quality of sea angling. The estimate which has most relevance for the 1 NM and 3 NM restrictions is £957,664. The 1 NM and 3 NM restrictions around the entire Scottish coast would have a greater impact on RSA than the MPA network because of the relative size of the areas involved and the restrictions imposed. The minimum current option user value for RSA in Scotland would therefore be £957,664.

18.4.6 The Potential Change to Anglers' Option (User) Value in Scotland.

Previously in assessing the possible consequences for income and employment and consumers' surplus, we estimated the impact of 50%, 25% and 10% improvements in the flow of user values. There is less justification for scaling option values in this way. Indeed, the estimates from Kenter et al did not change significantly. Kenter et al [55] stated

"our approach is designed in a way that is very similar to any insurance; first participants are asked to estimate the current worth of the goods in question (by implicitly asking them how far they would be willing to travel to them in a CE), and then they are asked how much they would be willing to contribute towards insuring these goods (in the CVM)" .

On this basis it might be argued that as the quality and value of the angling experience increases, the insurance premium that users would be willing to pay would also increase. This is reasonable provided that the increased value is subject to the same risk. However, the purpose of the MPA network (and the 0-1 NM and 0-3 NM policy options) is to offer ecosystem protection and reduce environmental risk. In this instance, if they are successful the policy options both increase value and reduced risk. Thus the increased value should increase option value (in the same way that consumers' surplus increases), whilst the reduced risk should decrease option value. On balance, it is more sensible to regard option value as an element of user value, but an element which does not increase along with consumers' surplus. This produces the following Table.

Table 18.4.13 Estimated Anglers Option Value: Scotland

Major Transformative Effect Some Enhanced Flow Minimal Enhanced Flow
£957,664 £957,664 £957,664

The information in the above table is sufficient to complete the option value scenario table for Scotland.

Table 18.4.14 RSA's Potential Impact Option Value (Scotland Scenarios).

Impact Scenarios: / Status Quo Scenarios: Major Transformative Effect Some Enhanced Flow Minimal Enhanced Flow
Continued Decline to zero £957,664 £957,664 £957,664
Stability Not Relevant Not Relevant Not Relevant

18.4.7 Current Anglers Option Value in IFG areas

As argued above, the minimum current option user value for RSA in Scotland would therefore be £957,664. In the absence of other information this would be distributed across IFG areas according to relative RSA activity levels. The current distribution is given below

Table 18.4.15 Distribution of Option Value Across IFG Areas

IFG Angler Days % of Total Option Value
South West 749,163 48.6% £465,812
North West 68,182 4.4% £42,394
Outer Hebrides 80,567 5.2% £50,095
MFNC 160,504 10.4% £99,798
Orkney 35,827 2.3% £22,276
East Coast 407,151 26.4% £253,157
Shetland 38,813 2.5% £24,133
Overall Total 1,540,206 100.0% £957,664

18.4.8 The Potential Change in Anglers' Option (User) Value in IFG areas.

As with the estimates for Scotland it is more sensible to regard option value as an element of user value which does not increase along with consumers' surplus. This produces the following Table.

Table 18.4.16 RSA's Potential Impact Option User Value in IFGs Areas

IFG Impact Scenarios: / Status Quo Scenarios: Major Transformative Effect (50%) Some Enhanced Flow (25%) Minimal Enhanced Flow (10%)
South West Continued Decline to zero
Stability
£465,812
Not Relevant
£465,812
Not Relevant 0
£465,812
Not Relevant 0
North West Continued Decline to zero
Stability
£42,394
Not Relevant
£42,394
Not Relevant 0
£42,394
Not Relevant 0
Outer Hebrides Continued Decline to zero
Stability
£50,095
Not Relevant
£50,095
Not Relevant 0
£50,095
Not Relevant 0
MFNC Continued Decline to zero
Stability
£99,798
Not Relevant
£99,798
Not Relevant 0
£99,798
Not Relevant 0
Orkney Continued Decline to zero
Stability
£22,276
Not Relevant
£22,276
Not Relevant 0
£22,276
Not Relevant 0
East Coast Continued Decline to zero
Stability
£253,157
Not Relevant
£253,157
Not Relevant 0
£253,157
Not Relevant 0
Shetland Continued Decline to zero
Stability
£24,133
Not Relevant
£24,133
Not Relevant 0
£24,133
Not Relevant 0

18.4.9 Total User Value for Scotland and IFG Areas

Total Net Economic Value for sea anglers is the sum of their consumers' surplus and their option values as estimated above. These two elements are combined in the tables below in the NEV/ CBA summary results

18.5 RSA Summary Results

This Section presents the economic impact and NEV/ CBA results for RSA for Scotland and each of the IFG areas

18.5.1 RSA Summary Results Economic Impact

Table 18.5.1 RSA's Potential Economic Impact on Scotland (2013 prices)

Impact Scenarios: / Status Quo Scenarios: Major Transformative Effect (50%) Some Enhanced flow (25%) Minimal Enhanced Flow (10%)
Jobs Income (£'000s) Jobs Income (£'000s) Jobs Income (£'000s)
Continued Decline to zero 2,513 £59,371 2,094 £49,476 1,843 £43,539
Stability 837.5 £19,790 419 £9,896 168 £3,958

Table 18.5.2 RSA's Potential Economic Impact on IFGs (2013 Prices)

IFG AREA Impact Scenarios: / Status Quo Scenarios: Major Transformative Effect (50%) Some Enhanced flow (25%) Minimal Enhanced Flow (10%)
Jobs Income (£'000s) Jobs Income (£'000s) Jobs Income (£'000s)
South West Continued Decline to zero 1640 £29,668 1366 £24,724 1202 £21,756
Stability 547 £9,889 273.3 £4,945 109 £1,978
North West Continued Decline to zero 122 £2,179 101 £1,815 89 £1,597
Stability 41 £727 20.3 £363 8 £145
Outer Hebrides Continued Decline to zero 176 £3,250 146 £2,709 129 £2,384
Stability 59 £1,083 29.3 £542 12 £217
MF& NC Continued Decline to zero 257 £5,139 214 £4,283 188 £3,769
Stability 86 £1,713 42.8 £857 17 £343
Orkney Continued Decline to zero 69 £1,263 58 £1,053 51 £926
Stability 23 £421 11.5 £211 5 £84
East Coast Continued Decline to zero 822 £20,173 685 £16,811 603 £14,794
Stability 274 £6,724 137.0 £3,363 55 £1,345
Shetland Continued Decline to zero 75 £1,393 63 £1,160 55 £1,022
Stability 25 £465 12.5 £232 5 £93

18.5.2 Summary Results RSA: NEV/ CBA

Table 18.5.3 RSA's Potential Impact Net Economic Values (Scotland Scenarios)

Impact Scenarios: / Status Quo Scenarios: Major Transformative Effect Some Enhanced Flow Minimal Enhanced Flow
Continued Decline to zero £32,200,460 £26,993,327 £23,869,047
Stability £10,414,266 £5,207,133 £2,082,853

Table 18.5.4 RSA's Potential Impact Net Economic Values ( IFG Areas)

Impact Scenarios: / Status Quo Scenarios: Major Transformative Effect (50%) Some Enhanced Flow (25%) Minimal Enhanced Flow (10%)
South West Continued Decline to zero £16,084,906
£5,206,365
£13,481,723
£2,603,182
£11,919,814
£1,041,273
Stability
North West Continued Decline to zero £1,453,189
£470,265
£1,218,057
£235,133
£1,076,977
£94,053
Stability
Outer Hebrides Continued Decline to zero £1,728,187
£559,364
£1,448,505
£279,682
£1,280,696
£111,873
Stability
MFNC Continued Decline to zero £3,298,997
£1,066,400
£2,765,797
£533,200
£2,445,877
£213,280
Stability
Orkney Continued Decline to zero £765,277
£247,667
£641,444
£123,834
£567,143
£49,533
Stability
East Coast Continued Decline to zero £8,040,907
£2,595,917
£6,742,948
£1,297,958
£5,964,173
£519,183
Stability
Shetland Continued Decline to zero £829,011
£268,293
£694,864
£134,146
£614,377
£53,659
Stability

Contact