370
The Biology of Sea Turtles, Vol. II
Sustainable Fisheries Act require an analysis of sociocultural and economic
impacts of proposed regulations that affect small businesses or communities that
are dependent upon fisheries. It remains to be seen exactly what effect this trend
might have on the ability of NMFS to impose future regulations to protect sea
turtles in marine fisheries. However, some recent court rulings against NMFS on
other issues have resulted from the agency’s not having given adequate weight or
rigor to the process for required reporting of sociocultural and economic impacts
under the new requirements (Hendricks, 2000).
There is, of course, the possibility of passing costs on to the consumer, assuming
that the increased costs are not sufficiently large to cause consumers to switch to
another food item. For example, if the costs of implementing new TEDs increase
the cost of shrimp relative to finfish, consumers may change preferences and buy
more fish and less shrimp. In the event that these new preferred fish species are
caught by longlines or gill nets, the switch in consumer preferences may exacerbate
the impact on sea turtles caused by increased gear deployment in these fisheries. On
the other hand, if the increased costs in both shrimp and finfish result from new
TEDs and new hook types in the longline fishery, consumers might switch their
preferences to beef. The increase in beef consumption could exacerbate the environmental problems caused by clearing tropical forests to increase the amount of
grazing lands in tropical countries.
It may be the case, however, that consumers are willing to pay more for shrimp
or for fish if they know that the increased cost results in turtles being protected. To
our knowledge, no contingent valuation studies have been conducted to determine
what increased costs consumers might be willing to incur for turtle-safe shrimp or
fish. Nor do we know what costs members of the general public are willing to
shoulder on behalf of government-subsidized retrofitting of fishing gear. However,
there are indirect indications that some groups may be willing to assume higher
costs in the cause of protecting sea turtles.
In a Sea Grant survey of Floridians’ attitudes about the environment and coastal
marine resources (Milon et al., 1998), almost 60% of the respondents indicated that
funding for environmental protection should be increased. More than 75% felt that
sea turtle populations, coral reefs, and coastal habitats in general were not in as good
a condition as they had been in the past. There also was some direct evidence that
attitudes about sea turtles and attitudes about increased funding for protection of the
environment were linked. Those respondents who disagreed more strongly with the
statement that “There are as many sea turtles living around Florida today than there
ever were in the past” were more likely to support increased funding for environmental protection in general. In another study, respondents from several south Florida
beaches were willing to pay a higher cost for parking fees at recreational beaches
to support beach renourishment if the restoration would result in improved nesting
habitat for sea turtles (Shivlani et al., in press). Tisdell and Wilson (2001a) found
that tourists who had seen nesting or hatchling sea turtles on ecotour visits were
more willing to pay to conserve them (see Section 14.8.3).
Although none of these studies is indicative of the general public’s willingness to pay increased costs for shellfish or finfish to provide for sea turtle
conservation, they do provide tantalizing hints that conservationists might deepen
1123 book.book Page 370 Monday, November 11, 2002 11:11 AM
The Biology of Sea Turtles, Vol. II
Sustainable Fisheries Act require an analysis of sociocultural and economic
impacts of proposed regulations that affect small businesses or communities that
are dependent upon fisheries. It remains to be seen exactly what effect this trend
might have on the ability of NMFS to impose future regulations to protect sea
turtles in marine fisheries. However, some recent court rulings against NMFS on
other issues have resulted from the agency’s not having given adequate weight or
rigor to the process for required reporting of sociocultural and economic impacts
under the new requirements (Hendricks, 2000).
There is, of course, the possibility of passing costs on to the consumer, assuming
that the increased costs are not sufficiently large to cause consumers to switch to
another food item. For example, if the costs of implementing new TEDs increase
the cost of shrimp relative to finfish, consumers may change preferences and buy
more fish and less shrimp. In the event that these new preferred fish species are
caught by longlines or gill nets, the switch in consumer preferences may exacerbate
the impact on sea turtles caused by increased gear deployment in these fisheries. On
the other hand, if the increased costs in both shrimp and finfish result from new
TEDs and new hook types in the longline fishery, consumers might switch their
preferences to beef. The increase in beef consumption could exacerbate the environmental problems caused by clearing tropical forests to increase the amount of
grazing lands in tropical countries.
It may be the case, however, that consumers are willing to pay more for shrimp
or for fish if they know that the increased cost results in turtles being protected. To
our knowledge, no contingent valuation studies have been conducted to determine
what increased costs consumers might be willing to incur for turtle-safe shrimp or
fish. Nor do we know what costs members of the general public are willing to
shoulder on behalf of government-subsidized retrofitting of fishing gear. However,
there are indirect indications that some groups may be willing to assume higher
costs in the cause of protecting sea turtles.
In a Sea Grant survey of Floridians’ attitudes about the environment and coastal
marine resources (Milon et al., 1998), almost 60% of the respondents indicated that
funding for environmental protection should be increased. More than 75% felt that
sea turtle populations, coral reefs, and coastal habitats in general were not in as good
a condition as they had been in the past. There also was some direct evidence that
attitudes about sea turtles and attitudes about increased funding for protection of the
environment were linked. Those respondents who disagreed more strongly with the
statement that “There are as many sea turtles living around Florida today than there
ever were in the past” were more likely to support increased funding for environmental protection in general. In another study, respondents from several south Florida
beaches were willing to pay a higher cost for parking fees at recreational beaches
to support beach renourishment if the restoration would result in improved nesting
habitat for sea turtles (Shivlani et al., in press). Tisdell and Wilson (2001a) found
that tourists who had seen nesting or hatchling sea turtles on ecotour visits were
more willing to pay to conserve them (see Section 14.8.3).
Although none of these studies is indicative of the general public’s willingness to pay increased costs for shellfish or finfish to provide for sea turtle
conservation, they do provide tantalizing hints that conservationists might deepen
1123 book.book Page 370 Monday, November 11, 2002 11:11 AM