A Conjoint Analysis of U.S. Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Alternatives

Abstract

In a real-time public policy context, we explored the utility of using metric conjoint analysis to investigate (1) how billfish (Istiophoridae) anglers combine their preferences for various management measures under consideration for inclusion in a U.S. Atlantic billfish management regime and (2) the relative influence of each management measure in determining preference for potential management regimes. A mail survey sent to 435 randomly selected U.S. resident members of the Billfish Foundation produced a 57% overall effective response rate. Billfish anglers evaluated 16 potential management scenarios defined by two levels each of six different components (bag and size limits, hook restrictions, seasonal closures, tournaments, average number of hookups, and average size of the catch). Respondent evaluation choices were most influenced by the management measures concerning tournaments and hook restrictions, which accounted for an average influence of 39% and 21%, respectively, of evaluation choices. Part-worth utility estimates were calculated for each level of each management measure, and the 64 possible management measure combinations were ranked in order of descending aggregate utility or descending preference. This study demonstrated the potential of conjoint analysis to provide managers with information to help maximize constituent satisfaction with rulemaking while achieving biological objectives.