Elsevier

Journal of Environmental Management

Volume 206, 15 January 2018, Pages 971-979
Journal of Environmental Management

Research article
Recreation economics to inform migratory species conservation: Case study of the northern pintail

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.11.048Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Regional specific values of hunting and viewing a migratory species were calculated.

  • Assessed regions represent core breeding and wintering areas used annually.

  • Economic values totaled over $100M (2014 USD) annually across the core regions.

  • Our analytical approach can be adapted for other bird species in North America.

  • Important step to develop more efficient strategies to conserve migratory species.

Abstract

Quantification of the economic value provided by migratory species can aid in targeting management efforts and funding to locations yielding the greatest benefits to society and species conservation. Here we illustrate a key step in this process by estimating hunting and birding values of the northern pintail (Anas acuta) within primary breeding and wintering habitats used during the species’ annual migratory cycle in North America. We used published information on user expenditures and net economic values (consumer surplus) for recreational viewing and hunting to determine the economic value of pintail-based recreation in three primary breeding areas and two primary wintering areas. Summed expenditures and consumer surplus for northern pintail viewing were annually valued at $70M, and annual sport hunting totaled $31M (2014 USD). Expenditures for viewing ($42M) were more than twice as high than those for hunting ($18M). Estimates of consumer surplus, defined as the amount consumers are willing to pay above their current expenditures, were $15M greater for viewing ($28M) than for hunting ($13M). We discovered substantial annual consumer surplus ($41M) available for pintail conservation from birders and hunters. We also found spatial differences in economic value among the primary regions used by pintails, with viewing generally valued more in breeding regions than in wintering regions and the reverse being true for hunting. The economic value of pintail-based recreation in the Western wintering region ($26M) exceeded that in any other region by at least a factor of three. Our approach of developing regionally explicit economic values can be extended to other taxonomic groups, and is particularly suitable for migratory game birds because of the availability of large amounts of data. When combined with habitat-linked population models, regionally explicit values could inform development of more effective conservation finance and policy mechanisms to enhance environmental management and societal benefits across the geographically dispersed areas used by migratory species.

Introduction

Many migratory species have experienced local- to continental-scale population declines attributable to numerous anthropogenic stressors across their ranges (Baum, 2003, Harris et al., 2009, Møller et al., 2008, Robbins et al., 1989). Reductions of migratory populations threaten not only biodiversity but also societal benefits derived from outdoor recreation activities including angling (Lellis-Dibble et al., 2008), wildlife viewing (Edwards et al., 2011, USFWS, 2008), ecotourism (Bagstad and Wiederholt, 2013), and non-use values (Diffendorfer et al., 2014). Because their life cycles often span entire continents, migratory species conservation requires coordinated protection and management of widely dispersed habitats in their breeding, migration, and wintering areas. Such broad-scale conservation is an enormous challenge that requires collaboration among diverse stakeholders and governments (Jacobson and Robertson, 2012). Budgets for conserving migratory species are often much less than what is required for conducting management actions where they are needed most (Unger, 2007), and optimal allocation of funds for conserving these species requires detailed demographic information linked to decision models (Martin et al., 2007, Runge et al., 2014, Sheehy et al., 2011). At the same time, stressors impacting migratory species such as climate change, resource development, agriculture, and urbanization have intensified and will continue to do so, compromising managers’ abilities to effectively target and fund management activities for conserving these species (Lee and Jetz, 2008, Robinson et al., 2009). Modeling frameworks are emerging that link regional-scale habitat management with continental-scale population dynamics of migratory species (Klaassen et al., 2008, Martin et al., 2007, Mattsson et al., 2012, Robinson et al., 2016). Conservation strategies based on these habitat-linked population models could further benefit from spatially congruent economic information that resonates with the public and policy-makers while offering innovative means for conserving cross-border migratory species (Semmens et al., 2011, Sultanian and van Beukering, 2008).

Ecosystem services – the benefits nature provides to society – are used to integrate ecological and social concerns in decisions about natural resource management (Daily et al., 2009, Maes et al., 2012, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Migratory species are increasingly recognized as providing important recreation (i.e., hunting, fishing, and viewing) services to diverse human beneficiary groups (Diffendorfer et al., 2014, Green and Elmberg, 2014, Kunz et al., 2011, Semmens et al., 2011). The recreation services and associated economic benefits of a given migratory species are often not distributed uniformly across the species' range. Economic analyses of services provided by species and ecosystems to inform migratory species conservation, however, typically have focused either on a single portion of a species' geographic range (Cleveland et al., 2006, Stoll et al., 2006), or on groups of species (Boyle et al., 1994, Cooper and Loomis, 1991, Edwards et al., 2011). Spatial information gaps regarding the economic costs and benefits of migratory species conservation limit managers' and policymakers’ ability to make resource-allocation decisions for habitat management among regions. Filling these gaps will involve quantifying services and economic benefits provided by individual migratory species among the major portions of their ranges (Bagstad and Wiederholt, 2013, Diffendorfer et al., 2014, Semmens et al., 2011).

Migratory waterfowl in North America (henceforth, waterfowl) offer an excellent example for linking biological and economic information to inform conservation funding allocation among disparate regions. Their great societal appeal garners economic benefits, but maintaining their populations and international-scale migrations requires engagement of geographically and politically diverse entities, including across national boundaries (Cooperation, 2015, North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee, 2012). In North America, multiple entities allocate funding for waterfowl conservation (The Trust for Public Land, 2010, US Department of the Interior, 2017, USFWS, 2012). These efforts could benefit from economic assessments of waterfowl-related recreation that help inform strategic disbursement of funds for habitat acquisition and management.

Regular economic assessments of migratory bird hunting and viewing are conducted throughout much of the US and Canada (e.g., USFWS, 2008). Hunters collectively spend significant sums of money each year pursuing migratory game birds (Arnett and Southwick, 2015). For example, hunters in the US spent $1.81 billion in 2011 pursuing migratory game birds (USFWS, 2011), of which $1.36 billion was spent hunting waterfowl (Carver, 2015). Waterfowl viewing generates even more economic activity compared to waterfowl hunting. During 2011 participants in the US spent $41 billion viewing all birds, with nearly one third of birders viewing waterfowl away from home (Carver, 2013). Semi-decadal surveys of wildlife-related recreation provide information on the number of participants, time spent conducting various activities, and expenditures on migratory bird-focused recreation. These surveys do not provide estimates for individual species, which constrains economic analyses focused on individual species or guilds. There are, however, data sources from which species-specific proportions of waterfowl viewing or hunting can be derived for particular regions (Dickinson et al., 2010, Gendron and Smith, 2016, USFWS, 2008, Wood et al., 2011).

Our study assesses regional differences in the economics of recreation associated with an individual migratory species among the primary portions of its range and across its annual cycle. The northern pintail (Anas acuta, henceforth pintail) in North America is an excellent subject for such an economic analysis. Pintails are a priority species for conservation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) along with its federal, state, and nongovernmental partners (Guyn et al., 2003, USFWS, 2015), and this dabbling duck species has been particularly important to hunters and birders in the western U.S. (Miller and Duncan, 1999, Wesley and Leitch, 1987). Their North American range includes three primary breeding areas (Alaska, portions of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories in Canada, and the Prairie Pothole ecoregion of the U.S. and Canada) and two primary wintering areas (the west coast of the U.S., and the panhandle of Texas and Gulf Coast areas of Texas and Louisiana) (Mattsson et al., 2012) (Fig. 1). Our objective for this illustrative case study is to quantify the economics of recreation associated with pintails (henceforth, pintail-based recreation) in their primary breeding and wintering areas of North America. We distinguish two main forms of recreation: sport harvest by hunters and viewing by birders. Within each type of recreation, we also distinguish two economic measures that provide a management and policy-relevant economic assessment: expenditures and consumer surplus. Expenditures are monies spent by recreationists on travel, lodging, supplies, and equipment. Consumer surplus, on the other hand, is money recreationists would be willing to spend above and beyond their expenditures, for example if lodging costs were to increase. Here we refer to the sum of annual expenditures and consumer surplus as the combined economic value associated with pintail recreation. To our knowledge, this represents the first economic assessment of recreation services provided by a single migratory species across multiple breeding and wintering regions at a continental scale.

Section snippets

General approach

We estimated the economic values associated with viewing and sport harvest of pintails within major breeding and wintering areas across the U.S. and Canada. To derive these estimates we used published information on birding and hunting activities, expenditures, consumer surplus for each focal geography (Table 1). Consumer surplus is the additional amount of money that a birder or hunter would be willing to spend for the recreation opportunity beyond what they already pay. We use expenditures

Pintail-based recreation

Summing across viewing and hunting for all regions, pintail-related recreation expenditures were $60 million, whereas consumer surplus was estimated to be $41 million (Table 2). Summed across all regions, expenditures and consumer surplus for viewing exceeded that for sport harvest by $24M and $15M, respectively. Combined economic value associated with pintail recreation differed between regions by a factor of ≥1.5, with the greatest value in the Western wintering region ($46M), followed by

Discussion

Our analysis revealed wide geographic variation but also high economic value for pintail-based recreation among major portions of the species’ range. We also found strong contrasts between the economic value of hunting and viewing northern pintails within individual breeding and wintering areas, along with regional heterogeneity in these economic activities. No previous studies have estimated the expenditures and consumer surplus associated with recreation of an individual migratory species

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the comments of C. Cullinane Thomas and anonymous reviewers on an earlier version of this manuscript. Any use of trade, product, or firm names are for descriptive purposes only and do not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. This work was supported by the U.S. Geological Survey's Powell Center and the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1518359 to Lopez-Hoffman.

References (77)

  • E. Carver

    Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United States: Addendum to the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-associated Recreation

    (2015)
  • C.J. Cleveland et al.

    Economic value of the pest control service provided by Brazilian free-tailed bats in south-central Texas

    Front. Ecol. Environ.

    (2006)
  • M.J. Conroy et al.

    Identification and synthetic modeling of factors affecting American black duck populations

    Wildl. Monogr.

    (2002)
  • J. Cooper et al.

    Economic value of wildlife resources in the san joaquin valley: hunting and viewing values, the economics and management of water and drainage in agriculture

    (1991)
  • Cooperation, C.f.E.

    Operational Plan of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2015–2016

    (2015)
  • G.C. Daily et al.

    Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver

    Front. Ecol. Environ.

    (2009)
  • J.L. Dickinson et al.

    Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits

    Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Systemat.

    (2010)
  • J.E. Diffendorfer et al.

    National valuation of monarch butterflies indicates an untapped potential for incentive-based conservation

    Conserv. Lett.

    (2014)
  • E. Dinerstein et al.

    Enhancing conservation, ecosystem services, and local livelihoods through a wildlife premium mechanism

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2013)
  • S.J. Dinsmore et al.

    An assessment of factors affecting population growth of the mountain plover

    Avian Conserv. Ecol.

    (2010)
  • E. DuWors et al.

    The Importance of Nature to Canadians: Survey Highlights

    (1999)
  • eBird

    Basic Dataset

    (2016)
  • P.E.T. Edwards et al.

    The economic value of viewing migratory shorebirds on the Delaware bay: an application of the single site travel cost model using on-site data

    Hum. Dimens. Wildl.

    (2011)
  • Environment Canada

    2012 Canadian Nature Survey Dataset

    (2016)
  • M.H. Gendron et al.

    National Harvest Survey Web Site. Bird Populations Monitoring

    (2016)
  • D.S. Gilmer et al.

    California's Central Valley Wintering Waterfowl: Concerns and Challenges. Transactions of the Forty-seventh North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference

    (1982)
  • J.H. Goldstein et al.

    Replacement cost valuation of northern pintail (Anas acuta) subsistence harvest in arctic and sub-arctic North America

    Hum. Dimens. Wildl.

    (2014)
  • A.J. Green et al.

    Ecosystem services provided by waterbirds

    Biol. Rev.

    (2014)
  • K. Guyn et al.

    Northern pintail: prospectus for an action group

    (2003)
  • G. Harris et al.

    Global decline in aggregated migrations of large terrestrial mammals

    Endang. Sp. Res.

    (2009)
  • C. Jacobson et al.

    Landscape conservation cooperatives: bridging entities to facilitate adaptive co-governance of social–ecological systems

    Hum. Dimens. Wildl.

    (2012)
  • M. Klaassen et al.

    Optimal management of a goose flyway: migrant management at minimum cost

    J. Appl. Ecol.

    (2008)
  • T.H. Kunz et al.

    Ecosystem services provided by bats

    Ann. Ny. Acad. Sci.

    (2011)
  • T.M. Lee et al.

    Future battlegrounds for conservation under global change

    P. Natl. Acad. Sci-biol.

    (2008)
  • L. Leigh et al.

    The Importance of Nature to Canadians: the Economic Significance of Nature-related Activities

    (2000)
  • K.A. Lellis-Dibble et al.

    Estuarine Fish and Shellfish Species in US Commercial and Recreational Fisheries: Economic Value as an Incentive to Protect and Restore Estuarine Habitat

    (2008)
  • J. Loomis et al.

    A benefit transfer toolkit for fish, wildlife, wetlands, and open space, Western Economics Forum

    (2008)
  • L. López-Hoffman et al.

    Ecosystem services across borders: a framework for transboundary conservation policy

    Front. Ecol. Environ.

    (2010)
  • Cited by (16)

    • Ecological markers to monitor migratory bird populations: Integrating citizen science and transboundary management for conservation purposes

      2020, Journal of Environmental Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      Highly mobile and migratory species present a special challenge because they cross socio-political borders, exposing the species to many different threats including socio-political circumstances affecting population connectivity (Dallimer and Strange, 2015). On the other hand, quantification of the economic value provided by migratory species can aid in targeting management efforts and funding to locations yielding the greatest benefits to society and nature conservation (Mattsson et al., 2018). Conservation management of quail populations must take into account both the ecological needs of the species and the social, cultural, economic, and political needs of people (Selier et al., 2016).

    • Guidance for assessing interregional ecosystem service flows

      2019, Ecological Indicators
      Citation Excerpt :

      One way to interpret the consequences of interregional ES flows is economic impact evaluation. Impacts of flows in the receiving region can use multiple valuation methods, e.g., replacement costs for pest control (López-Hoffman et al., 2014) or harvested meat (Goldstein et al., 2014), visitor expenditures and consumer surplus (e.g., recreational use, such as hunting & fishing, Mattsson et al., 2018) or non-use values (Semmens et al., 2018). If implemented, spatial subsidy-based conservation payments would thus typically flow from the Global North to the South.

    • Multi-country Willingness to Pay for Transborder Migratory Species Conservation: A Case Study of Northern Pintails

      2019, Ecological Economics
      Citation Excerpt :

      H0: WTP(other_country) = 0; Ha: WTP(other_country) > 0. Pintails have well-documented hunting and viewing use (see Mattsson et al., 2018) and presumably travel cost would be lower (and therefore net benefits would be higher) for use in one's own country. However, if the bulk of the benefits of providing habitat for the species are passive-use or non-use value, which does not require onsite visitation, then it is possible that WTP(own_country) will be equal to WTP(other_country) if the individual is indifferent as to where the species resides.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text