The recreational value of nature and wildlife

Our interactions with wildlife and our use of nature can be quantified. In some cases, this is helpful in demonstrating the economic value of nature to us when making the case for its impacts and benefits.

In addition, outdoor spaces such as national parks and recreation areas that have built infrastructure for our enjoyment have certain costs associated with them that must be paid. It is important for park managers to understand the costs and benefits of these built resources so they can better manage their spending while demonstrating the return that managed outdoor spaces provide.

Over the past twenty years, several tools have been developed to estimate the economic benefits of recreational or wildland areas. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has developed a tool called the Benefits Transfer Toolkit. (no longer available)to determine the economic value of publicly managed land.

This toolkit, when it was active between 2014 and 2017, helped estimate the economic impacts of these areas by examining how much land users spend on access to specific areas and how much people spend on surrounding amenities. The tool was based on various studies, most of which were published before 2014, on ecosystem services and their economic impacts on specific regions.

For example, areas in the Southeastern United States had the largest economic impact on backpackers on a per capita basis of any region in the United States (except Alaska). In this case, it was estimated that each person spent approximately $42.37 in the Southeastern United States prior to 2014. This toolkit was developed using regression and Bayesian analyses to derive these estimates.⁽¹⁾

The value of national parks in the United States

When it comes to providing data to Congress and the government organizations that help fund and maintain national parks, economic impacts and estimates are an important means of justifying the value of national parks in the United States.

Economic value of bear watching in Alaska

The economic benefit of bear viewing for each person in Katmai National Park was calculated to be approximately $287/day (based on 2017 dollars). The park is remote and travel there alone is costly, particularly for visitors from the lower 48 states (international travel was not included in the analysis).

Visitors to the park find bear viewing to be a unique experience. The park has one of the highest concentrations of brown bears, especially during the season when salmon swim upstream. They are generally happy to spend money on bear viewing. A single-site individual travel cost model is used to estimate the cost people are willing to pay for a trip to the national park.

Calculating the economic value of bear watching

Travel costs and benefits of bear viewing were estimated using a modified utility function that took into account the value people place on bear viewing and photography, as well as the cost of guides, training level, and other related costs.

Using this information, researchers can not only determine how much people are willing to spend during their days of visiting Katmai, but also identify factors such as education and income levels that influence who is likely to visit the park.

The study relied on 169 observations that showed that households with annual incomes of $137,000 or more, and mostly with bachelor’s degrees or higher, make up the majority of visitors to the park. This shows that a remote park like Katmai, Alaska generally attracts wealthier and better educated households, but these households are willing to spend more given their interest in and value of bear viewing.⁽²⁾

More recently, the National Park Service (NPS) has used an interactive tool called NPS Visitor Spending Effects to show visitor spending in different states and national parks. The tool shows the national impact of national parks in dollar values ​​as well as state-level impacts. Between 2012 and 2022, national parks helped bring in $14.7 billion to $23.9 billion per year.

California has benefited most from the use of national parks.

Overall, the tools show that spending on national parks has increased by nearly a billion dollars annually. California has benefited the most from the use of national parks, with over $2.7 billion spent there through 2022.

Alaska benefits the most per capita. $1.2 billion is spent in the state, which is about $1635 per person, which is how much individuals contribute to the state’s economy. IMPLAN software is used to model estimates of direct and secondary spending in the states. The IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning) model is a widely used economic input-output model designed to estimate the economic impact of various activities and policies.

The model takes into account multipliers in spending on food, accommodation and travel based on the total number of visitors.⁽³⁾

Consideration of non-economic benefits in the economic analysis of wildlife populations

Wildlife economic analyses do not only look at the financial or market benefits of wildlife. They also consider behavioural decisions, such as the way people view risks and how these influence their conservation actions towards wildlife.

In a research report evaluating economic analyses of species conservation, newer approaches to valuing nature have incorporated common, social and cultural values ​​into assessments intended to support decision-making.

Compromises in species protection

In interest and conservation area surveys, respondents are presented with choice experiments and hypothetical scenarios. Trade-offs between conservation policies and recreational policies that affect wildlife interactions, such as hunting, are calculated to identify policies that attempt to balance the interests. The results are then used to determine optimal values ​​for the number of hunting days in a region or to calculate areas that could be exempt from hunting restrictions.

Newer methods attempt to incorporate aspects that go beyond individualism and practical benefits. Transcendental values ​​are now often incorporated to consider cultural, social and non-economic benefits in wildlife analysis. Beliefs and social norms regarding conservation actions, for example, have shaped the way people make environmentally friendly decisions.

Conservation areas that help people achieve their life goals, enable a life in harmony with the environment, and facilitate healthy and equitable choices for individuals and others are also increasingly valued in assessment systems.⁽⁴⁾

Economic and non-monetary assessments as a basis for nature conservation policy

Economic valuations are one way in which the benefits of conservation and land management are used to demonstrate the overall benefits to wildlife and nature. They are also used to make policy and management decisions for land managed by government agencies. Although these valuations can be about monetary benefits, they increasingly include non-monetary benefits, including benefits for cultural values ​​that appeal to the public. Nevertheless, numerical values ​​help to create a tangible benefit that can be used to shape policy and protect wildlife in different regions.

References

⁽¹⁾ For more information on the Benefit Transfer Toolkit, see: Quay, B., Huber, C., and Meldrum, J. Benefit Transfer Toolkit.

⁽²⁾ For more information on the Katmai National Park bear viewing study, see: Richardson, Leslie, Christopher Huber, and John Loomis. 2017. “Challenges and solutions for applying the travel cost demand model to geographically remote visitor destinations: A case study of bear viewing in Katmai National Park and Preserve.” The human dimension of the animal world 22(6): 550–63. DOI: 10.1080/10871209.2017.1369196.

⁽³⁾ Learn more about the NPS Visitor Spending Effects tool.

⁽⁴⁾ For a more detailed review of considering the economic valuation of wildlife and recreation areas, see: Martino, Simone, and Jasper O. Kenter. 2023. “Economic Valuation of Wildlife Conservation.” European Journal of Wildlife Research 69 (2): 32. DOI: 10.1007/s10344-023-01658-2.