Plovers and Economics
Recently, the US Fish & Wildlife Service issued its draft economic analysis of critical habitat designation for the western snowy plover. The analysis, conducted by the consulting firm Industrial Economics, Inc., estimated that the value of economic impacts tied to protecting the plover ranged from 272.8 - 645.3 million dollars over the next 20 years. We think it is important to understand the methods and approaches of this analysis so that thoughtful discourse can be had on how best to conserve the plover, especially amidst an increasingly contentious atmosphere surrounding management of local habitats, such as Clam Beach.
The analysis identified several areas where impacts might be incurred by our local economy, most importantly value lost to diminished opportunities in recreation, development, and gravel mining. About 95 percent of the total impact estimate derives from lost recreational opportunities, including vehicular, equestrian, and pedestrian uses. Due to space limitations we will focus on their analysis of equestrian and pedestrian users, since local vehicular impacts were estimated to be minor. Analysts used two methods to estimate equestrian and pedestrian user impacts. In one method, it was assumed that recreation was completely eliminated from entire stretches of beach where symbolic (roped) fences were erected or where exclosures protected plover nests from predators. In reality, restricted sites lie mostly on the fore dune, and well away from the wave slope where most people recreate. Therefore, this approach overestimates impact. Moreover, the $30 impact of lost recreational value per person per day is drawn from a study of beach use in the urban San Diego area. It is not clear that a similar value applies to rural Humboldt County. In a second method, researchers assume that all beach visitors were adversely impacted by the existence of restricted sites anywhere on the beach. Based on a study of San Diego beach visitation, the researchers assume that all beach users get less enjoyment from short stretches of beach – specifically, that pedestrians and equestrians lose $1.42 in daily net economic value for every one-mile reduction in beach length. Applying this logic locally to unrestricted beaches leads to the conclusion that everyone gets less pleasure from a visit to College Cove than from a visit to Mad River beach. As before, the researchers assumed that a linear measure of the restricted sites equates to an elimination of recreation from the wave slope, thus shortening the beach and reducing visitor value.
The authors of the draft economic impact analysis also ignore potential local economic benefits associated with protecting the snowy plover. For example, for the past eight years, a growing number of birders have traveled to Humboldt County each April to observe birds as part of Arcata’s Godwit Days. Part of this experience includes a field trip to view plovers at Clam Beach. Additionally, while research and management activities linked to the listing of the plover are viewed purely as costs, it should be noted that thousands of dollars flow into the Humboldt County economy in the form of research grants and contracts that pay for graduate students, consultants, and other researchers who live here. In a recent study by the HSU Department of Economics, for example, it was estimated that each HSU student not living at home contributes approximately $10,000 per year to the local economy, a figure that does not include state fees. Thus the 3-4 graduate students that have studied the plover at HSU over the past five years bring in approximately $30-40,000 annually to the local economy. Other research funds flow to consultants who are important members of the education and research industry cluster of the county’s economy.
An economic analysis can provide a useful perspective on the tradeoffs associated with conserving earth’s biodiversity. Different people value nature in different ways, and clearly some recreational experiences are diminished by actions taken to restrict human activities where snowy plovers breed. While we have described various reasons why their cost estimates may be overstated, it is also possible that some costs are underestimated. Our point is that the relatively crude methodology used in the draft economic impact analysis raises serious questions about the usefulness of this study as a guide to public policy. We urge local officials, representatives of federal, state and county agencies, and citizens to be aware of these limitations when considering management decisions affecting human activities relative to the snowy plover.
Mark Colwell is Professor of Wildlife Management at Humboldt State University, and Steven Hackett is Professor of Economics at Humboldt State University.