Environmental Economics

Update on the Outer Banks beach driving ban

Cape Hatteras vehicles decision is due Friday:

A decision on whether to close some of the most popular surf fishing spots on the Cape Hatteras National Seashore to off-road vehicle (ORV) traffic is expected Friday in Raleigh.The decision was delayed last Friday by U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle. He agreed to give the parties in a contentious lawsuit time to try to agree on a compromise plan.

The National Park Service, which manages the Hatteras Seashore, is being sued by the Audubon Society and Friends of Wildlife. The two groups want the Park Service to impose a ban immediately.

The proposed closure would include the beach at Oregon Inlet, Cape Point at Buxton on Hatteras Island, the beach at Hatteras Inlet and both ends of Ocracoke Island. Cape Point is considered the foremost surf fishing spot on the East Coast.

Audubon and Friends of Wildlife say the ban is needed to protect nesting shorebirds, mainly piping plover.

A lot of consumer surplus is at stake. Based on this analysis, if the closure lasted the entire season the cost to anglers might be about $1-$2 million. If 20,000 people care about the plovers and are willing to pay $50 each (see this analysis), then the benefits of a closure are $1 million. The benefit-cost analysis all depends on how many people care about the plovers (my 20k estimate includes only environmental group members in the lawsuit, I think).

Anyway, these two groups of resource users really despise each other.

Climate change and outdoor recreation: Part 3

In Part 1 I reviewed the scant U.S. literature on outdoor recreation and climate change and in Part 2 I looked at the effects of temperature and precipitation on recreation participation in three sectors: boating, freshwater fishing and hunting. In Part 2 using data from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, the main conclusion is that:

In contrast to previous studies, I'm finding that climate change decreases boating and hunting participation with no effect on freshwater fishing. If I was really serious about this I'd need to dig further but it does bring into question the aggregate data national estimates from a few years ago (Part 1).

In part 3 I'm digging deeper into the freshwater fishing sector, with different data, to see if my result will hold up since other studies find an improvement in the economic value of freshwater fishing with a warmer and wetter U.S.

The bottom line is that climate change from 2001 to 2098 will result in an annual loss of welfare of about $1.13 billion by 2098, 9% of the total economic value of freshwater recreational fishing. With a 2% discount rate, the present value of losses in freshwater fishing economic value is $16.6 billion. With a 7% discount rate the present value of losses is $2.33 billion.

April fool?

Using the open-ended contingent valuation freshwater fishing question* from the 2001 FHWAR survey and pretty much the same methods described in this post, I've found that climate change will affect willingness to pay (click on the thumbnail for the SAS results).

A 6.4F temperature increase in 2098 would increase willingness to pay by $13.79 (from $109.02 to $124.81). A 2.34% precipitation increase would increase willingness to pay by an additional $1.11. Since willingness to pay measures economic welfare, freshwater anglers will enjoy climate change -- a result consistent with the literature.

I think I'll write this up, present it at a conference, post the working paper, submit it to a top 10 journal, get it rejected, submit it to JEEM, get it rejected, send it somewhere else** where it might ultimately get published and I'll be almost famous.

*The dependent variable is FISHBID (Download FH3-fishbid.pdf).
**Suggestions welcome.

Big welfare gains for me

This would be so cool (Officials want to extend Boone Greenway to Todd):

The Watauga County Tourism Development Authority is exploring a regional trail-mapping project that’s designed to capitalize on the tourism value of scenery and outdoor recreation. ... “We’ve already identified a lot of the trails and this will take it to the next level,” TDA chairman Rob Holton said.

“We’re looking at resources like Elk Knob and other conservation easements and how to connect them, along with other areas like the Watauga River.” ... Regional trail networks were also augmented with waterway connections to show kayak, tubing, swimming and other resources that are often tied in with trails.

“Our concern is that we’re fast losing access that people traditionally had to a lot of these areas,” Holton said. “We also want to figure out how to get the town of Boone greenway to Brookshire Park and all the way down the New River to Todd.”

My willingness to pay is $47 per year. Now that I think it is going to happen and I feel entitled to it, my willingness to accept it not happening is three to four times greater than my willingness to pay. My preferences are so, so weird.

Recreational user fees at work

Grand Canyon National Park charges a $25 per vehicle user fee.  Fees are used for infrastructure improvements to the park, and they seem to be working.  I couldn't help but think of John when I saw the sign to the right.  Sorry for the picture quality.  It's the best I could do while trying to inconspicuously take a picture of a restroom with a camera phone while people are streaming in and out (the sign in the middle reads UserFee: Your Fees at Work).   My kids hid in shame. 

The costs of quarry

State flags quarry project:

The proposed quarry is in Avery County just north of the Blue Ridge Parkway and west of Mitchell County. Those who own nearby property, including several landowners from Raleigh, have been joined by a national parks advocacy group in opposing the project.

...

Greg Kidd, senior program manager with the National Parks Conservation Association, said parkway views must be preserved if the state wants to continue attracting visitors to the area.

"People ... have said they come to the parkway because of the quality of the views," Kidd said. "Any time there are documented impacts on the quality of the views from a park like the parkway or the Appalachian Trail, that should be a major factor weighed in the permitting process."

How can he say that? Is there any evidence to back it up?

Good news about recreation user fees (they're rising)

More efficiency makes me hungry (Recreation fees rising in wake of fires' costs):

Reeling from the high cost of fighting wildfires, federal land agencies have been imposing new fees and increasing existing ones at recreation sites across the West in an effort to raise tens of millions of dollars.

Additionally, hundreds of marginally profitable campsites and other public facilities on federal lands have been closed, and thousands more like overlooks and picnic tables are being considered for removal.

...

Though the new and increased fees still account for a small part of the agencies’ overall budgets, they have riled elected officials and environmental and recreation groups across the West. The critics complain that there has been insufficient public involvement in the changes — imposed at hundreds of locations over the past three years or so — and suggest that they reflect a significant shift in federal policy to a market-based approach from one of managing sites for public benefit.

I'm willing to bet an AppState t-shirt that a $2 to $5 entrance fee increase has no negative equity implications.

Climate change and outdoor recreation: Part 1

I've been working on a paper looking at the impact of climate change-induced sea level rise on shore fishing in North Carolina (the working paper will be out in a month or two, I think). The impacts are negative but this holds other climate change variables, temperature and precipitation, constant. I've been looking into these impacts so my co-authors and I don't look totally foolish.

In part 1 of a(n), at least, 3 part series, here is the literature review (part 2 will have some empirical results, part 3 will have some welfare impacts). I've found 3 US-based studies on climate change and outdoor recreation. Each of these finds positive impacts of climate change on the outdoor recreational sector of the US economy.

Mid-February: Time to think about a beach trip

In this blog post, economist John Whitehead is prompted by an Wilmington Star news article to review the visitation rates at Fort Fisher State Park. He then takes advantage of this information to show off some recent research and attempt to determine the economic value of the increased trips.

I need a hobby

It has recently come to my attention that I have no real hobbies and that this is not a good thing (watching sports doesn't count and staring at a computer is a bad hobby).  From the "How to find a hobby" wiki:

Having a hobby helps to make you a more interesting person and gives you something fascinating to talk about with others.

Hmmm. The wiki suggests taking up an outdoor activity. This is something that environmental economists are surprisingly loathe to do. Become a big-game hunter? Or a bonefish angler? The wiki also suggests:

Do not start a hobby that would be expensive to start and maintain if you have to use money budgeted for family expenses or a college fund for you or your children.

A little "from the inbox" research indicates that out-of-state Colorado hunters spend about $2114 each year. Out-of-state Florida anglers spend about $1133 each year. Hmmm, I wonder if my kids would enjoy a state-supported institution instead of Davidson College (my top pick for their higher education)?

Source: Southwick Associates Winter 2008 Newsletter (click on the thumbnail for a bigger image).