IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v86y2023i1d10.1007_s10640-023-00788-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biodiversity Benefits of Birdwatching Using Citizen Science Data and Individualized Recreational Demand Models

Author

Listed:
  • Tharaka A. Jayalath

    (University of Saskatchewan)

  • Patrick Lloyd-Smith

    (University of Saskatchewan)

  • Marcus Becker

    (Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute)

Abstract

Birding is one of the most popular recreational activities, but bird populations have been declining worldwide. Understanding how much people benefit from local bird populations levels, species richness and their preferences can help inform bird conservation management. This paper uses eBird data and random utility models to assess the birders’ preferences and welfare for trips to local areas. The sample eBird citizen science data includes 35,656 trips by 290 individual birders to 1227 unique birding hotspots in Alberta, Canada. The economic value of seeing one additional bird species during a trip is estimated to be $0.68 on average. We estimated a nonlinear relationship between the utility and number of bird species suggesting satiation in recreation preferences, and the highest MWTP is estimated to be in the summer and fall seasons. Bird species at risk, based on Alberta’s strategy for the management of species at risk, are valued almost ten times higher as seeing other types of bird species. We also estimate individualized choice models and find that preference for species richness is heterogeneous across birders. Results of a combinatorial test find that the individualized choice models produce average welfare estimates that are 67% higher than the single model but the difference is not statistically significant. The members of eBird represent a convenience sample that may not constitute the general population. Thus along with proper weighting, these benefit estimates produced in this research can help inform future bird conservation management decisions including alternative funding mechanisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Tharaka A. Jayalath & Patrick Lloyd-Smith & Marcus Becker, 2023. "Biodiversity Benefits of Birdwatching Using Citizen Science Data and Individualized Recreational Demand Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 86(1), pages 83-107, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:86:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s10640-023-00788-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10640-023-00788-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10640-023-00788-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10640-023-00788-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    2. Edwards, Peter E.T. & Parsons, George R. & Myers, Kelley H., 2011. "The economic value of viewing migratory shorebirds on the Delaware Bay: An application of the single site travel cost model using on-site data," MPRA Paper 35832, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Naidoo, Robin & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2005. "Biodiversity and nature-based tourism at forest reserves in Uganda," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 159-178, May.
    4. Hess, Stephane & Adler, Thomas & Polak, John W., 2007. "Modelling airport and airline choice behaviour with the use of stated preference survey data," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 221-233, May.
    5. Murdock, Jennifer, 2006. "Handling unobserved site characteristics in random utility models of recreation demand," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 1-25, January.
    6. Myers, Kelley H. & Parsons, George R. & Edwards, Peter E.T., 2010. "Measuring the recreational use value of migratory shorebirds on the Delaware Bay," MPRA Paper 26126, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Garrett Sonnier & Andrew Ainslie & Thomas Otter, 2007. "Heterogeneity distributions of willingness-to-pay in choice models," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 313-331, September.
    8. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    9. Fezzi, Carlo & Bateman, Ian J. & Ferrini, Silvia, 2014. "Using revealed preferences to estimate the Value of Travel Time to recreation sites," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 58-70.
    10. Loomis, John B. & Ekstrand, Earl, 1997. "Economic Benefits Of Critical Habitat For The Mexican Spotted Owl: A Scope Test Using A Multiple-Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-11, December.
    11. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    12. William H. Greene & David A. Hensher, 2013. "Revealing additional dimensions of preference heterogeneity in a latent class mixed multinomial logit model," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(14), pages 1897-1902, May.
    13. Patrick Lloyd-Smith & Joshua K. Abbott & Wiktor Adamowicz & Daniel Willard, 2019. "Decoupling the Value of Leisure Time from Labor Market Returns in Travel Cost Models," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 6(2), pages 215-242.
    14. Hanley, Nick & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Wright, Robert E., 2005. "Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 227-234, October.
    15. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    16. Cameron, Trudy Ann & DeShazo, J.R., 2013. "Demand for health risk reductions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 87-109.
    17. Yuan Yuan & Kevin J. Boyle & Wen You, 2015. "Sample Selection, Individual Heterogeneity, and Regional Heterogeneity in Valuing Farmland Conservation Easements," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(4), pages 627-649.
    18. Collins-Kreiner, Noga & Malkinson, Dan & Labinger, Zev & Shtainvarz, Roy, 2013. "Are birders good for birds? Bird conservation through tourism management in the Hula Valley, Israel," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 31-42.
    19. Robert J. Johnston & Abdulallah S. Abdulrahman, 2017. "Systematic non-response in discrete choice experiments: implications for the valuation of climate risk reductions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(3), pages 246-267, July.
    20. Trudy Ann Cameron & Sonja H. Kolstoe, 2022. "Using Auxiliary Population Samples for Sample-Selection Correction in Models Based on Crowd-Sourced Volunteered Geographic Information," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 98(1), pages 1-21.
    21. Francis Vella, 1998. "Estimating Models with Sample Selection Bias: A Survey," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 33(1), pages 127-169.
    22. Kolstoe, Sonja & Cameron, Trudy Ann, 2017. "The Non-market Value of Birding Sites and the Marginal Value of Additional Species: Biodiversity in a Random Utility Model of Site Choice by eBird Members," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 1-12.
    23. Farber, Stephen C. & Costanza, Robert & Wilson, Matthew A., 2002. "Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 375-392, June.
    24. Mauricio Sillano & Juan de Dios Ortúzar, 2005. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimation with Mixed Logit Models: Some New Evidence," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(3), pages 525-550, March.
    25. V. Kerry Smith & Raymond J. Kopp, 1980. "The Spatial Limits of the Travel Cost Recreational Demand Model," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 56(1), pages 64-72.
    26. Ghermandi, Andrea, 2018. "Integrating social media analysis and revealed preference methods to value the recreation services of ecologically engineered wetlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 351-357.
    27. Edward Morey & Jennifer Thacher & William Breffle, 2006. "Using Angler Characteristics and Attitudinal Data to Identify Environmental Preference Classes: A Latent-Class Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 91-115, May.
    28. Keeler, Bonnie L. & Wood, Spencer A. & Polasky, Stephen & Kling, Catherine L. & Filstrup, Christopher T. & Downing, John A., 2015. "Recreational demand for clean water: evidence from geotagged photographs by visitors to lakes," ISU General Staff Papers 201501290800001557, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    29. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    30. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim D. & Rose, John M. & Palma, João H.N. & Harrison, Duncan R., 2014. "Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 90-101.
    31. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Liljenstolpe, Carolina, 2003. "Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 95-103, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kolstoe, Sonja & Naald, Brian Vander & Cohan, Alison, 2022. "A tale of two samples: Understanding WTP differences in the age of social media," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    2. Kolstoe, Sonja & Cameron, Trudy Ann, 2017. "The Non-market Value of Birding Sites and the Marginal Value of Additional Species: Biodiversity in a Random Utility Model of Site Choice by eBird Members," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 1-12.
    3. Hocheol Jeon & Joseph A. Herriges, 2017. "Combining Revealed Preference Data with Stated Preference Data: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1053-1086, December.
    4. Imran Khan & Hongdou Lei & Gaffar Ali & Shahid Ali & Minjuan Zhao, 2019. "Public Attitudes, Preferences and Willingness to Pay for River Ecosystem Services," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-17, October.
    5. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Giergiczny, Marek & Kronenberg, Jakub & Tryjanowski, Piotr, 2014. "The economic recreational value of a white stork nesting colony: A case of ‘stork village’ in Poland," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 352-360.
    6. Lauren Chenarides & Carola Grebitus & Jayson L Lusk & Iryna Printezis, 2022. "A calibrated choice experiment method [Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 971-1004.
    7. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    8. Andersson, Henrik & Hole, Arne Risa & Svensson, Mikael, 2016. "Valuation of small and multiple health risks: A critical analysis of SP data applied to food and water safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 41-53.
    9. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    10. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    11. Mat Alipiah, Roseliza & Anang, Zuraini & Abdul Rashid, Noorhaslinda Kulub & Smart, James C. R. & Wan Ibrahim, Wan Noorwatie, 2018. "Aquaculturists Preference Heterogeneity towards Wetland Ecosystem Services: A Latent Class Discrete Choice Model," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 52(2), pages 253-266.
    12. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2008. "Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 275-285, November.
    13. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & Jakub Kronenberg & Jeffrey Englin, 2019. "The Individual Travel Cost Method with Consumer-Specific Values of Travel Time Savings," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(3), pages 961-984, November.
    14. Maria Salvo & Giuseppe Cucuzza & Giovanni Signorello, 2022. "Using discrete choice experiments to explore how bioecological attributes of sites drive birders’ preferences and willingness to travel," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 24(2), pages 119-146, April.
    15. Joffre Swait & Cristiano Franceschinis & Mara Thiene, 2020. "Antecedent Volition and Spatial Effects: Can Multiple Goal Pursuit Mitigate Distance Decay?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 243-270, February.
    16. Christie, Michael & Remoundou, Kyriaki & Siwicka, Ewa & Wainwright, Warwick, 2015. "Valuing marine and coastal ecosystem service benefits: Case study of St Vincent and the Grenadines’ proposed marine protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 115-127.
    17. Ian Bateman & Georgina Mace & Carlo Fezzi & Giles Atkinson & Kerry Turner, 2011. "Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 177-218, February.
    18. Lin, Yi-Hsing & Hong, Chun-Fu & Lee, Chun-Hung & Chen, Chih-Cheng, 2020. "Integrating Aspects of Ecosystem Dimensions into Sorghum and Wheat Production Areas in Kinmen, Taiwan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    19. Mulatu, Dawit W. & van der Veen, Anne & van Oel, Pieter R., 2014. "Farm households' preferences for collective and individual actions to improve water-related ecosystem services: The Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 22-33.
    20. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2017. "Optimized quantity-within-distance models of spatial welfare heterogeneity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 110-129.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:86:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s10640-023-00788-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.