Market and Nonmarket Valuation of North Carolina's Tundra Swans among Hunters, Wildlife Watchers, and the Public

Wildlife-related tourism represents an important and growing economic sector for many rural communities and may be inadequately considered during regional planning. Providing robust estimates of wildlife values can help address this challenge. We used both market and nonmarket valuation methods to estimate the value of tundra swans (Cygnus columbianus) in North Carolina, USA, and compared tundra swan values among hunters, wildlife watchers, and general public. Wildlife watchers reported the greatest willingness-to-pay (US$35.2/wildlife watcher/yr), followed by hunters (US$30.53/hunter/yr), and residents (US$16.27/resident/yr). We used the Impact Analysis for Planning system software to estimate market values or economic activity associated with tundra swans. Tundra swan hunters spent an average of US $408.34/hunter/year. Depending on assumptions over the substitutability of tundra swan hunting, we estimate that it generates value added of between US$306,155/year and US$920,161/year for the state economy. Wildlife watchers spent an average of US$171.25/wildlife watcher/year. We estimate that this generates value added of between US$14 million/year and US$42.9 million/year for the state economy, again depending on assumptions about whether watching tundra swans would be substituted with other leisure activities in eastern North Carolina or out-of-state. Compared with studies of international nature tourism, we found relatively low leakage rates (i.e., loss of economic benefits outside the study region), suggesting that enhancing opportunities for hunting and wildlife-viewing may be an effective economic development strategy for rural areas in the United States. Presenting both market and nonmarket values provides a more complete picture of the value of wildlife and may facilitate more effective management decisions; therefore, we recommend that both market and nonmarket values be considered to optimize tradeoffs between development and wildlife recreation. (C) 2018 The Wildlife Society.