Valuing Ecosystem Services
Protecting today’s resources for tomorrow!
Recreation
The Great Lakes provide many recreation opportunities, including hiking and biking on trails; boating, hunting, and fishing; wildlife viewing; swimming; and sight-seeing. All of these recreational activities contribute to physical and mental well-being.
Recreation Ecosystem Services Framework
The well-being of many groups of people is improved by recreation opportunities around the Great Lakes. These opportunities cover both land- and water-based activities. Participants include waterfowl and game hunters, sport fishers, birdwatchers, boaters (including sailing, kayaking, canoeing, and motorized boating), hikers, walkers, and beach-goers. Educators can use recreational activities as learning opportunities and to promote environmental stewardship. On another level, local economies can benefit from recreation through tourism jobs and revenue.
Policies and land use planning can impact available recreation opportunities. Zoning, permitting, and land use plans can impact the location and availability of parks and trails, and lakefront access. Transportation availability may also impact people’s ability to access recreation options. Habitat preservation and restoration impact biodiversity, in turn, contribute to recreation experiences, for example, the amount of flora and fauna and the diversity of species for viewing, fishing, and hunting.
Measurement metrics include a recreation day (one-day recreation trip), land protected for recreational purposes, and the presence of recreation attributes on a property (scenic view, open space access, proximity to forest preserve). Other recreation measurements may be the number of visits to an area, which can include the number of people or groups (for example, the number of cars or boats); the type of activity (for example, hiking, camping, picnicking, birdwatching, fishing, boating, biking); activity duration (number of hours, days); and visit location (both the area as well as where within the area). Demographic information on recreationists can also be collected.
When recreational opportunities change, it can impact the many benefits people experience from those opportunities. Some examples include:
- A change in recreation can impact physical and mental health due to changes in the type and amount of physical activity. This may impact indicators of health such as weight, stress level, mood, and more.
- Recreation provides an opportunity for social Interactions, as shared activities can both make families and friendships stronger and facilitate new social interactions.
- Recreation provides an opportunity to learn new skills and gain an appreciation for the environment and nature, which contributes to environmental stewardship.
Economic valuation methods for recreation include actual expenditures, revealed preference (hedonic wage/property, travel cost), and stated preference (contingent valuation). Meta-analyses of literature reviews have also been conducted. The economic impact of recreation can be measured through the jobs created as well as tourism revenue. Cost-benefit analysis can be used to choose projects. The averted expenditures from increased physical and mental health can also be estimated.
Great Lakes Recreation Valuation Studies
Land Based Recreation
Publication | Geography | Change Valued | Value Estimate ($Year) | Valuation |
---|---|---|---|---|
Bhat, G., J. Bergstrom, R. J. Teasley, J. M. Bowker and H. K. Cordell (1998) | US | Land and water-based recreation | Consumer surplus value was $261.12/day in developed and primitive camping in the same region. | Travel cost method |
Dwyer, J. F., G. L. Peterson and A. J. Darragh (1983) | IL | The economic value of urban forests at three sites, one arboretum and two park conservatory | User willingness-to-pay averaged at $12.71, $8.68 and $4.54 for a visit to the Lincoln Park Conservatory, the Garfield Park Conservatory, and the Morton Arboretum. | Travel cost |
Kreutzwiser, R. (1981) | ON | One trip to Long Point or Point Pele marsh for recreational purposes | The mean consumer surplus for all primary user-parties was $34.85/trip. Aggregate values are available. ($1978 CAN) | Actual expenditure & Travel cost method |
Rollins, K. and D. E. Dumitras (2005) | ON | Recreation trip. | Willingness-to-pay ranged from $18.85/day/trip to $30.50/day/trip. ($2004) | Contingent valuation |
Shantz, P., K. Rollins, L. Johnson and W. Wistowsky (2004) | ON | One recreational trip. | Aggregate values are available ($2003 CAN) | Actual expenditure & Contingent valuation |
Yeh, C. (2002) | OH | Changes in the numbers and levels of recreational amenities provided. | Marginal changes in welfare due to amenity changes ranged from -$1.92 to $11.48/trip. | Travel cost method |
Water Based Recreation
Publication | Geography | Change Valued | Value Estimate ($Year) | Valuation |
---|---|---|---|---|
Connelly, N. A., T. L. Brown and J. W. Brown (2007) | NY | Economic value of recreational boating | Boaters spent an average of $137 per day per boat. The consumer WTP was $69.36. The value per person is $23. Aggregate values are available ($2002) | Contingent valuation |
Englin, J. and J.S. Shonkwiler (1995) | VT | Freshwater recreational trips (boating, swimming, and fishing) | Consumer surplus ranged from $30.58/trip to $59.17 ($1989) | Travel cost method |
Feather F. and W. D. Shaw (1999) | WA, PA, IN, NE | The opportunity cost of leisure time for water-based recreation. | The average per trip welfare for river recreation ranged from $6.23 to $16.02 per trip ($1994). | Hedonic wage & Travel cost method |
Schaefer, E.L., A. Upneja, W. Seo, and J. Yoon (2000) | PA | Valued freshwater bodies used for recreational power boating. | The consumer surplus associated with a per-visitor power boating trip was $68. Aggregate values are available. ($1994) | Travel cost method |
Smith, V.K., (1988) Smith, V.K. (1993) |
PA | One recreational trip | Estimated consumer surplus values in 1988 for lake activity were $0.23 to $1.67/trip. In 1993, consumer surplus was estimated from $0.67 to $1.38/trip. ($1981) | Travel cost method |
Beach Recreation
Publication | Geography | Change Valued | Value Estimate ($Year) | Valuation |
---|---|---|---|---|
Sohngen, B., F.Lichtkoppler and M. Bielen (1999) | OH | Recreation visit Maumee Bay and Headlands Beach. | Individual day trip values of $25.60 for Maumee and $15.50 for Headlands ($1997) Aggregate values are available. | Travel cost method |
Song, F., F. Lupi and M. Kaplowitz (2010) | MI | Recreational use values of Great Lakes beaches | An increase in beach increases welfare by $4.2 per trip and an additional beach closure day had a welfare loss of $0.94 per trip. Aggregate values are available ($2006) | Travel cost method |
Wildlife Recreation
Publication | Geography | Change Valued | Value Estimate ($Year) | Valuation |
---|---|---|---|---|
Hushak, J. L., D. O. Kelch and S. J. Glenn (1999) | OH | Economic value derived from the artificial reef made in Lorain County from anglers and divers. | Per angler values ranged from $302.08 - $341.01. Aggregate values are available. ($1992) | Travel cost method |
Hvenegaard, G. T. and J. R. Butler (1989) | ON | Bird watching at Point Pelee National Park (PPNP) in Ontario, Canada | The average net worth was about $256/trip and $76/day. The potential sales to bird watchers were $78/person. Aggregate values are available. ($1987) | Travel cost method & Contingent valuation |
Shafer, E. L., R. Carline, R. W. Guldin, and H.K. Cordell (1993) | PA | One day trip to a wilderness area. | Consumer surplus for catch-and-release fishing was $16.10 to $44.50/visitor day, wildlife viewing was $3.57 to $20.43/visitor day. Aggregate values are available ($1988). | Travel cost method & Contingent valuation |
Upneja, A., E. L. Shafer, W. Seo and J. Yoon (2001) | PA | One recreation trip for sport fishing and wildlife viewing. | Average out-of-pocket cost per angler trip was $94 ± $12.60. The average for a wildlife-watching trip was $32.40 ± $4.64. Aggregate values are available. ($1996) | Travel cost method |
Waddington, D.G., K.J. Boyle, and J. Cooper. (1994) | U.S. | Wildlife viewing | The average value of wildlife viewing per year was estimated to be $278 per individual. ($1991) | Contingent valuation |
Land Protection for Recreation
Publication | Geography | Change Valued | Value Estimate ($Year) | Valuation |
---|---|---|---|---|
Sverrisson, D. (2008) | ON | Three different levels of protection showing a minor, medium, and major expansion (1%, 5%, and 12%) | The WTP/household/year was $102.99 for a 1% expansion, $183.99 for a 5% expansion, and $225.46 for a 12% expansion. Aggregate values are available ($CAN) | Hedonic property & Contingent valuation |
Whitehead, J. C., P. A. Groothuis, R. Southwick and P. Foster-Turley (2009) | MI | WTP for three different acreage amounts of further protection were examined: 1,125; 2,500; and 4,500. | The value of each acre of coastal marsh is $1,870 for recreation and $551 per acre for no recreation annually. Aggregate values are available ($2005). | Travel cost method, Combined revealed and stated preference |
Scenic Views
Publication | Geography | Change Valued | Value Estimate ($Year) | Valuation |
---|---|---|---|---|
Blomquist, G. (1987) | IL | Views of Lake Michigan from Chicago dwellings. | The monthly market value was $31.85 to $147.06 and an increase in dwelling height was $25.21 to $31.42. ($1981) | Hedonic property & Contingent valuation |
Boyle, K.J., and R.C. Bishop (1988) | WI | Different types of scenic beauty along the lower Wisconsin River. | The mean individual annual willingness to pay ranged from $18.88 to $29.82. ($1982) | Contingent valuation |
DSS Management Consultants Inc. (2009) | ON | The amenity value effect on households located within 100 meters of natural features | Natural feature appreciation impact was $8,010/property in the south and $10,273/property in the north. Aggregate values are available ($CAN) | Hedonic property |
Kapper, T. (2000) | WI | Aesthetic damage caused by widening the current two-lane highway to a four-lane divided highway. | A WTP of $224.24/household and a WTP of $153.60 per commuter group. Aggregate values are available (1999$) | Contingent valuation |
Lake, M.B., and K.W. Easter (2002) | MN | The change in property value that results from a 100 foot decrease in the distance to the nearest open space. | Homeowners pay $115 to live 100 feet closer to open space. ($2000-2001). | Hedonic property |
Sander, H. A. and R.G. Haight (2012) | MN | Aesthetic quality (views), access to outdoor recreation and benefits provided by tree cover. | A one-hectare increase of a home’s viewshed gave an increase in sales price of $181. Increases in grass views and water views increase prices by $1741 and $81.($2005) | Hedonic property |
Sander, H. A. and S. Polasky (2008) | MN | Access to open spaces and the quality of landscape views. | Increase in house value by being 100m closer to: a park is $136, a trail is $119, a lake is $216 and a stream is $127. Prices of increasing a home’s view composed of grassy surfaces or water by 10% are $5517 and $7417 ($2005). | Hedonic property |
Simpson, S. N. and B. G. Hanna (2010) | NY | Changes in night-sky visibility using illustrative pictures of various sky appearances. | The individual one-time WTP estimates range from $0.47 to $142.74 ($2009). | Contingent valuation |
Thorsnes, P. (2002) | MI | Building lots close to forest preserve. | The building lots had premium values of $8,400, $5,800, and $7,207. For houses that border a preserve the values were $15,961, $13,717 and $6,262 ($2002). | Hedonic property |