ECONOMIC DOLLARS AND SENSE OF GUADALUPE BASS ANGLING AND PADDLING: BRIDGING ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY, WATERSHED PROTECTION AND FLOW OF TEXAS HILL

COUNTRY STREAMS Tom Arsuffi & Zack Thomas

Texas Tech UniversityLlano River Field Station

2

We think environmental education is important!

95% of Americans and 96% of parents think environmental education should be taught in schools………..

Coyle, K. 2005. Environmental Literacy in America: What ten years of NEETF?Roper Research and Related Studies Say About Environmental Literacy in the U.S. http://www.neefusa.org/pdf/ELR2005.pdf

We think we know a lot, but………

70% of Americans rate themselves as fairly knowledgeable about environmental issues, but only ~10% receive a passing grade on a multiple choice quiz of basic knowledge.Coyle, K. 2005. Environmental Literacy in America: What ten years of NEETF?Roper Research and Related Studies Say About Environmental Literacy in the U.S. http://www.neefusa.org/pdf/ELR2005.pdf

5

Riparian Zone and Invasives on the Llano River

Elephant Ear

Giant Cane/Reed, Arundo

Axis Deer

6

Elephant Ear

7

Water Supply Costs Elephant Ear

Evapotranspiration17,500af/yr 10 river miles

=$1.75 million/yr at $100/af

8

Benefits of Freshwater Ecosystems

Ecosystem servicesoVital services to people that improve

well being

Drinking waterirrigation

oBiodiversityoWater filtrationoRecreational Fishing

Freshwater Fishing in America

In 2011, 27 million freshwater anglers (73% of all sportsmen) fished a total of 443 million days and spent nearly 26 billion dollars in trip-related expenditures

10 million anglers spent 161 million days pursuing black bass species

Source: US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 2011 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation

Freshwater Fishing in Texas In 2006, 1.8 million freshwater anglers

fished 26.9 million days and spent over 2 billion in trip-related expenditures

One-third (574,000) of which spent over 4.2 million days fishing in rivers and streams

Black bass angling effort in Texas accounted for more than 47 % of all freshwater anglers

Source: US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 2011 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation

Economic Contributions of Anglers

Direct economic impact (angler expenditures)oTotal amount of dollars spent resulting

from a fishing tripTotal economic impact

oIndirect effectsoInduced effects

Willingness to pay (consumer surplus)o$$ that anglers would spend before

they would discontinue fishing (viewed as potential not realized to the economy)

Socioeconomic Surveys in Texas Primarily focused on reservoirs

oWell defined geographical areas (212 major reservoirs)

o Easily accessible Little is known about socioeconomics of river and

stream anglersoComplex geographical area

3,700 named streams 15 major rivers 80,000 miles

o Poor access sites >95% private land

o Lack of public access sites

Reservoir Sampling Methods Intercept follow-up method (Ditton and

Hunt 2001)oCombination of creel and mail survey

Information on anglers encountered on a reservoirs are collected for a follow-up mail survey

Cost effective means of sampling reservoir anglers..WHY?

Solution #1 Initiated a Web-based

open-access survey Four month period Media outlets

o TPWD webpageo Newspapero News releaseso Angling forums

E-mail contacto Service providerso Angling clubs

Solution # 2 Geology “Karst”

o Limestoneo Granite

Elevation o 1000-3000 ft

Precipitationo 15-33

inches/year Cool, clear springs

o 24-County areao 10 major rivers

Guadalupe BassMicropterus treculii

Endemic to Edwards Plateau ecoregion

Designated the state fish in 1989 and provides a popular sport fishery

Angling experience is similar to trout

Listed as a species of greatest conservation need

Study ObjectivesDescribe characteristics of anglers fishing rivers and streams in the past 12 monthsoDemographics o Fishing CharacteristicsoOpinions on various management

optionsQuantify angler expenditures and estimate

the total economic impact (indirect and induced effects) associated with fishing rivers and streams

Quantify consumer surplus associated with fishing river and streams

Angler Survey ContentDemographics

oGender, age, residence, education, and income

Fishing characteristicso River preference, species preference,

fishing method, fishing modeOpinion on management options

oWater quality, habitat, access, stocking, regulations

EconomicsoAngler expenditures, consumer surplus

Survey Response Total of 700

respondentso checked for

completeness of response

o 137 respondents provided no trip-related expenditure data

Total of 563 respondents used in economic assessment

Demographics94% male84% were between ages 26 to 6566% held a college degree or higher83% reported an annual household

income of $50,000 or greaterAveraged 36 years of fishing rivers

and streams in Texas

Where Did They Fish?

What Species Did They Target?

How Did They Fish?

How Did They Fish?

Support for Management Options

What Are the Impediments?

Median Trip Expenditures Average trip expenditures for respondents:

o Local (373) anglers = $88 Averaged 12 trips a year

o Non-local (190) anglers = $295 Averaged 3 trips a year

Total direct expenditures for respondents:o Local anglers = $393,888

Total of 4,476 trips in past year o Non-local anglers = $168,150

Total of 570 trips in past yearo All anglers = $562,038

Total of 5,046 trips

Guadalupe Bass $$$ Impacts

Direct Angler Expenditures$74.2M

Indirect Angler Expenditures$71.6M

JOBS776

Conclusions Extrapolation of angler expenditures would result in even greater economic impact

Consumer surplus suggests angler value the opportunity to fish rivers and streams in Central Texas

Provides an important information first for socioeconomics of river and stream anglers in Central Texas

Additional support and partnerships with various stakeholder groups in conjunction to ongoing Guadalupe bass restoration initiatives

Outdoor Recreation in America

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (1962) By year 2000, demand for outdoor recreation will triple Reached by 1977

President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors (1987) Improve and expand access by establishing greenways

and trails along lands and waterways

Why Paddling Trails?

In 2008, over 40% of the national population participated in paddlesports (NSRE 2010)

In 2011, recreational kayaking participation grew 27%, more than any other sport (OIA, 2012)

Provides sustainable economic development (Edmonds, 2011)

May 2012- National Blueways System was established as an integrated watershed approach to resource stewardship by addressing outdoor recreation, environmental education, conservation, and sustainable economic activity

Why Paddling Trails in Texas?

4 million participants Over 3,000 miles of

tidal shoreline 3,700 named

streams 15 major rivers Improve resource

conservation and awareness through recreation!

Source: NSRE 2006-2009, Versions 3-5. N=1,109. Interview dates: 7/06 to 11/09.

Source: Samson, A. (2011, July). Keeping rivers flowing. Texas Parks & Wildlife Magazine. 69(7):54-60.

Texas Paddling Trails Established in 2005 First inland trail (2006) Over 57 trails (2013) 460 miles and 106 access

sites Goals

Increase outdoor recreation opportunity

Improve and expand public access

encourage resource conservation and improve environmental awareness

Stakeholder Driven Community

partners Water access

sites Kiosks Four to 12-mile

segments Acceptable water

quality and flow

So, What’s the Problem? 95% private property 85% urban Competition for

water to meet the needs

Texans are increasing frustrated with lack of access (Schmidly et al., 2001)

Population expected to double in 50 years→

Assessing landowner attitudes toward conservation and

paddling trail issues on the South Llano River, Texas

Research Questions What concerns and benefits are most

important prior to trail? What concerns and benefits are most

important post trail? Did concerns diminish after trail

establishment? Do concerns and benefits differ between

landowners alongside and upstream? What are landowner attitudes toward

conservation and access?

Objectives

Collect data on demographics, use of SLR, and assess attitudes toward conservation

Document landowners’ concerns before and after the SLPT opening

Assess levels of concerns between landowners living alongside the SLPT to those living upstream

Assess attitudes toward community benefits before and after opening of the SLPT

South Llano Paddling Trail

6-mile paddling trail with 3 access points

Primarily agricultural and ranching land

Large revenue stream from hunting leases

nature tourism

Landowners’ Survey

Demographics Attitudes toward concerns

Property value, privacy, liability, trespassing, property damage, and crime

Attitudes toward conservation, economic incentives, and access

Attitudes toward community benefits Recreation, health and fitness, outdoor

education, business development, tourism, and community pride

Open-ended question

Concerns Attitudes prior to opening

Liability was greatest concern (>70%) Other important concerns: privacy and

trespassing (>50%) Nearly half were unsure of SLPT on property

value (~40%) Attitudes after opening

Privacy was greatest concern to upstream landowners (50%)

Overall, concerns diminished for all issues, especially for liability (-59% & -66% differences)

Liability was only issue statistically significant (p = .005)

Conservation and Access

Interest in conservation Expressed interest in doing more on their

property (73%) Interest in economic incentives for access for:

Conservation & habitat protection 62% were not interested

Outdoor recreation 77% were not interested

Community Benefits

Attitudes prior to opening Public recreation was ranked highest (38%)

Attitudes after opening Landowners alongside – ranked public

recreation & outdoor education highest (44%)

Landowners upstream – ranked tourism highest (46%)

Overall, landowners had higher positive opinions toward benefits

Overall Satisfaction

Interpretations Attitudes prior to opening

Liability, privacy, and trespassing biggest concerns Consistent with previous studies (Kaylen et al., 1993;

Jennings, 2010) Fear of being sued or responsible for user injuries

(Wright et al., 2002) Legal issue of liability often misunderstood

(Baker, 1998) Privacy encapsulates many fears and landowners

are very protective of property (Jennings, 2010) Physical structures located on property and within

sight of the SLR may have contributed to concerns

Trespassing is most significant access problem facing landowners (Wright et al., 2002)

Interpretations Attitudes after opening Overall, concerns diminished after opening

Consistent with previous studies (Kaylen et al., 1993; Moore et al., 1992)

Privacy still a concern (upstream only) 50% of upstream landowners are absentee

Community benefits Overall, positively satisfied with the SLPT

paddling trails promote recreation, attract tourism, and promote conservation through education (Abbott, 2013; Edmonds, 2011)

Texas Paddling Trails Established in 2005 Over 57 trails (2013) 460 miles and 106 access

sites Goals

Increase outdoor recreation opportunity

Improve and expand public access

Improve resource conservation and awareness

??? spatial and temporal paddling of specific waterbodies, use of the TPTs (First study)

Assessing demographics, preferences, trip

characteristics, and expenditures of paddlers in

Texas

Paddlers’ Survey

Demographics Paddler preferences

Days paddled, paddling group, TPTs visited Trip characteristics

Length of paddling trip, season, paddling destination factors, important experiences and activities while paddling

Direct expenditures Open-ended question

Data Collection

Initiated a Web-based open-access survey

Four month period Media outlets

TPWD webpage Paddling related

websites (e. g. ACA) Letter contact

Outfitters E-mail contact

Paddling clubs Outfitters

Demographics

Total of 800 respondents <70% male Nearly 60% were between ages 46-

65 <70% held a college degree or

higher <50% had household income

between $75,000 & $150,000 Top three counties of respondents:

Harris (25%), Bexar (11%), and Travis (7%)

Response rate for post-survey

Preferences

64% paddled ≥ 5 or more days/year

79% used their own paddle craft

31% paddled with friends, but also paddled by themselves (23%), and with family (20%)

73% made day trips

What Activities Were Popular

What Other Experiences Were Popular?

Where Did They Paddle?

TPT Percent n

Luling Zedler Mill 3.4 52

Nichol’s Landing 3.7 58

Mustang Island 4.0 61

South Llano 4.7 72

Christmas Bay 4.7 73

Buffalo Bayou 4.8 74

Lighthouse Lakes 5.5 86

Armand Bayou 6.0 93

Lady Bird Lake 6.8 105

Galveston Island SP 7.0 108

Top Ten TPTs Visited

Over 75% of respondents visited at least one TPT during the study period

Support For Improved and Expanded Access?

“Other” included excise tax on gear, user donation, and conservation license plate fees

What Influenced Their Paddle Destination?

What are the Impediments?

Access related improvements (e. g. safe parking areas) were also indicated most frequently in open-ended question

Trip Expenditures Median trip expenditures

Respondents (n=365) on local trips = $41 Median trips per year = 6

oRespondents (n=369) on non-local trips = $275 Median trips per year = 3

Total trip expenditures for respondents:oRespondents on local trips = $89,790

Total of 2,190 trips during study period oRespondents on non-local trips = $304,425

Total of 1,107 trips during the study periodoAll trips = $394,215

Total of 3,297 trips

Interpretations

High percentage are educated, have discretionary income, are day paddlers, and prefer owning to renting

TPTs are popular Geographic location proximity Experiences/motivations

Fishing (“Gateway” activity), kayak fishing low-cost alternative

53% of anglers fishing Texas Hill Country rivers and streams fished from kayaks, canoes, and float tubes (Thomas et al., 2014).

Wildlife viewing and photography Fast growing activity (12’ ≥ 70% aboard boats

participated) Many trails offer wildlife viewing and birding

opportunities

Interpretations Economic benefits cannot be easily seen

No total economic impact assessment Focused only on non-durable goods

However, if we assume that 4 million Texans took at least

one local paddling trip during our study period multiply that by our median cost per trip ($41)= $164 million in direct expenditures

Estimated 71 million and 776 full time jobs in total economic impact of anglers fishing Texas Hill Country rivers and streams (Thomas et al., 2014).

Interpretations

Access as a contributing factor Identified as largest impediment TPT provide structured access, providing

safe parking areas, and minimizes landowner/user conflict

Expanded access needs to continue WTP study?

Conclusion Bottom line: Paddling Trails are popular Management decisions should consider a

broad range of values (fisheries, aesthetics, and paddling) so resources can be allocated appropriately