IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i23p12424-d688173.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Ecological Birdwatching Tourism a More Effective Way to Transform the Value of Ecosystem Services?—A Case Study of Birdwatching Destinations in Mingxi County, China

Author

Listed:
  • Tianle Liu

    (School of Economics and Management, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Li Ma

    (School of Economics and Management, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Linsong Cheng

    (School of Economics and Management, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Yilei Hou

    (School of Economics and Management, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Yali Wen

    (School of Economics and Management, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

Abstract

Ecological birdwatching tourism is an ecological product and an essential part of ecotourism, and the realization of its recreation value is crucial for improving human well-being, and realization of the local benefits of ecosystem services for areas focused on biodiversity conservation, especially in bird species. In this study, we use travel cost interval analysis, one of the travel cost derived models featuring more easily satisfied assumptions and less limited data, to evaluate the recreation value of the ecological bird-watching tourism destination, and compare it with the general ecotourism, of Mingxi County destination in China. The results show that, firstly, the per capita recreation value of eco-birdwatching is 3.9 times that of general eco-tourism, its per capita social benefit is three times that of general eco-tourism, and its per capita economic benefit is 4.5 times that of general eco-tourism. Secondly, compared with general ecotourists, the per capita travel costs of eco-birdwatchers are higher, and there were significant statistical differences in the expenses for catering, tickets, shopping, opportunity cost, and total travel expenses between these two groups. Thirdly, in comparison with general ecotourists, the marginal cost of an individual eco-birdwatcher is higher, and the travel intention of an eco-birdwatcher is more robust at the same cost level. The price of a single eco-birdwatcher is higher under the same travel intention demand level. In short, the ecological bird-watching industry has a higher marginal value than general eco-tourism and has higher social, economic, and ecological benefits, bringing a higher level of development for the local tourism industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Tianle Liu & Li Ma & Linsong Cheng & Yilei Hou & Yali Wen, 2021. "Is Ecological Birdwatching Tourism a More Effective Way to Transform the Value of Ecosystem Services?—A Case Study of Birdwatching Destinations in Mingxi County, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-17, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:23:p:12424-:d:688173
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/23/12424/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/23/12424/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ma, Ben & Cai, Zhen & Zheng, Jie & Wen, Yali, 2019. "Conservation, ecotourism, poverty, and income inequality – A case study of nature reserves in Qinling, China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 236-244.
    2. Costanza, Robert, 1998. "The value of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-2, April.
    3. Sinclair, Michael & Mayer, Marius & Woltering, Manuel & Ghermandi, Andrea, 2020. "Valuing nature-based recreation using a crowdsourced travel cost method: A comparison to onsite survey data and value transfer," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Mayer, Marius & Woltering, Manuel, 2018. "Assessing and valuing the recreational ecosystem services of Germany’s national parks using travel cost models," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 371-386.
    6. Christoph Randler & Piotr Tryjanowski & Jukka Jokimäki & Marja-Liisa Kaisanlahti-Jokimäki & Naomi Staller, 2020. "SARS-CoV2 (COVID-19) Pandemic Lockdown Influences Nature-Based Recreational Activity: The Case of Birders," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-16, October.
    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. Dai, Peichao & Zhang, Shaoliang & Gong, Yunlong & Zhou, Yuan & Hou, Huping, 2022. "A crowd-sourced valuation of recreational ecosystem services using mobile signal data applied to a restored wetland in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    2. Fox, Nathan & Graham, Laura J. & Eigenbrod, Felix & Bullock, James M. & Parks, Katherine E., 2021. "Enriching social media data allows a more robust representation of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    3. Anna Széchy & Zsuzsanna Szerényi, 2023. "Valuing the Recreational Services Provided by Hungary’s Forest Ecosystems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-16, February.
    4. 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).
    5. Sacher, Philipp & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Mayer, Marius, 2022. "Evidence of the association between deadwood and forest recreational site choices," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    6. Rachel Dolan & James M. Bullock & Julia P. G. Jones & Ioannis N. Athanasiadis & Javier Martinez-Lopez & Simon Willcock, 2021. "The Flows of Nature to People, and of People to Nature: Applying Movement Concepts to Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, May.
    7. Yanzi Wang & Chunming Wu & Yongfeng Gong & Zhen Zhu, 2021. "Can Adaptive Governance Promote Coupling Social-Ecological Systems? Evidence from the Vulnerable Ecological Region of Northwestern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-19, October.
    8. Wang, Han & Tian, Fuan & Wu, Jianxian & Nie, Xin, 2023. "Is China forest landscape restoration (FLR) worth it? A cost-benefit analysis and non-equilibrium ecological view," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    9. Rodrigues, João & Domingos, Tiago & Conceição, Pedro & Belbute, José, 2005. "Constraints on dematerialisation and allocation of natural capital along a sustainable growth path," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 382-396, September.
    10. Boslett, Andrew & Hill, Elaine & Ma, Lala & Zhang, Lujia, 2021. "Rural light pollution from shale gas development and associated sleep and subjective well-being," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    11. Yajing Shao & Xuefeng Yuan & Chaoqun Ma & Ruifang Ma & Zhaoxia Ren, 2020. "Quantifying the Spatial Association between Land Use Change and Ecosystem Services Value: A Case Study in Xi’an, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-20, May.
    12. Jaiswal, Sreeja & Balietti, Anca & Schäffer, Daniel, 2023. "Environmental Protection and Labor Market Composition," Working Papers 0736, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    13. Nunes, P.A.L.D. & Nijkamp, P., 2011. "Biodiversity: Economic perspectives," Serie Research Memoranda 0002, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    14. Meixler, Marcia S., 2017. "Assessment of Hurricane Sandy damage and resulting loss in ecosystem services in a coastal-urban setting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 28-46.
    15. repec:dgr:rugcds:200218 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Toman, Michael & Pezzey, John C., 2002. "The Economics of Sustainability: A Review of Journal Articles," RFF Working Paper Series dp-02-03, Resources for the Future.
    17. Qenani-Petrela, Eivis & Noel, Jay E. & Mastin, Thomas, 2007. "A Benefit Transfer Approach to the Estimation of Agro-Ecosystems Services Benefits: A Case Study of Kern County, California," Research Project Reports 121605, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops.
    18. Jiayu Xia & Duyuzheng Ren & Xuhui Wang & Bo Xu & Xingyao Zhong & Yajiang Fan, 2023. "Ecosystem Quality Assessment and Ecological Restoration in Fragile Zone of Loess Plateau: A Case Study of Suide County, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-32, May.
    19. Amber L. Pearson & Victoria Breeze & Aaron Reuben & Gwen Wyatt, 2021. "Increased Use of Porch or Backyard Nature during COVID-19 Associated with Lower Stress and Better Symptom Experience among Breast Cancer Patients," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-13, August.
    20. Hermes, Johannes & von Haaren, Christina & Schmücker, Dirk & Albert, Christian, 2021. "Nature-based recreation in Germany: Insights into volume and economic significance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    21. Desbureaux, Sébastien & Brimont, Laura, 2015. "Between economic loss and social identity: The multi-dimensional cost of avoiding deforestation in Eastern Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 10-20.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:23:p:12424-:d:688173. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.