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. Costanza, Robert, 1998. "The value of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-2, April.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    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. Anna Széchy & Zsuzsanna Szerényi, 2023. "Valuing the Recreational Services Provided by Hungary’s Forest Ecosystems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-16, February.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. 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).
    6. 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).
    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. 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.
    10. repec:dgr:rugcds:200218 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Shrestha, Ram K. & Seidl, Andrew F. & Moraes, Andre S., 2002. "Value of recreational fishing in the Brazilian Pantanal: a travel cost analysis using count data models," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 289-299, August.
    15. Rennels, Lisa & Rennert, Kevin & Errickson, Frank & Anthoff, David & Wingenroth, Jordan & Prest, Brian C., 2024. "Accounting for Biodiversity Loss Raises the Social Cost of CO2," RFF Working Paper Series 24-23, Resources for the Future.
    16. Warnell, Katherine J.D. & Russell, Marc & Rhodes, Charles & Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Olander, Lydia P. & Nowak, David J. & Poudel, Rajendra & Glynn, Pierre D. & Hass, Julie L. & Hirabayashi, Satoshi & In, 2020. "Testing ecosystem accounting in the United States: A case study for the Southeast," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    17. Hendriksen, Astrid & Jouanneau, Charlène & Koss, Rebecca & Raakjaer, Jesper, 2014. "Fishing for opinions: Stakeholder views on MSFD implementation in European Seas," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(PB), pages 353-363.
    18. Sinden, John Alfred & Griffith, Garry, 2007. "Combining economic and ecological arguments to value the environmental gains from control of 35 weeds in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 396-408, March.
    19. Larson, Silva & Stoeckl, Natalie & Neil, Barbara & Welters, Riccardo, 2013. "Using resident perceptions of values associated with the Australian Tropical Rivers to identify policy and management priorities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 9-18.
    20. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    21. Vorstius, Anne Carolin & Spray, Christopher J., 2015. "A comparison of ecosystem services mapping tools for their potential to support planning and decision-making on a local scale," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 75-83.

    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.