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 University
Llano 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
Evapotranspiration
17,500af/yr 10 river miles
=
$1.75 million/yr at
$100/af
8
Benefits of Freshwater
Ecosystems
Ecosystem services
o Vital services to people that improve
well being
 Drinking water
 irrigation
o Biodiversity
o Water filtration
o Recreational 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 triprelated 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)
o Total amount of dollars spent
resulting from a fishing trip
Total economic impact
o Indirect effects
o Induced 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
o Well defined geographical areas
(212 major reservoirs)
o Easily accessible
 Little is known about socioeconomics of
river and stream anglers
o Complex 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)
o Combination 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 webpage
o Newspaper
o News releases
o Angling forums
 E-mail contact
o Service providers
o Angling clubs
 Geology “Karst”
o Limestone
o Granite
 Elevation
o 1000-3000 ft
 Precipitation
o 15-33
inches/year
 Cool, clear
springs
Solution # 2
o 24-County area
o 10 major rivers
Guadalupe Bass
Micropterus 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
Objectives
 Describe
characteristics
of anglers
fishing rivers and streams in the past
12 months
o Demographics
o Fishing Characteristics
o Opinions on various management
options
 Quantify 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 Content
 Demographics
o Gender, age, residence, education,
and income
 Fishing characteristics
o River preference, species
preference, fishing method, fishing
mode
 Opinion on management options
o Water quality, habitat, access,
stocking, regulations
 Economics
o Angler expenditures, consumer
surplus
Survey Response
 Total of 700
respondents
o checked for
completeness of
response
o 137 respondents
provided no triprelated
expenditure data
 Total of 563
respondents used in
economic
assessment
Demographics
94% male
84% were between ages 26 to 65
66% held a college degree or
higher
83% reported an annual
household income of $50,000 or
greater
Averaged 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 year
o All anglers = $562,038
 Total of 5,046 trips
Guadalupe Bass $$$ Impacts
Direct Angler Expenditures
$74.2M
Indirect Angler Expenditures
$71.6M
JOBS
776
 Extrapolation
of angler expenditures
Conclusions
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

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
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
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.,
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 4665
 <70% held a college degree or
higher
 <50% had household income
between $75,000 & $150,000
 Top three counties of
respondents:
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?
Top Ten TPTs
Visited
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
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 period
oAll 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 lowcost 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,