Advanced Search

Caleb Wolden                                                                                                              December 20, 2006

 

A Peace-and-Quiet Economy Exists

            There is a peace-and-quiet economy in Minnesota (and the northern Great Lakes region in general) connecting fishermen, paddlers, bikers, hikers, wildlife watchers, hunters and many other recreators and residents to the lands, people and places they love as well as to a sustainable and healthy way of life.  Minnesotans value peace and quiet highly and, not surprisingly, they spend their money accordingly.  Recreation participation in Minnesota is heavily weighted toward non-motorized forms (Kelly 2004).  A 2002 study on wildlife watching estimates that participation in this quiet form of recreation alone “increased 53 percent from 1996-2001 and spending rose 36 percent in the same time frame to $523.5 million” (Schneider et al 2002). A similar study on coldwater angling in Minnesota reported that “total economic impact across all categories of coldwater angling account for between $140.7 to $156.7 million in direct sales, $85.5 to $95.2 million in income, and together all expenses support between 3,128 and 3,482 full and part time jobs” (Gartner et al 2002).  The same study found that “being in a quiet and peaceful place” was the third most-desired outcome of coldwater anglers behind “enjoying nature and the outdoors” and “relaxing.”   This peace-and-quiet economy is not limited to Minnesota.   In Gallatin National Forest in Montana, a detailed social and economic analysis found that motorized recreation (excluding highway driving) accounted for roughly 130 jobs and $2.8 million local income, while non-motorized recreation generated 330 total jobs and about $7.3 million income (USDA 2005). 

 

Negative Economic Impacts of Motorized Recreation Overlooked

            As motorized recreation becomes more popular in Minnesota, peace and quiet become scarcer and scarcer commodities.  When motorized groups and industry spokespersons emphasize only the positive contributions of motorized recreation to Minnesota’s economy, the larger story remains untold.  Because only the positive economic impacts of motorized recreation are considered in these analyses, the numbers are misleading if taken at face value.  One study (conducted with ATVAM, the All-Terrain Vehicle Association of Minnesota) states that the all-terrain vehicle industry alone contributed almost $642 million in 2005 to Minnesota’s economy (Schneider et al 2006).   While initially this seems like an impressive figure, it needs to be adjusted for negative impacts and externalities, and placed in the context of  the $8 to $10 billion annual Minnesota tourism economy, or Minnesota’s 2005 $234 billion contribution to the gross domestic product.  At best, the economic impact of motorized recreation on Minnesota’s overall economy is relatively small, and there is a real possibility that it is negative.  The negative economic impacts of motorized recreation are substantial, and need to be included in any assessment of the economic contribution of these forms of recreation.  Noise pollution, air pollution, various forms of environmental degradation, and safety-related externalizations as well as the displacement of non-motorized recreation by intrusive forms of motorized recreation represent potentially large costs that are typically ignored in “economic” analyses.  Because these effects are largely ignored in economic impact studies, policy is unfortunately not implemented or adjusted to account for them.

 

"Displacement Happens"

            Intrusive forms of motorized recreation have been shown to displace other forms of recreation, and this can be expected to result in negative economic activity for peace-and-quiet industries.  This displacement effect constitutes another commonly-ignored negative economic impact of motorized recreation.  According to the Saint Louis County [Minnesota] Recreation Participation Survey Report, 32% of respondents stopped “participating in their desired activities due to other unsafe or conflicting activities in a particular area.”  The conflicting activities most often included motorized forms of recreation:  snowmobiles (36%), ATVs (28%), and jet skis (23%) accounted for the great majority of perceived conflict and safety concern.  Rigorous data on the economic effects of such displacements is rare (and objective data is especially difficult to find, given the political nature of the questions involved), but one utility-based study found that jet-ski noise alone cost the nation’s beachgoers about $900 million per year at 2000 usage rates (Komanoff and Shaw 2000).  When the other (more prevalent) types of motorized recreation are included, and their other displacement impacts computed (for reduced air quality, safety hazards, and environmental degradation), the result is a significant reduction (possibly into negative numbers) of their total economic impact.  Responsible economic analyses, especially those used to build policy, need to consider negative impacts and externalizations such as the displacement of non-motorized recreation participants by the intrusive aspects of motorized recreation. 

 

 

Sources:

Gartner, W. C., Love, L. L., Erkkila, and D.C. Fulton (2002).  Economic Impact and Social Benefits Study of Coldwater Angling in Minnesota.  Final Report submitted to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.  Tourism Center, University of Minnesota Extension Service.  Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit.

Kelly, T (2004).  2004 Outdoor Recreation Participation Survey of Minnesotans, Report on Findings.  Office of Management and Budget Services.  Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Komanoff, C. and H. Shaw (2000).  Drowning in Noise:  Noise Costs of Jet Skis in America.  Noise Pollution Clearinghouse. Montpelier, VT.

Lands Department of Saint Louis County (2004).  Saint Louis County Recreation Participation Survey Report.  Saint Louis County, Minnesota.

Schneider, I. E., and R. Salk (2002).  Information Needs and Experience Preferences of Birders and Watchable Wildlife Participants.  Staff Paper Series 165.  Department of Forest Resources. University of Minnesota.

Schneider, I. E., and T. Schoeneker (2006).  All-terrain Vehicles in Minnesota: Economic Impact and Consumer Profile.  Tourism Center,  University of Minnesota.

United States Department of Agriculture (2005).  Draft Environmental Impact Statement:  Expanded Social and Economic Analysis.  Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan.  Forest Service, Gallatin National Forest.  Montana.

Caleb Wolden is a Summa Cum Laude graduate of the Environmental Studies / Environmental Sciences program at University of Minnesota Duluth, and enjoys examining the economic, social, environmental and spiritual impacts of the ways we recreate.