Conservation Through Commodification

394

B I R D I N G E C O N O M I C S

by Cagan H.Sekercioglu

Center for Conservation Biology

Department of Biological Sciences

Stanford University

Stanford CA 94305-5020

[email protected]

CHS is a Turkish ecologist and nature photographer

doing postdoctoral research at Stanford University.

His research focuses on the causes and consequences

of bird extinctions around the world.

ConservationThroughCommodification



In the long-run, the quality of ourbirding (and the length of our

lists) depends on our success inconserving birds and their habitats.Who would not love to see aLabrador Duck during a pelagic trip,have Carolina Parakeets fly overheadon a CBC, or photograph a Bach-man’s Warbler foraging in a cane-brake—not to mention observe ahalf-ton Malagasy Elephant Bird ortick any of the estimated 2,000 birdspecies thought to have gone extinctas a result of human colonization ofPacific Ocean islands? It may be toolate for those species, but if birdingand bird conservation can be betterintegrated, it may not be too late forthe Madagascar Fish-eagle, theWhooping Crane, the MarvelousSpatuletail, and many other endan-gered species that birders wouldlove to see.

The International Ecotourism So-ciety’s definition of ecotourism is“responsible travel to natural areasthat conserves the environment andimproves the well-being of localpeople”. Ideally, ecological tourismshould create local incentives forconserving natural areas, by generat-ing income through sustainable,low-impact, low-investment, and lo-

395

cally-owned operations. Unfortu-nately, this ideal is rarely achieved.In some cases, nature tourism actu-ally creates new financial incentivesfor encroachment of natural areasthrough land speculation. Add tothat the exclusion of local people,“economic leakage”, disturbance ofwildlife, pollution, and even outright

habitat destruction that is seen inmany operations, and it is easy to

understand why many people con-sider ecotourism just another market-

ing device. Nevertheless, properlyconducted ecotourism can both

protect natural areas and benefitlocal people.

Birders, who form the largest singlegroup of ecotourists, can improve

community-based conserva-tion if birding is conductedwith the well-being of localecosystems and human com-

munities in mind. Birdersare, on average, well-edu-cated and affluent. Be-cause of our zeal and the

resources that we are will-ing to invest in this sport,

birding is becoming “the fastest-growing and most environmen-tally conscious segment of eco-tourism and the best economichope for many beleaguered natu-ral areas” (Salzman 1995).

Here, I review the economic po-tential of birding for community-based conservation, outline potentialbenefits and problems, and providesuggestions for improving the conser-vation value of birding. I focus onless-developed countries, especially inthe tropics, and I provide a few exam-ples from my own birding experiencein more than 30 less-developed coun-tries, to supplement limited pub-lished data. Even though birdingtourism has the potential to improvethe financial and environmental well-being of local communities, many

Alto Madidi National Park in Bolivia, wherethese Red-and-green Macaws (Ara chloroptera)where photographed, is little known by birders,

despite being home to close to a thousandbird species. Unfortunately, this spectacularwildlife area is threatened by an imminent

hydroelectric project. Alto Madidi National Park,Bolivia; October 1998. © Cagan H. Sekercioglu.

B I R D I N G • A U G U S T 2 0 0 3396


governments are unaware of this po-tential. Research on the economicand environmental impacts of bird-ing is sorely needed, and much

needs to be done to increase the fi-nancial contribution of birding tolocal communities.

Economic Potential of BirdingAccording to the estimates of themost recent National Survey onRecreation and the Environment(NSRE), about 69.0 million Ameri-cans over the age of 16 viewed,identified, or photographed birds inthe 12 months preceding the sur-vey—as many people as who didany fishing or day hiking in the pre-ceding 12 months (Cordell and Her-bert 2002). Keeping in mind thatthe NSRE standards for what consti-tutes birding are very broad, 28% of

birders (which would project to 19.3million people) reported birdingmore than 50 days per year. Since1983, the number of birders has in-

creased by 332%, making birdingthe fastest-growing outdoor recre-ational activity in the country.

The results of the NSRE studyhave been criticized recently (e.g.,Haas 2002), and it is possible thatthe 5,000 people surveyed by the2000 NSRE do not provide a repre-sentative cross-section of U.S. soci-ety. However, the 2001 National Sur-vey of Fishing, Hunting, andWildlife-Associated Recreation—an-other, and rather detailed, surveyconducted by the U.S. Census Bu-reau and the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService—interviewed 80,000 house-holds and came up with qualita-tively similar, albeit lower, estimates

(USDI et al. 2001). According to thissurvey, of Americans 16 years old orolder, 46 million observe birds and18 million take birding trips; more-

over, 3.9 million birders canidentify more than 40 birdspecies, and 2.3 million bird-ers keep lists (FHWAR 2001).

One thing that is not de-bated is that birders are edu-cated and affluent. The aver-age income of a birder in theU.S. is over $50,000, andabout a third of Americanbirders have at least a collegedegree (USDI et al. 2001,Cordell and Herbert 2002).For ABA members, the aver-age family income is $60,000,and 80% are college graduates(ABA 1994). The combinationof education and incomemakes birders ideal eco-tourists, since they are likelyto have a high awareness ofnature and also to spend sig-nificant amounts of money inpursuit of birds. According tothe 1996 NSRE, birding-re-lated expenses in the U.S.were estimated to be over $23billion in 1996, contributing

to the employment of almost800,000 people. In that year, an esti-mated 17.7 million U.S. birders trav-eled more than a mile from theirhomes in order to observe birds, andthey spent about $7.6 billion ontrip-related expenses, excludingequipment. The annual economiccontribution of birding to five majorU.S. sites ranged from $2.4 millionto $40 million (Kerlinger and Brett1995). Munn (1992) estimated thata macaw visiting a clay lick insoutheastern Peru can potentiallygenerate $750–$4,700 in tourist re-ceipts in a year and$22,500–$165,000 in its lifetime.

Forty-nine percent of ABA mem-

The Lappet-faced Vulture (Torgos tracheliotus) is one of over 500 species of birds that one can observe during a three-week tripin Kenya. If impoverished local people do not have financial incentives to protect bird habitat, however, such trip lists may soonbe history. Masai Mara Reserve, Kenya; July 1998. © Cagan H. Sekercioglu.

W W W . A M E R I C A N B I R D I N G . O R G 397

forest trail, a waterfall, and afew unusual organisms consti-tuted an “exotic adventure”.

Increased value of local differ-ences due to unique bird speciesOne of the biggest concerns re-garding the environmental effec-tiveness of market-based initia-tives is global competitionamong ecotourism sites. Manypeople do not differentiate be-tween natural areas, with the re-sult that these natural areas be-come competitors in a singlemarket (Isaacs 2000). This is es-pecially the case for rainforests,which, although very diverse,may seem identical to one an-other, in the eyes of touristswith limited knowledge. Com-petition and fear of profit lossmay make it less likely that op-erators will follow more costlyenvironmental principles as amarketing strategy, especially ifclients do not discern habitat-quality differences among sites.Operators may try to minimizecosts, and they may stop takingcostly measures to limit pollu-tion, habitat disturbance, ha-rassment of wildlife, and otherdetrimental consequences oftourism. They may seek verticalintegration and may contract

with an international chain to takeadvantage of economies of scale toreduce costs and uncertainty (Isaacs2000). This strategy often results inless local control and lower eco-nomic returns to local communities,violating one of the most importantprinciples of responsible ecotourism.

Since birding, especially “listing”,is based on identifying distinct birdspecies, the differences amongunique bird communities becomehighly significant. A birder whowants to see the threatened White-

bers have traveled out of thecountry for birding, and,within this group, 32% havetaken part in an organizedbird tour (ABA 1994). Thereare at least 127 companiesthat offer birding toursworldwide (Birding.com2003). Since the average tripto a less-developed countryby one of the six largest bird-ing companies (over 150birding tours/year) has 12participants and costs over$4,000 per person, the finan-cial impact of internationalbirding can be substantial.

Birders often visit placesoutside the tourist season orplaces that have no othertourist attractions. In addi-tion to the purchase of typi-cal travel goods and services,independent birders andbirding tours often hire localguides, for as much as $300per day, even in low-incomecountries such as Kenya andSouth Africa. In 1999, theCosta Rican Tourism Insti-tute (ICT) estimated that41% of the $1 billion tourismincome for that year wasfrom birding tourists. Giventheir education, birders aremore likely to make effortsto reduce their environmental im-pact, to appreciate different ecosys-tems, and to pay protected-area feesthan are other ecotourists, althoughthere has been little research onthese issues (Hill et al. 1997).

Potential Benefits of Birding Why commodification may bea good thingBirders’ knowledge of birds andtheir expectations of seeing manyspecies provide a direct link betweenavian diversity and local income. Al-

though birders are sometimes criti-cized for commodifying naturethrough “listing”, this commodifica-tion actually makes it possible forareas with many and/or rare birdspecies to generate more incomefrom hosting birders than from host-ing non-birding tourists. Local peo-ple who observe the direct monetarybenefits of bird diversity may bemore likely to conserve ecosystemsthat harbor unusual birds. Thatwould not be the case were locals tohost ecotourists for whom a muddy

Here is a Burrowing Owl at the Salton Sea. Even though the Salton SeaInternational Bird Festival is one of the most successful in the country, this siteis threatened by the water problems affecting the states sharing Colorado River.Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge, California; March 2000. © Cagan H. Sekercioglu.

B I R D I N G • A U G U S T 2 0 0 3


398

breasted Mesite, as well as manyother Malagasy deciduous forest en-demics, for example, has no choicebut to visit that deciduous foresthabitat. Thus, there is a reduction in

global competition among naturalareas and a more even distributionof birding tourism across the globe,as can be seen from the itineraries ofbirding companies. Differentiation ofbirding destinations increases localcontrol and profits, motivating localpeople to care for the environment.In addition, the importance of spe-cific destinations provides a greaterincentive for birding tour operatorsto protect these places.

Inclusion of areas without officialprotectionBetter ecological knowledge andhigher expectations of birders also re-

sult in the preservation of many areaswithout official protection. Birds donot pay attention to boundaries, andmany species can only be observedoutside officially protected areas—at

places such as garbage dumps andsewage ponds. It is not uncommon tofind rare species hanging on in smallforest remnants, and the regular pres-ence of birders and associated in-come may create local incentives toprotect these small patches from de-struction. There is also a growingnumber of private nature reserves,such as Rara Avis and Monteverde inCosta Rica, where good bird habitatis protected in order to obtain in-come from visiting birders.

Birding guidesA good guide is key to the success ofany organized birding trip, and for

independent birders, hiring a localguide increases the chances of seeingrare and local species, contributes tothe local economy, and creates an in-centive to protect birds. For exam-ple, Mustafa Sari, a guide who livesin Sivrikaya, Turkey, maintains achain across a dirt road to prevent il-legal hunters from driving to the re-mote leks of Caucasian Grouse, a po-tentially threatened species and Sari’smajor source of income.

In many places, indigenous peoplelack the education and essential fi-nancial resources required to investin ecotourism, and they may onlyqualify for menial and low-paid jobs.Guiding, however, is less demanding,it pays better, it values knowledge,and it has minimal language require-ments. Bird names amount to justabout the only English that manysuccessful guides speak. Althoughknowledge of natural history hasbeen integral to many indigenouscommunities, dependence on manu-factured goods has resulted in its dis-appearance from many areas. Earningincome as a birding guide providesan incentive to bring back thisknowledge into native communities.Birding companies, non-governmen-tal organizations (NGOs), and or-nithologists working in less-devel-oped countries can promote birdingand conservation with guide-trainingprograms. My personal experiencewith local birding guides has beenmostly positive and has been charac-terized by high quality and very af-fordable fees. Using local guideswhenever possible not only creates abig incentive for the local communityto conserve bird habitat, but it alsodelivers the most birds for the buck.

Potential Problems with BirdingDisturbing birdsEven though birding has lower envi-ronmental impact than many other

Pelagic birding tours can be an alternative source of income to many fishermen that have been hard-hit by disappearingfish stocks. This Black-browed Albatross was photographed during a pelagic trip off Cape Town. Cape Town, South Africa;August 1998. © Cagan H. Sekercioglu.


outdoor activities, one of the biggestconcerns about negative impacts ofbirding stems from the sometimes-excessive zeal of some birders. Forexample, nest failures have beencaused by birders flushing owls fromnests (Hanson 2000). Especially dur-ing the breeding period, flushingbirds and playing tapes may stressbirds considerably, and these activi-ties may also expose bird nests topredators—an especially seriousproblem if the species is rare or en-dangered. Rare species are usuallymore sensitive to people because oftheir biology, increased exploitation,and more disturbance by birdersseeking them out. Such harmful be-havior is strongly discouraged

among the birding community, as re-flected in the ABA Code of Ethics,and birders should always put abird’s welfare first.

Guides also have an important roleto play in minimizing disturbance ofbirds by birders. In fact, this makesgood business sense, since the long-term presence of staked-out birdswill increase a guide’s success rateand reputation. Rigorous training,combined with certification and reg-ulation of guides (especially in less-developed countries) by govern-ments and by birding companies, isalso integral to educating birders andminimizing disturbance.

Although there are no numericaldata on the frequency of birds being

flushed by birders, I personally havewitnessed fewer than ten cases dur-ing my 13-year-long birding careerwith over 1,700 field-days. Birds canalso tolerate a certain amount of hu-man presence. For example, breed-ing songbirds in Wyoming alpineforests were found to tolerate lowlevels (one person for 1–2 hours perweek) of intrusion (Gutzwiller et al.1998). When visitors are concen-trated in small parts of penguin andalbatross breeding colonies, nestingbirds may habituate to people andmay not respond to human presenceas a stressor (Burger and Gochfeld1999). Nevertheless, birders shouldalways show great care to minimizedisturbance to birds and their envi-ronment, and they should be partic-ularly careful with nesting andthreatened species.

Unfortunately, there are few well-designed, long-term studies of birddisturbance by birders and other na-ture observers (Hill et al. 1997). Suchstudies are sorely needed, especiallyin the tropics, where there has beenalmost no published research on birddisturbance. There have been nostudies on the effects of tapes onbirds, and this impact should also bea priority for researchers studyingdisturbances to birds.

Indirect impactsBecause birders have high averageincomes, they may demand high-end establishments more than theaverage ecotourist does. This de-mand may lead to increased envi-ronmental impact on and “cashleaks” from local communities—thatis, the transfer of profits from localcommunities to foreigners and ur-ban dwellers who are far more likelythan rural residents to own high-endestablishments in less-developedcountries (Weaver 1998). Local peo-ple who are excluded from protected

One can see the Caucasian Grouse (Tetrao mlokosiewiczi) in northeastern Turkey, thanks to the tireless efforts of MustafaSari, who protects and shows this species to birders. Kackar Mountains, Sivrikaya, Turkey; July 2001. © Cagan H. Sekercioglu.

B I R D I N G • A U G U S T 2 0 0 3


400

areas and who do not benefit fromecotourism are likely to resenttourists and to resist conservationpolicies. In addition, visited areascan be contaminated by touristwaste, and habitat clearance can re-sult from the construction of build-ings and facilities (Weaver 1998).

Conversely, birds take priorityover comfort for many birders whowill stay in basic local establish-ments in order to see species of in-terest. Additionally, some high-endresorts attract birders by minimizingenvironmental impact, maintainingprivate reserves, and hiring localbirding guides. These establishmentsare likely to benefit the local com-munities more than is the case withlodges without a birding focus. Ifbirders wish to aid local communi-ties as much as possible, then theyshould make efforts to frequent lo-cally-owned establishments with en-vironmentally-sound practices.

wildlife disturbance may en-courage communities to pre-serve good bird habitat andmay help ensure the continu-ous presence of birds to bewatched.

Independent birdervs. birding tourIndependent birders may bemore likely to contribute lo-cally because they frequentsmaller and more modest estab-lishments than do tour groups.Because they are not part of atour, independent birders oftenhire local guides and are lesslikely to be isolated from thecommunities they are visiting.Conversely, independent bird-ers are usually not subject tomonitoring by bird guidestrained in low-impact practices,and they may be more likely to

disturb birds.Birding tours, especially those

from more-developed countries, al-though often significantly more ex-pensive than independent birding,may contribute less to localeconomies. Tours have their ownguides and often make use of thebest operations and accommoda-tions available, which are likely tobe owned either by foreigners or bythe urban elite (Weaver 1998). Nev-ertheless, it is important not to drawhasty conclusions about economicleakage due to birding companies,since there are exceptions to thispattern, and there are very few dataon the kinds of establishments thatbirding tours use in less-developedcountries. In addition, when they domake use of a local establishment,tour companies may contribute sig-nificantly to the local economy.Many tour companies also hire localguides and likely pay significantlymore than independent birders do.

The Long-tailed Ground-Roller (Uratelornis chimaera) is only found in the “spiny forest” of southwest Madagascar. A guidenamed Musa, who had no shoes and spoke no English except for bird names, found this bird and all of the other localspecialties of Ifaty in less than one day. Ifaty, Madagascar; July 1998. © Cagan H. Sekercioglu.

Overview of Birding ImpactsDespite the potential for disturbance,birding is preferable to land clearing,certain forms of hunting, and otherexploitative, unsustainable activities.In addition, information gathered bybirders—for example, during BreedingBird Surveys, Christmas Bird Counts,and other “citizen science” projects—can contribute substantially to or-nithological knowledge, especially intropical areas with few researchers.Birders should make constant effortsto minimize their negative impact onbirds by adhering to ethical guidelines,while contributing as much as possi-ble to local economies. They shoulddo so in the face of high expectationsof finding species of interest and beparticularly careful with nesting orthreatened or near-threatened species.Birders should insist on certifiedguides and should criticize guides’ im-proper conduct. Contributing to andeducating local people and minimizing


Not only do these companies have amoral obligation to contribute to theconservation efforts of the less-de-veloped countries in which they op-erate, but it is also in their long-term interest to create financial in-centives for bird conservation.

Suggestions for Improving theConservation Value of BirdingResearch and promotionOverall, there is a pressing need fordata on the financial contributionsand environmental impacts of inde-pendent birders and tour companies,especially in less-developed coun-tries. Financial data on birding mayincrease the likelihood of tourismministries becoming aware of thepotential benefits of birding in theircountries. Even in well-known bird-ing destinations, such as Ecuador,tourism promoters know very littleabout birding. One good way to pro-mote birding and to create revenueis through festivals. In the U.S.,there are more than 240 bird-relatedfestivals, which bring millions ofdollars to many small towns in 47states (DiGregorio 2002). There are,however, few examples of birdingfestivals in less-developed countries(Birdlife International 2002a). Cre-ation of such festivals could increaseearnings, as well as educate localsabout birds, conservation, and bird-ing as alternative sources of income.Another possibility is to donatesome of the income from birdingfestivals in more-developed coun-tries to bird conservation programsin less-developed countries. Onesuccessful example is the BritishBirding Fair, which raises funds fortropical conservation and whichraised over $190,000 (U.S.) in 2000to protect threatened Cuban wilder-ness (Birdlife International 2002b).It is also essential to educate govern-ments, companies, and individuals

interested in birding on the potentialnegative environmental impacts ofbirding, as well as on ways to mini-mize these impacts. Not only is thisan important conservation priority,but it is also integral to the long-term success of birding tourism.

Birding tour companiesBirding companies should be moreinvolved in promoting and support-ing conservation at their tour desti-nations, possibly by making contri-butions directly related to the num-ber of species seen on their trips.This approach could have significantfinancial and symbolic value for localcommunities and would providepublicity for the companies involved.One possibility is to pledge to a localconservation organization a contribu-tion of $1 for each species seen dur-ing a birding tour—and in advertis-ing, inform prospective clients thatthis contribution will be made.

I analyzed the prices of 272 bird-ing tours to 62 less-developed coun-tries included in the online cata-logues of the top six internationalbirding companies (Birding.com2003). The tour prices did not in-clude flights to the tour destina-tions, and botanical, ship-based, andtrekking tours were excluded fromthe analysis. The average tour had12.1 clients, ran for 15.2 days, andcost $264.40 per day. Meanwhile,the total number of species per tour,divided by the number of days ofthe tour, came out to ca. 10–25species. In most countries, $1 perspecies would amount to a cost in-crease of 0.3%–0.8% per trip partici-pant. Even donating $1 for eachspecies seen by each participantwould not be unrealistic, increasingthe costs by 3.8% to 9.5%. For ex-ample, after a three-week tour inKenya during which 517 specieswere observed, the company could

contribute $517 to a Kenyan birdconservation NGO; obviously, thisamount is considerably smaller thanthe combined total of about $67,500that the clients would expect to payfor such a tour. Another possibilitywould be to donate an additional$20 for each threatened species and$10 for each near-threatened speciesobserved, which would mean morefunds for places with more speciesat risk. Independent birders wouldalso do well to contribute a percent-age of their trip budget to local birdconservation NGOs.

When properly conducted, tour-ism-revenue sharing, although mar-ginal for the companies and birders in-volved, may: (1) add up to significantamounts for the countries visited, (2)show a link between biodiversity andincome, (3) increase local support forconservation, and (4) give competitiveadvantages to the tour companies whodemonstrate their environmental con-cerns. International NGOs that doecotourism research, such as BirdlifeInternational, Conservation Interna-tional, and the World Wildlife Fund,can work with major birding compa-nies to increase their local contribu-tions in exchange for certification.Certification would provide beneficialpublicity for the companies involved,thus profiting both sides.

ConclusionBirding is a most promising branchof ecotourism because birders con-stitute a large and increasing pool ofeducated and well-off travelers whodesire to observe birds in their na-tive habitats and whose activitieshave relatively low environmentalimpact. Among various kinds ofecotourism, birding has the highestpotential to contribute to local com-munities, educate locals about thevalue of biodiversity, and create lo-cal and national incentives for suc-

B I R D I N G • A U G U S T 2 0 0 3


402

cessful protection and preservationof native habitats. Governments ofless-developed nations, managers ofprotected areas, NGOs, and birdingcompanies should emphasize bird-ing promotion and education. Theseentities should also strive to in-crease the contribution of birding tolocal communities and grass-rootorganizations, since birding has asignificant potential to generate in-come through the protection andpromotion of natural areas.

Literature CitedAmerican Birding Association

[ABA]. 1994. ABA MembershipSurvey. <www.americanbirding.org/programs/consecondem.htm>Site accessed 21 May 2003.

Birding.com. 2003. Tours and Lodg-ing. <http://www.birding.com/tourcompanies.asp> Site accessed21 May 2003.

BirdLife International. 2002a. RecordFunds for Cuban WildernessProject. <www.birdlife.net/news/

news/2002/02/462.html> Site ac-cessed 21 May 2003.

BirdLife International. 2002b. WorldBird Festival 2001. <www.birdlife.net/festival/index.cfm> Site ac-cessed 16 March 2002.

Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 1999.Role of human disturbance in re-sponse behavior of laysan alba-trosses (Diomedea immutabilis).Bird Behavior 13:23–30.

Cordell, H.K., and N.G. Herbert.2002. The popularity of birding isstill growing. Birding 34:54–59.

DiGregorio, L. 2002. Birding festi-vals beckon. Birding 34:77.

Gutzwiller, K.J., K.L. Clemens, A.H.Marcum, C.A. Charles, and S.H.Stanley. 1998. Vertical distributionof breeding-season birds: Is hu-man intrusion influential? WilsonBulletin 110:497–503.

Haas, F. 2002. 70 million birders?Birding 34:314–316.

Hanson, R. 2000. Loving birds todeath. Audubon 102(3):18.

Hill, D., D. Hockin, D. Price, G.

Tucker, R. Morris, and J. Treweek.1997. Bird disturbance: Improvingthe quality and utility of distur-bance research. Journal of AppliedEcology 34:275–288.

Isaacs, J.C. 2000. The limited po-tential of ecotourism to contributeto wildlife conservation. WildlifeSociety Bulletin 28:61–69.

Kerlinger, P., and J. Brett. 1995.Hawk Mountain Sanctuary: A casestudy of birder visitation andbirding economics. pp. 271–280in: R.L. Knight and K.J.Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife andRecreationists: Coexistence ThroughManagement and Research. IslandPress, Washington.

Munn, C.A. 1992. Macaw biologyand ecotourism, or “When a birdin the bush is worth two in thehand”. pp. 47–72 in: S.R. Beissingerand N.F.R. Snyder, eds. New WorldParrots in Crisis: Solutions fromConservation Biology. SmithsonianInstitution Press, Washington.

Salzman, E. 1995. Armed combat.Sports Illustrated. 2 October 1995,pp. 11–12.

National Survey on Recreation andthe Environment [NSRE]. 2000.National Survey of Fishing, Hunt-ing, and Wildlife-associated Recre-ation. <www.srs.fs.usda.gov/trends/nsre/round1rptuw.pdf> Siteaccessed 21 May 2003.

U.S. Department of the Interior[USDI], U.S. Fish and WildlifeService [USFWS], and U.S. De-partment of Commerce / U.S.Census Bureau [USDC/USCB].2001. National Survey of Fishing,Hunting, and Wildlife-AssociatedRecreation. <www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/fishing.html> Siteaccessed 21 May 2003.

Weaver, D.B. 1998. Ecotourism in theLess Developed World. Oxon Inter-national, Wallington.

Shown here are Ross’s Geese flying over Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California. National Wildlife Refuges acrossthe U.S. harbor hundreds of bird species, sometimes in spectacular numbers, and they generate significant income forlocal communities through visiting birders. Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California; February 2000. © Cagan H. Sekercioglu.

Conservation Through Commodification

Documents