Small sight—Big might: Economic impact of bird tourism shows opportunities for rural communities and biodiversity conservation

Interesting to note, birdwatchers spent more on tours and activities in this region than in any other Alaska region, amounting to $71 million or 39% of the regional total. The bulk of bird- watching tours in this region are one-day trips related to the cruise ship industry. Western Alaska also has a high proportion of spending in the tours and activities category, indicating that these two regions may have relatively well-developed bird tourism sectors com- pared to the other regions in Alaska. Nome has been a known birding destination since the mid 1980’s and independent birding travel is relatively easy due to a small road network and Nome being a larger community with existing infrastructure that can support a growing bird- ing industry such as lodging. Also, with an increasingly ice-free Bering Strait in summer months, the community is seeing increased visitation by cruise ships [42]. The Interior region’s bird tourism sector is similar in size to the sector in the Rainforest region both based on the estimated spending and the number of reporting bird observers esti- mated using ebird data. Birders visiting the Interior spent most on lodging (26%) and less on tours and activities, only a third of what birders spent on tours and activities in the Rainforest region. Birders visiting the Arctic Plains region had a similar spending pattern to those visiting the Interior. Most birding in the Arctic Plains is accessed via the Dalton Highway, thus individual transportation by car may result in smaller group sizes and a more individualized birding

experience in the Arctic Plains and Interior regions (Table 3). Unfortunately, no data were available for the Islands region but ebird data suggests that the bird tourism sector in this region is likely twice the size of the Arctic Plains region’s birding sector (Table 3). The Island region also has the largest birder group size showing that birding is relatively organized. The primary reason for this fact is the daunting logistics and expense to travel to this very remote region of Alaska where air transportation is also highly dependent on weather. Group travel is therefore an advantage when traveling to areas like Gambell on St. Lawrence Island, Adak in the Aleutian Chain, or St. Paul in the Pribilof Islands (Fig 2). According to several sources, ornithologists rank the Pribilof Islands as one of the world’s pre- mier birding locations, and because of this birding attention, these islands have been referred as “The Galapagos of the North” [43]. Due to data limitations described earlier, little informa- tion is available on how much economic impact bird tourism generates in this region (Table 3). Our results also underline the limitations of AVSP data and tourism surveys that are not targeting certain segments of the market such as independent travellers. Most travellers to the Islands region are considered independent travellers even though they may be joining orga- nized trips with local guides. Economic impacts A total of 3,273 annual average statewide jobs are directly associated with the expenditures of

bird tourism and an additional 1,100 jobs stem from businesses supporting and supplying goods and services to the bird tourism sector (Table 4). The direct employment alone Table 4. Economic impacts of bird tourism in Alaska, 2021 US$ million. Impact type Employment Labor income Value added Output Direct effect 3,273 $141.6 $214.7 $383.0 Indirect effect 492 $30.7 $52.7 $103.0 Induced effect 613 $31.6 $59.1 $98.2 Total 4,378 $203.9 $326.5 $584.2 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268594.t004 PLOS ONE Economic impact of bird tourism in Alaska PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268594 July 6, 2022 10 / 18