U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Birding in the United States:

ADemographic and

Economic Analysis

Addendum to the 2001 National

Survey of Fishing, Hunting and

Wildlife-Associated Recreation

Report 2001-1

Genevieve Pullis La Rouche

Division of Federal Aid

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Washington, D.C.

Division of Federal Aid

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Washington, D.C. 20240

Director, Steve Williams

Chief, Division of Federal Aid, Kris La Montagne

http://fa.r9.fws.gov/

This report is intended to complement the National and State Reports for the 

2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. 

The report’s opinions are the author’s and do not represent official positions of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The author thanks Sylvia Cabrera, Richard Aiken, Grant La Rouche, 

John Charbonneau and Jim Caudill for reviewing earlier drafts of this report.

Birding in the United States:

ADemographic and

Economic Analysis

Addendum to the 2001 National

Survey of Fishing, Hunting and

Wildlife-Associated Recreation

Report 2001-1

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
2 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis

Introduction

In January 2002 an unprecedented major

media event unfolded in a Louisiana

swamp. A team of top ornithologists set

out to find the ivory-billed woodpecker, a

bird last seen in the United States in 1943

and, until a recent credible citing by a

turkey hunter, considered extinct in the

U.S. The expedition, funded by a

corporate sponsor, received worldwide

media attention including coverage by

the New York Times, USA Today, and

National Public Radio.

This high-profile search for the ivorybilled woodpecker is just one indicator of

the growing popularization of birds and

birding. Other evidence abounds. A field

guide, Sibley’s Guide to Birds, became a

New York Times bestseller. And a quick

search of the Internet yields numerous

birding sites, some of which list hundreds

of birding festivals held around the

country each year.

This growing awareness of birding comes

at an odd time; birds are in jeopardy.

According to 35-year trend data (1966-

2001) from the U. S. Geological Service,

almost one-in-four bird species in the

United States show “significant negative

trend estimates” (Sauer et al. 2003). 

This decline is attributed primarily to 

the degradation and destruction of

habitat resulting from human population

growth and short-sighted environmental

practices such as the razing of wetlands

“For me, the thrill of bird-watching

is catching the glimpse of alien

consciousness — the uninflected,

murderous eye, the aura of reptilian

toughness under the beautiful soft

feathers, the knowledge that if I

were the size of a sparrow, and a

sparrow were as big as I am, it

might rip my head off without a

second’s hesitation.”

Jonathan Rosen. The Ghost Bird. 

The New Yorker. 5/14/01.

American Kestral (Falco sparverius) by Dave Menke, USFWS
Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 3

needed by migratory birds. Although

there is a certain irony in people

becoming enthusiastic about birds 

as they disappear, it also presents 

an opportunity: birders may be the 

economic and political force that can 

help save the birds.

The following report provides up-to-date

information so birders and policy makers

can make informed decisions regarding

the protection of birds and their habitats.

This report identifies who birders are,

where they live, how avid they are, where

they bird and what kinds of birds they

watch. In addition to demographic

information, this report also provides two

kinds of economic measures. The first is

an estimate of how much birders spend

on their hobby and the economic impact

of these expenditures. The second is the

net economic value of birding, that is, the

value of birding to society.

By understanding who birders are, 

they can be more easily educated about

pressures facing birds and bird habitats.

Conversely, by knowing who is likely not

a birder, or who is potentially a birder,

information can be more effectively

tailored. The economic values presented

here can be used by resource managers

and policy makers to demonstrate the

economic might of birders, the value of

birding — and by extension, the value of

birds. In fact, research shows that these

kinds of values help wildlife managers

make better decisions and illustrate the

value of wildlife to American society

(Loomis 2000).

All data presented here is from the

wildlife-watching section of the 2001

National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, 

and Wildlife-Associated Recreation

(FHWAR). It is the most comprehensive

survey of wildlife recreation in the U.S.

Overall, 15,300 detailed wildlife-watching

interviews were completed with a

response rate of 90 percent. The Survey

focused on 2001 participation and

expenditures by U.S. residents 16 years

of age and older.

Birding Trends

Is birding increasing? Despite recent

popularization (high visibility within

the media and popular culture and

increased recognition of the sport

within American homes) of birding,

past FHWAR Survey results point to a

more complicated story. A comparison

of results from the 1991, 1996, and 2001

estimates show that bird-watching

around the home has decreased rather

than increased over that 10-year period

(USFWS). In 1991, 51.3 million people

reported observing birds around their

homes. In 1996 that number dropped to 

42.2 million and in 2001 to 40.3 million.

Because the 2001 Survey is the first

time people were asked if they

specifically watched birds on trips

away from home, it cannot be said

conclusively if this activity increased or

decreased. However, in all three

Surveys, people were asked if they

observed, fed, or photographed birds

away from home. These numbers

indicate a net decrease in away-fromhome birding from 24.7 million in 1991

to 18.5 million in 2001 but a slight

uptick from 1996 (17.7 million) to 2001.

Jim Hudgins, USFWS
In 2001 there were 46 million birdwatchers or birders, 16 years of age 

and older, in the United States — a little

over one in five people. What is a birder?

The National Survey uses a conservative

definition. To be counted as a birder, an

individual must have either taken a trip a

mile or more from home for the primary

purpose of observing birds and/or closely

observed or tried to identify birds around

the home. So people who happened to

notice birds while they were mowing the

lawn or picnicking at the beach were not

counted as birders. Trips to zoos and

observing captive birds also did not

count.

Backyard birding or watching birds

around the home is the most common

form of bird-watching. Eighty-eight

percent (40 million) of birders are

backyard birders. The more active 

form of birding, taking trips away from

home, is less common with 40 percent

(18 million) of birders partaking.

4 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis

Birders

Chart 1. Birders in the United States: 2001

(16 years of age and older.)

Total Birders 46 million

Around-the-home 40 million

Away-from-home 18 million

Red-winged Blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) by John and Karen Hollingsworth, USFWS
The average birder is 49 years old and

more than likely has a better than

average income and education. She is

slightly more likely to be female, and

highly likely to be white and married.

There is also a good chance that this

birder lives in the northern half of the

country in a small city or town. Does this

paint an accurate picture of a birder?

Like all generalizations the description of

an “average” birder does not reflect the

variety of people who bird, with millions

falling outside this box. The tables and

charts show in numbers and participation

rates (the percentage of people who

participate) birders by various

demographic breakdowns.

The tendency of birders to be middle-age

or older is reflected in both the number of

birders and participation rates. Looking

at the different age breakdowns in Table 1,

the greatest number of birders were in

the 35 to 44 and 45 to 54 age groups.

People age 55 to 64 had the highest

participation rates while the participation

rate was particularly low for people ages

18 to 24. Birders who take trips away

from home to pursue their hobby were on

average slightly younger at 45 years old

compared to backyard birders who were

on average 50 years old.

Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 5

Table 1. Age Distribution of the U.S. Population and Birders: 2001

(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)

U.S. Number Participation 

Age Population of Birders Rate

16 and 17 7,709 1,043 14%

18 to 24 22,234 1,894 9%

25 to 34 35,333 5,990 17%

35 to 44 44,057 10,414 24%

45 to 54 40,541 10,541 26%

55 to 64 25,601 7,177 28%

65 plus 36,823 8,893 24%

Chart 2. Birders’ Participation Rate by Age

U.S. Average: 22% ▼

16 and 17 14%

18 to 24 9%–

25 to 34 17%

35 to 44 24%

45 to 54 26%

55 to 64 28%

65 plus 24%

Tina Watson, USFWS
The higher the income and education

level the more likely a person is to be a

birder. Twenty-seven percent of people

who live in households that earn $75,000

or more were bird-watchers — 5 percent

above the national average of 22 percent.

Education, which is often highly

correlated with income, shows the same

trend. People with less than high school

education participated at 14 percent —

far below the national average — while

people with five or more years of college

had the highest participation rate at

33 percent. See Tables 2 and 3 for more

information.

6 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis

Table 2. Income Distribution of the U.S. Population and Birders: 2001

(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)

U.S. Number Participation

Income Population of Birders Rate

Less than $10,000 10,594 2,212 21%

$10,000 to $19,000 15,272 2,754 18%

$20,000 to $24,000 10,902 2,335 21%

$25,000 to $29,000 11,217 2,392 21%

$30,000 to $34,000 11,648 2,618 22%

$35,000 to $39,000 9,816 2,005 20%

$40,000 to $49,000 16,896 4,116 24%

$50,000 to $74,000 31,383 7,476 24%

$75,000 to $99,000 17,762 4,771 27%

$100,000 or more 19,202 5,224 27%

Detail does not add to total due to non-response.

Chart 3. Birders’ Participation Rate by Income

U.S. Average: 22% ▼

Less than $10,000 21%

$10,000 to $19,000 18%

$20,000 to $24,000 21%

$25,000 to $29,000 21%

$30,000 to $34,000 22%

$35,000 to $39,000 20%

$40,000 to $49,000 24%

$50,000 to $74,000 24%

$75,000 to $99,000 27%

$100,000 or more 27%

Table 3. Educational Distribution of the U.S. Population and Birders: 2001

(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)

U.S. Number Participation 

Population of Birders Rate

11 years or less 32,820 4,627 14%

12 years 73,719 13,933 19%

1 to 3 years college 49,491 11,363 23%

4 years college 34,803 8,922 26%

5 years or more college 21,646 7,107 33%

Chart 4. Birders’ Participation Rate by Education

U.S. Average: 22% ▼

11 years or less 14%

12 years 19%

1 to 3 years college 23%

4 years college 26%

5 years or more college 33%
Unlike hunting and fishing where men

were overwhelmingly in the majority, a

slightly larger percent of birders were

women — 54 percent in 2001. And most

birders, 72 percent, were married.

Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 7

Chart 5. Percent of Birders — by Gender

(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)

Chart 6. Percent of Birders — by Marital Status

72% Married

54% Female

Widowed 7%

Divorced/separated 9%

Never married 13%

Male 46%

Tami Heilemann, DOI
Excepting Native American participation,

birders are not a racially or ethnically

diverse group. Ninety-four percent of

birders identified themselves as white.

The scarcity of minority birders is not

just a reflection of their relatively low

numbers in the population at large, it’s

also a function of low participation rates.

The participation rates of AfricanAmericans, Asians, and Hispanics were

all 9 percent or lower while the rate for

whites, 24 percent, was slightly above the

22 percent national average. Native

Americans on the other hand had a

participation rate (22 percent) on par

with the national average.

The sparser populated an area, the more

likely its residents were to watch birds.

The participation rate for people living in

small cities and rural areas was 28

percent — 6 percent above the national

average. Whereas large metropolitan

areas (1 million residents or more) had

the greatest number of birders, their

residents had the lowest participation

rate, 18 percent. See Table 5.

8 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis

Table 4. Racial and Ethnic Distribution of the U.S. Population and Birders: 2001

(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)

U.S. Number Participation 

Population of Birders Rate

Hispanic 21,910 1,880 9%

White 181,129 43,026 24%

African American 21,708 1,243 6%

Native American 1,486 321 22%

Asian 7,141 436 6%

Other 833 55 7%

Chart 7. Birders’ Participation Rate by Race and Ethnicity

U.S. Average: 22% ▼

Hispanic 9%–

White 24%

African American 6%–

Native American 22%

Asian 6%–

Other 7%–

Table 5. Percent of U.S. Population Who Birded by Residence: 2001

(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)

Metropolitan U.S. Number Participation 

Statistical Area (MSA) Population of Birders Rate

1,000,000 or more 112,984 20,868 18%

250,000 to 999,999 41,469 8,991 22%

50,000 to 249,000 16,693 4,622 28%

Outside MSA 41,151 11,470 28%

Prothonotary Warbler (Protonotaria citrea) by

John and Karen Hollingsworth, USFWS
When measured in terms of the percent

of state residents participating, states in

the northern half of the United States

generally had higher levels of

participation than did states in the

southern half. While 44 percent of

Montanans and 43 percent of Vermonters

watched birds, only 14 percent of

Californians and Texans did. See Chart 8. 

Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 9

Chart 8. Birding Participation Rates by State Residents: 2001

(Population 16 years of age and older)

U.S. Average: 22% ▼

Montana 44%

Vermont 43%

Wisconsin 41%

Washington 36%

Minnesota 36%

Maine 36%

Alaska 36%

Kentucky 35%

Oregon 35%

New Hampshire 34%

Wyoming 34%

Iowa 34%

South Dakota 33%

Idaho 29%

Indiana 29%

New Mexico 28%

Virginia 28%

Utah 27%

Oklahoma 27%

Pennsylvania 27%

Missouri 26%

Colorado 25%

Tennessee 25%

Nebraska 25%

Connecticut 25%

West Virginia 24%

Arkansas 24%

Kansas 24%

Michigan 23%

Maryland 22%

Arizona 22%

Massachusetts 22%

South Carolina 20%

Ohio 20%

Rhode Island 19%

North Carolina 18%

Illinois 18%

New Jersey 18%

Delaware 18%

Mississippi 18%

Alabama 18%

North Dakota 17%

New York 17%

Florida 16%

Louisiana 16%

Georgia 15%

Nevada 15%

Texas 14%

California 14%

Hawaii 9%–

Jim Hudgins, USFWS
The participation rate was highest (30%)

in the West North Central region of the

United States (see Figure 1). The New

England states had the second highest

participation rate at 27 percent with a

close third going to the Rocky Mountain

states (26 percent). The West South

Central states had the lowest rate of

17 percent while the Pacific and South

Atlantic states yielded slightly higher

rates, both 19 percent. However, in terms

of sheer numbers, the Pacific and South

Atlantic states had the most resident

birders — 7 million and 8 million

respectively, while New England had 

the least, 3 million.

10 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis

Figure 1. Birders’ Participation Rates by Region of Residence: 2001

(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)

West

Mountain

26%

West

North Central

30%

West

South

Central 

17%

East

South

Central

22%

South

Atlantic

19%

East

North Central

24%

Middle

Atlantic

21%

New

England

27%

Pacific

19%

Midwest

South

Northeast

Alaska

Washington

Idaho

Oregon

California

Hawaii

Nevada

Utah

Arizona

New Mexico

Colorado

Wyoming

Montana

North

Dakota Minnesota

Iowa

Wisconsin

Ohio

Kentucky

Virginia

Tennessee

Georgia

Illinois

Missouri

South

Dakota

Nebraska

Kansas

Oklahoma Arkansas

Texas Alabama

Indiana

Louisiana

Mississippi

South

Carolina

North Carolina

Florida

West Virginia

Delaware

New Jersey

Connecticut

Rhode Island

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

Vermont

Maryland

Pennsylvania

Maine

 New York

Michigan

U.S. 22%
Bird watching by state residents tells 

only part of the story. Many people travel

out-of-state to watch birds and some

states are natural birding destinations.

Wyoming reaped the benefits of this

tourism with a whopping 67 percent of

their total birders coming from other

states. The scenic northern states of

New Hampshire, Vermont, Montana,

and Alaska also attracted many

birders — all had more than 40 percent 

of their total birders coming from

other states.

Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 11

Table 6. Birding by State Residents and Nonresidents: 2001

(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)

Total Percent Percent 

State Birders State Residents Nonresidents

Alabama 703 90 10

Alaska 321 51 49

Arizona 1,168 70 30

Arkansas 548 88 12

California 3,987 91 9

Colorado 1,077 74 26

Connecticut 732 88 12

Delaware 172 63 37

Florida 2,363 80 20

Georgia 1,063 84 16

Hawaii 164 48 52

Idaho 478 60 40

Illinois 1,815 90 10

Indiana 1,423 94 6

Iowa 813 93 7

Kansas 569 87 13

Kentucky 803 91 9

Louisiana 608 86 14

Maine 595 61 39

Maryland 1,068 82 18

Massachusetts 1,263 86 14

Michigan 1,961 88 12

Minnesota 1,471 90 10

Mississippi 437 88 12

Missouri 1,299 85 15

Montana 558 55 45

Nebraska 386 83 17

Nevada 343 63 37

New Hampshire 569 57 43

New Jersey 1,335 85 15

New Mexico 531 70 30

New York 2,802 88 12

North Carolina 1,296 80 20

North Dakota 134 60 40

Ohio 1,899 93 7

Oklahoma 760 91 9

Oregon 1,187 77 23

Pennsylvania 2,721 91 10

Rhode Island 193 76 25

South Carolina 742 84 16

South Dakota 271 68 32

Tennessee 1,420 76 24

Texas 2,268 94 6

Utah 616 67 33

Vermont 383 53 47

Virginia 1,818 86 14

Washington 1,877 86 14

West Virginia 428 80 20

Wisconsin 1,944 86 14

Wyoming 388 33 67
Where and What Are They Watching?

Backyard birding is the most prevalent

form of birding with 88 percent of

participants watching birds from the

comfort of their homes. Forty percent of

birders travel more than a mile from

home to bird, visiting a variety of habitats

on both private and public lands.

Of the 18 million Americans who ventured

away from home to watch birds, public

land rather than private land was visited

more frequently, although many visited

both. Eighty-three percent of birders

used public land such as parks and

wildlife refuges, 42 percent used private

land, and 31 percent visited both. See

Chart 9.

The most popular setting to observe

birds was in the woods (73%), followed by

lakes and streamside areas (69%) and

brush-covered areas and fields (62% and

61%). Less popular sites were the ocean

(27%) and manmade areas (31%) such as

golf courses and cemeteries. See Table 7.

What kinds of birds are they looking at?

Seventy-eight percent reported

observing waterfowl, making them the

most spied on type of bird. Songbirds

were also popular with 70 percent of

birders watching them, followed in

popularity by birds of prey (68%) and

other water birds such as herons and

shorebirds (56%). See Chart 10.

12 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis

Table 7. Sites Visited by Away-From-Home Birders: 2001

(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in thousands.)

Number 

of Birders Percent

Total, all birders 18,342 100

Woodland 13,405 73

Lake and Streamside 12,615 69

Brush-covered areas 11,324 62

Open field 11,184 61

Marsh, wetland, swamp 8,632 47

Man-made area 5,770 31

Oceanside 4,921 27

Other 2,418 13

* Detail does not add to total because of multiple responses.

Chart 9. Percent of Away-From-Home Birders — by Public and Private Land Visited

Total, all birders 100

Private Land 42–

Public Land 83–

Both Public and Private 31–

Chart 10. Percent of Away-From-Home Birders — by Type of Birds Observed

Total, all birders 100

Waterfowl 78–

Songbirds 70–

Birds of prey 68–

Other water birds* 56–

Other birds** 43–

**shorebirds, herons, etc.

**pheasants, turkeys, etc.

Kathryn Trusten, USDA FS
Avidity

All people identified as birders in this

report said that they took an active

interest in birds — defined as trying to

closely observe or identify different

species. But what is the extent of their

interest? In order to determine their

“avidity” the following factors were

considered: the number of days spent

birdwatching; the number of species 

they could identify; and if they kept a

bird life list.

Presumably because of the relative 

ease of backyard birding, birders around

the home spent nine times as many 

days watching birds as did people who

traveled more than a mile from home to

bird watch. In 2001, the median number

of days for backyard birders was 90 and

for away-from-home birders it was 10.

Although birders are investing a fair

amount of time pursuing their hobby,

most do not appear to have advanced

identification skills. Seventy-four percent

of all birders could identify only between

1 to 20 different types of bird species,

13 percent could identify 21 to 40 birds

and only 8 percent could identify more

than 41 species. Skill levels are higher for

birders who travel from home to bird

watch compared to backyard birders —

10 percent of away-from-home birders

could identify 41 or more birds as

opposed to 6 percent of backyard birders.

Tallies of birds seen during a birder’s

life, sometimes called birding life lists,

were kept by only 5 percent of birders.

This was roughly the same for backyard

birders and away-from-home birders

alike.

Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 13

Chart 11. Percent of Around-the-Home Birders Who Can Identify Birds by Sight or Sound

Chart 12. Percent of Away-From-Home Birders Who Can Identify Birds by Sight or Sound

74% 1-20 bird species

21-40 bird species 13%

41 or more bird species 6%

N.A. 7%

67% 1-20 bird species

21-40 bird species 16%

41 or more bird species 10%

N.A. 7%

Avidity Trends

If we can’t say there are more birders

can we say that birders are more

knowledgeable about their hobby than

in the past? In order to gauge birders’

avidity and level of expertise, the 2001

Survey asked birders how many birds

they can identify — a question last

asked in the 1980 Survey* (USFWS).

A comparison of responses show that

skill levels did not change much in that

20 year time period. For both years,

the same percent, 74, was in the 

beginner category (1 to 20 species of

birds) and roughly the same percent,

13 and 14, respectively, fell into the

intermediate (21 to 40 birds) level. 

A slightly higher percentage of expert

birders, however, (41 or more species)

was found in the 2001 Survey, 8 percent

versus 5 percent in the 1980 Survey.

Yet in another sign that the more

things change the more they stay the

same, almost the same portion, 4 and

5 percent, kept birding life lists.

Table 8. Percent of Birders* Who Can Identify Birds by Sight or Sound and 

Who Kept Birding Life Lists: 1980 and 2001 Comparison

1980 2001

1-20 bird species 74% 74%

21-40 bird species 14% 13%

41 or more bird species 5% 8%

Kept bird life list 4% 5%

* In 1980 the question was asked of all wildlife-watchers (formerly called

non-consumptive) and in 2001 the question was asked of only birders.
Measures of Economic Value

Putting a dollar figure on birding can

appear a tricky business. How can dollars

be used to value something as intangible

as the enjoyment of birds and birding?

Looked at from a practical perspective

we live in a world of competing resources

and dollars. Activities such as golfing and

industries such as computer software are

regularly described in terms of jobs

generated and benefits to consumers.

The same economic principles that guide

the measure of golf and software apply

also to birding.

Expenditures by recreationists and net

economic values are two widely used but

distinctly different measures of the

economic value of wildlife-related

recreation. Money spent for binoculars in

a store or a sandwich in a deli on a trip has

a ripple effect on the economy. It supplies

money for salaries and jobs which in turn

generates more sales and more jobs and

tax revenue. This is economic output or

impact, the direct and indirect impact of

birders’ expenditures and an example of

one of two economic values presented in

this paper. Economic impact numbers are

useful indicators of the importance of

birding to the local, regional, and national

economies but do not measure the

economic benefit to an individual or

society because, theoretically, money not

spent on birding (or golf, or software)

would be spent on other activities, be it

fishing or scuba diving. Money is just

transferred from one group to another.

However, from the perspective of a given

community or region, out-of-region

residents spending money for birding

represents real economic wealth.

Another economic concept is birding’s

economic benefit to individuals and

society: the amount that people are

willing to pay over and above what they

actually spend to watch birds. This is

known as net economic value, or

consumer surplus, and is the appropriate

economic measure of the benefit to

individuals from participation in wildliferelated recreation (Bishop, 1984;

Freeman, 1993; Loomis et al., 1984;

McCollum et al. 1992). The benefit to

society is the summation of willingness to

pay across all individuals.

Net economic value is measured as

participants’ “willingness to pay” above

what they actually spend to participate.

The benefit to society is the summation of

willingness to pay across all individuals.

There is a direct relationship between

expenditures and net economic value, as

shown in Figure 2. A demand curve for a

representative birder is shown in the

figure. The downward sloping demand

curve represents marginal willingness to

pay per trip and indicates that each

additional trip is valued less by the birder

than the preceding trip. All other factors

being equal, the lower the cost per trip

(vertical axis) the more trips the birder

will take (horizontal axis). The cost of a

birding trip serves as an implicit price for

birding since a market price generally

does not exist for this activity. At $60 per

trip, the birder would choose not to watch

birds, but if birding were free, the birder

would take 20 birding trips.

At a cost per trip of $25 the birder takes

10 trips, with a total willingness to pay of

$375 (area acde in Figure 2). Total

willingness to pay is the total value the

birder places on participation. The birder

will not take more than 10 trips because

the cost per trip ($25) exceeds what he

would pay for an additional trip. For each

trip between zero and 10, however, the

birder would actually have been willing to

pay more than $25 (the demand curve,

showing marginal willingness to pay, lies

above $25).

The difference between what the birder

is willing to pay and what is actually paid

is net economic value. In this simple

example, therefore, net economic value is

$125 (($50 – $25) 10 ÷ 2) (triangle bcd in

Figure 2) and birder expenditures are

$250 ($25 × 10) (rectangle abde in Figure

2). Thus, the birder’s total willingness to

pay is composed of net economic value

and total expenditures. Net economic

value is simply total willingness to pay

minus expenditures. The relationship

between net economic value and

14 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis

The Economics of Bird Watching

Figure 2. Individual Birder’s Demand Curve for Birding Trips

Cost per Trip ($)

Trips per Year

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

5 20 25 10 15

b

a e

d

c

Expenditures

Net Economic Value
expenditures is the basis for asserting

that net economic value is an appropriate

measure of the benefit an individual

derives from participation in an activity

and that expenditures are not the

appropriate benefit measure.

Expenditures are out-of-pocket expenses

on items a birder purchases in order to

watch birds. The remaining value, net

willingness to pay (net economic value), is

the economic measure of an individual’s

satisfaction after all costs of participation

have been paid.

Summing the net economic values of all

individuals who participate in an activity

derives the value to society. For our

example let us assume that there are 100

birders who bird watch at a particular

wildlife refuge and all have demand

curves identical to that of our typical

birder presented in Figure 2. The total

value of this wildlife refuge to society is

$12,500 ($125 × 100).

Birders’ Expenditures and 

Economic Impact

Birders spent an estimated $32 billion

(see Table 9) on wildlife-watching in 2001.

This estimate includes money spent for

binoculars, field guides, bird food, bird

houses, camping gear, and big-ticket

items such as boats. It also includes

travel-related costs such as food and

transportation costs, guide fees, etc. 

When using the numbers in Tables 9 and

10 it is important to know that these

dollar figures represent the money

birders spent for all wildlife-watching

recreation — not just birding. The 2001

Survey collected expenditure data for

people who fed, photographed, or

observed wildlife. Expenditure data was

not collected solely for birding. It is

possible that people who watched birds in

2001 may have spent money on other

Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 15

Table 9. Birders’ Expenditures for Wildlife Watching: 2001

(Population 16 years of age and older. Thousands of dollars.)

Expenditure item Expenditures ($)

Total, all items 31,686,673

Trip-Related Expenditures

Total, trip-related 7,409,679

Food 2,646,224

Lodging 1,851,206

Public transportation 682,202

Private transportation 1,790,951

Guide fees, pack trip or package fees 110,374

Private land use fees 48,999

Public land use fees 108,414

Boating costs 135,381

Heating and cooking fuel 35,928

Equipment and Other Expenses

Total, equipment and other expenses 24,276,994

Wildlife-watching equipment, total 6,010,141

Binoculars, spotting scopes 471,264

Cameras, video cameras, special lenses, and other 

photographic equipment 1,431,807

Film and developing 837,868

Bird food 2,239,259

Nest boxes, bird houses, feeders, baths 628,060

Daypacks, carrying cases and special clothing 288,648

Other wildlife-watching equipment (such as field guides, and maps) 113,235

Auxiliary equipment, total 523,700

Tents, tarps 163,999

Frame packs and backpacking equipment 121,217

Other camping equipment 238,835

Other auxiliary equipment (such as blinds) 117,267

Special equipment, total 11,158,302

Off-the-road vehicle 5,512,624

Travel or tent trailer, pickup, camper, van, motor home 4,657,752

Boats, boat accessories 946,688

Other 41,238

Magazine 297,780

Land leasing and ownership 4,197,666

Membership dues and contributions 808,101

Plantings 639,986

Facts-at-a-Glance

46 Million Birders

$32 Billion in Retail Sales

$85 Billion in Overall

Economic Output

$13 Billion in State and

Federal Income Taxes

863,406 Jobs Created
types of wildlife-related recreation such

as binoculars for whale-watching or gas

for a moose-watching trip rather than

only bird-watching. Therefore, these

estimates for birding expenditures may

be overestimates.

This $32 billion that birders spent

generated $85 billion in economic benefits

for the nation in 2001. This ripple effect

on the economy also produced $13 billion

in tax revenues and 863,406 jobs. For

details on economic impact estimation

methods see Appendix A.

The sheer magnitude of these numbers

proves that birding is a major economic

force, driving billions in spending around

the county. On a local level, these

economic impacts can be the life-blood of

an economy. Towns such as Cape May,

New Jersey, and Platte River, Nebraska,

attract thousands of birding visitors a

year generating millions of dollars —

money that would likely otherwise be

spent elsewhere.

Estimated Net Economic Values

As stated earlier, the willingness to pay

above what is actually spent for an

activity is known as net economic value.

This number is derived here by using a

survey technique called contingent

valuation (Mitchell and Carson, 1989).

Respondents to the 2001 Survey were

asked a series of contingent valuation

(CV) questions to determine their net

willingness to pay for a wildlife watching

trip. Please note that the data presented

here are net economic values for wildlife

watching trips — not for bird watching

trips solely. However, since the vast

majority of away-from-home wildlife

watchers are birders (84 percent), the

values presented here are acceptable for

use in valuing birding trips. For details

on net economic value estimation

methods please see Appendix A.

As seen in Table 11, the net economic

value per year for a wildlife watcher in

their resident state is $257 per year or

$35 per day. Wildlife watchers who travel

outside their state have a different

demand curve (they generally take fewer

trips and spend more money) and

therefore have their own net economic

values of $488 per year and $134 per day.

When and how can these values be used?

These numbers are appropriate for any

project evaluation that seeks to quantify

benefits and costs. They can be used to

evaluate management decisions (actions)

that increase or decrease participation

rates. In a simple example, if a wildlife

refuge changed its policies and allowed

100 more birders to visit per year, the total

value to society due to this policy change

would be $25,700 ($257 × 100) per year

(assuming all visitors are state residents).

This value, however, assumes that these

100 birders could and would watch birds

only at this refuge and that they would

take a certain number of trips to this

refuge. In a more realistic example, if the

refuge changed its policy and stayed open

two more weeks a year and knew that

100 people visited each day during this

period then the benefit to society could be

estimated by multiplying the number of

people by days (100 × 14) by the average

value per day ($35) for a total of $49,000.

If the refuge had data on the number of

in-state and out-of-state visitors then the

numbers could be adjusted to reflect their

appropriate value.

Net economic values also can be used 

to evaluate management actions that

have a negative affect on wildlife

watching. For example, if a wildlife

sanctuary was slated for development

and birders were no longer able to use

the site, and if the sanctuary manger

knew the number of days of birding over

the whole year (e.g, 2,000 days) it is

possible to develop a rough estimate of

the loss from this closure. This estimate

is accomplished by multiplying net

economic value per day ($35) by the days

of participation (2,000) for a value of

$70,000 per year.

Two caveats exist to the examples 

above: (1) if bird watchers can shift their

birding to another location then the

values are an over-estimate; and (2) if a

loss of wildlife habitat causes an overall

degradation in the number of birds and

in the quality of birding then the values

are an under-estimate.

16 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis

Table 10. Economic Impact of Birders: 2001*

(Population 16 years of age and older.)

Retail Sales (expenditures) $31,686,673,000

Economic Output $84,931,020,000

Salaries and Wages $24,882,676,000

Jobs 863,406

State Income taxes $4,889,380,000

Federal Income taxes $7,703,308,000

* Amount that birders spent on all wildlife watching.

Table 11. Net Economic Values for Wildlife Watching: 2001

(Population 16 years of age and older.)

Standard Net economic Standard

Net economic error of 95 percent value per day error of 95 percent 

value per year the mean confidence interval of birdwatching the mean confidence interval

State Residents $257 12 $233 – 282 $35 2 $32 – 39

Nonresidents $488 37 $415 – 561 $134 12 $110 – 158
Back in Louisiana, the search for the

ivory-billed woodpecker ended in

disappointment. After an exhaustive two

week search, none were found. Optimism,

however, continues to prevail. In a group

statement the expedition team said they

think the bird may exist based on the

availability of good quality habitat and

other evidence.

This optimism of always looking

hopefully into the next tree is the espritde-corps of birders. As this report shows,

birders come from many walks of life and

watch a variety of birds in different

settings. Their enthusiasm for birding

also translates into spending, thereby

contributing significantly to national and

local economies. The high values birders

place on their birding trips is a solid

indicator of birding’s benefit to society.

While the numbers of birders may not

have grown statistically, the power of a

mobilized birding community and the

willingness of mass media sources and

the general public to give play to birding

issues has an impact felt deeply in the

economy and promotes the sustainability

of bird habitats. Hopefully, the

information in this report will allow

resource managers and policy makers to

make informed management decisions

when birds and birding are involved.

Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 17

Conclusion

Grant La Rouche
Bishop, Richard C. 1984. “Economic

Values Defined.” In Valuing Wildlife:

Economic and Social Perspectives, D.F.

Decker and G.R. Goff (eds), Westview

Press, Boulder, CO.

Freeman, A. Myrick. 1993. The

Measurement of Environmental and

Resource Values: Theory and Methods.

Resources for the Future, Washington,

D.C.

Loomis, John B., George L. Peterson, and

Cindy Sorg. 1984. “A Field Guide to

Wildlife Economic Analysis.”

Transactions of the Forty-ninth North

American and Natural Resources

Conferece: 315-324.

Loomis, John B., 2000. “Can

Environmental Economic Valuations

Techniques Aid Ecological Economics

and Wildlife Conservation?” Wildlife

Society Bulletin 28:52-60.

McCollum, Daniel W., George L.

Peterson, and Cindy Swanson. 1992. “A

Managers Guide to Valuation of

Nonmarket Resources: What do you

really want to know?” In Valuing

Wildlife Resources in Alaska, G.L.

Peterson, C.S. Swanson, D.W. McCollum

and M.H. Thomas (eds), and Westview

Press Boulder, CO.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon.

2003. The North American Breeding

Bird Survey, Results and Analysis

1966—2002. Version 2003.1, USGS

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center,

Laurel, MD.

Rosen, Jonathan. 2001. “The Ghost Bird.”

In The New Yorker. 5/14/01: 61-67.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. 1980

National Survey of Fishing Hunting

and Wildlife Associated Recreation. 4401

North Fairfax Drive, Division of Federal

Aid Suite 4020. Arlington, VA 22203.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. 1991

National Survey of Fishing Hunting

and Wildlife Associated Recreation. 4401

North Fairfax Drive, Division of Federal

Aid Suite 4020. Arlington, VA 22203.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. 1996

National Survey of Fishing Hunting

and Wildlife Associated Recreation. 4401

North Fairfax Drive, Division of Federal

Aid Suite 4020. Arlington, VA 22203.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. 2001

National Survey of Fishing Hunting

and Wildlife Associated Recreation. 4401

North Fairfax Drive, Division of Federal

Aid Suite 4020. Arlington, VA 22203.

18 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis

References

Cape May Warbler (Dendroica tigrina)by Steve Maslowski, USFWS
Economic Impact Methods

The 2001 National Survey contains

estimates of annual travel and equipment

expenditures by wildlife-watching

participants. Travel expenditures were

obtained only for away-from-home

participants while equipment

expenditures were obtained for both

around-the-home and away-from-home

wildlife watchers. To obtain the economic

impact figures, these expenditures were

used in conjunction with an economic

modeling method known as input-output

analysis. The estimates of economic

activity, jobs, and employment income

were derived using IMPLAN, a regional

input-output model and software system.

State and federal tax impacts are based

on industry-wide averages for each

industrial sector.

Contingent Valuation Methods

Using expenditure and trip data collected

from respondents earlier in the survey,

respondents were presented with their

average number of wildlife-watching

trips in 2001 and average cost per trip. 

If the respondents did not think this

information was accurate they were

allowed to change it to what they thought

was the accurate number of trips and/or

an accurate cost per-trip. The respondent

was then asked how much money would

have been too much to pay per trip. This

question was reiterated in another form

in case there was misunderstanding (the

full series of questions is in Appendix B).

Assuming a linear demand curve, annual

net economic value was then calculated

using the difference between current cost

and the maximum cost at the intercept

and the number of trips taken in 2001.

The valuation sequence was posed in

terms of numbers of trips and cost per

trip because respondents were thought

more likely to think in terms of trips. 

The economic values here are reported in

days to facilitate their use in analysis.

Outliers were deleted if respondents

answered in a way that resulted in 

zero or negative willingness to pay.

Observations were also dropped from 

the sample if the CV responses resulted

in an annual net economic value for an

activity that exceeded 5 percent of an

individual’s household income.

Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis 19

Appendix A. Methods

Grant La Rouche
RESIDENT STATE

Note: These series of questions were

asked about ALL trips taken for the

PRIMARY PURPOSE of observing,

photographing, or feeding wildlife during

the ENTIRE calendar year of 2001 in the

respondent’s state of residence.

You reported taking [X] trips for the

PRIMARY PURPOSE of observing,

photographing, or feeding wildlife in

[RESIDENT STATE]. Is that correct?

1—Yes

2—No

[IF NO] How many trips did you take for

the PRIMARY PURPOSE of observing,

feeding or photographing wildlife in

[RESIDENT STATE] (from Wave 1)

during 2001?

Zero was allowed as a valid response.

In your current and/or previous

interview(s), you reported that you spent

on average $[X] per trip during 2001

where your PRIMARY PURPOSE was

to observe, photograph, or feed

wildlife in [RESIDENT STATE] . Would

you say that cost is about right?

1—Yes

2—No

[IF NO] How much would you say is the

average cost of your current and/or

previous trip(s) during 2001 where your

PRIMARY PURPOSE was to observe,

photograph, or feed wildlife in [resident

state]? If you went with family or friends,

include ONLY YOUR SHARE of the

cost.

Zero was allowed as a valid response.

What is the most your trip(s) to observe,

photograph, or feed wildlife in

[RESIDENT STATE] could have cost

you per trip last year before you would

NOT have gone at all in 2001, not even

one trip, because it would have been too

expensive? Keep in mind that the cost per

trip of other kinds of recreation would not

have changed.

Zero was allowed as a valid response.

So, in other words, [X] would have been

too much to pay to take even one trip to

observe, photograph, or feed wildlife in

2001 in [RESIDENT STATE] ?

1—Yes

2—No

[IF NO] How much would have been too

much to pay to take even 1 trip to feed,

photograph, or observe wildlife in 2001 in

[RESIDENT STATE] ?

Zero was allowed as a valid response.

RANDOM STATE NOT EQUAL TO 

RESIDENT STATE

Note: These series of questions were

asked about ALL trips taken for the

PRIMARY PURPOSE of observing,

photographing, or feeding wildlife during

the ENTIRE calendar year of 2001 in a

state other than the respondent’s state of

residence. If the respondent took a trip in

more than one state as a nonresident, one

state was randomly chosen.

You reported taking [X] trip(s) for the

PRIMARY PURPOSE of observing,

photographing, or feeding wildlife in

[STATE]. Is that correct?

1—Yes

2—No

[IF NO] How many trips did you take for

the PRIMARY PURPOSE of observing,

feeding and photographing wildlife in

[STATE] during 2001?

Zero was allowed as a valid response.

In your current and/or previous

interview(s), you reported that you spent

on average $ [X] per trip during 2001

where your PRIMARY PURPOSE was

to observe, photograph, and feed wildlife

in [STATE]. Would you say that cost is

about right?

1—Yes

2—No

How much would you say was the

average cost of your current and/or

previous trip(s) during 2001 where your

PRIMARY PURPOSE was to observe,

photograph, and feed wildlife in

[STATE]? If you went with family or

friends, include ONLY YOUR SHARE of

the cost.

Zero was allowed as a valid response.

What is the most your trip(s) to observe,

photograph, or feed wildlife in [STATE]

could have cost you per trip last year

before you would NOT have gone at all in

2001, not even one trip, because it would

have been too expensive? Keep in mind

that the cost per trip of other kinds of

recreation would not have changed.

Zero was allowed as a valid response.

So, in other words, [X] is too much to pay

to take even one trip to observe,

photograph, or feed wildlife in 2001 in

[STATE]?

1—Yes

2—No

[IF NO] How much would be too 

much to pay to take even 1 trip to feed,

photograph, or observe wildlife in 2001

in [STATE]?

Zero was allowed as a valid response.

20 Birding in the United States: A Demographic and Economic Analysis

Appendix B. Contingent Valuation Section from the 

2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and 

Wildlife-Associated Recreation

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Division of Federal Aid

Washington, DC 20240

http://federalaid.fws.gov

August 2003

Cover photo: Dickcissel (Spiza americana) 

by Steve Maslowski, USFWS