An input-output analysis of recreational fishing expenditures (2006 & 2011) across the southern United States

International Journal of Environmental Studies ISSN: 0020-7233 (Print) 1029-0400 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/genv20 An input-output analysis of recreational fishing expenditures (2006 & 2011) across the southern United States Jagdish Poudel, Ian A. Munn & James E. Henderson To cite this article: Jagdish Poudel, Ian A. Munn & James E. Henderson (2017): An input-output analysis of recreational fishing expenditures (2006 & 2011) across the southern United States, International Journal of Environmental Studies, DOI: 10.1080/00207233.2017.1412195 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2017.1412195 Published online: 12 Dec 2017. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalinformation?journalcode=genv20 Download by: [69.136.139.21] Date: 12 December 2017, At: 15:34

International Journal of Environmental Studies, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2017.1412195 An input-output analysis of recreational fishing expenditures (2006 & 2011) across the southern United States Jagdish Poudel a, Ian A. Munn b and James E. Henderson c a Forest Resource Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI, USA; b Forestry Department, College of Forest Resources, Mississippi State, MS, USA; c Coastal Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Biloxi, MS, USA ABSTRACT This paper examines the economic contribution of recreational fishing expenditures across the southern United States (US). Input-output models were constructed for each southern state using US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) fishing expenditures data, both saltwater and freshwater, to determine the direct, indirect, and induced effects of these expenditures. Comparisons were made between pre- and post-recession (2006 and 2011), freshwater and saltwater fishing, and between states. Expenditures were essentially unchanged from 2006 to 2011; but numbers of participating anglers increased by ten percent and the economic contribution generated by the expenditures increased by 10 30%, depending on the economic indicator. The variations across states were substantial, with Florida dominating the others, especially in saltwater fishing. This study documents the important economic contributions of recreational fishing. Introduction KEYWORDS Recreational fishing; economic contribution; IMPLAN models Fishing as a recreational activity makes an important contribution to the economy. In 2006, 30 million anglers fished 516.8 million days in the US spending $42 billion on fishing trips and equipment during the year [1]. This spending represents a 4% increase since 2001. In aggregate (fresh and saltwater fishing) the number of anglers (33.1 million) was greater in 2011. There was little difference in spending ($41.8 billion) compared to 2006, but the trends differed between freshwater and saltwater anglers. Although participation increased for both types of fishing, freshwater fishing expenditures decreased while saltwater fishing expenditures increased [2]. These expenditures vary by anglers choice, resource type, fishing trip characteristics, anglers characteristics, and their willingness to pay for fishing [3,4]. Most recreational expenditures occur in rural communities, which capture a large share of the spending by providing goods and services [5]. For example, in 2011, 52% of total fishing expenditures was for food and lodging, transportation, land use fees, guide fees, equipment rental, and other travel-related items. These fishing expenditures generate substantial income and employment in a wide range of manufacturing, transportation, CONTACT Jagdish Poudel poudelj@michigan.gov 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 J. POUDEL ET AL. and service sectors; from retail and service sectors providing goods and services, to manufacturing and transportation firms supplying the business used by anglers [6]. Along with direct fishing expenditures, indirect and induced effects arise when industries provide goods and services for anglers. Direct effects occur when anglers buy fishing equipment at retail stores (e.g. bait, hooks, ice, lines, and leaders) and fishing related services (e.g. food, lodging, transportation, rental vehicles, fees). Indirect effects occur when the directly impacted sectors (i.e. retail and service stores) make purchases from local companies in order to create their product (e.g. the retailer purchases fishing-related materials from manufacturers, pays employees, and utility bills and other costs of operation). These companies then make local purchases from other local industries and the cycle continues until all remaining indirect effects are derived from industries outside the region. Induced effects are generated when employees in the directly and indirectly impacted industries spend their wages on locally produced goods and services (e.g. spending at local restaurants, paying for utilities and groceries, etc.). The total economic contribution is the value of production required to meet all the needs stemming from the initial activity: fishing related purchases. Understanding the economic importance of recreational fishing activities has been the aim of numerous studies in the US. Even though such efforts have provided us with important insights, theories, and tools, such as a travel cost analysis [7], random utility models [8], and willingness to pay [9], these techniques do not provide complete economic details that policy makers need for proper resource allocation. Few studies have assessed recreational fishing expenditures at different levels. Steinback et al. [6] evaluated recreational saltwater fishing expenditures nationwide and Munn et al. [10] estimated $21.4 billion in total output and 163,541 jobs generated by fishing expenditures in the southern US. Several other studies focused at the county level [11], state level [12], multi-state regional level [13] and regions of various sizes and activities [10,14 16]. Yet research comparing recreational fishing expenditure patterns, their economic contribution, and economic sectors supported by these expenditures across southern states and for more than a single time period is lacking in the literature. This gap is important. Differences in expenditures, economic contribution, and industries supported by recreational fishing to local economies can be substantial, particularly when indirect and induced effects are considered. This economic contribution can affect the formulation of state and federal policies and regulations and related management activities pertaining to recreational fishing, as these actions affect revenue, taxes, employment, and income. Hence, periodic assessment of the economic contribution associated with fishing expenditures is necessary. The objective of this paper is to estimate the economic contribution of fresh and saltwater fishing expenditures for a multi-state region and examine differences in the impacts of fishing activities, both among activities and among states, over time, specifically, pre- and post the Great Recession. This will illustrate the intra-regional variations in establishing recreational fishery related programs and policies as the economic contribution can vary both regionally and temporally. Assuming that fishing is a normal good, economic theory indicates that willingness to pay for recreational fishing opportunities will fall if anglers real incomes fall. This is likely the case in the period from 2006 to 2011 as a result of the Great Recession. Knowing whether or not economic contributions from recreational fishing expenditures are susceptible to macroeconomic fluctuations may be useful for long term federal and state agency public land

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 3 management planning, including management of recreational areas that practice temporal planning. This paper investigates how the economic contribution of recreational fishing expenditures changed and how economic sectors benefited more between 2006 and 2011. It would be useful to know whether these economic contribution estimates are affected by economic cycles, particularly the US economic recession from 2007 to 2009 which resulted in an unemployment rate increase from 5 to 10% [17]. This paper focuses on recreational fishing expenditures and its sub-activities (i.e. saltwater and freshwater fishing) in the southern US. This region of the US ranks among the highest for both saltwater and freshwater fishing. With regard to angler expenditures, two southern states, Florida and Texas, ranked first and second in the nation and South Carolina and North Carolina also ranked in the top 10 [1]. Furthermore, fishing expenditures in the southern US accounted for 38% of the overall US fishing expenditures [10]. Land in the southern US is also largely privately owned [16,18] and 81% of coastal wetlands in the US are located in the southern region (EPA factsheet). 1 These features likely induce different expenditure patterns, affect different economic sectors, and consequently yield different regional economic benefits at different points in time than other regions. This paper also establishes baseline information so that changes over time can be compared. First, we formalize the theoretical framework of the input-output model used for our analysis. Next, we introduce IMPLAN model software and data and define economic indicators to be compared. Then we present the results and conclusions with some discussion. Theoretical framework Leontief [19] formulated the Walrasian fully determinate general equilibrium system, by a set of equations to express intermediate goods and services with the sales and purchases of the intermediate industries forming the core of the input-output system. Adopting the Leontief [19] theory and input-output models [20], we describe the theoretical framework of input-output analysis in this paper. Input-output (I-O) models are widely used for economic contribution analysis [14]. They describe what industry outputs and factors are associated with inter-industry activity [20]. They model the inter-industry backward linkages and quantify the net economic contribution by adjusting for leakages that result from regional trade, taxes and savings [19]. This technique has been used to estimate the contribution of wildlife-associated recreation activities to local economies [10,21,22]. The Leontief input-output model is constructed from observed economic data for a specific geographic region (e.g. state) and models the activity of a group of industries that both produce goods and services (i.e. output) and consume goods and services from other industries (i.e. inputs) in the process of producing each industry s own output. The notation and exposition here rely on Miller and Blair [20]. Assuming there are n sectors in the economy, where x i is the total output or product of sector I and F i is the total final demand for sector I s product, the distribution of sector I s product through sales to other sectors and to final demand can be represented by the following equation [20]: x i = z i1 + +z ij + +z in + f i = n j=1 zij + f i (1) where z ij is the inter-industry sales by sector i to all j sectors. For n sectors there will be n equations as follow:

4 J. POUDEL ET AL. x 1 = z 11 + +z 1j + +z 1n + f 1.. x i = z i1 + +z ij + +z in + f i.. (2) x n = z n1 + +z nj + +z nn + f n Which can be represented in matrix form as follows: X = x 1.. x n, Z = Equation (3) can be represented in compact matrix notation as follows: z 11 z 1n z n1 z nn X = Zi + F and F = where i represents a column vector of 1 s of dimension n. The input-output model examines the relationship between industries through the production activities for each industry in a region and based on the fundamental assumption that the inter-industry flows from i to j for a given time period and depend on the total output of sector j [20]. Given z ij and x j, input of product (i) by industry (j) for a specific time period, total production forms the ratio of input to output as follow: a ij = z ij x i, or a ij x i = z ij This ratio is the technical coefficient and represents the direct requirement of commodity i needed per unit of commodity j s production. Rearranging the above ratio, replacing z ij with a ij x i in Equation (2) and solving for f 1,., f n we get the following forms: f 1.. f n (3) (4) (5) ( ) 1 a11 x1 a 1i x i a 1n x n = f 1.. a i1 x 1 + ( ) 1 a ii xi a in x n = f i.. (6) a n1 x 1 a ni x i + ( 1 a nn ) xn = f n

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 5 Using an inverse matrix and diagonal matrix definition, the n n matrix of the technical coefficients can be represented as: A = Z X 1 (7) where the matrix A is the technical coefficient matrix. Using equations (4) and (7), we can make explicit the dependence of inter-industry flows on the total output of each activity, and with a matrix notation the system of equation can be compactly expressed as, X = AX + F (8) Let I be the n n identity matrix, the above equation becomes: (I A)X = F (9) Finding the unique solution of above equation depends on whether or not (I A) 1 exists. From matrix definition, if I A 0, then (I A) 1 can be found, which is known as the Leontief inverse [20]. Solving for this inverse is equivalent to computing all the iterations in rounds of spending that would occur in response to a $1 increase in final demand [23]. In this study, the expenditures resulting from an increase in recreational fishing activities (F) stimulate other inputs from regional economic sectors (the Leontief multiplier) and results in larger total output (X) in the regional economy. Methods IMPLAN (IMpact analysis for PLANning), an economic input-output modeling software, was used to estimate the economic contribution of recreational fishing expenditures across the southern US. IMPLAN is a mathematical model and calculates the estimated economic impact through algorithms that are deterministic rather than stochastic. Hence the model does not report statistics and confidence intervals associated with its output results. IMPLAN databases are available at the national, state, congressional district, county, and zip code levels and include employment, earnings, total output, value-added, tax impacts, and economic multipliers. These economic databases, which are released annually, are based on data collected by the US Department of Commerce for 440 industry sectors. 2 I-O models were constructed for each southern state using 2006 and 2011 fishing-related expenditures data (input), coupled with 2009 and 2011 IMPLAN state level data, respectively. Major economic indicators such as employment (full-and part-time jobs), total income, total output and value-added (in millions of dollars) were estimated (output) for each state and for the region. Since freshwater and saltwater fishing activities require unique equipment, trip-related and other expenditures impacting different industry sectors across the southern states, the contributions of freshwater and saltwater fishing expenditures were also simulated independently using each of the thirteen state I-O models. To be compatible with the 2009 IMPLAN database, 2006 expenditures dollars were inflated to 2009 dollars, and after simulation, results were deflated to 2006 dollars for reporting purposes using IMPLAN-provided deflators. This process was not necessary for 2011 models because both data sets were expressed in the same event year dollars. When comparing the variation between two event years (2006 & 2011), dollar values were adjusted for inflation and reported in 2006 dollars.

6 J. POUDEL ET AL. Results from the models were reported for key economic indicators: employment, total income, value-added, total output, and social accounting matrix (SAM) multipliers. The employment estimates include both full-and part-time jobs. Total income consists of employee compensation, proprietor income, and other property type income. Valueadded is the difference between an industry s total output and the cost of its intermediate inputs. It equals gross output (sales or receipts and other operating income, plus inventory change) minus intermediate inputs (consumption of goods and services purchased from other industries or imports). Value-added consists of employee compensation, taxes on production and imports, less subsidies and gross operating surplus (gross profits). Similarly, total output is defined as the value of production. Social accounting matrix (SAM) multipliers capture transactions between businesses and institutions taking place in a regional economy in a given year and reflect the structure of the local economy. SAM multipliers take into account expenditures resulting from increased household incomes as well as inter-institutional transfers. Therefore, SAM multipliers assume that as final demand changes, incomes increase along with inter-institutional transfers. As business and institutions increase expenditures, this leads to increased demand from local industries. For example, a SAM multiplier of 1.80 for total output indicates that for every $1 of direct output, an additional 0.80 cents of output is generated in the economy. Fishing expenditures data were obtained from the 2006 and 2011 reports of the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation [1,2]. Data were reported for all fishing and by sub-activity: saltwater and freshwater fishing. Some expenditures reported by the original survey respondents could not easily be attributed to either salt or freshwater fishing. For example, fishing boats were included in all fishing but none were allocated to either salt or freshwater fishing. Hence, reported expenditures included in all fishing could exceed the sum of expenditures reported in salt and freshwater fishing (see National Survey for 2011 [2] for survey details). Fishing expenditures were categorized into trip-related expenditures, 3 equipment expenditures, 4 and other expenditures. 5 The expenditures data for the 13 southern states were obtained from the 2006 and 2011 USFWS state level reports. 6 Expenditures data for some categories were not reported for some states because the sample sizes were too small to report data reliably. For example, Texas, Kentucky, and Mississippi expenditures data for special equipment (such as boats, campers, cabin, trial bikes), a sub-category of total fishing equipment, were not reported in the USFWS state level report, whereas these data are reported in other remaining states. In these cases, where state level data were not reported, estimates were derived by prorating the total expenditures in the broader category according to the share this category represents in the national expenditures following the procedure used by Munn et al. [10]. For example, special equipment represents a 0.7239 share of total fishing equipment expenditures at the national level. If only total fishing expenditures were reported for a particular state, special equipment expenditures were estimated by prorating the total by the national share. A similar procedure was employed for expenditures data for freshwater and saltwater fishing activities such as auxiliary equipment (e.g. camping equipment, binoculars, telescopes, special fishing clothing, processing/taxidermy costs etc.), which are prorated based on national auxiliary expenditures shares, and similarly other fishing costs (e.g. magazines, books, membership dues/contributions, land leasing and ownership, licenses, stamps, tags and permits, etc.) are also prorated based on national other fishing cost section shares.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 7 Table 1. Expenditures incurred by anglers by state and region and by fishing type for the U.S. South for 2006 and 2011 (In thousands of dollars). All fishing Freshwater fishing Saltwater fishing States 2006 2011 % change 2006 2011 % change 2006 2011 % change Alabama 699,533 456,442 41.5 492,746 368,812 32.9 131,290 74,012 49.5 Arkansas 420,572 495,584 5.6 380,228 481,107 13.4 NA NA Florida 4,308,582 4,629,202 3.7 1,131,855 709,725 43.8 2,443,802 3,119,236 14.4 Georgia 1,020,410 872,550 23.4 725,011 740,358 8.5 71,564 86,488 8.3 Kentucky 855,417 807,293 15.4 605,319 722,017 6.9 NA NA Louisiana 1,006,137 807,033 28.1 403,899 504,802 12.0 336,943 264,998 29.5 Mississippi 240,332 527,740 96.8 188,106 260,188 24.0 31,441 239,886 583.8 North Carolina 1,124,273 1,523,131 21.4 515,018 574,377 0.0 450,313 759,567 51.2 Oklahoma 501,786 730,503 30.5 464,345 396,015 23.6 NA NA South Carolina 1,404,132 686,328 56.2 532,287 494,158 16.8 572,143 176,761 72.3 Tennessee 599,683 1,137,104 69.9 553,807 1,084,278 75.5 NA NA Texas 3,237,212 1,540,434 57.4 2,016,972 608,287 73.0 797,202 890,556 0.1 Virginia 733,776 1,142,099 39.5 415,891 455,818 1.8 234,522 304,241 16.3 Total Southern States 16,151,845 15,355,443 14.8 8,425,484 7,399,942 21.3 5,069,220 5,915,745 4.6 National 42,156,092 41,788,934 11.2 26,348,217 25,732,493 12.5 8,879,948 10,266,904 3.6 South as % of National 38.3 37 31.9 29 57 58 Source: Data source: 2006 and 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Notes: Salt and freshwater fishing do not sum to all fishing because some expenditures could not be allocated to either but could be included in the total, e.g. boats. Percentage changes are calculated in real terms to adjust 2011 expenditures to 2006 dollar values.

8 J. POUDEL ET AL. Table 2. Regional economic contributions from expenditures for fishing and its sub-activities in the U.S. South for 2006 and 2011. Employment Total Income Value-added Output Value-added as % of total output Expenditures Impact type Freshwater Fishing Saltwater Fishing 2006 2011 2006 2011 2006 2011 2006 2011 2006 2011 Direct 74,912 55,846 2,525,124,010 1,876,269,092 2,812,993,261 2,083,491,188 6,775,393,274 5,326,542,199 41.52 39.12 Indirect 23,567 16,551 2,019,921,398 1,335,515,976 2,202,376,204 1,454,494,646 4,304,414,508 3,054,250,126 51.17 47.62 Induced 32,936 81,473 2,013,481,745 5,315,793,709 2,241,872,354 5,743,952,165 3,809,642,406 9,426,346,259 58.85 60.94 Total 131,415 153,870 6,558,527,152 8,527,578,777 7,257,241,819 9,281,937,998 14,889,450,188 17,807,138,584 48.74 52.12 SAM multiplier 1.75 2.76 2.60 4.54 2.58 4.45 2.20 3.34 Direct 47,987 51,853 1,541,467,015 1,640,832,471 1,733,807,913 1,844,807,769 3,775,548,994 3,820,789,581 45.92 48.28 Indirect 13,109 11,597 1,097,098,785 902,064,761 1,196,484,645 984,241,388 2,274,150,099 1,947,301,402 52.61 50.54 Induced 21,347 70,099 1,305,299,710 4,569,664,027 1,453,345,806 4,938,431,818 2,469,818,157 8,101,041,623 58.84 60.96 Total 82,443 133,549 3,943,865,510 7,112,561,258 4,383,638,364 7,767,480,975 8,519,517,251 13,869,132,606 51.45 56.01 SAM multiplier 1.72 2.58 2.56 4.33 2.53 4.21 2.26 3.63 All Fishing Direct 164,698 123,940 5,892,309,748 4,227,595,683 6,769,794,907 4,708,651,045 11,517,433,792 10,335,002,356 58.78 45.56 Indirect 35,971 31,502 2,798,877,822 2,464,636,344 3,046,745,198 2,682,689,723 5,792,150,490 5,452,604,416 52.6 49.20 Induced 84,703 171,257 5,195,357,636 11,169,616,185 5,784,021,913 12,069,358,837 9,834,526,456 19,800,619,946 58.81 60.95 Total 285,373 326,699 13,886,545,205 17,861,848,210 15,600,562,018 19,460,699,605 27,144,110,738 35,588,226,717 57.47 54.68 SAM multiplier 1.73 2.64 2.36 4.23 2.30 4.13 2.36 3.44 Notes: The results were generated using a 2006 and 2011 IMPLAN Input Output model of the southern regional economy employing 2006 and 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation expenditure data. Results are expressed in 2006 dollars.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 9 Recreational fishing expenditures data that were used as inputs in IMPLAN models were derived from the survey sample and hence have associated margins of error. Both survey reports discuss in detail the magnitude and the nature of the error associated with the fishing expenditure estimates [1,2]. 7 In general, the standard errors are small. Results Economic contribution at the regional level Table 1 shows the expenditures incurred by anglers in the southern states as derived from the 2006 and 2011 National surveys. Table 2 shows the total economic contribution associated with these expenditures. In the region, anglers spent $16.1 billion (38.3% of total national fishing-related expenditures) for fishing activities, out of which $8.4 billion (31.9% of total national expenditures) was spent on freshwater fishing and $5 billion (57% of total national expenditures) was spent on saltwater fishing activities. In 2006, the $16.1 billion spent on goods and services for all fishing activities generated $11.5 billion (direct effect), $5.7 billion (indirect effect), and $9.8 billion (induced effect) in output. The associated employment effects were 164,698 (direct effect), 35,971 (indirect effect), and 84,703 (induced effect). Total effects caused by all fishing expenditures for these two criteria were $27.1 billion in output and 285,373 full- and part-time jobs, indicating a SAM multiplier of 2.36 for total output and 1.73 for total employment. Of the total output, 57.47% or $15.6 billion was value-added. In 2011, anglers spent $15.3 billion on goods and service which generated a direct effect of $10.3 billion, an indirect effect of $5.4 billion, and an induced effect of $19.8 billion in output (in constant terms). The associated employment effects were 123,940 (direct effect), 31,502 (indirect effect), and 171,257 (induced effect). The total contribution resulting from all fishing expenditures was $35.5 billion in output and 326,699 jobs, indicating a SAM multiplier of 3.44 for total output and 2.64 for total employment. Of the total output, 54.68% or $19.4 billion was value-added. In the US South, the $7.3 billion spent by anglers in 2011 for freshwater fishing activities, after accounting for leakages, generated $5.3 billion (direct effect), $3.05 billion (indirect effect), and $9.4 billion (induced effect) in output in real terms. Associated employment contributions were 55,846 jobs (direct effect), 16,551 jobs (indirect effect), and 81,473 jobs (induced effect). The total contribution from freshwater fishing expenditures was $17.8 billion in output and 153,870 jobs, indicating a SAM multiplier of 3.34 for total output and 2.76 for employment. Of the total output resulting from freshwater fishing expenditures, 52.12% or $9.28 billion was represented by value-added. These economic contribution and multipliers were higher than those generated from 2006 freshwater expenditures. In 2011, saltwater fishing generated total regional impacts of $13.8 billion in output and 133,549 jobs, indicating a SAM multiplier of 3.63 for total output and 2.58 for employment. Of the total output resulting from saltwater fishing expenditures, 56.01% or $7.7 billion was represented by value-added. Consistent with output and employment multipliers generated by freshwater expenditures, saltwater expenditures also generated higher output and employment multipliers in 2011 compared to 2006.

10 J. POUDEL ET AL. Table 3. Total economic contributions (direct, indirect, and induced) from fishing expenditures by sub-activities, state and region for the U.S. South for 2006 and 2011. States Activity Expenditures Employment (full-and part-time jobs) Total Income (millions of $) Value-added (millions of $) Total output (millions of $) 2006 2011 2006 2011 2006 2011 2006 2011 Alabama Freshwater fishing 6793 5913 253.50 245.35 283.65 269.53 597.65 543.34 Saltwater fishing 2309 1386 80.29 55.65 89.95 61.40 166.64 109.14 All Fishing 11,657 8431 405.89 345.44 465.46 380.23 784.70 713.68 Arkansas Freshwater fishing 5545 7961 180.20 310.20 202.37 343.26 469.77 737.98 Saltwater fishing NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA All fishing 7282 8102 240.90 306.96 276.84 340.09 491.46 719.57 Florida Freshwater fishing 15,364 13,666 754.72 678.81 836.25 754.56 1732.94 1439.72 Saltwater fishing 35,952 62,557 1684.53 3109.22 1877.51 3459.96 3570.23 6127.39 All fishing 70,013 91,854 3496.98 4666.78 3929.17 5184.48 6664.49 8989.76 Georgia Freshwater fishing 10,296 11,941 453.46 541.92 502.35 589.86 1060.35 1298.23 Saltwater fishing 998 1661 43.85 72.37 49.08 79.21 93.31 163.39 All fishing 16,322 13,385 755.19 609.19 849.81 663.11 1455.30 1462.85 Kentucky Freshwater fishing 8231 9851 300.32 402.91 333.24 437.10 782.32 965.50 Saltwater fishing NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA All fishing 13,841 9510 535.51 404.65 604.95 437.36 1159.59 1083.14 Louisiana Freshwater fishing 5002 7230 196.04 340.15 219.17 370.00 512.11 725.01 Saltwater fishing 4091 4571 158.28 206.65 177.47 225.57 407.28 396.03 All fishing 13,957 12,158 579.38 555.14 657.39 605.48 1196.25 1122.88 Mississippi Freshwater fishing 2337 3866 82.92 155.00 92.44 171.12 225.22 366.96 Saltwater fishing 502 3431 16.73 137.73 18.71 152.98 39.32 290.25 All fishing 3889 8821 135.58 343.76 155.30 382.56 276.91 736.58 North Carolina Freshwater fishing 7140 10,053 290.87 455.00 323.45 490.14 696.99 966.31 Saltwater fishing 7263 14,888 279.63 657.78 312.44 710.00 605.80 1300.20 All fishing 18,257 27,739 770.00 1256.28 870.24 1353.60 1469.44 2501.24 Oklahoma Freshwater fishing 6262 5961 292.04 282.20 322.11 302.53 613.98 627.19 Saltwater fishing NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA All fishing 8228 13,345 360.50 667.57 407.97 714.74 624.84 1356.80 South Carolina Freshwater fishing 7822 7203 299.63 311.34 335.20 341.10 669.58 692.93 Saltwater fishing 8183 3235 337.69 124.46 374.71 137.80 738.18 256.00 All fishing 22,677 11,935 998.07 473.95 1122.27 521.91 1880.14 985.04

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 11 Tennessee Freshwater fishing 7567 15,693 318.40 691.54 353.68 758.61 771.37 1643.97 Saltwater fishing NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA All fishing 9900 13,398 424.36 594.67 480.94 652.33 843.50 1403.00 Texas Freshwater fishing 28,310 10,737 1369.96 602.54 1522.71 661.21 3142.67 1259.18 Saltwater fishing 11,226 16,406 591.79 850.91 657.93 934.43 1268.00 1696.17 All fishing 52,653 27,476 2537.27 1455.59 2869.17 1599.75 4852.35 2951.37 Virginia Freshwater fishing 5764 7300 234.98 372.50 261.33 402.05 550.50 751.12 Saltwater fishing 3394 5750 132.59 292.13 149.93 315.51 268.02 543.11 All fishing 12,038 18,448 490.78 1023.82 557.43 1101.18 944.97 1922.54 Notes: The results were generated using a 2006 and 2011 IMPLAN Input Output model of the southern regional economy employing 2006 and 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation expenditure data. Results are expressed in 2006 dollars.

12 J. POUDEL ET AL. Economic contribution across the states Table 1 provides the expenditures incurred by anglers. These figures provide a clear picture of the economic contribution of all fishing expenditures and related activities (saltwater and freshwater fishing) across the thirteen southern states. All fishing expenditures by anglers in the South decreased from 2006 ($16 billion) to 2011 ($15 billion) in nominal terms. There were substantial variations from 2006 to 2011 for saltwater and freshwater fishing expenditures at the state level. These variations from period to period can result from a variety of sources: changes in the fishing resource, state economies, angler participation, and expenditure patterns. Table 3 shows the resulting total economic contributions in terms of employment, total income, total output and value-added (in real terms). Table 4 shows these same results as a percentage of the respective state economy. At the state level, some variation was observed with respect to employment and value-added for all fishing activities in 2006 and 2011. In 2006, all fishing-related employment was largest in Florida with 70,013 jobs and smallest in Mississippi with 3888 jobs. In 2011, Florida still led with 91,854 jobs while Arkansas ranked lowest with 8102 jobs. A similar pattern was observed for value-added where $3.9 billion was generated in Florida and $155.3 million in Mississippi in 2006. Rankings based on the share of state totals varied somewhat. Even though Florida generated the largest employment and value-added contributions from all fishing activities, South Carolina s contributions from all fishing activities accounted for a higher share of state employment (0.94%) and value-added (0.70%). These rankings also changed over time. For example, in 2011, the share of state employment resulting from all fishing activities decreased for South Carolina (0.50%) but increased for Florida (0.94%). Economic contributions from fresh and saltwater expenditures for 2006 and 2011 are reported at the state level (Tables 3 and 4). In 2011, employment generated by freshwater fishing was greatest in Tennessee (15,693 jobs; 0.44% of state employment) and lowest in Mississippi (3866 jobs; 0.26% of state employment). Similarly, total output from freshwater fishing activity was also greatest in Tennessee ($1.6 billion; 0.70% of state s output). There was, however, considerable variation over time. For example, in 2006, freshwater fishing related employment in Texas (28,310 jobs; 0.20% of state employment) was greatest in the region. In 2011, employment resulting from saltwater fishing activities, as a share of the state s total employment, was larger in Florida (0.64%) than other states in the region, whereas Georgia s (0.03%) was smallest. In general, saltwater fishing activities accounted for greater shares of the states total employment in 2011 than 2006. Value-added generated by the saltwater fishing expenditures in 2011 ranged from $3.4 billion (0.52% of state total value-added) in Florida, to $61.4 million (0.04% of state total value-added) in Alabama. In other states, value-added from saltwater fishing accounted for a substantially smaller share of the state s total value-added. Sectors of the economy that benefited from all fishing expenditures in the regional South for 2006 & 2011 Table 5 shows the fishing expenditures profiles for the South. There were substantial changes in the profiles in real terms. For example, other auxiliary equipment expenditures associated

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 13 Table 4. Total economic contributions (direct, indirect, and induced) by sub-activities as a percentage of the state economy by state for the U.S. South for 2006 and 2011. State Expenditures activities Employment Total income Value-added Total output 2006 2011 2006 2011 2006 2011 2006 2011 Alabama Freshwater fishing 0.27 0.24 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.34 Saltwater fishing 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.07 All fishing 0.47 0.34 0.26 0.23 0.28 0.24 0.23 0.44 Arkansas Freshwater fishing 0.36 0.51 0.20 0.34 0.21 0.35 0.23 0.76 Salt Water fishing NA 0.00 NA 0.00 NA 0.00 NA 0.00 All fishing 0.47 0.52 0.26 0.34 0.28 0.35 0.24 0.74 Florida Freshwater fishing 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.15 0.22 Saltwater fishing 0.37 0.64 0.26 0.51 0.26 0.52 0.30 0.92 All fishing 0.72 0.94 0.53 0.77 0.55 0.78 0.56 1.34 Georgia Freshwater fishing 0.20 0.23 0.12 0.15 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.33 Saltwater fishing 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.04 All fishing 0.31 0.26 0.20 0.17 0.21 0.17 0.20 0.37 Kentucky Freshwater fishing 0.35 0.42 0.21 0.28 0.21 0.28 0.25 0.61 Saltwater fishing NA 0.00 NA 0.00 NA 0.00 NA 0.00 All fishing 0.59 0.40 0.36 0.29 0.38 0.28 0.36 0.69 Louisiana Freshwater fishing 0.20 0.28 0.11 0.16 0.12 0.17 0.12 0.33 Saltwater fishing 0.16 0.18 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.18 All fishing 0.56 0.48 0.33 0.27 0.35 0.27 0.28 0.51 Mississippi Freshwater fishing 0.16 0.26 0.10 0.18 0.10 0.19 0.12 0.40 Saltwater fishing 0.03 0.23 0.02 0.16 0.02 0.17 0.02 0.32 All fishing 0.26 0.59 0.15 0.41 0.17 0.42 0.14 0.81 North Carolina Freshwater fishing 0.14 0.19 0.08 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.23 Saltwater fishing 0.14 0.29 0.08 0.17 0.08 0.17 0.09 0.31 All fishing 0.35 0.53 0.22 0.32 0.23 0.32 0.21 0.60 Oklahoma Freshwater fishing 0.30 0.28 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.43 Saltwater fishing NA 0.00 NA 0.00 NA 0.00 NA 0.00 All fishing 0.39 0.62 0.25 0.49 0.26 0.49 0.21 0.93 South Carolina Freshwater fishing 0.32 0.30 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.23 0.22 0.46 Saltwater fishing 0.34 0.13 0.23 0.09 0.23 0.09 0.25 0.17 All fishing 0.94 0.50 0.67 0.34 0.70 0.35 0.63 0.65 (Continued)

14 J. POUDEL ET AL. Table 4. (Continued). State Expenditures activities Employment Total income Value-added Total output 2006 2011 2006 2011 2006 2011 2006 2011 Tennessee Freshwater fishing 0.21 0.44 0.14 0.32 0.14 0.32 0.16 0.70 Saltwater fishing NA 0.00 NA 0.00 NA 0.00 NA 0.00 All fishing 0.28 0.38 0.18 0.27 0.19 0.28 0.17 0.60 Texas Freshwater fishing 0.20 0.08 0.12 0.06 0.12 0.06 0.13 0.11 Saltwater fishing 0.08 0.12 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.14 All fishing 0.37 0.19 0.22 0.13 0.23 0.14 0.20 0.25 Virginia Freshwater fishing 0.12 0.16 0.06 0.10 0.06 0.10 0.08 0.19 Saltwater fishing 0.07 0.12 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.14 All fishing 0.25 0.39 0.13 0.27 0.14 0.28 0.14 0.48 Note: The results were generated using a 2006 and 2011 IMPLAN Input Output model of the southern regional economy employing 2006 and 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation expenditure data.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 15 Table 5. Recreational fishing expenditures profile for the U.S South for 2006 and 2011 (in thousands of dollars). Commodity/ service IMPLAN ID Food 413 Food and drinking places Lodging 412 Accommodations Transportation 115 Petroleum refineries Guide fees/ 5001 Employee package fees/ compensation privilege fees Public land use fee Private land use fee 12,001 State/local govt (non-educ) 10,006 Household income (50 75 K) Equipment rental 362 Auto-equipment rental Boating costs 330 Miscellaneous Bait 330 Miscellaneous Ice 330 Miscellaneous Heating and 330 Miscellaneous cooking fuel Rods, reels, poles, 330 Miscellaneous Artificial lures, 330 Miscellaneous flies, baits Hooks, sinkers, 330 Miscellaneous swivels, lines Creels, stringers, 330 Miscellaneous fish bags Minnow traps, 330 Miscellaneous and bait Other fishing 330 Miscellaneous equipment Camping equipment 330 Miscellaneous Binoculars, telescopes, 330 Miscellaneous etc. Special fishing 330 Miscellaneous clothing Processing/taxidermy 5001 Employee com- costs pensation Other auxiliary 330 Miscellaneous equipment Special equipment 282 Travel trailer and camper Magazines, 330 Miscellaneous books. Membership 386 Business services dues/donations Land leasing and 10,006 Household ownership income IMPLAN industry NAICS ID 2006 (nominal) 2011 (nominal) % change a 722 1,691,774 2,249,722 19.18 72,119 862,737 850,620 11.63 32,411 1,929,553 2,150,521 0.11 NA 377,822 318,013 24.56 NA 80,243 68,626 23.35 NA 65,147 70,304 3.28 5321 171,254 70,835 62.93 453 1,520,184 1,570,342 7.42 453 549,997 664,595 8.30 453 196,140 271,831 24.21 453 39,734 36,859 16.86 453 980,547 1,014,555 7.27 453 392,316 374,704 14.40 453 408,007 462,889 1.68 453 51,811 37,554 35.04 453 34,709 31,065 19.78 453 408,980 343,845 24.65 453 124,380 134,530 3.06 453 13,120 29,213 99.57 453 73,746 108,755 32.17 NA 12,979 28,272 95.22 453 15,382 80,123 366.84 336,214 3,698,135 2,719,208 34.10 453 34,298 38,504 0.61 5614 47,034 114,469 118.12 NA 1,371,410 1,220,835 20.22 (50 75 K) Licenses 12,001 State/local govt NA 137,251 196,176 28.10 (non-educ) Stamps, tags, and 12,001 State/local govt NA 12,880 27,309 90.02 permits (non-educ) Total all items b 16,151,845 15,355,443 14.79 a Percentage changes are calculated in real term to adjust 2011 expenditures to 2006 dollar values. b Total All Items does not equal the column sums because some expenditures were prorated from National percentage share.

16 J. POUDEL ET AL. Table 6. Top ten IMPLAN sectors of the 440 total sectors that benefit most from recreational fishing expenditures in the regional south ranked by employment for 2006 and 2011. Years IMPLAN sector ID Economic sectors Employment Labor income Value-added Output Average income 2006 330 Retail Stores - Miscellaneous 65,264 1,185,533,214 1,780,047,104 2,170,574,282 18,165 413 Food services and drinking places 43,184 840,211,711 1,195,794,992 2,213,895,974 19,457 282 Travel trailer and camper manufacturing 24,306 1,126,594,358 1,164,131,522 3,343,989,686 46,350 320 Retail Stores - Motor vehicle and parts 17,142 765,019,866 924,241,407 1,168,990,255 44,628 412 Other accommodations 11,280 353,347,337 466,320,054 866,009,709 31,326 319 Wholesale trade businesses 10,464 698,716,435 1,204,303,621 1,924,878,595 66,775 326 Retail Stores - Gasoline stations 8206 224,111,699 365,341,345 469,028,354 27,310 360 Real estate establishments 7924 100,739,384 753,814,441 1,004,299,896 12,714 394 Offices of physicians, dentists, and other health practitioners 4115 292,458,148 311,952,810 474,392,962 71,079 397 Private hospitals 3688 213,874,985 228,346,385 444,118,564 58,000 2011 413 Food services and drinking places 56,125 1,169,393,131 1,707,780,571 3,139,555,483 20,835 330 Retail Stores - Miscellaneous 52,842 1,091,979,234 1,947,747,925 2,454,166,559 20,665 438 Employment and payroll only (state & local govt, education) 12,594 621,059,669 728,394,762 728,394,715 49,316 437 Employment and payroll only (state & local govt, non-education) 11,653 636,571,155 744,188,326 744,188,413 54,629 282 Travel trailer and camper manufacturing 11,208 429,347,376 481,269,188 2,769,975,927 38,309 412 Other accommodations 10,006 323,559,003 447,502,769 857,058,145 32,336 360 Real estate establishments 9762 134,730,221 947,949,849 1,314,469,981 13,801 319 Wholesale trade businesses 6735 506,603,973 903,276,094 1,224,762,075 75,223 394 Offices of physicians, dentists, and other health practitioners 6518 508,665,796 524,606,219 793,482,766 78,045 382 Employment services 5946 163,869,179 180,890,474 224,178,487 27,558 Notes: The results were generated using a 2006 and 2011 IMPLAN Input Output model of the southern regional economy employing 2006 and 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation expenditure data. Results are expressed in 2006 dollars.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 17 Table 7. SAM multipliers for fishing expenditures by state and region for the U.S South for 2006 and 2011. Employment Total income Output Value-added States 2006 2011 2006 2011 2006 2011 2006 2011 Alabama 1.40 1.79 1.81 2.67 1.76 2.15 1.76 2.58 Arkansas 1.31 1.75 1.65 2.84 1.57 2.01 1.61 2.72 Florida 1.76 2.51 2.24 3.69 2.14 3.09 2.20 3.60 Georgia 1.66 2.25 2.26 3.40 2.11 2.40 2.21 3.33 Kentucky 1.40 1.90 1.72 2.75 1.61 1.81 1.69 2.73 Louisiana 1.60 1.80 2.07 2.48 1.92 2.08 2.02 2.42 Mississippi 1.34 1.72 1.61 2.36 1.56 1.95 1.58 2.29 North Carolina 1.58 1.98 2.01 3.07 1.94 2.41 1.97 3.03 Oklahoma 1.40 2.08 1.61 2.68 1.68 2.24 1.59 2.67 South Carolina 1.61 1.81 1.85 2.45 1.84 2.11 1.84 2.41 Tennessee 1.49 2.07 1.92 3.23 1.83 2.17 1.88 3.16 Texas 1.59 2.16 2.16 3.50 2.12 2.78 2.11 3.39 Virginia 1.37 2.08 1.85 3.35 1.76 2.43 1.82 3.27 Mean 1.50 1.99 1.90 2.96 1.83 2.28 1.87 2.89 Regional South 1.73 2.64 2.35 4.23 2.35 3.44 2.30 4.13 Notes: The results were generated using a 2006 and 2011 IMPLAN Input Output model of the southern regional economy employing 2006 and 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation expenditure data. Table 8. SAM multipliers for freshwater fishing expenditures by state and region for the U.S. South for 2006 and 2011. Employment Total income Output Value-added States 2006 2011 2006 2011 2006 2011 2006 2011 Alabama 1.41 1.83 1.82 2.77 1.59 2.69 1.81 2.07 Arkansas 1.34 1.82 1.81 2.94 1.50 2.83 1.79 2.02 Florida 1.75 2.56 2.34 4.11 1.90 3.99 2.32 2.87 Georgia 1.55 2.23 2.20 3.42 1.76 3.33 2.19 2.39 Kentucky 1.42 1.79 1.89 2.57 1.57 2.54 1.88 1.89 Louisiana 1.44 1.86 1.95 2.54 1.61 2.49 1.93 2.01 Mississippi 1.38 1.81 1.72 2.49 1.46 2.44 1.71 1.88 North Carolina 1.51 2.00 1.99 3.18 1.65 3.15 1.98 2.30 Oklahoma 1.45 2.01 1.72 2.87 1.59 2.87 1.72 2.17 South Carolina 1.47 1.98 1.82 2.52 1.63 2.50 1.81 2.04 Tennessee 1.52 2.08 2.08 3.34 1.71 3.26 2.06 2.19 Texas 1.60 2.32 2.40 3.65 1.97 3.55 2.38 2.74 Virginia 1.40 1.95 2.01 3.56 1.65 3.44 2.00 2.31 Mean 1.48 2.02 1.98 3.07 1.66 3.01 1.97 2.22 Regional South 1.75 2.76 2.60 4.54 2.20 4.45 2.58 3.34 Notes: The results were generated using a 2006 and 2011 IMPLAN Input Output model of the southern regional economy employing 2006 and 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation expenditure data. with recreation fishing activities increased by almost 367% in 2011 from 2006. Similarly, membership dues and donations increased by about 118% in 2011. Anglers expenditures on binoculars, telescopes, and special fishing clothing increased substantially as well. Expenditures in the service sectors such as processing and taxidermy also increased substantially from 2006 to 2011 (Table 5). In contrast, equipment rentals decreased by almost 63%. Table 6 shows the 10 IMPLAN sectors that benefited the most from recreational fishing expenditures in the South, as ranked by employment, for 2006 and 2011. Employment was highest at 65,264 for retail stores (IMPLAN sector 330) in 2006, followed by food service and drinking places (IMPLAN sector 413) at 43,184. Table 6 reports labor income, value-added, output and average income associated with respective economic sectors. The highest average

18 J. POUDEL ET AL. Table 9. SAM multipliers for saltwater fishing expenditures by state and region for the U.S. South for 2006 and 2011. Employment Total Income Output Value-added States 2006 2011 2006 2011 2006 2011 2006 2011 Alabama 1.41 1.80 1.85 2.77 1.71 2.66 1.84 2.32 Arkansas NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Florida 1.69 2.53 2.30 3.99 1.99 3.87 2.27 3.15 Georgia 1.55 2.19 2.15 3.19 1.84 3.10 2.12 2.61 Kentucky NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Louisiana 1.45 1.83 1.97 2.54 1.62 2.48 1.94 2.23 Mississippi 1.37 1.80 1.71 2.48 1.54 2.41 1.71 2.03 North Carolina 1.50 1.97 2.01 3.18 1.76 3.13 2.00 2.49 Oklahoma NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA South Carolina 1.51 1.86 1.81 2.67 1.65 2.59 1.81 2.26 Tennessee NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Texas 1.67 2.15 2.43 3.50 2.07 3.39 2.41 2.85 Virginia 1.39 1.93 2.01 3.46 1.81 3.34 1.97 2.51 Mean 1.50 2.01 2.03 3.09 1.78 3.00 2.01 2.50 Regional South 1.72 2.58 2.56 4.33 2.26 3.63 2.53 4.21 Notes: The results were generated using a 2006 and 2011 IMPLAN Input Output model of the southern regional economy employing 2006 and 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation expenditure data. incomes were for physicians, dentists, and other health practitioners (IMPLAN sector 394). Even though retail stores and food services generated higher total employment, average incomes in these sectors were less than $20,000. Food services and retail stores benefited more from recreational fishing expenditures in 2011 by generating more than 100,000 jobs combined. Average incomes were slightly higher in 2011 than in 2006. In 2011, employment and payroll for government education and non-education sectors accounted for almost 24,250 jobs, with an average income of about $52,000. SAM multipliers for all fishing activities Table 7 shows SAM multipliers for employment, total income, total output and value-added. In 2011, Florida had the largest employment multiplier (2.51) and Mississippi the smallest (1.72). These multipliers were greater than those for 2006. Both the mean and the regional employment multipliers were greater in 2011 than in 2006. The same was true for other economic indicators as well. For example, the averages for the 2006 state multipliers were consistently smaller than 2011: employment (1.50 vs. 1.99), total income (1.90 vs. 2.96), output (1.83 vs. 2.28) and value-added (2.30 vs. 4.13) (Table 7). SAM multipliers for freshwater and saltwater fishing activities Tables 8 and 9 show multipliers for the freshwater and saltwater fishing activities for 2006 and 2011. In 2011, Florida had the largest employment multiplier for both freshwater (2.56) and saltwater (2.53) fishing. Kentucky (1.79) had the smallest employment multiplier for freshwater fishing and Alabama (1.80) had the smallest for saltwater fishing. For all other indicators, Florida consistently had the largest multipliers in both 2006 and 2011. The averages of the state multipliers were consistently lower in 2006 than 2011 for freshwater activities: employment (1.48 vs. 2.02), total income (1.98 vs. 3.07), output (1.66 vs. 3.01) and value-added (1.97 vs. 2.22) (Table 8). A similar pattern was also observed for saltwater

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 19 activities: employment (1.50 vs. 2.01), total income (2.03 vs. 3.09), output (1.78 vs. 3.00) and value-added (2.01 vs. 2.50) (Table 9). Discussion Fishing and sub-activities are important in natural resource management as they provide a source of income and employment across a wide range of economic sectors where anglers spend money for fishing equipment and trip related activities. Quantifying the contribution of fishing expenditures to regional and state economies illustrates how recreational fishing can boost economic development and can help justify government investment in recreational fisheries management and related infrastructure projects. This paper estimates the economic contribution of fishing sub-activities (salt and freshwater) expenditures across the southern US states for 2006 and 2011 using National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Survey data and input-output models. Fishing expenditures in the US South accounted for at least 38.3% of overall US fishing expenditures in 2006 and 37% in 2011. Freshwater and saltwater fishing accounted for 32 and 57% in 2006 and 29 and 58% in 2011, respectively, of all US expenditures for these categories. While the demand for recreational fishing, as indicated by the number of people fishing, increased from 2006 to 2011, in constant terms, expenditures decreased for all fishing (by 14.8%). A possible explanation for this pattern is that although anglers went fishing more often, they focused more on local trips. Evidence of reduced spending on lodging, equipment rental, and special equipment (e.g. travel trailers and campers), which generally are associated with trips away from home, suggests that recreational fishing activities were more confined to local fisheries. Furthermore, it is possible that people who lost jobs during the recession used some of that increase in free time to go fishing, albeit at much reduced spending levels. Interestingly, this decrease in expenditures was not consistent across fishing types. Freshwater fishing expenditures declined by 21.3% but increased by 4.6% for saltwater fishing. This may be owing to several factors such as the recovery of the Gulf fisheries post-katrina and severe droughts impacting inland fisheries. Furthermore, saltwater fishing expenditures are likely to be less elastic with respect to economic factors than are freshwater expenditures; i.e. low cost fresh water fishing opportunities may be more available than saltwater ones allowing freshwater anglers to make more substitutes when times get tough. Although fishing expenditures in the South decreased by 14.8% region-wide from 2006 to 2011 in real terms, there was substantial variation from state to state. For example, Mississippi s fishing expenditures increased over 96% (in real terms) from 2006 to 2011. Saltwater expenditures in Mississippi increased by almost 584% in real terms over the same period. In contrast, expenditures decreased by 57.4% in real terms for all fishing activities in Texas, with a huge reduction for freshwater activities. These two extreme variations are very likely caused by weather events. In 2006, Mississippi coastal communities were still reeling from the impacts of Hurricane Katrina and in 2011, Texas was in the midst of a record drought. The substantial variations in expenditures profiles and spending behavior and preferences over time and space emphasize the importance of periodic reassessments of economic contribution studies. Such variation in expenditures may have arisen from anglers income characteristics, which is one measure of economic prosperity, other angler attributes, or weather. For example, Lee et al. [24] argued that seniors, females, minorities,