associated with a particular resource use, such as visitation to
Yellowstone National Park. The flow of non-local visitor expenditures
can be tracked as it moves throughout various sectors of a
particular regional economy, which is typically comprised of a
county or set of counties directly affected by this spending. Because
economic activity in one sector spurs economic activity in other
sectors, economic inputeoutput models are frequently used to
determine how these sectors will be affected by changes in
spending. Three categories of effects are captured through inpute
output models; direct, indirect and induced effects. Indirect and
induced effects are referred to as secondary effects of visitor
spending, and the sum of direct and secondary effects capture the
total impacts of visitor spending.
Input-output models can provide important information
regarding the economic impacts of a particular management decision.
However, they are based on several simplifying assumptions,
all of which can affect the accuracy of the resulting estimates. For
instance, the regional economy being modeled is assumed to have
no supply-side constraints. That is, a firm or industry can produce
additional output to meet increased demand without taking resources
away from other activities, when in reality they may be
constrained by the availability of land, labor, or capital. These
models also make the simplifying assumption that displaced labor
in the regional economy will not be hired in another sector in that
economy. Further, it should be noted that these models capture
economic impacts at a specific point in time, assuming no further
adjustments are made in response to the management action.
While there can be significant limitations to the use of inpute
output models, they can provide useful approximations of the
economic impacts of a management decision. They are frequently
used to inform land management planning, and have been used to
demonstrate the economic impacts associated with wildlife
viewing opportunities specifically. For instance, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service periodically releases a report entitled Banking on
Nature: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of National
Wildlife Refuge Visitation, which estimates the economic impacts
associated with recreational use on refuge lands. The latest report
reveals that in fiscal year 2011, spending by all wildlife refuge visitors
supported more than 35,000 jobs and generated nearly $793
million in employment income. About 72% of total expenditures
were generated by non-consumptive refuge activities, such as
wildlife observation (Carver and Caudill, 2013). It should be noted
that these estimates focus solely on the economic impacts associated
with refuge lands. They do not reveal any information
regarding the economic impacts of alternative uses of the land and
therefore, do not provide insight into the use of the land that would
provide the most jobs