I finally had a chance to read the Xie study: "Socio-economic Impacts of
Birdwatching along Lake Erie:
A Coastal Ohio Analysis"

The astonishing result of $26 million in direct expenditures in 2010-2011
at 6 coastal Ohio sites raises my eyebrows, however in looking at the
methodology I see partially how this number was achieved:

..."on-site surveys were conducted with a selected sample of birdwatchers
visiting
six sites"

The key words here are "selected sample"  meaning those handing out the
were able to pick and choose whom they asked to fill out the questionnaire.

To obtain truly valid and accurate results a qualitative study of this sort
must attempt to use a random sample.  This insures that all segments of a
population are covered.  There are many ways of achieving a random sample
or near random sample in such a study, but these require more rigorous and
difficult methodology.

The study is seriously lacking in explanation of the methods used to
extrapolate the questionnaire results from 2392 respondents to achieve
overall economic impact.  Are we to assume these ~2400 individuals account
for the entire $26 million?  No, that is silly, but does illustrate the
need to detail the extrapolation methods used to created the estimate.  An
IMPLAN model was used to determine multiplier effects based upon the
initial estimates, but this still does not shed any detail on how the $26
million figure was derived.

Next I would again question the claim that Magee Marsh Wildlife area
attracts more than 100,000 visitors a year.  This is an astonishing number
but you can achieve such a claim depending on how you count a "visitor".
For instance if on a peak day 2,000 people visit the Magee Marsh boardwalk
and you consider each time they enter the boardwalk you count it as a
visit, the numbers accumulate quickly.  However if you count each visitor
only once per day there would need to be 50 2,000 visitor days a year to
achieve such a figure.

As a further reality check look at the $7 million ($6,965,957) spent on
lodging in the Magee area during the year of the study.  This would mean
that at an average $100 per night per room there were 69,660 guest room
nights booked. To achieve this figure, it would mean that over the course
of the year and assuming double occupancy, on 34 nights there were 1000
rooms booked in the area.  Or 500 rooms booked over 68 days or 250 over 136
days etc.  Consider that Maumee Bay SP lodge has 120 rooms and 24 cottages.
Given location it would indicate the lodge is fully booked with
birdwatchers for a significant number of nights.  However using the lodge's
reservation system I can still get a room over IMBD weekend and the Biggest
Week in American Birding.  One would think that given demographics,
location, and demand cited above, those rooms would all be booked by now.
(if we increase the rate to $150 per night, then numbers become 34 days at
750 rooms, 68 days at 375 rooms etc.)

Let me add the caveat that I have no idea how many rooms are available in
the area so I cannot say if the figures above jibe with the reality of
available rooms.

While there is much to question in the study, perhaps the most striking
figure presented is that 54% of respondents have an annual household income
of greater that $75,000 per year and 34% are above $100k.  This would
indicate that bird watching is an activity favored overwhelmingly by the
top 5% of income earners in our society.  Is this reality?  Think about
your own circle of bird watching friends and acquaintances: Are more than
50% in this upper strata of income?  In thinking about the birdwatchers and
birders I know many do fall into this category, but many do not.  In the
end I would like to see more evidence to support this result reflecting the
true distribution of birdwatchers visiting these areas.

This is why a random sample is so important.

There is much of interest in this study.  The GIS information in
particular.

In conclusion I find the study very interesting, but would like to see a
more accurate sampling method and more evidence to support the result.
 There are many other very interesting results which stretch my perception
of reality (e.g. results for Mentor Marsh area)  It seems to be the sort of
work where if you accept the assumptions the conclusions are valid. However
given the lack of assumptions listed nor methods detailed for
extrapolating questionnaire results to achieve overall economic impact
numbers I would not make any serious or even casual, business decision
based upon this study.

Haans Petruschke
Kirtland

______________________________________________________________________

Ohio-birds mailing list, a service of the Ohio Ornithological Society.
Our thanks to Miami University for hosting this mailing list.
Additional discussions can be found in our forums, at www.ohiobirds.org/forum/.

You can join or leave the list, or change your options, at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=OHIO-BIRDS
Send questions or comments about the list to: [log in to unmask]