Water quality is an important consideration for many sectors, including recreation. Anglers, for example, care deeply about water quality, as it directly impacts their fishing experience. In a recent study, I, along with co-authors Richard Melstrom (Loyola University Chicago), and Kevin Pope (Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit of the U.S. Geological Survey) explored how fishing preferences tie into broader water quality concerns, showing that clean water is a priority for more people than just those who consume it or rely on it for agriculture. This study illuminates anglers as a key stakeholder in the maintenance and improvement of water quality for human and environmental health.
The Economic Toll of Algal Blooms on Recreational Fishing
We focus on Harmful algal blooms (HABs) as a water quality concern. HABs are not just an ecological nuisance; they have tangible economic impacts, especially in recreational fishing. We shed light on the economic losses that fishers endure when HABs impair inland water bodies, particularly in Nebraska. This research, by quantifying the willingness to pay (WTP) of recreational anglers to avoid such blooms, makes a significant contribution to understanding the economic effects of water quality issues tied to nutrient pollution.
A Price Tag on Water Quality
Willingness to pay is a way to measure how much value people assign something. It’s a way to put a price on things like clean water or a healthy environment, based on how much people care about them. We found that fishers, on average, are willing to pay around $12 per trip to avoid fishing in waters affected by HABs. For gamefish enthusiasts and college-educated fishers, this willingness to pay was even higher, which we attribute to a heightened sensitivity to water quality. These findings underscore the economic value of maintaining clean, algae-free waters and provide a clear metric for policymakers to gauge the benefits of addressing nutrient pollution, a major contributor to HABs.
Who Feels the Impact the Most?
Not all anglers perceive or respond to water quality impairments equally. Game fishers—those targeting species like bass or walleye—and individuals with higher educational attainment exhibited greater aversion to HAB-affected sites. Their higher WTP reflects both a preference for quality recreational experiences and potentially a better understanding of the health risks posed by cyanotoxins, which can cause serious illnesses in humans and animals.
This disparity in how different types of anglers value water quality has important implications for policy. Outreach and educational initiatives aimed at less-sensitive groups might bridge this gap, ensuring broader public awareness and support for interventions.
The Bigger Picture
HABs are a symptom of larger issues tied to nutrient pollution. The connection between nutrient pollution and water quality has been well-documented, yet our research brings a fresh perspective by focusing on inland fisheries in the U.S. heartland rather than the more commonly studied coastal areas.
As such, our work contributes to the growing body of literature emphasizing the economic value of water quality. Prior studies have focused on coastal regions or high-profile water bodies like the Great Lakes, leaving a gap in understanding the effects of water pollution on smaller, inland fisheries. This research fills that gap and highlights the need for tailored solutions in different geographic contexts.
This study also reinforces the idea that water quality improvements offer widespread benefits, from enhancing recreational experiences to safeguarding drinking water supplies. The $12-per-trip loss quantified in this study might seem small on the surface, but when multiplied across thousands of fishing trips statewide, the economic stakes become clearer. We estimated that the total benefit could be somewhere in the range of $6 million to $16 million in 2019 depending on various criteria and model assumptions used in the analysis.
Moving Forward
The findings of this study underscore the need for addressing environmental quality as part of a larger water quality management strategy. This is not just an environmental issue but an economic one, affecting the livelihoods and leisure activities of many people. Investing in solutions such as best management practices in agriculture, stormwater and wastewater management, and public education could help with improving water quality conditions—not only in economic terms but also in public health and ecological resilience. We make a case for action in our paper, quantifying the economic losses tied to HABs and offering insights into those who are most affected.
Acknowledgement
We acknowledge the support and contributions of the Claire M. Hubbard Foundation, the Water, Climate, and Health Program at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and the Daugherty Water for Food Global Institute at the University of Nebraska.
