Fewer Fish to Fry

Think global climate change can't happen? The fact is, it already has. Rain forests have turned into deserts. Oceans have dried up. Glaciers have invaded temperate zones. Most of these environmental changes have occurred over millions of years as part of Earth's natural evolution. However, the climate change that some scientists predict will happen in the next several decades–global warming–is being blamed, at least in part, on human activities. As people burn fossil fuels, carbon dioxide is released in the atmosphere, producing a greenhouse effect that could influence temperatures, precipitation, and other aspects of our environment.

An angler casts his line into the Susquehanna River near Harrisburg. Global climate change could affect fish populations in Pennsylvania.

Despite sometimes dire forecasts, most people are unconcerned about global warming. Seeing no direct or immediate effect from the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, they either rank it low on their list of environmental worries or believe any change in climate will be largely inconsequential. Nevertheless, policymakers need to know the potential outcomes of climate change and how to communicate these consequences to an often apathetic public.

At Penn State, a research project supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is looking at how global climate change could impact water resources and ecosystems in the Susquehanna River Basin and whether affected groups may be willing to help increase awareness of and work to prevent or alleviate possible environmental repercussions. The first part of the study is examining how a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide since preindustrial times–a condition that experts believe could be reached by the year 2035–might affect water resources through changes in temperature, precipitation, soil moisture, and stream flow. The second phase is focusing on how global warming could influence recreational fishing, as well as anglers' attitudes, by altering fish habitat. In the third component, researchers are assessing strategies for helping people understand the risks that global climate change poses to ecosystems.

"The scientific community believes global climate change will happen, but the public is skeptical," says James Shortle, project co-leader and professor of agricultural economics."When it does occur, some impacts will be negative and some positive. We hope to predict how changes to water supplies and ecosystems will affect a cross-section of activities, including manufacturing, recreation, power generation, agriculture, and residential development. EPA and other agencies will communicate these projections to interested groups and the public."

"My decision to burn fossil fuels doesn't affect just my community; it affects people everywhere," adds Ann Fisher, project coordinator and senior research associate in agricultural economics and rural sociology."These effects may not be noticed for decades, so ordinary citizens find it easy to reject the notion that global warming could cause substantial changes. Our goal is to help people make informed decisions about their own behavior and about policy options they might face as a result of climate change."

The project has been fertile ground for graduate research, including that of Matt Heberling, a master's degree candidate in agricultural economics. Heberling is looking at how those who engage in recreational fishing perceive their hobby and how seriously they take the threat posed by climate change."Besides providing enjoyment for those who do it, recreational fishing has a large economic impact on many communities in the Susquehanna River Basin," says Heberling."Anglers are an important constituent group because they might be willing to take or support action if global warming is likely to affect the quality of fishing in the future."

Heberling conducted a pilot study, mailing questionnaires to 600 people who in a previous survey had expressed an interest in fishing. Using data generated from other climate change studies, the project team developed plausible scenarios describing impacts from global warming that could affect recreational fishing in the Susquehanna Basin. Respondents were asked about their"willingness to pay" to avoid either small or large changes to fish habitat and populations next year or 20 years from now."The small-change scenario projected losses as high as 40 percent for cold-water fish, while the large-change scenario predicted reductions as high as 75 percent," Heberling explains."In either case, much of the ideal trout habitat would move north towards New York State and into higher elevations. On the other hand, these scenarios called for increases in warm-water species, such as bass. We wanted to find out how anglers feel about these potential changes."

More than 90 percent of those receiving a questionnaire responded to the survey, which will be used primarily to fine-tune the questions in preparation for a planned larger study. Although the preliminary results may not hold true when the final survey is conducted, Heberling identified some trends."One finding I'm pretty confident about is that most anglers are not very concerned about global warming," he says."When presented with a list of societal issues, the largest number of respondents–more than 50 percent–expressed having a great deal of concern about drunk driving, air and water pollution, and the quality of fishing in Pennsylvania, but only 13 percent had a lot of concern about global warming.

"We did find that anglers would be willing to pay modest amounts to avoid the effects of climate change," Heberling continues."To measure the value anglers place on fishing opportunities, we presented the idea of purchasing habitat stamps as part of the fishing license. Proceeds would go towards preserving fish habitat in the face of global warming. Depending on which scenario they were reacting to, respondents said they would be willing to pay from $3.89 to $4.88 on average for habitat stamps when buying their annual fishing licenses. But as you might expect, anglers who fish for warm-water species were less willing to pay than those who prefer cold-water species, since warm-water habitats are likely to increase as a result of climate change. Very few respondents said they would stop fishing altogether if the conditions they were accustomed to changed. For some, fishing is simply an activity that provides relaxation, and the species of fish is less important."

The results of the project could have far-reaching implications."If further research shows that most anglers care a lot about the types of fish they catch, the Fish and Boat Commission might incur added costs to keep desirable species stocked in the state's waterways," says Heberling."That could drive up the cost of fishing licenses and other fees. If anglers fish less because of rising costs or because trout are no longer present in their favorite streams, that could result in economic loss for nearby communities where trout fishing is big business."

Heberling's work was accepted for presentation at a conference of the International Society for Risk Analysis, which honored him with its student award. He has decided to pursue a Ph.D. at Penn State after completing his master's degree."Eventually, I hope to do environmental economics research for a consulting firm or government agency," he says.

–Chuck Gill