Alaska wildlife viewing is a substantial visitor activity, but its statistics come from several measurement periods. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game measured broad wildlife viewing in 2011, a NOAA study examined commercial whale watching in 2019, and a bird-tourism study used Alaska visitor data from 2016. Together, these sources show participation, visitor spending, regional economic output, jobs, and distinct patterns among birdwatchers.
Contents
- Wildlife-viewing participation and trip volume
- Spending and trip values
- Regional economic output
- Statewide modeled economic impacts
- Whale-watching tourism
- Bird tourism participation and behavior
Wildlife-viewing participation and trip volume
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s The Economic Importance of Alaska’s Wildlife in 2011: Summary Report counted 868,000 households that participated in wildlife viewing in Alaska during 2011. Almost 1 million Alaska resident and visitor households took at least one hunting or wildlife-viewing trip that year, although the 868,000 figure is the specific wildlife-viewing total. (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2011)
Visitor households made up the larger share of viewing households. The study estimated 669,000 visitor households, or 77% of all wildlife-viewing households, compared with 199,000 Alaska resident households, or 23%. About 86% of visitor households to Alaska participated in wildlife viewing in 2011. Among Alaska resident households, about 77% took at least one wildlife-viewing trip.
The frequency of activity differed sharply between the two groups. Visitor households averaged 1.4 wildlife-viewing trips in Alaska in 2011. Resident households that viewed wildlife averaged 30 wildlife-viewing trips. The related ADF&G final report counted 5,991,000 resident wildlife-viewing trips before its adjustment for trips that respondents said would have happened anyway. (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2011 Final Report)
These figures describe different units: households, participation rates, and trips. The study defined a trip as an outing beginning from home or another lodging place and lasting an hour, a day, or multiple days. Its adjusted trip counts excluded trips respondents said they would have taken without wildlife viewing, so unadjusted and adjusted totals should not be treated as interchangeable.
Spending and trip values
Wildlife viewing generated large reported expenditures in Alaska in 2011. Resident households spent $1.027 billion on wildlife-viewing trips and related purchases, while visitor households spent $1.159 billion. The final report placed total wildlife-viewing expenditures by residents and visitors at $2.186 billion. These are expenditure measures, distinct from the later modeled output figures. (Alaska Department of Fish and Wildlife, Summary Report; Final Report)
The study also reported different spending profiles for residents and visitors:
| Measure, 2011 | Resident wildlife viewers | Visitor wildlife viewers |
|---|---|---|
| Average trip-package expenditure per trip | $137 | $1,014 |
| Average other trip expenditure per trip | $819 | $2,053 |
| Average gear and equipment spending per household | $383 | Not supplied |
Resident wildlife viewers spent an average of $137 per trip on trip-package expenditures and $819 per trip on other trip expenditures. Resident wildlife-viewing households also spent an average of $383 per household on gear and equipment. Visitor wildlife viewers spent an average of $1,014 per trip on trip-package expenditures and $2,053 per trip on other trip expenditures. (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2011)
The comparison is useful because visitors and residents generated activity in different ways. Visitors averaged fewer viewing trips but had higher reported per-trip amounts for the two supplied trip-spending categories. Residents made many more trips and had a separately reported household gear-and-equipment measure. The figures should be read as reported 2011 amounts, not current prices or a forecast.
Regional economic output
The ADF&G final report modeled wildlife-viewing economic output across Alaska regions for 2011. The named-region results were $26 million in the North, $334 million in the Interior, $118 million in Southwest, $844 million in Southcentral, and $284 million in Southeast. The report also assigned $1.144 billion to a region-unknown category because spending could not be robustly assigned to a named region. (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Final Report)
| Alaska region or category | Modeled wildlife-viewing output, 2011 |
|---|---|
| North | $26 million |
| Interior | $334 million |
| Southwest | $118 million |
| Southcentral | $844 million |
| Southeast | $284 million |
| Region unknown | $1.144 billion |
Southcentral accounted for 31% of Alaska’s statewide wildlife-viewing modeled output in 2011, while Southeast accounted for 10%. The region-unknown category represented 42% of statewide modeled output. That large unassigned share matters when interpreting geographic comparisons: the named-region totals do not capture every dollar in a specific Alaska region.
The regional amounts are modeled economic output, not direct visitor spending. They should therefore be compared with one another as measures from the same 2011 model, rather than combined with later whale-watching or bird-tourism estimates as though all studies used identical methods.
Statewide modeled economic impacts
The ADF&G summary report estimated that Alaska wildlife viewing generated $2.750 billion in total modeled economic output in 2011. The final report separated this total into $1.790 billion of direct output, $553 million of indirect effects, and $407 million of induced effects. The direct, indirect, and induced categories describe different parts of the modeled impact rather than separate visitor bills. (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Summary Report; Final Report)
Modeled labor income totaled $976 million. Direct wildlife-viewing effects supported $685 million in Alaska labor income, indirect effects supported $159 million, and induced effects supported $133 million. The study also estimated 18,820 modeled jobs statewide, including 13,220 jobs attributed to direct wildlife-viewing effects.
The study’s reported output, labor-income, and government-revenue amounts were rounded to the nearest million, and jobs were rounded to the nearest ten. The results describe the 2011 Alaska economy; they are not a 2026 estimate, and the supplied study does not establish a current trend line.
Whale-watching tourism
Commercial whale watching provides a more recent, narrower view of Alaska wildlife tourism. NOAA reported that Alaska received 2.2 million summer visitors in 2019 and that about one quarter embarked on a whale-watching tour. About 553,000 Alaska visitors paid for whale-watching tours that year. (NOAA Fisheries, 2019)
The NOAA study covered 55 businesses and 187 vessels operating in coastal waters from Ketchikan to Unalaska. Paid whale-watching tours generated an estimated $86 million in Alaska tour sales. The industry directly supported 850 jobs and generated $23.4 million in direct Alaska labor income.
Including multiplier effects, whale watching supported 1,105 jobs and generated $37.3 million in labor income. Multiplier effects added 255 jobs and $13.9 million in labor income. Total economic output was estimated at $103 million in 2019. These direct, multiplier, and total measures are distinct modeled results, and the whale-watching figures cover paid commercial activity by nonresidents in coastal Alaska.
Juneau recorded 367,000 paid whale-watching tours in 2019, about two thirds of Alaska’s total. The figure makes Juneau a major center of this segment, while the statewide study’s business and vessel coverage extended across a much broader coastal range.
Bird tourism participation and behavior
Bird tourism represents another measurable part of Alaska wildlife viewing. A study in PLOS ONE, using 2016 Alaska Visitor Statistics Program visitor data, estimated that 294,500 visitors watched birds during their Alaska visit in 2016. The comparable historical estimate was 157,290 Alaska birdwatching visitors in 2001. (PLOS ONE, 2016 visitor data)
Bird tourism generated $378 million in visitor expenditures during 2016, expressed in 2016 dollars in the supplied finding. The study reported that birders spent approximately 56% more per person than Alaska visitors who did not birdwatch. Birdwatchers reported household incomes about 9% lower than other Alaska visitors.
The visitor profiles also differed in age, length of stay, and activity mix. Retirees made up 54% of Alaska birdwatchers, compared with 45% of non-birdwatching visitors in the 2016 survey. Alaska birders stayed an average of four more nights than non-birdwatchers and engaged in twice as many activities during their trips. Four in five Alaska birdwatchers arrived independently rather than on cruise ships.
Bird-tourism spending was distributed across several visitor categories. Tours and activities received 28% of spending, lodging received 22%, and food and beverages received 20%. The study’s economic-impact dollar values are reported in 2021 U.S. dollars adjusted for inflation, while the visitor count and behavior findings refer to the 2016 visitor data. Its jobs measure, where used in the study, represents annual-average jobs that can include full-time, part-time, and self-employed work.
Taken together, the available statistics describe a broad activity base measured in 2011, a paid whale-watching segment measured in 2019, and bird-tourism participation measured from 2016 visitor data. Each result retains its own geography, population, time period, spending definition, and modeling approach.