S Duffieid* John 338»437 A contingent 99244 valuation F2cva assessment of 1991 Montana waterfowl hunting WOmANA WATERFOWL HUNTINO; A CONTINGENT VALUATI0J4-AASSESSMENT ^MoT\taiia*Departn\eri^ of — MONTANA STATE LIBRARY S338«7992«F2<:va 1991 c,l Dulf.el" l>'l IJi<.il.lll|lilllil||{llll|l|lll||iji||it:| JUL 2 2 2004 3o.«ooo,,s3w AUG 29 2005 MONTANA BIOECONOMICS STUDY A CONTINGENT VALUATION ASSESSMENT OF MONTANA WATERFOWL HUNTING: HUNTER ATTITUDES AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS Prepared for Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks by John Duffield and Chris Neher Bioeconomics, Inc. Missoula, MT May 1991 Major portions of the funding required to produce the reports in this series were provided by the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Acts. MAJOR FINDINGS The Basic conclusion of this report is that there are significant recreation values associated with waterfowl hunting in Montana. Specific major findings are as follows. — 941 surveys were mailed and successfully delivered to hunters holding a 1989 Montana Hunting license and a 1989 waterfowl stamp. Of these, 644 were completed and returned for a response rate of 68.4%. — Of the 644 questionnaires returned 28 respondents either had not hunted in 1989 or returned the surveys too late to be included in the analysis. Of the 616 remaining surveys 487 were from residents and 129 were from nonresidents. — Of those returning surveys 37.7% hunted the Central Flyway and 62.3% hunted the Pacific Flyway. — Average expenditures per trip were $49.35 for residents and $635.12 for nonresidents. — Average expenditures per day were $30.84 for residents and $193.05 for nonresidents. — The mean net economic value of a Montana waterfowl hunting trip is $167.88. — The mean net economic value of a Montana waterfowl hunting day is $89.29. — There are significant differences between the net economic values per trip for residents and nonresidents. — There are significant differences between the net economic values per trip for the Central Flyway and the Pacific Flyway. — Early and late season waterfowl hunting trips do not have statistically different net economic values. — While a hypothetically improved trip does not have a significantly different net economic value than the current trips, a hypothetically diminished hunting experience has a significantly lower net economic value per trip than the current trip. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Scope and Objectives The primary objective of this study is to estimate the net economic value of a waterfowl hunting trip in Montana. The net economic value of a trip is the amount of money a person would be willing and able to spend for that trip over and above what they actually must spend. Estimates were made of the net economic value of a 1989 waterfowl hunting trip for the average hunter as well as for various subsamples of hunters: residents, nonresidents, Central Flyway hunters. Pacific Flyway hunters, early season trips, late season trips and hypothetically changed waterfowl hunting trips. In addition to trip value estimates, statistics descriptive of hunter characteristics, trip characteristics and hunter management preferences were computed and are presented in Chapter III. Data Sources The questionnaire used in this study was administered by the Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks after the 1989 general hunting season. The population targeted by the questionnaire was those people who had purchased a 1989 Montana hunting license as well as a 1989 waterfowl stamp. An adaptation of Dillman's (1978) Total Design Method was used in conducting the mail survey. Hunters first received the questionnaire booklet (see Appendix A) and cover letter along with a stamped, addressed return envelope. One week later a postcard reminder was sent to those hunters not yet responding. Finally, a second copy of the questionnaire was sent to nonrespondents three weeks after the initial mailing. An initial sample of 1000 questionnaires was mailed to hunters. Of these, 59 were undeliverable and 644 were completed and returned. This response rate of 68.4% is comparable to other Montana hunting surveys (Loomis, Cooper and Allen, 1988; Brooks, 1988) and is quite acceptable for mail questionnaires. Of the 644 completed questionnaires, 28 either did not hunt in 1988 or were returned too late to be included in the sample. There was no followup survey of nonrespondents conducted in this study. It is not possible, therefore, to know if the 31.6% who did not respond differed significantly from the 68.4% who did. 11 Descriptive Statistics Characteristics of waterfowl hunters and the trips they took in 1989 and their opinions on waterfowl management issues are examined in Chapter III. Resident hunters drove an average of 36.7 miles on their trips and spent $49.35 per trip or $30.84 per day to hunt Montana waterfowl. Nonresidents drove an average of 468.9 miles and spent $635.12 per trip or $193.05 per day on their waterfowl hunting trips. A large portion of the Montana Waterfowl Survey dealt with questions on hunters management option preferences. A detailed presentation of responses to these questions can be found in Table 6, Chapter III. Valuation of Waterfowl Hunting Trips For economic modeling purposes, two contingent valuation method (CVM) questions were asked regarding a specific trip the hunter made during the 1989 waterfowl hunting season. The first question asked the hunter to place a value on either their first or last waterfowl hunting trip of the season. This question asked: Suppose that everything about your "FIRST" ("LAST") hunt was the same except your trip costs had been S X more, would you still have made the trip? The hunter could answer this dichotomous choice CVM question by checking either Yes or No. The dollar amount $ X was one of 9 predetermined bid levels ranging from $ 5 to $ 500. This amount was varied randomly across questionnaires. Analysis of responses to this question resulted in a net economic value for the entire sample of $167.88 per trip. The trip values for resident and nonresident hunters were significantly different with resident trips being valued at $126.21 and nonresident trips at $329.48. Analysis of trips to the Pacific and Central Flyways showed that the values for the two areas were significantly different with Central Flyway trips valued at $187.71 and Pacific Flyway trips at $139.68. No significant difference was found between early and late season waterfowl hunting trips. Following the "current trip" question above was a dichotomous choice CVM question presenting hunters with hypothetical changes in either their first or last trip of the season and asking them how they would value those changes. The hypothetical question for improved hunting conditions was as follows: 111 Now imagine that everything about your "FIRST" ("LAST") hunt was the same, except that you saw twice as many birds and the bag limit was more liberal, and your trip cost to visit this site increased by $ X . would you still have made the trip? A similar question was asked regarding a decrease in hunting opportunities; "imagine that ... you saw half the number of birds and the bag limit was more conservative". The goal of asking these hypothetical question was to determine hunter's willingness to pay for alternative waterfowl hunting opportunities. As in the current trip question, the dollar amount asked varied from $5 to $500 among respondents. Based on responses for the complete sample, the net economic value of the hypothetically "improved" trip (twice the number of birds and more liberal regulations) was not statistically different from the value of the current trip. However, the hypothetically "diminished" trip was valued significantly lower than the current trip. A detailed analysis of these estimated trip values can be found in Chapter IV. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to Rob Brooks for his excellent data management effort in survey administration and preliminary tabulation of data. Tom Hinz, Jeff Herbert and Rob Brooks of DFWP were instrumental in design of the Waterfowl Survey and provided valuable comments on early drafts of this report. Of course, responsibility for the analysis and interpretations contained herein rests solely with the authors. TABLE OF CONTENTS MAJOR FINDINGS i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS "^ TABLE OF CONTENTS vi LIST OF TABLES vii CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION 1 Scope and Objectives 1 Definition of Economic Benefits 1 CHAPTER II : THEORY AND METHODS 3 Survey Design 3 Data Sources and Survey Administration 4 Response Rates 4 The Contingent Valuation Model 5 Estimated Willingness to Pay Using Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Methodology 6 CHAPTER III: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND HUNTER MANAGEMENT PREFERENCES 8 Hunter Characteristics 8 Waterfowl Hunting Trip Characteristics 8 Waterfowl Hunter Expenditures 9 Waterfowl Hunter Management Preferences 9 CHAPTER IV: CONTINGENT VALUATION ESTIMATES OF CONSUMER SURPLUS 21 Contingent Valuation Questions Asked 21 Outlier and Protest Responses 21 Model Specification and Estimated Equations 23 Benefit Estimation 24 REFERENCES 3 5 APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT 37 LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page 1 Montana Waterfowl Survey Respondents Sample and Sample Sizes 10 2 Waterfowl Hunter Characteristics by Residency 11 3 Waterfowl Hunting Trip Characteristics by Residency Class 12 4 Comparison of Characteristics of First and Last Hunting Trips 13 5 Waterfowl Hunter Expenditure Statistics by Residency 14 6 Equipment Used in Waterfowl Hunting: Percentage of Hunters Using Each Item 15 7 Waterfowl Hunter's Rating of the Importance of Reasons in their Choice of a Hunting Area 16 8 Waterfowl Hunter's Rating of the Importance of Reasons for Hunting Waterfowl 17 9 Waterfowl Hunter Management Preferences by Residency 18 10 Estimated Bivariate Logistic CVM Equations: Entire Sample and Resident and Nonresident Subsamples .... 27 11 Estimated Bivariate Logistic CVM Equations: Pacific and Central Flyways 28 12 Estimated Bivariate Logistic CVM Equations: First and Last Trips of the Season 29 13 Estimated Bivariate Logistic CVM Equations: Changed Conditions Trips 30 14 Montana Waterfowl Hunting Net Economic Value Per Trip and Per Hunter Day: Entire Sample and Residency Subsamples 31 15 Montana Waterfowl Hunting Net Economic Value Per Trip: Central and Pacific Flyways and First and Last Trips of the Season 32 16 Comparison of Net Economic Value Per Trip of Current Trip and Hypothetical Trips 3 3 17 Comparison of Differences Across Contingent Valuation Means 34 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Scope and Object ives The main objective of this research is to statistically estimate the net economic value of waterfowl hunting in Montana. To this end, a survey of waterfowl hunting practices and views was administered to a random sample of Montana waterfowl hunters following the close of the 1989 hunting season. This survey (see Appendix A) asked hunters questions regarding travel and expenses incurred on specific waterfowl hunting trips, their views on waterfowl management issues, and values which they would place on different waterfowl hunting experiences. Answers to these survey questions were analyzed in two basic ways: (1) responses to questions on travel, expenses, views and hunter characteristics were analyzed with simple descriptive statistics such as means and proportions and (2) responses to the waterfowl hunting trip valuation questions were analyzed as dichotomous choice contingent valuation models, and trip values were estimated using logistic regression modeling. This study examines current trip values for waterfowl hunting in Montana. Left unexamined are nonuse values for waterfowl such as viewing values or existence values. These nonconsumptive uses may constitute a sizable percentage of the total value associated with waterfowl, (Walsh et al. 1985) but estimation of these values requires the use of a general household survey and thus is beyond the scope of this study. While nonconsumptive and nonuse values are important when determining large scale impacts to resources, the current trip values, as presented in this study, may be adequate for examining the economic effect of incremental changes in waterfowl management. Definition of Economic Benefits Many recreationists, when asked if a specific recreational experience was worth more to them than they actually had to spend answer "yes". Net willingness to pay is the additional amount recreationists are willing to pay over and above what they actually had to pay. Therefore, net economic value or "consumer surplus" is the difference between what a person is willing to pay and what they actually must pay. This net willingness to pay is the measure of benefits associated with waterfowl hunting which is used in this study. The U.S. Water Resources Council Principles and Guidelines (1983) require many Federal agencies to employ net willingness to pay in measuring the value of both marketed and nonmarketed (e.g., recreation) resources. When performing natural resource damage assessments the U.S. Department of Interior mandates the use of net willingness to pay in calculation of societal gains and losses (U.S. Department of Interior, 1986). Additionally, the Bureau of Land Management (1982) also uses net willingness to pay in measuring the economic benefits of wildlife when performing cost benefit analysis. Use of net willingness to pay in cost benefit determinations is also recommended in current economic literature (Just, Hueth and Schmitz, 1982; Sassone and Schaffer, 1978) . CHAPTER II THEORY AMD METHODS Survey Design The survey instrument used in this study asked a wide range of questions regarding hunting practices, views on waterfowl management issues and valuation of hunting experiences. The questions were presented in five sections (see Appendix A) . These sections address the following topics: I. Questions regarding the respondents waterfowl hunting history and their feelings toward the sport, II. Questions about the hunters first and last waterfowl hunting trips of the 1989 season, their success and characteristics of the trips and the areas where they hunted, III. Economic questions about a specific trip (either their first or last of the year) including expenses, travel time and contingent valuation questions, IV. Questions designed to elicit opinions on different waterfowl hunting management options. V. Socioeconomic questions about the respondent, including age, sex, income, education, etc. Data gathered from all survey sections are presented in Chapter III, Descriptive Statistics, and the data collected by the contingent valuation questions of Section III is analyzed and presented in Chapter IV, Contingent Valuation Estimates of Consumer Surplus. There were four versions of the survey sent to hunters. One half of the sample was sent surveys which addressed in parts of Sections II and III, their "first" hunting trip of the year. The other half of the sample was sent questionnaires which instead asked about their "last" hunting trip of the year. This splitting of the sample addressed a basic concern in the sampling procedure: that asking all respondents about their most current trip would bias the results if significant differences existed between early and late season trips. These two general versions of the questionnaire were also each divided into two unique versions of the survey. The surveys varied in the wording of Question 6 in Section III. One version asked respondents to place a value on a trip in which they "saw twice as many birds and the bag limit was more liberal" and the other version asked them to value a trip in which they "saw half the number of birds and the bag limit was more conservative". These different versions were presented to facilitate valuation of alternative hypothetical management practices and trip experiences. The differences across surveys resulted in four survey versions: (1) Surveys addressing the "first" trip and improved hunting conditions, (2) Surveys addressing the "first" trip and worsened hunting conditions, (3) Surveys addressing the "last" trip and improved hunting conditions, (4) Surveys addressing the "last" trip and worsened hunting conditions. Data Sources and Survey Administration The questionnaire was administered by the Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks after the 1989 general hunting season. The population targeted by the questionnaire was those people who had purchased a 1989 Montana hunting license as well as a 1989 waterfowl stamp. An adaptation of Dillman's (1978) Total Design Method was used in conducting the mail survey. Hunters first received the questionnaire booklet (see Appendix A) and cover letter along with a stamped, addressed return envelope. One week later a postcard reminder was sent to those hunters not yet responding. Finally, a second copy of the questionnaire was sent to nonrespondents three weeks after the initial mailing. Response Rates An initial sample of 1000 questionnaires was mailed to hunters. Of these, 59 were undeliverable and 644 were completed and returned. This response rate of 68.4% is comparable to other Montana hunting surveys (Loomis, Cooper and Allen, 1988; Brooks, 1988) and is quite acceptable for mail questionnaires. Of the 644 completed questionnaires, 28 either did not hunt in 1988 or were returned too late to be included in the sample. There was no followup survey of nonrespondents conducted in this study. It is not possible, therefore, to know if the 31.6% who did not respond differed significantly from the 68.4% who did. The Contingent Valuation Method The remainder of this chapter is designed to present an accessible discussion of the contingent valuation method of welfare calculation and the estimation of confidence intervals around welfare estimates. The two most widely used methods for estimating net willingness to pay for outdoor recreation are the contingent valuation method (CVM) and the travel cost model (TCM) . These are also the two general methods recommended by the U.S. Water Resources Council (1983) for valuing recreation in federal cost benefit analysis. In the CVM approach individuals are directly surveyed as to their willingness to pay for the services of a given resource contingent on the existence of a hypothetical market situation. This flexible technique has been applied to a wide range of environmental and resource issues including air and water quality changes, scenic beauty, and wildlife (Cummings, Brookshire and Schultze, 1986) . The only limitation of the method is the ability of the researcher to frame understandable questions and the ability and willingness of the respondents to accurately value the good or service. Bishop and Heberlein (1985) have described six key methodological choices in a CVM application: 1) target population, 2) product definition, 3) payment vehicle, 4) question format, 5) method of analysis and 6) supplemental data. The target population for this study is the direct users of waterfowl hunting resources (Montana hunting license and waterfowl stamp holders) while the product definition is a waterfowl hunting trip. It is necessary to specify a payment vehicle. Mitchell and Carson (1981) suggest two criteria for an appropriate vehicle: realism and neutrality. For this study increases in waterfowl hunting trip costs were used as the payment vehicle. This vehicle presented respondents with a realistic and emotionally neutral (as opposed to increases in taxes) payment method. The question format used in the CVM in large part also determines the method of analysis to be used. The question format can be one of three basic types. First, the open-ended CVM is the simplest approach: respondents are asked their maximum willingness to pay for the use of a given resource. This approach can be administered at a low cost and is relatively easy to interpret. A widely used alternative to the open-ended format is the iterative bidding game where interviewers ask respondents for a yes or no response to a specified bid amount. If the respondent is willing to pay that amount the bid is raised in increments until the persons maximum willingness to pay is reached. Iterative bidding is a costly question format which requires face to face or telephone contact between interviewers and respondents . A third question format, the dichotomous choice approach, combines some of the better features of both open-ended and iterative bidding. In dichotomous choice, the individual is faced with a single specific dollar bid and (like bidding games) the response is a simple market-like yes or no. The dollar bid amount is systematically varied across respondents. This format is amenable to mail surveys and is therefore relatively low cost. This relatively new approach has been successfully applied to valuation of hunting permits (Bishop and Heberlein, 1980) , boating and scenic beauty (Boyle and Bishop, 1984) and instream flow valuation (Duffield, Neher, Patterson and Allen, 1990) among many other applications. In this study the dichotomous choice approach was used to value waterfowl hunting trips. Although there are advantages and disadvantages to each method, recent research shows dichotomous choice models can provide fair approximations to actual market transactions (Bishop and Heberlein, 1980; Welsh, 1986) . In general, comparisons of real markets to simulated CVM markets indicate that respondents attempt to give their true value of resources being studied. A discussion of the specific CVM questions asked and the application of CVM analysis to Montana waterfowl hunting is presented in chapter IV. Estimation of Willingness to Pay Using Dichotomous Choice CVM The major disadvantage of the dichotomous choice method is that analysis is more complex than with open-ended or iterative bidding methods. In view of the considerable advancements in methods for modeling discrete choice (Amemiya, 1981) this complexity is manageable and acceptable when compared with the advantages which dichotomous choice CVM questions afford. These advantages include: a realistic market-like scenario and a high percentage of responses to the CVM questions. The expected maximum willingness to pay for a waterfowl hunting trip is estimated by finding a relationship between the amount of the bid level which respondents are asked to pay and the probability of their responding yes to that amount. This estimated relationship between bid level and probability of a "yes" response can be represented graphically as 2 dimensional curve. The area under this curve (which can be calculated through integration of the curve between 0 and some chosen maximum truncation level) is called a truncated mean and is one measure of the expected maximum willingness to pay for the waterfowl hunting trip. While the estimated maximum willingness to pay for a waterfowl hunting trip provides a great deal of information regarding the net economic value of waterfowl hunting, it is also of interest to determine how precisely estimated those willingness to pay figures are. Because there is no analytic formula for a standard error of the truncated mean, a bootstrapping technique suggested by Duf field and Patterson (1991) was employed to estimate these standard errors. CHAPTER III DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AMD HUNTER MANAGEMENT PREFERENCES The Montana Waterfowl Survey posed many questions to hunters regarding their socioeconomic characteristics, the types of waterfowl hunting trips they took and their opinions on waterfowl management issues. The relatively large number of respondents to this survey allowed the sample to be disaggregated in several ways. Previous studies have shown significant differences between resident and nonresident recreationists (Duffield, Loomis and Brooks, 1988 and Duffield and Neher, 1990) . Accordingly, the sample was divided into Montana residents and nonresidents for much of the analysis. Additionally, certain aspects of the survey responses were analyzed according to which waterfowl flyway (Pacific or Central) a hunting trip occurred in. The sizes of the samples in each of these subgroups are shown in Table 1. Hunter Characteristics The entire sample of 616 survey respondents was disaggregated into resident and nonresident subsamples in order to examine hunter characteristics. Table 2 shows a comparison of resident and nonresident hunter characteristics. Nonresident waterfowl hunters in this sample were, on average, older than residents (44.24 years vs. 38.67 years) and had spent more years hunting waterfowl (22.72 for nonresidents vs. 18.54 for residents). It was not surprising to see that residents spent roughly twice the number of days per year hunting in Montana that nonresidents spent. Two other major differences between resident and nonresident hunters were in the percentage of each group to belong to a sportsman's organization, and the average household income for each group. Of nonresident hunters, 63.1% belonged to a sportsman's club while only 50.3% of resident hunters did likewise. In regards to average family income, resident incomes were substantially lower ($40,333) than nonresident incomes ($56,486) . Waterfowl Hunting Trip Characteristics Several survey questions asked respondents about characteristics of a particular waterfowl hunting trip that they had taken. A summary of responses to these questions is presented in Table 3. The major differences between trips taken by resident hunters and those taken by nonresidents can be seen in the percentage of each group to hire a guide, the average number of miles driven by each group and the average hours of driving time. While only .6% of 8 residents hired an outfitter or hunting guide for their particular Montana hunting trip, 10.8% of nonresident hunters did so. It was not surprising to see that nonresidents travelled much further and longer on average (468.9 miles and 10 hours) to get to their hunting area than did resident hunters (36.7 miles and 1.4 hours). In other areas the two groups of hunters were quite similar. Both walked around 1.5 miles on their hunt, and both saw an average of 3 other hunters. It is of interest to policy makers to determine if hunters find different conditions on early and late season waterfowl hunts. Table 4 shows a comparison of trip statistics and measures of hunter success between hunters first trip of the year and their last trip of the year. An analysis of Table 4 shows that there does not appear to be a significant difference between early and late season trips, at least not in regard to the variables analyzed here. Waterfowl Hunter Expenditures Table 5 shows a comparison of per trip and per day expenditures for resident and nonresident hunters. Due to the greater distances which they must travel, and the necessity for overnight lodging, nonresident hunters spent substantially more per trip than did resident hunters (635.12 per trip vs. 49.35 per trip). This inequality was evident in all categories of expense; transportation, food and lodging and equipment. Nonresidents did spend more time per trip than residents (3.29 days vs. 1.60 days) and therefore the per day expense differential between residency groups was somewhat smaller than the per trip differential (193.05 per day for nonresidents vs. 30.84 per day for residents) . Waterfowl Hunter Motivations and Management Preferences Tables 6,7 and 8 present information on the equipment used by waterfowl hunters, their motivations for choosing specific areas in which to hunt, and their reasons for engaging in waterfowl hunting. How hunters perceive waterfowl management issues is of particular interest to waterfowl hunting policy makers. A large portion of the Montana waterfowl survey was dedicated to questioning hunters about their opinions on a variety of these issues. Table 9 presents a detailed summary of responses to these waterfowl management questions. These responses are broken down by residency class. Table 1. Montana Waterfowl Hunting Respondents Sample and Subsample Sizes. Hunter Grouping Sample Size Percentage Resident Hunters Nonresident Hunters Total Hunters 487 129 616 79.1? 20.95 100% Central Flyway Pacific Flyway Total Hunters 199 329 528 37.7: 62.3! 100% Note: The total sample sizes for the resident/nonresident breakdown and the Central Flyway/Pacif ic Flyway breakdown are not equal because while every respondent could be classified as resident or nonresident not every respondent indicated which flyway they had hunted on a particular trip. 10 Table 2. Waterfowl Hunter Characteristics by Residency Class. Characteristic Residents Nonresidents Years Hunting Waterfowl 18.54 22.72 Days Per Year Hunted 12.29 12.43 Days Hunted in Montana 13.65' 6.26 Average Age 38.67 44.24 Percent Male Respondents 96.1% 97.4% Percent Belonging to a 50.3% 63.1% Sportsmans Organization Average Family Income 40,333 56,486 1 The seeming inconsistency between the average days per year hunted by residents and the average number of days per year hunted in Montana by residents is due to respondents who answered one question but not the other. 11 Table 3. Waterfowl Hunting Trip Characteristics by Residency Class. Characteristic Residents Nonresidents Percent Who Hired a Guide .6% 10.8% Average Miles Walked 1.3 1.6 Average Number of Other 3.6 3.0 Hunters Seen Number of Years Hunting the 9.5 7.2 Area Average Miles Driven 36.7 468.9 Average Hours Driving Time 1.4 10.0 12 Table 4. comparison of Characteristics of First and Last Hunting Trips. Statistic First Trip Last Trip Hunted Central Flyway Hunted Pacific Flyway Hours Per Day Hunted Days Hunted on Trip % Shooting 1 or more Ducks % Shooting 1 or More Geese % Shooting a Limit of Ducks % Shooting a Limit of Geese 36.9% 33.1% 63.1% 66.9% 5.2 4.8 1.86 1.57 65.9% 63.1% 37.5% 35.2% 31.7% 29.4% 16.8% 14.3% 13 Table 5. Waterfowl Hunter Expenditure Statistics by Residency. Statistic Transportation Expenses Food, Beverages and Lodging Equipment for Trip, Access, Guide Fees and all Other Total Spent Per Trip Average Number of Days Per 1.60 3.29 Trip Residents Nonresidents $ 16.82 $ 266.10 12.68 181.01 19.85 188.01 $ 49.35 $ 635.12 Average Per Day Expenditure $ 30.84 $ 193.05 -^Cr=> l.f7S( 14 Table 6. Equipment Used in Waterfowl Hunting: Percentage of Hunters Using Each Item. Waterfowl Hunting Item Yes Responses Percentage Decoys 357 64.1% Calls 347 62.3% Binoculars 338 60.7% Boat 129 23.2% Waders 293 52.6% Tent 17 3.1% Trailer or R.V. 38 6.8% Camera 143 25.7% Spotting Scope 38 6.8% Retriever 264 47.4% 15 Table 7. Waterfowl Hunters Rating of the Importance of Reasons in Their Choice of a Waterfowl Hunting Area. Not at Reason Very Not all Important Important Important Important Good Public Access 34. ,0% 30. ,5% 20. ,9% 14. ,6% Size of Bag Limit 10. ,4% 33, ,7% 42. ,3% 13. ,6% High Numbers of Waterfowl 42. ,9% 49. ,1% 6. ,2% 1. ,7% Close to Home 23, .7% 42. ,8% 23. ,7% 9. ,7% Availability of Facilities 5, .8% 14. ,0% 39. , 1% 41. ,1% Because I Had a Special Swan Permit 5. .2% 4. .8% 10, .9% 79, .2% Proximity to Commercial Services 1, .4% 4. .3% 28. .8% 65. .5% To Hunt with Family or Friends 35, . 1% 40, .5% 12, .2% 12, .2% Ease of Launching Boat and Bird Retrieval 9, .7% 31, .8% 30, .2% 28, .4% Familiarity with the Area 30 .7% 51 .8% 13 .2% 4, .3% Low Numbers of Hunters 42 .5% 45 .5% 10 .6% 1 .4% 16 Table 8. Waterfowl Hunter Ranking of the Importance of Reasons for Hunting Waterfowl. Not at Reason Very Not all Important Important Important Important For the Solitude 31. .6% 50. ,6% 14, ,7% 3. . 1% To test My Hunting 17. .4% 49. ,7% 26, .0% 6, .8% Skills To Shoot a Limit of 5, .3% 18. .1% 55, .1% 21. .5% Waterfowl To be Outdoors 69, . 1% 29. , 1% 1, .5% .3% For the Meat 8. .3% 34. ,2% 41, .2% 16, .3% To be in a Natural 47. .2% 46, .8% 5, . 1% .9% Setting To Learn More About 24.6% 51.8% 19.3% 4.3% Waterfowl 17 Table 9. Waterfowl Hunter Management Preferences by Residency. Question /Statistic Residents Nonresidents (la) Do You Shoot Hen Mallards? YES NO 43.9% 56.1% 49.1% 50.9% (lb) If YES, Checlc statements That Apply Shoot as part of my regular bag 17.7% 17.5% Shoot only on slow days 56.3% 79.6% Shoot only by mistake 17.4% 3.5% (3) Check Statements which Reflect Your Attitudes about License Costs Entire Sample Current duck stamp prices are adequate to maintain waterfowl numbers. If duck stamp prices increased by $5 or more within 5 years, I would pay it, Knowing it was necessary to maintain waterfowl numbers. If duck stamp prices increased by $5 or more within 5 years, I would quit hunting. 38.8% 64.8% 14.9% (4) In Regard to the Steel Shot Program, ChecK all Statements which Apply to You Steel shot constitutes another example 33.5% of government interfering with my life/ enjoyment /recreation. Steel shot is necessary to reduce waterfowl losses to lead poisoning. I like shooting steel shot. I do not like shooting steel shot. I still shoot lead shot. I want to learn more about the proper use of steel shot. 53.0% 20.2% 54.3% 13, .9% 14, .7% 57, .7% 51. .9% 7, .0% 7, .8% 31, . 0% 23. .3% Note: The percentages for each question may sum to greater than 100% since some questions allowed for multiple responses. 18 Table 9 cent. Waterfowl Hunter Management Preferences by Residency. Question/Statistic Residents Nonresidents (4) Relative to Hunting Regulations, Check Statements which Apply to You Present regulations are too 18.6% 10.9% restrictive. Present regulations are in line with 81.4% 89.1% current population status If Regulations were to be Liberalized, to See: (Please Rank 1st, 2nd and 3rd) What Area Would You Like Season length Increase Ranked Ranked Ranked First Second Third 60.1% 18.6% 21.2% 58.7% 20.0% 21.3% Bag limits increased Ranked Ranked Ranked First Second Third 18.9% 66.3% 14.8% 26.7% 66.7% 6.6% Other Ranked Ranked Ranked First Second Third 14.2% 9.2% 76.6% 9.3% 7.0% 83.7% (5) Do you perceive there are fewer ducks in your area, and if so, to what do you attribute it? (Check all statements you feel are very important) Habitat loss nationally 56.1% 65.9% Habitat loss in my state/area 38.2% 40.3% Overshooting 10.9% 12.4% Disease 8.2% 14.7% Toxic substances 26. 5% 36 . 4% If you do not plan to hunt waterfowl in one or more upcoming seasons, will you continue to buy duck stamps? YES 54.5% 69.4% Note: The percentages for each question may sum to greater than 100% since some questions allowed for multiple responses. 19 Table 9 cont. Waterfowl Hunter Management Preferences by Residency. Quest ion/ 8 tat is tic Residents Nonresidents (7) Please check the statements which reflect your attitudes about half -hour before sunrise shooting (HHBSRS) for ducks and geese: HHBSRS is an important part of my waterfowl hunting tradition (percent responding yes) HHBSRS is necessary to a day's hunt, at least some days Ducks 53, .2% 48. .7% Geese 52. .2% 38. .9% successful ! days Ducks 50, .0% 45. . 1% Geese 46. .6% 33. .6% HHBSRS is necessary to an enjoyable day of hunting Ducks 33. ,0% 31, .9% Geese 31. .1% 23. .9% HHBSRS is unimportant to me in hunting Ducks 27. ,4% 33. .6% Geese 25. . 1% 28. .3% HHBSRS should be curtailed since hunters cannot see birds well enough for proper identification Ducks Geese 17.2% 7.0% HHBSRS should be curtailed to reduce the harvest of some species which need more protection Ducks 14.3% Geese 6.2% 23.0% 15.9% 21.2% 12.4% 20 CHAPTER IV CONTINGENT VALUATION ESTIMATES OF CONSUMER SURPLUS Contingent Valuation Questions Asked The Montana Waterfowl Hunting Survey asked hunters to answer questions on a number of aspects of their most recent hunting trip. For economic modeling purposes, two contingent valuation questions were asked regarding a specific trip the hunter made during the 1989 waterfowl hunting season. The first question asked the hunter to place a value on either their first or last waterfowl hunting trip of the season. This question asked: Suppose that everything about your "FIRST" ("LAST") hunt was the same except your trip costs had been $ X more, would you still have made the trip? The hunter would answer this dichotomous choice CVM question by checking either Yes or No. The dollar amount $ X was one of 9 predetermined bid levels ranging from $ 5 to $ 500. This amount was varied randomly across questionnaires. Following this question was a dichotomous choice CVM question presenting hunters with hypothetical changes in either their first or last trip of the season and asking them how they would value those changes. This hypothetical question was as follows: Now imagine that everything about your "FIRST" ("LAST") hunt was the same, except that you saw twice as many birds and the bag limit was more liberal (or you saw half the number of birds and the bag limit was more conservative) , and your trip cost to visit this site increased by $ X . would you still have made the trip? The goal of asking this hypothetical question was to determine hunters willingness to pay for alternative waterfowl hunting opportunities. As in the current trip question, the dollar amount asked varied between $ 5 and $ 500 among respondents. Outlier and Protest Responses In the analysis of CVM responses there are two groups of respondents who should be excluded from the sample before any analysis occurs. The first is that group who indicate a willingness to pay the stated bid amount but who would not actually be able to pay that amount given their income. The standard economic definition of demand requires both a willingness and an ability to pay. Therefore those respondents who indicate a willingness but lack the ability to pay the bid 21 amount must be excluded as their response does not meet the constraints of economic theory. Ability to pay was determined by first calculating the percentage of their income which respondents were willing to spend on waterfowl hunting. This was done as follows: PERCENT - ( (TOTALS BID)* TRIPS) ( ,, INCOME Where: TOTAL = The amount they reported spending on their most recent trip. BID = The dollar bid level asked. TRIPS = The number of separate waterfowl hunting trips they reported taking this season. INCOME= Their reported annual income. This percentage statistic was calculated for the first CVM question. As an initial measure all respondents with a percentage figure greater than 1 were excluded since this group most obviously lacks the ability to pay. The percentages for the remaining respondents were then tabulated. Since the distribution of the calculated variable PERCENT was somewhat skewed rather than distributed normally a three standard deviation confidence interval was placed around the calculated mean in order to determine the cutoff limit for outlier exclusion. In total, 17 observations were eliminated from the following economic analysis due to a reported willingness to pay which exceeded the cutoff limits. The second group of respondents who were excluded from the analysis were those whose responses reflected a "protest" to some aspect of the simulated market. The U.S. Water Resources Council has suggested that a followup question be asked to each CVM question. In this survey that question was : "If no, would you have made the trip if your share of the expenses had been only $1 more? Following the "No" response to this question was: "if no, could you briefly explain why not." The responses to these questions were analyzed to develop categories of reasons for responding with a "No". Those hunters who indicated a valid reason for their zero willingness to pay were left in the sample. These valid reasons included: * Respondents who could not afford a higher trip cost. * Respondents saying they would hunt elsewhere if faced with increased trip costs. * Respondents who indicated that the trip would just not be worth any more money. 22 Respondents were excluded from the sample if their reasons for responding "no" indicated they were protesting the market setup rather than legitimately considering the question which was asked. These "protest" responses included: * Respondents saying they didn't understand the questions, * Respondents indicating opposition to any increased taxes, or fees. In total, 13 responses were excluded from the analysis because their responses were deemed to be protests. Model Specification and Estimated Equations The net economic value for a waterfowl hunting trip was determined by analyzing the respondents' yes or no answers to the CVM questions. These responses were analyzed using logistic regression. A more comprehensive discussion of the theory and methods for analyzing these types of models is provided in Duff ield and Patterson (1991) . Economic theory suggests that certain variables should influence the response of an individual to a CVM question. In this study, a bivariate form of the willingness to pay model was used which regressed "yes" or "no" responses upon the bid amount asked. It is expected that as bid increases, the probability of a "yes" response will decrease. The following bivariate logit model was used for the CVM questions : ln(-^ = a + pin{SJD) (2) where: P = Probability of a "yes" response BID = Dollar amount of increased trip costs the respondent was asked to pay The estimated coefficients and standard errors for the model shown in Equation 2 are shown in Tables 10-13 . In all cases, the coefficients for the independent variable (In (BID)) had the expected sign (negative) and added significantly to the model at the .05 level. These results indicate the responses are logical and consistent with economic theory. 23 An analysis of the goodness of fit statistics for the 9 estimated models show that all but 2 of the logistic models fit the data well. This indicates that the choice of the double log functional form shown in Equation 2 is generally consistent with the distribution of the sample data. Goodness of fit statistics for all models are reported in Tables 10-13. Benefit Estimation Two measures of benefit per trip were calculated from the bivariate logit models and are presented in Tables 14-16. They are the median and the truncated mean. The truncation point used for the truncated mean was the maximum bid — $500 for all aggregation levels. The truncated mean was calculated by numerical evaluation of the integral shown in Equation 3 since this integral cannot be evaluated analytically for the model with log (bid) as the independent variable. Truncated Mean = f (1 - Fix)) dx (3) Jo Where: Fix) is the probability density function of the willingness to pay distribution. It should be noted that use of the truncated mean represents a conservative estimate of the true (hypothetical) mean willingness to pay because all individuals having willingness to pay greater than T are included at the value T. The second welfare measure presented in Tables 14-16 is the median of the willingness to pay distribution. The median is defined as the point where 50% of the sample would say "Yes" to the bid. The median is analytically defined as: Median = exp|--g-| ^^^ Both truncated mean and median are reported as there is currently a debate in the economics literature as to which measure is most appropriate, Duf field and Patterson (1991) argue that the truncated mean is best used since it, unlike the median, can be aggregated over the whole population. 24 standard errors for the medians and truncated means were estimated by bootstrapping with 200 replications. This statistical procedure is described in Duffield and Patterson (1991). Bootstrapping was used because there is no analytic formula for a standard error of the truncated mean. Although an approximate asymptotic formula exists for the standard error for the median, bootstrapping will probably give a more reliable estimate, particularly for small samples. Four specific aggregation schemes are presented in Tables 14-16. These different aggregations test the a priori assumptions that the following differences exist: (1) That residents and nonresidents exhibit different current trip net economic values, (2) That trips to the Central and Pacific Flyways will exhibit differing values, (3) That early and late season (first and last) trips will show differing net economic values, (4) That trips with hypothetically changed conditions (Twice the birds and more liberal regulations, or half the birds and more conservative regulations) will have net economic values which differ from the current trip values. Table 14 shows the estimated values for hunters current trip (an actual specific trip which the hunters made during the season) for the entire sample as well as for resident and nonresident subsamples. As would be expected, nonresident values per trip (329.48) were significantly higher than resident values (126.21). When adjusted for the different average length of trips taken by the two groups nonresident values remained higher at $100.15 per day vs. $78.88 per day for residents. One interesting figure shown in Table 14 is the median trip value and standard error for the nonresident subsample. While measures of the median of CVM distributions tend to be significantly lower than measures of mean willingness to pay, this particular model shows just the opposite. The reason for this anomaly is that even at the highest bid level asked ($500) nearly 50% of the nonresidents responded "yes" as to their willingness to pay that amount. The effect of this is that the Truncated mean WTP was extremely conservatively estimated while the median was accurately estimated. Since the variance of the median estimate is based in a large part upon the unobserved upper tail of the distribution, while the median is accurately estimated its variance is very imprecisely estimated. 25 Table 15 shows a comparison of WTP estimates for Central and Pacific Flyway trips as well as for first and last trips of the season. Waterfowl hunting trips to the Central Flyway were valued higher than those to the Pacific Flyway (187.71 vs. 139.68 respectively) . No such clear cut difference could be found, however, between first and last trips of the season (171.08 vs. 165.23 respectively). Table 16 shows an initial comparison between the aggregated current trip values and the estimated values for hypothetically improved and hypothetical ly diminished trips. Both hypothetical trip values are lower than the current trip value of 167.88. The improved trip scenario shows a value which is slightly lower (151.36) while the diminished trip shows a value which is significantly lower (112.72). In order to give meaning to the relationships presented in Tables 14-16 a statistical comparison of the truncated mean values was done. The results of this comparison are shown in Table 17. Of the four comparisons made in this analysis (resident vs. nonresidents, Central vs. Pacific, first trip vs. last trip, and changed conditions vs. current conditions) in three cases there proved to be significant differences between the estimated mean per trip values. Nonresident current trip values, as expected, were significantly higher than resident values; Trips to the Central Flyway were valued significantly higher than those to the Pacific Flyway; Trips with hypothetically diminished conditions were valued significantly lower than the current conditions trips as well as the improved conditions trips. The estimated mean values for first and last trips were not significantly different. Likewise, there was no statistical difference between current conditions trips and hypothetically improved conditions trips. In an effort to further examine the possible difference between early and late season trips, the date of the current trip was analyzed and responses were divided into two groups: those respondents asked about their first trip whose trip date was before 11/01/89 and those asked about their last trip whose trip date was after 12/01/89. This clear division of early and late trips was examined because a large number of respondents (nearly 33%) made only one hunting trip for the year and thus their responses to first or last trip questions could not be expected to fall neatly into early and late season categories. Analysis of this new breakdown of early and late trips showed that while differences in current trip values were more marked than for the first and last trip analysis, there was still no statistical difference at the 90% level of significance between the estimated logit means. 26 Table 10. Estimated Blvariate Logistic CVM Equations, Entire Sample and Resident and Nonresident Subszunples. Model/Statistic Intercept log (BID) (T-Stat.) (T-Stat.) Entire Sample 4.1802 -.9411 (9.68) (-10.1) Likelihood Ratio Goodness of Fit Test Degrees of Freedom = 7 Chi Square = 13.7 P = .0568 Sample Size = 531 Resident Subsample 4.5950 -1.1192 (9.26) (-10.0) Likelihood Ratio Goodness of Fit Test Degrees of Freedom = 7 Chi Square = 11.3 P = .1253 Sample Size = 430 Nonresident Subsample 4.9851 -.8079 (3.52) (-2.92) Likelihood Ratio Goodness of Fit Test Degrees of Freedom = 7 Chi Square = 8.80 P = .2676 Sample Size = 101 27 Table 11. Estimated Bivariate Logistic CVM Equations, Pacific and Central Flyways. Model/Statistic Intercept log (BID) (T-Stat.) (T-Stat.) Pacific Flyway Subsample 3.9888 -.9656 (7.06) (-7.66) Likelihood Ratio Goodness of Fit Test Degrees of Freedom = 7 Chi Square = 9.40 P = .2252 Sample Size = 295 Central Flyway Subsample 5.0649 -1.0709 (6.06) (-6.03) Likelihood Ratio Goodness of Fit Test Degrees of Freedom = 7 Chi Square = 5.68 P = .5774 Sample Size = 178 28 Table 12. Estimated Bivariate Logistic CVM Equations, First and Last Trips of the Season. Model/Statistic Intercept log (BID) (T-Stat.) (T-Stat.) First Trip Subsample 4.4055 -.9780 (6.95) (-7.09) Likelihood Ratio Goodness of Fit Test Degrees of Freedom = 7 Chi Square = 3.46 P = .8392 Sample Size = 256 Last Trip Subsample 3.9244 -.8971 (6.68) (7.07) Likelihood Ratio Goodness of Fit Test Degrees of Freedom = 7 Chi Square = 18.46 P = .0100 Sample Size - 273 29 Table 13. Estimated Bivariate Logistic CVM Equations, Changed Conditions Trips. Model/Statistic Intercept log (BID) (T-Stat.) (T-Stat.) Twice as many birds and more 3.5079 -.8452 liberal regulations (5.89) (-6.61) Likelihood Ratio Goodness of Fit Test Degrees of Freedom = 7 Chi Square =4.92 P = .6702 Sample Size = 262 Half as many birds and more 2.0876 -.6538 conservative regulations (4.32) (-5. 87) Likelihood Ratio Goodness of Fit Test Degrees of Freedom = 7 Chi Square = 15.84 P = .0266 Sample Size = 272 30 167. ,88 84.93 (11, .44) (9.37) 126. .21 60.68 (10, .53) (6.08) 329, .48 478.40 (28. .85) (1054.81) Table 14. Montana Waterfowl Hunting Net Economic Values Per Trip and Per Hunter Day: Entire Szunple and Residency Subsamples. Model Sample Truncated Median Size Mean Net Economic Value Per Trip Entire Sample 531 (Standard Error) Resident Subsample 430 Nonresident Subsample 101 Net Economic Value Per Day Entire Sample Resident Subsample Nonresident Subsample Note: The truncation point for the mean value estimates was the maximum bid level ($500) . Standard errors are from bootstrap procedure with 200 repetitions. Days per trip for subsamples are as follows: Entire Sample 1.88 Resident Subsample 1.60 Nonresident Subsample ... 3.29 531 89.29 45.17 430 78.88 37.93 101 100.15 145.41 31 Table 15. Montana Waterfowl Hunting Net Economic Values Per Trip: by Flyway and by First or Last Trip of Year. Model Sample Truncated Median Size Mean Entire Sample Broken Down By Flyway Central Flyway 178 187.71 113.25 (Standard Error) (19.11) (18.42) Pacific Flyway 295 139.68 62.23 (14.46) (8.82) Entire Sample Broken Down By First Or Last Trip Of Year First Trip of Year 256 171.08 90.43 (16.02) (13.74) Last Trip of Year 273 165.23 79.40 (15.35) (12.89) Note: The truncation point for the mean value estimates was the maximum bid level ($500) . 32 Table 16. Comparison of Net Economic Values Per Trip of Current Trip and Hypothetical trips. Model Sample Size Truncated Median Mean Current Trip Model Entire Sample (Standard Error) 531 167.88 (11.44) 84.93 (9.37) Hypothetical Trip Models Twice the number of birds 262 and more liberal regulations Half the birds and more conservative regulations 272 151. ,36 63.46 (12, .97) (10.63) 112, .72 24.36 (13, .05) (6.31) Note: The truncation point for the mean value estimates was the maximum bid level ($500) . 33 Table 17. Comparison of Differences Across Contingent Valuation Means. Model Comparison (Mean 1 vs. Mean 2) Mean 1 Mean 2 T-Stat (Std.Err) (Std.Err) 126.21 329.48 -6.619 (10.53) (28.85) 187.71 139.68 2.004 (19.11) (14.46) 171.08 165.23 .264 (16.02) (15.35) 151.36 112.72 2.100 (12.97) (13.05) 167.88 151.36 .955 (11.44) (12.97) 167.88 112.72 3.178 (11.44) (13.05) Residents vs. Nonresidents Central vs. Pacific First vs. Last Twice vs. Half All vs. Twice All vs. Half Means are significantly different at a 95% level of confidence. Means are significantly different at a 99% level of confidence. Note: Model definitions are as follows: Resident = Current trip question Nonresident^ Current trip question Central Pacific First Last Twice Half All = Current trip question = Current trip question = Current trip question = Current trip question - Hypothetical trip que Birds and more libera = Hypothetical trip que and more conservative = Current trip question Resident subsample Nonresident subsample Central Flyway subsample Pacific Flyway subsample First trip subsample , Last trip subsample stion, Twice the number of 1 regulations subsample stion, Half the number of birds regulations subsample , Entire sample Note: T-Statistics are calculated as follows: T-Stat= Mean, -Mean-, ,fvaf^ Var-, 34 REFERENCES Amemiya, T. (1981) . Qualitative Response Models: A Survey. Journal of Economic Literature. 19, 1483 - 1536. Bishop, R.C. and T.A. Heberlein (1985) . The Contingent Valuation Method. Paper presented at the National Workshop on Non-Market Valuation Methods and Their Use in Environmental Planning, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, Dec. 2-5. Boyle, K.J. and R.C. Bishop (1984) . A Comparison of Contingent Valuation Techniques. Department of Agricultural Economics Staff Paper 222, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Bureau of Land Management (1982) . Final Rangeland Improvement Policy. Instruction Memorandum 83-27. October 15, 1982. Washington DC. Cummings, R. , D. Brookshire and W. Schultze (1986). Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Rowmand and Allanheld, NJ. Dillman, D. (1978) . Mail and Telephone Surveys. John Wiley, New York, NY. Duffield, J.W. , R.Brooks and J.B.Loomis (1987). The Net Economic Value of Cold Water Fishing in Montana: A Regional Travel Cost Model. Helena: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Duffield, J.W. and C. Neher (1990) . Montana Deer Hunting: A Contingent Valuation Assessment of Economic Benefits to Hunters. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Helena, MT. Duffield, J.W., C. Neher, D. Patterson and S. Allen (1990). Instream Flows in the Missouri River Basin: A Recreation Survey and Economic Study. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. Helena, MT. Duffield, J.W. and D. Patterson (1991). Inference and Optimal Design for a Welfare Measure in Logistic Contingent Valuation. Land Economics 67 (2) (forthcoming. May). Hanemann, W.M. (1984) . Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66:332-341. Just, R.E., D.L. Hueth and A. Schmitz (1982). Applied Welfare Economics and Public Policy, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, Inc. 35 Mitchell, R.C, R.T. Carson (1981). An Experiment in Determining Willingness to Pay for National Water Quality Improvements. Report prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Sassone, P. and W. Schaffer (1978). Cost Benefit Analysis: A Handbook. Academic Press, NY. U.S. Department of Interior (1986). 1986 Natural Resource Damage Assessments: Final Rule. 43 CFR Part 11, Federal Register Vol 58, No. 148, August 1. U.S. Water Resources Council (1983). Economic and Environmental Principles for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office. Walsh, R. , L. Sanders and J. Loomis (1985). Wild and Scenic River Economics: Recreation Use and Preservation Values. Denver, CO: American Wilderness Alliance. Welsh, M.P. (1986). "Exploring the Accuracy of the Contingent Valuation Method: Comparisons with Simulated Markets," Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison. 36 Appendix A: Survey Instriiment 37 MONTANA WATERFOWL SURVEY 1990 z z T3 X3 p- ^ 03 gc 3 ^ 0} u. w CO tr "o 3 13 u. 03 Q. o o = >< >, 3 ^•c-- c o c o o Q O 00 ; •"S e ft.P 1 o •g- "0 .9. s i fe ^ 11 3 3 2o Si o o o c o 0 0 c 0 0 0 0) c o z Z Z z z z 1^ ^- o O) 0 3 0) i2 (A <1> 55 i2 0) w 11 §. >- >- o 3 >- >- 0 3 > >• ■o T3 T3 ps .d. 3 O E c 0) 0 .i c 0) o o 0 3 •0 0) 0 « 0 IS 0 3 T3 CD C3) M . c O 3 0} 3 0 E E 3 0 E E -J^ ., Q o 2. 0) 5 Lj !_i .-5 Q Lj Lj § 1 s ,5 iS S=3 "JJ Pa: CO :q > |8 IS »^ IS E w O 0) -^ ^° § 1-2 IS ^.^^ •c •= o 3 ■£ 52 ^^ W 3 C §.§,.§ "•T3 CO C ,_ > CO O >. E CO ~ ^« ™ iiE !^ -^^ I 11 '^ > J= JD "5 S. o >. :3 o OQ V) O Uj o -J 5 I 0> ^g 2^ Uj o K Uj 5 B B •— CO ■= c ^ — o c^- CO CO 2 ii CO CO Q. E O Q) g.§ -^ Jf C t) 11 o w •ti CO 0) _« c c ^ al « CO » >, p •S -55 0» Q Q CO (0 >. >^ CO CO Q Q 1 1 CO ni ro CO 11 2 CO 0) ^ O o g- .0- Is U. _] c CO ^ i -I •Q — _ c .0- ■-^ CO (« "-v. U- _1 O O 2% (D T3 c E 2 ra 3 1 1 > 0) 3 T3 re o 00 § c >N 5 c 2 E o ra 3 ra <»— w 0) >. o > ^ ^ (A ra 3 o E ra c 3 o o OJ E >> T3 T3 (A .Q. o j= E o 3 0) X) 3 E re w re c .S S o 1 3 O 5 ra E o 0} roe-- B ra Q. 3 o O o re t— c a '5 » .13 re 5 a 05 1 E £ s d. 3 O w IS 0) 3 X ra ^ Q. area to liderwhei X that bes 2| 5.1 c g5 Z^ « c o> ^ ^ ^ Q. E c 2 — o ^ o s for choi nt factors ease che 1 c re Q. o t: ■== _^ c >, ™ >i- E c O o a> ■" '-^ E > a E o E — ^ 0) OJ * o re E£-g ™ o c list gi t. Wh etog( re •c 8. ||| E 03 5 ^ * ^ O 5 C3) = o c w hefo aterf ecidii T3 a> 2 t- 5 -6 nnnnnn nnn nn nnnnnn nnn nn nnnnnn nnn nn nnnnnnnnn nn .a 3 5 E o o a. o 3 C OJ 5 _re (D J= w X .a .2> o re (5 CO X O > w 5 E « 2 E •o « ro 0) 8 ^ £ o « o ?^ « — E 3 « 5 E X o c o CD 5. dI .a -o !o 0) c 0) ■? •c ra re '9 0) o re E "c 2> 2 P ~ Q_ M >_ •- C F -p c s i 8 ^ a o 55 8 c .£ O 5 m m ^ ® re S c o ™ 2i re Q) 5 c 8^ >> 3 "^•■^ re ffl 5 ™ 2 re re 03 w o. 3 o- C ■D OJ ■n c s - re ^ o' re c !^ ^^ o £ I* t o * =*- 3 5 Q 3 ■■c re Q. ■2 5 S ■ Q. 75 © ♦3 ™ il- Hi CO 2? -^ =. S o = -1 -^ CO) Q. o ro « {§ E O C CO to -^ (U 2 2-6,^ i i S §. o -c - >_ 3 g'i CO a. c c en •0 ii <0 ^ a> to to 3 c ' CD o T3 ■? Q. ID (0 C re CO to 0) re k_ CO CO « y -c X 08 2 K2 t- CO c 8.1 > 0 H Z LU Q- CO f c 8 3 to" cr 0) 0 0) 0 5 c 0 §i Z C Q) c C 3 3 oj x: O) 0 Q-^ Q. Q. ._ (rt 0 CO CO 0 2 < o I E re g? re w a: n,- a> ~ CD Q) ™ > -C (D CO re CO E° ^c -1 <>> S CO . c O 0) C Q. .^ X — OJ CO - tl 3 CD >> •C ™ CD (DEC h; = « W re w gc E£ IL to ■*" I ro-t= 3 t5 > 5 — CO ^ — C3)o c x: c v.*" *" —.-re CD re .c re x— - CD g®S c E-S s •-£ E:g $ CO to 3 o re re o Z S i 5 CD CD ■£ 2 03 E re § >nT3 5 CO - c O CD s: c •~ re o to ^ q5 o o 5 w ^ CD O Q. -~ >» - T3 >, C C 3 ^ to E 3 II t: - ■ (D — (O •is C (D re 3 o - 3 2f i ^a -^ (o 2f ca. o cr o to •- S re « QL £ £ CO re - ^ c CL re tr •B E c — E ^ — (D 5 > O CO "c re S 5 c re c re 5 o r: t. to o o re Q. •*- £ E r=; re ■= o r- re ■j^ 5 = ?"t: DDnnnn n DD nnnnn □nnnnnn ■5 " S Sit re X -r 5 1^^ 000 = CD Q. O .C C S ^ o 0 c^- t2 9. 0) CO ^ !c c 0 _® y "i 0 "0 •c ? re re 5 0 ■0 C\J CD .i§ o c « ™ s ■j= » ■a 2 0) ■g jt •« CO 5 1 0 re 3 s a> 0 to S. c CO 0 E re p CD .9 _c c "■ CO 9 2 3 0 0 c o JC ^ CD ^ c E (D 0) 0 a> ffi .c T3 $ re 3 0 E >. CO E Q. 0 c 3 v- to — 50 to O) 2 c 0 ^ ■"" 3 9 0 0 >. X 2= s _ro 0) dJ in > iS O C c J2 i5 ^ .^ Q. W CO & CO ro 1^ -CO ■§■0 W S c (0 c ^ (0 c .s CD _- c »^ T3 fc 0) C n 3 ^ Csi 3 C3) — -- C3» <» 0) 1/) « ^ ^ T- J< 0) O ^ ■~ c S CO 3 8 T3 o $ W c JJ .2 a CO o? 3. ® O) a> « Cfl 2 "S !> .^ to — i_ — 2 CO m ■6 S TO c c CO w CO E ® CO X CO X a . O o >• Q-8 w CO O I CO o CO uj . ^^ O :3 CO I- 3 :ii -^ >^ 5 <= c ° O O ^ CO CO u i2 E II _^ ^ ju (O (^ c« -- 7S Oj ^ ^ — w _ _ _ 2i O 5 CO 0} CO *- (U Q O ° i o > in ■« -Q $ 52 ■D O CO d) C ^ CO -it p CO - § (D .-e g a, ^ cj Sr^ " ~ O 3 « •5 o CO « Sf o m = o in •o X) J3 d) T3 c (O c CO 3 (U JO O c "5 cr CO p a> o 3 •c O a. 5 Q. — E CO 12 CO w 0) = 1 Si 2 B -2 £ 8 f '1 .52 8. CO 0) 1™ CO o) 2 S o •= a> ^ O s; ^ s I i 0) § 1 § s 1 S o o> 1 g O w ID 5 8) ^ CO 0) i I o o Q. E Q. Q. E E c HI LU 3 Oi O) O) §1 ^" ^" m ^ ■.- p w CB ill >, »- — »_ O 3 3 (D CO §.^ ^ I^l2 — W QJ cc !c I ? X w O) c c = = "2 ^ "U CO o S CD C c i?! c «) X o -^ ^ 2 *" o » c o '^ T3 0) ® 0} "- C 2 ^ ■o.y il °^ m > 2 X fe o X x: Q. ^ X re 90 E si ^5 Ul o Q U. i" 5 re ?^ <0 CO i5 CO _2 0) >- re ^52 ■ ^ 3 ui tt: K CO oc :3 re 2 O > 3 O Uj=)0 03 n > 3: OCQ J= JC 0) »- >-^ 5 $ < > •.- C\J 00 o tr ?-^ 5? "O D) •S S, = 2 « E^ (D (D E :^ E I p 8. E "E O C^i. — c ji: i I o w w ~ := re re 5 in o .c o o o> 5 w !c o 03 ^ (/) T3 g £ re 'c O) o> .2. .2£ X3 •a XJ 03 re P .52 .i2 .52 W Li.