S Brookst Rob
338*437 A contingent
99242 valuation
F2cva assessment of
1992 upland game bird
hunting

m VAl A JMl A

BIOBCOKOMICS STUDY

A Contingent Valuation Assessment of
Upland Game Bird Hunting

Hunter Attitudes and
Economic Benefits

■§r«TC DOCUMENTS COLLECTIG.

12 1994

MONTANA STATE LIBRARV

1515 E- ^^ ^*^'
HELENA, MONTANA 59620

.-t^i^'-MiKfi^^...

Junffii® 1

TialiJWiSdUfe CSl Tkuf^

h

f ... :'ij

_ -^-»-_- — MONTANA STATE LIBRARY

rHI»! P «: fOO* S338.43799242F2c.a ,992c 1 Brooks

iiinrii rfiiitm

3 0864 00091533 3

MONTANA BIOECONOMICS STUDY

A CONTINGENT VALUATION ASSESSMENT
OF UPLAND GAME BIRD HUNTING:

HUNTER ATTITUDES AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS

Prepared by:

Robert Brooks

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

June 1992

Major portions of the funding
required to produce the reports
in this series were provided by

the Federal Aid in Sport Fish
Restoration Acts.

<i^^^f'M

^-^ORA^^^

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The objective of the upland game bird hunter study was to estimate the net economic value of
an upland game bird hunting trip. Estimates of net economic value were determined for a 1990
upland game bird hunting trip for the average hunter as well as for resident and nonresident
hunters and "first" and "last" trip of the hunting season. Net economic values were also
estimated for a hypothetically improved hunting condition. In addition resident and nonresident
hunter expenditures are detailed along with hunter/trip characteristics, attitudinal and preference
information, and opinions about selected upland game bird management issues.

The upland game bird questionnaire was mailed to 3,000 upland game bird hunters. The
Dillman Total Design Method was used to administer this survey, resulting in a 74 percent
response rate. This method requires sending an initial survey, a follow-up postcard, and if
necessary a second survey. See Chapter II for details concerning the response rate and Dillman
method. Since no follow-up of nonrespondents was conducted, it is not known if their responses
were different from those hunters who resfK)nded.

Hunter and trip characteristics for resident and nonresident hunters differed in many areas.
Nonresidents drove considerably farther than residents (755 vs. 58 miles), had higher incomes
($54,000 vs. $38,000), and a larger percentage belong to a hunting/conservation organization.
Nonresidents also spent considerably more on their trip than resident hunters, see Table 8 for
details. A detailed presentation of this information is found in Tables 2-6, Chapter III.

The valuation of upland game bird hunting was accomplished by asking hunters to respond to
two contingent valuation (CVM) questions. The question format presented hunters with a
straightforward "yes-no" situation on whether or not the trip was worth a predetermined bid
amount randomly varied across questionnaires. Their answers provided the data to estimate the
net economic value of upland game bird hunting.

Analysis of responses resulted in a net economic value of $149.00 for the complete sample. Net
economic values for the resident/nonresident subsamples were $131. 00 and $174.00 respectively.
Chapter IV provides a detailed look at the estimation of the net economic values and Table 9
presents the benefit estimates for the various situations analyzed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ii

LIST OF FIGURES ii

CHAPTER I - Introduction 1

Scope and Objectives 1

Definition of Economic Benefits 1

CHAPTER II 3

Survey Design 3

Sample Respondents and Survey Administration 3

Response Rates 4

Contingent Valuation Method 4

Willingness to Pay Using a Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Model 5

CHAPTER III - Hunter Characteristics and Management Preferences 6

Hunter Characteristics 6

Trip Characteristics 6

Upland Game Bird Hunters' Desired Experience 7

Upland Game Bird Hunter Management Preferences 11

CHAPTER IV - Economic Evaluation 14

Expenditure Data 14

Contingent Valuation Estimates 15

Protest Responses and Outliers 15

Model Specification 16

Benefit Estimates 17

REFERENCES 19

APPENDIX A 20

APPENDIX B 21

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Upland game bird hunter survey sample size 8

Table 2 Upland game bird hunter characteristics by residency 8

Table 3 Upland game bird hunter trip characteristics 9

Table 4 Equipment used by upland game bird hunters 9

Table 5 Reasons for hunting upland birds 10

Table 6 Reasons for choosing a place to hunt and their importance 10

Table 7 Factors affecting upland bird populations 11

Table 8 Upland game bird hunter trip and expenditure information 14

Table 9 Upland game bird hunting - net economic values per trip and per day

for current and improved conditions 18

LIST OF HGURES

Figure 1 12

Figure 2 13

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Scope and Objectives

The upland game bird hunter survey was designed to collect information from these hunters to:
1) estimate the net economic value of upland game bird hunting in Montana and, 2) better
understand upland game bird hunters' reasons for bird hunting, their thoughts on upland game
bird management in Montana, and provide a picture of these hunters from the socio-demographic
data provided. A random sample of resident and nonresident upland game bird hunters were
administered this survey.

A contingent valuation dichotomous choice format was used to elicit responses about the value
of upland game bird hunting. Logistic regression models were then used to calculate the
economic benefit estimates. Descriptive statistics were utilized in presenting the data on trip and
hunter characteristics/attitudes and views on upland game bird management.

This report does not explore nonuse values that this resource provides. Nonconsumptive/nonuse
values associated with upland game birds are not possible to estimate without the use of a
general household survey. Literature suggests (Walsh et al. 1985) that these values may make
up a large portion of the total value related to upland game birds.

Definition of Economic Benefits

The recreational opportunities that wildlife provide can be measured in an economic framework.
The value of these resources, is the benefit derived from their use (upland game bird hunting
in this case) and the benefits are generally non-monetary. Most goods and services are
exchanged in defined markets and have prices established through this market exchange. The
same economic principles that define a price for a marketed good apply for defining a price for
nonmarketed resources.

When recreationist are asked if an activity is worth more to them than the amount they had to
spend, many answer "yes". These people experience "net willingness to pay". Net willingness
to pay is the additional amount a recreationist is willing to pay over and above what they
actually have to pay for an activity. This net willingness to pay or net economic value is the
measure of benefits associated with upland game bird hunting.

The U.S. Water Resources Council Principles and Guidelines (1983) require many federal
agencies to use net willingness to pay as the measurement of value for both marketed and
nonmarketed resources. The U.S. Department of the Interior also requires the use of this
economic concept in determining losses and gains to society (U.S. Department of the Interior,
1986). The Bureau of Land Management uses net willingness to pay when evaluating the value

1

of wildlife in their cost benefit analyses. The use of net willingness to pay is also recommended
in current economic literature (Just, Hueth and Schmitz, 1982).

CHAPTER II

Survey Design

The upland game bird survey was designed to gather a wide variety of information from the
hunters. This information included hunting practices, views on upland game bird management,
valuation of hunting experiences, and socio-demographic information. The questionnaire (See
Appendix A) was arranged into five sections dealing with the following topics:

I. General questions regarding respondents upland game bird hunting.

II. Questions regarding the hunters first and last upland game bird hunting trips for
1990 season. Hunter and trip characteristics as well as hunter values.

III. Economic questions about "first" or "last" hunting trip of the year for upland
birds. Travel time and distance travelled, expenditure information and contingent
valuation questions.

IV. Question on upland game bird management.

V. Socio-demographic questions regarding respondents age, sex, education, income,
etc.

Two versions of the questionnaire were mailed to upland game bird hunters. Half the sample
received surveys that had questions in sections III and IV that asked about their "first" hunt of
the season while the other half of the sample were asked questions about the "last" hunt of the
season. By dividing the sample in two in this manner the chances of biasing the results, if only
the most recent trip information was collected, was minimized.

Sample Respondents and Survey Administration

The sample population selected to receive the questionnaire were people who had bought a 1989
upland game bird license and said they had hunted upland birds in 1989 on the big game harvest
survey. The Total Design Method, Dillman (1978), was used for mailing out this survey. A
cover letter, survey and stamped return envelope were mailed to upland bird hunters. One week
later, a reminder postcard was mailed to everyone either thanking them for their input or asking
them to complete and return the survey. Two weeks after the initial mailing a second cover
letter and survey were mailed to those hunters who had not returned their questionnaire.

Response Rates

Three thousand surveys were mailed to resident and nonresident bird hunters. Ninety seven
surveys were undeliverable. This left an effective sample of 2903. The sample was drawn from
a population of upland game bird hunters who had responded they had hunted birds that season,
no hunters said they had not hunted. Two thousand one hundred forty three (2143) hunters
returned their surveys: a response rate of seventy four (74) percent. This response rate is
similar to other economic valuation surveys conducted in Montana (Brooks, 1988; Duffield and
Neher, 1991).

Contingent Valuation Method

The two methods approved by the U.S. Water Resources Council (1983) for valuing outdoor
recreation are the travel cost method (TCM) and the contingent valuation method (CVM). The
contingent valuation method asks people their willingness to pay for a given good or service.
The method is based on the concept that a realistic yet hypothetical market situation can be
described to the survey respondents. This method has been used to value a variety of natural
resources including scenic beauty, water quality, fisheries, and wildlife.

There are six key choices that need to be made regarding the application of a contingent
valuation survey according to Bishop and Heberlein (1985). They are: 1) target population, 2)
product definition, 3) payment vehicle, 4) question format, 5) method of analysis, and 6)
supplemental data. In the case of this study, the target population was licensed upland game bird
hunters who had indicated they had hunted birds. The product being defined was an upland
game bird hunting trip. The payment vehicle needs to be emotionally neutral and appropriate;
in this case increased trip costs associated with the bird hunting trip.

The question format used in this study was a closed-ended dichotomous choice approach (Bishop
and Heberlein, 1979, Hannemann, 1984). This technique combines some of the better features
of the open-ended and iterative bidding approaches. In the dichotomous choice the respondent
is faced with a specific dollar bid and their response is a simple yes/no as in real market
situations. The dollar bids are chosen beforehand and are randomly varied across respondents.

While there are advantages and disadvantages to all the techniques, the dichotomous choice
format provides good approximations to actual market transactions (Welsh, 1986) and lends itself
to mail questionnaires which are relatively inexpensive. The major disadvantage of this format
is the complex analysis that is necessary compared to the other approaches (open-ended and
iterative bidding formats). Duffield and Allen (1988) provide a detailed comparison of these
techniques.

Willingness to pay using a dichotomous choice contingent valuation model.

The estimate of willingness to pay for upland game bird hunting is determined by finding the
relationship between the bid amounts that hunters responded to and the odds of them saying they
would pay that amount. This relationship is shown graphically as a two dimensional curve. The
area under the curve from zero to some upper value is determined through mathematical
integration and represents the expected maximum willingness to pay for an upland game bird
hunting trip. The upper value is usually the highest bid level at which "yes" responses were
recorded.

CHAPTER in

HUNTER CHARACTERISTICS AND MANAGEMENT PREFERENCES

The Montana Upland Game Bird Survey, 1990 provides information on hunters' socioeconomic
characteristics, trip details, and upland game bird management preferences. In those areas
where major differences occur, the information is reported by residency. Table 1 shows the size
of the sample for these two groups.

Hunter Characteristics

As mentioned, the sample was broken down into resident/nonresident categories to observe their
characteristics. When asked to rate upland game bird hunting compared to their other outdoor
activities forty six percent (46%) of the resident hunters said it was their favorite or one of their
favorite activities while fifty eight percent (58%) of the nonresidents felt this way. As Table
2 demonstrates, there are some major differences between these two groups. Nonresidents are
generally older than their resident counterparts, have hunted upland game birds longer, have
significantly higher average incomes ($54,6(X) vs. $37,800), and more of them belong to
hunting/conservation organizations (65% vs. 39%).

Trip Characteristics

Upland game bird hunters were asked a number of questions about their hunting trips. As Table
3 shows, the differences between these two groups are in areas one would expect. Residents
hunted fewer days per trip, had hunted the area for more years, took more trips to the area, and
didn't for the most part hire a guide.

With the sample stratified by "first" and "last" hunting trip, comparisons could be made
concerning this difference. There was not a major difference between the number of days
hunted on the first and last hunting trip. When asked to check which upland birds they were
hunting, there was no clear favorite during the "first" hunting trip. More hunters checked they
were hunting pheasants than any other bird on the "last" hunting trip. While pheasants were the
game bird of choice for both resident and nonresident hunters, more (60%) out-of-state hunters
chose this bird than did the nimrods from in-state.

The equipment used by upland game bird hunters is far less extensive than for most other types
of hunting. The most commonly used equipment was binoculars, cameras, and hunting dogs.
Interestingly, less than 50% of upland game bird hunters reported using hunting dogs.

upland Game Bird Hunters' Desired Experience

Bird hunters' behavior and motivation should be strongly related to the type of hunting
experience they are seeking. Sampled hunters were asked eight questions (See Table 5.)
regarding the reasons they hunt upland game birds and that reason's importance. The most
important reasons for bird hunting related to being outdoors, being in a natural setting, and for
the solitude. These were followed by reasons related to hunting i.e. to learn about upland birds,
test hunting skills, and for the meat.

Hunters were also asked to rate the importance of nine reasons why they chose the area they did
for their "first" and "last" hunt. As Table 6 shows the top reasons were lots of birds, few
hunters, familiarity with the area, to be able to hunt with family and friends, a variety of upland
birds and good public access.

Figures 1 and 2 shows the counties where at least fifty five percent (55%) of the resident and
nonresident hunters pursued their winged quarry. Teton, Cascade, Fergus, and Flathead/Lake
counties were the most heavily hunted by the sample of resident hunters. Nonresident bird
hunters were most likely to hunt Sheridan, Fergus, Phillips or Big Horn counties.

Table 1 . Upland Game Bird Hunter Survey Sample Size.

Hunters Sample Size

Percentage

Resident Hunters
Nonresident Hunters
Total

1613
530

2143

75%
25%

100

Table 2.

Upland Game Bird (UGB) Hunter Characteristics by Residency.

Characteristic

Resident

Nonresident

Years hunted upland game birds

19

23

Days hunted per year

11

14

Days hunted UGB in Montana

11

6

Average age

37

43

Average income

$37,800

$54,600

Percent male hunters

95%

98%

Percent belonging to a sportsmen organization

39%

65%

Table 3.

Upland Game Bird (UGB) Hunter Trip Characteristics.

Characteristic

sident

Nonresident

1.8

4

1.7

3

5.5

6

2-5

2-5

10

6

3-5

1-2

0.5%

12%

Number of days hunted - "first trip"

Number of days hunted - "last trip"

Hours hunted

Other UGB hunters seen

Number of years hunted UGB is this area

Number of trips to this area this year

Did you hire a guide?

Table 4. Equipment used by Upland Game Bird Hunters.

Equipment

Binoculars

Boat

Hunting dog

Tent

Rec. Vehicle

Camera

Yes responses

891
45
821
152
241
694

Percentage

42%
2%

39%
7%

11%

33%

Table 5.

Reasons for hunting upland birds.

Very
Important

Important

Not Very
Important

Not at all
Important

a. For the solitude

25

53

18

3

b.Test my hunting skills

10

44

38

7

c. Shoot a limit of birds

5

21

51

23

d.To be outdoors

69

29

2

-

e.For the meat

14

41

33

11

f. Be in a natural setting

46

45

7

2

g. Learn about upland
birds

10

54

30

6

h.To work my hunting
dog

16

16

12

56

Table 6.

Reasons for choosing a place to hunt and their importance.

Very

Important

Not Very

Not at all

Important

Important

Important

a. Good public access

39

31

19

11

b. Variety of upland birds

26

48

20

6

c.Lots of upland birds

42

47

11

1

d. Close to home

16

39

33

12

e. Facilities available

6

15

40

39

f. Commercial services

1

6

42

51

g.Hunt with family/ friends

34

42

16

8

h. Familiarity with area

26

51

18

5

i.Few hunters

23

54

18

5

10

Upland Game Bird Hunter Management Preferences

Hunters were asked several questions related to upland game bird management and their
perceptions regarding hunter numbers. Survey respondents were presented a list of factors that
influence upland game bird populations. They were then asked to check whether they thought
the reason was important in influencing populations. As Table 7 shows ninety eight percent felt
that habitat influenced bird populations followed by predator numbers, bag limits, and hunting
season length.

Bird hunters were also provided information about the effects of daily and possession limits on
bird populations, Section IV, question 1. Given the information presented, hunters were asked
if they preferred:

1 . A daily bag limit that changes from year to year to reflect changes in bird populations

2. A stable bag limit accompanied by news releases telling you what to expect when you
go hunting.

Both resident and nonresident bird hunter preferred a daily bag limit that changes from year to
year, 57% and 55% respectively.

Hunters were also asked if the number of other hunters they saw while afield was what they
expected to see and did these other hunters affect their hunting. Sampled hunters reported seeing
an average of five other hunters and at least eighty five percent (85%) said that these other
hunters did not affect their bird hunting.

Table 7. Factors affecting upland bird populations.

Very Important Not Very Not at all

Important Important Important

a. Habitat

83

15

1

1

b. Stocking programs

22

46

24

8

c. Predator numbers

42

43

12

3

d. Hunting season length

23

48

23

5

e. Daily/possession limit

26

53

16

5

11

Si

a

3

.•§
lo
a

E
to

o

3

CHAPTER IV

ECONOMIC EVALUATION

EXPENDITURE DATA

A measure of the economic significance of upland game bird hunting in Montana is hunter
expenditures or actual out of pocket costs. Expenditures include transportation,
food/beverage/lodging, equipment purchased just for this trip, and any guide or access fees.
Both resident and nonresident costs are reported in Table 8.

Resident expenditures ($38.00 per day) are significantly lower than nonresident hunters'
($223.00) and are obviously related to distance traveled.

While expenditures are one measure of the economic significance of upland bird hunting they
are costs to the hunters. Expenditure information is useful in showing the impacts of these
dollars on income and employment in local communities.

Table 8. Upland Game Bird Hunter Trip and Expenditure Information.

Complete

Sample

Resident

Nonresident

Mean

Median

Mean

Median

Mean

Median

Miles

226.5

40

58

30

755

600

Driving Time

5

1

1.8

1

16

10

Hunters

1.5

1

1.5

1

1.5

1

Trip Costs:

86.5

20

25

15

284

200

Transp>ortation

Food, Drink, Lodging

68

10

22

7

208

130

Equipment for trip,

89

10

19

10

289

100

access/guide fees, etc.

Total

243.50

40

66

32

781

430

Average number of days per trip (Mean)
Average expenditures per day (Mean)

1.75
$37.71

3.5
$223.14

14

Contingent Valuation Estimates

The upland game bird hunter survey asked hunters to provide information on several areas of
either their "first" or "last" hunting trip. Two cx)ntingent valuation dichotomous choice
questions were asked. The first question asked hunters to value their "first" or "last" trip and
was worded:

Suppose that everything about this "first" hunt was the same except your trip costs had
been Sxxxxx more, would you still have made the trip?

A simple yes or no is the only response a hunter can give, very much like the choice he would
have in a real market situation. The dollar amount ($xxxx) was varied randomly across surveys
and was one of ten predetermined amounts ranging from $5.00 to $1500.00.

In addition to the current trip question, a CVM question was asked that presented hunters with
hypothetical changes in their trip. They were then asked to value this hypothetical situation.
This question is presented below:

Imagine that everything about your "first" trip was the same, except that you saw twice
as many birds and your trip costs to visit this site increased by Sxxxxx . would you still
have made the trip?

This question provides insights into bird hunters willingness to pay for improved hunting
opportunities. The bid levels presented hunters in this question were the same as for the current
trip question.

Protest Responses and Outliers

There are two types of respondents that answer the contingent valuation questions that should
be scrutinized. The first group is those hunters who said they would pay the stated bid amount
but would not be able to given their income. Willingness to pay and the ability to pay are both
necessary for economic demand analysis. Ability to pay was determined by first calculating the
percentage of their income which respondents were willing to spend on upland game bird
hunting. This was done in the following manner:

Percent = (Expenditures -f- Bid Amount) * Trips
Income

All respondents with a percent greater than 1 were excluded since this group obviously lacked
the ability to pay.

The second group of respondents that should be excluded from the analysis are those who

15

"protested" in some way the hypothetical market. The Water Resources Council recommends
asking a follow-up question to determine the reasons for "no" responses and decide which ones
were protest bids. The upland game bird survey used the same format for this question as
earlier surveys, which was:

"If no, would you have made the trip if your share of the expenses had been only $1 .00
more?" Following a "no" to this question, the respondent was asked: "If no, could you
briefly explain why not?"

Valid reasons for saying no included a) could not afford higher trip costs, b) hunter said he
would hunt elsewhere if costs increased, c) trip just wouldn't be worth the higher costs. Protest
responses included a) hunter saying he/she did not understand the question or b) indicated they
opposed increased fees or taxes.

A total of twenty eight responses were excluded from the data set due to being protest bids or
outliers.

Model Specification

The estimates of net economic value for an upland game bird hunting trip were determined from
the sampled hunters' responses to the contingent valuation questions. The responses were
analyzed using a logistic regression model. Duffield and Patterson (1991) provide a
comprehensive discussion of the theory and techniques concerning these models.

Economic theory suggests that certain variables will influence a hunters response. A bivariate
logit model was used in this study that regressed "yes" and "no" responses against bid amount.
It is expected that as the bid amount increases, the probability of a "yes" response will drop.
The following bivariate model was used in this study:

In (P/l-P) = BO - Bl In(Bid)

where: P = probability of a "yes" response

Bid = increased trip costs respondent was asked to pay

The estimated equations are shown in Appendix B. The coefficients for the independent variable
In(Bid) had the expected sign (negative) and were significant at the .05 level. These results
show the responses are consistent with economic theory and the model used generally provided
a good fit to the data.

16

Benefit Estimates

The measure of economic benefits (net economic value) used in this study is the truncated mean.
The truncation point used is the maximum bid amount utilized - $2000.00 in this study. To
estimate this value, the probability of a "yes" response is plotted against the various bid levels.
Integrating the area under this curve provides an estimate of the mean. It should be noted that
the truncated mean is a conservative estimate of mean willingness to pay since all those having
a willingness to pay greater than the truncation point are included at this point.

Table 9 presents the current and improved trip values as well as the estimated values for two
subsamples (residency and first/last trip) where it was thought that differences might occur. The
trip value for nonresidents ($626.00) was significantly higher than residents ($236.(X)). After
adjusting these values for the difference in trip length for these two groups, nonresidents' values
were still higher than residents, $173. (X) to $130. (X). While there was a difference between first
and last hunt values for the current trip they were not notable, especially when comparing the
per day values.

The comparison of resident/nonresident values across current and improved condition trips
showed no difference for resident hunters. Interestingly, nonresidents benefit estimates were less
for the improved condition trip that for the current trip. It would seem they felt the current trip
was good and there was no room for improvement.

The net economic values associated with the improved condition situation for "first" and "last"
trips were also lower than the "first" and "last" trip values under current conditions. It would
seem upland game bird hunters are satisfied with the numbers of birds they saw on their hunting
trips and are not willing to pay more to see more birds than they actually did.

17

Table 9. Upland Game Bird Hunting - Net Economic Values Per Trip and Per Day for

Current and Improved Conditions.

Model

Sample Size

Mean Value ($)

Per Trip

Per Day

Current Trip (Entire Sample)

2028

328.77

149.44

Resident Subsample

1534

235.62

130.90

Nonresident Subsample

494

625.69

173.80

"First trip"

1037

356.05

147.13

"Last trip"

991

299.45

155.96

Improved Conditions (Entire Sample)

2012

297.13

135.06

Resident

1525

228.37

126.87

Nonresident

487

498.73

138.54

"First trip"

1033

327.42

135.30

"Last trip"

979

263.26

137.11

18

REFERENCES

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.

Bureau of Land Management (1982). Final Rangeland Improvement Policy. Instruction
Memorandum 83-27. October 15, 1982. Washington, D.C.

Dillman, D. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys. John Wiley, New York, NY.

Duffield, J. W. and S. Allen (1988). Angler Preference Study Final Economics Report:
Contingent Valuation of Montana Trout Fishing by River and Angler Subgroup.
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena.

, 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.

, 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.

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.

19

APPENDIX A
Upland Game Bird Hunter Survey

20

MONTANA

UPLAND BIRD SURUEY

1990

'^^iWsci^

./_J

o>

CO

cr>

■•^

K

CO

■«?

~J

cc

=>

,

o

'T

>.

^

Si

iii

S

uji

cc

■*•

o

0)

p;

5

y>o 1

ty

2

s

'^

o

^

C3

2

^

K

i

S

o=> 1

■J

a:

•J

s

2

UJ

0.

3:0:

K K

^

^

1

W 3

£f CB

Q.

'C

c

*^

3

F-

^

^

cn

<

to

3

T3

-J

Q

'n

JE

>-

3

O

5

3

O

a

ro

o

>^

ra

x:

c

W

(O

T3

O

b

■D W

Q) M

» O

C c

3 -5

■^ 3

3 J3

O M

>»{8

$ «

.g-2

i: o

»_ to

3 m

o o

>< '-

o a>

(U:£

^^

w o

OJ

&°

c
o

§..9-

o

c —

x:

'ra 2

o

E£

(U

O 03

w

x: -s:

CO

— «

o

CTE

Q.

c *-

■^ 3

C O

e^'

3 >>

c

•c-a

o

■B-5

ra

^ o

o

■O CB

>

ra 2

>s

Q.ro

1

3 w

«

W j;

ra —

ra

5 5

o

g. ra

X X

DC
o ea

■I i

n

3
O

o

c

o

a.

c

*k-

w

12

x:

OJ

*^

c

c

o

3

x:

«

•o

S

c

(0

JQ

10

S Q.

i3 O)

o £ c

ig

o aj
3 5

x:

6

° m w

0 x: ra

■g « 3

1 o 5

5

< w

03 qT

-"^ o,'«

CO ."5 "o

2 i: ^

^ .- &■

=; « ss

O g CO

-J <^ qT

EC S» 3

^^

uj 3:

a: 5

Ul to

C ::i

o

O C V.

2 ro « 2 c3

F c b o ra

<-> ^ re "^ ^ -2

o -o TJ o

Sf 3 3 b

_ o o £

§ S 2 5

■^ _ o

re « >,

c

.^

3

o

JZ

o

-o

x:
o

!q

o

LO

■D

re

c

o

re

Q.

c ■£

f^ IT

E o

5

>> a — •— —

5

re £2

II

X .5

o ,S

5 re

o <->

X 2

P

o S

^^

<o ^

Si

rare —
O Q f_

CO

u.

-- "O ~

•c .0-

h-
co

GC

<->
<u
73

>
o

Q.

3

Q.

•*

3

3

Q.

1-

O

O

re

co

>N

>,

E

cc

o

o

o

u.

o

OJ

■B ■ ■

O 3

re

re

W O

Q

Q

=)>^

•c" .0-

LL _J

o o

c X

E w

o x:

c —
^ o

O Q.

t/) fO
»- o

>.-o

c c

TO 3

!^

O Q.

XI r:

C3

c w £
:3 c (u

- ? Q-
Q. Of iT

§ <u '55

0) _-
CO c

o tr

^a
d)E

c —

(U

Eg .

ro O -:

3 03 -C

rap
CO ^ .£
c — _

52 if .e :§

S£ ™

1- (U --

-9 * •-
■^^°

O O Q

nan nnnnn
ann nnnnn
nnn nnnnn
nnn nnnnn

E 7i

~ ^ (0

«

»^

Dl

J.: o

V)

3

c

o w

"2

5

c

o ra
— o

3

(?

D

(U >-

o

J=

to —

m

CO c

c

o

E

o ro

m

E

Q-H

c

c

j«:

S§-

re
_2

1

§>E
•o'_
"5 i''
og
O E

o

o

o

H

H

H

^

D)

JC

c ^-

:2 i

o o
> o

E

nnnnn
nnnnn
nnnnn

nnnnn

E ^

ra -5 "

ra is C
X CO

a

1

c

8

ro

(U

C

re

w

D)

o

O)

ro

ro

c

J2

M

0)

c

3

ro

1

qZ

X

Q

■c o

= Z

X)

0)

0)

■o "v:;

E

>%

t: "

>s

ro Of

^

c
re

E

ex ro

.^

oj '-c

w

aj

5

f.^

>-

o
o re

<D ?

^

x: .S

c g>

ro

i§

= re

Q J=

$

re c^.

CL O

^s

re w
5 «

O V

O

8 <U
3 ™

o c- a>

ro c ^

•g c re

ro^ «

S.~ «

— "D

™ ro

o '^

z

E

a>

1- o —

9? 2 —

«_ o

0) JO)

ro *~
1^

nnn

n
n
nnn

n n
n n

T3 —

■O ■-

jS- tt)

n n n n n n

n n n n n n

n n n n n n

n n n n n n

«>■ »-•

-C "S

c 5

.9-0-
iz <i>
<u o
SE
o o

T3 O

TO •

E^.
«c

sz

T3

2 «
O to

O Q-

S

c

Q.
X

(U

_ — «

0) o

> z

g

I

Q

P

Si-
ao
Ok

o5

^i
oo
f=S

COK

oi

•^ "o 1-r o i"

■852^2 I

— o >- 2 '^ =

en CO O £ S Qj

S2T3Pg I

■Q 9 o "

c 5) w >,5
o »- " = .
w o 2> «

"> "to <J

C c «

tJL O) CO o Q>

-D rax: >^
>.ra.Q - -

^'ra .Q (u >
TO Q « CTj^

S"? w i c

QJ J3 "5" O
" rr <0 0)"-=

CO y T3 ran
re °? .^ J3 3

re wcd'^S

g; « p « ■ql

lC re ^ 5 -o

Ei5

— 3

CO

$

<u

c

■o o>

9J--
c c
5 =>

<-> 2

re o

|g

re S
Is

X) Q.

re X
w <"

<2

lu O

is

!§

*^

oo

PS
to ic

-J oa

Is

^^
E2

E o

o

tr

S2 o

O

E
o c^-

i 0)

-1 ^

5 §

1- CM C3 •^

E ^

5 2

OJ 3 2

o re ii

= ^ CO

o - 2

o to Q-

T3 9 TJ

o "■ o

fx: QJ x:

w iZ w iZ

o w.

o

(0

o

^

o

sz
o

O)

o

x:

to

Jc

o

(U

^_

CO

■o

.9

JZ

cj re

s

to

o

x:

E
o

x:

.a
5

x:

E
re

0)

3

Z3

o"

.«2

O

o

M

re

o

0)

~"

x:

<

<

re

5

C W C/3 (/)

o ;e is !i

(O LL LL U.

UJ

QUj

«o<o

is

^i

a.3:

gg
>jS

|!

2C5.
0=)

S^

KO

^^

lu ^

£5

Q

2t

Q.K

o§
S*?

OCV

si

OUJ
K-J

ujtrK

CO J^

uj22

CCQUl

^5o

c u

^ re 52

E £

5 2

_ c

w. to •- 5
re ^ ;g Q

.9-2

QJ

— 2

re

Ore

■c

•S E

re

<u

re

c

y

L. ^

QJ

x:

Crt X3

^_

(U

< <-

re

>

2j 3

o

a

t o

r"

»_ >>

to

C

re
2«-

ffi

-- O) OJ

5 n W
O QJ c!

r- "

.9 o

c/)

t: o

£

Q. Q. QJ

^1

c
x:

■?; 3 w

XT

o

>^
C

re
E
5

c

3

§1^

QJ r; <w
"■ re »-

0 2

1 «

a>

3 X x:

SJ -^

o
o

O QJ —

>> oj O)

■or 5

S-o

— ><

2

QJ

E

^re o
Wot;
3 o2
E ^ o

1?

>
o

•a

3

5 c£
o re _

3
1-

ill

if CO

^ QJ
to CO

!■§

C 3
QJ O)
Q. V.

P9l

Occ

09 ^
O QJ

CO

ll

<

u«

_j

cr

a

Z)

3 T3

O

x: 3

•

>
2
O

< QJ

QJ

5

•i <u CO

•5,X3 S
C-^ 3

SLf

QJ 9

£ o

oE

re o

e2

QJ «>*

>nT3

o ««

i§
_ 8 1

QJ

O Q) o

E ^

c
o
w

E

E

•c

ra

3

re

u

Q.

o _o p

E E c

LU LU Z)

O C) o

O CI o

<=>. <^- o" o

05 "S- o O

■^ r^ 1- o

I ■ • o'

o o o o

o o O T-

O O O i_

5 CT CD

CM CM

E

O ' '

O o o

C o o

'.■; o -^

a> CD

CJ> CT

o ^
C\J CM

C3i en

Oi en

<n en

o -'. ^ ^

3

O = u>

>« S o»

in ^' ' ■

V. ' o o

Qj o o o

O "O o o_ o_

QJ 5 *-l o" in

w 13 m 1- T-

g I"

O C3 O

" o £f
o .E Q.

•= € 2-

— ra —

-2 £f o
^ o 5

.2 10 o

n ^ a

f = -

- 3 c

.a c •-

J= o n

H E C

. o ■—

o J3 =

w fo _^
3 E 3

o t: Q

«- ~ nj

O TJ

"^ JQ " C

e> c

II

v>

o

«°

=: ^

3 2

v> 5

0> J3

li

e> M

C V)

— o

o ^ ^

>''S "

Owe

" 2 =
«a o o

o ^ —

O C 3

g « o-

= 3 —

•a o- o
3 SS

i«2^

3 3°
O (0 o

^OC C

— : o

APPENDIX B
Estimated Bivariate Logistic Contingent Valuation Equations

Model

Statistics

Likelihood Ratio-Goodness of Fit Test

Intercept

Log (Bid)

Degrees of
Freedom

Chi Square

P Value

Current Trip:

Current Trip
(Entire Sample)

3.50
(17.86)

-.7750
(-21.12)

8

18

.0206

Resident

3.37
(15.36)

-.8325
(-19.27)

8

20.6

.0082

Nonresident

4.84
(9.31)

-.8178
(-9.12)

8

10.71

.2187

"First" trip

3.41
(12.34)

-.7406
(-14.46)

8

10.21

.2504

"Last" trip

3.61
(12.99)

-.8152
(-15.38)

8

13.68

.0904

Improved Conditions: |

Improved Conditions
(Entire Sample)

3.35
(18.01)

-.7738
(-21.26)

8

17.88

.0222 1

Resident

3.01
(14.65)

-.7788
(-18.54)

8

18.74

.0163

Nonresident

6.37
(10.0)

-1.128
(-10.27)

8

10.18

.2529

"First" trip

3.76
(13.53)

-.8182
(-15.44)

8

18.41

.0184

"T<ist" trip

2.99
(11.77)

-.7418
(-14.63)

8

14.92

.0608

21