- -‘vv— — V

II“‘

.0.- Qu- Ib—NC'IO

”'1

v
V
a
o
O
n
0
V.
o
‘
Q
m
o
o
o
O
a
V.
c
n
0
a
6
o
o
.
.
V
V
w
I

 

 

a?

fifiN

AN EMMA

... o .s

 

 

V . .V...V}.V..
o. ...V'V. V serVn—V. .1... '23:... 7"}. ... .v.....

. . .
. v. V .V n V
V V V .V .
a V .
V I. V.
. n. V V
V V V. .....V
v. I
a . V.
V V O V V .
- a u n
V ...
I . c n V
.. .
V n h I
u V u. .1
V . . V .VVV
. I
. V I‘ u ' .- V.
I A .t u - v .
0 V ‘ V .-V
V...
n V V V.
. V
a V . l
V. V V
V O - . V. O
V V . . V .V
O .V O
_ .V V V . V
V V V 0 V .0 V
V V. V . . V V
.
V V V . V . V
~ g . V -
. . V
V_ .I O < ... V
.V . V VV.
V
V V . v
V _. V. V
. 0 V V .
V . . . n u
t. V. ..V V. V
. _ .
. o . .. . V .
V. .. V .
V . ... V .
V . . .
V . V
Q a. .. . V V .
V . V v . V ... V .V
n V ‘7 V ‘ u
. \ V
0.. . fi V V . . 4
V... V . V. . V .
a. V . . V . V V.
O . V
... V
9,. . . V V .
. V. V V . . .. . V .V V V V
V . u I V
O e
V V V
V... D. a V.
V V . .V V V 4. .
I .
V. . .V ‘o . .
. V.
V. .
VV. 0. V ch . V. V .
V. . V .
V V. V . _ V .
. . V V
V. c o n
. V V
V‘. .o . V r

‘s

   

 

   

O V.
V. V
V ... g V g. .. . .
. V. ...._ V... V V. o. . V. .. - V. V.. V.V . .. V. T V V.
v. V. V V. ...... ....V c . V ... o . . .. '. «I... V . . V
. .Qo V .. . V .V¢.. V V 0' V I .
n o . V ‘V_ V Q . a ... V . V O .
0 0... V.. V V V \ . V 0 V V. . V
V V V O. o. V V. a. . VVV V. . 3 . V . Vt .. . o A
V . . V . . . . ... . . . . v V
. a .V.. V a. V .... ... . .o . . . . R i V . V o . ... ..‘O.
V V. n. o o. .. .... V . V V V . . V . . V .... V V
. V.. o . V . .V V 0 V V _. p
. .... .V -V V V ... . V .. v .. V V V V n . V V V V
. V _ V . . . .\ . . . V V
_ . t . V t . nu .
D V I. . . V V V V V. .V . V . V .
. . . V V V .V V ... ... V. . V v
V...VV v. .- V ... . V. .v-. V. V . a to. _ V V V . c a. V V. V.:o .V AV. .
.. V V . V V. V 5' V V ... V V .V .V_. .V .. .
V. .. ... a V .. V. V V . V . V . . V V V .V . .. . V. . .1. V. V .10.
..V. V . a V . . V. . V «V .. . .VV VV . .V. V.
v V V .0 V . V V .V E. . V . V V o A. I.
. V . V V O V V . {V .0 V . V V. . . .
V y. V. V V . . . u V V V V V. .
9 V V. 0 V . ‘ . V o o. .. V V V V ......V I av-VV
o V... V n ..V V . . . .V.. .. V I I.
. . V o .. V V V . V V V V
V v . V n V V . V V e A. 7 V . .1 y .. V
V V . . . a V .V
. V. .V . V o . V V. V T V . . .V ... .
V . . . V V V . V V . .V .0 V V . V V
. . .. . . .... . V V o I . V .
. V V . V V. . ... V . . c a V. V . . V V. o .
.. - . V . . V i .V V. V t
o u . n V .. - nV . . .. V v.. V a. 0V
1 n I I .u I. -
V . V
. V . . . . V V V V .V V . ...n . V
A . V o . V V .v . V.
a. . V . . V. .0 VI .
. V . V V _ . V . . V .r‘ ‘ E V . V . . V V a V o
V V . . - V. V .. Vw V V s V V
V .. V . V . V. . . a V V . V V . .0
u I V . I V . . V
. . . V V V V . a} I

 

 
  

   
 

   

 
 

 

V V . V. o 4 . a V
V V V . V - n. V O A‘. ..IVJ—l‘ .I‘. V V V V V V . . .- o . a . c
. . . . . V . . ....th EV. . V. V V. r . _ V -
V a . V V V . V V V V .e . ..c _ V. V
.. . .V V V . Fe“ Mn...“ . . ..
V V V V. . . i .
V o. u t V V . V o .
. V . . Va“ V . v . .
V c . I {L o I
. . a V . V. V 0 v
V . V . V. o
. V . . p
I u u ' I _ u .1
. V a _ ... . V . V o
. V n V v V . I '
V V V V V . a
. V V . . . .
_ _ v V V V _ a
.V v . V. V .V . V
n . n . V I I .
r V V . V V . V V . .
V
. _ n V I-
o _ .. . u . . I a
I - . I O V
. .
‘ V. o V
V c b I
. .- . o v V o
- C V
. V . .
y . . . . O ‘
V V V . V n
. V V
V . .
n l . n
_ I V < 3
a
. . .V V. V 7...... . 2.7V? ....
. . V V V... VV . V. .V V . .V V. V V VVVVV V.
. .2 V . V. V .V l V. . 9 V V. 0 .V . . V. . ..V V<V VV.V . V V V . ..V V...“ V ;.. ;'rV’.qum.Vfl.VVrM.VV
. . . V V V. .0... 1.. V - V . _ r :1 .v V V» V - V p. u . It V
V V .‘VV. ‘3 .V V V. ... TV... .. V V. .V g V .
.0. pr..V.—‘ V. V . ... .0... ...-V. .VV. V. .
V V V V . V. .V V
. _O.os.ov. . v
‘
- - | n -V I I|VI||I

 

ll!!!INHILIIQIMUHNIHIII(Ill!!!INIIHNIHIHUHM

3 1040.2 4330

 

 

 

 

 

W I 0:)

mm 2012.)"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

AN EVALUATION OF
ATTITUDES TOWARDS WILDLIFE
BY
Wayne Arnold Schmidt

A technique for the economic evaluation of wildlife
would be a useful tool in environmental analysis and in
making decisions regarding natural resource allocations.
This study attempted to quantify relative differences in
human attitudes toward various bird and mammal species. It
is intended as one step towards a complete method of evalua-
tion of wildlife.

Surveys were used in which the respondents scored,
on a l to 10 scale, a series of photographs of animal spe-
cies, based on how much he/she would enjoy seeing that spe-
cies. Group tests were given to 343 university students and
to 84 children in a YWCA day-camp using projected color
slide-transparencies. Individual interviews were given to
89 households, randomly selected from five neighborhoods in
greater Detroit, using 5x7-inch color prints. Respondents
also answered questions regarding their background and in-

terests in nature.

Wayne Arnold Schmidt

Computer programs were written to analyze the data
and perform certain statistical tests. Variances of the
mean scores for most species were high, especially in the
Detroit survey. Analyses of the scores and of characteris-
tics of the species were based on a High-Medium—Low classi—
fication of the mean scores. This classification was deter-
mined by a method that was based on the proportion of the
other mean scores which were significantly different from a
particular score.

When asked "What bird Species do you like or dis—
like?", most people in the Detroit survey named those spe-
cies common to their neighborhoods. However, when respond-
ents were shown photos of non-local species, these species
were often scored higher than the "most-liked" species.

People who participated in outdoor activities scored
all birds higher, on the average, and showed a much greater
appreciation for raptors and waterfowl, as did those people
with some environmental eduCation.

Overall, colorful species, especially the cardinal,
were the most-liked species. The ring-necked pheasant,
bluebird, and Baltimore oriole were also highly preferred.
The ruby-throated hummingbird was ranked "High" only by the
Detroit survey. The robin was not scored, but was named
third most often as the "most-liked" species in the Detroit
survey.

The pigeon, starling, grackle, and crow were the

least—liked bird species. Dull—colored species, such as

Wayne Arnold Schmidt
sparrows, were also among the least-liked species. Most re—
spondents in the Detroit survey scored the red—tailed hawk,
great horned owl, and herring gull "Low.“

Preferences in mammals were highly variable. Of the
ten mammals used in testing, the black bear, and in some
groups the raccoon, were scored highest in the Detroit sur-
vey. The chipmunk was the only species consistently scored
"Low." Children in the YWCA-camp sample preferred the
whitetail deer and fox squirrel, and ranked the deer mouse
"Low."

Causes of variances in the scores and weaknesses in
the methodology are discussed. Preferences toward animal
species seemed to depend on (1) background, (2) education,
and (3) previous experiences with animals. The first two
variables have fairly predictable influences on the scoring
of certain species; the third is too individual to permit a

predictive model for preferences toward most species.

AN EVALUATION OF

ATTITUDES TOWARDS WILDLIFE

BY

Wayne Arnold Schmidt

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

1974

"Oh pale and brittle pencils ever to try

One grass blade's curve, or the throat of one bird

That clings to twig, ruffled against white sky.

Oh cracked and twilight mirrors ever to catch

One color, one glinting flash, of the splendor of things."

Robinson Jeffers

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank Dr. Leslie W. Gysel for his counsel
throughout this project. This study would not have been
possible without his invaluable encouragement and sugges-
tions.

I would also like to thank Mr. Glenn R. Dudderar for
his interest and encouragement. His assistance and direc-
tion were greatly appreciated. Dr. Rollin H. Baker was
helpful in editing the text.

Sources of photographs included: Dr. Miles D.
Pirnie, Dr. Harold H. Prince, Dr. Leslie W. Gysel, and Mr.
Robert Bernard. Photographic copy-work was done by Mr. Paul
J. Schneider.

I wish to especially thank Mr. James Longley for his
excellent work in conducting the interviews for the Detroit
survey.

This study was sponsored by Consumers Power Company,
Jackson, Michigan, which has shown a continuing interest in
developing techniques for defining and preserving environ-
mental quality.

Lastly, thanks to Al, Jim, Dennis, Dick, Diane, and

Levi.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
INTRODUCTION 0 O O O 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O 1

METHODS I O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 0
Collection of Survey Data . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of Survey Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Preferred Bird Characteristics . . . . . . . . . 22
Non-Preferred Bird Characteristics . . . . . . . 26
Preferred Bird Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Non-preferred Bird Species . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Discussion of Bird Scores by Species and Groups

of Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Preferred and Non-preferred Mammal Species . . . 42
Ability of YWCA-camp Sample to Identify

Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Methodological Weaknesses . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
APPENDIX A: MATERIALS USED IN SURVEYS . . . . . . . 58
APPENDIX B: COMPUTER PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . 66
APPENDIX C: STATISTICAL TESTS . . . . . . . . . . . 72

APPENDIX D: TOWARDS AN ECONOMIC VALUATION OF
WILDLIFE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Wildlife Values and the Law . . . . . . . . . 78
Approaches to Wildlife Valuation . . . . . . 82

iv

Previous Valuations of Wildlife
Wildlife and the Planning Process
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

A Suggested PrOposal for Quantifying Relative
Values of Wildlife Resources

Research Needs

Conclusions

LITERATURE CITED

89
100
105

105
109
110

112

Table

10.

LIST OF TABLES

Bird species used in the MSU—student, YWCA—
camp, and County Fair surveys . . . . . . .

Some key characteristics of neighborhoods
in the Detroit-survey sample, and of the
respondents that were interviewed as deter-
mined by the survey . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bird species used in the Detroit survey . .

Mammal species used in the Detroit, YWCA-
camp, and Country Fair surveys . . . . . .

Designated characteristics of the bird spe-
cies used in the surveys . . . . . . . . .

Overall bird and mammal mean scores, from a
range of l to 10, for each sample and
subsample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Average values of grouped bird and mammal
mean scores, for High, Medium, and Low
categories by sample and subsample . . . .

Bird characteristics significant in High
and Low categories for each sample and
subsample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bird species ranked in High category in
each sample and subsample . . . . . . . . .

Bird species named more than one time (by
the Detroit-survey sample) in answer to the

questions: "Which birds do you enjoy seeing

most?" and "Which birds do you least
enjoy?" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

11

12

14

18

23

24

25

27

3O

The five bird species most often named as
"enjoyed seeing most" and as "enjoyed seeing
least" by the Detroit-survey sample, and the

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

most common summer bird species in the
Detroit-survey neighborhoods . . . . . . .

Comparison of the species named in Table 11

Bird species ranked in Low category in each
sample and subsample . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean scores given bird species by the MSU—
student samples (combined) and the Detroit-
survey sample (total) . . . . . . . . . . .

Mammal species ranked in High and Low cate-
gories in each sample and subsample . . . .

Percentagesof respondents in the YWCA-camp
sample that could identify bird species . .

Percentagesof respondents in the YWCA-camp
sample that could identify mammal species .

Sample printout of statistical analysis of
program BIRD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sample printout of statistical analysis of
program LEVI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sample printout of SIGDIF, also showing High,

Medium, and Low categories . . . . . . . .

vii

31

33

35

38

43

44

45

67

69

70

Figure

1.

LIST OF FIGURES

Map showing location of Detroit-survey
neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Questionnaire used in the MSU—student
survey 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Response sheet used in the MSU-student
survey 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Introductory letter used in the Detroit
survey 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Introduction and instructions used in the
Detroit survey . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Questionnaire used in the Detroit survey
Response sheet used in the Detroit survey

Letter left with respondent following the
Detroit-survey interviews . . . . . . . .

Response sheet used in the YWCA-camp and
County Fair surveys . . . . . . . . . . .

viii

Page

58

59

60

61
62

63

64

65

INTRODUCTION

Wildlife is an important resource which must be
given major consideration in the preparation of environment-
al impact statements. Correlating the ecologic, economic,
and esthetic values of wildlife in a new quantified approach
is necessary in order to satisfy the intent of recently-
enacted environmental laws. The National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, for example, calls on Federal agencies
to "identify and develop methods and procedures ... which
will insure that presently unquantified environmental ameni-
ties and values may be given appropriate consideration in
decisionmaking along with economic and technical considera-
tions."

Past research on wildlife valuation has not been
particularly fruitful, partly because wildlife resources
have historically been treated as free goods outside of the
market mechanism. Although a complete system of user fees
has occasionally been advocated (Scott 1965, Crutchfield
1967), non-market conditions will probably persist for many
years to come (Wennergren 1967). Without the usual market
valuation of goods, a workable method for the pricing of
wildlife or the satisfactions derived from wildlife, will be

extremely complex. Research efforts are encouraged, in

1

2
spite of these difficulties, because of the demand for ob-
jective quantitative comparisons of resources in competing
multiple land-use programming.

Many of the factors to be accounted for in a com-
plete valuation of wildlife resources are discussed in
Appendix D. Quantification of intangible values, such as
esthetics, is perhaps the most challenging problem. How-
ever, it is only our inability to measure certain values
which make them intangible; all consumer satisfactions are
intrinsically derived from tangible objects or situations
(Hines 1958:365). "Esthetics" is defined in this report as
an individual's perception of beauty and from it his/her
associated satisfactions, regardless of how the individual
defines that perception. Beauty is a difficult concept to
define; its measurement is even more elusive. For example,
although most people would find greater satisfaction in
viewing a flock of geese than a flock of blackbirds, meas-
urement of that difference in satisfaction would be exceed-
ingly difficult.

Attempts have been made to measure esthetic values.
Some productive research has been done in attempting to
quantify scenic beauty in natural landscapes using photo-
graphs (Shafer et a1. 1969, Shafer and Mietz 1970). Photo-
graphs have also been used to determine preferences in for-
est esthetics (Rutherford and Shafer 1969). Methods of
scenery classification based on on-site reconnaissance sur-

veys have been developed (Sargent 1966 and 1967, Litton

1973, Craik 1973).

Related research into the psychology of the user of
recreational resources, especially research dealing with
wilderness users, is a growing field (Peterle 1967, Cicchet-
ti 1973, McKinley 1963 and 1966, Shafer 1969, Taylor and
Edwards 1960). The definition of quality, as it relates to
various natural areas, also has direct bearing on the defi-
nition of esthetic valuation of wildlife (Stankey 1973,

Webb 1968). Lime and Cushwa (1969) attempted to determine
the importance of wildlife to visitors of a national forest
Ninety-six percent of the auto campers questioned said that
the opportunity to observe birds and mammals in their natur—
al setting had added to their outdoor experience (1969:4).
However, no attempt was made by the authors to quantify that
appreciation.

Some have argued that the economic evaluation of
wildlife resources is a fruitless exercise (Weeden 1969).
However, as long as wildlife resources are treated as free
goods, they will tend to be overused and abused (Hardin
1968). "The 'freeness' of the resource results in there
being no incentive for the pOpulation to economize on the
resource or to allocate it to the use of highest value"
(Freeman and Haveman 1972:323). In order to retain any sig—
nificant amount of wild America, wildife will increasingly
be required to "pay its way" by some method of economic
quantification. Gregory (1955:12) stated:

There are many who feel that no attempt should be made

4
to place dollar values on wildlife, scenic views, and
the like, yet the troublesome fact persists that in an
economy such as ours, things valued in dollar terms
often have a distinct competitive advantage. A rocky,
lonesome coastline may be 'priceless' to a lover of
seascapes, but it has little liklihood of keeping its
beauty if oil is known to lie beneath the rocks.

This report is an attempt to quantify relative dif-
ferences in attitudes and preferences of certain groups of
people toward various bird and mammal species through the
use of color photographs, and to determine attributes of the
variations in the attitudes of these different groups of
people toward those species. It is intended as one step

towards a complete method for economic valuation of wild-

life.

METHODS

The methods used for the collection of data to de-
termine relative preference values for different wildlife
species were surveys in which the respondents were shown a
series of photographs of birds and mammals. The respondents
scored each species, based on how much he/she would enjoy
seeing that species, using an interval scale; a score of one
was lowest and ten was highest. Group testing was done
using projected color slide-transparencies. Individual in-
terviews were conducted using 5x7-inch color prints. Com-
puter programs were written to analyze the data and perform

certain statistical tests.

Collection of Survey Data

MSU STUDENT SURVEY

Description of classes.--Three classes of Michigan

 

State University students were tested using color slides of
different bird species. The first class consisted of 53
Lstudents in FW 427 (Wildlife Biology and Management), pri-
marily seniors in Fisheries and Wildlife. The second con-
sisted of 64 students in FW 301 (Fish and Wildlife of North
America), primarily juniors in Fisheries and Wildlife. The

third consisted of 226 students in IDC 200 (Resource Ecology

6
and Man), primarily underclassmen from various curricula.

Photographs.--Twenty-four projected 35-mm color

 

transparencies were used in a randomly selected order to
survey an entire class at the same time. These photos
(Table 1) were selected to show the species in a natural
habitat where they would typically be observed. Unfortun-
ately, it was impossible to standardize the composition and
quality of the photographs. In dimorphic species, photos of
males in breeding plumage were used (e.g., male red-winged
blackbird).

Tests.--The 24 photos were shown twice in succes-
sion-~once at four seconds per photo for the purpose of
showing the variety of species to be presented, and a sec-
ond time at ten seconds per photo when numerical responses
were made. Instructions to define the criteria for scoring
stated: "The standard of judgement you use will be up to
you--it might be based on esthetic appreciation, scarcity or
abundance, appeal as an element of hunting, personal prefer-
ence, familiarity, or any combinations of criteria" (Fig.
A-l, p. 58 ).

The response sheet and questionnaire consisted of
brief instructions explaining the procedure and an answer
sheet (Figs. A-1 and A-2, pp. 58-59 ). Several questions
were asked to obtain an indication of the respondents' in-

terests in hunting and bird watching.

.7

Table 1. Bird species used in the MSU-student, YWCA-camp,
and County Fair surveys.

 

 

COMMON NAMES

SCIENTIFIC NAMESa

 

Pied-billed grebeb

Great blue h ron
Canada goose

Mallard

Blue-winged teal
Wood duck

Red-tailed hawke
Rough-legggd hawk
Bald eagle
Ring-necked pheasant
American coot
Killdeer

Herring gull
Mourning dove
Great horned o 1
Whip-poor-will
Common nighthawkC

e

Ruby-throated hummingbirdc

Belted kingfisheg

Downy woodpecker
Eastern kingbird

Blue jay

Common crow d
Black-capped Chickadee
House wren f
Eastern bluebird
Cedar waxwing
Starling
Yellowthroate e
Eastern meadowlark
Red-winged blackgird
Baltimore oriole
Common grackle

Scarlet tanager
Slate-colored junco
White-throated sparrow
Song sparrow

Podilymbus podiceps
Ardea7herodfas

Branta canadensis
Anas platyrhynchos
Anas discors

Aix sponsa

Buteo jamaicensis
Buteo Iagopus
Hafiaeetus leucocephalus
Phasianus colchicus
Fulica ameficana
CharadrIus vocIferus
Larus argentatus
ZenaIdura macroura
Bubo virginianus
Caprimulgus vociferus
ChordeIIes minor
Archilochus cqubris
Megaceryle aIEyon
Dendrocopus pubescens
Tyrannus tyrannus
Cyanocitta cristata
Carvus bracfiyrhynéhos
Parus atricapiilus

TESTIodites aEdon
SIaIIa SiaIis
BombyciIIa cedrorum
Sturnus vulgaris
GeotthpIs trichas
Sturnella magna
Agelaius phoenIceus
Icterus galbula
QuiscaIus quiscula
Piranga olIvacea

Junco h emalis
Zonotricfiia aIbicollis

Melospiza melodia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HHDQJOO‘

aAfter Peterson (1947).

Used only in FW 427.

Used only in FW 301 and IDC 200.
Used only in MSU-student samples.
Not used in MSU-student samples.
Not used in FW 427.

DETROIT SURVEY

 

Description of Neighborhoods.--Five neighborhoods in
greater Detroit (Fig. 1) were surveyed during the summer of
1973. These areas were chosen for expediency and economics;
Shinner (1974) was using them to study the use of urban
areas by various wildlife species. The survey described in
this report incorporated his study. Although these neigh-
borhoods were not necessarily representative of any larger
urban area, each neighborhood is fairly homogeneous. Each
neighborhood is adjacent to a park-like area.

Neighborhood 1 is primarily composed of blue-collar
workers, mostly factory employees. Houses are on small lots
and are mostly in good repair. This neighborhood is adja-
jent to Clark Park, a typical big-city park. Workers in
Neighborhood 2 are also mostly factory employees. Houses
are on fairly small lots and the neighborhood is adjacent to
a cemetery. Workers in Neighborhood 3 are mostly clerks or
blue-collar workers. Houses are on medium-sized lots. The
neighborhood is adjacent to Ford woodlot, a woods heavily
used by local children. Neighborhood 4 is composed of
white-collar, professional people. Houses are on moder-
ately large lots. This neighborhood is adjacent to the
Dearborn Country Club golf course. Neighborhood 5 is com-
posed entirely of professional people (doctors, lawyers,
etc.). Houses are located on large lots. This neighborhood’
is surrounded on three sides by River Rouge Park, a woods

with light human activity.

.v-I-IIIIIIconic-Iconic...

L:
\
\

  

WIndsov

  

 

.
I \ \
\\\ \\\ /t \V\

\II‘ -\|‘ s / \

u \ .

u \\ \./A

m x \ x. /

u . . l/ I a

m . T \ I 2 I nu

m m mm x. /. .16 .// w

u ‘ Coon-Inn 00

M .m m \.\ moo-onomIo-Mooocoo no... I 00.000.

m \\ E \‘ m I/' coo-IIIIOOO 00.”

u a ‘\ D . u ’l ’hoo o...

m \I‘\ \ m ’I two/oh

m WAT \ m I/ «,V/

a s u

u \ \ Jun-nun I
\‘w‘ \. u n /
’m'\-\-\-\ . \ \ \ \ h‘. MI\\\\\’0’ f/I

NI 3-: .u w n 7.!
\ u a a
\. on...“ m 3

max
’ .
\

555k...“

\
x

s.

PIUCUCCCUIICICUIUU

4‘.
5..

l-94

,I-I-I-

C-uu-I’

Map showing the location of the five Detroit-

survey neighborhoods.

Figure 1.

10

Selection of the Sample.--Fifteen to 20 houses in

 

each neighborhood were to be sampled. Houses were numbered
and were randomly selected within each neighborhood for in—
terviewing. Lists of alternative houses in each neighbor-
hood were also randomly selected. Interviews were not nec-
essarily conducted in the order in which the houses were
selected. The five neighborhoods were sampled one at a time
using the sets of photos in a predetermined order. Twenty-
two percent of the houses were sampled over the five neigh-
borhoods (Table 2). Interviews were conducted at 89 houses.

Photographs.--The method of testing preferences was

 

similar to that used with students but slightly modified.
The photos used were 5x7-inch glossy color prints of bird
and mammal species, mounted in a loose-leaf binder. Only
ten bird photos and ten mammal photos were used at each
house to minimize interviewing time.

In an attempt to minimize the problems associated
with showing the same set of species in a prescribed order,
the photos were shown in various combinations and permuta-
tions at different houses.1 Eight subsets of ten bird
photos and ten mammal photos were used; the bird photos were
randomly selected from a set of 30 (Table 3). To insure
that a few common species appeared in each subset, two com-
mon species were used in each subset. The cardinal was used

in four randomly determined subsets, the blue jay in the

 

1For example, the mean score for the starling would
probably be different if it was shown following a bald eagle
of following a grackle.

11

 

 

 

 

Table 2. Some key characteristics of neighborhoods in the
Detroit-survey sample, and of the respondents that
were interviewed as determined by the survey.

CHARACTERISTIC NEIGHBORHOOD a
l 2 3 4 5 Total
Miles from down-
town Detroit 2.9 4.8 9.3 10.6 10.5 7.3

Population/acre 23.7 40.6 21.9 12.4 6.8 21.1

Area (acres) 14.4 16.8 15.9 16.0 7.9 71.0

No. houses 97 163 95 43 13 411

Houses surveyed 19.6b 12.3 25.3 32 6 92.3 21.7

CaucasianC 73.7 95.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 93.3

Mexican-Amer. 26.3 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7

Female 57.9 60.0 5 .0 28.6 41.7 49.4

Male 42.1 40.0 50.0 71.4 58.3 50.6

Skilled 5.3 25.0 50.0 64.3 50.0 37.1

Unskilled 57.9 15.0 8.3 14.3 8.3 21.4

Housewives 57.9 15.0 8.3 14.3 8.3 21.4

Retired 15.8 5.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 5.6

"Out. activities" 36.8 70.0 62 5 50.0 41.7 36.0

"No out. act." 63.2 30.0 37 5 50.0 5 .3 46.1

"Like birds" 79.9 80.0 83.3 71.4 100.0 82.0

"Indiff. to birds" 21.1 20.0 16.7 28.6 0.0 18.0

Feed birds 52.6 55.0 58.3 64.3 75.0 59.6

Don't feed birds 47.4 45.0 41.7 35.7 25.0 40.5

Garden 42.1 50.0
Don't garden 57.9

 

aSum or average, whichever applicable.
Units from here down are percentages.

cCategories from here down are from Fig. A-5, p. 62.

Table 3.

12

Bird species used in the Detroit survey.

 

 

COMMON NAMES

SCIENTIFIC NAMESa

 

Common egret
Canada goose
Blue-winged teal

Wood duck

Red-tailed hawk

Bald eagle
Ring-necked pheasant
Killdeer

Herring gull
Mourning dove

Great horned owl
Ruby-throated hummingbird
Downy woodpecker
Traill's flycatcher
Blue jay

Common crow

House wren

Eastern bluebird
Cedar waxwing
Starling
Yellowthroat

Eastern meadowlark
Red-winged blackbird
Baltimore oriole
Common grackle
Cardinal

American goldfinch
Slate-colored junco
White-throated sparrow
Song sparrow

Casmerodium albus
Branta canadensis

Anas discors

Aix sponsa

Buteo jamaicensis
Halinetus leucocephalus
PHESianus colchicus
Charadrius vociferus
Larus argentatus
fenaidura macroura
Bfibo virgifiIanus
ArchiIochus colfibris
Dendrocopus pfibescens
Empidonax trafllii
Cyanocitta cristata
Corvus bracfiyrh nchos
Troglodytes agaon
Tyrannus tyrannus
Bombycilla cedorum
Sturnus vulgaris
GeotthpI§7trichas
SturneIla magna
Agelaius phoeniceus
Icterus galbula
QuiscaIus quiscula
Richmondena cardinalis
Spinus trIstIs

Jfinco hyemalis
Zonotrichia aIbicollis
MelospIza meIBdia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aAfter Peterson (1947).

13
others. Likewise, the grackle and starling were each in
four subsets. Each subset of bird photographs was used at
12 consecutive houses. The order in which each subset was
shown was randomly determined for the first six houses and
randomly reordered for the second six houses. The order in
which the ten mammal photos (Table 4) were shown was ran-
domly reordered after every 12 houses.

Interviews.--Interviews were usually conducted

 

during evenings in an attempt to find both adult members of
the households at home. The interviewer tried to alternate
between questioning the man and woman of the house. When no
one was home the interviewer tried on one other day; after a
second failure an alternative house was used. The survey
was conducted by a student from the Department of Fisheries
and Wildlife at Michigan State University.

Interviews were preceeded by letters hand-delivered
to the houses approximately two weeks before the time of the
interviews (Fig. A-3, p.60 ). The interview consisted of a
short introduction describing the study (Fig. A-4, p. 61 ),
a series of questions (Fig. A-S, p. 62 ), and the 20-photo
test. The interviewer quickly showed the respondent the
subset of ten bird photos to familiarize the respondent with
the photos. This was followed by a second showing of the
photos during which the respondent was given ten seconds
per photo to record his/her own score on a response sheet
(Fig. A-6, p. 63 ). This procedure was then repeated using

the ten mammal photos.

14

Table 4. Mammal species used in the Detroit-survey, YWCA-
camp, and County Fair surveys.

 

 

COMMON NAMES

SCIENTIFIC NAMESa

 

Black bear
Raccoon

Red fox

Eastern chipmunk
Red squirrel

Fox squirrel
Deer mouse
Muskrat
Cottontail
Whitetail deer

Ursus americanus

Procyon lotor

Vulpes fulva

Tamias striatus
Tamiasciurus hudsonicus
Sciurus fiiger
Peromyscus maniculatus
Odonatra zibethicus
Sylvilagus’floridanus
OdOcEiEus virginianus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aAfter Burt (1972).

15

The response sheets were coded to indicate the par-
ticular subset of photos used, so that the score could later
be matched to the correct species. Instructions to define
the criteria for scoring were given by the interviewer:
"What I would like you to do is give each bird (or animal) a
score from one to ten, depending on how much you enjoy, or
would enjoy, seeing the bird (or animal) Shown." The re-
spondent was left with a letter describing the general na-
ture of the studies being conducted (Fig. A-7, p. 64 ).
YWCA-CAMP SURVEY

Tests were given to 84 elementary and junior high
children at a YWCA day-camp near Charlotte, Michigan, during
the summer of 1973. Slides were shown using the same pro—
cedure as in the MSU-student survey. Twenty-four bird and
ten mammal slides were used (Tables 1 and 4). Instructions
for defining the criteria for scoring stated: "Please give
each bird or animal a score, from one to ten points, depend-
ing on how much you would enjoy seeing it in the wild" (Fig.
A-7, p. 64 ). In addition to asking the children to score
each species shown, they were asked to attempt to name each
Species. The tests were conducted by the camp-counselor in
charge.

COUNTY FAIR SURVEY

 

An attempt was made to test visitors to the Eaton
County Fair in August 1973. A booth with an exhibit titled
"Wildlife Quiz" was set up in cooperation with the county

agricultural extension-agent. The same 34 slides used in

16
the YWCA-camp survey (Tables 1 and 4) were shown in this
exhibit in which the numbered slides were projected and ad-
vanced automatically at lS-second intervals. In order to
generate interest and attract attention to the exhibit, re-
spondents were encouraged to name each species, in addition

to recording a score.

Analysis of Survey Data

COMPUTER PROGRAMS

 

Data from the answer forms were transferred to com-
puter cards. Computer programs were written (in Fortran IV)
and used on a CDC-6500 computer to analyze these data. Each
program is briefly described in Appendix B.
STATISTICAL TESTS

An approximate t-test was used to determine signifi-
cant differences between mean scores given to the photos.
Stronger statistical tests, including partitioning of vari-
ances of the means, and cross-classification of characteris-
tics of the species versus characteristics of the respond-
ents, were not used due to limitations of resources, includ-
ing time and my own statistical abilities. The statistical
tests used in this report are described in detail in
Appendix C.

GROUPING OF MEAN SCORES INTO HIGH, MEDIUM, AND LOW CATEGORIES

 

The species used in each sample and subsample were
ordered by mean scores. Mean scores of species based on

three or fewer scores were deleted. Each possible pair of

17
species was tested for significant differences between the
means and a matrix was printed out by the computer showing
the results (see Table B-3, p. 70 ).

Because of the large number of pairs of scores show-
ing no significant differencesbetween means, the species
were somewhat arbitrarily grouped into High, Medium, and Low
categories for each sample and subsample of respondents. The
High category was determined by comparing each of the highest
one-third of the scores and checking for significant differ-
ences with the scores below it. A score was classified
“High” if it differed significantly from at least two-thirds
of the scores below it. Similarly, Low scores were deter-
mined by comparing each of the lowest one-third scores with
those above them. Scores not falling into the High or Low
categories were classified "Medium."

COMPARING SPEC IES CHARACTERISTICS

Each bird species used was somewhat arbitrarily
classified by several characteristics (Table 5). The large-
small characteristic was determined by an overall length
greater or less then 14 inches (measurements from Peterson
1947). The dull-colorful characteristic was based on wheth-
er the bird was entirely colored with tones of grays,
blacks, or browns (dull), or had other colors present (co-
lorful). All-white species were placed in the colorful
category. The terrestrial-water characteristic was based on
the preferred habitat of the species (Peterson 1947). The

game-nongame characteristic was based on whether the bird

18

Table 5. Designated characteristics of the bird species
used in the surveys.

 

 

 

 

CHARACTERISTICSa

SPECIES L s C D T w N G P o
Pied-billed grebe x x x x x
Great blue heron x x x x x
Common egret x x x x x
Canada goose x x x x x
Mallard x x x x x
Blue-winged teal x x x x x
Wood duck x x x x X
Red-tailed hawk x x x x x
Rough-legged hawk x x x x x
Bald eagle x x x x x
Ring-necked pheasant x x x x x
American coot x x x x x
Killdeer x x x x x
Herring gull x x x x x

Mourning dove

Great horned owl x
Whip-poor-will

Common nighthawk

Ruby-throated hummingb.

Belted kingfisher

Downy woodpecker

Eastern kingbird

Blue jay

Common crow x x
Black-capped chickadee
House wren

Eastern bluebird

Cedar waxwing

Starling

Yellowthroat

Eastern meadowlark
Red-winged blackbird
Baltimore oriole
Common grackle

Scarlet tanager
Cardinal

American goldfinch
Slate-colored junco
White-throated sparrow
Song sparrow

>4

>4>4>4>4
>4>4>4>4>4
>4

>4
>4

xxxxxxxxx
>4 )4

>4>4>4>4>4>4>4
>4
>4
>4
>4

>4>4

>4>4>4

>4
>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4

>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4
XXXX

>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4

>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4>4§4>4>4>4

 

aL= large, 3: small; C= colorful, D= dull; T= terres-
trial, W= water; N= non-game, G= game; P= predatory, O= other.

19
can be hunted in Michigan (Michigan Dept. of Nat. Resources
1972). The predator-other characteristic was based on
whether the bird fed primarily on vertebrates or not.
Within each sample and subsample of respondents, an
index was determined for each of the characteristics for the
High-, Medium-, and Low-category bird species, by the

equation:

”lg

 

2'2
0

where, within a sample or subsample, nc= the number of spe-
cies in the High, Medium, or Low category with the particular
characteristic being tested, n= the number of species in the
High, Medium, or Low category, NC= the number of species in
the High, Medium, and Low categories which had the parti-
cular characteristic being tested, and N= the total number
of species used.

An index value greater than 1.0 indicated a prefer-
ence for the characteristic being compared. A value of 1.5
or greater was arbitrarily classified as a significant index
value, and analysis was done only on those "significant"
characteristics in the High and Low categories.
ANALYSES OF SAMPLES AND SUBSAMPLES

MSU-student Samples

Scores from the FW 427, FW 301, and IDC 200 samples,

and four subsamples from IDC 200 (with the attributes of

hunter--non-hunter and bird watcher--non-bird watcher) were

20
statistically analyzed.

Detroit-survey‘Sample

 

Statistical analysis was performed on the basis of
the neighborhood, sex, occupational, "outdoor activity—-no
outdoor activity," and "like--indifferent to birds" sub-
samples.

The occupational subsample was determined by occupa-
tion of the respondent (i.e., skilled, unskilled, housewife,
or retired). "Skilled" persons were those with a position
requiring considerable training (e.g., engineer, carpenter,
bank teller). If a housewife was also employed, she was
classified according to her job. Since only six respondents
were "retired,“ this category was deleted from the analysis.

The "outdoor activity--no outdoor activity" subsam-
ple was determined by answers to the question: "Do you par-
ticipate in outdoor activities such as hunting, fishing,
camping, etc.?"

The "like--indifferent to birds" subsample was de-
termined by answers to the question: "Do you generally
like, dislike, or are you indifferent to the birds in your
yard?” No respondents said he/she disliked birds in his/her
yard, so this category was not used.

YWCA-camp Sample

 

Scores for each species used in the YWCA-camp sample
were divided into three groups, based on the ability of the
respondents to identify the species shown (see Program YWCA,

p. 68 ). The scores of species which were at least

21

identified to common generic name (L= 4) were compared with
the entire group (L= 5). Scores of species not identified

at all were not analyzed because it was not known how many

respondents failed to name species simply from lack of in-

terest in the survey. In addition, brief analysis was made
of the ability of the children tested to identify the spe-

cies shown them.

County Fair Sample
No analysis was made on the small amount of data

collected in the County Fair sample.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The overall mean scores given the species used in
each sample and subsample ranged from approximately 5.4 to
7.5 (Table 6); grouped means ranged from 2.4 to 10.0 (Table
7). These differences were assumed to be real: that is, a
lower overall mean score indicated an average lower level of
appreciation than did a higher overall mean. Significantly
different mean scores were assumed to be indicative of vary-

ing levels of appreciation of those species.

Preferred Bird Characteristics (Table 8)

MSU-student Samples.--Preferences of the Student

 

samples were for large, water, and/or game birds; usually
colorful birds were also preferred. Bird watchers and hunt-
ers in the MSU classes indicated preferences for predatory
species; non-bird watchers and non-hunters did not. Hunters
did not indicate preference for colorful species, apparantly
giving priority to other characteristics. Bird watchers did
not prefer water and/or game birds.

Detroit-survey Sample.--Colorful species were signi-
ficantly preferred in all five neighborhoods. Neighborhood
2 also showed a preference for game birds. The female sub-

sample showed preference for water birds; they ranked large

22

Table 6. Overall bird and mammal scores,
1 to 10, for each sample and subsample.

23

from a range of

 

 

 

BIRD MAMMAL
SAMPLE OR SUB SAMPLE MEAN MEAN NUMBER
FW 301 6.09 a 64
FW 427 6.33 a 53
IDC 200 6.14 a 226
Hunters 6.23 a 37
Non-hunters 6.19 a 188
Bird watchers 6.98 a 57
Non-bird watchers 5.92 a 165
Detroit survey 7.17 6.56 89
Neighborhood 1 6.74 6.45 19
Neighborhood 2 6.83 6.60 20
Neighborhood 3 7.49 7.33 24
Neighborhood 4 7.28 5.40 14
Neighborhood 5 7.65 6.47 12
Females 7.12 6.47 44
Males 7.21 6.62 45
Skilled 7.33 6.77 33
Unskilled 6.87 6.66 19
Housewives 7.18 6.38 32
"Outdoor activities" 7.50 7.13 48
"No outdoor act." 6.78 5.89 41
"Indifferent to birds" 6.37 6.27 16
"Like birds" 7.34 6.62 73

 

aNot used.

24

Table 7. Average value of grouped bird and mammal mean
scores, for High, Medium, and Low categories by
sample and subsample.

 

 

 

 

 

BIRDS MAMMALS
SAMPLE 0R SUBSAMPLE High Med Low High Med Low
FW 301 8.2 6.3 4.5 a a a
FW 427 8.1 6.4 4.4 a a a
IDC 200 7.7 6.3 4.3 a a a
Hunters 8.3 6.5 4.3 a a a
Non-hunters 7.7 6.4 4.8 a a a
Bird watchers 8.4 7.1 5.3 a a a
Non-bird watchers 7.5 6.1 4.0 a a a
Detroit survey 9.1 7.5 4.1 8.5 6.6 4.5
Neighborhood 1 8.9 6.9 3.1 8.8 6.5 2.6
Neighborhood 2 9.5 7.5 3.3 9.5 6.8 2.5
Neighborhood 3 9.9 7.9 3.9 9.5 7.4 4.4
Neighborhood 4 9.9 7.4 2.4 8.3 5.4 2.6
Neighborhood 5 10.0 8.6 5.0 9.0 6.6 2.9
Females 9.5 7.4 3 6 8.5 6.4 2.8
Males 9.9 7.8 3.7 9.1 6.7 3.4
Skilled 10.0 7.9 3.9 9.2 6.8 3.8
Unskilled 9.3 6.8 3.2 9.3 6.5 2.5
Housewives 9.6 7.5 3.6 8.9 6.5 2.7
"Outdoor activities" 9.7 8.1 3.8 9.6 7.3 3.7
"No outdoor act." 10.0 7.2 3.0 8.0 5.8 2.4
"Indifferent to birds" 9.9 6.4 b a a a
"Like birds" 9.2 7.6 4.0 a a a
YWCA-camp (total) 8.0 6.5 4.9 9.5 7.9 5.5
Partial I.D. 8.7 6.9 4.3 9.5 8.1 6.2

 

aNot used.

bNone.

cSubsample that could at least identify species to
common generic name.

25

Table 8. Bird characteristics significanta in High and Low
categories for each sample and subsample.

 

 

 

 

HIGH Low
SAMPLE OR SUBSAMP' Lbs D C T N N G o p L s D C T w N G o P

 

FW 301 X
FW 427 X
IDC 200 X
Hunters X
X
X
X

>4
>4>4>4>4>4
>4>4>4>4>4

Non-hunters
Bird watchers
Non-bird watchers

>4>4>4

>4

>4
>4
>4>4>4>4

Detroit survey

Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Neighborhood

01;:me
>4>4
>4>4>4>4 >4
>4
>4>4>4
>4

Females
Males x

>4>4 >4>4>4>4>4 >4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4

>4
>4
>4

Skilled X X X X X X
Unskilled
Housewives x

>4>4
>4
>4
>4

"Outdoor activities" X X X X X
"No outdoor act." x

"Indifferent to birds"
"Like birds" X X X

YWCA-camp (total) X X X X X
Partial I.D. X X X

 

aSee pp. 24-26 for explanation.

L= large, 8: small; D= dull, C= colorful; T= terres-
trial, W= water; N= non-game, G= game; 0: other, P= predator.

c .
Lower case "x": based on only one speCIes.

dSubsample that could at least identify Species to
common generic name.

26
the game characteristic in the High and Low categories. The
skilled subsample ranked large and/or predatory bird in the
High and Low categories.

YWCA-camp Sample.--The YWCA-camp sample indicated a

 

preference for large, colorful, water, and/or predatory
birds. This response was more similar to the Student sam-

ples than to the Detroit-survey sample.

Non-preferred Bird Characteristics (Table 8)

MSU-student Samples.--The dull characteristic was

 

the only feature consistently correlated to species ranked
in the Low category.

Detroit-survey Sample.--The overall Detroit survey
ranked birds "Low” which were large, dull, and/or predatory
species. The female subsample did not rank large and/or
predatory species in the Low category. The "outdoor acti-
vity” subsample indicated non-preference for large, water,
game, and/or predatory birds; in the "non-outdoor activity"
subsample, no characteristics of species were significant in
the Low category.

YWCA-camp Sample.--The dull characteristic was the

 

only one significantly non-preferred.

Preferred Bird Species (Table 9)

MSU-student Samples.--The species ranked “High" by

 

every sample and subsample in the Student samples were:
wood duck, blue-winged teal, Canada goose, great blue heron,

and ring-necked pheasant. Most preferred the scarlet

27

Table 9. Bird species ranked in High category in each
sample and subsample.

 

 

 

 

SPECIES

A F. H on;

o H 3 o .4 c

c w m m s o u o m
88 HfifiSoHU‘ofiso'flfi.
SAMPLE OR SUBSAMPLE 0 0'0 0 s m m c m c~>.c cam u o u m
n own u'c~v m m m c o G-n-H o c
m m'o-aro.u-H ,o oraoa
- ..J oro.x'c «.4 u m E o m.» H'U
bcemzo3HmHH-a) SSHMH
I m m l o m m.c.a w o H 5.4.4 m o m
o o 2 m B m m:a.m mt: o =:mcn m m 0
FW 301 x x .ax x x . x . . . x .
FW 427 x . x x x x . x . . . x .
IDC 200 x x . x x . x x . . . x .
Hunters x x . x x x . x . . . .
Non-hunters x x . x x . x x x . . . x .
Bird watchers x x . x x x . x x . . . x .
Non-bird watchers x x . x x . x x x . . . .
Detroit survey . . x x x x . x
Neighborhood 1 . . . x . . . . . x . . .

Neighborhood 2 . . . . . x . . x . .
Neighborhood 3 . . . . . . . . . . x
Neighborhood 4 . . . . . . . . . . . x
Neighborhood 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . x
Females . x . x . . x
Males o no 0X
Skilled . . . x . . x
Unskilled . . . x . . . . x x . . x
Housewives . . . . x
"Outdoor activities" . . . x . x
"No outdoor act." . . . x
"Indifferent to birds" . . . . . . . x
"Like birds" . x . x x x x x x . x
YWCA-camp (total) . . . x x x x . x x x . x
Partial I.D. . . . x x . x x . x

 

aPeriod indicates species not shown to sample or
subsample.

bSubsample that could at least identify species to
common generic name.

28

tanager and rough-legged hawk.

Non-bird watchers and non-hunters ranked the kill—
deer ”High;" they did not rank the rough-legged hawk
"High." (These subsamples did not completely overlap; there
were 57 bird watchers in the class of 226 and only 37
hunters.) There appears to be a greater appreciation for
the hawk in groups with greater outdoor interests, and a
greater appreciation for the killdeer in groups with a les-
ser outdoor interest.

Detroit-survey Sample.--The pheasant, hummingbird,

 

bluebird, Baltimore oriole, and cardinal were ranked "High"
by the overall Detroit survey. The bluebird and Canada
goose were ranked "High" by the female subsample, but not by
the male subsample; it is interesting to note that these
species were not ranked "High" by the housewives. The order
of scoring was roughly the same for female and housewife
subsamples, but preferences between species were not as dis-
tinct in housewives.

The only subsample in the Detroit survey to rank the
bald eagle "High" was the skilled subsample. The bluebird
was ranked "High" by outdoor participants, but not by non-
participants.

Respondents professing to "like birds" (n= 16) ranked
more species "High" than any other subsample. Only one spe-
cies, the cardinal, was ranked "High" by those professing to
be "indifferent" to birds (n= 73). The list of species in

the "like” subsample was similar to the preferred-species

29
list in the Student samples: Canada goose, blue-winged
teal, ring-necked pheasant, mourning dove, hummingbird,
bluebird, Baltimore oriole, and cardinal.

The wood duck, great blue heron, and rough-legged
hawk were preferred species in the Student samples; however,
the wood duck and common egret were not ranked "High” by any
Detroit subsample, and the red-tailed hawk was actually
ranked "Low” by many of the Detroit subsamples (see Table
13, p. 35).

Respondents were asked to name birds they liked and
disliked, as well as to score certain species (Table 10).
Shinner (1974) determined the most common summer species
for the five neighborhoods surveyed.1 The five species
most often named as liked and disliked were compared with
the High, Medium, or Low rank of those species named (if
used in scoring), and with the five most common species in
each neighborhood (Table 11).

Not all of the species named as "liked" were also
ranked "High” in scoring. Some Species, such as the blue
jay and mourning dove, were only rankai"Medium.” It ap-
peared that respondents commonly named only those species
they were familiar with in their neighborhood as "liked,"
but found other species more desirable when unfamiliar a1-

ternatives species were shown to them. Sixty percent of the

 

1Shinner's neighborhood designations correlated to
mine as: 1= 183, 2= 173, 3= 129, 4= 131a, 5= 131b.

30

Table 10. Bird species named more than one time (by the
Detroit-survey sample) in answer to the questions:
"Which birds do you enjoy seeing most?" and
"Which birds do you least enjoy?"

 

 

 

" ENJOYED TIMES " ENJOYED T IMES
RANK MOST " NAMED RANK LEAST " NAMED

1 Cardinal 66 l Pigeon 39
2 Blue jay 48 2 Grackle 33
3 Robin 43 3 Starling 22
4 "Sparrow" 24 4 "Sparrow" 19
5 Mourning dove 18 5 Blue jay 11
6 Pheasant 14 6 Crow 10
7 Goldfinch l3 7 "Blackbirds" 3
8 Hummingbird 10 8 Mourning dove 2
9 "Woodpeckers" 7

10 Red-wing 6

11 Grackle 5

12 "Ducks" 4

12 Downy woodp. 4

12 Bluebird 4

15 Canada goose 3

15 Mallard 3

15 Chickadee 3

18 Pigeon 2

18 Crow 2

18 Great h. owl 2

18 Red-t. hawk 2

 

31

 

.msofiumoeoc ummmmm

n

.omcwnEoo mooonuonnmfimc m>wmm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum msHm meaaumum mcflaumum w>oc .oz Canom maxomno m
mcwaumum canom mon Team mon 094m waxomuo canom e
canom m>oc .oz sanom mcwaumum commflm commwm m
maxomuo maxomuw maxomuo maxomno mafiaumum mcflaumum N
Bouummw Bounmmm Bounmmm 3onummm 3ouummm Bonummm IH
mmfloomw soEEoo pmoz
wan msHm woos woos IIII IIII Bouo m
3ouummm mcoc woos coomflm\aumum 3ouu IIII v
mCHHHmum commam 3ouunmm Bouummm mcflaumum umum\xomuw m
maxomuu Bouummm maxomno awn mzam maxomuo mafiaumum N
commflm maxomuo ocaaumum maxomuo commam commflm H
=pmmdflcqummmq=
m>oc .02 IIII 0:0: 3ounmmm ucmmmmnm nocflmoaow m
3ouummm oompooz\mmmnm IIII m>oc .02 Sam 094m 3ouummm v
Genoa IIII m>0p\cflnom Genoa 3ouummm Hmcfioumo m
won msHm moh\nosflmoaoo Sum mzam man msHm n IIII IIII m
amcwpumo Hmcwoumo Hmcwonmo Hmcflpumo sanou\pumo sfinmh\>mh .m flu
=cmmomchumoze
Adaoe m w m N a
ooommommonz mz<m

 

 

no pun :umoe asawmm pmmoncme mm @050: smuwo umOE mmwommm puwn o>fim one

.mcoonuonnmwmc >m>usm vacuuwn
mnu CH mmwomdm pawn Museum coaeoo umoe on» cam =.umwma mcwoom powomcme

.HH OHQMB

32
tOp five species named as "liked“ were also in the top five
most common species and 100 percent were in the tOp ten most
common species (Table 12).

The cardinal was named as the favorite bird in every
neighborhood except Neighborhood 1, the most "urbanized"
area. The cardinal was listed first in Neighborhood 2, even
though not a common species there. Only a few birds were
named as the top five most-liked species which were not also
common to the neighborhoods (i.e., goldfinch, ring-necked
pheasant, and woodpeckers). Among the species that were
scored, the cardinal and the bluebird appeared to be the
most preferred species.

YWCA-camp_Sample.--The YWCA-camp sample indicated

 

strong preferences for eight species, showing some inter-
esting differences from the Student and Detroit-survey sam-
ples: The blue jay, herring gull, great horned owl, and
bald eagle were ranked "High" by few other samples. The
cardinal, bluebird, Baltimore oriole, and blue-winged teal
were also ranked "High."

In the subsample of respondents who could at least
identify the particular species to common generic name, the
blue jay, blue-winged teal, and herring gull were not ranked
"High.” Most respondents were familiar with the blue jay
see Table 16, p. 44), so the differences in scoring were not
apparent in this Species. Few could identify the teal or
gull correctly; it is possible that a common misidentifica-

tion of these species caused the "High" ranking in the

33

.pmuoom HOC mnoz memC mmHommm
.mmmmquonom mum mmquHm HHd

.HH cam OH moHnme EOHm

U

..Q

m

 

 

 

 

 

OOH OOH OOH OOH oOH OOH eesHooz. no =3oq: ooxomu omHo .oom =oosoHcqummmH= m ooe
no OOH OOH Om OOH OOH OCHHoom CH =30H: pmemu OmHm .mmm =©mmonCqummmH= m doe
OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH o =E5Hpmz= no =CmHm= meCmH OmHm .mmm epmmoflCqumoez m doe
mm mm om mm mm o mCHHoom CH=CmHm= omemu OmHm .mmm =pmmomCqumOE= m doe
OOH mo OOH OOH Om OO .mmm COEEoo

umOE OH do» CH omHm .mmm zpmwonCqummmH uo Ium0E= m moe
on mm He OH Om OO .mdm COEEoo

umos m Qou CH OmHm .mmm ecomonCqummmH Ho IumoE= m mos
OOH OOH OOH OOH OO OO .mmm COEEoo umOE OH do» CH ONHm .mmm =©w>omCqumme= m doe
om OO OOH Om OO OO .mmm COEEoo uon m do» CH omHm .mmm godmonCqummoHe m Q09
OOH OO OOH OOH OO OO .mmm COEEoo umOE OH mo» CH OmHm .mmm =pwmonCqumoE= m mos
OO ON OO om ov OO .mmm COEEoo umOE m mon CH omHm mmHowmm epmmonCqumOEz m doe

HCBOB m v m m H
ooommommonz ozomHmCezoo
.HH mHCmB CH CTEMC mmHoomm 0:» mo ComHummEOO .NH THQCB

34
entire sample. The subsample that correctly recognized the
teal and gull ranked them lower. Most respondents confused
the teal with the Canada goose (see Misidentification of
species, pp.49 -50), and many confused the gull with a dove

or pigeon.

Non-preferred Bird Species (Table 13)

MSU-student SampleS.--Species scored “Low" by every

 

sample and subsample were: crow, starling, grackle, song
sparrow, and eastern kingbird. Hunters were the only sub-
sample that did not rank the coot "Low," apparently Showing
greater preference for game species.

Detroit-survey Sample.--The pigeon, starling, and

 

grackle were named most frequently as the least-liked birds
(Table 10). The blue jay, sparrow, and crow were also in the
five most-disliked species in some neighborhoods. All of
these species, except the crow, were also in the tOp ten
most common species in the respective neighborhoods (Table
12). It is apparent that most respondents named the birds
they liked and disliked from the few species they were fa-
miliar with, usually species common to their own neighbor-
hood. The blue jay and sparrow, for example, appear in the
overall survey and in Neighborhood 3 in both the five most-
liked and in the five most-disliked species. With the ex-
ception of the blue jay, all species listed in the top five
"disliked“ list were also ranked "Low" in scoring (Table

12). (Some of these species were not tested in a

35

Table 13. Bird species ranked in Low category in each
sample and subsample.

 

 

 

 

SPECIES
A If. 3
o p o )4 o
m u H In H
u °H-H m m H
.3 8H '88. F 8 o 2‘ 2‘ 0) m 8
SAMPLE OR SUBSAMPLE v q, .... g g; .n I0 q ...I .... H . m
p D-H-H x -H.H 3.x o.C
x HIH @ 5.x 0 3 o C E H I o o u (D
3 0.4 C O-H m mro m C I C
m O-H - C o.H H.C H m H m H s.§ C)
zzt>x:m m m m U U 3 3 m m U'b U)
b
FW 301 x x x x x x x . . x
FW 427 . . x x x x x x . . x
IDC 200 x x x x x x x . . x
Hunters x x x x x x x . . x
Non-hunters x x x x x x x . . x
Bird watchers x x x x x x x . . x
Non-bird watchers x x x x x x x . . x
Detroit survey x . x . x . x x x
Neighborhood 1 . . . . . x . . x . . .
Neighborhood 2 . . x . . x . . x x . .
Neighborhood 3 . . . . x . . . . x . .
Neighborhood 4 . . . . . . . . x . . .
Neighoodhood 5 x . . . . . . . . . . . x . .
Females . . x . x x x
Males x . x . x . x x .
Skilled x . x . x . . x .
Unskilled . . . x . x .
Housewives . . x . x .
"Outdoor activities" . x . . x . x x .
"No outdoor act." x . . x . x x . .
"Indifferent to birds" . . . . . . . .
"Like birds" x . x . x . x x x
YWCA-camp (total) . x . . . . x x x x x x
Partial I.D. . . . . . x X x x

 

I

aSubsample that could at least identify Species to
common generic name.

bPeriod indicates species not shown to sample or
subsample.

36

particular neighborhood.)

The crow, grackle, and starling were least-favored
of the species shown for almost everyone in the Detroit
survey. The slate-colored junco also was non-preferred in
the neighborhoods which scored it. The gull was ranked
"Low" in two of the four neighborhoods that scored it.

The male and skilled subsamples ranked the gull and
red-tailed hawk "Low;" the female, unskilled, and housewife
subsamples did not. The gull was ranked "Low" by the "out-
door activity" subsample and the red-tailed hawk "Low" by
the ”non-outdoor activity” subsample.

The gull, hawk, crow, starling, grackle, and slate-
colored junco were ranked ”Low” by the "like” subsample.

The ”indifferent" subsample did not rank any birds "Low."

YWCA-camp Sample.--The killdeer, house wren, cedar
waxwing, starling, grackle, white-throated sparrow, and song
sparrow were ranked "Low" by the YWCA-camp sample. However,
among the respondents who could at least partially identify
the particular species (L= 4), the killdeer, cedar waxwing,
and white-throated sparrow were not ranked "Low," apparently
indicating a greater appreciation for these species by the

children familiar with them.

Discussion of Bird Scores by Species and Groups of Species
Raw mean scores, grouped means (High, Medium, and
Low categories; Tables 9 and 13), and the list of "most-"

and "least-enjoyed" species (Tables 10-12) are used in the

37

discussion below. In this discussion, 6/30, for example,
means the score was 6th highest out of 30 species scored
(Table 14).

The respondents surveyed were categorized into two
general groups-~those with some interest in nature, expres-
sed in hunting, bird watching, or other outdoor activities;
and those respondents with very little familiarity with or
interest in birds or mammals. Persons who demonstrated some
familiarity with nature seemed to be, in general, the better
educated or more highly skilled respondents. Because of the
nature of the MSU-student samples, those respondents had
some interest in the environment and nature. Differences in
scores of many species were quite distinct between the groups
showing familiarity and unfamiliarity with nature.

Large Wading Birds.--The great blue heron and the
common egret were ranked highest by persons indicating some
interest in nature. All of the Student groups ranked the
heron ”High" (2/24 overall), but none of the other samples
ranked the closely-related egret "High" (15/30 by the
Detroit-survey sample). The Detroit-"outdoor activity" sub-
sample ranked the egret significantly higher than the other
respondents. The heron was the highest-scored species of the
bird watchers in IDC 200, who scored it significantly higher
than the non-bird watchers.

Waterfowl.--Ducks and geese were scored in the top-
five species in the Student samples. Hunters and bird

watchers scored waterfowl species significantly higher than

38

Table 14. Mean scores given bird species by the MSU-student
samples (combined) and the Detroit-survey sample

(total).

 

 

MSU-STUDENT SAMPLES DETROIT-5U RVEY SAMPLE

 

 

 

Rank Species Mean Rank Species Mean
1 Pheasant 8.29 1 Cardinal 9.80
2 Great b. heron 8.07 2 Bluebird 9.14
3 Wood duck 7.92 3 R-t. hummingb. 9.04
4 B-w. teal 7.81 4 Pheasant 8.80
5 Canada goose 7.70 5 Balt. oriole 8.67
6 Ro-legged hawk 7.53 6 B w. teal 8.54
7 Scar. tanager 7.31 6 Canada goose 8.54
8 Herring gull 7.19 8 Bald eagle 8.29
9 Killdeer 7.10 8 Mo. dove. 8.29

10 Nighthawk 6.69 10 Meadowlark 8.17
11 Cedar waxwing 6.40 11 Killdeer 7.96
12 Mo. dove 6.35 12 Goldfinch 7.88
13 Red—wing 6.03 13 Cedar waxwing 7.53
14 Blue jay 5.98 14 Red-wing 7.52
15 Kingfisher 5.79 15 Common egret 7.42
16 R—t. hummingb. 5.59 15 Blue jay 7.42
17 Chickadee 5.36 17 Wood duck 7.41
18 Coot 5.04 18 Song sparrow 7.33
19 E. kingbird 4.88 19 Yellowthroat 7.28
20 House wren 4.73 20 Downy woodpec. 7.06
21 Song sparrow 4.32 21 Wh-th. sparrow 6.96
22 Starling 3.60 22 Traill's flyc. 6.88
23 Crow 3.50 23 House wren 6.42
24 Grackle 3.34 24 Great h. owl 6.17

25 Herring gull 5.56

26 Red-t. hawk 4.58

27 Junco 4.40

28 Starling 3.69

29 Grackle 3.47

30 Crow 3.03

 

39
non-hunters and non-bird watchers, respectively (with the
exception of no significant differences in hunter--non-
hunter scores of teal and coot). Hunters were the only re-
spondents that did not rank the coot "Low."

The Canada goose was a much-preferred species. It
was ranked "High" by all the Student samples (5/24), and was
scored significantly higher by bird watchers and hunters
than by non-bird watchers and non-hunters, respectively.
Although the Detroit-survey sample ranked the goose 6/30,
preferences for other waterfowl species were not great. The
wood duck, ranked 3/24 by the Student samples, was only
ranked 17/30 in the Detroit survey.

Raptors.--Scores for the rough-legged hawk or the
red-tailed hawk seemed to be directly correlated with the
background of the respondents. In the Student samples, the
hawk was ranked "High" by groups with the most biological
training (i.e., FW 301, FW 427, and IDC 200 hunters and bird
watchers). It was ranked 6/24 by the Student samples but
only 26/30 in the Detroit survey. The hawk was ranked "Low"
in all but the "outdoor activities" and female subsamples in
the Detroit survey. In the YWCA-camp sample, the hawk was
scored lowest by children from farms.

Ring-necked Pheasant.--The pheasant was one of the
most p0pu1ar species; it was ranked "High" by all the Stu-
dent groups (1/24 overall) and in the Detroit survey (4/30).
The hunter, bird watcher, and Detroit-"outdoor activity"

subsample ranked the pheasant signifiéantly higher than

40
their counterparts.

Herring Gull.--The gull was ranked 8/24 by the

 

Student samples, but only 25/30 by the Detroit-survey
sample. Children in the YWCA-camp sample ranked the gull
"High." The Detroit-"outdoor activity" subsample scored the
gull significantly higher than did the "non-outdoor acti-
vity" subsample.

MourningyDove.--The dove was ranked about the same

 

by all groups. It was named fifth most often as the bird
”most-enjoyed" by the Detroit-survey sample. It was the
only dull-colored bird scored relatively high, apparently
because of its familiarity.

Ruby—throated Hummingbird.--The hummingbird was only
ranked 16/24 by the Student samples; however, it was ranked
3/30 and named eighth most often as the "most-enjoyed" spe-
cies by the Detroit-survey sample.

Downy WOodpecker.--The downy woodpecker was only

 

shown to the Detroit-survey sample, which ranked it "Medium"
(20/30). Woodpeckers were the ninth most-named species as
"most-enjoyed" and were named fourth most often in Neighbor-
hood 5, the most "rural" neighborhood.

Brightlyrcolored Songbirds.--The cardinal was the
favorite of every group which scored it (except Neighborhood
2, which scored only the pheasant higher). It was named
most often as the "most-liked" species by the Detroit-survey
sample. The scarlet tanager was scored only by the Student

samples; most ranked it "High" (7/24 overall).

41

The bluebird was ranked 2/30 by the Detroit-survey
sample. It was, however, only named four times as the
”most-liked" species. (The YWCA—camp sample also ranked it
"High.7) The blue jay, in contrast, was named second most-
often as the "most-liked" Species, but was only ranked 15/30
in the Detroit survey (and 14/24 by the Student samples).

The Baltimore oriole was ranked "High" (5/30) by the
Detroit-survey sample. The goldfinch, named seventh most-
often as the "most-liked" species, was only ranked 12/30 in
the Detroit survey. The yellowthroat, a species with simi-

lar coloration, was ranked even lower--l9/30.

 

Dull-colored Species.--The eastern kingbird was only
scored by the Student samples and was ranked "Low" by every
group (19/24 overall). The house wren was ranked "Low" by
most Student groups (20/24 overall), and was ranked 23/30 by
the Detroit-survey sample.

The song sparrow was ranked "Low" by the Student
groups and by the YWCA-camp children, but neither it, nor the
white-throated sparrow, was ranked "Low" by the Detroit-sur-
vey sample. The "sparrow" (house sparrow) was named as the
fourth most-liked and fourth most-disliked species by the
Detroit-survey sample.

Black-colored birds were especially disliked. The
starling, grackle, and crow were the lowest-scored species
in most groups. The red-winged blackbird scored somewhat
higher (14/30 in the Detroit survey).

It appeared that birds showing only dull colors

42

(i.e., browns, blacks, and grays) were the least-liked
species. Exceptions were those species which have dull co-
lors but which exhibit contrast, such as the killdeer. The

mourning dove was another exception noted above.

Preferred and Non-preferred Mammal Species (Table 15)

Detroit-survey Sample.--Of the ten mammal species

 

used, the favorite in every subsample was the black bear.
The Neighborhood 1, female, unskilled, and "non-outdoor
activity" subsamples also ranked the raccoon "High.“

The chipmunk was ranked "Low" by every subsample.
The red fox was also ranked "Low" by the overall sample.

YWCA-camp Sample.--The whitetail deer was ranked

 

"High" by the entire sample and the deer and fox squirrel
were ranked ”High" by the subsample that could at least
identify the particular Species to common generic name. The

deer mouse was ranked "Low."

Ability of the YWCA-camp Sample to Identify Species

In the YWCA-camp sample, only 11 of the 24 bird spe-
cies were identified to correct common generic name, and
only three species (the cardinal, blue jay, and red-winged
blackbird) were identified by correct common species names,
by 50 percent or more of the children (Table 16). All of the
mammal species were at least partially identified, but only
the raccoon and chipmunk were completely identified by 50

percent or more of the children (Table 17).

43

Table 15. Mammal species ranked in High and Low categories
in each sample and subsample.

 

HIGH SPECIES LOW SPECIES

 

 

 

n
0
0.4
p m
H H m
m .4 u m
.8 C 3.3 'C 6 x
SAMPLE OR SUBSAMPLE O p U" :3 E O
.x o m m a w
o o.u a.“
m o-a x -a 0'0
PIM.C o .C m o
m 04 '3. III-I U Q a:
Detroit survey x x x x
Neighborhood 1 x x x
Neighborhood 2 x x
Neighborhood 3 x x
Neighborhood 4 x x
Neighborhood 5 x x
Females x x x
Males x x
Skilled x X
Unskilled x x X
Housewives x X
"Outdoor activities" x x
"No outooor act." x x x
YWCA-camp (total) x x
Partial I.D.a x x x

 

aSubsample that could at least identify species to
common generic name.

44

Table 16. Percentages of respondents in the YWCA-camp

sample that could identify bird species.

 

 

PARTIAL OR FULL IDENTIFIC.a FULL IDENTIFICATIONb

 

 

 

Rank Species Percent Rank Species Percent
1 Cardinal 89.2 1 Cardinal 81.9
1 Great h. owl 89.2 2 Blue jay 80.5
3 Bald eagle 85.4 3 Red-wing 65.0
4 Blue jay 80.5 4 Bluebird 29.5
5 Wood duck 78.6 5 Bald eagle 26.8
6 Pheasant 77.4 6 Killdeer 25.0
7 Downy wood. 73.5 7 M. dove 13.6
8 Red-wing 71.3 8 Balt. oriole 8.6
9 R-t. hawk 67.9 9 Pheasant 8.3

10 M. dove 55.6 10 Starling 7.7
11 Grackle 50.0 11 Wood duck 7.1
12 H. gull 48.8 12 Meadowlark 2.8
13 Bluebird 43.6 13 Song sp. 2.5
14 Killdeer 32.5 14 Grackle 2.4
15 Song sp. 29.6 14 Great h. owl 2.4
15 Balt. oriole 29.6 14 R-t. hawk 2.4
17 Wh-th. sp. 23.6 17 Downy wood. 0.0
18 Starling 23.1 17 H. gull 0.0
19 B-w. teal 20.7 17 B-w. teal 0.0
20 Junco 13.2 17 Wh-th. sp. 0.0
21 Wren 12.8 17 Junco 0.0
22 Meadowlark 2.8 17 Wren 0.0
23 Yellowth. 2.6 17 Yellowth. 0.0
24 Waxwing 0.0 17 Waxwing 0.0

 

aIdentification at least to common generic name.

b

Identification at least to common Species name.

45

Table 17. Percentages of resondents in YWCA-camp sample
that could identify mammal species.

 

 

 

 

 

PARTIAL OR FULL IDENTIFIC. 5‘ FULL IDENTIFICATIONb
Rank Species Percent Rank Species Percent
1 Black bear 90.4 1 Raccoon 84.0
2 Red fox 89.2 2 Chipmunk 81.9
2 Deer mouse 89.2 3 Red fox 22.9
4 Cottontail 85.5 4 Muskrat 15.9
5 Raccoon 85.2 5 Red squirrel 13.4
6 Fox squirrel 83.1 6 Black bear 10.8
7 Whitetail deer 81.9 7 Fox squirrel 3.6
7 Chipmunk 81.9 8 Deer mouse 2.4
9 Red squirrel 59.8 9 Whitetail deer 0.0
10 Muskrat 58.5 9 Cottontail 0.0

 

a o o o 0
Identification at least to common generic name.

bIdentification at least to common species name.

46

Methodological Weaknesses
There are many reasons why the artificial testing
situation using photographs failed to measure the true val-
ues of the attitudes or the esthetic appreciatinusof the re-
spondents towards wildlife. The results presented in this
report should be interpreted with the inherent weaknesses
discussed below kept in mind.

Artificiality of Photographs.--It is obvious that

 

viewing a static photograph of a living animal is a poor
compromise to actually seeing the animal in the wild. It was
not possible to determine the amount of error introduced
into the scores because of this shortcoming. The method
isolated the animal from other sensory variables which enter
into esthetic appreciation, such as the habitat in which the
animal is found, smells and noises associated with that en-
vironment, and, especially, the added quality of bird songs.
However, these variables cannot be ignored in any final
evaluation of species. The extent that these or other vari-
ables might be esthetically synergistic when added to the
actual viewing of a specific animal could not be determined.
Non-standardization of Photographs.--The extent that
respondents scored the quality of the photographic artistry
in the various photos used, rather than the actual species
pictured, is not known. Any method which would completely
standardize the photographs (such as showing each animal

against a blank background or using photographs of mounted

47
specimens) would introduce more problems regarding artifi-
ciality than it would solve. The photos used offered the
best compromise available between showing the animals in a
sterile background and seeing the animals in the wild.

Preconceived Ideas and Misidentifications.--An un-

 

known amount of bias was introduced into the scoring method
when respondents misidentified the species shown. Although
the results of Tables 16 and 17 cannot be extended to adult
samples, the data did point out four possible situations re-
garding a respondent's familiarity with a species, all of
which affected scores.

1) Complete familiarity with the species shown: A
respondent appeared to make a fully-informed decision in the
scoring process of familiar species. However, scores could
be influenced by whether previous familiarity with the spe-
cies had been pleasant or unpleasant. It is impossible to
divorce other influences from esthetic factors in measuring
the appreciation of the species that a respondent is famil-
iar with. One person may enjoy hunting rabbits; another may
have rabbits girdle his/her shrubs. One person may enjoy
feeding squirrels; another may be kept awake nights by
squirrels nesting in his/her attic.

2) Partial familiarity with the species shown: The
accuracy of the name a respondent gave a species would pro-
bably not be significant in some species-~for example, "red-
bird” for cardinal, "sparrow" for house sparrow, "bunny" for

cottontail. In other species, a partial identification

48

could be equivalent to a misidentification because of an un-
familiarity with the species--for example, "sparrow" for
song sparrow, when the respondent thought the "sparrow"
shown to be a house sparrow. A closer look at this "misi-
dentification" shows the problem to be unimportant to test-
ing visual appreciations. A respondent would probably score
a song sparrow higher than a house sparrow if he/she was
familiar with the differences in the species. But lacking
that familiarity, a respondent seeing the two species in the
same environment would probably not appreciate one more than
the other. Bird songs complicate this appreciation, since a
person could appreciate the music of a song sparrow without
recognizing its source.

3) Unfamiliarity with the species shown: Complete
objectivity, based only on esthetics, should have occurred
in scoring species that were completely unfamiliar to a re-
spondent. However, most species would be similar in ap-
pearance to familiar species, or would be misidentified as
familiar species, except to a respondent completely ignorant
of animals. Scores would be influenced by the familiar
species, as in the song sparrow--house sparrow example
above.

It is not possible to expect respondents to score
animals completely on an esthetic basis (like abstract ob-
jects of art), since they would not react to animals in the

wild that way.

49

4) Misidentification of species: The most serious
problems involved in a measurement of preferences toward
different species was a misidentification of the species
pictured. Two causes of misidentification, with differing
effects on the resulting scores, were possible. In one case
the cause of misidentification was a result of using poor
photographs in the testing. For example, almost every re-
spondent in the YWCA-camp sample thought the blue-winged
teal-photo pictured Canada geese, although few people would
mistake teal for geese in nature. The problem was appar-
antly the lack of a relative scalar value in the photo. In
this case the method was not testing what it was designed
for, but was only testing an artifact of the photograph.

In the second case, the cauSe of misidentification
was not poor photography, but a lack of knowledge by the re—
spondent-~for example, a muskrat called a beaver, a killdeer
a quail, a junco a woodpecker, or a yellowthroat a goldfinch.
In this case the method was still testing what it was de-
signed for, that is, to determine the respondent's candid
responses to species, regardless of his/her preconceived
notions. In many cases, a person's observation of an animal,
misidentified as a species more familiar to him/her, is as
meaningful to him/her as if he/she had actually observed
the animal (Krieger 1973). For example, a respondent who
believes that a photo of a yellowthroat is a goldfinch
(which he/she is familiar with) would probably not be able to

‘tell the species apart in the wild. He/she would most

50
likely obtain the same degree of satisfaction from viewing
either species. For example, a hawk mistakenly thought to
be an eagle might elicit the same response in a person as if
he/she had actually observed an eagle.

Possible exceptions would exist when the two con—
fused species were greatly different in appearance (e.g., a
deer misidentified as an elk), behavior, or singing ability
(e.g., a house wren misidentified as a house sparrow). In
these Species the level of appreciation of the animals in the
wild would probably be different.

Lack of Established Criteria for Scoring.--Although
instructions were given regarding the general criteria which
should be used to judge esthetic preferences, the definition
was purposely left rather vague to permit a respondent to
apply the factors he/she thought were involved in an esthetic
valuation. A disadvantage to this approach is that it was
not possible to directly determine what specific factors en-
tered into the scoring process. Indirect methods of analy-
sis of the data did permit some inferences to be made about
what criteria were used.

Non-random Sampling Techniques.--The samples were not
randomly selected from populations larger than the neighbor-
hoods sampled so it is not possible to extend the conclu-
sions reached in this report to a larger, more heterogeneous
population. However, the data do represent trends to be
expected within similar homogeneous samples of larger popu-

lations.

51

Small Sample SizeS.--The MSU-student samples ap-

 

peared to be of adequate size to represent the relatively
homogeneous populations found in a university environment.
The Detroit-survey sample was limited by time and money to a
small sampling of only a few neighborhoods. The data must
be interpreted within those limitations.

County Fair Sample.--The County Fair survey failed

 

in its purpose of collecting usable response sheets. The
exhibit did succeed in attracting a great deal of attention,
and many people seemed to enjoy looking at the slides and
trying to identify the species pictured. Unfortunately,
very few people bothered to fill out response sheets. Sev-
eral reasons were apparent for the failure of this method.

1) No "reward” incentive: Since no one monitored
the booth, and no "reward" was offered, people did not feel
compelled to fill out written answers to the "quiz."

2) Embarrassment at lack of knowledge: The re-
sponse sheets which were completed showed a higher than av-
erage familiarity with birds by those respondents. Many
more sheets were only partially completed. Apparently, many
peOple felt ill-at-ease in voluntarily writing down how lit-
tle they knew about bird identification.

3) Too much trouble: Few people bothered to score
the photos on the response sheets that were returned with
Species names filled in. Apparently, the "scoring" part of

the test was not as much fun as trying to name the birds.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The data indicate that people like most species of
birds. Many people, especially in the group surveys, gave
all of the birds scores of 10. Several of these respondents
commented that they ”like all birds the same." Dagg (1970),
in a survey of attitudes towards urban wildlife in a town in
Ontario, discovered that all but two of the common local
species of birds were liked by at least 93 percent of those
surveyed (1970:209).

Samples of university students Showed fairly con-
sistent responses in scoring wildlife species. The urban-
Detroit neighborhoods which were sampled showed much great-
er unconformity in scoring species; variances of the scores
were much higher than in scores of the Student samples.
Apparently, preferences toward species were highly individu-
al in heterogeneous groups of peOple.

Distinctions between liked and disliked species were
amorphous in heterogeneous groups. Scores were grouped into
High, Medium, and Low categories because variances of scores
in the Detroit survey were high, and mean scores for many
species were not significantly different.

Respondents in all samples preferred colorful bird

species. In addition, the Student samples indicated

52

53
preferences for large, water, and/or game birds. Black and
dull-colored birds were generally the least preferred by all
samples.

Bird species ranked "High," listed by decreasing or-
der of mean scores, were: Student samples--ring-necked
pheasant, great blue heron, wood duck, blue-winged teal,
Canada goose, rough-legged hawk, and scarlet tanager; De-
troit-survey sample--cardina1, bluebird, ruby-throated
hummingbird, ring-necked pheasant, and Baltimore oriole; and
children in the YWCA-camp sample--cardinal, great horned
owl, bald eagle, Baltimore oriole, blue-winged teal, her-
ring gull, bluebird, and blue jay.

Bird species ranked "Low," listed by increasing or-
der of mean scores, were: Student samples--grackle, crow,
starling, song sparrow, house wren, eastern kingbird; De-
roit-survey sample--crow, grackle, starling, slate-colored
junco, red-tailed hawk, and herring gull; and children in
the YWCA-camp sample--star1ing, grackle, white-throated
sparrow, house wren, slate-colored junco, song sparrow,
cedar waxwing, and killdeer.

When asked "What species do you like or dislike?",
most people in the Detroit survey named those species common
to their neighborhoods. For example, the blue jay and the
sparrow were, in the same neighborhoods, listed in the top
five most—liked and top five most-disliked species. Howev-
er, when respondents were shown photos of alternative non-

local species, these species were often scored higher than

54

the "most-liked" species. The blue jay was named second—
most often as the "most-liked" species, but the photo of the
blue jay was only scored 15/30. The bluebird was only named
four times as "most-liked," but the photo of the bluebird
was scored 2/30. It appeared that most of the people sur-
veyed in Detroit were familiar with the names of few
species.

People who watched birds, hunted, or participated in
other outdoor activities scored ail_birds higher, on the
average. People with those outdoor interests or with some
outdoor education, whowed a much greater appreciation for
raptors and waterfowl.

Overall, the cardinal was the most-liked species.
The ring-necked pheasant, bluebird, and Baltimore oriole
were also highly preferred. The ruby-throated hummingbird
was ranked "High" only by the Detroit-survey sample. The
robin was not scored, but was named third most often as the
"most-liked" species in the Detroit survey.

The pigeon, starling, grackle, and crow were the
least-liked bird species. Drab-colored species, such as
sparrows, wenaalso in the least-liked species. Most re-
spondents in the Detroit survey scored the red-tailed hawk,
great horned owl, and herring gull "Low."

Preferences in mammals were highly variable. Of the
ten mammals used in testing, the black bear, and in some
groups the raccoon, were scored highest. The chipmunk was

the only species consistently scored "Low." This was

55
surprising since Dagg (1970) determined that the chipmunk
was the favorite mammal in his urban study area.

Variations in a reSpondent's familiarity with the
species shown in the photos affected the scoring process.
However, the only case of misidentification which introduced
an undesirable bias into the respondent's candid response
occurred when the photo was misleading in scale or perspec-
tive, and misrepresented the actual appearance of the ani-
mal in the wild. There were, however, many other weaknesses
in the testing method. Photographs cannot capture the full
range of sensory variables (such as sounds, smells, and
movements) included in a true esthetic appreciation of
animals.

In summary, some overall trends in attitudes toward
birds are indicated by the data. People who have little
zoological training exhibit some traditional prejudices to-
ward predatory birds and "evil-appearing" birds. One can
only speculate as to why black-colored birds are the least-
liked species by almost everyone. Are people really famil-
iar enough with crows and grackles to Sincerely dislike
their habits, do they find these birds sinister in appear-
ance, or are there other reasons? There are some people,
including this writer, who find the antics of crows and the
iridescence of grackles to be very pleasing traits.

It is difficult to find a common denominator for the
birds that people like the most. Based on the Detroit

survey, the closest description that comes to mind is that

56

these birds somehow appear "friendlier." Nondescript spe-
cies or species somehow appearing "aggressive" seem to be the
least-preferred. (It is recognized that terms like "friend-
ly" are subjective; these descriptions are based on impres-
sions gathered during this research.)

The children who were surveyed exhibited different,
perhaps healthier, attitudes towards wildlife than did
adults. They seemed to accept birds at "face-value." Their
only prejudices seemed to be for "pretty" or large Species
(e.g., owl, gull, hawk, ducks, and brightly-colored song-
birds). Perhaps they had no previous negative connotations
about the species to draw upon.

University students appeared to Show more sophisti-
cated attitudes towards wildlife, apparently indicating more
ecological awareness of the roles of various species in the
ecosystem. People in other samples who indicated strong
outdoor interests showed similar responses.

Conclusions from the summarized data in this report
cannot be extended to a general pOpulation. The increase in
the variances of the scores from the Student samples to the
more diverse Detroit—survey sample was marked; preferences
in more heterogeneous groups (such as the entire city of
Detroit) would probably be even more diverse. Preferences
toward animal species seem to depend on (1) background of
the respondent (e.g., urban, suburban, or rural home),

(2) education (e.g., knowledge of a raptor's role in the

ecosystem, and (3) previous experiences with animals. The

57
first two variables have fairly predictable influences on
the scoring of certain species; the third is too individual
to permit a predictive model for preferences toward most
species.

This report has dealt only with the question of what
species different groups of peOple would prefer to have
available to observe. Although providing no definitive
answers as to esthetic preferences of the "public," it does
provide some quantitative data as to preferences of those

samples of people who were interviewed.

, APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: MATERIALS USED IN SURVEYS ‘

58

SLIDE QUESTIONNAIRE

A set of 24 slides of birds will be shown.

You will be asked to rank each slide on a scale from
1 to 10 in a manner which indicates to you some measure
of value of the species shown.

It would help to picture your favorite bird as 10 points;
your least-favorite as 1 point. Ordinarily your re-
sponses should include the full range of numbers, from

1 to 10.

The standard of judgement you use will be up to you--it
might be based on esthetic appreciation, scarcity or
abundance, appeal as an element of hunting, personal
preferences, familiarity, or any combinations of
criteria.

It does not matter if you are not familiar with some of
the species shown.

Obviously, the individual slides will vary in photo-
graphic artistry. Please try to base your evaluation on
the birds shown, rather than on the quality of the
slides.

 

Figure A-l. Questionnaire used in the MSU-student survey.

59

BIRD-SLIDE RESPONSE SHEET

 

1. _____ 9. _____ 17. _____
2. _____ 10. _____ 18. _____
3. _____ ll. _____ 19. _____.
4. _____ 12. _____ 20. _____
5. _____ l3. _____ 21. _____.
6. ______ l4. _____ 22. _____
7. _____ 15. _____ 23. _____
8. _____ 16. _____ 24. _____
1. How many of the species shown could you have identified

by name?
a. Over 75% b. 50-75% c. 25-50% d. Less than 25%

How many of the species shown have you personally
observed in the wild?

a. Over 75% b. 50-75% c. 25-50% d. Less than 25%

Are you a hunter? Yes No

Are you a bird watcher? Yes No

Comments (use reverse side):

 

Figure A-2. Response sheet used in the MSU-student survey.

60

Michigan State University

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Natural Resources Building

East Lansing, Michigan 48823

Dear Sir:

Many people are making guesses about the way people feel to-
ward birds and other animals in the city - but we would like
to find out by asking them directly. We are presently con—
ducting a study at Michigan State University to determine
which animals can be found in the Detroit area, some of
their interrelationships, and the attitudes of people toward
them.

A student from the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at
Michigan State University will contact you within the next
few weeks. We would like to ask you to take 20 minutes of
your time to answer a few questions about your attitudes to-
ward the animals you see in your neighborhood and yard. We
will also use photographs of 20 selected animals in order to
determine which ones you enjoy seeing most. We are planning
to contact about 25 percent of the households in your immedi-
ate neighborhood; the information will be statistically com-
bined to give a total picture. Any information relating to
you as an individual will be held in strictest confidence,
and all data gathered will be limited solely to the present
study.

Thank you for your assistance.

 

 

Sincerely,
James R. Schinner Darrell L. Cauley
Graduate Assistant Graduate Assistant

 

wayne A. Schmidt
Graduate Assistant

 

Figure A-3. Introductory letter used in the Detroit survey.

61

Hello, I'm Jim Longley from Michigan State Univer-
sity. You recently received a letter from the Department
of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State which mentioned
that I would be stopping to see if you would be willing to
answer a few questions about the animals you see in the
neighborhood. We would appreciate it if you could spare
about 15 minutes to give me some of your opinions.

Survey questions asked here.

Thank you. Now I would like you to look at a set
of 10 bird photographs and then 10 animal photos. We're
trying to get an idea of what kind of wildlife you enjoy
seeing the most and which the least.

1. I'll show each set to you once and then I'll go
through them a second time when you will record your score.

2. What I would like you to do is to give each bird
a score from 1 to 10, depending on how much you enjoy, or
would enjoy, seeing the bird (or animal) shown.

3. 10 is the highest score, 1 is the lowest, but
use any score more than once if you choose.

4. First we will look at the birds, then the
animals.

 

Figure A—4. Introduction and instruction used in the
Detroit survey.

62

QUESTIONNAIRE

Questions noted by the interviewer:

1.

2.
3.

What is person's neighborhood and house code
number?

What is person's sex?

What is person's race?

Questions directed to respondent:

15.
16.

17.
18.

19.
20.

21.

What is your occupation?
Do you participate in outdoor activities such as hunt-
ing, fishing, camping, etc.?

‘Do you garden?

Do you use pesticides on your lawn or garden?

Do you have a cat that runs loose at least part of the
time?

Do you have a dog?

How many adults (16 years and older) are living at your
residence?

How many children (15 years and younger) are living at
your residence?

Do you feed the birds in your yard on a regular basis
during some season of the year?

Do you provide water for songbirds such as a birdbath or
garden pool?

a. Do you seek to attract birds to your yard by providing
nest boxes?

b. How many nest boxes do you have?

a. Do you ever watch the birds in your yard?

b. If so, how often? (Often, occasionally, rarely)

a. Do birds use any part of your house or garage for
nesting or roosting (resting, sleeping)?

b. If so, where do they nest?

c. Where do they roost?

a. Do birds nest in other areas of your yard?

b. If so, where?

Which birds do you enjoy seeing most?

Which birds do you least enjoy?

a. Do you actively discourage birds on your property?
b. If so, how?

c. Which ones do you discourage?

Do you generally like, dislike, or are you indifferent
to the birds in your yard?

 

Figure A-S. Questionnaire used in the Detroit survey.

63

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Code:
RESPONSE SHEET
BIRDS ANIMALS
l. ————_ 1.
2. 2.
3. f 3.
4. 4.
5 5.
6 6.
7. 7.
8. _‘ 8
9. 9.
10. 10.

 

 

Question A: How many of the 10 birds shown do you think
you could have named?

1-3 4-7 8-10

Question B: How many of the 10 animals shown do you think
you could have named?

1-3 4-7 8-10

 

Figure A-6. Response sheet used in the Detroit survey.

64

DETROIT WILDLIFE SURVEY

You may be interested in why we are collecting this
information. There are many questions about the way peOple
feel towards birds and animals in the city. We are trying
to find some answers by directly asking city dwellers how
they feel about the animals found in the Detroit area. This
study, being conducted at Michigan State University, is to
determine which animals are found in the urban area, some of
their interrelationships, and the attitudes of people towards
them.

In addition, we are striving to measure what value
people place on different species. Since most construction
projects are justified in terms of dollars and cents, wild-
life usually has a difficult time competing with such pro-
jects. It would be desirable to find a way to place an
economic value on various birds and animals. This survey is
a first step towards that end.

Thank you very much for your time and help.

Darrell Cauley
James Schinner
Wayne Schmidt
Graduate Assistants

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Michigan State University

 

Figure A-7. Letter left with respondents following the
Detroit-survey interviews.

65

ANSWER SHEET

(1) There are 24 birds and 10 mammals being shown on the
slides.

(2) Please give each bird or animal a score, from 1 to 10
points, depending on how much you would enjoy seeing it
in the wild.

(3) l is the lowest possible score, and 10 is the highest,
with 2 tHrough 9 being in-between.

(4) See how many of them you can name.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Slide Slide

No. Score Name No. Score Name
1. 18.

2_ l9.

3. 20. fif
4. 21.

5. ‘_ 22.

6. ‘i 23.

7. 24.

8. 25.

9. 26.

10. 27.

11. _L, 28.

12. 29.

13. 30.

14. 31.

15. 32.

16. 33.

17. 34.

 

 

Your age:

Under 15 15-30 Over 30

Where do you live:
Farm City (greater than 25,000 population
Other

 

 

Figure A-8. Response sheet used in the YWCA-camp and
County Fair surveys.

APPENDIX B: COMPUTER PROGRAMS

APPENDIX B: COMPUTER PROGRAMS

Program BIRD.--Program BIRD was designed to analyze

 

punched data from the MSU-student samples. The mean scores
derived for each bird species were statistically analyzed
in 13 subsamples (Table B—1) by a subroutine. A separate
subroutine tested for significant differences between se-
lected mean scores within each species. The statistical
tests used are described in Appendix C.

Referring to Table B-1, the left headings refer to
the subsamples being analyzed (see Fig. A—2 for the cor-
responding questions). The numerical columns correspond to:

= sample sizes, MEAN= computed mean scores, SD= standard
deviations of the means, VAR= variances of the means, C.L.
OF MEAN= 95 percent confidence intervals of the mean scores,
T and TT= computed "t" values, SIG DIF= whether significant
differences existed between the mean scores.

A separate subroutine printed out the list of bird
species in the descending order of mean scores for each of
the 13 subsamples. Overall mean scores for each of the 13
subsamples were also printed out.

Program LEVI.--Since the testing format differed

 

considerably in the Detroit survey, a separate program

(LEVI) was written to handle the more complex input data.

66

6'7

on
«OH

«v
«on

m.»
u.»

«on
«on

.-
.NN

oo~
.ou

.om
.o»

.uu
.-

you
.o~

.on

«oz
«oz

.Oz
«oz

«oz
«oz

.Ho o1»

can”
Noun“

Coo.
C.Cu

Now”
ooo"

>>

ooh.~n

Nee.“

«kn.~
zoo.“

«neon
Huo.~

»

~«.nv..~«.en.

on.~
anon
on.»
o~.n
no.”
HH.¢
H~ov
an.»
oo.n
om,»
mHov
on.»

zoo; no n4.u

...».n
..oo.~
fiCMOOfl
DOONoO
..o».«
..oo.«
..oH.~
..vH.~
..oH.~
..Ho.~
..m~.~
..wv.~

moo.»
How.
osn.
woo.
ova.
won.
«an.
eon.
can.
mvv.
can.
oov.
cow.

mm

moo.o«
coo.“
~oo.o
oNH.v
non.»
Hon.v
oH.n
oo.o
one.»
man.»
om~.v
mam.o
«mn.m

c<>

non“.
oo~ma
ono.~
«Hahn
noona
«Hou~
oocu~
~onu~
oenm~
omn-~
HoHuN
~mmuw
omnn~

on

24w:

mu «mozo oo
nuoon no
om.ms no

as ¢m>o moo

n~ «mozo .o.~
m~.on .O._

om.mH .o..

a» mm>o .O.»
mumzuea:.nm_m.zoz
mamxo»<3.oa_m
maw»2:x.zoz
mnmzzsz

mwaou o<~o~

. mozo<ao

nw

09.0.0.ovooefiocuvouowouoo4oo¢ooooooo+o¢oooaomouooooorouowooooooooo0006900600090...90900uw00c9000&900&ocoooooOoooaooooo

"oz
.Oz

«oz
«oz

.oz
«oz

CHO OH»

oo~.«
om."

~.ou
anon

ocnu
zoom

»»

~oa.n
~vo.~

~ou.»
noo.~

coo.“
coo.“

*

uo-muu.nu.n

oooo
~Hno
onoo

It‘floh
..mo.a
..Ho.~

oo.HH..oH.v

o~.o
Ho_o
o~.o
oH—o
naoo
Ho.o
Ho.o
oH.o

now: no ”4.0

..o..o
..no.o
...H.H
..on.k
..m..H
..no.~
..o..~
...o.s

Hon.
ooe.
com.
one.
now.»
eve.
ego.
eon.
Han.
HNv.
mov.
Hon.
com.

mon.

H»H.¢
”no.“
.HHo.¢
ooo.o
Hoe.“
moo.“
men.»
Hm...
~mo..
.om.o
one.»
oom.o

¢<>

Hos”

naau~
oonn~
odoun
ovouu
om~u~
oH¢u~
Hooua
noau~
m-u~
nonu~
“ooh“
~euu~

GiOHDF~GMDF~190

DOODOONCOQ
Kawwacnuauno("\

z<mx

.u

o.“
.Hm
.-
.o
.NH
.-
.ou
a.”
.zu
..n
.9”
..o

aw umoz: no
m~.on no
om.ne no

as amso moo
n~ gonzo .o.~
n~.om .O.H
omens coon

«A mm>c .O._
waw:u»<:.oa_mnzoz
momzup<xuocua
muwzzoz.zoz
mompzaz

«mozo Joeo»

.zocwx one

o9.9.9.004oowouuvouvuouoooo.oooooooooooooouooouooooarocoeocooooooorooooooooooocoa.o...o«weco0900900owocoooooooooeooooo

.omHm Emumoum mo mHthmCm HMUHHNHumun mo usouCHHm onEmm

.Hlm OHHME

68
In addition to performing the same statistical tests as BIRD
on selected survey questions (Table B—2), this program also
decoded the scores given in different combinations and per-
mutations to different species and matched them to the
proper species.

A sorting subroutine listed each of the bird spe-
cies and mammal species in descending orders of mean scores
and also printed the sample size, mean, standard deviation,
and variance for each species. Species names were coded by
"characteristics" to facilitate comparisons performed manu-
ally. The same sorted data were automatically punched onto
cards to be used in a separate program (SIGDIF) to test for
significant differences in the mean scores within each sub—
sample of bird or mammal scores.

Program SIGDIF.--SIGDIF was similar to subroutine

 

MEAN, which tested for significant differences of means in
program BIRD. SIGDIF performed a pair-wise test for signi-
nificant differences between means, using mean scores of 30
species (or less) from a sample or subsample (Table B-3).
EEQEFEE.XE§§;I'YWCA was similar to program BIRD. In
addition to the scores given each photo shown, the respond-
ents were asked to name each species in the YWCA survey.
Scores were rated L: l, 2, or 3; where L: 1 corresponded to
a wrong identification by the respondent of the species
shown, L= 2 corresponded to partial identification (collo-
quial or generic name; e.g., "redbird" for cardinal, "black-

bird" for starling, "squirrel" for fox squirrel), and L= 3

69

z x cm.» IIoH.o 0mm. omaoo OOH-n no.0 .ms out: an

x mm.o Ic~m.: :mo. nOH.HH ~nn.m rm.o .MH hen OH
OO.H .H nun am
2 OH.~ IIo~.m :~:. o-.a sno.m -.m .H: »u« boo oz
:H.c II-.0 «0:. mosouH mnw.» H~.~ .o: hog #30
> > > :~.o IICH.: :5”. «oh. “no. o~.m .m Gwyn—mu
z z mn.m IINN.m mom. Hsn.uH o~M.m mo.m .Nm muuwmmaox
. z Hn.o IIo:.m mun. mmo.o ~40.~ $0.0 .oH nMHHHsza
~O.o Inmm.m soc. NuHowH @c1.n ms.o .mn omgguvw
z Ho.o IImH.~ nn:.H somonH nnoon O:.@ .0 rcuxu:
1:.s IINH.0 osn. :Hm.o m3H.m Ho.o .no uaau
z mcos IIHH.0 mm:. 3-.m m:w.n Mm.m .:J wudrmu
bm.~ IIOm.m nm:. Hmo.OH o«w.m om.p om: want
2 p r 2 oo.~ IINm.~ Hoo. n~¢.~H m0m.n ogom .1H m team:
2 z z -.a IIOH.m own. smm.uH n:~.n o~.m .ON 3 vonmz
z z to.m IIon.o OAR. :HH.s sooow m~.n .NH n foam:
2 m~.o Ioo:.o 39m. onoos nes.~ no.s .:~ ~ foam:
Om.~ IIOu.: owe. an.@ wagon no.0 .mH H roam;
Nsos Iowo.o can. omq.uH noH.m m~.o .om puswnm 44b0p
on own on cum 24m: no .4.0 mm may am 24»: 7 «Wuaam xou H

60660666666666.000606666 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.90006000OOOOOOOOOOO606000OOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

.H>mH Emumoum mo mHthmCm HmoHumHumun mo uzouCHum mHmEmm .mIm anms

188.
“l

Low categor

ium-

h-Med

rats-dxse 75$! ran SlculflCllY ulcrenences OEYHEEN nelvscoavorts. MIND 816: DIFE.

Hig

Sample printout of SIGDIF, also showing

NO SPEC CHARA

VA'

MEAN N0

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOo..OOOOOOOOOQOOOOOO.OOO,OOOOOOO.OOOOO

ustnoxt vorAL sunvsv..axnos

60
65
33
06

CI.
0
O.

N

2
l
2

"N” .l‘

O C O O '0
n
o O O O O O
N
0...“....
N
FOO...- OOOO
(U

0.0...
N

“no.-.

N

...-......OO

)OO‘QDOOOOO.-.O.‘-C

)O OOOOIOOO IOOOOOOO.OOOOO

..OOOOCOOOO..'Q..O.1

70

O O O o O 0 O4
~OC-OOOOOOOOQ

......O 0.-.. O

---oond

54
3.80
07
3:05
7025

8
7

11

25
26
27
20
29
30

...-On O- O
- O o O 52
)“.“..at
Hui-222
222

.02

II22>>>

 

26.00.00...
N
Vic-coon. Oo-
N

NOOOOO

N

...-...

N

IIOIO-OOO-OIO
o O OO O O

QOOOOO
OI.

C...‘O-..“IQMOOCO~.
Como-alcoO-Ouo-OOOOOOOO
O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
...:OaOIooooocuO
O O O O O O O O O
O. Ouc-Oo-o OO
O O O O O O O O O
-o-O-.-O-O-¢-COOa
O O O O O O O O O O22
OO OO 0.222
O O OO 02222
--OOOOOOOOO~022222
O O O O O 02 22222
O OO 0.2222222
O O. 022222222
OOOO222222222

O O2222222>>2

O22 222222>>2

9.0.0-OOOOOOOO

.-....O...-z

OOOOOzz

....7’2

oOIOIOZZ22

0.22222

02222 22

2222222

2222222

2222222

2222222

2222222

22222>>

rzzzuhu

2222’)

$>>>>>
~Oa-O‘OO-O
)->)->->-)—
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
wwuuwu
>>>>>>
w>>>>>
P>>*>>

”fib-fi'»

 

22222))

zzrrrr

2222hh>

22222)‘

z>>>>>>

z>>—->-)->-

>>>>>>

*firfifi-

>>>>>

HNNPN

>>>>r

>>>>>>

 

hOOOOO
O4
COO-C-OO-I
Oi
[\OOOOO
V.
'C..-’
'4
”.0...
H
NOOOOOOOOOO
.4
IOIOOOOO
v.
aOoooo
GI
00....
QvOcOOOC
80.0-q
.....J
“0.00.1
'OOOOZ
MOOO22
“.022

7.80
9I14
9Io‘
0.80
B 67

60.
29.
2|.

3:
‘2
1““

2 CARD SCLNO
0R2 ' V0

2 BLUB SCLNO
3 “0“" SCLNO

4 PHEA LCLGC

2222222>>>>>

rzzzzz>>>>>>

HPrz'rO-OO-OO->J~>

 

 
  
    
  
      
     
 

2222>>2>>>>>

hQOOHNfl'IfiON
flflfldfifid
COOKODHNNNO‘
nwmuoonmvvv
---...--..--
OQOOBNNNNNK
DO... -.-.-.O
VTK'NO" 00000
OtOOOOOOQDO
507 2777777713
l)..J.J.J.J-J.J.12-JJ
UGDUCUDUDUU
.JJJUIUIVDW MUD—DWJ
.JWJUJGJOJOO-‘TQ
<00>444xnx20
“IO‘OWU-O <WQJO
OHIO! XUJCWQZ
OBOOOOONH'MOB
fldfldflddfl

  
   
    
  
   

z>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

12.
29.
36.
2:

10 SONG SDLNC

19 VELL SCLNO
DO-N SDLVO
HYSP SOLVO 24.
YFLV SDLIO 2|,
UREN SDLVO 24a

4 09L DLHP

N
N
a
a

>>>>>

>>p>>

>>>>>

 

NNNNI’I
cook”
“I? 0.0
C. C. -
«#3000»
... .- .
HNU‘GO.
0‘1”"
£000..
:‘77 22°
.tJJJJ-l
UOODOO
4.1404040.)
JXUKUI
J12§<O -
3(36—22
0159000
0600-
NNNNN”

71
corresponded to a correct species identification. Scores
were analyzed using subroutine STAT at the above three
levels, at L= 4 (L= 2 + L= 3), and at L: 5 (total group).
A sorting subroutine printed out the list of species by

"L" category in order of descending mean scores.

APPENDIX C: STATISTICAL TESTS

APPENDIX C: STATISTICAL TESTS

Sample Size.--Blank scores on a usable response

 

sheet were ignored in totaling the sample size for a parti-
cular category. A response sheet was discarded only if
less than half of the photos were scored by the respondent,
or if it was obvious that the respondent completely misun-
derstood the instructions (e.g., scores ranging from l-24
rather than 1-10). All responses in the Detroit survey
were usable. Approximately two percent of the response
sheets in other samples were unusable.

Mean Scores of each §pecies.--Mean scores were com-

 

puted by summing the usable scores for a species and divid-
ing by the apprOpriate number of scores.
Variance and Standard Deviation of the Mean Scores.-
-Variance for any mean score was computed by the equation:
:31in - ((iyi)2/n)
2_ 1:1 i=1

5 — (l)
n - l

l

 

2 . . . i
where s = variance, 5: standard dev1ation, y = score of

respondent "i," and n= sample size.

 

lAfter Mendenhall (1971:42).

72

73

Standard Error of the Mean.--Standard errors were

 

computed for calculation of confidence limits of the means.

The equation used was:

_ _§_, 1
sy— (2)

{H
where s§= standard error, 5: standard deviation, and n=
sample size.

Confidence limits of the Mean.--Confidence limits
were computed using the Student's t—test according to the
equation:

2

where CL: upper and lower confidence limits of the mean,
§= mean score, 2: "t" value, and 5;: standard error of the
mean.

Significant Difference Between Means.3--The null
hypothesis,}ll=ri2, where)11= pOpulation mean 1 andflz=
population mean 2, was tested using an approximate t-test to
determine whether there was a significant difference between
two means. The test was used to determine significant dif-
ferences between means of samples or subsamples within a
species category (e.g., the mean scores given a bluebird by

men and women), and also to test between species within a

 

lAfter Mendenhall (1971:42).
21bid, p. 185.
3After Blalock (1972: chapt. 13).

74
group (e.g., the scores given to a bluebird and a cardinal
by hunters).
A "t" value was determined for the combined means by

the equation:

TT= (Y1 ‘ Y2) ‘ (F1 ‘ H2{ (4)

A
S

 

where TT= computed "t" value, yl=and §2= sample mean scores,
F1 and P2: population mean scores, and S: estimated standard
deviation of the difference between the scores. Since the
null hypothesis assumed thattdl=f&2, the above equation
reduced to:

TT= (Y1 ' Y2) (5)

/S\ O

 

It was believed that it could not be assumed that the
standard deviation of population 1 equaled the standard devi-
ation of population 2, in most cases. Therefore, S'was
defined as:

A_ 2 )z (6)
5‘ (3":—I + *——'-‘

1 n2 '
2 2 .
where 51 =and 82 = sample variances, and n1 and n2: respec-
tive sample sizes.
The computed "t" values ("TT" in Table B-1) were
compared against the "t" values ("T" in Table B—1) in the

t-table at DF degrees of freedom where:

75
2 2

 

( S]. - $2 ‘2' (7)
DF_ nl - I n2 - l)
s. 1 2
(___£_I)2( ) + (__33__ 2 ___i_.
nl - nl + I n2 - 1) (n2 + 1)

All tests were made at the 90 percent level (alpha= 0.10)

APPENDIX D: TOWARDS AN ECONOMIC VALUATION OF WILDLIFE

APPENDIX D: TOWARDS AN ECONOMIC VALUATION OF WILDLIFE

INTRODUCTION

There is a myriad of factors involved in the quanti-
fication of the many benefits and costs of wildlife. Tying
all those factors together into a workable technique is a
formidable goal. It is the purpose of this report to try
and determine what work has already been done towards solving
this problem, and if, in fact, it even appears possible to
develop a comprehensive technique for the economic valuation

of wildlife.

76

METHODS

A comprehensive review of the literature was made to
determine what has been done towards quantifying the many
facets of wildlife values and also to determine attitudes
regarding the philosophy of quantifying intangible values.
Unfortunately, no single bibliography covers this diverse
topic; the literature cited in this report is the distil-
lation of a great many bibliographic sources.

All dollar values used in this report are updated
to February 1974, for purposes of comparison, using the
consumer price index ("all items" category; Economic Stat-

istics Bureau 1974).

77

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

wildlife Values and the Law

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

 

Environmental Impact Statements.--The requirements

 

of Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA) will not be dealt with at length here.
NEPA gives statutory cause of action for suit if a govern—
mental agency fails to make systematic analysis of potential
environmental damages or fails to consider plausible alter-
natives to the proposed actions (Curlin 1972:373). Unfor-
tunately, environmental impact statements are frequently
considered as just another bureaucratic hurdle, often done
at the completion of the planning process (1972:373), doing
little to satisfy the intent of NEPA. It has been noted
that the requirements of NEPA are often considered more pro-
cedural than substantive (Carter 1973:1208). As long as an
agency complies with the procedural requirements of NEPA,
its final decision cannot be challenged.

Many states, including Michigan, have requirements
similar to NEPA. Michigan Executive Directive 1971—10
directs all State governemtnal agencies to "review all
major activities within their jurisdiction to determine
their effects on the environment." The review must include

78

79
the probable impact on "human life or other ecological

systems such as wildlife, fish, and aquatic life...."

 

(emphasis added). The intent of the Directive is to make

environmental assessment a part of the decision-making

process in State agencies (Mich. Advisory Council for Envi—

ronmental Quality 1972). l

Benefit-cost Analyses.--In a benefit-cost analysis

 

(BCA), the physical benefits and costs of a project are

quantified and compared, usually in dollars. Obvious weak— J

 

nesses in such analyses include the difficulty of quantifying
many intangible costs and benefits (such as wildlife values)
and rejection of prOposals which do not pay their way in
terms of net economic efficiency.

Despite many inherent weaknesses, BCA has a long
history of use in economic decision-making in this country.
Recently the U.S. Citizens' Advisory Committee on Environ-
mental Quality (1972:54) recommended that BCA be applied to
a broad variety of programs and projects and be required
to show all social and environmental costs.

BCA has generally been a useful concept. Ciriancy-
Wantrup (1955:678) stated: "...The mere necessity of
quantifying makes benefit-cost analysis worthwhile because
of its stimulating effects in expanding scientific under-
standing of the physical as well as social problems involved
in public resource development." He concluded that BCA was
worthwhile in spite of all its shortcomings, including its

relatively small direct influence on the actual course of

80

events (1955:677).

Other Legal Requirements.-—The Fish and Wildlife

 

 

Coordination Act of 1958 was enacted "to provide that wild-

 

life conservation shall receive equal consideration and be
coordinated with other features of water—resource develop-
ment programs..." (16 USC 661). The Act requires that any
project submitted to Congress supporting a recommendation
for authorization of a new water use project include "...ag

estimation of the wildlife benefits or losses to be derived

 

therefrom..." (16 USC 662(f); emphasis added).

The Federal Water Project Act of 1965 requires that

 

in any Federal water resource project "...full consideration
shall be given to the opportunities, if any, which the pro-
ject affords for outdoor recreation and fish and wildlife
enhancement..." (16 USC 460L-12).

Many other laws relating to wildlife are summarized
in a U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife publication
(USBSFW 1973).

SOME LEGAL PRECEDENTS

 

A few examples of pertinent environmental litigation
will be mentioned to illustrate the extent to which the
courts have gone in extending protection to environmental
values.

In Calvert Cliffs1 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that

 

 

1Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee, Inc., v.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and U.S.A. (449 Fed. Rep.,
2nd ser. 1109 (D.C. Cir. Ct. 1971)). ‘

81

NEPA established environmental protection as an integral
part of the Atomic Energy Commission's (AEC) basic mandate,
and that the AEC must take the initiative of considering
environmental values (see 40 LW 2067-2068).

In Scenic Hudson1 the court observed that "...the

 

Federal Power Act seeks to protect non-economic as well as
economic interests..." and ruled that the Federal Power
Commission (FPC) had not seriously weighed esthetic consid-
erations or alternatives to the Storm King project. Although
the project was not blocked, the important point is that
conservationists were granted standing to sue even though no
economic injury was claimed (Carter 1973:1206, 1209).

In High Mountain Sheep2 the Supreme Court adopted
much the same sentiment towards the obligations of the FPC.
The court stated: "The importance of salmon and steelhead
in our outdoor life as well as in commerce is so great that
there certainly comes a time when their destruction might
necessitate a halt in so-called 'improvement' or 'develop-
ment'of waterways."

In Midland Nuclear Plant proceedings, Mapleton

 

Intervenors were critical of the proposed site for a nuclear
plant and cooling pond proposed by Consumers Power Company
(Holcomb 1972). Criticism was directed toward the lack of

cost estimates for lost wildife. Intervenors made their

 

1Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. FPC, 354
Eth 608 (C.A. 2, 1965), cert. den., 384 U.S. 94l(l965)).

2Udall v. ch, 387 vs 428 (1967)).

 

82

own population survey estimates, based largely on textbook
range maps, and concluded that due to loss of breeding habi-
tat of numerous species of wildlife, the cost in lost wild-
life would be over $1.0 million. Reaction to this estimate
was strong. Gysel (1972:8) stated:
The monetary values [they place] on each species is
meaningless. The use of replacement cost to measure
the loss of animals that no one will attempt to replace
and in most cases which no one will have any interest

in replacing is clearly unreasonable.

State fish and game laws have placed a de facto

 

value on certain species by penalties for illegally killing
birds and animals. In Michigan the minimum and maximum pen-
alties per animal killed are: $200-$300--elk and moose;
$100-$200--deer, bear, wild turkey, hawk, owl, and eagle;
$5-$lO--all other game animals, upland game birds, and

waterfowl (Michigan DNR 1972:159).

Approaches to Wildlife Valuation

The need for a technique of wildlife valuation is
evident, but only a limited amount of research has directly
attacked this issue due to the complexity of the problem.
Most proposed techniques have attempted to simulate a market
valuation of a recreational site or of a recreational com-
modity; most require interview or questionnaire data ob—
tained from the recreationist (Hammack 1969:10).

No practical method now exists for assigning values
to wildlife species or to individual numbers of wildlife,

either withrelative values, rank orderings, or dollar

83

values, except for certain game species in specific
locations.

Pot-luck Method.--According to Crutchfield (l967:3),

 

this method consists of

reaching deep into the hip pocket and pulling out a
value. If somebody doesn't like it, you pull one out
of another pocket.... You come out with a schedule of
daily values for hunting, fishing, camping, hiking....
This seems to rest on the assumption that where a num-
ber is needed a bad number is better than no number at
all. ‘

Social Account Method.--This method, suggested by

 

Davis and Bentley (1967), stOps short of value judgements
implicit in many benefit-cost analyses. The benefits and
costs which can be priced or enumerated are quantitatively
explained. Extra-market values are compared in the most
appropriate of four categories:
(1) Item capable of numerical description and enumera-
tion. (2) Consequence of alternative P , as numerically
or logically greater than (less than) tEe same item of
alternative P . (3) A consequence can logically be said
to have a positive, neutral, or negative effect with
respect to some standard. (4) Effect of consequence can
only be approximated or described by words (1967:616).
This approach does not seem to offer much over the system of
subjective value judgements regarding wildlife values pres-

ently being made in the decision-making process.

Cost Method.--This method assumes that the value of

 

outdoor recreation is equal to the cost of generating it, or
to a multiple of that cost (Trice and Wood 1958:199, Clawson
and Knetsch 1966:225-226). It is not applicable to wildlife.

Travel Costs Method.--This method uses the cost of

 

overcoming distance as a measure of what peOple would be

8M
willing to pay for the use of a particular kind of recrea—
tional facility. However, the value of a resource does not
necessarily increase with remoteness. User-oriented re—
sources, such as wildlife, may often be, in fact, more valu-
able when in close proximity to pOpulation centers.

Clawson Demand Curve Method.--This method uses trav-
el and related cost considerations as a proxy for market
transactions to establish a demand curve for particular
recreation sites (Clawson and Knetsch 1966).

This methodology concerns itself with the use of data
on the numbers and place of origin of park visitors to
construct a demand curve for a recreation area that
relates prices to quantity, of number of visits, and
uses this relationship to determine the economic worth
of the park area. Cost data is used as an indirect
means of determining appr0priate prices (Knetch 1963:
388).

The method of estimating the value of natural resources
used for outdoor recreation areas flows directly out of
the demand analysis... The relevant figure is the value
to the users which in turn depends upon the willingness
of the users to incur costs in order to enjoy the rec-
reational experience. Demand curves conceptually link
such willingness to pay with the estimated value of the
resource when used for this purpose (Clawson and Knetsch
1966:216).

This may be a useful method for estimating demand for
a particular recreational area; however, for determining the
relative values of specific wildlife resources, this approach
is limited. Much wildlife occurs in areas o£ nonrecreation-
al use,making it impossible to find a sample of users of the
area in question. And given alternative areas in which

wildlife values are to be compared, it would be impractical

to conduct surveys of sample-users of each area, due to the

8S

costs in time and money necessary for such surveys.

Gross Expenditure Method.—-This method attempts to

 

measure the value of a particular recreational activity by
the total amount of expenditures generated by that activity.
However, Trice and Wood (1958:200) commented: "Dollars
spent in pursuit of recreation appear to be more significant
as indicators of secondary benefits to the business communi-
ty than as measures of primary recreational benefits."

Hines (1958:366) stated: "The value of a resource and the
satisfactions derived from its employment may correspond
closely or widely to the aggregate expenditures incurred in
the use of the resource.”

Wallace (1952) endorsed the value framework of the
private market economy as a standard for appraising the ec-
onomic benefits to individuals and the community of wildlife
resources (also see Hines 1958:365). Wallace bases his
evaluation of wildlife resources soley upon market measures.

...Expenditures which members of society make in the
pursuit of wildlife as compared with the expenditures
made for other goods or resources represent the only
clear basis for comparing the contribution of each to
society's happiness and welfare (1952:1-2).
This approach is not sufficient for a complete valuation of
wildlife (Crutchfield l967:3); wildlife may possibly have

value with £2 expenditure present (Leopold 1966:214).

Market Value Method.--This method bases the value of

 

public goods on a comparison with the same or similar goods
offered at private areas. It is a possible approach to

wildlife valuation for certain species when these animals

86
can be related to prices paid to see or hunt them on private

areas. This approach is not a complete answer..

Market Value of Fish Method.--This is a method to

 

estimate the recreational benefits of sport fishing by com—
puting the commercial market value of fish caught (Clawson
and Knetsch 1966:225). It can also be used to estimate the
value of game by comparing the pounds of meat present with
market prices of similar domestic animals, the marketable
values of fur and hides, and so on. This method can only
compute a fraction of the true resource value.

Rank-ordering Method.--A1though not a method of

 

absolute measurement, this method does permit some sort of
objective comparison of similar alternatives. Preferences
toward intangible values, determined by interviews, can be
ranked on an ordinal scale. This method is being used to
determine techniques for quantifying scenic beauty. Pre-
dictive models have been developed on the basis of consumer
preferences for landscapes (Shafer et al. 1969, Shafer and
Mietz 1970, Rutherford and Shafer 1969). Another method
was described by Peterle (1961:263-264):

A measure of the relative hunting success of those
answering our questionnaire was obtained by assigning
values of one to five to each of the game species. A
one value was assigned to pheasants and rabbits; a two
to squirrel, raccoon, and woodchuck; a three to quail,
Hungarian partridge, and foxes; a four to grouse,
ducks, woodcock, and geese; and [a five to deer]....
According to our scoring system, raccoon, fox, and
woodchuck hunters killed more game than any other group
of hunters. Grouse, quail, and duck hunters had about
the lowest scores of the group.

87

Matrix’AnalysiS'Method.--This method has certain

 

merit in assessing environmental impact. The magnitude and
the importance of various interactions between proposed ac-
tions and the existing environment are separately rated on a
subjective scale from one to ten (Leopold et a1. 1971). The
final figures arrived at portray many value judgements
(1971:1); these figures can be no better than the individual
judgements comprising the total.

Subjective Rating Method.--This method uses the same

 

approach as the matrix method by assigning numerical values
to components of a specific valuation scheme. Using varying
degrees of objective guidelines to assist in that valuation,
a total numerical score is computed. Addy et a1. (1971)
have proposed this method to evaluate the impact of insects
on forests. Sargent (1966 and 1967) proposed a similar
method for scenery classification.

While not always completely objective, this method
can have value in that it generates workable techniques
which can be applied to immediate problems.

Direct Interview Method.--In this method a sample

 

survey is taken among users of a particular resource direct-
ly asking them what value they place on the recreational
experience.

The 'direct' techniques attempt to establish a demand
schedule by enquiring of the recreationists the most
they would be prepared to pay for access to the rec-
reation rather than be excluded. Alternatively they
might be asked to declare the minimum amount they would
have to be paid (bribed) to willingly abstain from the
recreation. It should be noted that these two different

88

kinds of questions would, if answered precisely, give
estimates of value which are both defensible on theo-
retical grounds, but they are unlikely to be equal
because they measure two different forms of consumer
surplus (Pearse 1968b:88).

Davis (1964) attempted to quantify the benefits of
big game hunting in Maine. He defined benefits as the sum
of the maximum prices which hunters would pay rather than
be deprived of hunting in the particular area studied.

Hammack (1969),,in studying the economics of mig-
ratory waterfowl, attempted to obtain an estimate of con—
sumer surplus in hunters by asking: "What is the smallest

amount you think you would take to give up your right to

hunt waterfowl for a season...?" and "About how much greater

 

do you think your costs would have had to have been before
you would have decided not to have gone hunting at all
during that season?" (1969:126-127).

A questionnaire survey of campers at New York State
campgrounds revealed that campers vary so much--not only
from campground to campground, but also at the same camp-
ground from month to month--that data from such studies
cannot be lumped together in any meaningful way (Shafer
1969). "The same type of variation found among campers in
this study probably exists also among fishermen, hunters,
skiers, and other types of recreationists who use a wide

variety of environments for their sport" (1969:27).

89

Previous Valuations of Wildlife

RECREATIONAL VALUES

 

Game Species.--Hunting and trapping perhaps come

 

the closest of any use of wildlife to supplying a market
value of the resource. The value of meat taken or of furs
trapped have obvious economic worth. Taken with expenditures
involved in the pursuit of such activities, figures at least
provide a starting point for wildlife valuation.
Edminster (1947:328) suggested a value of $2.00
($4.32)1 for a ruffed grouse brought to bag, but added,
...it may be contended that $2 is too low for the value
of a grouse. Well then, how much is a bird worth? If
one values a bagged grouse much over $2 he is placing a
gigh money value on the recreation enjoyed in pursuing
According to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild-
life (1972), in 1970 hunters spent over $2.1 billion in
pursuing their sport, averaging $10.52 ($12.80) for each
recreation day. The average annual expenditure per hunter
was $149 ($181): big game hunters--$122 ($148), small game
hunters--$81 ($99), and waterfowl hunter--$84 ($102).
This compares favorably with figures reported by
Wallace (1952:14-15). He reported that from the results of
a survey of license holders in the state of Washington, the
annual per capita expenditure was $88 ($157) for big game
hunters, $74 ($132) for small game hunters, and $60 ($107)

for waterfowl hunters. He also reported the results of an

Ohio survey (1947) which showed the Ohio hunter annually

 

1See p. 77.

90
spent $42 ($75) per capita.

In some isolated areas, especially in Canada, some
people still rely on game for an important supplement to
their income or for their livlihood.

In 1962-63 Canadian wild fur sales totalled more than
$12.1 [$18.7] million. Many Eskimos and Indians earn
their livlihood from fur trapping and they need wild-
life for food and clothing (Canadian Wildlife Service
1964:8).
Fur prices flucuate greatly from year to year, depending on
demand and the availability of quality pelts. Top prices
paid by one buyer in Michigan in the 1973-74 season (the
best in Michigan in 20 years) were: red fox--$35, muskrats-—

$3.85, raccoon--$1l.50, gray fox--$15, wild mink--$18, and

opposum--$l.50 (Michigan Out-of-Doors, Feb. 1974:20).

 

In most parts of the United States, including Michi-
gan, hunting is seldom an economical means for supplementing
food supplies. "The economic loss experienced when hunting
areas or wildlife habitats are [lost] is primarily the value
of the recreational hunting no longer possible" (Holbrook
l970:8). The value of meat obtained from hunting is usually
only a small bonus off-setting recreational costs of hunting
(Miller and Powell 1942:12).

Pearse (1968b) studied the economic value of non-
resident big game hunting in the east Kootenay in British
Columbia. He computed the net economic gain to the province
and the private profits of guiding. Both were found to be
"surprisingly low," amounting to an annual profit of only

$202 ($308) for the 54 guides involved, with a net worth to

91
the province in 1964 of $66,152 ($100,756). He found that
the average hunter in 1964 spent $590 ($899) per hunter
visit including an average guide fee of $389 ($592). Pearse
noted that his analysis was not suitable for a rigorous
benefit-cost analysis because certain intangible costs and
benefits were not recognized in his study (19683:110).

Holbrook (1970) tried to determine the economic value
of natural areas for recreational hunting in Kentucky. His
computations were based on such variables as the propensity
of persons to hunt a particular game species based on survey
data, population of and distance to population centers
within 160 miles, and size of the area in question. From
his formulation, he arrived at some dollar values for game
species. For the particular 7.97 square-mile area he
applied his model to, he computed an average economic value
of $1.70 ($2.71) per hunter-day, and the average annual
grand total hunting value over the project life in 1960
dollars of $2440 ($3892) (1970:121).

Holbrook computed average economic value per hunt-
er per square-mile per year and the highest values by county
he arrived at were: fox and gray squirrels--$2.58 ($4.11),
rabbit--$2.88 ($4.59), bobwhite--$3.31 ($5.28), "farm menace"
(groundhog, crow, raccoon, fox)--$1.72 ($2.74), deer--$7.45
($11.88), and waterfowl (ducks, coot, geese)--$l.72 ($2.74).
These figures are based on survey data indicative of atti-
tudes and preferences of Kentucky resident hunters and are

not directly applicable to Michigan or any other state;

92
nevertheless, they do provide an insight as to the general
value of recreational hunting lands for various game species.

Hammack (1969) concluded that the marginal net
economic value of waterfowl was positive under certain cir-
cumstances. He found that the average amount waterfowl
hunters would hypothetically have sold their hunting rights
for a season (1967) for was $1044 ($1477). (This does not
include 12.4 percent who said they would not sell their
right to hunt at any price, and 1.4 percent who nameia very
high figure such as $1 million.) When asked what minimum
costs would have had to have risen before the individual
would have decided not to have gone hunting at all during
the season, assuming hunting conditions remained unchanged,
the mean amount was $247 ($350). Using a multiple linear
regression analysis on data collected from questionnaires,
Hammack calculated a value of $3.29 ($4.65) as a "first
approximation of the marginal value of a waterfowl to the
hunter, and hence as an approximation of a 'market purchase
price'" (1969:59). (See also Brown and Hammack 1973).

The expensive program of pothole preservation for
waterfowl on this continent is tied directly to waterfowl
hunters. Crissey (1969:171) believes that this program
merely supports a large harvestable surplus and that even
if the numbers of potholes on the continent were reduced by
75-80 percent, no species of waterfowl in North America
would be reduced to the endangered level, although popula-

tions would be lowered. If the objective was producing and

93

distributing a waterfowl pOpulation to supply nonconsumptive
users, it would not be necessary to spend millions of dol-
lars preserving pothole habitat, in Crissey's opinion.

Non-game Species.--What are the recreational values

 

of species of wildlife which are not harvested and of which
the approximation of a market value is even more difficult
than with harvestable game species? Trends in participation
in nonconsumatory wildlife activities, such as bird watching,
are increasing at a more rapid rate than national pOpulation
growth (Naiional Research Council 1963:19). Membership in
the National Audubon Society has grown faster than the sale
of hunting and fishing licenses in the past decade (Leonard
1965:424). Although hunting has historically been an ex-
tremely important activity both as a pastime and as a means
of obtaining food, its future does not appear promising.
Hunting is one of the very few outdoor recreational activi-
ties involving wildlife in which projections of future use
decline both in relative and absolute numbers (Ciccheti et
a1. 1965:207-208). Participation in small game hunting in
Michigan has declined significantly over the past few years
(Manthy and Tucker 1972:10). (This does not take into
account the introduction of put-take pheasant hunting in
Michigan in the last two years.) According to the Canadian
Wildlife Service (l964:8):

The economic value of Canada's wildlife resources in

relation to other recreations such as photography, nature

study, and casual sight seeing is difficult to estimate,

but it probably exceeds that of fishing and hunting. For
thousands of people it is a rare privelege to observe a

9”

wild animal in its natural surroundings and preserve that
memory on film. Interest in wildlife for its beauty and
grace and novelty alone is growing and is a factor that
cannot be dismissed in any assessment of wildlife's value
to our economy.

Unfortunately, no one has attempted a rigorous economic an-
alysis of the values of non-game species.

OTHER VALUES

 

Endangered Species.--Benefit-cost analyses discus-

 

sing acceptable damage levels and avoidance costs are not
very appr0priate regarding endangered species. A marginal
trade-off analysis cannot be used to decide on the survival
or extinction of rare Species. Society has recognized the
special importance of endangered species, as evidenced by

certain protective legislation (e.g., the Endangered Species

 

Conservation Act of 1969 (16 USC 668aa gt seq.)).

The Kirtland's warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii) is an

 

example in which great expense is being incurred to protect
a species with no direct market value. Over 7600 acres of
state forest land were set aside in Michigan as a preserve
in 1955, where forest management practices would be directed
primarily at maintaining ideal nesting habitat. Another
4000 acres were added by the U.S. Forest Service in 1962
(Leonard 1965:424).

The National Research Council (1963:19) cited the
example of the large number of tourists who travel to Texas

each year to see wh00ping cranes (Grus americana). They

 

note the importance of wildlife as a component of tourism

as a major attraction on many areas, such as Everglades and

95

Yellowstone National Parks- Wildlife is the raison d'étre
for some parks such as Point Pelee National Park in Canada.
Much of the attraction stems from the presence of rare or
endangered species found in these parks.

For some endangered species, such as the California
condor (Gymnogyps californianus), tourism cannot be used as
an economic justification for their continued maintenance.
The condor exists in such delicate balance with its environ-
ment, that

perhaps no amount of money spent on avoidance costs can
bring the level of pollutants low enough to preserve the
condor, given the concentration effects in the food
chain where small parts of toxicity become lethal dos-
ages through successive species ingestion.

The growth of the condor depend more upon some general
feeling about the quality of life, some emotional feel-
ing that Schweitzer called a reverence for life, or some
intellectual perception that diversity, comprehensive-
ness, or elegance of design, in man or nature, is inex-
tricably bound to the quality of life.... The decision
process governing life and death issues...is not deter-
mined in market places, real or simulated, but socially
and politically (Edmunds and Letey 1973:335-336).

Predatory species and bounties.--The Michigan Dept.
of Natural Resources (DNR) recommended in 1971 complete re-
moval of the bounty system of predator control (Arnold 1971).
The USBSFW (1967:11) has also expressed opposition to any
bounty system. The DNR report stated that the animals on
which bounties were paid have never caused shortages of any
game species in Michgian. Predators, especially foxes and
bobcats, are an excellent recreational asset in their own
right. Arnold stated that since 1935 Michigan has paid out

$4,470,365 in bounties on 624,080 animals (wolves, coyotes,

96

bobcats, and foxes). Michigan still has a coyote bounty
program which in 1970 cost the state $52,945 for 3,021 dead
coyotes.

These figures cannot be used as accurate estimates
of predator damages, since, as Bachmura (1971:689) comment-
ed, many species-preserving costs are overstated, especially
regarding the costs of predation upon domestic livestock
"without calculation of esthetic and educational benefits
nor for allowance for the economic contribution they make by
managing species stocks of their prey." There is much senti-
ment today for the preservation of all predators, especially
all birds of prey (National Research Council 1970:260).

Wildlife, Agriculture, and Forestry.--Wildlife's im-
pact on the cultural activities of agriculture and forestry
is part of a complex ecologial interrelationship. Even the
monoculture as generally practiced in this country is still
dependent on a host of natural complexities. Taylor (1935)
discussed the appreciable influence of animals on soils in
general.

Although it is impossible to assess accurately the
role that wildlife plays in control of insects and small
mammals which damage crops, that role must certainly be
considerable.

The coyote preys on the field mouse and the extent of
his control is only being properly appreciated now that
he has been killed off in western agricultural areas

by an extensive poisoning program. Birds feed on a
great many insects that harm agricultural production and

damage and kill commercial timber stands and shade
trees (Canadian Wildlife Service 1964:8).

97

Many of the beneficial effects of wildlife may, how-
ever, have historically been grossly overestimated. For
example, Hornaday (1913:213) made the following statement:

In view of the known value of the remaining trees in
our country, each woodpecker in the United States is
worth $20 in cash. Each nuthatch, creeper, and Chicka-
dee is worth from $5 to $10, according to local cir-
cumstances...
(Twenty dollars of 1913 buying power would be about $95 in
1974 dollars.)

A rather famous bit of folklore concerns the purple
martin which supposedly eats several thousand mosquitoes per
day: hence, its desirability around homes. Kale (1968:659-
660) found that mosquitoes are a neglible item in the diet
of the purple martin. He stated that there is no evidence
that any single bird species can control any insect Species
when that insect is near its peak abundance. He added that
the esthetic qualities alone should recommend the purple
martin as a valuable species to man.

Birds and mammals do, of course, reach pest prOpor—
tions and cause considerable damage to some crops. Millions
of dollars are lost annually from bird depredations, especi-
ally from blackbirds on the southern rice crOp (Meanley 1971:
42). Rabbits can cause severe damage to orchards by gir-
dling trees. These are only two of a multitude of examples.

Meadow mice and similar small mammals are the most
destructive animals on the average farm. Allen (1949:18)

discussed a grazing experiment in a Michigan hay meadow. In

a fenced-in area where meadow mice were protected from

98

skunk predation, mice consumed more hay inside the enclosure
than the flock of sheep grazing outside. He also reported
that mice took almost half of a corn crop left standing over
the winter in the shock.

To at least partially offset such destructive traits,
small mammals may be a potent force in controlling any undue
increase in insects in a forest environment. Hamilton and
Cook (1940:470) found that with an assumed population of 100
small mammals of the six most constant species per acre,
those mammals would consume 266 pounds of insects per year.
They concluded that the role of small mammals in controlling
forest insects has been underestimated and that mice and
shrews, especially, are valuable in working the soil and
destroying the larval and pupal stages of many insects. In
addition they act as food for valuable fur-bearers and as
buffer species for valuable game birds and mammals.

The role of reptiles and amphibians in the forest
community is probably much less significant than mammals.
Birds and mammals operating on a homiothermic budget are
potentially heavy forest-insect predators. Reptiles and
amphibians, on the other hand, operate on a relatively
meager metabolic budget so the potential consumption per
predator is not likely to be high (Buckner 1966:449). Am-
phibians and reptiles do, however, play an ecological role
in the food-chain.

Bolle and Taber (1962) discussed the problem of the

loss of game habitat for hunting, emphasizing the growing

99
dichotomy between the business unit and the household unit
on the farm.
[Even] if every hunter asked permission, closed gates,
cleaned up trash, avoided frightening livestock and
gave the landowner a nice Christmas present, wildlife
habitat would continue to dwindle as the landowner im-
proved his economic position (with government help) by
making his fields larger, filling brushy draws, clean-
ing up his fencerows, silting or draining his potholes
and straightening his stream channels (1962:260).
Today the trends in agriculture often make it necessary to
subsidize farmers to get them to raise forests or wildlife
(Leopold 1966:293). Apparently, few American farmers find
pleasure in, or economic incentive for, wildlife husbandry.

Other Wildlife Costs.—-There are, of course, many

 

other costs which must be attributed to wildlife, especially
with vermin species such as Norway rats, house mice, pi-
geons, starlings, and house sparrows. Many common species
are potential transmitters of wildlife-born diseases (e.g.,
rabies and tularemia). Not readily apparent are the prob-
lems associated with some innocuous species which become
pests in certain situations or under unusually large con-
centrations. Concentrations of blackbirds during the winter
of 1973-74 were severe enough to have parts of Kentucky

placed in a state of emergency (Detroit Free Press, Feb. 15,

 

1974:10-A). The USBSFW (1967:2) recognized that whether an
animal can be categorized as either beneficial or injurious
depends not on the species but upon the circumstances at a
given time and place. The hazards that birds pose to modern

aircraft, for example, are well documented (Graham 1972).

100

Wildlife and the Planning Process

INCOMMENSURABLES AND ECONOMIC VALUE

 

Most of the techniques described in this report
which approach the problem of wildlife valuation attempt to
simulate an economic market valuation in one way or another.
But what constitutes economic value in our society? When
can an item be priced with a market value? How can wild-
life, normally considered an incommensurable, be included
in any kind of economic analysis?

Lacking a common unit of measurement, incommensur-
ables cannot normally be compared. Hardin (1968) discussed
the problem of maximizing "good per person" and asked:

But what is good? To one person it is wilderness, to
another it is ski lodges for thousands. To one it is
estuaries to nourish ducks for hunters to shoot; to
another it is factory land. Comparing one good with
another is, we usually say, impossible because goods
are incommensurable (1968:1244).

Barlow (1972:309) defined economic value as "a sub-
jective concept that is dependent on the desire of people
to possess and use property objects and upon their ability
and willingness to offer money or other considerations in
exchange for the privilege of ownership or possession."
Economic worth does not necessarily imply any commercializa-
tion of the good in question, but rather a measure of what
the consumer has been willing to give up in choosing to
purchase or use a particular item (Clawson and Knetsch 1966:

214-215).

Economic value implies scarcity of the item in

101

question. Scarcity is a relative concept which implies that
the quantity demanded is more than would be supplied at zero
price (Davidson 1967:125). With wildlife, an animal may be

scarce in an absolute sense, as for example, the Kirtland's

warbler, or scarce in a relative sense, as for example, the

timber wolf, which is scarce in Michigan but common in some

places.

Economic value implies utility, but such is not
necessarily the case (Barlow 1972:310). What is the utility
of the timber wolf in Michigan or the California condor in
California? These species serve very little tangible func-
tion, and yet as evidenced by the resources devoted to many
endangered species such as these, very great economic value
is imputed to them.

The economic value of an item can be considered to
be measurable by market values when it has an acceptable
market price set under market conditions approximating the
results of perfect competition. Goods or services of this
type have dollar prices that are considered socially accept-
able as guides for policy decisions (Davis and Bentley 1967:
613). However, wildlife has been traditionally treated as a
free good, especially on public lands, so perfect market
competition does not exist (Pearse 1968a:87). According to
the National Research Council (1970:47):

A prOper judgement of values or a choice among resource
allocations must rest on a broader expertise than that
of market economics. It must recognize the social and

behavioral needs of man—-parameters not adequately
represented, for example, in the gross national product.

102
At such a point we define goods as having extra-market val-
ues--"those values for which no acceptable market price ex-
ists. Such values can be expressed numerically or verbally,
but not in monetary terms" (Davis and Bentley 1967:613).

WILDLIFE, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS! AND DECISION-MAKING

 

There are some who believe that because of the far-
reaching significance and importance of wildlife to our
society it should be given an assumed priority over more
materialistic claims on competing resources (National Re-
search Council l970:259). Looking at our history of re-
source allocation to date, with the failure of the present
system of economic analysis of resources, such sentiment is
understandable.

We must be willing to stand up and assert that there are
some things which we as a nation want, but which in
purely economic terms would be described as valueless or
sheer luxury. To preserve such values it may be nec-
essary to decide a-priori that we want them and assign
to them high priority without attempting to put a price
tag on the benefit received. If we want a particular
canyon, a rare species of bird, or a particular valley
preserved because of its scenic beauty when threatened
by some other use, strictly economic comparisons will
seldom result in its preservation. The reason for this
is that we have not found, and in my opinion we should
stOp looking for, ways of placing dollar values on
scenery, on recreation, and on that intangible mental
well-being which we associate with beauty... (Luna D.
Leopold, "Water and the Conservation Movement," an
address (1957), in Barnett and Morse (l963:28-29)).

Expressing a similar attitude, Dana (1951:37-38)
stated:

I don't think there is any possibility of developing an
economic formula that will be satisfactory from our
point of view and I think we are lost if we accept a
challenge to do it. We have to justify what we want in
this field on other grounds, the same as we develop

103

public archives, museums, or art galleries that have
values beyond their economic significance. Unless we
take that position and put it on that ground, I think
we will be lost. The economist is the only one who
determines what we do with our land and resources in
general, and I think we are fighting a losing battle.

If the only place we want to observe wildlife is in
"ecological archives" then such an attitude may be accept-
able. But has been emphasized in this report, wildlife has
to compete with other uses of valuable resources at every
turn, on almost every major construction project. Resource
allocation decisions will be made with or without an ac-
ceptable method for the quantitative evaluation of wildlife,
often to the detriment of our wildlife resources. Ciriancy—

Wantrup (1955:680) stated:

Whether the economist likes it or not, evaluation of
[extra-market values] (and also dismissal of such evalu-
ation) is already a part of the political process....
One may have professional doubts about some of the pro-
cedures used. Still, these attempts should be encour—
aged. Otherwise, the arguments of well-organized

groups interested in market values alone, who dismiss
these resources as 'intangible,’ might receive dispro-
portionate attention in policy decision.

No resource taken in an individual sense in price-
less. Someone will put a price tag on any resource while
environmentalists and ecologist argue about the ethics of
such as approach. Davis (1963:241) observed:

No goods are priceless in the sense of having an indi—
vidual price. There is a limit individually and col-

lectively [as] to how much real and personal wealth we
would sacrifice to obtain any recreational experience

or preserve any scenic resource.

A superior decision-making or policy-formation pro-

cess is one in which the infusion of value judgementsinto

10H

the analysis is minimized (Davis and Bentley 1967:614), but
there is obviously no way in which those value judgements
can be entirely eliminated. The complexities of such mana-
gerial problem-solving decisions can never become totally
objective. Those vital decisions will ultimately depend on
public values and their expression in the political system
(Train 1972:121).

Economic analyses, such as benefit-cost analysis,
will never be precision tools for obtaining general economic
efficiency.

In the last analysis, the responsibility for decisions
must not, because it prOperly cannot, be shifted from
the administrator dealing with the individual case to

a departmental economist operating a prescribed formula.
In a country where mistrust of government is rife, the
temptation to substitute supposedly impersonal calcula-
tion for personal, responsible decision and to rely on
the expert rather than size up the situation by oneself,
cannot but be exceedingly strong; in a country where
experts abound, there will always be plenty who will
advocate that course.... One must never forget that
though pure economics is a matter of logic, applied
economics is a matter of informed common sense (Hammond
1966:221—222).

The problem at hand is to minimize value judgements
in the best way possible. Even a rough method of quantify—
ing wildlife values would be a step in that direction, for
in the end, the only substitute for informed value judge-

ments in the evaluation of public goods is uninformed value

judgements (Davidson 1967:154).

RECOMMENDAT IONS AND CONCLUS IONS

A Suggested Proposal for Quantifying
Relative Values of Wildlife Resources

A suggested prOposal for a technique to quantify
relative values of wildlife resources is presented in this
section in outline form. It incorporates ideas discussed in
this report regarding human attitudes towards, and the many
values of, wildlife. It is offered only as a starting point
to generate further discussion and refinements towards a
workable technique.

Requirements of the technique.A technique which can

 

be used to quantify relative values of wildlife resources,
in terms suitable for environmental impact statements, must
meet the following requirements:

1) It must permit objective systematic comparisons
of the wildlife resources on alternative sites.

2) It must be reasonably inexpensive to execute in
terms of time and money.

3) It must not require exact wildlife p0pu1ation
censuses (since exact census figures are usually impossible
to determine, especially for mammals, reptiles, and amphibi-
ans). A species list and a fairly good estimate of the
abundance levels of species would be needed.

4) It should yield a single numerical value for
total wildife resources on the site.

105

106

The final value should:
5) Be specific to the site in question.

6) Be directly comparable to other values of that
site.

7) Be based primarily, but not exclusively, on
consumer preferences towards that wildlife.

8) Reflect primary benefits and costs to the pub-
lic, including values for which no expenditures are made.

9) Account for levels of relative and absolute
scarcity and/or abundance of different species.

10) Account for the variations in the general eco-
logical quality at different sites.

11) Be in terms of some standard unit of time (e.g.,
dollars per year).

12) Be reasonable in amount (if in dollar units),
and subject to justification.

Proposed Technique.--The following is a general out-

 

line of a possible technique that is prOposed could meet
most of the above requirements. It is patterned after an
experimental-rating scheme for insect damage to forests
proposed by Addy et a1. (1971). It would incorporate the
multiple values of wildlife discussed in this report,
including preferences towards species by consumers. It
would recoqnize that wildlife has positive as well as nega-
tive values. It would not, however, permit a valuation in
dollar terms. The final value would have no absolute
meaning; it would be useful only as a comparative value
relative to other sites.

A separate value is computed for each species found

on the site. The final index value for the site is the sum

107

of those values. Each Species can obtain a total of up to
500 points, made up of five subtotals, each with a possible
100 points. These five subtotals are based on (1) abundance
levels of the species, (2) esthetic or intangible values of
the species, (3) ecological value of the species, (4) rec-
reation values of the species, and (5) tha habitat suitar
bility of the site for the species.

Each of these five categories are discussed below.
Questions which would have to be considered for each cate-
gory are suggested. Each answer would correspond to a cer—
tain numerical value. The 100 points making up each cate-
gory would be some function of those scores. The answers
are listed in a proposed order of decreasing value, but no
attempt is made to place values on the various suggested
answers. No attempt is made to define the mathematical
function (e.g., some combination of summation and/or pro—
ducts of the answers). The questions and answers are of-
fered only to suggest an approach to designing a workable
technique.

I. Abundance Levels

1. On a continental scale, this species is considered:

Ans: endangered,1 rare, uncommon, common, abundant

2. This Species is predominately a:

Ans: permanent resident, summer resident, transient,
winter visitant

 

1This technique of evaluation is not really appli—
cable to endangered species (see Endangered Species, pp. 9”—
95).

 

3.

108

On site (and in season) this species is considered:

Ans: rare, uncommon, common, abundant

II. Intangible Values

4.

III.

6.

This species has esthetic value (according to
methods proposed in this report):

Ans: High, Medium, Low
Other intangible characteristics of this species

(such as behavioral traits, songs, etc.) have
value:

Ans: High, Medium, Low

Ecological Values

On the site, or on surrounding areas, this species

is:

Ans: rarely offensive to humans in any way; repug-
nant because of habit; is occaasionally offen-
sive, as during p0pu1ation outbreaks; causes
noticable economic damage; causes considerable
widespread economic damage

As a predator, the potential economic impact1 on its
prey species is:

Ans: positive, neutral, does not apply, negative

AS a prey Species, this species:

Ans: is an important source of food for desirable
predators; acts as an important buffer spe-
cies for more valuable prey species; has
neutral value; does not apply

IV. Recreation Values

9.

10.

Hunting pressure on this species on the site, or on
surrounding areas, is:

Ans: extremely heavy, heavy, average, light,
negligible, not hunted

What is the degree of special local appeal above a
statewide "norm" that this species has:

 

lNegative: destroys desirable Species; Positive:

destroys undesirable species.

109

Ans: high degree above average, somewhat above
average, average, somewhat below average, much
below average

11. The importance of this species as an element of non-
consumptive recreation is:

Ans: extremely important, very important, impor-
tant, of little importance, of no importance,
a hinderance

V. Habitat Suitability

12. How many acres of habitat suitable for nesting by
this species are on the site:

Ans: number of acres

Research Needs

This techniques is prOposed only as a very general
outline of a possible approach to the quantification of
wildlife values. It suggests the many topics for continued
research which are needed.

I. Abundance Levels

1) How does the scarcity or abundance of a species
affect its desirability to the consumer? Are rare species
intrinsically more desirable?

2) How do you obtain accurate estimates of mammal,
reptile, and amphibian populations on a site?

II. Intangible Values

3) Which consumer groups should be used in applying
the High, Medium, or Low rankings (according to the methods
proposed in this report) to Species (i.e., those people who
actually use the site or a more general population)?

4) What is a measure of the intangible values of
animals, other than the appearance of the species (e.g.,
behavior, bird song,-etc.), and how can that value be
determined?

5) What is the nature of the characteristics of
people which cause high variances in attitudes towards
various species (e.g., age, education, etc.)?

110

III. Ecological Values

6) What roles do different species play in the food
chain? What is the effect of the loss of species on the
food chain?

7) How does the loss of breeding habitat effect
different animals; do they displace to other, perhaps mar-
ginal, habitats, or are these animals lost to the breeding
p0pu1ation?

IV. Recreational Values

8) How important are different species to non-con-
sumptive forms of recreation, such as hiking, bird watching,
snow-mobiling, etc.?

V. Habitat Suitability

9) IS it possible to predict the reprocuctive po-
tential of Species given only the habitat types?

VI. General Considerations

10) What is the effect of different types of devel-
Opments on different wildlife species?

11) How can the impact on wildlife species be mini-
mized in development projects?

Conclusions

It is my conclusion that it is not possible to
develOp a method of quantification of wildlife values,
either in numerical or dollar terms, at this time. There
are too many factors which are unquantifiable with our
present knowledge of the role various species play in the
ecosystem and in recreational activities.

It Should be possible to eventually develop a work-
able model, such as the method outlined above, which will
permit systematic objective comparisons of the wildlife

values on various sites. Such a method will require much

111

more research into the areas suggested above. Research into
the hazy field of consumer preferences of intangible values
does force us to deal directly with the questions: "What
wildlife species are we going to save, why are we saving
them, how large a population do we need to save, and who are
we saving them for?"

Although a complete method of economic analysis,
which produces results suitable for rigorous benefit-cost
analysis, may never be possible, research efforts in that
direction are certain to aid in the decision-making process
regarding resource allocations. Problems in decision-making
can arise, however, when too much faith is placed on quanti-
fication based on unrefined techniques or based only on
experimental research (such as this report). Administrators
should not look for objective "equations" to solve questions
of resource allocations where no such equations exist.
However, any quantification of the values of wildlife spe-
cies is useful as an additional tool which can be used to
make what are essentially political decisions about resource

allocations.

LITERATURE CITED

LITERATURE CITED

Addy, N.D., H.O. Batzer, W.J. Mattson, and W.E. Miller.
1971. Impact of insects on multiple—use values of
north-central forests: an experimental rating
scheme. N. Cent. Forest Exp. Sta., St. Paul, Minn.
(USDA Forest Serv. Res. Pap. NC-57J 8pp.

Allen, D.L. 19H9. The farmer and wildlife. Wildlife
Management Institute, Washington, D.C. Bupp.

Arnold, D.A. 1971. The Michigan bounty system. Mich. DNR
Wildl. Div. Info. Cir. No. 162. 3pp.

Bachmura, R.T. 1971. The economics of vanishing species.
Nat. Res. J. 11(H):67H-692.

Barlow, R. 1972. Land resource economics, the economics
of real property, 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 616pp.

Barnett, H.J., and C. Morse. 1963. Scarcity and growth.
The John Hopkins Press, Baltimore. 288pp.

Blalock, H.M. 1972. Social statistics, 2nd ed. McGraw-
Hill, New York. 583pp.

Bolle, A.W., and R.D. Taber. 1962. Economic aspects of
wildlife abundance on private lands. Trans. N. Am.
Wildl. and Nat. Resources Conf. 27:255-267.

Brown, G.M., Jr., and J. Hammack. 1973. A preliminary
investigation of the economics of migratory water-
fowl. Pages 171-20M in J.V. Krutilla, ed. Natural
environments: studies in theoretical and applied
analysis. Resources for the Future by the John
Hopkins Press, Baltimore.

Buckner, C.H. 1966. The role of vertebrate predators in

the biological control of forest insects. Ann. Rev.
Entomol. 11:uug-u70.

112

113

Burt, W.H. 1972. Mammals of the Great Lakes region. The
Univ. of Mich. Press, Ann Arbor. 2H6pp.

Canadian Wildlife Service. 196”. Wildlife in man's world.
9pp.

Carter, L.J. 1973. Environmental law (I): maturing field

for lawyers and scientists. Science 179(4079):
1205-1209.

Cicchetti, C.J. 1973. A multivariate statistical analysis
of wilderness users in the United States. Pages
142-170 in J.V. Krutilla, ed. Natural environments:
studies 13 theoretical and applied analysis.
Resources for the Future by the John Hopkins Press,
Baltimore.

Cicchetti, C.J., J.H. Seneca, and P. Davidson. 1969. The
demand and supply of outdoor recreation. Bur. of
Economic Research, Rutgers-~The State Univ., New
Brunswick, N.J. 301pp.

Ciriancy-Wantrup, S.V. 1955. Benefit-cost analysis and
public resource development. J. Farm Econ. 37C”):
677-689.

Clawson, M.C., and J.L. Knetsch. 1966. Economics of out-
door reCreation. Resources for the Future by the
John Hopkins Press, Baltimore. 328pp.

Craik, K.H. 1973. Appraising the objectivity of landscape
dimensions. Pages 292-346 in J.V. Krutilla, ed.
Natural environments: studies in theoretical and
applied analysis. Resources for the Future by the
John Hopkins Press, Baltimore.

Crissey, W.F. 1969. Prairie potholes from a continental
viewPoint. Pages 161-171 1g Saskatoon wetlands
seminar. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rpt. Ser. No. 6.

Crutchfield, J. 1967. Can we put an economic value on fish
and wildlife? Colorado Outdoors 14(2):1-5.

Curlin, J.W. 1972. Commentary--courts, ecology, and envi-
ronmental planning. Ecology 53(2):373-37u.

Dagg, A.J. 1970. Wildlife in an urban area. Naturaliste
Can. 97:201-212.

Dana, S.T. 1951. Discussion session. Trans. N. Am. Wildl.
and Nat. Resources Conf. 16:37-38.

11H

Davidson, P. 1967. The valuation of public goods. Pages
125-163 in M.E. Garnsey and J.R. Hibbs, ed. Social
sciences and the environment. Univ. of Colorado
Press, Boulder.

Davis, L.S., and W.R. Bentley. 1967. The separation of
facts and values in resource policy analysis. J.
Forestry 65(9):612-620.

Davis, R.K. 1963. Recreation planning as an economic
problem. Nat. Res. J. 3(2):239-299.

. 196%. The value of big game hunting in a private
forest. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. and Nat. Resources
Conf. 29:393-H02.

Economic Statistics Bureau of Washington, D.C. 197H. The
handbook of basic statistics 28(3):101-102.

Edminster, F.C. 1947. The ruffed grouse. The MacMillan
Co., New York. 385pp.

Edmunds, 8., and J. Letey. 1973. Environmental administra-
tion. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. 517pp.

Freeman, A.M., III, and R.H. Haveman. 1972. Residuals
charges for pollution control: a policy evaluation.
Science 177(uou6):322-329.

Graham, F., Jr. 1972. Man and gull. Audubon 7H(6):80-105.

Gregory, G.R. 1955. An economic approach to multiple use.
For. Science l(l):6-13.

Gysel, L.W. 1972. Statement of Dr. Leslie W. Gysel regard-
ing the testimony of Dr. Larry Holcomb at the June
14, 1972, session of the Midland Nuclear Plant pro-
ceeding. Consumers Power Co., Jackson, Mich. 10pp.

Hamilton, W.J., Jr., and D.B. Cook. 1990. Small mammals and
the forest. J. Forestry 38:”68-u73.

Hammack, J. 1969. Toward an economic evaluation of a
fugitive recreational resource: waterfowl. Ph.D.
Thesis. Univ. of Washington. 198pp.

Hammond, R.J. 1966. Convention and limitation in benefit-
cost analysis. Nat. Res. J. 6(2):l95-222.

Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162
(3859):1203-12H8.

115

Hines, L.G. 1958. Measurement of recreation benefits: a
reply. Land Econ. 3u(4):365-367.

Holbrook, K.G. 1970. The economic value of natural areas
for recreational hunting. University of Kentucky
Water Resources Inst. Res. Rprt. No. 2”. (U.S.
Dept. of the Interior). 1u3pp.

Holcomb, L.C. 1972. Testimony on the proposed Midland
Plant, prepared by Larry C. Holcomb for Mapleton
Intervenors. Consumers Power Co., Jackson, Mich.

38pp.

Hornaday, W.T. 1913. Our vanishing wildlife, its exter-
mination and preservation. N.Y. Zoological Soc.,
New York. ul2pp.

Kale, H.W., II. 1968. The relationship of purple martins
to mosquito control. Auk 85(H):65H-661.

Knetsch, J.L. 1963. Outdoor recreation demands and bene-
fits. Land Econ. 39(H):387-396.

Leonard, J. 1965. Moral, ethical, and fiscal aspects of
wildlife management. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. and Nat.
Resources Conf. 30:422-u25.

Leopold, A. 1966. A Sand County almanac, with other essays
on conservation from Round River. Sierra Club/
Ballantine Books, Inc., New York. 269pp.

Leopold, L.B., F.E. Clarke, BB. Hanshaw, and J.R. Balsley.
1971. A procedure for evaluating environmental
impact. U.S. Geological Sur. Circ. 645. 13pp. +
matrix.

Lime, D.W., and C.T. Cushwa. 1969. Wildlife esthetics and
auto campers in the Superior National Forest. N.
Cent. Forest Exp. Sta., St. Paul Minn. (USDA Forest
Serv. Res. Pap. NC-32.) 8pp.

Litton, B.R., Jr. 1973. Aesthetic dimensions of the land—
scape. Pages 262-291 in J.V. Krutilla, ed. Natural
environments: studies—in theoretical and applied
analysis. Resources for the Future by the John
Hopkins Press, Baltimore.

Manthy, R.S., and T.L. Tucker. 1972. Supply costs for
public forest land recreation. Mich. State Univ.
Ag. Ex. Stat. Res. Rpt. 158. 20pp.

116

McKinley, D. 1963. Why wilderness? Forest Industries
90(2):38-39.

. 1966. Psychology of wilderness. Mazama u8(13):
33-35.

Meanley, B. 1971. Blackbirds and the southern rice crop.
U.S. Bur. Sport Fisheries and Wildl. Resource Pub.
100. supp.

Mendenhall, W. 1971. Introduction to probability and sta-
tistics, 3rd ed. Duxbury Press, Belmont, Cal.
466pp.

Michigan Advisory Council for Environmental Quality. 1972.
Guidelines for implementing State of Michigan
Executive Directive 1971-10. Mimeo. 8pp. + appendix.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1972. Natural
resources laws. Mich. DNR, Lansing. H76pp.

Miller, J.P., and B.P. Powell. 1942. Game and wild-fur
production and utilization on agricultural land.
U.S. Dept. Agr. Circ. 636. 58pp.

National Research Council. 1963. Pest control and wildlife
relationships: part III: research needs. Nat.
Acad. of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 28pp.

National Research Council, Committee on Agricultural Land
Use and Wildlife Resources. 1970. Land use and
wildlife resources. Nat. Acad. of Sciences, Wash-
ington, D.C. 262pp.

Pearse, P.H. 1968a. A new approach to the evaluation of

non-priced recreational resources. Land Econ. ”UCI):
87-99 0

. 1968b. An economic evaluation of non-resident
hunting and guiding in the East Kootenay. Can. J.
of Agr. Economics 16(2):100-lll.

Peterle, T.J. 1961. The hunter-~who is he? Trans. N. Am.
Wildl. and Nat. Resources Conf. 26:25u-266.

. 1967. Characteristics of some Ohio hunters. J.
Wildl. Mgmt. 31(2):375-389.

Peterson, R.T. 19u7. A field guide to the birds. Houghton
Mifflin Co., Boston. 290pp.

117

Rutherford, W., and E.L. Shafer, Jr. 1969. Selection cuts
increased natural beauty in two Adirondack Forest
stands. J. Forestry 67(6):u15-ul9.

Sargent, F.C. 1966. Ideas and attitudes--a scenery classi-

fication system. J. of Soil and Water Cons. 21(1):
26-27.

. 1967. Scenery classification. Ag. Exp. Stat.
Rpt. 18. Univ. of Vermont, Burlington. 28pp.

Scott, A. 1965. The valuation of game resources: some
theoretical aspects. Pages 27-H7‘in Can. Fish.
Rpts. No. 4. The Queen's Printer,—Ottawa.

Shafer, E.L., Jr. 1969. The average camper who doesn't
exist. NE Forest Exp. Stat., Upper Darby, Pa.
(USDA Forest Serv. Res. Paper NE-lHZ.) 27pp.

Shafer, E.L., Jr., J.F. Hamilton, Jr., and E. Schmidt. 1969.
Natural landscape preferences: a predictive model.
J. Leisure Res. l(1):l-l9.

Shafer, E.L., Jr., and J. Mietz. 1970. It seems possible
to quantify scenic beauty in photographs. NE Forest
Exp. Stat., Upper Darby, Pa. (USDA Forest Serv.
Res. Paper NE-162.) l2pp.

Shinner, J. 197”. An analysis of habitat and avifauna in
metropolitan Detroit. Ph.D. Thesis (in preparation).
Michigan State Univ. '

Stankey, G.H. 1973. A strategy for the definition and
management of wilderness quality. Pages 88-114 in
J.V. Krutilla, ed. Natural environments: studies
in theoretical and applied analysis. Resources for
the Future, Baltimore.

Taylor, G.D., and R.Y. Edwards. 1960. A survey of summer
visitors to Wells Gray Provincial Park, British
Columbia. Forest Chron. pp. 3H6-355, Dec. 1955.

Taylor, W.D. 1935. Some animal relations to soils. Ecology
16:127-137.

Train, R.E. 1972. The quest for environmental indices.
Science 178(4057):121.

Trice, A.H., and S.E. Wood. 1958. Measurement of recrea-
tional benefits. Land Econ. 3H(3):195-207.

118

U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1967. Man
and wildlife: a policy for animal damage control.

12pp.

. 1972. National survey of hunting and fishing
1970. Resource Pub. 95. 108pp.

. 1973. Selected list of Federal laws and treaties
relating to sport fish and wildlife. Pub. WL-489.
7pp.

U.S. Citizens' Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality.
1972. Annual report to the President and to the
Council on Environmental Quality. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. HSOpp.

Wallace, R.F. 1952. Economic aspects of wildlife resources
in the state of Washington. Bur. of Econ. and Bus.
Res., Bull. No. 19. The State Coll. of Washington,
Pullman. H2pp.

Webb, W.L. 1968. Public use of forest wildlife: quantity
and quality considerations. J. of Forestry pp.
106-110, Feb. 1968.

Weeden, R.B. 1969. Economic evaluation of recreational
resources: problems and prospects-—a reaction. N.
Am. Wildl. and Nat. Resources Conf. 34:293-297.

Wennergren, E.B. 1967. Surrogate pricing of outdoor
recreation. Land Econ. H3(l):ll2-116.

"1111111111111