z.-
. 31
" ‘51:.

m
If
a.
h
0'
”I
A‘X'

A
.4
» .3-
. r’:
‘u

4;

$
r 3'
r1 I
we
.5"; .‘4 .
i‘."’r';"\‘lfik‘4f ; v

- an)?

,--

r M gun‘sotv‘co-e— .A

:31":-
flint'ré-tz' -
.- ‘lélfm o

32.5.- .
' $3
{3:3
' 3

3-5.

. .l
y};
n, L'
[1":

1",: w. 9- 8.3.09: (7&1 1M” _
K-

~10.-

3!,-

Pt—;;. ..
.F' a a . -
Ic'r“ ‘

13'
f'ff'l -.....

0A-
-. a..}.‘.;.‘¢'.'.jr ’

(3137.4?! 3 ' '
' "bu-‘5”

“O‘mww

 

fluiww"

o

4%; vmwzz-féhr
I.‘

1 ._ H
gr «any; ‘
:4, "7:?- P ‘17:: “2-5 ,
' 2.32%? '{.;."”S'f.v . '..”-_.,- _' - J
”1 ~32?!“ .31" . ' ‘ ."fi'
.4! r,-.°.'-.-.".' figulJfiJ. .. '3.‘ ‘ 93h“;
dung;- «In: 4. .5. .
O. 'I p n

’ 3:76 *3
It}???

wA-N

 

 

Tw‘rzrq

Date

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

EXTRA MARKET VALUES FOR NON-CONSUMPTIVE
USES OF FOUR GREAT LAKES REGION
WILDLIFE SPECIES

presented by

CATHLEEN HEIDI GRETHER

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master of Science Resource Development

degree in

 

 

 

Major professor

Milton H . Steinmueller

September 19, 1984

 

0-7639

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

MSU

LIBRARIES

v

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:

Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from

your record. FINES will

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

EXTRA MARKET VALUES FOR NON-CONSUMPTIVE
USES OF FOUR GREAT LAKES REGION
WILDLIFE SPECIES

By

Cathleen Heidi Grether

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Resource Development

1984

 

 

ABSTRACT

EXTRA MARKET VALUES FOR NON-CONSUMPTIVE
USES OF FOUR GREAT LAKES REGION

WILDLIFE SPECIES

By

CATHLEEN HEIDI GRETHER

Extra market values for non-consumptive uses of fish and wildlife
resources are important elements in resource allocation decisions.

Presently, there are no estimates for these types of values for Great
Lakes region species.

This study explores Ingham and Bay county respondents' use, option
price and existence values for four species associated with the Great
Lakes. The contingent valuation method was used to elicit respondents'
values; and two types of interviews were used: telephone and personal
interviews. Telephone interviews were conducted in Bay and Ingham coun-
ties, whereas personal interviews were conducted only in Ingham county.

Major finding of this study include that: individuals do hold
extra market values for fish and wildlife resources; these values are,
on average, positive; existence values are of the some order of magni-
tude as use values; and generally, bald eagles are valued the highest

while the value of gulls is relatively low.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the members of my graduate committee for
their guidance during this study: Drs. Daniel R. Talhelm, Milton H.
Steinmueller and Lawrence Libby. In addition, I would like to express
my gratitude to my fellow graduate students in Resource DevelOpment.
Many provided frequent assistance through discussions of the merits of
this study and the uses of their libraries. I would like to thank the
Great Lakes Fishery Commision for providing financial support, and the
MSU Fisheries and Wildlife Department, Jane Thompson in particular, for
typing the questionnaire and this paper.

Lastly, I am thankful for the support of my husband, Stan Koster
and our families. Without them, achievement of this goal would have

been impossible.

ii

CHAPTER I:
CHAPTER 11:
CHAPTER III:
CHAPTER IV:
CHAPTER V:
Appendix A1:
Appendix A2:
Appendix A3:
Appendix Bl:
Appendix 82:

Appendix C1:

Appendix CZ:

Appendix D:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . .......... . .
Theoretical Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Data Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations . . . .
Personal Interview Questionnaire . . . . . . . .
Personal Interview Visual Aids . . . . . . . . .
Personal Interview Letter . . . . . . . . . . .
Bird Telephone Interview Questionnaire . . . . .
Fish Telephone Interview Questionnaire . . . . .

Bay County Population and Telephone Survey
D‘iStribution O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 0

Ingham County Population and Telephone Survey
DiStr‘bution O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Selected 1980 Census Data for Bay and Ingham
counties 0 O I O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O

13

30

94

107

124

128

129

140

152

153

154

Appendix E: Participants' Occupation by Category . .....

Appendix F1: Organizations that Participants Belonged to

Appendix F2: Organizations that Participants Donated Money or

Volunteered Time to . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LiteratUI‘EClted..o............

iv

156

159

161

162

Table
Table
Table
Table
Table

Table 6

Table

Table
Table
Table
Table
Table

Table
Table
Table
Table
Table

Table

Table

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

18.

19.

LIST OF TABLES

Median Values for Bay and Ingham Surveys.

Demographic
Respondents'
Respondents'
Respondents'
Respondents'
Respondents'
Type.
Respondents'
Respondents'
Respondents'
Respondents'

Respondents'

Type.

Characteristics of Respondents by Survey Type.
Recreation Levels by Survey Type.
Past Experience with Bald Eagles by Survey Type.
Past Experience with Gulls by Survey Type.
Past Experience with Lake Trout by Survey Type.

Past Experience with Lake Sturgeon by Survey

Bald Eagle Values by Survey Type.
Gull Values by Survey Type.

Lake Trout Values by Survey Type.
Lake Sturgeon Values by Survey Type.

Assessment of Accuracy of Their Bids by Survey

Average Total Value of Each Species by Survey Type.

Comparisons
Comparisons
Comparisons
Comparisons
for Bay and
Comparisons
dard Errors

Comparisons

of Median and and Mean Bids for Bay Survey.

of Median and Mean Bids for Ingham Survey.

of Median and Mean Bids for Personal Survey.

of Bald Eagle and Gull Means and Standard Errors
Ingham Surveys.

of Lake Trout and Lake Sturgeon Means and Stan-
of Bay and Ingham Surveys.

of Bald Eagle and Gull Means and Standard Errors

for Ingham and Personal Surveys.

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

Comparisons of Lake Trout and Lake Sturgeon Means and Stan-
dard Errors for Ingham and Personal Surveys.

Comparisons of Bald Eagle and Gull Nonuser and User Means and
Standard Errors for Ingham Surveys.

Comparisons of Lake Trout and Lake Sturgeon Nonuser and User
Means and Standard Errors for Ingham Survey.

Comparisons of Bald Eagle and Gull Nonuser and User Means and
Standard Errors for Personal Survey.

Comparisons of Lake Trout and Lake Sturgeon Nonuser and User

Means and Standard Errors for Personal Survey.

vi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Overview: Extra Market Values for

Non-consumptive Uses of Wildlife Species

Most natural resources can have two broad types of use, consumptive
use and non-consumptive use. The value of consumptive use of the
resource is the value associated with the physical consumption of it;
examples include the value of a timber stand for pulp wood and the price
per pound of Atlantic salmon. The non-consumptive use value of the
resource is value attributed to the uses of resource that do not physi-
cally affect the resource; examples include the value of saving an
endangered species from extinction or the value of preserving wilderness
areas (Randall 1981).

Economic values most often associated with the use of natural
resources have been consumptive use values. The value of the consump-
tive use of the resource is the price the buyer or user is willing to
pay for it in a market. This value, as with all values, depends upon
the total supply and demand of the resource.

Many pe0ple value non-consumptive uses of natural resources. These
values are somewhat intangible because they are difficult to define or
identify and they are not transacted in a market. Therefore, they have

been termed extra market values.

Historically, policy analysts have sometimes employed benefit-cost
studies to determine the most economically efficient allocations of
natural resources. Monetary values used in these analyses have gen-
erally been tangible values derived from some observable market interac-
tion. The consideration of only market established use values omitted
many other social values. Increased awareness of this deficiency has
led to efforts to include intangible social values as part of benefit-
cost analysis.

It is especially important that the extra market values for non-
consumptive uses of wildlife be examined, as wildlife resources can be
utilized in many ways in addition to consumption. If individuals hold
these kinds of values, the values need to be identified and included in
benefit-cost evaluations. Estimating these non-consumptive use values
can provide policy makers with a more complete set of tools for resource
allocation decisions.

It is also important to point out that non-consumptive values of
wildlife may be based on a broad range of experiences, interests and
feelings. The total value for a given item or experience may be
separated into three mutually exclusive components (Talhelm 1983, Ran-
dall and Stoll 1983, Talhelm and Johnson 1984). Specifically, total
value is comprised of use value, option value and existence value,
where: use value is the value an individual places on his/her present
and future use of the resource; option value is the value an individual
places on the guarantee itself of the future availability of the
resource for his/her possible use or enjoyment, in addition to his/her
present and future use value; and existence value is the value an indi-

vidual places on knowing the resource will exist now and in the future

even though he/she may never enjoy the resource directly. Option price
is equal to the option value plus the expected consumer surplus of the
future use of the resource.

This typology of values can be applied to many categories of
natural resources, including wildlife. The method of obtaining these
values, however, depends on the situation or resource being investi-
gated. Freeman (1979) cites two approaches to determining individuals'
values for environmental quality improvements which can be applied to
other natural resource valuation situations. They are: 1) ask indivi-
duals for their values; and 2) derive values from related market tran-
sactions.

The literature is replete with studies that try to assess extra
market values for natural resources. (See Brookshire and Crocker, 1981
for a summary.) In the area of wildlife resources, however, economic
research has been limited primarily to values associated with consump-
tive (hunted) species (Bishop and Heberlein 1979, Brookshire et al.
1982). In the Great Lakes region no research on the extra market values
for non-consumptive uses of wildlife has been undertaken. This study
will address the issue of non-consumptive use values for specified Great

Lakes wildlife species.

Scope of This Study

 

There were several major goals of this study. First, determine if

individuals are able to-conceptually divide their total value for a

specified wildlife species into itsl component values and assess each

component separately. Second, determine the magnitudes of the com-

ponents as an approximation of their relative importance. Third, deter-
mine the approximate value of each species and use this as an indicator
of individuals' preferences between species. Fourth, examine the possi-
bility that the relative magnitudes of the values for species may be
related to other factors, including geographical location. Fifth,
evaluate whether respondents were able to understand the concepts
presented, and if they felt their responses accurately reflected their
values. Finally, offer recommendations for further research into the
problem of assessing extra market values for non-consumptive uses of
wildlife.

It is important to recognize that the scope of this study imposes
limitations on the practical use and application of the findings. Due
to the scarcity of previous studies on the value of non-consumptive uses
of wildlife, and time and monetary constraints, this study was not able
to unequivocally provide answers to many of the questions raised. It
does however, indicate ranges and magnitudes of values, and directions
for further research in the area of extra market values for non-
consumptive uses of wildlife.

Several questions were identified for examination at the onset of
this study. These questions, in hypothesis form, are:

1. People hold option prices and existence values for fish and
wildlife resources, and these valuations differ from species to
species.

2. Option prices for each species differ from existence values for

each species.

3. Total use values will be higher for common species (species with
low utilization costs) and will be lower for uncommon species
(species with high utilization costs).

Two research tools were employed in this study, telephone inter-
views and personal interviews. Questionnaires were developed for each
interview type. In both, the components of total value were explained
to each respondent. He/she was asked about the relative importance of
each component, and then asked to assign a dollar value to each com-
ponent.

A Four wildlife species associated with the Great Lakes were chosen

for the study: bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Great Lakes sea

 

gull (Larus 322,), lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), and lake sturgeon

 

(Acipenser fulvescens). For each of the two animal classes represented

 

(birds and fish), one common and one uncommon species was chosen so the
relative total values of each species in the same class could be com-
pared to each other. Personal interview respondents were asked about
all four species, but, due to interview-time considerations, telephone

interviewees were only asked about one species.

Organization of the Paper

 

The remainder of this paper is divided into four chapters. Chapter
II provides the theoretical basis for the project by reviewing the tax-
onomy of values used. Chapter 111 contains an explanation of the
research methods employed and special methodology concerns specific to
extra market valuations. The findings are discussed in Chapter IV,
including a description of the general results, comparisons of results
between survey types and examination of the results vis-a-vis the

hypotheses. Chapter V presents a summary of the key findings,

conclusions based on these findings and recommendations for further

study and research.

CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

The difficulty in determining extra market values for non-
consumptive uses of wildlife species is a recognized problem. Due to
the system of rights enjoyed in the United States, all citizens are
joint owners, through the government, of many of the country's natural
resources. Traditionally, many natural resources are also considered
public goods. Public goods have been defined as goods that are non-
rival and non-excludable (Boadway 1979), meaning that the good can be
jointly used or enjoyed by more than one individual at a time, and that
individuals cannot be excluded from this use or enjoyment. Allocation
of public goods through market mechanisms is inefficient or impossible
because of their nature.

Some public goods may also be common property resourced when suffi-
cient demand for use of the resource exists. Common property resources
are resources in which open access and the right of capture are allowed.
These characteristics provide the foundation for resource use problems.
First, open access to the resource can lead to congestion arising from
its' use. This is because each individual has the right of access to
the resource whenever he/she desires. Second, the resource may become
depleted because of the right of capture. Consequently, overexploita-

tion of the resource may result with common property resources.

The very nature of some natural resources, therefore, makes it
inapprOpriate to use traditional market transactions to determine the
resources' values to society. In these cases, other methods of resource
valuation must be used.

In this study, it was helpful to establish an artificial typology
to aid in the examination of extra market values for non-consumptive
uses of wildlife, and consumptive and non-consumptive uses of fish.

This typology was based on economic theory and certain observed economic
exchanges. Three mutually exclusive classes of values were established:
(1) the value associated with the consumptive and non-consumptive use of
the species or “use“ value, (2) the value associated with the guarantee

of the future availability of the species or "option" value and (3) the

value associated with the pure existence of the species or "existence"

value.

Use Value

It is well known that individuals are willing to pay for wildlife
related experiences. These wildlife experiences can be consumptive or
non-consumptive in nature. Common user fees associated with consumptive
uses of wildlife include hunting and fishing license fees. User fees
associated with non-consumptive uses of wildlife include state and
federal park permits.

There may be many reasons why an individual is willing to pay a
user fee, such as a park permit. Consider the example of Pt. Pelee
National Park in southern Ontario, Canada. The park is heavily used by
vacationers and birdwatchers. Each vehicle entering the park is
'required to purchase a $2.00 daily or $10.00 annual entry permit. The

entry fee paid by vacationers may be attributed to the ability to enjoy

the many miles of beaches and trails in the park, while the fee paid by
birdwatchers would be attributed to the value of the non-consumptive

uses of birds during migration. Additionally, some individuals may
visit Pt. Pelee (and consequently pay the entry fee) for multiple rea-

sons, many of which may have little or nothing to do with wildlife
related experiences.

In these cases, such observable "market" interactions may give
insight into individuals' willingness to pay for their present and
future wildlife related experiences. This insight, however, is limited
because user fees are artificially low and do not include a significant
component of wildlife value. In reality, individuals may be willing to
pay more than the required user fees. Therefore, the user fee system
does not accurately reflect individuals' consumptive or non-consumptive
use value, and measurement must be obtained using a consumer surplus
approach.

The specific concern here is to assess the value of individuals'
present and future uses for the four wildlife species under considera-
tion by estimating the maximum amount they would be willing to pay for
their present and future resource use. In essence then, this value is
the expected consumer surplus from present and future uses of the
species. Use value is defined as the amount an individual is willing to
pay for his/her present and future use or enjoyment of a specified

species.

10

Option Price and Option Value

 

The notion of option value has been discussed in economic litera-
ture for 20 years, originating with Weisbrod's 1964 article on Option
value. Weisbrod posed the idea that people would be willing to pay for
the option to retain a right or commodity presently available for use at
a future time. He further stated that "option value" should be included
in any economic based decision to alter or eliminate that right or com-
modity (Weisbrod 1964).

Through the years, much debate ensued over the nature of option
value and its place in economic theory. For example, Long (1967) con-
tended option value was merely a rediscovery of consumer surplus.
Lindsay (1969) pointed out the element of uncertainty in option value
and reinforced Weisbrod's insurance policy analogy. Byerlee (1971)
attempted an empirical analysis of the option value-consumer surplus
debate proposed by Long. The existence of option value was further
shown by Cicchetti and Freeman (1971). Additional empirical work was
done by Schmalensee (1972) and Bohm (1975).

The most comprehensive review of relevant option value literature
to date has been done by Bishop (1982). His work provided a clearer
definition of option value and Option price. Bishop pointed out that
option price is the maximum amount an individual would be willing to pay
to maintain the option of using or enjoying the good (or experience) in
the future. Option value, then, equals the option price minus the
expected consumer surplus from future use of the good. Option value is
in addition to his/her use value and is similar to the value of
insurance. This is the amount an individual is willing to pay to

decrease the risk that the resource will be unavailable in the future

11

should he/she decide to use it. (See Talhelm and Johnson 1984 for
further explanation.) In this study, the intent was to ask respondents
their option price, but given the wording and interpretation Of the
questions, it is felt that a hybrid of option value and option price is
asked. The option value is not calculated because the expected consumer
surplus Of the Option could not be subtracted from the Option price, as

it was not clearly estimated.

Existence Value

 

The idea that many individuals desire to preserve certain things
for future generations is not new. It is evidenced by the paSsing on Of
family heirlooms and other items Of sentimental or economic value.
Similarly, some individuals may feel it is important tO preserve certain
natural sites or resources for future generations to enjoy (Krutilla
1967).

This desire to preserve wildlife for the future is well recognized
by many of the wildlife advocacy organizations. Often, the appeal for
donations is on behalf of preserving an endangered species, which most
people would never have the Opportunity to see in its' natural habitat.
The request is frequently along the lines of, "Help us save the white
rhino from extinction - so your children can enjoy its' majestic
beauty.“ This can be an effective tool for soliciting support because
individuals can be motivated by the desire for their children and future
generations to have the same Opportunities that are now available. For
some, these appeals may imply future use value and option value as well
as existence value, but to others the appeals may imply purely existence

value.

12

In an effort to quantify this desire, a working definition Of
existenée value was formed. The definition Of existence value used here
is the maximum amount an individual would be willing to pay to ensure
the existence Of a specified species without regard to his/her own
future use or enjoyment.

The goal in using this typology and making the transition from
theory to practice, is to estimate individuals' specific use values for
the four wildlife species examined. It is hoped that these approxima-
tions could be used as benchmark values for researchers and policy mak-

ers in the future.

CHAPTER III
METHODS

Chapter III reviews the methods used to conduct this research pro-
ject. First, the contingent valuation (CV) method is defined and the
problems associated with it are discussed. Second, application Of CV in
this study is addressed as are the efforts made tO minimize bias.

Third, the organization and purpose of the questionnaire are reviewed,
including the differences between the telephone and personal interview
forms. Fourth, the survey sample selection processes are explained for
both interview types. Fifth, the administration of the questionnaires

is explained. Last, the data analyses procedures are summarized.

Contingent Valuation

In addition to the problems associated with determining extra-
market values for non-consumptive uses of wildlife, there are also
methodological difficulties. Individuals' values were partitioned into
mutually exclusive categories to provide a framework consistent with
economic theory. The problem then became, whether individuals' values
could be accurately elicited.

Many studies have used contingent valuation surveys for determining

monetary values associated with extra-market goods. Brookshire and

13

14

Crocker (1981) provide a concise summary Of the diverse studies under-

taken. Studies using CV for examining wildlife values have been lim-

ited primarily to economic values associated with hunting (Bishop and

Heberlein 1979, Brookshire et al. 1982).

Brookshire and Crocker (1981) point out that the key to CV is the

establishment Of a hypothetical market for the good or goods being exam-

ined. They go on to outline a three step procedure:

(a)

(C)

The non-market commodity is described in quantity, qual-
ity, location, and time dimensions. Various types of
supplementary information including maps and photographs
are introduced when appropriate.

The rules of operation of the hypothetical market are
established. Then a representation of the available
quantity Of the environmental good is perturbed and the
respondent is asked to state willingness-to-pay or
required compensation, or the activity substitutions and
expenditure adjustments he would make. Both a status
quo quantity of the good and price are explicitly stated
by the interviewer prior to any respondent statements.
The first is a direct approach, while the second pro-
vides information for using the indirect techniques com-
monly employed with data on actual Observed behavior.

The market rules of operation, bidding vehicles, and
status quo prices and quantities may differ across
respondents. Each respondent is presented a status quo
price and/or quantity Of the non-marketed good: the
price and/or quantity Of the good is then altered by the
interviewer until a combination is reached to which the
respondent is indifferent.

Similarly, Randall et al. (1983) emphasize the structured, well-defined

situation posed to respondents in CV surveys.

15

Despite the wide use of CV for valuing natural resources, doubts
about the accuracy have been voiced, as well as concerns about biases
encountered. Maler (1974) questioned the use Of bids as a way to deter-
mine the amount individuals would be willing to pay for environmental
services. More recently, Bishop et al. (1983) found by comparing vari-
ous value methods that CV mechanisms may distort individuals' true wil-
lingness to pay and that willingness to pay may underestimate value,
while willingness to accept payment may overestimate value.

Further, concerns about potential biases have also been examined.
Several types of bias have been mentioned, primarily, strategic bias,
hypothetical bias, instrument bias and information bias.

Strategic bias can be defined as the error caused by the respondent
not revealing his/her true preferences, thereby influencing the valua-
tion results. This failure to reveal his/her true preferences may be
based on the respondents' assumption that it is in his/her best interest
not to be truthful. An example Of strategic bias would be where an
individual underestimates his/her value for the good in question when

payment of that value is implied or requested. Several researchers have
examined strategic bias (Bohm 1972, Brookshire et al. 1976, and Rowe et
al. 1980). Their results indicate that strategic bias can be countered
by the design of the questionnaire.

Hypothetical bias can be defined as error caused by presenting the
respondent with a hypothetical situation and asking him/her to place a
value on the goods in question, knowing payment will not be required.
The problem of hypothetical bias has been considered by several
researchers (Brookshire et al. 1976, Rowe et al. 1980, Thayer 1981, and

Schulze et al. 1981). Their work indicates that this form Of bias may

16

be countered by validation Of the results. In addition, the work by
BishOp et al. (1983) suggest that the differences between individuals'
willingness to pay and willingness to sell may be due to the problem of
hypothetical bias.

Instrument bias can be defined as error caused by the structure of
the survey instrument itself. Two primary types of instrument bias may
be encountered, starting point bias and payment bias. Other biases
caused by the structure of the instrument may exist as well.

It has been suggested that the starting point of the bidding pro-
cess may influence the respondent's valuations, Rowe et al. (1980) and
Schulze et al. (1981) state that there are primarily two types Of start-
ing point bias. First, the starting point itself may imply value or the
lack of value to the respondent and may therefore influence his/her
valuations. Second, depending upon the value increments chosen for the
bidding game, the respondent may tire of the repetitive questioning and
may give a value just to stop the process. In another study by
Brookshire et al. (1977), however, the results indicate that no statist-
ically significant starting point bias existed in their study.

Another type of instrument bias is payment bias. The respondent's
perceived acceptability Of the method of payment may effect his/her
valuations. Brookshire et al. (1980) rejected the hypotheses that
valuations were affected by the method of payment. They did, however,
find that respondents were more likely to refuse to bid when one of the
two payment forms specified was used. In addition, they received nega-
tive feedback about that payment form. The results of another study by
Brookshire et al. (1977) were somewhat inconclusive on the issue of pay-

ment bias due to the small sample size of many of the cases tested.

17

Information bias can be defined as the potential influence of the
information the interviewer gives the respondent which may affect
his/her valuations. Rowe et al. (1980) suggest that information bias
may have a significant influence on bids depending upon the measure of
consumer surplus being examined. Additionally, the respondent's answer

will be biased if he/she does not fully understand what is being asked.

Application of Contingent Valuation

 

In trying to determine extra-market values for non-consumptive uses
of wildlife, a somewhat modified version of Brookshire and Crocker's
contingent valuation method, as outlined earlier, was used. First, with
regard to (a) (on page 14), the non-market commodity was given (either
one or all four species considered, depending upon the survey type) as
well as time dimensions (present and future). In general terms, the
quantity was specified to the personal interview respondents by inform-
ing them that two of the species were common in Michigan and two were
uncommon. Telephone respondents were not told anything about the rela-
tive abundance of the species they were asked about. The quantity and
location were not specified because the respondents' values for the
species at that point in time were the desired valuations. The purpose.
of the questionnaire process was not to educate or increase the respon-
dents awareness either before Or during the administration of the ques-
tionnaire. In addition, visual aids were used during the personal
interviews to explain the value measures.

Second, with regard to (b) (on page 14), the iterative bidding
technique was explained to respondents as were the potential forms of
payment. The status quo quantity was implied to each respondent as the

(amount currently available for his/her enjoyment. Although a numerical

18

amount was not explicitly specified the respondent had the choice of
zero levels of the resource or the amount currently available. Each
respondent was randomly assigned a status quo price (bid starting point)
prior to the administration Of the questionnaire.

Finally, with regard to (c) (on page 14), each respondent was given
the quantity (implied) and a price. Through iterative bidding he/she
was asked for the highest amount he/she would be willing to pay for
various situations related to the value measures specified.

Efforts were made through the design Of the study to minimize the
biases that have concerned other researchers. Careful attention was
given to the design and wording of the questionnaires to reduce the
affects Of bias associated with the instrument itself and the adminis- _
tration of the instrument.

Strategic bias. The questionnaires were designed so that there was
little or no incentive for the respondents not to reveal their true
valuations. Respondents were not told that they would be asked to pay
the average bid of all respondents, as this could provide incentive to
underestimate bids. Respondents also knew that attempts would not be
made to collect the bid amount. Therefore, overestimation was possible,
but there would be no advantage in doing so.

Hypothetical bias. Time constraints prevented using an elaborate
“realistic" hypothetical situation for the respondents to react to.
Consequently, when feasible, respondents' real life experiences were
relied on. First, respondents were asked about past experiences with
the species to stimulate recall about the interactions they have had.
These past experiences were then used to classify respondents into

"users“ and "nonusers" Of the species, thereby providing a reference

19

point for the valuations. In situations where the respondent had no
past experiences with the species, his/her knowledge about the species
was used as a reference point.

Instrument bias. Both types of instrument bias were considered in
the study design. In the original design, each respondent would be ran-
domly assigned a bid starting point ranging from $50.00 to $300.00, at
$50.00 increments. Preliminary analysis Of median values indicated that
the starting points were too high (Table 1). As a result, the bid
starting point of $50.00 was used for the personal interviews.

In addition, some telephone interview respondents showed Obvious
irritation with the high bid starting points. Therefore, efforts were
made to find the respondents' acceptable bid range quickly by using
non-uniform intervals. (Example: If a $300.00 starting point was unac-
ceptable to a respondent then $100.00 was tried, then perhaps $50.00)

It was considered more important to find the respondents' acceptable
range quickly than it was to use uniform bidding intervals in an effort
' to minimize time on the phone and the possibility of the respondent giv-
ing the answer to "get on with it".

In an effort to counter payment bias the form of payment was pur--
posely made unclear. Examples of ways the respondents currently pay for
things was presented, including voluntary contributions, increased taxes
paid to the state, and user fees. It was expected that by giving
respondents a list of possible payment forms that they would find at
least one Of them acceptable and therefore, would not let the form Of

payment influence their valuations.

20

Table 1. Median Values for Bay and Ingham Surveys

Eagle Median Bid:

Gull Median Bid:

Trout Median Bid:

Sturgeon Median Bid:

Use
Option

Existence

Use
Option

Existence

Use
Option

Existence

Use
Option

Existence

Bay C0.

Value

$5.00
$10.00
$10.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$25.00
$7.50
$17.50

$10.00
$5.00
$10.00

Ingham CO.

Value

$37.50
$25.00
$22.50

$10.00
$10.00
$10.00

$22.50
$20.00
$17.50

$30.00
$20.00
$25.00

21

As mentioned earlier, little information about each species was
given to the respondents. Respondents were not told about the species
appearance, distribution or life history. It was felt that this type of
information could create bias that would not exist in the general popu-
lation unless everyone had the opportunity to receive the same informa-
tion. Personal interview respondents were told that two common and two
uncommon species were considered, and this may have influenced bids for

the uncommon species, especially the lake sturgeon.

Questionnaire Design

 

The study design for this project involved two types of interviews:
telephone and personal. It was intended that the same basic information
would be collected by both interviews. One notable exception was that
the personal interview questionnaire asked respondents' values for all
four species, while the telephone interviews questionnaire asked values
for only one species (randomly selected from the four species con-
sidered). Therefore, a modified version of the personal interview ques-
tionnaire was used for the telephone interview. The result was one per-
sonal interview questionnaire (See Appendix A1) and two telephone ques-
tionnaires - one for birds and one for fish (See Appendix 81 and B2). A
(These two telephone questionnaires will, however, be referred to as
"the" telephone interview questionnaires.) This was done to aid the
telephone interviewers in asking the appropriate questions for each
species.

Both the personal and telephone questionnaires contained the same
major sections. They were: A - Recreation Participation, B - Past
Experiences, C - Value Measures, and D - Demographic Information. Sec-

tions A and D were exactly the same in both questionnaires. In the

22

telephone interview questionnaires, sections B and C contained questions
about only birds or fish.

The goal in developing the questionnaires was to make it as easy as
possible for the respondents to answer the questions posed. The ques-
tionnaires began with questions that required the least amount of
thought (Section A), worked toward questions that required the most
thought (Sections B and C), and ended with easier questions (Section D).

A broad-to-narrow questioning strategy was employed in Sections A
through C. Broad natural resource questions were asked in Section A,
while specific species value questions were asked in Section c. This
was done so each section would build on the next and to help get the
respondents in the frame of mind to answer the value questions.

The most personal and perhaps the most Objectionable questions were
asked last. This was done in an effort to minimize respondents' termi-
nation Of the interview as they had already invested time in answering
the earlier questions.

The purpose of Section A - Recreation Participation - was to get a
general idea Of respondents interest and participation in natural
resource related activities. Kellert (1979) has shown that individuals'
perceptions about and feelings toward wildlife are affected by their
knowledge of the species and their interest in outdoor activities.

The intent of Section B - Past Experiences - was to determine the
extent of interaction the respondent had with the species in question.
The purpose of this was two-fold; first, to get the respondent thinking
about the species and second, to determine if he/she was a user or non-
user of the species. The questions he/she was asked in Section C

depended on his/her response from Section B.

23

The first part of Section C - Value Measures - was used to learn
the importance to the respondents of having the species available under
the condition outlined. Personal interview respondents were given a
card explaining three types of values - use value, option price and
existence value. The three values were explained verbally to the tele-
phone interview respondents, then they were asked if they understood the
concepts.

This was the first time during the interview that respondents were
asked to think about their values for the species. It is important to
note that most respondents had never thought about the value of non-
consumptive uses of wildlife. This section was not critical to the
analysis, but was a tool to help the respondent organize his/her think-
ing prior to the value measures.

In the second part of Section C, the iterative bidding technique
was used to determine the respondents' values on each measure. This was
done to make the respondent think about each monetary possibility and
judge whether or not he/she would be willing to pay that price. After
the respondent's maximum bid point was reached, he/she was asked, "Is
____the most you would be willing to pay..?", to verify the respondent's
previous valuation in an attempt to ensure that they were satisfied with
their response.

The last question in Section C asked respondents to assess the
accuracy of their responses to the value questions. This was included
to determine the respondent's feelings about their values in hopes of
providing an indication of the accuracy (via respondent self evaluation)

of the responses.

24

Standard demographic questions were asked of all respondents.
Visual aids were used in the personal interviews for age, educational
level and income level. Section D was included to understand the nature
of the sample populations and to determine what relationships exist
between demographic variables and certain questionnaire responses.

Sample Selection

 

Telephone Interviews

Two locations were chosen for telephone surveys, Ingham county and
Bay county. Ingham County was chosen because of the lower cost associ-
ated with Obtaining telephone interviews. Telephone survey interviews
were conducted from October 1982 through March 1983. Most of the calls
made were toll calls. Bay county was chosen as a comparison area for
the results of the Ingham county interviews. The population charac-
teristics of Bay county are similar to those of Ingham county which
allowed the effect on values of proximity to a Great Lake to be exam-
ined. A total of at least 120 usable telephone interviews were needed
from Ingham county and 30 from Bay county for sufficient comparisons to
be made.

The population distributions for Ingham and Bay counties were
obtained from 1980 Census data. Proportional random sampling was used
in both counties (See Appendices C1 and CZ). Phone numbers were taken
from 1982 telephone directories for each area.

The actual selection of residential telephone numbers was a multi-
step process. First, the number of phone numbers per page was estimated
by randomly selecting a few pages, counting the phone numbers per page
and averaging them. Second, the number of business phone numbers per

page was estimated by randomly selecting a few pages, counting the

25

number of business phone numbers and averaging them. Third, the average
number of business numbers per page was subtracted from the average
number of phone numbers per page, giving the average number of residen-
tial phone numbers per page. Fourth, the total number of pages for any
one location were counted and multiplied by the average number of
residential phone numbers per page, giving the total number of residen-
tial phone numbers for that location. Fifth, the total number of
residential phone numbers per location was divided by the estimated
number needed (as determined from the census data) to get evenly spaced
selections. Sixth, a ruler was used to measure the distance between
selections. Last, if the selection fell on a business number, the number
was not used and the first residential phone number below it was
selected. Measurement then continued from that point.

It was estimated that 60 telephone numbers for Bay county and 240
telephone numbers for Ingham county would be needed for the pool of
potential telephone respondents. Prior to the completion of the tele-
phone interview phase all the numbers selected for Ingham county were
used. A second round of phone numbers were chosen half way between the
phone numbers chosen in the first round (they had been marked in the .
phone book).

Three attempts were made to contact potential respondents at each
phone number. Both the day and the time of day were varied to allow for
irregular work hours and other activities. It was soon discovered, how-
ever, that week nights between 6:30 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. were the most
successful. Some calls were made on Saturday afternoons, but these were

usually successful only when the weather was poor.

26

When a potential respondent was reached, he/she was read a prepared
text explaining the purpose of the call. He/she was then asked a series
of questions to determine his/her interest in participating and suita-
bility as a respondent. If the respondent was interested, and lived in
Ingham or Bay county, and was at least 18 years of age, the interview

commenced.

Personal Interviews

Personal interviews were conducted in Ingham county only. This
location was the most practical for the researcher and minimized the
time and travel required for each interview. Personal survey interviews
were conducted from June through August 1983. Approximately 30 usable
personal interviews were needed, which would result in a comparable sam-
ple size per species to the Ingham telephone interview.

Potential personal interview respondents were selected from a ran-
domly generated list of Ingham county drivers license holders purchased
from the Michigan Secretary of State. Using 1982 telephone directories,
each name on the list was checked and matched with a phone number when
possible. In cases where phones were not listed in the name provided,
addresses were used to match phone numbers. The names on the list, for
which phone numbers could be found, were then numbered. Possible
respondents were selected using a random numbers table.

Personal interviews were conducted in "waves." Fifteen potential
respondents were selected at a time and letters explaining the project
were sent to them (See Appendix A3). Follow-up phone calls were made a
few days after the letters were sent. Again, three attempts were made
to contact the individuals, as with the telephone interviews. Again,

evenings were the most successful time to call.

27

When potential respondents were reached they were given the same
information. First, the caller identified herself and reminded them
that a letter briefly explaining the project had been sent. Second, the
potential respondent was asked if they recalled receiving the letter and
if they would like more information. (Almost all wanted to know more).
Next, more detail about the project was provided, including (1) that
their participation would entail a personal interview, (2) that the
interview would take approximately 30 to 45 minutes, and (3) that the
interview would be arranged at their convenience. Last, individuals
were asked if they would be willing to participate. For those who were
willing, an appointment for the interview was made and the respondent's

address was verified.
Administration of the Questionnaire

Telephone Interviews

The species and bid starting point were selected prior to the
administration of each telephone interview. The species selection pro-
cess was as follows. The name of each species was written on two
separate small cards. The eight cards were placed in a plastic bag and
one species card was drawn at random. The selected card was then
replaced before the next selection (random sampling with replacement).
The bid starting point selection process was the same as the species
except there were six possible bid starting points.

On average, the telephone interviews went quickly, taking less than
10 minutes each. TO minimize time on the phone and reduce the respon-
dents' potential irritation with the process, the background information

given to the personal interview respondents was omitted. In addition,

28

some questionnaire instructions were reduced somewhat for the telephone
interviews, while others were expanded to compensate for the lack of
visual aids provided during the personal interviews. Any questions
regarding background information on the species or the purpose of the
project were answered after the completion of the interview.

‘ Personal Interviews

Each personal interview respondent was given the same introductory
information immediately prior to the interview. First, he/she was given
background about the project, including the funding source and what
broad problems were being examined. Second, he/she was told about the
survey, and the questionnaire and its design. Third, he/she was told
that the interview would take between 30 and 45 minutes and that he/she
must answer the questions alone. Lastly, the respondent was asked if
he/she had any questions before the interview began.

It was generally found that respondents were able to grasp the
value measure and the bidding technique quickly. Therefore, during the
course of the interview some of the instructions for repetitive ques-
tions were abbreviated. The extent to which this occurred depended upon
the interviewer's perceptions of the respondent's understanding. It was
felt that abbreviating the instructions would not bias the respondent's
valuations as much as their impatience with listening to redundant

instructions would.

29

Data Analyses

 

Survey data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS). Specific analyses included: frequency distribu-
tions for all questions by survey type, comparisons of median and mean
values for use, Option and existence questions by survey type and com-
parisons between various mean values using t-tests. In addition, obser-

vations and comments made during the interviews are also discussed.

CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSES

The questionnaire data were analyzed at two levels. First, the
frequency distribution for each section of each survey was analyzed.
This included computation of the mean and standard deviation for the
value questions. Second, the means of various sets of value questions
were compared using standard t-tests. Comparisons included the mean
values of: Bay and Ingham surveys, Ingham telephone and Personal sur-

veys, and Nonusers and Users.

Demographic Characteristics
Each respondent was asked eight background questions to obtain a
demographic profile in each of the three surveys (Table 2). Questions
included: sex, age, marital status, education, employment status, occu-
pation, residency and income. (See Appendix D for 1980 Census data for

Bay and Ingham counties.)
Bay Survey

SEX. Nearly 52% of the Bay respondents were female and 48.3% were male.
This is almost the same percentage of adult females and males found in

the 1980 Census for Bay county.

AGE. Twenty-four percent of the respondents were from 20-29 years of

age. The second highest age groups were 30-39 years and 50 to 59 years,

30

31

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nm.m N~.m~ Nm.qa aamoamaa ooz

No.0 No.4 Nm.o ammoaanaa

N~.o~ N~.- Ne.m mawuuuuaa ammoaaam maa<am

No.om Nm.we Nm.ee Oawouaaam emaoaa5m ezmzwoqmzm

No.0m Nm.H~ Nw.m~ Hooeom ouaseaum

no Hmsoammomoum mumsvmwu

No.o~ Na.m No.o Hoosum moaaemuw agom

NA.©~ NH.m~ mw.m~ moaaeauw mmeHou

Nm.mm N¢.om NH.4~ uwaaaoo aaom

Nn.ofi Nm.o~ Nm.hm Ouaaeaum Hoonua emu:

Nm.m N~.c Nm.o~ Hoonom em“: meow

No.o No.o No.o Hooeuw Auaoausmam one<o=am

No.08 N~.om N~.mm eunuuaz maeaam

Nm.mm Nm.me Nm.qa uawafim AaaHmaz

Nm.m Nq.m Nq.m am>o one o“

Nn.o Nm.~_ um.o_ Aouoo

Nm.c~ NA.“ Nu.o~ anion

Nm.m~ Nn.HH Nw.m~ Sauce

N~.o~ No.o~ N~.o~ amncm

Nm.mH No.om NH.¢~ amuom

No.0 NH.m~ N¢.o mfiumfi uu<

Nm.mm No.em N~.Hn mfiaamm

Nfi.oe Na.ms Nm.mq «Ha: xmm

Aomuzv Aomauzv AAanv mmam<Hm<>
q<zommmm zazozH ~<m uHmmemuozma

 

.oahe zo>u=m an oucovaommom mo mowuowuouomwmao oazmmuwosma .N wanna

33

with nearly 21% each. The age distribution of respondents followed the

distribution of adult Bay county residents found in the 1980 Census.

MARITAL STATUS. Approximately 55% of the respondents were married and

45% were single.

EDUCATION. Most of the respondents had at least a high school education
(89.6%), with the highest single group indicating they were high school
graduates (37.9%). Bay county respondents tended to be more well edu-
cated than the general adult population of the county as defined by the
1980 Census.

EMPLOYMENT STATUS. Nearly 45% of the respondents indicated they were
employed full-time while another 45% were not employed and not looking

for full-time work.

OCCUPATION. Twenty one percent of the respondents were in each of the
following occupational categories: homemaker; skilled worker, craftsman
or foreman; manager or proprietor; professional or technical (See Appen-

dix E).

RESIDENCY. Nearly 70% 0f the respondents said they were urban

residents.

INCOME. Approximately 43% of the respondents earned between $30,000 and
$39,999 annually. None of the Bay respondents earned less than $10,000
per year. Bay county respondents tended to have higher incomes than the

general population of the county as defined by the 1980 Census.

34

Ingham Survey

SEX. Forty five percent of the Ingham respondents were male and 55%
were female. This closely follows the percentages of adult males and

females found in the 1980 Census for Ingham county.

AGE. The largest percent of respondents (30.0%) were from 20-29 years
of age. The second largest group (20.0%) were 30-39 years of age. The
age distribution of respondents was similar to the distribution of adult

Ingham county residents found in the 1980 Census.

MARITAL STATUS. Nearly 44% of the respondents indicated they were sin-

gle, while 56% were married.

EDUCATION. Almost 94% of the respondents had a high school education or
more. The largest group (36.7%) had attended some college. Ingham
county respondents tended to be more well educated than the general

adult population of the county as defined by the 1980 Census.

EMPLOYMENT STATUS. Over 48% of the respondents were employed full-time,

and 29.2% were not employed and not looking for full-time work.

OCCUPATION. Eighteen percent of the respondents classified themselves
as professional or technical, with 17% indicating they were sales, cler-

ical or Office workers. Over 16% were students (See Appendix E).

RESIDENCY. Approximately 73% of the respondents said they were urban

residents and 27% were rural residents.

INCOME. Nearly 24% of the respondent earned less than $10,000 annually.

The second largest income groups, with 16.4% each, were $10,000 to

35

$19,999 and $20,000 to $29,999. Ingham county telephone respondents'
income levels generally followed the income levels for the population of

the county as defined by the 1980 Census.
Personal Survey

SEX. Over 53% of the personal interview respondents were female while
47% were male. This closely follows the percentages of adult females

and males found in the 1980 Census for Ingham county.

AGE. The two highest age groups, with 26.7% each, were 30-39 years and
50-59 years. Second, with 23.3% was 40-49 years. Personal interview
respondents tended to be slightly older than the general adult popula-

tion of Ingham county as defined by the 1980 Census.

MARITAL STATUS. Most respondent were married (66.6%) and 33.3% were

single.

EDUCATION. Nearly 97% of the reSpondents had at least graduated from
high school. The largest group (30.0%) had professional or graduate
degrees. The second largest group (23.3%) had attended some college.
Respondents tended to be more well educated than the general adult popu-

lation of Ingham county as defined by the 1980 Census.

EMPLOYMENT STATUS. Eighty percent of the respondents were employed

full-time, while 16.7% were employed part-time.

OCCUPATION. Thirty percent of the respondents classified themselves as
professional or technical, and 20.0% were managers or proprietors (See

Appendix E).

36

RESIDENCY. Most respondents (90.0%) indicated they were urban

residents, while 10.0% were rural residents.

INCOME. Thirty percent of the respondents earned $20,000 to $29,000 per
year. Nearly 27% earned $10,000 to $19,000 annually. Personal inter-
view respondents' income levels tended to be higher than those for the

population of Ingham county as defined by the 1980 Census.

Recreation Characteristics

 

Respondents were asked a series of questions about their recreation
activities during the 12 months prior to their survey participation.
These questions were asked to get a general idea of their interest and
participation in natural resource related activities. Recreation ques-
tions included: various outdoor activities, membership in environmental
organizations, donations of money to environmental organizations and
frequency of watching wildlife related programs on television. Results

of this section for each survey are found in Table 3.
Bay Survey

OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES. Of the 9 activities listed, nearly 83% of the
respondents drove for pleasure. Next, with 72.4% was hiking, backpack-
ing or walking for pleasure. Between 52% and 58% of the respondents

fished, camped or went boating in the previous 12 months.

ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION MEMBER. Nearly 14% of the respondents
belonged to organizations whose main purpose was learning about and
enjoying natural resources. Only 30% belonged to hunting or fishing

organizations (See Appendix F1).

37

 

 

 

 

 

No.ON Nm.- Nm.o~ wmzoz ame<zoa
A.ouo
..oom .nmwm .E< .huOHoom
No.0 Nm.H No.o onwawafisv Hchfimmowoum
A.uoo .amouaufiaa
axons .VOuHaHHGD uaouav
No.n Nm.N Nq.m mcfizmwm wo\vam wcfiucam
A.ouo .oomoacoouo .anao annuamv
No.o Nm.~ No.0 homoo>um Housmacouw>am
A.uuo ..eum .CHGH: emmzmz
H.0mz .ufinaauwouu H.omzv one<NHz<umo
No.8 No.oH Nw.md weasofiam use mafiaummq Aaezmzzoma>zm
No.0m Nw.oc N©.n~ chfixfin .wawfixwv wonuo
No.05 Nm.~n Nm.wq wafizoumacufin
wo :oaun>uomno OMHHvaz
No.04 Nm.mm Nm.ee Anaauwoooea uooeuso
N~.om N~.om Nm.~m ouaaaafla no“ w=3>wun
Nm.mw N~.an Nq.mn owsmmoaa pom mcfixama
no wcfixmmxomn .wafixfi:
Nm.om Na.mq N~.Hn wafiqsao
N~.eo Nm.oo No.mn wanuoaao no manuaom
No.oH Nm.o~ No.am menace: mmHaH>Heo<
No.os No.om N~.Hm mafiamflm mooaeao
Asmuzv Acmnnzv Aamuzv magm<Hm<>
A<20mmmm ScmozH w¢m onH<mmomm

 

.mmme hm>u=m an oam>og coaumouoom .muaouaoamom .m OHAMH

38

 

Nc.om
Nn.oe
Nm.m
No.o

Nm.eq
Nq.mm
Nm.-
Nq.m

Na.mm
Nm.¢m
NN.-
Nm.o~

A.n%\mnoa no ofiv amnmo
A.n>\m on mV adamaonmmooo
A.nm\oo«3u no mocov >Honmm
. no>oz

mz<mwomm >8
mmHAQAHS IUH<3

39

DONATED MONEY TO ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS. Slightly more than 10% of
the respondents had donated money to environmental organizations (See

Appendix F2).

WATCH WILDLIFE PROGRAMS. .Nearly 38% of the respondents indicated they
often watched wildlife related programs on television, while 34% said

they watched them occasionally.
Ingham Survey

OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES. 0f the 9 activities listed 86% of the participants
said they drove for pleasure within the previous 12 months. Second
highest was hiking, backpacking or walking for pleasure, with 79.2%.
Three other activities were participated in by 50% or more of the
respondents: boating or canoeing; wildlife Observation or birdwatching;

and fishing.

ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION MEMBER. Ten percent of the respondentS'
belonged to organizations whose main purpose was learning about and

enjoying natural resources (See Appendix F1).

DONATED MONEY TO ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS. Over 12% of the respon-

dents donated money to environmental organizations (See Appendix F2).

WATCH WILDLIFE PROGRAMS. Nearly 47% of the respondents often watched
wildlife related programs on television, while 35% said they watched

them occasionally.

40

Personal Survey

OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES. 0f the 9 activities listed 87% of the respondents
indicated they drove for pleasure within the previous 12 months. Over
83% hiked, backpacked or walked for pleasure. Two other activities were
participated in by over half the respondents: wildlife observation or

birdwatching (70.0%); and boating or canoeing (66.7%).

ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION MEMBER. Six percent of the respondents
belonged to organizations whose main purpose was learning about and
enjoying natural resources, while 3.0% belong to hunting or fishing

organizations (See Appendix F1).

DONATED MONEY TO ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS. Twenty percent of the
respondents donated money to environmental organizations (See Appendix

F2).

WATCH WILDLIFE PROGRAMS. Fifty percent of the respondents often watched
wildlife related programs on television, while nearly 47% watched them

occasionally.

Comparisons with Hunters and
Anglers State-wide
According to the 1980 Survey of Hunting and Fishing for Michigan,
state-wide 14.5% of the population hunts and 25.6% of the population
fishes. Both Bay county and Ingham county telephone surveys included
more hunters than the state average, while the Personal survey included
less. All three surveys (Bay, Ingham and Personal) included more

anglers than the state average.

41

Past Experiences With Species

 

Respondents were asked a series of questions about their past
experiences with the species being considered. The purpose of these-
questions was to learn the extent of interaction the respondent had with
the species; thereby determining if he/she was a user or nonuser; and to
get the respondent to think about the species.

Past experience questions for the bird species included: has
he/she seen species, number of times seen, seen species in past 12
months, did he/she make a special effort to see species, number of trips
in past 12 months to see species, cost of species trips, extra time
taken for species trips, enhancement of trip to see species and has
he/she a desire to see species in his/her lifetime. The results of the
past experiences with bald eagles for each survey are found in Table 4.
The results for the past experiences with gulls for each survey are
found in Table 5.

Past experience questions for the fish species included: has
he/she fished for the species, if so how many times in the past 12
months and the average cost of each trip; has he/she gone with anyone
who was fishing for the species, if so the number and cost of each trip;
has he/she eaten the species; or seen it in hatcheries, aquariums or in
the wild; what special efforts to see the species were made; and how
much did the special trips cost. The results of the past experiences
with lake trout for each survey are found in Table 6. The results for

past experiences with lake sturgeon are found in Table 7.

42

.nnomoumo sumo an momcoamoh no

noses: man on A v an nopssz
«

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amv no.mn Amy No.o~ Anv no.o~ oz mannmnnn zn
Annv No.mm Aowv No.om on No.om eon manuam mum on mznmmo
mmzonmmm ammauzoz
on no.o Anv Nm.mm :1: oz nnmn
Amy No.oon ANV Nn.oo an: no» mozazzm ngoom oZHmmm
In: no.on In- onoo: on mnnmn mom mane «menu 1
in in: Anv N0.¢n is: oo.oomm mmnmn mnu<m no nmoo
in- on No.oo nu: oooz manoem non .oz
.1. Anv No.on In: one Nn nm<n zn mmnmn .oz
ANV No.oon ANV Nn.oo 1:: oz mmqo<m mmm on
on No.o Any Nm.mm in- non and: neonnm nanommm
Amy no.om ANS no.on any nonomn oz .oz Nn noon zn
ANV no.o~ Amv No.om on No.o eon mum on amnmn mo zmmm
Anv N¢.¢n ANV No.o~ Any No.on onoa no on
on No.oo new no.oo on no.o moann o on m mmnoom
Amv No.on on No.oo Anv No.om donsn no dooo zmmm mnznn .oz
mmmzommnm mum:
unonv nm.mm Aonv no.e~ Anv no.m~ non: manenm
Aomv Nn.oo Ammo no.nn Amv no.nn nooouooz mum: nzmozommum
TNoNV NA.oo AmNV no.nn Any no.nn oz
eAOnv nm.mm «Aonv no.m~ nanv no.m~ non nnns zn mmno<m zmnm
nomnzv Ammnzv Annzv magmas anon
il.n<zommmm zomozn non mnnz mmozmnmmnxm nm<n

 

.onhe >m>n=m

an moawmm vamm Sufi: moonownmnxm ummm .mnsocaomoom

.e onnon

43

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amo No.mn zoo N~.- Amo no.oo oz onzn
Aomo No.5o Aozo N¢.nn Amo no.oo non nozozzm monoo oznomm
in: Ano No.oon in: noon n mmnzn non nznn eznxm
in- Ano no.oon is: oo.mm mmnzn onoo no nmoo
-1- Anv No.on in- ooo moqoo mom .oz
in: Anv No.om in: oooz NH nm<m zn mnnzn .oz
Ammo No.oo Aono No.mm Amo no.oon oz monoo mom on
on no.o a~o Nn.nn on no.o non moo: nzonnm n<nommm
ARV Nm.mu ARV No.m~ Ano Nn.on oz .oz Nn nm<n zn
Ammo Nn.on Amno no.~n Amo no.mo non mom on omnzn zo zoom
Ammo Nm.mo Aomv no.om zoo no.oon onoa no on
Amv no.on Aoo no.on zoo no.o moano a on m
ANV Nn.o “no no.o Aoo no.o donsn no oono monoo zmmm mmznn .oz
mmmzonmmz ammo
zomv No.oon Ammo Nm.mo zoo Nn.mm non:
on No.o Amo an.on Any um.on nooouooz mononm zmmo nzmozonmoz
zoo no.o Amv Nn.on Any Nm.on oz
.zomo No.oon efimmo nm.mo «Aoo Nn.no no» oqnz zn monoo zmmm
Aomuzo Aomnzo Anuzv moqoo
g<zomzmm zazozn n<m zen: mmozmnzmmzm nm<m

 

.onza ho>nam an maaac sun: ouoaoanomxm ummm .mncovcommom .n OHAOH

44

.mnowOumo sumo an noncommon we noses: man on A v an nonB=Zk

 

Aeo no.oo
Ano no.o~

Any No.oon oz mznnmznn zn
on no.o no» mnozo mom on mznmmo

mmzommmm mumbtzoz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

an- in- Ano No.oon m
1-- Ano Nn.on in- N .oz Nn
in- Anv Nn.on .1. n nm<n zn nnnoz<
an: zoo no.oo nun o noonn znnz mnnzn .oz
Amnv N~.nm Amnv no.nn Amy Nn.oo oz nnnoz<
Amo nn.on on no.nn Ano Nm.mm no» nzozn n4 znnz nzoo
ANS no.oe Ano nm.on Ano no.mn oonn
Ano no.o~ 1-- in: omn
in- in: Ano no.mn new
Any no.on Ano nm.on in: on»
1:- Aoo nn.nm in- man
1-- 1-- Ano no.m~ onm
1-- Anv nm.en -1- nnm
in- it- Ano no.m~ onm .oz Nn nm<n zn
Ano no.on in: In: on mnnnn noonn no nmoo
5
,4 -11 Ano Nn.n an: on
is- in- -1: on
in- Ano Nn.n in- o
Ano nn.n :11 .1. o
ANV Nm.on ANS no.m_ Amy no.oo N
ANV nm.on Amo nn.m~ Ano no.oo n .oz NH nm<n
on nm.oo Aoo nn.oo Ano no.on o zn nnnnn noonn .oz
Aono mm.mm anNV Nn.no Amo nn.nm oz
*Aonv Nn.oo «Amnv N~.om namo Mm.no eon noonn z; non onznnn
11. Aomuzv zomuzo Anuzo noonn nn<a
nozomnnn zazozn n<n znnz mnoznnnnnxn nm<n

 

.OQ>H ho>nnm ha usona

oxmg nun: moocownmmxm ummm .mnnovaoamom .0 OHan

46

.nnowoumo sumo an momdoamon mo noses: man on A V on nonaazn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amo Nn.on Aoo no.nn Ano nm.~n nooouooz
Ammo nm.mo AomV Nn.oo Ano nn.no non: nonanm nnmo nznozonmnn
mnnnn noonn
-1: 1.. In- on an nononnn no nmoo
noonn n4 nnm
Ano no.oon in- is- o on mnnnn nanonnm .oz
Anv no.om AmV no.oon 1.. oz noonn nu nnn on
Ann no.om Aoo no.o .1. no» nae: nnonnn ganonnm
Amo no.nn Ano no.on Ano no.oon oz
ANV no.n~ Amv no.om Aoo no.o non noonn nn<n znnm
Anv no.n~ Anv no.- Anv no.on oz
AnNV ne.~n ASNV no.nn Aoo no.mo eon noonn zn znn<n
-1- in- in: oonw
1-- in- Ano no.oon oow
III aHv No.0m Ill 0mm Mmquz< 830MB
-1- Ano no.om in- on” znnz mnnnn no mnmoo
Aomuzv Aqmuzo Anuzo noonn nxan
nazomnnn zozozn n<n nnnz mnoznnnnnxn nmon

 

47

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AnNo no.oo AANV no.oo on no.oon oz
Amo no.on Amo no.on on no.o non zonononm znnan
-- Ano no.on -- comm
-- Ano no.om -- mm» nnoozo zonononm
-- -- -- on znnz mnnnn no nnoo
-- Ano no.om -- n
III AHV No.0m III H .02 NA Hm<m 2H mmauz<
-- -- Ano no.oon o zonononm znnz nnnnn .oz
Aomo no.oon Ammo no.mn Aoo mn.mn oz nngoz<
Aoo no.o ANV no.n Ano nm.on non zonononm zen: nzoo
-- Ano no.om -- omnm
-- Anv no.om -- on» .oz Nn nn<n zn
-- -- -- on mnnnn zonononm no nmoo
-- Any no.mn -- o
It..- AHV No.mN III A .OS N.— Hm<m 2H
Anv no.oon ANV no.om -- o zn mnnnn zonononm .oz
Ammo Nn.oo AnNo Nn.nm Anv no.oon oz
«AHV nm.m «Ado no.~n «Aoo no.o non zonononm n4 non onzmnn
non-zo Anmuzo Anuzo zonononm nz<n
nozomnnn zazozn n<n nnn: mnoznnnnnzn nm<n

 

.omms >o>n=m an coownaum oqu sawB mooconnomxm noon .mucovaomoum .n manna

48

.Anowouoo sumo an momdommon mo noaasa osu on A v ca nona=z«

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annv no.oo Anno nn.wm Ano ne.nn noon-ooz
Amno uo.oo Amno no.no ANV no.w~ non: monanm nnmo nznozonmnn
mnnnn zonozonm
-- -- -- on zn g<nonnm no nmoo
zonononm Mn nnm
Anv no.oon ANV no.oon -- o on mnnzn n<nonnm oz
Ano nn.om Amv no.on Ano no.oon oz zonononm n4 nnn
Ano Nn.nn Amy no.o~ Aoo no.o non on no<z nnonnn q<nonnn
Amno nm.~o Anno no.mo ANV no.oo oz
Any nm.nm Aonv No.nm Any Nm.mm no» zonononm nn<n znnm
Aomnzv Anmuzo Anuzv zonononn nzaq
gazomnnn z<zozn n<n znnz mnoznnnnnxn nmen

 

49

Bald Eagles

Bay Survey

SEEN BALD EAGLES. Over 71% of the Bay survey respondent's indicated
they had never seen a bald eagle in the wild. Of the 29% that had seen
bald eagles, 50% had seen them once or twice and 50% had seen them 10 or

more times.

DESIRE TO SEE BALD EAGLES. 0f the 71% who had not seen bald eagles, 80%
of them indicated they wanted to see bald eagles in the wild during

their lifetime.

NONUSER OR USER. Seventy one percent of the Bay survey respondents were
classified as nonusers of eagles, based on their responses to this sec-

tion, while 29% were classified as users of eagles.

Ingham Survey

 

SEEN BALD EAGLES. Over 71% of the Ingham survey respondents had never
seen bald eagles in the wild. Twenty nine percent had seen bald eagles.
Of those who had seen bald eagles, 40% had seen them once or twice and"
another 40% had seen them 3 to 9 times. In addition 30% had seen or
tried to see them in the previous 12 months. One individual made one
special trip to see bald eagles that cost him/her $800.00 extra and took
10 extra hours. Nearly 67% of those who had seen bald eagles in the

past 12 months indicated the experience enhanced their trip.

DESIRE TO SEE BALD EAGLES. Of the 71% who had not seen bald eagles, 80%

had a desire to see bald eagles during their lifetime.

50

NONUSER OR USER. Over 71% of the Ingham survey respondents were classi-

fied as nonusers and 29% were classified as users.

Personal Survey

 

SEEN BALD EAGLES. Nearly 67% of the Personal survey respondents indi-
cated they had never seen bald eagles in the wild, while 33% had seen
bald eagles. Of those who had seen bald eagles, 50% had seen them once
or twice. Also, 20% had seen bald eagles in the past 12 months,
although they did not make a special effort to see them. Of those who
had seen bald eagles in the past 12 months, all indicated that the

experience enhanced their trip.

DESIRE TO SEE BALD EAGLES. Eighty five percent of those who have not
seen bald eagles in the wild indicated they desired to see them in their

lifetime.

NONUSER OR USER. Nearly 67% of the Personal survey respondents were

classified as nonusers of bald eagles and 33.3% were users.

Gulls

Bay Survey

SEEN GULLS. Slightly more than 14% of the Bay survey respondents indi-
cated they had never seen gulls in the wild, while nearly 86% indicated
they had seen gulls in the wild. Of those who had seen gulls all had
seen them 10 or more times, and 83.8% had seen gulls in the past 12 ,
months but had not made a special effort to see them. Sixty percent

said that seeing gulls enhanced their trip.

51

DESIRE TO SEE GULLS. The individual who had never seen gulls in the

wild indicated no desire to see them in the future.

NONUSER OR USER. Nearly 86% of the Bay survey respondents were classi-

fied as gull users, while 14% were nonusers.

Ingham Survey

SEEN GULLS. Almost 17% of the Ingham survey respondents had never seen
gulls in the wild. Eighty three percent had seen gulls, and most (80%)
had seen them 10 or more times. Seventy-two percent had seen gulls in
the past 12 months and only 11% had made special efforts to see them.
One individual indicated he/she took a special trip to see gulls and the
trip cost him/her $5.00 extra and took 1 hour. Seeing gulls enhanced

the trips of nearly 78% of those who had seen gulls in the past year.

DESIRE TO SEE GULLS. Eighty percent of those who had not seen gulls

indicated a desire to see them during their lifetime.

NONUSER OR USER. Over 83% of the Ingham survey respondents were classi-

fied as gull users and 17% were classified as nonusers.

Personal Survey

 

SEEN GULLS. All Personal survey respondents indicated they had seen
gulls in the wild. Of these, 83.3% had seen them 10 or more times.

Nearly 77% had seen gulls in the past 12 months, but none of them made a

52

special effort to see them. Eighty seven percent indicated that seeing

gulls enchanced their trip.

DESIRE TO SEE GULLS. This question was not asked to the personal survey

respondents because they all had seen gulls.

NONUSER OR USER. One hundred percent of the Personal survey respondents

were classified as gull users.

Lake Trout

Bay Survey

FISHED FOR LAKE TROUT. Over 62% of the Bay Survey respondents fished
for lake trout, while 37.5% had not. Of those who have fished for
trout, 80% took 1 or 2 fishing trips in the last 12 months with an aver-

age cost of between $10.00 and $100.00 each.

GONE WITH A LAKE TROUT ANGLER. One individual took 3 trips with a lake

trout angler.

EATEN LAKE TROUT. Over 85% of the respondents had eaten lake trout,
while 14.4% had not.

SEEN LAKE TROUT. One individual, who had never fished for, accompanied
a trout angler or eaten trout, when asked if he/she had seen lake trout,

responded "no".

NONUSER OR USER. Over 87% of the Bay survey respondents were classified
as lake trout users, based on their responses to this section. Twelve

percent were classified as nonusers.

53

Ingham Surygy

 

FISHED FOR LAKE TROUT. Nearly 62% of the Ingham survey respondent indi-
cated they had not fished for lake trout, while 38% had fished for them.
Forty six percent of those who had fished for lake trout made zero trips
to fish for them in the past 12 months. The number of trips made in the
past 12 months ranged from 1 to 20, with an average cost of between $15

and $100 each.

GONE WITH LAKE TROUT ANGLER. Over 28% of those who had not fished for
lake trout themselves had gone with a lake trout angler. Most, however,

had not made any trips within the past 12 months.

EATEN LAKE TROUT. Seventy seven percent of the respondent had eaten

lake trout, while 23% had not.

SEEN LAKE TROUT. Of those who had not fished for, gone with a lake

trout angler or eaten lake trout, 70% had not seen lake trout either.

NONUSER OR USER. Over 88% of the Ingham survey respondents were classi-

fied as lake trout users, and 12% were classified as nonusers.

Personal Surygy

 

FISHED FOR LAKE TROUT. Over 53% of the Personal survey respondents
indicated they had not fished for lake trout, while 46.7% indicated they
had fished for them. Almost 36% of those who had fished for lake trout
made between 1 and 4 fishing trips in the past 12 months. The average
cost of each trip ranged from $0.00 to $100.00.

54

GONE WITH LAKE TROUT ANGLER. Approximately 19% of those who had not
fished for lake trout went with a lake trout angler, however none of

them took any trips within the past 12 months.
EATEN LAKE TROUT. Over 72% of the respondents had eaten lake trout.

SEEN LAKE TROUT. Of those who had not fished for, gone with a lake

trout angler or eaten lake trout, 71% had never seen lake trout either.

NONUSER OR USER. Over 83% Of the Personal survey respondents were clas-

sified as lake trout users, while 17% were classified as nonusers.
Lake Sturgeon

Bay Survey

 

FISHED FOR LAKE STURGEON. None of the Bay survey respondent had fished

for Take sturgeon.

GONE WITH LAKE STURGEON ANGLER. Over 86% of the reSpondents had not
gone with a lake sturgeon angler. Of the 14% that did, they made zero

trips with a lake sturgeon angler in the past 12 months.

EATEN LAKE STURGEON. None of the respondents had eaten lake sturgeon.

SEEN LAKE STURGEON. Sixty seven percent of the respondents indicated

they had not seen lake sturgeon, while 33% had seen them.

NONUSER OR USER. Over 71% of the Bay survey respondents were classified

as nonusers of lake sturgeon and 29% were classified as users.

55

Ingham Survey

 

FISHED FOR LAKE STURGEON. Over 87% of the Ingham survey respondents had
not fished for lake sturgeon, while 13% had fished for them. Of those
who fished for them, the number of trips in the past 12 months ranged

from 1 to 6 with an average cost of between $50 and $130 each.'

GONE WITH STURGEON ANGLER. Almost 93% of the respondents had not gone
with a lake sturgeon angler. Of the 7% who did, they took 1 or 2 trips

at an average cost of between $25 and $300 each.

EATEN LAKE STURGEON. Ten percent of the respondents had eaten lake

sturgeon and 90% had not.

SEEN LAKE STURGEON. Thirty seven percent of the respondents had seen
lake sturgeon, while 63% had not seen them. Twenty percent of those who
had seen them made a special effort to see them, but not during the past

12 months.

NONUSER OR USER. Over 58% of the Ingham survey respondents were classi-

fied as lake sturgeon nonusers, and 42% were classified as users.
Personal Survey

FISHED FOR LAKE STURGEON. Nearly 97% of the Personal survey respondents
indicated they had never fished for lake sturgeon, while only 3.3% indi-
cated they had fished for them, but made no sturgeon fishing trips durL

ing the past 12 months.

GONE WITH LAKE STURGEON ANGLER. None of the respondents had gone with a

lake sturgeon angler.

56

EATEN LAKE STURGEON. Ten percent of the respondents said they had eaten

lake sturgeon, while 90% had not.

SEEN LAKE STURGEON. Over 37% of the respondents had see lake sturgeon
in the wild, in fish hatcheries or in aquariums, 62.5% had not seen
them. One individual made a special effort to see them, but not within

the past 12 months.’

NONUSER OR USER. Sixty percent of the Personal survey respondents were
classified as lake sturgeon nonusers, and 40% classified as users.

Species Values

 

Each telephone survey respondent was asked either 4 or 6 questions
about one species, depending on his/her user status. Personal survey
respondents were asked either 4 or 6 questions about each of the 4
species, depending on their user status for each species. In addition,
all respondents were asked to evaluate the accuracy of their responses
to the value questions.

These questions were asked to learn how important it was to the
respondent to have the species available under the conditions outlined.
They were also asked to determine the respondents' values on each mease.

ure. Results for this section are found in Tables 8—12.
Bald Eagles
Bay Survey

USE. Fifty percent of the bald eagle users said continuing their
current use was not important to them. While the other 50% said it was
very important to them. The use bids ranged from $0.00 to $10.00 with

an average bid of $5.00.

57

 

 

 

 

ANNV Nm.mm Anny No.m¢ on Na.nm unannoman wno>
Ano Nm.mn Annv no.oo Any Nm.on noennonan nnononoooz
Anv Nm.m Anv N¢.~ ANV nw.o~ ncoononan noz zonnno
nm.-w nn.omm no.nm oonoon>oo onoooonm
om.m~m oo.nmm oo.mm ooHo> on: and:
-- ANV no.o~ -- onnw
-- Ano no.on -- oonw
Ano no.on -- -- mnn
-- ANV no.on -- own
Ano no.on -- -- mam
ANV no.o~ -- -- on»
ANV no.o~ ANV no.o~ -- mun
-- Ano no.o_ -- on”
Ano no.on ANV no.o~ Anv no.on onn
Ano no.on -- -- m»
ANV no.o~ -- Anv no.om on nzq<> nmo
Aonuzv Aonuzo Anuzv
Aoo no.oo Anv no.om Any no.om noonnonan Nno>
ANV no.o~ Ano no.on Aoo no.o nooononan nnononoooz nozannonzn
«ANV no.o~ *on No.o nAnv no.om noonnonan noz no:
mnnoméz
q<zomnnn z<=ozn n<n nonon nno<n

 

.oana ho>nam hp mozam> oawwm pawn .mnaowconmom

.n ononn

58

 

 

 

AmNV Nn.on AoNV Nm.en AmV no.~o unannonan nno>
Aoo no.o~ Amy no.- Amy N¢.~o noonnonan nnononoooz nozennonzn
Ano Nm.m Ano nn.n Anv N~.on noonnonan noz noznnmnxn.
mn.oo» mn.~nm em.~_n oonnon>oo onooooon
no.nmm mn.nnn on.~nm oonnn oonnno one:
-- Ano no.~ -- oomm
-- Ano no.~ -- omnw
Ano Nm.m -- -- oonn
-- Ano no.n -- oonn
Anv Nm.m ANV nn.n -- omnm
Anv nm.m ANV nn.n -- oonm
Ano nm.m -- -- nnm
ANV Nn.o -- -- oon
Amo no.on Anv no.on -- own
Anv nm.m -- -- oom
Ano nm.m -- -- omn
Ano nm.m~ Amo Nn.on Amo no.~o nnw
Ano nm.m ANV nn.m -- on”
Ano nm.m -- -- nnm
Amy no.o_ Ano nn.~ Anv Nn.on onm
Amo Nn.on ANV no.n -- an
ANV Nn.o Aono no.on AmV nn.~o on nonnn zonnno
Aomvzo Aemuzo Anvzv
mnnomsnz
nazonnnn zazozn nan non<> ngo<n

 

59

.hnowouoo sumo a“ mooaommon mo nonssa man on A V :n nonaazn

 

 

on.oew om.oow om.~nw oonnon>oo onooeenm -
on.omw mn.oem on.~nw oonn> oooonenno eooz
Ano Nm.m -- -- oonm
-- Ano no.~ -- oonm
Ado Nm.m Ano nn.m -- omnn
Ano nm.m Amo Nn.on -- oonn
ANV Nn.o -- -- oom
Aoo Nm.mH Amy Nn.on -- on»
zoo nn.o~ zoo nn.nn Amo Nn.no mnn
ANV nn.o ANV Nn.n -- own
Amo no.on Ano no.~ -- an”
ANV Nn.o ANV nn.m Ano nn.o_ onn

moo Nm.mn -- -- mm nnon<>

ANV un.o Amno Nm.nm AmV Nn.~e on noznnnnxn

Aomvzv ASMhzo Anuzo
mnnom<nz
nozomnnn zazozn n<n nonan nnoen

 

6O

 

 

 

 

 

on.mnm nm.nmw no.nnw oonnonooo onnooonn
mm.~nn mm.onw om.n m oonnn oonnno one:
-- Ano Nm.m -- oonw
Amo no.on ANV no.o Anv Nm.on on”
Ano Nn.on zoo nm.mn -- an»
-- Ano Nm.m -- on”
ANV Nn.o -- -- mnn
Aoo Nm.mn on no.o~ -- onw
Amo Nn.on ANV no.o Ano Nm._o mm
Annv NA.om Aonv no.oo Amy no.nn on nonnn zonnno
Aomuzo Aomuzv Anuzo
Anno no.nm zoo NA.o~ ANV no.n~ noonnonon nnoo
Amno no.oo Annv no.nm on NH.nn nooononon nnononoooz nozonnonzn
Amo N~.nn Aoo Nn.om Any Nm.on noonnonon noz zonnno
-- no.nnw Nn.onn no.o~m oonnen>oo onoooonm
om.mnn o~.onw mm.n o dono> on: one:
Aoo Nm.nn Amo no.~n Any Nn.on on”
Amo Nn.on on no.on -- mnw
-- Ano no.o -- onm
ANV Nn.o Any no.o -- nn»
ANV Nn.o on no.o~ -- onn
Aoo No.o~ ANV no.n -- no
Annv Nn.om Anv no.~m Amv Nm.mm on nooo> no:
Aomuzo Annnzo Aouzo
Aono nm.om AmV no.~n Ano no.o~ nooononon Mnoo
Amno Nn.nn Anno No.no ANV no.oo noonnonon nnononoooz nozonnonzn
«Aeo nn.m~ oAmo no.o~ oANV no.oo noonnooon noz nmo
mnnomonz
oozomnnn zozozn non noo<> ouoo

 

0Q%H >o>nnm ha moaao> Hana .muaovcoammm .m manna

61

.xnowmumu 30mm on noncommon no nonasc onm A v on ononaazk

 

 

 

no.nnm no.onm om.mnn oonnoneoo onooooom
mm.onw mn.onm oo.n o oono> oooononno onoz
Amo Nn.on ANV no.o -- on»
-- -- Ano nm.en omo
Amo Nn.on Aoo nm.Mn Ano Mm.on nun
-- ANV no.o -- on”
ANV Nn.o Ano nm.m -- nnm
zoo no.o~ Ano Nm.mn -- onm
Ano Nn.on -- -- ow noo<>
Anv Nm.m~ Aono no.oo Amv no.nn on noznnmnxn
zomuzo Aomuzo Anuzo
Amnv wm.co Amnv No.om ANV um.mm nonunoman Ano>
Anno Nn.nn ANHV no.oo Aoo Nn.oo noonnonon nnononoooz nozonnonzn
Anv Nn.m AmV no.on Aoo no.o noonnonon noz noznnnnxn
monononz
oozomnnn zooozn non nzoon oozo

 

62

 

 

 

 

 

Aeno Nn.oo Amno no.~m ANV no.nn nonnnonon Nno>
Amno no.oo ANno Nm.mm Aoo no.mn noonnonon nnononoooz nozonnonzn
Aoo Nm.mn Aoo nm.nn Aoo no.o noonnonon noz zonnno
mo.n~w n~.onn mo.~mm oonnon>oo onoooonm
mn.o~m mo.o~» n~.omw oono> on: oooz
-- -- Ano nm.on onnn
Adv Nm.m ANV Nn.o 111 canm
ANV Nn.n -- -- mnm
Ano no.m -- -- oow
Amo Mm.nn on Nn.o~ -- omw
-- Ano Nm.m -- mmw
-- Ano Nm.m -- omw
on Nn.mn Amo no.on Amv no.~o man
-- Ano Nm.m -- ono
ANV Nn.n -- -- an”
Amv Mm.nn on NS.M~ Anv Nm.on on”
ANV Nn.n Ano Nm.m AHV nm.on no
Aoo nn.m~ on no.om Anv Nm.on on nzo<> no:
Aonhzo Aomvzo Annzo
-- Amo n~.on zoo on.o~ ANV no.n~ noonnooon nno>
Anny No.om Aono nm.mm Any nn.~o noonnooan nnononoooz nozonnonzn
oAmv Nm.om «ANHV No.oq oANv Nc.mw unmunoaan uoz Mm:
nnnomonz
oozomnnn zooozn non noqo> noonn nzoo
.OQAH zo>n=m An mo5Hm> unone oxmA .muaovaomoom .oH manna

63

 

 

 

Anno nm.mo ANNV Nn.oo Any nm.no noonnonon nno>
Aonv Nm.mm Anno N¢.Nm Ano mm.Nn noonnonon nnononoooz nozonnonzn
Anv Nm.m Anv Nn.~ Aoo No.o noonnonon noz noznnnnzn
nm.nen oo.nmw on.mmm oonnon>oo onoooonn
mo.m~n nn.o~n oo.o~w oonno oonnno onoz
zno nm.m -- -- oonw
-- ANV no.n -- onnw
Ano nm.m Any no.~ Anv nn.~n oono
Ano NA.o Ano no.~ -- mnw
Aoo nm.mn Aoo no.nn -- on”
-- ANV no.n -- con
-- Ano no.~ -- mm»
Ano nm.m~ Ano Nn.on Ano nn.~n mnm
-- ANV no.n Ano nn.~n own
ANV Nn.o -- -- now
ANV nn.o zoo no.nn Ano no.~n onm
zoo Nm.Mn -- Ano nn.~n mm
Anv Nm.m~ Aono no.o~ Amv nn.nm on nonnn zonnno
Aomuzv Aomhzo onzv
mnnononz
oozomonn zozozn non noo<> noonn nzoo

 

64

.AnowOnoo sumo an noncommon mo noses: onm A v on mnmnaszo

 

 

on.nom nn.nmw om.onm oonnon>oo onoooonm
no.n~w mm.o~w nn.onw mono> oooonenxo oooz
Ano nm.m -- -- oonn
-- Ano nn.~ -- omnw
Ano nm.m Ano no.~ -- oonm
ANV Nn.o -- -- mnm
Amo no.on Ano no.o~ -- on”
-- Ano nn.~ -- nmw
-- Anv no.~ Ano nm.Nn on”
zoo no.on AmV nn.n Amv Nn.nm nun
-- Amo nn.o -- own
Amo no.o_ AmV nn.o -- no”
AmV no.o_ zoo no.nn AmV on.nm on”
Ano nm.m~ ANV no.m -- mm mnooos
on Nm.mn Ano mm.m~ Anv mm.~n on noznnmnzn
Aomuzo Aomuzv Anuzo
monsoon:
oozomnnn zozozn non nooo> noonn nnoo

 

 

on Nm.mn Amnv No.oo AHV Nm.o~ noonnomsn Nno>

 

65

 

 

Amno no.om Aonv nm.mm Aoo na.nn noonnonon nnononoooz nozonnonzn
Anno Nn.om Any Nn.o~ ANV no.mn noonnonon noz zonnno
- wo.on on.n~n on.onn oonnon>oo onoooonm -
mn.mm no.nmm oo.onn ooHo> on: one:
-- Ano Nn.n -- oonw
-- zoo nn.om -- own
-- Ano Nn.n -- on”
-- Ano Nn.n -- on“
-- ANV uo.mn Ano no.om onm
ANV nn.on -- -- mow
Any Nm.n -- -- on»
Ano Nm.n Anv Nn.n -- no
Amv Nn.oo Amy nn.m~ Anv no.on on noo<> nmo
Amnuzo Annuzv Anuzo
Aoo no.o Ano NA.n Aoo no.o noonnonon nnoo
ANV no.mn Ann nm.no Aoo no.o noonnooan nnononoooz nozonnonzn
ozono nn.on non nm.om AANV No.oon noonnonon noz no:
annomonz
nozomnnn zozozn non noq<> zonononm

 

.OQAH Ao>n=m An mo=Hm> doownsum oxmq .mucovaoomom .HH manna

.Anowoumo 30mm on momaoamon mo nonenc onu on A v on noaaaz«

 

 

66

 

 

on.oon eo.nmm om.mm oonnonooo onooooom
nn.n~w no.omw nn.mm monoe oooononxo oooz
Ano nm.m -- -- oonn
Anv nm.m Amo no.on -- oonn
-- Ano Mm.m -- nnn
Amo no.on Aoo no.on -- own
-- zno nm.m -- om”
on Nm.m~ Amo Nn.on -- mum
ANV Nn.o Amo no.on -- own
Ano nm.m -- -- mnn
AmV no.on Amo no.on on nn.nn onm
Aoo no.o~ -- -- mm noo<>
Ano no.on va Nn.on Amv N¢.No on noznnmnzn
Aomuzo Aomhzo Anuzo
Aoo no.om AoNV nn.oo “no mm.on nonononon Nnoo
Aonv nn.oo Anv nn.m~ Ano no.nn noonnonon nnononoooz nozonnonzn
Ano Nm.m~ Amy Nn.o Ano Nm.on noonnooon noz noznnmnzn
mm.o~w nn.nnw oo.mn oonnonooo onoooonm
oo.onw no.onw oo.mo oonnn oonnno oooz
Ano nm_m -- -- oonw
Amo Nn.on Ano N~.nn -- omm
-- ANV no.o -- omn
ANV Nn.o AnV Nn.o~ -- nnw
Anv Nm.m Ano Nn.m -- own
ANV Nn.o -- -- mnm
ANV Nn.o Any nm.on Amv no.no on”
ANV Nn.o Anv nm.m Ano nm.on no
Anno no.on Aono nm.om Amo nm.~o om nonnn zonnno
Aomhzo Annuzo Anuzo
monsoon:
oozomnnn zooozn non noooz zonononm

 

6?

 

Aomv N0.oo~
on uo.o

muonsuon zannmm
mommosm wanz

 

A<zommmm

WU<MDUU< mDA<> mo BZMmemmm<
.mHzmazommmm 3mH>MMHzH A<ZOmmmm

 

Aonnv nm.no

Ammv No.00H

Ouwnsuom hannmn

 

 

 

 

 

Anno nn.o Aoo No.o nonooow onnz mnnzmzo nonon
AnNV No.oon Any No.oon ononoooo nannon mnnzmzo
on no.o Aoo no.o oooooon onnz zonononn noon
Anmo n~.no Ano no.oon ononoooo nnnnon
Amv nn.n Aoo no.o oooeoon onnz mnnznzo noonn naoo
AnNV Nn.oo Ano No.oon ononoooo nnnnon
Ano nm.m zoo No.o oooooom onnz mnnzmzo nooo
AnNV Ne.on Ano no.oon ononoooo nannon
Anv no.o~ Aoo no.o nonnoow.onn3 mnnnmz< nooon
noonoooo noo<>
zozozn non no nznzmmnmmo .nnznozonmnn

 

.omha >o>n=m

an moan nwona mo humnaou< mo uaoammomw< .muaovaommmm .N~ mfiamw

68

OPTION. Over 57% of the bald eagle respondents said that maintaining
the Option to enjoy bald eagles in the future was very important to
them. The Option bids ranged from $0.00 to $25.00, with an average bid
of $12.14.

EXISTENCE. Nearly 43% of the bald eagle respondents indicated that it
was very important that the existence of bald eagles be insured for
future generations, regardless of their own future use, while another
43% said bald eagles future existence was moderately important. The
existence bids ranged from $0.00 to $25.00, with an average bid of
$12.14.

Ingham Survey

 

USE. Fifty percent of the bald eagle users said continuing their
current use of bald eagles was very important to them. The other 50%
said it was moderately important to them. The use bids ranged from

$10.00 to $150.00 with an average bid of $59.00.

OPTION. Over 48% of the bald eagle respondents said that maintaining
the option to enjoy bald eagles in the future was very important to
them. Another 48.6% said it was moderately important. Option bids
ranged from $0.00 to $300.00, with an average bid of $51.33.

ELXISTENCE. Approximately 75% of the bald eagle respondents indicated
‘Uhat the future existence of bald eagles, regardless of their own future
use, was very important to them. Existence bids ranged from $0.00 to

$1630.00, with an average bid of $40.73.

69

Personal Survey

 

USE. Sixty percent of the bald eagle users indicated that continuing

their current use of bald eagles was very important to them. The use

bids ranged from $0.00 to $75.00, with an average bid of $23.00.

OPTION. Over 73% of the respondents said that maintaining the option to
enjoy bald eagles in the future was very important to them. The option

bids ranged from $0.00 to $200.00, with an average bid of $37.67.

EXISTENCE. Nearly 77% of the respondents indicated that the future
existence of bald eagles, regardless of their own future use, was very
important to them. Existence bids ranged from $0.00 to $200.00, with an
average bid of $36.50.

Gulls
Bay Survey

USE. Forty percent of the gull users indicated that continuing their
current use of gulls was moderately important to them. Another 40% said
it was not important at all. Use bids ranged from $0.00 to $50.00, with

an average bid of $8.33.

OPTION. Sixty eight percent of the gull respondents said it was
moderately important that their option to enjoy gulls be guaranteed in
the future. The option bids ranged from $0.00 to $50.00, with an aver-
age bid of $7.86.

EXI STENCE. Nearly 67% of the gull respondents indicated that the future

existence of gulls, regardless of their own future use, was moderately

7O

important to them. The existence bids ranged from $0.00 to $30.00, with
an average bid of $7.86.

Ingham Survey

 

USE. Sixty eight percent of the gull users said their continuing
current use of gulls was moderately important to them. The use bids

ranged from $0.00 to $50.00 with an average bid of $14.20.

OPTION. Over 58% 0f the gull respondents indicated that it was
moderately important that their option to enjoy gulls in the future be
guaranteed. Option bids ranged from $0.00 to $16.33, with an average
bid of $16.33.

EXISTENCE. Fifty percent of the gull respOndents said that the future
existence of gulls, regardless of their own future use, was very impor-
tant to them. The existence bids ranged from $0.00 to $50.00, with an
average bid of $10.83.

Personal Survey

 

USE. Over 51% of the gull users indicated their continued current use-'
of gulls was moderately important to them. Use bids ranged from $0.00

to $50.00 with an average bid of $13.50.

OPTION. Nearly 45% of the gull respondents said it was moderately
important that their option to enjoy gulls in the future be guaranteed.
The option bids ranged from $0.00 to $50.00, with an average bid of
$12.33.

EXISTENCE. Over 51% of the gull respondents indicated that the future

existence of gulls, regardless of their own future use, was moderately

71

important to them. The existence bids ranged from $0.00 to $50.00, with

an average bid of $16.33.

Lake Trout

Bay Survey

 

USE. Nearly 43% Of the lake trout users indicated that their continued
current use of lake trout was moderately important to them. The use

bids ranged from $0.00 to $150.00, with an average bid of $34.29.

OPTION. Seventy five percent of the lake trout respondents said it was
moderately important that their option to enjoy lake trout in the future
be guaranteed. Option bids ranged from $0.00 to $100.00, with an aver-
age bid of $20.00.

EXISTENCE. Over 87% of the lake trout respondents said that the future
existence of lake trout, regardless of their own future use, was very
important to them. Existence bids ranged from $0.00 to $30.00, with an
average bid of $16.87.

Ingham Survey

 

USE. Forty percent of the lake trout users said that their continued
current use of lake trout was not important to them. Another 33.3% said
it was moderately important to them. Use bids ranged from $0.00 to
$100.00, with an average bid of $26.83.

OPTION. Nearly 53% of the lake trout respondents indicated it was very
important that their option to enjoy lake trout in the future be
guaranteed. Option bids ranged from $0.00 to $150.00, with an average
bid of $29.85.

72

EXISTENCE. Almost 65% of the lake trout respondents said that the
future existence of lake trout, regardless of their own future use, was
very important to them. Existence bids ranged from $0.00 to $150.00,
with an average bid of $26.32.

Personal Survey

 

USE. Fifty percent of the lake trout users indicated that their contin-
ued current use of lake trout was moderately important to them, while
nearly 31% said it was not important at all. The use bids ranged from

$0.00 to $100.00, with an average bid of $26.15.

OPTION. Nearly 47% of the respondents said that it was very important
that their option to enjoy lake trout in the future be guaranteed.
Forty percent indicated that it was moderately important. Option bids
ranged from $0.00 to $200.00, with an average bid of $29.93.

EXISTENCE. Over 53% of the respondents said that the future existence
of lake trout, regardless of their own future use, was moderately impor—
tant to them, while 43.3% said it was very important. Existence bids

ranged from $0.00 to $200.00, with an average bid of $28.67.

Lake Sturgeon

Bay Survey

 

USE. All of the lake sturgeon users indicated that their continued
current use Of lake sturgeon was not important to them. Despite this,

use bids ranged from $0.00 to $20.00, with an average bid of $10.00.

OPTION. Over 57% of the lake sturgeon respondents said that is was

moderately important that their Option to enjoy lake sturgeon in the

73

future be guaranteed. The option bids ranged from $0.00 to $10.00 with

an average bid of $5.00.

EXISTENCE. Approximately 71% of the lake sturgeon respondents indicated
that it was moderately important to them that lake sturgeon exist in the’
future, regardless of their own future use. Existence bids ranged from

$0.00 to $10.00, with an average bid of $5.7l.

Ingham Survey

 

USE. Over 61% of the lake sturgeon users said that their continued
current use of lake sturgeon was moderately important to them. Use bids

ranged from $0.00 to $100.00, with an average bid of $31.92.

OPTION. Forty percent of the lake sturgeon respondents indicated that
it was very important that their option to enjoy lake sturgeon in the
future be guaranteed. The Option bids ranged from $0.00 to $50.00 with
an average bid of $18.62.

EXISTENCE. Over 46% of the lake sturgeon respondents said that the
future existence of lake sturgeon, regardless of their own future use, *
was very important to them. Existence bids ranged from $0.00 to

$100.00, with an average bid of $30.67.

Personal Survey

 

USE. Nearly 77% of the lake sturgeon users said that their continued
current use of lake sturgeon was not important to them. Use bids ranged

from $0.00 to $15.00, with an average bid of $3.75.

74

OPTION. Fifty percent of the respondents indicated that it was

moderately important that their option to enjoy lake sturgeon in the
future be guaranteed. Option bids ranged from $0.00 to $100.00 with an V
average bid of $16.00.

EXISTENCE. Over 64% of the respondents said that the future existence
of lake sturgeon, regardless of their own future use, was moderately
important to them. Thirty percent indicated that it was very important.
The existence bids ranged from $0.00 to $200.00, with an average bid of
$22.17.

Accuracy of Responses to Value Questions

Bay Survey»
All the participants in the Bay survey felt their responses to the

value questions were fairly accurate (Table 12).

Ingham Survey
Most of the Ingham survey participants felt their responses to the
value questions were fairly accurate. In total, over 91% indicated

their answers were fairly accurate (Table 12).

Personal Survey

All of the participants in the Personal survey felt their responses

to the value questions were fairly accurate (Table 12).

Species Total Value
The average total value for each species was obtained by adding the
average use, Option and existence bids for that species (Table 13).

Results show that the Bay survey total values were consistently lower

75

than either the Ingham survey or the Personal survey. The total values
for the common species, gulls and lake sturgeon, differed by $.70 and
$1.30, respectively. Total values for the uncommon species varied more

widely.

Comparisons of Median and Mean Bids

Measures of central tendency are Often used to give insight into
the typicalness of a population distribution. Various measures can be
used to describe what is typical including, mean, median and mode.

In this research, there was the problem of eliciting extreme dollar
amounts during the iterative bidding process. In an effort to compen-
sate for the effects of extreme values, the median and mean bids for the
value measures were compared. The median value is less influenced by
extreme values than is the mean value. Therefore, the median value is

the preferred measure of central tendency when extreme values exist.

Bay’Survey
Comparisons between the median and mean bids for the Bay survey
indicate that extreme values were given for all the gull values and the;
lake trout and lake sturgeon use and option values (Table 14). This

concurs with the frequency data for the Bay survey found in Tables 8-11.

76

mm.How
oh.¢wm
oa.~ow

no.non

Hmcomnom

on.nno
oo.oon
oe.new

m¢.w¢~w
amswaH

 

WDA<> A<HOH mu¢mm>¢

Aw.mam
on.anm
mo.¢~w

o~.o~w
“mm

:oownaum oxmu
ozone 03mg
madam

moawmm

mMHUmmm

.mmzk >o>nsm kn monowam nomm mo unam> Hones mmmno>< .mA manna

Table 14. Comparisons of Median and Mean Bids for Bay Survey.

Eagles:

Gulls:

Lk. Trout:

Lk. Sturgeon:

77

Use

Option

Existence

Use

Option

Existence

Use

Option

Existence

Use

Option

Existence

MEDIAN

 

5.00

10.00

10.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

25.00

7.50

17.50

10.00

5.00

10.00

MEAN
5.00
12.14

12.14

8.33
7.86

7.86

34.29

20.00

16.87

10.00
5.00

5.71

78

Ingham Survey
Comparisons between the median and mean bids for the Ingham Survey
show a divergence between them for most values (Table 15). In some
cases, this is due to extreme values alone, while in other cases the
influence of extreme values is increased by the overall frequency dis-

tribution of the bids (Tables 8-11).

Personal Survey
Comparison between the median and mean bids for the Personal survey
again indicate a difference between most of the values (Table 16).
Again, this is due in part to extreme values alone and the compounding

factor of the frequency distribution of the bids (Tables 8-11).

Table 15. Comparison of Median and Mean Bids for Ingham Survey

Eagles:

Gulls:

Lk. Trout:

Lk. Sturgeon:

79

Use
Option

Existence

Use
Option

Existence

Use
Option

Existence

Use
Option

Existence

MEDIAN

37.50
25.00
22.50

10.00

5.00
10.00

22.50
20.00
17.50

30.00
20.00
25.00

MEAN

59.00
51.33
40.73

14.20

16.33
10.83

26.83
29.85
26.32

31.92
18.62
30.67

Table 16. Comparison of Median and Mean Bids for Personal Survey

Eagles:

Gulls:

Lk. Trout:

Lk. Sturgeon:

80

Use
Option

Existence

Use
Option

Existence

Use
Option

Existence

Use
Option

Existence

MEDIAN

25.00
25.00
25.00

5.00
5.00
10.00

20.00
20.00
15.00

0.00
2.50
7.50

MEAN

23.50
37.67
36.50

13.50
12.33
16.33

26.15
29.93
28.67

3.75
16.00
22.17

81

Comparisons of Mean Bids
As mentioned earlier, the question of whether or not various sets
of mean bids were different, was of interest. Standard two tailed t
tests were used to test if there were statistically significant differ-
ences between these means. All calculated t values were compared to t-
table values at a = .05 levels. In cases where there were no table

values listed, the values were extrapolated.

Telephone Survey
The average bids for all value measures for the telephone surveys
(Bay and Ingham) were compared (Tables 17 and 18). For all the bird
species value measures, there were no statistically significant differ-
ences between the mean bids. For the fish species value measures, all
but one showed no statistically significant difference between the mean
bids. A statistically significant difference existed between the lake

sturgeon existence bids for the Bay and Ingham surveys.

82

Table 17. Comparison of Bald Eagle and Gull Means and Standard Errors
for Bay and Ingham Surveys

 

g5: INGHAM
EAGLES
Use § 5.00 59.00
se 5.00 17.33
Option 2 12.14 51.33
se 4.34 12.49
Existence 2 12.14 40.73
se 4.74 8.46
GULLS
Use T 8.33 14.20
se 8.33 3.22
Option } 7.86 16.33
se 7.06 6.83
Existence .; 7.86 10.83

se 5.10 2.56

Table 18. Comparison of Lake Trout and Lake Sturgeon Means and Standard

Errors for Bay and Ingham Surveys

LAKE TROUT

Use

Option

Existence

LAKE STURGEON

Use

Option

Existence

XI

se

XI

58

xI

SE

58

XI

56

E

SE

ELY.

34.29
19.68

20.00
11.91

16.87
3.77

10.00
10.00

5.00
1.89

5.711

2.02

m

26.83
5.17

29.85
6.63

26.32
5.40

31.92
8.04

18.62
3.32

5.67

1Accept H1 that Bay (i) is significantly different from Ingham (R) atcx

84

Ingham and Personal Surveys

It was felt that if the telephone and personal interview surveys
were well constructed they may be considered comparable research instru-
ments. To achieve this, the mean bids for the two survey types would
need to show no statistically significant difference between the two
sets of means. Therefore, the average bids for all value measures for
the two surveys conducted in Ingham county were compared (Tables 19 and
20). For all the bird species value measures, there were no statisti-
cally significant differences between the mean bids. For the fish
species, all but one showed no statistically significant difference
between the mean bids. A statistically significant differences was
found between the lake sturgeon use bids for the Ingham and Personal
surveys. This difference may be more a result of the small sample of
Ingham county sturgeon users (N=2) surveyed, rather than true mean popu-

lation differences.

85

Table 19. Comparison of Bald Eagle and Gull Means and Standard Errors
for Ingham and Personal Surveys.

INGHAM PERSONAL
EAGLES
Use F 59.00 23.50
se 17.33 7.07
Option I 51.33 37.67
se 12.49 8.18
Existence E 40.73 36.50
se 8.46 8.06
GULLS
Use E 14.20 13.50
se 3.22 3.12
Option I 16.33 12.33
se 6.83 2.84
Existence E 10.83 16.33
se 2.56 3.18

Table 20. Comparison of Lake Trout and Lake Sturgeon Means and Standard
Errors for Ingham and Personal Surveys

LAKE TROUT

Use
Option
Existence

LAKE STURGEON

Use

Option

Existence

1Accept H1 t
at a = .05.

XI

SE

XI

58

XI

58

58

XI

$6

"l

58

hat Ingham (R) ;__

d
m

INGHAM

 

26.83
5.17

29.85
6.63

26.32
5.40

31.921
8.04

18.62
3.39

30.67
5.67

W

26.15
5.42

29.93
7.54

28.67
7.50

3.75
1.75

16.00
4.44

22.17
7.33

significantly different from Personal (x)

87

Nonusers or Users
The average values for users and nonusers of each Species were com-
pared for the Ingham survey and the Personal survey (Tables 21-24). For
all species, there were no statistically significant differences between
nonuser and user means at the a = .05 level.

Table 21. Comparison of Bald Eagle and Gull Nonuser and User Means and
Standard Errors for Ingham Survey.

NONUSER USER
EAGLES
Option 3'- 56.04 40.00
se 16.59 15.38
ExiStence 2 35.62 53.00
se 9.24 15.38
GULLS
Option x 9.00 17.80
se ' 4.58 8.14
Existence ; 9.00 8.80

se 4.58 3.77

Table 22. Comparison of Lake Trout and Lake Sturgeon Nonuser and User

Means and.Standard Errors for Ingham Survey.

LAKE TROUT

Option_

Existence

LAKE STURGEON ‘

Option

Existence

XI

58

SE

XI

58

S6

NONUSER

$17.50
11.81

8.75
4.27

16.11
4.49

30.56
7.86

115.53

$31.50
7.34

28.67
5.98

22.73
5.11

30.83
8.28

Table 23.

EAGLES

Option

Existence

GULLS

Option

Existence

89

Comparison of Bald Eagle and Gull Nonuser and User Means and

Standard Errors for Personal

x1

S8

XI

S6

XI

SE

58

Survey.

NONUSER

39.00
8.07

37.00
7.90

9.5.68

35.00
19.23

35.50
19.08

12.33
2.84

16.33
3.18

90

Table 24. Comparison of Lake Trout and Lake Sturgeon Nonuser and User
Means and Standard Errors for Personal Survey.

NONUSER USER
LAKE TROUT
Option 2 26.00 29.96
58 10.65 8.95
Existence 'R 20.00 30.00
se 11.47 8.76
LAKE STURGEON
Option 'Y 20.00 10.00
se 6.75 4.35
Existence R 19.17 26.67
se 6.44 15.96

Comparison of Use Value with Other Estimates

Lake trout and salmon sport fishing values have been estimated
using the travel cost method. Talhelm (personal communication) has
estimated this sport fishing value to be $40 to $45 per day, in 1983
dollars. This value can be compared with an estimated per day use value
obtained from survey respondent lake trout anglers. For the purpose of
this comparison, the use values for respondents who had fished for lake
trout in the previous year were summed and divided by the anglers' total
number of lake trout angling days in the previous year. The resulting

value was a rough estimate of the value of lake trout fishing per day to

91

respondents. It is important to note that this value may be somewhat
inflated because the anglers' use value may have included value for uses
other than fishing, such as eating.

The estimated lake trout sport fishing value per day, for each sur-
vey was: Bay - $37.50, Ingham - $6.21 and Personal - $23.50. Comparing
these values with $40 - 45/day, CV appears to have underestimated wil-
lingness to pay. This underestimation is consistent with the results of
a similar comparison of travel cost and CV methods by Bishop and
Heberlein (1979).

Observations of and Commentsgby
Respondents

Respondents' actions and comments during the interview process add
insight into their reactions and responses to various questions. There-
fore, observations of and comments by the respondents are briefly dis-

cussed.

Telephone Interview Respondents

Most of the telephone interview respondents were relatively patient
with the interviewer while the questions were being asked. This was
probably because the respondents were told that the interview would take
10 to 15 minutes and all were completed in less than 10 minutes. This
overestimate of the time the questionnaire would take may have reduced
the likelihood that the respOndent would answer inaccurately to hurry
the interview along.

Many of the telephone respondents were noticeably irritated with
high bid starting points. Frequently the respondent would laugh or ask

the interviewer if she was serious. For this reason the interviewers

92

tried to find the respondent's acceptable bid range quickly, so as not

to irritate them further.

Some of the respondents bid zero on the value questions. A few

offered explanation including:

the Michigan DNR should be taking care of this anyway;

the money should come from license fees only;

the money should come from trout fishermen and businesses that

profit from lake trout rather than the general public; and

there should be enough money in the DNR already - don't give DNR
money to other programs.
few respondents refused to bid at all. Reasons given included:

the questions were not applicable for a single species;

sea gulls were not a worthy cause and he/she didn't like the

questions.

he/she didn't have adequate time to think abut the money

questions; and

the money questions were irrelevant and he/she didn't care to

respond.

Personal Interview Respondents

The personal interview respondents were generally friendly to and

patient with the interviewer, during the interview. The respondents

were told the interview would take about 45 minutes, and most were com-

pleted in 30 minutes. There was little indication that the respondents

tried to hurry the process along, thereby jeopardizing the accuracy of

93

their reSponses. Two notable exceptions to this were when one respon-
dent had unexpected company and the other was watching a TV game show
while trying to respond to the questions.

The $50.00 starting point appeared to pose no problem for most of
the personal interview respondents. There were, however, indications
that $50.00 was still perceived as too high by a few.

Some of the respondents bid zero on the value questions. Most who
did so indicated that they did not value a Specific aspect of the
species, such as the use of lake trout. Others felt there were enough
of the species already (gulls and trout) and they didn't need to be
financially supported. One respondent bid zero on all value measures
for all species stating that preserving any specific species was a waste
of money.

After the personal interview was formally completed, respondents
were asked an additional question informally. They were asked if they
bid on each species separately or if their bids were influenced by their
previous species bids. All personal interview respondents said they bid
on each species separately and did not allow their previous bids to 1

influence their subsequent bids.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter V includes a summary of the key findings of this study,
conclusions based on these findings and recommendations for further

study and research.

M

Bay Survey

The typical Bay telephone respondent was, 20-29 years old, married,
with a high school education and a household income of $30,000 to
$39,999 annually. The sample of Bay county respondents was similar to
the general population of the county with a regard to their age and sex.
Respondents did have somewhat higher levels of education and income than
the general population.

Most Bay county respondents were classified as nonusers of bald
eagles and lake sturgeon, and as users of gulls and lake trout. The
average option and existence bids were higher for bald eagles than for
gulls, and higher for lake trout than for lake sturgeon. The average
total bids for each species ranged from $17.87 for lake sturgeon to
$71.16 for lake trout. All Bay respondents felt their answers to the

money questions were fairly accurate.

94

95

Ingham Survey

The typical Ingham telephone respondent was male or female, 20-29
years old, married, with some college education and an annual household
income of less than $10,000. The sample of Ingham county telephone
respondents was similar to the general adult pOpulation of the county
with regard to sex, age and income levels. Respondents did have some-
what higher levels of education than the general population.

Most Ingham respondents were classified as nonusers of bald eagles
and lake sturgeon, and as users of gulls and lake trout. The average
use and Option bid was higher for lake trout than for lake sturgeon,
while the average existence bid was higher for lake sturgeon than for
lake trout. The average total bids for each species ranged from $41.46
for gulls to $148.43 for bald eagles. Most Ingham respondents felt

their answers to the money questions were fairly accurate.

Personal Survey

The typical Personal interview respondent was male or female, 40-49
years Old, married, with some college education and an annual household
income of $20,000 - $29,999. The sample of Personal interview respon- ,
dents from Ingham county was similar to the general population of the
county with regard to sex. Respondents tended to be slightly older than
the general population, and had higher levels of education and income.

Most Personal interview respondents were classified as nonusers of
bald eagles and lake sturgeon, and as users of gulls and lake trout.
~ The average use, Option and existence bids were higher for bald eagles
than for gulls, and higher for lake trout than for lake sturgeon. The

average total bids for each species ranged from $41.95 for sturgeon to

96

$95.67 for bald eagles. All Personal interview respondents felt their

answers to the money questions were fairly accurate.

Comparison of Mean Bids

Three sets of mean bids were compared to test for statistical
differences between means. They were comparisons between: Bay and Ing-
ham surveys, Ingham and Personal surveys, and Nonusers and Users. A
statistically significant difference was found (at a = .05) in only two
of the 38 comparisons made: the lake sturgeon existence bids for Bay and
Ingham surveys, and the lake sturgeon use bids for Ingham and Personal
surveys. Differences between the mean bids in both cases can probably
be attributed to the small sample sizes used for comparisons rather than

true population differences.

Review of Goals and Hypotheses
At the onset of the research several goals were identified and

hypotheses were formed.

94412.

The first goal was to determine if individuals are able to concep-
tually divide their total value for a specified wildlife species into “
its' component values and assess each component separately. Respondents
were able to conceptually divide their total value for a species into
component values and assess each component separately. There is some
question, however, if they perceived each component as was intended.

The use value was intended to measure the value of the respondents'
present ggdufgtgge use of the species. The option price question was
intended to measure Option value - the value respondents' placed on the

guarantee of the future option of use, not the value of future use

97

itself. In reviewing the value measure questions it was felt that the
difference between the use value and option price was not clearly made.
It appears that the use value question may have elicited present use
values only and that future use values were included in the option price
question. Therefore, the option price values may not accurately measure
the amount respondents are willing to pay for the 923129 alone of future
use of the species.

The second goal was to determine the magnitudes of the components
as an approximation of their relative importance. It was felt that some
consistent order of values, based on the mean bids for each value, might
be found. If so, this could provide insight into the importance of the
various components of total value to individuals. In comparing the mean
bids for each value by species and survey type, no consistent order of
values appeared. It is, however, important to point out that the magni-
tudes Of the mean bids for the values were generally similar. This
finding is especially relevant to the magnitude of existence values com-
pared with that of use value. Conclusions regarding the relationship
between the magnitudes of use and existence value to option price value
are unclear because of the uncertainty about the reliability of the
Option price bids, as discussed in the preceding paragraph. Speculativ-
ley, the magnitude of Option price may be a small percentage of the mag-
nitudes of the other two values.

Goal three was to determine the approximate total value of each
species and use this as an indicator of individuals' preferences between
species. The approximate value for each species was identified as the
average total value of the species, computed by adding the average use,

Option and existence bids (See Table 13). Comparing the average total

98

values for each species by survey type shows no clear pattern of prefer-
ence between species. Bald eagles were the most highly valued species
by both Ingham and Personal survey respondents, while lake trout were
the most highly valued species by Bay survey respondents. The responses
from Bay county participants may be different than those of Ingham
county participants because of the smaller sample size, or because there
are more lake trout anglers near the Great Lakes. Gulls ranked last
with Ingham respondents while lake sturgeon ranked last with Personal
respondents (gulls were ranked a close third to sturgeon, however).

The fourth goal was to examine the possibility that the relative
magnitudes of the values may be related to other factors including geo-
graphical location. Comparisons between Bay and Ingham.telephone survey
means bids Showed no statistically significant difference between mean
values. We can not conclusively accept the hypothesis that geographical
location influenced respondents' average bids.

Goal five was to evaluate whether respondents were able to under-
stand the concepts presented, and if they felt their responses accu-
rately reflected their values. For the most part, respondents were able
to understand the concepts as they were presented. Some respondents, I
however, did require additional clarification of the values. As men-
tioned in the discussion of the first goal the concepts respondents were
presented with and understood were perhaps not exactly the concepts
intended to be presented. Almost all respondents indicated that they '
felt their bid responses did, in fact, accurately reflect their values.

The last goal was to Offer recommendations for further research

into the problem of assessing extra market values for non-consumptive

99

uses of wildlife. Recommendations are addressed in the last section of
this chapter.

Hypotheses

 

The first hypothesis was that people do hold option prices and
existence values for fish and wildlife resources, and these valuations
differ from species to species. Respondents do hold existence values
for fish and wildlife resources, and most probably have Option prices
for them as well. The problem encountered in evaluating the option
price bids was the uncertainty regarding what the bids elicited meas-
ured. It is felt that the option price bids may have included the value
of future use of the species, in addition to the amount the individual
would be willing to pay to maintain the 925129 of future use. There-
fore, there is not a good sense of respondents' option price or their
ability to conceptualize it. Further, given the uncertainty about what
was actually measured, it is difficult to assess if option prices differ
significantly from species to species.

The existence value component of total value does differ somewhat
from species to species. The order of magnitude of the existence value
bids are similar, however, for bald eagles, lake trout and lake stur- _
geon. Gull existence value bids are approximately one-half the magni-
tude of the existence value bids for the other species. This is perhaps
a reflection of both the abundance of gulls, as well as respondents per-
ceived inability to use gulls consumptively in the future. This ability
to consume the fish species may have played an important role in the
formulation of respondents' existence values.

The second hypothesis was that option prices for each species

differ from existence values for each species. This hypothesis could

100

not be adequately examined because of the probable inaccuracy of the
Option price results due to the wording of the option question in the
questionnaire. The hypothesis my be testable if the Option price ques-
tion could be worded clearly and time for complete explanation provided.
The last hypothesis was that total use values will be higher for
common species (species with low utilization costs) and will be lower
for uncommon species (species with high utilization costs). For the
bird species, the total value for bald eagles (uncommon species) was
higher than for gulls (common species) for each survey. This indicates
that this hypothesis did not hold true for the bird species. The
results for the fish species are somewhat inconclusive. The total value
of lake sturgeon (uncommon species) was higher than the total value of
lake trout (common species) for Ingham survey respondents only. Bay and
Personal survey respondents, however, valued lake trout over lake stur-

geon.

Conclusions

 

There were advantages to both the telephone and personal interview
survey methods. The telephone interviews allowed more information to be
gathered in a short amount of time. Telephone respondents were, how-
ever, less likely to ask for clarification of questions and concepts.
Therefore, the data collected using the telephone interview method may
be less precise than that collected by the personal interview method due
to the possible increased opportunity for misunderstanding.

The personal interviews were much more time intensive than the
telephone interviews with regard to the amount of information gathered.
This extra time taken with respondents proved to be advantageous because

they appeared to ask for explanation of unclear points more readily.

101

The precision of the personal interview data may therefore be higher
than that of the telephone interview data.

The bid starting point did not influence the respondents' bids for
the survey done in Ingham county. The static $50.00 bid for the Per-
sonal survey resulted in mean bids statistically equal to the bids
received from the Ingham telephone survey with the randomly selected bid
starting point ranging from $50.00 to $300.00. It is, possible that
$50.00 may have been considered a high bid by respondents. They may
have perceived a starting point of $50.00 and $300.00 as equally unac-
ceptable and therefore, their bids did not reflect any differences. A
lower range of bid starting points may have had a different effect on
the mean bids.

Generally, there existed no statistically significant difference
between mean bids by survey location for the telephone surveys. There
was also, generally, no statistically significant difference between
mean bids by survey type for Ingham county. In addition, there was no
statistically significant difference between the mean bids of species
users and nonusers. Therefore, there appears to be a high degree of
reliability with the data collected.

The specific values elicited through the surveys were not neces-
sarily the values intended to be examined. The use values obtained
probably measured respondents' annual present use values of the species.
It is unlikely that respondents' annual future use values were included
in this use value measurement, as was intended. This was due to the
unclear wording of the use value questions.

The Option price values obtained may have been a hybrid of option

values and option price, as defined by Bishop (1982). These values most

102

probably represent respondents' annual future use value of the species,
plus the maximum amount they would be willing to pay to maintain the
Option of enjoying the species in the future or the option price.

The existence values represent the maximum amount respondents would
be willing to pay annually to ensure the existence of the Species
without regard to their own future use or enjoyment, as they were more
clearly defined than the use or option price values.

Despite questions about what the values elicited actually measured,
important conclusions about these types of values can be made. It has
been known that the values of consumptive or non-consumptive uses of
fish and wildlife resources are greater than $0. This study has shown
that the values of future use and the option of future use, as well as
the existence of species was found to be in the same order of magnitude
as the species use value. 1

In conclusion, survey resgbndents were able to affix monetary
values to non-consumptive uses of bald eagles and gulls, and to consump-
tive and non-consumptive uses of lake trout and lake sturgeon. By
assigning values to wildlife species respondents indicated that they
would be willing to pay some amount for the use and preservation of
these resources, even if they did know of the species previously. This

willingness to pay for wildlife resources supports the idea that

wildlife are important to most individuals in society.

103

Recommendations

 

Resource Management Decisions

As pointed out in the introduction of this paper, there are limita-
tions on the practical use and application of the findings. These limi-
tations, however, do not diminish the significance of the results to
Great Lakes resource managment decisions. It is Shown that the average
use, Option price and existence values for the four species are posi-
tive, and that existence value is of similar magnitude to use value.
These magnitudes of values, then can be used in resource management
decisions. They especially need to be included in benefit cost ana-
lyses, as this study has shown that individuals do hold extra market
values for fish and wildlife resources.

It is also important to note how the information gathered in this
study should not be used. The monetary values should not be taken as
exact, but rather as “ballpark" values. Also, the average total values
calculated for each species are not additive. Each respondent was asked
to consider the value for one species at a time, with all other elements
of consideration being held constant. Adding the average total values
therefore, would result in a gross overestimation of resource value.
Lastly, the values Obtained are estimates of the average value of all
individuals of the species for each adult in Ingham or Bay county. The
values are not the value of each individual animal to society.

For these values to be genuinely useful to Great Lakes management,
it is necessary to recognize the need for institutional legitimacy of
extra market values and for further research. To ensure that this
information is included in resource allocation decisions, researchers

need more formal interaction with the decision making process. This

104

could be achieved through legislative mandate or agency policy. In
addition, further research is necessary to substantiate and expand the
findings of this study, so as to provide policy makers with more clear
and valid estimates of extra market values of Great Lakes fish and
wildlife resources. These estimates could play a key role in future
resource allocation decisions.

Furthermore, studies on extra market values for consumptive and
non-consumptive uses of resources for other species not related to the
Great Lakes or for other regions of the country might be a considera-
tion. This information could lead to a more complete understanding of
the array of resource values that exist for other parts of the county,
as well as for the nation. These values could then be included formally

in federal resource allocation policies.

Further Research
The need for further research is evident if extra market values are
to be consistently included in resource allocation decisions. General

recommendations for further research include:

- complete replication of this study to verify the mean bids and if

they were truly statistically the same;

- broadening the sampling areas to include other areas within the

Great Lakes region;
- using larger sample sizes for increased reliability of data;

- insuring more equal sample sizes between sample populations if

comparisons are to be made;

105

carefully choosing the survey instrument to be used based on the
needs and constraints of the study. Telephone interviews allow
more information to be gathered in a Shorter amount of time,

while personal interviews allow for more interaction between the

interviewer and the respondent;

limiting telephone interviews to the valuation of one species,

limiting personal interviews to the valuation of no more than

four species; and

explicity framing the value questions so that there is more cer-
tainty of the values being measured. This is especially critical

to the use and Option price values.

Specific recommendations for variations on this study could

include:

using species other than the ones considered in this study.

using more similar species, such as all birds, to see if

individuals are able to differentiate between them, and then,

using groups of species, such as endangered birds or small
mammals to see if individuals value species of similar cir-

cumstance and morphology similarly;

a more complete exploration of the effects of respondents' past

experiences and interests in wildlife to help determine possible

predictors of individuals' resource values;

106

- a more complete exploration Of the effects of geographic location

on respondents' bids, and

- asking individuals' total value for a species first and then
asking them to partition the total value into use, option price

and existence values.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A].

Personal Interview Questionnaire

A. RECREATION PARTICIPATION

The first group of questions I'm going to ask deal with your
participation in natural resource activities. We would like
to get a general idea of your present wildlife interests.

Al. I'm going to list a number of outdoor recreation

 

 

 

 

 

 

activities. I would like you to tell me, yes or yes - 1
no, if you have participated in any of these activities no I 0
during the last 12 months.
1. Fishing '_T'
2. Hunting ._E_
3. Boating or Canoeing ._3_
4. Camping ,_z_
5. Hiking, Backpacking or Walking for pleasure _1;_
6. Driving for pleasure ‘17'
7. Outdoor photography ._7_
8. Wildlife observation or Bird watching ,_3_
9. Other unorganized outdoor activities '_§—'TO—
(list) T1- _1_2__
A2. Do you presently belong to any environmental, natural
resources or sportsmen's organizations?
yes 130 to A3.}
no {go to A4.} IT?—
A3. What are the names of the organizations?
list _1_‘+.
"TS
‘TE
'T7
"T8

107

108

- 2 -

A4. Have you, in the past 12 months, donated money (other

than membership dues) or volunteered time to any
environmental or natural resource organization or
cause?

yes Explain

 

no

A5. How often do you watch wildlife-related programs
on TV?

1. Never
2. Rarely (once or twice a year)
3. Occasionally (3 to 9 times a year)

4. Often (10 or more times a year)

B. PAST EXPERIENCES

The following group of questions are about your past experiences
with wildlife. I am purposely asking about two common and two
uncommon animals so we can compare your values of these animals

to each other.

1. Birds

First, I'd like to ask you about your experiences with two kinds

of birds, the bald eagle, and the Great Lakes sea gull.

Bl. Have you ever seen a bald eagle/sea gull in the wild,
that is, not in a zoo or in captivity?

yes {go to 82.}
no {go to 37.}

32. How many times have you seen a bald eagle/sea gull
in your lifetime?

1. Once or twice
2. 3 to 9 times

3. 10 or more times

£94.12

21

23

19

20

 

928.122

2'+

33.1. Have you seen or tried to see a bald eagle/sea gull in
the past 12 months?

84.

BS.

36.

B7.

yes {go to 83.2.}

no {go to next species}

- 3 -

109

Did you make a special effort, or go out of you way

to see them?

yes {go to 34.}
no {go to 86.}

Can you tell me approximately:

1. How many trips you took in the past 12
months when you went out of your way to
see bald eagles/sea gulls?

(number)

2. How much extra, on average, did that

cost you?
gas mileage, equipment and other.)

(amount)

How'much extra time did that take?

(Include

33

Did the experience of seeing a bald eagle/sea gull enhance

your trip or your enjoyment of that day?

yes

{go to next species}

no

Do you have a desire to see a bald eagle/sea gull in

your lifetime?

yes

no

{Repeat section with other species}

Gull
'25—

27
‘29—‘36-
'33-'33"
WIT
W3

45

 

Essie

1+6

110

- 4 -

2. Fish

Now I'm going to ask you about your experiences with two
fish species, the lake trout and the lake sturgeon.

88.

B9.

310.

311.

812.

813.

Have you ever fished for lake trout/lake
sturgeon?

yes {go to 89.}
no {go to 310.}
Can you tell me approximately:
1. how many trips you took in the last 12

months to fish for lake trout/lake
sturgeon? (number)

 

2. how much, on.the average, each of these
trips cost you? (amount)

(30 to B12.}

Have you ever gone with anyone who fished for lake
trout/lake sturgeon?

yes {go to B11.)

no {go to 312.}

Can you tell me approximately:

1. how many of these trips you took in the
last 12 months when someone fished for
lake trout/lake sturgeon?

2. how much, on the average,'each trip cost
you? (amount) (Include
gas mileage, equipment and other.)

{go to next part}
Have you ever eaten lake trout/lake sturgeon?
yes {go to next species}

no {go to 813.}

Have you ever seen lake trout/lake sturgeon in fish
hatcheries, or in the wild, or in aquariums?

yes (30 to 814.}

no {go to next species}

(number)

___T.E<2u_t

‘47

'49 50

51+ 55

 

TE;_§£2£ESQE

1+8

 

 

 

 

63 6'4

TflF'TfiT'TRT'

72

 

Interview #

‘78- 79 80

111

- 5 -

814. Did you go out of your way or make a special effort
to see them?

yes {30 to 815.}
no {go to next species}
815. Can you tell me approximately:

1. how many of these trips you took in
the past 12 months? (number)

2. how much, on average, each trip
cost you? (amount) (Include
gas mileage, equipment and other.)

{Repeat section with other species}

C. VALUE MEASURES

In this next section of the survey, we want to find out
how important these birds and fish are to you. There
are three ways we would like you to think abdut your
values related to wildlife. These ways are described
on this card. {Give card 1}

1. Birds

First, I'm going to ask about your values for the two
birds, the bald eagle and the Great Lakes sea gull.

{If answered yes to 31. (presently a user) continue with C1.}

{If answered no to.Bl. (not presently a user) skip to
C3. explanation}

Let's consider part I of this card. I'd like you to think
about how important enjoying bald eagles/sea gulls is to you.

C1. How important is it to you to see and enjoy bald
eagles/sea gulls?

1. very important
2. moderately important
3. not important at all
{02. Explanation}
Now, I'd like you to think about part II of the card. This is

like an insurance policy: assuring you that bald-eagles/sea
gulls will be available in the future.

_;_I£EE£

Gulls

.‘
\l

 

 

£22162}:
1,
7 a
12 13 1%
Eagles
User - l

Non-User . 0

112

- 6 -
Gull

In addition to how important enjoying bald eagles/sea
gulls is to you, I'd like you to
consider how important a guarantee of future enjoyment
of them is worth to you.

C2. In addition to the value you just gave me,

how important is it to you that your
future enjoyment of bald eagles/sea gulls will
be guaranteed? In other words, how important
is the guarantee by itself?

1. very important
2. moderately important
3. not important at all

{go to C4. explanation}

{C3. Explanation}
Since you are not presently enjoying bald eagles/sea gulls,
part I of this card does not apply to you.

One way of valuing bald eagles/sea gulls is illustrated
in part II of Card 1. This is like an insurance policy:
assuring you that they will be available in the future.
You are not presently enjoying bald eagles/sea gulls,
but you could decide to in the future.

Now, I'd like you to think about how important it is to
you to know bald eagles/sea gulls will be guaranteed to
exist for your possible use and enjoyment in the future.

C3. How important is it to you that bald eagles/sea gulls
will be guaranteed available for your possible enjoyment
in the future?

1. very important

2. moderately important

3. not important at all
(Ck. Explanation}
The last way of valuing birds is shown in part III of Card 1.
In addition to the other values on Card 1, you may gain

satisfaction from knowing that bald eagles/sea gulls exist,
even though you may never see them yourself.

 

 

2.8193

20

113

- 7 -
Gull
CA. In addition to your other value(s), how important is
it to you just to know that bald eagles/sea gulls will
exist in the futune, even though you.may never see
them?
1. very important
2. moderately important '3?-

3. not important at all

As you probably know, we all pay for government sponsored
programs and facilities through taxes and/or user fees.
And, obviously, we pay for private programs and services
through prices, memberships and donations.

Now,I'd like you to think about what amount of money you
would be willing to pay each year, to ensure that the
types of situations I just asked about would exist. The
form of payment would be either 1) voluntary contribu-
tions, 2) increased taxes paid to the state, or 3) user
fees, such as licenses or entry permits. In each case,
the money would go directly to projects supporting each
species only; not to any other kinds of projects or other
species. This would be the same as thinking in terms of
a voluntary organization set up just for this purpose,
since we know exactly what the money would be used for.
Remember, though, if people aren't willing to adequately
support a program, it won't be done.

{Continue on if answered yes to B3. (presently a
user)}

{If answered no to 33., (not presently a user) go
to C9. explanation}

First, I'd like you to think about part I of Card 1, and what
your enjoyment of bald eagles/sea gulls is worth to you right
now.

I'm going to use a bidding process to find out your maximum
willingness to pay.

 

22

114

 

- g -
Gull
C5. (Remember, you said earlier you paid $
(from.84.) to enjoy bald eagles/sea gulls.) Would
you be willing to contribute 3 extra
each year in voluntary contributions, higher taxes
or user fees, to be able to continue to enjoy bald
eagles/sea gulls as you can now?
yes {continue bidding up by amount
until get negative response}
no {bid downward by amount until get
positive response
3 _________{final amount}
‘23"Ifi"2§'23"
C6. Is $ {final amount} the most you would be willing

to pay, to continue to enjoy bald eagles/sea gulls, under
present conditions?

yes {move on to C7. explanation}
no {repeat bidding process CS. and C6.}

{C7. Explanation}

Now, I'd like you to think about part II of this card, and what
guaranteed future enjoyment of bald eagles/sea gulls is worth
to you, in addition to the value you just gave me. Remember,
this is like an insurance policy or a guarantee.

C7. In addition to the amount you gave before would you be
willing to contribute 3 extra each year in
voluntary contributions, higher taxes or user fees, to
ensure the guaranteed future availability of bald eagles/
sea gulls for your enjoyment?

yes {continue bidding up by amount
until get negative response}

no {bid downward by amount until get
positive response

$.________{final amount}

C8. Is $ {final amount} the most you would be willing
to pay, to guarantee the future availability of bald
eagles/sea gulls for your enjoyment?

yes {move to C11. explanation}

no {repeat bidding process C7. & C8.}

 

Eagles

‘27"ZU"Z§”?U‘

115

{C9 . Explanation}

Since you are not presently enjoying bald eagles/sea gulls,
part I of this card does not apply to you. I'd like

you to think about part II of Card 1, and what your
guaranteed future enjoyment is worth to you. Remember,
this is similar to an insurance policy. I'm going to

use a bidding process to find out what your maximum
willingness to pay is.

C9. WOuld you be willing to contribute $ extra
each year in voluntary contributions, higher taxes
or user fees, to ensure your possible future_
enjoyment of bald eagles/sea gulls?

yes {continue bidding up by amount
until get negative response}
no {bid downward 8y amount until get
positive response

$ {final amount}
31
C10. Is $ {final amount} the most you would be
willing to pay, to guarantee the future
availability of bald eagles/sea gulls for your
enjoyment?

yes {go to C11. explanation}
no {repeat bidding process C9. and C10.}

{011. Explanation}

Lastly, I'd like you to think about part III of Card 1
and what bald eagles/sea gulls are worth to you even
though you may never see them in the future.

Cll. In addition to the amounts you gave me before, would
you be willing to contribute $ extra each year
in voluntary contributions, higher taxes or user
fees, to know that held eagles/sea gulls will exist
in the future even if you were never to see them?

yes {continue bidding up by amount
until get negative response}
no {bid downward by amount until get
positive response}

$ {final amount} ____
39

32

HO

Gull

33

41

'35'

31+

 

35

'+3

Eagles

36

an

37

T5

38

1+6

116

_ 10 -

C12. Is $ {final amount} the most you would be willing

to pay, to assure their existence under present con-
ditions?

yes

no {repeat bidding process C11. and 012.}

{Repeat section C for other bird species}

2. Fish

Now, I'd like to ask you the same kinds of questions about
your values for the two fish. Again, I'd like you to

think about your values in terms of the three ways listed
on the card.

L. Trout L. Sturgeon
{If answered yes (presently a user) to any B8. -

B15. continue} User - 1

Non-User - 0
{If answered no (not presently a user) to all

88., 810., 812., 813., go to C15. explanation}
‘ _E7' 38_'

Since you are presently enjoying lake trout/lake sturgeon,
I'd like you to consider part I of Card 1.

C13. How important is it to you to be able to fish for
and/or eat lake trout/lake sturgeon?

 

1. very important

u—cer-n

2. moderately important

49 50
3. not important at all

{C14. Explanation}

Now, I'd like you to think about part II of the card. This is
like an insurance policy: assuring you that lake trout/lake
sturgeon will be available in the future.

 

In addition to how important enjoying lake trout/lake sturgeon
is to you, I'd like you to consider how important a guarantee
of future enjoyment of them is worth to you.

117

- ll -
L. Trout L. Sturgeon

C14. In addition to the value you just gave me,
how important is it to you that your future
enjoyment of lake trout/lake sturgeon will
be guaranteed? In other words how important
is the guarantee, by itself?

1 . very important

2. moderately important

 

3. not important at all

{go to 016. explanation}

{C15. Explanation}
Since you are not presently enjoying lake trout/lake
sturgeon part I of Card 1 does not apply to you.

One way of valuing lake trout/lake sturgeon is illustrated
in part II of Card 1. This is similar to an insurance
policy: assuring you that they will be available in the
future. You are not fishing for or eating lake trout/lake
sturgeon now, but you may want to do so in the future.

Now, I'd like you to think about how important it is to
you to know lake trout/lake sturgeon will be guaranteed
to exist for your possible enjoyment in the future.

C15. Bow'important is it to you that lake trout/lake
sturgeon will be guaranteed available in the future
for you to possible fish for or for eating?

1. very important

2. moderately important ‘3?— '35-

3. not important at all

{Cl6. Explanation}

The last way of valuing fish is shown in part II of Card 1.
In addition to the other values on Card 1, you may gain
satisfaction from knowing that lake trout/lake sturgeon
exist, even though you may never see, eat or fish for

them yourself.

 

118

- 12 _
L. Trout
C16. In addition to your other value(s), how important
is it to you just to know that lake trout/lake
sturgeon will exist in the future, even though
you may never enjoy them directly?
1. very important
2. moderately important
53

3. not important at all

As I said before, we all pay for government sponSored pro-
grams and facilities through taxes and/or user fees.

I'd like you again to think about what amount of money
you would be willing to pay each year, to ensure that
the types of situations I just asked about would exist.
The form of payment would be either 1) voluntary contri-
butions, 2) increased taxes paid to the state, or 3) user
fees, such as license or entry permits. In each case,
the money would go directly to the projects supporting
each species only; not to any other kinds of projects

or other species. Remember, though, if people aren't
willing to adequately support a program, it won't be
done.

{If answered yes (presently a user) to any B8. -
B15 . continue}

{If answered no (not presently a user) to all B8. -
BIS. go to 021.}

{C17. Explanation}

First, I'd like you to think about part I of Card 1, and
what your enjoyment (or fishing and eating) of lake
trout/lake sturgeon is worth to you right now.

I'm going to use a bidding process to find out what your
maximum willingness to pay is.

 

Mazes

51+

119

- 13 -
L.

Trout

C17. (Remember, you said earlier you paid $ (from
either 39.2., or Bll.2., or B15.) to enjoy lake
trout/lake sturgeon.) would you be willing to
contribute $ extra each year in voluntary
contributions, higher taxes or user fees, to be able
to eat and/or fish for lake trout/lake sturgeon
whenever you wanted to?

yes {continue bidding up by amount until
get negative response}

no {bid downward by amount until get positive
response}

$______{final amount}

C18. Is 3 {final amount} the most you would be
willing to pay, to continue to enjoy lake trout/
lake sturgeon under present conditions?

yes {move on to C19. explanation}-
no {repeat bidding process C17. and C18.}

{C19. Explanation}

Now, I'd like you to think about part II of this card,
and what guaranteed future enjoyment of lake trout/lake
sturgeon is worth to you, in addition to the value you
just gave me. Remember, this is like an insurance
policy or a guarantee.

C19. In addition to the amount you gave me before, would
you be willing to contribute $ extra each year
in voluntary contributions, higher taxes or user
fees, to ensure the guaranteed future availability
of lake trout/lake sturgeon for your enjoyment?

yes {continue bidding upward by ' amount
until get negative response

no {bid downward by-_ amount until get
positive response}

3 _______ {final amount}

TET‘TRT'THV'TEF

 

mess

'5?"'€U"€T"FI'

120

- 14 -

L. Trout

C20. Is $ {final amount} the most you would be willing

to pay, to guarantee the future availability of lake
trout/lake sturgeon for your enjoyment?

yes {move on to C23. explanation}
no {repeat bidding process C19. & C20.}

{C21. Explanation}

Since you are not presently enjoying lake trout/lake
sturgeon, part I of Card 1 does not apply to you. I'd
like you to think about part II of Card 1, and what
your guaranteed future enjoyment is worth to you.
Remember, this is similar to an insurance policy. I'm
going to use a bidding process to find out what your
maximum willingness to pay is.

C21. Would you be willing to contribute $ extra
each year in voluntary contributions, higher taxes
or user fees, to ensure your possible future enjoyment
of lake trout/lake sturgeon?

yes {continue bidding up by amount
until get negative response}

no {bid downward by amount until get
positive response

$ ______.{final amount}

 

022. Is $- {final amount} the most you would be
willing to pay to guarantee the future availability
of lake trout/lake sturgeon for your
enjoyment?

yes {move on to C23. explanation}
no {repeat bidding process C21. and C22.}

{023. Explanation}

Lastly, I'd like you to think about part III of Card 1,
and what lake trout/lake sturgeon are worth to you even
though you may never enjoy them in the future.

Card #
2

76

 

L. Sturgeon

67 68 69 70

Interview #

"fl7"'7§'_35

121

- 15 -
L. Trout L. Sturgeon

C23. In addition to the amounts you gave me before, would
you be willing to contribute $ extra each
year in voluntary contributions, higher taxes or
user fees, to know that lake trout/lake sturgeon
will exist in the future even if you were never to
enjoy them directly?

yes {continue bidding up by amount
until get negative response

no {continue downward by amount until
get positive response

5 {final amount}
C24. Is $ {final amount} the most you would
be willing to pay to assure their existence
under present conditions?

yes

no {repeat bidding process 023. and 024.}

 

{Repeat Section C2. for other fish species}

C25. How accurate do you feel your responses were to the
money questions?

1. fairly accurate

2. wild guesses

D. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

I have just a few more questions that will help me
analyze the results of this study properly. These
questions are somewhat personal and will be com-
pletely confidential, as will all of your earlier
answers.

Dl. Sex {should be obvious}
1. male

2. female 10

122

- 15 -

D2. {Give Card 2} WOuld you tell me which category includes

your age?
1. 18-19
2. 20-29
3. 30-39
4. 40-49
5. 50-59
6. 60-69

7. 70 or older
D3. Are you presently:
1. single
2. married
D4. {Give Card 3} Neuld you tell me which category
corresponds to the last grade of school you have
completed?
1. elementary school
2. some high school
3. high school graduate
4. some college
5. college graduate
6. some graduate school
7. graduated professional or graduate school
D5. Are you presently:
l. employed full-time (36 hrs or more)
2. employed part time (less than 36 hours)
3. unemployed - looking for full-time work

4. not employed - not looking for full-time work

11

11+

123

- 17 -

Briefly, what is your present occupation?

 

 

15 16
Do you consider yourself an urban or rural resident?
1. urban
2. rural ?
{Give Card 4} Here is a list of income categories.
WOuld you please tell me which category corresponds
to your total annual household income before taxes?
1. below $10,000
2. $10,000 - 19,999
3. $20,000 - 29,999
a. $30,000 - 39,999 E—
5. $40,000 - 49,999
6. $50,000 - 59,999
7. Above $60,000
Card # _ Interview

\1
Ch
\I
Q
\1
LI

.PPENDIX A2

Personal Interview Visual Aids

CARD 1

Why We Might Value Wildlife
and Fish
I. VALUE OF USE
*Use/Interaction With in the Present and Future
*To enjoy viewing or interacting with
*To hunt for game species
*To fish for

*To eat

II. VALUE OF GUARANTEED AVAILABILITY
*Guaranteed Future Availability for Use

*To guarantee that the animal or fish will be around in the future for
your possible use and/or enjoyment

*Like an insurance policy or guarantee.

III. VALUE OF EXISTENCE
*Knowledge of Existence
*Satisfaction from knowing the species exists.

*Satisfaction from knowing others might be able to enjoy the species
now or in the future.

*To preserve for future generations.

Note: These three values are separate and additive.
That is, TOTAL VALUE - VALUE I + VALUE II + VALUE III

124

125

CARD 2

Age Categories

 

 

Categories e Ran e
1. 18-19
2. 20-29
3. 30-39
4. 40-49
5. 50-59
6. 60-69

 

7. 70 or older

126

CARD 3

Education Completed

 

 

 

Categogz Education
1. Elementary school
2. Some high school
3. High school graduate
4. Some college
5. College graduate
6. Some graduate school
7. Graduate professional or

graduate school

127

CARD 4

Income Categories

 

 

Categogz Income Range
1. below $10,000
2. $10,000 - 19,999
3. $20,000 - 29,999
4. $30,000 - 39,999
5. $40,000 - 49,999
6. $50,000 - 59,999

 

7. Above $60,000

APPENDIX A3

Personal Interview Letter

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN - Ma
NATURAL RESOURCES ”LUNG
(M?) ”94477

Dear ingham County Resident:

Your name has been selected at random from a list of county residents to
possibly participate in a survey sponsored by Michigan State University.

We are doing a study to determine individuals' values for certain
wildlife species. This project is unique and has never been attempted before
in this manner. The purpose of this research is to provide public and private
policy makers with useful economic information on wildlife species that tradi-
tionally have not had market values.

To get this information, your help is critical. You have been chosen as
one of the individuals to represent Ingham County. We are asking that you
participate in a personal interview survey. Your identity and answers would
be completely confidential.

A researcher will phone within the next few days to arrange an appoint-
ment with you at your convenience. Your participation in this study is
totally voluntary, but your help would be greatly appreciated!

Sincerely,

<5 1W Air/L;

Daniel R. Talhelm
Assistant Professor
Fisheries and Wildlife
Economics

AAA—“(9 AL Z‘Lt', L."
Heidi Grether
Research Assistant

mus-wwwwm

128

APPENDIX Bl

Bird Telephone Interview
Questionnaire

Telephone Survey

Hello, my name is from.Michigan State University. we are
conducting a survey to determine Ingham/Bay County residents' values for
certain wildlife species.
Your phone number was randomly generated for the purposes of this study,
only. The questions I would ask take approximately minutes, and
your responses are completely confidential.
would you be willing to help us by practicipating in this survey?
yes {continue on}
yes, but not now {arrange for time to call back & note at top}
no: Thank you for your time.
Are you 18 years old or older?
yes {continue}
no: May I speak with someone 18 years old or older?
yes {start at beginning}
no: Thank you for your time.
Are you a resident of Ingham/Bay County?

yes {continue}

no: Thank you for your time.

129

130

A. RECREATION PARTICIPATION

The first group of questions I'm going to ask deal with your
participation in natural resource activities. we would like
to get a general idea of your present wildlife interests.

Al. I'm going to list a number of outdoor recreation

 

 

 

activities. I would like you to tell me, yes or yes - 1
no, if you have participated in any of these activities no - 0
during the last 12 months.
1. Fishing ____
1
2. Hunting ___.
2
3. Boating or Canoeing '7?"
4. Camping ._2_
5. Hiking, Backpacking or walking for pleasure ____
5
6. Driving for pleasure ____
6
7. Outdoor photography __7_
8. Wildlife observation or Bird watching a
9. Other unorganized outdoor activities '75-'7T'
I
(list) ___.__.
_ 11 12
A2. Do you presently belong to any environmental, natural
resources or sportsmen's organizations?
yes {go to A3.}
no {go to AA.} I!
A3. What are the names of the organizations?
list
“13'
'T?
16

 

 

H
\'-

 

H
on

AA.

131

Have you, in the past 12 months, donated money (other than membership
dues) or volunteered time to any environmental or nature resource
organization or cause?

yes Explain

 

no
How often do you watch wildlife-related programs on TV?
1. Never
2. Rarely (once or twice a year)
3. Occasionally (3 to 9 times a year)

4. Often (10 or more times a year)

3. PAST EXPERIENCES: BIRDS

The following group of questions are about your past experiences with
wildlife.

BI.

82.

Have you ever seen a bald eagle/sea gull in the wild, that is, not in a
zoo or in captivity?

yes {go to 32.}
no {go to 37.}
How many times have you seen a bald eagle/sea gull in your lifetime?
1. Once or twice
2. 3 to 9 times

3. 10 or more times

33.1. Have you seen or tried to see a bald eagle/sea gull in the past 12

months?
yes {go to 83.2}

no {go to next section}

2. Did you make a special effort, or go out of your way to see then?

yes [30 to 84.}

no {go to 86.}

B4.

BS.

36.

B7.

132

Can you tell me approximately:

1. how many trips you took in the past 12 months when you went
out of your way to see bald eagles/sea gulls? (number)

2. How much extra, on average, did that cost you? (Include gas,
mileage, equipment and other) (amount)

How much extra time did that take?
(Hours)

Did the experience of seeing a bald eagle/sea gull enhance your trip or
your enjoyment of that day?

yes
no

Do you have a desire to‘see a bald eagle/sea gull in your lifetime?
yes

no

133

C. VALUE MEASURES: USERS BIRD

There are three (3) ways I would like you to think about your values related
to bald eagles/sea gulls.

{Cl. Explanation}

The first way is concerned with your present and future use of bald eagles/
sea gulls. I'd like you to think about how important enjoying bald eagles/
sea gulls is to you.

C1. How important is it to you to see and enjoy bald eagles/sea gulls?

1. very important
2. moderately important
3. not important at all

{C2. Explanation}

The second way of thinking about your value of bald eagles/sea gulls is like
an insurance policy: guaranteeing you that bald eagles/sea gulls will be
available in the future.

In addition to how important enjoying bald eagles/sea gulls is to you,
I'd like you to consider how important a guarantee of future enjOy-
ment of them is worth to you.

CZ. In addition to the value you just gave me,
how important is it to you that your future
enjoyment of bald eagles/sea gulls will be guaranteed? In other words,
how unportant is the guarantee, by itself?

1. very important

2. moderatley important

3. not important at all
{C3. Explanation}
Lastly, you may value bald eagles/sea gulls by just knowing they exist, even
though you may never see or enjoy them.yourself. You may also gain satis-

faction from knowing others may enjoy bald eagles/sea gulls, or you may value
then so they can be preserved for future generations.

134

C3. In addition to your other values, how important is it to you to know
that bald eagles/sea gulls will exist in the future, even though you
may never see or enjoy them?

1. very important
2. moderately important
3. not important at all

As you know, we all pay for government sponsored programs and facilities through
taxes and/or user fees. And, obviously, we pay for private programs and ser-
vices through prices, memberships and donations.

Now, I'd like you to think about what amount of money you would be willing to
pay each year, to ensure that the types of situations I just asked about would
exist. The form of payment would be either 1) voluntary contributions, 2)
increased taxes paid to the state, or 3) user fees, such as licenses or entry
permits. In each case, the money would go directly to projects supporting
each species only; not to any other kinds of projects or other species. This
would be the same as thinking in terms of a voluntary organization set up

just for this purpose, since we know exactly what the money would be used for.
Remember, though, if people aren't willing to adequately support a program,

it won't be done.

{C4. Explanation}
First, I'd like you to think about what your enjoyment of bald eagles/sea gulls
is worth to you right now.

I'm going to use a bidding process to find out your maximum willingness to pay.
C4. Would you be willing to contribute 5 extra each year in voluntary
contributions, higher taxes or user fees, to be able to continue to

enjoy bald eagles/sea gulls as you can now?

yes {continue bidding up by amount until get negative
response}

no {bid downward by amount until get positive response}
$ ______{final amount}

C5. Is $ {final amount} the most you would be willing to pay, to con-
tinue to enjoy bald eagles/sea gulls, under present conditions?

yes {move on to C6. explanation}
no {repeat bidding process C4. and 05.}
{C6. Explanation}
Now, I'd like you to think about what the guarantee future_enioyment of bald

eagles/sea gulls is worth to you, in addition to the value you just gave me.
Remember, this is like an insurance policy or a guarantee.

C7.

135

In addition to the amount you gave before, would you be willing to con-
tribute 3 extra each year in voluntary contributions, higher taxes
or user fees, to ensure the guaranteed future availability of bald eagles/
sea gulls for your enjoyment?

yes {continue bidding up by amount until get negative
response}

no {bid downward by amount until get postive response}
$ {final amount}

Is $ {final amount} the most you would be willing to pay, to
guarantee the future availability of bald eagles/sea gulls for your

enjoyment?
yes {move to C8. explanation}

no {repeat bidding process C6. and C7.}

{C8. Explanation}

Lastly, I'd like you to think about what bald eagles/sea gulls are worth to
you even though you may never see them in the future, or what they are worth
to you to preserve for others or future generations to enjoy.

C8.

C9.

C10.

In addition to the amounts you gave me before, would you be willing to
contribute $ extra each year in voluntary contributions, higher
taxes or user fees, to know that bald eagles/sea gulls will exist in the
future even if you were never to see then?

yes {continue bidding up by amount until get negative
response}

no {bid downward by amount until get positive response}
$._______ {final amount}

Is $ {final amount} the most you would be willing to pay, to assure
their existence under present conditions?

yes
no {repeat bidding process C8. and C9.}

How accurate do you feel your responses were to the money questions?
1. fairly accurate

2. wild guesses

136

C. VALUE MEASURES: NON-USERS(BIRD)

There are two (2) ways I would like you to think about your values related to
bald eagles/sea gulls.

{C1. Explanation}

One way of valuing bald eagles/sea gulls is like an insurance policy: assuring
you that they will be available in the future. You are not presently enjoying
bald eagles/sea gulls, but you could decide to in the future.

Now, I'd like you to think about how important it is to you to know bald eagles/
sea gulls will be guaranteed to exist for your possible use and enjoyment in
the future.

Cl. How important is it to you that bald eagles/sea gulls will be guaranteed
available for your possible enjoyment in the future?

1. very important

2. moderately important
3. not important at all

{C2. Explanation}

Another way you may value bald eagles/sea gulls is by just knowing they exist,
even though you may never see or enjoy them yourself. You may also gain satis-
faction from knowing others may enjoy bald eagles/sea gulls, or you may value
them so they can be perserved for future generations.

C2. In addition to your other value, how important is it to you just to know
that held eagles/sea gulls will exist in the future, even though you may
never see or enjoy them?

1. very important
2. moderately important
3. not important at all

As you probably know, we all pay for government sponsored programs and facilities
through taxes and/or user fees. And, obviously, we pay for private programs and
services through prices, memberships and donations.

Now, I'd like you to think about what amount of money you would be willing to pay

each year, to ensure that the types of situations I just asked about would exist.

The form of payment would be either 1) voluntary contributions, 2) increased taxes
paid to the state, or 3) user fees, such as licenses or entry permits. ‘In each

137

case, the money would go directly to projects supporting each species only;
not to any other kinds of projects or other species. This would be the same
as thinking in terms of a voluntary organization set up just for this purpose,
since we know exactly what the money would be use for. Remember, though, if
people aren't willing to adequately support a program, it won't be done.

{C3. Explanation}

I'd like you to think about what your guaranteed future enjoyment of bald
eagles/sea gulls is worth to you. Remember, this is similar to an insurance
policy. I'm going to use a bidding process to find out what your maximum
willingness to pay is.

C3. Would you be willing to contribute $ extra each year in voluntary
contributions, higher taxes or user fees, to ensure the guaranteed future
availability of bald eagles/sea gulls for your enjoyment?

yes {continue bidding yp by amount until get negative
response}

no {bid downward by amount until get positive response}
5 ________{final amount}

C4. Is $ {final amount} the most you would be willing to pay, to
guarantee the future availability of bald eagles/sea gulls for your
enjoyment?

yes {go to C5. explanation}

no {repeat bidding process C3. and C4.}
{C5. Explanation}
Lastly, I'd like you to think about what bald eagles/sea gulls are worth to you
even though you may never see or enjoy them in the future, or what they are worth
to you to preserve for others or future generations to enjoy.
C5. In addition to the amount you gave me before, would you be willing to cons

tribute $ extra each year in voluntary contributions, higher taxes

or user fees, to know that held eagles/sea gulls will exist in the future
even if you were never to see them?

yes {continue bidding up by amount until get negative
response}

no {bid downward by amount until get positive response}

$ __ {final amount}

CG.

C7.

138

- 10 -

If 3 {final amount} the most you would be willing to pay, to assure
their existence under present conditions?

yes
no {repeat bidding process C5. and C6.}

How accurate do you feel your responses were to the money questions?
1. farily accurate

2. wild guesses

139

- 11 _

D. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

I have just a few more questions that will help me analyze the results of
this study properly. These questions are somewhat personal and will be
completely confidential, as will all of your earlier answers.
D1. Are you: (ask only is unsure)

1. male

2. female
D2. Are you over:

1. 18 (18 - 19)

2. 20 (20 - 29)

3. 30 (3O - 39)

4. 4O (4O - 49)

S. 50 (50 - 59)

6. 60 (60 - 69)

7. 7O (70 or older)

1. single
2. married
D4. What is the last grade of school you have completed?
1. elementary school
2. some high school
3. high school graduate
4. some college
5. college graduate
6. some graduate school

7. graduated professional or graduate school

139A

- 12 -

D5. Are you presently:
(Read categories)

1.
2.
3.
4.

D6. Briefly,

employed full-time (36 hrs or more)

employed part time (less than 36 hours)
unemployed - looking for full-time work

none employed - not looking for full-time work

what is your present occupation?

 

 

D7. Do you consider yourserf an urban or rural resident?

I.

2.

urban

rural

D8. Is your total annual household income before taxes above:

8.

$50,000 (Above $60,000)

$ 50,000 ($50,000 - $59,999)
$40,000 ’ ($40,000 - $49,999)
$30,000 ($30,000 - $39,999)
$20,000 ($20,000 - $29,999)
$10,000 ($10,000 - $19,999)
don't know

refused

That completes the survey. I want to thank you for participating in this
study, we really appreciate your help.

If you're interested in the outcome of this research I can take your address and
send you the results. (Pause) Again, thanks for your time.

Good-bye.

APPENDIX B2

Fish Telephone Interview
Questionnaire

Telephone Survey

Hello, my name is from Michigan State University. We are
conducting a survey to determine Ingham/Bay County residents' values for
certain wildlife species.

Your phone number was randomly generated for the purposes of this study,
only. The questions I would ask take approximately minutes, and
your responses are completely confidential.
would you be willing to help us by practicipating in this survey?
yes {continue on}
yes, but not now {arrange for time to call back 8 note at top}
no: Thank you for your time.
Are you 18 years old or older?
yes {continue}
no: May I speak with someone 18 years old or older?
yes {start at beginning}
me: Thank you for your time.
Are you a resident of Ingham/Bay County?

yes {continue}

no: Thank you for your time.

140

141

A. RECREATION PARTICIPATION

 

The first group of questions I'm going to ask deal with your
participation in natural resource activities. We would like
to get a general idea of your present wildlife interests.

A1. I'm going to list a number of outdoor recreation

 

 

 

activities. I would like you to tell me, yes or yes I 1
no, if you have participated in any of these activities no - 0
during the last 12 months.
1. Fishing -—T'
2. Hunting .15.
3. Boating or Canoeing ._3_
4. Camping "E’
5. Hiking, Backpacking or Walking for pleasure 'ET'
6. Driving for pleasure ___
6
7. Outdoor photography ._7_
8. Wildlife observation or Bird watching a
9. Other unorganized outdoor activities '_§"T5—
(list) __
11 12
A2. Do you presently belong to any environmental, natural
resources or sportsmen's organizations?
yes {go to A3.}
no {go to A4.} 13
A3. What are the names of the organizations?
list
‘_T3
‘T3
16

 

 

 

18

142

A4. Have you, in the past 12 months, donated money (other than membership
dues) or volunteered time to any environmental or natural resource
organization or cause?

yes Explain

 

no

A5. How often do you watch wildlife-related programs on TV?
1. Never
2. Rarely (once or twice a year)
3. Occasionally (3 to 9 times a year)

4. Often (10 or more times a year)
B. PAST EXPERIENCES: FISH

The following group of questions are about your past experiences with fish.
Bl. Have you ever fished for lake trout/lake sturgeon?

yes {go to 32.}

no {go to 83.}
32. Can you tell me approximately:

1. how many trips you took in the last 12 months to fish for lake
trout/lake sturgeon? (number)

2. how much, on the average, each of these trips cost you?
(amount) (Include gas, mileage, equipment and other.)

{go to B5.}
83. Have you ever gone with anyone who fished for lake trout/lake sturgeon?
yes {go to 34.}

no {go to 35.}

B4.

BS.

B6.

B7.

88.

143

Can you tell me approximately:
1. how many of these trips you took in the last 12 months
when someone fished for lake trout/lake sturgeon?
(number)

2. how much, on the average, each trip cost you?
(amount) (Include gas, mileage, equipment and other.)

{go to next part}

Have you ever eaten lake trout/lake sturgeon?
yes {go to next part}
no {go to 36.}

Have you ever seen lake,trout/lake sturgeon in fish hatcheries, or in
the wild, or in aquariums?

yes {go to 87.}
no {go to next part}
Did you go out of your way to make a special effort to see then?
yes {go to B8.}
no {go to next part}
Can you tell me approximately:

1. how many of these trips you took in the last 12 months?
(number)

2. how much, on average, did that cost you? (amount)
(Include gas, mileage, equipment and other.)

144

‘C. VALUE MEASURES: USERS (FISH)

There are three (3) ways I would like you to think about your values related
to lake trout/lake sturgeon.

{Cl. Explanation}
The first way is concerned with your present and future use of lake trout/lake

sturgeon. I'd like you to think about how important enjoying lake trout/lake
sturgeon is to you.

C1. How important is it to you to be able to fish for and/or eat lake trout/
lake sturgeon?

1. very important
2. moderately important
3. not important at all

{C2. Explanation}

The second way of thinking about your-value of lake trout/lake sturgeon is
like an insurance policy: guaranteeing you that lake trout/lake sturgeon will
be availabe in the future.

In addition to how'important enjoying lake trout/lake sturgeon is to you,
' I'd like you to consider how important a guarantee of future enjoyment
of th- is worth to you.

C2. In addition to the value you just gave me,
how important is it to you that your

future enjoyment of lake trout/lake sturgeon will be guaranteed? In
other words, how important is the guarantee, by itself?

1. very important

2. moderately important
3. not important at all

{C3. Explanation}

Lastly, you may value lake trout/lake sturgeon by just knowing they exist, even
though you may never see or enjoy them yourself. You may also gain satisfaction
from knowing others may enjoy lake trout/lake sturgeon, or you may value them

so they can be preserved for future generations.

C3. In addition to your other values, how important is it to you just to know
that lake trout/lake sturgeon will exist in the future, even though you
may never enjoy them directly?

1. very important

2. moderately important

3. not important at all

145

As you probably know, we all pay for government sponsored programs and facilities
through taxes and/or user fees. And, obviously, we pay for private programs and
services through prices, memberships and donations. '

Now, I'd like you to think about what amount of money you.would be willing to

pay each year, to ensure that the types of situations I just asked about would
exist. The form of payment would be either 1) voluntary contributions, 2)
increased taxes paid to the state, or 3) user fees, such as licenses or entry
permits. In each case, the money would go directly to projects supporting each
species only; not to any other kinds of projects or other species. This would

be the same as thinking in terms of a voluntary organization set up just for this
purpose, since we know exactly what the money would be used for. Remember,
though, if peOple aren't willing to adequately support a program, it won't be
done.

{C4. Explanation}

First, I'd like you to think about what your enjoyment (or fishing and eating)
of lake trout/lake sturgeon is worth to you. I'm
going to use a bidding process to find out what your maximum willingness to pay
is.

C4. would you be willing to contribute $ extra each year in voluntary
contributions, higher taxes or user fees, to be able to eat and/or fish
for lake trout/lake sturgeon whenever you wanted to?

yes {continue bidding up by amount until get negative
response}

no {bid downward by amount until get positive response}
3 _______ {final amount}

CS. Is $ {final amount} the most you would be willing to pay, to continue
to enjoy lake trout/lake sturgeon, under present conditions?

yes {move on to C6. explanation}
no {repeat bidding process C4. and C5.)
{66. Explanation}
Now, I'd like you to think about what guaranteed future enjoyment of lake trout/

lake sturgeon is worth to you, in addition to the value you just gave me.
Remember, this is like an insurance policy or a guarantee.

C6.

C7.

146

In addition to the amount you gave me before, would you be willing to
contribute 8 extra each year in voluntary contributions, higher
taxes or user fees, to ensure the gggranteed future availability of
lake trout/lake sturgeon for your enjoyment?

yes {continue bidding upward by amount until get negative
response}

no {bid downward by amount until get positive response}
3 _______{final amount}

Is $ {final amount} the most you would be willing to pay, to guaran-
tee the future availability of lake trout/lake sturgeon for your enjoyment?

yes {move on to C8. explanation}

no {repeat bidding process C6. and C7.}

{C8. Explanation}

Lastly, I'd like you to think about what lake trout/lake sturgeon are worth to
you even though you may never enjoy them in the future, or what they are worth
to you to preserve for others or future generations to enjoy.

C8.

C9.

C10.

In addition to the amount you gave me before, would you be willing to
contribute 3 extra each year in voluntary contributions, higher
taxes or user fees, to know that lake trout/lake sturgeon will exist
in the future even if you were never to enjoy them directly?

yes {continue bidding up by amount until get negative
response}

no {continue downward by amount until get positive response}
$________{final amount}

Is 3 {final amount} the most you.would be willing to pay to assure
their existence under present conditions?

yes
no {repeat bidding process C8. and C9.}

How accurate do you feel your responses were to the money questions?
1. fairly accurate

2. wild guesses

147

C. VALUE MEASURES: NON-USERS (FISH)

There are two (2) ways I would like you to think about your values related to
lake trout/lake sturgeon.

{Cl. Explanation}

One way of valuing lake trout/lake sturgeon is similar to an insurance policy:
assuring you that they will be available in the future. You are not presently
fishing for or eating lake trout/lake sturgeon, but you may want to do so in
the future.

Now, I'd like you to think about how important it is to you to know lake trout/
lake sturgeon will be ggeranteed to exist for your possible use and enjoyment in
the future.

Cl. How important is it to you that lake trout/lake sturgeon will be
guaranteed available in the future for you to possibly fish for or
for eating?

1. very important
2. moderately important
3. not important at all

{62. Explanation}

Another way you may value lake trout/lake sturgeon by just knowing they exist,

even though you may never see or enjoy them yourself. You may also gain

satisfaction from knowing others may enjoy lake trout/lake sturgeon, or you

may value then so they can be preserved for future generations.

C2. In addition to the value you just gave me, how important isit to you just
to know that lake trout/lake sturgeon-will exist in the future, even though
you may never enjoy them directly?

1. very important
2. moderately important
3. not important at all

As you probably know, we all pay for government sponsored programs and facilities

through taxes and/or user fees. And, obviously, we pay for private programs and

services through prices, memberships and donations.

Now, I'd like you to think about what amount of money you would be willing to pay

each year, to ensure that the types of situations I just asked about would exist.
The form of payment would be either 1) voluntary contributions, 2) increased

' 148

taxes paid to the state, or 3) user fees, such as license or entry permits. In
each case, the money would go directly to projects supporting each species only;
not to any other kinds of proejcts or other species. This would be the same as
thinking in terms of a voluntary organization set up just for this purpose,
since we know exactly what the money would be used for. Remember, though, if
people aren’t willing to adequately support a program, it won't be done.

{C3. Explanation}

I'd like you to think about what your guaranteed future enjoyment of lake
trout/lake sturgeon is worth to you. Remember, this is similar to an insurance
policy. I'm going to use a bidding process to find out what your maximum
willingness to pay is.

C3. Would you be willing to contribute $ extra each year in
voluntary cotributions, higher taxes or user fees, to ensure the
guaranteed future availability of lake trout/lake sturgeon for

your enjoyment?

yes {continue bidding up by amount until get negative
response} '

no {bid downward by amount until get positive response}

$_______ {final amount}

C4. Is 8 {final amount} the most you.would be willing to pay to guarantee

the future availability of lake trout/lake sturgeon for your future
enjoyment?

yes {move on to C5. explanation}
no {repeat bidding process C3. and C4.}

{CS . Explanation}

Lastly, I'd like you to think about what lake trout/lake sturgeon are worth to
you even though you may never enjoy them in the future, or what they are worth
to you to preserve for others or future generations to enjoy.

C5. In addition to the amounts you gave me before, would you be willing to
contribute 5 extra each year in voluntary contributions, higher

taxes or user fees, to know that lake trout/lake sturgeon will exist in
the future even if you were never to enjoy them directly?

yes {continue bidding up by amount until get negative
response}

no {continue downward by amount until get postive response}

3 ______.{final amount}

149

- 10 -

C6. Is $ {final amount} the most you would be willing to pay to assure
their existence under present conditions?

yes
no {repeat bidding process C5. and 66.}

C7. How accurate do you feel your responses were to the money questions?
1. fairly accurate

2. wild guesses

150

- 11 -

D. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

I have just a few more questions that will help me analyze the results of
this study properly. These questions are somewhat personal and will be
completely confidential, as will all of your earlier answers.
D1. Are you: (ask only is unsure)

1. male

2. female
DZ. Are you over:

1. 18 (18 - l9)

2. 20 (20 - 29) .

3. 3O (30 - 39)

4. 40 (40 - 49)

S. 50 (50 - 59)

6. 60 (60 - 69)

7. 70 (70 or older)
D3. Are you:

1. single

2. married
04. What is the last grade of school you have completed?

1. elementary school

2. some high school

3. high school graduate

4. some college

5. college graduate

6. some graduate school

7. graduated professional or graduate school

DS. Are you presently:
(Read categories)

1.

2.

3.

4.

employed full-time (36 hrs or more)
employed part time (less than 36 hours)
unemployed - looking for full-time work

none employed - not looking for full-time work

151

- 12 -

D6. Briefly, what is your present occupation?

 

 

D7. Do you consider yourself an urban or rural resident?

1.

2.

D8. Is your total annual household income before taxes above:

1.

2.

urban

rural

$60,000

$ 50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
don't know

refused

That completes the survey.
study, we really appreciate your help.

If you're interested in the outcome of this research I can take your address and

send you the results. (Pause) Again, thanks for your time.

Good-bye.

(Above $60,000)

($50,000 - $59,999)
($60,000 - $49,999)
($30,000 - $39,999)
($20,000 - $29,999)

($10,000 - $19,999)

I want to thank you for participating in this

APPENDIX C1

Bay County Population and Telephone Survey

Distribution

% POPULATION APPROPRIATE N0.
LOCATIONS OF BAY CO. RESPONSES NEEDED

 

Metro Bay City (includes:

Bay City, Monitor twp., Bangor twp.,
Essexville, Hampton twp., Portsmouth
twp., Frankenlust twp., Merritt

twp.) 78 24
Auburn 5 2
Linwood 4 2

Pinconning Area (includes:

Beaver twp., Garfield twp.,

Fraser twp., Mt. Forest twp.,

Gibson twp., Pinconning,

Pinconning twp.) 13 4

TOTAL ’ 100% 30

152

APPENDIX C2

Ingham County Population and Telephone Survey

LOCATIONS

Metro Lansing (includes
Lansing, E. Lansing, Okemos,
Haslett)

Dansville

Holt

Mason

Onondaga/Aurelius

Williamston

Nebberville

Stockbridge

Leslie

TOTAL

 

 

Distribution

% POPULATION APPROXIMATE NO.
OF INGHAM CO. RESPONSES NEEDED

77 93

2 3

6 7

4 5

2 3

3 4

2 3

2 3

2 3

100% 124

153

APPENDIX 0

Selected 1980 Census Data for

Bay and Ingham counties

 

VARIABLES

SEX

EDUCATION

Male

Females

20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69

70 and over

Elementary school

Some high school

High School graduate

Some college

College graduate

Beyond college grad.

154

BAY C0.

47.6%
52.4%

27.1%
20.1%
15.1%
15.7%
12.0%
10.0%

19.4%
16.2%
40.9%
14.6%

5.0%

INGHAM C0.

47.6%
52.4%

40.0%
40.0%
12.0%
11.4%
8.2%
7.5%

9.7%
12.3%
33.0%
19.1%
11.1%

INCOME

155

Below $10,000

10,000 to 19,999

20,000 to 49,999
50,000 and over

27.3%
12.1%
43.8%

3.6%

26.0%
29.1%
40.5:

4.4:

APPENDIX E

Participants' Occuptation by Category

RETIRED
BAY SURVEY (O)

INGHAM SURVEY (11)
PERSONAL SURVEY (12)
STUDENT

BAY SURVEY (1)

INGHAM SURVEY (18)
PERSONAL SURVEY (2)

HOMEMAKER

BAY SURVEY (4)

INGHAM SURVEY (4)

PERSONAL SURVEY (O)

SEMI-SKILLED 0R APPRENTICE CRAFTSMAN

 

BAY SURVEY
railroad worker (1)

INGHAM SURVEY

server (2)

warehouse worker (1)

heavy equipment operator (1)
assembly line worker (1)
lunch supervisor (1)

nursing attendant (1)

156

157

UPS driver (1)

hospital worker (1)

baby sitter (1)

janitor (1)

grocery clerk (1)

TV repair/newspaper circulator (1)
maintenace supervisor (1)

city worker (1)

oil factory worker (1)

PERSONAL SURVEY

lunch supervisor (1)
cable TV technician (1)
janitor (1)

SALES, CLERICAL 0R OFFICE WORKER

BAY SURVEY
medical transcriber (1)

INGHAM SURVEY

sales clerk (2)
secretary (5)
bookkeeper (3)

clerk (3) .
loan Officer (1)
receptionist (2)

fast food employee (1)
bank teller (1)
cashier (1)

PERSONAL SURVEY

accounts payable clerk (1)
administrative assistant (1)
bookkeeper (1)

clerk (1)

sales clerk (1)

SKILLED WORKER, CRAFTSMAN 0R FOREMAN

BAY SURVEY

carpenter (1)

farmer (1)

skilled tradesman (1)
mechanic (1)

158

INGHAM SURVEY

engraver (1)

carpenter (1)

marketing representative (1)

school food service representative (1)
Olds supervisor

customer service representative (1)
dental assistant (1) '

insurance coordinator (1)

billing coordinator (1)

GM employee (1)

pre-school teacher (1)

job coordinator (1)

mechanic (1)

sound engineer (1)

computer programmer/operator (1)
dairy farmer (1)

PERSONAL SURVEY

journeyman painter (1)

plumber (1)

interior designer (1)

tax service representative (1)

MANAGER 0R PROPRIETOR

 

BAY SURVEY

assistant manager (1)
manager (1)

self employed (2)

INGHAM SURVEY

restaurant manager (1)
church executive (1)
personnel administration (1)
owns business (2)

banker (1)

PERSONAL SURVEY

lobbyist & association director (1)
association director (1)

insurance executive/owner (l)
librarian (1)

personal director (1)

APPENDIX F1

Organizations That Participants
Belonged To

BAY SURVEY

LEARNING AND ENJOYING
Explorer group
National Wildlife Federation
Houghton Lake Association
Yacht Club

HUNTING AND/OR FISHING
Trout Unlimited/Ducks Unlimited

INGHAM SURVEY

LEARNING AND ENJOYING
Woldumar Nature Center
4-H
Michigan Out-of-Doors
National Wildlife Federation
Fenner Arboretum
International Wildlife
Michigan Garden Club
Michigan Natural Resources
National Geographic
Save the Whales
Greenpeace
E. Lansing Bike Club

ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCACY
Cycle Conservation Club
Audubon
Michigan United Conservation Clubs

HUNTING AND/OR FISHING
Okemos Sportsmen's Organization
National Rifle Association

PROFESSIONAL
Natural Botanical Society
New York Zoological Society

159

160

PROFESSIONAL 0R TECHNICAL

 

BAY SURVEY

teacher (1)

engineer (1)

director, special ed. programs (1)
professional fundraiser (1)

INGHAM SURVEY

HS athletic director (1)
nurse (3)

chiropractor (1)

special ed. teacher (1)
police officer (1)
librarian (I)

professor (4)

teacher (4)

engineer (1)

case worker (1)

company president (1)
labor relations director (1)

PERSONAL SURVEY
attorney (1)

professor (1)

education researcher (1)
teacher (5)

architect (1)

APPENDIX F2

Organizations That Participants
Donated Money or Volunteered Time To

BAY SURVEY

Explorer Groups
National Wildlife Federation
Ducks Unlimited/Trout Unlimited

INGHAM SURVEY

Michigan Outdoors

Woldumar Nature Center
Federation for Wildlife
Audubon

4-H

Wildlife Society

Time for Salmon

Fenner Aurboretum

National Wildlife Federation
Okemos park

PERSONAL SURVEY

Red Cedar Fly Fisherman's Club
Woldemar Nature Center

Boy Scout

Audubon

LEARNING AND ENJOYING
Boy Scouts
Michigan Out-Of-Doors

HUNTING AND/0R FISHING
National Rifle Association

161

LITERATURE CITED

LITERATURE CITED

Bishop, R. C. 1982. "Option Value: An Exposition and Extension“. Land
Econ. 58:1-15.

and Heberlein, T. A. 1979. “Measuring Values Of Extramarket
oods: Are Indirect Measures Biased“? Am. J. Ag. Econ. 61:926-
930.

and Kealy, M. J. 1983. “Contingent Valuation of

 

Environmental Assets: Comparisons with a Simulated Market“. Nat.
Res. J. 23: 619- 633.

Boadway, R. W. 1979. Public Sector Economics. Winthrop Publishers,
Cambridge, MA. pp. 31-320

Bohm, P. 1972. “Estimating Demand for Public Goods: An Experiment".

. 1975. "Option Demand and Consumer's Surplus: Comment". Am.
Econ. Rev. 65:733-736.

Brookshire, D. S., Ives, B. C. and Schulze, W. D. 1976. "The Valuation
of Aesthetic Preferences". J. of Envir. Econ. and Mgmt. 3:325-
346.

, Randall, A., d'Arge, R. C., Eubanks, L. S., Stoll, J.
R., Crocker, T. D. and Johnson, S. 1977. Methodological Experi-
ments in Valuing Wildlife Resources: Phase I". Interim Report to
0.5. Fish and Wildlife Service. pp. 140.

, and Stoll, J. R. 1980. "Valuing Increments and

Decrements in Natural Resource Service Flows". Am. J. Ag. Econ.
62: 478- 488.

163

and Crocker, T. D. 1981. "The Advantages of Contingent Valua-
tion Methods for Benefit-Cost Analysis". Public Choice 36:235-252.

, Eubanks, L. S. and Randall, A. 1982. “Estimating Option Prices
and Existence Values for Wildlife Resources". Land Econ.

Bureau of Census. 1980. Census, General Social and Economic
Characteristics: Michigan. Washington, 0.0., U.S. Department Of
Commerce.

Byerlee, D. R. 1971. "Option Demand and Consumer's Surplus: Comment".
Quart. J. of Econ. 85:523-527.

Cicchetti, C. J. and Freeman, A. M., III. 1971. "Option Demand and
Consumer's Surplus: Further Comment“. Quart. J. Econ. 85:528-539.

Freeman, A. M., III. 1979. The Benefits of Environmental Improvement.
Baltimore, Resources for the Future by Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
pp. 272.

Lindsay, C. M. 1969. “Option Demand and Consumer's Surplus". Quart.
J. Econ. 83:344-346.

Long, M. F. 1967. “Collective-consumptive Services of Individual-
Consumptive Goods: Comment". Quart. J. Econ. 81:351-352.

Kellert, S. R. 1979. "Public Attitudes Towards Critical Wildlife and ,
Natural Habitat Issues“. Phase I Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. pp. 138.

Krutilla, J. V. 1967. “Conservation Reconsidered“. Am. Econ. Rev.
57:777-786.

Maler, K.-G. 1974. Environmental Economics: A Theoretical Inquiry.
Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources For The Fu-
ture.

Randall, A. 1981. Resource Economics. Columbus, Grid Publishing,
Inc. pp. 415. '

164

, Hoehn, J. P. and Brookshire, D. S. 1983. "Contingent
Valuation Surveys for Evaluating Environmental Assets". Nat. Res.
J. 23:635-648.

and Stoll, J. R. 1983. "Existence Value in a Total Valuation
Framework“. In Managing Air Quality and Scenic Resources at
Natural Parks and Wilderness Areas, Rowe, R. D. and Chestnut, L.
G., eds. Boulder, Westwood Press. pp. 274.

Rowe, R. 0., d'Arge, R. C. and Brookshire, D. S. 1980. "An Experiment
on the Economic Value of Visability". J. Of Envir. Econ. and Mgmt.
7:1-19.

Schmalensee, R. 1972. “Option Demand and Consumer's Surplus: Valuing
Price Changes Under Uncertainty". Am. Econ. Rev. 62:813-824.

Schulze, W. 0., d'Arge, R. C. and Brookshire, D. S. 1981. "Valuing
Environmental Commodities: Some Recent Experiments". Land Econ.
57:151-172.

Talhelm, O. R. 1983. “Unrevealed Extramarket Values: Values Outside
the Normal Range of Consumer Choices“. In Managing Air Quality and
Scenic Resources at National Parks and Wilderness Areas, Rowe, R.
D. and Chestnut, L. G., eds. Boulder, Westwood Press. pp. 274.

. 1984. Personal Communication.

and Johnson, R. L. 1984. "Unrevealed Economic Values of Eco-
system Management". Unpublished draft Technical Report. Great
Lakes Fisheries Commission, Ann Arbor. pp. 32.

Thayer, M. A. 1981. "Contingent Valuation Techniques for Assessing
Environmental Impacts: Further Evidence". J. of Envir. Econ. and
Mgmt. 8:27-44.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. National Survey of Fishing
Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Washington, D.C., U.S.
Department of Interior. pp. 73.

Weisbrod, B. A. 1964. "Collective-Consumption Services of Individual-
Consumption Goods”. Quart. J. of Econ. 78:471-477.