5
I. Introduction
development of valuation estimates that
are specific to states where the activities
occurred rather than being specific to
residents of a state who may or may not
have participated within their state of
residency.
While these design advantages were
implemented to improve the usefulness
sizes and survey implementation
procedures prevented us from developing
state specific valuation estimates as was
done in 1991. Rather, states had to be
grouped in order to develop statistically
significant estimates of value. These
groupings are explained in Section IV.
In the following section we discuss the
conceptual framework for net economic
values of wildlife-related recreation,
differentiating between net economic
values and economic impacts. A
discussion of the contingent-valuation
questions and the procedures used to
analyze the contingent-valuation data are
presented in the third section. The
groupings of states are presented in the
fourth section. Net economic value
estimates are reported in the fifth
section. The sixth section contains a
discussion of how to use the value data
presented in this report and concluding
comments are presented in the last
section.
The National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation (Survey hereafter) is the only
source of data on human use of wildlife
resources that is collected on a
consistent, state-by-state basis. The first
time net economic value data were
collected was in the 1980 Survey, and this
effort was repeated in the 1985, 1991 and
1996 Surveys. Estimates of net economic
value for bass, trout and walleye fishing,
deer, elk and moose hunting, and primary
nonresidential wildlife watching derived
from contingent-valuation questions in
the 1996 Survey are presented in this
report. Bass fishing refers to smallmouth
and largemouth bass and excludes white
bass, spotted bass, striped bass, striped
bass hybrids, and rock bass. Trout fishing
refers to all freshwater species commonly
known as trout. Primary nonresidential
wildlife watching refers to trips at least
one mile from home taken for the
primary purpose of observing,
photographing, or feeding wildlife
(wildlife watching hereafter).
In the 1991 Survey, states were assigned
fishing status as either primarily bass
fishing or primarily trout fishing. A
person who lived in a bass state was
asked a bass fishing valuation question
and was not asked a trout valuation
question, and vice versa for a person who
lived in a trout state. In 1996, selected
states in the upper Midwest were
designated as walleye states. In 1991, all
states were designated as deer hunting
and in 1996 selected states in the
northwest and northern Rocky
Mountains were designated as elk states
and Alaska was designated as a moose
state. State species designations for
fishing and hunting valuation questions
are identified in Section IV.
An additional change between the 1991
and 1996 contingent-valuation sections of
the Survey deals with respondents
assigned residency status. When a
person answered a valuation question in
the 1991 Survey, their valuation response
was assigned to their state of residence.
Thus, a person from Michigan who
hunted deer would have their deer
valuation response assigned to Michigan
even if they hunted deer in another state
(e.g., mule deer in Colorado). In the 1996
Survey, valuation responses were
assigned to the state where the activity
occurred. Thus, with the example above,
the valuation response by a person from
Michigan who hunted deer in Colorado
would be assigned to Colorado.
A third change between the 1991 and 1996
Surveys is the number of valuation
questions respondents answer. In 1991,
respondents could answer one question
each for fishing, hunting and wildlife
watching. In 1996, each respondent could
answer up to four fishing valuation
questions, four hunting valuation
questions, and two wildlife watching
valuation questions.
Using fishing as an example, if a
respondent fished for the designated
species in their state of residence, they
were asked a valuation question for that
species in their state of residence. A
person from Georgia (a designated bass
state), who fished for bass in Georgia,
would be asked a bass valuation question
for their bass fishing in Georgia. The
survey also identified individuals who
fished for bass, trout or walleye in
designated bass, trout and walleye states
other than their state of residence. If a
respondent fished for a designated
species they were asked a valuation
question for that species. If a person
fished for a species in two or more states
outside their state of residence that were
designated for the species, one of those
states was randomly chosen and
valuation questions were only asked for
that state. The same pattern was used for
the hunting and wildlife watching
questions.
These changes were implemented to
data for states. Including walleye fishing
and elk and moose hunting valuation
questions allowed states to obtain
valuation data for the species they felt
was most relevant for their management
purposes. Clarifying the residence status
of participants allowed for the