Net Economic Values for Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2001 Addendum to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Report 2001-3

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Net Economic Values
for Wildlife-Related
Recreation in 2001
Addendum to the 2001National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2001-3
Richard Aiken and Genevieve Pullis La Rouche
Division of Federal Aid
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington, D.C.
Division of Federal Aid
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington, D.C. 20240
Director, Steve Williams
Chief, Division of Federal Aid, Kris La Montagne
http://fa.r9.fws.gov/
This report is intended to complement the National and State reports from the
2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
The conclusions are the authors and do not represent official positions of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Net Economic Values
for Wildlife-Related
Recreation in 2001
Addendum to the 2001National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2001-3
September 2003
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
II. Measures of Economic Value . . . . . . . 4
III. Contingent Valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
IV. Estimated Net Economic Values. . . . 6
V. Using the Value Estimates . . . . . . . . . 16
VI. Concluding Comments . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. Contingent
Valuation Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix B. Annual Net
Economic Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix C. Sample Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . 23
This report presents state estimates of
the net economic values for smallmouth
and largemouth bass, trout and walleye
fishing, deer, elk and moose hunting,
and nonresidential wildlife watching.
These values are based on contingent
valuation questions from the 2001
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,
and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
Each state was classified as either a bass,
trout or walleye state. Based on these
classifications, anglers were asked to
answer a contingent valuation question
for their bass, trout, or walleye fishing
during 2001.
Likewise, each state was classified as
either a deer, elk or moose state. Based
on these classifications, hunters were
asked contingent valuation questions for
their 2001 hunts.
People who took trips in 2001 to watch
wildlife at least one mile from their
residence were asked contingent
valuation questions for these activities.
The net economic values reported here
are developed for current resource
conditions. They are appropriate
measures of economic value for use
in cost-benefit analyses, damage
assessments, and project evaluations.
2 Net Economic Values for Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2001
Contents Abstract
David Hefferman, USFWS
Net Economic Values for Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2001 3
The National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,
and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
(Survey hereafter) is a comprehensive
source of data on people’s use of wildlife
resources that has been collected on a
national level since 1955 and on a state
level since 1975. The first time the Survey
collected net economic value data was
in 1980. The effort was repeated, with
some changes, in the 1985, 1991, 1996,
and 2001 Surveys.
This report presents estimates of net
economic values for smallmouth and
largemouth bass, trout and walleye
fishing, deer, elk and moose hunting, and
nonresidential wildlife watching. These
values were derived from contingent
valuation questions asked in the 2001
Survey. The report also compares the
2001 values with those of the 1980 and
1985 Surveys which used a similar
contingent valuation methodology. 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. 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).
The last five Surveys varied in the types
of fishing and hunting asked for each
state and in the methods and procedures
used for contingent valuation. Regarding
fishing, the 1980 Survey asked only trout
fishing valuation questions for each state
whereas the 1985 Survey asked only bass
fishing valuation questions. The 1991
Survey assigned states 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. The
1996 and 2001 Surveys selected states in
the upper Midwest as walleye states and
the rest of the states as either trout
fishing or bass fishing states.
In 1980, all states were designated both
deer and waterfowl states for valuation
questions. In 1985, all states again were
designated both deer and waterfowl
states, and elk hunting valuation
questions were asked for the
northwestern and northern Rocky
Mountain states. In 1991, all states were
designated as deer hunting. In 1996 and
2001 selected states in the northwest and
northern Rocky Mountains were
designated as elk states, Alaska was
designated as a moose state, and the
remainder as deer states.
Wildlife watching valuation questions
were asked in 1985, 1991, 1996, and 2001.
Respondents were asked about the trips
they took for the primary purpose of
observing, photographing, or feeding
wildlife.
Another change in the Surveys deals with
respondents’ state-assigned activity
status. When a person answered a
valuation question in the 1991 and earlier
Surveys, 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
Utah). In the 1996 and 2001 Surveys,
responses were assigned to the state
where the activity occurred. Thus, with
the example above, the response by a
person from Michigan who hunted deer
in Utah would be assigned to Utah.
A third difference among the Surveys is
the contingent valuation method itself. In
1980 and 1985, an open-ended approach
was used, which essentially consisted of
directly asking respondents how much
was their total willingness to pay for a
typical trip. In 1991 and 1996 a
dichotomous choice method was used, in
which the respondents were asked if they
would have taken any trips if their total
costs were some predetermined amount
more than what they had actually paid.
For the 2001 Survey, the open-ended
approach was used again. Therefore
comparison of 2001 values with 1980 and
1985 values is a more reliable comparison
than with 1991 and 1996 values because
the valuation questions were similar.
The following section discusses the
conceptual framework for net economic
values of wildlife-related recreation,
differentiating between net economic
values and economic impacts. The third
section describes the contingent
valuation questions used in the Survey
and steps that were taken in analyzing
the data. The fourth section consists of
value estimates for deer, elk and moose
hunting, bass, trout and walleye fishing,
and wildlife watching. This section also
briefly compares the 2001 estimates with
those from 1985 and 1980. The fifth
section discusses how to use the value
estimates presented, and the last section
provides concluding comments.
I. Introduction
Carl Zitsman, USFWS
In 2001 82 million Americans 16 years old
and older fished, hunted, photographed,
fed, and closely observed wildlife in the
U.S. These wildlife enthusiasts spent
$28.1 billion on trips to participate in
these activities. Expenditures are a
useful indicator of the importance of
wildlife-related recreation to local,
regional, and national economies.
However, they do not measure the
economic benefit to either the individual
participant or, when aggregated, to
society.
Expenditures and net economic values
are two widely used but distinctly
different measures of the economic value
of wildlife-related recreation. Net
willingness to pay, or “consumer surplus”,
is the accepted measure of the economic
value of wildlife-related recreation to the
individual recreationist and to society. It
is the appropriate measure of economic
value for a wide range of analyses that
seek to quantify benefits and costs.
Net economic value is measured as
participants’ willingness to pay for
wildlife-related recreation over and above
what they actually spend to participate.
The benefit to society is the summation of
willingness to pay across all individuals.
There is a direct relationship between
expenditures and net economic value, as
shown in Figure 1. A demand curve for a
representative hunter is shown in the
figure. An individual hunter’s demand
curve gives the number of trips the
hunter would take per year for each
different cost per trip. The downward
sloping demand curve represents
marginal willingness to pay per trip and
indicates that each additional trip is
valued less by the hunter than the
preceding trip. All other factors being
equal, the lower the cost per trip (vertical
axis) the more trips the hunter will take
(horizontal axis). The cost of a hunting
trip serves as an implicit price for
hunting since a market price generally
does not exist for this activity. At $60 per
trip, the hunter would choose not to hunt,
but if hunting trips were free, the hunter
would take 16 hunting trips.
At a cost per trip of $20 the hunter takes 10
trips, with a total willingness to pay of $375
(area acde in Figure 1). Total willingness to
pay is the total value the hunter places on
participation. The hunter will not take
more than 10 trips because the cost per
trip ($20) exceeds what he would pay for an
additional trip. For each trip between zero
and 10, however, the hunter would actually
have been willing to pay more than $20
(the demand curve, showing marginal
willingness to pay, lies above $20).
The difference between what the hunter is
willing to pay and what is actually paid is
net economic value. In this simple
example, therefore, net economic value is
$175 (($55 – $20) × 10 ÷ 2) (triangle bcd in
Figure 1) and hunter expenditures are
$200 ($20 × 10) (rectangle abde in Figure
1). Thus, the hunter’s total willingness to
pay is composed of net economic value and
total expenditures. Net economic value is
simply total willingness to pay minus
expenditures. The relationship between
net economic value and expenditures is the
basis for asserting that net economic value
is an appropriate measure of the benefit an
individual derives from participation in an
activity and that expenditures are not the
appropriate benefit measure.
Expenditures are out-of-pocket expenses
on items a hunter purchases in order to
hunt. The remaining value, net willingness
to pay (net economic value), is the
economic measure of an individual’s
satisfaction after all costs of participation
have been paid.
Summing the net economic values of all
individuals who participate in an activity
derives the value to society. For our
example let us assume that there are 100
hunters who hunt at a particular wildlife
management area and all have demand
curves identical to that of our typical
hunter presented in Figure 1. The total
value per year of this wildlife management
area to society is $17,500 ($175 × 100).
The example developed for hunting could
have been developed in the context of
fishing or wildlife watching. The basic
concept of net economic value is the same
for all three activities.
4 Net Economic Values for Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2001
II. Measures of Economic Value
Figure 1. Individual Hunter’s Demand Curve for Hunting Trips
Cost per Trip ($)
Trips per Year
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
5 10 15 20
b
a e
d
c
Expenditures
Net Economic Value
Respondents to the 2001 Survey who
had gone deer, elk or moose hunting,
bass, trout, or walleye fishing, or wildlife
watching were asked a series of
contingent valuation (CV) questions
during their personal interview as a basis
for determining their net willingness to
pay for those activities. Questions were
designed to find the respondent’s cost per
trip in 2001, whether they would have
continued to go had the cost been higher,
and at what cost per trip they would not
have gone at all in 2001 because it would
have been too expensive (Appendix A
presents the hunting and wildlife
watching CV question series, as
examples).
Respondents first were asked to estimate
the number of trips they had taken in
2001 to hunt or fish for the designated
species. For wildlife watching the number
of trips was obtained from an earlier
section of the questionnaire. Respondents
then were asked to consider expenses
such as transportation, food and lodging,
and to estimate what their cost had been
in 2001 for a typical trip1. Then they were
asked at what cost per trip they would
not have gone at all because it was too
expensive. The question stipulated that
the cost of other kinds of recreational
activities that could be considered
substitutes would not have changed.
In terms of Figure 1 the purpose of the
question sequence is to have the
respondent react as if he were moving up
the demand curve, taking fewer trips as
the cost per trip increased until he was
priced out of the market at the cost per
trip where the demand curve intersects
the vertical axis. Assuming a linear
demand curve, annual net economic value
is then calculated using the difference
between current cost ($20) and the
maximum cost at the intercept ($55), and
the number of trips taken in 2001 (10).
Using the example in Figure 1,
annual net economic value is
($55 – $20) × 10
2
= $175 =
The average value per trip is that amount
divided by the number of trips, or
$175 ÷ 10 = $17.50 per trip
The valuation sequence was posed in
terms of number of trips and cost per trip
because respondents were thought more
likely to think of their wildlife-related
recreation in terms of trips rather than
days, the unit most commonly used in
project evaluation. The economic values
reported here are in terms of days to
facilitate their use in analysis.
The values are averages in two senses of
the word. First, they are the arithmetic
mean of the responses of all respondents
in the sample, usually all those residing in
a particular state who participated in the
activity, e.g., all survey respondents who
were Colorado residents and hunted elk
in Colorado. Second, they are average
values in that they are calculated for
each respondent by dividing his total
annual consumer surplus for an activity
by the number of days he participated
during 2001.
Zero and negative net willingness-to-pay
responses were deleted from the analysis,
as were unreasonably high willingness-to-
pay responses. Likely explanations of
zero and negative willingness to pay are
that the question was misunderstood by
the respondent, incorrectly recorded by
the interviewer, or that the response was
a protest against higher costs rather than
a legitimate bid, perhaps motivated by
fear of an increase in the cost of a hunting
or fishing license. To the extent that
legitimate zero responses were among
those deleted, the resulting values will be
overestimates.
Willingness to pay for wildlife-related
recreation or, for that matter, anything a
consumer buys, must be limited by some
measure of an individual’s income and/or
wealth. A person clearly is not able to pay
some multiple of his household’s annual
income for deer hunting, for example. In
a less extreme situation, it is possible that
a truly avid deer hunter would actually be
willing to pay a significant portion of his
income to continue hunting deer even
though the costs of substitute activities
such as small game hunting would be
unchanged. Since the purpose of the
analysis is to use the CV responses as
representative of the typical recreationist
in the group rather than calculating the
sample’s aggregate net economic value,
mitigating the effect of those extreme
values on the sample mean is essential.
Observations were dropped from the
samples if the annual net economic value
for an activity exceeded five percent of
the individual’s household income.
Net Economic Values for Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2001 5
III. Contingent Valuation
Jim Palmer, USFWS
1Wildlife watchers were given the dollar figure
per trip which they had reported earlier in the
interview. If the respondent did not think this
was accurate he or she could change it.
Tables 1 through 7 give state-by-state net
economic values and standard errors for
a day of deer, elk and moose hunting,
bass, trout, and walleye fishing, and
wildlife watching. There are several
important things to know about the
estimates. They are mean responses for
net economic value per day based on the
respondent’s state of activity. Each table
gives the values of state residents and
nonresidents.
Because they are based on samples of
recreationists, the values in the tables are
estimates of the true population means
and should be considered in relation to
their standard errors and corresponding
confidence intervals. The 95 percent
confidence intervals are the estimated
mean plus or minus roughly two times
the standard error of the mean.
Confidence intervals serve as indicators
of the reliability of estimates. A 95
percent confidence interval means that
the true value falls within that range in 95
out of 100 samples of the same size. An
example of the use of the 95 percent
confidence interval is the seemingly large
difference in the mean value of a day of
deer hunting by Texas residents ($76 per
day) in comparison with that of Oklahoma
residents ($56 per day). In reality the two
values are not statistically different
because their 95 percent confidence
intervals overlap.
Sample sizes and the degree of variation
of responses within the samples are the
primary reasons that some state
confidence intervals are narrower than
others. Sample sizes varied significantly
across states. Values are not reported
based on samples of less than ten
observations.
In all the tables, there is substantial
variation in mean value from one state to
the next even after deleting extreme
responses. Confidence intervals can help
in interpreting these apparent
differences. For example, the 95 percent
confidence interval of the Kansas state
resident bass fishing per day mean ($13 to
$29) and that of the mean in neighboring
Oklahoma ($18 to $48) overlap. Thus, the
two means ($20 for Kansas and $33 for
Oklahoma) are not statistically different
at that level of significance. However, the
95% confidence intervals for Kansas ($13
to $29) and Missouri ($30 to $76) do not
overlap, so the difference in the means
for Kansas ($20) and Missouri ($52) bass
fishing net economic values can be
interpreted as a true difference.
6 Net Economic Values for Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2001
IV. Estimated Net Economic Values
Eugene Hester, USFWS
Net Economic Values for Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2001 7
Table 1. Deer Hunting Net Economic Values Per Day: 2001
State Resident Values Out-of-Stater’s Values
Dollars Standard 95% Confidence Dollars Standard 95% Confidence
per Day Error Interval per Day Error Interval
Aggregate 56 2 52-60 76 8 61-92
Alabama 110* 30 51-169 57* 41 –24-138
Arizona 67* 14 39-95 …
Arkansas 36 7 22-50 …
Connecticut 49* 25 0-98 …
Georgia 30* 9 14-47 …
Illinois 54* 22 9-98 …
Indiana 54* 14 26-82 …
Iowa 52 10 33-71 …
Kansas 38 7 25-51 …
Kentucky 53 15 23-83 …
Louisiana 75* 29 18-132 …
Maine 63 17 30-96 39* 9 21-56
Maryland 71* 28 14-127 …
Massachusetts 48* 17 15-82 …
Michigan 53 11 33-74 …
Minnesota 46 10 26-65 …
Mississippi 69* 41 –11-149 28* 10 10-47
Missouri 36 8 21-51 68* 17 34-101
Nebraska 92 24 44-139 …
Nevada 73* 35 5-141 …
New Hampshire 40 10 21-59 143* 74 –4-289
New Mexico 86 37 13-158 …
New York 47 11 26-68 111* 45 23-200
North Carolina 58* 15 27-88 …
North Dakota 47 5 36-58 …
Ohio 79 18 43-114 …
Oklahoma 56 19 21-92 …
Pennsylvania 47 7 33-60 116* 29 58-174
South Carolina 35 9 19-52 …
South Dakota 67 13 42-92 …
Tennessee 33* 7 19-47 23* 7 10-36
Texas 76 16 46-107 122* 37 49-195
Utah 53 8 38-69 …
Vermont 28 4 19-35 21* 8 5-37
Virginia 104* 42 21-186 60* 62 –61-181
Washington 54 11 33-75 …
West Virginia 52 12 30-76 62* 26 11-113
Wisconsin 46 6 34-58 76* 56 –33-186
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.
* Sample size based on a small sample size of 10-29.
Note: The sample sizes for California, Delaware, Florida, New Jersey, and Rhode Island were too small to report state resident values reliably.
8 Net Economic Values for Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2001
Table 2. Elk Hunting Net Economic Values Per Day: 2001
State Resident Values Out-of-Stater’s Values
Dollars Standard 95% Confidence Dollars Standard 95% Confidence
per Day Error Interval per Day Error Interval
Aggregate 84 15 55-113 120 32 57-182
Colorado 112 61 –9-232 110* 51 9-211
Idaho 60 17 26-94 …
Montana 86 31 26-147 …
Oregon 76 13 51-102 …
Wyoming 61 13 36-86 …
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.
* Sample size based on a small sample size of 10-29.
Table 3. Moose Hunting Net Economic Values Per Day: 2001
State Resident Values Out-of-Stater’s Values
Dollars Standard 95% Confidence Dollars Standard 95% Confidence
per Day Error Interval per Day Error Interval
Alaska 118* 28 61-174 …
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.
* Sample size based on a small sample size of 10-29.
Table 4. Bass Fishing Net Economic Values Per Day: 2001
State Resident Values Out-of-Stater’s Values
Dollars Standard 95% Confidence Dollars Standard 95% Confidence
per Day Error Interval per Day Error Interval
Aggregate 48 3 41-54 72 10 52-92
Alabama 31 8 15-47 63* 49 –32-158
Arkansas 61 15 33-90 49* 22 7-92
Delaware 30* 9 13-48 …
Florida 67 20 28-106 53* 22 11-96
Georgia 55 19 19-91 …
Illinois 52 19 17-88 …
Indiana 36 7 22-49 …
Iowa 34 9 16-52 …
Kansas 20 4 13-29 …
Kentucky 61 22 17-105 216* 104 11-420
Louisiana 43 15 14-72 …
Maryland 87 44 2-173 42* 22 –2-85
Massachusetts 36 11 14-58 …
Mississippi 29 7 16-42 …
Missouri 52 12 30-76 48* 7 35-61
Nebraska 37 7 23-51 …
North Carolina 52* 25 3-101 31* 11 10-53
Oklahoma 33 8 18-48 …
Rhode Island 24* 7 11-38 …
South Carolina 58 16 26-89 …
Tennessee 53 18 18-88 55* 15 25-85
Texas 56 22 12-99 97* 52 –6-200
Virginia 25 5 14-36 56* 38 –18-130
West Virginia 25 6 14-37 …
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.
* Estimate based on a small sample size of 10-29.
Net Economic Values for Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2001 9
Table 5. Trout Fishing Net Economic Values Per Day: 2001
State Resident Values Out-of-Stater’s Values
Dollars Standard 95% Confidence Dollars Standard 95% Confidence
per Day Error Interval per Day Error Interval
Aggregate 51 3 45-57 91 13 65-116
Alaska 85 32 22-148 …
Arizona 52 10 33-71 …
California 58 9 40-76 52 16 21-83
Colorado 53 13 28-79 56 9 40-73
Connecticut 33 11 12-55 …
Idaho 60 19 24-97 162 87 –7-332
Maine 53 14 25-81 88* 41 7-169
Montana 31 5 20-41 184 61 64-304
Nevada 43 11 22-64 …
New Hampshire 35 6 22-47 95* 37 23-168
New Jersey 56* 28 1-111 …
New Mexico 68 26 15-119 …
New York 38* 14 10-66 123* 44 36-209
Oregon 40 13 15-65 62* 18 27-97
Pennsylvania 61 25 12-110 81* 38 6-155
Utah 44 9 27-61 69* 14 41-97
Vermont 29 8 13-45 …
Washington 44 8 29-60 …
Wyoming 38 7 25-52 63 17 31-96
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.
* Estimate based on a small sample size of 10-29.
Table 6. Walleye Fishing Net Economic Values Per Day: 2001
State Resident Values Out-of-Stater’s Values
Dollars Standard 95% Confidence Dollars Standard 95% Confidence
per Day Error Interval per Day Error Interval
Aggregate 44 6 32-57 75 11 53-96
Michigan 26* 8 11-41 …
Minnesota 48 11 27-69 70 11 48-92
North Dakota 37 12 13-61 26* 12 4-50
Ohio 45 9 26-63 …
South Dakota 30 4 21-39 44* 16 13-75
Wisconsin 52 26 2-103 81* 26 31-131
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.
* Estimate based on a small sample size of 10-29.
10 Net Economic Values for Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2001
Table 7. Wildlife Watching Net Economic Values Per Day: 2001
State Resident Values Out-of-Stater’s Values
Dollars Standard 95% Confidence Dollars Standard 95% Confidence
per Day Error Interval per Day Error Interval
Aggregate 35 2 32-39 134 12 110-158
Alabama 31* 15 2-61 …
Alaska 114 45 26-202 …
Arizona 34 6 21-46 …
Arkansas 20* 9 2-37 …
California 39 8 24-54 64* 14 36-91
Colorado 33 7 20-46 290* 211 –122-703
Connecticut 18 4 11-27 …
Delaware 10* 4 3-19 …
Florida 41 19 4-77 192* 85 24-359
Georgia 51* 20 14-90 …
Hawaii 29* 9 11-46 …
Idaho 26 10 6-46 117* 84 –49-282
Illinois 11* 2 7-15 63* 26 12-114
Indiana 36 9 18-53 …
Iowa 20* 6 8-32 …
Kansas 35 16 4-66 …
Kentucky 26* 13 –1-52 …
Louisiana 38* 11 16-59 …
Maine 35 16 4-67 139* 47 47-231
Maryland 66 18 30-101 116* 44 30-203
Massachusetts 21* 4 14-28 73* 33 8-137
Michigan 23* 7 8-37 ���
Minnesota 46* 33 –18-111 …
Missouri 19 3 13-25 …
Montana 18 4 11-25 …
Nebraska 57 20 20-96 …
Nevada 41* 16 9-73 …
New Hampshire 27 7 14-40 151* 61 32-271
New Jersey 34 6 22-46 …
New Mexico 42 8 27-57 …
New York 52 20 11-92 75* 26 26-125
North Carolina 55* 28 –2-111 90* 41 9-171
North Dakota 33* 12 11-57 …
Ohio 22 4 12-31 …
Oklahoma 18* 3 13-24 …
Oregon 34 7 22-47 120* 60 3-237
Pennsylvania 31 10 12-50 145* 55 37-252
Rhode Island 29* 16 –1-60 …
South Carolina 29* 11 8-50 …
South Dakota 22* 5 11-33 …
Tennessee 19* 5 9-29 322* 143 42-602
Texas 34* 15 5-64 …
Utah 27 6 16-39 96* 27 44-148
Vermont 38 21 –3-79 134* 85 –34-301
Virginia 55* 14 27-83 185* 61 64-305
Washington 50 8 33-66 78* 27 23-132
West Virginia 47* 35 –21-115 …
Wisconsin 44 11 23-65 …
Wyoming 31 10 13-50 54* 28 –1-109
��� Sample size too small to report data reliably.
* Sample size based on a small sample size of 10-29.
Note: The sample size for Mississippi was too small to report the state resident value reliably.
State Comparisons in Net
Economic Values Over Time
State-by-state comparisons of deer
hunting, bass and trout fishing, and
wildlife watching values for 1980, 1985,
and 2001 show nearly all values to be
similar. See the Summary Table at left
for the few states that had significant
differences (at the .05 level of
significance) in values over time.
The similar estimates from the 1980’s
compared to 2001 show that these
estimates are stable, making them
reliable indicators of the value of
wildlife-related recreation.
It should be noted that the 1980 and
1985 values were for state residents
participating anywhere in the U.S.,
while the 2001 values were for state
residents participating in their state of
residence. Given that for any given year
most participation occurs within the
resident state, this difference in
methodology is not critical.
Net Economic Values for Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2001 11
Summary Table. States with Significant Differences in
Net Economic Values Over Time
(2001 dollars)
1980 1985 2001
Dollars/day Dollars/day Dollars/day
Deer hunting
Alabama 32 41 110
Bass fishing
Arkansas 20 61
Florida 21 67
Indiana 18 36
Nebraska 17 37
South Carolina 21 52
Trout fishing
Arizona 24 52
California 34 58
Maine 19 53
New Hampshire 15 35
Utah 24 44
Washington 24 44
Wildlife watching
Delaware 41 10
Idaho 68 26
Illinois 31 11
Montana 31 18
Tennessee 56 19
Note: The 1980 Survey did not measure net economic values for bass fishing or wildlife
watching and the 1985 Survey did not measure values for trout fishing.
Of all the designated deer hunting states,
only Alabama had a 2001 value that was
significantly higher than those of 1980
and 1985 (Table 8). None of the 2001
numbers were significantly lower (at the
.05 significance) than the 1980 and 1985
values. There are no value comparisons
with the 1991 and 1996 Surveys because
there were no values at the state level
from the 1996 Survey, and the 1991
Survey used the dichotomous method,
which is a significantly different approach
to valuing wildlife-related recreation.
All dollar values in this report are in
2001 dollars.
12 Net Economic Values for Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2001
Table 8. Deer Hunting 1980, 1985, and 2001 Values Per Day
(2001 Dollars)
Out-of-Stater’s
State Resident Values Values
1980 1985 2001 2001
Dollars/day Dollars/day Dollars/day Dollars/day
Alabama 32 41 110* 57*+
Arizona 52 64 67* …
Arkansas 37 50 36 …
California 54 69 … …
Connecticut 39 51 49* …
Delaware 43 41 … …
Florida 34 89 … …
Georgia 37 45 30* …
Illinois 47 54 54* …
Indiana 32 45 54* …
Iowa 37 61 52 …
Kansas 34 40 38 …
Kentucky 45 53 53 …
Louisiana 41 45 75* …
Maine 30 40 63 39*
Maryland 47 64 71* …
Massachusetts 39 69 48* …
Michigan 32 56 53 …
Minnesota 43 51 46 …
Mississippi 32 36 69*+ 28*
Missouri 39 43 36 68*
Nebraska 47 53 92 …
Nevada 60 96 73* …
New Hampshire 28 35 40 143*
New Jersey 45 61 … …
New Mexico 60 81 86 …
New York 32 40 47 111*
North Carolina 39 40 58* …
North Dakota 49 46 47 …
Ohio 43 46 79 …
Oklahoma 43 56 56 …
Pennsylvania 45 53 47 116*
Rhode Island 41* 64* … …
South Carolina 32 43 35 …
South Dakota 49 43 67 …
Tennessee 30 48 33* 23*
Texas 56 64 76 122*
Utah 43 68 53 …
Vermont 30 35 28 21*
Virginia 34 45 104* 60*+
Washington 37 46 54 …
West Virginia 43 51 52 62*
Wisconsin 34 53 46 76*+
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.
* Sample size based on a small sample size of 10-29.
+ 95% confidence interval includes zero.
For the designated bass fishing states,
5 of 24 states had 2001 values that were
significantly higher than 1985 values
(Table 9). These states were Arkansas,
Florida, Indiana, Nebraska, and South
Carolina. There were no decreases in
values for bass fishing by state.
Net Economic Values for Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2001 13
Table 9. Bass Fishing 1985 and 2001 Values Per Day
(2001 dollars)
State Resident Values Out-of-Stater’s Values
1985 2001 2001
Dollars/day Dollars/day Dollars/day
Alabama 21 31 63*+
Arkansas 20 61 49*
Delaware 21 30* …
Florida 21 67 53*
Georgia 23 55 …
Illinois 36 52 …
Indiana 18 36 …
Iowa 17 34 …
Kansas 17* 20 …
Kentucky 21 61 216*
Louisiana 33 43 …
Maryland 23 87 42*
Massachusetts 15 36 …
Mississippi 15 29 …
Missouri 31 52 48*
Nebraska 17 37 …
North Carolina 21 52* 31*
Oklahoma 18 33 …
Rhode Island 21 24* …
South Carolina 15 58 …
Tennessee 18 53 55*
Texas 31 56 97*
Virginia 20 25 56*+
West Virginia 21 25 …
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.
* Estimate based on a small sample size of 10-29.
+ 95% confidence interval includes zero.
Six of 19 states with trout fishing values
for 1980 and 2001 had 2001 values that
were significantly higher than 1980 values
(Table 10). These states were Arizona,
California, Maine, New Hampshire,
Utah, and Washington. There were no
decreases from 1980 to 2001 in trout
fishing values by state.
14 Net Economic Values for Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2001
Table 10. Trout Fishing 1980 and 2001 Values Per Day
(2001 dollars)
State Resident Values Out-of-Stater’s Values
1980 2001 2001
Dollars/day Dollars/day Dollars/day
Alaska 60* 85 …
Arizona 24 52 …
California 34 58 52
Colorado 28 53 56
Connecticut 17 33 …
Idaho 22 60 162
Maine 19 53 88*
Montana 26 31 184
Nevada 24 43 …
New Hampshire 15 35 95*
New Jersey 22 56* …
New Mexico 30 68 …
New York 19 38* 123*
Oregon 26 40 62*
Pennsylvania 17 61 81*
Utah 24 44 69*
Vermont 15 29 …
Washington 24 44 …
Wyoming 32 38 63
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.
* Estimate based on a small sample size of 10-29.
Five of 49 states with wildlife-watching
values for 1985 and 2001 had 2001 values
that were significantly lower than 1985
values (Table 11). These states were
Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Montana,
and Tennessee. In no state were there
statistically significantly higher
estimates in 2001 compared to 1985.
Net Economic Values for Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2001 15
Table 11. Wildlife Watching 1985 and 2001 Values Per Day
(2001 Dollars)
State Resident Values Out-of-Stater’s Values
1985 2001 2001
Dollars/day Dollars/day Dollars/day
Alabama 21 31* …
Alaska 40 114 …
Arizona 50 34 …
Arkansas 20 20* …
California 53 39 64*
Colorado 43 33 290*
Connecticut 31 18 …
Delaware 41 10* …
Florida 26 41 192*
Georgia 43 51* …
Hawaii 45 29* …
Idaho 68 26 117*
Illinois 31 11* 63*
Indiana 46 36 …
Iowa 21 20* …
Kansas 23 35 …
Kentucky 25 26* …
Louisiana 17 38* …
Maine 17 35 139*
Maryland 40 66 116*
Massachusetts 35 21 73*
Michigan 33 23* …
Minnesota 33 46*+ …
Mississippi 20 … …
Missouri 23 19 …
Montana 31 18 …
Nebraska 18 57 …
Nevada 41 41* …
New Hampshire 30 27 151*
New Jersey 46 34 …
New Mexico 48 42 …
New York 26 52 75*
North Carolina 23 55* 90*
North Dakota 36 33* …
Ohio 21 22 …
Oklahoma 18 18* …
Oregon 25 34 120*
Pennsylvania 40 31 145*
Rhode Island 35 29* …
South Carolina 56 29* …
South Dakota 21 22* …
Tennessee 56 19* 322*
Texas 40 34* …
Utah 35 27 96*
Vermont 30 38+ 134*
Virginia 35 55* 185*
Washington 33 50 78*
West Virginia 28 47*+ …
Wisconsin 25* 44 …
Wyoming 38 31 54*
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.
* Sample size based on a small sample size of 10-29.
+ 95% confidence interval includes zero.
16 Net Economic Values for Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2001
When and how can these values be used?
These numbers are appropriate for any
project evaluation that seeks to quantify
benefits and costs. They can be used to
evaluate management actions that
increase or decrease participation. Two
types of willingness-to-pay values are
available, net economic values per day
per participant and net economic values
per year of participation. Each of these
values has a slightly different use and
interpretation in conducting benefit and
cost calculations of wildlife management
and policy decisions.
Mean net economic values per year per
participant can be thought of as “all or
nothing values.” Take trout fishing in
Montana as an example, with a mean
value of $282 (Table B-5 in Appendix B).
The $282 represents the mean value to a
resident trout angler in Montana given
the current resource condition and trout
fishing regulations. This is like the
estimate of net economic value portrayed
in Figure 1. If a wildlife refuge in
Montana changes its policies and allows
100 more trout anglers to visit per year,
the total value to society due to this policy
change would be $28,200 ($282 × 100) per
year (assuming all visitors are state
residents). This value, however, assumes
that these 100 anglers could and would
fish for trout only at this refuge and that
they would take a certain number of trips
to this refuge. Thus, while mean net
economic values per year per participant
are interesting in terms of characterizing
the current value of the resource and in
calculating losses for a catastrophic
change in the resource, they are not
applicable for most management and
public policy decisions faced by resource
managers.
Management and policy actions generally
increase or decrease participation. Let us
continue with the Montana example.
Assume an environmental pollution
accident results in the closure of a lake to
fishing for a whole season. If a fishery
manager knows the number of days of
state resident fishing that occur on the
lake over the whole season, 1,200 for
example, it is possible to develop a rough
estimate of the fishery losses from the
accident. This estimate is accomplished
by multiplying the net economic value
per day ($31 from Table 5) by the days
of participation, resulting in $37,200
($31 × 1,200). If the refuge had data on
the number of in-state and out-of-state
visitors then the numbers could be
adjusted to reflect their appropriate
value.
Two caveats exist to the examples above:
(1) if recreationists can shift their activity
to another location then the values are
an overestimate; and (2) if a loss of
wildlife habitat causes an overall
degradation in the number of game,
fish, or wildlife and in the quality of
wildlife-related recreation then the
values are an underestimate.
The key issues that must be
understood are:
■ Each of the different value estimates
has slightly different interpretations
and uses;
■ If an action changes participation, it
is necessary to consider the extent to
which participants substitute another
site to fish, hunt, or wildlife watch.
Failure to consider substitution will
result in overestimation of resource
losses; and
■ Using per participant value estimates
to compute losses or benefits requires
additional information, particularly on
resource conditions and participation
rates.
Thus, the value estimates reported here
must be used with caution in order to
avoid misuse, which would result in
incorrect estimates of aggregate costs or
aggregate benefits.
V. Using the Value Estimates
USFWS
Contingent valuation questions in the
2001 National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation provide a nationwide data
base for estimating net economic
recreation values for selected wildlife-related
recreation activities on a state-by-state
basis. The data and the values they
produce are important because they
measure recreationists’ net willingness to
pay for such activities, the conceptually
correct measure of net economic value for
a wide range of analyses and project
evaluations. Because they are available
for individual states, the values allow for
differences in recreation values in various
parts of the country. For many kinds of
analysis, using values that reflect wildlife-related
recreation in the state in question
rather than some other state or a national
average gives the analysis a better and
more convincing empirical base.
In this age of cost-benefit analysis these
estimates can be used to justify the value
of wildlife-related recreation. Be it deer
hunting, trout fishing, or wildlife
watching, the numbers prove that
Americans benefit greatly from wildlife.
Net Economic Values for Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2001 17
VI. Concluding Comments
Fred Deines, USFWS
Hunting Economic Evaluation1
In the next few questions, I will ask you
about ALL your trips taken during the
ENTIRE calendar year of 2001 to
PRIMARILY hunt for [fill GAME] in
[fill I_RESIDENT].
Sometimes you may take [fill TEMP1]
[fill GAME] hunting trip where you are
away from home one night or several
nights. Other times, you may take [fill
TEMP1] [fill GAME] hunting trip where
you leave from and return to your home
in one day. In total, how many trips did
you take to hunt PRIMARILY for [fill
GAME] during 2001 in [fill
I_RESIDENT]?
Think about what it costs you for a
TYPICAL [fill GAME] hunting trip.
Include your expenses for things such as
gasoline and other transportation costs,
food, and lodging. If you went hunting
with family or friends, include ONLY
YOUR SHARE of the cost.
Keeping all those expenses in mind, how
much did a TYPICAL hunting trip cost
you during 2001 when you hunted
PRIMARILY for [fill GAME] in [fill
I_RESIDENT]?
What is the most your [fill GAME]
hunting in [fill I_RESIDENT] could have
cost you per trip last year before you
would NOT have gone [fill GAME]
hunting at all in 2001, not even one trip,
because it would have been too
expensive?
Keep in mind that the cost per trip of
other kinds of hunting, fishing and
recreational activities would not have
changed.
So, in other words, $[fill HUNTBID]
would have been too much to pay for one
[fill GAME] hunting trip last year in [fill
I_RESIDENT]?
(1) Yes
(2) No
[If No,]
How much would have been too much to
pay for one [fill GAME] hunting trip last
year in [fill I_RESIDENT]?
Wildlife-Watching Economic Evaluation
In the next few questions, I will ask you
about ALL your trips taken for the
PRIMARY PURPOSE of observing,
photographing, or feeding wildlife during
the ENTIRE calendar year of 2001 in
[fill I_RESIDENT].
In your [fill TEMP1] you reported taking
[fill ECONADD] [trip/trips] for the
PRIMARY PURPOSE of observing,
photographing, or feeding wildlife in [fill
I_RESIDENT]. Is that correct?
(1) Yes
(2) No
[If No,]
How many trips did you take for the
PRIMARY PURPOSE of observing,
feeding or photographing wildlife in [fill
I_RESIDENT] during 2001?
In your [fill TEMP1], you reported that
you spent on average $[fill NCUTOT] per
trip during 2001 where your PRIMARY
PURPOSE was to observe, photograph
or feed wildlife in [fill I_RESIDENT].
Would you say that cost is about right?
(1) Yes
(2) No
[If No,]
How much would you say was the
average cost of your [fill TEMP1] [trip/
trips] during 2001 where your PRIMARY
PURPOSE was to observe, photograph,
or feed wildlife in [fill I_RESIDENT]? If
you went with family or friends, include
ONLY YOUR SHARE of the cost.
What is the most your trip(s) to observe,
photograph, or feed wildlife in [fill
I_RESIDENT] could have cost you per
trip last year before you would NOT have
gone at all in 2001, not even one trip,
because it would have been too
expensive?
Keep in mind that the cost per trip of
other kinds of recreation would not
have changed.
So, in other words, $[fill ECONNCU]
would have been too much to pay to take
even one trip to observe, photograph, or
feed wildlife in 2001 in [fill
I_RESIDENT]?
(1) Yes
(2) No
[If No,]
How much would have been too much
to pay to take even 1 trip to feed,
photograph, or observe wildlife in
2001 in [fill I_RESIDENT]?
18 Net Economic Values for Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2001
Appendix A. Contingent Valuation Questions from the
2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation
1 The fishing economic evaluation questions
were the same as the hunting questions.
Note: All bracketed fill commands were provided
by the computer for each interview.
Net Economic Values for Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2001 19
Table B-1. Deer Hunting Net Economic Value Per Year: 2001
State Resident Values Out-of-Stater’s Values
Dollars Standard 95% Confidence Dollars Standard 95% Confidence
per Year Error Interval per Year Error Interval
Aggregate 377 15 347-406 331 29 274-387
Alabama 858* 292 287-1,429 499* 297 –83-1,081
Arizona 349* 111 131-567 …
Arkansas 331 81 172-489 …
Connecticut 529* 225 87-971 …
Georgia 456* 107 246-666 …
Illinois 456* 186 91-820 …
Indiana 588* 192 211-965 …
Iowa 210 60 94-327 …
Kansas 307 111 90-524 …
Kentucky 271 58 157-385 …
Louisiana 449* 110 233-664 …
Maine 420 81 262-579 289* 108 77-500
Maryland 392* 169 61-723 …
Massachusetts 307* 67 176-438 …
Michigan 433 95 246-619 …
Minnesota 238 47 146-330 …
Mississippi 400* 160 86-714 211* 49 116-306
Missouri 198 46 108-288 209* 53 105-314
Nebraska 475 99 281-669 …
Nevada 321* 152 21-620 …
New Hampshire 402 173 65-740 586* 265 65-1,106
New Mexico 389 183 29-749 …
New York 485 104 282-688 282* 82 120-444
North Carolina 657* 170 323-991 …
North Dakota 284 53 178-389 …
Ohio 350 62 229-471 …
Oklahoma 668 156 362-974 …
Pennsylvania 247 50 151-344 343* 87 171-514
South Carolina 408 101 209-606 …
South Dakota 309 60 192-426 …
Tennessee 313* 124 68-557 140* 51 40-240
Texas 418 82 256-580 550* 258 46-1,055
Utah 220 29 162-277 …
Vermont 258 53 155-362 92* 29 35-149
Virginia 675* 247 191-1,160 98* 60 –19-215
Washington 277 43 194-360 …
West Virginia 295 55 186-403 501* 197 115-886
Wisconsin 335 45 245-424 379* 91 201-557
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.
* Estimate based on a small sample size of 10-29.
Note: The sample sizes for California, Delaware, Florida, New Jersey, and Rhode Island were too small to report state resident values reliably.
Appendix B. Annual Net Economic Values
20 Net Economic Values for Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2001
Table B-2. Elk Hunting Net Economic Value Per Year: 2001
State Resident Values Out-of-Stater’s Values
Dollars Standard 95% Confidence Dollars Standard 95% Confidence
per Year Error Interval per Year Error Interval
Aggregate 380 43 296-464 556 148 266-845
Colorado 252 64 127-377 604* 256 103-1,106
Idaho 347 100 150-544 …
Montana 316 67 183-448 …
Oregon 552 120 317-786 …
Wyoming 414 138 144-684 …
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.
* Estimate based on a small sample size of 10-29.
Table B-3. Moose Hunting Net Economic Value Per Year: 2001
State Resident Values Out-of-Stater’s Values
Dollars Standard 95% Confidence Dollars Standard 95% Confidence
per Year Error Interval per Year Error Interval
Alaska 579* 126 331-826 …
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.
* Estimate based on a small sample size of 10-29.
Table B-4. Bass Fishing Net Economic Values Per Year: 2001
State Resident Values Out-of-Stater���s Values
Dollars Standard 95% Confidence Dollars Standard 95% Confidence
per Year Error Interval per Year Error Interval
Aggregate 370 21 329-410 257 29 201-313
Alabama 358 79 203-513 135* 62 14-257
Arkansas 638 202 241-1,034 400* 169 69-732
Delaware 287* 212 –129-703 …
Florida 569 127 322-817 286* 93 104-468
Georgia 266 45 177-354 …
Illinois 397 86 227-566 …
Indiana 285 60 169-402 …
Iowa 155 34 88-222 …
Kansas 163 38 87-238 …
Kentucky 432 125 187-677 413* 141 136-690
Louisiana 295 63 173-418 …
Maryland 433 113 210-654 187* 80 30-343
Massachusetts 284 64 159-409 …
Mississippi 248 57 137-360 …
Missouri 449 94 264-634 184* 47 92-276
Nebraska 251 45 162-340 …
North Carolina 279* 62 158-400 123* 63 –2-247
Oklahoma 347 79 193-501 …
Rhode Island 271* 129 18-524 …
South Carolina 488 123 246-729 …
Tennessee 409 112 190-629 601* 244 122-1,079
Texas 397 123 155-638 286* 104 82-490
Virginia 214 46 123-305 174* 108 –37-386
West Virginia 205 51 105-305 …
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.
* Estimate based on a small sample size of 10-29.
Net Economic Values for Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2001 21
Table B-5. Trout Fishing Net Economic Values Per Year: 2001
State Resident Values Out-of-Stater’s Values
Dollars Standard 95% Confidence Dollars Standard 95% Confidence
per Year Error Interval per Year Error Interval
Aggregate 300 14 272-328 325 33 259-390
Alaska 411 104 208-615 …
Arizona 277 45 187-366 …
California 287 51 186-387 260 77 109-411
Colorado 331 60 213-449 273 43 188-356
Connecticut 199 37 127-271 …
Idaho 267 60 148-385 316 127 69-564
Maine 337 80 180-494 350* 90 173-527
Montana 282 53 177-386 677 203 279-1,074
Nevada 364 109 151-578 …
New Hampshire 347 59 230-463 527* 226 83-970
New Jersey 401* 176 56-746 …
New Mexico 301 88 128-474 …
New York 286* 87 115-456 513* 271 –18-1,044
Oregon 216 39 140-293 134* 55 26-242
Pennsylvania 400 107 189-610 293* 111 76-511
Utah 232 27 179-284 225* 77 74-376
Vermont 250 66 122-379 …
Washington 301 56 191-410 …
Wyoming 351 50 255-448 210 55 103-318
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.
* Estimate based on a small sample size of 10-29.
Table B-6. Walleye Fishing Net Economic Values Per Year: 2001
State Resident Values Out-of-Stater’s Values
Dollars Standard 95% Confidence Dollars Standard 95% Confidence
per Year Error Interval per Year Error Interval
Aggregate 335 27 282-389 350 50 253-447
Michigan 200* 76 51-349 …
Minnesota 427 66 299-556 350 67 221-481
North Dakota 237 33 172-302 155* 135 –110-420
Ohio 202 41 121-283 …
South Dakota 324 63 200-448 235* 97 45-424
Wisconsin 375 92 195-556 409* 146 123-695
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.
* Estimate based on a small sample size of 10-29.
22 Net Economic Values for Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2001
Table B-7. Wildlife Watching Net Economic Values Per Year: 2001
State Resident Values Out-of-Stater’s Values
Dollars Standard 95% Confidence Dollars Standard 95% Confidence
per Year Error Interval per Year Error Interval
Aggregate 257 12 233-282 488 37 415-561
Alabama 242* 94 59-426 …
Alaska 722 192 345-1,099 …
Arizona 272 59 156-388 …
Arkansas 192* 111 –26-409 …
California 230 51 130-331 176* 59 62-292
Colorado 257 75 109-405 737* 209 327-1,147
Connecticut 252 112 34-471 …
Delaware 73* 33 9-137 …
Florida 313 99 119-507 808* 260 297-1,318
Georgia 389* 203 –10-787 …
Hawaii 243*+ 135 –21-507 …
Idaho 112 47 21-204 344* 245 –136-824
Illinois 93* 20 52-133 347* 140 74-621
Indiana 428 177 82-775 …
Iowa 194 103 –6-395 …
Kansas 289 152 –10-586 …
Kentucky 214* 63 90-337 …
Louisiana 268* 108 56-479 …
Maine 282 88 111-454 610* 213 191-1,028
Maryland 362 94 178-546 722* 263 206-1,238
Massachusetts 208 63 85-332 227* 234 –233-686
Michigan 289* 81 130-447 …
Minnesota 323* 147 33-612 …
Missouri 131 57 20-243 …
Montana 178 43 95-261 …
Nebraska 198 55 89-306 …
Nevada 381*+ 217 –45-807 …
New Hampshire 178 51 78-278 470* 195 87-853
New Jersey 198 38 124-273 …
New Mexico 328 85 161-494 …
New York 305 73 164-447 173* 67 42-305
North Carolina 493*+ 302 ���99-1,085 529* 374 –205-1,262
North Dakota 190* 58 77-303 …
Ohio 170 59 54-286 …
Oklahoma 141* 60 23-259 …
Oregon 267 52 164-370 630* 291 60-1,200
Pennsylvania 299 84 134-464 458* 263 –56-973
Rhode Island 237*+ 214 –182-656 …
South Carolina 239* 67 110-370 …
South Dakota 181* 89 7-355 …
Tennessee 130* 39 55-206 629* 232 173-1,084
Texas 208* 68 74-342 …
Utah 221 49 126-316 230* 91 51-409
Vermont 192 68 59-325 561* 257 57-1,065
Virginia 316* 81 159-474 510* 122 270-750
Washington 323 72 183-463 339* 82 177-501
West Virginia 278* 113 57-499 …
Wisconsin 299 71 160-438 …
Wyoming 184 58 71-297 259* 125 15-504
… Sample size too small to report data reliably.
* Sample size based on a small sample size of 10-29.
Note: The sample size for Mississippi was too small to report state resident values reliably.
Net Economic Values for Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2001 23
Table C-1. Sample Sizes for
Deer Hunting
State Out-of-
Residents Stater’s
Alabama 29 11
Arizona 22 1
Arkansas 44 4
California 3 1
Connecticut 11 2
Delaware 8 0
Florida 8 2
Georgia 25 9
Illinois 12 6
Indiana 28 6
Iowa 44 3
Kansas 32 4
Kentucky 41 3
Louisiana 21 2
Maine 56 16
Maryland 21 4
Massachusetts 20 1
Michigan 51 6
Minnesota 55 8
Mississippi 19 13
Missouri 49 11
Nebraska 60 2
Nevada 14 2
New Hampshire 37 10
New Jersey 7 1
New Mexico 32 1
New York 39 16
North Carolina 21 4
North Dakota 106 2
Ohio 43 7
Oklahoma 39 2
Pennsylvania 67 29
Rhode Island 4 0
South Carolina 35 4
South Dakota 51 5
Tennessee 19 11
Texas 41 11
Utah 88 2
Vermont 48 10
Virginia 27 10
Washington 56 1
West Virginia 60 15
Wisconsin 90 11
Table C-2. Sample Sizes for
Elk Hunting
State Out-of-
Residents Stater’s
Colorado 34 18
Idaho 33 3
Montana 83 6
Oregon 53 2
Wyoming 37 4
Table C-3. Sample Sizes for
Moose Hunting
State Out-of-
Residents Stater’s
Alaska 19 2
Table C-4. Sample Sizes for
Bass Fishing
State Out-of-
Residents Stater’s
Alabama 76 15
Arkansas 46 12
Delaware 18 2
Florida 32 19
Georgia 40 6
Illinois 34 3
Indiana 52 8
Iowa 45 5
Kansas 61 6
Kentucky 56 13
Louisiana 39 8
Maryland 31 10
Massachusetts 37 5
Mississippi 53 6
Missouri 55 29
Nebraska 54 5
North Carolina 29 12
Oklahoma 60 6
Rhode Island 18 0
South Carolina 63 4
Tennessee 40 16
Texas 46 12
Virginia 41 10
West Virginia 30 4
Appendix C. Sample Sizes
Table C-5. Sample Sizes for
Trout Fishing
State Out-of-
Residents Stater’s
Alaska 73 3
Arizona 61 8
California 75 32
Colorado 130 61
Connecticut 41 1
Idaho 89 51
Maine 50 11
Montana 98 36
Nevada 44 3
New Hampshire 59 17
New Jersey 18 0
New Mexico 74 4
New York 20 19
Oregon 105 21
Pennsylvania 47 28
Utah 226 29
Vermont 37 7
Washington 132 5
Wyoming 98 48
Table C-6. Sample Sizes for
Walleye Fishing
State Out-of-
Residents Stater’s
Michigan 23 8
Minnesota 73 58
North Dakota 133 11
Ohio 41 6
South Dakota 78 18
Wisconsin 69 18
Table C-7. Sample Sizes for
Wildlife Watching
State Out-of-
Residents Stater’s
Alabama 29 3
Alaska 43 3
Arizona 44 9
Arkansas 18 2
California 54 17
Colorado 49 14
Connecticut 37 4
Delaware 13 2
Florida 33 24
Georgia 11 3
Hawaii 14 4
Idaho 32 14
Illinois 24 10
Indiana 33 3
Iowa 28 1
Kansas 34 1
Kentucky 28 5
Louisiana 16 4
Maine 31 16
Maryland 41 14
Massachusetts 41 13
Michigan 23 7
Minnesota 15 4
Mississippi 4 1
Missouri 31 3
Montana 41 8
Nebraska 32 6
Nevada 22 3
New Hampshire 41 13
New Jersey 49 5
New Mexico 45 3
New York 35 19
North Carolina 19 10
North Dakota 20 1
Ohio 39 4
Oklahoma 25 3
Oregon 65 18
Pennsylvania 31 16
Rhode Island 21 2
South Carolina 24 0
South Dakota 23 7
Tennessee 23 10
Texas 14 5
Utah 62 14
Vermont 31 12
Virginia 25 16
Washington 91 21
West Virginia 17 1
Wisconsin 43 8
Wyoming 34 14
24 Net Economic Values for Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2001
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Division of Federal Aid
Washington, DC 20240
http://federalaid.fws.gov
September 2003
Cover photo: Megan Durham, USFWS