**WELFARE BENEFITS OF THE REFUGE AND THE YRFA CHAPTER 5**

In Chapters 3 and 4 we present analyses of the contribution recreational
expenditures associated with the NNWR make to the economies of the four
counties neighboring the Refuge. These economic contribution measures
represent the economic impact that direct dollar expenditures on
recreation have on the local economy -- often referred to as
\"multiplier\" effects. In this chapter we focus our analysis on
estimating the economic value associated with the NNWR using a
welfare-theoretic framework. Economic welfare values represent the
benefits, or economic \"surpluses\", consumers derive from these
activities, over and above the cost of participating. In this chapter we
provide order-of-magnitude estimates of the welfare value associated
with the NNWR in its current state, as well as an estimate of the
additional benefits that would result under a Refuge expansion scenario.
Specifically, we provide:

-   Discussion of the concept of economic welfare value and the methods
    used by resource economists to estimate welfare value;

-   Estimates of the welfare values associated with various activities
    that take place at the Refuge, based on the existing literature;

-   Estimates of the total economic welfare value produced by the
    Refuge, by recreational activity;

-   Estimates of the per-acre welfare values generated by recreational
    activities taking place at the NNWR;

-   Estimates of the social welfare benefits that would result from the
    NNWR acquiring an acre of land for recreational opportunities in the
    YRFA; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Discussion of the ecological and passive use benefits associated
    with the NNWR, both in its current state and for those lands
    proposed for acquisition.

This chapter is comprised of five sections. The first section discusses
the methodology and key concepts behind economic welfare value. The
second section provides our analysis of the economic welfare value of
the major recreational activities that take place on the NNWR. The third
section presents our analysis of the additional economic benefit that
would accrue to individuals from an expansion of the NNWR. The fourth
section provides an assessment of the economic value of the ecological
services provided by the Refuge. Finally, the last section summarizes
our results of the economic welfare analysis.

# METHODOLOGY AND KEY CONCEPTS

Economists define the economic, or \"social welfare\", benefits provided
by a natural resource as the sum of individuals\' willingness to pay for
the services the resource provides, net of any costs associated with
enjoying those services. For example, an individual may pay nothing to
swim in a lake. This individual, however, derives enjoyment from
swimming and therefore has an implicit willingness to pay for that
experience. Similarly, a hunter will purchase ammunition, a license and
other supplies needed for a day of hunting. Beyond these market
expenditures, however, the hunter likely has a residual value for the
experience of a day of hunting. In both cases, the measure of
willingness to pay, net of actual expenditures, is referred to as
*consumer surplus*.

Consumer surplus is unique to the recreational experience being
measured. For example, when a tract of land is closed to hunting,
hunters lose the consumer surplus associated with a hunting day on that
land. However, assuming the hunter finds another place to hunt,
expenditures on ammunition and other supplies will still occur. As a
result, total expenditures on hunting remain the same, even though one
community will lose the hunter\'s business and another will gain. This
example presents a key difference between analyses of consumer surplus
and analyses of recreational expenditures: the loss of a local
recreation opportunity implies only a change in the location of
recreational expenditures, whereas the loss of that opportunity
*eradicates* that day\'s consumer surplus. Therefore, reductions in
local recreation days not only imply that the local economy forgoes
recreation-related purchases, but also that the national economy loses
income, expressed as consumer surplus.

Because many natural resource services, including recreational services,
are not traded in the marketplace, willingness to pay cannot be directly
measured by studying market transactions. Instead, economists have
developed a variety of analytic techniques to measure consumer surplus.
These methods, which are grounded in the theory of consumer choice,
utility maximization, and welfare economics, attempt to uncover
individuals\' willingness to pay for natural resource services directly,
through survey research methods, or indirectly through the examination
of behavior in related markets. For example:

-   The *Contingent Valuation* (CV) method involves direct elicitation
    of willingness to pay from individuals through the use of carefully
    designed and administered surveys. For example, an individual might
    be asked to state her maximum willingness to pay to access a fishing
    site, over and above those costs she currently incurs in visiting
    the site. Alternatively, a respondent may be asked to state her
    willingness to pay to preserve a parcel of land to enhance wildlife
    populations.

-   *Revealed Preference* approaches are premised on the assumption that
    the value of natural resource services to users can be inferred from
    indirect economic measures. A commonly used revealed preference
    technique is the travel cost approach. For example, willingness to
    pay for camping opportunities can be estimated by observing how the
    number of visits individuals make to a campground varies with the
    cost of traveling to the campground. By studying the demand for a
    site at various distances from the site, economists are able to
    generate a \"demand curve\" for the site. Such a demand curve
    represents the change in demand that occurs as price increases,
    where price is reflected in increasing travel costs incurred by
    potential users. Similarly, property values can be influenced by
    proximity to an environmental amenity or disamenity; econometric
    analysis based on hedonic pricing theory can estimate the nature and
    magnitude of such effects, providing a basis for valuing natural
    resource services.

The methods discussed above, as well as others applied by economists,
could be applied to estimate the economic welfare value of the NNWR.
Successful implementation of these primary research techniques, however,
would require resources beyond the scope of this study. Instead, we
apply a \"benefits transfer\" approach, using a technique known as the
activity day/trip method.[^1] Benefits transfer involves the application
of benefits estimates, functions, data and/or models developed in one
context to address a similar resource valuation question in an
alternative context. Benefits transfer in its simplest form involves
multiplying existing estimates of consumer surplus per activity day, as
obtained from the revealed preference or contingent valuation
literature, by estimates of the total number of days that people engage
in a given recreational activity. Thus, by applying unit-day values to
an estimate of total annual activity, it is possible to estimate
consumer surplus values for particular recreational pursuits such as
wildlife viewing or hunting. A similar benefits transfer based approach
is used to estimate the non-use value of the NNWR, including its value
as a preserve for wildlife and other species.

# RECREATIONAL values for the nnwr

The NNWR currently provides individuals with a variety of recreational
activity opportunities, including hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing.
Using a benefits transfer approach, we estimate the surplus value
participants hold for each of these activities. To do this, we rely on
literature estimates of welfare values for a day of participation for a
given recreational activity and apply them to estimates of the number of
participation days per year at the NNWR. As discussed in Chapter 2, we
obtain our estimates of the number of participation days for each
recreational activity in the NNWR from the 1996 Refuge Management
Information System (RMIS) for the NNWR. In this section we discuss the
main sources for our activity day value estimates, and present our
estimates of value associated with each of the recreational activities.

## Activity Day Values

As mentioned above, we use a benefits transfer approach to estimate
values for current recreational activities on the NNWR. Although this
technique has been used for many years to evaluate environmental
benefits and to assess natural resource damages, it continues to
generate some controversy in the environmental and natural resource
economics community. This controversy focuses on the applicability of
welfare value estimates developed for a particular site in one context
to the same or similar site in another context. Determining whether an
existing study is appropriate for benefits transfer requires
consideration of: (1) the quality of the existing study and (2) the
similarity between the original and current sites, both in terms of
location and the circumstances of the study (e.g., the pollutant being
analyzed in each case). For the NNWR, we have taken these factors into
consideration in conducting benefits transfer to estimate welfare
values. We identified several high-quality studies from which to
transfer welfare values for each of the key recreational activities.
Although we summarize in the sections that follow the literature we use
to conduct the benefits transfer for each of the recreational
activities, we briefly summarize the most important sources of welfare
value estimates below.

-   **U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Studies of Net Economic Welfare
    Values:** In 1985 and 1991 the FWS reported net economic welfare
    values for fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing across the U.S.[^2]
    These reports provide per-day and per-trip welfare value estimates
    for recreational fishing, hunting and primary non-consumptive
    wildlife activities (e.g., viewing, photographing) by state.

-   **Bergstrom and Cordell (1991):** Bergstrom and Cordell conducted an
    analysis of the value of outdoor recreational activities in the U.S.
    The authors sample U.S. counties and apply a multi-community,
    multi-site travel cost model to estimate demand equations for 37
    outdoor recreational activities and trip welfare values, including
    hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing values.

-   **Walsh, Johnson and McKean (1992):** In 1992, Walsh, Johnson and
    McKean published a summary of net economic welfare values per
    recreation day for a variety of different types of recreation. Their
    summary includes information from 120 outdoor recreation demand
    studies, and provides mean and median welfare value estimates for 19
    different categories of benefits. The summarized studies use a
    variety of methodologies, including travel cost and contingent
    valuation models. Because some researchers used mail surveys and
    other techniques that do

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   not fully conform with the standards set by the 1992 NOAA Panel on
    contingent valuation, there is reason to believe that some of the
    welfare value estimates reported in the summarized studies may be
    high.[^3]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sport Fishing Valuation Database:**
    The FWS recently developed a database of 111 studies that provide
    estimates of the economic welfare value for sport fishing resources
    across the U.S.[^4] This database of sport fishing welfare valuation
    studies provides a detailed account of the contents of travel cost
    and contingent valuation studies conducted between 1975 and 1996. In
    addition to welfare estimate information, this database describes,
    to the extent possible, the nature of the resource and the resource
    change that provides the basis for these welfare estimates. In
    addition, for each of the reported estimates, the database records
    study information describing the valued resource (including species
    and resource quality characteristics), resource ecosystem (including
    location and water type), survey (including respondent sample
    information) and valuation methodology.

-   Each of these 111 studies provides estimates of recreational fishing
    values. The database excludes studies from the database that provide
    welfare values for several recreational activities simultaneously
    (e.g., studies that provide total recreational values including, for
    example, swimming, boating and fishing values). The majority of the
    studies are from peer reviewed journals; several are government
    reports, working papers and technical reports.

    The studies in the database cover a wide range of species, fisheries
    and values across the U.S. The prevalent target species valued
    include salmon, trout, pike, bass, walleye and mackerel. Respondent
    fishing modes include shore fishing, private and charter boat
    fishing, and to a lesser extent, fly fishing.

## Hunting

The NNWR offers several types of hunting opportunities, including
hunting for big game species (e.g., deer), migratory birds, waterfowl,
wild turkey, gray and fox squirrel, rabbit, snowshoe hare, ruffed grouse
and raccoon. As discussed in Chapter 2, in 1996, individuals took 9,230
trips to the NNWR to hunt.[^5] The majority of these trips were taken
for hunting big game species. In 1996, individuals participated in
approximately 6,000 big game hunting trips, 2,000 small game hunting
trips, and 1,000 migratory bird and waterfowl hunting trips at the
Refuge. As noted in Chapters 2 and 3, these estimates of annual hunting
days are fairly precise.

We draw estimates of the welfare value of hunting days/trips from the
economic literature, focusing on studies that provide estimates of the
welfare value of a hunting trip or day at sites near the NNWR (e.g.,
studies analyzing Wisconsin hunting opportunities). Where necessary, we
expand our literature review to include studies of more distant regions
that provide values for species found in the study area.

The literature values we apply represent total consumer surplus values
per day or per trip for hunting opportunities in Wisconsin, other
states, and, when site-specific studies were unavailable, for the U.S.
The values range from \$14 to \$167 (1996\$) per hunting day, and from
\$20 to \$38 per hunting trip. This range reflects not only the
differences in the species values, but also in factors such as the
characteristics of the hunters surveyed, the availability of alternative
sites, the quality of the hunting experience, and the methods used to
derive the value estimates.

To reflect the uncertainty in the welfare value estimates, we provide a
range of values for the four types of hunting activities at the NNWR.
Below we summarize the value estimates we use to estimate welfare, and
Exhibit 5-1 presents the value estimates from the studies we used to
develop our estimate ranges.

+---------+-------------------------+-----------+--------+-----------+
| **      |                         |           |        |           |
| Exhibit |                         |           |        |           |
| 5-1**   |                         |           |        |           |
|         |                         |           |        |           |
| **      |                         |           |        |           |
| SUMMARY |                         |           |        |           |
| OF      |                         |           |        |           |
| HUNTING |                         |           |        |           |
| VALUE   |                         |           |        |           |
| ESTI    |                         |           |        |           |
| MATES** |                         |           |        |           |
+---------+-------------------------+-----------+--------+-----------+
| *       | **Author (date)**       | **Study   | **Spe  | **Value   |
| *Game** |                         | L         | cies** | (         |
|         |                         | ocation** |        | 1996\$)** |
+---------+-------------------------+-----------+--------+-----------+
|         | Waddington, Boyle and   | Wisconsin | Deer   | \$35.12   |
|         | Cooper (1994)           |           |        | per day   |
+---------+-------------------------+-----------+--------+-----------+
|         | Hay (1988)              | Wisconsin | Deer   | \$44.99   |
|         |                         |           |        | per day   |
+---------+-------------------------+-----------+--------+-----------+
| Big     | Bergstrom and Cordell   | U. S.     | Big    | \$38.42   |
| Game    | (1991)                  |           | Game   | per trip  |
+---------+-------------------------+-----------+--------+-----------+
|         | Walsh, Johnson and      | U. S.     | Big    | \$60.31   |
|         | McKean (1990)           |           | Game   | per day   |
+---------+-------------------------+-----------+--------+-----------+
|         | Brown, Charbonneau and  | U. S.     | Big    | \$167.16  |
|         | Hay (1978)              |           | Game   | per day   |
+---------+-------------------------+-----------+--------+-----------+
|         | Bergstrom and Cordell   | U. S.     | Small  | \$20.98   |
|         | (1991)                  |           | Game   | per trip  |
+---------+-------------------------+-----------+--------+-----------+
| Small   | Walsh, Johnson and      | U. S.     | Small  | \$40.88   |
| Game    | McKean (1990)           |           | Game   | per day   |
+---------+-------------------------+-----------+--------+-----------+
|         | Brown, Charbonneau and  | U. S.     | Small  | \$54.85   |
|         | Hay (1978)              |           | Game   | per day   |
+---------+-------------------------+-----------+--------+-----------+
|         | Hay (1988)              | Wisconsin | Wat    | \$14.06   |
|         |                         |           | erfowl | per day   |
+---------+-------------------------+-----------+--------+-----------+
| Wa      | Charbonneau and Hay     | Mi        | Wat    | \$46.21   |
| terfowl | (1978)                  | ssissippi | erfowl | per day   |
|         |                         | Flyway    |        |           |
+---------+-------------------------+-----------+--------+-----------+
| and     | Sorg and Nelson (1987)  | Idaho     | Wat    | \$22.38   |
|         |                         |           | erfowl | per trip  |
+---------+-------------------------+-----------+--------+-----------+
| Mi      | Cooper and Loomis       | San       | Wat    | \$73.49   |
| gratory | (1991)                  | Joaquin   | erfowl | per day   |
|         |                         | Valley,   |        |           |
| Birds   |                         | CA        |        |           |
+---------+-------------------------+-----------+--------+-----------+
|         | Walsh, Johnson and      | U. S.     | Mig    | \$47.27   |
|         | McKean (1990)           |           | ratory | per day   |
|         |                         |           | Wat    |           |
|         |                         |           | erfowl |           |
+---------+-------------------------+-----------+--------+-----------+
|         | Brown, Charbonneau and  | U. S.     | Wat    | \$86.19   |
|         | Hay (1978)              |           | erfowl | per day   |
+---------+-------------------------+-----------+--------+-----------+

-   **Big Game Hunting:** As indicated in Exhibit 5-1, big game hunting
    welfare value estimates range from \$35 to \$167 per day. In our
    analysis we develop upper and lower bound estimates from the studies
    estimating Wisconsin hunting values. U.S. FWS survey research
    provides the basis for the lower bound estimate of \$35 per trip[^6]
    and the upper bound estimate of \$45 per trip.[^7]

-   **Small Game Hunting:** The range of small game hunting value
    estimates we use for this analysis represent values for the U.S. as
    a whole. We use a lower bound estimate of \$21[^8], and an upper
    bound estimate of \$55.[^9]

-   **Waterfowl and Migratory Bird Hunting:** In many instances, the
    literature reports combined welfare value estimates for waterfowl
    and migratory bird hunting. As a result, we use the same range of
    value estimates for both types of hunting activities. The literature
    reports value estimates ranging from \$14 to \$86 per day; however,
    we focus on estimates most appropriate for Wisconsin. The lower
    bound value estimate of \$14 per trip represents the value for
    waterfowl hunting opportunities in Wisconsin.[^10] The upper bound
    value estimate of \$47 per trip represents the per-trip estimates
    for hunting in the Mississippi flyway.[^11]

To estimate hunting benefits in the NNWR, we use the participation day
estimate for each type of hunting activity (using the RMIS data) and the
associated range of literature value estimates for each hunting
activity. Multiplying the upper and lower bound values by the total
number of trips to the Refuge for each hunting activity yields annual
benefits that range from \$271,000 to \$440,000 (1996\$). Exhibit 5-2
presents these results. As shown, big game hunting activities are
responsible for the majority of hunting benefits.

+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| **      |         |           |           |           |            |
| Exhibit |         |           |           |           |            |
| 5-2**   |         |           |           |           |            |
|         |         |           |           |           |            |
| **ES    |         |           |           |           |            |
| TIMATED |         |           |           |           |            |
| ANNUAL  |         |           |           |           |            |
| E       |         |           |           |           |            |
| CONOMIC |         |           |           |           |            |
| VALUE   |         |           |           |           |            |
| FOR     |         |           |           |           |            |
| HUNTING |         |           |           |           |            |
| ON      |         |           |           |           |            |
| THE**   |         |           |           |           |            |
|         |         |           |           |           |            |
| **      |         |           |           |           |            |
| NECEDAH |         |           |           |           |            |
| N       |         |           |           |           |            |
| ATIONAL |         |           |           |           |            |
| W       |         |           |           |           |            |
| ILDLIFE |         |           |           |           |            |
| REFUGE  |         |           |           |           |            |
| (19     |         |           |           |           |            |
| 96\$)** |         |           |           |           |            |
+=========+=========+===========+===========+===========+============+
|         |         | **Welfare |           | **Annual  |            |
|         |         | Estimate  |           | Estimate  |            |
|         |         | Per       |           | of        |            |
|         |         | Trip**    |           | Value**   |            |
+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| **Act   | **1996  | **Lower   | **Upper   | **Lower   | **Upper    |
| ivity** | Annual  | Bound**   | Bound**   | Bound**   | Bound**    |
|         | Trips** |           |           |           |            |
+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| Big     | 6,025   | \$35      | \$45      | \$211,000 | \$271,000  |
| Game    |         |           |           |           |            |
+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| Small   | 2,200   | \$21      | \$55      | \$46,000  | \$121,000  |
| Game    |         |           |           |           |            |
+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| Wa      | 930     | \$14      | \$47      | \$13,000  | \$44,000   |
| terfowl |         |           |           |           |            |
+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| Mi      | 75      | \$14      | \$47      | \$1,000   | \$4,000    |
| gratory |         |           |           |           |            |
| Birds   |         |           |           |           |            |
+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| **T     |         |           |           | **\$      | **\        |
| otal:** |         |           |           | 271,000** | $440,000** |
+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+

## Fishing

The NNWR offers a limited number of fishing opportunities to the public
in designated waters at prescribed times. The most common species caught
by recreational anglers are northern pike and bullhead. Black crappie,
yellow perch and sunfish are also available, though less numerous. In
1996, individuals took over 7,000 sport fishing trips to the NNWR.[^12]

We draw estimates of the value of fishing days/trips from the economic
literature, focusing on studies that provide estimates of the value of a
recreational fishing trip or day at Wisconsin sites. Where necessary, we
expanded our literature review to include studies of more distant
regions that provide values for species found in the study area. Exhibit
5-3 presents the value estimates from the studies we used to develop our
estimate range.

+-----------+-------+------------------+---------------+--------------+
| **Exhibit |       |                  |               |              |
| 5-3**     |       |                  |               |              |
|           |       |                  |               |              |
| **SUMMARY |       |                  |               |              |
| OF        |       |                  |               |              |
| REC       |       |                  |               |              |
| REATIONAL |       |                  |               |              |
| FISHING   |       |                  |               |              |
| VALUES    |       |                  |               |              |
| (         |       |                  |               |              |
| 1996\$)** |       |                  |               |              |
+-----------+-------+------------------+---------------+--------------+
| **Author  | **    | **Valued         | **Ha          | **Value      |
| (date)**  | Study | Species**        | bitat/Fishing | Estimate**   |
|           | Locat |                  | Type**        |              |
|           | ion** |                  |               |              |
+-----------+-------+------------------+---------------+--------------+
| Lyke      | WI    | **Pike**,        | Inland        | \$167.73 per |
| (1990)    |       | Panfish, Yellow  | Fishing       | day          |
|           |       | Perch, Bass,     |               |              |
|           |       | Muskellunge,     |               |              |
|           |       | Salmon, Trout,   |               |              |
|           |       | Walleye          |               |              |
+-----------+-------+------------------+---------------+--------------+
| Mullen    | NY    | **Pike,** Perch, | Lake          | \$49.87 per  |
| and Menz  |       | Bass, Sauger,    |               | day          |
| (1985)    |       | Walleye, Other   |               |              |
|           |       | Warmwater and    |               |              |
|           |       | Coldwater        |               |              |
+-----------+-------+------------------+---------------+--------------+
|           |       | **Bullhead**,    |               | \$17.04 per  |
|           |       | Bass, Catfish,   |               | day          |
|           |       | Yellow Perch,    |               |              |
|           |       | Walleye          |               |              |
+-----------+-------+------------------+---------------+--------------+
|           |       | Yellow Perch,    |               | \$21.38 per  |
|           |       | Bass, Walleye    |               | day          |
+-----------+-------+------------------+---------------+--------------+
| Connelly, | NY    | **Pike**, Bass,  | Lake          | \$18.18 per  |
| Brown,    |       | Lake Trout,      |               | day          |
| Knuth     |       | Salmon, Yellow   |               |              |
| (1988)    |       | Perch, Walleye   |               |              |
+-----------+-------+------------------+---------------+--------------+
|           |       | **Pike**, Lake   |               | \$22.58 per  |
|           |       | Trout, Yellow    |               | day          |
|           |       | Perch, Bass      |               |              |
+-----------+-------+------------------+---------------+--------------+
|           |       | Bass, Lake       |               | \$31.84 per  |
|           |       | Trout, Salmon,   |               | day          |
|           |       | Yellow Perch     |               |              |
+-----------+-------+------------------+---------------+--------------+
| Dutta     | OH    | Yellow Perch,    | Lake and      | \$1          |
| (1984)    |       | Walleye, White   | Great Lakes   | 2.22-\$25.94 |
|           |       | Bass             |               | per trip     |
+-----------+-------+------------------+---------------+--------------+
| Hushak,   | OH    | Yellow Perch     | Great Lakes   | \$5.08 per   |
| Winslow   |       |                  |               | day          |
| and Dutta |       |                  |               |              |
| (1989)    |       |                  |               |              |
+-----------+-------+------------------+---------------+--------------+
| Ch        | U.S.  | **Pike**,        | Lake, River,  | \$80.97 per  |
| arbonneau |       | Walleye          | Great Lakes   | day          |
| and Hay   |       |                  |               |              |
| (1978)    |       |                  |               |              |
+-----------+-------+------------------+---------------+--------------+
|           |       | **Pike**, Bass,  |               | \$101.86 per |
|           |       | Muskellunge,     |               | day          |
|           |       | Walleye          |               |              |
+-----------+-------+------------------+---------------+--------------+

The literature values we apply represent total consumer surplus values
per day or per trip for angling opportunities in Wisconsin, other states
providing similar fishing opportunities, and, when site-specific studies
were unavailable, for the U.S. We develop a range of value estimates for
the target species at the NNWR (i.e., pike and bullhead). We use a lower
value of \$17 per day which estimates the value of bullhead
fishing,[^13] and an upper value of \$102 per day which estimates the
value of pike fishing.[^14] This range reflects not only the differences
in the species values, but also in factors such as the characteristics
of the anglers surveyed, the availability of alternative sites, the
quality of the fishing experience, and the methods used to derive the
value estimates. We do not include the Lyke (1990) study in our range of
value estimates because this study values fishing for much more highly
valued species (salmon, trout).

To estimate sport fishing benefits in the NNWR, we use the estimate of
annual fishing trips to the Refuge and the associated range of
literature values for each species. Multiplying the upper and lower
bound values by the number of fishing trips yields annual benefits that
range from \$125,000 to \$747,000. Exhibit 5-4 presents these results.
As noted in Chapters 2 and 3, the estimate of annual fishing days is not
as precise as the estimate of hunting days. As a result, final estimates
of the value of NNWR fishing days should be interpreted with this
uncertainty in mind.

+------------+-------------+-------------+------------+-------------+
| **Exhibit  |             |             |            |             |
| 5-4**      |             |             |            |             |
|            |             |             |            |             |
| *          |             |             |            |             |
| *ESTIMATED |             |             |            |             |
| ANNUAL     |             |             |            |             |
| ECONOMIC   |             |             |            |             |
| VALUE FOR  |             |             |            |             |
| FISHING ON |             |             |            |             |
| THE**      |             |             |            |             |
|            |             |             |            |             |
| **NECEDAH  |             |             |            |             |
| NATIONAL   |             |             |            |             |
| WILDLIFE   |             |             |            |             |
| REFUGE     |             |             |            |             |
| (1996\$)** |             |             |            |             |
+============+=============+=============+============+=============+
|            | **Welfare   |             | **Annual   |             |
|            | Estimate    |             | Estimate   |             |
|            | Per Trip**  |             | of Value** |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+------------+-------------+
| **1996     | **Lower     | **Upper     | **Lower    | **Upper     |
| Annual     | Bound**     | Bound**     | Bound**    | Bound**     |
| Trips**    |             |             |            |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+------------+-------------+
| 7,325      | \$17        | \$102       | \$125,000  | \$747,000   |
+------------+-------------+-------------+------------+-------------+

## Wildlife Viewing

The primary recreational activity at the NNWR is wildlife viewing. The
Refuge provides viewing opportunities throughout the year. Though
principally known as a wildlife sanctuary offering opportunities to view
migratory waterfowl, visitors can also enjoy viewing other birds,
including, but not limited to, bluebirds, swans, sandhill cranes,
eagles, hawks, owls and songbirds. The Refuge also provides the
opportunity to view large and small mammals such as white-tailed deer,
beaver, raccoon, otter, gray and fox squirrels, and snowshoe hare.
Visitors may also find turtles, snakes, butterflies and other plant and
animal species in and near the various fields, forests, oak barrens and
bodies of water that make up the NNWR.

As in the cases of hunting and fishing, we draw estimates of the value
of wildlife viewing opportunities trips from the economic literature,
focusing on studies that provide estimates of value at Wisconsin sites.
Where necessary, we expanded our literature review to include studies of
more distant regions that provide values for species found in the study
area.

The literature values we apply represent total consumer surplus values
per day or per trip for wildlife viewing opportunities in Wisconsin,
other states, and, when site-specific studies were unavailable, for the
U.S. The values range from \$21 to \$61 (\$1996) per wildlife viewing
day. This range reflects differences not only in the wildlife viewing
species and activities (e.g., photographing, viewing), but also in
factors such as the characteristics of the respondents surveyed, the
availability of alternative sites, the quality of the wildlife viewing
experience and the methods used to derive the value estimates. Exhibit
5-5 presents the results of our wildlife viewing literature search.

+--------------------------+---------+---------------------+---------+
| **Exhibit 5-5**          |         |                     |         |
|                          |         |                     |         |
| **SUMMARY OF WILDLIFE    |         |                     |         |
| VIEWING VALUES           |         |                     |         |
| (1996\$)**               |         |                     |         |
+--------------------------+---------+---------------------+---------+
| **Author (date)**        | **Loc   | **Activity**        | **      |
|                          | ation** |                     | Value** |
+--------------------------+---------+---------------------+---------+
| Hay (1988)               | Wi      | Wildlife            | \$21.09 |
|                          | sconsin | observation,        | per day |
|                          |         | photography, and    |         |
|                          |         | feeding             |         |
+--------------------------+---------+---------------------+---------+
| Waddington, Boyle and    | Wi      | Wildlife            | \$30.59 |
| Cooper (1994)            | sconsin | observation         | per day |
+--------------------------+---------+---------------------+---------+
| Cooper and Loomis (1991) | San     | Birdwatching        | \$49.51 |
|                          | Joaquin |                     | per     |
|                          | Valley, |                     | trip    |
|                          | CA      |                     |         |
+--------------------------+---------+---------------------+---------+
| Walsh, Johnson and       | U. S.   | Nonconsumptive use  | \$29.45 |
| McKean (1990)            |         |                     | per day |
+--------------------------+---------+---------------------+---------+
| Bergstrom and Cordell    | U. S.   | Wildlife            | \$61.16 |
| (1991)                   |         | observation         | per day |
+--------------------------+---------+---------------------+---------+

To estimate the value of wildlife viewing opportunities at the NNWR, we
use per-day values from Waddington et al. (1994) and Hay (1988). Both of
these studies provide value estimates for wildlife viewing opportunities
in Wisconsin. We use Hay\'s wildlife observation value of \$21 per day
as the lower bound trip value, and the Waddinton et al. wildlife viewing
estimate of \$31 per day as the upper bound trip value. Multiplying
these values by the total number of trips to the Refuge for wildlife
viewing in 1996 yields annual benefits that range from \$2.2 million to
\$3.3 million (1996\$). Exhibit 5-6 presents these results. As noted in
Chapters 2 an 3, the estimate of the annual number of NNWR wildlife
viewing days is subject to significant uncertainty. Therefore, the
estimates of the annual value of NNWR wildlife viewing should be
interpreted with this uncertainty in mind.

+------------+-------------+-------------+------------+-------------+
| **Exhibit  |             |             |            |             |
| 5-6**      |             |             |            |             |
|            |             |             |            |             |
| *          |             |             |            |             |
| *ESTIMATED |             |             |            |             |
| ANNUAL     |             |             |            |             |
| ECONOMIC   |             |             |            |             |
| VALUE FOR  |             |             |            |             |
| WILDLIFE   |             |             |            |             |
| VIEWING**  |             |             |            |             |
|            |             |             |            |             |
| **ON THE   |             |             |            |             |
| NECEDAH    |             |             |            |             |
| NATIONAL   |             |             |            |             |
| WILDLIFE   |             |             |            |             |
| REFUGE     |             |             |            |             |
| (1996\$)** |             |             |            |             |
+============+=============+=============+============+=============+
|            | **Welfare   |             | **Annual   |             |
|            | Estimate    |             | Estimate   |             |
|            | Per Trip**  |             | of Value** |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+------------+-------------+
| **1996     | **Lower     | **Upper     | **Lower    | **Upper     |
| Annual     | Bound**     | Bound**     | Bound**    | Bound**     |
| Trips**    |             |             |            |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+------------+-------------+
| 106,835    | \$21        | \$31        | \          | \$3,312,000 |
|            |             |             | $2,244,000 |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+------------+-------------+

## Total Economic Value of NNWR Recreational Activities

The total annual economic value of the recreational activities at the
Refuge ranges from \$2.6 million to \$4.5 million. As shown in Exhibit
5-7, the majority of these benefits are attributable to wildlife viewing
values. This result is driven by the large number of activity days for
wildlife viewing, despite small per-trip surplus values.

+-----------------------+-----------------------+---------------------+
| **Exhibit 5-7**       |                       |                     |
|                       |                       |                     |
| **TOTAL ANNUAL        |                       |                     |
| ESTIMATED ECONOMIC    |                       |                     |
| VALUE FOR             |                       |                     |
| RECREATIONAL          |                       |                     |
| ACTIVITIES**          |                       |                     |
|                       |                       |                     |
| **ON THE NECEDAH      |                       |                     |
| NATIONAL WILDLIFE     |                       |                     |
| REFUGE**              |                       |                     |
|                       |                       |                     |
| **(1996\$)**          |                       |                     |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+---------------------+
| **Activity**          | **Lower Bound         | **Upper Bound       |
|                       | Estimate**            | Estimate**          |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+---------------------+
| Hunting               | \$271,000             | \$440,000           |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+---------------------+
| Fishing               | \$125,000             | \$747,000           |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+---------------------+
| Wildlife Viewing      | \$2,244,000           | \$3,312,000         |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+---------------------+
| **TOTAL**             | \$2,640,000           | \$4,499,0 00        |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+---------------------+

# VALUE OF A RECREATIONAL ACRE 

If the NNWR does expand by acquiring land in the YRFA, the regional
economic costs associated with this expansion (as discussed in Chapter
4) would be accompanied by benefits associated with increased
recreation. For example, as discussed in Chapter 4, the provision of
additional wildlife habitat may lead to increased recreational
visitation to the area, providing benefits to the regional economy. In
addition, economic benefits may be incurred in the form of increased
economic surplus enjoyed by individuals taking part in these new
recreational opportunities. To obtain an order-of-magnitude estimate of
the social welfare benefit that may accrue under an expansion scenario,
we estimate the economic surplus per activity acre for the current
Refuge. That is, we consider the surplus produced per acre of Refuge, by
dividing the total estimated surplus by the number of acres of land that
currently make up the Refuge. In Exhibit 5-4 we provide the low and high
economic surplus values for the different recreational activities, as
discussed above, and then convert the total surplus value for the
existing Refuge to a per-acre estimate.

In performing this calculation we assume that any new lands added to the
Refuge would provide similar economic benefit as that provided by the
average acre of land on the existing Refuge. Specifically, our analysis
assumes the following:[^15]

-   Fishing quality in the YRFA would be better than that provided by
    the existing Refuge because the Yellow River provides an abundance
    of backwater areas, small ponds and oxbow lakes.

-   Hunting quality in the YRFA land would be similar to that provided
    by the existing Refuge lands.

-   Wildlife viewing quality would be equal to or greater than that of
    the existing Refuge. This is because of the unique habitats
    contained within the YRFA, not well represented on the existing
    Refuge.

-   Access to recreational opportunities in the YRFA, including the
    manner in which these lands will be managed, will be similar to the
    existing Refuge.

-   Lands within the YRFA would be managed in a similar manner to the
    existing Refuge.

This analysis implies that the value of a recreational acre in the YRFA
is equal to or slightly better than an acre of land in the existing
Refuge. As can be seen in Exhibit 5-8, the estimated value per acre
ranges from a low of \$61 to a high of \$103.

+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Exhibit 5-8**      |                      |                       |
|                      |                      |                       |
| **VALUE OF A         |                      |                       |
| RECREATIONAL ACRE ON |                      |                       |
| THE NECEDAH NATIONAL |                      |                       |
| WILDLIFE REFUGE AND  |                      |                       |
| THE YRFA (1996\$)**  |                      |                       |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Activity**         | **Low Value**        | **High Value**        |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Hunting              | \$271,000            | \$440,000             |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Fishing              | \$125,000            | \$747,000             |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Wildlife Viewing     | \$2,244,000          | \$3,312,000           |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Total Economic     | \$2,640,000          | \$4,499,000           |
| Surplus**            |                      |                       |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Total Acres of     | 43,655               | 43,655                |
| Existing Refuge**    |                      |                       |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| ####                 | \$60.50              | \$103.10              |
| ## Total Per-Acre Va |                      |                       |
| lue  {#total-per-acr |                      |                       |
| e-value .unnumbered} |                      |                       |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+

Note that this analysis ignores any recreational activity that currently
takes place in the YRFA. If these lands are currently used for
recreation, this analysis will overstate the social welfare gain that
would result from acquisition. Similarly, if most of the recreation that
would take place on this land simply represents trips substituted from
the existing Refuge, the net social welfare benefit of the acquisition
will be overstated by this analysis. Alternatively, the nature of these
lands may make them more conducive to recreational activity than lands
currently in the Refuge. In this case our analysis may understate the
benefits of acquisition.

# NONUSE AND ECOLOGICAL SERVICE VALUES

In addition to recreational and commercial values, individuals hold a
value for natural resources independent of their use of those resources.
This residual of total value is referred to as nonuse or existence
value, a concept described at great length by Krutilla (1967) in his
seminal piece, \"Conservation Reconsidered.\" Krutilla suggests that
\"when the existence of a grand scenic wonder or a unique and fragile
ecosystem is involved, its preservation and continued availability are a
significant part of the real income of many individuals.\"[^16] For
example, Freeman (1993) explains that people may gain utility from the
knowledge that a natural area is preserved despite the fact that they do
not expect to visit that area. Similarly, people may be willing to pay
to protect endangered species even though they do not expect to see one
of them. These values may be motivated by desires to maintain
intergenerational equity and the option of future resource use, as well
as other factors.[^17]

For our purposes, we consider two related components of nonuse value
associated with the NNWR. The Refuge renders an ecological service by
providing vital habitat to several species, including some listed as
federally endangered.[^18] To estimate the value of this service we draw
upon recent research and data that are suggestive of the value
individuals place on endangered species preservation. Second, we
estimate the value of the Refuge as a preserved natural area, relying
upon existing valuation studies of areas with similar attributes.

## Value of the Refuge as Endangered Species Habitat 

The Refuge is an important habitat for several rare, uncommon and
declining species. Species of state and federal concern include, but are
not limited to the bald eagle, massasauga rattlesnake, Louisiana
waterthrush, red-shouldered hawk, glass lizard, cerulean warbler, wood
thrush, scarlet tanager, Blanding\'s turtle and blue-winged warbler. In
addition, the Refuge accommodates oak and pine savannah and pine barren
ecosystems, habitat critical to the endangered Karner blue butterfly.

To assess the value of the Refuge as an endangered species habitat, we
consider two types of information: (1) expenditures made by federal and
state agencies on two species present in the Refuge that are listed
under the Endangered Species Act (the bald eagle and the Karner blue
butterfly); (2) an existing summary of contingent valuation (CV) studies
that elicit individuals\' values for species preservation. While neither
of these sources allows us to fully appreciate the value of the
ecological services flowing from the Refuge, they do indicate the
magnitude of the values individuals hold for wildlife preservation.

### Public Expenditures on Endangered Species Preservation

Public policies designed to protect natural resources and public and
private expenditures on preservation of endangered species and their
habitats demonstrate that the public holds value for these resources. In
enacting the Endangered Species Act, Congress asserted that threatened
and endangered species \"are of aesthetic, ecological, educational,
historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its
people.\"[^19] In the last several years, federal and state agencies
have appropriated significant funding for endangered species protection.
Between the years 1989 and 1993 over \$54 million was expended on behalf
of the bald eagle, a species currently considered \"secure\" for both
breeding and non-breeding populations. In those same years over \$1.3
million was expended on behalf of the Karner blue butterfly, a species
considered \"imperiled\" throughout its range.[^20]

Although public expenditures indicate a willingness on behalf of society
to make financial sacrifices to protect natural resources, they do not
accurately represent the true value of those resources.[^21] Federal and
state governments have limited funds to allocate to many competing
programs. As such, public expenditures may be influenced by the
political process and efforts by special interest groups to achieve
certain outcomes.[^22] In addition, public expenditures do not account
for the opportunity costs associated with forgone development, which in
many cases may be significant.

### Value of Endangered Species

For further evidence of the value of wildlife preservation we consider a
recent summary and meta-analysis of the rare and endangered species
valuation literature performed by Loomis and White (1996). The authors
summarize several CV studies that provide willingness to pay values for
preservation or augmentation of 18 different species. Two of these
studies estimate values for the bald eagle.[^23] Because no welfare
estimates exist for the Karner blue butterfly or other threatened
species present in the Refuge, we discuss only the benefits associated
with bald eagle preservation.

Boyle and Bishop (1987) estimate an annual willingness to pay of \$17
(1996\$) for bald eagle preservation by Wisconsin households. Similarly,
Stevens et al. (1991) estimate an annual willingness to pay of \$35 by
New England households. To aggregate these individual benefits, we first
identify the number of Wisconsin households that might maintain such
values. Based on the survey area associated with the welfare estimates
above, we apply our range of values to the total number of Wisconsin
households. Currently, there are approximately 1.85 million

households in the state of Wisconsin, yielding annual benefits of \$31
to \$65 million for bald eagle preservation services.[^24] Since the
role Necedah plays in overall preservation of the species is unknown,
the proportion of this allocable to the Refuge is unknown.

To qualify these estimates, it is worth noting briefly some of the
controversies associated with the contingent valuation method. Much of
the concern over the reliability of CV estimates stems from two
methodological consequences: (1) distortions that arise because of the
hypothetical nature of CV questions; that is, the absence of real
financial consequences, (2) biases introduced by \"strategic
incentives\" (i.e., individuals may adjust their bids in an attempt to
achieve certain outcomes).[^25] As a result, many authors have
investigated the convergence of CV estimates and results from simulated
markets.[^26] Recently, the concept of \"calibration\" has been examined
as means to adjust for potential biases in CV estimates. For example, in
1994 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) proposed
a correction factor of 50 percent (i.e., estimates should be divided in
two) for use in natural resource damage assessment.[^27]

Because the art of contingent valuation is still maturing, we rely upon
the more conservative estimates provided in the literature. It is likely
that the aggregate benefits associated with bald eagle preservation
provided by the Refuge is a fraction of the lower bound of the range
presented above.

## Existence Value of the NNWR

As discussed above, individuals may hold a value for the Refuge simply
by virtue of its existence as a preserved and pristine area. To develop
an estimate of existence value associated with the Refuge we identify
three studies that attempt to estimate the preservation value of natural
resources with similar attributes. The values provided in these studies
are not directly transferable to the NNWR, largely because of
dissimilarities in physical characteristics. In addition, some of the
values may inadvertently contain a use value component. Regardless, the
values are useful in determining the magnitude of the existence value
associated with the Refuge. Exhibit 5-9 summarizes the values presented
in these contingent valuation studies.

+--------------+----------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| **Exhibit    |                |                    |                 |
| 5-9**        |                |                    |                 |
|              |                |                    |                 |
| **Estimated  |                |                    |                 |
| Resource     |                |                    |                 |
| Values       |                |                    |                 |
| Relevant to  |                |                    |                 |
| the NNWR     |                |                    |                 |
| from         |                |                    |                 |
| Existing     |                |                    |                 |
| Contingent   |                |                    |                 |
| Valuation    |                |                    |                 |
| Literature** |                |                    |                 |
+--------------+----------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| **Authors    | **Site         | **Description of   | **Annual        |
| (Date)**     | Location**     | Commodity**        | Willingness to  |
|              |                |                    | Pay (WTP,       |
|              |                |                    | 1996\$)**       |
+--------------+----------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Bishop and   | Illinois Beach | WTP to ensure      | \$32.33 per     |
| Boyle (1985) | State Nature   | maintenance and/or | person          |
|              | Preserve (IL)  | protection of the  |                 |
|              |                | nature preserve^1^ |                 |
+--------------+----------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Walsh,       | Wilderness     | WTP to protect     | \$25.40 per     |
| Loomis and   | areas (CO)     | current wilderness | household       |
| Gillman      |                | areas              |                 |
| (1984)       |                | (non-recreational  |                 |
|              |                | use)^2^            |                 |
+--------------+----------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Gilbert      | Parker River   | WTP to ensure      | \$26.26 per     |
| (1994)       | National       | maintenance and/or | person          |
|              | Wildlife       | protection of the  |                 |
|              | Refuge (MA)    | refuge^3^          |                 |
+--------------+----------------+--------------------+-----------------+
| ^1^ Survey   |                |                    |                 |
| respondents  |                |                    |                 |
| were         |                |                    |                 |
| Illinois     |                |                    |                 |
| residents    |                |                    |                 |
| who had not  |                |                    |                 |
| visited the  |                |                    |                 |
| Preserve     |                |                    |                 |
| during the   |                |                    |                 |
| study        |                |                    |                 |
| period.      |                |                    |                 |
|              |                |                    |                 |
| ^2^ Survey   |                |                    |                 |
| respondents  |                |                    |                 |
| were         |                |                    |                 |
| Colorado     |                |                    |                 |
| residents.   |                |                    |                 |
|              |                |                    |                 |
| ^3^ Survey   |                |                    |                 |
| respondents  |                |                    |                 |
| were refuge  |                |                    |                 |
| visitors, 77 |                |                    |                 |
| percent of   |                |                    |                 |
| which were   |                |                    |                 |
| M            |                |                    |                 |
| assachusetts |                |                    |                 |
| residents.   |                |                    |                 |
+--------------+----------------+--------------------+-----------------+

Results reported by Bishop and Boyle (1985) suggest that residents in a
given state need not be cognisant of certain natural resources to hold
value for them. For example, the authors found that despite the fact
that much of the sample was unaware of the location of the Illinois
Beach State Park and that the park also contained a nature preserve, 77
percent of respondents indicated that maintenance of the preserve was at
least somewhat important to them. For this reason, we apply these per
unit estimates to the population of Wisconsin as a whole. Based on a
current population estimate of persons 18 and older of 3,822,570, and
the range of existence values described above, we estimate annual
aggregate benefits to be in the range of \$47 to \$124 million.[^28] The
magnitude of these values indicates that individuals place significant
value on preserved areas, and in particular nature preserves and
refuges.

For reasons described in the previous section we prefer the more
conservative estimate in the range above. If we were to carefully
construct our own CV study in an attempt to elicit nonuse values for the
NNWR by Wisconsin residents, we postulate that results would be near the
lower end of this range (i.e., on the order of the low tens of millions
of dollars).

# SUMMARY

The NNWR fills an important role in the south-central Wisconsin area by
offering a variety of recreational activities and opportunities. In this
chapter we have developed a variety of estimates of the social welfare
benefits that visitors to the NNWR enjoy. The results of this analysis
are summarized as follows:

-   The annual net surplus value for hunting on the NNWR ranges from
    \$271,000 to \$440,000 (1996\$). The single most important category
    of hunting, in terms of total annual surplus, is big game hunting
    for deer.

-   The annual net surplus value fishing on the NNWR ranges from
    \$125,000 to \$747,000.

-   The annual net surplus wildlife viewing at the NNWR is between \$2.2
    million and \$3.3 million.

-   Based on these estimates, the total value of all economic surpluses
    generated by recreational activities that take place on the Refuge
    is between \$2.6 million and \$4.5 million. This is equivalent to
    \$61 to \$103 per acre of existing Refuge.

-   Based on the value of recreational activities in the existing
    Refuge, the expected economic value associated with an added acre of
    Refuge land in the YRFA will be at least \$61 to \$103.

-   In addition to recreational opportunities, the NNWR offers unique
    ecological services that have an economic value associated with
    them.

[^1]: In the case of the NNWR, we assume that most of the trips taken to
    the site are day trips. Thus, one trip is assumed to equal one day.

[^2]: U.S. FWS, 1985, 1991.

[^3]: In 1992, NOAA commissioned a panel of economists and other experts
    to review the CV method and its application for measurement of
    passive use values. Drawing on presentations at a public hearing,
    written statements submitted by interested parties, and examination
    of the existing CV literature, the panel concluded that CV studies
    convey useful information about the valuation of natural resources,
    provided that a number of conditions are met in the design,
    implementation and interpretation of the CV survey. One fundamental
    issue addressed by the panel was the concern that a hypothetical
    market, when posed to survey respondents, yields results that are
    biased upward in comparison to the results of actual market
    transactions. The panel concluded that calibration of these results
    to adjust for the upward bias associated with the framing and/or
    order of questions is currently not possible. Therefore, as a
    general guideline, the panel urged practitioners of CV surveys to
    \"lean in the conservative direction \[in making key survey design
    decisions\], as a partial or total offset to the likely tendency to
    exaggerate \[willingness to pay\]\" (National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration, 1993).

[^4]: Markowski et al., 1997

[^5]: RMIS, 1996

[^6]: Waddington et al., 1994

[^7]: Hay, 1988

[^8]: Bergstrom and Cordell, 1991

[^9]: Walsh, Johnson and McKean, 1990

[^10]: U.S. FWS, 1985

[^11]: U.S. FWS, 1978

[^12]: RMIS, 1996

[^13]: Connelly, Brown and Knuth, 1988

[^14]: Charbonneau and Hay, 1978

[^15]: Most of this information was provided by NNWR management.

[^16]: Krutilla, 1967, p. 779

[^17]: Freeman, 1993.

[^18]: The Refuge provides additional ecological services such as flood
    control, erosion prevention and filtration of toxic materials. The
    Refuge is in the process of developing a hydrogeologic profile of
    the area that would support an analysis of these services.

[^19]: Section 2 \[16 USC 1531\]

[^20]: This information is derived from an endangered species database
    compiled by Cash, et al. (1997).

[^21]: Freeman, 1993.

[^22]: Coursey, 1994.

[^23]: Boyle and Bishop, 1987; Stevens et al., 1991

[^24]: Demographic information available on-line at
    *http://badger.state.wi.us/statewide.html*

[^25]: Smith, 1997.

[^26]: Refer to Loomis, et. al, 1996, for example.

[^27]: This adjustment was rescinded in the final 1996 regulations.

[^28]: The per-household value provided in Walsh, Loomis and Gillman
    (1984) was converted to a per-person value by calculating the
    average number of persons per household. The resultant value was
    \$12.33 (1996\$).