Appendix N

Non-Market Valuation Methods

October 2013 Nevada and Northern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS N-1

APPENDIX N

NON-MARKET VALUATION METHODS

This section addresses economic valuation of three categories of non-market 

resources that are present in the study area and could potentially be affected by 

the alternatives. These three categories of non-market value are recreation, 

values of GRSG to households in the intermountain west, and value of the 

ranching tradition to the ranchers themselves, residents, and visitors to the 

region. Recreation is included because actions that promote the conservation of 

GRSG habitat may result in changes in recreation opportunities, such as 

increasing the amount of habitat for other wildlife species that may be hunted or 

viewed that depend on public lands, roads open or closed for recreation access, 

and the quality of the recreation experience. 

The economic non-market values described in this appendix are not directly 

comparable to regional economic indicators commonly used to describe how 

natural resources on public lands contribute to the regional economic indicators 

such as output/sales, labor income, and employment. These indicators provide 

valuable information to the local public as well as to regional government 

agencies for purposes of public service and infrastructure planning. These 

impacts or contributions are often referred to as distributional effects as they 

describe the effects to the region. However, these indicators do not represent 

net economic value. For example, in economic terms, labor income associated 

with mineral production would actually be considered a cost to the producer. 

Similarly, expenditures by a recreation visitor associated with a visit to public 

lands would be viewed by the recreationist as a cost. One last example would 

be the total sales generated by the sale of minerals extracted from federally

owned minerals: the total sales do not reflect the net economic value since the 

costs associated with the extraction are not accounted for (including labor 

income, supplies, and equipment, as well as potentially non-market costs such as 

those associated with pollution). This section considers the economic value of 

the non-market outputs, a concept described below. 
Appendix N. Non-Market Valuation Methods

N-2 Nevada and Northern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

TOTAL NON-MARKET ECONOMIC VALUE 

Many of the multiple uses in the study area are not bought and sold in 

competitive markets. For instance, many recreational visitors to public lands pay 

no or low admission fees, and the presence of wild animals such as GRSG have 

no “market price,” yet both have value to people. In some cases people gain 

value from using these non-market resources, such as recreation on public 

lands; in other cases, protection of some natural resources provides both a use 

value (e.g., wildlife viewing) as well as a non-use value (e.g., the value some 

people hold for knowing that a specific natural resource exists and is protected 

even if they never intend to “use” or visit it). 

Economists call the sum of these two values Total Economic Value. Use values 

typically can be consumptive use (e.g., hunting) and/or non-consumptive, such as 

viewing or being present on site (e.g., camping and hiking). In contrast, non-use 

values occur off-site to people who derive enjoyment from knowing a natural 

environment, habitat or species exists in its natural state, either for themselves 

(existence value) and/or future generations (bequest value). Krutilla (1967) 

documents the conceptual origins of these two elements of non-use value, and 

Freeman (2003) provides a rigorous theoretical treatment. 

Non-use or existence values can potentially be enjoyed by millions if the good 

or service (e.g., the presence of a specific wild species such as wild salmon or

rare bird species) is of widespread interest. Thus, while the non-use value per 

household may much lower than a value per day received by a visitor, in total, 

non-use values may be quite large. 

RECREATION VALUES

Economists measure the net economic use and non-use values as “Consumer 

Surplus.” At its most basic level, consumer surplus is the maximum amount a 

person would pay minus the amount they actually have to pay. Consumer 

surplus, which is also sometimes referred to as “net willingness to pay,” is a 

measure of benefit that has been used by economists and federal agencies for 

decades (US Water Resources Council 1983; US Environmental Protection 

Agency 2009, 2010). 

For public land recreation, especially on BLM and Forest Service recreation 

sites, entrance fees are typically very low or non-existent, so the value people 

place on these public land recreation opportunities is not fully measured simply 

by the entrance fees they pay. In economic terms, there is not a competitive 

market or a “market clearing price” for access to public recreation sites. 

Therefore, there can be a substantial difference between what people pay to 

visit a recreation site (e.g., entrance fees plus travel costs, including the value of 

time) and the maximum amount they would pay. 

A common non-market valuation method used for recreation is the travel cost 

method. In this method, economists survey visitors to a recreation site and 

collect data on their frequency of trips, travel distance and costs incurred to 
Appendix N. Non-Market Valuation Methods

October 2013 Nevada and Northern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS N-3

access the site. Because the survey uses information from actual visitors, the 

travel cost method is a “revealed preference” method of valuation; economists 

use the travel costs as a proxy to determine the value that people gain from 

using the site. Variations in the travel cost across visitors, along with their 

respective number of trips, allow economists to statistically estimate a 

relationship between travel cost and quantity of trips – an aggregate demand 

curve for the recreation site, much like a demand curve for goods and services 

that are sold in competitive markets. This aggregate demand curve will tend to 

show that individuals with a relatively high travel cost take fewer trips on 

average, while individuals with a lower cost take more trips on average. From 

this aggregate demand curve, economists can calculate consumer surplus. Many 

of the consumer surplus values for recreation in the literature (Loomis 2005) 

and recently developed by the Forest Service (Bowker et al. 2009) rely upon the 

travel cost method. 

Diagram N-1, Consumer Demand Curve and Consumer Surplus for 

Recreation Trips, provides an illustration of a demand curve for recreation on a 

particular site. In Diagram N-1, the aggregate demand is shown on an average 

basis, that is, for an average individual consumer. The downward-sloping 

diagonal line in Diagram N-1 represents the relationship between the travel 

cost and quantity of trips demanded by this average consumer. In the diagram, 

the value of the first several trips is relatively high ($70 for the first and $60 for 

the second trip), while the value of the sixth trip is lower ($20 in the diagram). 

In a travel cost method study, these values are statistically derived from the 

aggregate demand calculated for the entire population. The downward slope of 

the demand curve corresponds to declining value associated with each trip, 

which is typical for most goods and services.1 It also corresponds to the fact 

that visitors will take fewer trips to areas with a higher travel cost. 

Each visitor receives a net benefit from each trip, which is measured by the 

difference between what they had to pay and the maximum amount they would 

pay for each trip. In Diagram N-1, Consumer Demand Curve and Consumer 

Surplus for Recreation Trips, the net benefit for the average visitor is the 

difference between their actual expenditures of $20 per trip and the maximum 

amount they would pay for each trip. As shown, the first trip has a net benefit 

of $50 ($70 of value less $20 in expenditures), the second trip $40 ($60 less 

$20), and so on until the sixth trip. At the sixth trip the visitor’s cost is the 

same as their benefit, and hence there is no net benefit from further trips. Thus, 

this gain to the visitor over and above what they spend is their “consumer 

surplus.” 

 1 Note that for some types of recreation use, users may gain increased value over a portion of the number of trips; for 

example, mountain bikers may experience increased enjoyment of subsequent trips to a single location as their trail-specific 

skills and knowledge increase with repeat visits. Climbers and other users may also experience similar gains over repeat visits. 

However, even these users will likely hit a point where the marginal value begins to decrease with more trips.
Appendix N. Non-Market Valuation Methods

N-4 Nevada and Northern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013 

Diagram N-1 

Consumer Demand Curve and Consumer Surplus for Recreation Trips

Given the large range and diversity of sites in the study area, the BLM and 

Forest Service did not perform original travel cost method analysis of visitation 

in the study area. Rather, they relied upon transferring existing recreation values 

from travel cost method studies such as Bowker et al. (2009) and other 

recreation values from the existing literature (Loomis 2005; Loomis and 

Richardson 2007; USFWS 2009) to the recreation activities in the study area, 

focusing on existing studies in the Rocky Mountain and Great Basin area 

(Nevada, northeastern California, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, 

Arizona, and New Mexico). This approach, known as “Benefit Transfer,” is welldeveloped in academic and policy literature and has been used by federal 

agencies including the US Environmental Protection Agency (see Griffiths et al. 

2012 for a recent listing of economic studies where benefit transfer was used), 

US Army Corps of Engineers, US Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Service (Forest 

Service 1991; also see Ervin et al. 2012 for a recent application of benefit 

transfer to the Mount Hood National Forest), and other agencies. Benefit 

transfer is widely used in academic applications as well; see Wilson and Hoehn 

(2006) for a series of journal articles on benefit transfer. 
Appendix N. Non-Market Valuation Methods

October 2013 Nevada and Northern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS N-5 

The BLM measures recreation activity in various units, including a “visitor hour,” 

which represents the presence of one or more persons in an area for 

continuous or simultaneous periods of time aggregating 1 hour (i.e., one person 

for 1 hour or two persons for 30 minutes each). A “visitor day” as defined by 

BLM represents 12 visitor hours (BLM 2003). The BLM Recreation Management 

Information System provides data on recreation visitor days (RVDs); to be 

compatible with these units, BLM identified non-market values for various 

recreation activities in units of dollars per RVD. Values from economic 

literature, based on primary research conducted on various recreation sites, 

were matched to BLM and Forest Service recreation activity classifications.

Table N-1, Consumer Surplus for Recreation Activities, provides a listing of 

the values per day representing the Nevada and Northeast California subregion. 

Table N-1 

Consumer Surplus for Recreation Activities

Recreation Activity Category Consumer Surplus per 

Visitor Day (2012 dollars)

Backpacking

Camping

Cross Country Skiing

Fishing

Floatboating/Rafting/Canoeing

General Recreation

Hiking

Hunting

Motorboating

Mountain Biking

Off-Road Vehicle Driving/Off-Highway Vehicle

Other Recreation

Picnicking

Pleasure Driving

Rock Climbing

Sightseeing

Snowmobiling

Swimming

Waterskiing

Wildlife Viewing

36.48

31.73

36.32

42.00

82.28

42.96

107.16

74.50

65.24

175.21

51.35

47.69

52.27

71.65

61.32

41.33

51.75

35.10

69.23

50.00

Sources: Rosenberger 2012; 

2009; USFWS 2009.

Loomis 2005; Loomis and Richardson 2007; Bowker et al., 

Consistent with the description above of consumer surplus and the travel cost 

method, readers should interpret the values in Table N-1, Consumer Surplus 

for Recreation Activities, as the consumer surplus or the amount of value that 

the average visitor derives from a full day of recreation beyond their actual 

expenditures. Thus, a typical off-highway vehicle user would pay an average 
Appendix N. Non-Market Valuation Methods

N-6 Nevada and Northern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

value of $51.35 more than their trip cost to have the opportunity to participate 

in a typical day of driving off-road vehicles. 

Table N-2, Total Consumer Surplus for Recreation in Nevada and Northeast 

California Sub-Region, shows the total consumer surplus associated with 

recreation activities on BLM-administered and National Forest System lands for 

the sub-region, including the BLM Field Offices of Alturas, Black Rock, Caliente, 

Eagle Lake, Egan, Mount Lewis, Schell, Surprise, Tonopah, Tuscarora, Wells, and 

Winnemucca, as well as the BLM Carson City District Office and the HumboldtToiyabe National Forest. RVDs on BLM lands presented in Table N-2, Total 

Consumer Surplus for Recreation in Nevada and Northeast California SubRegion, are calculated directly from Report 26 from the BLM RMIS (Report 26 

provides RVDs based on recorded visitor hours – defined above – and dividing 

by twelve). For this analysis, BLM used average RVDs per year over the period 

2008 to 2012. RVDs on the Humboldt-Toiyabe are calculated from the most 

recent available data (FY2006) from the USFS National Visitor Use Monitoring 

(NVUM) report (Forest Service 2013). RVDs for National Forest lands were 

calculated based on the total number of site visits, the “main activity” reported 

by recreators, and the number of hours per day reported engaging in that 

activity, with the number of RVDs equal to the number of hours divided by 12. 

Note that conservation measures for GRSG may affect only specific types and 

fractions of the public lands that contributed to the visitor days used to estimate 

the surplus values in Table N-2, Total Consumer Surplus for Recreation in 

Nevada and Northeast California Sub-Region.

To estimate impacts on consumer surplus associated with changes in RVDs, 

BLM economists worked with BLM and Forest Service recreation specialists to 

project how RVDs for various activities would change under the alternatives.

Because both BLM and Forest Service recreation specialists indicated that RVDs 

would not differ under the alternatives, no differences in consumer surplus are 

anticipated. 

VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH GREATER SAGE-GROUSE POPULATIONS

Economists have long recognized that wildlife species, especially rare, 

threatened, and endangered species, have economic values beyond just viewing. 

This is supported by a series of legal decisions and technical analyses. The US 

Court of Appeals in 1989 first clarified that the US Department of the Interior, 

in assessing damages in Natural Resource Damage Assessment cases, should 

include what it termed as “passive use values,” that is, existence values provided 

to non-users of the species, as a compensable value in addition to any use value. 

These passive use values are also included in Oil Pollution Act damage 

assessments as well. The term passive values is interchangeable with the term 

non-use values defined previously. This ruling and subsequent analysis for 

Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Oil Pollution Act assessments are 

consistent with well-established economic theory showing that people derive
Appendix N. Non-Market Valuation Methods

October 2013 Nevada and Northern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS N-7 

Table N-2

Total Consumer Surplus for Recreation in Nevada and Northeast 

Region

California SubRecreation Activity Average RVDs Per 

Year

Total Consumer Surplus 

(millions of 2012 dollars)

Backpacking

Big Game Hunting

Camping

Cross Country Skiing

Fishing

Floatboating/Rafting/Canoeing

General Recreation

Hiking

Hunting – Other

Motorboating

Mountain Biking

Off Road Vehicle Driving/

Off-Highway Vehicle

Other Recreation

Picnicking

Pleasure Driving

Rock Climbing

Sightseeing

Small Game Hunting

Snowmobiling

Swimming

Waterfowl Hunting

Waterskiing

Wildlife Viewing

Total

66,462

467,130

1,452,785

30,836

300,185

20,957

77,147

328,608

80,617

20,779

87,968

794,571

596,216

72,319

296,405

15,794

172,691

209,783

34,491

4,517

26,738

430

67,411

5,292,980

$2.4

$34.8

$46.1

$1.1

$12.6

$1.7

$3.3

$35.2

$6.0

$1.4

$15.4

$40.8

$28.4

$3.8

$21.2

$1.0

$7.1

$15.6

$1.8

$0.2

$2.0

$0.03

$3.4

$285.4

Source: 

Surplus 

BLM 2012; Forest Service

for Recreation Activities. 

2013; consumer surplus per RVD shown in Table N-1, Consumer 

value from passive use or non-use as well as active uses of resources (Krutilla 

1967). Economists have devoted a great deal of conceptual and empirical work 

to refining concepts and developing methods to measure these passive use 

values. 

The dominant methods are “stated preference” methods, of which the most 

prominent is the Contingent Valuation Method. The basic element of this 

method is to use a survey to construct or simulate a market or referendum for 

protection or improvement of a natural environment, habitat, or species, and 

then having the respondent indicate whether or not they would pay for an 

increment of protection, and if so, how much they would pay. While the 

method has developed a great deal of sophistication that has increased the 

validity of the willingness to pay responses, there is admittedly a degree of bias 

that can result in stated willingness to pay exceeding actual willingness to pay by 
Appendix N. Non-Market Valuation Methods

N-8 Nevada and Northern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

a factor averaging two to three (Loomis 2011; Murphy et al. 2005; List and 

Gallet 2001). While not a perfect estimator of willingness to pay, the 

Contingent Valuation Method provides a useful means for estimating the public’s 

passive use values.

Numerous academic papers and even entire books have been written on the 

Contingent Valuation Method. Mitchell and Carson (1989) was one of the first, 

while Alberini and Kahn (2006) is a more recent treatment. To date there have 

been about 7,500 Contingent Valuation Method studies in over 130 countries 

(Carson 2011). A number of federal agencies have used or referenced stated 

preference methods, including the US Bureau of Reclamation, US Environmental 

Protection Agency, National Park Service, and state agencies such as the 

California Department of Fish and Game, Idaho Fish and Game, and Montana 

Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. The USFWS commissioned an original Contingent 

Valuation Method study of the economic values the public receives from 

reintroduction of wolves in the areas of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, and 

used those values in an EIS on wolf reintroduction (USFWS 1994). The US 

Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service, and Lower Elwha S’Klallam Tribe 

commissioned a Contingent Valuation Method study on the value of removal of 

the Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams (Meyer et al. 1995). The US Bureau of 

Reclamation also commissioned an original Contingent Valuation Method study 

on the values of providing stable river flows to benefit riparian vegetation, 

endangered species, and cultural resources. That study was cited by thenSecretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt as a factor in selecting the more 

protective flow regime from Glen Canyon Dam despite it having more foregone 

hydroelectricity (Babbitt 1996). 

The BLM and Forest Service conducted a literature search to demonstrate the 

potential range of values that could be associated with species that are 

candidates for listing as threatened or endangered, such as GRSG populations. 

Analysts first verified there are no existing studies on Total Economic Value or 

non-use valuation specific to the GRSG. This is not an uncommon occurrence, 

as there are dozens of rare or potentially threatened species that have not been 

valued despite the very high policy relevance of the species and the large 

magnitude of economic value at stake in these policy decisions. 

The BLM and Forest Service used three criteria to identify studies that are most 

applicable to the current analysis: (1) whether the species valuation study was 

located in the same geographic region as the GRSG habitat; (2) whether the 

species was listed or not listed as threatened or endangered; and (3) whether 

the species was hunted or not (implying a mix of use and non-use values). 

The primary database of articles was the recent peer-reviewed journal article by 

Richardson and Loomis (2009), which is a compilation of the economic values of 

threatened, endangered, and rare species. A literature review was also 

conducted to determine if there had been any recent studies on GRSG or 
Appendix N. Non-Market Valuation Methods

October 2013 Nevada and Northern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS N-9 

closely related species. Unfortunately, there is not a perfect match in the 

literature in terms of geographic region (intermountain) and a species that is 

both hunted and rare. Table N-3, Existing Estimates of Annual Total Economic 

Value of Protecting Habitat for Species Similar to GRSG, provides a summary of 

the studies with features most similar to the GRSG species. 

Table N-3 

Existing Estimates of Annual Total Economic Value of Protecting Habitat for Species 

Similar to GRSG

Region Species Listed Hunted

Annual Value 

per 

Householdb

Change Valued

Four Corners 

(AZ, CO, NM, 

UT) 

New England

Texas (also L.A., 

NYC, Chicago, 

Atlanta) 

Maine

South Carolina 

& Rest of US

Mexican 

Spotted Owl

Wild Turkey

Whooping 

Crane

Peregrine 

Falcon

Red-Cockaded 

Woodpecker

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

$58.49

$16.72a

$43.69a

$32.37 (one 

time) 

$14.69

Avoid extinction in 15 

years in Four Corners 

region

Avoid extinction in New 

England

Avoid extinction

Restore self-sustaining 

population 

Restore habitat to 

increase chance of 

survival to 99%

Sources: Loomis and Ekstrand 1997 (Mexican spotted owl); Stevens et al. 1991 (New England wild turkey); Bowker 

and Stoll 1988 (whooping crane); Kotchen and Reiling 2000 (peregrine falcon); Reaves et al. 1999 (red-cockaded 

woodpecker). All of these sources are as cited in Richardson and Loomis (2009).

Notes:

a. Average of estimates from the study.

b. As noted in the text, these stated preference values for household may have a degree of hypothetical bias 

that could overstate the actual monetary amount households would pay by a factor of two to three.

As can be seen in Table N-3, Existing Estimates of Annual Total Economic 

Value of Protecting Habitat for Species Similar to GRSG, there is one study with 

a geographic region overlapping the sub-region (Mexican spotted owl), and one 

study on a species that was hunted at the time (wild turkey). At the time of the 

study, the Mexican spotted owl was a threatened species under the Endangered 

Species Act, and respondents were told in the survey that it was a threatened 

species. The whooping crane, red-cockaded woodpecker, and peregrine falcon 

studies involved an endangered species. 

All of these studies used the Contingent Valuation Method in a mail survey. 

Households were asked whether they would pay a specific dollar amount, with 

that amount varying across individuals in the sample (i.e., the valuation questions 

were “closed-ended,” although the wild turkey study and red-cockaded 

woodpecker also used an open-ended valuation question for some 
Appendix N. Non-Market Valuation Methods

N-10 Nevada and Northern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

respondents). Researchers used the closed-ended valuation questions to 

generate a statistical valuation function. This valuation function exhibited internal 

validity: the higher the dollar amount households were asked to pay, the lower 

the percentage of them that would pay that dollar amount. 

With the exception of the peregrine falcon study, which asked respondents to 

commit to a one-time payment, each survey asked respondents to pay annually 

to accomplish the stated goal (typically, preventing the species from going 

extinct in the region of interest, although this varied by study as the table 

shows). For the peregrine falcon and red-cockaded woodpecker, households 

were told that their payment would restore a self-sustaining population (i.e., one 

that would not go extinct). 

The original wild turkey study provided an estimate of three values (in 1990 

dollars) that were averaged and then adjusted to 2012 dollars using the 

Consumer Price Index, resulting in a value of $16.72 per household per year. 

The same procedure was used to update the 1996 dollar values of the Mexican 

spotted owl to 2012, resulting in values of $58.49 per household per year. The 

higher values for the Mexican spotted owl may be due to the large area of 

habitat (4.6 million acres stated in the survey and shown on a map) that would 

be protected in the Four Corners area by paying, and the fact the species was 

not a hunted species. The whooping crane values are fairly large at $43.69 per 

household per year; this value represents a Total Economic Value, including 

both use and non-use value, as some of the sample included people who actively 

“used” the species (as wildlife viewers). 

The study values in Table N-3, Existing Estimates of Annual Total Economic 

Value of Protecting Habitat for Species Similar to GRSG, demonstrate that many 

people, or segments of the public, hold substantial value for protecting 

threatened and endangered species, which may carry over to the GRSG. 

However, additional studies would be needed to identify values specifically for 

GRSG protection. Given that protection is a public good available to all 

households in the intermountain west, the aggregate or intermountain regional 

value could be substantial. 

VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH GRAZING LAND 

Public lands managed for livestock grazing provides both market values (e.g., 

forage for livestock) and non-market values. Many ranchers themselves value 

the ranching lifestyle in excess of the income generated by the ranching 

operations. This is evident in some ranch sales transaction data which suggests 

some ranch properties have sold for more than the market value of the public 

land forage (Bartlett et al. 2002; Taylor 2006). One of the primary reasons 

public lands ranchers indicate they own land is for the “tradition, values and 

culture” rather than primarily for profit (Tanaka et al. 2005). Many public land 

ranchers work elsewhere part-time and rely on the ranch for only 20 percent of 

their income (Hanus 2011), relying instead on outside jobs or other savings to 
Appendix N. Non-Market Valuation Methods

October 2013 Nevada and Northern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS N-11

support their ranching lifestyle. Land appreciation has also provided increased 

value and therefore served as an economic resource for ranchers (Tanaka et al. 

2005; Torell et al. 2005). As several of these authors note, changes in public 

land grazing that reduce the profitability of grazing may not directly translate to 

withdrawal from ranching, due to the fact that economic factors are not 

necessarily the primary motivation for public land ranching. 

Some studies have found non-market values of ranching associated with use 

values to residents (Mangun et al. 2005) and tourists in the form of open space 

and western ranch scenery (Ellingson et al. 2006). However, some others see 

non-market opportunity costs associated with livestock grazing that may, 

depending on management methods and other variables, reduce native plant 

species and forage for wildlife (Todres et al. 2003). The potential exists for 

other residents or visitors to prefer lifestyles or have lifestyle needs that are not 

consistent with grazing or ranching lifestyles or landscapes.

Methods available to measure the use values to residents and tourists associated 

with grazing land include stated preference methods similar to contingent 

valuation (Ellingson et al. 2006; Mangun et al. 2005). Methods for attempting to 

isolate any amenity values that ranchers themselves may hold include the 

hedonic price method. This method uses observed sale prices of ranch land as a 

function of the characteristics, including both conventional market factors (e.g., 

size of ranch and quantity of forage) but also amenity values (e.g., scenic views, 

presence of wildlife species, and on-site fishing or hunting opportunities) that 

may be provided by the ranch (Torell et al. 2005). The additional value that 

ranchers pay for the amenity values of the ranch provide some indication of 

how much they value these amenities. Using the hedonic price method to 

estimate a “lifestyle value” separate from the market and amenity values has yet 

to be done in the literature. This may be due to the fact that lifestyle values 

attributed to living on a ranch or ranching is present on nearly all ranch 

properties sold. As such, statistically it is difficult to isolate the contribution of 

ranching lifestyle to differences in ranch property values as ranching lifestyle is a 

common feature of nearly all ranch properties sold. 
Appendix N. Non-Market Valuation Methods

N-12 Nevada and Northern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

REFERENCES

Alberini, A., and J. Kahn. 2006. Handbook on Contingent Valuation. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA.

Babbitt, B. 1996. Record of Decision, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

Bartlett, T., L. A. Torell, N. Rimbey, L. van Tassell, and D. McCollum. 2002. Valuing Grazing on Public 

Land. Journal of Range Management 55: 426-438. 

BLM (United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 2003. Guidelines to 

Reporting Recreation Visitation. June 23. US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 

_____. 2012. Recreation Management Information System. Report 26, Visitor Days and Participants by 

Office and Activity. US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

Bowker, J. M., M. Starbuck, D. English, J. Bergstrom, R. Rosenberger, and D. McCollum. 2009. Estimating 

the Net Economic Value of National Forest Recreation: An Application of the National Visitor 

Use Monitoring Data. Faculty Series Working Paper, FS-09-02. Department of Agricultural and 

Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. 

Bowker, J. M., D. B. K. English, and H. K. Cordell. 1999. Projections of Outdoor Recreation Participation 

to 2050. In Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply 

Trends (ed. H. K. Cordell). Sagamore Publishing.

Bowker, J. M., and J. R. Stoll. 1988. Use of dichotomous choice nonmarket methods to value the 

whooping crane resource. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70, 372–381.

Carson, R. 2011. Contingent Valuation: A Comprehensive Bibliography and History. Edward Elgar, 

Northampton, MA. 

Ellingson, L., A. Seidl, and C. J. Mucklow. 2006. Tourists’ Value of Routt County’s Working Landscape, 

2005: Summary Report. EDR 0-07, Economic Development Report, Dept. of Agricultural and 

Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Internet Web site: 

http://dare.colostate.edu/pubs/EDR/EDR06-07.pdf.

Ervin, D., G. Larsen, and C. Shin. 2012. Simple Ecosystem Service Valuation Can Impact National Forest 

Management, AERE Newsletter 32(1): 17-22. May. 

Forest Service (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 1991. Resource Pricing and 

Valuation Procedures for the Recommended 1990 RPA Program. US Department of 

Agriculture, Washington, DC. 

_____. 2013. National Visitor Use Monitoring, Round 2 Results. USDA Forest Service Natural 

Resource Manager. Visits by Market Segment, Activity Participation, Regional Annual Visit 

Duration, and Annual Visitation Estimate for Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, FY 2006. US 

Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Internet Web site: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/.
Appendix N. Non-Market Valuation Methods

October 2013 Nevada and Northern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS N-13

Freeman, M. 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values. Resources for the Future 

Press, Washington, DC. 

Griffiths, C., H. Klemick, M. Massey, C. Moore, S. Newbold, D. Simpson, P. Walsh, and W. Wheeler. 

2012. US Environmental Protection Agency Valuation of Surface Water Quality Improvements. 

Environmental Economics and Policy 6(1): 130-146. 

Hanus, A. 2011. Socio-Economic Profile and Analysis of Seven Oregon Counties Included in the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy for Oregon. Association of Oregon Counties. 

Kotchen, M., and S. Reiling. 2000. Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of 

nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species. Ecological Economics 32, 93–107.

Krutilla, J. V. 1967. Conservation Reconsidered. American Economic Review 57: 777-786.

List, J., and C. Gallet. 2001. What experimental protocol influences disparities between actual and 

hypothetical stated values? Environmental and Resource Economics 20: 241–254.

Loomis, J. 2005. Updated Outdoor Recreation Use Values on National Forests and Other Public Lands. 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-658. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, OR. Internet Web site: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr658.pdf.

Loomis, J. 2011. What’s to Know about Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation Studies. Journal 

of Economic Surveys 25(2): 363-370.

Loomis, J., and E. Ekstrand. 1997. Economic Benefits of Critical Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl: A 

Scope Test Using a Multiple Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey. Journal of Agricultural and 

Resource Economics 22(2): 356-366. 

Loomis, J., and L. Richardson, 2007. Benefit Transfer and Visitor Use Estimating Models of Wildlife 

Recreation, Species and Habitats. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Internet Web site: 

http://dare.colostate.edu/tools/benefittransfer.aspx.

Mangan, N., A. Seidl, C. J. Mucklow, and D. Alpe. 2005. The Value of Ranchland to Routt County 

Residents 1995-2005. EDR 05-02, Economic Development Report, Dept. of Agricultural and 

Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Internet Web site: 

http://dare.colostate.edu/pubs/EDR/EDR05-02.pdf.

Meyer, P. A., R. Lichtkoppler, R. B. Hamilton, D. A. Harpman, C. L. Borda, and P. M. Engel. 1995. Elwha 

River Restoration Project: Economic Analysis, Final Technical Report. Developed by the Project 

Human Effects Team. A Report to the US Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service, and 

Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribe. Davis, CA. Internet Web site: 

http://digital.library.ucr.edu/cdri/documents/R264_Economic_analysis.pdf.

Mitchell, R., and R. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation 

Method. Resources for the Future, Washington DC. 
Appendix N. Non-Market Valuation Methods

N-14 Nevada and Northern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

Murphy, J. J., P. G. Allen, T. H. Stevens, and D. Weatherhead. 2005. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias 

in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 30: 313-325.

Reaves, D. W., R. Kramer, and T. Holmes. 1999. Does Question Format Matter? Valuing an Endangered 

Species. Environmental and Resource Economics 14: 365-383. 

Richardson, L., and J. Loomis. 2009. The Total Economic Value of Threatened, Endangered and Rare 

Species: An Updated Meta- Analysis, Ecological Economics 68: 1535-1548.

Rosenberger, R. 2012. Recreation Use Values Database. Downloaded October 13, 2012. Internet Web 

site: http://recvaluation.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/

files/RECREATION_USE_VALUES_DATABASE_%20SUMMARY.pdf.

Rosenberger, R., and J. Loomis. 2000. Using Meta-Analysis for Benefit Transfer: In-Sample Convergent 

Validity Tests of an Outdoor Recreation Database. Water Resources Research, 36(4): 1097-

1107. 

Stevens, T., J. Echeverria, R. Glass, T. Hager, and T. Moore. 1991. Measuring the Existence Value of 

Wildlife. Land Economics 67(4): 390-400. 

Tanaka, J., L. A. Torell, and N. Rimbey. 2005. Who Are Public Land Ranchers and Why are They Out 

There? Western Economic Forum: 14-20. Fall 205. 

Taylor, T. 2006. Rural Communities and Public Lands in the West: Impacts and Alternatives. University 

of Wyoming. USDA Research, Education and Economics Information System. 

Todres, T., A. Seidl, D. McLeod, A. Bittner, R. Coupal, and K. Inman. 2003. Preferred Public Land Use 

and Policy in Moffat County: Final Report of Countywide Opinion Survey. APRPR03-11. 

Agricultural and Resource Policy Report, Dept. of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Internet Web site: 

http://dare.colostate.edu/pubs/ARPR/ARPR%2003-11.pdf.

Torrell, L. A., N. Rimbey, O. Ramirez, and D. McCollum. 2005. Income Earning Potential versus 

Consumptive Amenities in Determining Ranchland Values. Journal of Agricultural and Resource 

Economics 30(3): 537-560. 

US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. 1989. State of Ohio v. US Department of Interior (880 F.2d. 432). 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. EPA 240-R-00-

003. Washington, DC. 

_____. 2009. Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services. EPA-SAB-09-012. Washington, 

DC. 

_____. 2010. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. EPA 240-R-10-001. Washington, DC. 
Appendix N. Non-Market Valuation Methods

October 2013 Nevada and Northern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS N-15

USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1994. Final Environmental Impact Statement: The 

Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho. US 

Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. 

_____. 2009. Net Economic Values of Wildlife-Related Recreation in 2006. Report 2006-5. US 

Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. 

US Census Bureau. 2011. Population Estimates, Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population for 

Counties: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2010. Internet Web site: 

http://www.census.gov/popest/data/intercensal/county/CO-EST00INT-01.html.

US Department of Commerce. 2012. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information 

System, Local Area Personal Income and Employment. Internet Web site: 

http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm.

US Water Resources Council. 1983. Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resource 

Implementation Studies. Washington, DC. 

Wilson, M., and J. Hoehn. 2006. Valuing Environmental Goods and Services Using Benefit Transfer: The 

State-of-the-art and Science. Ecological Economics. Special Issue Volume 60. 
Appendix N. Non-Market Valuation Methods

N-16 Nevada and Northern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

This page intentionally left blank.