A Contingent Valuation Study of the

Value of Reducing Fire Hazards to

Old-Growth Forests in the Pacific

Northwest

John B. Loomis Armando González-Cabán Robin Gregory

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Southwest

Research Station

Research Paper

PSW-RP-229-Web
Abstract:

Loomis, John B.; González-Cabán, Armando; Gregory, Robin. 1996. A contingent valuation

study of the value of reducing fire hazards to old-growth forests in the Pacific

Northwest. Res. Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research

Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 24 p.

A contingent valuation methodology was applied to old-growth forests and critical

habitat units for the Northern Spotted Owl in Oregon to estimate the economic value to the

public in knowing that rare and unique ecosystems will be protected from fire for current

and future generations. Generalizing to the whole state, the total annual willingness-to-pay

of Oregon residents ranges from $49.6 to $99 million. In terms of old-growth forests

protected from fire, the value is $28 per acre.

Retrieval terms: contingent valuation, fire economics, NOAA, nonmarket resources, oldgrowth valuation, willingness-to-pay

The Authors:

John B. Loomis is Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics,

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523. Armando González-Cabán is an

economist with the Pacific Southwest Research Station at the Forest Fire Laboratory (4955

Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, CA 92507). Robin Gregory is Senior Researcher with

Decision Research, 1201 Oak Street, Eugene, OR 97401.

Acknowledgments

We thank Paula Stevens and Sunny Williams, University of California, Davis, for

assistance in survey mailing and data entry. Kari Nelson and Geri Hanson at Decision

Research facilitated the mailing and checking of surveys. Dr. Peter Teensma, Bureau of

Land Management, and Harold Legard and Dean Longrie, USDA Forest Service, provided

much technical information and guidance on fire risk to old-growth forests and effects on

spotted owls. Thomas Brown and Thomas Holmes, USDA Forest Service, and Joe Cooper,

USDA Economic Research Service, provided numerous valuable suggestions to improve

the clarity of exposition. The assistance of all of these individuals is greatly appreciated,

but they bear no responsibility for the contents of this paper.

Publisher:

Albany, California

Mailing address:

PO Box 245, Berkeley CA

94701-0245

510 559-6300

http://www.pswfs.gov

July 1996

Pacific Southwest Research Station

Forest Service

US Department of Agriculture
A Contingent Valuation Study of the

Value of Reducing Fire Hazards to

Old-Growth Forests in the Pacific

Northwest

John B. Loomis Armando González-Cabán Robin Gregory

Contents

In Brief ................................................................................................................... iii

Introduction............................................................................................................ 1

Literature Review .................................................................................................. 1

Development of the Survey ................................................................................ 2

Development of Technical Information on Fire ............................................ 2

Focus Groups and Pretesting ........................................................................... 2

Structure of the Survey ........................................................................................ 3

Nonmonetary Measures of Relative Importance .......................................... 3

Steps in Developing a Contingent Valuation Method Survey ............... 3

Two Survey Versions for Hypothesis Testing ........................................... 5

Sample Design ....................................................................................................... 6

Results ..................................................................................................................... 6

Response Rate ..................................................................................................... 6

Why People Answered the Willingness-to-Pay Questions as They Did .. 7

Why They Would Not Pay: Protest Responses ........................................ 7

Statistical Analysis ............................................................................................. 8

Logit ....................................................................................................................... 10

Statistical Coefficients and Willingness-to-Pay .......................................... 10

Results of Hypothesis Tests ............................................................................. 10

Discussion............................................................................................................. 11

Multivariate Dichotomous Choice Results .................................................. 11

Expanding the Sample to the Population: Preliminary Estimates .......... 12

Conclusion and Future Research ..................................................................... 14

References ............................................................................................................. 15

Appendix A: Survey Instrument .................................................................... 17

Appendix B: Percent “Yes” Responses by Bid Amount for the Two

Survey Versions .................................................................................................. 24

USDA Forest Service

Research Paper

PSW-RP-229-Web

July 1996
USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996. 4

Reducing Fire Hazards to Old-Growth Forests Loomis, González-Cabán and Gregory

There is a growing recognition that protection of forest products beyond

recreation needs to be incorporated into decisionmaking. Valuation of

these other products often reflects people’s desire to know that rare and

unique ecosystems exist (existence value) and will be protected for future

generations (bequest values) and that they will be available for visits at

future times (option values). Existence and bequest values have been

quantified (in dollar terms) to stop logging of old-growth forests in

Washington and Colorado but not to protect these ecosystems from fire.

About 7 million acres of the remaining old-growth forests in the Pacific

Northwest have been designated as Critical Habitat Units (CHU’s) for the

Northern Spotted Owl by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. This

designation eliminates clearcutting and severely restricts the logging that

can be done. The last significant threat to preservation of these habitats

stems from possible catastrophic fires. Fire management policies can reduce

the frequency of human-caused fires and the extent and severity of all fires.

The main objective of this research is to provide a case study of the

contingent valuation method (CVM) for measuring the economic value

(sum of recreation use, option, existence, and bequest values), and thus

willingness-to-pay (WTP), for protecting old-growth forests in Oregon from

catastrophic fires. The CVM obtains an individual’s estimate of WTP for use

or preservation of natural resources through creation of a simulated market.

The simulated market is conveyed in a mail questionnaire or a telephone or

in-person interview. In this research, we used a mail questionnaire.

All technical information on fire and fire effects was obtained from

USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife personnel in Oregon and

was used in the development and pretesting of the survey questionnaire.

The following are three important elements of all CVM surveys: resource

to be valued, financial mechanism to be used to pay, and the question

format used to elicit the respondent’s dollar amount of WTP.

Two versions of the survey were sent to two random samplings of 500

Oregon households each. In Version 2, respondents were reminded, before

they answered the willingness-to-pay question, about other substitute

resources and their budget constraint; in Version 1, respondents were not

reminded. Households were randomly assigned to one of 20 alternative

program cost levels of the two treatment samples. The overall survey

design and mailing procedure followed Dillman’s total design method.

The results and response rates between versions were almost identical. The

mean open-ended WTP responses were $33 for Version 1 and $36 for

Version 2. The mean dichotomous choice WTP responses were $92 for

Version 1 and $98 for Version 2. Pooling the data showed a mean

dichotomous choice WTP of $90 per household.

The similarity of WTP responses across survey versions can be

interpreted to mean that respondents already take into account their budget

and competing public and private alternative expenditures when providing

their WTP responses. An alternative interpretation is that when dealing

with any hypothetical scenario, people do not seriously consider the real

dollar consequences of their survey responses regardless of whether they

are reminded. Without a validity test forcing respondents to actually pay,

we cannot distinguish between these two possible explanations.

The external validity of the sample values is of critical concern when

applying the findings to the population (Arrow and others 1993). Applying

the findings to Oregon’s population yields WTP values ranging from $45 to

$90 per household or a state aggregate of $49.5 million to $99 million

Loomis, John B.; González-Cabán,

Armando; Gregory, Robin.

1996. A contingent valuation

study of the value of reducing

fire hazards to old-growth

forests in the Pacific Northwest. Res. Paper PSW-RP-229-

Web. Albany, CA: Pacific

Southwest Research Station,

Forest Service, U.S. Department

of Agriculture; 24 p.

Retrieval terms: contingent

valuation, fire economics, NOAA,

nonmarket resources, old-growth

valuation, willingness-to-pay

In Brief

iii
USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996. 5

Reducing Fire Hazards to Old-Growth Forests Loomis, González-Cabán and Gregory

annually, depending on how similar the values of nonrespondents are to

those of respondents.

Dividing a middle estimate of WTP of $84.6 million annually by the 3,500

acres that would no longer burn results in a value to the public of $24,170 per

acre saved from fire. In terms consistent with the USDA Forest Service fire

management analysis system, dividing the $84.6 million by the total acreage of

old-growth forests in CHU’s for the Northern Spotted Owl yields a value to the

public of $28 per acre protected.

Current Federal fire management policies take into account the economic

values of several traditional forest products such as timber, range, water, game

wildlife, and recreation in decisions about the type and level of fire suppression.

Many other important forest “products” including preservation of biodiversity

and related nongame animals, however, are not formally included as part of the

USDA National Fire Management Analysis System (NFMAS).

There is a growing recognition within the Wildland-Urban Interface

Research Work Unit at the Pacific Southwest Research Station’s Forest Fire

Laboratory in Riverside, California, that protection of forest products beyond

recreation needs to be incorporated into decisionmaking (González-Cabán and

Chase 1991, González-Cabán 1993). Valuation of these other products often

reflects peoples’ desire to know that rare and unique ecosystems exist (e.g.,

existence value, first proposed by Krutilla [1967]) and will be protected for

future generations (bequest value) and that they will be available for visits at

future times (option value). The existence and bequest values have been

quantified (in dollar terms) to stop logging of old-growth forests in Washington

(Rubin and others 1991) and Colorado (Walsh and others 1984), but not for

protecting these ecosystem types from fire.

In the Pacific Northwest only a small percentage of old-growth ecosystem

remains on National Forest lands. About 7 million acres of these old-growth

forests have been designated as critical habitat units (CHU’s) for Northern

Spotted Owl by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. This designation eliminates

clearcutting and severely restricts logging. However, one significant threat to

preservation of habitat in these areas stems from possible catastrophic fires. Fire

management policies can reduce the frequency of human-caused fires and the

extent and severity of all fires.

iv USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996. 1

The protection of old-growth forests was identified as a major concern at

workshops on defining what fire managers thought were the major fire

management issues in the Pacific Northwest (Gregory and von Winterfeldt

1992). These workshops were held in Regions 5 (California) and 6 (Oregon

and Washington) of the Forest Service. The workshops’ primary purpose

was to develop an understanding of the nature and structure of the

nonmarket forest resource values that could be affected by alternative fire

management strategies. Participants specifically identified lack of economic

values of protection of old-growth forest that could be formally represented

in fire management models. This paper provides a case study of the

contingent valuation method (CVM) for measuring the total economic

value (the sum of recreation use, option, existence, and bequest values)

(Randall and Stoll 1983) of protecting old-growth forests in Oregon from

catastrophic fires.

Vaux, Gardner, and Mills (1984), in one of the first studies of the perception

of fire-influenced landscapes and its effect on the land’s recreation quality,

stated, “Both economic and psychological methods could be used to

evaluate the effects of fire on forest recreation. These methods rely on

direct and inferential means to assess the values of outdoor recreation. The

most suitable of these approaches appears to be contingent market

valuation—a direct economic technique that uses personal interviews. A

hypothetical market transaction environment is set up within which values

are estimated.” This approach has been used to assess the impact of insect

infestations and timber cutting on forest environments. The effects of such

infestations and cuttings are similar to the effects of fire. Vaux, Gardner,

and Mills go on to state that “willingness-to-pay (WTP) is an appropriate

measure for valuing the effects of fire on forest recreation” (Vaux and

others 1984:1). Willingness-to-pay represents the maximum amount a

person would be willing to pay for the resource in question under the

proposed scenario (Mitchell and Carson 1989). The study by Vaux and

others (1984) involved about 70 students rating photographs of burned and

unburned forests and then expressing a willingness-to-pay for the preferred

scene. The primary objective of their research was to demonstrate the

viability of such an approach.

Our proposed research takes the study by Vaux and others (1984)

forward in several directions. First, our sample is much larger in size than

theirs and represents the general population rather than college students.

Second, we are interested not only in how fire affects recreational benefits of

the forest over time but also in the magnitude of what are sometimes called

non-use or preservation values associated with maintaining the forest in its

current condition (Walsh and others 1984). These preservation values

include the option for future recreation use, the benefit from just knowing

the forests are maintained as habitats for wildlife, and the knowledge that

future generations will have these forests in much the same form as we do

today. In this study, we emphasize these values as well as the benefits of

ecosystem and critical habitat that old-growth forests provide for nongame

wildlife such as spotted owls, salmon, and steelhead, as well as scenic

beauty and water quality. Third, we explicitly include the concept of

opportunity costs in that we ask participants to state their willingness-topay, in dollars of personal income, to receive the specified benefits.

Literature Review

Introduction
2 USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996.

Reducing Fire Hazards to Old-Growth Forests Loomis, González-Cabán and Gregory

In this sense, our study is an extension of the studies by Rubin and

others (1991), Hagen and others (1992), and Lockwood and others (1993) in

which individuals were asked their maximum WTP to protect old-growth

forests from logging and to ensure their continued existence as habitat for

spotted owls. In many cases, fire is the next major threat to the protection of

these forests. Our study and survey design will draw from elements in each

one of these CVM studies. In addition, we draw upon the workshops of

Gregory and von Winterfeldt (1992), who investigated the nonmarket forest

resource values that are affected by alternative fire management strategies.

Contingent valuation is a widely used method for obtaining WTP for

recreation, option, existence, and bequest values (Mitchell and Carson

1989). It is recommended for use by Federal agencies for performing benefit

cost analysis (U.S. Water Resources Council 1983), for valuing natural

resource damages (U.S. Department of Interior 1986). Its use was upheld by

the Federal courts (U.S. District Court of Appeals 1989).

The CVM obtains an individual’s estimate of their WTP for use or

preservation of natural resources through creation of a simulated market.

The simulated market is conveyed in a mail questionnaire or a telephone or

in-person interview.

Development of Technical Information on Fire

Before the survey design, the research team met with USDA Forest Service

fire management specialists and wildlife biologists to ensure a good

understanding of the natural resources at risk from fire in old-growth

forests and spotted owl critical habitat areas. These specialists were from

the Willamette National Forest in Eugene, Oregon and the USDA Forest

Service Regional Office in Portland, Oregon. We went through a checklist

of multiple uses and species and asked whether the forest resources would

be either adversely affected by fire in the short term, positively affected by

fire in the short term, or not affected by fire. The results of this discussion

were used to describe to respondents the likely effects of fire.

In addition, this meeting provided initial information on the frequency

and extent of actual fires under current management. As a result of this

meeting, we secured map overlays from the Forest Service on fire frequency

and from the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service on CHU’s. From these

overlays, we developed our statistics on frequency and extent of fire in

spotted owl CHU’s.

The other main accomplishment of this meeting was the initial

development of a list of additional fire management actions that could be

undertaken by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

to reduce the frequency and extent of fire in the CHU’s. We titled this the

Fire Prevention and Control Program. After discussion with fire

management officials, three main categories of this program were

identified. These are: “greater fire prevention efforts,” “earlier fire

detection,” and “quicker and larger fire control response.” In the survey,

the respondent is given one-sentence elaborations of each of these three

management actions (appendix A).

Focus Groups and Pretesting

Once the fire statistics and maps of CHU’s for Oregon were developed, we

held two small focus groups at Decision Research (a scientific research firm)

in Eugene with Oregon residents. One of the primary objectives was to

Development

of the Survey
USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996. 3

Reducing Fire Hazards to Old-Growth Forests Loomis, González-Cabán and Gregory

determine whether our basic Fire Prevention and Control Program was

understandable and realistic. We also sought to explore alternative ways to

describe the extent or amount of area burned each year. Another objective

was to discuss acceptable ways of funding this program. For example, we

asked whether it was believable that only Oregon residents would pay for the

program or whether all residents of the United States must pay. In addition,

the focus groups provided us with a better understanding of the language

that participants normally used to describe events related to forest fire.

After meeting with these focus groups, a complete survey was drafted

by members of the study team. The revised instrument was pretested on a

small sample of Oregon residents who filled out the survey at Decision

Research in Eugene, by Forest Service employees at the Forest Fire

Laboratory in Riverside, California, and by several staff members at the

University of California, Davis. Each individual participating in the pretest

was asked to answer a follow-up checklist to investigate several items that

have been problems for past CVM surveys. For example, we checked to see

whether individuals understood that the fire control program protected

just spotted owl areas in Oregon and whether they realized that all residents

of the United States would pay. Several modifications were made to the

survey instrument on the basis of these results (e.g., bolding or underlining

was added for emphasis or survey layout was changed). Finally the pretest

was used to establish an appropriate range of bid amounts for the

dichotomous choice question.

Nonmonetary Measures of Relative Importance

Before directly asking how much respondents would pay for a fire

protection program for old-growth forests, it is important to allow the

respondents an opportunity to reflect on why they might care about these

forests. Cummings and others (1986) call this “researching their

preferences” or, in other words, collecting your thoughts on this topic.

Certainly residents of Oregon have been exposed to large and repeated

media coverage about old-growth forests and spotted owls. In the weeks

before the first mailing of our survey, the President, Vice-President, and

nearly half of the President’s cabinet came to Portland, Oregon, for an “Owl

Summit.” This event was highlighted, in one way or another, in every local

newspaper and received extensive television network coverage. Thus, we

believe Oregon residents have some knowledge about the natural resources

present in old-growth forests and have had much opportunity to reflect on

what these resources mean to them.

The first set of questions asked about the relative importance of oldgrowth forests for recreation use, providing timber, as habitat for plants

and wildlife, providing jobs, and providing scenic beauty in Oregon. A 5-

point Likert scale allowed individuals to rate the relative importance of

these various reasons for valuing old-growth forests in Oregon. This neutral

response format (that precedes the dollar valuation questions) also aided in

understanding the WTP amounts people provide later in the survey.

Steps in Developing a Contingent Valuation Method Survey

Any CVM survey design involves three elements: (a) portrayal of the

resource to be valued; (b) description of the particular financial mechanism

to be used to pay for the resource; e.g., property taxes, utility bills, trust

funds, etc.; and (c) the question format used to elicit the respondent’s dollar

amount of WTP.

Structure of the Survey
4 USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996.

Reducing Fire Hazards to Old-Growth Forests Loomis, González-Cabán and Gregory

In this case, the resource to be valued was a fire prevention and control

program for 3 million acres of old-growth forests in CHU’s of Northern Spotted

Owl in Oregon. This point was emphasized by the half-page map of western

Oregon showing the CHU’s on the third page of the survey (directly across

from the WTP question). Discussion with USDA Forest Service fire management

specialists suggested that increasing three fire program elements would reduce

the number and extent of fires. After several focus groups and pretests

(discussed above), these three elements were refined into the Fire Prevention

and Control Program that were listed and briefly described to respondents in

the survey: (a) Greater Fire Prevention; (b) Earlier Fire Detection; and (c)

Quicker and Larger Fire Response. The respondents were told that greater

effort and funding in all three of these areas would cut in half the current

annual number of fires (300) and acreage (7,000) burned in the CHU’s. The

statistics on the current number of fires and acreage burned were developed

from map overlays supplied by the USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and

Wildlife Service. To make the reduction more meaningful, we described the

acreage relative to the number of city blocks and square miles involved.

The means by which all households would pay was framed as a voter

referendum. Individuals were told Because Oregon’s old-growth forests are also

Federally designated CHU’s for the threatened Northern Spotted Owl, all households

in the United States would pay into a Special Oregon Old-Growth Fire Control

Program. By law this fund could be used only for fire protection in Federally owned

old-growth forests shown on the map. Adoption of the program would be decided as

part of a national election. Following this statement was the actual WTP question:

Suppose the Oregon Old-Growth Fire Prevention and Control Program proposal were

on the next ballot. This program would reduce by half the number of acres of oldgrowth forests in CHU’s that would burn in Oregon each year. If it cost your

household $ each year, would you vote for this program? This was followed by the

open-ended WTP question What is the maximum your household would pay each year

for the Fire Prevention and Control Program to reduce in half the number of acres of

old-growth forests in CHU’s that burn each year in Oregon? (See appendix A for the

complete survey).

Questions to check comprehension following the pretest indicated that a

majority of individuals understood that this program pertained only to

Oregon’s old-growth forests and that all U.S. households would pay.

Given the voter referendum question, the WTP question format was of the

dichotomous (yes/no) type. The dichotomous choice format mimics an actual

vote by simply asking whether the person would vote (e.g., pay) for the item if

it would cost the household a particular dollar amount each year. In this case

the individual must just decide whether the value to him or her is worth at least

this price. Since the printed dollar amount varies across the sample, the

dichotomous choice format allows the analyst to statistically trace out a demand

relationship between the probability of a “yes” response and the dollar amount.

The basic relationship is:

 Prob(Yes) = 1 – {1 + exp[B0 – B1

X1 + B2X2 + B3X3 +...BnXn]}–1 (1)

where B’s are coefficients to be estimated using logit statistical techniques and

X is the dollar amount the household is asked to pay.

From equation 1, Hanemann (1989) provides a formula to calculate the

expected value of WTP as:

Mean WTP =(1/B0

) × ln (1 + exp[B0– B1X1+B2X2+B3X3+...BnXn]) (2)

This formula applies if reducing fire is seen as beneficial by all respondents.

However, if this is not the case, then the unrestricted WTP (B0

/B1) is appropriate,

which is also equal to the median in a linear model.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996. 5

Reducing Fire Hazards to Old-Growth Forests Loomis, González-Cabán and Gregory

Twenty different bid amounts ranging from $2 to $300 were randomly

assigned to survey respondents. The range was picked such that at the low

end, anyone who valued old-growth forests or the Northern Spotted Owl

would very likely indicate they would pay $2, while almost no one was

expected to pay $300 each year.

Following the WTP question were two questions designed to

investigate the reasons behind a person’s answers to the WTP questions.

One question probed responses for persons indicating they would not pay

anything at all for the fire prevention and control program (respondents

indicated whether they would pay or not when responding to the WTP

questions). It is customary to determine whether such response represents

a valid value or a protest to some feature of the simulated market. Six

response categories were provided including: (a) this program is not worth

anything to me; (b) I cannot afford to pay at this time; (c) I do not think the

program would work; (d) It is unfair to expect me to pay; (e) I am opposed

to any new government programs; (f) other. Categories (a) and (b) represent

valid reasons for not being willing to pay. These responses are retained for

calculating WTP. However, responses (c)-(e) represent rejection of the basic

premise of the simulated market and are not retained for purposes of

calculating WTP. These rejections may not reflect signals about the value of

the commodity, but rather may reflect the respondent’s concerns about the

effectiveness of the program, equity of the financing, other features of the

survey, or simply the political ideology of the respondent.

The second WTP check question was asked of those individuals who

indicated they would pay the posited amount. The five categories were (a)

This program is worth at least this much to me; (b) I feel we have a duty to

protect old-growth forests; (c) to contribute to a good cause; (d) to pay my

fair share to protect old-growth forests; (e) other. Clearly, category (a) is a

valid response as this is what we are trying to measure. There has been

some debate about whether those checking off (b), (c), or (d) are really

valuing the resource or program, simply donating out of a sense of duty, or

for a “warm glow” that donating to a good cause provides (Kahnemann

and Knetsch 1992).

Finally, simple demographic questions such as age, education,

membership in environmental organizations, and income were asked. The

final survey instrument was typeset and made into a booklet containing

text and graphics.

Two Survey Versions for Hypothesis Testing

As part of the survey development process, we identified a critical

CVM design issue that could be tested: whether making explicit to the

respondent that there were many substitute public programs that needed

funding and that their limited household budget would limit the

respondent’s WTP. Both of these points were recommendations of the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Blue Ribbon

Panel on Contingent Valuation (Arrow and others 1993). To allow for

testing of whether reminding respondents that they may have to pay for

other environmental programs and that they had a limited budget, we

added the following text immediately before the WTP question in one-half

the surveys mailed: Before you vote, we would like you to keep in mind that this

fire control program would affect only old-growth forests and spotted owls in

Oregon, not other states. Also remember that about 1,000 other endangered species

in the United States need protection for their critical habitat. Additional money

will be needed for these species and other costly environmental programs such as

cleanup of abandoned hazardous waste sites and reducing air pollution. Money
6 USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996.

Reducing Fire Hazards to Old-Growth Forests Loomis, González-Cabán and Gregory

Results

you spend on the fire program would reduce the amount of money your household

will have available to spend on the other environmental problems mentioned as

well as on the everyday products you buy.

If the NOAA panel is correct, WTP—with this statement included—

will be lower than WTP elicited without the statement on substitute uses of

their money. The difference in WTP for the open-ended question can be

evaluated with a student’s t-test using the sample means and their

respective standard errors. In the case of dichotomous choice CVM, the

differences in responses can be compared by a statistical likelihood ratio

test that will be explained in more detail later.

The two versions of the questionnaire were sent to a random sample of

1,000 Oregon households during spring 1993. The sample was provided by

Survey Sampling Inc. Survey Sampling Inc. assigned households randomly

to the two treatment samples; no other selection criteria were imposed on

the sampling. The overall survey design and mailing procedure follow

Dillman’s (1978) Total Design Method (first mailing/postcard/second

mailing). Each individual was sent a personalized cover letter on Decision

Research letterhead with a personal signature. The first mailing was sent

out the first week in May, with a reminder postcard 4 business days later.

A second mailing of the survey, with a new cover letter, was sent to

nonrespondents the first week in June.

Response Rate

Table 1 provides a tally of the response rate by version and the overall

response rate. The response rates were nearly identical between versions,

50 percent for version 1 and 49 percent for version 2 (table 1). This response

rate is typical for a general population survey using a first mailing/

postcard/second mailing without any financial incentives. In addition,

Oregon residents may have become overwhelmed by all the attention to

the Northern Spotted Owl controversy, and some persons may have just

refused to devote further attention to the issue. Below, we provide two

adjustments to account for the nonresponse when generalizing the sample

results to the population.

Table 1—Response rate of survey mailing

 Variable Version 1 Version 21

Total surveys mailed 500 500

Received 220 205

Undeliverable 59 66

Deceased 2 13

Refused 9 7

Response rate (pct)2 50.11 48.69

1Following the recommendation of the NOOA Panel (Arrow and others,

1991) this version of the questionnaire included reminder that they may have

to pay for other environmental programs and that they have a limited budget. 2Response rate = Questionnaires received/(Total surveys mailed – Undeliverable – Deceased)

Sample Design
USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996. 7

Reducing Fire Hazards to Old-Growth Forests Loomis, González-Cabán and Gregory

Respondents to the two versions of the survey questionnaire are similar

in terms of education; but, as is typical in mail surveys, the educational

level of the respondents in each sample is greater than the average

educational level of residents of the State of Oregon (table 2). The two

samples are relatively close in terms of age; but again, as is typical in mail

surveys, the age of the sample exceeds the average age of the population.

The income of version-1 respondents is within 1.5 standard errors of the

income of version-2 respondents, so they are not statistically different.

Because Survey Sampling Inc. draws the majority of names from telephone

books, which are traditionally listed under the male’s name, the sample

overrepresents males.

As discussed below, only education was statistically significant in

explaining WTP responses in the dichotomous choice question format. We

also use the average level of education in the State of Oregon rather than the

sample average as one way of adjusting our estimated WTP values from the

dichotomous choice CVM to better reflect state demographics.

Why People Answered the Willingness-to-Pay Questions as They Did

Why They Would Not Pay: Protest Responses

Table 3 presents the reasons why some people in the two samples said they

would not pay anything for the fire prevention and response program. The

first two categories are not considered protest responses but, in fact, reflect

legitimate reasons for stating “no, they would not pay anything.” We

found it encouraging to see that people indicated they could not afford to

pay. This meant they took the commitment in the survey seriously.

The third through fifth categories represent what are usually classified

as protest responses. These responses are usually not considered valid

Table 3—Reasons why the subset of people would not pay

Reason Version 1 Version 2

————percent————

This program is not worth anything to me 2.3 4.4

I cannot afford to pay at this time 6.8 8.3

Subtotal 9.1 12.7

I do not think program would work1 8.2 6.8

It is unfair to expect me to pay1 4.6 6.3

I am opposed to new government programs1 17.4 11.7

Fire is natural and benefits forest 6.8 5.3

Other 3.2 3.9

Subtotal 40.2 34.0

Total2 49.3 46.7

1Usually classified as protest responses.

2Total does not add to 100 percent because not all respondents answered their respective

questions.

Table 2—Comparison of Version 1 and Version 2 demographic characteristics with Oregon’s

households

Demographic Characteristics Version 1 Version 2 Oregon1

Age (yr) 53.45 51.78 49.00

Education (yr) 14.36 14.20 13.00

Annual income ($) 35,800 39,863 32,336

Percent male 74.00 65.00 49.00

1

Source: 1990 U.S. Census
8 USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996.

Reducing Fire Hazards to Old-Growth Forests Loomis, González-Cabán and Gregory

representations of the individual’s willingness-to-pay, though they do

represent valid concerns. These concerns may include a rejection of the

basic premise of the CVM market, some feature of the scenario, other

concerns about the survey, or generalized concerns about the overall issue.

These WTP responses are normally not included when WTP is computed.

Thus, implicitly, the sample average WTP is applied to these individuals

when the sample is expanded to the population.

Overall, 40 percent of version-1 and 34 percent of version-2 responses

were considered protests. This is an unusually high protest rate; therefore,

the sample average WTP is conditioned on valid survey responses, as

described above, of the remaining 60 and 66 percent. In part, some of this

may be due to not convincing the respondent that the fire prevention and

response program would work. Respondents can perhaps be convinced in

future surveys by a better explanation of how such a program would work

and examples of how similar programs had worked in other areas.

Alternatively, these expressions may represent opinions about government

programs in general or a feeling that too much attention has been focused

on the spotted owl in Oregon. To resolve the motivations behind these

responses would take an in-person interview and is an important priority

for future research.

Table 4 presents reasons why individuals reporting positive WTP would

pay such amounts. The first category most closely matches an economic

interpretation, and 17 percent (46/266) of the people providing positive

WTP gave this reason. The next motivations, including having a duty to

protect and paying one’s fair share, reflect the majority of the respondents.

Only 7 percent indicated they would pay simply to give money to a good

cause. Further research is needed to better analyze and evaluate how these

motivations relate to both economic and psychological indicators of value.

Future work should include refinement of these categories and perhaps

linking with satisfaction gained from knowing that old-growth forests and

habitat are protected (Stevens and others 1991). In keeping with the

economic paradigm that what matters is willingness-to-pay regardless of

motivation, all positive WTP amounts and nonprotest zeros are retained in

the analysis that follows.

Statistical Analysis

A second data set for statistical analysis was created from the main data set

by removing protest responses. This section provides estimates of WTP

based on both the open-ended WTP and the dichotomous choice questions.

The empirical advantage of the dichotomous choice relates to the ease of

responding to this question format. Ease of responding is evidenced by the

Table 4—Reasons why the subset of people would pay

 Reason Version 1 Version 2

————percent———

This program is worth at least this much 10.0 11.7

I feel we have a duty to protect these 13.7 21.8

 old-growth forests

To contribute to a good cause 6.4 2.4

To pay my fair share to protect the 14.2 8.7

 old-growth forests

Other 0.9 3.4

Total1 45.2 48.0

1

Total does not sum to 100 percent because not everyone answered

his/her respective questions.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996. 9

Reducing Fire Hazards to Old-Growth Forests Loomis, González-Cabán and Gregory

fact that about 10 to 15 percent more respondents answered the

dichotomous question than the open-ended questions. Nonetheless, the

open-ended format provides more information per respondent and allows

for a simpler comparison of WTP across versions.

Table 5 summarizes the responses to the open-ended WTP question for

both versions. Two conclusions can be reached from the results in the

table. First, WTP in both versions is statistically different from zero.

Second, as will be discussed more below, the responses are not statistically

different between survey versions.

Figure 1 further illustrates the similarity of WTP responses between

the two versions of the survey and reinforces the conclusion of the point

estimates that the WTP distributions are similar. The highest dollar amount

in the open-ended WTP responses were given by active forest users who

thought fire had a very negative effect. However, each version had one bid

amount ($200 in version 1 and $250 in version 2) that appeared to be

outliers because reported income of these households was just $5,000, and

one did not visit forests.

Figure 1—Comparison of response

to the open-ended willingness-to-pay

(WTP) question for the fire prevention

and control program for old-growth

forests in CHU’s of Northern Spotted

Owl in Oregon shows no difference

between survey responses. The graph

reinforces the conclusions of the point

estimates that the distributions of

WTP dollar amounts are similar.

$0

$10$20$30$40$60$70$90

$100$110$120$130$140$150$160$170$180$190$200$300

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Responses by Version

$50$80

WTP Questions Bid Amount

version 1

version 2

Table 5—Comparison of open-ended “willingness-to-pay” (WTP) by

version

Version Mean Standard error 95 percent confidence interval

—————–—————dollars———————————

1 35.88 3.39 29.23 – 42.52

2 32.96 4.17 24.79 – 41.13
10 USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996.

Reducing Fire Hazards to Old-Growth Forests Loomis, González-Cabán and Gregory

Statistical Coefficients and Willingness-To-Pay

Mean WTP with the dichotomous choice WTP format is calculated from the

coefficients relating the yes and no response to the bid amount using

equation 2. The coefficients are typically estimated using a logistic

regression (Hanemann 1984). The logit equations for the two versions are

shown in table 6. Appendix B shows the distribution of yes/no responses by

bid amount.

The coefficients are all statistically significant at the 0.01 level as are the

overall goodness-of-fit statistics (the chi-square). The pseudo R squared,

which is also calculated by comparing the restricted and unrestricted log

likelihood, indicates that 13 percent (version 2) and 18 percent (version 1)

of the variation in responses is explained by bid amount alone.

Using equation 2, WTP is calculated for the two versions. Once again

the WTP values are quite close. As has been found in other studies (Kealy

and Turner 1993), WTP from the dichotomous choice is higher than for

open-ended questions (tables 3 and 4). Hoehn and Randall (1987) rigorously

discuss the incentives and decision process of individuals in the two

response formats. They show that the open-ended WTP response format is

likely to yield estimates of WTP below that of dichotomous choice, which is

more incentive compatible. Of course, it is possible that more conservative

open-ended results are more accurate estimates of WTP. Without asking

for actual cash payment to test the validity of the two question formats, we

cannot say definitely which is most accurate.

Results of Hypothesis Tests

Given the expectations of the NOAA panel, respondents who had received

version 2 and had been reminded about competing programs and their

own budget constraint should have produced lower WTP estimates than

those of respondents who had received version 1. However, the means of

responses to the open-ended WTP questions are similar ($33 versus $36),

and the confidence intervals overlap (table 5). Thus, there is no evidence of

a difference between responses to the open-ended WTP questions elicited

from the two versions.

In the case of dichotomous choice CVM (table 6), the estimates of WTP

are also similar across the two versions ($92 versus $98). Testing the

statistical significance of differences in dichotomous choice responses

involves performing a likelihood ratio test, which tests the equality of the

logit equation’s slope and intercept for the two survey versions. If the

Logit

Table 6—Bivariate logistic regressions by version

Variable Version 1 Version 2

Constant 1.048 1.482

 (t statistics) (3.720) (5.050)

Bid –0.015 –0.017

 (t statistics) (–3.760) (–4.540)

Log-likelihood –75.280 –73.880

Chi-square 23.309 32.917

Pseudo R squared 0.134 0.182

Mean willingness-to-pay (WTP > 0) $91.57 $98.32

Median WTP $71.28 $86.69

Results of

Hypothesis Tests
USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996. 11

Reducing Fire Hazards to Old-Growth Forests Loomis, González-Cabán and Gregory

response behavior (e.g., slope and intercepts) is the same in the two versions,

there should be no difference between the log likelihood value when the

data are pooled i.e., the coefficients in equation 1 are restricted to being

equal across the two versions) versus the sum of the separately estimated

log likelihoods (i.e., the coefficients are allowed to be different across the

two versions). The likelihood ratio test (LLR) is two times the difference in

the pooled log likelihood value and the sum of the individual log likelihood

value (–2[–149.85 – (–75.28 + –73.88)]). The test statistic has a chi-square

distribution when the coefficients are not different across versions.

The pooled log likelihood is –149.85. As reported in table 6, the

individual log likelihoods are –75.28 and –73.88. Given the fact that the

sum of the two individual log likelihoods is nearly identical to the pooled

value (–149.85 vs 149.16), it is not surprising that the LLR test for the

bivariate logit equations produces a calculated chi-square of 1.36. This is

well below the critical value at the 0.01 level of significance of 6.635. Thus

we can say that no difference was detected in the response to dichotomous

choice with the two different versions of the survey. This is consistent with

what we found with responses to the open-ended WTP questions as well.

Discussion

There are several interpretations of the similarity of WTP responses across

survey versions. The most optimistic is that respondents in a WTP

framework already take into account their budget and expenditures for

competing public and private alternatives when providing their WTP

responses. This is similar to what Boyle and others (1990) found with

regard to explicitly reminding respondents about substitute hunting

opportunities. If we continue to find this in other studies, then there may

be no need to remind respondents about competing public demands or

their budget constraint as originally recommended by the NOAA panel.

An alternative interpretation is that when dealing with any

hypothetical scenario, people do not seriously consider the real dollar

consequences of their survey responses. Thus, the budget reminder

statement does not modify behavior since the dollars to be paid in the

survey are still hypothetical. Without a validity test forcing respondents

to actually pay (Bishop and Herberlein 1979, Duffield and Patterson 1992),

we cannot definitely distinguish between these two possible explanations.

The fact that the bid amount has a negative coefficient, however, does

indicate that households were less likely to pay the higher (hypothesized)

dollar amounts.

A third interpretation is that, although participants understood the

task, the dollar values were sufficiently vague and respondents with or

without considering their own budget constraints could not distinguish a

specific value. Thus their own unfamiliarity with the valuation process

overwhelmed the finer distinction about considering their budget and

competing needs.

In this case, subjects who were not used to thinking about a fire

protection program in dollar terms may simply have been unable to

sufficiently optimize their response (this is consistent with Hoehn and

Randall [1987] for the open-ended responses), and thus the additional

reminder about their household budget and other species was not used.

Multivariate Dichotomous Choice Results

Since the LLR tests indicate similarity of dichotomous choice WTP

behavior across versions, we can safely pool the data for the two versions.

Discussion
12 USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996.

Reducing Fire Hazards to Old-Growth Forests Loomis, González-Cabán and Gregory

Doing so allows us to investigate the effect of other independent or explanatory

variables on dichotomous choice WTP responses.

Table 7 provides the coefficients and t-statistics for this multivariate

equation. As can be seen, all of the coefficients have the intuitively expected

sign and are significant at the 0.05 level or higher. The pseudo R squared is 0.31,

much higher than that in the bivariate model. The multivariate logit equation

variables are the following:

Fire Harm: A person’s perception of whether fire is harmful to diversity of

plants and animals, health of trees, muddying of salmon spawning habitat, or

Northern Spotted Owl habitat. Responses are –1 for “fire is beneficial,” 0 for

“fire has no effect,” and +1 for “fire is harmful.” Thus a score of +4 would be

“fire is harmful to all,” while a –4 would be “fire is beneficial to all.” Scores

close to zero indicate that fire has neither a positive or negative effect.

Existence Importance: The importance of knowing old-growth forests exist in Oregon.

It is measured on a 1-to-4 scale, 4 being very important and 1 being not important.

Education: The level of education in years.

Forest Recreation: A dummy variable for whether participants had visited forests

for recreation in the past 12 months; 1 if they have visited the forest, 0 if not.

Bid Amount: The dollar amount participants were asked to pay.

Income, age, and gender were not statistically significant. A statistically

significant effect was not found for income even when education was excluded

from the equation. This may be because the dollar amounts people were asked

to pay were relatively small compared to their income or because in reality,

there is no association of the response with income.

Figure 2 presents the logit curve derived from the multivariate logit model in

table 7. The distribution is relatively symmetric and well-behaved. This is

evidenced by the median (i.e., the 50th percentile) being $81 while the mean is

$90. The median of $81 allows for some people to be adversely affected by the

fire program.

Expanding the Sample to the Population: Preliminary Estimates

When applying the results from the sample to the population, one critical

concern is the external validity or generalizability of the sample values to the

population. This is partly dependent on the representativeness of the sample

frame and the survey response rate. While our sample frame was a random

sample of Oregon’s households, the response rate was a little lower than

Table 7—Multivariate logit equation for data pooled across versions

Variable Coefficient t-Statistic

Constant –3.840 –3.93

Fire harm 0.308 3.79

Existence importance 0.409 2.46

Education 0.241 3.99

Forest recreation 0.717 1.98

Bid amount –0.021 –3.94

Chi-square 102.4651

Pseudo R squared 0.3092

1

There are 5 degrees of freedom for the chi-square (Kmenta, Jan. 1986. 2nd.

ed., p. 556). He states, “Note that in general the number of degrees of freedom

of the chi-square variable is given by the number of explanatory variables in

the model.” 2

See Kmenta (1986). The computational formula is 1 – (LLFmax/LLFnull)

where LLFmax is the log likelihood function under the full model and LLFnull

is the log likelihood function under the null hypothesis (all the B’s set equal

to zero).
USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996. 13

Reducing Fire Hazards to Old-Growth Forests Loomis, González-Cabán and Gregory

desirable. Our sample had about 1.3 years more education than the

residents of the State of Oregon as a whole (table 2).

Table 8 provides a range of benefit estimates based on three approaches

to applying the sample results to the population. The first approach, sample

average, generates a WTP of $90 per household and about $99 million

annually by generalizing the sample average to the entire Oregon

population. In this approach the sample average value is applied to

nonresponding households as well. To generate a lower WTP estimate we

assume that the proportion of households not responding to the survey

holds a zero value for the fire prevention and control program. Since our

sample response rate was nearly 50 percent, this means a value per

household of $45 ($90/2) and a state aggregate value of $49.5 million

annually. Finally, a medium estimate would be obtained by replacing the

average education level of our sample, 14.3 years, with the average

education level of the State of Oregon residents, 13.0 years, in our logistic

regression equation (table 7). This procedure attempts to make the resulting

sample more representative of the State population using the only

statistically significant demographic variable. The result provides an

overall WTP estimate of $77 per household for the State of Oregon, which

translates into $84.6 million annually for the old-growth forest fire

prevention and control program.

All the above estimates should be recognized as preliminary, subject to

further refinement. These values do not include any values that households

in the other 49 states in the United States would place on reducing the risk

of wildfire in Oregon’s old-growth forest and spotted owl habitat. The

United States population has about 100 million households, and Oregon

has about 1 million households. Even if the rest of the households in the

United States hold a much lower value toward fire protection in Oregon’s

Table 8—Applying the sample’s willingness-to-pay to the State of Oregon

 90 pct confidence Mean WTP Households Total

Statistic interval per household

———millions———

Sample average $70-$111 $90 1.105 $98.920

Middle estimate $64-$96 $77 1.105 $84.588

(Adjusted for education)

Lower estimate $35-$56 $45 1.105 $49.460

(Zero for nonrespondents)

Figure 2—Oregon households’

willingness-to-pay (WTP) function for

prevention of fire in old-growth

forests.

$ 0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

$200

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.843

Probability

Annual WTP per Household

Estimated Logit Estimated Logit
14 USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996.

Reducing Fire Hazards to Old-Growth Forests Loomis, González-Cabán and Gregory

old-growth forests, the rest of the United States’ value would likely dwarf

the value held by just Oregon’s residents. Respondents were told in the

survey that the fire prevention and control program would reduce by half

the number of acres of old-growth forests that would burn each year. This

represents a reduction of 3,500 acres of old-growth forest that would no

longer burn each year. If we take the middle WTP estimate of $84.6 million

annually and divide it by 3,500 acres that would no longer burn, the

resulting value to the public per acre saved from fire is $24,170. Additional

reduction in acres burned would be valued less on a per-acre basis.

In terms of putting the values on a per-acre basis consistent with how

economic values are used in USDA Forest Service National Fire

Management Analysis System (NFMAS), we would divide the $84.6 million

by the 3 million acres of old-growth forests in protected CHU’s of Northern

Spotted Owl. This results in a value to the public of $28 per acre protected.

Overall, the survey was relatively successful in eliciting willingness-to-pay

values for protecting old-growth forests in Oregon from wildfire. The

survey did receive nearly a 50 percent response rate, and the WTP amounts

from both open-ended and dichotomous choice were statistically different

from zero. There was no difference between results from the two survey

versions, leading us to believe that individuals took their budget constraint

into account when answering WTP even without being reminded. This

does not preclude different interpretations of the findings as presented in

the section on Statistical Coefficients and WTP. The annual value per

household in the sample was $90. Depending on how this is generalized to

the State, the total annual Oregon residents’ willingness-to-pay ranges

from $49.5 to $99 million with a middle estimate of approximately $85

million annually. On a per-acre basis of old-growth forest protected from

fire, this is $28.

The absence of well-documented statements that the fire prevention

and control program would technically work may have contributed to the

relatively high protest response to the willingness-to-pay question. Even

so, many people indicated they were opposed to any new government

programs. This opposition is a difficult issue that must be dealt with in

future focus groups and survey pretesting. One possible strategy to use in

dealing with this issue would be to identify those aspects of the fire

prevention and control program that elicited this anti-government

response, and determine how the program can be differentiated from other

general government programs. Another possibility is to frame the forest

protection effort as a private, local or nonprofit (i.e., not State or Federal

government) fire prevention district or insurance program. For example,

WTP could be asked as an annual insurance premium for the fire

prevention and control program. Another more promising alternative is to

conduct in-person interviews, so that respondents are clearly focused on

the economic issue of the study.

Although demographics of the sample were similar across survey

versions, they over-represented older, better-educated, and higher-income

households. The sample also over-represented males. Only education was

statistically significant in explaining WTP in the dichotomous choice logit

regression. Therefore, in applying the result from the sample to the

population, we accounted for the difference in education level of the

sample and the State residents in our midlevel estimate of WTP. More

Conclusion and

Future Research
USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996. 15

Reducing Fire Hazards to Old-Growth Forests Loomis, González-Cabán and Gregory

representative demographics could be obtained in future surveys if the

sample frame is generated from a more expensive random-digit dialing

approach of all households.

Arrow, Kenneth; Solow, Robert; Portney, Paul; Leamer, Edward; Radner, Roy; Schuman,

Howard. 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register

58(10): 4602-4614.

Bishop, Richard; Herberlein, Thomas. 1979. Measuring values of extra market goods: are

direct measures biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61(5): 926-930.

Boyle, Kevin; Reiling, Stephen; Phillips, Marcia. 1990. Species substitution and questions

sequencing in contingent valuation surveys evaluating the hunting of several types of

wildlife. Leisure Science 12: 103-118.

Cummings, Ronald; Brookshire, David; Schulze, William. 1986. Valuing environmental goods.

Totowa, NJ: Roman and Allanheld; 270 p.

Dillman, Donald. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 325 p.

Duffield, John; Patterson, David. 1992. Field testing existence values: comparison of

hypothetical and cash transactions values. In: Rettig, Bruce, ed. Benefit and costs in natural

resource planning. Fifth Interim Report. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Department

of Agriculture and Resource Economics; 226 p.

González-Cabán, Armando. 1993. The economic impact of fire on forest resources: Improving

the U.S. Forest Service’s Fire Management Planning System capabilities to use nonmarket values. Wildfire 2(4): 16-21.

González-Cabán, Armando; Chase, Richard. 1991. Nonmarket commodities valuation problem

and its implications for the Forest Service National Fire Management Analysis Planning

System. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Fire Laboratory,

Riverside, CA. (Unpublished report).

Gregory, Robin; von Winterfeldt, Detlof. 1992. Incorporating noncommodity values in forest

fire management planning. Value Scope, Eugene, OR. (Unpublished report).

Hagen, Daniel; Vincent, James; Welle, Patrick. 1992. Benefits of preserving old-growth forests

and the Spotted Owl. Contemporary Policy Issues 10(2): 13-26.

Hanemann, Michael. 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with

discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66(3): 332-341.

Hanemann, Michael. 1989. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments

with discrete responses data: reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics

71(4): 1057-1061.

Hoehn, John; Randall, Alan. 1987. A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent

valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14(3): 226-247.

Kahnemann, David; Knetsch, Jack. 1992. Valuing public goods; the purchase of moral

satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22(1): 57-70.

Kealy, Mary Jo; Turner, Robert. 1993. A test of the equality of close-ended and open-ended

contingent valuations. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75(2): 321-331.

Kmenta, Jan. 1986. Elements of econometrics. New York: MacMillan Publishing; 655 p.

Krutilla, John. 1967. Conservation reconsidered. American Economic Review 57: 777-786.

Lockwood, Michael; Loomis, John; DeLacy, Terry. 1993. A contingent valuation survey and

benefit cost analysis of forest preservation in East Gippsland, Australia. Journal of

Environmental Management 38(3): 233-243.

Mitchell, Robert; Carson, Richard. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent

valuation method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future; 463 p.

Randall, Alan; Stoll, John. 1983. Existence value in a total valuation framework. In: Rowe,

Robert; Chestnut, Lauraine, eds. Managing air quality and scenic resources at national

parks and wilderness areas. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 314 p.

Rubin, Jonathan; Helfand, Gloria; Loomis, John. 1991. A benefit-cost analysis of the Northern

Spotted Owl. Journal of Forestry 89(12): 25-30.

Stevens, Thomas; Echeverria, Jaime; Glass, Ronald; Hager, Tim; More, Thomas. 1991.

Measuring the existence value of wildlife. Land Economics 67(4): 390-400.

U.S. Department of Interior. 1986. Natural resource damage assessments; Final rule. Federal

Register 51. Washington, DC.

U.S. District Court of Appeals (for the District of Columbia). July 14, 1989. State of Ohio v. U.S.

Department of Interior. Case No. 86-1575.

References
16 USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996.

Reducing Fire Hazards to Old-Growth Forests Loomis, González-Cabán and Gregory

U.S. Water Resources Council. 1983. Economic and environmental principles for water and

related land resources implementation studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Water Resources

Council.

Vaux, Henry; Gardner, Phillip; Mills, Thomas. 1984. Methods for assessing the impact of fire

on forest recreation. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-79. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and

Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 13 p.

Walsh, Richard; Loomis, John; Gillman, Richard. 1984. Valuing option, existence and bequest

demand for wilderness. Land Economics 60(4): 14-29.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996. 17

Reducing Fire Hazards to Old-Growth Forests Loomis, González-Cabán and Gregory

Appendix A — Survey Instrument

YOUR THOUGHTS ON OREGON’S OLD GROWTH FORESTS

Since the public’s desired uses of Oregon’s old growth forests have been changing we

would appreciate your thoughts on how these forests should be managed. Your

responses are completely confidential. Please mail the survey back in the postage

paid return envelope we provided.

In this survey the term old growth forest means natural forests composed of a variety

of trees of different ages but dominated by many large, old trees. These forests take

about 200 years to regenerate following severe fire or cutting.

THE IMPORTANCE TO YOU OF OREGON’S OLD GROWTH FORESTS

Please circle the level of importance for each reason why you might care about old

growth forests in Oregon.

Reasons you might value Not Slightly Very

Old Growth forests Important Important Important Important

To be able to visit old growth 1 2 3 4

forests in Oregon

To provide timber 1 2 3 4

To protect its plants 1 2 3 4

& wildlife

To provide jobs 1 2 3 4

To know that old growth forests 1 2 3 4

exist in Oregon

To protect the scenic beauty 1 2 3 4

of Oregon
18 USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996.

Reducing Fire Hazards to Old-Growth Forests Loomis, González-Cabán and Gregory

Appendix A — (continued)

THE EFFECT OF FIRE ON OREGON’S OLD GROWTH FORESTS

People often have differing opinions about the short term (1 to 5 years) effects of fires

on old growth forests. Some people feel that fire is harmful, while others feel fire can

have beneficial effects on old growth forests and its wildlife.

Please tell us whether you think fires have a harmful effect, no effect or a beneficial

effect on the following natural resources or uses of Oregon’s forests. Please check the

box that best reflects your feelings.

FIRE HAS...

A Harmful A Beneficial

RESOURCES/USES Effect No Effect Effect

Scenic beauty of forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @@ @

Spotted Owl habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @@ @

Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @@ @

Air quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @@ @

Soil erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @@ @

Water quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @@ @

Muddying of salmon spawning habitat . . . . . . . . . @@ @

Risk of floods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @@ @

Health of trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @@ @

Recreational enjoyment of forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . @@ @

Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @@ @

Diversity of plants and animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @@ @
USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996. 19

Reducing Fire Hazards to Old-Growth Forests Loomis, González-Cabán and Gregory

Appendix A — (continued)

OREGON’S OLD GROWTH FORESTS AND CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE

NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL

The map below shows the areas of U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management old growth

forests in Critical Habitat Units that have been set aside from logging to protect the Northern

Spotted Owl. In total this amonnts to about 3 million acres or one- third of western Oregon’s Federal

forests.

CURRENT NUMBER AND SIZE OF FIRES IN OREGON’S OLD GROWTH FORESTS

Currently, Federal forest management agencies spend several million dollars each year for fire

prevention and control in Oregon’s old growth forests. Even with this effort, an average of 300 fires

occur per year in the Critical Habitat Units shown above These fires burn about 7,000 acres of

publicly owned Critical Habitat Units. The area burned each year is e(lual to about 1,200 city blocks

or 11 square miles, equivalent to an area 2 miles wide by 5.5 miles long. About half these fires are

natural and half are caused by humans.

Many of these fires damage the old growth forests and decrease their ability to provide habitat for

species such as the Northern Spotted Owl, salmon, and steelhead Fires also reduce recreation

opportunities and scenic beauty of forests for many residents and visitors.

Spotted Owl Critical

Habitat Units in Oregon
20 USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996.

Reducing Fire Hazards to Old-Growth Forests Loomis, González-Cabán and Gregory

Appendix A — (continued)

DESCRIPTION OF FIRE PREVENTION AND CONTROL PROGRAM

Public land management agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service could reduce the number of acres

of old growth forests and Spotted Owl hahitat that burn each year in Oregon. This program involves

3 parts:

1. GREATER FIRE PREVENTION: This includes more fire patrols maintenance of existing

firebreaks surrounding these old growth forests, fire safety eductation and enforcement of

fire regulations.

2. EARLIER FIRE DETECTION: This includes more flre lookouts and fire detection airplane

flights.

3. QUICKER AND LARGER LIRE CONTROL RESPONSE: This requires having more

firefighters and equipment located closer to the old growth forests in Oregon.

Adoption of this improved fire prevention and control program would on average reduce the

number of acres of Critical Habitat Units that burn by half, a reduction of 3,500 acres a year

(from 11 square miles to 5.5 square miles) on pubicly owned old growth forests in Oregon.

PAYING FOR THE FIRE PREVENTION AND CONTROL PROGRAM

Because Oregon’s old growth forests are also Federally designated Critical Habitat Units for the

threatened Northern Spotted Owl all U.S. households would pay into a special Oregon Old Growth

Fire Control Fund. By law this fund could only be used to pay for fire protection in Federally owned

old growth forests shown on the map. Adoption of this program would he decided as part of a

national election.

YOUR CHANCE TO VOTE

1. Suppose this Oregon Old Growth Fire Prevention and Control Program proposal was on the next

ballot. This program would reduce by half the number of acres of old growth forests in Critical

Habitat Units that burn in Oregon each year. If it cost your household $________each year would

you vote for this program?

(Please circle one) a. YES b. NO

2. What is the maximum your household would pay each year for the Eire Prevention and Control

Program to reduce by half the number of acres of old growth forests in Critical Habitat Units that

burn each year in Oregon? $________

35
USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996. 21

Reducing Fire Hazards to Old-Growth Forests Loomis, González-Cabán and Gregory

Appendix A — (continued)

Answer Question #3 only if you said you would not pay anything, otherwise go to

Question #4.

3. What was the main reason you said you would pay zero?

(Please check only the most important one).

____ This program is not worth anything to me.

____ I can’t afford to pay at this time.

____ I don’t think the program would work.

____ It is unfair to expect me to pay for this program.

____ I am opposed to any new government programs.

____ Other Reasons (Please explain) ________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Please go to the top of the next page.

4. Why would you pay your amount? (Please check only the most important one).

____ This program is worth at least this much to me.

____ I feel we have a duty to protect these old growth forests.

____ To contribute to a good cause.

____ To pay my fair share to protect the old growth forests.

____ Other Reasons (Please explain) ________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________
22 USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996.

Reducing Fire Hazards to Old-Growth Forests Loomis, González-Cabán and Gregory

Appendix A (continued)

YOUR VISITS TO OREGON’S FORESTS

1. In the past 12 months have you taken any trips specifically for forest recreation

such as picnicking, hiking, camping, fishing, bird watching, hunting, etc.?

YES NO

If YES, about how many trips have you taken in the last 12 months?

@1-2 @3-4 @5-9 @10-14 @15-19 @20 or more

DEMOGRAPHICS

These last few questions will help us understand how well our sample represents the

State of Oregon. Your answers are strictly confidential and will be used only for

statistical purposes. You will not be identified in any way.

1. Are you: @male @female

2. What is your age? _____ # YEARS

3. Are you currently a member of a conservation or environmental organization?

YES NO

4. Did you make any donations or contributions for wildlife or environmental protection in

the past year? (Please Circle )

YES, if YES About how much did you donate $ ______?

NO

5. Did you vote in the last presidential election?

YES NO

6. Please circle the highest number of years of education you have completed.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Elementary Jr. High High School College or Trade Graduate or Professional

7. About how much was your household income (before taxes) in 1992?

@under $9,999 @$10,000-14,999 @$15,000-19,999

@$20,000-24,999 @$25,O0O-29,999 @$30,000-34,999

@$35,000-39,999 @$40,O00-44,999 @$45,000-49,999

@$50,O0O-59,999 @$60,O0O-69,999 @$70,0OO-79,999

@$80,OOO-89,999 @$90,000-99,0O0 @$100,000 +

THANK YOU VERY MUCH UOR COMPLETING THE SURVEY. PLEASE MAIL IT

BACK TODAY IN THE STAMPED RETURN ENVELOPE.

If you have anything you would like to tell us about forest and wildlife management in Oregon

feel free to write your suggestions on the hack of the survey
USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. 1996. 23

Reducing Fire Hazards to Old-Growth Forests Loomis, González-Cabán and Gregory

Appendix A — (continued)

Thank you for your participation!

Please add any additional comments here:

DECISION RESEARCH

1201 Oak Street

Eugene, Oregon 97401
Appendix B — Percent “Yes” responses by bid amount

for the two survey versions

Version 1 Version 2

 Bid Yes No Yes Yes No Yes

$ no. no. pct no. no. pct

 2 3 2 60.0 8 1 88.9

 5 6 2 75.0 7 1 87.5

 8 4 1 80.0 5 4 56.6

 10 5 1 80.0 8 2 80.0

 12 6 4 60.0 7 1 87.5

 15 10 0 100.0 4 1 80.0

 20 6 1 87.5 3 2 60.0

 25 0 1 00.0 2 1 66.7

 30 3 1 75.0 5 0 100.0

 35 3 2 60.0 6 0 100.0

 40 4 2 66.7 2 0 100.0

 50 3 2 60.0 4 2 66.7

 60 4 6 40.0 4 5 44.4

 70 1 10 9.1 2 5 28.6

 80 2 3 40.0 2 5 28.6

 90 3 3 50.0 4 3 57.1

120 3 0 100.0 3 4 42.9

150 1 6 14.3 3 4 42.9

200 2 2 50.0 1 7 12.5

300 0 8 00.0 0 6 00.0
The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, is responsible for Federal Leadership in forestry.

It carries out this role through four main activities:

• Protection and management of resources on 191 million acres of National Forest System lands

• Cooperation with State and local governments, forest industries, and private landowners to help protect and

manage non-Federal forest and associated range and watershed lands

• Participation with other agencies in human resource and community assistance programs to improve living

conditions in rural areas

• Research on all aspects of forestry, rangeland management, and forest resources utilization.

The Pacific Southwest Research Station

• Represents the research branch of the Forest Service in California, Hawaii, American Samoa, and the

western Pacific.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color,

national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communications

of program information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications

at (202) 720-5881 (voice) or (202) 720-7808 (TDD). To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250 or call (202) 720-7327 (voice) or (202) 720-1127.

USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer.