8095

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8095
• Author: National Research Council.
• Title: Impacts of Emerging Agricultural Trends on Fish and Wildlife Habitat.
• USFW Year: 1982.
• USFW - Doc Type: Washington, D.C.
• Copyright Material: NO

8

because they can be used for research into areas such as genetics,
provide answers to many questions confronting humans, and "enhance
people's understanding of their environment" (Bailey 1981). The study
of wildlife and its habitats is also valuable "to philosophy because
wildlife ecology is the study of life and serves as one basis for
speculation on human purposes, values, ethics, and destinies" (Bailey
1981) .
Aesthetic value refers to aspects of the wildlife resource that
provide visual, intellectual, spiritual, and artistic satisfaction and
inspiration.
Three other types of values are also recognized: option,
existence, and negative values. Option value is that associated with
the knowledge that a resource is available for use sometime in the
future. An option value holder is one who is willing to pay a premium
for the assurance of future use of a resource. Existence value is
gained by someone who benefits from the knowledge that a wildlife
resource is available in an area, whether or not he or she ever uses
it. Negative values of wildlife refer to damage done to property by
wildlife, such as livestock lost to predators, or damage to crops from
foraging animals and birds, or threats to human and animal health
through the transmission of disease. Campaigns against bald eagles
and coyotes by certain property owners are an expression of negative
value as are the costs of controlling damages involved in fencing,
trapping, and patroling.
There are two stumbling blocks in the way of more explicit
quantification of wildlife habitat benefits for purposes of analyzing
their worth to society. First, explicit values for wildlife resources
are scarce because the markets that would define them seldom exist.
Second, impacts on wildlife habitat are often not a factor in many
decisionmaking processes. For example, farmers are often unable to
quantify benefits to themselves from improved habitat and for this
reason ignore wildlife when making production decisions.
The first stumbling block does not rule out decisions on the
basis of imperfect information; the result is less than desirable
levels of wildlife habitat. The second argues for public intervention
to point up public benefits of wildlife when they are more important
than the private benefits to the farmer. only limited public
intervention has occurred where private lands were involved.

MEASURING WILDLIFE AND HABITAT VALUES

LOsses of wildlife habitat because of agricultural and other
activities should be evaluated both biologically and economically to
assess the seriousness of loss, to determine ways to minimize impacts,
and to decide upon the best alternative use of the land. Methods for
making such evaluations have developed slowly because of the
complexity and expense of readily assessing the density, richness, and
dynamics of natural communities, and the difficulty of making economic
comparisons of aesthetic and non-product losses with other kinds of
loss. Recently, however, environmental protection laws coupled with