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

10

to habitat evaluation involving qualitative assessments of the
suitability of a habitat for each relevant species. The process
involves mapping, use of selected species as indicators, trial runs in
sample areas, and, ultimately, the calculation of a suitability index
from 0 to 1.0 for each characteristic of the habitat. Considerable
qualitative judgment is involved based on the experience and knowledge
of the evaluator.
The Lower Mississippi River Division of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers is developing another system called the Habitat Evaluation
System (HES). While it is not yet in operation, it will be
ecosystem-oriented and perhaps more comprehensive in the way it
appraises such natural processes as succession. whitaker and McCuen
(1976), Thomas et al. (1976), and Lines and Perry (1978) have
developed other systems tailored to special local or regional tasks.
These systems, when perfected, will be useable by different
researchers and agencies. The methods will be comparable, and it will
be possible to compare the data they generate on habitat evaluation,
impact assessment, and long-range planning for wildlife resources.
still further agreement on methodology needs to emerge from these
experimental approaches, however, so that quantification and modeling
feasibility can be improved.

ECONOMIC VALUATION METHODS

A number of valuation methods designed to measure recreational values
are applicable to values of wildlife resources even though some of
them have serious shortcomings. Such methods of evaluation include
the direct expenditures method, market value of harvested game, cost
approach, unit day value method, and the willingness-to-pay techniques.
The direct expenditures method seeks to value wildlife activities
on the basis of the total amount spent by participants in
wildlife-related activities. usually a questionnaire is mailed to.a
randomly selected population to elicit information on dollars spent on
wildlife resource activities, such as food, lodging, travel,
equipment, and license fees. The method is based on the assumption
that the value of wildlife-related activity is equal to or greater
than the amount spent in the enjoyment of the activity. Nobe and
Gilbert (1970) used this approach to estimate the economic value of
hunting and fishing in colorado, which they concluded had amounted to
$250 million in 1968.
A major criticism of this approach is that it measures gross
value instead of a net increase in value added by increases in the
opportunity to enjoy wildlife resources, or conversely, the added
costs of declining opportunities (Davis 1963).
Another technique estimates the value of activities related to
the wildlife resource by using the ma~ket value of the harvested
game. For example, it is argued that the measure of the value of
fishing is the market value of the fish caught. The method fails to
assess the wide range of benefits associated with activities related
to wildlife and assumes that the sole benefit of the activity is