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

12

causal variables. Cocheba and Langford (1978) related the willingness
to pay for waterfowl hunting to the number of waterfowl shot and
bagged, and the number of shots missed. Capel and pandey (1973)
expressed willingness to pay for deer hunting in terms of total number
of days spent hunting in a season, expenditures for hunting in a
season, and hunter's residence. Their results showed that the more
often a hunter uses a site, the less he or she is willing to pay per
day, and that hunters who spend more during the season to hunt at a
specific site are more willing to pay more per day.
Comparisons in both the Capel and pandey (1973) study and the
Davis (1963) study of travel cost and interview methods reveal similar
results for the two valuation techniques. In any event, we need
further research in the application of these techniques, in the
refinement of variables measuring the quality of experiences related
to wildlife resources, and in ways of incorporating more wildlife
resource values, such as option and existence values.

ALTERNATIVES FOR MAINTAINING HABITAT

Although the discussion of the optimal mix of agriculture and wildlife
was based on the assumption that the most efficient or cost-effective
means of attaining improvements would be used, there are a number of
alternative approaches to providing wildlife habitat when government
intervention is deemed necessary. It is not the purpose of this
section, however, to provide a comprehensive accounting of these
alternatives or even to suggest the most appropriate ones.
There are two general categories of policy approaches: direct
public intervention and incentive schemes for private action. One
form of direct intervention involves restrictions on hectares of
cropland, on land that could be used for cropland, or on agricultural
exports. These restrictions would leave more land available for
varied wildlife habitat and could change the nature of cultural
practices. Another form of direct intervention would restrict
cropping and livestock practices. Reduced tillage and grazing
intensity would improve habitat but likely at the expense of
agricultural output. Finally, the public sector could intensify
wildlife management on public lands and acquire more public lands to
compensate for deterioration in quantity or quality of habitat on
private lands.
The incentive approach for improved habitat on private lands
could be used for wildlife farming per se or for joint production of
agricultural products and wildlife through modified management of
existing agricultural land. Recent research lends support to the
incentive approach (Burger and Teer 1981).
Finally, more research is needed on the trade-offs between
intensively managed habitat on a limited land base and limited
management on a vast land base. It is conceivable that a larger
supply of wildlife habitat may result from management at the intensive
rather than the extensive margin. These factors require careful
scrutiny as impacts on habitat are considered.