Response Rates 



Three thousand surveys were mailed to resident and nonresident bird hunters. Ninety seven 

 surveys were undeliverable. This left an effective sample of 2903. The sample was drawn from 

 a population of upland game bird hunters who had responded they had hunted birds that season, 

 no hunters said they had not hunted. Two thousand one hundred forty three (2143) hunters 

 returned their surveys: a response rate of seventy four (74) percent. This response rate is 

 similar to other economic valuation surveys conducted in Montana (Brooks, 1988; Duffield and 

 Neher, 1991). 



Contingent Valuation Method 



The two methods approved by the U.S. Water Resources Council (1983) for valuing outdoor 

 recreation are the travel cost method (TCM) and the contingent valuation method (CVM). The 

 contingent valuation method asks people their willingness to pay for a given good or service. 

 The method is based on the concept that a realistic yet hypothetical market situation can be 

 described to the survey respondents. This method has been used to value a variety of natural 

 resources including scenic beauty, water quality, fisheries, and wildlife. 



There are six key choices that need to be made regarding the application of a contingent 

 valuation survey according to Bishop and Heberlein (1985). They are: 1) target population, 2) 

 product definition, 3) payment vehicle, 4) question format, 5) method of analysis, and 6) 

 supplemental data. In the case of this study, the target population was licensed upland game bird 

 hunters who had indicated they had hunted birds. The product being defined was an upland 

 game bird hunting trip. The payment vehicle needs to be emotionally neutral and appropriate; 

 in this case increased trip costs associated with the bird hunting trip. 



The question format used in this study was a closed-ended dichotomous choice approach (Bishop 

 and Heberlein, 1979, Hannemann, 1984). This technique combines some of the better features 

 of the open-ended and iterative bidding approaches. In the dichotomous choice the respondent 

 is faced with a specific dollar bid and their response is a simple yes/no as in real market 

 situations. The dollar bids are chosen beforehand and are randomly varied across respondents. 



While there are advantages and disadvantages to all the techniques, the dichotomous choice 

 format provides good approximations to actual market transactions (Welsh, 1986) and lends itself 

 to mail questionnaires which are relatively inexpensive. The major disadvantage of this format 

 is the complex analysis that is necessary compared to the other approaches (open-ended and 

 iterative bidding formats). Duffield and Allen (1988) provide a detailed comparison of these 

 techniques. 



