amount must be excluded as their response does not meet the 

 constraints of economic theory. Ability to pay was determined by 

 first calculating the percentage of their income which 

 respondents were willing to spend on waterfowl hunting. This was 

 done as follows: 



PERCENT - ( (TOTALS BID)* TRIPS) ( ,, 



INCOME 



Where: 



TOTAL = The amount they reported spending on their most recent 



trip. 

 BID = The dollar bid level asked. 

 TRIPS = The number of separate waterfowl hunting trips they 



reported taking this season. 

 INCOME= Their reported annual income. 



This percentage statistic was calculated for the first CVM 

 question. As an initial measure all respondents with a 

 percentage figure greater than 1 were excluded since this group 

 most obviously lacks the ability to pay. The percentages for the 

 remaining respondents were then tabulated. Since the 

 distribution of the calculated variable PERCENT was somewhat 

 skewed rather than distributed normally a three standard 

 deviation confidence interval was placed around the calculated 

 mean in order to determine the cutoff limit for outlier 

 exclusion. In total, 17 observations were eliminated from the 

 following economic analysis due to a reported willingness to pay 

 which exceeded the cutoff limits. 



The second group of respondents who were excluded from the 

 analysis were those whose responses reflected a "protest" to some 

 aspect of the simulated market. The U.S. Water Resources Council 

 has suggested that a followup question be asked to each CVM 

 question. In this survey that question was : "If no, would you 

 have made the trip if your share of the expenses had been only $1 

 more? Following the "No" response to this question was: "if no, 

 could you briefly explain why not." The responses to these 

 questions were analyzed to develop categories of reasons for 

 responding with a "No". Those hunters who indicated a valid 

 reason for their zero willingness to pay were left in the sample. 

 These valid reasons included: 



* Respondents who could not afford a higher trip cost. 



* Respondents saying they would hunt elsewhere if faced with 

 increased trip costs. 



* Respondents who indicated that the trip would just not 

 be worth any more money. 



22 



