Economic benefits of publicly accessible land for ruffed grouse hunters

Journal of Wildlife Management

Volumn 77, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 1294-1300

  Knoche, Scott ^a   Lupi, Frank ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bonasa umbellus; economics; hunting; Michigan; non market valuation; public land; ruffed grouse

Indexed keywords

BIRD; ECONOMIC IMPACT; HUNTING; PUBLIC SPACE; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY; RECREATIONAL FACILITY; RECREATIONAL MANAGEMENT; SITE SELECTION; VALUATION;

MICHIGAN; UNITED STATES;

AVES; BONASA UMBELLUS; TETRAONIDAE;

EID: 84883464443     PISSN: 0022541X     EISSN: 19372817     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.589     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Adams, R. M., O. Bergland, W. N. Musser, S. L. Johnson, and, L. M. Musser,. 1989. User fees and equity issues in public hunting expenditures: the case of ring-necked pheasant in Oregon. Land Economics 65: 376-393.
2. American Automobile Association (AAA). 2008. Your driving costs. AAA Association Communication, Heathrow, Florida, USA.
3. Benson, D. E., 2001. Survey of state programs for habitat, hunting, and nongame management on private lands in the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29: 354-358.
4. Bin, O., C. E. Landry, C. L. Ellis, and, H. Vogelsong,. 2005. Some consumer surplus estimates for North Carolina beaches. Marine Resource Economics 20: 145-161.
5. Boxall, P. C., 1995. The economic value of lottery-rationed recreational hunting. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 43: 119-131.
6. Cameron, T. A., 1992. Combining contingent valuation and travel cost data for the valuation of nonmarket goods. Land Economics 68: 302-317.
7. Dessecker, D., 2006. BCR12: Boreal hardwood transition. Pages 36-39 in, D. R. Dessecker, G. W. Norman, and, S. J. Williamson, editors. Ruffed grouse conservation plan. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Resident Bird Working Group, Washington, D.C., USA.
8. Dessecker, D. R., and, D. G. McAuley,. 2001. Importance of early successional habitat to ruffed grouse and American woodcock. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29: 456-465.
9. Dhuey, B., 2008. Small game harvest 2007-08. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Science Services, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
10. Edwards, P. E. T., G. R. Parsons, and, K. H. Myers,. 2011. The economic value of viewing migratory shorebirds on the Delaware Bay: an application of the single site travel cost model using on-site data. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 16: 435-444.
11. English, D. B. K., and, J. M. Bowker,. 1996. Sensitivity of whitewater rafting consumers surplus to pecuniary travel cost specifications. Journal of Environmental Management 47: 79-91.
12. Frawley, B. J., 2006. Demographics, recruitment, and retention of Michigan hunters: 2005 update. Wildlife Division Report 3462. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Michigan, USA.
13. Frawley, B. J., 2008. 2007 small game harvest survey. Wildlife Division Report 3493. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Michigan, USA.
14. Frawley, B. J., 2012. 2009 small game harvest survey. Wildlife Division Report 3541. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Michigan, USA.
15. Frawley, B. J., and, B. A. Rudolph,. 2008. 2006 Deer hunter opinion survey. Wildlife Division Report 3482. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Michigan, USA.
16. Frawley, V. R., and, C. A. Stewart,. 2009. Ruffed grouse and American woodcock status in Michigan, 2009. Wildlife Division Report 3504. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Michigan, USA.
17. Freeman, A. R., 1993. The measure of environmental and resource values. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., USA.
18. Fried, B. M., R. M. Adams, R. P. Berrens, and, O. Bergland,. 1995. Willingness to pay for a change in elk hunting quality. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23: 680-686.
19. Grijalva, T. C., R. P. Berrens, A. K. Bohara, P. Jakus, and, W. D. Shaw,. 2002. Valuing the loss of rock climbing access in wilderness areas: a national-level, random-utility model. Land Economics 78: 103-120.
20. Haab, T., and, K. McConnell,. 2002. Valuing environmental and natural resources: econometrics of non-market valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, United Kingdom.
21. Hansen, L., P. Feather, and, D. Shank,. 1999. Valuation of agriculture's multi-site environmental impacts: an application to pheasant hunting. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 2: 199-207.
22. Helland, J., 2006. Walk-in hunting programs in other states. Minnesota House of Representatives Research Department, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.
23. Kahn, M. E., 1998. A household level environmental kuznets curve. Economics Letters 59: 269-273.
24. Kotchen, M., M. Moore, F. Lupi, and, E. Rutherford,. 2006. Environmental constraints on hydro-power: an ex-post benefit-cost analysis of dam relicensing. Land Economics 82: 384-403.
25. Knoche, S., and, F. Lupi,. 2007. Valuing deer hunting ecosystem services from farm landscapes. Ecological Economics 64: 313-320.
26. Knoche, S., and, F. Lupi,. 2012. The economic value of publicly accessible deer hunting land. Journal of Wildlife Management 76: 462-470.
27. Layman, R. C., J. R. Boyce, and, K. R. Criddle,. 1996. Economic valuation of the chinook salmon sport fishery of the Gulkana River, Alaska, under current and alternative management plans. Land Economics 72: 113-128.
28. Lupi, F., J. Hoehn, and, G. Christie,. 2003. Using an economic model of recreational fishing to evaluate benefits of sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) control. Journal of Great Lakes Research 29: 742-754.
29. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2009. Michigan 2008-2009 Upland Game Harvest Report. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, Lansing, MI, USA.
30. Parsons, G. R., 2003. The travel cost model. Pages. 427-440 in, P. A. Champ, K. J. Boyle, and, T. C. Brown, editors. A primer on nonmarket valuation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
31. Remington, T. E., M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, and, S. M. Demasso,. 1996. Fee hunting pheasants in Colorado: experimental evidence. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1: 51-59.
32. Rusch, D. H., J. R. Cary, and, L. B. Keith,. 1999. Pattern and process in ruffed grouse cycles. Proceedings of Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference 61: 238.
33. Sarker, R., and, Y. Surry,. 1998. Economic value of big game hunting: the case of moose hunting in Ontario. Journal of Forest Economics 4: 29-60.
34. Schwabe, K. A., P. W. Schuhmann, R. Boyd, and, K. Dooridian,. 2001. The value of changes in deer season length: an application of the nested multinomial logit model. Journal of Environmental and Resource Economics 19: 131-147.
35. Shulstad, R. N., and, H. H. Stoevener,. 1978. The effects of mercury contamination in pheasants on the value of pheasant hunting in Oregon. Land Economics 54: 39-48.
36. Southwick Associates. 2007. State and national economic effects of fishing, hunting and wildlife-related recreation on U.S. Forest Service-managed lands. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C., USA.
37. Stewart, C. A., M. Donovan, and, V. R. Frawley,. 2006. BCR 23: Prairie hardwood transition. Pages 56-59 in, D. R. Dessecker, G. W. Norman, and, S. J. Williamson, editors. Ruffed grouse conservation plan. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Resident Bird Working Group, Washington, D.C., USA.
38. U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. 2009. National visitor use monitoring results: Huron-Manistee National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Washington, D.C., USA.
39. U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. 2012. Record of decision: final supplemental environmental impact statement. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
40. U.S. Department of the Interior [USDOI]. 2006. National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation-Michigan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA.
41. U.S. Department of the Interior [USDOI]. 2011. National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA.