.+
Environment Canada
Environnement Canada
Fisheries
and Marine Service
Service des peches
et des sciences de la mer
A Comparison of
Direct Q'uestioning Methods for
Obtaining Dollar Values for
Public Recreation and Preservation
\
I
By
Philip A. Meyer
Technical Report Series No. PAC/T-75-6
Southern Operations Branch
Pacific Region
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study would not have been possible without
the skilled participation of my three interviewers,
Nancy Chamberlain, Lloyd Nakagawa, and Richard Brown.
I am also indebted to Richard C. Bryan, Gerald J. Mos,
and John A. Burns for comments on earlier drafts.
David stevens,
assisted materially with programing and data analysis.
This
study was first presented to "A Symposium to Investigate
Resource Related Recreation Evaluation", sponsored by the
California Department of Fish and Game in March, 1975.
P,A. Meyer
bEPT, OF
THE ENVIRONMEN'j
FI3HERIES OPEf,Ai IONS
PACIFIC REGIONAL. LlBRAFN
1090 W. PENDER ST,
VANCOUVER, B. C. V6E 2Pl.
A Comparison of Direct Questioning Methods of Obtaining
Dollar Values for Public Recreation and Preservation
A
Introduction
The task of evaluating pUblic goods, side by side with market
determined values, has long posed a problem to economic analysis.
Many
methods have been attempted, and several methods - noteably, "travel cost",
"transfer cost", "what would you pay" and "what would I have to pay you",
1
have developed some degree of use and acceptability.
This study originated
in 1969 in response to the need to provide a statement on recreation and
preservation values associated with the salmon of British Columbia's
Fraser River.
Due to a particular configuration of resident population at close
quarters with recreation sites, indirect methods such as travel cost, and
transfer cost were ruled out, and it became evident at an early date that
some sort of direct questioning technique would have to be used.
The
"what would you pay", and "what would I have to pay you" approaches were
also considered inappropriate for reasons that will be discussed in following
sections.
Eventually, a "community decision making" method of direct
questioning was developed, and a study, based upon that approach, completed
2
in 1974.
During development of the community decision making approach, it
was recognized that notWithstanding its intuitive acceptability to decision
makers, it would be highly desirable to determine the relationship between
answers obtained by this method, and by more traditional methods of direct
questioning.
Accordingly, a study was undertaken in 1973, in which four
direct questions were field tested and compared.
These included the two
traditional questions of "what'would you pay" and "what would I have to pay
you", the
1
2
tT
communi ty decision making" question referred ·to above, and an
For a descriptive summary of these methods see: A Report to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on Workshops in Fishery Economics at Moscow, Idaho
and Madison, Wisconsin (University of Idaho; 1973), pp. 14-46.
Philip A. Meyer, Recreation and Preservation Values Associated With the
Salmon of the Fraser River, Information Report Series No. PAC/N-74-1,
Environment Canada, Fisheries and Marine Service, Vancouver, 1974.
- 2 -
"award of damage" question that was also of· interest.
3
The results
obtained from that testing are the subject of the present report.
B The Questions - Alternative Approaches
1.
What would you pay?
The question most often asked of respondents in direct questioning
is "what would you pay" for a particular public good or service.
At the
intuitive level, this approach has appeal, for it promises a treatment
equivalent to that pertaining in the private market.
In fact, however,
the author suspects that it is not an accurate gauge of full value, at
least in the British Columbia context.
When a respondent is asked
"what would you pay", he implicitly considers "existing institutional
arrangements", in framing his response.
In British Columbia, where property
rights in recreation are, for the greatest part, publicly vested, and the
recreation associated therewith, supplied to users at zero or nominal
explicit cost, it would follow that the respondent's answer would reflect
4
this institutional adjustment of implicit price.
Such an adjustment
could be expected to focus in two possible areas:
a) the amount of taxes the respondent considers he already pays
for the particular recreational opportunity.
b) the opportunity cost the respondent considers he (and/or society)
is already paying to maintain the particular recreational
opportunity.
This is often the basis of a "birthright argument"
against explicit pricing.
It is the author's belief that given a respondent's evaluation of
a particular recreational product - and his awareness of eXisting institutional
costs - his willingness to make explicit payments will be less, the greater
his product associated taxes and opportunity cost.
3
4
5
5
It is not suggested that
The "award of damage" approach was suggested by Gardner S. Brown, University
of Washington.
For further evidence that may support the institutional preoccupation of
respondents, see: Stephen B. Mathews, and Gardener S. Brown, Economic
Evaluation of the 1967 Sport Salmon Fisheries of Washington. Technical
Report No.2. Washington Department of Fisheries (1970), esp. P. 9,
footnote (1)
The role of taxes in responses evaluating public goods has been discussed in
Peter Bohm, 1971, "An Approach to the Problem of Estimating Demand for Public
Goods" The Swedish Journal of Economics, LXXIII (March, 1971), pp. 55-66.
- 3 -
a respondent answering a "what would you pay" question makes such calculations
explicitly, or accurately.
But it is contended that only in the case where
such considerations are totally ignored, will the "what would you pay"
approach yield a full value response.
This latter occurrence is considered
highly unlikely.
Finally, it has long been recognized that it is in a respondent's
interest to strategically adjust his answer depending upon his estimate of
the context in which the question is being asked.
adjustment is variable.
6
The direction of such
However, if the respondent believes that a fee
structure is actually being discussed and that there is room for negotiation
(a reasonable assumption in the author's view) he can be expected to start
low in response to the question under discussion.
Thus, the author believes
that within the context of recreational evaluation in British Columbia, the
question "what would you pay" will serve to provide a proximate indication
for development of a pricing strategy, but will provide a-significant underestimate of the total value to the respondent (and/or society) of the particular
recreational product under examination.
The first component of our hypothesis
will be that this question can be expected to yield the lowest value among
those to be tested.
2.
What would I have to pay you?
It is generally held that when a decision is required on whether
the public should give up a previously held recreational asset, the appropriate
question to ask is not, "what would you pay" to l<eep it, but, "what would I
have to pay you" to give it up?
Further, while downward adjustment is expected
in "what would you pay" responses, it is likely that a respondent to the latter
question would consider that he need be reimbursed not only for the explicit
"
" he associates wlth
ee f
value
the resource, but also for any time and
opportunity cost he associates with the product - for presumably he is being
asked about his exclusion, not about a change in priorities and recreational
products for society as a whole.
Secondly - and analogously to the previous section - to the degree
that the respondent believes the question to be real, and considers it the
first step in negotiation, he can be expected to "start" his answer high.
6
For a discussion of this point, see: Ri chard A. Musgrove, :.T;:h:::e-::T:.h:.:e:.:o:.:r"y,-,o:..:fc....;Pu;..c:.b;;.l;;.i_C
Finance (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959), PP. 79-80.
- 4 -
In summary then, it is expected that tendering the "what would I
have to pay you" question will elicit a response that is approximate of the
total value placed on the recreational product by respondents in British
Columbia, but that answers will tend to be somewhat high due to the
gamesmanship noted in the previous paragraph.
The second component of
our hypothesis will be that the "what would I have to pay you" question
will yield a value significantly higher than the "what would you pay question".
3.
The Community Decision Making Question
This was the approach used in the empirical stUdy of recreational
and preservation values for Fraser River salmon noted earlier.
7
In an attempt
,to place evaluation of pUblic good oriented recreation directly within the
context of community decision making, respondents were provided with information
on local (municipal) government expenditures for major governmental service
categories, expressed in dollars per household.
The following question was
the posed in the present study:
"Just as these services are provided to the community by local
government, so other services or if you prefer ttopportunities"
are provided by the salt water environment of the greater Victoria
area.
Some of the opportunities are recreational; others are more
aesthetic or environmental.
listed below.
A number of these opportunities are
For each opportunity please place your assessment
of its value in the appropriate space.
You should refer to the
allocation of city expenditures on the previous page as a reference,
point.
You may place any value you feel appropriate in the spaces
provided".8
The objectives of this approach were twofold; first, to focus the
respondent's attention on the public components of value, and second, to
hopefully depersonalize the question to a point where the gamesmanship in
response, alluded to earlier, would be minimized.
In this way, it was hoped
that a response approximating total value, but eliminating much of the
potential for upward bias associated with the "what would I have to pay you"
approach would result.
The third component of our hypothesis for the present
study will be that answers to the community decision making question will fall
between those to the two questions posed previously, but that they will be
considerably closer to the "what would I have to pay you" question than to
the "what would you pay" question.
7 Philip A. Meyer, loco cit.
8 This was only part of the actual question presentation.
see page (9).
For the full presentation,
- 5 -
4,
The Judicial Award of Damages Question
This question was posed as a variant of the community decision
(social justice) approach,
As with the previously described question, it
also seemed to offer a hope of reduced gamesmanship through depersonalisation
of response,
The author had little intuitive feel for this approach, and
was unaware of any empirical application,
A tentative hypothesis was
advanced that this approach should also generate response between the "what
would you pay", and "what would I have to pay you" questions, and possibly
be similar in result to the community decision making question,
C The Study Design
The study area selected was composed of the Victoria municipalities
of Victoria City, Oak Bay, and Esquimalt,
This area was selected because no
similar study involving any of the techniqUes listed above had been conducted
there recently, because it was bordered by a marine environment, because it
possessed a relatively dense population and because it was geographically
fairly compact.
The survey area is indicated in Figure I,
The recreational products presented to the respondent were as follows:
Swimming
Boating
Fishing (for salt water fish)
Viewing and other recreation (picnicking, hiking, etc,) next to water
Preservation of environmental resources.
It will be observed that products presented were defined extremely
generally,
This represented a conscious design decision,
that two broad design choices were possible,
It was considered
First, it would be possible to
define recreational product very narrowly and specifically,
Given the
limitations of study bUdget and time; it was felt that such a procedure would
likely produce realistic numerical results - but that the level of non-response
would be positively related to the degree of specificity of identified activity
product.
In Victoria, a community with many retired people, this problem would
likely be accentuated, - with resultant major problems of study logistics and
"response bias lt possible consequences.
Alternatively, it was felt if recreational
product was defined very generally, it would facilitate identification by most
potential respondents.
On the other hand, such generality of product definition
was also considered likely to contribute to responses that would be higher and
more diffuse than would have been obtained from a questionnaire designed to
obtain actual value levels. 9 As the study objective was to assess the "relativity"
9
See, for instance, Philip A. Meyer, loc, cit,
FIGURE I
,.
/
,
I
~
-,
-......-- _
_---
.- .. -
------~L
------,
l
OAK BAY
'
\
I
I,
1--
1
i
,
I
.
'
L-_-j
I
VICTO R IA
I,
I
I
!
I
!
I
\_J
Juan de Fuca Strait
- 6 -
of the four methods tested, not to develop hard numhers for actual use, it
was decided to choose the second alternative, and to define recreation
product very generally. A list of names waS generated from the Greater
10
Victoria phone book
using a random number generating method. A letter
was then mailed alerting respondents that they might be contacted for
interview.
Potential respondents were then telephoned, informed in general
terms of the program, and asked if they would consent to be interviewed in
their home four times for a maximum of 30 minutes per interview, over a
period of four months.
arranged.
If they agreed, an interview schedule was then
Again, as the study objective dealt with relative, not actual
values, persons replying negatively were not further considered.
The design objective was to interview 300 people, 4 times at even
intervals over the four month period, May -through August, 1973.
response was permitted per household.
Only one
To guard against interviewer bias,
each respondent saw only a single interviewer for all four questions.
Questions were asked in the following sequence:
1.
The community decision making question.
2.
What would you pay?·
3.
The judicial award of damages question.
4.
What would I have to pay yoU?
Each question was selected as the initial one to be asked in the
sequence for one quarter of the sample to allow for bias associated with
"learning" or "conditioningll from prior interviews in the sequence.
II
Thus,
the study was designed to produce 75 questions of each type in each of the
sequential positions, "firstll through "fourth".
Three interviewers were used,
and a close control over uniformity of approach was maintained.
10
11
For a comment on the problems involved in this method of sampling in
British Columbia, see Gerard S. Mos and Mary C. Harrison, Resident
Boating in Georgia Strait, Technical Report Series No. PAC/T-74-5,
Environment Canada, Fisheries and Marine Service, (Vancouver, 1974),
pp. 59-60.
To the degree that rates of conditioning differed between questions, such
a design would not, of course, eliminate all bias. There is no evident
conceptual or empirical basis upon which to assume such differential rates,
however.
- 7 -
D The Questionnaire
1.
Introductory Portion
The first page of the questionnaire was uniform between questions
and is reproduced below.
qu~S1'lOllWlIRE 1/
ThiS QueationnnirG 18 concerned with soli: U'BtC!ll' racrlQnU(ln
loonll, RlJnUnbl0 to the peQplo of th~ Greater Victoria
nron. This inoludes G-ny lOiQotion thet ~rson8 can "htt
and retu111. froll! in the fla1llo8 do)'.
Juan de Fuca Strait
- 8 -
There then followed a biographical "warmup" page that was
presented with the first question asked.
It is also presented below.
Please complete the follOWing questions.
Will asdst y,,,, in Bny way possible,
Tile Interview",'
All information yo,l glvo
w111 be kept strictly confidontial to this survey.
1.
Number in household (plesso circle):
2.
(0) RespOltdent's nge:
19
50 _ 59
20 _ 29
GO _ 69
10
~
30 _ 39
40 - 49
(I»
Sex'
Male
Felnsl"
(c) lIow long h,,"" you lived 1n the Grester Vleoti" uroll?
(d) Why did yon move hero?
(please check)
Climate
Ileerestiol\n!
Opportunities
1I""lth
Other (specify)
'el
Vee .. ly 1n<11v1d"81 income (plesse check):
o -
999
1,000 - 4,999
5,000 - 9,999
10,000 -14,999
15,000 -19,999
20,000 - ovor
- 9 -
2.
The "Community Decision Making" Question
The Conununity decision making question was presented on two pages.
Their reproduction follows:
QUESTIONNHlm # 1
The following list shows tho value of the goode sud
florV10ea pul"oh"aed by your groate .. Victoria government (Viotorin,
Eet!.ull11elt, Oak Boy).
Thol' are preaonted as dollare per household,
In a sonao, these figur09 depict the relotiV9 value in llxcheugo
of thes" lIervicoe in tho oommunity,
Groater Viotoria Area
D"lhre POl'
U"ua"holcl
Areae of Expenditure
Education
226.10
com""mity IIOrv10"" aueh 110
p"rk", recreation prcgra,"e,
11brarios, oonununlty contere, ..to.
81.71
Trnnllportat!on ""..vices
59,8<1
GShernl gov..rnment (executive,
lOll:lal"ttve, ndllllnletrotlve)
59,68
Sanitation 80 Waste nemoval
~8,9~
assist"n~.. (~ ..
Seeial
r"
of ag.. d
148,44
and blind, childr..n's aid, .. to.)
Fire Protoctioll
48,31
Protection te Parsolls " Property
(blinding inst>aotora, coron..r,
pelioa, .. tc,)
Pllbl1~
90,84
!{aalth "Hospital Car..
23.38
(Medical, dontal, alliod servio.. a)
Just a9 thes .. sel'vices Bra pl'Ovided to the cOffilJlunlty by
lecal governmont, so other "services" 01' i f you prof ..r "opportunities",
are p,'ovlded by the salt water environment of thl> gr ..ater Vietorh
area.
80me of the opportunities are roel'eat'onal; others al'" more
...sthetie or envirOllmental,
l1sted boloII'.
A nUJllber of these opportunities are
For eseh opportunity please place your nBaeaament
of its value in the appropriate spaoe.
Vou shOUld refer to the
allocation of city expenditures cn the previ01lS psge as a reference
point.
Vou may plac.. any valu.. you feel appropriate in th .. apacas
providod.
Groater Victoria Area
(a)
8wimming
(b)
Bosting
(c)
Fishing (for salt wster fi .. h)
(d)
Viewing and oth .. r reereation
(pionieking, hiking, etc.)
next GC wat ..r
( .. )
Some peopl....ssociate a value with
"!1Vircnmental resources even though
they don't expect to "uso" them,
simply bllea" ..e they feel they shOUld
be pre ....rved.
Piease place any value
that you assoclote with "prosl>l'vaUon"
below,
pI'"servaUon vahl9
Vour Annual Values
Pcr Household
-10 -
3.
The "What Would You Pay" Question
The what would you pay question required a single page, and follows:
What would you pay to guarante" tllat the recreational
opportunities li"t,,<1 bolow would bn available for your lise ill
til" coming year?
Gronter Victoria "'rea
Your "nmwi value
per household
(n)
Swimming
(ll)
Boating
(e)
Fi"hing
(d)
Viewing and otller recreatio"
(picnicking, hiking, oto.)
next to the water
Total
(el
Some people assocIate a value witll
ellvll'(mmental ,."nources OV,," though
they may not "xpect to "use" thorn,
simply becanae they feel thoy ah<>uld
be "P"O"01'vo<1".
Please place any value
that you would prafor on "preservation",
rcgardlosa or Uao below,
Preservation VDlue
4.
The Judicial Award of Damages Question
This question likewise required one page.
rf yOIl were a judge in a cottrt, an,l !lomeone had been arbitrarily
excluded from Ute activities Hsted below for one y"sr, what dOllar
damag"s would you award him or her?
Greate,' Victoria Ares
Your Annual Award
(in dollars)
(a)
Swimming
(b)
(looting
(c)
Fishing
(d)
Viewing and otber recreation
(picnicking, hikillg, etc,)
next to the water
Total
(e)
Some psople asaod"te a value with
environmont"l reeO\1r""$,
Even though thoy
don't eX'Pe"t to "usa" them, simply bocause
tboy feel they sho\lld be 'Prea"rvod,
If you would aW8rd allY damagea ave .. end
abovo those connected with use, 'Put them
in the spa"e pI'ovidod,
Its reproduction follows:
- 11 -
5.
The "What Would I have to Pay You" Question
The'what would I have to pay you" question was presented as reproduced
below.
What would you have to be paid to agree not to porticlpat" in
ench of tho activities listod over tho comillfl' yoar (for n full
ye"r) .
flreat" .. Victoria Al'eo
Your Fee
(in dollars)
(a)
SWh,ming
(b)
Dqat1ng
Cd
I'lahing
(cO
Viowing and other r"" ..<Jation
(pl<micking, hiking "te.) next
to the water
Total
(e)
80me peoplc assodato " value
with environmental
resOll~008
ove"
thO\,gh theY don' t expect to "us,,"
them, simply because thoy feel
they should bo pl'ea"rvod.
I f you
are one, what annu,..l payment would
you accept to agre" to, for the permanent
loss of those r"ere.tional opportunities.
E.
The Interview
Interviews generally lasted from ten to thirty minutes.
The first
question asked in the sequence usually gave the greatest difficulty, with
initial reactions such as llHow can you put a dollar value on recreation" not
uncommon,
The second question asked (in sequence) usually required significant,
although lessened effort from respondents.
The third and fourth questions in
the sequence were handled much more easily by respondents, as they became
progressively more familiar with the concept of monetizing public recreational
values, and interview time required for third and fourth visits declined
appreciably.
This observation raised the possibility that some of the difficulty
encountered in direct questioning techniques in the field of public good
evaluation might be associated with Ilnoveltyll of the valuing concept itself,
and consequently that these difficulties might be diminished by appropriate
neutral pre-conditioning of respondents.
Pursuit of this question is,
however, beyond the scope of the present analysis.
In terms of the actual questions used, interviewers noted that they
found the "what would you pay" approach and the "what would I have to pay you"
- 12 approach the easiest to communicate, with the "community decision making"
approach requiring somewhat more effort on their part.
They noted that the
"judicial award of damages" question gave respondents the most difficulty.
In retrospect, this latter conclusion was likely affected by the very general
product definitions used and by the fact that in Canada, judicial process is
utilized to a lesser degree in allocative decisions involving natural resources
12
than in, for instance, the'United States.
It is the author's belief that
this question would have been more easily received if it was applied in an
area where jUdicial process is more prevalent, and if it dealt with a more
narrowly defined product.
F.
Survey Results
1.
Total Activity Values
In analyzing the data, it was decided to focus first upon aggregated
total activity values, and then on the preservation value for each question,
and to test hypotheses on that basis.
An editing procedure, coding any value
over $100,000 as $99,999 was utilized.
This affected 18 responses.
The survey
results, by question, for aggregated total activity values follow (Table 1).
In observing these responses, it should again be recalled that the purpose of
this study is to assess relativity, not to develop absolute product values.
As noted earlier, the generality of product identification has undoubtedly
inflated general response levels.
Table 1
Survey Results - Aggregated Total Activity Values - By Question
Number
Sampled
Question
Mean
Value
95 percent
Confidence Limits
$
Community Decision Making
302
$
11,833
+
4,793
993
You Pay
302
1,099
+
Judicial Award
302
11,683
+
-
5,559
20,961
+
6,028
Pay You
302
It can immediately be observed that these results seem to confirm
the general expectations hypothesized in Section B:
namely, that the "what
would you pay" question would yield the lowest response; that the "what would
12
Respondents found it difficult to believe that anyone could really be
deprived of his right to enjoy the ocean, and further, found it difficult
to cope with all the variables that might underlie a judicial decision.
- 13 1 have to pay you" question would result in·the highest response, and that
the conununity decision making approach and the judIcial award approach would
fall between these values, but closer to the "what would I have to pay you"
level.
Not withstanding this intuitive observation, it is necessary to
test whether these resultant differences are statistically significant.
Posing the null hypothesis that they are not, associated F values can be
calculated and the null hypothesis rejected for any F value greater than
3.84 at the 95 percent confidence level.
Table II, provides a matrix of
results with F values in the upper right hand portion, and resultant decisions
with regard to the null hypothesis in the lower left hand portion.
Table I I
Decision Matrix - Testing the Null Hypothesis that "Responses to the Questions
Posed are not Significantly Different"
CommunIty
You Pay
JudIcial
Award
18.476
.002
5.396
13.492
40.604
Decision
QuestIon
Pay
You
Making
Communi ty Devision Making
You Pay
Different
Judicial Award
Not
Different
Different
Pay You
Different
Different Different
4.918
It can therefore be concluded that survey results based on unweighted
data substant'ate the general hypothesis developed in Section B,13
13
Because a physical examination of the data shows it to be positively
skewed, a question as to the appropriate "power" of test of significance
arises. With this in mind, significance of results was also treated
non-parametrically. No change in conclusion resulted,
- 14 2.
Total Activity Values - Weighted Data
Due to some respondents unexpectedly leaving town, encountering
emergencies, and bei.ng otherwise affected by the type of unforeseen happenings
that ineVitably occur over a four month period, it was not possible to obtain
a perfect fit to study design.
four questions.
In the end, 302 respondents completed. the
The relationship of question to sequential position for these
results is indicated in Table III.
Table III
Number of Respondent Answers Obtained, By Question and Sequential Position
Position in Which Questions Answered
First
---
Question
Second
Third
--
Fourth
82
69
78
73
You Pay
73
82
69
78
Judicial Award
78
73
82
69
Pay You
69
78
73
82
302
302
302
302
Community Decision
While this fit was close to that designed, it was nevertheless
considered necessary, in view of the slight distortion evident above, to
re-exami.ne answers received after weighting for such potential bias
see whether such a procedure affected study conclusions.
-
to
Answers were
accordingly weighted to obtain nume rical equivalence between numbers of
responses, by position, and the results re-tested.
Analysis of the weighted
data produced an identical decision result to that presented in Table II.
3.
Preservation Values
Preservation value
14
is analyzed separately in this study because
1t is not use oriented, and, because its application in actual decision making
is specUically Limited by the requirements of non-substitutability and
irreversible loss.
It is nevertheless of interest, and is treated below.
From an i.ntuitive point of view, it is expected that the results obtained
in the previous activity section should be repeated here.
Preservation values
resulting from the survey are presented in Table IV.
14
Preservation value is defined herein as the value associated with knowing
a resource or activity option is available, irrespective of use.
- 15 Table IV
Survey Results - Preservation Values - By Question
Number
Sampled
QuestIon
95 Percent
Confidence Limit
Mean
Value
$
Community Decision
302
302
You Pay
302
Judicial Award
Pay You
302
$
14,833
+
3,858
2,894
+
-
1,698
10,519
+
3,013
27,079
+
4,744
It will be observed that the relativity of question results is
similar to that obtained for acti vi ty related values.
Associated F values
are presented in Table V.
Table V
Relationship Between Mean Preservation Values - F Values
Community
Decision Making
Question
Community Decision Making
You
Pay
Judicial
Award
31,526
3,172
15.070
18.696
88.502
You Pay
Different
Judicial Award
Not
Different
Different
Pay You
Different
Different Different
Pay
You
33.308
Again posing the null hypothesis that the means of Table V are the
same, and rejecting that hypothesis for F values greater than 3,84, a decision
result identical to that displayed in Table II is obtained.
It can therefore
be concluded that for the unweighted data, results obtained from the four
questions posed, bore a similar relative relationship, whether values associated
with activities or preservation were sought.
4.
Preservation Values - Weighted Data
Following the procedures of the sectIon dealing with acti vi ty values,
the data was weighted, and results recalculated.
questions are presented in Table VI.
Associated F values between
- 16 Table VI
Weighted Data - Relationship Between Mean Preservation Values - F Values
Community
Question
Pay
You
You Pay
Judicial
Award
36.134
4.513
15.227
19.720
96.942
Decision
Making
Community Decision Making
You Pay
Different
Judicial Award
Different
Different
Pay You
Different
Different
37.782
Different
Once more asserting the null hypothesis of no difference between means,
and rejecting that hypothesis if F. 05>3.84, we conclude that wei.ghiing of
preservation responses produces results identical to those obtained previously,
save that the "Community Decision Making" question yielded a mean response
significantly greater than that obtained from the "Judicial Award Question".
G.
Summary and Conclusion
On the basis of the results obtained herein, It would seem
possIble to sustaIn, either condItIonally or completely, all of the hypotheses
advanced in SectIon B - noteably that In comparIng the four questIons posed;
1.
The "what would you pay quest Ion" can be expected to produce
the lowest value response.
2.
The "what would I have to pay you" question can be expected to
produce the hIghest value response.
3.
The "Community Decision Making" question, and the "Judicial Award"
question can be expected to produce values between these two
earlIer stated values, and may tend to statIstIcal sImilarity.
The hypothesis that the latter two questions might tend to generate
responses closer to the "what would I have to pay you" question than to the
"what would you pay" question is less clear cut.
An examination of F values
for the actIvity data supports such a statement.
However, data from the
preservation responses is supportive only for the "CommunIty Decision Making"
response, but not for the "Judicial Award" values.
An all inclusive judgement
cannot therefore be made.
More generally, i t appears that the study Is supportive of the
existence of a famIly of technIques that are more depersonalized than either
of the more traditional "buy" or "sell" approaches.
These techniques focus
more on community decision making and/or social justice, and less on private
- 17 market transactions.
15
Further, testing of two of these methods in the
present study suggests that they will elicit responses falling between the
boundaries delineated by the more traditional methods.
that these newer approaches are to be preferred.
This is not to suggest
Rather, the author suspects
they are to be preferred for certain purposes - noteably public purposes.
The older, private market oriented methods are more likely preferable for
other purposes - noteably private ones.
15
Another variant of this "newer" family of approaches may have been
identifi.ed by Peter Bohm, in his sixth method tested in: Peter Bohm,
"Estimating Demand fo;' Public Goods: An Experiment", European Economic
Review, III (1972), pp. 111-130.
- 18 -
Appendix A
Detailed Results
Questionnaire:
1
Recreation
- Community Decision Making
N
$ Mean
A)
Swimming
302
478.21
B)
Boating
302
1870.88
C)
Fishing
302
D)
Viewing
302
E)
5791. 56
11836.65
7580.39
+
2667.530
23651.19
4793.111
42497,29
3857.557
34202,36
11833.41
Preservation
302
14968.59
+
+
-
$ Mean
95 Percent Confidence Limits
N
A)
Swimming
302
210.79
B)
Boating
302
113,77
C)
Fishing
302
102.38
+
+
D)
Viewing
302
672.12
+
2877.14
51. 445
456.17
49.345
437,51
+
659,133
5844.09
992.542
8800.20
1698,278
15057,49
Total
302
1099.07
Preservation
302
2894.38
+
3
Std Dev
324.502
+
Questionnaire:
11866,66
- What would you pay?
Recreation
E)
653.208
1903.84
302
2
Std Dev
+ 1338.396
+ 1335.012
Total
Questionnaire:
95 Percent Confidence Limits
+
- Judicial Award
Recreation
N
$ Mean
95 Percent Confidence Limits
Std Dev
A)
Swimming
302
1840.76
1303.386
11556,25
B)
Boating
302
2278.78
+
+
1345.166
11926.68
C)
Fishing
302
2515.34
1412.764
12526.03
D)
Viewing
302
5047,78
+
+
-
2010.851
17828,86
Total
302
11682.67
+
5559.490
49292.25
10518,65
+
3013,422
26673.41
E)
Preservation
Questionnaire:
302
4
- What would I have to pay you?
Recreation
N
$ Mean
95 Percent Confidence Limits
Std Dev
A)
302
2041.65
+
1267,401
11237.19
1458.345
12930.16
Swimming
B)
Boating
302
2735.27
C)
Fishing
302
2571.20
+
+
-
1388.842
12313.93
+
3387.810
30037.43
D)
E)
Viewi.ng
302
13612.62
Total
302
20960.74
Preservation
302
27078.75
+ 6028.137
+ 4743.851
53447.43
42060.54
- 19 -
Appendix B
Description of Respondents
A.
Age
Age Group
Number of Respondents
Percent
10-19
3
1.0
20-29
35
11.6
30-39
53
17.6
40-49
52
17.2
50-59
67
22.2
60-69
46
15.2
70 +
46
15.2
--302
B,
100.0
Years Residence in Victoria
Number of Years
Number of Respondents
Percent
1
125
41,4
2
50
16,6
3
55
18,2
4
24
8,0
5
21
7,0
6
19
6,3
7
7
2.3
8 +
1
0,2
302
100,0
- 20 -
!}ppend ix B-2
B.
Motivation for Moving to Victoria
Number of Respondents
Percentage
Job
65
21.5
Climate
46
15.2
Recreational Opportunities
3
1.0
Healtb
5
1.7
Family
81
26.8
Other
67
32.2
No Response
35
1.6
302
100.0
Motive
C.
Annual Individual Income
Income Category
Number of Respondents
Percentage
46
15.2
1,000 - 4,999
68
22.5
5,000 - 9,999
86
28.5
10,000 - 14,999
65
21.5
15,000 - 19,999
18
6.0
9
3.0
10
3.3
302
100.0
$
o -
999
20,000 +
No response
This general data is indicatIve of the fact that Greater Victoria
is very popular as a retirement community.