Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Investigation of preferences for non-consumptive recreational use of wildlife Le Fevre, Allan George 1973

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1974_A8 L43_8.pdf [ 4.15MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0099959.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0099959-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0099959-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0099959-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0099959-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0099959-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0099959-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0099959-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0099959.ris

Full Text

c AN INVESTIGATION OP PREFERENCES FOR NON-CONSUMPTIVE RECREATIONAL USE OF WILDLIFE by ALLAN GEORGE LE FEVRE B.A. Simon Fraser U n i v e r s i t y 1 9 7 0 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the School of Community and Regional P l a n n i n g We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to th-e required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December 1 9 7 3 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission fo r extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of "SoHock. of da Hi/iU^i-ry /\"& /ze&i v* ^ /PAS" The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada ABSTRACT T r a d i t i o n a l l y , the o b j e c t i v e of w i l d l i f e management i n B r i t i s h Columbia has been the maximization of a sustained y i e l d of a s e l e c t e d number of game species. In accordance w i t h t h i s o b j e c t i v e , w i l d l i f e management energies and resources have been d i r e c t e d p r i m a r i l y toward the r e g u l a t i o n of sport hunting and f i s h i n g - consumptive uses, and a c t i v i t i e s a s s o c i -ated w i t h the p r o t e c t i o n of h a b i t a t of game species. Data on the v i s i t a t i o n r a t e s to l o c a l w i l d l i f e refuges and the existence of a number of n a t u r a l h i s t o r y s o c i e t i e s through-out the province, however, suggests that there i s a demand f o r non-consumptive use of w i l d l i f e i n the province. Resource planners must make d e c i s i o n s concerning the a l l o c a t i o n of the p r o v i n c i a l w i l d l i f e resource between these two a l t e r n a t i v e uses i n a manner that r e f l e c t s the demand f o r the uses i n order to maximize the b e n e f i t s of the resource to r e s i d e n t s of B r i t i s h Columbia. The d i f f i c u l t question a r i s e s of how can the v a r i o u s demands f o r w i l d l i f e resource use be s a t i s f i e d when there i s no market mechanism a v a i l a b l e f o r guidance? Most outdoor r e c r e a t i o n i n North America which depends on entry to the p u b l i c domain of land and water resources w i t h i t s i m p l i e d access to f i s h and w i l d l i f e populations have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been provided f r e e of charge. Without a market there i s a need to f i n d a l t e r n a t i v e means of generating i n f o r m a t i o n on demand. This study suggests a methodology that w i l l permit an est i m a t i o n of demand f o r non-consumptive use of w i l d l i f e through an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of use preferences. A questionnaire was developed to survey percep t i o n s , a t t i t u d e s and behaviour of non-consumptive users. As there i s no record of the non-consumptive user c l i e n t e l e , three groups of non-consumptive users were surveyed. These inc l u d e d members of the Vancouver N a t u r a l H i s t o r y S o c i e t y (organized users) and two groups of unorganized users -v i s i t o r s to R e i f e l Wildfowl Refuge and persons l i s t e d i n the Vancouver Telephone D i r e c t o r y . A t o t a l of 595 ques-t i o n n a i r e s were employed i n the a n a l y s i s of which 309 were from the Vancouver N a t u r a l H i s t o r y S o c i e t y , 150 from v i s i t o r s to R e i f e l Refuge and 136 from persons l i s t e d i n the telephone d i r e c t o r y . Data were analyzed u t i l i z i n g the formats contained i n S.P.S.S. ( S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r the S o c i a l S c iences). Chi-square t e s t s were used to e s t a b l i s h whether there were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n response among the groups. A n a l y s i s of perception data revealed that the m a j o r i t y o f respondents from a l l groups perceived themselves as non-consumptive users of w i l d l i f e r a t h e r than consumptive. Pew of the respondents from any group e x h i b i t e d a dual o r i e n t a t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , a greater p r o p o r t i o n of respondents by far.~from a l l groups p a r t i c i p a t e d i n non-consumptive use r a t h e r than sport hunting o r f i s h i n g . Moreover, a study of a t t i t u d e s revealed that the m a j o r i t y of respondents from a l l groups were w i l l i n g to spend money or see p u b l i c money spent f o r the management o f w i l d l i f e f o r non-consumptive use. A l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of respondents from a l l groups p a r t i c i p a t e d i n p r i m a r i l y four non-consumptive uses. These were: w i l d l i f e viewing, w i l d l i f e photography, w i l d l i f e i d e n t i -f i c a t i o n and w i l d l i f e feeding. Of three s p e c i f i c areas where i n d i v i d u a l s might i n t e r a c t w i t h w i l d l i f e non-consump-t i v e l y , p a r t i c i p a t i o n data revealed that a greater p r o p o r t i o n of respondents from a l l groups v i s i t e d R e i f e l Refuge than e i t h e r of the other two s i t e s . Chi-square t e s t s i n d i c a t e d that the R e i f e l and telephone samples had the greatest o v e r a l l s i m i l a r i t y of response. The two groups responded s i m i l a r l y to 17 of a t o t a l of 23 questions p e r t a i n i n g to percepti o n s , a t t i t u d e s and behaviour. There i s l e a s t s i m i l a r i t y of response between the Vancouver N a t u r a l H i s t o r y S o c i e t y and the telephone sample These groups responded i n a s i m i l a r manner to o n l y 9 of a t o t a l of 23 questions. This research demonstrated that by sampling v a r i o u s user groups, i t i s both p o s s i b l e and f e a s i b l e to i n v e s t i g a t e p r e f e r e n c e s f o r n o n - c o n s u m p t i v e u s e o f w i l d l i f e e m p l o y i n g a q u e s t i o n n a i r e s u r v e y o f p e r c e p t i o n s , a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v i o u r . I n v i e w o f t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e s t u d y t h e r e i s a n e e d f o r t h e P i s h a n d W i l d l i f e B r a n c h t o r e c o g n i z e f o r m a l l y t h i s demand a n d i n so d o i n g , commit t h e B r a n c h t o b o t h an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r s a t i s f y i n g t h i s demand and t o t h e u n d e r t a k i n g o f f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h o f t h e s e demands. V TABLE OP CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION 1 H i s t o r i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e s 1 Purpose and Objectives of the Research 7 CHAPTER I I : METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH 11 I n t r o d u c t i o n 11 Techniques f o r ass e s s i n g Preferences 14 Methodology 20 Questionnaire C o n s t r u c t i o n 20 Sample S e l e c t i o n 23 A n a l y s i s 26 CHAPTER I I I : PREFERENCES FOR NON-CONSUMPTIVE RECREATIONAL USE OF WILDLIFE AS INFERRED FROM DATA ON PERCEPTIONS ( AND BEHAVIOUR 28 I n f e r r i n g Preferences f o r Non-consumptive Versus Consumptive Use 28 I n f e r r i n g Preferences f o r the S p e c i f i c C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Non-consumptive Use 38 CHAPTER IV: ATTITUDES TOWARD FINANCIALLY SUPPORTING WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT FOR NON-CONSUMPTIVE USE 48 Vi CHAPTER V: A COMPARISON OP THE CHARACTERISTICS AND RESPONSES OF.ORGANIZED AND . UNORGANIZED NON-CONSUMPTIVE USERS OF WILDLIFE 55 Socio-economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 56 Summary Comparison of the Character-i s t i c s of the Organized and Unorganized Users 64 Summary Comparison of the Character-i s t i c s of the Two Groups of Unorganized Users 64 Summary Comparison of the Responses of the Organized and Unorganized Non-consumptive Users 65 CHAPTER V I : SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS 70 I n t r o d u c t i o n 70 Major Findings 70 Conclusions 74 L i m i t a t i o n s 75 I m p l i c a t i o n s 79 BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A APPENDIX B LIST OP TABLES Page Table 1 Percentage of Respondents who Perceive Selves as Consumptive Users of W i l d l i f e 29 Table 2 Percentage of Respondents who Perceive Selves as Non-Consumptive Users of W i l d l i f e 30 Table 3 Percentage of Respondents Who Perceive Selves as Both Consumptive and Non-consumptive Users of W i l d l i f e 32 Table 4 T r i p s Made f o r Sport Hunting 35 Table 5 T r i p s Made f o r Sport P i s h i n g 36 Table 6 T r i p s Made S p e c i f i c a l l y to Observe W i l d l i f e 37 Table 7 P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n S p e c i f i c Non-consumptive A c t i v i t i e s During 1972 40 Table 8 T r i p s Made to R e i f e l Refuge 45 Table 9 T r i p s Made to Vancouver Game Farm 46 Table 10 T r i p s Made to an A r t i f i c i a l P i s h Spawning Channel 46 Table 11 A t t i t u d e Toward Whether Everyone Should Make a F i n a n c i a l C o n t r i b u t i o n to W i l d l i f e Management i n B.C. ' 4 9 Table 12 W i l l i n g n e s s to Pay a Fee f o r W i l d l i f e Viewing 50 Table 13 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by the Amount of Fee They Would be W i l l i n g to Pay 51 Table 14 A t t i t u d e Toward D i r e c t i n g Funds to an Urban W i l d l i f e Management Program 52 mi Table 15 W i l l i n g n e s s to Pay Increased C i t y Taxes to Support an U r b a n . W i l d l i f e Management Program Table 16 Age D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents Table 17 Education of Respondents Table 18 Income Levels of Respondents Table 19 Respondents Environment of Upbringing Table 20 Membership i n N a t u r a l i s t , Hunting or Conservation Organizations Table 21 Responses f o r Which There Are No S t a t i s t i c a l l y S i g n i f i c a n t D i f f e r e n c e s Between Groups at the .01 Lev e l Table 22 Summary of the Number of Responses f o r Which There are No S t a t i s t i c a l l y S i g n i f i c a n t D i f f e r e n c e s Between Groups at the .01 Level., 53 57 59 61 62 63 68 69 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES Leopold (1966), suggests a simple d e f i n i t i o n of w i l d l i f e management as being "any planned manipulation of a w i l d p o p ulation of animals f o r some predetermined purpose." He f u r t h e r observes that you can develop these purposes of w i l d animal management i n t o four r e l a t i v e l y c l e a r - c u t cate-g o r i e s ; w i l d l i f e as a source of food; c o n t r o l of crop and other damage by w i l d l i f e ; w i l d l i f e management f o r the pro-duction of sport hunting and producing a shootable crop; and f o u r t h l y , w i l d l i f e management f o r i t s a e s t h e t i c v a l u e s . In B r i t i s h Columbia, an area endowed w i t h a v a r i e t y of w i l d l i f e unequaled i n North America, w i l d l i f e i s a p u b l i c resource. I t s prudent management i s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch of the Department of Recreation and Conservation. A cursory examination of w i l d l i f e manage-ment i n the province suggests that of the four c a t e g o r i e s of w i l d l i f e management o u t l i n e d i n the above, the p r o v i n c i a l management agency has t r a d i t i o n a l l y adopted as a general goal the management of w i l d l i f e f o r the purpose of sport hunting and f i s h i n g . The o b j e c t i v e of w i l d l i f e management has been the maximization of a sustained y i e l d of a s e l e c t e d number of game species. In accordance w i t h t h i s o b j e c t i v e , w i l d -- 2 -l i f e management energies and resources have been d i r e c t e d p r i m a r i l y toward the r e g u l a t i o n of sport hunting and f i s h i n g and a c t i v i t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the p r o t e c t i o n of h a b i t a t of game sp e c i e s . J u s t i f i c a t i o n of the above approach to w i l d l i f e management has l a r g e l y been the demand f o r sport hunting and f i s h i n g i n the province by an estimated 400,000 B r i t i s h Columbia r e s i d e n t s and the v a r i o u s s o c i a l and economic b e n e f i t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h these a c t i v i t i e s (Pearse-Bowden 1971, 1972). E x i s t i n g w i l d l i f e management goals and objec-t i v e s are f u r t h e r j u s t i f i e d on the b a s i s of economic b e n e f i t s which are a d i r e c t r e s u l t of sport hunting and f i s h i n g a c t i v i t i e s . The w i l d l i f e management program i t s e l f , f o r example, i s l a r g e l y paid f o r by hunter and fishermen l i c e n c e and tag fee s . Moreover, the d i r e c t spending of hunters and fishermen on equipment, t r a v e l expenses and so on, generate s i g n i f i c a n t economic b e n e f i t s . Pearse-Bowden (I972)estimate, f o r example, that during the 1970-1971 season, hunters alone spent approximately $40 m i l l i o n on hunting and r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s , at an average of $290 per hunter. T r a d i t i o n a l w i l d l i f e management, however, i s c r i t i c i z e d on two grounds. One i s that the p r o v i n c i a l w i l d l i f e resource encompasses a f a r greater range of species than those managed w i t h i n the frame of reference of current w i l d l i f e management goals and over which the P i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch - 3 -has l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r i t y . This range of species i n c l u d e s a l l non-human v e r t e b r a t e s i n the province, not merely game species. The other f a c t o r concerns the growing demand f o r use of the p r o v i n c i a l w i l d l i f e resource, without "cropping" i t . This has been termed i n the l i t e r a t u r e as non-consumptive use, whereas sport hunting and f i s h i n g are consumptive a c t i v i -t i e s i n that w i l d animals are "cropped" or consumed. This a p p r e c i a t i o n of w i l d l i f e f o r the a e s t h e t i c values inherent i n them i s expressed i n a v a r i e t y o f ways, which in c l u d e both casual and d e t a i l e d o b s e r v a t i o n , w i l d l i f e photography, s c i e n t i f i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and research. The emergence of a demand f o r non-consumptive use of w i l d l i f e resources i s an i n t e r n a t i o n a l phenomenon. Oberst (1970), notes that there i s appreciable p u b l i c use of the United States N a t i o n a l Refuge System, i n that a t o t a l of 15 m i l l i o n non-consumptive users v i s i t e d these areas i n 1968, r e p r e s e n t i n g an increase o f 25 percent over the previous year. In East A f r i c a , the most famous hunting ground i n the world, Leopold (1966), notes that the s a f a r i business " i s s h i f t i n g as f a s t as i t can get re-geared from hunting s a f a r i s to photographic s a f a r i s " , while K e r r and Downey, the l a r g e s t of the s a f a r i o u t f i t s , estimate that 60 percent of t h e i r s a f a r i s are s t r i c t l y f o r w i l d l i f e v i ewing and photography. - 4 -W i thin the province of B r i t i s h Columbia, s i m i l a r developments are t a k i n g place. The George C. R e i f e l Waterfowl Refuge on Westham Is l a n d i n D e l t a M u n i c i p a l i t y -was v i s i t e d by approximately 60,000 persons during 1971 f o r the purposes of w i l d l i f e viewing. This f i g u r e increased by some 40 percent i n 1972 (The P r o v i n c e , 1972). Thousands of r e s i d e n t s v i s i t salmon spawning grounds and f i s h h a t c h e r i e s throughout the province as w e l l . In a d d i t i o n , the v a r i o u s n a t u r a l h i s t o r y s o c i e t i e s throughout the province have undergone a r a p i d increase i n both membership and formation of new c l u b s . There are approximately 20 n a t u r a l h i s t o r y o r g a n i z a t i o n s l o c a t e d throughout B r i t i s h Columbia. While the " n a t u r a l i s t " may be the most i n t e n s e l y i n t e r e s t e d of a l l non-consumptive users of w i l d l i f e , R.Y. Edwards (1969) notes: . . . to assume that these n a t u r a l i s t s possess most of man's i n t e r e s t i n the untamed world i s an a s t o n i s h i n g l y u n i n -formed viewpoint. N a t u r a l i s t s are a t i n y m i n o r i t y l o s t i n the m i l l i o n s of people who are l e s s i n t e n s i v e , and l e s s w e l l organized i n t h e i r approach, but who s t i l l o b t a i n joy and s a t i s f a c t i o n , and e n r i c h t h e i r l i v e s , from beauty and from the f a s c i n a t i n g d e t a i l s of t h e i r untamed surroundings. With respect to t h i s p o i n t , the Science C o u n c i l of Canada (1971) n o t e s t t h a t the m a j o r i t y of outdoor r e c r e a t i o n i s t s consider w i l d l i f e to be the most i n t e r e s t i n g element of - 5 -the landscape, and c i t e s the f o l l o w i n g demonstration of widespread p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n w i l d l i f e : In 1963 the f i r s t o f f i c i a l wolf howl was h e l d as part of the i n t e r p r e t i v e program of the Algonquin Park Museum. We were u n c e r t a i n about the number that might attend but thought that there might be 25 cars i n the cavalcade as we searched f o r wolves. Instead every campground emptied; 168 cars — an estimated 800 people — created the biggest t r a f f i c jam that had ever been witnessed i n the Park. ( R u t t e r 1968) What of the f u t u r e prospects and trends of consump-t i v e use r e l a t i v e to non-consumptive use of w i l d l i f e ? Research suggests that consumptive use o f w i l d l i f e , such as sport hunting and f i s h i n g , i s a r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s of a r u r a l o r i g i n (Bevins 1968). Those p r e f e r r i n g non-consumptive use of w i l d l i f e on the other hand, tend to be urban-bred and r e s i d e i n urban areas, the i n d i c a t i o n i s that a dramatic increase i n non-consump-t i v e use of w i l d l i f e i s i n e v i t a b l e , w i t h a corresponding d e c l i n e i n consumptive a c t i v i t i e s . With reference to t h i s p o i n t , P e t e r l e (1967), notes t h a t : Hunting . . . w i l l continue to represent a s h r i n k i n g p r o p o r t i o n of those people who recreate outdoors. The f i g u r e s a l r eady a v a i l a b l e i n d i c a t e not o n l y a p r o p o r t i o n a l decrease s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h population growth. - 6 -With the apparent s i g n i f i c a n t p r o p o r t i o n a l increase i n non-consumptive use of w i l d l i f e i n the province, the B.C. P i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch i s faced w i t h a need to reassess w i l d l i f e management goals. Indeed, since w i l d l i f e i s a p u b l i c resource managed by a p u b l i c agency, the P i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch has an o b l i g a t i o n to the r e s i -dents of the province to e s t a b l i s h w i l d l i f e management goals which are attuned to the demands of the r e s i d e n t s of the province. - 7 -PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OP THE RESEARCH Data on the v i s i t a t i o n r a t e s to the George C. R e i f e l Waterfowl Refuge and the existence of a number of n a t u r a l h i s t o r y s o c i e t i e s throughout the province suggests that there i s a demand f o r non-consumptive use of w i l d l i f e i n the province. Given t h i s evidence, many r e s i d e n t s of B r i t i s h Columbia express a d e s i r e or preference to i n t e r a c t w i t h w i l d l i f e i n a non-consumptive manner, i t i s necessary to .know more about these preferences i n order to assess t o t a l demand. Preference i n the s t r i c t sense may be defined as the l i k i n g of one t h i n g r e l a t i v e to another, given no c o n s t r a i n t s . I t may be expressed i n a v a r i e t y of ways i n c l u d i n g behaviour ( p a r t i c i p a t i o n ) , perceptions and a t t i -tudes. As t h i s study i s concerned w i t h expressed preferences of i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n r e a l world c o n s t r a i n t s , the s t r i c t d e f i n i t i o n of preference does not apply. The v a r i o u s c o n s t r a i n t s i n c l u d e time, money, supply of f a c i l i t i e s and so on. For the purposes of t h i s r esearch, preference, t h e r e f o r e , i s defined as the expressed l i k i n g of one t h i n g r e l a t i v e to another given v a r i o u s r e a l world c o n s t r a i n t s to implementing or a c t i n g on unconstrained preferences. When making demand assessments f o r non-consumptive r e c r e a t i o n a l use of w i l d l i f e , the preference i n f o r m a t i o n - 8 -that i s r e q u i r e d f a l l s i n e s s e n t i a l l y three c a t e g o r i e s . F i r s t , i t must be e s t a b l i s h e d whether i n d i v i d u a l s express a preference f o r non-consumptive use r a t h e r than consumptive use. In a d d i t i o n , preference f o r the s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s of non-consumptive use must also be i d e n t i f i e d . The s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are defined as the p a r t i c u l a r aspects of non-consumptive use which inc l u d e a c t i v i t i e s and s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n s where i n d i v i d u a l s p r e f e r to undertake these a c t i v i -t i e s and so on. For example, i s non-consumptive i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h w i l d l i f e p r i m a r i l y an adjunct to other a c t i v i t i e s or do i n d i v i d u a l s p r e f e r more i n t e n s i v e i n t e r a c t i o n such as photography, the r e c o r d i n g of sounds or the c o m p i l a t i o n of notes? Are such a c t i v i t i e s confined to c i t y parks or zoos or do r e c r e a t i o n i s t s p r e f e r to engage i n them i n wilderness areas f a r from the i n f l u e n c e of man? Secondly, the i n t e n s i t y or strength of preference must be assessed. I n t e n s i t y i s defined as "how much" an i n d i v i d u a l wishes to do something. I t may be measured by how many u n i t s of e f f o r t (time, money etc.,) an i n d i v i d u a l i s w i l l i n g to expend i n order to do something such as, how much an i n d i v i d u a l i s w i l l i n g to pay f o r a day of non-consumptive use. T h i r d l y , the magnitude of the above pre-ferences must al s o be known. Magnitude r e f e r s to the a c t u a l numbers of i n d i v i d u a l s who express the above preferences. - 9 -In the absence o f the above i n f o r m a t i o n , no assess-ment of demand can be made and the p r o v i n c i a l w i l d l i f e populations cannot be managed f o r the r e s i d e n t s o f the province i n a manner that i s both e f f i c i e n t and e q u i t a b l e . In p a r t i c u l a r , such i n f o r m a t i o n i s p r e r e q u i s i t e to the fo r m u l a t i o n o f w i l d l i f e management p o l i c y geared to the non-consumptive user. Therefore, i t i s toward the generation of such i n f o r m a t i o n that t h i s research i s d i r e c t e d . The o b j e c t i v e s of t h i s research are twofold: 1. To undertake a p r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n of preferences f o r non-consumptive use as a f i r s t step toward a s s e s s i n g demand; and i n so doing, 2. to c o n t r i b u t e to the development of a methodo-logy f o r f u t u r e research. More s p e c f i c a l l y , t h i s p r e l i m i n a r y study of p r e f e r -ences i s d i r e c t e d toward i n v e s t i g a t i n g : (a) Preference f o r non-consumptive use versus consumptive use; C u r r e n t l y i n d i v i d u a l s i n t e r a c t w i t h w i l d l i f e i n a v a r i e t y of ways w i t h i n the two main ca t e g o r i e s of w i l d l i f e use - sport hunting or f i s h i n g (consumptive use) and a p p r e c i a t i v e o r non-consumptive use. An attempt w i l l be made to determine which of the two ca t e g o r i e s i n d i v i d u a l s p r e f e r . (b) Preference f o r some s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of non-consumptive use; Wi t h i n the category of non-consumptive use, i n d i v i d u a l s i n t e r a c t w i t h w i l d l i f e by a v a r i e t y of a c t i v i t i e s and i n a v a r i e t y of l o c a t i o n s . - 10 -Some persons photograph w i l d l i f e w h i l e others search f o r r a r e s p e c i e s . Many i n d i v i d u a l s v i s i t R e i f e l Refuge while others frequent Vancouver Game Farm. I t i s the purpose of t h i s p o r t i o n of the research to determine which of a range of non-consumptive a c t i v i t i e s and l o c a t i o n s where i n d i v i d u a l s might engage i n such a c t i v i t i e s r e c r e a t i o n i s t s p r e f e r . (c) F i n a n c i a l support of w i l d l i f e management f o r non-consumptive use; I t i s p o s s i b l e to implement a v a r i e t y of manage-ment a l t e r n a t i v e s d i r e c t e d toward non-consumptive use. An attempt w i l l be made to assess whether i n d i v i d u a l s would f i n a n c i a l l y support w i l d l i f e management f o r non-consumptive use. (d) Socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; I t i s not c u r r e n t l y known which segments of the pop u l a t i o n express preference f o r i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h w i l d l i f e on a non-consumptive b a s i s . Socio-economic data permits an assessment of which i n d i v i d u a l s p a r t i c i p a t e i n non-consump-t i v e use and suggests trends i n the p a t t e r n of i n d i v i d u a l s who are motivated toward t h i s type of use. Although the aim of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s to generate some bas i c i n f o r m a t i o n , the data i s i n no way intended to be d e f i n i t i v e . There are two reasons f o r t h i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n . F i r s t , although the data on preferences at times " h i n t s " at i n t e n s i t y , i t does not measure i n t e n s i t y . Secondly, time and budget c o n s t r a i n t s p r o h i b i t e d surveying t r u l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e samples. Nevertheless, the in f o r m a t i o n gene-ra t e d by t h i s research represents a u s e f u l f i r s t step toward a s s e s s i n g the demand f o r non-consumptive r e c r e a t i o n a l use of w i l d l i f e and i n so doing permits the t e s t i n g of a methodology f o r use w i t h l a r g e r samples. CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH INTRODUCTION This chapter commences w i t h an o u t l i n e of the current problem of determining the demand f o r non-priced r e c r e a t i o n a l resources, such as the non-consumptive use of w i l d l i f e , which n e c e s s i t a t e s a study of preferences. A b r i e f review of some of the research i n outdoor r e c r e a t i o n which has attempted to come to g r i p s w i t h the problem of preference i d e n t i f i c a t i o n f o l l o w s . No attempt i s made to review the e n t i r e f i e l d of outdoor r e c r e a t i o n research. Instead, c e r t a i n s t u d i e s are taken as a point of departure f o r the methodological c o n s t r u c t s employed i n t h i s study. The o v e r a l l problem toward which t h i s research i s d i r e c t e d i s e s t i m a t i n g the demand of a c e r t a i n type of r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y — non-consumptive use of w i l d l i f e . In the economics l i t e r a t u r e , demand has a r i g i d meaning; i t i s the expression of d e s i r e f o r goods and s e r v i c e s and t h i s i s r e f l e c t e d i n the market f o r these goods and s e r v i c e s . I n d i v i d u a l s ''vote" f o r goods and s e r v i c e s by t h e i r w i l l i n g -ness to pay market p r i c e s . Behind these market t r a n s a c t i o n s , l i e a host of complex v a r i a b l e s . I n d i v i d u a l s have preference patterns which r e l a t e one good or s e r v i c e to one another and these preferences are constrained by the l i m i t s of time, - 12 -money, knowledge and so on. The "vote" i n the market pl a c e , the demand, i s the r e s u l t a n t of a l l these v a r i a b l e s . The power of markets from an a n a l y t i c a l point of view i s that they summarize a l l these data i n t o r e a d i l y understandable p r i c e - q u a n t i t y r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Coteminous w i t h t h i s concept i s the n o t i o n of supply. Supply and demand are determined together i n a complex dynamic f a s h i o n . Just as r e c r e a t i o n i s t s need to know some-t h i n g of supply before they can r e g i s t e r demand, an agency l i k e the P i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch needs to know the demand f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s i n v o l v i n g w i l d l i f e i n order to formulate management p o l i c i e s which w i l l r e s u l t i n a supply to meet the demand. The d i f f i c u l t question a r i s e s of how can demand and supply d e c i s i o n s be mediated when there i s no>: market? Most outdoor r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s i n North America which depend on entry to the p u b l i c domain of land and water resources w i t h i t s i m p l i e d access to f i s h and w i l d l i f e populations have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been provided e s s e n t i a l l y f r e e of charge. As long as demand f o r outdoor r e c r e a t i o n i n v o l v i n g w i l d l i f e i s s a t i s f i e d , there i s no problem. However, management steps are re q u i r e d when the p u b l i c domain becomes congested or when t a s t e s or preferences s h i f t to encompass a demand that can no longer be met. - 13 -The P i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch i s now at such a pass w i t h no market mechanism a v a i l a b l e f o r guidance. Without a market, there i s a need to f i n d a l t e r n a t i v e means of generating i n f o r m a t i o n which w i l l permit the es t i m a t i o n of demand. One way of doing t h i s i s through an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of consumer preferences. Preference r e l a t i o n s h i p s are the i n d i v i d u a l s sub-j e c t i v e o r d e r i n g of the whole range of goods and s e r v i c e s a v a i l a b l e to him. Since i t i s p o s s i b l e to change t h i s range through the p r o v i s i o n of new f a c i l i t i e s , ( i . S ; through the p r o v i s i o n of new f a c i l i t i e s f o r the non-consumptive u s e r ) , i t i s necessary to extend t h i s concept to i n c l u d e a p a r t i a l l i s t of p o t e n t i a l goods and s e r v i c e s . In the event that a market e x i s t s there i s no need to understand p r e f e r -ence r e l a t i o n s h i p s because they are re s o l v e d i n the market process. Without a market, however, i t i s important that one has knowledge of them as a f i r s t step toward a s s e s s i n g demand. C l e a r l y , no mechanism one can devise w i l l be as e f f i c i e n t as the market. Even i f one i s s u c c e s s f u l i n g e t t i n g i n d i v i d u a l s to s t a t e t h e i r preferences, one must also know the " i n t e n s i t y " and "magnitude" of them i n order that they might be t r a n s l a t e d i n t o demand. Nevertheless, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the preferences of r e c r e a t i o n i s t s i s an e s s e n t i a l f i r s t step. - 14 -TECHNIQUES FOR ASSESSING PREFERENCES A review of current l i t e r a t u r e i n the f i e l d of out-door r e c r e a t i o n suggests a v a r i e t y of techniques f o r a s s e s s i n g preferences f o r non-priced r e c r e a t i o n a l resources. They f a l l p r i m a r i l y w i t h i n two c a t e g o r i e s — the d i r e c t and i n -d i r e c t approach. The " d i r e c t " approach e s s e n t i a l l y c o n s i s t s of a s k i n g the r e c r e a t i o n i s t d i r e c t l y which a c t i v i t i e s he p r e f e r s . The method employed g e n e r a l l y c o n s i s t s of pre-s e n t i n g a l i s t of predefined r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s to an i n d i v i d u a l who i s asked t o i r a n k h i s preferences i n terms of f i r s t , second and t h i r d choice and so on u n t i l a l l a c t i v i -t i e s have been ranked. The r e s u l t i n g order serves as a measure of preference. One of the most comprehensive and w i d e l y known st u d i e s of t h i s nature was that undertaken by the O.R.R.R.C. (1962). O'Riordon (1972) employed a s i m i l a r technique to evaluate preferences of r e s i d e n t s f o r water-based r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s i n the Okanagan V a l l e y , B r i t i s h Columbia. Although t h i s techniques-does generate a preference o r d e r i n g of r e c r e a t i o n i s t s , i t s v a l i d i t y i s open to question. The major weakness inherent i n t h i s approach i s the f a i l u r e of the respondent to consider p o s s i b l e c o n s t r a i n t s when i n d i c a t i n g preferences. Such c o n s t r a i n t s i n c l u d e time, economic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , necessary s k i l l s r e q u i r e d and so on. Asked merely to s t a t e preferences an i n d i v i d u a l can say anything he l i k e s , unconstrained by the r e a l i t i e s of the s i t u a t i o n . - 15 -Economists have employed a modified v e r s i o n of t h i s d i r e c t approach i n an attempt to evaluate the preferences of r e c r e a t i o n i s t s known as the " w i l l i n g n e s s - t o - p a y " technique. This method i n v o l v e s asking the r e c r e a t i o n i s t how much he would be w i l l i n g to pay r a t h e r than be excluded from p a r t i c u -l a r r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s . The r e s u l t a n t choices made as backed up by a w i l l i n g n e s s to spend sums of money i s used as a measure of preference (Clawson 1966; Pearse-Bowden 1969). As w i t h the p r e v i o u s l y mentioned approach, the f a i l u r e of the respondent to consider other f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g choices and emotionalism toward r e c r e a t i o n a l i n general tends to di m i n i s h the v a l i d i t y of the f i n d i n g s (Sewell 1970). The " i n d i r e c t " approach i n v o l v e s i n f e r r i n g pre-ferences from both observed and v e r b a l behaviour of r e c r e a -t i o n i s t s through a study of p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e s . The method i n v o l v e s i d e n t i f i y i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e s f o r given r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s and p r o j e c t i n g those r a t e s that would be expected from a population of given c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The f i g u r e s so derived are put f o r t h as a measure of t o t a l preference or demand. This approach does not adequately measure preferences, however, as i t ignores the n o t i o n of supply. The p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e s so observed are not a d i s -p l a y of t o t a l preferences but r a t h e r "consumption" of r e c r e -a t i o n w i t h i n the l i m i t s of p r e v a i l i n g supply (Knetsch 1970). - 16 -Khetsch f u r t h e r noted that the O.R.R.R.C. erroneously employed t h i s technique and had the f o l l o w i n g comment to make on such s t u d i e s . . . . i t i s q u i t e impossible to c a r r y out studies i n a meaningful way by only a s k i n g people how many times they p a r t i c i p a t e d i n va r i o u s kinds of outdoor r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s . The supply of o p p o r t u n i t i e s i s ignored; con-sequently, very l i t t l e of the d i f f e r e n c e s i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e s among i n d i v i d u a l s or even groups can be explained, (p.135) Other researchers have used a study of perceptions and a t t i t u d e s of r e c r e a t i o n i s t s to i n f e r preferences f o r outdoor r e c r e a t i o n . Because of the i n n o v a t i v e nature of t h i s type of research i n the f i e l d of resources management, a few words on what i s meant by perceptions and a t t i t u d e s i s i n order. S c h i f f (1971), notes that the study of percep-t i o n s i n r e l a t i o n to environmental questions i s e s s e n t i a l l y concerned w i t h the "impression" one has of environmental s t i m u l i . Berelson (1964, p.88) defines perception as the ". . . process by which people s e l e c t , organize and i n t e r p r e t sensory s t i m u l i i n t o a meaningful and coherent p i c t u r e of the world". I t i s a f u n c t i o n of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s past ex-perience and h i s s t a t e at the time he i s viewin g the stimulus of i n t e r e s t . The r e s u l t i s that two i n d i v i d u a l s may view the same st i m u l u s , yet have d i f f e r e n t impressions of i t . I t i s through a knowledge of such impressions that a v a r i e t y - 17 -of researchers have attempted to i n f e r such things as pre-ferences of i n d i v i d u a l s f o r outdoor r e c r e a t i o n . Lucas (1963), f o r example, employed a study of perceptions to i n f e r wilderness preferences of r e c r e a t i o n i s t s i n the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. The research i n v o l v e d a s k i n g r e c r e a t i o n i s t s to i n d i c a t e on a map of the park, the area they judged to be wi l d e r n e s s . Subsequent a n a l y s i s of the r e s u l t a n t maps i n d i c a t e d that canoests and users of motorboats had different©perceptions of w i l d e r n e s s . Whereas the canoest d i d not perceive as wilderness any areas marred by roads noise or excessive crowding, motorboat enthusiasts were l e s s p a r t i c u l a r . This i n f o r m a t i o n the study noted, could be u s e f u l f o r d e l i m i t i n g a c t i v i t y areas f o r v a r i o u s types of r e c r e a t i o n a l use. Per c e p t i o n s , however, are unstable and subject to change w i t h the r e s u l t that they are g e n e r a l l y o n l y tempo-r a r y impressions of r e a l i t y . L a r g e l y because of t h i s char-a c t e r i s t i c of percepti o n s , a v a r i e t y of researchers have focussed on the study of a t t i t u d e s which tend to be more permanent images. Krech (1962, p.139), defines a t t i t u d e s as "enduring systems", whereby an i n d i v i d u a l organizes". . . h i s c o g n i t i o n s , f e e l i n g s and a c t i o n tendencies w i t h respect to v a r i o u s o b j e c t s i n h i s world . . .". He notes that the " c o g n i t i v e " component - 18 -of an a t t i t u d e c o n s i s t s of b e l i e f s as to whether the object of the a t t i t u d e i s favourable or unfavourable. The "feelings'* component r e f e r s to the emotions toward the a t t i t u d e object as to whether the object i s p l e a s i n g or d i s p l e a s i n g . The " a c t i o n tendency", i s the p r e d i s p o s i t i o n of an i n d i v i d u a l to act or react i n a c e r t a i n way that i s r e l a t e d i n a systems format to the c o g n i t i v e and f e e l i n g s components (Krech, P.140-141). The us e f u l n e s s o f a t t i t u d e s i n making p r e d i c t i o n s , i s derived l a r g e l y from the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of an a t t i t u d e . They are s t a b l e over time because i n d i v i d u a l s keep the three components i n t e r n a l l y c o n s i s t e n t . Moreover, an a t t i -tude has the f u r t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of d i r e c t i o n and mag-ni t u d e . D i r e c t i o n r e f e r s to whether the a t t i t u d e i s p o s i t i v e or negative (favourable or unfavourable) and magnitude r e f e r s to the degree of f a v o u r a b i l i t y or u n f a v o u r a b i l i t y . In s h o r t , w i t h regard to the usefulness of a t t i t u d e s i n making inferen c e s concerning behaviour. Krech notes: . . . f o r many persons i n our s o c i e t y , the p r e d i c t i o n and the c o n t r o l of behaviour o f others are important d e s i d e r a t a . By knowing the a t t i t u d e s of people i t i s p o s s i b l e to do something about the p r e d i c t i o n and the c o n t r o l of t h e i r behaviour, (p.139) Hendee (1968, employed a study of a t t i t u d e s to gain i n s i g h t i n t o wilderness users' t a s t e s and preferences. The method employed e n t a i l e d the p r e s e n t a t i o n of a s e r i e s - 19 -of questions to c l a s s i f y the respondents on an a t t i t u d e continuum ranging from wilderness p u r i s t s to those who are more urban o r i e n t e d . Respondents were then asked to respond to a s e r i e s of statements suggesting behaviour f o r wilderness users and management p o l i c i e s f o r wilderness areas, as to whether they s t r o n g l y agreed, agreed, were n e u t r a l , disagreed or s t r o n g l y disagreed. The study f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e d that o v e r a l l "impressive norms" of behaviour and management pre-ferences were i d e n t i f i e d through t h i s study o f a t t i t u d e s . Moreover, i t was discovered that where d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i -tudes toward suggested behaviour and management p o l i c i e s d i d occur, i t could be a t t r i b u t e d toward an i n d i v i d u a l s o v e r a l l a t t i t u d e toward w i l d e r n e s s . Although a u s e f u l technique f o r i n f e r r i n g preferences, Sewell (1971), notes that perception arid a t t i t u d e s t u d i e s are not a "panacea" and are subject to a number of l i m i t a t i o n s . These are pointed out as i n c l u d i n g the problem of p o s s i b l y i n t r o d u c i n g b i a s i n t o the responses, d i f f i c u l t i e s i n i n t e r -p r e t i n g the r e s u l t s , the impact on responseswhere continuous sampling occurs, the f a c t that data becomes r a p i d l y out-of-date and the l a c k of s o p h i s t i c a t e d techniques of a n a l y s i s . O v e r a l l , however, Sewell (1971, p.128) notes t h a t : . . . s t u d i e s of perceptions and a t t i t u d e s may provide important clues as to p u b l i c pre-ferences r e l a t i n g to management of resources . . . (and) . . . such s t u d i e s have a number of advantages over some methods p r e s e n t l y i n use. - 20 -METHODOLOGY As p r e v i o u s l y discussed, the absence of a market mechanism as a t o o l f o r asse s s i n g consumer demands f o r non-p r i c e d r e c r e a t i o n a l resources such as non-consumptive use has n e c e s s i t a t e d a study of preferences. A review of current l i t e r a t u r e has i n d i c a t e d that a v a r i e t y of methodologies f o r a s s e s s i n g preferences have been employed i n the f i e l d of outdoor r e c r e a t i o n research. None of the techniques provide a completely adequate means f o r assessing preferences as a l l are subject to v a r i o u s l i m i t a t i o n s which leave the data generated open to question. I t i s f e l t , however, that the employment of a v a r i e t y of techniques would strengthen the v a l i d i t y o f the f i n d i n g s . Therefore, the methodological approach used i n t h i s research i n v o l v e s the determination of p e r c e p t i o n , a t t i t u d e and behaviour to impute preferences f o r non-consumptive use, employing a questionnaire as the " v e h i c l e " f o r in f o r m a t i o n generation. Questionnaire C o n s t r u c t i o n The reason f o r u s i n g a questionnaire a r i s e s from the i n a b i l i t y to define the "universe" of the non-consumptive use c l i e n t e l e . As mentioned i n the i n t r o d u c t o r y chapter, there i s knowledge of the existence of what may be termed "organized" non-consumptive users as defined by membership i n v a r i o u s n a t u r a l h i s t o r y s o c i e t i e s throught the province. - 21 -These groups are w e l l informed, a r t i c u l a t e and readily-a c c e s s i b l e and were they the only group concerned w i t h non-consumptive use, -preferences could be a s c e r t a i n e d u s i n g such methods as p u b l i c hearings or b r i e f s . However, there are i n d i c a t i o n s of ''unorganized'' non-consumptive users who are not as r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e , yet whose preferences must also be a s c e r t a i n e d . The unorganized c l i e n t e l e could t h e o r e t i c a l l y i n c l u d e everyone e l s e i n the province. B r i e f s and p u b l i c hearings tend to a t t r a c t p r i m a r i l y p u b l i c i n t e r e s t groups which are w e l l informed and have the resources and machinery to a r t i c u l a t e and present the views of the membership, such as the "organized" non-consumptive user. The "unorganized" segments of the popu-l a t i o n who have not access to the mechanisms of an o r g a n i z a -t i o n to a r t i c u l a t e and present t h e i r views are o f t e n not reached by these methods. Through the use of a q u e s t i o n n a i r e , employing v a r i o u s sampling techniques, i t i s p o s s i b l e to ensure that i n f o r m a t i o n i s generated that represents both the organized and unorganized segments of s o c i e t y . For these, reasons, a questionnaire as oppsed to b r i e f s or p u b l i c hearings i s the most appropriate v e h i c l e f o r genera-t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h i s research. C o n s t r u c t i o n of the questionnaire was d i r e c t e d toward the main o b j e c t i v e of the research which i s to i n v e s t i g a t e preferences f o r non-consumptive use of w i l d l i f e - 22 -employing a study of the perceptions, a t t i t u d e s and behaviour of r e c r e a t i o n i s t s . The s p e c i f i c areas under i n v e s t i g a t i o n are; preference f o r non-consumptive use versus consumptive use; preference f o r some s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of non-consumptive use; and f i n n a n c i a l support of w i l d l i f e manage-ment f o r non-consumptive use. Toward t h i s end, a question-n a i r e was designed i n the f o l l o w i n g manner. Preference f o r non-consumptive use versus consumptive use; Question 1 i s designed to assess which of the two main c a t e g o r i e s of w i l d l i f e use i n d i v i d u a l s p r e f e r -consumptive or non-consumptive as i n f e r r e d from the perceptions of the respondents. Given a spec-trum of w i l d l i f e users which might e x i s t , the r e -spondent i s asked to i n d i c a t e which best represents h i m s e l f . The question a l l u d e s to the i n t e n s i t y of preference to the extend that the respondent may i n d i c a t e that he i s e i t h e r " c a s u a l " or " s e r i o u s " w i t h i n one of the main c a t e g o r i e s . Questions 2, 3 and 4 are designed to assess which o f the two main c a t e g o r i e s o f w i l d l i f e use i n d i v i d u a l s p r e f e r through an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the behaviour of the respondent. The behaviour of an i n d i v i d u a l i n the form of a c t u a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s i n f e r r e d as a demonstration of preference f o r non-consumptive use. Preference f o r some s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of non-consumptive use; Question 5 i s employed to i n f e r preference f o r s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n the category o f non-consumptive use as i n d i c a t e d by p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n them. Question 7 i s employed to i n f e r preference f o r s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n s where i n d i v i d u a l s might engage i n non-consumptive use. F i n a n c i a l support of w i l d l i f e management f o r non-consumptive use; - 23 -Questions 9 - 1 5 are a s e r i e s of questions designed to assess a t t i t u d e s of the respondents toward f i n a n c i a l l y supporting w i l d l i f e management f o r non-consumptive use. Socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; Questions 16 - 18 are designed to provide i n f o r m a t i o n on the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the respondents. The questionnaire was p i l o t e d i n m i d - A p r i l at R e i f e l Waterfowl Refuge. An a n a l y s i s of the sample r e t u r n l e d to a number of a l t e r a t i o n s to the questionnaire which i n v o l v e d a r e d u c t i o n i n the number of v a r i a b l e s i n the questions per-t a i n i n g to s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s and a r e s t r u c t u r i n g of the o r d e r i n g of the questions w i t h i n the questionnaire to f a c i l i -t a t e ease of response. (Appendix A contains a copy of the f i n a l questionnaire) Sample S e l e c t i o n U n l i k e the consumptive a c t i v i t i e s , sport hunting and f i s h i n g , f o r which r e s i d e n t s of the province must r e g i s t e r t h e i r i n t e n t to p a r t i c i p a t e through the purchase of a l i c e n s e or permit, there i s no l i c e n c i n g requirement f o r non-consump-t i v e use. This s i t u a t i o n makes i t d i f f i c u l t to a s c e r t a i n the "universe" of the non-consumptive user c l i e n t e l e . Although no formal record of the p a r t i c i p a n t s of non-consumptive use e x i s t s , i t i s p o s s i b l e to d i s c e r n two broad groupings of users. As p r e v i o u s l y discussed, these - 24 -may be termed the "organized" and the "unorganized. The organized users in c l u d e a l l those whoe i n t e r e s t i n non-consumptive use i s r e f l e c t e d i n membership i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s such as the v a r i o u s n a t u r a l h i s t o r y s o c i e t i e s throughout the province. The unorganized are by d e f i n i t i o n a l l those who are i n t e r e s t e d i n non-consumptive use of w i l d l i f e but who do not belong to any c l u b or s o c i e t y . W i t h i n the unorganized group two subgroups may be i d e n t i f i e d . The f i r s t i n c l u d e s those who have demonstrated an i n t e r e s t i n non-consumptive use by v i s i t i n g s p e c i f i c areas geared to non-consumptive use such as Weaver Creek spawning channel and R e i f e l Water-fowl Refuge. The second subgroup c o n s i s t s of a l l those who express an i n t e r e s t i n non-consumptive use yet do not belong to an o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r t h i s purpose and cannot be r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i e d as having v i s i t e d s p e c i f i c non-consumptive use areas, (i'.es. the general population) In order to s e l e c t a sample that would ensure that; a l l three groups were represented, three populations were sampled. These are members of the Vancouver N a t u r a l H i s t o r y S o c i e t y (V.N.H.S.), v i s i t o r s to R e i f e l Waterfowl Refuge and a sample of persons l i s t e d i n the Vancouver Telephone D i r e c t o r y (the general p o p u l a t i o n ) . Members of the Vancouver N a t u r a l H i s t o r y S o c i e t y were interviewed by a m a i l survey. With the permission of the V.N.H.S. executive, access was provided to the complete membership l i s t comprising approximately 1,000 persons, the m a j o r i t y of whom r e s i d e i n the Vancouver area. Questionnaires were mailed to 490 members of the s o c i e t y . The questionnaires were d i s t r i b u t e d to the members during e a r l y May 1973, along w i t h a l e t t e r e x p l a i n i n g the purpose of the study, a l e t t e r from the president of the s o c i e t y endorsing the research and a stamped self-addressed r e t u r n envelope. (Appendix B contains a copy of the cover l e t t e r s ) Response to the questionnaire was e x c e l l e n t . A t o t a l of 328 (67$) of the questionnaires were returned w i t h no followup l e t t e r r e q u i r e d . Of these, 309 (63$) of the t o t a l sample were usable questionnaires employed i n the a n a l y s i s . The sample o f r e s i d e n t s o f the Vancouver area as se l e c t e d from the Vancouver Telephone D i r e c t o r y were sur-veyed through the m a i l as w e l l . Only one cover l e t t e r was used. The sample was chosen by systematic s e l e c t i o n of the f i r s t name of the t h i r d column of each page of the Van-couver Telephone D i r e c t o r y , commencing at the f i r s t page u n t i l 500 names were acquired. Where such items as govern-ment or business e n t e r p r i s e l i s t i n g s were encountered, they were ommitted u n t i l household l i s t i n g s reappeared. Of the t o t a l 500 ques t i o n n a i r e s d i s t r i b u t e d , 144 (29$) were returned. Of these, 136 (27$) were employed i n the a n a l y s i s . - 26 -Questionnaires to v i s i t o r s of R e i f e l Refuge were d i s t r i b u t e d i n person on three consecutive weekends i n May. As the time r e q u i r e d to complete the questionnaire was o n l y 10 - 15 minutes, they were completed "on-the-spot" i n a l l i n s t a n c e s . One hundred f i f t y q u estionnaires were com-pl e t e d w i t h a mere h a l f dozen r e f u s a l s encountered dur i n g the i n t e r v i e w i n g process. A n a l y s i s Questionnaire date were coded f o r keypunching on I.B.M. cards. Three types of a n a l y s i s were then employed u t i l i z i n g the S.P.S.S.* format and the computing f a c i l i t i e s at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. The f i r s t phase e n t a i l s a p r e s e n t a t i o n of des-c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s d e s c r i b i n g the v a r i a b l e s f o r each of the three groups i n terms of simple frequencies. This was done i n order to provide basic i n f o r m a t i o n on the perceptions, a t t i t u d e s , behaviour and socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the respondents. These data were then analyzed i n order to i n f e r preferences f o r non-consumptive use i n conjunction w i t h the f i r s t o b j e c t i v e of the research. The second phase of the a n a l y s i s i n v o l v e s a compari-son of the responses of each of the three groups. This comparison was undertaken i n conjunction w i t h the second o b j e c t i v e of methodological development. I f i t could be - 27 -shown that the o v e r a l l response of the V.N.H.S. and R e i f e l Refuge samples were s i m i l a r to that o f the general population (the telephone sample), the i m p l i c a t i o n f o r fut u r e methodo-l o g i c a l approaches i s that they could serve as a "representa-t i v e c l i e n t group" i n f u t u r e research. This comparison employed Chi-square t e s t s at the .01 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e to determine whether there were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the responses of each of the three groups. Responses to a t o t a l of 23 questions were analysed i n t h i s manner. S?P.S.S. i s the S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r the S o c i a l Sciences CHAPTER 3 PREFERENCES FOR NON-CONSUMPTIVE RECREATIONAL USE OF  WILDLIFE AS INFERRED FROM DATE ON PERCEPTION AND BEHAVIOUR INFERRING PREFERENCES FOR NON-CONSUMPTIVE VERSUS CONSUMPTIVE USE S c h i f f (1971, p.8) notes t h a t : . . . the only way to measure an i n d i v i d u a l s view of the world i s through h i s behaviour, i n c l u d i n g v e r b a l behaviour. Furthermore, . . . the concern i s not o n l y w i t h what an i n d i v i d u a l t h i n k s , but also w i t h what he w i l l do. An attempt w i l l be made to i n f e r which of the two ca t e g o r i e s of w i l d l i f e use - consumptive or non-consumptive, i n d i v i d u a l p r e f e r through an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the perceptions and behaviour of r e c r e a t i o n i s t s . Interviews were presented w i t h a spectrum of s i x d i f f e r e n t d e s c r i p t i o n s o f i n d i v i d u a l s who i n t e r a c t w i t h w i l d l i f e and asked to i n d i c a t e which best represents themselves (Question 1, Appendix A). Table 1, i n d i c a t e s the p r o p o r t i o n of the respondent of the three groups interviewed who perceive themselves as p r i m a r i l y consumptive users of w i l d l i f e e i t h e r as " c a s u a l " or " s e r i o u s " hunter or fisherman. - 29 -TABLE 1 PERCENTAGE OP RESPONDENTS WHO PERCEIVE SELVES AS CONSUMPTIVE USERS OP WILDLIFE CATEGORY OF CONSUMPTIVE USER Group Name Casual Serious (Sample s i z e ) Hunter/Fisherman Hunter/Fisherman TOTAL V.N.H.S. (309) 11 2 13 R e i f e l Refuge (150) 27 7 34 Telephone (136) 36 7 43 A m i n o r i t y of the respondents i n a l l three groups considered themselves consumptive u s e r s . A l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of respon-dents from the telephone sample perceived themselves as consumptive users than e i t h e r o f the other two groups. The m a j o r i t y of consumptive users of a l l three groups were " c a s u a l " hunters o r fishermen. "Serious" hunters o r fishermen com-p r i s e d 7$ or l e s s of a l l groups. Chi-square a n a l y s i s i n d i -cated that the only s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the responses are between the V.N.H.S. and telephone samples and between the V.N.H.S. and R e i f e l Refuge samples (P<.01). - 30 -The m a j o r i t y of i n d i v i d u a l s i n a l l three sample groups perceived themselves as some type of non-consumptive user of w i l d l i f e . As i n d i c a t e d by Table 2, over 80% o f both the R e i f e l and telephone samples were so o r i e n t e d , while t h i s reached a l e v e l of 96% f o r the V.N.H.S. Two percent of the telephone sample i n d i c a t e d that they took l i t t l e n o t i c e of w i l d l i f e . TABLE 2 PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO PERCEIVE SELVES AS NON-CONSUMPTIVE USERS OF WILDLIFE CATEGORY OF NON-CONSUMPTIVE USER Group Casual Observer Casual Observer Serious Take Name In R e l a t i o n Main Object W i l d l i f e L i t t l e (Sample To Other Of G e t t i n g Observation Notice of Size) A c t i v i t i e s Outdoors TOTAL W i l d l i f e V.N.H.S. -3 51 42 96 0 (309) R e i f e l 10 58 13 8 l 0 Refuge (150) Telephone 34 38 6 88 2 (136) - 31 -The V.N.H.S. respondents appeared to have the strongest o r i e n t a t i o n toward non-consumptive use of w i l d l i f e i n that 42$ i n d i c a t e d that they were " s e r i o u s " observers of w i l d l i f e . A l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n o f respondents from the telephone sample (34$) perceived themselves as o n l y c a s u a l observers merely i n r e l a t i o n to some other a c t i v i t y such as mowing the lawn than e i t h e r of the other two groups. Chi-square a n a l y s i s revealed that s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses e x i s t among a l l groups ( P ^ . O l ) . Two of the cat e g o r i e s of non-consumptive users pre-sented r e q u i r e a d e f i n i t e d e c i s i o n to make an o u t i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y to observe and be w i t h w i l d l i f e . The main d i s t i n c t i o n between the c a t e g o r i e s i s a matter o f committment only. These cate-g o r i e s are "cas u a l Observer, yet w i t h the main object of g e t t i n g outdoors to see and be w i t h w i l d l i f e " , and "s e r i o u s w i l d l i f e o b servation as a hobby". I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t that a minimum of 44$* of the respondents of each group perceived themselves as i n d i v i d u a l s who s p e c i f i c a l l y made outings to see and be w i t h w i l d l i f e . For the V.N.H.S. and R e i f e l samples, the l e v e l reached r e s p e c t i v e l y , 71$ and 93$.* These f i g u r e s are derived from a summation of the two categories; o f non-consumptive users; "casual observer/main object of g e t t i n g outdoors" and "s e r i o u s w i l d l i f e observer" as i n d i c a t e d i n Table 2. - 32 -Reference to Table 3 i n d i c a t e s the pr o p o r t i o n of respondents of each group who i n d i c a t e d that they are both consumptive and non-consumptive users of w i l d l i f e . Twenty-three percent or l e s s of the respondents i n any group i n d i c a t e d that they had a dual o r i e n t a t i o n . This suggests that most i n d i v i d u a l s wish to p a r t i c i p a t e i n only one category of w i l d l i f e use. TABLE 3 PERCENTAGE OP RESPONDENTS WHO PERCEIVE SELVES AS BOTH CONSUMPTIVE AND NON-CONSUMPTIVE USERS OP WILDLIFE Group Name (Sample s i z e ) PERCENT OP RESPONDENTS V.I..H.S. (309) 11 R e i f e l Refuge 18 (150 Telephone (136) 23 I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note, however, that the telephone sample, having a greater p r o p o r t i o n of respondents who - 33 -perceived themselves as non-consumptive users than e i t h e r of the other groups i n t e r v i e w e d , also had the highest p r o p o r t i o n of respondents who perceived themselves as both consumptive and non-consumptive u s e r s . The V.N.H.S. on the pther hand, w i t h the fewest p r o p o r t i o n of consumptive u s e r s , had the smallest p r o p o r t i o n i n d i c a t i n g a dual o r i e n t a t i o n . Although no strong i n f e r e n c e s can be made from t h i s , i t may-be i n d i c a t i v e that those who are p r i m a r i l y i n t e r e s t e d i n consumptive use are i n many instances i n t e r e s t e d i n non-consumptive use as w e l l , while those who p r e f e r non-consump-t i v e use w i l l not s i m i l a r l y assume a dual o r i e n t a t i o n . The o v e r a l l t h r u s t of the data thus f a r , however, i s that most of the respondents i n a l l three groups per-ceived themselves as being non-consumptive users of w i l d -l i f e r a t h e r than e i t h e r consumptive users or both consump-t i v e and non-consumptive users. The inference of t h i s f i n d i n g i s that the m a j o r i t y of the respondents of a l l three groups express a preference f o r non-consumptive r e c r e a t i o n a l use of w i l d l i f e . Although the m a j o r i t y of respondents of a l l groups "perceive" themselves as p r i m a r i l y non-consumptive users of w i l d l i f e , i t i s important to know i f t h i s " s e l f - i m p r e s -s i o n " i s r e f l e c t e d i n a c t u a l behaviour w i t h i n the c o n s t r a i n t s of time, money, supply of e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s and so on. - 34 -Toward t h i s end, an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the two c a t e g o r i e s of w i l d l i f e use - consumptive and non-consumptive was undertaken (Questions 2,3, and 4 Appendix A). Table 4 i n d i c a t e s the pr o p o r t i o n of respondents who hunted duri n g the l a s t year. The m a j o r i t y , 83% or over of a l l groups i n t e r v i e w e d , d i d not p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s con-sumptive use of w i l d l i f e . The V.N.H.S., of a l l groups, had the lowest p r o p o r t i o n of respondents who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s a c t i v i t y ( 6 % ) , while the telephone sample had the greatest w i t h 17% p a r t i c i p a t i n g . The m a j o r i t y of each group who d i d go hunting p a r t i c i p a t e d 1-5 times. C h i -square a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d that the on l y s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g -n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses are between the V.N.H.S. and telephone samples and between the V.N.H.S. and R e i f e l samples (P<T.0l). A greater p r o p o r t i o n of a l l three groups p a r t i c i p a t e d i n sport f i s h i n g than sport hunting as i n d i c a t e d by Table 5. The R e i f e l sample had the greatest t o t a l p r o p o r t i o n of respondents making one or more f i s h i n g t r i p s (58%). The V.N.H.S. sample as w i t h hunting, had the lowest p r o p o r t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l s of a l l groups p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n sport f i s h i n g (24%). The greatest p r o p o r t i o n of those who i n d i c a t e d that they went f i s h i n g w i t h i n a l l three groups, made between - 35 -one to f i v e f i s h i n g t r i p s . Chi-square a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d that the on l y s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses are between the V.N.H.S. and telephone samples and between the V.N.H.S. and R e i f e l samples (P<<.01). Response to the question of whether or not i n d i v i d u a l s made outings s p e c i f i c a l l y to observe w i l d l i f e or otherwise i n t e r a c t w i t h w i l d l i f e f o r other than sport hunting or f i s h i n g , i n d i c a t e s that a greater p r o p o r t i o n of respondents of a l l three groups p a r t i c i p a t e d i n non-consumptive use of w i l d l i f e than the consumptive uses sport hunting or f i s h i n g . TABLE 4 TRIPS MADE FOR SPORT HUNTING (Percent) Group NUMBER OF TRIPS Percent of Name respondents making (Sample 1 or more t r i p s Size) 0 1 - 5 5 - 1 0 over 10 V.N.H.S. (309) 94 3 2 1 6 R e i f e l Refuge 87 9 1 3 13 (150) Telephone (136) 83 12 2 3 17 TABLE 5 TRIPS MADE FOR SPORT FISHING (Percent) Groups NUMBER OF TRIPS Percent of Name respondents making (Sample 1 or more t r i p s Size) 0 1 - 5 5 - 1 0 over 10 V.N.H.S. (309) 76 15 6 3 24 R e i f e l Refuge 42 30 15 13 58 (150) Telephone (136) 51 24 10 16 49 As noted by Table 6, 96%, 80% and 54% of the V.N.H.S., R e i f e l and telephone samples r e s p e c t i v e l y i n d i c a t e d that they made one or more outings s p e c i f i c a l l y to observe w i l d l i f e . C h i -square a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d that s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses e x i s t among a l l groups (P<.01). - 37 -TABLE 6 TRIPS MADE SPECIFICALLY TO OBSERVE WILDLIFE (Percent) Group Name NUMBER OF TRIPS (Sample Size) 0 1 or more V.N.H.S. (309) 4 96 R e i f e l Refuge (150) 20 80 Telephone (136) 46 54 Data on p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the two cat e g o r i e s of w i l d l i f e use i n d i c a t e s that a gre a t e r p r o p o r t i o n by f a r of respondents of a l l three groups p a r t i c i p a t e d i n non-con-sumptive use of w i l d l i f e than i n e i t h e r sport hunting or sport f i s h i n g . I t i s assumed that the behaviour o f an i n d i v i d u a l i n the form of a c t u a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n r e f l e c t s the c o n s t r a i n t s of time, money, supply of o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r both c a t e g o r i e s o f w i l d l i f e use and so on. Therefore, i t i s i n f e r r e d from these data that the m a j o r i t y of respondents of a l l groups, given v a r i o u s current c o n s t r a i n t s to p a r t i c i -p a t i o n , express a preference f o r non-consumptive use o f w i l d l i f e . This f i n d i n g derived from the behaviour of the - 38 -respondents r e i n f o r c e s that whereby the m a j o r i t y of a l l groups perceived themselves as non-consumptive users of w i l d l i f e . INFERRING PREFERENCES FOR SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-CONSUMPTIVE USE From a w i l d l i f e management viewpoint i t i s not s u f f i c i e n t to assess o n l y whether or not an i n d i v i d u a l p r e f e r s non-consumptive as opposed to consumptive use. Information on the s p e c i f i c " c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s " of non-consumptive use and preferences f o r them i s a l s o r e q u i r e d . Such i n f o r m a t i o n requirements i n c l u d e preferences f o r s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n the category of non-consumptive use and s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n s where i n d i v i d u a l s p r e f e r to engage i n non-consumptive use. In an attempt to generate i n f o r m a t i o n on preferences f o r s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s , those interviewed were presented w i t h a number of a c t i v i t i e s i n v o l v i n g w i l d l i f e and asked to i n d i c a t e whether they p a r t i c i p a t e d i n them during the l a s t year (Question 5 Appendix A). An "other" category was also presented i n order that any a c t i v i t y not contained i n the question but i n which an i n d i v i d u a l may have p a r t i c i -pated might be also taken i n t o account. As i n d i c a t e d by Table 7, a high p r o p o r t i o n of a l l groups p a r t i c i p a t e d i n four of the seven non-consumptive a c t i v i t i e s ( i n c l u d i n g " o t h e r " ) . These a c t i v i t i e s are - 39 -" w i l d l i f e v i e w i n g i n s p e c i f i c areas", "photographing w i l d l i f e " , " i d e n t i f y i n g w i l d l i f e " and "feeding w i l d l i f e " . There was l i t t l e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n " p a i n t i n g or sketching w i l d l i f e " , "keeping a l i f e l i s t " and "other" w i l d l i f e o r i e n t e d a c t i v i t i e s , i n that l e s s than 10$ of the respondents of a l l groups p a r t i c i p a t e d i n these a c t i v i t i e s d uring the l a s t year w i t h the exception of the V.N.H.S. p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n "keeping a l i f e l i s t " ( 3 4 $ ) . TABLE 7 PARTICIPATION IN SPECIFIC NON-CONSUMPTIVE ACTIVITIES DURING 1972 (Percent) ACTIVITIES Group W i l d l i f e Photographing P a i n t i n g I d e n t i f y i n g Feeding Keeping Other Name Viewing i n W i l d l i f e or W i l d l i f e W i l d l i f e a (Sample S p e c i f i c Sketching L i f e l i s t S ize) Areas W i l d l i f e V.N.H.S. (309) 89 49 8 83 68 34 10 R e i f e l Refuge 81 57 7 53 67 (150) T e U 3 6 ) n e 6 1 2 7 4 4 4 5 2 - 41 -Of a l l a c t i v i t i e s , the greatest p r o p o r t i o n of respondents of a l l groups p a r t i c i p a t e d i n w i l d l i f e viewing. The f i g u r e s are 61% or greater f o r a l l groups reaching a high of 89% p a r t i c i p a t i n g from the V.N.H.S. Over h a l f of the respondents from a l l groups p a r t i c i p a t e d i n w i l d l i f e f e e d i n g . A s u b s t a n t i a l p r o p o r t i o n of a l l samples p a r t i c i -pated i n w i l d l i f e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . For the V.N.H.S. and R e i f e l groups the f i g u r e s are 83% and 53% r e s p e c t i v e l y , w h i l e 44% of the telephone sample engaged i n t h i s a c t i v i t y . W i l d l i f e photography, an a c t i v i t y which r e q u i r e s an investment i n equipment and su p p l i e s as a p r e r e q u i s i t e to p a r t i c i p a t i o n , a lso had a r e l a t i v e l y high r a t e of p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Fourty-nine percent of the V.N.H.S. and 57% of the R e i f e l sample p a r t i c i p a t e d during the l a s t year. The f i g u r e was much lower f o r the telephone sample (27%). Two of the a c t i v i t i e s which had low r a t e s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n are ones which i n v o l v e a reasonably high l e v e l of s k i l l o r committment on the part of the p a r t i c i p a n t . P a i n t i n g or sketc h i n g w i l d l i f e r e q u i r e s a r t i s t i c t a l e n t s p r e r e q u i s i t e to p a r t i c i p a t i o n , w h i l e the keeping o f a l i f e -l i s t , which i n v o l v e s the com p i l a t i o n of a l i s t o f w i l d l i f e spotted over u s u a l l y a long p e r i o d of time, r e q u i r e s a high l e v e l of committment. These c o n s t r a i n t s may account - 42 -f o r the low pr o p o r t i o n of respondents from a l l groups who engaged i n these a c t i v i t i e s . Indeed, a number of respondents i n d i c a t e d that they d i d not p a r t i c i p a t e i n p a i n t i n g or sketching w i l d l i f e because they "couldn't draw". C l e a r l y , there are c o n s t r a i n t s to p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the v a r i o u s s p e c i f i c non-consumptive a c t i v i t i e s . With-i n these c o n s t r a i n t s , i n d i v i d u a l s make a choice to p a r t i c i p a t e i n some non-consumptive a c t i v i t i e s and not other s . These data i n d i c a t e that most of the respondents i n a l l groups express a preference to i n t e r a c t w i t h w i l d l i f e i n a non-consumptive manner through p r i m a r i l y f o u r a c t i v i t i e s ; w i l d l i f e v i e wing, w i l d l i f e photography, w i l d l i f e i d e n t i f i -c a t i o n and w i l d l i f e f eeding. Chi-square a n a l y s i s o f the responses to the f o u r a c t i v i t i e s w i t h the greatest r a t e s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d i -cated that the on l y s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses are; between the R e i f e l and telephone samples and between the V.N.H.S. and telephone samples i n r e l a t i o n to w i l d l i f e v i e w i n g (P<^.0l); between the V.N.H.S. and telephone samples and between the V.N.H.S. and R e i f e l samples i n r e l a t i o n to p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n w i l d -l i f e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (P'.<.0l); between the responses of the V.N.H.S. and telephone samples i n r e l a t i o n to p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n w i l d l i f e f e e ding (P;<.0l); and between the R e i f e l and - 43 -telephone samples and between the V.N.H.S. and telephone samples i n r e l a t i o n to w i l d l i f e photography (P<<".01) In order to i n v e s t i g a t e preferences f o r s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n s where i n d i v i d u a l s might i n t e r a c t w i t h w i l d l i f e i n a non-consumptive manner, data on the number of t r i p s made to three s p e c i f i c s i t e s to view w i l d l i f e were analyzed (Question 7a Appendix A). The three areas d i f f e r s u b s t a n t i a l l y from one another. The George C. R e i f e l Waterfowl Refuge at the mouth of the Fraser R i v e r i s operated by the B.C. Water-fowl S o c i e t y as a n o n - p r o f i t e n t e r p r i z e , dedicated to the pr e s e r v a t i o n of prime waterfowl h a b i t a t . I t i s an estuarine marsh which supports Canada's l a r g e s t w i n t e r i n g p o p u l a t i o n of waterfowl. The l a r g e concentrations of ducks and geese, p a r t i c u l a r l y snow geese, i n h a b i t the area w i t h a l a r g e v a r i e t y of other species of w i l d l i f e indigeneous to the area. P r i c e of admission to the refuge i s $0.75 f o r a d u l t s $0.50 f o r students. Vancouver Game Farm, on the other hand, s p e c i a l i z e s i n the d i s p l a y o f a v a r i e t y of e x o t i c and introduced species of w i l d l i f e i n a z o o - l i k e atmosphere. The species to be viewed i n c l u d e zebras and elephants. This area i s a commercial venture s i m i l a r to other establishments such - 44 -as the Okanagan Game Farm i n P e n t i c t o n , B.C.. Admission to the s i t e i s $1.50 f o r a d u l t s , $1.00 f o r students and $0.50 f o r c h i l d r e n . The t h i r d area where one might view w i l d l i f e c oncentrations i n c l u d e s one of a number of a r t i f i c i a l f i s h spawning channels operated by government agencies to replace n a t u r a l f i s h (salmon) spawning h a b i t a t . They in c l u d e Weaver Creek salmon spawning channel and the Capilano Hatchery. U n l i k e the former two areas, the w i l d l i f e to be observed i s l i m i t e d to p r i m a r i l y f i s h and concentrations appear only during a few weeks each f a l l i n the spawning season. While R e i f e l Refuge and the Vancouver Game Farm charge an admission f e e , the f i s h spawning channels may be v i s i t e d at no charge. Reference to Table 8, i n d i c a t e s that a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of a l l groups v i s i t e d R e i f e l Refuge. E i g h t y -three percent and 35$ of the V.N.H.S. and telephone samples r e s p e c t i v e l y , v i s i t e d the area one or more times. The m a j o r i t y of the V.N.H.S. and R e i f e l samples frequented the area two or more times. Moreover, 47$ of the V.N.H.S. group made over three t r i p s to the refuge. The p r o p o r t i o n of respondents of a l l groups who v i s i t e d the Vancouver Game Farm i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y lower. Twenty-four percent or fewer of the members of any group - 45 -made even one v i s i t as i n d i c a t e d by Table 9 . The m a j o r i t y of those who d i d v i s i t the area from any group made o n l y one v i s i t . As w i t h the Vancouver Game Farm, the m a j o r i t y of respondents made no v i s i t s to an a r t i f i c i a l f i s h spawning channel. However, Table 10 i n d i c a t e s that a s l i g h t l y g reater p r o p o r t i o n of a l l groups made at l e a s t one t r i p to the spawning channel than to the Vancouver Game Farm. Very few of any group made over three t r i p s , l e s s than 6$ of a l l groups. TABLE 8 TRIPS MADE TO REIFEL REFUGE (Percent) Group NUMBER OF TRIPS Name ( S i ^ e ) 6 0 1 - 2 2 - 3 over 3 83 100 35 Percent of respondents making 1 or more t r i p s V(309)S* 1 7 1 0 2 7 4 7 R e i f e l Refuge 0 49 25 27 ( 1 5 0 ) Telephone ( 1 3 6 ) 65 14 13 8 - 46 -TABLE 9 TRIPS MADE TO VANCOUVER GAME FARM (Percent) Group Name (Sample Size) 0 NUMBER OF TRIPS 1-2 2-3 o v e r 3 Percent of respondents m a k i n g 1 o r more t r i p s V.N.H.S. (309) 77 16 23 R e i f e l Refuge (150) 77 15 Telephone n c -,n t-(136) 7 6 1 7 5 23 24 TABLE 10 TRIPS MADE TO AN ARTIFICIAL FISH SPAWNING CHANNEL (Percent) Group Name (Sample Size) 0 NUMBER OF TRIPS 1-2 2-3 over 3 Percent of respondents making 1 or more t r i p s V.N.H.S. (309) R e i f e l Refuge (150) 61 63 Telephone C o (136) 6 8 22 13 18 13 13 15 4 39 37 32 Chi-square a n a l y s i s revealed that there are no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among the responses of the groups interviewed w i t h respect to v i s i t s to the Vancouver Game Farm and v i s i t s to an a r t i f i c i a l f i s h spawning channel ( P ^ l . O l ) . S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses e x i s t among a l l groups i n r e l a t i o n to v i s i t s to R e i f e l Refuge ( P < . 0 1 ) . In summary, a greater p r o p o r t i o n of respondents from a l l groups v i s i t e d R e i f e l Refuge than any other area. The l e a s t v i s i t e d area i s the Vancouver Game Farm. More-over, R e i f e l Refuge had a greater p r o p o r t i o n of respondents from a l l three groups making r e t u r n v i s i t s than e i t h e r of the other areas. This f i n d i n g suggests that the expressed preference i s i n favour of R e i f e l Refuge r a t h e r than the Vancouver Game Farm or an a r t i f i c i a l f i s h spawning channel. CHAPTER 4 ATTITUDES TOWARD FINANCIALLY SUPPORTING WILDLIFE  MANAGEMENT FOR NON-CONSUMPTIVE USE A n a l y s i s of perceptions and behaviour of i n d i v i d u a l s i n Chapter Three, suggests that the m a j o r i t y of respondents from a l l groups interviewed p r e f e r non-consumptive use of w i l d l i f e to consumptive use. Given t h i s f i n d i n g , the i m p l i c a t i o n i s that w i l d l i f e management a c t i v i t i e s which are c u r r e n t l y d i r e c t e d p r i m a r i l y toward consumptive uses may r e q u i r e a r e o r i e n t a t i o n more toward non-consumptive a c t i v i t i e s . To do so, however, would s t r a i n the already l i m i t e d w i l d l i f e management budget f o r which the prime source of funds i s through the sale of hunting and f i s h i n g l i c e n s e s to consumptive users. A d d i t i o n a l sources o f revenues are ther e f o r e r e q u i r e d . As C a l l i s o n (1973 PP* 5-6) r e c e n t l y noted: You can't r e a l l y get i n t o research and management of non-game w i l d l i f e on the scale i t deserves without new funds. I t i s n ' t f a i r to go to the sportsman f o r funds f o r t h i s purpose . . . the time i s at hand f o r the non-hunter and non-angler to begin to match h i s 'non-consumptive' demands f o r f i s h and w i l d -l i f e and t h e i r h a b i t a t w i t h h i s money. The question which a r i s e s i s whether i n d i v i d u a l s would f i n a n c i a l l y support w i l d l i f e management f o r non-consumptive use. In an attempt to generate i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h i s regard, a t t i t u d e s p e r t a i n i n g to ways of f i n a n c i a l l y - 49 -supporting w i l d l i f e management f o r non-consumptive use were i n v e s t i g a t e d . The f o l l o w i n g questions c o n s t i t u t e t h i s p o r t i o n of the survey. a) "Do you t h i n k everyone, not only hunters and fishermen should make a f i n a n c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n to w i l d l i f e management i n B.C.?" respondents of a l l groups interviewed agreed that every-one should c o n t r i b u t e f i n a n c i a l l y to w i l d l i f e management i n the province. At l e a s t 75% of the V.N.H.S. and R e i f e l Refuge groups i n d i c a t e d " y e s t " , while the f i g u r e was 64% f o r the telephone sample. Chi-square a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d that there are no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among the responses of the three groups (P<£.01). As i n d i c a t e d by Table 11, the m a j o r i t y of TABLE 11 ATTITUDE TOWARD WHETHER EVERYONE SHOULD MAKE A FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN B.C. Group Name (Sample Size) PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS INDICATING V.N.H.S. 75 9 12 (309) R e i f e l 77 9 9 Telephone (136) 64 18 14 - 50 -b) "Would you be i n favour of paying a fee f o r viewing concentrations of w i l d l i f e i n t h e i r natural habitat?" The majority of respondents from a l l groups indicated that they would be w i l l i n g to pay a fee for viewing w i l d l i f e i n t h e i r natural habitat. As indicated by Table 12, 70$ or over of the respondents of a l l groups stated "yes". It i s important to note that a number of respondents q u a l i f i e d t h e i r response with statements to the effect that they would not f i n a n c i a l l y support "zoo-l i k e " areas. Chi-square analysis indicated that there are no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t differences among the responses of the groups interviewed, ( P ^ . O l ) . TABLE 12 WILLINGNESS TO PAY A PEE FOR WILDLIFE VIEWING Group PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS INDICATING Name Don't V.N.H.S. i-7 -> -I Q i-r (309) 7 3 1 8 7 R e i f e l Refuge 77 21 (150) Telephone (136) 70 27 - 51 -c) "How much would you be w i l l i n g to pay per v i s i t ? " Table 13 gives the d i s t r i b u t i o n of respondents according to the amount of fee they would be w i l l i n g to pay f o r each v i s i t f o r viewing w i l d l i f e . Approximately 73% of the respondents of a l l groups are w i l l i n g to pay at l e a s t $0.50. Close to h a l f of a l l groups i n t e r -viewed were w i l l i n g to pay $1.00 or more. There are no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among the responses of the three groups (P -C .01). TABLE 13 DISTRIBUTION OP RESPONDENTS BY THE AMOUNT OP PEE THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY Group Name (Sample Size) $0.50 PERCENTAGE OP RESPONDENTS INDICATING $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 over $2.00 V.N.H.S. (309) 19 33 5 7 7 R e i f e l 31 29 4 5 6 Telephone (136) 18 32 8 9 2 - 52 -d) "Would you l i k e to see money spent to support an 'urban' w i l d l i f e management program d i r e c t e d toward non-game species?" respondents from a l l groups interviewed wish to see funds channeled toward urban w i l d l i f e management. Less than 10$ of any group i n d i c a t e d "no". Chi-square a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d that there are no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among the responses of the groups (P .01). As i n d i c a t e d by Table 14, 74$ or more of the TABLE 14 ATTITUDE TOWARD DIRECTING FUNDS TO AN URBAN WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Group Name (Sample Size) PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS INDICATING Yes No Don't Know V.N.H.S. 77 9 10 (309) R e i f e l Refuge (150) 77 9 12 Telephone (136) 74 10 13 e) "Would you be w i l l i n g to pay increased taxes to support such a program?" each group wish to see funds d i r e c t e d toward an urban w i l d l i f e management program, but i n a d d i t i o n , a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f respondents from a l l groups i s w i l l i n g to pay increased c i t y taxes to f i n a n c i a l l y support such a program. For the V.N.H.S. and R e i f e l samples, the f i g u r e s are 64% and 53% r e s p e c t i v e l y , w h i l e f o r the telephone sample the p r o p o r t i o n i s 46%. Chi-square a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d that the onl y s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f responses among the groups are between the V.M.H.S. and telephone samples (P <.01). Not only does the m a j o r i t y of respondents o f TABLE 15 WILLINGNESS TO PAY INCREASED CITY TAXES TO SUPPORT AN URBAN WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Group Name (Sample Size) PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS INDICATING Don't Yes No Know V.N.H.S. (309) 64 10 10 R e i f e l Refuge (150) 53 13 17 Telephone (136) 46 21 15 - 54 -As r e v e a l e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s o f a t t i t u d e s , the m a j o r i t y o f respondents from a l l groups i n d i c a t e d t h a t they would f i n a n c i a l l y support w i l d l i f e management f o r non-consumptive use. C l e a r l y , i n v e s t i g a t i n g an i n d i v i d u a l ' s a t t i t u d e toward w i l l i n g n e s s to f i n a n c i a l l y support w i l d -l i f e management f o r non-consumptive use through the use o f a s i n g l e q u e s t i o n does not y i e l d s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n to be o f v a l u e and may not adequately r e f l e c t h i s f e e l i n g s . However, t h a t the m a j o r i t y o f respondents from a l l groups supported a s e r i e s o f qu e s t i o n s p e r t a i n i n g to t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s to spend sums of money f o r the management o f non-game s p e c i e s i s s i g n i f i c a n t . T h i s f i n d i n g suggests t h a t a l a r g e number o f i n d i v i d u a l s , g i v e n the o p p o r t u n i t y , would support p r o v i n c i a l fund r a i s i n g schemes f o r the management o f non-game w i l d l i f e . CHAPTER 5 A COMPARISON OF THE CHARACTERISTICS AND RESPONSES  OF ORGANIZED AND UNORGANIZED NON-CONSUMPTIVE  USERS OF WILDLIFE The i n t e n t of t h i s chapter i s to undertake a comparison of the three groups interviewed to assess whether there are s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among them. More s p e c i f i -c a l l y , t h i s comparison i s undertaken with the o b j e c t i v e of methodological development to determine; f i r s t , whether there are s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n perceptions, a t t i t u d e s , behaviour and socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s between non-consumptive users who j o i n clubs ("organized" users) and "unorganized" u s e r s ; and secondly, whether there are s i m i l a r d i f f e r e n c e s between the two groups of unorganized users. To undertake t h i s comparison, the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the respondents of each group w i l l be analyzed and compared. Second, the Chi-square t e s t s at the .01 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e w i l l be summarized to determine to what extent there are s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n response among the groups to the questions p e r t a i n i n g to perceptio n s , a t t i t u d e s , behaviour and socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . - 56 -SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS A v a r i e t y of background c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the respondents were c o l l e c t e d ; age, education, income, environment of upbrin g i n g and membership i n n a t u r a l i s t , hunting or conservation o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Such i n f o r m a t i o n not o n l y f a c i l i t a t e s a comparison of the three groups, but i n a d d i t i o n , permits an assessment of which i n d i v i d u a l s are motivated to p a r t i c i p a t e i n non-consumptive use. a) Age: The age d i s t r i b u t i o n of the respondents i s presented i n Table 16, w i t h v i r t u a l l y a l l age groups represented. V.N.H.S. respondents are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by o l d e r a d u l t s w i t h the m a j o r i t y , 67$, age 45 or over. The m a j o r i t y of those interviewed at R e i f e l Refuge, on the other hand, tend to be a younger group such that 78$ are age 45 or l e s s . Respondents from the telephone sample are comprised of p r i m a r i l y young to middle-aged a d u l t s w i t h 74$ between the ages of 25-54. Chi-square a n a l y s i s revealed that s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses e x i s t among a l l groups (P Z..01). TABLE 16 AGE DISTRIBUTION OP RESPONDENTS (Percent) Group AGE LEVELS Name (Sample Size) Under 15 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 over 65 V.N.H.S. (309) 11 13 27 28 12 i R e i f e l Refuge (150) 0 23 34 21 12 Telephone (136) 7 27 24 23 10 - 58 -b) Education: As i n d i c a t e d by Table 17, the m a j o r i t y of respondents from a l l groups have a high l e v e l of educational attainment i n that 51% or over of a l l groups had at l e a s t some u n i v e r s i t y or t e c h n i c a l t r a i n i n g . For the V.N.H.S. and R e i f e l samples, the f i g u r e reached 65%. The V.N.H.S. has a greater p r o p o r t i o n of respondents than any other groups, who have completed u n i v e r s i t y . The telephone sample has the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n of respondents of a l l groups who have high school graduation or l e s s (49%). Chi-square a n a l y s i s demonstrated that the only s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses are between the V.N.H.S. and telephone samples and between the V.N.H.S. and R e i f e l samples (P<[.01). TABLE 17 EDUCATION OP RESPONDENTS (Percent) Group EDUCATION LEVEL Name ( S i ^ e ) 8 G r a d e S o m e H i g h ' 1-8 High School Some U n i v e r s i t y T e c h n i c a l School Graduate U n i v e r s i t y Degree Degree V.N.H.S, (309) 4 20 19 40 R e i f e l Refuge (150) 11 23 20 29 16 27 10 - 60 -c) Income: The respondents of a l l three groups are drawn from a wide range of f a m i l y incomes. As i n d i c a t e d by Table 18, a la r g e p r o p o r t i o n , at l e a s t 38%, of the V.N.H.S. and telephone samples have incomes of $12,000 or over. For the R e i f e l sample the pr o p o r t i o n of respondents w i t h incomes of $12,000 or over i s 22%. The R e i f e l sample tends to be represented i n the middle income bracket more than the other groups i n that 51% of the R e i f e l sample have incomes between $6,000 and $12,000. For the V.N.H.S. and telephone samples, the f i g u r e s are 33% and 40% r e s p e c t i v e l y . Chi-square a n a l y s i s revealed that the only s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s t r i -b u tion of responses are between the V.N.H.S. and R e i f e l samples (P<1.01). TABLE 18 INCOME LEVELS OP RESPONDENTS (Percent) Group HOUSEHOLD INCOME Name , (Sample L e s s T h a n 3 > 000- 6,000- 9,000- 12,000- 16,000- over ; $3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 16,000 20,000 20,000 V.N.H.S. (309) 11 16 16 17 16 11 11 R e i f e l Refuge 10 14 22 29 12 (150) Telephone (136) 7 10 13 27 21 5 13 - 62 -d) Environment of Upbringing: As i l l u s t r a t e d by Table 19, the respondents from a l l groups r e s i d e d i n s i m i l a r environments during t h e i r childhood. Approximately one h a l f of the respondents from a l l groups l i v e d i n a l a r g e r c i t y during t h e i r childhood, while c l o s e to one t h i r d of the respondents of a l l groups spent t h i s p eriod i n r u r a l areas. The responses of the three groups d i f f e r o n l y to the extent that the telephone sample has a s l i g h t l y g r eater p r o p o r t i o n of respondents who re s i d e d i n l a r g e r c i t i e s and a s l i g h t l y lower p r o p o r t i o n who l i v e d i n r u r a l areas than e i t h e r of the other two groups. Chi-square a n a l y s i s revealed that there are no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n response among the groups (P<£.01). TABLE 19 RESPONDENTS' ENVIRONMENT OP UPBRINGING (Percent) Group TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT Name ^ S i z e ) 6 Non-farm C i t y l e s s Larger Farm R u r a l Than 10,000 C i t y V.N.H.S. 18 20 19 43 (309) R e i f e l Refuge 16 16 19 49 (150) Telephone 10 18 17 55 (136) - 63 -e) Membership i n n a t u r a l i s t , hunting or conservation o r g a n i z a t i o n s : Table 20, i n d i c a t e s the pr o p o r t i o n of respondents of each group who are a f f i l i a t e d w i t h a conservation or outdoor o r g a n i z a t i o n . The m a j o r i t y , 78% or over of the respondents of both the R e i f e l and telpehone samples do not belong to any such o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The inference i s that f o r a l a r g e number of i n d i v i d u a l s , there i s not neces-s a r i l y a r e l a t i o n s h i p between an i n t e r e s t i n non-consumptive use of w i l d l i f e and membership i n a club or o r g a n i z a t i o n . Chi-square a n a l y s i s revealed that the only s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses are between the V.N.H.S. and telephone samples and between the V.N.H.S. and R e i f e l samples ( P ^ . O l ) . TABLE 20 MEMBERSHIP IN NATURALIST, HUNTING OR CONSERVATION ORGANIZATIONS (Percent) Group PROPORTION INDICATING Name (Sample Size) Yes No V.N.H.S. (309) 97 3 R e i f e l Refuge (150) 22 78 Telephone (136) 14 86 - 64 -Summary Comparison of the C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Organized and Unorganized Users The environment of up b r i n g i n g of the "organized" (V.N.H.S.) and "unorganized" ( R e i f e l and telephone samples) non-consumptive users are qu i t e s i m i l a r . Approximately one h a l f of the respondents of both the organized and un-unorganized c l i e n t e l e spent t h e i r childhood i n a l a r g e r c i t y . In terms of income, the organized users are s i m i l a r to the telephone group i n that both have a s u b s t a n t i a l number of respondents from high income l e v e l s . U n l i k e the organized u s e r s , however, the R e i f e l sample tends to be l a r g e l y represented i n the middle-income range. The organized users are s l i g h t l y o l d e r and have a higher l e v e l of educational attainment than i n d i v i d u a l s r e p r e s e n t i n g the unorganized group. In a d d i t i o n , u n l i k e the unorganized c l i e n t e l e , the data confirmed that very few of the respondents from the unorganized groups belonged to any conservation or outdoor o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Summary Comparison of the C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Two Groups of Unorganized Users The two groups of unorganized users - the R e i f e l and telephone samples, are s i m i l a r i n terms of environment of u p b r i n g i n g , education, income and membership i n conser-v a t i o n or outdoor o r g a n i z a t i o n s . In r e l a t i o n to age - 65 -c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , the two groups d i f f e r . The m a j o r i t y of the telephone sample are young to middle-aged a d u l t s between the ages of 25-54, while the m a j o r i t y of respondents from the R e i f e l group are under age 45. Summary Comparison of the Responses of the Organized and Unorganized Non-Consumptive Users The reason f o r undertaking t h i s summary comparison i s to determine whether organized users represent v i s i t o r s to l o c a l w i l d l i f e refuges and whether e i t h e r or both o f these groups represent the general p o p u l a t i o n . Of the three, the V.N.H.S. i s a v o c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h the a b i l i t y to a r t i c u a l t e preferences p e r t a i n i n g to non-consumptive use. Remembering that i n f o r m a t i o n from a l l r e s i d e n t s of the province i s re q u i r e d when making management d e c i s i o n s f o r a p u b l i c resource, i f the o v e r a l l response of the V.N.H.S. i s s i m i l a r to the two groups of unorganized u s e r s , the i m p l i c a t i o n i s that the F i s h and W i l d l i k e Branch can look to organized groups f o r l e a d e r s h i p when making manage-ment d e c i s i o n s . However, i f there are s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the V.N.H.S. and unorganized u s e r s , f u r t h e r i n -formation generated from organized groups would not l i k e l y represent the unorganized c l i e n t e l e . S i m i l a r l y , i f there are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the o v e r a l l response of the R e i f e l and telephone samples, the inference i s that - 66 -the P i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch can r e l y on v i s i t o r s to l o c a l w i l d l i f e refuges to supply i n f o r m a t i o n that w i l l represent the general p o p u l a t i o n . Throughout the preceeding a n a l y s i s , r e s u l t s were presented which showed the d i f f e r e n c e s and s i m i l a r i t i e s among the three groups sampled i n terms o f t h e i r response to twenty-three questions i n v e s t i g a t i n g p e r c e p t i o n s , behaviour, a t t i t u d e s and socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s was done u s i n g the Chi-square t e s t to examine whether the between-group d i f f e r e n c e s i n response were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Table 21 presents the r e s u l t s o f the Chi-square t e s t s f o r each response at the .01 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l . A summary of these r e s u l t s i s contained i n Table 22. As i n d i c a t e d by Table 22, the R e i f e l and telephone samples have the greatest o v e r a l l s i m i l a r i t y of response. Both groups responded i n a s i m i l a r manner to seventeen (74%) of a t o t a l of twenty-three questions. There i s l e a s t s i m i l a r i t y of response between the V.N.H.S. and telephone samples. The two groups responded i n a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n to o n l y nine (39%) of the twenty-three questions. The V.N.H.S. and R e i f e l samples had s i m i l a r response to twelve (52%) of the questions. ,- 67 -In that the organized users (V.N.H.S.) and the two groups of unorganized users responded i n a s i m i l a r manner to one h a l f or l e s s of the questions p e r t a i n i n g to non-consumptive use, suggests that those who j o i n c l u b s , the organized c l i e n t e l e , are a r e l a t i v e l y s p e c i a l i z e d group of non-consumptive users of w i l d l i f e . The inference i s that any data c o l l e c t e d i n the f u t u r e from organized groups such as N a t u r a l H i s t o r y S o c i e t i e s i n r e l a t i o n to non-consumptive use of w i l d l i f e w i l l not tend to be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of e i t h e r of the unorganized groups. That the R e i f e l and telephone samples responded i n a s i m i l a r manner to a m a j o r i t y , (74$) of the questions suggests that the R e i f e l sample i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n . The inf e r e n c e of t h i s f i n d i n g i s that any f u r t h e r data c o l l e c t e d from v i s i t o r s to l o c a l w i l d l i f e refuges i n r e l a t i o n to non-consumptive use, w i l l approximate that of the general po p u l a t i o n . - '68 -W <! na < H 3 W CD • CD • CD CD H- S H Si H H-^ L. CD • CD r+1 CD ffi >d CD H • ty H CO O CO o \ • s • 0 CD \ CD ><i X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X o CD 4 3 h - o w a £ P CM *d 4 CD CD ft PERCEPTIONS Hunter or Fisherman (Consumptive Users) W i l d l i f e Observer (Non-consumptive User) BEHAVIOUR T r i p s Made For Sport Hunting T r i p s Made For Sport F i s h i n g T r i p s Made to Observe W i l d l i f e P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n W i l d l i f e • V i e w i n g P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n W i l d l i f e Photography-P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n W i l d l i f e I d e n t i f i c a t i o n P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n W i l d l i f e Feeding T r i p s to R e i f e l Refuge T r i p s to Vancouver Game Farm T r i p s to A r t i f i c a l F i s h Spawning Channel ATTITUDES Everyone Should F i n a n c i a l l y Contribute W i l d l i f e Management W i l l i n g n e s s to Pay W i l d l i f e Viewing Fee g o a td C h td O 1-3 > bd > L e v e l of Fee D e s i r a b i l i t y of Urbkn W i l d l i f e Management W i l l i n g n e s s to Pay Increased C i t y Taxes SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA Environment of Upbringing Area L i v e d During Adult L i f e Age Education Income Membership i n Conservation or Outdoor Organizations co w H bd CJ GO H O ^ & H CO o bd > CO 1-3 >xj O fcf fcf w bd M ^ ^ g O • >xj ffi 1-3 O - M H 1-3 > bd tn bd K <; M m bd CO bd ro > tri W 2| bd bd tx ! 1-3 > bd bd bd S! ^ O M CO O h9 q > h3 ha CO HH CO > h9 H3 M O 1-3 [fe-rn tri bd f TABLE 22 SUMMARY OF THE NUMBER OF RESPONSES FOR WHICH THERE ARE NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS AT THE .01 LEVEL SUBJECT AREA AND NUMBER OF RESPONSES Groups > \ Socio-Economic Being Perceptions Behaviour A t t i t u d e s C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s T o t a l Percent Compared 2 10 5 6 23 100 M3 R e i f e l / Telephone V.N.H.S./ Telephone V.N.H.S./ R e i f e l 1 0 0 22 5 4 17 12 74 39 52 CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS INTRODUCTION The purpose of t h i s chapter i s to draw out the s a l i e n t aspects of the data p r e v i o u s l y analyzed; to o u t l i n e a number of l i m i t a t i o n s of the research; and i n view of the study f i n d i n g s , to discuss some i m p l i c a t i o n s of the research. MAJOR FINDINGS I n v e s t i g a t i o n of the perceptions of i n d i v i d u a l s revealed that the m a j o r i t y of respondents i n the three groups perceived themselves as non-consumptive users of w i l d l i f e . The V.N.H.S. had the greatest p r o p o r t i o n of respondents i n t h i s category. The telephone sample had the greatest p r o p o r t i o n of respondents who i n d i c a t e d that they were consumptive users e i t h e r as " c a s u a l " or " s e r i o u s " hunters or fishermen. Few of the respondents from any groups e x h i b i t e d a dual o r i e n t a t i o n . I t i s assumed that the behaviour of an i n d i v i d u a l i n the form of a c t u a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , as w e l l as perceptions, r e f l e c t s the c o n s t r a i n t s of time, money, supply of e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s f o r both c a t e g o r i e s o f w i l d l i f e use and so on. Therefore, the inference of these f i n d i n g s , based on both perception and behavior data, i s that a greater p r o p o r t i o n of respondents from a l l groups express a preference f o r non-consumptive use of w i l d l i f e r a t h e r than consumptive use. - 71 -I n v e s t i g a t i o n of preferences f o r some of the s p e c i f i c " c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s " of non-consumptive use - the s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s i n which people engage and s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n s where i n d i v i d u a l s might i n t e r a c t w i t h w i l d l i f e i n a non-consumptive manner - employed a study of p a r t i c i -p a t i o n r a t e s . O v e r a l l , a high p r o p o r t i o n (approximately 60$) of a l l groups p a r t i c i p a t e d i n : w i l d l i f e viewing, w i l d l i f e photography, w i l d l i f e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and w i l d -l i f e f eeding. Of three s p e c i f i c s i t e s where i n d i v i d u a l s might i n t e r a c t "non-consumptively" w i t h w i l d l i f e - R e i f e l Water-fowl Refuge, Vancouver Game Farm and an a r t i f i c i a l f i s h spawning channel - p a r t i c i p a t i o n data revealed that a greater p r o p o r t i o n of respondents from a l l groups v i s i t e d R e i f e l Refuge than e i t h e r of the other two s i t e s . More-over, R e i f e l Refuge had the greatest p r o p o r t i o n of respondents from a l l groups making r e t u r n v i s i t s . W i t hin the c o n s t r a i n t s of time, money, current supply of f a c i l i t i e s , the "atmosphere" and fee s t r u c t u r e at e x i s t i n g s i t e s and so on, the infe r e n c e i s t hat the expressed preference i s i n favour of R e i f e l Refuge r a t h e r than e i t h e r the Vancouver Game Farm or an a r t i f i c i a l f i s h spawning channel. - 72 -An attempt was made to determine whether i n d i v i d u a l s would f i n a n c i a l l y support w i l d l i f e management f o r non-consumptive use. The m a j o r i t y of respondents from a l l groups supported a s e r i e s of questions p e r t a i n i n g to t h e i r w i l l i n g -ness to spend money or see money spent f o r the management of non-game species of w i l d l i f e , i n d i c a t i n g a w i l l i n g n e s s to f i n a n c i a l l y support w i l d l i f e management f o r non-consumptive use. A comparison of the three groups interviewed was undertaken to determine whether there are s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n perceptions, a t t i t u d e s , behaviour and s o c i o -economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s between the non-consumptive users who j o i n clubs ("organized" users) and'Unorganized" users; and to assess whether there are s i m i l a r d i f f e r e n c e s between the two groups of unorganized non-consumptive users. A comparison of the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the organized and unorganized groups revealed that t h e i r environments of up b r i n g i n g were s i m i l a r . In terms of income, the organized users are s i m i l a r to the telephone sample i n that both have a high p r o p o r t i o n of respondents from high income l e v e l s . On the other hand, the R e i f e l sample had a greater r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n the middle income range. In terms of age and educational attainment, organized users are o l d e r and have a s l i g h t l y higher l e v e l of educational - 73 -attainment, than respondents from the unorganized groups. The data confirmed that very few of the unorganized c l i e n t e l e belonged to any conservation or outdoor o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The R e i f e l and telephone samples have the greatest o v e r a l l s i m i l a r i t y of responses to questions p e r t a i n i n g to perceptions, a t t i t u d e s , behaviour and s o c i o -economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The two groups responded i n a s i m i l a r manner to seventeen (74$) of a t o t a l of twenty-three questions p e r t a i n i n g to perceptions, a t t i t u d e s , behavior and socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . There i s l e a s t s i m i l a r i t y of response between the V.N.H.S. and telephone groups. These two groups responded i n a s i m i l a r manner to only nine (39$) of the twenty-three questions analyzed. The V.N.H.S. and R e i f e l samples had s i m i l a r response to twelve (52$) of the questions. This comparison suggests that i n d i v i d u a l s who j o i n clubs to p a r t i c i p a t e i n non-consumptive use of w i l d -l i f e , the organized c l i e n t e l e , are a r a t h e r d i s t i n c t i v e groups. This i m p l i e s that any data c o l l e c t e d from an organized groups such as a Na t u r a l H i s t o r y S o c i e t y , i n r e l a t i o n to non-consumptive use, are not n e c e s s a r i l y repre-s e n t a t i v e or organized users. Data c o l l e c t e d from v i s i t o r s to l o c a l w i l d l i f e refuges, however, i s more l i k e l y to approximate the a t t i t u d e s and preferences of the general p o p u l a t i o n . - 74 -CONCLUSIONS In view of the preceding a n a l y s i s and f i n d i n g s , the f o l l o w i n g may be concluded. 1) By sampling v a r i o u s user groups, i t i s both p o s s i b l e and f e a s i b l e to i n v e s t i g a t e preferences f o r non-consumptive r e c r e a t i o n a l use of w i l d -l i f e employing a questionnaire survey of per-ce p t i o n s , a t t i t u d e s and behaviour. 2) The m a j o r i t y of respondents from a l l groups interviewed p r e f e r non-consumptive use of w i l d l i f e . 3) The m a j o r i t y of respondents from a l l groups interviewed are w i l l i n g to f i n a n c i a l l y support w i l d l i f e management f o r non-consumptive use. 4) There are i n d i c a t i o n s that the "organized" non-consumptive users such as members of the Vancouver N a t u r a l H i s t o r y S o c i e t y , r e l a t i v e to "unorganized" u s e r s , are a unique subset of the non-consumptive user c l i e n t e l e . 5} There are i n d i c a t i o n s that i n r e l a t i o n to non-consumptive use, v i s i t o r s to l o c a l w i l d l i f e refuges such'as R e i f e l Waterfowl Refuge, may be re p r e s e n t a t i v e of the general p o p u l a t i o n . - 75 -LIMITATIONS Although t h i s study generates very u s e f u l i n f o r -mation p e r t a i n i n g to non-consumptive r e c r e a t i o n a l use of w i l d l i f e , the research i s subject to the f o l l o w i n g l i m i t a t i o n s which must be kept i n mind. 1) The small sample s i z e must be recognized. Only one hundred f i f t y of an estimated t o t a l of 85,000 v i s i t o r s to R e i f e l Refuge i n 1973 were in t e r v i e w e d , while the sample of the general population as s e l e c t e d from the Vancouver Telephone D i r e c t o r y was l i m i t e d to one hundred t h i r t y s i x . An a b s o l u t e l y and r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e r sample, o however, was obtained from the Vancouver N a t u r a l H i s t o r y S o c i e t y . Approximately t h i r t y percent of the membership was interviewed. 2) The non-random nature of the R e i f e l sample and the p o s s i b l e existence of a non-response b i a s i n the telephone sample presents another d i f f i c u l t y . Because the R e i f e l sample was acquired during only three consecutive weekends i n May, v i s i t o r s to the refuge on weekdays and d u r i n g the f a l l , w i n t e r and summer months were not surveyed. Therefore, the R e i f e l sample represents o n l y those i n d i v i d u a l s who v i s i t e d the area on weekends during the s p r i n g . The h i g h non-response r a t e from the telephone sample may have biased the i n f o r m a t i o n generated from t h i s - 76 -group. Of the f i v e hundred questionnaires d i s t r i b u t e d to the i n d i v i d u a l s s e l e c t e d from the telephone d i r e c t o r y , o n l y one hundred f o u r t y f o u r (29%) were returned. I t i s not known whether the data f o r the telephone group are r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the over seventy percent of i n d i v d u a l s sampled who d i d not r e t u r n the qu e s t i o n n a i r e . 3) The f a c t that the research focuses on groups of non-consumptive users from the Greater Vancouver area i s a t h i r d problem. I t i s not known whether the study f i n d i n g s would apply to s i m i l a r groups l o c a t e d i n l e s s urbanized areas o f the province. 4) The research does not measure the i n t e n s i t y or strength of preferences. I n t e n s i t y r e f e r s to "how much" an i n d i v i d u a l wishes to do something. I t may be measured i n a v a r i e t y of ways i n c l u d i n g , f o r example, how much an i n d i v i d u a l i s w i l l i n g to pay f o r a day of non-consumptive use, or how much an i n d i v i d u a l i s w i l l i n g to pay f o r a day of consumptive use. Knowledge of the i n t e n s i t y of preferences i s important to an agency such as the P i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch where management a c t i v i t i e s do not f o l l o w an " a l l or nothing" approach, but r a t h e r i n v o l v e a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a l l uses of a resource and accommodates them through the p r o v i s i o n of a range of management a c t i v i t i e s . Simply knowing that the m a j o r i t y of i n d i v i d u a l s p r e f e r - 77 -non-consumptive use to consumptive use does not imply-that non-consumptive a c t i v i t i e s may be managed to the e x c l u s i o n of those who p r e f e r consumptive use. Rather, the P i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch needs to provide a v a r i e t y of s e r v i c e s f o r both types o f use. Knowledge of the strength of preferences f o r both types of use provides g u i d e l i n e s of how much of management a c t i v i t i e s should be d i r e c t e d toward consumptive use and how much should be channeled i n t o non-consumptive use. 5) The data has a tendency to become r a p i d l y out of date. P e r c e p t i o n s , a t t i t u d e s and behaviour tend to r e f l e c t p r e v a i l i n g c o n s t r a i n t s . These i n c l u d e time, money, supply of o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r consumptive and non-consumptive use, awareness of these o p p o r t u n i t i e s , personal s k i l l s and so on. As these c o n s t r a i n t s change over time, perceptions, a t t i t u d e s and behaviour w i l l a l t e r . Simultan-eously, preference patterns derived from perception, a t t i t u d e and behaviour research w i l l change as w e l l . 6) Added to these l i m i t a t i o n s are problems inherent i n any questionnaire research. Such d i f f i c u l t i e s i n c l u d e the problem of c o n d i t i o n i n g response, d i f f i c u l t i e s a r i s i n g from over-surveying v a r i o u s populations and d i f f i c u l t i e s i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . P o s s i b i l i t i e s of c o n d i t i o n i n g response - 78 -i n behavioural research i s a constant danger a r i s i n g out of the need to ask questions. An i n d i v i d u a l who i s t r a d i t i o n a l l y a consumptive user of w i l d l i f e may have never thought about non-consumptive use. When asked s p e c i f i c questions p e r t a i n i n g to non-consumptive use, the response might be more of a r e a c t i o n to the question than a true measure of the respondents perceptions and a t t i t u d e s . Continuous surveying of a p a r t i c u l a r p o pulation may also i n f l u e n c e the f i n d i n g s of questionnaire research. In Greater Vancouver, the area from which the v a r i o u s samples f o r t h i s research were s e l e c t e d , a v a r i e t y of agencies from the G.V.R.D. to numerous marketing agencies are c o n s t a n t l y s u b j e c t i n g the population to questionnaire surveys. I n d i v i d u a l s have a c e r t a i n tolerance f o r p a r t i c i -p a t i n g i n questionnaire surveys beyond which the question-n a i r e , i f i t i s f i l l e d out at a l l , w i l l o f t e n be completed i n haste without the respondent c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r i n g the questions. D i f f i c u l t i e s i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a r i s e from the need to use v a r i o u s terms i n the questionnaire to s o l i c i t s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n . Such terms i n c l u d e " c a s u a l " or " s e r i o u s " hunter or fisherman which may mean d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s to d i f f e r e n t persons at d i f f e r e n t times. One i n d i v i d u a l ' s i d e a of what a serious hunter or fisherman i s , f o r example, might be very d i f f e r e n t from another person's concept. Such i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s could f u r t h e r i n f l u e n c e r e s u l t s . - 79 -IMPLICATIONS This study has revealed that there i s a demand f o r non-consumptive use of w i l d l i f e i n B r i t i s h Columbia and that there i s a w i l l i n g n e s s of non-consumptive users to support f i n a n c i a l l y t h i s category of w i l d l i f e use. In view of these f i n d i n g s , there i s a need f o r the B.C. P i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch to recognize f o r m a l l y t h i s demand and i n so doing, commit the Branch to both an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r s a t i s f y i n g t h i s demand and to the undertaking of f u r t h e r research of these demands. I n v e s t i g a t i o n of the o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r w i l d l i f e management f o r non-consumptive use i n the province should i n c l u d e a v a r i e t y of areas i n c l u d i n g the f o l l o w i n g . F i r s t , an in v e n t o r y of the p r o v i n c i a l w i l d l i f e resource that i s capable of s a t i s f y i n g t h i s demand should be made. This i n v e s t i g a t i o n would range from an inven t o r y of the non-game species i n the province to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a wide v a r i e t y of h a b i t a t ( i n c l u d i n g that of game and non-game species) that i s s u i t a b l e and has the c a p a c i t y to accommodate the demands of non-consumptive use. Secondly, non-consumptive use programs which c u r r e n t l y e x i s t should be i n v e s t i g a t e d w i t h a view to ass e s s i n g t h e i r a p p l i c a b i l i t y to the province. For example, the United States N a t i o n a l Refuge System and the v a r i o u s - 80 -w i l d l i f e reserves i n Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda c u r r e n t l y provide f a c i l i t i e s f o r non-consumptive use. The f a c i l i t i e s and programs i n c o u n t r i e s such as these may provide i n s i g h t i n t o ways of accommodating the demand f o r non-consumptive use i n B r i t i s h Columbia. T h i r d l y , there i s a need to i n v e s t i g a t e a l t e r -n a t i v e arrangements f o r the funding of a non-consumptive use program. C u r r e n t l y , the prime source of funds f o r w i l d l i f e management i n the province i s revenue generated through the sale of sport hunting and f i s h i n g l i c e n c e s . To undertake a w i l d l i f e management program f o r non-consump-t i v e use, a d d i t i o n a l revenues are r e q u i r e d . This research has i n d i c a t e d that non-consumptive users are w i l l i n g to support w i l d l i f e management. What i s now r e q u i r e d i s the adoption of in n o v a t i v e f i n a n c i n g arrangements that w i l l c a p i t a l i z e on t h i s w i l l i n g n e s s to pay. In conjunction w i t h an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the o p p o r t u n i t i e s to meet the demand f o r non-consumptive use, i t i s necessary to undertake f u r t h e r research of the demand i t s e l f . The research presented i n t h i s paper represents only a p r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the demand f o r non-consumptive use. In view of the study f i n d i n g s , however, avenues f o r f u r t h e r research emerge and these are o u t l i n e d i n the f o l l o w i n g . F i r s t , the f a c t that t h i s study revealed - 81 -t h a t i t i s both p o s s i b l e and f e a s i b l e to i n v e s t i g a t e the demand f o r non-consumptive use through a study o f pre-f e r e n c e s employing a q u e s t i o n n a i r e survey o f p e r c e p t i o n s , a t t i t u d e s and behaviour suggests that t h i s r e s e a r c h method i s u s e f u l f o r f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . Second, w i l d l i f e management, because i t i n v o l v e s a p u b l i c r e s o u r c e , r e q u i r e s i n f o r m a t i o n from a l l non% consumptive u s e r s . One way of g e n e r a t i n g such i n f o r m a t i o n i s through a sample survey o f the p r e f e r e n c e s o f a l l r e s i d e n t s o f the p r o v i n c e . An a l t e r n a t i v e technique f o r o b t a i n i n g such demand i n f o r m a t i o n , however, i s the moni-t o r i n g over time o f p r e f e r e n c e s o f v i s i t o r s to l o c a l w i l d l i f e r e f u g e s . T h i s approach i s suggested on the b a s i s o f the f i n d i n g o f t h i s study which i n d i c a t e s t hat i n r e l a t i o n to non-consumptive use, v i s i t o r s to l o c a l w i l d -l i f e r efuges such as R e i f e l Refuge may be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n . T h i s technique has advantages over a province-wide survey, p r i m a r i l y because there i s a tendency o f pr e f e r e n c e i n f o r m a t i o n which r e f l e c t s v a r i o u s r e a l world c o n s t r a i n t s , to become r a p i d l y out o f date as c o n s t r a i n t s a l t e r . T h e r e f o r e , i t i s necessary to monitor p r e f e r e n c e s over time. For the obvious reasons o f time, budget c o n s t r a i n t s and so on, i t i s more p r a c t i c a l to - 82 -monitor the preferences of v i s i t o r s to a number of s e l e c t e d w i l d l i f e refuges than the p r o v i n c i a l p o p u l a t i o n as a whole. P r i o r to the monitoring of the preferences of v i s i t o r s to l o c a l w i l d l i f e refuges, however, i t i s necessary to confirm the f i n d i n g s of t h i s research which suggests that they do tend to represent the general p o p u l a t i o n . This point i s made i n view of a number of l i m i t a t i o n s i n t h i s research. As p r e v i o u s l y discussed, these l i m i t a t i o n s i n c l u d e the non-random nature of the R e i f e l sample and the^ p o s s i b l e existence of a non-response bias i n the telephone sample. By undertaking a follow-up comparative survey of v i s i t o r s to l o c a l w i l d l i f e refuges and the general popu-l a t i o n , employing the methodology presented i n t h i s research but e l i m i n a t i n g the v a r i o u s l i m i t a t i o n s of i t , would permit a more co n c l u s i v e assessment of whether v i s i t o r s to l o c a l w i l d l i f e refuges are i n f a c t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the general p o p u l a t i o n . Confirmation of t h i s f i n d i n g would then permit the continuous monitoring of preferences of refuge v i s i t o r s and provide up-to-date i n f o r m a t i o n on the demands of the non-consumptive user. The v a r i o u s l i m i t a t i o n s could be el i m i n a t e d by i n c r e a s i n g the s i z e of both the R e i f e l and general population samples; through i n t e r v i e w i n g refuge v i s i t o r s on both - 83 -weekdays and weekends and d u r i n g a l l seasons o f the year to ensure a random sample; and by i n c r e a s i n g the response from the g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n through the use o f a f o l l o w -up' l e t t e r as a reminder to r e t u r n q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . T h i r d , the f i n d i n g t h a t o r g a n i z e d non-consumptive u s e r s such as the Vancouver N a t u r a l H i s t o r y S o c i e t y are a unique subset o f the non-consumptive u s e r c l i e n t e l e suggests that the p r e f e r e n c e s o f t h i s group w i l l not tend to be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the ge n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n . However, the f a c t t h a t such u s e r s are w e l l informed, a r t i -c u a l t e and h i g h l y d e d i c a t e d to non-consumptive use suggests t h a t the Branch c o u l d look toward such groups f o r pro-g r e s s i v e l e a d e r s h i p . Moreover, because t h i s groups has a r e a d i l y d e f i n e d membership and executive to a r t i c u l a t e and present the views o f the members, i n d i c a t e s t h a t the group i s e a s i l y a c c e s s i b l e p e r m i t t i n g the m o n i t o r i n g o f p r e f e r e n c e s and demands through p u b l i c meeting, submission o f b r i e f s o r even d i r e c t communication wi t h the executive i t s e l f . - 84 -BIBLIOGRAPHY Berelson, B. and G.A. S t e i n e r . 1964. Human Behavior, New York: Harcourt Brace and Co. Bevins, M. et a l . 1968. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Hunters and  Fishermen i n S i x Northeastern S t a t e s , Univ. Vermont Agr. Exp. Sta. B u l l . 656. C a l l i s o n , C. 1973. " W i l d l i f e Management and i t s Non-hunting C l i e n t e l e " , Washington W i l d l i f e . V o l . 25, No. 1. pp. 4-6. Cla r k e , R. and F. M i t c h e l l . 1968. "The Economic Value of Hunting and O u t f i t t i n g i n East A f r i c a " , East A f r i c a n  A g r i c u l t u r a l and F o r e s t r y J o u r n a l , V o l . 33 pp. 98-103. Clawson M. and J . Knetsch. 1966. Economics of Outdoor  Recr e a t i o n , Resources f o r the Future, John Hopkins Press. Davey, S.P. 1967. "The Role of W i l d l i f e i n an Urban Environment", 32nd Conf. North Am. W i l d l . Nat. Resour. Conf. Trans. V o l . 32, pp. 50-59-Edwards, R.Y. 1969. "The Nature o f N a t u r a l i s t s " , The  Ontario N a t u r a l i s t , V o l . 1. G a b r i e l s o n , I.N. 1943* W i l d l i f e Refuges, New York: The Macmillan Co. Gab r i e l s o n , I.N. 1951, W i l d l i f e Management. New York: The Macmillan Co. Hendee, J.C. et a l . 1968. Wilderness Users i n the P a c i f i c  Northwest - Their C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , Values and Management  Preferences, U.S.D.A. Forest Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-61, P a c i f i c Northwest Forest and Range Exp. Stn., P o r t l a n d , Oreg. Hendee, J.C. 1969. "A p p r e c i a t i v e Versus Consumptive Users of W i l d l i f e Refuges: Studies of Who Gets What and Trends i n Use", 34th Conf. North Am. W i l d l . Nat. Resour. Conf. Trans., V o l . 32 pp. 252-264. Hendee, J.C. 1972. "Management of W i l d l i f e f o r Human B e n e f i t s " , 52nd Conf. West. Assoc. State F i s h Comm. Proc. V o l . 52. I n s t i t u t e f o r Northern Studies 1972. Mig r a t o r y B i r d Resource  Management Problems and Prospects, prepared f o r the C.W.S. U n i v e r s i t y of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon. - 6 5 -Knetsch, J.L. 1970."Assessing the Demands f o r Outdoor Recre a t i o n " , i n Elements of Outdoor Recreation Planning, ed. B.L. D r i v e r , School of N a t u r a l Resources, The U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan: U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s , pp. 131-136. Krech, D. et a l . 1962. I n d i v i d u a l i n S o c i e t y , New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Laycock, G. 1965, The Sign of the F l y i n g Goose: a Guide  to the N a t i o n a l W i l d l i f e Refuges, Garden C i t y : N a t u r a l H i s t o r y Press. Leopold, A. 1933. Game Management, New York: C. S c r i b n e r ' s Sons. Leopold, A. 1966. A Sand County Almanac, Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P ress. Leopold, S. 1966. The Future of W i l d l i f e Management, presented to the 2nd Annual Western Student W i l d l i f e Conclave, Fort C o l l i n s , Colorado. Lucas, R.C. 1963• "Wilderness Perception and Use: the Example of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area", N a t u r a l  Resources J o u r n a l , V o l . 3, pp. 394-411. M i t c h e l l , F. 1968. "The Economic Value of W i l d l i f e Viewing as a Form of Land Use", East A f r i c a n A g r i c u l t u r a l and  F o r e s t r y J o u r n a l , V o l . 33, pp. 98-103. Myres, M.T. 1968. "A Sample Survey of the Expenditures of N a t u r a l i s t s " , Canadian Audubon, V o l . 30, No. 1, pp. 12-20. Oberst, R.G. 1970. Management of W i l d l i f e Resources f o r  Non-consumptive Uses, U.S.D.I., Bureau of Sport F i s h e r i e s and W i l d l i f e , Boston, Mass. O'Rirodon, J . and D.W. O l i v e r , 1972. A survey of Water- Based Recreation i n the Okanagan V a l l e y , Water Management S e r v i c e , Dept. of the Environment, Vancouver. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, 1962. N a t i o n a l Recreation Survey, Study Report No. 19, Washington, D.C.: Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e . Pearse, P.H. and G.K. Bowden, 1969, "Economic E v a l u a t i o n of Recreation Resources: Problems and Prospects", 34th Conf. North Am. W i l d l . Nat. Resour. Conf. Trans., V o l . 34, pp. 283-293. - 66 -Pearse, P.H. and G.K. Bowden 1971. The Value of Fresh Water Sport F i s h i n g i n B r i t i s h Columbia, Study Report No. 5, a repo r t prepared f o r the B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch. Pearse, P.H. and G.K. Bowden 1972. The Value of Resident  Hunting i n B r i t i s h Columbia, Study Report No. 6, a repor t prepared f o r the B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch. P e t e r l e , T.J. 1967. " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Some Ohio Hunters", Jo u r n a l of W i l d l i f e Management, V o l . 31, No. 2, pp. 375-389. P i m l o t t , D.H. et a l . 1971 S c i e n t i f i c A c t i v i t i e s i n F i s h e r i e s  and W i l d l i f e Resources, Science C o u n c i l of Canada S p e c i a l Study No. 5, Ottawa. R u t t e r , R.J. and D.H. P i m l o t t 1968. The World of the Wolf, P h i l a d e l p h i a : L i p p i n c o t t . " R e i f e l b i r d refuge grows by 570 acres", The Province, Oct. 13, 1972, p. 10. S c h i f f , M.R. 1971. "The D e f i n i t i o n of Perceptions and A t t i t u d e s " i n Perceptions and A t t i t u d e s i n Resources  Management, eds. W.R.D. Sewell and I . Burton, Ottawa: P o l i c y Research and Coordination Branch Dept. of Energy, Mines and Resources, pp. 7-12. S c o t t , V.H. 1972. The 'Dickey-Bird' - Hunting Syndrome: A View of W i l d l i f e Management i n Manitoba, a paper presented to the Annual P r o v i n c i a l W i l d l i f e B i o l o g i s t s Meeting, Winnipeg. Sewell W.R.D. and J . Rostron 1970. R e c r e a t i o n a l F i s h i n g  E v a l u a t i o n : a P i l o t Study i n V i c t o r i a B r i t i s h Columbia, Ottawa: Dept. of F i s h e r i e s and F o r e s t r y . Sewell, W.R.D. 1971. " I n t e g r a t i n g P u b l i c Views i n Pla n n i n g and P o l i c y Making, i n Perceptions and A t t i t u d e s i n Resources  Management, eds. W.R.D. Sewell and I . Burton, Ottawa: P o l i c y Research and Coordination Branch Dept. Energy, Mines and Resources, pp. 125-131. / - 8 7 -APPENDIX A - eV -APPENDIX B - 90 -THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA V A N C O U V E R 8 , C A N A D A S C H O O L O F C O M M U N I T Y & R E G I O N A L P L A N N I N G RECREATIONAL USE OF WILDLIFE Dear Sir/Madam: I am a graduate student undertaking a study of the r e c r e a t i o n a l uses of w i l d l i f e . The purpose of the study i s to discover the ways i n which the residents of the province use and value B r i t i s h Columbia's w i l d l i f e resource. As you probably know, very l i t t l e research has been done on t h i s aspect of resource use. In f a c t , t h i s i s one of the f i r s t attempts to i n v e s t i g a t e the f u l l range of w i l d l i f e use, from hunting and f i s h i n g to w i l d l i f e observation. We are cooperating f u l l y with the F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch of the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, who are giving us f u l l support. Your views and opinions on t h i s important aspect of resource use are e s s e n t i a l f o r better management of the w i l d l i f e of the province f o r i t s residents. We are therefore asking you to take the few minutes necessary to complete the enclosed survey questionnaire. Your reply w i l l be held i n s t r i c t e s t confidence, and you need not sign your name. For your convenience, a self-addressed stamped envelope i s also enclosed. Thank you for your assistance. Yours t r u l y , A l l a n Le Fevre Graduate Student tan? Professor & Research Supervisor May 3, 1973 Dear V.N.H.S. Member: This i s to request your help by completing the enclosed questionnaire. As explained i n h i s l e t t e r , A l l a n Le Fevre i s undertaking a study of the r e c r e a t i o n a l value of w i l d l i f e i n B.C. and t h i s study could be of great i n t e r e s t to our members by i n d i c a t i n g the strength of the trend towards the non-consumptive use of w i l d l i f e . The questionnaire i s s u i t a b l e f o r computer programming and the r e s u l t s could lead to changes i n the present w i l d l i f e management p o l i c i e s . We have been promised a copy of r e s u l t s obtained from the survey and i t i s hoped that i t w i l l be pos s i b l e to p r i n t the conclusions i n our "Discovery". About one t h i r d of our membership w i l l form one of the se v e r a l sample groups which w i l l receive t h i s questionnaire. Thank you for your co-operation. Yours s i n c e r e l y , Norm P u r s s e l l , President PS: I f you have already f i l l e d out one of the questionaires at R e i f e l Refuge, please return the questionaire and i n d i c a t e at the top of i t " f i l l e d out at R e i f e l Refuge". 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0099959/manifest

Comment

Related Items