Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 76, Issue 1, pp 207–218 | Cite as

Willingness of Iowa agricultural landowners to allow fee hunting associated with in-field shelterbelts

  • Robert K. Grala
  • Joe P. Colletti
  • Carl W. Mize


In 2004, four focus groups consisting of agricultural landowners were organized in Northcentral Iowa to assess opportunities for hunting along in-field shelterbelts and on adjacent lands. A majority of respondents (95%) allowed/practiced some hunting on their lands. About 55% of respondents indicated that the potential existed for developing a fee hunting market associated with in-field shelterbelts. Intangible features of hunting, such as recreation/enjoyment and better land stewardship, were ranked higher than tangible ones—additional income and provision of economic opportunities for local communities. Respondents were highly concerned with negative consequences of hunting—trespassing and hunter misconduct. On average, agricultural landowners were willing to accept (WTA) US$30 per visit per party of four hunters to allow hunting of ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) on their land. About 33% would grant access to hunters free of charge. Those who lived in urban areas would require five times the monetary compensation (US$50) as those who lived in rural areas (US$10).


Fee hunting Focus groups In-field shelterbelts Pheasant hunting Willingness to accept 



Approved as publication FO335, Forest and Wildlife Research Center, Mississippi State University. Research presented in this paper was funded by a USDA NRI grant #2001-35108-10205 and McIntire-Stennis Forestry Research Program. The authors thank Dr. C. L. Kling, Department of Economics, Iowa State University for her help in the design of the survey instrument and data analysis. Thanks are extended to NRCS District Conservationists: L. J. Green, T. W. Moor, D. M. Sande and S. J. Switzer, and their staff for assistance with identifying potential respondents. Further thanks are extended to Drs. S. C. Grado, A. Hussain, I. A. Munn, and C. Sun, Forest and Wildlife Research Center, Mississippi State University and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on this paper.


  1. Adams RM, Bergland O, Musser WN, Johnson SL, Musser LM (1989) User fees and equity issues in public hunting expenditures: the case of ring-necked pheasant in Oregon. Land Econ 65(4):376–385. doi: 10.2307/3146805 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Applegate JE (1984) Attitudes toward deer hunting in New Jersey: 1972–1982. Wildl Soc Bull 12(1):19–22Google Scholar
  3. Baer NW (1989) Shelterbelts and windbreaks in the Great Plains. J For 87(4):32–36Google Scholar
  4. Baltezore JF, Leitch JA, Schutt PF (1993) Fee hunting in North and South Dakota. North Dakota State University Agricultural Experiment Station, Agricultural Economics Report No. 295Google Scholar
  5. Benson DE (1989) Changes from free to fee hunting. Rangelands 11(4):176–180Google Scholar
  6. Boyle KJ (2003) Contingent valuation in practice. In: Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC (eds) A primer on nonmarket valuation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandle JR, Johnson BB, Dearmont DD (1984) Windbreak economics: the case of winter wheat production in eastern Nebraska. J Soil Water Conserv 39(5):339–343Google Scholar
  8. Brandle JR, Johnson BB, Akeson T (1992) Field windbreaks: are they economical? J Prod Agric 5(3):393–398Google Scholar
  9. Brown TL, Decker DJ, Kelley JW (1984) Access to private lands for hunting in New York: 1963–1980. Wildl Soc Bull 12(4):344–349Google Scholar
  10. Cable TT, Cook PS (1990) The use of windbreaks by hunters in Kansas. J Soil Water Conserv 45(5):575–577Google Scholar
  11. Conover MR, Decker DJ (1991) Wildlife damage to crops: perceptions of agricultural and wildlife professionals in 1957 and 1987. Wildl Soc Bull 19(1):46–52Google Scholar
  12. Cook PS, Cable TT (1990) The economic value of windbreaks for hunting. Wildl Soc Bull 18(3):337–342Google Scholar
  13. Dearmont DD, Johnson BB, Brandle JR (1983) The field windbreak: perceptions of agricultural producers and professionals in Eastern Nebraska. In: Proceedings of thirty-fifth annual meeting of Great Plains Agricultural Council Forestry Committee held in Billings, Montana on July 11–14, 1983, pp 137–152Google Scholar
  14. Frank AB, Harris DG, Willis WO (1977) Growth and yield of spring wheat as influenced by shelter and soil water. Agron J 69(6):903–906Google Scholar
  15. Freeman AM III (1993) The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. Resources for the Future, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  16. Fried BM, Adams RM, Berrens RP, Bergland O (1995) Willingness to pay for a change in elk hunting quality. Wildl Soc Bull 23(4):680–686Google Scholar
  17. Grala RK, Colletti JP (2003) Estimates of additional Maize (Zea mays) yields required to offset costs of tree-windbreaks in Midwestern USA. Agrofor Syst 59(1):11–20. doi: 10.1023/A:1026140208707 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gray CD (1998) An economic analysis of private land leases for outdoor recreation. Thesis, University of GeorgiaGoogle Scholar
  19. Haab TC, McConnell KE (2002) Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of non-market valuation. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  20. Hardy MA (1993) Regression with dummy variables. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-093. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  21. Hussain A, Munn IA, Grado SC, Henderson JE (2008) Economic impacts of Mississippi wildlife-associated outfitters and their clientele. Hum Dimens Wildl 13(4):243–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hussain A, Munn IA, Grado SC, West BC, Jones WD, Jones J (2007) Hedonic analysis of hunting lease revenue and landowner willingness to provide fee-access hunting. For Sci 53(4):493–506Google Scholar
  23. Johnson RJ, Beck MM, Brandle JR (1991) Windbreaks and wildlife. University of Nebraska Extension, Publication EC 91-1771-BGoogle Scholar
  24. Kort J (1988) Benefits of windbreaks to field and forage crops. Agric Ecosyst Environ 22(23):165–190. doi: 10.1016/0167-8809(88)90017-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laughlin KM (1989) Attitudes of Montana and North Dakota landowners regarding the condition, management and value of windbreaks. Thesis, North Dakota State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  26. Litosseliti L (2003) Using focus groups in research. Continuum, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Loomis JB, Fitzhugh L (1989) Financial returns to California landowners for providing hunting access: analysis and determinants of returns and implications to wildlife management. Trans Fifty-fourth North American Wildl Nat Resour Conf 54:196–201Google Scholar
  28. Luzar EJ, Hotvedt JE, Gan C (1992) Economic valuation of deer hunting on Louisiana public land: a travel cost analysis. J Leisure Res 24(2):99–113Google Scholar
  29. Marsh ML (1999) The value of shelterbelts to agricultural production in the Northern Great Plains: an economic assessment in a changing climate. Dissertation, University of NebraskaGoogle Scholar
  30. McMartin W, Frank AB, Heintz RH (1974) Economics of shelterbelt influence on wheat yields in North Dakota. J Soil Water Conserv 29(2):87–91Google Scholar
  31. Milon JW, Clemmons R (1991) Hunters’ demand for species variety. Land Econ 67(4):401–412. doi: 10.2307/3146547 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  33. Morgan DL (1997) Focus groups as qualitative research. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  34. Morrill WI (1987) Fee access views of a private wildlife management consultant. Trans Fifty-second North American Wildl Nat Resour Conf 52:530–543Google Scholar
  35. Ruff RL, Isaac TA (1987) Public access and fee hunting on private nonindustrial forests in Wisconsin. Trans Fifty-second North American Wildl Nat Resour Conf 52:483–495Google Scholar
  36. Schaefer PR, Dronen S, Erickson D (1987) Windbreaks: a Plains legacy in decline. J Soil Water Conserv 42(4):237–238Google Scholar
  37. Smith JLD, Berner AH, Cuthbert FJ, Kitts JA (1992) Interest in fee hunting by Minnesota small-game hunters. Wildl Soc Bull 20(1):20–26Google Scholar
  38. Sorg CF, Loomis J (1985) An introduction to wildlife valuation techniques. Wildl Soc Bull 13(1):38–46Google Scholar
  39. Stewart DW, Shamdasani PN (1990) Focus groups: theory and practice. Sage Publications, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  40. Stoeckeler JHBB (1963) Shelterbelts and their effects on crop yields in the Great Plains. J Soil Water Conserv 18(4):139–144Google Scholar
  41. Strine JH (1999) Windbreaks for wildlife. Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. Publication MF-805Google Scholar
  42. Swensson EJ, Knight JE (2001) Hunter management strategies used by Montana ranchers. Wildl Soc Bull 29(1):306–310Google Scholar
  43. USDA Farm Service Agency (2007) Conservation Reserve Program: summary of practices acreages for active contracts for all program years (1991–2008). Report ID: MEPRTK-R, pp 253–259. Available via Cited 28 March 2007
  44. Wallace MS, Stribling HL, Clonts HA (1991) Effect of hunter expenditure distribution on community economies. Wildl Soc Bull 19(1):7–14Google Scholar
  45. Wright BA, Kaiser RA (1986) Wildlife administrators’ perceptions of hunter access problems: a national overview. Wildl Soc Bull 14(1):30–35Google Scholar
  46. Wright BA, Kaiser RA, Fletcher JE (1988) Hunter access decisions by rural landowners: an East Texas example. Wildl Soc Bull 16(2):152–158Google Scholar
  47. Wright BA, Kaiser RA, Emerald ND (2001) A national trends assessment of hunter access problems: perceptions of state wildlife administrators, 1984–1997. Hum Dimens Wildl 6(2):145–146. doi: 10.1080/108712001317151976 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert K. Grala
    • 1
  • Joe P. Colletti
    • 2
  • Carl W. Mize
    • 3
  1. 1.Forest and Wildlife Research CenterMississippi State UniversityMississippi StateUSA
  2. 2.College of Agriculture and Life SciencesIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  3. 3.Department of Natural Resource Ecology and ManagementIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations