It looks like I've been scooped on the bigfoot research, although the existence value study would still be an original contribution. From a Peter Leeson guest post at Freakonomics:
Could the tools of economics help us get to the bottom of the U.F.O. phenomenon? That’s what fellow economist Claudia Williamson [a brand new Appstate economics faculty member] and I are hoping in our latest project that uses economics to analyze the American flying saucer phenomenon.
We’re still in the early data-collecting stages of our project; but in doing so we’ve come across an intriguing pattern. The figure ... plots total U.F.O. sightings in the U.S. for each state (per 10,000 residents) between 1997 and 2007 against total Bigfoot sightings in each state (per 10,000 residents) for the same period.
The relationship is strong and positive. States with more U.F.O. sightings also have more Bigfoot sightings. In fact, six of the top ten U.F.O. and Bigfoot states are the same: Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, Alaska, Wyoming, and Colorado. Two states, Washington and Oregon, are among both categories’ top five.
If you’re like many people, you may think it’s at least possible, though perhaps very unlikely, that U.F.O.’s are real. When it comes to Bigfoot, on the other hand, you’re quite certain he’s not real. If this is you, how should the pattern in this figure influence your beliefs?
Me? I can only figure that it strengthens my NSF grant proposal.
