|
luly 1973
Economics Report 53
Estimation of Outdoor
Recreational Values
Hi, UrIBRARY
N 1/V3 1973
g2 *1Q 7
.S- Un. of Fo0ida
Fpodtand Resource Economics Department
Agricultural Experiment Stations
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville 32611
Kenneth C. Gibbs
John F. McGuire, III
-CC-Y--C-- -- I~I -- I -~s I~P~dlJ
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES .. . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . ... .. .... ii
INTRODUCTION . . . .1
Objectives ...... .............. 5
Study Area . . . ... ...... 6
REVIEW OF PAST METHODOLOGIES . . . . 8
Clawson Methodology . . .......... 9
Theoretical Model ................. .. 11
On-Site Costs ................. .. 12
Travel Costs ... . . . ... ..15
SELECTION OF THE SAMPLE . .. .... .17
Sample Size . . ... . ... 18
Allocation of the Sample . . . .19
EXPLANATION OF THE VARIABLES . . . .... 25
Length of Recreationist's Visit (Y) .. . .26
Travel.Costs (T) ...... ............. .27
On-Site Costs (C) ....... ........ 28
Income (m) ...... ................... .29
Size of Recreation Group (n) .............. .29
Site Characteristics (s) . . . ... .30
APPLICATION OF THE MODEL . ..... . . .. 31
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS . . .. 38
Summary and Conclusions . . . .. 38
Implications . . . .. . 40
REFERENCES . ... . . . 43
APPENDICES .. . . .. . . .46
A . . . .. . . . 47
B . .. . . ..... ..... 55
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Time periods for 1970 with months in each period,
Kissimmee River Basin . . . .... .20
2 Estimated percent of use by time period, Kissimmee
River Basin . . .. .. . .20
3 Estimates of intensity of use for lake groupings as
a percent of total use, Kissimmee River Basin, 1970 21
4 Number of interviews for each lake grouping by time
periods for each access point, Kissimmee River
Basin . . . . ... ... .23
5 Average values of variables estimated for outdoor
recreationists in the Kissimmee River Basin, 1970 .35
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 The Kissimmee River Basin, Florida ...... .. 7
2 Optimal combinations of recreation and nonrecreation
commodities for a consumer faced with variable on-site
costs .. ... .. . . ... 13
3 Estimated demand function and consumer surplus for an
individual recreationist, Kissimmee River Basin, 1970 39
ESTIMATION OF OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL VALUES*
Kenneth C. Gibbs and John F. McGuire III
INTRODUCTION
The amount of outdoor recreation has increased considerably in
the past few years and an even faster rate of growth is predicted
during the ensuing years. This increased growth in outdoor recreation
- is due in part to the general rise in personal incomes, to increased
leisure time available, to the changing attitudes of the modern day
worker, and to an ever increasing population. For years the Puritan
"work ethic" prevailed and leisure or recreation was looked upon as a
useless pursuit and possibly even sinful. This thinking has rapidly
given way to a different outlook on recreation evidenced by the fact
that in many areas of the country, selected firms have inaugurated the
four day work week.
The research was conducted in cooperation with the Central and
Southern Florida Flood Control District (FCD) under a grant from the
Office of Water Resources Research, U. S. Department of the Interior.
The grant was administered by the Florida Water Resources Research
Center.
^-----------------\ ':
Kenneth C. Gibbs is assistant professor of food and resource
economics and environmental engineering sciences, University of
Florida. John F. McGuire III is assistant director of special
programs, IFAS, University of Florida.
Traditionally, many levels of government were involved in providing
recreational opportunities for their constituents. These opportunities
range from small city parks to the extensive national forest system.
The funding of these recreation sites, provided from taxes or the
sponsoring governmental body, must compete with funds needed for many
other services. For this reason, a great deal of interest has been
placed in the measurement of the economic value of outdoor recreation.
By being able to place an economic value.on recreation, at least
three important objectives can be accomplished. First, this value can
be compared with the value of the resources in the area for an alterna-
tive use. Second, it would be possible to determine the desirability
of making an investment in an area. If a study showed little or no
potential for recreation for a particular area, then an investment in
recreation would certainly be questionable. The third reason is that,
by knowing the demand, advance estimates could be made of the optimal
level of fees to be charged.
In order to determine the economic value of a commodity, a demand
curve must be derived. Simply stated, the demand for recreation at a
particular area is the willingness combined with the ability of users
of the area to pay measurabTe sums for specified amounts of recreation.
The primary measurement problem that arises is the determination of a
"price" or willingness to pay for recreation.
In estimating recreation demand there is no open market structure
that gives a price-quantity relationship such as is found for other
commodities. An exception to this might be in the case of the growing
number of private campgrounds. It is believed, however, that the
usually small fee charged by campgrounds does not indicate true
"willingness-to-pay" on the part of the recreationists.
The demand for recreation, in the absence of a market structure,
has been estimated by two methods: the direct and indirect methods.
In the direct method the recreationist is asked how much he would be
willing to pay for a specified amount of recreation. He could also be
asked how many recreation days he would stay at the site at various
price levels.2 A demand curve is generated for an individual recreation-
ist via either method. A recreation demand curve for an area can be
derived by summing across individual demand curves.
Many problems may be encountered when using the direct method of
estimating the demand for recreation. One of the most notable would
be the problem of personal bias entering into the estimation. If the
recreationist believed that his true "willingness-to-pay" would result
in a fee being charged, he would tend to understate the value of the
recreation site creating a downward bias. On the other hand, if the
recreationist believed that overstating his willingness-to-pay would
result in improvements to the site, then he may overstate the value to
himself of the recreation site and create an upward bias. Both of
these biases would result in the estimated economic value of the site
The "recreationist" can be defined as a recreation group or an
individual. For purposes of this report, the recreation group will be
used, since it is believed that this is the decision-making unit in
most cases.
A recreation day for the purpose of this report is considered to
be a period of 12 consecutive hours during which recreational
activities were enjoyed.
being greater or lesser than the true value. The occurrence of bias
could not be accurately determined since some would overstate their
"willingness-to-pay" and some would understate.
Another bias that can occur with the use of the direct method of
estimating the demand for recreation arises with the difficulty of
determining just how much a person would be willing to pay at a site.
It would call for a very subjective opinion on the part of the recrea-
tionist and the results could vary enough so as to be inconclusive
and thereby unusable.
The second approach to determine the demand for recreation, the
indirect method, has been more widely used by researchers in the
economics of outdoor recreation. The indirect method involves
arriving at a "willingness-to-pay" for recreation by observing what a
recreationist actually spends in order to participate in a recreational
experience. This observation is accomplished through the use of a
.questionnaire which is designed to determine the total cost of the
recreational experience, the amount of recreation consumed, and other
socioeconomic data that may be pertinent. By observing what recrea-
tionists actually spend for the recreational experience and by observing
the number of days at the recreation site, an aggregate demand curve
can be derived over numerous individuals which indicates the total number
of outdoor recreation days consumed at varying prices. It should be
emphasized that the indirect approach estimates the amount spent at a
site corresponding to a specific number of days. It cannot be said
whether more would possibly be spent with the same quantity. That is,
the estimated demand curve is a "lower estimate" of the actual demand
function.
5
Objectives
The Kissimmee River Basin area, prior to extensive water
management, was subject to wide fluctuations in water level. Floods
and droughts occurred with some regularity depending on the amount
of rainfall. Water management structuressuch as canals, dikes, and
dams have been installed to provide a more stable water level through-
out the basin. By removing the excessive fluctuations in the water
level, the extremes of flood and drought have been tempered enough
to allow a more constant use of the total area throughout the year.
Water levels are maintained at specified stages depending on the usage,
rainfall, and other factors.
A project was initiated at the University of Florida to estimate
the value of water in alternative uses and to determine the optimum
allocation among the alternative uses. Basically, the study was
designed todevelop and test two types of water allocation models:
linear programming and simulation. In order to allocate water efficiently
values of alternative uses must be estimated. The value of water for
agriculturally oriented industries bordering the Kissimmee River Basin
was estimated by determining the amount of water drawn from surface
water areas and increased value of the crops due to this water. The
value of water for flood control purposes was estimated as the added
value obtained by not having an area subjected to damaging fluctuations.
In addition, the value of water for outdoor recreation was estimated.
It is to this topic that this report is directed.
It is the purpose of this report to: (1) present the procedures
used to derive estimates of economic value, and (2) derive the
economic value of "water oriented" outdoor recreation in the Kissimmee
River Basin.
Study Area
The Kissimmee River Basin (see Figure 1) is located in the central
portion of Florida. The basin is bordered roughly within the boundaries
of Orlando on the north, Lake Okeechobee on the south, the Sunshine
State Parkway on the east, and U.S. Highway 27 on the west. The
geography of the area is such that rainfall within the area basically
drains into the Kissimmee River, its small tributaries, and associated
-lakes. These lakes, as well as the Kissimmee River itself, furnish
water for municipalities, agricultural uses, industrial processes, and,
of course, recreational activities. The upper Kissimmee River Basin is
located in proximity to a large metropolitan area as well as one of the
nation's major amusement attractions. The central portion of the basin
contains some smaller cities and towns while the lower end of the basin
is somewhat remote from population areas.
The method used to estimate the demand for outdoor recreation and
its economic value builds upon past studies. In the next section a
review of some of the more important techniques for measuring recreation
demand is presented.
The third section presents the proportional sampling techniques
that were used to draw the sample of outdoor recreationists from the
Outdoor recreation for the purposes of this report will be water-
related leisure activities such as swimming, fishing, boating,
water-skiing, and camping.
TITUSVILLE
O
COCOA
AU GALIE
MELBOIURNE
VERO EACH
AVON PARK
.58MRINC
5--- o 2--
Sio,o 0 /
Figure l.--The Kissimmee River Basin, Florida
various sites in the Kissimmee River Basin. In the fourth section the
variables in the demand model are presented along with their derivation.
The fifth section presents the theoretical model while the sixth
section contains the summary and conclusions drawn from the study.
REVIEW OF PAST METHODOLOGIES
Over the past years several different methods of evaluation have
been used to determine the value of outdoor recreation. One method
involved using the cost of developing, maintaining, and operating a
recreational site as the value of a site. Another method of calculating
the value was to use the gross expenditures on the use of the site as
the value of the site. A more detailed discussion of early methods of
evaluating the economic benefits of a recreational site can be found in
the work of Brown, Singh, and Castle [2].
The use of gross expenditures of the cost of a site, however, does
not measure.the net economic benefits of a recreational site. The
willingness to pay for recreation consumption of the recreationists is
not accounted for by this procedure. Perhaps one of the first studies
to estimate the net economic value of recreation was that of Andrew H.
Trice and Samuel E. Wood [15]. They used the distances travelled by
recreationists to get to the site as a surrogate price. They further
assumed that persons living close to the site would enjoy a consumer
surplus since their cost of travel would be less than persons living
further away. The sum of the consumer surpluses was then used to
determine the value of the site for recreational activity.
A study by Clawson [3] had a profound impact on determining the
value of a recreational site. This method of estimating recreation
demand is presented'below in more detail.
Clawson Methodology
According to Clawson,the estimation of an outdoor recreation
demand curve proceeds in two distinct steps. The first step is the
derivation of demand for the total recreational experience. This
total experience includes all of the interpersonal decisions that are
made concerning the recreational experience. The gains that the total
family obtains fromthe recreational activity will depend on their
personal anticipation concerning the trip, their enjoyment of the
experience, and their recollection of the activity. In essence, the
total recreational experience is a package deal that encompasses the
planning of, participation in, and recollection of the whole activity.
From this demand curve for the total recreational experience is derived
a demand curve for only the recreational opportunity at the site.
The demand curve for the total recreation experience is applicable
to large populations rather than to groups. In essence, Clawson says
that a large number of people will have a predictable and measurable
reaction to a recreational activity. If the demand curve for a large
group of people can be measured, then it is possible that another large
group, chosen at random, with similar characteristics will respond to
the costs and other characteristics of the recreational activity in a
similar fashion.
In the measurement of his demand curve, Clawson selected a
proportion of a population area to give him a measure of volume. The
proportion of people in a demographic area that visited a particular
recreation site was the measure of volume.
By using the quantity of recreational activity and the cost of
that experience,.a demand curve was derived. This curve gave the
number of visits to the site as a function of the cost of that visit.
In order to construct a demand curve for a recreational site
itself, Clawson assumed that: (1) users of the site would view an
increase in entrance fees rationally and (2) the experience of users
from one location zone provides a measure of what people in other
zones would do if money costs and-time costs were the same. In essence,
this means that a group from a more distant area would use the site at
the same intensity as a nearer area if time and money costs were
identical. On the basis of these assumptions Clawson then estimated
the effect of an increase in fees on the number of visits. As the fee
was raised, the total number of people from each zone would fall. This
is calculated from the total recreation experience demand curve.
From the data generated by increasing the level of fees and
.calculating the decrease in number of visits, a new demand curve can be
constructed. This is the demand for the recreational site -- the
curve of interest to determine recreational value.
Using the basic Clawson methodology, other researchers in the field
of outdoor recreation have added other variables in their estimation of
the demand curve. Brown et al. in an Oregon study used expenditures
on durable equipment as well as individual on-site costs for a particular
outing to derive a demand curve [2].4
4For those desiring a better background in the history and evolution
of economic research in the field of outdoor recreation see [2, 3, 5, 7,
13, 14,and 15].
For the purpose of this report one of the more recent methodologies
in the field of outdoor recreation will be considered in detail.
Theoretical Model
The methodology utilized is based on the traditional concept of
consumer behavior theory. In order to participate in an outdoor
recreational experience, the recreationist will incur two types of
costs. That is, a recreationist will pay a certain cost, C, while
consuming recreation (on-site costs) and he will incur travel costs
T (fixed cost) in order to get to the recreation site. It is
assumed that it is necessary to pay a certain charge, T, before
consumption of recreation, Y,is possible. The charge, T, is not
dependent on the quantity of Y purchased. It can be considered a
payment for the privilege of purchasing Y.
The travel cost includes transportation cost, the cost of
food and lodging enroute to the recreation site, and other costs
involved with travelling to and from the site. The cost of travel
to the recreation site, T, competes with the cost of recreation and
all other commodities consumed. Therefore, the budget constraint
faced by the consumer is:
(1) m = CY + T + Pq m,C,q >0 Y,T> 0
where m is income of the recreationist, C is on-site costs, Y is
number of days per visit at the site, T is travel cost, q is all other
goods consumed and P is price of all other goods.
The maximization of a recreationist's constrained utility is
determined by the same technique employed in traditional consumer
behavior theory except that travel costs enters into the equation.5
By re-arranging Equation (1) as follows:
(2) m T = CY + Pq
the budget constraint shows how the travel cost, T, affects income.
By consuming Y the recreationist will have less income available
than if he only consumed q. The travel cost, T, will be zero if no
recreation is consumed since any amount of recreation will generate
some travel cost.6
On-Site Costs
A change in the on-site recreation costs, C, and the cost of other
nonrecreational commodities, P, will have an effect on the quantity of
recreation days per visit. A change in C or P will result in a change
in the slope of the budget constraint line since the slope of this
line is equal to the ratio of the two prices.
In Figure 2 travel costs, T, the level of income, m, and the
price of other commodities, P, are held constant at To, m, P0,
respectively. Only C is variable so that the effect of C on the
quantity of recreation days per visit demanded can be seen.
On budget line BCo the recreationist would prefer not to consume
any recreation since he could achieve a higher level of utility, U, by
foregoing recreation and consuming mo/Po units of nonrecreation. The
The explanation of constrained utility maximization is dealt with
in detail in many economic textbooks. See [8].
6This is true even if an individual walks to a recreation site.
His travel cost, in this case, is very small but is still positive.
Nonrecreation
b mo-To yC mo-To
y CO y C1
mO-T0
C11
Recreation
Figure 2.--Optimal combinations of recreation and nonrecreation
commodities for a consumer faced with variable
on-site costs
mO-To
recreationist could achieve this higher level rather than the point
m0 T
po since any recreation involves a cost To that must be incurred
before recreational activities can occur. If no recreation is consumed
then the potential recreationist has To more dollars of income to spend
on nonrecreation units. This causes a discontinuity in the budget con-
straint. A decrease in C from Co to C' is represented by the budget
constraint line BC'. After the price decrease, the utility level of U1
can be obtained in two ways. First, the recreationist can consume no
mo C C
recreation and be at the point or he can consume Y = Y q = q .
The recreationist would be indifferent between these two choices since
he would remain on the same utility level regardless of his decision.
Decreasing on-site costs further gives the iso-income line BC".
d d
This will change the optimal budget to Y = Y q = q Thus, as the
price of recreation (on-site costs) decreases, the quantity of recrea-
tion (days per visit) demanded increases. At any value of C where
C < C', the recreationist will prefer to consume a combination of recrea-
tion and nonrecreation commodities rather than solely nonrecreation
commodities. For any value of C where C> C', the consumption of
recreation would be excluded from the budget, i.e., any iso-income line to
the left of BC'. The price of a recreation unit at the point where a
recreationist is indifferent between recreation and nonrecreation, C'
in this case,is defined as the "critical" on-site cost (C*). The effect
of a change in C on the amount of recreation will depend on the magnitude
of the difference between C and the critical price (C*). The critical
value of the on-site recreation cost, C* depends on the level of income,
m, the price of other commodities, P, the cost of travel, T, and the
utility function, U.7
(3) C* = C* (T, P, m, U)
Travel Costs
A change in the cost of travel will be viewed in a different manner
than a change in on-site recreation costs due to the fact that a travel
cost must be incurred before any recreation is consumed. By varying
the travel cost, T, a different budget constraint is imposed for each
value of T. Equation (1) indicates that high levels of T leave less
income to be spent on recreation, Y, and all other commodities, q,
whereas lower levels of T will make more income available.
It can be hypothesized that,as travel costs decrease,the amount of
recreation (and nonrecreation goods) will increase within a certain
range due to the effect of more income being available for the consump-
tion of Y and q. This is because a decrease in travel costs can be
looked upon as an increase in income. However, since the number of
visits is not explicitly accounted for by the measure of recreational
use (days at site per visit), the reverse hypothesis may have some
validity. That is, as the travel increases the recreationist may spend
more days at the site per visit and make fewer visits. Thus the fact
that he may substitute days at the site for trips to the site may
7The recreationist's preference between recreation and other goods
is specified by his utility function, U.
cause the reverse hypothesis to hold. A more complete specification of the
quantity variable is needed. A detailed analysis of how the cost of travel
to a recreation site affects the number of days per visit can be found in
the study by Gibbs [7].
At a certain level of T, the potential recreationist is indifferent
between consuming recreation and not consuming recreation. This level of
travel cost has been labeled the critical travel cost, T*. It is so
designated since,at a level of travel cost below T*, the recreationist
will consume some level of recreation in order to maximize his utility,
while at a level above this cost he will not consume any recreation.
The value of T* is expressed as a function of four independent
variables:
(4) T* = T* (C, P, m, U)
That is, the critical travel cost, T*, depends on the variable
.on-site recreation costs, C, the cost of a unit of other commodities,
P, the income of the recreation group, m, and the utility function, U.
The theoretical model can now be written as three equations: the
quantity of recreation demanded per visit; the critical travel cost;
and the critical on-site recreation cost.
(5) Y = Y [(T* T), (C* C)] for (T* T) >_0
(C* C) > 0
(6) T* = T* (C, P, m, U)
(7) C* = C* (T, P, m, U)
Data collected via questionnaires from recreationists using the
Kissimmee River Basin in 1970 were used to estimate the variables in the
above equations. A discussion of the sampling procedure used to secure
a representative sample of recreationists and activities is presented in
the following section.
SELECTION OF THE SAMPLE
Certain socioeconomic data were needed from recreationists using
the Kissimmee River Basin to derive the variables used in the theoretical
model. This section presents the proportional sampling technique that
was devised to select certain sites and randomly to.select recreation-
ists to obtain the needed information. The selection of the sample
with respect to size and allocation was based on the entire year even
though four time periods were examined independently. The Kissimmee
River Basin was divided into three sub-basins. These were the upper,
central, and lower sub-basins corresponding to their geographic loca-
tion from north to south. Within each sub-basin various lakes were
chosen to collect data on the water-oriented outdoor recreation activi-
ties. The lakes to be included in the sample were chosen to represent
a cross section of the outdoor recreation activity that takes place within
the Basin.
In the upper sub-basin Lakes Mary Jane and Hart were chosen as the
sampled lakes. In the central sub-basin Lakes Tohopekaliga, Hatchineha
Tiger, and Kissimmee were chosen. The lower sub-basin included the
Kissimmee River. (By interviewing on a river rather than a lake the
diversity of the sample was increased in that it provided a sample of
bank fishermen, who are prevalent in this particular area.) In choosing
the sampled areas an effort was made to include some relatively
inaccessible sites as well as those that border urban areas. The
objective of the study was to measure the recreational value of the
total basin so that by choosing some remote areas which are part of
the total basin, a better picture of the type and amount of outdoor
recreation that takes place within the Basin will be obtained.
Each access point to the selected lakes was considered as a site
for interviews of outdoor recreationists. The access points were
sites where public access was available and included fish camps, boat
ramps, and campgrounds that had or furnished access to the selected
lakes.
Sample Size
In order to determine the sample size that will give statistically
reliable estimates of the variables to be estimated, the amount of error
that could be tolerated in the sample estimates was ascertained. The
average length of stay per person, n-, where n is the number of persons in
the recreation group, was used to determine the sample size. It
is believed that this was the most important variable and that, by
satisfying the size requirement for this variable, the required precision
for the study would be obtained.
The average number of recreation days per visit is multiplied by
N, the total number of visits to the recreation site, in order to
determine the total number of recreation days. The estimate of size
of the sample depends on the error that can be tolerated, the total
number of people who use the recreation area in question, the average
number of days per visit as well as the standard deviation of this
average. In this study an error of approximately 10 percent in the
estimate ofNY was allowed.8
n
In order to estimate the size of the sample needed, the parameters
N and Y must be estimated. From a previous study [7] and preliminary
indications from the Kissimmee River Basin the following estimates were
Y
used: variable -= 12 with a standard deviation of 18. From preliminary
data obtained by aircraft overflights conducted by the FCD on the
Kissimmee River Basin it was also estimated that approximately 500,000
persons used the area yearly. This means that,for purposes of deter-
mining an estimate of the sample size, N = 500,000. The sample size,
obtained by using these estimates,was found to be approximately 1,000.
This applies to the entire year and needs to be proportioned according
to time periods and sites.
Allocation of the Sample
The year was divided into four time periods to reflect better the
various activities that take place. The four time periods are defined
in Table 1.
Data from two agencies were used to determine the percentage of
yearly use that occurred during each time period. The Central and
Southern Florida Flood Control District (FCD) maintain boat locks
The techniques for estimating sample size are presented in many
statistical sampling references (see [4]).
Table l.--Time periods for 1970 with months in each period, Kissimmee
River Basin
Time period Months
1 February, March, April, and May
2 June, July, August, and September
3 October and November
4 December and January
on the Kissimmee River. Boats must pass through locks in order to
pass from the lower river to the upper river, or vice-versa. Yearly
data of all boats that pass through the locks were used to construct
Table 2. Independent estimates by the Florida Game and Fresh Water
Fish Commission wildlife officers corroborated the data obtained from
the FCD.
Table 2.--Estimated percent of use by time period, Kissimmee River
Basin
Time period
February-May
June-September
October-November
December-January
Proportion of yearly use
Percent
35
Total
100
From Table 2 it can be seen that 35 percent of the recreational use
of the area occurred during February through May and so forth. The
proportion of total use for the four time periods was used to determine
the number of interviews to conduct for each time period. This was done
to reflect more accurately the use of the area for recreational purposes.
As an example, time period one has 35 percent of the total use so 35
percent of the total interviews, or 350, were taken during this partic-
ular time period.
Discussions with officials of the Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission and with residents of the area indicated that the various
lakes included in the survey had different intensities of use. This
would be reasonable to expect due to the remoteness or accessibility
of particular lakes and particular recreational activities. The
intensity of use for the lakes, which were grouped according to similar
characteristics, is presented in Table 3.
Table 3.--Estimates of intensity of use for lake groupings as a percent
of total use, Kissimmee River Basin, 1970
Location Proportion of use
Percent
Kissimmee, Hatchineha, Tiger 57
Tohopekaliga 20
Mary Jane, Hart 7
Kissimmee River 16
Total 100
The number of interviews to be conducted at each lake grouping
during each of the four time periods can be determined by using the
percentage of use that occurs during each time period as well as the
percentage of use at each lake grouping. Table 4 presents the number
of interviews by time period and lake grouping.
Every public access point to the chosen lakes was considered a site
where samples were to be taken. These sites ranged from only one access
point on Lake Mary Jane to 11 on the Lake Kissimmee group. Some
measure of the intensity of use for each site was needed to allocate
properly the samples among access points. Estimates provided by officers
of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission were used to construct Table
4.
One further step was needed to finalize the sampling procedure.
Usage of these various sites is likely to be different on weekdays than
on weekend days and holidays. The number of interviews for a particular
site was allocated according to weekend day or weekday usage in order
not to give equal weighting to all of the days of the week. Data from
Moss Parkwere used to divide equitably the number of interviews according
to weekend day or weekday usage. These data indicated that approximately
three times as many people use the park on a given weekend day than on
a weekday. Included in the classification of weekend days was the total
number of holidays that occur during the year. Dividing the year into
weekdays and weekend days plus holidays yielded 110 weekend days and
holidays and 255 weekdays. To obtain the percentage of people who
9
Moss Park, a county park located at Lakes Hart and Mary Jane, has
kept yearly records of visits. From these records the number of weekday
and weekend visitors was obtained.
Table 4.--Number of interviews for each lake grouping by time periods
for each access point, Kissimmee River Basina
Time period
Yearly
Lake group Access point 1 2 3 4 total
--------- Number of interviews ------
Kissimmee,
Hatchineha,
and Tiger
Lake
Tohopekaliga
Mack
Lester
Oasis
Port Hatchineha
Marie
S-65
Tiger Fish Camp
Pennington
Grape Hammock
Kissimmee Park
Shady Oak
Sub-total
Scotties
County Ramp
Red's
Jannis
Bank Fishing
2-lane Ramp
3-lane Ramp
Yacht Club
Sub-total
Mary Jane
and Hart
Kissimmee
River
Moss Park
Joe and Wanda's
O'Kissimmee
FCD Camp (North
FCD Boat Rampb
Sub-total
Total
24 18 18 10
22
17
11
6
56
350
16
12
8
4
40
248
17
13
9
4
43
264
9
6
4
2
21
138
aDerived from estimates of use
Commission wildlife officers.
by Game and Fresh Water Fish
bBapk fishermen were included in the sample at this location.
48
40
20
34
20
20
6
4
2
4
2
200
21
14
9
10
1
4
7
4
70
34
28
14
24
14
14
4
3
1
3
2
141
15
10
6
8
1
2
5
2
49
36
30
15
25
15
15
5
3
1
3
2
150
16
10
7
8
1
3
5
3
53
19
16
8
14
8
8
2
1
1
1*
1
79
8
6
4
4
1
1
3
1
28
137
114
57
97
57
57
17
11
5
11
7
570
60
40
26
30
4
10
20
10
200
64
48
32
16
160
1000
use the area on weekend days plus holidays and weekdays, the weekend and
holiday days were weighted by three.0 This results in an estimate of
56 percent of the use of the area occurs during the weekend days and
holidays and 44 percent of the use occurs during the weekdays.
From data in Table 4 the number of.interviews to be conducted at
a particular site during the weekdays was calculated by using the
previously calculated number of interviews for each site and multi-
plying it by the percentage of the type of day desired. Using the
prior example of 48 interviews to be conducted at Camp Mack for time
period one, the number of interviews for weekend days and holidays can
be calculated by multiplying 48 by 56 percent (i.e., 27). The number
of weekday interviews can be similarly found by multiplying by 44 percent,
In order to determine when the interviews should be conducted,
weeks were randomly selected from each month for each time period. In
the first time period, for example, 21 weekday interviews [(.44) (48)]
were needed from Camp Mack. Since there are four months in this time
period, dividing four into the 21 weekday interviews gives approximately
5 weekday interviews needed per month.
This sampling procedure was used to measure accurately the out-
door recreational activities on a proportional basis. The proportional
sampling procedure was designed by determining the percentage of total
use by time periods, lake groupings, interview sites, and finally by
10
0Since there are three times as many people who use the park on any
given weekend day or holiday than on weekdays, this gives a weight of
three to be applied to the weekend days.
weekend days and holidays or weekdays. By determining the proportion of
use for these various areas it was felt that a better cross section of
all the activities that occur,along with the intensities of the
activities, was accurately reflected by the sample.11
The data from the questionnaire (see Appendix A) were used to calculate
economic and sociological parameters that are necessary to estimate eco-
nomic value. The next section describes these variables and how they
are derived.
EXPLANATION OF THE VARIABLES
The questionnaire (see Appendix A) was administered sing the
sampling guidelines presented in the previous section, to recreationists
engaged in outdoor recreation. A large number of variables
could be determined from the questionnaire data. However, only the
following variables were utilized in this study:
Y = length of recreationist's visit (days)
T = travel costs
C = on-site costs
m = income
n = size of recreation group
s = site characteristics
Interviews were conducted by a private company,The Management
Team, using questionnaires developed for this particular study. The
interviewers were instructed to observe the activities at each site
where they conducted interviews and to interview people from all
activities.
Length of Recreationist's Visit (Y)
The number of recreation days per visit was determined by asking
the recreational group when they arrived and when they planned to leave.
The time of arrival and departure was used to determine the total number
of days and hours the recreational group planned to stay at the site.
To avoid a problem in terminology a day was defined as a 12-hour period.
For example, if a group of five recreationists visited a site from 6:00
a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on the same day, this would constitute five recreation
days.
Recreationists were also asked the minimum amount of time they would
spend at the site,considering the cost,the distance travelled getting to
the recreation site, and the time involved. In a very few instances,due
to unforeseen circumstances,some recreationists actually spent less time
at.the recreation site than they stated as a minimum. Where this
occurred the questionnaire was not used or the minimum number of days
was set equal to the actual days spent at the site. Some of the circum-
stances which created these few situations were severe weather conditions,
accidents, and other unforeseen events.
In preliminary analysis of the data there appeared to be two
separate sample groups. These two groups were those recreationists
that spent more than 90 days at the recreation site and those that
spent less than 90 days.
The group that spent over 90 days was removed from the analysis
since it was felt that they did not fit the definition of a recreationist
for purposes of this study. This group contained observations which
were characterized by low incomes and retirement ages, and thus fit
more closely the definition of a seasonal resident than a recreationist.
With these observations removed, the total usable observations from the
sample was reduced to 950.
Travel Costs (T)
The cost of travel to get to and from the recreation site included
food and lodging enroute and the cost of operation of vehicles that
transported the recreation group to the site. The amount of food
brought from their home for consumption enroute, food purchased while
enroute, the length of trip in days or hours, and the cost of lodging
enroute,whether in the form of camping fees or motel fees,were used
in determining the cost of food and lodging enroute. To calculate
vehicle cost the origin of the trip was determined so that a distance
from the point of origin to the recreation site could be ascertained.
The cost of operating the vehicle was estimated to be seven cents per
12
mile.1 Total transportation costs plus the total costs of the group
for lodging, meals, and other miscellaneous items in travelling to and
from the site were added to calculate travel costs for the group, T.
In order to be more accurate in determining the cost of food enroute,
the cost of food that would'have been consumed at home was subtracted.13
12The seven cents per mile only includes the cost of gas and oil
for the trip plus minor maintenance. It does not include depreciation,
taxes, or insurance which would be incurred regardless of the decision
to participate in a recreational .experience [9].
Cost of meals eaten at home was based on U. S. Department of
Agriculture estimates for various income levels [16, 17].
In some cases the cost of food eaten at home exceeded the cost of food
enroute. This, of course, would give a negative travel cost if it were
the only component. On perhaps a dozen interviews where vehicle costs
were nonexistent and food costs at home exceeded food consumed enroute,
a negative travel cost ensued. In no case did the costs amount to less
than minus $.07 per person. Negative travel costs were not used in
the study. For purposes of computation negative costs were set equal
to $.01.
On-Site Costs (C)
On-site costs included the cost of food consumed at the site for
all members of the group minus the estimated cost of food that would
have been consumed at home. Camping fees, cabin rentals, and motel
costs were also included in on-site costs. In addition,any cost
that was directly attributable to participation in the recreation
.experience was considered an on-site cost. This includes costs such
as: launching fees for boats, rental of such items as skis, cushions,
motors, and boats, and other articles. Also included in on-site costs
was the cost of operating a boat. This was determined by asking the
recreation group how many outboard motors they had and how many gallons
of gas would be used per day. Multiplying the number of gallons of
gas used per day by 42 cents yields the cost per day of operating the
boat.1 All of these costs were added and,where applicable,divided by
the number of days at the site to give C, the on-site cost per day.
14The average price of a gallon of gas plus the required oil for
mixing outboard fuel amounted to $.42 per gallon. This estimate was ob-
tained from a range of costs given by marina operators and boat owners.
Income (m)
The recreationist's income was estimated by determining an income
category that most closely corresponds to the family income of the
respondent. Family income pertains to all working members of the family.
It was felt that the total incomeof the recreationist's family would be
more of a factor in recreation decisions than the income of the primary
wage earner alone. Before tax incomes were used. No attempt was made
to allow for income taxes since there could be a great divergence,
depending on exemptions and deductions. Obtaining the required informa-
tion on these items would be extremely difficult,considering the reluc-
tance some people showed in listing.a simple income range.
The actual income used in the regression analysis was the.midpoint
of the income ranges. As an example, $9,500 was used as the income for
the $9,000 $9,900 range. The incomes given by the respondents were
also used in determining the cost of food consumed at home since
USDA estimates of the cost of food per day is given by the income
level of the consumer.
Size of Recreation Group (n)
The determination of the number of people in the group was by a
direct question. In most cases the recreation group appeared to be a
family group consisting of a father, mother, and one or more children.
In other cases the group consisted of scouts and similar groups. No
distinction.was made as to the composition of the group, however.
Site Characteristics (s)
The utility variable in the critical travel cost equation, T*,
and the critical on-site recreation cost equation, C*, may be represented
by several other variables. Among surrogate variables that have been used
in past studies are the amount of recreational equipment owned by a
recreationist, the personal characteristics of the recreationist, and
the characteristics of a recreation site. While there are undoubtedly
more variables that could be used to give a measure of utility, these
seem to be particularly applicable to a recreation study.
In this study the characteristics of a recreation site were
utilized as a measure of a recreationist's utility. Some site charac-
teristics that enter into consideration are the accessibility of the
site, the facilities available at the site, the general climate of the
area, and the location of the site. These characteristics are fixed
for each site but are variable when many sites are considered. The
characteristics of a site determine whether the recreationists will
consume recreation at the site and will determine in part the number
of days spent at the site.
In this study many characteristics of the individual recreation sites
were determined by use of a questionnaire (see Appendix B). The incidence
of restaurants, cabins, and campsites and other characteristics were
recorded. These results are summarized in Appendix Table B-l.
Recreation sites were divided into three groups. Those with a high
incidence of the characteristics that determine a site's desirability
were placed in Group I. Group II contained those sites that had a
medium level of desirable site characteristics while Group III had a low
level of desirable characteristics. Sites that occurred in Group III
perhaps had only a boat ramp or at most simple picnic facilities while
those of Group I were characterized by restaurants, motel accommodations,
and other such amenities.
APPLICATION OF THE MODEL
The theoretical model can now be written as:
(5) Y = Y [(T*- T), (C* C)] for T* T> 0
C* C > 0
(6) T* = T* (C, m, s)
(7) C* = C* (T, m, s)
where s is the site characteristic and is used as a surrogate for
utility, U.
The three equations can be solved simultaneously to obtain a
relationship between the independent variables in the T* and C*
equations and the dependent variable Y. The latter can be estimated
directly to obtain the demand relationship. The dependent variable
(Y) is defined as the number of visitor days a recreational group
spends at the recreation site per trip. Thus Y = ny, where y is the
number of days per person per visit and n is the size of the recreation
group. Since Y is determined by two separate variables, a per capital
equation to utilize a single dependent variable is:
(8) y = y (t, c, m, s, n) for C < C*
Where
c = daily on-site costs per person
t = travel costs per person
m = income of the recreationist
s = site characteristics
n = number of persons in the recreation group
Utilizing multiple linear regression, the relationship between
the dependent variable (y) and the independent variables (t, c, m, s,
and n) can be determined.
The impact of n on y was hypothesized to be of a curvilinear nature.
1
Thus was used as an independent variable rather than n. Due to prior
evidence [5] that the demand function may not be linear, a semi-logarithmic
regression equation was estimated where the dependent variable, y, was
in natural log form and the independent variables were non-logarithmic.
The estimated demand relationship is given as:15
(9) Iny = 2.183 + .0260** t .051** c + .00001* m
(.0014) (.010) (.000005)
-1.399** -+ .229* D .258* D2 .368** D
(.172) '(.114) (.120) (.129)
R2 = .351 Degrees of freedom = 942
The D1, D2, and D3 variables represent zero-one variables to account
for the differences among time periods. For example, D1 helps explain
1The standard deviations are in parentheses beneath the coefficients.
** indicates significance at the 1 percent level, and indicates signifi-
cance at the 5 percent level.
how the demand relationship would be different between time periods one
and two. The coefficient on DI indicates that one could expect recrea-
tionists to spend an additional 1.3 days recreating per visit in time
period two over time period one. Similarly, the length of stay would
decrease in both periods three and four compared with one.
Equation (9) is applicable to all types of recreation sites in the
Kissimmee River Basin. Due to the lack of a significant effect of site
characteristics in the model, s was not used in the final formulation
of Equation (9). It was concluded from evidence in this study that the
specific site characteristics did not enter into the decision concerning
the number of days a recreationist spends at a recreation site in the
Kissimmee River Basin.
Equation (9) contains on-site cost, travel cost,'income, number of
recreationists in the group, and the effects of time periods. In this
equation the sign of the coefficient of travel cost, t, is positive.
This indicates that as travel costs increase $10.00 the recreationist
will increase his stay at the site by 1.3 days.
The negative sign of the coefficient of on-site costs, c, indicates
that as the price of a day of recreation increases the number of days
spent at the recreation site will decrease. An increase of $1.00 will
result in a decrease in the number of days spent at the site of approx-
imately 1.1 days. Both the coefficients of travel cost and on-site
cost are significant at the 1 percent level.
The sign of the coefficient of m, the recreationist's income is
positive. This indicates that as incomes go up the number of days a
recreationist will spend at the site increases. For example, a
$1,000.00 increase in income would result in a 1 day increase in the time
spent at the recreation site per visit. This indicates that even though
income is significant in determining length of stay, the number of days
at the site is not very responsive to small changes in income. The
income elasticity is less than 1 for incomes of $100,000 or less. This
implies that, within this range, as income increases 1 percent, the
amount of recreation will increase less than 1 percent.
1
The coefficient of the variable is negative. The negative sign
of the coefficient indicates that as the group size increases the number
of days spent at the recreation site per visit increases. This can per-
haps be explained by hypothesizing that larger group sizes usually
indicate family groups who are taking vacation time while individual
recreationists usually spend only a few hours.
Equation (9) was used to determine a demand function for outdoor
recreation. The demand function for outdoor recreation is a relation-
ship between the quantity of recreation consumed (days at a site per
person per visit, y) and various prices of recreation (on-site costs
per person per day, c) with all other variables held constant. The
demand curve for an average individual was determined by holding all
independent variables except c in Equation (9) at their means.
By using the mean values of t, m, n, 01, D2, and D3 in Equation (9)
and solving for the In y in terms of c,the demand function becomes:
(10) ln y = 1.929 .051 c\
The means of the dependent and independent variables are summarized
in Table 5.
35
Table 5.--Average values of variables estimated for outdoor recreationists
in the Kissimmee River Basin, 1970
Days per Daily Minimum
Time Days per Travel Daly Income Group Minimum
visit on-site days per
period cost t) onsit) (m) size (n) si
No. ---------- Dollars -------- -------- No. ------
Feb.-May 7.95 20.16 3.25 11,782 3.07 4.01
June-Sep. 5.16 7.80 2.41 10,079 3.27 2.08
Oct.-Nov. 3.75 7.16 3.38 10,048 2.77 1.98
Dec.-Jan. 4.38 17.31 3.66 11,997 3.06 2.58
All periods 5.64 13.38 3.23 10,964 3.06 2.78
aMeasured in terms of 12-hour periods.
Another component of the demand function for outdoor recreation is
the critical on-site cost, c*. Recreationists had a good idea as to the
minimum length of stay at the. site. Thus, critical on-site cost was esti-
mated by obtaining the minimum number of days recreationists were willing
to recreate, other things being equal. This corresponds to the maximum price
they would be willing to pay on a demand curve. The minimum number of days,
y*, was substituted into Equation (10), which was then solved for c. The
minimum number of days, y*, 'was calculated to be 2.78 days for all periods.
The critical on-site cost, c*, was calculated to be $17.77. This is the
maximum amount of on-site costs a recreationist would pay to engage in
outdoor recreation given his travel cost and income.
The demand function for recreation, on the average, can be written
as:
(11) y = e1.929 .051c for c < $17.77
36
Equation (11) is derived with all independent variables held at
their mean (except on-site cost). This includes D1, D2, and D3. Thus,
this relation is based on the average recreationist over all time
periods. If, however, the demand relation for a particular time period
were desired, a zero or one should be substituted for the Di variable.
For example, for time period one all D variables equal zero. The
demand relation for time period one holding all other variables at
means appropriate to time period one, is:
2.198 .051c
y =e
.For period two, D1 is set equal to one and D2 and D3 are zero.
Similarly, for periods three and four, D2 is one and D3 is one,
respectively. If an analysis of recreational values called for a partic-
ular time period, then it is preferable to use values of variables
associated with that period.
By utilizing the mean values obtained.in the demand function a
graphical representation can be derived. The demand function for an
average recreationist, on a per visit.basis, in the Kissimmee River
Basin during 1970 is presented in Figure 3.
The value per visit is based on the theory of consumer surplus
and is the shaded portion of Figure 3. Consumer surplus is based on the
concept that the price a rational person pays for something can never
exceed the price he would be willing to pay rather than do without it.
In many cases the actual price he pays is less than what he would have
paid. The satisfaction that he derives over and above what he gives
up is surplus satisfaction. The measure of this satisfaction is the
On-si
C* = 17.71
C = 3.23
S= e1.929 .051c
,y=e
y* = 2.78
Days per visit
Figure 3.--Estimated demand function and consumer surplus for an
individual recreationist, Kissimmee River Basin, 1970
excess of the price which he would be willing to pay (measured by a
demand curve) over what he actually paid. The concept of consumer
surplus was used in estimating the value of recreation.
The annual average value per visit was calculated as:
17.77
Value per visit = (e1.929 .051c) dc
3.23
= $59.91
The entire shaded area under the demand curve is included in consumer
surplus even though no recreation is consumed until the minimum number
of days spent at the site is reached. If there were not a discontinuity
due to the minimum number of.days, the demand curve would intersect the
on-site cost axis and the entire area would be included in consumer
surplus. Due to the discontinuity the curve is truncated.
The economic value of recreation for an individual in the
Kissimmee River Basin is $59.91. To find the total value of recreation
to the area the individual value is multiplied by the total number of
visitors. There were an estimated 479,260 visits to the Kissimmee
River Basin in 1970 [1]. The value of recreation in the Kissimmee River
Basin in 1970 was estimated as:
(479,260) ($59.91) = $28,712,467
This value relates to that amount of worth accruing to recreationists
visiting the Kissimmee River Basin in 1970 over and above the on-site
costs. Travel cost, income, and group size have influence on this value
in that they jointly determine the position of the demand function in
Figure 3. If incomes were to increase, for example, then the curve would
lie further from the origin; thus the value estimates would increase.
The exact impact of increasing incomes can be estimated by utilizing the
coefficient on the income variable in Equation (9). Similar effects
can be estimated for the other independent variables.
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Summary and Conclusions
Traditionally, many levels of government are involved'in providing
recreational opportunities. These opportunities range from small city
parks to the extensive national forest system. The funding of these
recreation sites, provided from taxes or the sponsoring governmental
body, must compete with funds needed for many other services. For this
reason a great deal of interest has been placed in the measurement of
the economic value of outdoor recreation.
It is the purpose of this report to present procedures and to
estimate the economic value of "water-oriented" outdoor recreation in
the Kissimmee River Basin during 1970.
The Kissimmee River Basin is located in the central portion of
Florida and is bordered roughly within the boundaries of Orlando on
the north, Lake Okeechobee on the south, the Sunshine State Parkway on
the east, and U.S. Highway 27 on the west.
A sample of lakes and streams was chosen to collect recreational
data. Every access point on each sampled lake became the site for
interviewing. These access points were fish camps, boat ramps, and/or
campgrounds that furnished public access.
A proportional sample was taken to account for differences in use
among (1) the sampled lakes, (2) the access points on each lake,
(3) weekdays versus weekends and holidays, and (4) various activities.
The method used in this study for determining the economic value
of recreation uses four independent variables to determine the 'impact of
the recreationist's decision concerning how many days to recreate per
visit. Based on the assumption that travel costs compete for the
recreation dollar in a different manner than on-site recreation costs,
a recreation demand relationship is derived.
The demand function
y = e.929 .051c. for c < $17.77
resulted in a per visit value of recreation of $59.91 for an individual
recreationist. This figure, when multiplied by the total number of
recreationists that use the area,gives the estimated total value of
recreation for the year as $28.7 million.
Implications
The value of approximately $28.7 million is the measure of consumer
surplus enjoyed by recreationists who visit the area. This figure does
not measure the gross expenditures or income to the area. It is only a
measure of the "surplus satisfaction" accruing to the recreationists
using the site over and above their expenditures.
While this method of estimating economic value of recreation is
perhaps a significant advancement over recent methods, there appear to
be some improvements that should be incorporated in future studies.
The method dealt specifically with the number of days per visit a
recreationist would spend at a site depending on his costs, income,
and group size. Future studies should include other variables that may
enter into the recreationist's decision on length of stay per visit.
Variables such as cost of fixed equipment, leisure time available, and
many others should perhaps be included to explain better the days per
visit decision. The number of trips a recreationist takes to a recrea-
tion site during a year's time needs to be accounted for. This could
have a definite influence on the number of days per visit. For example,
a weekly visitor to the recreation site may be influenced to a greater
extent by a rise in'on-site costs than an out-of-state visitor who
visits the site only once a year. Tradeoffs between number of visits
and days per visit are made in response to changes in on-site and
travel costs.
Implications may also be relevant to operators of recreational
facilities. In order to make sound decisions regarding the expansion
or development of recreational facilities entrepreneurs must evaluate
both expected costs and potential revenues. This study has contributed
information to managers in the Kissimmee River Basin by which the
potential revenues of an investment can be obtained. The total revenue
associated with operation of a facility catering to recreationists is
the product of the costs charged per day and the number of recreation
days. Of the recreationist's on-site costs, some can be manipulated by
operators of facilities. A demand function is used to estimate the response
to changes in on-site costs. For example, the coefficient (-.051) or the
on-site costs variable in the estimated demand relation [Equation (9)]
reflects the expected change in the length of stay with a given change
in on-site costs. For every 1 percent increase in costs the average
recreationist will spend .16 percent fewer days at the site per visit.
If on-site costs were to rise from $3.23 to $4.23 per day,then the
average length of stay would decrease from 5.64 to 5.35 days.
An increase in costs is proportionately larger than the decrease
in length of stay. Therefore, the total revenue associated with this
increase in costs would be higher. As long as the decrease in use is less
than the rise in costs, revenue to the operator will increase.
Based on the data from the Kissimmee River Basin in 1970, on-
site costs could increase up to $17.77 before a significant reduction in
length of stay would be realized. At this cost the average recrea-
tionist would prefer not to recreate. This information should be
interpreted correctly; an operator of a recreational facility would
not be able to charge an entrance fee of $17.77 since it is the
maximum tolerable on-site cost, some of which is not under the
control of the facility operator. The total daily on-site costs
could be increased up to $17.77, which includes meals, costs of
operating boat, and all other costs per day while at the site.
REFERENCES
[1] Behar, Morris. "Recreational Usage in the Kissimmee River Basin,
Florida." Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of
Florida, December 1972.
[2] Brown, William G., Ajmer Singh, and Emery N. Castle. An Economic
Evaluation of the Oregon Salmon and Steelhead Sport Fishery.
Oregon State University Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 78.
Corvallis, Oregon: September 1964.
[3] Clawson, Marion. Methods of Measuring the Demand for and Value of
Outdoor Recreation. Resources for the Future, Inc.
Reprint #10.. Washington, D.C.: 1959.
[4] Cochran, William G. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley &
Son, 1953.
[5] Edwards, J. A., K. C. Gibbs, L. J. Guedry, and H. H. Stoevener.
"The Demand for Non-Unique Outdoor Recreational Services:
Methodological Issues." Oregon State University Agr. Exp.
Sta. Tech. Paper No. 3317. Corvallis, Oregon: 1972.
[6] Friedman, Milton. Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1953.
[7] Gibbs, Kenneth C. "The Estimates of Recreational Benefits
Resulting from an Improvement of Water Quality in Upper
Klamath Lake: An Application of a Method for Evaluating
the Demand for Outdoor Recreation." Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Oregon State University, June 1969.
[8] Henderson, James M. and Richard E. Quandt. Microeconomic Theory.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1958.
[9] "The High Cost of Driving and What to do About it," Changing
Times, 24 (September 1970), p. 37.
[10] McGuire, John F. III. "An Application of Two Methods to
Estimate the Economic Value of Outdoor Recreation in the
Kissimmee River Basin." Unpublished Masters' Thesis,
University of Florida, December 1972,
[11] Norton, G. A. "Public Outdoor Recreation and Resource Allocation:
A Welfare Approach," Land Economics 46 (November 1970),
pp. 414-422.
[12] Ostle, Bernard. Statistics in Research. Ames: Iowa State
Univ. Press, 1963.
[13] Pearse, Peter H. "A New Approach to the Evaluation of Non-Priced
Recreation Resources," Land Economics 44 (February 1968),
pp. 87-99.
[14] Stevens, Joe B. "Recreation Benefits from Water Pollution Control,"
Water Resources Research, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1966.
[15] Trice, Andrew H. and Samuel E. Wood. "Measurement of Recreation
Benefits," Land Economics 34 (May 1958), pp. 196-207.
[16] U. S. Agricultural Research Service. "Food Consumption of
Households in the U. S.," Household Food Consumption
Survey, 1965-1966. Washington, D.C.: 1965, p. 212.
[17] U. S.Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index for
May1970. Washington, D.C.: June 1970.
Additional References
An Economic Study of the Demand for Outdoor Recreation.
Collection of papers presented at the Annual Meeting of
the Cooperative Regional Research Technical Committee,
Report #1. San Francisco, California: March 1968.
Grubb, Herbert W. and James T. Goodwin. Economic Evaluation of
Water-Oriented Recreation in the Preliminary Texas Water
Plan. Texas Water Development Board Report 84. Austin,
Texas: September 1968.
Johnson, Hugh A. "Demand for Outdoor Recreation." Paper
presented at the Outdoor Recreation Workshops (Soil
Conservation Service), New Mexico, February 1968.
Johnson, Hugh A. "Some Research Needs in Recreation." Paper
presented at the National Workshop in Extension Recreation,
Univ. of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, February 1967.
Johnson, Hugh A. "The Role of Recreation in Our Play Oriented
Society." Paper given at the 10th Annual Meeting,
Mississippi Section, American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, Univ. of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi,
November 1969.
Participation in Outdoor Recreation: Factors Affecting Demand
Among American Adults. Outdoor Recreation Resource Review
Commission Study Report 20. Washington, D.C.: 1962.
45
Reiling, S. D., K. C. Gibbs, and H. H. Stoevener. Economic Benefits
from an Improvement in Water Quality. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
Series EPA-RS-73-008. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government
Printing Office, January 1973.
Stevens, J. B. "Measurement of Economic Values in Sport Fishing:
An Economist's Views of Validity, Usefulness, and Propriety."
Paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Fisheries
Society, September 1968.
Stoevener, H. H. and L. J. Guedry. "Sociological Characteristics
of the Demand for Outdoor Recreation." Paper for discussion by
Technical Committee WM-59, San Francisco, California, March
1968.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
RECREATIONIST QUESTIONNAIRE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
Recreation Study
INTERVIEW #
Cluster #
Access Point
Time Int. Starts
INTRODUCTION: Hello, I'm an
interviewer for the University of Florida. We
are working on a recreation survey and.would
like to ask you a few questions concerning your
trip to this particular recreation site
First of all, would
you say the main purpose of you trip is to visit
this site or are you just stopping off here en
route to someplace else?
En route ( ) TERMINATE
To visit this site
( ) CONTINUE
1. Including yourself, how many persons are there
in your party which is stopping at this site?
2. Would you tell me the name of the place from
which this trip originated? The name of the
city, county, and state?.
(IF VISITING IN FLORIDA AND LEFT FLORIDA LOCATION
THE FLORIDA LOCATION WOULD BE THE ONE TO LIST)
2a Is that you home or another place you
are visiting
2b Is the address where you live (are
staying) right in the city limit,
in a suburban area of the city of
in a rural area?
City
County
State
TO COME TO SITE
Home ( )
Other ( )
Suburban ( )
Rural ()
SKIP TO Q. 3 .... .City
2c How many miles do you live outside the city?
Alone
Two
Three
Four
Five
Other
()
( )
( )
()
C)
2d In what direction would that be from
the city is it (READ) North
South
East
West
Other
3. About how many hours did you travel to get to this lake?
4. How many automobiles, including trucks,
vans and so forth did your group drive
to this lake? One
Two
Other
5. When did your group arrive at this
recreation site the data and time?
DATE
TIME
6. On what data, and about what time that day,
does your group plan to leave?
DATA
TIME
IF STAYING 12 hours or less ask Q 7
IF STAYING MORE THAN 12 HOURS SKIP TO Q Ta
7. We are interested in finding out what would be the shortest length of
time your group would spend at this site, considering the time and
expense involved with a visit to this site -- what would be the least
number of hours you would consider spending here?
7a We are interested in finding out what would be the shortest length of
time you would spend at this site, considering the time and expense
involved with a visit to this site -- what would be the least number
of days and nights you would spend here?
( )
( )
( )
( )
__
8. We would like to get an idea of the average costs involved in taking
advantage of a recreation site such as this. Thinking about expendi-
tures that your party made while on the way to this site what amount
would you say your group spent on food and/or liquor in restaurants,
grocery and/or liquor stores while traveling to this site? Just your
best estimate.
9. About how much do you think your party will probably spend in
restaurants, grocery and/or liquor stores while you are here at this
recreation site?
9a Thinking back to the supplies you bought and preparations made for
this trip before you left about how much did your party spend in
grocery and/or liquor stores to bring on this trip?
10. In regard to the food and drink you
purchased to bring on this trip, was
it all consumed en route to this site,
some consumed en route and some at the
site, or all brought for use at the site?
all consumed en route ( )
some consumed en route ( )
all brought for use on
site ( )
11. Thinking now of lodgings, including money spent in motels, trailer
parks, camping fees and so forth, about how much would you say your
party spent for lodgings en route to this site?
lla What do you think your party will spend for lodgings in motels,
camping fees and so forth while here at this site?
12. Were you at this site yesterday?
YES ( )
NO ( )
12a IF YES:
About how many miles, if any did your party drive yesterday
while here at this site?
What was the purpose of your drive yesterday?
How many of your party actually participated in activities
on the lake/river yesterday?
What activities did your party engage in yesterday?
(fishing, boating, swimming, water skiing, etc.)
12b IF NO: About how many miles do you think your party will drive today
at this site?
What will be the purpose of your drive today?
About how many of your party do you think will actually
participate in activities on the lake/river.today?
What activities.do you think your party will participate in
at this lake/river, today: (fishing, boating, swimming,
water skiing, etc.)
13. How many outboard motors did your party bring with them to this site?
IF NONE SKIP TO Q. 16)
14. How many gallons of gas will you use at this site for your motor
(motors) in a day?
15. What amount of money do you estimate your party will spend on boat
launching fees while at this site?
16. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD A Rental Card)
Looking at this list of rental items, will you please tell me which,
if any, of these items you or other members of your group have rented
for this particular trip? Or any other items besides those listed?
IF NONE SKIP TO Q. 17 RECORD ITEMS LISTED IN COLUMNS
ASK OF EACH ITEM CHECKED: ..a. How much is the rental rate,
is it hourly, daily or weekly?
(RECORD IN RENT COLUMN)
b. For what length of time do
you plan to rent this item?
(RECORD UNDER TIME)
ITEMS RENT TIME
(16) (16a) (16b)
boat and motor together
boat
outboard motor
boat trailer
Fishing tackle (rod, reel, tackle,
camper, etc.)
camper (van, truck, trailer camper,
etc.)
tent trailer
tent
sleeping bag
water skis
life vests
other equipment for boats
any other items? (IF YES, what?)
17, Thus far, we have talked about expenses for the automobile, boat, food,
rental and lodging expense can you think of any other types of
expenses your party had in coming here to this recreation site for
instance, camera or camping supplies, or souvenirs you may have
purchased? No ( ) ASK 17a Yes ( ) SPECIFY
(Item) (Amount)
17a Any other expenses, that we have not talked about, that your party will
have while staying at this recreation site?
No ()
ASK 18
Yes ( )
(Item)
SPECIFY
(Amount)
18. Thinking now of the various baits you will use while at this site, about
how much do you think you will spend while here for bait, both natural
and artificial?
(WRITE IN FIGURE)
About how much did you spend at home or en route for baits to be used
at this site?
(WRITE IN FIGURE)
19. Do you have an annual permit for entering parks or recreation areas?
Yes ( )
No ()
IF YES: What kind is it?
Golden Eagle
Sunshine Ticket
Other'
20. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD B)
On this card are various letters next to different income categories.
Please read me the letter that most closely corresponds to the combined
yearly income before taxes, for all working members of your family who
live at home.
Less than
$ 3,500
$ 5,000
$ 7,000
$ 8,000
$ 9,000
$10,000
$11,000
$12,000
$13,000
$15,000
$17,000
$20,000
- $ 3,500
- $ 4,999
- $ 6,999
- $ 7,999
- $ 8,999
- $ 9,999
- $10,999
- $11,999
- $12,999
- $14,999
- $16,999
- $18,999
- $24,999
(n)
(o)
(p)
(q)
(r)
(s)
(t)
(u)
(v)
(w)
(x)
(y)
(z)
$ 25,000
$ 26,000
$ 31,000
$ 35,000
$ 36,000
$ 40,000
$ 45,000
$ 50,000
$ 56,000
$ 60,000
$ 75,000
$ 85,000
over $100,000
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(1)
(n)
$ 25,999
$ 30,999
$ 34,999
$ 35,999
$ 36,999
$ 44,999
$ 49,999
$ 55,999
$ 59,999
$ 74,999
$ 84,999
$100,000
_ ___
_~
So that my office may check a percentage of my work, may I please have your
name and telephone number?
Phone No.
Male
Female
Name
area
Age (by observation
Under 21
21 29
30 39
40-- 49
50 59
60/over
I hereby certify that this interview was actually taken with the person
described above, and represents a true and accurate account of the interview.
DATE
Tipe Int. Ended
Comments:
APPENDIX B
SITE CHARACTERISTIC QUESTIONNAIRE
In order to determine the characteristics that could possibly affect
arrecreationist's decision to visit a particular site, the following
questionnaire was completed for each recreation site sampled. The
compiled results of this questionnaire are summarized in Appendix Table B-l.
1. Number of cabins or trailers. for rent
2. Number of camping sites. with electricity
3. Number of permanent dwellings on property associated with lake.
4. Number of lanes in boat ramp surfaced: Yes No
5. Number of moorage sites for boats covered: Yes No
.6. Restaurant or cafe. Yes No
7. Picnic facilities. Yep No
8. Fish camp or bait store. __Yes No; Guide Available Yes No
Number of boats for rent (not houseboats),
10. Number of houseboats for rent.
11. Fee for fishing at the site.
12. Activities available at the site (which people actively take part in),
Swimming
Fishing
Camping
Waterfowl hunting
Boating
Water skiing
13. Public restrooms available. Yes No
14. Access road surfaced, Yes No
Appendix Table B-l.--Summary -of site characteristics by access site, Kissimmee River Basin, 1970
Cabins
Moorage
Campsites/ Boatramp/ sites/ Picnic
Site Total For rent with elec. surfaced covered Restaurant facilities
O'Kissimmee
FCD North
Joe & Wanda's
S/65 Boat Ramp
Port Hatchineha
Camp Marie
Oasis Fish Camp
Tiger Lake
(Canal to Rosalie
Public Boat Ramp)
Shady Oaks
Kissimmee Park
Tiger Lake Fish Camp
Grape Hammock
Camp Mack
Camp Lester
Osceola Co. Boat
Ramp
Red's Fish Camp
Scotties
Moss Park
3-lane-Boat Ramp (Ki
simmee)
2-lane Boat Ramp (Ki
simmee)
Jannis' Fish Camp
St. Cloud Beach
----------
4
15
10
0
4
8
12
Number
2
0
8
4
7-
12
0
230
28
42
9
20
11
------------
2/0
100/0
-18/18
0/0
6/6
0/0
0/0
25/0
50/0
0/0
25/25
20/20
40/40
15/15
0/0
5/0
18/18
100/6
0/0
0/0
6/6
0/0
yes/yes
yes/yes
yes/yes
no/no
yes/yes
yes/yes
yes/yes
yes/yes
yes/yes
no/no
yes/yes
yes/yes
yes/yes
yes/yes
yes/yes
yes/no
yes/no
yes/yes
yes/yes
yes/yes
yes/no
yes/yes
Number
16/0
0/0
50/0
0/0
10/0
6/0
?/?
0/0
25/15
40/26
0/0
10/0
40/20
50/20
0/0
30/0
55/55
0/0
0/0
0/0
40/12
20/0
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes?
Yes
Yes?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Continued
s-
S-
Appendix Table B-l.--Summary of site characteristics by access
1970 -- Continued
site, Kissimmee River Basin,
Boats Access Fish camp
for Fishing fee/ Fishing road or
Site rent launch fee Restrooms guides surfaced Houseboats bait
O'Kissimmee
FCD North
Joe & Wanda's
S/65 Boat Ramp
Port Hatchineha
Camp Marie
Oasis Fish Camp
Tiger Lake
(Canal to Rosalie
Public Boat Ramp)
Shady Oaks
Kissimmee Park
Tiger Lake Fish Camp
Grape Hammock
Camp Mack
Camp Lester
Osceola Co. Boat
Ramp
Red's Fish Camp
Scotties
Moss Park
3-lane Boat Ramp (Kis-
simmee)
2-lane Boat Ramp (Kis-
simmee
Jannis -Fish Camp
St. Cloud Beach
Dollars
01/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
.50/1.00
0/1.00
no/0
0/0
0/1.00
0/0
0/1.50
0/1.00
0/1.50
0/1.00
0/0
0/.50
0/.50
0/0
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
0/0
0/0
0/.50
0/0
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
|
