• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Cover
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Introduction
 Characteristics of lakefront...
 Opinions
 Recreational activities
 Lakefront property values
 Summary and conclusions
 Appendix A
 Appendix B














Group Title: Bulletin / University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ;
Title: Activities, characteristics, and opinions of lakefront residents
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026735/00001
 Material Information
Title: Activities, characteristics, and opinions of lakefront residents Kissimmee River basin, Florida
Series Title: Bulletin / University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ;
Physical Description: v, 68 p. : map ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Conner, J. Richard ( James Richard ), 1942-
Reynolds, John E ( John Everett )
Gibbs, Kenneth C
University of Florida -- Agricultural Experiment Station
United States -- Office of Water Resources Research
Publisher: Agricultural Experiment Stations, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla
Publication Date: 1973
Copyright Date: 1973
 Subjects
Subject: Lakes -- Recreational use -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Real property -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Recreational use -- Kissimmee, Lake (Fla.)   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: J.R. Conner, J.E. Reynolds, and K.C. Gibbs.
General Note: Partially funded by the Office of Water Resources Research, U.S. Dept. of the Interior.
General Note: "January 1973."
General Note: Project nos. B-005-FLA, B-007-FLA.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00026735
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: ltuf - AHM1174
oclc - 09052192
alephbibnum - 001597044

Table of Contents
    Cover
        Cover 1
        Cover 2
    Table of Contents
        Page i
        Page ii
    List of Tables
        Page iii
        Page iv
    List of Figures
        Page v
        Page vi
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Characteristics of lakefront residents
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
    Opinions
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
    Recreational activities
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
    Lakefront property values
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
    Summary and conclusions
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
    Appendix A
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
    Appendix B
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
Full Text


BULLETIN 755 & JANUARY 1973








ACTIVITIES, CHARACTERISTICS, AND OPINIONS OF LAKEFRONT
RESIDENTS: KISSIMMEE RIVER BASIN, FLORIDA



J. R. Conner, J. E. Reynolds and K. C. Gibbs









Agricultural Experiment Stations

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville
J. W. Sites, Dean for Research














ACTIVITIES, CHARACTERISTICS, AND
OPINIONS OF LAKEFRONT RESIDENTS:
KISSIMMEE RIVER BASIN, FLORIDA



J. R. Conner, J. E. Reynolds, and K. C. Gibbs


J. R. Conner is assistant professor of food and resource economics. J. E. Reynolds
is associate professor of food and resource economics and assistant dean of the
College of Agriculture. K. C. Gibbs is assistant professor of food and resource
economics and environmental engineering.

University of Florida
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Agricultural Experiment Stations




This public document was promulgated at an annual
cost of $3,056.70 or a cost of .6113 cents per copy to dissem-
inate information concerning the Kissimmee River Basin
Lakefront residents' characteristics and attitudes for use
by city, region, and state planners and government decision
makers, county Extension directors, real estate agents,
developers, and Flood Control and Water Management
District personnel.


This report is a part of the study "An Optimum Water Allocation Model Based
on an Analysis for the Kissimmee River Basin," Florida Water Resources Center
Project Nos. B-005-FLA and B-007-FLA. The project is funded by the Office of
Water Resources Research, U. S. Department of Interior, the Central and South-
ern Florida Flood Control District and the Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations.
The project is concerned with the allocation of water over space and time and among
several different uses within the Kissimmee River Basin.













TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES .................. ........................... iii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................. ........... v
INTRODUCTION ............................... 1

O objectives .............................. ..................... ...... 1
Method and Procedure of Sampling ............ .................. ... 3
The Interview Procedure ................... ................... 5

CHARACTERISTICS OF LAKEFRONT RESIDENTS ................... 7
Identification of the Population . . . ........ ..... . ......... .... 7
Geographic Sub-areas of the Kissimmee River Basin .................. 8
Socio-economic Characteristics of Respondents ....................... 9
Classification by Socio-economic Characteristics ..................... 10
OPINIONS .................................................. 16
Open-ended Questions ................ ............. ............ 16
Ranking of Characteristics ............. ...................... 21

RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES ....... ......................... 23
Lake Level Fluctuation . . . . ...... ............................... 27

LAKEFRONT PROPERTY VALUES ......................... 27
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................... 30
APPENDIX A ........................................................ 33
APPENDIX B ............. ................................... 39



















i












LIST OF TABLES
Table Page

1 Pre-survey estimated number of lakefront dwellings, Kissimmee
River Basin, Florida, 1970 ............... ........................... 4

2 Identification of number and type of lakefront residents contacted
in survey by geographic sub-areas, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida,
1970 ............................................................... 6

3 Occupation of lakefront residents contacted in survey, Kissimmee
River Basin, Florida, 1970 ... ........ ............................. 9

4 Number of people per lakefront residence contacted in survey,
Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970 ....... ................ 10

5 Socio-economic characteristics of lakefront residents contacted
in survey by retirement status,- Kissimmee River Basin, Florida,
1970 ................... .... .. .................... .. ........... 11

6 Socio-economic characteristics of lakefront residents contacted
in survey by income class, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970 .. 12

7 Socio-economic characteristics of lakefront residents contacted
in survey by geographic sub-area, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida,
1970 ................ .......... .............................. 13

8 Socio-economic characteristics of lakefront residents contacted
in survey by type of residence, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida,
1970 ........................................................ 14

9 Number of survey respondents by geographic and socio-economic
classification, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970 ................ 15

10 Reasons for acquiring lakefront property reported by survey re-
spondents, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970 ................... 17

11 Important characteristics that a prospective buyer of lakefront
property should consider reported by survey respondents, Kissimmee
River Basin, Florida, 1970 ................................. . . 18
12 Desirable attributes of lakes reported by survey respondents, Kissim-
m ee River Basin, Florida, 1970 ..................................... 19

13 Undesirable attributes of lakes reported by survey respondents,
Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970 .............................. 20

14 Ranking of important characteristics by survey respondents, Kissim-
m ee River Basin, Florida, 1970 ................................ 22

15 Participation in and expenditures on water-based recreational
activities by survey respondents, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida,
1970 ................. ............................................ 24

16 Arithmetic means of lakefront property values reported by survey
respondents, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970 ................. 29




iii












Appendix Tables


1 Reasons for acquiring lakefront property reported by survey re-
spondents by income class, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970 .. 40

2 Reasons for acquiring lakefront property reported by survey re-
spondents by type of residence, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida,
1970 ........................... .............................. 41

3 Reasons for, acquiring lakefront property reported by survey re-
spondents by geographic sub-area, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida,
1970 ................... ... .................. ..... ...... ........ 42
4 Reasons for acquiring lakefront property reported by survey re-
spondents by retirement status, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida,
1970 ........... ...... ... ..... .. ..... ... .......... 43

5 Important characteristics that a prospective buyer of lakefront
property should consider reported by survey respondents by income
class, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970 ........................ 44

6 Important characteristics that a prospective buyer of lakefront
property should consider reported by survey respondents by type of
residence, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970 .................... 45

7 Important characteristics that a prospective buyer of lakefront
property should consider reported by survey respondents by geo-
graphic sub-area, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970 ............. 46

8 Important characteristics that a prospective buyer of lakefront
property should consider reported by survey respondents by retire-
ment status, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970 ............... 47

9 Desirable attributes of lakes reported by survey respondents by in-
come class, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida 1970 ................... 48

10 Desirable attributes of lakes reported by survey respondents by type
of residence, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970 ................. 49

11 Desirable attributes of lakes reported by survey respondents by geo-
graphic sub-area, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970 ............ 50

12 Desirable attributes of lakes reported by survey respondents by re-
tirement status, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970 .............. 51

13 Undesirable attributes of lakes reported by survey respondents by in-
come class, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970 .................. 52
14 Undesirable attributes of lakes reported by survey respondents by
type of residence, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970 ............ 53
15 Undesirable attributes of lakes reported by survey respondents by
geographic sub-area, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970 ......... 54

16 Undesirable attributes of lakes reported by survey respondents by
retirement status, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970 ............ 55



iv













Appendix Tables-(Continued)
Table Page

17 Ranking of important characteristics by survey respondents by in-
come class, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970 .................. 56

18 Ranking of important characteristics by survey respondents by type
of residence, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970 ................. 57

19 Ranking of important characteristics by survey respondents by geo-
graphic sub-area, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970 ............ 58

20 Ranking of important characteristics by survey respondents by re-
tirement status, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970 .............. 59
21 Participation in and expenditures on water-based recreational activ-
ities by survey respondents by income class, Kissimmee River Basin,
Florida, 1970 ................................................. 60

22 Participation in and expenditures on water-ba.sed recreational activ-
ities by survey respondents by type of residence, Kissimmee River
Basin, Florida, 1970 ..................... ......... ............. 62

23 Participation in and expenditures on water-based recreational activ-
ities by survey respondents by geographic sub-area, Kissimmee River
Basin, Florida, 1970 ......... ............ .......... ............. 63

24 Participation in and expenditures on water-based recreational activ-
ities by survey respondents by retirement status, Kissiznmee River
Basin, Florida, 1970 ................................................ 64

25 Arithmetic means of lakefront property values reported by survey
respondents by income class, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970 65

26 Arithmetic means of lakefront property values reported by survey
respondents by type of residence, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida,
1970 .......... ......... ......................... ........... 66

27 Arithmetic means of lakefront property values reported by survey
respondents by geographic sub-area, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida,
1970 .......................... ............................... 67
28 Arithmetic means of lakefront property values reported by survey
respondents by retirement status, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida,
1970 ............ .. ... ....... .............. ............... 68






LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page

1 Lakes and Streams of the Kissimmee River Basin, Florida .......... 2



V













INTRODUCTION

Water in the Kissimmee River Basin can be controlled by
the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District. Both
fluctuating and excessively low water levels have adverse im-
pacts on the residents adjacent to the lakes and streams. In
order to assess these impacts on the lakefront property and on
aesthetic values held by the residents, studies are needed to
identify the population of persons affected, to ascertain their
opinions concerning various qualities of the lakes, and to deter-
mine the amount of lake use by these residents.
The recreational users of the Kissimmee River Basin are of
two types: (1) recreational visitors and (2) waterfront residents.
This study was concerned with recreational data from a
sample of waterfront residents in the Kissimmee River Basin
(see Figure 1). It was designed to obtain information regarding
property values, recreational activities of the residents, effects
of different water levels on the participation in different recrea-
tional activities, and opinions of the residents regarding the
value of lakefront property as compared to other types of prop-
erty. It was also concerned with the analysis and interpretation
of the data obtained from this survey.
In addition to the recreational data presented in this report,
data on recreational users visiting the Kissimmee River Basin
were collected. These data are not presented in this report but
were a part of the research project which funded this work.


Objectives
The objectives of this study are:
(a) To determine the proportion of lakefront residences
that were homes, vacation-type residences, and/or
commercial establishments;
(b) To delineate the opinions of the lakefront residents
relative to their socio-economic characteristics and the
aesthetic characteristics of the lakes;
(c) To determine the frequency of participation by the
respondents in water-based recreational activities and
the amount of money spent on each type of activity;
(d) To obtain socio-economic data on the lakefront resi-
dents; and
(e) To determine sample respondents' estimates of the
value of their property and the influence of the lake and
the lake level on these values.
1












Florida
Study Area
Orlando *
Shingle Cr.--_ Boggy Cr.
Kissimmee .-- Hart
L. Tohopekaliga E. L. Tohopekaliga
Reedy Cr. -----St. Cloud
L. Marion 4 -L. Alligator
Lakeland Melbourne---.-- *
/L. Cypress
* L. Hatchineha


Winter Haven L. Marian
L. Pierce L. Kissimmee
L. Rosalie Kissimmee R.
L. Weohyakapka rTaylor Cr.
L. Arbuckle L. Okeechobee
Arbuckle Cr.----- Ft. Pierce -*
Sebring
L. Istokpog a
Fisheating Cr.- -














Figure 1.-Lakes and streams of the Kissimmee River Basin, Florida




2








Method and Procedure of Sampling
The sampling frame used in this study included all perma-
nently stationed houses, cabins, house boats, and trailer houses
which were (1) located no more than 400 yards from the water,
(2) on property with frontage on the water, and (3) did not have
a public road between the building and the water. This included
property on the lakes, canals, and streams in the Kissimmee
River Basin from Lakes Hart and Mary Jane in Orange County
to the mouth of the Kissimmee River at Lake Okeechobee (see
Figure 1). Excluded were residences on Shingle Creek, Boggy
Creek, Reedy Creek, Lake Marion (in Polk County), Lake
Pierce, Lake Weohyakapka, Lake Arbuckle, Arbuckle Creek,
Taylor Creek, and Fisheating Creek.1 Also, residences within
the corporate limits of the towns of St. Cloud and Kissimmee
were excluded.
The population of interest in this study was all of the water-
front dwellings in the sampling frame described above which
were either: (a) permanent residences on lots smaller than ten
acres and not also serving as a place of business, such as a
ranch, farmhouse, or fishing camp; (b) weekend or seasonal
dwellings either owned by their occupants or rented or leased
by their occupants for one month or more; or (c) weekend or
seasonal dwellings used primarily by their owners.
From overflights of the Kissimmee River Basin, the number
of units in the sampling frame was estimated to be approxi-
mately 900. It was estimated that 80 to 90 percent of the units
in the sampling frame would be included in the population of
interest. Thus, the population of interest was expected to be
between 720 and 810 units. To insure that at least 50 com-
pleted interviews were obtained from the population of inter-
est, including allowances for non-respondents, a sample of 12.5
percent (1 in 8) was chosen.
The procedure used for sampling the available population is
described as follows: (a) The lakes and streams were grouped
into units of approximately the same size and geographical
location (see Table 1); (b) the enumerator began at each lake
or stream at the most convenient access to the water's edge, and
proceeded counterclockwise around the lake or group of lakes
and the accompanying canals; (c) the enumerator chose every
eighth building after a random start for that particular lake or
group of lakes. In cases where a canal connected two lakes,


These lakes were excluded because the Central and Southern Florida Flood
Control District could not control the water level in them.
3










Table l.-Pre-survey estimated number of lakefront dwellings, Kissimmee River
Basin, Florida, 1970


Lake no. Lake Name Approx. no. Survey Group total
of residences group no. residences

1 Hart 20 1
2 Mary Jane 26 1 46

3 Hinden 12 2
4 Ajay 4 2
5 Fells Cove 17 2 33

6 Myrtle 1 3
7 Joel 3
8 Bullock 3
9 Center 9 3
10 Lost 1 3
11 Trout 12 3 23

12 E. Tohopekaliga 57 (excluding 4 57
St. Cloud)

13 Runnymeade 11 5
14 Lizzie 41 5 52

15 Alligator 122 6 122

16 Live Oak 3 7
17 Sardine 1 7
18 Brick 1 7
19 Gentry 8 7
20 Fish 15 7 28

21 Cypress 8
22 Jackson 8
23 Marian 9 8 9

24 Tohopekaliga 90 (excluding 9 90
Kissimmee)

25 Hatchineha 75 10 75

26 Kissimmee 95 11 95

27 Rosalie 66 12
28 Tiger 8 12 74

29 Isokpoga 171 13
30 Kissimmee River 8 13 179

Total pre-survey estimated number of lakefront dwellings 883





the enumerator could proceed around the entire group, including
the canal, if both lakes were in the same group. However, if the

4







two lakes belonged to different groups, then the canal was in-
cluded in whichever lake was most convenient to do so.
The 30 different lakes and streams in Table 1 were assigned
to 13 groups based on geographic location and the preliminary
estimate of the number of residences in each group. Thus, the 13
groups represent somewhat more homogenous units for sampling
than if each of the 30 lakes was sampled separately. In taking
a 12.5 percent sample, which meant sampling every eighth
residence, some of the lakes with no more than one or two
residences would have been completely left out of the sample
if they had not been combined into groups. While the grouping
did not eliminate the possibility of the residences on a small
lake being omitted, it did assure that most of the residences on
the lakes would have an opportunity to be included.


The Interview Procedure
The questionnaire used in this survey consisted of three
parts (see Appendix A). Part I was concerned solely with the
identification of the sample unit. It was designed to determine
whether the sample unit belonged to the population of interest.
If the sampled unit did not belong to the population of interest,
Parts 2 and 3 of the questionnaire, which were designed to
obtain opinions, socio-economic data, etc., from the residents,
were not completed.
The procedure for conducting the interviews proceeded as
follows: (a) If the occupant was present at the dwelling selected,
information regarding the type of dwelling was obtained at that
time. If the unit belonged to the population of interest, then the
enumerator proceeded with Parts 2 and 3 of the questionnaire.
If the unit did not belong to the population of interest, then the
enumerator filled out Part I of the questionnaire and left. (b) If
the unit was not occupied when the enumerator found it, he then
tried to determine from a nearby resident the name of the
owner of tne dwelling and if it belonged to the population of
interest. If the sampled unit did not belong to the population of
interest, then the enumerator completed Part 1 of the question-
naire and terminated the interview. If the unit was a member of
the population of interest, then the enumerator tried to subse-
quently interview him or her, if possible. In cases where it was
not possible to interview the occupant, that is, if the occupant
could not be contacted, or if the occupant lived further than 30
miles from the study area, then Part 1 of the questionnaire was
completed, but the questionnaire was designated as belonging
to the population of interest.
5










Table 2.-Identification of number and type of lakefront residents contacted in survey by geographic sub-areas, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970


Total Upper Kissimmee Central Kissimmee Lower Kissimmee
Kissimmee Basin Basin Basin
Basin Lakes 1-24 Lakes 25-28 Lakes 29-30

Contacted Estimated Contacted Estimated Contacted Estimated Contacted Estimated

Total no. of water-
front dwellings 123 984 53 424 46 368 24 192

No. of waterfront
dwellings in
population of
interest 100 800 43 344 38 304 19 152

S% of total water-
front dwellings in
population of
interest 81 81 81 81 83 83 79 79

No. of residents
interviewed from
population of
interest 56 -- 27 -- 16 -- 13

% of residents in
population of
interest represented
by survey results 56 56 63 63 42 42 68 68








CHARACTERISTICS OF LAKEFRONT RESIDENTS
Identification of the Population


A summary of the number and type of lakefront residents in
the Kissimmee River Basin is given in Table 2. The number of
sample units contacted in the survey is specified in column one,
and the estimated total number of units in the population is
given in the second column. The population estimates are simple
expansions, by a factor of eight, of the number of units for each
category contacted in the survey. Of the estimated 984 lake-
front residences in the Kissimmee River Basin, it was estimated
that 800, or 81 percent, belonged to the population of interest.
The remaining 19 percent (184) were dwelling units other than
those from the population of interest.
From the 100 sample units belonging to the population of
interest, 56 interviews were obtained. Forty-four of the 100
residential dwellings in the sample were not interviewed due to
an inability to contact the occupants. Most of these 44 dwellings
represent residences which were primarily seasonal or week-
end-type vacation homes and were occupied only occasionally.
Thus, 56 percent of the estimated 800 residents in the population
of interest are represented in the sample survey. Therefore,
it is reasonable to assume that the information obtained con-
cerning the opinions and activities represent only lakefront
residences in the Kissimmee River Basin that were not oc-
cupied on a seasonal or weekend basis.
The primary reason for the relatively large percent of the
lakefront residences not being interviewed was that the sur-
vey was conducted during the months of May and June, 1970.
Most of the seasonal occupants had left their winter homes.
In addition to the information given in Table 2, the survey
revealed that:
(a) Ninety-two percent of the 184 lakefront dwellings not
in the population of interest were houses or cabins, and
8 percent were mobile homes. As to dwelling use, 58
percent were places of business, 33 percent were per-
manently vacant, and 9 percent were rented or leased
on a short term basis.
(b) Of the 44 waterfront residences in the population of
interest which were sampled, but not interviewed, 57
percent were houses or cabins, and 43 percent were
mobile homes. All of these units were only occupied
occasionally, primarily during the winter season.
7








(c) Of the 56 waterfront dwellings which were included in
the population of interest and from which interviews
were obtained, 75 percent were houses or cabins, 20
percent were mobile homes, and 5 percent were com-
bination house trailers and cabins.

Geographic Sub-areas of the Kissimmee River Basin

In an attempt to ascertain whether or not the various char-
acteristics reported in the survey were related to geographic
sub-areas within the Kissimmee River Basin, the sample was
post-stratified into three basic geographic regions. These
regions were designated by the associated lake numbers given
in Table 1 and are shown in Table 2.
The upper Kissimmee basin included the most densely
populated region. It was located closest to the population cen-
ters of Orlando, Kissimmee, and St. Cloud. This area was char-
acterized by many relatively small lakes and the three relatively
large lakes: Tohopekaliga, East Tohopekaliga, and Alligator.
The central Kissimmee basin included Lakes Hatchineha,
Kissimmee, Rosalie, and Tiger. These lakes are relatively well
removed from larger municipalities.
The lower Kissimmee basin included Lake Istokpoga and
the Kissimmee River between Lake Kissimmee and the mouth
of the Kissimmee River at Lake Okeechobee.
A summary of the number and type of lakefront residences
for each of these geographic areas is represented in Table 2.
The upper and central areas represent approximately 80 per-
cent of the total lakefront dwellings in the Kissimmee River
Basin. It is of interest to note that of the three areas, the per-
centages of sample residents in the population of interest vary
considerably. In the central Kissimmee basin, only 42 percent
of the population of interest is represented in the sample survey.
This indicates that a larger percentage of the residences in this
geographic sub-area are made up of seasonal and vacation-type
dwellings. Therefore, one should keep in mind that the results
of the survey would apply to less than 50 percent of the lake-
front residences in this sub-area. On the other hand, the lower
Kissimmee basin has 68 percent of its population of interest
represented in the survey results. The upper Kissimmee basin
has 63 percent of the population of interest represented in the
survey results.




8









Socio-economic Characteristics of Respondents

The occupation of the head of the household was deter-
mined. The responses were classified into standard categories
and are shown in Table 3. Twenty-five percent of the residents
interviewed were retired. Forty-eight percent of those not re-
tired were either small businessmen or white-collar employees.
The average age of the head of the household was 52
years. Approximately 57 percent of the sample were 51 years
or older.




Table 3.-Occupation of lakefront residents contacted in survey, Kissimmee River
Basin, Florida, 1970


Occupation classification Frequency % of total

Retired 14 25

Big business, banker,
senior executive

Small business, contractor,
store owner 12 21

White collar employee 8 14

Construction trades 5 9

Farmer 4 7

Skilled mechanic 4 7

Outdoor work, truck driver,
miner 2 4

Factory worker 2 4

Military 1

Personal service, barber,
beautician 1

Unemployed 1

Political-local 1 9

Professional, applied
sciences and engineering 1

Official-community
service

Total 56 100

9








The average income, for the 50 respondents that disclosed
their income, was $10,930 per year. Twenty percent of the
sample had annual incomes between $7,000 and $9,999 per year;
28 percent had incomes between $10,000 and $14,999; and 26
percent had annual incomes of $15,000 or more. Twenty-six
percent of the total respondents reported annual incomes of
less than or equal to $6,999. More than half of these, or 18 per-
cent of the total surveyed, had incomes that were actually
less than or equal to $3,500. The income distribution from the
sample was quite even over a wide range of incomes from those
less than $3,500 to those greater than $15,000.
The number of people per lakefront residence is reported
in Table 4. Sixty-one percent of the households had two people
in them. This is also reflected in the 2.7 average number of
people per lakefront residence. Thirty-four percent of the resi-
dents had children in the household under the age of 18 years.
The average number of children in households with children
under 18 years was 1.7. The relatively small percent of house-
holds with children and the small average number of children
per household again is a result of the sample consisting of many
retired or semi-retired people.
Seventy-three percent of the persons interviewed lived in
permanent residences. Thus, 27 percent were vacation-type
residences, i. e., seasonal or weekend homes. Only one of the
respondents from vacation homes was a seasonal resident.
The average lake or canal frontage was 188.13 feet. Most
of the respondents felt that the amount of their frontage was
adequate.

Table 4.-Number of people per lakefront residence contacted in survey, Kissimmee
River Basin, Florida, 1970

No. of people in 1 2 3 4 5 Total
households or more
No. of households 1 34 11 4 6 56
% of households 2 61 19 7 11 100


Classification by Socio-economic Characteristics
To identify some of the relationships between the survey
responses and the basic social or economic characteristics of
the respondents, the survey results were classified by annual
income, retirement status, type of residence, and geographic
areas.
10








In Table 5, the socio-economic characteristics are classified
by retirement status. The difference between the average age of
the retired versus the non-retired respondents was 14 years.2
The average income for the retired group is about $4,200 lower
than the non-retired group.3 The retired group had a signifi-
cantly higher percentage of permanent homes than did the non-
retired group. The other socio-economic characteristics re-
ported in Table 5 do not show statistically significant differences
between the retired and non-retired respondents.

Table 5.-Socio-economic characteristics of lakefront residents contacted in survey
by retirement status, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970
Retirement status
Socio-economic
characteristics Retired Non-retired
No. Std. Dev. No. Std. dev.

No. of respondents 14 --- 42

Average age (years) 62.5 9.6 48.6 13.0

Average annual income
($) 7,636.4 4,974.1 11,859.0 6,357.4
Average no. in house-
hold 2.7 1.1 2.6 1.1

Average no. in house-
hold under 18 years .8 1.1 .5 .9

% permanent dwellings 93.0 --- 67.5

% vacation dwellings 7.0 --- 32.5
Average feet of lake
frontage 191.2 260.9 187.1 211.7


In Table 6, the socio-economic characteristics are classified
by income groups. The larger percentages of the retired people
were found in the two lowest income classes. Somewhat un-
expected was the much smaller lot sizes, as indicated by feet
of lakefrontage, for the $7,000 to $9,999 income group. The feet



2This difference is statistically significant at the .01 level, as revealed by the
"t" test for the difference between arithmetic means.
"3The chi-square test indicates that there is a significant (at the .10 level)
relationship between the retirement class and income class, and between the
retirement class and the type of residence. See Table 9 for the frequencies of
responses in each contingency category.
11









Table 6.-Socio-economic characteristics of lakefront residents contacted in survey by income class, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970


Annual income class ($)
Socio-economic
characteristics 6,999 or less 7,000 to 9,999 10,000 to 14,999 15,000 or more

No. Std. dev. No. Std. dev. No. Std. dev. No. Std. dev.

No. of respondents 13 --- 10 --- 14 --- 13

Average age (years) 48.8 18.5 58.5 14.1 48.4 10.4 51.1 10.6

Average annual income
($) 3,346.2 1,441.7 8,500.0 942.8 11,714.3 1,450.7 19,538.5 2,846.5

S% retired 38 --- 40 --- 7 8

Average no. in
household 2.8 1.1 2.1 .6 2.4 .8 3.2 1.4

Average no. in household
under 18 years .7 .9 .2 .4 .3 .8 .8 1.2

% permanent dwellings 77 --- 80 --- 76 --- 54

% vacation dwellings 23 --- 20 --- 24 --- 46

Average feet of lake
frontage 219.3 251.9 79.2 19.1 166.5 171.5 227.8 228.2









of lakefrontage in the remaining classes were larger and not as
uniform as is indicated by the large standard deviations of the
mean estimates.


Table 7.-Socio-economic characteristics of lakefront residents contacted in survey
by geographic sub-area, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970

Geographic groups

Upper Kissimmee Central Kissimmee Lower Kissimmee
Socio-economic Basin Basin Basin
characteristics Lakes 1-24 Lakes 25-28 Lakes 29-30

No. Std. dev. No. Std. dev. No. Std. dev.

No. of respondents 27 --- 16 --- 13

Average age
(years) 47.5 16.7 56.3 8.2 56.5 8.1

Average annual
income ($) 9,840.0 6,522.7 10,566.7 5,793.7 14,200.0 5,836.7

% retired 22 --- 25 --- 31

Average no. in
household 3.0 1.2 2.5 1.0 2.2 .6

Average no. in
household under
18 years .8 1.1 .2 .8 .4 .8

% permanent
dwellings 96 --- 50 --- 54

% vacation
dwellings 4 --- 50 --- 46

Average feet of
lake frontage 244.4 243.0 75.2 20.3 207.1 270.6


In Table 7, the socio-economic characteristics are broken
down into geographic areas. The upper portion of the Kissimmee
Basin has a significantly higher percentage of permanent homes
than do the other two groups.4 This is to be expected, since the
lakes in this group are closer to cities and towns than are the
other two areas. However, the upper area has the lowest income
of any of the three groups, with the central area having an
average income approximately equal to the mean for the entire



4The chi-square test reveals that a significant (at the .01 level) relationship
exists between location and type of residence.

13










sample and the lower area having an average income consider-
ably higher than the overall mean.5 The central basin respon-
dents had considerably smaller lots than did the other two sub-
areas. Also, the vacation-type residences are more predomi-
nant in the central and lower geographical areas.
In Table 8, the socio-economic characteristics of the re-
spondents are classified by type of residence. The permanent-
type had the largest percent of retired people, whereas the
vacation-type had higher incomes and smaller lots than did
the permanent-type.


Table 8.-Socio-economic characteristics of lakefront residents contacted in survey
by type of residence, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970
Type of residence
Socio-economic
characteristics Permanent Vacation
No. Std. dev. No. Std. dev.
No. of respondents 41 --- 15

Average age (years) 51.3 15.1 54.2 8.3
Average annual income
(S) 9,951.4 5,791.3 13,446.4 7,012.5
% retired 32 --- 7
Average no. in
household 2.7 1.1 2.5 1.1

Average no. in house-
hold under 18 years .6 .9 .4 .9

Average feet of lake
frontage 217.5 249.5 106.1 74.3


In summary, the upper area has a relatively high percentage
of residents in the lower income classes and a high percentage
of lakefront residents that live in permanent homes (see Table 9).
The central area is quite representative of the entire river basin,
with the exception of having a relatively small average lot size.
The lower area is characterized as having relatively more
people in the two higher income classes. The people that have
retired are more likely to be in the lower income classes than in

5The chi-square test reveals the presence of a significant (at the .10 level)
relationship between the geographic areas and the income classes.

14








Table 9.-Number of survey respondents by geographic and socio-economic classification, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970


Classification (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

(1) Upper sub-area 27 10 4 5 6 6 21 26 1

(2) Central sub-area 16 2 6 4 3 4 12 8 8

(3) Lower sub-area 13 1 0 5 4 4 9 7 6

(4) Income $6,999 or less 13 5 8 10 3

(5) $7,000 to $9,999 10 4 6 8 2

(6) $10,000 to $14,999 14 1 13 11 3

(7) $15,000 or more 13 1 12 7 6

(8) Retired 14 13 1

(9) Non-retired 42 28 14

(10) Permanent home 41

(11) Vacation or seasonal home 15


a Numbers in column headings correspond to numbers for each class row









the higher income classes. Also, the people that are retired are
less likely to be owners of a vacation home than are non-retired
people.

OPINIONS

The opinions of lakefront residents were determined in
two ways. First, they were asked to respond to open-ended
questions. Such questions as "List three important reasons
why people might acquire lakefront property," were asked.
Second, the residents were asked to rank by importance several
characteristics specific to a lake, subdivision or property.
The result of the two methods of determining attitudes and
opinions will now be discussed separately.

Open-ended Questions
Open-ended questions asked of the residents were con-
cerned basically with: (a) listing desirable and undesirable at-
tributes of the particular lake in which the residents were located,
(b) their opinion of reasons why people might acquire lakefront
property, and (c) what they felt were the most important char-
acteristics that a prospective buyer of lakefront property should
consider. In cases where respondents could not think of more
than one or two reasons, they left all remaining answers blank.
Respondents' opinions as to the three most important rea-
sons why people might acquire lakefront property are sum-
marized in Table 10. The two reasons given most frequently by
the respondents indicated that the primary reasons for buying
lakefront property were for general recreational purposes,
primarily fishing. The important reasons reported second most
frequently related to having access to the lake and to the
aesthetic attributes associated with relaxation.
A summary of the three most important characteristics that
a prospective buyer of lakefront property should consider, ac-
cording to the residents of the Kissimmee River Basin, is con-
tained in Table 11. A total of 55 respondents named twenty-
three different characteristics they felt were important in
considering the purchase of lakefront property. Three given
most frequently were: the elevation and topography of the prop-
erty, the water quality in the lake, and the amount of fluctu-
ation in the lake water level. Other important characteristics
frequently mentioned were the location of the property, type
and quality of fishing available in the lake, and condition of
access roads.
16










Table 10.-Reasons for acquiring lakefront property reported by survey respondents,
Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970

Frequency that the reason
Reasons given by lakefront was given as the: Weighted total
residents for acquiring
lakefront property First Second Third of frequencies
answer answer answer

To have a place for
fishing 9 12 9 60
For recreational purposes 12 5 4 50
To have access to the
lake 9 5 1 38
For the scenery & view 6 6 3 33
To get away from town 6 4 5 31

To have a place for
boating 5 3 5 26
For the peace & quiet 3 3 6 21
For its investment
potential 2 3 6 18
To have a place to
retire 1 3 1 10
For the climate 4 2 10

Because of its location 1 2 7
Because it is a healthful
place to live 1 2 7
To be able to enjoy the
clean air 1 1 1 6
To have a place to
relax 2 1 5
To have a place for
swimming 1 1 3

To have a place for
gardening 1 1

Overall frequency 56 56 46 326
Average weighted frequency 20.375
(Standard deviation) (17.817)

aThe weighted total of frequencies was obtained by multiplying the First answer frequencies by three
and the "Second answer" frequencies by two prior to summing the frequencies of all three answers While this
weighting is somewhat arbitrary, it does reflect the tendency of the respondent to mention his strongest
opinions first


It should be noted that the characteristics obtained in this
survey reflect the consideration of persons who had already
made the decision to buy lakefront property. It is interesting
to note that the three most important reasons listed are quite
directly related to the properties of the lake and its potential
usefulness in providing recreation and relaxation.
Three desirable attributes of the lakes on which the re-
spondents lived are summarized in Table 12. The respondents

17











Table 11.-Important characteristics that a prospective buyer of lakefront property
should consider, reported by survey respondents, Kissimmee River Basin,
Florida, 1970

Important characteristics given Frequency that char.
by lakefront residents to con- was given as the: Weighteof
side when buying lakefront First Second Third frequenciesa
property
answer answer answer

Elevation & topography of the
property 16 3 1 55
Water quality in the lake 8 8 5 45
The amount of fluctuation in
the lake water level 4 10 3 35
Location of property 4 4 2 22
Condition of access roads 3 3 2 17

Type & quality of fishing
available 2 3 4 16
Proximity of property to town 3 2 2 15
Number & character of
neighbors 1 3 4 13
Availability of recreational
facilities 1 4 1 12
Good drainage of the property 2 2 1 11

Type of soil on property 2 1 8
Ease of access to lake from
property 2 1 8
Investment potential 1 1 3 8
Peace & quiet offered by
property 1 1 2 7
Size of the lake 3 1 7

Size of property 2 6
Type of zoning regulations 1 4 6
Scenery & view offered by the
property 1 2 5
Access by boat to other lakes 1 2 5
Number & type of trees on
property 2 4

If the lake is spring fed 1 3
Quality of drinking water on
property 1 1 3
If the lake has a sand bottom 1 2

Overall frequency 55 54 40 313
Average weighted frequency 13.609
(Standard deviation) (13.740)

aThe weighted total of frequencies was obtained by multiplying the "First answer" frequencies by three
and the "Second answer" frequencies by two prior to summing the frequencies of all three answers While
this weighting is somewhat arbitrary, it does reflect the tendency of the respondent to mention his
strongest opinions first

listed twenty-three separate desirable attributes. The most fre-
quently listed attribute was good fishing on the lake. The next

18










most frequently listed desirable attributes were clean water in
the lake and the fact that the lake was large. As in the previous
questions, those attributes relating to the suitability of the lake
for recreational purposes, particularly fishing, were listed
more frequently than any other reasons. Water quality was
mentioned quite frequently in this case as a good attribute of
the lake on which the respondent lived.
Survey respondents' opinions of the three most undesirable
attributes of the lake on which they live are listed in Table 13.

Table 12.-Desirable attributes of lakes reported by survey respondents, Kissimmee
River Basin, Florida, 1970
Frequency that the attri-
Desirable attributes of the bute was given as the: Weighted
lake given by lakefront total of
residents First Second Third frequencies a
answer answer answer

The fishing is good 15 10 8 73
It is a large lake 5 6 2 29
The water is clean 5 3 8 29
Access by boat to other lakes 5 5 1 26
View & scenery are good 2 6 18

It is peaceful & quiet here 4 2 1 17
It has a sand bottom 3 3 1 16
It is close to town 2 2 3 13
Recreation facilities are good 1 4 2 13
Location is good 2 4 10

The breezes are cool 1 3 1 10
The lake is spring fed 1 2 1 8
Provides a place to get away
from town 1 1 3 8
It is a good investment 2 6
It is a small lake 2 6

Good access roads to the lake 1 1 1 6
Lake is shallow 1 1 1 6
Lot is high above the lake
water level 2 4
The land is inexpensive 1 3
Water level is constant 1 3

Neighbors are good 1 1 3
Good for waterskiing 1 2
The lot is shaded 1 1

Overall frequency 55 53 39 310
Average weighted frequency 13.478
(Standard deviation) (15.427)

aThe weighted total of frequencies was obtained by multiplying the "First answer" frequencies by three
and the "Second answer" frequencies by two prior to summing the frequencies of all three answers While
this weighting is somewhat arbitrary, it does reflect the tendency of the respondent to mention his
strongest opinions first.

19









Table 13.-Undesirable attributes of lakes reported by survey respondents, Kissim-
mee River Basin, Florida, 1970

Frequency that the attri-
Undesirable attributes of bute was given as the: Weighted
the lake given by lakefront total of
residents First Second Third frequencies
answer answer answer

Too much fluctuation of lake
water level 16 13 2 76
Too many hyacinths and weeds 8 6 10 46
Water is dirty or polluted 8 5 5 39
Too many snakes, insects, and
other pests 6 1 20
Lake is too shallow 3 1 1 12

No bad attributes 3 9
Fishing is poor 2 1 1 9
Access roads not paved 1 1 5
There is no access to other
lakes by boat 1 1 5
Too much public litter 1 1 5

Too little supervision of
boaters on lake 1 1 4
Expensive to live so far
out of town 1 3
Too close to St. Cloud
sewage disposal plant 1 3
The canals are not
serviceable 1 3
No zoning in area 1 3

Dangerous lightning storms 1 3
Presence of alligators 1 2
Too many power outages 1 2
No central sewage 2 2
The lake has a mud bottom 1 2

Lake has a bad odor 1 2
Drinking water is bad 1 2
Lake is commercially fished
too often 1 1

Overall frequency 55 35 23 258
Average weighted frequency 11.217
(Standard deviation) (18.323)

aThe weighted total of frequencies was obtained by multiplying the "First answer" frequencies by three
and the "Second answer" frequencies by two prior to summing the frequencies of all three answers While this
weighting is somewhat arbitrary, it does reflect the tendency of the respondent to mention his strongest
opinions first.



The three most frequently mentioned undesirable attributes
were: (a) water level fluctuation, (b) hyacinths and weeds in
the lake, and (c) dirty or polluted lake water. Another attribute
frequently listed as undesirable was too many snakes, insects

20








and other pests around the lake. The results in Table 13 are
quite significant in that the three attributes listed most fre-
quently account for more than 60 percent of the total responses
to this question. Two of these responses are related to char-
acteristics which had been important in previous questions,
namely, the fluctuation of lake water level and the water quality
in the lake. This seems to reinforce the suggestion that the
characteristics of the lake are important considerations to lake-
front property owners.
The responses to the open-ended questions were catego-
rized by income class, type of resident, geographic groups, and
retirement status. The results of this classification are shown
in Appendix B, Tables 1 through 16. The categorization ac-
cording to socio-economic class was not particularly revealing.
That is, the primary reasons given most frequently by each socio-
economic class were generally the same as in the overall sum-
mary of all respondents. The desirable and undesirable attri-
butes of lakes, classified according to geographic location, did
reveal some basic differences in respondent views toward water
quality, elevation, and topography. This difference would tend
to reflect the varying characteristics of the specific lakes upon
which these respondents live.


Ranking of Characteristics

Subsequent to determining important characteristics of
lakefront property, as discussed with the use of open-ended
questions above, the relative importance or the ranking of
these characteristics was obtained. Characteristics specific
to the lake itself, aesthetics associated with lakefront property,
subdivision or location, and physical characteristics of lake-
front property were randomly presented to the respondents.
They were isked to rank the five or six characteristics in each
question according to their relative importance. The respondent
was given a chance to add characteristics that he felt were im-
portant but were not listed. The characteristics listed were
determined from the most frequent answers found through a
series of in-depth interviews conducted by the investigators
prior to the survey reported here.
The results of the respondents' ranking of the charac-
teristics are shown in Table 14. Also illustrated in Table 14 are
the rankings of the relative importance of the sets of charac-
teristics relating to the lake, aesthetic characteristics, char-
acteristics of location, and the characteristics of property.
21








Table 14.-Ranking of important characteristics by survey respondents, Kissimmee
River Basin, Florida, 1970

No. Total Averagea Std.
of ranking ranking per dev.
respondents respondent

CHARACTERISTICS OF LAKE
Easy access to lake 54 141 2.61 1.66
Water quality in lake 54 154 2.85 1.56
Sandy lake bottom 54 176 3.26 1.40
Fluctuation of water level 54 195 3.61 1.88
Size of lake 54 234 4.33 1.54
Access to other lakes 54 244 4.52 1.54
Other 54 364 6.74 .94

AESTHETIC CHARACTERISTICS
Peace and quiet 53 100 1.89 1.05
Scenery and view 53 113 2.13 1.16
Birds and wildlife 53 156 2.94 .99
Cool summer breezes 53 185 3.49 1.10
Warmth from the lake in winter 53 242 4.57 .91
Other 53 318 6.00

CHARACTERISTICS OF LOCATION
Good access roads 53 131 2.47 1.14
Presence of neighbors of
similar interests 53 133 2.51 1.30
Presence of building and zoning
codes 53 159 3.00 1.40
Close to town, schools, etc. 53 176 3.32 1.50
Planned and developed sub-
divisions 53 197 3.72 1.38
Other 53 318 6.00

CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPERTY
Investment potential 51 107 2.10 1.32
Elevation and topography 51 107 2.10 1.01
Size of property 51 161 3.16 1.03
Presence of clean beach on
lakefront 51 169 3.31 1.41
Additional maintenance problem 51 222 4.35 .93
Other 51 305 5.98 .14

RANKING OF CHARACTERISTIC SETS
Characteristics of lake 52 94 1.81 1.01
Characteristics of location 52 137 2.64 .95
Characteristics of property 52 143 2.75 1.14
Aesthetic characteristics 52 146 2.73 1.10

aThe characteristics were ranked with 1 indicating the most important characteristic It there were seven
characteristics, a one-to-seven scale was used and the average ranking was 40 With six characteristics, a
one-to-six scale was used, with 3 5 the average ranking



If a respondent felt a certain characteristic was the most
important in the group, he ranked it with a "one." This con-
tinued until the one he felt was least important received a "six"

22








or "seven," depending on the number of characteristics in the
list. If we assumed that all of the seven characteristics were
equally important, then the average ranking for each of the
seven characteristics would be 4.0 (i. e., each characteristic
would have received a ranking of one through seven an equal
number of times).
The most desirable characteristic of a lake, according to
these respondents, was its easy accessibility. Peace and quiet
was considered the most desirable aesthetic characteristic of
lakefront property. Good access roads were deemed as the most
important characteristic of location, while both the investment
potential and the elevation and topography were the most
highly-valued characteristics of lakefront property. Of all of
the categories of characteristics, survey respondents felt that the
characteristics of the lake were the most important by which to
judge property in the Kissimmee River Basin.
The results in Table 14 were categorized by socio-economic
class. These results are summarized in Appendix B, Tables 17
through 20. The responses are categorized according to income
class, type of residence, geographic location, and retirement
status. Generally speaking, the characteristics ranked as most
important by all of the survey respondents are the same char-
acteristics ranked most important by each of the income classes.
This similarity of ranking also occurs when categorized by type
of residence. Somewhat different results occurred when the
rankings were classified by geographic location. The desirable
characteristics varied considerably among the three sub-basins
in the area. The results indicated that the respondents in the
upper sub-basin were more concerned with water quality than
were the respondents from the other two sub-basins. The retired
respondents ranked the water fluctuation as the most important
lake characteristic. They put less emphasis on water quality
of the lake than did the non-retired respondents.



RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES

In addition to obtaining the opinions of the lakefront resi-
dents concerning desirable and undesirable characteristics of
lakefront property, the actual activities in which the re-
spondents participated on the lake were of interest. The objec-
tive was to determine which activities-fishing, water skiing,
swimming, and boating-were most popular; how often the
residents participated; and the variable expenditures associated
with their use of the lake. The survey respondents were asked to
23












Table 15.-Participation in and expenditures on water-based recreational activities by survey respondents, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970

Time periods Avg.
Yearly expen- % of sample
Feb- Apr- Jun- Oct Nov Dec- totals diture participating a
Mar May Sep Jan per day

Fishing 89

No. of days per participating family
(average) 21.34 22.88 44.42 10.86 10.56 19.90 129.96
(standard deviation) 19.21 18.47 36.77 9.33 9.40 19.19 110.56

S$ spent per participating family
(average) 84.51 90.60 175.90 43.01 41.82 78.80 514.64 3.96
(standard deviation) 3.08

Boating 57

No. of days per participating family
(average) 9.03 10.38 24.06 4.91 4.69 8.78 61.84
(standard deviation) 11.83 11.29 27.28 5.72 5.82 11.76 70.48

$ spent per participating family
(average) 34,40 39.55 91.67 18.71 17.87 33.45 235.61 3.81
(standard deviation) 3.17















Swimming 48

No. of days per participating family
(average) 2.30 26.70 58.15 5.41 3.04 2.15 97.74
(standard deviation) 10.75 23.61 46.61 9.76 8.17 10.77 86.77

Water Skiing 29

No. of days per participating family
(average) 2.93 11.93 32.87 3.13 2.53 2.93 56.33
(standard deviation) 6.45 15.41 26.51 5.01 4.91 6.45 58.76
bt"
C0 $ spent per participating family
(average) 15.62 63.59 175.20 16.68 13.48 15.62 300.24 5.33
(standard deviation) 2.96


Total average ($) expenditures per
family participating 134.53 193.74 442.77 78.40 73.17 127.87 1,050.49


aThe "percent of sample participating" refers to the percent of the total re-
spondents who reported that their family engaged in an activity at least once
during one of the time periods







report the number of times they participated in various rec-
reational activities during five time periods of the year. These
activities included only those which originated from the re-
spondents' own lakefront property. The variable expenses in-
volved in each activity during each time period were also ob-
tained.
The results of these questions are reported in Table 15. The
average number of activity days per participating family was
computed. This includes only those families which stated that
they participated at least once in the given activity in any of
the five time periods of the year.
The activity in which most of the respondents participated
was fishing. The next most popular was boating, and the least
popular waterbased activity was water skiing.
The expenditures included in Table 15 were for gas, oil,
bait, picnic lunches, etc., that were associated directly with
recreational activities on the lake. Expenses for equipment,
traveling to the lakefront residence, in those cases where the
lakefront residence was not the permanent home, were not in-
cluded in these expenses. The average family surveyed, whether
they actually participated or not, spent an average of $679.40
per year (not included in Table 15). This varied according to
the time period, of course. The average monthly expenditures
were lowest in December and January and highest during the
months of June through September.
By expanding the average expenditure of the residents
surveyed in this study to the total population of all lakefront
residents in the Kissimmee River Basin, an estimate of the total
expenditure of the lakefront population can be obtained. It
was estimated that approximately 800 lakefront residences
existed in the Kissimmee River Basin. We can conclude, then
that recreational activities associated with lakefront residences
in the Kissimmee River Basin amounts to an annual total ex-
penditure of approximately $544,000.
Participation in recreational activities was estimated by in-
come class, type of residence, geographic location, and retire-
ment status, in Appendix B, Tables 21 through 24. It can be
concluded that the two lowest income classes were more active
than the highest income classes. This result likely exists due to
the retired persons in the family. The permanent resident re-
spondents were more active in fishing, skiing, and swimming ac-
tivities than the vacation resident respondents, but less active in
the boating activity. The retired respondents were more active
in water based recreational activities than were the non-retired
respondents. This is probably due, at least in part, to the fact

26







that they have more leisure time in which to participate in these
activities.

Lake Level Fluctuation

It was hypothesized, and emphasized in the results of a pre-
liminary in-depth interview, that the fluctuation of the lake level
was of primary concern to lakefront residents. In this part of the
survey, the effects on recreational activities of a fluctuation
in the water level was obtained. The residents were asked to
estimate how far the lake on which they lived fluctuated within
a year. That is, respondents were asked to estimate the maxi-
mum fluctuation from the minimum level to the maximum
level during the past year. The average response to this question
was 3.60 feet fluctuation. This average figure varied consider-
ably between sub-basins. The average for the upper sub-basin
was 3.20. For the central and lower sub-basins, the average
were 4.88 and 2.75, respectively.6
The perceived effect of a three-foot fluctuation in the water
level on activities of lake-shore residents was obtained. Sixty-
six percent of these respondents indicated that, if the lake level
dropped three feet below its minimum level for the past year,
they could not use the lake for recreation during that time. An
additional 13 percent indicated that lowering the lake level
three feet would reduce their activities but would not stop them
completely. On the other hand, the remaining 21 percent indi-
cated that the lake level falling three feet below its minimum
would not affect their use of the lake at all.
The impact of a three foot drop in the water level below its
minimum varied substantially from one sub-basin to the next.
This is due to factors such as the depth of the lake, the depth
of canals through which the residents obtained access to the
lake, etc. The conclusion is that approximately 79 percent of
the lake-shore residents would be significantly affected if the
lake level were to drop three feet below its minimum.

LAKEFRONT PROPERTY VALUES

In addition to recreational and aesthetic activities, increased
appreciation of natural resources has resulted in increased de-

6This amount of fluctuation is reasonable in that historic hydrologic data
shows that variations occur from three to four feet in the lake level within a
year's time.
27







mand for property bordering our lakes and streams. As people
sought to obtain property for recreational and aesthetic pur-
poses, values have increased substantially. One of the purposes
of this study was to estimate the value of the presence of water
frontage to residential property in the Kissimmee River Basin.
The residents were asked what they would sell their property
for if it were put on the market today, and what they would pay
for their property if they were going to purchase it today. As
indicated in Table 16, the difference in the average values7
reported was $4,660. The source of this difference may be ex-
plained as follows: when the respondents were asked to name a
price for which they would be willing to sell their property, the
question was not meant to imply that most of the respondents
wished to sell their property, for most indicated that they were
not interested in selling. Thus, the average selling price of
$27,370 probably represents a figure substantially above the
market price of the property. That is, the respondents in an-
swering this question indicated more of what it would take to get
them to leave their property at the time of the interview rather
than an estimate of market price. On the other hand, the re-
sponse to the question relating to their willingness to pay for
the property if they did not own it, could be interpreted as a
more realistic indicator of the true market value of the property.
To get an indication of the value of the property that could
be attributed to the presence of the lake, the respondents were
asked to estimate their selling price if the lake were perman-
ently drained and they were to sell the property today. In re-
sponse to this question, the respondents felt that they would be
willing to sell their property for an average of $14,250. This
figure represents 52 percent of the average sales price reported
with the lake present and 63 percent of the average buying price
when the lake was present. This indicates that the presence of
the lake, according to the lakefront residents in this survey,
contributes anywhere from 37 to 48 percent of the value of the
property.
In order to ascertain the impacts of a substantially reduced
lake level on property values, the residents were asked to esti-
mate the price at which they would be willing to sell their prop-



7It should be noted that all of the arithmetic means of the estimated
lakefront property values have relatively large standard deviations. Thus,
these estimates as well as the differences between estimates may not be sig-
nificantly different from zero in a statistical sense. The large standard
deviations are the result of an unusually large variation in the estimated
property values, which ranged from 0 to $99,000.
28








Table 16.-Arithmetic means of lakefront property values reported by survey re-
spondents, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970

Average $ Standard
estimate deviation
Average selling price today 27,370 23,070
Average buying price today 22,710 18,670

Average selling price if the lake were per-
manently drained 14,250 13,710

Average selling price if the lake were per-
manently lowered three feet 19,140 19,790

Average buying price if the lake were per-
manently lowered three feet 15,710 18,970
Average selling price if the lake were subject
to fluctuations 20,650 19,350

Average buying price if the lake were subject
to fluctuations 17,000 18,780

aBuying price was not estimated for a permanently drained lake, because information obtained in prior
pilot surveys indicated that the estimated purchasing price would be zero in a large majority of interviews
That is, the residents indicated that they would not buy property if it did not have lake frontage




erty if the lake were permanently lowered three feet below the
minimum level for the past year. The response was an average
of $19,140. In response to queries regarding their willingness to
buy the property under the same circumstances, they reported an
average price of $15,710. This difference between the buying and
selling price is quite consistent, percentagewise, with the dif-
ference between the buying and selling price reported as the lake
exists today. If the buying price after the lake were lowered is
compared with the buying price of the property as it now exists,
it was found that the percent of the buying price after the lake
is lowered would be only 69 percent of the reported present
buying price. Thus, if the lake were permanently lowered three
feet, we can conclude that the value of the lakefront property
would decrease to about 70 percent of the current value.
Lakefront residents were asked to name the lowest price
they would accept for their property if the lake level were to be
subject to fluctuations of up to three feet below its minimum
level for the past year for a duration of one or two months. They
were also asked the amount they would be willing to pay under
the same circumstances. These questions were asked in order to
ascertain the significance of the fluctuations in the water to

29







extremely low levels but on a less than permanent basis. The
responding residents' estimated selling price would average
$20,650 and buying price $17,000. The respondents' estimated
buying price was about 82 percent of the selling price. As in-
dicated by the difference in the buying prices, the fluctuations
of the water level to three feet below its minimum would re-
duce the value of the property to 75 percent of its current value.
Thus, it can be concluded that the lakefront property owners
feel that the property would be more valuable to them if lake
levels were to fluctuate during the year rather than if it were
permanently lowered.
The responses to the questions regarding average buying
and selling prices were categorized by certain socio-economic
classes. In Appendix B, Tables 22 through 28, the property
values are reported, categorized by income class, type of res-
idence, geographic location, and retirement status. The property
values reported by different income classes are quite irregular.
The permanent resident respondents report property values
ranging from two and a half to six times higher than are
reported by vacation residents. This phenomenon is due to the
fact that most vacation-type residences are not as elaborately
furnished, as well constructed, or as well kept as are permanent
residences. The respondents residing in the upper sub-basin
generally reported values up to three times larger than the
values reported by the other two groups. This difference is
partially due to the fact that approximately 96 percent of the res-
idences in the upper sub-basin were permanent-type residences
while the respondents from the other two groups were made up
of approximately 50 percent vacation-type residences. No dif-
ference was evident in the property values reported by retired
versus non-retired persons.



SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The survey results indicated that there were a total of about
984 lakefront dwellings in the Kissimmee River Basin, of which
800 were vacation homes or permanent homes and not part of
commercial enterprises. Of these 800 residences, 56 percent
were represented in this survey. Of the survey respondents, 25
percent were retired. Average age of the household head was
52 years, while the average income per household was $10,930.
It was also found that 73 percent of the residences were per-
manent homes, while the remaining 27 percent were seasonal
or weekend homes.

30







The respondents indicated that the quality of water in the
lakes was of primary importance and a source of much concern.
In addition, they indicated that their primary reason for buying
and/or wanting to live on a lake was for recreational purposes;
the primary activity, as hypothesized, was fishing. Two other
factors which concerned lakefront residents were the fluctuation
of water level and the elevation and topography of residential
sites.
The average annual expenditure per family for recreational
activities associated with their property amounted to $679.40.
This gives an estimate of the total annual expenditures of
lakefront residents in the Kissimmee River Basin of approxi-
mately $544,000.
The lakefront residents reported that if they were to offer
their property for sale today, they would ask an average price of
$27,370 while, on the other hand, if they were to buy the same
property today, they would only offer an average price of
$22,710. If the lake were permanently drained, the selling price
was said to decrease to $14,450. Based on the survey, it was con-
cluded that the value of the lakefront property would decrease
to approximately 70 percent of its current value if the lakes
were permanently lowered three feet, while if the lakes were
subject to periodic fluctuations, the value would drop to 75
percent of its current value. The results categorized by socio-
economic classes are included in tables in the appendix.
The value of the property represented by the total 800
lakefront residents is estimated to be between $14,175,200 and
$18,168,000 (average buying or selling price times 800). Based
on the opinions of the lakefront residents, if the lake were per-
manently drained, the total property values would decrease to
between $7,640,000 and $11,560,000. Thus, the value of the lakes
in terms of these differences in property values is approximately
$7,000,000.
It is fair to say that the questionnaire and survey technique
used in this study is a sound instrument from which to obtain
information relative to the objectives of this study. The major
shortcoming of this survey lies in the time frame in which the
survey was conducted (May and June) and not in the survey
technique or questionnaire itself. It would have been better
to conduct the survey at three or four times during the year in
order to insure that the results reflect differences in the make-
up of the population. This procedure is more acceptable for
this particular population because so many of the residents use
their lakefront dwelling as seasonal or vacation-type homes.
Thus, by conducting the survey during the months of May and
June, those people who use their dwellings primarily during the
31







winter, spring, and fall months would not be included in the
sample. These seasonal-type residences, together with the resi-
dents who use their lakefront dwellings on a weekend basis,
make up approximately 59 percent of the population.
While the information provided by this survey is quite help-
ful in understanding the association between the lakefront res-
ident and his environment, it is not adequate to define the
strength of, and interdependence among, the residents' at-
titudes toward specific (possible) managerial actions undertaken
on the lakes where they reside. However, some of the general
implications of the more frequently expressed opinions of lake-
front residents will help to point out aspects of the lake envi-
ronment which are of concern to a large percentage of lakefront
residents. These aspects deserve careful consideration by decision
makers involved in activities which affect the lake environment
and lakefront residents.






























32








APPENDIX A



Questionnaires Used in the Survey





Date
Lake No.
Group No.
Sample Dwelling No.
Subdivision (if any)


THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
Department of Agricultural Economics

SURVEY OF LAKEFRONT DWELLINGS
Part I Identification


1. What is the type of dwelling? (Check one of the following.)
_- House trailer __ Houseboat (only if permanently moored)
-_ House or cabin __ Combination trailer & house or cabin

2. Name of occupant (owner or lease holder) of dwelling.
Name
Address of dwelling
Permanent address of occupant (owner, or lease holder) if different from
above
Telephone Number

3. Is the dwelling:
-_ a. Permanently vacant? (If so, proceed to Question #4, Part b.)
b. Also a place of business such as fish camp, farm or ranch house? (If so,
proceed to Question #4, Part b.)
c. Rented or leased on short term basis (by the day or week, etc.), such as
fishing cabins occupied by tenants more often than by owner? (If so,
proceed to Question #4, Part b.)
d. Currently occupied but occupant temporarily out? (Call for appointment
or return later.)
-_ e. Occupied only occasionally, primarily on weekends? (Contact and inter-
view weekend occupant.)
__f. Occupied only occasionally, primarily seasonally? (If occupant is owner
or long term lease (rent) holder, then check Question #4, Part a.)

4. Unit belongs to:
a. Sample population and population of interest. (Proceed with Part II.)
b. Sampling population only. (Terminate interview.)










33









Date
Lake No.
Group No.
Sample Dwelling No.
Subdivision (if any)

THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
Department of Agricultural Economics

SURVEY OF LAKEFRONT DWELLINGS
Part II Opinions


1. Please list three important reasons why people might acquire lakefront property.

a. b. c.

2. What are the three most important characteristics that a prospective buyer of
lakefront property should consider?

a. ____________ b. c.

3. Please list three desirable attributes of this lake.

a. b. ___ c.

4. Please list three undesirable attributes of this lake.

a. b. c.

5. Below are listed some characteristics of lakes that people might consider to be
important. Please rank these reasons as to their relative importance, with the
most important reason as No. 1 and the next most important reason as No. 2,
etc. If you feel that other reasons are important, list them and assign them a No.

No.

a. easy access to lake

b. sandy lake bottom

c. fluctuation of water level

d. water quality in lake

e. access to other lakes

f. size of lake

g. other


6. Below are listed some aesthetic characteristics associated with lakefront property.
Please rank these reasons as to their relative importance, with the most important
reason as No. 1 and the next most important reason as No. 2, etc. If you feel that
other reasons are important, list them and assign them a No.







34









No.

a. scenery and view

b. peace and quiet

c. birds and wildlife

d. cool summer breezes

e. warmth from the lake in the winter

f. other


7. Below are listed some characteristics of subdivision or location of lakefront
property that people might consider to be important. Please rank these reasons
as to their relative importance, with the most important reason as No. 1 and the
next most important reason as No. 2, etc. If you feel that other reasons are im-
portant, list them and assign them a No.

No.

a. close to town, schools, etc.

b. presence of building & zoning codes

c. neighbors of similar interests

d. good access roads

e. planned and developed subdivision

f. other


8. Below are listed some characteristics of lakefront property that people might
consider to be important. Please rank these reasons as to their relative importance,
with the most important reason as No. 1 and the next most important reason as No.
2, etc. If you feel that other reasons are important, list them and assign them a
No.

No.

a. investment potential

b. elevation and topography

c. size of property

d. additional maintenance problems

e. presence of clean beach on lakefront

f. other


9. Which of the above four sets of characteristics do you consider the most important?
__-. Which is the second most important set? __ Which would be third
most important?



35









Date
Lake No.
Group No.
Sample Dwelling No.
Subdivision (if any)


THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
Department of Agricultural Economics

SURVEY OF LAKEFRONT DWELLINGS
Part III Activities & Value


1. How many times did you participate in the various activities below in each of the
given time periods for this past year? List only those activities which originated
from the lakefront on your property.
Feb-Mar Apr-May Jun-Sept Oct Nov Dec-Jan

fishing

boating

swimming

skiing

other (specify)


Unit of measure (per week, day, month, etc.)

2. What did you spend last year on each of the following activities? (Average cost/
trip or total per week, or per month.)

fishing $ per
boating $ per
swimming $ per
skiing $ per
other (specify) $ per


3. How far does the water level fluctuate within a year on this lake? (From minimum
level to maximum level in feet.)

4. If the water level were to drop 3 feet lower than its minimum level for this past
year, how would this effect your use of the lake for the above activities? __

Feb-Mar Apr-May Jun-Sept Oct Nov Dec-Jan
fishing

boating

swimming

skiing

other (specify)


36









5. If you were to put this property on the market today, what is the lowest price
you would sell it for? $___


6. If you did not own this property and were going to buy it tomorrow, how much
would you pay for it? $__


7. If the lake had been permanently drained and you were to put this property on
the market today, what is the lowest price you would sell it for? $ Do
you think it would actually sell for that price? ._ If no, then what would
it sell for? $_


8. If the lake were permanently lowered 3 feet below the minimum level .for the
past year and you were to put this property on the market today, what is the
lowest price you would sell it for? $_ How much would you pay for
it? $___


9. If the lake level were subject to fluctuations such that the waterline was
lowered 3 feet below its minimum level for the past year one or two times per
year for a duration of one to two months, and if you were to put this property on
the market today, what is the lowest price you would sell it for? $ How
much would you pay for it? $__


10. What is the current occupation of the head of this household?
(If retired) what was your major lifetime occupation?


11. What is the age of the head of this household? __ .


12. Which of the following categories best describes your total family income last
year? (Give respondent card and ask him to call out the letter.)


13. How many people live in your household? __ How many of these are
children under 18?___


14. Is this dwelling a permanent residence weekend & vacation cottage ,
a summer (or winter) residence (May get information for this question from
#3, e. & f., Part I.)


15. How much frontage does your property have? __ Do you feel that this
amount is adequate? _













37


















APPENDIX B




Response to Open-ended Questions,
Categorized according to
Socio-economic Class,
and
Rankings of Relative Importance
of Various Characteristics
of Lakefront Property




























39








Appendix Table 1.-Reasons for acquiring lakefront property reported by survey
respondents by income class, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida,
1970

Simple total frequency
Reasons for acquiring
lakefront property given Annual income class ($)
by lakefront residents
6,999 7,000 to 10,000 to 15,000
or less 9,999 14,999 or more

To have a place for
fishing 8 6 7 7

For recreational
purposes 6 2 4 5

To have access to the
lake 5 3 3 2

For the scenery & view 2 5 1 7

To get away from town 4 4 3 3

To have a place for
boating 3 1 3 5

For the peace & quiet 2 2 3 3

For its investment
potential 2 3 4 2

To have a place to
retire 1 2 2 -

For the climate 2 1 1

Because of its location 2 1

Because it is a health-
ful place to live 1 2

To be able to enjoy
the clean air 1 1 -

To have a place to
relax 1 1 1

To have a place for
swimming 1 1

To have a place for
gardening 1 -









40









Appendix Table 2.-Reasons for acquiring lakefront property reported by survey
respondents, by type of residence, Kissimmee River Basin,
Florida, 1970

Simple total frequency
Reasons for acquiring lakefront
property given by lakefront Type of residence
residents
Permanent Vacation

To have a place for fishing 21 9

For recreational purposes 15 6

To have access to the lake 13 2

For the scenery & view 12 3

To get away from town 9 6

To have a place for boating 8 5

For the peace & quiet 7 5

For its investment potential 9 2

To have a place to retire 3 2

For the climate 5 1

Because of its location 2 1

Because it is a healthful
place to live 3

To be able to enjoy the clean air 3

To have a place to relax 1 2

To have a place for swimming 2

To have a place for gardening 1




















41








Appendix Table 3.-Reasons for acquiring lakefront property reported by survey
respondents by geographic sub-area, Kissimmee River Basin,
Florida, 1970

Simple total frequency
Reasons for acquiring lakefront
property given by lakefront Geographic sub-area
residents
Upper Central Lower
sub-area sub-area sub-area

To have a place for fishing 13 11 6

For recreational purposes 10 6 5

To have access to the lake 12 1 2

For the scenery & view 8 5 2

To get away from town 6 4 5

To have a place for boating 5 4 4

For the peace & quiet 4 5 3

For its investment potential 7 4 -

To have a place to retire 1 3 1

For the climate 4 2

Because of its location 1 1 1

Because it is a healthful
place to live 1 1 1

To be able to enjoy the
clean air 1 1 1

To have a place to relax 1 2

To have a place for swimming 2

To have a place for gardening 1


















42








Appendix Table 4.-Reasons for acquiring lakefront property reported by survey
respondents by retirement status, Kissimmee River Basin,
Florida, 1970

Simple total frequency
Reasons for acquiring lakefront property
given by lakefront residents Retirement status

Retired Non-retired

To have a place for fishing 9 21

For recreational purposes 6 15

To have access to the lake 5 10

For the scenery & view 5 10

To get away from town 2 13

To have a place for boating 2 11

For the peace & quiet 2 10

For its investment potential 1 10

To have a place to retire 1 4

For the climate 3 3

Because of its location 3

Because it is a healthful place
to live 1 2

To be able to enjoy the clean air 2 1

To have a place to relax 3

To have a place for swimming 2

To have a place for gardening 1




















43








Appendix Table 5.-Important characteristics that a prospective buyer of lakefront
property should consider, reported by survey respondents by
income class, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970

Simple total frequency
Important characteristics a
buyer of lakefront property Annual income class ($)
should consider
6,999 7,000 10,000 15,000
or less to to or more
9,999 14,999
Elevation & topography of the
property 6 2 4 6

Water quality in the lake 4 3 6 6

The amount of fluctuation in the
lake water level 4 1 5 4

Location of property 1 3 3 2

Condition of access roads 3 2 3

Type & quality of fishing available 2 3 1 2

Proximity of property to town 2 2 1 2

Number & character of neighbors 2 3 2

Availability of recreational
facilities 3 1 1 1

Good drainage of the property 3 1 1

Type of soil on property 1 1 1

Ease of access to lake from property 2 1

Investment potential 1 2 2 -

Peace & quiet offered by property 3 1

Size of the lake 1 1 1 -

Size of property 2 -

Type of zoning regulations 3 1

Scenery & view offered by the
property 1 1

Access by boat to other lakes 2 1

Number & type of trees on property 1 -

If the lake is spring fed -

Quality of drinking water on
property 1 -

If the lake has a sand bottom

44








Appendix Table 6.-Important characteristics that a prospective buyer of lakefront
property should consider, reported by survey respondents by
type of residence, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970

Simple total frequency
Important characteristics a buyer of
lakefront property should consider Type of residence

Permanent Vacation

Elevation & topography of the property 15 5

Water quality in the lake 16 5

The amount of fluctuation in the lake
water level 13 4

Location of property 5 5

Conditions of access roads 6 2

Type & quality of fishing available 5 4

Proximity of property to town 6 1

Number & character of neighbors 4 4

Availability of recreational facilities 5 1

Good drainage of the property 5

Type of soil on property 3

Ease of access to lake from property 1 2

Investment potential 5

Peace & quiet offered by property 2 2

Size of the lake 4

Size of property 2

Type of zoning regulations 1 4

Scenery & view offered by the property 1 2

Access by boat to other lakes 3

Number & type of trees on property 2

If the lake is spring fed 1

Quality of drinking water on property 2

If the lake has a sand bottom 1






45








Appendix Table 7.-Important characteristics that a prospective buyer of lakefront
property should consider, reported by survey respondents by
geographic sub-area, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970

Simple total frequency
Important characteristics a
buyer of lakefront property Geographic sub-area
should consider
Upper Central Lower
sub-area sub-area sub-area

Elevation & topography of the property 12 2 6

Water quality in the lake 13 6 2

The amount of fluctuation in the
lake water level 7 4 6

Location of property 2 7 1

Condition of access roads 2 4 2

Type & quality of fishing available 1 5 3

Proximity of property to town 6 1

Number & character of neighbors 2 5 1

Availability of recreational
facilities 4 2

Good drainage of the property 2 2 1

Type of soil on property 2 1

Ease of access to lake from property 1 2

Investment potential 3 2

Peace & quiet offered by property 2 1 1

Size of the lake 3 1

Size of property 2

Type of zoning regulations 2 3

Scenery & view offered by the
property 1 2

Access by boat to other lakes 2 1

Number & type of trees on property 1 1

If the lake is spring fed 1

Quality of drinking water on property 1 1

If the lake has a sand bottom 1



46









Appendix Table 8.-Important characteristics that a prospective buyer of lakefront
property should consider, reported by survey respondents by
retirement status, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970

Simple total frequency
Important characteristics a buyer of
lakefront property should consider Retirement status
Retired Non-retired

Elevation & topography of the property 5 15

Water quality in the lake 3 18

The amount of fluctuation in the lake
water level 6 11

Location of property 1 9

Condition of access roads 3 5

Type & quality of fishing available 1 8

Proximity of property to town 1 6

Number & character of neighbors 2 6

Availability of recreational facilities 3 3

Good drainage of the property 2 3

Type of soil on property 3

Ease of access to lake from property 3

Investment potential 1 4

Peace & quiet offered by property 2 2

Size of the lake 1 3

Size of property 2

Type of zoning regulations 1 4

Scenery & view offered by the property 3

Access by boat to other lakes 3

Number & type of trees on property 1 1

If the lake is spring fed 1

Quality of drinking water on property 2

If the lake has a sand bottom 1







47









Appendix Table 9.-Desirable attributes of lakes reported by survey respondents by
income class, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970

Simple total frequency

Desirable attributes Annual income class (S)
6,999 7,000 10,000 15,000
or less to to or more
9,999 14,999

The fishing is good 7 4 10 8

It is a large lake 3 3 3 3

The water is clean 3 4 3 3

Access by boat to other lakes 1 4 1 3

View & scenery are good 4 3 1

It is peaceful & quiet here 3 2 2

It has a sand bottom 2 1 2

It is close to town 2 1 2 2

Recreation facilities are good 1 1 3 2

Location is good 2 2 1

The breezes are cool 1 1 2 1

The lake is spring fed 1 1

Provides a place to get away
from town 1 1 2 1

It is a good investment 1 1

It is a small lake 1 1

Good access roads to the lake 2 1

Lake is shallow 1 1 -

Lot is high above lake water
level 1 1

The land is inexpensive 1 -

Water level is constant 1 -

Neighbors are good 1 1

Good for waterskiing 1 -

The lot is shaded 1




48









Appendix Table 10.-Desirable attributes of lakes reported by survey respondents
by type of residence, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970

Simple total frequency

Desirable attributes Type of residence

Permanent Vacation

The fishing is good 22 11

It is a large lake 8 5

The water is clean 13 3

Access by boat to other lakes 8 3

View & scenery are good 4 4

It is peaceful & quiet here 4 3

It has a sand bottom 7

It is close to town 6 1

Recreation facilities are good 4 3

Location is good 5 1

The breezes are cool 3 2

The lake is spring fed 4

Provides a place to get away
from town 4 1

It is a good investment 1 1

It is a small lake 2

Good access roads to the lake 2 1

Lake is shallow 3

Lot is high above lake water level 2

The land is inexpensive 1

Water level is constant 1

Neighbors are good 2

Good for waterskiing 1

The lot is shaded 1







49









Appendix Table 11.-Desirable attributes of lakes reported by survey respondents
by geographic sub-area, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970

Simple total frequency

Desirable attributes Geographic sub-areas

Upper Central Lower
sub-area sub-area sub-area

The fishing is good 11 13 9

It is a large lake 6 2 5

The water is clean 8 4 4

Access by boat to other lakes 5 6

View & scenery are good 3 4 1

It is peaceful & quiet here 5 1 1

It has a sand bottom 3 1 3

It is close to town 5 1 1

Recreation facilities are good 2 2 3

Location is good 2 4

The breezes are cool 2 1 2

The lake is spring fed 3 1

Provides a place to get
away from town 3 2

It is a good investment 1 1

It is a small lake 1 1

Good access roads to the lake 1 1 1

Lake is shallow 1 2

Lot is high above lake
water level 2

The land is inexpensive 1

Water level is constant 1

Neighbors are good 2

Good for waterskiing 1

The lot is shaded 1




50









Appendix Table 12.-Desirable attributes of lakes reported by survey respondents
by retirement status, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970

Simple total frequency
Desirable attributes Retirement status

Retired Non-retired
The fishing is good 10 23

It is a large lake 2 11

The water is clean 4 12

Access by boat to other lakes 3 8

View & scenery are good 1 7

It is peaceful & quiet here 7

It has a sand bottom 2 5

It is close to town 1 6

Recreation facilities are good 2 5

Location is good 2 4

The breezes are cool 2 3

The lake is spring fed 2 2

Provides a place to get away from
town 5

It is a good investment 2

It is a small lake 1 1

Good access roads to the lake 3

Lake is shallow 2 1

Lot is high above lake water level 2

The land is inexpensive 1

Water level is constant 1

Neighbors are good 2

Good for waterskiing 1

The lot is shaded 1







51









Appendix Table 13.-Undesirable attributes of lakes reported by survey respondents
by income class, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970

Simple total frequency

Undesirable attributes Annual income class ($)

6,999 7,000 10,000 15,000
or less to to or more
9,999 14,999

Too much fluctuation of lake
water level 6 7 7 5

Too many hyacinths and weeds 5 5 9 3

Water is dirty or polluted 5 2 4 5

Too many snakes, insects &
other pests 3 3 1

Lake is too shallow 3 2 -

No bad -attributes 1 1 1

Fishing is poor 1 1 2

Access roads not paved 1 1 -

There is no access to other
lakes by boat 1 -

Too much public litter 1 1

Too little supervision of
boaters on lake 1 1 -

Expensive to live so far out
of town 1

Too close to St. Cloud sewage
disposal plant 1 -

The canals are not serviceable 1 -

No zoning in area 1

Dangerous lightning storms 1

Presence of alligators 1 -

Too many power outages -- 1

No central sewage -- 1 1

Lake has mud bottom 1 -

Lake has a bad odor 1

Drinking water is bad 1

Lake is commercially fished
too often 1










Appendix Table 14.-Undesirable attributes of lakes reported by survey respondents
by type of residence, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970

Simple total frequency
Undesirable attributes Type of residence

Permanent Vacation
Too much fluctuation of lake
water level 22 9.

Too many hyacinths and weeds 17 7

Water is dirty or polluted 12 6

Too many snakes, insects & other pests 7

Lake is too shallow 4 1

No bad attributes 2 1

Fishing is poor 4

Access roads not paved 1 1

There is no access to other
lakes by boat 2

Too much public litter 2

Too little supervision of boaters
on lake 1 1

Expensive to live so far out of town 1

Too close to St. Cloud sewage
disposal plant 1

The canals are not serviceable 1

No zoning in area 1

Dangerous lightning storms 1

Presence of alligators 1

Too many power outages 1

No central sewage 2

Lake has a mud bottom I

Lake has a bad odor 1

Drinking water is bad 1

Lake is commercially fished
too often 1



53









Appendix Table 15.-Undesirable attributes of lakes reported by survey respondents
by geographic sub-area, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970

Simple total frequency

Undesirable attributes Geographic sub-area

Upper Central Lower
sub-area sub-area sub-area

Too much fluctuation of lake
water level 10 14 7

Too many hyacinths and weeds 10 9 5

Water is dirty or polluted 10 6 2

Too many snakes, insects &
other pests 6 1

Lake is too shallow 1 2 2

No bad attributes 2 1

Fishing is poor 3 1

Access roads not paved 1 1

There is no access to other
lakes by boat 2

Too much public litter 1 1

Too little supervision of boaters
on lake 1 1

Expensive to live so far out
of town 1 -

Too close to St. Cloud
sewage disposal plant 1

The canals are not serviceable 1 -

No zoning in area 1

Dangerous lightning storms -1

Presence of alligators 1

Too many power outages 1

No central sewage 1 1

Lake has mud bottom 1

Lake has a bad odor 1

Drinking water is bad 1

Lake is commercially fished
too often 1









Appendix Table 16.-Undesirable attributes of lakes reported by survey respondents
by retirement status, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970

Simple total frequency

Undesirable attributes Retirement status

Retired Non-retired

Too much fluctuation of lake water
level 9 22

Too many hyacinths and weeds 5 19

Water is dirty or polluted 3 15

Too many snakes, insects & other
pests 1 6

Lake is too shallow 2 3

No bad attributes 1 2

Fishing is poor 1 3

Access roads not paved 2

There is no access to other lakes
by boat 2

Too much public litter 2

Too little supervision of boaters
on lake 1 1

Expensive to live so far out of town 1

Too close to St. Cloud sewage
disposal plant 1

The canals are not serviceable 1

No zoning in area 1

Dangerous lightning storms 1

Presence of alligators 1

Too many power outages 1

No central sewage 2

Lake has a mud bottom 1

Lake has a bad odor 1

Drinking water is bad 1

Lake is commercially fished too
often 1


55








Appendix Table 17.-Ranking of important characteristics by survey respondents
by income class, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970

Average ranking per respondent

Annual income class ($)

6,999 7,000 to 10,000 to 15,000
or less 9,999 14,999 or more

CHARACTERISTICS OF LAKE
Easy access to lake 2.92 1.80 2.46 2.75
Water quality in lake 3.25 3.20 2.77 2.42
Sandy lake bottom 3.08 3.60 3.46 3.00
Fluctuation of water level 3.50 4.50 3.77 3.67
Size of lake 4.25 4.40 4.23 4.25
Access to other lakes 4.08 3.90 4.62 4.92
Other 6.92 6.50 6.69 7.00

AESTHETIC CHARACTERISTICS
Peace and quiet 1.42 2.20 1.93 1.91
Scenery and view 2.42 2.00 1.93 2.00
Birds and wildlife 3.33 3.20 2.86 2.64
Cool summer breezes 3.08 3.30 3.71 3.73
Warmth from the lake in winter 4.75 4.30 4.64 4.73
Other 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00

CHARACTERISTICS OF LOCATION
Good access roads 2.42 2.60 2.43 2.45
Presence of neighbors of
similar interests 3.25 1.60 2.50 2.82
Presence of building and
zoning codes 2.33 3.60 3.21 2.55
Close to town, schools, etc. 3.17 3.20 3.36 3.64
Planned and developed sub-
divisions 3.83 4.00 3.50 3.55
Other 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00

CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPERTY
Investment potential 2.42 1.80 1.92 2.09
Elevation and topography 2.17 2.00 2.38 1.82
Size of property 3.50 2.90 3.31 3.09
Presence of clean beach on
lakefront 3.08 3.90 2.69 3.55
Additional maintenance problem 3.92 4.40 4.69 4.45
Other 5.92 6.00 6.00 6.00

RANKING OF CHARACTERISTIC SETS
Characteristics of lake 2.09 1.60 1.79 1.92
Characteristics of location 2.45 2.80 2.86 2.67
Characteristics of property 2.09 3.10 2.71 2.83
Aesthetic characteristics 3.36 2.50 2.64 2.58








56









Appendix Table 18.-Ranking of important characteristics by survey respondents
by type of residence, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970

Average ranking per respondent

Type of residence

Permanent Vacation

CHARACTERISTICS OF LAKE
Easy access to lake 2.61 2.13
Water quality in lake 3.03 2.80
Sandy lake bottom 3.62 3.27
Fluctuation of water level 3.53 3.87
Size of lake 4.41 4.20
Access to other lakes 4.43 4.67
Other 6.77 6.87

AESTHETIC CHARACTERISTICS
Peace and quiet 2.00 1.64
Scenery and view 2.14 2.14
Birds and wildlife 2.86 3.87
Cool summer breezes 3.30 3.00
Warmth from the lake in winter 4.61 4.67
Other 6.00 6.00

CHARACTERISTICS OF LOCATION
Good access roads 2.87 2.50
Presence of neighbors with similar
interests 2.59 2.29
Presence of building and zoning codes 2.95 2.57
Close to town, schools, etc. 3.13 3.79
Planned and developed subdivisions 3.66 3.64
Other 6.00 6.00

CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPERTY
Investment potential 1.89 2.64
Elevation and topography 2.27 2.14
Size of property 3.03 3.14
Presence of clean beach on lakefront 3.66 3.14
Additional maintenance problem 4.39 4.64
Other 6.00 5.93

RANKING OF CHARACTERISTIC SETS
Characteristics of lake 1.92 1.53
Characteristics of location 2.54 2.80
Characteristics of property 2.57 3.20
Aesthetic characteristics 2.95 2.47













57








Appendix Table 19.-Ranking of important characteristics by survey respondents
by geographic sub-area, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970

Average ranking per respondent

Geographic sub-area

Upper Central Lower
sub-area sub-area sub-area

CHARACTERISTICS OF LAKE
Easy access to lake 3.00 1.73 2.54
Water quality in lake 2.50 3.33 3.31
Sandy lake bottom 2.77 4.80 2.69
Fluctuation of water level 3.81 3.40 3.23
Size of lake 4.54 4.27 3.62
Access to other lakes 4.46 3.60 5.69
Other 6.81 6.67 7.00

AESTHETIC CHARACTERISTICS
Peace and quiet 2.12 1.75 1.64
Scenery and view 1.88 2.31 1.91
Birds and wildlife 2.80 3.25 3.45
Cool summer breezes 3.64 3.13 3.27
Warmth from the lake in winter 4.48 4.50 4.37
Other 6.00 6.00 6.00

CHARACTERISTICS OF LOCATION
Good access roads 2.48 2.25 2.67
Presence of neighbors of
similar interests 3.04 1.94 2.25
Presence of building and zoning
codes 2.68 3.19 3.42
Close to town, schools, etc. 2.76 4.31 3.00
Planned and developed sub-
divisions 3.99 3.31 3.75
Other 6.00 6.00 6.00

CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPERTY
Investment potential 2.32 2.00 1.80
Elevation and topography 1.80 2.25 2.60
Size of property 3.72 3.13 2.70
Presence of clean beach on
lakefront 3.12 3.32 3.80
Additional maintenance problem 4.60 4.38 3.20
Other 6.00 5.94 6.00

RANKING OF CHARACTERISTIC SETS
Characteristics of lake 2.25 1.44 1.75
Characteristics of location 2.42 2.94 2.67
Characteristics of property 2.21 3.13 3.33
Aesthetic characteristics 3.13 2.50 2.58








58









Appendix Table 20.-Rankihg of important characteristics by survey respondents
by retirement status, Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970

Average ranking per respondent

Retirement status

Retired Non-retired

CHARACTERISTICS OF LAKE
Easy access to lake 3.21 2.40
Water quality in lake 3.36 2.68
Sandy lake bottom 3.29 3.25
Fluctuation of water level 2.79 3.90
Size of lake 4.29 4.35
Access to other lakes 4.43 4.55
Other 6.64 6.78

AESTHETIC CHARACTERISTICS
Peace and quiet 1.92 1.88
Scenery and view 2.92 1.88
Birds and wildlife 3.23 2.85
Cool summer breezes 2.85 3.70
Warmth from the lake in winter 4.08 4.73
Other 6.00 6.00

CHARACTERISTICS OF LOCATION
Good access roads 2.77 2.35
Presence of neighbors of similar
interests 2.38 2.55
Presence of building and zoning codes 2.69 3.10
Close to town, schools, etc. 3.62 3,23
Planned and developed subdivisions 3.46 3.80
Other 6.00 6.00

CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPERTY
Investment potential 2.23 2.05
Elevation and topography 2.23 2.08
Size of property 2.69 3.32
Presence of clean beach on lakefront 3.69 3.24
Additional maintenance problem 4.14 4.42
Other 6.00 5.97

RANKING OF CHARACTERISTIC SETS
Characteristics of lake 1.67 1.85
Characteristics of location 2.42 2.70
Characteristics of property 2.92 2.70
Aesthetic characteristics 4.00 2.75













59









Appendix Table 21.-Participation in and expenditures on water-based recreational activities by survey respondents by income class, Kissimmee
River Basin, Florida, 1970

Annual income

$6,999 or less $7,000 to $9,999

No. partic- Annual Avg. exp. No. partic- Annual Avg. exp.
ipating totals per day ipating totals per day

FISHING 12 8
Avg. no. days per
family participating 142.57 135.00

Avg. $ spent per family 501.85 3.52 561.60 4.16

BOATING 5 6
SAvg. no. days per
family participating 120.60 65.34

Avg. $ spent per family 502.90 4.17 154.20 2.36

SWIMMING 7 3
Avg. no. days per
family participating 98.85 208.00

SKIING 2 1
Avg. no. days per
family participating 85.00 144.00

Avg. $ spent per family 850.00 10.00 720.00 5.00

Continued








Appendix Table 21.-Participation in and expenditures on water-based recreational activities by survey respondents by income class, Kissimmee
River Basin, Florida, 1 970 Continued

Annual income

$10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 or more

No. partic- Annual Avg. exp. No. partic- Annual Avg. exp.
ipating totals per day ipating totals per day

FISHING 12 11
Avg. no. days per
family participating 109.74 126.28

Avg. $ spent per family 285.32 2.60 726.11 5.75

BOATING 9 8
S Avg. no. days per
family participating 40.45 53.99

Avg. $ spent per family 132.68 3.28 401.15 7.43

SWIMMING 6 4
Avg. no days per
family participating 61.26 102.00

SKIING 3 6
Avg. no. days per
family participating 42.67 36.82

Avg. $ spent per family 101.98 2.39 285.36 7.75










Appendix Table 22.-Participation in and expenditures on water-based recreational activities by survey respondents by type of residence, Kissimmee
River Basin, Florida, 1970

Type of residence

Permanent Vacation

No. partic- Annual Avg. exp. No. partic- Annual Avg. exp.
ipating totals per day ipating totals per day

FISHING 34 15
Avg. no. of days per
family participating 152.03 85.19

Avg. $ spent per family 419.60 2.76 580.14 6.81

BOATING 20 12
S t Avg. no. of days per
family participating 59.20 65.25

Avg. $ spent per family 160.43 2.71 400.78 6.14

SWIMMING 22 5
Avg. no. of days per
family participating 114.92 22.20

SKIING 9 5
Avg. no. of days per
family participating 80.22 23.40

Avg. $ spent per family 457.25 5.70 86.58 3.70










Appendix Table 23.-Participation in and expenditures on water-based recreational activities by survey respondents by geographic sub-area,
Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970

Geographic sub-area

Upper sub-area Central sub-area Lower sub-area

No. Annual Avg. No. Annual Avg. No. Annual Avg.
partic- Totals exp. partic- totals exp, partic- totals exp.
ipating per day ipating per day ipating per day

FISHING 22 14 12
Avg. no. of days per
family participating 135.70 86.30 141.49

g Avg. $ spent per family 339.42 2.50 488.46 5.66 502.28 3.55

BOATING 12 10 9
Avg. no. of days per
family participating 87.50 50.20 45.89

Avg. $ spent per family 147.15 1.68 226.40 4.51 244.59 5.33

SWIMMING 17 2 8
Avg. no. of days per
family participating 126.34 4.50 59.75

SKIING 8 3 4
Avg. no. of days per
family participating 84.80 5.00 38.00

Avg. $ spent per family 262.92 3.13 30.00 6.00 130.34 3.43









Appendix Table 24.-Participation in and expenditures on water-based recreational activities by survey respondents by retirement status,
Kissimmee River Basin, Florida, 1970

Retirement status

Retired Non-retired

No. partic- Annual Avg. exp. No. partic- Annual Avg. exp.
ipating totals per day ipating totals per day

FISHING 13 37
Avg. no. of days per
family participating 169.38 116.08

Avg. $ spent per family 376.02 2.22 539.77 4.65

BOATING 7 25
Avg. no. of days per
family participating 63.00 61.48

Avg. $ spent per family 144.90 2.30 271.74 4.42

SWIMMING 8 19
Avg. no. of days per
family participating 140.12 79.90

SKIING 3 12
Avg. no. of days per
family participating 74.00 51.92

Avg. $ spent per family 240.50 3.25 303.73 5.85













Appendix Table 25.-Arithmetic means of lakefront property values reported by
survey respondents by income class, Kissimmee River Basin,
Florida, 1970

Annual income class ($1,000)
Property
values ($1,000) 6.999 7 to 10 to 15 or
or less 9.999 14.999 more

Average selling
price today 26.3 23.0 30.0 22.0

Average buying
price today 23.4 19.5 21.7 21.1

Average selling
price if lake
drained 16.2 11.4 13.4 12.6

Average selling
price if lake
lowered 3 ft. 22.2 17.5 18,1 17.1

Average buying
price if lake
lowered 3 ft. 19.3 12.2 16.6 16.0

Average selling
price if lake
fluctuates 24.1 18.9 19.0 20.2

Average buying
price if lake
fluctuates 21.1 13.6 17,6 17.9
























65














Appendix Table 26.-Arithmetic means of lakefront property values reported by
survey respondents by type of residence, Kissimmee River
Basin, Florida, 1970

Type of residence
Property
values ($1,000) Permanent Vacation

Average selling price today 33.3 11.8

Average buying price today 27.1 11.2

Average selling price if lake
drained 18.4 3.4

Average selling price if lake
lowered 3 ft. 24.1 6.1

Average buying price if lake
lowered 3 ft. 19.6 5.3

Average selling price if lake
fluctuates 24.9 6.6

Average buying price if lake
fluctuates 20.6 7.4































66















Appendix Table 27.-Arithmetic means of lakefront property values, reported by
survey respondents by geographic sub-area, Kissimmee River
Basin, Florida, 1970

Geographic sub-area
Property
values ($1,000) Upper Central Lower
sub-area sub-area sub-area

Average selling
price today 35.8 14.6 30.8

Average buying
price today 31.7 144 18.9

Average selling
price if lake
drained 22.5 6.9 7.4

Average selling
price if lake
lowered 3 ft. 31.4 9.6 8.4

Average buying
price if lake
lowered 3 ft. 29.0 6.8 2.2

Average selling
price if lake
fluctuates 32.8 10.9 10.2

Average buying
price if lake
fluctuates 30.0 8.8 3 0























67














Appendix Table 28.-Arithmetic means of lakefront property values reported by
survey respondents by retirement status, Kissimmee River
Basin, Florida, 1970

Retirement status
Property
values ($1,000) Retired Non-retired

Average selling price today 33.8 25.2

Average buying price today 20.6 23.4

Average selling price if lake
drained 14,5 14.2

Average selling price if lake
lowered 3 ft. 18.2 19.5

Average buying price if lake
lowered 3 ft. 13.2 16.6

Average selling price if lake
fluctuates 19.6 21.0

Average buying price if lake
fluctuates 14.2 17.9































68





University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs