Group Title: economic analysis of the benefits of aquatic weed control in North-Central Florida
Title: economic analysis of the benefits of aquatic weed control in North-Central Florida
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027545/00001
 Material Information
Title: economic analysis of the benefits of aquatic weed control in North-Central Florida
Series Title: economic analysis of the benefits of aquatic weed control in North-Central Florida
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Milon, J. Walter.
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027545
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 - AHN7669
oclc - 23663749
alephbibnum - 001613256

Full Text

December 1986

S11/3


Economics Report 113


An Economic Analysis of the
Benefits of Aquatic Weed Control
in North-Central Florida
With Special Reference to Orange and Lochloosa Lakes


19S1


or1 l -'-


J. Walter Milon


Jay Yingling


Food and Resource Economics Department
Agricultural Experiment Stations
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville 32611


John E. Reynolds



























ABSTRACT


The results of a survey designed to identify sport anglers' preferences and economic
values for aquatic weed control in North-Central Florida are reported. The survey responses
indicate that anglers' decisions to visit fishing sites are influenced by aquatic weed conditions
but the effect is not uniform across anglers. Anglers recognize the need for aquatic weed
controls and express a significant willingness to pay for different levels of control. The total
economic benefits of an aquatic weed control program designed to prevent severe infestations
of hyacinth and hydrilla at Orange and Lochloosa Lakes are $386,063 in 1985 dollars. The
incremental benefits of increasing weed control beyond prevention to reduce hyacinth and
hydrilla to just small patches around the lakes are $194,433. In addition, aquatic weed
controls sustain a significant contribution to the local economy; total gross expenditures for
sport fishing at Orange and Lochloosa Lakes are $5,606,697. With the addition of multiplier
effects due to nonresident expenditures for sport fishing trips, total regional economic activity
of $10,787,289 can be attributed to Orange and Lochloosa Lakes. Complete details of the
survey design and questionnaire used for the survey are provided as well as recommendations
for future research on the economic benefits of aquatic weed control.




Key words: economic benefits, aquatic weed control, sport fishing values, Orange and
Lochloosa Lakes, hyacinth and hydrilla.




























ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


The authors gratefully acknowledge the efforts of Joe Joyce and Bill Haller of the Center
for Aquatic Weeds, University of Florida in initiating this research project. Their assistance
in developing the research objectives and questionnaire design was invaluable to the project.
Also, Gary Lynne and Clyde Kiker provided helpful suggestions for the survey design and
commented on the final manuscript. All remaining errors are of course the responsibility of
the authors. Thanks also to Sharon Bullivant for assistance in final preparation of the
manuscript.

This material is based on work supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service, and the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University
of Florida under Cooperative Agreement #58-7B30-3-570. Any opinions, findings, conclusions,
or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.










TABLE OF CONTENTS


ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . .

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES ....... ............. ... .... ... .

INTRODUCTION .... ..... ..... ... .......... ...

MAIL SURVEY DESIGN AND RESPONSE . . . . . . . . . .

MAIL SURVEY RESULTS ...........................

Socioeconomic Profile of Respondents . . . . . . . . . .
Trip Activity Expenditures and Catch Rates . . . . . . . . .

INTERVIEW SURVEY DESIGN AND RESPONSE . . . . . . . .

Socioeconomic Profile of Interviewees . . . . . . . . . .
Trip Activity and Catch Rates . . . . . . . . . . . .

SITE CHOICE DETERMINANTS, AQUATIC WEED PERCEPTIONS
AND VALUATION ..............................

Site Choice Determinants and Aquatic Weed Preferences . .........
Aquatic Weed Perceptions and Preferences for Orange/Lochloosa Lakes .
Aquatic Weed Control Valuation . . . . . . . . . . .

GROSS EXPENDITURES AND TOTAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF AQUATIC
WEED CONTROL.. .............. .... ... ... .. ...

Gross Expenditures for Sportfishing at Orange/Lochloosa Lakes . . . .
Economic Benefits of Aquatic Weed Controls at Orange/Lochloosa Lakes . .

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION .........................

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH . . . . . . . .

REFERENCES . . . .. .. . .. . . . . .. ........

APPENDIX A ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

APPENDIX B ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Pane

i

ii

iii

v





6


9

17

17
20










LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 Summary of total fishing license sales and sample license distribution
for the study area by residency, license type, year and sample returns. . . 3

2 Sample distribution by license type, residence zone, and mailing group . . 4

3 Returned complete questionnaire by license type and mailing group . . .. 6

4 Overall distribution of responses to mail survey and response rates by
m ailing group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6

5 Distribution of responses to mail survey and response rate by residence
zone and mailing group . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . 7

6 Socioeconomic profile of mail survey respondents by residence zone and
fishing license type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

7 Fishing preferences and years of experience for respondents by residence
zone and fishing license type . . . . . . . . ... . . . 9

8 Distribution of respondents' fishing trips to North-Central Florida sites
during most recent four months period by residence zone. . . . . .. 12

9 Distribution of respondents' most recent fishing trips to selected North-
Central Florida fresh water sites by residence zone. . . . . . ... .13

10 Monthly frequency distribution of most recent fishing trip to Orange and
Lochloosa Lakes by residence zone . . . . . . . . ... ... 13

11 Average per person and total party trip expenditures by mail respondents
for Orange and Lochloosa Lakes by residence zone. . . . . . ... .15

12 Catch success rates per person and per trip for mail respondents at Orange
and Lochloosa Lakes by residence zone and fish species . . . .... .16

13 Monthly number and frequency distribution of interviews conducted at Orange
and Lochloosa Lakes by residence zone . . . . . . . .... .18

14 Socioeconomic profile of interview respondents by residence zone and fishing
license type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

15 Fishing preferences and years of experience for interview respondents by
residence zone and fishing license type. . . . . . . . .... .20

16 Distribution of interview respondents' fishing trips to North-Central
Florida sites during most recent four month period by residence zone
and license type................... ........... 22












LIST OF TABLES (cont.)


Table Pane


17 Average per person and total party trip expenditures by interview
respondents for Orange and Lochloosa Lakes by residence zone . . ... .23

18 Catch success rates per person and per trip for interview respondents
at Orange and Lochloosa Lakes by residence zone and fish species . . 24

19 Combined mail and interview respondents' importance ratings of lake
characteristics in fishing site choice decisions by residence zone. . . .. .26

20 Combined mail and interview respondents' opinions about various
aquatic weed conditions by residence zone. . . . . . . . . 27

21 Mail and interview respondents' evaluation of hyacinth conditions
at Orange and Lochloosa Lakes and hyacinth conditions at substitute
sites by residence zone . . .. . . . . . . . .. . 29

22 Mail and interview respondents' evaluations of hydrilla conditions
at Orange and Lochloosa Lakes and hydrilla conditions at substitute
sites by residence zone . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. ..... .31

23 Mail and interview respondents' willingness to pay for different
levels of aquatic weed control at Orange and Lochloosa Lakes by
residence zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32

24 Mail and interview respondents' expected changes in average
annual number of fishing trips to Orange and Lochloosa Lakes if aquatic
weed conditions would be maintained at level "A" year-round. . . . ... 33

25 Calculation of total gross expenditures at Orange and Lochloosa
Lakes by residence zone for 1985 . . . . . . . . . . .. 35

26 Calculations of total annual willingness to pay for alternative
levels of aquatic weed control at Orange and Lochloosa Lakes by
residence zone for 1985 . .. .. . . . . .. . . . ... . 36

B-I Average catch per person per hour by species and average trip
expenditures per person for all North-Central Florida sites
included in survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure


1 Map of North-Central Florida lakes and rivers . . . . . .....


PaIe












AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE BENEFITS OF AQUATIC WEED CONTROL
IN NORTH-CENTRAL FLORIDA

J. Walter Milon, Jay Yingling, and John E. Reynolds1


INTRODUCTION

Aquatic weeds cause serious environmental and economic problems in many regions of the
United States and throughout the world. Florida's subtropical climate and abundant freshwater
resources provide ideal conditions for the growth of exotic aquatic plants that have been
introduced into Florida's lakes and rivers. Today the most severe problems are caused by
water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassioes), a floating aquatic plant, and hydrilla (Hvdrilla
verticillata), a submersed plant. Both species can grow to densities that severely impair or
prohibit navigation and recreational uses of the water body. To minimize the effects of
aquatic weed infestation, millions of dollars are spent each year by federal, state and local
agencies to control aquatic weeds in Florida.

Despite the severity of the aquatic weed problem in Florida, there have been relatively
few documented studies of the effects of aquatic weed infestations on user groups and the
subsequent economic impacts.2 In addition, there have been no systematic studies of user
group preferences for alternative levels of aquatic weed control and the economic benefits to
these user groups.

The lack of documented evidence about the economic effects of aquatic weed controls
and user group preferences for aquatic weed controls led to the initiation of a pilot project
funded by the Center for Aquatic Weeds in the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
(IFAS), University of Florida. The focus of this project was recreational anglers using lakes
and rivers in North-Central Florida with special reference to Orange and Lochloosa Lakes.
This region and these lakes in particular were targeted because of the region's national
reputation for outstanding sportfishing and the severity of recent infestations of hyacinth and
hydrilla in Orange and Lochloosa Lakes. Specifically, the objectives of this project were to:

I) identify recreational fishing use of freshwater sites in the region,
2) determine anglers' preferences for alternative levels of aquatic weed (hyacinth and
hydrilla) control,
3) estimate the economic impact of recreational fishing on Orange and Lochloosa Lakes
for the regional economy, and



1J. WALTER MILON is an associate professor and JOHN E. REYNOLDS is a professor in
Food and Resource Economics; JAY YINGLING was formerly a research assistant in Food and
Resource Economics and is now an economic analyst with the St. Johns Water Management
District, Palatka, FL.

2Gangstad (1982, 1983) provided an estimate of the national economic benefits from a
specific aquatic herbicide but did not provide any original research to document the benefit
estimates. Colle et al. (forthcoming) evaluated the effects of hydrilla infestation on angler
utilization and expenditures at Orange Lake, Florida but their estimate of expenditures was
based on 1975 survey research at another Florida lake. Their study did not attempt to
directly assess angler preferences for different levels of aquatic weed control.










4) estimate the economic value of alternative levels of aquatic weed control on Orange
and Lochloosa Lakes.

This report provides baseline documentation on the socioeconomic characteristics, site
usage rates, user preferences and attitudes, economic expenditures, and user values identified
in this project. The report describes the methodology and results of a mail and intercept
survey conducted in 1985 and used as the basis of the economic analysis. This analysis is
limited to the economic benefits and impact of aquatic weed control and does not consider the
costs associated with these management programs. In addition, these results are based on only
one user group of these lakes. To the extent that other groups (e.g. pleasure boaters, bird
watchers, hunters) use the lakes, the methodology used in this analysis will not represent
their preferences for weed control nor their contribution to economic activity in the region.


MAIL SURVEY DESIGN AND RESPONSE

Florida's system of licensing for freshwater fishing presents some serious impediments to
economic research. The state issues three types of licenses for residents and three types for
non-residents (non-Florida residents). While these are state-wide licenses, each county tax
collection office controls the sale and distribution of licenses within their county. Licenses
are issued by the tax collector's office or designated agents (fish camps, tackle shops, etc.)
and carbon records of each license are maintained by the county tax collection office. There
is no comprehensive, state-wide record of licenses and the counties do not maintain
computerized lists of licenses issued in their county. Thus, the task of survey design and
sample frame selection is considerably more difficult than in states which maintain
computerized state-wide records.

For the purpose of this analysis, the counties of Alachua, Marion, and Putnam were
defined as the North-Central Florida region. A stratified sample of licensees in the region
was constructed by hand recording license registration data from the carbon records at each
county courthouse. Sample strata were based on resident and non-resident license types and a
systematic selection rule was used to minimize biases due to filing procedures (Scheaffer,
Mendenhall, and Ott, 1979). The distribution of license types across the strata are displayed
in Table 1. The procedure resulted in a total sample of 3,402 licensees with sample units of
1,772 (52.09 percent) residents and 1,630 (47.91 percent) non-residents. Sample sizes were
selected to acheive sample response precision of 4 percent.

Because freshwater fishing has distinct seasonality and problems of recall bias are always
a concern in recreational usage surveys, a strategy of mailing survey forms at three distinct
four month intervals was adopted. The total sample was partitioned into three subunits based
on the number and type of licenses issued during specific seasonal periods. The subunits were
further divided into local and non-local residence groups based on driving mileage from Orange
and Lochloosa Lakes. The residence group division was used to identify socioeconomic and
usage patterns that may be different from those based only on license type. An
approximately 100 mile concentric zone distinguishes local from non-local groups.

Survey forms (see Appendix A) were mailed in early March to cover the winter season
(November, 1984 February, 1985), in early July to cover the spring season (March, 1985-
June, 1985), and in early November to cover the fall season (July, 1985 October, 1985).
Only one subunit of the total sample was surveyed in each time block. The distribution of
surveys mailed by license type, residence zone, and mailing group are reported in Table 2.
The sampling design resulted in a total sample of 52.1 percent resident and 47.9 percent









Table 1. Summary of total fishing license sales and sample license distribution for the study
area by residency, license type, year, and sample returns.


1983-1984 1984-1985 Selected sample2 Sample returns


License sales License sales Number selected Total number
Type1 and percent of and percent of and percent returned and
sales by type sales by type selected by type percent re-
turned by type

RESIDENT LICENSES

A 18,910 (40.9) 15,296 (31.7) 715 (40.3) 208 (29.7)

AB 21,257 (46.0) 26,794 (55.6) 821 (46.3) 367 (52.3)

AK 6,064 (13.1) 6,138 (12.7) 236 (13.3) 126 (18.0)

Total
Residents 46,231 (100) 48,228 (100) 1,772 (100) 701 (100)

NON-RESIDENT LICENSES

B 7,583 (28.4) 7,428 (26.7) 506 (31.0) 203 (30.6)
C 4,686 (17.5) 5,142 (18.5) 319 (19.6) 183 (27.6)

D 14,437 (54.1) 15,277 (54.9) 805 (49.4) 277 (41.8)

Total
Non-Residents 26,706 (100) 27,847 (100) 1,630 (100) 663 (100)

TOTAL LICENSES

Total 72,937 76,075 3,402 1,364

Percent Resident 63.38% 63.40% 52.09% 51.39%

Percent
Non-Resident 36.62% 36.60% 47.91% 48.61%


1 Series A -- Resident fishing valid July 1 thru June 30
Series AB Resident fishing valid 12 months after date of purchase
Series AK Resident combination fishing-hunting valid July 1 thru June 30
Series B -- Non-resident fishing valid July 1 thru June 30
Series C -- Non-resident fishing 14-day continuous
Series D -- Non-resident fishing 5-day continuous

2 Sample based on 1983-84 license sales







Table 2. Sample distribution by license type, residence zone, and mailing group.


Number mailed and percent of each residence zone mailing


First mailing Second mailing Third mailing Total
Local Non-local Local Non-local Local Non-local Local Non-local


RESIDENT LICENSES


211 (38.6)
234 (42.8)
73 (13.3)


Total
residents


518 (94.7)


15 (4.8)
27 (8.6)
0 (0.0)


42 (13.4)


211 (39.4)
234 (43.7)
76 (14.2)


521 (97.2)


32 (3.1)
45 (4.4)
7 (0.7)


84 (8.2)


207 (38.3)
250 (46.3)
76 (14.1)


533 (98.7)


39 (8.8)
31 (7.0)
4 (0.9)


74 (16.7)


629 (38.8)
718 (44.2)
225 (13.9)


1572 (96.9)


86 (4.8)
103 (5.8)
11(0.6)


200 (11.2)


NON-RESIDENT LICENSES


26 (4.8)
0 (0.0)
3 (0.5)


133 (42.5)
31(9.9)
107 (34.2)


13 (2.4)
0 (0.0)
2 (0.4)


161 (15.7)
248 (24.2)
532 (51.9)


5 (0.9)
0 (0.0)
2 (0.4)


168 (38.1)
40 (9.1)
159 (36.1)


44 (2.7)
0 (0.0)
7 (0.4)


462 (26.0)
319 (17.9)
798 (44.9)


51(3.1) 1579 (88.8)


Total
non-
residents


29 (5.3)


271 (86.6)


15 (2.8)


941 (91.8)


7 (1.3)


Total
sample 547 (100) 313 (100) 536 (100) 1025 (100) 540 (100) 441 (100) 1623 (100) 1779 (100)


367 (83.3)











non-resident licenses; on the basis of residence zone, the sample was 47.7 percent local and
52.3 percent non-local.

The distribution of returned surveys by mailing group and license type are reported in Table
3. Since the sampling design did not use a balanced selection rule across mailing periods, the
second mailing period (spring season) returns are more heavily represented in the total. Total
returns for the resident license group were 51.4 percent and non-resident returns were 48.6
percent of the total 1,364 returned surveys.

The overall distribution of responses to the survey and response rates by mailing group
are reported in Table 4. Due to the use of the carbon license records and the inherent
limitations of the county controlled license system, 239 (7.0 percent) surveys were returned as
undeliverable. The resulting effective sample size was 3,163 of which 48.1 percent were
returned. Unfortunately, not all respondents completed all sections of the survey or the
information provided was unusable. Thus, the completed effective response rate was 43.1
percent.

Table 5 presents the distribution of responses by residence zone and mailing group. The
total local effective response rate of 41.3 percent was slightly below the overall response rate
of 43.1 percent. Although there is some variation in the response rates across mailing groups,
the variation is small and does not suggest any serious problems of subunit representation in
the total sample. In light of the difficulty in defining and collecting a representative sample
of North-Central Florida freshwater anglers, the resulting sample size and distribution indicate
that the sampling design and execution were quite successful.


MAIL SURVEY RESULTS

Socioeconomic Profile of Respondents

For the purpose of statistical reporting, socioeconomic characteristics are reported
according to both license type (resident or non-resident license) and residence zone (local or
non-local trip origination zone). Descriptive statistics for the key socioeconomic
characteristics are presented in Table 6.

The principal difference in the license type versus residence zone breakdown occurs in
the number of respondents included in each category. The average results for each
characteristic were surprisingly similar for the local and resident categories and the non-local
and non-resident categories. For example, the age, race and sex profiles of local and resident
respondents were virtually identical. This indicates that the majority of resident licensees
were from within the 100 mile concentric zone around Orange and Lochloosa Lakes. Given
that this zone extends almost to the Georgia border, it suggests that very few of the resident
respondents were from the area south of Orlando, the southern edge of the 100 mile zone.
Thus, one implication of this demographic analysis is that most of the non-local respondents
were not Florida residents.

The overall profile of respondents indicated a relatively homogeneous group with the
average respondent described as a white male in his mid-40's who had at least a high school
education and who was employed or self-employed. The primary difference between the local
(resident) and non-local (non-resident) groups occurs in the education, employment and income
areas. In general, the non-local group had a slightly higher educational background and a
significantly higher average income level (both annual salary and household income). The







6

Table 3. Returned complete questionnaires by license type and mailing group.

Number returned and percent of each mailing

First mailing Second mailing Third mailing Total


RESIDENT LICENSES
A 78 (22.3) 80 (12.1) 50 (14.1) 208 (15.2)
AB 125 (35.7) 117 (17.8) 125 (35.2) 367 (26.9)
AK 45 (12.9) 46 (7.0) 35 (9.9) 126 (9.2)


Total resident 248 (70.9) 243 (36.9) 210 (59.2) 701 (51.4)


NON-RESIDENT LICENSES
B 41 (11.7) 88 (13.4) 74 (20.8) 203 (14.9)
C 18 (5.1) 143 (21.7) 22 (6.2) 183 (13.4)
D 43 (12.3) 185 (28.1) 49 (13.8) 277 (20.3)


Total non-resident 102 (29.1) 416 (63.1) 145 (40.8) 663 (48.6)


Total returns 350 (100) 659 (100) 355 (100) 1364 (100)


Table 4. Overall distribution of responses to mail survey and response rates by
mailing group.
First Second Third
mailing mailing mailing Total


Total sample size 860 1561 981 3402
Returned as undeliverable 49 105 85 239

Effective sample size 811 1456 896 3163

Returned complete 350 695 355 1364
Returned but unusable 39 83 36 158

Overall response rate based on
effective sample size 48.0% 51.0% 43.6% 48.1%

Completed response rate based
on effective sample size 43.2% 45.3% 39.6% 43.1%











Table 5. Distribution of responses to mail
zone and mailing group.


survey and response rate by residence


First Second Third
mailing mailing mailing Total


Local sample size 547 536 540 1623
Returned as undeliverable 30 42 57 129

Effective sample size 517 494 483 1494

Returned complete 228 214 175 617
Returned but unusable 23 26 17 66

Local overall response rate
based on effective sample
size 48.5% 48.6% 39.8% 45.7%

Local completed response rate
based on effective sample
size 44.1% 43.3% 36.2% 41.3%


Non-local sample size 313 1025 441 1779
Returned as undeliverable 19 63 28 110

Effective sample size 294 962 413 1669

Returned complete 122 445 180 747
Returned but unusable 16 57 19 92

Non-local overall response rate
based on effective sample
size 46.9% 52.2% 48.2% 50.3%

Non-local completed response rate
based on effective sample
size 41.5% 46.3% 43.6% 44.8%










Table 6. Socioeconomic profile of mail survey respondents
fishing license type.


by residence zone and


Residence zone License type
Local Non-local Resident Non-resident
Age 42 (617)* 46 (747)* 41 (701)* 47 (663)*


Female
Male
Race
White
Black
Other


Education
Grades 1-8
Grades 9-12
Completed high school
Some college/voc.
Completed 2 year
college or voc. program
Completed 4 year
college degree
Graduate or professional
degree

Employment
Self-employed
Employed
Retired
Not employed


Income
Hourly wage
Annual salary


20.4% (126)
79.6% (491)

93.8% (579)
5.5% (34)
0.5% (3)


2.9% (18)
12.5% (77)
28.7% (177)
23.7% (146)

14.9% (92)

10.4% (64)


13.5% (101)
86.5% (646)


99.5%
0.4%
0.1%


4.0%
9.2%
25.2%
25.8%


(743)
(3)
(1)


(30)
(69)
(188)
(193)


12.0% (90)

14.7% (110)


6.8% (42) 9.0% (67)


13.0% (80)
62.2% (384)
16.2% (100)
8.6% (53)


$8.41 (194)
$25,823 (278)


20.9%
53.3%
20.9%
4.8%


(156)
(398)
(156)
(36)


$11.19 (179)
$36,392 (351)


20.0% (140)
80.0% (561)

94.4% (662)
5.0% (35)
0.4% (3)


2.6% (18)
11.4% (80)
26.6% (186)
24.0% (168)

15.6% (109)

11.4% (80)

8.4% (59)


14.0% (98)
62.6% (439)
14.8% (104)
8.6% (60)


$8.53 (222)
$26,192 (324)


13.1% (87)
86.9% (576)


99.5%
0.3%
0.2%


4.5%
10.0%
27.0%
25.8%


(660)
(2)
(1)


(30)
(66)
(179)
(171)


11.0% (73)

14.2% (94)

7.5% (50)


20.8% (138)
51.7% (343)
22.9% (152)
4.4% (29)


$11.54 (151)
$37,594 (305)


Household Income
less than $10,000
$10,000 $14,999
$15,000 $19,999
$20,000 $24,999
$25,000 $29,999
$30,000 $34,999
$35,000 $39,999
$40,000 $44,999
$45,000 $49,999
$50,000 or more
Household size


8.3%
12.5%
12.8%
12.3%
13.0%
11.1%
7.3%
6.5%
5.3%
10.8%


(50)
(75)
(77)
(74)
(78)
(67)
(44)
(39)
(32)
(65)


3.7%
6.7%
9.2%
9.3%
9.0%
11.9%
11.1%
8.3%
7.2%
23.6%


(27)
(49)
(67)
(68)
(66)
(87)
(81)
(61)
(53)
(173)


2.97 (616) 2.76 (744)


*Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of respondents
Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.


in each category.


7.6%
11.5%
12.4%
12.3%
12.4%
11.1%
7.7%
7.3%
5.3%
12.3%


(52)
(79)
(85)
(84)
(85)
(76)
(53)
(50)
(36)
(84)


3.9%
6.9%
9.1%
8.9%
9.1%
12.0%
11.1%
7.7%
7.6%
23.7%


(25)
(45)
(59)
(58)
(59)
(78)
(72)
(50)
(49)
(154)


2.94 (700)


2.77 (660)










Table 7. Fishing preferences and years of experience for respondents by residence zone
and fishing license type.
Residence zone License type
Local Non-local Resident Non-resident

Primary target specie
Bass 47.5% (293)* 60.4% (451)* 49.6% (348)* 59.7% (396)*
Panfish 30.3% (187) 26.1% (195) 29.7% (208) 26.2% (174)
Both 22.2% (137) 13.5% (101) 20.7% (145) 14.1% (93)

Years of fishing
experience
Mean 28.5 (613) 31.1 (743) 28.1 (697) 31.9 (659)
Median 30.0 (613) 30.0 (743) 27.0 (697) 30.0 (659)
Mode 30.0 (613) 20.0 (743) 30.0 (697) 30.0 (659)

Years of fishing
experience in North-
Central Florida
Mean 17.2 (612) 8.6 (734) 16.2 (694) 8.5 (652)
Median 15.0 (612) 5.0 (734) 13.0 (694) 5.0 (652)
Mode 10.0 (612) 1.0 (734) 10.0 (694) 1.0 (652)

*Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of respondents in each category.
Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.


nonlocal group had a slightly higher percentage of retired persons, but the differences were
minor compared to the income differential.

Differences between the local (resident) and non-local (non-resident) groups were more
apparent in the fishing characteristics data reported in Table 7. Non-local respondents
indicated a greater preference for largemouth bass as their target specie while local
respondents were more likely to target panfish or to indicate no preference.

Although the number of years of fishing experience were quite similar for the two
groups, there was a major difference in the number of years each group had fished in the
North-Central Florida region. The average local angler had fished in the region for 17.2 years
and the most frequent response (mode) was 10.0 years. By contrast, the average non-local
respondent had fished in the region for 8.6 years and the modal response was 1.0 years. This
suggests that a large number of the non-local respondents were new visitors to the region
with little personal knowledge of the region's resources and management problems.

Trip Activity. Expenditures and Catch Rates

Respondents were provided with a map of lakes and rivers in the North-Central region as
part of the survey packet (see Figure 1). The survey asked respondents to indicate the
number of fishing trips taken to these sites during the prior four months.

The distribution of respondents' fishing trips to lakes and rivers in North-Central Florida
as well as trips to the Atlantic and Gulf coasts are reported in Table 8. Because the survey









was mailed to each sample subunit at different times during the year and respondents were
asked to report their total number of trips during the most recent four month period, t'-:
numbers and site visitation rates reported should be interpreted as the number of fishing Li
by the total sample within any four month period. Measures of total annual trips by Ji
sample respondents could be determined by multiplying the number of trips to each site or the
total trips by three (3).

The results in Table 8 show that several sites were the most popular for local (resident)
and non-local (non-resident) anglers alike. Orange and Lochloosa Lakes were the favorite of
local anglers with Rodman Reservoir and the St. Johns River south of Palatka almost equally\
popular. Other sites not listed in the survey were also identified by local anglers but the
wide variety of these alternative sites preclude any detailed listing.

Non-local anglers identified the St. Johns River south of Palatka as their favorite fishing
site with Rodman Reservoir and Orange/Lochloosa Lakes also popular alternatives. The non-
local trips tended to focus on a smaller number of key sites with much less use of sites not
identified in the survey. This probably reflects the non-local respondents' limited knowledge
of the region.

The data in Table 8 can be used to estimate the total number of visits to the sites listed
in 1985. For example, total annual resident trips to Orange/Lochloosa Lakes by the sample
respondents would be 3,015 (1,005 x 3). For the 701 resident licensees in the sample, this
suggests an average annual number of trips equal to 4.3 (3,015 / 701). Extrapolating to the
total population of licensees within the region (Table 1), total annual trips by resident
licensees would be 207,380 (4.3 x 48,228). A similar calculation could be performed for
non-resident licensees or for other sites in the region. It should be noted that the total trips
estimated using the numbers reported in Table 8 will underestimate the true total number of
trips if actual site users travel from outside the three county region and do not purchase
licenses within the counties. For several of the sites within the region (e.g.
Orange/Lochloosa, Rodman, Newnans) this unidentified user group is not likely to be very
large. For sites which border other Florida counties (e.g. Suwannee River, St. Johns River,
Lake George) and hence may have users who purchase licenses in those counties, it is highly
likely that the total trip estimates from this sample data will only be a lower bound on the
true total site trips. The extent of the underestimation will vary by site but the significance
of this difference cannot be determined at this time.

Respondents were asked to identify the site of their most recent fishing trip (within the
four month interval) to one of the North-Central Florida fishing sites. Detailed data about
expenditures, party size, and catch for that trip were then elicited. The results of these
questions about respondents' most recent fishing trips are reported in Tables 9 12. Data on
trips to Orange/Lochloosa Lakes are presented in Tables 10-12. Catch and expenditure data
for other sites in the region are presented in Appendix B.

The distribution of respondents' most recent trips to freshwater sites in the region are
presented in Table 9. As before in the overall trip distribution results, a few most popular
sites emerge for both local and non-local respondents. On the whole, there were few
differences in the distributions of total and most recent trips. The percent of trips :
Orange/Lochloosa and other sites were higher reflecting primarily the reduced list of sit2s
included in this analysis.










































z/ r~
zo














0 1
z, ,a
P.






B Iz










Table 8. Distribution of respondents' fishing trips to North-Central Florida sites
during most recent four month period by residence zone and license type.
Residence zone License tvoe
Site Local Non-local Resident Non-resident

# % # % # % # %


Orange/Lochloosa Lakes
Rodman Reservoir
Newnans Lake
Santa Fe Lake
Lake George
Crescent Lake
Lake Kerr
Santa Fe River
St. Johns River
north of Palatka
St. Johns River
south of Palatka
Suwannee River south
of Branford
Atlantic Ocean
Gulf of Mexico
Oklawaha River
Ocala National Forest
lakes and ponds
Other


12.8
11.1
5.8
1.5
4.6
2.7
2.9
3.6


12.7
15.4
1.9
0.8
8.6
6.9
4.9
0.3


292 3.9 91 3.9

903 11.9 422 18.0


240
335
461
622

169
1146


47 2.0
138 5.9


1005
865
446
121
361
209
237
272


12.8
11.1
5.7
1.5
4.6
2.7
3.0
3.5


258
336
35
14
188
156
97
6


12.4
16.1
1.7
0.7
9.0
7.5
4.7
0.3


302 3.9 81 3.9

892 11.4 433 20.8


179
1174


3.2
4.6
6.7
8.0

2.3
15.0


37 1.8
110 5.3


Total trips 7571 100.0 2338 100.0 7823 100.0 2086 100.0


Total trips


7571 100.0 2338 100.0


7823 100.0 2086 100.0










Table 9. Distribution of respondents' most recent fishing trips to selected
North-Central Florida fresh water sites by residence zone.
Residence zone


Local


Orange/Lochlossa Lakes
Rodman Reservoir
Newnans Lake
Santa Fe Lake
Lake George
Crescent Lake
Lake Kerr
Santa Fe River
St. Johns River north of Palatka
St. Johns River south of Palatka
Suwannee River south of Branford
Oklawaha River
Ocala National Forest lakes and ponds
Total trips


%
28.4
19.3
8.1
2.5
5.9
3.7
4.7
4.2
4.9
13.6
3.5
0.7
0.5
100.0


Non-local
# %

146 20.5
127 17.8
26 3.6
9 1.3
100 14.0
43 6.0
24 3.4
1
61 8.6
132 18.5
9 1.3
23 3.2
12 1.7
713 100.0


Table 10. Monthly frequency distribution of most recent fishing trip to Orange and
Lochloosa Lakes by residence zone.
Residence zone
Month Local Non-local

% %
January 4.5 2.5
February 8.9 5.0
March 18.3 34.8
April 10.4 23.0
May 8.9 11.2
June 6.9 8.7
July 11.4 14.3
August 5.9 7.5
September 7.4 9.3
October 9.4 11.8
November 4.9 6.2
December 3.0 3.7









The monthly frequency distribution of trips to Orange/Lochloosa Lakes is reported in
Table 10. Not surprisingly the distribution tends to cluster around the survey mailing dates
(March, July and November) but it does show a distinct spring season for fishing activity at
these lakes. Because this survey was not designed to show the monthly variation of usage at
these lakes, this frequency distribution should not be interpreted as an indicator of monthly
fishing effort. The survey data on respondents' most recent trip are more appropriate for
estimating annual average use, expenditures and catch.

Respondents' expenditures on their most recent trip to Orange/Lochloosa Lakes are
detailed in Table 11. Local expenditures include expenses incurred in transit as well as at the
site. These are expenditures which are incurred directly for a trip to Orange and Lochloosa
Lakes and do not reflect other expenditures an angler might incur to go fishing (e.g. rods and
reels, boats, electronic equipment). For those cases where the trip extended for more than one
day, expenditures were allocated based on an average on-site time of 5.0 hours. This on-site
time was estimated from the reported time away from home and the expected travel time
(round-trip) to the site for the total sample. Most local trips are single day trips so the total
trip expenditures reported could be considered an estimate of daily expenditures. Non-local
expenditures for multiple day trips were also allocated using an average on-site time of 5.0
hours. Most non-local trips were for more than a single day so the total trip expenditures
reported should not be directly compared to the local trip expenditures. A comparable daily
expenditure for non-local respondents would be total trip expenditures divided by the average
number of days for the trip, or $101.77 ($353.14 / 3.47).

The results in Table 11 show some distinct differences in the trip expenditure patterns of
local and non-local respondents. Non-local trips to Orange and Lochloosa Lakes involved
significantly higher expenditures for guide services, bait and ice, and lodging than local trips.
In addition, gas and oil expenses for the respondent's vehicle were higher reflecting the
increased travel costs incurred by anglers outside the 100 mile residence zone. When adjusted
for the different trip lengths, local trip expenditures per person per day of $11.71 were
considerably lower than non-local expenditures per person per day of $28.11.

Respondents also reported their catch for all species whether kept or released on their
most recent fishing trip. Results for Orange and Lochloosa Lakes by residence zone are
reported in Table 12 and comparable catch success rates for all respondents who fished at
other lakes and rivers in the North-Central Florida region are reported in Appendix B.

Using catch per person per hour, local anglers generally were more successful than non-
locals. Non-local anglers tended to concentrate their efforts on large-mouth bass and the
average bass caught by non-local respondents was heavier than the average for local anglers.
Local anglers gave much greater effort to panfish and speckled perch harvest.

Since these catch data are respondents' own reporting of their catch and are not based
on actual creel analysis by trained fishery specialists, it is appropriate to consider the
reliability of these data. Previous creel data reports (Colle et al.) for Orange Lake show
success rates for all species that are higher than those reported in this study. This
difference may be due to the fact that the creel studies were done during seasonal peak
periods (spring and fall) and include a few exceptional years when catch rates for particular
species were very high. Since the success rates reported here are averages across all of 1985,
it is not surprising that the addition of "off-peak" periods in the sample reduces the success
rates. In comparison with other creel studies for freshwater lakes in the Central Florida area
as summarized in Seaman (1986), the success rates reported here are consistent with those
studies for all species. In addition, the success rates for other sites included in the survey










Table 11. Average per person and total party trip expenditures by mail respondents for
Orange and Lochloosa Lakes by residence zone.
Residence zone
Locally Non-local2
Expenditure Per Total Per Total
Person Party Person Party


Guide services $0.65 $1.52 $11.20 $40.54
Bait and ice 2.40 5.65 15.03 54.40
Tackle and equipment 1.28 3.01 5.13 18.56
Boat/motor rental 0.36 0.85 1.57 5.69
Gas/oil for boat 2.72 6.39 7.39 26.75
Gas/oil for vehicle 1.61 3.79 10.83 39.19
Launch fee/slip rental 0.33 0.78 1.08 3.91
Food and drink 2.31 5.43 13.48 48.79
Lodging 0.04 0.09 31.85 115.31

Total $11.71 $27.51 $97.55 $353.14


ILocal expenditures are based on an average on-site time of 5.0 hours for multiple
day trips and trip expenditures are based on an average of 1.6 days for multiple day
trips. Trip expenditures are a weighted average of all single and multiple day trips.
2Non-local expenditures are based on an average on-site time of 5.0 hours for multiple
day trips and trip expenditures are based on an average of 3.47 days on-site.
Trip expenditures are a weighted average of all single and multiple day trips.







Table 12. Catch success rates per person and per trip for mail respondents at Orange and Lochloosa Lakes by residence zone
and fish species1.

Residence zone

Local2 Non-local3
Per person per hour Total party per trip Per person per hour Total party per trip
Species Number Weight Number Weight Number Weight Number Weight


Large-mouth bass 0.35 0.72 2.77 6.38 0.17 0.52 9.74 29.87

Bream/bluegill/shellcracker
or warmouth perch 0.50 0.29 3.63 2.09 0.14 0.13 4.78 3.76

Speckled perch or crappie 0.38 0.32 3.07 2.82 0.08 0.08 3.37 3.76

Catfish/pike/pickerel 0.05 0.07 0.43 0.68 0.04 0.09 1.16 2.50


All species 1.28 1.43 10.01 12.16 0.43 0.81 19.43 40.77


ICatch statistics apply to all fish caught whether kept or released. Striped bass and other fish caught are included in total
catch but not reported separately.
2Local catch per person per hour is based on an average on-site time of 5.0 hours and 2.35 anglers per party. Total trip catch is a
weighted average of all single and multiple day trips.
3Non-local catch per person per hour is based on an average on-site time of 5.0 hours, 3.62 anglers per party, and 3.47 fishing days.
Total trip catch is a weighted average of all single and multiple day trips.










(Appendix B) are also consistent with these results and reflect common perceptions about the
reliability of particular fishing sites. While this study was not designed to measure harvest
success rates, the data are representative of the relative fishing quality of sites in the region.


INTERVIEW SURVEY DESIGN AND RESPONSE

In addition to the mail survey of licensees in the North-Central Florida region, an
interview survey of anglers at different launching points on Orange and Lochloosa Lakes was
also conducted. The purpose of this survey was not to estimate the user group population
since this was the objective of the mail survey. Rather the interview survey was used to
ascertain the significance of nonresponse biases that commonly plague mail surveys (Brog and
Meyburg, 1981) and to determine whether the mail survey respondents responded to the more
complicated questions in the mail survey in the same manner as respondents interacting with a
trained interviewer.

Since the distribution of the user group at Orange and Lochloosa Lakes was unknown
prior to the survey period and there was no information to design a stratified sample, a
simple random sampling interview procedure was used. Interviews were conducted at the fish
camps and launch ramps surrounding the lakes and interview sites were rotated regularly. The
interview schedule gave equal weight to weekday and weekend (holiday) activity. All
interviews were conducted at the end of the fishing day and involved only one "person-in-
charge" of a fishing party. Interviewers were instructed to conduct as many interviews as
possible during the time period. No follow-up procedures were used.

The interview survey resulted in 158 completed interviews of which 70.9 per cent held
resident licenses (64.6 per cent were from within the local residence zone). The monthly
distribution of interviews is presented in Table 13. Once again the seasonality of trips is
evident with a higher proportion of interviews conducted in the spring and fall periods.
However, the spring seasonal period is not as heavily represented in the interview sample as
in the mail sample (see Table 10).


Socioeconomic Profile of Interviewees

The socioeconomic profile of interview respondents reported in Table 14 reveals many
similar characteristics with the mail survey respondents (see Table 6) but a few clear
differences. Interview respondents were slightly older and more often male than the mail
respondents but both groups were predominantly white. The educational background of
interview respondents was also similar but interview respondents were more often retired or
not employed. The average household size of both groups were also similar. A major
difference between the two sample groups was the average income levels of the respondents
and their households. The interview group (both local and non-local respondents) had a
higher average annual income and the household income distribution was more skewed to the
upper income levels than in the mail survey.









Table 13. Monthly number and frequency distribution of interviews conducted at
Orange and Lochloosa Lakes by residence zones
Residence zone
Month Local Non-local

# % # %

January 5 4.9 10 17.9
February 4 3.9 6 10.7
March 17 16.7 7 12.5
April 9 8.8 5 8.9
May 2 2.0 5 8.9
June 4 3.9 2 3.6
July 6 5.9 2 3.6
August 7 6.9 0 0.0
September 12 11.8 2 3.6
October 7 6.9 5 8.9
November 12 11.8 7 12.5
December 17 16.7 5 8.9

Total 102 100.0 56 100.0


The implications of these differences are not apparent, however. Either the interview
schedule tended to identify more upper income respondents because the sample gave equal
weight to fish camps and public ramps on the lakes or the mail survey nonrespondents were
more heavily concentrated in the upper income groups. Unfortunately, the data cannot be
used to determine which of these alternatives is correct but this difference should be
considered in evaluating other results in this report.

In terms of fishing preferences, the data in Table 15 indicate a greater preference for
large-mouth bass as the target specie with non-local respondents once again more likely to
prefer bass fishing. Compared to the mail survey group (see Table 7), the interview group
tended to have more overall fishing experience but the years of experience in North-Central
Florida were very similar. Non-local respondents also had less experience in the region than
locals.









Table 14. Socioeconomic profile of interview respondents by
fishing license type.


residence zone and


Residence zone License type
Local Non-local Resident Non-resident
Age 45.4 (102)* 50.4 (56)* 45.5 (112)* 51.2 (46)*


Female
Male
Race
White
Black
Other


4.2% (4)
95.8% (92)

92.2% (94)
7.8% (8)
0.0% (0)


Education
No school
Grades 1-8
Grades 9-12
Completed high school
Some college/voc.
Completed 2 year
college or voc. program
Completed 4 year
college degree
Graduate or professional
degree

Employment
Self-employed
Employed
Retired
Not employed
Income
Hourly wage
Annual salary
Household Income
less than $10,000
$10,000 $14,999
$15,000 $19,999
$20,000 $24,999
$25,000 $29,999
$30,000 $34,999
$35,000 $39,999
$40,000 $44,999
$45,000 $49,999
$50,000 or more
Household size


2.0%
6.9%
15.7%
22.5%
26.5%


3.8% (2)
96.2% (50)

100.0% (56)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)


(2)
(7)
(16)
(23)
(27)


7.8% (8)

9.8% (10)

8.8% (9)


13.7%
52.0%
24.5%
9.8%


(14)
(53)
(25)
(10)


$ 9.79 (24)
$32,093 (41)


8.9%
6.9%
9.9%
13.9%
10.9%
8.9%
9.9%
8.9%
7.9%
13.9%


(9)
(7)
(10)
(14)
(11)
(9)
(10)
(9)
(8)
(14)


2.8 (102)


0.0%
10.7%
17.9%
28.6%
14.3%


(0)
(6)
(10)
(16)
(8)


10.7% (6)

8.9% (5)

8.9% (5)


17.9%
41.1%
35.7%
5.4%


3.8% (4)
96.2% (102)


92.9%
7.1%
0.0%


1.8%
6.3%
15.2%
23.2%
25.9%


(104)
(8)
(0)


(2)
(7)
(17)
(26)
(29)


8.9% (10)

8.9% (10)

9.8% (11)


(10)
(23)
(20)
(3)


$ 11.29 (17)
$45,999 (15)


5.5%
7.3%
9.1%
9.9%
10.9%
7.3%
18.2%
1.8%
7.3%
23.6%


(3)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(4)
(10)
(1)
(4)
(13)


2.5 (56)


16.1%
53.6%
23.3%
8.0%


(18)
(60)
(25)
(9)


$10.37 (30)
$34,322 (46)


7.2%
6.3%
9.9%
15.3%
9.0%
9.0%
10.8%
9.0%
8.1%
15.3%


(8)
(7)
(11)
(17)
(10)
(10)
(12)
(10)
(9)
(17)


4.8% (2)
95.2% (40)

100.0% (46)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)


0.0%
13.0%
19.6%
28.3%
13.0%


(0)
(6)
(9)
(13)
(6)


8.7% (4)

10.9% (7)

6.5% (3)


13.0% (6)
34.8% (16)
43.5% (20)
8.7% (4)

$10.55 (11)
$42,700 (10)


8.9%
8.9%
8.9%
4.4%
15.6%
6.7%
17.8%
0.0%
6.7%
22.2%


2.8 (112)


(4)
(4)
(4)
(2)
(7)
(3)
(8)
(0)
(3)
(10)


2.5 (46)


*Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of respondents
Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.


in each category.










Table 15. Fishing preferences and years of experience for interview respondents by
residence zone and fishing license type.
Residence zone License type
Local Non-local Resident Non-resident

Primary target specie
Bass 62.7% (64)* 71.4% (40)* 62.6% (62)* 69.6% (39)*
Panfish 22.5% (23) 14.3% (8) 23.2% (23) 16.1% (9)
Both 14.7% (15) 14.3% (8) 14.1% (14) 14.3% (8)

Years of fishing
experience
Mean 32.3 (102) 36.1 (56) 32.4 (112) 36.5 (46)
Median 30.0 (102) 36.0 (56) 30.0 (112) 36.0 (46)
Mode 30.0 (102) 50.0 (56) 30.0 (112) 50.0 (46)

Years of fishing
experience in north
central Florida
Mean 16.9 (102) 9.4 (56) 16.2 (112) 9.5 (46)
Median 14.0 (102) 7.0 (56) 13.0 (112) 7.0 (46)
Mode 5.0 (102) 1.0 (56) 5.0 (112) 1.0 (46)


*Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of respondents
Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.


in each category.


Triv Activity. Expenditures and Catch Rates


The distribution of interview respondents' fishing trips to various sites in the North-
Central Florida region during the most recent four month period reported in Table 16 shows a
dramatic difference with the mail survey trip distribution reported previously in Table 8. The
interview respondents' trip distribution was much more concentrated on Orange/Lochloosa
Lakes with an average local interview respondent making 12.8 trips to Orange/Lochloosa Lakes
during any 4 month period as compared to an average mail respondents 1.6 trips. Similarly,
the average non-local interview respondent made 7.4 trips to the lakes during any 4 month
period; this is considerably higher than the average non-local mail respondents' 0.40 trips.
This disparity reflects a common problem in recreational site interview research, namely that
frequent users have a higher probability of being sampled in a random sample design and thus
the overall results are skewed toward the characteristics of frequent users. This problem is
the reason for the mail survey design used in this project.

Interview respondents' expenditures reported in Table 17 were similar to the expenditures
reported in the mail survey (see Table 11). Total local respondent expenditures of $13.26 per
person and $26.78 per fishing party trip were very similar to the mail survey results for local
anglers of $11.71 and $27.51, respectively. The major difference between the mail and
interview respondents' expenditures occurs in the non-local results. Non-local interviewees
reported total expenditures per person of $58.00 and $120.05 per party trip compared to non-
local mail respondents' expenditures of $97.55 per person and $353.14 per party trip. Several
factors may explain this difference. First, non-local interviewees had smaller fishing parties
with an average of 2.07 anglers per party compared to non-local mail parties with 3.62
anglers. Second, non-local interviewees also spent fewer days at Orange/Lochloosa Lakes per









trip so that total trip expenditures are based on a shorter time on-site. Finally, interview
respondents may have understated total trip costs since they were intercepted prior to the
completion of their trips. Even though the respondents were asked in the interview to base
their expenditure estimates on the actual and remaining parts of their trip, these responses
may not be as accurate as those of mail respondents who were fully aware of the completed
trip expenditures.

The influence of smaller fishing party and fewer days at Orange/Lochloosa Lakes for
interview respondents are also apparent in the catch success rates reported in Table 18. On
average, both local and non-local interviewees reported lower average catch success rates than
mail respondents (see Table 12). Part of the difference between the mail and interview total
party success rates is due to the smaller party size and fewer days on-site. The catch per
person per hour rates adjust for these differences, however, and still reflect less success for
interview respondents. One explanation for these differences (which apply to all species) may
be the temporal distribution of interviews and mail responses. Given that interviews were
conducted continuously during the year and not clustered at peak seasons, the per person
success rates may reflect more "off-peak" fishing effort and thus lower average results.
Another factor may be that despite the fact that interview respondents made a significantly
larger number of fishing trips to Orange/Lochloosa Lakes, these frequent users may not fish
as intensively as anglers who fish at the site less frequently.









Table 16. Distribution of interview respondents' fishing trips to North-Central Florida
sites during most recent four month period by residence zone and license type.
Residence zone License type
Site Local Non-local Resident Non-resident

N % N % N % N %


Orange/Lochloosa Lakes
Rodman Reservoir
Newnans Lake
Santa Fe Lake
Lake George
Crescent Lake
Lake Kerr
Santa Fe River
St. Johns River
north of Palatka
St. Johns River
south of Palatka
Suwannee River south
of Branford
Atlantic Ocean
Gulf of Mexico
Oklawaha River
Ocala National Forest
lakes and ponds
Other
Total trips


1305
82
145
51
21
4
11
47


58.2
3.7
6.5
2.3
0.9
0.2
0.5
2.1


63 2.8

45 2.0


63
50
62
68

18
207
2242


85.7
2.9
0.4
0.4
0.2
1.4
0.4
0.0


0 0.0

9 1.9


2.8
2.2
2.8
3.0

0.8
9.2
100.0


1.7
0.4
100.0


1296
85
145
53
22
8
12
47


58.7
3.8
6.6
2.4
1.0
0.4
0.5
2.1


63 2.9

51 2.3


22
144
2209


2.9
3.0
2.9
3.1

1.0
6.5
100.0


82.0
1.7
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.2
0.0


0 0.0

3 0.6


0.0
0.0
0.2
1.0

0.8
12.6
100.0









Table 17. Average per person and total party trip expenditures by interview respondents
for Orange and Lochloosa Lakes by residence zone.
Residence zone
Local Non-local1
Per Total Per Total
Expenditure Person Party Person Party


Guide services $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 4.27 $ 8.83
Bait and ice 2.61 5.28 7.20 14.91
Tackle and equipment 0.80 1.62 1.85 3.83
Boat/motor rental 0.49 1.00 3.13 6.48
Gas/oil for boat 2.36 4.76 3.69 7.63
Gas/oil for vehicle 2.15 4.34 11.63 24.08
Launch fee/slip rental 0.31 0.63 0.54 1.12
Food and drink 1.93 3.89 7.97 16.49
Lodging 2.60 5.25 17.72 36.68
Total $13.26 $26.78 $58.00 $120.05


INon-local expenditures are based on an average on-site time of 5.0 hours for multiple
day trips and trip expenditures are based on an average of 1.83 days on-site. Trip
expenditures are a weighted average of all single and multiple day trips.








Table 18. Catch success rates per person and per trip for interview respondents at Orange and Lochloosa Lakes
by residence zone and fish species1.

Residence zone

Local2 Non-local3
Per person Total party Per person Total party
per hour per trip per hour per trip

Species Number Weight Number Weight Number Weight Number Weight

Large-mouth bass 0.16 0.28 1.32 2.22 0.09 0.24 1.67 3.85

Bream/bluegill/shellcracker
or warmouth perch 0.14 0.10 1.08 0.75 0.04 0.02 0.62 0.31

Speckled perch or crappie 0.10 0.07 1.30 1.04 0.10 0.12 1.81 1.88

Catfish/pike/pickerel 0.03 0.07 0.30 0.73 0.06 0.14 0.85 1.92


All species 0.43 0.53 4.01 4.73 0.29 0.53 5.32 8.32


1Catch statistics apply to all fish caught whether kept or released. Striped bass and other fish caught are included
in total catch but not reported separately.
2Local catch per person per hour is based on an average on-site time of 5.0 hours and 2.02 anglers per party. Total
trip catch is a weighted average of all single and multiple day trips.
3Non-local catch per person per hour is based on an average on-site time of 5.0 hours, 2.07 anglers per party, and
1.83 fishing days. Total trip catch is a weighted average of all single and multiple day trips










SITE CHOICE DETERMINANTS, AQUATIC WEED
PERCEPTIONS AND VALUATION

Site Choice Determinants and Aquatic Weed Preferences

Despite the popularity of freshwater sportfishing and the magnitude of expenditures by
anglers on sportfishing trips, there is relatively little known about the determinants of site
choice by anglers and the effects of aquatic weed infestations on site choice. To provide
information about these issues for anglers using North-Central Florida lakes and rivers, a
series of attitude and opinion questions were asked in both the mail and interview surveys.
The results of the first set of these questions related to the importance of specific site
characteristics in the site choice decision for local and non-local respondents are reported in
Table 19. Mail and interview responses are combined together because the responses were so
similar. In addition to the percent breakdown for each response item, the statistical entropy
measure is reported. The entropy statistic is a measure of the degree of consensus among
respondents. A value near zero indicates almost complete consensus whereas a value near one
indicates no consensus at all. Because the entropy statistic is a nonlinear function, results
tend to cluster closer to one.

The results in Table 19 suggest considerable differences of opinion between respondents
about the importance of site characteristics in their site choice decision. Although traditional
site quality measures such as the number of public boat ramps, the size of the lake, water
depth, and the availability of other recreation facilities were at least somewhat important to
both local and non-local respondents, these were not very important factors for most
respondents. Not surprisingly non-local respondents rated the availability of fish camps as
more important than local respondents, but the other response categories were very similar for
both respondent groups. The response item with the highest level of consensus for both
respondent groups was that relating to catch success rates. A large majority in both groups
rated the "chance of catching many eating-size fish" as an important determinant of their site
choice decision. The "chance of catching trophy-size fish" was less important to local anglers
but it was clearly an important factor for non-local respondents. A somewhat surprising
result was the high level of importance attached to the "beauty of the lake's natural setting."
A majority of local and non-local respondents cited this as an important factor in site choice
indicating that sportfishing trips serve other purposes than just fish harvesting. Finally, the
two most frequently cited determinants of site choice, distance and travel time to the site,
were rated as at least somewhat important by a majority of respondents although non-local
anglers were less in agreement.

A second section of attitude and opinion questions dealt with aquatic weed conditions
and their influence on sportfishing. These results are displayed in Table 20. While the
opinions about aquatic weeds indicated more agreement among respondents, there was also
considerable diversity of opinion. Local respondents, who are more familiar with regional
resources, were more inclined to agree that aquatic weeds are a serious problem on Florida
lakes than non-local respondents although a majority of both groups agree that aquatic weeds
are a serious problem. In fact, the highest degree of agreement among all respondents
occurred over the issue of whether "aquatic weed control is a necessary part of fish
management for Florida lakes." A large majority of both local and non-local respondents
agreed with this statement suggesting that most anglers have some understanding of the link
between aquatic weed control and fishing success.

The diversity of opinion shows up most clearly in the responses to statements about
desirable levels of hyacinth and hydrilla. While a majority of anglers prefer fishing on lakes








Table 19. Combined mail and interview respondents' importance ratings of lake characteristics in fishing site choice decisions
by residence zone.

Residence zone
Local ratings1 Non-local ratings1
1 2 3 4 Entropy2 1 2 3 4 Entropy2


% %

Number of public
boat ramps 33.0 36.1 21.0 9.9 .93 29.9 39.5 20.6 10.0 .93

Number of fish camps 7.1 22.4 38.1 32.3 .91 13.9 36.9 27.1 22.1 .96

Size of the lake 15.8 43.6 27.9 12.7 .92 20.1 41.9 26.2 11.8 .93

Water depth 32.0 45.1 17.9 5.0 .85 29.4 46.3 17.1 7.2 .87

Travel time to the lake 30.0 43.4 17.9 8.7 .90 31.7 38.9 18.9 10.6 .93

Distance from home to
the lake 25.0 46.7 20.0 8.4 .89 22.3 37.9 21.8 18.1 .97

Chance of catching many
eating-size fish 56.7 31.5 9.8 2.0 .72 54.5 25.9 12.6 7.0 .81

Chance of catching trophy-
size fish 24.0 30.0 27.4 18.7 .99 42.4 25.2 18.7 13.7 .94

Beauty of the lake's
natural setting 47.7 38.8 9.4 4.1 .78 36.8 44.8 12.8 5.6 .83

Recreation facilities 15.2 25.7 31.7 27.4 .98 17.9 25.7 29.7 26.7 .99


1The importance ratings are 1 very important, 2 somewhat important, 3 not very important, 4 not important at all.
2The entropy statistic is a measure of the degree of consensus among respondents. A value near 0 indicates almost complete
consensus and a value near 1 indicates no consensus at all.







Table 20. Combined mail and interview respondents' opinions about various aquatic weed conditions by residence zone.


Residence zone
Local opinions1 Non-local opinions1
Statement A B C D Entropy A B C D Entropy


Aquatic weeds are a serious
problem on Florida lakes

I like to fish on lakes
that have large patches
of hyacinths around
most of the lake

I like to fish on lakes
that have only small
patches of hyacinths
along the shore

I like to fish on lakes
that have lots of hydrilla

I like to fish on lakes
that don't have any
hydrilla at all

Aquatic weed control is
a necessary part of
fish management for
Florida lakes


53.7


9.0 23.8


1.4 .72


2.2 .83


14.0 .87


4.5 .79


36.9 .81


4.0 .78


2.0 10.3


27.4


34.6


2.3 17.4


21.8


29.2


3.9 2.1 .64


24.2


40.7


13.3 .95


5.0 0.9 .65


1The opinion responses for each statement are A strongly agree, B agree, C disagree, D- strongly disagree.


I ----
-










with low levels of both hyacinth and hydrilla, some like to fish with abundant levels of these
aquatic weeds. Respondents were generally less tolerant of hydrilla than hyacinth and most
respondents preferred some patches of hyacinth along the shore. For most weed level opinion
issues, local respondents expressed more consensus than nonlocal respondents suggesting again
that local anglers had greater familiarity with weed infestation problems and more clearly
defined preferences.

Aquatic Weed Perceptions and Preferences for Oranne/Lochloosa Lakes

A set of questions were also developed to determine angler opinions about aquatic weed
conditions at Orange/Lochloosa Lakes and their preferences for different levels of weed
control. These questions were based on a set of six photographs showing three different
levels of infestation by hyacinth and hydrilla. The photographs were accompanied by verbal
descriptions of these levels of infestation for each aquatic weed in order to minimize any
problems of interpretation from the photographs alone. The photos and text portrayed weed
conditions ranging from very small patches of hyacinth or hydrilla (labelled level "A") to
almost complete coverage of the lake surface by either aquatic weed (labelled level "C"). The
intermediate level "B" described conditions in which weed coverage could be problematic at
certain times of the year but which, on balance, would permit access and use. The complete
descriptions are provided in the questionnaire form reproduced in Appendix A.

The results for these questions for hyacinth conditions at Orange/Lochloosa Lakes in
both the mail and interview surveys are reported in Table 21. The first question indicates
that the majority of respondents in the mail survey characterized hyacinth conditions as level
B whereas the majority of respondents in the interview survey described them as level A.
This difference occurs in both local and nonlocal evaluations. Part of this difference may be
due to different interpretations of the descriptive information provided to respondents in the
two survey formats. Interview respondents could ask questions to clarify their interpretations
whereas mail respondents were limited to the given descriptions and their own prior
experience with aquatic weeds. Another factor that may explain this difference is the
different time periods for the interview responses compared to the mail responses. Since
aquatic weed conditions can change during the year this timing element is important.
Hyacinth at Orange/Lochloosa Lakes during most of 1985 were very low, however, there were
some areas of heavy concentration in the early part of 1985 and hyacinth levels had been
much higher in previous years. Some mail respondents may have based their response on this
past experience instead of focusing on just the "most recent" trip as stated in the question.

In response to the question about what level of hyacinth infestation would cause
respondents to go to another site instead of fishing at Orange/Lochloosa, there was a high
level of agreement in both the mail and interview surveys and for both local and nonlocal
respondents that level C was their threshold. This suggests that a large majority of
respondents would tolerate level B conditions before they switch to an alternative site. Not
surprisingly, the majority of respondents indicated that the hyacinth conditions that they had
observed at the substitute site they would go to instead of fishing at Orange/Lochloosa Lakes
were closest to level A. There was much less agreement in the nonlocal evaluations of
alternative sites due to limited information about substitute sites and hyacinth conditions in
the region.

A comparable set of responses to questions about hydrilla conditions at Orange/Lochloosa
Lakes is reported in Table 22. For this aquatic weed, there was more agreement about the
existing level of hydrilla infestation. The majority of respondents characterized hydrilla





Table 21. Mail and interview respondents' evaluations of hyacinth conditions at Orange and Lochloosa Lakes and hyacinth
conditions at substitute sites by residence zone.

Residence zone
Local evaluationsI Non-local evaluations1
Statement A B C D Entropy A B C D Entropy

MAIL SURVEY
% %
Hyacinth conditions
observed on most
recent trip 31.0 64.6 4.5 NA .71 36.2 58.2 5.6 NA .77

Hyacinth conditions that
would cause respondent
to go to another site 1.3 17.5 80.7 0.5 .41 1.6 16.4 81.0 1.0 .42

Hyacinth conditions
observed at
substitute site 64.0 23.7 0.5 11.7 .65 42.6 21.1 2.7 33.6 .83

INTERVIEW SURVEY
Hyacinth conditions
observed on most
recent trip 61.8 38.2 0.0 NA .61 67.9 32.1 0.0 NA .57

Hyacinth conditions
that would cause
respondent to go
to another site 0.0 7.8 91.2 1.0 .24 1.8 8.9 89.3 0.0 .28

Hyacinth conditions
observed at
substitute site 74.5 18.6 0.0 6.9 .65 35.7 17.9 1.8 44.6 .80



1The hyacinth condition evaluations are based on verbal and pictoral descriptions of different levels of hyacinth infestation. Briefly, A is a low
level with only small patches along the shoreline, B is more extensive coverage with the possibility of large floating islands of hyacinths, and C is
nearly complete coverage of the lake surface. Response D indicates the percent of total respondents who did not know about substitute sites in
the region or were not aware of hyacinth conditions at the substitute site. The complete descriptions are available in the questionnaire form
reproduced in Appendix A.










conditions as level B in both surveys although non-local respondents tended more toward level
A. While seasonality is again an issue in determining hydrilla conditions, the level of
infestation was generally increasing during most of 1985 with the lowest levels occurring during
the winter/spring period. Differences in the time of observation for mail and interview
respondents and the possibility of differing interpretations of the hydrilla condition
information may also account for the differences in the mail and interview responses.

There were also high levels of agreement in both surveys that hydrilla conditions
comparable to level C would cause anglers to go to a substitute site. The responses suggest
more anglers would switch with hydrilla at level B than with hyacinths at level B. This
pattern of responses re-enforces the earlier result in Table 20 that the majority of anglers are
more tolerant of hyacinth than hydrilla infestation. Again most respondents expected hydrilla
conditions comparable to level A at their alternative site choice.

Aquatic Weed Control Valuation

In addition to user preferences for different levels of aquatic weed control, another
important management concern is the economic value of weed control to users. To determine
the economic value of weed control to sportanglers at Orange/Lochloosa Lakes, respondents
were asked a set of questions about their "willingness to pay" for different levels of control.
The willingness to pay measure is a widely accepted money measure of the individual benefits
from a public facility or service. This valuation measure is used in courts of law to measure
damages to publicly owned natural resources and is recommended for benefit-cost analysis of
federal water resource projects by the U.S. Water Resources Council. For a complete
discussion of the conceptual basis for the willingness to pay measure of individual benefits see
the Council's Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related
Land Resources Implementation Studies (1983).

Since there currently exists no specific way to measure the value of these controls to
individual anglers, these willingness to pay questions used a hypothetical "aquatic weed stamp"
that anglers would be required to purchase to fish at Orange/Lochloosa Lakes. By varying the
dollar amount that respondents might be asked to pay for such a stamp, a maximum annual
willingness to pay for different levels of weed control can be determined. This method is
referred to as "contingent valuation" using an iterative bidding format. Particular aspects of
the method are described in greater detail in Milon and Johns (1982). The specific wording of
the valuation questions is available in the survey instrument reproduced in Appendix A.

Results from these valuation questions are reported in Table 23 for both mail and
interview respondents. The upper part of the table shows the percent of respondents who
would be willing to pay to maintain a level of weed control equivalent to level B (see prior
section for explanation) for both hyacinth and hydrilla. The dollar amounts listed are the
actual dollar amounts respondents were asked to pay and the percent indicates the portion of
the total number asked to pay that dollar amount who answered "YES." As expected the
percent answering in the affirmative declines as the dollar value increases. The results of the
iterative bidding procedure lead to the average maximum willingness to pay values listed in the
middle row of the table.

In general, non-local respondents had a slightly higher willingness to pay for level B
controls than local respondents but the differences between the mail and interview results are
most significant. Interview respondents' willingness to pay was approximately twice that of
mail respondents. While some of this difference may be due to the greater frequency of trips
and higher income levels of interview respondents, the magnitude indicates some important







Table 22. Mail and interview respondents' evaluations of hydrilla conditions at Orange and Lochloosa Lakes and hydrilla
conditions at substitute sites by residence zone.


Residence zone
Local evaluations1 Non-local evaluations1
Statement A B C D Entropy A B C D Entropy

MAIL SURVEY
% %
Hydrilla conditions
observed on most
recent trip 26.2 59.8 14.0 NA .86 38.2 55.3 6.6 NA .80

Hydrilla conditions that
would cause respondent
to go to another site 2.6 31.0 653 1.1 57 3.6 25.9 66.9 3.6 .62

Hydrilla conditions
observed at
substitute site 55.9 27.7 4.9 11.5 .78 40.4 20.9 2.0 36.7 .83

INTERVIEW SURVEY
Hydrilla conditions
observed on most
recent trip 37.3 56.9 5.9 NA .78 48.2 50.0 1.8 NA .70

Hydrilla conditions
that would cause
respondent to go
to another site 1.0 13.7 83.3 2.0 .40 0.0 16.1 82.1 1.8 38

Hydrilla conditions
observed at
substitute site 66.7 25.5 1.0 6.9 .61 44.6 8.9 1.8 44.6 .73


IThe hydrilla condition evaluations are based on verbal and pictoral descriptions of different levels of hydrilla infestation. Briefly, A is a low level
with no hydrilla visible at the surface, B is more extensive coverage with some chance of large, thick surface mats during the year, C is almost
complete surface coverage throughout the year. Response D indicates the percent of total respondents who did not know about substitute sites in the
region or were not aware of hydrilla conditions at the substitute site. The complete descriptions are available in the questionnaire form reproduced in
Appendix A.








Table 23. Mail and interview respondents' willingness to pay for different levels of aquatic weed control
at Orange and Lochloosa Lakes by residence zone.



Control valuation Mail survey Interview survey
level and amount Local Non-local Local Non-local
(N = 378) (N = 305) (N = 102) (N = 56)

Willing to pay to maintain
level "B" if personal
costs were:

$10 35.9% (103)* 44.6% (65)* 65.5% (29)* 90.0% (10)*
$20 30.3% (99) 28.2% (71) 58.3% (24) 38.9% (18)
$30 10.8% (83) 18.3% (82) 50.0% (24) 50.0% (14)
$40 8.6% (93) 14.9% (87) 24.0% (25) 35.7% (14)

Maximum amount average
respondent would be
willing to pay to
maintain level "B" $ 8.92 $10.83 $20.89 $21.13

Additional amount average
respondent would be
willing to pay to
maintain level "A" $4.56 $ 5.28 $ 5.59 $ 4.33


*Number(s) in parentheses indicate the total number of respondents in each dollar category. The percent for each category indicates
the percent of the total number of respondents in that dollar category who answered "YES", they would be willing to pay that
dollar amount.









differences in the mail format of the contingent valuation as compared to the interview
format. Part of the difference may be due to interviewer bias; subtle hints or expressions
that may lead interviewees to alter their answers in response to the interviewer. Because the
budget for this project did not allow for more than one interviewer, the extent of this bias
cannot be determined statistically. Another factor that may account for the difference is the
tendency of interview respondents to engage in "yeah-saying" to please the interviewer. This
problem has been cited in other contingent value studies but it also is difficult to test
statistically. A final factor that should not be overlooked is the effect that immediate
contact with a respondent may have on their perception of how important that activity is to
them as compared to a mail survey that may be completed weeks or months after the activity
is completed. Given the lack of research on these issues, a clear source for the differences
in the results of the two formats cannot be assessed at this time.

Since aquatic weed controls could also maintain conditions equivalent to a level A,
respondents were asked to indicate their incremental willingness to pay for this higher level
of control. The results are listed in the bottom row of Table 23. The lower willingness to
pay to increase weed control from level B to A is consistent with the earlier results in Tables
20-22 that respondents would tolerate level B conditions at Orange/Lochloosa Lakes and they
do not have strong preferences for very low levels of either hyacinth or hydrilla. These
average values for level A controls are very similar suggesting that some of the differences in
the results for the two formats discussed above may be influenced more by current perceptions
of existing weed conditions than by interviewer induced biases.

Further evidence on the effect of increasing weed control levels to A conditions is given
in the respondents' expected change in their average annual number of fishing trips to
Orange/Lochloosa Lakes reported in Table 24. The majority of respondents in both surveys
indicated that level A conditions would have only a minor influence on their total number of
trips. Given that local respondents live in closer proximity to the lakes than non-locals, it is
not surprising that local anglers might increase their trips by more than non-locals and this
result occurs in both the mail and interview survey. Similarly, given the greater number of
trips already taken by interview respondents, it follows that the interview group would be less
likely to change their visitation patterns. Thus, while there is clearly an economic value to
an incremental level of aquatic weed control above level B, the marginal benefits as expressed
through either direct willingness to pay or expected changes in trip frequency are declining.


Table 24. Mail and interview respondents' expected changed in average annual number of
fishing trips to Orange and Lochloosa Lakes if aquatic weed conditions would
be maintained at level "A" year-round.


Expected increase Mail survey Interview survey
in annual number Local Non-local Local Non-local
of trips (N = 378) (N = 305) (N = 102) (N = 56)
------%------ - - -%-------
More than 10 trips 16.4 3.7 25.5 8.9
6 10 trips 12.9 5.0 8.8 0.0
1 5 trips 26.1 27.7 3.9 12.5
No change 44.6 63.7 61.8 78.6









GROSS EXPENDITURES AND TOTAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS
OF AQUATIC WEED CONTROL

As discussed in the Introduction, two of the objectives of this project were to estimate
the economic impact of recreational fishing at Orange/Lochloosa Lakes on the regional
economy and to estimate the total economic valuation of different levels of aquatic weed
control at these lakes. Based on the information presented in the preceding tables, these
objectives can now be met.

Gross Expenditures for Syortfishinu at Oranae/Lochloosa Lakes

Table 25 presents the calculations necessary to estimate gross expenditures associated
with sportfishing at Orange/Lochloosa Lakes using the sampling design and sample results from
the surveys. The population is defined as the total number of resident and non-resident
licensees in 1984-85 as identified in Table 1. Total annual trips for each licensee group are
determined using the average number of trips to Orange/Lochloosa during any four month
period as reported in the mail survey (Table 8) and then multiplying by three. The trip
averages are based on the residence zone grouping results because this breakdown is more
consistent with other recreation site valuation studies than the license grouping. The
resulting total annual trips estimates should be considered lower bounds on the actual number
of trips due to the problems of incomplete population identification discussed in the Mail
Survey Design section.

Total expenditures for each population group are determined by multiplying total trips by
average trip expenditures per person (licensee) from Table 11. Expenditures per person are
used in this calculation to account for the fact that more than one licensee may participate in
a single trip as described in this survey. The resulting total gross expenditure estimate of
$5,606,697 is a measure of the economic activity directly associated with Orange/Lochloosa
Lakes. The non-local expenditures of $3,178,277 are a direct injection of spending into the
regional economy due to these lakes. These measures of gross expenditure should not be
interpreted as measures of the economic benefits of Orange/Lochloosa Lakes or as measures of
the economic benefits of aquatic weed control. Because these expenditures for transportation,
food, lodging, etc. are not specifically for site use, they cannot be used as direct estimates of
willingness to pay. These expenditures might occur if Orange/ Lochloosa Lakes were not
usable and anglers switched to alternative sites in the region.

While these gross expenditures are not a direct measure of willingness to pay and
economic benefits, they do represent an important contribution to the local and regional
economy. The local expenditures of $2,428,420 might be spent in other parts of region if they
were not spent near Orange/Lochloosa Lakes. More importantly, the non-local expenditures of
$3,178,277 represent a flow of money to the region that may not occur if Orange/Lochloosa
Lakes were not available for recreational fishing. This flow of new money causes a
'multiplier' effect on the local economy that leads to more economic activity and employment
than would occur in the absence of this spending.

For example, in related work on marine recreational expenditures, Milon et al. (1982)
estimated the expenditure multiplier associated with sport fishing related expenditures in
Florida to be 2.63. This number means that for each $1 of expenditures by non-local anglers
in the region an additional $1.63 of expenditures are created. While this number is an upper
bound for a region as small as the North-Central Florida area, this multiplier can still be used
to illustrate the economic impact of Orange/Lochloosa Lakes on the region. The non-local
expenditures of $3,178,277 generate a multiplier effect equal to $8,358,868 which when












Table 25. Calculation of total gross expenditures at Orange and Lochoosa Lakes by residence zone for 1985.

Local gross expenditure


Total resident licenses in population
x Average annual # of trips


48,228
4.30


Total local trips to Orange and Lochloosa lakes
x Average trip expenditures per resident license


207,380
$11.71


Total local expenditures



Non-local gross expenditures


Total non-resident licenses in population
x Average annual # of trips


$2,428,420


27,847
1.17


Total non-local trips to Orange and Lochloosa lakes
x Average trip expenditures per non-resident license


32,581
$97.55


Total non-local expenditures



TOTAL GROSS EXPENDITURES


3,.178,277



$5,606,697












Table 26. Calculation of total annual willingness to pay for alternative levels of aquatic weed control at
Orange and Lochlooea Lakes by residence sone for 1985.

Willingness to pay for level "B"


Local
Total resident licenses in population
x Percent of sample using Orange and Lochloosa lakes
Total resident users
x Average resident willingness to pay for level "B"


48,228
.61


29,419
$8.92


$262,417


Non-local


Total non-resident licenses in population
x Percent of sample using Orange and Lochloosa lakes
Total non-resident users
x Average non-resident willingness to pay for level "B"




TOTAL WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR LEVEL "B"


27,847
.41


11,417
$10.83


0123.646


Incremental willinrnees to pay for level "A"


Local


Total resident users
x Average resident willingness to pay for level "A"


29,419
14.56


$134,151


Non-local


Total non-resident user
x Average non-resident willingness to pay for level "A"


11,417
$5.28


t 60.282


TOTAL INCREMENTAL WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR LEVEL "A"


tsae,9ow


194.438









combined with the local expenditures (no multiplier effect occurs from local expenditures)
leads to a total economic impact due to Orange and Lochloosa Lakes equal to $10,787,289.
This is a measure of the lakes' contribution to the regional economy.

Economic Benefits of Aquatic Weed Control at Orange/Lochloosa Lakes

A similar procedure can be used to extrapolate the sample results to estimate the total
economic value of different levels of aquatic weed control at Orange/Lochloosa Lakes. The
appropriate calculations are reported in Table 26. Based again on the number of licensees
reported in Table 1, the population using Orange/Lochloosa Lakes can be estimated from the
sample results. The total for each residence zone group is then multiplied by the average
annual willingness to pay amount for different levels of aquatic weed control as reported in
Table 23. The resulting average willingness to pay amounts for each group are then summed
to determine the total for each level of weed control. For example, the total willingness to
pay for level B controls of $386,063 is a measure of the economic value to licensed resident
and non-resident anglers in the region. A benefit-cost analysis of maintaining level B
conditions at Orange/Lochloosa Lakes should use this amount as a measure of the economic
benefits to anglers.

The calculations for level A controls are the same except for the difference in average
willingness to pay for the higher level of control. The total willingness to pay estimate of
$194,433 is a measure of the incremental benefits from improving weed conditions from level B
to A. A benefit-cost analysis of such an incremental improvement should use this benefit
estimate. If the benefit-cost analysis was evaluating the total benefits of changing weed
conditions from level C to level A, the appropriate benefit measure would be the sum of the
total willingness to pay for each level of weed control or $580,496.


SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

This study examined the recreational fishing usage of rivers and lakes in North-Central
Florida, identified sport anglers' preferences for fishing site characteristics and aquatic weed
conditions, estimated the economic user benefits of alternative levels of aquatic weed control
for Orange and Lochloosa Lakes, and determined the gross expenditures and total economic
activity associated with sport fishing at Orange and Lochloosa Lakes. The major findings of
this study can be summarized as follows:

The majority of resident and non-resident anglers participating in the mail and
interview surveys were middle aged males with at least a high school education who
were employed or self-employed with annual income greater than $25,000; bass were
the specie most often targeted.

Orange and Lochloosa Lakes accounted for a large share of total resident and
non-resident fishing trips during 1985, but other sites such as Rodman Reservoir and
the St. Johns River were equally or more popular.

Fishing success reported by respondents indicated that success rates at Orange
and Lochloosa Lakes were among the highest for any of the rivers and lakes
included in the survey; these success rates were generally consistent with other
published studies on success rates from creel surveys.


Site characteristics such as the chance of catching many eating-size fish and
the beauty of a lake's natural setting were among the most important factors cited










for choosing a particular fishing site; other factors such as the number of public
boat ramps and fish camps were important but there was less agreement on these
factors.

A large majority of resident and non-resident respondents were of the opinion
that aquatic weeds are a serious problem in Florida and that weed control programs
are a necessary part of fishery management.

The majority of respondents did not like to fish on lakes that had high levels
of hyacinth and hydrilla but very few liked to fish where these aquatic weeds were
not present. Respondents were generally more averse to high levels of hydrilla than
to high levels of hyacinth.

Most anglers who fished at Orange and Lochloosa Lakes indicated that both
hyacinth and hydrilla would have to reach high levels of infestation before they
would go to another lake. However, some anglers would switch at relatively low
levels. Hydrilla infestation would cause more anglers to switch to a substitute site
sooner than would hyacinth infestation.

Both residents and non-residents indicated a positive willingness to pay for
aquatic weed control. The economic benefits of maintaining weed conditions at
Orange and Lochloosa Lakes at such a level that access would not be restricted
throughout the year were estimated at $383,063. The incremental benefits of
increasing weed control beyond maintenance levels to reduce hyacinth and hydrilla
to just small patches around the lakes were $194,433. These estimates of the
economic benefits of aquatic weed control can be used in benefit-cost analysis of a
weed control program.

The sport fishery of Orange and Lochloosa Lakes made a significant
contribution to the local economy. Total gross expenditures by resident and non-
resident anglers amounted to $5,606,697 in 1985. In addition, multiplier effects due
to non-resident expenditures for sport fishing trips adds to the regional economy
resulting in an upper bound estimate of the total level of economic activity of
$10,787,289 that can be attributed to Orange and Lochloosa Lakes.

There are several factors that should be considered in evaluating the results in this
report. First, it should be recognized that the user group identified in this survey consisted
only of anglers licensed in Alachua, Marion, and Putnam counties. Anglers who are licensed
in other Florida counties and use the lakes in the North-Central region were not included in
the sample frame. The main effect of excluding these anglers is that the total trips, total
economic benefits of weed control, and total economic expenditures associated with Orange
and Lochloosa Lakes are probably lower bound estimates.

Second, anglers over 65 years of age are not required to have a fishing license in
Florida nor are anglers using only cane pole fishing rods. These groups are also not included
in the sample frame and therefore are not reflected in the total estimates.

Third, it should be recognized that sport fishing activity in general and that related to
specific sites is not constant from year to year. Changes in weather and economic conditions
can have an effect on the total participants in the regional fishery and influence the choice
of fishing sites. These annual fluctuations are difficult to document and there is no
information available to determine whether the participation and use patterns identified in this
study are consistent with past or future patterns.









Finally, sport anglers are not the only users of the lakes and rivers considered in this
study. Other user groups may have different preferences for aquatic weed control; their
economic benefits and expenditures associated with these sites may be more or less than
estimated for sport anglers. Although this study does not identify these other user groups,
their preferences and economic benefits should be considered in a complete evaluation of
aquatic weed management.

This study has demonstrated that survey research can be used to identify user group
preferences for aquatic weed control and the economic benefits and impacts of these controls.
The questionnaire design and descriptions of aquatic weed conditions used in this study proved
to be workable instruments that respondents could understand and respond to in a consistent
manner. In addition there is a clear linkage between the issues evaluated in the questionnaire
and actual aquatic weed management considerations.

The aquatic weed "management stamp" also proved to be a useful mechanism for
estimating users' willingness to pay for aquatic weed control. The resulting user benefits are
the first economic benefit measures for aquatic weed control that are consistent with accepted
economic valuation principles and U.S. Water Resources Council benefit-cost guidelines.
However, some caution should be used in transferring these benefit measures for Orange and
Lochloosa Lakes to other lakes and rivers in the North-Central region or to other sites in
Florida and the U.S. It should be recognized that these benefit estimates are for a site of a
particular size with a high level of fishing quality and a relatively unique natural setting.
Other sites may have more or less of these and other characteristics and these differences
would be expected to influence individual willingness to pay for aquatic weed control. In
addition, the user group population will be larger or smaller at other sites so the extrapolation
of average individual benefits to population estimates must be adjusted for these differences.


RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

While the survey design and procedures used in this study were useful and appropriate
for meeting the project objectives, several issues should be addressed in future research. A
critical issue for aquatic weed management is the seasonality of use at a particular site.
Seasonality influences user perceptions of weed conditions and their willingness to pay for
weed control. While this survey was primarily concerned with providing annual estimates,
these aspects of seasonal changes in use patterns and valuation should be examined.

In addition, questions dealing with aquatic weed conditions and desired levels of control
should use a greater range of variation than the three levels used here. An important
research issue is whether users respond to small differences in weed conditions or whether
they change their behavior only in response to major changes in weed levels. Research
focussing on this issue may have to be limited to personal on-site interviews since it is
difficult to expand a mail questionnaire beyond the two weed/three level setting used in this
study.

A related element of this inquiry into behavioral responses to different aquatic weed
conditions is a study of actual changes in usage rates at sites with aquatic weed problems.
This type of study could be conducted at a single site over several years or at several
different sites. The obvious problem is that it may be difficult to find sites with sufficient
variation in weed levels to induce changes in usage rates. This problem may limit the use of
other economic benefit estimation techniques such as the travel cost method. Other measures
of the negative effects of aquatic weeds such as changes in property values may also be
difficult to identify because of this limitation.








40

Finally, it would be useful to explore other contingent valuation formats in addition to
the weed stamp approach used here. Due to concerns about respondents' ability to understand
the aquatic weed condition settings presented in the survey, a relatively simple valuation
format was adopted. However, the success that was demonstrated with this format indicates
that others may be tested and a direct comparison made to evaluate the relative merits for
benefit estimation.


REFERENCES

Brog, W. and A. H. Meyburg. "Consideration of Nonresponse Effects in Large-Scale Mobility
Surveys." Transportation Research Record 807 (1981):39-46.

Colle, D. E. et al. "Influence of Hydrilla on Harvestable Sport Fish Populations, Angler
Utilization, and Expenditures at Orange Lake, Florida." North American Journal of
Fisheries Management (forthcoming).

Gangstad, E. O. "Benefit/Cost Analysis of Silvex Cancellation." Journal of Aquatic Plant
Management 20 (1982):45-49.

S"Benefit/Risk Analysis of Silvex Cancellation." Journal of Aquatic Plant
Management 21 (1983):65-69.

Milon, J.W. and Grace Johns. A Handbook for Economic Analysis of Coastal Recreation. State
University System of Florida, Gainesville. Florida Sea Grant Bulletin 35, 1982.

W.D. Mulkey and M.J. Elderbrock. "Regional Impact Analysis and Recreation
Multipliers." Review of Regional Studies 12(1982): 11-21.

Scheaffer, R. L., W. Mendenhall, and L. Ott. Elementary Survey Sampling. Second Edition.
Duxbury Press, 1979.

Seaman, W.,Jr., Editor. Florida's Aquatic Habitat and Fishery Resources. Florida Chapter of
the American Fisheries Society, 1985.

U.S. Water Resources Council. Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for
Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. Washington, D.C., 1983.








41


















APPENDIX A


















FRESHWATER v NORTH-CENTRAL
FISHING IN FLORIDA






YOUR ANSWERS ARE AN IMPORTANT SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND PLANNING. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT
YOU COMPLETE AND RETURN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE -
EVEN IF YOU HAVE NOT FISHED IN NORTH-CENTRAL FLORIDA BEFORE. TO
INSURE THE USEFULNESS AND ACCURACY OF THIS STUDY ,

PLEASE FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS

1 PLEASE RITE JU THE ZIP CODE OF YOUR PERMANENT HOME ADDRESS,

ZIP CODE
2 TAKE THE ENCLOSED MAP OF THE NORTH-CENTRAL FLORIDA STUDY AREA
AND LAY IT OUT BEFORE YOU, IT MAY BE VERY USEFUL IN ANSWERING
MANY QUESTIONS.
3 IF A SET OF INSTRUCTIONS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS THE ANSWER YOU
HAVE CHOSEN, PLEASE FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS. THEY WILL SAVE
YOU FROM HAVING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT DO NOT APPLY TO YOU,
I IF THE ANSWERS TO A QUESTION HAVE NUMBERS IN FRONT OF THEM,
PLEASE CIRCLE THE NUMBER OF THE ANSWER YOU CHOOSE. IF A BLANK
SPACE HAS BEEN LEFT FOR AN ANSWER, PLEASE WRITE IN YOUR ANSWER
IN THE SPACE PROVIDED.
5 THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST IN FLORIDA'S FRESHWATER FISHING
RESOURCES, PLEASE BEGIN WITH , SECTION I ON PAGE 1.












SECTION I


1-1 Which of the following freshwater fish types do you primarily fish for?
If you have fished in North-Central Florida before, which type do you
orimarlly fish for there? Please circle the number of /our answer.

1 BASS (such as Largemouth, Striped, etc.)
OR
2 PANFISH (such as Bream, Speckled Perch or Crapple, Catfish, etc.)

1-2 Below is a list of characteristics which describe the physical facilities,
environment and lake conditions you might consider In choosing a particular
fre'"-tir lake to go fishing. For each charscteristl., please indicate how
Impi, i. this factor is to you by circling the appropriate number. If tThis
characteristic is very Important in your decision to fi.h at a particular lake,
circle 1, and if itfIs not importE at 1 Trci TT


5i~x~r~i

iA*


Number of public boat ramps .
Number of fish camps .......
Size of the lake . . . . .
Travel time to the lake . . .
Water depth . . . . ..
The chance of catching many
eating size fish ........ .
The chance of catching
trophy size fish .. . . .
Beauty of the lake's
natural setting . . . . .
Distance from home to
the lake . . . . . . .
Recreation facilities
(picnic tables, camp-
ing, etc.) . . . . . .


VERY
IMPORTANT
S .


SOMEWHAT
IMPORTANT
2 . .


NOT
NOT VERY IMPORTANT
IMPORTANT AT ALL
3 ... 4


4


1 . 2 . 3 . 4
1 . 2 3 . 4

I . 2 ... 3 4


1 ... 2 .


3 . 4

3 ... 4


1 .. 2 ... 3 ... 4


LJ~


1-3 The picture on the left is of HYACINTH, an aquatic weed that grows above the
surface of the water. The picture on the right is of HYDRILLA, an aquatic
weed that grows primarily below the surface. Please Indicate to what extent you
agree with the following statements which may describe a fisherman's feelings about
these aquatic weeds. Please circle your answer.


Aquatic weeds are a serious
problem on Florida lakes . . .
I like to fish on lakes that have
large patches of hyacinths around
most of the lake .........
I like to fish on lakes that
have only small patches of
hyacinths along the shore . .
I like to fish on lakes that have
lots of hydrilla ....... ...
I like to fish on lakes that don't
have any hydrilla at all .....
Aquatic weed control is a necessary
part of fish management for Florida
lakes . . . . . . . .


STRONG
AGREE

1


I
1


I

I


Y


1 .


AGREE DISAGREE


STRONGLY
DISAGREE


2 . 4


2 .. 3


S. 2 3

. 2 . 3


2 . 3


4


4

4

4


1 .. 2 .. 3 .. 4


1 . 2 ... 3 . .
1 . 2 . 3 . .
















\-4 Please refer to the map of North-Central Florida. How many fishing trips did
you make during the past 4 months to each of the foT16Wiing locations found on
the map? If you have not fished at a location, please leave the space.blank.

NUMBER OF TRIPS


LOCATION

Orange/Lochloosa

Rodman reservoir

Newnans Lake .

Santa Fe Lake

Lake Geore .

Crescent Lake

Lake Kerr . .

Santa Fe River .


St. Johns River (

St. Johns River (

Suwannee River (s

Atlantic Ocean .

Gulf of Mexico


IN PAST 4 MOUTHS

Lakes .................._. TRIPS

. . . . . . . . . . TRIPS

. . . . . . . . . . TRIPS

. . . . . . . . . . TRIPS

. . . . . . . . . . TRIPS

. . . . . . . . . . TRIPS

. . . . . . . . . . TRIPS

................... _____ TRIPS

north of Palatka) ........... TRIPS

south of Palatka) ........... ___TRIPS

outh of Branford only) ........ TRIPS

. . . . . . . .... . . . . TRIPS

. . . . . . . . . . TRIPS


Other locations In red bordered area of map (please specify)
___. . ............ TRIPS

___. . ............ TRIPS

1-5 Did you fish at any of the freshwater lakes and rivers listed in question 1-4
above (printed in red on map) on your most recent fishing trip In North-Central
Florida in the past 4 months? Please circle the number of your answer and follow
the directions.
1 YES-- Please continue with question 1-6, next page.
2 O-- Please skip to question 1-16, page 6.


1-6 The following questions deal with your most recent (last) fishing trip to
one of the freshwater lakes or rivers listed in question 1-4 above. Please
use th-Table below to indicate at which lake or river this last fishing trip
took place.
0 Orange/Lochloosa Lake 6 Lake Kerr
1 Rodman Reservoir 7 Santa Fe River
2 Newnans Lake 8 St. Johns River (north of Palatka)
3 Santa Fe Lake 9 St. Johns River (south of Palatka)
4 Lake George 10 Suwannee River (south of Branford)
5 Crescent Lake

1-7 Please circle the number of the month In which this trip took place.
1 JAN 4 APR 7 JUL 10 OCT
2 FEB S MAY 8 AUG 11 NOV
3 MAR 6 JUN 9 SEP 12 DEC

1-8 How long were you away from home on this last fishing trip?
I LESS THAN 2 HOURS 4 6 TO 8 HOURS 7 12 TO 24 HOURS
2 2 TO 4 HOURS 5 8 TO 10 HOURS 8 2 DAYS
3 4 TO 6 HOURS 6 10 TO 12 HOURS 9 DAYS

1-9 Please estimate the gas mileage for the vehicle you used on this last
fishing trip. If a boat was towed, please give the miles per gallon (MPG)
that vehicle gets while towing the boat.
I LESS THAN 5 HPG 5 20-24 HIPG
2 5-9 MPG 6 25-29 MPG
3 10-14 MPG 7 30-34 MPG
4 15-19 MPG 8 35 OR MORE MPG

1-10 How many persons, Including yourself, were in your fishing party on this
lakt fishing trip?
PERSONS

1-11 How many of those persons, including yourself, live at home with you?
S__PERSONS


t













1-12 Using the following table, please list the total number and your best esti-'
mate of the total weight for each kind of fish caught by you and our fishing
party on this last fishing trip. Please include all fish you kept or released.

TOTAL NUMBER TOTAL WEIGHT


Largemouth Bass .......
Striped Bass .........
Bream (Bluegill, Shellcracker)
Speckled Perch (Crappie) . .
Catfish ...........___ _
Other (please specify)



1-13 Approximately how much money did you and your fishing party
of the following items on this last fishing trip?
TOTAL AMOUNT SPENT


spend on each


Fishing guide services ........... _
Bait and ice .................
Tackle and equipment ............ $
Roat/Motor rental .............. $__
Gas and oil for the boat .......... _
Launch fees ................. t__
Food and drinks while fishing ........ t

Cabins, motels, campsites, RV parking
or other lodging while fishing ....... $

1-14 If you were renting a boat slip at the location you fished at on this last
fishing trip, what rate were you charged? (Please write in the rate in the
space provided and circle the period that the rate applies to.) If you did not
rent a slip, leave the space blank.

$ per DAY WEEK MONTH
1-15 Did this fishing trip that you've been describing take place at Orange
or Lochloosa Lakes?
I YES- Please skip to SECTION II, page 10.
2 O-- Please continue with question 1-16, page 6.


1-16 Have you fished at Orange or Lochloosa Lakes In the past 4 months?
1 YES-- Please skip to SECTION I-A, this page.
2 NO-- Please continue with question 1-17 below.

1-17 Have you ever fished at Orange or Lochloosa Lakes?
SYES-- Please skip to SECTION II. page 10.
2 NO- Please continue with question 1-18 below.

1-18 Which of the following statements best describes why you have not fished at
Orange or Lochloosa Lakes before? After answering this question, please skip
to SECTION III, page 14. Do not continue with SECTION I-A.
1 They are too far to drive to.
2 I didn't know about them.
3 I've heard that these lakes have had serious aquatic weed problems.
4 I think there is better fishing at other North-Central Florida lakes and rivers.
5 I've always wanted to fish there but haven't gotten around to it yet.



--SECTlON I-A
The following questions deal with your last fishing trip to Orange or Lochloosa
Lakes in the past 4 months.

I-Al Please circle the number of the month In which this last fishing trip to
Orange/Lochloosa Lakes took place.
I JAN 4 APR 7 JUL 10 OCT
2 FEB 5 MAY 8 AUG 11 NOV
3 MAR 6 JUN 9 SEP 12 DEC

I-A2 How long were you away from home on this last fishing trip to Orange/
Lochloosa Lakes?
1 LESS THAN 2 HOURS 4 6 TO 8 HOURS 7 12 TO 24 HOURS
2 2 TO 4 HOURS 5 8 TO 10 HOURS 8 2 DAYS
3 4 TO 6 HOURS 6 10 TO 12 HOURS 9 DAYS

I-A3 Pleast estimate the gas mileage for the vehicle used on this last trip to
Orange/Lochloosa Lakes f a boat was towed, give the miles per gallon
(HPG) that vehicle gets while towing the boat.
I LESS THAN 8 MPG 4 15-19 MPG 7 30-34 MPG
2 5-9 MPG 5 20-24 MPG 8 35 HPG OR MORE
3 10-14 MPG 6 25-29 MPG
















1-A4 How many persons, including yourself, were in your fishing party on this last
trip to Orange/Lochloosa lakes?
_ PERSONS

I-A5 How many of those persons, including yourself, live at home with you?
PERSONS

1-A6 Using the following table, please list the total numberand your best estimate
of the total weight for each kind of fish caught by you and your fishing
part -:; i-his last trip to Orange/Lochloosa La'es, Please Include all fish you
kept or released.
TOTAL NUMBER TOTAL WEIGHT

Largemouth Bass ........ .

Striped Bass . . . . . .

Bream (Bluegill, Shellcracker) .

Speckled Perch (Crappie) .....

Catfish . . . . . . .
Other (please specify)




1-A7 Approximately how much did you and your fishing party spend on each of the
following Items on this last fishing trip to Orange/Lochloosa Lakes?
TOTAL AMOUNT SPENT

Fishing guide services. ............. .

Bait and ice. .................. .

Tackle and equipment. .............. t

Roat/Motor rental .............. ..

Gas and oil for the boat ............ $

Launch fees ................... .__

Food and drinks while fishing .......... $

Cabins, motels, campsites, RV parking
or other lodging while fishing ......... $


I-A8 If you were renting a boat slip at Orange or Lochloosa Lakes when this last
fishing trip took place, what rate were you being charged? (Please write
In the rate and circle the period that the rate applies to.) If you were not
renting a boi fslip, please leave the space blank.

$ per DAY WEEK MONTH



--- PLEASE CONTINUE WITH SECTION II, PAGE 10.












-- SECTION II


The next 4 questions relate to the chart below which depicts 3 possible levels of
HYACINTH infestation on a freshwater lake. Please consider each picture and written
description carefully. The answers you give may be useful in planning future
efforts to control aquatic weeds.


i YACINTH
LEVEL
N"A


HYACINTH LEVEL


DESCRIPTION


HYACINTHS seen only along the shoreline in small patches mixed with
A native vegetation like water bonnets and lies; no restrictions on
t ravel ay time.__
HYACINTH levels vary during the year; usually only small floating
islands on the lake (as shown) but large shifting islands may
develop quickly at certain times ofthe year; boatra may be
difficult in periods of heavy growth, ramp closings unlikely but
possl during these periods of heavy growth.

Large very dense Islands of hyacinths all over the lake; boat
C travel very limited throughout the year, boaters may be unable to
return to boat ramps.

I -i Which level best describes the hyacinth conditions you observed on your
last fishlngT-Tp to Orange/Lochloosa Lakes?


1 LEVEL A


2 LEVEL 8


3 LEVEL C


11-2 Assuming that HYACINTHS were not a problem at any other nearby lake or river
what level of HYACINTH Infestation on Orange and Lochloosa Lakes would cause
you to go fishing at some other North-Central Florida lake or river?


1 LEVEL A


2 LEVEL


3 LEVEL C


11-3 Uhich one of the following lakes orrivers would you go to?
I Rodman Reservoir 8 St. Johns River (north of Pa


2 Newnans Lake
3 Santa Fe Lake
4 Lake George
5 Crescent Lake
6 Lake Kerr
7 Santa Fe River


S St. Johns River (south of Palatka)
10 Suwannee River (south of Branford)
11 Other location in red bordered area of map.
(please specify)
12 I'm not familiar enough with these lakes
and rivers to make a choice.


() I ~hlci HYACINTH leva! would best desc-ribe the ridi1o:. /cu r7'j:! .) your la
trip to the location you chose in 11-3 above?
S LEVEL A 4 dl ot chose a lo rti)n above.
-t ttETt 8 S TI ran ever ftmhd- there.
3 LEVEL C


HYACINTH
LEVEL
"B"


I.
!h /


latka)











The next 4 questions relate to the chart which depicts 3 possible levels of HYDRILLA
infestation on a freshwater lake. Please consider each p uT and written descr-pfior
i- ;:.. carefully. Again, the answers you give may be useful in planningfuture efforts to
control aquatic weeds.
HYDRILLA LEVEL DESCRIPTION
IYDRILLA HYDRILLA present but mostly replaced by native water grasses, no surface
LEVEL A HYDRILLA patches visible, mostly native vegetation like wate- bonnets an
l" lies seen along the shore; no restrictions on boat travel at any time.
Small patches of HYDRILLA visible on the lake surface during most of the
year, some chance of large patches and thick surface mats developing
during certain times of the year; some chance of propellor fouling and
problems with boat travel during these times.

Large patches of HYDRILLA and thick surface mats over the entire lake
C through most of the year; motorboat travel very difficult, very likely
that weeds will foul propellors and damage engines.
J1-5 Which level best describes the HYDRILLA conditions you observed on your last
fishing tripT- -Orange/Lochloosa Lakes?
I .LEVEL A 2 LEVEL B 3 LEVEL C
11-6 Assuming that HYDRILLA was not a problem at any other nearby lakes or rivers,
what level of HYDRILLA infestation on Orange and Lochloosa Lakes would cause
'YDRILLA you to go fishing at some other North-Central Florida lake or river?
LEVEL i- _=i- 1 LEVEL A 2 LEVEL B 3 LEVEL C
"B" .1-7 Which one of the following lakes or rivers would you go to?
I Rodman Reservoir 8 St. Johns River (north of Palatka)
2 Newnans Lake 9 St. Johns River (south of Palatka)
3 Santa Fe Lake 10 Suwannee River (south of Branford)
S4 Lake George 11 Other location in red bordered area of map
Crescent Lake (please specify)
8 Lake Kerr
12 I'm not familiar enough with these lake
I Santa Fe River and rivers to make a choice.
11-8 Which HYDRILLA level would best describe the conditions you found on your last
trip to the location you chose in 11-7 above?
I LEVEL A 4 I did not choose a location above.
YDRILLA 2 LEVEL S5 I have never fished there.
LEVEL LEVEL C
"C"










13

11-9 Controlling aquatic weed infestation on Orange and Lochloosa Lakes is a
costly operation that must be paid from tax revenues collected by the state
of Florida. The current program tries to prevent aquatic weed growth on Orange
and Lochloosa Lakes from exceeding Level B as described in the previous questions.
Suppose for a moment that there was not enough money available to continue this
level of weed control. If other sources of funds could not be found, weed
levels at Orange and Lochloosa Lakes would deteriorate to Level C, making navi-
gation and fishing difficult, if not impossible.

A possible solution would be to issue a special Orange/Lochloosa Lakes
aquatic weed management stamp. The stamp would be purchased and placed on your
Florida fishing license when you buy or renew your license and would permit you
to fish at Orange and Lochloosa Lakes as often as you wish until your license
expires. The stamp would be required to fih at Orange and Lochloosa Lakes only
and all proceeds would be used to control aquatic weeds at Orange and Lochloosa
Lakes. Suppose this stamp is required the next time you buy a Florida fishing
TT-ense. If the stamp costs $ would you buy the stamp so that weed
conditions on Orange and Lochloosa Lakes would not deteriorate To LEVEL C?


(IF YES) Suppose that $
per fisherman would not raise enough
money to keep the aquatic weeds at
LEVEL B. What then would be the
maximum amount you would pay to keep
the weeds from exceeding LEVEL B?

$___________________


1 YES
2 NO- (IF NO) Which of the following
3 statements best describes your
feelings about this license
stamp?
1 I would pay 1/2 the amount
stated.
2 1 would pay 1/4 of the
amount stated.
3 I would rather fish at
another lake or rv'-erthan
pay for a stamp to control
aquatic Needs at Orange
and Lochloosa Lakes.


11-10 If enough money was collected from this license stamp, It might be possible
to reduce aquatic weed growth on Orange and Lochloosa Lakes to LEVEL A on
a year-round basis. This would eliminate any chance of ramp closings or navigation
problems that may occur at LEVEL B or LEVEL C and would permanently maintain the
lakes in their natural condition.

In addition to the maximum amount you said you would pay for the stamp to
maintain LEVELETBn the previous question, how much more would you pay for the
license stamp to reduce aquatic weeds In Orange and Lockloosa Lakes to LEVEL A
year-round?


I to
2 $1-4
3 $5-9
4 $10-14


5 $15-19
6 $20-24
7 $25-29
B $30-34


9 $35-39
10 $40-44
11 $45-49
12 $50 or more


14

11-11 If the aquatic weed conditions on Orange and Lochloosa Lakes were improved
to LEVEL A year-round, which of the following statements best describes the
changes you would make in your average number of fishing trips to these lakes each
year?
1 I WOULD INCREASE MY AVERAGE NUMBER OF TRIPS TO ORANGE AND LOCHLOOSA LAKES BY
MORE THAN 10 PER YEAR.
2 1 WOULD INCREASE MY AVERAGE NUMBER OF TRIPS TO ORANGE AND LOCHLOOSA LAKES BY
6-10 PER YEAR.
3 I WOULD INCREASE MY AVERAGE NUMBER OF TRIPS TO ORANGE AND LOCHLOOSA LAKES BY
1-5 PER YEAR.
4 I WOULD NOT CHANGE MY AVERAGE NUMBER OF TRIPS TO ORANGE AND LOCHLOOSA LAKES.

11-12 Which of the following statements best describes how an Improvement in weed
conditions on Orange and Lochloosa Lakes to LEVEL A year-round would change
the average number of fishing trips you make to other nearby lakes and rivers each
year?
1 I WOULD DECREASE MY AVERAGE NUMBER OF TRIPS TO OTHER NEARBY LAKES AND RIVERS BY
MORE THAN 10 PER YEAR.
2 I WOULD DECREASE MY AVERAGE NUMBER OF TRIPS TO OTHER NEARBY LAKES AND RIVERS BY
6-10 PER YEAR.
3 1 WOULD DECREASE MY AVERAGE NUMBER OF TRIPS TO OTHER NEARBY LAKES AND RIVERS BY
1-5 PER YEAR.
4 1 WOULD NOT CHANGE MY AVERAGE NUMBER OF TRIPS TO OTHER NEARBY LAKES AND RIVERS.

11-13 How many years have you been fishing at Orange and Lochloosa Lakes?
YEARS-PLEASE CONTINUE WITH SECTION III BELOW.


SECTION III

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT YOU PERSONALLY. THEY WILL HELP US TO KNOW MORE
ABOUT RECREATIONAL FISHERMEN AND WILL ALSO INSURE THAT A BROAD RANGE OF FISHERMEN
HAVE BEEN FAIRLY REPRESENTED IN THIS STUDY. PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT YOU WILL NOT
BE IDENTIFIED IN ANY WAY WITH YOUR ANSWERS,SO PLEASE BE HONEST. THE ACCURACY OF
THIS STUDY DEPENDS ON YOU ANSWERING ALL OF THE QUESTIONS.


1ll-1 What Is your age?

111-2 Which sex are you?


YEARS
1 MALE


2 FEMALE


111-3 Hbw would you describe your racial background?


1 WHITE


2 BLACK


3 OTHER


11-1-4 How mat.y years have you been fishing? YEARS

111-5 IHw many years have you been fishing In North-Central Florida? YEARS










15

11-6 How much do you estimate you and your household spent for freshwater fishing
tackle and equipment in the past 4 months? Please include the cost of rods,
eels, lures, nets, line, hooks, sinkers, buckets and other tackle.
1 $0 4 $100-149 7 t250-299
2 $1-49 5 $150-199 8 OVER 4300
3 $50-99 6 $200-249

11-7 Do you or someone in your household own the b.ot that you use 'hen you go
freshwater fishing?
I YES---Please continue with question 111-8 below.
2 NO--- Please skip to question 11I-11 below.

11-8 What would you estimate is the current market value of this fishing boat
and trailer?

11-9 Approximately how old is this boat? YEARS
11-10 Does the motor have a "weedless" propellor or other type of weed protection
device?
1 YES 2 NO 3 Not motor powered

i1l-11 Which of the following statements best describes your level of formal
education?
1 NEVER WENT TO SCHOOL
2 SOME GRADE SCHOOL (GRADES 1-8)
3 SOME HIGH SCHOOL (GRADES 9-12)
4 COMPLETED HIGH SCHOOL OR EQUIVALENT
5 SOME COLLEGE OR VOCATIONAL
6 COMPLETED A TWO-YEAR COLLEGE DEGREE OR A VOCATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM
7 COMPLETED A FOUR-YEAR COLLEGE DEGREE
B COMPLETED A GRADUATE OR PROFESSIONAL DEGREE

111-12 How many persons, Including yourself, live at home with you?
PERSONS

111-13 Which of the following best describes your current employment status?
1 SELF EMPLOYED Please continue with question tt1-14. page 15.
2 EMPLOYED --- ?'as ecrnthiue pml/ :?t';io' !-HA. p1ge 14'
3 RETIRED -- Please skip to question i !-17, page s ,
4 NOT EMPLOYED -- Please skip to question !!1-17, page 15


16

113-141 Approximately how many hours do you work In an average week?
HOURS

11l-15 Approximately how many total days of paid vacation and holidays do you earn
each year? (If you are not sure, count each week of paid vacation as 5
days and add the national average of 6 paid holidays.) DAYS
111-16 What is your approximate hourly wage? If you are not paid an hourly wage,
what is your current annual salary (or income if self employed?)
HOURLY WAGE RATE $ /HOUR OR
ANNUAL SALARY (OR INCOME) $ /YEAR

111-17 Which of the following bqst approximates your household's total annual
income before taxes?
1 LESS THAN $10,000 6 $30,000 TO $34,999
2 $10,000 TO $14,999 7 $35,000 TO $39,999
3 $15,000 TO $19,999 8 $40,000 TO $44,999
4 $20,000 TO $24,999 9 $45,000 TO $49,999
5 $25,000 TO $29,999 10 $50,000 OR MORE

111-18 Which of the following types of Florida fishing licenses did you last buy?
I FLORIDA RESIDENT valid July I thru June 30th of the following year
(SERIES A)
2 FLORIDA RESIDENT valid 12 months after date of purchase
(SERIES AB)
3 FLORIDA RESIDENT Fishing and Hunting Combination license
(SERIES A-K)
4 NON-RESIDENT annual license (SERIES B)
5 NON-RESIDENT 14 day license (SERIES C)
6 NON-RESIDENT 5 day license (SERIES 0)

THIS IS THE END OF THE SURVEY. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE
WRITTEN IN THE ZIP CODE OF YOUR PERMANENT HOME ADDRESS ON THE FRONT
COVER OF THE SURVEY. IF YOU HAVEN'T, PLEASE 0D SO NOW. ALSO, DON'T
FORGET TO ORDER YOUR FREE PUBLICATIONS. PLACE YOUR COMPLETED ORDER FORM
AND QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE ENCLOSED, POSTAGE PAID ENVELOPE AND DROP IT IN
THE MAIL TODAT.
IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE, PLEASE WiP, THEM
ON THE BACK COVER OF iHE QUESTIONNAIRE. (7OUR COMFMENT!A ELP L HMPROVT
THIS METHOD OF RESEARCH.) THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
GOOD LUCK AND GOOD FISHING











51


















APPENDIX B










Table B-1. Average catch per person per hour by species and average trip expenditures per person for all North-Central Florida sites
included in survey.



Catch per person per hour Trip expenditures
Trip expenditures
Bass Panfish Speckled Perch Total* per person
Number Weight Number Weight Number Weight Number Weight Local Nonlocal


Orange/Lochloosa (261)** 0.249 0.643 0.294 0.197 0.214 0.182 0.803 1.079 $11.71 $97.55
Rodman Reservoir (206) 0.251 0.593 0.693 0.257 0.131 0.095 1.179 1.105 12.79 61.64
Newnans Lake (59) 0.156 0.418 0.092 0.052 0.473 0.458 0.827 1.108 7.78 30.17
Santa Fe Lake (19) 0.163 0.454 0.118 0.075 0.274 0.237 0.773 1.108 9.51 42.79
Lake George (124) 0.255 0.617 0.845 0.610 0.122 0.164 1.320 1.561 19.78 70.92
Crescent Lake (58) 0.140 0.346 0.475 0.387 0.334 0.464 1.095 1.381 12.56 52.96 I
Lake Kerr (43) 0.282 0.495 0.272 0.149 0.188 0.115 0.809 0.918 16.74 35.99
Santa Fe River (18) 0.035 0.040 0.668 0.377 0.170 0.141 1.635 1.856 6.31 16.79
St. Johns River
North of Palatka (81) 0.171 0.521 0.993 0.649 0.104 0.089 1.366 1.506 8.98 69.86
St. Johns River
South of Palatka (187) 0.193 0.453 0.772 0.342 0.093 0.087 1.267 1.292 14.58 67.81
Oklawaha River (26) 0.166 0.484 0.218 0.132 0.008 0.007 0.469 0.774 11.25 59.02
Ocala National Forest
lakes and ponds (14) 0.223 0.568 0.080 0.059 0.038 0.028 0.389 0.722 11.00 59.20
All sites 0.190 0.469 0.460 0.274 0.179 0.172 0.994 1.201 $12.00 $54.73


*Includes other species than those listed separately.
**Number in parentheses indicates the total number of respondents for each site.







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