• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Review of past methodologies
 Selection of the sample
 Explanation of the variables
 Application of the model
 Summary, conclusions, and...
 Reference
 Recreationist questionnaire
 Site characteristic questionna...














Group Title: Economics report - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ; no. 53
Title: Estimation of outdoor recreational values
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027731/00001
 Material Information
Title: Estimation of outdoor recreational values
Series Title: Economics report
Physical Description: ii, 58 leaves : ill. ; 27 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Gibbs, Kenneth C
McGuire, John F
Publisher: Food and Resources Economics Dept., Agricultural Experiment Stations, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Publication Date: 1973
 Subjects
Subject: Outdoor recreation -- Florida -- Kissimmee Valley   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 43-45.
Statement of Responsibility: Kenneth C. Gibbs, John F. McGuire, III.
General Note: Cover title.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027731
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000302213
oclc - 01857957
notis - ABS8728
lccn - 74621426

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Table of Contents
        Page i
        Page ii
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
    Review of past methodologies
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Selection of the sample
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
    Explanation of the variables
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
    Application of the model
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
    Summary, conclusions, and implications
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
    Reference
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
    Recreationist questionnaire
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
    Site characteristic questionnaire
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
Full Text

luly 1973


Economics Report 53


Estimation of Outdoor

Recreational Values


Hi, UrIBRARY

N 1/V3 1973
g2 *1Q 7
.S- Un. of Fo0ida


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


Kenneth C. Gibbs
John F. McGuire, III


-CC-Y--C-- -- I~I -- I -~s I~P~dlJ







TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES .. . . . . . .

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

INTRODUCTION . . . .1

Objectives ...... .............. 5
Study Area . . . ... ...... 6

REVIEW OF PAST METHODOLOGIES . . . . 8

Clawson Methodology . . .......... 9
Theoretical Model ................. .. 11
On-Site Costs ................. .. 12
Travel Costs ... . . . ... ..15

SELECTION OF THE SAMPLE . .. .... .17

Sample Size . . ... . ... 18
Allocation of the Sample . . . .19

EXPLANATION OF THE VARIABLES . . . .... 25

Length of Recreationist's Visit (Y) .. . .26
Travel.Costs (T) ...... ............. .27
On-Site Costs (C) ....... ........ 28
Income (m) ...... ................... .29
Size of Recreation Group (n) .............. .29
Site Characteristics (s) . . . ... .30

APPLICATION OF THE MODEL . ..... . . .. 31

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS . . .. 38

Summary and Conclusions . . . .. 38
Implications . . . .. . 40

REFERENCES . ... . . . 43

APPENDICES .. . . .. . . .46

A . . . .. . . . 47
B . .. . . ..... ..... 55







LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 Time periods for 1970 with months in each period,
Kissimmee River Basin . . . .... .20

2 Estimated percent of use by time period, Kissimmee
River Basin . . .. .. . .20

3 Estimates of intensity of use for lake groupings as
a percent of total use, Kissimmee River Basin, 1970 21

4 Number of interviews for each lake grouping by time
periods for each access point, Kissimmee River
Basin . . . . ... ... .23

5 Average values of variables estimated for outdoor
recreationists in the Kissimmee River Basin, 1970 .35

LIST OF FIGURES


Figure Page

1 The Kissimmee River Basin, Florida ...... .. 7

2 Optimal combinations of recreation and nonrecreation
commodities for a consumer faced with variable on-site
costs .. ... .. . . ... 13

3 Estimated demand function and consumer surplus for an
individual recreationist, Kissimmee River Basin, 1970 39











ESTIMATION OF OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL VALUES*

Kenneth C. Gibbs and John F. McGuire III

INTRODUCTION

The amount of outdoor recreation has increased considerably in

the past few years and an even faster rate of growth is predicted

during the ensuing years. This increased growth in outdoor recreation
- is due in part to the general rise in personal incomes, to increased
leisure time available, to the changing attitudes of the modern day

worker, and to an ever increasing population. For years the Puritan

"work ethic" prevailed and leisure or recreation was looked upon as a

useless pursuit and possibly even sinful. This thinking has rapidly

given way to a different outlook on recreation evidenced by the fact
that in many areas of the country, selected firms have inaugurated the

four day work week.




The research was conducted in cooperation with the Central and
Southern Florida Flood Control District (FCD) under a grant from the
Office of Water Resources Research, U. S. Department of the Interior.
The grant was administered by the Florida Water Resources Research
Center.

^-----------------\ ':
Kenneth C. Gibbs is assistant professor of food and resource
economics and environmental engineering sciences, University of
Florida. John F. McGuire III is assistant director of special
programs, IFAS, University of Florida.







Traditionally, many levels of government were involved in providing

recreational opportunities for their constituents. These opportunities

range from small city parks to the extensive national forest system.

The funding of these recreation sites, provided from taxes or the

sponsoring governmental body, must compete with funds needed for many

other services. For this reason, a great deal of interest has been

placed in the measurement of the economic value of outdoor recreation.

By being able to place an economic value.on recreation, at least

three important objectives can be accomplished. First, this value can

be compared with the value of the resources in the area for an alterna-

tive use. Second, it would be possible to determine the desirability

of making an investment in an area. If a study showed little or no

potential for recreation for a particular area, then an investment in

recreation would certainly be questionable. The third reason is that,

by knowing the demand, advance estimates could be made of the optimal

level of fees to be charged.
In order to determine the economic value of a commodity, a demand

curve must be derived. Simply stated, the demand for recreation at a

particular area is the willingness combined with the ability of users

of the area to pay measurabTe sums for specified amounts of recreation.

The primary measurement problem that arises is the determination of a

"price" or willingness to pay for recreation.

In estimating recreation demand there is no open market structure

that gives a price-quantity relationship such as is found for other

commodities. An exception to this might be in the case of the growing

number of private campgrounds. It is believed, however, that the







usually small fee charged by campgrounds does not indicate true

"willingness-to-pay" on the part of the recreationists.

The demand for recreation, in the absence of a market structure,

has been estimated by two methods: the direct and indirect methods.

In the direct method the recreationist is asked how much he would be

willing to pay for a specified amount of recreation. He could also be

asked how many recreation days he would stay at the site at various

price levels.2 A demand curve is generated for an individual recreation-

ist via either method. A recreation demand curve for an area can be

derived by summing across individual demand curves.

Many problems may be encountered when using the direct method of

estimating the demand for recreation. One of the most notable would

be the problem of personal bias entering into the estimation. If the

recreationist believed that his true "willingness-to-pay" would result

in a fee being charged, he would tend to understate the value of the

recreation site creating a downward bias. On the other hand, if the

recreationist believed that overstating his willingness-to-pay would

result in improvements to the site, then he may overstate the value to

himself of the recreation site and create an upward bias. Both of

these biases would result in the estimated economic value of the site




The "recreationist" can be defined as a recreation group or an
individual. For purposes of this report, the recreation group will be
used, since it is believed that this is the decision-making unit in
most cases.
A recreation day for the purpose of this report is considered to
be a period of 12 consecutive hours during which recreational
activities were enjoyed.







being greater or lesser than the true value. The occurrence of bias

could not be accurately determined since some would overstate their

"willingness-to-pay" and some would understate.

Another bias that can occur with the use of the direct method of

estimating the demand for recreation arises with the difficulty of

determining just how much a person would be willing to pay at a site.

It would call for a very subjective opinion on the part of the recrea-

tionist and the results could vary enough so as to be inconclusive

and thereby unusable.

The second approach to determine the demand for recreation, the

indirect method, has been more widely used by researchers in the

economics of outdoor recreation. The indirect method involves

arriving at a "willingness-to-pay" for recreation by observing what a

recreationist actually spends in order to participate in a recreational

experience. This observation is accomplished through the use of a

.questionnaire which is designed to determine the total cost of the

recreational experience, the amount of recreation consumed, and other

socioeconomic data that may be pertinent. By observing what recrea-

tionists actually spend for the recreational experience and by observing

the number of days at the recreation site, an aggregate demand curve

can be derived over numerous individuals which indicates the total number

of outdoor recreation days consumed at varying prices. It should be

emphasized that the indirect approach estimates the amount spent at a

site corresponding to a specific number of days. It cannot be said

whether more would possibly be spent with the same quantity. That is,

the estimated demand curve is a "lower estimate" of the actual demand

function.




5


Objectives


The Kissimmee River Basin area, prior to extensive water

management, was subject to wide fluctuations in water level. Floods

and droughts occurred with some regularity depending on the amount

of rainfall. Water management structuressuch as canals, dikes, and

dams have been installed to provide a more stable water level through-

out the basin. By removing the excessive fluctuations in the water

level, the extremes of flood and drought have been tempered enough

to allow a more constant use of the total area throughout the year.

Water levels are maintained at specified stages depending on the usage,

rainfall, and other factors.

A project was initiated at the University of Florida to estimate

the value of water in alternative uses and to determine the optimum

allocation among the alternative uses. Basically, the study was

designed todevelop and test two types of water allocation models:

linear programming and simulation. In order to allocate water efficiently

values of alternative uses must be estimated. The value of water for

agriculturally oriented industries bordering the Kissimmee River Basin

was estimated by determining the amount of water drawn from surface

water areas and increased value of the crops due to this water. The

value of water for flood control purposes was estimated as the added

value obtained by not having an area subjected to damaging fluctuations.

In addition, the value of water for outdoor recreation was estimated.

It is to this topic that this report is directed.
It is the purpose of this report to: (1) present the procedures

used to derive estimates of economic value, and (2) derive the








economic value of "water oriented" outdoor recreation in the Kissimmee

River Basin.

Study Area


The Kissimmee River Basin (see Figure 1) is located in the central

portion of Florida. The basin is bordered roughly within the boundaries

of Orlando on the north, Lake Okeechobee on the south, the Sunshine

State Parkway on the east, and U.S. Highway 27 on the west. The

geography of the area is such that rainfall within the area basically

drains into the Kissimmee River, its small tributaries, and associated

-lakes. These lakes, as well as the Kissimmee River itself, furnish

water for municipalities, agricultural uses, industrial processes, and,

of course, recreational activities. The upper Kissimmee River Basin is

located in proximity to a large metropolitan area as well as one of the

nation's major amusement attractions. The central portion of the basin

contains some smaller cities and towns while the lower end of the basin

is somewhat remote from population areas.

The method used to estimate the demand for outdoor recreation and

its economic value builds upon past studies. In the next section a

review of some of the more important techniques for measuring recreation

demand is presented.

The third section presents the proportional sampling techniques

that were used to draw the sample of outdoor recreationists from the


Outdoor recreation for the purposes of this report will be water-
related leisure activities such as swimming, fishing, boating,
water-skiing, and camping.










TITUSVILLE


O


COCOA


AU GALIE


MELBOIURNE


VERO EACH


AVON PARK


.58MRINC


5--- o 2--
Sio,o 0 /


Figure l.--The Kissimmee River Basin, Florida






various sites in the Kissimmee River Basin. In the fourth section the

variables in the demand model are presented along with their derivation.

The fifth section presents the theoretical model while the sixth

section contains the summary and conclusions drawn from the study.

REVIEW OF PAST METHODOLOGIES


Over the past years several different methods of evaluation have

been used to determine the value of outdoor recreation. One method

involved using the cost of developing, maintaining, and operating a

recreational site as the value of a site. Another method of calculating

the value was to use the gross expenditures on the use of the site as

the value of the site. A more detailed discussion of early methods of

evaluating the economic benefits of a recreational site can be found in

the work of Brown, Singh, and Castle [2].

The use of gross expenditures of the cost of a site, however, does

not measure.the net economic benefits of a recreational site. The

willingness to pay for recreation consumption of the recreationists is

not accounted for by this procedure. Perhaps one of the first studies

to estimate the net economic value of recreation was that of Andrew H.

Trice and Samuel E. Wood [15]. They used the distances travelled by

recreationists to get to the site as a surrogate price. They further

assumed that persons living close to the site would enjoy a consumer

surplus since their cost of travel would be less than persons living

further away. The sum of the consumer surpluses was then used to

determine the value of the site for recreational activity.

A study by Clawson [3] had a profound impact on determining the

value of a recreational site. This method of estimating recreation

demand is presented'below in more detail.







Clawson Methodology


According to Clawson,the estimation of an outdoor recreation

demand curve proceeds in two distinct steps. The first step is the

derivation of demand for the total recreational experience. This

total experience includes all of the interpersonal decisions that are

made concerning the recreational experience. The gains that the total

family obtains fromthe recreational activity will depend on their

personal anticipation concerning the trip, their enjoyment of the

experience, and their recollection of the activity. In essence, the

total recreational experience is a package deal that encompasses the

planning of, participation in, and recollection of the whole activity.

From this demand curve for the total recreational experience is derived

a demand curve for only the recreational opportunity at the site.

The demand curve for the total recreation experience is applicable

to large populations rather than to groups. In essence, Clawson says

that a large number of people will have a predictable and measurable

reaction to a recreational activity. If the demand curve for a large

group of people can be measured, then it is possible that another large

group, chosen at random, with similar characteristics will respond to

the costs and other characteristics of the recreational activity in a

similar fashion.

In the measurement of his demand curve, Clawson selected a

proportion of a population area to give him a measure of volume. The

proportion of people in a demographic area that visited a particular

recreation site was the measure of volume.







By using the quantity of recreational activity and the cost of

that experience,.a demand curve was derived. This curve gave the

number of visits to the site as a function of the cost of that visit.

In order to construct a demand curve for a recreational site

itself, Clawson assumed that: (1) users of the site would view an

increase in entrance fees rationally and (2) the experience of users

from one location zone provides a measure of what people in other

zones would do if money costs and-time costs were the same. In essence,

this means that a group from a more distant area would use the site at

the same intensity as a nearer area if time and money costs were

identical. On the basis of these assumptions Clawson then estimated

the effect of an increase in fees on the number of visits. As the fee

was raised, the total number of people from each zone would fall. This

is calculated from the total recreation experience demand curve.

From the data generated by increasing the level of fees and

.calculating the decrease in number of visits, a new demand curve can be

constructed. This is the demand for the recreational site -- the

curve of interest to determine recreational value.

Using the basic Clawson methodology, other researchers in the field

of outdoor recreation have added other variables in their estimation of

the demand curve. Brown et al. in an Oregon study used expenditures

on durable equipment as well as individual on-site costs for a particular

outing to derive a demand curve [2].4


4For those desiring a better background in the history and evolution
of economic research in the field of outdoor recreation see [2, 3, 5, 7,
13, 14,and 15].







For the purpose of this report one of the more recent methodologies

in the field of outdoor recreation will be considered in detail.

Theoretical Model

The methodology utilized is based on the traditional concept of

consumer behavior theory. In order to participate in an outdoor

recreational experience, the recreationist will incur two types of

costs. That is, a recreationist will pay a certain cost, C, while

consuming recreation (on-site costs) and he will incur travel costs

T (fixed cost) in order to get to the recreation site. It is

assumed that it is necessary to pay a certain charge, T, before

consumption of recreation, Y,is possible. The charge, T, is not

dependent on the quantity of Y purchased. It can be considered a

payment for the privilege of purchasing Y.

The travel cost includes transportation cost, the cost of

food and lodging enroute to the recreation site, and other costs

involved with travelling to and from the site. The cost of travel

to the recreation site, T, competes with the cost of recreation and

all other commodities consumed. Therefore, the budget constraint

faced by the consumer is:

(1) m = CY + T + Pq m,C,q >0 Y,T> 0

where m is income of the recreationist, C is on-site costs, Y is

number of days per visit at the site, T is travel cost, q is all other

goods consumed and P is price of all other goods.
The maximization of a recreationist's constrained utility is

determined by the same technique employed in traditional consumer







behavior theory except that travel costs enters into the equation.5

By re-arranging Equation (1) as follows:


(2) m T = CY + Pq

the budget constraint shows how the travel cost, T, affects income.

By consuming Y the recreationist will have less income available

than if he only consumed q. The travel cost, T, will be zero if no

recreation is consumed since any amount of recreation will generate

some travel cost.6

On-Site Costs


A change in the on-site recreation costs, C, and the cost of other

nonrecreational commodities, P, will have an effect on the quantity of

recreation days per visit. A change in C or P will result in a change

in the slope of the budget constraint line since the slope of this

line is equal to the ratio of the two prices.

In Figure 2 travel costs, T, the level of income, m, and the

price of other commodities, P, are held constant at To, m, P0,

respectively. Only C is variable so that the effect of C on the

quantity of recreation days per visit demanded can be seen.

On budget line BCo the recreationist would prefer not to consume

any recreation since he could achieve a higher level of utility, U, by

foregoing recreation and consuming mo/Po units of nonrecreation. The


The explanation of constrained utility maximization is dealt with
in detail in many economic textbooks. See [8].
6This is true even if an individual walks to a recreation site.
His travel cost, in this case, is very small but is still positive.








Nonrecreation


b mo-To yC mo-To
y CO y C1


mO-T0
C11


Recreation


Figure 2.--Optimal combinations of recreation and nonrecreation
commodities for a consumer faced with variable
on-site costs


mO-To







recreationist could achieve this higher level rather than the point
m0 T
po since any recreation involves a cost To that must be incurred

before recreational activities can occur. If no recreation is consumed

then the potential recreationist has To more dollars of income to spend

on nonrecreation units. This causes a discontinuity in the budget con-

straint. A decrease in C from Co to C' is represented by the budget

constraint line BC'. After the price decrease, the utility level of U1

can be obtained in two ways. First, the recreationist can consume no
mo C C
recreation and be at the point or he can consume Y = Y q = q .

The recreationist would be indifferent between these two choices since

he would remain on the same utility level regardless of his decision.

Decreasing on-site costs further gives the iso-income line BC".
d d
This will change the optimal budget to Y = Y q = q Thus, as the

price of recreation (on-site costs) decreases, the quantity of recrea-

tion (days per visit) demanded increases. At any value of C where

C < C', the recreationist will prefer to consume a combination of recrea-

tion and nonrecreation commodities rather than solely nonrecreation

commodities. For any value of C where C> C', the consumption of

recreation would be excluded from the budget, i.e., any iso-income line to

the left of BC'. The price of a recreation unit at the point where a

recreationist is indifferent between recreation and nonrecreation, C'

in this case,is defined as the "critical" on-site cost (C*). The effect

of a change in C on the amount of recreation will depend on the magnitude

of the difference between C and the critical price (C*). The critical

value of the on-site recreation cost, C* depends on the level of income,







m, the price of other commodities, P, the cost of travel, T, and the
utility function, U.7

(3) C* = C* (T, P, m, U)


Travel Costs

A change in the cost of travel will be viewed in a different manner

than a change in on-site recreation costs due to the fact that a travel

cost must be incurred before any recreation is consumed. By varying

the travel cost, T, a different budget constraint is imposed for each

value of T. Equation (1) indicates that high levels of T leave less

income to be spent on recreation, Y, and all other commodities, q,

whereas lower levels of T will make more income available.

It can be hypothesized that,as travel costs decrease,the amount of

recreation (and nonrecreation goods) will increase within a certain

range due to the effect of more income being available for the consump-

tion of Y and q. This is because a decrease in travel costs can be

looked upon as an increase in income. However, since the number of

visits is not explicitly accounted for by the measure of recreational

use (days at site per visit), the reverse hypothesis may have some

validity. That is, as the travel increases the recreationist may spend

more days at the site per visit and make fewer visits. Thus the fact

that he may substitute days at the site for trips to the site may




7The recreationist's preference between recreation and other goods
is specified by his utility function, U.







cause the reverse hypothesis to hold. A more complete specification of the

quantity variable is needed. A detailed analysis of how the cost of travel

to a recreation site affects the number of days per visit can be found in

the study by Gibbs [7].

At a certain level of T, the potential recreationist is indifferent

between consuming recreation and not consuming recreation. This level of

travel cost has been labeled the critical travel cost, T*. It is so

designated since,at a level of travel cost below T*, the recreationist

will consume some level of recreation in order to maximize his utility,

while at a level above this cost he will not consume any recreation.

The value of T* is expressed as a function of four independent

variables:

(4) T* = T* (C, P, m, U)

That is, the critical travel cost, T*, depends on the variable

.on-site recreation costs, C, the cost of a unit of other commodities,

P, the income of the recreation group, m, and the utility function, U.

The theoretical model can now be written as three equations: the

quantity of recreation demanded per visit; the critical travel cost;

and the critical on-site recreation cost.


(5) Y = Y [(T* T), (C* C)] for (T* T) >_0
(C* C) > 0

(6) T* = T* (C, P, m, U)

(7) C* = C* (T, P, m, U)


Data collected via questionnaires from recreationists using the







Kissimmee River Basin in 1970 were used to estimate the variables in the

above equations. A discussion of the sampling procedure used to secure

a representative sample of recreationists and activities is presented in

the following section.


SELECTION OF THE SAMPLE

Certain socioeconomic data were needed from recreationists using

the Kissimmee River Basin to derive the variables used in the theoretical

model. This section presents the proportional sampling technique that

was devised to select certain sites and randomly to.select recreation-

ists to obtain the needed information. The selection of the sample

with respect to size and allocation was based on the entire year even

though four time periods were examined independently. The Kissimmee

River Basin was divided into three sub-basins. These were the upper,

central, and lower sub-basins corresponding to their geographic loca-

tion from north to south. Within each sub-basin various lakes were

chosen to collect data on the water-oriented outdoor recreation activi-

ties. The lakes to be included in the sample were chosen to represent

a cross section of the outdoor recreation activity that takes place within

the Basin.

In the upper sub-basin Lakes Mary Jane and Hart were chosen as the

sampled lakes. In the central sub-basin Lakes Tohopekaliga, Hatchineha
Tiger, and Kissimmee were chosen. The lower sub-basin included the

Kissimmee River. (By interviewing on a river rather than a lake the

diversity of the sample was increased in that it provided a sample of

bank fishermen, who are prevalent in this particular area.) In choosing







the sampled areas an effort was made to include some relatively

inaccessible sites as well as those that border urban areas. The

objective of the study was to measure the recreational value of the

total basin so that by choosing some remote areas which are part of

the total basin, a better picture of the type and amount of outdoor

recreation that takes place within the Basin will be obtained.

Each access point to the selected lakes was considered as a site

for interviews of outdoor recreationists. The access points were

sites where public access was available and included fish camps, boat

ramps, and campgrounds that had or furnished access to the selected

lakes.

Sample Size


In order to determine the sample size that will give statistically

reliable estimates of the variables to be estimated, the amount of error

that could be tolerated in the sample estimates was ascertained. The

average length of stay per person, n-, where n is the number of persons in
the recreation group, was used to determine the sample size. It

is believed that this was the most important variable and that, by

satisfying the size requirement for this variable, the required precision

for the study would be obtained.

The average number of recreation days per visit is multiplied by

N, the total number of visits to the recreation site, in order to
determine the total number of recreation days. The estimate of size

of the sample depends on the error that can be tolerated, the total

number of people who use the recreation area in question, the average







number of days per visit as well as the standard deviation of this

average. In this study an error of approximately 10 percent in the

estimate ofNY was allowed.8
n
In order to estimate the size of the sample needed, the parameters

N and Y must be estimated. From a previous study [7] and preliminary

indications from the Kissimmee River Basin the following estimates were
Y
used: variable -= 12 with a standard deviation of 18. From preliminary

data obtained by aircraft overflights conducted by the FCD on the

Kissimmee River Basin it was also estimated that approximately 500,000

persons used the area yearly. This means that,for purposes of deter-

mining an estimate of the sample size, N = 500,000. The sample size,

obtained by using these estimates,was found to be approximately 1,000.

This applies to the entire year and needs to be proportioned according

to time periods and sites.


Allocation of the Sample

The year was divided into four time periods to reflect better the

various activities that take place. The four time periods are defined

in Table 1.

Data from two agencies were used to determine the percentage of

yearly use that occurred during each time period. The Central and

Southern Florida Flood Control District (FCD) maintain boat locks






The techniques for estimating sample size are presented in many
statistical sampling references (see [4]).







Table l.--Time periods for 1970 with months in each period, Kissimmee
River Basin

Time period Months

1 February, March, April, and May

2 June, July, August, and September

3 October and November

4 December and January



on the Kissimmee River. Boats must pass through locks in order to

pass from the lower river to the upper river, or vice-versa. Yearly

data of all boats that pass through the locks were used to construct

Table 2. Independent estimates by the Florida Game and Fresh Water

Fish Commission wildlife officers corroborated the data obtained from

the FCD.


Table 2.--Estimated percent of use by time period, Kissimmee River
Basin


Time period

February-May

June-September

October-November

December-January


Proportion of yearly use
Percent
35


Total


100


From Table 2 it can be seen that 35 percent of the recreational use

of the area occurred during February through May and so forth. The






proportion of total use for the four time periods was used to determine

the number of interviews to conduct for each time period. This was done

to reflect more accurately the use of the area for recreational purposes.

As an example, time period one has 35 percent of the total use so 35

percent of the total interviews, or 350, were taken during this partic-

ular time period.

Discussions with officials of the Game and Fresh Water Fish

Commission and with residents of the area indicated that the various

lakes included in the survey had different intensities of use. This

would be reasonable to expect due to the remoteness or accessibility

of particular lakes and particular recreational activities. The

intensity of use for the lakes, which were grouped according to similar

characteristics, is presented in Table 3.


Table 3.--Estimates of intensity of use for lake groupings as a percent
of total use, Kissimmee River Basin, 1970

Location Proportion of use

Percent
Kissimmee, Hatchineha, Tiger 57

Tohopekaliga 20

Mary Jane, Hart 7

Kissimmee River 16

Total 100


The number of interviews to be conducted at each lake grouping

during each of the four time periods can be determined by using the

percentage of use that occurs during each time period as well as the







percentage of use at each lake grouping. Table 4 presents the number

of interviews by time period and lake grouping.

Every public access point to the chosen lakes was considered a site

where samples were to be taken. These sites ranged from only one access

point on Lake Mary Jane to 11 on the Lake Kissimmee group. Some

measure of the intensity of use for each site was needed to allocate
properly the samples among access points. Estimates provided by officers

of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission were used to construct Table

4.

One further step was needed to finalize the sampling procedure.

Usage of these various sites is likely to be different on weekdays than

on weekend days and holidays. The number of interviews for a particular

site was allocated according to weekend day or weekday usage in order

not to give equal weighting to all of the days of the week. Data from

Moss Parkwere used to divide equitably the number of interviews according

to weekend day or weekday usage. These data indicated that approximately

three times as many people use the park on a given weekend day than on

a weekday. Included in the classification of weekend days was the total

number of holidays that occur during the year. Dividing the year into

weekdays and weekend days plus holidays yielded 110 weekend days and

holidays and 255 weekdays. To obtain the percentage of people who





9
Moss Park, a county park located at Lakes Hart and Mary Jane, has
kept yearly records of visits. From these records the number of weekday
and weekend visitors was obtained.







Table 4.--Number of interviews for each lake grouping by time periods
for each access point, Kissimmee River Basina

Time period
Yearly
Lake group Access point 1 2 3 4 total

--------- Number of interviews ------


Kissimmee,
Hatchineha,
and Tiger


Lake
Tohopekaliga


Mack
Lester
Oasis
Port Hatchineha
Marie
S-65
Tiger Fish Camp
Pennington
Grape Hammock
Kissimmee Park
Shady Oak
Sub-total


Scotties
County Ramp
Red's
Jannis
Bank Fishing
2-lane Ramp
3-lane Ramp
Yacht Club
Sub-total


Mary Jane
and Hart

Kissimmee
River


Moss Park


Joe and Wanda's
O'Kissimmee
FCD Camp (North
FCD Boat Rampb
Sub-total


Total


24 18 18 10


22
17
11
6
56

350


16
12
8
4
40

248


17
13
9
4
43

264


9
6
4
2
21

138


aDerived from estimates of use
Commission wildlife officers.


by Game and Fresh Water Fish


bBapk fishermen were included in the sample at this location.


48
40
20
34
20
20
6
4
2
4
2
200

21
14
9
10
1
4
7
4
70


34
28
14
24
14
14
4
3
1
3
2
141


15
10
6
8
1
2
5
2
49


36
30
15
25
15
15
5
3
1
3
2
150

16
10
7
8
1
3
5
3
53


19
16
8
14
8
8
2
1
1
1*
1
79

8
6
4
4
1
1
3
1
28


137
114
57
97
57
57
17
11
5
11
7
570

60
40
26
30
4
10
20
10
200


64
48
32
16
160

1000







use the area on weekend days plus holidays and weekdays, the weekend and

holiday days were weighted by three.0 This results in an estimate of

56 percent of the use of the area occurs during the weekend days and

holidays and 44 percent of the use occurs during the weekdays.

From data in Table 4 the number of.interviews to be conducted at

a particular site during the weekdays was calculated by using the

previously calculated number of interviews for each site and multi-

plying it by the percentage of the type of day desired. Using the

prior example of 48 interviews to be conducted at Camp Mack for time

period one, the number of interviews for weekend days and holidays can

be calculated by multiplying 48 by 56 percent (i.e., 27). The number

of weekday interviews can be similarly found by multiplying by 44 percent,

In order to determine when the interviews should be conducted,

weeks were randomly selected from each month for each time period. In

the first time period, for example, 21 weekday interviews [(.44) (48)]

were needed from Camp Mack. Since there are four months in this time

period, dividing four into the 21 weekday interviews gives approximately

5 weekday interviews needed per month.

This sampling procedure was used to measure accurately the out-

door recreational activities on a proportional basis. The proportional

sampling procedure was designed by determining the percentage of total

use by time periods, lake groupings, interview sites, and finally by



10
0Since there are three times as many people who use the park on any
given weekend day or holiday than on weekdays, this gives a weight of
three to be applied to the weekend days.







weekend days and holidays or weekdays. By determining the proportion of

use for these various areas it was felt that a better cross section of

all the activities that occur,along with the intensities of the

activities, was accurately reflected by the sample.11

The data from the questionnaire (see Appendix A) were used to calculate

economic and sociological parameters that are necessary to estimate eco-

nomic value. The next section describes these variables and how they

are derived.

EXPLANATION OF THE VARIABLES


The questionnaire (see Appendix A) was administered sing the

sampling guidelines presented in the previous section, to recreationists

engaged in outdoor recreation. A large number of variables

could be determined from the questionnaire data. However, only the

following variables were utilized in this study:


Y = length of recreationist's visit (days)

T = travel costs

C = on-site costs

m = income

n = size of recreation group

s = site characteristics





Interviews were conducted by a private company,The Management
Team, using questionnaires developed for this particular study. The
interviewers were instructed to observe the activities at each site
where they conducted interviews and to interview people from all
activities.







Length of Recreationist's Visit (Y)

The number of recreation days per visit was determined by asking

the recreational group when they arrived and when they planned to leave.

The time of arrival and departure was used to determine the total number

of days and hours the recreational group planned to stay at the site.

To avoid a problem in terminology a day was defined as a 12-hour period.

For example, if a group of five recreationists visited a site from 6:00

a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on the same day, this would constitute five recreation

days.

Recreationists were also asked the minimum amount of time they would

spend at the site,considering the cost,the distance travelled getting to

the recreation site, and the time involved. In a very few instances,due

to unforeseen circumstances,some recreationists actually spent less time

at.the recreation site than they stated as a minimum. Where this

occurred the questionnaire was not used or the minimum number of days

was set equal to the actual days spent at the site. Some of the circum-

stances which created these few situations were severe weather conditions,

accidents, and other unforeseen events.

In preliminary analysis of the data there appeared to be two

separate sample groups. These two groups were those recreationists

that spent more than 90 days at the recreation site and those that

spent less than 90 days.

The group that spent over 90 days was removed from the analysis

since it was felt that they did not fit the definition of a recreationist

for purposes of this study. This group contained observations which

were characterized by low incomes and retirement ages, and thus fit







more closely the definition of a seasonal resident than a recreationist.

With these observations removed, the total usable observations from the

sample was reduced to 950.


Travel Costs (T)

The cost of travel to get to and from the recreation site included

food and lodging enroute and the cost of operation of vehicles that

transported the recreation group to the site. The amount of food

brought from their home for consumption enroute, food purchased while

enroute, the length of trip in days or hours, and the cost of lodging

enroute,whether in the form of camping fees or motel fees,were used

in determining the cost of food and lodging enroute. To calculate

vehicle cost the origin of the trip was determined so that a distance

from the point of origin to the recreation site could be ascertained.

The cost of operating the vehicle was estimated to be seven cents per
12
mile.1 Total transportation costs plus the total costs of the group

for lodging, meals, and other miscellaneous items in travelling to and

from the site were added to calculate travel costs for the group, T.

In order to be more accurate in determining the cost of food enroute,

the cost of food that would'have been consumed at home was subtracted.13




12The seven cents per mile only includes the cost of gas and oil
for the trip plus minor maintenance. It does not include depreciation,
taxes, or insurance which would be incurred regardless of the decision
to participate in a recreational .experience [9].

Cost of meals eaten at home was based on U. S. Department of
Agriculture estimates for various income levels [16, 17].








In some cases the cost of food eaten at home exceeded the cost of food

enroute. This, of course, would give a negative travel cost if it were

the only component. On perhaps a dozen interviews where vehicle costs

were nonexistent and food costs at home exceeded food consumed enroute,

a negative travel cost ensued. In no case did the costs amount to less

than minus $.07 per person. Negative travel costs were not used in

the study. For purposes of computation negative costs were set equal

to $.01.

On-Site Costs (C)

On-site costs included the cost of food consumed at the site for

all members of the group minus the estimated cost of food that would

have been consumed at home. Camping fees, cabin rentals, and motel

costs were also included in on-site costs. In addition,any cost

that was directly attributable to participation in the recreation

.experience was considered an on-site cost. This includes costs such
as: launching fees for boats, rental of such items as skis, cushions,

motors, and boats, and other articles. Also included in on-site costs

was the cost of operating a boat. This was determined by asking the

recreation group how many outboard motors they had and how many gallons

of gas would be used per day. Multiplying the number of gallons of

gas used per day by 42 cents yields the cost per day of operating the

boat.1 All of these costs were added and,where applicable,divided by

the number of days at the site to give C, the on-site cost per day.


14The average price of a gallon of gas plus the required oil for
mixing outboard fuel amounted to $.42 per gallon. This estimate was ob-
tained from a range of costs given by marina operators and boat owners.








Income (m)


The recreationist's income was estimated by determining an income

category that most closely corresponds to the family income of the

respondent. Family income pertains to all working members of the family.

It was felt that the total incomeof the recreationist's family would be

more of a factor in recreation decisions than the income of the primary

wage earner alone. Before tax incomes were used. No attempt was made

to allow for income taxes since there could be a great divergence,

depending on exemptions and deductions. Obtaining the required informa-

tion on these items would be extremely difficult,considering the reluc-

tance some people showed in listing.a simple income range.

The actual income used in the regression analysis was the.midpoint

of the income ranges. As an example, $9,500 was used as the income for

the $9,000 $9,900 range. The incomes given by the respondents were

also used in determining the cost of food consumed at home since

USDA estimates of the cost of food per day is given by the income

level of the consumer.

Size of Recreation Group (n)

The determination of the number of people in the group was by a

direct question. In most cases the recreation group appeared to be a

family group consisting of a father, mother, and one or more children.

In other cases the group consisted of scouts and similar groups. No

distinction.was made as to the composition of the group, however.








Site Characteristics (s)


The utility variable in the critical travel cost equation, T*,

and the critical on-site recreation cost equation, C*, may be represented

by several other variables. Among surrogate variables that have been used

in past studies are the amount of recreational equipment owned by a

recreationist, the personal characteristics of the recreationist, and

the characteristics of a recreation site. While there are undoubtedly

more variables that could be used to give a measure of utility, these

seem to be particularly applicable to a recreation study.

In this study the characteristics of a recreation site were

utilized as a measure of a recreationist's utility. Some site charac-

teristics that enter into consideration are the accessibility of the

site, the facilities available at the site, the general climate of the

area, and the location of the site. These characteristics are fixed

for each site but are variable when many sites are considered. The

characteristics of a site determine whether the recreationists will

consume recreation at the site and will determine in part the number

of days spent at the site.

In this study many characteristics of the individual recreation sites

were determined by use of a questionnaire (see Appendix B). The incidence

of restaurants, cabins, and campsites and other characteristics were

recorded. These results are summarized in Appendix Table B-l.

Recreation sites were divided into three groups. Those with a high

incidence of the characteristics that determine a site's desirability

were placed in Group I. Group II contained those sites that had a









medium level of desirable site characteristics while Group III had a low

level of desirable characteristics. Sites that occurred in Group III

perhaps had only a boat ramp or at most simple picnic facilities while

those of Group I were characterized by restaurants, motel accommodations,

and other such amenities.

APPLICATION OF THE MODEL

The theoretical model can now be written as:


(5) Y = Y [(T*- T), (C* C)] for T* T> 0
C* C > 0

(6) T* = T* (C, m, s)

(7) C* = C* (T, m, s)


where s is the site characteristic and is used as a surrogate for

utility, U.
The three equations can be solved simultaneously to obtain a

relationship between the independent variables in the T* and C*

equations and the dependent variable Y. The latter can be estimated

directly to obtain the demand relationship. The dependent variable

(Y) is defined as the number of visitor days a recreational group

spends at the recreation site per trip. Thus Y = ny, where y is the

number of days per person per visit and n is the size of the recreation

group. Since Y is determined by two separate variables, a per capital

equation to utilize a single dependent variable is:

(8) y = y (t, c, m, s, n) for C < C*







Where

c = daily on-site costs per person

t = travel costs per person

m = income of the recreationist

s = site characteristics

n = number of persons in the recreation group

Utilizing multiple linear regression, the relationship between

the dependent variable (y) and the independent variables (t, c, m, s,

and n) can be determined.

The impact of n on y was hypothesized to be of a curvilinear nature.
1
Thus was used as an independent variable rather than n. Due to prior
evidence [5] that the demand function may not be linear, a semi-logarithmic

regression equation was estimated where the dependent variable, y, was

in natural log form and the independent variables were non-logarithmic.

The estimated demand relationship is given as:15

(9) Iny = 2.183 + .0260** t .051** c + .00001* m

(.0014) (.010) (.000005)

-1.399** -+ .229* D .258* D2 .368** D

(.172) '(.114) (.120) (.129)

R2 = .351 Degrees of freedom = 942

The D1, D2, and D3 variables represent zero-one variables to account

for the differences among time periods. For example, D1 helps explain



1The standard deviations are in parentheses beneath the coefficients.
** indicates significance at the 1 percent level, and indicates signifi-
cance at the 5 percent level.









how the demand relationship would be different between time periods one

and two. The coefficient on DI indicates that one could expect recrea-

tionists to spend an additional 1.3 days recreating per visit in time

period two over time period one. Similarly, the length of stay would

decrease in both periods three and four compared with one.

Equation (9) is applicable to all types of recreation sites in the

Kissimmee River Basin. Due to the lack of a significant effect of site

characteristics in the model, s was not used in the final formulation

of Equation (9). It was concluded from evidence in this study that the

specific site characteristics did not enter into the decision concerning

the number of days a recreationist spends at a recreation site in the

Kissimmee River Basin.

Equation (9) contains on-site cost, travel cost,'income, number of

recreationists in the group, and the effects of time periods. In this

equation the sign of the coefficient of travel cost, t, is positive.

This indicates that as travel costs increase $10.00 the recreationist

will increase his stay at the site by 1.3 days.

The negative sign of the coefficient of on-site costs, c, indicates

that as the price of a day of recreation increases the number of days
spent at the recreation site will decrease. An increase of $1.00 will

result in a decrease in the number of days spent at the site of approx-

imately 1.1 days. Both the coefficients of travel cost and on-site

cost are significant at the 1 percent level.

The sign of the coefficient of m, the recreationist's income is

positive. This indicates that as incomes go up the number of days a

recreationist will spend at the site increases. For example, a







$1,000.00 increase in income would result in a 1 day increase in the time

spent at the recreation site per visit. This indicates that even though

income is significant in determining length of stay, the number of days

at the site is not very responsive to small changes in income. The

income elasticity is less than 1 for incomes of $100,000 or less. This

implies that, within this range, as income increases 1 percent, the

amount of recreation will increase less than 1 percent.
1
The coefficient of the variable is negative. The negative sign

of the coefficient indicates that as the group size increases the number

of days spent at the recreation site per visit increases. This can per-

haps be explained by hypothesizing that larger group sizes usually

indicate family groups who are taking vacation time while individual

recreationists usually spend only a few hours.

Equation (9) was used to determine a demand function for outdoor

recreation. The demand function for outdoor recreation is a relation-

ship between the quantity of recreation consumed (days at a site per

person per visit, y) and various prices of recreation (on-site costs

per person per day, c) with all other variables held constant. The

demand curve for an average individual was determined by holding all

independent variables except c in Equation (9) at their means.

By using the mean values of t, m, n, 01, D2, and D3 in Equation (9)

and solving for the In y in terms of c,the demand function becomes:

(10) ln y = 1.929 .051 c\

The means of the dependent and independent variables are summarized

in Table 5.





35

Table 5.--Average values of variables estimated for outdoor recreationists
in the Kissimmee River Basin, 1970

Days per Daily Minimum
Time Days per Travel Daly Income Group Minimum
visit on-site days per
period cost t) onsit) (m) size (n) si

No. ---------- Dollars -------- -------- No. ------
Feb.-May 7.95 20.16 3.25 11,782 3.07 4.01
June-Sep. 5.16 7.80 2.41 10,079 3.27 2.08

Oct.-Nov. 3.75 7.16 3.38 10,048 2.77 1.98

Dec.-Jan. 4.38 17.31 3.66 11,997 3.06 2.58

All periods 5.64 13.38 3.23 10,964 3.06 2.78

aMeasured in terms of 12-hour periods.


Another component of the demand function for outdoor recreation is

the critical on-site cost, c*. Recreationists had a good idea as to the

minimum length of stay at the. site. Thus, critical on-site cost was esti-

mated by obtaining the minimum number of days recreationists were willing
to recreate, other things being equal. This corresponds to the maximum price

they would be willing to pay on a demand curve. The minimum number of days,
y*, was substituted into Equation (10), which was then solved for c. The
minimum number of days, y*, 'was calculated to be 2.78 days for all periods.

The critical on-site cost, c*, was calculated to be $17.77. This is the

maximum amount of on-site costs a recreationist would pay to engage in
outdoor recreation given his travel cost and income.
The demand function for recreation, on the average, can be written

as:

(11) y = e1.929 .051c for c < $17.77





36


Equation (11) is derived with all independent variables held at

their mean (except on-site cost). This includes D1, D2, and D3. Thus,

this relation is based on the average recreationist over all time

periods. If, however, the demand relation for a particular time period

were desired, a zero or one should be substituted for the Di variable.

For example, for time period one all D variables equal zero. The

demand relation for time period one holding all other variables at

means appropriate to time period one, is:

2.198 .051c
y =e

.For period two, D1 is set equal to one and D2 and D3 are zero.

Similarly, for periods three and four, D2 is one and D3 is one,

respectively. If an analysis of recreational values called for a partic-

ular time period, then it is preferable to use values of variables

associated with that period.

By utilizing the mean values obtained.in the demand function a

graphical representation can be derived. The demand function for an

average recreationist, on a per visit.basis, in the Kissimmee River

Basin during 1970 is presented in Figure 3.

The value per visit is based on the theory of consumer surplus

and is the shaded portion of Figure 3. Consumer surplus is based on the

concept that the price a rational person pays for something can never
exceed the price he would be willing to pay rather than do without it.

In many cases the actual price he pays is less than what he would have

paid. The satisfaction that he derives over and above what he gives

up is surplus satisfaction. The measure of this satisfaction is the













On-si
C* = 17.71




















C = 3.23


S= e1.929 .051c
,y=e


y* = 2.78


Days per visit


Figure 3.--Estimated demand function and consumer surplus for an
individual recreationist, Kissimmee River Basin, 1970







excess of the price which he would be willing to pay (measured by a

demand curve) over what he actually paid. The concept of consumer

surplus was used in estimating the value of recreation.

The annual average value per visit was calculated as:


17.77

Value per visit = (e1.929 .051c) dc

3.23


= $59.91

The entire shaded area under the demand curve is included in consumer

surplus even though no recreation is consumed until the minimum number

of days spent at the site is reached. If there were not a discontinuity

due to the minimum number of.days, the demand curve would intersect the

on-site cost axis and the entire area would be included in consumer

surplus. Due to the discontinuity the curve is truncated.
The economic value of recreation for an individual in the

Kissimmee River Basin is $59.91. To find the total value of recreation

to the area the individual value is multiplied by the total number of

visitors. There were an estimated 479,260 visits to the Kissimmee

River Basin in 1970 [1]. The value of recreation in the Kissimmee River

Basin in 1970 was estimated as:


(479,260) ($59.91) = $28,712,467







This value relates to that amount of worth accruing to recreationists

visiting the Kissimmee River Basin in 1970 over and above the on-site

costs. Travel cost, income, and group size have influence on this value

in that they jointly determine the position of the demand function in

Figure 3. If incomes were to increase, for example, then the curve would

lie further from the origin; thus the value estimates would increase.

The exact impact of increasing incomes can be estimated by utilizing the

coefficient on the income variable in Equation (9). Similar effects

can be estimated for the other independent variables.


SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS


Summary and Conclusions

Traditionally, many levels of government are involved'in providing

recreational opportunities. These opportunities range from small city

parks to the extensive national forest system. The funding of these

recreation sites, provided from taxes or the sponsoring governmental

body, must compete with funds needed for many other services. For this

reason a great deal of interest has been placed in the measurement of

the economic value of outdoor recreation.

It is the purpose of this report to present procedures and to

estimate the economic value of "water-oriented" outdoor recreation in

the Kissimmee River Basin during 1970.

The Kissimmee River Basin is located in the central portion of

Florida and is bordered roughly within the boundaries of Orlando on

the north, Lake Okeechobee on the south, the Sunshine State Parkway on

the east, and U.S. Highway 27 on the west.








A sample of lakes and streams was chosen to collect recreational

data. Every access point on each sampled lake became the site for

interviewing. These access points were fish camps, boat ramps, and/or

campgrounds that furnished public access.

A proportional sample was taken to account for differences in use

among (1) the sampled lakes, (2) the access points on each lake,

(3) weekdays versus weekends and holidays, and (4) various activities.
The method used in this study for determining the economic value

of recreation uses four independent variables to determine the 'impact of

the recreationist's decision concerning how many days to recreate per

visit. Based on the assumption that travel costs compete for the

recreation dollar in a different manner than on-site recreation costs,

a recreation demand relationship is derived.

The demand function

y = e.929 .051c. for c < $17.77

resulted in a per visit value of recreation of $59.91 for an individual

recreationist. This figure, when multiplied by the total number of

recreationists that use the area,gives the estimated total value of

recreation for the year as $28.7 million.

Implications


The value of approximately $28.7 million is the measure of consumer

surplus enjoyed by recreationists who visit the area. This figure does

not measure the gross expenditures or income to the area. It is only a

measure of the "surplus satisfaction" accruing to the recreationists

using the site over and above their expenditures.








While this method of estimating economic value of recreation is

perhaps a significant advancement over recent methods, there appear to

be some improvements that should be incorporated in future studies.

The method dealt specifically with the number of days per visit a

recreationist would spend at a site depending on his costs, income,

and group size. Future studies should include other variables that may

enter into the recreationist's decision on length of stay per visit.

Variables such as cost of fixed equipment, leisure time available, and

many others should perhaps be included to explain better the days per

visit decision. The number of trips a recreationist takes to a recrea-

tion site during a year's time needs to be accounted for. This could

have a definite influence on the number of days per visit. For example,

a weekly visitor to the recreation site may be influenced to a greater

extent by a rise in'on-site costs than an out-of-state visitor who

visits the site only once a year. Tradeoffs between number of visits

and days per visit are made in response to changes in on-site and

travel costs.

Implications may also be relevant to operators of recreational

facilities. In order to make sound decisions regarding the expansion

or development of recreational facilities entrepreneurs must evaluate

both expected costs and potential revenues. This study has contributed

information to managers in the Kissimmee River Basin by which the

potential revenues of an investment can be obtained. The total revenue

associated with operation of a facility catering to recreationists is

the product of the costs charged per day and the number of recreation

days. Of the recreationist's on-site costs, some can be manipulated by







operators of facilities. A demand function is used to estimate the response

to changes in on-site costs. For example, the coefficient (-.051) or the

on-site costs variable in the estimated demand relation [Equation (9)]

reflects the expected change in the length of stay with a given change

in on-site costs. For every 1 percent increase in costs the average

recreationist will spend .16 percent fewer days at the site per visit.

If on-site costs were to rise from $3.23 to $4.23 per day,then the

average length of stay would decrease from 5.64 to 5.35 days.

An increase in costs is proportionately larger than the decrease

in length of stay. Therefore, the total revenue associated with this

increase in costs would be higher. As long as the decrease in use is less

than the rise in costs, revenue to the operator will increase.

Based on the data from the Kissimmee River Basin in 1970, on-

site costs could increase up to $17.77 before a significant reduction in

length of stay would be realized. At this cost the average recrea-

tionist would prefer not to recreate. This information should be

interpreted correctly; an operator of a recreational facility would

not be able to charge an entrance fee of $17.77 since it is the

maximum tolerable on-site cost, some of which is not under the

control of the facility operator. The total daily on-site costs

could be increased up to $17.77, which includes meals, costs of

operating boat, and all other costs per day while at the site.







REFERENCES

[1] Behar, Morris. "Recreational Usage in the Kissimmee River Basin,
Florida." Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of
Florida, December 1972.

[2] Brown, William G., Ajmer Singh, and Emery N. Castle. An Economic
Evaluation of the Oregon Salmon and Steelhead Sport Fishery.
Oregon State University Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 78.
Corvallis, Oregon: September 1964.

[3] Clawson, Marion. Methods of Measuring the Demand for and Value of
Outdoor Recreation. Resources for the Future, Inc.
Reprint #10.. Washington, D.C.: 1959.

[4] Cochran, William G. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley &
Son, 1953.

[5] Edwards, J. A., K. C. Gibbs, L. J. Guedry, and H. H. Stoevener.
"The Demand for Non-Unique Outdoor Recreational Services:
Methodological Issues." Oregon State University Agr. Exp.
Sta. Tech. Paper No. 3317. Corvallis, Oregon: 1972.

[6] Friedman, Milton. Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1953.

[7] Gibbs, Kenneth C. "The Estimates of Recreational Benefits
Resulting from an Improvement of Water Quality in Upper
Klamath Lake: An Application of a Method for Evaluating
the Demand for Outdoor Recreation." Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Oregon State University, June 1969.

[8] Henderson, James M. and Richard E. Quandt. Microeconomic Theory.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1958.

[9] "The High Cost of Driving and What to do About it," Changing
Times, 24 (September 1970), p. 37.

[10] McGuire, John F. III. "An Application of Two Methods to
Estimate the Economic Value of Outdoor Recreation in the
Kissimmee River Basin." Unpublished Masters' Thesis,
University of Florida, December 1972,

[11] Norton, G. A. "Public Outdoor Recreation and Resource Allocation:
A Welfare Approach," Land Economics 46 (November 1970),
pp. 414-422.

[12] Ostle, Bernard. Statistics in Research. Ames: Iowa State
Univ. Press, 1963.






[13] Pearse, Peter H. "A New Approach to the Evaluation of Non-Priced
Recreation Resources," Land Economics 44 (February 1968),
pp. 87-99.

[14] Stevens, Joe B. "Recreation Benefits from Water Pollution Control,"
Water Resources Research, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1966.

[15] Trice, Andrew H. and Samuel E. Wood. "Measurement of Recreation
Benefits," Land Economics 34 (May 1958), pp. 196-207.

[16] U. S. Agricultural Research Service. "Food Consumption of
Households in the U. S.," Household Food Consumption
Survey, 1965-1966. Washington, D.C.: 1965, p. 212.

[17] U. S.Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index for
May1970. Washington, D.C.: June 1970.


Additional References

An Economic Study of the Demand for Outdoor Recreation.
Collection of papers presented at the Annual Meeting of
the Cooperative Regional Research Technical Committee,
Report #1. San Francisco, California: March 1968.

Grubb, Herbert W. and James T. Goodwin. Economic Evaluation of
Water-Oriented Recreation in the Preliminary Texas Water
Plan. Texas Water Development Board Report 84. Austin,
Texas: September 1968.

Johnson, Hugh A. "Demand for Outdoor Recreation." Paper
presented at the Outdoor Recreation Workshops (Soil
Conservation Service), New Mexico, February 1968.

Johnson, Hugh A. "Some Research Needs in Recreation." Paper
presented at the National Workshop in Extension Recreation,
Univ. of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, February 1967.

Johnson, Hugh A. "The Role of Recreation in Our Play Oriented
Society." Paper given at the 10th Annual Meeting,
Mississippi Section, American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, Univ. of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi,
November 1969.

Participation in Outdoor Recreation: Factors Affecting Demand
Among American Adults. Outdoor Recreation Resource Review
Commission Study Report 20. Washington, D.C.: 1962.





45


Reiling, S. D., K. C. Gibbs, and H. H. Stoevener. Economic Benefits
from an Improvement in Water Quality. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
Series EPA-RS-73-008. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government
Printing Office, January 1973.

Stevens, J. B. "Measurement of Economic Values in Sport Fishing:
An Economist's Views of Validity, Usefulness, and Propriety."
Paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Fisheries
Society, September 1968.

Stoevener, H. H. and L. J. Guedry. "Sociological Characteristics
of the Demand for Outdoor Recreation." Paper for discussion by
Technical Committee WM-59, San Francisco, California, March
1968.
































APPENDICES






























APPENDIX A

RECREATIONIST QUESTIONNAIRE









UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
Recreation Study


INTERVIEW #
Cluster #
Access Point
Time Int. Starts


INTRODUCTION: Hello, I'm an
interviewer for the University of Florida. We
are working on a recreation survey and.would
like to ask you a few questions concerning your
trip to this particular recreation site
First of all, would
you say the main purpose of you trip is to visit
this site or are you just stopping off here en
route to someplace else?


En route ( ) TERMINATE


To visit this site


( ) CONTINUE


1. Including yourself, how many persons are there
in your party which is stopping at this site?


2. Would you tell me the name of the place from
which this trip originated? The name of the
city, county, and state?.



(IF VISITING IN FLORIDA AND LEFT FLORIDA LOCATION
THE FLORIDA LOCATION WOULD BE THE ONE TO LIST)

2a Is that you home or another place you
are visiting


2b Is the address where you live (are
staying) right in the city limit,
in a suburban area of the city of
in a rural area?


City
County
State

TO COME TO SITE



Home ( )
Other ( )




Suburban ( )
Rural ()


SKIP TO Q. 3 .... .City


2c How many miles do you live outside the city?


Alone
Two
Three
Four
Five
Other


()
( )
( )
()
C)









2d In what direction would that be from
the city is it (READ) North
South
East
West
Other

3. About how many hours did you travel to get to this lake?

4. How many automobiles, including trucks,
vans and so forth did your group drive
to this lake? One
Two
Other


5. When did your group arrive at this
recreation site the data and time?


DATE


TIME


6. On what data, and about what time that day,
does your group plan to leave?


DATA


TIME


IF STAYING 12 hours or less ask Q 7

IF STAYING MORE THAN 12 HOURS SKIP TO Q Ta

7. We are interested in finding out what would be the shortest length of
time your group would spend at this site, considering the time and
expense involved with a visit to this site -- what would be the least
number of hours you would consider spending here?







7a We are interested in finding out what would be the shortest length of
time you would spend at this site, considering the time and expense
involved with a visit to this site -- what would be the least number
of days and nights you would spend here?


( )
( )
( )
( )


__








8. We would like to get an idea of the average costs involved in taking
advantage of a recreation site such as this. Thinking about expendi-
tures that your party made while on the way to this site what amount
would you say your group spent on food and/or liquor in restaurants,
grocery and/or liquor stores while traveling to this site? Just your
best estimate.







9. About how much do you think your party will probably spend in
restaurants, grocery and/or liquor stores while you are here at this
recreation site?





9a Thinking back to the supplies you bought and preparations made for
this trip before you left about how much did your party spend in
grocery and/or liquor stores to bring on this trip?


10. In regard to the food and drink you
purchased to bring on this trip, was
it all consumed en route to this site,
some consumed en route and some at the
site, or all brought for use at the site?


all consumed en route ( )
some consumed en route ( )
all brought for use on
site ( )


11. Thinking now of lodgings, including money spent in motels, trailer
parks, camping fees and so forth, about how much would you say your
party spent for lodgings en route to this site?



lla What do you think your party will spend for lodgings in motels,
camping fees and so forth while here at this site?


12. Were you at this site yesterday?


YES ( )


NO ( )








12a IF YES:


About how many miles, if any did your party drive yesterday
while here at this site?


What was the purpose of your drive yesterday?


How many of your party actually participated in activities
on the lake/river yesterday?

What activities did your party engage in yesterday?
(fishing, boating, swimming, water skiing, etc.)


12b IF NO: About how many miles do you think your party will drive today
at this site?

What will be the purpose of your drive today?


About how many of your party do you think will actually
participate in activities on the lake/river.today?

What activities.do you think your party will participate in
at this lake/river, today: (fishing, boating, swimming,
water skiing, etc.)



13. How many outboard motors did your party bring with them to this site?

IF NONE SKIP TO Q. 16)

14. How many gallons of gas will you use at this site for your motor
(motors) in a day?





15. What amount of money do you estimate your party will spend on boat
launching fees while at this site?








16. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD A Rental Card)

Looking at this list of rental items, will you please tell me which,
if any, of these items you or other members of your group have rented
for this particular trip? Or any other items besides those listed?

IF NONE SKIP TO Q. 17 RECORD ITEMS LISTED IN COLUMNS

ASK OF EACH ITEM CHECKED: ..a. How much is the rental rate,
is it hourly, daily or weekly?
(RECORD IN RENT COLUMN)

b. For what length of time do
you plan to rent this item?
(RECORD UNDER TIME)

ITEMS RENT TIME
(16) (16a) (16b)

boat and motor together
boat
outboard motor
boat trailer
Fishing tackle (rod, reel, tackle,
camper, etc.)
camper (van, truck, trailer camper,
etc.)
tent trailer
tent
sleeping bag
water skis
life vests
other equipment for boats
any other items? (IF YES, what?)




17, Thus far, we have talked about expenses for the automobile, boat, food,
rental and lodging expense can you think of any other types of
expenses your party had in coming here to this recreation site for
instance, camera or camping supplies, or souvenirs you may have
purchased? No ( ) ASK 17a Yes ( ) SPECIFY
(Item) (Amount)






17a Any other expenses, that we have not talked about, that your party will
have while staying at this recreation site?


No ()


ASK 18


Yes ( )


(Item)


SPECIFY


(Amount)


18. Thinking now of the various baits you will use while at this site, about
how much do you think you will spend while here for bait, both natural
and artificial?

(WRITE IN FIGURE)

About how much did you spend at home or en route for baits to be used
at this site?

(WRITE IN FIGURE)

19. Do you have an annual permit for entering parks or recreation areas?


Yes ( )


No ()


IF YES: What kind is it?


Golden Eagle
Sunshine Ticket
Other'


20. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD B)


On this card are various letters next to different income categories.
Please read me the letter that most closely corresponds to the combined
yearly income before taxes, for all working members of your family who
live at home.


Less than
$ 3,500
$ 5,000
$ 7,000
$ 8,000
$ 9,000
$10,000
$11,000
$12,000
$13,000
$15,000
$17,000
$20,000


- $ 3,500
- $ 4,999
- $ 6,999
- $ 7,999
- $ 8,999
- $ 9,999
- $10,999
- $11,999
- $12,999
- $14,999
- $16,999
- $18,999
- $24,999


(n)
(o)
(p)
(q)
(r)
(s)
(t)
(u)
(v)
(w)
(x)
(y)
(z)


$ 25,000
$ 26,000
$ 31,000
$ 35,000
$ 36,000
$ 40,000
$ 45,000
$ 50,000
$ 56,000
$ 60,000
$ 75,000
$ 85,000
over $100,000


(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(1)
(n)


$ 25,999
$ 30,999
$ 34,999
$ 35,999
$ 36,999
$ 44,999
$ 49,999
$ 55,999
$ 59,999
$ 74,999
$ 84,999
$100,000


_ ___


_~









So that my office may check a percentage of my work, may I please have your
name and telephone number?


Phone No.


Male
Female


Name


area


Age (by observation


Under 21
21 29
30 39


40-- 49
50 59
60/over


I hereby certify that this interview was actually taken with the person
described above, and represents a true and accurate account of the interview.


DATE


Tipe Int. Ended


Comments:





























APPENDIX B

SITE CHARACTERISTIC QUESTIONNAIRE








In order to determine the characteristics that could possibly affect

arrecreationist's decision to visit a particular site, the following

questionnaire was completed for each recreation site sampled. The

compiled results of this questionnaire are summarized in Appendix Table B-l.


1. Number of cabins or trailers. for rent

2. Number of camping sites. with electricity

3. Number of permanent dwellings on property associated with lake.

4. Number of lanes in boat ramp surfaced: Yes No

5. Number of moorage sites for boats covered: Yes No

.6. Restaurant or cafe. Yes No

7. Picnic facilities. Yep No

8. Fish camp or bait store. __Yes No; Guide Available Yes No

Number of boats for rent (not houseboats),

10. Number of houseboats for rent.

11. Fee for fishing at the site.

12. Activities available at the site (which people actively take part in),

Swimming
Fishing
Camping
Waterfowl hunting
Boating
Water skiing

13. Public restrooms available. Yes No

14. Access road surfaced, Yes No







Appendix Table B-l.--Summary -of site characteristics by access site, Kissimmee River Basin, 1970

Cabins
Moorage
Campsites/ Boatramp/ sites/ Picnic
Site Total For rent with elec. surfaced covered Restaurant facilities


O'Kissimmee
FCD North
Joe & Wanda's
S/65 Boat Ramp
Port Hatchineha
Camp Marie
Oasis Fish Camp
Tiger Lake
(Canal to Rosalie
Public Boat Ramp)
Shady Oaks
Kissimmee Park
Tiger Lake Fish Camp
Grape Hammock
Camp Mack
Camp Lester
Osceola Co. Boat
Ramp
Red's Fish Camp
Scotties
Moss Park
3-lane-Boat Ramp (Ki
simmee)
2-lane Boat Ramp (Ki
simmee)
Jannis' Fish Camp
St. Cloud Beach


----------
4
15
10
0
4
8
12


Number
2
0
8

4
7-
12


0
230
28
42
9
20
11


------------
2/0
100/0
-18/18
0/0
6/6
0/0
0/0


25/0
50/0
0/0
25/25
20/20
40/40
15/15

0/0
5/0
18/18
100/6

0/0

0/0
6/6
0/0


yes/yes
yes/yes
yes/yes
no/no
yes/yes
yes/yes
yes/yes


yes/yes
yes/yes
no/no
yes/yes
yes/yes
yes/yes
yes/yes

yes/yes
yes/no
yes/no
yes/yes

yes/yes

yes/yes
yes/no
yes/yes


Number
16/0
0/0
50/0
0/0
10/0
6/0
?/?


0/0
25/15
40/26
0/0
10/0
40/20
50/20

0/0
30/0
55/55
0/0

0/0

0/0
40/12
20/0


No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes


No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No

No
No
Yes
No

No

Yes?
Yes
Yes?


No
No
No
No
No
No
No


Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

No
No
Yes
Yes

No

No
No
Yes


Continued


s-

S-








Appendix Table B-l.--Summary of site characteristics by access
1970 -- Continued


site, Kissimmee River Basin,


Boats Access Fish camp
for Fishing fee/ Fishing road or
Site rent launch fee Restrooms guides surfaced Houseboats bait


O'Kissimmee
FCD North
Joe & Wanda's
S/65 Boat Ramp
Port Hatchineha
Camp Marie
Oasis Fish Camp
Tiger Lake
(Canal to Rosalie
Public Boat Ramp)
Shady Oaks
Kissimmee Park
Tiger Lake Fish Camp
Grape Hammock
Camp Mack
Camp Lester
Osceola Co. Boat
Ramp
Red's Fish Camp
Scotties
Moss Park
3-lane Boat Ramp (Kis-
simmee)
2-lane Boat Ramp (Kis-
simmee
Jannis -Fish Camp
St. Cloud Beach


Dollars
01/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
.50/1.00
0/1.00
no/0


0/0
0/1.00
0/0
0/1.50
0/1.00
0/1.50
0/1.00

0/0
0/.50
0/.50
0/0


yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes


yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes

no
yes
yes
yes


0/0


0/0
0/.50
0/0


no
yes
yes


yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes


no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes

no
yes
yes
no

no

no
yes
no


yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes


yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes

yes
no
yes
yes

yes

yes
yes
yes


yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes


no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes

no
yes
yes
no

no

no
yes




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