• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Cover
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 Executive summary
 Introduction and trends in beach...
 Literature review
 Present determinants of Florida...
 A tourist survey approach to resource...
 User value and the economic impact...
 Policy implications and conclu...
 References
 Survey instrument
 Socioeconomic characteristics of...






Group Title: Florida Sea Grant College Program technical report ;, no. 64
Title: Actual and potential tourist reaction to adverse changes in recreational coastal beaches and fisheries in Florida
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00076607/00001
 Material Information
Title: Actual and potential tourist reaction to adverse changes in recreational coastal beaches and fisheries in Florida
Series Title: Florida Sea Grant College Program technical report
Physical Description: xi, 86 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Bell, Frederick W
Florida Sea Grant College
Publisher: Florida Sea Grant College Program
Place of Publication: Tallahassee? Fla
Publication Date: 1992
 Subjects
Subject: Coasts -- Recreational use -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Tourism -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Recreation -- Research -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Beaches -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Natural resources -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 77-79).
Statement of Responsibility: by Frederick W. Bell.
General Note: "June 1992."
General Note: "Florida Sea Grant College Program, Project Number R/C - P - 16, Grant Number NA 89 AA-D-5."
Funding: Technical paper (Florida Sea Grant College) ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00076607
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: oclc - 26627338

Table of Contents
    Cover
        Cover 1
        Cover 2
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Acknowledgement
        Acknowledgement
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents 1
        Table of Contents 2
        Table of Contents 3
    Executive summary
        Unnumbered ( 8 )
        Unnumbered ( 9 )
        Unnumbered ( 10 )
        Unnumbered ( 11 )
        Unnumbered ( 12 )
        Unnumbered ( 13 )
        Unnumbered ( 14 )
    Introduction and trends in beach and fishery resources
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Literature review
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
    Present determinants of Florida tourism: is resource scarcity a factor?
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
    A tourist survey approach to resource scarcity
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
    User value and the economic impact of saltwater beach and fishery resources in Florida's coastal zone
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
    Policy implications and conclusions
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
    References
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
    Survey instrument
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
    Socioeconomic characteristics of tourist sample
        Page 86
Full Text
/il




June 1992 TP-64



tniersi 'l ci FlorC1.,



Actual and Potential Tourist Reaction

to Adverse Changes in Recreational

Coastal Beaches and Fisheries in Florida


by
Frederick W. Bell




rLOI l

FLORIDA SEA GRANT COLLEGE PUBLICATION O6 AN'T
COLLC PIROORA







































Technical Papers are duplicated in limited quantities for
specialized audiences requiring rapid access to information. They
are published with limited editing and without formal review by the
Florida Sea Grant College Program. Content is the sole
responsibility of the author. This paper was developed by the
Florida Sea Grant College Program which is supported by award of
the Office of Sea Grant, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, grant number NA 89 AA-
D-SG053, under provisions of the National Sea Grant College and
Programs Act of 1966. This information is published by the Sea
Grant Extension Program which functions as a component of the
Florida Cooperative Extension Service, John T. Woeste, Dean, in
conducting Cooperative Extension work in Agriculture, Home
Economics, and Marine Sciences, State of Florida, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Commerce, and Boards of County
Commissioners, cooperating. Printed and distributed in furtherance
of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 14, 1914. The Florida Sea
Grant College is an Equal Opportunity-Affirmative Action employer
authorized to provide research, educational information and other
services only to individuals and institutions that function without
regard to race, color, sex, age, handicap or national origin.

















ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL TOURIST REACTION


TO ADVERSE CHANGES IN


RECREATIONAL COASTAL BEACHES AND FISHERIES


IN FLORIDA


by


Frederick W. Bell


Department of Economics
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida 32306







Florida Sea Grant College Program
Project Number R/C P 16
Grant Number NA 89 AA-D-5




Florida Sea Grant College Program
Technical Report Number 64


$4.00


June 1992













Acknowledgement


The author wishes to express his appreciation to Rife

Marketing, Inc. of Miami, Florida for conducting the survey

of tourists upon which this study is based. This

organization did an exceptional job. In the Florida

Department of Natural Resources, Phil Flood and Lonnie Ryder

of the Division of Beaches and Shores were extremely helpful

in proving data and reviewing the survey instrument.. Thanks

are also in order to Robert Palmer of the Florida Marine

Fisheries Commission for his helpful contributions.

Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to Mr. Khon

Tring and Paul Bogenrieder for their excellent and diligent

help as research assistants in the Department of Economics.


Frederick W. Bell















Table of Contents


Acknowledgements . . . .

Table of Contents . . . .

List of Tables and Figures . . .

Executive Summary . . . .


Chapter 1.


Chapter 2.

Chapter 3.



Chapter 4.


Chapter 5.




Chapter 6.

References

Appendix A:

Appendix B.


Introduction and Trends in Beach
and Fishery Resources . .

Literature Review . . .

Present Determinants of Florida
Tourism: Is Resource Scarcity
a Factor? . . .

A Tourist Survey Approach to
Resource Scarcity . . .

User Value and the Economic Impact
of Saltwater Beach and Fishery
Resources in Florida's Coastal
Zone . . . .

Policy Implications and Conclusions



Survey Instrument . . .

A Socioeconomic Profile of Saltwater
Anglers and Beach Users from the
Tourist Sample . .


iii


ii

iii

iv

vi


S. 1

. 17







. .


. .













List of Tables and Fiqures


Table/Ficure

Table 1.1




Table 1.2



Table 1.3



Figure 2.1


Figure 2.2


Figure 2.3


Table 3.1


Table 3.2



Table 3.3



Table 3.4



Table 3.5



Table 4.1


Trend in Length (Miles) and Area (SQFT)
of Florida Saltwater Beaches as
Inventoried by the Florida Division of
Recreation and Parks, 1975-1987 .


Trend in Critical Saltwater Beach
Erosion by County and State of
Florida, 1973-1990 . . .

Trends in Recreational Saltwater Fish
Catch, Trips and Catch Per Trip: East
and West Coast of Florida, 1979-1990

Fish Caught Per Trip, Florida Atlantic
Coast, 1979-90 . . .

Fish Caught Per Trip, Florida Gulf
Coast, 1979-90 . . .

Fish Caught Per Trip, Florida Coast,
1979-90 . . . .

Florida Tourist Arrivals: History and
Forecast (August 1991) ... ..

Linear Least-Squares Estimates of Air
Arrival Tourist Equations for Florida,
1979-1990: No Resource Constraint .

Linear Least-Squares Estimates of the
Quarterly Air Arrival Tourist Equation,
1979-1990: With a Resource Constraint

Linear Least-Squares Estimates of Auto
Arrival Tourist Equations for Florida,
1979-1990: No Resource Constraint .

Linear Least-Squares Estimates of the
Annual Auto Arrival Tourist Equation,
1979-1990: With a Resource Constraint

Estimated Saltwater Beach
Participation Function for Florida
Tourists Using a Linear OLS and
Logit Functions, 1990 . .


7











Table 4.2




Table 5.1


Table 5.2


Table 5.3





Table 5.4





Table 5.5


Estimated Saltwater Fisheries
Participation Function for Florida
Tourists Using a Linear OLS and
Logit Functions, 1990 . .

Estimated Relation Between Those
Saltwater Fishermen Who Would Be
Willing to Pay Versus Not Willing to
Pay for a Day of Angling With
Socioeconomic Variables . .


Estimated Relation Between Those
Saltwater Recreational Beach Users
Who Would Be Willing to Pay Versus
Not Willing to Pay for a Beach Day
With Socioeconomic Variables .

Statistical Analysis of the.
Determinants of the Willingness to
Pay Per Day for the Recreational
Experience by Tourist
Saltwater Anglers, 1990 . .

Statistical Analysis of the
Determinants of the Willingness to
Pay Per Day for the Recreational
Experience by Tourist Beach
Users, 1990 . . .

Estimated Number of Participants,
Recreational Days and Gross
Expenditures by Tourists on
Saltwater Recreational Fishing and
Beach Use in Florida, 1990 .


. 57


. .








r













EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


This report summarizes the results of a research

project to determine the role of resource scarcity, if any,

in influencing tourism to Florida. The project was designed

to test the hypothesis that selected natural resources

supply constraints (e.g., saltwater fisheries and beaches)

in Florida's coastal zone, will moderate the projected

growth in tourism. Two approaches were taken in the

analysis. First, a time series on tourist air and auto

arrivals was analyzed with and without natural resource

constraints. Second, a field survey of tourists was

conducted to determine tourist participation in saltwater

recreational fisheries and saltwater beach use plus their

response, if any, to the resource scarcity. As used in this

report, the term resource scarcity refers to a generalized

decline in the quantity and quality of a natural resource

that is used for recreational activities. 1,271 tourists

were contacted in this study as part of the field survey.

The major findings can be summarized as follows:

Saltwater Recreational Beaches

* In 1990, there were 224 miles of critical saltwater

beach erosion in Florida constituting 28.5 percent of the

coastal shoreline. This represented a slight increase in

critical erosion over any earlier study in 1973. Because of










an absence of an annual series on beach conditions such as

erosion, it could not be established that resource scarcity,

if any, had any impact on tourism over the last two decades.

* The tourist survey indicated that 57.4 percent of the

air and auto visitors to Florida participated in saltwater

beach activities in 1990. The main reason for

nonparticipation in saltwater beach activities was not

resource scarcity (e.g., crowding; lack of access; parking),

but just no interest in this form of recreation;

* Saltwater beach participation rates were higher for

males; whites; those arriving by air and more affluent

tourists. However, beach use and age were inversely

related. As the tourist population ages, there will be less

pressure on beach resources;

* Saltwater tourist beach users were asked, "Given the

present conditions on the beaches, how much would conditions

have to change before you would quit vacationing in

Florida?". The average beach user said crowding would have

to increase form 31 to 50 percent above present levels

before he or she would quit, indicating that resource

scarcity is not presently a major factor. With respect to

access points to beaches, the average beach user felt that

the interval between access points would have to decrease to

one-quarter of a mile above present intervals before he or

she would quit. This implies that resource scarcity is not

yet a factor in beach use;


vii










* Because saltwater beaches are common property

resources, the value of a beach day was established by

survey and not by an organized market. The survey applied

the contingent value method to beach users, finding an

average willingness to pay of $2.00 per day with a range of

$0 to $150 per day. 47 percent of the saltwater beach

tourists were unwilling to pay anything for the use of the

beach per day. This attitude was especially pronounced

among those with years of visiting Florida beaches and males

as opposed to females, but less pronounced by those arriving

by air. Those refusing to pay anything were against fees as

a matter of principle, based possibly upon the historical

common property nature of beaches (i.e., no beach license).

The variation in willingness to pay was poorly explained by

socioeconomic and physical variables;

* In 1990, it is estimated that tourists 18 years and

older that used saltwater beaches in Florida numbered over

20 million, constituting over 100 million beach days and

spending over $6 billion;

* At present, the resource scarcity hypotheses for

beaches is rejected as it relates to tourism, but with 28

percent of the shoreline under critical erosion, future

demand may increase for beaches to a point where resource

scarcity can only be mitigated by renourishment that will

bring this portion of the shoreline "on line".


viii










Saltwater Recreational Fisheries

* Over the period 1979-1990, the recreational saltwater

fishery catch per trip dropped from 5.8 to 4.5 fish, with

the East Coast of Florida accounting for all of the decline.

This physical evidence of resource scarcity was introduced

into each equation explaining air and auto tourist arrivals.

The decline in catch per trip had no statistically

significant impact on auto arrivals, but did have a

statistically significant impact, as hypothesized, on air

arrivals. This was deceiving since the downward trend in

total catch (i.e., Atlantic plus Gulf Coast) per trip was

totally due to the Atlantic side of Florida, but when

introduced separately into the air tourist equation it had

no statistical impact. Thus, this analysis established no

relation between tourism and resource scarcity in

recreational saltwater fisheries in the State of Florida

over the 1979-90 period;

* The tourist survey indicated that 15.8 percent of the

air and auto visitors to Florida participated in saltwater

recreational fishing in 1990. The main reason for not

participating in saltwater recreational fishing was not

resource scarcity (i.e., declining catch rate, crowding,

pollution), but a decided lack of interest in this form of

recreation;

* Saltwater fishing participation rates were higher for

males, but lower for higher income tourists. Participation










was parabolically related to age with the maximum tourist

participation at the age of 50. If fishing is truly an

"inferior good" (i.e., declines with increases in income),

less pressure may be placed on the fishery resource as the

tourist population becomes more affluent, but as the median

age rises from 32.8 in 1988 to 41.0 in 2025, this may raise

participation in saltwater fishing, thereby counteracting

the income effect in terms of fishing pressure;

* Saltwater tourist anglers were asked, "What is the

minimum number of fish (i.e., critical threshold) you would

consider per day before you would quit fishing in Florida?"

For anglers that targeted their species, existing catch

rates were nearly 7 fish above the critical threshold using

the mean, but only 3 fish using the median. For those not

targeting species, existing catches were 4 and 2 above the

critical threshold using the mean and median responses

respectively from the tourist angler survey. These findings

indicate that catch rates in the aggregate are not at a

level where resource scarcity in the saltwater fisheries

negatively impacts tourism;

* Because saltwater fisheries are common property

resources, the value of a fishing day was established by the

survey and not by an organized market. The survey applied

the contingent value method to beach users, finding an

average willingness to pay of $3.18 per day with a range of

$0 to $50 per day. 53 percent of the saltwater tourist










anglers were unwilling to pay anything for the use of the

fishery per day. This attitude was especially pronounced

among those with years of visiting Florida fisheries and

older individuals, but less pronounced by those arriving by

air. Those refusing to pay anything were against fees, as a

matter of principle, based possibly upon the historical

common property nature of fisheries. The variation in

willingness to pay was poorly explained by socioeconomic and

physical variables;

* In 1990, it is estimated that tourists 18 years and

older that used saltwater fisheries in Florida numbered over

5.5 million, constituting over 22 million fishing days and

spending over $2.2 billion;

* At present, the resource scarcity hypothesis for

saltwater fisheries is rejected as it relates to tourism,

but with catch rates falling among a wide variety of

species, future demand may increase and drive catch rates

below the critical thresholds that would deter tourist

anglers from visiting the State of Florida. Over the 1990-

2005 period, the number of tourist saltwater anglers may

increase by as much as 60 percent, forcing bag limits to

drop further and also closer to critical thresholds

established by anglers as a condition for fishing in

Florida. Further research is needed on thresholds for each

species for tourists to establish management objectives and

their economic impact.


















CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND TRENDS IN BEACH AND FISHERY RESOURCES


Over the 1976-1990 period, tourism in Florida increased

from 16.5 million to 41.4 million visitors, an average

annual rate of increase of 9.4 percent. In 1990, nearly 75

percent of the 41.4 million tourists had their primary

destination as one of Florida's 35 coastal counties.

Tourism is critical in two respects. First, along with

Florida's own population growth, tourists place added demand

pressure on coastal natural resources such as beaches and

fisheries. Second, the economy of Florid is heavily

dependent on continued growth in tourism. However,

increasing tourism in the coastal zone may be incompatible

with natural resource constraints. For example, beach use,

fishing and various other water sports are among the top ten

activities enjoyed in Florid by both auto and air visitors

surveyed according to the Florida Visitors Study: 1990:

Executive Summary.

Over 31 million tourists (i.e., 75 percent of 41.4

million visitors) used natural resources in Florida's

coastal zone in 1990. In that year, nearly 66 percent or

over 20 million visitors participated in saltwater beach

activities. This participation rate was taken from Bell










(1991). The saltwater beaches of Florida are common

property in nature. Two undesirable effects are in evidence

with beach resource in the coastal zone. First, Florida's

beaches as well as those of the nation are experiencing an

erosion trend due to (1) natural causes (e.g., rise in sea

water level; storms), and (2) human related causes. For

example, observations conducted over a long period of time

reveal a slow erosion caused by the rise in sea level. See

Florida Department of Natural Resources (1986). In

addition, the growth in population and tourism has caused

significant modifications along the shoreline, including the

building of houses, motels, roads, etc. and creating

artificial inlets and river entrances. The later

modification performed admirably for navigation; however,

the jetties, which are frequently long, interrupted the

longshore transport processes, causing sand to accumulate on

one side of the inlet and to erode on the other side.

According to the Florida Department of Natural Resources

(1986), the annual erosion rate along Florida's east cost

ranges from 3 ft/yr, with the long term extreme rate of 30

ft/yr. It is one of the great ironies that saltwater

beaches attract tourism which, in part, is damaging to the

resource itself. That is, the laissez-faire tourist market

creates a need for shoreline alterations (i.e., manmade)

that accelerates the erosion process. This may be termed a

negative technological externality or a depletion of beach










resources due to private market activity. This leads to

resource scarcity which can be defined in physical terms of

beach area to use ratios. Use may be measured in terms of

beach days. A fall in the ratio of beach area to beach days

or person-days is one crude indicator that resource scarcity

is taking place. Tietenberg (1988) has suggested that such

economic indicators as (1) resource price; (2) scarcity

rent; (3) extraction cost and (4) marginal discovery cost

might be used as a way of detecting resource scarcity. As

pointed out above, beaches are common property; therefore,

markets are not efficient. That is, the price for common

property resources such as beaches, air or water is zero for

all time periods. Traditional economic indicators of

resource scarcity may be inadequate to detect such scarcity

for the beach resource. Economists such as McConnell (1977)

have developed alternative economic indicators to measure

increasing resource scarcity for beach resources. This is

known as the willingness to pay (WTP) or consumer surplus

approach which will be discussed in some detail later in

this report.

Second, beaches are finite (or dwindling) common

property resources and the continued influx of tourists may

create congestion diseconomies. Such diseconomies are an

aspect of resource scarcity which reflects lower utility

from the saltwater beach recreational activity.










Another important resource in the coastal zone is

marine fishery resources. That is, boat and nonboat

saltwater fishing also attracts a significant number of

tourists to Florida. In 1990, tourists' participation rates

were 12.7 and 11.7 percent for boat and nonboat saltwater

fishing respectively according to Bell (1991). As in the

case of beaches, saltwater fisheries are common property

resources. Since entry to the fishery resource is not

controlled by fees or limited entry programs, fisheries

become rapidly depleted. Such depletion is a physical

indicator of resource scarcity and is usually measured by a

decline in catch per unit of fishing effort. Economic

indicators are usually flawed for common property resources

as discussed above. The preliminary discussion above leads

to two hypothesis regarding the interaction of growing

tourism and specific resources in the coastal zone of

Florida:

1. It is hypothesized that the two identified

technological diseconomies in production (i.e.,

manmade erosion) and consumption (i.e.,

congestion) will act to reduce tourism related to

saltwater beach resources below a level expected

in the absence of such diseconomies;

2. It is hypothesized that increases in resource

scarcity as evidenced by declining catch per unit

of fishing effort will deter saltwater fishery-










related tourism below a level expected in the

absence of technological diseconomies produced by

the common property nature of the fishery

resource.

This report will focus on saltwater beach and fishery

resources. There are other resources in the coastal zone

(i.e., waterfront land, boating access points) that may also

limit or reduce the rate of tourism expansion that will not

be explored in this report.

The potential economic payoff of this inquiry is to

enhance marine productivity by identifying the extent to

which, if any, negative externalities in beaches and

fisheries are operating as a consequence of laissez-faire

tourism where an infinite supply of resources is usually

assumed. Once this hypothesized identification has been

made, the results can be an important input into policy

options to mitigate against resource scarcity. The next

section will look at some basic trends in saltwater beach

and fishery resources in Florida.

Trends in Resource Availability

Saltwater Beaches: As discussed above, are Florida's

saltwater beaches declining because of erosion? The answer

is yes as discussed above, but there has been efforts at the

Federal, State and local levels to mitigate a fall in beach

area by beach renourishment. Beach renourishment restores

the beach to an earlier stage of the natural erosion-










accretion process. Global figures on beach area in Florida

are available from inventories published in Outdoor

Recreation in Florida (1976, 1981, 1987, 1989) by the

Florida Division of Recreation and Parks and .shown in Table

1:1.

The global figures in Table 1.1 would seem to indicate

that overall saltwater beach resources in Florida have

actually increased over the 1975-1987 period for which

figures are available. This is not to say that certain

beaches have not been reduced in size. Also, since these

are global figures, there is no indication of where demand

is greatest. A discussion with those that inventories

saltwater beach data indicated that a more intensive

research was conducted of available beach resources in the

later years thereby biasing the figures upward. Finally,

such beach figure are subject to unknown measurement (i.e.,

survey procedures) errors from year to year. Outdoor

Recreation in Florida 1989 (DNR, 1989) states that with

respect to the saltwater beaches, "The result has been that

the availability of suitable beach resources has declined

while demand has increased steadily" (p. 112). This same

report does indicate some definite regional needs for

saltwater beach resources, depending on which guideline was

used for saltwater beach use. Using a guideline for

saltwater beach-based outdoor recreation of 200 square feet




















Table 1.1
Trend in Length (Miles) and
Area (SQFT) of Florida Saltwater
Beaches as Inventoried by the Florida
Division of Recreation and Parks,
1975-1987


Length
Year (Miles) (Mil SQFT)

1975 148.8 76.2

1979 275.3 118.0

1985 402.4 192.6

1987 459.0 215.9


Source: Florida Department of Natural Resources, Outdoor
Recreation in Florida (1976, 1981, 1987, 1989).











Table 1.2
Trend in Critical Saltwater Beach Erosion


1973-1990


Percentage


Shoreline

Length
(Miles)
1973 1990


Miles of

Critical
Erosion
1973 1990


Percent


Critical
Erosion
1973 1990


Nassau
Duval
St. Johns
Flagler
Volusia
Brevard
Indian River
St. Lucie
Martin
Palm Beach
Broward
Dade
Monroe*
Collier
Lee
Charlotte
Sarasota
Manatee
Hillsborough
Pinellas
Franklin
Gulf
Bay
Walton
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Escambia

Total


13.3
16.0
41.3
18.0
49
72
22
22
21
44.9
24.0
34.8
6
35
44.0
14.0
35.0
14.0
No figs
35.4
54.6
26.4
44.6
25.2
24.5
3.1
40.8

780.9


12.7
15.0
41.1
18.1
48.8
71.6
22.4
21.5
21.4
45.3
24.0
20.8
26.4
34.1
47.3
12.2
34.7
12.3
2.1
37.2
54.6
28.8
41.2
25.6
23.9
5.0
38.9


2.5
10.0
5.0
3.0
.5
23
6
1.3
6.0
28.4
8.9
19.5
1.0
4.0
12.4
5
4.4
6.7
No figs
13.0
18.3
6.4
21.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.0


6.2
10.0
4.6
2.9
8.2
15.2
6.6
1.1
10.3
21.8
18.2
16.9
4.8
10.8
16.9
4.4
19.1
7.0
0.0
20.9
2.0
0.1
11.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.9


18.8
62.5
12.1
16.6
1
31.9
27.3
5.9
28.6
63.3
37.1
56.0
16.7
11.4
28.2
35.7
12.6
47.9
No figs
36.7
33.5
24.2
48.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
7.3


48.8
66.7
11.2
16.0
16.8
21.2
29.5
5.1
48.1
48.1
75.8
81.3
18.2
31.7
35.7
36.1
55.0
56.9
0.0
56.2
3.7
0.4
28.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.6


787.0 209.8 224.5 26.9 28.5


+30.0
+42.0
-.9
-.6
+15.8
-10.7
+2.2
-.8
+19.5
-15.2
+38.7
+25.3
N/A
+20.3
+7.5
+.4
+42.4
+9
N/A
+19.5
-29.8
-23.8
-20
N/A
N/A
N/A
5.3

+1.6


* Reflects only Monroe County Atlantic Ocean beaches. Erosion information
for Gulf of Mexico beaches was not available.


Source: 1973:


U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Shoreline Study,
Regional Inventory Report, South Atlantic, Gulf Region,
Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands (1973).


1990: Division of Beaches and Shores, Florida Department of
Natural Resources, (1991)


Point
Change
1990-1973


hv rmint v


by County


in State of Florida










per person. It was further assumed that this same area of

beach would be used twice during the same day. Therefore,

the use guideline was established as 100 square feet per

person per day. Using this criterion, a comparison of peak

demand per day to supply of saltwater per day indicated

"sufficient" saltwater beach resources in all eleven Florida

planning regions. An alternative guideline of 5 linear feet

per person with a daily turnover rate of 2 yields 2.5 linear

feet of person per day. When this guideline was used, the

East Central (i.e., Volusia County, etc.) and Tampa Bay

planning region showed saltwater beach "shortages" in 1987.

By 1990, it was projected that the Southeast Florida

planning region would experience similar saltwater beach

shortages. Thus, planning document such as those reviewed

above do not shed much light on the resource scarcity

hypothesis. If anything, signals are mixed with respect to

saltwater beach resources.

Data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1973) and

Division of Beaches and Shores (1991) were assembled in

Table 1.2. These data reflect two points in time on

shoreline (i.e., beach) length and miles of critical

erosion. Unfortunately, such data are not available each

year. The data do indicate that the percent of shoreline



It was assumed that 200 square feet was enough to provide a
"worthwhile recreational experience". Such explicit
valuations will be discussed later in this report. See
McConnell (1977).










that is classified as critically eroded rose from 26.9 to

28.5 percent over the 1973-1990 period. Globally, this 17

years represents little change in critical erosion among

Florida's saltwater beaches. Many counties in Table 1.2

show substantial increases in critical erosion such as

Nassau, Dade, Broward, Monroe, Sarasota and Pinellas. It

would appear that Florida as a state has been holding its

own against critical erosion of saltwater beaches.

Certainly, critical erosion is a good physical indicator of

resource scarcity.

Saltwater Fisheries. Historically, Florida has had an

ample supply and diversity of recreational saltwater

fisheries. The rise in tourism and migration of population

to Florida has placed increasing pressure on a renewable,

but finite resource, the fisheries. One physical indicator

of resource scarcity in fisheries is catch per unit of

fishing effort. Recreational fishing data has been

collected on a regional basis (i.e., state) only since 1979.

Table 1.3 shows the trends in the number of fish caught;

fishing trips and number of fish caught per fishing trip for

the East and West Coast of Florida over the 1979-1990

period. The number of fish caught is a very rough indicator

since there is no adjustment for species mix. Over the last

eleven years, there does not seem to be a trend in the

number of recreational fish caught on the Gulf of Mexico

side of Florida with an average of 76,899 million fish








Table 1.3
Trends in Recreational Saltwater Fish Catch, Trips and Catch Per Trip: East and
West Coast of Florida, 1979-1990


Gulf Sub-Region Atlantic Sub-Region Florida


Year Number Number Fish Number Number Fish Number Number Fish
Fish Trips per Trip Fish Trips per Trip Fish Trips per Trip
Caught (Mil) Caught (Mil) Caught (Mil)
(Mil) (Mil) (Mil)


1979 60916 10750 5.6666046 61518 10215 6.0223201 122434 20965 5.8399236
1980 52819 11904 4.4370799 43228 10460 4.1326959 96047 22364 4.2947147
1981 56675 9217 6.1489638 26111 7636 3.4194604 82786 16853 4.9122411
1982 92290 12103 7.6253821 34809 9005 3.8655191 127099 21108 6.0213663
1983 60658 10224 5.9329029 29872 7793 3.8331836 90530 18017 5.0246988
1984 84298 11451 7.3616278 32643 9891 3.3002729 116941 21342 5.4793833
1985 87710 13372 6.5592282 35067 12493 2.8069318 122777 25865 4.7468393
1986 68630 13436 5.1079190 32444 10298 3.1505146 101074 23734 4.2586163
1987 60567 12217 4.9576000 25783 12210 2.1116298 86350 24427 3.5350227
1988 80932 13822 5.8553031 23605 12540 1.8823763 104537 26362 3.9654426
1989 71920 10556 6.8131868 21221 10611 1.9999057 93141 21167 4.4002929
1990 68476 9492 7.2140700 18524 9830 1.8844000 87000 19322 4.5026390


Source: U.S.


Department of Commerce,


NOAA, NMFS, Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey,


Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, 1979-1990 (published through 1989; unpublished from the NMFS,


1990)










caught per year. This measure of fishing effort or the

number of recreational fishing trips exhibits no trend for

the Gulf of Mexico side of Florida, averaging a little under

12 million trips. After 1985, there was a statistical

adjustment downward for trip by reducing fishing trips to

the 95th percentile that reported trips beyond that

percentile. The MRFSS (1991) states,

"Further caution should be applied when analyzing
trend data because adjustment of outliers started
in 1987 reduced estimates an average of 15-20
percent" (p. 9).

Despite these statistical problems, the Gulf of Mexico side

of Florida exhibits a rather static recreational fishery in

the acrregate. Thirty-nine percent of the total marine

recreational catch by number in Gulf of Mexico in 1987

consisted of drum, seatrouts, and croakers. This percentage

dropped to 27 in 1989. Red drum catches in 1989 were lower

than any other year since 1980 and red snapper catches

showed a declining trend since 1981 according to the MRFSS

(1991). Thus, species composition in the Gulf of Mexico is

an ever changing phenomenon.

The Atlantic Ocean side of Florida exhibits some

definite aggregate trends as shown in Table 1.3. The most

notable change is the decline in catch per trip from 6 fish

in 1979 to under 2 fish per trip in 1990. This is certainly

a physical indicator of resource scarcity. This ratio shows

a downward trend because of a declining number of fish

caught coupled with a rather static number of trips for the
12










East Coast of Florida over the 1979-90 period. On a species

basis, bluefish and king mackerel catches showed a continual

decline since the early 1980's in the Southeast United

States.

It would appear that little can be concluded from Table

1.3 since the aggregate data may obscure the trends for

particular species. With growing number of residents and

tourists in Florida, it is odd that the total number of

fishing trips for both the East and West coasts of Florida

showed no growth over the 1979-1990 period. In part, this

may be due to the downward statistical adjustment of fishing

trips starting in 1986 as discussed above. Figures 2.1, 2.2

and 2.3 show the plots of the time trend in catch per trip

by saltwater anglers in Florida.

The review of physical measures of beach and fishing

resources provided only marginal insight into resource

scarcity. The aggregate level of these measures combined

with changing statistical methodologies probably accounts

for some of this ambiguity. Thus, such trends must be

viewed with caution in measuring the impact, if any, of

resource scarcity on tourism to Florida. If anything, this

review points out the need for basic data. Chapter 2 will

review the limited literature pertaining on the beach and

fisheries hypotheses stipulated above.














Figure 2.1. Fish Caught Per Trip

Florida Atlantic Coast 1979-90


1 .. ... .... _. I ......-. i. .. _

1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984

6.02232 4.13270 3.41946 3.86552 3.83318 3.30027


Source: U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, Marine
Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey, Atlantic
and Gulf Coasts, 1979-1990.


1985 1986 1987 1988


2.80693 3.15051 2.11163 1.88238


1989


1.99991


1990


1.88440









Figure 2.2. Fish Caught Per Trip
Florida Gulf Coast 1979-90


7.5

7

6.5

6

5.5

5

4.5



1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990


5.66660 4.43708 6.14896 7.62538 5.93290 7.36163 6.55923 5.10792 4.95760 5.85530 6.81319 7.21407

Source: U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, Marine
Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey, Atlantic
and Gulf Coasts, 1979-1990.













Figure 2.3. Fish Caught Per Trip

Florida Coast 1979-90


6.5

6

5.5

5

4.5

4

3.5


31 .. t _1 ......... ]. .. .... .... I .._.

1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984


5.83992 4.29471 4.91224 6.02137 5.02470 5.47938 4

Source: U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, Marine
Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey, Atlantic
and Gulf Coasts, 1979-1990.


-. .. L___._.____._____ L_

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990


.74684 4.25862 3.53502 3.96544 4.40029 4.50264


4















CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Beach Use and Resource Scarcity

As discussed in Chapter 1, the behavior of price of a

commodity or service can be used to test for resource

scarcity. However, no prices are charged for public

beaches. Like fisheries and public grazing land, beaches

are finite in supply and demand pressures create as Hardin

(1968) would say, "a tragedy of the commons." However,

demand for recreation (e.g., beaches, fisheries) in the

absence of an efficient or organized market has been

estimated by economists in two basic ways: 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, usually expressed in terms of days as

a measure of consumption. The most prominent indirect

method is known as the travel cost approach which utilizes

travel cost as a price proxy in estimation of demand

relationships or values. See Clawson (1959) and Clawson and

Knetch (1966).

McConnell (1977) used the direct approach in measuring

beach values in Rhode Island. The willingness-to-pay

question attempted to measure the respondent's willingness










to pay for the particular day of the interview only. Once

this value is known for a given beach, a change in the

conditions at the beach may reflect resource scarcity.

Assume that the ratio of beach resources (i.e., square feet,

linear feet) falls per user. This may happen because of

erosion and/or an increase in people using a finite

resource. As congestion increases, it is generally

hypothesized that the willingness to pay for the beach

resource will decline (i.e., evidence of resource scarcity).

McConnell related consumer surplus (i.e., willingness to

pay) per beach visit to family income, attendance per acre

(i.e., congestion); air temperature and the number of visits

per season for a sample of saltwater beaches in Rhode

Island. He states, "..the coefficient on congestion

suggests that an extra 100 people per acre on the average

beach reduces the average individual's surplus per day by

abut 25 percent" (p. 191).

Using about the same approach as McConnell, Bell and

Leeworthy (1986) found that Florida resident were sensitive

to square feet of saltwater beach available per person as

consumer surplus increased with an increase in this resource

supply variable. By contrast, tourists were not influenced

by beach availability (i.e.. SOFT/Person) in terms of

consumer surplus in the Bell and Leeworthv (1986) study of

Florida saltwater beaches. In this same study, Bell and

Leeworthy found that nearly 23 percent of the residents










found Florida Saltwater beaches to be severely crowded

compared to only 7 percent of visiting tourists. For

tourists from relatively small northeastern states such as

Massachusetts or Rhode Island, "crowding" (i.e., congestion)

may be a very relative phenomenon. This earlier literature

should be compared with the findings presented in later

chapters.

Silberman and Klock (1988) argue that the incremental

benefits (i.e., consumer's surplus) through a reduction in

congestion from existing beach users is too restrictive

because it holds visitations constant after beach

renourishment, and does not recognize any factor other than

a reduction in congestion as a source of incremental

benefits. Those beach resource scarcity as measured by

erosion (i.e., a need for beach renourishment) can result in

a reduction in the maximum amount that individuals are

willing to pay to use the beach and a decreased visitation,

or both. In this study, it is hypothesized that beach

resource scarcity will negatively impact tourism to a

particular beach. For New Jersey beaches, Silberman and

Klock found that an increase in beach renourishment was

associated with a relatively small rise in consumer surplus

compared to a relative large rise in visitation. The

authors believe that substitution of beaches within the

state is the main reason for the large changes in

visitation.










Curtis and Shows (1982, 1984) have done two site-

specific studies on beach nourishment in Florida. These two

studies are for Delray and Jacksonville beaches. As in the

studies discussed above, the contingent values method (CVM)

was used to estimate willingness to pay (WTP) for a beach

recreational experience. The following mean willingness to

pay were found in Florida;


Tourists Residents
Beach (WTP/DAY) (WTP/DAY) Year


Delray1 $2.15 1.88 1982

Jacksonville2 4.88 4.44 1984

All Florida2 1.45 1.31 1984

1. Curtis and Shows (1982,1984)
2. Bell and Leeworthy (1986)


As one can see from the above results, daily WTP never

exceeded $5. One consistent factor is that tourists were

willing to pay more per day for beach use when compared to

residents. Curtis and Shows (1982) state "...When asked

this question, residents would reply that they pay taxes and

should not be expected to pay for Florida beaches". This

concludes a brief review of previous studies dealing with

resource scarcity or decline in the quality of the beach

resource (e.g., congestion via erosion). In one study, it

was found that erosion reduces participation (i.e.,

attendance) while renourishment or mitigating resource

scarcity will increase participation. Since a state such as
20










Florida has many substitute beaches, it is not clear that

erosion at several beaches will deter aggregate tourism to

the state. This will be discussed in later chapters.

Fishery Use and Resource Scarcity

One of the basic measures of resource scarcity in the

fisheries is catch per fishing trip. Green (1984) focused

particularly on a sample of tourists visiting Florida over

the 1980-81 period. Thus, Green's study is highly relevant

to the thrust of this report. For tourists, Green found

that saltwater days fished per trip would increase by 1

percent if the success rate (i.e., catch per day) increased

by 10 percent. If anything, tourist saltwater fishing

behavior was inelastically related to the success rate and

therefore resource scarcity. Green states, "This study

gives evidence that short-run economic repercussions on the

tourist industry from any reasonable change in

commercial/sport fishing effort may not be large" (p. 133).

Also, Green did not find any statistically significant

relationship between WTP for recreational saltwater fishing

by tourist and the physical measure of resource scarcity,

catch per day.

In a study of Florida residents, Glasure (1987) states

that the statistical results are not strong enough to assert

with confidence that a resident fisherman's decision to fish

longer at a site is influenced by the success rate (i.e.,

catch per day). Thus, Green (1984) and Glasure (1987) find










little support for the hypothesized negative effect on

tourism or even resident angling in Florida of physical

measures of resource scarcity.

Then again, at the individual species level, Green

(1989) found that the red drum catch is an important

variable in the decision to fish for the species in the Gulf

of Mexico. The success rate elasticity is slightly above

one, implying that a ten percent increase in expected catch

by target anglers would be expected to raise red drum effort

(i.e., demand) more than ten percent. Leeworthy (1990)

states "The most important finding in this study is the

number of recreational king mackerel trips in the Gulf of

Mexico region responds to king mackerel catch rates in a

highly elastic manner" (p. 63). The success elasticity for

king mackerel was estimated at 1.96 by Leeworthy. The

variety of species in Florida may allow for a high degree of

substitution which would mitigate against "aggregate

resource scarcity" as found by Green (1984) and Glasure

(1987) for an aggregation of many periods. For classic

discussion of resource scarcity, see Barnett and Morse

(1963).















CHAPTER 3

THE PRESENT DETERMINANTS OF FLORIDA TOURISM:
IS RESOURCE SCARCITY A FACTOR?


To test the hypothesis that there has been and will be

a natural resource constraint on Florida tourism, the

available data on tourism must be examined. Such data are

shown in Table 3.1. The Florida tourist series is broken

down into air and auto arrivals. The historical series is

over the 1976-1990 period. The average annual growth rate

by air was 14.2 percent while the corresponding rate for

auto arrivals was 8.3 percent per year. For both auto and

air arrivals, these growth rates are very high and have

sustained a rapid growth rate in the Florida economy.

Of particular interest, the projected growth rates in

tourism over the 1991-2005 period are about one third for

air (4.3 percent) and about the same for auto (4.7 percent)

than those observed over the 1976-1990 historical period.

These projections were prepared by the Florid Joint

Legislative Management. Committee. The projection equations

are as follows:


Air Arrivals = f(PYPC; EXR; TCAIR; TCCAR; (1)
+
U.S.POP)
+ +
Auto Arrivals = f(PYPC; TCCAR; TCAIR) (2)

23













Table 3.1
History and Forecast (August 1991)


Air Arrivals


%g
Chg Total


NA
7.1%
21.2%
16.5%
-11.8%

11.8%
6.2%
-6.5%
23.1%
2.8%

13.1%
12.4%
8.9%
0.4%
14.9%


42.3%
44.4%
47.2%
50.6%
46.6%

49.1%
48.0%
43.5%
46.6%
45.4%

46.7%
48.5%
49.2%
46.8%
50.4%


Auto Arrival


(%s) Chg
(O00s) Chg


9,528
9,373
10,143
10,326
10,671

10,794
11,979
13,442
14,596
15,739

16,842
17,646
18,705
20,674
20,556


NA
-1.6%
8.2%
1.8%
3.3%

1.2%
11.0%
12.2%
8.6%
7.8%

7.0%
4.8%
6.0%
10.5%
-0.6%


.s Total Arrivals
% %
Total (000s) Chg


57.7%
55.6%
52.8%
49.4%
53.4%

50.9%
52.0%
56.5%
53.4%
54.6%

53.3%
51.5%
50.8%
53.2%
49.6%


16.517
16,856
19,210
20,889
19,982

21,201
23,028
23,772
27,310
28,803

31,612
34,243
36,785
38,835
41,423


NA
2.1%
14.0%
8.7%
-4.3%

6.1%
8.6%
3.2%
14.9%
5.5%

9.8%
8.3%
7.4%
5.6%
6.7%


Begins forecast period.


1991
1992
1993
1994
1995

1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

2001
2002
2003
2004
2005


19,738
20,646
21,651
22,672
23,570

24,395
25,245
26,101
26,963
27,833

28,682
29,460
30,219
30,968
31,714


-5.4%
4.6%
4.9%
4.7%
4.0%

3.5%
3.5%
3.4%
3.3%
3.2%

3.1%
2.7%
2.6%
2.5%
2.4%


48.9%
49.0%
49.0%
48.9%
48.9%

48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.7%
48.7%

48.7
48.5%
48.4%
48.2%
48.0%


20,643
21,494
22,564
23,671
24,659

25,574
26,498
27,426
28,368
29,304

30,265
31,252
32,263
33,296
34,352


0.4%
4.1%
5.0%
4.9%
4.2%

3.7%
3.6%
3.5%
3.4%
3.3%

3.3%
3.3%
3.2%
3.2%
3.2%


51.1%
51.0%
51.0%
51.1%
51.1%

51.2%
51.2%
51.2%
51.3%
51.3%

51.3%
51.5%
51.6%
51.8%
52.0%


40,381
42,140
44,214
46,342
48,228

49,970
51,743
53,527
55,331
57,137

58,947
60,712
62,482
64,264
66,066


-2.5%
4.4%
4.9%
4.8%
4.1%

3.6%
3.5%
3.4%
3.4%
3.3%

3.2%
3.0%
2.9%
2.9%
2.8%


Consensus Estimating Conference (September 1991).


1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

1981
1982
1983
1984
1985

1986
1987
1988
1989
1990


(000s)

6,990
7,484
9,068
10,563
9,312

10,407
11,049
10,329
12,714
13,064

14,770
16,597
18,080
18,161
20,867


VI4UA. AVU-.val History.. and Foecast(Augus 1991


F~r\rirlP Tnr~ricf b~rrivrr~a'


Source: Florida Economic










where


PYPC = U.S. real personal income per capital;

EXR = Exchange rate (i.e., value of the U.S. dollar
relative to other currencies);

TCAIR = Travel cost by air;

TCCAR = Travel cost by car;

U.S.POP = U.S. population.

The hypothesized signs of the variables are given above the

variable designation. Some signs are fairly obvious, but

selected ones need some explanation. For example, as the

value of the U.S. dollar (EXR) appreciates relative to other

major currencies, air travelers would tend to visit overseas

rather than Florida. A rise in personal income per capital

in the U.S. (PYPC), as expected, is a positive influence on

both air and auto arrivals to Florida. In the air arrival

equation, the travel cost by air and auto are hypothesized

to both have an inverse relation to the number of tourists

arriving by air. The former cost (TCAIR) is viewed as

travel cost from home to a site in Florida (e.g., Disney

World) where TCCAR is viewed as a form of on-site cost.

Since gasoline is the major cost of travel by auto, it is

viewed as travel rather than on-site cost although much of

the driving may take place in a very large state such as

Florida. Finally, it is hypothesized that air travel is a

close substitute for auto travel; therefore, the sign on

TCAIR is positive in the auto arrival function. That is, if

air fares decline, tourists switch from time consuming auto

25










visits to air visits. But, the relationship is not

symmetrical since air travelers do not perceive a visit to

Florida by auto to be a close substitute, especially in

light of the distances encountered (e.g., nearly 5 percent

of all tourists come all the way from Michigan). Finally,

certain dummy variables such as the Eastern Airline Strike

or Gulf War were omitted from the theoretical discussion

even though the statistical equation presented in the tables

in this chapter were adjusted for these irregular events.

Of particular significance, the projected growth in

Florida tourism shown in Table 3.1 will be slower than the

historical period because of the projection in the

independent variables, especially real personal income per

capital, which is projected to grow at a slower rate than the

historical period. The same is true for U.S. population

over the projection period. Notice that there are no supply

constraints or resource scarcity effects built into the

forecasting equations. Thus, state forecasters are assuming

an infinite supply (i.e., qualitatively and quantitatively)

of natural resources (e.g., fish, beaches, etc.) to

accommodate growth over the projection period.

Table 3.2 shows the results of the statistical analysis

of equation (1) dealing with air arrivals only. The period

of analysis was 1979-90 on both a quarterly and annual

basis. The reason for the selection of this period was the

availability of resource data on the recreation fisheries as















Table 3.2
Linear Least-Squares Estimates
of Air Arrival Tourists
Equations for Florida
1979-1990: NO Resource Constraint
(Dependent Variable: Air Arrivals)


Variable

Constant


PYPC(T-1)


EXR


TCAIR


TCCAR


USPOP


N

Adj R2


Quarterly1

-21,216.8***
(5.2544)


.3166
(1.526)


-5.7831***
(3.1470)

-1638.1**
(-2.0259)

-1237.9
(-.3384)

.0994***
(3.8325)

48


96.6


193.4

1.557


Annual1


-11,528.3**
(-2.892)


.6490
(.3099)


-19.0559
(-1.0852)

-11,084.40
(-1.3638)

14,275.3
(.3845)

.5644
(2.2090)**

12

96.5


51.3

3.04


1. t-values in parentheses.

*, **, *** indicate significant at
respectively


.1, .05 and .01 level,










discussed in Chapter 2. Unfortunately, there was no similar

data for beach resources available to the author except for

1973 and 1990 which was discussed in Chapter 2. With

respect to the individual variables in Table .3.1, the

quarterly model performed much better than the annual model

on statistical significance grounds.

From Chapter 2, a data series are available on

recreational saltwater fisheries catch per trip. This

series is available over the 1979-90 period and represents a

very rough measure of resource scarcity in the fisheries

experienced by both residents and tourists on the East and

West Coasts of Florida as well as for all Florida. There is

no reason to believe that the trend in catch per trip is

that much different for residents as opposed to tourists.

Although one may think that catch rates are confined to the

fisheries in terms of resource scarcity, they do have

implications for saltwater beaches in that fishing is an

attribute of the beach recreational experience. According

to NMFS (1987-1989), 53 percent of all fishing trips along

the Atlantic Coast of Florida were conducted via the shore

fishing mode. On Gulf Coast of Florida, nearly 42 percent

of recreational fishing was conducted from shore.

Table 3.3 shows the results of introducing the

recreational catch per trip into the quarterly tourist air

arrivals equation in Table 3.2. The variable catch per trip

(CPT) was added to the equation to measure a resource














Table 3.3
Linear Least-Squares Estimates


of the Quarterly Air Arrival
Tourist Equation. 1979-1990:
With a Resource Constraint


Variable


Constant


PYPC(T-1)


EXR


TCAIR


TCCAR


USPOP


CPT


N

Adj. R2

F

DW


(Dependent Variable: Air Arrivals)

East Coast1 West Coast1 All Florida'
(Catch Rates) (Catch Rates) (Catch Rates)

-21,412.1*** -13,889.2*** -18,875.0***
(-4.5) (-3.487) (-5.073)

.3222 .5108*** .5386***
(1.4552) (2.741) (2.692)

-5.83*** -10.315*** -9.5906
(-2.942) (-5.202) (-4.682)

-1584.62 -413.49 -274.22
(-1.5017) (-.537) (-.323)

-1051.4 -5301.26 -1377.4
(.2401) (-1.589) (.416)

.0996*** .0551** .0727***
(3.771) (2.183) (2.919)

6.977 119.04*** 162.09***
(.0804) (3.817) (3.17)

48 48 48

96.5 97.5 97.3

165.07 228.52 208.85

1.55 2.02 1.849


1. t-values in parentheses.

*, **, *** indicate significant at .1, .05 and .01 level,
respectively.









constraint on tourism. It is hypothesized that the sign of

CPT should be positive. That is, higher catch rates will

encourage tourism while lower catch rates will deter

tourism. Statistically, the East Coast of Florida's CPT has

no impact on the air arrival regression. Thus, the

estimated parameters in Table 3.3 (resource constrained) are

a little different from the estimated parameters in Table

3.2 (quarterly). On a priori grounds, this series (i.e.,

Atlantic Coast) on CPT would be expected to have the most

pronounced effect on tourism, if any, because of its

downward time trend as shown in Figure 2.1 (Chapter 2). The

time trend is as follows (t-value in parentheses):

CPTEF = 15.187 2.71T (3)
(-6.833)

N = 12 R2 = .82

where, CPTEcr = recreational catch per trip on the East
Coast of Florida.

Over the 1978-1990 period, the statistical trend has been

decidedly downward for CPTc where the numbers of fish

caught per trip declined each year by nearly 3. As will be

revealed in Chapter 4, only 16 percent of all tourists (auto

and air) participate in recreational saltwater fishing.

Other data revealed in Chapter 4 would be consistent with

the findings in Table 3.3 -- that aggregate catch rates have

had no aggregate effect on tourism. This does not, of

course, preclude species substitution mitigating resource

scarcity.









The CPT on the West Coast of Florida was positively

related to air arrivals and statistically significant at the

1 percent level. The meaning of the coefficient in Table

3.3 is that a one fish increase per trip will increase

tourism by 119,040 people to the State of Florida. These

statistical findings may be questioned on three grounds.

First, the magnitude of tourist arrivals because of a 1 fish

change in the CPT is hardly credible. Second, there has

been no secular decline in CPT on the West Coast of Florida

as opposed to the East Coast as the following time trend

reveals:

CPTucF = 1.08 .8816T (4)
(.804)

N = 12 R2 = .061

where, CPTcF = recreational catch per trip on the West
Coast of Florida.

Third, the CPTWCF is cyclical in nature. See Figure 2.2

(Chapter 2). When introduced into the regression, CPTWcF

improves the DW statistic so that autocorrelation is

reduced. One conclusion is that this effect makes CPTWCF

statistically significant, but still a statistical artifact.

In sum, the author views the statistical results worth a

high degree of skepticism.

As yet, the auto side of tourism has not been explored

The theoretical equation is estimated using quarterly and

annual data. The results are shown in Table 3.4. In

contrast to air arrivals, the annual model performed better
















Table 3.4
Linear Least-Squares Estimates
of Auto Arrival Tourists
Eauations for Florida, 1979-1990:


No Resource Constraint


Variable

Constant


PYPC


TCCAR


TCAIR


N

Adj R2

F

DW


(Dependent Variable: Auto Arrivals)

Quarterly'

-8,496.0***
(-4.819)

1.0229***
(7.449)

-1302.22
(-.276)

1613.01***
(4.141)

48

94.6

164.52

1.69


Annual

25,364.2***
(-3.882)

3.3918***
(6.596)

-25,870.5*
(-1.486)

6,444.2***
(4.846)

12

99.1

301.9

2.17


1. t-values in parentheses.

*, **, and *** indicate significant
level, respectively.


at .1, .05, and .01










from a statistical point of view than the quarterly

specification for auto arrivals over the 1979-1990 period.

As in the discussion above, this is the period over which

resource scarcity data are available to this project. For

auto arrivals, the CPT variable was added to the no resource

constraint annual model shown in Table 3.4. Because of the

contradictory evidence revealed by the air arrival results

(i.e., resource scarcity discovered to impact tourism if it

occurs on the West as opposed to the East Coast of Florida),

it is especially important that the research include the

auto component of tourism. The results are shown in Table

3.5 using the same format employed in Table 3.3 for air

arrivals.

The signs in most of the variables are as expected;

however, the CPT or the resource variable is not

statistically significant at the normal levels of

significance at the bottom of Table 3.5. CPT is not a

significant variable impacting auto arrivals. Thus, there

is no empirical support for the hypothesis that resource

scarcity as measured by catch per trip had an impact on

tourist auto arrivals to the State of Florida. The results

from the auto sector of tourism lend further skepticism

regarding the influence of CPTWCF on air arrivals as

discussed above. To further pursue the matter of resource

scarcity, this study will explore the results of a direct

survey of tourists who engaged in both saltwater fishing and















Table 3.5
Linear Least-Squares Estimates
of the Annual Auto Arrival
Tourist Equation, 1979-1990:


With a Resource Constraint


(Dependent Variable: Auto Arrivals)


Variable


Constant


PYPC


TCCAR


TCAIR


CPT


N

Adj R2

F

DW


East Coast1
(Catch Rates)

-32,212.4**
(-2.667)

3.751***
(5.011)

-17,131
(-.774)

8,191.08**
(2.827)

242.04
(.686)

12

99.0

223.33

2.510


West Coast1
(Catch Rates)

-25,403.70***
(-3.620)

3.395***
(6.147)

-26,452
(-1.406)

6,279.25***
(4.029)

34.07
(.265)

12

98.9

209.42

2.335


All Florida1
(Catch Rates)

-26,377.5***
(-3.356)

3.453***
(5.832)

-25,030.5
(-1.324)

6,483.47**
(4.523)

58.55
(.285)

12

98.6

209.81

2.364


1. t-values in parentheses.

*, **, *** indicate significant at .1, .05 and .01 level,
respectively.










beach use in Florida. That will be the subject matter of

the next two chapters.
















CHAPTER 4

THE TOURIST SURVEY
APPROACH TO RESOURCE SCARCITY


The major thrust of this survey is to obtain direct

information on tourists using two important coastal

resources: beaches and fisheries. More specifically, this

survey is intended to shed light on the two resource

scarcity hypotheses articulated in Chapter 1 and explained

in Chapter 3 using time series. Such questions as why

people visiting Florida and use or do use beach and fish

resources in the coastal zone is of fundamental importance

to the tourist industry. Hopefully, some of these

challenging questions will be answered in this key chapter.

The Resource Scarcity Survey: Participation Versus Non-
Participation

Using Rife Market Research, Inc. of Miami, Florida, a

subcontract was let by Florida State University to collect

data on tourists using saltwater beaches and fisheries in

Florida. The survey contacts were structured to meet

targets or quotas at airports and arteries from which

tourists leave the State of Florida. Targets were based

upon total tourist population flow provided by the Florida

Division of Tourism. In total, 1,271 tourists were

contacted on a random basis within the context of the

36


I









airport and arteries quotas. A survey instrument was used

to ascertain tourist use of saltwater beaches and fisheries

in Florida. The survey was conducted from September, 1989

to April 1990 (8 months) to reflect the seasonal pattern of

tourism throughout the state. The survey instrument can be

found in Appendix A to this report.

Of particular importance, it is necessary that

participation rates be calculated from the random tourist

contacts. These were as follows:


Participation Rate (i.e., percent
Activity of total contacts

Saltwater Beaches 57.4

Saltwater Fisheries 15.8


According to Outdoor Recreation in Florida (1985, 1987),

saltwater beach participation rates for tourists were 57.8

and 50 percent respectively. Bell (1990) estimated a

tourist saltwater participation rate of 65.9 percent in

1990. Given sample variability, the participation rate

found in this study certainly falls in the mid-range of

other reported studies. The participation rate applies to

that segment of the tourist population 18 years and older.

In 1990, Bell (1990) found that saltwater recreational

fishing participation rates for boat and nonboat fishing

were 12.7 and 11.7 respectively for Florida tourists. The

participation rate found in this study is somewhat higher,

but does not seem unreasonable given other studies.










Since this study was intended to establish the role, if

any, of resource scarcity in attracting or not attracting

tourists to Florida, those nonparticipants' in recreational

saltwater beach and fishery uses were asked the principal

reason they did not participate. The following results were

obtained:


Nonparticipants: Saltwater Beaches
(42.6% of Tourists)

Reason Not Used Beach Percent Responding

No Interest 37.5
Too Crowded 3.7
No Access 1.1
No Parking .7
Miscellaneous 57.0


Most beach nonparticipants were just not interested in this

recreational activity. Such resource scarcity factors such

as crowding, lack of access and parking were only 5.5

percent of all the reasons given for nonparticipation.

To further pursue the question of resource scarcity

with respect to saltwater beaches, all contacts were asked

whether they have friends or relatives who do not come to

Florida or stopped coming to Florida because of a "decline

in the quality of the saltwater beach experience" (i.e.,

resource scarcity). Only 3.5 percent of the 1271 contacts

answered affirmatively.

Fishery nonparticipants gave similar answers as beach

nonparticipants as shown below:










Nonparticipants: Saltwater Fisheries
(84.2% of Tourists)

Reasons Not Used Fishery Percent Responding

No Interest 66.2
Low Catch Rate .4
Too Crowded .1
Pollution .1
Miscellaneous 33.3


The answer "no interest" was much more prominent in

saltwater recreational fisheries than for saltwater beaches.

Less than 1 percent of the nonparticipants in saltwater

fisheries mentioned resource scarcity factors such as catch

rates, crowding or pollution. Of all the contacts, only 2

percent said their friends or relatives quit coming to

Florida to engage in saltwater fishing because of a "decline

in the quality of the recreational experience" indicating a

relatively small role for resource scarcity in deterring

tourism in the aggregate.

According to the Sport Fishing Institute (SFI)

(November/December, 1990) several recent studies have begun

to shed some light on the factors that influence an angler's

decision to fish. Several interesting findings about

anglers 18 years and older who recently quit fishing or

reduced their fishing activity surfaced:

(1) two-thirds fished with family members;

(2) over half rated themselves as having below

average fishing skills;

(3) most fished for relaxation (45 percent);








(4) many disliked contact with fish, cleaning

fish and baiting hooks

Family plays a central role in fishing participation

according to the SFI. Having fishing partners (i.e.,

family, friends) is important in increasing or decreasing

(i.e., lack of partners) participation.

For both saltwater beaches and fisheries, one approach

to analyzing participation rates is to estimate a

participation function where one attempts to see how

participants differ from nonparticipants based upon

socioeconomic characteristics. The following participation

equation was hypothesized for both beach and fishing

recreational activities:


(1) PrP = f(AGE, AGE2, SEX, WHITE, VISIT, INC)

where PrP = probability of participating, 1 =
participated, 0 = not participated

AGE = age of respondent (years)

SEX = 1 = male; 0 = female of respondent

WHITE = 1 = white; 0 = nonwhite

VISIT = 1 = air traveler; 0 = auto traveler

INC = annual income.


The participation function for saltwater beaches in Florida

is shown in Table 4.1 using linear OLS and logit forms of

the equation. It is hypothesized that age has a parabolic

relation to many outdoor recreational activities in terms of

participation (i.e., people do not fish intensively earlier
40













Table 4.1
Estimated Saltwater Beach Participation Function
for Florida Tourists Using a Linear OLS
and Logit Functions. 1990
(Participation = Dependent Variable)


Linear OLS1


Variable

Constant


.4127***
(6.11)


-.00455***
(-5.30)


.0725***
(2.65)

.2900***
(5.82)

.0704**
(2.40)

.0100*
(1.57)


1271

.054

15.52


N/A


Loit2

-.2704
(.24)


-.0251*
(-1.16)

(3)

.3152***
(7.02)

1.2362***
(30.45)

.3091**
(5.84)

.0447*
(2.36)


1271

N/A

N/A

74.98


1. t-values in parentheses; 2. Wald values in parentheses;
3. Not statistically significant at 20 percent level and
omitted from the equation. *, **, *** indicate significant
at .1, .05, and .01 level, respectively.


AGE


AGE2

SEX


WHITE


VISIT


INC


Adj R2









in their lives and later in their lives, but have maximum

participation in the "middle" of their lives). AGE2 was not

statistically significant and was omitted from the beach

participation equations. It would appear from the results

that saltwater beach participation declines with an increase

in age. Murdock et al (1990) have projected demographic

changes in the U.S. population from which most of the

tourists visiting Florida come. In 1988, this population

had a median age of 32.3 years, but by 2025, the median age

is projected to be 41 years. This projection combined with

the participation function would indicate less pressure on

the saltwater resources of Florida. Males are more likely

to participate in beach activities than females according to

the results shown in Table 4.1. Of particular significance,

WHITE shows a highly positive relation with beach

participation. This has important implications for demand

pressures on the beach resources. Nonwhites (i.e., blacks,

hispanics, etc.) or minorities have a lower participation

rate with respect to saltwater beach use. Murdock et al

(1990) forecast in the years 1980 to 2025 that 78 percent of

the net change in the populations of the U.S. will be due to

minorities. To the degree that tourists visiting Florida

reflect the rising percent of minorities in the general

population, this may signal less demand pressures on beach

resources. This may tend to mitigate against resource

scarcity. Visitors arriving by air have a higher









participation rate than those-arriving by autos. According

to Burrett and Williams (1990), "Rest/relation is the main

goal of auto tourists today, whereas in 1983 it was beaches.

For air tourists, enjoying the beaches has overtaken

rest/relaxation" (p. 256). The participation function is

consistent with this statement. Although there is a

positive association between saltwater beach participation

and income, it is very weak. Thus, growing affluence among

tourists may have but a marginal influence on beach

participation. The net result of this analysis is to

indicate that the demand for saltwater beaches in Florida

will probably grow less rapidly than the overall tourist

market. Walt Disney's Magic Kingdom and EPCOT Center

attract the most out-of-state visitors, along with Sea

World, Busch Gardens and Spaceport USA in the top five.

Apparently, saltwater beaches will no longer be the major

reason to visit Florida.

Table 4.2 shows the participation function for

saltwater recreational fisheries estimated from the sample

of 1,271. Participation in recreational fishing is

parabolically related to AGE. AGE and AGE2 are

statistically significant at the 1 percent level in both the

linear OLS and the logit equations. In both equations,

participation reaches its maximum at approximately age 50

for tourists engaged in saltwater recreational fishing in

Florida. Murdock et al (1990) estimate the following median













Table 4.2
Estimated Saltwater Fisheries Participation Function
for Florida Tourists Using a Linear OLS
and Loait Functions, 1990
(Participation = Dependent Variable)


Variable

Constant


AGE


AGE2


SEX


WHITE


VISIT


INC


Linear OLS1

-.2731***
(2.97)


.0142***
(3.68)

-.000141***
(-3.55)

.2018***
(10.13)

.4091
(1.13)

.0096
(.45)

-.0085*
(-1.76)


1271

.082

19.83

N/A


Adj R2


Loait2


-5.9451***
(45.169)


.1302***
(13.20)

-.0013***
(12.35)

1.849***
(79.46)

.3726
(1.38)

.082
(.21)

-.0768*
(3.49)


1271

N/A

N/A

121.02


1. t-values in parentheses; 2. Wald values in parentheses;
3. Not statistically significant at 20 percent level and
omitted from the equation. *, **, *** indicate significant
at .1, .05, and .01 level, respectively.









age in the U.S. along with a projection for 2025

Year Median Age


1980 30.0
1988 32.3
2025 41.0


If tourists to Florida reflect this aging trend, this will

increase participation in saltwater fisheries. This may

place an added burden on fishery stocks that are already

depleted. There is great physical evidence of resource

scarcity in the fisheries. As the participation function

indicates, recreational fishing is dominated by male (i.e.

SEX variable) tourists visiting Florida. Saltwater

recreational fishing does not appear to be related to race

(WHITE) or mode of arrival into Florida (VISIT). However,

this recreational activity appears to be an inferior good

for increasingly affluent tourists that visit Florida.

Green (1984) found that income elasticities for tourists

engaging in saltwater fisheries were either zero of

negative. This would be consistent with the results shown

in Table 4.2 and would mean, if true, that rising affluence

should mitigate against resource scarcity.

Quality of the Recreational Experience for Participants

The first part of this chapter has focused upon the

contrast between participants and nonparticipants in

recreational saltwater beach and fishery activities. In

this section, the results from the survey on the quality of










the recreational experience will be discussed. One

dimension of resource scarcity in these two forms of outdoor

recreation is the "quality of the recreational experience".

Let us consider saltwater beaches first.

Two aspects that measure the quality of the saltwater

beach are crowding and public access including parking. To

those individuals who were tourist beach users, the

following question was asked: "Given the present conditions

on the beaches, how much would conditions have to change

before you would quit vacationing in Florida?" This is an

important question since it gets at the root of potential

tourist deterrence to visiting Florida because of the

unsatisfactory nature of aspects of the resource. Let us

consider crowding first.


Would Quit Vacating in Florida
If Saltwater Beach Crowding
Increase by a Given Percent

Scarcity Measure:
Percent Increase Percent of Cumulative
in Beach Crowding Participants Percent

1 to 10% 8.5 8.5
11 to 30% 22.0 30.5
31 to 50% 28.3 58.8
More than 50% 41.2 100.0


The findings indicate an inelastic response of tourists

quitting Florida as a vacation spot with even fairly

substantial increases in crowding. It must be remembered

that these responses are from beach users or participants.

A more than 50 percent increase in crowding over "present










conditions" would cause 41.2 percent of saltwater beach

users to quit vacating in Florida. The average beach user

said crowding would have to increase from 31-50 percent

above present levels before he or she would quit. An

erosion of a beach that results in crowding might produce an

attrition of tourists from Florida. Crowding would appear

to be a negative externality from these responses.

One aspect of the quality of the recreational beach

experience is the degree of public access to common property

beaches. To measure the degree of access, the distance

between access points was used. Beach users were asked how

difficult access would have to get before they would quit

vacationing in Florida.


Would Quit Vacationing in Florida
Under Decreased Access to Public Beaches

One Access Point Percent of Cumulative
For Every Participants Percent

200 feet of beach 15.3 15.3
500 feet of beach 24.0 39.3
1/4 mile of beach 33.3 72.6
1 mile of beach 16.7 89.3
5 miles of beach 8.9 98.2
DK (Don't Know) 1.8 100.0


It would appear that beach users are fairly sensitive to

distance between access points in that ninety percent might

quit vacationing in Florida if the distance between access

points were as much as a mile. The average beach user felt

that the interval between access points would have to

decrease to one-quarter of a mile above present intervals










before he or she would quit. Apparently, the distance

between access points to the beach is critical aspect of the

recreational experience.

With regard to saltwater recreational fisheries, it is

important that we know some aspects of angling such as the

percent of tourists that target their species. Targeting is

an aspect of avidity toward recreational fishing. A working

hypothesis is that targeting a fish makes the angler more

sensitive to physical measures of resource scarcity such as

catch per unit of fishing effort. From the sample of

tourist saltwater anglers, only 28 percent had a principal

target species. McConnell et al (1990, unpublished) state

"Florida is similar to Georgia in the large proportion of

saltwater anglers who do not target a species. For the

decade, Florida had the largest percentage of anglers not

targeting (62%). Like Georgia, this percentage grew during

the decade, from 55 percent in the first half to 66 percent

in the latter half. The rise came at the expense of the big

game and bottomfish targets" (p. 6). In contrast to popular

belief, the survey in this study revealed that tourist

saltwater angler targeted small game and bottomfish (e.g.,

snapper, groupers, black drum) and such species as dolphin

and sailfish were seldom mentioned. For the anglers in the

sample, they reported mean and median catch of targeted

species per day of 8.2 and 4 respectively with latter more

in agreement with overall catch rates in Florida of 4.5









shown in Table 2.2 (See Chapter 2). For those that target

species, (i.e., 28 percent), they catch a mean and median

per day of 8.4 and 6 respectively of nontargeted species.

Even those that may not achieve their targets do, on

average, land fish.

Nearly three quarters of the tourist anglers do not

target any particular species. This is consistent with the

hypothesis that tourists in particular are bent on rest and

relaxation in outdoor recreation such as fishing, but have

no great preference for the species caught. Bell (1991)

found that 65 percent of all tourists visiting Florida said

that outdoor recreation was very important to them. If all

this is true, resource scarcity among some species may have

little effect on tourism because of the apparent ease of

species substitution. Those tourists that have no target

species have a mean and median catch per day of 8.8 and 6

fish respectively. Nontarget species are primarily bottom

fish such as snapper and grouper.

To examine resource scarcity once again, a question was

asked as to the minimum number of fish you would consider

per day before you would cuit fishing in Florida. For the

two groups of tourist anglers, the following answers were

given:










Catch Per Minimum Surplus
Kind of Angler Day Acceptable or Deficit

Target Species (1) (2) (1) (2)
(a) Mean 8.2 1.23 +6.97
(b) Median 4.0 1.00 +3.00
Nontarget Species
(a) Mean 8.8 5.00 +3.8
(b) Median 6.0 4.00 +2.0

It is quite clear that minimum acceptable or threshold catch

per day is well below the actual catch using the mean and

median measure of central tendency. The evidence above

would appear to indicate that physical indicators of

resource scarcity in saltwater recreational fishing in

Florida by tourists has not declined to a point where catch

rates are unacceptably low. At the very aggregate level, it

would appear that catch rates are not yet a factor in

deterring tourist anglers from Florida waters. The impact

on residents may be entirely different, but this subject is

not within the purview of this study of only tourist. The

next chapter will consider the user value of beach and

fishery resources; the determinants of user value and the

economic impact by tourists using saltwater beaches and

fishing in Florida's coastal zone.















CHAPTER 5

USER VALUE AND THE ECONOMIC IMPACT
OF SALTWATER BEACH AND FISHERY RESOURCES
IN FLORIDA'S COASTAL ZONE


User Day Value or Willingness to Pay

The most pragmatic way of approximating a unit of

recreation is by defining the experience in terms of time,

or more specifically, a unit-day measure. Not only is it

difficult to define a unit of recreation, but outdoor

recreation is what economists call an "extra or nonmarket

activity." That is, it is.very difficult to directly

estimate the value of the sport fishery or the use of a

beach because the "product" is not directly marketed in the

U.S. In most cases, no one persons) owns the resources;

therefore, a charge cannot be levied upon the use of this

resource. To approximate the unit day value of a resource

(i.e., fish, beaches), economists use a direct survey

approach called the contingent valuation method (CVM). See

Mitchell and Carson (1989) for an extended discussion of

this technique.

The actual question in the case of recreational fishing

is in section B of the questionnaire in Appendix A which

concludes by asking, "What is the maximum amount you would

pay per fishing day in addition to the fishing license and










still fish days per year (from Question 3) in Florida?

of the 201 tourist saltwater anglers interviewed, nearly 53

percent indicated they would be willing to'pay nothing in

answer to this question. The range of responses was from $0

to $50 per day with a mean of $3.18. People who answer zero

are sometimes regarded as protesterss". A further analysis

of the saltwater angling protesters was made using the

dichotomous variable, PFWP (protestor of fishing willingness

to pay) or

PFWP 1 = Willing to pay something
0 = Not willing to pay anything.

The explanatory variables were as follows:

AGE = age;

INC = income;

SEX = 1 Male
= 0 Female;

WHITE = 1 White
0 Nonwhite;

VISIT = 1 Air
0 Auto;

FISHYRS = years fishing in Florida.

Table 5.1 shows estimates of the participation function

(i.e. willing to pay; not willing to pay) for linear OLS and

logit specifications. It appears that there are some

socioeconomic variables that explain the tendency for over

one-half of the saltwater tourist saltwater anglers refusal

to pay anything for the recreational experience. AGE and

FISHYR were inversely related to willingness to pay as shown









in Table 5.1. Older persons who have been fishing in

Florida for a relatively long time refused to pay anything

for the recreational experience or its attributes. It is

always difficult to phrase a contingent value question.

This question was asked during a period where the State of

Florida instituted a saltwater fishing license for tourists

and residents for the first time ever. Nonresidents are now

required to pay $15 plus fees (i.e., $2) for a 7 day

license. Other options are available such as a $5, 3-day

license or $30, 1-year license for tourists. Also, there

are generally fewer exemptions for tourists compared to

residents (e.g., any Florida resident is exempt if fishing

from land or a structure fixed to land). Thus the

respondents might have perceived the question as an attempt

to increase the licensee fee even further. Only those

arriving by air as opposed to auto (i.e., VISIT) show an

inclination to pay more than the protesterss." Both the

linear OLS and logit show somewhat similar results as

indicated in Table 4.1. If the respondents feel that the

license is an attempt to displace their consumers' surplus,

then they may psychologically subtract the license fee from

their true willingness to pay. Assuming that most tourists

would purchase the 7-day license, then one might infer that

the true willingness to pay is $15 plus the mean response of

$3.18 or $18.18 per day. In 1980-81, Bell et al (1982)

found a willingness to pay per day of $28.64 by tourist













Table 5.1

Estimated Relation Between Those Saltwater Fishermen


Who Would Be.Willing To Pay Versus Not


Willing to Pay for a Day of Angling
With Socioeconomic Variables


(Dependent Variable: 1 = Willing; 0 = Not Willing)


Variable

Constant


AGE


INC


SEX


Linear OLS1

.7462
(3.652)***


-.0046
(-1.851)*

-.0053
(-.288)

.0785
(.0560)

-.0693
(-.499)

.1807
(2.297)**

-.00730
(-1.994)**


WHITE


VISIT


FISHYRS


N

Adj R2

F

X2


201

.074

3.58

N/A


Loait2

1.1802
(.992)


-.0513
(.526)

-.0109
(.0163)

.3440
(.6080)

-.3674
(.3500)

.7594
(4.975)**

-.0330
(3.5971)**


201

N/A

N/A

21.099


1. T-values in parentheses; 2. Wald values in parentheses

I, II, III indicate significant at .1, .05 and .01 level,
respectively.










anglers in Florida. Even a decade ago, there was

substantial opposition to a saltwater fishing license as

nearly half the tourists would not pay $10.50 (i.e., a

suggested figure by state officials) for such a license.

Finally, the willingness to pay for recreational saltwater

fishing may be lowered by a secular decline in catch per

trip which is very pronounced on the East Coast of Florida.

See Table 1.3 (Chapter 1).

To further examine the discussion above, the survey did

ask protesterss" why they were unwilling to pay anything for

the saltwater recreational fishing experience. The

following reasons were given:


Reasons for a Zero Willingness to Pay for
Saltwater Recreational Fishing in
Florida by Tourists

Reason Percent of Protestors

1. Do Not Like Fees 77.1
2. Would Go to Another State 14.7
3. Would Do Something Else in Florida 7.3
4. Do Not Understand Question 0.9


Once individuals have been conditioned to common property

resource (i.e., no fees charged), one might expect

protesterss". The statistical results in Table 4.1

indicating that those that have used the fishery resource

for a relatively long time (i.e., FISHYRS) are more likely

to be protesterss."

With respect to tourist saltwater beach users, a

similar contingent value question was asked or "What is the
55









maximum amount you would pay per beach day in addition to

any present beach fees and still visit the beach days"?

Of the 729 saltwater beach users interviewed, 46.9 percent

indicated they would be willing to pay nothing in answer to

this question. The range of responses was from $0 to $150

per day with a mean of $2.00. Although not as relatively

numerous as the saltwater recreational fishermen,

protesterss" are still very prominent among saltwater beach

users visiting Florida. A similar statistical analysis was

conducted and is shown in Table 5.2. The same socioeconomic

variables were used to explain the dichotomous variable,

PBWP protestorr of beach willingness to pay) or

PBWP 1 = Willing to pay something

0 = Not willing to pay anything.

As with saltwater fishing, those tourists using Florida's

beaches the longest (BCHYRS) tended to have a higher

percentage of protesters. Males (SEX) were more likely to

be protesters than females; however, those arriving by air

(VISIT) were less likely to be protesters. The linear OLS

and logit specifications were in reasonable agreement. Of

particular interest, the average willingness to pay was

higher than that found by Bell and Leeworthy (1986) in 1984

for saltwater beaches in Florida.












Table 5.2

Estimated Relation Between Those Saltwater Recreational


Beach Users Who Would Be Willing to'Pay Versus


Not Willing to Pay for a Beach Day with


Socioeconomic Variables

(Dependent Variable: 1 = Willing; 0 = Not Willing)


Variable

Constant


AGE


INC


SEX


Loait2

.9589
(1.538)


Linear OLS

.7194
(4.033)***


-.0054
(-.724)

.0017
(.185)

-.0561
.(-1.525)*

.0409
(.469)

.1450
(3.738)***

-.0059
(-3.145)***


729

.06

7.52

N/A


WHITE


VISIT


BCHYRS



N

Adj R2

F

X2


-.0242
(.564)

.0072
(.0345)

-.2422
(2.362)*

.1838
(.243)

.6155
(13.692)*

-.0258
(9.564)*


729

N/A

N/A

51.058


1. T-values in parentheses; Wald values in parentheses

*, ***** indicate significant at .1, .05 and .01 level,
respectively.










Tourist Willingness to Pay for
Saltwater Beaches
(All Florida)


Value Per Base
Year Day (Tourists) Year
19841 1.45 100
19902 2.00 138

1. Bell and Leeworthy (1986)
2. FSU Survey


It is of interest that willingness to pay for saltwater

Florida beaches increased by 38 percent over the 1984-1990

period while inflation increased by 26 percent as measured

by the consumer price index. In contrast to the findings

for recreational fisheries, the willingness to pay found in

the sample analyzed in this study seem more consistent with

the earlier study by Bell and Leeworthy. No statewide beach

fees were imposed in 1990 as was the case for saltwater

recreational fisheries.

One similarity between the fishery and beach results

was the significant number of protesters in each sample.

For saltwater beach users, the reasons given for protesting

were as follows:


Reasons for a Zero Willinqness to Pay for
Saltwater Recreational Beach Use
in Florida by Tourists
Reason Percent of Protestors
1. Do Not Like Fees 86.0
2. Would Do Something Else in Florida 7.3
3. Would Go to Another State 4.4
4. Do Not Understand Question 2.4










Saltwater beach users were more vehement in their

dislike of fees than saltwater anglers among the visitor

population to Florida. Many states have saltwater fishing

licenses, but none, to the author's knowledge, have imposed

a similar statewide fee on beaches. In contrast to

saltwater fishermen, saltwater beach users would rather pay

zero, but "do something else in the state" rather than go to

another state. Both groups apparently interpret an

unwillingness to pay anything as precluding them for the use

of the resource.

The Determinants of the Willingness to Pay

Hammack and Brown (1974) were among the first to

explain the.variation in consumer's surplus or willingness

to pay (WTP) among those engaged in the use of a natural

resource for outdoor recreation. In essence, they stated

that WTP would be a function of socioeconomic and conditions

of the resource (e.g., low catch rates per day were

hypothesized to lower WTP per day). For this study, WTP per

day for saltwater recreational fisheries were hypothesized

to depend on the following independent variables:

INC = income;
FISHDAYS = fishing days per year;
BCHDAYS = beach days per year;
OTHDAYS = other recreational days per year;
FISHYRS = years fishing in Florida;
FTRACOST = travel cost from home to fishing
site in Florida;
FISHE = on-site fishing expenditures per
day;


I










VISIT = 1 = Air arrival; 0 = auto arrival;
TARGET = 1 = Yes; 0 = No
CATCH = number of fish caught per day.

Some explanation of the hypothesized sign for these

independent variables is needed here. As Y increases, the

demand curve for saltwater fishery services should shift up

and to the right, increasing WTP. An increase in FISHDAYS

will move the consumer down the demand curve thereby

increasing consumer surplus or WTP. BCHDAYS and OTHDAYS are

recreational substitutes for FISHDAYS. As these variables

increase, the WTP for FISHDAYS should decline as the

saltwater angler travels up the demand curve. The longer an

angler fishes (FISHYRS) he may experience diminishing annual

utility or it may be an indicator of avidity. Thus, the

sign on FISHYRS could be plus or-minus. One may make larger

expenditures to travel to the fishing site (FTRACOST) and

spend more while there (FISHE). Thus, the angler may

perceive that he is purchasing a richer set of

characteristics (i.e., tastes) and therefore value the beach

characteristics more. A positive influence might be

hypothesized. Air arrivals are hypothesized to have a

higher WTP than auto arrivals (VISIT) since air visitors are

less inclined to be protesters. See Table 5.1. Those that

target their fish are more likely to express a greater

avidity and thereby WTP for fishing (TARGET). The key

variable in the WTP equation is the catch rate. Higher

catch rates for those that target their fish or do not is









hypothesized to increase the quality of the recreational

experience. However, the survey conducted in this study

indicated tat current catch rates are still well above

minimum acceptable catch rates for the tourist saltwater

angler. Table 5.3 shows the results of the linear OLS

regression analysis2 The results of the analysis are

certainly unimpressive. Most of the variables except

BCHDAYS; OTHDAYS; FTRACOST and CATCH had the hypothesized

signs but only FISHYRS was statistically significant at an

acceptable level. See the footnote to Table 5.3 for

acceptable levels. The sign on the variable, CATCH, was one

of all things, negative but not statistically significant at

even the 10 percent level. However, the CATCH results are

not inconsistent with the hypothesis that threshold levels

of catch rates have not been reached to reduce the WTP by

tourist saltwater anglers. Also, the introduction of the

saltwater fishing license cannot be overlooked as a



2Previous statistical analysis revealed some socioeconomic
differences between protesters (i.e., not willing to pay
anything) and those willing to pay something as revealed in
Tables 5.1 and 5.2 dealing with saltwater anglers and beach
users respectively. Those willing to pay nothing may not be
revealing what they might be willing to pay if user charges
were imposed on coastal natural resources. Also, zero
responses cannot be used in logarithmic form. For these
reasons, all protesters were eliminated from both the
saltwater tourist angler and beach user samples respectively
and the equations were rerun including a logarithmic
specification. Unfortunately, no improvement in statistical
results was noted over that presented in Tables 5.3 and 5.4
so in the interest of brevity these results were not
presented.










Table 5.3


Statistical Analysis of the Determinants of the
Willingness to Pay Per Day for the
Recreational Experience by
Tourist Saltwater Anglers. 1990
(Dependent Variable: Willingness to pay per day)
Independent Variables1


Constant

INC

FISHDAYS

BCHDAYS

OTHDAYS

FISHYRS

FTRACOS


2.966
(1.832)*
.1332
(.482)
.0495
(1.260)
.0262
(1.398)
-.0052
(-.352)
-.0986
(-2.079)**
-.00112
(-.825)
.0015
(.335)
.5691
(.569)
1.387
(1.319)
-.0259
(.562)


FISHE

VISIT

TARGET

CATCH


201


Adj R2

F


.002

1.04


1. t-values in parentheses.
*, **, *** indicate significant at .1, .05, and .01 level,
respectively.










confounding factor in interpreting the WTP for an angling

day.

With respect to the WTP for beach days, all of the

related independent variables used for saltwater angling

were used for saltwater beach use except TARGET and CATCH

that only applied to the fisheries. For beaches, an

anticipation variable, CROWD, was used to reflect a

deterioration in the quality of the recreational experience.

If the beach user anticipated increased crowding, would he

lower his WTP? The results are shown in Table 5.4. Again,

the results are not particularly enlightening. Only two

variables were statistically significant. These variables,

BCHDAYS and FISHDAYS, where the latter variable does not

exhibit the hypothesized sign. The equation in Table 5.4

does not seem very helpful in the understanding of why WTP

might vary among individuals. The contingent value method

may generate responses that are not well linked to the

variables specified in Table 5.4.

A Brief Look at the Gross Economic Impact of Tourism in the
Fishing and Beach Sectors

Table 5.5 outlines some of the estimated dimensions of

tourist participation in the use of fishery and beach

resources in the coastal zone of Florida. Remember that

individuals 18 years and older were interviewed in deriving

the participation rate. Thus, the participation rate was

only applied to those 18 years or older in the total 1990

tourist population of 41,421,200 (i.e., 84.6 percent 18 or










Table 5.4

Statistical Analysis of the Determinants of the


Willingness to Pay Per Day for the


n~rP-crt~iona1 Exn~erience by


Tourist Beach Users. 1990
(Dependent Variable: Willingness to pay per day)
Independent Variables'


Constant


INC


BCHDAYS


FISHDAYS


OTHDAYS


BCHYRS


BTRACOS


BCHE


VISIT


CROWD


N

Adj R2

F


3.5756
(2.326)**

-.0884
(-.612)

.0246
(1.978)**

.0877
(1.977)**

.0176
(1.665)

-.0465
(-1.541)

-.00039
(-.442)

.00275
(.664)

-.0853
(-.124)

-.3377
(-1.090)

729

.0157

1.921


1. t-values in parentheses.
*, **,*** indicate significant at .1, .05, and .01 level,
respectively.










Table 5.5

Estimated Number of Participants. Recreational
Days and Gross Expenditures by Tourists
on Saltwater Recreational Fishing
and Beach Use in Florida. 1990

Recreational Saltwater Fisheries


Total Tourist Population X
Over 18

35,074,925


Median Days Fished X
Per Year

4.0 X


Daily Expenditures in X
Florida (Median)

$100.00 X.
Billion


Participation
Rate

.158


Tourist
Fishermen

5,541,838


Total Angler
Days

22,167,353


= Total Tourist
Fishermen

= 5,547,838


= Total Angler
Days

= 22,167,353


= Total
Expenditures

= $2.217


Recreational Saltwater Beaches


Total Tourist Population
Over 18

35,042,335


Median Days Used
Beach Per Year

5.00


Daily Expenditures in
in Florida (Median)

$60.00
Billion


X Participation
Rate

X .574


X Tourist Beach
Users

20,133,007


Total Beach
Days

X 100,665,005


= Total Beach
Users

= 20,133,007


= Total Beach
Days

100,665,005


= Total
Expenditures

= $6.040









over). It is estimated that over 5.5 tourists participated

in saltwater recreational fishing during 1990. This figure

would not include children accompanying adults and is

therefore probably biased downward. Of those adults

participating in saltwater recreational fishing in 1990,

they were asked how many days each participated in that

year. In answering, the respondent could count any fraction

of a day as one day. Obviously, one could engage in several

activities in one day and a tourist desiring to do all there

is to be done on a short, once a year (or even a lifetime)

opportunity is likely to do so. Therefore, double counting

a day is a likely prospect. This will bias days spent in

any form of recreation upward. .After looking at the

distribution of days spent per year by tourist in saltwater

fishing, it was also apparent that the mean of 7.8 days was

biased upward due to outliers (e.g., 70 days fished per

year). The median was selected to counteract double

counting and outlier effects. An estimated 22.1 saltwater

angler days were spent by tourists while in Florida in 1990.

After correcting the Bell et al work for the upward biased

tourist series, it is estimated that 9,35 million days were

spent on saltwater angling by tourists in 1981. These

figures would indicate a doubling of fishing effort by

tourists in about a decade. Such fishing pressure would

certainly produce a decline in catch per unit of effort

among many species such as swordfish, red snapper, red drum










and king mackerel to mention but a few stressed species.

Yet, in the agqregate, tourist saltwater anglers claim

according to the survey upon which this study is based that

a threshold of catch rates has not been reached (i.e.,

extreme physical resource scarcity) that would deter

saltwater anglers from visiting Florida. Finally, the

median daily expenditure while fishing was selected to

minimize outliers and when multiplied by saltwater angler

days yields gross expenditures of $2.215 billion. Leventhal

and Company estimate that Disney World and Orange/Osceola

Counties generated $3.15 billion.in gross expenditure in

1987 which includes mainly tourists, but also residents.

Although distributed throughout Florida, recreational

fishing is a significant component of tourism.

Turning now to saltwater beaches in Table 5.5, the

starting point is with the tourist population 18 years and

older as discussed above. Of the over 35 million tourists

(i.e., adults) visiting Florida in 1990, 57.4 percent used

the saltwater beaches or over 20 million tourists as shown

in Table 5.5. The median days per year was used because of

outliers and double counting a day as discussed in some

detail above. Five days a year was spent by each adult

tourist (i.e., 18 years and older) visiting Florida. When

multiplied by total beach users, over 100 million saltwater

beach days were expended in 1990 by tourists. In 1984, Bell

and Leeworthy (1986) estimated over 69 million beach days









were spent by tourists in Florida's coastal zone. In the

last six years, the pressure on Florida's finite saltwater

beaches has expanded by over 45 percent. Finally, the

estimated beach day was multiplied by the beach-related

expenditures per day of $60 (median) to derive gross

expenditures of over $6 billion. These expenditures support

numerous jobs. Since this report deals exclusively with

tourists, the study focuses upon an export industry (i.e.,

part of the economic base). This export industry has a

multiplier effect on the Florida economy which increases the

impact of the direct gross expenditures estimated in this

study. However, such quantification of the total impact

(i.e., direct and indirect) is beyond the scope of this

report.















CHAPTER 6

POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS


Policy Implications

Burrett and Williams (1990) state that "The outlook for

tourism in Florida through the year 2000 is excellent" (p.

263). They assume that Florida's natural resource will

still be in place over the course of the next ten years.

Also, the diversification of tourism may also be a factor in

preventing undue pressure on natural resources of the

coastal zone. The hypothesis pursued in this report is that

resource scarcity may be a deterrence or obstacle to the

growth in tourism in Florida. Although the conclusions from

earlier chapters tend to reject this hypothesis, this does

not mean that there are no important policy issues

surrounding saltwater fishery and beach resources. The

"wolf of resource scarcity" is always at the door! Because

of projected economic trends, tourism in Florida is not

expected to grow as fast over the 1991-2005 period even

assuming no resource constraint! However, policies must be

in place to mitigate against the prospect of resource

scarcity. Physical resource scarcity is inevitable with

increasing demand for what are largely common property

resources without offsetting policies.

69










The problem of physical resource scarcity or declining

catch per unit of fishing effort in saltwater recreational

fisheries in Florida has been recognized over the last two

decades. Jurisdiction for these resources is split between

the State of Florida (Marine Fisheries Commission) and the

Federal government (Gulf and Atlantic Fishery Management

Councils). Such agencies must balance recreational and

commercial interests in the use of the marine fishery

resources. With respect to recreational fisheries, the main

policy tool is the imposition of daily bag limits per

angler. Such an imposition is a recognition of resource

scarcity. According to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Council, for example, the species below are

regulated in the following manner:

Species Daily Baa Limit

1. Cobia 21/person
2. Spiny Lobster 6/person
3. King Mackerel 2/person
4. Spanish Mackerel 5/person
5. Red Drum 0/person
6. Bluefin Tuna 1/person/year
7. Billfish none
8. Marlin none
9. Red Snapper 7/person
10. Other Snapper none
11. Groupers 5/person
12. Black Seabass none
13. Greater Amberjack 3/person
14. Jewfish 0/person

Red drum and jewfish have become severely depleted resources

and all recreational catch in Federal waters is prohibited.

In Chapter 4, the survey asked tourists about their minimum

acceptable catch per day which was as follows (mean values):
70










Target species: 1.23/person

Nontarget species: 5.00/person

Although these thresholds are not specific'to any one

species, they do indicate in a general way that current bag

limits are somewhat above these critical points as indicated

by the survey. Leeworthy (1990) and Green (1989) already

have identified king mackerel (2/day/person) and red drum

(0/day/person) respectively as species where anglers are

extremely sensitive in terms of fishing demand to catch

rates. By 2005, it is estimated there will be 8,831,000

tourist saltwater anglers (66.066 million X .846 X .158) 18

years and older compared to an estimated 5,536,689 in 1990

(Table 5.5), a nearly 60 percent increase. With a finite

fishery resource, bag limits will have to be lowered by

about 60 percent to spread the resource over more tourists

and residents. This is assuming that the present bag limits

are protecting the presently stressed populations. These

are some of the parameters that policymakers must consider

when adopting a bag limit strategy. Other strategies to

consider are designation of such species as king mackerel a

sports fish only or placing higher license fees on species

short in supply. A further discussion of this issue is well

beyond the scope of this study except to say that more

survey work at the species level is needed to establish

angler threshold of response to catch rates and bag limits.










Over the 1973-1990 period, there has been no appreciable

change in the percent of Florida saltwater beaches that have

been designated as those experiencing critical erosion

(i.e., about 28 percent. See Table 1.2 (Chapter 2).

Critical erosion is a physical indicator of resource

scarcity where there is a steady loss in the resource

itself. According to the Florida Division of Beaches and

Shores (September 1991), a Beach Erosion Control Program was

started in 1965. Since the program's inception over 127

million state dollars have been spent for the preservation,

protection and restoration of Florida's beach resources. In

nominal dollars, annual appropriations averaged $2.5 million

over the 1965- FY 1985-86, but increased to $12.4 million

yearly from FY 1986-87 to date. Over the 1965-1990 period,

inflation increased by 250 percent as measured by the

producer price index. Thus, the increase in real dollars is

much less than it appears in nominal dollars. The Division

of Beaches and Shores argues that restoration of beach

resources has been more effective after the establishment of

beach restoration management planning in 1985. They point

to the following data. Prior to management, 36.3 miles of

beach were restored over a 21-year period, an average per

year of 1.7 miles. The post management period saw

construction or preparation for construction of 28.1 miles

over a six-year period or 4.7 miles per year. The total

number of beaches restored since the inception of the









overall program in 1965 has been 64.4 miles. In contrast to

the fisheries, beaches may be a somewhat simpler policy

issue. That is, there are no recreational-commercial

conflicts; no Federal-State jurisdictional boundaries to be

reconciled and one is not dealing with a biological

resource. This is not to say that the policy issues with

respect to beaches are not complex. The distribution of

beach renourishment money is a complex issue and according

to the DBS (1991), "...a more equitable distribution of

funds for critical beach erosion problems on a statewide

basis occurred after beach restoration management planning

began in FY 1986-87" (p. 26). It still may be unacceptable

to have 28.5 percent of Florida saltwater beaches designated

as critically eroded today in light of expected tourist

demands. By 2005, it is estimated there will be 32,081,900

tourists using saltwater beaches (66.066 million X .846 X

.574) 18 years and older compared to 20,114,300 in 1990.

Those saltwater beaches that are critically eroded may be

needed to accommodate the projected expansion in demand even

though the rate of growth in overall tourism is expected to

ease. More research is needed on the relation between

projected regional demand and supply of saltwater beach

resources.

Conclusions

The purpose of this inquiry was to examine the

hypothesis that resource scarcity has and will act to reduce










tourism to Florida. Since tourism is heavily concentrated

in the coastal zone, two resources were researched to

determine the impact on tourists of changes in saltwater

recreational beaches and fisheries. The following basic

conclusions were reached:

1. An examination of tourist air and auto arrivals to

Florida over the 1979-1990 period revealed no evidence

that overall increasing resource scarcity in the

saltwater fisheries of which nearly 16 percent of all

tourists participated had any impact on tourism. Time

series on the status of saltwater beach resources were

not available;

2. Of the 35 million tourists (18 years or older), 57.4

and 15.8 percent participated in saltwater beach and

fishing recreation respectively while in Florida in

1990;

3. Participation (tourist) in saltwater beach recreation

was greater for white males arriving by air and having

a higher income than the general tourist population.

However, saltwater beach participation declined with

age;

4. Participation (tourists) in saltwater recreational

fisheries was greater among white males having lower

incomes than the general tourist population. Such

participation reached its maximum at 50 years of age;









5. When asked about potential beach crowding, tourists

were not very sensitive to potential increases in

saltwater crowding above existing level. Tourists were

more sensitive to the frequency of beach access points;

6. Saltwater anglers exhibited success rates (i.e., catch

per day) significantly above a threshold where they

would quit fishing in Florida;

7. Since both saltwater beaches and fisheries are common

property recreational resources, tourists were asked

their willingness to pay using the CVM-contingent

valuation method. This is needed since there are no

organized markets for these recreational activities.

Nearly 53 percent of the tourist saltwater anglers

refused to pay anything for the recreational experience

while nearly 47 percent of the saltwater beach users

also refused to pay anything. Tourist anglers, as a

group, were willing to pay $3.18 per day while beach

users were willing to pay $2.00 per day as a measure of

their consumer surpluses;

8. The variation in willingness to pay among users for

both the fishery and beach resources was not well

explained by socioeconomic variables, tastes or natural

resource scarcity;

9. It was estimated that tourist saltwater angler spent

$2.2 billion while tourist beach users spent $6 billion

while in Florida in 1990;









10. The two resource scarcity hypotheses were rejected.

This study found that aggregate catch rates were not a

factor related to that segment of tourists that are

saltwater anglers. Species substitution probably

mitigates against a negative effect of resource

scarcity on tourism. With 28 percent of Florida's

saltwater beaches classified as under critical erosion

-over the 1973-1991 period, there is no significant

evidence that this condition has been a significant

deterrent to tourism in the aggregate. As with

fisheries, beach substitution is most likely to have

mitigated against resource scarcity within regions of

Florida for visiting tourist;

11. The rejection of the two resource scarcity hypotheses

should not produce a feeling of complacence. With

catch rates falling and introduction of bag limits,

tourist saltwater anglers may be deterred from Florida

in the future especially with a 50 percent increase in

anglers expected by the year 2005. The saltwater

beaches with 28 percent still critically eroded will

also experience increased growth and with it the

potential for resource scarcity negatively impacting

Florida tourism.















REFERENCES


Bell, Frederick W. Florida Recreation Survey--1990 for the
Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Department of
Natural Resources (February, 1991).

Bell, Frederick W., P. Sorensen and R. Leeworthy, The
Economic Impact and Valuation of Saltwater Recreational
Fisheries in Florida, Report No. 47, Florida Sea Grant
College (1986).

Bell, Frederick W. and R. Leeworthy, An Analysis of the
Importance of Saltwater Beaches in Florida, Florida Sea
Grant College Report, No. 92 (1986).

Barnett, Harold J. and Chandler Morse, Scarcity and Growth,
Johns Hopkins Press (1963).

Burrett, M. Chase and David R. Williams, "Tourism: Chapter
15" in The Economy of Florida 1990 Edition, Bureau of
Economic and Business Research, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL (1990).

Clawson, M., "Methods of Measuring the Demand for and the
Benefits of Outdoor Recreation," Reprint No. 10, Resources
for the Future, Washington, D.C. (1959).

Clawson, M. and J. L. Knetch, "Economics of Outdoor
Recreation," Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore (1966).

Curtis, T.D. and E.W. Shows, A Comparative Study of Social
Economic Benefits of Artificial Beach Renourishment--Civil
Works in Northeast Florida, STAR Grant, Department of
Economics, University of South Florida (1984).

Curtis, T.D. and E.W. Shows, Economic and Social Benefits of
Artificial Beach Nourishment Civil Works at Delrav Beach,
STAR Grant, Department of Economics, University of South
Florida (1982).

Division of Beaches and Shores, Florida DNR, Status of
Comprehensive Beach Management Planning and the Florida
Beach Erosion Control Program, Annual Report (September
1991).










Florida Department of Natural Resources, A Proposed
Comprehensive Beach Management Program for the State of
Florida, Tallahassee, Florida (1986).

Florida Department of Natural Resources, Outdoor Recreation
in Florida, State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan,
Tallahassee, Florida (1976, 1981, 1987, 1989).

Glasure, Yong Un, An Economic Evaluation of the Florida
Saltwater Resident Recreational Fishery, Ph.D. Dissertation,
Florida State University (1987).

Green, Trellis G., The Economic Value and Policy
Implications of Recreational Red Drum Success Rates in Gulf
of Mexico, Report Prepared for the Southeast Regional
Office, NMFS, St. Petersburg, Florida, Contract No. NA87@C-
H-06146, MARFIN (1989).

Green, Trellis G., Compensating and Equivalent Variation of
the Florid Saltwater Tourist Fishery, Ph.D. Dissertation,
Florida State University (1984).

Hammack, Judd and Gardner M. Brown, Waterfowl and Wetlands:
Toward Bioeconomic Analysis, Resources for the Future, Inc.,
The Johns Hopkins University Press (1974).

Hardin, Garrett. "The Tragedy of the Commons," Science
(December, 1968): 1243-1248.

Leeworthy, Vernon R. An Economic Allocation of Fishery
Stocks Between Recreational and Commercial Fishermen: The
Case of King Mackerel, Ph.D. Dissertation, Florida State
University (1990).

McConnell, Kenneth E., "Congestion and Willingness to Pay: A
Study of Beach Use," Land Economics (May 1977).

McConnell, Kenneth, "Sportfishing in Florida," an
unpublished working paper, Food and Resource Economics
Department, University of Maryland (1990).

Mitchell, R.C. and R.T. Carson, Using Surveys to Value
Public Goods, Resources for The Future, Washington, D.C.
(1989).

Murdock, S.H., K. Backman, M.N. Hogue, and D. Ellis,
"Demographic Change in the 1990's and the Twenty-first
Century Implications for Fishery Management," Paper
presented at International Symposium and Workshop on Creel
and Angler Surveys in Fisheries Management, Houston, Texas
(March 27, 1990).










Silberman, Jonathan and Mark Klock, "The Recreational
Benefits of Beach Renourishment," Ocean and Shoreline
Management 11 (1988): 73-90.

Sport Fishing Institute, "The Changing Nature of Angler
Behavior," Washington, D.C. No. 420 (November/December,
1990).

Tietenberg, Tom. Environmental and Natural Resource
Economics, Scott, Foresman and Company: Glenview, Illinois
(1988).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Shoreline Study.
Regional Inventory Report, South Atlantic Gulf Region, Gulf
Region, Puerto and Virgin Islands (1973).

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, Marine Recreational
Fishery Statistics Survey, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, 1979-
1990.











Appendix A


Interviewer (initials):
Area: _(47)
Date: (48)


SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Florida Sea Grant Tourist Resource
Scarcity Study
Saltwater Beach and Recreational
Fishing Participants
CODE
A. Screening Questions

Good AM/afternoon. We are talking to Florida visitors today, that is
folks who are in Florida for over 24 hours and have their principal
home in another state.

1. Over the last 12 months, did you participate in any of the following
coastal activities while visiting Florida?

Nearest City County
or Town
to Activity
1 0
Activities Yes No
(a) Saltwater Recreational __ 1-2
Fishing
(b) Saltwater Beach __ __ 3-4
Activities/Use

2. If NO to either or both of the two activities, answer the following
questions:

(a) What was the principal reason you did not participate?

Saltwater Fishing (Check only one if you did not participate) 5

(1) Have No Interest m
in this Form of
of Recreation

(2) Too Crowded m

(3) Low Catch Rate
(Poor Fishing)

(4) Waters Polluted

(5) Other (specify)--










CODE


Saltwater Beach Use (Check only one if you did not participate) 6

(1) Have No Interest in
this Form of Recreation

(2) Too Crowded m

(3) Lack of Parking m

(4) Lack of Easy Public
Access other than
Parking (e.g., no roads,
etc.)

(5) Other (specify)--



(b) Do you have friends and/or relatives who have not been attracted
to Florida or have stopped coming to Florida because they have
told you there is

(1) m decline in the quality of the recreational fishing 7-0,1
experience (e.g., poor fishing, pollution, etc.)

(2) | decline in the quality of the saltwater beach experience 8-0,1
(e.g., too crowded, poor public access, etc.)

(3) D none of the above (check here if answer to (1) and (2) is no). 9

INTERVIEWER: IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS "NO" TO BOTH SALTWATER FISHING AND BEACH
USE IN QUESTION ONE. SKIP THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AND PROCEED
TO SECTION F QUESTIONS ON LAST PAGE OF QUESTIONNAIRE.

3. If YES to either or both of the activities in Question 1. answer the
following questions:

(a) Over the last 12 months, how many trips to Fla. have you made
Including this one: How many days on all trips did you engage in
the following recreational activities? .Definition: Any part of a
day please count as a whole day.

(1) Number of Trips over the last 12 months. 10

(2) Number of days saltwater recreational fishing (last 12 11
months) (count any fraction of a day as one day)

(3) Number of days used saltwater beach (last 12 months) 12
(count any fraction of a day as one day)

(4) Total days spent in Florida on all other recreation (last 13
12 months). Definition: recreation includes horse track,
sea world, Disney, etc.
2











CODE


(5) Total days spent in Florida (last 12 months)
(number 5 should be the same as number 4 if all days on
recreation/vacation)

(b) Thinking of all your trips to Florida, how many years have you


(1) saltwater fished in Florida

(2) used saltwater beaches in Florida

(c) On average, how many relatives or friends from
accompanied you on these trips and engaged in

(1) saltwater fishing in Florida with you

(2) the use of saltwater beaches in Florida
with you


B. Expenditures

1. Travel to Florida by Auto (skip if always by air)

(a) Number of round trip miles from your home to
saltwater fishing site in FL (if more than
one site, pick your principal site or the one
you spent the most time at)

(b) Number of round trip miles from your home to
saltwater beach site in FL (if more than one
site, pick your principal site)

2. Travel to Florida by Air (skip if always by auto)


(a) cost of round trip air fare for you from home to
near or at saltwater fishing site in FL
(pick principal site)

(b) cost of round trip air fare for you from home to
near or at saltwater beach site in FL
(pick principal site)


yrs

yrs


out of state


# 17

# 18


miles



miles


$-----~


3. Expenditures while in Florida


(a) On average, what are your daily expenditures while
saltwater recreational fishing in Florida, including
lodging, food and drink, travel, bait, guides, fees,
licenses and rentals $ //day 23

(b) On average, what are your daily expenditures while
using saltwater beaches in Florida including
lodging, food and drink, travel and beach access
fees $ /day 24











CODE

C. Principal Sites

1. What is the name of the principal saltwater fishing site used 25

while in Florida? site. (Note: If there

is no specific name, then indicate coastal city or town nearest

site). County of principal site


2. What is the name of the principal saltwater beach used while in 26

Florida? beach. County of principle

site


D. Willingness to Pay

1. Beginning in 1990, the State of Florida will require a saltwater fishing
license $15 for a 7-day and $30 for an annual license. The revenues
from these fees will be used for fishery management. Suppose that,
because of pollution, overfishing and other saltwater fishing-related
problems, it became necessary to charge additional fees to cover the
costs of fish hatcheries, pollution control and other fishery management
activities. The goal of these activities would be to maintain catch
rates and water quality at their present levels. What is the maximum
amount you would pay per fishing day in addition to the fishing license
and still fish days per year (from Question 3) in Florida? 27

$ /day If zero then 28

Reason for saving zero (circle one) 29
(1) Would do something else in Florida.
(2) Would go to some other state.
(3) Do not understand the question.
(4) Do not like the idea of charging fees.

2. Because of beach erosion, trash wash-ups and water pollution, suppose it
became necessary for beach users to agree to pay a daily fee to cover
the costs of maintaining the beach and water at its current level of
quality. What is the maximum amount you would pay per beach day in
addition to any present beach fees and still visit the beach 30
days (from Question 3)?

$ /day If zero then 31

Reason for saying zero (circle one) 32
(1) Would do something else in Florida.
(2) Would go to some other state.
(3) Do not understand the question.
(4) Do not like the idea of charging fees.
4










CODE


E. Quality of the Recreational Experience


1. One aspect
the number
species?


of the quality of saltwater recreational fishing is
of fish caught per day. Do you have a principal target


(0) No D If No, go to (c)


(1) Yes =


If Yes


(1) Principal target species is 34
(2) How many of target species
do you usually catch per day 35
NTARD


(3) How many of all other fish
than the target do you
usually catch per day


36
NOTARD


[go to (e)]


(c) How many of


all fish do you usually catch per day 37
FCPP


38


(d) What is the principal species caught


(e) What is the minimum number of fish per day you would consider
acceptable before you would quit fishing in Florida?
minimum number of target species per day
if answer to 1(a) is NO.
minimum number of all fish per day

2. Two aspects that measure the quality of a saltwater beach are
crowding on the beach and public access including parking. Given the
present conditions on the beaches, how much would conditions have to
change before you would quit vacationing in Florida?


Increased Crowding 41

(1) 1 10%

(2) 11 30%

(3) 31 50%

(4) more than 51%


Decreased Public Access 42

(1) one access point for
every 200 ft. of beach
(2) one access point for
every 500 ft. of beach
(3) one access point for
every 1/4 mile
(4) one access point every
mile
(5) one access point every
5 miles











CODE

F. Background Information on Respondent

1. What group includes your age (show card)? 43

2. Which category includes your total annual income before taxes (show 44
card)?

1. Less than $10,000
2. $10,000 under $20,000
3. $20,000 under $30,000
4. $30,000 under $40,000
5. $40,000 under $50,000
6. $50,000 under $60,000
7. $60,000 under $70,000
8. $70,000 under $80,000
9. $80,000 or above

1 0
3. Sex Mm= F 45

4. Are you: (1). White (2). Black (3). Hispanic or 46
(4). Other (circle one)

5. Did you visit Florida by = air or m auto this trip? 49


Thank you very much for
participating in this
important survey.












Appendix B
Socioeconomic Characteristics


of Tourist Sample. 1990


All Saltwater Saltwater
Characteristics Contacts Beach Anglers
Users
N=1271 N=729 N=201


Average Age 47.33 45.33 49.47

Average Total
Annual Income $36,200 $37,500 $36,000

Sex (Percent)
Male 53 55 85
Female 47 45 15

Ethnicity/Race (Percent)
White 91.8 95.2 95.2
Black 5.4 3.2 3.2
Hispanic 2.0 1.2 1.2
Other .8 .4 .4


Source: Florida State University, Department of Economics




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