STATE-OF-THE-ART METHODS for research, planning,
and determining the benefits
of outdoor recreation
PACIFIC
SOUTHWEST
Forest and Ranee
Experiment station
FOREST SERVICE
U.S.DEPARTMENT O F AGRICULTURE
P.O. BOX 245, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94701
USDA FOREST SERVICE
GENERAL TECHNICAL
REPORT PSW-20 11977
STATE-OF-THE-ART METHODS
for research, plan, ¥qand determining
the benefits of oudoor recreation
Gary H. Elsner, Compiler
CONTENTS
Improvement o f Demand S t u d i e s as Tool f o r P l a n n i n g Outdoor
Recreation.
H. N. van L i e r
.........................
F o r e c a s t i n g t h e Demand-Response t o Changes i n R e c r e a t i o n a l
Site Characteristics
Peter Greiq
.....................
On t h e Use o f Home and S i t e Surveys i n Recrea
Mordechai S h e c h t e r
Research
1 11
..
23
.
27
R e l a t i v e Value o f S e l e c t e d Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n A c t i v i t y Areas
J o s e p h E. Hoffman, J r .
A R e c r e a t i o n a l V i s i t o r T r a v e l S i m u l a t i o n Model as an A i d t o
Management P l a n n i n g .
R o b e r t C. L u c a s a n d M o r d e c h a i S h e c h t e r
31 A Survey o f W i l d l i f e - R e l a t e d R e c r e a t i o n i n t h e Tennessee
ValleyRegion
J o h n L . Mechler a n d E. L a w r e n c e Klein
36 Mathematical programming i n t h e Context o f P l a n n i n g f o r
M u l t i p l e Goals
A . B. Rudra
........................
46 ........
60 .....................
.........................
I n v e s t i g a t i o n s on R e c r e a t i o n a l F o r e s t e d Areas.
Ulrich Amer
E l s n e r , Gary H., c o m p i l e r .
1977. S t a t e - o f - t h e - a r t methods f o r r e s e a r c h , p l a n n i n g , and
d e t e r m i n i n g t h e b e n e f i t s o f o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n . USDA F o r e s t
P a c i f i c SouthServ. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-20, 62 p . , i l l u s .
west F o r e s t and Range Exp. S t n . , B e r k e l e y , C a l i f .
These e i g h t p a p e r s were o r e s e n t e d a t Working P a r t y S6.01-3,
X V I t h World Congress o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l U n i o n o f F o r e s t r y
Research O r g a n i z a t i o n s , Oslo, Norway, June 22, 1976. T o p i c s
c o v e r e d i n c l u d e ( a ) i m p r o v i n g s t u d i e s o n demand f o r o u t d o o r
r e c r e a t i o n , ( b ) f o r e c a s t i n g changes i n number o f v i s i t o r s a f t e r
a change i n r e c r e a t i o n a l qua1 i t y a t an a r e a , ( c ) comparing t h e
use o f s i t e s u r v e y s w i t h hone i n t e r v i e w s f o r r e c r e a t i o n p l a n n i n g ,
(d) m e a s u r i n g t h e r e l a t i v e v a l u e o f s e l e c t e d o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n
a c t i v i t y a r e a s , ( e ) model i n g changes i n use o r a r e a c o n d i t i o n s
t o d e t e r m i n e e f f e c t s o n u s e p a t t e r n s and e n c o u n t e r s between
v i s i t o r groups, ( f ) s u r v e y i n g w i l d l i f e - r e l a t e d r e c r e a t i o n t o
d e t e r m i n e impact o n a l o c a l economy, (g) a p p l y i n g m a t h e m a t i c a l
p r o g r a m i n g i n t h e c o n t e x t o f p l a n n i n g f o r m u l t i p l e g o a l s , and
(h) i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e degree o f a f o r e s t a t i o n p r e f e r r e d f o r
d i f f e r e n t b r o a d c a t e g o r i e s o f l a n d uses i n r e c r e a t i o n a l a r e a s .
Oxford: 907.2
Retrieval Terms: outdoor r e c r e a t i o n ; f o r e s t r e c r e a t i o n ; r e c r e a t i o n
area planning.
GARY H. ELSNER i s i n c h a r g e o f l a n d management and landscape p l a n n i n g methodo l o g y r e s e a r c h a t t h e P a c i f i c Southwest F o r e s t and Range Experiment S t a t i o n ,
F o r e s t S e r v i c e , U.S. Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e , B e r k e l e y , C a l i f o r n i a .
He i s
chairman, Working P a r t y S6.01-3--Methodologies
f o r Research, P l a n n i n g and
D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f B e n e f i t s o f Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n , I n t e r n a t i o n a l U n i o n o f
F o r e s t r y Research O r g a n i z a t i o n s .
The A u t h o r s
ULRICH AMMER i s p r o f e s s o r , School o f F o r e s t r y , U n i v e r s i t y o f Munich, Germany.
PETER G R E I G i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e Department o f F o r e s t r y , O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y ,
G r e a t B r i t a i n , and t h e F o r e s t s Commission, V i c t o r i a , A u s t r a l i a .
JOSEPH E.
HOFFMAN, JR. i s a s s i s t a n t p r o f e s s o r , C o l l e g e o f F o r e s t r y , W i l d l i f e , and Range
S c i e n c e s , U n i v e r s i t y o f Idaho, Moscow.
E. LAWRENCE KLEIN i s s t a f f f o r e s t e r ,
D i v i s i o n o f F o r e s t r y , F i s h e r i e s , and W i l d l i f e Development, Tennessee V a l l e y
A u t h o r i t y , N o r r i s , Tennessee.
ROBERT C . LUCAS i s r e s e a r c h s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t ,
I n t e r m o u n t a i n F o r e s t and Range Experiment S t a t i o n , F o r e s t S e r v i c e , U.S. D e p a r t ment o f A g r i c u l t u r e , M i s s o u l a , Montana. JOHN L. MECHLER i s s u p e r v i s o r o f w i l d l i f e management, Land Between The Lakes, Golden Pond, Kentucky. A. B. RUDRA i s
S e n i o r L e c t u r e r , School o f A g r i c u l t u r e and F o r e s t r y , U n i v e r s i t y o f Melbourne,
Australia.
MORDECHAI SHECHTER i s s e n i o r l e c t u r e r , F a c u l t y o f I n d u s t r i a l and
Management E n g i n e e r i n g , T e c h n i o n - - I s r a e l I n s t i t u t e o f Technology, H a i f a .
H. N.
VAN LIER i s a s s o c i a t e p r o f e s s o r , Department o f Land and Water Use, A g r i c u l t u r a l
U n i v e r s i t y , Wageningen, The N e t h e r l a n d s .
PREFACE The c h a l l e n g e o f p l a n n i n g f o r o u t d o o r
r e c r e a t i o n i s shared by many c o u n t r i e s
throughout t h e world.
This p u b l i c a t i o n o f f e r s
a s e l e c t i o n o f s t a t e - o f - t h e - a r t papers by aut h o r s from several countries which a r e a c t i v e l y d e a l i n g w i t h t h i s c h a l l e n g e . The e i g h t
p a p e r s were p r e p a r e d f o r t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l
U n i o n o f F o r e s t r y Research O r g a n i z a t i o n s
(IUFRO) XVI World Congress, h e l d i n O s l o ,
Norway, June 2 0 - J u l y 2, 1976. They a r e t h e
f o r m a l d i s c u s s i o n papers f o r IUFRO Working
P a r t y , S6.01-3, M e t h o d o l o g i e s f o r Research,
P l a n n i n g , and D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f B e n e f i t s o f
Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n , w h i c h met on June 22.
The l e a d paper by H. N. Van L i e r s e t s t h e
s t a g e f o r t h e papers t h a t f o l l o w by d e s c r i b i n g
p a s t demand m d e l i n g approaches, e x p l a i n i n g
t h e i r s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses r e l a t i n g t o
p l a n n i n g needs, and making s e v e r a l s u g g e s t i o n s
f o r improvements i n c l u d i n g t h e need t o s t u d y
i n depth t h e separate influence o f the three
b a s i c system c o m p o n e n t s - - o r i g i n , d e s t i n a t i o n ,
and l i n k a g e - - a n d t h e need t o a d e q u a t e l y model
s u b s t i t u t a b i l i t y . The n e x t paper, by P e t e r
G r e i g , i n v e s t i g a t e s i n some d e t a i l t h e d e s t i n a t i o n element and t h e q u e s t i o n o f s u b s t i t u t a b i l i t y . The paper e x p l a i n s and i l l u s t r a t e s
w i t h s i m p l e n u m e r i c a l examples f o r s k i a r e a s a
model f o r f o r e c a s t i n g t h e s h o r t - t e r m change i n
number o f v i s i t o r s t o a n a r e a w h i c h r e s u l t
f r o m a change i n t h e d e s t i n a t i o n ' s q u a l i t y .
Mordechai S h e c h t e r ' s paper compares i n
c l o s e d e t a i l two approaches t o e s t i m a t i n g o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n u s e and b e n e f i t i n f o r m a t i o n .
On t h e b a s i s o f two comprehensive s t u d i e s o f
t h e l a r g e s t n a t i o n a l p a r k i n I s r a e l , he conc l u d e s t h a t s i t e s u r v e y s a r e o f t e n more e f f i c i e n t and cheaper t h a n home i n t e r v i e w s .
Howe v e r , t h e paper recommends comprehensive home
s u r v e y s a t l o n g e r i n t e r v a l s , say e v e r y I 0
years, f o r t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f a d d i t i o n a l data
and f o r b r o a d a r e a p l a n n i n g .
Joseph E. H o f f m a n ' s paper i l l u s t r a t e s t h e
use o f two measures o f t h e v a l u e / c o s t r a t i o i n
comparing t h e p e r c e i v e d v a l u e w i t h t h e d e v e l opment and management c o s t s f o r s e v e r a l a l t e r n a t i v e outdoor r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y areas.
His
d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t a r e a s w i t h l o w development
c o s t s may have a h i g h e r v a l u e / c o s t r a t i o t h a n
n o r m a l l y expected.
The r e p o r t by Robert C . Lucas and Mordec h a i Shechter d e s c r i b e s an i m p o r t a n t and p r a c t i c a l model f o r s i m u l a t i n g changes i n management p o l i c y o r access w i t h i n d i s p e r s e d o u t d o o r
r e c r e a t i o n a r e a s . The model p r e d i c t s t h e e f -
f e c t s upon use p a t t e r n s and e n c o u n t e r s between
v i s i t o r groups.
I t was developed t o h e l p exp l a i n and p r e d i c t use p a t t e r n s and e n c o u n t e r s
w i t h i n U.S. W i l d e r n e s s a r e a s where s o l i t u d e i s
o f t e n a p r i m e o b j e c t i v e , and, c o n s e q u e n t l y
where management would o f t e n 1 i k e t o d e c r e a s e
encounters.
However, t h i s same model may be
u s e f u l i n e x a m i n i n g a1 t e r n a t i v e management
s t r a t e g i e s i n a r e a s where management may w i s h
t o i n c r e a s e e n c o u n t e r s , e.g.,
i n p a r k s where
w i l d l i f e o b s e r v a t i o n s a r e i m p o r t a n t and where
such an e v e n t may be termed a n e n c o u n t e r .
The
approach may indeed by a p p r o p r i a t e f o r s i m u l a t i n g a w i d e range o f management a l t e r n a t i v e s
i n a wide a r r a y o f dispersed outdoor recreat i o n systems.
D e t e r m i n i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between h u n t i n g , f i s h i n g , nonconsumptive w i l d l i f e use and
t h e l o c a l economy i s a d i f f i c u l t b u t w o r t h w h i l e
task f o r w i l d l i f e - r e l a t e d recreation planning.
John L. Mechler and E. Lawrence K l e i n r e p o r t on
a major study o f w i l d l i f e i n the southeastern
U n i t e d S t a t e s . T h e i r paper i s i n s t r u c t i v e b o t h
i n terms o f t h e a r e a s t u d i e d and i n terms o f
i l l u s t r a t i n g how a c a r e f u l s t u d y o f g r o s s exp e n d i t u r e s may be u s e f u l t o t h e o b j e c t i v e p l a n ing o f w i l d l i f e - r e l a t e d r e c r e a t i o n which m y
have a p o s i t i v e monetary impact on a l o c a l
economy.
Long-range p l a n n i n g f o r adequate o u t d o o r
r e c r e a t i o n a r e a s i s u s u a l l y done i n a c o n t e x t
i n w h i c h r e c r e a t i o n v a l u e s must be compared
w i t h o t h e r uses f o r t h e l a n d , such a s , t i m b e r
p r o d u c t i o n . A. B. Rudra s p e c i f i e s c a r e f u l l y
t h e use o f g o a l p r o g r a m i n g and e x p l a i n s i t s app l i c a t i o n t o an i l l u s t r a t i v e area c o n t a i n i n g
p o t e n t i a l f o r r e c r e a t i o n , t i m b e r and mu1 t i p l e
uses. S i n c e many o f t h e parameters needed f o r
e i t h e r conventional l i n e a r programing o r goal
p r o g r a m i n g a r e never known w i t h c o m p l e t e c e r t a i n t y , h i s paper a l s o i n c l u d e s a b r i e f i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e use o f s t o c h a s t i c p r o g r a m i n g
and e x p l a i n s i t s advantages.
The l o n g - r a n g e p l a n n i n g o f a l t e r n a t i v e
uses o f landscape u n i t s has r e c e i v e d i n t e n s i v e
i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n Germany. U l r i c h Ammer's paper h i g h l i g h t s t h e r e s u l t s o f these s t u d i e s i n
terms o f t h e p r e f e r r e d d e g r e e o f a f o r e s t a t i o n .
H i s c o n c l u s i o n s a p p l y t o f o r e s t e d l a n d s i n and
around p o p u l a t e d a r e a s and r u r a l a r e a s .
The
r e s u l t s a r e compared w i t h t h e c u r r e n t p r o p o r t i o n s o f f o r e s t e d l a n d s i n each c a t e g o r y and
i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r changes i n p l a n n i n g g o a l s a r e
described.
These papers were p r e p a r e d f o r an
objectivity.
i n t e r n a t i o n a l conference o f f o r e s t r y
researchers.
But each paper has i t s own
relevance t o a s p e c i f i c decisionmaking
s i t u a t i o n and as such may be u s e f u l t o
r e c r e a t i o n managers o r p l a n n e r s who a r e
s e a r c h i n g f o r a way t o g a i n a d d i t i o n a l
One goal o f I U F b , s t o i n c r e a s e t h e
communication among f o r e s t r y r e s e a r c h e r s
worldwide.
T h i s pub1 i c a t i o n was d e s i g n e d
t o help achieve t h a t goal.
Improvement of Demand Studies as Tool For Planning Outdoor Recreation
H. N. Van Lier
Abstract--Planning f o r r e c r e a t i o n s i t e s i n f o r e s t e d areas
r e q u i r e s s o l u t i o n t o t h e sequence o f problems o f d e t e r m i n i n g t h e
t y p e , l o c a t i o n , c a p a c i t y , and l a y o u t o f f a c i l i t i e s .
Models have
been developed t o f o r e c a s t t h e demand f o r s p e c i f i c s i t e s , b u t
they are not necessarily applicable t o other s i t e s . A g r a v i t y
model was developed t o overcome t h i s l i m i t a t i o n . A l t e r n a t i v e s
i n t h e form o f competing r e c r e a t i o n s i t e s a r e included i n t h e
model.
But even t h i s k i n d o f model has l i m i t a t i o n s :
t h e imp o s s i b i l i t y o f c l e a r l y separating three basic factors that a f f e c t
the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t r i p s :
o r i g i n o f t r a v e l , d e s t i n a t i o n , and
1 i n k a g e ( o r r e a c t i o n t o t h e d i s t a n c e t o be t r a v e l e d ) .
In
a d d i t i o n , t h e meaning o f each f a c t o r has n o t y e t been t h o r o u g h l y investigated.
The demand f o r o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n i s e v i dent.
The main p r o b l e m i s d e t e r m i n i n g n o t o n l y
what s i z e i t w i l l t a k e , b u t a l s o i n what d i r e c t i o n i t w i l l change.
As B i j k e r k (1975) emphas i z e d , t h i s demand p r o b l e m a l s o c o v e r s f o r e s t
a r e a s s i n c e lleconomic and s o c i a l changes i n t h e
w e s t e r n w o r l d i n c r e a s e t h e need f o r m u l t i p l e
l a n d use, l e a d i n g t o t h e f a c t t h a t r e c r e a t i o n
i n f o r e s t e d a r e a s , t h e r e f o r e ? i s an i m p o r t a n t
i s s u e as w e l l f r o m t h e p o i n t o f f o r e s t r y p o l i c y
as f o r e s t r y p l a n n i n g . I ' The same a u t h o r p o i n t s
t o t h e f a c t t h a t ''as a r e s u l t o f changing economic and s o c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s - - t h e demand
c r e a t e d by t h e happy few now b e i n g c r e a t e d by
s o c i a l g r o u p s , t h e a d d i t i o n o f day and weekend
recreation t o t h a t i n vacations, the greater
m o b i l i t y o f r e c r e a t i o n i s t s and t h e awakening o f
t h e u r b a n p o p u l a t i o n t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e abundance i n n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s i s d w i n d l i n g - f o r e s t s a r e becoming an i n c r e a s i n g l y i m p o r t a n t
feature i n outdoor recreation."
Planning o f f o r e s t s f o r recreation o r
p l a n n i n g o f r e c r e a t i o n i n f o r e s t a r e a s means
s o l v i n g t h e sequence o f problems c o n c e r n i n g t b e
d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t y p e ? l o c a t i o n , c a p a c i t y and
layout o f outdoor recreational f a c i 1 i t i e s .
F a c i l i t i e s i n t h i s c o n t e x t mean a l l k i n d s o f
p r o v i s i o n s f o r o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n ? as f o r i n s t a n c e s m a l l p l a y g r o u n d s y beaches? w a t e r s ?
1arge r e c r e a t i o n a l areas, s p e c i a l pro-jects,
etc.
I t has o f t e n been emphasized t h a t a c l o s e
r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between t h e components1
t y p e , a l l o c a t i o n , c a p a c i t y and l a y o u t i n r e c r e a t i o n p l a n n i n g (van L i e r and o t h e r s l q 7 1 ) .
N e v e r t h e l e s s a sequence-based approach may meet
t h e f i r s t r e a u i rement.
Demand s t u d i e s a r e a c e n t r a l i s s u e i n
t h e s e problems. A c c o r d i n g t o B i j k e r k (1975),
"adequate p l a n n i n g o f t h e i m p o r t a n t phenomenon
o f r e c r e a t i o n , good s t a t i s t i c s on p a r t i c i p a t i o n
r a t e , d i s t r i b u t i o n o v e r t y p e s and d i s t a n c e ,
f r e q u e n c y and t i m e o f o c c u r r e n c e i s v i t a l . ' I
Demand s t u d i e s a r e needed i n t h e f i r s t
p l a c e f o r t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t y p e and amount
of ( a d d i t i o n a l ) f a c i l i t i e s .
S i n c e i n many o f
t h e s e demand s t u d i e s models a r e used i n w h i c h
the d i s t r i b u t i o n - e f f e c t o f r e c r e a t i o n i s t s over
t h e a r e a i s t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t by means o f
distance functions, they a l s o form a basis f o r
t h e a l l o c a t i o n problems as w e l l as f o r t h e
capacity o f projects.
Layout means t y p e , s i z e
and mutual l o c a t i o n o f d i f f e r e n t elements i n
p r o j e c t s o r areas.
I t determines t h e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s o f t h e t o t a l f a c i l i t y - - a qua1 i t y t h a t
a f f e c t s demand.
Demand s t u d i e s a r e , t h e r e f o r e ,
v i t a l f o r the planning of outdoor recreation.
HOW DID I T ALL START?
Older studies regarding outdoor recreat i o n can be d i v i d e d i n t o two t y p e s .
The f i r s t
t y p e , i n w h i c h a sample o f a c e r t a i n populat l o n has been i n t e r v i e w e d a t home about t h e i r
o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n a l b e h a v i o r , has been c a r r i e d o u t i n s e v e r a l c o u n t r i e s i n t h e l a s t 20
years.
I n f o r m a t i o n i s g a t h e r e d about background v a r i a b l e s (as income, f a m i l y s i z e , age,
sex, p r o f e s s i o n , e t c . ) on t h e one hand and
number o f t r i p s , t y p e o f p r o j e c t s , d i s t a n c e
t r a v e l e d , a c t i v i t i e s performed, e t c . on t h e
o t h e r hand ( C e n t r a a l Bureau v o o r de S t a t i s t i e k
1966, Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Resource Review Comm i s s i o n 1962, R i j k s d i e n s t voor h e t N a t i o n a l e
P l a n 1961). The d a t a a r e o f t e n , b u t n o t a l ways, used f o r s t u d i e s r e g a r d i n g t h e i n f l u ence o f background v a r i a b l e s upon b e h a v i o r
on o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n .
i n w h i c h p o p u l a t i o n ( P " ) , d i s t a n c e ( S U ) and
Du) a r e t a k e n i n t o
p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y (PU
account.
Van L i e r (1969/70) c o n s t r u c t e d
models f o r i n l a n d beaches i n t h e N e t h e r l a n d s :
.
i n which P
.
2.
i n which the v i s i t t o a c e r t a i n p r o j e c t from a
c e r t a i n o r i g i n depends on t h e p o p u l a t i o n ( p i ) ,
t h e d i s t a n c e ( O i ) and (some) socio-economic
variables X
(I
xn).
...
For example M.erewi t z (1966) c o n s t r u c t e d
t h e f o l l o w i n g model f o r a l a k e i n t h e U.S.A.:
ed w i t h t h e g r a v i t y model approach o f Van
Doren (19671, i n wh c h t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s a r e
t a k e n i n t o account n t h e f o l l o w i n g way:
p o p u l a t i o n and D = d i s t a n c e .
=
One o f t h e main d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f t h i s
t y p e o f model i s t h e f a c t t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e
(competing) p r o j e c t s and a r e a s a r e n o t e x p l i c i t l y t a k e n i n t o account (one has t o bear i n
m i n d ' t h a t u s i n g v i s i t - umbers means t h a t t h e
i n f l u e n c e o f competing p r o j e c t s i s imp1 i c i t l y
accounted f o r ) .
T h i s ack i n t h e m o d e l i n g
means t h a t . .
1.
The second t y p e o f r e s e a r c h can be c a l l e d
p r o j e c t research.
People v i s i t i n g c e r t a i n
types o f outdoor r e c r e a t i o n a l p r o j e c t s a r e
interviewed regarding t h e i r o r i g i n , t h e d i s t a n c e t r a v e l e d , t h e a c t i v i t i e s performed o n
t h e p r o j e c t , t h e e x p e n d i t u r e s , and some background (socio-economic) v a r i a b l e s .
Based o n
t h e s e d a t a , v e r y o f t e n s o - c a l l e d use-models
a r e constructed, o f which t h e general form i s :
I t i s very hard t o t r a n s p l a n t a c a l i b r a t e d
use-model t o o t h e r a r e a s , g i v e n t h e f a c t
t h a t t h e s u p p o r t - s t u a t i o n ( t y p e s and d i s t r i b u t i o n o f f a c i l t i e s ) i n most cases i s
q u i t e d i f f e r e n t , w h i l e i t a l s o m i g h t be
t h a t t h e "demand1' d i f f e r s .
The i n f l u e n c e o f a t o - b e - c r e a t e d f a c i l i t y
o r t h e improvement o f e x i s t i n g ones cannot
be c a l c u l a t e d e x p l i c i t l y .
where t h e p o p u l a t i o n ( P i ) , t h e a t t r a c t i o n i n dex ( A J ) , t h e d i s t a n c e between o r i g i n and p r o j e c t ( D * ~ as
) a l s o t h e combined i n f l u e n c e o f
a t t r a c t i o n and d i s t a n c e o f t h e competing p r o j e c t s ( z J = 1 AJ D),;
a r e ~ a k e ni n t o a c c o u n t .
SHORTCOMINGS
The shortcomings o f and problems w i t h t h e
use-models have a l r e a d y been mentioned.
I n r e c e n t y e a r s , t h e approaches w i t h
g r a v i t y - m o d e l s a r e a l s o c r i t i c i z e d by many authors.
N i e d e r c o r n and Bechdol t (1969) drew
d i s t i n c t i o n s between an o r i g i n f a c t o r , a dest i n a t i o n f a c t o r , and a 1 inkage f a c t o r as ess e n t i a l p a r t s o f t h e m o d e l i n g . On t h e b a s i s
o f these d i s t i n c t i o n s , the f o l l o w i n g s h o r t comings can be l i s t e d :
I.
A s i d e f r o m t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s , most models
a l s o cannot be t r a n s p l a n t e d i n t i m e , s i n c e
changes o f b e h a v i o r i n t i m e m o s t l y a r e n o t
t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t . T h i s , however, i s v e r y
o f t e n t r u e f o r o t h e r models a l s o and t h e r e f o r e
w i l l be i g n o r e d i n t h i s p a p e r .
For t h e s e reasons, new model-types were
.developed i n t h e p a s t 10 y e a r s .
I t a l l start-
The i m p o s s i b i l i t y o f s e p a r a t i n g and ext r a c t i n g these t h r e e f a c t o r s very c l e a r l y ,
T h i s p r o b l e m has been emphasized many
t i m e s and by many a u t h o r s .
Both s t a t i s t i c a l l y and c o n c e p t u a l l y i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o
separate t h e i n f l u e n c e o f o r i g i n , destinat i o n and I inkage on v i s i t r a t e s ( o r numbers) o f outdoor r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i Ii t i e s .
S t a t i s t i c a l l y i t i s i m p o s s i b l e because
the values given t o , f o r instance, the
a t t r a c t i o n i n d i c e s o f p r o j e c t s o r areas
and d i s t a n c e p a r a m e t e r s (as p a r t o f a spec i f i c d i s t a n c e f u n c t i o n ) depend t o a c e r t a i n degree on t h e s t a t i s t i c a l analyses
~ r o c e d u r et h a t i s used (as f o r i n s t a n c e ,
covariance techniques, regression analyses).
I n t h i s r e s D e c t t h e c r i t e r i o n used
as a p e a s u r e f o r t h e goodness o f f i t p l a y s
a l s o an i m p o r t a n t r o l e . C o n c e p t u a l l y t h e
5 e ? ? r s : i s n i s d i f f i c u l t because i t assumes
:ra: t 5 e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e o r i g i n , i . e . ,
cPe p u s h - f a c t o r , i n no way i s r e l a t e d w i t h
t h e s u D p o r t s i t u a t i o n , w h i l e f o r t h e sane
-eascn t h e a t t r a c t i o n - i n d e x i s assumed t o
be u n r e l a t e d t o t h e d e c i s i o n o f p e o p l e
whether t h e y w i l l have t h e i r o u t i n g o r
not.
I n o t h e r w o r d s , i t i s assuved t h a t t h e
d e c i s ionmaki ng p r o c e s s r e g a r d i n g t h e maki n g o f a t r i p , y e s o r no, by a n i n d i v i d u a l
r u n s as f o l l o w s :
( a ) f i r s t , t h e Derson
d e c i d e s t h a t h e d e f i n i t e l y w a n t s t o go o u t
no m a t t e r what he c a n do o u t d o o r s ; ( b )
second, he makes a n i n v e n t o r y o f a l l D O S s i b i l i t i e s o f t h e p r o j e c t s and t h e t r a v e l
d i s t a n c e s and t h e n chooses w h i c h one he
w i l l v i s i t , knowing t h e p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e
d i f f e r e n t p r o j e c t s ( a t t r a c t i v i t y ) as a l s o
t h e b a r r i e r s ( i . e . , d i s t a n c e and t r a v e l t i p e c o s t s ) t o overcome.
T h e r e a r e r e a s o n s t o be1 i e v e t h a t t h e
d e c i s i o n m a k i n g p r o c e s s sometimes P o r e c r
l e s s r u n s l i k e t h i s , b u t i n many cases
b o t h a s p e c t s a r e i n t e r w o v e n : many Dersons
d e c i d e t o make a t r i p because t h e y know a
very nice place t o perform a c e r t a i n
wanted a c t i v i t y .
Nevertheless the d i s t i n c t i o n i n o r i g i n - , d e s t i n a t i o n - and
l i n k a g e - f a c t o r s i s u s e f u l , b e c a u s e i t ena b l e s o n e t o a p p r o a c h t h e p r o c e s s systematically.
One h a s , h o w e v e r , t o keep i n
m i n d t h a t t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s a means, n o t
a purpose i n i t s e l f .
2.
The n e a n i n g o f e a c h o f t h e s e t h r e e f a c t o r s
has u p t o now n o t been i n v e s t i g a t e d t h o r oughly.
I n o t h e r words, what a r e t h e
background v a r i a b l e s i n t h e p u s h - f a c t o r ,
how i s a l i n k a g e p e r c e i v e d b y t h e r e c r e a t i o n i s t s , and what p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e p r o j e c t s d e t e r m i n e t h e a t t r a c t i v i t y ? Rec e n t l y , s t u d i e s regarding these aspects
have s t a r t e d t o appear.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Regarding t h e Research I t s e l f
C e s a r i o (197.5) r e c e n t l y p r o p o s e d a new
method t o a n a l y z e o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n t r i p d a t a
( f o r instance, regarding v i s i t s t o f o r e s t
a r e a s o r p r o j e c t s w h i c h a r e s i t u a t e d i n and
c l o s e l y r e l a t e d w i t h these areas).
In this
method a t w o - s t a g e a p p r o a c h i s f o l l o w e d .
In
t h e f i r s t s t a g e a c o v a r i a n c e t e c h n i q u e i s used
t o extract systematically o r i g i n factors
( c a l l e d e m i s s i v e n e s s ) and d e s t i n a t i o n f a c t o r s
(called attractiveness).
I n t h e second s t a g e
an a n a l y s i s i s c a r r i e d o u t i n order t o f i n d
the influence o f d i f f e r e n t factors f o r both
t h e e m i s s i v e n e s s and a t t r a c t i v e n e s s .
Differe n t t e c h n i q u e s c a n be used f o r t h i s , a s f o r
instance, m u l t i v a r i a t e analyses, e t c .
For t h e
e m i s s i v e n e s s s e l e c t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f popul a t i o n c e n t e r s c a n b e used.
I n t h e same way
t h e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s can be analyzed by u s i n g
project characteristics.
I n t h e approaches o f a n a l y z i n g t r i p d i s t r i b u t ion regarding outdoor r e c r e a t i o n ,
K l a a s s e n (1974) d i s t i n g u i s h e s between p r o j e c t s
o r a r e a s w h i c h a r e o r i g i n - e x c l u s i v e and t h o s e
which a r e destination-exclusive.
When a l a r g e
p a r t ( s a y 70 p e r c e n t ) o f t h e r e c r e a t i o n i s t s o n
a c e r t a i n p r o j e c t o r i g i n a t e from one populat i o n c e n t e r , t h e p r o j e c t has o r i g i n - e x c l u s i v i t y . When t h e m a j o r i t y o f a l l r e c r e a t i o n i s t s
from a c e r t a i n p o p u l a t i o n c e n t e r t r a v e l t o one
d e s t i n a t i o n , t h e n t h a t p r o j e c t has d e s t i n a t i o n exclusivity.
Studies regarding t h e problem o f
p l a n n i n g a l a r g e number o f s m a l l a r e a s a s o p posed t o a s m a l l number o f l a r g e a r e a s a r e
starting.
K l a a s s e n (1974) f o u n d t h a t t h e
f i r s t p l a n n i n g s y s t e m (a l a r g e number o f r a t h e r s m a l l a r e a s ) m i g h t be a d v a n t a g e o u s .
Acc o r d i n g t o B i j k e r k (1975) t h e same e f f e c t
seems t o o c c u r i n t o w n p l a n n i n g , w h e r e " p o l y n u c l e a t i o n seems t o k t h e l e a d i n g p r i n c i p l e . "
I t i s obvious t h a t f u t u r e research r e g a r d i n g demand f o r o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s should a l s o focus on these aspects.
Regard i ng Demand-Mode 1 i ng
Many a t t e m p t s have been made t o i m p r o v e
t h e s t r u c t u r e o f b o t h use-models and g r a v i t y t y p e models.
R e g a r d i n g use-models, Van L i e r
(1973) c o n s t r u c t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g o n e f o r i n l a n d beach r e c r e a t i o n i n t h e N e t h e r l a n d s :
i n which the population (P), t h e v a c a t i o n i s t s
elsewhere (E) , t h e v a c a t i o n i s t s i n t h e area
( B ) , t h e d i s t a n c e ( D ~ ) , t h e a1 t e r n a t i v e s i n s i d e (Acl)
and o u t s i d e ( A c 2 ) t h e o r i g i n , b o t h
weighted a c c o r d i n g t o r e c r e a t i o n t y p e and d i s tance a r e taken i n t o account.
The f o r m u l a c a n be r e w r i t t e n as f o l l o w s :
where g = c o m p e t i t i o n a l e f f e c t o f a c e r t a i n
p r o j e c t on o t h e r p r o j e c t s , c = capacity o f
t h a t p r o j e c t and r = r e d u c t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t
depending on d i s t a n c e .
T h i s shows t h a t p r o p e r t i e s o f p o p u l a t i o n c e n t e r s and a l t e r n a t i v e
p r o j e c t s e x p l i c i t l y a l s o a r e taken i n t o
i n w h i c h t h e use l e v e l ( Y i t ; f o r a r e a i i n
y e a r t i s d e s c r i b e d by s e v e r a l v a r i a b l e s
(xit).
I t was f o u n d t h a t f o r U.S. F o r e s t
S e r v i c e a r e a s such v a r i a b l e s as p e r c e n t a g e o f
a r e a o v e r 7000 f e e t i n e l e v a t i o n , r o a d cons t r u c t i o n i n adjacent National Forests, travel
time, p r e c i p i t a t i o n , p o p u l a t i o n w i t h i n a c e r t a i n d i s t a n c e , s i z e o f w i l d e r n e s s a r e a , number
o f l a k e s and number o f e n t r y p o i n t s a r e
important.
R e g a r d i n g g r a v i t y - t y p e models, many a t tempts a r e made f o r improvements and i m p l e mentation.
Freund and W i l s o n (1974) g i v e an
example o f an i m p l e m e n t a t i o n by e s t i m a t i n g a
gravity-model t o e x p l a i n recreational t r a v e l
and p a r t i c i p a t i o n .
I n concentrating on t h e
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n method and t h e n a t u r e o f r e s u l t s , t h e y found t h a t a m a j o r t a s k was t o
make p h y s i c a l l y o b s e r v e d measurements s e r v e as
p r o x i e s f o r parameters s p e c i f i e d by t h e g r a v ity-model.
I n a d d i t i o n , t h e y found i t necess a r y t o choose a r e a s o n a b l e s e t o f m e a n i n g f u l
predictor variables.
A c c o r d i n g t o Wol f e ( I 9721, a d i s a d v a n t a g e
o f t h e g r a v i t y - m o d e l i s t h e tendency t o o v e r e s t i m a t e t h e number o f s h o r t r e c r e a t i o n a l
t r i p s and t o u n d e r e s t i m a t e t h e number o f . t h e
l o n g ones.
He t h e r e f o r e c o n s t r u c t e d a soc a l l e d inertia-model:
a c c o u n t . The model s i m u l a t e s t r i p s o r
nated i n a g r a v i t a t i o n a l f i e l d .
For t h e use o f w i l d e r n e s s a r e a , models
were c o n s t r u c t e d by M c K i l l o p (1975) o f t h e
following type:
t h a t t h e m o d e l i n g i t s e l f i s something t o be
followed c r i t i c a l l y .
o t h e r - s i m u l a t i o n proced u r e s f o r o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n demand may become
o p e r a t i o n a l i n t h e near f u t u r e .
Regarding t h e O r i g i n F a c t o r
An i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t o f demand-model i n g
f o r o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n i s t h e achievement o f
o b t a i n i n g knowledge on t h e reasons o f p e o p l e
t o seek r e c r e a t i o n i n t h e o u t d o o r s .
Many
ideas have been f o r m u l a t e d , l e s s r e s e a r c h has
been done, and a l m o s t no r e s u l t s have come up.
Up t o now t h e r e s e a r c h i n t h i s f i e l d has
been r e s t r i c t e d t o a n a l y s e s o f t h e i n f l u e n c e
o f SOC io-economic v a r i a b l e s upon demand (measu r e d m o s t l y as number o f t r i p s ) , a l t h o u g h
o t h e r approaches a l s o have been f o l lowed.
La
Page and Ragain (1974) found t h a t a l a r g e
change i n camping (51 p e r c e n t o f f o r m e r campe r s were e i t h e r camping l e s s o r had dropped
o u t o f t h e camping m a r k e t ) was r e l a t e d t o a
change i n t h e s t y l e o f camping i t s e l f , and t o
changes i n t h e f a m i l y c y c l e , a l t h o u g h t h e l a t t e r gave n o t i n a c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n .
These
f i n d i n g s p o i n t t o t h e problem o f t h e s u b s t i t u t a b i l i t y w h i c h has been d e f i n e d by Hendee
and Burge (1974) as " t h e i n t e r c h a n g e a b i I i t y o f
recreation a c t i v i t i e s i n satisfying p a r t i c i p a n t s ' m o t i v e s , needs, w i s h e s and d e s i r e s . ' '
I t i s q u i t e obvious t h a t research, e s p e c i a l l y
d e a l i n g w i t h t h i s a s p e c t o f t h e demand,
needed
.
i n w h i c h t h e same v a r i a b l e s ( p o p u l a t i o n P,
c a p a c i t y C , and d i s t a n c e D) a r e used b u t t h e
distance f u n c t i o n i t s e l f (or the description
o f t h e r e a c t i o n o f r e c r e a t i o n i s t s on d i s t a n c e )
i s transformed.
Whether t h i s t y p e i s more
a d e q u a t e t o s i m u l a t e r e a l i t y s t i l l i s t o be
p r o v e d f o r d i f f e r e n t forms o f o u t d o o r r e c r e a I t would be w o r t h w h i l e t o t r y i t o u t
tion.
f o r f o r e s t areas.
Taking a l l t h i n g s together,
it i s clear
How v a r i o u s socio-economic f a c t o r s have
t h e i r i n f l u e n c e upon o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s shown by d i f f e r e n t r e s e a r c h e r s .
R e c e n t l y McEvoy ( 1 9 7 4 ) e x p e r i m e n t a l l y i n v e s t i gated t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e
working time.
From t h e r e s e a r c h i t appeared
t h a t " s u b s t a n t i a l i n c r e a s e s i n t h e consumption
o f outdoor r e c r e a t i o n w i l l r e s u l t i f t h e f o u r day workweek i s adopted by a s i g n i f i c a n t segment o f t h e w o r k f o r c e . ' '
For p l a n n i n g o u t d o o r
recreation the f u t u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f l e i s u r e
t i m e w i l l be v e r y i m p o r t a n t . A c c o r d i n g t o
B i j k e r k (1975) i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o know w h e t h e r
' w e a r e moving towards l e s s w o r k i n g h o u r s p e r
day, l e s s worki-ng days p e r week, l e s s w o r k i n g
weeks p e r y e a r o r l e s s w o r k i n g y e a r s i n a
1ife-time."
I n t h e approach o f C e s a r i o (1975), t h e
demand-part o f t h e t r i p - d i s t r i b u t i o n can be
T h i s f o r m u l a t i o n shows t h a t t h e demand (ai)
depends o n h o u s e h o l d - c a t e g o r i e s ( h h c a t ) w h i c h
were based on income and f a m i l y c y c l e as a l s o
on t h e t y p e o f house (won), t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f
a c a r (mob) and t h e l e v e l o f u r b a n i z a t i o n (u)
o f the o r i g i n .
a n a l y z e d more t h o r o u g h l y .
I n h i s research
o n l y p o p u l a t i o n and income were accounted f o r ,
b u t i t i s necessary and i t s h o u l d be p o s s i b l e
t o enlarge the e f f o r t s i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n .
L i n t s e n (1975) c o n s t r u c t e d a s p e c i a l demand
f u n c t i o n , i n w h i c h t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n e f f e c t was
n o t i n c l u d e d , however:
n i t i e s p l a y s an i m p o r t a n t r o l e .
I s t h e road a
f a c t o r o n i t s own o r i s i t a p a r t o f t h e s i t e ?
I n a d d i t i o n , i n many cases t h e t r a v e l i t s e l f
can be e n j o y a b l e . T h i s p r o b a b l y causes t h e
i n e r t i a o f movement ( ~ o l f e1972).
Regarding t h e D e s t i n a t i o n F a c t o r
Regard i nq t h e L i nkage F a c t o r
The p r o b l e m o f t h e r e a c t i o n o f p e o p l e t o
d i s t a n c e ( o r on f a c t o r s d e r i v e d f r o m d i s t a n c e ,
such as t r a v e l - t i m e o r c o s t s ) has been t a c k l e d
by many i n v e s t i g a t o r s .
W o l f e (1972) i n i t i a t e d
a new approach by u s i n g a d i f f e r e n t r e a c t i o n t o - d i s t a n c e - f u n c t i o n based o n t h e s o - c a l l e d
i n e r t i a o f s t a r t i n g up and on t h e i n e r t i a o f
movement. The s t a r t i n g up i n e r t i a i s caused
by t h e f a c t t h a t "a g r e a t many p e o p l e may n o t
w i s h t o make a t r i p o f any l e n g t h , however
s h o r t , " w h i l e t h e i n e r t i a o f movement i s
caused by t h e f a c t t h a t "among t h e m i n o r i t y o f
p e o p l e who i n d u l g e i n l e n g t h y t r i p s , a s t i l l
s m a l l e r m i n o r i t y f i n d s t r a v e l i t s e l f so s t i m u l a t i n g t h a t t h e f a r t h e r t h e y go, t h e f a r t h e r
t h e y want t o go."
T h i s ha?
'eaman (1974) t o a n a l y z e t h e
reaction t o
as a f u n c t i o n o f d i s t a n c e .
On t h e b a s i s
nalysis o f f i v e gravityf u n c t i o n s , he
J that
t h e r e a r e cased i n
w h i c h (a) each new m i l e t o be t r a v e l e d o f f e r s
more r e s i s t a n c e t h a n t h e l a s t ; (b) each new
m i l e t o be t r a v e l e d o f f e r s l e s s r e s i s t a n c e
t h a n t h e l a s t ; and ( c ) each new m i l e t o be
t r a v e l e d has a c o n s t a n t r e s i s t a n c e .
These r e s u l t s suggest t h a t t h e r e a c t i o n
t o d i s t a n c e i s hard t o understand, e s p e c i a l l y
because i t i s a l s o r e l a t e d t o t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n
o f outdoor recreation f a c i l i t i e s i t s e l f . This
l a s t a s p e c t has been s t r e s s e d by OIRourke
(1974). who says i t i s "a f u n c t i o n o f t h e
structure o f opportunities available t o the
recreat ionists."
From t h e f o r e g o i n g i t c a n be c o n c l u d e d
t h a t t h i s p a r t o f t h e demand has t o be i n v e s t i g a t e d thoroughly.
One has, however, t o keep
i n mind t h a t i t w i l l be v e r y c o m p l i c a t e d s i n c e
t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y and d i s t r i b u t i o n o f o p p o r t u -
The l e a d i n g problem i n a n a l y z i n g t h e dest i n a t i o n i s whether i t can be a n a l y z e d o b j e c t i v e l y ( i .e., based on h a r d f a c t s such as
acreage o f p a r k i n g a r e a s , p l a y i n g f i e l d s ,
e t c . ) o r whether i t has t o be a n a l y z e d subj e c t i v e l y (i.e., using perception of t h e area
by t h e r e c r e a t i o n i s t s ) as w e l l .
I n t h e approach o f Cesar i o (1975) on1 y
o b j e c t i v e v a r i a b l e s were used, such as number
o f a c r e s , number o f camping u n i t s , l e n g t h o f
beach, e t c .
An i n v e n t o r y o f c a m p i n g - s i t e s i n t h e
N e t h e r l a n d s by U k e l e n s t a m (1974) showed t h a t
t h e p r e f e r e n c e s o f campers w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e
location o f the sites are closely related with
f o r e s t s and seacoast ( f i g . 1 ) . The a t t r a c t i v i t y ( o r t h e a t t r a c t i v i n e s s ) i n i t s essence i s
more s u b j e c t i v e , however,
i n h i s "analysis o f
v i s i t s t o outdoor recreation s i t e s i n t h e
v i c i n i t y o f a l a r g e town i n t h e N e t h e r l a n d s
( ~ i n d o v e n ),I1 L i n t s e n (1975) found t h a t a t t r a c t i v i t y d e t e r m i n e d by c a l i b r a t i o n o f g r a v i t y models p e r socio-economic groups shows l a r g e
d i f f e r e n c e s ( t a b l e 1).
The f i n d i n g s show
t h a t (a) t h e r a n k i n g o f t h e a r e a s ( f i r s t ,
second, e t c . ) d i f f e r s f r o m household c a t e g o r y
t o household c a t e g o r y ; and (b) t h e v a r i a n c y
o f t h e a t t r a c t i v i t y - i n d i c e s p e r area among t h e
household c a t e g o r i e s i s l a r g e .
From t h i s i t can be concluded t h a t t h e
a t t r a c t i v i t y o f s i t e s depends n o t o n l y o n t h e
s i t e - p r o p e r t i e s b u t a l s o on t h e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i n demand.
T h i s shows t h a t s t u d i e s r e g a r d i n g t h e
p e r c e p t i o n o f e s p e c i a l l y w i l d e r n e s s and f o r e s t r y a r e a s s h o u l d be encouraged i n t h e near
f u t u r e . The f i r s t s t e p s o n t h i s d i f f i c u l t
p a t h have been made, however.
F i g u r e I--Campers i n t h e Netherlands p r e f e r r e d camping s i t e s i n f o r e s t s
o r a l o n g t h e seacoast, a c c o r d i n g t o an i n v e n t o r y made by
Ijekenstam (1 974).
'able
1
- The a t t r a c t i v i t y - i n d i c e s
o f 12 r e c r e a t i o n areas f o r 12 household
c a t e g o r i e s (hhcat) depending on income and f a m i l y c y c l e .
area
2
4
1
2
.070
.026
Source:
.
HO
.060
3
4
.053
.028
.069
.033
L i n t s e n 1975
hhcat
5
6
.074
-042
.036
.069
7
8
.049
.049
.I12
.067
9
.067
.041
10
11
-064
.027
-098
.049
12 -047
-055
Tuan (1974) s t u d i e d e n v i r o n m e n t a l percept i o n , a t t i t u d e s , and v a l u e s , w h i l e P e t e r s o n
(1974) s t u d i e d t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f w i l d e r n e s s
among t h e d i f f e r e n t groups about some a c t i v i t i e s t h a t were approved o f (e.g.,
paddle
c a n o e i n g and f i s h i n g ) and o t h e r s t h a t were
disapproved.
D i f f e r e n c e s were found i n t h e
p e r c e p t i o n by r e c r e a t i o n i s t s and managers.
C a r l s (1974) r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f
c e r t a i n landscapes i s n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d
w i t h t h e "area o f p e o p l e and t h e a r e a o f
h i g h development," p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d
w i t h "area o f stream, o f w a t e r f a l l and o f
lake."
The r e s e a r c h on t h e d e s t i n a t i o n f a c t o r
has been done i n two ways:
(a) studying t h e
p r o p e r t i e s ( h a r d f a c t s ) o f t h e a r e a and r e l a t i n g t h e s e t o t h e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s ; and (b)
s t u d y i n g t h e p e r c e p t i o n by r e c r e a t i o n i s t s o f
t h e area.
An a p p r o a c h i n c l u d i n g p e r c e p t i o n and hara
f a c t s i s needed. The r e c e n t l y p u b l i s h e d r e p o r t o f t h e Committee o n Assessment o f Demand
f o r Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Resources (1975) s h o u l d
be mentioned.
In t h i s report attention i s
p a i d t o t h e p l a n n i n g and s o c i a l and economic
p o l i c y o f o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n and t o methods o f
a n a l y z i n g demand.
Special t o p i c s a r e the
demand f o r a l t e r n a t i v e t y p e s , t h e demand f o r
s i t e - s p e c i f i c outdoor r e c r e a t i o n resources,
a socio-psychological d e f i n i t i o n o f recreat i o n demand, and t h e e s t i m a t i o n and use o f
models.
CONCLUSIONS
The f o l l o w i n g g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s
r e g a r d i n g t h e demand f o r o u t d o o r r e c v e a t i o n i n f o r e s t s c a n be drawn:
1
Demand s t u d i e s a r e a v
planning outdoor recreation fac
general.
T h i s a l s o accounts fo
f a c i l i t i e s and p r o j e c t s w h i c h a
n a n t l y s i t u a t e d i n f o r e s t areas
formed b y t h e s p e c i a l l a y o u t o f
itself.
ta1 p a r t o f
lities in
the type of
e predomio r which a r e
the forest
2.
Research r e g a r d i n g t h e s u b s t i t u t a o i l i t y o f t h e demand s h o u l d be encouraged.
I n s i g h t i n t h i s m a t t e r opens t h e p o s s i b i l i t y
f o r planners t o adjust the plans i n a b e t t e r
way t o t h e n a t u r a l s u t a b i l i t y o f f o r e s t a r e a s
f o r outdoor recreation.
3. Demand s t u d i e s based on modelapproaches have been p e r f o r m e d i n s e v e r a l
ways.
Improvements were made i n r e c e n t
years.
N e v e r t h e l e s s t h e t y p e o f model t o
simulate t r i p d i s t r i b u t i o n i n p a r t i c u l a r
t o f o r e s t a r e a s s h o u l d be o b j e c t o f f u r t h e r
studies.
4.
A separation o f o r i g i n - , linkageand d e s t i n a t i o n - f a c t o r s i n demand-models i s
v e r y o f t e n used.
Both t h e s t u d y o f t h e way
i n w h i c h t h e s e f a c t o r s s h o u l d be d i s t i n guished and t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e s e t h r e e
b a s i c f a c t o r s o n l y have been s t a r t e d , however.
More r e s e a r c h i s needed, e s p e c i a l l y f o r f o r e s t
areas, g i v e n t h e f a c t t h a t up t o now n o t
enough i s known a b o u t t h e f a c t o r s ( v a r i a b l e s )
determining t h e i r attractiveness. Perception
r e s e a r c h s h o u l d be mentioned i n t h i s r e g a r d .
5.
For t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e o r i g i n - f a c t o r ,
s t u d i e s r e g a r d i n g background v a r i a b l e s s h o u l d
be performed. The r e a c t i o n o f r e c r e a t i o n i s t s
on d i s t a n c e t o f o r e s t a r e a s i s a s p e c i a l p r o b lem s i n c e n o t h i n g i s known a b o u t t h e percept i o n o f t r a v e l d i s t a n c e as r e l a t e d t o t h e p r o posed v i s i t t o f o r e s t a r e a s .
More and d e t a i l ed s t u d i e s on t h i s p a r t o f t h e dernand-model i n g
a r e needed.
F i n a l l y , some remarks a b o u t p l a n n i n g i n
f o r e s t r y and r e c r e a t i o n by B i j k e r k (1975) a r e
appropriate:
1.
A more s y s t e m a t i c approach, a c c o r d i n g
t h e sequence a1 l o c a t i o n - c a p a c i t y - l a y o u t , t o
d e t e r m i n e t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f new r e c r e a t i o n
f a c i l i t i e s i n f o r e s t s , w i l l improve t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e p l a n s , as w e l l as l o w e r t h e
d i f f i c u l t i e s o f a c q u i r i n g funds f o r o u t d o o r
recreation.
2. A c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f f o r e s t s a c c o r d i n g
t o r e c r e a t i o n a l p o t e n t i a l w i 1 1 p r o v e t o be o f
great b e n e f i t t o planning an increased recreat i o n a l use.
Research on t h e p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f
making such c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s s h o u l d be encouraged.
3. Data o n r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s
s h o u l d be i n c l u d e d i n t h e census, as such d a t a
a r e becoming i n d i s p e n s a b l e f o r adequate p l a n ning o f f a c i l i t i e s f o r outdoor recreation.
VERBESSERUNG DER FRAGEUNTERSUCHUNGEN
FUR DIE PLANUNG VON FREILUFTERHOLUNG
Zusammenfassung
D i e Frage nach F r e i l u f t e r h o l u n g , besonders
i n Waldgebiete, i s t k l a r . Z u k U n f t i g e Aenderungen d i e s e r Fragen m i t Bezug a u f Zahl und
R i c h t u n g , missen u n t e r s u c h t werden wenn es s i c h
urn d i e Planung von Anlagen h S n d e l t . D i e LUsung
e i n e r Reihe Probleme m i t Bezug a u f F e s t s t e l l u n g
von A r t , S t e l l e , K a p a z i t S t und E i n r i c h t u n g von
F r e i l u f t e r h o l u n g s a n l a g e n i s t notwendig.
Eine
Beschreibung 1 s t qegeben worden von 'Gebrauchs-
m o d e l l e ' d i e z u e r s t e n t w i c k e l t w o r d e n s i n d urn
d i e F r a g e n f U r b e s t i m m t e S t e l l e n z u beschreiben, g l e i c h w i e d i e N a c h t e i l e dieser
Model l e .
B e s o n d e r s bezUgl i c h d i e Unmffgl i c h k e i t
d i e s e f U r a n d e r e Gegenden z u b e n i l t z e n .
Um
d i e s e N a c h t e i l e z u Uberwinden 1 s t das n a c h s t e
Model!, das 'Schwerpunktmodelll e n t w i c k e l t
worden.
I n diesem M o d e l l e werden A l t e r natieven wie konkurrierende S t e l l e n oder
Gegenden p l a n m a s s i g e i n g e b a u t .
Die Nachteile
dieses Modelles s i n d z w e i f a l t i q :
--
d i e Unmoglichkeit d r e i Grundlaqen dieses
M o d e l l e s , n S m l i c h U r s p r u n g , Bestimmung und
V e r b i n d u n g , d e u t l i c h zu s e p a r i e r e n und z u
extrahieren.
D i e Separation der E i n f l u s s
d i e s e r d r e i Grundlagen a u f F a h r t v e r t e i l u n g i s t
s t a t i s t i s c h sowohl w i e k o n z e p t i s c h schwer
durchzufuhren
Une d e s c r i p t i o n d e s ' m o d S l e s d ' u t i l i s a t i o n ' q u i a v a i e n t 6te d6velopp6s i n i t i a l e m e n t
a u x f i n s d e d e c r i r e l a demande p o u r d e s s i t e s
p r e c i s e s , a 6 t 6 donnee a u s s i q u e d e s d e s a v a n t a g e s d e c e s modSles e n c e q u i c o n c e r n e
I ' i m p o s s i b i l i t e de I e s u t i l i s e r pour d ' a u t r e s
reg ions.
Un d e u x i h e m o d e l e , ' d u t y p e g r a v i t 6 ' ,
e t a i t c o n s t r u i t pour surmonter ces desavantages
par 1' i n c l u s i o n expl i c i t e d ' a l t e r n a t i v e s
( d ' a u t r e s s i t e s o u r e g i o n s ) dans l e m o d g l e .
Les l i m i t e s d e c e d e u x i h e t y p e s o n t :
--
L 1 i m p o s s i b i 1 i t 6 de s6parer clairement l e s
d i e Bedeutunq j e n e r d r e i Grundlagen i s t
t r o i s f a c t e u r s de base:
origine e t destination
du v o y a g e u r e t a c c e s s i b i l i t 6 d u s i t e .
A 12
f o i s sur l e p l a n de conception e t de s t a t i s t i q u e l a d e s t i l l a t i o n de l ' i n f l u e n c e de chacun
de ces t r o i s f a c t e u r s s u r I ' u t i l i s a t i o n des
f a c i l i t e s est d i f f i c i l e .
n i c h t einqehend q e c r u f t worden.
Einsicht i n
den H i n t e r g r u n d v a r i a b e l e n von ' P u s h ' (Ursprung)
und ' P u l l ' ( B e s t i m m u n q ) sowohl w i e i n d e r
Abstandperzept i o n (verbindung) fehlen.
- - La s i g n i f i c a t i o n d e c h a c u n d e s f a c t e u r s n ' a
oas 4 t 6 r e c h e r c h g e p r o f o n d 6 m e n t e t n o t r e comprehension r e s t e i n s u f f i s a n t e .
I n Rahmen n e u e r e E n t w i c k l u n q e n s i n d V o r s c h l a g e aemacht w o r d e n und U n t e r s u c h u n ~ e n
d u r c h g e f u h r t worden u n d i e s e N a c h t e i l e zu
uberwinden.
Neue A n a l y s e n n-it Sezug a u f F a h r t v e r t e i l u n g e n ebenso w i e auf H i n t e r g r u n d e d e r
U r s p r u n g und Bestimmung s i n d f e r t i g o d e r w e r d e n
gemacht.
E i n i g e B e i s o i e l e n s i n d gegeben
worden.
L o r s des d4veloppements p l u s r e c e n t s des
p r o p o s i t i o n s o n t e t e formul6es e t des etudes
o n t 4 t 6 entames p o u r f a i r e f a c e c e s d e u x
limites.
Des a n a l y s e s n o u v e a u x r e l a t i f s 2 l a
d i s t r i b u t i o n des v o y a g e s a i n s i qu';
l a destinat i o n e t 2 l l o r i g i n e des voyageurs o n t 6 t 6 f a i t s
ou s o n t en v o i e d e r e a l i s a t i o n .
Quelques
examples o n t 4 t e d o n n e s .
H i n z u s i n d e i n i g e S c h l u s s b e m e r k u n g e n gemacht w o r d e n .
Frageuntersuchungen s o l l e n i n
der Zukunft d u r c h q e f u h r t werden.
Das P r o b l e m
d e r S u b s t i t u t i o n s f a h i g k e i t d e r Fraqe mussten
b e i n o c h komnende U n t e r s u c h u n g e n n e h r benachd r u c k t werden.
Dies g i l t auch f i r d i e Analysen
der F a h r t v e r t e i l u n g e n , d i e Separation i n Urs p r u n g , V e r b i n d u n g und B e s t i m m u n g s f a k t o r e n und
d i e mehr d e t a i 11 i e r t e n Anal y s e n d i e s e r
Faktoren.
A l a f i n i l a 4 t 6 remarque que des etudes
d e l a demande s e r o n t necessa i r e dans 1 ' a v e n i r
e t que I e p r o b l S m e d ' u n e s u b s t i t u t i o n p o s s i b l e
d e c e t t e demande d e v - a r e c e v o i r p l u s d 1 a t t e n tion.
C e c i e s t v a l a b l e a u s s i b i e n p o u r 1es
analyses de d i s t r i b u t i o n d e voyages, pour l a
s e p a r a t i o n des t r o i s f a c t e u r s o r i g i n e , a c c e s s i b i l i t e e t d e s t i n a t i o n que pour l ' a n a l y s e d e ces
groupes de f a c t e u r s d e f a c o n p l u s d e t a i l l e e .
--
L I A M E L I O R A T I O N D E S ETUDES D E LA DEMANDE
COMME MOYEN DE PLANIFICATION DE LA
RECREATION EN PLEIN AIR
La r e c r e a t i o n e n p l e i n a i r , p l u s p a r t i c u 1iSrement sous f o r g t , e s t t r S s recherchee.
Des
m o d i f i c a t i o n s f u t u r e s d e l a demande, q u a n t 2 l a
quantite e t I f o r i e n t a t i o n , devront S t r e etud i e e s quand i 1 s ' a g i t d u p l a n n i n g d e s f a cilites.
La s o l u t i o n d e s p r o b l & m e s r e l a t i f s 2
l a d e t e r m i n a t i o n proprement d i t e 2 l a l o c a t i o n ,
5 l a c a p a c i t e e t 2 I 'amenagement d e s p r o j e t s e n
p l e i n a i r e s t d ' u n e importance majeure.
LITERATURE C ITED
Beaman, J .
1974. D i s t a n c e and t h e ' r e a c t i o n ' t o d i s tance as a f u n c t i o n o f d i s t a n c e . J . L e i s .
R e s . 6 ( 3 ) :220-231 .
Bijkerk, C.
1975.
R e c r e a t i o n values o f f o r e s t s and
P h i l . T r a n s . R . Soc. Lond. B .
parks.
271 :179-198.
C a r l s , E. G .
1974. T h e e f f e c t s o f p e o p l e a n d man-induced
c o n d i t i o n s on preferences f o r outdoor
J. L e i s . R e s .
r e c r e a t i o n landscapes.
6 (2) : 1 13-1 24.
C e s a r i o , F. J.
1975. A new method f o r a n a l y z i n g o u t d o o r
r e c r e a t i o n t r i p d a t a . J. L e i s . R e s . 7 ( 3 ) :
200-21 5.
C e n t r a a l Bureau v o o r d e S t a t i s t i e k
1966. V r i j e t i j d s b e s t e d i n g i n Nederland 19621963. Deel 8:
Een samenvattend o v e r z i c h t
Karakter i s t ieke patronen.
De Haan,
Hilversum.
57 p.
C e n t r a a l Bureau v o o r d e S t a t i s t i e k
1971.
De Nederlandse B o s s t a t i s t i e k , 19641968. S t a a t s u i t g .
Den Haag.
67 p.
Committee on Assessment o f Demand f o r Outdoor
R e c r e a t i o n Resources
1975. A s s e s s i n g demand f o r o u t d o o r r e c r e a tion.
Nat. Acad. Sci., Washington, D.C.
124 p .
Freund, R. J., and R. R. W i l s o n
974.
An example o f a g r a v i t y model t o e s t i mate r e c r e a t i o n t r a v e l . J. L e i s . R e s .
6(3) :24l-256.
Hendee, J. C . , and R. J . Burdge
1974. The s u b s t i t u t a b i l i t y c o n c e p t :
Implic a t i o n f o r r e c r e a t i o n r e s e a r c h and management. J. L e i s . R e s . 6(2):157-162.
I j k e l e n s t a r n , G. F. P.
1974. A a n t a l en s p r e i d i n g van d i v e r s e t y p e n
r e c r e a t i e v e r b l i j v e n i n Nederland. R e c r .
voorz. 6 ( 4 ) : 136-143.
Klaassen, L. H.
1974. P r e l u d e op een r e c r e a t i e v e k o s t e n b a t e n
a n a l y s e . R e c r . V o o r z . 3 ( 3 ) :96-102.
La Page, W. F., and D . P. Ragain
F a m i l y camping t r e n d s - - a n e i g h t y e a r
1974.
p a n e l s t u d y . J. L e i s . R e s . 6(2):101-112.
L i n t s e n , W.
1975. Een a n a l y s e van h e t bezoek aan openl u c h t r e c r e a t i e g e b i e d e n i n de a g g l o m e r a t i e
144 p .
Eindhoven. T. H. Eindhoven.
McEvoy, I l l , J .
1974. Hours o f work and t h e demand f o r o u t door r e c r e a t i o n . J. L e i s . R e s . 6 ( 2 ) :125139.
M c K i I l o p , W.
1975. W i l d e r n e s s use i n C a l i f o r n i a : a quant i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s . J. L e i s . R e s . 7 ( 3 ) :
165-178.
M e r e w i t z , L.
1966. R e c r e a t i o n a l b e n e f i t s o f w a t e r r e -
s o u r c e development.
2 (4) :625-640.
Water Resources Res.
N i e d e r c o r n , J. H., and B. V . B e c h d o l t , J r .
1969. An economic d e r i v a t i o n o f t h e ' g r a v i t y
l a w ' o f s p a t i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . J. R e g . S c i .
9 (2) :273-282.
O'Rourke, B.
1974. T r a v e l i n t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e
--a l i t e r a t u r e r e v i e w . J. L e i s . R e s .
6 ( 2 ) : 140-156.
Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Resources Review Commission
1962. N a t i o n a l r e c r e a t i o n s u r v e y .
Study
r e p o r t 19. Washington, D.C.
61 p.
Peterson, G. L.
1974. A comparison o f t h e s e n t i m e n t s and
p e r c e p t i o n s o f w i l d e r n e s s managers and
canoests i n t h e boundary w a t e r canoe a r e a .
J. L e i s R e s . 6 ( 3 ) : 194-206.
R i j k s d i e n s t voor h e t Nationale Plan
1961. Mensen o p zondag.
Publ. I 4 Staatsd r u k k e r i j ' s Gravenhage.
166 p .
Tuan Yi-Fu
1974. T o p o p h i l i a :
a study o f environmental
p e r c e p t i o n , a t t i t u d e s , and v a l u e s .
Prent i c e H a l l , Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.
260 p.
Van Doren, C . S.
1967. An i n t e r a c t i o n t r a v e l model f o r p r o j e c t i n g a t t e n d a n c e o f campers a t M i c h i g a n
S t a t e P a r k s : a s t u d y i n r e c r e a t i o n a l geography.
Ph.D. T h e s i s , M i c h i g a n S t a t e
Univ.
264p.
Van L i e r , H. N.
1969/70.
C a p a c i t e i t s b e r e k e n i n g v o o r nieuw t e
Verkeerstechniek
s t i c h t e n strandbaden.
20(12) en 21 ( I ) , b i j v o e g s e l R e c r . V o o r z .
12:186-190 en 1 :2-6.
Van L i e r , H. N.
1973. D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f p l a n n i n g c a p a c i t y and
layout c r i t e r i a o f outdoor r e c r e a t i o n projects.
Pudoc Wageningen. A g r i c . Res.
Reports 795, 156 p .
L i e r , H. N., J . G . Bakker, and
971.
Onderzoek t e n behoeve van
recreatieve voorzieningen b i j
r i c h t i n g van h e t p l a t t e l a n d .
Tijdschr.
11:97-128.
f e , R. I .
972. The i n e r t i a model.
^(I) :73-76.
H. Bergman
openluchtde i n Cult. T e c h n .
J. L e i s . R e s .
Forecasting the Demand-Response t o
Changes in Recreational S i t e Characteristics
P e t e r Greig
1
A b s t r a c t ~ Anew method i s p r e s e n t e d f o r f o r e c a s t i n g t h e
s h o r t - t e r m change i n numbers o f v i s i t o r s a t an a r e a , a f t e r some
change i n t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l q u a l i t y t h e r e .
A group o f r e c r e a t i o n
a r e a s may be s u b s t i t u t e s f o r t h e a r e a o f c o n c e r n .
Recreationists
d e c i d e on t r i p s t o p a r t i c u l a r a r e a s , depending on t h e r e l a t i v e
c o s t s and q u a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f an a r e a , and on t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r preferences f o r those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
Both t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as we11 as t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p r e f e r e n c e s i n t h e community,
can be d e s c r i b e d m a t h e m a t i c a l l y and a model o f r e c r e a t i o n i s t s '
c h o i c e s developed.
U s i n g observed d a t a on c o s t s , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,
and numbers o f v i s i t s a t t h e a r e a s i n t h e group, t h e model can be
used t o f o r e c a s t new c h o i c e s a f t e r some change i n t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f an a r e a .
Simple n u m e r i c a l examples i l l u s t r a t e a p p l i c a t i o n
o f t h e model
.
I n f o r e s t r y p r a c t i c e , many o p e r a t i o n s i n v o l v e a l t e r a t i o n s t o t h e f o r e s t landscape.
' These a l t e r a t i o n s o f t e n a f f e c t t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l q u a l i t y o f t h e a r e a concerned--even i f r e c r e a t i o n i s o n l y one o f t h e m u l t i p l e uses i n volved.
I n e v a l u a t i n g whether o r n o t t o make
t h e a1 t e r a t i o n , an e s s e n t i a l p i e c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be an e s t i m a t e o f t h e change, i f
any, i n t h e number o f v i s i t o r s t o t h e a r e a .
T h i s paper d e s c r i b e s a new method o f
f o r e c a s t i n g t h e change i n numbers o f v i s i t o r s
(and t h e i r o r i g i n s ) a f t e r a s p e c i f i c change i n
t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l q u a l i t y o f a f o r e s t o r any
o t h e r r u r a l area.
R e c r e a t i o n a l q u a l i t y i s d e f i n e d h e r e as
comprising t h e physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f
r e c r e a t i o n a l a r e a s t h a t may i n f l u e n c e househ o l d s i n t h e i r c h o i c e s between such a r e a s .
R e c r e a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have been t h e
s u b j e c t o f much r e s e a r c h , w h i c h can be d i v i d e d
i n t o two c l a s s e s .
The f i r s t c l a s s i s concerned w i t h e s t i m a t i n g , by d i r e c t responses f r o m r e c r e a t i o n i s t s ,
t h e r e l a t i v e importances o f v a r i o u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , t h e o v e r a l l " a t t r a c t i v e n e s s " o f an
area, o r both.
T h i s c l a s s i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by
i t s dependence o n s t a t e d p r e f e r e n c e s ( S i n d e n
1973, C o r d e l l and James 1972, S h a f e r and
o t h e r s 1969, H o i n v i l l e 1971, Juurand and
o t h e r s 1974).
The a u t h o r i s g r a t e f u l t o D r . 1 . S.
Ferguson, D r . J . A. Sinden, Dr. C. P r i c e ,
P r o f . J. A. C . Brown, M r . J . B. Jack, and
D r . J. E. O p i e f o r c o n s t r u c t i v e c r i t i c i s m
o f an e a r l i e r d r a f t .
The o t h e r c l a s s i s concerned w i t h e s t i m a t i n g , by s t a t i s t i c a l methods, t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between v i s i t o r numbers a t r e c r e a t i o n
a r e a s , and t h e v a r i o u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f
those areas. U s u a l l y , a causal r e l a t i o n s h i p
i s i m p l i e d , on t h e s u p p o s i t i o n t h a t v i s i t o r s
choose a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s f o r
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Thus, t h e second c l a s s o f
methods may be s a i d t o depend on r e v e a l e d
p r e f e r e n c e s . M o s t l y , t h e methods have i n v o l v e d t h e use o f m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s
( J o h n s t o n and E l s n e r 1972, Lime 1971, Seneca
and C i c c h e t t i 1969, Shafer and Thompson 1968,
Holman and Bennett 1973, Cheung 1972). More
r e c e n t 1 y , a method has been developed t o t a k e
i n t o account t h e s u s p i c i o n t h a t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s may n o t be e n t i r e l y independent i n t h e i r
separate c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o a r e c r e a t i o n i s t ' s
p r e f e r e n c e s f o r an a r e a . Thus C e s a r i o (1973)
used t h e A u t o m a t i c I n t e r a c t i o n D e t e c t o r
(A. I . D . ) A n a l y s i s w h i c h a l l o w s f o r p o s s i b l e
i n t e r a c t i o n between v a r i a b l e s .
The " s t a t e d p r e f e r e n c e " methods a11 p l a c e
t h e respondent i n a h y p o t h e t i c a l c h o i c e s i t u a t i o n , so t h e r e a r e s e r i o u s d o u b t s a b o u t whethe r the r e s u l t s w i l l p r e d i c t actual choices.
The " r e v e a l e d p r e f e r e n c e " methods developed so
f a r have modeled t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and o b s e r v e d c h o i c e s w i t h o u t
s p e c i f y i n g t h e u n d e r l y i n g ' c a u s a l phenomena.
I n t h a t sense, t h e s e models a r e i n c o m p l e t e l y
s p e c i f i e d , so t h a t p r e d i c t i o n s f r o m them may
be i n a c c u r a t e .
The new method d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s paper,
w h i l e belonging t o t h e "revealed preference"
c l a s s , d i f f e r s f r o m i t s p r e d e c e s s o r s by i n c o r p o r a t i n g e x p l i c i t l y t h e under1 y i n g causes o f
observed c h o i c e s .
S p e c i f i c a l l y , households
a r e c o n s i d e r e d t o make c h o i c e s t h a t maximize
e x p e c t e d s a t i s f a c t i o n , s u b j e c t t o budget cons t r a i n t s . Thus, t h e method a c c o r d s w i t h acc e p t e d u t i l i t y t h e o r y , as expounded, f o r examp l e , i n Green ( l 9 7 2 ) , w i t h one i m p o r t a n t d i f ference.
S a t i s f a c t i o n i s t a k e n t o be a f u n c t i o n o f r e c r e a t i o n area c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , r a t h e r t h a n s i m p l y o f t h e a r e a s themselves.
The
method, t h e r e f o r e , f o l l o w s a development o f
a c c e p t e d u t i l i t y t h e o r y a t t r i b u t e d most f r e q u e n t l y t o L a n c a s t e r (1966).
The b a s i c e l e m e n t s o f t h e new method w i l l
be p r e s e n t e d and i l l u s t r a t e d w i t h s i m p l e num e r i c a l examples, w i t h some s u g g e s t i o n s f o r
e m p i r i c a l e ~ t i m a t i o n . ~The method has t h r e e
basic elements:
(i)
i i)
i i )
D e f i n e t h e group of r e c r e a t i o n areas
f r o m w h i c h t h e household may choose,
once i t has d e c i d e d t o make a r e c r e a t i o n t r i p . The g r o u p must i n c l u d e
a l l areas t h a t a r e p o t e n t i a l s u b s t i t u t e s f o r t h e a r e a chosen.
I s o l a t e and measure t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s l i k e l y t o i n f l u e n c e t h e househ o l d ' s c h o i c e s between members o f
t h e group.
E s t i m a t e t h e e x p e n d i t u r e o f househ o l d s on r e c r e a t i o n t r i p s , and r e l a t e t h i s t o the r e l a t i v e preferences f o r t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
The d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e group o f r e c r e a t i o n
areas i s a w e l l - k n o w n p r o b l e m i n r e c r e a t i o n
and e c o n o m e t r i c s t u d i e s .
Hence, i t i s l e f t
u n t i l l a s t i n t h e e n s u i n g d e s c r i p t i o n , so t h a t
a t t e n t i o n c a n be focused on t h e more innovat i v e a s p e c t s o f t h e p r e s e n t method. Theref o r e , t h e d e s c r i p t i o n b e g i n s on t h e understanding t h a t , f o r a r e c r e a t i o n area o f part i c u l a r c o n c e r n t o d e c i s i o n m a k e r s , t h e group
o f s u b s t i t u t e a r e a s has a l r e a d y been d e f i n e d .
THE "BEST"
AREAS AT A GIVEN COST
To i l l u s t r a t e t h e method, c o n s i d e r a hyp o t h e t i c a l p r o b l e m and s e t t i n g .
Suppose t h e
problem involves a l t e r a t i o n s t o a p a r t i c u l a r
s k i area.
F o r simp1 i c i t y , assume o n l y one
c e n t e r o f p o p u l a t i o n i s i n v o l v e d . The group
o f r e c r e a t i o n a r e a s t o be c o n s i d e r e d , t h e r e f o r e , includes a l l s k i areas a c c e s s i b l e t o
t h a t p o p u l a t i o n c e n t e r , assuming f o r s i m p l i c i t y t h a t these a r e t h e best s u b s t i t u t e s f o r the
a r e a concerned.
Consider a " r e p r e s e n t a t i v e " household
from t h i s population center.
A "household"
may, o f course, c o m p r i s e an i n d i v i d u a l , o r a
f a m i l y - - t h e t e r m i s used t o d e n o t e t h e u n i t
t h a t makes t h e c h o i c e s .
The method makes t h r e e b a s i c assumptions
about t h e b e h a v i o r o f a household:
1.
A household i s w e l l - i n f o r m e d about
the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a l l the
accessible areas,
2.
A household a l l o c a t e s a p a r t o f i t s
annual income t o s k i i n g t r i p s d u r - i n g
t h e y e a r , and
3.
A household chooses t h e a r e a ( o r
areas) t h a t provides t h e best s k i i n g
q u a l i t y f o r the given budget--skiing
qua1 i t y b e i n g some f u n c t i o n o f a r e a
characteristics.
To i l l u s t r a t e t h e a n a l y t i c a l p r o c e d u r e ,
c o n s i d e r j u s t one o f t h e h o u s e h o l d ' s o b j e c t i v e s i n g o i n g t o a s k i a r e a f o r a weekend.
Say t h i s o b j e c t i v e was t o maximize t h e d i s t a n c e covered on t h e snow, t r a v e l l i n g d o w n h i l l
a t some g i v e n r a t e o f d e s c e n t .
For t h i s obj e c t i v e , s e v e r a l a r e a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w o u l d be
i m p o r t a n t , i n c l u d i n g snow q u a l i t y , s l o p e q u a l i t y , l i f t q u a l i t y , and o t h e r s . T a k i n g j u s t
t h e f i r s t two t o s i m p l i f y t h e i l l u s t r a t i o n , i t
would be necessary t o d e f i n e t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n terms o f some measurable, p h y s i c a l a t t r i b u t e s t h a t governed t h e d i s t a n c e covered by
a s k i e r t r a v e l l i n g downhill a t a given rate.
For example, t h e s t e e p e r t h e s l o p e , t h e s h a l lower t h e t r a v e r s e s needed f o r a g i v e n r a t e o f
descent; so t h e g r e a t e r t h e d i s t a n c e c o v e r e d
i n one weekend, c e t e r i s p a r i b u s . A s i m i l a r
s i t u a t i o n e x i s t s f o r " c r i s p e r " snow s u r f a c e
O f c o u r s e , a l l o w a n c e s would have
conditions.
t o be made f o r o t h e r f a c t o r s , such as i c y cond i t i o n s , o r dangerous1 y s t e e p s l o p e s , a f f e c t i n g s a f e t y , b u t t h e s e need n o t a f f e c t t h e p r e sent i l l u s t p a t i o n .
The two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s m i g h t be measured,
f o r each s k i a r e a on weekends d u r i n g a g i v e n
snow season. The r e s u l t s f o r each a r e a would
be averaged t o y i e l d q u a n t i t i e s f o r an a v e r a g e
weekend.
I f , f o r example, t h e r e were j u s t
f o u r s k i a r e a s w i t h i n a weekend's t r a v e l 1 i n g
t i m e , t h e n t h e average q u a n t i t i e s m i g h t be:
Area
number :
E m p i r i c a l w o r k on t h e model i s under way a t
t h e Department o f F o r e s t r y , O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y .
The f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t o f t h e F o r e s t s Commission, V i c t o r i a , Australia, i s g r a t e f u l l y
ac know ledged.
Snow
q u a l i t y ( ~ ~ )
25
85
25
75
Slope
quaIity(~,)
50
25
50
75
I f =weekends
were spent a t a g i v e n
a r e a , t h e n t h e q u a n t i t y o f each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c
would be t w i c e t h a t shown i n t h e t a b u l a t i o n
because t h e d i s t a n c e c o v e r e d o n t h e snow would
be d o u b l e d .
Thus, c o n s i d e r i n g snow qua1 i t y o n
i t s own, t h e household would have t o make
t h r e e t r i p s t o area 1 i n order t o o b t a i n the
same q u a n t i t y a s c o u l d be o b t a i n e d o n j u s t one
t r i p t o a r e a 4.
But t h e household must cons i d e r t h e r e l a t i v e q u a n t i t i e s o f both c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o n a11 t h e a r e a s .
I n a d d i t i o n , t h e household has t o consider the r e l a t i v e costs o f the four alternatives.
Let these costs, i n c l u d i n g t r a v e l l i n g ,
accommodation and s k i i n g , be, o n average:
Area number:
Average c o s t s
because more o f b o t h c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c o u l d be
o b t a i n e d , f o r t h e same budget, a t any o f t h e
o t h e r t h r e e a r e a s , o r some combinat i o n o f
them.
The household was n o t o b l i g e d t o choose
j u s t one o f t h e a v a i l a b l e a r e a s - - i t c o u l d make
a number o f t r i p s t o more t h a n one a r e a , so
l o n g as t h e budget was n o t exceeded.
In this
case, t h e maximum q u a n t i t i e s o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o b t a i n e d would f a l l somewhere a l o n g t h e
s t r a i g h t l i n e s 1-4, o r 4-2, o r b o t h .
Obviousp o i n t s on these l i n e s a r e obtainl y , not
a b l e , because f o r a s i n g l e household, f r a c t i o n s o f t r i p s c a n n o t be made.
But t h i s i s
n o t a c o n s t r a i n t when l a r g e numbers o f househ o l d s a r e c o n s i d e r e d . The 1 i n e s 1-4 and 4-2
represent a l l e f f i c i e n t combinations o f t r i p s
t o t h e s k i areas; t h e r e f o r e , they c o n s t i t u t e
what has been c a l l e d t h e " e f f i c i e n c y f r o n t i e r "
( L a n c a s t e r 1966). . They r e p r e s e n t a l l t h e
' b e s t " t r i p s f o r t h e g i v e n budget.
fl
$ (PI
I f t h e household a l l o c a t e d , say $100 f o r
t h e y e a r ' s s k i i n g weekends, t h e n t h e maximum
number o f t r i p s t o each a r e a would be:
Area number:
Maximum
weekends
The r e l e v a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r t h e
g r o u p o f a r e a s c a n t h u s be i d e n t i f i e d e m p i r i I f , o n a d o p t i n g some s e t o f c h a r a c t e r c a l 1y.
i s t i c s , a n a r e a appears t o be i n e f f i c i e n t
i .e., f a 1 I s beneath t h e e f f i c i e n c y f r o n t i e r ) ,
y e t r e c e i v e s s i g n i f i c a n t numbers o f v i s i t o r s
from t h e given p o p u l a t i o n c e n t e r , then the
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s must have been w r o n g l y chosen,
o r w r o n g l y measured.
S i m i l a r l y , i f an a r e a
appears e f f i c i e n t y e t r e c e i v e s no v i s i t o r s ,
t h e n t h e same c o n c l u s i o n would be drawn.
Once t h e e f f i c i e n c y f r o n t i e r has been def i n e d , t h e a c t u a l p o i n t on i t t h e household
would choose depends on t h e r e l a t i v e import a n c e t h e household a t t a c h e s t o t h e two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Thus i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o c o n s i d e r
t h e household p r e f e r e n c e s .
HOUSEHOLD PREFERENCES
I t f o l l o w s t h a t t h e maximum q u a n t i t i e s
o f each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t h a t c o u l d be o b t a i n e d
a t each a r e a would be:
Maximum q u a n t i t i e s o f
Area
number:
1
2
3
4
These r e s u l t s c a n b e i l l u s t r a t e d geometr i c a l l y ( f i g . 1 ) . The i n i t i a l c h o i c e s t h a t
f a c e t h e household can be reduced f r o m f o u r t o
t h r e e . Area 3 would be a n i n e f f i c i e n t c h o i c e
Household p r e f e r e n c e s can be r e p r e s e n t e d
by i n d i f f e r e n c e c u r v e s w h i c h t r a c e o u t t h e
t r a d e - o f f t h e household i s p r e p a r e d t o make
between t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
I f , f o r example,
snow q u a l i t y i s poor a t a g i v e n a r e a , t h e
household m i g h t be p r e p a r e d t o s e l e c t a n o t h e r
a r e a w i t h b e t t e r snow, even i f t h e s l o p e q u a l i t y i s a b i t worse. T h i s s e l e c t i o n can be i l l u s t r a t e d by c u r v e s ( f i g . 2 ) .
Each c u r v e
traces out the combination o f q u a n t i t i e s o f Zi
and Z 2 between w h i c h t h e household i s i n d i f f e r e n t . The c u r v e s f u r t h e r f r o m t h e o r i g i n
r e p r e s e n t h i g h e r l e v e l s o f u t i l i t y ( i .e. " s a t i s f a c t i o n " o r " p r e f e r e n c e 1 ' ) ; i n f a c t t h e y may
be b e s t t h o u g h t o f a s c o n t o u r s o f a c o n t i n u o u s
surface.
From h e r e on, t h e t e r m " u t i l i t y
f u n c t i o n " w i l l be used t o d e s c r i b e t h i s s u r f a c e . The c u r v e s w i l l be i n c l i n e d more s t e e p l y toward one o f t h e axes i f t h e household has
a stronger r e l a t i v e preference f o r t h e charact e r i s t i c i d e n t i f i e d w i t h t h a t a x i s than f o r
the other characteristic.
I n t h e extreme, i f t h e household was i n t e r e s t e d i n j u s t one o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,
say Zl, t h e n t h e u t i l i t y f u n c t i o n s c o n t o u r s
would c o n s i s t o f s t r a i g h t l i n e s , t h u s :
z:u+.
ncreasing
Ieve1 s
of utility
0
An i n d i v i d u a l household would, t h e r e f o r e ,
never need t o v i s i t more t h a n k a r e a s , where k
i s t h e r e l e v a n t number o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
But t h e r e were o t h e r households i n t h e
p o p u l a t i o n c e n t e r , and s i n c e t h e y may have had
d i f f e r e n t p r e f e r e n c e s , t h e y must be c o n s i d e r e d .
i
I f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s come i n t o o l a y sequenas suggested by Juurand and o t h e r s
t h e c o n t o u r s n i g h t appear a s :
.
I t i s o o s s i b l e t o suoerimpose f i g u r e 2 o n
f i g u r e 1 , as shown i n f i g u r e 3 .
The household n a y seek t o maximize t h e
q u a n t i t y o f s i t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r a oiven
c o s t , i r r e s p e c t i v e o f t h e number o f t r i p s .
In
r e s o e c t t o t h e snow q u a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ,
f o r examole, t h e household c o u l d o b t a i n t h e
same q u a n t i t y by t a k i n g e i t h e r one weekend a t
The
a r e a 4 , o r t h r e e weekends a t a r e a 1 .
household m i g h t be i n d i f f e r e n t between t h e s e
two a l t e r n a t i v e s , c e t e r i s o a r i b u s , i f t h e
o v e r a l l c o s t s o f each were e q u a l . The c o s t s ,
o f c o u r s e , would have t o i n c l u d e , i n a d d i t i o n
t o travel costs, the opportunity costs o f
t i m e , s i n c e one a l t e r n a t i v e t a k e s up t h r e e
t i m e s as r a n y weekends as t h e o t h e r .
I t is
o o s s i b l e t o a l l o w f o r t h i s i n e m p i r i c a l work
(see, f o r example, K e i t h and Workman 1975,
Beesley 1 9 6 5 ) . Under t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s , t h e
household's choice s i t u a t i o n i s i1 l u s t r a t e d i n
f i g u r e 3.
Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e household
would r e a c h i t s h i g h e s t l e v e l o f u t i l i t y a t
j u s t one p o i n t o n t h e e f f i c i e n c y f r o n t i e r .
T h i s p o i n t , T, i s where t h e u t i l i t y f u n c t i o n
i s j u s t tangent on t h e e f f i c i e n c y f r o n t i e r .
T
f a l l s e x a c t l y midway between p o i n t s 1 and 4,
w h i c h means t h a t t h e h o u s e h o l d ' s budget i s
d i v i d e d e q u a l l y between a r e a s 1 and 4.
Thus,
l e t t i n g t h e h o u s e h o l d ' s budget be $100, t h e
optimum c o m b i n a t i o n o f t r i p s i s :
Area number:
Optimum t r i p s :
household Hi
COMMUNITY PREFERENCES
L e t t h e household j u s t d i s c u s s e d by denoted by Hi, and l e t t h e r e be j u s t t h r e e o t h e r
households H2, H3, . ,H
I
C o n s i d e r each i n t u r n .
F i r s t l y , imagine H2 has t h e same annual budget
f o r s k i i n g weekends as HI $100, b u t i t has a
s t r o n g e r p r e f e r e n c e t h a n Hi f o r Z l r e l a t i v e t o
ZT T h i s means t h a t H 2 ' s u t i l i t y f u n c t i o n
would be i n c l i n e d more t h a n Hi's towards t h e
Zl a x i s ( f i g . 4 ) .
As a r e s u l t o f t h i s i n c l in a t i o n , t h e p o i n t o f tangency o n t h e e f f i c i e n c y f r o n t i e r i s f u r t h e r towards t h e Z l a x i s .
I n f a c t , i t i s " t a n g e n t " d i r e c t l y upon p o i n t
4 , i m p l y i n g t h a t H2 d e v o t e s i t s whole budget
t o area 4 e x c l u s i v e l y . Thus t h e optimum comb i n a t i o n o f t r i p s f o r H2 i s :
Area number:
Optimum t r i p s :
1
2
Hz
0
0
3
0
4
2
H3 has e x a c t l y t h e same p r e f e r e n c e s and budget
as Hz, so t h a t i t s optimum c o m b i n a t i o n o f
t r i p s i s t h e same. These can be added t o
yield:
Area number:
Optimum t r i p s : Hy
+
H3
H4 has an even s t r o n g e r p r e f e r e n c e f o r Z l
t h a n f o r Z2, so t h a t i t s u t i l i t y f u n c t i o n i s
t a n q e n t even f u r t h e r towards t h e p o i n t s 4 and
2.
Hence i t s budget i s d i v i d e d e q u a l l y between Zl a x i s : midway between a r e a s 2 and 4.
But H 4 ' s budget i s $300, so t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l
e f f i c i e n c y f r o n t i e r (drawn f o r a budget o f
$100) i s expanded by a s c a l a r f a c t o r o f 3
( f i q . 4 ) . Thus H 4 ' s optimum c o m b i n a t i o n o f
visits is:
Area number:
Optimum v i s i t s :
1
2
0
3
0
4
3
3
H4
increasing levals of utility Efficiency Frontier
($100 budget)
\
contours of equal levels of utility 3,J. ("Snow q u a l i t y " )
Figure 1--Maximum quantities of two
characteristics obtainable at four
ski areas iith an annual budget of
$100. Figure 2--~amilyof indifference curves (the "utility function") of a household. 300
Figure 3--Optimum choice for house- hold H 1 occurs at T, the point of tangency of its utility function on the Efficiency Frontier. Z , ("Snow q u a l i t y " )
The t o t a l number o f v i s i t s f o r t h e w h o l e community i s :
HI
-
H2
2
+
0
'43
H4
0
rameters such t h a t
Community
2
Thus, f o r a g i v e n e f f i c i e n c y f r o n t i e r , a
c e r t a i n d i s t r i b u t i o n o f preferences coupled
w i t h a c e r t a i n d i s t r i b u t i o n o f expenditures
r e s u l t i n a c e r t a i n number o f v i s i t s t o t h e
a r e a s concerned. The same number o f v i s i t s
would have r e s u l t e d i f , i n s t e a d o f HI,
there
had been two households w i t h H n l s p r e f e r e n c e s ,
each w i t h a budget o f $150.
S i m i l a r l y , i f H3
had n o t e x i s t e d , b u t H z had a l l o c a t e d a budget
o f $200, t h e same r e s u l t s would have been obt a i ned
.
T h i s example has i l l u s t r a t e d t h e essent i a l components o f t h e model o f r e c r e a t i o n i s t s l choices.
I n a model o f a r e a l s i t u a t i o n , t h e r e a r e many c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , many
a r e a s , and many p o p u l a t i o n c e n t e r s t o be cons i d e r e d , and t h e mathematics r e q u i r e d uses t h e
techniques o f non-l inear programing.
But bef o r e t h e model c a n become u s e f u l t o t h e aims
s e t o u t i n t h i s s t u d y , i t needs t o be c a l i brated w i t h data from actual r e c r e a t i o n areas.
The r e l a t i v e s t r e n g t h o f p r e f e r e n c e f o r Zi i s
i n d i c a t e d by t h e r e l a t i v e s i z e o f a i . - T h u s i t
t h e example d i s c u s s e d p r e v i o u s 1 y ( f i g . 4 ) ,
Hlls u t i l i t y f u n c t i o n m i g h t have been:
.
i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Hi p r e f e r r e d Z2 more s t r o n g l y
t h a n Zl, i n t h e sense t h a t a 10 p e r c e n t i n c r e a s e i n Z l would produce a 2.5 p e r c e n t i n c r e a s e i n t h e u t i l i t y l e v e l , whereas a 10 p e r c e n t i n c r e a s e i n Z2 would produce a 7.5 p e r cent increase i n the u t i l i t y l e v e l .
This forn
f o r t h e u t i l i t y f u n c t i o n i s chosen f o r mathem a t i c a l convenience.
I t seems t o i m p l y c a r d i n a l u t i l i t y , though s e v e r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s
( e . g . , a l o g a r i t h m i c t r a n s f o r m a t i o n ) would
m a i n t a i n t h e same p r e f e r e n c e o r d e r i n g , and do
e q u a l l y w e l l i n t h e model, y e t a l l o w t h e u t i l i t y l e v e l s t o vary monotonically.
I t can be seen, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e u t i l i t y parameters p r o v i d e a c o n v e n i e n t n u m e r i c a l
index o f preferences.
I n t h e example w i t h two
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i t i s necessary t o s p e c i f y
o n l y one o f t h e parameters, say a l , because
t h e o t h e r i s i m m e d i a t e l y d e f i n e d by a2 = 1 a i . Thus t h e p r e f e r e n c e s o f t h e households
(H) d i s c u s s e d p r e v i o u s l y may be p u t down a s :
CAL I BRATI NG THE MODEL
O f t h e model components d e s c r i b e d , a l l
can be measured d i r e c t l y e x c e p t t h e d i s t r i b u Yet
t i o n s o f p r e f e r e n c e and e x p e n d i t u r e .
t h e s e d i s t r i b u t i o n s - - o r a comb i n a t i o n o f them
- - a r e c r i t i c a l t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e model.
T h e r e f o r e , t h e y must be e s t i m a t e d , and
t h e most s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d approach i s t o e s t i mate a f u n c t i o n , F, t h a t r e l a t e s t o t a l expendi t u r e (= number o f households by a v e r a g e expend i t u r e ) t o p r e f e r e n c e s , b o t h w i t h r e s p e c t
t o t h e community concerned. To do t h i s , some
n u m e r i c a l i n d e x o f p r e f e r e n c e s must be s p e c i fied.
T h i s can be done by s p e c i f y i n g t h e
u t i l i t y f u n c t i o n s o f f i g u r e 2 mathematically.
One s i m p l e , c o n v e n i e n t f o r m would be:
P r e f e r e n c e s (a )
3/41
The v a l u e s o f t h e s e parameters f o r t h e
v a r i o u s households a r e n o t known, however, and
cannot be a s c e r t a i n e d d i r e c t l y , e x c e p t by
u s i n g " s t a t e d p r e f e r e n c e " methods (e.g.,
Sinden 1973), w h i c h have a m a j o r weakness a l ready d i s c u s s e d . The a l t e r n a t i v e approach i s
t o e s t i m a t e t h e parameters i n d i r e c t l y , u s i n g
observed d a t a o n a c t u a l c h o i c e s , by a d o p t i n g
the f o l l o w i n g steps:
1.
Similar calculations f o r the other u t i l i t y
functions y i e l d the results:
where u d e n o t e s u t i l it y 1 eve1 , Zi denotes
q u a n t i t y o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i, and ai a r e pa-
1/2
(114
1
P o s t u l a t e v a l u e s o f t h e parameter a:
for k discrete u t i l i t y functions that
a r e though l i k e l y t o e x i s t i n t h e
community.
For example, p o s t u l a t e
t h r e e u t i l i t y f u n c t i o n s , as f o l l o w s :
U t i l i t y f u n c t i o n number k
Such a model has been developed by t h e aut h o r f o r use o n an ICL 1900 Computer.
k
Parameter (a,)
1
2
3
(114
1/ 2
3/4)
Figure 4~Utilityfunctions for four households, H , H , H , H , and their
respective optimum choices. utility function 1 Zi ("Snow quality")
Figure 5--After characteristic Z is altered at Area 1, the Efficiency Frontier near Point 1 swings outwards to Point 1'. The points of tangency of two of the three utility functions shift towards Point 1'. utility function I
I
I
Oo
100
200
("Snow quality")
h he same u t i l it y f u n c t i o n s as used p r e v i o u s l y
have been adopted f o r c o n v e n i e n c e . )
2.
Determine t h e p r o p o r t i o n s o f expendit u r e , V , a l l o c a t e d t o t h e T 6 area
by t h e households h a v i n g t h e k'" ut i l i t y function. This information i s
d e r i v e d f r o m t h e p o i n t s o f tangency
of the e f f i c i e n c y f r o n t i e r o f the respective u t i l i t y functions.
Conveni e n t l y , havinq postulated u t i l t y
f u n c t i o n s t h a t have a l r e a d y been used
i n examples, t h e s e p r o o o r t i o n s o f exoend i t u r e ( ' ) have a1 ready been c a l culated previously:
t i o n o f p r e f e r e n c e s and e x p e n d i t u r e s .
Thus,
i n s e r t i n g ( I ) i n t o (2), d e r i v e :
-
i n w h i c h a l l v a r i a b l e s a r e known e x c e p t t h e
c o e f f i c i e n t s , b i , w h i c h can be e s t i m a t e d .
To i l l u s t r a t e t h i s e s t i m a t i o n p r o c e d u r e ,
l e t t h e observed a g g r e g a t e number o f v i s i t s t o
t h e r e s p e c t i v e areas from t h e g i v e n p o p u l a t i o n
c e n t e r be (as b e f o r e ) :
Area number:
Area number:
3.
U t i l i t y f u n c t i o n number
P o s t u l a t e some 1 i k e l v f o r r f o r t h e
For t h e s i n p l e e x a m l e
f u n c t i o n F.
i n hand, t h e o b v i o u s c h o i c e i s a
linear function:
F = b0 + b , . \ + E
where b a r e c o e f f i c i e n t s and
t h e random e r r o r term.
(1)
E
is
The l i n e a r form o f F would i m p l y t h a t
there i s greater expenditure ( e i t h e r
more h o u s e h o l d s , o r more a v e r a g e
s p e n d i n g , o r b o t h ) by p e o p l e w i t h
stronger preferences f o r characteristic
t h a n f o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ZT
h here i s no a p r i o r i r e a s o n why t h e
f o r m would be 1 i n e a r ; i t i s used h e r e
p u r e l y f o r convenience o f e x p o s i t i o n . )
1-
4.
Observed v i s i t s :
D e f i n e t h e expressions g i v i n g t h e exp e c t e d number o f v i s i t s t o each a r e a :
community
(x)
Thus t h e r e w i l l be t h r e e e q u a t i o n s o f t y p e
(3).
I n s e r t i n g v a l u e s f o r ?" , and A , t h e s e
e q u a t i o n s can be s o l v e d :
Thus
F
k
= kOOal
where F i n d i c a t e s t h e e s t i m a t e d v a l u e o f F.
( l n t h i s example t h e e s t i m a t e f i t s t h e d a t a
p e r f e c t l y , so K = F p r e c i s e l y , w i t h no random
error.)
f thus estimates the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f
e x p e n d i t u r e as a f u n c t i o n o f p r e f e r e n c e s , as
i t e x i s t s a t the time o f estimation.
It is,
t h e r e f o r e , a g e n e r a l s t a t e m e n t a b o u t t h e community preferences i n the population center;
no a t t e m p t i s made h e r e t o a s s o c i a t e F w i t h
p a r t i c u l a r households i n terms o f socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( t h o u g h t h e s e developments
m i g h t be u n d e r t a k e n i n f u t u r e work o n t h e
model 1.
Once F has been e s t imated, t h e model i s
f u l l y c a l i b r a t e d and ready t o be used f o r
short-term forecasting.
where x j t $ e n o t e s t h e number o f v i s i t s
a r e a , pJ d e n o t e s t h e c o s t
to the j
o f one weekend i n t h e j t h a r e a , and
t h e o t h e r terms a r e as d e f i n e d above.
T h i s i s simply a formal expression o f the
s t a t e m e n t made e a r l i e r t h a t a c e r t a i n d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p r e f e r e n c e s and e x p e n d i t u r e s i m p l i e s
a c e r t a i n number o f v i s i t s t o t h e r e s p e c t i v e
a r e a s . Thus, b y c o r o l l a r y , a c e r t a i n o b s e r v e d
number o f v i s i t s i m p l i e s a c e r t a i n d i s t r i b u -
SHORT-TERM FORECASTING
When t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a n a r e a a r e
changed, t h e e f f i c i e n c y f r o n t i e r w i l l be a l I f t h e community p r e f e r e n c e s ,
t e r e d i n shape.
r e p r e s e n t e d by f , remain unchanged (and i n t h e
s h o r t - t e r m , u n l e s s t h e r e a r e marked changes
e l s e w h e r e i n t h e economy, t h e r e i s no r e a s o n
t o t h i n k otherwise), then t h e community's
u t i l i t y f u n c t i o n s w i l l be t a n g e n t upon a new
set o f points i n the efficiency frontier.
As
b e f o r e , t h i s i n i p l i e s a new s e t o f numbers o f
v i s i t s t o t h e a r e a s i n t h e group. The model,
once c a l i b r a t e d can be used d i r e c t l y t o f o r e c a s t t h i s new s e t o f v i s i t s .
To i l l u s t r a t e t h i s p r o c e s s , imagine t h a t
a t a r e a I-.,i n v e s t m e n t s a r e made i n s l o p e g r o o m i n g and snow-making equipment, so t h a t
t h e a v e r a g e s n o w - q u a l i t y r a t i n g , E l , becomes
30, compared w i t h 25 p r e v i o u s l y . Thus t h e
maximum amount o f t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t h a t can
be had a t a r e a 1 f o r a budget o f $100 becomes
120, as a g a i n s t 100 b e f o r e . The new e f f i c i e n c y f r o n t i e r becomes as i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e
5, where t h e p o i n t 1 ' r e p r e s e n t s t h e a l t e r e d
s i t e 1 . The new p o i n t s o f tangency o f t h e
three discrete u t i l i t y functions are also
shown. The f i r s t two have p o i n t s o f tangency
c l o s e r t o 1 ' and f u r t h e r f r o m 4 t h a n t h e y d i d
o r i g i n a l l y . The c o n t o u r s o f each u t i l i t y
f u n c t i o n a r e t a k e n t o have c o n s t a n t s l o p e s
along a l l rays from t h e o r i g i n (i.e., they a r e
homothetic).
Hence, t h e new p o i n t s o f tangenc y a r e r e a d i l y found, even though h i g h e r cont o u r s a r e reached i n t h e p r o c e s s . The f a c e
4-2 i s unchanged, so t h a t t h e p o i n t o f tangency o f t h e t h i r d u t i l i t y function i s not
changed e i t h e r . The new p o i n t s o f tangency
i m p l y a new s e t o f p r o p o r t i o n s o f e x p e n d i t u r e ,
A ' , going t o t h e several areas.
L e t t h i s new
s e t ( u s i n g t h e same o r d e r i n g as b e f o r e ) be:
=
Thus t h e f o r e c a s t e d s e t o f v i s i t s i s :
Area number:
(Note a g a i n t h a t f i s p r e d i c t i n g p e r f e c t l y ,
a way t h a t c o u l d n o t be e x p e c t e d i n a r e a l
study.)
From e q u a t i o n
3;
in
Predicted v i s i t s :
u t i l i t y function 2
S i m i l a r c a l c u l a t ions f o r t h e o t h e r u t i
functions yields the results:
U t i l i t y function
1
he new m a t r i x , A ' , has been s i m p l i f i e d f o r
i l l u s t r a t i v e purposes. The a c t u a l changes,
f o r t h e d a t a g i v e n , would be much s m a l l e r t h a n
shown.)
Then, i n s e r t i n g t h e new v a l u e s f r o m
\' i n t o e q u a t i o n 3, t h e new s e t o f v i s i t s f o r
each p o s t u l a t e d u t i l i t y f u n c t i o n can be c a l c u lated directly.
For example, t a k i n g t h e second p o s t u l a t e d u t i l i t y f u n c t i o n :
3
2
3
Predicted v i s i t s :
community
T h i s r e s u l t , compared w i t h t h e o r i g i n a l l y obs e r v e d s e t o f v i s i t s , shows t h a t , a s e x p e c t e d ,
a r e a I i s a t t r a c t i n g customers away f r o m a r e a
4, w h i l e t h e r e i s no change t o t h e v i s i t s i n
a r e a 2.
I t w i l l be a p p a r e n t t h a t , i f t h e
change i n a r e a 1 had been l a r g e enough, a r e a
2 ' s customers would have been e f f e c t e d as
well.
To t e s t t h e u s e f u l n e s s o f t h e model as a
p r e d i c t o r , i t w i l l be necessary t o o b t a i n d a t
o n v a r i a t i o n s i n a r e a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and v i s
i t o r numbers and o r i g i n s , by t i m e s e r i e s .
These d a t a a r e n o t now a v a i l a b l e i n A u s t r a l i a ,
b u t i n t h e meantime, i t would be h e l p f u l t o
o b t a i n s h o r t - t e r m d a t a (say, one season) and
t o u s e t h e model t o i d e n t i f y t h e r e l e v a n t
characteristics.
Once i d e n t i f i e d , t h e s e d a t a
c o u l d t h e n be c o l l e c t e d o v e r l o n g e r p e r i o d s
f o r more c o m p l e t e assessment o f t h e model.
F i n a l l y , t h e r e i s t h e problem o f d e f i n i n g
a s e p a r a b l e group o f a r e a s , w i t h o u t w h i c h t h e
model cannot o p e r a t e .
DEFINING THE GROUP OF RECREATION AREAS
G r o u p i n g On B a s i s Of Demand F u n c t i o n s
A fundamental requirement f o r t h e cons t r u c t i o n and a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e model i s t h a t
t h e e x p e n d i t u r e b y t h e community o n t h e v a r i ous a r e a s i n t h e g r o u p r e m a i n s ( e f f e c t i v e l y )
c o n s t a n t t h r o u g h o u t t h e (smal 1 ) changes t h a t
m i g h t be made i n t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e
area concerned.
E s s e n t i a l l y , t h i s requirement
e n t a i l s t h a t when c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e g r o u p a r e
a l t e r e d , s u b s t i t u t i o n occurs o n l y w i t h i n the
qroup.
A l s o , i t e n t a i l s t h a t changes o u t s i d e
t h e g r o u p have o n l y t h e e f f e c t o f p o s s i b l y
changing t h e budget a l l o c a t e d t o t h e group.
Hence, t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e g r o u o i s a c r i t i c a l e l e m e n t i n t h e m o d e l i n g p r o c e s s ; one t h a t
i n p r a c t i c e r u s t p r e c e d e t h e o t h e r w o r k des c r i b e d so f a r .
Two o o s s i b l e a o p r o a c h e s a r e
now g i v e n f o r d e f i n i n g a g r o u p o f r e c r e a t i o n
sites.
G r o u p i n g On N a t u r e Of C h a r a c t e - i s t i c s
L a n c a s t e r (1971) has shown t h a t i f t h e
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the area o f p a r t i c u l a r conc e r n a r e v e r y s p e c i a l and n o t e a s i l y o b t a i n a b l e except i n areas o f s i m i l a r n a t u r e , then
such a r e a s t o g e t h e r a r e l i k e l y t o f o r m a g r o u o
s u s c e o t i b l e t o a n a l y s i s . T h i s c o n d i t i o n need
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , a s l o n a as
n o t a o ~ l yt o
t h e " n o n - s p e c i a l " ones a r e much more r e a d i l y
a v a i l a b l e o u t s i d e t h e g r o u p , t h a n i n i t . On
t h e b a s i s o f these c r i t e r i a , s k i areas c l e a P l y
f o r m a 1 ik e l y g r o u p , f o r one o f t h e l i k e l y
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( n a m e l y , snow-qua1 i t y - - a s u r f a c e s u i t a b l e f o r s k i i n g ) c a n be o b t a i n e d
i n s k i areas.
O f the other l i k e l y characteri s t i c s (say, s l o p e q u a l i t y , access, s e r v i c e s ,
accommodation) m o s t , p r o b a b l y , w o u l d be more
r e a d i l y obtained i n non-ski areas.
fi
a
Such a p r i o r i r e a s o n i n g w o u l d need t o be
s u p p o r t e d b y e v i d e n c e , f o r example, f r o m t i m e
s e r i e s r e c o r d s o f e x p e n d i t u r e made o n t h e
g r o u p b y h o u s e h o l d s f a c i n g t h e same s e t o f
c o s t s (e.g., i n one p o p u l a t i o n c e n t e r ) .
If
t h i s e x p e n d i t u r e remains f a i r l y c o n s t a n t ,
a f t e r a l l o w i n g f o r demand s h i f t i n g f a c t o r s
( s u c h a s changes i n p o p u l a t i o n s i z e , p e r c a p i t a r e a l income) d e s p i t e t h e normal y e a r l y
f l u c t u a t i o n s i n snow q u a l i t y a t t h e v a r i o u s
a r e a s , t h e n t h e r e i s some g r o u n d f o r b e l i e v i n g
t h a t t h e g r o u p e x i s t s a s d e f i n e d . The e v i dence would i m p l y t h a t households a l l o c a t e a
s i m i l a r amount e a c h y e a r t o s k i i n g , d e p l o y i n g
t h i s budget t o t h e i r b e s t advantage, depending
on the r e l a t i v e conditions a t the various
areas a t t h e time o f t h e i r t r i p s .
U s u a l l y , though, these t i m e s e r i e s data
are not available f o r the recreation sector,
s o t h a t a n a l t e r n a t i v e means o f i d e n t i f y i n g
t h e group would be r e q u i r e d .
An a l t e r n a t i v e method i s t o u s e d a t a f r o m
a sample o f h o u s e h o l d s w i t h i n t h e v i s i t o r
c a t c h m e n t o f a n a r e a . As b e f o r e , i t w i l l be
necessary, f o r p u r e l y p r a c t i c a l reasons, t o
s p e c i f y a l i k e l y group o f n areas, p r e f e r a b l y
o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The
e s s e n t i a l d a t a t o be g a t h e r e d ~ i l ~ ~ i n c l ut hde e
number o f t r i p s x i , made t o t h e i
area i n
t h e group, o v e r a g i v e n period.
In addition,
t h e c o s t s p e r t r i p , P i w o u l d be e s t i m a t e d .
Household s o c i o - e c o n o m i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , t h a t
m i g h t e f f e c t demand, may b e c o l l e c t e d a l s o .
The r e l a t i o n s h i p between x i and t h e c o s t s
o f a l l n a r e a s c a n t h e n b e examined by m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s . Thus:
This
where f ( ) means "some f u n c t i o n o f . "
f u n c t i o n , h a v i n g been e s t i m a t e d f r o m h o u s e h o l d
d a t a , i s c a l l e d a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e h o u s e h o l d demand f u n c t i o n ( B u r t and Brewer 1 9 7 1 ) . Recreat i o n areas w i t h s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t coe f f i c i e n t s i n t h i s f u n c t i o n c a n be r e g a r d e d a s
substitutes ( i f the coefficients are positive)
On t h i s
o r complements ( i f n e g a t i v e ) f o r x;
b a s i s , t h e g r o u p c a n be d e f i n e d .
.
These g r o u p i n g methods a r e , a t b e s t , o n l y
a p p r o x i m a t e , s i n c e h o u s e h o l d s i n t h e community
a r e f r e e t o s u b s t i t u t e whatever t h e y l i k e next
b e s t , when t h e c o n d i t i o n s i n a r e c r e a t i o n a r e a
change.
F u r t h e r , t h e f o c u s a b o v e has been on
the r e c r e a t i o n areas, r a t h e r than on the i n d i v i d u a l h o u s e h o l d s i n t h e community.
In other
r e c r e a t i o n research i n t o s u b s t i t u t i o n , the foc u s has been more o n i d e n t i f y i n g t h e c l u s t e r s
o f h o u s e h o l d t y p e s t h a t have s i m i l a r s u b s t i t u t i o n p a t t e r n s ( s e e , f o r example, Romsa 1973
and Beaman 1 9 7 5 ) .
CONCLUSION
The model c a n be compared w i t h i t s r e l a t e d predecessors i n terms o f t h r e e c r i t e r i a :
(a) d a t a r e q u i r e m e n t s , ( b ) p r e d i c t i v e power,
and ( c ) u s e f u l n e s s o f o u t p u t . The model r e q u i r e s much t h e same k i n d o f d a t a used i n
o t h e r " r e v e a l e d p r e f e r e n c e " models, b u t i n
smaller amounts--especially area c h a r a c t e r i s tics.
Unnecessary d a t a c a n be i d e n t i f i e d bef o r e c o l l e c t i o n by having an e x p l i c i t unders t a n d i n g o f t h e way i n w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
i n f l u e n c e choices. T h i s i s n o t so t r u e of t h e
r e g r e s s i o n models ( e . g . , Lime 1971 measured o n
e a c h c a m p s i t e more t h a n 7 0 v a r i a b l e s , o f w h i c h
o n l y 3 were found s i g n i f i c a n t ) , nor o f t h e
A.I.D. model, f o r w h i c h a t l e a s t 2,000 o b s e r v a t i o n s a r e r e q u i r e d ( ~ e s a r i o1 9 7 3 ) . The
' s t a t e d preference" models r e q u i r e i n a d d i t i o n
t o u n c o n t r o l l e d data on c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , a
great deal o f d i f f i c u l t interviewing.
As t o p r e d i c t i v e power, t h e p r e s e n t model
i s u n t r i e d , as y e t .
But t h e o t h e r " r e v e a l e d
p r e f e r e n c e " models, e s p e c i a l l y t h e r e g r e s s i o n
models, u s u a l l y a r e shown t o p r e d i c t o n l y
w i t h i n t h e d a t a s e t used f o r t h e i r c o n s t r u c tion.
Whether t h e y w i l l p r e d i c t as w e l l i n
new s i t u a t i o n s , when some o f t h e u n s p e c i f i e d
v a r i a b l e s (such as t h o s e t o do w i t h p r e f e r ences) a r e changed, i s a n o t h e r m a t t e r . The
' ' s t a t e d p r e f e r e n c e " models, when t e s t e d as
p r e d i c t o r s a g a i n s t t h e r e g r e s s i o n models, have
shown 1 i t t l e c o n s i s t e n c y (e.g., Lime 1971).
F i n a l l y , t h e o u t p u t o f p r e d i c t i v e models
i s most u s e f u l i f t h e r e a r e p o l i c y imp1 i c a t i o n s , w h i c h demand t h a t changes and p o t e n t i a l
changes i n community w e l f a r e be e s t i m a t e d .
However, o f t e n t h e o u t p u t i s s i m p l y g i v e n t o a
d e c i s i o n m a k e r i n t h e hope t h a t i t w i l l a s s i s t
him i n some way.
The p r e s e n t model, however,
i s s u p e r i o r i n t h i s r e s p e c t t o o t h e r models,
as i t c a n be used t o f o r e c a s t i n q u a n t i f i a b l e
terms t h e s o c i a l b e n e f i t s t h a t f o l l o w f r o m
p o t e n t i a l changes i n r e c r e a t i o n - a r e a c h a r a c teristics.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
E i n e neue Methode w i r d v o r g e s t e l l t z u r
Voraussage von k u r z f r i s t i g e m Wechsel i n d e r
Anzahl d e r Besucher e i n e s G e b i e t e s a u f Grund
e i n i g e r Veranderungen, d i e Qua1 i t a t d e r F r e i zeitbeschaftigungen d o r t betreffend.
Die
Methode s c h l a g t v e r s c h i e d e n e MOgl i c h k e i t e n
v o r , e i n e Gruppe von F r e i z e i t g e b i e t e n zu
d e f i n i e r e n , d i e a l s E r s a t z f u r das i n Frage
g e s t e l l t e G e b i e t d i e n e n kOnnten.
Es w i r d
b e h a u p t e t , dass Erholungssuchende wahlen, zu
bestimmten G e b i e t e n i n n e r h a l b d i e s e r Gruppe zu
f a h r e n , m i t R i i c k s i c h t a u f d i e r e l a t i v e n Kosten
und d i e Q u a l i t a t s e i g e n s c h a f t e n d i e s e r G e b i e t e ,
sowie m i t Rucksicht a u f i h r e eigenen spezie l l e n Wunsche d i e s e E i g e n s c h a f t e n b e t r e f f e n d .
Beides, d i e E i g e n s c h a f t e n sowie d i e V e r t e i l u n g
d e r E i g e n s c h a f t e n i n n e r h a l b d e r Gemeinde
werden m a t h e m a t i s c h b e s c h r i e b e n , so dass es
n % g I i c h i s t , e i n Model1 d e r Wiinsche d e r
Erholungssuchenden a u f z u s t e l l e n .
Sobald e i n
Model1 m i t H i l f e d e r Kostenanschlage,
Qua1 it a t s e i g e n s c h a f t e n und Anzahl von Besuchern i n den G e b i e t e n i n n e r h a l b e i n e r Gruppe
k a l i b r i e r t worden i s t , kann es dazu verwendet
werden, neue WLinsche vorauszubestimmen, d i e
a u f Grund e i n e r Veranderung d e r E i g e n s c h a f t e n
e i n e s b e l i e b i g e n G e b i e t e s i n n e r h a l b d e r Gruppe
e i n t r e t e n k6nnen. D i e Methode w i r d a n Hand
e i n f a c h e r numerischer B e i s p i e l e e r l a u t e r t .
On p r e s e n t e 1;-dessus
une n o u v e l l e
m6thode pour p r e d i r e 1es changements 2 c o u r t
terme dans 1e nombre de v i s i t e u r s s u r un
c e r t a i n t e r r a i n aprss I ' i n t r o d u c t i o n sur ce
t e r r a i n d ' u n changement dans l a qua1 i t 6 de l a
La methode propose des moyens
recreation.
pour d e t e r m i n e r un groupe de t e r r a i n s de
r e c r e a t i o n q u i peut remplacer I e t e r r a i n
duquel i l s ' a g i t . On p r e t e n d que "1es
r e c r 6 a t i o n i s t e s 1 ' c h o i s i s s e n t l e u r s t r a j e t s en
des t e r r a i n s p a r t i c u l i e r s 5 cause des f r a i s
r e l a t i f s , des p a r t i c u l i a r i t e s des t e r r a i n s e t
de l e u r s p r o p r e s p r e f e r e n c e s pour c e s
particuliarites.
Les c a r a c t e r i s t i q u e s e t l a
d i s t r i b u t i o n des p r e f e r e n c e s s o n t e x p l i q u 6 e s
mathematiquement, pour l a i s s e r c o n s t r u i r e s u r
modsle 1es c h o i x des "retreat i o n i s t e s . " '
Apres
a v o i r c a l i b r e l e modsle p a r I ' e m p l o i des
donnees observees dans I e doma i n e des
f i n a n c e s , de l a c a r a c t e r i s t i q u e , e t d u nombre
des v i s i t e u r s aux t e r r a i n s p a r t i c u l i e s du
groupe, o n peut I ' u t i l i s e r p o u r p r e v o i r des
c h o i x nouveaux a p r s s des changements de
c a r a c t e r i s t i q u e d ' u n t e r r a i n p a r t i c u l i e r du
groupe.
La d e s c r i p t i o n e s t augmentee
d'exemples numeriques s i m p l i f i e s .
LITERATURE C ITED
Beaman, J .
1975. Comments o n t h e paper "The s u b s t i t u t imp1 i c a t i o n s f o r r e c r e a b i l it y c o n c e p t :
a t i o n r e s e a r c h and management" by Hendee
and Burdge. J . L e i s . Pes. 7 ( 2 ) :146-152.
Beesley, M. E.
1965. The v a l u e o f t i m e spent i n t r a v e l i n g : some new e v i d e n c e .
Econornica 32:
174-185.
B u r t , 0. R . , and D . Brewer
1971. E s t i m a t i o n o f n e t s o c i a l b e n e f i t s
f r o m o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n . Econometrics
3 9 ( 5 ) :813-827.
C e s a r i o , F. J.
1973. E s t i m a t i n g a t t r a c t i v e n e s s f a c t o r s i n
s p a t i a l i n t e r a c t i o n modeling.
Paper p r e s e n t e d t o 3 r d N o r t h East Regional S c i e n c e
A s s o c i a t i o n M e e t i n g s , A p r i l 27-29, 1973.
Cheung, H. K.
1972. A day-use p a r k v i s i t a t i o n model.
L e i s . R e s . 4:139-156.
Cordel 1 , H. K., and G. A. James
1972. V i s i t o r s ' p r e f e r e n c e s f o r c e r t a i n
p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f developed
J.
ampsites.
USDA F o r e s t S e r v . Res. Paper
SE-100, 21 p .
S o u t h e a s t e r n F o r e s t Exp.
S t n . , A s h e v i l l e , N.C.
Green, H. A. J .
1972. Consumer t h e o r y .
344 p .
Books I n c . , B a l t i m o r e , MD.
Penguin
Hoinvi I l e , G.
1971.
E v a l u a t i n g community p r e f e r e n c e s .
E n v i r o n . a n d P l a n n . 3:33-50.
Holman, Mary A., and J . T . B e n n e t t
973.
Determinants o f use o f water-based
recreational f a c i l i t i e s .
Water Resour.
Res. 9(5):1208-1218.
J o h n s t o n , W. E . , and G . H. E l s n e r
1972.
V a r i a b i l i t y i n u s e among s k i a r e a s :
a s t a t i s t i c a l study o f the C a l i f o r n i a
market region.
J . L e i s . Res. 4(1):43-49.
J u u r a n d , P., V. Guzel i m i a n , and J . Beaman
974.
Perception o f quality o f w i l d rivers.
Canada N a t i o n a l and H i s t o r i c P a r k s B r a n c h
C.O.R.D.
S t u d y Tech. N o t e 27, 69 p . Dep.
o f I n d i a n and N o r t h e r n A f f a i r s . O t t a w a .
K e i t h , J . E., and J . P. Workman
1975.
O p p o r t u n i t y c o s t o f t i m e i n demand
e s t i m a t e s f o r non-market resources. J
L e i s . R e s . 7(2):121-127.
L a n c a s t e r , K. J .
966.
Change and i n n o v a t i o n i n t h e t e c h n o l ogy o f consumption. Amer. Econ. R e v i e w
56 ( 2 ) : 14-23.
L a n c a s t e r , K. J .
971.
Consumer demand:
a new a p p r o a c h .
Columbia S t u d i e s i n Economics
C o l u m b i a U n i v . P r e s s , N.Y.
5.
177 p .
Lime, D. W.
1971. F a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g campground u s e i n
t h e S u p e r i o r N a t i o n a l F o r e s t o f Minnesota.
USDA F o r e s t S e r v . Res. Paper
NC-60, 18 p.
N o r t h C e n t r a l F o r e s t Exp.
Stn., St. Paul, Minn.
Romsa, G . H.
1973. A method o f d e r i v i n g o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y packages. J. L e i s . R e s .
5 ( 4 ) : 34-46.
Seneca, J . J . , and C . J. C i c c h e t t i
1969. U s e r - r e s p o n s e i n o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n :
a production analysis.
J. L e i s . R e s . 1 :
238-245.
S h a f e r , J r . , E. L . , J . F. H a m i l t o n , and E. A
Schmidt
1969. N a t u r a l l a n d s c a p e p r e f e r e n c e s : a
p r e d i c t i v e m o d e l . J . L e i s . R e s . 1 : 1-19
S h a f e r , J r . , E . L . , and R. C . Thompson
1968. Models t h a t d e s c r i b e u s e o f A d i r o n d a c k campgrounds.
F o r . S c i . I 4 ( 4 ) :383391.
S i n d e n , J. A.
1973. U t i l i t y a n a l y s i s i n t h e v a l u a t i o n o
extra-market b e n e f i t s w i t h p a r t i c u l a r
reference t o water-based r e c r e a t i o n .
Water Resources Research I n s t . Res. Rep.
WRRI-17, 136 p . Oregon S t a t e U n i v . ,
(PB-231 701)
Corval l i s .
On the Use o f H o m e and Site Surveys in Recreation Research
Mordechai Shechter
A b s t r a c t - - T h e p r o s and cons o f home i n t e r v i e w s v e r s u s o n - s i t e
u s e r s u r v e y s a r e b r i e f l y reviewed.
The complementary r e l a t i o n s h i p
between them i s i l l u s t r a t e d b y t h e f i n d i n g s o f an e x t e n s i v e s t u d y
on t h e demand f o r o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n a t M t . Carmel N a t i o n a l P a r k ,
t h e l a r g e s t n a t i o n a l p a r k i n I s r a e l . The need f o r e x p e n s i v e home
i n t e r v i e w s can be g r e a t l y reduced when t h e l e s s - e x p e n s i v e , s i t e
s u r v e y s a r e p r o p e r l y c o n s t r u c t e d and implemented.
Outdoor r e c r e a t i o n s e r v i c e s a r e r e s o u r c e based and as such can be used o n l y a t t h e
p o i n t where t h e s e r v i c e i s "produced" and Drovided.
Market r e s e a r c h designed t o gage consumer o r e f e r e n c e s , consur- tio on p a t t e r n s . and
o t h e r demand c h a y a c t e r i s t i c s s h o u l d r e c c g r i z e
t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e s e s e r v i c e s a r d
o t h e r consumption goods and s e r v i c e s f o r w h i c h
t h a t c o n s t r a i n t i s l e s s r e s t r i c t i v e , o r nonexistent.
F u r t h e r m o r e , u n l i k e many o t h e r s e n 1 ices, i n c l u d i q g o t h e r r e c r e a t i o n s e r v i c e s , the
consumption u n i t i s u s u a l l y a ~ r o u ~ - - ~ a m i l y ,
f r i e n d s , o e e r s . The t y p e , d u r a t i o n and i n t e n s i t y o f outdoor r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s are
t h e r e f o r e based o n t h e i n t e r p l a y o f d e s i r e s
and p r e f e r e n c e s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l s making uo
t h e g r o u p , t h e i r i n t r a - g r o u p r o l e s , and t h e i r
physical inclinations or limitations.
Because o f t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , s e v e r a l
approaches have been developed t o measure t h e
demand f o r t h e s e s e r v i c e s , e i t h e r f o r t h e o u r pose o f e s t i m a t i n g t h e number o f u s e r s - - p r e s e n t
and f u t u r e - - o r i n terms o f t h e range o f r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s engaged i n a t r e c r e a t i o n
sites.
U s i n g t h e s e approaches, one c a n d i s t i n g u i s h between b e h a v i o r - o r i e n t e d methods
which focus on observing r e c r e a t i o n i s t s ' a c t i v i t i e s a t t h e s i t e , and t h e more customary mark e t r e s e a r c h methods o f i n t e r v i e w i n g p e o p l e a t
home.
T h i s p a p e r seeks t o show t h a t o u t o f t h e
more commonly used m a r k e t s u r v e y approach, t h e
l e s s e x p e n s i v e , o n - s i t e i n t e r v i e w , m i g h t be
j u s t as e f f i c i e n t i n g a t h e r i n g p e r t i n e n t d a t a
as t h e more comprehensive home i n t e r v i e w . and
i n many cases t h e l a t t e r c a n be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y
r e p l a c e d by t h e f o r m e r .
A b r i e f description
o f various data-gathering techniques i s inc l u d e d . Two s u r v e y s c o n d u c t e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n
w i t h a demand s t u d y o f a l a r g e I s r a e l i r e c r e a t i o n p a r k and a c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e two o n t h e
b a s i s o f a s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s a r e described.
SURVEY AND NON-SURVEY TECHNIQUES
Of t h e non-survey g r o u p o f t e c h n i q u e s we
c o u l d b r i e f l y m e n t i o n t h e method o f p h y s i c a l
e v i d e n c e i n w h i c h f o r example, a v i n y l t h r e a d
i s used as an i n d i c a t o r o f use i n t e n s i t y .
If
p l a c e d near an a r e a w h i c h draws r e l a t i v e l y
l a r g e crowds, i t o f c o u r s e wears f a s t e r t h a n
i f p l a c e d somewhere e l s e . Mechanical and
e l e c t r o n i c d e v i c e s a l s o s e r v e as u s e i n t e n s i t y
indicators.
Here we ~ . a y1 i s t c a r d e t e c t o r s
which record the nurber o f v e h i c l e s e n t e r i n g
and l e a v i n g an a r e a , a d c o u n t s based o n
a e r i a l p h o t o g r a p h s . F i n a l l y , we s h o u l d ment i o n t h e method o f d i r e c t c b s e r v a t i o n i n w h i c h
an o b s e r v e r r e c o r d s t h e b e h a v i o r o f r e c r e a tionists.
The o t h e r methods f o r o b t a i n i n g i n f o r i r a t i o n o n c o n s u m ~ t i o n o a t t e r n s and o v e r a l l de-nand f o r o u t d o o r r e c - e a t i c n a r e a l l based o n
v a r i o u s forms o f r a r k e t s u r v e y s . T h e r e a r e
s e v e r a l means f c - o b t a i n i n g t h e i n f o r m a t i o n
t h r o u g h such a s u r v e y :
self-adrr,inistered
q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , t e l eohone i n t e r v i e w s , and p e r sonal i n t e r v i e w s . The l a t t e r i s t h e most
w i d e l y used; i t a s s u r e s t h e h i g h e s t r a t e o f
response, and a1 lows a more i n - d e p t h a n a l y s i s .
I s h a l l r e s t r i c t my d i s c u s s i o n t o t h i s t y p e o f
s u r v e y and c o n c e n t r a t e o n t h e two p o s s i b l e
t a c t i c a l approaches t o t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e
interview--home v e r s u s i n - s i t e i n t e r v i e w .
The f o r m e r i s conducted a t t h e i n t e r v i e w e e b s
abode, w h i l e t h e l a t t e r i s conducted a t t h e
recreation s i t e .
The Home I n t e r v i e w
The i n t e r v i e w a t home a l l o w s f o r a t h o r ough i n t e r v i e w .
S i n c e i t i s u s u a l l y based on
a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample drawn f r o m t h e e n t i r e
population o f a given geographical area ( c i t y ,
region o r c o u n t r y ) , i t n a t u r a l l y covers v i s i t o r s as w e l l as i n d i v i d u a l s who do n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n any r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y , o r seldom
do.
I t t h e r e f o r e enables t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r t o
analyse f a c t o r s which a f f e c t t h e l e v e l o f part i c i p a t i o n i n any p o p u l a t i o n g r o u p .
I t s main
d i s a d v a n t a g e i s t h e need t o base responses o n
r e c a l l r a t h e r t h a n immediate e x p e r i e n c e .
Home
i n t e r v i e w s a r e much more e x p e n s i v e t h a n s i t e
i n t e r v i e w s f o r two reasons:
(a) s i n c e t h e popu l a t i o n on w h i c h t h e home i n t e r v i e w i s based i s
t h e o r i g i n p o p u l a t i o n f o r an e n t i r e system o f
r e c r e a t i o n s i t e s , i t i s g e n e r a l l y l a r g e r than
t h e p o p u l a t i o n o f park v i s i t o r s from which the
o n - s i t e sample i s drawn.
Hence, home s u r v e y
samples s h o u l d u s u a l l y be l a r g e r f o r t h e p u r pose o f o b t a i n i n g e s t i m a t e s w i t h a g i v e n conf i d e n c e i n t e r v a l (assuming t h e d e g r e e o f v a r i a t i o n i n b o t h populations i s more-or-less
e q u a l ) ; (b) t h e amount o f i n t e r v i e w e r ' s t i m e
per interviewee, i n c l u d i n g the time required
t o reach t h e l a t t e r ' s residence, i s l a r g e r .
I n the s i t e interview, v i s i t o r s a r e concentrat e d a t t h e s i t e and c a n be more e a s i l y reached.
The S i t e I n t e r v i e w
The main advantage o f t h e s i t e i n t e r v i e w
i s t h e immediacy o f r e c a l l .
I t u s u a l l y ena b l e s a more comprehensive c o v e r a g e o f t h e v a r i o u s a c t i v i t i e s i n w h i c h r e c r e a t i o n i s t s engage.
I t s p r i n c i p a l disadvantages a r e t h e r e l a t i v e l y
short time a v a i l a b l e f o r conducting the i n t e r view, and t h e o f t e n encountered d i f f i c u l t y i n
e l i c i t i n g the cooperation o f the r e c r e a t i o n i s t .
O b v i o u s l y , such a s u r v e y r e l a t e s o n l y t o t h a t
group i n t h e t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n w h i c h a c t u a l l y
v i s i t s the s i t e .
Hence, t h e two s u r v e y s complement one a n o t h e r t o a g r e a t e x t e n t - - i f one
has t h e means t o c o n d u c t b o t h . T h i s i s r a r e l y
t h e case, n o r i s i t r e a l l y necessary as I now
w i s h t o demonstrate. Although t h e aim o f the
s t u d y d e s c r i b e d below was n o t t o compare t h e
two methods, I w i s h t o draw o n o u r e x p e r i e n c e
i n t h i s r e g a r d , and a r r i v e a t c e r t a i n c o n c l u s i o n s w h i c h m i g h t be o f some h e l p i n f u t u r e
investigations i n t h i s f i e l d .
THE MT. CARMEL CASE STUDY
I n 1972 t h e T e c h n i o n ' s C e n t e r f o r Urban
and R e g i o n a l S t u d i e s c o n d u c t e d two e x t e n s i v e
s u r v e y s aimed a t f o r e c a s t i n g t h e demand f o r
o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s a t M t . Carmel
N a t i o n a l P a r k ( ~ n i sand o t h e r s 1974). M t .
Carmel N a t i o n a l P a r k i s t h e l a r g e s t n a t i o n a l
p a r k i n I s r a e l , l o c a t e d i n t h e c e n t r a l and
s o u t h e r n s e c t i o n s o f M t . Carmel, a t t h e n o r t h e r n p a r t o f I s r a e l , e x t e n d i n g o v e r some 20,000
a c r e s . The s t u d y was a l s o aimed a t d e t e r mining the r e c r e a t i o n a l capacity o f the park,
and t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f a p l a n n i n g p o l i c y f o r
t h e f u t u r e development o f t h e a r e a .
t h e s t u d y , 1938 households were i n t e r v i e w e d ,
r e p r e s e n t i n g a 0.5 p e r c e n t sample o f t h e u r b a n
population i n Israel.
I n each household, one
o f t h e a d u l t s 20 y e a r s o r o l d e r was randomly
selected f o r the interview.
I n most cases,
t h i s was t h e head o f t h e f a m i l y o r h i s spouse.
The i n t e r v i e w was conducted i n t h e i n t e r v i e w e e ' s home.
The o n - s i t e i n t e r v i e w was c o n d u c t e d o n
three representative dates: a m i l d w i n t e r
weekend, a s p r i n g weekend, and a non-re1 i g i o u s
h o l i d a y (Independence Day).
Each d a t e was
c o n s i d e r e d a s t r a t u m , and t h e sampl i n g r a t e i n
each s t r a t u m was 2 p e r c e n t .
A l t o g e t h e r , 845
r e c r e a t i o n i s t s were i n t e r v i e w e d , each i n t e r viewee r e p r e s e n t i n g a r e c r e a t i o n u n i t , i . e . ,
v i s i t o r s who a r r i v e d t o t h e s i t e as a g r o u p
(e.g., a f a m i l y ) . The i n t e r v i e w e e was s e l e c t ed f r o m among t h e a d u l t members o f t h e group.
The i n t e r v i e w e r s were s t a t i o n e d i n t h e p a r k i n g
l o t s o f t h e major a t t r a c t i o n s i t e s i n the
park.
I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e survey, throughout
t h e day a c o u n t was made o f a l l v e h i c l e s
e n t e r i n g t h e p a r k a t i t s f o u r access p o i n t s i n
30-minute i n t e r v a l s .
The two q u e s t i o n n a i r e s c o n t a i n e d a s f a r
as p o s s i b l e , d e n t i c a l q u e s t i o n s .
However, t h e
home i n t e r v i e w i n c l u d e d q u e s t i o n s aimed a t t h e
s u b - p o p u l a t i o n w h i c h had n o t v i s i t e d t h e p a r k
d u r i n g t h e 12 months p r i o r t o t h e s u r v e y , and
i n c l u d e d more d e t a i l e d q u e s t i o n s d e a l i n g w i t h
t h e demographic and soc io-economic background
o f t h e i n t e r v i e w e e and t h e household. The
s i t e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , on t h e o t h e r hand, was
more d e t a i l e d i n r e s p e c t t o quest i o n s d e a l i n g
w i t h recreational patterns w i t h i n the park
boundaries.
S i n c e t h e p a r k o f f e r s no camping
f a c i l i t i e s a t t h e moment, a l l v i s i t s s t a r t e d
and ended w i t h i n a p e r i o d o f a b o u t 12 hours.
RESULTS
The two s u r v e y s were compared o n t h e b a s i s
o f t h e e s t i m a t e s y i e l d e d by each f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g key v a r i a b l e s :
(a) t o t a l v i s i t o r - d a y s ,
(b) f r e q u e n c y o f v i s i t s , ( c ) range o f r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s , and ( d ) measures o f r e c r e a t i o n benefits.
V i s i tor-Days
Except i n a n e x t e n s i v e s t u d y b y Coppock
(1971), we had n o t come a c r o s s a s t u d y w h i c h
a t t e m p t e d t o compare t h e two i n t e r v i e w methodo l o g i e s on a b a s i s o f a c t u a l l a r g e - s c a l e invest i g a t ions.
Even i n t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d s t u d y ,
t h e a n a l y s i s was m o s t l y d e s c r i p t i v e and t h e
r o l e o f s t a t i s t i c a l analysis rather limited.
Both i n t e r v i e w s e n a b l e d us t o d e r i v e d i r e c t estimates o f t o t a l v i s i t o r - d a y s (or,
a l t e r n a t i v e l y , v i s i t r a t e s ) b r o k e n down b y
o r i g i n , socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , season
o f t h e year i n which t r i p s a r e concentrated,
and so on.
I n t h e home i n t e r v i e w , however,
t h e s e e s t i m a t e s a r e c a l c u l a t e d on t h e b a s i s o f
t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n t h e sample *,
The home i n t e r v i e w was c o n d u c t e d i n 1972
and concerned r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e
p o p u l a t i o n d u r i n g t h e p r e c e d i n g 12 months.
In
Observant Jews do n o t t r a v e l on t h e Sabbath
and r e l i g i o u s h o l i d a y s and t h u s a r e n o t r e p r e sented i n s u r v e y s conducted on such d a t e s .
and--apart f r o m s t a t i s t i c a l e r r o r - - t h e y cons t i t u t e r e l i a b l e estimates o f the relevant variable.
U s i n g t h e sample i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e
number o f v i s i t s p e r r e c r e a t i o n u n i t and t h e
s i z e o f each u n i t ( u s u a l l y a household), I
e s t i m a t e d t h e t o t a l number o f v i s i t o r - d a y s
between 800,000 and 1,070,000 d u r i n g t h e
1971-2 season.
T a b l e I - - E f f e c t o f socio-economic f a c t o r s on
t h e frequency o f v i s i t s , M t . Carmel
N a t i o n a l Park, I s r a e l
Home
Factors
Origin
(place o f residence)
The s i t e - s u r v e y r e l a t e d e s t i m a t e s were
based on c o u n t s o f v e h i c l e s e n t e r i n g t h e s i t e ,
and t h e average number o f occupants p e r c a r .
I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e counts on r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
d a t e s , i t was necessary t o a l l o c a t e t h e e n t i r e
r e c r e a t i o n p e r i o d t o each o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s
r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e s e d a t e s .
T h i s was done o n
t h e b a s i s o f t h e weather c o n d i t i o n s p r e v a i l i n g
d u r i n g t h e season, as w e l l as f a c t o r s such as
school v a c a t i o n s and r e l i g i o u s h o l i d a y s . C a l c u l a t i o n s y i e l d e d an e s t i m a t e o f 836,000
visitor-days, which f a l l s w i t h i n the i n t e r v a l
o f t h e home-survey e s t i m a t e , a l b e i t v e r y c l o s e
t o t h e l o w e r l e v e l . The s i t e - s u r v e y e s t i m a t e
i n v o l v e s a number o f s u p p o r t i n g assumptions
w h i c h a r e n o t r e q u i r e d i n t h e case o f t h e home
survey.
I n s p i t e o f t h i s , however, t h e s i t e
s u r v e y y i e l d e d an independent e s t i m a t e w h i c h
would s e r v e s a t i s f a c t o r i l y i n most a p p l i c a t i o n s .
Frequency o f V i s i t s
The two s u r v e y s showed t h e e f f e c t o f v a r i o u s socio-economic f a c t o r s o n t h e number o f
v i s i t s p e r r e c r e a t i o n u n i t p e r y e a r ( t a b l e 1).
The s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s f o r t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e , as
w e l l as t h e i n t e n s i t y , o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h e v a r i a b l e s were
and Cramer's V ,
r e s p e c t i v e l y . The l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r
t h e x 2 t e s t was a = 0.05, and t h e c r i t i c a l
Since V
v a l u e f o r Cramer's V was s e t a t 0.125.
l i e s between 0 and 1, a l o w e r v a l u e o f V i n d i c a t e s a weak r e l a t i o n s h i p , and a v a l u e c l o s e r
t o 1 a s t r o n g one l la lock 1972).
x2
The r e s u l t s o f t h e two s u r v e y s a r e q u i t e
s i m i l a r qua1 i t a t i v e l y . The o n l y d i s c r e p a n c y
e x i s t s w i t h r e s p e c t t o c a r ownership, b u t t h i s
i s e x p l a i n e d by t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p o p u l a t i o n
o f t h e M t . Carmel Park v i s i t o r s i s much more
homogeneous w i t h r e s p e c t t o c a r ownership t h a n
t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g p o p u l a t i o n i n t h e home
interview.
A regression a n a l y s i s o f t h e frequency o f
v i s i t s d a t a y i e l d e d s i m i l a r r e s u l t s . The most
s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g t h i s v a r i a b l e was
t r a v e l time.
S i n c e t h e mathematical forms
u n d e r l y i n g t h e s e r e g r e s s i o n s were d i f f e r e n t - - a
l i n e a r form i n t h e case o f t h e home survey and
a n e x p o n e n t i a l one i n t h e case o f t h e s i t e
survey--the c o e f f i c i e n t s o f t h e t r a v e l time
f a c t o r a r e n o t d i r e c t l y comparable.
However,
t h e e l a s t i c i t y (denoted by E) o f t h e dependent
Country o f b i r t h
++
++
0
0
0
Age o f youngest c h i 1 d
Age o f i n t e r v i e w e e
0
0
Car ownership
0
+
Occupation o f head
o f household
0
0
0 = t h e r e does n o t e x i s t a s i g n i f i c a n t
r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e . a r & b l e s ,
i . e . , a > 0.05.
+
= a < 0.05 and V < 0.125.
++
= a < 0.05 and V > 0.125.
v a r i a b l e ( f r e q u e n c y o f v i s i t s ) and t h e independent v a r i a b l e ( t r a v e l t i m e ) i s a c o n v e n i e n t
s t a n d a r d i z e d e x p r e s s i o n f o r comparing t h e two
I f t h e dependent v a r i a b l e i s denoted
models.
Y, and t h e independent v a r i a b l e X , e x p o n e n t i a l
model becomes
and l i n e a r model becomes
when Y i s e v a l u a t e d a t t h e mean (7 = 2.0) o f
t h e sample. The r e s u l t s a r e s t r i k i n g l y s i m i l a r , a g a i n ~ r e c a l l i n gt h e independence o f t h e
two d a t a b a s e s ~ s u b s t a n t i a t i n go u r c o n f i d e n c e
i n the s i t e data.
Range o f R e c r e a t i o n a l A c t i v i t i e s
A h i g h degree o f correspondence was found
between t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e two s u r v e y s w i t h
respect t o t h e p o p u l a r i t y o f various recreat i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s ( t a b l e 2).
Measures o f R e c r e a t i o n B e n e f i t s
V a r i o u s methods f o r e s t i m a t i n g r e c r e a t i o n
T a b l e ? - - P e r c e n t a g e o f respondents who i n d ic a t e d a s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t y was t h e
main one i n w h i c h t h e y engaged d u r i n g
t h e i r v i s i t t o M t . Carmel N a t i o n a l
Park, I s r a e l .
T a b l e 3--Cumulative percentages o f respondents
who i n d i c a t e d w i 1 1 ingness-to-pay f o r
r e c r e a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s , by measure o f
w i l l i n g n e s s , M t . Carmel N a t i o n a l Park,
Israel.
I n monetary
va l uesl
Activity
Site
survey
-
Picnic
Home
survey
c u m u l a t i v e percentages
-
Walking f o r pleasure
D r i v i n g f o r p l easure
Hi k i n g
Sports,
games
P h o t o g r a p h i n g , pa i n t
Other
I n terms o f a d d i t i o n a l
d r i v i n g time (minutes)
60
b e n e f i t s have been proposed and a p p l i e d (see,
f o r example, B u r t o n and F u l c h e r 1968).
Briefl y , t h e r e a r e e s s e n t i a l l y two methods f o r est i m a t i n g r e c r e a t i o n b e n e f i t s . One i s t h e
H o t e l l i n g - C l a w s o n approach i n w h i c h we d e r i v e
a demand s c h e d u l e f o r t h e s i t e , based on v i s i t
rates from several o r i g i n s .
From t h i s schedu l e we c a l c u l a t e t h e consumers' s u r p l u s , w h i c h
i s a monetary measure o f r e c r e a t i o n a l b e n e f i t s .
A l t e r n a t i v e l y , we approach r e c r e a t i o n i s t s d i r e c t l y , and e l i c i t f r o m them t h e i r own v a l u a t i o n o f b e n e f i t s i n terms o f t h e i r w i l l i n g ness t o pay f o r t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s
i n v o l v e d . T h e o r e t i c a l l y , b o t h methods s h o u l d
y i e l d i d e n t i c a l values.
A l s o , b o t h can be
used i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h e i t h e r s u r v e y . The
r e s u l t s o f t h e wi1 1 i n g n e s s - t o - p a y approach i s
f i r s t described.
I n each s u r v e y we q u e r i e d t h e i n t e r v i e w ees on t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s t o pay f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s i n terms o f an e n t r a n c e f e e
(based o n d i f f e r e n t i a l a d m i s s i o n f e e s f o r
a d u l t s and c h i l d r e n ) , a n d - - m a i n l y f o r t h e p u r pose o f a c o n s i s t e n c y t e s t - - i n terms o f t h e i r
w i l l i n g n e s s t o t r a v e l an a d d i t i o n a l distance
t o r e a c h t h e p a r k (because t h e a u t h o r i t i e s
have d e c i d e d t o c l o s e an e n t r a n c e ) .
The r e sponses i n b o t h s u r v e y s ~ i n c l u d i n g t h e t i m e
and money q u e s t i o n s i n each survey--were q u i t e
close, i n s p i t e o f t h e emotional load inherent
i n such q u e s t i o n s .
( p r e s e n t 1 y , no e n t r a n c e
f e e s a r e charged.)
The r e s u l t s a r e r e p o r t e d
(entrance fees,
i n IL.)
i n terms o f c u m u l a t i v e percentages f o r t h e obv i o u s reason t h a t a person who i s w i l l i n g t o
pay a c e r t a i n f e e w i l l c e r t a i n l y be w i l l i n g t o
pay a lower f e e f o r t h e same s e r v i c e ( t a b l e 3 ) .
Needless t o say t h a t a g g r e g a t e b e n e f i t measures based on t h e s e raw d a t a ( o f c o u r s e ,
a f t e r rather elaborate analysis) also f e l l
w i t h i n t h e same o r d e r o f magnitude.
O f c o u r s e , t h e s i t e s u r v e y would n o t
y i e l d any d a t a on t h e w i l l i n g n e s s t o pay o f
t h o s e who had n o t v i s i t e d t h e p a r k .
If these
p e o p l e a r e w i l l i n g i n p r i n c i p l e t o pay somet h i n g as an " o p t i o n v a l u e , " t h e t o t a l b e n e f i t
values f o r t h e *would
change a c c o r d i n g l y .
CONCLUSIONS
The r e s u l t s suggest t h a t a d e c i s i o n i n
f a v o r o f a s i t e i n t e r v i e w can o f t e n be an e f f i c i e n t s o l u t i o n ( i n terms o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n
o b t a i n e d p e r do1 l a r e x p e n d i t u r e s ) and n o t j u s t
a r e s u l t o f l i m i t e d budget and a " b e t t e r t h a n
nothing" a l t e r n a t i v e .
Much i n f o r m a t i o n i s o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h home
surveys based on r e p r e s e n t a t i v e samples o f t h e
e n t i r e p o p u l a t i o n i n comparison w i t h t h e d a t a
obtained through o n - s i t e surveys o f v i s i t o r s
only.
We t h i n k , though, t h a t a comprehensive
home s u r v e y on t h e consumption o f o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n s e r v i c e s s h o u l d be conducted p e r i o d i c a l l y , say e v e r y 10 y e a r s , p r e f e r a b l y a t t a c h e d
t o some n a t i o n a l s u r v e y o f households.
Such a
t o o l , however, i s n o t recommended f o r i n d i v i d u a l s i t e s , e x i s t i n g o r p l a n n e d , where the-much
cheaper s i t e i n t e r v i e w would y i e l d d a t a o f
s u f f i c i e n t q u a l i t y and i n f o r m a t i o n a l c o n t e n t .
These d a t a , combined w i t h t h a t o f t h e household survey, should s u f f i c e f o r forecasts o f
demand, u s e p a t t e r n s , b e n e f i t e s t i m a t e s , and
so on.
I t i s , o f course, imperative t h a t t h e
q u e s t i o n n a i r e s o f b o t h s u r v e y s be c o n s i s t e n t ,
whether w i t h r e s p e c t t o c o n t e n t o r background
questions.
M.Sc.,
Acknowledgment:
I t h a n k Mrs. M. Baron,
f o r h e r h e l p i n p r e p a r i n g t h i s paper.
LITERATURE C ITED
B l a l o c k , Hubert M.
1972. S o c i a l S t a t i s t i c s .
583 p.
H i l l , Kogakusha, Tokyo.
McGraw-
B u r t o n , T. L., and M. N. F u l c h e r
1968. Measurement o f r e c r e a t i o n a l b e n e f i t s
--a s u r v e y . J . E c o n . S t u d i e s 3:35-48.
.
Coppock, I T.
1971.
Out i n t h e c o u n t r y .
P l a n n i n g 5:253-257.
Town a n d C o u n t r y
E n i s , R . , M. S h e c h t e r , and M. Baron
1974. The demand f o r o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n a t
M t . Carmel N a t i o n a l Park.
266 p.
Centet
f o r Urban and Regional S t u d i e s , T e c h n i o n
- - I s r a e l I n s t i t u t e o f Technology, H a i f a ,
Israel.
(In ~ebrew).
Relative Value of Selected Outdoor Recreation Activity Areas
J o s e p h E. Hoffman, J r
A b s t r a c t ~ Ap r o b l e m f o r t h e p u b l i c s e c t o r i s d e c i d i n g how
t h e i r l i m i t e d budgets s h o u l d be spent t o p r o v i d e f o r w h i c h o u t d o o r
S i n c e t h e m a r k e t system i s n o t a v a i l a b l e t o a l r e c r e a t i o n areas.
l o c a t e r e s o u r c e s e f f i c i e n t l y , some o t h e r method o f d e t e r m i n i n g
r e l a t i v e v a l u e and a l l o c a t i n g e f f i c i e n c y i s needed.
I n t h i s study
v i s i t o r s were asked how much t h e y would be w i l l i n g t o pay t o use
a c t i v i t y a r e a s , such a s campground o r swimming beach, w i t h i n W i l l o w R i v e r S t a t e Park, Wisconsin.
A random sample o f v i s i t o r s p r o v i d e d a measure o f t h e r e l a t i v e v a l u e o f each a c t i v i t y a r e a .
Gene r a l l y , t h e more developed a r e a s , such as t h e campground, were
c o n s i d e r e d t h e more v a l u a b l e a r e a s .
The v a l u e s were t h e n compared
a g a i n s t c o s t s ( v a l u e / c o s t ) and an e f f i c i e n c y i n d e x was developed.
T h i s was done f o r b o t h - a n n u a l m a i n t e n a n c e - o p e r a t i o n c o s t s and t o t a l annual c o s t s (maintenance-operat i o n c o s t s p l u s 1/20 o f d e v e l opment c o s t s a t 5 p e r c e n t i n t e r e s t ) . The r e s u l t s show t h a t t h e
most e f f i c i e n t a r e a s a r e t h e l e a s t developed ones and t h e l e a s t
e f f i c i e n t ones a r e t h e most c o s t l y t o p r o v i d e .
E i t h e r t h e agency
has o v e r e s t i m a t e d t h e v a l u e v i s i t o r s r e c e i v e f r o m t h e more expens i v e zones o r v i s i t o r s do n o t a p p r e c i a t e t h e c o s t o f p r o v i d i n g
them.
The p u b l i c s e c t o r i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p r o v i d i n g many o f t h e o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p u b l i c . The p r o b l e m
i s d e c i d i n g how 1 i m i t e d budgets s h o u l d be
spent t o p r o v i d e f o r which outdoor r e c r e a t i o n
experiences.
S i n c e t h e m a r k e t system i s n o t
a v a i l a b l e t o a l l o c a t e resources e f f i c i e n t l y ,
some o t h e r method o f d e t e r m i n i n g r e l a t i v e
v a l u e i s needed.
The purpose o f t h i s s t u d y was t o p r o v i d e
f o r more e f f e c t i v e and e f f i c i e n t p l a n n i n g and
management o f a s t a t e p a r k . The s p e c i f i c obj e c t i v e s were f i r s t , t o d e v e l o p and use a
method o f measuring t h e r e l a t i v e v a l u e o f r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y areas w i t h i n a park ( t o v i s i t o r s ) , and second, t o r e l a t e t h e s e v a l u e s w i t h
t h e c o s t s o f p r o v i d i n g t h e s e a r e a s . The r e s u l t i n g e f f i c i e n c y indexes, r e l a t i n g v a l u e t o
newest s t a t e p a r k s , h a v i n g opened f o r v i s i t o r s
i n 1971.
cost, should i n d i c a t e which a c t i v i t y areas a r e
more o r l e s s e f f i c i e n t i n p r o v i d i n g f o r pub1 i c
enjoyment.
W i l l o w R i v e r S t a t e P a r k was s e p a r a t e d i n t o n i n e a c t i v i t y a r e a s o r zones ( f i g . 1 ) . An
a c t i v i t y area i s a g e o g r a p h i c a r e a w h e r e i n
c e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s a r e more l i k e l y t o o c c u r .
The n i n e a c t i v i t y a r e a s a r e : campground (72
u n i t s ) ; swimming beach; p i c n i c a r e a and dam
near beach; p i c n i c a r e a near b o a t l a n d i n g ;
L i t t l e F a l l s Lake and boat l a n d i n g ; W i l l o w
R i v e r below L i t t l e F a l l s Lake ( r i v e r c o r r i d o r ) ;
n o r t h s i d e o f park ( p r i m i t i v e area); south
s i d e o f p a r k ( p r i m i t i v e a r e a ) ; and any o t h e r
p a r t o f t h e p a r k ( n o t shown o n map; t h e a r e a
upstream f r o m t h e l a k e was a c c e s s i b l e f r o m
p u b l i c highways and u s e r s were n o t r e q u i r e d t o
go t h r o u g h t h e e n t r a n c e s t a t i o n ) .
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
The method d e v e l o p e d t o o b t a i n v i s i t o r
v a l u e s o f a c t i v i t y a r e a s was w i l l i n g n e s s t o
pay. V i s i t o r s were asked t o i n d i c a t e how much
t h e y would be w i l l i n g t o pay t o use each a c t i v i t y a r e a . T h i s e x p r e s s i o n p r o v i d e s a measu r e o f r e l a t i v e v a l u e o f each zone.
Only a
few s t u d i e s have used t h e w i l l i n g n e s s - t o - p a y
approach and t h e s e s t u d i e s were e s s e n t i a l l y
f o r an e n t i r e p a r k and n o t a r e a s w i t h i n a p a r k
( D a v i s 1963, G l a s c o c k and Born 1971, Manning
1973, R a n d a l l and o t h e r s 1974, Romm 1969,
S inden 1974)
.
A l l v i s i t o r s e n t e r i n g the s t a t e park on
12 random1 y s e l e c t e d days were g i v e n q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and asked t o r e t u r n t h e completed f o r m
t o t h e e n t r a n c e s t a t i o n when t h e y l e f t .
The
r a t e o f r e t u r n on completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e s was
51 .5 p e r c e n t .
RESULTS
The most v a l u a b l e a r e a s
veloped zones, and t h e l e a s t
be t h e l e a s t developed. The
swimming beach were t h e most
The p a r k s t u d i e d was t h e 2520-acre W i l l o w
R i v e r S t a t e P a r k i n west c e n t r a l W i s c o n s i n ,
U.S.A.
I t i s o r i e n t e d around a r e s e r v o i r
formed b y a dam o r i g i n a l l y b u i l t f o r h y d r o I t i s one o f W i s c o n s i n ' s
e l e c t r i c purposes.
a r e t h e most dev a l u a b l e tend t o
campground and
v a l u a b l e areas.
I n 1974, t h e development c o s t s f o r t h e
p a r k were a p p r o x i m a t e l y $710,000 w h i l e t h e
m a i n t e n a n c e - o p e r a t i o n budget was $60,000.
Tot a l annual c o s t s i n c l u d e m a i n t e n a n c e - o p e r a t i o n
WISCONSIN
NORTH SIDE OF PARK
LITTLE
ZONE H
FALLS LAKE
ZONE E
-
SOUTH SIDE OF PARK
SCALE
0'
F i g u r e 1--Willow
1000'
2000'
R i v e r S t a t e P a r k i n W i s c o n s i n was s e p a r a t e d
i n t o n i n e a c t i v i t y a r e a s o r zone f o r s t u d y .
T a b l e I - - E f f i c i e n c y indexes r e l a t i n g w i l l'ingness-to-pay v a l u e s t o maintenance and o p e r a t i o n s c o s t s ,
W i l l o w R i v e r S t a t e Park, Wisconsin, summer, 1974, b y a c t i v i t y a r e a .
Sum o f
do1 l a r
va Iuesl
Activity
area
Maintenanceoperat ion
costs2
Efficiency
indexes
1
Efficiency
rank
Campground
Swimming beach
6
P i c n i c a r e a and
dam n e a r beach
9 (low)
P i c n i c area near
boat l a n d i n g
8
L i t t l e F a l l s Lake
and b o a t l a n d i n g
3
W i 1 l o w R i v e r below
L i t t l e F a l l s Lake
1 (high)
North side o f park
South s i d e o f p a r k
Any o t h e r p a r t o f
park
Based o n 353 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and d o l l a r v a l u e s v i s i t o r s s a i d t h e y were w i l l i n g t o pay.
Overhead c o s t s a l l o c a t e d back t o each a r e a based o n t h e p e r c e n t o f development c o s t s d i r e c t l y
a t t r i b u t a b l e t o each zone.
V a l u e / c o s t t i m e s 100.
c o s t s p l u s annual development c o s t s based o n a
20-year 1 i f e and 5 p e r c e n t i n t e r e s t . The
campground, swimming beach and t h e two p i c n i c
a r e a s a r e t h e most c o s t l y a r e a s t o p r o v i d e .
The r i v e r c o r r i d o r and p r i m i t i v e a r e a s a r e t h e
l e a s t c o s t l y t o provide (tables 1, 2 ) .
The two e f f i c i e n c y indexes measured v a l u e
o v e r b o t h m a i n t e n a n c e - o p e r a t i o n s c o s t s and t o t a l annual c o s t s ( t a b l e s 1 , 2 ) .
The two p i c n i c a r e a s were t h e l e a s t e f f i c i e n t f o r t h e
maintenance-operation cost indexes, w h i l e t h e
swimming beach was t h e l e a s t e f f i c i e n t f o r cot a l annual c o s t e f f i c i e n c y indexes. The most
e f f i c i e n t a r e a o n b o t h s e t s o f indexes was t h e
W i l l o w R i v e r b e l o w L i t t l e F a l l s Lake a r e a .
DISCUSS ION
The p u r p o s e o f d e v e l o p i n g e f f i c i e n c y i n dexes i s t o g u i d e d e c i s i o n m a k e r s i n t h e a l l o -
c a t i o n o f t h e resources a t t h e i r d i s p o s a l .
The indexes i n d i c a t e where r e s o u r c e s c o u l d
e i t h e r be s h i f t e d between o r w i t h h e l d f r o m a c t i v i t y areas o r both t o equalize t h e value/
cost r a t i o s .
For t h e p a r k manager t h e maint e n a n c e - o p e r a t i o n c o s t indexes w o u l d be more
u s e f u l , w h i l e t h e t o t a l annual c o s t i n d e x e s
would be more u s e f u l t o t h e p a r k p l a n n e r .
An example o f how management c o u l d use
e f f i c i e n c y indexes based o n v a l u e / m a i n t e n a n c e o p e r a t i o n c o s t s i s i l l u s t r a t e d h e r e . The most
e f f i c i e n t zone i s W i l l o w R i v e r below L i t t l e
F a l l s Lake w i t h a r a t i o o f 6.99.
I f t h i s zone
i s adopted as t h e s t a n d a r d f o r e f f i c i e n c y ,
then t h e maintenance-operation costs o f t h e
o t h e r a c t i v i t y a r e a s s h o u l d be reduced u n t i l
t h e i r e f f i c i e n c y r a t i o e q u a l s 6.99.
If t h i s
was ( o r c o u l d ) be done, t h e n t h e maintenanceo p e r a t i o n s budget r e q u i r e d would o n l y be
T a b l e 2 - - E f f i c i e n c y indexes r e l a t i n g w i l l i n g n e s s - t o - p a y v a l u e s t o annual and development c o s t s , W i l l o w
R t v e r S t a t e Park, Wisconsin, summer, 1974, by a c t i v i t y area.
Activity
area
Development
costs1
Annua 1
development
costs2
Total
a nnua l
cos t s 3
Efficiency
rank
Efficiency
I ndexes4
Campground
Swimming beach
P i c n i c a r e a and
dam near beach
P i c n i c a r e a near
boat l a n d i n g
L i t t l e F a l l s Lake
and boat l a n d i n g
W i l l o w R i v e r below
L i t t l e F a ! I s Lake
North s i d e o f park
South s i d e o f p a r k
Any o t h e r D a r t o f
park
Overhead c o s t s a l l o c a t e d back t o each zone based on t h e p e r c e n t o f developmen t c o s t s d i r e c t l y
a t t r i b u t a b l e t o each zone.
Based on 20-year l i f e span; and c a p i t a l r e c o v e r y rru I t i p l i e r = [ i ( 1
percent i n t e r e s t .
+
;)"I/[(
I
+
i
)
-
I ] , and 5
Annual development c o s t s and m a i n t e n a n c e - o p e r a t i o n s c o s t s .
Value/cost
t i m e s 100.
$29,899, a s a v i n g o f $30,101 o v e r t h e 1974
budget.
Another approach would be t o s h i f t funds
f r o m t h e more e f f i c i e n t a r e a s t o l e s s e f f i c i e n t areas.
The average maintenance-operat i o n e f f i c i e n c y i n d e x was 3.48.
A l l areas
w i t h r a t i o s h i g h e r t h a n t h i s would l o s e funds
t o t h e a r e a s w i t h e f f i c i e n c y indexes l o w e r
t h a n t h e average. T h i s approach would a l l o w
f o r i m p r o v i n g t h e lower ranked a r e a s a t t h e
expense o f t h e h i g h e r ranked a r e a s .
D e c i s i o n m a k e r s must r e a l i z e t h a t any budg e t a l l o c a t i o n change may r e s u l t i n a d i f f e r ent o p p o r t u n i t y being provided.
Some v i s i t o r s
may become d i s c o u r a g e d and e i t h e r d e r i v e lower
values o r s t o p u s i n g a c t i v i t y areas. Others
may be encouraged t o s t a r t u s i n g a r e a s o r may
d e r i v e even h i g h e r v a l u e s .
But t h i s change
may r e s u l t i n a new m i x o f v a l u e s b e i n g g i v e n ,
and t h e o r i g i n a l v a l u e measurements may no
l o n g e r be v a l i d .
CONCLUSIONS
The most e f f i c i e n t a r e a s a r e u s u a l l y t h e
l e a s t developed ones, e s p e c i a l l y when t o t a l
annual c o s t s a r e used i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e e f f i ciency ratios. This r e l a t i o n s h i p indicates
t h a t v i s i t o r s do n o t c l o s e l y r e l a t e v a l u e w i t h
cost.
E i t h e r t h e agency has o v e r e s t i m a t e d t h e
v a l u e v i s i t o r s r e c e i v e f r o m t h e more e x p e n s i v e
zones o r v i s i t o r s do n o t a p p r e c i a t e t h e c o s t
o f p r o v i d i n g them.
T h i s method, however, i s n o t w i t h o u t i t s
p o s s i b l e 1 i m i t a t i o n s . The m a j o r one i s t h e
assumptton t h a t t h e r e l a t i v e w i l l i n g n e s s - t o p a y v a l u e s expressed b y v i s i t o r s i s a v a l i d
measure.
To v e r i f y t h i s a s s u m p t i o n w o u l d r e q u i r e an e x p e r i m e n t i n w h i c h u s e r f e e s c o u l d
be e s t a b l i s h e d f o r each a c t i v i t y area.
Then
u s e c o u l d be measured a t t h e r a t e o f d i f f e r e n t
user fees.
LITERATURE C ITED
D a v i s , R. K.
1963. The v a l u e o f o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n :
an
economic s t u d y o f t h e Maine woods.
Ph.D.
t h e s i s , H a r v a r d U n i v . , Cambridge, Mass.
D a v i s , R. K.
1964. V a l u e o f b i g game h u n t i n g i n a p r i In Trans.,
vate forest.
p. 393-403.
2 9 t h N o r t h American W i l d l i f e and N a t u r a l
Resources Conf , Las Vegas, Nevada, March
9-11, 1964. James B. T r e f e t h e n , e d i t o r .
W i l d l i f e Management I n s t i t u t e , Washingt o n , D. C.
.
Glascock, M., and J. J. Born
1971. D e t e r m i n i n g t h e demand and economic
v a l u e f o r t h e water-based r e c r e a t i o n
r e s o u r c e s a t Lake MacBride S t a t e P a r k i n
t h e summer o f 1970.
161 p.
Iowa S t a t e
Water Resources Research I n s t i t u t e , U n i v .
o f Iowa, Iowa C i t y .
Manning, G. H.
1973.
Subjective evaluation o f recreation
sites.
F o r e s t Econ. Res. I n s t . I n f o .
Rep. E-X-20, 12 p.
F o r e s t r y Serv.,
Ottawa, O n t a r i o .
R a n d a l l , A., B. C . I v e s , and C . Eastman
Benefits o f abating aesthetic envi1974.
ronmental damage f r o m t h e Four C o r n e r s
Power P l a n t , F r u i t l a n d , New Mexico.
New
Mexico S t a t e U n i v . A g r i c . Exp. Stn.,
B u l l . 618, 40 p.
.
Romm, J
1969. The v a l u e o f r e s e r v o i r r e c r e a t i o n .
C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y Water Resources and
M a r i n e Sciences Center Tech. Rep. 19, 102
p.
I t h a c a , N.Y.
Sinden, J. A.
1974. A u t i l i t y approach t o t h e v a l u a t i o n
o f r e c r e a t i o n a l and a e s t h e t i c e x p e r i ences. Am. J. Aqric. Econ. 5 6 0 ) : 6 1 - 7 2 .
A Recreational Visitor Travel Simulation Model as Aid to Management Planning
Robert C. L u c a s
Mordechai shechterl
A b s t r a c t ~ As i m u l a t i o n model f o r d i s p e r s e d r e c r e a t i o n areas has
been developed t h a t p r o v i d e s a means f o r e x p e r i m e n t i n g w i t h m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f use o r a r e a c o n d i t i o n s t o d e t e r m i n e e f f e c t s on use p a t t e r n s and e n c o u n t e r s between v i s i t o r groups.
The model, t h e r e s u l t s
o f a t e s t o f i t , and p o t e n t i a l f u t u r e a p p l i c a t i o n s a r e d i s c u s s e d .
Numbers o f p e o p l e v i s i t i n g most k i n d s o f
o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n a r e a s c o n t i n u e t o grow.
T h i s g r o w t h o f t e n c r e a t e s problems f o r management, w i t h t h e n a t u r e o f t h e problems dependi n g o n t h e t y p e o f a r e a and t h e management objectives established f o r it. I n the United
S t a t e s , g r o w t h i n use o f d i s p e r s e d r e c r e a t i o n
a r e a s has been r a p i d ( L l o y d and F i s c h e r 1972)
and t h e r e s u l t i n g problems o f c o n g e s t i o n and
Dr. S h e c h t e r was a f f i l i a t e d w i t h t h e Res o u r c e s f o r t h e F u t u r e , Inc., o f Washington,
D.C.,
a t t h e t i m e w o r k d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s paper
was done.
r e s o u r c e damage have been d i f f i c u l t f o r manage r s t o s o l v e . These problems have been p a r t i c u l a r l y s e v e r e on l a n d s e s t a b l i s h e d as w i l derness.
A w i l d e r n e s s , by law, i s t o be managed t o p e r m i t n a t u r a l e c o l o g i c a l processes t o
o p e r a t e w i t h o u t a l t e r a t i o n by man and a l s o t o
provide v i s i t o r s w i t h "outstanding opportunit i e s f o r so1 i t u d e . "
Growth i n t h e number o f v i s i t s t o w i l d e r ness i n c r e a s e d about 1 5 - f o l d f r o m 1950 t o 1975,
t h r e a t e n i n g b o t h n a t u r a l ecosystems and t h e
experience o f s o l i t u d e .
Poor d i s t r i b u t i o n o f
use, b o t h i n space and t i m e , i s common and acc e n t u a t e s t h e pfoblems o f c o n g e s t i o n and eco-
system damage.
Studies o f the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f
w i l d e r n e s s use show t h a t v e r y uneven use p a t t e r n s a r e t h e g e n e r a l r u l e ; use i s h e a v i l y
c o n c e n t r a t e d o n c e r t a i n p o r t i o n s o f each a r e a ,
w h i l e l a r g e r p o r t i o n s r e c e i v e l i t t l e use.
S i m i l a r l y , a few summer weekends u s u a l l y exper i e n c e s h a r p peaks i n use.
Redistribution o f
some use seems t o o f f e r c o n s i d e r a b l e hope f o r
r e d u c i n g t h e a d v e r s e e f f e c t s o f heavy use.
Research has shown t h a t v i s i t o r s a t i s f a c t i o n i s i n f l u e n c e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y by t h e t y p e s
o f e n c o u n t e r s w i t h o t h e r v i s i t o r s and t h a t
v i s i t o r s r e p o r t s t r o n g p r e f e r e n c e s f o r low
l e v e l s o f e n c o u n t e r s ( s t a n k e y 1973). Theref o r e , managers o f w i l d e r n e s s e s r e c e i v i n g heavy
use a r e b e g i n n i n g t o t a k e a c t i o n s t o m o d i f y o r
c o n t r o l use.
I n the United States, both the
N a t i o n a l Parks and t h e N a t i o n a l F o r e s t s a r e
r a t i o n i n g u s e o f some a r e a s .
I n some cases,
t h i s i s done by l i m i t i n g t h e numbers o f v i s i t o r s p e r m i t t e d t o e n t e r each day a t v a r i o u s
access p o i n t s .
I n o t h e r a r e a s , managers s e t
n i g h t l y c a p a c i t i e s f o r a11 camping a r e a s and
r e q u i r e v i s i t o r s t o e s t a b l i s h and adhere t o
r i g i d i t i n e r a r i e s t h a t w i l l not r e s u l t i n the
c a m p s i t e c a p a c i t i e s b e i n g exceeded.
I f this
r e s t r i c t i o n i s impossible, t h e p a r t y i s not
permitted t o v i s i t t h e area a t t h a t time.
In
a f e w o t h e r a r e a s , managers have a t t e m p t e d t o
influence v i s i t o r s t o v o l u n t a r i l y s h i f t t h e i r
use t o o t h e r a r e a s o r t i m e s t h r o u g h educat i o n a1 pamphlets and p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t s .
However, a l l t h e m a n a g e r i a l a c t i o n s , except t h e establishment o f r i g i d i t i n e r a r i e s
( w h i c h have o t h e r problems d i s c u s s e d b e l o w ) ,
s u f f e r from a major flaw.
The manager's obj e c t i v e i s t o r e d u c e u s e a t overused l o c a t i o n s ,
and t o a v o i d e x c e s s i v e l e v e l s o f v a r i o u s t y p e s
o f e n c o u n t e r s (on t r a i l s , a t c a m p s i t e s , e t c . ) .
However, t h e r e has been no way t o r e l a t e changes i n t o t a l u s e o r r e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f use t o t h e
number o f e n c o u n t e r s p e r p a r t y o r t o t h e amount
o f use o f p a r t i c u l a r places w i t h i n a w i l d e r ness. The c o m p l e x i t y o f t r a v e l r o u t e s , w h i c h
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y o v e r l a p and i n t e r t w i n e , and
the v a r i a b i l i t y i n travel decisions are s o
g r e a t t h a t n e i t h e r i n t u i t i o n nor a n a l y t i c
solutions are useful predictors o f the variab l e s o f i n t e r e s t f o r a g i v e n amount o f use.
The r i g i d i t i n e r a r i e s do p r o v i d e a more
d e t e r m i n a t e r e s u l t , a t l e a s t f o r use o f key
l o c a t i o n s and e n c o u n t e r s between camping p a r t i e s , b u t n o t f o r e n c o u n t e r s between p a r t i e s
w h i l e t r a v e l i n g on t h e t r a i l s .
For many r e a sons (weather, i l l n e s s , o v e r - a m b i t i o u s p l a n n i n g , e t c . ) , n o t a11 p a r t i e s a d h e r e t o t h e i r
i t i n e r a r y , so r e s u l t s a r e n o t a s d e t e r m i n a t e
as t h e y seem. More i m p o r t a n t , such c l o s e cont r o l o f movements seems t o d e t r a c t from t h e
v i s i t o r s ' experiences o f adventure, explorat i o n , and s p o n t a n e i t y , and t o t r a n s p l a n t t h e
s t r u c t u r e o f modern u r b a n l i f e t o t h e w i l d e r ness s e t t i n g i n t e n d e d t o o f f e r r e l e a s e f r o m
c i v i l i z a t i o n ' s pressures.
I n general, research
has i n d i c a t e d t h a t a d e s i r e t o escape c i v i l i z a t i o n i s a major m o t i v a t i o n f o r wilderness
visits.
Furthermore, most v i s i t o r s f e e l assigning i t i n e r a r i e s i s a highly undesirable
approach t o use c o n t r o l (Stankey 1973).
I f use p r e s s u r e s and e n c o u n t e r s r e s u l t i n g
f r o m any g i v e n use l e v e l and p a t t e r n cannot be
p r e d i c t e d , e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n t h r o u g h t r i a l -ande r r o r i s an a p p a r e n t a l t e r n a t i v e .
However,
trial-and-error
i s n o t an e f f e c t i v e approach.
I t i s v e r y t i m e consuming; managers would have
t o t r y a p o l i c y f o r a y e a r o r more t o see how
i t worked.
R e s u l t s f o r any one y e a r c o u l d be
h e a v i l y i n f l u e n c e d by u n c o n t r o l l e d o u t s i d e
f a c t o r s , such as weather.
D e t a i l e d informat i o n on use p a t t e r n s and e n c o u n t e r s would be
a v a i l a b l e o n l y i f special studies monitored
t h e area.
I t would n o t always be p o s s i b l e t o
c r e a t e t h e use p a t t e r n t h e managers d e s i r e d t o
test.
For example, i f managers wanted t o know
t h e e f f e c t o f a d o u b l i n g i n use, t h e r e probab l y would be no p r a c t i c a l way t o cause t h i s
much use i n t h e s h o r t r u n . A t l e a s t t h r e e
s o r t s o f high costs could a l s o r e s u l t from a
t r i a l - a n d - e r r o r approach t o use management.
F i r s t , s e r i o u s l o n g l a s t i n g o r even i r r e v e r s i b l e damage t o r e s o u r c e s m i g h t r e s u l t f r o m
t e s t s o f heavy use.
Second, many v i s i t o r bene f i t s c o u l d be s a c r i f i c e d , e i t h e r t h r o u g h
t e s t i n q e x c e s s i v e use l e v e l s t h a t s e r i o u s l y
reduced t h e q u a l i t y o f v i s i t o r s ' e x p e r i e n c e s
o r t h r o u g h t e s t i n g l o w l e v e l s o f use t h a t r e s u l t e d i n many oeople b e i n g d e n i e d e n t r a n c e .
F i n a l l y , f r e q u e n t , m a j o r changes i n use p o l i c i e s c o u l d l e a d t o c o n t r o v e r s y and s e v e r e pub1 i c r e l a t i o n s problems.
Systems t h a t a r e t o o complex f o r a n a l y t i c
s o l u t i o n s and n o t s u i t e d t o r e a l - w o r l d e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n a r e o f t e n approached by s i m u l a t i o n
model i n g ( ~ h e c h t e r 1971). T h e r e f o r e , a w i lderness t r a v e l s i m u l a t i o n model was developed
t o p r o v i d e a b e t t e r way t o f o r m u l a t e and e v a l u a t e use management p o l i c i e s . The s i m u l a t i o n
model p r o v i d e s a p r a c t i c a l way t o t e s t use
patterns quickly.
V a r i a b i l i t y i n v i s i t o r beh a v i o r i s i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t h e model, b u t , i n
j u s t a few m i n u t e s , use can be s i m u l a t e d f o r
The
an e n t i r e season o r a number o f seasons.
model r e c o r d s and d i s p l a y s i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r mats a1 1 t h e d e s i r e d i n f o r m a t i o n on use and
encounters.
Because t h e e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n t a k e s
p l a c e i n t h e computer i n s t e a d o f t h e r e a l
w o r l d , we a v o i d t h e h i g h s o c i a l c o s t s .
Even
t h e most extreme p a t t e r n s can be t e s t e d w i t h o u t damage t o p r e c i o u s r e s o u r c e s .
T r a v e l s i m u l a t i o n models a r e common, b u t
t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r t h e w i l d e r n e s s model were
In particular, the interest
quite different.
i n e n c o u n t e r s was unique.
Therefore, t h e
U n i t e d S t a t e s Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e , Fore s t Service, entered i n t o a cooperative res e a r c h agreement w i t h Resources f o r t h e F u t u r e
Inc., complementing o n g o i n g r e s e a r c h a t RFF,
t o d e v e l o p a g e n e r a l use s i m u l a t i o n model f o r
wilderness-type areas.
Resources f o r t h e Fut u r e involved s p e c i a l i s t s from International
Business Machines, I n c . i n t h e p r o j e c t . 2 The
model has been developed, m o d i f i e d and r e f i n e d , and has been f i e l d t e s t e d .
T h i s paper d e s c r i b e s t h e model and r e s u l t s o f t h e f i e l d t e s t s , and p r e s e n t s c o n c l u sions about f u t u r e a p p l i c a t i o n s .
SIMULATION MODEL
A l l s i m u l a t i o n models a r e s i m p l i f i e d abs t r a c t tons o f complex, r e a l - w o r l d processes.
However, t h e w i l d e r n e s s t r a v e l s i m u l a t o r q u i t e
r e a l i s t i c a l l y embodies t h e main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
o f w i l d e r n e s s v i s i t o r movements and i n t e r a c t ions.
The computer program f o r t h e model genera t e s d a t a on v i s i t i n g p a r t i e s who a r r i v e a t t h e
a r e a a t v a r i o u s s i m u l a t e d d a t e s and c l o c k
t i m e s , e n t e r a t p a r t i c u l a r access p o i n t s , sel e c t r o u t e s o f t r a v e l , and move a l o n g t h e s e
routes.
The s i m u l a t e d p a r t i e s may o v e r t a k e and
pass s l o w e r p a r t i e s moving i n t h e same d i r e c t i o n ( o v e r t a k i n g e n c o u n t e r s ) , pass p a r t i e s movi n g i n t h e o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n (meeting encount e r s ) , o r pass by p a r t i e s camped i n a r e a s v i s i b l e f r o m t r a i l s o r o t h e r t r a v e l r o u t e s , such as
r i v e r s (visual encounters).
Parties that stay
o v e r n i g h t s e l e c t c a m p s i t e s w h i c h t h e y may o r
may n o t s h a r e w i t h o t h e r camping p a r t i e s (camp
e n c o u n t e r s a r e r e c o r d e d when t h e y o c c u r ) .
On
an e n s u i n g day, camping p a r t i e s l e a v e t h e
c a m p s i t e and c o n t i n u e on t h e i r chosen r o u t e s ,
and e v e n t u a l l y l e a v e t h e a r e a .
The model c o n s i s t s o f f o u r i m p o r t a n t components :
1
Route n e t w o r k - - T h i s c o n s i s t s o f e n t r y
p o i n t s , segments o f t r a i l s o r o t h e r t r a v e l
r o u t e s , and camping a r e a s .
2.
User c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - - S i m u l a t e d p a r t i e s have been d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by s i z e and
method o f t r a v e l ( h i k i n g o r horseback i n one
Dr. K e r r y S m i t h o f Resources f o r t h e F u t u r e
and D a v i d Webster and Norman Heck o f IBM cons t r u c t e d and programed t h e o r i g i n a l v e r s i o n o f
t h e model.
Dr. John V . K r u t i l l a o f Resources
f o r t h e F u t u r e i n i t i a t e d t h e p r o j e c t and he,
Smith, Dr. C h a r l e s C i c c h e t t i , and D r . Anthony
F i s h e r a11 c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e i n i t i a l conceptualization.
See F i s h e r and K r u t i l l a 1972;
S d t h and o t h e r s 1974; S m i t h and K r u t i l l a 1974.
a p p l i c a t i o n and by b o a t t y p e i n a n o t h e r ) .
r i v a l t i m i n g p a t t e r n s , t r a v e l speed, e t c . ,
v a r y depending on t h e t y p e o f p a r t y .
Arcan
3. U s e r - r o u t e i n t e r a c t i o n s - - R o u t e s e l e c t i o n can v a r y between p a r t y t y p e s , as can
t r a v e l t i m e i n each d i r e c t i o n o v e r d i f f e r e n t
t r a i l segments.
4. User-user i n t e r a c t i o n s - - T h e s e a r e t h e
t h r e e t y p e s o f e n c o u n t e r s d e s c r i b e d above.
To make t h e model o p e r a t i o n a l , d a t a a r e
needed on t h e a r e a and i t s use. The t r a v e l
n e t w o r k must be known, and something a b o u t how
d i f f e r e n t types o f v i s i t o r s behave w i t h i n i t - t h e i r patterns o f a r r i v a l , various routes f o l lowed and r e l a t i v e p o p u l a r i t y o f each, t r a v e l
speeds, and so on. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s supp l i e d t o t h e model i n p r o b a b i l i s t i c terms.
The s i m u l a t o r p r o v i d e s d e t a i l e d o u t p u t
i n f o r m a t i o n f o r each i n d i v i d u a l s i m u l a t i o n o f
a p a r t i c u l a r use s i t u a t i o n o r " s c e n a r i o . "
Since p a r t o f the i n p u t data i s o f a probabil i s t i c n a t u r e , t h e model has t h e f a c i l i t y o f
p r o d u c i n g summaries o f a s e r i e s o f r e p l i c a t i o n s o f any such " s c e n a r i o , " p r o v i d i n g a v e r age v a l u e s o f v a r i o u s performance measures,
such as t h e amount, c h a r a c t e r , d i s t r i b u t i o n ,
and t i m i n g o f use.
For example, t h e number o f
p a r t i e s o f each t y p e u s i n g each t r a i l segment
i s p r o v i d e d ( i f d e s i r e d , even on a d a i l y b a s i s
i n one o f t h e t h r e e v e r s i o n s o f t h e model).
A d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e on t h e
number o f e n c o u n t e r s by t y p e o f e n c o u n t e r , by
t y p e o f p a r t y ( c l a s s i f i e d by.rnode o f t r a v e l o r
by l e n g t h o f s t a y ) , and by i n d i v i d u a l t r a i l
segments and campsites ( a g a i n , i n one v e r s i o n ,
on a day-to-day bas i s ) .
The model i s coded i n t h e I B M - o r i g i n a t e d
language GPSS (General Purpose S i m u l a t i o n System), v e r s i o n V.
The model t o d a t e had been
s u c c e s s f u l l y o p e r a t e d on IBM's 360 and 370 ser i e s o f computers as w e l l as C o n t r o l Data CorA v e r s i o n adapted
p o r a t i o n ' s 6600 computer.
t o t h e Univac 1108 computer s h o u l d be comp l e t e d soon.
A U s e r ' s Manual ( S h e c h t e r 1975)
i s available.?
RESULTS OF FIELD TESTS
The model has been f i e l d t e s t e d i n two
areas:
t h e D e s o l a t i o n W i l d e r n e s s on t h e E l d o rado N a t i o n a l F o r e s t i n C a l i f o r n i a , and DinoS i n g l e c o p i e s a r e a v a i l a b l e f r o m R o b e r t C.
Lucas, F o r e s t r y Sciences L a b o r a t o r y , Drawer G,
M i s s o u l a , MT 59801, U.S.A.,
u n t i l t h e manual
and a l l programs become a v a i l a b l e from t h e
National Technical Information Service, United
S t a t e s Department o f Commerce, 5258 P o r t Royal
Road, S p r i n g f i e l d , VA 22151, U.S.A.
s a u r N a t i o n a l Monument ( a N a t i o n a l Park Serv i c e a r e a ) i n C o l o r a d o and ~ t a h . The
~
Desolat i o n W i l d e r n e s s i s a h i g h , mountainous, l a k e d o t t e d a r e a o f a b o u t 26,000 h e c t a r e s , t h a t i s
very heavily visited.:
The Green and Yampa R i v e r s i n Dinosaur
N a t i o n a l Monument a r e f a s t - f l o w i n g , " w h i t e water" r i v e r s t h a t v i s i t o r s f l o a t i n boats,
kayaks, and r a f t s .
Use i s much l i g h t e r than
i n t h e Desolation Wilderness.
S p e c i a l sample s u r v e y s p r o v i d e d t h e needed i n p u t i n f o r m a t i o n on use and v i s i t o r behavior.
I n the Desolation, v i s i t o r s kept t r a v e l
l o g s , w h i l e i n D i n o s a u r , v i s i t o r s and p r o f e s s i o n a l boatmen on c o m m e r c i a l l y g u i d e d t r i p s
k e p t l o g s t o supplement N a t i o n a l Park use
data.
I n b o t h s t u d i e s , i n f o r m a t i o n was r e c o r d e d on e n c o u n t e r s .
I n b o t h a r e a s , the f i r s t s c e n a r i o was t h e
e x i s t i n g s i t u a t i o n , o r "base case."
One week
o f peak use was s i m u l a t e d . A 1-week i n i t i a l i z a t i o n p e r i o d achieved a r e a l i s t i c s t a r t i n g
c o n d i t i o n . S i m u l a t i o n r e s u l t s were compared
w i t h d a t a f r o m t h e u s e r s u r v e y s as one check
on model v a l i d i t y , b o t h f o r use p a t t e r n s and
encounters.
Agreement was good, p a r t i c u l a r l y
i n D i n o s a u r N a t i o n a l Monument, where more p r e c i s e i n f o r m a t i o n on use c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and
t r a v e l r o u t e s was c o l l e c t e d and used i n t h e
model.
I n t h e D e s o l a t i o n , e n c o u n t e r s were,
f o r a v a r i e t y o f reasons, somewhat h i g h e r acc o r d i n g t o t h e model t h a n r e p o r t e d by v i s i t o r s .
Several minor s i m p l i f i c a t i o n s o r departures
f r o m r e a l i t y had compounded e f f e c t s , b u t Drob a b l y t h e most i m p o r t a n t r e a s o n was t h a t t h e
I i m i t e d number o f v i s i t o r t r a v e l r o u t e s used
i n t h e model (210 d i f f e r e n t r o u t e s ) f e l l s h o r t
o f r e f l e c t i n q how v a r i a b l e v i s i t o r movements
r e a l l y were.
As a r e s u l t , s l i g h t over-concent r a t i o n s o f p a r t i e s increased encounters.
On
t h e r i v e r s , where t h e r e were fewer e n t r y
p o i n t s and p o s s i b l e v a r i a t i o n i n r o u t e s was
.
l e s s , t h e p r o b l e m was l e s s severe.
The a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e D e s o l a t i o n W i l d e r ness was a j o i n t v e n t u r e o f USDA F o r e s t Serv i c e Research and N a t i o n a l F o r e s t managers and
Resources f o r t h e F u t u r e , i n c l u d i n g t h e p r e sent authors.
The D i n o s a u r N a t i o n a l Monument
a p p l i c a t i o n i n v o l v e d t h e N a t i o n a l Park S e r v i c e ,
Dr. D a v i d W. Lime o f F o r e s t S e r v i c e N o r t h Cent r a l F o r e s t Experiment S t a t i o n , S t . Paul, Minn e s o t a , and P r o f e s s o r Stephen F. McCool , Utah
S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Logan, Utah. A paper by
McCool and Lime, "The W i l d e r n e s s Area T r a v e l
Simulator:
Applications t o River Recreation
Management," 1976 i s a v a i l a b l e f r o m them.
A manuscript describing the r e s u l t s o f the
Desolation Wilderness a p p l i c a t i o n i s being
prepared.
Next, a v a r i e t y o f s c e n a r i o s were t e s t e d .
Use was i n c r e a s e d and decreased by v a r y i n g a mounts, and uneven d i s t r i b u t i o n s were made
more even by s h i f t i n g use f r o m p o p u l a r e n t r i e s
t o less-used access p o i n t s , and f r o m h e a v i l y
used weekends t o weekdays.
Some c l e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p s , n o t a11 e x p e c t ed, emerged. Changes i n t o t a l use C a l l o t h e r
t h i n g s r e m a i n i n g t h e same) produced p r o p o r t i o n a t e r e s u l t s . That t h i s would be t r u e f o r
use p a t t e r n s i s p r o b a b l y o b v i o u s ; i f t o t a l use
d o u b l e s , use o f nay s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n d o u b l e s ,
on t h e average.
Encounters, expressed i n p e r p a r t y - p e r - d a y terms, a l s o would d o u b l e i n t h i s
examole--something n o t e n t i r e l y expected.
This predictable, proportional r e l a t i o n s h i p p r o v i d e s a c o n v e n i e n t base f o r comparing
r e s u l t s o f more complex s c e n a r i o s i n w h i c h use
i s r e d i s t r i b u t e d w i t h an a c r o s s - t h e - b o a r d
chance w i t h t h e same t o t a l use. The user e d i s t r i b u t i o n s c e n a r i o s produced lower a v e r aqe e n c o u n t e r s p e r - p a r t y - p e r - d a y t h a n t h e same
t o t a l use w i t h o u t r e d i s t r i b u t i o n .
T h i s was
e s p e c i a l l y t r u e f o r t r a i l e n c o u n t e r s (up t o
o n e - t h i r d fewer e n c o u n t e r s t h a n comparable
a c r o s s - t h e - b o a r d t o t a l u s e ) . Camp e n c o u n t e r s
dropped o n l y a 1 i t t l e below comparable unmodif i e d use, oresumably because c a m p s i t e s were
somewhat l i m i t e d , and most p a r t i e s camped i n
about t h e same a r e a s o u t o f n e c e s s i t y even
thouqh t h e y a r r i v e d by d i f f e r e n t r o u t e s o r a t
d i f f e r e n t times.
Average e n c o u n t e r s do n o t t e l l t h e whole
s t o r y , however. The f r e q u e n c y o f extreme encounter l e v e l s (very high l e v e l s , especially,
b u t sometimes a l s o v e r y low and z e r o l e v e l s )
chanqed s u b s t a n t i a l l y .
A manager p r o b a b l y
would be more concerned about r e d u c i n g o r el i m i n a t i n g experiences o f u n s a t i s f a c t o r y quali t y t h a n a l t e r i n g averages.
In addition,
changes a t key t r o u b l e s p o t s were even more
pronounced. T h i s would a l s o p r o b a b l y be more
r e l e v a n t t o a manager's e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e r e s u l t s o f a s c e n a r i o t h a n o v e r a l 1 averages.
POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS
We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e s i m u l a t o r i s a usef u l t o o l f o r t h e manager o f a w i l d e r n e s s o r
s i m i l a r a r e a . The model does n o t , o f c o u r s e ,
make d e c i s i o n s f o r t h e manager.
I t does, howe v e r , a l l o w him t o compare c a r e f u l l y t h e l i k e l y r e s u l t s o f various possible a l t e r n a t i v e s
b e f o r e he d e c i d e s t o implement a management
p l a n . T h i s makes i t much more l i k e l y t h a t t h e
p l a n chosen w i l l a c h i e v e management o b j e c t i v e s
and t h a t pub1 i c b e n e f i t s w i l l be maximized.
I t a l s o appears t o us t h a t i t p r o v i d e s a
p r a c t i c a l way t o a c h i e v e d e s i r e d c o n d i t i o n s i n
terms o f t h e amount o f u s e o f key a r e a s and
t h e q u a l i t y o f v i s i t o r e x p e r i e n c e s i n terms o f
congest i o n o r s o l i t u d e b u t w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g
tight control o f v i s i t o r itineraries.
We f e e l t h a t t h e s i m u l a t o r s h o u l d be app l i c a b l e t o many o t h e r s o r t s o f d i s p e r s e d r e c r e a t i o n systems b e s i d e s U.S. w i l d e r n e s s .
In
f a c t , we s u s p e c t i m a g i n a t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n s t o
some v e r y d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s m i g h t be p o s s i b l e and u s e f u l . The e l e m e n t s i n t h e model a r e
p e r f e c t l y general.
For i n s t a n c e , what we have
named " t r a i l segments" a r e , i n g e n e r a l , " t r a n s p o r t a t i o n l inkages" and c o u l d r e p r e s e n t any
t y p e o f movement; f o r example, t r a f f i c o n p a r k
roads o r b i c y c l e p a t h s . The model p r o v i d e s
f o r s i x types o f " t r a n s a c t i o n s " ( t h e general
GPSS t e r m f o r t h e e n t i t i e s whose b e h a v i o r i s
simulated).
We have u s u a l l y named them l a r g e ,
medium, o r s m a l l h i k i n g o r h o r s e b a c k groups o f
v i s i t o r s , b u t any d e s i g n a t i o n i s p o s s i b l e .
Perhaps one t y p e m i g h t even r e p r e s e n t some
kind o f w i l d l i f e (say, elephants) i f t h e i r
movement c o u l d be d e s c r i b e d i n p r o b a b i l i s t i c
terms, and " e n c o u n t e r s " would become " w i l d l i f e
o b s e r v a t i o n s , " and t h e managers' g o a l m i g h t be
t o increase, r a t h e r than decrease, encounters.
C e r t a i n l y , t h e model i s c l e a r l y a p p l i c a b l e t o any t y p e o f dispersed r e c r e a t i o n area
where v i s i t o r f l o w s a r e o f c o n c e r n , where
t h e r e a r e c a p a c i t y c o n s t r a i n t s , where v i s i t o r
e n c o u n t e r s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t , and where i t i s
d e s i r e d t o a l l o w v i s i t o r s s u b s t a n t i a l freedom
t o move a b o u t f l e x i b l y .
I n such s i t u a t i o n s ,
t h e model i s p a r t i c u l a r l y w e l l - s u i t e d t o management p l a n n i n g t o m o d i f y use, t h a t i s , t o
a l t e r numbers o f v i s i t o r s e n t e r i n g a t d i f f e r e n t p l a c e s and t i m e s .
The model c a n a l s o be
used t o t e s t e f f e c t s o f a l t e r a t i o n s w i t h i n t h e
a r e a , such a s new a c c e s s p o i n t s , c l o s u r e o f
some t r a v e l r o u t e s , a d d i t i o n o f c a m p s i t e s , and
so on.
However, t o s i m u l a t e such changes, a
b a s i s f o r s p e c i f y i n g how v i s i t o r s w i l l respond
t o t h e new c o n d i t i o n s i s needed. O b s e r v a t i o n
o f c u r r e n t behavior cannot d i r e c t l y p r o v i d e
t h i s b a s i s , and o t h e r k i n d s o f s p e c i a l i n f o r ;
mat i o n o r assumpt i o n s based o n e x p e r t judgment
would be r e q u i r e d .
The u s e o f computer-based s i m u l a t i o n mode l i n g i n o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n management p l a n n i n g may a r o u s e f e a r s o f d e p e r s o n a l i z a t i o n .
On t h e c o n t r a r y , i t may h e l p make i t p o s s i b l e
t o maintain t h e t r a d i t i o n a l values o f recreat i o n a l v i s i t o r independence, f l e x i b i l i t y , and
s p o n t a n e i t y a s we1 l a s t o p r o t e c t r e s o u r c e s
and p r e s e r v e t h e q u a l i t y o f e x p e r i e n c e i n t h e
f a c e o f g r o w i n g demands o n l i m i t e d r e s o u r - - s .
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
Es wurde e i n S i m u l a t i o n s m o d e l l f u r
v e r s t r e u t Iiegende Erholungsgebiete e n t w i c k e l t
welches d i e M o g l i c h k e i t b i e t e t m i t v e r i i n d e r t e n
Nutzungen o d e r V e r h a l t n i s s e n im G e b i e t zu
e x p e r i m e n t i e r e n m i t dem Z i e 1 Auswirkungen a u f
Verwendungsart und Zusammentreffen v o n
Besuchergruppen bestimmen zu konnen.
Das
M o d e l l , d i e E r g e b n i s s e d e r M o d e l l - t e s t s unc
kLinf t i g e Anwendungsm6gl i c h k e i t e n werden
besprochen.
Un modsle de s i m u l a t i o n du comportement
des u s a g e r s de s i t e s d e l o i s i r s donnant des
f a c o n s d 1 e x p 6 r i m e n t a t i o n s avec l e s m o d i f i c a t i o n s dues aux d i v e r s e s u t i l i s a t i o n s ou aux
c o n d i t i o n s de t e r r a i n p e r m e t t a n t de d e t e r m i n e r
des p a t t e r n s d ' u s a g e e t de r e n c o n t r e s e n t r e
groupes d ' u s a g e r s a 6 t 6 m i s au p o i n t .
Le
modsle, 1es r 6 s u l t a t s du t e s t a f f g r a n t e t ses
f u t u r e s a p p l i c a t i o n s p o s s i b l e s s o n t en
discussion.
LITERATURE CITED
F i s h e r , A., and J. V . K r u t i l l a
1972. D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f o p t i m a l c a p a c i t y o f
resource-based r e c r e a t i o n f a c i 1 i t i e s .
N a t . R e s o u r . J . 12(3):417-444.
L l o y d , R. Duane, and V i r l i s L. F i s h e r
1972. D i s p e r s e d v e r s u s c o n e n t r a t e d r e c r e a t i o n as f o r e s t p o l i c y .
Seventh World
F o r e s t r y Congress, Buenos A i r e s 7CFM/C:
II f / 2 ~ ( 3 )196.
S h e c h t e r , Mordecha i
1971. On t h e use o f computer s i m u l a t i o n f o r
r e s e a r c h . S i m u l a t i o n & Games 2 ( l ) :73-88.
S n e c h t e r , Mordechai
197.5. S i m u l a t i o n model o f w i l d e r n e s s - a r e a
use: m o d e l - u s e r ' s manual and program
documentat i o n ( r e v i s e d and expanded v e r sion).
172 p., app. 312 p.
Resources
f o r t h e F u t u r e , I n c . , Washington, D.C.
Smith, V . K., and J . V . K r u t i l l a
1974. A s i m u l a t i o n model f o r management o f
low d e n s i t y r e c r e a t i o n a l areas. J .
E n v i r o n . E c o n . Manage. 1:187-201.
Smith, V . K., D . Webster, and N. Heck
1974. A n a l y z i n g t h e use o f w i l d e r n e s s .
S i m u l a t i o n T o d a y 24:93-96.
Stankey, George H .
1973. V i s i t o r p e r c e p t i o n o f w i l d e r n e s s r e c r e a t i o n c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y . USDA F o r e s t
Serv. Res. Pap. INT-142, 61 p . , i l l u s .
I n t e r m o u n t a i n F o r e s t and Range Exp. S t n . ,
Oqden, U t a h .
A Survey of Wildlife-Related Recreation in the Tennessee Valley Region
J o h n L. M e c h l e r
E. Lawrence Klein
A b s t r a c t ~ T h i spaper i s designed t o h e l p p l a n n e r s and admini s t r a t o r s b e t t e r understand expenditures f o r w i l d l i f e - r e l a t e d recreation.
T o t a l spending generated b y p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a p a r t i c u l a r
r e g i o n i s considered.
I n a d d i t i o n , p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s t h a t might
a c c r u e t o t h e l o c a l economy by i n c r e a s i n g o r enhancing w i l d l i f e r e l a t e d r e c r e a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s , o r b o t h , based on consumerr e l a t e d p r e f e r e n c e s a r e o u t 1 ined. An a n a l y s i s o f what p e o p l e a r e
s e e k i n g i n terms o f t y p e s o f w i l d l i f e - r e c r e a t i o n and t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n s g a i n e d c a n l e a d t o planned w i l d l i f e development t h a t w i l l
have a p o s i t i v e monetary impact a t a l o c a l l e v e l .
The p r i m a r y purpose o f t h i s paper i s t o
examine t h e t o t a l spending and t h e spending
patterns o f wi l d l ife-related recreat ionists i n
a p a r t i c u l a r region o f t h e United States. A
secondary purpose i s t o examine t h e p r e f e r ences o f t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s i n r e g a r d t o hypot h e t i c a l s i t u a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g more i n t e n s i v e
management o f w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t and development
o f additional f a c i l i t i e s .
The d a t a u t i l i z e d f o r t h i s paper were
t a k e n f r o m a m a j o r s t u d y o f t h e monetary v a l ues and b e n e f i t s o f w i l d l i f e - r e l a t e d r e c r e a t i o n demands i n t h e S o u t h e a s t e r n U n i t e d S t a t e s
i n 1971 ( ~ o r v a t h197'4a, 1974b). T h i s s t u d y
was sponsored by member s t a t e s o f t h e Southe a s t e r n A s s o c i a t i o n o f Game and F i s h Commiss i o n e r s , t h e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e ' s Region 8,
and t h e Tennessee V a l l e y A u t h o r i t y .
A forthcoming pub1 i c a t i o n by t h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l Res e a r c h Group a t G e o r g i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y w i l l
p r e s e n t t h e s e f i n d i n g s and draw c o n c l u s i o n s
regarding the value o f w i l d l i f e - r e l a t e d recreation.
I t s h o u l d be s t r e s s e d t h a t i t i s n o t
t h e i n t e n t o f t h i s paper--nor i s i t recommended--that t h e r e s u l t s be i n t e r p r e t e d t o
r e f l e c t n e c e s s a r i l y on t h e economic e v a l u a t i o n
o f wi l d l i f e - r e l a t e d recreation.
The r e s u l t s a r e s t r i c t l y i n t e n d e d t o cont r i b u t e toward a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f w i l d l i f e - r e l a t e d r e c r e a t i o n , t h e t o t a l spending
g e n e r a t e d by p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a p a r t i c u l a r r e g i o n , and some p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s t h a t m i g h t
a c c r u e t o l o c a l economies by i n c r e a s i n g and/or
enhancing t h e i r w i l d l i f e - r e l a t e d r e c r e a t i o n
o p p o r t u n i t i e s based o n consumer-stated p r e f e r ences.
For example, p l a n n e r s and a d m i n i s t r a tors a t the local level are frequently intere s t e d i n t h e p o t e n t i a l monetary impacts t h a t
m i g h t r e s u l t i f a g r e a t e r number o f w i l d l i f e
r e c r e a t i o n i s t s were a t t r a c t e d t o t h e i r a r e a .
The r e s u l t s o f t h i s paper can s e r v e as i n i t i a l
i n p u t i n t o t h a t d e c i s i o n process.
The g r o s s e x p e n d i t u r e s o f s e l e c t e d r e c r e a t i o n groups have f r e q u e n t l y been used f o r
t h i s purpose and n o t w i t h o u t good reason.
The
amount o f money spent by t h e s e groups can i n
f a c t represent a d i r e c t increase t o the f l o w
o f money w i t h i n an economy ( C r u t c h f i e l d 1962).
Examples o f w i l d l i f e - r e l a t e d s t u d i e s i n c l u d e
W a l l a c e (1956), Utah S t a t e Department o f F i s h
and Game (1957), U n i v e r s i t y o f U t a h (1960),
K i r k p a t r i c k (1965), Thompson and o t h e r s
(1967), and Nobe and G i l b e r t (1970) t o 1 i s t a
few. A l t h o u g h such s t u d i e s have been c r i t i c i z e d by economists as b e i n g o f l i t t l e v a l u e
i n s o l v i n g a c t u a l v a l u a t i o n problems (Wennerg r e n 1967, Kal t e r 1971), t h e y have been used
by p l a n n e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s t o a g r e a t extent.
I n s h o r t , t h e y have been a p p l i e d f o r
o v e r 20 y e a r s w i t h g e n e r a l l y good r e s u l t s
w h i l e economists c o n t i n u e t o a t t a c k t h e l a c k
o f r i g o r and c o n t i n u e t h e i r d e b a t e o v e r an
a c c e p t a b l e method.
Gross e x p e n d i t u r e s t u d i e s , however,
cannot show t h e e x t e n t o f impact t h a t r e c r e a t i o n expend i t u r e s have o n l o c a l o r r e g i o n a l
economics.
V a r i a t i o n s i n f a c t o r endowments,
s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l i n f r a s t r u c t u r e s , t o t a l
economic c o m p o s i t i o n , c y c l i c a l n a t u r e s o f
v a r i o u s t y p e s o f i n d u s t r i e s , and o t h e r v a r i a b l e s i n f l u e n c e t h e degree o f impact t h a t
g r o s s e x p e n d i t u r e s have i n d i f f e r e n t l o c a l e s .
I n p u t - o u t p u t s t u d i e s have been shown t o
be v e r y v a l u a b l e i n examining t h i s d e g r e e o f
impact and f o r p l a n n i n g t h e u t i l i z a t i o n o f t h e
r e s o u r c e s o f a r e g i o n and i t s economic d e v e l opment ( i s a r d 1960).
An example o f a w i l d l i f e - r e l a t e d i n p u t - o u t p u t s t u d y i n one c o u n t y
o f Colorado i s t h e one by Rohdy and Lovegrove
They d e t e r m i n e d b o t h t h e p r i m a r y
(1970).
economic e f f e c t s o f g r o s s e x p e n d i t u r e s o f
h u n t e r s and f i s h e r m e n as we11 as t h e secondary
economic e f f e c t s o f t h e s e o r i g i n a l e x p e n d i t u r e s w i t h i n t h e l o c a l economy. T h e i r ap-
p r o a c h i s more u s e f u l f o r d e t a i l e d p l a n n i n g ,
b u t i t i s a l s o more e x p e n s i v e ; Rohdy ( p e r s o n a l
communication 1975) e s t i m a t e d t h a t a s i m i l a r
s t u d y i n one c o u n t y would r e q u i r e a p p r o x i m a t e l y $100,000 t o c o m p l e t e .
Obviously, t h i s i s a
l a r g e i n v e s t m e n t and one t h a t would n o t be
u n d e r t a k e n w i t h o u t some p r i o r assessment t h a t
a p o t e n t i a l payoff might e x i s t .
Gross expendi t u r e s t u d i e s c a n h e l p i n making t h i s p r i o r
assessment.
A p a r t i c u l a r a r e a c o v e r e d b y t h i s paper
i s t h e Tennessee V a l l e y r e g i o n , a 41,000square-mi l e a r e a i n t h e S o u t h e a s t e r n U n i t e d
S t a t e s composed o f p o r t i o n s o f seven s t a t e s .
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
The p r i m a r y d a t a were c o l l e c t e d by househ o l d i n t e r v i e w s , m o s t l y i n A p r i l and May 1972,
by t h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l Research Group a t G e o r g i a
S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . The sample was composed o f
1,076 households s e l e c t e d f r o m t h e 1,246,168
households i n t h e Tennessee V a l l e y r e g i o n .
Data were o b t a i n e d on v a r i o u s socio-economic
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e members o f households
indicating participation i n wildlife-related
recreation a c t i v i t i e s .
Three major w i l d l i f e - r e l a t e d r e c r e a t i o n
a c t i v i t i e s were s e l e c t e d f o r t h e s t u d y . These
a r e h u n t i n g , f i s h i n g , and nonconsumptive w i l d l i f e use.
Each o f t h e s e was f u r t h e r s u b d i v i d ed i n t o t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s r e s u l t i n g i n n i n e
specific wildlife-related recreation a c t i v i ties.
These a r e :
I.
Saltwater f i s h i n g
2.
Warm f r e s h w a t e r f i s h i n g
3.
Cold freshwater f i s h i n g
4.
Small game h u n t i n g
5.
B i g game h u n t i n g
6.
Waterfowl h u n t i n g
7.
Watching o r p h o t o g r a p h i n g b i r d s
8.
Watching o r p h o t o g r a p h i n g a n i m a l s
9.
Watching o r p h o t o g r a p h i n g a q u a t i c
Ii f e
Q u e s t i o n s were a l s o asked o f p a r t i c i p a n t s
regarding t h e physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f recr e a t i o n areas which they considered important.
D e t a i l e d d a t a were a l s o s o u g h t f r o m p a r t i c i p a t i n g households o n b o t h c a p i t a l and v a r i a b l e
expend it u r e s
.
Sampling Methodology and Data P r e p a r a t i o n
Horvath (l974b) provides a very d e t a i l e d
d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e s a m p l i n g methodology and
d a t a p r e p a r a t i o n phases. The f o l l o w i n g i s a
summary o f h i s d e s c r i p t i o n .
The p r o c e d u r e used t o o b t a i n a p r o b a b i l i t y sample o f households f o l l o w e d c l o s e l y
t h o s e p r o c e d u r e s used b y t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s
Bureau o f t h e Census f o r t h e m o n t h l y C u r r e n t
P o p u l a t i o n Survey.
F o l l o w i n g t h e s e Bureau o f t h e Census p r o cedures p e r m i t t e d t h e u s e o f t h e t h e n - c u r r e n t
g r o u p i n g s o f c o u n t i e s w i t h i n t h e Tennessee
V a l l e y r e g i o n i n t o e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same P r i mary Sampling U n i t s (PSU'S) used b y t h e Bureau.
However, some m o d i f i c a t i o n was r e q u i r e d
i n o r d e r t o e n s u r e t h a t c e r t a i n o f t h e PSU's
as used by t h e Bureau were r e s t r u c t u r e d so a s
n o t t o c r o s s t h e r e g i o n ' s boundary. These
PSU's were t h u s combined i n t o s e v e r a l s t r a t a
w i t h i n t h e r e g i o n i n such a way t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s t r a t a were w h o l l y c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n t h e
r e g i o n . The c r i t e r i a o f h e t e r o g e n e i t y w i t h i n
PSU's and homogeneity w i t h i n s t r a t a o f c e r t a i n
socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n were t h e b a s i s o f g r o u p i n g s .
From each o f t h e s t r a t a , one PSU was sel e c t e d f o r sampling w i t h p r o b a b i l i t y o f select i o n proportional t o population size.
The
t o t a l sample o f 1,076 households was a l l o c a t e d
t o each s t r a t u m p r o p o r t i o n a l t o p o p u l a t i o n
s i z e . The s t r a t a samples were a l l o c a t e d t o
t h e s e l e c t e d PSU's and t h a t sample p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y r e a l l o c a t e d among t h e c o n s t i t u e n t count i e s o f t h e PSU's.
For each c o u n t y s e l e c t e d t o be i n t h e
sample, p o p u l a t i o n and household i n f o r m a t i o n
was d e t e r m i n e d f o r e n u m e r a t i o n d i s t r i c t s ,
b l o c k g r o u p s , and i n d i v i d u a l c i t y b l o c k s .
The sources o f t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n were t h e census summary t a p e s and c o u n t y maps f r o m t h e
Geography D i v i s i o n o f t h e Bureau o f t h e
Census. A c l u s t e r o f f o u r households t o be
i n t e r v i e w e d i n each b l o c k was t h e n marked o n
t h e maps based o n t h e " n o r t h w e s t c o r n e r c l o c k w i s e method" w h i c h i s u t i l i z e d i n some a q r i c u l t u r a l surveys.
Once t h e s e g i v e n households
were s e l e c t e d t o be i n t h e sample, no s u b s t i t u t i o n was p e r m i t t e d t o r e p l a c e t h o s e househ o l d s f r o m w h i c h responses c o u l d n o t be obt a i n e d , whatever t h e reason f o r t h e nonresponse.
The f i e l d i n t e r v i e w i n g was c o n d u c t e d by
p e r s o n n e l o f a n a t i o n a l i n t e r v i e w i n g f i r m who
received very d e t a i l e d i n s t r u c t i o n s concerning
i n t e r v i e w p r o c e d u r e s . A 12-page q u e s t i o n n a i r e
s e r v e d as t h e s o u r c e o f t h e q u e s t i o n s t o be
asked as w e l l as t h e r e c o r d o f responses.
Capital Expenditures
Respondents were asked f o r d o l l a r e s t i -
tates f o r c u r r e n t replacement c o s t s o f s p e c i .'"ic t y p e s o f p r o p e r t y and equipment used p r i marily for w i l d l ife-related recreation during
1971.
F o u r t e e n c a t e g o r i e s were i n c l u d e d i n
t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e . These were:
mated number o f m i l e s d r i v e n f o r w i l d l i f e - r e l a t e d r e c r e a t i o n i n fami l y c a r s
and r e c r e a t i o n a l v e h i c l e s .
2.
Commercial t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s t s .
1.
Recreation v e h i c l e s i n c l u d i n g jeeps,
a l l - t e r r a i n v e h i c l e s , swamp b u g g i e s ,
f i s h i n g cars, etc.
3.
Lodging.
4.
Food and r e f r e s h m e n t s .
2.
M o t o r c y c l e s , motor s c o o t e r s ,
cycles.
5. S e r v i c e s connected w i t h h u n t i n g , such
as g u i d e s and equipment r e n t a l .
bi-
3. W i n t e r equipment i n c l u d i n g snowmob i l e s , snowshoes, e t c .
4.
Horses and r i d i n g equipment
6.
S e r v i c e s connected w i t h f i s h i n g .
7.
S e r v i c e s connected w i t h nonconsumpt i v e w i l d l i f e use.
,nmun i -
5. M o t o r b o a t s , s a i l b o a t s , houseboats,
canoes, m o t o r s , e t c .
8.
S u p p l i e s f o r h u n t i n g , st
tion, clay birds, etc.
6.
Recreational land and/or water w i t h o u t improvements.
9.
7. Cabins, c o t t a g e s , t r a v e l homes, b o a t
docks, and o t h e r improvements.
10.
User f e e s f o r f a c i l i t i e s and access.
11.
Hunting licenses.
12.
Fishing licenses.
8.
S u p p l i e s f o r f i s h i n g , such as hooks,
line, etc.
Campers and t r a v e l campers.
9.
Camping equipment i n c l u d i n g s t o v e s ,
lanterns, tents, etc.
10.
H u n t i n g equipment, such as guns,
a r c h e r y equipment, f i e l d g l a s s e s , e t c .
1 .
F i s h i n g equipment, such as r o d s ,
reels, nets, e t c .
2 .
Special leases on land o r water f o r
hunting.
3 .
Special leases on land o r water f o r
fishing.
14. D i v i n g gear used f o r u n d e r w a t e r
fishing.
The values u t i l i z e d f o r c a p i t a l expendit u r e s a r e t h e annual d e p r e c i a t i o n c o s t s o f
t h e s e i t e m s - - n o t t o t a l r e p l a c e m e n t c o s t s ; each
i t e m was d e p r e c i a t e d o v e r a p e r i o d a p p l i c a b l e
t o t h a t p a r t i c u l a r i t e m ( H o r v a t h 1974a), exc e p t c a t e g o r i e s 6, 12 and 13. C a t e g o r y 6 was
n o t d e p r e c i a t e d o r a m o r t i z e d , and, t h u s , a
s l i g h t upward b i a s was i n t r o d u c e d .
The annual
l e a s e f e e s were u t i l i z e d f o r c a t e g o r i e s 12 and
13.
Variable Expenditures
The v a r i a b l e e x p e n d i t u r e c a t e g o r i e s i n cluded the following:
I. A per-mile c o s t assigned t o t h e e s t i -
The t o t a l sample s i z e i n c l u d e d 1,076
households. O f t h e s e , 917 (85.22 p e r c e n t ) o f
O f t h e remaint h e i n t e r v i e w s were completed.
i n g i n t e r v i e w s , 109 (10.13 p e r c e n t ) were n o t
completed because t h e r e s i d e n t s were n o t home,
and 50 (4.65 p e r c e n t ) because o f language b a r r i e r s , i l l n e s s , and r e f u s a l s .
The t o t a l number o f persons c o v e r e d by
t h e sample was 2,288--1,633 a d u l t s and 655
O f t h e a d u l t s , 1,472 were m a r r i e d
children.
and 161 were s i n g l e . The c h i l d r e n i n t h e samp l e were 324 sons and 331 d a u g h t e r s .
RESULTS
The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f Tennessee Val l e y
households by income c a t e g o r i e s i s shown i n
t a b l e 1. A l s o i n c l u d e d i n t a b l e 1 i s t h e
e s t i m a t e d t o t a l V a l l e y income f o r 1971 based
o n t h e median v a l u e f o r each income range,
except f o r t h e f i r s t income c a t e g o r y where
an a r b i t r a r y v a l u e o f $2,500 was used, and
t h e l a s t income c a t e g o r y where a n a r b i t r a r y
v a l u e o f $36,000 was used.
Income o f households may o r may n o t be a
s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r h e l p i n g t o d e t e r m i n e whethe r o r not t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n w i l d l i f e - r e l a t e d
r e c r e a t i o n , b u t i t would c e r t a i n l y seem t o
d i c t a t e t h e degree o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n terms
o f t o t a l money s p e n t , number o f t r i p s , and t h e
types o f a c t i v i t i e s selected.
T a b l e I - - P e r c e n t a g e c o m p o s i t i o n o f households, b y income c a t e g o r i e s ,
i n 1971 and t h e e s t i m a t e d t o t a l income r e c e i v e d
Income
($1
Under
Percent o f
households
3,001
22.9
i n t h e Tennessee V a l l e y Region
Estimated
t o t a l V a l l e y income
( $ thousand)
$
713,431
3,001
-
5,000
17.9
892,256
5,001
-
7,000
16.0
1,196,320
7,001 - 10,000
18.8
1,991,375
10,001
-
15,000
13.4
2,087,330
15,001
-
20,000
6.2
,352,091
20,001
-
25,000
2.7
757,046
25,001
and o v e r
2. I
942,102
100.0
$9,931,951
Total
The p e r c e n t a g e o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f househ o l d s , by income c a t e g o r i e s , i n t h e t h r e e
major w i l d l i f e - r e l a t e d r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s - h u n t i n g , f i s h i n g , nonconsumptive a c t i v i t i e s - varied according t o a c t i v i t y ( t a b l e 2).
Tennessee V a l l e y households w i t h incomes
o f $5,000 and l e s s were g e n e r a l l y r e p r e s e n t e d
i n a11 t h e t h r e e m a j o r a c t i v i t i e s t o a s m a l l e r
d e q r e e t h a n were households w i t h incomes
g r e a t e r t h a n $5,000.
T a b l e s 3, 4 and 5 summarize t h e number o f
h o u s e h o l d s and percentages' o f t o t a l households
w i t h one o r more members p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n
h u n t i n g , f i s h i n g , and nonconsumptive w i l d l i f e
a c t i v i t i e s . A l s o i n c l u d e d i n each t a b l e a r e
t h e s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s c o m p r i s i n g each m a j o r
activity.
The U.S. Department o f t h e I n t e r i o r ,
Bureau o f S p o r t F i s h e r i e s and W i l d l i f e (1972)
f o u n d 18 p e r c e n t o f a l l households i n t h e
United States p a r t i c i p a t e d i n hunting a c t i v i t i e s i n 1970. Thus, t h e v a l u e o f n e a r l y 26
p e r c e n t o f households i n t h e Tennessee V a l l e y
r e g i o n w o u l d seem t o r e p r e s e n t a g r e a t e r p a r ticipation rate.
However, no a t t e m p t was made
t o d e t e r m i n e i f a s t a t i s t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e exi s t e d because o f d i f f e r e n c e s o f when t h e s u r veys were completed and p r o b a b l y d i f f e r e n c e s
i n s a m p l i n g t e c h n i q u e s and d e f i n i t i o n s o f
a c t i v i t y categories.
Again, by way o f comparison, 34 p e r c e n t
o f a l l households i n t h e n a t i o n had one o r
more persons who f i s h e d i n 1970 (U.S. Dep.
I n t e r . , Bur. S p o r t s F i s h . 6 W i l d l . 19721, b u t
f o r t h e same reasons as l i s t e d f o r h u n t i n g , no
a t t e m p t was made t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e o b s e r v e d
d i f f e r e n c e was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t .
T a b l e 5 shows t h e number and p e r c e n t a g e
o f households w i t h one o r more members r e p o r t ed t o be i n v o l v e d i n nonconsumptive w i l d l i f e
activities.
Over 50 p e r c e n t o f t h e s e households reported t h a t b i r d s are the s o l e w i l d l i f e s p e c i e s o f i n t e r e s t t o them.
T a b l e 6 shows t h e t o t a l e x p e n d i t u r e s made
by households i n 1971 on w i l d l i f e - r e l a t e d r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s as w e l l as t h e p e r c e n t a g e
breakdown o f households p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n w i l d life-related activities.
As shown, some
households p a r t i c i p a t e d i n more t h a n one
a c t i v i t y and a l s o used some equipment f o r more
t h a n one a c t i v i t y . T h e r e f o r e , a l l combinat i o n s o f a c t i v i t i e s w i t h t h e percentage o f
p a r t i c i p a t i n g households and t h e t o t a l expendi t u r e s f o r each a r e shown.
The t o t a l e x p e n d i t u r e s o f $211,311 ,000
( f r o m t a b l e 6) r e p r e s e n t 2.13 p e r c e n t o f t h e
e s t i m a t e d t o t a l Tennessee V a l l e y household
income ( f r o m t a b l e 1) d u r i n g 1971. A t o t a l
o f 47.7 p e r c e n t o f a l l households i n t h e
T a b l e 2--Percentage p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f Tennessee V a l l e y households d u r i n g 1971 i n h u n t i n g , f i s h i n g ,
and nonconsumptive w i l d l i f e a c t i v i t i e s , by income c a t e g o r i e s
Percentage household p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n
Income ( $ )
Under
Hunt i ng
activities
Fishing
activities
Nonconsumptive
activities
3,001
3.3
23.6
5.4
-
5,000
22.0
35.2
6.9
5,001 -
7,000
33.8
43.7
6.3
7,001 - 10,000
29.9
49.7
11.4
10,001 - 15,000
34.5
53.8
2.6
15,001 - 20,000
32.7
47.3
18.2
20,001 - 25,000
29.2
50.0
16.7
25,001 and o v e r
21 . o
47.4
21.1
A1 I c a t e g o r i e s
25.7
40.9
10.8
3,001
T a b l e 3--Households p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n v a r i o u s w i l d l i f e h u n t i n g a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e Tennessee V a l l e y
r e g i o n i n 1971
Types o f
hunting
Small game o n l y
B i g game o n l y
W a t e r f o w l on1 y
Small and b i g
Small and w a t e r f o w l
B i g and w a t e r f o w l
A H three
Total hunters
Nonhunters
Number o f
househo1ds
Percent o f
a l l households
T a b l e 4--Households p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n v a r i o u s w i l d l i f e f i s h i n g a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e Tennessee V a l l e y
r e g i o n i n 1971
Types o f
fishing
Number o f
househol ds
Percent o f
a1 1 households
Saltwater o n l y
Warm f r e s h w a t e r o n l y
Cold freshwater o n l y
S a l t w a t e r and warm f r e s h w a t e r
S a l t w a t e r and c o l d f r e s h w a t e r
Warm and c o l d f r e s h w a t e r
Al l t h r e e
T o t a l fishermen
Nonfishermen
T a b l e 5--Households p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n v a r i o u s n o n c o n s u r n ~ t i v ew i l d l i f e a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e Tennessee
V a l l e y r e g i o n i n 1971
Types o f nonconsumptive
wildlife activities
Bird only
Animal o n l y
Fish only
B i r d and animal
B i r d and f i s h
Animal and f i s h
A l l three
T o t a l nonconsumptive e n t h u s i a s t s
Nonwildlife enthusiasts
Number o f
households
Percent o f
a1 1 households
T a b l e 6 - - T o t a l e x p e n d i t u r e s o n a l l w i l d l i f e r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s and c o m b i n a t i o n s t h e r e o f by
h o u s e h o l d s i n t h e Tennessee V a l l e y r e g i o n i n 1971
Percent o f
participating
households
Activities
Total
expenditures
($ thousand)
I
I
Fishin? only
16.8
$ 64,361
17.6
96,572
F i s h i n g and n o n c o n s u m p t i v e
2.5
11,919
H u n t i n g and n o n c o n s u n p t i v e
0.7
2,231
Hunting only
Nonconsumptive a c t i v i t i e s o n l y
F i s h i n g and h u n t i n g
A l l three a c t i v i t i e s
Total
T a b l e 7--Percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e t o t a l d e p r e c i a t e d replacement v a l u e f o r c a p i t a l items used
f o r w i l d l i f e r e c r e a t i o n by ~ a r t i c i p a t i n gTennessee V a l l e y h o u s e h o l d s i n 1971
Capital
items
Recreational vehicles
Percentage
14.4
M o t o r c y c l e s , s c o o t e r s , and b i c y c l e s
4.9
W i n t e r equipment
0. I
Horses and r i d i n g g e a r
2.4
B o a t s , canoes, e t c .
20.8
C a b i n s and o t h e r improvements
20.8
trai Iers
8.1
Camp i ng equ i pmen t
4.4
Hunting equipment
13.5
F i s h i n g equipment
9.3
Leases f o r l a n d / w a t e r used f o r h u n t i n g
0.1
Leases f o r l a n d / w a t e r used f o r f i s h i n g
1.1
D i v i n g gear
0.1
Campers,
Total
100.0
T a b l e 8--Percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e t o t a l v a r i a b l e e x p e n d i t u r e s f o r w i l d l i f e r e c r e a t i o n by
p a r t i c i p a t i n g Tennessee V a l l e y households i n 1971
Expenditure category
Percentage
Mileage costs
Commercial t r a n s p o r t a t i o n
Lodging
Food and r e f r e s h m e n t s
S e r v i c e s connected w i t h h u n t i n g
S e r v i c e s connected w i t h f i s h i n g
S e r v i c e s connected w i t h nonconsumptive a c t i v i t i e s
S u p p l i e s f o r h u n t i ng
S u p p l i e s f o r f i s h i ng
User f e e s f o r f a c i i t i e s and access
Hunting licenses
Fishing licenses
M i see1 Ianeous
Total
T a b l e 9 - - C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f q u a l i t y h u n t i n g and f i s h i n g areas as r e p o r t e d by p a r t i c i p a t i n r
Tennessee V a l l e y households i n 1971
Weighted p e r c e n t a g e importance Hunting
Characteristic
6.7
Available overnight f a c i l i t i e s
W i t h i n convenient t r a v e l time
Abundance o f a n i m a l s o r f i s h
Low p a r t i c i p a n t d e n s i t y
Presence o f t r o p h y a n i m a l s o r f i s h
Appearance o f a r e a
Total
!
33.8
I
Fishing
7.3
35.3
Table 10--Willingness
t o pay an e x t r a f e e f o r improved q u a l i t y areas o n p u b l i c and p r i v a t e l a n d s
Type o f a c t i v i t y
Type o f
Iand
Hunting
Fishing
(percentages)
I
Nonconsumpt i ve
!I
Pub1 i c
Yes
51.3
48.8
49.3
No
38.7
40.3
33.3
No o p i n i o n
10.0
10.9
17.4
Yes
49.3
43.6
41.3
No
37.3
41 .4
36.6
No o p i n i o n
13.4
15.0
22.1
Frivate
Tennessee V a l l e y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n one o r more
wildlife-related recreation a c t i v i t i e s during
1971.
The d e p r e c i a t e d replacement v a l u e f o r a l l
c a p i t a l items u t i l i z e d f o r w i l d l i f e - r e l a t e d
r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s averaged $166 p e r p a r t i c i p a t i n g household. T h i s v a l u e included the
nonamortized t o t a l value f o r r e c r e a t i o n land
and/or water.
When a d j u s t e d f o r t h i s b i a s by
s u b t r a c t i n q t h e investments i n r e c r e a t i o n a l
l a n d a n d / o r w a t e r , t h e d e p r e c i a t e d replacement
v a l u e f o r a l l c a p i t a l i t e m s t o t a l e d $155 per
p a r t i c i p a t i n g household ( t a b l e 7 ) .
The a v e r a g e v a r i a b l e c o s t p e r household
participating i n w i l d l i f e recreation a c t i v i t i e s was $200 ( t a b l e 8 ) .
Q u a l i t y Preferences
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f h u n t i n g and f i s h i n g
a r e a s w h i c h p a r t i c i p a n t s r e g a r d as i m p o r t a n t
s h o u l d s e r v e as u s e f u l g u i d e l i n e s f o r p l a n n e r s
and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
Respondents i n t h e p a r t i c i p a t i n g households were asked a b o u t what
c o n s t i t u t e d a q u a l i t y hunting o r f i s h i n g area.
The most i m p o r t a n t d e t e r m i n a n t o f b o t h q u a l i t y
h u n t i n g and q u a l i t y f i s h i n g a r e a s i s t h a t t h e y
a r e w i t h i n convenient t r a v e l time ( t a b l e 9 ) .
Abundance o f a n i m a l s o r f i s h i s t h e n e x t most
important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f o r both a c t i v i t i e s ,
f o l lowed by l o w d e n s i t y o f p e o p l e .
Most o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s expressed a w i l l ingness t o pay a n e x t r a f e e f o r h u n t i n g o r
f i s h i n g o n l a n d s t h a t had improved qua1 i t i e s
( t a b l e 10).
SUMMARY
Wildl i f e - r e l a t e d expenditures i n the
Tennessee V a l l e y r e g i o n t o t a l e d o v e r $200
m i l l i o n i n 1971. A l t h o u g h t h i s r e p r e s e n t e d
o n l y about 2 p e r c e n t o f t h e e s t i m a t e d t o t a l
household income i n 197).
i t i s nonetheless a
c o n s i d e r a b l e amount o f money w h i c h m i g h t be
i m p o r t a n t i n terms o f enhancing t h e economies
o f some l o c a l a r e a s .
N e a r l y o n e - h a l f o f a l l households i n t h e
Tennessee V a l l e y r e g i o n p a r t i c i p a t e d i n one o r
more w i l d l i f e - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s , r a n g i n g f r o m
h u n t i n g and f i s h i n g t o nonconsumptive a c t i v i ties.
F i s h i n g showed t h e g r e a t e s t p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e a t n e a r l y 41 p e r c e n t ; h u n t i n g was
n e x t a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 26 p e r c e n t , f o l l o w e d by
n o n c o n s u m ~ t i v ea c t i v i t i e s a t about 1 1 p e r c e n t .
Both t h e h u n t i n g and f i s h i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n
r a t e s f o r Tennessee V a l l e y households were
h i g h e r t h a n t h e n a t i o n a l v a l u e s f o r t h e same
activities.
T h i s d i f f e r e n c e suggests t h a t
t h e r e m i g h t we1 1 be g r e a t e r p o t e n t i a l f o r
w i l d l i f e - r e l a t e d development a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e
Tennessee Val l e y t h a n p o s s i b l y o t h e r a r e a s
where fewer p e o p l e p a r t i c i p a t e .
Even w i t h i n each o f t h e m a j o r a c t i v i t i e s ,
differences i n the p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e existed
based o n household income c a t e g o r i e s .
I t appears t h a t $5,000 m i g h t be c o n s i d e r e d t h e
t h r e s h o l d f o r h u n t i n g and f i s h i n g a c t i v i t i e s
i n t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e s a r e g r e a t e s t above
that figure.
The t h r e s h o l d f o r nonconsumpt i v e
a c t i v i t i e s i s $7,000.
These f i g u r e s suggest
that the evaluation o f w i l d l i f e - r e l a t e d development p o t e n t i a l would d e f i n i t e l y i n c l u d e a n
examinat i o n o f t h e incomes o f u s e r groups
w h i c h m i g h t be a t t r a c t e d .
The p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e v a r i e s w i t h i n each
major a c t i v i t y a l s o .
F o r example, a l m o s t a l l
t h e h u n t i n g a c t i v i t y was i n t h e s m a l l game
c a t e g o r y , and o v e r o n e - h a l f o f t h e f i s h i n g a c t i v i t y was i n t h e warm f r e s h w a t e r c a t e g o r y .
These d i f f e r e n c e s a r e p r i m a r i l y r e f l e c t i v e o f
the opportunities a v a i l a b l e f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n .
T h i s was a l s o i n d i c a t e d i n t h e nonconsumptive
a r e a i n w h i c h b i r d s were t h e s i n g l e g r e a t e s t
category.
One c o u l d n o t contend t h a t t h e s e
a c t i v i t i e s would j u s t i f y a s i g n i f i c a n t monet a r y development, s i n c e t h e reason t h e y a r e
most p a r t i c i p a t e d i n i s t h a t t h e r e i s more
o p p o r t u n i t y t o do so.
The most i m p o r t a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t
d e t e r m i n e a q u a l i t y h u n t i n g and f i s h i n g a r e a
a r e c o n v e n i e n t t r a v e l t i m e and abundance o f
animals o r f i s h .
The l e a s t i m p o r t a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e o v e r n i g h t f a c i l i t i e s and p r e s ence o f t r o p h y a n i m a l s o r f i s h . Thus, i n any
development o f a w i l d l i f e n a t u r e , i t must meet
t h e c r i t e r i a o f abundance and convenience t o
a t t r a c t t h e most v i s i t o r s ; b u t such a m e n i t i e s
as o v e r n i g h t f a c i l i t i e s and t r o p h y a n i m a l s and
f i s h a r e not very important.
One f a c t o r t h a t i s v e r y i m p o r t a n t t o
p l a n n e r s and managers i s t h a t i n a1 l a c t i v i t i e s , a m a j o r i t y o f respondents were w i l l i n g
t o pay a n e x t r a f e e f o r improved q u a l i t y a r e a s
on b o t h p u b l i c and p r i v a t e l a n d s .
h u n t i n g and f i s h i n g i n New Mexico.
94 p
Bur. o f Business Research, U n i v . o f New
Mexico, A1 buquerque.
Nobe, K. C . , and A. H. G i l b e r t
1970. A s u r v e y o f sportsmen e x p e n d i t u r e s
f o r h u n t i n g and f i s h i n g i n Colorado,
1968. Colo. D i v . W i l d l . Tech. P u b l . 24,
83 p. C o l o . D i v . W i l d l . , Denver, Colo.
( A v a i l a b l e i n photocopy o n l y . )
Rohdy, D . D., and R . E. Lovegrove
1970. Economic impact o f h u n t i n g and f i s h i n g e x p e n d i t u r e s i n Grand County, C o l o r a do, 1968. 36 p. Dep. o f Economics,
Colo. S t a t e U n i v . , F o r t C o l l i n s .
Thompson, E. F., J. M. Gray, and B. S.
McG i nnes
967.
Estimated hunting expenditures i n
Virginia.
V i r g i n i a Polytechnic I n s t .
Res. Rep. 116., 8 p.
U.S. Department o f t h e I n t e r i o r , Bureau o f
S p o r t F i s h e r i e s and W i l d l i f e
1972. N a t i o n a l s u r v e y o f f i s h i n g and h u n t i n g (1970).
Res. P u b l . 95, 108 p.
LITERATURE CITED
C r u t c h f i e l d , J. A.
1962. V a l u a t i o n o f f i s h e r y r e s o u r c e s .
E C O ~ . 38(2):145-154.
Land
H o r v a t h , J. C .
19743.
S o u t h e a s t e r n economic s u r v e y o f
wild1 i f e recreation:
detailed analysis.
Georgia S t a t e U n i v . , A t l a n t a , Ga.
183 p .
H o r v a t h , J. C .
1974b.
S o u t h e a s t e r n economic s u r v e y o f
w i l d l i f e recreation:
e x e c u t i v e summary.
Georgia S t a t e U n i v . , A t l a n t a , Ga.
118 p.
I s a r d , W.
9 6 0 . Methods o f r e g i o n a l a n a l y s i s : an
i n t r o d u c t i o n t o regional science.
784 p .
The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass.
K a l t e r , R . J.
1971. The economics o f water-based o u t d o o r
recreation:
a s u r v e y and c r i t i q u e o f
r e c e n t developments.
I n s t i t u t e f o r Water
Resources Report 71, 192 p.
K i r k p a t r i c k , T. 0.
1965. The economic and s o c i a l v a l u e s o f
U n i v e r s i t y o f Utah, Bureau o f Economics and
Business Research
9 6 0 . The economic v a l u e o f f i s h i n g and
h u n t i n g i n Utah. 36 p. U t a h S t a t e Dep.
F i s h & Game,.Salt Lake C i t y . '
U t a h S t a t e Department o f F i s h and Game
1957. A s t u d y o f t h e econorric v a l u e o f
f i s h i n g and h u n t i n g i n U t a h . U t a h S t a t e
Dep. F i s h & Game P u b l . 7 , 73 p. U t a h
S t a t e Dep. F i s h & Game, S a l t Lake c i t y . '
Wallace, R . F.
1956. An e v a l u a t i o n o f w i l d l i f e r e s o u r c e s
i n t h e S t a t e o f Washington.
Bur. Econ. &
Bus. Res. B u l l . 28. 63 p . Washington
S t a t e C o l l e g e , School o f Economics and
Business, Pullman.
Wennegren, E. B.
1967. Demand e s t i m a t e s and r e s o u r c e v a l u e s
f o r r e s i d e n t deer h u n t i n g i n Utah. U t a h
S t a t e U n i v . , A g r i c . Exp. S t n . B u l l . 469,
27 P .
'
The Department i s now t h e U t a h S t a t e W i l d -
1 i f e Resource D i v i s i o n .
Mathematical Programming in the Context of Planning for Multiple Goals
A. B. Rudra
A b s t r a c t - - I n a t t a c k i n g some f o r e s t management problems, mult i p l e g o a l s can be l i n k e d t h r o u g h a s i n g l e p e r f o r m a n c e - f u n c t i o n
criterion.
A v a r i e t y o f such problems have been s o l v e d by t r a d i t i o n a l mathematical programing t e c h n i q u e s , such as l i n e a r programing.
But i n a n o t h e r c l a s s o f problems, such a u n i f i e d s i n g l e dimension c r i t e r i o n i s n o t r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e .
Increased concern
i n e n v i r o n m e n t a l q u a l i t y has emphasized t h e importance o f e x t r a market b e n e f i t s .
S u r r o g a t e measures a r e o f t e n n o t adequate enough
f o r a s s e s s i n g t h e t o t a l i t y o f such i n t a n g i b l e v a l u e s t h a t r e s u l t
f r o m any a c t i v i t y .
I n f e a s i b i l i t y of s o l u t i o n i s another d i f f i c u l t y encountered i n t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l s t r u c t u r i n g o f m u l t i p l e conf l i c t i n g goal s t h r o u g h 1 i n e a r programing. The goal programing
approach i s , t h e r e f o r e , advocated as a s c e r t a i n i n g t h e t r a d e - o f f i n
achieving s p e c i f i c goals.
The approach i s i l l u s t r a t e d by a case
study.
I n r e c e n t y e a r s , t h e use o f v a t h e m a t i c a l
~ r o q r a m i n q i n f o r e s t r y has undergone a share
ucsurae.
The most comnonly used t e c h n i q u e i s
t h e l i n e a r ~ r o q ' - a r ' i n a (LP) c o r t w l a t i o n , e i t h e r
i n t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l way, o r i n one o f i t s
P r o b l e m a r e aeneral l y s t r u c a1 l i e d f o r m s .
t u r e d i n t h e usual o r o d u c t p i x a l l o c a t i o n and
schedulina formats.
Studies cover both the
s i n g l e - s t a q e and t h e m u l t i s t a g e d f o r m u l a t i o n s .
A l l such f o r m u l a t i o n seek t o o p t i m i z e a s i n gle-dimensional o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n c r i t e r i o n ,
w h i l e s a t i s f y i n g a s e t o f c o n s t r a i n t s which
d e f i n e a number o f i n t e r m e d i a t e g o a l s .
T h i s paper seeks t o draw a t t e n t i o n t o t h e
method o f g o a l p r o q r a m i ng (GP) and, h o p e f u l l y ,
t o nudge t h e c a s e f o r s t o c h a s t i c programina-t e c h n i q u e s w h i c h do n o t aopear t o have been
e x t e n s i v e l y used i n f o r e s t r y so f a r .
I n t h e s t a n d a r d LP f o r m a t , a l l a c t i v i t i e s
a r e o p t i m i z e d i n terms o f a common performance
function.
Thus, i f p r o f i t m a x i m i z a t i o n i s t h e
g o a l , f i n a n c i a l r e t u r n s a r e assessed by d i s c o u n t e d n e t revenue, p r e s e n t n e t w o r t h , i n t e r nal r a t e of return, benefit-cost r a t i o , o r
some such s i n g l e c r i t e r i o n f o r a l l a c t i v i t i e s .
S i m i l a r l y some common measure o f c o s t s i s used
i n t h e c o s t m i n i m i z a t i o n case.
However, i n
planning f o r multiple-use f o r e s t r y , particul a r l y when e x t r a - m a r k e t b e n e f i t s a r e i n v o l v e d ,
i t i s not always p o s s i b l e t o s e l e c t a s u i t a b l e
c r i t e r i o n - - f o r t h e comprehensive a p p r a i s a l o f
t h e m u l t i - f a c e t e d b e n e f i t s t h a t r e s u l t from
t h e a c t i v i t i e s - - f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n t h e obj e c t i v e function.
Growing i n t e r e s t i n e n v i r o n m e n t a l q u a l i t y
has h i g h l i g h t e d t h e need f o r e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y
s e n s i t i v e i n d i c a t o r s r a t h e r than t h e usual
economic i n d i c a t o r s . N a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s , such
as f o r e s t s , n a t i o n a l p a r k s , e t c . , a r e n o t
r e a d i l y s u b j e c t t o market v a l u a t i o n s .
This
I i m i t a t i o n has r e s u l t e d i n an i n c r e a s e i n r e search i n t o t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f e x t r a - m a r k e t
b e n e f i t s . C e r t a i n p r o x y v a l u e s have been p r o oosed f o r t h e assessment o f u n p r i c e d goods.
I n t h e f i e l d o f r e c r e a t i o n , f o r example, t h e
use o f consumer s u r p l u s shows c o n s i d e r a b l e
promise as a measure o f t h e s o c i e t y ' s w i l l i n g ness t o pay f o r an a m e n i t y .
Even t h e i n c l u s i o n o f a s u r r o g a t e measure t o c o v e r t h e i n c l u s i o n o f e x t r a - m a r k e t b e n e f i t s i n t o t h e obj e c t i v e f u n c t i o n does n o t , however, overcome
t h e problem o f u s i n g market p r i c e s f o r t h e
r e s t o f t h e commodities i n an economic ~ l a n n ing exercise.
There a r e t h e problems o f p a r t i a l e q u i l i b r i u m models and a l t h o u g h t h e r e i s a d e f i n i t e t r e n d towards general e q u i l i b r i u m models
( ~ o r s u n d1972, Mul l e r 1973) t h e r e i s s t i l l i n adequate econometric i n f o r m a t i o n t o r e l y on.
We must a l s o emphasize t h a t t h e r e i s some cont roversy regard ing t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f e x t r a market b e n e f i t s i n p a r t .
Indeed, Schramm
(1973) argues t h a t i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o e v a l u a t e a l l o f t h e e x t r a - m a r k e t b e n e f i t s and,
t h e r e f o r e , one should n o t a t t e m p t t o assess a
f r a c t i o n o f them o n l y .
Johnston (1974) d i s cusses some o f t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s i n d e c i d i n g
upon a s u i t a b l e i n d i c a t o r o f s o c i a l economic
w e l f a r e i n environmental qua1 i t y c o n t r o l .
I t i s i m p o r t a n t , t h e r e f o r e , t o examine
t h e t r a d e - o f f between e n v i r o n m e n t a l and conv e n t i o n a l m a t e r i a l i s t i c goals--and goal p r o graming p r o v i d e s a method f o r such a n a l y s e s .
A m o d i f i c a t i o n o f s t a n d a r d l i n e a r programing,
i t o b v i a t e s t h e need f o r a s i n g l e d i m e n s i o n a l
o p t i m r z a t i o n c r i t e r i o n . And by t h e v e r y nat u r e o f i t s f o r m u l a t i o n , i t removes t h e i n -
a s i b i l i t y o f solution.
I n c o n v e n t i o n a l LP,
e lack o f a feasible solution i s often very
f st rating, as t h e o f f e n d i n g c o n s t r a i n t s may
~t be r e a d i l y a p p a r e n t when t h e i n i t i a l p r o b lem i s s t r u c t u r e d .
Chance-constra i ned p r o g r a m i n g ( C C P ) i s an
example o f s t o c h a s t i c p r o g r a m i n g .
Constraint
e q u a t i o n s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e g o a l s c a n be r e p l a c e d b y a measure o f p r o b a b i l i t y o r r i s k o f
n o t a c h i e v i n g any o r a l l o f t h e c o n s t r a i n t s .
T h i s removes t h e n e c e s s i t y t h a t a l l cons t r a i n t s must b e s a t i s f i e d .
GOAL PROGRAM I NG
Lee (1972) r e c o u n t s t h e h i s t o r y o f g o a l
programing.
The c o n c e p t o f GP was developed
b y Charnes and Cooper and t h e y a l s o p r o v i d e d
t h e name o f t h e method (Charnes and Cooper
1961).
For a d e t a i l e d e x p o s i t i o n o f t h e techn i q u e , c o n s u l t p a p e r s b y Charnes an'd o t h e r s
(1968~1, b ; 1969), I j i r i (1965), Lee (1971,
l 9 7 2 ) , and F i e l d (1973).
The g o a l p r o g r a m i n g model s e t s o u t t o
m i n i m i z e t h e a g g r e g a t e sum o f t h e p o s i t i v e and
n e g a t i v e d e v i a t i o n s f r o m g o a l s w h i c h a r e speci f i e d by c o n s t r a i n t s .
Thus t h e o b j e c t i v e
f u n c t i o n c o n s i s t s o f c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r t h e dev i a t i o n s o f t h e g o a l s and p l a c e s no v a l u e f o r
the structural variables depicting a c t i v i t i e s .
We may s e t o u t t h e GP model i n t h e f a m i l i a r LP
f o r m as f o l l o w s :
Minimize
- -
z = c'd
An a d d i t i o n a l g r o u p o f c o n s t r a i n t s , n o t i n v o l v i n g t h e p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e d e v i a t i o n s , may
sometimes a l s o be i n c l u d e d t o d e a l w i t h r e l a t i o n s between t h e c o n s t r a i n t s .
Where m
= number o f c o n s t r a i n t s o r g o a l s
n
= number o f d e c i s i o n v a r i a b l e s
5
= column v e c t o r o f d e c i s i o n
and n e g a t i v e d e v i a t i o n s f r o m
g o a l s ; each o f t h e v e c t o r s has m
elements
b
= column v e c t o r o f m e l e m e n t s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e goal l e v e l s
c'
= row v e c t o r r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e c o -
efficients o f the objective
f u n c t i o n ; these a r e t h e weighted
o r unweighted p r i o r i t y f a c t o r s .
One r e c o g n i z e s i m m e d i a t e l y t h e s i m i l a r i t y
between t h e d e v i a t i o n v a r i a b l e s i n GP and t h e
s l a c k v a r i a b l e s i n LP, i n c h a n g i n g i n e q u a l i ties into equalities.
The i m p o s i t i o n o f a
p o s i t i v e and a n e g a t i v e d e v i a t i o n t o each cons t r a i n t o r goal e q u a t i o n , removes t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f infeasibility.
Further t h e formulat i o n ensures t h a t e i t h e r d? o r df w i l l be z e r o
The w e i g h t e d p r i o r i t i e s a r e g i v e n b y 5 .
Let u
f i r s t consider the e f f e c t o f minimizing d i f f e r
e n t s e t s o f t h e unloaded d e v i a t e s . M i n i m i z i n c
(d- + d+) makes t h e s e a r c h f o r 6 w h i c h a c h i e v e
= t ~ ,t h e r e b y m i n i m i z i n g t h e absot h e goal
l u t e v a l u e o f (A.?- b ) .
M i n i m i z i n g o n l y (d-)
results i n minimizing the negative deviations
from t h e goal.
Solution gives 5 which sets
(b - 4.x) t o t h e minimum p o s s i b l e . On t h e
o t h e r hand, m i n i m i z i n g o n l y (d+) r e s u l t s i n 5
w h i c h s e t s (A.? b ) t o t h e minimum p o s s i b l e .
fi.?
-
Several techniques a r e a v a i l a b l e t o pres c r i b e p r i o r i t i e s and w e i g h t s .
And i t i s
p o s s i b l e t o f o r c e an o r d e r i n g o f t h e a t t a i n I f no
ment o f g o a l s ( ~ e e1972, F i e l d 1973).
w e i g h t e d p r i o r i t i e s a r e used, t h e n t h e e l e ments o f 5 w i l l a l l equal 1 .
We may i g n o r e
some o f t h e d e v i a t i o n s i n w h i c h c a s e t h e s e
e l e m e n t s i n 5 w i l l have z e r o v a l u e . The l o a d i n g scheme c o u l d be an a r t i f a c t o f t h e d a t a
base, o r i t c o u l d be s u b j e c t i v e l y p r e s c r i b e d .
Such ad hoc w e i g h t e d p r i o r i t y l o a d s may be
t a k e n t o r e p r e s e n t e i t h e r c o n v e n t i o n a l wisdom
o r c u r r e n t t h i n k i n q on t h e r e l a t i v e i m p o r t a n c e
o f goals.
I t would appear (see f o l l o w i n g
examples) t h a t t h e r e l a t i v e o r d e r o f t h e s e
l o a d s i s more i m p o r t a n t t h a n a c t u a l v a l u e o f
t h e s e l o a d s . G e n e r a l l y , as l o n g as we g i v e
r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e l o a d s t o t h e d e v i a t i o n s we
seek t o a v o i d ( i . e . , seek t o e n s u r e t h e
a t t a i n m e n t o f t h e g o a l s concerned) t h e s e
d e v i a t i o n v a r i a b l e s w i l l n o t appear i n t h e
f i n a l b a s i c s o l u t i o n i n a m i n i m i z a t i o n scheme
(compare t h e case o f a r t i f i c i a l v a r i a b l e s i n a
normal LP scheme).
v a r i a b l e s (n elements)
6 I
4 - ,c) +
= t h e m a t r i x (m x n ) o f t e c h n o l o g -
ical coefficients
= t h e i d e n t i t y m a t r i x (m x m)
= column v e c t o r s o f t h e p o s i t i v e
To f u r t h e r c l a r i f y t h e method, we f i r s t
c o n s i d e r a s i m p l e problem. The c o r r e s p o n d i n g
LP and GP f o r m u l a t i o n s a r e t a b u l a t e d i n f i g u r e s 1 and 2. The d e t a i l s a r e s e l f e x p l a n a tory.
For t h e GP c a s e ( f i g . 2) we have f i r s t
c o n s i d e r e d two u n w e i g h t e d p r i o r i t y schemes,
and t h e l a s t two schemes use ad hoc l o a d s (03)
iI
OBJ
Constraints
x1
X2
80
40
RHS
S o l u t i o n ( ~ a s i cv a r i a b l e s )
(Maximize)
X1=24
X2=l
6
S l a c k o f (3)=14
OBJ = 2560
Figure I--The
Xi
l i n e a r programing f o r m u l a t i o n
X2
di
di
d3
di
dy
RHS
d3
as Si co lvuat ri oi anb l e s )
F o r 01 & 02
Objective
Functions
xi=l 0
x2=30
I
1
1
1
1
1
P3
p3-(weighted p r i o r i t i e s )
1
1
1
1
(Minimize)
d;=l4
II
For 03 & 04
(Minimize)
I I
X 1=24
X2=I 6
d3=14
Constraints
= 40
F i g u r e 2--The
general programing f o r m u l a t i o n
Min. aggregate
o f deviates
and w e i g h t e d p r i o r i t i e s c a l c u l a t e d o n t h e
b a s i s o f some a l g o r i t h m based o n t h e p r o b l e m
data.
Cases (01) seek t o M i n (d- + d " ) , t h e
d e v i a t i o n s n o t b e i n g l o a d e d . Case (02) i s simi l a r ( i g n o r e s &+ and dcf) t o Cases (03) and ( 0 4 ) ,
e x c e p t t h a t (02) uses no w e i g h t e d p r i o r i t i e s .
Notice t h a t a v a r i e t y o f solutions a r e possib l e , depending o n t h e g o a l o r d e r i n g scheme.
L e t us now c o n s i d e r a s imp1 i f i e d v e r s i o n
o f a r e a l 1i f e problem ( f i g . 3 ) .
A f o r e s t has
For each zone, t h r e e
t h r e e zones A, B, and C .
management a1 t e r n a t i v e s a r e a v a i l a b l e :
TP = Area t o be worked f o r t i m b e r
production
R
= Area t o be e x c l u s i v e l y used f o r
recreation
MU = Area t o be managed f o r m u l t i p l e use,
say r e c r e a t i o n and l i m i t e d t i m b e r
p r o d u c t i o n bees?<iee o t h e r amen i t i e s .
The g o a l s t f i a t s e t s t a n d a r d s f o r w a t e r q u a l i t y
a r e t h e c o n s t r a i n t s f o r b i o c h e m i c a l oxygen demand (BOD.c o n s t r a i n t 4) and suspended s o l i d s
(SS c o n s t r a i n t 5).
Permissible cut (v) i s set
b y c o n s t r a i n t 6, w h i l e summer and w i n t e r t o u r i s t l o a d s (ST and WT) a r e s p e c i f i e d b y cons t r a i n t s 7 and 8 , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
Hypothetical
rfata have been used f o r t h i s e x e r c i s e ( f i g . 4 ) .
Values a r e i n a p p r o p r i a t e u n i t s f o r t h e
v a r i a b l e s concerned, b u t a c t u a l u n i t s a r e n o t
specified.
i t s e q u i v a l e n t d e t e r m i n i s t i c f o r m (Sengupta
1972). The chance c o n s t r a ined p r o g r a m i n g
method (CCP) i s one such t e c h n i q u e , d e v e l o p e d
b y Charnes and Cooper (1959).
Many o f t h e p a r a m e t e r s o f most r e a l - l i f e
problems a r e d e s c r i b e d by random v a r i a b l e s
r a t h e r t h a n by d e t e r m i n i s t i c q u a n t i t i e s . Thus
i n t h e customary LP model [maximize Z = c-5,
A x s b, 5 2 ? I , t h e e l e m e n t s o f t h e s e t ( 6 , b,
are generally stochastic.
I t i s obvious
t h a t t h r o u g h random v a r i a t i o n s i n 0, where 6
d e n o t e s t h e v e c t o r w i t h e l e m e n t s (A, b,
considerable differences could occur i n the
solution.
P a r t i a l answers a r e a v a i l a b l e ,
t h r o u g h s t a n d a r d s e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s e s i n LP,
t o s t u d y t h e e f f e c t o f changes i n t h e p r o b l e m
parameters o n t h e o p t i m a l s o l u t i o n .
Stochast i c p r o g r a m i n g c o n s i d e r s t h e s e random e f f e c t s
more e x p l i c i t l y i n t h e s o l u t i o n o f t h e model.
c),
I n g e n e r a l , C J , a i J , and b i a r e a l l r a n dom v a r i a b l e s .
I f cJ i s a random v a r i a b l e we
c o u l d s u b s t i t u t e i t s e x p e c t e d v a l u e , so t h a t
t h e o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n becomes [maximize Z =
E(c,).x,].
W e w i l l not consider the s i t u a t i o n when b o t h aiJ and bi , i n any c o n s t r a i n t ,
a r e s i m u l t a n t e o u s l y random v a r i a b l e s , and r e s t r i c t o u r s e l v e s t o t h e s i m p l e r c a s e o f separ a t e l y c o n s i d e r i n g e i t h e r a n and b i o n l y a s
random.
When t h e l i n e a r c o n s t r a i n t s o f a LP
formulation a r e associated w i t h p r o b a b i l i t y
measures i n d i c a t i n g t h e e x t e n t o f t h e v i o l a t i o n o f t h e c o n s t r a i n t s , t h e LP model i s
chance c o n s t r a i n e d .
Thus t h e chance cons t r a i ' n t s c o u l d be expressed a s :
The GP model f o r t h e p r o b l e m i s g i v e n i n
f i g 5.
F i g . 6 shows t h e s o l u t i o n s , w i t h r e l e v a n t remarks.
I n t h e LP s o l u t i o n o f t h e problem, cons t r a i n t 10 (lncome) was removed and t h e c o e f f i c i e n t s o f income c o n s t r a i n t was used i n t h e
This solution
objective function ( f i g . 7).
f o r income m a x i m i z a t i o n i s p r o v i d e d f o r comp a r i s o n . Note t h a t a l l areas a r e s e l e c t e d f o r
t i m b e r p r o d u c t i o n on1 y . The r e s u l t s i n c o r p o r a t e a l i m i t e d amount o f s e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s
by way o f r a n g i n g RHS ( f o r n o n s l a c k r e s o u r c e s )
and o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n ( f o r b a s i c v a r i a b l e s ) .
The g o a l p r o g r a m i n g model p r o v i d e s a
range o f s o l u t i o n s , depending on t h e p a t t e r n
o f loads attached t o t h e d e v i a t i o n v a r i a b l e s .
These s o l u t i o n s h e l p i n d e c i d i n g o n t r a d e - o f f
between v a r i o u s g o a l s .
They a l s o h e l p i n
understanding the extent o f s a c r i f i c e involved
i n f o r c i n g t h e r e a l i z a t i o n o f any s u b - s e t o f
goals.
STOCHAST I C PROGRAM I NG
The c e n t r a l i d e a o f a s t o c h a s t i c program
i s t o c o n v e r t t h e probabi l i s t i c problem i n t o
s t i p u l a t i n g t h a t each c o n s t r a i n t o r g o a l i s
t h e n r e a l i z e d w i t h a minimum p r o b a b i l i t y 61,
^ 1 . These r e s t r i c t i o n s i m p l y a n
where 0 ^ &i
equivalent set o f linear inequalities
s x z B i
(i=l
,..
which a r e t h e d e t e r m i n i s t i c e q u i v a l e n t con
s t r a i n t s , Bi i s t h e l a r g e s t number s a t i s f y
Prob [bi
;B
~ ];Ii
or equivalently
r o b [bi
< B,];
1
-
B~
where t h e number Bi i s t h e (1 - 81 ) f r a c t i l e
o f m a r g i n a l p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n o f bi
The d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f Bi p r e s e n t s no problem,
once t h e m a r g i n a l p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n o f
b i i s known.
.
Zone A
I
Zone B
I
Zone C
I
-
Area c o n s t r a i n t s ( i n s u i t a b l e a r e a u n i t e )
(4)
-
Water qua1 i t y c o n s t r a i n t s ( i n s u i t a b l e BOD u n i t s )
(5)
- Water qua1 i t y c o n s t r a i n t s ( i n s u i t a b l e SS [suspended s o l i d s ] u n i t s )
(6)
-
P e r m i s s i b 1 e c u t s ( i n s u i t a b l e volume u n i t s )
(7)
-
P e r m i s s i b le v i s i t o r loads ( i n s u i t a b l e u n i t s :
ST-summer t o u r i s t s )
(8
-
P e r m i s s i b 1e v i s i t o r l o a d s ( i n s u i t a b l e u n i t s :
WT-winter
(9)
-
Budget c o n s t r a i n t s (C i n s u i t a b l e money u n i t s )
-
A n t i c i p a t e d income (R i n s u i t a b l e money u n i t s )
(I),
(10)
(2),
(3)
tourists)
F i g u r e 3--The b a s i c p r o b l e m o f management a l t e r n a t i v e s a v a i l a b l e f o r t h r e e f o r e s t zones:
t i m b e r p r o d u c t i o n ( T P ) , r e c r e a t i o n (R), and m u l t i p l e u s e (MU)
A
B
C
TP
BOD ( b i o - c h e m i c a l ozygen demand)
= 120 u n i t s
B =
R
MU
.009
.009
.008
SS (suspended s o l i d s )
= 120 u n i t s
V (volume o f o u t t u r n )
= 2,400 u n i t s
ST (summer t o u r i s t l o a d )
= 2,400 u n i t s
WT ( w i n t e r t o u r i s t l o a d )
= 10,000 u n i t s
C (budget c o n s t r a i n t s - c o s t s )
= 1,700 u n i t s
c =
R
MU
R (income c o n s t r a i n t )
= 3,600 u n i t s
Figure 4--Hypothetical
d a t a used f o r t h e p r o b l e m i n management a l t e r n a t i v e s .
Zone A
1
Zone C
Zone B
TP R
Objective
functions
MU
- ; dy
d i
CIA
d;
d<
d:
d;
dk
d;
dy(,
d:
d+
d+
j
I +:
dl(,:
x 7 X8 X Q
01
RHS
Remarks
1
1
1
1
k
k
Minimize
02
03
04
05
000
I
4 I
11
k = 999999 a d
hoc w e i g h t e d
priorities
k = 21 603600
weighted
priorities
c a l c u l a t e d as
per P r i o r i t y
Factor
Algorithm
( ~ i e l d1973)
Figure
3
Fiqure 4
F i q u r e 5--Goal
P r o q r a m i n q T a b l e a u f o r t h e p r o b l e m i n management a l t e r n a t i v e s
Objective
So1 u t i o n
f u n c t i o n No.
number
used
1.
01
Variable
description
B C -
!Variable value
(appropriate
units)
Remarks
:
+
XI
Area- A
(TP)
M'in ( d
X4
Area
(TP)
A c t i v i t i e s chosen ( i ) a l l A f o r t i m b e r p r o d u c t i o n
Xg
Area
(MU)
i i ) a l l B f o r timber production
d3
d4
d6
-
d
Unused a r e a o f C
BOD l e v e l <by
V
l e v e l <by
WT l e v e l <by
do
C
l e v e l <by
din
R
l e v e l <by
dc
ss
l e v e l >by
-
Area A
Area A
Area B
Area C
Area C
-
(R)
(MU)
(TP)
(TP)
(R)
d ) , w i t h o u t weighted p r i o r i t i e s
( i i i ) p a r t C f o r m u l t i p l e use
S a t i s f i e s w a t e r q u a l i t y c o n s t r a i n t s w i t h BOD l e s s t h a n
upper l i m i t .
Volume p r o d u c t i o n f a l l s s h o r t by 403 u n i t s and w i n t e r
t o u r i s t l o a d f a l l s s h o r t by 3584 u n i t s and income l e v e l
f a l l s by 592 u n i t s . Budget i s s a t i s f a c t o r i l y below
upper 1 i m i t .
M i n ( d + d ) , w i t h p o s i t i v e d e v i a t e s g i v e n equal and
very l a r g e weights x p r i o r i t y loads
A c t i v i t i e s chosen ( i ) p a r t o f A f o r r e c r e a t i o n and r e s t
f o r m u l t i p l e use
i i ) a1 1 o f B f o r t i m b e r p r o d u c t i o n
i ii ) p a r t o f C f o r timber production
BOD l e v e l <by
V
l e v e l <by
ST l e v e l <by
C
l e v e l <by
R
l e v e l <by
and r e s t f o r r e c r e a t i o n
S a t i s f i e s w a t e r q u a l i t y c o n s t r a i n t s w i t h BOD upper
1i m i t .
Volume p r o d u c t i o n f a l l s by 841 u n i t s , summer t o u r i s t s
l o a d f a l l s by 1460 u n i t s and income f a l l s by 1335 u n i t s .
Budget i s s a t i s f a c t o r i l y below upper l i m i t s .
\
3.
03
Same s o l u t i o n as S o l u t i o n 2. I n t h i s case m i n i m i z a t i o n problem was same as 02, e x c e p t t h a t
p o s i t i v e income d e v i a t e was n o t g i v e n l a r g e l o a d i n g f a c t o r .
Area A
-
(MU)
Min ( d ) w i t h o u t weighted p r i o r i t i e s
Area B
-
(TP)
A c t i v i t i e s chosen ( i ) a l l A f o r m u l t i p l e use
Area C
Area C
-
(TP)
(R)
BOD l e v e l <by
V
l e v e l <by
ST l e v e l <by
C
l e v e l <by
R
l e v e l <by
( i i ) a1 1 B f o r t i m b e r p r o d u c t i o n
( i i i ) p a r t o f C f o r timber production
and r e s t f o r r e c r e a t i o n
BOD l e v e l below upper l i m i t b u t S S l e v e l i s exceeded by
14 u n i t s .
Volume p r o d u c t i o n f a l l s by 797 u n i t s , summer t o u r i s t
l o a d f a l l s by 1543 u n i t s , income f a l l s by 1188 u n i t s .
Budget s a t i s f a c t o r i l y below upper l i m i t .
S S l e v e l >by
^ i g u r e 6 - - S o l u t i o n s o f t h e model t o t h e p r o b l e m o f management a1 t e r n a t i v e s :
r e c r e a t i o n ( R ) , and m u l t i p l e use (MU).
t i m b e r p r o d u c t i o n (TP) ,
Objective
Solution function
number
used
5.
i1
O5
No.
Variable
description
Xo
Area A - ( R )
Xo
Area C
-
d2d3
-
A c t i v i t i e s chosen ( i ) a l l A f o r r e c r e a t i o n
Unused B
2000
Unused C
2000
38
S S l e v e l <by
88
dg
V
l e v e l <by
229
d7
STlevel<by
900
l e v e l <by
3599
-
R
+
Min ( d
2000
dc
din
Remarks
6000
BOD l e v e l <by
-
06
(R)
d4
-
6.
-
Variable value
(appropriate
units)
d ) w i t h s p e c i f i e d weighted p r i o r i t i e s
i i ) part o f C f o r recreation
S u b s t a n t i a l p a r t o f f o r e s t l e f t unused.
Water q u a l i t y c o n s t r a i n t s s a t i s f a c t o r i l y below l i m i t .
Volume p r o d u c t i o n and income fa11 down d r a s t i c a l l y t o
near z e r o l e v e l , summer t o u r i s t l o a d f a l l s by o n l y 900
u n i t s and budget and income f a 1 1 t o n e a r l y z e r o .
Same s o l u t i o n as 5. Same m i n i m i z a t i o n problems as 05, except f o r w e i g h t x p r i o r i t y f a c t o r s .
F i g u r e 6 ( ~ o n t d--Sol
)
u t i o n s o f t h e model t o t h e problem o f management a1 t e r n a t i v e s :
r e c r e a t i o n (R) , and mu1 t i p l e use (MU).
t i m b e r p r o d u c t i o n (TP)
F i g u r e 7 - - S o l u t i o n f o r income m a x i m i z a t i o n . A l l areas (A, B, and
C ) a r e chosen f o r t i m b e r p r o d u c t i o n . O p p o r t u n i t y c o s t s
f o r non-basic v a r i a b l e s and o p t i m a l i t y ranges f o r RHS
c o n s t r a i n t s and income c o e f f i c i e n t s a r e shown.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Variable
number
Variable
name
1
2
X1
X2
3
x3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
X4
x5
x6
x7
x8
x9
--SLACK
--SLACK
--SLACK
--SLACK
--SLACK
--SLACK
--SLACK
--SLACK
--SLACK
Basic
Non-Bas i c
B
NB
NB
B
NB
NB
B
NB
NB
NB
NB
B
B
NB
B
B
B
B
Activity
Ieve1
6000.0000000
--
-2000.0000000
---
3272.7272727
---
--
-727.2727273
61 .6363636
--
25.4545455
2400.0000000
4490.9090909
21.8181818
Maximum v a l u e o f t h e o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n = 3438.181818
,
igure
7 (Contd)--Solution
f o r income m a x i m i z a t i o n . A11 a r e a s (A, B, and
C ) a r e chosen f o r t i m b e r p r o d u c t i o n .
Opportunity costs
f o r n o n - b a s i c v a r i a b l e s and o p t i m a l i t y ranges f o r RHS
c o n s t r a i n t s and income c o e f f i c i e n t s a r e shown.
RNGRHS
.,t\. .
L
,>
,.,.,.,\
.1,
.it
8.-
-1-
(OPTIMAL ITY RANGE FOR R I GHT-HAND-S IDE CONSTANTS)
NON-SLACK RESOURCES ONLY
Bl
5
XOUT
7
MIN
Bl
--- - -- -
ORIGINAL Bl
-----------
MAX
Bl
-------
Z-LOWER
Z
Z-UPPER
84.000
2620.0
20.00
3438.2
121.40
3470.0
RNGOBJ
......
.,!.,!..$.!.
, , .L, ,
8-.
(OPTIMAL ITY RANGE FOR OBJ COEFFICIENTS)
BASIC VARIABLES ONLY
XOUT
15
S o l u t i o n ( ~ a s i cv a r i a b l e s )
V a r i a b l e number
Variable description
1
Variable value
Area A - TP
Area A
-
R
Area A
-
MU
4147
Area B
-
TP
2000
Area C
-
TP
1432
1 eve'
Remarks
A c t i v i t i e s chosen:
p a r t s o f Area A
g e t a l l management a l t e r n a t i v e s ;
41 I
Area
B f o r t i m b e r p r o d u c t i o n ; Area C i s
Area C - R
V
1442
1
-
p a r t l y chosen f o r t i m b e r p r o d u c t i o n
and p a r t l y f o r r e c r e a t i o n .
2568
by
851
ST l e v e l < by
1518
A l l c o n s t r a i n t s bounds a r e s a t i s f i e d
as i n S o l u t i o n 02 ( f i g u r e 6 ) .
Budget
l e v e l about same b u t income l e v e l
C
level
by
724
R
l e v e l < by
1284
improves
.
F i q u r e 8--Problem i n f i q u r e 3 w i t h elements i n t h e BOD q o a l , c h a n c e - c o n s t r a i n e d .
The s o l u t i o n o f t h e
(compare
q o a l p r o q r a m i n q model o f f i a u r e 5 L- i n q 03 f o r d e v i a t i o n loads i s g i v e n below.
solution 2 o f 'iqure 6 . )
S i n c e Bi p r o v i d e s a pleasure o f t h e p r o bab i 1 i t y t h a t any s p e c i f i c goal can be met o r
v i o I a t e d , a r e 1 i a b i l i t y measure f o r t h e system
cou I d be f o u n d by c o m b i n i n g t h e component
r e 1 i a b i l i t i e s , i . e.
We w i l l i l l u s t r a t e t h e case when ,a,
is a
random v a r i a b l e by a s i m p l e example.
Assume
aii
i s n o r m a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d w i t h mean ~ ( a ; , )
and v a r i a n c e v ( a i , ) .
C o n s i d e r t h e ithchance
constraint
Now
I;=]
E(dijj
.
j
+
N
where t h e s t a n d a r d normal N p i i s such
* n a t the cumulative d i s t r i b u t i o n f u n c t i o n o f
normal d i s t r i b u t i o n ,
and
i s real ized
iff
The c o n s t r a i n t i s no l o n g e r l i n e a r . T h e r e a r e
ways, however, under some r e l a x i n g assumptions,
when t h e c o n s t r a i n t can be made p r o p e r l y
separable.
and
i s the variance-covariance m a t r i x o f
I t f o l l o w s t h a t t h e c o n s t r a i n t can now
an
be w r i t t e n as
where
.
To s t u d y t h e e f f e c t o f chance c o n s t r a i n i n g , t h e BOD c o n s t r a i n t elements ( i n p r o b l e m
03 o f f i g u r e 5) on t h e o p t i m a l s o l u t i o n , we
adopted t h e above p r o c e d u r e . The a n ' s o f
t h i s c o n s t r a i n t were assumed t o be independe n t l y , n o r m a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d , so t h a t t h e cov a r i a n c e terms i n fl were s e t t o z e r o and
BI = .05. The s o l u t i o n o n l y i s p r e s e n t e d f o r
t h i s study ( f i g . 8 ) .
I n some cases i t may be a p p r o p r i a t e t o have
one o r more j o i n t c h a n c e - c o n s t r a i n t s i n s t e a d o f
independent c o n s t r a i n t s .
Such f o r m u l a t i o n s can
o n l y be s o l v e d by t e c h n i q u e s o f n o n l i n e a r p r o graming.
N e v e r t h e l e s s t h e approach o f j o i n t
c h a n c e - c o n s t r a i n t s has some a t t r a c t i v e f e a t u r e s ,
and deserves a t t e n t i o n .
The imp1 i c a t i o n s o f chance c o n s t r a i n t s a r e
t h a t t o l e r a n c e measures, one f o r each cons t r a i n t , o r j o i n t l y f o r chosen g o a l s , may be
p r e s c r i b e d b y t h e decisionmaker w i t h t h e i m p l i c i t c o s t o f such preassignment.
Alternatively,
t o l e r a n c e measures may be o p t i m a l l y s o l v e d a l o n g
w i t h other decision variables.
CONCLUSIONS
By i t s v e r y s t r u c t u r e , t h e goal programing
method removes i n f e a s i b i l i t y and o b v i a t e s t h e
necessity f o r a s i n g l e dimensional c r i t e r i o n i n
the o b j e c t i v e function.
Goal programing, t h e r e f o r e , deserves more a t t e n t i o n i n t h e management
planning o f resources f o r m u l t i p l e goals--part i c u l a r l y when no s i n g l e measure can comprehens i v e l y evaluate a l l the facets o f conventional
m a t e r i a l i s t i c as w e l l as i n t a n g i b l e v a l u e s t h a t
r e s u l t from any management a l t e r n a t i v e .
Another form o f programing--stochast i c programing--also m e r i t s wider a p p l i c a t i o n since
most parameters i n r e a l l i f e a r e p r o b a b i l i s t i c .
Standard s e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s w i t h LP can p r o v i d e o n l y p a r t i a l answers. The p r o b a b i l i t i e s
o f a c h i e v i n g s p e c i f i c g o a l s can be i n c o r p o r a t e d
i n c h a n c e - c o n s t r a i n e d programing f o r m u l a t i o n s ,
and some measure o f system r e l i a b i l i t y can be
assured.
LITERATURE CITED
Charnes, A., and W. W. Cooper
1959. C hance-cons t r a ined programming
a g e . S c i . 6 ( I ) :73-79.
manpower p l a n n i n g .
Manage. S c i . Rep. 18.
Grad. School Ind. Adm., C a r n e g i e - M e l l o n
Univ., P i t t s b u r g h , Pa.
12 p.
F i e l d , D. B.
1973.
Goal programming f o r f o r e s t management. For. S c i . 19(2):125-135.
Forsund, F. R.
9 7 2 . Al l o c a t i o n i n space and e n v i r o n m e n t a l
p o l l u t i o n . Swedish J . Econ. 74(1):19-34.
I j i r i , Y.
1965. Management g o a l s and a c c o u n t i n g f o r
control.
Rand M c N a l l y , Chicago.
191 p.
Johnston, R. E.
1974. Q u a n t i t a t i v e a t t e m p t s i n e n v i r o n m e n t a l
q u a l i t y c o n t r o l . A p p i t a 28(3):181-186.
Lee, S. M.
1971
D e c i s i o n a n a l ys,i s t h r o u g h g o a l p r o gramming. D e c i s i o n S c i . 2 ( 2 ) : 172-180.
.
Lee, S. M.
1972.
Goal programming f o r d e c i s i o n a n a l y s i s .
Inc., Philadelphia.
387 p.
Auerback Pub1
.,
M u l l e r , F.
1973. An o p e r a t i o n a l mathematical programming model f o r t h e p l a n n i n g o f economic
a c t i v i t i e s i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e environment.
Socio-Econ. P l a n . S c i . 7:123-138.
Schramm, G.
1973. A c c o u n t i n g f o r non-economic g o a l s i n
b e n e f i t - c o s t a n a l y s i s . J . E n v i r o n . Manage.
1 (2):129-150.
Sengupta, J . K.
1972.
S t o c h a s t i c programming:
methods and
appl i c a t ions.
N o r t h - H o l l a n d Publ Co.,
Amsterdam.
313 p.
.
.
Man-
APPEND I X
Charnes, A., and W. W. Cooper
1961. Management models and i n d u s t r i a l ap2 vols.
p l i c a t i o n s o f 1 i n e a r programming.
John W i l e y , New York.
Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, J . K . DeVoe, D. B.
Learner, and W. Reinecke
1968a.
A g o a l programming model f o r media
p l a n n i n g . Manage. S c i . 14(8) :B423-430.
Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, D . B. L e a r n e r , and
E. F. Snow
1968b.
Note on an a p p l i c a t i o n o f a goal p r o gramming model f o r media p l a n n i n g . Mana g e . S c i . 14(8) :B431-436.
Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, R. J. Niehaus, and
D. S h o l t z
1969. An extended g o a l programming model f o r
T h i s i s a s h o r t 1 i s t o f r e f e r e n c e s showing
t h e use o f c o n v e n t i o n a l m a t h e m a t i c a l programing
techniques i n f o r e s t r y .
I n each c a s e t h e m u l t i p l e and i n t e r m e d i a t e g o a l s a r e d e f i n e d b y t h e
c o n s t r a i n t s , and o p t i m i z a t i o n i s sought i n terms
o f a common performance c r i t e r i o n i n t h e o b j e c t i v e function.
Amidon, E. L., and G. S. A k i n
1968.
Dynamic programming t o d e t e r m i n e o p t i For. S c i .
mum l e v e l s o f g r o w i n g s t o c k .
14 (3) :287-291
(uses dynamic p r o g r a m i n g t o
d e t e r m i n e optimum l e v e l s o f g r o w i n g s t o c k . )
.
Bare, B. B., and E. L. Norman
1969. An e v a l u a t i o n o f i n t e g e r programming i n
f o r e s t p r o d u c t i o n schedul i n g .
I n d i a n a Agr i c . Exp. Stn. Res. B u l l . 847, 7 p.
Purdue
U n i v . , West L a f a y e t t e .
( I n t e g e r programing
f o r f o r e s t p r o d u c t i o n schedul i n g problems.)
Boughton, W. C .
Planning t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f f o r e s t
1967.
roads by 1 i n e a r programming. A u s t r a l i a n
F o r . 31 ( 2 ) : 1 1 1 - 1 20.
( ~ anp p l i c a t i o n o f LP
t o t h e p l a n n i n g o f road c o n s t r u c t i o n . )
C l u t t e r , J . L . , J . H. Bamping, J . E. Bethune,
J. C . F o r t s o n , L. A. Hargreaves, and L. S .
Shackel f o r d
1968. MAX- ILLION, a c o m p u t e r i z e d f o r e s t management p l a n n i n g system, 61 p.
Biometrics
S t a f f , Oper. Res. Sec., School o f F o r e s t
Resour., U n i v . G e o r g i a , Athens.
(uses LP
technique t o schedule o p e r a t i v e i n f o r e s t
management p l a n n i n g . )
C u r t i s , F. H.
1962.
L i n e a r programming t h e management o f a
forest property.
J. F o r . 6 0 ( 9 ) :611-616.
(LP formulations t o a i d foresters i n develo p i n g sustained y i e l d c u t t i n g schedules.)
D a v i s , L. S . , E. F. Lyons, and H. E. B u r k h a r t
1972. A s p a t i a l e q u i l i b r i u m a n a l y s i s o f t h e
S o u t h e r n A p p a l a c h i a n hardwood l u m b e r - u s i n g
(proi n d u s t r y . F o r . Sci. 18 (3) :247-260.
vides a s p a t i a l e q u i l i b r i u m analysis f o r
lumber u s i n g i n d u s t r y , m i n i m i z i n g c o s t s
through t h e network.
Model s o l v e s t h e
t r a n s p o r t a t i o n problem.)
Wardle, e d i t o r .
Great B r i t a i n F o r . Comm.
B u l l . No. 44.
H.M.S.O.,
London.
(~escribes the o p t i m i z a t i o n o f product mix o f
s m a l l s i z e wood t h r o u g h LP.)
Hool, J. N.
1966. A dynamic programming-Markov c h a i n approach t o f o r e s t p r o d u c t i o n c o n t r o l .
26 p.
F o r . S c i . Monograph No. 12.
(provides a
dynamic programing-Markov c h a i n approach t o
forest production control, t o prescribe f o r
any p l a n n i n g i n t e r v a l and a t any p o i n t
w i t h i n i t t h e optimal c o n t r o l a c t i v i t y f o r
p o s s i b l e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e system.)
Hool, J. N.
1966. A dynamic programming-probabil i s t i c approach t o f o r e s t production c o n t r o l .
p.
191-193.
I n Soc. Amer. For. P r o c . , 1965.
(Sets o u t a dynamic p r o g r a m i n g - p r o b a b i l i s t i c approach t o f o r e s t p r o d u c t i o n c o n t r o l
seeking maximization o f y i e l d f o r sets o f
production control a c t i v i t i e s , subject t o
c o n s t r a i n t s o f t h e amount o f i n f o r m a t i o n
and re1 i a b i l i t y o f d a t a . )
Kidd, J r . , W. E . , E. F. Thompson, and P. H.
Hoepner
1966.
F o r e s t r e g u l a t i o n by l i n e a r programming
--a case s t u d y . J . F o r . 64(9):611-613.
(LP f o r f o r e s t r e g u l a t i o n t o d e r i v e a
schedule o f t i m b e r h a r v e s t s o v e r t i m e w h i c h
maximizes p r e s e n t n e t w o r t h . )
K i l k k i , P., and U. VaisSnen
'"ornstad, B . F.
1971. The 1 i n e a r programming p l a n n i n g system
o f t h e Swedish F o r e s t S e r v i c e .
p. 124-130.
In Operat i o n s r e s e a r c h and t h e managerial
economics o f f o r e s t r y .
P. A. Wardle, e d i tor.
Great B r i t a i n For. Comm. B u l l . No.
44.
H.M.S.O.,
London.
( ~ e s c r i b e st h e
Swedish F o r e s t S e r v i c e LP p l a n n i n g system.)
Gangul i, B. N.
1970.
L i n e a r programming as an a i d f o r p u l p
wood procurement and s c h e d u l i n g .
Indian
F o r . 96(10):781-786.
( ~ s e sLP f o r p r o c u r e ment and s c h e d u l i n g o p t i m i z a t i o n f o r a hyp o t h e t i c a l case study i n v o l v i n g 4 p u l p
m i l l s and 6 f o r e s t a r e a s . )
Hazard, J. W., and L. C . P r o m n i t z
1974. D e s i g n o f s u c c e s s i v e f o r e s t i n v e n t o r i e s : o p t i m i z a t i o n by convex mathematical
F o r . S c i . 20(2):117-127.
programing.
(uses convex mathematical programing t o opt i m i z e t h e a l l o c a t i o n o f inventory sampling
r e s o u r c e s under d i f f e r e n t sampl i n g p l a n s .)
HOfle, H. H.
1971.
Optimisation o f the harvest o f smalls i z e wood t h r o u g h l i n e a r programming.
p.
In O p e r a t i o n s r e s e a r c h and t h e
-10.
m a n a g e r i a l economics o f f o r e s t r y .
P. A.
1969. D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e optimum c u t t i n g
p o l i c y f o r t h e f o r e s t s t a n d by means o f dynamic programming.
23 p. A c t a F o r . Fenn.
102.
(uses dynamic programing f o r t h e det e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e optimum c u t t i n g p o l i c y
f o r f o r e s t stands.)
Kostov, P.
1971. O p t i m i s a t i o n o f t h e s p e c i e s c o m p o s i t i o n
In Operat i o n s
o f a f o r e s t area.
p. 18-22.
r e s e a r c h and t h e managerial economics o f
forestry.
P. A. Wardle, e d i t o r .
Great
B r i t a i n F o r . Comm. B u l l . No. 44.
H.M.S.O.,
( o p t i m i z a t i o n o f t h e s p e c i e s comLondon.
p o s i t i o n o f a f o r e s t area.
Maximizes v o l ume p r o d u c t i o n under c o n s t r a i n t o f g r o w t h
o f t h e s p e c i e s on each s i t e and m a r k e t r e quirement f o r t h e p a r t i c u l a r wood type.)
L i i t t s c h w a g e r , J. M., and T. H. Tcheng
1967.
S o l u t i o n o f a l a r g e - s c a l e f o r e s t schedu1 i n g problem by l i n e a r programming decomp o s i t i o n . J. F o r . 65(9) :644-646.
sents s o l u t i o n o f a l a r g e s c a l e f o r e s t
schedu 1 i ng problem by LP decompos i t i o n . )
re-
Loucks, D . P.
1964. The development o f an o p t i m a l program
f o r s u s t a i n e d - y i e l d management. J . F o r .
62(7):485-490.
(LP f o r m u l a t i o n s t o a i d
f o r e s t e r s i n developing sustained y i e l d
c u t t i n g schedules.)
B u l l . No. 44.
H.M.S.O.,
London.
(~es c r i b e s methods o f o p e r a t i o n s r e s e a r c h and
plans selected operat ions i n forestry.)
N a u t i y a l , J. C., and P. H. Pearse
1967. O p t i m i z i n g t h e c o n v e r s i o n t o s u s t a i n e d
y i e l d - - a programming s o l u t i o n . F o r . S c i .
3 ( 2 ) :l3l-l39.
(LP approach t o o p t i m i z i n g
the conversion t o sustained y i e l d . )
Sampson, G. R., and C . A. F a s i c k
1970. O p e r a t i o n s r e s e a r c h a p p l i c a t i o n i n lumF o r . P r o d . J. 20(5):12-16.
ber production.
(LP t o o p t i m i z e e f f i c i e n c y o f a saw m i l l by
m a x i m i z i n g n e t revenue.)
Navon, D. I . , and R. J. McConnen
1967.
E v a l u a t i n g f o r e s t management p o l i c i e s
USDA Forby p a r a m e t r i c l i n e a r programing.
e s t Serv. Res. Pap. PSW-42.
13 p.
Pacific
Southwest F o r e s t and Range Exp. Stn., Berk e l e y , Ca.
( ~ an n a l y t i c a l and s i m u l a t i o n
t e c h n i q u e t o g e t h e r w i t h p a r a m e t r i c LP t o
e x p l o r e a l t e r n a t i v e s o f f o r e s t management
f o r pol i c y decisions.)
Schreuder, G. F.
1968. Optimal f o r e s t i n v e s t m e n t d e c i s i o n s
t h r o u g h dynamic programming.
School o f
For. B u l l . 72.
70 p.
Y a l e U n i v . , New
Haven, Conn.
(A dynamic p r o g r a m i n g schedu l e t o c o v e r t h e whole p r o d u c t i o n process
f r o m t h e s e e d l i n g t o f i n a l s t a g e s o f one o r
more p r i m a r y f o r e s t i n d u s t r i e s . )
Paine, D . W. M.
1966. A n a l y s i s o f a f o r e s t management s i t u a Australian
t i o n by l i n e a r programming.
F o r . 30(4) :292-303.
(provides an a n a l y s i s
o f a f o r e s t management s i t u a t i o n b y LP.)
Pearse, P. H., and S. Sydneysmith
1966. Method f o r a1 l o c a t i n g l o g s among s e v e r a l u t i l i z a t i o n processes. F o r . P r o d . J.
6(9):87-98.
(LP t o c a l c u l a t e p a t t e r n o f
a l l o c a t i o n o f l o g s and i n t e r m e d i a t e products.)
Penick, J r . , E. B.
1968. A p p l i c a t i o n t o machine l o a d i n g i n a
f u r n i t u r e p l a n t . F o r . P r o d . J . 18(2):2934.
(LP f o r p r o d u c t i o n p l a n n i n g problems
o f machine l o a d i n g i n a f u r n i t u r e p l a n t . )
Ramsina. K. D .
1968.'
L i n e a r programming f o r t h e plywood m i x
problem. F o r . P r o d . J . 18(4):98-101.
(LP
f o r plywood m i x problem.)
Rornesburg, H. C .
1974.
S c h e d u l i n g models f o r w i l d e r n e s s r e c r e a t i o n . J . E n v i r o n . M a n a g e . 2(2):159-177.
( D e s c r i b e s schedul ing model s f o r w i l d e r n e s s
recreation.
Planning o f a wilderness recr e a t i o n t r a i l network t h a t minimizes user
e n c o u n t e r s and m i n i m i z e s c o s t o f campground
maintenance and damage t o e c o l o g i c a l l y sens i t i v e areas.
Problem o r i g i n a l l y r e q u i r e d
q u a d r a t i c programing.
Simp1 i f y i n g a p p r o x i m a t i o n made, t o a l l o w LP s o l u t i o n (11 p e r c e n t l e s s o p t i m a l ) , w h i c h can be decomposed
f o r s o l v i n g l a r g e r problems.)
Ruprich, J .
1971. Methods o f o p e r a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h and
planned s e l e c t e d o p e r a t i o n s i n f o r e s t r y .
In Operat i o n s r e s e a r c h and t h e
p. 64-71.
managerial economics o f f o r e s t r y .
P. A.
Wardle, e d i t o r .
Great B r i t a i n For. Comm.
Schreuder, G. F.
1971. The s i m u l t a n e o u s d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f o p t i mal t h i n n i n g s c h e d u l e and r o t a t i o n f o r an
even-aged f o r e s t . F o r . S c i . 17(3) :333-339.
( ~ i m estaged f o r m u l a t i o n f o r t h e s i m u l t a n e ous d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f o p t i m a l t h i n n i n g
s c h e d u l e and r o t a t i o n f o r an even-aged f o r est.)
S i t t e r , R. M.
1969.
L i n e a r programming.
B r i t i s h Columbia
L u m b e r m a n 53(5) :31-34.
(LP t o p r o v i d e a
good s o u r c e o f ideas f o r c r e a t i n g b e t t e r
prof i t levels.)
S t o l t e n b e r g , C. H., and G. W. Thomson
1962.
O b s e r v a t i o n s on t h e u s e f u l n e s s o f 1 i n e a r programming i n f a r m f o r e s t r y . J . F o r .
60(10) :724,
728.
(LP f o r f a r m f o r e s t r y . )
Teeguarden, D. E., and Hans-Leopold Von Sperber
1968.
Scheduling Douglas-Fir r e f o r e s t a t i o n
i n v e s t m e n t s : a comparison o f methods.
F o r . S c i . 14 (4) :354-367.
(Compares LP capi t a l b u d g e t i n g and r u l e s o f thumb f o r
schedul i n g r e f o r e s t a t i o n investments . )
Thompson, E. F., and R. W. Haynes
1971. A 1 i n e a r programming-probabil i s t i c app r o a c h t o d e c i s i o n making under u n c e r t a im(A LP-probat y . F o r . S c i . 17(2) :224-229.
b i l i s t i c approach t o d e c i s i o n m a k i n g under
uncertainty. Minimizes present value o f
wood procurement c o s t s f o r t h e p l a n n i n g
p e r i o d .)
Van B u i j t e n e n , J. P., and W. W. S a i t t a
1972.
L i n e a r programming a p p l i e d t o t h e economic a n a l y s i s o f f o r e s t t r e e improvement.
J. F o r . 7 0 ( 3 ) :164-167.
(LP a p p l i e d t o economic a n a l y s e s o f f o r e s t t r e e improvement,
u s i n g p e r c e n t a g e improvement expected f r o m
b r e e d i n g program.)
W a r d l e , P. A.
1965.
L i n e a r programming s t u d i e s .
p . 6-18.
In G r e a t B r i t a i n F o r e s t r y Commission, mathe m a t i c a l m o d e l s i n f o r e s t management:
proceedings o f the meeting held a t the Univers i t y o f E d i n b u r g h o n 1 2 t h and 1 3 t h A p r i l
1965.
G r e a t B r i t a i n F o r . Comm. F o r e s t Rec.
H.M. S . O . ,
London.
i is cusses
No. 59.
m a t h e m a t i c a l models i n f o r e s t management.)
Ware, G . O . , and J . L . C l u t t e r
1971.
A m a t h e m a t i c a l programming system f o r
For.
t h e management o f i n d u s t r i a l f o r e s t s .
S c i . 17 ( 4 ) :428-445.
(LP f o r schedul i n g
harvest operations i n an i n d u s t r i a l f o r e s t .
Maximizes p r e s e n t n e t w o r t h u s i n g cons t r a i n t s o f a n n u a l c r o p volumes and r e generat i o n acreage.)
Yaptenco, R. C . , and A. E. Wyl i e
1970. A q u a n t i t a t i v e a p p r o a c h t o p l y w o o d p r o d u c t i o n scheduling.
For. Prod. J . 2 0 ( 3 ) :
54-59.
(LP f o r plywood p r o d u c t i o n schedu l i n g t o maximize e f f i c i e n c y o f machines i n
production w i t h constraints o f material
movement, s e q u e n t i a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f j o b s
and s t o r a g e f a c i l i t i e s f o r m a t e r i a l - 1
Investigations on Recreational Forested Areas
U l r i c h Ammer
A b s t r a c t - - I n many Eur-ooean l a n d s c a o e s , two o p p o s i n g p r o c e s s e s
are being practiced concurrently.
I n urban populated areas f o r e s t
l a n d i s b e i n g c l e a r e d f o r d e v e l o p m e n t , and i n a g r a r i a n a r e a s f a r
from any s e t t l e m e n t . u n c u l t i v a t e d land i s o f t e n a f f o r e s t e d .
W h i l e n e a r l y a l l o l a n n e r s a y e e t h a t t h e l o s s o f woodlands
near pooulated areas i s u n d e s i r a b l e , t h e y o f t e n disapprove o f
n a k i n g f o r e s t e d a r e a s a c c e s s i b l e t h r o u g h a f f o r e s t a t i o n programs i n
a g r a r i a n p r o b l e m a r e a s because I t may be h a r m f u l t o l a n d s c a p e
esthetics.
The argument i s advanced t h a t i n c r e a s i n g t h e amount o f
f o r e s t e d a r e a s i s done a t t h e exoense o f l a n d s c a p e a m e n i t i e s .
U n t i l now, t h i s Judgment has o - i g i n a t e d f r o m t h e s u b j e c t i v e i d e a s
o f several plannina professionals.
I n o r d e r t o p r e s e n t t o f o r e s t Tanagers and l a n d s c a p e p l a n n e r s
e c o l o g i c a l , economic, and e s t h e t i c d e c i s i o n m a k i n g a i d s , i n v e s t i g a t i o n s were c a r r i e d o u t w i t h t h e s u p o o r t - o f t h e Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft o f Bader-Wurte~berg; t h e M i n i s t r y f o r N u t r i t i o n , A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, and t h e E n v i r o n m e n t ; t h r e e p r o v i n c i a l ; and two
m u n i c i p a l government o r g a n i z a t i o n s .
The p u r p o s e o f t h e s t u d y was
t o d e t e r m i n e m i n i m a l , o p t i m a l , and maximum d e n s i t i e s o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f o r e s t land.
From t h e s e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s ,
be d e r i v e d w h i c h w o u l d . . .
important p l a n n i n g d r e c t i v e s would
1.
I n t e n s i f y t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l and t o u r i s t f u n c t i o n i n r u r a l a r e a s ,
t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n socio-ecological p o i n t s o f views, w i t h o u t
c a u s i n g damage t o t h e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s o f t h e r e s t i v e I andscape, and
2.
A c h i e v e a b a l a n c e between t h e q u a l i t y o f l i f e and e n v i r o n m e n t a l
p r o t e c t i o n o n one s i d e and p e r m i t t h e p l a n n i n g f o r t h e l e a s t amount
o f p o s s i b l e f o r e s t e d areas (even i n populated s e c t i o n s ) on t h e
other.
STUDY AREA
The e s t h e t i c s o f a n y o b j e c t i s a m a t t e r o f
s u b j e c t i v e phenomena, i . e . , t h e r e e x i s t s no obj e c t i v e , agreed-upon-abstract,
a b s o l u t e method
o f judgment.
Moreover, t h e e s t h e t i c v a l u e i s
always t i e d t o a s s o c i a t i o n s o f education, experi e n c e , and even p s y c h i c and p h y s i o l o g i c a l c o n d i t i o n s r e s u l t i n g even i n a measure o f p e r s o n a l
judgment.
T h i s measure o f judgment c a n change
i t s e l f independently o f place, time, s o c i a l influences, e t c .
I t i s therefore insufficient
for landscape-esthetic i n v e s t i g a t i o n s t o c a l l
upon t h e judgment o f a s e r i e s o f " e x p e r t s 1 ' - more s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s can be o b t a i n e d i f i t
i s derived from groups o f d i v e r s e users.
METHODOLOGY
Definitions
I n c o n t r a s t t o t h e frequent previous inv e s t i g a t i o n s i n f o r e s t r y ' s s o c i a l aspects i n
w h i c h t h e a r e a b e i n g s t u d i e d i s more o r l e s s
d e s c r i b e d i n v e r b a l d e t a i l , we t r i e d t o p r e s e n t
t o our p a r t i c i p a n t s t h e object o f a "forested
a r e a " as q u a n t i t a t i v e l y and a s c o n c r e t e l y as
possible.
I n s o c i a l s c i e n c e methodology,
s k e t c h e s and p i c t u r e s have proved e m i n e n t l y
successful.
Consequently, p i c t o r i a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n methods have been used s u c c e s s f u l l y i n
t h e c o n d u c t o f numerous f o r e s t r y - r e l a t e d s o c i a l
s c i e n c e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , because t h e y " c o n c r e t i z e " t h e s t u d y o b j e c t and l e a d t h e p a r t i c i p a n t
t o more e x a c t e x p r e s s i o n s o f o p i n i o n .
The c h o i c e o f p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e as w e l l as t h e i r s u r r o u n d i n g s and t h e i r
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s were chosen so t h a t s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e 1 i a b l e r e s u l t s c o u l d be developed.
The r e s u l t s o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n f i r m
f i r s t o f a1 1 t h a t respondents p r e f e r r e d t h a t a
landscape n o t exceed 80 p e r c e n t f o r e s t e d a r e a .
T h i s upper l i m i t s u p p o r t s f i n d i n g s i n an e a r l i e r s t u d y (Ammer and L u t z 1972) and i s f o l l o w e d
i n f o r e s t management p r a c t i c e s . A l t h o u g h a
considerable p o r t ion o f those being interviewed f e l t c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h a n even h i g h e r u p p e r
l i m i t , t h e m a j o r i t y f e l t t h a t a landscape cont a i n i n g o v e r 80 p e r c e n t f o r e s t e d l a n d was
m i r k y and o p p r e s s i v e .
I n terms o f landscape e s t h e t i c s , t h e l o w e r
l i m i t o f p r e f e r r e d f o r e s t e d a r e a among t h o s e
q u e s t i o n e d was 20 p e r c e n t .
I f a landscape had
l e s s t h a n 20 p e r c e n t f o r e s t e d a r e a , i t was cons i d e r e d "boring."
I n c o n t r a s t t o t h e s e g e n e r a l r e s u l t s , not i c e a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s r e s u l t e d when r e s p o n d e n t s
Among t h e v a r i o u s p h o t o g r a p h i c t e c h n i q u e s
which a r e t h e o r e t i c a l l y possible, ( v e r t i c a l ,
h o r i z o n t a l , and o b l i q u e ) , we chose t h e o b l i q u e
a e r i a l photograph.
I n t h i s manner, a p h o t o g r a p h i c p e r s p e c t i v e was chosen w i t h t h e p a r t
o f t h e f o r e s t nearest t h e study area w i t h h i g h
f r e q u e n c y o f u s e r c o n t a c t g i v e n more w e i g h t
t h a n t h o s e f u r t h e r away w i t h 1e s s e r f r e q u e n c y
o f u s e r c o n t a c t . The p i c t o r i a l e x c e r p t i s
t h e r e f o r e d e l i n e a t e d so t h a t t h e e s s e n t i a l
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n f e a t u r e o f t h e landscape can be
grasped.
From t h e s e o b l i q u e photographs, abs t r a c t g r a p h i c a l s k e t c h e s were p r e p a r e d w h i c h
c o n t a i n a l l t h e i d e n t i f i a b l e f e a t u r e s , such as,
s i t e placement, h i l l s and v a l l e y s , e t c . A l l
o t h e r f a c t o r s which could i n f l u e n c e the p a r t i c p a n t ' s response (such as c o l o r , shadow and
l i g h t e f f e c t s , c l o u d s , e t c . ) c a n be k e p t constant.
These o b l i q u e p h o t o s k e t c h e s were
developed i n t o a c o r r e s p o n d i n g montage o f
overlays i l l u s t r a t i n g increasing a f f o r e s t a t i o n
i n 10 p e r c e n t i n c r e m e n t s . The degrees o f a f f o r e s t a t i o n were d e r i v e d i n t h i s model w i t h
r e g a r d t o economical 1y s i g n i f i c a n t parameters,
such as, s i t e qua1 i t y , r e 1 i e f , development,
and o w n e r s h i p p a t t e r n s . The i n t e r r e l a t e d
problems o f p h o t o g r a p h i c t e c h n i q u e , c h o i c e o f
p i c t o r i a l p e r s p e c t i v e s , and g r a p h i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and o t h e r d e c i s i o n s a r e d i s c u s s e d by
Hartweg ( I 976).
Other i n v e s t i g a t o r s have demonstrated
t h a t t h o s e b e i n g q u e s t i o n e d can d e s c r i b e and
i d e n t i f y a d e q u a t e l y t h e a c t u a l f o r e s t cond i tions.
I t was t h e r e f o r e assumed t h a t t h e i n t e r v i e w e e s r e l y upon r e a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n when
f o r m u l a t i n g t h e i r responses t o q u e s t i o n s a b o u t
the experimentally represented f o r e s t areas.
were asked a b o u t r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s i n p o p u l a t e d
sections.
I n t h i s instance, t h e lower l i m i t o f
20 p e r c e n t o f f o r e s t e d a r e a s was r e g a r d e d a s
t o o low, and t h e p r e f e r r e d p r o p o r t i o n o f f o r e s t e d t o r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s was a t l e a s t 30 p e r c e n t . The upper 1 i m i t was s t i l l 80 p e r c e n t ,
even i n t h i s i n s t a n c e . A v a l u e o f 60 p e r c e n t
was c o n s i d e r e d o p t i m a l f o r t h e p o p u l a t e d sect i o n - - t h i s was s t a t i s t i c a l l y c o r r o b o r a t e d .
I n r u r a l a r e a s , s i m i l a r s t u d i e s showed an
o p t i m a l v a l u e o f 50 p e r c e n t f o r e s t e d l a n d .
This i n t e r e s t i n g d i f f e r e n c e i n the conceptions
between i n h a b i t a n t s o f r u r a l and u r b a n r e g i o n s
m i g h t w e l l be e x p l a i n e d t o a l a r g e degree b y
t h e h i g h e r degree o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l qua1 i t y and
quietude i n r u r a l areas. T h i s explanation i s
c o n f i r m e d by t h e f a c t t h a t i n p o p u l a t e d a r e a s
t h e amount o f p r e f e r r e d f o r e s t e d a r e a s - - f r o m
t h e v i e w p o i n t o f r e c r e a t i o n and r e l a x a t i o n - was c o n s i d e r e d x 8 p e r c e n t and t h e upper 1 i m i t
was 90 p e r c e n t .
I n t e r e s t i n g l y , these a t t i t u d e s c o r r e s p o n d f a i r l y c l o s e l y t o t h e wishes
o f r e s o r t g u e s t s (65-66 p e r c e n t ) i n i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f t h e t o u r i s t spots o f Allgaus, the
B l a c k F o r e s t , and t h e Swabian A l p s .
The o p t i m a l f i g u r e f o r r e c r e a t i o n a r e a s
was assumed t o be 50 p e r c e n t f o r e s t e d l a n d i n
Kiemstedt (1967).
When you r e a l i z e t h a t t h e r e
e x i s t s 20 p e r c e n t ( i n u p l a n d s up t o a maximum
o f 40 p e r c e n t ) o f a c t u a l f o r e s t e d l a n d , t h e
c o n f l i c t o f g o a l s i s a p p a r e n t among a g r i c u l t u r a l , t y p i c a l recreational, o r optimal recrea t i o n a l a r e a landscapes, a l t h o u g h i n t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s , a r a t i o n a l l a n d economy i s s t i l l p o s s i b l e .
T a b l e ]--Recommended l o w e r and upper l i m i t s and o p t i m a l v a l u e s o f f o r e s t d e n s i t y f o r
p l a n n i n g o f landscape u n i t s , by a r e a and f u n c t i o n .
Percent o f f o r e s t t o nonforest land
Area and f u n c t i o n
Lower 1 i m i t
Optimal v a l u e
Upper l i m i t
Populated areas:
Residential
Nearby r e c r e a t i o n s i t e
Rural areas:
R e s i d e n t i a l w i t h i n d u s t r i a l parks
A g r i c u l t u r a l product ion
Nearby r e c r e a t i o n
V a c a t i o n and r e s o r t a c t i v i t i e s
From t h e r e s u l t s , some i n t e r e s t i n g d i r e c t i o n s f o r p l a n n e r s a r e a p p a r e n t i n t h e recommendations f o r p l a n n i n g o f landscape u n i t s ( t a b l e 1 ) . The recommendations i n c l u d e lower and
upper 1 i m i t s and o p t i m a l v a l u e s f o r f o r e s t dens i ty--the percent o f f o r e s t t o non-forest land.
UNTERSUCHUNGEN ZUM
FREIZEITORIENTIERTEN WALDANTEIL
Zusammenfassung
I n v i e l e n europaischen Landschaften I a u f e ~
2 gegeneinander g e r i c h t e t e Prozesse ab:
i n den
s t a d t i s c h e n V e r d i c h t u n q s b e r e i c h e n werden Waldf l a c h e n f i r S i e d l u n g und Verkehr g e r o d e t und i n
den a g r a r i s c h e n s i e d l u n g s f e r n gelegenen Raumen
entstehen Brachflachen, d i e h a u f i g a u f g e f o r s t e t
werden.
WShrend s i c h nahezu a11e P l a n e r d a r u b e r
e i n i g s i n d , daf3 d i e W a l d v e r l u s t e im s i e d l u n g s nahen B e r e i c h s e h r n e g a t i v s i n d , werden d i e
Waldzugange d u r c h A u f f o r s t u n g i n den a g r a r i schen Problemraumen n i c h t s e l t e n a1 s l a n d s c h a f t s a s t h e t i s c h unerwunscht a b g e l e h n t .
Es
w i r d a r g u m e n t i e r t , d e r zunehmende W a l d a n t e i l
l a s s e l a n d s c h a f t l iche Reize verlorengehen.
Bei
d i e s e r B e u r t e i l u n g i s t man b i s h e r weitgehend
von s u b j e k t i v e n V o r s t e l l u n g e n e i n z e l n e r
P l a n u n g s f a c h l e u t e ausgegangen.
g e f u h r t m i t dem Z i e l , Aussagen zur m i n i m a l ,
o p t i m a l und maximal v e r t r e t b a r e n W a l d d i c h t e zu
mac hen.
Aus d i e s e n Untersuchungen s o l l t e n
p l a n e r i s c h w i c h t i q e Hinweise d a r a u f h i n e r h a l t e n
werden:
1.
Wie u n t e r s o z i o - o k o l o g i s c h e n G e s i c h t spunkten d i e W a l d f l a c h e i m l a n d l i c h e n Raum und
i n Gebieten m i t Erholungs- und Fremdenverkehrsf u n k t i o n a n s t e i g e n kann, ohne daB N a c h t e i l e f u r
d i e A t t r a k t i v i t a t a l s Erholungslandschaft entstehen und
2. Welche M i n d e s t w a l d a u s s t a t t u n g a n d e r e r s e i t s
auch f u r Verdichtungsraume aus G r i n d e n d e r
L e b e n s q u a l i t a t und d e r Umwe1tvorsorge g e f o r d e r t
und e r r e i c h t werden mussen.
LITERATURE C ITED
Ammer, V . U., and Werner L u t z
972.
F o r e s t p o l i c y and p l a n n i n g problems
i n a f f o r e s t i n g r e c r e a t i o n a l and t o u r i s t
r e g i o n s - - a s shown i n t h e example o f t h e
Todtnau Gemarkung. D e r F o r s t - und
H o l z w i r t 13: 290-296.
f u r d i e L a n d s c h a f t s p l a n u n g neben o k o l o g i s c h e n
Hartweg, A.
976.
S t u d i e s on t h e i n f l u e n c e o f f o r e s t s on
t h e landscape.
1976 d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
Freiburg.
und okonomischen auch a s t h e t i s c h e Entscheidungsh i l f e n a n z u b i e t e n , wurden m i t U n t e r s t u t z u n g d e r
Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft und des
M i n i s t e r i u m s f u r Ernahrung, L a n d w i r t s c h a f t und
Umwel t Baden-Wiirtemberg i n d r e i l a n d 1 i c h e n und
2 s t a d t i s c h e n Gemeinden Untersuchungen d u r c h -
K i e m s t e d t , H.
967.
h he r e c r e a t i o n v a l u e o f landscapes. 1
~ e i t r a g ez u r L a n d e s p f l e g e , S p e c i a l I s s u e
1 5 1 , V e r l a g E. Ulmer, S t u t t g a r t .
(in
~erman)
Urn f u r d i e f o r s t l i c h e P r a x i s ebenso w i e