ABSTRACT TOWARD THE MEASUREMENT OF DEMAND FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN THE PHILADELPHIA-BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN REGION WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR.AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE USE by Gerald Leon Cole The outdoor recreation industry constitutes an important segment of the United States economy; 1962 expenditures are es- timated at $20 billion. Various reasons are cited for a growing demand, including increasing population, greater urbanization, higher real incomes and greater mobility. The U. S. Department of Agriculture exercises the Federal responsibility for directing the use of appropriate rural resources into outdoor recreation facilities where feasible. This study provides guidelines both to the U. S. Department of Agriculture and to rural landowners. It is based upon 1963-64 household participation rates for individual activities in the Philadelphia- Baltimore-Washington.Metropolitan Region. Participation data reflect 1,718 households based on a quota sample of 2,000 house- holds in the region. Multiple regression analysis relates participation in individual activities to socio-economic characteristics of the respondents, the distance traveled to participate, the time required and admission fees charged where applicable. The fol- lowing activities are included: pleasure rides, picnicking, Gerald Leon Cole walking, swimming, boating, camping, fishing, hunting, golfing, horseback riding, ice skating, snow skiing, tobogganing and vacation and weekend trips. In general, R2 values for individual activities were less than .50, possibly due to such problems as specification errors and errors in measurement. For all activities a statistically significant relationship appeared between participation and the distance traveled to partic- ipate and the time required for the travel. A positive relation- ship existed between participation and distance and time for pleasure rides, ocean swimming, bay swimming, boating and camping. This Probably occurred because most participants were clustered in three urban centers while the resource-based areas for participation were located along the Atlantic Coast, involving travel distances of over 50 miles. For the remaining activities of a user-oriented nature, necessitating travel of less than 50 miles, there was a negative relationship between participation and distance traveled. Among the socio-economic variables, increasing age reduced participation in swimming, pleasure rides, picnicking and hunting. Participation in rides, picnicking, fishing, golfing and hunting increased with the level of education. As income increased, partic- ipation increased for rides, ocean and pool swimming, walks, boating, golfing, horseback riding, ice skating, tobogganing, skiing and vacation and weekend trips. Participation in picnicking, fishing, , Gerald Leon Cole bay swimming and camping decreased as income increased. Non- whites participated less than whites in swimming, golfing and ice skating. Participation in boating and hunting was more frequent among blue collar workers than among professional persons. Projected participation rates indicate that pleasure rides, walking and swimming will account for 80 percent of all user days in 1970 and 1980, with boating, camping and ice skating among the fastest growing activities. The results indicated that a pent-up demand exists for munic- ipal parklands, swimming pools, beachlands and golf courses at current market prices, due to the lack of convenient facilities. Based on current participation rates and projected increases, farmers and other rural landowners located near the Atlantic Coast should investigate the potential for marinas and campgrounds. Land- owners who reside near urban centers should consider swimming facil- ities (pools or ponds), golf courses and horseback riding facilities. Farmers within one to two hours driving time of the cities should consider leasing or renting hunting rights on their farms. The study approach used and the resulting participation data do not generate statistical demand functions for individual recrea- tion activities; quantity-price relationships were not obtainable. The participation data do not fully indicate the demand that exists at present market prices because persons who reside outside of the sample area are excluded as are those persons who are prevented from participating by the lack of a facility. TOWARD THE MEASUREMENT OF DEMAND FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN THE PHILADELPHIA-BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN REGION WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE USE by Gerald Leon Cole A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Agricultural Economics 1967 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author is deeply indebted to the many persons who have assisted in the development of this study. Dr. Lawrence W. Witt's guidance is gratefully acknowledged. The author feels especially fortunate to have been associated with Dr. Witt during his graduate program. The writer is grateful to Dr. William E. McDaniel, Dean and Director, for the financial support received from the Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station while this study was conducted as a Station project. Acknowledgement is made to Dr. Jack L. Knetsch and to Mr. Max M. Tharp for their assistance in formulating the study. Also, the constructive comments and criticisms received from Dr. Vernon L. Sorenson, Dr. Milton Steinmueller, Dr. Raymond C. Smith and Dr. William M. Crosswhite were most helpful. Appreciation is expressed to Mrs. Anne M. Swan for an ex- cellent job of typing the final capy of the manuscript. Thanks are also due to Mrs. Betty Berwick and to Mrs. Elizabeth Beswick for assistance in data preparation. Finally, the author is indebted to his family for their patience and encouragement during the many trying times encountered in the course of the graduate program. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background Objectives Plan for the Dissertation II REVIEW OF LITERATURE III METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY Sample Area Sampling Procedure Questionnaire Design Socio-economic Data Socio-economic Characteristics of Sample Householders Preparation of Questionnaires for Analysis Method of Analysis Analysis of the Data IV ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS A Comparison of the Respondents and Non- Respondents by Socio-economic Characteristics A Comparison of Participants and Non- Participants by Socio-economic Characteristics Participation Rates for Individual Outdoor Recreation Activities Multiple Regression Analysis for Individual Recreation Activities Pleasure rides Picnicking Walks and bikes Swimming activities Boating activities Camping Fishing Hunting Golfing Horseback riding Winter activities Vacations Weekend trips iii PAGE MDH 31 31 38 40 41 42 45 45 46 47 47 48 48 53 S3 55 56 57 62 63 65 67 68 70 70 72 73 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) CHAPTER PAGE IV Significant Variables Which May Aid in Predicting Participation in Outdoor Recreation Activities 74 Time and distance variables 74 Length of work week and time required to drive to work 77 Socio-economic variables 77 User day projections based upon present participation rates 78 Additional Respondents' Comments 83 Dissatisfaction with facilities 83 Facilities desired 84 Acceptibility of a farm vacation 85 Respondents' ideas concerning a "good" vacation versus actual vacation activities 86 V POLICY IMPLICATIONS 89 Potential Impact of Consumer Preferences for Outdoor Recreation Activities on the Use of Natural Resources in the Urban Fringe and Rural Areas 89 Pleasure rides 89 Swimming 92 Pleasure walks and hikes 94 Picnicking 95 Boating 95 Fishing 96 Golfing 96 Hunting 97 Camping 99 Horseback riding 101 Winter activities 102 Vacation and weekend trips 103 Summary of resource use potential 105 Alternative Uses of Publicly Owned Land and the Impact on Private Enterprise 107 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) CHAPTER VI LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY APPROACH AND SUGGESTIONS FOR NEEDED RESEARCH Limitations of Use Study Approach Suggestions for Needed Research VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY PAGE 110 110 115 118 125 LIST OF TABLES TABLE NUMBER PAGE 1. Average weekly hours of work for the U. S. Labor Force for selected years, 1850-1959, with projections to 2000 12 2. Population for the United States and by state and caunty within the sample area for 1950 and 1960, percent increase from 1950 to 1960, per- cent living in urban areas in 1960 34-35 3. Per capita personal incomes for the United States and individual states in the sample area for selected years, 1950-1964 37 4. Number and percent of sample households by place of residence, 1964 43 5. Number and percent of sample households by family income levels, 1964 44 6. Number and percent of sample households by age of homemaker, 1964 44 7. Number and percent of households participating by outdoor recreation activity with average frequency of participation per household in one year period, 1963-64 50 8. Number of households taking vacation trips by activity 52 9. Number of households taking weekend trips by activity 52 10. Number of households, by state of residence and by first choice state of participation for ocean swimming 59 11. Population used to project user days for outdoor recreation activities in the sample area 79 12. Projected user days for outdoor recreation activ- ities in the sample area for 1970 and 1980 based on current per capita participation rates 80 vi LIST OF TABLES (continued) TABLE NUMBER 13. 14. Annual percentage changes in per capita participation rates for selected outdoor recreation activities Projected user days for outdoor recreation activities in the sample area for 1970 and 1980 adjusted for extimated changes in per capita participation rates vii PAGE 82 82 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE NUMBER PAGE 1. Sample area for the study 32 viii LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX PAGE A Consumer Questionnaire 129 ix LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES TABLE NUMBER 1. 10. ll. Regression coefficients (bi's), their standard errors (Sbi's), "t" values, levels of significance, and sample means with Y' as the dependent variable for pleasure rides Matrix of correlation coefficients with Y' as the dependent variable for pleasure rides Regression coefficients (bi's), their standard errors (Sbi's), "t" values, and levels of significance with Y' as the dependent variable for picnicking Matrix of correlation coefficients with Y' as the dependent variable for picnicking Regression coefficients (bi's), their standard errors (Sbi's), "t" values, and levels of significance with Y' as the dependent variable for pleasure walks Matrix of correlation coefficients with Y' as the dependent variable for pleasure walks Regression coefficients (bi's), their standard errors (Sbi's), "t" values, and levels of significance with Y' as the dependent variable for ocean swimming by homemakers Matrix of correlation coefficients with Y' as the dependent variable for ocean swimming by homemakers Regression coefficient (bi's), their standard errors (Sbi's), "t" values and levels of significance with Y' as the dependent variable for swimming at pools away from home by children Matrix of correlation coefficients with Y' as the dependent variable for swimming at pools away from home by children Regression coefficients (bi's), their standard errors PAGE 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 (Shi's), "t" values, levels of significance, and sample means with Y' as the dependent variable for bay swimming by children 158 LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES (continued) TABLE NUMBER PAGE 12. l3. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Matrix of correlation coefficients with Y' as the dependent variable for bay swimming by children 159 Regression coefficients (bi's), their standard errors (Sbi's), "t" values, and levels of significance with Y' as the dependent variable for boating activities 160 Matrix for correlation coefficients with Y' as the dependent variable for boating activities 161 Regression coefficients (bi's), their standard errors (Sbi's), "t" values, and levels of significance with Y' as the dependent variable for camping 162 Matrix of correlation coefficients with Y' as the dependent variable for camping 163 Regression coefficients (bi's), their standard errors (Sbi's), "t" values, and levels of significance with Y' as the dependent variable for fishing 164 Matrix of correlation coefficients with Y' as the dependent variable for fishing 165 Regression coefficients (bi's), their standard errors (Sbi's), "t" values, and levels of significance with Y' as the dependent variable for hunting 166 Matrix of correlation coefficients with Y' as the dependent variable for hunting 167 Regression coefficients (bi's), their standard errors (Sbi's), "t" values, levels of significance, and sample means with Y' as the dependent variable for golfing 168 Matrix of correlation coefficients with Y' as the dependent variable for golfing 169 Regression coefficients (bi's), their standard errors (Shi's), "t" values, and levels of significance, and sample means with Y' as the dependent variable for horseback riding 170 Matrix of correlation coefficients with Y' as the dependent variable for horseback riding 171 xi LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES (continued) TABLE NUMBER 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Regression coefficients (bi's), their standard errors (Sbi's), "t" values, and levels of significance with Y' as the dependent variable for ice skating Matrix of correlation coefficients with Y' as the dependent variable for ice skating Regression coefficients (bi's), their standard errors PAGE 172 173 (Sbi's), "t” values, levels of significance, and sample means with Y' as the dependent variable for toboggan- ing Matrix of correlation coefficients with Y' as the dependent variable for tobogganing Regression coefficients (bi's), their standard errors (Shi's), "t" values, and levels of significance with Y' as the dependent variable for snow skiing Matrix of correlation coefficients with Y' as the dependent variable for snow skiing Regression coefficients (bi's), their standard errors (Sbi's), "t" values, and levels of significance with Y as the dependent variable for vacation trips Regression coefficients (bi's), their standard errors (Shi's), "t" values, and levels of significance with Y' as the dependent variable for vacation trips Matrix of correlation coefficients with Y as the dependent variable for vacation trips Matrix of correlation coefficients with Y' as the dependent variable for vacation trips Regression coefficients (bi's), their standard errors (Sbi's), "t" values, and levels of significance with Y' as the dependent variable for weekend trips Matrix of correlation coefficients with Y' as the dependent variable for weekend trips xii 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background The outdoor recreation industry has become an important segment of the United States economy. The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission estimated that 1962 expenditures for outdoor recreation totaled $20 billion.l/ Clawson and others have stated that the demand for outdoor recreation goods and services is growing at approximately 10 percent per year. Reasons cited for the increasing demand include: (1) increasing population, (2) increasing urbanization, (3) increasing consumers' real incomes, (4) increasing leisure time, and (5) increasing mobility.2/ A growing industry within an economy usually means expanding business opportunities in that industry, which in turn offers the possibility of additional jobs. Congress recognized the increasing importance of outdoor recreation in 1958. With the passage of Public Law 85-470, the 3/ Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission was established.— 1/ Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Outdoor Recrea- tion for America, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1962, p. 24. 2] Clawson, Marion, Methods of Measuring the Demand for and Value of Outdoor Recreation, Washington, Resources for the Future, Inc. Reprint No. 10, February-1959, p. l. 3] Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Outdoor Recrea- tion for America, op. cit., p. 1. The bipartisan agency was charged with the responsibility of in- ventorying and evaluating the nation's outdoor recreation resources and Opportunities and insuring that present and future generations of Americans will have access to an adequate supply of the facili- ties desired. Upon completion of its initial mission, with the publishing of 27 volumes, the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission recommended that a Bureau of Outdoor Recreation be established in the Department of the Interior. This bureau has the overall respon- sibility for leadership of a nationwide effort by coordinating var- ious Federal programs and assisting other levels of government in meeting the needs for outdoor recreation.é/ An additional recommendation of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission was that a Recreation Advisory Council be established on a continuing basis. The Advisory Council consists of the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture and Defense with other agencies participating on an ad hog basis.2 The United States Department of Agriculture has the respon- sibility to assist in the development of agriculture's resources for recreation where feasible. The Food and Agricultural Act of 1962 authorized assistance to private, rural landowners in the 4/ Ibid, p. 9. 2/ Ibid, p. 10. - 3 - planning, design and establishment of outdoor recreation facili- ties.§/ Action agencies within the Department of Agriculture have been charged with specific responsibilities in implementing the program. The Soil Conservation Service has been designated as the chief planning agency. The Farmers' Home Administration and the Federal Land Bank Association are authorized to make loans in certain instances for facilities which have been planned by the Soil Conservation Service. The Agricultural Conservation and Stabilization Service is authorized to make payments to farm owners to phase land out of agriculture and into recreational use. In addition, current emphasis by President and Mrs. Johnson on national beauty involves the wise use of our national resources to enhance their value in recreational enterprises. Although much has been written about the general increase in demand for outdoor recreation facilities, little specific information exists about the extent of increased demand and preferences for facilities in the Washington-Baltimore-Philadelphia Metropolitan Region. Such information is essential if private enterprises and public planners are to allocate resources to the outdoor recreation sector of the economy in the most efficient manner. Information on demand may indicate opportunities for farm people to improve their incomes by entering the outdoor recreation business. 6/ Public Law 87-703, 87th Congress, H.R. 12391, Food and Agriculture Act of 1962, U. 8. Government Printing Office, Washington, Septem- ber 27, 1962, pp. 1-2. Objectives The objectives of this study are oriented towards provid- ing information which may be helpful in determining the demand for outdoor recreation facilities in the region and aid in the planning for needed facilities. The first objective is to estimate the demand for outdoor recreation facilities by consumers living in the Philadelphia-Baltimore-Washington MetrOpolitan Region. The second objective of the study is to estimate the market potential in recreation for agriculture's natural and human re- sources as evidenced by the demand for outdoor recreation facili— ties in the region. There may be opportunities for farmers to shift their available resources from agriculture to outdoor recrea- tion as the sole source of income. In other instances, outdoor recreation activities may provide a supplemental source of income through better use of resources. Examples of such resources are lands in permanent pastures or woods, and ponds or other bodies of water that could be converted into income producing enterprises. The third objective is to provide criteria to aid public administrators and private enterprises in making decisions con- cerning the establishment of outdoor recreation facilities on farms in the region. Specific types of facilities which are most likely to face an expanding demand or to be in short supply and are adaptable to farmer investment will be evaluated. Plan for the Dissertation The following chapter will review the theoretical literature and discuss those empirical studies which have relevance to this study. Chapter III will outline the methodology of the study. The characteristics of the sample area and the technique for drawing the sample will be discussed. Design of the questionnaire and methods of statistical analysis are also considered. Chapter IV will present the results of the statistical analysis. Consumer preferences for specific outdoor recreation activities will be analyzed. Macro implications of overall participation rates will be discussed in connection with projections of future participation rates. Chapter V will present policy implications for the use of private and public resources to provide for future outdoor recrea- tion requirements in the study region. Chapter VI will indicate some of the limitations of the study approach used and outline suggestions for needed research. Chapter VII will conclude the study with a summary and conclusions based on the research findings. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE A study of consumer behavior attempts to isolate those var- iables which help to explain consumer demand for goods and services. This study is particularly concerned with those variables affect- ing the demand for outdoor recreation goods and services. Economists often consider non-monetary variables as a group under a heading called consumer "tastes" in static economic theory. In this study the assumption of constant tastes will be relaxed in order to determine the influence of such factors as age, occupation, education, race, etc. on participation in outdoor recreation activ- ities. Over the years, economists have developed a number of theories as to why consumers demand particular goods and services. Marginal utility theory led to the Marshallian theory of demand which Hicks summarized as follows: "A consumer with a given money income is con- fronted with a market for consumption goods, on which the prices of those goods are already determined; the question is, how will he divide his expenditures among the different goods. It is assumed that the consumer derives from the goods he purchases so much utility, the amount of utility being a function of quantity of goods acquired, and that he will spend his income in such a way as to bring the maximum.possible amount of utility. But utility will be maximized when the marginal unit of expenditure in each direction brings in the same increment of utility. For if this is so, a transference of expenditure from one direction to another will involve a greater loss of utility in the direction where expend- iture is reduced than will be compensated by the gain in utility in the direction where expenditure is increased - 6 _ - 7 - (from the principle of diminishing marginal utility). Total utility must therefore be diminished whatever transfer is made. Since, with small units, the dif- ference between the marginal utilities of two succes- sive units of a commodity may be neglected, we can express the conclusion in another way: the marginal utilities of the various commodities bought must be proportional to their prices." 1] The concept of utility maximization as summarized by Hicks from Marshallian theory assumes a cardinal measurement of utility. A concept later refined by Pareto from earlier work by Edgeworth assumes ordinal measurement of utility. Pareto made the in- difference curve a part of standard economics. The indifference curve approach deals with the problem of related goods, both complementary and competitive. By comparing all possible com- binations for the consumption of two commodities an ordered scale of preferences may be derived, based on the assumption that con- sumers always prefer more of any single good or combination of goods to less of the same. Likewise, in this analysis, certain combinations of two goods (X and Y) may be found which yield the same total utility for a given consumer. It may be stated that the consumer is indifferent towards any of these combinations which establish the boundary for a particular indifference curve.Z/ Indifference curves slope downward and to the right as long as each good consumed has a positive marginal utility. For if l] Hicks, John R., Value and Capital, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1946, pp. 11-12. 2] Ibid, pp. 12-13. - g - a given quantity of X is consumed and the consumption of Y is increased, total utility must increase thereby placing the con- sumer on a higher indifference curve. Likewise, if a given quan- tity of Y is consumed and the consumption of X increases, the 3/ consumer also reaches a higher indifference curve.- This study will consider consumer's preferences for outdoor recreation activities by measuring participation in the various activities. The functioning of Engel's law is likely to be a contrib- uting factor to the increasing demand for outdoor recreation activities. The law states that as real disposable incomes in- crease, consumers tend to spend a smaller portion of their income on food and housing and an increasing percentage of their income on such goods and services as clothing, medical care and recreation. Houthakker's study, using 1950 data, illustrates this phenomenon by comparing income elasticities for groups of goods and services purchased by consumers. For U. S. consumers, food had an income elasticity of .642, housing .731, clothing 1.336, and other expend- itures of which recreation is a part, 1.222. The geometric mean for 1950 expenditures was $3,290. A one percent increase in in- come would result in an increase of 1.2 percent on miscellaneous expenditures including recreation, using the above elasticity 4/ coefficient;- _3_/ Ibid, pp. 13-14. 4/ Houthakker, H. S., "An International Comparison of Household Expenditure Patterns Commemorating the Cenentary of Engel's Law," Econometrigg, 25, Oct. 1957, pp. 546-549. - 9 - In the 1950 study, food accounted for 31 percent of total expenditures, housing 16 percent, clothing 11 percent, and mis- cellaneous 42 percent. According to the latest available in- formation, food accounted for only 18.4 percent of total expend- itures in 1965.21 Demand for outdoor recreation activities depends in part on the consumer's availability of leisure time. Some clarification is needed on the definition of leisure and leisure time. De Grazia, in his book Of Time,_Work and Leisure, argues that leisure is not compatible with a democratic society. According to De Grazia, "leisure is the state of being free of everyday necessity".§/ Thus, leisure by this definition belongs to such groups as the landed aristocracy. Leisure remains unaffected by either work or recreation. De Grazia defines recreation as "activity that rests men from work, often by giving them a change (distraction, 7/ diversion) and restores (re-creates) them for work".- He con- siders much of the time outside of work hours and those hours necessary for subsistence and body maintenance as free time. The above definition of leisure appears to be the most restrictive and non-pragmatic among those found in the literature. 57 U. S. Department of Agriculture, Handbook of Agricultural Charts 1965, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1965, p. 17. 6/ De Grazia, Sebastian, Of Time, WOrk and Leisure, The Twentieth Century Fund, New York, 1962, pp. 246-247. _7_/ Ibid. _ 10 - Clawson defines leisure as "all time beyond the existence 8/ and subsistence tflme".—- Under existence time he includes eating, sleeping and time for personal hygiene. Subsistence time includes the time spent working at a job or jobs. Essentially, then, leisure is that time available for chosen activities by an individual or a society. However, Clawson expresses the opinion that leisure does not connotate idleness. He puts forth the hypothesis that certain people in a society may be idle because they lack income, ideas, the opportunity or the energy to do something with their free time. Clawson's definition of leisure is more workable than De Grazia's. These two definitions represent divergent viewpoints on the concept of leisure.2/ Other persons may be faced by heavy demands on their leisure time due to many alternative and pressing activities. Using Clawson's definition then, leisure time is available in the American society, but is not attainable by everyone due to the limitations noted. No data are available solely of the sample area to indicate the amount of leisure time available now or in the future. How- ever, the current amount of leisure time available in the U. S. 8] Clawson, Marion, How Much Leisure Now and in the Future?, Resources for the Future, Inc., Reprint No. 45, Washington, 1964, p. 1. 2] The two works cited above are illustrative of the volume of material which has been written on leisure. For a comprehensive sociological treatment of the subject see Larrabee, Eric and Rolf Meyersohn, Mass Leisure, The Free Press, New York, 1958. - 11 - and projections for the future have been made. The annual National Time Budget in the year 2000 is projected at 2,907 billion hours. Of this total, 1,113 billion hours are expected to be available for leisure time activities. This is an increase of two and one-half times over the leisure hours available to Americans in 1950.19] Equally as significant as the increase in total leisure time is the change in composition of leisure time available. Due to an increased life expectency among Americans, retired leisure has increased most significantly since 1900. An aggregate four-fold increase occurred between 1900 and 1950, with an additional dou- bling of aggregate leisure time expected by the year 2000. Vacation leisure time increased by 100 percent between 1900 and 1950 and is expected to increase an additional five times by 2000.1l/ As technology has changed and pOpulation has increased, the work week has been shortened and is expected to continue this trend, Table 1. In 1850, the average work week was 69.8 hours; in 1900, 60.2 hours; in 1950, 41.7 hours; and is expected to be 30.5 hours in the year 2000. As a consequence, both weekend leisure time and daily leisure time are likely to increase. The various socioeconomic groups within the total population will not receive the same impact as a result of the trends. Per- sons who are poorly educated will less likely be able to afford 19] Clawson, How Much Leisure, op. cit., pp. 10-12. _1_;/ Ibid, p. 13. - 12 - Table 1. Average weekly hours of work for the U. S. labor force for selected y ars, 1850-1959, with projections to 20003 Average weekly hours Year BLS Computedh/ 1850 69.8 -- 1900 60.2 -- 1930 45.9 47.6 1940 44.0 43.8 1950 41.7 41.0 1955-57 41.4 40.1 1959 40.5 39.5 1976 -- 36.6 2000 -- 30.5 a] Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Pro- jections to the Years 1976 and 2000: Economic Growth, Population, Labor Force and Leisure, and Transportation, Study Report No. 23, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1962, p. 181. -13- leisure time activities than will more highly educated groups. Likewise, persons displaced by technological change could fall in the same category. At the other end of the scale, managerial and professional people may be hard pressed to meet the demands on their time. Thus, little time would remain for leisure activ- ities in the outdoors. Therefore, the aggregate National Time Budget bypasses trends of specific groups within the population. However, it does serve as an indication of the magnitude of the leisure time available. It remains for the planners of public and private services to investigate the available market of the segment of the population intended to be served by particular facilities. Within Clawson's framework, recreation is one activity chosen by individuals who have leisure time available to them. Using the earlier assumptions about a rational consumer, we will assume that he maximizes his satisfaction from his available leisure time sub- ject to the income constraint. Thus, the marginal utility per dollar spent on recreational goods and services as well as other leisure thme activities is equated with all other goods and services in the bundle. We will further assume that the consumer chooses between leisure and work or between leisure and income by a conscious and rational procedure. Boulding presents an analysis relevent to this discussionrlzl Using indifference curves he illustrates how a l_/ Boulding, Kenneth E., Economic Analysis, Third Edition, Harper and Brothers, New York, 1955, pp. 797-801. -14- consumer chooses between the number of hours of work per day and income per day depending on the wage rate offered to the individ- ual. The indifference curves between income and work slope up- ward and to the right since it is assumed that work has disutility. The indifference curves get progressively steeper as the hours of work increase and as the physical limitations of the individual are reached. Wage lines, drawn through the origin, are increas- ingly steeper as the wage rate increases. Tangency points between wage lines and indifference curves indicate the number of hours per day that an individual will work at alternative wage rates. Transferring these tangency points to another graph with the hours of work per day on the horizontal axis and the hourly wage rate on the vertical axis allows the derivation of the supply curve for labor. The labor supply curve is backward bending after some maximum number of hours is reached. Past this point leisure is preferred to work and corresponding additional income. Following Boulding's reasoning, the value of the consumer's leisure time would be as great or greater than the wage he would be paid for working. Early economists took note of the possible future needs for recreational facilities such as parklands near urban areas. Alfred 13/ Marshall wrote as follows:—— lgj'Marshall, Alfred, Principles of Economics, Eighty Edition, Macmillan and Company, London, 1949, pp. 167, 547-548. - 15 - "There is no better use for public and private money than in providing public parks and playgrounds in large cities ... The want of air and light, or peaceful repose out-of-doors for all ages and of healthy play for children, exhausts the energies of the best blood of England ... By allowing vacant spaces to be built on recklessly ... We are sacrificing those ends toward which material wealth is only a means." John Stuart Mill in his Principles of Political Economy . . . . 14/ cautioned against the failure to prov1de open spaces.—— "A population may be too crowded though all be amply supplied with food and raiment ... Solitude ... is essential ... nor is there much satisfaction in contemplating the world with nothing left to the spontaneous activity of nature; with every rood of land brought into cultivation ... and scarcely a place left where a wild shrub or flower could grow." Wehrwein and Parsons anticipated many of the potential ben- efits associated with the outdoor recreation industry in l932.l§/ A study was conducted in a marginal agricultural area in Northern Wisconsin. A complementary relationship was found between the agricultural sector and the recreation industry. Farmers could obtain part-time employment in the resorts in the area during the summer and during the remainder of the year in constructing and repairing resort facilities. During the summer months, tourists in the area increased the demand for agricultural commodities, espe- cially for fruits, vegetables, poultry and dairy products. 14] Mill, John Stuart, Principles of Political Economy, Peoples Edition, Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer, London, 1871, p. 454. 12] Wehrwein, George S., and Kenneth H. Parsons, Recreation As a Land Use, Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 422, Madison, 1932. - l6 _ An additional impact on the local economy was generated through the purchase of sub~marginal farm land and forest lands by non-residents for hunting, fishing and the building of vacation cabins. The net result was to add to the tax base of the local government. However, where lands were subdivided, additional services were often required; namely, water and sewage systems. In addition, some of the lands were subdivided prematurely where demand for such facilities did not exist, leading to excessive social costs. Similar problems exist at the present time and pin- point the need for estimating the demand for particular recreation facilities before allocating resources to their development. Renne, in 1947, recognized the growing demand for outdoor recreation in a post WOrld War II economy in light of the in- creasing urbanization that was taking placerlél However, he was careful to point out that the heaviest demand was likely to occur near the most densely populated urban centers for both private and public facilities. He concluded that seacoasts and other beaches were likely to experience the heaviest demand and could withstand intensive use. Over one-half of the U. S. pOpulation at that time lived within 55 miles of the seacoasts and the Great Lakes. Renne also argued,that public ownership of recreational lands in some instances and regulation of private facilities in other cases may be desirable to enhance the general welfare of society. lg] Renne, Roland R., Land Economics, Harper and Brothers, New York, 1947, pp. 300-309. - 17 - Barlowe discussed the problem of providing land to meet future recreational needs in light of changing consumer tastes 17/ and preferences.-' Any per capita estimates of recreational land use are influenced by those persons who prefer to spend their leisure time in their own homes, in night clubs, in theaters, etc. Per capita land use requirements for these persons are very low. Other persons make use of parks, golf courses, beaches, etc. For this category, land requirements are larger but the land is usually intensively used and of high value. At the Opposite extreme are those persons who prefer wilderness areas for camping, fishing, hiking, etc. which involves extensive use of land. Any plans of future land requirements must take the above categories into account. Trends in preferences obviously would be useful to planners. Certainly the fact that U. S. pOpulation is becoming urbanized will influence the land requirements and the location of these facilities. Of course, the location of recreation facilities is tempered by the transportation system available in the area. Future planning based on past population characteristics may fail to take into account increasing real family incomes and a shorter work week. Barlowe recommends that between five and ten percent of the 18 land in metrOpolitan areas be reserved for recreational uses;—' ll] Barlowe, Raleigh, Land Resource Economics, Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1958, pp. 97-100. 1:3] Ibid. - l8 _ He recognizes, however, that as land becomes relatively more scarce and other uses compete more strongly in the market place, this figure may be adjusted downwards. Other areas should be reserved in the more rural areas for picnicking, boating, camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, etc. Marion Clawson of Resources For The Future has contributed much to the literature on outdoor recreation in recent years. He classifies outdoor recreation areas into three broad categoriesrlg These are: user oriented, resource based and intermediate. An examination of these types may help to plan for future demand. User oriented facilities are those very close to the user on whatever resources are available. Examples include golf courses, playgrounds, swimming pools, tennis courts, riding trails, etc. These are often located within a municipality, and owned by the local government or private individuals. Use largely occurs after school or work hours. Resource based facilities, as the name implies, are located wherever outstanding resources can be found, often at considerable distance from the users. These include major sightseeing attrac- tions, facilities of unusual, scientific or historical interest; wilderness, camping areas, hiking and mountain climbing trails, etc. These facilities often cover thousands of acres and take the 12] Clawson, Marion, R. Burnell Held and Charles H. Stoddard, Land for the Future, Resources For The Future, Inc., Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1960, pp. 1-36. - 19 - form Of national or state forests, state parks or sometimes private enterprises near seashores or major lakes. Heaviest use Of the facilities occurs during vacation periods or possibly on weekends. The intermediate facilities are oriented, with the partic- ipants in mind, on the best resources available within two to three hours driving distance of large urban areas. The facili- ties may be equipped for camping, picnicking, hunting, fishing, hiking or swimming on a hundred to several thousand acres. State parks or private areas may be provided. Delaware's proximity to three metropolitan areas (Washington, Baltimore and Philadelphia) would suggest that many recreation participants would use the beaches and other public and/or private facilities in the intermediate and resource based categories. That is, Delaware is close enough for one day and weekend outings, but the seashore also will likely be an attractant for vacationers. Clawson also has pioneered much of the theoretical work concerning the demand for outdoor recreation. In a 1959 paper he presented techniques for measuring the demand for a given 2/ . 0 recreational Slte such as a national or state park.——' The tech- nique is oriented around the concept of the total recreational experience and the recreational Opportunity. Clawson assumes that most recreational experiences are planned for and shared by the 29] Clawson, Marion, Methods of Measuring the Demand for and Value of Outdoor Recreation, Resources For The Future, Inc., Reprint No. 10, Washington, 1959, pp. 1-36. _ 20 - family as a group. Thus, a trip to a national park would be planned by the family. However, each family member might not engage in the same recreational activities while in the park. He utilized visita- tion data from Yosemite National Park to illustrate the concept. Visits were separated by point of origin of the visitors and divid- ed into distance zones according to the one way mileage from the park. California visitors were kept separate from out-of-state visitors. In addition, the number of visitors from each distance zone was divided by the total population in each zone to get a prOportion attending from each area. The estimated cost per visit was calculated at $9.00 per day plus 10 cents per mile for a car divided by four (assumed four passengers per car). Despite rather imperfect data and the necessity of some rather heroic assumptions concerning travel costs, demand curves were approximated for California visitors and out-of-state visitors. The curve for California visitors was more price-elastic than the curve for out- Of-state visitors suggesting the availability of more substitutes to local residents for the attractions offered in Yosemite than for visitors who came a much greater distance. L. J. Lerner, in a 1962 study, used a modification of the Clawson demand model to estimate the recreational benefits obtained . . . . . 21 . . by part1c1pants at a California reserv01r.“-/ HIS analy31s was 21] Lerner, Lionel J., "Quantitative Indices of Recreational Values", Conference Proceedings of the Committee on The Economics Of Water Resources Development, Report No. 11, Economics in Outdoor Recreation Policy, University of Nevada, Reno, August 6-8, 1962, pp. 55-80. - 21 - based on the number of visitor days per 100,000 of population correlated with the distance travelled to the reservoir site. Distances were divided into zones as Clawson had done. Again, the value of the recreational opportunity to the consumer is equal to the costs of travelling to the site plus any entrance fees. The elasticity of the demand schedule resulting from the analysis was similar to Clawson's findings. The curve was more price elastic for visitors who lived relatively close to the site and more inelastic for the persons travelling greater distances. In 1964, Knetsch utilized the Clawson model to estimate a demand curve for persons visiting Kerr Reservoirrzg/ He used cost per mile for travel to the site as an indicator of price paid. Knetsch also found that the resulting demand curve was quite highly elastic for visitors within close proximity to the reservoir, and inelastic for visitors who came greater distances. Using the integral of the input demand curve, Knetsch concluded that the yearly recreational benefits for Kerr Reservoir were about $1.6 million. Brown presented a paper in 1964 in which he estimated the value of the salmon-steelhead sport fishery in Oregon.2§/ He used ggjfiKnetsch, Jack L., "Economics of Including Recreation as a Pur- pose Of Water Resources Projects", Journal Of Farm Economics, 46:5, December 1964, pp. 1148-1157. 2_j Brown, William G., "Measuring Recreational Benefits From Natural Resources with Particular Reference to the Salmon- Steelhead Sport Fishery of Oregon", paper presented at a meeting of the Committee on the Economics of Range Use and DevelOpment of the Western Agricultural Research Council, Reno, Nevada, June 16-17, 1964, pp. 13-28. - 22 - a modification of the Clawson technique. Questionnaires were sent to fishermen and total variable costs of the fishing trip and travel distance were Obtained. Although fishing occurred in more than one location, fishermen were divided into distance zones for the analysis. A significant relationship was found between the average variable cost per day for salmon-steelhead fishing and days of fishing taken. Further analysis results indicated that days of fishing taken was associated significantly with average variable cost per day, average family income and average miles per trip. Distance was highly intercorrelated with cost per day as one would expect. Wennergren estimated the value of three Utah reservoirs for boating by employing the Clawson model.g£/ Travel and on-site costs and number of boating trips were Obtained at the reservoir sites through personal interviews. The three demand curves obtained were all price elastic. As in the Lerner, Knetsch and Brown studies, the upper limit on willingness to pay was set by the highest cost users while the lower limit was set by those participants nearest the recreation site. These limits establish boundaries for calculation of recreation benefits derived by the consumers. In the foregoing studies the maximum.amount a consumer is willing to pay is estab- lished by the most distant participant and the minimum amount by the closest participant. 24] Wennergren, E. Boyd, Value of Water for Boating Recreation, Utah Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 453, Logan, June 1965, pp. 6-20. - 23 - Knetsch has pointed out and Brown has agreed that the Claw- son demand curve tends to underestimate the total consumer benefits derived from a recreation site.Z§j The travel time constraint is assumed to act as a demand shifter. For those participants living the greatest distance from the site, time had a negative influence on the number of recreation visits demanded even if monetary costs were to remain the same. The above empirical studies employing Clawson's technique are useful for estimating demand and benefits for a particular site. The studies also isolate some variables which appear to be impor- tant. These studies include distance and time for travelling to a particular facility and household income. The Clawson technique does not explore a family's preferences for other individual out- door recreation activities. Nor does it consider preferences for groups of recreational activities. The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission reached its goal in 1962 with the publication Of 27 separate studies on various aspects of outdoor recreation. These studies centered around current needs for and supply of outdoor recreation facilities and the projected needs in 1976 and 2000. Numerous sub-contractors contributed to the overall studies of the commission. Mueller and Gurin found in an ORRRC study of the recreation activities in a nationwide sample of 2,759 adults that 71 percent 22] Knetsch, Jack L., "Outdoor Recreation Demands and Benefits", Land Economics, 39:4, November 1963, pp. 394-395, and Brown, Op2 cit. - 24 - had participated in automobile pleasure riding during the previous yeaeré/ Sixty-six percent had gone on picnics, 45 percent had participated in outdoor swimming or gone to the beach, 38 percent in fishing, 28 percent in boating or canoeing, 17 percent in hunt- ing, 15 percent in camping, seven percent in horseback riding and six percent in skiing or other winter sports. They concluded that participation was greatest in those activities with the fewest barriers to entry. The barriers included time, money and skill. This perhaps partially explains the relatively lower participation rates in horseback riding, skiing, hunting, camping, etc. In another ORRRC study, also on a nationwide basis, it was concluded that driving for pleasure accounted for an average of 20.7 activity days per person and more than 22 percent of the 27/ total activity occasions.-- Driving and walking for pleasure accounted for 41 percent of the total. The ORRRC studies on a national basis, indicated that age, income, occupation, education and place of residence have signif- icant effects on the amount and type of outdoor recreation in which people participate. For example, swimming is a very popular activity among teenagers, but participation declines as a person's 26] Mueller, Eva and Gerald Gurin, Participation in Outdoor Recrea- tion, ORRRC Study Report NO. 20, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1962, p. 5. 21] Ferris, Abbott L., Betty C. Churchill, Charles A Proctor and Lois Zazove, National Recreation Survey, ORRRC Study Report No. 19, U. 8. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1962, pp. 120-121. - 25 - age increases. However, interest in camping, boating, fishing and walking continues over a wider age span. As might be expected, income affects the level of participa- tion in recreation activities. For the range Of activities it was found that participation increases rather sharply at incomes above $3,000, reaching a maximum in the $7,500-$10,000 bracket and declin- ing somewhat among income groups above the $10,000 level.—— Activities which require cash outlays for purchase or rental of equipment, such as camping, boating and horseback riding, are participated in most often by persons from the higher income groups. However, walking is participated in by all income groups.;2/ Educational attainment, which is correlated with income, is positively associated with sports, swimming, sightseeing, and walk- ing for pleasure. Participation in driving for pleasure increases as education increases through the high school level, but shows a decline among college graduates.§9 31/ Occupation also affects participation in outdoor recreationa-— However, level of participation may be partially influenced by the presence or absence of a paid vacation. Professional and technical 'N \ Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Outdoor Recrea- tion for America, op, cit., p. 28. N \ Ibid, p. 38. lo \ Ibid, p. 215. H \ Ibid, p. 218. - 26 - workers have the highest participation rates, followed by white collar workers. Farm workers have the lowest participation rates. Persons living in suburban and adjacent areas participated to a greater extent in driving for pleasure, picnicking, swimming, hunting, fishing and camping than did persons living in citiesrég Persons living in rural areas participated most Often in fishing and hunting. Burdge, in a recently completed sociological study involving 1,562 personal interviews in Alleghany County, Pennsylvania, ex- amined how a person's work affects the use of his leisure timeréé/ Outdoor recreation activities received the majority of the attention in the study. Burdge formulated the following hypotheses: (l) The status of a person's occupation will determine the extent and nature of the use of leisure; (2) the more irregular and longer the work pattern the less will be the opportunity and, therefore, participation in leisure; (3) differential renumeration will lead to differential use of leisure; and (4) different occupational sub- cultures or work enviornments will have different patterns in the use of leisure. Burdge concluded that in general the persons in higher status occupations participated about twice as Often in outdoor recreation b.) 2/ Ibid. .33/ Burdge, Rabel J., Occupational Influences on the Use of Outdoor Recreation, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University, 1965, p. 1. - 27 - 34/ activities as did persons in lower status groups.-—- He also con- cluded that as incomes increase, participation rates increase for most activities, with the exceptions of picnicking, hunting, camp- ing and active sports. The interrelationship of advancing age and high incomes tended to explain the decrease in participation among the highest income groups. Persons employed on a full-time basis were found to be greater participants than persons employed on a part-time basis.22 Participation rates increased as the length of work day increased up to eleven hours per day. Beyond eleven hours, the rates declined. Irregular working hours and weekend work did not appear to hinder participation in outdoor recreation. Burdge reached a tentative conclusion that persons in the same socioeconomic level, but with different occupations, have different use patterns for their leisure time activitiesxgé/ Race was included in the ORRRC studies as one of the socio- 37/ economic variables.-- Whites have higher overall rates of partic- ipation in outdoor recreation activities than do non-whites. 34] lhid, pp. 148-149. 35] Ibid, p. 150. _3_§/ _I_1_:_i_c1, p. 151. .31/ Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Trends in American Livingpand Outdoor Recreation, Study Report NO. 22, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1962, pp. 55-57. - 23 - Participation by non-whites may be related to lower incomes and lack of Opportunity. However, as the degree of urbanization in- creases, patterns of participation between whites and non-whites become more similar. In the sample area, which is largely urban, there may be factors which tend to suppress the demand for outdoor recreation. Automobile ownership per capita is the lowest in the Northeast region of any area in the nation.2§/ Many outdoor recreation facilities can only be reached by automobile. For those persons who do own automobiles, the difficulty in reaching recreation areas may reduce demand. Such difficulties may arise due to traffic congestion and as a result, leave insufficient time to travel to recreation areas from urban centers for one-day or weekend outings. The interrelationship of congested highways and shortage of time may be a greater factor in reducing partic- ipation than lack of income. Because of the possibility of shortage of time for one-day and weekend outings, it is hypothesized that recreation facilities should be located within one to two hours driving time from the expected clientele for day facilities. Facilities which attract participants for a weekend should probably be within two to three hours driving distance from the expected participants. 38] Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, The Future of Outdoor Recreation in Metropolitan Regions of the United States, Study Report No. 21, Vol. 2, U. 3. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1962, pp. 1-2. - 29 - The writings of Clawson and his associates and the series of reports from the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission serve as a useful framework from which the formulation of working hypotheses concerning consumer participation in outdoor recreation activities may be made. The hypotheses developed for more detailed study are: 1. Participation rates in outdoor recreation activities are related to driving distance and time. 2. Participation in outdoor recreation activities is related to socioeconomic characteristics of a household including: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) household size age of homemaker occupation of head income educational level of head race farm or non-farm residence presence of physical handicaps length of work week of household head time spent travelling to work automobile ownership 3. Use of leisure time for outdoor recreation is related to family units. - 30 _ Inclusion of variables and the prOposed functional relation- ships for testing the above hypotheses will be described more fully in the next chapter. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY Sample Area The sample area for this study included 39 counties in the Washington, D. C.-Baltimore, Maryland-Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Metropolitan Region, Figure 1. This area was chosen because it has the characteristics Often cited in the literature as contrib- uting to the growth in demand for outdoor recreation in increasing population, increasing incomes, increasing leisure time and in- creasing mobility; and because of the close proximity to the State of Delaware. Any point in the State is within two to three hours driving distance by private automobile from the urban center. An excellent system of highways including U. S. 13, U. S. 50 and Interstate 95, as well as the beltways encircling Washington and Baltimore, help to move traffic to the State if outdoor recreation participants from those areas are so inclined. The Washington, D. C-Baltimore-Philadelphia Metropolitan Region is a part of the area along the Atlantic Seaboard which has been referred to as Megalopolis by Jean Gottmann. Megalopolis, extends from.Washington, D. C. in the south, to Boston, Massachusetts in the north and contains one-fifth of the nation's populationyl/ 'l/ Gottmann, Jean, MegalOpolis, The Twentieth Century Fund, New York, 1961, pp. 3 and 26. - 31 - - 32 - PENNA. Philadelphia . “‘ NEW JERSEY MARYLAND Baltimore '- Wash. D.C. DEL. Figure 1. Sample area for the study _ 33 _ The sample area contains some of the fastest growing counties in the United States according to the 1960 Census of Population.2/ The most rapid growth has occurred in suburban areas surrounding the large metropolitan centers. For example, Fairfax County, Virginia, and Montgomery County, Maryland, both adjacent to Wash- ington, D. C., had population increases of 179 percent and 107 per- cent, respectively from 1950 to 1960, Table 2. At the same time, the District of Columbia lost 4.8 percent of its population. Bucks County, Pennsylvania, next to Philadelphia, had a population in- crease of 113 percent between 1950 and 1960, while Philadelphia lost three percent of its population. The city of Wilmington, Delaware, had a decrease of 13 percent in its population from 1950 to 1960. During the same interval, population increased 95 per- cent in outlying regions of New Castle County, Delaware. In the 1950-60 decade, Delaware with a population increase of 40.3 percent, was the sixth fastest growing state, and Maryland with an increase of 32.3 percent, was the eighty fastest growing 3/ state in the 50 United States.-' As indicated above, the highest growth rates within the individual states were in suburban areas. Although nearly 70 percent of the total pOpulation in the United States lived in urban areas in 1960, counties in the center ‘2] United States Department of Commerce, U. S. Census of Population 1960, PC(l), 1A, U. S. Govermment Printing Office, Washington, 1961, pp. 51-63. _3_/ Ibid, pp. 1-25. ApmscHuGOOV - 34 o.mH s.m- o.¢- «.m- mmp.aa man.o~ pompoaom H.ma m.m -- s.mm maa.mm HHH.¢N asppz .um o.o o.ma -- o.mH aom.pa mam.qa mmaa< compo q.mw m.oH m.~HH H.qw mam.kmm Nwa.qma mpwpopu possum H.0w H.¢H k.mma p.so wma.qom Hoq.epa spospmpaoz m.mN m.NH p.qH ~.ma qu.ma kkp.ma papa m.ma m.qm m.wo 4.0m ~ma.pm mHH.m~ ppmsom m.a~ o.Hq s.mo N.ws -s.p~ an.am ppomppm m.aq «.0- N.mH a.o ppp.a~ mam.k~ “pumpeopoa o.o H.am -- H.mm Nam.~m maq.m~ mpapmeo a.NH m.om ~.aa H.mq mo¢.mq pmm.mm Hague o.HH q.o~ m.o- m.ka mmk.~m Nom.¢¢ Haouumu 0.0 5.0 -- s.p Npq.aH qu.wH maaaopmo o.o w.om -- w.om me.mH ooH.NH upp>amu o.ooH -- H.H- H.a- «No.mma woa.asa spao mposapamm N.mw m.a- o.H~H N.Nw wNa.qu nau.ok~ ppoaauamm a.sq p.0m ~.0pa o.pn amp.po~ Nam.kaa Hmpapp< pcc< s.~k n.0a m.mm m.Nm awo.ooH.m Hoo.mqm.N pcmaspmz o.ooH -- m.q- m.q- omm.mok maa.~0m pangsaoo Lo “sandman k.wH p as o.ma m.aH mma.m~ pmm.ap xmmmam o.om N.m m.ws m.o¢ oqq.~om mam.mau paummo 3oz «.0H 0.0m m.om «.mn Hmo.mp cam.sm papa p.mo m.m~ o.as m.oq ~a~.o¢q mmo.msm panamapa a.ap m.o- m.m~ «.ma maa.m~m.aaa man.m~m.ama mpumum panama coma amuse swap: Happy coma omaa sucpoo mmoum swap: CH paw Oumuw wcfi>aa unmouom Ommouocfi unmouom mOOmuwa mo nonesz .mmumum pouaab \mcomH a“ amouw swan: ca wcg>fia unmouma paw .oomH Ou ommH Eoum Ommouucfi acoouoa .oomH new ommH you moum OHaEmm Ono OHLOHS mucsoo cam ouwum ha paw woumum conga: ofiu pom cowumaaaom .N OHan .mm-mp ppm mp-am .m~-H .aa .Hpaa .aopwaanmmz .poamwo waspcapm usoacuo>oo .m .D . o.ooH -- m.m- m.m- Nam.Noo.~ mop.ako.m panaappmaaam m.ak m.w- ¢.ma m.o¢ Nw0.pam woo.mmm spanmpaoz o.pm m.pq- m.~a m.mm amH.mmm ¢m~.¢Hq pupsmamn m.ms m.am «.mm m.~m mop.oH~ Haa.mma “mumpeo m.ma “.mH- o.amm «.maa Rpm.mom omp.qqa mausm p.ak 0.4 q.a w.“ ppm.aam.aa Nao.maq.oH macm>asmappm m.aq N.pa N.HN o.wa Has.mm wom.aa spasm “.mm a.om a.oa N.am HqN.moH Nmp.pm cameo N.ow p.55- w.H~ a.mH Nam.ppm Hma.mNN ppopmz H.wp N.NH a.pp o.kq oam.qma -~.Ha pppmmooHu w.~k «.0 a.p~ p.oN omw.poH som.mm p¢pappp§po 0.4m o.aa o.~q m.om www.mq Hma.~m sax page «.mm q.wa- «.4m 4.0m mmo.mam mqk.oom panama m.ak m.w- m.mqa N.mp ma¢.¢- oHa.mmH appwcaapsm m.mw “.04 q.wa m.a~ omw.¢pa mam.NmH pauamHu< p.wm k.p a.w~ m.m~ ka.ppo.p on.mmm.q sampps 3mz o.sa ~.~ m.q m.~ mmk.mm wqa.mw pppmpupoz N.mm a.mm a.a a.m~ omo.aq Hep.am ouanopz q.am 4.4 o.am H.33 mum.am mmq.mH popama A.p.uQOOv pcma%umz coma Hausa swap: Hmuoy coma omma huasoo amoum away: a“ paw Oumum wcw>aa unmouom Ommwuocw ucooumm mCOmuma mo monasz .mouwum pupae: javoscwuaooul,.~ OHan - 36 - of metropolitan areas or adjacent to metropolitan areas had over 80 percent of the population in urbanized areas (refer to Table 2). As the extent of urbanization in an area increases and land becomes relatively more scarce, the amount of Open space decreases. A probable result of this trend is to cause increasing pressures to be placed on public officials and private land owners to provide leisure time facilities for use by the local populace. The sample area is also characterized by a relatively high level of per capita incomes. Personal income data, available on a state basis, indicate that in 1964 the District of Columbia and Delaware ranked one and two respectively in per capita personal incomes, Table 3. All states in the sample area, except for Virginia, had per capita incomes which exceeded the 1964 U. S. average per capita income of $2,566. Within Virginia, only Fair- fax County, adjacent to Washington, D. C., is included in the sample. After adjusting for increases in the general price level, real per capita personal incomes have increased at varying rates between 1950 and 1964. For the District of Columbia, Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, the percentage increases have been less than the U. S. average. However, in the cases of the District of Columbia, Delaware and New Jersey, per capita incomes were at a relatively high level at the beginning of the period under considera- tion. Maryland and Virginia have shown the most rapid growth rates in per capita real incomes within the sample area. - 37 _ Table 3. Per capita personal incomes for the United States and individual states in the sample area for selected years, 1950-1964 s/ United States Delaware District of Columbia Year Actual Constant Actual Constant Actual Constant Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars 1950 1,491 1,730 2,153 2,449 2,198 2,623 1955 1,866 1,747 2,649 2,480 2,324 2,491 1960 2,217 2,150 3,002 2,912 3,008 2,918 1964 2,566 2,374 3,460 3,201 3,544 3,278 Maryland New Jersey Pennsylvania Actual Constant Actual Constant Actual Constant Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars 1950 1,588 1,895 1,792 2,138 1,566 1,869 1955 1,991 2,134 2,311 2,477 1,902 2,039 1960 2,389 2,317 2,651 2,571 2,249 2,181 1964 2,867 2,652 3,005 2,780 2,601 2,406 Virginia Actual Constant Dollars Dollars 1950 1,222 1,458 1955 1,535 1,645 1960 1,853 1,797 1964 2,239 2,071 I m 3] Actual dollar income data from United States Department of Commerce, Surveypof Current Business, 45:7, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, July, 1965, p. 11. Constant dollar amounts obtained by using the BLS Consumers Price Index, 1957-59 = 100, Obtained from United States Department of Agriculture, Agri- cultural Statistics, 1965, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1965, p. 588. - 38 - Mobility of the population is on the increase within the U. S. population and including the sample area as well. ‘Major portions of the Interstate highway system are completed. These include beltways around Washington and Baltimore and improved highways to the beach areas of Maryland, New Jersey and Delaware from the metropolitan centers as outlined previously. Con- sequently, any of the above mentioned beaches are within two to three hours driving distance from these major population centers, making day use and weekend use feasible. Vacationers are also possible users of the recreation facilities in the sample area. SamplipgpProcedure Sampling is a technique whereby a portion of the population is chosen to represent the entire population of the study area. The sample group then should adequately reflect the behavior of the population in the 39-county study area. A contract was signed with National Family Opinion, Inc. of Toledo, Ohio, for selection of the sample. National Family Opinion has a national sample of 85,000 households available for market studies by mail. The quota sample technique was used to obtain a 6/ representative sample.- To insure elements of probability sampling, 6] Cochran, W. G., Sampling Techniques, Wiley, New York, 1953, p. 105. - 39 - in order that a statistical analysis could be made on the data, the sample was drawn in conformance with four major controls. They were: (1) geographic region of the country, (2) size and type of community in which a family resides within a region, (3) annual family income by household within a region, and (4) age of the homemaker by household within a region. The basis for sample proportions within each control was determined from the 1960 U. S. Census of Population. Sample proportions are altered every two years based on reports issued by the U. S. Department of Commerce. Based upon the above controls, 2,000 households were drawn from the 39-county area by National Family Opinion to be included in the outdoor recreation study. The study area included 2,910,363 7/ households according to the 1960 Census of Population.—- Thus, one household in approximately 1,455 households was selected. The manner in which the sample was drawn allows for a study of outdoor recreation preferences of the residents of the sample area. It is recognized that this study excludes tourists who do not reside in the sample area but visit the metropolitan centers or other sightseeing or natural attractions. Therefore, the demand for lodging and related facilities in the metropolitan centers is not included in the study. The study is confined to those outdoor ‘1/ U. 8. Census of Population, 1960, op. cit., Part C, Table 49. - 4o - activities of the residents which use natural or human resources primarily from rural areas. jguestionnaire Design An initial version of a mail questionnaire was designed to elicit the responses necessary to test the hypotheses discussed in Chapter II. Maximum clarity of the questions was a major objective at this stage because of the decision to use the mail approach. The questionnaire was first pre-tested on University personnel and then extensively reworked. Next the questionnaire was sent to the staff at National Family Opinion for suggestions regarding question format and provision of answer space. The questionnaire was again revised and then sent by National Family Opinion, together with a cover letter, to a small group of cooperating households in the Toledo, Ohio, area on September 11, 1964. The questionnaires were assembled by National Family Opinion and sent to the author for evaluation and revision on September 29, 1964. Again the questionnaire was extensively revised especially where householders in the pre-test had obvious doubts on how to respond to a question. The final questionnaire was mailed by National Family Opinion to the 2,000 households on October 30, 1964. The questionnaires were again returned to National Family Opinion by the respondents - 41 - where they were assembled in groups and mailed to the author. On November 17, 1964, the final shipment was sent, making a total of 1,718 usable questionnaires that were returned for a response rate of 86 percent. Socioeconomic Data In addition to the data Obtained from the questionnaires, considerable socioeconomic data were available for each household. These data were on a punch card and included the following: 1. State, county and city of residence 2. Farm or non-farm residence 3. Number of household members 4. Homemaker's age 5. Husband's age 6. Race 7. Homemaker's education 8. Husband's education 9. Occupation of principal wage owner 10. Income 11. Automobile ownership One advantage of using a commercial organization such as National Family Opinion, Inc. is that the availability of informa- tion such as that above allows for a shorter questionnaire or for a greater quantity of non-socioeconomic information to be obtained. - 42 - Socioeconomic Characteristics of Sample Householders In the study area nearly 90 percent of the sample house- holds are located within Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA'S), Table 4. According to the census definition, a SMSA is a county or group of contiguous counties which contain at least one city of 50,000 inhabitants or more. In the study these include: Washington, D. C.; Baltimore, Maryland; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Wilmington, Delaware; and Atlantic City and Trenton, New Jersey. Among the non-SMSA households, 6.8 percent of the sample are located in rural areas and 3.3 percent in cities of less than 50,000. Among the family income groupings, the largest single category of households, 24.2 percent, is the $7,000-$9,999 range, Table 5. Over 17 percent of the households report incomes in excess of $10,000. This further illustrates the fact that incomes are relatively high in the sample area. Within the age of homemaker distribution the largest number of 523 is found in the 35-44 category, Table 6. This group is followed by the age group 25-34 with 456 households. At the opposite extremes of the age distribution, 6.4 percent of the homemakers are less than 25, while 8.4 percent of the homemakers are 65 or over. - 43 - Table 4. Number and percent of sample households by place of residence, 1964 Place of residence Sample households number percent Rural 135 6.8 Cities 2,500-49,999 65 3.3 MetrOpolitan Areas 50,000-49,999 Central cities 22 1.1 50,000-499,999 Outside central cities 83 4.1 500,000-1,999,999 Central cities 145 7.2 500,000-l,999,999 Outside central cities 170 8.5 2,000,000 and over Central cities 480 24.0 2,000,000 and over Outside central cities 900 45.0 Total 2,000 100.0 - 44 - Table 5. Number and percent of sample households by family income levels, 1964 Sample households Income level in dollars Number Percent 0- 999 17 0.9 1,000- 1,999 66 3.3 2,000- 2,999 122 6.1 3,000- 3,999 150 7.5 4,000- 4,999 209 10.4 5,000- 5,999 301 15.1 6,000- 6,999 299 14.9 7,000- 9,999 484 24.2 10,000-14,999 250 12.5 15,000-19,999 74 3.7 20,000 and over 28 1.4 Total 2,000 100.0 Table 6. Number and percent of sample households by age of homemaker, 1964 Sample households Age of homemaker Number Percent 0-24 127 6.4 25-34 456 22.8 35-44 523 26.1 45-54 390 19.5 55-64 336 16.8 65-74 150 7.5 75-84 18 .9 Total 2,000 100.0 h - _i J fi - 45 - Preparation of Questionnaires for Analysis The questionnaires were coded, the coding was checked and the data were placed on punch cards. The cards were then verified by checking against the original code sheets before the analysis began. Methods of Analysis A chi-square, contingency table analysis is used to measure whether or not response to the questionnaire is independent of socioeconomic characteristics of the households. These variables include household income, age of homemaker, occupation of house- hold head, educational level, race, automobile ownership and place of residence. Likewise, a contingency tab1e analysis is used to measure whether participation in one or more outdoor recreation activities is independent of the above socioeconomic variables. In order to test the hypotheses developed in Chapter II, a multiple regression analysis is used. Frequency of partic- ipation per household is the dependent variable (Y) for the first run. A second run, using a 0-1 dummy variable for the dependent variable (Y'), is used to determine the association of the independent variables with participation in individual activities. Independent variables which are hypothesized to be associated with frequency of participation include: dis- tance travelled to participate in the outdoor recreation activ- ity (X1), amount of time required to travel to the facility - 46 - (X2), fee charged for admission (for selected activities) (X3), length of work week for household head (X4), time spent driving to work (X5), presence of physical handicaps - yes or no (X6), farm residence - yes or no (X7), household size (X8), age of homemaker (X9), automobile ownership - yes or no (X10), race (X11), educational level of homemaker (X12), occupation (X13), and household income (X14). The data for variables (X1) - (X6) were obtained from the questionnaire. Data for variables (X8) - (X14) were obtained from a master punch card for each household in the sample. Participation is measured on a household basis for all activities except swimming. Because of the sample area's proxim- ity to ocean and other coastal beaches, more detail was obtained. Swimming participation is separated for the household head, home- maker and children. Swimming activities are divided into: swimming pool at home, swimming pool away from home, ocean, bay, lake, pond, and river. Other individual activities analyzed include: pic- nicking; walking and hiking for pleasure; pleasure riding; camp- ing; fishing; hunting; golfing; horseback riding; boating; water skiing; canoeing and sailing; ice skating; tobogganing; snow skiing; and vacation and weekend trips. Analysis of the Data The data from the study were analyzed on digital computers at Michigan State University and the University of Delaware. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS A Comparison of Respondents and Non-Respondents by Socio-Economic Characteristics The availability of socio-economic data on punch cards for each household allowed for a comparison to be made between respondents and non-respondents. For the comparison, a chi-square analysis was made of the data arrayed by characteristics in a contingency table. Response was found to be independent of age of the homemaker and household income at the .05 leve1.l/ However, there was inter- action between response and place of residence at the .05 leVEIvZ/ Response was independent of occupation and education, but there was interaction between response and race of the respondent at the .05 levelaé/ There was also interaction between response and automobile ownership at the .05 level.&/ Therefore, the partic- ipation rates for outdoor recreation activities may be biased, either positively or negatively by place of residence, race of the respond- ent and whether or not the sample householders owned an automobile, if these factors influence participation. l] The chi-square values are 8.96 and 12.58 respectively with 6 and 10 degrees of freedom. ‘2/ The chi-square value is 17.43 with 7 degrees of freedom. '3/ The chi-square values are 8.85, 1.92 and 45.82 respectively with 11, 6 and 2 degrees of freedom. .3/ The chi-square value is 41.88 with 2 degrees of freedom. - 47- - 4g - A Comparison of Participants and Non-Participants by Socio-Economic Characteristics A chi-square, contingency table analysis was also made to compare those households reporting participation in one or more outdoor recreation activities with non-participating households. Participation was found to be independent of the place of residence and race of the respondent at the .05 level.§/ However, participation was found to interact with household income, age of homemaker, occupation of household head, education, household 6/ size and automobile ownership at the .05 level.— The above interacting factors have an effect on whether or not the members of a household participate or do not participate in outdoor recreation activities. A detailed multiple regression analysis will follow to measure the impact of isolated socio-economic variables on participation in specific outdoor recreation activ- ities. Participation Rates for Individual Outdoor Recreation Activities A greater number of households participated in those activ- ities requiring relatively little investment than in activities such as golfing, hunting, camping and skiing, Table 7. Eighty-four 5/7The chi-square values are 12.20 and 3.26 respectively with 7 and 2 degrees of freedom. [pl The chi-square values are 85.06, 154.35, 73.20, 66.89, 83.09 and 216.46 with 10, 6, ll, 6 and 6 degrees of freedom respec- tively. - 49- percent of the households participated in pleasure riding. Seventy-eight percent of the households indicated that one or more members went swimming or to the beach. The strong attractive power of the Atlantic Ocean is indicated by the fact that 50 per- cent of the households had members who went swimming there. Swimming pools attracted persons from 43 percent of the house- holds. Sixty-five percent of the responding households had members who went picnicking and 49 percent had members who went for walks or hikes. Of the remaining outdoor recreation activ- ities, participation rates for tobogganing and snow skiing were very low (only three percent). Participation rates for these and other activities such as horseback riding, hunting and golfing may be influenced by the level of skill required for participation. Among participating households, the frequency of participation varied widely within the alternative activities. Pleasure riding participants indicated an average of over 27 trips during the previous year while those participating in walking and hiking indicated an average of nearly 31 separate walks. Frequency of participation in swimming varied both by type and household members involved. With the exception of ocean swimming, where safety may be a factor, children tended to go swimming more often than their parents. Households with swimming pools had members who went swimming more often than when travel was required. 50 - Table 7. Number and percent of households participating by out- door recreation activity with average frequency of participation per household in one year period, 1963-64 No. of house- Z of house— Average frequency of Activity holds parti- holds parti- participation cipating cipating Per house- Per parti— hold cipating household Pleasure rides 1,447 84 23.02 27.33 Picnicking 1,114 65 3.74 5.77 Swim—ocean 866 50 -Head 2.54 7.14 Homemaker 2.66 13.87 Children 2.04 5.47 Pleasure walks 840 49 15.02 30.72 Swim pool away from home 735 43 -Head 1.99 8.90 Homemaker 2.98 12.52 Children 7.73 21.08 Fishing 669 39 4.67 11.99 Boating activities 490 28 3.13 10.97 Ice skating 429 25 1.92 7.69 Swim—lake 367 21 —Head .83 6.37 Homemaker 1.05 7.98 Children 1.83 10.11 Swim-bay 290 17 -Head .65 6.07 Homemaker .83 7.71 Children 1.18 8.59 Golfing 265 15 3.28 21.26 Swim pool at home 250 15 ~Head 1.03 16.69 Homemaker 1.59 22.95 Children 4.67 35.82 Hunting 248 14 1.58 10.94 Camping 242 14 .43 3.08 Horseback riding 201 12 1.40 11.97 Swim-river 156 9 -Head .38 4.14 Homemaker .36 3.92 Children .84 9.28 Swim—pond 63 4 —Head .20 5.48 Homemaker .19 5.18 Children .39 10.58 Tobogganing 57 3 .21 6.33 Snow skiing 53 3 .22 7.04 Vacation trips 1,069 62 .97 1.56 Weekend trips 996 58 2.53 4.36 -51.. Although golfing was participated in by only 15 percent of the households, those persons went golfing an average of 21 times. Thus it appears that the desire and the ability to participate varies widely among the various outdoor recreation activities. Other relationships may be further clarified in the multiple regression analysis. Vacation trips were taken by 62 percent of the responding households and weekend trips by 58 percent. Again a measure of the general affluence in the sample area is indicated by the fact that 1.5 vacation trips and over four weekend trips were taken by the average household. Ensuing discussion will utilize data in Table 7 without further specific reference. The most popular activities on vacation trips were relaxing and sightseeing, followed by visiting friends and/or relatives, Table 8. Swimming was most popular from among the more active recreational activities. For weekend trips, relaxing, sightseeing and visiting friends and/or relatives again headed the list, Table 9, with swimming being the next most popular. The World's Fair, held during 1964 and 1965 in New York City, attracted 152 vacationing households in the sample and 149 house- holds on weekend trips. This special event may have decreased the demand for other activities during the years in which it was held. - 52 - Table 8. Number of households taking vacation trips by activity Activity Number of households Relaxing 747 Sightseeing 716 Visiting friends/relatives 610 Swimming 502 Sports activities 205 Fishing 182 Boating 168 World's Fair 152 Camping 80 Other 148 Table 9. Number of households taking weekend trips by activity Activity Number of households Relaxing 608 Sightseeing 544 Visiting friends/relatives 511 Swimming or at beach 306 Sports 155 World's Fair 149 Other 148 Fishing 123 Boating 106 Camping 64 - 53 - Multiple Regression Anaiysis for Individual Recreation Activities In general, the first run analysis using frequency of participation as the dependent variable resulted in R2 values which were low. For pleasure rides, picnicking, swimming activities, walking, fishing, boating activities, horseback riding, tobogganing and weekend trips, the variation in frequency of participation explained by variation in the independent variables 2 values was less than 10 percent. For other activities the R ranged from .14 to .53. Major emphasis in this section will be placed on the analyses using either 0 or 1 as the value for the dependent variable to indicate whether or not a household partici- pated in an activity. Pleasure rides: Both mileage traveled round trip and time for the trip were related to participation in pleasure riding or driving in a positive manner over the range of the data, Appendix Table 1. Households in the sample area are concentrated in the metropolitan centers (refer to Table 2). Participation in pleasure driving was done in the country outside of the urban centers by the majority of the 1,447 households participating. This involves both time and distance. Therefore, the signs of the coefficients appear to be logical for the sample data. The average distance traveled for a pleasure ride was 72 miles and - 54 - the time incurred was two hours and 51 minutes, suggesting a leisurely pace with stops enroute or a congested highway route or both. There is a positive relationship between participation and lack of physical handicaps in the household, while participation is negatively associated with age. Automobile ownership is associated with participation although a provision was made in the questionnaire for the use of public transportation for pleas- ure rides. Participation is an increasing function of the educa- tional level of the homemaker, but persons in the higher income groups are less likely to participate. Participation was not significantly associated with the length of work week, time spent driving to work, place of residence, household size, race or occupation at the .10 level. Partial correlation coefficients are indicated in Appendix Table 2. Inter-correlation exists between the time and distance variables as would be expected. Both variables are included because of the importance placed on them in studies cited earlier. Inter-correlation between variables makes the individual regression coefficients less reliable. Among the socio-economic variables, age and educational level are both positively correlated with income level which appears logical. Age and educational level are negatively cor- related. Age and presence of physical handicaps are positively associated. _ 55 - Pleasure drives were taken by all members of a household as a group in 1,244 out of 1,447 cases. Picnicking: The questionnaire was designed to allow for a first and second choice picnic spot for the participating households. Both are included in the analysis. Regression coefficients, partial correlation coefficients and related statistics are given in Appendix Tables 3 and 4. Frequency of participation is asso- ciated with distance to the picnic facilities in a negative manner and is positively associated with the time spent driving to the facility. Participation in picnicking is an increasing function of household size and years of education, but a negative function of age and income. This suggests that the younger householders with children at home are more likely to go picnicking than are older persons. With the exception of distance to the second choice facility and income, the variables were statistically significant at the .10 level or better for the 0-1 participation analysis. Variables which were not statistically significant included length of work week, time spent driving to work, farm or urban residence, auto- mobile ownership, physical handicaps, race and occupation. Inter- correlation exists between the time and distance variables. .—56- Walks and hikes: One question was included to measure partic- ipation in pleasure walks and hikes. When these walks or hikes originated away from home, the participant was asked the driving distance and time to where the walk originated. Statistical data are given in Appendix Tables 5 and 6. Participation is a negative function of the distance traveled and a positive function of the driving time. Suitable areas for walks or hikes to take place appear to be available relatively close to the home of the partic- ipant. Nearly one-half of the participating households (384) indicated that the walk originated at home. Urban residents are more likely to take walks than are farm residents, perhaps suggesting the desire for exercise among those with more sedentary occupations. Participation is a positive function of the length of work week, household size and income level. The regression coefficient for income was not significant at the .10 level, but was retained for explanatory purposes. Among the 840 participating households, 72 percent reported that all members participated in the walks or hikes while in the remaining instances, only individual members participated. Pleasure rides, walks and hikes and picnicking are three activities which were participated in by a large percentage of the respondents. Specialized skills and investments in special equip- ment are not required in order to take part in these activities. -57- Two patterns emerge when the functional relationship between participation and driving distance and time is examined. A positive relationship was found between participation and driving distance for pleasure rides, but the relationship was negative for picnicking and pleasure walks and hikes. These relationships may be explained in terms of the point of origin of the participants and the location where the participation took place. The majority of the participants in pleasure rides preferred to drive outside of the urban enviornment in which they lived to seek a change of scenery in the country. However, most of the participants in picnicking and walking remained relatively close to home as discussed above. The nature of the functional relation- ship thus is due to the travel pattern for participation. Consumer preferences and/or the availability of suitable facilities deter- mine the travel pattern necessary for participation. Swimming activities: Of the various swimming activities, ocean swimming was participated in by the greatest number of sample households. Participation is an increasing function of distance traveled to the ocean and of time required for the travel, Appen- dix Tables 7 and 8. Ocean beaches are included in the resource- based category of outdoor recreation facilities. Their strong attractive power is apparent even though the average distance -58.. traveled by participants was 135 miles requiring an average time of two hours and 45 minutes. In the sample area the strong desire to visit ocean beaches by consumers who are clustered in the three metropolitan centers helps to explain the positive functional relationship between participation and distance and time. Consumers have the alternative of visiting beaches in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey or Virginia. The majority of the participants in each of the sample states select those beaches which are closest, Table 10. Sample residents of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey and Virginia tend to visit beaches within their own respective states. Residents of the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania choose beaches in Maryland and New Jersey, respect- ively. Heads participated from 35 percent of the households, home- makers from 37 percent, but children from only 11 percent of the households. This difference between adult and child participation may be due to the danger associated with relatively small children swimming in the ocean surf. Participation in ocean swimming is a decreasing function of age for heads of household and homemakers, and an increasing function of household income for all members. Non-whites are less likely to participate than are whites. Participation by heads of households at swimming pools was not found to be significantly related to the independent variables. - 59 - Table 10. Number of households, by state of residence and by first choice state of participation for ocean swimming State of No. of State of No. of residence households participation households Delaware 39 Delaware 27 District of Columbia 38 Maryland 22 Maryland 192 Maryland 128 New Jersey 172 New Jersey 157 Pennsylvania 406 New Jersey 229 Virginia 15 Virginia 10 Participation by both homemakers and children was related to the same sets of independent variables, and as a result exemplary statistical data for homemakers only are included in Appendix Tables 9 and 10. Participation was a negative function of distance traveled to the pool, and a positive function of the time required for the travel. The presence of physical handicaps is a deterrent to partic- ipation. Household size is positively associated with participation. Participation by homemakers is a negative function of age, while participation by children is a positive function of homemaker's age. Non-whites are less likely to participate than are whites. Those homemakers and children in households where the head is in a professional occupation are more likely to participate than - 60 _ those whose heads are employed in blue collar jobs. This state- ment is reinforced by the fact that participation is a positive function of income. Children in 36 percent of the households participated while homemakers from 23 percent of the households participated. Participation in bay swimming is a positive function of distance traveled to the bay and time required for the travel, Appendix Tables 11 and 12. Within the immediate sample area there are two bays; the Chesapeake Bay, between the eastern shore and western shore of Maryland, and the Delaware Bay between Delaware and New Jersey. The bays are included in Clawson's resource-based category. The location of the bays, relative to the majority of the potential participants, may help in explaining the positive relationship between participation and distance as was also the case for swimming at ocean beaches. If persons desire to swim in salt water there is the choice of either a bay or the ocean. For user-oriented recreation facilities there may be more alternatives available to the consumer which are closer to his home. Participation is negatively associated with age of homemaker and income. For children who participate, participation is a positive function of household size. Thus, the younger families in the lower income groups are more likely to participate. The bays may attract a group of consumers who cannot afford to drive the distance required to reach the ocean beaches. The - 61- bays are closer to the concentration of pOpulation in the sample area. Participants reported traveling an average distance of 59 miles taking one and one-half hours enroute. Ten percent of the responding households reported the head of household and homemaker participating while 13 percent of the households had children who participated. Statistically significant results were not obtained for swimming at other types of facilities. A comparison of the swimming activities for which significant results were obtained yields two patterns with respect to partic- ipation and the time and distance variables. For visits to salt water beaches at the ocean or bays, a positive relationship was found between participation and the distance traveled and the time required for the travel. The location of the salt water facilities in relation to the potential participants in the sample area plus the strong attractive power of the two types of resource-based beaches may explain the positive relationship. Swimming pools, which tend to be located for the convenience of potential participants, showed a negative relationship between participation and distance traveled. Of the 735 participants, 81 percent said they traveled less than 25 miles to the pool. This indicates that by virtue of the location of the pools, it is not necessary to drive as far as was the case for the resource oriented - 62 - beach facilities. It may also indicate that potential partic- ipants are not willing to drive as far to swim at pools as they are to swim at the bays or ocean. The combination of the two factors, i.e. location of facilities and lack of willingness to drive greater distances, may explain the negative relationship between participation and distance. Thus hypothesis (1) as developed in Chapter II, is accepted for the three swimming activities outlined above. Among the socio-economic variables, swimming or visits to the beach decline as age increases. Non-whites may face problems of discrimination or lack the necessary income to visit at ocean beaches or swim at pools to the extent that whites do. While physical handicaps reduce the extent of swimming participation at pools, it may be that persons not actually able to swim visit the salt water beaches. Swimmers who prefer salt water may tend to substitute visits to ocean beaches for visits to bay beaches as incomes increase based on the findings of this study. Boating activities: Participation in boating activities is a positive function of both the distance traveled and time required to get to a body of water where the activity took place, Appendix Tables 13 and 14. An additional explanatory variable consisting of miles times distance was significant at the .01 level and positively associated with participation. ..63- Within the sample area the major suitable bodies of water for boating include the Atlantic Ocean, the Delaware and Chesa- peake Bays, and most of the tributaries leading into the bays or ocean. There are no natural lakes. Participants indicated that they drove an average of 100 miles to the location of their choice. Mill ponds which are navigable and publicly owned restrict the size of outboard motor to 5 H.P. or less. Thus, acceptable boat- ing areas are relatively few and in the resource-based category. Participation is more likely among automobile owners than non-owners. Also, participation is an increasing function of income level. Automobile ownership and income level are positively correlated as are travel time and distance traveled. Camping: Miles traveled to the campsite and time required for travel are significantly associated in a positive manner with the dependent variable, Appendix Tables 15 and 16. Campers drove an average of 244 miles to the campground of their choice. The majority of the potential campers are located in the urban centers, but campgrounds tend to be located near a resource-based area such as the Atlantic Ocean, in moun- tainous areas, near lakes or other bodies of water.Z/ Campers 1] Based upon observations from a map of public and private camp- grounds in the northeast, provided by the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, U. S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Syracuse, New York. - 64 - apparently prefer to remove themselves from the urban environ- ment. The desire to do so, and the location of the campgrounds in relation to the preponderence of population in metropolitan areas implies the positive relationship between participation and time and distance. Eighty households indicated that they camped while on vacation. Thus, they had the necessary time available to drive to some of the more distant campgrounds. The assumption was made that most campers would be charged a daily fee at both private and public campgrounds. A question was included to determine the amount. The dependent variable was significantly associated with the daily fee. Within the range of the data, there is a positive relationship between daily fees charged and participation. The function does increase at a de- creasing rate. There are several implications. First, the major- ity of the daily fees may be very low. The average fee for partic- ipating households was $1.25 per day. The relatively low fee may suggest a minimum of facilities at a given campground. Any improve- ment in facilities provided may be welcomed by campers and they actually will participate more often and be willing to pay more for better facilities. These include such items as flush toilets, hot showers, electricity, etc. More research is needed to sub- stantiate this point. The significant relationship between age and frequency of participation suggests that there is a tendency for participation to decline for those households with homemakers past the age of 50. -65- Although the regression coefficient for income was not significant at the .10 level, the income variable was retained for explanatory purposes. The income coefficient has a negative sign. Household size was positively associated with participation. This is consistent with the relationship with age, since age and household size are negatively correlated. Boating and camping, while appealing to a smaller segment of the sample households than pleasure riding, picnicking, walking and ocean swimming, appear to be activities for which a relative strong preference is maintained by the participants. The distance that the participants are willing to drive is an indication of the preference among the relevent groups within the sample. Both types of facilities tend to be located at or near resource-based attractions. Hypothesis (1) is accepted for these two activities and hypothesis (2) is accepted in part based on the significant socio-economic variables noted in the discussion. Fishing: The questionnaire was designed to allow for two choices for fishing locations, including distance and time required to get to those locations. Participation is significantly related to both distance and travel time at the first choice location, Appendix Tables 17 and 18. The average distance traveled to the first choice fishing site was 29 miles. This is a function of the total miles driven by all fishermen and the total number of households in - 66 - the sample. Participation is a negative function of distance traveled. This suggests that either it is not necessary to drive as far to participate because of alternatives relatively close to home, or fishing is an activity where the householders are not willing to drive as far to participate, when compared to the resource-based facilities such as ocean beaches. Participation is positively related to the daily fee charged per person. But fee fishing is relatively unimportant in the sample area at the present time since only six households report- ed paying a fee. Slightly over one-half of the households who reported going fishing indicated that their household members fished in salt water where there is free access. The remaining fished in inland fresh water areas. Fishing is primarily an activity of the male head of the household, his children or the head and children together. These combinations accounted for 80 percent of the households reporting fishermen. This helps to explain why participation is an increasing function of household size. The lack of physical handicaps is positively related to participation as is urban residence and automobile ownership. Participation is an increasing function of level of education, but a decreasing function of income level over the range of data encountered. - 67 - Hunting: Both frequency of participation and whether or not household member participation are negative functions of the distance traveled to the hunting site, and positive functions of the time required and the fee paid per hunter per day, Appendix Tables 19 and 20. Only eight households reported hunters paying a fee at a private shooting preserve. This may explain why there is a positive relationship between frequency of participation and the fee paid. Frequency of participation is a negative function of time required for driving to work. This may be related to the problem of having enough time at the end of a working day for hunting, but it also is related to farm versus urban residence. Partic- ipation in hunting is more likely to occur among farm residents who are perhaps able to hunt on their own property than among urban residents. This may provide an indication that hunting participation is likely to decline in future years as the farm population becomes a smaller percentage of the total and if obtaining access to hunting lands becomes more difficult. Older persons are less likely to participate than are young persons and participation is more likely as the level of education of the head of household increases. Frequency of participation increases as the size of house- hold increases. Hunting is largely an activity for the head of - 6g - household or for his children. Over 90 percent of the 248 partic- ipating households reported either the head or children or both as hunters. Participation is a positive function of automobile owner- ship. Using the occupational ranking, participation is greater among farmers and blue collar workers - both skilled and unskilled - than among professional persons. Hunting participation increases as income increases. Golfing: Participation is negatively associated with distance traveled to the golf course and positively related to the time required to travel, Appendix Tables 21 and 22. Golf courses tend to be located near the residences of golfers since the average golfer drove seven miles to the course. This is an example of a facility that is user-oriented, and helps to explain the negative relationship between participation and distance driven. That is, golf courses are clustered relatively close to the centers of population in or near the cities. Urban residents in the sample are more likely to participate in golfing than are farm residents. Golfers may be accustomed to having the courses close to their residence and therefore be unwilling or unable to drive relatively long distances to participate. The positive relationship between participation and the time required for travel to the golf course may imply that within - 69 - the distance traveled, time is not a limiting factor. That is, although highway congestion and/or relatively low speed limits are a probability in urban areas, the apparently strong preferences among the golfing population appear to over-shadow any inconvenience encountered in getting to the course as long as the courses are located close to the user. Frequency is positively associated with income, except for the highest income groups. Participation by non-whites is less likely than for whites. Also, participation is positively related to educational level. In over 80 percent of the participating households, only the head or his children were golfers. Fishing, hunting and golfing are three outdoor recreational activities which in general are not participated in by the entire family. Fishing, and especially hunting and,golfing, require an investment in special equipment and require skill by the partic- ipant. Although non-farm residents are more likely to fish and golf than are farm residents, farm residents are more likely to hunt than are non-farm residents. Even though the entire family does not generally participate, this does not necessarily imply that individuals participate by themselves. Only 12 percent of the golfers, 24 percent of the hunters and 26 percent of the fishermen indicated that no one accompanied them on their outings. - 70 - For each of the three activities, about half of the participants indicated that friends accompanied them. In other instances, relatives or business associates were the companions. Hypothesis (1) was accepted for fishing, hunting and golfing; hypothesis (2) was accepted in part for the significant socio- economic variables noted but hypothesis (3) was rejected since entire family units do not tend to participate in the three activities. Horseback riding: Participation is a negative function of the distance traveled to where the ride begins and a positive function of the time required, Appendix Tables 23 and 24. Participation is an increasing function of household size which is substantiated by the fact that in 149 out of 201 partic- ipating households, only the children went horseback riding. Participation is more likely to occur in households where the homemaker is 40-50 years old than in households where the homemaker is either relatively young or relatively old. This appears to be consistent with the high degree of participation among children of a certain age. Participation is also an increasing function of income. Winter activities: Participation in ice skating is a negative function of distance traveled and a positive function of time incurred in travel to the site, Appendix Tables 25 and 26. The - 71 - average distance traveled to participate was only 1.6 miles. Ponds and lakes in public areas and indoor rinks apparently are available relatively close to the residences of the participants. Ice skating is largely an activity for children. Over 60 percent of the participating households reported only children participating. This assists in explaining why skating partic- ipation is a positive function of household size. Frequency of participation is positively associated with lack of physical handicaps, educational level and income. Non- whites participate less frequently than do whites. When the values of 0 or 1 are used for the dependent variable, participation is positively related to length of work~ week, household size, and income. Participation in tobogganing is a negative function of the distance traveled to participate and a positive curvilinear function of the time required for travel, Appendix Tables 27 and 28. Participation is an increasing function of income although the coefficient for income was not significant at the .10 level. Tobogganing may be limited by the availability of sufficient slopes and snowfall in the sample area. It is possible for commercial enterprises to construct the slope and provide artificial snow. However, the extremely low rate of participation in this activity (three percent of the households) suggests that this is not being done or that persons in the area do not desire to participate. - 72 - In 24 of the 57 participating households the entire family participated, while in 19 cases only the children participated. Participation in snow skiing is a negative function of the distance traveled and a positive function of the time required, Appendix Tables 29 and 30. Ski slopes are somewhat in the user- oriented category of facilities, especially as artificial snow is used to bring skiing closer to urban areas where sufficiently cold temperatures are lacking. Participation in skiing is a positive function of income. In 31 out of 53 cases, the entire family participated in skiing. Among the winter outdoor recreation activities, skiing and tobogganing stand out because of the low participation rates (three percent). This may be due to the lack of facilities within relatively short distances of the urban centers. Also, in the case of skiing it may be due to the skill necessary for participation and the investment in skiing equipment. Ice skating attracts a much greater percentage of partic- ipants (25 percent), but these are children for the most part. Both ice skating and horseback riding primarily appeal to children. Vacations: The questionnaire allowed respondents to indicate the number of vacation trips and the length of the trip and round trip mileage for up to three separate trips. The two analyses indicate that vacation trips are the only case where the R2 value is greater - 73 - when frequency of participation is used as the dependent variable than when 0 or 1 is used as an indicator of participation, Appendix Tables 31-34. The average distance traveled round trip on the first trip was about 1,130 miles, indicating that numerous persons leave the sample area for their vacation. The average length of stay was 4.75 days. Eighty-six percent of the vacationing house- holds indicated that their mode of transportation was their private automobile. The number of trips taken increases as age and income in- crease and if there are no physical handicaps among household members. Weekend trips: Provisions were made in the questionnaire to in- dicate the round trip mileage for up to three separate weekend trips. The average number of trips taken was 2.5. Participation is positively associated with the mileage driven, Appendix Tables 35 and 36. The relationship is the same as for vacation trips. Participation is more likely when no physical handicaps are present in the household and is an increasing function of household size, educational level and income. The regression coefficients for income were not significant at the .10 level, but were in- cluded for explanatory purposes. Participation is more likely among those households whose head is in a professional occupation than among blue collar or unskilled workers. - 74 - The occupational rankings are negatively correlated with educational level and income. Over 80 percent of the households taking weekend trips used their own automobile as the source of transportation. Significant Variables Which May Aid in Predicting Participation in Outdoor Recreation Activities Although for most activities, less than 50 percent of the variation in participation rates is explained by variation in the independent variables, some significant relationships emerged from the analysis. The relatively low R2 values may be due to spec- ification errors, errors in measurement due to memory loss on the part of respondents and possibly some confounding of effects. These problems also tend to enlarge the standard errors of some regression coefficients and bias some coefficients. Problems such as these are inherent to a relatively new area of research where the full nature of the functional relationships have not yet emerged. Some relationships are identified and these may be useful for policy purposes. Time and distance variables: When participation was functionally related to the distance traveled to the participation site and the travel time required, two patterns emerged. For one group of activities, participation was positively related to both distance traveled and time required. For the second group, participation was a negative function of the distance traveled but a positive - 75 - function of the time required. Activities in the first group included pleasure rides, ocean swimming, bay swimming, boating and camping. The second group included the following activities: picnicking, walking for pleasure, swimming at a pool, fishing, ice skating, golfing, hunting, horseback riding, tobogganing and skiing. Although vacation and weekend trips may include non- recreation activities, they were found to be in the first group with regard to distance traveled. It is hypothesized that the nature of the relationship between participation and the time and distance variables may be explained by noting the place of residence for potential partic- ipants in the sample area in relation to the areas of participa- tion. For activities in group one, which happen to be of a resource-based nature, there are few alternatives available with- in 50 miles of the urban residents who comprise the majority of the sample. Thus, they must drive a distance greater than 50 miles in order to participate and are clustered on the mileage scale at distances greater than 50 miles, while the non-participants are clustered at the 0 intercept on the mileage scale. The same relationship holds for the time variable because of the amount of time involved in traveling to the point of partic- ipation compared to the non-participants with no expenditure of time. Therefore, those consumers whose marginal utility per dollar - 76 - expended is equal to other marginal utilities in the bundle of goods purchased will be willing to travel the distance necessary and expend the necessary time. A portion of the non-participating consumers may face budget limitations which prevent them from taking part in the resource-based activities. For the second group of activities the facilities tend to be of a user-oriented or intermediate variety. That is, they are located with the consumers in mind. Most participants in the sample traveled 25 miles or less to take part in these activities. Thus, most participants are clustered at 25 miles or less on the mileage scale compared to the distances of 50 miles or greater for the first group of activities. Furthermore the user-oriented activities may be of a nature that they will not attract many participants from greater distances. Hence, the negative relation- ship between participation and distance. It is further hypothesized that within the range of mileage traveled to participate, the time expended per mile of travel is proportionately greater than for the activities in group one. Most of the participants live in urban areas where traffic congestion may be greater than in rural areas and where speed limits are likely to be lower. As a result, those consumers who have a strong enough desire to participate, and are able to do so, will brave the traffic conditions and expend the necessary time. Thus, participation is a positive function of time over the range of miles driven. -77— The functional relationships between participation and the distance and time variables may not be the same in other areas where population is more evenly dispersed in relation to resource-based and consumer-oriented facilities. Length of work week and time required to drive to work: In general, these variables did not serve as significant predictors of outdoor recreation participation. Socio-economic variables: Participation in picnicking, swimming, ice skating, vacation and weekend trips is less likely where physical handicaps are present among household members. Urban residents are more likely to take walks than are farm residents. Farm residents are more likely to participate in hunting than are urban residents. This agrees with the findings of the ORRRC studies and with Burdge's study. Participation in swimming, pleasure rides, picnicking, and hunting is less likely as age increases. No significant relationship was found between age and participation in walking, fishing, boating, golfing and camping. In those activities where participation is a decreasing function of age, the opposite relationship is true between participation and household size since age and household size are inversely re- lated. In addition, participation in walking, fishing and camping is an increasing function of household size. - 7g - Non-whites are less likely to participate in swimming, golfing and ice skating, while no significant relationship was found between race and participation in other activities. Participation in pleasure rides, picnicking, fishing, golfing and hunting was found to be more likely as the level of education increases. As the level of income increases, partic- ipation is more likely for pleasure rides, ocean and pool swimming, walking, boating, ice skating, golfing, horseback riding, tobog- ganing, skiing, and vacation and weekend trips. Participation decreases as income increases in the case of picnicking, fishing, bay swimming, and camping. The ORRRC studies found camping partic- ipation to be positively associated with income, but Burdge, in the Pittsburgh study cited earlier, found a negative relationship. Participation in boating and hunting is likely to be more frequent among blue collar workers than among professional and technical persons, while participation in swimming at pools and weekend trips is more likely among professional and technical workers than among blue collar workers. For other activities there was no significant relationship found between participation and occupation. User-day;projections based upon present participation rates: One means of projecting future participation in outdoor recreation activities is to use current rates of participation and projected population. Population projections were made for the sample area - 79 - for 1970 and 1980 based upon the growth rates from 1950 to 1960. The projections assume that the same fertility and migration rates will continue over the time interval involved. Population is projected to increase from nearly 9.8 million in 1960 to 12.4 million in 1970, and 18.8 million in 1980, Table 11. Participation rates for each activity are from Table 7. These rates are con- sidered as per capita rates except where evidence from the study indicated that all members of the household did not participate in an activity. Adjustments were made in the participation rates for the following activities: hunting, horseback riding, fishing, ice skating and golfing. The first four participation factors were divided by two because primarily children, or in the case of hunt- ing, heads of households and children participate. For golfing, the rate was divided by three because primarily only heads partic- ipate with children or other household members on rare occasions. The average household size is 3.796 based on this study. Table 11. Population used to project user days for outdoor recreation activities in the sample area Year Population 1960 9,774,737 (actual).§./ 1970 12,381,000 (estimated)?! 1980 18,811,000 (estimated)2/ 3/ From Table 2. b] Assumes constant fertility and migration rate as experienced between 1950 and 1960. _ 80 - The projections indicate that over one-half of the total user days of participation will be comprised of pleasure rides and walks, Table 12. In the ORRRC study cited in Chapter II, 40 percent of the total user days was accounted for by the two activities. Table 12. Projected user days for outdoor recreation activities in the sample area for 1970 and 1980 based on current per capita participation rates - - - User days - - - Activity 1970 1980 Pleasure rides 285,010,600 433,029,200 Pleasure walks 185,962,600 282,541,200 Swimming 169,124,500 256,958,300 Picnicking 46,304,900 70,353,100 Boating activities 38,752,500 58,878,400 Fishing 28,909,600 43,923,700 Golfing 20,304,800 20,566,700 Ice skating 11,885,800 18,058,600 Hunting 9,781,000 14,860,700 Horseback riding 8,666,700 13,167,700 Camping 5,323,800 8,088,700 Skiing 2,723,800 4,138,400 Tobogganing 2,600,000 3,950,300 Swimming at all facilities is the third most important activity in terms of total days of participation. Among swimming facilities, pools at or away from home and ocean beaches account for over 80 percent of the user days in the projections. The remaining activities in the study are projected to have total user days which are sharply below pleasure rides, pleasure - 81 - walks and swimming. In fact, rides, walks and swimming comprise nearly four-fifths of the total, leaving to the ten remaining activities only one-fifth of the expanding total. Since the above user day projections are based upon current participation rates, some additional interpretation may be desir- able using the relationships found among the socio-economic var- iables. Estimates from ORRRC Study 26 will be utilizedygl The aggregate effect of changes in the composition of the population with regard to income, education, occupation, residence, age and leisure is considered. The net impact of the above changes is an increase in per capita participation rates for all activities except hunting, Table 13. For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that the rate of change in per capita participation will remain constant on an annual basis. These data were then used to project total user days for 1970 and 1980 considering both popula- tion increase and changes in the composition of the population, Table 14. The revised projections show swimming as the second most important activity with the three major activities accounting for 80 percent of total user days as in the case of the original projections. The impact of the above projections on resource use will be discussed in Chapter V. ‘8/ ORRRC Study Report No. 26, op. cit. p. 28. - 82 - Table 13. Annual percentage changes in per capita participation rates for selected outdoor recreation activities 2 Activity Annual percentage change Pleasure drives .92 Swimming 2.11 Pleasure walks .77 Picnicking .88 Fishing .14 Boating .55 Camping 2.76 Horseback riding .83 Hunting .43 Ice skating 2.84 Tobogganing 1.00 a] From ORRRC Study Report No. 26, Table 11, p. 28. Table 14. Projected user days for outdoor recreation activities in the sample area for 1970 and 1980 adjusted for estimated changes in per capita participation ratesé/ - - - User days - - - ACtiVitY 1970 1980 Pleasure rides 313,982,160 497,174,730 Swimming 208,248,420 343,488,860 Pleasure walks 201,686,490 317,341,570 Picnicking 50,762,100 80,322,970 Boating 41,104,920 63,957,400 Fishing 29,342,970 44,770,180 Golfing 20,304,800 20,566,700 Ice skating 15,600,060 26,147,290 Horseback riding 9,409,560 14,860,690 Hunting 9,285,750 13,920,140 Camping 6,933,360 11,662,820 Tobogganing 2,847,630 4,514,640 Skiing 2,723,800 4,138,400 .37 Based on percentage changes in participation rates from Table 13. - g3 - Additional Respondents' Comments The questionnaire allowed for respondents to indicate their dissatisfaction, if any, with present recreation facilities, to indicate additional facilities that may be desired, to indicate whether or not they would like to vacation on a farm where they would pay room and board, and to indicate their idea of a "good" vacation. The tabulation and summarization of these comments may be useful in allocating resources to recreation enterprises. Dissatisfaction with facilities: Of the 1,718 households that responded to the questionnaire, 184 homemakers indicated that they or members of their household were displeased with some facility they had used during the previous year. They were asked to indicate the type of facility with which they were dissatisfied and the reason for their displeasure. The disfavorable comments tend to indicate that some facilities are being over-utilized in the minds of the consumers who complained. Forty-nine of the householders indicated they were not satisfied with the beach area(s) they had used. Of the 49 cases, 28 indicated that the beach was too crowded and 18 said the beach was dirty. Both of these reasons may be related to overuse. However, if the beaches are dirty this may be due to the lack of adequate personnel to clean the beachlands to the degree expected by the dissatisfied consumers. Twenty-nine households were dissatisfied with restroom facilities used in conjunction with a recreation enterprise and - 84 - the unanimous reason given was that the facilities were dirty. Facilities at state parks evoked unfavorable comments from 15 households. The primary reasons given were crowded and dirty conditions. Crowded and dirty conditions at swimming pools were mentioned by 12 out of 13 householders who indicated dissatisfaction with those facilities. Ten householders were not pleased with campground facilities they had utilized. Eight indicated crowded conditions as the reason, one stated lack of facilities was the cause and the remaining individuals indicated that an insect problem was the cause. Ten families who rented beach cottages felt that the rental fees were excessive or that the cottages were dirty. Seven golfers indicated that the courses they used were either crowded or too expensive. Seven householders were not pleased with the picnic facilities they had used with crowded and dirty conditions the major reasons given. Several other facilities were mentioned and the major reasons given were crowded and dirty conditions. A summarization of the reasons given for dissatisfaction with outdoor recreation facilities indicates that crowded and dirty conditions are the primary reasons for the displeasure. Facilities desired: New facilities were desired by 233 of house- holds who responded to the questionnaire. Swimming pools were mentioned by 86 respondents and other water-oriented recreation -85.. facilities (beaches, etc.) by 30 respondents. Ice skating ponds or rinks were desired by 27 households and public parks by 15 households. More public golf courses were proposed by 10 house- holds and snow skiing facilities by seven households. The fact that more swimming pools, water based facilities, parks and golf courses are desired is related to the crowded condi- tions expressed earlier. The lack of sufficient skating and skiing facilities, in addition to the ones previously mentioned, may be reducing the participation rates in these activities. Acceptibility of a farm vacation: The sample households were queried about whether or not their families would like to take a farm vacation. This would include participation in farm activ- ities and the payment of room and board during the stay. They responded in the following manner: 449 homemakers said yes, 1,168 said no, and 101 did not answer the question. Of those who answered yes, the reason most often given was that the entire family would enjoy the new experience. The next most important reason offered was that the children would benefit from the experience. Other reasons included the enjoyment of outdoor life and the fact that one or both of the parents had lived on a farm while growing up. Twenty-two households take farm vacations and twenty home- makers said they had relatives or friends living on a farm. Of the 1,168 homemakers who answered no, 374 failed to specify a reason and 340 said their families were not interested in farm - g6 - life and preferred other activities. Others mentioned that they had lived on a farm while growing up and did not care to vacation there, that health was a problem and farm activities were too strenuous for a vacation, etc. The above comments do suggest that a segment of the popula- tion would be interested in farm vacations. Further analysis is needed to determine the feasibility of developing farm vacation businesses in the sample region. Respondents' ideas concerning a ngod" vacation versus actual vacation activities: The respondents were asked what their family's idea of a "good" vacation was and these answers were related to what the household members actually did on vacation. The most pOpular ideal vacation was traveling in the U. S. and sightseeing as mentioned by 374 homemakers. While 177 house- holds actually went sightseeing, 135 did not take a vacation trip and the remainder participated in other activities. Of those respondents answering the question, 280 indicated that their idea of a good vacation was a trip to the ocean. One- half of those respondents actually went to the beach, while 112 did not take a vacation. The remainder participated in other activ- ities. Relaxing as a family group was mentioned by 221 homemakers. About one-half indicated this as their actual vacation activity while 84 households did not take a vacation. _ g7 - Trips to specific locations within the U. S. were mentioned by 134 homemakers. These included Florida, California, Hawaii, Alaska, New York City and New England. Eleven householders actually took trips to the areas specified, 60 did not take vacations and the remainder participated in other activities. Foreign travel was mentioned by 117 homemakers as a good vacation. Of this group, only 13 actually made foreign trips, 24 did not take vacations and 80 households participated in domestic travel. This may be an indication of the extent of preference for foreign travel among those households interviewed. Actual partic- ipation in foreign travel may be hindered by such factors as age or lack of income. Camping and "roughing it" was indicated as a good vacation by 97 householders. One-third of this group actually went camping, one-third did not take vacations and the remaining third participated in other activities. Participation in sports activities was mentioned by 87 home- makers as a good vacation. Of this group, 28 did not take vaca- tions, 36 actually participated in sports activities and the remainder indicated other activities. Fishing was mentioned specifically by 60 respondents as a good vacation. Of this group, 25 households did not take vacations and 21 actually went fishing. - 88 - Of the remaining households, 213 did not answer the question regarding a good vacation or did not take vacations and 135 house- holds indicated a variety of other activities as their concept of a good vacation. Several situations emerge from the above discussion. Over one-third of the respondents consider travel to more than one location as a good vacation. Another 20 percent are attracted by either salt or fresh water. In no instance did over one-half of the respondents actually participate in those activities which they conceived of as a "good" vacation. The disparity was especially noticeable between travel to specific locations within the U. S. or to foreign countries and actual participation. The above patterns suggest that there is a repressed demand for many kinds of out- door recreation activities. Prices in some instances may prevent the demand from becoming effective - but others are not expressed because of travel time and distance, job commitments, family com- position, etc. For several reasons consumers may be on a demand curve but not at the present supply-demand intersection. CHAPTER‘V POLICY IMPLICATIONS Potential Impact of Consumer Preferences for Outdoor Recreation Activities on the Use of Natural Resources in the Urban Fringe and Rural Areas One means of assessing the future impact of consumer pref- erences for outdoor recreation activities is to first consider the magnitude of the demand for a particular activity and next to determine whether the private or public sector of the economy is likely to provide the facility. From the projections in Table 14, it may be observed that three activities account for the majority of the participation. These are pleasure rides, pleasure walks and swimming. Pleasure rides: This study indicates that over 80 percent of the households in the sample participate in pleasure rides. Aggregate participation is estimated to increase by 60 percent between 1970 and 1980. The popularity of this activity and the projected rate of increase suggest that in the public interest there are Opportu- nities for farmers and rural resource owners to create or improve the enviornment in which the rides take. The majority of the participants in this study live in urban areas but prefer to take their rides in rural areas. The scenery and other features of the rural areas apparently cause the participants to seek the rural environment. _ 89 - - 90 - It has been the function of government to provide the high~ ways and/or secondary roads upon which the rides take place. High speed highways in the Interstate System are likely to be incompat- ible with leisurely pleasure rides judging from the rate of travel for participants in this study. Therefore, the traffic burden is likely to fall on the secondary roads which border farms and other- wise pass through rural areas. In this case the responsibility lies with the rural land owner to maintain a suitable environment. Strip development along the roads through sales of housing lots and the erection of billboards, etc. may destroy the attractiveness of a rural area in the minds of the urban participants. Although the private land owner could benefit from capital gains on the land sales, society would stand to lose most or all of the benefits derived from the pleasure rides. Consumer preferences for a rural environment raises policy questions regarding the maintenance of such an environment. Although placing a value on maintaining a rural environment in a rapidly urbanizing area appears to be difficult, it becomes the task of society to establish priorities using policy goals. The need for a policy regarding such a land use arises if the society's values concerning quality of environment are different from its beliefs about the direction current land use is taking. Beliefs are factual statements about present conditions while values relate to how conditions ought to be. - 91 - While there appears to be relatively few, if any, opportunities for rural landowners to "market" their scenery directly, it is pos- sible that they may be compensated for maintaining this setting. If the marginal benefits to society (participants in pleasure rides) exceed the private benefits (marginal revenue) obtained by the landowner for agricultural pursuits there may be cause for sub- sidization of the landowner to keep the land in agricultural use. This might take the form of reduced tax rates on the land or assess- ing the land at a value lower than the current market price. ‘Mary- land and New Jersey have recently enacted legislation which lowers the assessed value of land used for agricultural purposes. In the above two cases,referendum voters, the majority of whom live in urban areas, apparently decided that some subsidization was justi- fied to maintain land in agricultural uses. Farm owners and managers could also reap additional private benefits if pleasure ride participants were attracted to scenic roads which passed their farmstead. Fresh produce could be re- tailed at roadside markets as a means of increasing farm income. A retail operation would not be compatible with a limited access high speed highway, however. Resource owners as a group through a farm organization, etc. could conceivably map out a route through a scenic rural area and provide road markers to guide the participants. This technique could also expose the pleasure ride participants to locations of - 92 - vacation farms. The fact that 26 percent of the sample house- holds indicated they would be interested in taking a farm vacation warrants further exploration. The guided tour might be one method of advertising to potential farm vacationers. Swimming: Swimming is an activity expected to be among the fastest growing in terms of per capita participation. Total participation is projected to increase by 65 percent between 1970 and 1980 for house- holds in the sample area. Two types of facilities appear dominant based upon present use. These are ocean beaches and swimming pools. Participation at the two accounted for over three-fourths of the total per capita swimming participation and was found to be a positive function of income. The two facilities have been describ- ed previously as resource based (ocean) and user oriented (swimming pools). The projected increase in swimming participation together with the complaints received from swimmers in this study point to a need for doubling the efforts over the next 15 years to provide for new facilities and better maintain presently developed beaches and pools. Ocean and bay beaches and related areas appear to be among the most valuable natural resources for attracting outdoor recrea- tionists according to the participation rates in this study. From the viewpoint of societal welfare, these resources need to be carefully managed under public ownership in order to maintain and insure their accessibility in the future. - 93 - One conclusion may be drawn relative to salt water swimming at the ocean compared to bays in the sample area. Bay swimming appears to be in the category of an inferior good since partic- ipation goes down as income increases. Participation in ocean swimming is positively related to income. This poses a policy question concerning the allocation of funds for developing and maintaining coastal areas. If the above relationship continues, as real consumer income increases, there should be a decrease for beaches along the bays and an increase in the demand for ocean beaches. From a social welfare viewpoint, the use of tax dollars may be desirable to maintain beaches along the bays for those low income persons who cannot afford to drive the necessary distance to reach the ocean beaches in the future. Comments received from the questionnaire suggest that present beach facilities are not being properly maintained in accordance with consumer expectations. Insufficient maintainence labor is being utilized in relation to the level of use that the beaches are receiving. Societal welfare is reduced by those consumers who litter the beaches. Because of this condition, it appears that more personnel should be employed to maintain the present beach facilities along the coastal areas. These persons should either police the beach areas to prevent the littering or engage in clean- up Operations after the littering has occurred. - 94 - Not only is there a need for added personnel to maintain present beach facilities but employment opportunities are evident as beach facilities are improved and expanded over the next 10 to 15 years to keep pace with the growing demand. Farmers and rural youth who reside near the beachlands might be the logical persons to consider as part of the personnel for beach maintenance. The extent of participation in swimming at pools together with the comments on crowded pool conditions and requests for additional pools suggest the need for increased efforts in providing these facilities near urban areas. Since these are likely to be day use facilities and children are the most frequent participators, this is also suggestive of the need to provide the pools near to the urban centers of population. Although the burden is likely to be placed on local governments or private groups to finance these facilities, farm owners who are adjacent to urban or suburban areas might potentially provide pools, ponds or artifical lakes on their property where land and water resources are available. Pleasure walks and hikes: Although about half of the households participate in pleasure walks and the average frequency of partic- ipation is the highest of any activity in the study, most of these walks originate at home. Those that originate away from home may be better classified as hikes on nature trails, etc. As a result of these patterns of participation, the provision of an environment in which the walks take place may largely rest with local govern- ments through multiple use of parklands, etc. Future participation -95.. may depend partially on the safety of the parkland surroundings. Participants mentioned fear for the safety as a factor when discussing the facilities desired in their locality. Societal wel- fare may be increased by adding to the number of police employed to protect the participants and to maintain a safe environment. The remaining outdoor recreation activities, while less important in terms of projected total days of participation, need to be scrutinized for potential involvement by private landowners. Picnicking: In the sample, over 50 percent of the participants picnicked at public parks and the remainder on private property. The average distance traveled to the picnic area was 14 miles. This suggests that at the present time, facilities are located relatively close to the place of residence of the participants. There may be opportunities for private individuals to provide picnic grounds on a fee basis. However, caution should be employed in any attempt to compete with public facilities where no fee is charged and where the facility is supported by tax revenues. Perhaps opportunities are greater in enterprises where users are accus- tomed to paying a fee. Boating: The majority of the boating enthusiasts used the bays in the sample area in contrast to lakes, rivers or the ocean. There are development possibilities for those rural landowners who are located on or have access to the extensive shoreline around the Chesapeake Bay and to a lesser degree the Delaware Bay. Access may - 96 - be available to navigable waterways or through man-made channels. Lands which are marginal or unusable for agricultural purposes, but which are located in sheltered shoreline areas may offer poten- tial for marina development. Boat dockage, gasoline sales and other services and off-season storage are related enterprises. Fishing: Nearly 60 percent of the participating households fished in salt water - either the ocean or bays - where there is free access and no license is required. Only six households reported fishing at a private location where a fee was charged. However, 293 house- holds reported a willingness to pay to fish with daily fees ranging from 25 cents to $20 per person. Thus a closer analysis of consumer attitudes toward paying to fish appears to be necessary before rec- ommending that private individuals consider a fee-fishing enter- prise. The purpose of this study was to investigate factors associated with fishing. Fishermen need to be questioned regarding species of fish they prefer, etc. Golfing: In this study, 69 percent of the participating households reported that their golfers used a course owned by a private in- dividual but which was Open to the public with a daily fee, or a publicly owned course. The remainder golfed at country clubs re- quiring membership or at a combination of facilities. It would appear that courses providing public access play an important role in the sample area. Since golf courses are within the user-oriented category, they should be located near to the metropolitan population centers. - 97 - Golf courses could conceivably use either prime agricultural land or marginal land with a rolling topography. Farm owners near to metropolitan complexes may find opportunities to convert all or part of their land holdings into a golf course. As reported in Chapter IV, golfing is more likely among urban residents than among farm residents and is an increasing function of income. Also respondents mentioned a need for more golf courses at the present time. The fact that the average golfer in the study participates over 21 times annually is of importance to the potential golf course owner. If he is able to develop a facility and a steady clientele, he can be assured that the golfer will participate once every two to three weeks as compared to other activities where participation is less frequent. Thus, as real incomes increase and as a greater portion of the population is urbanized, the potential for golf courses should increase. Hunting: The rural landowner - both farmer and non-farmer - and the state and federal agencies that manage the supply of game will likely determine the future direction that hunting participation will take. The ORRRC studies have indicated that per capita partic- ipation in hunting will decline in future years. The findings of this study tend to verify this prediction, i.e. hunting is more likely among farm residents than among non-farm residents. The problem of obtaining access to lands suitable for hunting and the desire to hunt on the part of the individual appear to be impor- tant variables. Other studies are concerned with a detailed - 93 - investigation of the individual's background to determine what factors generate a desire to hunt.l/ Among the hunting participants in this study, about one-half hunted on private lands and one-half on public lands. Although only eight households reported paying a daily fee to hunt, 81 households or 35 percent of the hunting participants reported a willingness to pay for hunting privileges. The daily fees being paid ranged from $1 to $20 per day. It is probably that several levels of services are implied in the range of figures. The level of services offered may range from providing access to the land to providing a shooting preserve stocked with game and where a minimum daily supply of game is guaranteed. Also, food and lodging may be provided for the hunter as part of the daily fee. The type of land required for hunting will vary depending on the species of game preferred by the hunters. Studies are underway 2/ in the northeast to ascertain hunting preferences.- Marshlands for waterfowl, and wooded and prime agricultural lands for other species of game may all be provided by the farm landowner. Hunting may be a supplementary enterprise to farmers who grow cash grain crops. Wildlife may consume grain which is lost in the process of mechan- ically harvesting the creps. Thus the farmer without incurring if A hunting study is being conducted under the direction of Dr. K. D. McIntosh at the West Virginia Experiment Station. ,g/ A regional project, NEH-35 entitled "Consumer Analysis of Specific Forest-Oriented Recreational Activities in the Northeast" is concerned with this topic. -99- additional investment, except perhaps for a newspaper advertisement, could increase his total income. This could be done by charging daily fees to individual hunters or by leasing the farm to a group of hunters for the season. The potential for these two alternatives needs to be explored more fully. The feasibility of shooting pre- serves is being investigated at the present time in a U.S.D.A. study. Camping: As described in Chapter IV, camping appears to be a resource-based activity located near water and/or in the mountains. Thus the potential for providing future facilities tends to lie with that group of landowners who are close to the ocean, bays or an inland body of water. The alternative uses for these lands may be quite different than for those adjacent to major metropolitan areas. The opportunity costs for both land and human resources may be less in areas suitable for campground development than in areas near major cities. The areas which may be most suitable for campgrounds are those which may be presently lying idle, eg. wooded areas on farms. Camping participants are most likely to be young family groups according to the results from this study. It would appear that potential campground owners should plan for facilities oriented towards these groups and make provisions for young children. Other studies are underway to determine the facilities desired by campers and to estimate the benefits received using the Clawson techniquesyé/ .37The Delaware Experiment Station is conducting a camping study as a contributing project to NEM-35. - 100 - The feasibility of private campground develOpment in the sample area will depend in part on the actions taken by federal and state agencies charged with administering public recreation facilities. In a market situation where a private campground owner must compete with a nearby public campground, the same or very similar fee is likely to be charged for the same services offered. In this study there was no significant difference between the fees charged at the two types of campgrounds. The public campground may be financed with tax dollars in addition to user fees unless the facility is on a pay-as-you-go basis. Under these circumstances non-campers are subsidizing campers who represented 14 percent of the households in this study. If a subsidy is in effect then there may be a tendency to price the camping services at below their cost of production with the non-campers helping to make up the difference. If the costs of providing the facilities are the same for the private and public campgrounds then the private campground owner may find it difficult to cover his total costs when charging a fee similar to the public campground. He may find it necessary to resort to non- price competition. By offering extra services, such as taking res- ervations and allowing pets, for which the marginal costs are close to zero, the private owner may successfully compete with the public campgrounds. In instances where public land resources are lacking there may be cause to subsidize the private landowner for the development and operation of campgrounds. The source of these funds could either - 101 - be through the U.S.D.A. Cropland Adjustment Program where farmers are paid to convert their land to recreational uses or through a grant from the state government. A factor related to camping which merits additional investi- gation is the relationship between participation and household in- come. The ORRRC studies cited earlier found a positive relationship between participation and income. In this study the income coeffi- cient was negative but not statistically significant at the .10 level. It is possible that camping is used by some participants as an inexpensive means of providing sleeping accommodations. If the negative relationship between participation and income is valid, there may be a tendency to substitute a motel or hotel room for the camping experience as income increases. If so, then the increase in camping participation will be less than that projected in the ORRRC studies as real incomes increase in the future. Opportuni- ties for providing new campgrounds may likewise be diminished. Horseback riding: The majority of the horseback riders in this study travel less than 25 miles to participate and these persons are -primarily children. This is suggestive of the need to provide for future facilities which are near to the potential users. That is, since families do not usually participate as a group, there may be problems in transporting the children from their homes to the horseback riding facilities. Farm owners who are within 10-15 miles of the urban or sub- urban areas in the sample may find opportunities for converting - 102 - either part or all of their land and buildings into riding trails and a stable. Idle farm buildings could be converted into horse barns as a source of supplemental income in conjunction with a commercial farm. Land which is marginal for agricultural purposes could provide the base for riding trails. Winter activities: Ice skating, like horseback riding above, is largely an activity for children according to the results from this study. Present participants are accustomed to having the facilities located close to their homes as discussed in Chapter IV. There is currently a need for more ice skating ponds according to the respondents and based on the projected increase in participation. Ice skating ponds may be a logical part of multiple use of public parklands in areas which are within 1-2 miles of potential skaters. Private land owners who are also within short distances of potential participants might consider a skating area on an artificial lake or pond which is used for swimming during the summer. However, in the sample area sufficiently cold winter temperatures may be the limiting factor in providing outdoor skating areas. A more suitable alternative may be to use tax dollars to provide for indoor ice skating rinks which may be utilized the year-round. There do not appear to be measurable opportunities for pro- viding skiing and tobogganing facilities in the sample area in the near future. TOpography and climate are the limiting factors under present technology. - 103 - Vacations and weekend trips: The potential for vacation and week- end facilities is related to the foregoing discussion of individual activities. Participants in the sample area are attracted to the salt water beaches for swimming and other water based activities for day use, weekend trips and for vacation trips. Salt water beaches stand out as the leading resource-based facility in the area. About eight percent of the vacationers report making at least one trip to ocean beaches. Assuming that this rate continues, approx- imately 990,000 persons from the sample area would vacation at ocean beaches in 1970 and about 1.5 million persons in 1980 based on the pOpulation data in Table 11. But, this is only a part of the demand for vacation facilities (hotels, motels, restaurants and related services), at the ocean beaches. This study does not include those persons who live outside of the sample area but who vacation at ocean beaches or other facilities in the area. Vacation trips to states outside the sample region were reported by 60 percent of the 1,069 vacationing households. In terms of the ideal vacation and actual vacation activities, trav- eling and sightseeing ranked first and second respectively accord- ing to the results from this study. Nearly one-fourth (404) of the households in the study took two or more vacation trips. For these trips the provision of facilities lies with other regions of the U. S. or foreign countries. This is illustrative of the mobility and affluence of U. S. consumers. Based upon the current - 104 - patterns of participation on vacations, the provision of facilities may be primarily related to hotels, motels, restaurants and gasoline stations at locations near scenic and/or historical attractions and along the highways leading to these attractions. If vacationers from other regions who travel to the sample area prefer to sightsee to the extent of sample households, then farm owners and other rural resource owners are not likely to benefit from the vacationers to the degree that businessmen in urban centers will benefit. For example if a vacationer travels to Washington, D. C. specifically to sightsee within the capital city, hotel and restaurant owners and other tourist shops may receive the bulk of the consumer expenditures. If the outside vacationer travels to the ocean beaches within the sample area there may be a different pattern of expenditures. For example if the vacationer brings a boat with him or is a camper, then farmers who have marinas and/or campgrounds are likely to receive a greater part of the vacationer's expenditures than would be the case in the Washington, D. C. example. Weekend trip participation patterns are similar to vacation trips for sample households. While the distances traveled on week- end trips are less than for vacation trips due to time limitations, sightseeing is the preferred activity next to relaxing. Nearly 30 percent of the reported weekend trips were taken to states outside of the sample area, while one-third of the participating households reported taking trips to beaches within the sample area. The - 105 - relatively high degree of mobility as indicated by the number of weekend trips taken and the distances traveled together with the activity preferences suggest that recreation business owners who are near to resource-based facilities such as ocean beaches or historical attractions, will be in the best position to benefit from weekend trip expenditures similar to the vacation expenditures. Summary of resource use potential: The individual outdoor recrea- tion activities have been discussed in relation to the projected participation for each activity. Development potential for the provision of new facilities by private individuals has been discussed in a general manner out of necessity. Until the total costs for providing the respective facilities are known and until the benefits derived for the activities may be estimated, an equilibrium solution cannot be obtained. Those individuals who have the management ability, the in- terest and the available capital and are located adjacent to an urban area, should investigate the potential for swimming facilities (pools, ponds or man-made lakes) and for golf courses, ranked in that order. The ranking is made on the basis of the projected participation in the two activities for 1970 and 1980 and on the basis of consumer reports of needed facilities cited in Chapter IV. Providing riding stables and trails may be an alternative for those resource owners who are unable to finance a swimming facility or a golf course or find the demand lacking. Conversion of present buildings may reduce the capital outlay required. - 106 - Resource owners should be aware that the opportunity costs will likely be higher for their land and management skills in areas adjacent to a city than in more remote rural areas. The recreation enterprise will be in competition with other potential users such as residential and industrial developers. Optimum resource allocation dictates that the land he used for that purpose which will yield the highest rate of return. Society may decide to alter the allocation procedure as was described in the case of providing scenery for pleasure rides, i.e. through subsidizing the resource owners, or the persons within the municipality may prefer that the facilities be provided under public ownership. The potential recreation enterprise owner should investigate these al- ternatives before committing his available capital and other re- sources to a new venture. Farmers who are located within one to two hours driving time of the metropolitan areas should investigate the possibility of selling the right to hunt on their property as a means of supple- mental income or under a more intensive management program, in- vestigate the potential of a shooting preserve. The problem of access to hunting land appears to be a major factor influencing future participation in hunting. Landowners located adjacent to or within miles of ocean beaches or the bays in the sample areas should investigate the potential for marinas and campgrounds. Both facilities are likely - 107 - to require sizeable investments. Competition from public facilities should be noted especially in the case of campgrounds. Off-farm employment opportunities are likely to be the greatest in beach areas if facilities are expanded to the extent suggested in this study. Alternative Uses of Publicly Owned Land and the Impact on Private Enterprise The use that federal, state or local governments make of recreation lands can have an impact on the potential for private recreational development including land use and employment Opportu- nities. One example will be used to illustrate this point. Delaware has approximately 23 miles of ocean beachesaé/ Of this total, about 12 miles are controlled by either the State Park Commission or the State Highway Commission for public use. Another four miles of beach is owned by municipalities and public access is provided. The remainder is owned by private developers or individuals for summer homes and motels. Present use of the privately owned land is determined. However, there are several alternatives facing the state concerning use of the land it owns. One alternative is to sell the land to private individuals. Another is to develop the beach lands into public campgrounds. Or, the lands may be developed and maintained as beaches for day use with adjacent parking lots. Finally, the state might choose some combination of the above three fl] Based upon measurements from the 1966 Delaware Highway Map. - 108 - alternatives. Societal goals must be determined before a course of action can be taken. Consumer preferences for ocean swimming and comments regarding development of more beach facilities suggest that from the stand- point of societal welfare the Delaware beachlands should remain in public ownership to guarantee access to the greatest number of persons. Allowing the lands to fall into private ownership for houses or using the lands for other facilities such as campgrounds, will tend to limit access to swimmers who are greater in number than campers or other outdoor recreation participants. The results of this study indicate that per capita ocean swimming rates are five times as great as those for camping. The average rates are influenced by the percentage of the sample popula- tion participating which is 50 percent for ocean swimming and 14 percent for camping. These facts provide a guideline in allocating resources for the two types of facilities but the final deter- minants will be the marginal costs of providing the facilities and the marginal benefits obtained by the users. The additional camp- ing studies mentioned in Chapter TV which are now underway, will assist policy makers in determining the marginal benefits obtained from campgrounds near the beaches. Thus, it may be argued that keeping the beachlands open to swimmers is likely to have a greater economic impact on the local economy than alternative land uses. This impact can take the form of recreation enterprises related to swimming, and services such - 109 - as motels, restaurants and private campgrounds which are located relatively near to the beach lands but not on the beaches. If the goal of the state's citizens is to provide economic growth over the long run rather than be concerned with short-run income, they should choose to retain the beach lands in public ownership and restrict the use to swimming in order to attract the greatest number of day users, vacationers and weekenders into the area. CHAPTER.VI LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY APPROACH AND SUGGESTIONS FOR NEEDED RESEARCH This study was planned as a contribution to the estimation of demand for outdoor recreation activities by consumers in the sample region. While the Census of Business provides information on private outdoor recreation enterprises, the data are aggregated (to avoid disclosure of information on individual firms) with other amusement businesses. Thus the volume of business for specific types of outdoor recreation enterprises cannot be identified. It was hoped that a consumer questionnaire to derive participation rates would indicate the relative importance of the activities within the region and contribute to an estimation of the demand for such facilities. Limitations of the Study Approach As the study progressed, the dispersal and wide range in the use of facilities within and outside the region made it apparent that the limitations of this approach were more severe than had been expected. It may be useful, however, to point out some of the contributions that this study can make even though the spec- ification of a statistical demand curve was not feasible. The information obtained represents a series of individual purchases or recreational services at existing prices. There are individuals who do not participate at the present time for various - 110 - - lll - reasons. If their incomes are too low, the prices too high or if their preference patterns are geared to the consumption of alternative goods and services, then these individuals are not presently part of the effective demand in the same way that small boat owners do not form part of the effective demand for yachts. However, as was discussed in Chapter IV, questions were asked in the questionnaire in an effort to identify the existence Of a pent- up demand, not presently expressed because of distaste engendered by crowded or dirty facilities, a distantly located facility when a closer location would be possible, or by other remediable limita- tions. The identification of such circumstances could provide an Opportunity for new entrepreneurs who may be the owners Of potential recreational sites, some Of whom might be farmers. At this point, some characteristics of outdoor recreational activities, as related to demand, should be noted. First, in aggregate terms, outdoor recreation may draw upon non-exhaustable resources such as air and sunshine as compared to exhaustable resources like coal and petroleum. Used this week, the resource is able to provide very similar services next week and the week after. The individual consumer, of course, can enjoy the facil- ities and return to them, but each occasion is an individual use experience requiring a separate expenditure. Second, outdoor recreation facilities do depreciate and deteriorate over time with extensive use or with indifferent - 112 - maintenance. Some types of outdoor recreation press harder upon the resources than do others, with differing levels of investment and maintenance expenditures. For example, compare an intensively used beach area or municipal park with a wilderness nature trail which is scarcely used. Third, certain recreation facilities are located at consid- erable distances from the potential consumers. Resource-based facilities, such as ocean beaches and campgrounds, cannot be located so as to maximize the convenience Of the consumer. Other facilities such as swimming pools, playgrounds, etc. which are not dependent upon particular kinds Of natural resources, should be located close to the potential consumer. Transportation costs will be less and the total cost of the recreational services will be lower. Both distance and time from the consumer's home to the facility were significant variables affecting participation in this study. The above characteristics are included to illustrate why some of the difficulties were encountered with the study approach in an attempt to measure demand. The data in Chapter IV and the projections developed from the data are for current participation in outdoor recreation activities. These data do not generate a statistical demand function for individ- ual activities. The reason for not generating a statistical market demand curve is that the data are not such that is is possible to relate quantity used to price Of individual recreational goods and services. In other words, the relation Q = f(P) is not measured. - 113 - Price data are not readily available because many of the services are not paid for directly. Rather, all taxpayers may provide for a public recreation facility. Thus many of the recreation services have free access, i.e. ocean beaches, fishing and boating sites, etc. Attempts were made to obtain price data for hunting and fish- ing but so few of the participants were paying a fee that no con- clusive results could be Obtained. Travel cost as related to driving distance was used as a proxy for price for ocean beach visits in accordance with the Clawson technique cited in Chapter II, but significant results were not obtained. Since the participation data are related to the current supply of outdoor recreation facilities, demand preferences are not ex- pressed by those individuals who have the necessary income and would otherwise be able to participate in an activity, but who are prevented from doing so because of the absence of a convenient facil- ity. The total absence of a facility or the lack of a facility with- in a distance which makes day or weekend use possible are related problems since they both tend to prevent consumer demand from.being expressed. For example, the lack of sufficient swimming pools, lakes, horseback riding facilities and slopes for snow skiing may cause the participant rates to be lower than the actual demand would indicate if the market demand schedules for these activities were known. The fact that consumers in this study expressed a desire -114- and willingness to pay for more convenient water-based recreation facilities, golf courses and parklands indicates that a pent-up demand does exist. Another source of demand which cannot be measured by the participation data from the sample is from those persons who reside outside of the sample area, but who travel to locations within the sample area for vacation and/or weekend trips. It is assumed that major attractions in the sample area would be of a scenic or re- source based nature for which no alternatives exist at a location closer to the participants from outside of the sample area. Ocean beaches and the associated outdoor recreation services would be in- cluded in this category. It is also recognized that other sources such as the scenic, historical, and governmental attractions in Washington, D. C. and environs are important in the non-rural and indoor recreation area. Perhaps the combination of outdoor recrea- tion facilities (ocean beaches) and the Washington, D. C. attractions are complementary in attracting vacationers to the sample region. The fact that a pent-up demand appears to exist among con- sumers in the sample area and the potential influx of tourists from outside the sample area both suggest that the participation data tend to underestimate the demand that exists at present market prices for outdoor recreation facilities in the region. Thus, although the level Of demand for each activity may not be deter- mined, some guidelines are indicated in Chapter IV for potential investors with the recognition that these may be too conservative. - 115 - It should also be recognized that an independently measurable demand does not exist for some outdoor recreation activities for which consumers have had no prior experience or background knowl- edge with which to establish a set of preferences. Such activities might include snow skiing or horseback riding, to mention only two. The only way in which demand may be determined for such activities is through a program of market testing in a manner similar to the way in which new consumer products are introduced into a super- market. However, just as all new products do not gain consumer acceptance, it is probable that not all outdoor recreation facilities will be accepted or attract enough customers to make a profit. There- fore, a market testing program may remove part of the uncertainty associated with investing in a recreation facility. Testing will require promotional or advertising expenditures in order to make consumers aware of the services which are available. Recognition of the need for testing and advertising should be made by persons contemplating investment in recreation businesses and by private or governmental credit institutions assisting in the financing of the farm recreation business. This includes lending policies which are formulated by the Farmers Home Administration. Suggestions for Needed Research The limitations noted for the approach used in this study due to the problems which have been discussed, lead to suggestions - 116 - for needed research which will improve the level of knowledge concerning the supply and demand for outdoor recreation activities. One means of improving outdoor recreation research method- ology would be to define what comprises a market for a given out- door recreation activity or group of activities. For example, is a market for campgrounds composed of alternative types of camp- grounds with respect to facilities and services offered but which are located within a compact region or is a market made up of similar types of campgrounds spread across more than one region of the country? Since campers are distributed on a geographic basis in some relationship to the total population, it would appear that defining camping markets would be useful in planning for future needs of campers. A similar approach should be taken for determin- ing markets for other outdoor recreation activities. Because of the nature of the resources involved and based on the findings from this study, it is hypothesized that markets for facilities which rely on outstanding natural resources will cover a wider geographic area than will markets for user-oriented facilities. If the market areas are defined, the next step would be to determine the characteristics of the consumers in those markets. However, to by-pass the shortcomings of this study, it would be necessary to study both participants and non-participants and possibly institute a program of market testing by offering some recreation services which have been previously unknown in a market - 117 - area to fully ascertain the potential market demand. Perhaps Observing consumer reaction for snow skiing facilities, to use an example, by asking how many days of skiing they would demand at alternative prices, after introducing potential consumers to skiing through market testing would result in a more accurate demand es- timate than only where participation data are used. These data should offer potential suppliers of facilities a stronger base for decision making, also. Supplying new facilities in response to a demand which is known to exist will result in better allocation of rural resources. Assuming that the above market testing and exploratory demand approach is feasible, and testable results are obtained, the next phase would involve the developing of price and income elasticity coefficients to measure consumer response and cross elasticity co- efficients to measure the degree of substitutability or complemen- tarity between outdoor recreation activities. When the level of knowledge approaches this point, the measurement of demand for out- door recreation may be on a more comparable basis with demand meas- urement for agricultural commodities. The initial step in reaching this level of sophistication should involve a sharpening of the definition of a market with the attendant research methodology which has been outlined. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study was conducted to determine the current level of demand for outdoor recreation activities in the Philadelphia- Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Region. Aggregate participation for individual activities was based on 1963-64 participation rates for 1,718 sample households, and projections were made for 1970 and 1980. The projections were made as a basis for determining the potential for farm owners and Operators to either enter the outdoor recreation business or to be employed full or part-time in a recrea- tion enterprise. Hypotheses which were developed for testing include: (1) participation in outdoor recreation activities is related to driv- ing distance and time; (2) participation in outdoor recreation activities is related to socio-economic characteristics of a house- hold; and (3) participation in outdoor recreation is related to family units. Hypothesis (1) was accepted for all activities. The multiple regression analysis indicated a significant relationship between participation and the distance traveled and time required for travel to the point of participation. However, two relationship patterns emerged. For pleasure rides, ocean swimming, bay swimming, boating and camping, participation was a positive function of both distance and time. For picnicking, pleasure walks, swimming at a pool, - 118 - - 119 - fishing, hunting, golfing, horseback riding, ice skating, tobog- ganing and snow skiing, participation was found to be a negative function of the distance traveled and a positive function of the time required. Outdoor recreation activities in the first group are largely in Clawson's resource-based category. Persons in this study on the average travel distances greater than 50 miles to participate because the population is concentrated in urban areas while the resources are along the coastal areas or in the mountains. Hence, those persons who desire to participate must drive the distance noted. Likewise, the expenditure of time is positively related to participation because of the distance involved as compared to the non-participants clustered in the metropolitan areas. Activities in the second group are primarily of a user-oriented nature rather than resource based. Thus, potential participants in this study travel distances of less than 25 miles on the average to participate. As a result of the location of facilities in relation to the potential participants and possibly because participants are unwilling to drive greater distances, participation is a negative function of the distance traveled. Time may be related to partic— ipation in a positive manner because it is proportionally greater than the distance traveled. ‘Most participants live in urban areas where speed limits are lower and where traffic congestion may be greater than in rural areas. For those persons who have the desire - 120 - Hypothesis (2) was accepted in part. The socio-economic variables included for analysis were: presence of physical hand- icaps, farm or non-farm residence, household size, age of homemaker, race, educational level, occupation and household income. The sub-part of hypothesis (2) relating to physical handicaps was accepted for picnicking, swimming, ice skating and vacation and weekend trips, since there was a significant relationship between participation in these activities and physical handicaps; handicaps acted as a deterrent to participation. Place of residence was significantly related to participation in pleasure walks, golfing and hunting, but the sub-part of hypothesis (2) was rejected for the remaining activities since no significant relationship was found. Urban residents are more likely to take walks and to golf, while farm residents are more likely to hunt than are urban residents. Participation was found to be positively related to household size for swimming, picnicking, pleasure rides, walking, fishing and camping; hence the sub-part of hypothesis (2) relating to household size was accepted for these activities but rejected for the remainder. Participation in swimming, pleasure rides, picnicking and hunting was found to be a decreasing function of age; but the sub- part of hypothesis (2) was rejected for the remaining activities since no significant relationships were found. Nonewhites were less likely to participate in swimming, golf- ing and ice skating while no significant relationship was found between race and participation in the remaining activities. - 121 - Participation in boating and hunting was found to be more likely among blue collar workers than among professionals, while participation in swimming at pools and weekend trips is more likely among professionals. The sub-part of hypothesis (2) relation to occupation was rejected for the remaining activities. Participation was found to be more likely as income increases for pleasure rides, ocean and pool swimming, walking, boating, ice skating, golfing, horseback riding, tobogganing, skiing and vacation and weekend trips. Participation was found to decrease as income in- creases for picnicking, fishing, bay swimming and camping. However, the income coefficient was not significant at the .10 level for pleasure rides, picnicking, walks, ocean swimming, boating, camp- ing, hunting and tobogganing. The income variable was retained for explanatory purposes however. Hypothesis (3) was rejected for the following activities: horse- back riding, ice skating, hunting, fishing and golfing. For the first two activities, children are the primary participators while for the last three activities heads of households are the usual participators. For the remaining activities the entire household usually participated in the activities. Results from the multiple regression analysis indicated that not all the relevant variables relating to participation were spec- 2 ified. R values in general were less than .50. Thus additional research is needed to explore new functional relationships which - 122 - will improve the percentage of variation in the dependent variable explained by variation in the independent variables. Based upon current participation in outdoor recreation activ- ities in the Philadelphia-Baltimore‘Washington area and projected participation for 1970 and 1980, there appears to be opportunities for farm landowners to enter the outdoor recreation business. Cau- tion should be employed however in interpreting these Opportunities. Eighty percent of the total days of participation are accounted for by pleasure drives, pleasure walks and swimming. The farmer prob- ably cannot benefit directly from pleasure rides and walks. He may be compensated by society through preferential tax treatment or other subsidies to maintain a rural environment in which these rides and walks take place. Activities showing the most rapid increase in per capita participation are swimming, camping and ice skating. However, the primary participators in ice skating are children and present facil- ities are located within five miles of their homes. Thus the poten- tial does not appear to be as great for private landowners to provide an ice skating facility as for swimming or camping. Landowners who are adjacent to the metrOpolitan area may find the provision of swimming facilities, golf courses and riding stables among the more favorable alternatives based upon patterns of participation and expected increases in participation rates. The provision of horseback riding facilities is an alternative that - 123 - probably would require a smaller investment if unused buildings could be converted into the new use. Farmers who are within one to two hours driving time from the metropolitan centers should investigate the potential for selling hunting rights on their farms if hunting is compatible with their farm enterprises. Landowners who are near to the ocean, bays or inland bodies of water should investigate the potential for marinas and camp- grounds which probably will take sizeable investments and compete with the available labor supply during the summer months. Public ownership of ocean and bay beachlands in the sample region appears to be the most acceptable alternative in view of the expected doubling in swimming participation over the next 15 years and due to the complaints and preferences expressed by respondents in this study. There is evidence that a pent-up demand exists among sample householders. Public ownership will insure access to the greatest number of persons. While the participation data provide an indication of current levels of activity, these data do not generate statistical demand functions for each activity. The information represents a series of individual purchases at existing prices. Those persons who would like to participate in an activity and are able to partic- ipate, but who are prevented from doing so by the lack of a conven- ient facility are excluded from the participation figures. Partic- ipation is geared to the present supply of facilities. Also, - 124 - persons who reside outside of the sample region but who participate in activities within the region are excluded. Evidence for the existence of a pent-up demand for facilities, together with the exclusion of non-sample area residents, suggests that the participation data may be too conservative in estimating current and future participation at present market prices. Market testing programs to offer new facilities to consumers are a possible means of developing a demand for such activities as horseback riding, where an independently measurable demand did not previously exist. Market testing is also a technique for reducing part of the investment risk and uncertainty faced by the potential outdoor recreation entrepreneur. The limitations and shortcomings of the approach used in this study suggest possibilities for future research. Defining market areas for outdoor recreation activities or groups of activities is an alternative approach. Studying both the current participants and non-participants would by-pass some of the shortcomings of this study. The next step should be concerned with the development of price and income elasticity coefficients to measure the appropriate consumer response and cross elasticity coefficients to measure substitutability or complementarity between outdoor recreation activities. The measurement of demand for outdoor recreation will then be on a more comparable basis with demand measurement for agricultural commodities. BIBLIOGRAPHY Barlowe, Raleigh, Land Resource Economics, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1958. Boulding, Kenneth E., Economic Analysis, Third Edition, Harper and Brothers, New York, 1955. Brown, William G., "Measuring Recreational Benefits From Natural Resources With Particular Reference to the Salmon-Steelhead Sport Fishery of Oregon”, a paper presented at a meeting of the Committee on the Economics of Range Use and Development of the Western Agri- cultural Research Council, June 16-17, 1964. Burdge, Rabel J., chppational Influences on the Use of Outdoor Recreation, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 1965. Clawson, Marion, How Much Leisure Now and in The Future?, Resources for The Future, Inc., Reprint NO. 45, Washington, 1964. Clawson, Marion, Methods of Measuring the Demand for and Value of Outdoor Recreation, Resources for The Future, Inc., Reprint No. 10, Washington, 1959. Clawson, Marion, R. Burnell Held and Charles H. Stoddard, Land for The Future, Resources for The Future, Inc., Johns HOpkins Press, Baltimore, 1960. Cochran, W. G., Samplinngechniques, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1953. deGrazia, Sebastian, Of Time,,Work and Leisure, The Twentieth Century Fund, New York, 1962. Delaware State Highway Department, Official Highway Mapgof Delaware, Dover, 1966. Ely, Richard T., and George S. Wehrwein, Land Economics, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1940. Ferris, Abbott L., Betty C. Churchill, Charles A Proctor and Lois Zazove, National Recreation Survgy, Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Study Report No. 19, U. S. Govern- ment Printing Office, Washington, 1962. - 125 - - 126 - Freund, John E., Mathematical Statistics, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1962. Friedman, Milton, Price Theory - A Provisional Text, Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, 1962. Gottmann, Jean, Megalopolis, The Twentieth Century Fund, New York, 1961. Hicks, John R., Value and Capital, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1946. Houthakker, H. S., "An International Comparison of Household Expenditure Patterns Commemorating the Centenary of Engel's Law," Econometrica, 25, October, 1957, pp. 532-551. Kafoglis, M. Z., Welfare Economics and Subsidy Programs, University of Florida Social Science Monograph No. 11, University of Florida Press, Gainesville, 1961. Knetsch, Jack L., "Economics of Including Recreation as a Purpose of Water Resources Projects", Journal of Farm Economics, 46:5, December, 1964, pp. 1148-1157. Knetsch, Jack L., "Outdoor Recreation Demands and Benefits", Land Economics, 39:4, November, 1963, pp. 387-396. Larabee, Eric and Rolf Meyersohn, Mass Leisure, The Free Press, New York, 1958. Lerner, L. J., ”Quantitative Indices of Recreational Values", Conference Proceedings of the Committee on the Economics of Water Resources DevelOpment, Report No. 11, Economics in Outdoor Recrea- tion Policy, University of Nevada, Reno, August 6-8, 1962, pp. 55-80. Marshall, Alfred, Principles of Economics, Eighth Edition, MacMillan and Company, London, 1949. Mill, John Stuart, Principles of Political Economy, PeOple's Edition, Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer, London, 1871. Mueller, Eva, and Gerald Gurin, Participation in Outdoor Recreation, Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Study Report No. 20, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1962. - 127 - NEM-35, Cooperative Regional Project Outline, Consumer Analysis for Specific Forest-Oriented Recreational Activities, April, 1966. Ostle, Bernard, Statistics in Research, Iowa State University Press, Ames, 1960. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Economic Studies of Outdoor Recreation, Study Report NO. 24, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1962. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Hunting in the United States - Its Present and Future Role, Study Report No. 6, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1962. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Potential New Sites for Outdoor Recreation in the Northeast, Study Report No. 8, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1962. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Private Outdoor Recreation Facilities, Study Report No. 11, U. S. Government Print- ing Office, Washington, 1962. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Projections to the Years 1976 and 2000: Economic Growthy_Pppulationl Labor Force and Leisurei and Transportation, Study Report No. 23, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1962. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Shoreline Recrea- tion Resources in the United States, Study Report NO. 4, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1962. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Sport Fishing - Today and Tomorrow, Study Report No. 7, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1962. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, The Future of Out- door Recreation in Metropolitan Regions of the United States, Study Report No. 21, U. 5. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1962. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, The Quality of Out- door Recreation: As Evidenced by User Satisfaction, Study Report NO. 5, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1962. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Trends in American Living and Outdoor Recreation, Study Report No. 22, U. S. Govern- ment Printing Office, Washington, 1962. - 128 - Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Water for Recrea- tion - Values and Opportunities, Study Report NO. 10, U. S. Govern- ment Printing Office, Washington, 1962. Public Law 87-703, 87th Congress, H.R. 12391, Food and Aggiculture Act Of 1962, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, September, 1962. Reid, Leslie M., Outdoor Recreation Preferences, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Conservation, University of Michigan, 1963. Renne, Roland R., Land Economics, Harper and Brothers, New York, 1947. Rothenberg, Jerome, The Measurement of Social Welfare, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1961. Salter, L. A., Jr., A Critical Review of Research in Land Economics, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1948. United States Department Of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1965, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1965. United States Department of Agriculture, A Place to Live, Yearbook of Agriculture, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1963. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Map of Public and Private Campgrounds in the Northeast, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Syracuse, New York, 1965. United States Department of Agriculture, Handbook of Agpicultural Charts - 1965, U. 8. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1965. United States Department of Commerce, Census Of ngulation - 1960, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1961. United States Department of Commerce, Survey of Current Business, 45:7, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, July, 1965. Wehrwein, George 8., and Kenneth H. Parsons, Recreation as a Land Use, Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 422, Madison, April, 1932. Wennergren, E. Boyd, Value of Water for Boatinngecreation, Utah Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 453, Logan, June, 1965. APPENDIX A - CONSUMER QUESTIONNAIRE 1. During the past 12 months, did your household members go picnicking? Yes _/:7 NO U- (GO to qu. 2) IF YES: Please answer the following questions about your household's picnicking during the past l2 months. a) Which of your household members went on these picnics? Male head of household [:7 Homemaker [:7 Child(ren)‘£:7 Other household member(s) 17 b) About how many times did your household members go picnicking during the past 12 months? About times c) Where did your household members go on these picnics? (If more than one place, indicate the place you most often picnicked by putting a "l" in the answer box for that place; a "2" in the answer box for the place you next Often picnicked.) City Park [—7 State Park [—7 Private Park [—7 County Park £_7 National Park.2_j Other Place l_j d) Going one way - about how far from your home are the picnic spots where you most often picnicked and next often picnicked (as designated in part "c")? Most often picnicked - ONE WAY: About 'mile(s) from home Next Often picnicked - ONE WAY: About mile(s) from home e) About how long does it take to travel one way to each of these picnic spots? Most often picnicked - ONE WAY: About hour(s) 23 About minutes Next Often picnicked - ONE WAY: About hour(s) 25 About minutes f) In what state is the spot where your household most often went picnicking? Delaware _/:7 District of Columbia U Maryland ___/—7 New Jersey [—7 'New York [:7 Pennsylvania [—7 Virginia 1_ West Virginia [:7 Other [:7 - 129 - Nix guano NHH.xnow 3oz NHN.%OmnOh 3oz NHN.vcmH%nmz mnu.mncnmnn> ummz NHN.mnanwnn> mHN.mnnaunoo mo nonnnmnn NHN.Onm3mHon .NHN_mHnm>Hmmaaom mnemon onu on no .wanEn3m ow :oumo umoa AmvnonEwavaO£Omaos m wnv Onmum umzz aH Aw .ane u.anE «.ane ".cna ”.GHE acne " .ana u.cfifi “ woomam no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no " mnsu on Nm3 Ono Ho>wnu on .mn: “.mn: ”.mn: ”.mnc ”.mn£ nun: “ .mn: «.mn: “ oxen an moow wnon so: uson< Au .HE In 0H5 Illlu 0H5 .Illlu oHEII-Iu .HE Illlu OHS ...Illu 0H5 In OHS Ill” NMUNHQ mHSU m.“ 08.03 “50% . u u u u u u u “Bonn new so: usonm s Nm3 Ono an n u u u u u n u uo>ono unonm wonozmcm u u u u u u u “ moons Somon\wcnaan3m now :0: u u u u u u u n w :b: manna no3mcw .:weoa um _ I I a mac: nso% Eonm w<3 mzo mOHnE mo nonesz I 1 I u Hoom wanEnzm: mcnczaoan Roz m” u u u u u u u u Amvnonawa cHO£Omson nozuo 1. u u u u u u u u . . . . . . . noncnnno . u u u u u u u u . . . . . . . noxmsmeom “ u u u u u u u . wH050mson mo mom; was: . - u u . mama no “888:2 . - - u n “ A.Onm azazm om: moan mom «meow Bonn“ 680m 0 Mm3mznm u wcom ” oxmq u hem » cmooo unma< Hoom" um noon“ OSu wannnv .somon Osu on u wansanamuwanEan“ no .wanaan3m now onosu uaww. oo amonz mmmmzmz maommmaom mamas mamm< moamm az< oznzszm u Amamv a: mnan nzmmmmmnn no nonasa Oumanxonaam onu o>no mm ... muamm mmh 09 mo .UZHzZHzm Hzmz Amvmmmzmz nqommmaom < mamas Azonon .ucwnn an» as owma on» mmonom emumnnv mamm< mooa Ho. m:u um ouou scum acouomwwu hauamofimwcwwm ma coumowcafi 05Hm> may .moanmwum> ucovcoaovaa mo nonaba M NMIH oSu mg M cam Eovooum mo moouwoc Huan can M nuw3 cowusnfiuumav :m: Gm mm: Huan . «M n m odomu msu mqu3 0 u «M umsu mamonuoohn Hana man mo umou onu mo whammoa m ma o=Hm> :m: may \ .oumawumo mo uouuo vumccmum \ m... N .aowumaaahouow mo ucowowmmmoo \m w H .ucoaogmmooo cofiumawuuoo oameuaaz \ .moanmwum> unaccomoccw mo gonads u M muons aocmoum mo moouwov mama u Huan pom \ \mdom.om u m \msfim. u mm \msmm. u we \mwmm. u a Had.¢oa.am~.mma mm. amm.- oooooo. Hooooo.- Nqfix . Ham.wma.m on. «ma. mooooo. Nooooo. sax oaoocH “a Nem.HH mo. «QH.~ moawoo. cmqooo. max Ho>mH Hmaoaumoscm m“ mao.H mm. NQH.H- aqaamo. aqmamo.- cox aunmumaso case . NNm.¢¢ Ho. omo.m- manooo. qmmwoo.- ax umxmemaon mo om< OH. amm.H momoao. eaafimo. ox mamoflecm: Hmoamsnm Ho. HoH.q- Hooooo. Nooooo.- «x.aaxv -H.No¢.am Ho. oea.m~- Hooooo. mooooo.- Nux HoN.H~H Ho. amo.0H oqaooo. mnemoo. «x mayo canon mafia «oh.mmm.¢fl ma. oom.- Hooooo. Hooooo.- max -H.Nm Ho. wao.m mmNooo. mqwooo. ax mauu canon amass nu In In mmmqom. m ucmumcou unmoumuaH Nam. .w H no o Idocmowmwcwwm coo: \H mo Mo>oq u «am «a manmaum> woman whammoan wow oManuw> unoccoaoo as» no .w sags momma oHaEmm cam .oocmowmwcwwm mo mHo>oH .moSHm> :u: .Am.Hnmv muouum vumwcmum pamau .Am.an mucmaofimwooo cowmmouwom .H oHan xwwcomm< 149 00.0 Nqax 00. 00.0 0Hx 00. 00. 00.0 NHx 00.- HH.- 0H.- 00.0 0Hx 00. 00. 00.- 00. 00.H 0x 00. 50. HS. a0.- -.- 00.0 0x \a0o.- 00. 00.- H0.- 00. H0. 00.0 Amxvaaxv N0. 00. 00.- 00. 00. #0. an. 00.H me \w00. 00. 00.- 00.- 50. 00. Na. 00. 00.H «x 00. 00. N0.- 00.- 50. 00. 00. a0. 00. 00.0 max 00. 00. 00.- 00. 00. 00. 00. N0. N0. 00. 00.0 ax 00.- #0. 00. 50.- NH.- 00. 0H. 00. 00. 00. 00. 00.0 .» Nqax 00x max 00x 0x 0x «x . 0x max «x max fix .0 pom oManum> unoccomov ofiu mm monau ousmwoam .M cows muaogoamuooo cofiumaouuoo mo xwuumz .N magma xficaoma< ii III. iv-fu-‘llL-A - as...- _ it, -. I“. ‘1 'IIII‘ ll - 150 .800ooum mo momuwoc mow.0 cam 00 £003 00>00 MO. 000 um ouou aoum uaoHoMMHv haudmoam0cm0m \ .mumaaumo mo uouum uuwvamum \ .cowumawahouoc mo unoHoawmwoo \ .uaw000mmooo GowumHouuou oMQHuHUZ \ \0000.00 - 0 00000. n 00 R000. .- 00 @000. u 0 000.000.0 00. 000.0- 000000. 000000.- 000 000000 000.00 00. 000.0 000000. 000000. 000 00>00 00000000000 000.00 00. 000.0- 000000. 000000.- 00 000000000 00 000 000.0 00. 000.0 000000. 000000. 00 0000 000000000 000.000.0 00. 000.0 000000. 000000. 0.0000.000 000.000.0 00. 000.0- 000000. 000000.- 0.00 000.00 00. 000.0 000000. 000000. .00 000000 .000 - 0000 000.000.0 00. 000.0 000000. 000000. 00000000 000.000.0 00. 000.00- 000000. 000000.- 000 000.00 00. 000.00 000000. 000000. 00 000000 .000 - 0000 000.000.0 00. 000.0- 000000. 000000.- 0.00 000.00 00. 000.0 000000. 000000. .00 000000 .ch I 003.0:0 mafia: 000.000.0 00. 000.0- 000000. 000000.- 000 000.00 00. 000.0- 000000. 000000.- 00 000000 .000 n 003 0:0 00002 0m0000. 0 uamumcoo uaoououaH 000. .0 0 00 0 :00: \muochHMch00 0 0pm 09 oHnm000> mo H0>QH wc0xo0co0a pom 00900um> ucovaoaov ecu 00 .w nu03 mo6000m0cw00 mo 000>ma 0:0 .00:00> :u: .A0.0nmv 000000 0000:000 000:0 A0.0nv muco0o0mmooo c000000woM .m @0009 x0vcomm¢ r- n4 ‘- —=_—..—— 151 .000.- 00 000. 0000 0000 00 OO.H dHX AN. OO.H NAN 0000. 00.- 00.0 00 mo. HH. ©¢.I OO.H xx HO. ¢O. HO.I #0.: OO.H .NN..HN HO. NO. NO.I HO. NB. OO.H Nx.ax 00. 00. 00.- 0000.- 00. 00. 00.0 0.00 \000.- 00. 00.- 00. 00. 00. 00. 00.0 .00 00. 00. 00. 00. 00. 00. 00. 00. 00.0 000 go. no. wo. wo. m¢. no. Hm. od- Nm. OO.H Nx \Mdo. Ho. NO. mo. #0. Na. mm. 0%. «q. Om. OO.H N.HN Ho. 00. «0.: No. we. mq. no. Nu. ©¢0 H¢. ow. OO.H .HN HO. NO. NO.I HO. co. um. no. Nc. mm. «o. mm. mm. OO.H NHx NO. #0. 00.! @0- am. on. Nm. dc. dw- aw. Hm. Cd. wh- oooH HM H00: «a. wN0I ¢N0 no. mo. ao. NM. mo. m¢0 00. NN. no. mm. 000H M wCHXUHCr-vflfl HOW QHDGHHN? “Emmuamnmmfl QSU mm .W £UH3 QUCQHUHWMQOU COHUQHGHHOU MO unfihuwz o+N ”HAHN—H. Nfiwamag< - 152 .Eowmoum mo mmmuwmv mow.H cam w saws Hm>ma H0. 050 um oumu scum ucouommac hauamowmacwam NW .mumaaumm mo uouum vumvcwum \q .coauwcwaumuow mo 000.800.03.000 \m. .uamaowwmooo cofiuwamuuoo «HQHuH:S.\M .aovooum mo moouwmw mo000 uom \N \0000.00 - 0 \0000. - 00 \m000. - 000 \0000. u 0 000.000.0 00. 000.0 000000. 000000. 000 000000 000.0 00. 000.0 000000. 000000. 00 0000 00000000: 000.0 00. 000.0 000000. 000000. 00 000000000 0000 000.00 00. 000.0 000000. 000000. 00 0003 0003 00 000000 000.000.0 00. 000.00- 000000. 000000.- 000 000.00 00. 000.00 000000. 000000. 00 003 000 0a00 000.000.0 00. 000.0 000000. 000000. 000 000.00 00. 000.0- 000000. 000000.- 00 003 000 00002 omNOHH. m unmoumuaa uamumcoo non. .w 0 no 0 000x \0000000000000 0 000 00 0000000> mo Hm>oa 0x003 00900009 pow 0090000> ucmvcmaov onu 00 .» sags wosmoamacwwm mo mHo>mH can .00300> :u: .A0.0nmv muouum unaccmum 90msu.am.0nv mucoaoammmou :00mmouwmm .m mHan wavaomm< - 153 - .000.- .00 000. 00.00 000.0 \-0. 00.0 000 00. 00.0 00 00. 00. 00.0 00 00. 00. 00. 00.0 00 00. 00. \000.- 00. 00.0 000 \000. 00. \000. 00. 00. 00.0 00 00. 00. 00. 00.- 00. 00. 00.0 00 00. 00. 00. \000.- 00. 00. 00. 00.0 000 00. 00. 00. 00. 00. 00. 00. 00. 00.0 .0 000 00 0x 00 00x 00 000 00 .0 0x003 00900009 you 00300um> unoccmmmv 0:0 00 .w £003 mucmwowwwmoo coHumHmuuoo mo xwuumz .0 00309 xwvcmam< .Eovmmuw mo mmmnwmc 000.0 vam 0 £003 Hm>oH Ho. mnu um ouon scum ucmummmwu mauamuwmaame \m .oumaaumm mo uouuo vumvcmum \0 .aoqumcwaumumv mo uamfloammooo \m .ucwaoammmoo coaumamuuou mamauaaz \M .aovmoum mo momuwow 000.0 pom \fl \m000.000 u 0 \0000. u 00 \m000. n 00 \m000. n 0 b. 0mm.mma.m mu. 000.0 Hooooo. Hooooo01 00x maoocH ”D omo.0 m0. nnm.0 H~¢wmo. «Amoco.u 00% 000M . «mm.¢0 Ho. 00m.~ mnmooo. Monaco. ax mwd nme.omm.wm Ho. 0N0.n oooooo. mooooo. wa mmm.~m 0c. moa.m Homooo. mommoo. Nx cage 000.000.00 00. 000.0 000000. 000000.- 000 000.00 00. 000.0 000000. 000000. 00 003,000 00002 oommam. m ucmumaoo uaoonmucH won. .w 0 no 0 luocmoawfimwwm cmoz \0 mo Hm>0q u 09m 09 wanwwum> muoxmauao: ma mcwaawsm c0000 now 0090000> ucmwcmaoc 0:0 00 .M pas ouamo0w0wcwm mo mao>ma 0:0 .00300> :u: .Am.0nmv muouum cumccmum namnu.Am. av managoammmou coammouwmm .0 magma chaomm< 155 .000.- no 000. 0000 0000 \m 00.0 000 00.- 00.0 000 \000. 00.- 00.0 00 00. 00.- 00.- 00.0 000 00. 00.- 00.- 00. 00.0 00 00. \000. \m00.- 00. 00. 00.0 000 00. 00.- 00.- 00. 00. 00. 00.0 00 mo. 00.- 00.- 00. 00. 00. 00. 00.0 .0 00x 00x 00 00x 0x 000 0x .0 mumeEmEon xp wcwaefizm ammoo now manmfium> ucmmcmamv mcu mm .M nuwz mucmwowwmmoo cOHumeuuou mo xfiuumz .w maan xavamaa< .800000w mo 0000w00 000.0 000 m0 0003 00>00 00. 0:0 00 0000 800m 0amummm00 hauamowwficwwm \m .000E0000 mo 00000 0000c00m \m .00000c0800000 mo 0amfiowwmmoo \m .0amwuwmmmou 60000000000 00n00asz.\m .8000000 «0 0000w00 000.0 00m \w \0000.00 u 0 00000. n 00 \m000. - 00 \0000. u 0 000.000.000.000 00. 000.0- 000000. 000000.- 0000 000.000.0 00. 000.0 000000. 000000. 000 000000 000.0 00. 000.0- 000000. 000000.- 000 0000000000 . 000.0 00. 000.0- 000000. 000000.- 000 0000 ,0 000.000.0 00. 000.0- 000000. 000000.- 000 ”u 00. 000.0 000000. 000000. 00 000000000 00 000 . 000.00 00. 000.0- 000000. 000000.- 000 000.0 00. 000.0 000000. 000000. 00 0000 000000000 000.0 00. 000.0 000000. 000000. 00 000000000 000.000.00 00. 000.0- 000000. 000000.- 000 000.00 00. 000.0 000000. 000000. 00 003 000 0000 000.000.00 00. 000.0 000000. 000000. 000 000.00 00. 000.0- 000000. 000000.- 00 003 000 00002 N00w0m.u 0 000000000 02000000 000. .0 0 00 0 luucmuwmwcwwm c002 \0 wo Hm>ma 0 00m 00 0000000> c00000£u 00 080: 800m 0030 0000a 00 wc0EE030 000 0000000> 0000:0000 0:0 00 .w 0003 mocmu0mwcw00 mo 000>00 0C0 00:00> :0: .A0.00mv 000000 00000000 000:0 .A0000v 000000000000 0000000wom .0 00009 x00ammm< “ilrlli-IJD-I§I- rin- all P‘-, [In— - 157 Oo.# N¢#N mm. OO.# ##N N#.! qu.! oo.# M#N No.! mo.! mo. OO.# ##N mo. No.! mN.! O#.! oo.# me do. #0. MN.! O#.! mm. oo.# mx #0. no. ##.I No. #¢.! mm.! oo.# NwN «0. mo. ¢#.! 50. m¢.! o¢.! m¢. oo.# wx qo. no. N#.! 00. MN.! NN.! no. mo. oo.# 0% 00. no. mo.! #0.! no.! No.! mo.! mo.! N00! OO.# NNN 00. mo. 00.! NO.! 00.! 00.! #0.! #0.! #0.! mm. oo.# NN @0. mo. «0.! #0.! NO.! #0.! mo.! 00.! #0.! RN. mm. OO.# N#N «0. oo. 00.! #0.! #0.! 0¢O.! no.! mo.! #0.! ow. mm. mm. oo.# #N No. mo. w#.! #0.! mm.! om.! mm. mm. m#. #0. m#. #0. mo. OO.# .W N¢#x «#x m#x ##N me ax wa mx 0% NNX NN N#x #N 0? couc#0;u kn mean Scum 0030 0#ooa um wc08803m now «#000um> ucmccmamn on» mm .M £003 mucm0o0mmmou cO0um#muuoo mo x0uumz .00 00000 00000000 .abvmoum mo mmouwmv won.# can a :uH3 Hm>m# #o. man um oumu Baum uamummmav %#uamowmwaw#m \W .mumaaumm mo Houuo unavamum \¢ .aowuwaflaumuoc mo ucoguawmwoo \m .uamwoammmou coaumeunoo m#m#u#:z.\m. .aovomuw mo ammuwmc mow.# pom \w \waflfi.hmfi n m \mumu u um \mmmq. u Na \MMno. u a #¢#.¢o#.#m~.mm# no. m¢o.~ #ooooo. #ooooo. «##N . #mm.ww#.w o#. #Nm.#u Nooooo. «00000.! ¢Hx maoocH Ru amm.¢¢ Ho. moo.mu ommooo. w~o#oo.n ax uoxmawaon mo ow< ”D ouw.o# #o. “mo.~ u moumoo. nmmnoo.u me . omm.m #o. ¢m¢.m #Nmomo. «ameno. wx mafia u#osomsom “mo.~ma.m Ho. moo.qfl- Hooooo. mooooo.- max qu.¢H Ho. omm.ma momooo. namooo. Nu maa mac mafia nmm.mnm.m 0#. mum.# Hooooo. #ooooo. ~#x mwm.m mH. mm¢.# wwqooo. Henooo. #x has mac mmHflz unnomo.n m ucmumcoo uQmUHQuGH mm#. .w # no o coax \Maucmogmaawwm u #nm «a m#nw#um> {mo Hm>mnl, cauc#«£o pow wcwaau3m hm; you m#nm#um> ucmccwamv msu mm .M nuaz mamma mHQEwm can .mocmowmaawam we m#m>m# .mw=#m> :u: .Am.#nmv muouum vumvcmum u#m£u .Am.#nv mucwauammooo aowmmmuwmm .## m#nma chcmmm< 159 .moo.- no moo. saga mama \w oo.H Nqax ma. oo.H «fix «0. \aoo. oo.H mx «0. so. mm.- oo.H me «o. mo. oq.- mo. oo.H mx Ho.- \Mdo.- \wdo. Ho.- Ho.- oo.H NNx \#do.- Ho. no.. mo. 00. mm. oo.H Nx \mdo.- \mdo.- #0. No.- No.- mm. o“. oo.H max #0. No. No.- #0. No. mm. am. am. oo.H ax Ho. «0. ma.. ca. ma. «H. mm. no. on. oo.H .w Nqax «Ax ox wa mx «Nx Nx Nax Ax .» you m#nm#um> ucmccmaoc mnu mm .w nuw3 mucm#o#uwmoo cowum#muuou mo x#uumz cmun#fino >n wGHEEH3m %mn .NH «Hana xfiwcmaa< 160 - .aowmmum mo mmopmmv 0#n.# cum 5 nuw3 #m>m# #o. mnu um oumu scum ucmummmwv %#uamuww#aw#m m .mumaaumm mo uounm vumvcmum “m. .aowumagaumuov mo ucm#o#mmmoo \m .ufloaoamwoou coauM#ouuoo «#m#u#=z.\m .aovmoum mo mwuuwmv O#n.# pom \fl llI.' \NMn~.o- u m \mnum. u mm \m¢h¢. a Na \m¢mo. a a H¢m.mma.m ma. HoN.H Hooooo. Hooooo. «fix «acoaH who.H mo. mmH.~- Homfimo. hmhamo.- on magnumczo oua< «am.~ma.mH Ho. mum.~ gooooo. mooooo. Auxvaaxv Amaauvammfifiav «um.qma.oa Ho. oow.oH- Hooooo. mooooo.- max mm¢.mm Ho. ~H¢.¢H m¢¢ooo. Haqooc. «x mas «co mafia Hmo.mq~.mfl ma. mmH.H- Hooooc. Hooooo.- «Hx oo~.w~ «mm. ommooo. cameos. fix an: «no moHaz mmmm#~. w unaumcoo umwoumuaH hum. .» H no o Idocwo cw m 58: 2 mo WW5“ u flm E man—33> moaua>wuum wcaumon now manmwum> unavamaov an» am .» an“: moamo#m#cw#m mo a#0>m# can .mw:#m> :u: .Ao.Hnmv muouuo cumncmum ufimnu .Am. 90 muamwowwmooo scammmuwmm .m# o#nma chcoaa< fil'i.“tlcln.lw . lisp: . NM... - 161 .moo.- no moo. coo» mama \# E [III- 1! ll ¥Illnl E oo.H «ax HH.- oo.H on mo. Ho.- oo.H ANxVAHxV mo. No.- oo. oo.H NNx no. oo.- oo. no. oo.H «x «o. \Aoo.- oo. No. o5. oo.H Nam oo. No.- oo. oo. oo. oo. oo.H ox oH. oo.- mm. mm. oo. No. on. oo.H .w oox oox ax .ax mmx Nx max ox .» mm#u#>#uom wc#umon wow mannaum> unmocoamc msu ow .w LUH3 oucwwowmwwou :OHum#muuou you xHuumz .¢# o#an xaccmaa< .Ebcmmuw mo mmmuwmw mow.# wcm w Luw3 #m>w# #o. msu um oumn Scum ucmummmww m#ucmv#w#cw#m .mum8#umm mo Houpm cumvcmum .aowuma#eumumc mo uamwofimmmoo .Gowum#muuoo m#a#u#az.\ .eovmmum mo mwmuwmv mon.# How \# {11" \\\ “VF“bihnl Ill. ‘Il'll'llwll'll'l IIIIIIII- l' All‘llu‘lflli‘lll'lll'|llll"l‘l|111‘lll' I'll-l, :I'II'IIII lll".ll'.!l. \momm.oo~ u o \momw. u on \NMmm. u «a \moon. u a Hom.ooo.o oo. HNm.o - oooooo. Hooooo.- oox oaooaH mo~.o oo. mom.o ooomoo. NonNo. ox ouom oHooomsom Ho~.~oq.o oo. ooo.oH- Hooooo. mooooo.- «ox HoH.NH oo. moo.- mmoooo. oommoo. ox omo umo moo hoo.o~ oo. omo.oo- Nooooo. oooooo.- NNx Non. oo. Nom.oo oomooo. oooooo. ox on; moo mafia oum.ufim.moo oo. oo~.H- Hoooooo. Hoooooo.- max oo.~o No. omo.N oooooo. oooooo. ox has one mafia: moqmmo.n m ucmumcoo ummoumuaH ooo. .w A no o cmmz_ \MoochHMHGme u «pm #0 m#nm#um> PO Hmbmp ll $114134“) 434 ”4354JU> JauD’nnDLD—I Dan) 05 4 :31...» D’nnflu"4*ano*n I.) 0"}!!! 163 - .moo. amou mmoq \w E oo.H oox oo. oo.H ox oo.- oo. oo.H «ox oo.- no. no. oo.H ox oo. \aoo. oo. oo. oo.H max oo. no. No. oo. oo. oo.H «x oo. no. mo. Ho. NH. oo. oo.H «ox oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. Ho. no. oo.H ox No. AN. on. on. no. oo. oo. mu. oo.H .w oox ox me ox max «x «Ax ox .» wc#mamu How m#nm#um> quwcmamv mnu mm .M £u#3 mucmwufiwmmoo GOHum#muuou mo xwuumz .oH «Homo noocooo< 164 - .Eowmmuw mo mmmuwwv #ow.# cam 0# nufi3 #m>m# #0. on» an oumu scum uamuwMM#u %#uamo#w#aw#m .wume«umm mo uouum vumccmum .ucmaowwmmoo coauM#muuoo m#m#u#:z \M \N .coaumawahmumv mo ufimwuammmoo \m \w \# .aonmmum mo momuwmv #05.# mom \mpoN.Ho \mumm. u mm \msho. . mm \ono. n m HoH.ooH.HmN.mmH mo. ooH.N oooooo. oooooo. Noox Hom.ooo.o Ho. ono.~- mooooo. oooooo.- «ox oaooaH NNN.HqH mo. Nom.~- Nooooo. ohmooo.- NNHx Nom.oo Ho. oon.N oNHoHo. nooomo. max Ho>oH Hmaooumuoom oNo.H Ho. on.N- omoomo. mooofio.- oox ooomuoczo ouso oNo.oH mo. NoH.~- nnomoo. ommooo.- Nox oo~.m Ho. ooo.m oooomo. HHhooo. ox muom oHooomsom NNN.H oo. moo.o mmqooo. Roommo. Bx mocmoomou can“: no sumo onm.o oo. mmh.H “Noooo. ooowmo. ox momoHocmo Hmoomoom «oo.m no. ooH.~ omoooo. ommooo. ox omo poo mom om~.o~o.mo Ho. mom.~H- Hooooo. mooooo.- «ox oom.oo Ho. Noo.oH «Hoooo. mmouoo. Nx mooooo .umH . mafia ooh.hmo.o Ho. «Ho.~- Hooooo. mooooo.- ~.Hx mom.~H Ho. Hmo.~ ommooo. oqomoo. .Hx «goose .chu hmz mac mo##2 «Ho.ooo.oo Ho. omo.m Hooooo. oooooo. max Noo.o~ Ho. om~.o- “Nmooo. oooooo.- ox ouoonu .um#! %m3 mac mm##z ofioooo.- a mom. .» H go o m. cum: \woowoowwwmmHm o How on moomoum> mafisowm new anmHum> unmcamawc mnu mm .M nuaa ooamo#macw#m m#m>m# cam mm:#w> :u: .Am.wnmv muouum vumvcwum u#msu .Am.#n0 mucmHUHMMwoo cowmmmuwmm .m# m#an chcmaa< 165 .moo... no moo. 92: 33 h. 00.# N¢#N mm. 00.# ##x M#. MN. 00.# NN#% ##. #N. 00. 00.# N#N m0.! ##.! M#.! ¢#.! 00.# 0#N «0. no. no. mo. 00.! 00.# 0% #0. 00. 0#. ##. 00.! mm. 00.# wa \M00.! #0. mo. 0#. \N00. «0. no. 00.# RN «0. no. 0#. ##. 50.! no. 00. mo. 00.# 0x #0.! #0.! 00.! «0.! m0.! N0. N0. #0. #0. 00.# mx ¢0. no. mo. 50. m0.! N0. m0. «0. N0. 00.! 00.# NN% mo. 00. mo. 00. m0. m0. 00. #0. no. 00. #m. 00.# Nx 00. mo. 00. 00. ¢0.!\M00. N0. «0. #0. #0. M#. ¢#. 00.# N.#% no. «0. N0. m0. «0.! m0. m0. N0. #0. 00. 0#. ON. oo. 00.# .#x 00. mo. 00. 00. «0.! #0. N0. «0. #0. #0.! mm. nN. M#. M#. 00.# N#x mo. 00. m0. mo. 00.! m0. m0. m#. m0. m0. mm. mm. ¢#. m#. Na. 00.# #N #0.! #0. mo. 00. 00.! m#. 0#. 00. no. 0#. m#. N¢. 0#. 0N. 0#. mm. 00.# .M N¢#x «#x NN#x N#x 0#x me 0x fix 0% MN me Nx N.#x .#x «#N #N .% wc#nm#w “Ow m#nm#um> ucmvcmamv onu mm .w nuw3 mucm#o#mmooo c0#um#muuou mo X#uumz .w# 0#an xH©GmQa< .Evamum mo mmmuwov mo“.# cam N# £u#3 #m>m# #o. onu um ouwu scum uamumMMHv %#uamo#mmaw#m \m .mumaaumo mo uouuo unavamum \m .aowumcaaumumv mo uao#o#ummoo \m .uco#0#mwooo cofiuM#ouuoo 0#a#u#:z \M .aocmmum mo momuwmv noh.# mom \w \mmoo.m~H u m \Mmmu. u no \moho. u «a \mhoo. n a #q#.qo#.#mu.mm# I- omm. oooooo. oooooo.u ~¢Hx . Han.mw#.w .. sou. mooooo. Hooooo. ¢Hx mEOocH ,b om#.mm# #o. omo.~ mnmooo. nOO#oo.u ~.~#x ”m moo.0# CH. mqm.# memooo. mNHmHO. .NHx Hm>m# #maomumosvm . who.# mH. NHm.# owmomo. O#nm¢o.n 0#x magnumcso ou=¢ Num.¢q Ho. mom.¢ mocooo. #wmmoo.u ox mw< Nun.# om. oo~.# onm¢#o. nm-#o.u ox moamcaomu sham mmm.m #o. m#4.m qo#ooo. Homooo. mx mam #qm.n Ho. m¢~.~# awnooo. oomcoo.u max sum. #0. ooo.n# «HmmHQ. mmooom. «x wage oo~.o#m.q om. Nun.# Hooooo. Hooooo. «#x oom.HH -- omo. oomooo. mooooo.- Hx mos woo woo“: #qmmou. m uamumcou ummuuoucH mqa. .» # no o Idocwo cw m com: \H «0 Mwwmgo u How an 0#no#um> wcwucss you m#nw#um> ucmvcmamc msu mm w :u . . #3 moamoHM#aw#o mo o#w>m can mos#m> :u: Am.mnmv ououum vumccwuo agony .Ao.#pv muam#u#mwmoo :0#umauwow .m# M#pma x#vcmma¢ 167 .moo.- no moo. soon moon \# oo.n Nonx mo. oo.n onx on. mm. oo.n ~.~nx on. oo. oo. oo.n .Nnx mo.- nn.- oo.- o~.- oo.n onx oo. \woo. oo.- mm.. on. oo.n ox moo... moo. no. no. moo. 2.- oo; 5” oou mo” no” \moon no” no“ oo.- oo.n mx )8... \#oo.- oo.- moon 8.- no... moo” boo” oonn NNx \woo \moo - no - \#oo - mo - mo - no - oo oo oo.n ox \Moo.- \Moo. \#oo.- \#oo. no.- \Moo.- no.- no. no. oo. oo.n Nnx No. \woo. oo.- \#oo. oo.- oo.- oo.- on. oo. mo. mo. oo.n nx \#oo.- oo.- oo.- \moo. oo.- nn.- oo.- nn. on. oo. mn. no. oo.n .» no; E N. 2x .2x onx Q 3 3 NS Nx NS" Sn .w you 0#nmwnm> uchCmamw wnu mm .w nu#3 mucw#o#uwmou wCHucsn cOHum#mnnou mo x#numz .om 0#pm9 x#chma< 168 .Eowmmnm mo moonwmv woh# tam m cuwz #m>m# #0. man um onmn Baum uamummmwv %#uchHMch#m \m .mumSHumm mo uouum vuvaMum \m .a0#umcweumumv mo ucmHUHMMmoo \m .uam#o#mmmou GOHum#muuou m#m#u#sz_\w .EOcmmum mo mwmuwmv wom# Mom n# ‘l'l‘ \mooo.oo~ u n Emma. u mm \mfio. u no \Mnon. u m non.oon.nm~.mmn mo. ~m¢.~ - oooooo. oooooo.- Nonx nom.oon.o no. omo.m Nooooo. oooooo. onx oeooon NNN.non mo. ono.u nonooo. ommooo. nnnx Nom.nn oo. moo. - oonooo. noomoo.- nnx no>on nooonnoooom oNo.n mn. moo.n - omnnno. nommno.- nnx ooom ~om.mnm.n no. noo.om- nooooo. nooooo.- NNx ono.m no. ooo.oo nnoooo. Nonmmo. ax nos ooo oann Noo.noo.n no. onn.~m nooooo. omoooo. Nnx ono.m no. no~.o~- omoooo. omnmno.- nx moo ooo oonnz w~m~#o. m ucmumcoo unmoumuaH omn. .n n no o coo: \moowwowwwwmno u now no onoonno> wc#M#ow now 0#nm#um> ucmucmamu wan on .w nuw3 mamas m#mEMm wan .mocmo#M#cw#m mo m#m>m# .mo:#m> :u: .Am.#nmv mnonnm cnmvcmum MHoLu .Am_#nv mucm#o#mmmou c0#mmmuwmm .#~ 0#an x#uamma¢ 169 .moo... noon 83 h. 00.# Nq#x mm. 00.# ¢#x No. No. 00.# N~#x 0#. om. oo. 00.# N#x No.- mo.u No. mo. 00.# ##x \Aoo.u #o. No. No. \#¢O.u 00.# max #0. «0. mo. co. No.n om. 00.# Nx mo. mo. No. No. #0.: mm. on. 00.# «#x mo. oo. oo. mo. No.u mm. om. #m. 00.# #x M#.u 0#. w#. 0#. mo.: N#. mm. 0#. cm. 00.# .w ~¢#x «#x N~#x ~#x ##x max Nx «#x #x .w wc#m#ow now oHaonnm> unanswamw man mm .w nuns mu5m#o#mwmou canum#mnnoo mo x#numz .NN m#nmy x#vcmmm< - 170 .EOQmmnm mo mmmnmmc [Ill lv mom.n com o nuns Ho>oH Ho. osn uo oumu Baum uamumww#c %#ucm0#w#cw#m .mumaaumm mo uouum oumcamum .ucm#o#mwooo cOHum#muuoo 0#m#u#sz .Bovwmum mo mmouwmv wen.# \mnnn.mNn u n \momn. a mo \moom. u no \MNNo. u a nm G .aonuoananoumo mo noononmmooo \m mm. \H non.oon.nmm.mmn mo. mom.~- oooooo. oooooo.- Nonx nom.oon.o mo. mmm.~ Nooooo. oooooo. onx oEoooH nmn.oon.~ mn. omm.n- nooooo. mooooo.- nox mnm.oo on. on~.n oonmoo. momooo. ox om< oon.m no. ooo.n nnomoo. nonmno. ox mono ononoooom mmn.noo.~ no. moo.on- nooooo. o~oooo.- max nom.o no. mmn.on onoooo. ooomno. Nx oann mno.ooN.~ no. mmm.on nooooo. mnoooo. Nnx omo.m no. oom.o- omoooo. omoooo.- ox no: ooo oonnz nmu#mo.u m ucmumcou ummuumuaH own. .» n no o s... \mowwmmw. . z. n. .22.; m#nm#uw> ucmvcmamv may on .w nu#3 mcwma 0#aEmm cm .mm:#m> u: .Am.#nmv mnonnm unmoamum “#mcu .Am. Av wc#c#n xownmmuo: now .mocmo#w#cw#o mo m#m>m# mucw#0#wwmou cowmmwuwmm .mN onooe xnooooo< 171 .moo. cmnu mama \w oo.n Nonx mo. oo.n onx mo. oo.- oo.n mox oo. \woo. oo. oo.n ox oo. oo. oo.- oo.- oo.n ox No. mo. oo.- No.- oo. oo.n aux oo. mo. oo.- oo.- oo. no. oo.n «x no. no. mo.. no.- oo. oo. on. oo.n Nnx mo. oo. oo.- oo.- mo. oo. oo. mo. nx oo. oo. mn.- mn.- nn. nn. om. on. oo.n .» Nonx onx nox ox ox «ox ox Nnx .w wc#c#n xownmmuon now mHDmnnm> ucmccmawo mcu on .w sun3 mucm#0#ummou canuw#mnnou mo xHMumz .oN onoom xnooooo< .Eonmmnm mo mmmnwww mom.# wam m :uH3.#m>m# #o. mzu um onou Scum ucmumMMHv %#u:m0#macw#m \m .mumaeumm mo ponnm vumvcmum \q .aowumCHEumumw mo uanUHMMmou \m .uamHQHNmmoo GOHum#muuoo m#a#u#:z \w .a5vmmum mo mmmnwmn mom.# pom \M \momm.mmw n o \mnom. u no \mmom. - Na \Mnmn. - a non.oon.nmm.mmn no. omm.~- oooooo. oooooo.- Nonx . nom.oon.o no. ooo.~ Nooooo. nooooo. onx oEoooH m_ mon.m no. «no.5 omoooo. onnooo. ox onno onoooooom 1. ono.om no. moo.m mnmooo. oNNnoo. ox noos xnos mo oomooq . noo.nnm no. ooo.on- nooooo. onnooo.- NNx nmm.o no. mmo.~m ooonoo. ooonoo. «x no: ooo oEna omo.oon no. ooo.o nnoooo. oonooo. Nnx moo.n no. om~.mn- moomoo. ~moomo.- ox nos ooo oonnz mm#m##.u m ucmumcoo unmouquH «qu. .w # no 0 coo: \#oomwomwwMMno n nom no unconno> wc#umxm mo# you m#nw#um> ucmvcmamv any mm .w £u#3 mocmo#w#cw#m mo m#m>m# cam mma#m> :u: .Am.#nmv ononnm vnmncmum nHmnu .Am.#nv mucmHQHMMwou cOHmmmnwmm .mN m#an x#ocoam< - 173 .moo. noon $3 3. 00.# N¢#N mm. 00.# ##N «0. 00. 00.# 0N 50. M#. #m. 00.# dx \Mdo. mo. 50. #0.! 00.# NNN #0. d0. ##. #0. mm. 00.# NN \fldo. m0. #0. N0. 00. #0. 00.# . N#N \NOO. ¢0. 00. #0. ¢m. «0. mm. 00 # #x N0. 00. 0N. 0#. N#. Md. 00. dN. 00.# .W N¢#x ##X 0% fix NNX Nx N#X #% .M mc#uwxm mo# n0w o#nmnnm> namnCoaoo mzu on .w can: oucmnonmuwou cenum#mnnou we x#numz .om «#ama waCmmm< _ uLE‘HI. , It .. 1') .Eoommnm mo moonwon ##n.# wow 0 £un3 #w>o# #o. msu no onwu Bonn uaonomwnv %#uamo#mncw#m \ .oumEnumo mo nonno vnmcconm \ .conumcnanmumv mo ucmnonmmooo \ .ucmnonmmwou acnum#mnnoo 0#m#u#:z \ m. N m. m. .aoommnm mo moonwmv ##m.# nom \# \moo~.ooo u n \mnnn. u no \mooo. "no \moon. u m b. non.oon.nmn.mmn moo. oooooo. oooooo.- Nonx “u nom.oon.o -- ooo. nooooo. nooooo. onx oEooon . oom.oo~ no. moo.oN oooooo. nonooo.- nun ooo.n no. mon.N~ omnmoo. omnooo. on nos ooo oEnn mmm.mnn no. oom.nn nmoooo. ommooo. Nnx moo. no. mo~.nn onoooo. oonmoo.- on no: ooo monnz #mmooo. o ucmumcoo uaoonmuaH moo. .n n no o loocmunw#cw#m #p # ammz \# mo #m>mq u m p M#nm#nm> wancowwonou now 0#nmnnm> ucoocoaov mnu on .w nun3 momma 0#QEom cm .mucmo#m#cw#m mo m#m>w# .mos#m> :u: .Am.#nmv mnonnm nnwamum nnocu .Am..nv mucmnonmmmoo acnmmonwom .NN o#an xnccmaa< J1.moo... no moo. own: 33 D. . 00.# «#x N m mo. oo.n 3x . \m00.! \mdo.u 00.# . NNx \#00 s \#00 a mm 00 # Nx \.#IOO.! \.#|OO.! 00. 0m. 00.# N#N \Mdo.n \floo. no. mo. #m. 00.# #x «0.! \mdo. mm. mm. mm. w¢. 00.# .M Nq#x «#x NNx «x «#x #x .w wcncmwwOAOu now o#nm#nm> unoccooow ocu mm .w nuns mucononmuooo acnum#mnnoo mo anumz .wN 0#an xnwcmam< .Eowoonw mo moonwoo ##5.# wow 0 LunB #o>o# #o. mnu um onon Eonw noonmmwno %#ucoonmnaw#m \N .mumannmm mo nonnm vnmoamnm \q .aonumananoumc mo ucmnonmmooo \m .ucwnonmwmoo nonum#mnnoo m#m#u#sz.\w \# .EOcmmnm mo moonwmv ##m.# now "H“"ll III E i . I ."m ..I .H ..h . \m0m0 N50 I m \MMmo m \mNON NM \Mwmw m mm non.oon.nmm.omn on. omn.n oooooo. oooooo.- Nonx . nom.oon.o mn. noo.n nooooo. Nooooo. «on oeooon oon.nmm.~ no. www.mn Nooooo. mnoooo.- Non ooo.m no. o~o.on nooooo. onmnno. ox nog ooo many non.moo.n no. oom.~n Nooooo. omoooo. Non mon.o no. omo.nn oonnoo. mmnmno.u nx nos ooo oonnz 000..»00.! m quumcoo uQmUHGuCH omo. .n n no o amoz \mdQCmonmncwnm u #nm #0 0#nmnnm> .moxHo>mH wonnxm 3o:m now m#nwnno> nooocmomo mzu mo .w wun3 cocoonwncwnm mo m#m>o# cam mm:#o> :u: .Am.nnmv mnonnm financmum nnmnu .Aw. av muam#0#wwmoo COHmmwnwmm .mN 0#an x#cammm< m 84 «in . mo. 00.# qnx oo. mo. 8;. «on on. S. oo. oo; 3 no. oo. oo. no. oo.n N; o. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo.n Q 2. mn. on. .m. S. .3. oo.n .n Nonx onx NNx on Nnx nx .n @533 395 now «#835; uaoocwooc can mm. .w :35 mucononummoo doggonnou mo xnnumz .0m «#83,. anoaomod - 178 - .aocmmnm mo moonwov mem.# cam q# nuna #m>m# #0. man no onmu_aonm ncmnmmwnc %#uamo#mnaw#m .oumanuoo mo nonno unavamum .oonumcnanouov mo noononmmooo .uamnonwmooo cOHuo#mnnoo o#m#u#:z .aovoonm mo moonwov men.# nom \\\\\ FHOHVH<1VH Al Ll|l Inno. u no \monm. n no \monn. u m \moh#.mM# n m \q #o. omw.o u oooooo. #ooooo.u m¢#x nom.oon.o no. omm.n oooooo. oooooo. onn oaooon nmn.oon.~ on. oom.n - mooooo. nonooo.- ownx mum.¢¢ om. mnm.# mohsoo. w#ou#o. «#x noxmawaos mo om< was.# #0. «om.m whoomo. mammwo. ox momentum: #oono%sm «mm. own.# a oom##o. eon##o.u :NN monono .vnm ! annu mo inwamn oo~.#o~.om# #o. omo.##u 000000. #00090.! N:#x m¢m.¢m #o. mwm.¢# omoooo. mm##co. :#x oonono .ono - onnn oooon mono: omm. #o. «no.5 nmwmoo. awm#¢o. .Nx monono .oon . onnn no :nmooo mum.n¢h.mnq #o. mom.~#u oooooo. #ooooo.u N.#x «mo.nm# #o. ###.m# smoooo. «mO#oo. .Hx monono .cau ! annu vaaon mo#flz #ma.~ #o. mun.~ #hmuoo. Nummoo. Nx monono .uo# u onnu mo sumamq omo.~mm.mmo.m #o. oom.o#u oooooo. #ooooo.u «#x m##.mo~ #o. mmm.## wmcooo. ommooo. #x monono .um# u annu canon oo#fiz mmwmwo.n m ucmuocoo unannoucH muo. w manna mo nonasz coo: \moowwoMWHMMno n nom no onoonno> manna connoom> now 0#nonnm> ucoocoooc man no w suns oucoonmnawno mo o#m>m# can moa#o> :n: .Ao.nnmv ononno unoccwuo nnmnu .Ao.npv oucononmwooo canooonwom .#m o#noa anvcmaa< - 179 sEovomnm mo moonwoo oom.# cam ## nuns #m>m# mania u n \Mmom. a mo \mfim. II'II|I'I| I a Na \mnom. - a .uamnonmmmoo donum#mnnoo 0#mnu#nz .aoomonm mo moonwov eon.# now #0. man no onou aonm uconmmmnv %#uamonwnawnm \ .oumanumo mo nonno cnmcnonm \ .aonuoananouoo mo noononmmooo \ \ I|||llIu|| |l"|'|.ll|l|u I'll 'l‘lll'l'l FHOHVN<1VH #q#.¢o#.#mm.mm# #o. Nm¢.mu oooooo. oooooo.u N¢#x nom.oon.o no. mmn.o oooooo. onoooo. onn oaooon ohm. ow. mmu.#n menooo. cocooo.n :Nx monono .onm n mnnn mo sumcog oo~.#oN.Om# 0#. #mm.#: #ooooo. #ooooo.n ~:#x aqm.¢~ 0#. s#m.# mmoooo. ###ooo. :#x monono .onm u annu mason om#fiz omm. 0#. mmo.# mouooo. mounoo. .Nx monono .ocm ! mnnu mo Suwaoa mnm.~¢n.nnq #o. moo.¢u oooooo. #ooooo.u N.#x «no.5m# #o. omo.¢ #qoooo. Qm#ooo. .#x monoso .oom ! onnu wagon oo#nz omm.N #o. wmm.m «#NHoo. #N#ooo. Nx monono .non - onnn no onwooa ooo.nno.ooo.~ no. omn.mn- oooooo. mooooo.- Nnx m##.mom #o. ##n.m# omoooo. #Nmooo. #x monono .uo# ! annu canon oo#fiz mowoom. m ncouocoo uaoonoucH one. .w # no G Idocoonmncwnm cow: \# mo #m>m# u #nm #3 0#nm#um> omnnu cannooo> now m#aonno> ucmvcmomc may mm .M om:#w> :u: .Am.#nmv ononno unaccouo nnmnu .Ao. on; oocoonwnowno mo o#o>o# n0 ouoononwmooo oonooonwom .Nm 0#noa xnoooood T I}! I 180 .moo. coon moon 3. oo.n Nonx mo. oo.n onn oo. oo.- oo.n «onn oo. \moo. oo. oo.n Nnn oo. no. mn.- NN.- oo.n on mo. oo. mo. oo. no. oo.n =~x no. oo. mo. mo. no. on. oo.n Nznn no. oo. mo. mo. no. oo. oo. oo.n =nn oo. no. mo. mo. oo. no. on. on. oo.n .Nx mo. oo. oo. mo. no. nn. on. om. om. oo.n N.nx no. on. mo. oo. oo. mm. on. om. om. oo. oo.n .nn oo. Nn. no. oo. No. on. oo. on. mm. on. on. oo.n Nx on. nn. mo. oo. oo. oo. no. oo. on. No. mn. om. oo.n Nnx on. on. mo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. nn. on. on. No. oo. oo.n nn on. on. no.- no. on. on. mn. no. mm. on. oo. nn. on. on. oo.n n Nonx onx nnnx Nnx ox znx nznx :nn .nx n.nx .nx on Nnx nn n manna acnumom> n00 0#am#nm> ucovcooov osu mm w nuns mucunonuwooo cenum#onnoo mo Xnnuoz .mm m#an xnwcmmm¢ 181 00.# N¢#N mm. 00.# ##N #0. d0. 00.# :NN N0. GO. MN. 00.# N:#N no. 00. 0#. dm. 00.# :#N #0. 50. NM. 0N. mm. 00.# .NN M0. #0. h#. 0#. 0M. mm. 00.# N.#N no. 0#. MN. 0N. 0M. am. 00. 00.# .#N 00. N#. @N. 00. ¢#. NM. 0#. 0#. 00.# NN d#. N#. 00. N0. @0. ¢#. N#. M#. 0M. 00.# N#N d#. 0#. 00. do. 00. N#. 0#. ¢N. N¢. #0. 00.# #N 0#. 0#. 0#. mo. ##. h#. ##. MN. 0N. 0#. NM. 00.# .V N¢#x ##x :Nx N:#x ...—X .NX N.#N .#N Nun N#x Hun .M» now o#nmnnm> ucoocomov ocn mo .w suns mucononmwooo conuw#onnoo mo xnnnmz monnn acnnwoo> .oo onoon xnooooo< .Eowomnm mo moonwmv mom.# cam N# suns #o>o# #o. osu no onmn Eonm namnmwmnv m#ncmo#mwcwnm \m .mnmfinnmm mo nonnm vnmcamnm \q .connmananmuoc mo namnonwmooo \m .uamnonmwmoo acnnm#mnnoo m#m#u#dz_\w .EOvmmnm mo moonwov mem.# nom \fl I" II | I "ll'lll't ‘III-'|"'I|IIIII|‘ 'Iv'll.‘ Illll'l "t \mnmo.oon u n \mooo. u mm \mmno. u no \mooo. u a #q#.qo#.#mm.mmm.# mo. omn.u 000000. #00000.! ~¢#x nom.oon.o mo. Nom. oooooo. Nooooo. onn oeooon mmm.q mo. nom.Nn Nwmooo. omoooo.u M#x conumasooo . NNN.#¢# 0#. n#m.#n M#mooo. nom#oo.u N~#x 7. qu.## mo. mn~.N #mmm#o. mwnqmo. «#x #o>o# #oGOHnmoswm m" o~m.o# 0#. mmw.#s mommoo. mmwmoo.u me . can.m 0#. m#n.# wwmwmo. menace. wx ounm u#onomdom wnn.# mo. 0#o.~ mM#omo. mmmoqo. ox womanocoz #«Unmmnm mmn.m¢o.¢m #o. mqn.ou 000000. #00000.! N.#x omm.mm #o. #No.m nnoooo. «@0000. .#x monono .vcm ! onnu canon mo#nz omn.nmo.#0# #o. wmn.m#u 000000. #00000.! ~#x #o#.mo# #o. ¢#o.¢m mmoooo. «om#oo. #x monoco .um# ! annn vcson mm#nz mmmqmo.u o uaonmcou nmounmncH 00m. .M # no 0 {cocoonuncwno u now no mnnmnno> coo: \ n o 33 m # .w nuns mocmonwncwnm memmwwwww .mm onnmn xnocooo< Cucumaoc mnn um owum nnmnn .Am.#pv mucwnonmmmoo Gen 111 o oo3 now «#ponno> n mmwku VG J .Am Hfimv mHOHHQ URN . @me mQDHm> 2U.- 183 - oo.n nonn mo. oo.n onn oo.- oo.- oo.n mnx on. on. m~.- oo.n nnnx on. on. on.- oo. oo.n nnx oo. no. on.- no. oo. oo.n «on oo. oo. nn.- oo. nn. oo. oo.n on oo. no. on.. on. nn. no. oo. oo.n on oo. mo. oo.- no. no. no.- no.- No. oo.n N.nn no. on. oo.- oo. oo. No.- ~o.- oo. oo. oo.n .nn no. oo. oo.- no. oo. oo.- oo. no. oo. no. oo.n Nnx no. nn. oo.- mn. mn. no. no. no. mn. on. on. oo.n on mo. oo. on.- mn. on. no. no. on. on. on. oo. oo. .n Nonx onx onn nnnx nnx «on on on ~.nx .nx Nnx on mannu ocoxmms now o#nmnno> ucoocoaoc man mo .w cunz mucononmmooo conum#mnnoo mo xnnnmz .om onoon xnooooo<