{{ I'IIIII{II{I{{,{IIIIIIIIIIII'IIII'III 'I1{{II{I{ {IHIWIHIIIIIHWIII {{{I{{III 11{I{{{ {M1 I{{III II {I{III{I1{II1{1 {I111{{'{{III{II;\I{1S1‘1I1{{I{I {I1 III IumIHIHH'IIHHH‘IIIIII III {{I I I‘{II1I11{II {{II1'I{I'II{{{IIII1‘1I11{I'{{{,1{{I1{'{{{{{1{111IIIII {{{1 {{{{{v{! I{II {I{I {{III{{‘I {{ {{{{1._.I{ III MI {{{1 II {{{III,{{I1 {I{I‘. 1{{{{I{I{1{{1II1{11{11'II1II II1I{I {{ III I IIII I I {III I{1I{II .1-11 1{{1II,{;I{{{'{({’1 {111{I{I{IIIII} III III M__ . _.:._‘ .7 ... .. - - _ . .- ~ - - -‘ I " . < . W Mm: “n... :53” F: f‘x‘rg”: - in—x'fix: - 5;;— I' '2‘ ;. .-—““.r:.=".'43.. - . ' 42.3. «.3... 'j; I" a - a . .. Ir! 3‘ “'1 . ' - .-.. .‘1 m ‘1 ‘m:.- - O - 0‘ 01 'iuIE r-' 1. 445‘- l .- qh~ - ~. . .. o u 1‘ ~ «v n n..- , on ,. .o 4- - - . ¢. .- .-.hv . . P an - y-‘ “3;.- u . . a. . r. I. .4 _ oh. .cco. ¢ --4-. - 4 -. 5—5.2.1- - . u . ‘, o n o a - o , .— . I ' u 0 c o. - V ..l u a; 1. - I... up. ... ‘ . ,. nv- op-o . a —a .4 . a . .. .c -.-a ‘ 1-. o .I , a‘u '- {II IIIII‘, . .1 'I I{I I I III'IIr IIII1 II’. III]? ”I ' . : _1 . I1{ {{ 1IIII 11{{1{I{{III{III I{I I1IIIII{IIIIIJIII 1I{, { I{I{ 11 ' 1{11111II11{‘1{{{I{I1'1{1‘,{II{I{{{1{{I {:1I11III {I I{I{1{III{{{{ I{'{IE {{{III1I .IIII‘I {{1 IIII 3:1I1I :' ,"i‘f I... II III III III In I I IWI III III “ HIIIIIHHHHHIHi I III I III “III I ’II‘ I . I III I III“ II 3 I I {{I'III'I. I{ III I" .3131: I I 31I1{{IIII{{{{I {III {I{IIII{{I{{1{III{{{{ II I{I {I {{I1 {{1{IIIIII {{II1.‘1{{1{1{11{{{{{1111IyI{fi{{EI{{{:1{IIIII{{${1_11 II {é‘iifi {MRI 1:311 fifkgdgbfi‘g '5“ II .3; I II IIIIII II'II,111I1{ H IIIIIIII IIIII ‘IIIIIIIIIIIIIII {{{1{1{II1I {I{IIHIIII ‘II'I’I‘IIIII IIIII {{I’Hfipfigxgi {.1L11:I{{HH{I,{{III {HIIIII {I II III {IIII III III II IIIIIIIIII 1111-{,Iq1{1{I'II"{{11§1X_11;{I1§55I{33H M I. a {I {1%{3} .1451}. 1‘11». I" IIIIH III‘IqI, III: {I H1: I{I‘? { 11.1% 11 {I IIII‘ 'II'II'I{{11{111{1I1I{1{I11IIII{1I{ H{1I'I.II ”Mpg {Hfi fig..- h:“""-;-?j """""" Ila . {I{I1{I I{II{1IIII1I:.~1 D 5 51,134. .y.{ . . HI I» IIIII III I III II III,” I :IIairII III?“ II IIIIIII I {III II IIII'I‘III'III1IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII III III "IIIIIIII'III‘2 IIIIIIIIIII‘IIIII II III {I{'-I{IIHHIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 111 III 1 --I1i'a:‘1,.I-.I 1 I I"III I{I II II {IIIII111 IHHIIH“H{”HJHHHHHIIHJH.HHQI3» . IQHQIHHI Hg III III “III II II I“ III “III“ 1:. «IL IIIIII I 'i'I I III III IIIIII {I “I I} ‘I III III I I III “IIII‘I IIII{I{ {I{‘1I1{I{ { I I{I{ {{1I111II{{ IIII {II1{I;I I{{IIIF11 :‘W‘ :———.— 4%; J“. II ..:m§1‘:.$7:.;g.- #1:“? '<1: I-2-I‘ "#1331 'I’I III II‘ In. ”3- "IIIIRX'IIHEYZII I{I‘??? Ian-gs I{I" I“ I I II III IIIIIIII H TII IIIII IIIIIIJ {‘II'IIII My. IIIIEI 'I‘II IIIHI .I.I.~.l? :3”:er I I{{fiI .I III“ IIH{IP1 {IIII {{{I{{I1II {{{. I{ I I11{{;1I1.1{‘11{ 1I1I‘II{II11~ 11111 {I 1{11{$II{I1{:1{I<{{H:1{115 I1{{§1él‘1 11{1{{‘III I111'{{I4{ {41 1%“.111 p; §3H§f% ii I {I{I ,I I' . 1 ...I.;... IIIHIIIMmHIIHIIIHIIIIH‘I H IIWHHHIIWMIHM‘HHH 'I III IIWII IHH”HI‘ II IIH I{ IHHWNHH “IHHH II HHI HmIIquIanII”““III I, WHFHHHII HI {II IIIIIHVHHIIIIIIIIHHIII I IWIHHIIIHHH: 111 .I{ I iI I IIIII II ~ ~ ,.I{ I .. 1{ {I1 I{1{ 1 |{ {I II I{I~1II IIII {II11II {{II {I{II {I'1IIIIIII111fiI1III1 {{{11 {1{{{ IIHHQIIW'I‘II! {$141115th 1”. {1‘10‘ {III III I IIIIII I" II") III. .IIIIIII' IIIIIIII (IIII1IIIIII‘III‘IIIIIII'H' II’L' I'II'III IIII1iII{{| {II III .IIIIIIIIIIIIIII {III IIIIIIIII III N IIIIIIIIIIIHIH II I'III'III I1III I{I I {IIIIIIII III { I III! II{{1{{I11I {I1.{III{{ 11{I{11{{11{1111111,I1111I1111111 I . 11{{{{{{{1I{{{I{{{I11‘ 11“1{1{1111I§11 {11111111111111 III IIIIIIII HIHH IIIH I‘IIIHHII HHII IIHI HHII“' I II ‘I-'9~’..I "’ .w W I ~-—_I—._?_—— T5" ESE; llllllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllilllllllllllll : 3 1293 10530 9607 This is to certify that the thesis entitled USER FEE AND CAMPER REGISTRATION INFORMATION FROM A U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS RESERVOIR PROJECT IN CENTRAL ILLINOIS: TOWARD A MORE COMPLETE UTILIZATION OF DATA presented by Thomcus Lewd B£0 OIL has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M- S v degree in Wcr eat ion Resources Major professor . Maw/74 _ 95 W“{ Date July 10, 1981 0-7 639 MSU LIBRARIES RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drOp to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. o 1981 THOMAS LEWIS BLOOR All Rights Reserved USER.FEE AND CAMPER.REGISTRATION INFORMATION FROM A U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS RESERVOIR.PROUECT IN CENTRAL ILLINOIS: TOWARDlAlflIfii(IIEEEHIIUETLIZATTON OF DADA BY Tnxxmu31£mds.Bloor A.THESIS Smedtted to Pfichigan State University in.partia1 fulfillment of the requirements fbr the degree of MRSTER.OF SCIENCE 1981 ABSTRACT USERFEEANDCAMPERREEISTRATICX‘I WON FROVIAU.S. ARMY CORPSOFENGINEERS RESERVOIRPRQIECI‘INCENI'RALIILBDIS: WAWRECU’IPIEIEUIEIZATIWOFDATA By Thanas Lewis Bloor This study analyzes untapped data sources at lake Shelbyville , Illinois, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers multiple purpose reservoir project and encourages the use of other such sources in the Corps and other agencies. Camping and user fee records form the basis for investigation. From these records , a method of determfinjng camping visitation is developed and camping use by senior citizens is compared to that of other visitors. In addition, the study derives camping demend curves utilizing the travel cost method. Costs of camping trips are discussed in detail and possible sources of such information listed. The effects of trip cost reduction on camping demand are also investi- gated. Revisions of the fee collection forms utilized by the Corps of Engineers are suggested incorporating a form readily adaptable to direct analysis by computer. Further research possibilities using existing records as a base are also described. This study is dedicated to my wife Susan and my daughter Alexis - they have allowed me my place in the 31m, sometimes at expense of theirs . I wish to thank my advisor, Dr. Lewis Moncrief, and the members of my graduate committee, Dr. Daniel Stynes and Dr. Robert Marty, for their assistance. The suggestions provided by Dr. Donald Holecek have also been much appreciated. Special recognition is due the U.S . Army Corps of Engineers for selecting me to participate in their Advanced Study Program and to employees of both the St. Izmis Corps of Engineers District Office and the lake Shelbyville Management Office for providing me much of the information and support necessary for completion of this study. Thanks also to Ms. Carole Retan for assisting in the initial sorting of User Permit data. Finally, I wish to thank my wife Susan for her help and encwragement . iii TABIEOFCONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................. LIST OF TABLES .............................................. I. INTRODUCTION ....................................... II. EXISTING mIlECI'IONM‘II'HODSANDUSES OFTHEDATA III. ESTIMATINGVISTIORUSEANDTREI‘DSINUSEFRQ'IUSER PERMITDATA ...................................... IV. ESTD’IATII‘ECAMPII‘IGBENEFI'I‘SFMCAMPEK} REGISTRATION CARDSUSING'I'I-IETRAVEI..CDSTMEIHODS .............. V. SIM’IARY,FUKHIERRESEARCHANDRE(IPMENDATIONS ...... LITERATURECITED ............................................ APPENDDi I. IAKESHELBYVHLERECREATIONAREASANDTHEIRFACILITIES II. OPEN/CIDSEDATESAMDUSERFEESCHARCEDATIAKESHEIBY— VEIEGJRPSOFEI‘KJDIEERSCAMPGROUI‘DSFRIM1973TO 1979.... ...... . ....... . ...... .. .................. III. DETAILED SUMVIAW OF Pt, Lt' Ft AND PtLt BY PARKAND IV. 'IHED’IPORTANCEOFANDMEASUREMENTDIFFIQJLTIES ASSOCIATEDWI'I'HDEMANDFORRECREATION ............ V. MINTIESSURROUNDINGIAKESHEIBYVHJE,THEH1POPUIA- TIONADDIIIMYSEATBYTRAVEZONE ........ . ..... VI. SEIECI'EDCITIESAND'IUIJNS SURROUNDIBBIAIGSHELBYVIIIE 'ANDTHEIRTRAVELZONEIDCATION ............... VII. SOIRCESOFTRAVECOSI‘INFORMATICNADDSEIECI'ED MATERIAISUSEDTOES'I‘D’IATETRIPCOST ............. iv Page 23 51 91 101 105 107 111 114 121 131 137 Figure 1 . KOCDNOUI-I-‘UJN 53535.55 LIST OF FIGURES U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Basic Civil Works Structure ........................................... Camping Registration Card (INS form 346;7—76) ......... User Permit (ENG form 4457) ........................... Remittance Register (ENG form 3313) ................... Refund Form (DA form 2496 mpdified for Refund Use ..... Tne Fee Collection Cycle at lake Shelbyville .......... Counties Surrounding lake Shelbyville ................. Travel Zones Surrounding lake Shelbyville ............. 1977 ..... 1978 ..... Demand for the Camping Recreation Resource - 1977 ..... Demand for the Total Recreation Ebcperience Demand for the Total Recreation Emerience Demand for the Camping Recreation Resource - 1978 ..... Effects of Trip Cost Reduction - 1977 ................. Effects of Trip Cost Reduction - 1978 ................. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Camping Permit ...................................... Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF TABLES Number of User Permits Sampled in Each Population ...... Nmber of Golden Age and Full-Price User Permits Sampled Proportion of Golden Age and Full-Price User Permits Sampled .............................................. Comparism of Average Party Size, Length of Stay and Fee Paid Between Golden Age Passport and Full-Price Campers Comparison of Recreation Days Between Golden Age and Full- Price Campers ......................................... Three-year Range and Over-all Average of Pt, Lt and Ft at All Lake Shelbyville Campgrounds ...................... Three-year Range and Over-all Average of PtLt and :1; at t t - All lake Shelbyville Campgrounds ...................... Ft , Ft , and Ft at All Campgrounds ................... F; El: t t Nurber of User Permit Renewals - 1974 and 1976 .......... Pbdes of Transportation Used by lake Shelbyville Campers , All Campgromds Combined .............................. Overnight Camping Shelters Used by lake Shelbyville Campers , All Campgrounds Combined ..................... Page 34 35 37 38 41 44 45 47 49 62 64 Camping Visits Per Thousand Population at lake Shelbyville- _ 1977 .................................................. 67 Camping Visits Per Thousand Population at lake Shelbyville- 1978 .................................................. Average Cost of Gasoline in Dollars Per Gallon in Illinois Average Miles Per Gallon Rating of lake Shelbyville Camping Vehicles ....................................... 68 69 72 Table 16 . 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 26. 27. 28. 29, 31. Estimated Driving Distace from Travel Zones to Lake Shelbyville .......................................... Average Travel Cost in Dollars Per Gaping Trip ........ Average Length of Stay in Days Per Trip ................ Average Gaping Party Size ............................. Total Gaping Trip Cost Per Party - 1977 .............. Total Caping Trip Cost Per Party - 1978 ............... Public Recreation Areas ad Their Facilities Operated by the U . S . Army Corps of Engineers at lake Shelbyville, Illinois, as of March, 1979 .......................... Open/ Close Dates ad User Fees Charged at lake Shelbyville Corps of Engineers Capgrounds from 1973 to 1979 ..... Pt’ L , Pt’ 1"'t’ Pt’ Lt, P.» Lt, Pt. L.» Pt’ Lt’ PtLt ad Ft at B0 Wood Recreation Area ......... PtLt ad Ft at Coon Creek Recreation Area ...... PtLt ad Ft at Lithia Springs Recreation Area .. PtLt ad Ft at Whitley Creek Recreation Area . . . P tLt ad Ft at Lone Point Recreation Area ...... PtLt ad Ft Overall lake Average - All Years . . . Selected Cities ad Toms Surrounding lake Shelbyville ad 'lheir Travel Zone location ....................... Average Miles Per Gallon (MPG) Ratings of America-Made Sedas , Station Wagons , Pick—up Trucks ad Vas for 1975 through 1979 Models ............................. Page 73 75 76 77 79 79 105 107 111 111 112 112 113 113 131 142 Q-IAPTERI INTROHJCTION Frequently , public agencies are criticized for gathering exten— sive aunts of data, often at great expense, for no apparent reason other tha satisfying some vague "requiremait." In addition, even when a primary collection purpose is obvious , secondary or more far- reaching uses of the data are commanly overlooked or not considered for a variety of reasons. As a result, the full value of these vast anmts of data is, in many cases, not realized. User fee ad campground registration data collected by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers at lake Shelbyville, Illinois , is a case in point . Capgromd registration information is utilized only to estab- lisharecordofwhohas capedinagivencampgromdat aypointin time. Detailed user fee records only indicate how much money has been collected at each capground at the lake . The purposes of these detailed user fee records are tun-fold: 1. To safe-guard these public funds as they pass through the collection system. 2 . To determine what portion of the total funds collected nation-wide stall be reallocated to the lake project for park operations in the future. mile the current uses of the data are certainly worthwhile , full value is not being obtained. The basic questions are these: 1 - that additional information can be obtained fran user fee ad campgromd registration records? - How can it be obtained? - How can it be used? Answering these questions ca contribute to mnre effective recreation management ad increased credibility of the activities performed at lake Shelbyville . It may also demonstrate more far-reaching value totheCorps of Engineers. Investigatims into Potential Uses of ' Corps of Engineers Data With one exception, no document was discovered that suggested obtaining information other tha financial from Corps of Engineers User Permits . No reference was found that discussed gathering data fran Gaping Registration Cards beyond limited caping visitation information. There appears , then, to be little prior research to guide Study in this area. The exception mentioned above is the Recreation Use Survey Manual utilized by the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, St. louis District.1 Published in 1976, the manual describes a method of computing visi- tation fran fee collection records ad Camping Registration Cards . Methismarmal doesprovideabasic framework forexpandingthe value of User Permit ad Gaping Registration Card information, it does not by pay meas describe all possible uses ad is limited in its lU.S., Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, ’RecreatiOn USe 'SurVey Manual. 1976. methodology. For example, the manual recommends a 100% sample of User Permits.1 lrhile this would not be a inSLmnmtable task, based on the author's six years of experience with the lake Shelbyville fee collection program, it would be extremely time consuming. A much smaller sample would certainly suffice. In addition, the manual does not attempt to define the boundaries of each month's data, i..e. in terms of performing calculations for a given month, which permits should and should not be included in that month. The manual also asserts that information obtained during ay one year may be descriptive of subsequent years. This needs to be tested using a longitudinal aalysis method as will be proposed here. Theconcepts describedinthemamralprovidetherudimentary beginning point of this study. The manual dealt with only one possible use of the user fee and caping registration data - caping visitation. This study will refine this measuremait method ad explore other possible uses of this data. USes of Permit Information in Other Federal Agencies As indicated above , the Corps of Engineers has made only limited use of visitor permit data . that of other federal lad-managing agencies? mile all of these agencies issue permits for certain recreation activities , the extent of permit utilization varies considerably . lIbid. , p. 22. The Bureau of land Management issues user permits to individual recreationists only at high intensity recreation sites . On Burea- managed lads , these sites are few ad far between. Calculations of visitor use are made fran these permits. The permits are also used to reduce visitor concentrations on some western rivers ad in ecologically fragile environments . 1 Commercial operation permits are also issued by the Bureau of Lad Managaent for off-road vehicle ad river rafting enterprises . Ammal visitor use information provided by permittees enables desisions regarding future commercial potential to be made. 2 The U. S . Fish ad Wildlife Service experiences use patterns similar to those of the Bureau of land Maagaent, i.e. large areas srpporting extremely low density use with a few pockets of high daisity use. User permits are, for the most part, issued only in high density areas. Permit information is utilized for visitation estimates . 3 Entry permits are issued to visitors at National Park Service areas . Additional permits are issued for certain types of recreational activities within the areas . Visitation calculations are made from pennit infonnatim .4 The U. S. Forest Service makes the greatest use of information from user permits. The somrce of this information is the Wilderness lTelephone interview on November 15, 1979 with David B. Hlmsaker, Outdoor Recreation Planner , Bureau of Lad Maganent , Baker , Oregon . 2Ibid. 3Telephone interview on October 22, 1979 with Jaes F. Gore, Wildlife Biologist , U. S . Fish ad Wildlife Service , Boise , Idaho. “Telephone interview on Novaber 15, 1979 with Robert Saddler, Park Ranger, National Park Service, Everglades National Pak, Key largo, Florida. Permit Program begun in 1966. Initially, the program's purpose was two-fold: to provide visitor regulations to wilderness users ad to gather management information. A third program purpose was added in 1976. This was the determination of visitor distribution within a wilderness area ad a estimation of the area's carrying capacity. Specific management information obtained fran the permits includes total visitation by travel zone within each wilderness area, method of travel by visitors within each travel zone ad the mnber of nights spent by visitors within each travel zone. High levels of visitation in ay one zone serve as indicators of potential environmental daage . Decisions to perform repairs at a particular site are , however , based on work crew observations .1 Objectives It is clear that only limited use is being made of user permit information in all federal lad maagement agencies . It is felt that full value is not being obtained fran this information. Utilizing user fee ad caping registration records generated at lake Shelbyville, the following objectives will be attained. These are: 1 . To document data collected by the Corps of Engineers from User Permits ad Camping Registration Cards . 2. To docunent current uses of this data. 3. To damstrate additional uses of this data such as caping visitation measmement , determination of trends in caping . use ad estimation of camping benefits using the travel 1Telephone interview on October 17, 1979 with Toivo Sober, Forest Planer, Superior National Forest, Duluth, Mimesota. cost method. To propose other potential uses of the data. To recommend revised data collection forms , procedures ad aalyses. Structure To achieve these objectives, this paper will be structured in the following manner: 1. 2. 3. Introduction Existing Collection Methods and Uses of the Data Estimating Visitor Use ad Trends in Use from User Permit Data Estimating Camping Benefits from Camping Registration Cards Using the Travel Cost Method General Conclusions, Other Potential Data Uses ad Recommendations. CHAPTERII EXISTII‘ECOIIECTIONNEIHODSANDUSESOFTl-IEDATA As previously mentioned, the project to be studied is lake Shelbyville, a U.S . Anny Corps of Engineers multiple purpose reservoir located near the City of Shelbyville in Central Illinois. The project‘s operation is mder the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers District Office located in St. louis, Missouri. The District Office is, in turn, under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers lower Mississippi Valley Division Office in Vicksburg, Mississippi. At the top of the pyramid is the Chief of Engineers located in Washington, D.C. Figure 1 shows this jurisdictimal relationship. Construction of the project was authorized in 1968.1 lads for the reservoir were purchased by the federal government in fee simple in both Shelby ad Moultrie Counties , Illinois with flowage easement lads stretching into adjacent Coles ad Douglas Counties , Illinois . At recreation pool (599.7 mslz) , the project area consists of 11,100 acres of water, 23 ,308 acres of msulxrerged fee-owned lads ad 6,098 111.3. ,Congress, Senate, The Flood Control Act of 1958, Pub. L. 85—500, 85th Congress, 2d session, 1958, S. 3910, cited 5y U.S. , Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Iouis District, Elwironmatal Impact Statement of Operation ad Maintenace, lake ShelbyvilleJ Illinois, ‘volme I. 1975, pp. I-l - I—Z. the abbreviation "rial" stads for "feet above mea sea level". Chief of Engineers“ Washington, D.C. _ I . fl - Other Mississippi Valley LDivisionl [meDlvision Office 1 Offices Vicksburg, Mississippi - - I e - F . 1 Other St . louis Other District District District Office ad lake Offices Offices St. louis, Missouri in the lower ' ' ' ' Mississippi Valley Division _ f l i lake Shelbyville Other lake Maagement Office Offices in the Shelbyville, Illinois St . louis ‘ ' Distri Figural U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Basic Civil Works Structure acres of flowage easement lads.1 Five authorized purposes were delineated for the project . 2 These were: Flood Control Water Supply Navigation Fish ad wildlife management UI-l-‘UJNH Remem- 1U.S. , Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, Basic Data Book‘for Lake Shelbyville, Shelbyville, IllinoisJ ReviSedMar'éH 1979. I979, p. 6. 2lake Shelbyville Erwirorrnental Impact Statement, Volume I. p. I—l. Although flood control was the primary purpose of the reservoir, recreation at lake Shelbyville, as with many water resource areas, is becaming increasingly important.1 Construction ad land acquisition . bega in 1963; the project becae operational in 1970.2 Recreation at lake Shelbyville The Corps of Engineers operates eleven recreation areas at lake Shelbyville. Their names ad the facilities offered at each as of March 1979 are listed in Appadix I. In addition to the Corps areas, both the State of Illinois ad private concerns operate recreation facilities ad services on federally-aimed lalds leased to them by the Corps . The State of Illinois operates two large day/ overnight (camping) use areas as well as three wildlife maagement areas at which day use is permitted. All three of the private operations are marinas of which one, Fox Harbor Marina, operates a capground that at one time was a Kampgrounds of America (KOA) frachise. lake Shelbyville lies in a area dominated by agriculture ad relatively level terrain nearly devoid of trees . Thus the lake , lying in its wooded valley, is a unusual environmental phenomenon in this part of the state - a oasis in a "desert" of croplad. As a result, there are few water-based recreation alternatives ad the project attracts large timbers of recreational users from much of the State of Illinois as well as portions of adjacent Indiaa ad Missouri. 1John F. IMyer ad Robert D. Espeseth. "Planning for Recreation: lake Shelbyville . " Cormunity Resource Development Pamphlet Number CRD—12, University of Illinois, Urbaa. 1977, p. 1. 2U.S., Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Louis DisZrict, The Master Pla, lake Shelbyville, Illinois (Revised 1974) . 197 , p. 21 10 Visitation at the entire lake has averaged 3 . 1 million recreation days armmally from 1971 through 1978.1 As indicated, visitation at lake Shelbyville, as at all Corps of Engineers projects, is measured in units called "recreation days." A "recreation day" is defined as: " ' . . a stadard unit of use consisting of a visit by me individual to a recreation development or area for recreation purposes dozing ay reasonable portion or all of a 24-hour m 9 M This definition may be readily applied to day-use recreation activities . As will be shown later, however, sate complications arise when applying the definition to overnight-use activities , i.e. carping. Visitors to the lake participate in a umber of recreational activities. Among the most popular are pimicking, fishing, boating, swimming, hinting, sightseeing, waterskiing ad caping. Camping records are the subject of this study. liake Shelbyville Basic Data Book, March1979, p. 2. , 2‘U.S . , President , Water Resources Council, Evaluation Stadards for Primary Outdoor ‘RecreatiOn Benefits. Supplarent NuIBer 1 to Senate Document 97 (Policies , Stadards , ad Pmcedures in the Form- lation, Evaluation, ad Review of Plas ‘for Use ad DeVelopnent of ' hhter ad Related land Rasources. 87th (ingress, 2d session, May 29, 1962),.1'1me 4,1964 as quoted m U. S. ,Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Civil Works Directorate, 197561976 Recreation Statistics, Engineering Paiphlet 1130-a2-40l. 1978, p. 5. 3Supplement Nuiber 1 to Senate Document 97 forms the basis for economic valuation of outdoor recreation as a primary, or secondary, benefit for benefit / cost analysis . Since recreation value, both none and intagible , is to be measured in mits of recreation days, definition becomes extremely importat when attapting to justify the construction of a water resource project using recreation value as part of a benefit/cost aalysis. 11 Fe Collection Hiatory of, the lake The Corps of Engineers was authorized to collect user fees at public recreation areas begiming in 1973.1 This law was amended in 19742 ad, in this form, is applicable presently. Pursuant to this amadment, the Corps of Engineers has established carping use fees based on the type of facilities provided3 raging fran $1.00 to $4.00 per night for each individual family capsite plus a additional nightly charge of 50¢ for electricity if available at the campsite . 4 Group rates raging fran $3.00 to $25.00 per night were also established. An additional requirement of this amendment is that "At each lake or reservoir under the jurisdiction of the Corps of mgirleers , United States Army, where camping is permitted, such agency shall provide at least one primitive campground, containing designated campsites , saitary facilities ad vehicular access, where no charge shall be inposed." Following the guidace provided by both Congress ad the Chief of Engineers office, a fee collection program was established at lake Shelbyville beginning in 1973. 'Ihis program has continued to the 1U.S. , Congress, House, Land and Water Conservation Fmd Act of 1965, Pub. L. 88-578, 88th Congress, 2d session, 1964, HTR. 38115. 2U.S. , Congress, Senate, 'An‘Act “to Attend the lad'ad Water ConservatiOn ‘Fund'Act of 1965, Pub. L. 93-303, 93rd Congress, 2d session, 1974, S. 28%. The portions of this act mast applicable to the Corps of Engineers projects are described in detail in U.S. , General Services Administration, National Archives ad Records Service , Office of the Federal Register, Federal Register, Volune 39, Nunber 173, September 5 , 1974, p. 32111A. 30.8. , Departmat of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Office of the Chief. of Engineers, Pr.oj ect Operations: Recreation Use Fees '(‘PL ‘88«578,‘ As Amanded) ,‘ Engineering Regulation 1130—2-404. 1976, Appendix A, p. A—l. 4Ibid. , p. 2. 51>ublic Law 93—303, Section (E). 12 present ad applies only to camping use. It is not permitted to charge either atrace or admission fees at Corps of Engineers projects.1 An additional feature of the Corps of Engineers user fee col- lection systan, ad , indeed, all such federally—operated syst-s , is the Golda Age Passport program. Established in 1974,‘2 the program allows the issuance, without charge, of a lifetine Golda Age Passport card to persons age 62 or older currently either citizens of or living in the United States. The Passport allows the bearer ad his partyr both a 507; reduction in user fees at ad free admission to federally- operated recreation meas where such fees are charged. 3 The Golda Age Passport is applicable to user fees at Lake Shelbyville. Since 1973 , user fees have been collected for camping at Lake Shelbyville federally-operated campgromlgs . TheSe are Lithia Springs, Coon Creek, Lone Point, Whitley Creek, Forrest W. "Bo" Wood4 ad Oposs1m Creek Recreation Areas. Due to the legislative chages listed above , fees were collected only intermittatly during 1973. With the establislmat [of the 1974 guidelines , Opossum Creek ad Lme Point 1.U. S. ,,Congress Senate, The Flood Control ACt of 1968, Pub. L. 90—483, 90th Congress, 2d session, ct on , . 2Public Law 93-303, Sections (e) ad (f) . 3This is ofta confused with the Golda Eagle Passport program which was established on July 11,1972 by Public law 92-347 (Senate Bill 1893). The Golda Eagle Passport is a annual permit available to ayone, regardless of age, for a set fee (not to exceed $10. 00) entitling the bearer ad his party free atry into federal lgeoperated recreation areas where atrace fees are charged, It mist annually ad does not apply in ay way to user fees. As only user fees, not atrace fees ,' are charged at lake Shelbyville , the Golda Eagle Passport is not valid at Lake Shelbyville or ay other Corps of Engineers project. z"Forrest W. "Bo" Wood Recreation Area, now conminly referred to as siuply "Bo Wood, " was named "Sullivan Access Area" prior to 1976. 13 were designated the "free" primitive campgrmmds in 1974. In 1976, user fees were again charged at Lone Point following the upgrading of facilities there. Fees have been charged in the other four camp- grounds, i.e. Lithia Springs, Coon Creek, lnhitley Creek and Bo Wood, during each camping season from 1973 to presat. Group camps were established in both Lone Point ad Wilborn Creek during 1977. Appendix II shows the opening ad closing dates of each campground as well as the fee charged in each campground during each year from 1973 to 1979. The Fee Collection Process at lake-Shelbyville Nowthat thegrouncbaorkhasbeenlaid, howare the individual user fees collected at lake Shelbyville? By a directive from the Office of the Chief of Engineers , all user fees must be collected by either tl'e controlled gate , roving rager or contract gate attadat method; use of the honor system is not permitted at Corps projects.l Prior to 1977, fees were collected by Corps of Engineers employees at lake Shelbyville using the controlled gate method during the peak camping season (approximtely mid—May through mid-September) and the roving rager method before ad after the peak season. In 1977, the contract gate attendat method was utilized experimentally in one campground (Haitley Creek) vwhile the other two methods continued in the other Regulation 1130—2—404, pp. 10-11. The controlled gate and roving ranger methods both utilize Corps employees to collect fees either at a control station at the campground atrace or by visiting each campsite in person. The contract gate attadat method is idatical to the controlled gate method except that contracts are let to perform collection services rather tha utilizing Corps ap- loyees. There are a timber of advatages to this method including increased coverage periods ad reduced costs. Under the honor system, individual campers fill out their own user permit forms ad pay their fees in a catral depository without contact with any type of federal employee. 14. campgrmmds at the lake. The success of the 1977 experiment led to the expasion of the contract gate attadat method to all Lake Shelbyville campgrmnds in 1978 . This collection method is still presatly used at all lake Shelbyville campgrounds operated by the Corps. Four forms are utilized in the fee collection process at lake Shelbyville. These are the Gaping Registration Card (Ii/B fonm 346; 7-76) , the User Penmlt (ENG form 4457), the Remittace Register (an form 3313) ad the Reflmd Form (DA form 2496 modified for refund use). Sample copies of each form are attached as Figures 2 through 5 respec- tively. The use of these forms will be described below. It will be Useful here to describe a typical camping registration at lake Shelbyville. Upon arrival at the campground, the carper is given a Caiping Registration Card ad instructed to ater the carping area to select a campsite. Upon selecting the site, the camper is instructed to caplete all portions of the card with the exception of the space labeled "Date Out" ad return to the gate attadat booth at the capgromd atrace. Regardless of the duration of that camper' s particular visit, only one Camping Registration Card is issued per visit. men the caIper returns to the booth, the gate attendant issues the carper a User Permit, recording the appropriate data on the permit including the fee paid by the camper. The User Permit is issued in triplicate. The original (Fiscal Copy) is sat to the St. louis District Office following a procedure which will be described below. The first duplicate (Ranger Copy) is retained by the lake management office. The third copy (Carper Copy) is giva to the camper ad serves ashisreceipt. TleSizeOfthecamper'spartyhasnobearingonthe 15 Campground U.S. ARMY CORPS 0F ENGINEERS Pad CAMPING REGISTRATION W Name Phone / Address City State Zip ' Camping Unit: DTent Truck c. UGther D Trailer Motorhome Spec1fy # in Party Vehicle License Date Arrived Date Out LMS FORM No. 346(7-76) Ranger Front DATA REQUIRED BY PRIVACT'ACT OF 1974 Authority - Title 36 CFR, Part 327. Rules and Regulations Governing Public Use of Water Resource Development , Projects Administered by the Chief of Engineers. Campggound Regulations - St.:;9uis District - March 1976 Principal Purpose - Form filled out by camper or fee collector as part of campground registration. Routine Uses - Information used to calculate recreational statistics concerning lake visitors. Form used to keep alphabetical listing and record of campers registered in campground. Mandatory or Voluntary Disclosure and Effect on Individual Not Providingrlnformation - Disclosure is voluntary (whether or not a person wants to Cdmp), if use of camp- ground is requested, disclosure is mandatory or individual is not allowed to camp. Back Figure 2 Gaping Registration Card (IMS form 346; 7-76) 16 I .4 U S COJERNMENY PRINTING OFFIC‘ 1973—«”000 £03 swam BE uufimm mom: m mama ECU .702“. 33 23“.“. uzu ‘UGZ‘C «cmuawumumu wwflawwwwohw a5: .02 .P‘OLIM‘K “3‘ luau—00 Q O.(t HUI UCDP¢(&UD OHPUUa—XH OU>.¢C( HP(O '5‘: U'ZUU—J ‘(U >PC‘L 7: UJ‘OU‘ to .02 CHIFOU an: :30 240.50 uzizF . E I ‘U¢( L0 ”3‘2 3 R m 4w¢¢ mm..— m: C... 1 E W: .4. mum :25“. 5m: 2% m . 7U . . u . $5265 .5 mmmoo|>2m< m a .P .th. .0 17 85 Eon g ufiflwmm 8§uafim q mama \ .oum @0038 ........ mmfimm g E om.oomm mam2...385u .9952» .0... 405.200 Ema hm: S ‘ «whfluwm muzfztzmm Dm¢ouaam mm woumowwcfl vagumu.m>ona 0:9 mou< mmooo< mEmz oqu mama eunumawfim m.ucDuuHHoo won .m .auuuuo donuumaa mused “um .muoocflwsm mo mmuoo oxu Scum meE as nmsmmw on Hamzm mwsswuu chwpo;u:< .N . auN .mumum .Auwo mmuuwv< uoouum oEmZ m.ummEmo . . uonEaz Hawumm awaken men now: u mo Duncan 0;”. CH mmUh HmmD HO CGDMUH a Cu vUHuquQ ww 3OH0£ kumuw—uflw HNDfiw>wUfiw 05H. .H 19 axmmt of fee paid. The fee is based solely upon the mnber of nights the calming party decides to stay in the canpgromd. When the party coupletes its stay, the "Date Out" portion of the Camping Registration Card is coupleted by the gate attendant . A medium of eight perscns is permitted to camp at each individual site at any particular time. It is important to note here that a camper is not required to pay for his total length of stay at one time as indicated by the block on the User Permit entitled "Expected Departure" - with emphasis on the word "expected. " If the camper has elected to stay 14 nights , the umdmm permitted consecutively in one canpgrmmd, or any mnber in between, hemayelect topayhis feeonenight atatimeor inlarger portions if he so desires. Each time his stay is extended, a new User Permit is issued. The significance of this distinction will becane apparent later when determhfing the length of an individual carping visit from User Permit data . Conpletion of the fee collection cycle is accomplished with the Remittance Register. This form is cmpleted by Corps of Engineers personnel at the lake unnagennm office upon the receipt of the fees collected and the corresponding Fiscal Copies of the User Permits issued at each campground. The fees are counted and correlated with the amounts shown on each User Permit. The User Permits issued and the corresponding ammnts collected are tabulated and recorded on the Remittance Register. The fees are then converted into a bank draft and the draft , along with the Fiscal Copies of the User Permits and the Remittance Register, are fonvarded to the St. louis District Office. It is a requirement of the St. louis District Office that lakes within the District submit Remittance Registers not less frequently than once 20 a week or when collections total $500.00 or more. Dining the peak camping season at lake Shelbyville, they are often submitted twice per week. Refunds and Voided User Permits Refunds may be issued to camping parties who elect, for whatever reason, to vacate the canpgromd prior to the expiration of their User Permit. The process is initiated by the camper who relinquishes his mexpired User Permit to the gate attendant who , in turn, prepares a Refmd Form in the almmt indicated by the mnber of mlexpired nights on the User Permit. The Refund Form is then, if approved at the lake management office, forwarded to the St. Louis District Office where a check is issued in the amount of the refund and mailed directly to the camper. Cash refunds cannot be nade nor can refunds be issued for nights actually camped in a canpgrormd. Incorrectly prepared User Permits are voided by the gate attendant. All three portions of the User Perndt are voided and sub- mitted to the lake uanagement office with collected fees and valid User Permits . The Fee ColleCtion Cycle To mare fully understand what has been described verbally above, Figure 6 has been prepared showing the fee collection cycle for Lake Shelbyville. Steps 1 through 4 represent the collection process; steps 5 through 10 represmt the redistribution process. It trust be pointed out that atanystep intheredistributimprocess the feennnies can be directed to any Corps element regardless of the lake at which it was collected. The practice, generally, is to direct the money to the element which has the greatest need of funds or, in lieu of this, to 21 5 6 Office of the Other Corps Chief of l'hgineers of Engineers 4 _ Washington, D.C. Division Offices 6 St . Louis 7 7 ‘ lower Other Districts District . Mississippi within the Office Valley Lower Division Mississippi Office Valley 3 Division Lake Other lake Shelbyville Projects within Phnagement the St. Louis Office trict 2 9 Collection Process Steps 7 Gate Attendants at lake 11:].- AL-) at lake Shelbyville » l. 2. 3. 4. Camper pays user fee Fees submitted to lake office Fees tabulated and sent to District Office Checks tabulated , forwarded to the U.S. Treasury and deposited Redistribution Process Steps KO oouox U'I 10. User fee monies from all lakes returned to the Corps of Engineers Money transferred to Division Offices Marley transferred to District Offices aney transferred to lake Management Offices Returned fee maney pays salaries of gate attendants at lakes Returned fee unney helps defray other operating expenses of campgrounds where fees are collected Figure 6 The Fee Collection Cycle at lake Shelbyville 22 the lake project at which it was collected. Historically, all, or nearly all , fee monies collected at Lake Shelbyville have been returned to the lake for Operation of recreation areas in which fees are collected. Curr ‘ent Uses of Inform ‘tiOn'on-‘the Forms The following summarizes the current uses of the four forms utilized in the fee collection process at lake Shelbyville. The Remittance Register serves mly as an accounting record of both the amount of money collected by campground and the serial numbers of the User Permits issued in that campground. Rather limited use has also been made of User Permit information. Permits are simply used as receipts for monetary transactions . The sane is true of the Refund Form. Fees for carping at lake Shelbyville may be paid with either cash or Travelers Checks; personal checks are not accepted. The Camping Registration Card serves primarily as a record of whohas carpedinacampground at anyparticular time. Rhenusedin this way, they act as a deterrent to both vandalism and littering, facilitate the return of lost—aid—fomd items left behind at campsites and allow mailing of violation notices to campers who leave their campsites littered. POtential *Uses of InformatiOn on the Forms All items of information on the forms currently receive use. These uses are, however, primarily related to day-to—day operation of the campgrounds and keeping an accounting record rather than for planning or research; the full value of information on these forms, particularly User Permits and Camping Registration Cards , is not being 23 realized. Sane potential additional uses are: 1. Calculation of and changes in camping visitation data over time. 2. Determining trends in senior citizen camping use and its value in facilities planning and effect on future revenues. 3. Calculation of the demand for and benefits derived fromn camping at lake Shelbyville campgrounds operated by the Corps of Engineers. It is these items that will receive particular emphasis in this study. Other potential values , although not investigated in detail here , include planning future campgrournd needs and campground design as well as marketing studies. CHAPTER III ES'I'D’IATDIGVISI’IORUSEANDTRENDSINUSE MUSERPMTMTA ' Procedures As previously indicated, User Penmits currently serve only as records of cash transactions. An examination of the form shows a umber of other pieces of information that could prove useful for inproving the management of the res'erVoir. For this study, the fol— lowing information will be recorded from each sampled User Permit. 1. Name of the individual campground, month and year of permit issue. 2. Party Size 3. Amount of fee paid 4. “nether" or not the permit was issued to a Golden Age Pass— port bearer 5. The number of days the party stayed in the campground, i.e. the length of stay as indicated by that particular permit 6. Rhether the permit was a1 initially issued permit or a reneval. This information will be recorded from samples of User Permits drawn for each month and eaCh park over a three year period: 1974, 1976 and 24 25. 1978. Although records are also available from both 1975 and 1977, the above three years were chosen to facilitate sampling and still allow a description of trends over time . The actual sampling technique and some potential data collection problems will be discussed below. Uses of the User Permit Data The equations and methodology to be presented here appear rather complex. The mnajority of the calculations are necessary only for calibration. Once this is accomplished, the calculation of camping visitor use, the major thrust of the User Permit data, is quite simple. This amputation involves the mnltiplication of only two figures - the amount of fees collected and the appropriate conversion factor. The logical question is for what will this information be used? It will be used to determine a number of relationships thereby demnstrating the increased value of User Permit information. The relationships to be determined are as follows. 1. The relationship between user fees collected by park by month and recreation days spent camping during that period. This relationship will be useful in calculating camping visitation and can be expressed algebraically in the following manner. let R =3 the total camper days (recreation days spent camping) P = the average party size per User Permit L = the average length of stay in days per User Permit F = the average fee paid in dollars per User Permit N = the number of User Permits in the population D = the total amount of fees collected in dollars 26 =(P x L) D T The resulting equation can be used in converting total fees collected to an estimate of carping visitation. 2. Mnat portion of user fees and visitation is contributed by senior citizens (i.e. Golden Age Passport bearers) and how has this changed over time? These can be determined by modifying and expanding the above equation. F L P L R=Rf+Rg= (_§;;)Df + (@1912 where R, P, L, F and D are defined as above, subscript f refers to full-price canpers and subscript g refers to Golden Age Passport campers . By observing changes in this information over time, trends regarding revenue and camping use by senior citizens can be seen. 3. Plotting average party size and average length of stay over time by park could indicate changes in camping patterns and aid in predicting future impacts on campsites at lake Shelbyville. This is yet another value of the currently unutilized information 27 contained on User Permits. Sampling Procedures for User Permits The previously described Remittance Regsters will form the sampling framne for a systenatic sample ,' stratified by month with a random start, of the population, i.e. all User Permits generated at lake Shelbyville during 1974, 1976 and 1978. Since part of the expected results includes the calculation of visitation statistics which are reported on a calendar month basis, difficulty arises when trying to determine the begiming and end of a month based solely upon the dates Renittance' Registers were submitted to the District Office. This is due to the lag between the time a User Permit is issued at a campground and the time the Remittance Register containing that User Permit is compiled and dated. For example , a User Permit issued on May 29th might appear on'a Remittance Register dated sometime in June even though the camper days (visitation) represented by that permit occurred in May. This is a problem that must be controlled in the sample design and will be accomplished in the following manner, Based on the althor‘s eqnerience in fee collection at lake Shelbyville (6 years) ~,K there is approximately a five day lag between issuance of a User Permit and compilation of the Remittance Register containing that permit, For this reaSon, it will be assumed that Remittance Registers dated on 05 after: the fifth day of a given month will he considered as being within that month. Remittance Registers dated m the fifth of a given month Will be considered as being within the previous month. For example, a Remittance Register dated 5 August 1976 will be considered to be within August 1976; one dated 4 August 1976 will be considered to be within July 1976. The first 28 step, then, will be to categorize the Rerittance Registers by month and year. (In each Renittance Register , User Permits are grouped accor- ding to the campground in which they were issued. Since visitation is calculated not only by mnonth but also by campground, samples must be drawn from groups of User Permits issued in each campground during each mnnth. The second step, then, is to calculate the total number of User Permits issued in each campground during each mpnth, i.e. determining the sub-population size of each stratum. It is recognized that some inaccuracy will occur when trans- posing directly from the Remittance Registers to the total nunber of User Permits issued in a given campground during a given month. Using an example given above, a User Permit issued on May 29th might have been paid in full in advarnce and issued for 14 days. In this case, the majority of the camper days represented by this permit would fall in the mpnth of June; the permit would, hmoéver, appear on a Renittance Register slated to fall into May. At best, the above method can be expected to only approximate the exact number of User Permits issued in a given campground in a given month. The Registers will, however, certainly yield the total number of permits issued in a given camp- ground in a given year. This problem should not affect the accuracy of the study. Calculating Sample Size - User Permits Next, the sample size of each stratum must be determined. This will be done in the following manner. n = (2392 for a 95% confidence level. 29 where n = sample Size a = the degree Of accuracy desired1 0' = the standard deviation. The standard deviation associated with each variable, i.e. P, L and F, will be estimated utilizing an estimate of the interquartile devia- tion. The following procedure will give this estimate.2 6 = 1.25 Q where _. Q3... .Q1 Q — ~7— and Q3 = the third quartile: 1,: of the cases are above this value Q1 = the first quartile: in: of the cases are below this value. The Quartiles will be estimated by taking a small sample consisting of twenty-five User Permits from each campground and month of 1978.3 Values of the three variables, i.e. P, L and F, will then be calculated. The variable with which is associated the largest standard deviation, as determined by the quartile estimation, will ultimately determine the sample size for each particular group of User Permits. The starb- _ ing point of each sample 'will then be selected using a random nunber lAccuracy is acceptable to within i 0.400 of the true values. ZDemnis J. Palmbo , statistics a Political and behavioral ‘Scien'Ces (NewYork: Columbia University Press,‘1977), p. 685* 31978 was selected because fees were collected in all five camp— grounds (hiring that year. The standard deviations calculated from that year's data will be assimmed to be representative Of both 1974 and 1976 and will therefore be used to calculate sample size for those years also. ‘ 30 table.l mpnth fall below the calculated sanple size, no data will be collected Should the total number of User Permits for a particular for that month. This is not expected to occur except at either the beginning or end of a recreation season. Data Collection Problems - User Permits l‘bst of the data will be easily extracted from User Permits . A problem does arise, however, when determining the length of stay from the individual User Permits. This is due to the unit of visi- tation measurement used by the Corps of Engineers. This is the "recreation day," and has been defined previously. According to this definition, a person arriving on one day and leaving the next represents _twg recreation days ( 1 personn x _2_ days = 2 recreation days). To accomodate this definition, the number of days spent at the campgronmd as indicated by a User Permit issued to a party when it begins its stay will be recorded as the departure date minus the arrival date plus one. For example, if a party arrives on the 17th of July and plans to leave on the 25th of July, the number of recreation days spentinthecampgroundbythatparty=25-l7+l=9.2 Mul- tiplying this figure by the number of people in the party will give the total mnber of recreation days represented by that User Permit . If the party in the above example consisted of 4 persons, this User permit would represent 9 x 4 = 36 recreation days. LIhe random mmrber table used in this study will be found in George W. Snedecor, Statistical Mathods, Fifth Edition (Ames, Iowa The Iowa State University Hess , 1956) , pp. 11-15 . 2It is instructive to note that the nunber of nights spent in thecanpground is oneless thanthenunberofdays. It is thenumber of nights upon which is based the amount of user fee charged. 31 This formula works well for initially issued permits . The situation is complicated, however , when obtaining this information from User Permits of parties who have elected to stay longer than originally planned, i.e. they have reneoed their User Permit. As stated previously, in such cases a new User Permit is issued to the party reflecting the current date and the nfl expected departure date. In most cases , a renewal permit can be easily identified by notations made by the gate attendant at the time of issue.1 To avoid inaccurate calculation of visitor use through "double counting," which mnld occur if the above formula were also used for renewals, the number of recreation days spent in the campground by a renewing party must be calculated differently. For renewal User Permits, then, the umber of days is equal to simply the new expected departure date minus the "arrival," actually renewal, date. For example, if a party elects to rm their permit on the 17th of July and now depart on the 25th of July, the lumber of days spent = 25 - 17 = 8.2 Multiplying this figure by the nunber of people in the party will give the mmrber of recreation days represented by that permit. . If the party in the above example consisted of 4 persons, 1The renewal rate for each sample can then be determined based on these notations. Should renewals not be detectable during any par- ticular year, it will be assured that the renewal rates from other years can be assigned to these samples. Based on the author's exper- ience, and 1mm nature, it is unrealistic to assume tiat no renewals will occur during an entire recreationn season. 2In this case, the number of niglnts spent in the campground is equal to the timber of days. The "missing day" is contained on some other permit issued when the party first arrived at the campground. Unfortunately , there is no way to correlate the renewal permit with the previously issned permit (3) to determine the total length of stay for that party's particular visit. 32 this User Permit would represent 8 x 4 = 32 recreation days. Another potential difficulty occurs when a party vacates their campsite prior to the expiration of their User Permit. Pursuant to a procechnre previously described, they may choose to apply for a refund of the unused portion of their User Permit with the gate atten- dant upon exiting the campground. No data is available regarding parties departing early who do not request a refund. A high frequency of early departures would lead to an overestimation of camping visi- tation since it is not possible to identify the nunber of recreation days for which refunds were issued. A preliminary examination of refund data from 1976 at lake Shelbyville indicates that refundw rep- resent less than l"/.. of both the total nmber of User Permits issued and the total amount of fees collected during that year. In this author' 3 opinion, this is insignificant and will not appreciably affect the resukts. It is higlnly likely that this is true for all years to be investigated in this study and will be so assumed. A third problem arises when considering User Permits which are voided. As stated above , a gate attendant may void a User Permit whenever an error is made while filling it out . voided User Permit is turned in along with other permits completed that day. Voided permits do not contribute to either the total fees collected or other camping visitation data. They are, however, included in the population of User Permits from which samples will be drawrn. Based on tlne author's experience , although not verified with data, it is estimated that voided User Permits occnm: infrequently. When encountered in sampling , voided User Permits will be ignored. 33 Results and Cenclusio'ns from Userf‘germmtrpata User Permits were sampled pursuant to the procedure described above. It was discovered that there is often little Correlation between the actual nunber of User Permits per campground per month and the nunber for that campground and mornth as shown on the Remittance Registers . That is, actual monthly campground User Permit subpopula— tions often differed substantially from those predicted by the Remit- tance Registers; the totals for a campground over an entire year are, however, correct. For this reason, and due to time constraints , monthly data, although properly generated, was not analyzed. Analyses of User Permit data were instead done on an amnual basis. The mnber of User Permits sampled in each population, the size of the total population and the percentage sampled are indicated in Table 1. Following the method described previously, the accuracy of the User Permit data was determined. Based on a sample size of 100 User Permits per campground per month, the values of average party size (Pt) are accurate to within 1- 0.353 with a 95% confidence level for each sanple. The values of average length of stay for each user fee dollar spent ( IE:- ) are more accurate - to within 1- 0.100 with a 95% confidence level for each sample of 100 permits. These accuracies are adequate to allow meaningful analyses . Golden Age Passport Visitors One purpose of this study is to analyze the portion of camping visitors at Lake Shelbyville that utilize Golden Age Passports. The number of User Permits in the sample that were issued to Golden Age Passport and full—priceyisitors is shown in Table 2. The correspending percentages for each type Of ‘ visitor are snnmarized for each camnground Number of USer Permits Sampled.in.EaCh Population 34 Table 1 Carnpgrmmd w Bimieu'Sampled Total Population Percent of Total Coon Creek ihnteu'Sampled Total Population Percent of Total Lithia Springs Number Sampled Total Population Percent of Total Whitley Creek Number Sampled Total Population Percent of Total lone Point Number Sampled Tbtal Population Percent of Total Total - All Campgrounds Number Sampledf Total Pupulation Percent of Total 1974 700 5,148 13.6% 600 7,131 8.4% 600 5,363 11.2% 600 2,608 21.4% DREA1EOR 1974 2,500 20,448 12.2% 1976 700 4,607 15.2% 700 7,807 9.0% 700 4,434 15.87.. 500 1,734 28.8% 500 1,308 38.2% 3,100 19,890 15.6% 1978 600 5,821 11.8% 600 8,116 7.4% 600 4,411 13.6% 500 1,874 26.7% 500 1,228 40.7% 2,800 20,695 13.3% Total 2,000 14,821 13.5% 1,900 23,054 8.2% 1,900 14,208 13.4% 1,600 6,414 24.9% 1,000 2,536 39.4% 8,400 61,033 13.8% 35 Table 2 Nunber of Golden Age and Full-Price User Permits Sampled Canpground Bo Wood m Age Full-Price Total Coon Creek Golden Age Full—Price Total Lili’ SP .- GoldenAge Full-Price Total Whitley Creek TIolden Age Full—Price Total lone Point Gélden Age Full-Price Total Total - All CampgrOunds Goldén fie Full-Price Total 1974 122 ‘ 5_7§. 700 58 :42. 600 30 27.9. 600 28 51.2. 600 DATA NR 1974 238 2 262 2 , 500 1976 123 ill 700 82 £31 700 31 9.6.9. 700 16 484 500 11 ' 489 500 263 ‘2 837 3 ,100 1978 122 490 600 53 a 600 18 a 600 17 483 500 9.92 500 205 '2 595 2,800 Total 355 1,645 2,000 193 1 , 707 1 , 900 79 1 821 1 , 900 61 1,539 1,600 18 982 l , 000 706 7 , 694 8 , 400 36 and all years in Table 3. It is interesting to note in Table 3 that the highest proportion of User Permits issued to Golden Age visitors occurred in B0 Wood and Coon Creek. These are the only two Corps—operated campgrounds at lake Shelbyville with electrical hook-ups at some or all of the carp—- sites during the 1974, 1976 and 1978 camping seasons. Although the data as gathered in its present format does not permit comparisons, it is conjectured that senior citizens (Golden Age Passport visitors) pre- dominantly utilize electrical sites. It is further conjectured that this accounts for the higher portion of senior citizens utilizing Bo Wood and Coon Creek. This could be tested during the 1979 camping season at Lithia Springs . This campground had electrical facilities installed at all its canpsites during 1978 to become available for the 1979 camping season. An increase in use by senior citizens, if observed in this campground during 1979, could, quite possibly, be attributed to the electrical installation. If this is true, such an increase in senior citizen use might be expected at other Corps of Engineers campgrounds at other projects if electrical facilities are added or expanded. Table 4 allows comparison between use patterns of Golden Age Passport bearers and fullnprice visitors. The average party size per User Permit for Golden Age Passport bearers (Pg) is consistently lower than that of fullsprice visitors (Pf) , This could indicate that those eanping with Golden Age Passports are predominantly retired couples camping alone while fullnprice visitors are fanily groups camping with children and/or friends. The reverse is true for length of stay per User Permit (n.g and 37 Table 3 Proportion of Golden Age and Full-Price User Permits Sampled Campground Bo Wood m Age Full-Price Total Coon Creek Golden Age Full-Price Total Lithia Springs Golden Age Full-Price Total Whitley Creek Golden Age Full-Price Total Lone Point Golden Age Full-Price Total Total - All Campgrounds Golden Age Full-Price Total 1974 177° 8370 10070 107° 90% 10070 57s 9570 10070 5% 95% 1007.. T DATA FOR 1974 10% 907., 10070 1976 1870 82% 1007s 1270 8870 1007.. 4‘70 967.. 100% 3% 9770 10070 9870 10070 870 92% 100% 1978 187° 8270 100% 9% 91% 100% 3% 977° 10070 3% 97# 10070 17° 9970 100% 7‘7o 9372. 1007., Average 18% 8270 10070 10% 4% 967.. 10070 4% 9670 1007.3 27° 9870 100% 87° 9270 10070 38 Table 4 Comparison of Average Party Size, Length.of'8tay and Fee Paid Between Golden Age Passport and FUll-Price Campers1 1974 1976 1978 Average 2.65 2.75 2.80 2.73 3.77 3.67 3.72 3.72 3.60 3.63 3.76 3.66 2.71 2.80 2.79 2.77 9.79 10.18 11.04 10.34 10.26 10.56 10.61 10.48 4.80 5.58 5.87 5.42 8.57 7.31 7.26 7.71 2.04 1.82 1.88 1.91 1.20 1.44 1.46 1.37 1P = average party size per USer Permit 1.= average length of stay in days per USer Permit F = average fee paid in dollars per USer Permit PL‘= average camping recreation days per User Permit E:Flizaverage camping recreation days per dollar per USer Permit SUbscript g refers to Golden.Age Passport campers SUbscript f refers to full-price campers 39 Lf). Golden Age Passport bearers. consistently stayed longer than full— price visitors. Since Golden Age Passport bearers are, by necessity, age 62 or older, it is highly likely that a majority of then are retired and have a greater amount of leisure time than filll—price visitors. The length of stay by full—price Visitors could, due to its short duration, also indicate that few parties elect to spend a pro- tracted vacation at Lake Shelbyville. It is possible that people within the lake‘s serVice area are beginning to shift from taking a single long-distance annual camping vacation away from Illinois to taking mmerous shorter trips throughout the year using "car pooling" to help reduce costs ._ As the lake becomes more well known and popular, there Could be a trend toward taking trips to the lake of slightly longer duration. The predominant length of stay for full—price visitors is approximately three days — the amount of time required to spend a weekend of camping at lake Shelbyville. Although there is a difference in length of stay and party size, the umber of recreation days per User Permit for Golden Age and full- price visitors, ng' and 13fo respectively are quite similar. mile both have increased over time, that for senior citizens has increased at a faster rate. Png and Pfo are also useful in camping visitation calculation, Mlltiplying these figures by the mnber of User Permits issued to each type of visitor in each campground and each month would yield the total umber of recreation days experienced in that campground chrring that month. mile this calculation does not depend on the nnightly user fee ‘ charged in each. Campground, it is dependent upon the number of User Permits issued in each Campground and month. It is difficult to 40 determine the umber of User Permits issued in each campground and month from Remittance Registers as indicated above. In addition, voided User Permits cannot be distinguished from valid ones when aggegated on Remittance Registers . Including voided User Permits in the total issued could, if they occurred in sufficient mmbers , lead to an overestimation of camping visitation. The fee paid in dollars per User Permit, Fg and Ff, for each type of user is also shown in Table 4. As might be expected, the fee per User Pennit paid by Golden Age visitors is approximately half of that paid by full—price visitors. Variations over timne may be ecplained by increases in user fees charged per night end, as a corollary to tlnis, a possible increase in the use of electrical facilities by all types of visitors; an additional 50¢ is charged per night for electrical use. . PL 1’ The finaltwo items inTable 4, $3 and—fig , are ofthe g f greatest significance . These represent the mnber of recreation days experienced per dollar of user fee paid by senior citizens and full- price visitors respectively. Multiplying these figures by the total amount of fees collected from each type of visitor yields the total number of recreation days experienced by each type of visitor, Rg and Rf. This has been done in Table 5. The portion of user fees paid by each visitor type was obtained from the sampled User Permits . The total fees collected was obtained from Corps of Engineers records at Lake Shelbyville . As can be seen from Table 5 , the portion of user fees contributed by Golden Age visitors has increased over time. While tlne extent of the trend cannot be determined, it appears that it will continue. The net effect is that the rate of total revenue increase from user fees 41 Table 5 comparison of Recreation Days Between Total USer Fees Collected (Dollars) 'USer Fees Paid by Golden.Age'Visitors CZ.of'Tbta1) USer Fees Paid by FUll-Price'Visitors (Z of Total) USer Fees Paid by Golden.Age Visitors (Dollars) USer Fees Paid by Foil-Price Visitors (Dollars) P‘L _iiii F g 1’fo or! r so or ”:1 1P L Golden Age and Full-Price Campers1 1974 $128,158 10.2% 89.8% $13,072 $115,086 2.04 1.20 26,667 138,103 5.2:]. 1976 $145,408 10.4% 89.6% $15,122 $130,286 1.82 1.44 27,522 187,612 6.8:1 1978 $151,468 10.7% 89.3% $16,207 $135,261 1.88 1.46 30,469 197,481 6.5:1 -Fr- = average camping recreation days per dollar per User Permit R.= total number of camping recreation days per year, all areas subscript g refers to Golden.Age Passport visitors subscript f refers to full-price visitors 42 collected at lake Shelbyville cen be expected to slow dom. As cen be seen from Table 5, the mnber of recreation days, i.e. camping consumption as opposed to cerping denend, for each type of visitor (Rg and Rf) have both increased over time. Further analysis of this information could prove useful for one aspect of managerial decision-making at the lake . The decision in question is whether or not to chenge the mix of recreation facilities at lake campgrounds by increasing facilities end services desired by senior citizens . Basing such a decision simply on the observed increase in senior citizen use may be limited in scope. Corparison must instead be made between the increases in use observed in both types of visitors to ensure an equitable distribution of facilities end services. How, then, cen the necessary colparison be made? This cen be done by calculating the ratio of full—price rec- reation days to senior citizen recreation days, i.e. :1: , for each year. A decrease in this ratio over time would indicage a proportional increase in senior citizen cenping use end, hence , indicate a need for additional facilities end services desired by senior citizens. The ratios are sham in Table 5 . Unfortunately, no clear—cut trend is evident . After an initial increase in the ratio, indicating a need to increase facilities end services for full-price visitors , the ratio decreased between 1976 end 1978 . Perhaps information from intervening or succeeding years could indicate a more definite trend. Data from Both Camping Types Combined The main value of the User Permit data lies in information gathered regarding the lake Shelbyville cenping population as a whole, 43 i.e. , average party size per User Permit (Pt), average length of stay per User Permit (Lt) end average fee paid per User Permit (Ft). These in various conbinations will be utilized to determine a number of items. The more significent will be presented here; a detailed summary of many of the relationships for each campground end year is included in Appendix III. The first of these are shown in Tables 6 end 7. Table 6 indicates the values of Pt , Lt end Ft determined for each campground for all years combined. While Lt does not exactly represent the E9331 length of stay per trip for all cenping parties due to User Permit renewals, it does, nonetheless, represent a reasonable approximation. With this inmnind, the table cenbe read in the followingmanner using Bo Wood as en example: The average camping party at B0 Wood consists of 3.20 persons who stay a total of 3.26 days per trip end spend a total of $7.57 in user fees. Information in this table could be of value in predicting use patterns at other similar Corps of Engineers cerpgrounds. It is interesting to note that the smallest average party size value end largest average length of stay value were both observed at B0 Wood campground. This is undoubtedly due to the effect of Golden Age Passport visitors as discussed earlier. In terms of future camp- ground design, it would be of value to investigate the causes of the attraction of senior citizens to this type of campground. Table 7 shows the item of particular value for calculating camping visitation. This is the recreation days per dollar figure, i.e. #5 It is shown for all campgrounds. Multiplying the approp— riate vglue by the total user fees collected during a particular mnonth .qnma waflnue whoop oouooHHoo mums meow on “unwom QGQH.Hom owmnm>m ummmnoau m mace N .omcaoaoo muooamo mo momma Ham ou mummoh u uoHHUmnom muwanom Home.uoo mHmHHop cw tame mom owmnmam "_m 2Huenom Moo: Moo when cw zoom mo summoa owmum>m n q_mueanom umm:_uoo onwm apnea mwmnmpm n m H wo.m m¢.¢sno.m om.m nm.¢umm.m mm.m m¢.¢um¢.m Hm.m wa.qu¢o.m wo.m ma.¢uw¢.~ om.m mo.qumo.~ mmmHm2< mwcmm qw.o H¢.mn¢m.d mm.~ om.¢u~m.~ mm.o wa.nu¢m.m HN.N om.~un¢.~ mn.m o~.u:~o.q om.m wo.mumm.m mH.o o¢.~n¢m.¢ an.~ ma.mu~m.m oo.n H¢.muwm.m mm.m mm.muqm.w wm.n oq.muHN.n om.m ou.¢noo.~ owmum2< mwcmm owmhmem owamm a us A Hessian”. magpie 93 H2 so so see no..um.mo mwmum2¢_aamuum 0 new mwcmm Hmohuoonne 0 maan .14an mg ohms“. @3858 onB moom o: a “whom was now amount/w Hometown m ECON defiance mHoGuoo mo mos So on ammo.“ u augmeem “moon How: you women .838 you 355m now: won zoom mo fimcma «mousse um “meow Homo HomeH win .838 you pause new: Hoe memo 833.83 mo “~an mwmugm u .Lm... see 3.0 3.0-5.0 84 £4.84 ,. w. . _oofiaeoo . . germane 42 No.0 8.9.8.0 84 £4-84 Nofioe 83 are 3.985 £4 3.394 some sores e 35 medias $4 8.3: ewfiuem «4.34 one Seems $4 $4-34 rodeo 88 So once: 84 $4.84 o8: om omega . . . swam . emerges. . . . owner . Naomhefio so: sore: 4%soomoemo massage £3. 42. em on o5 4, WW» no penalizes .Hamuhgo pom wear-m gig 4m; n magma. 46 in a particular cenpground will yield the number of recreation days spent camping in that campground in that month. The renge of these values is dependent upon the average camping party size (Pt)’ the average length of stay end the average amount of fees paid (Ft) per User Permit. Clearly, Pt varies independently fronboth Lt andFt; Ft is dependentuponl.t aswell as the price charged per night of camping. It is the emunt charged per night Pt Lt which could limit the application of —F—- values during years in which different per night fees were charged. tBy comparing values of I;— , 1..e the length Of staype: dollar of fee paid, as is done in Table 7, it can be seen that these values are surprisingly similar; their renge is quite narrow. It appears, then, that the effects of different prices charged per night are minimal on values of %' at least witlnin the renge of prices that have been charged at Lake Shelbyville from 1974 through 1978. The values of % appear, then, to be primarily dependent uponP , i..e theaveragepartysizeperUserPermit. Determining changes in Pt in each cerpground should, then, provide the appropriate adjustment to t«IF-L—f—values fir: use in future years. The effects of price changes on tvalues of FE should also be caneIc‘ked as price changes occur. In summary of Table 7, the product of $5— for each camp- ground end the total enount of user fees collected in the corresponding campground will yield the mmber of recreation days spent camping in that campground during that month, Table 8 summarizes per capita user fees paid at Lake Shelbyville campgronds The first item, 13:, ,represents the average amoulgt of user fees paid per person per camping trip. The Second item, LP" 47 Ft / ‘(PtLt) “Table 8 :13, :5- end FEE" at All Campgroundsl t t 3nYear ChmPground '1223. 1229. liZé. €§E§E§§i "Bo‘Wbod Pp / Pt 2.20 2.40 2.49 2.36 Ft / Lt 2.19 2.43 2.33 2.32 FE / CPELt) 0.77 0.72 0.77 0.73 Coon creek FE / Pt 1.98 2.22 2.09 2.10 Ft / L.t 2.47 2.65 2.63 2.58 FE / (P'L 0.70 0.72 0.69 0.70 lithiafSprings Ft / Pt 1.40 1.83 1.74 1.66 Pp / Lt 1.97 2.40 2.42 2.26 F; / (Pth) 0.52 0.65 0.66 0.61 “Whitley‘Cmeek FE / Pt 1.28 1.51 1.57 1.45 FE / L.t 2.03 2.28 2.36 2.22 FE / (PtLt) 0.51 0.58 0.59 0.56 .1... es ....... Ft / Pt '"‘nt7"‘ 1.67 1.72 1.70 Ft / l.t DAIA FOR 2.42 2.40 2.41 "‘f1974 0.62 0.63 0,62 48 Table 8 (cont ' d) 3-Year Campground 1974 1976 1978 Average All Campgrounds Combined Ft / Pt 1.72 1.93 1.92 1.85 Ft / Lt 2.17 2.44 2.43 2.36 Ft / (PtLt) 0.61 0.66 0.66 0.64 1Ft / Pt = average amount of user fee paid per person per trip Ft / Lt = average enount of user fee paid per party per day Ft / (PtLt) = average eIant of user fees paid per person per day. represents the average erolnt of user fee paid per cerping party per day. The final item, PEE; , represents the average amount of fee paid per person per day (per recreation day of camping). These values cen aid in predicting the enomt of revenue that might be generated at similar campgrounds charging similar prices. The second item, 1::- , will be utilized in developing denend curves for the camping resource using the travel cost method in a subsequent chapter of this study. Renewals As previously stated, renewal User Permits pose a particular problem when atterpting to accurately determine P , Lt end Ft - the items that form the basis for much of this chapter. Table 9 summarizes the renewals observed in the samples for both Golden Age end full- price visitors. In all campgrounds in all years , renewals represent approximately 1670 of the total nurber of User Permits issued dining eny given year. To express this enother way, 1670 of the camping parties visiting lake Shelbyville elected, for one reason or enother , 49 Table 9 Number of User Permit Renewals a 1974 and 1976 Nmberof Renewals Per 100 User Cenpgromd ‘1974' 1976 'Total' AVerage ‘ ’ ‘ ‘ Permits ' ‘Bo‘Wbod ““coIaen.Age 11 18 29 14.5 2.07 Full Price ~_gg_"112 "211 *105.5 15.07 Total 110 130 240 120.0 17.14 Coon Creek Golden.Age 10 13 23 ' 11.5 1.77 Full Price §g_ '114 “203 -101.5 15.62 Total 99 127 226 113.0 17.39 Lithia ‘ s e 4 4 8 4.0 0.62 Full Price 21. 199_ 122. "88.5 13.62 Total 75 110 185 92.5 14.24 Whitley Creek Golden.Age 3 2 5 2.5 0.45 Full Price g9 "§2‘~‘;g§, ‘64.0 11.64 Total 72 61 133 66.5 12.09 lone Point ~~~~~~ Age EU 0 0.0 0.00 Full Price DATA.FORJ‘§Z_ ~'§z_ "43.5 ‘17.40 Total ”“1974“” 87 87 43.5 17.40 All Campgrounds “combined“. icolden.Age 28 37 65 3235 1.16 Full Price ..523 '~478 =~806 ~1403.0 -14;39 Total 356 515 871 435.5 15.55 50 to extend their camping trip by one night or more after arriving at the lake . Altholgh enalysis of the reasons for this cannot be performed with the existing data, it might be useful, from a socio—economic standpoint , to determine why campers choose to extend their trips . A Word on Applicability of the Results Clearly , tlne information generated from the User Permit data is directly applicable only to lake Shelbyville or projects that are ectrenely similar. The detailed tables inculded here could seen to sore to be only exercises in mathematical gymnastics . Except for their value to lake Shelbyville , the information standing by itself does not have far—reaching significence. That has not, however, been the purpose of this study. It ‘h_a_s_ been this study's purpose to demonstrate what ‘__cen_ be done additionally with existing data sources . Gathering this information at one lake within the Corps of Engineers is of limited value; gathering end combining similar information from many Corps lakes has wide-.- renging value. Observing what cen be done with, one currently untapped data source may encourage investigation of other sources . It is felt that in the case of User Permits, the Overall purpose of this study has been met. CHAPI‘ERIV WWWGBENETHSFRIMCAMPINGREGISTRATION CARDSUSING'IHETRAVELCDSI‘MEIHOD Procedures The travel cost method, first described by Clawson and Knetsch in 19661 end refined in later years,2 is based on the development of two items - the demannd curve for the total recreation experience end the demand curve for the recreation resource. 3 The area under the lat- ter curve, expressed in terms of consumer surplus,4 represents the net user benefits generated by the recreation resource . 1Marion Clawson end Jack L. Knetsch, Economics of Outdoor Recreation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press , 1966) . 2’l?‘or an in-depth discussion of the method end its refinements, see John F. Dwyer, John R. Kelly end Michael D. Bowes, "Improved Procedures for Valuation of the Contribution of Recreation to National Economic Development," Water Research Council Research Report Number 128, (Urbena, Illinois: University of Illinois Water Resources Center, 1977). An excellent summary of many of the method's criticisms can be fomnd in Nicholas H. (bomber end Asit K. Biswas, Evaluation of Environmental Intengibles (New York: Genera Press, 19735 , pp. I3-27. 3The importance of end measurement difficulties associated with recreation demand will be discussed in Appendix IV.. (“For a discussion of consumer surplus, see E. J. Mishan, Cost Benefit Analysis - New and Ebcpanded Edition (New York: Praeger Pub—:— fishers, 1976), pp. 24-54 end Paul A. Samuelson, Economics (Sixth Edition), (New York: McCray-Hill Book Company, 19655 , pp. 535-537. 51 52 The Corps of Engineers has frequently used the "nmnit day value" approach to measure recreation benefits.1 It has been argued that this, end other measurerent methods, should be abendoned in favor of tlne travel cost method. 2 As will become evident , the travel cost method cen be applied to estimate camping benefits at Corps lakes easily. This section will develop a methodology for applying the travel cost method to cerping data generated at lake Shelbyville. Two prob- lems arise when applying the method to this data. The first occurs when considering travel distences from linear, or non-point , resources such as rivers end long , narrow reservoirs . This poses a problem in the determination of "close—in" travel zones . A solution to this problem is not specifically addressed in the travel cost method. The second problem lies in tlne calculation of on—site cost per visit in the form of entrence and/ or user fees for overnight use, usually camping, in en area. Wnen considering these types of on-site costs per visit for day use only, as reflected in previous researchers' applications of the method, these costs occur during one day only - only once per visit. In addition, a day use vi__s‘_i_t consists of all or a portion of a day end does not begin in or carry over into enother day. This is not so with camping. The difficulty arises when cal- culating the on-site charges per camping visit end is tied specifically to enswering the question, "Mat is a visit?" A visit may, for one 1Ixzyer, Kelly end Bowes , "Improved Procedures for Valuation of the Contribution of Recreation to National Econotic Development," p. 168. 2Ibid. , p. 149. 53 camping group, consist of only one night but may be ten nights for enother. Assuming that a fee is assessed for each night of camping end does not depend on party size, the on-site cost Er visit for the "one night group" will be considerably less then the on-site cost Er visit for the group camping longer then one night. If the average length of stay is the same for all travel zones,l the problem is resolved.2 The on-site cost per trip with respect to camping fees alone would then simply be the average length of stay multiplied by the user fee cost per night. hhatiftheaverage lengthofstayisggtthe same forall zones? This must be dealt with in a different manner. If this is the case, the on-site user fee cost per visit will be calculated by multiplying the user fee cost per night by the average length of stay for all zones corbined. This will give an estimate of the average user fee cost per visit for camping.3 The importance of t1*e above 1In applying the travel cost method to a recreation resource, the area surrounding the resource is divided into zones of ever- increasing distence from the resorrce. A recreationist from within eny zone must travel approximately the sene distence as any other recreationist from within that zone to reach the resource. The number of visits per tlnousend population is then determined for each zone end used in conjunction with cost per visit to develop demand curves. 2This is true because the on—site cost per visit will then be constant end travel cost per visit will be isolated as the only cost factor causing chenges in visits per thousend from all zones . The tra- vel cost method assures that all non-travel costs per visit are held constant for each visit regardless of the zone in which the visit ori- ginates. If this is not the case, the relationship between distence (travel cost) end nunber of visits per thousend population will, at best, be less distinct end, at worst, not be evident at all. 3If length of stay varies between zones, but is averaged in this mnemer, a bias will result end be reflected in the shape of the denend curves . Averaging will either flatten or steepen the curves depend- ent upon the relationship between length of stay end distence from the resource. The variation of length of stay between zones also 54 discussion will become apparent below. Camping Registration Card Data The travel cost method will now be applied to data contained on Camping Registration Cards to calculate the demand for camping at campgrounds operated by the Corps of Engineers at lake Shelbyville. To reach this end, the following information will be extrected from each serpled card for each year: 1. The address of the camper's residence 2. The type of camping unit used 3. The sizeofthecampingparty 4. The length of stay. The card has been in use at lake Shelbyville during part of 1976 end all of both 1977 end 1978. Samples will, therefore, be drawn from 1977 end 1978 cards only. There are two itere of information required to construct the demand curve for the total recreation experience , the first component of the travel cost method. These are the umber of visits per thousend population end the average cost per visit. The nunber of visits per thousend population will be considered first. Visits Per Thousend Population Following the format of the travel cost method, travel zones must first be established. The zones will be delineated using counties as basic units . Population data is readily avaliable for comnties . lake Shelbyville is a long, narrow lake approximately 26 miles indicates tlne existence of some factor other then travel cost con- tributing to demand estimation. Averaging ignores the existence of this factor. 55 long end divided nearly equally between two Illinois conmnties - Shelby end Moultrie. It is clearly a linear, or non—point, resource end thus presents the problem described above. The travel cost method requires, however, that the area under study be a point resource. To achieve this in the case of lake Shelbyville, Shelby end Pbultrie Counties combined will form Zone 1. It will be assumed that the use rate for cenpgronmnds in each county is equal for all campers originating in each Zone 1 county. The remaining zones will then be established based on travel time end the total population of each zone determined. Amapshovingtheconmnties intheareasurromndinglake Shelbyville is attached as Figure 7. Also attached is a map with the travel zones indicated as Figure 8. Appendix V has been added at the end of this study listing the comties end population included in each zone. The use rate per thousend will then be calculated for each zone. This will be initiated by taking a systenatic senple with a rendom start of the aggregate of all Camping Registration Cards for each year, i.e. the sample population. Sample size must first be determined. The distribution of cards within the population cen be considered that of a binomial. Pursuent to the method described by Babbie,1 a sample of 600 cards from each year was cleaned adequate to describe this didtribution to within -_l_- 2.47.. at the 95% confidence level. Following sample selection, the cards will be sorted by zone. 1Farl R. Babbie,‘ Survey Research Methods, (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Conpeny, 1973). p. 3n. 56 mm! unnrn mun IOCI ’° ‘b an?” \ 4%» um: “CI “CM” WI . O cnmou 3' “DA. OMYIID“ “I : no" ”I." .001” u M a DIM. k luau Wt if f mo: no.“ m,“ m WWII 0mm “11““ n; w m “I"? M MACON Out"! , Figure 7 ' , Counties Surrounding lake Shelbyvillel 0 Approximate location of Lake Shelbyville lU.S., Department of Commerce, Boundaries of Counties end County Equivalents as of Jenuary l, 1970. 1971. 57 H 3' ' n. y” a : new ofiAIu L 5 I‘V‘YY| ‘LAHON _, _ 5 v. < I. mu -' n—_—_ _i . e, e . a unhosnA ‘ lunu W. , ZONE 6 . t n I uuuoa Mm“ Ito-u- X ‘ ’9. much IUI( AU o, ’9 la. a!” 00! non-o: tumuo I “nun-Jon wooo'ouo "l L lAIU'an l “AWN .“ "/ unuur lm‘" uxnm nun-I. L OK KrOulell cmuslum o|_e-, I 1’ can"; W'” . I ; v4’uunn. :mwu' uc n («K Nisan u \KOII - “:1". ,_ “11:3 ~ 4...... \ L. 7““ .e....” I MAN} ,A 3e— OHLGON Inn Iv .‘ Figure 8 \ Travel Zones Surrounding lake Shelbyville 58 Next, the total meter of visits from each zone will be calculated. Each card represents a camping trip to lake Shelbyville. The number of people on each card (party size) represents the number of visits on that card. length of stay does not enter into the calculations at this point but will when determining the cost per visit. The summation of all party sizes on the sampled cards within each zone will yield the umber of visits from each zone within the sample. This will then be expended by the total card population in each, zone to obtain the total number of visits from each zone. The resultent figure will then be divided by the already determined total population, in thousends, for each zone to obtain the Camping use rate per thousend population. This is the first item of information required to apply the travel cost method. Determining Cost Per Camping Visit There are four components of the cost per camping visit. These are: Travel cost per visit Qnasite Charges per visit Food end miscelleneous costs per visit L‘UJNH Entertainment costs per visit. Determination of each will be described below. Travel cost for each camper is dependent upon both the round— trip distence from the residence to the resource and the mode of trensportation . The latter cen be directly determined from the Camping Registration Cards . The cost per mile of each type of vehicle indi- cated on the cards must be determined for each year from standards established by other sources, perhaps the Federal Envirome‘ntal 59 Protection Agency, the Americen Autompbile Association, a National Camping Club or from individuals with long-time camping experience. The round-trip travel cost for each visit cen be determined by multip- lying the average round-trip distence to the resource, assumed constent from all points within a given zone, by the vehicle operating cost per mile for each visit originating within that zone. Dividing the summation of these costs by the total nunber of visits (number of cards serpled) per zone would then be the average travel cost per visit per zone. This is the first component of the total variable cost per visit. The next item to be considered is He on-site user charge per visit. The problem associated with this have been discussed pre- viously. Suffice it to say that an estimate of the average on-site user charge per visit will be made taking into consideration both the average nightly fee charged in the destination campgrounds end the average length of stay per visit. This is the second component of the total variable cost per visit. The last two items (food end miscelleneous costs per visit end entertainment costs per visit) will be dealt with jointly. Ideally, the daily cost per person of each item should be obtained from a camping expense study, if one is available. If not, it will be assured that these expenses are the same at the campgromnd as they would have been if the camper had remained home. If this assumption is made, these enqnenses will be disregarded. To corplete the information required for the total experience demand curve, all components of the average variable cost per visit will be added together for each zone. Plotting this information against the previously determined umber of visits per thousend 60 will yield this denand curve. By applying hypothetical price increases , the enalysis described by the travel cost method may then be used to determine both the demend curve for the cerping recreation resource end the total dollar value of the camping resource at Lake Shelbyville. The Trip Cost Equation Utilizing the elennents of the cost of a cerping trip listed above, the following relationship may be established making use of data developed, in part, from both Camping Registration Cards end User Permits: T= g+c M+dL+ePL+fPL where T = the total cost of a camping trip to lake Shelbyville; each Camping Registration Card represents one trip; this cost will be expressed in dollars per trip a = gasoline cost in dollars per gallon b = miles per gallon rating of the vehicle used to make the trip c = the average "wear end tear" cost in dollars per mile for that vehicle M = the average round-trip mileage from the cenper‘s residence to the campground d = the average on-site (user fee) cost in dollars per day per campsite in the destination campground; this will be determined from User Permit data L = the length of stay of the cenping party, in days, as determined from the Camping Registration Cards; it is assured that the number of days shown on the card represents the tggallength of stay for that particular trip 61 e = the average food end miscelleneous expenditure in dollars per person per day P=the sizeofthecampingpartyas indicatedonthe Camping Registration Cards; it is assured that the entire party stayed in the campground for the entire length of stay 15 = the average entertainment expenditure in dollars per day per person. The summation of all individual trip costs within each zone will equal the total cost of all trips mled within each zone. By dividing this total by the number of trips (cards) sampled in each zone, the average cost per trip cen be determined. Results end Conclusions from Camping Registration Card Data A senple of 600 Camping Registration Cards was drawn for both 1977 end 1978 pursuent to procedures described previously. Data fromn each year was enalyzed separately. While the main objective here was to establish information necessary to construct denand curves, a few otlner readily calculable item were observed. These will be described first . Through the entire enalysis presented in this section, it must be remembered that the results describe only campgrounds at lake Shelbyville operated by the Corps of Engineers. No data was available from those operated by either the State of Illinois or private concerns at the lake . lbdes of Trensportation Used by lake Shelbyville Campers Table 10 indicates the types of vehicles used by campers to get to lake Shelbyville. This could have value in plemning the size of additional parking lots end length of camping pads at the lake. 62 Table 10 Nbdes of TrenspOrtation Used by lake Shelbyville Campers , All Cenpggrournds Combined 7, of 7, of ‘70 of Vehicle Total Trips Total Trips Total Trips Tm 1977 1978 2-year Average Autombile 45 . 77.. 44. 0‘70 44 . 97o Picloip truckl 36.97. 34.97. 35.87. Ven 4. 770 4.27., 4.570 Mntor home2 11.17. 14.87.. 12.97. Parties using more then one made of 1.67., 2.17.. 1.970 trensportation Total 100.07. 100 .07., 100. 070 1Includes all models end sizes. 2Includes full-size end mini-homes as well as buses converted into end used as recreational vehicles . 63 Fluctuations between 1977 end 1978 are rather small indicating a relatively stable proportion of motor vehicles by type used by lake Shelbyville cerpers. Although not performed, enalysis of vehicle use in particular campgrounds could indicate significent fluctuations between 1977 end 1978. The proportion of cemping parties using more then one mode of trensportation is sliglntly misleading. Camping parties are required to indicate only one vehicle license number , the item principally used to determine the mode of trensportation in this study. As a result, more then one vehicle might be used by a party but only one would be recorded. Based on the enthor's experience at the lake, it is felt that a significently higher proportion of camping parties utilize more then one vehicle during their camping trips then that indicated in Table 10. Of the greatest significence are those parties who tow a boat end trailer to the cempgrounds with en additional vehicle which does not appear on the Cenping Registration Card. This could also have en effect on the estimate of travel cost per trip that will be developed later in this chapter. ' Overnight Camping Shelters Used by lake Shelbyville Campers Table 11 indicates the proportion of camping shelter types used by lake Shelbyville cenpers during 1977 end 1978. As shown in the table, use of tents has increased while use of trailers has declined. This could indicate a trend away from the need for highly developed, sophisticated facilities required by self—contained cerping units. It is also possible that some former trailer users have simply switched to motor hone use as indicated by the motor home increase shown on the 64 .Table’ll mannight Camping Shelters Used “by ‘ lake Shelbyville CamperS, 'All Wounds Carbine? %of %of %of Vehicle Total Trips Total Trips Tbtal Trips 322g '19]? t. ' l978r~ f “2;year‘Average Tent 23.6% 30.3% 27.T% Pidkup truck with camper Shell 17.0% 15.7% 16.3% Trailer 35.0% 29.6% 32.3% van. 4.2% 3.9% 4.0% Motor home 11.0% 14.3% 12.6% Parties using more than.one type of 9.2% 6.0% 7.7% overnight Shelter Total 100.0% ‘100.0% 100.0% 65 table. There are other possible causes for the shift in tent use at the lake. Due to increases in gasoline prices end motel/hotel/res— taurant costs, it may be asserted that people are electing to recreate closer to home. If this is the case, people may, in increasing numbers, be turning to camping as a less expensive method of satisfying the need to "get away for the weekend" then spending a weekend in, for example, New York City. These first—time cenpers could well be choosing to purchase tents to initiate themselves to cenping rather then investing in more expensive ceming equipment such as trailers. Experienced campers could also be reacting to increasing gasoline costs by switch- ing from trailers to tents . It is certainly much less expensive to operate a vehicle carrying a tent then the same vehicle towing a trailer. New cemsites constructed closer to cenpers' residences catering to trailers could be attracting trailer cenpers before they reach lake Shelbyville. Perhaps further investigation cen reveal other causes for the increase in tent cerping at the lake. Visits Per Thousend Population With this section begins the determination of information necessary to construct camping demand curves using the travel cost method. The first component is the number of visits per thousend population from each zone. Since trip cost will be computed per party per zone, a "visit" will consist of a ceming trip by a party, not an individual. Thus, the nunber of sampled Cenping Registration Cards observed in each zone represents the number of visits from that zone.1 1It was extrerely time-consuming to sort Geming Registration Cards by zone. To assist in future card sorting, a list of campers' residences observed while compiling the data end the corresponding 66 This must be expended to the total Ceming Registration Card population, i.e. the total mnber issued at all campgrounds in a given year, to estimate the total number of visits from each zone during en entire year. Dividing this figure by the total "people" population, in thousends, fromn each zone, as determined in a previols section, yields the nunber of cenping trips by camping parties per thousend population. This has been done in Tables 12 end 13 for 1977 end 1978 respectively. Trip Cost Calculations The second item of information required to construct the demand curves is the cost per cerping trip per party. There are four compo- nents of the total cost of a camping trip that have been previously described algebraically as T= (§+c) M+dL+ePL+fPL. The first, end most complex, of these is the travel cost component, i.e. ( g + c) M. Travel Cost Calculations The first component of the travel cost is the gasoline cost in dollars per gallon, i.e. "a" in the above algebraic expression. This was determined from personal records of the author end information provided by the Americen Autonobile Association. These costs are expressed in Table 14. The second is the miles per gallon rating of the vehicle used to make the trip, i.e. "b" in the above expression. This was par— ticularly difficlut to measure dnne to the wide variation in types of vehicles used for camping trips end the corresponding variation in ‘ their (miles per gallon ratings. Table 10 indicates the vehicle types zone is provided inAppendix VI. 67 Bassoon 83338 3m Nam. NH .em a snow .‘ uoz uoz 993 do noes" N2 Name a a me some; 3.} mafia Now a no make 3.3 None NS m. me. Name in; N33 .e.: a so meow mam ~33 Nam m 2 Sam Sam mama .E .e. 93 mam one Nears .R H Seooasaoe n @8255 . meow room u Sponge x Anson. mo .e flow smooofi 88 room mo some some, 38 H38. 29% an more see some, seepage H88. mo Host—oz Roe .. odaoaflosm 93 so Seooasooe saga Hoe Bag mamas NH floss 68 pémumo magnum or: mmo 1: NH uoz uoz H.o e.oao.m mom mmo.ea Na m.o m.mNe.m omw.~ mNo.eH Noe o.o o.aee.~ Neo.a mNo.eH one o.N «.mmo Hoe.a mmo.oa Nae e.a m.aom Hmm.m muo.oH New e.Ha a.m~m Hme.m mNo.oH omw o.oa o.mm eom mNo.eH ea Sausage n @5395 o 88 room u Sausage x 388. mo 6 .e.... 8%.... is... i. e... 355...... ween - oaaeowoaoom ores so engage poomsofi. Mom 33.3 g ma p.58. nmwwn 69 dogma» no.3 New pom popes? mos pump @33me men mo Now umfiu uncommon mg no .oé .powo mp3 ofiaoomw popmmdaa one 533on 5953 among no .383 o me. .88 masons some essaflaam 93 mafia? ooHoEoo measure .3 oooo ea geommw mo mpouw Ho mob pug oQEHmuop ou oaawmmoo poo mun “Hm ES .N 32. to towards .wfiodfl .8noo Seooaooose mongoose endorse. of 5.? 833.8360 economic”. o 5 pofimuno mug? gum pmumfiummm . 83mm Hoe ocean moose/m ooh. moo mo coflooflou ouogoo 35$ m on. on flow ohm mucosa women 6on 93 on mg :08 mg mama map Home pagoda gaommw moo umooa no some memo—Foo oHHEnHmnm meme wo magmas o amp ooomaooo me “a mafia some some mafia mono ofiefiaofi 93 our 5 meme p.53 mommsohi moose mo Noe easing dine—noose agape ES m3 How 99.3% man he. peer mphooou mmfiofii gaomow so venom.” Show 898 ........................ memoir. £58 £98 ........................ «8338 898 $98. Manda memos. 398 Room Humanism a Manse. elem mole a male 9:398 no moose oaofia an 8:8 use mHmHHoa 5 Q5330 mo umoo owonmeé 1; manna. 70 used by lake Shelbyville campers. The distribution of vehicle types within each travel zone was then determined. Th U.S. Environmmtal Protection agency has published the miles per gallon ratings of new automobiles, vans and pickup trucks constructed each year begimu'ng in 1975.1 Neither the make nor model year of a vehicle can, however, be determined from the Camping Registration Cards. To obtain some estimate of average miles per gallon (MPG) for each vehicle type, the average MPG was determu’ned for all models of American— made automobiles (sedand and station wagons combined), pickup trucks and vans in each model year from 1975 through 1978. American-made vehicles were chosen for, in the author's estimation, they comprise a vast majority of the vehicles used by lake Shelbyville campers. No MPG ratings were available for vehicles constructed prior to 1975. A detailed summary of the average MPG rating for vehicle types from 1975 through 1978 and an explanation of size classifications is included in Appendix VII. There is some variation between the average MPG for vehicles constructed in different model years. The distribution of campers' vehicles by model year cannot be determined from existing data. To reach a more accurate average, the following distribution estimate was made: For 1977 overall average MPG for each vehicle type, add 407.. of 1975 average MPG + 307,0 of 1976 average MPG + 20% of 1977 average MPG + 10% of 1978 averageMPG 1U.S. , Mrormltal Protection Agency, Federal Energy Adminis— tration, 1975 Gas Mileage Guide for New Car Buyers, 2nd Edition, Revised J 1975. I975; U.S. , Envirormrental Protection Agency, Federal Energy fiistratmn, 1976 Gas Mileage Guide for New Car Buyers, September, 1975; U.S. , Enviromantal Protection Agency, Federal Energy Adminis- tration, 1977 Gas Mileage Guide, Second Edition, January, 1977. 1977; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, 1978 Gas Mileage Guide, Second Edition, February, 1978. 1978; U. S. Env1ron— mantal Protection Agency, Department of Energy, 1979 Gas Mileage Guide, Second Edition, January, 1979. 1979. 71 For 1978 overall average MPG for each vehicle type, add 207.. of 1975 average MPG + 307.. Of 1976 average MPG + 2570 of 1977 average MPG + 207.. of 1978 average MPG + 57.. of 1979 average MPG. The above will yield the average MPG for automobiles , pickup trucks and vans. It does not, however, indicate either the effects on average MPG of towing a trailer or the average MPG of motor homes. These were obtained from other sources . Based on the personal records 1 and U . S . Ehvirommtal Protection Agency infor- of a long-time camper nation,2 it was estimated that towing a trailer reduces a vehicle's average MPG rating by approximately 45%. The details of this calcu- lation have been included in Appendix VII. An estimate of average motor home was obtained from the Michigan Association of Recreational Vehicles and Campgroxmds . 3 The average MPG for each vehicle type as used in this study is shown in Table 15. The third portion of information required to calculate travel cost is the average ”wear and tear" cost per mile of vehicle operation, i.e. "c" in the above expression. This was estimated from a study per- formed by the U.S. Department of Transportation.4 This study estimated average costs of coming and operating standard, compact and sub-compact sizes of 1976 model automobiles. No types of costs were extracted lPersonal letter to the author from Don Edgar , Outdoor Writer , on July 3 , 1979. 2U.S. E‘nviromrmtal Protection Agency, 1975 Gas Mileage Guide. 3Te1ep1'me interview on July 2, 1979, with Dave Pickering, Michigan Association of Recreational Vehicles and Campgrommds . 40.8. , Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Adminis- tration, Office of Mglmay Flemming, Highway Statistics Division, Vehicles, Drivers, and Fuels Branch, "Cost of mung and Operating an Automobile 1976," by L.L. Liston and C.A. Aiken, 1976. pp. 13-15. 72 Table 15 Average Miles Per Gallon Rating of lake Shelbyville Camping Vehicles Vehicle Average Miles Per Gallon EXE— _1_9fl .1173: Automobiles, All Typesl 17.1 17.7 Automobiles Towing Trailers"!2 9 . 2 9 .4 Standard Pickup Trucks3 16.0 16.3 Standard Pickup Trucks Towing Trailers 8.8 9.0 Small Pickup Trucks 24.6 25.4 Vans 16.7 16.8 Motor Homes, All Iypes“ 9.5 9.5 1Includes both sedans and station wagons. 2Includes all sedans and station wagons except those classified as mini-compact and sub-compact. It was felt that these were too small to be reasonably expected to tow a trailer. 3Excludes small , a-ton rated pickup trucks . No separate figure was obtained to adjust MPG for pickup trucks carrying camper shells. 4Inc1udes both standard size and mini-hams. 73 from this study - repair and maintenance costs and tire replacement costs. It was felt that these types of costs would be incurred dining a camping trip. The average of these costs for all three vehicle types was found to be $0.0349 per mile for 1976. Since this cost was calculated only for automobiles and was determined in 1976, applying it "as is" to lake Shelbyville camping vehicles during 1977 and 1978 could be inaccurate. In an attempt to adjust for both inflation and expected higher "wear and tear" cost for sophisticated camping vehicles, 10% was added each year to the cost determined in 1876. Values of "c" becare, then, $0.0384 per mile during 1977 and $0.0423 per mile during 1978. The final item is the mileage from each zone to lake Shelbyville, i.e. "M" in the expression. Based on estimated driving time and vehicle miles per hour, values of "M" were determined for each zone. These are shown in Table 16. Table 16 Estimated Driving Distance fran Travel Zones to lake Shelbyville Estimated Average Estimated Estimated Average Round-Trip Driving Time Average Speed Round-Trip Distance _Zone; (Hours) (Miles Per Hour) (Miles) 1 0.50 44 22.0 2 1.50 44 66.0 3 2.50 47 117 .5 4 3.50 47 164.5 5 4.50 50 225 .0 6 5.50 50 275 .0 7 6.50 53 344.5 74 Combining all these factors, i.e. a, b, c and M, with the dis- tribution of camping vehicles observed from each zone yields an average travel costperpartypertrip fromeachzone. This is summarizedin Table 17. (xi-site (User Fee) Cost Calculations The second compment of the trip cost equation is the cost con- tributed by user fees, i.e. dL in the equatim. The factor "d" repre- sents the average user fee cost in dollars per party per day camped in the destination campground. This can be determined from Table 8. Since no data for this value was determined for 1977, the 1978 value will be used for both 1977 and 1978. The average value of "d" for all campgromds, i.e. the average value of E:- for 1978 from Table 8, is 2.43 dollars per party per day. This will be assumed constant for each zone and, possibly, introduce a bias into the results. The next step is to determine the value of "L", the total length of stay of the camping party in days per trip. As discussed previously, it is crucial that this value be constant , or approximately so, in each zone. Values of "L" from each zone and year were derived from sampled Camping Registraticn Cards and are shown in Table 18. As can be seen from Table 18, the average length of stay varies little with the exception of Zones 1 and 7. These extreme values are probably due to a relatively small number of trips observed from these zones. For purposes of this study, the average length of stay can be considered constant for each zone within each year. The average values of "L" will be used for computation of dl., i.e. 3.66 for 1977 and 3.62 for 1978. The values of dL, then, that will be used are 8.89 for 1977 and 8.80 for 1978. 75 Table 17 Average Travel Cost in Dollars Per Camping Tripl Zme 19_71 fl 1 $2.39 $2.52 2 6.65 7.00 3 11.11 11.94 4 15.78 17.03 5 21.17 22.68 6 25.19 26.53 7 38.79 34.422 1These are values of (g + c M in the trip cost equation. table shows an mexpected decrease in Zone 7 trip cost from 1977 to 1978. This is due to the small sample size from this zone. Campers with RV' 3 (motor homes and trailers) were predominantly obser- ved in the 1977 sample; those with tents were observed in 1978. The operational and, therefore , trip cost of an RV is considerably higher than an automobile utilized by tent campers . 76 Table 18 Averagg length of Stay in Days Per Trip as .1211 19.7.2.3. 1 5.40 4.37 2 3.69 3.43 3 3.66 3.78 4 3.28 3.13 5 3.46 3.61 6 3.32 3.76 7 4.00 4.00 Average 3.66 3.62 Food and Miscellaneous Costs The third cmponent of the trip cost equation is food aid miscel— 1a1eous costs, i.e. ”ePL" in the expression. The major source of values of "e", the average food aid micsellaieous cost in dollars per person per day, was a carping cost study performed for the Woodall Publishing Compaiy in 1978 by Viewpoint Incorporated, a Chicago-based survey firm.1 Although the Woodall Study did not include data from tent campers , it is assured that values derived here will apply to tent campers also. The Woodall Study provides average values, in dollars per party per day, for two categories pertaining to this section. These cate— gories are "Groceries, Health Aids, aid Sundries" and "Sundries, Film, 1Wooda11's Reader Profile Study, (Highlaid Park, Illinois: Woodall Publislfing Compaiy) . September , 19 78 . 77 and 1Vfi.sc:e11a'1eous."1 The values indicated in the study are $17.60 aid $10.94 respectively, $28.54 total. Since average party size was not indicated in the portion of the Woodall Study received by the author , it will be assured that the value derived in Table 6 of this study will accurately reflect the average pau'ty size, i.e. 3.68 persons per party. Dividing the above value, i.e. $28.54, by 3.86, the average party size, yields "e", the average food aid miscellaneous cost per person per day. This value is $7.73 and will be used for both 1977 aid 1978. The next component is P, the average party size observed from each year's sampled Camping Registration Cards. These values are slam in Table 19. The averages for each year, i.e. 3.75 and 3.66, Table 19 Averagg Camping Party Size _de 1211 127.8. 1 3.80 4.22 2 3.80 3.54 3 4.05 3.80 4 3.50 3.64 5 3.73 3.46 6 3.56 3.72 7 3.17 3.68 Average 3.75 3.66 1The Woodall Study also included a value for refreshments aid restaurant meals . As the length of stay is relatively short at lake Shelbyville and restaurait facilities in the area are limited, it was felt that lake Shelbyville campers wcmld not use restaurants extensively if at all. As a result, this was not included in the calculations. 78 will be used in calculations for 1977 and 1978 respectively. The values of 'T.", as determined from a previous section, are 3.66 and 3.62 for 1977 ad 1978 respectively. Combining these factors yields the values of "ePL". These are $106.37 and $103.24 for 1977 aid 1978 respectively and will be assured constait for all zones. Entertainment Costs The final component of the trip cost equation is the average entertairmrent cost per party per trip, i.e. "fPL" in the equation. The average entertainment cost in dollars per person per day, i.e. "f" in the expression, was also determined from the Woodall Study. Fol- lowing the analysis presented in the preceeding section, "E" was deter- mined to be $3.78. Combining this with the previously determined values of "P" aid "L", the values of "fPL" cam be determined as $51.88 aid $50.53 for 1977 aid 1978 respectively aid will be assured constant for all zones. A brief clarification of this cost is in order. At first glaice, there would appear to be few "entertainment sources" in the area sur- rounding lake Shelbyville. Although not clarified in the Woodall Study, it will be assured that "entertainment costs" at lake Shelbyville could include such items as golf course fees , boat rental fees , motor rental fees , horseback riding fees and purchases of fishing bait. Total Trip Cost The values of T, average total trip cost, can now be determined for each zone. Table 20 reflects these values for 1977, Table 21 for 1978 . These values complete the information required to construct the demand curves. Considerable time aid effort was spent determining these trip 79 Table 20 Total Camping_Trip Cost Per Party - 1977 _29n_g 8 + c M + _a._ + ePL + _fPL__ = (Total grip Cost) 1 $2.39 $8.89 $106.37 $51.88 $169.53 2 6.65 8.89 106.37 51.88 173.79 3 11.11 8.89 106.37 51.88 178.25 4 15.78 8.89 106.37 51.88 182.92 5 21.17 8.89 106.37 51.88 188.31 6 25.19 8.89 106.37 51.88 192.33 7 38.79 8.89 106.37 51.88 205.93 Table 21 Total Camping Trip Cost Per Party - 1978 Zone 8+ c M + _gL_ + _;eP_L__ + _f_P_L_ = (Total Trip Cost) 1 $2.52 $8.80 $103.24 $50.63 $164.92 2 7.00 8.80 103.24 50.63 169.40 3 11.94 8.80 103.24 50.63 174.34 4 17.03 8.80 103.24 50.63 179.43 5 22.68 8.80 103.24 50.63 185.08 6 26.53 8.80 103.24 50.63 188.93 7 34.42 8.80 103.24 50.63 196.82 80 cost values. Evm with this, all potential sources of information were not tapped. In addition, due to various assumptions made above, the accuracy of the values is certainly open to question. To aid others who may wish to develop similar costs, a list of potential information sources discovered by the author in the course of this study are included in Appendix VII. Demand for the Total Recreation Experience The demand curves for the total recreation experience at lake Shelbyville car now be constructed for each year. This is done by plotting cost per trip vs. visits per thousand population. Figures 9 and 10 show these curves for 1977 and 1978 respectively. Demand for the Camping Recreation Resource The next step is to determine the effect on camping trips experienced at lake Shelbyville by imposing hypothetical price inc- reases on the cost per trip. The result of these increases is shown graphically in Figures 11 aid 12 for 1977 ad 1978 respectively. To facilitate interpretation of these curves , it can be said that inc- reasing the current nightly fee charged by $1.00 per night will inc- rease the average trip cost by approximately $2.66. The corresponding reduction in the nurber of carping trips might then be expected. The area under these recreation resource demand curves rep- resents the total consumer surplus benefits derived by campers visit- ing lake Shelbyville. This is estimated to be approximately $112,000 for 1977 and $82,500 for 1978. Dividing this by the total nurber of visits experienced during each year (16,000 in 1977 aid 14,500 in 1978) will yield the surplus benefit obtained by each carping party. This calculation results in a value of $7.00 per party per trip in 1977 81 RS - nominee 80888 dance of you came a seam Spam 889a use flame, fl 2 ooz 061 081 021 091 dui 13d 8191100 2:800 OIZ 82 £2 .. defines 80808 Hence ofi you eases 0H madman gflmasaom pummsofi. Hum flame“ TL 9 0 m S 3. I .. m m. I m m a 0 1 a mm. TL 6 0 7w m 7y I O 83 R3 1 398mm 8338mm MEGS man How pg d onE 8896.5 scene, no. noes—oz S ‘72 81 Z1 9 (8191100) - 3181A 19d 180;) 139va OS 9E 84 ON mug . mouoommm 838.8% mango man How 9.589 NH semen 88895 Bane, no scene 3 S 9 2'1 81 ‘72 mum - 118111 18.1 1800 pappv OS 85 ad $5.69 per party per trip in 1978. In other words, each camping party in 1977 obtained an average of $7.00 worth of benefits for which they did not pay during each trip; each party in 1978 gained only $5.69 worth of benefits. A Shift in the Demand Curve By comparing Figures 11 ad 12, the demand curves for the carp- ing recreation resource at lake Shelbyville, it ca1 be seen that the demand has decreased from 1977 to 1978, i.e. the cmrve has shifted domward to the left. This does r_1c_)t_:_rrean that consumption, i.e. visi- tation, will necessarily decrease also; it means simply that fewer trips will be made at a given price, or cost, per trip. There are many possible reasons for the shift. Part of the answer could be found in the prices of both carplimentary aid sub- stitute products aid services. An increase in the prices of compli- mentary products such as gasoline, camping equipment aid recreational vehicles could increase the price of a carping trip aid cause such a shift . Increased availability of recreation areas and facilities closer to the campers' residences could, in effect, cause the price of a camping trip to lake Shelbyville to become relatively higher , leading to substitution aid its effects. Inflation aid its relation to avail- able disposable income could also cause this type of shift. It is clear that camping visitation at lake Shelbyville is not declining. It is, in fact, increasing in spite of the observed decrease in darand. What could, perhaps, actually be happening is that persons in zones close to the lake are substituting a carping trip to the lake for some other recreation experience. In other words , to some people, a carping trip to lake Shelbyville may, due to price changes in 86 other products and services , now be less expensive relative to these other products aid services. This hypothesis can be partially verified by observine the changes in visits per thousand population betwee1 1977 aid 1978 from Zones 2 and 3 in Tables 12 aid 13. Visits per thousaid have increased substantially in both these zones, particularly in Zone 2. This is not conclusive evideice by my means since the visits per thousaid for the same period declined for Zone 1, that nearest the lake. This appare‘lt inconsistaicy could, however, be due to the small sample size in this zone. It would be useful to observe shifts of the camping resource demand curve in qume years and attempt to determine causes of the shift. Reduction in Cost Per Trip What is the effect of reducing cost per trip? This can be thought of as essentially reducing the nightly user fee for carping. The effect of cost reduction on number of visits was calculated aid then expressed in graphic form in Figures 13 aid 14 for 1977 ad 1978 respectively. The range of cost reduction, i.e. from $0.00 to $9.00, is roughly equvalent to reducing the nightly user fee charged at lake Shelbyville from its current level per trip to zero. An inspection of these curves indicates that if user fees , or any other aspect of total trip cost, were reduced by $9.00 per trip, total visits to Corps of Engineers campgrounds at lake Shelbyville would increase to approximately 64. 000 per year. The average length of stay per visit during, for example, 1978 is 3.62 days. The product of these two items (3.62 days per visit X 64,000 visits per year) equals approximately 232,000 days campsites wmfld be occupied during 87 bp R3 - Endgame 88 one no 368mm 3 shaman AmocmmSQFv 38.3 mo .3952 pm or» an ON 0H 6 L 8 E ‘7 S 9 Z 1 8181100 - c1111 19:1 190.) or; 11013011933 0 88 on 00 £2 - Saddam 8.8 one no woodman S chase A8886 Bang .8 scene on 8 on ON 0.... 6 8 L 9 S {7 1 Z S 8191100 - dI-IJ. 13d 3800 U1 1101301113321 0 89 a year ("carpsite days") if the user fee, for example, were reduced to zero. Before proceeding frather, it will be apparent to some that the common error of equating consumption with demand is about to occra. The figure 64,000 actually represents the nurber of camping trips all parties would desire to take if total trip cost were reduced by $9.00 per trip, i.e. m for carping at this reduced cost (price). As the discussion continues, it will become evident that expecting any semblance of this consurption level implied by the crave (232,000 campsite days per year) is unrealistic as it would exceed the supply limrits. Fran this it may be inferred that this level of demand is too high also. There were 742 carpsites available at Corps of Engineers camp- grormds at lake Shelbyville draing the 1978 carping season. The carp- ing season extends from approximately March 15 through Noverber 15 , or 244 days. Assuming that every campsite was available during that period - and this is a generous assurption since three of the camp- grounds are not open that longeachyear - there are onlyamaximun umber of 181,000 (742 campsites X 244 days) campsite days available each year. This is clearly less than that predicted by the crave. Those wishing to defend the curve' 3 validity in predicting con- sumption could perhaps argue that if trip cost were thus reduced, the lake would be inundated with people desiring to camp regardless of the mmber of available sites . In other words , overflow conditions would constantly exist. Based on the author's six years of observing carping use at the lake , overflow conditions have existed only irreg- ularly, occurring most frequently on trace-day holiday weekends draing 90 the srnmer months. Draing 1972, when no user fees were charged, over- flow conditions did occra more frequently. At that time, however, fewer campsites were available which would certainly have contributed to the overflow conditions . The most valid conclusion to be derived from these craves appears to be that the decision to take a camping trip, i.e. the demand for camping, does not depend solely upon price, or cost, of the trip. CHAPTERV SUlVMARY, WRITERRESEARCHAI‘DRECXI’I‘TENDATIG‘IS The overall goal of this study has been to demonstrate addi- tional uses of existing data soraces . The soraces investigated here have been user fee and carping registration records from lake Shelbyville, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers multiple prapose reser- voir located near the City of Shelbyville in Central Illinois. It is felt that this goal las been met. Based on information contained on User Permrits , a nurber of relationships were developed. These included the average party size, tlne average length of stay and average amount of user fee paid per User Permit . These were frather subdivided into values indication use by senior citizens and full-price visitors. An additional value , the number of recreation days experienced per user fee dollar collected, was also developed for each carpground. These values can also be used to calculate camping visitation in lake Shelbyville campgrounds draing some specified time period. Analysis of the above information indicates that use, i.e. recreation days spent camping, of lake Shelbyville campgrormds has increased steadily from 1974 to 1978. Use by each type of visitor - 91 92 senior citizen and full-price - has also increased. Although it was determined that use by full-price visitors has increased at a faster rate, use by senior citizens still comprises a sizeable portion of total camping visitation (13%) . If this percentage should increase in the futrae, it may be appropriate to begin planning services desired by senior citizens. While not an immediate necessity, this may become of greater importance as persons born draing the post-World War II "baby boom" approach age 62. Planning now could aid futrae campground users. The trends required to aid planning can be observed by monitoring information from User Permits . Although use in terms of recreation days is lower than for full-price visitors , the proportion of total user fee monnies con- tributed by senior citizens has steadily increased from 1974 to 1978. This is attributed to the steadily increasing length of stay observed for senior citizen parties; that of full—price visitors has not varied significantly. Thus, in termns of camping E21529; rather than indi- vidual visitors , it can be said that use in terms of campsite occu- pancy by senior citizen parties has been increasing at a faster rate than that of full-price parties. Without changes in price or use patterns , the rate of total user fee revenue increase should continue to decline. Information contained on Camping Registration Cards was also analyzed . It was deth that automobile and pickup trucks comprise the most cannon types of vehicles utilized by lake Shelbyville campers (approximately 807.. of all trips). Use of tents and motor homes have both increased from 1977 to 1978 although trailer use declined for the same period. While some minor changes have occrared, there is no 93 distinct trend either toward or away from increased use of more fuel- efficient vehicles by lake Shelbyville campers . Camping Registration Card information was also utilized to construct demand craves for carping for both 1977 and 1978 following the travel cost method. Detailed trip costs were developed for lake Shelbyville campers as part of the information required for crave con- struction. A dowrmrd shift in the demand crave was observed between 1977 and 1978. This was reflected by the decline of the average con- surer surplus benefit per camping trip from $7.00 in 1977 to $5.69 in 1978. Frather Research It is apparent that the analyses presented here do not fully exhaust the potential uses of the data contained on these formns. Additiornal questions were also raised in previous chapters . Some potential frather investigations are listed below. 1. The above analyses of User Permnit data could be applied to individual campgrounds and months to describe seasonal trends . 2. That is the reasonn for the apparent attractionn of B0 Wood and Coon Creek Recreation Areas to Golden Age campers? 3. The same analyses applied to User Permits in this study could be applied to User Permrits from other Corps of Engineers projects; those from years not sampled at lake Shelbyville could be analyzed to confirm or deny the results of this study. 4. unat is the reasorn for the increase over time in the average length of stay by Golden Age camping groups? 5 . For what reasons do camping groups renew their User Permits rather than paying for their entire trip when first arriving? 94 6. Do parties desire to carp with friends at adjoining sites? Does the lack of ”buddy sites" at lake Shelbyville play a part in campgrournd or campsite selection? 7. The carpsite nurber of the site selected and utilized by each camping party is listed on each Camping Registration Card. Determining which sites are used most frequently and why could indicate site-type popularity and aid in futrae campsite design and planning. 8. Based upon the arrival date on the Camping Registration Card, use patterns with respect to campground, month and even day of the week can be established. Coupling this with the departrae date could provide an occupancy rate profile of each day draing each year at each carpground - even at each campsite if carried to extreme. Periods of peaking and the amount of use associated with them could also be identified quite specifically. 9. By expanding the sarple size of Camping Registration Cards fromn each campground and refining trip cost calculations to being campground—specific, individual campground demand craves can be established. 10. It was observed on some Camping Registration Cards that some camping parties changed campsites within a campground as often as three times draing a particular trip. Discovering the reasons for this could aid in carpground design. 11. By determining from Camping Registration Cards the amount of use per year, i.e. the number of recreation days experienced, at each carpsite could aid in identifying and preventing both overuse at and damage to specific campsites . 12 . Wren used in conjunction with additiornal surveys , the data 95 on the form could aid in describing the effect of increasing gaso- line prices on carping at lake Shelbyville. Recommendations It is clear that the value of the forms as they crarently exist is great. In the corase of this strde it was often difficult to assimilate and correlate the information contained on the forms. This is, to a great extent, due to the format and the information requested, or not requested, on each. Analysis could also have been greatly speeded and more complete had the data been computerized. Wtat will be suggested below is a possible method of alleviating nanny of these problems and at the sare time increasing the value of the data. There are three criteria to be met when developing a new Camp- ing Registratiorn Form. These are: 1. Combine the User Permit and Camping Registratiorn Card into one forrrn. 2. Inncrease and improve the information requested on the form. 3 . Record the information in a format that can be readily analyzed by computer. A rrethod incorporating these criteria is crarently in use by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.1 Under this system, only one form is used for carping registration and paying user fees. A sample copy of the form is shown in Figrae 15. The form consists of three parts - an original and two copies. The original serves as the camper's receipt, the first copy is retained by 1Information regarding the method was provided in August 1979 by Wayne G. Blanchard, Graduate Student in the Department of Park and Recreation Resoraces at Michigan State Urniversity and a former erployee of the New York Department of Environmental Conservation. 96 panama wag Sansone—8 Hgggg mo phenomena oomum Vic» 3oz anamfi =23.— cariau .. 13335303488»?! F mormoo l_ g‘s’igh .gasgig :¢!8§i.r!s£§fld.g ‘itsgiiglggig E 58) 2:3!) : 55g >u_§ at g .ihgigw58§¢.!§»§sg §§g8.:: §g§§§>l§1§3 mum2