» ) 71-31,326 TUCKER, Thomas L . , 1945THE 1980 SUPPLY OF OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITIES IN MICHIGAN. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1971 Agriculture, forest recreation University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan THE 1980 SUPPLY OF OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITIES IN MICHIGAN by Thomas L. Tucker A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Forestry 1971 PLEASE MOTE: Some pages have indistinct print. Filmed as received. UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS. ABSTRACT THE 1980 SUPPLY OF OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITIES IN MICHIGAN , * by Thomas L . Tucker The growing popularity of outdoor recreation activities has caused a deepening concern amoung public agencies responsible for providing outdoor recreation facilities for use by the general public. This concern principally surrounds the increasing pressure on existing recreation developments from both local users and users who travel considerable distances to reach prime recreation areas. The North Central Region— ^ not only contains a large' population of actual and potential intraregional recreationists, but also prime forest and water resources. The homogenous regional population and environment plus the expanding demands placed on public lands and public recreation facilities points to a greater need for co-ordinating efforts to supply recreation facilities by public agencies within the region. Using Michigan as a representative state, the objective of this study was to construct an outdoor recreation supply model that would allow for the development of recreation facility supply projections and the examination of these projections in the light of their implications for the welfare of the public. In developing the model, driving and sightseeing, picnicking, hunting, fishing, and camping were identified as the major recreation activities undertaken on forest land. The supply model deals with the inventory, production and consumption of these activities. THOMAS L. TUCKER Inventory data were obtained from the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation's national survey of 1964 and a subsequent update conducted by Michigan ) i State University for 1968. Existing public agency development plans provided projections to 1975. The data for 1964, 1968, and 1975 were used to estimate the supply of recreation facilities that will be avail­ able by 1980. Budget records, and financial- and engineering reports on recrea­ tion facility construction expenditures were used to document the costs of physically providing recreation facilities. Travel expenditure reports and equipment price lists were used to obtain the costs the consumer must bear to utilize a recreation facility. The results of the study show a large expansion in camping facilities since 1964, the majority of which are designed for recreation vehicle equipment. A shift in emphasis from rural to near urban campground develop­ ment was also observed. urban dwellers. The latter appears to show a rising concern for The numbers of fishermen and archery deer hunters are rising steadily, while the number of gun deer and small game hunters show signs of stabilizing. The supply efforts of public agencies affect two groups of people— those currently consuming outdoor recreation activities and those not due to income constraints or lack of desire. The conclusions drawn from this study affect both groups and point in four directions. First, current supply practices inefficiently allocate public funds in the building and maintenance of camping facilities. The main cause is due to the habit of supplying agencies to look at all the different facilities on a developed site as a single unit of supply. Second, agencies are misdirected in THOMAS L. TUCKER their efforts to make recreation opportunities available to inner-city dwellers by moving recreation developments closer to the city center. ) This is mainly due to the lack of regard for the urban dweller's taste and most important the lack of recognition of the costs involved in acquiring the equipment necessary to utilize the facilities. Third, there is no evaluation of the alternative uses of public funds now being spent on recreation sites used extensively by non-residents of Michigan. Fourth, on a day use basis the costs of user fees and licenses paid by the average camper, hunter, and fisherman is greater than the cost incurred by the agencies to supply the facilities and services utilized by these recreation­ ists. However, the agency cost is exclusive of administrative costs of the head office personnel in the departmental headquarters. were included the agency's costs would be higher. If these costs Conclusion four should be evaluated in this light. 1/ The North Central Region includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin and Kentucky. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is indebted to the members of his Guidance Committee, especially Dr. Robert S. Manthy (Chairman), for their advice, guidance, encouragement and help in the preparation, reviewing, editing and completion of this manuscript. The assistance and co-operation of the Forestry Departments of the University of Minnesota, University of Wisconsin, and the University of Missouri, all contributors to the regional project of which this study is apart, are also acknowledged. The author extends his gratitude to Michigan State University and the Department of Forestry for financial support in the form of a graduate assistantship, and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation which provided much of the data used in this study. He also wishes to give his warmest appreciation to Miss Elizabeth McAuley, Mr. Douglas Ketcheson and Mr. Thomas Mills for their help in reviewing and editing this paper. Finally he would like to express special thanks to God who provided strength and fortitude making this report possible. ii CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............................................ ii J C O N T E N T S ................................................... iii LIST OF T A B L E S ............................................ v LIST OF F I G U R E S ............................................ vii LIST OF A P P E N D I C E S ........................................ viii I N T R O D U C T I O N .......................................... Scope of M o d e l .......................................... Procedures .............................................. MODEL OF RECREATION S U P P L Y ................................ Nature of The Resource B a s e ........................... Land F e a t u r e s ...................................... Activities Plus Environment ....................... Supply M o d e l .............................................. ' P r o d u c t i o n .......................................... C o n s u m p t i o n ........................................ I n v e n t o r y .......................................... Usefulness of M o d e l .................................... MICHIGAN'S OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITIES 1 4 6 8 8 11 12 13 14 15 18 21 ............... 23 C a m p i n g ......................... I n v e n t o r y .......................................... P r o j e c t i o n s ........................................ Hunting and F i s h i n g .................................... I n v e n t o r y .......................................... P r o j e c t i o n s ........................................ 23 24 28 33 33 38 ECONOMIC SUPPLY AND THE C O N S U M E R ......................... 41 C a m p i n g ................................................ Direct C o s t ........................................ Associate C o s t ...................................... Hunting and F i s h i n g .................................... Direct C o s t ........................................ Associate C o s t ...................................... Price Projections for Camping, Hunting and Fishing . . . 42 42 44 54 54 56 61 CONTENTS gage SUMMARY AND C O N C L U S I O N S .................................... 67 ) S u m m a r y ................................................ . Inventory ofFacilities ............................. Camping . . . . . Hunting andF i s h i n g ........................... S u p p l y ............................................... C a m p i n g ........................................ Hunting andF i s h i n g ........................... C o n c l u s i o n s ............................................ 67 72 72 73 75 75 76 80 LITERATURE C I T E D .......................................... 93 B I B L I O G R A P H Y ............................................... 95 APPENDIX I ................................................. 96 APPENDIX I I ................................................. 100 APPENDIX I I I ....................... 110 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Page Percent of total land acreage in each Bureau J ' of Outdoor Recreation land classification for pub­ lic lands in the North Central Region, 1964 . . . . 10 Land features classified as important by public forest ownerships, in the North Central Region, 1964 ........................................ 11 Michigan public agencies providing recreation facilities, by total acreage and number of campsites, 1964 and1968 ............................. 24 Current and projected numbers of public agency provided campsites in Michigan 1964, 1968 and projected to 1975 and1980 ........................... 31 Acreage acquired by public agencies providing forest-based outdoor recreation in Michigan, 1964 and 1968 34 Number of participants per hundred of population by type of hunting, and fishing in Michigan for 1958 through 1968.. ................................. 36 Population and number of resident licensed hunters and fishermen in Michigan for the years 1958 through 1968 ........................................ 39 Capital improvement and average annual operating expenditures associated with the provision of camping facilities by public agencies in Michigan, 1968 ................................................ 43 User fees charged by the public agencies in Michigan for one night ofcamping, 1968 45 Average cost for the types of recreation vehicle equipment used in modern campgrounds in the United States, 1968... .............................. 48 Associate cost per day for the household camping in Michigan, 1968 51 Total supply cost for one family camper day in Michigan, 1968 ...................................... 53 Direct cost to the agencies providing the hunting and fishing packagesin Michigan, 1968 .............. 57 v LIST OF TABLES Table Page ) 14 15 16 17' 18 19 Associate cost for the participant consuming hunting and fishing packages in Michigan, 1968 ................................................ 59 Total supply cost for one day of participation in hunting and fishingin Michigan, 1968 ............ 60 Construction cost and consumer price index for selected years ...................................... 63 Direct and associate costs in units of cost per family day use for camping, and cost per day use for hunting and fishing in Michigan, 1968 and 1980 ................................................. 64 Direct and associate costs for camping, hunting and fishing package combinations in Michigan, 1968 ................................................ 66 Camping visitations for state park and state forest campgrounds inMichigan, 1968 ................ 110 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page ) 1 Outdoor Recreation Supply M o d e l .................. . 2 Number of State Park campsites in the three regions of Michigan in 1964, 1968, and projected to 1975 ....................... 26 Michigan map showing Region I, II and I I I ......... 27 3 vii 9 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page t I II III Inventory, classification, and evaluation of existing outdoor recreation areas and facilities, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Questionnaire 1964 .............. . . Computer output questionnaires for1968 reinventory . . Camping visitations for state park and state forest campgrounds in Michigan, 1968 ........................... viii 96 100 110 THE 1980 SUPPLY OF OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITIES IN MICHIGAN Chapter 1 > INTRODUCTION Leisure time activities have become increasingly more important over the past several decades in the United States. Households are spending large portions of their leisure time and money in outdoor rec­ reation activities. To find out just how important outdoor recreation was and is likely to become in the United States the President and Congress established the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission in 1958. Reports from the commission predicted that a larger share of public land and capital resources will have to be channeled into recreation if the leisure time needs of our nation's population are to be met. This is particularly true in those states which have a large population along with abundant water and forest resources, to meet their recreation needs. The North Central Region ^ is such an area. It contains over 50 million people or approximately 28 percent of the nation's population and a like percentage of the nation's income (Bureau of the Census, 1968). The major population centers: Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Minneapolis- St. Paul and St. Louis— are located in an east-west band across the center of the region while the prime forest areas are in the northern reaches of the Lake States. If Despite the northern location of the forest The North Central Region includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin and Kentucky. 1 land, many of the recreation visits to non-urban sites within the 2/ region involve interstate travel — . One day's driving time is usually the limiting factor on distance travelled. Therefore much of i the region is reachable from the major population centers. The large number of people, and a similar physical and social environment within the region all point to a rather homogeneous outdoor recreation environment with similar Intraregional problems. Because of these factors there is an apparent need for coordinating the efforts of outdoor recreation suppliers within the individual states and between the states of the region. Federal financing programs, such as those available from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, currently seem to be the only cementing factors coordinating the activities of the states. This study is one of a series undertaken cooperatively by the 3/ major universities — of the region in order to provide data needed for coordinated recreation planning within the region. The central focus of these studies is the public agencies that provide the majority of forestbased outdoor recreation opportunities within the region. The agencies in question are Federal, state, county and local and it is to them, and their problems as outdoor recreation suppliers, that this study is directed. 2/ Based on fragmentary data and discussions with Dr. Robert C. Lucas, Principal Geographer and Project Leader, Recreation Research, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota. 3/ Michigan State University, the Universities of Wisconsin, Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky and Ohio State University. 3 Michigan State University’s principal role in the regional study has been to direct and coordinate studies of current and potential fu­ ture supply of regional outdoor recreation. In the exercjiSe of this responsibility the state of Michigan was used as a representative state for which a supply model could be developed for application to the entire region. This report presents the developed model, as applied to Michigan conditions, and develops the policy implications of the results obtained by use of the model. The specific objective of this study is to develop a supply model of outdoor recreation facilities found on public forested land in Michigan. The purpose of the model is the development of pro­ jections and the examination of the implications of these projections in the light of current and proposed public policy. The model developed is based on two major assumptions. First, it is assumed that a need exists for a better decision method which would allow for more coordinated action and planning procedures that recognize diverse uses of public forest land for recreation. fore for forest-based outdoor recreation. The concern is there­ Forest land comprises the majority of land under public ownership in the region and the majority of current and proposed public outdoor recreation facility development and household participation is on forest land. Forest acreage also comprises the bulk of public land available for future development. Second, it is assumed that public agencies usually supply a unique type of facility not supplied by other agencies. However, it is recognized that the private sector does provide forest-based outdoor recreation and can overcome small deficits in supply not met by the public sector. The model is therefore restricted to a study of forest- based outdoor recreation on publicly owned lands. 4 When using the model to analyze Michigan data four major conclusions were reached. First, it was shown that existing forest) based outdoor recreation facilities on Michigan’s public Jlands are pro­ vided principally for use by middle and high income families. Second, it appears that public agencies are misdirected in their efforts to provide outdoor recreation opportunities to the urban poor not currently consuming the recreation product. Third, a substantial portion of current and planned inventories of state and local government recreation facilities are being provided to non­ residents with little analysis of the resulting welfare implications for Michigan residents. Finally, the user and license fees paid by users of government built facilities exceed the direct cost of building and maintaining these facilities. Scope of Model Forest-based outdoor recreation is defined as a set or package of activities which take place in a forest environment. The model developed in this study expands this definition into theoretical and applied areas of economics with explicit recognition that the recreation facilities publicly provided in Michigan are public goods 4/. The supply model recognizes that public agencies which provide recreation facilities bear only a portion of the cost associated with the supply of these facilities to recreationists. The public agency that provides land and facilities for outdoor recreation users bears the cost of development and Improvement, and operating and maintenance expenditures. 4J Collectively these costs are termed "direct cost" In this study a "public good" is defined as a good produced by a public agency for public consumption but not necessarily a good that once produced is free to all people. 5 throughout this paper. The consumer of publicly owned outdoor recreation facilities also bears a portion of the supply cost. His portion of the total ) supply cost are those costs he must assume in order to consume available recreation opportunities. He must travel to the recreation site and possess equipment necessary to utilize the facilities. The total of the trip and equipment expenditures and user fees are identified as the "associate cost" component of the total supply cost for recreation goods. The model developed is used to estimate the total supply cost by "direct and associate" cost components for five separate packages of recreation activities which take place on forest land. of activities are: and camping. These packages picnicking, driving and sightseeing, hunting, fishing A corresponding set of secondary activities are unique to each of these primary activities. Their nature and importance are discussed in Chapter 2. Any decision model for the planning of a public good should embody some measure of the public's well-being. Since the cost of a public good is sustained in varying proportions by the public agencies through taxes (direct cost) and by the private citizen or the household (associate cost), public well-being may be evaluated by a comparison of the size of the direct cost with respect to the associate cost and the comparison of the minimum and average associate cost for each of the packages, which gives a measure of what portion of the public is being favored and to what extent, thereby giving an index of the welfare of one group as compared to another. Procedures The physical inventory and cost information needed for the development of this model were obtained from a number of sources. The best currently available inventory data are those obtained from the Bureau of Outdoor Recreations survey of public recreation facilities in 1964 — . The information from the BOR 1964 data were used as a base upon which a reinventory was conducted. Personal interviews with individual state, Federal and local agencies supplying outdoor recreation on forest land provided an update of the 1964 survey to 1968, the last full fiscal year for which applicable data were available. Because most agencies have established five year plans for future construction activities, information was obtained at the time of the per­ sonal interview on planned construction programs to 1975. The collected inventory data for 1964 and 1968 and the planned 1975 inventory provided the statistical base for projecting Michigan's public agencys' available inventory of outdoor recreation facilities to 1980. Financial data were also obtained from several sources. The data for direct cost came from interviews with the engineering divisions and financial budget reports of various public agencies. Consumer expenditure data (associate cost) were derived from equipment price lists, travel and trip expenditure studies and other secondary sources. All financial data were projected to 1980 by using the trends found in the national consumer price and construction costindexes. 5/ Unpublished records of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. on magnetic computer tape. Information 7 The physical inventory and financial data collected during the study are used to develop and exercise the supply model. 4 ) Chapter 2 MODEL OF RECREATION SUPPLY Most models or concepts are an expansion of some formal or in­ formal definition that a researcher has formulated about a segment of the real world. In this study the segment of the area of concern is forest-based outdoor recreation, and is defined as a definite set or a definitive package of recreation activities which take place in a forest environment. The above definition is both simple and general, containing social, inventory, and environmental aspects which need explanation. The setting or environment to which this model pertains is forest land. Within this setting are found the social sector within which pro­ duction and consumption activities take place, and the inventory sector which is concerned with the numeration of existing and planned recreation facilities. Production, consumption and inventory of the recreation packages comprise the supply model (Figure 1). Nature of The Resource Base To better understand the environmental make up of forest land it would be beneficial to look at the percentage of acreage found in each of the six Bureau of Outdoor Recreation land classifications for the North Central States (Table 1). Approximately 91 percent of the total acreage in the ownerships of concern fell into the third classification, Natural Environment Areas, another 5.5 percent fell into Primitive Areas. There­ fore over 96 percent of the acreage were lands of attractive natural set­ tings or lands in their natural or wild condition. The ordering of the six land classifications in this study corresponds to the ordering found in a recent study for the Public Land Law Review Commission, concerning all forest land in the United States, (Manthy, and James, 1969). USER FEES ASSOCIATE OR CONSUMER COST TRIP EXPENSES EQUIP. COSTS b a ld - INVEN. CONSUMED! CONSUMPTION TOTAL SUPPLY COST / i CAPITAL IMPROV. COSTS F’FT DIRECT OR AGENCY COST \>OPERATING EXP. TOTAL INVENTORY 7 PRODUCTION Figure 1. Outdoor Recreation Supply Model ECONOMIC SUPPLY 10 Table 1 Percent of total land acreage in each Bureau of Outdoor Recreation land classification for public lands in the North Central Region, 1964 BOR Class Percent of total acreage I— / .05 II*/ 3.20 IIl£/ 90.90 I»d/ .30 VS/ 5.50 vii/ .05 < a/ High density recreation area. for mass use. b/ General outdoor recreation area. It is subjected to substantial development for a wide variety of recreation uses. Generally less intensive facility development than Class I. c/ Natural environment area. Attractive natural setting. The area is suitable for recreation in a natural environment and there may be other compatible uses. d/ Unique natural area. Area of outstanding scenic splendor, natural wonder, or scientifically important. e/ Primitive area. Undisturbed roadless area, characterized by natural, wild conditions, including "wilderness areas". f/ Historic and cultural sites. Sites of major historic or cultural significance, either local, regional, or national. Source: Intensively developed and managed Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Survey, 1964, unpublished data. 11 Land Features To better understand the composition of the forest environment i it would be wise to find the important land features found on the ma­ jority of ownerships characterizing their holding as forest land. Question 18 of the 1964 Bureau of Outdoor Recreation questionnaire was utilized to obtain this information (Appendix I). A check was made of all ownerships to see what they listed as the major features of forest land. Table 2 presents the results of this tabulation. Table 2 Land features classified as important by public forest ownerships, in the North Central Region, 1964 Features Ownerships Listing Features (Percent) 20.2 19.2 18.7 17.5 Rivers & Streams Flora Fauna Lakes & Ponds Total Source: 75.6 Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, unpublished data, 1964. Both Table 1 and Table 2 show that outdoor recreation lands, managed by regional public agencies are principally in natural settings and are usually found some distance from urban areas. Rural lands having trees as their major flora and some form of surface water as their major physical feature characterize the acreage under consideration. These lands are used for more than one purpose. The ownerships contain areas set aside strictly for recreation use as well as areas 12 6/ managed under a multiple use principle — . In Michigan the greatest acreage is under some form of multiple use management, 6.6 million acres in 1968. In the same year only 733,000 acres were managed exclusively for recreational use, with 69,000 mixed between the t t o types of manage­ ment. Ranked in the order of importance by the owners interviewed in the North Central Region by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in 1964 (Appendix I, question 28), timber, residential, industrial, and transmis­ sion line right-of-ways are the major current non-recreational or other potential uses, and they should remain as a potential limiting factor to the expansion of recreation use of forest land. Activities Plus Environment A further clarification of the concept of forest-based outdoor recreation is provided by the recreation activities that take place with­ in the forest environment. The packages of recreation activities do not take place divorced from the physical land features or the competing land uses. Certain land features are important with respect to various types of recreation use. A cross tabulation of the five recreation use categories or "packages" and the major land feature classes identified in the 1964 Bureau of Outdoor Recreation survey (Appendix I) shows that lakes and ponds, and rivers and streams are by far the most important land feature associated with outdoor recreation on forest land. A similar tabulation was made for the packages and the other potential uses to show the connection between the individual recreation 6/ Michigan's Forestry Division and the U.S. Forest Service are mul­ tiple use managers. U.S. Park Service and Michigan's Parks Division are recreation use management agencies. County and local agencies are mixed multiple use and recreation use managers. 13 packages and the potential non-recreation uses. This tabulation com­ prises the other potential uses which the local land managers felt were important. The results of the tabulation are given below. ) Recreation Package 1 Other Potential Uses Picnicking a. b. c. Timber Residential Industrial Driving & Sightseeing a. b. c. Timber Residential Transmission Line Right of Way Hunting a. b. c. Timber Residential Industrial Fishing a. b. c. Timber Residential Industrial Camping a. b. c. Timber Residential Transmission Line Right of Way and Industrial Timber is by far the most important actual other or potential other use on those areas now providing the fine recreation packages. The other two uses are second and third in importance. Timber, as listed by local managers, is by far the most important actual or potential use of acreage now developed or considered for recreational development on the ownerships dealt with in this study. Supply Model The supply model developed in this study deals with the produc­ tion, consumption and inventory of the packages or sets of recreation 14 activities which occur in the forest environment described above. For our purposes the model pertains only to publicaly provided outdoor recreation facilities. > i Public agencies produce most of the outdoor recreation oppor­ tunities consumed by households in Michigan. Seventy percent of the recreation facilities were on public lands and 40 percent of the forest land was under public ownership in 1968 — ^. Recreation goods are produced and consumed in the same unit? In our case the product produced and consumed is a recreation experi­ ence. A production unit and a consumption unit consist of one visitor day for the good produced or consumed regardless of the recreation ex­ perience. Therefore production and consumption w H •. both be measured in units of one visitor day. Production Public agencies incur production c« sts which include land ac­ quisition and facility construction collectively known as capital improvement expenditures plus the maintenance and other operating costs collectively called operating expenditures. The total cost of capital improvements plus operating expenditures will be called "direct cost" throughout this paper. Direct cost will be measured in units of the cost to the agency for providing one recreation day to a consuming household, and the dollar value represents the amount that must be charged to each participating household in order for an agency to just meet its expenses. 7J Information obtained from the data gathered at interviews with the individual public agencies. 15 Consumption The consumer of outdoor recreation facilities as well as the public agency bears a portion of the supply cost in order to particii pate in or consume available recreation opportunities. He must travel to the recreation site and possess the equipment necessary to utilize the facilities. Supply is only completed when the consumer can utilize the commodity. Most commodities are transported to or near the place of con­ sumption. Outdoor recreation is a unique good because it is stationary. The consuming unit, the household, must go to the site of production to consume the product. Utilization can only take place if'the'consumer can move from his place of residency to the recreation site with the equipment necessary to consume the recreation experience. Therefore the cost of participation puts limits on who can participate and who cannot. The concept of associate cost shows outdoor recrea­ tion to be a publicly provided good which costs different groups different amounts to consume. The idea of including the cost of consumption as a factor in supply is not a normal practice in economics. study for three reasons. It is done in this First, the goods in question are publicly produced, therefore forcing the producers (public agencies) to consider social well-being, namely the welfare of the public. Second, as stated previously, recreation goods are unique in that they must be consumed at the production site and the household, not the agency, is responsible for paying the cost of consuming the available recrea­ tion opportunities. Third, consumers' costs for outdoor recreation are usually high relative to other commodities. 16 The following variables included in consumption cost will collectively be called "associate cost" through the remainder of this i paper: 8/ user fees, equipment costs, and trip expenditures — . Some of these variables are traditionally thought of as de­ mand variables. The economic principle of identity summarizes the difficulty. Identity problems arise when exogenous variables are really endogenous and when they are hard to separate into those belonging to different mathematical functions. and quantity. Supply and demand are both functions of price In our case price and quantity are difficult or impos­ sible to separate into those belonging to supply and those belonging to demand. The analysis in the following chapters recognizes that an identity problem exists and that some aspects of demand are inher­ ent in the study. User fees, equipment costs and trip expenditure will be treated as supply variables. User fees are charges for use of a campsite or entrance to a park or use of other facilities. They are paid at the time of or just prior to consumption and are usually flat fees per family day use. Equipment costs are the dollars spent on equipment which the household needs in order to use the facilities or to consume the re­ creation experience. The average dollar value of the average amount of equipment used by the average size camping family for the different activities families participate in is the cost of major concern in this study. The lump sum dollar value of the equipment is reduced to a cost per day of use by depreciating the equipment over its average 8/ Trip expenditure includes food, gas and oil, and other services. 17 life in years to get a cost per year. The yearly figure is then depre­ ciated further by the average number of days the equipment is used per year. , ’ Equipment costs will also be viewed in the light of the dollar expenditure needed to obtain the minimum amount of equipment necessary to become a participant. The expenditures outlined above are for aver­ age amounts of equipment. The minimum amount of equipment is the abso­ lute minimum needed to participate in the recreation activity. It in­ cludes the essentials which must be purchased by a non demander in or­ der for him to become an effective demander. The dollar value of this minimum amount of equipment will be known as the "threshold cost" in this study. The average equipment cost in reality represents the dollars spent by the average household now consuming recreation goods, while the threshold cost represents the least one must spend to become a partici­ pant. As such it represents the initiation fee for the non partici­ pants and will be used in the comparison of consumers and non consumers. An agency's decision to construct a facility will force the non consum­ er to initially spend (threshold cost) a particular sum of money if he desires to use that facility. The social and welfare implications of the agency's decision can be seen by reviewing the threshold cost. Once a recreation good is provided by an agency it will cost one group less to use or consume it than another group. Therefore, once a recreation good is supplied to one person it is not a free good to all other members of society, as a recent study suggests (Cicchetti, Senaca and Davidson 1970). 18 Trip expenditures include the costs of transportation, food, and lodging. Transportation costs consist of gas, oil, and repairs bought in the consumer's home area, in transit and in tlje’local commu­ nity where the recreation site is located. home and at the recreation site. Food is also purchased at Lodging can be purchased in either location, but generally is purchased at or near the recreation site. No matter where the money is spent, the total dollar value of expenditures is considered in the total associate cost. However, local governments and state agencies are interested in the impact on the lo­ cal economy of expenditures by recreationists. Therefore the amount of each trip expenditure variable which is spent in the local community will be looked at together for their effect on the economy of that community. Thus far this discussion has centered on the production and consumption sectors of the model. The activities actually produced and consumed, and an enumeration of the facilities connected with each activity have not as yet been discussed in detail, but must be at this point in order to complete the development of the model. Inventory The family or household seeking an outdoor recreation experi­ ence goes to a recreation area in order to participate in one primary activity but they also experience other activities. The primary activ­ ity plus a host of other activities comprise the total recreation ex­ perience. These secondary activities are highly important to the total experience and combined with the primary activity form the product pro­ duced by the public agencies and consumed by the household. Forest lands provide a base for many types of activities. Each 19 major type has its own unique set of associated or secondary activities, therefore providing a different recreation experience. To better understand what comprises this experience one must identify the impor­ tant recreation packages found on forest land. In 1964 the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation undertook a question­ naire survey of all recreation facilities found on public ownerships. Question 19 in Appendix I gives 29 activities found in all types of outdoor recreation settings. A tabulation was made of all ownerships listing themselves as having land characterized by woodland or forest features (Appendix I, question 16g). A check of question 19 also showed which of the 29 activities were of primary importance. At the same time a check was made of the secondary activities associated with each primary activity. This cross classification and tabulation made it possible to identify the primary activities and their corresponding set of secondary activities. As a result five packages or sets of primary plus secondary activities stand out as characterizing the goods and services agencies produce and households consume on forest land: Primary Activity (Package Name) Secondary Activities 1. Picnicking Driving & Sightseeing Hiking & Walking Swimming Fishing 2. Driving & Sightseeing Picnicking 3. Hunting (small-game, big-game & waterfowl) Camping 4. Fishing (warm & cold water) Camping 5. Camping Picnicking 20 These five packages are not only the set of activities mentioned in the definition of forest-based outdoor recreation but they comprise the principal commodities supplied and consumed. Where picnicking is found as a secondary activity the package does include or contain the related activities for picnicking. Agencies require an inventory of acres and facilities as a base upon which to efficiently allocate resources for the adequate provision of the outdoor recreation activities that consumers desire. The majority of the available inventory data again comes from the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation survey. These data were updated to 1968 through personal interviews with the agencies involved. During the process of gathering data it was found that even though the model logically presents an organized way of looking ^t out­ door recreation supply, recreation planners do not currently operate in the framework of this model. Public agencies involved in supplying recreation services and facilities in Michigan presently plan in terms of the primary activity, aggregating all secondary activities and looking at them as standard equipment found with the primary equipment. addition the agencies do not separate the items within the area. integrate all facilities: In They roads, beaches, campsites, trails etc... into a total unit of supply whether they comprise facilities for the primary activity or the facilities for the secondary activities. Agencies' planning is tied to facilities and/or land area under their administration. They cannot plan for the driving and sightseeing experience because much of it takes place on the way to and from the recreation site, not on the acreage under the agency's control. In general they cannot consciously plan for the supply of the picnicking, 21 and driving and sightseeing packages because these packages either have no facilities connected with them or they do not take place entirely on the agency's lands. No common denominator exists for either activity whether it is primary or secondary. Recreation planners normally consider these along with all other secondary activities as spin-offs from the principal fa­ cilities provided. And in most cases this is true. Because agencies plan in this manner, the available data are also in this form. There­ fore only supply costs and inventory data are available on those packages which are consciously planned for by the agencies and for which consumers spend money to utilize. The other packages are consumed but not delib­ erately planned for and the consumers do not always mindfully spend money to utilize them. At this point it should be noted that approximately 80 percent of all recreation visits are attributed to primary and secondary activities classed as day use. For the reasons stated above, many of these activities are not a part of the current analysis. However, they are an important part of the total outdoor recreation experience. Because of these limitations camping, hunting, and fishing are the three packages consciously planned for by the agencies. They are the only packages for which financial and inventory data are readily available. Therefore the study is limited to these recreation packages. Usefulness of Model The concept of supply presented here is highly appropriate only when the goods are publicly produced. It will help us discover better ways to spend public funds to lower the total supply cost for that group now consuming the recreation goods produced. Hopefully the model will 22 not only allow the recreation planner to accomplish greater efficiency but will provide him with a better decision method which will replace the decision making techniques of the past. The model also allows a ) i planner to see ways of lowering the threshold cost, thereby expanding the opportunity for the non-consuming public to become effective par­ ticipants. He can further use the concept to evaluate trade-offs between the consumer and non-consumer. In summary, the concept of social supply embodies the summation of direct and associate costs. As such it provides an indirect measure of public welfare and is appropriate and relevant to use in judging the merits of a public program of recreation supply. Through the balance of this paper the model will be used to evaluate the results of current and planned expenditure programs. Forest-based outdoor recreation quite clearly involves the phys­ ical environment and the five packages of activities. As outlined and described above they define the recreation products produced and con­ sumed. The remainder of this paper will deal with the production, con­ sumption and inventory of these packages along with the implications and conclusions which the analysis brings to light. Inventory will be cov­ ered in the next chapter followed by production and consumption in Chapter 4. The summary and conclusions including policy implications will follow in Chapter 5. CHAPTER 3 MICHIGAN’S OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITIES i > Agencies maintain a pool of data which allows them to plan for only three of the five recreation packages: fishing. camping, hunting, and Because planning is done in this manner, all inventory data and participation rates used in this study will be based on these three packages. Michigan contains in excess of 7.3 million acres of public land devoted either exclusively or partially to outdoor recreation activities. Approximately 6.7 million of the total is divided between Federal lands and state forests with the ownership split 40-60 respectively* Within this large acreage there are a variety of recreation facilities, the most numerous of which is the campsite. Camping Camping facilities range from a modern campground specially designed for recreation vehicles to the primitive campground designed for use by tent campers. As a general rule, the type of facilities found in Michigan campgrounds correspond to the agency providing them. State parks provide m o d e m camping facilities while state forests provide primitive facilities. The physical improvements usually found with camping sites include roads, toilets, electricity, beaches, boat launching site, trails, campsites, parking areas and water pumps. Not all of these items are found in every campground; boat launching sites, trails, 23 24 beaches, electricity, and parking areas are optional in the sense that they are not always found on developed sites. In modern campgrounds located near natural bodies of water all of these amenities are available. > Inventory The agencies vary in the number and type of facilities they provide on developed areas. The rate of increase in the construction of campsites also shows a marked difference between agencies in Michigan over the 1964-68 period (Table 3). Table 3. Michigan public agencies providing recreation facilities, by total acreage and number of campsites, 1964 and 1968 Item Total acreage in ownership 1968 Number of Campsites 1968 1964 percent Increase 1964-68 2,889,362 1,458 1,857 27.4 194,038 10,611 13,394 26.2 3,751,816 1,500 2,360 57.3 498,702 12 12 County^ 49,936 3,557 5,484 54.2 Local— ^ 19,824 1,200 1,564 30.3 7,403,678 18,338 24,671 34.5 Federal— ^ State parks— ^ a/ State forests— a/ State game— Total a/ — Primitive Campgrounds — ^ Modern Campgrounds -/ Mixed Primitive and Modern Campgrounds Sources: Data for county and local agencies from, Bloemendaal, Dirk C . , Michigan Pictorial Campground Guide, 1969. All other data from the unpublished reports of the respective agencies. 25 The data for each agency in Table 3 are aggregated. they have lost much of their meaning. As such, The meaning and implications that can be drawn from less aggregated figures will help in understanding the role of individual agencies as suppliers of camping. The two largest land administering agencies in Michigan are the United States Forest Service and the Forestry Division of the Michigan 9/ Department of Natural Resources— . These two institutions control over 90 percent of the total acreage available for public recreation, and all of it is in the Upper Peninsula or the Northern Lower Peninsula. The only agencies providing camping in close proximity to the population centers in the Southern Lower Peninsula are local and county agencies and the Parks Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. The Parks Division is the single largest supplier of camping, 55 percent of the facilities in the state, and the only major supplier near population centers. In 1968 they had slightly over 34 percent of their campsites in the southern part of Michigan. Local and county agencies controlled just under 29 percent of the campsite in Michigan in 1968 and approximately 28 percent of these were also in the southern part of Michigan. The expansion program for state parks indicates a changing empha­ sis in the location of camping facilities. Figure 2 shows the number of state park campsites found in the three regions of the state for the years 1964, 1968 and projection for 1975. Region I is the Upper Peninsula; Region II, the Northern Lower Peninsula and Region III, the Southern Lower Peninsula (Figure 3). 9/ — Michigan Department of Natural Resources was formally known as the Michigan Department of Conservation. Both names are used throughout this paper. 1000 OF CAMPSITES 9 REGION i REGION nr REGION nr Figure 2. Number of state park campsites in the three regions of Michigan in 1964, 1968, and projected to 1975 Sources: 1964 and 1968 data from the unpublished records of the Parks Division of the Department of Natural Resources, State of Michigan. 1975 data from, Recreation Resources Planning Division, "Michigan Outdoor Recreation Plan Preliminary Draft", March 1, 1967. joTSWQ I montmoiT) ALWtA K * L * « K * | caAW FOW , o 8 c o o * , a lc o n a 'M A W llT E E W ^ O W ^ iie A U K E E l "OSCOM. > QgEHAW I >Q»CO LA K E OECEOLA 1 CLARE NEWArSO 'l(EC O «TA '« L A « W H T AftENAC |ltA,ELL4W lA N D W Figure 3. Michigan map showing Regions I, II, and III ien 28 In Figure 2 we see that Region I maintained its relative share of the campsites for the state while Region III is projected to increase from 36.7 to 39.1 percent of the total between 1964 and 1975 at the expense of Region II. This shift shows a definite change in emphasis from rural to urban areas. Also a $100 million outdoor recreation development bonding issue passed by Michigan voters in 1968 will lead even further in this direction. Approximately 70 percent of the bonding money will be directed to de­ velopments which are located within a one-half hour driving time from urban centers. This will put much more emphasis on the urban centers at the expense of rural recreation areas. The new direction appears to ’ together as one unit, the number of campsites is a relevant unit of measure. Planners should recognize that an undefined functional relationship exists between the number of campsites and the amount of other amenities they provide. It is assumed that a similar relation­ ship will continue through the 1980's. 33 Hunting and Fishing The hunting and fishing packages both have camping as an associated or secondary activity, but the primary activities them­ selves do not require physical facilities in order for consumption to take place. Since camping is secondary to the experience, both packages are considered extensive land users, with few facilities necessary to capture the recreation experience. The availability of hunting and fishing opportunities, there­ fore, does not depend on physical facilities but on the availability of undeveloped rural land covered with some form of natural vegetation. The majority of the land controlled by public agencies in Michigan is undeveloped rural land suitable for hunting and/or fishing. The public agencies that control the majority of publiclyowned acreage and/or who's sole mission is to provide these activities are also the ones most active as land purchasers. Table 5 shows the change in land holdings by agency in Michigan between the years 1964 and 1968, and also the per cent increase in acreage over this period. The acre, however, is not a good unit to measure the impor­ tance and impact of hunting and fishing in Michigan. The consumer and his rate of participation measures this impact much better. Inventory Hunting is an activity in which participants drive one another apart. sively. As such, it uses the forest land extensively rather than inten­ For the above reasons it was hypothesized that a saturation point can be reached for participation in hunting (Swanson 1969). et_ a l ., This hypothesis suggests stable or slowly rising numbers of 34 Table 5. Acreage acquired by public agencies providing forest-based outdoor recreation in Michigan, 1964 and 1968 ^ > Acreage 1968 Percent increase 1964-1968 Item 1964 Federal 2,874,902 2,889,362 .51 190,269 194,038 1.98 3,362,341 3,751,816 11.58 62,392 69,760 11.80 393.216 498.702 26.83 6,883,120 7,403,678 State parks State forests County and local State game Total Sources: ' 1964 data for county and Federal agencies from unpublished reports of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. All other data from unpublished reports of the respective agencies. 35 licensed hunters as a sign that the saturation level has been reached. Another indication appears when the population grows at a faster rate than the rate of increase in the numbers of hunters or fishermen. i The implicit assumption here is that the declining or stable rate of participation is due to a saturation point or reaching the carrying capacity of the land for hunters. Other possible reasons for hunting stabilization include changes in tastes, increasing urbanization, declining or stable deer herd size, economic conditions, and the pos­ sibility that hunting may be an inferior good, popular among low income groups which are becoming relatively smaller. Regardless of the mix of interacting factors causing stabilization, the saturation point will be used to measure current and project future participation rates. In a 1969 study done for the Public Land Law Review Commission Swanson et_ a l . claim that the East North Central States, including Michigan have experienced a stabilization in both the number of hunters and fishermen. The study goes on to say that although fishing is rapidly accelerating in popularity nationally, some degree of satura­ tion under existing conditions has already been reached in the inland waters in this region. This seems to be true even though fishermen are less reliant on Telbow room' than hunters. The above indicates that not only the same factors influence hunting and fishing, but the same trends are seen in both activities. The broad classes of hunting and fishing can be broken down into the resident small game, gun deer, archery deer and fishing license holders. Participation rates for these classes are given in 36 Table 6. These rates are obtained by dividing the number of license holders by the total Michigan population in hundreds. A trend can be established by comparing the rates for the years 1958-68. ) i Table 6. Number of participants per hundred of population by type of hunting, and fishing in Michigan for 1958 through 1968 Year Small game Gun deer Archery deer Fisherman 1958 9.07 5.95 .46 10.93 1959 8.14 5.92 .47 9.74 1960 8.21 5.77 .42 9.61 1961 7.90 5.31 .37 9.37 1962 8.01 5.76 .39 9.07 1963 7.62 6.30 .46 8.85 1964 7.73 6.76 .51 8.64 1965 7.53 7.11 .58 8.68 1966 7.51 6.61 .56 8.75 1967 6.86 6.57 .62 8.94 1968 6.58 6.97 .63 9.17 Sources: Michigan Department of Conservation— Biennial Reports, 1964, 1966, 1968. Table 6 shows that the ratios for small game and gun deer have fluctuated over the 11 year period, indicating a trend upward for gun deer and downward for small game. For archery deer the participa­ tion rate has risen slowly and steadily over the last 8 years while for fishing it declined and then rose steadily. The data for small game and gun deer hunting indicate that participation has leveled off and is currently fluctuating within a range of 6 and 7.5 hunters per 100 population. Archery deer hunting appears to be on the rise but slowly, indicating that a saturation point has not 37 been reached. The data presented in Table 6 show that the number of ) i licensed fishermen declined and bottomed out in 1964-1965, then rose steadily thereafter. of two factors. The decline can be partially explained in terms First, the Great Lakes had been experiencing a declin­ ing population of sports fish due to sea lamprey problems and a replacement of their numbers by undesirable fish species. Second, at the same time the inland waters were becoming saturated with fisher­ men, water skiers, and swimmers. From these reasons it appears that the rise in the number of licensed fishermen after 1965 was mainly due to the introduction of the coho salmon to Lake Michigan which renewed interest in Great Lakes fishing but also revived interest in some of the inland waterways used by the salmon as spawning grounds. This not only brought new people into the ranks as participants but also caused many to sub­ stitute coho fishing for inland lake fishing. Out of necessity, these effects are presented in general terms, because no information is available which indicates specific cause and effect relationships between the different events. However, the rise in participation did follow closely the initiation of the coho salmon program in Michigan. The increase in total participation triggered by the coho salmon should continue, but at a progressively slower rate until it levels off by 1980^^. 11/ —- Information obtained from personal interviews with Paul Ellefson, Economist for Recreation Resource Planning Division, Department of Natural Resources, State of Michigan. 38 The ratios expressed in Table 6 show only the number of participants per 100 population. If these ratio stay constant over * time while the population increases the absolute number of partici­ pants will increase. Also the ratio could decline while the absolute number of participants increase. The above is possible only if population increases faster than the increase in licensed hunters or fishermen. If the absolute number does increase the agencies will feel the pressure on land and water resources, which may make land acquisition a desirable policy. Because of the lack of a cause and effect, relationship between man land ratios and participation rates, it is not deemed valid to say that if the absolute number of partici­ pants increases land acquisition is desirable. Table 7 shows the population levels and the corresponding number of licensed partici­ pants in hunting and fishing. Projections Two of the four types of hunting and fishing in Table 7 show definite signs of an increase in participation: deer hunting. fishing and archery Since 1964, small game hunting shows a decline while gun deer shows an up and down movement. Utilizing the past trends and considering population increases, both small game and gun deer hunting should maintain a level of parti­ cipation of between 550-650 thousand licensed small game and gun deer hunters through 1980. Both archery deer and fishing show signs of increases in participation rates as well as the number of licensed holders. This assumes that the environmental conditions, tastes, social institutions and agency planning surrounding these activities 39 Table 7. Population and number of resident licensed hunters and fishermen in Michigan for the years 1958 through 1968 (Thousands) No. of license holders Gun deer Archery deer 695.25 456.03 35.50 837.88 7,767 632.08 459.67 36.67 756.13 1960 7,833 642.93 451.94 32.68 752.81 1961 7,885 623.07 418.46 29.44 739.06 1962 7,923 634.52 457.60 31.04 718.42 1963 8,036 612.56 506.58 37.26 711.33 1964 8,161 630.69 552.01 41.76 705.21 1965 8,334 627.62 592.66 47.98 723.19 1966 8,496 637.93 561.40 47.99 743.49 1967 8,608 590.26 565.47 53.03 769.20 1968 8,739 575.01 609.12 59.04 801.21 Years Michigan Population 1958 7,667 1959 Sources: Small game Fishermen Population data from, Bureau of the Census. Statistical abstracts of the United States, 1968, and Bureau of Business and Economics Research, Michigan Statistical Abstracts Seventh Edition, Michigan State University, 1968. Number of licensed holders from, Michigan Department of Conservation Biennial Reports, 1964, 1966, 1968. 40 will remain relatively stable over the projection period. Fishing therefore should go from a ratio of 9.17 per 100 of population in ) 1968 to about 10.75 by 1975 and on up to 11.00 by 1980. Thlis ratio should increase at a decreasing rate until it levels off at about 12 / 11.00 in 1980-1— . The ratio for archery deer hunting should increase but at a much slower rate. It will go from .63 in 1968 to .85 by 1975 and on up to approximately 1.00 by 1980. This ratio rises constantly over this period and does not show signs of stabilizing by 1980. These ratio changes represent an increase in the number of licensed fishermen from 801,214 in 1968 to 974,400 by 1975 on up to 1,092,100 by 1980. For archery deer hunters their numbers will increase from 59,039 in 1968 to 76,300 by 1975 on up to 98,300 by 1980. Because no radical change in tastes or family income is anticipated through 1980, participation rates for all forms of hunting and fishing are assumed to stand as projected. 12/ — Information from conservations with staff of Recreation Resource Planning Division, Department of Natural Resources, State of Michigan. CHAPTER 4 ECONOMIC SUPPLY AND THE CONSUMER An economist looks at supply in terms of quantities)of goods produced at varying prices. Normally he deals with private goods and as such only the costs of production plus distribution are considered as influencing prices and therefore supply. For public goods such as outdoor recreation facilities the consuming household becomes a rele­ vant factor influencing supply. For this type of public good the cost of consumption should be added to production and distribution costs to obtain the supply cost. Chapter 2 outlined the dual cost of providing outdoor recreation goods for public consumption. Government agencies spend money to build and operate recreation facilities. These costs when combined are known as "direct cost" throughout this study. Before goods or services are supplied the individual must be in a position to consume them, which means that he or she must incur costs in order for consumption to take place. These consumer costs collectively are known as "associate cost" throughout this study. All costs, both direct and associate, are measured as average expenditures rather than marginal. The state of the arts has not developed to a point where production functions and marginal costs or returns are readily available. This chapter follows the structure of Chapter 3. The camping package will be covered first, followed by hunting and fishing. 41 42 Camping Direct Cost To the agency the direct cost of a campsite is the operating i plus capital improvement expenditures incurred in managing an area for the camping activity. Capital improvement expenditures consist of land acquisition plus the construction costs. Tables 3 and 5 show that agencies providing the most camping also purchase the least amount of land. Most of the new construction undertaken in the past ten years was done as an expansion of existing campgrounds on acreage already owned. The bulk of public land came to the agencies through grants and tax reversion. Only in isolated cases did public agencies buy additional acreage with the express purpose of immediate development into campgrounds. Taking into account the guide lines of the recent $100 million bonding program which earmarks $70 million for use by state and local government agencies to build recreation facilities within one half hours drive of urban centers, there presently seems to be no great move in the direction of land acquisition. Much of the projected development in camping facilities will be undertaken by the Department of Natural Resource's Parks Division in Southern Michigan where little public land is presently owned. Therefore to meet future expansion land acquisition will be required and the cost should be added to direct cost. The capital improvement and operating expenditures for primitive and modern camping facilities were collected and tabulated separately. In depreciating the capital assets of both campgrounds it is assumed that the average life of the capital goods excluding land is twenty years. The direct costs for these two types of camping facilities are given in Table 8 . A3 Table 8 . Capital improvement and average annual operating expenditures associated with the provision of camping facilities by public agencies in Michigan, 1968— ' Item Modern b/ Operating expenditures— Campgrounds Primitive $424.25 Capital improvement— ^ $108.90 27.50 89.35 t Total direct cost— ^ $513.60 $136.40 c/ Direct cost/visitor day— $ $ 1.34 0.47 — Capital assets depreciated over 20 years, b/ — In units of cost per campsite per year. c/ — _ . / , .. , total direct cost per campsite per year Direct cost/visitor day = --------- -— 7— r— — c------ r--■-— £-- ---av. no. of visits per campsite type per yr. Where the: average no. of visits per campsite type per year = total visitation per campground type per yea r . . . . « • no. of campsites in each year tm Sources: . S66 Appena i x ... xxj .t Capital improvement data from unpublished reports of the Engineering Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, State of Michigan. Operating expenditures from, Michigan Department of Conservation 24th Biennial Report, 1968. 44 The costs are average expenditures for state agencies prpviding the t primitive and/or modern facilities exclusive of the administrative cost of the line personnel in the head office of the agency. It is assumed that federal, county and local agencies in Michigan providing similar facilities will incur similar costs. An agency spends approximately two and one half times more to provide a household with one day of modern camping than it does to provide one day of primitive camping to the same household. But the modern camp­ site is used one third more often than a primitive site (Department of Conservation, 1968). This indicates that the public is interested more in modern facilities which seems to justify the extra expenditure on camping facilities. The direct cost given in Table 8 indicates that agencies need to charge $1.34 and $0.47 per household per day for modern and primitive campsites respectively in order to just meet expenses. The agencies are currently charging, on the average $1.10 per household per day to camp (Table 9). campsite. This charge is right in line with the cost of using the Therefore consumers of camping facilities are roughly paying their own way. Associate Cost The associate cost paid by the consumer is broken down into three main categories: user fees, equipment costs, and trip expenditures. last category includes such things as gas, oil, lodging, and food. The The portion of trip expenditures which are spent at or near the recreation facilities will also be evaluated in terms of their overall economic 45 | ! ) Table 9. User fees charged by the public agencies in Michigan for one night of camping, 1968 Item Fee State Parks l.lS^ State Forest Forest Service a/ — — Visitation % of total Weighted Fee 85 $0.98 0.00 9 $0.00 2.00^ 6 $0.12 100 $1.10 Annual gate pass of $3.00 divided by 20 days use per year (La Page, 1968) equals $0.15, when added to the $1.00 charge for use of camp­ site per night equals $1.15. Gate pass of $1.00 per day in lieu of $7.00 Golden Eagle pass, then added to $1.00 charge for use of campsite per night equals $2.00. The gate pass of $1.00 per day was used because in Michigan the majority of camper's in Forest Service campgrounds do not purchase a Golden Eagle pass. The opposite is true for state park facilities. Sources: Visitation data from respective agencies. Fees data from, Michigan State Parks and Recreation Areas, Department of Natural Resources pamphlet and Bloemedaal, Dirk C. 1969. Michigan Pictorial Campground Guide. 46 impact on the local area. ( t The user fee varies between agencies. It is $2.00 for one day of use for campsites managed by the U. S. Forest Service and $1.15 charge by the Parks Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Table 9). State forest camping is free, while for county and local agen­ cies there is a mixture of both free and pay usage. On the average most camping involves a flat fee of one dollar, and this fee is considered an appropriate average for most public land camping in Michigan (Table 9). Equipment costs are not as easily handled as the user fee. Types of equipment and their price vary widely. Also, the equipment itseli varies between modern and primitive campgrounds. In order to understand what is involved in equipment cost the purchaser of equip­ ment should be defined. People currently counted as part of the market for the camping activity already own camping equipment. Those not considered as part of the market have not acquired the equipment due to lack of income or desire. Those not part of the market due solely to economic reasons are considered later in this study. The purchase price of the equipment ranges from thousands down to hundreds of dollars. Within this range two equipment averages are obtained, one for recreation vehicle camping and one for tent camping. The equipment common to both types of camping are the amount of sleeping bags, stove, lamp, cots, air mattresses, cook set and ice chest that are required to outfit the average camping family in the United States. tent camping all the above items are purchased, while for recreation For vehicle camping sleeping bags, and cook set are purchased, the other items are generally standard equipment with the vehicle. The average camping family is larger than the average size » household (3.7 members) in the United States due in large to the age class of the head of the camping household. The large majority of camping families have children under 18 years old (Shafer, 1969). The average size camping family is estimated to be 4.0 (Hendee et al. 1968; Jamsen and Ryckman, 1969). The tent and recreation vehicle are added items depending on which type of camping is of interest. The tent is a single item while the recreation vehicle is a composite of all the types of vehicles used. The average cost of recreation vehicle equipment is obtained by weighting the averages cost of each equipment type by the percent of the total recreation vehicles which that equipment type represents. In order to get the equipment costs in units of family day use each equipment type was depreciated over a ten year period considering that the average use per year is 20 days (La Page, 1968). La Page’s work is in the northeastern states but is assumed to apply in the Lake States as well. Table 10 summarizes the results of the consumer expenditures on recreation vehicles. Based upon interviews with sales personnel of the recreation vehicle industry it was found that approximately ten percent of the use of the camper pickup truck is in camping related activities. The other ninety per cent is for daily transportation needs or other second car uses. The spokesman also pointed out that the camper, like other recreation vehicles is depreciated over a ten year period but the pickup truck is normally traded after three years of use. Therefore the truck 48 Table 10. Average cost for the types of recreation vehicle equipment used in modern campgrounds in the United States, 1968 Equipment Travel Trailer Total cost $3100.00 Weighted total cost 80 $2480.00 10 180.00 25.00 Cost per year $248.00^ Cost/family User Day $12.40 Truck camper Pickup truck 1800.00 . 250.00^' o rn 00 00 Per cent of total recreation vehicles .90. .41 Camper trailer 1100.00 5 55.00 5.50^ .28 Motor home 8625.00 3 259.00 25.90^ 1.29 Totals S i/ 98^ $2999.00 $305.73 $15.28 — Total truck cost of $3600.00 less $1100.00 salvage value. Only 10 per cent of the use of the truck is allotted to recreation activities. —^ Weighted cost divided by 10, the number of years equipment is depreciated. c/ — — Weighted cost divided by 3, the number of years the average truck is held before it is sold. The remaining 2 per cent represents a group of other vehicles not representing a significant portion of the market and for which cost figures are not available. Source: Columns one and two from Recreational Vehicle Institute Facts and Trends, 1969. 49 cost found in column one row three of Table 10 includes adjustment for the » ten per cent recreation use of the truck, and the salvage value after three years of ownership. This adjusted value was then depreciated over the three year period with twenty days of recreation use per year. Several qualifications must be made to justify the above approach of handling the truck cost. First, the principal motivating factor influencing purchase of the vehicle appears to be camping. Even though ninety per cent of the use is not for recreation, the ten per cent may completely dominate the decision to purchase. This could mean that ninety per cent of the use of the vehicle was incidental to the purpose for buying it. Because only ten per cent of the cost was included as part of the recreation price tag, no attempt was made to evaluate the other ninety per cent of non-recreation use. The bulk of this use is for the purpose of satisfying daily transportation needs that could be satisfied by other vehicles. A comparison of these several alternate means for satisfying daily transportation needs leads to opportunity cost analysis, which might suggest that a truck is a less efficient means of providing the daily transportation needs of a household. were true the extra cost should be attributed to recreation. study opportunity cost analysis was not incorporated. If this In this Therefore the truck cost was allocated only according to its percentage of use in recreation related activities. To be consistent, some portion of the cost of the automobile's use for pulling a camping trailer or hauling a tent should be allocated to recreation use. This is not done because the per cent of auto usage 50 attributed to camping is relatively small when compared to the total use of the auto. The dollar value becomes even smaller when it is depreciated over the number of years the car is held considering the auto is used only 20 days of the year for camping activities. Even taking into considera­ tion the discounted costs of the car options dealing specifically with camping (trailer hitch, heavy duty suspension etc...) the contribution to associated costs is insignificant. Unlike the truck the main purpose of purchasing an auto is to satisfy daily transportation needs. Therefore equipment expenses for the automobile are not considered in Table 10 or 11. The associate cost for both tent and recreation vehicle camping are given in Table 11. The difference between total trip expenditures and expenditure in the local economy ($5.72) found in this table is made up of two items. A total of $3.11 of the difference is spent at home before the trip starts, and the remaining $2.61 is three fourths of the total expenditure for gas, oil, service and repairs. Because we have a lack of information dealing with the percentage of travel expenditures spent at or near the recreation area it was assumed that approximately three fourths of the travel expenditures (gas, oil, and repairs) would be spent at home and on the way to the recreation area while the remainder would be spent at or near the park. Therefore $9.64 of the daily expend­ iture per household is spent in the local economy and $5.72 is spent at home or on the way. The values given in Table 11 reflect only average expenditures. The minimum or threshold cost is lower. Tent camping comprises the cheapest form of participation in the camping activity and therefore Table 11. Associate cost per day for the household camping in Michigan, 1968 Camping Equipment Recreation Vehicle Items 3-/ Equipment— b/ Equip, per camper day— User fee^-7 Total trip expenditur* b/ Associate cost— 7 Trip exp. in local econ. a/ y sJ d/ e/ (In dollars) Tent $3089.00—7 $303.00— 7 15.73 1.52 1.00 1.00 15.36 15.36 32.09 17.88 9.64— 7 9.64— 7 Average cost for initial investment in equipment. Items in units of cost per family day use. associate cost. The summation of second, third, and fourth rows gives Contains the average cost of tent, sleeping bags, stove, lamp, cots, air mattresses, cook set and ice chest that are purchased by the average camping family of 4.0 members. Contains the average cost of recreation vehicles plus sleeping bags and cook set for average camping family of 4.0 members. Trip expenditures are obtained by using the trends in the consumer price index to inflate the data given in Kearns, at al., 1962 to 1968 and comparing the total values with those found in Jamsen and Ryckman, 1969. Jamsen and Ryckman's paper is for fishing while Kearns et al. contains hunting, fishing and camping. The comparison back and forth after inflation allowed trip expenditure to be enumerated. Sources: Recreation Vehicle equipment data from Table 10. Tent equipment cost from Sears Roebuck and Co., Catalog, Summer 1968. Trip expenditures in local economy from Kearns, Frank W . , James, Lee M . , Smith, Norman F . , and Ray Pfeifer, An Economic Appraisal of Michigan’s State Forests, Forestry Div., Mich. Dept, of Conservation, Tech. Pub. No. 2, 1962. Total trip exp. from Jamsen G . , and J. Ryckman, Partici­ pation and Socioeconomics of Salmon and Trout Fishermen in Michigan Dept, of Nat. Resources, Res. & Develop. Rept. No. 158, 1969. 52 contains the threshold cost. Since the threshold cost concept deals only with equipment costs, user fees and trip expenditures should be approximately the same regardless of the type of camping. The threshold cost or purchase price for the minimum equipment necessary to outfit an average size camping family is $214. This is $89 less than the average given in Table 11 for those average sized camping families now owning tent equipment. The $214 is spent on exactly the same amounts of equipment, sleeping bags, stove, cots, tent, etc., but on the lowest cost new equipment available. The threshold cost will be of major importance when the implications of present public policies are discussed in a later section of this report. The sum of direct and associate cost comprise the total supply cost. The associate cost for recreation vehicle equipment corresponds to the direct cost for modern campgrounds and the associate cost for tent equipment corresponds to the direct cost for primitive campgrounds. It is recognized that recreation vehicle equipment is not exclusively used in modern campgrounds just as tent equipment is not always used in primitive camping areas. However, the tendency towards mutually exclu­ siveness is great enough to warrant their separation. Table 12 combines the direct and associate costs, for primitive and modern campgrounds, in units of cost per family day use. The associate costs of $32.09 and $17.88 given in Table 12 represents total consumer expenditure for one day of participation in camping. To gain an understanding of the effect of these expenditures on the local community where the recreation site is located it is 53 I important to know the amount and impact of the expenditure that remain in » the state and the local areas. Table 12. Total supply cost for one family camper day in Michigan in 1968 Modern Direct cost Associate Total Campgrounds Primitive $ 1.34 $ 0.47 32.09 17.88 $33.43 $18.35 Researchers have found that in Michigan approximately one-half of the dollars spent on all outdoor recreation experiences leave the state (Kearns et al., 1962). This leakage may cause the overall impact of expenditures in the local community to be lessened. Generally the total direct and indirect effect of an expenditure is expressed as a multiplier. Such a multiplier for outdoor recreation expenditures has been suggested to be between 1.74 and 1.81 (Gamble, 1967, Hughes, 1970). Using the lower estimate would mean that for every dollar spent in the local economy on recreation related goods and services, it generates $1.74 worth of additional income, above the original expenditure, for the local community. The multiplier of 1.74 applied to the $9.64 (amount spent in the local economy by campers per visitor day, Table 11) generates $16.77 in additional income for the local people. i i 54 Hunting and Fishing Hunting and fishing both have similar characteristics allowing them to be analyzed together. Few man made physical facility's are necessary in order to participate in either activity, and for both the direct cost is composed of wildlife management plus the cost of game and fish law enforcement. Those public agencies w h o ’s sole mission is in the areas of fish and game management and those agencies providing or supplying most of the hunting and fishing, with the exception of Federal agencies, also are the ones acquiring the most land (Table 5, page 34). Direct Cost Land is the only major physical resource that the public agencies need to provide. Access roads are necessary, but in the majority of cases they are built as part of a timber harvest operation or as part of the public transportation system. Therefore, the cost of road construction is not considered in the direct cost for hunting and fishing. Even though are the most agencies providing hunting and fishing activities activein land acquisition, the increase in holdings over the 1964-68 period is relatively small (Table 5). The absolute increase in acreage within this period for all public agencies was just over 500,000 acres which represents approximately a 7.5 per cent increase over the four year period, or less than a two per cent yearly increase. Because of this rather slow rate of increase and the fact that not all additions are purchased, acreage costs are not considered as part of either the hunting or fishing packages. In supplying hunting and fishing, public agencies incur most of their capital improvement and operating expenditures in connection with camping and non-recreation related activities. The only major agency 55 expenditures attribwced to hunting and fishing are law enforcement, and wildlife management. Conservation officers or game wardens and their supporting personnel are employed strictly to police and license the » participants in these two activities. This of course assumes that the majority of hunting and fishing takes place on public lands where licenses are required. In the case of big game this assumption is true, but for small game, farm families hunting on their own property, plus their guests do influence participation. But the analysis is done assuming a large majority of participation is on public lands. Law enforcement and wildlife management costs, therefore, comprise the agencies' direct cost of providing hunting and fishing opportunities. The total law enforcement and management cost was divided between hunting and fishing in proportion to the number of license holders in each activity times the average annual participation rates per licensee. The above calculation results in the number of recreation days annually spent in the pursuit of each activity. A comparison of recrea­ tion days for hunting vs fishing provides the ratio (one-to-three) for the division of the total law enforcement and management cost between both activities. Total participation for hunting in the East North Central States, which include Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan, in 1965 was 33.445 million recreation days with 2.563 million participants (Swanson, et al. 1969). For fishing it was 93.704 million recreation days with 5.337 million fishermen (Swanson, et^ al^. 1969). This is a little less than a three-to-one ratio of recreation days for fishing vs hunting. This 56 ratio was used to appropriate the law enforcement cost between the two activities; $0,085 for hunting per day and $0,084 for fishing per day. Wildlife management costs are allocated to hunting and fishing according to the agencies' mission. The Fish Division of the Department of Natural Resources is allocated to fishing, while the Forestry and Game Divisions and the U. S. Forest Service are allocated to hunting. When this is done and added to law enforcement costs the direct cost for hunting and fishing is obtained (Table 13). Associate Cost The consumer cost for both hunting and fishing are composed of license fees, equipment costs and trip expenditure. The cost for small game, gun deer, archery deer and fishing were collected and kept separately. The units will be cost per user day. The license fees are $5.10 for gun deer and archery deer. $3.10 for small game and $5.20 for fishing when a trout salmon stamp is purchased. In the 1965 National Survey of Fishing and Hunting the participa­ tion figures for hunting were adjusted to eliminate the double counting of those individuals who buy a small game and a big game license (Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, 1965). The data follows this pattern in more recent studies (Swanson et al. 1969). It is therefore appropriate to combine all three forms of hunting and consider them as one class. The average hunter spends 13 days in the woods or field annually, while the average fisherman spends 20 days on the lakes or streams over a one year period (Swanson et al., 1969). It is appropriate to use these figures along with the number of years the equipment is to be Table 13. Direct cost to the agencies providing the hunting and fishing packages In Michigan, 1968 Packagea Hunting User days % of total 9,100,000 36.3 768,674 1,360,192 ---26,810 64,330 Law enforcement a/ Game Division a/ Fish Division a/ Forestry Division a/ National Forests b / Total Cost per day use Fishing 16,024,280 63.7 $ $ 1,348,884 ---2,327,458 ---- $2,220,006 c/ $ 0.24 $ 3,676,342 c/ $ 0.23 a/ Agencies under the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. b/ United States Forest Service, c/ Yearly expenditures. Sources: User days and Michigan agencies' data from, Department of Conservation. 24th Biennial Report. 1968. National Forest data from personal correspondance with John Wernham, Chief, Division of Recreation, Range and Wildlife, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 58 depreciated in order to get the equipment costs in terms of user days. ) Table 14 gives the associate cost for hunting and fishing. JAverage equip­ ment costs for hunting are the total of the average prices for weapon, boots, pants, shirt, jacket, underware, and glove. For fishing, the equipment cost is composed of the average cost for a rod, reel, tackle, tackle box, boat and motor. The license fees per day use in Table 14 are obtained by dividing the total yearly license fee for hunting and fishing by the average days of participation in each activity per year. hunting and 20 days for fishing. In our case 13 days for It is interesting to note that a license fee of $0.39 for hunting and $0.26 for fishing are higher than £he direct cost of $0.24 and $0.23 respectively. This implies that hunters and fishermen are paying their own way with respect to consumption of these activities. Trip expenditures for hunting and fishing were obtained from t Leisure time activities of our population have become increasingly more important over the past several decades in the United States. As individual and family wealth and leisure increases, we as a nation are spending more of our leisure time in outdoor recreation activities. Studies show that a larger share of public lands and capital resources will have to be channeled into outdoor recreation, if current trends in the leisure time activities of our nation's population are to be met. (Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 1964). This is particularly true for those areas of the country containing large population centers and abundant land and water resources. area is the North Central Region. Such an The majority of the available outdoor recreation facilities and visitations within the region occur on public owned and administered land. This study is part of a regional wide project being conducted by the Land Grant Universities within the North Central States to evaluate outdoor recreation demand, supply and the public installation involved in supplying needed facilities. In this study, Michigan State University assumed the responsibility of evaluating the regional supply of outdoor recreation. This study involves the development and presentation of a supply model which can be used in the regional analysis of current and projected recreations supply. Michigan was chosen as a representative state around which the supply model could be developed and tested. The specific objective was to develop a supply model of outdoor recreation facilities found on public land 67 68 in Michigan that will allow for the development of projections, the examination of alternative decisions and the implications of those i decisions in the light of current and proposed public policy. Most models are an expansion of some formal or informal definition that a researcher has formulated about a segment of the real world. In this study, the segment of the area of concern was defined as a definite set of definitive packages of recreation activities which take place on publicly owned forest land. Public land considered in this study is covered by forest vegetation and the majority is classified as "natural environment areas" by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. The land features of importance on these ownerships are rivers and streams, lakes aftd ponds, flora, and fauna. Over 75 per cent of the Federal, state and county forest recreation areas in Michigan have these features as their major recreation attractions. For purposes of this analysis, public agencies owning forest land in Michigan were considered the sole producers of forest-based outdoor recreation facilities. Their production costs include land acquisitions, facility construction, and operating and maintenance expenditures. These costs were measured in units of the cost to the agency for providing one recreation day to a consuming household; the dollar amount represents what an agency would have to charge in order to just meet expenses. The agency cost is identified as the "direct cost" of supplying recreational opportunities. 69 Because we are looking at the services provided by public agencies as public goods, the consumer becomes a relevant factor influencing supply decisions. He must bear a portion of tl^e supply i cost in order to consume the recreation good. Specifically, he must travel to the recreation site and possess the equipment necessary to utilize the facilities. Outdoor recreation is a unique commodity or service because consumption takes place on the production site. That is, utilization can only take place if the consumer can get from his place of residence to the recreation site with the equipment necessary to consume the recreation experience. Therefore, the consuming household bears the. entire burden of paying the cost of consuming the recreation good. The consumer cost or "associate cost" must be added to public or direct cost to derive the total cost of supplying forest-based outdoor recreation. This is not a normal cost accounting practice but applies here for two reasons. First the good in question is a public good, therefore forcing the producers (public agencies) to consider the welfare implications of investments in outdoor recreation facilities. Second, as stated previously, recreation goods are somewhat of a unique commodity in that they must be consumed at the production site. The items included in associate cost are: ment costs, and trip expenditures. User fees, equip­ User fees are charges for the use of a park or recreation area, or for the privilege of park entry. 70 Equipment costs Include the cost of equipment which the consumer needs in order to use a recreation facility so he may capture the ) recreation experience. The relevant cost is the average cost of equipment used by the average size family for the different activities families participate in. The average equipment cost in reality represents the dollars spent by the average household now consuming recreation goods. The minimum cost of this equipment cost continuum represents the minimum amount a household can spend and have the necessary equipment to become participants. This minimum value is called the "threshold cost". The trip expenditure is composed of transportation cpsts plus the cost of food and lodging. Transportation costs consist of gas, oil and repairs either purchased at home, on the way to, or at the recreation site. No matter where the money is spent the total dollar value is considered in the associate cost. However, the amount that is spent in the local community near the recreation site and its resulting influence on the local economy is of concern to state and local governments. The family seeking an outdoor recreation experience goes to a recreation area in order to participate in one primary activity, but they also undertake other, secondary activities. The primary activity plus a host of other activities comprise the total recreation experience. The combined primary and secondary activities comprise a set or package of experiences consumed by the household. of activities are uniquely found on forest lands. Five sets These are picnicking, driving and sightseeing, hunting, fishing and camping. Picnicking 71 includes driving and sightseeing, hiking and walking, swimming and fishing as secondary activities. Driving and sightseeing includes picnicking as a secondary activity. Hunting and fishing may include ) i camping as a secondary activity. Camping normally includes picnicking. These are the goods actually provided by public agencies and consumed by the household. Of the five recreation packages driving and sightseeing has the highest day use percentage and the largest number of participants. It is the most important recreation package. In the process of gathering inventory data on these packages it was found that the agencies only consider three of the five in the planning process— hunting, fishing and camping. Agencies cannot con­ sciously plan for the supply of activities such as picnicking and driving and sightseeing, either because these packages have no facil­ ities connected with them or they do not take place entirely on the agency's lands. No common denominator exists for quantifying the consumption of secondary activities on public lands. Agencies there­ fore consider them as spin offs from the other principle facilities provided. The reader should recognize that day use activities represent 80 percent of all recreation visits to forest land. Due to the reasons outlined above the majority of these activities are excluded from the current analysis. Because of these data limitations hunting, fishing and camping are then the only recreation packages considered in this analysis. 72 Inventory of Facilities Camping Camping is the most popular forest-based outdoor ^rdcreation activity in Michigan. All the state, federal and the majority of the county agencies (85% sample) interviewed provide either primitive or modern camping facilities. The state park system contains over half of all the state’s public camping facilities and most of these are modern campsites. Michigan had 24,671 campsites in public ownership in 1968 and will have approximately 38,000 by 1975 and between 46,540 and 48,440 by 1980. parks. Of those available in 1968, 13,394 were in state State parks will have approximately 20,130 campsites in 1975 and between 24,460 and 25,420 in 1980. Therefore modern campsites will remain the most important type of camping facility in Michigan. State parks and county and local facilities are the only public campsites near population centers. In 1964 the Parks Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources had 36.7 per cent of their campsites located in Southern Lower Michigan. This area which contains the state's population centers is projected to have 39.1 per cent by 1975. With the help of the state's recent $100 million bonding pro­ gram for development of outdoor recreation facilities, this figure should increase somewhat by 1980. The Parks Division added more campsites per year on their holdings than any other supplying agency. Their high growth rate, plus the proportion of total state inventory that they control points to an increasing growth rate in campsites, with a large number being found near urban centers. 73 Because much of the future development of camping facilites will be undertaken in southern Michigan, by the Parks Division, where public ownership is small; land purchase will be required. In the future the purchase price of land should be a factor in the direct cost of supplying recreation opportunities, and is likely to be sizable due to the high land values in southern Michigan. Hunting and Fishing Hunting and fishing are extensive land users requiring a lower man-to-land ratio than the other recreation activities. For this reason it has been hypothesized that a saturation point can be reached for participation in hunting and fishing. This hypothesis points to a stable or slowly rising number of licensed hunters or fishermen as a sign that the saturation level has been reached. An implicit assumption here is that the decline or stabilization of licensees is due to a saturation of the hunter or fishermen carrying capacity of the land. No regard is given to the possibility of stabilization due to taste changes, deer herd size and the possibility that hunting or fishing may be an inferior good. Regardless of the actual cause and effect relationship the concept of saturation was used to evaluate participation. The broad classes of hunting and fishing were broken down into resident - small game - gun deer - archery deer, and - fishing license holders. Participation rates for these licensees were obtained by comparing the number of license holders with Michigan population. The evidence indicates that small game and gun deer hunting have reached the saturation point while archery deer and fishing continue to increase. Past trends indicate that the absolute number of small game and gun deer hunters should maintain a level of between 550,000 and 74 650,000 licensees through 1980, while archery deer and fishing will con­ tinue to increase. Both archery deer and fishing will increase not only ’in absolute numbers of license holders, but also in the number of participants per unit of population. Extrapolation of trends over the past 5 years in Michigan shows that fishing should rise from its 1968 level of 9.17 per 100 population to 10.75 by 1975 and on up to 11.00 by 1980. The ratio for archery deer hunting will similarly increase from its levels of 0.63 per 100 population in 1965 to 0.85 by 1975 and on up to 1.00 by 1980. These ratio changes represent an increase in the number of licensed fishermen from 801,214 in 1968 to 974,400 by 1975 on up to 1,092,100 by 1980. For archery deer hunters their numbers will increase t from 59,039 in 1968 to 76,300 by 1975 on up to 98,300 by 1980. 75 Supply Camping Agencies are involved in supplying two types of camping; modern ) sites for trailors and primitive sites for tents. The cosf: of construc­ tion and maintaining camping facilities vary considerably between the two types of campsites. The direct cost given in dollars per family visitor day is $1.34 for the modern campsite and $0.47 for the primitive site. The modern sites cost the agency a little less than two and one-half times what it would cost them to supply the same recreation day to a family on a primitive site. The modern site is used one third more often than the primitive site. Using this as a weighting factor and combining both types of camping, the weighted direct cost becomes $0.97. This value is less than the $1.00 user fee that the average camper pays. Therefore camping fees result in more revenue to the state than the amount expended in providing the facility. The consumer experiences the same variation as seen in direct cost when purchasing recreation vehicle vs tent equipment. Fbr the household to consume one day of recreation it must have equipment, pay user fees, and incur travel expenses. Travel expenses and user fees remain nearly the same regardless of the type of campsite used. The differences in equipment costs causes the disparity in consumer costs. The associate cost for the household is also given in units of dollars per family visitor day. For modern camping the consumers' price tag is $32.09 for every day a family camps and for primitive camping their cost is $17.88 per day. These figures were obtained by depreciating tent equipment and recreation vehicle equipment over 76 a ten year period at twenty days use per year. Allowance was made for the per cent of different types of recreation vehicles in^ dse and the fact that camper trucks are generally held three years and sold with a substantial salvage value, plus the fact that only 10 per cent of the use of the truck is in recreation related activities. Combining the direct cost for modern campsites with the associate cost for recreation vehicle camping gives a total supply cost of $33.43. Doing the same for primitive campsites and tent camping we get $18.35. Both figures represent the total agency plus consumer cost for one day of use of a campsite by an average camping family of 4.0 members. t Of the total supply cost for modern camping 4.00 per cent is agency or direct cost and 96.00 per cent consumer cost. For primi­ tive camping the agency's share is 2.56 per cent while the consumer pays 97.44 per cent of the total. The threshold cost represents the minimum, not average, expen­ diture for the equipment necessary for an average family to participate in camping. The lowest cost of $214 is found in tent equipment and is $89 less than the average cost for all campers using tent equipment. The non-participant must initially spend at least $214 to get the equipment necessary to become an active camper. Hunting and Fishing Hunting and fishing carry lower price tags than camping for the supplying agencies and the public. The major direct cost is for law enforcement plus wildlife management expenditures by the federal and state agencies providing the hunting and fishing packages. The 77 agency need not provide any recreation facilities in order for participation in either of the primary activities, therefore capital improvement costs for facilities are not considered. Law enforcement costs are divided between hunting and fishing on the basis of the number of user days involved in each activity. On this basis approximately two thirds of the total cost is attributed to fishing and one third to hunting. When considered in terms of the cost per hunter day and fisherman day the direct cost is $0,085 per hunter day and $0,084 per fisherman day. The wildlife management costs are allocated to hunting, and fishing according to the agencies' mission. The Fish Division of the Department of Natural Resources is allocated to fishing, while the Forestry and Game Divisions and the U. S. Forest Service are allocated to hunting. When this is done and added to law enforcement costs the direct cost for hunting becomes $0.24 per hunter day and for fishing $0.23 per fisherman day. The hunter and fisherman again must have the proper equipment to participate plus pay a license fee and trip expenditures. costs will again be in units of dollars per visitor day. These The average hunter hunts 13 days per year while the average fisherman fishes 20 days per year. For both activities the equipment is depreciated over a ten year period. The resulting associate cost for the hunter is $11,38 per day in the field while for the fisherman it is $16.89 per day. Of the total associate cost for hunting $0.39 per day is spent on license fees while the fisherman spends $0.26 per day. Note that these two figures are higher than the direct costs of $0.24 78 and $0.23 for hunting and fishing respectively. Again the partici­ pants are paying their own way. ) Combining the direct cost and associate cost, the total supply cost becomes $11.62 for hunting per day and $17.12 for fishing per day. Of the total for hunting 2.07 per cent is paid by the agency and 97.93 per cent by the hunter, while fot fishing, 1.34 per cent is born by the agency and 98.66 per cent by the fisherman. The minimum cost to the individual to become a hunter is $80. This is $70 less than that for the estimated average paid by all hunters. Fishing is somewhat different. A boat and motor are included as items in the $930 equipment cost for the average fisherman, but are not necessary for the man to own in order to participate in fiqhing. The equipment cost is $53 if the boat and motor are eliminated. The minimum or threshold cost for the like amount of equipment represented by $53 becomes $20. This then is the minimum initiation fee for a man who wants to become a fisherman. In actual practice several of these packages are found in combination with one another. Combining camping and hunting, and camping and fishing while eliminating the double counting which is due to trip expenditures, we obtain costs for the package combinations often consumed. The direct, associate and total supply costs for modern camping plus hunting becomes $1.58, $33.63 and $35.21 respectively and for modern camping plus fishing they are $1.57, $37.00 and $38.57. Primitive camping plus hunting has a direct, associate and total supply cost of $0.71, $19.42 and $20.13 respectively and for primitive camping plus fishing $0.70, $22.79 and $23.49. 79 The threshold cost only applies to primitive camping plus hunting and primitive camping plus fishing. For these two packages i we have a threshold cost of $294 and $234 respectively. 80 Conclusions The policy implications of the data compiled for this study, dealing with public agencies, point in two directions one for those now t consuming recreation goods and one for those who are not. In general terms the data presented in the report seem to indicate that present policies subsidize the medium and high income segments of Michigan’s population and that the subsidy does not provide recreation in the most efficient manner. If we look at the direct and associate costs for all three packages we see that the associate cost is several times higher in all cases. These costs are what the average household pays for one day of participation in the activity. The size of the associate cost would indicate that the demanders are somewhere in the middle to high income range. The average recreation vehicle owner has an income near $10,500 and two thirds of them have incomes between $6,000 and $14,000 (Recreational Vehicle Institute, 1969). Therefore the majority of government funds spent on recreation, benefit the medium to high income households. It is also apparent that the households who have already invested in equipment, benefit from public recreation over those who have not purchased equipment. Looking at the number of modern and primitive campsites, and the growth rate of each, also indicates who gets served and who does not. State parks make up over one half of the campsites and they are generally modern in design. State parks also account for the largest capital expenditure program amoung outdoor recreation facility supplying agencies in Michigan. This again points to public programs designed for the medium to high income market. 81 Whether consumer dollars follow government dollars or vice versa is a point of contention. hand in hand. However, it does seem apparent that they go In a marketing system such as ours we naturally expect private firms to invest in areas where consumers seem to spend their dollars. This is exactly what we see government agencies doing with respect to the recreation goods. No market segment counts or hears all or even a large majority of the population. Only the voices or votes (dollars spent) of those with the tastes and the income to purchase the product are heard. Those— - with the tastes or desires but not the income are not Counted or considered as part of the market. It was previously pointed out that government agencies typically planned In a aggregate manner. They view an entire campground as a unit of investment by writing off the entire cost of the facilities for the primary and secondary activities in terms of the primary facility— the campground. Such things as picnic areas, beaches, campsites and boat launching sites get grouped together. Aggregating in this manner causes a loss of information and a clouding of possible alternative approaches to supply, therefore possibly causing an inefficient allocation of funds. The direct cost of an entire campground ($1.34 for modern and $0.47 for primitive), is low when compared to associate cost (32.09 recreation vehicles and $17.88 for tents). campground is viewed in terms of its parts. f°r This may not be true if the A picnic area has a low capital equipment investment and a low operating and maintenance cost. The family pays an equally low associate cost to enjoy picnicking. The household virtually has no equipment costs, only trip expenditures. Now in the same campground a boat launching site may represent a low 82 direct cost to the agency, but a high associate cost to the consumer. He must own a boat and motor to use the facility and incur trip expenditures similar to the picnicker. , i In the case of the picnic area we have a low to moderate direct cost along with an equally low associate cost. In the second case we have a low to moderate direct cost and a high associate cost. are grouped together and treated as a single investments. Yet both If we were to disaggregate these activities several things could result. Disaggregation allows us to look at each as a separate investment. Where direct cost is high relative to associate cost, or they are nearly equal (as in picnic areas), an investment should not return a profit, commensurate with the business world. Where the opposite is true (boat launching ramps), a profit can be made. Agencies are charging a lump sum facilities within an area. fee for the use of all This results in charging too much for the use of some facilities and too little for others. Michigan public agencies could charge different rates for the different types of facilities found on a developed area. market criteria. This would be charging users in accord with a Or the agencies could let private firms under the agencies' supervision develop those facilities, on public land, which could return a profit. In both cases the allocation of resources would be more efficient and regulated by market criteria. The affluent consumer has already invested large sums of money in a boat and motor and/or camping equipment. In most cases he would be willing to pay a fee. to launch his boat or camp. Because direct cost is low, the fee necessary to make a profit would be small. Direct cost for the entire modern campground is only $1.34 per camper day. Therefore 83 public agencies would have to chafge customers $1.34 in order to break even. A fee somewhat higher then this would make the whole operation pro­ fitable. Even then the recreation goods are not rationed correctly, because demand for the individual facilities within the area is relatively unknown, also the users are not charged an equitable fee for the facilities they actually use. If the agency charges the user for the facilities he uses, a more efficient allocation could be obtained, but administrative costs would rise. Whether the agencies take the total responsibility of supplying public recreation or work in some combination with private developers, they have the sole responsibility of providing those facilities where the direct cost is high in comparison to associate cost. These types of r facilities may not be able to pay for themselves in terms of a profit but are an important part of the total recreation experience. It should be said here that currently agencies are extracting user fees or license fees which do cover direct cost. As such the consumer whether a camper, hunter or fisherman pays his own way by the present system. Therefore Inefficiencies are not caused by underpayment for the recreation area as a whole, but are a result of under and/or over payment for the individual facilities actually used within the area. As pointed out this is due largely to the fact that little or no discrimination of payment is made for the facilities actually used or not used once a consumer passes the park gate. A caution statement is needed to qualify the above. Administrative costs of the head offices of the respective departments within which the supplying agency falls are not included in direct cost; therefore adjusted direct cost may be higher then the fees payed by the consumer. This last point would suggest that if agencies charged fees for 84 the facilities actually used, better allocation of the recreation goods would result, but it does not follow that more money could be extracted from all consumers as a whole. Presently consumers are paying for direct i cost by user fees, therefore agencies have no need to extract more money as a whole. The above is true only if the agencies receive in appropriations the money they extract as user fees. If they are receiving less than what they collect, then the agency is running a deficit. Assuming that an agency receives what it collects in fees, a pay as you use system, controlled by the agency, would only result in a shift of revenue collection from a gate charge to a charge for facilities used. While the present system causes some users to subsidize the consumption of other users by overpayment, the pay as you use system would extract a more equitable fee per consumer, resulting in a more efficient allocation of resources. The new fee system has an attribute of monitoring the demand for the facilities within a developed area and shed light on the prices each facility can command. The lump sum charge at the gate provides neither of these two types of information with any accuracy. With demand and price information a better allocation of resources can be accomplished by showing facilities of high demand and undersupply where development should take place and facilities of low demand and under use which can be eliminated or not developed further. A similar allocation can be accomplished by private development of profitable facilities, but at the same time removing some of the risk incurred by capital development, which was here-to-for assumed entirely by public agencies. If the agency's appropriations do not decline because of private development, funds would be released for use elsewhere (day-use areas in inner cities). The key seems to be that in the first case agencies assume the entire risk and responsibility of providing recreation and the 85 new fee system would allocate resources more efficiently. In the second case risk and responsibility are shared and private development may release funds once tied up by the public agency's capital development, ) and still result in a similar efficient allocation of resources. The above discussion presents an arguement which would appear to favor the combination of public and private development to supply outdoor recreation to the public. The influence of higher administrative costs connected with all public or public plus private development may dampen somewhat the use of the pay as you use system and/or private development. But this extra cost still seems justified by the demand and price infor­ mation which the new system would generate. However, other political, legal and administrative constraints may mitigate the above arguments and have not been dealt with adequately here. The available demand and price data are not good enough under present accounting procedures to list all those facilities which could be handled by private developers. The point still remains that we do have facilities in campgrounds which the agency need not be in the business of providing. Therefore, it seems prudent for public agencies to take the responsibility of initiating the new fee system, thereby generating price and demand information which would allow for the reallocation of outdoor recreation resources. Once the system is initiated and price and demand data forthcoming, private development may be encouraged. So far the discussion has centered on the current consumers of outdoor recreation facilities, but from a public welfare standpoint the question of the non-consumer remains to be dealt with. A person may either chose not to consume because of tastes and preferences or he may be forced not to consume because of income. 86 The interest lies with those who are excluded because of their income. When reference is made to non-consumers throughout the balance of this paper the reference is intended for those excluded due to d,ncome. i Does the public agency concern itself with encouraging the non-consumer or non-demander to become an active participant? evidence would say yes. The Of all the agencies the Parks Division and many county and local agencies are in a position to deal with the urban poor. The Parks Division has shifted new construction from the Northern Lower Peninsula to the Southern Lower Peninsula and the new $100 million recreation bonding program puts seventy percent of its money in developments which are a one-half hour drive from urban centers. The. preliminary evidence would indicate that concern for the urban poor is present and that something is being done about their problems'. However, results of current policies and programs suggests something entirely different. Effectively such a policy only moves the recreation site closer to the consumer, which would correspondingly lower the trip expenses or at least the travel part of the trip expenses. Trip expenditures are approximately one-half of the total associate cost for modern camping, 86 percent for primitive camping, 84 and 71 percent for hunting and fishing respectively. But travel expenditures (gas, oil and repairs) make up only 28 percent of total trip expenses. The policy of moving recreation sites closer to the cities, can only lower trip expenditures by something less than 28 percent. Trip expenditures are 50, 86, 84, and 71 percent of associate cost for modern camping, primitive camping, hunting and fishing respectively. Therefore the maximum possible reduction in associate cost would be 12.5, 24.1, 23.5, and 19.9 percent 87 respectively for these same activities, if the travel portion of trip expenditures were zero. This policy would help those now using parks, but it is doubtful t if it would really help the non-user. No matter where the campground is located a non-user has to invest in a minimum amount of equipment in order to use the facility. This is true even if the travel expenses are zero. The policy of locating facilities within a one half hour drive of the city center does not lower or deal with the equipment or threshold cost. If we assume that lowering the travel cost induces a non-demander to become a demander, we are saying that travel expenses are the limiting factor or the added expense causing a household to choose not to participate. This picture does not seem realistic„when we .find a threshold cost of over $200 for camping, and $80 for hunting. For fishing the threshold cost of $20 does not seem to be excessive. In this case trip expenditures may possibly be the limiting factor. But the initial equipment investment for camping and hunting seem to limit participation. expenditures. Lowering travel costs does nothing to lower equipment For those who have already invested in equipment, this lower travel cost does lower their consumption cost and they are the only group that benefits. When an agency wants to make demanders out of non-demanders and does it by building campgrounds near cities, they may be misdirected in their efforts. The results and consequences of such an action point directly to a subsidy for the middle and high income groups, with no help to the poor. What has been said applies directly to camping, but the same conclusions can be drawn for hunting and fishing. Although the proposed mixture of private firms and public agencies may not work the 88 same, because of the distinct lack of facilities for these activities. However, the relationship of threshold cost and associate cost does hold for hunting and fishing as it does for camping. i > A counter question should be proposed: if the associate cost was zero (free good to consumers) would non-demanders become demanders? Consumption or non-consumption now becomes strictly a matter of tastes. Frankly, information on tastes and its relationship to the consumption function is not available and therefore no one can definitely say if these activities would be consumed by the urban poor if associate cost was entirely eliminated. Possibly the funds released by private development could be used to build day-use facilities in or near the inner city. These areas would be of the type that require little or no equipment expenditures on the part of the participant. The money could also be used to subsidize public transportation systems, because many of the urban poor have no means of transportation to a park no matter how close a recreation area is to their homes. Before day-use areas are built, researchers should gain information about the tastes of the poor so recreation areas can be designed to meet their desires. Planners need good records on as many of the recreation facilities found on developed forest areas as possible, and also data on consumer tastes if more effective programs of supply are to be developed. Planning, in general, revolves around the campground. Driving and sightseeing, and picnicking are byproducts of an agency's supply efforts. Little or no inventory or financial data is available for these activities. Yet they are considered by most planners to be the activities most participated in. Before a decision maker can make informed decisions 89 about recreation goods, he must have better data and better decision methods or models. ) This study also indicates that there is a lack o£ effective co-ordination between agencies with respect to planning or facilities provided. Michigan's National and state forests are located away from urban centers. people. Most of their consumers are moderate or high income State parks however, are in both urban and non-urban areas. It is here that co-ordination is needed. In non-urban areas the parks cater to the high and medium income people. approach near urban centers. We also find this same In other words the Parks Division seems to follow the same policy in two widely diverse socioeconomic situations. In densely populated areas where more than one agency is providing recreation it is important to co-ordinate their activities for the sake of harmony and efficiency. The Parks Division and county and local governments are the agencies in question in urban areas. Some policy should be developed outlining their respective roles as suppliers, thereby avoiding wasteful duplication of efforts and facilities. For a greater co-operation between all agencies, a governing board should be formed with all agencies represented. This group would have the responsibility of developing a plan outlining all agencies' roles as suppliers of recreation in Michigan. It could also have the responsibility of ironing out difficulties between agencies! Also for those agencies supplying facilities in southern Michigan a question arises about non-residents using public facilities. 90 The largest concentrations of non-resident use occurs along the southeastern shore of Lake Michigan and the western shores of Lake St. Clair and Lake Huron. In most cases the majority of tusers in state parks in these areas on holiday week ends are people from Illinois, Ohio, and Indiana. Public officials must ask themselves if the economic benefit arising from non-resident use of state facilities is greater to the state than the use of state funds in projects where only residents will benefit and does the benefit to the local area outweigh the benefit which would be received in a state project benefiting a large group of residents. The first major consideration is the people benefited. The majority of economic benefit will be felt in the local community where the recrecreation is consumed. Therefore the basic conclusion is that the t expenditure of state funds in these cases will generally benefit only local people. As outlined in Chapter 4 the overall economic benefit is obtained by using the multiplier 1.74. In terms of actual dollars, the daily expenditures in the local area of $9.64 for camping generate an additional income of $16.77, for hunting the $6.20 expenditure generates $10.79 and for fishing $7.55 generates $13.14. Most of the public funds spent by non-residents is for camping facilities. The Parks Division spends $1.34 (direct cost) for every camping family per day while that same family spends money which generates $26.41 (original expenditure plus $16.77 in additional income). Most public administrators interviewed expressed the opinion that the benefits from the money spent by non-residents far outweigh the public expenditures for construction and maintenance of camping facilities. The above analysis would appear to justify their beliefs. 91 One question not asked or answered is a comparison of the $16.77 benefit to the local community with the benefits which could ) be received by an alternative use of public funds in recreation projects helping the urban poor or any other alternative state program. It appears that the recipients of the recreation dollars in the local area are local businessmen of medium income. Their income stream appears to be only somewhat seasonal, because the campgrounds we are referring to are located near large urban areas (Detroit, Benton Harbor etc.) where the majority of trade is non-tourist. By assuming that the funds spent in building and maintaining a modern campground were transferred to a day-use recreation center in the inter city, the above mentioned income generated by out-of-state travellers would be lost, but the inner city dweller would acquire access to recreation here-to-for unavailable. The overriding consideration is the per cent of income lost to the local area if the day-use facility is built in favor of a modern campground. In many of the parks heavily used by out-of-state travellers the income generated by their expenditures sppears to be a small percentage of the total local GNP, due to the high local population and the resulting high amount of intra area trade. In such cases the expenditure programs of the public agencies should be re-evaluated. Where the income generated by recreation is a significant proportion of the total area income, the benefits of the public money spent in modern camping facilities may be justified. Only when a large proportion of the local GNP is generated by recreation expend!- 92 tures and the community depends upon large numbers of spending tourists, is this policy justified. Such areas are usually sparsely populated * and depend highly on recreation spending to bolster their local income base. In Michigan the majority of areas used extensively by out-ofstate travellers are not tourist towns or communities. As such state agencies might do better by concentrating more on providing recreation facilities which benefit the local urban populus not non-residents. The above hypothesis is based on scant evidence and many assumptions and should be evaluated in that light. t LITERATURE CITED i Bureau of the Census. 1968. Statistical Abstracts of the United States. U. S. Department of Commerce. 1032 pp. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Unpublished Data. 1964. U. S. Department of Interior. Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife. 1965. 1965 National Survey Fishing and Hunting. U. S. Department of Interior, Research Publication No. 27. 76 pp. Cicchetti, Charles J . , Seneca Joseph J . , and Paul Davidson. 1970. The Demand and Supply of Outdoor Recreation An Economentric Analysis. Bureau of Economics Research, Rutgers University. Crapo, Douglas, and Michael Chubb. January 1969. Recreation Area Day-Use Investigation Techniques. Recreation Research and Planning Unit, Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University, Technical Report No. 6. 124 pp. Department of Conservation. 1968. 24th Biennial Report 1967-1968. Department of Conservation, State of Michigan. 239 pp. Gamble, Hays B. June 1967. The Economic Structure of Sullivan County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania State University, College of Agriculture, Agriculture Expt. Sta., University Park, Pennsylvania. Bulletin 743. 60 pp. Hendee, John C. , Catton, William R. , Marlow, Larry D. and c. Frank Brockman. 1968. Wilderness Users in the Pacific Northwest Their Characteristics, Values and Management Preferences. U. S. Forest Service Research Paper PNW-61. 92 pp. Hughes, Jay M. 1970. Forestry in Itasco County's Economy an Input-Output Analysis. Agriculture Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, Miscellaneous Report No. 95, Forestry Series 4. 24 pp. Jamsen, G. , and J. Ryckman. 1969. Participation and Socioeconomics of Salmon and Trout Fishermen in Michigan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Research and Development Report No. 158. 33 pp. 93 94 Kearns, Frank W . , James,Lee M . , Smith, Norman F . , and Ray Pfeifer. January 1962. An Economic Appraisal of Michigan's State Forests. Forestry Division, Department of Conservation. Technical Publication No. 2. 59 pp. 1 LaPage, Wilbur F. 1968. The Role of Fees in Campers' Decisions. U. S. Forest Service Research Paper NE-118., Upper Darby, Penna. 24 pp. Manthy, Robert S., and Lee M. James. September 1969. .A Study of Probable Future Demand on the Public Lands, for the Public Land Law Review Commission. Michigan State University. 214 pp. Recreational Vehicle Institute. 1969. Facts and Trends. 24 pp. Shafer, Elwood L. 1969. The Average Camper Who Doesn't Exist. U. S. Forest Service Research Paper NE-142. 27 pp. Swanson, Gustav A., Shield, J. T . , Wayne, Olson H . , Decker, Eugene, Held, R. B . , Straayer, John A., Hill, Ralph R . , Hunter, Gilbert N . , and Glen Purdue. January 1969. Fishing and Wildlife Resources on the Public Lands. Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University. 326 pp. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bloemendaal, Dirk C. 1969. Michigan Pictorial Campground Guide. Third Edition, Royal Lithographies, Grand Rapids, Michigan. 148 pp. Bureau of Business and Economics Research. 1968. Michigan Statistical Abstracts Seventh Edition. Graduate School of Business, Michigan State University. 559 pp. Bureau of the Census. 1968. Statistical Abstracts of the United States. U. S. Department of Commerce. 1032 pp. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Unpublished Data. 1964. U. S. Department of Interior. Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife. 1965. 1965 National Survey of Fishing and Hunting. U. S. Department of Interior, Research Publication No. 27. 76 pp. Cicchetti, Charles J . , Seneca Joseph J . , and Paul Davidson. 1970. The Demand and Supply of Outdoor Recreation An Econometric, Analysis. Bureau of Economics Research, Rutgers University. Grapo, Douglas, and Michael Chubb. January 1969. Recreation Area DayUse Investigation Techniques. Recreation Research and Planning Unit, Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University, Technical Report No. 6. 124 pp. Gamble, Hays B. June 1967. The Economic Structure of Sulliven County, Pennsylvania State University, College of Agriculture, Agriculture Expt. Sta., University Park, Pennsylvania. Bulletin 743. 60 pp. Heath, Edward J. 1964. Comparison of Recreation Development Plans for a Northern Maine Wilderness Tract. Maine Agriculture Expt. Sta. Bulletin 628. 51 pp. Hendee, John C . , Catton,William R . , Marlow, Larry D. and C. Frank Brockman. 1968. T1ilderness Users in the Pacific Northwest Their Characteristics, Values and Management Preferences. U. S. Forest Service Research Paper PNW-61. 92 pp. Hughes, Jay M. 1970. Forestry in Itasco County's Economy an InputOutput Analysis. Agriculture Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, Miscellaneous Report No. 95. 24 pp. Jamsen G . , and J. Ryckman. 1969. Participation and Socioeconomics of Salmon and Trout Fishermen in Michigan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Research and Development Report No. 158. 33 pp. 95 96 Kearns, Frank W . , James, Lee M . , Smith, Norman F . , and Ray Pfeifer. January 1962. An Economic Appraisal of Michigan's State Forests. Forestry Division, Department of Conservation. Technical Publication No. 2. 59 pp. > LaPage, Wilbur F. 1968. The Role of Fees in Campers' Decisions. U. Forest Service Research Paper NE-118., Upper Darby, Penna. 24 pp. Manthy, Robert S., and Lee M. James. September 1969. A study of Probable Future Demand on the Public Lands, for the Public Land Law Review Commission. Michigan State University. 214 pp. Michigan Department of Conservation. 1964. 22nd Biennial Report 1963 1964. Department of Conservation, State of Michigan. 208 pp. Michigan Department of Conservation. 1966. 23rd Biennial Report 1965 1966. Department of Conservation, State of Michigan. 239 pp.. Michigan Department of Conservation. 1968. 24th Biennial Report 1967 1968. Department of Conservation, State of Michigan. 239 pp. t Michigan Department of Natural Resources Forestry Division. 1968. Department of Conservation, State of Michigan, Unpublished Data. Parks Division. 1968. Department of Conservation, State of Michigan. Unpublished Data. Recreation Resources Planning Division. March 1, 1967. Michigan Outdoor Recreation Plan Preliminary Draft. Recreation Resources Planning Division, Department of Conservation. Recreation Vehicle Institute. Sears Roebuck and Co. 1968. 1969. Facts and Trends. Summer Catalog. 24 pp. 1553 pp. Shafer, Elwood L. 1969. The Average Camper Who Doesn't Exist. Forest Service Paper NE-142. 27 pp. U. S. Swanson, Gustav A . , et al. January 1969. Fishing and Wildlife Resources on the Public Lands. Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University. 326 pp. U. S. Forest Service. 1971. Correspondence with John 0. Wernham, Chief of Division of Recreation, Range and Wildlife, Milwaukee Wisconsin. APPENDICES ) i Appendix I Inventory, classification, and evaluation of existing outdoor recreation areas and facilities, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Questionnaire 196^„ 97 Budget Butaau Wo. 42-6402; Approval Espi te s December 31, 1965 ro«M M M m Da Nat Use U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INT ERIOR BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION WASHINGTON, O.C. 20240 1. Map No. 2. Aron No. OF EXISTING OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS AND FACILITIES ) INSTRUCTIONS: T h is form is to be used for an in ventory o f the fo llo w in g outdoor recre ation areas: (1) A ll F ederal, State, and b o u n ty areas o f ten acres o f more, re gardle ss o f lo c a tio n ; and (2) C ity and tow n areas o f te n acres or more. Recreation Area - A la nd and w ater a n a adm inistered as a u n it fo r outdoor recreation. Totol Acreage - Land and water acreage under th e ju ris d ic tio n o f the adm in istering agency or firm. 3. Name or id entification of area (Include designation auch ae pork, forest, hunting re s , wayside, recreation area, etc.) 4. Location-of largest part of area A. State B. County C. City ( If in city or town) D. Precise location of center of area (Complete (I), (2) or (3)) (1) Township iRange 1Section (2) A ir miles i j Direction 1 , 1Minutes 1 Minutes CCS Longitude 1 i 5A. Other counties which have portion of area From center of nearest town with pop. of 2300 or more (Name town) 1 i 1 l 1 1 1Degrees 1 B. Other states which have portion of area 6. Administering agency A. Name B. Type of agency (Check one) (2) CD State (17 CDD FmtSerml (3) CD County (4) 1 1Other local government 7. Ownership or land status (Check if only one; give % of total i t store than one ownership) A. I- } Federal 0 . CD State C. CD County D. CD Other local E. CD Quasi-public (Noti’peoilt organisation) P. CD Private Acres f 8A. Acreage within area which is land (other than wetlands). ................................................... ............................................... Acres 6. Acreage w ithin area which ia permanent wetlands (swamp, bog, marsh)................................................................... Acres Total acreage D. 8A + 8B + 8C 9. C lassifica tion of area according to Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Classification System (Total of 9A through 9F should equal 8D). See attached definitions. Revised classification with changes programmed fo i n e it fiv e years (Do not complete i f no changes are programmed) (Acres) In preaent condition (A eras) Class Class 1 High Density Recreation Class II General Outdoor Recreation Class III Natural Environment A G N B H 0 C ) P B Class IV Outstanding Noturol Features X ' E Class V Prim itive Area ........ F Class VI H istoric and Cultural Sites Potential use (Acres) .................... <5....... L K M 'sr.............. ' 10. Accessible adjacent water outside area (Check appropriate bos to indicate s ite ) A- CD None 8. CD Under 100 acres C. □ 100-499 acres D. ' 1 300*999 acres R* CD 1.000 acres and over 11. Q uality of surface water w ithin area (Check appropriate bot or bo*ee) Pollution A. CD None or minor § . CD Polluted but acceptable for recreation use C. 1 1Polluted sufficiently to be unacceptable for recreation use D. □ D. 1No surface water C -l 12. Access to area (Check appropriate boa or boxea) CD Water C. A ir 1 B. □ A. CD Rood 98 Miles f p* d h ‘t *y p* 'p i n 14. Access road from highway is adequate to permit uninterrupted flow of traffic on average weekend day in season..................................................... A. □ Yes B. D N o 15. Principal roads within the ares are adequate to permit uninterrupted flow of traffic on average weekend day to season....................................... A. O Y e s B. C ] N o ) Physical description of area 16. Land • Rank (up to three) features which generally characterize the whole area by inserting 1, 2, and 3 in the boxes to the le ft of the iteres. 17. Terrain • Rank (up to two) features which genersily characterize the whole area by inserting 1 and 2 in the boxes to the le ft of the items. A □ Beach (ocean or lake) E □ B □ Wetlands F r ~ Brushlsnd C □ Desert i'< Woodland or forest D □ Grassland H Tundra or alpine A □ Rolling C □ H illy B A 18. Other features ef the ares which are of major significance in attracting visitors. Chock boxes to the le ft of a ll that apply. Agricultural land D [ 3 j Mountainous F □ Lakes or ponds L □ Canyons B {“ “ ] Reservoirs Ci £1] Buttes C □ Rivers or streams H CT) Shore-fronts D □ Rapids J □ History E □ S p r in g . K □ Archeology Flora M C7] Fauna . N □ C lin .M 0 □ Other 19. Recreation activities E xisting • Rank 1, 2, and 3 tor the activ itie s participated in by the m o g t people, o n an annual basis, and cheek a ll other existing a ctivities. Programmed • Check activities which are not existing but are scheduled to be available within the next 5 years. Potential • Check activities not existing or programmed for which the environment is suitable. E xist­ ing A ctivity (1) Program­ med Poten­ tia l A ctivity (3) (2) A. Driving and sightseeing R. Golf B. Swimming S. Camping (tent) C. Skiing (water) T. Camping (trailer) D. Skin and scuba diving U. Camping (group) E. Bicycling V. Ice skating P. Fishing (salt water) W. Sledding or tobogganing G. Fishing (warm water) X. Skiing (snow) H. Fishing (cold water) Y. Hiking and walking Existing Programmed (1) (2) Poten­ tia l (3) Z. Mountain climbing 6. Picnicking K. Nature study AA. Playing games or sports (softball, tennis, etc.) L. Boating (motor) BB. Viewing outdoor sports events (ballgames, racing, etc.) M. Boating (non-motor) CC. Drama and concerts OD. Other (Spocity) M. Hunting (big game) 0 . Hunting (small game) P. Hunting (water fowl) Q. Horseback riding 20. Total number of v is its to this area for recreation purposes. Day v is it. Count each person who v is its or uses area for any length of time during day but does not stay overnight. Overnight v is it. Couat each person who stays overnight one algbt • s three night stay counts as three overnight v is its A. Day vis its No. 1999 • iB . Overnight viska I iKfoT 1Count H I Estimate I I 196___ (If oof reosnf ye a r)— — * 1Count I Estimate I 0 . Overnight v is its C. Day v is its w .— ------------- IKfoT Q Count I I Estimate I* \ PH Count r ~ l Estimate 21. Perefcneege of total annual recreation attendance which occurs in each month. A. January % §• February C. March D. A p ril % I . lin y % P. June % C. July L . November J. September k . December u r ir'ees ore charge*} (7ftocJt appropriate Aon or boxes] A* □ Entrance or parking I. □ U s e r K. October H. August C. □ N o n e C-2 USCOWM oc is m 99 23. Recreation acreage and sites in area. Site * A tract of land within a recreation area designated for a particular a ctivity. Suggested maximum - Should be based on present standards of spsce and privacy. Use pressure * Estimate, to nearest 10*, whether existing sites could handle more v is its during average weekend in season (as *1 0 *), or whether fa c ilitie s are inadequate HASJ-OOu ST fOCfcSi NuNuSCO'G ST FC«fc*T SIUR«60« R !VER ST Fu»cbl FlTt LA*6 STAT£ FuRfcSl INON RA ->Gt ST FUREST Pfc*E NArfOufcTTE ST FG*eSl LAKE SU-'ERlO* ST tORESl HACRlNAC STATE FOREST NlCnlGAtNE ST FOREST ESCANABA RIVE* STATE ST PUREST CMlPPENA RIVER ST FQFESl NENQMINbE ST fCREST THUNDER BAY H I v E R ST forest OtoEftA* STATE FCREST P I C e O h h I v E R S? FOREST HOUS*