delaware estuary
study
• ¦*%* 4 4 A
%*>
;>y:v.
|>4
_ • « I 4 •
NvX*IV.
jV»v;*:*'
»«»».¦'.*'*«***•
•;¦;»/- ¦-'. • .V . •.
wtXyttXyXX-:-v*4 • *
XvXvKsy:-:-:':^
vt •< y/tVtVi'iViVtVi.t«*
.*.~. >,~ •»*>»"~" •
t M t • « « t »"<"» *
M-Iy* t(v,'
. •¦¦**Xv»v«vX*!*X,X,X*XvX,<
•'.V. V.MM.'A'••<«.'.<»
MM a • a * «
iP*
>»•
>;r/
WATER-ORIENTED RECREATION BENEFITS
A Study
of the Recreation Benefits Derivable
from Various Levels of Water Quality
of the Delaware River
¦ill!*,
tVw,v;y.'A\
* •
,V,',V
.. wavX'X*"*-*
!»—
::;..:v ¦ ''
Illltlw
K;S;llf
%v
1 • • •
Vl'4
* » »_
»* ~ ¦»
*• *
»***%~>»
v» ¦'
¦*mir ¦•:::::::x:v:x:::::::::::x-. •• v.:.**x.w.>,,,,,,,.
».MA
-•¦•¦•-••Xv,
:o;^y,v
:
SSiW;:^ ,>v'
. . ..Xv.VAvXvXv^Xv-VAvX'.vXv.vXv.V
v« O Im.i.o : •" ~; •>. »>hiViV4 v
v ft iM>v«y«v«vi :i.r»v* * *
>1 Mi 4 •
t»J ~
«:.>SSS:S:^""'-'---
• |>4< »4 I V» fc •»<
*wmmwrn»
* ~ * 4
*>>>x:X'X*:\:>x
ft.ft.*.•:¦:
* fr.i II < •.• *^ViVlA».» aVi]r*"tji
S % « 1%% % M i * *> «*»*•~ ¦»
:•».
.%*»»»%%%%%:«:~:¦:~-»>>
*4 *_*
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
I h k# ^ n it h
-------
WATER-ORIENTED RECREATION BENEFITS
A Study
of the Recreation Benefits Derivable
from Various Levels of Water Quality
of the Delaware River
PHASE I
by
Anthony R. Tomazinis
Iskandar Gabbour
Institute for Environmental Studies
University of Pennsylvania
July 1966
-------
TABLE OF r/JNTEHTS
Page
CHAPTER I Introduction*..., 1
CHAPTER II The Problem and its Theoretical Framework..,,... 7
C11APTET. Ill A Projection liodel 15
CHAPTER IV Existing Conditions., 19
CHAPTER V Demand Relationships,,37
CHAPTBE VI Projection of Demand Relationships and
Relevant Trends.70
CHAPTER VII Summary and Conclusions...........83
APPENDICES
APPEND IX A Some Approaches to Demand Estimations ...••• 86
APPENDIX B Participation in the Detroit Area..,,,,.,. 95
APPENDIX C Bodies of Uater# ....... ..... 100
APPENDIX C Boating and Fishing Places..••••«,103
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Distribution and Oimership of Swimming Places
by County (1965),,,,,,»•««,t,aaa«a»#c94tM9e«te*«a»« 25
2 Supply o£ Sv/imming Pools by County (1950»»1965)##«#a<#i«.#,• 26
3 Persona 12 Years of Age and Over Participating in
Swimming by Age Group and by County (I960)s,,|ft#a,a 29
4 Income and Participation in the Northeast U,S,
(June-August l'60).a,aa,as###,,,(,,,»af««aaa.a9#>,,i 38
5 Income and Boat Ovmership,aa#t#,«,aata,.,tr««»•«•••»42
6 Education and Participation in the Northeast U.S.
{June - August I960)»a,a,aia,p,a,,l44
7 Race and Participation in the Northeast U,S,
(June » August I960),,53
C Place of Residence and Participation in the northeast U#S,
(June •• August 1960).56
9 Percent of Person® Twelve Years and Over Restricted
from Participating by Type of Restriction (Summer
1960)M.(M 60
10 Recreation Visits in the TVA Lakes,,#,t.,«,«f72
11 Present and Future Recreation Visits in the TVA LakesC4aaa* 74
12 Percent Distribution of Population by Age and Sex
(United States)4aaca#»v#*9taa«tt»t,4t4«>ca#<#aa#tcaaa 76
13 Percentage Distribution of Consumer Units by Income
Groups (United States),•,,,aa(a,##»#ctstatvaa,78 A
14 Average Standard (Scheduled) Workweek for Lion*
Agricultural Workers by Industryaa#
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 The Study Arec .... 2
2 The Projection Model... 17
3 I'ater 3odies In the Study Area..,••••••••20
4 Pools and Beaches in the Study Area..... 23
5 Supply Rate of Suiraming Pools by County (1950 - 1965).... 25
6 Boating and Fishing in the Study Area.•••••••••.. 30
7 Income and Participation in the Northeast U.S.
(June - August 1960)......•••••••••••••••«••• 39
3 Education and Participation in the Northeast U.S.
(June - August 1960) •••••••• 45
9 Occupation and Participation in the Northeast U.S.
(June - August 1960).• •••. 47
10 Age and Percentage Participation in the Northeast U.S.
(June - August I960)...... •••••••••• 49
11 Age, Sex, and Percentage Participation in the Northeast
U.S. (June - August 1960) 50
12 Age and Days per Person Participating in the Northeast
U.S. (June - August). 52
13 Race and Participation in the Northeast U.S.
(June - August 1SG0)•••••*•••••••••»•••••••••••••••• 54
14 Mean Parle Distance and Percentage Participation in the
Detroit lletropolitan Region......................... 55
15 Population Density and Percentage Participation in the
Detroit Metropolitan Region 68
16 Recreation Visits in the TVA Lakes,,,.................... 73
-------
PREFACE
The research vork of the project has been financed by
the Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare under contract No. PII 86-65-74, This report covers
only Phase I of the research.
The work was carried out vzithin the Institute for Environ-
mental Studies, University of Pennsylvania, under the direction
of Dr, Anthony R. Tomazinis, Project Director, and Iskandar Gabbour,
Research Associate. Several graduate students of the University
of Pennsylvania have contributed to the work of the project as
research assistants. Among them are Daniel Brodsky, William C.
Uheaton, Hichael Hallor, Dhody Dinesh, and Judith Bronstein,
Programming assistance Mas rendered by Colin Uordley, Research
Associate at the Institute, Mrs. Mary Ellison, Mrs. Doris Smith
and Mrs. Janice Ludman have carried most of the typing load of the
project.
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The objective of the study presented In this report is to discover,
define and measure the identifiable potential recreation benefits which
may accrue to the region from various alternative rates of improvement of
the waters of the Delaware River. The part of the river included in this
study was the one bounded by a point just south of Trenton, New Jersyy
to Liston Point, which is Just north of the southern and of New Castle
County, Delaware. The area that was of immediate concern to this study is
shown in Figure 1 and includes eleven counties on both sides of the Dela-
*
ware River. Improvements taken into account in this study consist of,
essentially, reasonable restorations of the quality of the river's water to
different levels of its natural condition, prior to man-made pollution.
This study is part of a lar3er project, usually referred to a6 the
Delaware Estuary Comprehensive Study (DECS). The role, which the present
study is intended to perform as part of the more extensive project, is the
provision of an estimate of the benefits (especially recreation benefits)
which may be expected as a result of each alternative cost outlay that is
associated with the different plans of river purification. In this respect
the objectives of the present study are quite specific and limited, since
* The included counties are: New Castle, in the State of Delaware; Burlington,
Camden, Gloucester, Hunterdon, Mercer and Salem, in the State of New Jersey;
and Buck6, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and PhiladelplUa, in the State of
Pennsylvania.
- 1 -
-------
• u ¦ I fI •t I ( < • i |
< 0 w • t < i i ¦) I
-------
the work reported here ic designed to ..ieet certain, specific needs of the
present research effort.
The whole ef-ort of defininj, investi^atins and projecting the deriv*
able recreational benefits has been divided into two parts, termed Phase I
and Phase II of the whole effort. The present report presents only Phase I
of the undertaking This phase includes essentially two sections; the deter-
mination of the projection relationships, and the determination and projec-
tion of the competitive or supplementary outdoor recreation facilities within
the resion. Phase II includes the actual projection of recreation beneftls
for the years 1976 and 2000.
The subject matter of the present project hao certain characteristics
which appear to be of particular current interest. For instance, the pri-
mary feature of' t3i&objective of this project is that it focusses on recre-
ation needs within a metropolitan region, and particularly on outdoor
water-oriented recreation needs. These characteristics bear some import-
ant ramifications. For example, the question of providing sufficient outdoor
water-oriented recreation facilities within a metropolitan region Is closely
associated with, among others, the problems of uncovering and estimating
both the manifest and the latent demand for such facilities and services
within the metropolitan region* In essence, the problem centers on how to
Include in the recreation demand projection process the Influence of those
factors which usual supra-region data and pa*k*users data either do not
include* or minimize their significance. Thus any emphasis on primarily
manifest recreation demand and on its variations, would ostensibly minimize
the significance of such factors as relatively excessive or prohibitive user
- 3 -
-------
costs, distance between the facilities and potential users, lac!: of faall*
iarlty with recreational areas, and a general lack of Information about
recreation services, or, on occasion* the significance of an effective or
actually non-e::lstance of facilities. A study of water-oriented outdoor
recreation demand within a metropolitan region should, seemingly, take into
account such factors, as well as several others which cause the existence
of latent demand* The scale and the particularities of a metropolitan region
frequently transform many of these factors from marginal Influences into
primary forces determining outdoor recreation demand within the metropolitan
region* It is for that reason that latent demand consideration must be
Included in studying the potential impact that improved water quality in the
Delaware River might have within the region.
In addition to the "locatlonal,; characteristic of the present study,
its objective of determining demand for water-oriented recreation facilities
appears to be of particular current Interest. The recent upsurge of
concern about limited water resources (especially In the urbanized regions
of the country) bds been a current topic and any research on the effects of
Improving the quality of a major water resource within a metropolitan region
can easily be seen as being only a part of the general water resources
problem. Social planners, as well as those concerned with the water supply
problems, may also find the study of some interest. Finally, the social
significance of the availability of water-oriented outdoor recreation facil®
itles within or near areas of social and economic "relative deprivation" has
recently been re-emphasized, particularly since recent public disturbances
have Increased the.'ptedsure to supply such facilities considerably*
- 4 -
-------
In carrying out the present study, certain limitations had to be
recognized at the outset of the undertaking. A major limitation was that the
available funds and time schedule did not permit the collection of extensive
new and ad hoc data within the region. An attempt to acquire and analyze ori'
ginal and detailed data from the Detroit Metropolitan Area has also proven
fruitless because of data deficiencies. Also, the fact that the objective
of the study was a specific one, tailored to meet the needs of the parent study
of the Delaware Estuary should be considered as a definite limitation
in objectives and methods of the present study. In that respect, the present
project could neither afford to test some of the basic hypotheses with original
data, nor expand its scope to cover a major part of the whole field of outdoor
recreation demand, let alone to raise and discuss the utility and optlmality
concepts of this demand within metropolitan regions.
In spite of these limitations and the fact that previous research work
on the subject has been meager, and scantily reported, the present project has
constantly attempted to meet lt6 objectives within the appropriate framework
of scientific inquiry and empirical verification. Data from the Philadelphia
Metropolitan Region, the T.V.A. and the Detroit Metropolitan Area were the
primary sources. The ORRRC reports as well as several other state, county
and city reports from various parts of the country were heavily dra
-------
This succession of analysis is partially indicated by the sequence of chapters
in this report# An examination of the overall problem of recreation demand
projections is followed by the presentation of the general model which servec
as the guide for the remaining work. Present conditions are presented in
Chapter IV while prevailing demand relationships follow in Chapter V. The
projection of future relationships and trends are discussed in Chapter VI*
In Phase II of the project,regional future water-oriented recreational
demand will be compared with the capacity of proposed projects, within and
without the region, and also with the capacity of each of the alternative
solutions proposed for developing the Delaware River, On the basis of this
comparison, the recreation benefits from Improving the river's waters will
be estimated. Finally, these benefits will be expressed in a form of a range
of monetary values so that some cost benefits analyses of the alternatives may
be rendered feasible. This part of the project is presented la the
report of Phase II. The present report ends with some general conclusions
and ramifications of the findings of the work carried out during Phase I of
the project.
-------
CHAPTER II
TIE PROBLEM AND ITS THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The essential objective of the work described in this report is the
determination of the recreation benefits which might appear in the Delaware
River region at 6orac future time as a result of one or another set of actions
taken to improve (or restore) the water quality of the river. This objective,
while it may appear simple as stated above, actually reflects a complex
problem and required a careful and comprehensive examination of several
major issues. In fact, the initial task may well be considered to be the
formulation of the theoretical framework of the entire effort, before the en-
tire analysis may be determined and carried out.
Underlying this concern for recreation benefits is, or course, the gen-
eral belief in our society that recreation, in general, and outdoor recreation
in particular, is beneficial to the welfare of the people, and that an increase
in the present level of recreation activities (and corresponding facilities)
in the foreseeable future Is desirable from both the individual and societal
points of view. Thus, the estimation of recreation benefits as part of a
water improvement river project is based on this fundamental proposition that
outdoor recreation activities are highly esteemed and appreciated In our
society, tfhat are these recreation benetits? The concept of recreation bene-
fits is an elusive one, especially when the analyst seeks a strict definition
that is both exhaustive and operational. Recreation is still a very subjective
phenomenon. Tlhat one person regards as relaxing may well be viewed as a chore
- 7 -
-------
by another. Frequently, it Is the form that a recreation activity takes, and
the Intensity with v/hich it is undertaken, that are debatable. At present,
what is needed to make the concept of recreation (and of Its benefits) more
amenable to precise analysis is an aggregate valuation of forms and patterns
of recreation associated with society's goals for recreation. Uithout a
clear definition of such goals no real evaluation of recreation plans and
benefits aan satisfactorily be carried out.
The problem of definition becomes more complex when recreation bene-
fits are considered as a whole. The concept of benefits may be expressed in
as precise a configuration as dollars and cents or as subjective a notion
as aesthetic pleasure. In fact, there Is not only a range of sources for
recreation, but also a host of components which determine the extent and
intensity of benefits derived from recreational activity.
This report is specifically concerned with outdoor water-oriented recrea-
tion activities centered around the Delaware River. An all-inclusive inven-
tory p£ potential recreation would contain many activities such as boating,
swimming, fishing, picnicking .aIoie the river's edge, and nature walks near
the banks of the river. The benefits gained from the Improvement of the
water quality for these activities would vary from pleasure, educational
and athletic achievements derived by the participants, to perhaps cleaner
and fresher air freed of noxious odors, for those using the facilities,
residents of nearby neighborhoods, and those engaged in other activities
In the urban area. In other words, the specific Interests of this study
of x*ater-oriented activities and how they can be changed, can be considered,
from one point of view, as broad and widesanglng as the notion of recreation
• 8 •
-------
benefits Itself.
However, in order to obtain a more quantifiable picture of potential
recreation benefits the present study will only focus on four specifically
defined activities (swimming, boating, fishing and picnicking) and will
not attempt to specify benefits derivable from other aspects of river-
oriented activity, such as nature wallcs, aesthetic enjoyment, and cleaner
air. One Way to estimate the potential recreational benefits derivable
from Improvements in the water quality of the Delaware River, especially as
It affects the four sports mentioned above, is to look at the extent of
the present and future activities. The desire to undertake recreational
activities is usually what is meant by recreation demand. In defining and
measuring this recreatiou demand, several Intermediate steps are required.
For the purposes of this study the emphasis is placed on determining the
extent of the desire to undertake outdoor water-oriented recreation activ-
ities by the residents of the Estuary Region and neighboring areas for
each activity separately.
In measuring the desire, and conversely, the demand for a particular
recreation activity, one faces several problems. In essence, any measurement
of present demand must start from measuring the manifest demand; that is, the
expressed demand must first be measured and then related to appropriate
indices which may express some of the primary forces that influence the
extent of what is referred to In this report as manifest demand. This
manifest demand needs also to be related to future populations that may be
exercising this demand. This procedure, although complicated and difficult,
is part of what a comprehensive projective effort entails. However, in
- 9 -
-------
addition to measuring the present manifest demand, one may expect the existence
of some additional desire to recreational activities which is, at present,
constrained. Such unexpressed desire is frequently termed the present
latent demand for recreational activities. Obviously, for projective
purposes, one may properly take the present-day latent demand into account
and project its size for any given time in the future.
The sum manifest and latent! demands make up the total present-day
recreation demand in a given area for a given activity. While this, in
principle is the appropriate basis for recreation demand estimations,
most planning efforts are concerned with several additional aspects of the
problem. One of these aspects is the expectation that manifest demand
rates and relationships may vary significantly and concurrently with major
shifts in the size, and In the type of present-day latent demand neasures.
Another aspect of the problem is the definition and determination of that
part of the total demand, for one or a group of activities, which comprise
what may be termed the "design demand." Usually the design demand for a
service is considered to be that proportion of the total demand for that
service* which is both certain to be experienced consistently and frequently
enough and is feasibly provided for within the given circumstances.
The analysis finiprojection of future recreation demand for certain
regions has been the subject of several pertinent studies. Appendix A of
this report presents several of the significant approaches followed In
these studies. In general on may notice that these previous efforts may
be categorized by Either conceptual discussions and solutions to the problem
of projecting future demand, or by ad hoc, and pragmatic approaches designed
- 10 -
-------
to solve the problem in a specific area under well-defined circumstances.
The reviewer may also notice that in the great majority of cases, the pro-
jection of future recreation demand is primarily based on relationships
relevant mainly to present-day manifest demand* Only in a few instances
are the considerations pertinent to latent demand taken into account,
notably in those studies undertaken at the University of Pennsylvania's
Group £or Economic Research and Institute for Environaental Studies.
In most cases of recreation demand projection, the analysts are pri-
marily interested in determining the potential demand for a proposed
facility. In this respect, any factor which has been found to be related
to the size of the demand (e.g., distance from the facility) is taken into
account in terms of its restrictive capacity. Thus, the demand estimations
proposed are based on what the given set of circumstances are expected
to produce* This approach is a "market^oriented" one, strongly influenced
by the principles and methods of economics. Only on rare occasions will
a planning analyst find any concern expressed for demand estimations which
ddaote the unrestrained total demand for recreation facilities and activities.
Such an approach would obviously focus, not on the restrictive character-
istics of a given set of Influential factors, but on the potential combin-
ations and variations of these factors for permitting the manifestation
of the entire recreation demand as it may occur before any factors, exogenous
to the individual, have been allowed to enter the analysis. Estimating recrea-
tion demand in this way would permit the planning analyst to specify the
demand which may occur under a certain set of circumstances, and also the
demand which may be left unexpressed and consequently go unsatisfied.
- 11 -
-------
Although the distinction between manifest and latent demand may appear
blurred in these cases, one should also notice that for the purposes of
planning alternative systems of recreation facilities, one needs to know
both the expected demand on each system of recreation facilities as well as
the unsatisfied demand remaining in each case. Knetsch (1) and Davis (ii)
appear to be among the first to approach this problem of alternative
demand estimations, but the "Open Space Study'' (v) and the cost-benefit of
Davidson-Adams-Seneca (vi) of the University of Pennsylvania seems to provide
some means of facing the problem in pragmatic terms* (See Appendix A),
In spite of those previous contributions to the theory and practice
of projection outdoor recreation demand, the problem remains largely unex-
plored. Partly for this reason and partly due to the special problems posed
by each recreation study until now, the alternative projections of outdoor
recreation demand on an actual study basis have always been characterized
by ad hoc solutions and methodology. In theory, three steps are required
to determine alternative future outdoor recreation demand. First, one must
carry forward the relationships which determine present-day manifest demand.
Secondly, one must identify the extent to which present-day latent demand
exists; then, one must carry forward the relationships which may depict
both the future manifest and latent demand.
Relationships expressing the various Influences on present-day demand
are instrumental in projecting the future demand which may correspond to
the present manifest demand. The same relationships also help to take into
account and project part of the present-day latent demand.
12 -
-------
Relationships expressing the various influences on present-day demand
are instrumental in projecting the future demand which may correspond to
the present manifest demand. The same relationships also help to take into
account and project part of the present-day latent demand. This refers to
the part of latent demand which is dormant primarily due to user-oriented
constraints. For instance, presently restricted outdoor recreation demand
due to the income limitations of a population group makes up part of the
present-day latent demand. Major shifts in income in the future may result
in at least a partial removal of restrictions previously applicable to
recreation demand. Thus, the same relationship which at a given period
expressed only the manifest recreation demand for that period can also be
seen as being basically able to express the future probable manifest demand
(which includes port of the newly emerged manifest demand).
The identification and the measurement of the latent demand at a given
instance is the second step in the process, but a step that is quite frequently
overlooked. Recreation has often been viewed as a commodity of a highly elastic
demand. This demand elasticity is responsive to cost and income variations
and also to several other factors affecting the preference of the user as
well as the circumstances in which a recreation activity is to be undertaken.
In a study where the major objective would be the provision of facilities
commensurate to a given level of demand, any concern with the latent
demand in each case would essentially have been irrelevant. However, for the
purposes of our present study, the consideration of the latent demand is
directly relevant. Outdoor recreation demand which may be thought of as
intrinsically in existence may not manifest itself for at least three
major reasons: lack of available facilities, lack of sufficient acquaintance
- 13 -
-------
with available facilities, and cost and Income limitations.
It is interesting to notice that all three major causes of the latent
demand are Interrelated and have been discussed by several researchers in
the past. The Clawson and the Davidson-Adams-Seneca studies have already
mentioned the factors of "learning-by-doing11 and 'facility inducements"
However, among these three major factors only the one of cost and income
elasticity of recreation demand has been frequently discussed. In fact,
even the method of ' mean park distance" of the "Open Space Project" of the
University of Pennsylvania can be seen as essentially a measure of the cost
associated with participation in recreation activities in the parks of the
region.
As stated earlier, recreation benefits due to improvements in the
water quality of the Delaware River include the nature walks and aesthe-
tic pleasures of observing the river, as well as the associated Improve-
ments of residential areas along the river. While the conceptual place of
these three additional types of benefits is not In doubt, there seldom
has been any quantitatively stated measurement of these benefits* For
this reason the present study does not include any specific estimates of
such benefits* However, the appreciation of the significance of these
three other types of benefits should always be kept In mind and considered
In addition to the quantifiable benefits of the four types of recreational
activities studied here.
14-
-------
CHAPTER III
A PROJECTION MODEL
The projection of recreation benefits which the region may reap
from improving the water quality of the Delaware River is obviously an
undertaking which necessitates several considerations. In fact, it appears
that benefits derivable from each of the activities under study can be
determined by an operation which must pass through at least four distinct
stages of analysis and consideration*
The initial step may take the form of projecting the total demand
for a given activity in a region. This analysis and projection Includes
both the manifest and the latent demand for that activity. In both types
of demand, the analyst's attention should fiocus on the frequency with
which a recreation activity is desired as trell as on the number of people
who participate. Factors or variables which affect the demand today
should also be thoroughly explored and projected for the future. The
effect of the availability of the new facilities should be taken into
account at this point in the analysis. Then, by using the proper relation-
ships (sub-models) one can reach an estimate of the total demand for an
activity in a specified region at a given time. It may be that annual
estimates are appropriate together with sufficient information on both
the seasonal and dally distribution of the usage of facilities: the sources,
then, of the deoign demand for each recreation activity may become apparent*
The second phase of analysis and projection may take the form of an
adjustment of the previously derived total demand in order to take into
- 15 -
-------
account the capacity and availability of the recreation facilities that have
already been planned and projected in the region and its vicinity. Obviously,
the total demand, even when it is broken down by annual, daily and seasonal
components, is not the effective demand which must be considered, when the
potential contribution of a particular new project is evaluated. The contri-
butions offered by other facilities which are either already on the drawing
board or being designed for meeting part of the total demand should be
incorporated in the initial steps of a projection in order to avoid conflicts
later on and, perhaps, double counting. Furthermore, other pertinent
facilities within the region as well as in its vicinity (in what may be
called "service areas" in the region) should also be considered.
At this point, the analysis may directly focus on the contributions
of the new project under consideration. In our case, this refers to the
additional benefits that the river may offer due to its improved water
quality. The n«: project must be examined with regard to at least three
dimensions: its location must be ascertained; its capacity must be designated;
and the specific activities that the project makes possible should be deter-
mined. At the end of this phase, any potential demand which remains unsat-
isfied as well as any capacity of the new facility that goes unused become
apparent and can be estimated.
The estimates which have been obtained during stage three are then
utilized in the final stage of a project requiring quantification of
recreation benefits. The planner here may attempt to translate the quanti-
tative estimates of recreation activities into some reasonable dollar
equivalent and rename it as recreation benefits. Such a transformation of
- 16 -
-------
FIGURE 2
THE PROJECTION MODEL
TOT ill ppmro PROJECT I OP 1 HDJU5TKEKT3 OP DBMD PR0J1CTI0I3 | BIYEB COKTRIBVTIOIS [ BHiOMTS E5TIEATI0I
17
-------
facility use Into dollar value benefits Is strictly a means of providing
some preliminary inputs of a cost-benefit analysis of the given project.
As such, the quantified recreation benefits may most appropriately be
presented within a framework of minimum and maximum equivalent dollar
estimates.
This simplified projection procedure is, in effect, the one selected
and followed In the present project and illustrated in Figure 2. Each type
of recreation benefit has been calculated at the end of the process
described above, and benefits were then cumulated for the presentation of
total annual estimates.
This process, here called ,:the projection model" of the project. Involves
several techniques that include mathematical relationships, or partial models,
as well as more simplified transformations, such as capacity rates and socio-
economic adjustments. The model displayed its major use in estimating
benefits from swimming, boating and fishing. Picnic benefits along the
banks of the river had to be subjected to a slightly modified process.
Unfortunately, no model could be devised for estimating benefits from
"nature walks," "aesthetic appreciation" or "improvements in the atmosphere
of neighboring residential, areas/' These sources of potential benefits are
particularly difficult to Include in any form of inquiry that seeks quan-
titative findings. These omissions, however, should not be regarded as
limitations on the model's potential usefulness.
- 13 -
-------
CHAPTER IV
EXISTING CONDITIONS
An examination of the existing conditions of the water-oriented recre-
ation activities in the study area may reveal where areas with a sizable
water acreage are located. Emphasis on the river water-ortented recreation
activities under consideration (swimming, boating, and fishing) may also
reveal their location concentration in only a few pacts of the region*
Figure 3 shows graphically the availability and size of the major bodies
of water in the study area. Appendix C lists their location and acreage.
In the study area, there is available 2,524 acres of water in the State of
Delaware, mainly concentrated in the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal (2,000
acres); 7,752 acres in New Jersey, with three major concentrations in the
following: Fort Dlx Reservation in Burli&Gton County (2,000 acres), Round
Valley State Parte In Hunterdon County (2,255 acres undeveloped), and Cooper
River Park area in Camden County (1,630 acres). Among these three areas,
Cooper River Park area Is by far the most intensively used. This ares, In
fact, consists of a series of six parks running on either or both sides of
Cooper River. These are Farnam Park, Camden Park, Cooper River Park,
Pennypack and Hopkins Park, Wallworth and Evans Park, and MountWcll Park.
In Pennsylvania, only 2,476 acres of water are available with about 1,230
acres located in French Creek Park area; the rest has no specific locational
concentration. About 379 water acres of the Schuylkill River are included
in Falrmount Park, while TTissahickon Park Includes most of TJissahickon Creek,
- 19 -
-------
a
Burnt tut e»
G?
20 .
ra o
flGLftE 3
BODIES Of WATER
I r fI 0 0 0 0
-------
The use of these waters for recreational purposes icf however, minimal.
Swimming is only possible in Gustine Lake in East Fairmount Park, while
there is boating and fishing at Concourse Lake, in West Fairmount Park and
in some sections of Uissahickon Creel;. Picnicking, on the other hand,
is quite an intensive activity in both these parks.
The total available water acreage in the study area is, then, close to
11,620 acres. These are all the waters, developed or underdeveloped (with
or without facilities). For the Delaware River itself, about 45,000 acres
of available water is estimated. Outside of, but in proximity to the study
area, there is the Delaware Bay, with about 560,000 acres of water. Further
away is the Net; Jersey shore (extending for two miles and including bays,
lagoons, etc.) *7ith approximately 250,000 water-acres.
Potential recreation areas to be developed in conjunction with major
bodies of water are not numerous* They include Christiana Reservoir in
New Castle County, with about 2,900 acres of water. In Pennsylvania, four
areas of potential development have been identified. They total about 6,000
acres of water. These are Newton, Evansburg, and Newark Reservoirs, and
Tohlckon Creek. Uhile the development of the Toclcs Island project would
substantially contribute to the water acreage in the region, it is located
outside of the study area and its use would necessitate some travel inconven-
ience.
Developed waters are generally of two types: large, usually salt water
areas (such as the shore and bay); and smaller, inland, fresh water areas.
The larger, salt water areas have, in general, much more potential for physical
considerations than the smaller fresh water areas. In addition, fresh water
- 21 *
-------
areas are usually fairly V7ell developed, and leave little room for expansion*
The alternative, then, lies in ;he development of new areas.
The Inclusion of the Delaware River (by water purification) In the system
of developed Inland fresh water areas would contribute quite substantially to
the total Inland water available for recreational activity. Several conclu-
sions in terms of v?ater supply can, hence, be drawn:
a. The water acreage available In the study areas for recreation In
general and for boating In particular Is minimal* Delaware Bay
and the New Jersey shore (salt water) are the closest areas used
for such purposes,
b. The development of the shore and bay Is quite small. There Is
much water yet to be developed for recreation there,
c. Host of the inland fresh waters In the areas are fully developed,
but still represent only a small proportion of total water ereas,
d. The Delaware River Is, by far, the largest potential source for
the Increase In Inland water available for recreation. The
other sources being proposed are a number of reservoirs and the
Tocks Island project.
Swimming
The evident lack of Inland waters available for swimming purposes has
necessitated the satisfaction of this extremely popular activity In swimming
pools. Figure 4 shows the locations and number of swimming pools, beachest
and lakes In the study area. As expected, the distribution of swimming pools
- 22 -
-------
FIGURE 4-
POO I S AND BMCHfS
• i c a t « ? i o » a i « t f < • i momc
• e»ii i't mo oor
t L
- 23 _
Ivl i(i • I l ktkit
€«««*' \ i • i »
*••1 0
-------
closely follows the pattern of population concentrations. To determine the
rate of supply of swimming facilities in the study area, the five Pennsyl-
vania counties were chosen for analysis. The following Table I presents a
summary of the number of swimming pools and beaches available in 1965 and
their ownership in those five Pennsylvania counties*
It is clear that the majority of swimming areas are privately owned.
This is the least so in Philadelphia where for every two pools privately
owned, one is provided by the municipality« It Is interesting to point
out that while the population, whether in absolute number or in terms of
density, is highest in Philadelphia, the number of swimming places Is not so.
Among the five counties, Montgomery County provides the most in terms of
swimming. There is only one state-owned beach In this area, the one
located In the Ralph Stover Park on Plumstead Twp«, Bucks County,
For the purpose of comparing the rates of supply of swimming pools in
the five Pennsylvania Counties in our study region, a measure of the number
of pools per 1»000 total population was derived for the years 1950, 1955,
1960, and 1965, This is shown in Table 2, and presented graphically in
Figure 5,
Figure 5 shows that for the period 1950-1955 the rate of increase -
pools per 1,000 population - was low in the Counties of Chester, Delaware,
and Montgomery; It was stationary in Philadelphia, and negative In Bucks
County, This period, however, is characterized by the Korean War and its
aftermath.
Since 1955, the rate increased for all oountles, but In particular, for
Montgomery County where it is now 0,43, The lowest rate of increase is observed
- 24 -
-------
TABLE 1
DISTRIBUTION AND OWNERSHIP OF SWIMMING PLACES BY COUNTY
(1965)
Ownership Bucks Chester Delavrare Montgomery Phila. Total
PBPB" PB PB P~"""" B P B
Municipal 4 .. 2 - 3 - 4 - 46 - 59 -
Commission » » » ¦ mm — — 4 "4s
Public School District 3 - - - 3. 4 - - 10 -
Private 100 3 76 3 110 1 206 2 142 - 634 9
County 11 "¦ *• 1— — 1 1 - 3 2
State 1 - - 1- 1- --21
Total 108 5 7G 3 118 1 215 3 193 712 12
P m pools; B = beaches
Source: Pennsylvania Department of Health, Harrisburg
-25-
-------
TABLE 2
SUPPLY OF SKIMMING POOLS BY COUNTY
(1950-1965)
1 o
County Population (ooo) Pools Pools/1,000 Population
1950
1955
1960
1965
1950
1955
1960
1965
1950
1955
1960
1965
Bucks
144.6
220
308.6
420
22
27
75
154
0.15
0.12
0.24
0.37
Chester
159.1
180
210.6
. 260
23
20
50
93
0.14
0.14
0.24
0.36
Delaware
414.2
480
553.2
640
24
38
76
144
0.06
0.08
0.14
0.23
Montgomery
353.1
420
516.7
620
48
69
146
266
0.14
0.16
0.28
0.43
Philadelphia
2,071.6
2,040
2,002.5
2,020
33
40
67
169
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.08
Total 3,142.6 3,340 3,591.6 3,960 151 200 414 826 0.05 0.06 0.12 0.21
Sources; 1. Population figures for 1950, 1960 are from the U.S. Census of Population,
1950 and 1960 respectively. Figures for 1955 and 1965 were computed,
2. The number of permits issued for pools were extracted from the files of
the Pennsylvania Department of Health, Regional Office VII, Philadelphia,
and differ somewhat from those of the previous table.
-26-
-------
0.50-1
FIGURE 5
SUPPLY RATE JF SWIPING
1950-1965
S
*o.ko
fll
H
3
§•
§0.30
o
u
«
p.
h0.20
o
o
a.
4-«
o
u
®
10.10
1950
1955
Year
- 27 -
BY COUNTY
Montgomery Co,
Bucks Co.
Chester Co
Delaware Co.
All 5 Counties
Philadelphia Co.
—1—
I960
-1—
1965
-------
in Philadelphia where it is 0.00 pools per 1,000 population at the present
time. Bucks and Chester Counties are moving very close and, in a similar
fashion reaching the rates of 0,37 and 0t36 In 1965 respectively.
An understanding of the proportion of the population participating In
swimming activity is necessary at this point. The following Table 3 presents
the population participating In swimming broken down by age group and by county.
The purpose of this table is to estimate the proportion of the total population
actually participating in swimming. From the table it appears that, in general,
41 percent of the total population of each county participated in swimming
activities in I960. In other words, 1,472,720 persons participated In swim-
ming in 1960. With the availability of only 414 pools in this part of the
study area, each pool was serving 3,600 participants In the 1960 swimming
season. Assuming the swimming season to be 100 days, each pool was catering
to 360 persons per day. However, the average reported dally attendance of
swimming pools in this area was 180 persons, which is half the number of
participants* The reason for this discrepancy is the lack of facilities in
our study area to meet this demand. It Is probable that the remainder of
the participants either satisfy their demand outside the study area (the
New Jersey shore), or visit swimming pools in the area only on specific days
of the season. In the latter case these pools would usually be suffering
from a high degree of congestion.
To repeat, we observe that while there Is an increasing demand for
swimming in the study area, this demand Is far from being met. An extremely
small amount of inland waters is available for swimming purposes. The por-
tion of the demand that is satisfied in the area is mainly due to swimming
- 28 -
-------
TABLE 3
PERSONS 12 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER PARTICIPATING IN SHIMMING BY AGE GROUP AND BY COUNTY
(I960)
65 and Total S
1.2-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 over Total as 7. of
S total
: P°P«
T ST ST S T STSTSTS
COUNTY (70%) (70%) (65%) (57%) (44%) (45%) (23%)
Bucks 30.5 22.G 46.4 50.3 30.2 18.3 19.0
21.4 16.4 30.2 27.7 13.3 G.2 4.4 122.6 40%
Chester 20.8 19.5 27.8 31.2 23.5 16.5 18.1
14.6 14.1 18.1 17.G 10.3 7.4 4.2 86.5 417.
Delav/are 51.9 45.2 71.0 G6.4 66.9 49.2 45.1
36.3 32.5 46.2 48.2 29.4 22.1 10.4 225.1 417.
Montgomery 47.5 42.3 66.4 78.2 64.G 46.9 46.7
33.3 30.5 43.2 44.6 2G.5 21.1 10.7 211.9 417.
Philadelphia 176.7 180.9 253.G 277.9 259.5 212.4 208.G
123.7 130.3 165.0 158.4 114.2 95.6 40.0 835.2 43%
TOTAL 327.4 310.7 465.4 522.2 444.9 343.9 337.7
229.3 223.G 302.7 297.7 195.7 154.4 77.7 1,481.3 417.
Notes: All population figures in thousands
T=Total Population; S^Svjimmers
Sources: Total population by age group from the 1960 U.S. Census of Population; percentage of fwiinners
in each age group from the 0RRRC Report 20 "Participation in Outdoor Recreation: Factors
Affecting Demand Among American Adults," Chart 1, Page 16.
-------
pools. These, however, are not enough In number and, therefore, Induce
swimming participants to travel outside the area to satisfy their needs*
Boating
The distribution of boating (and fishing) locations is shovn in Figure 6.
Appendix D provides a list of boating (and fishing) places broken down by
county. In many instances boating and fishing are undertaken in the same
location but this is not exclusively so; in some places only boating is
possible, while In others only fishing could be pursued.
In 1965, the use of small pleasure boats in the five Pennsylvania
Counties, estimated through the number of boat registrations, amounted to
11,456 boats. These included 2,842 in Bucks, 756 in Chester, 2,161 in
Delaware, 3,132 in Montgomery, and 2,565 in Philadelphia Counties. Bucks,
Delaware, and Philadelphia counties are directly in contact with the Estuary
and account for 7,568 boat registrations. The total number of boats in use
on the Delaware Estuary on the Pennsylvania side was estimate to be about
10,000 boats9 of which 3,000 were at Neshaminy Creek, 4,000 were at the
Philadelphia uaterfront, and 4,000 were from Philadelphia to Marcus Hook*
It is also estimated that out of 10,000 boats, 8,000 are berthed on the
Estuary, while the rest arc transients. The excess in the number o£ boats
berthed on the Estuary in Pennsylvania (8,000) over boats registered (7,568)
there is explained as being due to the fact that many Pennsylvania residents
register their boats in New Jersey to avoid a sales tax.
30 -
-------
-------
On the New Jersey dide, the totAl number of boats In use in the
northern part of the Estuary has been estimated to be about 3,125 boats,
of which 2,500 are berthed and 625 are transients* This area stretches
from Trenton Falls, to Rancocas Creek, to Lower Tlnicum Island.
In terms of boat ownership, It is estimated that five percent of the
Delaware area Inhabitants own boats as compared to the national figure of
4.4 percent. This is expected due to the proximity of the Delaware area to
several bodies of water, as opposed to the national figure, which is offset
by the large landlocked areas of the Midwest, The National Association of
Engine and Boat Manufacturers ranked Pennsylvania in the eleventh place
where estimated sales and number of outdoor motors In use were concerned.
Philadelphia was listed among the leading metropolitan markets for outboard
motors In 1964. The sales in this market was 3,900 in 1963, and 4,400
In 1964.
The boating season In the study area lasts approximately 200 days,
covering the period from about early May to mid-November, Weekends, however,
account for 75 percent of pleasure boating per boat. The type of pleasure
boat most in use in the study area is the outboard motor, which accounts
for 57,6 percent of the total number of these pleasure boats. Inboard
motor boats and powered sail boats make up 7,25 percent of the total, while
sailboats without inboard power account for 6,6 percent. The rest (about
26 percenter Includes rowboats and other miscellaneous types.
As is apparent from Figure 6, boating activity in areas other than the
Delaware River, but within the study area, is minimal indeed. As stated
earlier in the Chapter, the total acreage of inland waters is about 11,620
acres, of which about 9,000 acres are equipped for boating. These waters
- 32 -
-------
aret therefore, almost all developed) and the increase in acreage will
have to come from net? areas. The Tocks Island project is the major
addition in the region (but not in the study area), and will add about
12,000 acres of inland fresh water* It will be large enough to have some
of the characteristics of salt water acres, to the extent that it could
attract some salt water boaters who are usually diverted to the New Jersey
shore* On the whole, it will slightly change the characteristics of
fresh water in this area. The pressure from fresh water demand would
still persist. The few other projects (reservoirs) planned in the area
are too small to alter the demand for fresh water; they could only help
in absorbing the existing manifest demand.
Fishing
Fishing (and other recreation activities) has experienced an in-
creasing popularity, resulting in a growing instream demand for water of
quantity and quality adequate to support this activity* Recreation seekers
place heavy demand upon the existing streams, lakes, and the estuary
of the Delaware River for recreational uses*
In the tidewater area of the Basin, the available quantities of
water are generally adequate for recreation uses, but water quality
problems are prominent* There is a latent demand for water in presently
water scarce areas of the Basin for these recreation activities. The
non-tidal areas of the Basin already attract large numbers of water*
seeking recreationists. The scarcity of water surfaces to depths
adequate for the water-based recreation pursuits in the upper basin is
reflected by the increase in vacation trips by many residents of the
basin and nearby areas to more distant, but better watered, regions,
-33-
-------
The 1960 National Survey of Fishing and Hunting estimated"that 107.
of the population of the Middle Atlantic States, 12 years old and over ,
participated in fishing per year. Relating this to the Delaware River
Basin population shows that a total of about 475,000 fishermen engaged
in 717 million man-days of fishing activity during I960,
One of tho ways recommended by the ORRRC studies to meet the in-
creasing donmd in fishing is the increase of fishing in coastal waters.
In i960, 17% of all fishing was done in coastal waters. It is also a
recognized fao& that the states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania have
limited fresh-water resources per capita. The human population is ex-
panding faster than waters can be developed.
An important trend indicated by comparing 1955 and 1960 data (according
to ORRRC Report No, 7) concerns the rapid growth of salt-water anglings.
In this five year period, the number of persons who fished in salt-water
increased 38 per cent (for an average annual Increase of 7,6 per cent).
Fresh-water anglers, however, increased only 17,6 per cent(for an average
growth of 3,5 per cent). It appears, then, that the demand for salt-water
fishing will continue increasing if;
a. Salt-water fishing continues to be preferred to fresh-water
fishing
b. Other fresh-water fishing areas are not created to satisfy
demand.
Few water areas in the Delaware River Basin have been created specif -
ically for public fishing, but fiohermen are permitted unrestricted use
of approximately 21,000 acres of publicly owned multipurpose reservoirs
and limited use of about 12,500 acres of water supply reservoirs. To a
•34"
-------
considerable extent, fishermen must now depend upon the availability
of privately owned lands and natural waters to satisfy their needs.
To this end, State fish and wildlife agencies have developed programs
to perpetuate fishing in public waters to which access is controlled
by private riparian landowners. Public access is being provided to
formerly inaccessible waters throughout the basin.
An individual body of water is sought by fishermen in relation to
the quality of fishing it produces, its general location in respect to
centers of human population, and the degree to which the public has
access to such water for fishing. The value of fishing waterG, then
is broadly relative to the population density of the locale and the
quality of fishing afforded.
Discounting the angler who is interested primarily in certain species
of trophy fish and some local preferences, people of the U.S. td.ll
frequent a wide variety of waters where fishing is good and where facil-
ities and the environment permit enjoyment of the sport. Therefore,
it would seem that the Delaware River Basin must satisfy quantity and
quality water demands if it is to serve the fishing demands of the
recreationalist. If it does not accommodate the quantity demands, it
appears a reasonable assumption that the ocean shore will be a strong
competitor in attracting the fishermen in the future.
Conclusion
In reviewing the findings of this chapter we can conclude that,
in general, existing facilities in terms of quanity and quality are
-35-
-------
far from being able to satisy the demand for recreation. For the three
water-oriented activities under consideration, and because of their
dependence on water, the Delaware River offers a great potentiality
for its use for recreational purposes. This, however, would solve the
prob'.em only in terms of water quantity. The more important factor of
quality is the one to face* The picture that emerges from our assessment
of the present conditions leaves some doflbt regarding the extent and adequacy of
proposed facilities. To propose any alternative it is necessary to
discover how deficient the facilities are at present and will be in
the future. In the process of discovering future deficiencies, consid-
eration should be given to trends in the provision of such facilities
as well ao future demand. The latter part of this problem, the consid-
eration of demand relationships, will bo considered first. This is the
task of the following chapter.
-36
-------
CHAPTER V
jjEMAND REIATIONSHIPS
Two grou-r re factors appear to be directly related to variations
of recreation demand in general. The first group includes factors which
are both interrelated and act similarly in inducing increases in recreation
demand under certain circumstances. The second group includes factors
that are little related to one another, and appear to affect demand in
an independent and particular manner*
A. User-Ortented Factors:
The first group of factors, which could also be viewed as primarily
user-oriented, includes income, education, occupation, age and place of
residence. These factors are interrelated in several ways. For instance,
people with higher incomes have high education, a skilled or professional
occupation, and live in suburban areas. The most relevant relationships
between participation in recreation activities and each of these factors
appear to be as fellows:
Income; An increase in income was found correlated with an increase
in the use of public outdoor recreation facilities up to about $10,000
annual family income according to the 1960 income distribution in the
U.S. Beyond that income level a shift of preferences is indicated for
other types of recreation activities which usually fall outside of what
is usually considered to be the sector of public concern.
Table 4 and Figure 7 present the income - participation relationships
for the four recreation activities considered in this study. Three
different patterns seem to emerge from the consideration of these re-
lationships. Swimming and picnicking Appear to follow the same pattern
-37-
-------
TABLE 4
INCOME AND PARTICIPATION IN THE NORTHEAST U.S.
JUNE - AUGUST 1960
Annual Percent of Persons 12 Activity Days Per Person
Family Income Years and Over Participating
B*
F
P
S
B*
F
P
S
Less than $1,500
6
10
31
13
0.36
0.60
1.49
1.01
$1,500-$2,999
9
9
37
32
0.96
0.28
0.33
3.22
3,000- 4,499
20
20
59
45
0.95
2.26
2.70
6.15
4,5000-!;,999
17
21
60
53
0.33
1.G0
2.63
6.27
6,000 - 7,999
25
23
70
65
1.02
2.24
3.34
7.96
3,000- 9,999
30
26
59
66
2.02
1.31
3.17
3.95
10,000-14,999
33
31
56
60
2.61
2.00
3.97
10.39
15,000-and over
40
22
55
62
7.58
2.SO
3.35
16.00
* Other than sailing or canoeing B° boating
F» £|phing
P» picnicking
S° swimming
Source: OFJIRC Report 19 ' National Recreation Survey," pp. 125, 123, 133
and 136.
•38*
-------
FIGURE 7
INCOME AND PARTICIPATION
IN THE NORTHEAST U.S.
Swimming
3000
6000 9000 12,000 15,000
Annual Family Inoone (Dollars)
- 39 -
18,000 21,OPO
-------
of increase in the number of people participating in those activities
w *
as annual family Income grows. Participation in both activities reaches
a peak at about $3,000 and $7,000 yearly income for swimming and pic-
nicking respectively, where nearly 65% of the persons 12 years and
over participate* Participation then falls off to a constant rate of
60% for swimming, and 55% for picnicking irrespective of Income growth.
This may be due to the fact that for pursuing these two recreation
activities, there is practically no need for any Initial investment or
other expenditures, which, in turn, may be associated with or dependent
upon the income level of the participant*
For boating and fishing, different patterns are observed. Par*
tlcipation In both increases at a much slower rate than for rvimming or
picnicking. While participation in fishing reaches a peak at about
$13,500 yearly family income where nearly 30% of the persons 12 years
and over do participate, in fact, participation in boating seems to
keep on increasing as income Increases. Even the condition of the
local economy is thought to be a strong contributing factor in the
demand for sport fishing. For instance, regions with a industrial-
based economy during periods of recession experience reductions In fishing
license sales more sharply than do regions maintaining stable levels
of employment. The Indications are clear that fishing, like other
forms of recreation, is governed to a large extent by the level of
the disposable Income available on a national, regional, or local basis.
After participation in fishing reaches Its peak, It falls off rapidly
and continues doing so with further Increases In income. It is probable
-40-
-------
that, after reaching hijh income levels, participants in this activity
STTitch over to other forms of recreation such as boating* It may be
noted, however, that uhen factors other than income are taken into con-
sideration (such as the availability of the facility), souewhat differ-
ent figures are obtained. In the Detroit area,* for example, the highest
percentage of the population participating in boating and fishing is
found among those families earning an annual income between $5,000 and
$7,000, perhaps because of the presence of Lake Michigan in its Immediate
area. To a greater extent, Income is also a major factor in boating
participation because of the relatively high expenditures involved in
ovmlng a motor boat, trailer, and the provision of storage facilities
for both.
Out of the four activities considered, Income appears to affect
boating the most. To repeat, boating is an expensive form of re-
creation, both in initial investment and maintenance. A small outboard
speedboat, and a trailer, cost about $1,500 to $2,000, a relatively
substantial Investment, for most urban residents. To maintain a boat,
one has not only to think of gas and repairs, but also one must have
either a large vacant garage and trailer, a house at the shore available
for storage, or pay a marina for storage* The relative variations in
average boat ownership by income groups is presented in Table 5,
P
:ione Survey of Regional Recreation Activities, Detroit Metropolitan
Area Planning Commission, 1959,
-------
TABLE 5
INCOME 4ffl> BOAT OWNERSHIP*
Annual Family Percentage of Persons 12 Years and
Income 0vcr Owning Boats
less than $1,500
3.9
$1,:"00 - 2,959
5.3
3,000 - 4,699
9.0
4,t;00 - 5,999
12.8
6,000 - 7,999
17.1
3,000 - 9,999
17.9
10,000 - 14,999
23.2
15,000 and over
N.A.
*Boats and /or motor other than inboard motor boats
Source: ORRRC Report, "National Recreation Survey,
Table 5.47, page 373
From Tables 4 and 5, it becomes clear that income shows a directly
proportional relation with both boat ownership and participation. Also,
the rate of activity days per person is less for lower-income than for
upper-income groups. To the e::tont that more people are in the lower
rather than in the upper-income group, the total amount of time that
people send boating out of those who participate is found, in cases, to
be roughly the same for all income groups, especially where the actual
participation costs by income group are not very high and do not vary much.
In general, one may conclude that water-oriented recreation activities
retain their appeal to high income groups and, in fact, become increasingly
-42-
-------
popular vhen the annual Income of the family Is on the high side* These
activities require relatively greater Investment In time and money from
the part of the participant and require more extensive and particular
facilities from the part of the providing sector. In particular, income
is at present the most important factor affecting boat ownership, and
Indirectly affecting participation in boating recreation activities*
Education and Occupation: On several occasions the available data
have indicated that families whose householder is a high school graduate
demonstrate the strongest preferences for public parks and picnic facil-
ities. Families with grammar school or college graduate householders
indicate lesser preference for public outdoor recreation activity, or
conversely, an Increasing preference for other Icinds of recreation act
tivities and other types of facilities* However, more comprehensive
data, made available by the ORRRC studies, Indicate that this Is not
always the case. In fact, Table 6 and Figure 8 present a good indication
of the relations which were found to exist between the level of education
and the degree of participation in each of the four recreation activities
that are included in the present study.
Table 6 indicates that the highest percentage of thi population
12 years of age and over participating in boating is for those with
1 to 3 years of college education. For fishing, the highest percentage
is for those with 1 to 3 years of high school, while for picnicking and
swimming, the highest percentage are found for those with 4 years or
more of college. The highest number of days a person spends in the four
activities is found for those with at least some college education,
except for fishing where persons with 1 to 3 years high school education
spend the greatest number of days per person on this activity*
-43-
-------
TABLE 6
EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN THE NORTH EAST U.S.
JUNE - AUGUST 1960
Years of
Education
Percent of Persons
12 Years and Over
Participating
Activity Days Per Person
B*
F
P
S
B*
F
P s
Grammar School
4 years or less
3
5
25
14
0.05
0.09
0.62 0.39
5-7 years
8
15
44
29
0.93
0.78
1.72 2.60
8 years
. 11
111
36
33
0.21
0.89
0.01 1.68
High School
1-3 years
17
26
55
42
0.89
1.88
2.62 3.54
4 years
22
13
63
58
1.12
0.96
3,10 7.57
College
1-3 years
32
22
51
55
2,28
1.28
3.70 9.12
k years or more
29
19
66
71
1*23
1.03
3.35 -6.3C
*Other than sailing or canoeing
B=boating
F»fishing
P^picnicfcing
S"swimming
Source: ORKRC Heport 19, National Recreation Survey, pp. 125, 128, 133,
and 136*
.44-
-------
FIGURE 8
EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION
IN THE IORTHEAST U.3.
Swimming Y = 5.11* + I4JC
Picnicking Y = 22.U + 2.7UX
Boating Y = -3.1 + 2.16X
Fishing Y « 6.8 + I.03X
1 v
¦ 2 k 6
|i— Orade School —4*—High —sJj-Collage-sj
Sohool
10 12 Hj. 1,6
#J> 1
>X Years of
Education
45 ®
-------
Figure S shows that for the four activities as the number of years
completed in education grov.?, the number of persons 12 years and over
participating in those activities also grows. The rates of increase fire,
however, different for each activity. The highest rate is observed for
swimming, followed by picnicking, boating and fishing. The general increase
in participation as the number of years of schooling increases seems to be
due to the usually increasing awareness of the importance of recreation as
a component in the development of the human being. Also, higher education
implies better job opportunities and higher incomes which, in turn, are
positively related to boating and other recreation activity participation.
The rate of participation in fishing is the lowest among the four activities
since, probably, other means of recreation (such as boating) become more
attractive to persons with higher education or, by implication, with higher
Incomes.
Closely related to education as a factor affecting recreational demand
is occupation. Figure 9 presents the relationships between participation
and occupation of the participant. Si:: classes of occupation were chosen:
professional, managerial, clerical, craftsmen, laborers, and service workers.
Figure 9 shows that 6270 of the professional and technical workers participate
in swimming. This is the highest percentage of any group doing bo. The
lovest percentage participating in swimming is for service workers. Crafts-
men and foremen constitute the highest percentage participating in picnicking
and fishing, while white collar workers, other than professional or
managerial, represent the highest participants in boating. It is
interesting to note that the group including managers, officials, and
proprietors offers the lowest percentage participation in all the four
activities e::cept boating.
•46"
-------
Percentase of Persons 12
Years arid Over Participating. June-Au.3.19oC
H
ru
K*>
-F~
o
—J
O
o
o
O
o
o
o
¦
Pro Tes s ional
•'ana^erial
Clerical
;raf ta o
Laborers .. §
Service Workers 5 ^
5>
as
M §
as
o >
3
K
a
Q
•n
>
_ so
H -3
M
«3 «
• t-i
to t;
-------
On the basic of the available data, therefore, it seems that insofar
as education and occupation are concerned, both have a direct and positive
relationship with the level of participation with regard, most of all,
to swimming, less so with regard to picnicking, and indirect with regard
to boating. No apparent relation is revealed where fishing is concerned.
Age: Findings of the OFJIRC studies report variations in the participation
dates of individuals in relation to their ages. Figure 10 is based on these
findings. It is apparent that the rate of participation decreases dras-
tically as the age of the individual increases. For fishing and boating
the rate of decline is almost identical, while for swimming and picnicking
it is much sharper. The highest percentage of the population participating
in boating, fishing, swimming, and picnicking in the period June - August
1960 respectively are 43 per cent, 47 percent, 03 per cent, and 84 per
cent; the first two falling in the age group 10-24, and the others in the
group 12-17. On the other hand, the lowest percentage participating in
the same order of activities are 9 percent, 19 percent, 13 percent, and
37 percent and fall in the age group 65 and over.
VJhen se:: is taken into account, as shown in Figure 11 it becomes
clear that for swimming and picnicking no major discrepancies are
observable in terms of participation by the sexes. This is especially
true between the ages of 35 and 55 where participation in swimming and
picnicking is almost identical by males and females. The differentiation
increases for fishing and boating and is highest for the former. The
highest percentage of the male population 12 years of age and over
participating in fishing is 53 percent while that for the female population
is 13 percent in the same age groups 12-17. After the age of 55 approx-
-------
FIGURE 10
AGE AND PERCENTAGE PARTICIPATION
IN THE HORTHEAST U.3.
Picnicking
Fishing
Swimming
Boating
12-17 18-21; 25-3U
35-W
Age
i*5-5U
55-61+ 65+
V
• 49 •
-------
FIGURE 11
i
u>
Cj.
•H
O
T 4
U
u
nJ
n.
C-,
0)
>
o
100
90
AGE, SEX /VND PERCENTAGE PARTICIPATION
II THE NORTHEAST U.S.
P(f K
00
P(m)l\ \
¦nn\\
\
• •.
V.
70-
V- "¦> v
V-. v
\\ v
V*. •••.N
N '• Sx.-—-*•
w
V - •. ••
v. v ¦.
B = Boating
F = Fishing
P = Picnicking
S = Swimming
m =: male
f a female
12-17 18-2^
-------
imately, the discrepancies between male and female participation In
fishing and boating decreases. For swimming and picnicking the opposite
is true; the discrepancies start increasing after that age.
Age has also the sharpest influence in terms of the intensity of
participation. Intensity is measured in terms of days per person participating,
and is sho^m in Figure 12 for the four activities during the seme period
June - August 1960. The highest intensity for the four activities fall
in the age croup 12 - 17, or about 23, 11, 65, and 6 days for males, and
15, 1, 2, T, and 3.0 days for females, for swimming, fishing, boating
and picnicking, respectively. In the age group 65 and over, the intensity
of participation in all four activities fall to a low of less than 1.5
t
days per person, with male swimmers being the most intensive participants
in this age group.
It is interesting to observe the deviations in intensity of participation
between the se::es. Females seem to participate more intensively than males
in swimming and picnicking between the ages 25 and 44. Hale s^/immers,
however, participate more intensively than female swimmers when they
reach the age of 60. This may be due to the greater number of females
who spend long vacations at the shore while husbands join then only for
weekends and maybe short vacation periods. For picnicking, while females
also participate more intensively than males after the age of 20, the
discrepancy is much smaller than that noted for swimming. Males participate
more intensively than females in boatir.3 and fishing in all age groups.
It is of interest to note the tremendous drop in the intensity of
participation in fishing by males between the age group 12- 17 and 10-24.
The drop is from about 11 days for the former to less than 2 days for
the latter group. The reason for this drop could be thought of as mainly
-------
FIGURE 12
AGE AND DAYS FER PERSON PARTICIPATION
IN THE HORTHEA3T U.S.
Age
• 52 •
-------
due to a change in interest from the part of the participants.
To conclude we can state, that, in general, age is inversely
proportional to the amount and intensity of participation. For an activity
such as boating, the correlation between age and participation is in-
dependent of income. It is more lilcely due to health factors and interest
in physical activity. Another explanation may be applicable in this case.
Older people are usually associated also with large families, more civic
and social responsibilities and, by and large, are less interested in
physical activity.
Race: A number of reasons may e3:plain the differential participation
rates in recreational activities that is currently found to exist between
the white and non-white population. Among these reasons may be a difference
of attitude toward such activities, a differential relative availability
of facilities, as well as variations in both income and preferences.
TABLE 7
RACE AND PARTICIPATION IN THE THE NORTH EAST U.S.
JUNE - AUGUST 1960
Race
Percent of Persons 12 years Activity Days Per Person
And over Participating
IJhite
F P S
B* F PS
IJhite
Non-white
21 21 57" 53
12 20 58 43
l.';6 1.C6 2.90 7.1G
0.26 0.32 1.60 1.63
Other than sailing or canoeing
Source: ORRRC Report 19 National Recreation
Survey, pp. 125,, 128, 133, and 136.
B=boating
F=fishing
P=picnicking
Saswimming
-53-
-------
FIGURE 13
RACE AND PARTICIPATION
IN THE NORTHEAST U.S.
©
•p
1
ri
o
£5
m
m
21# 12#
Boating
21# 20#
Pishing
¦
. ^ _
57# 58#
PioAleklng
53# J+3#
Swimming
54 -
-------
As noted from Table 7 and Figure 13 the percent of person 12 years
and over participating is higher for whites than it is for non-whites for
the four activities under consideration e::cept for picnicking where the
opposite appears to be the case. The difference, however, is very small,
and is more than offset when the number of activity days per person is
considered, Whites spent an average of 2,90 activity days per person picnicking
during the period June - August 1?60, while non-whites spent only 1,30 days.
The lowest percentage of non-white is observed for boating participation
12%, and corresponds also, to a low average rate per person (0,26). This
is to be e::pected currently, of course, becuase of the low income of the
non-white population and the fact that a relatively high income is a
prerequisite for boating participation. The highest number of activity
days per person is observed for swimming by whites (7.10 days), which
is also accompanied with the highest rate of activity days for non-white
population (1.63), While the non-uhite population participates in the
greatest number in picnicking, they do so slightly less intensively than
for swimming.
Place of Residence: The rate of participation by type of recreation
activity and by area of residence (defined byfine locational types) is
reported in Table This table presents the percentage of persons 12
years and over participating in the four activities under consideration
as well as the number of activity days per person in the North East U.S.
in the period June - August 1960 according to the place of residence of
participants.
-55-
-------
PIACE OF RESIDENCE AND PARTICIPATION IN THE NORTH EAST U.S.
JUNE - AUGUST 1960
Percent of Persons Activity Days
12 Years and Cver Per Person
Participating
Place of Residence
B"
F
P
S
c*
F
P
S
Residence in SUA
i:
13
54
53
i-3i;
1.31
2.50
6.44
Urban (over 1 million)
ir
1C
51
57
1.36
0.94
2.63
6.C2
Urban (less than 1 million)
19
lw
50
49
l.-J
1.91
2.36
5.65
Rural
l.r
20
57
t.-.h
0.8C
1.96
2.13
6.10
Residence not in CMA.
29
20
60
51
1.51
3.15
3.CI
3.04
Urban
20
21
60
44
1.16
1.69
2.15
6.37
Rural, non-farm
38
34
72
57
1.92
4.39
4.83
9.77
^Excluding sailing and canoeing B=boating
F=fishing
P=picniclcing
S=sv7immiag
Source: orjlRC Rpport 19, National Recreation Survey,
pp. 125, 12% 133 and 136.
56-
-------
It is clear from Table 3 that people in suburban areas of non-metropolitan
regions (not in 5IIA) demonstrate a higher rate of participation than the
city population (residents of SI&, 1560), This holds true for all four
activities. The percent of persons 12 years and over participating in
swimming appears to be higher where residences*aro within an' SH^ rather
than the contrary. However, the intensity of participation (activity
days per person) varies in reverse manner. For all four activities the
Intensity of participation is higher in suburban and ex-urban areas than
it is in the cities. For instance, the highest rate and intensity of
participation amon^ all the residential locations defined occur in rural
non-farm areas for all four activities.
Of course, residential location is in reality a reflection of a number
of other factors. The greater rate of participation in the suburban and
outlying areas is in reality attributable to the greater incomes also
found in these areas. It appears, therefore, that the type of residence
rather than the £lace of residence is of significance. It seems reasonable
to expect that although the desire to participate in outdoor recreation
activities can be expected to fluctuate due to the type of place or
place of residence in only a few extreme cases, the area or location
where this desire is possible or preferable to be met may vary considerably.
In the case of single-family large-lot residential accommodations, the
tendancy to have a picnic there rather than in a public park is bound to
to be substantial. The reverse can be expected in the case of high
density, apartment or row-housing accommodations x;ith hardly any backyard
facilities. If this speculation is reasonably accurate, we should then
expect a tendency for a decreasing rate of demand for outdoor recreation
-------
facilities for public use in the future. In other words, while income in-
creases will tend to generate, up to a point, greater needs for such facil-
ities, the lower density residential development which, according to present
experience, usually accompanies higher Income households, will tend to
decrease these needs to the extent that the available private facilities
will be able to partially accommodate activities such ao picnicking, swimming,
game playing, etc.
B, Environmental Factors:
The second group of factors emphasized the relationship between the
user and his environment, physical and societal, and includes leisure tlae,
availability of recreation facilities, availability of transportation
facilities, and/or cost of participating in a recreation activity.
Leisure Time: Studies of how the population spends its leisure
2
time have been made by ORRRC and other individual researchers. According
to these studies, two significant findings emerge. First, with regard to
dally leisure time, about 40 percent of the people appear to participate
in active sports. The active sports, defined in a liflt by spontaneous men-
tion, include fishing, swimming, and boating. Second, no pronounced or
systematic differences in the manner people spend their leisure time are
apparent among gsoups of different socio-economic characteristics. Small
variations by sport are more than compensated for by additional sports or
emphasis on a few sports.
27 " "
See, for instance, ORRRC Report 20, "Participation in Outdoor Recreation:
Factors Affecting Demand Among American Adults, "Chapters 3 and 4, 1962,
and Marion Clawson, ' How Much Leisure, Now and in the Future":" in Leisure
in America: Blessing or Curse?, American Academy of Political and Social
Science, Monograph ilo. 4, Philadelphia, April 1964.
•58-
-------
The date available for vacation end weekend leisure time indicates
that only 25 percent spent their time in picnicking, 30 percent in
swimming, and 37 percent in fishing. Other independent estimates by
3
Clawson indicate that roughly 35 percent of the national leisure time in
1960 was spent in outdoor activities. Leisure time seems to be a parti-
cularly Important factor in boating since that activity consumes a relatively
great deal of time. Few can go boating for an hour or two as one would run
over and play tennis, for instance. In general, trip information showed that
boating consumes at least a full day's trip, if not a weekend or vacation, and
this necessitates a good amount of available leisure time. The importance of
leisure time is substantiated by the ORKRC surveys where' 26 percent of the
sampled population stated that they did not go boating because of lack of
time. This response was second only to income restrictions (327.).
In this brief note on the leisure time factor it is reasonable to
suggest that while some notion about the restrictive effect of leisure time
is clearly possible the problem of accurately defining and estimating the
relationship between the level of participation in outdoor recreation and
amount and type of leisure time appears still unsolved. This is true when
present participation rates are considered, and even more apparent when
projections are attempted. In fact, it appears that for projection
purposes, estimates of the effect of increased leisure time on participation
rates in outdoor recreation activities will have to be made on the basis of
certain prior assumptions of the type and extent of the relationships
Ji
Clawson, Marion, "How Much...op. ctt.
59-
-------
between the two variables.
Availability of Recreation Facilities: Studies may by ORRHC have
shown that a larger segment of the population would participate in re-
creation activities were it not for various restrictions placed upon,
or felt by, many people. Five types of restrictions have been identified,
and their effect shown, in Table 9. A comparison among these restrictions
would indicate the relative extent to which the lack of facilities tends
to impede participation in various recreation activities.
TABLE 9
PERCENT OF PERSONS 12 YEARS AND OVER
RESTRICTED FROM PARTICIPATING BY
TYPE OF RESTRICTION
(SUMMER 1960)
Restrictions
B
1. Facilities 9
2. Financial 32
3. Time 26
4. Ability 2
5. Other 3
7
9
46
5
6
5
7
32
4
10
13
7
32
5
5
1. Facilities overcrowded, inadequate or distant
2. Lack of money, equipment or transportation
3. Lack of available time due to work or family
responsibilities
4« Physical condition, age (tooyoaag or too old),
or fear
5. Other externally imposed restrictions
B"boating
F=fishing
P=picnicklng
S=>8wimming
Source: ORRRC Report 19, National Recreation Survey, pp. 177
-60-
-------
Table 9 shows that the lack of available time is the most restrictive
factor upon participation in all four entries, except boating, where the
importance of lack of time is superseded by the importance of financial
restrictions. However, the lack of adequate or conveniently located
facilities becomes the second major restrictive factor with regard to
swimming, and the third with regard to boating and fishing. Among the
four activities presented in the table, picnicking seems to be the least
affected by the lack of adequate facilities. It is of interest to note
that ability (defined by physical condition; age, such as too young or too
old; or fear), has, according to this survey, the least effect on any of
the four activities under discussion.
In general, the availability of recreation facilities appears to have a
positive influence on the demand for outdoor recreation activities particularly
for participation in svimming activities. Nonetheless, the available data
indicate that the relationship seems to be elastic and relevant only
within the narrow limits of the term availability. It appears that,
within a continous cost function (measured in travel time, money fees,
or any other measurement), outdoor recreation facilities are al\*ays
available for use if only the potential user could afford the particular
cost involved.
Availability of Transportation Facilities: The availability of trans-
portation facilities and the cost of participating in recreation activities
act in a tsaa&er similar to the availability of recreation facilities. This
factor constrains the demand when an increased amount of travel or cost is
required for reaching appropriate facilities. Available data clearly
indicate that an increased amount and a higher quality of transportation
-61
-------
facilities to and from recreation areas permit and, in certain cases
induces, a greater use of outdoor recreation facilities in a region
while, at the same time time, it makes for a better distribution of
such uses.
Normative studies on outdoor recreation facilities establish standards
for providing such facilities in a community on the basis of distance.
The use of an effective distance in such studies measured in miles or
travel time over which a recreation facility can be considered capable
of providing service, is in essence a reflection of an average distance
over which the majority of people are willing to travel in order to
visit the facility.
Empirical studies have also dealt with travel distance to outdoor
recreation facilities. Frequent reference is made in these studies to
an average distance that people would like to travel or already travel.
For instance, in the Detroit area it was found that people were willing
to travel 6 to 10 miles for a picnic outing, up to 5 miles for just rest
and scenery enjoyment, and 21 to 25 miles for outdoor swimming.
More specifically, the Detroit data ^ provide information on the per-
centage of the population visiting parks in the Detroit study area. This
visitation rate was, however, based on a 4-day average survey data. It
was necessary, therefore, to translate this information into visitation
rates on a summer Sunday basis, based on a breakdown of traffic count
during the survey hours by park and in each of the four survey days
(including a Sunday) which was presented in the Detroit report. The
T/ '
Pari' Users Surve", Detroit Metropp&itai vrea Regional Planning Cotnmiss
April 1950.
-62-
-------
Sunday-rate factor was calculated by comparing the traffic count for Gun-
day and for the 4-day average for each park. This is detailed in Appendix
B of this report.
On the basis of the Detroit data, a correlation analysis has been
carried out in an attempt to relate the mean park distance (MPD) defined as
the mean distance between a sub-area (planning unit), and each specific
park in the region (X^), the population density (X2), the median family
Income (X3)» to both percentages of the population visiting parks on a 4-
day average basis (Y^) and on a summer Sunday (Y2). The significant
relationships which were reached in this empirical study are presented as
follows:
For Yx 1. log Yx - 22.35-1.46 log
2. Y1 = " 3.12+1.90 log X2
3. Yi » - 4.07+0.22 ^ + 2.12 log ^
4. Yx = 10.37-1-0.01 + 2.21 log X2-3.73 log X3
For Y2 5. log Y2 = 2.65-1.50 log
6. Y2 - -5.25+3.40 log X
7. Y, = •5.59+0.01 X, + 3.45 log X„
z 12
8. Y2 - 23.38-0.03 7^ + 3.66 log X2 - 8.88 log X3
Equations 1 and 5 are also presented graphically in Figure 14 with a simple
transformation of the X axis into an arithmetic scale.
-63-
-------
In more detail, tills figure indicates, on the horizontal axis, the
average airline distance from the centrold of a planning unit to the centrolds
of each park In the Detroit Metropolitan Region. The vertical a::l8 represents
the proportion of residents In a planning unit who have visited any of
the regional paries In the Detroit Region during an average summer day and
on a summer Sunday. Figure 14 represents only the relationship trtilch
appears to exist between average distance to regional paries and proportion
of people visiting these parks. From this figure It becomes apparent that,
the use of parks in a metropolitan region Is clearly associated with the
distance between the recreation facilities and the area of residence of
the potential park users.
The overall average rate of visits for the four-days period (July 4f
Thursday, Sunday and Tuesday) is 4.5 percent of the people in the region.
That of an average summer Sunday is 7.7 percent of the total population.
The Detroit data are limited to moan park distances ranging from about
16 miles to about 43 airline miles. For less than 16 miles there are no
available data to confirm the relationship. For more than 43 miles it
appears that the relationship does not hold In general, or does not hold,
at least, for the generalized average rates used in this study. For
Sunday, the effective mean park distances seems greater than the effective
mean park distance for weekday. This speculation is based on the fact
that the people of the Detroit area reported an average travel distance
during a Sunday parlc-outing approximately 13 miles long. For the same
type of outing on a weekday, they reported an average travel distance
of only 12 miles.
These two extremes of the effective airline mean park distances for
-64-
-------
- 65 -
-------
the four-day average correspond to a calculated maximum rate o£ about
6.4 percent at the 1C miles uean park distance, and to a calculated
minimum of 0.6 percent at the 23 miles mean perk distance* For longer
mean park distance the rate remains at relatively similar levels showing
a continuous but very slight decrease* The two extremes of the effective
airline distance during a simmer Sunday correspond to a calculated maximum
of 13.4 percent about 10 miles, and a calculated minimum of 1percent
at the 43 miles mean park distance.
The e::act location of the two curves in Figure 14 depends on the number
of regional parks in the study area. In Detroit, eight such parks were in
existence at the time the survey was carried out. Thus the relationships
represent the regional park demand which is associated with various
locatlonal combinations of eight regional parks. If the number of parks
increases or decreases, the demand may, in most cases, Increase or decrease
according to the relationship indicated by the curves v/hich correspond to
the new total number of regional parks in the study area. The demand
curves should then retain their shape but rise gradually as the total
number of regional paries in the study area rises.
Equations 2 and 6 relating density of population to percentage visitation
are presented graphically in Figure 15. Density Is measured on the horizontal
axis and ranges from a low of about 100 to a high of about 15,000 persons
per square mile* Associated with these two figures are a law of 0*5
(four-day average) and 0.C (summer Sunday) percent of population visiting
parks, to a high of 5.6 (four-day average) and 9.4 (summer Sunday) percent
of people visiting parks.
•66-
-------
Figure 15 indicates that as the density of the population Increases
In a sub-area of a region the percentage of population of this sub-area
visiting major public parks increases. The divergence of the two curves
(straight lines on seml«log paper)indicates an increase in visitation on
a summer Sunday for all areas, regardless of their population density*
This seems to be an obvious conclusion, but it Implicitly reflects a
normative distribution of land uses in urban areas in general. High
density areas are characterized by lack of both public and private open
space for outdoor recreation activities. High land value*'In these
areas stand against the provision of such spaces by the public or private
sector. However, it is in such areas in the metropolitan region that
the demand for recreational open space is the greatest.
Finally one may observe that according to the statistical relationships
presented on page 63 population density in each sub-area of a region
presents a higher correlation with the percent of people visiting parks,
than the mean park distance of the same sub-area. Furthermore, adding
these two variabl®a,and even adding a third one (median family income,
) does not improve the statistical relationship between population
density and rate of participation. The amount of co-linearity which
exists among the three independent variables is a major factor in this
finding. In fact it is in the face of such findings in statistical
endeavors that the analyst-planner is forced to seek the required
additional cause-and-effect relationships in areas where rational ex-
pectations may be indicated.
Concluding this part of the present^analysis, reference can be made,
once more, to the relationship between mean park distance and average
-67-
-------
FIGURB 15
Population Density (Persons per Sauare Mile)
- 69 -
-------
travel cost to and from the various parks of a metropolitan region*
Variations of this distance are in effect variations of the travel
cost) implicitly necessitated. The significance therefore of variations
in the mean park distance can be seen as being essentially the same
as the significance of variations in the Average travel cost between
each sub-area and the various major public outdoor facilities in the
metropolitan region.
69'
-------
cmptcr vi
PROJECTION OF DEMAND RELATIONSHIPS
AND RELEVANT TRENDS
The projection of those factors that affect future demand should
preceed any actual attempt to project outdoor recreation demand. In
addition, certain national trends towards recreation in general, and
water-oriented recreation in particular should be taken into account
in such an attempt* In fact, data from the TVA were considered most
appropriate for this purpose due to the long-range nature of the TVA
experience cod the role that fresh water has played throughout this
experience. ^
Accordingly ttie chapter trtll ditfrcusa three major aspects of projecting
outdoor recreation demand. The first aspect involves the general trends
in outdoor recreation demand in the recent past; the second involves
the projection of those variables that were proved to be important in
the previous chapter; and the third covers the projection of the demand
relationships themselves.
A, Recreation Demand Trends
As mentioned above, data from the TVA has proved to be most pertinent
for the analysis of general trends In water-oriented recreation. Recreation
visits to the TVA lakes are significant in the sense that they ore made for
the purpose of engaging in one or more the activities that the lalces offered.
5
See Outdoor Recreation for a Growing Nation — TVA's Experience with Man-
Made Reservoirs, The Tennessee Valley Authority, Tennessee, 1961.
Supplementary tabulated information bringing the contents of the
above source up to the year 1964 was also made available.
-70-
-------
The total package of water-oriented activity available included the
four activities with which this study is primarily concerned; viz«#
flWtofiilQg, booting, fishing, and picnicking.
The following Table 10 summarized information on recreation visits
to the TVA lakes. In Column 1 the areas of individual lakes at full
pool have been ajgregated cumulatively by year. The surface area of
lakes, it is noted, has slightly Increased from 1947 to 1964, that In-
crease being the order of 5%. The number of visits listed in Column 2
are those made to all lakes and reservoirs for recreation purposes* They
are shown in Figure 16. Column 3 computes the rates of those visits per
acre and yearly figures are also depicted in Figure 16. In Column 4
the number of recreation visits listed in Column 2 has been discounted
to 1947 area of lakes available. The small divergence between the figures
in Column 2 and those in Column 4 reflect the small increase in lake
acreage between 1947 and the present time (5%), Column 5 presents total
population figures for selected census and raid-census years for the
seven states covered by the TVA region, while in Column 6 the number of
visits per person for those years is computed.
A-.-moted from Figure 6, hand-fitted regression lines were applied to
the data presented here, and projections were made for 1976 and 2000,
Pertinent projection figures as well as those for 1960 are presented
below in Table llr
-71
-------
TABLE 10
RECREATION VISITS IN TOE JTVA USE.S
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Year
Area of Lakes
Visits
Visits
Visits
Pop.
Visits per
(000 acres)
(000,000)
Per Acre
(000,000)
Disc. *47
(000,000)
Person
(A)
(B)
-------
PIGURE 16
RECREATION VISITS IN THE TVA LAKES
3
2J4.0 -
u
O
210 -
&
<
u
180 -
Pi
a
+>
150-
¦
> 120 -
•
4*
wi
m
90-
>
O
60 -
«
0
O
«-<
30-
rH
X
0 -
VIs It s per
Acre of Lake
¦
1 =*
— Millions of
Visits
O ^
1 1 1 .-¦¦ ¦
1 1 H
+ ¦¦¦ r |
1950
i960
1970
Year
73 -
1980
1990
2000
-------
TABLE 11
PRESENT AID FUTURE RECREATION VISITS IN THE TVA LAKES
Year
Recr. Visits
(000.000)
Visits/acre
Visits/person
1960
1976
2000
42.4
77.0
135.0
71.5
132.0
228.0
1.66
2.74
4.52
Source:
Figure 16
Data for 1960 are actual observations, and computed
rate while those for 1976 and 2000 are projections.
The regression lines in Figure 17 indicate that recreation visits
to the TVA Lakes have been increasing almost uniformly since 1947. This
is true whether the number of visits is taken absolutely, or per acre
of available uaters. Between 1960 and 1976 it is expected that recreation
visits to the lalces would increase by 02 percent (from 42.4 to 77.0
million visits), while between 1960 and the year 2000 the number of visits
will more than triple, reaching about 135 million visits in a year. These
changes, when viewed in terms of visits per person show that they will
increase from 1.66 to 2.74 to 4.52 in the years 1960, 1976, and 2000
respectively.
The analysis, therefore, indicates that participation in water-
oriented recreation activities will not only continue increasing In
the future, but that participation in those activities will also be more
intense.
B. Projection of the Relevant Variables?
In this section, the relevant factors affecting demand and lndentlfled
-74-
-------
in the previous chapter uill be projected for the year 1976 and 2000,
These factors are income, age and se:: compositions, and leisure time*
In addition, one should also consider the increase in population in the
study area*
Population: On a national basis, it is expected that the U.5.
population will increase by 28.5 percent in 1976, while for the year
2000, it is expected to double in comparison to the 1960 figures. Using
these same rates of increase for our study area, one can expect that from
a figure of 5 million in 1960, the population and the stndy area will
reach 6.5 million in 1976, and 10 million in the year 2000. Local pro-
jections, however, show that the study area will include 6.4 million
persons in 1976, and 0.5 million persons in the year 2000,
Age and Se::: A different age and sex distribution of the population
is also expected for the years 1976 and 2000. Table 12 presents these
changes.
For 1976, Table 12 shows that the percentages of the population in
all age groups, except that from 35 to 64 years of age, will be larger
compared to those for 1959. There will be more children, youth, and
elderly people. The percentages increase in specific age groups will,
of course have a significant effect on the amount of participation and
extent of facilities for various recreational activities. In the year
2000, it is expected that the percentage of the population under 14 years
of age will decline while that between 14 and 19 years of age will con-
tinue to increase.
-75
-------
TABUS 12
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY AGE AND SEX
(UNITED STATES)
Age Group 1959 1976 2000
11
F
T.
M
F
T
M
F
T
Under 14
30.4
28 .6
29.4
31.4
29.3
30.3
29.4
30.3
28.6
14-19
9.1
8.6
0.9
11.0
10.4
10.7
11.3
11.6
11.0
20-24
6.4
6.2
6.3
3.4
8.0
3.2
8.0
8.2
7.9
25-34
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.C
13.2
13.9
13.5
13.7
13.2
35-44
13.3
13.6
13.4
9.8
9.6
9.7
11.9
12.0
11.8
45-54
11.4
11.7
11.6
9.6
9.9
9.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
55-64
8.4
8.9
8.7
8.1
9*0
0.5
6.6
6.4
6.8
65 & Over
8.0
9.4
0.7
7.9
10.6
9.3
9.0
7.5
10.4
M«» male; F°female; T=total
Source: ORRRC "Outdoor Recreation for America.
76-
-------
A decline 1g also noted for those between 20 and 35 years of age. On
the other hand, while a decline was noted in 1976 for the age group 35
to 64, an increase is observed for that group for the year 2000, but up
to 55 years of age. This increase would however, still constitute a
smaller percentage than that for 1959, Between 55 to 64, a decline is
observed for the year 2000, as was also noted for 1976. The age group
65 and over still presents an increase over the 1976 percentage. The
consistent increase for both 1976 and 2000 is, therefore* found in the age
groups 14 - 19 (the teens) and 65 and over (the elderly).
In terns of se::, it is noted that the decrease in the year 2000 in
the percentage of the population in the age groups up to 14, and between
20 and 35 years of age, will affect the male population. Again the most
consistent increase in both 1976 and 2000 is noted for both males and
females in the age groups 14 to 19. In the age group 65 and over, a
relative decrease in the female population in the year 2000 is noted.
In general, however, the changes observed in the male-female distribution
of the population in the projection years do not appear as import as the
general distribution in terms of age, especially with regard to partici-
pation in recreation activities.
Income; Not only a population increase is expected, but also a
parrelleling increase in gross national product and disposable income
is in view. The increase in income will affect the whole population,
but to a varying degree. There will be shifts in income groups. The
folloving Table 13 presents the percentage distribution of consumer
units by income groups for 1957 as well as for the two projection years.
-77
-------
T/CI£ 13
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF CONSUMER UNITS BY INCOME GROUPS
{UNITED STATES)
Income
Percent
of Consumer
Units
(1959 Dollars)
1957
1976
_ ^2000
Belotr $2,000
13.C
7.5
4.2
2,000 - 3,999
20.8
10.6
7.8
4,000 - 5,999
23.G
13.2
7.6
6,000 - 7,499
14.5
11.3
6.0
7,500 - 9,$99
13.3
17. C
13.1
10,000 -14,999
o n
u
22.9
25.5
15,000 -19,999
2.6
8.2
15.9
20,000 -24,999
1.0
3.3
8.0
25,000 - or more
1.4
4.7
li.l
100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: ORRRC Report ' Outdoor Recreation for America'1 Table 22, Page 220.
78-A
-------
As noted from the table, the percent of consumer units earning up
to $7,500 a year will decrease in 1976 as compared to 1960, and will con-
tinue doing so in 2000. It is expected that units in the income bracket
from $7,500 to $10,000 annual earnings, will Increase in 1976, and then
decrease in 2000 to a level lower than what it was in 1957. As opposed
to this general decrease, consumer units earning a yearly income of $10,000
or more will increase for both 1976 and 2000* This is where the shift in
income grouping occurs. In 1957 the highest percent (23,8) of consumer
units was found to be in the income bracket earning annually between
$4,000 and $6,000. It is expected that the highest percent of consumer
units in 1976 (22,9) and now (25.5) be found in the income gxoup earning
from $10,000 to $15,000 annual income. This factor will be particularly
relevant in the projection of participation in recreation especially in
those activities such as boating where income appeared to be an important
factor.
Leisure Time; Projections of leisure time show a consistent de-
cline in working hours for all occupations in 1976 and 2000. For all in-
dustries taken as a whole the decline proceeds from 39 working hours a
week in 1960, to 36 in 1976, and down to 32 in the year 2000. Table 14
shows the expected working hours pet week by occupation.
The table shows that in 1960 the number of hours of work per week
in most industries was equivalent to the mean for all industries. The
only deviations were a high of 40.0 hours in wholesale and retail trade,
and a low of 37.0 in both mining, and finance, insurance, and real estate.
In 1976, wholesale and retail trade maintain the highest weekly work hours
-73-
-------
TABLE 14
AVERAGE STANDARD (SCHEDULED) WORK 17EEK FOP.
HON-AGRICULTURAL U0RI03RS BY INDUSTRY
Industry
Uork week Hours
1960
1976
2000
Total, All Industry
39.0
36.0
32.0
Mining
37.0
34.0
30.3
Contract Construction
39.0
35.4
31.6
Manufacturing
39.0
36.0
32.6
Transportation and Public Utilities
39.0
35.3
32.0
Wholesale and Retail Trade
40.0
36.2
32.3
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate
37.0
33.5
29.9
Science and Miscellaneous
39.0
35.7
32.0
Government
39.0
35.2
31.5
Source: ORRRC Outdoor Recreation for Ametica Table 25, Page 222.
-79-
-------
expected while finance, insurance and real estate maintain the lowest, or
33*5 hours* In the year 2000, the latter still holds the lowest figures
with 29.9 hours per week, while manufacturing becomes the industry with
the greatest number of expected work hours per week, or 32.6 hours*
In general we can state that a consistent increase in the availability
of leisure time is expected in the future, but with varying degrees of
availability depending on the tyPe of occupation one is holding.
C. Projection of Demand Relationships
Those factors that affect recreation demand and that were projected
in the previous section xrill do so, not separately but in a composite manner.
In this section such composite effects will be presented for 1960 and pro-
jected for 1976 and 2000. The unit of demand that will be used is the
"activity day," defined as a visit by one individual to an outdoor recreation
development or area for recreation purpose during any portion or all of
a 24-hour-day period.
The composite effect of all the relevant factors has been studied
by the OPJIRC and estimated for the projection years 1976 and 2000. These
are given in the following Table 15 for the four activities under con-
sideration in this study.
The table shows a continuing rate of increase in participation for
the four activities in 1976 and 2000, except for fishing where the rate of
increase in 2000 is lower than that observed for 1976, This may be due
to a shift of reference to one dctiyity ap. opposed to.another made possible
by future changes in the socio-economic characteristics of the population.
80-
-------
TABLE 15
PRESENT AND FUTURE PARTICIPATION RATES PER PERSON
12 YEARS OLT"\ND OVER IN THE NORTHEAST U.S.
(iti® - AUGUST)
1960
1976
2000
Activity
Swimming
Boating**
Fishing
Picnicking
Total
Activity
Days
6.82
1.38
1.76
2.81
Percent^
Increase
Over 1960
Activity
Days
33.7
35.9
2.4
14.1
9.12
1.88
1.80
3.22
12.77
16.01
Percent
Incerease*
Over 1960
75.3
78.9
2.3
27.9
Activity
Days
11.96
22.47
1.80
3.59
19.82
^Increase due to composite effect of income, education and occupation, place of residence,
age and sex, and leisure time available.
**0ther than sailing or canoeing
Source: GRRRC Report 26 MProspective Demand for Outdoor Recreation."
-81-
-------
For the total of the four activities, however, it is expected that each
person 12 years and over will spend about 16 activity days in 1976, and
20 activity days in the year 2000, as opposed to close to 13 activity days
in 1960.
Conclusion
This chapter has presented and projected those factors that are
believed to affect recreation demand, in general, and water-oriented
recreation demand, in particular. An increase in participation has been
noted for each and all the recreation activities within our concern. In
addition, an indication of the general trend in participation in water-
oriented recreation has been inferred from the analysis of the TVA data.
In the following Phase, the projected participation rates will be
used for the actual projection of the demand for swimming, boating, fishing,
and picnicking activities in 1976 and 2000 in the study area.
82-
-------
VL1
SUMMARY AMD CONCLUSIONS
The major concern of this report has been to indentlfy those
factors that affect recreation demand! both manifest and latent,
and to project those factors into the future* With respect to the
projection model presented earlier in Figure 2, the completion of this
report satisfies the first two major steps of the model* These are the
total demand projections and their adjustments. The process initially
involved the analysis of present participation rates and the iden-
tification of the variables affecting these rates* These have been
inter-related by individual sub-models which, in turn, made the esti-
mation of future participation rates possible. The impact of latent
rates upon those factors were taken into account and an estimate of
future total manifest and latent demand was derived.
The two remaining steps to be carried out (in Phase 2)cover the
estimation of the e::tcnt to which the Delaware River can meet the pro-
jected demand under alternative measures of improvement of the water
quality of the river, and the translation of that portion of demand
met by the river into monetary benefits.
The complexity of the relationships involved in recreation demand
projection has necessitated the subjection of the whole analysis to a
stepwise process in the sense that specific analyses were first conducted
and conclusions were drawn, and then these conclusions were used as
inputs to an analytical framework within which demand relationships
were projected. The general framework that governs this approach is
-83-
-------
the projection model. Its purpose is to provide a comprehensive overview
of the intricate relationships met while proceeding from the evaluation
of present conditions to the final determination of recreation benefits.
Examination of the present conditions in the study area has led to
the conclusion that there is a deficiency in the provision of adequate
water-oriented recreation facilities to meet the present demand, Hater
availability is the central problem to this deficiency since inland
waters are limited and the river's waters are inadequate for recreation
purpose.
While a number of factors have been identified as they affect the
four recreational activities under consideration (swimming, boating,
fishing, and picnicking), only a few have been found to be relatively
important. These are income, leisure time, pro::imity of facilities,
and age# Each of those factors ha6 been projected and the resulting
changes were related to the extent of participation in the recreation
activities. Finally a composite effect of the relevant factors was
estimated presently and in the projection years. Present and future
participation rates for each activity were then derived on the basis
of the present and future composite effect.
In general, an increase in the rate of participation is noted for
the four activities. Among those activities, the highest rate of in-
crease is observed for boating, followed by picnicking, swimming, and
finally fishing. One exception to the rule is evidenced for fishing
where the percent increase in the rate of participation In the year
2000 as compared to the 1960 rate, is slightly lower than that projected
for 1976 as compared to the 1960 rate also. This actual decline in the
-84-
-------
rate of participation between 1976 and 2000 is, however, offset by the
increase in population to the extent that an equal number of fishing
activity days will be generated In 1976 and 2000, This decline is
contrasted to an observable doubling of the rate of participation in
the other activities In 2000 as compared to that in 1976.
Based on the projected participation rates, Phase 2 will be concerned
with actual demand projections in each of the four activities in the
study area. Estimates of the portions of demand that could be satisfied
by facilities in the study area other than the Delaware River will be
made, then discounted from the projected total demand. The remainder
could then be viewed as demand that would have to be met either by the
river or by some other water sources Comparison of this remainder with
the capacity of the river for recreation development under different.
DECS water quality Improvement levels, would indicate the extent to which
the river could be used for each recreational activity. Phase 2 will
subsequently conclude with the determination of the recreation benefits
derivable from the use of river for recreational purposes under the
five alternative levels of water purification of the Delaware River,
'85-
-------
APPENDIX A
SOME APPROACHES TO DEMAND ESTIMATION
The purpose of this appendix Is Co briefly review some previously
advanced methods and techniques for measuring the demand for and/or the
value of outdoor recreation* As can easily be noticed, approaches are of
a rather conceptual character, and In fact, require further empirical evi-
dence before they can be considered operational. For the purpose of
orderly presentation the concepts will be presented chronologically, as
they were commonly known. This sequence may also assist in a better un-
derstanding of the evolution of the definition and interpretation of the
concept of outdoor recreation demand over a period of time,
(1) Clawson's Demand Functions**
Clawson has suggested that the visitation rate (V) to a recreation
facility can be considered, In a simplified form, as a function of the
cost (C) associated with travel (time and money) to and use of facility,
that is: V = f(C).
To derive the demand curve, assuming equal demand for the facility
at each zone, Clawson proposes dividing the study area from which visitors
travel to the facility Into distance zones with roughly equal population
(Clawson recommends ten zones)* The rate of visitation from each zone and
the average cost for each zone are determined, A curve is drawn by plotting
6/"
Clawson, Marion, Methods of Measuring the Demand for and Value of Outdoor
REcreAtlQit»Resource8 for the Future,Inc., Reprint No, 11, February 1959,
-86-
-------
V against C. From thi6 curve a true demand curve for the facility can be
derived showing the effects of changes in prices and travel cost on ab-
solute number of visitors of a given facility.
Clawson applies this technique to the problem of predicting the
use and value of proposed facility through analyzing an existing facility
which is similar to the proposed one in its major characteristics.
In an analysis of the demand for boating in Wisconsin, IJood^ used
a modified Clawson technique. His modification is based on the assumption
that relative values can be measured by factors which talce into account the
distances which users are willing to travel (not those which they actually
travel) to reach recreation facilities*
Q
ICnetsch argued Clawson's assumption of equal demand for the facility
at each zone and proposed the incorporation of additional demand factors
that would overcome this assumption. He therefore expands the demand re-
lationship by incorporating factors that include income (Y), substitution
of other facilities (S), and congestion (G). Thus, his functional re-
lationship is given by V = f(C,Y,S,G).
While the method can be considered a refinement over Clawson1s, it
is evident that it also depends upon considerable more research into the
relationships among those factors of outdoor recreation demand and into
V
Uood, Donald F., "The Distances - Traveled Technique for Measuring Value
of Recreation Areas; An Application," Land Economics» Vol. 37, No.4,
November 1961.
8/
ICnetsch, Jaclc L., "Outdoor Recreation Demands and Benefits," Land Econo-
inics, Vol. 39, No, 4, November 1963.
•87-
-------
their effect upon the use of outdoor recreation facilities.
(11) Davis* Ullllnflness-to-pay^
Davis developed demand curves through the use of the willingness-to-
pay technique as contrasted with Hood's willingness-to-travel distance* The
demand curve Is obtained as a result o£ a survey In which a representative
sample of users Is asked to bid for the theoretical privilege of using the
outdoor recreation area. Hypothetical prices are raised until the re-
creationist indicates that he has been priced out of the area. Davis then
correlates the demand data with factors Buch as income and previous experi-
ence in the area.
Davis* demand estimations may simulate market conditions better
than those of Clawson and Knetsch since they extract data directly from
the consumer. A strong argument, however, against this approach is the
discrepancy between what the consumer says he is willing to pay and what
he will actually pay. This technique is by no means simple or economical;
it requires extensive survey and may only be justifiable in the case of a
very large or very controversial project where the data are to be acquired
in terms of the individual project. Its strength, however, lies in its
direct attempt to analyze consumer reaction to changing conditions.
(ill) Foster's Land Productivity*^
Foster advanced the notion of measuring the productivity of land
Davis, Robert K., The Value of Outdoor Recreation: An Economic Study of the
Maine Woods, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1963.
10/
Foster, John H., "Measuring the Productivity of Land Used for Outdoor
Recreation," Land Economics, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 1964.
-88-
-------
used for outdoor recreation* He defines the productivity of recreation land
as the enjoyment or utility to the users of the lagd* His proposed measure
of productivity is the time spent by users per acre of land available for
recreation activities; or
P ® ^— where
A
F Is the productivity of land (visitor hours per acre)
V person visits per year (nunber of visits)
T average length of visit (hours)
A available area (acres)
Ab can be readily seen} a major drawback of this measure Is that
It does not reflect the quality of the recreational experience, a major
determinant of total enjoyment.
Foster, however, does not proceed to use the concept of productivity
directly for demand estimation purposes* If, for a certain type of oper-
ation, land productivity is a stable rate, then the formulation could, of
course, be used for estimating the demand that each additional unit of
area of the activity could generate; l*ea, given ?, T, and a certain
area A, derive V. The I:ey thus, is the assumption of stability in the
rate of land productivity. Empirical verification by Foster in Western
Massachusetts shows a substantial variation in land productivity rate
among operations of the same type* He may therefore conclude that, as
presently formulated, the concept of land productivity is not helpful
in outdoor recreation demand estimation*
-89-
-------
(iv) Wennergren1 s Marginal ArialysJ.8^
Recently 'Jennergren developed an economic model that provides
demand estimates o£ public recreation. He directly asserts that, con-
trary to general beliefs, recreation Is amenable to traditional economic
analysis as much as other marketed conmodities. Recreation commodities,
as other consumer goods and services, he adds, compete for consumers'
income and time resources* The difference lies only in the difficulty
in the market pricing of recreation, Wennergren's model hence relies on
the basic principles of traditional consumer demand theory* He over-
comes the difficulty of market pricing of the commodity by arguing that
travel costs to and from a recreation site plus the on-site expenditures
constitute the marginal costs of the recreation experience, and thus
simulate the role of "price" in the consumption process. Still on a
very conceptual level, this model would certainly involve extreme data
difficulties. At the same time the pure economic approach that holds
the premise of recreation ae a consumer good is also debatable*
11/
TJennergren, E. Boyd, "Valuing Hon-Market Priced Recreational Re-
sources," Land Economics, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 1964.
-90-
-------
(v) Tomazinls1 Mean Pnrlc Distance
Tomazinl8 suggested an approach for measuring demand based on a
concept termed "mean park distance," or UPC. He views the concept as
an Indicator of the effect of cost variations in park visits and main*
tains that recreation demand varies by area and by type of user. The
concept was advanced in a recent study on open space in Philadelphia
Metropolitan Area* Since then the concept has been further detailed and
an account of It Is presented in this report, *3 It8 application, however,
is reserved for the second phase of this study*
Suffice it to mention that the approach relates the proportion of
residents In a study area vlsltng parks on an average summer day to the
mean distance between the planning units of the study area and each
specific park* Adjustment of this relationship Is further made to take
into account socio-economic characteristics* This relationship makes it
possible to propose alternative MFD1s and estimate future demand on this
basis* More rigorously, the relationship is given by the function:
r, f(MPD), where:
P: is the percentage of population of a planning unit visiting
each park
MFD: average airline distance from the centrold of a planning
unit to the centroids of each park*
127 ~ '
Tomazinls, A.R., Metropolitan Open Space from Natural Process. Institute
for Environmental Studies, August 1965. See specifically Chapter 5,
Demand for Public Recreation Land in the Philadelphia SMSA*
13/
See section on the Availability of Transportation Facilities, Chapter 5,
pp* 59*66*
-91-
-------
For the purpose of projection vre have:
n Pt+1
Q n where
Is the number of acres of parks needed to satisfy the demand
in year t-M
Fj.,^ population in year t-f-1; and
n number of park users per acre of park, i.e., an assumed
capacity standard.
This formulation results in a spatial continuum for the provision
of parks. The continuum covers a range from an 1IKmin. to «a l®>max.* At
MPDm£n> r is maximum and A is highest, while at MPDma,r> r is minimum and
A is lowest. The optimum MPD would be somewhere in between depending on
the case on hand.
There is some difficulty, however, with this concept that stems
from the fact that MPD is a measure of the mean value. The same MPD, could
imply different spatial patterns of parks. Therefore, while the MPD approach
provides a satisfactory measure of demand it does not definitely locate
those parks where demand is to be satisfied. A complementary approach could
be used to overcome this difficulty. This is the gravity model concept
(or any other synthetic model of facility distribution), which will dis-
tribute recreation trips to the different existing or proposed recreational
areas. The following gravity model formula seems to be appropriate:
A
j Fij ICij
Tjj- Pt _ where
n
^:r. ^i:: Ivij
x"l
Tjj recreation trips produced in zone i and attracted to zone j
Kjj adjustment factor for zonal interchange
trips produced by zone (
92-
-------
Aj trips attracted by zone j
F^. tine-friction factor associated with a trip from zone 1 to
zone j
n number of zones
The trips at destination points (parks) could, then, be estimated
on the basis, or as a function, of the capacity of each park.
(vi) Davidson-Adams-Seneca's Cost"Benefit Approach*-^
The authors approach the problem of demand through a cost-benefit
analysis of the recreational value of an improvement in water quality.
They applied their analysis to the Delaware Estuary but they maintain
that their approach would be applicable to other cases. They base their
analysis on the premise that ...(unless there is a budgetary constraint)
a project should by undertaken whenever the present value of the associated
stream of benefits discounted at the appropriate social rate of dis-
count is greater than present costs of the facilities. Costs were
identified as opportunity costs of resources at full employment and
were assumed to be roughly «qual to the money outlays on capital con-
struction.
To estimate benefits, the following steps were followed:
(a) estimation of relationship between total capital costs
_
Davidson, P., Adams, F.G,, and Seneca, J,, The Social Value of Water
Recreational Facilities Resulting from an Improvement in Water-
Quality in an Estuary: The Delaware - A Case Study. Discussion
Paper No. 12, Economics Research Service Unit, University of
Pennsylvania, 1965,
93-
-------
and the resulting Improvement In the quality of
water (as measured by dissolved oxygen), then
derivation of a marginal cost function,
(b) determination of thresholds for different activities
(3, 4, and 5 parts per 1,000 of dissolved oxygen
for boating , fishing, and swimming respectively)*
(c) estimation of total activity days and marginal
activity days for each activity followed by their
conversion to present value of total net benefits
and marginal net benefits*
(d) maximization of welfare achieved when the quality
of the water Is Improved up to the point where the
marginal net benefits equal the marginal net costs*
This study advances Interesting notions on three types of ex-
ternalities: ownership externalities due to the inability to charge
for services; technical externalities due to Indivisibilities; and
public goods externalities due to off-peak demand, option demand,
and leaming-by-doing factors* These externalities are Intimately
involved in the market for outdoor recreational activities and are the
causes of its market failure. Problems of utilization of other facilities
within and without a region, together with problems of data availability
in determining the relationships in each of the previously mentioned
steps, remain inherent in the approach and may seriously hinder its
proper application.
-94
-------
APrEHDIX B
PARTICIPATION IN THE DETROIT AREA
The Detroit "Park Users Survey" readily gives information on the
percentage of zonal population visiting parks, but only as related to a
four-day average visitation, (See Detroit's Appendix V, Table A, Column
3, page 43). The problem was then to find out the change in visitation
from that average to that of a summer weekend day. The following steps
were carried out to make this computation
1. vC a V where
v is a vector where v^ represents the number of users (4-day
average) going from zone i to all parks (Detroit's Appendix
V,- Table Aj.'CQlumn 2, pag& 43),
k
C is a matrix where each element Cj represents the percent
of users from zone i going to park k (Detroit's Appendix
V, Table Bt page 44),
V therefore is a matrix where Is the ntnaber of ueers (4-
day average) from zone i going to park u.
The number of zones under study was 25, (i °> 1, ... , n); and
the number of parks was 8, (K » 1( ... , M),
2. Detroit's Appendix III, (B), page 40 gives a breakdown of traffic
count made during the survey hours by park and on each of the
four survey days (July 4, Thursday, Sunday, and Tuesday). Com-
parison was made between the traffic count for Sunday and for
the four-day average for each park and the percentage increase
v
on Sunday was computed. This is given by vector b where b is
the percentage increase in traffic count on Sunday over and above
-95-
-------
that of the four-day overage in park K.
bV « A where
b and V as before, and
k
A is a matrix where is the additional number of users from
zone 1 going to park K on a sustner Sunday as compared to the
four-day average.
U a V + A where
U is a matrix where is the number of users from zone i
going to park !C on a simmer Sunday,
Matrix U is compressed by aggregating row elements so that it
11 k
becomes a vector u where each element u. = , UV and u,
i iC=l i i
represents the number of users from zone i going to all parks
on a Sunday.
Given 1958 population estimates for each zone (Detroit's Appendix
V, Table A, Column 1, page 43) in the form of a p vector, vector
u is translated to vector u where each element u^ represents the
percentage of population of zone i going to all parks on a summer
Sunday, or B =» up""* x 100.
Vector v mentioned in Step 1 above was also translated to vector
v where each element represents the percentage of popula-
tion of zone i going to all parks on a four-day average basis,
-96-
-------
or v =» vp"* :: 100, Therefore, vectors B and $ are comparable
except that the latter is on a four-day average basis, and the
former on a summer Sunday basis.
8, The MPD for each zone was computed from I-Iap 2, page 11, using:
the following equation where the MPD of zone i is given by
M k
di
K=-l _
MPDi » II where
lr
d is the airline distance fcom the centroid of zone i to the
centroid of park k
M is the number of parks
K « 1, ... , M
9. The accompanying Table 16 was formed in which Column (1) identifies
the planning unit zones (Z) as coded in the Detroit Study; Column
(2) consecutive enumeration of the zones; column (3) the MFD;
Columns (6) and (7) the percentage of zonal population visiting
parks (4-day average) or v, and (summer Sunday), or 0. In
addition Columns (4) and (5) represent the zonal population
density (persons per square mile), and median family income
(dollars per year) respectively.
For the total area the number of park users on the four-day average
basis amounts to 4.5 percent of the total population, while on the summer
-97-
-------
TABLE 16
i
-------
Sunday basis It amounts to 7,7 percent with an Increase of about 72
percent* The average MPD for all zones in the study area is 24*8 miles.
-99-
-------
APPENDIX C
BODIES OF UATEH
Delaware Counties Water Acres
E.003 - Chesapeake and Delaware Canal New Castle 2,000
A.013 - Brandywine Parle New Castle 3
L.006 - Lumis Pond Wildlife Area New Castle 200
L.007 - Chesapeake and Delaware Uildlife Area New Castle 270
11*003 - Becks Pond Hew Castle 30
A.010 - n.e. New Castle I
A. 014 - n.a. Nev; Castle 2
A.016 - South Brandywine Parle (Uilmington) New Castle 1
A.017 - n.a. New Castle 1
A.019 - n.a. Net? Castle 10
A.009 - n.a. New Castle 1
A.002 - n.a. New Castle 1
New Jersey
Z.3G7 - Fort Dix Reservation Burlington 2,000
F.606 - Lebanon State Forest Burlington 71
F.607 - Bass River State Forest Burlington 67
F.608 - TJharton State Forest Burlington 535
F.612 - Penn State Forest 3urlington 90
L.013 - IIinslow Public Hunting and Fishing Grounds Camden 13
L.017 - Rowlands Fish Grounds (Gloucester twp.) Camden '6
A. 037 - New Brooklyn Parle Camden 140
C.054 - Uoodlynne Park Area Camden 2
C.057 - Newton Lake Park Camden 100
C.049 - Berlin Park Area Camden 20
C.056 - Newton Creek Area Camden 5
C.059 - Cooper River Park Area Camden 1,600
C.034 - Farnam Park Camden 8
C.060 - Pennypacker-Hopkins Pond Camden 20
C.061 - ITallworth and Evans Park Area Camden 50
15./
Letter and figures refer to the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Park Survey Coding.
-100-
-------
New Jersey (continued)
Counties
Water Acres
C«062 - Mountwell Park Area Camden 2
C.058 - Haddon Lake Park Area Camden 70
A,040 - John A# Roebling Park Camden 18
C«030 - Fred Sawyer Park Camden 2
L.034 - Logan. Pond Gloucester 4
A.009 - Round Valley Hunterdon 2,255
A.027 - Spruce Run Recreation Area Hunterdon 467
L.009 - Clinton Fishing Grounds Hunterdon 1
L.019 - Kenneth Lockwood Gorge Public Hunting Hunterdon 20
L.041 - Amwell Lake Hunterdon 11
L.042 - Baldwin Lake Mercer 18
C.069 - Belle Mount Ski-Picnic Area Mercer 1
C.022 - Stacy Park (Trenton) Mercer 2
C.026 - Cadualader Park (Trenton) Mercer 3
A.006 - Fort Mbtt State Park Salem 10
A.011 - Parvin State Park Salem 107
L.035 - Maskells Mill Fish Grounds Salem 19
L.036 - Greenwood Fish Grounds Salem 10
Pennsylvania
A.085 - Ralph Stover State Parle Bucks 5
A.090 - Uashington Crossing State Park Bucks 5
C.211 - Levittown Lake Recreation Area Bucks 20
A.024 - Ringing Rock Scenic Park Bucks 1
A.027 - Churchville Park Bucks 180
C.104 - Lake Towhee Park Bucks 50
C.105 - John Stover Tinicum Park Bucks 2
C.106 - Ueisel Park Bucks 8
C.107 - Tohickon Valley Parks Bucks 5
C.155 - Playwicki Parks Bucks 3
C.156 - Mill Creek Park Bucks 75
L.225 - Icedale Lake Recreation Area Chester 20
A.038 - Nottingham Park Chester 30
C.13C - Kibernia Park Chester 40
A.028 - Cobbs Creek Valley Mature Park (Haverford) Delaware 2
A.029 - Darby Creek Valley Par!: (Haverford) Delaware 3
C.166 - Gillespie Play Area (Upper Darby) Delaware 4
C.168 - Primos Elementary School (Upper Darby) Delaware 3
C.170 - Upper Darby Township Park (Upper Darby) Delaware 1
C.124 - Upper Perkiomen Valley Park Montgomery 58
C.125 - Lower Perkiomen Valley Park Montgomery 5
-101-
-------
Pennsylvania (continued)
Counties
Hater Acres
A.036
•*
Pennypaclc Tarlc
Philadelphia
130
c.no
-
Tacony Creek Park
Philadelphia
20
C.112
••
\Jissahickon Carpenter UD
Philadelphia
135
C.175
m
Former Penn State F.II.
Philadelphia
9
C.192
-
Burholme Park
Philadelphia
8
C.193
Cobbs Creek Park
Philadelphia
394
C.197
-
Hunting Park
Philadelphia
7
C.X99
-
Mor-is Park
Philadelphia
3
C.200
m
Franklin D, Roosevelt Park
Philadelphia
10
C.172
-
Camp Uilllam Penn
Philadelphia
15
1,246
Total
11,522
-102
-------
APPENDIX D
BOATING AND FISHING PUCES
Delaware Counties Activity16
E.003 - Chesapeake and Delaware Canal New Castle B
A,002 - Lumls Pond Net-; Castle B.F,
A,002 - Augustine Beach Recreation Area New Castle B.F.
A,013 - Brandywine Parle New Castle B
L.006 - Lumls Pond Wildlife Area New Castle B.F*
L.007 - Chesapeake and Delaware Wildlife Area New Castle B.F.
L«00C - Reedy Island Wildlife Area New Castle B
II.003 - Becks Pond New Castle B.F.
C.002 - Harmony Hills Net/ Castle B.F,
A,015 - North Brandywine Park (tJllmington) Not Castle B.F.
A.015 - South Brandywine Park Clllmington) New Castle B.F.
n,a, - Appoquinimink Wildlife Area (Odessa) New Castle B.F.
A, 006 - Todd Estates Park Net; Castle F
A,010 - Banning Park New Castle F
A.012 - Woodland Heights Parks Not Castle F
C.004 - Brookhaven Park Not Castle F
C.010 - Rock ford Park (Wilmington)
Not Jersey
Z.387 - Fort Dlx Reservation Burlington B
F.507 - Bass River State Forest Burlington B.F.
F.G03 - Wharton State Forest Burlington B.F„
F.G11 - Green Bank State Forest Burlington B.F.
F,512 - Penn State Forest Burlington B.F.
F«S06 - Lebanon State Forest Burlington F
A,037 - New Brooklyn. Park Camden B.F*
C.057 - Newton Lake Park Camden B.F.
C,059 - Cooper River Park Area Camden B.F.
C.034 - Famam Parks Camden B.F.
C,060 - Pennypacker-Hopkins Pond Camden B.F.
C.0S1 - Wallworth and Evans Park Area Camden B.F.
C«062 - Mountwell Park Area Camden B
n.a. - Blue Mirror Lake Club (Clementon) Camden B.F,
n.a. - Clementon Lake Park (Clementon) Camden B
1$/
B, F stand for boating and fishing.
-103-
-------
New Jersey (continued)
Counties
Activity
L.017 - Rowlands Fish Grounds
C.049 - Berlin Park Area
C.051 - Camden Park Area
C.053 - Haddon Lake Park Area
A.040 - Barrington Boro
L.034 - Logan Pond
A.009 - Hound Valley
A.027 - Spruce Run Recreation Area
L.041 - Amwell Lake
L.009 • Clinton Fishing Grounds
U019 - ICenneth Lockwood
L.042 - Baldwin Lake
A.017 - Uashington Crossing State Park
L.024 - Vinnest Refuge
C.022 - Stacy Park (Trenton)
C.069 - Belle Mount Ski-Picnic Area
A.006 - Fort Mott State Park
A,011 - Parvin State Park
L.035 - Ilaskells Mill Fishing Grounds
L.036 - Greenwood Fishing Grounds
L.037 - Mad Horse Creek Tract
Pennsylvania
A.027 - Churchvllle Park
C.104 - Lake Towhee Parks
C.105 - John Stover Tisicum Park
C.155 - Playwicki Park
C.156 - Mill Creek Park
C.211 - Levitt own Lake Recreation Area
Co106 - Ueisel Park
C.107 - Tohickon Valley Park
A,091 - Valley Forge State Park
L.225 - Icedale Lake Recreation Area
A,038 - Nottingham Park
C.12C - Hibernia Park
C«119 - Cleyton Park
C.157 - Glen Providence Park
Camden F
Camden F
Camden F
Camden F
Camden F
Gloucester B.F,
Hunterdon B.F.
Hunterdon B.F.
Hunterdon B.F.
Hunterdon F
Hunterdon F
Mercer B.F.
Mercer B.F,
Mercer B.F.
Mercer B.F.
Mercer F
Salem F
Salem F
Salem F
Salon F
Salem F
Bucks B.F.
Bucks B.F.
Bucks B.F.
Bucks B.F.
Bucks B.F.
Bucks F
Bucks F
Bucks F
Chester B.F.
Chester B.F.
Chester B.B.
Chester B.F.
Delaware F
Delaware F
-104'
-------
Pennsylvania (continued)
Counties
Activity
A.029
Darby Creek Valley Park (Haverford)
Montgomery
F
C.124
-
Upper Perl:lomen Valley Park
Montgomery
B.F.
C.125
Lower Perkionen Valley Park
Montgomery
B.F.
C.12C
M
Alverthorke Park (Abington)
Montgomery
B
L.224
-
State Game Land Ho* 234
Montgomery
F
C.200
•
Franklin D. Roosevelt Park
Philadelphia
B.F.
C.112
-
Uissahickon Carpenters II.D.
Philadelphia
B.F.
C.175
-
Former Penn State F.R.
Philadelphia
B.F.
C.194
M
Fairmount Park
Philadelphia
B.F.
A.036
m
Pennypack Park
Philadelphia
B.F.
C.172
-
Camp William Penn
Philadelphia
B.F,
-105
-------
WATER-ORIENTED RECREATION BENEFITS
A Study
of Che Recreation Benefits Derivable
from Various Levels of Water Quality
of the Delaware River
Phase II
Projection of Recreation Demand and Benefits
by
Anthony R. Totnazinis and Iskandar Gabbour
Institute for Environmental Studies
University of Pennsylvania
February 1967
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1
CHAPTER II Projection of Future Recreation Demand 3
CHAPTER III Projection of Future Recreation Demand For
Picknicking. 27
CHAPTER IV Projection of Monetary Recreation Benefits 44
CHAPTER V Summary and Conclusions 57
BIBLIOGRAPHY 59
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Present and Future Percent of Persons 12 Years Old
and Over Participating in the Northeast U.S.
(June-August) 4
2 Present and Future Activity Days in Millions in the
Study Region .. 5
3 River Capacity for Swimming by Objective Set 13
4 Possible Demand for Swimming in Millions of Activity
Days by Objective Set 15
5 River Capactiy for Boating by Objective Set 19
6 Possible Demand for Boating in Millions of Activity
Days by Objective Set 21
7 River Capacity for Fishing by Objective Set 22
8 Possible Demand for Fishing in Millions of Activity
Days by Objective Set 24
9 Future Participation in Water-Oriented Recreation
Activities in Millions of Activity Days by
Objective Set 25
10 Total Park Acres Per 1,000 Population by County (1960). 28
11 Characteristics of Potential Park Locations Along the
D3laware Estuary 31
12 Participation in Picnicking in Millions of Activity
Days by Objective Set 34
13 Acreage of Existing Regional Parks in the Study Area:
1960 35
14 Total Population in 1960, 1976, and 2000 by Planning
Units, Counties, and the Study Area 38
15 Range of Mean Park Distance in the Forty Planning Units
in the Study Area by Objective Set 39
-------
Table Page
16 Overall Mean Park Distance and Needed Regional Park
Acreage in the Study Area by Objective Set* 40
17 Unmet Dc-aand (Park Acres) by Objective Set (Using
10 acres per 100 users and MPD to estimate average
summer-Sunday park users),..,..., 42
18 Swimming Benefits by Objective Set 47
19 Boating Benefits by Objective Set 50
20 Fishing Benefits by Objective Set 51
21 Picnicking Benefits by Objective Set 53
22 Total Recreation Benefits in 1976 and 2000 Objective
Set 54
23 Average Net Benefits for Swimming, Boating, Fishing, and
Picnicking by Objective Set... 55
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Table Page
1 Possible Recreational Activities Under Objective
Set I 7
2 Possible Recreational Activities Under Objective
Set II 8
3 Possible Recreational Activities Under Objective
Set III 9
4 Possible Recreational Activities Under Objective
Set IV 10
5 Possible Recreational Activities Under Objective
Set V 11
6 Existing and Proposed Regional Parks, District
Boundaries and Centrolds 32
7 Mean Park Distance and Percent Participation
(Participation Curves) 36
-------
PREFACE
The research work of the project has been financed by the
Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare under contract No. PH 86-65-74, This report covers only
Phase II of the research.
The work was carried out within the Institute for Environ-
mental Studies, University of Pennsylvania, under the direction
of Dr. Anthony R. Tomazinis, Project Director, and Iskandar
Gabbour, Research Associate. Several graduate students of the
University of Pennsylvania have contributed to the work of the
project as research assistants. Among them are William C.
Wheaton, Michael Hallor, and Judith Bronsteln. Mrs. Janice
Ludtnan has carried most of the typing load of the project.
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the present study is to estimate the benefits deriv-
able from the use of the waters of the Delaware River for recreational
activities. This report Is essentially a continuation of a study that
was originally divided Into two parts. In the first part, or Phase I,
the factors affecting recreation demand, both manifest and latent, were
Identified and estimated for two projection years, 1976 and 2000. Based
on the findings presented in Phase I, the work of Phase II was initiated.
It is mainly concerned with two related aspects. First, an estimation
of both the total recreation demand and the extent to which the
Delaware River can meet that demand under alternative water quality
improvement plans. Next, the monetary benefits derived from meeting
that portion of demand by the river are evaluated and compared.
Four main recreational activities were analyzed In Phase I. These
were swimming, boating, fishing, and picnicking. In the present report,
the projection of recreation demand for each of the first three activi-
ties is undertaken separately and in accordance with a similar con-
ceptual approach. This is the subject matter of the following Chapter
II. In Chapter III, specific consideration is given to picnicking
activity in the study region,—^ since It involves a choice of
1/ See Figure 1, page 2, Phase I for the delineation of the study area.
- 1 -
-------
alternative locations for park developments along the river. Furthermore,
the locations of these parks are analyzed through the application of the
mean park distance approach outlined in Phase I. This analysis will result
in projections for picnicking demand that would be satisfied by the poten-
tial parks to be developed along the river. That portion of future demand
satisfied by the river is then added to the future demand estimates for
swimming, boating, and fishing that the river may satisfy (presented in
Chapter II). A comparative analysis of future demand among the four acti-
vities reveals the relative importance, or contribution, of each in rela-
tion aggregate demand. Chapter III, therefore, concludes by presenting
the aggregate recreation demand(s) for the four activities that the
Delaware River may possibly satisfy in the years 1976 and 2000 should the
quality of its waters be improved to various levels of purity.
Chapter IV of this report is concerned with estimating the benefits
derivable from the possible participation in each of the four recreational
activities under each alternative water quality improvement plan for the
two projection years. This is essentially a translation of the demand
estimated in Chapter III into monetary benefits. Finally, an aggregation
of, and a comparison between, the benefits derivable under each alternative
is made. The last chapter of this report, Chapter V, presents a summary
of the major findings and conclusions resulting from the total research
effort.
- 2 -
-------
CHAPTER II
PROJECTION OF FUTURE RECREATION DEMAND
In this chapter the total demand for swimming, boating, and fish-
ing in the study region in I960 and in the projection years 1976 and
2000 is first estimated. That portion of demand satisfied by existing
or proposed facilities other than the river is then discounted from the
total demand. The difference is viewed as demand that would have to be
satisfied either by the Delaware River or by some other water source.
Comparisons of this remaining portion of demand with the capacity of
the river under various plans for water quality levels indicate the
extent to which the river could satisfy the needs for facilities for
one or more of the outdoor recreation activities discussed In this
project.
The following estimates are divided into projections of total
participation rates in the study region which will be followed by the
actual estimation of the demand to be satisfied by the Delaware River.
This corresponds to the third section of the projection model entitled
2/
"River Contribution".—
Future Total Participation Estimates
In Chapter VI of the report on Phase I of this project, the rates
of participation in the four activities under study were projected in
terms of activity days (See Table 15, page 79, Phase I). An alternative
2/ See Figure 2, page 16, Phase I.
- 3 -
-------
indicator of demand, in terms of the percent of persons 12 years old and
over participating in the four activities is presented In Table 1 below.
TABLE 1
PRESENT AMD FUTURE PERCENT OF PERSONS 12 YEARS OLD AND OVER
PARTICIPATING IN THE NORTHEAST U.S.
(JUNE-AUGUST)
Activity Year
1960 1976 2000
Swimming 45 55 63
Boating 22 28 38
Fishing 29 32 36
Picnicking 53 57 61
Source} ORRRC Report 26, "Prospective Demand for Outdoor Recreation."
Assuming that the proportion of persons 12 years and over will
remain at the same level as in 1960, I.e. 78 percent (3.93 million) of
the total population, then the total number of persons 12 years and over
In our study region will be 4.98,and 6.63 millions in 1976 and 2000
respectively. Multiplying the rates of activity days per participant
(See Table 15, page 79, Phase I) by the number of participants, one can
estimate the total number of activity days which represents the demand
for such activities at any given time. Table 2 presents the results
of this estimation.
- 4 -
-------
TABLE 2
PRESENT AND FUTURE ACTIVITY DAYS IN MILLIONS
IN THE STUDY REGION
Activity
Swimming
Boating
Fishing
Picnicking
Year
1960 1976 2000
26.8 45.4 79.3
5.4 9.4 16.4
6.9 9.0 11.9
11.0 16.0 23.8
Source; Table 1
These estimates of total number of activity days projected for
1976 and 2000 for the four activities indicate the expected future total
demand for those activities. A portion of this demand will be satisfied
within the area, by the Delaware River or otherwise, and the rest outside
the study area, perhaps on the New Jersey shore or at Tocks Island.
For the purpose of our study, it is necessary to derive the demand
for each activity (in activity days) that could be satisfied by the
Delaware River under alternative plans of improvements of the quality
of the river's waters. The Delaware Estuary Comprehensive Study (DECS),
the parent study of this research project, has produced five basic
alternative sets of plans for the treatment of the waters of the Delaware
River. These alternatives involve the improvement of the quality of the
water in different sections of the river (DECS identified 30 sections)
to various degrees of purity according to several criteria. In some
sections water contact recreation will be possible while in others only
- 5 -
-------
non-water contact types of recreation will be allowed. Figures 1 to
5 show the five alternatives objective sets (06) and the type of recre-
ational activities possible for each section of the river.
3/
Objective Set I (OS I)- provides the greatest Increase in water
use and water quality. Water contact recreation is indicated in the
upper and lower reaches of the estuary. Sport fishing is placed at a
relatively high level consistent with the make-up of the region. In
addition, anadromous fish passage Is Included as a definitive part of
the water quality management program.
Objective Set II (OSII) reduces the area of water contact recrea-
tion from that of OS I. Dissolved oxygen is also reduced and results
in a concomitant reduction in sport fishing, Anadromous fish passage
is, however, maintained as in OS I.
Objective Set III (OS III) Is similar in all respects to OS II
except for the following changes. First, the specific dissolved oxygen
criteria for anadromous fish passage are not imposed. Second, a general
decrease In the sport fishing potential is imposed through a lowering of
the dissolved oxygen requirements.
Objective Set IV (OS IV) represents a slight increase over pre-
sent levels in water contact recreation and fishing in the lower reaches
of the estuary. Generally, quality requirements are increased slightly
over 1964 conditions, representing a minimally enhanced environment.
3/ See DECS "Preliminary Report and Findings", July 1966, pp. vlil-lx.
- 6 -
-------
thkntoh
rHIUkDBLTHU
CHftSTM
| WIlMIH&T
-------
trentom
/
\BUKU»GTON
wladei/h
CHEST IH.
02.
-------
\
WILWNCTON
FIGURE 3
HtV
OSTLE^
S)/.
POSSIBLE RECREATIONAL
ACTIVITIES UNDER
OBJECTIVE SET III
'\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
pocth
~
WATER CONTACT
NOM-WATER CONTACT
FISHING CHIGH USAGE)
WATER CONTACT
NO K1-WATER CONTACT
FISHING (MEDIUM USAGE)
NON-WATER CONTACT
FISHING CHJ&H USAGE)
NON-WATLR CONTACT
FISHING (MEDIUM USAGE;
NON-WATER CONTACT
FISHING (LOW USAGE)
RECREATION BENEFITS PROJECT
HiUM
CltCLlO kirit To MC» UCTIOIM
-------
TBWtTON
(ftUftkMOTON
CHESTBA
\f«LAP6LfHU
WIUIItitTCN
< stls. ,
Ajg)
rf/
(m
A
North
FIGURE h
POSSIBLE RECREATIONAL
ACTIVITIES UNDER
OBJECTIVE SET IV
~
~
WATER. CONTACT
NON-WATER CONTACT
FISHING (HIGH USAGE)
NON-WATER CONTACT
PISHING (.HI&H USAGE)
Non-water contact
Fishin&cmedium usage)
NON-WATLR CONTACT
FISHING* (LOW USA&&)
RECREATION BENEFITS PROJECT
MILS6
0 * 10 15
CIRftLBD NUMBERS KOFI* To PCtS S8Cnatt
10
-------
TffCMTON
I WlLHtd&TOM.
CHESTER.
vftilLAPSLPHlA
tt AMOS IT
rVi>
-------
Objective Set V (OS V) represents a maintenance of 1964 conditions,
i.e. a prevention of further water quality deterioration.
Future Demand for Swimming Activity
Since total recreation demand for each activity is estimated (See
Table 2 above), one can proceed in estimating first the river capacity
under each OS, then the provisions of facilities other than the Delaware
River, and finally compare the results.
To compute the number of swimming activity days that the river
could satisfy under each OS, it Is necessary to make several assumptions
regarding swimming activity days. For instance, swimming activity will
be considered possible in those areas designated suitable for water con-
tact recreation. The length of the shore line will be assumed approxi-
mating a simple line and 25 percent of this length will be taken as the
effective shore length for swimming. It may also be assumed that each
25 feet of shore line could, on the average, accommodate 50 persons at
4/
any one time and 150 per day (i.e. turnover of 3)."* The swimming
season is estimated to be 100 days long.
According to the above assumptions the following Table 3, indi-
cating the future capacity of swimming activity days for each Objective
Set can be constructed.
4? See ASPO Planning Advisory Service, "Standards for Outdoor Recreational
Areas", Report No. 194, American Society of Planning Officials, Chicago,
Illinois, January 1965, Appendix E, pp. 41-42
- 12 -
-------
TABLE 3
RIVER CAPACITY FOR SWIMMING
BY OBJECTIVE SET
o.s.
Shore
Length
(feet)
Effective
Shore Length
(feet)
Number
of 25*
Sections
Activity
Days Per
Day
Total
Activity
Days
I
320,100
280,025
3,201
480,150
48.0 x 106
II
198,900
49,725
1,909
298,350
29.8 x 106
III
198,900
49,725
1,989
298,350
29.8 x 106
IV
55,000
13,750
550
82,500
8.25 x 106
V
26,400
6,600
264
39,600
3.96 x 106
In order to estimate that portion of demand which might be satis-
fied in our study area by facilities other than the Delaware River, use
is made of the average daily attendance figures observed for all swimming
places in the area. If we apply the 1960 average rate of swimming pool—^
availability of 0.12 pools per 1,000 population found the five Pennsylvania
counties (see Table 2, page 24, Phase I) to all the study area, we find
that in 1960, about 600 swimming pools were available within the study
area (compared to 414 in the five Pennsylvania counties only).
5/ Swimming pools constitute the vast majority, 98 percent, of non-river
swimming facilities within the study area.
- 13 -
-------
Average ally attendance figures have shown that, In general, each
swimming place accounts for 180 activity days per day, in 1960.^ The
total number of swimming activity days in 1960 in the study area satisfied
by non-river facilities was therefore equal to 180 x 100 x 600 ¦ 10.8 x 10^.
If, for 1976 and 2000 we apply the projected rate of pool availability in
the five Pennsylvania counties, or 0,33 pools per 1,000 total population,^
to the entire study &rea, then the number of swimming places which may be
expected to be available in 1976 and 2000 would be 2,075 and 2,800 pools
respectively. Swinging pool attendance may also be expected to Increase
as the percentage of total population participating in swimming increases.
Previous analysis indicates that this Increase might be from 41 percent
from 1960 to 1976, and 22 percent from 1960 to 2000. If similar Increases
prevail in terms of attendance, then average daily attendance would account
for about 200 activity days in 1976 per pool. Total activity days in 1976
/L
then would be 200 x 100 x 2,075, or 41.5 x 10 . Similarly, for the year
2000 the average daily attendance would be about 220 activity days per
pool. As a result, total activity days in 2000 then would be 220 x 100 x
g
2,800, or 61.3 x 10 , satisfied by facilities other than the Delaware
River.
6/ As shown in page 26, Phase I, of this research project.
2/ See the discussion in Chapter IV, Phase I.
- 14 -
-------
Comparing the estimates for total demand for swimming with the exti-
mates for the demand satisfied by facilities other than the Delaware River,
we can obtain an estimation of the demand that would have to, or can, be
satisfied either by the river (if the quality of its water 1* improved)
or elsewhere. The demand expected to be satisfied by the river Itself
could be calculated for each case by comparing the previously estimated
capacity of the river for each objective set with the total unsatisfied
recreation demand, after having subtracted the capacity and use of non-
river facilities. This comparison is shown in Table 4.
Table 4 shows, for example, that while total demand for the area
will be in the order of 79.3 million activity days in the year 2000, approxi-
mately 61.3 million of those swimming activity days will be satisfied by
means other than the river, i.e. in pools and inland beaches. The remain-
ing demand of 18 million swimming activity days can easily be met by any
of objective sets I, II, or III, since the capacity of the river under
these alternative plans far exceeds the available demand. However, out
of those 18 million activity days only 8.25 and 3.96 million can be satis-
fied by objective sets IV and V respectively, since these represent the
only capacity these alternatives have for swimming activities. In these
cases the excess recreation demand would have to be met by facilities lo-
cated outside our study area, such as the New Jersey shore or Tooks Island
project.
Future Demand for Boating Activity
A similar procedure is followed in projecting the boating recrea-
tion demand that might be satisfied by the Delaware River under each
alternative development plan. However the projection of demand for
-------
TABLE 4
POSSIBLE DEMAND FOR SWII MING W MILLIONS OF ACTIVITY DAYS
BY OBJECTIVE SET
1960 1976 2000 1960 1976 2000 1960 1976 2000 1960 1976 2000
26.8 45.4 79.3 10.0 41.5 61.3 16.0 3.9 1G.0
B C=A-B D E O.S.
48.0
mm
3.9
18.0
I
29.0
'
3.9
13.0
II
29.8
m
3.9
13.0
III
8.25
-
3.9
8.25
IV
3.96
3.96
3.9
3.96
V
A = Total demand, see Table 2 above
B » Demand satisfied outside Delaware River
C - Demand to be satisfied by river or other, (C=A-B)
D = Capacity of Delaware River, see Table 3 above
E =* Demand satisfied by Delaware River (if C D» the river will be used to its full capacity D; if C D
only a portion C of the river;s capacity will be used).
-16-
-------
boating recreation activity requires that a distinction be made among
the various recreation activities that are associated with boating itself.
This distinction is of significance in estimating recreation demand per se„
and in estimating the benefits derived from satisfying this demand under
each alternative plan, as will become evident in a subsequent chapter.
In stretches of the river where water contact recreation would be
possible, boating may include pleasure boating, plus sport fishing and
swimming. In other parts of the river where the quality of the water may
be improved to allow only non-water contact recreation activities and high-
usage sport fishing, pleasure boating and sport fishing only might be
possible. Finally, pleasure boating only would be possible in those sec-
tions of the river where only non-water contact recreation activities, and
medium-sage sport fishing are feasible. These three cases are designated
B2 and respectively.
Each section of the river was delineated by the DECS for each of
the five alternative plans under consideration (see Figures 1 to 5), and
the possible recreation activities in each section were determined. If
one measures the water acreage of each section, and applies some acceptable
8 /
empirically derived standards— such as one acre per boat for pleasure
boating, fishing and swimming, and 5 acres per boat for pleasure boating
and fishing, or pleasure boating only, then we may be able to translate
the water acreage into number of boats which can be accommodated by the
8/ See ASPO Planning Advisory Service, 0£. cit. pp. 21-23.
- 17 -
-------
river In each case. Also, accepting another set of standards such as 4
9 /
activity days per boat per day,— the number of boats can be converted
into activity days. The total number of activity days per year can then
be derived by multiplying the daily activity days by 30 days, the average
duration of the boating season. Table 5 presents this information in
detail for the five objective sets.
In order to estimate the capacity of future boating facilities within
and about the study area, but other than the river, use is made of the
various projections of the responsible agencies in the region. According
to those proposals, discussed in more detail in Chapter IV of Phase I, the
total inland, non-river water recreation acreage that would be developed
for boating would be about 24,000 acres in 1976 and only about 25,000
acres by the year 2000. Half of this water acreage is part of the pro-
posed Tocks Island project. Using the same empirical standards of recrea-
tion capacity, length of season, etc., utilized earlier, we can find that
these other inland waters may account for 1.4, 2.9, and 3.1 million activity
days in the years 1960, 1976, and 2000 respectively.
If we subtract from the total demand for boating, estimated earlier
in this chapter, that portion of demand satisfied by inland waters outside
the Delaware River, we could derive the remainder portion of demand that
would have to be satisfied either by the river or by some alternative
source. This latter portion, when compared with the capacity of the
Delaware River in meeting boating demand estimated in Table 5 below,
enables one to calculate that part of the total boating demand expected to
be satisfied by the river under each of the five alternative levels of
9 See Pennsylvania Department of Health, "Clean Streams", No. 69 2nd. Quarter
- 18 -
-------
TABLE_5
RIVER CAPACITY FOR BQATIHG
BY OBJECTIVE SET
O.S. Boating Uater Activity Days Activity Days
Activity Acreage Number of Boats Per Day Per Year Total Activity Days
Bl 7,617 1,500 6,000 180,000 <
B2 15,263 3,700 32,900 14,300 444,000 4.0 x 10"
_B3 27,720 27.700 110.000 3.324.000
Bl 30,224 6,000 24,000 720,000
II 32 2,576 500 27,300 2,000 60,000 3.3 x 10
B3 20.000 20.300 03,200 2.496.000
6
III Bl 11,060 2,400 9,600 200,000
32 2,576 500 23,700 2,000 60,000 2.9 x 106
B3 20.S00 20,000 03_,200 2.496.000
Bl 13,677 2,000 ~11,200 336,000
IV B2 1,652 300 21,600 1,200 36,000 2.6 x 10°
B3 10,526 lyj50g_ 74,000 220j0(W .
Bl ~16,914~ " 3,400 " 13,600 400,000
V B2 10,001 2,200 11,600 0,000 264,000 1.4 x 10
B3 6,061 6,000 24,000 720,000
•19-
-------
water quality Improvement. Table 6 presents the results of those calcula-
tions.
The table clearly shows that under any of the five objective sets
considered, the Delaware River would not be able to meet the total demand
for boating recreation activities within the region in the projection years
1976 and 2000. Even at present, the available facilities provide a capacity
less than the estimated demand (less by 2.6 million activity days). As
can be observed, the demand for boating, in general, in 1976 will be one
and one-half times that of 1960, and will experience more than a threefold
increase by the year 2000. This level of present demand for fresh water
boating activities is, in fact, about 3 times the current supply. A similar
ratio between demand and expected supply is maintained in the future, under
each alternative plan. Without the provision of these river facilities
the ratio of demand over supply of facilities in the region will tend to
further increase beyond the present level. In fact, it appears that the
only way to come close to meeting that large demand for fresh water boating
is by complete purification of the Delaware River, or other major lake
developments In and about the region.
Future Demand for Fishing Activity
To estimate the number of fishing activity days that the Delaware
River could offer under each of the five objective sets, it is necessary
to measure the length of shore for each of the study sections of the river
where high-usage sport fishing^^ will be possible. Only those parts of
10/ "High-usage" sport fishing defines a 90-95 percent survival rate of
anadromou8 fish passage.
- 20 -
-------
TABLE 6
POSSIBLE DEMAND FOR BOATING IM MILLIONS OF ACTIVITY DAYS
BY OBJECTIVE SET
A
B
C=A-B
D
E
o.s.
1960
1976
2000
1960 1976
2000
1960 1976
2000
1960
1976
2000
4.04
-
4.0
4.0
I
3.3
3.3
3.3
II
5.4
9.4
16.4
1.4 2.9
3.1
4.0 6.5
13.3
2.9
m
2.9
2.9
III
2.6
-
2.6
2.6
IV
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
V
A = Total demand, sec Table 2 above
B = Demand satisfied outside Delaware River
C =• Demand to be satisfied by river or other, (C°»A-B)
D = Capacity of Delaware River, see Table 5 above
E = Demand satisfied by Delaware River (if C D, the river will be used to its full capacity D; if C D
only a portion C of the river's capacity will be used).
-21-
-------
the river banks that are accessible, that are not blocked by Industry, and
that have satisfactory shore conditions can be considered for these purposes.
Both sides of the river must, of course, be taken into consideration* From
empirical findings a "clustering" effect is also taken into account In
order to estimate more accurately what may be called the "usable length"
of the river banks. The usable length of shore was found to be approximatel)
66 percent of the total measured suitable shore length.
The number of persons participating in fishing per day can be esti-
mated using an empirical average spacing between anglers of 10 feet along
the usable shore length and a turnover of 2 users per day. These figures
were then converted into activity days per year on the basis of an average
of 20 activity days per year per angler.—^ The figures pertaining to this
analysis are shown In Table 7 below.
TABLE 7
RIVER CAPACITY FOR FISHING BY OBJECTIVE SET
o.s.
Length of Shore
(feet)
Usable Shore
Length (feet)
Number of Anglers
Per Day
Activity Days
Per Year
I
437,800
292,000
50,400
1.17 x lo!?
II
254,700
170,000
34,000
0.68 x 10°
III
254,700
170,000
34,000
0.68 x 10?
IV
150,200
100,000
20,000
0.40 x 10®
V
145,800
97,000
19,400
0.39 x 10°
The amount of fishing taking place at present in waters other
than the Delaware River has been estimated at about 1.6 million activity
12/
days per year.— No substantial change is expected in this amount in
11/ See ORRRC Report 7, "Sport Fishing—Today and Tomorrow", and California
Recreation Plan, Part I, pp. 52-57.
12/ With 33,500 acres of inland water available (see Chapter IV, Phase I),
and using the same empirical standards presented above, we obtain a
"usable length" of shore of about 400,000 feet, 80,000 anglers per day,
and 1.6 million activity days per year.
- 22 -
-------
the projection years beyond a modest increase of 0.2 million activity days
between the amount of participation in 1960 and 1976, and again as much
between 1976 and 2000. Repeating the procedure followed in the case of
swimming and boating, it can be seen that the difference between these
figures (1.8 and 2.0 million activity days) and those expressing total
demand (estimated earlier in Table 2 of this chapter) would, of course,
represent the amount of participation that could be satisfied by the
Delaware River. Following the format of Tables 4 and 6 for swimming and
boating, Table 8 presents the estimations for fishing activity days that
each alternative objective set of river development may provide for in
the years 1976 and 2000.
Besides the actual estimates of fishing demand which can be satis-
fied by each objective set, the table shows again that even under the best
condition of alternative plans, (O.S.I.), where an estimate of 1.17 million
activity days could be available for fishing, this river capacity will still
be far less than the actual total demand left to be satisfied by the river
facilities or other fishing facilities within or about the study area.
- 23 -
-------
TABLE S
POSSIBLE DEMAND FOR FISHING IN MILLIONS OF ACTIVITY DAYS
BY OBJECTIVE SET
A
B
C=A-B
1976
D
E
O.S,
1960 1976
2000
1960
1976
2000 1960
2000
1960
1976
2000
1.17
1.17
1.17
I
0.68
-
0.68
0.68
II
6.9 9.0
11.9
1.6
1.8
2.0 5.3
7.2
9.9
0.68
0.68
0.6G
III
0.40
-
0.40
0.40
IV
0.39
0.39
0.30
0.39
V
A= Total demand, see Table 2 above
B» Demand satisfied outside Delaware River
C= Demand to be satisfied by river or other, (C=A-B)
D= Capacity of Delaware River, see Table 7 above
E=» Demand satisfied by Delaware River ('if C D, the river will be used to Its full capacity D; if C D only
a portion C of the river's capacity will be used).
-24-
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The following Table 9 summarizes the number of activity days that
the improvement of the quality of water of the Delaware could generate under
the five DECS alternative improvement plans and for the three activities
under consideration in the years 1976 and 2000.
TABLE 9
FUTURE PARTICIPATION IN WATER-ORIENTED RECREATION ACTIVITIES
IN MILLIONS OF ACTIVITY DAYS
BY OBJECTIVE SET
O.S. Swimming Boating Fishing Total
1976
2000 .
1976
2000
1976
2000
1976
2000
I
3.9
18.0
4.0
4.0
1,17
1.17
9.07
23.17
II
3.9
18.0
3.3
3.3
0.68
0.68
7.88
21.98
III
3.9
18.0
2.9
2.9
0.60
0.68
7.48
21.58
IV
3.9
18.25
2.6
2.6
0.40
0.40
6.90
11.25
V
3.9
3.96
1.4
1.4
0.39
0.39
5.19
5.75
Source: Columns E of Tables 4, 6, and 8 above.
The table demonstrates the gradual increase in the total number of
activity days for the three activities from those derived under objective
set V to those derived under objective set I in the years 1976 and 2000.
For 1976 the Increase is from about 5 to 9 million activity days while for
the year 2000 it is from about 6 to 23 million activity days. The increse
in participation under objective set I becomes more evident in the long
run. It is interesting to note the closeness of the figure on total
activity days under objective sets II and III. This observation leads one
- 25 -
-------
to conclude that as far as those three water-oriented activities are con-
cerned, objective sets II and III seems to be very similar with regard to
their capacity to satisfy the future demand for the three activities.
A clearer picture may emerge with the incorporation of picnicking
activity that could be satisfied by the development of the river. This
analysis as well as the choice of potential locations for park develop-
ment along the river is the focus of the following chapter.
- 26 -
-------
CHAPTER III
PROJECTION OF FUTURE RECREATION DEMAND FOR PICNICKING
The inclusion of picnicking in this study is a direct result of
the belief that the development of major parks at favorable locations along
the river is necessary for an extensive undertaking of the three water-
oriented recreational activities discussed in the previous chapter. In this
sense, the parks and picnic areas would serve as starting points for boat
launching ramps, marinas, swimming and fishing activities. Such a compre-
hensive park system would offer, therefore, a complete package of recrea-
tional choices available to the population at specific locations.
The locational choice of these parks involves two aspects. First,
these parks should, of course, be located in accordance with the proposed
sections for water quality improvements in the five objective sets. Fur-
ther, the optimality of the chosen locations should be checked. This will
be made through the application of the method, discussed earlier in Phase 1,
that relates the mean park distance (MPD) for each sub-area in the study
region of the proportion of the population in each sub*area using the
park system.
The benefits that the inclusion of general parks and picnic areas
offers are, of course, of major and much more generalized significance.
These parks not only provide for an increase in the general availability
of facilities for outdoor recreation, but their effect is further felt on
the overall quality of the urban environment in the region. This would
be achieved through the reclamation of the river front for public use, the
purification of the air, the visual-aesthetic level of appreciation, and
- 27 -
-------
the economic enhancement of the neighboring area as a whole.
General Approach
Bcamination of the existing parks available for general outdoor
recreation and picnic activities within the study area reveals that their
total acreage is in the order of 24,000 acres, of which 18,630 acres are
regional parks. This acreage corresponds to an overall regional average
of five acres per 1,000 population in 1960. The majority of this land
(12,000 acres) is county-owned, while a portion of about 8,000 acres is
state- or federally-owned. The remainder of 4,000 acres is owned by the
local municipalities. The relative availability of these parks by county
in terms of acres per 1,000 population in the study area is given in the
following Table 10.
TABLE 10
TOTAL PARK ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION BY COUNTY: 1960
Salem Co., N.J.
19.2
Camden Co., N.J.
5.6
Chester Co., Pa.
11.1
Philadelphia Co., Pa.
4.0
Bucks Co., Pa.
8.7
New Castle Co., Del.
3.2
Montgomery Co., Pa.
8.4
Delaware Co., Pa.
1.5
Hunterdon Co., N.J.
7.9
Burlington Co., N.J.
0.1
Mercer Co., N.J.
5.9
Gloucester Co., N.J.
0.1
Note; For the five Pennsylvania counties in the study area the estimate
is 5.1 acres per 1,000 population. For the New Jersey counties
the same estimate is 4.7 acres, while in Delaware it is 3.2 acres.
Source: Acres per 1,000 population derived from the ORRRC Report 21, "The
Future of Outdoor Recreation in Metropolitan Regions," Volume II,
"Outdoor Recreation and the Megalopolis," and Ann Louise Strong, "Open
Space in the Penjerdel Region: Now or Never," Penjerdel, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, 1963.
- 28 -
-------
13/
Compared with typically recommended standards —for recreation
land per 1,000 persons, these figures seem low indeed. The National Re-
creation Association (NRA) recommends a standard of 10 acres of regional
parks and 10 acres of municipal parks per 1,000 population for recreation
in a region. The New York Regional Plan Association recommends that
25 percent of the land in a region be left open. This land should include
10 acres of local parks for every 1,000 persons as well as 12 acres per
1,000 persons of county parks or 5 percent of the county land area, which-
ever is greater. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission in turn suggest
as necessary a rate of 21 acres of regional parks per 1,000 persons.
In order to meet the NRA-recommended standard, the acreage of
parkland in the study area would have to double, even in 1960. Without any
improvements to the standards, i.e., just to retain them, the 24,000 acres
would have to triple by the year 2000. To achieve the Regional Plan Associa-
tion standards, the region should have available 50,320 acres, 63,880 acres,
and 85,020 acres of local parks, as well as 160,000 acres of county parks
in 1960, 1976 and 2000 respectively. In addition, areas amounting to
589,680 acres, 576,120 acres, and 554,980 acres of county or state parks
should be kept open in the years as above. Even the more reasonable stand-
ards proposed by the Philadelphia City Planning Commission would require the
availability of 105,672 acres, 134,148 acre?, and 178,542 acres of regional
parks in 1960, 1976 and 2000 respectively, in order to be achieved.
13/
—See ASPO Planning Advisory Service, "Standards..." op.cit.
' 29
-------
The achievement of such standards seems, at the present time
at least, exceedingly unrealistic. Also, the simple objective of achiev-
ing overall rates of parkland to the regional population leaves much to
be desired, especially in terms of locating the potential parkland within
the region and balancing the actual demand for such facilities with the
planned supply. Within the present framework it may, therefore, be more
appropriate if a realistic effort is made instead of achieving these ob-
jectives. In any case, such increases in acreage requirements would have
to be met not by park improvements or fragmentary additions to existing
parks, but only through major efforts for comprehensive park development,
such as along the Delaware River. Only such an extensive effort will meet
the needs which will be created due to the population growth on the one
hand, and the increase in participation rates in picnicking on the other
(from 2.81 activity days per person 12 years and over in 1960, to 3.21 in
14/
1976, and 3.59 in the year 2000).— If one adds to these expectations
the projected increase in the proportion of the population 12 years and over
participating in picnicking from 53 percent in 1960, to 57 percent in 1976,
and 61 percent in 2000, it can easily be seen why the projected total de-
mand for picnicking would increase from 11.0 to 16.0, and up to 23.8 mil-
lion activity days in 1960, 1976 and 2000 respectively, as was previously
estimated.
Developing a number of comprehensive regional parks at strategic
locations along the Delaware Estuary (after purification) would be directly
usable shore on both sides of the estuary, the width of the river, and the
—^See Table 15, page 79, Phase I.
- 30-
-------
water acreage available. The following Table 11 presents the results
of one such estimation.
TABLE 11
CHARACTERISTICS OF POTENTIAL PARK LOCATIONS
ALONG THE DELAWARE ESTUARY
Length of Usable Shore
Width of
Water
Proposed Park
Section
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
River(feet)
Acreage
Acreage
1
20,000
20,000
990
455
1,000
3
18,600
14,600
1,410
645
1,350
6
16,800
15,200
2,700
1,240
1,500
27
2,000
2,400
14,100
3,235
2,500
30
6,400
20,000
13,200
6,060
3,200
According to Table 11, under Objective Set I, approximately 9,550
acres of park development would be possible; under Objective Sets II or III
8,050 acres; under Objective Set IV, 5,700 acres; and under Objective Set V,
only 3,200 acres can be proposed.
To translate the park acreage into picnicking activity days, a stand-
ard proposed by NRA —^is used. NRA suggests that 100 acres of park would
serve a population beneficial to the residents of the region not only be-
cause of their central location in relation to the region as a whole, but
also due to their association with the largest body of water available in
—^ See ASP0 Planning Advisory Service, "Standards..." op.cit. Table 7,
p. 14.
- 31 -
-------
14
NMtTM
• PI«TKICT CSNTKOIDe
fa ff*l«TlNO RffGIONAU P>AKK«
¦jjf MtorotSD RBOIOMAL PARKS
RECREATION BBNBMTS PROJBCT
SCAUR I*. 29 0.000'
-32-
DI4TRICT LIMIT
COWNTT UMlT
circled Nun»tt» uru » oaca mctiom*
-------
the area and the fact that these parks would offer a significant portion
of the diversified parkage of recreational facilities which the region
extensively needs.
Operationally, a simple examination of the estuary maps show-
ing the potential location of the outdoor recreation facilities
for each of the alternative river development plans (Objective Sets) can
easily reveal the possibility of selecting several potential locations
for park development along the river. These potential locations are the
ones which correspond to the areas where water-contact recreation will be
permissible. Proximity to urbanized areas and spacing between parks may
also be used as supplementary factors in spacing the facilities. Such an
examination of the proposed plans reveals that for Objective Set I, five
such parks can be identified at sections 1, 3, 6, 27, and 30 of the estu-
ary; for Objective Sets II and III, four of these same parks could be de-
veloped (except that at section 6) ; two parks at sections 27 and 30 can
be proposed for Objective Set IV, while for Objective Set V, only one park
at section 30 can be seen as possible. Figure 6 indicates the actual loca-
tion of these potential parks and picnic areas along the Delaware River.
Examination of the characteristics of the proposed park loca-
tions can assist in estimating the number of acres that could be developed
in each location. This can be done for each section through the study
and consideration of the 50,000, or about 39,000 persons 12 years and
over. For a 1960 participation rate of 2.81 activity days per person 12
years and over, 100 acres would generate about 110,000 activity days, or
1,100 picnicking activity days per acre. For 1976 and 2000, with the
- 33 -
-------
projected rates of 3.21 and 3.59 activity days per person 12 years
and over, an estimate of 1,250 and 1,400 picnicking activity days per
acre of park development is found. Table 12 presents these results.
TABLE 12
PARTICIPATION IN PICNICKING IN MILLIONS
OF ACTIVITY DAYS
BY OBJECTIVE SET
Millions of Activity Days
o.s.
1976
2000
I
12.94
14.49
II
11.06
12.39
III
11.06
12.39
IV
7.13
7.98
V
4.00
4.48
The Mean Park Distance Approach
The concept of mean park distance has been presented earlier
in Chapter V of the report on Phase I. It can be recalled here that this
concept related the percentage of the population in a metropolitan region
visiting all the parks in the region with the average distance between
the parks and the potential park users.
In this section we shall apply this concept of mean park distance
to the Delaware Estuary study area. Because of the overall region simi-
larities between our study area and the Detroit one, the relationships pre-
sented in Chapter V, based on the Detroit data, will be retained. Furthermore
• 34 -
-------
it can soon be seen that our concern will only be with the most stable
portion of the empirical curves. However, since the Detroit curves were
based on the availability of only eight regional parks it, therefore, shall
be necessary to adjust (raise) these curves proportionately to the number
of parks that would be available in our region. Figure 7 presents the
Detroit curves and the required proportional adjustments.
Ibr estimating purposes, it is necessary to identify the number
of regional parks that are or will be available in our study area in 1960,
1976, and 2000. For 1960, eight parks of regional significance could be
identified. The selection is based on a number of characteristics of
regional parks that include size (total water and picnic acreage), use
(variety of activities, such as boating and fishing), and high rates of
visitation. These parks are listed below in Table 13.
TABLE 13
ACREAGE OF EXISTING REGIONAL PARKS IN THE STUDY AREA: 1960
Existing Parks
Acres
1. French Creek Park Area, Chester County
6,500
2. Fairmount Park, Philadelphia County
3,187
3. Cooper River Park Area, Camden County
2,642
4. Valley Forge State Park, Chester County
2,070
5. Wissahickon Park, Philadelphia County
1,411
6. Pennypack Park, Philadelphia County
1,295
7. Washington Crossing State Park, Bucks County
(and Mercer County)
925
8. Perkiomen Valley Park Area, Montgomery County
600
Total 18,630
For the future years several additional parks of similar type
may be developed for the region. Previous discussion in this chapter
- 35 -
-------
-------
belabored the possible locations of regional parks in the future under
alternative levels of improvements of the water quality of the Delaware
River. Accordingly, Figure 6, presented earlier, indicates the poten-
tial location of each of these possible future regional parks, and speci-
fies their general geographic location and centroid.
The study area may also be divided into several planning analysis
unit6» or districts, and the centroid of each district can be identified
for analytical purposes. Forty such planning units are defined. The
delineation of these districts based on an attempt to have for 1960 an
equal distribution of population in each district and an effort to match
them with municipal and other civil sub-division boundaries. Figure 6
also shows the exact delineation of these planning units. The centroids
of each district are chosen at the points of population concentrations.
Finally, the population distribution by district is then projected for the
years 1976 and 2000 taking into account the proximity of the districts to
areas of high rates of growth and the total county projections for these
years. Table 14 shows the future projections of population by district,
as well as the county and region totals.
The distances from the centroid of each district to the centroids
of each of the regional parks are measured in miles, and their averages
are estimated accordingly. Separate estimations are made for each of the
five alternative plans which correspond to the five Objective Sets of
river development. The number of parks varied in each case as follows:
O.S. V, 8 parks; O.S. IV, 9 parks; O.S. Ill, 10 parks, O.S. II, 12 parks;
and O.S. I, 13 parks.
-------
TABLEAU
TOTAL POPULATION III 1960, 1976, and 2000 BY PLANNING UNITS,
COUNTIES, AND THE STUDY AREA
Population (000)
State County Units I960 " J' JL976 2000
<4 ®
i-i h
4) m
« >
Lieu Castle
2
1
2
156
152
308
223
197
420
325
265
590
Burlington
2
3
4
113
112
225
1C4
100
344
279
223
502
Camden
3
5
6
7
133
139
120
392
160
170
142
480
220
215
174
609
&
n
)4
Gloucester
1
8
135
135
139
189
271
271
V
•n
I
Hunterdon
1
9
54
54
65
6565
82
82
Mercer
2
10
11
141
126
267
176
144
320
229
173
402
Salem
1
12
59
59
72
72
92
92
Bucks
2
13
14
168
141
309
341
256
597
599
428
1,027
Chester
2
15
16
109
102
211
146
126
272
199
162
361
Delaware
Rt
c
(0
>
H
>»
«
Montgomery
4
17
1C
19
20
21
22
23
24
132
134
130
156
146
129
135
107
552
517
191
185
177
195
207
182
104
147
748
720
278
260
247
253
286
250
247
199
1,038
982
Philadelphia 16 25 125 135 159
!
_ 40 125 2^003 135 2,161 159 2t546
Total ""40 ^ ~ 5,032" 6.388 8,502
Source: Regional and county projections from the Delaware Valley Regional Planning
Coram,
- 38 -
-------
The mean park distance for each planning unit in the five
cases ranges from 14,5 to 44,8 airline miles as Table 15 indicates. With-
in that range the curve relating the percentage of park users to the MPD
on a summer-Sunday is most stable, as Figure 7 shows.
TABLE 15
RANGE OF MEAN PARK DISTANCE IN THE FORTY PLANNING UNITS IN
THE STUDY AREA BY OBJECTIVE SET
o.s.
Number
Estimated Minimum MPD
Estimated Maximum MPD
of Parks For a Planning Unit
For a Planning Unit
I
13
19.6
40.9
II, III
12
20.4
41.5
IV
10
19.6
44.8
V
9
17.6
41.3
Present
8
(no additional 14,5
39.5
parks along the
river)
Figure 7, presented earlier, clearly indicates what portion
of the participation curves is covered by the minimum-maximum ranges shown
in Table 15. In all projection curves this portion is the least fluctuat-
ing and, therefore, the most reliable.
Using the participation curves presented in Figure 7, a projection
can be made of the percentage of the population of each district that
would visit any of the available regional parks in the study area. Con-
verting these percentages into absolute numbers of park users through the
use of the population projections by district, one then may estimate the
-------
number of regional park users can be converted into needed regional
park acreage. The results of a set of such calculations are shown in
Table 16. The same table includes also an estimation of the overall
mean park distance of the study area (the arithmetic mean of the mean
park distances of the planning units), which is indicative of the areal
distribution of the parks in relation to the population in the region.
TABLE 16
OVERALL MEAN PARK DISTANCE AND NEEDED REGIONAL PARK ACREAGE
IN THE STUDY AREA BY OBJECTIVE SET
O.S. Number of 1960 1976 2000
Parks Acres MPD Acres MPD ACRES MPD
II 13 40,800 23.5 53,500 23.8
II,III 12 - - 36,650 24.0 47,830 24.4
IV 10 30,460 23.9 39,920 24.0
V 9 31,020 21.7 40,600 21.9
Present 8 26,600 19.4 33,010 19.7 43,090 20.0
An analysis of the percentage of the population visiting the
regional parks from each planning unit in each of the alternative plans
reveals that it varies from 4.5 percent to 6.5 percent of the total popu-
lation of the study area as the population and number of parks increased.
Examining in some detail the results presented in Table 16, one may see
that even in 1960, with eight regional parks totaling 18,630 acres avail-
able, there can be defined a deficit of 7,970 acres of regional parkland.
Retaining only those eight parks in the year 1976 and in the year 2000, but
- 40 -
-------
with the expected increase in population for the region, the deficit would
increase to 14,380 and 24,460 acres respectively. All these estimations
are based, of course, on the conservative measure of 10 acres per 100
park users.
Such an examination of the results of Table 16 leaves hardly
a doubt that in all cases discussed above (covering all five alternative
river development plans), the future recreation demand that would have
to be satisfied is indeed very high. Suffice it to say that under Objec-
tive Set I this demand would be equivalent to about 5 parks, each the
size of Fairmount Park, in 1976; and 5 parks, each the size of French
Creek Park, in the year 2000, Apparently the critical consideration in
all plans is the capacity of the park areas which can realistically be
expected to be developed along the banks of the river. The portion of
the demand that will still remain unsatisfied will have to be met in loca-
tions outside the study area which will, hopefully, maintain the overall
mean park distance in the park system of the region.
In the previous section of this chapter, the potential develop-
ment of parks along the river banks for each of the five Objective Sets
has been discussed. A comparison between the acreage and the capacities
of these potential parks and the total acreage of the projected demand for
outdoor regional recreation facilities would reveal that portion of the
projected demand that could be satisfied by these potential future parks
and the remaining demand which would have to be accommodated by other
means. Table 17 shows this comparison.
- 41 -
-------
TABLE 17
UNMET DEMAND (PARK ACRES) BY ODJECTIVE SET
Using 10 acres per 100 users and MPD to estimate average
summer-Sunday park users
Acreage That Would Still Be Required To
Acreage of Potential Meet Projected Outdoor Recreation Demand
Future Parks Along For Study Area In:
River
O.S. 1976 2000
I
II,III
IV
V
9,550
8,050
5,700
3,200
22,170
18,020
11,830
12,390
34,870
29,200
21,920
21,970
The development of the proposed parks along the river would,
necessarily, be subject to a staging plan. They could progressively be
increased both in number and in acreage. The determining factors would
include the relative ease with which land could be acquired along the
river, as well as the costs involved.
Conclusion
The use of the mean park distance approach enables the analyst
to determine the future demand for regional parks in our study area, and
to assess the locational advantage that results from alternative distribu-
tions of regional parks within the study area. In the context of this
project these alternatives correspond to the DECS alternative levels of
water quality improvement of the Delaware River by section. Furthermore,
* 42 -
-------
the analyst becomes able also to estimate that portion of the demand
that would remain unsatisfied in each case, and that would have to be
met in locations other than the ones along the river within the study
area.
In all cases discussed above, it has been shown that the
determining factor is the potentiality and the capacity of the river for
park development. Obviously, the total demand is by far greater than
the possible capacity which can, potentially, be developed through each
of the alternative river development plans. The next step is to translate
the findings of the previous chapters concerning the aggregate demand in
activity days that the improvement of the river's waters makes possible
into some measure of quantifiable benefits. This will be the task of
the following chapter.
- 43 -
-------
CHAPTER IV
PROJECTION OF MONETARY RECREATION BENEFITS
The concept of "benefits" in the context of outdoor recreation
activities is very elusive. Several major questions are associated with
such a concept. At the outset, for instance, a unit of measurement is
required to express those benefits. Moreover, some means of evaluating
the impact and the extent of the intangible aspects and considerations in
recreation is needed. For the purpose of this study, however, some sim-
plified and conservative standards recommended by previous major studies
as well as by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, can be put to use, per-
haps with some minor modifications.
In general it is suggested that outdoor recreation be specified
in more detail in terms of individual recreation activities. Two types of
such activities are usually pertinent, i.e., general and specialized
activities. General activities are usually those attracting a majority of
participants and include swimming, pier and party-boat fishing, motor boat-
ing, sailing, and canoeing. Specialized activities are those which involve
limited opportunities, low intensity of use, and a sizeable personal ex-
penditure by the participant. These, in turn, include fishing by those
anglers interested primarily in certain species of trophy fish and certain
local preferences, long-range cruises, and the like. It is rather clear,
—^"Evaluation Standards for Primary Outdoor Recreation Benefits,"
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,Memorandum No. 64-8, Supplement No. 1,
Ad Hoc, Water Resources Council, Washington, D. C., June 4, 1964.
- 44 -
-------
therefore, that the present project involves mainly general outdoor
recreation activities, an equivalent unit of pecuniary evaluation of an
"activity day,1' as defined earlier in this report, has been proposed fre-
quently and used in recreation studies. This equivalent unit usually
varies from $0.50 to $1.50 per activity day. The choice of a benefit
figure within this range usually depends on the nature of the visit and
the extent of use of the facility. If such a facility induces only
casual visitation, the lower end of the scale ($0.50) is usually used.
Higher values would be assignable where the facilities provide diversi-
fied opportunities. In cases where the number of activities is limited,
but the facilities are unusually well developed, still higher values of
the scale may be accepted. In addition, consideration might be given to
the expected degree of success of a project, its general attractiveness,
topography, microclimatic conditions, and the uniqueness of experience.
The general abundance of a certain facility is another factor usually
taken into account. If a region is relatively well served by different
swimming facilities, for example, the the relative importance in terms of
a unit value would be lowered.
The quantification of benefits on the basis of the above monetary
equivalents and the limited number of outdoor recreation activities is
more or less readily identifiable and measurable. In measuring the bene-
fits of a certain facility, however, several intangible components must
be considered as well. The literature is very meager in terms of sug-
gestions as to the translation of these benefits into monetary units even
though their importance is generally recognized. Similarly, great dif-
ficulties were encountered in the present project when the intangible and
-
-------
variable components of outdoor recreation benefits were attempted to
be specifically included. Such benefits were therefore omitted from the
final estimations although their pertinence and significance were clearly
recognized. It is clear and generally accepted that the affixing of
monetary benefits to recreation facilities in our study region, or for
that matter any other region, is a difficult process. The measures are
crude and the intangibles may be numerous. Clearly, additional re-
search outside the range of this study is needed to assess the value
of intangible benefits. Research on the measurement and quantification
of outdoor recreation benefits could proceed within the framework of value
theory and through the conduct of experimental design procedures over a
long period of time. In any case, at present, the suggestion and, perhaps,
acceptance of the appropriate or most reasonable measures of tangible or
clearly perceived, outdoor recreation benefits is left up to the value
judgments of responsible researchers. For the present study the first
step towards such measurement of benefits is the acceptance of a range of
unit value measures for each water-oriented activity and under each
Objective Set. Thus the aggregate benefits would also be presented within
a range of minimum and maximum monetary values. Unique values proposed
or supported by individuals should or would be anywhere within that range,
depending on the subjective considerations of each individual.
Projection of Swimming Benefits
For the purpose of translating into monetary units the benefits
which may be derived from swimming participation in our study area in 1976
and 2000 from alternative plans of river development, a minimum equivalent
-
-------
benefit rate of $0.75 per activity day and a maximum of $1.25 per
activity day have been accepted as reasonable and, in the main, represen-
tative of the value people in the region place on such activities. The
results of the calculations for each Objective Set are shown in Table 18.
TABLE 18
SWIMMING BENEFITS BY OBJECTIVE SET
o.s.
Activity Days
(1,000,000)
Recreation Benefits
($1,000,000)
Range
1976
2000
1976
2000
I
1 9
18.0
2.9
13.5
Min.
4.3
22.5
Max.
II
3.9
18.0
2.9
13.5
Min.
4.9
22.5
Max.
III
3.9
18.0
2.9
13.5
Min.
4.9
22.5
Max.
IV
3.9
8.25
2.9
6.2
Min.
4.9
10.3
Max.
V
3.9
3.96
2.9
3.0
Min.
4.9
5.0
Max.
Source: Swimming Activity Days from Column E, Table 4 above.
According to the findings included in Table 18, the greatest
amount of monetary benefits derivable from swimming activity would be
between 2.9 and 4.9 million dollars in 1976 regardless of which Objective
. - 47 *
-------
Set is followed. For the year 2000, equal benefits would be derivable
from either Objective Sets I, II, or III, and can be estimated as
being between 13, 5, and 22.5 million dollars. Under Objective Sets IV
or V, swimming benefits in the year 2000 will be much lower, ranging
from 6.2 to 10.3 million dollars under Objective Set IV, and 3.0 to 5.0
million dollars under Objective Set V. The reason for these findings is
that the expected high rate of swimming demand would tend to be satisfied
primarily by facilities other than the Delaware River as previous discussion
has already pointed out (Table 4, page jq above). In terms of swimming
benefits, therefore, there is limited value to be gained from pursuing
Objective Sets I or II. Objective Set III is most beneficial in the long
run (2000). If only the short run (1976) is taken into consideration,
Objective Set V would be able to meet the demand for swimming activities
by maintaining the quality of the river's waters as it is at the present
time. The superiority of Objective Set III can, of course, be seen when
the long range benefits are taken into account.
Projection of Boating Benefits
It should be recalled that in Chapter II the total boating demand
was divided into activities which include one or more of the following:
pleasure boating, fishing, and swimming. Different rates of equivalent
dollar benefits (and also different ranges) and reasonably attached to boat-
ing activities depending on whether they involve one, two, or all three
of those activities associated with boating recreation. Thus, where it
would be possible to participate in the three sub-activities together, a
maximum benefit rate of $5.00 per activity day and a minimum benefit rate
• 48 •
-------
of $3.00 per activity day were attached to 25% of the total number of
activity days. To the remaining 75% of the activity days in the same
river areas, a maximum rate of $1.25 and a minimum rate of $0,75 per
activity day were used. — For the two other categories, i.e., where
only pleasure boating and fishing, or solely pleasure boating is possible,
a rate of $0.75 per activity day was accepted as representative of the
dollar value of the derivable benefits. The following Table 19 presents
the results of the breakdown of the total number of activity days for
each of the five Objective Sets in terms of the three cases of derivable
benefits. As can be seen from Table 19, the number of activity days, on
the basis of which the dollar value of benefits are derived, is the same
for 1976 and 2000. The reason is that in both cases the river is expected
to be used to full capacity well before 1976, and that the demand for boat-
ing facilities that will have to be satisfied by the river or otherwise
will be far greater than the capacity of the river under any Objective Set
and in both projection years.
It is clear from the table that Objective Set I is the most
productive alternative in terms of boating. This is again a reflection of
the expected full use of any amount of water the river can make available
for boating; a clear case where demand far exceeds supply. A gradual de-
crease of boating benefits can also be seen as the Objective Sets move from
17/
—'This division of equivalent monetary benefits of the total activity
days in those areas where all thTee associated activities of boating are
possible is due to the expectation that in these areas only about one-fourth
of the total number of boaters will make actual and full use of the facility,
thus deriving the full possible benefits there.
- 49 -
-------
O.S. 1 to O.S, V, the alternative with the minimum derivable benefits.
TABLE 19
BOATING BENEFITS BY OBJECTIVE SET
Millions of Benefits ($1,000,000) Total Benefit-
O.S. Activity Days Derived From: ($1,000,000)
B1+B2 25%B3 75%B3 B1±B2 25%B3 75%B3
Miri. Max.
Min. Max.
Min.
Max.
I
0.7
0.8
2.5
0.525
2.4
4.0
1.875 3.125
4.80
7.65
II
0.8
0.6
1.9
0.600
1.8
3.0
1.425 2.375
3.83
5.98
III
0.4
0.6
1.9
0.300
1.8
3.0
1.425 2.375
3.53
5.68
IV
0.4
0.5
1.7
0.300
1.5
2.0
1.275 2.125
3.08
4.43
V
0.7
0.2
0.5
0.525
0.6
1.0
0.375 0.625
1.50
2.15
Source; Total boating activity days from Column E, Table 6 above. Breakdown
of boating sub-activities from Table 5, above.
Projection of Fishing Benefits
In estimating the monetary equivalent of the benefits derivable
from participation in fishing activities, up to 25 percent of fishing acti-
vity days are expected to be specialized activity days and, therefore, cor-
respond to a monetary equivalent rate of benefits ranging from $3.00 to
$5.00 per activity day. The remaining activity days would be typical recrea-
tion activity and amateur activity corresponding to what was earlier defined
as "general" activity and, therefore, correspond to a monetary equivalent
rate of $0.75 to $1.25 per activity day.
50 -
-------
As noted in the case of benefits from boating, the number of
effective activity days for fishing activity in the projection years
1976 and 2000 is identical under each objective set. In each case, the
river will be used to capacity well before 1976, since the demand for
fishing opportunities is expected to be much higher than the total supply
of appropriate facilities. The results of estimating the monetary equi-
valent of the benefits from fishing are shown in Table 20. The calculations
are made on the basis of the previously presented ranges of maximum and
minimum equivalent rates and for each of the five Objective Sets.
TABLE 20
FISHING BENEFITS BY OBJECTIVE SET
Activity Days Benefits ($1,000,000) Total Benefits
°»s* (1,000.000) Derived From: ($1,000,000)
257, of 75% of 257. of total AD 757. of total AD
total AD
total AD
Hln.
Max.
Mln.
Max.
Mln.
MAX.
I
0.29
0.8$
0.87
1.45
1.66
1.10
1.53
2.55
II
0.17
0.51
0.51
0.85
0.38
0.64
0.89
1.49
III
0.17
0.51
0.51
0.85
0.38
0.64
0.89
1.49
IV
0.10
0.30
0.30
0.50
0.23
0.38
0.53
0.85
V
0.10
0.29
0.30
0.50
0.22
0.36
0.52
0.86
Source; Total fishing activity days from Column E, Table 8 above.
Paralleling the findings observed for boating, the table shows that
when sport fishing alone Is considered, Objective Set I is the most pro-
ductive. Objective Sets II and III have the same fishing capacities as
do Objective Sets IV and V, but at a lower level.
- 51 -
-------
Paralleling the findings observed for boating, the table shows
that when sport fishing alone is considered, Objective Set I is the most
productive. Objective Sets II and III have the same fishing capacities
as do Objective Sets IV and V, but at a lower level.
Projection of Benefits from Picnicking
Picnic recreation activities represent essentially a combination
of what was earlier defined "general" and "specialized" recreation acti-
vities. Their association with water facilities increases their attrac-
tiveness and the number of required provisions for full enjoyment of the
facilities. In fact, several additional factors could be considered in our
particular case which would justifiably place the picnic facilities along
the river within the region in a particularly advantageous and attractive
position. For this reason the monetary equivalent of an activity day in
picnicking should correspond to a value between the $0.75 accepted for the
"general"_recreation activities and $3.00 and $5.00 accepted for "specia-
lized" activities such as boating and sport fishing. The monetary equivalent
in translating picnic benefits into monetary values can, however, again be
considered within a limited range. Such reasonable and representative range
was accepted to be one using $1.00 as minimum and $1.50 as maximum value
per activity day. Utilizing the previously estimated activity days by Objec-
tive Set, and the above-stated range of monetary equivalent benefits, one
may estimate the equivalent monetary benefits for each Objective Set and
for each projection year. Table 21 presents the results of these calcula-
tions.
Observing the results presented in Table 21, it becomes apparent
that the largest amount of recreation benefits from picnic activities is
- 52 -
-------
r
produced by Objective Set I. No criteria are available to differentiate
between Objective Sets II and III; each produces the same amount of acti-
vity days and their equivalent monetary benefits. Objective Sets IV and V
come at the end of the range.
TABLE 21
PICNICKING BENEFITS BY OBJECTIVE SET
O.S.
Activity Days
(1,000,000)
Benefits
($1,000,000)
Range
1976
2000
1976
2000
12.94
14.49
Minimum
I
12.94
14.49
19.41
21.74
Maximum
II
11.06
12.39
11.06
16.59
12.39
18.59
Mimimum
Maximum
III
11.06
12.39
11.06
16.59
12.39
18.59
Minimum
Maximum
IV
7.13
7.98
7.13
10.65
7.98
11.97
Mimimum
Maximum
V
4.00
4.48
4.00
6.00
4.48
6.72
Minimum
Maximum
Source: Total Picnicking Activity Days from Table 12 above.
Aggregation of Recreation Benefits
A summary of the recreation benefits and their equivalent monetary
value is presented in Table 22 for the four outdoor recreation activities
- 53 -
-------
TABLE 22
TOTAL RECREATION BENEFITS IN 1976 AND 2000
BY OBJECTIVE SET
Recreation Benefits ($1,000,000)
O.S. Range
Swimming
Boating
Fishing
Picnicking
Total
Benefits
Net Benefits
1976
2000
1976
2000
1976
2000
1976
2000
1976
2000
1976
2000
Min.
T
2.9
13.5
4.80
4.80
1.53
1.53
11.94
14.49
22.17
34.32
13.25
24.82
X.
Max.
4*9
22.5
7.65
7.65
2.55
2.55
19.41
21.74
34.51
54.44
20.60
39.71
ilin.
II
_ ilax.
2.9
13.5
3.33
3.83
0.89
0,89
11.06
12.39
18.60
30.61
9.76
21.11
4.9
22.5
5*98
5.98
1.49
1.49
16.59
18.59
23.96
48.56
15.05
33.83
llin,
III
Max*
2.9
4.9
13.5
22.5
3.53
5.68
3.53
5.68
0.89
1.49
0.G9
1.49
11.06
16.59
12.39
18.59
10.30
28.66
30.31
48.26
9.46
14.75
20.81
33.53
Min.
IV
Max.
2.9
6.2
3.0C
3.08
0.53
0.53
•7*13
'7.98
13.64
17.79
4.72
8.29
4.9
10.3
4.43
4.43
0.88
0.C8
10.65
11.97
20.06
28.58
6.95
12.85
v
2.9
3.0
1.50
1.50
0.52
0.52
4.00
4.48
C.92
9.50
0.00
0.00
Max*
4.9
5.0
2.15
2.15
0.86
0.86
6.00
6.72
13.91
14.73
0.00
0.00
Source: Tables 18, 19, 20, and 21.
- 54 -
-------
which were pursued throughout this study. This table presents total
benefits for each of the five alternative plans (Objective Sets) as well
as the "net" benefits for each of the four incremental Objective Sets.
By definition, net benefits for 1976 and 2000 are those for each incremen-
tal Objective Set over and above the ones which would be derived under
Objective Set V (present conditions maintained).
Observing the results reported in Table 22, it becomes evident
that the minimum benefits are the ones derivable from Objective Set V. Ac-
cording to the low value of equivalent monetary rates, these benefits cor*
respond to only 8.92 and 9.50 million for the years 1976 and 2000 respectively.
For the purpose of comparing the other four Objective Sets, one may use the
net benefits estimates appearing in the last two columns of Table 22. Further-
more, by using an average value between the minimum and maximum monetary esti-
mates, one may reach a more sound and representative comparative measure. The
results of such an estimation are shown in Table 23.
TABLE 23
AVERAGE NET BENEFITS FOR
SWIMMING, BOATING, FISHING, AND PICNICKING
BY OBJECTIVE SET
O.S.
Average Net Benefits ($1,000,000)
1975 20C0
I
II
16.9
12.4
32.3
27.5
27.2
10.6
III
12.1
5.8
IV
Source: Table 22.
- 55
-------
Observing these average estimates, an analyst can easily conclude
that Objective Set I represents the most productive alternative plan.
Objective Sets II and III are evidently also highly productive in terms
of outdoor recreation benefits, especially when viewed in the long run, in
which case the net benefits from both alternative plans are close to whose
which would be derived from Objective Set I. Objective Set IV appears to
be less beneficial than I, II, or III while, of course, Objective Set V
(involving no improvements) is the least productive alternative plan, al-
ways in terms of the four major recreation activities which were intensively
examined in this study. In general, it appears that Objective Set III is
the most promising one because, in addition to being almost as productive
as Objective Set II, it might be less costly. Of course, considerations
of intangible benefits should also be taken into account and may prove help-
ful in making a final recommendation as to which alternative is to be pursued.
- 56
-------
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
From the report on Phase I of this research effort, it may have
become evident that it is extremely difficult to project recreation bene-
fits in view of the probable changes in tastes, in the trend in providing
private recreation facilities, and in reaching further out from a region
for recreation purposes, as the means of travel continuously increase.
Recreation benefits can come from direct and indirect participation
in well-defined or highly-personalized recreation activities. For the
purposes of the present study, the projection of recreation benefits on
the basis of well-defined, and broadly appreciated outdoor recreation
activities was considered appropriate. These activities were sport fishing,
swimming, boating and picnicking.
Monetary equivalents of the benefits from increased participation
in each recreation activity were determined by accepting a reasonable and
widely supported rate of dollar value for each activity day. Where a varia-
tion of such rate is considered more realistic and representative, a range
of unit benefit with reasonable minimum and maximum values was accepted.
The definition of an activity day was identical to the one proposed in the
ORRRC studies.
In calculating future activity days and monetary benefits for
each alternative plan (Objective Set), proper consideration ought to be
given to plans and expectations of use of other similar facilities antici-
pated within the study area. Similarly, serious considerations ought to
- 57 -
-------
be given to plans and expectations of use of other similar facilities
anticipated within the study area. Similarly, serious considerations
ought to be given to existing and future facilities in the vicinity of
the study area. River benefits were to be estimated only in conjunction
with these other expectations. The projection process presented in Chapter
III of Phase I clearly presents the philosophy and the approach to these
projections.
In most cases the future capacity of the potential river facilities
proved to be the most important factor in estimating recreation benefits
than any other single factor. This was so because demand projections made
it apparent that future demand for the four outdoor recreation activities
under consideration far exceed the potential capacity of the river and the
other planned facilities within the region.
There is clearly a gradation of benefits as we move from O.S. I
to O.S. V. Although this project cannot conclude as to which one of the
Objective Sets is preferable, it appears that the debate is bound to center
between O.S. II and O.S. III. These two Objective Sets produce quite similar
recreation benefits,and, therefore, it would be upon the cost requirements
of each Objective Set, as well as other indirect considerations, that the
selection may have to rest. O.S. IV and O.S. V are markedly inferior and
could be considered as appropriate for consideration only in cases where
major compromises in region's objectives are externally imposed upon the
region.
- 58 -
-------
SELECTED
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Society of Planning Officials, "Recreational Boating Facilities,"
Report No. 147, ASPO Planning Advisory Service, Chicago, 111.,
June 1961.
, "Standards for Outdoor Recreational Areas," Report No. 194,
ASPO Planning Advisory Service, Chicago, 111., January 1965.
Audience Research, Inc., "A Study of Outdoor Recreational Activities and
Preferences of the Population Living in the Region of the Delaware
River Basin." A report prepared for the National Park Service,
January 1958.
Bromley, G. W., and Co., Inc., "Boating Almanac, 1966."
California Public Outdoor Recreation Commission, "California Public
Outdoor Recreation Plan," Parts I and II, The Commission, 1960.
Clawson, Marion, "How Much Leisure, Now or the Future?" in Leisure in
America: Blessing or Curse?, Monograph No, 4, American Academy
of Political and Social Science, Philadelphia, Penn., April 1964.
, Land and Water for Recreation,Rand McNally. Chicago, 111., 1963.
, "Methods of Measuring the Demand for and Value of Outdoor Recreation,
Reprint No. 11, Resources for the Future, Inc., February, 1959.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Health, "Rules and Regulations,''
Chapter 4, Article 442, "Regulations for Bathing Places," October
1959.
Daiute, Robert J., "Methods for Determination of Demand for Outdoor Recrea-
tion," Land Economics, Vol. 42, No. 3, August 1966.
Davidson, P. , F. G. Adams, and J. Seneca, "The Social Value of Water
Recreational Facilities Resulting from an Improvement in Water
Quality in an Estuary, The Delaware -- A Case Study/1 Discussion
Paper No. 12, Economics Research Unit, University of Pennsylvania,
196S.
Davis, Robert K., "The Value of Outdoor Recreation: An Economic Study
of the Maine Woods," unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard
University, 1963.
Delaware Estuary Comprehensive Study, "Preliminary Report and Findings,"
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, July 1966.
- 59 -
-------
Delaware River Basin Commission, "Second Water Resources Program," The
Commission, Trenton, New Jersey, February 1965.
Detroit Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, "Recreation in the Detroit
Region -- Part II, Park Users Survey," April 1959, and "...Part
III, Home Survey of Regional Recreation Activities," January 1960.
Foster, John H., "Measuring the Productivity of Land Used for Outdoor
Recreation," Land Economics, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 1964.
Institute for Environmental Studies, "Metropolitan Open Space from Natural
Process," The Institute, University of Pennsylvania, August 1965.
Knetsch, Jack L., "Outdoor Recreation Demands and Benefits," Land Economics,
Vol. 39, No. 4, November 1963.
McKee, Jack E., and Harold W. Wolf (eds.), "Water Quality Criteria,"
2nd edition, Publication No. 3-A, The Resources Agency of California,
State Water Quality Control Board, Sacramento, California, 1963.
National Recreation Association, "Outdoor Recreation Space Standards," The
Association, New York, N.Y., 1965.
Oregon State Highway Department, Parks and Recreation Division, "Oregon
Outdoor Recreation: A Study of Non-Urban Parks and Recreation,"
The Department, June 1962.
Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Reports No. 1, 7, 19, 20,
21 (Vol. II), 23, and 26, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C., 1962.
Philadelphia City Planning Commission, "Inventory of Public Recreation
Areas and Public Schools," The Commission, April 1961.
Strong, Ann Louise, "Open Space in the Penjerdel Region: Now or Never,"
Penjerdel, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1963.
Tennessee Valley Authority, "Outdoor Recreation for a Growing Nation:
TVA's Experience with Man-Made Reservoirs," The Authority, Knoxville,
Tennessee, 1961.
United Community Services of Metropolitan Boston, "Profile for Planning:
An Approach to Measuring the Need for Leisure-Time Services in
Metropolitan Boston," Boston, Mass., 1962.
United States Congress, "Water Recreation Needs in the United States, 1960 -
2000," Water Resource Activity in the United States, Committee
Print No. 17, 86th Congress, 2nd Session, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C., 1960.
- 60
-------
United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,
"Evaluation Standards for Primary Outdoor Recreation Benefits,"
BOR Memorandum No. 64-8, Supplement No. 1, Ad Hoc Water Resources
Council, Washington, D.C., June 4, 1964.
,"Water Oriented Outdoor Recreation in the Illinois River Basin,"
BOR, Northeast Regional Division, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
January 1964.
Vaughn, Gerald F., and Edward C. Moore, "Idle Land in an Urbanizing Area:
The Delaware Experience," Bulletin 349, Division of Urban Affairs
and Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Delaware, July
1963.
Wennergren, E. Boyd, "Valuing Non-Market Priced Recreational Resources,"
Land Economics, Vol. 40, No. 3, April 1964.
Wood, Donald F., "The Distances Traveled Technique for Measuring Value
of Recreation Areas: An Application," Land Economics, Vol. 37,
No. 4.
- 61 -
------- |