UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Coastal recreation analysis and forecasts Fairhurst, Kenneth Barton 1979

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A6_7 F35.pdf [ 5.11MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0075113.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0075113-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0075113-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0075113-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0075113-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0075113-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0075113-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0075113-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0075113.ris

Full Text

COASTAL RECREATION ANALYSIS AND FORECASTS by KENNETH BARTON FAIRHORST B.S.F., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1968 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Programme i n Parks and Recreation Resources) FACULTY OF FORESTRY We accept th i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December 1979 (c) Kenneth Barton Fairhurst, 1979 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a n a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e a n d s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e Head o f my D e p a r t m e n t o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . K e n n e t h B a r t o n F A I R H U R S T D e p a r t m e n t n f F o r e s t r y The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 2075 w e s b r o o k P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , C a n a d a V6T 1W5 D a t e DE-6 BP 75-51 1 E ABSTRACT C o a s t a l r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y has broad a p p e a l . . R e c r e a t i o n s i t e s near urban areas w i l l r e c e i v e i n c r e a s i n g use as p o p u l a t i o n s grow and as l o n g - d i s t a n c e t r a v e l c o s t s i n c r e a s e . Knowledge o f the c l i e n t e l e a t the c o a s t a l r e c r e a t i o n s i t e and t h e i r a c t i v i t y w i l l a s s i s t day-to-day management d e c i s i o n s and f u t u r e p l a n n i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s f o r t h i s important r e s o u r c e . The o b j e c t i v e s of the study were t o d e s c r i b e the r e c r e a t i o n s i t e v i s i t o r s and t h e i r use o f th r e e comparable s i t e s ; to determine v i s i t o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which a f f e c t and e x p l a i n t h e i r a c t i v i t y ; and to f o r e c a s t d a i l y use f o r f u t u r e y e a r s . _ P o p u l a t i o n s i z e , s i t e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s , and s i t e a c c e s s i b i l i t y a r e , among the f a c t o r s examined, the more important f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g the number of v i s i t s from a p o p u l a t i o n area t o a r e c r e a t i o n s i t e . Drawing from the above c o n c l u s i o n s i n the l i t e r a t u r e , i t was cons i d e r e d i n t h i s study t h a t the i n c l u s i o n of ' s o c i a l group 1 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the p o p u l a t i o n should improve the e x p l a n a t i o n of r e c r e a t i o n s i t e use. The d e s c r i p t i v e study found s i g n i f i c a n t , though s m a l l , d i f f e r e n c e s amongst v i s i t o r s of the three study s i t e s and t h e i r use o f the s i t e s . F a m i l i e s were the predominant s o c i a l group a t a l l s i t e s ; more v i s i t o r s choose the s i t e f o r i t s c l o s e n e s s than f o r any other reason. Using a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e , the i n t e n s i t y of the v i s i t was d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by both • p e r s o n a l ' and ' s o c i a l group' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i n c r e a s i n g most with g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d and l a r g e r o n - s i t e group s i z e . . A c t u a l d i f f e r e n c e s found were not l a r g e . i i i Employing m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s , the freguency and i n t e n s i t y o f v i s i t s were only poorly e x p l a i n e d by knowledge of •personal' and • s o c i a l group 1 v a r i a b l e s . ' P e r s o n a l ' v a r i a b l e s s i g n f i c a n t l y improved the e x p l a n a t i o n of v a r i a n c e i n number o f a c t i v i t i e s pursued; frequency of v i s i t s was e x p l a i n e d mostly by the ' p e r s o n a l ' v a r i a b l e of t r a v e l d i s t a n c e , though s t i l l p o o r l y . The l a c k of l a r g e d i f f e r e n c e s amongst v i s t o r s a t the c o a s t a l s i t e s suggests the general appeal of t h i s outdoor a c t i v i t y . F o r e c a s t s of the number of d a i l y v i s i t s a t C e n t e n n i a l Beach u t i l i z e d v i s i t o r o r i g i n i n f o r m a t i o n and d a i l y s i t e use e s t i m a t i o n s from the t r a f f i c survey. Growth i s f o r e c a s t t o i n c r e a s e , with v a r y i n g assumptions, from 8% t o 13% by the year 1981 and from 16% t o 27% by the year 1986. P o p u l a t i o n change i n o r i g i n areas under 20 miles from the s i t e w i l l have the g r e a t e s t i n f l u e n c e on s i t e use. With people under 25 years of age the •beavy' user category a t the s i t e s , change i n the p r o p o r t i o n of t h i s age c l a s s i n the o r i g i n area p o p u l a t i o n w i l l have a g r e a t e r e f f e c t on s i t e use than o v e r a l l p o p u l a t i o n growth. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i v LIST OF TABLES ............................................. V LIST OF FIGURES ............................................ v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v i i I . INTRODUCTION 1 A. C o a s t a l R e c r e a t i o n : a P u b l i c Sector R e s p o n s i b i l i t y . . . 1 B. Need f o r Knowledge of the R e c r e a t i o n C l i e n t e l e .... 2 C. Study O b j e c t i v e s ..................................... 3 D. Study L o c a t i o n ....................................... 5 I I . FACTORS INFLUENCING OUTDOOR RECREATION ACTIVITY ........ 8 A. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the P o p u l a t i o n .................. 10 B. Supply of Recreation Opportunity 14 C. Rec r e a t i o n S i t e A c c e s s i b i l i t y ........................16 D. Summary .............................................. 1 8 I I I . STUDY METHODS 20 A. C o a s t a l R e c r e a t i o n S i t e V i s i t o r Survey ...............20 B. R e c r e a t i o n S i t e T r a f f i c Survey 24 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE SURVEY DATA 26 A. Use of Boundary Bay Beaches .,,.,..,.,.,,...,..,.,,,,26 B. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the V i s i t o r s ...,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,.34 C. F a c t o r s A f f e c t i n g the I n t e n s i t y of Use 43 D. Summary ..............................................50 V. FACTORS EXPLAINING USE ................................51 A. Procedure 53 B. .Results ..55 C. .Summary ...,,...,.,..,.......59 D. D i s c u s s i o n ........................................... 60 VI. .FORECASTING DAILY USE AT CENTENNIAL BEACH 63 A. F o r e c a s t s Using General P o p u l a t i o n Gro.wth .,,,,,,,,,.,65 B. F o r e c a s t s of D a i l y Use by Age Clas s e s ...............66 C. F i n d i n g s .............................................69 VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...............................71 A. The Use and Users of Boundary Bay ...................71 B. F a c t o r s Related t o the I n t e n s i t y of Beach Use ......72 C. F a c t o r s E x p l a i n i n g Use. ..............................73 D. F o r e c a s t s of D a i l y Use .............................. 74 E. Recommendations f o r Future Study 76 BIBLIOGRAPHY 78 APPENDICES I. V i s i t o r Survey Q u e s t i o n n a i r e .,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.83 I I . D a i l y Site-Use E s t i m a t i o n 86 I I I . Summary Tables of Regression Analyses ................ 92 IV. Lower Mainland P o p u l a t i o n E s t i m a t e s , 1981, 1986 .,,,,..96 V LIST OF TABLES I . . R e c r e a t i o n V i s i t a t i o n S t u d i e s Reviewed .............. 9 II..Form of T r a v e l t o the Beaches ....................27 I I I . D a i l y V i s i t a t i o n at Boundary Bay Beaches ...........27 IV. Types of V i s i t s Made to Boundary Bay Beaches .......28 V. A c t i v i t i e s Pursued At Boundary Bay Beaches .....30 VI. Main A c t i v i t y Pursued a t Boundary Bay Beaches ...,.,.32 VII. Frequency of Repeat V i s i t s t o Boundary Bay Beaches .33 VI I I . S o c i a l Grouping at Boundary Bay Beaches ...37 IX. Ages of V i s i t o r s at Boundary Bay Beaches ...........40 X. V i s i t o r s ' P e r s o n a l and Home C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ........42 XI. F a c t o r s Related to Length of Stay at Boundary Bay ..46 XII.,Length of Stay f o r Main A c t i v i t y Pursued .,,,,,,,,.,47 X I I I . F a c t o r s R e l a t e d to Number of A c t i v i t i e s Pursued. .,49 XIV. ,Regression A n a l y s i s B 2-Value Summary ................55 XV. V i s i t s t o C e n t e n n i a l Beach from Lower Mainland .,,,63 XVI. Average D a i l y V i s i t s to C e n t e n n i a l Beach .,,,,,,,,,,64 XVII. , D a i l y V i s i t F o r e c a s t , C e n t e n n i a l Beach: 1981, 1986...65 XVIII. Lower Mainland Population S i z e P r e d i c t i o n s .,,,,,,,,,68 XIX. Weekend D a i l y Use F o r e c a s t f o r C e n t e n n i a l Beach. .,,,69 v i LIST OF FIGURES 1. L o c a t i o n of Boundary Bay and Study S i t e s ..............6 2. A n t i c i p a t e d Length of Stay a t Boundary Bay .............29 3. _Distance T r a v e l l e d by C e n t e n n i a l Beach V i s i t o r s ........35 4. Distance T r a v e l l e d by Cre s c e n t Beach V i s i t o r s ..........35 5. Distanc e T r a v e l l e d by White Rock Beach V i s i t o r s ...36 6..On-Arrival Group S i z e at Boundary Bay Beaches 38 7. On-Site Group S i z e at Boundary Bay Beaches ..............39 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks to Peter J . Dooling f o r h i s guidance d u r i n g the conceptual stages of the study and f o r h i s continued encouragement. The study was made p o s s i b l e with the support of the Gr e a t e r Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , the C i t y of White Rock, and the M u n i c i p a l i t y o f Surrey. Thanks a l s o to Beth Stevenson f o r her good nature and d e d i c a t i o n while a s s i s t i n g with the f i e l d survey. 1 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. A. C o a s t a l R e c r e a t i o n : a P u b l i c S e c t o r R e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Prime swimming beaches i n areas of f a v o u r a b l e c l i m a t e are popular s i t e s f o r outdoor r e c r e a t i o n . The extent of c o a s t a l teaches i s g e n e r a l l y f i n i t e , though a d d i t i o n s are p o s s i b l e with new c o a s t l i n e r e s u l t i n g from the c o n s t r u c t i o n of causeways, breakwaters, or a r t i f i c i a l i s l a n d s . C o a s t a l beaches, l a r g e i n s c a l e , o f f e r d i v e r s e water-dependant and water-enhanced r e c r e a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s , high s c e n i c value, and broad, open expanses. Many c o a s t a l r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s r e q u i r e l i t t l e or no investment i n eguipment or f a c i l i t i e s . With f o r e s h o r e s , f o r the most p a r t , l a r g e l y i n the p u b l i c domain i n B r i t i s h Columbia, the p r o v i s i o n o f c o a s t a l r e c r e a t i o n i s c o n s i d e r e d the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of government agencies. T r a d i t i o n d i c t a t e s t h a t p u b l i c r e c r e a t i o n be provided a t zero or near zero c o s t to users. By reason of low t o n i l f i n a n c i a l r e t u r n coming from ge n e r a l c o a s t a l r e c r e a t i o n , p r i v a t e e n t e r p r i s e i s mainly r e s t r i c t e d to c a p i t a l - i n t e n s i v e f a c i l i t i e s as marinas, boat-launches, equipment r e n t a l s and s a l e s , and t o p r o v i d i n g f o o d s e r v i c e s or o v e r n i g h t accommodation. P u b l i c r e c r e a t i o n a l resources w i t h i n or near urban areas are l i k e l y t o assume i n c r e a s i n g importance i n an era of d e c l i n i n g m o b i l i t y as t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s t s c l i m b or r e s t r i c t i o n s on f u e l a v a i l a b i l i t y make lon g e r d i s t a n c e t r a v e l more d i f f i c u l t . In terms of p e r - c a p i t a use, u s e r - o r i e n t e d types of r e c r e a t i o n i n 2 or near the urban environment are already much more important than those forms r e s t r i c t e d t o the non-urban environment (Hauser)• Hauser contended t h a t forms of outdoor r e c r e a t i o n a s s o c i a t e d with the urban environment w i l l ease the p r e s s u r e on the resource-based r e c r e a t i o n lands. The c o a s t a l r e c r e a t i o n areas near urban c e n t r e s , though c e r t a i n l y resource dependent, permit v a r i e d , i n t e n s i v e , u s e r - o r i e n t e d a c t i v i t y . B. Need f o r Knowledge of the E e c r e a t i o n C l i e n t e l e . F a c i n g t i g h t e n i n g budgets, i n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a t i o n s i z e , and r a p i d l y i n f l a t i n g c o s t s , c o a s t a l r e c r e a t i o n management must have a b e t t e r j u s t i f i c a t i o n of r e c r e a t i o n a l expenditures as might be obtained with more knowledge of v i s i t o r a c t i v i t i e s and f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g r e c r e a t i o n c h o i c e . "To manage w e l l , one needs t o understand the f u n c t i o n a l purpose t h a t the s i t e serves t o the v i s i t i n g p u b l i c . Management can be r e s t r i c t i v e without r e a l i z i n g i t , by f a i l i n g t o a p p r e c i a t e what types of v i s i t o r s use the s i t e and how they use i t . " (Sidaway, p. 72.) I t i s no l o n g e r s u f f i c i e n t to simply b u i l d or develop f a c i l i t i e s on the premise t h a t i n the f a c e of growing demands anything w i l l be used by a g r e a t f u l and n o n - d i s c r i m i n a t i n g p u b l i c (Knetsch). Though "Park and r e c r e a t i o n area s t a t i s t i c s are c o l l e c t e d by n e a r l y a l l p u b l i c park and r e c r e a t i o n agencies,...the major weakness i s t h a t f a r more data and a n a l y s i s i s r e q u i r e d before an e x p l a n a t i o n can be o f f e r e d f o r the p a t t e r n s of use t h a t occur." (Knetsch, 1976a, p..8.) The user survey can provide a data base f o r f u t u r e s t u d i e s , with 3 comparisons made to i d e n t i f y impacts of change i n o p p o r t u n i t y , f a c i l i t i e s , or other s i t e f e a t u r e s (Shew and Werner). A v a i l a b l e r e s e a r c h i s seldom t r a n s l a t e d i n t o e f f e c t i v e human behaviour g u i d e l i n e s from which c a p i t a l budgeting and other resource a l l o c a t i o n s can be made (Burdge and F i e l d ) . Knetsch saw the c r i t i c a l need t o have a f a r more complete understanding and measurement of outdoor r e c r e a t i o n "demand" t o guide investment and management p l a n n i n g , to i d e n t i f y and ev a l u a t e p o l i c y c h o i c e s , and to f o r e c a s t r e c r e a t i o n use of resour c e s as i t r e l a t e s to a l t e r n a t i v e development proposals, "...the a b i l i t y t o estimate use l e v e l s . .,would be an i n c r e a s i n g l y important t o o l towards reducing the u n c e r t a i n t i e s a s s o c i a t e d with the planning and programming of i n c r e a s i n g l y expensive r e c r e a t i o n development s i t e s . , , " (Dooling, 1973, p. 2.) Sidaway, c a l l e d use and user surveys " p o l i t i c a l ammunition" with which t o argue f o r more r e s o u r c e s . S i t e s p e c i f i c a n a l y s i s can pro v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t w i l l enable planning of new f a c i l i t i e s and a d d i t i o n s t o meet the demands and needs of present r e c r e a t i o n users ( C i c c h e t t i ) . Both budgetary c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and user s a t i s f a c t i o n may b e n e f i t from more knowledge of the r e c r e a t i o n v i s i t o r s and t h e i r a c t i v i t y . . C. Study O b j e c t i v e s . Knowing more about the r e c r e a t i o n c l i e n t e l e i s an important c o n t r i b u t i o n toward improved management of the r e s o u r c e . The o v e r a l l o b j e c t i v e of the c u r r e n t study t h e r e f o r e , i s t o determine who are the v i s i t o r s a t Boundary Bay beaches, and how 4 t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n f l u e n c e t h e i r r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of s i t e v i s i t o r s w i l l be d e s c r i b e d , t e s t i n g f o r d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i r c h o i c e of beach and i n t h e i r a c t i v i t y involvement. F o r e c a s t s of f u t u r e l e v e l s of use w i l l a l s o be undertaken. A d e s c r i p t i o n of r e c r e a t i o n users r e v e a l s the type of v i s i t o r a t t r a c t e d to the e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s . Comparing v i s i t o r s at nearby s i t e s may r e v e a l d i f f e r e n c e s r e l a t e d to o p p o r t u n i t i e s at the s i t e . O b j e c t i v e i A To d e s c r i b e and compare v i s i t o r s a t three Boundary Bay Beaches and t h e i r a c t i v i t y at the s i t e s . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of v i s i t o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a f f e c t i n g r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y can a s s i s t the resource manager i n determining s i t e needs. O b j e c t i v e I I . To determine f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y , s p e c i f i c a l l y , f a c t o r s which e x p l a i n v a r i a t i o n s i n the type, i n t e n s i t y and frequency of a c t i v i t y . An e s t i m a t i o n of f u t u r e numbers of v i s i t o r s at the r e c r e a t i o n s i t e , can i n d i c a t e the s u i t a b i l i t y o f e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s or the need f o r a d d i t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y . "Census data and p o p u l a t i o n p r o j e c t i o n s can be used.,,to a i d p l a n n i n g . " (Heb e r l e i n , 1973, p. 5 20.) Ose f o r e c a s t s can a l s o be a b a s i s f o r determining f u t u r e budget requirements. O b j e c t i v e I I I . To f o r e c a s t the d a i l y number of v i s i t o r s at C e n t e n n i a l Beach f o r the years 1981 and 1986. E. study L o c a t i o n , The area s e l e c t e d f o r the study was Boundary Bay, a 30-square mile body of water with three major swimming beaches o f f e r i n g e x t e n s i v e c o a s t a l r e c r e a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s to the nearby l a r g e p o p u l a t i o n ; S t r a d d l i n g the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Boundary i n the southwest c o r n e r of the Province o f B r i t i s h Columbia (Figure 1), Boundary Bay i s s i t u a t e d w i t h i n easy t r a v e l d i s t a n c e f o r day v i s i t s f o r n e a r l y 1,300,000 Lower Mainland r e s i d e n t s (1976 Census). Tbe c i t y of Vancouver i s 20 mil e s to the north. Past p o p u l a t i o n growth has f o l l o w e d the t y p i c a l " r a d i a l expansion" p a t t e r n from the c e n t r a l core of Vancouver, b r i n g i n g r a p i d growth t o areas adjacent t o Boundary Bay (GVRD, 1978a). . Though th e r e are e x i s t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s p r o v i d i n g c o a s t a l or freshwater r e c r e a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n the r e g i o n , the a t t r a c t i o n s of Boundary Bay are somewhat unique. The combination of broad sandy beaches, r e l a t i v e l y more sunshine (Lioy, 1975) , and shallow, warm waters make the beaches of Boundary Bay very popular. The t h r e e study s i t e s a r e the main swimming beaches of Boundary Bay. On the western curve of the Bay i s l o c a t e d C e n t e n n i a l Beach; on the op p o s i t e s i d e are l o c a t e d both Crescent Beach, which f a c e s Mud Bay, and White Rock Beach on Semiahmoo 6 Bay. The i n d i v i d u a l settings vary in si z e , f a c i l i t i e s , and adjacent land use, though the natural a t t r a c t i o n s are s i m i l a r . Figure 1 . Location of Boundary Bay and Study Si t e s . Centennial Beach. Centennial Beach of f e r s an open and quiet se t t i n g with the most use centered i n the municipal park away from the residences fronting a section of the beach. A washroom and change-room f a c i l i t y , food concession, playing f i e l d , tennis court, children's playground, and p i c n i c area add to the a t t r a c t i o n of the wide expanse of beach. 7 C r e s c e n t Beach. C r e s c e n t Beach l a y s i n f r o n t of a s m a l l r e s i d e n t i a l community of the same name. Eoad access to the beach, through fhe community, causes summer-weekend t r a f f i c c o n g e s t i o n with r e s u l t i n g inconvenience to both r e s i d e n t s and beach v i s i t o r s . A few refreshment stands and a s i n g l e restroom f a c i l i t y s e r v e the beach v i s i t o r s ; An e n c l o s e d swimming tank i s a v a i l a b l e f o r p u b l i c use, o f f e r i n g the o p p o r t u n i t y of deepwater swimming r e g a r d l e s s of t i d e l e v e l . C rescent Beach i s t h e only Boundary Bay beach to provide a l i f e g u a r d s e r v i c e . A marina i s l o c a t e d nearby f o r both moorage and l a u n c h i n g of boats. Dry storage f o r s m a l l s a i l boats i s provided near the deep water area of the beach, an area a l s o used by w a t e r s k i e r s . White Bock Beach. The l a r g e s t beach, White Bock , provides three m i l e s o f beach f l a n k e d by r a i l r o a d trackage and an a r t e r i a l roadway. Commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l development extends along the roadway opposite to the beach. Beach access i s l i n e a l except f o r one l a r g e parking area at Semiahmoo Park near the e a s t e r n end o f the beach s t r i p ; Besides many r e s t a u r a n t s and f i s h - a n d - c h i p stands, the f a c i l i t i e s i n c l u d e a p i e r , p i c n i c area, b a l l - p a r k , c h i l d r e n ' s playground, washrooms and change-rooms, p l u s three commercial campgrounds at the e a s t e r n e x t r e m i t y . 8 CHAPTER l l . FACTORS INFLUENCING OUTDOOR RECREATION ACTIVITY. . . . i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e , and r e c r e a t i o n a v a i l a b i l i t y -i n f l u e n c e the d e c i s i o n of an i n d i v i d u a l choosing among a l t e r n a t i v e r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s and s i t e s where those a c t i v i t i e s can be pursued. How these f a c t o r s are p e r c e i v e d , i n t e r a c t , and are t r aded o f f remains unknown.... What i s observable i s the outcome of the d e c i s i o n . (USDI, 1975, p.15.1 The observable outcome i s a c t i v i t y at the r e c r e a t i o n s i t e . D i f f e r e n c e s i n l e v e l s of s i t e v i s i t a t i o n from o r i g i n areas are caused by f o u r b a s i c f a c t o r s - p o p u l a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , s i t e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s , a l t e r n a t i v e o p p o r t u n i t i e s , and a c c e s s i b i l i t y (Gum; Cheung, 1972; Cesario) . A review of 14 s t u d i e s of r e c r e a t i o n v i s i t a t i o n r e v e a l e d t h a t 13 of the s t u d i e s sought p o p u l a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and of these, 10 s t u d i e s i n c l u d e d measures of t r a v e l d i s t a n c e , 8 s t u d i e s a l s o used s i t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and 9 s t u d i e s a l s o i n c l u d e d measures of a l t e r n a t i v e o p p o r t u n i t i e s (Table I ) . The s t u d i e s are l i s t e d c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y i n the t a b l e , the e a r l i e s t f i r s t . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of v i s i t o r s a t the r e c r e a t i o n s i t e have been s t u d i e d much l e s s o f t e n than c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the o r i g i n area p o p u l a t i o n s . Of the same 14 s t u d i e s , a t o t a l of 4 sought user c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s other than t h e i r p l a c e of o r i g i n i n the development of r e c r e a t i o n v i s i t o r data bases. One of these s t u d i e s r e l a t e d only user c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o t h e i r use of the r e c r e a t i o n s i t e (Spaulding, 1972), while 3 o thers compared c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the users t o those of the parent p o p u l a t i o n 9 (Dooli-ng; CORRC; Shew and Werner) . S u b l e t t e and Martin examined household u n i t s as the u n i t of r e c r e a t i o n consumption, r e l a t i n g the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the household u n i t s to v i s i t frequency and l e n g t h of stay. The same study aggregated the household c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the v i s i t o r o r i g i n areas i n the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of household v i s i t s per o r i g i n . I n Dooling's review o f 14 s t u d i e s of r e c r e a t i o n s i t e v i s i t a t i o n , a s i m i l a r emphasis was found toward use of v a r i o u s p o p u l a t i o n , s i t e , and t r a v e l d i s t a n c e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , with o n l y one study r e l a t i n g s o c i o -economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of s i t e v i s i t o r s to t h e i r a c t i v i t y (that of Guedry and Stoevener, 1970). Table I . Re c r e a t i o n V i s i t a t i o n S t u d i e s Reviewed Types Of C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Used Study Author (s) Pankey/Johnston 1969 Gum, 1970 Holbrook, 1970 Robinson, 1970 Cheung, 1972 Deacon et a l . , 1972 Spaulding, 1972 Dooling, 1973 Wilkinson, 1973 van L i e r , 1973 CORRC, 1974 S u b l e t t e / M a r t i n , 1975 Knetsch, 1976b Shew And Werner, 1976 Size|So.-Ec. h + +-P o p u l a t i o n X X X X X X X X X * Distanc e X X X X X X X X A l t e r n a t i v e s X X X X X X X S i t e X X X X X User X X X X j i i + L— * Suggested but not used 10 A. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the P o p u l a t i o n Of the p o p u l a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s t u d i e d , s i z e was used most o f ten. . Eleven of the s t u d i e s examined used p o p u l a t i o n s i z e , e i g h t of which i n c l u d e d no other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the population* The p o p u l a t i o n s i z e of o r i g i n areas i s "...easy t o a c q u i r e and easy t o p r e d i c t f o r f u t u r e time p e r i o d s . " (Deacon et a l . , 1972, p. 319.) The u n i t s of p o p u l a t i o n measure used have been c o n c e n t r i c d i s t a n c e zones surrounding a r e c r e a t i o n s i t e (as suggested e a r l y by H o t e l l i n g ) , or geographic or p o l i t i c a l boundaries. Units with known boundaries such as c i t i e s or m u n i c i p a l i t i e s "...allow more meaningful l o c a t i o n a l l y s p e c i f i c v a r i a b l e s t o be measured." (Knetsch, 1976b, p.35.) Pankey and Johnston used both c o n c e n t r i c d i s t a n c e zones about the s i t e and county u n i t s of o r i g i n . The use of d i s t a n c e zones was found more c o s t l y and complicated, though the o b s e r v a t i o n u n i t c o u l d be any d e s i r e d s i z e . Though " I t i s w e l l known t h a t the number of day v i s i t s made to a park v a r i e s d i r e c t l y as the s i z e of p o p u l a t i o n of an area of o r i g i n . " (Cheung, 1972, p. 143), some m i s g i v i n g s have been v o i c e d . Gum found p o p u l a t i o n pressure not t o be an important a t t r i b u t e of s i t e usage when s i t e and a l t e r n a t i v e a t t r i b u t e s were a l s o i n c l u d e d . Hauser c r i t i c i z e d the use of p o p u l a t i o n s i z e as an incomplete e x p l a n a t i o n of s i t e use as t h e r e i s no allowance f o r changes i n composition or t a s t e s and p r e f e r e n c e s within the p o p u l a t i o n . While Cheung, 1972, found the combination of p o p u l a t i o n s i z e and. t r a v e l d i s t a n c e (the g r a v i t y model explanation) to be an " e x c e l l e n t f i r s t approximation" o f the 11 amount of use o c c u r r i n g at a s i t e , D u f f i e l d , l i k e Hauser, s t r e s s e d t h a t p o p u l a t i o n should not be c o n s i d e r e d a " p h y s i c a l mass", as o t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the p o p u l a t i o n may a f f e c t r e c r e a t i o n consumption. In a d d i t i o n to p o p u l a t i o n s i z e , c a u s a l f a c t o r s of s o c i o -economic composition, l e i s u r e and m o b i l i t y were put f o r t h by Clawson and Knetsch. In major p a r t i c i p a t i o n s t u d i e s i n the United S t a t e s (OEEEC), no attempt was made to r e l a t e p a r t i c i p a t i o n t o r e c r e a t i o n a v a i l a b i l i t y ; socio-economic v a r i a b l e s were used as e x p l a i n i n g f a c t o r s . I n OEEEC, 18 f a c t o r s were used, the important ones being income, e d u c a t i o n , age, family-phase, h e a l t h , o c c u p a t i o n , u r b a n i z a t i o n , and r a c e . In s i t e v i s i t a t i o n s t u d i e s , van L i e r found p o p u l a t i o n to be the most important v a r i a b l e of the socio-economic group, though a wide s e l e c t i o n of f a c t o r s were used. I n c l u s i o n of p o p u l a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n a d d i t i o n to s i z e was undertaken i n f o u r s t u d i e s l i s t e d i n Table I and suggested i n the c o n c l u s i o n s of 2 more s t u d i e s reviewed (Deacon et a l ; Wilkinson)..Deacon et a l . suggested i n c o r p o r a t i n g median age, median income, sex, and p r o p e n s i t y f o r r e c r e a t i o n experience to r e f i n e the p r e d i c t i o n of v i s i t a t i o n . D ooling entered both median age and median education of the o r i g i n area p o p u l a t i o n i n a v i s i t a t i o n model. P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n outdoor r e c r e a t i o n "...by people i n a given geographic area (is) c o n d i t i o n a l on the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of these people." (Parks Canada, 1976, p. 240.) C i c c h e t t i found age and income to be the two most important f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g r e c r e a t i o n p a r t i c i p a t i o n , with the average age of the p o p u l a t i o n having a more s i g n i f i c a n t impact than 12 p o p u l a t i o n s i z e . The p o r t i o n of the p o p u l a t i o n under the age of 45 y e a r s i s l e s s sedentary and more given t o p h y s i c a l e x e r t i o n (Hauser). "Changes i n the age s t r u c t u r e of the p o p u l a t i o n can be i n t e r p r e t e d as changes i n components of demand f o r v a r i o u s goods and s e r v i c e s , i n c l u d i n g outdoor r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s and s e r v i c e s . " (Hauser, 1962, p. 35.) A l s o a g e - r e l a t e d i s the stage of the f a m i l y c y c l e . With family groups at parks predominating ( F i e l d ) , both the p r o p o r t i o n and stages of f a m i l i e s i n the p o p u l a t i o n have an impact on r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y . Age has more meaning than simply b i o l o g i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n (Litwak and S z e l y n y i ) . Cheek and Burch found the h i g h e s t p r o p o r t i o n of f a m i l i e s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n outdoor r e c r e a t i o n when the f a m i l y head i s 25 t o 44 y ears of age. For c h i l d r e n "Under the age of 16, the f a m i l y i s the most frequent group of p a r t i c i p a t i o n , a t 17 and 18 f r i e n d s h i p groups r i v a l the f a m i l y , and over 18 the f a m i l y group i s supplanted by f r i e n d s h i p groups." (Moore, i n Cheek and Burch, 1976, p. 102.) I n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the e f f e c t of income on r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y suggests t h a t t o a c e r t a i n extent, income l e v e l f a c i l i t a t e s a c t i v i t y . Beyond the minimum entrance c o s t , no higher p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e was noted by Lindsay and Ogle. The "dampening e f f e c t s of d i s t a n c e " may vary with income (Meyersohn). D i f f e r e n t i a l s i n outdoor r e c r e a t i o n p a r t i c i p a t i o n a s s o c i a t e d with income and education are due to the l a c k o f a v a i l a b l e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l s i n low income c a t e g o r i e s and "...may not h o l d t r u e i f the r e c r e a t i o n resource i s l o c a t e d c l o s e to low income and poorly educated p o p u l a t i o n groups and i s e a s i l y and i n e x p e n s i v e l y a v a i l a b l e to them." (Lindsay and Ogle, 1 3 1972, p. 20.) S e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s have concluded t h a t the amount of v a r i a t i o n i n r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y e x p l a i n e d by socio-economic v a r i a b l e s does not provide a very high l e v e l of p r e d i c t i v e c a p a b i l i t y (Burch; Meyersohn; Cheek et al.) . In p a r t i c i p a t i o n s t u d i e s , once n o n - p a r t i c i p a n t s have been e l i m i n a t e d from c o n s i d e r a t i o n , the major source of s t a t i s t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e has been removed ( F i e l d ; F i e l d and 0'Leary). Though an i n d i v i d u a l ' s socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s may h e l p shape h i s i n t e r e s t i n r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y , Burch b e l i e v e s the i n f l u e n c e o f an i n d i v i d u a l ' s s o c i a l c i r c l e s may be a more important determinant of h i s l e i s u r e s t y l e . "The i n a b i l i t y t o adequately assess p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n outdoor r e c r e a t i o n i s p a r t i a l l y r e l a t e d t o a f a i l u r e to i n c o r p o r a t e a measure of the s o c i a l u n i t of p a r t i c i p a t i o n as one c r i t e r i o n . " (Cheek et a l . , 1976, p. 65.) While i n d i v i d u a l s are not excluded from such p l a c e s , the prevalence of groups i n l e i s u r e s e t t i n g s i n d i c a t e s t h a t study of group c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i n a d d i t i o n to i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , may improve the understanding of l e i s u r e behaviour. Meyersohn recognized that the "connectedness of humans" i s l a r g e l y i g n o r e d i n r e c r e a t i o n r e s e a r c h . Crapo (CORBC) c a l l e d survey r e s e a r c h an abuse of c o l l e c t e d v i s i t o r i n f o r m a t i o n i f i t does not r e f l e c t the f a c t t h a t r e c r e a t i o n i s o f t e n experienced i n a group. S p e c i f i c group types may seek d i f f e r i n g r e c r e a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s and f a c i l i t i e s (Hecock). F i e l d and 0'Leary suggested t h a t when a ' s o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e and 'socio-economic' v a r i a b l e s of the p o p u l a t i o n are t r e a t e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y , the amount of v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d , i n 14 r e l a t i o n to r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y , i n c r e a s e s . Group s i z e and s o c i a l composition are two v a r i a b l e s where v a r i a t i o n s i n a c t i v i t y s e l e c t i o n should be examined (Burdge and F i e l d ) . . The l i m i t e d c o n c e n t r a t i o n on user c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n v i s i t a t i o n s t u d i e s (except f o r those of Dooling; Spaulding; S u b l e t t e and M a r t i n ; and Shew and Werner), and the near absence of measures of ' s o c i a l group' f a c t o r s r e s u l t s from the purposes of the s t u d i e s being undertaken. Most r e s e a r c h i s d i r e c t e d toward determining f u t u r e l e v e l s of s i t e use. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the o r i g i n area p o p u l a t i o n , to repeat, are simple to both c o l l e c t and p r e d i c t (e.g. from census d a t a ) . User c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are, perhaps, more a p p r o p r i a t e l y r e l a t e d t o a c t i v i t y c h o i c e , i n t e n s i t y and freguency of v i s i t s , and s a t i s f a c t i o n with the r e c r e a t i o n experience o f f e r e d at the s i t e . In a d d i t i o n , the group i n which the i n d i v i d u a l engages i n r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y may d i f f e r over the p e r i o d of enquiry and g e n e r a l l y i s not a measured c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n (except f a m i l y or household u n i t s ) . , B. Supply of R e c r e a t i o n Opportunity Whereas p o p u l a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of v i s i t o r o r i g i n areas are seen as generators of r e c r e a t i o n v i s i t s , the s i t e i t s e l f , i n r e l a t i o n to a l t e r n a t i v e o p p o r t u n i t i e s and a c c e s s i b i l i t y , i s the supply of o p p o r t u n i t y ; Of the 14 s t u d i e s examined, 8 i n c l u d e d measures of s i t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The. supply of outdoor r e c r e a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y was seen as the most important f a c t o r 15 a f f e c t i n g use by van L i e r who contended t h a t supply predominates behaviour* R e c r e a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s , and f a c i l i t i e s a v a i l a b l e a t a s i t e determine, t o a l a r g e extent, the amount and type of a c t i v i t i e s o c c u r r i n g and the type of v i s i t o r (Hecock) .. The types of r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y a v a i l a b l e a l s o have an i n f l u e n c e on the d i s t a n c e v i s i t o r s are w i l l i n g to t r a v e l (Gum). Deacon et a l . concluded t h a t s i t e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s can be reasonably approximated by the type and number of f a c i l i t i e s a v a i l a b l e at the s i t e , together with a measure of s i z e of n a t u r a l f e a t u r e s or f a c i l i t i e s . F l e x i b i l i t y or d i v e r s i t y of a c t i v i t i e s at the r e c r e a t i o n s i t e i s an important c o n t r i b u t o r t o s i t e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s (Hecock; Knopp; F i e l d ) . . Ten of the 14 s t u d i e s examined i n c l u d e d measures of a l t e r n a t i v e s , 7 together with s i t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . R e l a t i v e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s approaches (Deacon et a l ; van L i e r ) and t o t a l a l t e r n a t i v e o p p o r t u n i t y values f o r each o r i g i n area (Holbrook; Cheung) have been u t i l i z e d . Cheung determined t h a t s i t e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s together with a measure of a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of a v a i l a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s e x p l a i n e d 16% of the v a r i a n c e i n the l e v e l of use o c c u r r i n g at a s i t e a f t e r accounting f o r the e f f e c t s of p o p u l a t i o n and d i s t a n c e . He saw v a l u e , however, i n improving the understanding of outdoor r e c r e a t i o n phenomena by t h e i r i n c l u s i o n . 16 G. R e c r e a t i o n S i t e A c c e s s i b i l i t y . I n t e r v e n i n g between the a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of the r e c r e a t i o n s i t e and p o p u l a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of o r i g i n areas to generate use are a c c e s s i b i l i t y f a c t o r s . The road d i s t a n c e s e p a r a t i n g the s i t e from the p o p u l a t i o n i s regarded by many r e s e a r c h e r s as the main determinant of r e c r e a t i o n use (Cheung; Dooling; Holman and Bennett; Knetsch; Shew and Werner). The d i s t a n c e model, i n c o r p o r a t i n g p o p u l a t i o n s i z e and t r a v e l d i s t a n c e , was found to e x p l a i n 84% of the v a r i a n c e i n day-use v i s i t a t i o n l e v e l s from o r i g i n areas (Cheung, 1976). "The g r a v i t y model i s based on the assumption t h a t the number of ( r e c r e a t i o n a l ) t r i p s from an o r i g i n of a given p o p u l a t i o n to a p a r t i c u l a r d e s t i n a t i o n i s a f u n c t i o n not o n l y of the p o p u l a t i o n but a l s o some f u n c t i o n of the d i s t a n c e between the two p o i n t s . " (Wilkinson, 1973, p. 38.) T r a v e l d i s t a n c e was a f a c t o r used i n 10 of the 14 s t u d i e s examined. Though most s t u d i e s determined the d i s t a n c e from the o r i g i n p o p u l a t i o n c e n t r o i d to the s i t e , two s t u d i e s a l s o used d i s t a n c e o f f the main road to the s i t e as a s i t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c (Gum; Dooling) . Other forms of a c c e s s i b i l i t y f a c t o r s s t u d i e d i n c l u d e t r a v e l time (Lentnek e t a l ; Hecock), and t r a v e l c o s t (Clawson; Clawson and Knetsch). Lentnek e t a l . r e p o r t e d t h a t f o r one p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y ( r e c r e a t i o n a l b o a t i n g ) , t r a v e l time was more l i k e l y t o a f f e c t the d e c i s i o n t o go to a c e r t a i n area than was a c t u a l t r a v e l d i s t a n c e . Road q u a l i t y , t r a f f i c c o n g e s t i o n , and s c e n i c q u a l i t y have a l s o been examined f o r t h e i r i n f l u e n c e on use (Sublette and M a r t i n ) D e a c o n et a l . i n v e s t i g a t e d the p r i c e of 17 the r e c r e a t i o n a l experience as a f f e c t e d by t r a v e l route q u a l i t y , t r a v e l time, out-of-pocket t r a v e l c o s t s , and d i s t a n c e * T r a v e l c o s t s attached to d i s t a n c e zones was an e a r l y proposal f o r e s t i m a t i n g s o - c a l l e d "demand" cu r v e s f o r r e c r e a t i o n areas ( H o t e l l i n g ; Clawson; Clawson and Knetsch). These were not r e a l demand curves because they were measuring consumption. D i f f e r e n c e s i n p o p u l a t i o n s i n the zones of H o t e l l i n g * s method was c o n t r o l l e d by Clawson by use of per c a p i t a v i s i t s per zone. C o n s i d e r i n g t h a t d i s t a n c e i s a surrogate f o r time and c o s t (Holman and Bennett), the d i s t a n c e v i s i t o r s are w i l l i n g to t r a v e l would be expected to vary. Distance may be viewed as "...a v a r i a b l e parameter generated by p r o f i l e s of the consumers, t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s and the nature of the good.V ( D u f f i e l d , 1975, p. 26.) Socio-economic and s i t e v a r i a b l e s have been c o n s i d e r e d as v a r i a b l e s which s h i f t the d i s t a n c e v i s i t o r s are w i l l i n g t o t r a v e l (King). Pankey and Johnston found socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the both d i s t a n c e zones and o r i g i n areas from which the r e c r e a t i o n i s t s came made a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the e x p l a n a t i o n of use. S h i f t s i n the d i s t a n c e v i s i t o r s are w i l l i n g to t r a v e l l e d D u f f i e l d t o argue t h a t d i s t a n c e i s t h e r e f o r e not t h e o r e t i c a l l y v a l i d as an e x p l a n a t i o n of use, but i s only l o c a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e . In a d d i t i o n to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of v i s i t o r s and the s i t e i n f l u e n c i n g the d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d , s i g h t s e e i n g or other b e n e f i t s along the way can add to the enjoyment (and purpose) of the t r i p . There are those f o r whom the t r i p i s the o b j e c t i v e , the d e s t i n a t i o n being only of secondary importance (Colenutt) . A study by D u f f i e l d r e v e a l e d a "shadow zone" i n which those l i v i n g 18 c l o s e r to a r e c r e a t i o n s i t e used the s i t e l e s s o f t e n than those i n the 20 t o 30 mile range. Cheshire and S t a b l e r i d e n t i f i e d t hree c a t e g o r i e s of r e c r e a t i o n v i s i t o r s a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward t h e i r journey: v i s i t o r s who are s i t e - o r i e n t e d , v i s i t o r s who d e r i v e some enjoyment from the journey i t s e l f , and v i s i t o r s whose journey i s a c t u a l l y made f o r other purposes but who a l s o stop at the s i t e . A v a i l a b i l i t y of a l t e r n a t i v e s (Cheung) , the type of s i t e and a c t i v i t i e s o f f e r e d (Lentnek et a l ; Gum; W i l k i n s o n ) , and the time budget of the v i s i t o r s ( D u f f i e l d ) a l s o a f f e c t the d i s t a n c e v i s i t o r s are w i l l i n g t o t r a v e l . D. Summary. The s t u d i e s reviewed have concentrated mainly on f a c t o r s e x p l a i n i n g v i s i t a t i o n r a t e s a t r e c r e a t i o n s i t e s from o r i g i n areas. The three main groups of f a c t o r s were p o p u l a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , supply c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and a c c e s s i b i l i t y . P o p u l a t i o n s i z e and t r a v e l d i s t a n c e are f a c t o r s found to e x p l a i n most of the v a r i a t i o n i n s i t e use though c a u t i o n s were expressed a g a i n s t use of these v a r i a b l e s alone i f long term p r e d i c t i o n s o f s i t e use are to be made._Improvements i n p r e d i c t i v e c a p a b i l i t y through i n c l u s i o n of socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the o r i g i n p o p u l a t i o n s have been r e a l i z e d . I n c l u d i n g a measure of the ' s o c i a l group' of p a r t i c i p a t i o n was found t o improve the • e x p l a n a t i o n ' of r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y given by socio-economic (personal) v a r i a b l e s . I n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of v i s i t o r s , i n r e l a t i o n to t h e i r a c t i v i t y , a l l o w s the s i t e manager to "know" 19 the c l i e n t s and provides an i n f o r m a t i o n base f o r comparing use of competing s i t e s . The i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l a l s o be u s e f u l f o r comparison with f u t u r e s i t e use. 20 CHAPTEB I I I . STUDY METHODS. During the study p e r i o d , J u l y 26 to September 5, 1977, surveys were undertaken on a t o t a l of twelve randomly chosen days a t each of the t h r e e study s i t e s . . S u r v e y days were 12 hours i n l e n g t h (9 a.m. t o 9 p.m.), with coverage s t r a t i f i e d between weekdays and weekends/holidays. The intended balance of survey days between the two day-types and of simultaneous coverage o f a l l s i t e s on each survey day was hindered by s t a f f i n g c o n s t r a i n t s . A t o t a l of seven survey days were completed on weekends and h o l i d a y s , s i x s i m u l t a n e o u s l y at the three s i t e s . Of the f i v e midweek survey days, simultaneous coverage was p o s s i b l e on one of the days only. Survey personnel c o n s i s t e d o f f i v e surveyors plus an a d d i t i o n a l s i x h e l p e r s on days when a l l s i t e s were surveyed. The f i e l d survey c o n s i s t e d of two separate p a r t s , undertaken c o n c u r r e n t l y : a q u e s t i o n n a i r e survey of beach v i s i t o r s and a r e c o r d of v e h i c u l a r t r a f f i c a t the beach s i t e s . A. C o a s t a l R e c r e a t i o n S i t e V i s i t o r Survey. An o n - s i t e i n t e r v i e w was combined with a mail-back q u e s t i o n n a i r e as the v i s i t o r survey format (Appendix I ) . The survey sought i n f o r m a t i o n about the v i s i t o r s - t h e i r o r i g i n s , socio-economic and group c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y , and o p i n i o n s about the s i t e and i t s management, s p e c i f i c a l l y : 21 The Interview P o r t i o n : age and sex of the respondant, and of group members; type of group; s i z e of the group, both o n ' a r r i v a l and a t the s i t e ; type of v i s i t ; reason f o r c h o i c e of the s i t e , and f a v o u r i t e beach; l e n g t h of intended stay f o r the day's v i s i t ; a c t i v i t i e s pursued and the main a c t i v i t y ; number of repeat v i s i t s d u r i n g the past 12 months; o r i g i n of the day t r i p and the v i s i t o r ' s r e s i d e n c e l o c a t i o n ; form of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n taken to the s i t e ; comments on the f a c i l i t i e s and management 1; comments on c o n f l i c t s with other v i s i t o r s or with competing l a n d uses. The Mail-Back Portion,: employment s t a t u s of the v i s i t o r ; f a m i l y income; f a m i l y s i z e , number of c h i l d r e n , age of the youngest c h i l d at home; number of years of r e s i d e n c e a t same address and i n the Lower Mainland. I n t e r v i e w o f Beach V i s i t o r s . S e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s c o n s i d e r t h a t o n - s i t e i n t e r v i e w s produce the most r e l i a b l e and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e data on i n d i v i d u a l behaviour (Spaulding; COREC; Cheek e t a l . ) . . I n a l l , 1595 o n - s i t e i n t e r v i e w s were completed, i n v o l v i n g a t o t a l of 6314 v i s i t o r s . The number of i n t e r v i e w s by s i t e was 565 at C e n t e n n i a l Beach, 445 at Crescent Beach, and 585 a t White Rock Beach. R e f u s a l s to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the i n t e r v i e w s were few; the number was not 1 The r e s u l t s of the q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g comments and c o n f l i c t s appear i n a r e p o r t to the Greater Vancouver E e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t ( F a i r h u r s t ) . . 22 r e c o r d e d . I n t e r v i e w s ranged from f i v e to f i f t e e n minutes i n l e n g t h , v a r y i n g with d i f f e r e n c e s i n groups and t h e i r involvement and i n t e r e s t i n beach a c t i v i t y . O c c a s i o n a l language b a r r i e r s , or i n a p p r o p r i a t e timing (as with people s l e e p i n g or engaged i n games) prevented a systematic p r o g r e s s i o n from group t o group. I n t e r v i e w i n g was n e c e s s a r i l y i n t e r r u p t e d every two hours to make t r a f f i c o b s e r v a t i o n s and measurements. An apparent b i a s a g a i n s t i n c l u s i o n of v i s i t o r s engaged i n a c t i v e p u r s u i t s such as swimming, boating, or e x p l o r i n g , was reduced by the tendency of v i s i t o r s t o i n c l u d e a p e r i o d of r e l a x a t i o n i n t h e i r v i s i t . S paulding noted an i n t e r v a l of a c t i v i t y f o l l o w e d by r e l a x a t i o n during which time i n t e r v i e w i n g was more a p p r o p r i a t e . With l a r g e r groups, some members were found r e l a x i n g and a v a i l a b l e f o r i n t e r v i e w while other members were engaged i n a c t i v i t y . . T h e roaming technigue c o n t r i b u t e d t o a l e n g t h - o f - s t a y b i a s : the longer a person stayed the more l i k e l y he was t o be contacted (Lucas). Mail-Back Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . A q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r home-completion and m a i l - r e t u r n , with a p r e p a i d envelope i n c l u d e d , was given t o a l l i n t e r v i e w p a r t i c i p a n t s . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was c o n s i d e r e d necessary t o reduce the amount of i n t e r v i e w time, and to c o l l e c t i n f o r m a t i o n of more p e r s o n a l nature. Completion l i k e l y r e q u i r e d 10 minutes. Of the 1595 respondants r e c e i v i n g the mail-back form, 47.5% r e t u r n e d the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s completed. Research i n t o the q u a l i t y 23 of mail-back q u e s t i o n n a i r e s g i v e s i n s i g h t i n t o f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g the r a t e of r e t u r n (Young et a l ; Lucas and Oltman; COEEC; H e b e r l e i n and Baumgartner). U n l i k e most mail q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , the respondents i n the present study had already given time f o r the i n t e r v i e w , thus some commitment to complete the form was i n i t i a t e d (the p s y c h o l o g i c a l commitment suggested by Shew and Werner). The broad appeal and somewhat passive nature of beach a c t i v i t y may l i m i t the response r a t e whereas response r a t e s from s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t groups such as wilderness users are higher than from the general p u b l i c (Lucas and Oltman). Lack of motivation to complete the form could be caused by an absence of important i s s u e s . Personal o p i n i o n s about the s i t e were p r e v i o u s l y e l i c i t e d d u r i n g the i n t e r v i e w . The l e n g t h o f the g u e s t i o n n a i r e and i t s content had l i t t l e e f f e c t on the r a t e of r e t u r n i f s a l i e n c e was c o n t r o l l e d (Heberlein and Baumgartner). The authors a l s o found t h a t government r e s e a r c h r e c e i v e d a higher response than p r i v a t e l y i n i t i a t e d surveys (the present survey was i d e n t i f i e d as U n i v e r s i t y r e s e a r c h , sponsored by the E e g i o n a l and M u n i c i p a l agencies concerned). Two foll o w - u p l e t t e r s , i n c l u d i n g each time an a d d i t i o n a l copy o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , were mailed i n November and December of the same year t o improve the r a t e of r e t u r n . The m a i l i n g s r a i s e d the response from an i n i t i a l 24% r e t u r n with no follow-up to 39% a f t e r one l e t t e r and 47% a f t e r two. 24 B. R e c r e a t i o n S i t e T r a f f i c Survey. Using the procedure of James as a guide f o r e s t i m a t i n g the number of d a i l y v i s i t s to the beaches, automatic magnetic-loop t r a f f i c counters were i n s t a l l e d at b e a c h - s i t e entry p o i n t s . D a i l y incoming t r a f f i c was recorded at each counter i n s t a l l a t i o n . P e r i o d - l o n g continuous records were maintained a t one s i t e only (Centennial Beach) as records at the other two s i t e s were i n t e r r u p t e d by equipment m a l f u n c t i o n s . V a r i a t i o n s i n t r a f f i c and parking p a t t e r n s at the th r e e s i t e s , d e t a i l e d i n Appendix I I , r e g u i r e d d i f f e r e n t t e c h n i q u e s f o r the c a l i b r a t i o n o f the counter readings to estimate the d a i l y number of v i s i t o r s ( a l s o reported i n Appendix I I ) . During a ten-minute sample every two hours d u r i n g the survey day, s t a r t i n g at 9 a.m. and ending at 9 p.m., the number of persons i n each v e h i c l e e n t e r i n g the s i t e was observed. In the same p e r i o d , v e h i c l e counts were c o r r e c t e d by e l i m i n a t i n g v e h i c l e s a r r i v i n g and d e p a r t i n g w i t h i n the same sample p e r i o d ( t u r n -arounds). The c o r r e c t e d or "net" v e h i c l e count f o r the day, m u l t i p l i e d by the average number of persons per v e h i c l e gave the d a i l y number of v i s i t o r s at each s i t e . V i s i t o r s who walked or a r r i v e d by some other form of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n not c r o s s i n g the t r a f f i c counter were not i n c l u d e d i n d a i l y use es t i m a t e s , though t h e i r p r o p o r t i o n was determined during the o n - s i t e i n t e r v i e w . Summarizing the purpose of the f i e l d survey, the v i s i t o r survey provided the means with which to i d e n t i f y the v i s i t o r s and t h e i r r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y a t each s i t e and t o determine the 25 f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g use (Chapters IV and V) . E s t i m a t i o n s of t o t a l d a i l y use d e r i v e d from t r a f f i c counts were used f o r comparisons of the s i t e s (Chapter IV), as w e l l as f o r s i t e - u s e f o r e c a s t s (Chapter VI). 26 CHAPTEE IV. ANALYSIS OF THE SUBVEY DATA D e s c x i p t i o n s of the use and users of the c o a s t a l r e c r e a t i o n s i t e s at Boundary Bay are presented i n P a r t s A and B of t h i s Chapter. B e l a t i n g a c t i v i t y at the r e c r e a t i o n s i t e s with the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the v i s i t o r s i s undertaken i n P a r t C. D i f f e r e n c e s i n means were t e s t e d by a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e , the F-r a t i o value t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e a t the 5% l e v e l * A. Use of Boundary Bay Beaches. Number of D a i l y V i s i t s . The e s t i m a t i o n of d a i l y v i s i t s using data from the t r a f f i c survey excluded the number of v i s i t o r s who walked or used some other means of t r a v e l such as p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . Those a r r i v i n g by b i c y c l e (at any s i t e ) and those a r r i v i n g by bus at Crescent Beach were i n c l u d e d i n the t r a f f i c e s t i m a t i o n * (Table I I ) . From the v i s i t o r survey, i t was determined t h a t not l e s s than nine of ten v i s i t o r s a r r i v e d by p r i v a t e motor v e h i c l e . From the t r a f f i c survey, the t o t a l number o f v i s i t o r s at each s i t e was estimated by procedures o u t l i n e d i n the p r e v i o u s Chapter and f u r t h e r d e t a i l e d i n Appendix I I . The r e s u l t s are presented i n Table I I I . The e s t i m a t e s are not adjusted f o r the v i s i t o r s a r r i v i n g by unmeasured means. An upward adjustment i s i n d i c a t e d , from Table I I , of 5.0% a t C e n t e n n i a l Beach, 6.3% at Crescent Beach and 10.1% at White Bock Beach, based on average use. 27 Table I I . Form of T r a v e l t o the Beaches. TRAVEL MODE BEACHES |. ; 1 1— , - j — - t 4 ICentennialJ Crescent| White Rock I A l l | | n=564 | n=445 | n=5 84 |n=1593 | 1 % 1 % I % I % I I P r i v a t e v e h i c l e | (92.7) 1 (89.4) | (90.5) __j j I (90.5) | j Automobile, t r u c k | 88.8 | 84.5 | 85.8 | 86.5 | | R e c r e a t i o n v e h i c l e | 2.7 | 3.8 | 2.7 I 3.0 | | Motorcycle 1 1.2 i 1. 1 I 0.7 I 1«0 | | P u b l i c Bus I U1 | 0.9 | 2.6 I 1.6 | | B i c y c l e I 2.3 | 3.4 | 0.7 I 2.0 | | Foot I 2.5 | 4. 5 1 5.0 I 4.0 | jOther I 1-4 I 1.8 | 2. 5 I 1.9 | I T o t a l | 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 | Ta b l e I I I . D a i l y V i s i t a t i o n at Boundary Bay Beaches; | SURVEY DATE WEEKENDS/HOLIDAYS +. C e n t e n n i a l J V +• J u l y 24 J u l y 31 August 1 August 6 August 7 August 13 August 21 August 27 September 5 WEEKDAYS J u l y 25 J u l y 26 J u l y 27 | 520 August 2 | 1490 August 5 | 1930 August 10 I 940 August 12 August 15 | 990 August 18 August 22 August 25 August 26 L L + BEACH Crescent | White Rock | T o t a l 4760 4530 4 490 1980 660 230 520 f 8520 3440 10360 4290 1210 350 1410 6820 2940 3170 1170 300 12000 17300 14700 11500 3500 2300 + i 3700 3580 2350 4617 30350 29 550 17770 5370 2880 8081 28 Length of Stay E i g h t y - n i n e percent of a l l v i s i t o r s at Boundary Bay came f o r the day on l y . Camping was a v a i l a b l e only a t one p a r t o f White Rock Beach, accounting f o r 4% of the use there (Table I V ) . Table IV. Types of V i s i t s Made t o Boundary Bay Beaches^ r r-| TYPE OF VISIT | r r-I I I I |Day V i s i t I Part of T r i p |Overnight Stay iOther I J T o t a l i C e n t e n n i a l n=565 92.0 4.8 0.0 3.2 BEACH h +  Crescent n=444 90.3 5.4 1.6 2.7 White Rock n=582 85.9 7.4 4. 1 2. 6 r-100.0 100.0 100.0 + — I A |n= I - + — I 8 10 4 1 1 1591 % 1 9. 3 5. 9 1.9 2. 8 0.0 | E x c l u d i n g o v e r n i g h t v i s i t o r s , the average length of stay at Boundary Bay Beaches was 4.0 hours with no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e amongst the s i t e s , when the F - r a t i o from a n a l y s i s of va r i a n c e was t e s t e d . The l e n g t h of time v i s i t o r s stay at the s i t e can have an impact both on the p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n of the s i t e or on the type and q u a n t i t y of f a c i l i t i e s and s e r v i c e s r e q u i r e d . F a c t o r s r e l a t e d to the l e n g t h of stay w i l l be examined i n r e l a t i o n t o both the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of use and of the v i s i t o r s , i n P a r t C of t h i s Chapter. A histogram of l e n g t h o f stay r e v e a l s t h a t t h e r e were more v i s i t o r s a t the s i t e s i n the 3 to 4 hour c a t e g o r y than i n any other (Figure 2 ) . 29 g V) 40 > uJ 20 o CC 14! «H / / / / / / / / t cerviTeNNifli. n~s40 sH«mz ROCK n<-5~8£' J2E UHDERI 1-2. 3-4 5-6" 7-8 V\0 IH2 LE NGTH OF STAY (MOORS) F i g u r e 2. A n t i c i p a t e d Length of Stay. A c t i v i t i e s Pursued. The a c t i v i t i e s of the beach v i s i t o r s were examined i n three ways - f i r s t a l i s t i n g o f a l l a c t i v i t i e s pursued, by the percentage of v i s i t o r s p a r t i c i p a t i n g (Table V), the main a c t i v i t y pursued d u r i n g the day's v i s i t (Table V I ) , and the number of a c t i v i t i e s i n t e n d e d d u r i n g the v i s i t . 30 Table V.. A c t i v i t i e s Pursued a t Boundary Bay. Beaches. • T -I A c t i v i t y 1 Beach I Sunbathing and r e l a x i n g Swimming P i c n i c k i n g Non-structured p l a y : Walking, p l a y i n g : on sand bars on dry beach on back areas I n f o r m a l s p o r t s H i k i n g B i c y c l i n g j . C e n t e n n i a l (n=565) 55 »- + 82. 3 51. 2 24. 2 17. 5 11. 9 3. 4 3.5 0.0 0. 9 F a c i l i t y - o r i e n t e d a c t i v i t i e s ; S p o r t s i n g e n e r a l F o o t b a l l , s o c c e r B a s e b a l l V o l l e y b a l l Tennis Horseback r i d i n g M o t o r c y c l i n g Camping B a s k e t b a l l Beachcombing Nature study S h e l l f i s h i n g F i s h i n g : from shore from a boat B o a t i n g : Boat launched at s i t e Boat moored a t s i t e W a t e r s k i i n g S a i l i n g Canoeing, rowing S i g h t s e e i n g Other 1.8 2. 8 1. 9 0.9 3.9 0.0 0.5 0. 4 0. 2 5.7 0.9 5.7 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0. 0 1. 1 1.8 7. 1 Crescent (n=445) % 81.8 47. 9 9.4 11.2 8.8 2.0 1.6 0.2 0.7 White Hock (n=585) % 86. 3 52.3 13.8 18. 5 9. 6 1.4 5. 0 0. 2 0. 5 -1 i 1 any number of a c t i v i t i e s c o u l d be c i t e d . 1.1 | 1.0 1.8 | 2.6 1.5 | 1.9 0.2 | 0.7 0.2 | 0.2 0.2 | 0.0 0.0 | 0.0 0.2 | 3.1 0.0 | 0.3 3.8 | 7.7 0.4 | 1.2 2.7 | 3.6 0.2 | 0.5 2.0 | 0.7 0.4 | 0.2 2.2 | 0.2 2.0 | 0.7 1.0 | 0.7 1.6 | 0.7 1.3 | 3.1 7.6 | 10.6 31 The a c t i v i t i e s engaged i n most o f t e n during the summer season at the beaches were the popular pastimes of sunbathing and r e l a x i n g (84%), swimming (51%) and p i c n i c k i n g (16%). The a c t i v e p u r s u i t s of walking, p l a y i n g and e x p l o r i n g (16%) , beachcombing (6%) and s h e l l f i s h i n g (4%) r e g u i r e no f a c i l i t i e s and l i t t l e or no management e f f o r t , except f o r s p e c i f i c problems as beach e r o s i o n . The wide expanse of sand-bars a t low t i d e accommodates l a r g e numbers of people at a l l three s i t e s . . Between-site d i f f e r e n c e s i n type and number of r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t y i n s t a l l a t i o n s were r e v e a l e d i n the types of a c t i v i t i e s pursued. Where p i c n i c areas were a v a i l a b l e , with t a b l e s , d r i n k i n g water, and grass f o r ground cover, the p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n that a c t i v i t y was h i g h e r (24% at C e n t e n n i a l Beach and 14% at White Bock Beach) than where l i t t l e or no p r o v i s i o n was made (9% at Crescent Beach). Other f a c i l i t y dependent a c t i v i t i e s are those r e q u i r i n g boat l a u n c h i n g ( a v a i l a b l e at C e n t e n n i a l and Crescent Beaches), cr moorage or dry storage (at Crescent Beach o n l y ) . Overnight camping was recorded at a l l t h r e e s i t e s though organized o v e r n i g h t camping was a v a i l a b l e only at White Rock Beach. To determine the r e l a t i v e importance of a c t i v i t i e s or groups of a c t i v i t i e s , v i s i t o r s s p e c i f i e d t h e i r main a c t i v i t y during the v i s i t (Table V I ) . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the main a c t i v i t y or purpose may have been d i f f i c u l t f o r the v i s i t o r i f a l l a c t i v i t i e s pursued were of more or l e s s e g u a l importance, or i f the beach v i s i t was only one of s e v e r a l purposes f o r the day's outing (CORRC). Even i f general c a t e g o r i e s of outdoor r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s are d e f i n e d , the problem of i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s 32 e x i s t s (Gum).. Sunbathing was the most g e n e r a l category, which i n c l u d e d r e l a x i n g , r e a d i n g and other passive beach a c t i v i t i e s . . Table VI. Main A c t i v i t y Pursued a t Boundary Bay Beaches. ACTIVITY BEACH I I |Sunbathing | Walking, P l a y i n g |Sports |Swimming |Beachcombing |Motorboating I S a i l i n g , Rowing | P i c n i c k i n g jOther I | T o t a l C e n t e n n i a l n=564 % 62.4 4.1 2.0 9.2 5. 1 0. 2 0.4 11.5 5. 1 Crescent n=442 % 65.8 5.7 0.5 11.1 1.4 4.3 2.6 3.2 5.4 White Rock n=581 % 67.3. 4.3 0.5 11.0 1.8 0.0 0.9 4.6 9.6 A l l n=1587 % •+ H 6 5. 2 4.6 1.0 10.4 2. 8 1.3 1. 2 6. 7 6. 9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 | The number of a c t i v i t i e s pursued a t the s i t e d u r i n g one v i s i t i s a measure of the i n t e n s i t y of s i t e use as w e l l as an i n d i c a t i o n of the range of o p p o r t u n i t i e s a v a i l a b l e at the c o a s t a l s i t e . The average number of a c t i v i t i e s was found to be 2.2 per v i s i t o r group. By a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e , a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e at the 1% l e v e l was found between s i t e s , with more a c t i v i t i e s pursued at both C e n t e n n i a l and White Rock Beaches (2.3) than at Crescent Beach (2.0). 33 Frequency of V i s i t s . The beach most frequented was, f o r most, the same beach at which the v i s i t o r was i n t e r v i e w e d . F o r t y - f i v e percent o f C e n t e n n i a l Beach v i s i t o r s , 65% of Crescent Beach v i s i t o r s and 61% of White Bock Beach v i s i t o r s used the same beach more than any o t h e r beach ( F a i r h u r s t ) . The p r e f e r e n c e f o r one p a r t i c u l a r beach was higher f o r both Crescent Beach and White Bock Beach, than a t C e n t e n n i a l Beach. V i s i t o r i n t e r e s t i n c o a s t a l r e c r e a t i o n was i n d i c a t e d by the number of repeat v i s i t s d u r i n g the past year - an average of 24 v i s i t s per year t o Boundary Bay Beaches. The s i t e s r e c e i v i n g the h i g h e s t average repeat v i s i t a t i o n were Crescent Beach (30) and White Bock Beach (26), while C e n t e n n i a l Beach r e c e i v e d 18 v i s i t s , on average (Table V I I ) . The d i f f e r e n c e s were s i g n i f i c a n t at the 1% l e v e l . . Table VII. Frequency of fiepeat V i s i t s t o Boundary Bay Beaches. |VISIT FREQUENCY | f h BEACH C e n t e n n i a l | Crescent | White Rock | A l l | n=427 | n=395 | n=486 |n=130 % 1 % I % I % 0 r" 15.5 | - j — 13.9 | 18. 9 I | 16.3 1 | 8.0 | 4.8 | 6.6 | 6.3 2 - 5 | 27.9 | 15.2 | 19.8 | 21.0 6 - 1 0 | 17.8 | 12.9 | 13.2 | 14. 6 1 1 - 2 0 | 10.8 | 20.3 | 18. 1 I 16.4 21 - 30 | 4.8 | 8.9 | 5. 1 I 6.2 31 - 40 | 3.7 | 6.5 | 3.4 | 4. 5 41 - 50 2.6 | 3.8 | 2.9 I 3. 1 51 + | 8.9 | 13 . 7 I 12.6 1 11 . 7 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Average/year | 19.7 30. 1 25.7 25. 1 34 B. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the V i s i t o r s . V i s i t o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s examined were t h e i r o r i g i n s , d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d , composition of the v i s i t o r group a t the beach, v i s i t o r ' s heme and p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and number of years v i s i t i n g the s i t e . In Part C of t h i s Chapter, the r e l a t i o n s h i p s , of these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o s i t e use are presented* In t h i s s e c t i o n the v i s i t o r d i f f e r e n c e s at the three s i t e s are examined. O r i g i n s of V i s i t o r s and Distance T r a v e l l e d . Although 8% of the beach v i s i t o r s r e s i d e d o u t s i d e the Lower Mainland area, only 1.5% t r a v e l l e d from o u t s i d e t h i s area f o r the day's v i s i t t o the beach. The accompanying maps i n d i c a t e the p r o p o r t i o n of v i s i t o r s at each beach by the road d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d ( F i g u r e s 3,4,5). The average d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d to each s i t e , not too d i s s i m i l a r but s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a t the 5% l e v e l when t e s t e d by a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e , was 12.9 miles t o White Bock Beach, 13.3 miles to Crescent Beach, and 14.5 miles to C e n t e n n i a l Beach. More than 95% of the v i s i t o r s t r a v e l l e d l e s s ' t han 35 miles to reach the beaches. 35 2k. 32 55 71 87 96 96 Cumulative % of v i s i t o r s (distance zones i n road miles) F i g u r e 3. D i s t a n c e T r a v e l l e d bjr C e n t e n n i a l Beach V i s i t o r s . (distance zones i n road miles F i g u r e 4. D i s t a n c e T r a v e l l e d by_ Crescent Beach V i s i t o r s . 36 (distance zones i n road miles) F i g u r e 5. D i s t a n c e T r a v e l l e d by. White Bock Beach V i s i t o r s . Ninety-two percent of v i s i t o r s at Boundary Bay Beaches r e s i d e d i n the Lower Mainland. Areas with known boundaries are u s e f u l f o r p a t t e r n i n g the o r i g i n s of beach v i s i t o r s . I f p o p u l a t i o n p r o j e c t i o n s are a v a i l a b l e f o r the o r i g i n a r e a s , the number o f v i s i t s from these areas to the s i t e can be f o r e c a s t (Chapter V I ) . Beach V i s i t o r s ' S o c i a l Group Composition. Four c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of v i s i t o r group composition were examined: type of group, s i z e , age s t r u c t u r e , and p r o p o r t i o n by sex. Group d i v e r s i t y and other v i s i t o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are examined i n r e l a t i o n t o s i t e a c t i v i t y i n P a r t C of t h i s Chapter. Family groups predominated at a l l t h r e e s i t e s , c o n s t i t u t i n g 37 n e a r l y h a l f of a l l v i s i t o r groups (Table V I I I ) . F a m i l i e s and mixed f a m i l y and f r i e n d s h i p groups together accounted f o r 62% of v i s i t o r groups o v e r a l l . At Crescent Beach, the number of f a m i l i e s present (37%) was n e a r l y e q u a l l e d by the number o f f r i e n d s h i p groups (31%). The same beach a l s o a t t r a c t e d the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n of people on t h e i r own (14%). The l a c k of f a m i l y a c t i v i t y areas at Crescent Beach, such as a c h i l d r e n ' s playground, or p i c n i c area, suggests f a m i l y requirements were b e t t e r s a t i s f i e d at C e n t e n n i a l and White Rock Beaches. Table V I I I . S o c i a l Grouping at Boundary Bay. Beaches* | TYPE r I 1 I I |Famil |Mixed | F r i e n I Club |Peopl I | To OF SOCIAL GEOOP ]" BEACH l e s F a m i l i e s , F r i e n d s ds or O r g a n i z a t i o n e on t h e i r Own t a l C r e s centlWhite B n=445 | n=583 C e n t e n n i a l n=56 5 % I % | j j. 48.5 | 37.3 | 21.2 | 17.7 | 21.4 | 31.0 | 1.6 | 0.7 7.3 | 13.3 50. 15. 22: 2. 9. ock | A |n= I 8 I 4 | 100.0 100.0 I I J 100.( I 1 I 2 I I .j 10 -I 11 1533 % ^ 6. 2 8. 1 4.4 1.6 9.7 H 0.0 | Group s i z e was recorded both as the s i z e upon a r r i v a l a t the s i t e and while on the s i t e . The o n - a r r i v a l group s i z e i n d i c a t e s the r e l a t i o n of v e h i c l e counts t o the a c t u a l numbers v i s i t i n g the s i t e , while the o n - s i t e group s i z e i n d i c a t e s more the a c t u a l form of the group. The average o n - a r r i v a l group s i z e was 3.4 persons with s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s a t the 1% l e v e l found a c r o s s the t h r e e s i t e s of 3.6 persons at C e n t e n n i a l Beach, 3.1 persons a t Crescent Beach and 3.4 persons at White Bock 38 Beach (Figure 6) • Ov e r a l l , 15% of the groups met with others at the s i t e increasing the average on-site group size to 4.7 persons, with 19% of the v i s i t o r s at Centennial Beach, 12% at Crescent Beach, and 17% at White Bock Beach meeting others..The average group size on-site increased to 5.1, 3.8, and 5.1 persons at the same beaches, these differences also being s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t at the 1% l e v e l (Figure 7). A group size of 2 was most common i n both measures. 8 o O > < v-2 UJ CL 3 0 -2.0-15 IO i l F l / / / / / / / / / / kd / / / / / BEACH w-Hrre ROCK " -563 / / f7] i / / A a a 4 s 6 NUMBER IVA GROUP 3 Figure 6 . On-Arrival Group Size at Bay Beaches. 39 o e V-o 1 / z / / / / 1 z / / / / / / / / v\ C£>Jr£HNIfiU CR£$C£NT rrn [7-1 /I fol f /"ten tr?-gn 9 F i g u r e 7. 0n7Site Group S i z e at Boundary Bay Beaches. The range of ages of the v i s i t o r s , as with the type of group, may i n f l u e n c e a c t i v i t y c h o i c e and thus use o f the r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s . C e r t a i n f a c i l i t i e s , of course, a t t r a c t s p e c i f i c age groups (e.g. c h i l d r e n ' s playgrounds). The average age of a l l v i s i t o r s a t Boundary Bay (with a sample s i z e o f 6314 persons w i t h i n the 1595 respondent groups) was found t o be 26 years of age. The v i s i t o r s a t C r e s c e n t Beach were youngest, on average, a t 22.9 y e a r s i n c r e a s i n g i n age t o 24.4 years at C e n t e n n i a l Beach and 25.4 y e a r s a t White Bock Beach. The average age of a l l i n d i v i d u a l s i n the sample v a r i e d somewhat from mean ages w i t h i n the v i s i t i n g groups, computed t o be 25.0 years a t Crescent Beach, 25.5 years a t C e n t e n n i a l Beach, and 27.4 years at White Bock Beach. The v i s i t o r s at C e n t e n n i a l and C r e s c e n t 40 Beaches were younger (25.5 and 25.0 years r e s p e c t i v e l y ) than were v i s i t o r s at White Bock Beach (27.4 y e a r s ) , a d i f f e r e n c e s i g n i f i c a n t at the 1% l e v e l . The d i s t r i b u t i o n by age c l a s s i s more r e v e a l i n g than mean age f o r s i t e comparisons (Table IX).. Table IX. Ages of V i s i t o r s a t Boundary Bay Beaches. r T T | AGE CLASS | BEACH I | | C e n t e n n i a l | Crescent | White Bock | A l l j | | n=2447 | n=1556 | n=2311 |n=6314| | | % | % | % I % I | Under 5 | 9.4 | 8.2 | 10. 1 j 9. 4 | | 5 - 1 4 J 22.6 | 20.4 | 20.4 | 21.2 | | 15 - 24 j 26.8 | 35.9 | 25.9 | 28.7 | | 2 5 - 3 4 | 16.8 | 17.8 | 19.1 | 17.9 | | 35 - 44 I 12.6 | 8.6 | 9.2 | 10.4 I | 45 - 54 | 5.9 | 4.0 | 7.6 | 6. 1 | | 55 - 64 | 4.5 | 3.6 | 4. 3 | 4. 2 | | 65+ | 1.4 | 1.5 | 3.4 | 2.1 | J f- 1 «. L 1 | T o t a l | 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 | | Average age | 24.4 22.9 25.4 26. 1 | The g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of young v i s i t o r s at Crescent Beach i s an i n d i c a t i o n of the p o p u l a r i t y of t h a t beach with people i n t h e i r teenage to mid-twenties. The d i f f e r e n c e s i n age of v i s i t o r s a t t h i s s i t e compared with the age of v i s i t o r s at the other two s i t e s c o u l d be m i s i n t e r p r e t e d i n the management of the s i t e s . Management f o r the present "heavy user group" with the b e l i e f t h a t other age-groups or group types p r e f e r a l t e r n a t i v e l o c a t i o n s may be unwise without examining the s i t e d i f f e r e n c e s . The l a c k of s e v e r a l " f a m i l y " f a c i l i t i e s a t Crescent Beach has a l r e a d y been d i s c u s s e d . At White Rock Beach, there i s d i f f i c u l t 41 access a c r o s s the r a i l r o a d t r a c k s and i t s embankment. At C e n t e n n i a l Beach, a l a c k of s u r f a c e d p e d e s t r i a n walkways s i m i l a r l y may l i m i t the a c c e s s i b i l i t y f o r these groups. The sex d i s t r i b u t i o n of v i s i t o r s can i n d i c a t e to the manager the type and number of s e r v i c e s , s p e c i f i c to gender, t h a t are r e q u i r e d , such as washrooms and change rooms. C e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s may c a t e r more to a s p e c i f i c sex. Females form a s l i g h t l y l a r g e r user category at Boundary Bay Beaches (51.3%) though d i f f e r e n c e s amongst s i t e s were not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . The number of years v i s i t o r s have been coming to the s i t e i s r e l a t e d both to t h e i r age and the number of years t h a t they have been l i v i n g near the beach. S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s at the 1% l e v e l were found amongst the s i t e s , with the p e r i o d longest f o r v i s i t o r s a t White Bock Beach (11.6 years) and Crescent Beach (9.0 y e a r s ) , compared with those at C e n t e n n i a l Beach (5.4 y e a r s ) , f o r an o v e r a l l average of 8.7 years ( F a i r h u r s t ) . V i s i t o r s ' Personal and Home C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . . The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the respondent and h i s f a m i l y were obtained mostly i n the home completion q u e s t i o n n a i r e given t o teach v i s i t o r s f o l l o w i n g the i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w . The summary o f f i n d i n g s averaged f o r Boundary Bay o v e r a l l and the comparisons by s i t e are presented i n T a b l e X.. 42 Table X. V i s i t o r s ' P e r s o n a l and Home C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . . VISITOH CHAEACTERISTIC | (means of BEACH each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ) |Centennial|Crescent|White Bock| f. A l l Family income ($,000 • s) (n=562, F=2.0 n.s.) | 18.8 | 17. 4 | 17.3 | 17.8 Family s i z e a t home (n=737, F=4.7**) I 3.8 | 3. 6 | 3.4 | 3.6 Number of c h i l d r e n (home) (n=7 19, F=5. 9**) I 1.8 | 1-71 1.4 | 1.7 Age of youngest c h i l d (n=525, F=2.4 n.s.) I 9.7 | 10. 2 | 8.3 | 9.5 Years r e s i d i n g - same home (n=740, F=2.6 n. s.) I 5.8 | 7. 3 | 6.7 | 6.6 Years r e s i d i n g i n Lower Mainland (n=7 11, F=7.4**) I 15.6 | 1 8. 11 20.2 | 17.9 Years v i s i t i n g the beach (n=1 595, F=56. 5**) | 5.4 | _ X _ . 9.0| 11.6 | L 8.7 * - p<.05 ** - p<.01 n.s. - not s i g n i f i c a n t Though d i f f e r e n c e s were s m a l l , personal an d hom c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s found to s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e the s i t e s were f a m i l y s i z e a t home, number of c h i l d r e n at home, years r e s i d i n g i n the Lower Mainland, and years v i s i t i n g the s i t e . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s found not to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t amongst the s i t e s were f a m i l y income, age of the youngest c h i l d a t home, and the number of years l i v i n g i n the same r e s i d e n c e . The l i t e r a t u r e emphasizes the i n f l u e n c e of socio-economic ('personal') c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y c h o i c e . H3 The i n f l u e n c e of these f a c t o r s on i n t e n s i t y of use i s presented i n P a r t C of t h i s Chapter, together with the e f f e c t s of t r a v e l d i s t a n c e and type of group. In summary, s i g n i f i c a n t , i f not l a r g e , d i f f e r e n c e s were found both i n use o c c u r r i n g at the s i t e s and i n the v i s i t o r s at the s i t e s . Though l e n g t h of stay was s i m i l a r a t the three s i t e s , the number of a c t i v i t i e s pursued and the frequency of repeat v i s i t s v a r i e d s i g n f i c a n t l y . Both C e n t e n n i a l and White Rock Beaches were more f a m i l y o r i e n t e d , a t t r a c t i n g o l d e r v i s i t o r s i n l a r g e r group s i z e s , pursuing more a c t i v i t i e s than at Crescent Beach. Crescent and White Rock Beaches were s i m i l a r i n a t t r a c t i n g more repeat v i s i t s than at C e n t e n n i a l Beach, with v i s i t o r s having l i v e d i n the same l o c a t i o n l o n g e r . V i s i t o r s a t White Rock Beach had s m a l l e r f a m i l i e s , fewer c h i l d r e n , with the youngest c h i l d o l d e r than at the other two beaches. C. F a c t o r s A f f e c t i n g the I n t e n s i t y of Use.. I f the i n t e n s i t y of use i s c o n s i d e r e d a f u n c t i o n of both the l e n g t h of stay and the type and number of a c t i v i t i e s pursued, then the impact of a r e c r e a t i o n v i s i t on the s i t e w i l l i n c r e a s e with use i n t e n s i t y . The type and number of a c t i v i t i e s may change with the composition of the group; The type of a c t i v i t y may a f f e c t the l e n g t h of v i s i t . Which f a c t o r s are causes and which are r e s u l t s i s not always c l e a r - a l o n g e r stay can be the r e s u l t of the number of a c t i v i t i e s pursued or i t can 44 be the cause. F a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g the i n t e n s i t y of use were examined s e p a r a t e l y f o r l e n g t h of stay a t the s i t e , and number of a c t i v i t i e s pursued while at the s i t e . The f a c t o r s to be t e s t e d f o r t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e are: -main a c t i v i t y -number of a c t i v i t i e s (as a f f e c t i n g length of stay) - d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d and r e s i d e n c e l o c a t i o n -group f a c t o r s of type, s i z e , age, and sex -day type (weekend vs. weekday v i s i t s ) -freguency of v i s i t s over the p r e v i o u s 12 months. The data f o r a l l but the p e r s o n a l and home c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the v i s i t o r s were c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g the o n - s i t e i n t e r v i e w . _ With a response r a t e near 50% from the m a i l - r e t u r n q u e s t i o n n a i r e , the data i s from a s m a l l e r sample s i z e , ranging from 525 to 740 depending on the q u e s t i o n . . The measures of v i s i t i n t e n s i t y (length of stay and number of a c t i v i t i e s ) , were c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o high and low d i v i s i o n s of use i n t e n s i t y with the means as d i v i d i n g p o i n t s . A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was employed with the F - r a t i o t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e , the c r i t e r i a f o r r e j e c t i o n being the 95% and 99% l i m i t s of confidence (Nie et a l . ) . To t e s t the e f f e c t s of the non-metric v a r i a b l e s of type of a c t i v i t y , type of group, and day-type on i n t e n s i t y , the l e n g t h of stay and the number of a c t i v i t i e s were entered as ordered data, with the F - r a t i o s t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e . 45 F a c t o r s I n f l u e n c i n g Length of Stay a t the s i t e . . The l e n g t h of stay - the amount of time the v i s i t o r group intended t o stay at the beach - was i n i t i a l l y gathered i n two-hour c a t e g o r i e s , with the f i r s t c ategory s p l i t i n t o hour segments. The mean stay of 4.0 hours was used as the d i v i s i o n p o i n t f o r the two c a t e g o r i e s to t e s t the v a r i a b l e s i n Table XI while a c t u a l l e n g t h of stay was used when i n v e s t i g a t i n g the e f f e c t of type of a c t i v i t y , type of group, and day type. Ranking from most to l e a s t important by F-value, l e n g t h of stay i n c r e a s e d as gr e a t e r d i s t a n c e was t r a v e l l e d , as more a c t i v i t i e s were pursued, and with l a r g e r o n - s i t e group s i z e , and decreased with i n c r e a s i n g age of respondants. Older respondants v i s i t e d the beach f o r s h o r t e r s t a y s . The F - r a t i o from a n a l y s i s o f va r i a n c e of length of stay f o r type o f a c t i v i t y pursued r e v e a l e d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s at the 1% l e v e l with longer s t a y s a n t i c i p a t e d by v i s i t o r s engaging i n motor boating (5 .7 h o u r s ) , s a i l i n g (4 . 7 h o u r s ) , and p i c n i c k i n g (5.0 h o u r s ) . These a c t i v i t i e s suggest a l o n g e r l e n g t h of stay o c c u r r e d when equipment or f a c i l i t i e s were r e q u i r e d or when some planni n g or p r e p a r a t i o n was necessary. Shorter s t a y s were a n t i c i p a t e d by those engaging i n a c t i v i t i e s r e q u i r i n g no f a c i l i t i e s or s p e c i a l i z e d equipment as with walking and p l a y i n g (2.4 hours) and beachcombing (3.4 h o u r s ) , (Table X I I ) . . 46 Table XI. F a c t o r s B e l a t e d to Length of Stay a t Boundary Bay. | VARIABLE f  + A l l Number of a c t i v i t i e s n = Distance t r a v e l l e d n= Group s i z e on a r r i v a l n= Group s i z e on s i t e n= Group age (average) n= Percent males i n group n= Freguency of v i s i t s n= Bespondant's age n= Family s i z e (home) n= Number of c h i l d r e n (home) n= Youngest c h i l d ' s age (home) n= Family income ($,000's) n= Years at same r e s i d e n c e n= Years i n Lower Mainland n= Years v i s i t i n g t he s i t e n= ** s i g n i f i c a n t a t 1% l e v e l * s i g n i f i c a n t a t 5% l e v e l HOOBS OF 4 or l e s s STAY + 5 or more + ^ i 1 I F | + H 2.2 | 2.0 | 2.4 |1531 | 976 | 555 | 14.0 | 12.8 | 16. 1 | 1499 | 957 | 542 | 3.4 | 3.4 | 3.3 | 1531 | 976 | 555 | 4.6 | 4.3 | 5.2 | 1531 | 976 | 555 | 25.6 | 25.7 I 25.5 | 1531 | 976 | 555 | 48.2 | 48.4 | 47.9 | 1531 | 976 | 555 | 23.6 | 24.0 | 23.0 | 1352 | 853 | 499 | 32. 1 | 32.7 | 31.1 | 1531 | 976 | 555 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 708 | 470 | 238 | 1.7 | 1.7 j 1-7 | 692 | 460 | 232 | 9.4 | 9.1 | 10. 1 | 516 | 341 | 175 | 18.0 J 18.2 | 17.5 | 541 | 359 | 182 | 6.2 | 6.2 | 6.4 | 713 | 473 | 240 | 17.6 | 17.1 | 18.6 | 686 | 452 | 234 | 8.7 | 8.5 | 9.0 | 1531 | 976 | 555 | 1 1 4-47 Table XII. Length of Stay, f o r Main A c t i v i t y Pursued. | A c t i v i t y 1 | Number | | i n sample | Stay (hours) |Sunbathing, r e l a x i n g |Walking, p l a y i n g IGroup s p o r t s | Swimniing |Beachcombing |Motorboating | S a i l i n g , rowing I P i c n i c k i n g lOther 1 l_ l_ | 1009 | i 69 | I 16 | I 161 | | 41 | I 17 | I 19 | I 105 | I 87 | 4.2 2.4 4.5 4 . 6 3.4 5.6 4.7 5.0 2.8 ] 1 |A11 a c t i v i t i e s | 1524 4.0 F (8, 1 524 df) =12.8 (p<.01) The length of stay was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , at the 1% l e v e l , amongst group types a t the s i t e s . The l o n g e s t l e n g t h o f stay was determined f o r c l u b s (5.0 hours), decreasing t o 4.4 hours f o r both f r i e n d s h i p groups and mixed f a m i l y and f r i e n d s h i p groups, s h o r t e r f o r people on t h e i r own (4.0 hours) and s h o r t e s t f o r f a m i l i e s (3.7 h o u r s ) . The type of day on which v i s i t o r s came to the beach r e v e a l s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e , a t the 1% l e v e l , i n the l e n g t h of s t a y at the s i t e s . Weekend v i s i t s were longer (4.6 hours) than weekday v i s i t s (3.9 h o u r s ) . Though d i f f e r e n c e s were not l a r g e , l e n g t h of s t a y was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by type of group, type of a c t i v i t y , and day-type* Length of stay i n c r e a s e d , i n order of d e c r e a s i n g F-value, with g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d , l a r g e r numbers o f a c t i v i t i e s , l a r g e r group s i z e on the s i t e , and f o r younger respondents. 48 F a c t o r s I n f l u e n c i n g Number of A c t i v i t i e s Pursued. As the second measure of i n t e n s i t y of use, number of a c t i v i t i e s was grouped i n t o 2 c l a s s e s f o r a n a l y s i s purposes: a "low" category o f 1 or 2 a c t i v i t i e s , a high category o f 3 or more a c t i v i t i e s . With a break p o i n t of 2, being c l o s e s t to the mean of 2.2 a c t i v i t i e s , t h i s dichotomy was used t o t e s t the v a r i a b l e s i n Table X I I I . While the a c t u a l number of a c t i v i t i e s pursued was used to t e s t the e f f e c t s of ty p e . o f a c t i v i t y , type of group, and day type. I n order of F - r a t i o v a l u e , from l a r g e s t to s m a l l e s t , more a c t i v i t i e s were pursued by people who were i n l a r g e r group s i z e s (both on a r r i v a l and on the s i t e ) , who intended to stay l o n g e r , whose group age was lower, had younger c h i l d r e n at home, had more c h i l d r e n at home, l a r g e r f a m i l y s i z e , and who had t r a v e l l e d f u r t h e r . A c t u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n number of a c t i v i t i e s were small i n any of the v a r i a b l e s examined. The a c t i v i t i e s pursued were fewer when the main a c t i v i t y was motorboating (1.5), o r sunbathing or s p o r t s (2.1), and g r e a t e r f o r walking and p l a y i n g (2.3), swimming (2.4), beachcombing (2.5), s a i l i n g and rowing (2.8), and p i c n i c k i n g (2.9). P i c n i c k e r s engaged i n the most a c t i v i t i e s . D i f f e r e n c e s were s i g n i f i c a n t at the 5% l e v e l . . C l u b s , with the l a r g e s t average group s i z e and lo n g e s t l e n g t h of s t a y , engaged i n the most a c t i v i t i e s (3.5).. Mixed fa m i l y and f r i e n d s h i p groups reported an average o f 2.6 a c t i v i t i e s , f o l l o w e d by f a m i l i e s (2.0), f r i e n d s (2.0), and i n d i v i d u a l s (1.7), with d i f f e r e n c e s s i g n i f i c a n t a t the 1% l e v e l . 49 Table X I I I ; F a c t o r s B e l a t e d to Number of A c t i v i t i e s Pursued. V ABIABLE j + NUMBEE OF ACTIVITIES (means of each v a r i a b l e ) | A l l | 1 or 2 | 3+ I Distance t r a v e l l e d | J 13.6 .„ | _„ ,_ | | 13.3 | I 14.3| 4.1* n = | 1562 | 1092 | 470| Group s i z e on a r r i v a l | 3.4 I 3.0 | 4.2| 103.5** n = I 1595 | 1111 | 4 84 | Group s i z e on s i t e | 4.7 | 3.8 | 6.7 | 105.2** n = | 1595 | 1111 | 484| Group age (average) | 26.0 I 27.0 | 23.9| 20.3** n = { 1595 1 1111 I 484 | Percent males i n group | 48.7 I 49.0 | 48.0 | 0. 3 n = | 1595 | 1111 | 484| Frequency of v i s i t s I 24.2 i 24.4 | 23.6| 0. 1 n = | 1395 | 987 | 408| Respondant's age | 32.5 | 32.1 | 33.4 | 3.6 n= | 1595 | 1111 | 484| Family s i z e at home | 3.6 I 3.5 | 3.8 | 5. 3* n = | 737 I 502 | 235| Number cf c h i l d r e n at home I 1.7 I 1.6 | 1.8 | 5.9* n = | 719 | 487 | 232| Youngest c h i l d ' s age (home) | 9.5 I 10.1 | 8.4] 9.8** n= | 525 I 342 | 183| Family income ($,000's) | 17.8 I 17.8 | 18.0| 0. 1 n = | 562 I 375 | 187| Years at same r e s i d e n c e | 6.6 I 6.6 | 6.51 0. 1 n= | 740 I 503 | 237| Years i n Lower Mainland | 17.9 I 17.9 | 17.9| 0.0 n= | 711 | 483 j 228| Years v i s i t i n g the s i t e | 8.7 I 8.9 | 3.31 1.3 n= | 1595 | 1111 j 4 84| Length of stay | 4.0 | 3.8 | 4.6| 37.3** n = | 1531 | 1078 | 453) ** s i g n i f i c a n t at 1% l e v e l * s i g n i f i c a n t a t 5% l e v e l 50 No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t e d i n the number o f a c t i v i t i e s engaged i n on weekend days compared with weekdays, d e s p i t e l a r g e r average group s i z e s and lon g e r l e n g t h s of stay on weekends. Summary of F a c t o r s Belated to the I n t e n s i t y of Use. V i s i t i n t e n s i t y : (with i t s two measures of l e n g t h of s t a y and number of a c t i v i t i e s i n c r e a s i n g with each other) was g r e a t e r when v i s i t o r s t r a v e l l e d f u r t h e r , and when they v i s i t e d i n l a r g e r groups at the s i t e . I n t e n s i t y a l s o v a r i e d with the type of a c t i v i t y and the type of g r o u p . . A d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r s summarized p r e v i o u s l y , were important t o one measure but not the o t h e r . D. Summary The v i s i t o r survey permitted a d e s c r i p t i o n of the v i s i t o r s , and t h e i r use of the Boundary Bay Beaches. The t r a f f i c survey provided data used f o r e s t i m a t i o n s of d a i l y s i t e use l e v e l s which are v a l u a b l e f o r comparing and f o r e c a s t i n g f u t u r e use of the s i t e s . F a c t o r s were a l s o determined t h a t were s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o i n t e n s i t y of beach use. Having i d e n t i f i e d f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g s i t e use, the importance of these f a c t o r s as " e x p l a i n e r s " of c o a s t a l r e c r e a t i o n use w i l l be determined (Chapter V) . 5 1 CHAPTER V. FACTORS EXPLAINING OSE. The p r e v i o u s Chapter d e s c r i b e d the v i s i t o r s and t h e i r behaviour at the c o a s t a l r e c r e a t i o n s i t e s . S i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s were found between the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the v i s i t o r s and t h e i r use of the beaches. Not yet examined i s the amount of " e x p l a n a t i o n " , s t a t i s t i c a l l y , these kinds of v a r i a b l e s give t o the v a r i a t i o n s . S t u d i e s have given strong support to socio-economic v a r i a b l e s as e x p l a n a t i o n s of v a r i a t i o n s i n r a t e s o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n given a c t i v i t i e s (e.g* OERRC). S i t e - s p e c i f i c s t u d i e s have most o f t e n i n c l u d e d p o p u l a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , t r a v e l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and s i t e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s as e x p l a n a t i o n s of both amount and frequency of v i s i t s (e.g. van L i e r ; Cheung). I f s i t e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s i s c o n s i d e r e d constant, then r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y w i l l vary with p o p u l a t i o n or v i s i t o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d , h e r e i n together c a l l e d ' p e r s o n a l ' v a r i a b l e s . L i t e r a t u r e proposing and i n v e s t i g a t i n g f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e s i n outdoor r e c r e a t i o n have suggested the importance of adding measures of the group of p a r t i c i p a t i o n (e.g. Cheek et a l ; F i e l d ) , h e r e i n c a l l e d ' s o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s . Though p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t h e r than consumption has been the f o c u s of past s t u d i e s , s i m i l a r f a c t o r s c o u l d be expected t o i n f l u e n c e r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y measured at the s i t e . ' P e r s o n a l ' and ' s o c i a l group' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the v i s i t o r s , determined i n the user survey, were thus t e s t e d f o r t h e i r a b i l i t y t o e x p l a i n the v a r i a n c e i n s i t e a c t i v i t y . 52 The ' s t a t i s t i c a l * e x p l a n a t i o n of variance i n s i t e a c t i v i t y was f i r s t expected t o be a t t r i b u t a b l e t o 'personal* and ' s o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s s e p a r a t e l y . Adding ' s o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s t o •per s o n a l ' v a r i a b l e s , the combined e x p l a n a t i o n of v a r i a n c e i n use was expected t o improve s i g n i f i c a n t l y . The hypotheses were: 1. 'Pe r s o n a l ' v a r i a b l e s w i l l e x p l a i n s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a n c e i n use of the r e c r e a t i o n s i t e s . 2.. ' S o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s w i l l e x p l a i n s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a n c e i n use of the s i t e s . 3..A s i g n i f i c a n t improvement w i l l be obtained when ' s o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s are added t o 'personal' v a r i a b l e s i n the e x p l a n a t i o n of v a r i a n c e i n use of the s i t e s . The measures of use i n the a n a l y s i s were t h r e e : l e n g t h o f st a y , being the number of hours v i s i t o r s intended t o spend a t the beach f o r the day's v i s i t ; number of a c t i v i t i e s , b e i n g the number of a c t i v i t i e s v i s i t o r s pursued o r intended to pursue during the day's v i s i t ; and frequency of v i s i t s , being the number of repeat v i s i t s made to the s i t e by the v i s i t o r s i n the past year. The ' p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s ' were: the l o c a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e of d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d t o reach the s i t e ( f o r the day's v i s i t ) ; respondent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of age, sex, and f a m i l y income; f a m i l y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f s i z e of f a m i l y at home, number of c h i l d r e n at home, and age of the youngest c h i l d at home; r e s i d e n t i a l s t a b i l i t y i n d i c a t o r s of years l i v i n g i n same r e s i d e n c e , years l i v i n g i n the Lower Mainland, and years coming to the s i t e . 53 The ' s o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s were: o n - a r r i v a l group size.; o n - s i t e group s i z e ; percentage of males i n the group; average age i n the group. In the f i r s t set of r e g r e s s i o n s , 'personal v a r i a b l e s ' were entered f o r each of the use measures. ' S o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s were entered s e p a r a t e l y from the 'personal v a r i a b l e s ' i n the second s e t of r e g r e s s i o n s . The improvement i n the amount of v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d when ' s o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s were added t o •personal' v a r i a b l e s was determined from the r e s u l t s of the t h i r d s e t o f r e g r e s s i o n s . A. Procedure. T e s t i n g of the hypotheses u t i l i z e d the m u l t i p l e l i n e a r r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s procedure of the SPSS computer program (Nei e t a l . ) . S i m i l a r a n a l y s i s procedures were used by Pankey and Johnston; Gum; Holbrook; Deacon e t a l ; Holman and Bennett; van L i e r ; Cheung; and Knetsch. Knetsch, suggested standard and s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n methods to determine which of a number of d i f f e r e n t v a r i a b l e s are s i g n i f i c a n t determinants of f a c i l i t y use and of t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n i n e x p l a i n i n g t h i s use. I n advance of r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s . Gum used f a c t o r a n a l y s i s to p r o v i d e a more parsimonious d e s c r i p t i o n of the dependant v a r i a b l e s and when no a - p r i o r i p a t t e r n s of c a u s a l i t y e x i s t e d . L i n e a r r e g r e s s i o n was s e l e c t e d as the t o o l f o r a n a l y s i s f o r s i m p l i c i t y and convenience by Cheung, who e x p l a i n e d t h a t the magnitude of e r r o r propagated i n the i n p u t s when the: a d d i t i v e 54 model i s used i s g e n e r a l l y l e s s than t h a t of the m u l t i p l i c a t i v e model* He f u r t h e r suggested t h a t m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a l l o w s the examination of the impact of one v a r i a b l e when c o n t r o l l i n g f o r v a r i a t i o n i n o t h e r s . Van L i e r contended that the l i n e a r model, though somewhat u n r e a l i s t i c , can reproduce the main f e a t u r e s of the behaviour under study, b e a r i n g i n mind t h a t the e x p l a n a t i o n of v a r i a n c e i s s t a t i s t i c a l , not n e c e s s a r i l y g i v i n g i n s i g h t t o the r e a l processes which are a t the base of the phenomenon. The a n a l y s i s a c t s as a u s e f u l screening d e v i c e , p i n p o i n t i n g important v a r i a b l e s , and s e r v e s as a g u i d e l i n e f o r f u r t h e r experimentation. The independant v a r i a b l e s were entered stepwise i n t o the r e g r e s s i o n on the b a s i s of t h e i r l a r g e s t F - r a t i o s . S e l e c t i o n of v a r i a b l e s was terminated when the F - r a t i o of the o v e r a l l r e g r e s s i o n eguation f e l l below the 5% l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . E e g r e s s i o n eguations were d e r i v e d f o r the dependant v a r i a b l e s e n t e r i n g the personal and s o c i a l group v a r i a b l e s f i r s t s e p a r a t e l y , then together. The amount of v a r i a t i o n e x p l a i n e d was measured by R 2, the c o e f f i c i e n t of d e t e r m i n a t i o n ( m u l t i p l e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t squared). R 2 i s the p r o p o r t i o n of t o t a l v a r i a n c e about the mean of the o b s e r v a t i o n s t h a t i s e x p l a i n e d by the e q u a t i o n (OSDA). The c l o s e r R 2 comes to 1, the b e t t e r the equation. The t e s t of s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r improvement i n the v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d when s o c i a l group v a r i a b l e s were added to p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s i n the t h i r d t e s t f o l l o w e d the procedure of S t e e l e and T o r i e and Nie e t a l . P a r t i t i o n i n g the r e g r e s s i o n sum of squares 55 between the 'p e r s o n a l ' and ' s o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s , the F - r a t i o of the a d d i t i o n a l r e d u c t i o n mean square (R 2) due to the a d d i t i o n of ' s o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s d i v i d e d by the r e s i d u a l mean square was t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e . The f o l l o w i n g formula, u s i n g the r e s u l t s of the combined r e g r e s s i o n t e s t , g i v e s the F-value f o r the t e s t : ( t o t a l R 2 - R 2 of 'personal' v a r i a b l e s ) / n u m e r a t o r df F= j. (1 - t o t a l R 2)/denominator df B. R e s u l t s The R 2 values from the r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s summary t a b l e s (Appendix I I I ) are t a b u l a t e d i n Table XIV. R e s u l t s i n t h i s s e c t i o n are presented i n the order the t e s t s were c a r r i e d out f i r s t with 'personal* v a r i a b l e s , then with ' s o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s , then f i n a l l y with the two groups of v a r i a b l e s i n combination. Table XIV, Regression A n a l y s i s R 2-value Summary, f USE VARIABLE ] R 2 OF VARIABLE GROUP TESTED ] I | 'P e r s o n a l ' | ' S o c i a l Group'| Both | j ,. + + _ ILength cf Stay | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.07 | INumber of A c t i v i t i e s l 0.03 | 0.12 I 0.14 | JFreguency of V i s i t s | 0.14 | 0.03 I 0.14 | i L + : + J 56 Variance i n Use E x p l a i n e d by 'Personal' V a r i a b l e s . . The s i g n i f i c a n t 'personal* v a r i a b l e s accounted f o r only 2% of the v a r i a n c e i n l e n g t h of stay ( E 2 = 0.02), with only 'number of y e a r s at same re s i d e n c e ' being entered.. When a l l v a r i a b l e s were entered, j u s t 3% of the v a r i a n c e was e x p l a i n e d . S i m i l a r l y , p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s accounted f o r only 2% of the v a r i a n c e i n number o f a c t i v i t i e s pursued, with 'age of youngest c h i l d a t home' and ' f a m i l y s i z e at home' the s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s , i n c r e a s i n g t o 3% when a l l v a r i a b l e s were enter e d . The e x p l a n a t i o n of v a r i a n c e i n frequency of v i s i t s by s i g n i f i c a n t p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s was l a r q e r - 10%, and 14% when a l l v a r i a b l e s were entered. The v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d was a t t r i b u t e d mainly t o ' t r a v e l d i s t a n c e ' from the v i s i t o r ' s r e s i d e n c e t o the s i t e , with the v a r i a b l e s ' f a m i l y s i z e at home', •age of youngest c h i l d at home', and 'years of r e s i d e n c e i n the Lower Mainland 1 a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t * No one v a r i a b l e was commonly s i g n i f i c a n t over a l l three use measures though ' f a m i l y s i z e at home' was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r both number of a c t i v i t i e s and frequency o f v i s i t s . Though the varia n c e e x p l a i n e d by ' p e r s o n a l ' v a r i a b l e s was low, s i m i l a r l y poor r e s u l t s were found by F i e l d and O'Leary. In t h a t study nine c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the p o p u l a t i o n e x p l a i n e d 5% of the variance i n the p a r t i c i p a t i o n l e v e l f o r ' v i s i t i n g a beach', and only 3% f o r 'swimming'. 57 Variance i n Use E x p l a i n e d by ' s o c i a l Group' V a r i a b l e s . ' S o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s a l s o e x p l a i n e d very l i t t l e of the v a r i a n c e i n l e n g t h of stay ( 4 % ) . 'On-site group s i z e ' accounted f o r over h a l f of the e x p l a n a t i o n . The ' s o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s e x p l a i n e d more va r i a n c e i n number o f a c t i v i t i e s (12%) than d i d the p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s , with ' o n - s i t e group s i z e ' c o n t r i b u t i n g most. Also s i g n i f i c a n t were the v a r i a b l e s 'mean group age* and ' a r r i v a l group s i z e ' . ' S o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s accounted f o r only 3% of the variance i n freguency of v i s i t s , l e s s than d i d the p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s (14%), though a l l f o u r ' s o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s were s i g n i f i c a n t ; • O n-site group s i z e ' was a s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e to a l l three use measures, while ' a r r i v a l group s i z e ' and 'mean group age' were s i g n i f i c a n t to both number of a c t i v i t i e s and frequency of v i s i t s . • P e r s o n a l ' and ' S o c i a l Group' V a r i a b l e s E x p l a n a t i o n . When ' s o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s were added to ' p e r s o n a l ' v a r i a b l e s i n the r e g r e s s i o n of l e n g t h of s t a y , the v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d i n c r e a s e d to j u s t 4% when the s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s were entered and t o 7% when a l l v a r i a b l e s were enter e d . The s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s were: 'number of years i n Lower Mainland' and ' o n - s i t e group s i z e * . The t e s t of the improvement over the amount e x p l a i n e d by ' p e r s o n a l ' v a r i a b l e s alone produced an F-value of 1.12 when the R 2 values were entered i n the formula: 58 (0.07-0.03)/14 F = = 1.12 (not s i g n i f i c a n t ) (1^0.07) /365) F o r number of a c t i v i t i e s pursued, ' s o c i a l group' and •personal" v a r i a b l e s together accounted f o r 14% of the v a r i a n c e , an improvement over the 3% e x p l a i n e d by personal v a r i a b l e s alone. The s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s were ' o n - s i t e group s i z e ' , •group age', and 'respondant's age'. E n t e r i n g the B 2 values i n the formula showed the improvement to be s i g n i f i c a n t at the 1% l e v e l : (0. 1 4-0.03)/13 F = = 3.60 s i g n i f i c a n t (p<. 01) (1-0. 14) /366) I n the combined t e s t of frequency of v i s i t s , 14% of the v a r i a n c e was e x p l a i n e d , the same as when 'pe r s o n a l ' v a r i a b l e s alone were t e s t e d , with ' t r a v e l d i s t a n c e ' accounting f o r 9%. Other s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s were ' f a m i l y s i z e a t home', 'age of the youngest c h i l d a t home', and 'years i n the Lower Mainland'. The improvement a t t r i b u t e d t o the ' s o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s was not s i g n i f i c a n t (F=0.00) when the B 2 values were entered i n t o the formula: (0.14-0. 14)/14 F = = 0.00 (not s i g n i f i c a n t ) (1-0. 14) /365) No v a r i a b l e s were common over a l l three measures o f use, when entered i n the combined t e s t , though ' o n - s i t e group s i z e ' was s i g n i f i c a n t i n both l e n g t h of stay and number of a c t i v i t i e s . The v a r i a b l e 'years i n Lower Mainland' was s i g n i f i c a n t i n both l e n g t h of s t a y and freguency of v i s i t s . 5 9 C. Summary Di s t a n c e remained the s t r o n g e s t , though s t i l l poor, e x p l a n a t i o n of the variance i n freguency of v i s i t s . 'On-site group s i z e ' was the best e x p l a n a t i o n of v a r i a n c e i n number of a c t i v i t i e s , the only ' s o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e causing s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n e x p l a n a t i o n when added with the ' p e r s o n a l ' v a r i a b l e s . E x p l a n a t i o n s of the v a r i a n c e i n l e n g t h of s t a y were very poor by both 'personal' and ' s o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s , with •years i n Lower Mainland' and ' o n - s i t e group s i z e ' the only s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s . I n none of the t h r e e groups of t e s t s i s t h e r e an e x p l a n a t i o n (B 2) l a r g e enough to suggest the equations are u s e f u l i n the p r e d i c t i o n of r e c r e a t i o n a l behaviour.. In a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the u s e f u l n e s s f o r management purposes by Schafer and M o e l l e r (OSDA), i n d i c a t e d by the m u l t i p l e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t , an B 2 below 0.20 i s poor. The absence of improvement i n e x p l a n a t i o n of varience i n frequency of v i s i t s with the a d d i t i o n of ' s o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s c o n t r a s t s with the r e s u l t s of the study by F i e l d and O'Leary, ( a l s o r e p o r t e d i n F i e l d ) . They found an improvement i n the e x p l a n a t i o n o f the frequency of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s when a " s o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e was t r e a t e d simultaneously with ' p e r s o n a l ' v a r i a b l e s . Variance explained i n ' v i s i t i n g a beach' i n c r e a s e d from 595 to between 28% and 38%, depending on the type of group, while i n c r e a s i n g from 5% to only between 12% t o 24% f o r •swimming*. T h e i r procedure of separate r e g r e s s i o n s f o r each group type was not used i n the present a n a l y s i s i n p r e f e r e n c e 60 f o r t e s t i n g the measures of group s i z e , group age, and percent by sex, and f o r the reason o f l a r g e v a r i a t i o n s i n the sample s i z e o f the group types. The study r e j e c t e d • s o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s as important i n t h e i r e f f e c t on frequency of use. Data l i m i t a t i o n s h i n d e r e d an understanding of v i s i t frequency as group s t r u c t u r e may have v a r i e d over the repo r t e d v i s i t s , e s p e c i a l l y f o r f r i e n d s h i p or mixed groups. Distance was a more important e x p l a n a t i o n . The t e s t s of l e n g t h of stay and number of a c t i v i t i e s showed an improved e x p l a n a t i o n when ' s o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s were added, though s i g n i f i c a n t l y only f o r number of a c t i v i t i e s pursued. These measures of the i n t e n s i t y of the s i t e v i s i t are d e s c r i p t i o n s of behaviour on the day of the v i s i t , r a t h e r than past behaviour. The s o c i a l group a t the s i t e i s thus more r e a l i s t i c a l l y r e l a t e d to these measures, the more important v a r i a b l e s being ' o n - s i t e group s i z e ' and ' o n - a r r i v a l group s i z e . The v a r i a n c e i n frequency of v i s i t s e x p l a i n e d by ' s o c i a l group*showed no improvement* D. D i s c u s s i o n . The o v e r a l l weakness of the v a r i a b l e s t o e x p l a i n use may i n d i c a t e the f o l l o w i n g : t h a t c o a s t a l r e c r e a t i o n has broad appeal and i s r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e t o the g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n ; with the non-user excluded from the t e s t , as F i e l d and 0'Leary, 1973, suggested, socio-economic or personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are not powerful i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to d e f i n e behaviour, e s p e c i a l l y beach use; important f a c t o r s may not have been s p e c i f i e d ; 61 the models may be m i s - s p e c i f i e d ( i . e . n o n - l i n e a r ) . Though ' s o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s , i n p a r t i c u l a r ' o n - s i t e group s i z e ' , d i d e x p l a i n behaviour at the r e c r e a t i o n s i t e , the e x i s t a n c e o f the group away from the s i t e i s unknown except f o r that of the f a m i l y u n i t . Increased t r a v e l d i s t a n c e was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to a reduced frequency of v i s i t s , s u p p o r t i n g the i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p of t r a v e l d i s t a n c e t o the p r o p o r t i o n of d a i l y use at the s i t e s found i n Chapter IV. Though only one age v a r i a b l e , 'age of the youngest c h i l d a t home', had s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e on the frequency o f v i s i t s (more v i s i t s with advancing age), both a h i g h e r age of v i s i t o r s and a h i g h e r average group age s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced the number of a c t i v i t i e s pursued. In Chapter IV, only h i g h e r group age and younger c h i l d r e n a t home showed s i g n i f i c a n t r e d u c t i o n i n number of a c t i v i t i e s pursued, though d i f f e r e n c e s were s m a l l . Though age v a r i a b l e s were not s i g n i f i c a n t i n the r e g r e s s i o n of l e n g t h of st a y , i n Chapter IV a higher respondent's age was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to a r e d u c t i o n i n the l e n g t h of stay., As 'years i n the Lower Mainland' i n c r e a s e d , an i n d i c a t i o n of s t a b i l i t y , frequency of v i s i t s of v i s i t s i n c r e a s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y , as d i d l e n g t h of s t a y . No s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d i n the t e s t of r e s i d e n t i a l s t a b i l i t y and length of stay i n Chapter IV. A l a r g e r f a m i l y s i z e was found t o reduce the frequency of v i s i t s t o the s i t e , though i n c r e a s i n g , not s u r p r i s i n g l y , the number of a c t i v i t i e s pursued (supported i n the f i n d i n g s of Chapter IV) . The age composition, r e s i d e n t i a l s t a b i l i t y , and average 62 f a m i l y s i z e of r e s i d e n t s w i t h i n the catchment area are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which may a l s o be observed f o r change as i n d i c a t e d i n census p r o j e c t i o n s . Knowing the i n f l u e n c e of these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on beach use, they can be employed as g u a l i f i e r s of p o p u l a t i o n growth when f o r e c a s t i n g l e v e l s of use at a p a r t i c u l a r r e c r e a t i o n s i t e . F o r e c a s t s of use at a p a r t i c u l a r s i t e i s undertaken i n the next Chapter, using p o p u l a t i o n estimates, with one g u a l i f i e r , t h a t of p r o p o r t i o n of the p o p u l a t i o n by age c l a s s . 63 CHAPTER VI. FORECASTING DAILY OSE AT CENTENNIAL BEACH.. With the number of v i s i t o r s at a r e c r e a t i o n s i t e determined and the o r i g i n s of the v i s i t o r s known, the use generated by each of the o r i g i n areas can be determined (Table X V ) I f p o p u l a t i o n counts and p r o j e c t i o n s are a v a i l a b l e f o r the o r i g i n areas, f u t u r e l e v e l s of use at the s i t e can be f o r e c a s t , assuming no changes i n s i t e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s , s i t e a c c e s s i b i l i t y , a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of a l t e r n a t i v e o p p o r t u n i t i e s , or i n gen e r a l i n t e r e s t f o r c o a s t a l r e c r e a t i o n . Table XV. V i s i t s to C e n t e n n i a l Beach from Lower Mainland. j T DISTANCE (MILES) ORIGIN AREA OF VISIT H 1 j Ladner-Tsawwassen |Richmond iVancouver INorth D e l t a , North Surrey |South Surrey, White Rock JBurnaby, New Westminster |North Shore INorth East Sector (GVRD) |Dewdney-Allouette R.D. I C e n t r a l F r a s e r V a l l e y H.D. |Fraser-Cheam R.D. I | T o t a l I 5 13 20 20 23 23 27 27 37 40 65 r-PERCENT OF VISITS (BY DAY TYPE) O v e r a l l |Weekend|Weekd 26. 6 23. 8 22. 9 6. 7 1. 1 10. 5 2. 9 2. 6 1.6 1.3 0. 6 100. 0 22.9 24. 1 25.4 5.4 1.2 12.7 2.7 2. 8 0.5 1.7 0.6 100.0 I - H ay | - H • 5| .91 .11 -6| .81 .3| • 5| .11 • <H • 4| 1 100.0| I 37 22 15 10 0 4 3 2 2 0 0 The f u t u r e number of v i s i t o r s per day expected at the s i t e from an o r i g i n area can be estimated by the p r o j e c t e d p o p u l a t i o n (in thousands) times the number of v i s i t s per day generated per thousand p o p u l a t i o n p r e s e n t l y i n t h a t o r i g i n area (Table XVI). ly_ V i s i t s to C e n t e n n i a l Beach. |POPULATION*| AVG. DAILY |VISITS PER .} —h VISITS | 1000 POP. f | 29,331 ] 511 I 17. 4 | 80,034 | 456 j 5.7 | 414,409 | 440 I 1.1 | 127,493 | 129 | 1.0 | 37,010 | 21 I 0.6 | 169,992 20 2 I 1.2 | 133,232 | 55 I 0.4 | 92,197 50 | 0. 5 | 52,430 | 20 | 0.4 | 87,927 j 25 | 0. 3 | 51,430 j 11 | 0. 2 - | — r „| ... — — — |1,327,915 +-I 1920 I 1. 4 ' | OBI GIN AfiEA I 1 I ILadne |Bichm |Vanco I North |South |Burna |North |North i Dewdn j c e n t r | Frase I T o t a l i r-Tsawwassen ond uver D e l t a , North Surrey Surrey, White Bock by. New Westminster Shore East S e c t o r (GVBD) e y - A l l o u e t t e B.D. a l F r a s e r V a l l e y B.D. r-Cheam B.D. P o p u l a t i o n estimates f o r the f u t u r e census years o f 1981 and 1986 were used to f o r e c a s t the d a i l y s i t e use, using the d i s p u r s e d s e t t l e m e n t p a t t e r n of growth assumption of the Greater Vancouver E e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t (GVBD, 1978c) which p l a c e s more growth i n the areas adjacent to the s i t e (Appendix IV). P o p u l a t i o n change with both high and low growth r a t e s (based on assumptions of f e r t i l i t y and m o r t a l i t y ) were entered i n the f o r e c a s t s (GVBD, 1S78a S c ) . Average d a i l y use was f o r e c a s t o v e r a l l , and by weekend and weekday day-types. Peak use was a l s o »Population estimates are a v a i l a b l e f o r 8 d i v i s i o n s w i t h i n the major o r i g i n area - the Greater Vancouver E e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t , comprising l o g i c a l geographic sub-regions of the GVBD, and g e n e r a t i n g 96% of a l l use from w i t h i n the Lower Mainland, the remainder coming from t h r e e adjacent r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s C e n t r a l F r a s e r V a l l e y , F r a s e r Cheam, and Dewdney-Allouette (GVBD, 1978c, pp* 12,14; GVBD, 1978a, p. 12) 65 f o r e c a s t , based on the f i v e b u s i e s t days at the s i t e . . A g e composition was added to g u a l i f y the e f f e c t of popu l a t i o n s i z e on the l e v e l of use at the s i t e (Part B) . A. F o r e c a s t s Using General P o p u l a t i o n Growth. With a high growth assumption, the f o r e c a s t i n c r e a s e i s 13% i n 1981 and 26% i n 1986. Using a low growth assumption, o v e r a l l s i t e use i s f o r e c a s t to i n c r e a s e 8% by 1981 and 16% by 1986 (Table XVII) Table XVII. D a i l y V i s i t F o r e c a s t , C e n t e n n i a l Beach: 1981, 1986. FORECAST YEAR 1920 2453 +  DAILY NUMBER OF VISITORS t- + 4 h + O v e r a l l ! Weekend! Weekdayl Peak I 1174| 4490 + 4 I 1369| 5044 16.6| 12.3 ! 1567| 5589 33.5| 24.5 + — | 1 977 (present use) High Growth Assumptions 1981 % i n c r e a s e 1986 i n c r e a s e Low Growth Assumptions 1981 % i n c r e a s e 1986 % i n c r e a s e 2178 13.4 2431 26.6 2076 8. 1 2227 16.0 + 8% (adjustment f o r non-Lower Mainland v i s i t o r s . 1 ) L J . + +— 2727 11. 2 3024 23. 3 2678 9. 2 2781 13.4 + 5% 1295| 4823 10.3| 7.4 I 1417| 5143 20.7 | 14.5 I + 13%| +5% I J v i s i t o r s from o u t s i d e the Lower Mainland were excluded from the f o r e c a s t s due to both the low amount of use from t h e i r o r i g i n areas, and f o r the convenience of manageable data. 66 Comparison of weekday and weekend use r e v e a l s a g r e a t e r a n t i c i p a t e d i n c r e a s e on weekdays over the two p e r i o d s than on weekends f o r both growth r a t e s . The e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the l a r g e r weekday change i n use i s the g r e a t e r p o p u l a t i o n growth r a t e i n the areas adjacent to the study s i t e , namely the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of D e l t a and Richmond. V i s i t o r s from these areas together form a g r e a t e r p a r t of weekday use (60%) than weekend use (4 7%). B. F o r e c a s t s of D a i l y Use by Age C l a s s e s . . The p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n used p o p u l a t i o n s i z e i n the f o r e c a s t of s i t e use. Changing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the p o p u l a t i o n may modify the impact of o v e r a l l p o p u l a t i o n s i z e on s i t e use. Hauser, Burdge and F i e l d , and D o o l i n g , c o n s i d e r e d age as an important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the p o p u l a t i o n i n f l u e n c i n g r e c r e a t i o n v i s i t a t i o n . From p r e v i o u s Chapters, some p e r s o n a l and s o c i a l grcup c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the v i s i t o r s were found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t " e x p l a i n e r s " of c o a s t a l r e c r e a t i o n s i t e v i s i t a t i o n . Some o f these important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are a l s o determined i n census r e p o r t s ( S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1976) f o r the p o p u l a t i o n of the o r i g i n a r e a s , i n c l u d i n g age s t r u c t u r e , f a m i l y s i z e , r e s i d e n t i a l s t a b i l i t y . These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , together with p o p u l a t i o n s i z e , have been p r o j e c t e d f o r f u t u r e years by r e g i o n a l and l o c a l governments f o r p l a n n i n g purposes (GVRD, 1978b) . Burdge and F i e l d , suggested t h a t an a n a l y s i s of the changing p o p u l a t i o n should a s s i s t the planner i n p r e d i c t i n g general r e c r e a t i o n s h i f t s . Changes i n the age s t r u c t u r e of the 67 popu l a t i o n "...profoundly i n f l u e n c e the number and composition of households* These i n t u r n . , , a f f e c t demand f o r r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s and the s p e c i f i c form which r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s may take." (Hauser, 1962, p.,35.) "The behaviour of the f a m i l y as a u n i t , and o f i t s i n d i v i d u a l members, i s undoubtedly a f f e c t e d by the extent to which the f a m i l y c o n t a i n s c h i l d r e n of v a r y i n g ages." (Hauser, 1962, p. 37.) As the age s t r u c t u r e of the p o p u l a t i o n i s r e l a t e d to these other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which a l s o may a f f e c t r e c r e a t i o n v i s i t s , p r o j e c t e d change i n the age s t r u c t u r e of o r i g i n areas was used t o q u a l i f y p o p u l a t i o n growth i n the o r i g i n areas. "Although the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n of the Lower Mainland w i l l i n c r e a s e s l o w l y over the next 25 years* t h e r e are s i g n i f i c a n t changes o c c u r r i n g i n the age s t r u c t u r e of the p o p u l a t i o n t h a t w i l l have profound e f f e c t s on the development of the Lower Mainland." (GVED, 1978, p. 5.) The p o p u l a t i o n i s d e s c r i b e d as middle aging (GVED,1978a & b). The number of people aged 35 to 49 years over the next 25 years w i l l nearly double; decreases are f o r e c a s t f o r the age c l a s s under 25 years of age._Separating the p o p u l a t i o n f o r e c a s t s f o r 1981 and 1986 by age c l a s s e s of •under 25' and '25 years and over', the younger age group shows a n e a r - s t a t i c growth r a t e . The same age group r e p r e s e n t s the "heavy use" segment of beach v i s i t o r s , 60% being under 25 years of age. Present r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h i s age group i n the surrounding p o p u l a t i o n (Lower Mainland) i s 40% of the t o t a l (GVED, 1978b) . Assuming medium growth r a t e s , d e c l i n e s are p r e d i c t e d i n the younger age c l a s s of 1% by 1981 and 2% by 1986, becoming 37% and 34% of the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n i n these years. 68 These decreases are overwhelmed by the expected increases i n the 25-years and over age category of 14% by 1981 and 28% by 1986, becoming 63% and 66% of the t o t a l population i n these years (Table XVIII) . Table XVIII. Lower Mainland Population Size Predictions, AGE CLASS | POPULATION SIZE* (percent of Total Population) (percent Change) + 19772 } 1981 } 1986 f. f 515215 40.3% 24 Years Or Less 25 Years And Over Total i 4 511350 37. 1% -0.7% 505515 34. 1% -1. 9% 761816 59.7% 867613 62.9% +13.9% 976280 65.9% + 28. 2% *" 1277031 1378963 1481795 "* +8.0% +16.0% g 1 Growth based on medium growth assumptions (GVHD, 1978b, p. 11) 2 population for 1977 based on 1976 census fi g u r e s . With the proportion of young "heavy" users in the population diminishing i n the forecast period, the rate of increase i n s i t e use w i l l l i k e l y be lower than suggested by general population growth. With the proportion of v i s i t o r s i n each age class known from the v i s i t o r survey, the amount of daily use on weekends at the s i t e per 1000 population i n each age class of the general (Lower Mainland) population was determined. Multiplying the "generation f a c t o r " of each age class by the expected population for each age class gave the forecast of daily v i s i t s (Table XIX). 69 Table XIX. Weekend D a i l y Use F o r e c a s t f o r C e n t e n n i a l Beach r T 1 | AGE CLASS | YEAR | | | 1977 | 1981 | 1986 | 'under 25 years j 1472 | 1462 | 1446 I 1(2.86 v i s i t s / 1 0 0 0 pop.) | | I I I 1 1 1 I |25 years and over I 981 | 1119 | 1259 | 1(1.29 v i s i t s / 1 0 0 0 pop.) I l l I I I I t~ I ( t o t a l d a i l y use | 2453 | 2581 | 2705 I | Percent growth | | +5.2% j+10.3% I 1 I I I I Itotal p o p u l a t i o n I { 2648 | 2845 | 1(1.92 v i s i t s / 1 0 0 0 pop.) I l l I | Percent growth | I +8.0% |+16.0% | M977 p o p u l a t i o n based on 1976 Census. C. F i n d i n g s . Weekend d a i l y use f o r e c a s t s using o v e r a l l p o p u l a t i o n i n c r e a s e showed i n c r e a s e s o f 8% and 16% f o r the years 1981 and 1986. When changes i n the p o p u l a t i o n s i z e by age group were used the i n c r e a s e s were s m a l l e r f o r the same years - 5% and 10% (based on medium growth assumptions f o r the Lower Mainland). F o r e c a s t s by o r i g i n areas without the q u a l i f i c a t i o n of age i n d i c a t e d l a r g e r i n c r e a s e s , even with a low growth-rate assumption, of 9% i n 1981 and 11% i n 1986. A high o v e r a l l growth-rate i n d i c a t e d i n c r e a s e s of 11% and 23% f o r the same years. F o r e c a s t s u t i l i z i n g change by age group i n each o r i g i n area were not attempted but are suggested i f the sample s i z e i s s u f f i c i e n t l y l a r g e to o b t a i n a r e l i a b l e g e n e r a t i o n f a c t o r f o r 70 each d i v i s i o n . T h i s f u r t h e r breakdown would make the f o r e c a s t model even more responsive t o l o c a l s t r u c t u r a l changes i n the catchment area p o p u l a t i o n . 71 CHAPTER V I I . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. A. The Use and Users of Boundary Bay Beaches. The v i s i t o r survey and t r a f f i c survey provided i n f o r m a t i o n u s e f u l to the managers of the c o a s t a l r e c r e a t i o n resources.. The o r i g i n s of v i s i t o r s a t each s i t e i d e n t i f i e d which o r i g i n area p o p u l a t i o n s b e n e f i t most from the o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r r e c r e a t i o n at Boundary Bay Beaches. Comparisons of v i s i t o r s at the three study s i t e s r e v e a l e d t h a t , except f o r t h e i r o r i g i n s , v i s i t o r s at C e n t e n n i a l and White Rock Beaches were more a l i k e than v i s i t o r s at Crescent Beach. The C e n t e n n i a l and White Rock Beach v i s i t o r s v were o l d e r , more f a m i l y o r i e n t e d , pursued a g r e a t e r number of a c t i v i t i e s , i n l a r g e r groups than d i d Crescent Beach v i s i t o r s . A l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of v i s i t o r s a t Crescent Beach were people on t h e i r own or i n f r i e n d s h i p groups. Though the tendency might be to c a t e r to the type of v i s i t o r p r e s e n t l y u s i n g the s i t e , the type and l a y o u t of f a c i l i t i e s l i k e l y i n f l u e n c e s s i t e c h o i c e . More f a m i l i e s and l a r g e r groups were a t t r a c t e d to the p i c n i c s i t e s at C e n t e n n i a l and White Rock Beaches. The beaches a t t r a c t e d a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of people under the age of 25 than i s present i n the o r i g i n area p o p u l a t i o n . The p o p u l a r i t y of c o a s t a l r e c r e a t i o n n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g , the a c c e s s i b i l i t y , a t t r a c t i v e n e s s , and s e c u r i t y of beach s i t e s f o r the aged or the handicapped should not be ignored f o r apparent d i s i n t e r e s t . Removal of b a r r i e r s (such as the r a i l r o a d t r a c k embankment at White Rock Beach), p r o v i s i o n of boardwalks or 72 p i e r s f o r e a s i e r walking, and p r o v i s i o n of more shade t r e e s may broaden the range cf v i s i t o r s at the s i t e s . B. F a c t o r s B e l a t e d to the I n t e n s i t y of Beach Ose. Having i d e n t i f i e d the v i s i t o r s at the s i t e s , the r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o s i t e use was i n v e s t i g a t e d . _ A given number of v i s i t o r s per day w i l l have v a r y i n g impacts on the s i t e depending on t h e i r i n t e n s i t y of a c t i v i t y . The number of hours per r e c r e a t i o n v i s i t a f f e c t s the t o t a l number of v i s i t o r s the s i t e can accommodate i n a day.. I f c a p a c i t y i s l i m i t e d , as was parking c a p a c i t y at a l l s i t e s on busy days, the l e n g t h of s t a y i s an important determinant of the d a i l y c a p a c i t y . Though the number of a c t i v i t i e s pursued i s r e l a t e d to the f l e x i b i l i t y of the s i t e , given the l a r g e number of p o s s i b l e c o a s t a l r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s a v a i l a b l e , v a r i a t i o n s i n the number pursued was p a r t l y a t t r i b u t e d to the v i s i t o r s themselves. Though d i f f e r e n c e s were not l a r g e , the: i n t e n s i t y o f the v i s i t then, measured by the l e n g t h of s t a y and number o f a c t i v i t i e s pursued, was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r as both the d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d t o the s i t e and group s i z e on the s i t e i n c r e a s e d . V a r i a t i o n s i n the i n t e n s i t y of v i s i t were a l s o r e l a t e d to the type of group and the type of a c t i v i t y pursued. V i s i t s were l o n g e r on weekends. More a c t i v i t i e s were pursued by l a r g e r groups, and fewer by older-aged groups. The number of a c t i v i t i e s pursued was g r e a t e r f o r those with l a r g e r f a m i l i e s , and more c h i l d r e n at home. Fewer a c t i v i t i e s were pursued by 73 those i n o l d e r groups or with younger c h i l d r e n at home. D i f f e r e n c e s , though s i g n i f i c a n t , were s m a l l . C. F a c t o r s E x p l a i n i n g Use. P u r s u i n g the r e c e n t emphasis on the importance o f ' s o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s on r e c r e a t i o n behaviour, the amounts of v a r i a n c e i n use e x p l a i n e d by 'personal* and ' s o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s both s e p a r a t e l y and together were t e s t e d . E x p l a n a t i o n s were provided by both groups of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r l e n g t h of s t a y , number of a c t i v i t i e s , and frequency o f v i s i t s . The amount of e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e i n l e n g t h of stay was low f o r both groups of v a r i a b l e s (under 5%).. 'Personal' v a r i a b l e s , namely t r a v e l d i s t a n c e , were more important than ' s o c i a l group* v a r i a b l e s i n t h e i r e x p l a n a t i o n of frequency, of v i s i t s . . ' S o c i a l group 1 v a r i a b l e s , i n p a r t i c u l a r ' o n - s i t e group s i z e ' , were more important " e x p l a i n e r s " of the number of a c t i v i t i e s pursued. In c o n j u n c t i o n , a s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n the e x p l a n a t i o n was r e a l i z e d with the a d d i t i o n of ' s o c i a l group' measures, but only with t h e number of a c t i v i t i e s engaged i n while at the s i t e (with most o f the 11% improvement a t t r i b u t e d t o o n - s i t e group s i z e ) . The o v e r a l l low R2 values show behaviour a t the s i t e and frequency of use were not e x p l a i n e d by the v a r i a b l e s chosen. Though concerned with the r a t e of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s , r a t h e r than frequency of v i s i t s and i n t e n s i t y of use. F i e l d and O'Leary a l s o found the dependancy of p a r t i c i p a t i o n on nine socio-economic (personal) v a r i a b l e s was a l s o very low, averaging 5% of v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d . The ' s o c i a l 74 group' i n which p a r t i c i p a t i o n took place e x p l a i n e d 11% of the va r i a n c e i n both ' v i s i t i n g a beach* and 'swimming'. When the socio-economic v a r i a b l e s were entered s e p a r a t e l y by type o f group p a r t i c i p a t i n g , the e x p l a n a t i o n improved s i g n i f i c a n t l y - t o between 28% and 39% f o r ' v i s i t i n g a beach' and 12% and 24% f o r •swimming'. In the present study, group s i z e , percentage o f males i n the group, and group age were the ' s o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s r a t h e r than 'group type', thus comparing r e s u l t s o f the study with F i e l d and O'Leary i s not v a l i d . These ' s o c i a l group' v a r i a b l e s were chosen f o r the reason t h a t the sample s i z e i n the v a r i o u s group types v a r i e s g r e a t l y , with c l u b s forming only 2% of the sample while f a m i l i e s were 46% of the sample. Though c o a s t a l r e c r e a t i o n i s c e r t a i n l y most a t t r a c t i v e t o f a m i l y groups, the frequency of v i s i t s s p e c i f i e d could not be i n t e r p r e t e d t o mean th a t the same group type p r e v a i l e d on each v i s i t . Future study should c o n s i d e r c l a r i f y i n g t h a t the same group c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s apply to the frequency of repeat v i s i t s s p e c i f i e d . In the view t h a t c o a s t a l (beach) r e c r e a t i o n i s ge n e r a l , r e l a x i n g , pleasant a c t i v i t y a p p ealing t o a broad segment of the p o p u l a t i o n , d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y was not l a r g e l y a t t r i b u t e d t o e i t h e r ' p e r s o n a l 1 or ' s o c i a l group' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the v i s i t o r s . D. F o r e c a s t s of D a i l y Use F o r e c a s t s of s i t e - u s e i n f u t u r e years provides the resource manager with i n f o r m a t i o n to help determine p h y s i c a l and budgetary requirements f o r the c o a s t a l r e c r e a t i o n s i t e . Knowing 75 the o r i g i n s of v i s i t o r s at the s i t e , changes i n p o p u l a t i o n s i z e and s i z e by age category were used to f o r e c a s t the number of d a i l y v i s i t s at C e n t e n n i a l Beach. The c u r r e n t r a t e of d a i l y v i s i t s per 1000 p o p u l a t i o n was h i g h e s t from areas c l o s e s t to the beach with an average o f 17 v i s i t s per 1000 p o p u l a t i o n d a i l y from Ladner-Tsawwassen (generating 27% of a l l v i s i t s ) , and 6 v i s i t s per 1000 p o p u l a t i o n from Richmond (generating 24% of s i t e u s e ) . Use g e n e r a t i o n drops to about 1 v i s i t or l e s s per 1000 from the remainder of the Lower Mainland catchment area.. People from o r i g i n areas more d i s t a n t than Tsawwassen-Ladner or Richmond formed a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of the use of the s i t e on weekends (54%) compared to weekdays (40%). With t r a v e l d i s t a n c e e x e r t i n g so much c o n t r o l over who v i s i t s the beaches, p o p u l a t i o n change i n the nearby o r i g i n areas w i l l i n f l u e n c e use of the s i t e s more than t h a t i n f u r t h e r away areas. Given low growth assumptions, the number of d a i l y v i s i t s to C e n t e n n i a l Beach was f o r e c a s t t o i n c r e a s e by 8% i n 1981 and 16% i n 1986. The high growth assumptions produced f o r e c a s t i n c r e a s e s of 13% and 27% over the same years. With more use on weekdays from nearby o r i g i n areas, and the same areas expected to have f a s t e r growth than much of the catchment a r e a , weekday use was f o r e c a s t t o i n c r e a s e more r a p i d l y than weekend use. With the average age of beach v i s i t o r s being younger than that of the o r i g i n area p o p u l a t i o n s , changes i n the p r o p o r t i o n of the p o p u l a t i o n t h a t i s "young" (under 25 years) w i l l have a g r e a t e r i n f l u e n c e on s i t e use than changes i n the " o l d e r " p o p u l a t i o n . With the number of persons under the age of 25 years expected to drop s l i g h t l y (using medium growth assumptions), 76 while i n c r e a s i n g s u b s t a n t i a l l y , by comparison, f o r those 25 years and o l d e r , the 8% o v e r a l l growth f o r e c a s t f o r 1981 was lowered to account f o r the growth by age c l a s s to 5% and s i m i l a r l y the 16% growth f o r e c a s t f o r 1986 was lowered to a 10% i n c r e a s e i n average d a i l y s i t e use. Summary The importance of v i s i t o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n e x p l a i n i n g v i s i t frequency and use i n t e n s i t y f e l l s h o r t of the expected importance of these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . ' P e r s o n a l 1 and ' s o c i a l group* v a r i a b l e s may be more important i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g users from non-users than users from u s e r s , or users of one type o f r e c r e a t i o n p r o v i s i o n from those of another.. These d i f f e r e n c e s would, by n e c e s s i t y , be determined from a random survey o f the p o p u l a t i o n , made e a s i e r with the catchment area f o r the Bay s i t e s a l r e a d y known. Though c o a s t a l r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y a t Boundary Bay Beaches was group- and l a r g e l y f a m i l y - o r i e n t e d , the beach s e l e c t e d was, f o r most, the one c l o s e s t to t h e i r r e s i d e n c e , though f a c i l i t i e s , other v i s i t o r s , and the day of the week had some i n f l u e n c e on t h e i r c h o i c e . E. Recommendations f o r Future Study. The o n - s i t e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was a good, though time consuming, instrument f o r c o l l e c t i n g user formation. In c o n t r a s t , the lack of c o n t r o l i n h e r e n t i n a mail-back q u e s t i o n n a i r e , the follow-up procedures, and the i n a b i l i t y to 7 7 s u p e r v i s e the completeness of response l e a d t o s u p p o r t i n g the o n - s i t e i n t e r v i e w method. The b r e v i t y and s a l i e n c e o f the g u e s t i o n n a i r e i s important. I n q u i r i n g of the v i s i t o r ' s o p i n i o n about how w e l l the s i t e meets h i s e x p e c t a t i o n s hightened the person's i n t e r e s t i n p a r t i c i p a t i n g . Questions about access t o and management of the n a t u r a l f e a t u r e s of the s i t e , together with o p i n i o n s of the p r o v i s i o n and management of both r e c r e a t i o n and s e r v i c e f a c i l i t i e s i n c r e a s e d the apparent value o f the g u e s t i o n n a i r e to the user and provided i n f o r m a t i o n of immmediate use to the s i t e manager. . Repeat surveys t o pr o v i d e comparative use data can be short and c o n c i s e , and might be c a r r i e d out every f i v e years or l e s s . The b a s i c i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d i s d a i l y t r a f f i c counts, c a l i b r a t e d f o r the number o f occupants per v e h i c l e to estimate d a i l y s i t e use, and v i s i t o r o r i g i n s , t o develop use f o r e c a s t s when used with p o p u l a t i o n p r o j e c t i o n s and d a i l y use e s t i m a t e s . Determining the v i s i t e r o r i g i n r e q u i r e s c o n t a c t with v i s i t o r s . A b r i e f e n t r y - p o i n t survey would ensure freedom from b i a s i n s e l e c t i o n o f respondents, however, those v i s i t o r s not e n t e r i n g by v e h i c l e would be missed. The p o p u l a r i t y o f c u r r e n t modes of t r a v e l may be changing. An o n - s i t e survey would allow more time to determine i n f o r m a t i o n about v i s i t o r a c t i v i t i e s , group s i z e , ages, group type, and comments about the s i t e. . However t h i s type of survey i s much more time.consuming and expensive, t h e r e f o r e i t would be prudent t o know i f the a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be used before c o l l e c t i n g i t . A f u l l i n t e n s i v e survey should not be r e q u i r e d w i t h i n 15 years i f short surveys, as d e s c r i b e d above, are undertaken du r i n q the i n t e r v e n i n g p e r i o d . 78 BIBLIOGRAPHY Burch, W.R, J r . 1969. The S o c i a l C i r c l e s of Learning. J . L e i s . J e s ^ 3 (2) : 125- 147. Burdge, Rabel J . and Donald R. F i e l d . 1972. Meth o d o l o g i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e s f o r the. Study o f Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n . J ^ L e i s . Res._ 4(Winter) :63-71. Canadian Outdoor Recreation Research Committee (CORRC).. 1974. Rec r e a t i o n User Surveys. F e d e r a l Parks Conference. Oniv. Waterloo. . 1 51pp. . C e s a r i o , Frank J . 1973. A G e n e r a l i z e d T r i p D i s t r i b u t i o n Model. J . Regional Science 13 (2):2 33-247. Cheek, N e i l H. J r . and Wi l l i a m R. Burch, Jr..1976. The S o c i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n of L e i s u r e i n Human S o c i e t y . Harper and Row. 283pp. Cheek, N e i l H. J r . , Donald R. F i e l d , and Rabel J . Burdge.. 1976. L e i s u r e and Re c r e a t i o n P l a c e s . Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor. 165pp. C h e s h i r e , P. C and M. J . S t a b l e r . 1976. J o i n t Consumption B e n e f i t s i n R e c r e a t i o n a l S i t e 'Surplus'; an E m p i r i c a l Estimate. R e g i o n a l S t u d i e s 10:343-351. Cheung, H. K,. 1972. A Day-Use Park V i s i t a t i o n Model. J . rLeisy Res. , 4 (Spring) : 139-156. Cheung, H. K. 1976. A Model f o r E s t i m a t i n g Day-Use of Parks. CORD Ch. 1(TN 1):40-58. C i c c h e t t i , C h a r l e s Joseph. 1972. A Review of the E m p i r i c a l Analyses t h a t have been Based Upon the N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Surveys. J.. L e i s . Res. 4 (Spring) :90-107. Clawson, M. 1959. Methods f o r Measuring the Demand f o r and Value of Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n . Resources f o r the Future, Inc., Washington, D. C. 36pp. Clawson, M. and J . L. Knetsch. .1966. The Economics of Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n . Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore..328ppi C o l e n u t t , R. J . 1969. Mo d e l l i n g T r a v e l P a t t e r n s of Day V i s i t o r s t o the Countryside. Area 2:43-47. Cooper, R. B. 1975. A Re g i o n a l Study of R e c r e a t i o n a l T r a v e l Behaviour and P a r t i c i p a t i o n P a t t e r n s . R e c r e a t i o n Resources Center, C o l l e g e of A g r i c u l t u r a l and L i f e Sciences. Univ. Of Wisconsin. 59pp. 79 Deacon, J . A., J . G. Pigman, and fi. C. Deen.. 1972. T r a v e l to Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Areas i n Kentucky. J A L e i s . . R e s . 4 ( F a l l ) : 3 1 2 -332. Dooling, P. J . 1973. P r e d i c t i n g Use of R e c r e a t i o n S i t e s . Phd T h e s i s . Colorado s t a t e univ. 243pp. . D u f f i e l d , B r i a n S. 1975. The Nature of R e c r e a t i o n a l T r a v e l Space. Pp15-35. I n : R e c r e a t i o n a l Economics and A n a l y s i s . 1975. G. A. C. S e a r l e , ed. Longman, Harlow. 190pp. F a i r h u r s t , K. B. . 1979. Boundary Bay. C o a s t a l R e c r e a t i o n Survey (Summer, 1977). Unpubl. Report, Program i n Parks and R e c r e a t i o n r e s o u r c e s . F a c u l t y of F o r e s t r y , Univ. B r i t . C o l . , prepared f o r the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . 81pp. F i e l d , Donald R. 1973. S o c i o l o g i c a l Dimensions of Involvement i n Hater-Based R e c r e a t i o n . I n s t i t u t e of F o r e s t Products, C o l l e g e of F o r e s t Resources, Univ. of Washington* 43pp. F i e l d , Donald B. and Joseph T..0*Leary..1973. S o c i a l Groups as a B a s i s f o r A s s e s s i n g P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Selected.Water A c t i v i t i e s . . J . L e i s . Res. 5(Spring):16-25. Greater Vancouver Region a l D i s t r i c t . 1978a. Lower Mainland B e g i o n a l P l a n Update. T e c h n i c a l Memorandum No. 1: P o p u l a t i o n , Labour Force, and Housing F o r e c a s t s , 1981-2001. 20pp.. Greater Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t . 1978b. Lower Mainland Regional Plan Update. T e c h n i c a l Memorandum No. 2: P o p u l a t i o n Growth and D i s t r i b u t i o n . 13pp. Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . 1978c. P o p u l a t i o n , Household,  Employment, and Labour Force Estimates.. G.V.R.P. And Sub-Regions, 1:976-1991. T e c h n i c a l Memoranda No. 14. 16pp* . Gum, R u s s e l l Lynn..1970. A n a l y s i s of F a c t o r s I n f l u e n c i n g the Use o f S t a t e and F e d e r a l R e c r e a t i o n S i t e s i n the West. Univ. C a l i f o r n i a , Phd. T h e s i s * 180pp. Hauser, P h i l i p M.. 1962. Demographic and E c o l o g i c a l Changes as F a c t o r s i n Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n . O.B.B.B.C. Study Report 22:27-80. H e b e r l e i n , Thomas A. 1973. . S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g i c a l Assumptions of User A t t i t u d e Surveys: The Case of the Wildernism S c a l e . J . L e i s . Res. 5 (Summer): 18-33.. H e b e r l e i n , Thomas A. and Robert Baumgartner.. 1978. F a c t o r s A f f e c t i n g Response Rates t o Mailed Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s : A Q u a n t i t a t i v e A n a l y s i s of the P u b l i s h e d L i t e r a t u r e . Amer. S o c i o l . Beview 43(4):447-462. 80 Hecock, R i c h a r d D- 1970. R e c r e a t i o n a l Behaviour P a t t e r n s as Related to S i t e C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Beaches. J.. L e i s . Res. 2 (4) :237-250. Holbrook, Kenneth Gene. 1970. The Economics of Na t u r a l Areas f o r R e c r e a t i o n a l Hunting. Univ. Kentucky. Res. Pap.no.25, Water Resources I n s t i t u t e , Lexington. 132pp. Holman, Mary A. and James T. Bennett..1973. Determinants of Use of Water-Based R e c r e a t i o n a l F a c i l i t i e s . Water Resources Research 9 (5) :1208-1218. H o t e l l i n g , H..1949. L e t t e r quoted by R. E. P r e w i t t i n Economic Study of the Monetary E v a l u a t i o n of Re c r e a t i o n i n N a t i o n a l  Parks. U. S. Dep ft. Of the I n t e r i o r , Washington. James, George A. 1966. I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r Using T r a f f i c Counters t o Estimate R e c r e a t i o n V i s i t s and Use of Developed S i t e s . USDA. F o r e s t S e r v i c e . 12pp._ Southeastern F o r e s t Exper._' Stn., A s h e v i l l e , North C a r o l i n a . King, W i l l i a m E. 1977. The Use of G r a v i t y - P o t e n t i a l Models f o r Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n B e n e f i t E s t i m a t i o n . In: Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n :  Advances i n A p p l i c a t i o n of Economics. Proc. N a t i o n a l Symposium. USDA f o r . Serv..Gen. Tech7~Rep.~WO-2:118-120. Knetsch, Jack L. 1976a. A Design f o r As s e s s i n g Outdoor Recreation i n Canada (1967) . In CORD, 1 976, pp. 6-24. . Knetsch, Jack L. 1976b. Working Paper: O u t l i n e of Data A n a l y s i s -A s s e s s i n g Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Needs. In CORD, 1976, pp. 25-37. Knopp, Timothy, B. 1972. Environmental Determinants of R e c r e a t i o n Behaviour. J_. L e i s . Res. ,4 (Spring) : 129-138. , Lentnek, B., C. S,. Van Doren, and J . R. T r a i l . 1969. S p a t i a l Behaviour i n R e c r e a t i o n a l B o a t i n g . J . L e i s . Res. 1(2):103-124. L i e r , H. N. Van. 1973, Determination of Planning C a p a c i t y and Layout C r i t e r i a of Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n P r o j e c t s . I n s t i t u t e f o r Land and Water Management Research (ICW) , Wagenigen. A g r i c u l t u r a l Research Reports 795. 156pp.. Lindsay, John J . and Richard A.. Ogle. 1972. Socio-economic P a t t e r n s of Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Use Near Urban Areas. J . . L e i s . : Ees. 4 (Winter) : 19-24. L i o y , M i c h e l e . 1975. S o c i a l Trends i n Greater Vancouver: A Study of a North American M e t r o p o l i s , Gordon Soules Economic and Marketing Research, Vancouver. 170pp. Litwak, Eugene and Ivan Szelenyi..1968..Primary Group S t r u c t u r e s and t h e i r F u n c t i o n s . Am; Soc. Review 34 (4):465-481. Lucas, R. C. 1963._Bias i n E s t i m a t i n g R e c r e a t i o n i s t s * Length o f 81 Stay from Sample I n t e r v i e w s . J . F o r e s t r y 61(December):912-914. Lucas, B . C . and J e r r y L. Oltman. 1971. Survey Sampling Wilderness V i s i t o r s . Jj_ L e i s . Bes. 3 (Winter) :28-43 Meyersohn, B o l f . 1969. The Sociology o f L e i s u r e i n the United S t a t e s : I n t r o d u c t i o n and B i b l i o g r a p h y , 1945-1965. J. : L e i s . Bes. 1 (Winter) : 53-68. Nie, N. H., C. H a d l a i H u l l , J . G . J e n k i n s , K. S t e i n b r e n n e r , and D. H. Bent. 1975. S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r t h e ; S o c i a l S c i e n c e s . 2nd e d i t . 675pp. Outdoor E e c r e a t i o n Besources Beview Commission (OBBBC). . 1962a. P r o s p e c t i v e Demand f o r Outdoor B e c r e a t i o n . . Study Report 26, Washington, D.C. 61pp. Outdoor Re c r e a t i o n Besources Beview Commission (OBBBC).. 1962b. N a t i o n a l B e c r e a t i o n Survey Study. Beport 19..Washington D . C . . 394pp. Pankey, V. S. and W. E. Johnston. 1969. A n a l y s i s of B e c r e a t i o n a l Use o f S e l e c t e d B e s e r v o i r s i n C a l i f o r n i a . Prepared f o r U.S.Army Di Parks Canada. 1976. Canadian Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Demand Study (COED). Vol.2 T e c h n i c a l Notes. 900pp. Eobinson, D. C. 1970. S t a b i l i t y of a B e c r e a t i o n a l T r a v e l Model. J o i n t Highway Besearch Project..Purdue Univ. and Indiana State Highway Commission. 73pp. S e a r l e , G.. A. C., ed. 1975. B e c r e a t i o n a l Economics and A n a l y s i s . Longman, Essex. 190pp. Shew E i c h a r d L* And Michael P. Werner. 1976. B e c r e a t i o n Use P a t t e r n s and User A t t i t u d e s on the Snake R i v e r . F i n a l Tech. Eep., P r o j . .A-050. Dep't of F o r e s t r y and Eange Management, Washington State Univ., Pullman..112pp. Sidaway, B. M. 1977. Besearch i n the Design of B e c r e a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s . F o r e s t r y 50 (1):67-74. Spaulding, I r v i n g A. 1972. B e c r e a t i o n a l Adequacy - of Beach A c t i v i t y and Comparative B e g u l a t i n g I n f l u e n c e s . NOAA Sea Grant, Univ. of Ehode I s l a n d , Marine Tech. Eep, 47. 48pp. Spaulding, I r v i n g A. 1973. F a c t o r s Related t o Beach Use* Univ. of Rhode I s l a n d , Marine T e c h n i c a l Report S e r i e s no.13, Kingston. 20pp. S t a t i s t i c s Canada. 1976. Census of Canada, 1976. Ottawa. S t e e l , Robert G. D. And James H.. T o r r i e . 1960. P r i n c i p l e s and Procedures of Statistics._McGraw H i l l , New York. 481pp. 82 S u b l e t t e , Werner J. and W i l l i a m E. M a r t i n . 1975. . Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n i n the Salte-Verde Basin of C e n t r a l Arizona : Demand and Value. Ag. Exper. Stn., Univ. A r i z o n a , Tuscon; Tech. B u l l . 218. Sacramento, C a l i f . 41pp. United S t a t e s . Dep't. of the I n t e r i o r (USDI)._ 1975. A s s e s s i n g Demand fox Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n . 123pp. United S t a t e s , Dep't. Of A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t S e r v i c e . 1971. Re c r e a t i o n Symposium Proceedings. N.e. F o r e s t Experiment S t a t i o n , Upper Darby, P.A. 211pp. Wil k i n s o n , Paul F. 1973. The Use of Models i n P r e d i c t i n g the Composition of Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n . J., L e i s . Res. 5 (Summer):34-48. Young, R.. A., I . I.. Holland, and A* R. Si l m o r e , 1970. G e t t i n g Better Returns from M a i l Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . J . F o r e s t r y 68 (1 1) :723-724. APPENDIX I VISITOR INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE 'S4 BOUNDARY BAY RECREATION SURVEY 1. Was y o u r t r i p t o d a y : _ a v i s i t from home part, o f a l o n g e r t r i p an o v e r n i g h t s t a y a t the s i t e _ o t h e r : e x p l a i n 2. Where d i d you t r a v e l from t o d a y ? \ 3 - What time d i d you a r r i v e ? 4 . How l o n g do you i n t e n d t o s t a y ? 5-. How d i d you get here ( t r a n s p o r t a t i o n ) ? 6 . Why d i d you choose t h i s s i t e ? . 7. Hov/ many p e r s o n s were w i t h you i n y o u r v e h i c l e ? 8. What i s the s i z e o f y o u r group a t t h i s s i t e ? 9 . What; i s y o u r s o c i a l group t y p e ? ; 10. P l e a s e i n d i c a t e the number o f i n d i v i d u a l s i n y o u r group by age and s e x . 11. What a c t i v i t i e s w i l l you and y o u r group p a r t i c i p a t e i n t o d a y ? . b . What i s y o u r main a c t i v i t y o r r e a s o n f o r coming h e r e t o d a y ? 12. Do you have any comments on r o a d a c c e s s and s i t e p a r k i n g ? ; 13- Do you have any comments on the f a c i l i t i e s a t the s i t e ? l 4 . Do you have any comments on the management and a p p e a r a n c e o f the s i t e ? 15- Would you l i k e t o see any changes i n f a c i l i t i e s ? 35 l 6 . What p r o b l e m s , i f a n y , have you ' e n c o u n t e r e d w h i l e u s i n g t h i s s i t e ? a . between y o u r s e l f and o t h e r s engaged i n the same a c t i v i t y ? b . between y o u r s e l f and o t h e r s engaged i n d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s ? c . between r e c r e a t i o n a l and o t h e r t y p e s o f l a n d use? 17. Do any o f the c o n f l i c t s r e d u c e o r o t h e r w i s e a f f e c t y o u r amount o f u s e ? 18. Was t h i s y o u r f i r s t v i s i t t o the s i t e ? 1 9 . How many t i m e s i n the p a s t y e a r d i d you v i s i t the s i t e ? 2 0 . How many y e a r s have you been coming h e r e ? 2 1 . Which b e a c h i n the Lower M a i n l a n d do you use most o f t e n ? ;• . Why? ; :  2 3 . What i s the s i z e o f y o u r f a m i l y a t home? 2^. How many c h i l d r e n a r e i n y o u r f a m i l y ? -2 5 . What i s the age o f the y o u n g e s t c h i l d ? 2 6 . What i s y o u r t o t a l f a m i l y income? 27. How many y e a r s have you l i v e d a t the same a d d r e s s ? 28. How many y e a r s have you l i v e d i n the Lower M a i n l a n d ? 86 APPENDIX I I DAILY SITE USE ESTIMATION 87 Determination Of D a i l y S i t e Usg. The number of v e h i c l e s that entered the s i t e but d i d not stay was determined d u r i n g the 10-minute sample p e r i o d s from l i c e n c e p l a t e r e c o r d s . An estimate of the number of such v e h i c l e s ( c a l l e d 'turn-arounds 1) was deducted from the d a i l y counter readings to determine the 'net v e h i c l e s per day'. C o r r e c t i o n s were s i m i l a r l y made f o r v e h i c l e s c r o s s i n g the t r a f f i c counter i n the wrong d i r e c t i o n , and f o r v e h i c l e s missing the counter. The d e t e r m i n a t i o n of o n - s i t e p a r k i n g was done by v i s u a l counts every two hours. T h i s data was u s e f u l mainly f o r c a l c u l a t i o n of the peak p e r i o d p a r k i n g c a p a c i t y and s i t e use.. The s p e c i f i c approaches to e s t i m a t i n g t o t a l d a i l y and peak period use at each of the s i t e s w i l l be d e s c r i b e d from the e a s i e s t to the most d i f f i c u l t s i t e . As the m a j o r i t y of v e h i c u l a r t r a f f i c a r r i v i n g a t C e n t e n n i a l Beach entered the s i t e parking l o t , the t r a f f i c counter was placed at the entrance. The counts were deemed s a t i s f a c t o r y without c o r r e c t i o n f o r v e h i c l e s p a r k i n g elsewhere, except on a very few busy days when up to 150 v e h i c l e s parked on the s t r e e t s of the adjacent r e s i d e n t i a l community. At Crescent Beach, the t r a f f i c and parking p a t t e r n s d e f i e d placement of the counter i n a l o c a t i o n t h a t would a v o i d the l o c a l r e s i d e n t i a l t r a f f i c . The gross c o r r e c t i o n s r e g u i r e d t o e l i m i n a t e the number of non-beach v e h i c l e s from the o v e r a l l counts caused a r e d u c t i o n i n the confidence g i v e n to the use e s t i m a t e s . An unknown i s the number of v i s i t o r s to the l o c a l 88 r e s i d e n c e s who were a l s o a t t r a c t e d by the presence of the beach. As a base c o r r e c t i o n f o r l o c a l use the number of v e h i c l e s e n t e r i n g the area on a s e r i e s of r a i n y days was used as the c o r r e c t i o n * The gross t r a f f i c f i g u r e s can c e r t a i n l y be used i n comparing the t r a f f i c counts obtained i n f u t u r e surveys._ Use e s t i m a t i o n at the t h i r d s i t e . White Rock Beach, presented a d i f f e r e n t but more d i f f i c u l t problem i n c o n t r o l l i n g measurement. The beach has near continuous parking areas along i t s 3-mile l e n g t h . Only one l o t , l o c a t e d i n Semiahmoo Park, was l a r g e enough and c o n t r o l l e d enough t o measure and r e c o r d t r a f f i c f low. The problem of measuring beach-use i n made more d i f f i c u l t by the number of v e h i c l e s a t t r a c t e d to the. adjacent commercial area. Sundays gave a b e t t e r i n d i c a t i o n of "beach-only" use though the food s e r v i c e s s t i l l a t t r a c t e d unknown numbers who may not have been i n t e r e s t e d i n use of the beach. V e h i c l e counts were made every two hours along the e n t i r e s t r i p . . T h e average l e n g t h o f stay f o r v e h i c l e s i n non-monitored p a r k i n g areas was assumed to be s i m i l a r to the stay i n the monitored l o t . Thus the p r o p o r t i o n of t o t a l use to peak-period use at the monitored l o t c o u l d then be used to expand the peak v e h i c l e counts at the other areas t o d e r i v e an estimate of t o t a l d a i l y v e h i c l e s a t those l o t s . The "peak use" counts were o b t a i n e d d u r i n g the period of h e a v i e s t use du r i n g the day which g e n e r a l l y occurred between the hours of 1 p.m. And 3 p.m. The a c t u a l "peak" counts may not have been recorded. As the scheduled count p e r i o d was at 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. For t h i s reason and f o r the assumption of s i m i l a r l e n g t h s of stay at both the monitored and non-monitored l o t s , the d a i l y use e s t i m a t i o n s are t h e r e f o r e only as rough 89 approximations of a c t u a l use. At a l l s i t e s the v i s i t o r s who walked to the s i t e were missed i n the use e s t i m a t i o n s d e r i v e d from t r a f f i c counts. The p o r t i o n of a l l v i s i t o r s who walked to the s i t e , as determined i n the user survey, ranged from 2.5% a t C e n t e n n i a l Beach to 4.5% and 5.0% at Crescent and White Rock Beaches, r e s p e c t i v e l y . The estimates of use a t each of the th r e e s i t e s are presented i n Tables I , I I , and I I I o f t h i s Appendix. Table I.. D a i l y Number Of • V i s i t o r s At C e n t e n n i a l Beach. Net v e h i c l e Avg. Persons V i s i t o r s Date Count* p_er V e h i c l e Per Day, WEEKENDS/HOLIDAYS J u l y 24 1536 3.1 4760 August 1* 1463 3.1 4530 August 7* 1404 3.2 4490 August 13* 761 2.6 1980 August 21* 255 2.6 660 August 27* 97 2.4 230 September 5* 262 2.0 520 WEEKDAYS J u l y 27 224 2.3 520 August 2* 598 2.5 1490 August 5 603 3.2 1930 August 10 407 2.2 940 August 15 452 2.2 990 •Days on which a l l three s i t e s were surveyed s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . (Source: F a i r h u r s t , 1979, p. 67) 1 Net number of v e h i c l e s determined from the number of v e h i c l e s e n t e r i n g the parking l o t duri n g 12-hour day, deducting v e h i c l e s not s t a y i n g . 90 Table I I . D a i l y Number Of V i s i t o r s At Crescent Beach.. Net v e h i c l e Avg. Persons V i s i t o r s Date Count* per V e h i c l e Per Day. WEEKENDS/HOLIDAYS August 1* 3156 2.7 8520 August 6 1911 1.8 3440 August 7* 3140 3.3 10360 August 13* 1952 2.2 4290 August 21* 505 2.4 1210 August 27* 182 1.9 350 September 5* 671 2.1 1410 WEEKDAYS J u l y 26 2483 2.4 6820 August 2* 1468 2.0 2940 August 12 1441 2.2 3170 August 18 615 1.9 1170 August 22 203 1.5 300 •Days on which a l l t h r e e s i t e s were surveyed s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . (Source: F a i r h u r s t , 1979, p. 68) 1 Net number of v e h i c l e s determined from number of v e h i c l e s e n t e r i n g the community duri n g the 12-hour day. Deductions were made f o r v e h i c l e s not s t a y i n g and f o r estimated " l o c a l " t r a f f i c (1300 v e h i c l e s on weekends, 1200 v e h i c l e s on weekdays). 91 Table I I I . D a i l y Number Of V i s i t o r s At White Bock Beach. Net v e h i c l e Avg. Persons V i s i t o r s Date Count 1 per V e h i c l e Per Day_ WEEKENDS/HOLIDAYS J u l y 31 4504 2.7 12000 August 1* 6413 2.7 17300 August 7* 5261 2.8 14700 August 13* 5006 2.7 11500 August 21* 1576 2.2 3500 August 27* 1798 2i6 2300 September 5* n.a. n.a.. n.a. WEEKDAYS J u l y 25 1210 2.8 3700 Ju l y 27 n;a. 1.7 2071 (e) August 2* n.a. 2.3 3580 (e) August 25 870 n.a. 2350 (e) August 26 1710 n.a.. 4617 (e) • Days on which a l l three s i t e s were surveyed s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . (Source: F a i r h u r s t , 1979,p.68) 1 The number of v e h i c l e s a r r i v i n g i n one day along the e n t i r e beach s t r i p parking area was estimated using the t r a f f i c counts obtained at Semiahmoo Park, extending these counts t o the other p a r k i n g areas as the r a t i o of peak number of parked v e h i c l e s at the other s i t e s t o the peak number of v e h i c l e s parked at Semiahmoo Park. n.a. data not a v a i l a b l e . (e) value estimated due missing data. APPENDIX III SUMMARY TABLES OF REGRESSION ANALYSES Summary T a b l e Dependent V a r i a b l e - number o f h o u r s s p e n t a t P e r s o n a l V a r i a b l e s . y e a r s l i v i n g I n same r e s i d e n c e age o f y o u n g e s t c h i l d f a m i l y income d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d number o f c h i l d r e n a t home s i z e o f f a m i l y a t home y e a r s i n Lov/er M a i n l a n d age o f r e s p o n d e n t Group V a r i a b l e s group s i z e on s i t e group s i z e on a r r i v a l p e r c e n t m a l e s i n group a v e r a g e age p e r group Combined V a r i a b l e s group s i z e on s i t e group s i z e on a r r i v a l p e r c e n t m a l e s i n group a v e r a g e age p e r group y e a r s l i v i n g i n same r e s i d e n c e age o f y o u n g e s t c h i l d y e a r s coming t o s i t e f a m i l y income d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d y e a r s i n Lower M a i n l a n d number o f c h i l d r e n a t home s i z e o f f a m i l y a t home sex o f r e s p o n d e n t age o f r e s p o n d e n t R Square R Square Change 0 ,01991 0 . 0 2 4 5 5 0 . 0 2 6 8 2 0 . 0 2 9 1 8 0 . 0 2 9 ^ 8 O . 0 3 0 6 3 O . 0 3 0 7 7 0 . 0 3 0 8 5 0.01991 0.00464 0.00227 0 . 0 0 2 3 & 0 . 0 0 0 3 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 5 0 . 0 0 0 1 4 0 . 0 0 0 0 8 0 . 0 2 7 4 0 0 . 0 3 1 9 ^ 0 . 0 3 4 1 3 0 . 0 3 5 6 7 0.02740 0 . 0 0 4 5 4 0 . 0 0 2 1 8 0 . 0 0 1 5 4 0 . 0 2 7 4 0 0 . 0 3 1 9 4 0 . 0 3 4 1 3 0 . 0 3 5 6 7 0 . 0 5 1 0 6 0 . 0 5 5 3 3 0 . 0 5 7 8 0 0 . 0 6 0 2 8 0 . 0 6 1 8 5 0 . 0 6 3 0 0 0 . 0 6 3 7 5 0 . 0 6 4 4 5 0 . 0 6 5 0 3 0 . 0 6 5 2 2 0 . 0 2 7 4 0 0 . 0 0 4 5 4 0 . 0 0 2 1 8 0 . 0 0 1 5 4 0 . 0 1 5 4 0 0.00427 0.00247 0 , 0 0 2 4 8 0 . 0 0 1 5 7 0 . 0 0 1 1 5 0 . 0 0 0 7 6 0 . 0 0 0 6 9 0 . 0 0 0 5 8 0 . 0 0 0 1 9 SUMMARY TABLE Dependent V a r i a b l e : Number o f A c t i v i t i e s D u r i n g V i s i t P e r s o n a l V a r i a b l e s age o f y o u n g e s t c h i l d s i z e o f f a m i l y a t home age o f r e s p o n d e n t d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d sex o f r e s p o n d e n t y e a r s i n Lower M a i n l a n d f a m i l y income y e a r s l i v i n g i n same r e s i d e n c e number o f c h i l d r e n a t home Group V a r i a b l e s group s i z e on s i t e group s i z e on a r r i v a l a v e r a g e age p e r g r o u p p e r c e n t males i n g r o u p Combined V a r i a b1 e s O . O 1 5 6 3 0 . 0 2 2 6 9 0 . 0 2 7 6 2 0 . 0 2 8 9 8 0 . 0 2 9 6 7 O . 0 3 0 3 6 O . O 3 0 6 1 0 . 0 3 0 7 1 0 . 0 3 0 7 5 0 . 1 0 6 9 2 0 .11788 0 . 1 2 3 1 0 0 . 1 2 3 2 0 g r o u p s i z e on s i t e g r o u p s i z e on a r r i v a l a v e r a g e age p e r g r o u p p e r c e n t males i n g r o u p age o f r e s p o n d e n t age o f y o u n g e s t c h i l d y e a r s i n Lower M a i n l a n d y e a r s coming t o s i t e f a m i l y income s i z e o f f a m i l y a t home sex o f r e s p o n d e n t number o f c h i l d r e n a t home y e a r s l i v i n g i n same r e s i d e n c e 0 . 1 0 6 9 2 O . 1 1 7 8 8 0 . 1 2 3 1 0 0 . 1 2 3 2 0 O . 1 3 8 6 5 0 . 1 3 9 9 7 0 . 14120 0.14160 0.14-202 0.14244-0.14263 0.14277 0 . 1 4 2 8 3 O . O 1 5 6 3 0 . 0 0 7 0 5 0.00493 O . O O 1 3 6 O .OOO69 0.00069 0 . 0 0 0 2 5 0 . 0 0 0 1 0 0.00004 0 . 1 0 6 9 2 0 . 0 1 0 9 6 0 . 0 0 5 2 2 0 . 0 0 0 1 0 0 . 1 0 6 9 2 0 . 0 1 0 9 6 0 . 0 0 5 2 2 0 . 0 0 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 5 4 5 0 . 0 0 1 3 2 0 . 0 0 1 2 3 0 . 0 0 0 4 0 0 . 0 0 0 4 2 0 . 0 0 0 4 3 0 . 0 0 0 1 9 0 . 0 0 0 1 4 0 . 0 0 0 0 6 SUMMARY Dependent V a r i a b l e : T o t a l V i s i t s to S i t P e r s o n a l V a r i a b l e s d i s t a n c e . . t r a v e l l e d y e a r s l i v i n g i n Lower M a i n l a n d s i z e o f f a m i l y a t home age o f y o u n g e s t c h i l d a t home y e a r s l i v i n g i n same r e s i d e n c e sex o f r e s p o n d e n t number o f c h i l d r e n a t home . age o f r e s p o n d e n t f a m i l y income Group V a r i a b l e s group s i z e on a r r i v a l p e r c e n t o f m a l e s i n group a v e r a g e age p e r g r o u p group s i z e on s i t e Combined V a r i a b l e s group s i z e on a r r i v a l p e r c e n t o f m a l e s i n group a v e r a g e age p e r g r o u p group s i z e on s i t e d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d y e a r s l i v i n g i n Lower M a i n l a n d s i z e o f f a m i l y a t home age o f y o u n g e s t c h i l d a t home . y e a r s l i v i n g i n same r e s i d e n c e number o f c h i l d r e n a t home age o f r e s p o n d e n t f a m i l y income y e a r s coming to the s i t e sex o f r e s p o n d e n t TABLE i n P a s t Y e a r 0.1.0106 0.11631 0 .12442 0 . 1 3 1 4 3 0 . 1 3 3 5 6 0 . 1 3 5 0 1 0 . 1 3 6 6 5 0 .13778 0 . 1 3 8 4 7 0.1 0 1 0 6 0 . 0 1 5 2 5 0.00811 0 . 0 0 7 0 1 0,00213 0 . 0 0 i 4 5 0.00154 0.00113 0.00069 0 . 0 1 5 6 2 0 . 0 2 3 1 3 0 , 0 2 6 3 5 0 . 0 2 9 2 4 0 . 0 1 5 6 2 0 . 0 0 7 5 1 0 . 0 0 3 7 2 0 .00240 0 . 0 1 5 6 2 0 . 0 2 3 1 3 0 . 0 2 6 8 5 0 .02924 O . H 8 5 8 0 . 1 2 8 3 3 0 , 1 3 3 2 6 0 . 1 3 9 0 2 0.1)4130 0.14130 0.14314 O . I . 4 3 8 1 0 . 1 4 3 9 0 c . ± 4 3 9 6 0 . 0 1 S 6 2 0 . 0 0 7 5 1 0 . 0 0 3 7 2 0 . 0 0 2 4 0 0 . 0 8 9 3 4 0 . 0 0 9 7 5 0 , 0 0 4 9 3 0 . 0 0 5 7 6 0 . 0 0 2 2 8 0 . 0 0 1 3 0 0 . 0 0 0 5 5 0 . 0 0 0 6 7 0 . 0 0 0 0 9 0 . 0 0 0 0 7 96 APPENDIX IV LOWER MAINLAND POPULATION ESTIMATES 1981, 1986 97 Appendix IV. Lower Mainland P o p u l a t i o n Estimates, 1981, 1986. ORIGIN AREA — T — - - - • Y EAB — — 1 | 1976 ^ | 1981 Bate | 1986 Bate | high | 1 Growth 1- +-| low | Growth low | i ________ _ ___ | high | Ladner-Tsawwassen | 29331 \ 3428l| 36797| 39179} 44283| Richmond | 80034 | 85284| 901831 92177| 1015641 Vancouver | 414409 | 396699I 3961191 381762J 3834731 North D e l t a -North Surrey | 127493 | 1442871 153844J 1597471 178614| South Surrey-White Rock | 37010 | 47799| 508351 55337| 62157| Burnaby-New Westminster | 169992 | 1751681 1802301 178181| 186785| North Shore | 133232 | 1343561 137231| 138300 | 144705| North East S e c t o r (of GVED) | 92197 | 1042161 1114341 116439| 1308401 Dewdney-Allouette E e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t | 52430 | 62600| 70521| 73493| 89943| C e n t r a l F r a s e r V a l l e y Beg. D i s t . | 87927 | 1107811 1247381 1350 381 1640641 Fraser-Cheam E e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t | 51430 | 543211 58928| 55303| 609191 T o t a l | 1327915 1349790 1410860 1424954 15473461 1 F i g u r e s based on 'dispursed' s e t t l e m e n t plan (GVBD, 1978a, p. 12; 1978c, p. 12, 14).. 2 Growth r a t e s based on assumptions of low and high f e r t i l i t y and m o r t a l i t y together (GVED, 1978c). 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0075113/manifest

Comment

Related Items