Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Harvesting crops between the trees : a study of recreation valuation Murray, Edward Thomas 1988

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1988_A6_7 M87.pdf [ 6.84MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0075151.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0075151-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0075151-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0075151-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0075151-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0075151-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0075151-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0075151-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0075151.ris

Full Text

HARVESTING CROPS BETWEEN THE TREES: I A Study Of Recreation Valuation By EDWARD THOMAS MURRAY M . S c , The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1988 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Park s and R e c r e a t i o n Resources Programme Department of F o r e s t r y We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1988 e Edward Thomas Murray, 1988 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 DE-6(3/81) ABSTRACT A non-market v a l u a t i o n of r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s on p r i v a t e f o r e s t land i s undertaken to provide i n f o r m a t i o n f o r i n t e g r a t e d f o r e s t management d e c i s i o n making. The C o n t i n g e n t V a l u a t i o n Method i s a p p l i e d , through the use of a mailed q u e s t i o n n a i r e to a random sample of the households w i t h i n the C a p i t a l Regional D i s -t r i c t on Vancouver I s l a n d , to estimate w i l l i n g n e s s - t o - p a y values and d e r i v e p o t e n t i a l g r o s s b e n e f i t s f o r h u n t i n g , f i s h i n g and camping on the s t u d y a r e a . R e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n l e v e l s and socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p a r t i c i p a n t s are d i s c u s s e d f o r each a c t i v i t y on the landbase. R e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i -t i e s , i n p a r t i c u l a r f i s h i n g , have a good p o t e n t i a l f o r producing s u b s t a n t i a l b e n e f i t s on the study area. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TITLE PAGE i ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS i i i LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i i Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1. BACKGROUND 1 1.2. PROBLEM 2 1.2.1. P h y s i c a l s e t t i n g 2 1.2.2. Reasons f o r the study 8 1.3. STUDY OBJECTIVES 9 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 11 2.1. PRIVATE-SECTOR FOREST RECREATION PLANNING 11 2.2. THE NEED FOR THE VALUATION OF NON-MARKET GOODS AND SERVICES 13 2.3. COMPARISON OF THREE METHODS OF NON-MARKET GOODS VALUATION 14 2.3.1. Hedonic P r i c e Method 14 2.3.2. T r a v e l Cost Method 15 2.3.3. Contingent V a l u a t i o n Method 16 2.4. MAJOR ISSUES IN THE USE AND/OR APPLICATIONS OF THE METHODS 18 2.4.1. Hedonic P r i c e Method 18 2.4.2. T r a v e l Cost Method 18 2.4.3. Contingent V a l u a t i o n Method 19 2.5. ACCEPTABILITY OF THE CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD 23 3. STUDY DESIGN 25 3.1. CHOICE OF THE CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD 26 3.2. SURVEY DESIGN 27 3.3. SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION 35 3.4. STUDY LIMITATIONS 37 3.5. DATA PROCESSING 42 3.6. ANALYSIS 43 3.7. COMPONENTS OF THE MODEL 48 3.7.1. P a r t i c i p a n t households i n sample 50 3.7.2. P a r t i c i p a n t use values 55 3.7.3. W i l l i n g n e s s - t o - p a y and p o t e n t i a l gross b e n e f i t values 59 i i i A. CHARACTERISTICS OF RECREATION USE AND USERS ON THE STUDY AREA 61 4.1. SURVEY RESPONSE RATE 61 4.2. ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION 63 4.3. HIGHEST USE AND PREFERRED ACTIVITIES 65 4.4. USER CHARACTERISTICS AND COMMENTS 66 5. SELECTED SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF INTENDED PARTICIPANTS IN SELECTED ACTIVITIES 69 5.1. HUNTING 72 5.2. FISHING 75 5.3. CAMPING 76 5.4. COMPARISON OF STUDY RESULTS 80 5.5. COMPARISON OF RESULTS WITH OTHER SELECTED STUDIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA 81 5.5.1. Hunting 81 5.5.2. F i s h i n g 82 6. WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY VALUES AND POTENTIAL GROSS BENEFITS 84 6.1. WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY VALUES 84 6.2. POTENTIAL ANNUAL GROSS BENEFITS 85 6.3. COMPARISON OF DERIVED VALUES WITH OTHER SELECTED CONTINGENT VALUATION STUDIES 89 6.4. COMPARISON OF DERIVED VALUES WITH SELECTED MARKET VALUES 90 6.5. UTILITY OF STUDY TO OTHER USERS 91 7. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 93 7.1. SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS 93 7.2. CONCLUSIONS 97 7.3. RECOMMENDATIONS 98 REFERENCES CITED 100 APPENDICIES A 104 B 118 C 125 D 129 E 131 i v LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAG" 1. DERIVATION OF SAMPLE SIZE 32 2. SURVEY RESPONSE RATE 37 3. CHI-SQUARE COMPARISON OF RESPONSE GROUPS 46 4. CHI-SQUARE STATISTIC OF POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT VARIABLES 48 5. NON-RESPONSE FACTORS FOR SELECTED ACTIVITIES.. 62 6. DISTRIBUTION OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS BY COMMUNITY 62 7. RECREATION ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION CHART FOR HOUSEHOLDS USING CIP LAND AND/OR THE STUDY AREA 64 8. HIGHEST USE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 65 9. DURATION OF RESIDENCE IN COMMUNITY 67 10. AGE OF RESPONDENTS 68 11. ANNUAL INTENDED ACTIVITY DAYS FROM HOUSEHOLDS USING CIP LANDS 70 12. ANNUAL INTENDED ACTIVITY DAYS FROM HOUSEHOLDS USING STUDY AREA 70 13. INTENDED ACTIVITY USER CHARACTERISTICS 73 14. WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY VALUES PER ACTIVITY DAY 84 15. POTENTIAL ANNUAL GROSS BENEFITS FOR CIP LAND FROM CRD HOUSEHOLDS 85 16. POTENTIAL ANNUAL GROSS BENEFITS FOR STUDY AREA FROM CRD HOUSEHOLDS 86 17. A COMPARISON OF CONTINGENT VALUATION WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY VALUES 89 18. A COMPARISON OF STUDY VALUES WITH SELECTED 'MARKET' VALUES 90 v LIST OF FIGURES F i g u r e Page 1. LOCATION MAPS OF THE STUDY AREA 5 2. DETAILED MAP OF STUDY AREA 6 3. PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE STUDY AREA 7 4. PRIVATE FOREST-SECTOR RECREATION PLANNING MODEL 12 5. MODEL COMPONENTS 49 6. ANNUAL INTENDED ACTIVITY DAYS 71 7. CAMPER TYPES: CIP LAND AND STUDY AREA INTENDED USERS.. 77 8. CAMPER ACCOMMODATION: CIP LAND AND STUDY AREA INTENDED USERS 78 9. ANNUAL POTENTIAL GROSS BENEFITS 88 v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to acknowledge the g u i d a n c e and a s s i s t a n c e p r o v i d e d me by my s u p e r v i s o r , Dr. Peter J . Dooling and by my committee members: Dr. Roger Reid; Bruce D e v i t t , RPF; and Dr. J u l i e n Demaerschalk. A p p r e c i a t i o n i s a l s o extended to Dr. Roger Reid, Mr. Dan Gardiner, and CIP Inc. f o r a d d i t i o n a l p r o f e s s i o n a l and t e c h n i c a l support. G r a t i t u d e i s e x p r e s s e d f o r the f i n a n c i a l support of t h i s r e s e a r c h : a Graduate Research E n g i n e e r i n g and Technology award from the B.C. Science C o u n c i l with support of CIP Inc., T a h s i s P a c i f i c Region and the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia; a summer res e a r c h s t i p e n d awarded by UBC F a c u l t y of F o r e s t r y through the Canadian F o r e s t r y S e r v i c e Block Grant; and through three summers of employment with CIP Inc., T a h s i s P a c i f i c Region. My admiration, love and thanks are p r o f f e r e d to my dear wife Katherine and to each of my c h i l d r e n : Jenny, Naomi, Michael and K r y s t a l ; i n r e c o g n i t i o n of the great s a c r i f i c e they have made on my b e h a l f and the support they have been to me throughout t h i s endeavor. v i i Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION 1 .1 . BACKGROUND Forest r e c r e a t i o n has been o c c u r r i n g f o r c e n t u r i e s but i t i s only i n the past three decades that i t has surged forward as a p r o d u c t of the f o r e s t r e s o u r c e to be u t i l i z e d , p r otected and enjoyed i n the minds of the North American p u b l i c (Meis, 1979). An i n c r e a s e i n man's d i s c r e t i o n a r y time and income has heightened h i s awareness of the f o r e s t resource and has s t i m u l a t e d g r e a t e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n , and demand f o r , f o r e s t r e c r e a t i o n . For e s t land owners have timber crops that g e n e r a l l y can be harvested only once every 60 - 150 years. Though the f i n a n c i a l r e t u r n s may be great at harvest time the c a r r y i n g charges f o r the i n t e r v e n i n g years can a l s o be very high ( H a r r i s o n , 1983; Rose-brough, 1986). What are the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of simultaneously pro-ducing revenues from other f o r e s t resources on the same landbase? This t h e s i s s t u d i e s that question f o r s e l e c t e d r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i -t i e s on a s p e c i f i c landbase. C o n t r a r y to some o p i n i o n s , r e c r e a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s do not n e c e s s a r i l y reduce timber p r o d u c t i o n . Though some r e c r e a t i o n experiences, such as those a s s o c i a t e d with wilderness or r o a d l e s s areas, do a f f e c t p o t e n t i a l timber h a r v e s t , most r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v -i t i e s have l i t t l e impact on Annual Allowable Cut though they do impact on timber management s t r a t e g i e s (Gibbs et a l . , 1979). 1 2 The p o t e n t i a l f o r d e r i v i n g a d d i t i o n a l income from that l a n d -base, on a s e a s o n a l or annual b a s i s while each timber crop i s maturing, should be examined i f optimum p r o d u c t i v i t y , u t i l i z a t i o n and economic r e t u r n s are to occur. The d i f f i c u l t y i n a c c u r a t e l y v a l u i n g non-marketed f o r e s t resources has been the g r e a t e s t stumbling block i n the i n t e g r a -t i o n process. T h i s leads one to question how one can determine the p o t e n t i a l value of r e c r e a t i o n a l use of f o r e s t l a n d s . The a r t and s c i e n c e of e s t i m a t i n g such values has been the object of a s u b s t a n t i a l amount of r e s e a r c h , p r i m a r i l y i n the U.S.A. (Cummings et a l . , 1986). The major non-market v a l u a t i o n techniques p r e s e n t l y i n use are the Contingent V a l u a t i o n Method (CVM), the T r a v e l Cost Method (TCM), and the Hedonic P r i c e Method (HPM) (Bishop and H e b e r l e i n , 1979; Kealy, 1982; Knetsch and Davis, 1966). Each of these w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n g r e a t e r depth i n the l i t e r a t u r e review i n the next chapter. 1 .2 . PROBLEM 1 . 2 . 1 . P h y s i c a l s e t t i n g The 18,000 ha. case study area i s i d e n t i f i e d on the map i n F i g u r e 1. It i s l o c a t e d i n the southwestern corner of Vancouver I s l a n d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 40 km. west of V i c t o r i a , j u s t north of Sooke, B.C. It i n c l u d e s a CIP landbase w i t h i n the t o t a l study 3 area landbase. The d e l i n e a t i o n of the two landbases i s shown i n Fi g u r e 2. Two r e c r e a t i o n f e a t u r e s and the general landscape of the study area are depicted i n the photographs i n Fig u r e 3. CIP's Crown g r a n t e d l a n d b a s e i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 10,000 ha. of Forest Management Unit #7.1 The remaining 8000 ha. of the study area i s a l s o fee simple land p r i m a r i l y owned by two other f o r e s t compan-i e s ; B r i t i s h Columbia F o r e s t Products and Western Forest Pro-ducts, though i n c l u d e d are a few small p a r c e l s of p r i v a t e l y owned non-commercial f o r e s t l a n d . The s t u d y a r e a l i e s p r i m a r i l y w i t h i n the C o a s t a l Western Hemlock biogeoclamatic zone, i n the D r i e r Maritime subzone with a Vancouver I s l a n d v a r i a n t (CWHal). A small area i n the northern c e n t r a l p o r t i o n of the study area l i e s i n the Wetter subzone with a Leeward Montane v a r i a n t (CWHb4). The c l i m a t e i n t h i s area i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by warm summers, mild w i n t e r s , an annual p r e c i p i t a -t i o n of 2123 mm (7% snow) and 35 mm p r e c i p i t a t i o n i n the d r i e s t month ( K l i n k a et a l , 1984). Most of the study area has p r e v i o u s l y been harvested and i s p r e s e n t l y stocked with immature p l a n t a t i o n s (0-20 y r s . o l d ) . The predominant s p e c i e s p r e s e n t i s P s e u d o s t u g a menzesii (Mirb.) Franco. Other major s p e c i e s noted are: Tsuga h e t r o p h y l l a (Raf.) S a r g . , P i n u s c o n t o r t a Douglas ex Loud., Thuja p l i c a t a Donn ex IT a x a t i o n T r e e Farms were r o l l e d over i n t o Managed Fores t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s w i t h an amendment to the B.C. Assessment Act e f f e c t i v e January 1, 1987. 4 D.Don i n Lamb. Due to the c l i m a t e and the pockets of productive s o i l amidst the numerous rock outcrops, the area i s s u i t e d to long r o t a t i o n s of high q u a l i t y timber. The study area i s p r e s e n t l y used by a wide v a r i e t y of r e c r e -a t i o n i s t s engaged i n a number of r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s , ranging from hunting, f i s h i n g , swimming and camping to mountain b i k i n g , a p a i r i e s , and gold panning.2 As no r e c r e a t i o n use or user data has p r e v i o u s l y been obtained f o r t h i s area the a q u i s i t i o n of such i s i n c l u d e d as an o b j e c t i v e of t h i s work. To date, CIP Inc. has permitted the p u b l i c to use t h i s area f r e e of charge, except f o r firewood and a p a i r y permits. One negative aspect of resource use i n t e g r a t i o n i s that the i n c r e a s e i n r e c r e a t i o n a l use a l s o i n c r e a s e s the r i s k of f i r e . T h i s i n c r e a s e d r i s k would be p a r t i a l l y o f f s e t by an i n c r e a s e i n s u r v e i l l a n c e and a v a i l a b l e f i r e f i g h t i n g manpower plus a reduc-t i o n i n f o r e s t f u e l s . The p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s of the area and CIP's c u r r e n t j u v e n i l e s p a c i n g p r o g r a m p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l 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 i n p u t s t h a t aire compatible with timber management. For example, the r o c k y o u t c r o p s p r o v i d e n a t u r a l v i e w p o i n t s f o r h i k e r s and h o r s e b a c k r i d e r s . When t h i n n i n g s are removed the spaced f o r e s t improves r e c r e a t i o n a l a c c e s s i b i l i t y , i n c r e a s e s v i e w i n g d i s t a n c e and enhances the ^A more complete l i s t of the r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s p r e s e n t l y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n on the landbase may be found i n Appendix A. appearance of the a r e a . The l o n g e r r o t a t i o n s p r o v i d e l o n g e r p e r i o d s of time between the v i s u a l impacts of h a r v e s t i n g . The Sooke R i v e r p r o v i d e s the p r i m a r y w a t e r / f o r e s t i n t e r f a c e and supports swimming, sunbathing, f i s h i n g and camping as well as a v a r i e t y of w i l d l i f e . Other small lakes such as Ranger, Tugwell, and Macdonald, a l s o provide s i m i l a r o p p o r t u n i t i e s . The area i s w e l l s u i t e d to i n t e g r a t e d use f o r e s t management. FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAPS OF STUDY AREA 8 1.2.2. Reasons f o r the st u d y A market a n a l y s i s should be conducted to determine the f e a s -i b i l i t y and economic p o t e n t i a l of r e c r e a t i o n use on a p a r t i c u l a r landba se. Such an a n a l y s i s would i n c l u d e an assessment to e s t i -mate the amount and type of r e c r e a t i o n use and users, the r e c r e a -t i o n u s e r s ' w i l l i n g n e s s - t o - p a y (WTP) f o r that use, and the cost of p r o v i s i o n of present and p o t e n t i a l r e c r e a t i o n resources (Dyer and Hof, 1979; Dwyer and Bowes, 1979). S i x of the major f a c t o r s f o r c o n d u c t i n g such a market a n a l y s i s f o r t h i s case study area are: 1. The need f o r r e c r e a t i o n use and user data to a s s i s t i n making i n t e g r a t e d f o r e s t management d e c i s i o n s . 2. The need f o r a l t e r n a t i v e sources of income to o f f s e t the c o s t s of m a i n t a i n i n g the l a n d , roads and timber, plus paying the taxes, over the next timber crop r o t a t i o n (60-150 y e a r s ) . As the land i s l a r g e l y stocked with age c l a s s 0-20 t r e e s there i s l i t t l e means of income f o r the d u r a t i o n of the r o t a t i o n . 3. The e x p e c t e d u s e r demand on the study area generated from the c o n s t r u c t i o n of Deer T r a i l Development. T h i s i s a p r i v a t e h o t e l / c o n f e r -ence and r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t y of i n t e r n a t i o n a l magnitude and c a l i b r e , which i s surrounded by CIP Inc. f o r e s t l a n d w i t h i n the study area.3 4. The user demand generated due to the proxim-i t y of t h i s area to the populace of V i c t o r i a (256,311) w i t h i t s h i g h a n n u a l volume of 3 T h i s d e v e l o pment i s s i t u a t e d on a c l i f f o v e r l o o k i n g the Sooke R i v e r . It l i e s w i t h i n a 5 km narrow c o r r i d o r a l o n g the r i v e r . The p r o j e c t was o r i g i n a l l y supported with TIDSA funding. F u r t h e r funding f o r completion i s s t i l l being sought. 9 t o u r i s t t r a f f i c (1,500,000 v i s i t o r days).* The r e s t r i c t e d s u p p l y of f o r e s t o r i e n t e d outdoor r e c r e a t i o n s e r v i c e s due to v e r y few p u b l i c and p r i v a t e overnight use r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s i n the area. T h i s study area i s the c l o s e s t a v a i l a b l e f o r e s t landbase to the CRD p o p u l a t i o n . There i s very l i t t l e Crown l a n d a v a i l a b l e i n the CRD f o r a d d i n g to e i t h e r the P r o v i n c i a l or R e g i o n a l p a r k s system, or f o r the F o r e s t S e r v i c e r e c r e a t i o n program. The p e r c e i v e d l e v e l of present r e c r e a t i o n a l use of the area. The above f a c t o r s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e i s c o n s i d e r a b l e p o t e n t i a l f o r i n c r e a s e d r e c r e a t i o n demand f o r , and use o f , the landbase beyond the present l e v e l s . 1.3. STUDY OBJECTIVES In l i n e with the above reasons f o r conducting t h i s study, the f o l l o w i n g o b j e c t i v e s are i d e n t i f i e d : 1. To estimate the present use by those persons who have engaged i n outdoor r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s on CIP l a n d s and on the s t u d y a r e a , who l i v e w i t h i n the C a p i t a l Regional D i s t r i c t (CRD), e x c l u d i n g the Gulf I s l a n d s . 2. To i d e n t i f y household and personal socio-economic char-a c t e r i s t i c s of CIP land and study area u s e r s . 3. To i d e n t i f y the p r e f e r r e d r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s of CIP land and study area u s e r s . 4. To estimate the user's w i l l i n g n e s s - t o - p a y f o r hunting, f i s h i n g and camping on CIP land and the study area. *The f i r s t f i g u r e i s the p o p u l a t i o n estimate f o r the C a p i t a l Regional D i s t r i c t (CRD), e x c l u d i n g the G u l f I s l a n d s and Outer I s l a n d s as p r o v i d e d by the 1986 Census. The second f i g u r e i s taken from 1985 s t a t i s t i c s provided by the B.C. M i n i s t r y of Tourism. 10 5. To estimate the c u r r e n t annual p o t e n t i a l gross b e n e f i t s from hunting, f i s h i n g and camping on both landbases. 6. To compare the w i l l i n g n e s s to pay values obtained using the CVM with values obtained from other s t u d i e s . These o b j e c t i v e s w i l l be a t t a i n e d through the implementation of the methods and procedures presented i n the r e m a i n d e r of t h i s work. A l i t e r a t u r e r e v i e w of non-market v a l u a t i o n techniques i s presented i n Chapter 2. I t i s followed by a d e s c r i p t i o n of the study design i n Chapter 3. Chapter 4 r e p o r t s the use of a l l a c t -i v i t i e s on the area and respondent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The use and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of h o u s e h o l d s i n t e n d i n g to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the s e l e c t e d a c t i v i t i e s on the study area are d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter 5. C h a p t e r 6 o u t l i n e s the derived WTP values and estimated annual gross b e n e f i t s . Concluding remarks and recommendations are pre-sented i n Chapter 7. Chapter 2 . LITERATURE REVIEW In t h i s s e c t i o n r e c r e a t i o n use and user data and the v a l u a -t i o n of s p e c i f i c r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s on a p r i v a t e f o r e s t l a n d -base are placed w i t h i n a broad p r i v a t e f o r e s t r e c r e a t i o n planning framework. The need f o r non-market v a l u a t i o n of goods and s e r -v i c e s i s d i s c u s s e d . The v a l u a t i o n methods a v a i l a b l e are i d e n t i -f i e d and compared. A d i s c u s s i o n of the major i s s u e s i n the use and a p p l i c a t i o n s of the methods i s undertaken, with p a r t i c u l a r emphasis on the CVM. The a c c e p t a b i l i t y of the CVM as a non-market v a l u a t i o n technique i s addressed. 2 . 1 . PRIVATE-SECTOR FOREST RECREATION PLANNING For e f f e c t i v e p r i v a t e - s e c t o r f o r e s t r e c r e a t i o n p l a n n i n g to be undertaken, and as an i n t e g r a l part of the planning process, ten important steps should be taken (see F i g u r e 3 ) . These steps r e q u i r e c e r t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n on which to base d e c i s i o n s . They i n c l u d e : 1. The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r landbase or land u n i t f o r planning purposes. 2. A complete resource i n v e n t o r y of that landbase. 3. C o n s i d e r a t i o n of e n v i r o n m e n t a l a t t r a c t i o n s , problems, hazards and/or r e s t r i c t i o n s . 4. The c o l l e c t i o n of s o c i a l and economic data of those who use the area (present use a s s e s s m e n t ) and those who would use the area (demand as s e s s -ment) . 5 . P u b l i c p o l i c i e s regarding the use of that land f o r each a c t i v i t y . 11 12 6. Private/company p o l i c i e s r e g a r d i n g the use of t h a t l a n d f o r each a c t i v i t y . 7. An assessment of the area to determine i t ' s capab-i l i t y and s u i t a b i l i t y f o r s u p p o r t i n g p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s ; p h y s i c a l l y , e c o n o m i c a l l y , environmen-t a l l y , c u l t u r a l l y , and a e s t h e t i c a l l y . 8. The ' v a l u e ' o f p r o v i d i n g such an o p p o r t u n i t y or f a c i l i t y to the company and.to the p u b l i c . 9 . The c o s t of p r o v i s i o n , o p e r a t i o n , maintenance, and l i a b i l i t y of those f a c i l i t i e s or o p p o r t u n i t i e s . 10. The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of those a c t i v i t i e s w i t h r e v -enue p r o d u c i n g p o t e n t i a l and the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h a t p o t e n t i a l revenue. T h i s study p r o v i d e s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the s o c i a l and economic components of the above p l a n n i n g framework f o r the study a r e a . FIGURE 3 PRIVATE-SECTOR FOREST RECREATION PLANNING MODEL 1 ^The c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the schematic f o r t h i s framework i s the work of Dr. P . J . D o o l i n g . 13 2 . 2 . THE NEED FOR THE VALUATION OF NON-MARKET GOODS AND SERVICES Because of law and t r a d i t i o n , r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s and o p p o r t u n i t i e s are f r e q u e n t l y provided on a b a s i s which does not r e v e a l how much they are worth to us ( C r u t c h f i e l d , 1962). In other words they are not p r i c e d i n the market. The mere e x i s -tence of the f o r e s t resource permits p e o p l e to p a r t i c i p a t e i n r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s which produce va r y i n g amounts of s a t i s f a c -t i o n or u t i l i t y . T h i s s a t i s f a c t i o n or u t i l i t y r e c e i v e d by an i n d i v i d u a l r e p r e s e n t s a primary b e n e f i t . We need a ' c a r d i n a l index of s a t i s f a c t i o n ' to serve as a measure of v a l u e . In the consumer's s u r p l u s concept, i e . the d i f f e r e n c e between the p r i c e a consumer i s w i l l i n g to pay and the p r i c e a c t u a l l y paid f o r a commodity ( G i b b s et a l . , 1979), money can be an a c c e p t a b l e c a r d i n a l index of s a t i s f a c t i o n or u t i l i t y (Langford and Cocheba, 1978). Though i t may have i t s drawbacks, money i s the medium of exchange i n our s o c i e t y , t h e r e f o r e economists use i t as a measure of v a l u e . T h i s index (money) i s p a r t i c u l a r l y u s e f u l when manage-ment d e c i s i o n s must be made between a number of d i f f e r e n t and competing commodities. As market p r i c e s do not e x i s t or are not a v a i l a b l e f o r many goods and s e r v i c e s , other methods must be used to o b t a i n monetary v a l u e s . Such methods are c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d to as 'non-market v a l u a t i o n techniques' and i n c l u d e among others the Hedonic P r i c e Method, the T r a v e l Cost Method and the C o n t i n g e n t V a l u a t i o n Method. The purpose of using a non-market v a l u a t i o n technique i n 14 t h i s study i s to value goods which, though not p r e s e n t l y mar-keted, may be marketed i n the f u t u r e . According to Cummings e t . a l (1986) non-market v a l u a t i o n techniques developed i n the f o l l o w i n g way: The HPM was developed f o r the most part by Rosen (1974) f o r the v a l u a t i o n of c e r t a i n c l a s s e s of non-market goods. The TCM was proposed by H o t e l l i n g (1949) and l a t e r r e f i n e d by Clawson and Knetsch (1966). The CVM i n v o l v e d the use of surveys and was introduced by Davis (1963), Knetsch and Davis (1965), Bohm (1972), and Randall et a l . (1974). The s t r u c t u r e s e t out by Randall et a l . , (1974) provides the b a s i s f o r what we now r e f e r to as the Contingent V a l u a t i o n Method (Cummings et a l . , 1986). A d e s c r i p t i o n and comparison of these techniques w i l l now be undertaken to provide a b r i e f overview of t h e i r theory and a p p l i -c a t i o n s . 2.3. COMPARISON OF THREE METHODS OF NON-MARKET GOODS VALUATION 2.3.1. Hedonic P r i c e Method The Hedonic P r i c e Method i s the most r e c e n t l y developed and l e a s t f r e q u e n t l y used of the three v a l u a t i o n methods. It i s a technique f o r e s t i m a t i n g the i m p l i c i t p r i c e s of the c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c s of a good or s e r v i c e , i e . i t uses a t t r i b u t e s or c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c s as inputs to a r r i v e at a c e r t a i n value of the unpriced a c t -i v i t y (Freeman, 1979). For example, values f o r a day of f i s h i n g 15 are d e r i v e d from i n p u t s of s i t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , q u a l i t y aspects of the e x p e r i e n c e , number of f i s h caught, e t c . (Adamowicz and P h i l l i p s , 1983). A i r q u a l i t y values may a l s o be d e r i v e d from r e s i d e n t i a l housing p r i c e s . Such p r i c e s may i n c l u d e premiums and d i s c o u n t s f o r l o c a t i o n s i n clean or d i r t y areas. The r e s u l t i n g p r i c e d i f f e r e n t i a l between two otherwise s i m i l a r areas could rep-resent the value placed on a c e r t a i n l e v e l of a i r q u a l i t y (Free-man, 1979). The t o t a l expenditure on an a c t i v i t y or amenity i s expressed as a f u n c t i o n of the v a r i o u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s used i n the production of that good (Adamowicz and P h i l l i p s , 1983). The range of a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the HPM i s l i m i t e d to a m e n i t i e s f o r which r e l a t e d goods-markets convey adequate i n f o r m a t i o n , and i s r e s t r i c t e d to the experienced range of p r o v i s i o n l e v e l s (Randall et a l . , 1983) . 2.3.2. T r a v e l Cost Method The TCM i s a more commonly used t e c h n i q u e of non-market v a l u a t i o n . It estimates the t o t a l net value of a flow of goods and s e r v i c e s produced by a given s i t e and a t t r i b u t e s t h i s value to the s i t e . T h i s i s accomplished by using t r a n s p o r t a t i o n plus other user cost data to estimate a demand f u n c t i o n f o r the s i t e . An i n t e g r a l of t h i s demand f u n c t i o n i s then taken as an estimate of t o t a l consumer's s u r p l u s of the s i t e (Langford and Cocheba, 1978). It i s i m p o r t a n t to emphasize t h a t the TCM i s a s i t e v a l u a t i o n t e c h n i q u e and not merely a v a l u a t i o n of the cost of t r a v e l i t s e l f . Probably the most troublesome i s s u e w i t h t h i s 16 method i s v a l u i n g t r a v e l time (Rosenthal et a l . , 1984). Bishop and H e b e r l e i n (1979) i n d i c a t e d that t r a v e l time i s valued i n the range of 25-50% of r e g u l a r hourly wages. They have since r e f i n e d t h o s e values f u r t h e r , suggesting an average of 33% as the most a p p r o p r i a t e estimate (Bishop and H e b e r l e i n , 1980). The main assumptions of the TCM are t h a t : 1. There i s s u f f i c i e n t v a r i a t i o n i n p r i c e s ( t r a v e l c o s t ) to s t a t i s t i c a l l y i d e n t i f y t h e demand f u n c t i o n 2. A l l the r e l e v a n t v a r i a b l e s that a f f e c t demand are p r o p e r l y r e p r e s e n t e d i n the TCM model ( i e . the f u n c t i o n a l form i s c o r r e c t ) 3. T h e r e i s no s h o r t a g e of the good i n q u e s t i o n r e s u l t i n g i n u n s a t i s f i e d demand (Rosenthal et a l . , 1984. p.3) 2.3.3. C o n t i n g e n t V a l u a t i o n Method Over the past two decades numerous works have u t i l i z e d the CVM but the most thorough and comprehensive assessment of the CVM has been presented by Curamings et a l . (1986). The CVM i s a s u r v e y method, def i n e d by R a n d a l l et a l . as f o l l o w s : "Contingent v a l u a t i o n devices i n v o l v e asking i n d i v i d u -a l s , i n s u r v e y or e x p e r i m e n t a l s e t t i n g s , to r e v e a l t h e i r personal v a l u a t i o n s of increments (or decrements) i n unpriced goods by using contingent markets. These markets d e f i n e the good or amenity of i n t e r e s t , the s t a t u s quo l e v e l of p r o v i s i o n and the o f f e r e d increment or decrement t h e r e i n , the i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e under which the good i s provided, the method of payment, and ( i m p l i c i t l y or e x p l i c i t l y ) the d e c i s i o n r u l e which determines whether to implement the o f f e r e d program. 17 Contingent markets are h i g h l y s t r u c t u r e d to c o n f r o n t respondents with a w e l l - d e f i n e d s i t u a t i o n and to e l i c i t a c i r c u m s t a n t i a l choice contingent upon the occurrence of the p o s i t e d s i t u a t i o n . Contingent markets e l i c i t c ontingent c h o i c e s " (Randall et a l . , 1983. p.637). The CVM asks i n d i v i d u a l s about t h e i r contingent v a l u a t i o n r a t h e r than t h e i r a t t i t u d e s or o p i n i o n s , i e . t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s - t o -pay (WTP) f o r a given b e n e f i t or t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s - t o - a c c e p t compen-s a t i o n (WTA) f o r a b e n e f i t foregone. The CVM i n v o l v e s some of the most d i f f i c u l t measurement problems f a c e d by e c o n o m i s t s ( B i s h o p et a l . , 1983). Though encumbered by the i s s u e s that f o l l o w , i t i s purported to have the a b i l i t y to i s o l a t e the value of an i n d i v i d u a l a c t i v i t y or compon-ent from the values of other a c t i v i t i e s or components (Hammack and Brown, 1974). It can d i s t i n g u i s h between p r i v a t e , p u b l i c , o p t i o n and e x i s t e n c e values (Cocheba and Langford, 1981) as w e l l as be used to determine the b e n e f i t s of mobile resources such as a n i m a l s or f i s h (Adamowicz and P h i l l i p s , 1983). It a l s o has advantages over the TCM f o r the v a l u a t i o n of areas where d i s t -ances t r a v e l l e d by users do not show s u f f i c i e n t v a r i a t i o n (Dwyer et a l . , 1977) . I t should be noted that none of the above methods are d i r -e c t l y capable of ' n e t t i n g out' the c o s t s of p r o v i s i o n of a c t i v i -t i e s or f a c i l i t i e s (Rosenthal et a l . , 1984). Those c o s t s of pro-v i s i o n are e s s e n t i a l i n complete f i n a n c i a l a n a l y s i s c a l c u l a t i o n s and must be obtained s e p a r a t e l y and i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the o v e r a l l 18 model to determine the net v a l u e . 2.4. MAJOR ISSUES IN THE USE AND/OR APPLICATIONS OF THE METHODS 2.4.1. Hedonic P r i c e Method T h i s method c r e a t e s a problem i n f i n d i n g a ' q u a l i t y ' v a r i -a b l e t h a t i s common to a l l consumers, i e . a v a r i a b l e t h a t i n d i -c a t e s the q u a l i t y of an e x p e r i e n c e such as the a e s t h e t i c s of the s e t t i n g . T h i s method i s i n d i r e c t , t h u s i m p l i c i t r a t h e r t h a n e x p l i c i t i n i t s v a l u a t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r good or s e r v i c e . I t a l s o has d i f f i c u l t y d e a l i n g w i t h the compound e f f e c t s of m u l t i p l e i n p u t s on e a c h o t h e r ; f o r example, where f i s h i n g and camping oc c u r i n the same t r i p . A l s o , i t does not handle the v a l u a t i o n of time v e r y e a s i l y (Adamowicz and P h i l l i p s , 1983). 2.4.2. T r a v e l Cost Method The TCM has d i f f i c u l t y i n q u a n t i f y i n g t r i p making b e h a v i o r because: 1. T r a v e l must be i n c u r r e d e x c l u s i v e l y f o r one s i t e 2. There must be few b e n e f i t s to t r a v e l i t s e l f 3. The o p p o r t u n i t y c o s t of t r a v e l must be known B i n k l e y ( 1 980), a proponent of the TCM, argues t h a t t r a n s -p o r t a t i o n i s a l a r g e r f r a c t i o n of the t o t a l c o s t s of r e c r e a t i o n than i t i s of many o t h e r goods, and thus p r o v i d e s the reason why consumer's s u r p l u s i s needed and why t r a v e l c o s t s can be used t o o b t a i n i t . Johnson (1980) says t h a t i t i s not the t r a v e l c o s t i t s e l f that measures s i t e value the " r e c r e a t i o n experience" at a s i t e access i s r e f l e c t e d i n the pa t t e r n of v i s i t s . 19 (or more p r o p e r l y , the value of given s i t e ) but that the WTP f o r observed t r a v e l d i s t a n c e - d e c a y Though many a c c e p t Johnson's (1980) statement, i t can be argued that those p a r t i c i p a n t s l i v i n g c l o s e s t to the r e c r e a t i o n s i t e may v a l u e that s i t e as much as or more than those l i v i n g f u r t h e r away. The very proximity of t h e i r home to such a s i t e may be i n d i c a t i v e of the people's value of that resource, i e . t h e i r value of the resource may be the reason f o r c h o o s i n g to l i v e nearby. Thus, t r a v e l c o s t s f o r these persons do not r e f l e c t w e l l the value of that at-hand r e c r e a t i o n s i t e ( P . J . D o o l i n g 1986, personal communication). 2.4.3. C o n t i n g e n t V a l u a t i o n Method The major i s s u e s found i n the CVM a r i s e p r i m a r i l y from the use of m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and t h e i r h y p o t h e t i c a l nature. The problems i d e n t i f i e d by Cummings et a l . (1986), a r e : s t r a t e g i c b i a s , understanding the commodity, s t a r t i n g point b i a s , v e h i c l e b i a s , i n f o r m a t i o n b i a s , discrepancy between WTP and WTA values, h y p o t h e t i c a l b i a s , and accuracy. A f t e r working through each of the above i s s u e s with the input from 12 economists, Cummings et a l . (1986) have o f f e r e d the f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n s and summar-i z a t i o n s of the ' l e a n i n g s ' of those i n v o l v e d f o r each c o n c e r n i d e n t i f i e d . These comments are not intended to represent c o n c l u -20 s i v e e v i d e n c e or t o t a l agreement by a l l CVM r e s e a r c h e r s , but r a t h e r , Cummings e t a l . ' s view and summary of the i n f o r m a t i o n p r e s e n t e d t o them. Comments r e g a r d i n g the e x t e n t to which each b i a s i s found i n t h i s study are n o t e d , where a p p l i c a b l e , f o l l o w -i n g each of Cummings et a l . ' s s t a t e m e n t s . S t r a t e g i c b i a s S t r a t e g i c b i a s i s a l s o known as ' f r e e r i d e r ' b e h a v i o r . T h i s i n v o l v e s the respondent o v e r s t a t i n g or u n d e r s t a t -i n g h i s t r u e w i 1 1 i n g n e s s - t o - p a y t o impose h i s own p r e f e r e n c e on the o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t s . S t r a t e g i c b i a s does not appear to be a major problem i n a p p l i c a t i o n s of the method. T h e r e i s an a b s e n c e of s t r o n g e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e f o r ' f r e e r i d i n g ' b e h a v i o r . N e i t h e r t h e o r e t i c a l arguments nor e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e a r e c o m p e l l i n g i n terms of s t r a t e g i c b e h a v i o r by CVM p a r t i c i p a n t s . A t r a d e - o f f i s s u g g e s t e d b e t w e e n s t r a t e g i c b i a s and h y p o t h e t i c a l b i a s . U n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e commodity U n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e commodity r e f e r s t o the degree t o which those persons i n t e r v i e w e d know and understand the commodity i n q u e s t i o n . R e s u l t s f rom t h e l i t e r a t u r e o f f e r l i t t l e t h a t would support the n o t i o n t h a t s u b j e c t s , d u r i n g the r e l a t i v e l y b r i e f p e r i o d of the CVM i n t e r v i e w , c o u l d d e f i n e t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s f o r a new, u n f a m i l i a r commodity i n any m e a n i n g f u l way. Thus, an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the commodity sh o u l d be a p r e r e q u i s i t e or c o n d i t i o n upon w h i c h t h e q u e s t i o n may be asked. A l l of the s u b j e c t s answering the WTP q u e s t i o n s i n t h i s t h e s i s would have had p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e w i t h the commod-i t y and thus met the c o n d i t i o n s t o m i n i m i z e t h i s b i a s . S t a r t i n g p o i n t b i a s S t a r t i n g p o i n t b i a s i s a p r o b l e m i n ' b i d d i n g game' methods of d e r i v i n g WTP v a l u e s . I t i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e o p e n i n g b i d p r e s e n t e d t o the s u b j e c t . T h i s b i a s a r i s e s i f respondents e i t h e r attempt to m i n i m i z e t h e i r e f f o r t or i f they are u n f a m i l i a r w i t h the v a l u e of the 21 commodity i n q u e s t i o n . I f t h i s i s so the respondents tend to be guided by the b i d s suggested by the i n t e r -v i e w e r . Thus, the h i g h e r the s t a r t i n g p o i n t v a l u e the l a r g e r the mean b i d w i l l be ( R e i d , 1987). Two methods are suggested f o r m i n i m i z i n g s t a r t i n g p o i n t b i a s . They a r e : the use of a payment c a r d and 'bracke t and h a l v i n g ' . Payment c a r d s can be s t r u c t u r e d so as to e l i m i n a t e the p o t e n t i a l f o r ' e n t e r i n g b i a s e s ' . T h i s t h e s i s used the payment ca r d i n a m a i l q u e s t i o n -n a i r e t o c i r c u m v e n t t h i s b i a s . V e h i c l e b i a s V e h i c l e b i a s r e f e r s to the means of payment or 'payment v e h i c l e ' . D i f f e r e n c e s i n the WTP v a l u e s o b t a i n e d are e v i d e n t when v a r i o u s payment v e h i c l e s are used. T h i s has been e v i d e n t i n s t u d i e s comparing the use of t a x e s w i t h e n t r a n c e f e e s as payment v e h i c l e s . There i s l i t t l e t o d i s t i n g u i s h between v e h i c l e b i a s and i n f o r m a t i o n b i a s but v e h i c l e b i a s , b r o a d l y d e f i n e d , i s not s u b s t a n t i a t e d . I n t h i s s t u d y , payments f o r h u n t i n g and camping were c o n s i d e r e d u s e r f e e s w i t h no o t h e r p u r p o s e s t a t e d , w h i l e f i s h i n g was a u s e r f e e i n t e n d e d t o a l l e v i a t e f i s h e r y enhancement c o s t s . I n f o r m a t i o n b i a s I n f o r m a t i o n b i a s i s d i f f i c u l t t o d e f i n e p r e c i s e l y but a broad d e f i n i t i o n can be s t a t e d as: "A p o t e n t i a l s e t of b i a s e s induced by the t e s t i n s t r u m e n t , i n t e r v i e w e e , or p r o c e s s , and t h e i r e f f e c t s on the i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e s p o n -s e s . " ( c i t e d by Cummings et a l . , 1986). I t a l s o i n -c l u d e s concerns of s t a r t i n g p o i n t , o r d e r of c o l l e c t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n ( a l s o known as 'sequencing b i a s ' ) and the q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y of i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n t o t h e s u b j e c t s i n the CVM. I n f o r m a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d i n some cases to improve the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the commodity. P r e - t e s t s of q u e s t i o n -n a i r e s may be used to b a l a n c e i n f o r m a t i o n needs w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g c a p a c i t i e s f o r f a m i l i a r commodi-t i e s . No a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n was o f f e r e d i n t h i s study as the p a r t i c i p a n t s were f a m i l i a r w i t h the commodities i n q u e s t i o n . Deer p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t i e s on the study a r e a were compared to those on the G r e a t e r V i c t o r i a Water 22 D i s t r i c t (GVWD), but a c o m p a r i s o n of v a l u e s was not p r o v i d e d or s u g g e s t e d . T h i s b i a s t h e n , was l i k e l y m i n i m i z e d . W i l l i n g n e s s - t o - p a y vs W i l l i n g n e s s - t o - a c c e p t The d i s c r e p a n c y between WTP and WTA v a l u e s r e f e r s t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e s n o t e d between the t h e o r e t i c a l v a l u e s and those found i n case s t u d i e s . In p r a c t i c e , e m p i r i -c a l s t u d i e s have shown a wide d i v e r g e n c e between WTP and WTA v a l u e s f o r the same commodity. WTP g e n e r a l l y u n d e r e s t i m a t e s ' t r u e ' v a l u e s w h i l e WTA o v e r e s t i m a t e s them. Cummings et a l . ( 1986) r e j e c t e d WTA measures d e r i v e d w i t h the CVM based on the argument t h a t they are l e s s ' s t a b l e ' than WTP measures, though t h e y a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e r e may be s e p a r a t e uses f o r WTP and WTA, i e . WTP f o r g a i n s and WTA f o r l o s s e s . In t h i s study o n l y WTP v a l u e s are e s t i m a t e d . H y p o t h e t i c a l b i a s The p o t e n t i a l f o r h y p o t h e t i c a l b i a s i n the CVM e n t e r s through the h y p o t h e t i c a l n a t u r e of the payment as w e l l as t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l commodity and t h e i n s t i t u t i o n w i t h i n which the commodity i s exchanged-the c o n t i n g e n t market. T h i s i s r e f l e c t e d i n the s t a t e m e n t , "A hypo-t h e t i c a l q u e s t i o n w i l l always p r o d u c e a h y p o t h e t i c a l answer." The commodity i s c o n s i d e r e d h y p o t h e t i c a l i n t h a t o f t e n the p a r t i c i p a n t s have had no e x p e r i e n c e i n v a l u i n g the goods and/or s e r v i c e s i n q u e s t i o n and thus have d i f f i c u l t y i n doing so. I n t e r m s of h y p o t h e t i c a l to r e a l payment d i f f e r e n c e s t h e r e may not be as many s e r i o u s b i a s e s as one m i g h t f e a r : w e l l d e signed survey i n s t r u m e n t s , wherein t h e r e are s i m i l a r marketed goods and s e r v i c e s , may i n d e e d e l i c i t r e a l - l i k e r e s u l t s . CVM i n s t r u m e n t s can be s t r u c t u r e d i n ways t h a t m i t i g a t e , i f not e l i m i n a t e , the magnitude of payment b i a s . The most prominent source of h y p o t h e t i c a l b i a s a r i s e s wherein the CVM commodity i s l a r g e l y u n f a m i l i a r to the p a r t i c i p a n t . I t e r a t i v e b i d d i n g c o n s i s t e n t l y r e s u l t s i n h i g h e r CVM v a l u a t i o n s than use of the payment c a r d s . That d i f f e r -ence i s not a b l e to be e x p l a i n e d at t h i s t i m e , though one argument i s t h a t the b i d d i n g procedure ' b u l l i e s ' s u b j e c t s i n t o b i d d i n g more. For the r e d u c t i o n i n hypo-t h e t i c a l b i a s the CVM p a r t i c i p a n t s must understand the commodity bei n g v a l u e d and have had p r i o r v a l u a t i o n and e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o consumption l e v e l s of the 23 commodity. The f a m i l i a r i t y of the p a r t i c i p a n t s w i t h the commodi-t i e s i n t h i s study would reduce t h i s bias.. A c c u r a c y A c c u r a c y r e f e r s t o the degree to which the e s t i m a t e d v a l u e of the commodity r e f l e c t s i t ' s ' t r u e ' v a l u e . I f we had a ' t r u e ' v a l u e , a s s e s s m e n t s r e g a r d i n g the ac c u r a c y of CVM measures a g a i n s t t h i s s t a n d a r d would o b v i o u s l y be s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d . A s i d e from l a b o r a t o r y and f i e l d e x p eriments i n v o l v i n g p r i v a t e g o o d s , t h e s e measures are not a v a i l a b l e . Though not s u b s t a n t i a t e d by e x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d i e s , the s u g g e s t i o n of an ac c u r a c y w i t h i n t h e r a n g e of +_ 50%, i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e CVM e s t i m a t e s a r e as a c c u r a t e as those d e r i v e d from i n -d i r e c t methods ( f o r those commodities t h a t are amenable t o the a p p l i c a t i o n of i n d i r e c t market methods). They co n c l u d e t h a t any s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f t h e m a g n i t u d e of e r r o r s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the use of the CVM i s premature at t h i s t i m e . 2.5. ACCEPTABILITY OF THE CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD R a n d a l l and o t h e r s argue t h a t the r e s e a r c h t o date has e s t -a b l i s h e d the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of the CVM as a method f o r non-market goods b e n e f i t e s t i m a t i o n . R a n d a l l et a l . (1983) s t a t e : " A t t h e o u t s e t , t h e r e s e a r c h agenda i n c o n t i n g e n t v a l u a t i o n sought to e s t a b l i s h , i n the f a c e of c o n s i d e r -a b l e s k e p t i c i s m , c o n t i n g e n t v a l u a t i o n as an a c c e p t a b l e method of non-market b e n e f i t e s t i m a t i o n ( a c c e p t a b l e i n t h e s e n s e t h a t i t works about as w e l l as a v a i l a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e t e c h n i q u e s and i s a d a p t a b l e t o a t l e a s t some v a l u a t i o n t a s k s t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e methods cannot h a n d l e ) . That o b j e c t i v e has been a t t a i n e d . I n a d d i -t i o n , the e x p e r i m e n t a l work of o t h e r s has b l u n t e d t r a -d i t i o n a l f e a r s t h a t s t r a t e g i c responses would i n e v i t a -b l y dominate data s e t s of s t a t e d p e r s o n a l v a l u a t i o n s " ( R a n d a l l et a l . , 1983. p.642). O t h e r s , such as Rowe and Chestnut ( 1 9 8 3 ) , are more c a u t i o u s i n t h e i r o p t i m i s m . They re a s o n : as s t a t e d by Cummings e t . a l ; 24 "CVM s t u d i e s are a p r o m i s i n g approach f o r the e s t i m a -t i o n of non-market e n v i r o n m e n t a l v a l u e s . There has been a ste a d y p r o g r e s s i n m i n i m i z i n g b i a s e s . . . n e v e r t h e l e s s , we a r e f a r from b e i n g out of the woods" (Cummings et a l . , 1986. p.4). F e e n b u r g and M i l l s ( 1 9 8 0 ) f e e l t h a t , " e c o n o m i s t s a r e b i a s e d a g a i n s t such (CVM) s u r v e y s because they b e l i e v e c r u c i a l c o n t r a r y -t o - f a c t q u e s t i o n s are u n l i k e l y t o be answered a c c u r a t e l y " ( c i t e d by Cummings et a l . , 1986. p.5). B i s h o p and H e b e r l e i n ' s comments, i n the same work, put the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of the CVM i n a b e t t e r p e r s p e c t i v e : "Our p o s i t i o n on the CVM i s i n t e r e s t i n g i n the l i g h t of where we s t a r t e d . In 1978, when we f i r s t began our own r e s e a r c h on CVM, we were among the most c y n i c a l . I t would not have s u r p r i s e d us t o l e a r n t h a t CVM produces t o t a l l y m e a n i n g l e s s r e s u l t s . . . w h i l e CVM i s i n a c c u r a t e even under the best of c i r c u m s t a n c e s , i t i s s t i l l q u i t e c a p a b l e of p r o d u c i n g p o l i c y - r e l e v a n t v a l u e s when compe-t e n t l y a p p l i e d i n s u i t a b l e s i t u a t i o n s . " (Cummings et a l . , 1986. p.124). " H y p o t h e t i c a l b i a s does appear to be an i n h e r e n t weak-ness of CVM. S t i l l we have been s u r p r i s e d at how w e l l CVM does work." (Cummings et a l . , 1986. p.146). "While CVM appears t o be b i a s e d even under the best of c i r c u m s t a n c e s , the degree of b i a s does not appear t o be s u f f i c i e n t l y h i g h to r u l e out the use of the r e s u l t s i n p u b l i c d e c i s i o n making."(Cummings et a l . , 1986. p.146). "CVM has shown i t s e l f s u f f i c i e n t l y p r o m i s i n g to warrant a m a j o r r e s e a r c h e f f o r t . . . . Enough p o s i t i v e e v i d e n c e has accumulated to warrant a major investment i n ( t h e ) f u l l development of the c o n t i n g e n t v a l u a t i o n method." (Cummings et a l . , 1986. p.147). From t h i s r e v i e w of the l i t e r a t u r e we now move i n t o a d i s -c u s s i o n of the study d e s i g n . Chapter 3. STUDY DESIGN T h i s c h a p t e r f i r s t d i s c u s s e s the reasons f o r the c h o i c e of t h e CVM f o r t h i s s t u d y . T h e r e a f t e r , i t o u t l i n e s the d e s i g n of the s u r v e y , i n c l u d i n g t h e f o r m u l a t i o n and p r e - t e s t i n g of t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , the d e r i v a t i o n of the a p p r o p r i a t e sample s i z e , the s a m p l i n g method u t i l i z e d and the means of d e a l i n g w i t h s u r v e y non-response. Survey i m p l e m e n t a t i o n and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n are d i s -c u s s e d . L i m i t a t i o n s of the survey are i d e n t i f i e d . Data p r o c e s s -i n g and a n a l y t i c a l p rocedures are o u t l i n e d . The survey response r a t e i s t a b u l a t e d . I n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b l e s of the economic model are d e f i n e d and e x p l a i n e d . A non-response f a c t o r i s c a l c u l a t e d f o r each a c t i v i t y . A w e i g h t i n g of e a c h t y p e o f camping i s a l s o i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the c a l c u l a t i o n s of the p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e f o r t h a t a c t i v i t y p r i o r to b e i n g a p p l i e d to t h e p o p u l a t i o n o f t h e CRD. T h i s e x p a n s i o n from sample to CRD i s f a c i l i t a t e d t hrough the c a l c u l a t i o n of an e x p a n s i o n f a c t o r . The d e r i v e d v a l u e s and o t h e r s taken d i r e c t l y from the survey data are then i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the f i r s t p a r t of the model to d e r i v e the amount of p a r t i c i -p a t i o n or i n t e n d e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y on the l a n d b a s e . P r e s e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s measured i n a c t i v i t y days^ •••An a c t i v i t y day r e f e r s to p a r t i c i p a t i o n by any member of a household i n a r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y on the landbase f o r any por-t i o n of a day. I t does not equate to a c a l e n d a r day of a c t i v i t y , nor to a v i s i t o r day, a t e c h n i c a l term i n r e c r e a t i o n use measurement. 25 26 and f u t u r e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s measured i n i n t e n d e d a c t i v i t y days.2 The model i s designed to e s t i m a t e the annual p o t e n t i a l g r o s s r e v e n u e of s e l e c t e d r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s on the landbase by m u l t i p l y i n g the i n t e n d e d a c t i v i t y days by the WTP f o r a p a r t i c u -l a r a c t i v i t y . 3.1. CHOICE OF THE CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD The major reasons the CVM was chosen f o r t h i s study a r e : 1. I t i s w e l l s u i t e d t o the m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r m a t . 2. The l o c a t i o n of the l a n d b a s e l i m i t s the t r a v e l time and m i n i m i z e s t r a v e l c o s t s f o r the m a j o r i t y of the u s e r s of t h i s a r e a . T h i s f a c t o r a l o n e e l i m i n a t e s the TCM from the l i s t of p o t e n t i a l c h o i c e s . 3. The CVM i s b e t t e r a b l e to address s p e c i f i c i n d i v i d u a l a c t i v i t i e s and s i t e s w i t h m u l t i p l e a c t i v i t i e s than are the o t h e r methods. On t h e whole, the CVM i s the t e c h n i q u e most s u i t e d to the t a s k of o b t a i n i n g non-market v a l u e s f o r the s e l e c t e d r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s i d e n t i f i e d on t h i s l a n d b a s e . The use of a m a i l ques-t i o n n a i r e approach to data c o l l e c t i o n i n t h i s study was n e c e s s i -t a t e d due t o a c o m b i n a t i o n of the need f o r a map, a l a r g e amount ^ T h i s r e f e r s to the r e p o r t e d i n t e n t i o n of any member of a household t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a s e l e c t e d a c t i v i t y f o r any p o r t i o n o f a day on the landbase under the c o n d i t i o n s s p e c i f i e d i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . of d e t a i l , l e a s t manpower r e q u i r e d p o s s i b l e c o s t s , l e s s p e r s o n a l to o b t a i n the data ( K i n n e a r and 27 t i m e and l e s s T a y l o r , 1983). The r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t the best-known a l t e r n a t i v e methods are themselves s u b j e c t to l i m i t a t i o n s and c r i t i c i s m s i s e s s e n t i a l to a b a l a n c e d e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e use o f t h e c o n t i n g e n t v a l u a t i o n method. The comparison i s not between c o n t i n g e n t v a l u a t i o n and a p e r f e c t a l t e r n a t i v e . R a t h e r , i t i s among t e c h n i q u e s w h i c h a r e a l l i m p e r f e c t , but i n d i f f e r e n t ways ( R a n d a l l et a l . , 1983). 3.2. SURVEY DESIGN T h i s s e c t i o n f i r s t d e a l s w i t h q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r m u l a t i o n , then the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of WTP v a l u e ranges. Next i t d i s c u s s e s p r e - t e s t i n g , i n c l u d i n g the s a m p l i n g method used and the r e s u l t s of the p r e - t e s t . The method used to d e t e r m i n e sample s i z e i s e x p l a i n e d as i s the procedure f o r h a n d l i n g survey non-response. Standard demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s q u e s t i o n s were i n c l u d e d at the b e g i n n i n g and at the end of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . 1 A l i s t of 26 r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s was developed to measure t h e t y p e s of r e c r e a t i o n a l use o f the a r e a . T h i s l i s t was f o r m u l a t e d a f t e r e x p l o r a t o r y r e s e a r c h of v a r i o u s government a g e n c i e s , l o c a l c l u b s , p u b l i c and p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n s and p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e , and i s AA copy of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e may be found i n Appendix A. 28 s u p p o r t e d by Meis ( 1 9 7 9 ) . 2 The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a c t i v i t y p a r t -i c i p a t i o n l o c a t i o n was attempted through the use of a map. One survey q u e s t i o n asked f o r the p r e f e r r e d a c t i v i t i e s of the p a r t i c -i p a n t s . More s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n was r e q u e s t e d r e g a r d i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n , and w i l l i n g n e s s - t o - p a y f o r , the s e l e c t e d a c t i v -i t i e s of b i g game h u n t i n g , f i s h i n g , and f i v e t y p e s of camping. The l o w e r end of t h e range of WTP v a l u e s f o r h u n t i n g and camping were determined by u s i n g average market p r i c e s f o r s i m i -l a r f a c i l i t i e s or o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n the R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t . I t was f e l t t h a t persons a l r e a d y p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n those t y p e s of a c t i v i -t i e s would at l e a s t be w i l l i n g t o pay the pr e s e n t average user f e e f o r t h a t t y p e of a c t i v i t y . These 'market v a l u e s ' were o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h t e l e p h o n e i n q u i r i e s to seven p r i v a t e camping e n t e r p r i s e s , two park a g e n c i e s and one each of p r i v a t e and p u b l i c ' r e s t r i c t e d h u n t i n g ' o r g a n i z a t i o n s . 3 Each WTP q u e s t i o n a l s o p r o v i d e d the o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n d i c a t e v a l u e s o t h e r t h a n t h o s e l i s t e d . The r a n g e f o r d a i l y f i s h i n g v a l u e s was e s t i m a t e d and su p p o r t e d through the r e s u l t s of the p i l o t s u r v e y . H u n t i n g and camping v a l u e s were a l s o s u p p o r t e d by the p i l o t s u r v e y . P e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w s were conducted d u r i n g the summer of 1985 w i t h a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e from most p u b l i c and p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n s 2 A l i s t o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n t e r v i e w e d may be found i n Appendix B. 3A l i s t of these e n t e r p r i s e s , a g e n c i e s and o r g a n i z a t i o n s may be found i n Appendix B. 29 or a g e n c i e s i n v o l v e d i n r e c r e a t i o n a l concerns or a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f r e s o u r c e s i n or n e a r t h e s t u d y a r e a . These i n t e r v i e w s p r o v i d e d a good overview and a b a s i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the types and amount of r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y t a k i n g p l a c e t h e r e . 4 The f o l l o w i n g summer (1986) a q u e s t i o n n a i r e was d r a f t e d and examined by s e v e r a l s o u r c e s . A p i l o t s t u d y was undertaken u s i n g t h a t s u r v e y . A one h u n d r e d h o u s e h o l d random sample was taken from a l l households l y i n g w i t h i n t h e C a p i t a l R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t ( CRD), e x c l u d i n g the G u l f I s l a n d s , t h a t were l i s t e d i n the 1985 V i c t o r i a C i t y D i r e c t o r y . T h i s was done to i n c l u d e those households w i t h no phones or ones w i t h u n l i s t e d numbers. Page numbers were o b t a i n e d from random number t a b l e s ( R o h l f and S o k a l , 1969; S t e e l and T o r r i e , 1980). A Wang PC computer was used to d e r i v e random numbers f o r each p o s s i b l e l i n e on a page. The t h r e e columns were a l t e r n a t e d a f t e r t h e f i r s t c olumn was p r o c u r e d randomly. The numbers were then s o r t e d i n t o a s c e n d i n g o r d e r t o s i m p l i f y t h e e x t r a c t i o n o f names from the d i r e c t o r y . Names, addresses and phone numbers were r e c o r d e d a d j a c e n t t o the c o r r e s p o n d i n g random number. The p o s t a l code f o r each name was o b t a i n e d from the p o s t a l code book and r e c o r d e d w i t h the a d d r e s s . Names of commer-c i a l b u s i n e s s e s o r p r o f e s s i o n a l o f f i c e s were i g n o r e d . I f the random number f e l l on such a l i s t i n g the next p e r s o n a l l i s t i n g *A n o u t l i n e of t h e q u e s t i o n s used i n i n t e r v i e w i n g t h e s e o r g a n i z a t i o n s may be found i n appendix B. 30 f o l l o w i n g t h a t b u s i n e s s was s e l e c t e d . A 70% r e s p o n s e r a t e of d e l i v e r a b l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s was ob-t a i n e d i n the p i l o t s u r v e y . From the p i l o t s u r v e y , a number of problems became e v i d e n t . The two of prime importance were: 1. The huge sample s i z e t h a t would have been r e q u i r e d i f one r e t a i n e d the dichotomous c h o i c e WTP q u e s t i o n s t h a t had been i n c l u d e d ; and 2. the h i g h percentage (25%) of n o n - d e l i v e r a b l e q u e s t i o n -n a i r e s . The o t h e r s i n v o l v e d a l t e r a t i o n s of format and c l a r i f i c a t i o n of w o r d i n g . The dichotomous c h o i c e format would have r e q u i r e d a minimum sample s i z e of 4000 to o b t a i n s u f f i c i e n t r esponses t o a c h i e v e the g o a l of 90% p r e c i s i o n and 10% e r r o r f o r each of the f i v e v a l u e s p r e s e n t e d i n each q u e s t i o n . The use of a payment c a r d w i t h a range of v a l u e s was then i n s t i t u t e d i n the p l a c e of the d i c h o t o -mous c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s . T h i s reduced the n e c e s s a r y sample s i z e of t h e m a i n s u r v e y t o l e s s t h a n one f i f t h t h e s i z e o t h e r w i s e r e q u i r e d . I n an a t t e m p t t o reduce the n o n - d e l i v e r a b l e percentage i n the main sample, a s h i f t from the 1986 V i c t o r i a C i t y D i r e c t o r y to the January 1987 e d i t i o n of the V i c t o r i a t e l e p h o n e book was made. T h i s proved u s e f u l as o n l y 3% of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i n the main survey were n o n - d e l i v e r a b l e . 31 The sample s i z e d e t e r m i n e d f o r t h e p r e t e s t was s o l e l y a judgmental d e c i s i o n , w h i l e t h a t of the main survey was determined by u s i n g the number of responses to the most c r i t i c a l q u e s t i o n i n the p i l o t s u r v e y . The most c o n s e r v a t i v e p r o p o r t i o n (0.5) f o r a p a r t i c u l a r response o c c u r r i n g i n t h a t q u e s t i o n was then a p p l i e d t o t h e f o l l o w i n g f o r m u l a from Walpole (1968), t o determine the number of r e q u i r e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s : = t 2 X P X q where n = the r e q u i r e d number i n the sample, t = the v a l u e of the t - t e s t at a g i v e n l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e , p = the p r o p o r t i o n of respon d e n t s t h a t answered a p a r t i c u l a r q u e s t i o n w i t h a 'YES', q = the p r o p o r t i o n of respondents t h a t answered a p a r t i c u l a r q u e s t i o n w i t h a 'NO1, e = the a l l o w a b l e e r r o r . To i l l u s t r a t e the d e r i v a t i o n of 'n' ( f o r p = 0.5 and e = 0.1) n = 1.645 2 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 67.5 oTT2 Once t h e v a l u e f o r 'n' was o b t a i n e d i t was n e c e s s a r y to m u l t i p l y i t by the p i l o t survey sample s i z e , then d i v i d e i t by t h e number of persons r e s p o n d i n g t o t h a t q u e s t i o n i n the p i l o t s u r v e y . T h i s was undertaken to determine the m a i l survey sample s i z e r e q u i r e d , as seen i n t h i s f o r m u l a : 32 MS = n X PS PA where, MS = the mail survey sample s i z e , n = the number of respondents r e q u i r e d f o r that par-t i c u l a r q u e s t i o n , PS = the p i l o t survey sample s i z e , PA = the number of respondents to the most c r i t i c a l q u estion from the p i l o t sample ( i e . the question with the lowest number of v a l i d r e sponses). As c o s t , manpower and time were the l i m i t i n g f a c t o r s of the sample s i z e , t r a d e - o f f s were made between each. The r e s u l t i n g sample s i z e was taken to ensure a 90% confidence at 10% e r r o r . In the c r i t i c a l question i n the p i l o t survey (the WTP value f o r hunting on CIP l a n d ) , one of f i v e p o s s i b l e dichotomous choice questions with d i f f e r e n t WTP values had been a s k e d . The main s u r v e y , on the o t h e r hand, o f f e r e d the same q u e s t i o n with a choice of f i v e v a l u e s, or a statement of a chosen value. With the above l i m i t s s e t , and the p r o p o r t i o n of 'YES'/ 'NO' answers l e f t at a c o n s e r v a t i v e 0.5, due to the change i n question s t r u c -t u r e , the sample s i z e c a l c u l a t i o n was made f o r the most c r i t i c a l q u e s t i o n . These computations are shown i n Table 1. TABLE 1 DERIVATION OF SAMPLE SIZE 56% response 70% response MS = 67.5 x 100 = 750 MS = 67. 5 x 100 = 600 9 11.25 33 A 70% response r a t e had been o b t a i n e d from t h e d e l i v e r e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i n the p i l o t s u r v e y . To be c o n s e r v a t i v e , a 56% response r a t e f o r d e t e r m i n i n g the s i z e of t h e main s u r v e y was chosen because t h a t was the response r a t e o b t a i n e d from the p i l o t s t udy when the 25 per c e n t ' n o n - d e l i v e r a b l e ' were i n c l u d e d . On these grounds the survey sample s i z e chosen was 750. The g r e a t e s t drawback f o r m a i l s u r v e y s , noted by K i n n e a r and T a y l o r ( 1 9 8 3 ) , i s the u s u a l h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of non-respondents which can r e s u l t i n a l a r g e non-response e r r o r . N o n - r e s p o n s e b i a s can occur i f those who responded to the survey i n a l l or i n p a r t , d i f f e r i n b e h a v i o r and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s from those who d i d not r e s p o n d a t a l l , o r from t h o s e who f a i l e d t o respond to a p a r t i c u l a r q u e s t i o n . The b i a s s u r f a c e s i f the resp o n d e n t ' s beha-v i o r a n d / o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s do not f u l l y r e p r e s e n t the p o p u l a -t i o n . I t can be d i v i d e d i n t o s u r v ey and item non-response b i a s c a t e g o r i e s . Survey non-response b i a s develops when the answers of the respondents to the survey d i f f e r from the answers of those who f a i l e d t o respond and e s t i m a t e s a re based on the answers of the r e s p o n d e n t s o n l y . Item non-response b i a s a r i s e s when re s p o n -d e n t s t o a p a r t i c u l a r q u e s t i o n i n the survey d i f f e r from those who f a i l e d t o answer t h a t s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n but have answered o t h e r p a r t s of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e ( R e i d , 1986). To a c c o m p l i s h the study o b j e c t i v e s , the survey was sent to both u s e r s and non-users of the study a r e a . Thus, many q u e s t i o n -34 n a i r e s though f u l l y completed f o r non-users of the s t u d y a r e a , were not a b l e t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n the c a l c u l a t i o n of i t e m non-response b i a s . Due to time c o n s t r a i n t s i n p r o c u r i n g a l a r g e non-r e s p o n s e c a t e g o r y of i n t e r v i e w s , o n l y survey non-response b i a s was t e s t e d f o r i t s presence or n o t . A s m a l l random sample o f t h e n o n - r e s p o n d e n t s (n=16) was s e l e c t e d and i n t e r v i e w e d . Each r e c e i v e d a minimum of t h r e e c a l l backs i n person or u n t i l they were found home, whichever o c c u r r e d f i r s t . Those s t i l l not at home were c o n t a c t e d by t e l e p h o n e . Respondent data f o r the households t h a t had used the study a r e a i n 1986 were compared w i t h t h o s e of t h e n o n - r e s p o n d e n t s s u b s e q u e n t l y i n t e r v i e w e d . F o l l o w i n g t h i s i n i t i a l c o m p a r i s o n , i t was found t h a t a l a r g e r sample of i n t e r v i e w s was deemed n e c e s s a r y t o more a c c u r a t e l y d e t e r m i n e t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of d i f f e r e n c e between the two sub-samples. A f u r t h e r 14 households were i n t e r -v i e w e d by t e l e p h o n e t o b r i n g the t o t a l v a l i d i n t e r v i e w s t o 30. The r e s u l t i n g i n t e r v i e w s were as f o l l o w s : 11 households were i n -t e r v i e w e d i n pe r s o n , 19 by t e l e p h o n e , 1 unable t o c o n t a c t and 3 had moved w i t h no f o r w a r d i n g a d d r e s s o r phone number. I t i s a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t t h e s e d i f f e r e n t methods of i n t e r v i e w i n g the households c o u l d produce d i f f e r e n t r e s p o n s e s t o t h e q u e s t i o n s than the m a i l r esponses or than each o t h e r . There was i n s u f f i c -i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n t o t e s t f o r any r e s p o n s e d i f f e r e n c e s between p e r s o n a l and t e l e p h o n e i n t e r v i e w methods. 35 The comparison of i n d i v i d u a l a c t i v i t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e s f o r t hose households t h a t had used the ar e a was not conducted due to the s m a l l sample s i z e of non-respondents. T h i s was a l s o t r u e f o r t he WTP q u e s t i o n s , a l t h o u g h when c o n s i d e r i n g those households which would use the a r e a i f f a c i l i t i e s o r o p p o r t u n i t i e s were p r o v i d e d , t h e r e was a very i n t e r e s t i n g d i f f e r e n c e . I n the m a i l e d sample t h e r e was always a very l a r g e percentage of r e s p o n d e n t s (41-71% depending on the a c t i v i t y ) who ex p r e s s e d an u n w i l l i n g n e s s t o pay a n y t h i n g f o r p r o v i s i o n of r e c r e a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s , f a c i l -i t i e s or s e r v i c e s . Of the non-respondents i n t e r v i e w e d none ex-pre s s e d an u n w i l l i n g n e s s t o pay f o r s e r v i c e s rendered — a l l f e l t t h a t they s h o u l d pay something. T h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n the res p o n s e s of those i n t e r v i e w e d from those of the m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i s l i k e l y p r i m a r i l y due to the i n t e r v i e w method used r a t h e r than the a t t i t u d e s of h o u s e h o l d e r s . The d i f f e r e n c e s may be due t o t h e s o c i a l s t igma a t t a c h e d t o p e r s o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n s t h a t make people d e s i r e t o p r o v i d e a s o c i a l l y a c c e p t a b l e answer ( K i n n e a r and T a y l o r , 1983). 3 . 3 . SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION T h i s s e c t i o n e x p l a i n s t h e p r o c e s s of a d m i n i s t e r i n g t h e survey and d i s p l a y s and d i s c u s s e s the survey response r a t e . The same sampl i n g method used i n the p r e - t e s t was used i n t h e main s u r v e y , except the sample was taken from the V i c t o r i a phone d i r e c t o r y i n s t e a d of the c i t y d i r e c t o r y . In January 1987, 36 the 750 sample households were sent a q u e s t i o n n a i r e and c o v e r i n g l e t t e r by f i r s t c l a s s postage w i t h a s e l f - a d d r e s s e d , p o s t a g e - p a i d r e t u r n envelope e n c l o s e d . A major e f f o r t was made to m i n i m i z e t h e s u r v e y n o n - r e s p o n s e by implementing the f o l l o w i n g t a c t i c s . One week a f t e r the f i r s t m a i l i n g a reminder p o s t c a r d was sent to e v e r y sampled h o u s e h o l d . Three weeks f o l l o w i n g the m a i l i n g of the p o s t c a r d s a second q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i t h a new c o v e r i n g l e t t e r was sent to each of the 273 non-respondents w i t h the same postage and r e t u r n arrangements as the o r i g i n a l m a i l i n g . As shown i n T a b l e 2, 498 of the 750 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s m a i l e d were r e t u r n e d completed. An a d d i t i o n a l 69 were r e t u r n e d w i t h w r i t t e n comments i n d i c a t i n g t h a t they d i d not use the area f o r v a r i o u s r e a s o n s . These were coded as such and i n c l u d e d w i t h the completed s u r v e y s , b r i n g i n g the t o t a l r e t u r n e d and v a l i d to 567. A f u r t h e r 12 were deceased, 2 had moved, 24 were not d e l i v e r a b l e (moved w i t h no f o r w a r d i n g a d d r e s s ) and 21 were r e t u r n e d t o t a l l y b l a n k . T h i s l e f t 124 s u r v e y s unaccounted f o r . The s u r v e y s of d e c e a s e d , moved or n o n - d e l i v e r a b l e households were removed from the sample w h i l e the b l a n k r e t u r n s were i n c l u d e d i n t h e non-response group. The new sample s i z e thus became 712 (750-38) i n t o t a l , w i t h 567 r e s p o n d e n t s and 145 (124+21) n o n - r e s p o n d e n t s . T h i s r e p r e s e n t s an 80% response r a t e to the d e l i v e r e d q u e s t i o n -n a i r e s . T h i s i s q u i t e r e s p e c t a b l e c o n s i d e r i n g K i n n e a r and T a y l o r ' s (1983) statement t h a t m a i l s u r v e y s conducted by e x p e r i -enced r e s e a r c h e r s s h o u l d a c h i e v e response r a t e s of over 50% and 37 some s u r v e y s r e a c h as h i g h as 80%, though i n p r a c t i c e most f a l l s u b s t a n t i a l l y below t h i s l e v e l . They a l s o i n d i c a t e t h a t a m a i l survey t h a t a c h i e v e s an 80% r e t u r n r a t e i s c o m p a r a b l e t o many p e r s o n a l and t e l e p h o n e i n t e r v i e w s t u d i e s i n p r o p o r t i o n o f completed i n t e r v i e w s . TABLE 2 SURVEY RESPONSE RATE T o t a l households attempted to sample 750 N o n - d e l i v e r a b l e 24 Deceased 12 Moved 2 A c t u a l sample s i z e 712 B l a n k q u e s t i o n n a i r e s (no ex p l a n a t i o n ) 21 Non-response 124 T o t a l non-response 145 A c t u a l v a l i d r e s p onse r a t e (80%) 567 3.4. STUDY LIMITATIONS T h i s s e c t i o n i d e n t i f i e s the major l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s study i n scope, methodology, a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the s u r v e y , and i n the survey i n s t r u m e n t i t s e l f . T h e s i s r e s u l t s a p p l y to the study area a l o n e and sho u l d not be e x t r a p o l a t e d to o t h e r f o r e s t l a n d s . T h i s t h e s i s e s t i m a t e s v a l u e s f o r r e c r e a t i o n u s e r s l i v i n g o n l y w i t h i n the CRD, e x c l u d i n g the G u l f I s l a n d s . I t does not i n c l u d e p a r t i c i p a t i o n or v a l u e e s t i m a t e s f o r t o u r i s t s or f o r r e c r e a t i o n u s e r s l i v i n g o u t s i d e the 38 b o u n d a r i e s of the CRD. I t e s t i m a t e s the 1986 r e c r e a t i o n use f o r each a c t i v i t y l i s t e d i n the s u r v e y . I t e s t i m a t e s i n t e n d e d r e c r e -a t i o n use and u s e r d e m o g r a p h i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r h u n t i n g , f i s h i n g and camping. I t e s t i m a t e s WTP v a l u e s and p o t e n t i a l annual g r o s s b e n e f i t s f o r those s e l e c t e d a c t i v i t i e s . 1 I t does not e s t i -mate those v a l u e s f o r the o t h e r r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s l i s t e d i n t h e s u r v e y . I t does not e s t i m a t e t o t a l r e c r e a t i o n v a l u e s nor l a n d v a l u a t i o n f i g u r e s . N e i t h e r does i t p r o v i d e c o s t of p r o v i -s i o n d a t a f o r r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s or f a c i l i t i e s . The p r i m a r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t must be kept i n mind i n t h i s study i s t h a t i t i s not a complete market a n a l y s i s . The p o t e n t i a l g r o s s b e n e f i t s e s t i m a t e d i n t h i s study are not net b e n e f i t s . To e s t i m a t e net b e n e f i t s , f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h would be n e c e s s a r y to determine the c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p r o v i d i n g e a ch r e c r e a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t y . T h i s work i s d e s c r i p t i v e i n n a t u r e and i s not i n t e n d e d t o i n f e r c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Due to the r e l a t i v e l y new and complex n a t u r e of the CVM, t h e r e has not been s u f f i c i e n t e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n to date to put r e l i a b l e c o n f i d e n c e l i m i t s on the v a l u e s d e r i v e d . T h i s survey r e q u i r e d r e s p o n d e n t s to r e c a l l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n ^ P o t e n t i a l annual g r o s s b e n e f i t - the d o l l a r v a l u e t h a t a g i v e n a c t i v i t y would generate i n one y e a r , assuming the r e p o r t e d i n t e n d e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n l e v e l was a t t a i n e d and t h a t a l l v a l u e s c o u l d be c o l l e c t e d . 39 r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s on the study area over a one year p e r i o d . T h i s may have i n f l u e n c e d the a c c u r a c y of t h e i r r e p o r t i n g . Such l o s s of a c c u r a c y c o u l d be due t o : f o r g e t t i n g a c t i v i t i e s engaged i n w i t h i n the year and/or r e p o r t i n g a c t i v i t i e s engaged i n over a l o n g e r p e r i o d i n t o the one year time frame. T h i s i s r e f e r r e d to as r e c a l l b i a s . C o l l e c t i o n of data by h a v i n g r e s p o n d e n t s keep d i a r i e s , or by s u r v e y i n g on a q u a r t e r l y b a s i s would m i t i g a t e t h i s p r o b l e m , b u t t h e l a t t e r w o u l d r e q u i r e t h e a g g r e g a t i o n and a n a l y s i s of f o u r data s e t s i n s t e a d of one. Users of CIP l a n d l i k e l y used o t h e r p a r t s of the study area but the degree of o c c u r r e n c e i s not known. The converse may a l s o have happened, though to a much l e s s e r e x t e n t . P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n one a c t i v i t y on CIP l a n d c l a s s i f i e d t h a t household as a CIP l a n d user f o r a l l a c t i v i t i e s . T h i s was done to a l l e v i a t e the complex-i t y of i d e n t i f y i n g on the map, the l o c a t i o n of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n each a c t i v i t y . Use of a s i n g l e landbase i n the study would e l i m -i n a t e t h i s problem. The i n t e n t of u s i n g two l a n d b a s e s i n t h i s s t u d y was t o d i s g u i s e the p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y ownership, and thus m i n i m i z e s t r a t e g i c b i a s e s . Heads of h o u s e h o l d s were i d e n t i f i e d by gender but each household p a r t i c i p a n t was n o t . T h e r e f o r e , male/female r a t i o s of use c o u l d not be e s t i m a t e d a c c u r a t e l y . Seventy p e r c e n t of heads of households i n the CRD a r e male whereas 75% o f p a r t i c i p a n t heads of households r e p o r t i n g were male. T h i s i n d i c a t e s a h i g h e r 40 p r o b a b i l i t y of male p a r t i c i p a n t s t h a n f e m a l e but t h e l e v e l i s unknown. S t a r t i n g p o i n t b i a s may have a r i s e n from the range of v a l u e s p r e s e n t e d i n each q u e s t i o n and be r e f l e c t e d i n t h e WTP v a l u e s o b t a i n e d f o r each a c t i v i t y . I n f o r m a t i o n b i a s may a l s o have i n a d -v e r t e n t l y e n t e r e d t h e q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g WTP v a l u e s f o r d e e r h u n t i n g . The r e f e r e n c e t o the GVWD i n terms of deer p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y may have encouraged h u n t e r s t o a l s o use, as t h e i r v a l u e f i g u r e , the permit f e e s t h a t were l e v i e d t o hunt on those l a n d s . T h i s comparison would have l i k e l y been a n a t u r a l tendency as the GVWD i s t h e o n l y l o c a t i o n t h a t most h u n t e r s would be f a m i l i a r w i t h , i n terms of paying user f e e s . There were no comments or s u g g e s t i o n s of t h i s r e p o r t e d i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , but i t c o u l d w e l l have been a sub c o n c i o u s comparison. The i n f l u e n c e o f t h e fr a m i n g of t h a t q u e s t i o n i s not deemed t o be too s e r i o u s i n t h i s c a s e . The s u r v e y i n s t r u m e n t had q u e s t i o n s t h a t may have been c o n f u s i n g or caused i n a c c u r a t e a n s w e r i n g , such as: Q u e s t i o n 6: see Appendix A. - i t l o o k e d 'ominous', thus may not have been completed - the average number of days per a c t i v i t y were o c c a s i o n a l l y r e p o r t e d as t o t a l days r e p o r t i n g of the number of t r i p s on weekdays or weekends was c o n f u s i n g , i n c o n s i s t e n t , and about 40% of the time d i d not c o r r e l a t e w i t h the t o t a l number of t r i p s t a k e n . I t s h o u l d 41 have been l e f t o f f . These d a t a were not e s s e n t i a l f o r the model and were not used i n any p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e c a l c u l a t i o n s or i n the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of WTP v a l u e s . r e p o r t i n g t h e s e a s o n o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n was unnecessary Question 7: " C o n s i d e r i n g a l l o f t h e o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s i n which you p a r t i c i p a t e , l i s t y o u r p r e f e r e n c e i n or d e r from 1 to 5." most p r e f e r r e d 1. 2. 3. 4. l e a s t p r e f e r r e d 5. t h e term 'most p r e f e r r e d ' s h o u l d have read ' p r e f e r r e d ' and ' l e a s t p r e f e r r e d ' s h o u l d have r e a d ' l e s s p r e f e r r e d ' as some respond-ents hated h u n t i n g and i n d i c a t e d i t i n p o s i -t i o n f i v e r a t h e r than t h e i r f i f t h p r e f e r r e d a c t i v i t y . Question 9: "Examine the map on f a c i n g page, then c a r e f u l l y draw on t h a t map an 'X' on each of the areas your household has used i n 1986. Be as p r e c i s e as p o s s i b l e . See example below." - some persons may have had d i f f i c u l t y r e a d i n g and u n d e r s t a n d i n g maps w e l l enough t o p l a c e t h e m s e l v e s a c c u r a t e l y t h e r e o n , or were not sure e x a c t l y where they were on t h e gr o u n d when they were t h e r e . Question 17: see Appendix A. many WTP v a l u e s were r e p o r t e d as $0.00's which may i n d i c a t e a r e l u c t a n c e t o pay f o r something t h a t they have not p a i d f o r i n the p a s t ; a l s o known as f r e e r i d e r b e h a v i o r . 42 Q u e s t i o n 20 : Check the c a t e g o r y which best d e s c r i b e s your t o t a l annual household income, b e f o r e t a x e s . under $10,000 10,000-19,999 20,000-30,000 30,000-40,000 40,000-50,000 50,000-60,000 over $60,000 - from p e r s o n a l o b s e r v a t i o n d u r i n g the i n t e r v i e w i n g of the non-respondent sample income appears t o be , b i a s e d downward somewhat f o r upper income e a r n e r s , but the degree i s unknown. Even w i t h t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s t h i s s t u d y has been a b l e to produce v a l u e s t h a t r e f l e c t 'market' or ot h e r e x t e r n a l p r i c e s . I t has a l s o overcome, to a l a r g e e x t e n t , a number of b i a s e s t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l l y a f f e c t the a c c u r a c y of m a i l s u r v e y s , i e . s u r v e y non-response b i a s and sampli n g b i a s . 3.5. DATA PROCESSING T h i s s e c t i o n d i s c u s s e s q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o d i n g , keypunching and the method of c h e c k i n g the d a t a . The r e t u r n e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were coded then e n t e r e d on an IBM PC and r e t a i n e d on d i s k e t t e . 2 They were then t r a n s f e r r e d t o MTS on the U.B.C. mainframe b e f o r e any m a n i p u l a t i o n of the data took p l a c e . D a t a f o r each v a r i a b l e were checked f o r v a l u e s beyond the 2 D a t a were e n t e r e d by Quantum Research L t d . Vancouver, B.C. 43 p o s s i b l e parameters of the q u e s t i o n , as w e l l as f o r o u t l i e r s and i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s . Key punching e r r o r s were c o r r e c t e d t o match the g i v e n number i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . A l l o u t l i e r s ( t h o s e responses g r e a t e r than 3 s t a n d a r d d e v i a -t i o n s away from the mean) were checked to v e r i f y t h e i r v a l i d i t y . T h i s was ac c o m p l i s h e d by s e p a r a t i n g them from the main data s e t on the computer then examining the a p p l i c a b l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e by hand. Some q u e s t i o n s were not answered by a l l r e s p o n d e n t s . These non-responses were a l s o e n t e r e d as m i s s i n g v a l u e s and were not i n c l u d e d i n the c a l c u l a t i o n of the s t a t i s t i c s or the a n a l y s i s of each q u e s t i o n . Recoding of c e r t a i n v a r i a b l e s was n e c e s s a r y t o a c c u r a t e l y r e p r e s e n t the v a l u e s i n a format t h a t c o u l d be used f o r a n a l y s i s ( eg. d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between a blank and an answer of $0 .00 f o r WTP q u e s t i o n s ) . 3.6. ANALYSIS T h i s s e c t i o n o u t l i n e s the pro c e d u r e s and s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s u n d ertaken i n the a n a l y s i s and a c h i - s q u a r e c o m p a r i s o n of t h e response groups. I t shows a l i s t of the p o t e n t i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s i n t a b u l a r form. S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s were run on the UBC mainframe u s i n g the S t a t i s t i c a l Package For the S o c i a l S c i e n c e s (SPSS:X) p r o g r a m . F r e q u e n c y a n a l y s e s were run on both m a i l survey respondent and subsequent i n t e r v i e w e d non-respondent sample d a t a . C h i - s q u a r e 4 4 comparisons were made of respondent and non-respondent use of the s t u d y a r e a . Two a d d i t i o n a l f r e q u e n c y a n a l y s e s were run on the respondent d a t a , one s e l e c t i n g f o r o n l y those t h a t s a i d they had used t h e a r e a and t h e s e c o n d s e l e c t i n g f o r o n l y t h o s e t h a t i n d i c a t e d use of CIP l a n d . Another f r e q u e n c y run was c o m p i l e d f o r e a c h s e l e c t e d a c t i v i t y on each o f t h e l a n d b a s e s a b o v e , s e l e c t i n g f o r w i l l i n g n e s s to p a r t i c i p a t e i n each a c t i v i t y . The fr e q u e n c y runs p r o v i d e d e s t i m a t e s r e g a r d i n g the r e c r e a t i o n a l use of the a r e a , i n c l u d i n g : the p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e s f o r each r e c -r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y , the a c t i v i t y p r e f e r e n c e s of u s e r s , user demo-g r a p h i c s and the WTP v a l u e s f o r the o p p o r t u n i t y to p a r t i c i p a t e i n those s e l e c t e d r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s . A c h i - s q u a r e s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t f o r d i f f e r e n c e s between p r o -p o r t i o n s was used t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e b e h a v i o r of the m a i l respondent sample d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h a t of the i n t e r -v i e w e d n o n - r e s p o n d e n t sample. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of b e h a v i o r t e s t e d on a p r o p o r t i o n b a s i s were: - d u r a t i o n of r e s i d e n c e i n the community (COMM) - d u r a t i o n of r e s i d e n c e i n the C a p i t a l R e g i o n a l D i s -t r i c t (RD) - p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e (whether the respondent household had used the area or not) (HVUSED) - age of respondent (AGE) - household income b e f o r e t a x e s (INCOME) - number of household members l i v i n g at home (MEMBERS) 45 The t e s t s f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s between the m a i l respondents and the s u b s e q u e n t l y i n t e r v i e w e d non-respondents on each s e l e c t e d v a r i a b l e were based on the n u l l and a l t e r n a t i v e h ypotheses: H 0: P i = P 2 H i : P i ¥ P2 where P j and P 2 are the p r o p o r t i o n s of the answers of the m a i l r e s p o n d e n t s and i n t e r v i e w e d n o n - r e s p o n d e n t s r e s p e c t i v e l y . I n t h i s c a s e , the most i m p o r t a n t v a r i a b l e upon which we are b a s i n g our comparison i s t h a t of whether households had used the a r e a i n 1986 or n o t . Thus, we are t e s t i n g the s p e c i f i c a l t e r n a t i v e t h a t the amount of use of the a r e a by the m a i l respondents was d i f f e r -ent than the use of the a r e a by the i n t e r v i e w e d non-respondents. To conduct the c h i - s q u a r e t e s t , e x p e c t e d f r e q u e n c i e s must be c a l c u l a t e d f o r e v e r y c e l l of each c o n t i n g e n c y t a b l e u s i n g the f o l l o w i n g f o r m u l a : e = R X C T where e = the expected f r e q u e n c y , R = the sum of the row f r e q u e n c i e s , C = the sum of the column f r e q u e n c i e s , T = the t o t a l f r e q u e n c y . The e x p e c t e d f r e q u e n c i e s a r e shown i n p a r e n t h e s e s b e s i d e the observed f r e q u e n c i e s i n T a b l e 3. 46 The c h i - s q u a r e s t a t i s t i c i s c a l c u l a t e d by: X2 = (o-e)2 i * i e OR, f o r 2 X 2 c o n t i n g e n c y t a b l e s , X2 = fr ( l o - e l - 0 . 5 ) 2 where, o = the observed f r e q u e n c i e s e = the expected f r e q u e n c i e s k = number of rows ( r ) X number of columns ( c ) The c a l c u l a t e d c h i - s q u a r e ( "X2) i s then compared to the c r i t i c a l c h i - s q u a r e (X" 2c)» u s i n g " X 2 a t ( r - l ) X (c-1) degrees of freedom. C h i - s q u a r e t e s t s were performed on the respondent and non-respondent data f o r those persons who had used the study a r e a , as d e p i c t e d i n Ta b l e 3. TABLE 3 CHI-SQUARE COMPARISON OF RESPONSE GROUPS INTERVIEWED MAIL YES/NO NON-RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS ROW TOTALS 1 2 (7.76) 150 (144.24) 152 2 28 (22.24) 408 (413.76) 436 COLUMN TOTALS 30 558 588 The c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e i s o b t a i n e d by summing the c h i - s q u a r e 47 of each box i n the c o n t i n g e n c y t a b l e as shown f o r t h e example above. The c r i t i c a l c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e f o r each v a r i a b l e , at the degrees of freedom noted f o r each, was taken from the c h i - s q u a r e p e rcentage p o i n t t a b l e s ( W a l p o l e , 1968 and Z a r , 1974). X2 = X 2 X + x 2 2 + X 2 3 + X 2 4 t h u s , X 2 = 3.57 + 1.24 + 0.19 + 0.08 = 5.08 The c r i t i c a l C h i - s q u a r e v a l u e f o r one degree of freedom at the 0.95 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e i s 3.841. The a b s o l u t e v a l u e of the ^ 2 f o r those households t h a t s t a t e d they had used the a r e a was much g r e a t e r than the c r i t i c a l X"^ at the 0.95 l e v e l of s i g -n i f i c a n c e . T h e r e f o r e , we r e j e c t the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s and c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e i s a d i f f e r e n c e between t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e of r e s p o n d e n t s from t h a t of the non-respondents to t h i s s u r v e y . A comparison i s g i v e n i n T a b l e 4 of each s e l e c t e d v a r i a b l e t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the m a i l and i n t e r v i e w r esponse groups.3 These v a r i a b l e s were s e l e c t e d f o l l o w i n g i n i t i a l f r e q u e n c y runs of the data s e t s to i d e n t i f y those most l i k e l y to be s i g n i f i c a n t . The o n l y v a r i a b l e t e s t e d t h a t was s i g n i f i c a n t at the 0.95 l e v e l was p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e (HVUSED), which i d e n t i f i e d t h o s e r e s p o n d e n t s t h a t had used the study a r e a . T h i s v a r i a b l e remained s i g n i f i c a n t at the 0.975 l e v e l . The f i v e v a r i a b l e s w i t h no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e were: d u r a t i o n of r e s i d e n c e i n the 3S ee Appendix C f o r each C h i - s q u a r e c a l c u l a t i o n . 48 community, d u r a t i o n of r e s i d e n c e i n the CRD, age, household i n -come, and number of f a m i l y members l i v i n g i n the ho u s e h o l d . At the 0.90 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e , d u r a t i o n o f r e s i d e n c e i n t h e community (COMM) became s i g n i f i c a n t . T h i s was p r i m a r i l y due to t h r e e i n t e r v i e w e d non-respondent households r e p o r t i n g f o u r years r e s i d e n c e i n the community, whereas o n l y 13 m a i l r e s p o n d e n t s were i n t h a t c a t e g o r y . T h i s anomally cannot be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h i s v a r i a b l e as a whole but must be c o m p a r t m e n t a l i z e d i n t o each of the e i g h t c a t e g o r i e s of the v a r i a b l e . Thus, the f o u r year r e s i -dence v a l u e o f t h e non-respondents was not c o n s i d e r e d t o be a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n t h e use or u s e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on t h e study a r e a . TABLE 4 CHI-SQUARE STATISTIC OF POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT VARIABLES CRITICAL CRITICAL DEGREES OF X 2 X 2 CALCULATED VARIABLE FREEDOM (0.90) (0.95) * 2 HVUSED 1 2.706 3.841 5.08 COMM 7 12.017 14.067 13.00 RD 7 12.017 14.067 8.25 AGE 6 10.645 12.592 8.78 INCOME 6 10.645 12.592 2.92 MEMBERS 7 12.017 14.067 4.81 3.7. COMPONENTS OF THE MODEL The components of t h e model are o u t l i n e d as a proc e s s i n F i g u r e 5, f o l l o w e d by a d e t a i l e d e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e i r f u n c t i o n . The two p a r t model f i r s t d e r i v e s t h e number of a c t i v i t y days 49 and/or i n t e n d e d a c t i v i t y days, then m u l t i p l i e s t h i s d e r i v e d v a l u e by the w i l l i n g n e s s - t o - p a y v a l u e per a c t i v i t y day to e s t i m a t e the p o t e n t i a l g r o s s b e n e f i t . T h i s i s shown here: A X B X C X D X E = F and F X G = H Example: F i s h i n g i n the Sooke R i v e r on CIP l a n d F = 49.94 X 9.39 X 2.63 X 1.41 X 148.79 = 258,739 a c t i v i t y days H = 258,739 X $2.49 = $644,260 FIGURE 5 MODEL COMPONENTS A. Total households i n sample HHP - r e p o r t e d a c t i v i t y p a r t i c i p a n t households or a c t i v i t y i n t e n d e d p a r t i c i p a n t households i n sample SNR - p r o p o r t i o n of non-respondent u s e r s i n sample NRF - non-response f a c t o r CT - number of campers pa r -t i c i p a t i n g i n each type of camping B. Average t r i p s per household for a pa r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y C. Average number of members per household p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n an a c t i v i t y D. Average days spent per t r i p p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a c t i v i t y E. Expansion factor F. Intended a c t i v i t y days G. Willingness-to-pay value per a c t i v i t y day H. Potential gross revenues 50 3.7.1. P a r t i c i p a n t h o useholds i n sample The t o t a l number of p a r t i c i p a n t households f o r each a c t i v i t y i s d e r i v e d from the number of respondent p a r t i c i p a n t households i n the sample and a non-response f a c t o r . A w e i g h t i n g of a c t i v i t y t r i p s per household i s a p p l i e d f o r each type of camping. As noted above, a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e m a i l r e s p o n d e n t s and i n t e r v i e w e d n o n - r e s p o n d e n t s was found i n the amount of r e c r e a t i o n a l use o f t h e s t u d y a r e a . T hus, a non-response f a c t o r i s r e q u i r e d t o weight the p r o j e c t e d usage r a t e s of t h e p o p u l a t i o n as a w h o l e . T h i s n o n - r e s p o n s e f a c t o r i s d e r i v e d and a p p l i e d t o each a c t i v i t y u s i n g the f o l l o w i n g s t e p s : 1. C a l c u l a t i o n of the t o t a l number of households i n the sample t h a t p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e a c t i v i t y on the a r e a . ^ 2. C a l c u l a t i o n of the e s t i m a t e of the p r o p o r t i o n a t e number of u s e r s of the area from the non-respon-dent p o r t i o n of the sample. 3 . C a l c u l a t i o n of the e s t i m a t e of the n o n - r e s p o n s e f a c t o r o r t h e number o f n o n - r e s p o n d e n t s i n the *The term ' a r e a ' w i l l be used i n th e s e s t e p s , except where note d , t o r e p r e s e n t both CIP crown g r a n t e d l a n d and a l l the l a n d w i t h i n t h e study a r e a . Two s e p a r a t e a n a l y s e s and c a l c u l a t i o n s have been made u s i n g the same for m u l a e f o r each a c t i v i t y on the r e s p e c t i v e l a n d b a s e s to p r o v i d e a comparison of use and v a l u e s . 51 survey sample t h a t would have p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y , (assuming the same p r o p o r -t i o n s of a c t i v i t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n by a l l h o u s e h o l d s , w h e t h e r r e s p o n d e n t or non-respondent, from o n l y among those households t h a t use the a r e a ) . 4. E s t i m a t i o n o f t h e t o t a l number of households i n the e n t i r e sample which would have p a r t i c i p a t e d i n each a c t i v i t y . 5. C a l c u l a t i o n of the w e i g h t i n g f a c t o r f o r e s t i m a t i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n each type of camping a c t i v i t y . Each s t e p w i t h i t ' s accompanying f o r m u l a i s o u t l i n e d below: Step 1. Calculation of household a c t i v i t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n T h i s v a l u e i s o b t a i n e d d i r e c t l y from the f r e q u e n c y runs of the c o m p i l e d d a t a ; f o r example, 45 households from among u s e r s of CIP l a n d r e p o r t e d an i n t e n t t o f i s h the Sooke R i v e r . Step 2 . Estimation of non-respondent use To e s t i m a t e the number of non-respondents t h a t w o u l d have used any p a r t of t h e c a s e s t u d y a r e a , the f o l l o w i n g f o r m u l a a p p l i e s : SNR = H V U S E D T X NR HHj 52 where, SNR = the e s t i m a t e d number of non-respondents from the t o t a l s u r v e y sample t h a t would have used the a r e a , HVUSEDj = the number of i n t e r v i e w e d households t h a t have used the a r e a , HHj = the number of households i n t e r v i e w e d . NR = the number of non-respondents to the m a i l s u r v e y , i e . SNR = _2 X 145 = 9.67 30 T h i s c a l c u l a t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t 10 of 145, or 7% of the non-respondent households would have i n d i c a t e d use of the a r e a . T h i s v a l u e i s then a p p l i e d i n c o m p i l a t i o n of the f o r m u l a i n s t e p 3. Step 3. D e r i v a t i o n of t h e non-response f a c t o r The f o l l o w i n g f o r m u l a i s used to e s t i m a t e the non-response f a c t o r f o r the p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y : NRF = PA X SNR HVUSED M where, NRF = the non-response f a c t o r ( t h e v a l u e w i l l change f o r each r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y ) , PA = the number of households i n the m a i l survey t h a t p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h a t a c t i v i t y , HVUSEDM = the number of households i n the m a i l survey i n d i c a t i n g t h a t they had used the a r e a i n 1986, SNR = the number of non-respondents t h a t would have i n d i c a t e d use of the a r e a . Below, f i s h i n g i n the Sooke R i v e r i s used as an example: 53 NRF = 45 X 9.67 = 4 .94 88 T h e r e f o r e , 5 o f t h e 145 n o n - r e s p o n s e h o u s e h o l d s would have i n d i c a t e d f i s h i n g i n the Sooke R i v e r . From t h i s , we proceed to step 4. Step 4 . E s t i m a t i o n o f p a r t i c i p a n t h o u s e h o l d s To e s t i m a t e the t o t a l number of h o u s e h o l d s i n t h e e n t i r e v a l i d s ample t h a t w o u l d have i n d i c a t e d use of the area f o r a p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y , the f o l l o w i n g f o r m u l a i s used: HHP = PA + NRF where, HHP = the e s t i m a t e d number of households i n the sample t h a t used the a r e a , or i n t e n d e d t o use i t , ^ f o r a p a r t i c u l a r r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y , PA = the number of households of the m a i l r e s p o n -dents t h a t i n d i c a t e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n or i n t e n t to p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h a t a c t i v i t y , NRF = the non-response f a c t o r f o r t h a t a c t i v i t y . The a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s f o r m u l a i s ex p r e s s e d u s i n g f i s h i n g by CIP l a n d u s e r s as an example: 5 T h i s same f o r m u l a i s used t o e s t i m a t e two d i f f e r e n t v a l u e s . I n i t i a l l y i t i s used to d e r i v e the number of households t h a t used t h e a r e a f o r each of t h e a c t i v i t i e s . L a t e r i t i s used t o e s t i m a t e the number of households t h a t i n t e n d e d to use the ar e a f o r o n l y those s e l e c t e d a c t i v i t i e s under the c o n d i t i o n s s t a t e d i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . 54 HHP = 22 + 4.94 = 26.94 Thus, 27 of the 712 households s u r v e y e d , are e s t i m a t e d t o have f i s h e d on CIP l a n d i n the study y e a r . U s i n g t h i s f o r m u l a but i n s e r t i n g w i l l i n g Sooke R i v e r a n g l e r s i n the p l a c e of r e p o r t e d CIP a n g l e r s generated 50 w i l l i n g a n g l e r households from the same group of CIP l a n d u s e r s . R e p o r t e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n was used t o d e r i v e p r e s e n t use and w i l l i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n t o d e r i v e p o t e n t i a l use i n the model. Step 5. The veighting of camping p a r t i c i p a t i o n rates As the number of camping t r i p s t a k e n were r e p o r t e d as a t o t a l r a t h e r than by each type of camping, i t was n e c e s s a r y t o d e r i v e the number f o r each t y p e . Each v a l u e was c a l c u l a t e d by d i v i d i n g the number of responses of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n each of the f i v e t y p e s of camping by the t o t a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a l l t y p e s of camping. T h i s v a l u e was then m u l t i p l i e d by the a c t u a l number of camping t r i p s taken on the a r e a . The c a l c u l a t i o n i s shown u s i n g the p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e f o r m u l a : CT = CH I TT AT where, CT CH number of household t r i p s by type of camping, the number of households u s i n g a p a r t i c u l a r type of camping, the t o t a l number of camper households u s i n g any type of camping, the t o t a l number of camping t r i p s t aken on the study a r e a . AT TT 55 P r i m i t i v e s t y l e camping on CIP l a n d i s used t o i l l u s t r a t e t h i s c a l c u l a t i o n . CT P = 185 X 88 = 66 246 T h i s v a l u e (66) must be p l a c e d i n the f o r m u l a i n Step 3 (as a v a l u e f o r v a r i a b l e PA, i e . the number of sample households t h a t p a r t i c i p a t e d i n p r i m i t i v e s t y l e camping) to determine the non-response f a c t o r f o r p r i m i t i v e camping. The same i s a l s o t r u e f o r the o t h e r f o u r t y p e s of camping s t u d i e d . T h i s i s best e x p r e s s e d by u s i n g p r i m i t i v e camping i n another example: NRF = 66 X 9.67 = 7.25 88 T h i s non-response f a c t o r must be added to the m a i l response v a l u e t o g i v e a more a c c u r a t e i n d i c a t i o n of t h e a r e a u s e r s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h a t a c t i v i t y . T h e r e f o r e , 66 + 7 = 73 of the 712 households sampled are u s e r s of CIP l a n d and would p a r t i c i -pate i n p r i m i t i v e s t y l e camping on the a r e a . The r e s u l t a n t v a l u e s f o r each type of camping are s i m i l a r l y t r e a t e d as i n t h e p r o c e s s a b o v e , as a r e c a l c u l a t i o n s of deer h u n t i n g and f i s h i n g v a l u e s . 3.7.2. P a r t i c i p a n t use v a l u e s I m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e model r e q u i r e s t h e c a l c u l a t i o n of 56 average v a l u e s f o r each of the f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s : number of h o u s e h o l d a c t i v i t y t r i p s , number of household members per t r i p and the number of a c t i v i t y days p a r t i c i p a t i o n per household per t r i p . The v a l u e s f o r the average number of a c t i v i t y t r i p s taken per household were c a l c u l a t e d as o u t l i n e d b e l o w . The a v e r a g e number of household members per t r i p and the average number of days spent p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n an a c t i v i t y per t r i p were c a l c u l a t e d d i r e c t l y from the respondent d a t a . The average number of a c t i v i t y t r i p s taken per household i s c a l c u l a t e d by d i v i d i n g the t o t a l number of t r i p s r e c o r d e d , o f on l y those m a i l r e s p o n d e n t s who had i n d i c a t e d use of the a r e a , by th e number o f h o u s e h o l d s of t h e m a i l r e s p o n d e n t s w h i c h had i n d i c a t e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e a c t i v i t y . T h i s assumes t h e average number of t r i p s taken would be the same f o r both r e s p o n -d e n t and non-respondent p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the a c t i v i t y . T h i s i s shown he r e : HHTR = TT PA where, HHTR TT PA the average number of household t r i p s of those p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the a c t i v i t y on the a r e a , the t o t a l number of t r i p s r e p o r t e d by p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h a t a c t i v i t y on the a r e a , from the m a i l r e s p o n d e n t s , the number of households of the m a i l r e s p o n -dents i n d i c a t i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the a c t i v -i t y on the a r e a . 57 U s i n g f i s h i n g i n the Sooke R i v e r a g a i n as an example, t h e f o l l o w i n g v a l u e i s d e r i v e d . Thus, an average of 4 f i s h i n g t r i p s were taken by each household t h a t f i s h e d i n the Sooke R i v e r on CIP l a n d . S t i l l r e q u i r e d , i s the c a l c u l a t i o n of the household expan-s i o n f a c t o r t o expand t h e s e s a m p l e - d e r i v e d f i g u r e s t o t h e r e l e v a n t p o p u l a t i o n , i e . the number of households l o c a t e d w i t h i n the C a p i t a l R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t (CRD), e x c l u d i n g the G u l f I s l a n d s . T h i s f a c t o r i s c a l c u l a t e d by d i v i d i n g the t o t a l number of households i n the study area by the respondent sample s i z e : HHTR = 1_69 = 3.76 45 E F NH SR where, NH SR E F e x p a n s i o n f a c t o r ( f o r e x p a n s i o n of the s a m p l e v a l u e s t o p r o d u c e f i g u r e s f o r t h e number of households i n the CRD), number of households i n the p o p u l a t i o n (CRD), number of household survey r e s p o n d e n t s . i e . E F = 105,937 = 148.79 712 U s i n g each of the v a r i a b l e s d i s c u s s e d above to e s t i m a t e the number of i n t e n d e d a c t i v i t y days e c t e d a c t i v i t y . T h i s i s a c c o m p l i s h e d by u s i n g f o r m u l a as the f i r s t p a r t of the model: IAD = HHP X T/HH X AVGM X AVGD X EF where, IAD = the number of a c t i v i t y days generated by households i n t e n d i n g t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y on the study a r e a HHP = t h e number o f h o u s e h o l d s i n t e n d i n g t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the s e l e c t e d a c t i v i t y on t h e s t u d y a r e a ( i n c l u d i n g t h e non-response f a c t o r f o r t h a t a c t i v i t y ) T/HH = the number of t r i p s t a ken per household f o r t h a t a c t i v i t y AVGM 6 = the average number of household members p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h a t a c t i v i t y on t h e study a r e a AVGD = the average number of days per t r i p t h a t h o u s e h o l d s s p e n t e n g a g i n g i n t h e a c t i v i t y on the study a r e a EF = the exp a n s i o n f a c t o r used t o expand from t h e s a m p l e t o t h e CRD p o p u l a t i o n , e x c l u d i n g the G u l f I s l a n d s , U s i n g f i s h i n g i n the Sooke R i v e r by CIP l a n d u s e r s as an example: IAD = 49.94 X 9.39 X 2.63 X 1.41 X 148.79 = 258,739 i n t e n d e d a c t i v i t y days 58 i t i s p o s s i b l e f o r each s e l -t h e f o l l o w i n g 6 F or the c a l c u l a t i o n u e s , t h e v a l u e f o r t h e p a r t i c i p a t i n g (AVGM) w i l l of a l l a v e r a g e have to CAMPING p o t e n t i a l g r o s s r e v e n -number of h o u s e h o l d members be dropped from t h i s e q u a t i o n . 59 3.7.3. W i l l i n g n e s s - t o - p a y and p o t e n t i a l g r o s s b e n e f i t v a l u e s The average w i l l i n g n e s s - t o - p a y v a l u e s f o r the seven chosen a c t i v i t i e s were d e r i v e d f rom o n l y those households i n d i c a t i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y on the l a n d b a s e i n 1986 p l u s e x p r e s s i n g an i n t e n t i o n t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the g i v e n a c t i v i t y on t h e l a n d b a s e i n t h e f u t u r e . These v a l u e s were o b t a i n e d d i r e c t l y from the c o m p i l a t i o n of the d a t a . The p o t e n t i a l annual g r o s s b e n e f i t f o r a s p e c i f i e d r e c r e a -t i o n a c t i v i t y can be e s t i m a t e d by i n s e r t i n g the a p p l i c a b l e r e -po r t e d and c a l c u l a t e d v a l u e s i n t o the model below. T h i s assumes t h a t a d u l t s would pay the s t a t e d f e e f o r h u n t i n g or f i s h i n g f o r each person i n t h e i r f a m i l y i n c l u d i n g c h i l d r e n . ^ POTENTIAL ANNUAL GROSS BENEFIT MODEL PGB = IAD X WTP where, PGB = p o t e n t i a l annual g r o s s b e n e f i t , IAD = number of i n t e n d e d a c t i v i t y days genera-ted by the a c t i v i t y WTP = a v e r a g e w i 1 1 i n g n e s s - t o - p a y v a l u e p e r a c t i v i t y day f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e a c t i v i t y amping f e e s have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been, and c o n t i n u e t o be, p a i d f o r i n terms of f a m i l i e s , camping spaces used or c a r l o a d s w h i l e h u n t i n g and f i s h i n g f e e s are p a i d f o r on an i n d i v i d u a l u s e r b a s i s . 60 F i s h i n g i n the Sooke R i v e r on CIP l a n d i s used to i l l u s t r a t e the p o t e n t i a l annual g r o s s b e n e f i t u s i n g t h i s model. PGB = 258,739 X $2.49 = $644,260 The above e x p l a n a t i o n s of the p r o c e s s and components i n the model s i m p l i f y and a s s i s t the u n d e r s t a n d i n g and a p p l i c a t i o n of the r e s u l t s d i s c u s s e d i n the next c h a p t e r . Chapter 4. SURVEY RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS AND USE T h i s c h a p t e r d i s c u s s e s the survey response r a t e i n g e n e r a l and by community. Non-response f a c t o r s a re d e p i c t e d f o r s e l e c t e d a c t i v i t i e s on each l a n d b a s e . E s t i m a t e s of a c t i v i t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n a r e t h e n p r e s e n t e d . H i g h e s t - u s e and p r e f e r r e d a c t i v i t i e s a r e i d e n t i f i e d . F i n a l l y , respondent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and concerns are d i s c u s s e d . 4.1. SURVEY RESPONSE RATE From the v a l u e s o b t a i n e d i n the p i l o t survey an 80% response r a t e i n the main survey would have been s u f f i c i e n t t o o b t a i n the g o a l o f 90% p r o b a b i l i t y of 10% e r r o r on the most c r u c i a l WTP q u e s t i o n s . However, respondents to t h e main s u r v e y were l e s s f r e q u e n t u s e r s o f t h e study a r e a than were respon d e n t s to the p i l o t s u r v e y . Non-response f a c t o r s f o r s e l e c t e d a c t i v i t i e s on b o t h l a n d b a s e s a re p r e s e n t e d i n Ta b l e 5. These v a l u e s w i l l be used i n the c o m p i l a t i o n of the number of a c t i v i t y days generated f o r each s e l e c t e d a c t i v i t y . A c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e p e r c e n t a g e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s u r v e y r e s p o n d e n t s by community f o r each landbase i s shown i n Table 6. From t h i s t a b l e i t i s a l s o noted t h a t response r a t e s conform to the household p o p u l a t i o n s of each community. T h i s would i n d i c a t e t h a t the sample was r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the household d i s t r i b u t i o n i n the CRD. 61 62 TABLE 5 NON-RESPONSE FACTORS FOR SELECTED ACTIVITIES ACTIVITY CIP LAND STUDY AREA HUNTING 1.98 1.48 FISHING 4.94 4.51 CAMPING: Primitive 7.25 6.12 Semi-primitive 5.60 5.48 Modified 1.24 2.97 Rural 0.77 1.87 Cabin 1.10 2.26 TABLE 6 DISTRIBUTION OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS BY COMMUNITY (percentage) Households Households Community i n i n Population/ Used Used Population Sample Sample CIP Area n=105.937 n=497 Difference n=88 n=150 C e n t r a l S a a n i c h 4.6 6.8 2.2 5.8 5.4 Colwood 4.6 2.2 -2.4 4.7 4.8 E s q u i m a l t 6.0 5.4 -0.6 4.7 5.4 Langf ord 6.1 4.6 -1.5 4.7 6.1 M e t c h o s i n 1.4 0.4 -1.0 0.0 1.4 No r t h S a a n i c h 2.8 2.8 0.0 1.2 0.7 Oak Bay 6.7 8.5 1.8 4.7 7.5 S a a n i c h 32.5 32.5 0.0 38.3 32.7 Sidney 3.4 5.2 1.8 1.2 2.0 V i c t o r i a 26.0 28.2 2.2 24.3 26.5 View R o y a l 2.4 2.0 -0.4 3.4 3.4 Sooke 3.5 1.4 -2.1 7.0 4.1 T o t a l s 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 63 Sooke s t a n d s out as h a v i n g t h e h i g h e s t r a t e of use per household i n the study a r e a . Sooke r e s i d e n t s produced f o u r times the a c t i v i t y on CIP l a n d and t w i c e t h e a c t i v i t y on t h e whole study a r e a as the percentage of Sooke households i n the sample. T h i s h i g h e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e / h o u s e h o l d by Sooke r e s i d e n t s was expected due t o t h e i r c l o s e p r o x i m i t y to the study a r e a . A l s o as a n t i c i p a t e d , the two l a r g e s t p o p u l a t i o n c e n t e r s o f S a a n i c h and V i c t o r i a p r o d u c e d t h e l a r g e s t p e r c e n t a g e of u s e r s , and taken t o g e t h e r account f o r n e a r l y 2 of every 3 user h o u s e h o l d s . I n g e n e r a l , t h e p e r c e n t a g e of use per community noted i n T a b l e 6 r e f l e c t s the p o p u l a t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n a c r o s s the r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t , w i t h those l y i n g c l o s e r to the study a r e a g e n e r a t i n g a s l i g h t l y h e a v i e r p r o p o r t i o n of use. The o n l y e x c e p t i o n to t h i s i s M e t c h o s i n , s i t u a t e d near the study area but i n d i c a t i n g no use of CIP l a n d , though i t d i d account f o r 1.4% of the use on t h e study a r e a . M e t c h o s i n r e p r e s e n t s 0.4% of the sample p o p u l a t i o n . 4.2. ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION F o r t h e CRD p o p u l a t i o n , e x c l u d i n g those persons l i v i n g on t h e G u l f I s l a n d s , t h e t o t a l e s t i m a t e d number of r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y days on CIP l a n d was 947,114 i n 1986 and on the study area 1,148,583. Ta b l e 7 p r e s e n t s summaries of t h e r e s p o n d e n t household p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n each r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y on CIP l a n d and the study area i n 1986. TABLE 7 RECREATION ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION CHART FOR HOUSEHOLDS USING CIP LAND AND/OR THE STUDT AREA ACTIVITY NUMBER OF SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS AVERAGE TRIPS PER HOUSEHOLD AVERAGE 9 HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS CRD HH AVERAGE EXPANSION DAYS/TRIP FACTOR NUMBER OF ACTIVITY DAYS CIP AREA CIP AREA CIP AREA CIP AREA CIP AREA Hunting-upland b i r d s 12. 2 12 .2 4.5 4. 5 1.40 1. 40 1 .55 1.55 148. 79 17,725 17,725 H u n t i n g - b i g game 14. 4 14 .4 5.2 5. 2 1.42 1. 42 1 .27 1.27 148. 79 20,092 20,092 Camping 28. 9 41 .1 5.0 4. 2 2.68 2. 45 2 .04 2.71 148. 79 117,545 170,529 F i s h i n g 24. 4 27 .7 9.0 8. 6 2.70 2. 62 1 .38 1.38 148. 79 121,745 128,155 ACTIVE H i k i n g 58. 8 87 .7 5.6 4. 6 2.51 2. 37 1 .14 1.21 148. 79 140,190 172,133 Horseback r i d i n g 2. 2 2 .2 10.5 10. 5 2.00 2. 00 1 .00 1.00 148. 79 6,874 6,874 Mountain b i k i n g 2. 2 2 .2 5.0 5. 0 1.00 1. 00 1 .00 1.00 148. 79 1,637 1,637 S u r y i y a l ganes 2. 2 2 .2 1.0 1. 0 1.50 1. 50 1 .00 1.00 148. 79 491 491 X-country s k i i n g 0. 0 0 .0 0.0 0. 0 0.00 0. 00 0 .00 0.00 148. 79 0 0 S l e d d i n g 1. 1 1 .1 3.0 3. 0 1.00 1. 00 1 .00 1.00 148. 79 491 491 PASSIVE P i c n i c k i n g 44. 4 64 .4 4.3 3. 6 3.00 2. 79 1 .05 1.09 148. 79 89,482 104,904 S i g h t s e e i n g / v i e w i n g 46. 6 81 .0 5.6 4. 2 2.69 2. 56 1 .03 1.09 148. 79 107,582 141,245 Photography 22. 2 30 .0 4.9 4. 1 2.05 1. 89 1 .06 1.08 148. 79 35,170 37,357 MOTORIZED A W h e e l i n g / t o u r i n g 24. 4 28 .9 8.4 7. 4 2.60 2. 57 1 .05 1.04 148. 79 83,254 85,049 T r a i l b i k i n g 4. 4 4 .4 4.8 4. 8 1.75 1. 75 1 .00 1.00 148. 79 5,499 5,499 ATV's 4. 4 4 .4 4.5 4. 5 1.50 1. 50 1 .33 1.33 148. 79 5,877 5,877 Snowmobiling 0. 0 0 .0 0.0 0. 0 0.00 0. 00 0 .00 0.00 148. 79 0 0 GATHERING Firewood 16. 6 30 .0 3.0 1. 7 2.25 2. 07 1 .08 1.20 148. 79 18,005 18,849 Honey 2. 2 3 .3 2.5 2. 0 1.00 1. 00 1 .00 1.00 148. 79 818 2,946 Rocks 5. 5 7 .7 10.8 8. 0 3.00 2. 83 1 .00 1.00 148. 79 26,514 25,938 E d i b l e foods 7. 7 11 .1 2.0 1. 8 2.17 2. 00 1 .00 1.10 148. 79 5,877 6,481 WATER BASED Swimning 41. 1 65 .5 5.2 4. 6 3.12 2. 91 1 .12 1.13 148. 79 111,120 147,416 Canoeing 6. 6 6 .6 2.7 2. 7 2.71 2. 71 1 .20 1.20 148. 79 8,623 8,623 Kayaking 1. 1 1 .1 6.0 6. 0 2.00 2. 00 1 .00 1.00 148. 79 1,964 1,964 Tnbing 3. 3 5 .5 3.7 2. 8 1.50 1. 50 1 .00 1.00 148. 79 2,725 3,438 W i n d s u r f i n g 0. 0 1 .1 0.0 20. 0 0.00 3. 00 0 .00 1.00 148. 79 0 9,820 OTHER 6. 6 12 .1 7.7 4. 7 1.83 1. 55 1 .33 1.91 148. 79 18,404 25,050 TOTALS 947,114 1,148,583 65 4 . 3 . HIGHEST-USE AND PREFERRED ACTIVITIES The top f i v e a c t i v i t i e s on CIP l a n d , i n a c t i v i t y days o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n , are compared i n de s c e n d i n g o r d e r w i t h those of the study area i n T a b l e 8. TABLE 8 HIGHEST USE RECREATION ACTIVITIES ACTIVITY CIP USE STUDY AREA USE h i k i n g 140,190 172,133 f i s h i n g 121,745 128,155 camping 117,545 170,529 swimming 111,120 147,416 s i g h t s e e i n g / v i e w i n g 107,582 141,245 H i k i n g on CIP l a n d produced 81% of a l l the h i k i n g r e p o r t e d on the study a r e a , w h i l e f i s h i n g on CIP l a n d accounted f o r 95% of a l l r e p o r t e d f i s h i n g o c c a s i o n s w i t h i n the study a r e a . The t o p f i v e a c t i v i t i e s remain the same f o r the study a r e a as f o r CIP l a n d , except t h a t f i s h i n g drops to f i f t h p l a c e on the study area from second on CIP l a n d . Camping, the second most p o p u l a r r e c r e -a t i o n a c t i v i t y f o r the study a r e a d e c l i n e s i n p o p u l a r i t y on CIP l a n d s : t h e d e c l i n e b e i n g more p r o n o u n c e d t h a n f o r any o t h e r a c t i v i t y . The i n d i c a t e d p r e f e r e n c e s of r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s by both CIP l a n d and study area u s e r s c o r r e s p o n d c l o s e l y w i t h t h o s e o f 66 h i g h e s t use i n T a b l e 8. The o n l y e x c e p t i o n s are t h a t f i s h i n g i s r a t e d t h i r d by t h e s t u d y a r e a u s e r s and p i c n i c k i n g i s r a t e d s l i g h t l y h i g h e r t h a n s i g h t s e e i n g a n d / o r v i e w i n g i n t h e f i f t h p o s i t i o n on both l a n d b a s e s . B o t h a r e a s compare f a i r l y w e l l w i t h the f i n d i n g s of Meis (1979) who noted t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l l y f o r e s t r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r e d on c a m p i n g , h u n t i n g and f i s h i n g . He then i d e n t i f i e d the top f i v e r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s i n Canada i n o r d e r of demand [ u s e ] : p l e a -sure d r i v i n g , p i c n i c k i n g , h i k i n g / w a l k i n g , s i g h t s e e i n g and swimm-i n g . 4.4. USER CHARACTERISTICS AND COMMENTS M a i l survey respondent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are compared f o r both CIP l a n d and study area u s e r s . The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s chosen f o r comparison are d u r a t i o n of r e s i d e n c e i n the community, d u r a t i o n of r e s i d e n c e i n the CRD, and age. A comparison of CIP l a n d and study a r e a u s e r s f o r s e l e c t e d r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s i s d i s c u s s e d i n c h a p t e r 5. Two of every t h r e e r e c r e a t i o n u s e r s of CIP l a n d have l i v e d i n the same community f o r more than f i v e y e a r s ( s e e T a b l e 9 ) . T h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p would seem r e a s o n a b l e due to the f a c t t h a t new r e s i d e n t s would not l i k e l y be as f a m i l i a r w i t h the a r e a as l o n g time r e s i d e n t s . 67 TABLE 9 DURATION OF RESIDENCE IN COMMUNITY1 ( p e r c e n t a g e ) YEARS AS RESPONDENTS USED CIP USED AREA RESIDENT n=496 n=87 n=148 <1 11.7 6.9 9.5 1 6.0 4.6 4.7 2 10.5 13.8 11.5 3 6.7 5.7 6.8 4 2.6 1.1 2.7 5 4.0 2.3 2.7 6-10 17.5 19.5 18.9 >10 41.0 46.1 43.1 T o t a l s 100.0 100.0 100.0 Eighty- p e r c e n t of the respond e n t s and 86% of CIP l a n d u s e r s have r e s i d e d i n the CRD f o r more than 5 y e a r s . T h i s i s i n d i c a -t i v e o f a v e r y s t a b l e u s e r p o p u l a t i o n ( i n terms of r e s i d e n c e l o c a t i o n ) and demonstrates t h a t f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h the area i s an i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r i n a r e a c h o i c e . T h r e e o f e v e r y f o u r u s e r s are between 25 and 54 ye a r s of age, though r o u g h l y o n l y two of f o u r re s p o n d e n t s were i n the same age c a t e g o r i e s . Few r e s p o n d e n t head o f households u s i n g the study area were under 20 ye a r s of age, but t h a t was expected as they r e p r e s e n t o n l y 1% of the sample (see Ta b l e 1 0 ) . !The sample s i z e s d i f f e r from those p r e v i o u s l y due to t h e d i f f e r e n t number o f r e s p o n s e s t o each q u e s t i o n . i d e n t i f i e d i n d i v i d u a l 68 TABLE 10 AGE OF RESPONDENTS (p e r c e n t a g e ) AGE RESPONDENTS USED CIP USED AREA n=501 n=87 n=149 <20 1.1 0.0 0.7 20-24 6.0 8.0 7.4 25-34 20.4 26.5 24.8 35-44 22.4 26.5 28.8 45-54 13.8 21.8 18.8 55-64 11.6 8.0 6.7 >64 24.7 9.2 12.8 T o t a l s 100.0 100.0 100.0 The t h r e e comments r e p o r t e d most o f t e n d e a l t w i t h : 1. Keeping the a r e a n a t u r a l or p r i m i t i v e . 2. The s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s t h e m s e l v e s . 3. Improving a c c e s s to the a r e a . A few non-hunter respondents s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d h u n t i n g as an a c t i v i t y t h a t they were opposed to and suggested t h a t h u n t e r s be r e q u i r e d t o pay to hunt anywhere. One such person proposed a fee of $1000.00 per day f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n h u n t i n g . Chapter 5 . SELECTED SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF INTENDED PARTICIPANTS IN SELECTED ACTIVITIES The a c t i v i t i e s s e l e c t e d f o r d e t a i l e d study a r e : deer hunt-i n g , r i v e r f i s h i n g , and f o r camping: p r i m i t i v e , s e m i - p r i m i t i v e , m o d i f i e d , r u r a l and c a b i n t y p e s of camping. Intended p a r t i c i p a -t i o n l e v e l s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i n t e n d e d p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the above a c t i v i t i e s are d i s c u s s e d f o r both l a n d b a s e s . l The e s t i m a t e s of annual i n t e n d e d a c t i v i t y days f o r h u n t i n g , f i s h i n g and camping by CIP l a n d u s e r s are shown i n Ta b l e 112 and F i g u r e 6. S i m i l a r i n f o r m a t i o n i s p r o v i d e d f o r i n t e n d e d u s e r s of the study area i n T a b l e 12 and F i g u r e 6. The d e r i v e d v a l u e s shown i n t h e s e t a b l e s a r e used i n C h a p t e r 6 t o e s t i m a t e p o t e n t i a l annual g r o s s b e n e f i t s . F i s h i n g i n the Sooke R i v e r produces more than t w i c e as many i n t e n d e d a c t i v i t y days as a l l o t h e r s e l e c t e d a c t i v i t i e s put t o -ge t h e r and s i x times as many as any o t h e r s i n g l e s e l e c t e d a c t i v -i t y . P r i m i t i v e and s e m i - p r i m i t i v e camping and h u n t i n g r a n k as t h e s e c o n d , t h i r d and f o u r t h g r e a t e s t g e n e r a t o r s of i n t e n d e d a c t i v i t y days r e s p e c t i v e l y . ^ I n t e n d e d a c t i v i t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n r e f e r s t o those u s e r s of the landbase t h a t i n d i c a t e d an i n t e n t i o n to p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e a c t i v i t y on the landbase i n the f u t u r e . ue t o t h e i n c l u s i o n o f t h e non — r e s p o n s e f a c t o r i n the number of i n t e n d e d p a r t i c i p a n t households i n the s a m p l e , t h o s e v a l u e s shown i n T a b l e s 10 & 11 are not whole numbers. 69 70 TABLE 11 ANNUAL INTENDED ACTIVITY DAYS FROM HOUSEHOLDS USING CIP LAND SAMPLE CRD HH AVG. # # HOUSE- EXPANSION TRIPS/ AVG. # AVG # ACTIVITY ACTIVITY HOLDS* FACTOR HH MEMBERS DAYS DAYS HUNTING 19.98 148.79 4.67 1.33 1.38 25481 FISHING 49.94 148.79 9.39 2.63 1.41 258739 CAMPING P r i m i t i v e 73.25 148.79 1.71 2.14 39883 Semi-p r i m i t i v e 56.60 148.79 1.70 2.06 29492 M o d i f i e d 23.42 148.79 0.95 1.33 4402 R u r a l 12.77 148.79 0.33 2.50 1568 C a b i n s 18.10 148.79 0.47 2.00 2531 TABLE 12 ANNUAL INTENDED ACTIVITY DAYS FROM HOUSEHOLDS USING STUDY AREA ACTIVITY SAMPLE HOUSE-HOLDS* CRD HH EXPANSION FACTOR AVG. # TRIPS/ HH AVG. # MEMBERS AVG # DAYS # ACTIVITY DAYS HUNTING 24.48 148.79 4.67 1.33 1.38 31,220 FISHING 74.51 148.79 9.16 2.55 1.39 359,947 CAMPING P r i m i t i v e 101.12 148.79 1.34 2.93 59,072 Semi-p r i m i t i v e 90.48 148.79 1.26 2.21 37,488 M o d i f i e d 48.97 148.79 0.80 2.10 12,241 R u r a l 30.87 148.79 0.34 2.43 3,795 C a b i n s 37.26 148.79 0.26 2.20 3,171 These v a l u e s i n c l u d e the non-response f a c t o r f o r each a c t i v i t y 71 FIGURE 6 ANNUAL INTENDED ACTIVITY DAYS 400000 - j • . H u n t i n g P r i m i t i v e * M o d i f i e d * C a b i n s * ACTIVITY * T y p e of c a m p i n g 72 Demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of those p e r s o n s who p a r t i c i -pated i n r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s on CIP l a n d and the study area i n 1986, and who i n t e n d e d to hunt, f i s h and/or camp on those l a n d s , u nder t h e c o n d i t i o n s d e s c r i b e d i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , 3 are d i s -p l a y e d i n Ta b l e 13. 5.1. HUNTING CIP l a n d u s e r s e x p r e s s i n g an i n t e n t i o n t o hunt deer produce 25,481 i n t e n d e d a c t i v i t y days of h u n t i n g , w h i l e area u s e r s would generate 31,220 i n t e n d e d a c t i v i t y days. N e a r l y one t h i r d of a l l i n t e n d e d h u n t e r s u s i n g CIP l a n d l i v e i n S a a n i c h , f o l l o w e d by Colwood and V i c t o r i a (each w i t h 1 9 % ) , View R o y a l and Sooke (each w i t h 12.5%) and the r e m a i n i n g 6% i n E s q u i m a l t . The w e s t e r n communities have the h i g h e s t r a t e s of i n t e n d e d h u n t i n g per ho u s e h o l d . The nearness of these communi-t i e s t o the study a r e a seemingly account f o r the h i g h e r i n t e n d e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e s . Almost t w i c e as many i n t e n d e d h u n t e r s as the g e n e r a l popu-l a t i o n had l i v e d i n the same community f o r g r e a t e r than 10 y e a r s . Over 88% of i n t e n d e d h u n t e r s l i v e d i n the R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t f o r more than 10 ye a r s as compared w i t h 60% of the CRD p o p u l a t i o n . The d u r a t i o n of r e s i d e n c e i n the community compared to t h a t of the CRD i m p l i e s a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y 3See Appendix A f o r c o n d i t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d i n each q u e s t i o n . would s t u d y TABLE 13 INTENDED ACTIVITY USER CHARACTERISTICS (Percentage) HUNTERS ANGLERS PRIMITIVE SEMI-PRIMITIVE MODIFIED RURAL CABIN CAMPERS CAMPERS CAMPERS CAMPERS CAMPERS CIP AREA CIP AREA CIP AREA CIP AREA CIP AREA CIP AREA CIP AREA n = 17 21 45 70 65 93 51 84 22 45 12 2U 17 34 PLACE OF RESIDENCE Central Saanich O.O 4. 8 4. 5 4.3 6 .3 5.4 4.0 4. 8 O.O 6.7 8 .3 7. 1 0. O 5.9 Cal Hood 18.7 14. 3 4. 5 4.3 4.7 4 .3 e . o 6. 0 4.5 2.2 0.0 0. 0 5. 9 5.9 Esqulmalt 6.3 4. Q 4. 5 5.B 4.7 6.5 4.0 4. a O.O 4.4 0.0 10. 7 0. 0 B.B Langford 0.0 9. 5 6. a B.7 6.3 6.S 2.0 3. 6 0.0 2.2 0.0 3. 6 0. 0 2.9 Metchosi n 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. O 0.0 0.0 O.O 0. 0 0. 0 2.9 North Saanich 0.0 0. 0 2. 3 1.4 1.6 1. 1 2.0 1. 2 O.O 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0.0 Oak Bay 0.0 0. o 2. 3 4.3 6.3 B.7 8.0 10. a 0.0 6.7 0.0 7. 1 11. B 11.8 Saanich 31.2 23. a 31. 9 29. 1 35. B 30.5 38.0 36. 2 SO. 1 37.9 58. 4 35. B 41. 2 26.6 Si dney 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 2.9 0.0 1.1 0.0 2. 4 0.0 4.4 0.0 7. 1 0. 0 O.O Victoria 18. B 18. a 31. 9 29. 1 21. B 27.2 22.0 23. 0 3 1 . a 28.9 25.0 25. 0 41. 1 35.4 View Royal 12.5 12. 5 6. 8 5.8 4.7 3.3 4.0 2. 4 4 .5 2.2 8.3 3. 6 0. 0 0.0 Sooke 12.5 12. 5 4. 5 2.9 7.B 5.4 B.O 4. a 9. 1 4.4 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0.0 100.0 100. 0 100. 0 100.0 100.0 10O.0 100.0 100. 0 100.0 100. O 100.0 100. 0 100. 0 100.0 YEARS IN COMMUNITY (percentag ie by years) <1 11.a 9. 1 11. 1 10.0 7.7 B.6 3.9 7. l 9. 1 15.6 0.0 7. 1 5. 9 11.8 1 5.9 4. 5 8. 9 7. 1 6 .2 6.5 5.9 6. o 4.5 2.2 B.3 7. 1 11. a 0.0 2 5.9 9. 1 20. 0 17. 1 16.9 12.9 9.8 9. 5 0.0 6.7 8 .3 7. 1 0. 0 11.8 3 0.0 0. 0 6. 7 7. 1 7.7 7.5 3.9 7. 1 4.5 6.7 0.0 O. 0 O. 0 2.9 4 O.O 0. 0 0. 0 1.4 0.0 1.1 ' 0.0 2. 4 0.0 4.4 0.0 7. 1 0. 0 2.9 5 0.0 9. 1 0. 0 2.9 1.5 1. 1 0.0 1. 2 0.0 2.2 0.0 3. 6 0. 0 5.9 6-10 0.0 4. 5 15. 6 14.3 12.3 16. 1 21.6 20. 2 13.6 13.3 16.7 10. 8 41. l 23.5 >10 76.4 63. 7 37. 7 40. 1 47.7 46.2 54.9 46. 5 68.3 48.9 66.7 57. 2 41 . 2 41.2 lOO.O 100. O 1O0. 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 lOO. 0 100.0 10O.0 10O.0 100. 0 IOO. 0 100.0 YEARS IN REGIONAL DISTRICT (per 'centage by years) <1 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 1.4 1.5 3 . 2 2.0 3. 6 0.0 4.4 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0.0 1 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 1. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0.0 2 5.9 4. 5 a . 9 5.7 6 .2 4 .3 5.9 3. 6 O.O 2.2 8.3 3. 6 5. 9 5.9 3 <~ 0.0 0. 0 4. 4 4.3 4.6 4 . 3 3.9 4. a 4.S 4.4 0.0 0. 0 O. 0 O.O 4 0.0 4. 5 O. 0 1.4 0.0 1.1 0.0 1. 2 0.0 4.4 0.0 3. 6 0. 0 5.9 5 5.9 9. 1 6. 7 5.7 4.6 S.4 2.0 3. 6 0.0 O.O O.O 3. 6 O. 0 5.9 6-10 0.0 9. 1 13. 3 14.3 13.B 12.9 15.7 16. 6 9. 1 13.4 16. 7 17. 9 29. 4 17.6 >10 B8.2 72. a 66. 7 67.2 69.3 67.7 70.5 65. 4 86.4 71.2 75. O 71. 3 64. 7 64.7 100.0 100. 0 100. 0 100.0 lOO.O 10O.0 lOO.O 100. 0 • 100.0 100.0 100.0 100. 0 100. 0 100.0 AGE <20 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 O.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 1. 2 0.0 2.2 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 O.O 20-24 5.9 4. 5 11. 1 10.0 10. a 11.7 4.0 6. O 4.8 6.7 O.O 3. 4 5. 9 2.9 25-34 29.4 31. a 31. 2 27. 1 29. 1 29.8 22.0 23. a 23. B 26. 7 41.7 27. 6 29. 4 22.9 35 4  5.9 9. l 24. 4 25.7 26.2 27.7 30.0 28. 6 28.5 26. a 16.7 34. 6 29. 4 37.0 45-54 35.3 36. 5 24. 4 24.3 21.5 19. 1 20.0 19. 0 28.6 20.0 25.0 17. 2 5. 9 8.6 55-64 17.6 13. 6 2 2.9 6.2 4 .3 10.0 8. 3 9.5 6. 7 B.3 6. 9 1 1. a 5.7 >64 5.9 4. 5 6. 7 10.O 6.2 7.4 14.0 13. 1 4.8 B.9 8.3 lO. 3 17. 6 22.9 100.0 1O0. 0 100. 0 10O.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 t o o . 0 100.0 lOO.O lOO.O lOO. 0 100. 0 100.0 SEX MALE 76.0 77. 3 71. 0 70.0 77.0 75.5 82.0 7B. 6 62.0 64.4 B3.0 75. 9 76. 0 65.7 FEMALE 24.0 22. 7 29. 0 30.0 23.0 24. 3 18.0 21. 4 38.0 35.6 17.0 24. 1 24. 0 34.3 100.0 100. 0 100. 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100. O 10O.0 100.0 100.0 lOO. 0 100. 0 lOO.O INCOME (thousands of dal lars) <10 O O 0. 0 11. 6 9. 1 11.S 1 1 . 1 4.3 5. 1 5.9 5.0 9. 1 3. 7 0. 0 2.9 10-20 25.0 23. a 23. 3 19. 7 19.7 20.0 21.8 23. 1 17.6 22.5 9. 1 IB. 5 17. 6 20.6 20-30 25.0 33. 4 30. 2 33.3 32.7 30.0 32.7 29. 5 35.3 25.0 36. 3 33. 4 47. 1 41. 1 30-40 18.7 19. 0 14. 0 15.2 9.B 11.1 15.2 12. a 17.6 20. O 27.3 22. 2 5. 9 11.8 40-50 6.3 4. 8 9. 3 10.6 11.5 lO.O 13.0 12. a 11.8 7.5 9. 1 7. 4 17. 6 11.a 50-60 12.5 9. 5 2. 3 4.5 6.6 7.a 4.3 6. 4 5.9 10.0 O.O 7. 4 0. 0 5.9 >60 12.5 9. 5 9. 3 7.6 8.2 10.o B.7 lO. 3 5.9 10.0 9. 1 7. 4 11. a 5.9 100.0 100. .0 100. 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 lOO. O 100.0 lOO.O 100.0 1O0. 0 100. o lOO.O 74 w i t h i n the CRD over the past 10-20 y e a r s . Over one t h i r d of i n t e n d e d h u n t e r s u s i n g CIP la n d are 45 to 54 ye a r s o l d and s l i g h t l y l e s s than one t h i r d are i n the 25-34 y e a r age c a t e g o r y . T h i s ' b i m o d a l d i s t r i b u t i o n i s c r e a t e d by a marked gap i n the 35-44 year age c l a s s . The same r e l a t i o n s h i p h e l d t r u e f o r i n t e n d e d h u n t e r s u s i n g the study a r e a . In con-t r a s t , the 35-44 age group a c c o u n t s f o r 22% of the p o p u l a t i o n , w h i c h i n t u r n g e n e r a t e s the g r e a t e s t o v e r a l l use of CIP l a n d , e q u a l l i n g the 26% use by the 25-34 age group. T h i s d e v i a t i o n may p o s s i b l y be e x p l a i n e d by the f o c u s and involv e m e n t of the 25-34 year age group i n more 'young f a m i l y ' o r i e n t e d a c t i v i t i e s due to t h e i r f a m i l y s i t u a t i o n s . H a l f of a l l i n t e n d e d hunter p a r t i c i p a t i o n by u s e r s of both CIP l a n d and the study area was generated by households w i t h an a n n u a l income i n the $10-30,000 range. T h i s a l s o r e f l e c t s the income of a s i m i l a r p r o p o r t i o n of i n t e n d e d p a r t i c i p a n t s i n o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s and of the sample p o p u l a t i o n . The GVWD o f f e r s a g r e a t e r l i k e l i h o o d of hunter s u c c e s s than does CIP la n d due to i t s denser deer p o p u l a t i o n s . The h i g h hunter s u c c e s s r a t e would reduce the average number of annual t r i p s per hunter i n the GVWD compared w i t h t h a t on CIP l a n d as bag l i m i t s would be reached more q u i c k l y . The l i m i t e d a c c e s s and s h o r t e r h u n t i n g season would a l s o reduce the number of t r i p s per h u n t e r . 75 5.2. FISHING CIP l a n d u s e r s i n t e n d i n g t o f i s h the Sooke R i v e r r e p r e s e n t 258,739 days of f i s h i n g , w h i l e study a r e a u s e r s i n t e n d i n g t o f i s h the Sooke R i v e r produce 359,947 days (see T a b l e s 11 & 12). The demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i n t e n d e d a n g l e r s a r e shown i n Tabl e 13. P l a c e of a n g l e r r e s i d e n c e h e l d c l o s e l y t o CRD house-h o l d d i s t r i b u t i o n s , i e . 61% of a l l a n g l e r s i n t e n d i n g t o f i s h the Sooke R i v e r were e i t h e r from S a a n i c h or V i c t o r i a . Over o n e - h a l f of the f i s h e r m e n i n t e n d i n g t o f i s h the Sooke R i v e r l i v e d i n t h e i r community f o r 6 or more y e a r s . On the o t h e r hand, 40% of them had l i v e d i n the community two y e a r s or l e s s . T h i s h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of i n t e n d e d u s e r s as s h o r t term community r e s i d e n t s may be e x p l a i n e d by t h e young age d i s t r i b u t i o n of a n g l e r s . On the o t h e r hand, f o u r of every f i v e i n t e n d e d a n g l e r s l i v e d i n the R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t f o r 6 or more y e a r s , but o n l y one of e v e r y two l i v e d i n the same community f o r t h a t d u r a t i o n of ti m e . These f i n d i n g s support the statement made above r e g a r d i n g the m o b i l i t y of r e s i d e n t s w i t h i n the CRD. There i s r e l a t i v e l y u n i f o r m i n t e n d e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n t h r o u g h -out the 25-54 age ranges. The c o m b i n a t i o n of l o n g time r e s i d e n c e i n the CRD and younger age c a t e g o r i e s of u s e r s i n d i c a t e s t h a t many of these a n g l e r s l i k e l y grew up i n the CRD. These younger persons may tend t o be more mobile due to such t h i n g s as m a r r i -age, new j o b s and l e a v i n g home a f t e r f i n i s h i n g t h e i r e d u c a t i o n . 76 5.3. CAMPING The pe r c e n t a g e s of d i f f e r e n t camper types are shown i n F i g -ure 7, w h i l e the demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i n t e n d e d campers f o r each type of camping are d e p i c t e d i n Table 13. The f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e t h a t most CIP l a n d u s e r s i n t e n d i n g t o camp would use e i t h e r p r i m i t i v e (75%) or s e m i - p r i m i t i v e (58%) s t y l e camping.* Among pre s e n t u s e r s o n l y 25% i n t e n d to use m o d i f i e d , 14% r u r a l and 19% c a b i n t y p e s of camping. The v a l u e s f o r camping by study a r e a u s e r s are s l i g h t l y lower but w i t h a s i m i l a r t r e n d . They a r e : 63% p r i m i t i v e , 57% s e m i - p r i m i t i v e , 31% m o d i f i e d , 19% r u r a l and 23% c a b i n . F i g u r e 8 shows a breakdown of camping accommodation use f o r both CIP l a n d and study area i n t e n d e d u s e r s . Of those households which use CIP l a n d , 68% use t e n t s , 63% use v e h i c u l a r accommoda-t i o n ' and 14% use c a b i n s . S i m i l a r l y f o r the study a r e a , 61% use t e n t s , 53% use v e h i c u l a r accommodation and 17% use c a b i n s . Two t h i r d s of v e h i c u l a r camping i s by campers and campervans w i t h motorhomes, t e n t - t r a i l e r s and t r a i l e r s a c c o u n t i n g f o r the remain-d e r . ^ P e r c e n t a g e s exceed 100% as m u l t i p l e responses per r e s p o n -dent were p e r m i t t e d f o r t h e t y p e of camping p a r t i c i p a t e d i n ( Q u e s t i o n 16) and type of camping accommodation used ( Q u e s t i o n 15). 77 FIGURE 7 CAMPER TYPES: CIP LAND AND STUDY AREA INTENDED USERS 78 FIGURE 8 CAMPER ACCOMMODATION: CIP LAND AND STUDY AREA INTENDED USERS 70-r | I I I ^ m m M ^ H B C a m p e r Van Tent T e n t - t r a i l e r O t h e r Mo to r H o m e C a m p e r T ra i l e r C a b i n TYPE OF ACCOMMODATION 79 The community of r e s i d e n c e of i n t e n d e d p r i m i t i v e and semi-p r i m i t i v e s t y l e campers g e n e r a l l y f o l l o w e d the p o p u l a t i o n d i s -t r i b u t i o n . More s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r - c o m m u n i t y v a r i a t i o n s i n camping use were e v i d e n c e d w i t h the M o d i f i e d , R u r a l and Cabin types of camping. Higher p e r c e n t a g e s of i n t e n d e d use of t h e s e types of camping came from the more p o p u l a t e d urban c e n t e r s . P r i m i t i v e and s e m i - p r i m i t i v e camping dominate the s t y l e s of camping use and s h o u l d be the f o c u s of any f u r t h e r s t u d y . Camping a c t i v i t i e s are dominated by l o n g time r e s i d e n t s of the community and CRD as shown by the percentage of r e s i d e n t s l i v i n g t h e r e f o r 6 or more y e a r s . Though these l o n g term r e s i d e n t s make up a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of the community, the low numbers i n t e n d i n g to use the m o d i f i e d , r u r a l and c a b i n t y p e s of camping i n d i c a t e a l i m i t e d c l i e n t e l e f o r such a c t i v i t i e s , at l e a s t w i t h i n the CRD. Campers a l s o show a l e n g t h y term of r e s i d e n c e i n the CRD, as would be expected from t h e i r time i n the community. The l e n g t h of r e s i d e n c e f o r i n t e n d e d campers of each camping type are i n d i c -a t e d i n T a b l e 12. The i n t e n d e d camping f i g u r e s c l o s e l y r e f l e c t the g e n e r a l r e c r e a t i o n p a r t i c i p a t i o n on the a r e a . Three of every f o u r i n t e n d e d campers f o r a l l t y p e s of camp-i n g except c a b i n camping are between 25 and 54 y e a r s o l d . The 6 5 y r s and o l d e r age c l a s s show 10% more p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n c a b i n type camping than i n o t h e r t y p e s of camping. Younger people tend 80 t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n more p r i m i t i v e t y p e s of camping, though almost h a l f of r u r a l camping by CIP l a n d u s e r s i s dominated by the 25-34 age c a t e g o r y . T h i s c o u l d be due to i n c r e a s e d ease and o p p o r t u n i -t i e s i n c a r i n g f o r and/or amusing c h i l d r e n i n the more developed types of camping s i t u a t i o n s . One t h i r d t o one h a l f of each type of camping p a r t i c i p a t i o n was by households w i t h i n t h e $20-30,000 a n n u a l income r a n g e . R e g a r d l e s s of type of camping the second most f r e q u e n t household annual income was $10-20,000 except f o r m o d i f i e d camping, wherein i n t e n d e d u s e r s were more l i k e l y from the $30-40,000 annual income l e v e l . 5 . 4 . COMPARISON OF STUDY RESULTS F i s h i n g produced more than t w i c e as many i n t e n d e d a c t i v i t y days as a l l o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s put t o g e t h e r . F i s h i n g i n the Sooke R i v e r would produce s i x times as many i n t e n d e d a c t i v i t y days as would p r i m i t i v e camping, which was the next most i n t e n d e d a c t i v -i t y . S e m i - p r i m i t i v e camping and h u n t i n g were q u i t e s i m i l a r i n t h e i r p o t e n t i a l user g e n e r a t i n g a b i l i t y , w h i l e m o d i f i e d , r u r a l and c a b i n t y p e s of camping were lower p o t e n t i a l p r o d u c e r s . Most h o u s e h o l d e r s r e p o r t i n g an i n t e n t i o n t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n an a c t i v i t y were l o n g time r e s i d e n t s of the community and even l o n g e r time r e s i d e n t s of the CRD. The heads of those households tended t o be male and be between 25 - 54 y e a r s of age. 81 5.5. COMPARISON OF RESULTS WITH OTHER SELECTED STUDIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA 5 . 5 . 1 . H u n t i n g A c c o r d i n g to R e i d (1985) the Vancouver I s l a n d Region had the h i g h e s t o v e r a l l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n deer h u n t i n g i n the p r o v i n c e i n 1981, a c c o u n t i n g f o r 22.6% of t o t a l h unter days. A remarkable 54% of the h u n t e r s i n t h a t r e g i o n were s u c c e s s f u l i n b a g g i n g game. They a l s o c l a i m e d 33.5% of the p r o v i n c i a l deer h a r v e s t . H u n t i n g i n B.C. i n g e n e r a l has dropped o f f 32% s i n c e the f e e i n c r e a s e s of 1982 (B.C. M i n i s t r y of Environment and P a r k s , 1987). R e i d (1985) found t h a t a c t i v e deer h u n t e r s r e p r e s e n t 88% of those h u n t e r s who purchase deer t a g s . The deer tags s o l d f o r the 1985-86 s e a s o n r e p r e s e n t e d 3% of B.C.'s p o p u l a t i o n . 5 Thus, 2.7% of the p o p u l a t i o n of t h i s p r o v i n c e were deer h u n t e r s i n 1986, which compares w e l l w i t h the 2.8% of the CRD p o p u l a t i o n found as deer h u n t e r s i n t h i s s t u d y . R e i d (1985) e s t i m a t e d the annual average number of days per hunt e r spent deer h u n t i n g f o r the Vancouver I s l a n d Region to be 12.9 h u n t e r d a y s , w h e r e a s , i n t h i s s t u d y , the average hunter spent 4.67 days h u n t i n g . The lower number of h u n t e r days per hunt e r f o r t h i s study area may be due to t h i s s t u d y ' s i n a b i l i t y 5B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e S t a t i s t i c s f o r 1985-86 and S t a t i s -t i c s Canada, 1986 Census f i g u r e s . to account f o r hunter days spent i n o t h e r a r e a s . 82 T h i s study found r e s u l t s s i m i l a r to R e i d (1985) i n r e g a r d s to h u n t e r household income. Both t h i s s t u d y and t h a t by R e i d found the l a r g e s t percentage of h u n t e r s , 29% and 38% r e s p e c t i v e -l y , were i n the $20-30,000 income b r a c k e t (1981 d o l l a r s ) . 6 5.5.2. F i s h i n g A c c o r d i n g to R e i d (1986) the number of a c t i v e r e s i d e n t ang-l e r s on Vancouver I s l a n d i n c r e a s e d 73% from 1977 to 1981. S i m i l a r t o t h e h u n t i n g s i t u a t i o n , t h e number of r e s i d e n t a n g l e r s has decreased by a p p r o x i m a t e l y 32%, s i n c e t h e i n c r e a s e i n l i c e n c e f ees. R e i d (1986) found t h a t 29% of a n g l e r s had annual household incomes i n the $20-30,000 range (1981 d o l l a r s ) and 24% had l e s s t h a n $10,000. T h i s compares w i t h the f i n d i n g s of t h i s s t u d y , wherein 33% of i n t e n d e d a n g l e r s were i n the $20-30,000 range but o n l y 9% r e p o r t i n g incomes of l e s s than $10,000. Recent camping s t u d i e s a p p l i c a b l e to B.C. were not a v a i l a b l e f o r comparison w i t h t h i s s t u d y . The p r e s e n t u s e , the i n t e n t i o n t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n s e l e c t e d ^Though consumer p r i c e i n d i c e s r o s e s u b s t a n t i a l l y between 1981 and 1986, s a l a r i e s d i d not f o l l o w s u i t . 8 3 a c t i v i t i e s and the demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h o s e u s e r s have been e s t i m a t e d . I t now becomes n e c e s s a r y to e s t i m a t e the w i l l i n g n e s s - t o - p a y f o r those o p p o r t u n i t i e s and d e r i v e the poten-t i a l g r o s s b e n e f i t s a t t r i b u t a b l e to those a c t i v i t i e s on each of the two l a n d b a s e s . Chapter 6. WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY VALUES AND POTENTIAL GROSS BENEFITS T h i s c h a p t e r f i r s t a d d r e s s es the w i l l i n g n e s s - t o - p a y v a l u e s per a c t i v i t y day d e r i v e d from the s u r v e y . I t then d i s c u s s e s the s u b s e q u e n t c a l c u l a t i o n s of p o t e n t i a l annual g r o s s b e n e f i t f o r each s e l e c t e d a c t i v i t y . Comparisons of these d e r i v e d v a l u e s w i t h o t h e r s t u d i e s and m a r k e t s a r e p r e s e n t e d and d i s c u s s e d . The u t i l i t y of t h i s study to o t h e r u s e r s i s o u t l i n e d . 6.1. WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY VALUES The average WTP v a l u e s f o r h u n t i n g , f i s h i n g and camping were d e r i v e d from the r e s p o n s e s , of o n l y t h o s e h o u s e h o l d s t h a t had used e i t h e r CIP l a n d or the study area f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l p u r s u i t s i n 1986, to the c o n t i n g e n t v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n s i n the q u e s t i o n -n a i r e . The v a l u e s o b t a i n e d a re d i s p l a y e d i n Ta b l e 14. TABLE 14 WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY VALUES PER ACTIVITY DAY (1986 d o l l a r s ) ACTIVITY CIP LAND STUDY AREA i l l i l l H u n t i n g 8.53 9.40 F i s h i n g 2.49 3.39 Camping: P r i m i t i v e S e m i - P r i m i t i v e M o d i f i e d 3.03 8.04 10.30 12.82 43.41 3.15 7.59 10.23 13.89 39.42 R u r a l C a b i n s 84 85 These v a l u e s a r e c o n s i s t e n t l y l o w e r t h a n t h o s e found i n ot h e r s t u d i e s . A comparison of those v a l u e s i s undertaken f o l -l o w i n g a d i s c u s s i o n of the p o t e n t i a l annual g r o s s b e n e f i t s . 6.2. POTENTIAL ANNUAL GROSS BENEFITS The p o t e n t i a l annual g r o s s b e n e f i t s f o r each of the s e l e c t e d a c t i v i t i e s on both CIP l a n d and on the study area are d e p i c t e d i n T a b l e s 15 and 16 r e s p e c t i v e l y and i n F i g u r e 9. These v a l u e s were d e r i v e d f rom t h e model i d e n t i f i e d i n Chapter 3. I t i n v o l v e s m u l t i p l y i n g the number of i n t e n d e d a c t i v i t y days f o r each a c t i v -i t y by the average d a i l y w i l l i n g n e s s - t o - p a y f o r t h a t a c t i v i t y . TABLE 15 POTENTIAL ANNUAL GROSS BENEFITS FOR CIP LAND FROM CRD HOUSEHOLDS NUMBER OF AVG. WTP/ POTENTIAL ACTIVITY INTENDED ACTIVITY ANNUAL GROSS ACTIVITY DAY BENEFITS DAYS m ($) HUNTING 25,481 8.53 217,353 644,260 FISHING 258,739 2.49 CAMPING P r i m i t i v e 39,883 3.03 120,845 S e m i - p r i m i t i v e 29,492 8.04 237,116 M o d i f i e d 4,402 10.30 47,283 R u r a l 1,568 12.82 20,962 Cabin 2,531 43.41 114,568 TOTAL $1,402,387 86 TABLE 16 POTENTIAL ANNUAL GROSS BENEFITS FOR STUDY AREA FROM CRD HOUSEHOLDS NUMBER OF AVG. WTP/ POTENTIAL ACTIVITY INTENDED ACTIVTY ANNUAL GROSS ACTIVITY DAY BENEFITS DAYS ($) m HUNTING 31,220 9.40 293,468 FISHING 359,947 3.39 1,220,220 CAMPING P r i m i t i v e 59,072 3.15 186,077 S e m i - p r i m i t i v e 37,488 ~ 7.59 284,230 Modi f i e d 12,241 10.23 125,224 R u r a l 3,795 13.89 52,711 Cabin 3,171 39.42 125,005 TOTAL $2,286,935 The average WTP v a l u e f o r h u n t i n g i n 1986 was found t o be $8.53 and $9.40 per hunt e r day f o r CIP l a n d and study area u s e r s r e s p e c t i v e l y . These f i g u r e s y i e l d p o t e n t i a l annual g r o s s b e n e f i t s f o r h u n t i n g of $217,353 on CIP l a n d or $293,468 f o r the e n t i r e study a r e a . The r e p o r t e d WTP v a l u e s of $2.49 and $3.39 per a n g l e r day f o r CIP l a n d u s e r s and f o r study area u s e r s r e s p e c t i v e l y , were l o w e r t h a n e x p e c t e d f o r salmon f i s h i n g . These v a l u e s seem to r e f l e c t f r e s h water f i s h i n g v a l u e s as p r e s e n t l y e x p e r i e n c e d on the a r e a r a t h e r than the h y p o t h e t i c a l s i t u a t i o n p r e s e n t e d i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The range of payments o f f e r e d may have a f f e c t e d t h e s e v a l u e s i n a downward d i r e c t i o n . Based on thes e f i n d i n g s , a n g l e r s u s i n g CIP l a n d would a n n u a l l y produce $644,260 and f o r 87 those u s i n g t h e s t u d y a r e a $1,220,220 ( s e e T a b l e s 15 & 1 6 ) . Sport f i s h i n g a l o n e produced over o n e - h a l f of the t o t a l p o t e n t i a l annual g r o s s b e n e f i t from the seven a c t i v i t i e s e s t i m a t e d i n t h i s s t u d y . On t h i s b a s i s a l o n e , i t ought to r e c e i v e a f i r s t p r i o r i t y p o s i t i o n f o r f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n towards implementing r e v e n u e p r o d u c i n g r e c r e a t i o n management f u n c t i o n s on f o r e s t l a n d s . Though 75% of campers use p r i m i t i v e s t y l e c a m p i n g , t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s - t o - p a y f o r i t i s much lower than the 58% who use s e m i - p r i m i t i v e camping. The p o t e n t i a l g r o s s b e n e f i t from i n t e n d -i n g s e m i - p r i m i t i v e campers who had used CIP l a n d s amounted to $108,750 and from those who had used the study area $248,169. By the same t o k e n , p r i m i t i v e camping would have produced $120,845 by CIP l a n d u s e r s and $186,077 by study a r e a u s e r s . The 14-25% range of i n t e n d i n g campers u s i n g the o t h e r t h r e e camping t y p e s does not d i m i n i s h t h e i r p o t e n t i a l g r o s s b e n e f i t s to the same e x t e n t , as t h e i r WTP v a l u e s are h i g h e r . B u t, because c o s t s of p r o v i d i n g mod-i f i e d , r u r a l and c a b i n types of camping o p p o r t u n i t i e s and f a c i l i -t i e s are g r e a t e r than the more p r i m i t i v e t y p e s , the net b e n e f i t s would l i k e l y be much l o w e r . T h i s w o u l d have t o be v e r i f i e d t h r o u g h a d d i t i o n a l r e s e a r c h . I f s o , t h i s would p r o v i d e even s t r o n g e r r e a s o n i n g f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h of t h e more p r i m i t i v e t y p e s of camping. 88 FIGURE 9 POTENTIAL ANNUAL GROSS BENEFITS 14 h - 1-L~ J LU o Z "D LU _^ m o CO W CO o or O T3 c o V) o —' _c < -I- "a z * UJ TD t - C O 3 Q_ JC F i s h i n g S e m i - p r i m . * R u r a l * H u n t i n g P r i m i t i v e * M o d i f i e d * C a b i n * ACTIVITY * T y p e of c a m p i n g 89 6.3 COMPARISON OF DERIVED VALUES WITH OTHER SELECTED CONTINGENT VALUATION STUDIES T a b l e 17 d i s p l a y s a comparison of v a r i o u s CVM s t u d i e s and t h e i r d e r i v e d v a l u e s f o r b i g game h u n t i n g , f i s h i n g and camping i n B.C. and the P a c i f i c N orthwest. A l l v a l u e s have been a d j u s t e d to r e f l e c t 1986 Canadian d o l l a r v a l u e s . 1 TABLE 17 A COMPARISON OF CONTINGENT VALUATION WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY VALUES (1986 Canadian D o l l a r s ) CIP STUDY REID MILLER HANSEN PEARSE USF&W WALSH WALSH/ AREA e t . a l OLIENYK DEER HUNTING 8. .53 9. .40 31, .80 27.23 48.88 32.21 40, .43 31. .28 FISHING 2. .49 3. .39 22, .18 21. .79 18. ,37 13.76 26, .53 17, .75 CAMPING P r i m i t i v e 3. .03 3. .15 18, .37 S e m i - p r i m i t i v e 8, .04 7, .59 12. .28 M o d i f i e d 10, .30 10, .23 8, .58 The v a l u e s d e r i v e d i n t h i s s t u d y a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y l o w e r t h a n t h e v a l u e s o b t a i n e d by o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s . T h i s may have been a r e s u l t of the payment ca r d ranges p r e s e n t e d i n the s u r v e y . A l s o , t h e d i s c r e p a n c y between the d e r i v e d camping v a l u e s w i t h those i n the USA i s l a r g e l y due to d i f f e r e n c e s i n the p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s p r e s e n t and market f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d , i e . the USA s t u d i e s i S e e A p p e n d i x E f o r USA in d e x changes f o r the years i n exchange q u e s t i o n . r a t e and consumer p r i c e 90 were on h i g h a l t i t u d e l a k e s n e a r w e l l d e v e l o p e d h i g h c l a s s r e s o r t s i n C o l o r a d o . 6.4. COMPARISON OF DERIVED VALUES WITH SELECTED MARKET VALUES Ta b l e 18 d i s p l a y s a comparison of the v a l u e s d e r i v e d i n t h i s s t u d y w i t h o t h e r a v a i l a b l e m arket p r i c e s and s e t p r i c e s f o r h u n t i n g and c a m p i n g . No f i s h i n g v a l u e s were a v a i l a b l e f o r comparison. TABLE 18 A COMPARISON OF STUDY VALUES WITH SELECTED "MARKET" VALUES 2 CIP STUDY USA LAND AREA CRD/GVWB SIDNEY ISLAND AVG. ACTIVITY 1986 1986 1986 1987 1986 1987 1986 HUNTING 8 .53 9 .40 7 .49 9.64 D-60 B-80 T-(400 .00 .00 .00-70 90 600 .00 .00 .00) CAMPING Serai-prim 8 .04 7 .59 7 .50 16 .04 M o d i f i e d 10 .30 10 .23 12 .30 18 .37 R u r a l 12 .82 13 .89 13 .90 20 .75 No c o n c l u s i v e s t a t e m e n t s can be made w i t h these comparisons but i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e camping v a l u e s d e r i v e d i n t h i s study r e f l e c t w e l l the average market v a l u e s found i n the CRD. The CVM i n t h i s study has produced v a l u e s t h a t are a p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e - h a l f t h a t of USA markets. 2 A n e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e s e ' m a r k e t ' v a l u e s i s f o u n d i n Appendix E. 91 6.5. UTILITY OF STUDY TO OTHERS T h i s study was a s i t e s p e c i f i c a p p l i c a t i o n of the CVM f o r a non-market e s t i m a t i o n of the r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y v a l u e s on t h a t s p e c i f i e d l a n d b a s e . Though t h i s work i s d i r e c t l y a p p l i c a b l e t o f o r e s t management on the study a r e a , i t does have some b e n e f i t f o r o t h e r a p p l i c a t i o n s . The r e s u l t s c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n c o u l d be u t i l i z e d by government a g e n c i e s s u c h as t h e M i n i s t r i e s o f Touri s m , Environment and P a r k s , F o r e s t s and Lands, F i s h e r i e s and Oceans, and the p l a n n i n g component of the CRD. I t may a l s o be u t i l i z e d by f o r e s t c o m p a n i e s , r e c r e a t i o n e n t e r p r e n e u r s and r e c r e a t i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n s t o f a c i l i t a t e p l a n n i n g . The s t r o n g e s t component i n t h i s s t u d y w o r t h a d a p t i n g t o o t h e r a r e a s i s the development and a p p l i c a t i o n of the methodology f o r non-market v a l u a t i o n of s i m i l a r or d i v e r s e a c t i v i t i e s and/or a m e n i t i e s . T h i s v a l u a t i o n t e c h n i q u e may be a p p l i e d t o e i t h e r p r i v a t e or p u b l i c l a n d s . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e and methodology would r e q u i r e r e f i n i n g f o r each p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n but the s t e p s and pr o c e s s as l a i d out c o u l d be r e a d i l y adapted. The a c c u r a c y of the e s t i m a t e d d o l l a r v a l u e s d e r i v e d i n t h i s study are l i m i t e d by the range of v a l u e s o f f e r e d i n the WTP ques-t i o n s and by the s m a l l sample s i z e f o r c e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s . I n p a r t i c u l a r , h u n t i n g , m o d i f i e d camping, r u r a l camping and c a b i n camping would be more a c c u r a t e and r e l i a b l e w i t h an i n c r e a s e d r e s p o n s e r a t e t o those q u e s t i o n s . P r e s e n t and i n t e n d e d use i s 92 e s t i m a t e d and r e l a t i v e use can be shown. The a p p l i c a b i l i t y of t h i s s t u d y t o o t h e r s i t u a t i o n s i s dependent upon the g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s of such s t u d i e s . T h i s s t u d y i s not w i t h o u t f l a w s , but a good p o r t i o n of i t c o u l d be used i n o t h e r non-market v a l u a t i o n s of r e c r e a t i o n goods and s e r v i c e s . Chapter 7. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS T h i s f i n a l s e c t i o n w i l l p r o v i d e a summary of t h e major f i n d i n g s then p r e s e n t c o n c l u s i o n s and recommendations r e g a r d i n g the study r e s u l t s and d e s i g n . I t w i l l address the o b j e c t i v e s and r e l a t e d q u e s t i o n s embodied i n t h i s t h e s i s . 7.1. SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS In 1986, 14% of the CRD p o p u l a t i o n p a r t i c i p a t e d i n r e c r e a -t i o n a l use of CIP l a n d and 22% p a r t i c i p a t e d i n r e c r e a t i o n a l use of the study a r e a . These area s generated 947,114 and 1,148,583 r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y days r e s p e c t i v e l y , i n f e r r i n g t h a t CIP l a n d u s e r s a c c o u n t e d f o r 82% of the r e c r e a t i o n p a r t i c i p a t i o n on the study area i n 1986. Three of every f o u r a r e a - u s e r heads of households are male and between 25 - 54 y e a r s o l d . Almost h a l f of the u s e r s r e s i d e d i n the same community f o r more than 10 y e a r s and t h r e e q u a r t e r s have l i v e d i n the CRD f o r g r e a t e r than 10 y e a r s . These f i g u r e s i n d i c a t e a very s t a b l e community though t h e r e i s a l a r g e p o r t i o n of the p o p u l a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the o l d e r age groups, t h a t do not p a r t i c i p a t e i n outdoor r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s . Lack of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and lower incomes c o u l d account f o r t h e o l d and young not u s i n g t h e a r e a as much as middle-aged groups. Many of the more e l d e r l y may a l s o be l e s s p h y s i c a l l y 93 94 able to p a r t i c i p a t e i n such a c t i v i t i e s . Longer terms of r e s i -dence i n the community and/or CRD seems to i n d i c a t e a greater l i k e l i h o o d of knowledge of or f a m i l i a r i t y with the area. Adver-t i s i n g could i n c r e a s e the number of users through i n c r e a s i n g the awareness of the CRD p o p u l a t i o n as to the o p p o r t u n i t i e s a v a i l -a b l e . One should focus on those who have moved i n t o the CRD i n the l a s t f i v e years. Such i n f o r m a t i o n might be a v a i l a b l e from house s a l e records of the V i c t o r i a Real E s t a t e Board or through the C i t y D i r e c t o r y which i d e n t i f i e s new owners and tenants. The p r e f e r r e d a c t i v i t i e s noted by CIP land users a l s o d i r -e c t l y r e f l e c t those a c t i v i t i e s w i t h the h i g h e s t p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e s . T h i s i s not always the case as there are o f t e n m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t p r e c l u d e a person p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e i r p r e f e r r e d a c t i v i t y , such a s : d i s c r e t i o n a r y time or income, h e a l t h , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , proximity to the l o c a t i o n of the a c t i v -i t y , weather, f a m i l y r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , and l a c k of p r o v i s i o n of the p r e f e r r e d a c t i v i t y . The p r e f e r r e d a c t i v i t i e s i d e n t i f i e d were : The a c t i v i t y p r eferences f o r the study a r e a produced the same a c t i v i t i e s , except f i s h i n g dropped to f i f t h place from second i n both preference and p a r t i c i p a t i o n , w h i l e the o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s remained i n the same ord e r . 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . h i k i n g f i s h i n g camping swimming s i g h t s e e i n g / v i e w i n g 95 The i n t e n t i o n to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the s e l e c t e d a c t i v i t i e s on CIP l a n d s over a one year p e r i o d t o t a l l e d 336,615 a c t i v i t y days and on the study area to be 506,904. The i n t e n t i o n to f i s h i n the Sooke R i v e r generated 71% and 77% of those f i g u r e s from CIP l a n d and study a r e a u s e r s r e s p e c t i v e l y . A n g l e r s a c c o u n t e d f o r e l e v e n times the number of i n t e n d e d a c t i v i t y days as h u n t e r s and t h r e e times the number as campers. F i s h i n g does not seem t o have the same o p p o s i t i o n t o the s p o r t as does h u n t i n g , though i t s t i l l e n t a i l s the k i l l i n g of pr e y . The t o t a l p o t e n t i a l g r o s s b e n e f i t s f o r 1986 from households i n t e n d i n g t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the s e l e c t e d a c t i v i t i e s on CIP l a n d was $1,402,388. For households i n t e n d i n g to use the study area t h a t f i g u r e r o s e to $2,286,935. F i s h i n g was found to be the most p r o m i s i n g b e n e f i t g e n e r a t o r on b o t h a r e a s , f o l l o w e d by semi-p r i m i t i v e camping and deer h u n t i n g . On CIP l a n d s , t h e i r r e s p e c -t i v e 1986 p o t e n t i a l g r o s s b e n e f i t s were: $644,261, $237,116, and $217,353. W i t h i n t h e s t u d y a r e a $1,220,220 was d e r i v e d f o r f i s h i n g , $284,230 f o r s e m i - p r i m i t i v e camping and $293,468 f o r deer h u n t i n g . R e p o r t e d d e e r h u n t i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n on CIP l a n d i s very c l o s e to R e i d ' s (1985) f i g u r e s f o r t h a t same a c t i v i t y p r o v i n c e wide. The WTP v a l u e s f o r h u n t i n g on CIP l a n d compare w e l l w i t h the h u n t i n g f e e s s e t on GVWD l a n d s , though they f a l l w e l l s h o r t 96 of the f e e s charged on Sidney I s l a n d and of the v a l u e s d e r i v e d i n o t h e r CVM s t u d i e s . D e r i v e d f i s h i n g v a l u e s were much lower than those found i n o t h e r CVM s t u d i e s and c o m p a r a t i v e ' m a r k e t ' v a l u e s f o r f i s h i n g were not found. Even w i t h the low WTP v a l u e s r e p o r t e d , f i s h i n g remains the g r e a t e s t g r o s s b e n e f i t p r o d u c e r o f a l l a c t i v i t i e s a n a l y s e d . The d e r i v e d camping v a l u e s i n t h i s study c o r r e s p o n d q u i t e w e l l w i t h v a l u e s o b t a i n e d from the l o c a l market, though they are s u b s t a n t i a l l y lower than average camping v a l u e s f o r the USA. Con-s e r v a t i v e e s t i m a t e s of market p r i c e s are the norm found i n most CVM s t u d i e s . The 80 p e r c e n t response r a t e t o the survey i s i n d i c a t i v e of a h i g h i n t e r e s t i n outdoor r e c r e a t i o n by t h e G r e a t e r V i c t o r i a p o p u l a t i o n . The use of c o v e r i n g l e t t e r s , reminder c a r d s and a s e c o n d q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o i n i t i a l n o n - r e s p o n d e n t s p r o v e d v e r y w o r t h w h i l e i n p r o d u c i n g more r e t u r n s . The v i s u a l q u a l i t y of the survey i n s t r u m e n t and the a u s p i c e s of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia and the B.C. S c i e n c e C o u n c i l undoubtedly had a p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e on the r a t e of r e t u r n as w e l l . The use of a ' f r e s h ' e d i t i o n of t h e t e l e p h o n e d i r e c t o r y s u b s t a n t i a l l y reduced the number of n o n - d e l i v e r a b l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . The p e r s o n a l i n t e r -v i e w s of a sub-sample of the non-respondents was i n v a l u a b l e i n 9 7 c a l c u l a t i n g more a c c u r a t e measurements of the use of the area and i n e s t i m a t i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e s i n a c t i v i t i e s by the surveyed h o u s e h o l d s . T h i s work has overcome, t o a l a r g e e x t e n t , a number of the b i a s e s t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l l y a f f e c t the a c c u r a c y of m a i l s u r v e y s , such as non-response and sampl i n g b i a s e s . A h i g h s u r vey response r a t e and the a p p l i c a t i o n of a non-response f a c t o r c a l c u l a t e d from t h e i n t e r v i e w e d n o n - r e s p o n s e m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e group, s h o u l d l e n d c r e d i b i l i t y t o the ac c u r a c y of the study r e s u l t s . A l t h o u g h Sooke had l e s s than h a l f the number of res p o n d e n t s to the survey than i t s ' p o p u l a t i o n i n d i c a t e s , i t p r o v i d e d f o u r t imes i t s response r a t e i n terms of use of CIP l a n d , i e . 1.4% of the r e s p o n d e n t s produced 7% of the u s e r s . T h i s h i g h e r use per c a p i t a was expected i n Sooke due to i t s c l o s e r p r o x i m i t y to the study a r e a than the o t h e r communities. O t h e r w i s e , the r a t e s of use by o t h e r c o m m u n i t i e s i n the CRD g e n e r a l l y adhered p r o p o r -t i o n a t e l y t o t h e i r p o p u l a t i o n . 7.2. CONCLUSIONS There a re numerous ' c r o p s ' of r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y days t h a t c o u l d be h a r v e s t e d a n n u a l l y , w i t h l i t t l e impact on t i m b e r p r o -d u c t i o n , on these two l a n d b a s e s . F i s h i n g s h o u l d be the primary f o c u s of any f u r t h e r r e c r e a t i o n b e n e f i t g e n e r a t i n g r e s e a r c h on t h i s l a n d b a s e f o l l o w e d by s e m i - p r i m i t i v e camping, h u n t i n g and 98 p r i m i t i v e camping r e s p e c t i v e l y . More work i s r e q u i r e d to develop p o t e n t i a l n e t revenues o b t a i n a b l e from these a c t i v i t i e s and to determine p o s s i b l e fee s c h e d u l e s f o r them. C o n t i n u e d r e s e a r c h i n t o s o u r c e s of income from r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s on t h i s l a n d b a s e , i n a d d i t i o n to t i m b e r h a r v e s t i n g , w i l l enhance the a b i l i t y of f o r e s t l a n d owners t o more e f f e c t i v e -l y manage f o r e s t l a n d s on an i n t e g r a t e d b a s i s . A w e l l planned, w e l l managed r e c r e a t i o n program, based i n p a r t on the evi d e n c e s e c u r e d i n t h i s s t u d y , has the p o t e n t i a l t o generate s i g n i f i c a n t b e n e f i t s on CIP la n d s and on the study a r e a . 7 . 3 . RECOMMENDATIONS F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h s h o u l d be u n d e r t a k e n r e g a r d i n g f i s h i n g , camping and h u n t i n g as w e l l as a l t e r n a t i v e a c t i v i t e s on t h e l a n d b a s e t o d e t e r m i n e t h e n e t p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s o f t h o s e a c t i v i t i e s . Such a study s h o u l d address the c o s t s of p r o v i s i o n o f t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s , and s h o u l d i n c l u d e c o s t s of p l a n n i n g , c o n s t r u c t i o n , o p e r a t i o n , maintenance, l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e , t a x a -t i o n r a t e s and r i s k s s u c h as f i r e and t h e f t , as w e l l as the o p p o r t u n i t y c o s t s f o r g o n e by u n d e r t a k i n g a p a r t i c u l a r p r o j e c t . Methods of i m p l e m e n t i n g a f e e c o l l e c t i o n scheme sh o u l d be i n v e s t i g a t e d . As the above a c t i v i t i e s can be pursued i n numerous l o c a t i o n s throughout the study a r e a they are d i f f i c u l t t o mo n i t o r and a d m i n i s t e r . The most e f f i c i e n t means of p r o c u r i n g user f e e s 99 would be through the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of an annual e n t r y permit or a season pass. Such an u n d e r t a k i n g would a l s o r e q u i r e the i n -volvement and c o - o p e r a t i o n of a l l l a n d owners i n the area due to the l a n d ownership p a t t e r n s and the numerous a c c e s s p o i n t s . Much has been a c c o m p l i s h e d i n t h i s s t u d y y e t t h e g r e a t e r p o r t i o n of the 'mountain' remains to he c l i m b e d . P r e s s f o r w a r d i n t h i s endeavour. REFERENCES CITED Adaraowicz, W.L. and W.E. P h i l l i p s . "A Comparison of E x t r a Market B e n e f i t T e c h n i q u e s . " C a n a d i a n J o u r n a l of A g r i c u l t u r a l  Economics V o l . 65 No. 4 (Nov. 1983 ): 401-412. B i n k l e y , C l a r k S. " 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 by Consumers' S u r p l u s : A F u r t h e r Note," J o u r n a l of F o r e s t r y ( J a n . 1980): 22-23. B i s h o p , R.C. and T.A. H e b e r l e i n . "Measuring V a l u e s of E x t r a m a r k e t Goods: Are I n d i r e c t Measures B i a s e d ? " American J o u r n a l of  A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics. (Dec. 1979): 926-930. B i s h o p , R . C . and T.A. H e b e r l e i n . 1980. S i m u l a t e d M a r k e t s , Hypo- t h e t i c a l M a r k e t s , and T r a v e l C o s t A n a l y s i s : A l t e r n a t i v e  Methods of E s t i m a t i n g Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Demand. S t a f f Paper No. 187. Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, U n i v e r s i t y of W i s c o n s i n . B i s h o p , R . C , T.A. H e b e r l e i n , & M.J. K e a l y . " C o n t i n g e n t V a l u a t i o n o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l A s s e t s : C o m p a r i s o n s w i t h a S i m u l a t e d M a r k e t . " N a t u r a l Resources J o u r n a l Vol.23 ( J u l y 1983): 619-633. B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a M i n i s t r y of E n v i r o n m e n t and P a r k s . 1987. An  E x a m i n a t i o n of t h e R easons F o r The D e c r e a s e i n H u n t i n g  L i c e n c e S a l e s . V i c t o r i a , B.C. 26p. C l a w s o n , M a r i o n and J o h n K n e t s c h . 1966. Economics of Outdoor  R e c r e a t i o n . B a l t i m o r e , M a r y l a n d . The John Hopkins P r e s s . C o c h e b a , D.J. and W.A. L a n g f o r d . " D i r e c t W i l l i n g n e s s - T o - P a y Q u e s t i o n s : An A n a l y s i s o f T h e i r Use F o r Q u a n t i t a t i v e l y V a l u i n g W i l d l i f e . " J o u r n a l o f L e i s u r e R e s e a r c h No.13 ( O c t . 1 9 8 1 ) : 311-322. C r u t c h f i e l d , James A. 1962. " V a l u a t i o n of F i s h e r y R e s o u r c e s . " Land Economics Vol.38 No.5: 145-154. Cummings, R.G., D.S. B r o o k s h i r e and W.D. S c h u l t z e . 1986. V a l u i n g  E n v i r o n m e n t a l Goods: An Assessment of the C o n t i n g e n t V a l u a - t i o n Method. Rowman and A l l a n h e l d , New J e r s e y . D a v i s , R.K. 1963. "The Value Of Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n : An Economic S t u d y of The M a i n e Woods." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y . 100 101 Dwyer, John F.,J.R. K e l l y and M.D. Bowes. 1977. Improved P r o c e e d - u r e s f o r V a l u a t i o n o f t h e C o n t r i b u t i o n o f R e c r e a t i o n to  N a t i o n a l Economic Development. Research Report 128. U n i v e r -s i t y o f I l l i n o i s a t U r b a n a - C h a m p a i g n , Water R e s o u r c e s C e n t e r , I l l i n o i s . 218p. Dwyer, John F. and M i c h a e l D. Bowes. " B e n e f i t - C o s t A n a l y s i s f o r A p p r a i s a l of R e c r e a t i o n A l t e r n a t i v e s . " J o u r n a l of F o r e s t r y V o l 77 No. 3 (March 1979): 145-147. Dyer A.A. and J.G. H o f . "Comment on B e n e f i t - C o s t A n a l y s i s f o r A p p r a i s a l of R e c r e a t i o n A l t e r n a t i v e s . " J o u r n a l of F o r e s t r y V o l . 77 No.3 (Mar. 1979): 147-148. F r e e m a n , A. M. I I I . " A p p r o a c h e s t o M e a s u r i n g P u b l i c Goods Demands." A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f A g r i c u l t u r a l E c o n o m i c s . (1979): 915-920. G i b b s , Kenneth C , Lewis Q u e i r o l o and C r a i g Lommicki. 1979. The  V a l u a t i o n o f Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n i n a M u l t i p l e Use F o r e s t . R e s e a r c h B u l l e t i n 28. F o r e s t R e s e a r c h L a b o r a t o r y Oregon S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y C o r v a l l i s Oregon. 18p. Hammack J . and G.M. Brown J r . 1974. W a t e r f o w l and W e t l a n d s : Toward B i o e c o n o m i c A n a l y s i s . R e s o u r c e s F o r The F u t u r e . D i s t r i b u t e d by the John Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , B a l t i m o r e . 95p. H a r r i s , C C . and B.L. D r i v e r . " R e c r e a t i o n User Fees: Pros and Cons." J o u r n a l of F o r e s t r y (May 1987): 25-29. H a r r i s o n , T e r r y P. 1983. "Design and Development of A D e c i s i o n Support System For F o r e s t Management P l a n n i n g With M u l t i p l e O b j e c t i v e s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Tennessee. 170p. J o h n s o n , F. Reed. " 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 i n Theory and P r a c t i c e : A Comment On I m p e r f e c t M e t h o d s . " J o u r n a l of  F o r e s t r y ( J a n . 1980): 24-25. K e a l y , Mary J o . 1982. " T r a v e l Cost E s t i m a t i o n of R e c r e a t i o n a l Demand: T h e o r e t i c a l , E m p i r i c a l and P o l i c y I s s u e s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of W i s c o n s i n - M a d i s o n . 236p. K i n n e a r , T.C. and J.R. T a y l o r . 1983. M a r k e t i n g R e s e a r c h : an  A p p l i e d Approach. Second e d i t i o n . M c G r a w - H i l l . K l i n k a , K., R.N. Green, P . J . C o u r t i n and F.C. N u z d o r f e r . 1984. S i t e D i a g n o s i s , Tree S p e c i e s S e l e c t i o n , and S l a s h B u r n i n g  G u i d e l i n e s f o r the Vancouver F o r e s t R e g i o n , B r i t i s h Colum- b i a . Land Management Report Number 25. M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s . V i c t o r i a . B.C. 179p. 102 K n e t s c h , J . L . and R.K. D a v i s . " C o m p a r i s o n s o f Methods f o r R e c r e a t i o n E v a l u a t i o n . " R e p r i n t from Water R e s e a r c h . John Hopkins P r e s s . 1966. 125-142. L a n g f o r d , W.A. and D.J. Cocheba 1978. The W i l d l i f e V a l u a t i o n  Problem: A C r i t i c a l Review of Economic Approaches. O c c a s i o n -a l Paper Number 37. Canadian W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e , Ottawa, Ont. 35p. M e i s , S c o t t . " R e c r e a t i o n As A F o r e s t P r o d u c t : The Demand, The M a r k e t and F u t u r e R e s o u r c e C o n f l i c t s . " R e v i s e d f r o m a p r e s e n t a t i o n t o t h e E c o n o m i c s and P o l i c y W o r k i n g Group  S e s s i o n : F o r e s t Management O u t p u t s - Who Needs Them and Why?  S e v e n t y - f i r s t A nnual meeting of the Canadian I n s t i t u t e of  F o r e s t r y . J a s p e r , A l b e r t a . ( S e p t . 30 - Oct.4, 1979): 20p. P e t e r s o n , G.L. and A l a n R a n d a l l , Eds. 1984. V a l u a t i o n of W i l d l a n d  Resource B e n e f i t s . Westview P r e s s . B o u l d e r , C o l o r a d o . R a n d a l l , A l a n , John Hoehn, & David B r o o k s h i r e . " C o n t i n g e n t V a l u a -t i o n S u r v e y s f o r E v a l u a t i n g E n v i r o n m e n t a l A s s e t s . " N a t u r a l  Resources J o u r n a l V o l . 23 ( J u l y 1983): 635-648. R e i d , R o g e r . 1985. The V a l u e and C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of R e s i d e n t  H u n t i n g . M i n i s t r y of Environment, V i c t o r i a , B.C. 153p. R e i d , R o g e r . 1986. The Value and C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Fr e s h w a t e r  A n g l i n g i n B.C. M i n i s t r y of Environment, V i c t o r i a , B.C. 98p. R e i d , R o g e r . 1987. " F u r t h e r E v i d e n c e of S t a r t i n g P o i n t B i a s i n CVM B i d d i n g Games." U n p u b l i s h e d paper, l i p . R o h l f , F . J . and R.R. S o k a l . 1969. S t a t i s t i c a l T a b l e s . W.H. Freeman and Co. Rosebrough, James. " W i l d l i f e as a cash c r o p ? " The Globe and M a i l ( J u l y 17, 1986): p.A7. R o s e n t h a l , D.H., J.B. Loomis and G.L. P e t e r s o n . 1984. The T r a v e l  C o s t M o d e l : C o n c e p t s and A p p l i c a t i o n s . G e n e r a l T e c h n i c a l Report RM-109. Rocky Mountain F o r e s t and Range E x p e r i m e n t S t a t i o n , USDA. FS. F o r t C o l l i n s , Co. lOp. S t e e l , R.G.D. and J.H. T o r r i e . 1980. P r i n c i p l e s and P r o c e d u r e s  o f S t a t i s t i c s : A B i o m e t r i c a l A p p r o a c h . Second e d i t i o n . M c G r a w - H i l l . S o r g , Cindy F and John B. Loomis. 1984. E m p i r i c a l E s t i m a t e s of  A m e n i t y F o r e s t V a l u e : A C o m p a r a t i v e R e v i e w . G e n e r a l T e c h n i c a l Report RM-107. USDAFS, Rocky Mountain F o r e s t and Range Experiment S t a t i o n , F o r t C o l l i n s , Co. 23p. 103 W a l p o l e , Ronald E. 1968. I n t r o d u c t i o n To S t a t i s t i c s . M a c M i l l a n , London. Z a r , J e r r o l d H., 1974. B i o s t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s . P r e n t i c e - H a l l . New J e r s e y . APPENDIX A 104 — (/*6) A SURVEY OF YOUR OUTDOOR RECREATION USE OF SELECTED FORBST LANDS IN THE CAPITAL REGIONAL DISTRICT C a p i t a l R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t YOU ARE IMPORTANT!! Your COMPLETION and RETURN of t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s ESSENTIAL whether any member of your household has used t h i s p r o p e r t y f o r r e c r e a t i o n purposes or not. I f you o b j e c t to answering these q u e s t i o n s p l e a s e r e t u r n the q u e s t i o n -n a i r e i n the stamped, s e l f - a d d r e s s e d envelope, s t a t i n g the reasons f o r your o b j e c t i o n . 01075 106a (JC7) FOR CODING ONLY RESIDENT RECREATIONIST Where do you l i v e ? • C e n t r a l Saanich Colwood Esquiraalt Langford Metchosin North Saanich Oak Bay Saanich Sidney V i c t o r i a View Royal Sooke -( e l e c t o r a l area) How long have you l i v e d i n that community? l e s s than 1 year 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years 6-10 years 11 or more years ._ How many years have you l i v e d i n the C a p i t a l Regional D i s t r i c t i n t o t a l ? l e s s than 1 year 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years 6-10 years 11 or more years Look at the enclosed map on the f a c i n g page. During the twelve  months of 1986 has any member of your household p a r t i c i p a t e d i n any outdoor r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n the area o u t l i n e d ? Note: h o u s e h o l d r e f e r s to the head(s) of the home plus a l l dependants l i v i n g i n that home during 1986. Yes No 5. Would you or any member of your household use that area i n the fut u r e i f r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s were provided? Yes No ( I f you answered NO to both questions 4 & 5 please go to question 18.) Point N o PI Picnic Site S h e r i n g h a m Pt Base map s u p p l i e d by Sooke Combined F i r e O r g a n i z a t i o n MaMocrT& Moseley Dryland Sort Orveas Bay 03 Otter Pt ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION 6. Again, c o n s i d e r i n g only the area o u t l i n e d on the attached i a p , look at the l i s t of a c t i v i t i e s i n the ch a r t on the f a c i n g page. For those i n d i v i d u a l outdoor r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s i n which any member of your household p a r t i c i p a t e d i n 1986, f i l l i n th a t c h a r t with the f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n : (see the example below) a. mark the t o t a l number of t r i p s that were made i n 1986 f o r each a c t i v i t y . Note: -a t r i p i s any ex c u r s i o n to the area f o r r e c r e a -t i o n purposes, -seasons are: W = Winter (Dec. to Feb.) Sp= Spring (Mar. to May ) Su= Summer (Jun. to Aug.) F = F a l l (Sep. to Nov.) b. mark the average length of stay f o r those t r i p s . I n d i c a t e the length i n number of days. Note; a day i s considered to be a l l or a part of any calendar day. c. mark the number of t r i p s that were taken on weekdays and the number taken on weekends. Note: -weekday = Monday to F r i d a y morning -weekend = F r i d a y afternoon to Sunday d. s t a t e the average number of household members that p a r t i c i p a t e d i n each a c t i v i t y . EXAMPLE: Remember: report the combined p a r t i c i p a t i o n of a l l household members f o r each a c t i v i t y . ACTIVITY SEASON TOTAL #TRIPS AVERAGE #DAYS WEEK DAY WEEK END HOUSE-HOLD MEMBERS Pa s s i v e : W Sp Su F p i c n i c k i n g X X X 5 1 3 2 4 s i g h t s e e i n g / v i e w i n g X 2 1 1 1 5 photography X X 3 1 2 1 1 OTHER - s p e c i f y name X 2 1 2 0 2 0/0) 5 ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION CHART ACTIVITY SEASON TOTAL #TRIPS AVERAGE #DAYS WEEK DAY WEEK END HOUSE-HOLD MEMBERS Hunting: W SP su F XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX upland b i r d s big game Camping: F i s h i n g : A c t i v e : W Sp Su F XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX h i k i n g horse back r i d i n g mountain b i k i n g s u r v i v a l games x-country s k i i n g s l e d d i n g P a s s i v e : W Sp Su F XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX p i c n i c k i n g s i g h t s e e i n g / v i e w i n g photography Motorized : W Sp Su F XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX four whee1ing/back-road t o u r i n g t r a i l b i k i n g ATV ' s snowmobi1i ng Gathering: w Sp Su F XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX firewood honey rocks e d i b l e foods (berries/mushrooms) Water based : w Sp Su F XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX swimming canoeing kayaking tubing wind s u r f i n g Other: ( s p e c i f y ) w Sp Su F XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX H 7. C o n s i d e r i n g a l l of the outdoor r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s i n which you p a r t i c i p a t e , l i s t your preference i n order from 1 to 5. most p r e f e r r e d 1. 2. 3. 4 . . l e a s t p r e f e r r e d 5. 8. C o n s i d e r i n g the twelve month perio d j u s t reported (1986), would your household's use of the area be more or l e s s than i n : 1985 1984 1983 More than Same as Less than LOCATION OF ACTIVITY 9. Examine the map on f a c i n g page, then c a r e f u l l y draw on that map an 'X' on each of the areas your household has used i n 1986. Be as p r e c i s e as p o s s i b l e . See example below. Point N o Pt V<j-Picnic Site S h e r i n g h a m PI Base map s u p p l i e d by Sooke Combined F i r e O r g a n i z a t i o n Orveas Bay Otter Pt 0*3) 8 COSTS  10. In the l a s t 5 years, have you hunted f o r deer: a. anywhere i n B.C.? Yes No b. i n the Greater V i c t o r i a Water D i s t r i c t ? Yes No c. on Sidney Island? Yes No 11. Suppose l i m i t e d entry hunting was p r e s c r i b e d f o r the area o u t l i n e d on the map ( e x c l u d i n g the a r e a s where h u n t i n g i s p r e s e n t l y p r o h i b i t e d ) to maintain a higher deer/hunter r a t i o . Would you hunt there? Yes No ( I f you s a i d NO, go to question 13.) 12. Assuming the number of d e e r / h u n t e r were maintained at a r a t i o s i m i l a r to those found i n the Greater V i c t o r i a Water D i s t r i c t , c i r c l e below the daily fee which you would be w i l l i n g to pay to hunt t h e r e . $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 o t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) $ 13. The Sooke River i s being re-stocked with salmon. Would you f i s h there when i t i s re-opened f o r salmon f i s h i n g ? Yes No ( I f you answered NO, go to question 15.) 14. Suppose a fee was l e v i e d to o f f s e t the costs of r e - s t o c k i n g and enhancement of the h a b i t a t . C i r c l e the d a i l y fee you would be w i l l i n g to pay to f i s h i n that r i v e r . $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 o t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) $ 15. Check a l l the types of camping accommodation that you c u r r e n t l y use? motorhome camper t r a i l e r cabin camper-van tent t e n t - t r a i l e r other 16. Given the f o l l o w i n g d e s c r i p t i o n s , mark below a l l the types of camping that you c u r r e n t l y p a r t i c i p a t e i n . a. PRIMITIVE: predominantly n a t u r a l appearing, reasonably good road access, some evidence of and contact with people, poten-t i a l i s o l a t i o n experience, p i c n i c t a b l e , f i r e r i n g , l e v e l l e d tent or camper s i t e , p i t t o i l e t , no running water. b. SEMI-PRIMITIVE: as i n (a) above, but with good road access, greater evidence of and contact with people, b u i l t up tent or camper pad, firewood p r o v i d e d , garbage c o l l e c t i o n , p i t or f l u s h t o i l e t , and c o l d running water to c e n t r a l camp area. c. MODIFIED: as i n (b) above, but with s u b s t a n t i a l evidence of and contact with people, f l u s h t o i l e t , hot and c o l d running water, showers. d. RURAL: as i n ( c ) above but w i t h s u b s t a n t i a l l y m o d i f i e d environment, very high evidence of and contact with people, l e v e l g r a s s y camper pad, e l e c t r i c a l and sewer h o o k u p s , laundry, s t o r e . e. CABINS: with beds, cooking f a c i l i t i e s , hot and c o l d running water, f l u s h t o i l e t and showers i n any of the above s e t t i n g s . Again, t h i n k i n g of the area o u t l i n e d on the map on page 7, and u s i n g the d e s c r i p t i o n s i n question 16 for the types of camping that you p a r t i c i p a t e i n , c i r c l e the d a i l y fee you would be w i l l i n g to pay f o r the use o f : a. PRIMITIVE f a c i l i t i e s . $5 $7 $9 $11 $13 o t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) | b. SEMI-PRIMITIVE f a c i l i t i e s . $8 $11 $14 $17 $20 other ( s p e c i f y) $_ c. MODIFIED f a c i l i t i e s . $12 $16 $20 $24 $28 o t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) $ d. RURAL f a c i l i t i e s . $16 $20 $24 $28 $32 o t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) $ e. CABIK f a c i l i t i e s . $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 o t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) $_ 11 PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS 18. Your cu r r e n t age i s ? under 20 years of age 20-24 years 25-34 years 35-44 years 45-54 years 55-64 years 65 years and o l d e r 19. What i s your gender? Male Female 20. Check the category which best d e s c r i b e s your t o t a l annual  household income, before taxes. under $10,000 10,000-19,999 20,000-29,999 30,000-39,999 40,000-49,999 50,000-59,999 over $60,000 21. T o t a l number of household members c u r r e n t l y l i v i n g at home ( i n c l u d i n g y o u r s e l f ) ? Number 12 22. Any a d d i t i o n a l comments? THANK YOU f o r a s s i s t i n g i n t h i s research p r o j e c t by COMPLETING t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e and RETURNING i t promptly i n the stamped, s e l f - a d d r e s s e d  envelope provided. Your i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be kept s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l . Your p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s SINCERELY APPRECIATED!! 1 APPENDIX B 118 1 1 9 ORGANIZATIONS PUBLIC and GOVERNMENT A l p i n e Club of Canada B.C. Four Wheel D r i v e A s s o c i a t i o n B.C. Hydro B.C. Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n C o u n c i l B.C. P a r k s , Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n D i v i s i o n B.C. W i l d l i f e F e d e r a t i o n Camp Bernard (Boy S c o u t s ) Camp T h u n d e r b i r d (YMCA) C a p i t a l R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t , P a r k s C a p i t a l R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t , P l a n n i n g C o n s e r v a t i o n S o c i e t y Amalgamated Department of F i s h e r i e s and Oceans Department of N a t i o n a l Defence E c o l o g i c a l Reserves E n v i r o n m e n t a l S t u d i e s , U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a E l i m i n a t o r s 4 x 4 Club E x p l o r e r s R e c r e a t i o n a l V e h i c l e Club F e d e r a t i o n of B.C. N a t u r a l i s t s F e d e r a t i o n of Mountain Clubs F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch Garden C i t y Horsemens Club G r e a t e r V i c t o r i a Water Board Independent H i k e r s A s s o c i a t i o n I s l a n d Mountain Ramblers Land Rover Owners Club M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s M i n i s t r y of Tourism M e t c h o s i n Pony Club Nature Conservancy of Canada Outdoor Club of V i c t o r i a Salmonoid Enhancement Program S i e r r a Club South Vancouver I s l a n d R e c r e a t i o n Committee T r a i l s S o c i e t y U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a Outdoors Club Vancouver I s l a n d Appaloosa Horse Club Vancouver I s l a n d Cave E x p l o r a t i o n Group Vancouver I s l a n d Rock S o c i e t y V i c t o r i a Bowmen V i c t o r i a C a v ing Group V i c t o r i a F i s h and Game Club V i c t o r i a Hang G l i d i n g A s s o c i a t i o n V i c t o r i a L a p i d a r y and M i n e r a l S o c i e t y V i c t o r i a Motor Sport Club V i c t o r i a M o t o r c y c l e Club V i c t o r i a N a t u r a l H i s t o r y S o c i e t y V i c t o r i a Wheelers C y c l i n g Club V i c t o r i e n t e e r s PRIVATE FORESTRY B.C. F o r e s t P r o d u c t s CIP I n c . , T a h s i s P a c i f i c Region M a c M i l l a n B l o e d e l Western F o r e s t P r o d u c t s COMMERCIAL RECREATION Blue Gables R e s o r t Cheanuh Campground Deer T r a i l Development G r e a t e r V i c t o r i a Water Board J&M E n t e r p r i s e s - Sidney I s l a n d KOA - V i c t o r i a West P a c i f i c P l a y g r o u n d Sooke Harbour M a r i n a Sunny Shores Campground Weir's Beach R e s o r t Please consider each question i n terms of "at present" and " i n ten years" 1) What resources does your organization own, manage, or u t i l i z e within the area of the attached map? 2) Would you i d e n t i f y the unit number on the map i n which your areas of i n t e r e s t l i e and l i s t the a c t i v i t i e s pursued there? 3) Please i d e n t i f y the unit numbers of any ad d i t i o n a l areas that you would l i k e to use and l i s t the a c t i v i t i e s you would pursue there. 4) How many user days* does your organization use the area annually? 5) Please note any a c t i v i t i e s which you f e e l are incompatible with the a c t i v i t i e s of your organization? 6) Why are they incompatible? 7) How could t h i s be overcome? 8) What kinds of recr e a t i o n do you f e e l should be happening i n th i s area 9) Do you f e e l there i s a need f or implementing voluntary regulations or a code of ethics to manage th i s area? 10) What regulations do you see as important or necessary? 11) What are your organization's plans for development or involvement i n t h i s area? 12) How would you compare the recreation p o t e n t i a l of the Sooke River area as compared with other outdoor re c r e a t i o n areas i n the C a p i t a l Regional D i s t r i c t , using a scale of 1 to 20 where: 1 = le a s t p o t e n t i a l , 10 = equal p o t e n t i a l , 20 = most potential? 13) I f c a p i t a l expenditures were incurred to provide r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s and opportunities would you be w i l l i n g to pay a user fee f o r the use of them? 14) Who i n your organization knows t h i s area p a r t i c u l a r l y well? 15) Do you have any further suggestions concerning the r e c r e a t i o n a l use of the described lands? *us:?r-day - use of the area for one day or part thereof by each person eg. 3 user days = 1 person x 3 days or = 3 people x 1 day or = 3 people x l/2day 17,-Valentine • . „ .vy94 • , Mm. S:V»-94A W9.1 w»2 Scfofce : North Ma ii ! \ JFi3G0 .J.12O0 -gjversion Boulder L.'Zs*^ -it t:^  Butcnart i. Lake Coon Macdon\d . La> .—Rough . _Cree*_ orslund ^,\Ranger ' ow: { kvo/f \ i.a*ce . A22A,f<3 Mt Mu.r \ / TV ^.Uavis < t /Lake I V j \ .Empress" Min. \>abappie ^Eke Trap Mm. / / «o r f.Psdzn J \ \ JyLake fry \j f „ swtos I Grass ", • La«e . Wa Sandcut Recreational Area' Point No Pt. Picnic Site' French Beach Provincial Park 1 Sheringham Pt. Ualloch a Moseley Dryland Sort Orveas Bay Uunq La,a! 0^3 P.F.P. Dryland Sort Broom Hill - Kemo ' Lake othoifr^ Proline* a Pari •Glhz -.Late Soc** Fort-:t Prod. Mill Sooke Basin 7~ ramp Pacific: Forest SooKe Proauct3 Bay Limited SOOKC A Otter Pt. / 7- cqO' 124 GENERAL AREA Unit # 1. G r e a t e r V i c t o r i a Watere D i s t r i c t 2. Sooke Mountain P r o v i n c i a l Park 3. G l i n z Lake/Saseenos 4. East Sooke 5. Lower Sooke R i v e r 6. Sooke P o t h o l e s Park 7. Mid Sooke R i v e r 8. Upper Sooke R i v e r / L e e c h t o w n 9. Old Wolf Creek 10. Survey Mountain 11. B u t l e r Main 12. Young Lake 13. M u i r Main 14. Bear Creek R e s e r v o i r 15. San Juan Ridge 16. J o r d a n R i v e r APPENDIX C 125 126 C H I - S Q U A R E C A L C U L A T I O N S * COMM ( d u r a t i o n of r e s i d e n c e i n community) YEARS OF NON-RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS T O T A L R E S I D E N C E <1 5 (2.91) 58 (60.09) 63 1 0 (1.38) 30 (28.61) 30 2 0 (2.40) 52 (49 . 6 0 ) 52 3 1 (1.57) 33 (32.43) 34 4 3 ( 0 . 7 4 ) 13 (15.26) 16 5 1 (0.97) 20 (20.03) 21 6-10 4 (4.20) 87 (86.80) 91 >10 10 (9 . 8 3 ) 203 ( 2 0 3 . 1 7 ) 213 TOTAL 24 496 520 X 2 = 13. 0 X 2 C 9 0 = 12. 017 * 2 C 9 5 » 14 .067 RD ( d u r a t i o n of r e s i d e n c e i n r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t ) YEARS OF NON-] RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS T O T A L R E S I D E N C E <1 4 (1.64) 31 (33.36) 35 1 0 ( 0 . 5 6 ) 12 (11.44) 12 2 0 (1.26) 27 (25 . 7 4 ) 27 3 0 (0 . 7 5 ) 16 (15.25) 16 4 1 (0.37) 7 ( 7.63) 8 5 0 ( 0 . 7 0 ) 15 ( 1 4 . 3 0 ) 15 6 -10 5 (4.30) 87 (87.70) 92 >10 14 (14.41) 294 (293 . 5 4 ) 308 TOTAL 24 489 513 X 2 - 8 . 25 t 2 C 9 0 = 12. 017 7 C 2c95 = 14 .067 *These t e s t s are v e r y weak due to the number of c e l l s t h a t c o n t a i n l e s s than 5 f r e q u e n c i e s • AGE (age of res p o n d e n t ) 127 AGE RANGE NON-RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS TOTAL <20 1 (0.31) 6 (6.69) 7 20-24 4 (1.49) 30 (32.51) 34 25-34 3 (4.61) 102 (100.39) 105 35-44 7 (5.22) 112 (113.78) 119 45-54 2 (3.12) 69 (67.88) 71 55-64 1 (2.59) 58 (56.41) 59 >64 5 (5.66) 124 (123.34) 129 TOTAL 23 501 524 X 2 = 8.78 X 2 C 9 0 = 10. 645 X 2 C 9 5 „ 12 .592 SEX NON-RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS TOTAL Male 19 (19.01) 352 (351.99) 371 Female 8 (7.99) 148 (148.01) 156 TOTAL 27 500 527 X 2 = 0.04 *-2C90 = 2- 70 ^ 2 C 9 5 = 3« 841 128 INCOME ( a n n u a l income) ANNUAL NON-RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS TOTAL INCOME <10,000 0 (0.90) 59 (58.10) 59 10-20,000 1 (1.54) 100 (99.46) 101 20-30,000 3 (1.71) 109 (110.29) 112 30-40,000 1 (1.12) 72 (71.88) 73 40-50,000 1 (0.76) 49 (49.24) 50 50-60,000 0 (0.40) 26 (25.60) 26 >60,000 1 (0.57) 36 (36.43) 37 TOTAL 7 451 458 X 2 = 2.92 X 2 C 9 0 = 10.645 X 2 C 9 5 = 12.592 MEMBERS ( i n household) HOUSEHOLD NON-RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS TOTAL MEMBERS 1 3 (3.10) 110 (109.89) 113 2 8 (5.39) 188 (190.61) 196 3 0 (2.17) 79 (76.83) 79 4 3 (2.31) 81 (81.69) 84 5 0 (0.72) 26 (25.28) 26 6 0 (0.22) 8 (7.78) 8 7-10 0 (0.06) 2 (1.94) 2 >10 0 (0.03) 1 (0.97) 1 TOTAL 14 495 509 X ; 2 = 4.81 X 2 C 9 0 = 12-017 X 2 C 9 5 = 14.067 APPENDIX D 1 2 9 130 DEFINITIONS CIP l a n d - t h a t p o r t i o n of F o r e s t Management area #7, owned by CIP I n c . , t h a t l i e s s o u t h of n o r t h e r l y h e i g h t of l a n d of D i v e r s i o n and Be a r C r e e k R e s e v o i r s and l i e s west o f t h e G r e a t e r V i c t o r i a Water D i s t r i c t . Study a r e a - a l l l a n d s l y i n g w i t h i n the b o u n d a r i e s of t h e E&N l a n d g r a n t t h a t are south of the n o r t h e r l y h e i g h t of l a n d of D i v e r s i o n and Bear Creek watersheds and west of the G r e a t e r V i c t o r i a Water D i s t r i c t , p l u s l a n d s l y i n g n o r t h of a l i n e r u n n i n g from the s o u t h - e a s t c o r n e r of Sooke Mountain Park t o the mouth of the Sooke R i v e r , thence t o the E&N boundary due west of Young Lake. The study a r e a encompasses the CIP l a n d noted above but i n c l u d e s o t h e r p r i v a t e and p u b l i c l a n d s as w e l l . T h i s area i s o u t l i n e d on the map i n F i g u r e 1 and i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . A c t i v i t y day - p a r t i c i p a t i o n by any member of a household i n a r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t y on the l a n d b a s e f o r any p o r t i o n of a day. I t does not equate to a c a l e n d a r day of a c t i v i t y . I n t ended a c t i v i t y day - the r e p o r t e d i n t e n t i o n of any member of a h o u s e h o l d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a s e l e c t e d a c t i v i t y f o r any p o r t i o n o f a day on t h e l a n d b a s e under t h e c o n d i t i o n s s p e c i f i e d i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Non-response f a c t o r - t h e p e r c e n t a g e of n o n - r e s p o n d e n t s t h a t w o u l d have p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y on the l a n d b a s e . T h i s f a c t o r must be a d d e d t o t h e r e p o r t e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n t o more a c c u r a t e l y e s t i m a t e the t o t a l p a r t i c i -p a t i o n i n a g i v e n a c t i v i t y . E x p a n s i o n f a c t o r - the f a c t o r r e q u i r e d t o expand the number of sampled households to the t o t a l number of households i n the CRD, e x c l u d i n g the G u l f I s l a n d s . W i l l i n g n e s s - t o - p a y - the d o l l a r amount a household or person i s w i l l i n g t o pay per day to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a g i v e n a c t i v i t y on the l a n d b a s e . P o t e n t i a l annual g r o s s b e n e f i t - the d o l l a r v a l u e t h a t a g i v e n a c t i v i t y would generate i n one y e a r , assuming the r e p o r t e d i n t e n d e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n l e v e l was a t t a i n e d and t h a t a l l v a l u e s c o u l d be c o l l e c t e d . APPENDIX E 131 132 DOLLAR AND MARKET VALUES Valuation adjustments to r e f l e c t 1986 Canadian d o l l a r s The U.S.A. d o l l a r e xchange r a t e p l u s t h e a n n u a l p e r c e n t a g e change i n the Canadian Consumer P r i c e Index was used t o d e r i v e 1986 d o l l a r v a l u e s . 1 The U.S.A. exchange r a t e as of Aug 1,1982 was 1.2341 Canadian d o l l a r s . The C a n a d i a n i n f l a t i o n r a t e f o r each y e a r , as denoted by the Consumer P r i c e Index, was: 1982 - 10.8% 1983 - 5.8% 1984 - 4.4% 1985 - 4.0% 1986 - 4.1% Thus, a 1982 U.S. d o l l a r became e q u i v a l e n t t o $1.64 Canadian i n 1986, as shown i n the c a l c u l a t i o n below. 1.2341 X 1.108 X 1.058 X 1.044 X 1.040 X 1.041 = 1.635 The Canadian e q u i v a l e n t merely drops the exchange r a t e and t h e ye a r s t h a t are not a p p l i c a b l e from the f o r m u l a . For 1981 d o l l a r s t h a t became a 32 cent i n c r e a s e on the 1986 d o l l a r . i v a l u e s t a k e n from S t a t s Canada Consumer P r i c e Index #62-001, T a b l e 2. Dec. 1987. and the Bank of Canada R e v i e w 1988. 133 A description of other 'market* values Hunting ' R e s t r i c t e d a c c e s s , u s e r f e e ' h u n t i n g i s p r o v i d e d by two o r g a n i z a t i o n s near V i c t o r i a . One i s on a n e a r b y g u l f i s l a n d named, Sidney I s l a n d , where a p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n (0 & J E n t e r -p r i s e s ) r a i s e s f a l l o w deer, i n t r o d u c e d from New Z e a l a n d . The f e e s i n 1986 were s e t by the number and t y p e s of a n i m a l s taken r a t h e r than by a d a i l y h u n t i n g f e e , a l t h o u g h the s t a n d a r d t r i p i s f o r two days d u r a t i o n . Those f e e s i n 1986 were: $60.00 per doe and $80.00 per s p i k e buck (no l a r g e r a n t l e r e d bucks were a l l o w e d to be taken t h a t y e a r ) . A l s o , i t was r e q u i r e d t h a t two a n i m a l s be taken by each pers o n , making i t a $120-160.00 fee p l u s f o o d and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . Those f e e s have each been i n c r e a s e d $10.00 f o r 1987 to $70.00 per doe and $90.00 per s p i k e buck. Trophy a n i -mals run $400.00 to $600.00 p l u s a $100.00 per day s t a l k i n g f e e 2 . The o t h e r r e s t r i c t e d h u n t i n g a r e a i s managed by the GVWB w i t h i n t h e f e n c e d p e r i m e t e r o f i t ' s Water D i s t r i c t s u r r o u n d i n g Sooke Lake. A t o t a l of 150 p e r m i t s are made a v a i l a b l e to the p u b l i c each year on a f i r s t come f i r s t s e r v e b a s i s . The demand f o r such an a c t i v i t y i s s e l f - e v i d e n t from the l i n e - u p s the n i g h t b e f o r e p e r m i t s are i s s u e d and t h a t h u n t e r s are t u r n e d away once the 150 I n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d by p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n and b r o c h u r e . 134 a l l o t t e d p e r m i t s have been i s s u e d . The h u n t i n g permit e n t r y fee f o r 1986 was $35.00. T h i s f e e was broken down i n t o a $30.00 l a b f e e f o r a c o m p u l s o r y s t o o l sample e x a m i n a t i o n p l u s a $5.00 a d m i n i s t r a t i o n f e e . The 1987 f e e has been i n c r e a s e d t o $45.00, w i t h t h e $10.00 i n c r e a s e r e f l e c t i n g i n c r e a s e s i n l a b c o s t s . G e n e r a l l y , two a n i m a l s are a l l o w e d t o be t a k e n , but t h i s a l l o t -ment i s a d m i n i s t e r e d by the W i l d l i f e Branch of the M i n i s t r y of E n v i r o n m e n t and Pa r k s and i s p u b l i s h e d i n t h e i r annual h u n t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s . T h i s permit a l l o w e d daytime a c c e s s o n l y on weekends and s t a t u t o r y h o l i d a y s d u r i n g September, October and November f o r a t o t a l of 16 u s a b l e days. U s i n g the average number of h u n t i n g t r i p s t aken per household on CIP l a n d as a c o n s t a n t ( 4 . 6 7 ) , the d a i l y f e e s can be d e r i v e d f o r h u n t i n g i n the GVWD. T h i s i s ac c o m p l i s h e d by d i v i d i n g the annual f e e by t h e a v e r a g e number o f h u n t e r d a y s . T hus, t h e d e r i v e d v a l u e s f o r the GVWB d a i l y h u n t i n g f e e s were: $7.49 and $9.64 i n 1986 and 1987 r e s p e c t i v e l y . These compare very c l o s e l y w i t h the study v a l u e s of $8.53 and $9.40 o b t a i n e d f o r CIP l a n d and the study area r e s p e c t i v e l y i n 1986. For p r i v a t e h u n t i n g on S i d n e y I s l a n d , t h e y a r e $70.00 and $80.00 f o r 1986 and 1987 r e s p e c t i v e l y . The GVWB c o r r e l a t e s most c l o s e l y w i t h CIP l a n d i n terms of l o c a t i o n , s p e c i e s and type of o p e r a t i o n . The GVWB was used i n t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e as a comparison of deer d e n s i t y . Thus, i t ' s 135 v a l u e s may have a l s o been used by the respondents f o r the d e t e r -m i n a t i o n of t h e i r own WTP v a l u e s as evi d e n c e d by the c o r r e l a t i o n noted above. These v a l u e s cannot be c l a s s i f i e d as ' t r u e ' market p r i c e s as they are s e t and c o n t r o l l e d by a m u n i c i p a l government o r g a n i z a t i o n , but they do g i v e an i n d i c a t i o n of minimum v a l u e s t h a t might be o b t a i n e d . True market v a l u e s a re l i k e l y somewhat h i g h e r than these f i g u r e s but lower than those found f o r Sidney I s l a n d . The Sidney I s l a n d v a l u e s a re aimed at a narrow segment of the p o p u l a t i o n and thus r e f l e c t a d i f f e r e n t market t h a n t h e market p r i c e f o r the g e n e r a l p u b l i c on t h i s l a n d b a s e . Fishing T h e r e were no m a r k e t p r i c e s o b t a i n e d f o r f i s h i n g t o make comparisons w i t h the WTP v a l u e s d e r i v e d i n the s t u d y . Camping A comparison of the CVM v a l u e s d e r i v e d f o r t h r e e of the noted t y p e s of camping can be made w i t h those market v a l u e s found i n t h e CRD and w i t h the 1982 n a t i o n a l a v e r a g e s 3 f o r the U.S.A. as c i t e d by H a r r i s and D r i v e r (1987). The CVM p r o d u c e d v a l u e s of $6.40 and $6.62 f o r s e m i - p r i m i t i v e camping on CIP l a n d s and the study a r e a r e s p e c t i v e l y . For the same type of camping the CRD had an a v e r a g e m a r k e t v a l u e o f $7.50 and t h e U.S.A. one of $16.04. For M o d i f i e d camping, the CVM v a l u e s were $10.30 and 3 . T h e s e v a l u e s h a v e b e e n a d j u s t e d t o r e f l e c t 1986 Canadian d o l l a r s . E x change r a t e and consumer i n d e x f i g u r e s a re p r o v i d e d i n Appendix 5. 136 $10.23 f o r CIP l a n d s and the study area r e s p e c t i v e l y . For t h i s type of camping the CRD showed an average market v a l u e of $12.30 and the U.S.A. $18.37. For R u r a l camping, the CVM d e r i v e d v a l u e s of $12.82 and $13.89 f o r CIP l a n d and the study a r e a r e s p e c t i v e -l y . The CRD v a l u e was $13.90 and the U.S.A. $20.75. M a r k e t v a l u e s f o r t h e CRD j u s t n o t e d show a much more con-s i s t e n t c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h study f i n d i n g s than does a c o m p a r i s o n w i t h o t h e r CVM v a l u e s . In comparing two CVM s t u d i e s c i t e d by Sorg and Loorais (1983) we see some v a r i a t i o n between the v a l u e s d e r i v e d . For 'undeveloped' camping they had a v a l u e of $23.15. For 'semi-developed', $12.28; and f o r 'developed', $18.37. 

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}]}"
                            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.831.1-0075151/manifest

Comment

Related Items