UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Winter recreational demand and multiple use in the Revelstoke/Golden region of British Columbia Loewen, Kurt Gregory 1994

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1994-0493.pdf [ 2.69MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0087513.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087513-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087513-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087513-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087513-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087513-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087513-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0087513-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0087513.ris

Full Text

WINTER RECREATIONAL DEMAND AND MULTIPLE USE IN THE REVELSTOKE/GOLDEN REGION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA by Kurt Gregory Loewen B.Sc, The University of British Columbia, 1992 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Forest Resource Management We accept this thesis as conforming tp^thes^quired standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1994 © Kurt Gregory Loewen, 1994 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment 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 h>pj The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date ^ f i . 'QJj, i'^':r{ ABSTRACT The forestlands of Southeastern British Columbia are under multiple use pressures. Timber harvesting is the primary land use, but winter recreation is increasing. Questionnaire data and a Travel Cost Model were employed to determine daily consumer surplus of three recreational activities: helicopter skiing, commercial backcountry skiing and snowmobiling. Depending on which functional form is chosen, significant differences in consumer surplus calculations are apparent. Results from a simple linear program that maximizes social benefit from heli-skiing, commercial backcountry skiing and snowmobiling, suggest that commercial backcountry skiing should be favoured over the other two uses for a specified zone of conflict. u TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Table of Contents iii List of Tables v Acknowledgement vi Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Overview 1 1.2 Background 1 1.3 Nature of Winter Recreation Conflict in Southeastern B.C. 3 1.4 Problem Statement and Thesis Outline 4 Chapter 2 Valuing Non-Consumptive Resource Uses (Recreation) 6 2.1 Multiple Use 7 2.2 Travel Cost Method 8 Chapter 3 Survey and Consumer Characterization 12 3.1 Survey Design 12 3.2 Sampling Design 14 3.3 Response Rates 15 3.4 Consumer Profiles 16 3.5 Consumer Attitudes 23 Chapter 4 The Travel Cost Model: Results for the Revelsoke/Golden Region 35 4.1 Estimation of Travel Cost Models 35 4.1.1 Functional Form 35 4.1.2 Methods 36 4.1.3 Biases 37 4.1.4 Regression Error 38 4.2 Estimates of Winter Recreation Demand in Revelstoke/Golden 39 4.3 Linear Programming Model for Allocating Winter Recreation Land Use in the Revelstoke/Golden Region 49 Chapter 5 Conclusions 54 References 56 m Appendix A: Heli-skier Survey 59 Appendix B: Commercial Backcountry Skier Survey 68 Appendix C: Snowmobiler Survey 77 IV LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Response Rates 15 3.2 Heli-Skiing Clientele (non-day trippers) 17 3.3 Summary Table: Heli-Skiers 18 3.4 Commercial Backcountry Skiing Clientele 19 3.5 Summary Table: Commercial Backcountry Skiers 20 3.6 Characteristic Summary for Heli-Skiers, Backcountry Skiers and Snowmobilers 22 3.7 Factors Influencing the Heli-Skiers' Choice of Area 24 3.8 Importance of Heli-Ski Trip Features and Heli-Skiers' Perceived Conflict 26 3.9 Factors Influencing the Backcountry Skiers' Choice of Area and the Importance of Specific Trip Features 28 3.10 Backcountry Skiers' Perceived Conflict with Competing Uses 29 3.11 Significance of Snowmobile Trip Features 30 3.12 Snowmobiler Management Options 30 3.13 Backcountry Versus Heli-Skiing in Factors Affecting the Choice of Area 31 3.14 Backcountry Versus Heli-Skiing in Significance of Trip Features 33 3.15 Heli-Skiers' and Backcountry Skiers' Perceived Conflict with Competing Land Uses 34 Table 4.1 Regression Results for Semilog Functional Forms and Visit Length as the Dependent Variable 41 4.2 Regression Results for Helicopter Skiing 43 4.3 Regression Results for Commercial Backcountry Skiing 46 4.4 Regression Results for Snowmobiling 48 4.5 Linear Program Assumptions 52 4.6 Optimal Allocation of Winter Recreation Terrain, Revelstoke/ Golden Region, Participants per Week 53 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author wishes to thank Andy Kliskey and Laurie Cooper who were instrumental in the design and distribution of the surveys. Many thanks to Bill Thompson, who helped me sort through and interpret the data and to Casey van Kooten, for his guidance. Several other people who deserve acknowledgement for this thesis are, Ian Hartley, Temesgen and Stephanie Hughes for their support and help at crucial times. vi WINTER RECREATIONAL DEMAND IN THE REVELSTOKE/GOLDEN REGION CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview Multiple-use management of British Columbia's forestland is becoming increasingly more important. As the forest is being depleted by logging, demands for other uses of the forest are increasing. A balance between uses must be determined if multiple objectives are to be satisfied. The Revelstoke/Golden (R/G) region is a prime example of an area that is in need of a multiple use strategy. Three dominant winter recreational activities occur in the region: helicopter skiing, backcountry skiing, and snowmobiling. The majority of skiing activity in the area is commercialized. The territory is also actively logged. The recreational activities are beginning to conflict with one another as well as with timber harvesting. 1.2 Background The Revelstoke/Golden region of British Columbia is an area rich in diversity. Majestic mountains, glaciers, river valleys, forests, high to low elevation changes, and watersheds occupy this area. The term "forests" is used to describe forest ecosystems that include soils, water, animals, micro-organisms, other plants, and of course trees. Glacier National and Mount Revelstoke National parks are located in the region. Aside from the parks, a large component of the region is part of the British Columbia (B.C.) Ministry of 1 Forests' Timber Supply Area. The primary land use has been commercial logging, although conflicts are apparent between logging and other uses such as wildlife habitat, recreation, and old-growth preservation. The focus of this study is land use conflicts pertaining to winter backcountry recreation. The nature of each recreational activity of concern—helicopter skiing, backcountry skiing and snowmobiling—is briefly discussed below in order to characterize winter use conflicts in southeastern British Columbia. Helicopter skiing is a sport that involves a combination of helicopters and skiing. A week long vacation can cost skiers upwards of $4,500. Transport to the runs located on rugged mountain terrain is via helicopters with one or two guides leading groups of 8-15 people. The attraction of this sport is the deep, light and untracked snow which many find a "heavenly" experience. The area that heli-skiers can ski is limited by a permit system. Commercial backcountry skiing is another sport that offers virgin snow as its main attraction; others include exercise and the pristine, peaceful wilderness. Helicopters take skiers to a cabin centrally located in a wilderness setting from which backcountry skiers will venture. Alpine areas are key to backcountry skiers' experiences because this is where the bowls, peaks and glaciers are located. The backcountry skier's area of use is limited by human fitness. Quite often backcountry entrepreneurs are permitted to build a cabin and operation within the boundaries of the heli-ski permit area. Snowmobilers enjoy many of the same wilderness features that the skiers appreciate. Fuel and logging roads are the main limiting factors to the areas available to snowmobilers. Given access, snowmobilers can travel in some terrain used by the 2 skiers. Snowmobile trips are usually day trips as winter camping is not enjoyable or possible for prolonged periods for most snowmobilers. 1.3 Nature of the Winter Recreation Conflict in Southeastern B.C. The dispute between Selkirk Tangier Helicopter Skiing (STHS) and Selkirk Mountain Experience (SME) is an example of an ongoing conflict in the Revelstoke/Golden area. SME is a commercial backcountry company that has been operating within the heli-ski permit area for about 8 years. Both businesses are growing enterprises. On occasion the STHS has used terrain in close proximity to SME's central cabin. Backcountry skiers are seeking a peaceful pristine wilderness experience and helicopter noise and heli-skiers can detract from that experience. Instances have occurred where terrain in close proximity to the backcountry skiers' cabin has been skied out (tracked) by the heli-skiers. This is a chronic, ongoing dispute. Another heli-ski operator in the Revelstoke region, Canadian Mountain Holidays (CMH) Revelstoke, has recently had its first verbal confrontation with backcountry skiers in the heli-ski permit area. In interviews for this study, Mr. Buck Corrigan (1994), who is the operator of CMH Revelstoke, expressed concern over the situation. However, he feels that maintaining a good working relationship with the backcountry operators and skiers is not only possible but essential for both to coexist within the same area. Without cooperation, it appears exclusivity rather than multiple use will become the norm. Another example of the sort of conflict between skiers and snowmobilers occurred near Fernie, in southeastern British Columbia (Anthony 1993). On more than one 3 occasion, a group of snowmobilers ventured into a snow-cat skiing operator's permit area and tracked the fresh snow, thus making the conditions less desirable for the operator's customers. The snowmobilers feel they have as much right to the terrain as the skiers. 1.4 Problem Statement and Thesis Outline As backcountry recreation becomes more popular, greater pressures will be forced on the limited supply of land. Conflict will occur more often with both commercial and non-commercial activities. Currently, an entrepreneur can obtain the right to operate commercially within a zone, although that privilege does not exclude non-commercial public use and sometimes does not even prohibit other commercial activities. Conflict definitely exists and will only intensify if multiple use management is not implemented and enforced. In order to determine optimal use of forest lands, it is necessary to value activities using a common metric. One way is to calculate the consumer surplus for each recreational activity by computing a Travel Cost winter recreational demand function. The Travel Cost Method (TCM) may also aid in the efficient allocation or re-allocation of forest land, as well as provide information on potential rent increases or rent implementation. A linear programming (LP) model will apply consumer surplus results from the TCM and allocate land use according to specific constraints for the objective of maximizing net social benefit. To obtain the data necessary for the analysis of conflicts, surveys were developed and distributed to samples of each recreational user group, as well as to commercial heli-4 ski and backcountry ski operators (Cooper 1994; Kliskey 1993). Information from the travel-cost component of the survey was used to estimate consumer surpluses for heli-skiing, backcountry skiing and snowmobiling. These were subsequently used in the LP model. Chapter 2 is a literature review on multiple use and valuation techniques of non-market commodities; it is followed by Chapter 3, which discusses survey design and consumer characterization. Chapter 4 summarizes the results of the TCM and the linear program, while Chapter 5 presents the conclusions. 5 CHAPTER 2 VALUING NON-CONSUMPTIVE RESOURCE USES (RECREATION) Many attempts have been made to price the preservation of environmental assets, but not one economic model is able to encompass all the use and nonuse values from non-market experiences. Resources may have nonuse value that consists of option, bequest and existence demands. A willingness to pay acting as an insurance policy to keep the possibility open of someday using the resource creates an option value. Bequest values reflect the value of knowing that wilderness will be available to future generations. The mere knowledge that wilderness exists constitutes an existence value (van Kooten 1993). Use values of non-market experiences result from either consumptive uses of a resource (i.e., fishing or hunting) or from nonconsumptive uses such as hiking, skiing or canoeing. The benefits of non-market experiences are difficult to determine, contrary to the benefits of market experiences as there are frequent and priced transactions. Harvesting of timber is a prime example since wood is bought and sold in the market place. 6 2.1 Multiple Use Suppose an allocation decision is to be made for an area: either use an area, with no close substitutes, in a manner compatible with the preservation of its natural environment or produce commercial goods from this area. Will the market efficiently select between the two uses? The answer is no, mainly due to the bequest, existence and option values that are extremely difficult to measure quantitatively when no natural market exists for public goods (Cicchetti and Wilde 1992).J Compared to nonuse values, use values are easier to quantify. Imagine the difficulties the market has in efficiently determining the best uses of an area when many non-market and market uses exist and can co-exist in the same area. Nonuse values can be significant in the presence of the following: 1) long-term or irreversible damage to a resource occurs if the consumptive development option is chosen; 2) the resource (i.e., forest) is unique; and 3) the resource is well known (Harvard Law Review 1992). Substitutes prevent sizable nonuse values, as does a lack of knowledge about the resource. If one is unaware of a resource, he or she cannot attach a (nonuse) value to it. The Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) and the Travel Cost Method (TCM) are two economic valuation techniques that attempt to measure the benefits of public resources. The Contingent Valuation Method directly values use and/or nonuse values of natural resources by estimating Hicksian demand. A hypothetical market is created and responses to this market are then elicited. Because individuals factor in their own 1 John Krutilla (1967) and Burton Wiesbrod (1964) are largely responsible for early literature on nonuse values. They focused almost exclusively on option and bequest values. 7 perceptions in a hypothetical market, biases are difficult to avoid. There are a few different types of CVM that have been employed. Open-ended, dichotomous choice, double-bounded dichotomous choice, and trichotomous choice are a few of the survey techniques used to determine willingness to pay or willingness to accept compensation for changes in the availability of a public good. Dichotomous choice models (also referred to as referendum surveys or discrete choice models) seem to be the most preferred contingent valuation model (Cameron 1988; Kristrom 1993). The valuation method that is employed in this study is the TCM. The Travel Cost Method avoids the hypothetical problem of the CVM by measuring actual consumer expenditures. This method only measures user benefits; by excluding bequest, option and existence values, the potential exists for underestimation, however. 2.2 Travel Cost Method The TCM indirectly measures use values of non-market experiences by determining actual expenses incurred by travelling to and from a recreation site, plus expenses incurred during the stay less average spending if the trip were not taken. The TCM was first proposed by Hotelling in 1947. In 1959, Clawson was the first to use and apply a TCM that he developed independent of Hotelling (van Kooten 1993). Since this time the Travel Cost Method has developed continually to better determine accurate and unbiased values. Using expenditures on fishing trips as an example, Bowes and Loomis (1980) show that an increase in travel costs can be considered equivalent to an increase in prices 8 provided fishing trips are a non-essential commodity. This also suggests that travel costs can be combined with prices (i.e., entry fees or adventure fees) to form an overall price. Quantity is represented by the number of visits to the site or by the number of days spent recreating at the site. The uncompensated or Marshallian demand function, from which consumer surplus can be calculated, is derived from the use of distances travelled, expenses incurred by those consumers using the resource of concern, incomes, education, and site characteristics and substitutes (van Kooten 1993). Adamowicz (1992) suggests three variations of the Travel Cost Method: the basic TCM, the Discrete Choice Model, and the hedonic TCM. The Discrete Choice Model is useful for alterations in site characteristics or quantities. The hedonic Travel Cost Method attempts to measure quality effects that are of specific interest to this study as recreationists may quantitatively prefer experiences with existing competitive uses barred. The hedonic TCM is similar to the hedonic price method, but property values are replaced by travel costs (Johansson 1987). Using a numerical scale, a value to each relevant site characteristic can be determined. Basically, shadow prices (implicit values) of each site characteristic can be produced by regressing cost incurred by the recreator against each attribute (Pearse 1989). Some of the information extracted from recreationists will be quite useful in this method. According to Brown and Mendelsohn (1984), the basic TCM is able to measure the value of the Colorado River; however, the hedonic TCM can value the River's scenic quality, congestion, fish density and/or water quality. Although time consuming, the basic TCM can also account for quality changes. If the demand equation is estimated with and 9 without a proposed modification in site quality, the calculated difference would be equal to the net benefit or cost of the change. Limitations are quite evident when using the basic TCM to measure quality changes. The basic TCM uses travel costs as a proxy for the price of a recreational site visit. This method estimates the value of a specific site. The estimated TCM demand equation is more extensive than merely relating price and quantity. Income, education, price and site characteristics may have profound influences on demand. The Travel Cost Method works best when (1) the choice of site is fixed but visit length changes, (2) there are large travelling distances to the site, and (3) people stay shorter or longer due to quality changes (van Kooten 1993). The basic TCM will be sufficient for the current purpose of developing recreational demand functions so that consumer surpluses can be calculated. Travel costs do not measure values recreationists derive from an opportunity, but rather the willingness of consumers to pay for access to an opportunity (Rosenthal, Loomis and Peterson 1984). The net economic value of an existing site can be determined, but should be considered a lower bound to the actual or true value. There are five major uses of the Travel Cost Method: 1. to determine net economic value of existing sites, 2. to determine net economic value of modifying a site, 3. to determine net economic losses from loss of or damage to a site, 4. to predict recreationists' behaviour, and 5. to forecast changes in the use of a recreation site resulting from charging or 10 changing fees. The TCM makes explicit assumptions about individuals' behaviours and perceptions. Actual expenditures are measured, whereas the Contingent Valuation Method depends on individuals to factor in their own perceptions in a hypothetical market. 11 CHAPTER 3 SURVEY AND CONSUMER CHARACTERIZATION 3.1 Survey Design In early 1993 questionnaires were developed for and distributed to snowmobilers, backcountry skiers and helicopter skiers in the Revelstoke/Golden region of British Columbia. The questionnaire study focussed on multiple use issues, not non-market estimation. Survey design and follow-up were limited by finances, political sensitivity and personnel. The surveys were designed to elicit demographic, attitudinal and behavioral information from the participants in each of the three activities. The survey was developed by individuals in the Forest Economics and Policy Analysis Research Unit at the University of British Columbia and the department of Resource Management and Environmental Studies at U.B.C. (Cooper 1994; Kliskey 1993). Executive members of the British Columbia Snowmobiling Federation (BCSF) provided input into the development of the snowmobile questionnaire. Surveys for each activity were pre-tested using recreationists (skiers and snowmobilers), biologists and economists. The surveys contain 4 sections: (1) General Recreating Information, (2) Recreating in the Revelstoke/Golden Region, (3) Expenditures and (4) Demographics. The structure of each section is summarized below. The heli-skier, backcountry skier and snowmobiler surveys are found in Appendices A, B and C, respectively. The heli-skier survey was also 12 translated into German as interviews with heli-ski operators indicated that their clientele was primarily German or American. Respondents were given a choice between an English or German survey (see also Cooper 1994). (1) General Recreating Information This section elicited information about the respondent's skiing or snowmobiling experience and ability, as well as alternative skiing locations and frequency of the activity. Respondents were asked about other forms of outdoor recreation they took part in. The skier survey also elicited information on the distance skied, duration of stay and the number of days spent recreating in the R/G region. The snowmobiler survey elicited this information in section 2. The survey of heli-skiers and backcountry skiers contained a question on how specific factors affected the choice of area in which to recreate. Respondents were given a choice from 0 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). (2) Recreating in the RevelstokelGolden Area This section attempted to elicit information about what features were important for the recreational experience. The survey contained environmental and social features for which respondents were given a choice of 0 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). The scale for the snowmobilers differed slightly (a 1 to 5 scale). The skiers' survey dealt with multiple use and conflict issues, which were addressed in section 3 of the snowmobilers' survey. 13 (3) Expenditures Travel costs, on-site expenditures and equipment expenses were the focus of the expenditure section. The surveys also contained a question on weekly at home expenditures for food, beverages and entertainment. This section was essential for the development of a travel cost model. (4) Demographics Age, gender, household size, marital status, education, income and residence were elicited in section 4. Some of this information was also essential in developing a TCM. 3.2 Sampling Design Survey distribution was achieved by several methods. The skiers' questionnaires were distributed through some of the major operators in the region. Members of the BCSF who snowmobiled in the study area were sent a copy of the questionnaire (Kliskey 1993). The BCSF provided address labels of members of snowmobile clubs in the region. Other clubs throughout B.C. and Alberta were also sent bundles of surveys to distribute. Surveys were also distributed through motels in R/G. Finally, a small number of snowmobile surveys were placed on vehicle windows at popular snowmobile runs in the region. 14 3.3 Response Rates The survey response rates from each activity varied substantially. Based on the number of surveys distributed, the commercial backcountry skiers responded at a 75% rate, heli-skiers at a 58% rate and snowmobilers at a 23% rate. The low response rate for snowmobilers was to be expected given the method of distribution with no guarantee that surveys even reached their intended audience. Surveys were most carefully completed by the backcountry skiers. Of the surveys returned, 54% of the snowmobilers', 73% of the backcountry skiers' and 50% of the heli-skiers' surveys were usable for travel cost analysis. The high rate of return demonstrated by the backcountry skiers suggests that they are the most aware and have the most to lose in land use disputes. Table 3.1 summarizes the survey response rates. Table 3.1: Response Rates Usable Return (of surveys distributed) Survey Return Surveys Distributed Heli-skiing 73 (29%) 145 (58%) 251 Backcountry 93 (55%) 128 (75%) 170 Snowmobiling 97 (12%) 181 (23%) 800 Of the respondents, 88% of snowmobilers belonged to a snowmobile club. Also, 33.5% of snowmobile respondents indicated that they live within the R/G region. The vast majority of the skiers reside outside the study area. 15 3.4 Consumer Profiles Heli-Skiers (non-day trippers) Generally, this sport is dominated by married men over 35 years of age who are advanced skiers earning in excess of $100,000. The mean income for the heli-skiers surveyed was $186,000. There were few low income earners participating in this activity (5% earned less than $40,000). Ages of heli-skiers ranged from 21 to 70, while their years of education ranged from 8 to 21 years. The mean number of years of schooling was slightly over 17 indicating a university degree on average. The mean age was near 42 years, with 79% of respondents over the age of 34. Only 13% of respondents were female. This result certainly has little to do with fitness as proved by a higher female participation rate in the more physically demanding backcountry skiing. As more women attain upper management or high income positions, the consumer profile will be more influenced by increased female participation. Respondents who were married accounted for 68% of responses, while singles represented 23% and divorced individuals 9%. In 1979, U.S. skiers accounted for 54% of the B.C. heli-ski market, while Europe and Canada accounted for 31% and 14%, respectively (Ski Consultants 1980). In 1993, the two major heli-ski markets were the U.S. and Europe, more specifically Germany and Switzerland, accounting for 88% of the multi-day vacation market. The Europeans surpassed the Americans by about 10 percentage points, while the market accounted for by Canadians is only about 5%. A breakdown of survey and industry clientele is provided in Table 3.2. 16 Table 3.2 : Heli-Skiing Clientele (non-day trippers)' Company CMH: Customer Base Surveys Selkirk/Tangier: Customer Base Surveys Mike Wiegle: Customer Base Surveys Total Customer Base Surveys Europe 40% 27% 80% 80% 50% 49% 56% USA 45% 58% 15% 17% 41% 39% 35% Canada 5% 3% 5% 1% 6% 5% 2% Other 10% 5% — 3% 7% 2% TOTAL 100% (4000) 93% (64) 100% (1000) 98% (81) 100% (1000) 100% 95% Number of customers or survey respondents are in parentheses. There were definitely some profile differences between the two major groups. The Europeans earned significantly less than the Americans, although a large number of the Europeans failed to respond to the income question. Median income categories were used because of the high number of responses in the unbounded highest income category. The Americans also tended to be 5 to 6 years older, and had 1 more year of education. The Swiss and Germans stayed on average 9 days and skied slightly over 7 days, while the Americans skied 8 of 9.5 days spent in the heli-ski area. Table 3.3 summarizes the general characteristics of the heli-skiers surveyed. 17 Table 3.3: Summary Table - Hell-Skiers' ITEM Income Age Education Household Size Experience Stay Length Ski Days Est. Price/dayb Home Spend/dayc All (73) $140-180,000 42.55 17.37 2.66 26.41 8.97 7.23 $765.09 $30.69 Swiss/German (28) $60-100,000 38.36 16.68 2.54 29.36 7.50 5.32 $704.05 $36.38 U.S.A. (38) >$ 180,000 43.97 17.84 2.74 24.58 9.59 7.95 $828.47 $28.35 a Number of respondents are in parentheses. b Estimated price per day is a calculation based upon the respondents estimated price of his/her entire trip divided by the respondents length of stay. c Home spending per day is the amount that the respondent would have spent if he/she had not taken the trip. Commercial Backcountry Skiers More U.S. backcountry skiers responded to the survey (48%) than the industry average of 38%. Canadians accounted for 44% of responses, well below the reported industry skier participation average of 60%. Comparisons are summarized in Table 3.4. 18 Table 3.4 : Commercial Backcountry Skiing Clientele' Company Selkirk Mtn.Exp Surveys Purcell Surveys Nordic Ski Inst. Surveys Golden Alpine Surveys Total Customer Base Surveys Canada 50% 28% 60% 62% 90% 78% 50% 23% 62% 44% U.S.A. 45% 67% 38% 35% 18% 19% 48% 43% 38% 45% Europe 5% 2% 1% 4% 2% 3% 2% 2% Other 2% 1% 2% 27% 1% 7% Total 100% (218) 99% (46) 100% (247) 101% (26) 100% (200) 97% (26) 100% (215) 96% (30) 101% (880) 98% (128) Number of respondents or customers are in parentheses. The median income of backcountry skiers was between $60,000 and $100,000. The majority of skiers (61%) earned between $40,000 and $100,000. This sport appears to be a more affordable form of skiing than helicopter skiing. Means for age and education were 41 and 17.5 years, respectively. Gender dominance of the backcountry skier sample was not nearly as prevalent as in the heli-ski sample. The gender makeup for the commercial backcountry skiers was 66% male and 34% female. The average reported ability of these skiers was between intermediate and advanced. Generally 19 backcountry skiers stayed for 7.5 days and skied 6.5 days. Of those who responded to the question on marital status, married or common law skiers accounted for 66% of responses. Canadians and Americans accounted for 92% of responses. Median values are used to determine the income values. American participants tended to earn more than Canadians. Canadians were on average 2 to 3 years older and had a year less of education. The Americans stayed and skied a half day more than their Canadian counterparts, and had slightly more backcountry skiing experience. Some of the backcountry skiers' general characteristics are presented in Table 3.5. Table 3.5: Summary Table - Commercial Backcountry Skiers' ITEM Income Age Education Household Size Experience Stay Length Ski Days Est. Price/day" Home Spend/dayc Both (93) $60-100,000 40.77 17.48 2.46 10.94 7.50 6.49 $223.99 $18.68 Canada (43) $60-100,000 42.23 16.98 2.60 10.65 7.19 6.31 $170.43 $17.64 U.S.A. (50) $100-140,000 39.52 17.92 2.34 11.18 7.77 6.64 $267.22 $19.57 a Number of respondents are in parentheses. b Mean estimated price per day is a calculation based upon the respondents estimated price of his/her entire trip divided by the respondents length of stay. c Home spending per day is the mean amount that the respondent would have spent if he/she had not taken the trip. 20 Snowmobilers The snowmobilers in the Revelstoke/Golden region originate from British Columbia and Alberta. Average incomes were between $40,000 and $50,000, which is significantly lower than the incomes of the skiers. For comparative purposes, the median was used to determine average income. Snowmobilers tend to be younger than skiers by 5 to 7 years and have less education by 4 to 5 years. Their household sizes on average were larger (2.9 compared to heli-skiers at 2.7 and backcountry skiers at 2.5). Of the respondents, 80% spent 1 to 2 days snowmobiling per visit to the Revelstoke/Golden area. Approximately 35% of the respondents resided in the R/G region and 88% were snowmobile club members. Over 90% of the responses were from males. Table 3.6 provides a summary of characteristics for the snowmobilers as well as a comparison of characteristics among the three recreational activities. 21 Table 3.6: Characteristic Summary forHeli-Skiers, Backcountry Skiers and Snowmobilers. ITEM Income Age Education Household Size Experience (years) Stay Length Ski Days Price (less home spending)" Home Spend/dayb Gender: Male Female Marital Status Married Single Divorced Heli-Skiers $140-180,000 42.55 17.37 2.66 26.41 (downhill) 8.97 7.23 $765.09/day $30.69/day 87% 13% (m)68% (s)23% (d) 9% Backcountry Skiers $60-100,000 40.77 17.48 2.46 10.94 (backcountry) 7.50 6.49 $223.99/day $18.68/day 66% 34% (m)66% (s)32% (d) 2% Snowmobilers $40-50,000 36.91 12.71 2.92 15.67 2.70 2.43 $173.43/day $10.00/day 90% 10% n/a n/a n/a a Estimated price per day is a calculation based upon the respondents estimated price of his/her entire trip divided by the respondents length of stay. b Home spending per day is the amount that the respondent would have spent if he/she had not taken the trip. 22 3.5 Consumer Attitudes This section examines consumer attitudes as determined by survey questions regarding the choice of recreation area, significance of vacation features and perception of conflict. The choice questions were concerned with the importance of various factors in selecting a vacation area. Respondents could choose from 0 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). A similar scale was used to extract information on the level of importance of specific features to the skiing/snowmobiling experience. The degree of impact that other users had on the quality of the skiing experience was sought via the conflict question. Responses to the conflict question ranged from +3 (greatest positive impact) to -3 (greatest negative impact). A response of zero was considered a neutral reply (i.e., no conflict). Heli-skiers The most important factors influencing the choice of heli-ski area, in decreasing order of significance, were: qualification of the guides, safety record of the operator, type of terrain, type of accommodations and wilderness setting, where wilderness setting was not defined for the participants. Proximity to place of residence, advertising, access to business services and the desire to visit British Columbia had little influence on the choice of area. The Swiss and Germans were inclined to be more price sensitive than the Americans. Not surprisingly, price was not of primary importance to either the Americans or the Europeans. The responses to this question are quantified in Table 3.7. 23 Table 3.7: Factors Influencing the Helicopter Skiers' Choice of Area' Factors influencing choice of siteb Guides Safety Terrain Accommodation Wilderness Group Sizes Price Recommendation British Columbia Business Advertising Proximity All (114) 4.6 4.6 4.4 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.5 2.6 2.3 2.1 1.4 Swiss/German (67) 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.8 3.6 2.3 2.5 1.9 1.3 U.S.A (34) 4.6 4.4 4.1 3.6 4.0 3.6 3.3 3.2 2.9 2.0 2.2 1.3 Number of respondents are in parentheses. b A scale of 0 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important) is used By far the most significant feature of a helicopter skier's experience was skiing untracked powder. This was followed by the opportunity to ski in a natural setting, to relax and to ski steep slopes. The Americans stressed tree skiing and skiing long runs much more than did the Europeans. The Swiss and Germans enjoyed above treeline skiing and flying in a helicopter significantly more than the Americans. A long steep run of untracked powder in a natural setting describes the ideal heli-ski run. Generally, Americans would prefer this run to be through trees, whereas the German and Swiss skiers would choose to ski above the treeline on the glaciers and in the open bowls. Heli-skiers felt that logging and snowmobiling slightly degraded the heli-ski 24 experience (mean responses were -1.1 for both activities). The Americans perceived significantly greater conflict between their activity and snowmobiling and logging than did the Swiss and Germans. Perhaps this is because Europeans are more accustomed to crowded conditions, with land-use conflicts in recreational areas a way of life. Canadians and Americans are going through similar environmental concerns, and thus, they are more likely aware of and exposed to the types of conflicts occurring in British Columbia. Table 3.8 provides the mean responses to the "features and conflict" portions of the questionnaire. 25 Table 3.8: Importance of Heli-Ski Trip Features and Heli-Skiers' Perceived Conflict2 Importance of Trip Featuresb Untracked Snow Natural Setting Relaxing Steep Slopes Long Runs Above Treeline Tree Skiing Sense of Adventure Shape/Fitness Socializing Flying in a Heli Small Groups Remoteness of lodge Viewing Wildlife Exposure to Risk Access to telefax Perceived Conflict with Competing Uses0 Snowmobiling Logging Backcountry Skiing Wildlife All (116-128) 4.9 4.2 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.2 3.2 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 AH (128) -1.1 -1.1 0.5 0.8 Swiss/German (72) 4.8 4.2 4.1 3.9 3.5 3.8 3.0 3.0 3.1 2.7 3.2 2.7 2.1 2.2 1.9 2.4 Swiss/German (65) -0.8 -0.8 0.2 0.1 U.S.A. (30-42) 4.9 4.2 3.8 4.1 4.2 3.4 4.2 3.5 3.3 3.0 2.4 2.9 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.1 U.S.A.(50) -1.52 -1.52 0.9 1.7 a Number of respondents are in parentheses. A range occurs because some respondents skipped some of these questions. b A scale from 0 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important) is used. c A scale from +3 (greatest positive impact) to -3 (greatest negative impact) is used. 26 Backcountry Skiers When backcountry skiers select an area to ski, wilderness setting is the most important factor, followed by terrain and accommodations. Proximity to their residence, advertising, return visits and a desire to visit B.C. have little influence. When Canadians and Americans are separated, the ordering of the most important factors did not change. A summary of the replies to these three questions is found in Tables 3.9 and 3.10. The most important features of a backcountry ski experience are the natural surroundings, untracked snow, relaxation, adventure, long runs, above treeline skiing and improved fitness. Above treeline skiing and long runs are preferred over tree skiing and skiing the steeps. The majestic scenery is mainly visible from the glaciers and open bowls. Again, separating the Americans and Canadians produced no significant differences. The ideal backcountry run entails a long untracked powder run with most of the skiing above treeline, but finishing off in the trees. Backcountry skiers felt strongly about impacts other users had on the quality of their experience. Responses to the questions concerning perceived conflicts were of the same format as for the heli-skiing survey (-3 to +3). Snowmobiling led the way with the highest negative impact on backcountry skiers (-2.5), followed by logging (-2.1) and heli-skiing (-1.8). Wildlife conservation produced a positive impact (+2.2). Slight differences were evident between the Americans and Canadians. 27 Table 3.9: Factors Influencing the Backcountry Skiers' Choice of Area and the Importance of Specific Trip Features'1 Factors Influencing Choice of Site" Wilderness Terrain Accommodation Recommendation B.C. Return Advertising Proximity Importance of Trip Features" Natural Untracked Relax Adventure Long Runs Above Treeline Shape Small Groups Steep Tree Skiing Wildlife Social Risk All (107) 4.8 4.5 3.9 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.1 1.8 (123) 4.9 4.7 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.1 3.7 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.3 2.6 Canada (46) 4.8 4.4 3.8 2.8 2.4 3.3 2.0 2.4 (52) 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.7 3.5 2.6 U.S.A. (49) 4.8 4.6 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.2 1.8 (56) 4.9 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.1 4.1 3.7 3.7 3.3 3.1 3.2 2.9 a Number of respondents are in parentheses. b A scale from 0 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important) is used. 28 Table 3.10: Backcountry Skiers' Perceived Conflict with Competing Uses3 Perceived Conflict with Competing Usesb Snowmobiling Logging Heli-Skiing Wildlife Conservation All (124) -2.5 -2.1 -1.8 2.2 Canada (54) -2.5 -2.3 -1.7 2.4 U.S.A. (55) -2.5 -1.9 -2.0 2.2 a Number of respondents are in parentheses. b A scale from +3 (greatest positive impact) to -3 (greatest negative impact) is used. Snowmobilers The most desirable attributes for snowmobilers were scenery, snow conditions, alpine areas, untracked snow, access, terrain and wilderness. Commercial snowmobiling and hunting were least desirable. Interestingly, alpine snowmobiling was found to be more desirable than forested snowmobiling. This is in part why conflicts between skiers and snowmobilers will continue unless the lands can be exclusively allocated amongst competing users. Snowmobilers were asked about conflict in a different manner than were the skiers because the B.C Snowmobiling Federation did not approve of the initial proposed format. Subjects were asked to rank 7 management options from most to least important. Management options of "no heli-skiing", "no backcountry skiing" and "no logging" were least important; however, the management option of "more logging roads" was most important. This is an expected result, as an extended logging road network would provide greater access for the snowmobilers. A "No user fee" management option was next in order of importance. Tables 3.11 and 3.12 provide a summary of results for the desirable 29 attributes and the perception of conflict, respectively. Table 3.11: Significance of Snowmobile Trip Features Desirable Features Closeness to Home Challenging (terrain) Scenic Views Solitude Wilderness Experience Variety of Terrain Steep Slopes Snow Conditions Access to Snowmobile Area Open Alpine Areas Unploughed Roads Untracked Snow Remote from Civilisation Neutral Features Wildlife Viewing Amenities Logging Roads Groomed Trails Undesirable Features Hunting Opportunities Commercial Snowmobiling Table 3.12: Snowmobiler Management Options Management Option/Statement More Logging Roads Developed No User Fee Charged More Wildlife Visible More Wildlife Habitat Protected No Logging Permitted No Heli-skiing Permitted No Backcountry Skiing Permitted Mean Rank of Importance on a Scale of 1-7 (1 is most important) 3.5 (30% ranked this a 1) 3.6 (30% ranked this a 1) 3.7 3.8 4.3 4.6 4.6 30 Heli-Skiing, Backcountry Skiing and Snowmobiling In the selection of a recreation area, the most significant difference between heli-skiers and backcountry skiers was the desire to be in a wilderness setting. On a scale of 0 (least important) to 5 (most important), the average heli-ski score was 3.9 compared to an average backcountry score of 4.8. A friend's or acquaintance's recommendation or endorsement of an area had statistically greater importance for a heli-skier (3.5) than a backcountry skier (3.0). Table 3.13 presents a more complete comparison of the choices. Table 3.13: Backcountry Versus Heli-Skiing in Factors Affecting the Choice of Areaa Factors Affecting Choice of Siteb Guides Safety Terrain Accommodation Wilderness Group Sizes Price Recommendation B.C Business Advertizing Proximity Return Heli-Skiing (114) 4.6 4.6 4.4 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.5 2.6 2.3 2.1 1.4 N/A Backcountry Skiing (107) N/A N/A 4.5 3.9 4.8 N/A N/A 3.0 2.8 N/A 2.1 1.8 2.6 a Number of respondents are in parentheses. b A scale of 0 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important) is used. The most important features of the heli-ski experience, in descending order of 31 importance, were skiing untracked snow, enjoying a natural setting, relaxing, and skiing steep slopes. The most important features for backcountry skiers, in descending order of importance, were enjoying a natural setting, skiing untracked snow, relaxing, pursuing adventure, skiing long runs, skiing above treeline, and improving physical fitness. Backcountry skiers stressed significantly more than heli-skiers the importance of the following factors: a natural setting, relaxation, a sense of adventure, improved fitness, skiing in small groups, and the opportunity to view wildlife. Skiing steep slopes was significantly more important to heli-skiers. The features for the heli-skiers and backcountry skiers are summarized in Table 3.14. It was difficult to compare the skiing results with the snowmobiling results because of different questionnaire formats. However, it was evident that the snowmobilers stressed many of the same attributes that the skiers stressed. For instance, untracked snow, wilderness environment, alpine areas and terrain were all highly desirable attributes. 32 Table 3.14: Backcountry versus Heli-Skiing in Significance of Trip Features3 FEATURES'5 Untracked Snow Natural Setting Relaxing Steep Slopes Long Runs Above Treeline Tree Skiing Sense of Adventure Shape/Fitness Socializing Flying in a Heli Small Groups Remoteness of lodge Viewing Wildlife Exposure to Risk Access to telefax Heli-Skiing (116-128) 4.9 4.2 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.2 3.2 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 Backcountry Skiing (123) 4.7 4.9 4.5 3.5 4.2 4.1 3.4 4.3 4.1 3.3 N/A 3.7 N/A 3.4 2.6 N/A a Number of respondents are in parentheses. A range occurs because some respondents skipped some questions. b A scale of 0 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important) is used. A backcountry skier's quality of experience was most threatened by snowmobiling, then by logging and finally by heli-skiing. Snowmobiling and logging detracted equally from the quality of a heli-skier's experience; however, backcountry skiing was viewed as having a neutral to slightly positive impact. The snowmobilers' responses to perceived conflict showed that management options of excluding heli-skiers, backcountry skiers or 33 logging were definitely a low priority. Table 3.15 below shows the extent of perceived conflict. Table 3.15: Heli-Skiers' and Backcountry Skiers'Perceived Conflict with Competing Land Uses8 IMPACT OF Heli-Skiing Backcountry Skiing Snowmobiling Logging IMPACT ON Heli-Skiing 0.5 -1.1 -1.1 Backcountry Skiing -1.8 -2.5 -2.1 A scale from +3 (greatest positive impact) to -3 (greatest negative impact) is used. Over time, with no provision for exclusive land use, backcountry skiing will tend to be displaced by heli-skiing and snowmobiling in regions where use conflicts occur. Eventually heli-skiers will also be displaced. Ultimately, with no exclusive land use rights, timber harvesting and snowmobiling will be the dominant and possibly only remaining activities. Both skiing activities could tolerate selective logging in areas. Selective logging can actually extend heli-ski runs and reduce, if not eliminate, aesthetic scarring. 34 CHAPTER 4 THE TRAVEL COST MODEL: RESULTS FOR THE REVELSTOKE/GOLDEN REGION 4.1 Estimation of Travel Cost Models In this chapter, a travel cost model is estimated for the three winter recreation activities described in the previous chapter. Estimates of economic surpluses are provided for each of the activities and these are subsequently used in a land allocation, linear programming model. However, we begin reviewing estimation of travel cost models. 4.1.1 Functional Form The choice of functional form to be used in a TCM is somewhat of an arbitrary process, as theory provides little guidance in this area (Kealy and Bishop 1986). The linear, semilog, log-log, and quadratic models have been used in past non-market valuation studies (Luzar, Hotvedt and Gan 1992). Semilog models seem to be commonly used as they statistically fit the data well (Adamowicz, Fletcher and Graham-Tomasi 1989). Adamowicz, Fletcher and Graham-Tomasi (1989) suggest that "if two forms are relatively similar regarding overall fit (judged via t- and F-statistics), but one has a smaller variance of the associated welfare measure, that form should be selected"(p.420). Both linear and semi-log functional forms are applied in this study. 35 4.1.2 Methods The most recent literature advocates the use of maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) rather than ordinary least squares (OLS) to determine use values. These two methods are the only relevant choices for on-site surveys (Smith 1988). It is suggested that OLS estimation leads to biased coefficient estimates when truncated and/or censored data are encountered. Truncated data are common to on-site surveys since only information for users is obtained. Information on nonparticipants is not available through these types of surveys (Smith 1988). Censored data occurs when the dependent variable, the number of trips taken, can only take on nonnegative values. The OLS (normally distributed error term) implies that the dependent variable can range from +©° to -<*>. Without information on both nonusers and users for recreation data, it is recommended by Fletcher, Adamowicz and Graham-Tomasi (1990) to use maximum likelihood estimation. However, Balkan and Kahn (1988) found that there was little difference in estimated consumer surpluses between the two methods. When quality changes of recreational activities were valued, OLS and MLE gave significantly different results. Another study by Kealy and Bishop (1986) found that OLS produced a consumer surplus 3.5 times larger than MLE. Maximum likelihood estimation requires an assumption to be made regarding the distribution of the errors. Since both methods are imperfect, ordinary least squares is used in this study because of its simplicity. Residual plots were performed for each activity and the errors characterized a normal distribution, supporting the use of OLS. 36 4.1.3 Biases In the TCM, time costs, multi-destination trips and substitute difficulties may occur. Failure to include cost of travel time can result in the underestimation of site value (Gunton 1991). Recreationists include travel time and on-site time in the decision for recreational consumption as there is an associated opportunity cost. Clearly, the value of time is at most equal to the recreationist's wage rate and at minimum zero. Cesario (1976) suggests that time costs should be between a quarter to a half of wage rates based on recreational travel time; as well, he indicates that the shadow price of travel time will likely be much lower than the wage rate. There is no convincing evidence that households consider work travel time and recreational travel time as equivalent commodities (Johansson 1987). There is a great deal of uncertainty when including time. It is evident that including time will increase the estimated value of the recreational site, but it is not clear whether including or excluding time results in a model that is closer to the true behavioral model (Fletcher, Adamowicz and Graham-Tomasi 1990). Information on the types of travel time (which will likely result in different opportunity costs of time) is necessary before time is included in the model. For instance, an individual vacationing on a paid holiday or a weekend will likely perceive the value of time differently than an individual taking unpaid time off work. The difficulty with including time value is the level of subjectivity involved in determining its value. Time is not accounted for in this study. Substitute sites can create another problem, namely, site value overestimation, if they are not properly represented in the model (Seller 1985). Rosenthal (1987) found that 37 travel cost models yield higher per person consumer surplus estimates when substitute prices were omitted. If substitutes exist and are not considered, missing variable bias will exist (Seller 1985). One way around this problem is to develop a regional study that will estimate benefits for a group of sites or to include a substitute variable in the demand equation. Multidestination trips produce the expected difficulty of efficiently allocating expenses. Removing these observations from the analysis is the easiest way to resolve the problem, as long as the number of multidestination observations are small. Another potential bias is the assumption that the independent travel cost variable is assumed to be exogenous, when it actually may be endogenous. A factor in determining where a recreationist resides may be the proximity to recreational opportunities (Parsons 1991). 4.1.4 Regression Error According to Bockstael and Strand (1987), there are three main types of regression errors common to recreational demand models: omitted variables, human indetermination and measurement error. Omitted variables refer to factors not included in, but influential for, the determination of recreational demand. The factor could be an unmeasured or neglected socioeconomic variable. Inherent randomness in human preferences describes human unpredictability. An example of measurement error is the imperfect recall of a recreationist's travel expenses. The consumer surplus will vary depending on the error assumption. Random preferences or measurement error would likely lead to a smaller consumer surplus than omission of a variable (Bockstael and Strand 1987). If all 38 regression error is assumed to be the result of omitted variables and either human unpredictability or measurement error is present, then the possibility of upward bias exists. A reduction in the error variance in the regression and information on the source of error can improve consumer surplus estimates (Bockstael and Strand 1987). 4.2 Estimates of Winter Recreation Demand in Revelstoke/Golden Two functional forms (linear and semi-log) were examined for the three recreational demands: heli-skiing, backcountry skiing and snowmobiling. For each functional form, two variations of the regression model were used—one with "user-days-recreating-in-the-relevant-activity-per-visit" as the dependent variable, the other with "days-spent-in-the-area" as the dependent variable. The dependent variables were regressed on price and several socioeconomic variables—income, age, education, experience and household size. While price was forced into the regression, the other variables were included in a stepwise fashion (White et al. 1990, p.61). The semilog model with visit length as the dependent variable was the model of choice for each activity because of its slightly superior statistical fit across activities. The semi-log models typically fit the data best according to the F-statistics, t-statistics, R2 and variances. Table 4.1 compares results from each activity's semi-log model (visit length as the dependent variable). Regression results for all functional forms are found in Tables 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 for heli-skiing, backcountry skiing and snowmobiling, respectively. The income variable used for skiing was the midpoint of the income category selected by the respondent, except for the highest income category which was unbound. The other six 39 category midpoints were graphed and the projected range for category seven was between $200,000 and $300,000. Because of the wealth involved in this activity, $270,000 was subjectively chosen for the seventh category. The heli-ski industry is much more influenced by the seventh income category than is the commercial backcountry ski industry. 40 Table 4.1: Regression Results for Semi-log Functional Forms and Visit Length as the Dependent Variablea Explanatory Variables Price" Income Experience Age Education Constant R2 R2 adjusted F-statistic Error Sum of Squares Error Mean Square Consumer Surplus0 Helicopter Skiing -0.00102 (-15.18) 0.00081 (9.64) -0.00608 (-8.59) 0.00565 (4.73) 2.573 (79.52) 0.89 0.88 143.23 69.91 0.98 $980/day Commercial Backcountry Skiing -0.00045 (-5.23) 0.00318 (3.43) -0.00759 (-3.71) 0.02044 (2.42) 1.9662 (12.04) 0.41 0.38 14.80 3.06 0.04 $2,212 per day Snowmobiling -0.000514 (-0.88) 0.00514 (1.81) 0.01029 (2.19) 0.0776 (2.62) -0.5324 (-1.18) 0.12 0.08 3.15 24.10 0.26 $l,946/day a t-statistics are in parentheses. b Price as calculated in Chapter 3. c Consumer surplus is estimated as the area under the estimated demand function using equation (4.2). For each of the three groups, the final sample size used in the Travel Cost analysis was smaller than the original number of responses. This occurred because observations with inconsistencies (e.g., number of trips to the Revelstoke/Golden region exceeded the total number of trips), too many unanswered questions and outliers (e.g., 41 expenditures too high or low) were eliminated. Consumer surpluses were calculated for both linear and semi-log models under the assumption of omitted variables, as follows (Adamowicz, Fletcher and Graham-Tomasi 1989): linear CS=Q2/[-2$) (4 .1 ) semi-log CS=0/(-p) (4 .2 ) where Q is the actual length of stay or the number of days spent recreating in the specific activity, P is the price coefficient from the estimated travel cost demand, and CS is consumer surplus. Heli-Skiing The helicopter skiing TCM results involved price, income, experience and age as significant variables. The coefficient on experience was negative while age was positive. The spending of money does not rely solely on income earned. A factor that plays a large role in quantity of disposable income would be the level of a respondent's financial security (e.g., savings, investments and mortgage payments). Age is an indicator of financial security. Heli-skiing is mainly an activity for the financially secure because of the expense involved. Income also had a significantly positive effect on the length of stay. The physical requirements of heli-skiing are not nearly as great as those for backcountry skiing. The more experienced skiers were inclined to opt for shorter heli-ski 42 vacations than those with less experience. Experience was measured by the average number of days the respondent engaged in downhill skiing per year. For the semi-log function, the daily consumer surplus for the heli-skiers was $980. However, all the models were significant, with large differences in calculated consumer surpluses. Table 4.2 summarizes the regression results. Table 4.2: Regression Results for Helicopter Skiing Explanatory Variables Price Income Experience Age Constant R2 R2 adjusted F-statistic Error Sum of Squares Error Mean Square Consumer Surplus Dependent Variable SKI DAYS Linear -0.01095 (-21.32) 0.008923 (10.22) -0.07766 (-14.65) 0.11170 (10.37) 12.8 (23.24) 0.92 0.92 211 68.97 0.97 $328/day Semi-log -0.00076 (-31.69) 2.5408 (134) 0.93 0.93 1004.19 69.83 0.94 $1,316 per day Dependent Variable VISIT LENGTH Linear -0.0106 (-8.52) 0.00745 (4.61) -0.06512 (-8.50) 0.051534 (3.11) 14.355 (22.49) 0.80 0.79 70.24 46.74 0.66 $420/day Semi-log -0.00102 (-15.18) 0.00081 (9.64) -0.00608 (-8.59) 0.00565 (4.73) 2.573 (79.52) 0.89 0.88 143.23 69.91 0.98 $980/day a t-statistics are in parentheses. 43 Heteroskedasticity was apparent in a residual plot from the initial OLS and was confirmed by the Goldfeld-Quandt procedure. Heteroskedasticity was corrected by using transformed data via the GLS procedure in SHAZAM (White et al. 1990). The data was transformed by the use of the residuals squared from the original OLS as the Omega variance matrix. Multicollinearity was examined for all variables using pairwise and auxiliary regressions and was found not to be a problem. Due to format and distribution errors and the need for two languages, six variations of the survey were distributed. Many of the Europeans responded to the German surveys as did some Canadians. Unfortunately some of the questions were not properly translated. For instance, the English survey asked about length of stay in the heli-ski area, but the German survey asked about the length of the respondent's ski holiday. The Europeans likely included travel time in their response. To account for this discrepancy, days were subtracted according to the difference between vacation days and skiing days. American responses to the income and expense questions were assumed to be in U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated. The U.S. responses were converted to Canadian currency using a divisor of 0.75. The Europeans were assumed to have responded in Canadian dollars unless otherwise indicated. The survey design certainly had its weaknesses. Too much was being attempted for one survey. This is evident in some of the comments returned by respondents. Respondents were displeased with questions relating to wildlife and budget allocation, as well as the contingent valuation questions. Unfortunately, much of the information necessary for the TCM component followed these questions. 44 Backcountry Skiing Price and age were significant negative variables in the TCM for commercial backcountry skiing; that is, days spent skiing varied inversely with price and age. The response to price change was obvious. It is likely that because of the physically demanding nature of this sport, age had an inverse relation to the length of the ski vacation. Education and experience (as measured by the historic average days per year spent in the activity) were significant positive variables. The more experienced backcountry skiers travelled more efficiently and skied further and longer. As the number of years of formal education increased so did the length of the ski vacation. Income was not a significant factor in the models. This may be a result of the rather limited length of stay and the above average incomes earned by those involved in this activity. Consumer surplus was estimated to be $2,212 per day, but large differences in consumer surplus are apparent between the semi-log and linear functional forms. Similar to heli-skiing, consumer surplus from the linear model was significantly larger than from the semi-log model. Both models were statistically significant. Results are summarized in Table 4.3. 45 Table 4.3: Regression Results for Commercial Backcountry Skiing' Explanatory Variables Price Income Experience Age Education Constant R2 R2 adjusted F-statistic Error Sum of Squares Error Mean Square Consumer Surplus Dependent Variable SKI DAYS Linear -0.00177 (-3.48) 0.0217 (3.82) -0.03385 (-2.66) 7.86 (14.23) 0.34 0.31 14.62 123.30 1.43 $1,828 per day Semi-log -0.00033 (-4.73) 0.00217 (2.15) -0.00920 (-3.69) 2.2095 (23.09) 0.40 0.38 14.46 3.24 0.04 $2,994 per day Dependent Variable VISIT LENGTH Linear -0.00251 (-4.28) 0.02477 (3.94) -0.04488 (-3.24) 0.11004 (1.92) 7.374 (6.66) 0.36 0.33 12.12 140.50 1.65 $1,478 per day Semi-log -0.00045 (-5.23) 0.00318 (3.43) -0.00759 (-3.71) 0.02044 (2.42) 1.9662 (12.04) 0.41 0.38 14.80 3.06 0.04 $2,212 per day t-statistics are in parentheses. Heteroskedasticity was tested by the residual plots and the Goldfeld-Quandt test, and was found not to be a problem. Pairwise correlations and auxiliary regressions indicated multicollinearity was not a problem. Problems were evident with the commercial backcountry skiing survey design. Survey respondents expressed frustration with the survey length and with some of the 46 questions. Only English surveys were distributed and all the surveys were identical. Also, the contingent valuation question was not useful because of its inherent bias. This question biased the respondent by providing an estimate of what recreationists in another activity pay the government. Snowmobiling For snowmobiling, price was negative in all models, but insignificant in three. Price remained in the model because of its theoretical significance. Coefficients on income, age and education were all positive and significant. As age and/or education increased so did the length of vacation. Unlike with the skiing models, education was significant in the snowmobiling model. Age had a similar effect on snowmobiling as on heli-skiing. This might have to do with financial security and the availability of leisure time. About 33% of respondents live within the R/G region. Local respondents are excluded from the TCM analysis as they have small travel distances and costs, conditions under which the TCM does not work well. Heteroskedasticity and multicollinearity were not a problem in the snowmobiling model. All models were statistically significant. The consumer surplus for the linear model with "days snowmobiling" as the dependent variable was estimated to be $323 per day. Similar to the skiers' consumer surpluses, the snowmobilers' consumer surpluses calculated from the semi-log functional form were much greater than for the linear functional form. 47 Table 4.4: Regression Results for Snowmobiling' Explanatory Variables Price Income Age Education Constant R2 R2 adjusted F-statistic Error Sum of Squares Error Mean Square Consumer Surplus Dependent Variable Days Snowmobiling Linear -0.00376 (-2.28) 0.02697 (1.65) 0.2493 (2.56) -1.001 (-0.67) 0.11 0.08 3.94 283.50 3.05 $323/day Semi-log -0.00096 (-1.91) 0.00809 (2.67) 0.0776 (2.62) -0.5108 (-1.26) 0.17 0.14 6.39 27.23 0.29 $1041/day Dependent Variable Visit Length Linear -0.00282 (-1.45) 0.03478 (2.20) 0.221 (2.28) -0.8665 (-0.58) 0.09 0.06 3.20 276.98 2.98 $479/day Semi-log -0.00051 (-0.88) 0.00523 (1.81) 0.01029 (2.19) 0.06548 (2.27) -0.5324 (-1.18) 0.12 0.08 3.15 24.10 0.26 $1946/day t-statistics are in parentheses. 48 4.3 Linear Programming Model for Allocating Winter Recreation Land Use in the Revelstoke/Golden Region2 In this section, a simple linear program will be used to find an optimal allocation of conflicting land uses. The resource scarcity of concern is prime terrain for helicopter skiing, backcountry skiing and snowmobiling. The problem must be formulated in a way that allows the computer to recommend which group should have access to prime terrain. For the LP to work, the program must be able to optimize the result of an objective function. Minimizing the impact or damage from each activity is a possible objective function; however, the function of primary concern in this analysis is the maximization of social benefits derived from winter recreation activities. Since the constraints and objective function are based on the number of participants enjoying each activity, the optimal allocation will be expressed in terms of the number of individuals per week per activity. The linear programming formulation is as follows: Maximize Subject to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8,9,10. c,x, 0.87X! 0.87X! X! . and + + Xx C2X2 1.5X2 1.5X2 x2 , X2 , X3 + + > C^3-A.j 2X3 2X3 X3 0. < < < < < < < 30 30 30 15 90 20 45 where Q represents the consumer surplus of activity i (i=heli-skiing, backcountry skiing, ^The linear program used in this study was developed in conjunction with Michael Walsh. 49 snowmobiling), and X; represents the number of individuals partaking in activity i. The number of heli-skiers, backcountry skiers and snowmobilers is represented by XY, X2 and X3, respectively. Objective Function The model will attempt to determine the best utilization of prime terrain by maximizing net social benefit, subject to constraints outlined below. Social benefit is measured by the consumer surpluses in each of the activities. Constraints The LP model contains 10 constraints, three of which are non-negativity constraints. The focus of the constraints is on the two limiting factors, which are the amount of prime terrain available and the number of skiers and snowmobilers that an area can support in a given week. Conflict occurs because the prime areas for each activity overlap. As indicated earlier, the entire backcountry operating area is within the heli-ski area; thus, there is conflict between these two activities. The first constraint describes the situation that arises when all three groups attempt to access the same area. The principle used is that if some portion of the total conflict area is being utilized for an activity, it is unavailable for the other groups for the remainder of the week. The size of terrain to be allocated is 30 square kilometres. This is the stated amount of skiable terrain that the Selkirk Mountain Experience backcountry ski operator considers prime. This area constitutes the entire zone of conflict among 50 winter recreation activities. The coefficients for each variable are the amount of terrain each activity requires per person. These coefficients are estimates derived from information obtained from the snowmobiling survey and a separate commercial operator survey (Cooper 1994; Kliskeyl993). The next three constraints (2,3 and 4) deal with the amount of terrain considered prime for each activity. Heli-skiers and backcountry skiers both consider 100% of the skiable terrain to be prime. Snowmobilers likely would not be able to snowmobile on much of the skiable terrain, so it is assumed that 50% of the skiers' prime terrain can be classified as prime for snowmobilers (hence 15 km2 is the area considered premium terrain by snowmobilers). Constraints 5, 6 and 7 are based on the number of clients or participants that each of the three activities can support in a given week, ignoring the terrain limitations addressed by the previous three constraints. Again, participation numbers were derived from a separate commercial operator survey (Cooper 1994) and the snowmobile survey (Appendix C). Total participants per week is calculated by multiplying groups per week by the size of the groups. Table 4.5 summarizes the assumptions made to construct the constraints. 51 Table 4.5: LP Assumptions Consumer Surplus* Available Terrain Premium Terrain Max. Group Size Max. Groups per Week Prime Area per Client per Day Heli-Skiing $980 30 km2 100% 15 6 0.87 km2 Backcountry Skiing $2,212 30 km2 100% 20 1 1.5 km2 Snowmobiling $1,946 30 km2 50% 9 5 2 km2 Using semi-log functional form. Optimization Results When the calculated consumer surpluses from the same functional forms across activities were used, the allocation decision favoured backcountry skiing. While the value of the optimal solution varies according to the assumptions employed, the decision to allocate all the conflict zone to the backcountry skiers turns out to be robust. Table 4.6 summarizes the optimization results. 52 Table 4.6: Optimal Allocation of Winter Recreation Terrain, Revelstoke/Golden Region, Participants per Week Number of Participants Consumer Surplus(CS) Allowable Min CS Allowable Max CS Heli-Skiers 0 $980 0 $1,283 Backcountry Skiers 20 $2,212 $1,690 infinite Snowmobilers 0 $1,946 0 $2,949 Objective Function Value $44,240 daily The allowable minimum and allowable maximum in Table 5.7 indicate how much the consumer surplus can vary before altering the optimal solution. Shadow prices obtained from the dual define the value increase in the objective function for each unit increase in the constraint. The shadow price for an extra km2 of land was calculated to be $1,475 per day. The shadow prices can have important implications on forestry decisions. If the value of harvesting timber by means of clearcutting in this km2 does not equal the shadow price for recreation then preserving this area from clearcutting would be an obvious choice. Emphasis should not be placed on the results, but rather the application. Linear programming can be a useful tool in resolving multiple use conflicts. 53 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS Consumer surplus for each of the three activities was calculated using travel cost models. Large variations in consumer surplus between functional forms were found. The choice of functional form can significantly effect benefit estimates. The calculated consumer surpluses were $980, $2,212 and $1,946 per day for heli-skiing, commercial backcountry skiing and snowmobiling, respectively, when the semi-log functional form was used, and $420, $1,478 and $479 per day when the linear functional form was used. The semi-log functional form consistently resulted in lower calculated consumer surplus values. Theory provides little guidance in the selection of functional form. The price variable was insignificant only in the snowmobiler model. The price coefficients for all three activities were near zero, and that could result in instabilities as shown by Adamowicz, Fletcher and Graham-Tomasi (1989). There appears to be great potential for rent capture in heli-skiing, commercial backcountry skiing and snowmobiling. Over 90% of the heli-ski market consists of foreigners, whereas the majority of commercial backcountry skiers and snowmobilers are Canadian. Canadian content should be an important consideration when dealing with public land use issues. A more appropriate measure for maximizing the net social benefit in British Columbia might possibly be to focus on producer surplus rather than consumer surplus when considering heli-skiing. It is likely that the use of producer surplus values would reinforce the earlier result of allocating territory to commercial backcountry skiers. 54 Multiple use management of forests in British Columbia is at an elementary stage. This is especially apparent in the Revelstoke/Golden region where conflict amongst uses, specifically recreation, timber harvesting and wildlife, is evident and growing. Markets alone are inadequate to make efficient allocation choices when dealing with non-market and market uses of public resources. The common goal of multiple use management of public forestland should be to maximize the public benefit. One such benefit of increasing importance is recreation. Helicopter skiing, commercial backcountry skiing, snowmobiling and clearcut logging are incompatible activities on shared land. Exclusive rights for land use seems to be a necessity in the Revelstoke/Golden region of British Columbia. 55 REFERENCES Adamowicz, W. 1992. "Non-timber Values in Canadian Forests: An Assessment of Uses, Techniques and Data Availability", Rural Economy Project Report, University of Alberta. Adamowicz W., Fletcher J. and Graham-Tomasi, T. 1989. "Functional Form and the Statistical Properties of Welfare Measures", American Journal of Agriculture Economics 71 (May): 414-421. Anthony, L. 1993. "Still Life with Lizard", Powder The Skier's Magazine, November. Balkan, E. and Kahn, J. 1988. "The Value of Changes in Deer Hunting Quality: A Travel Cost Approach", Applied Economics 20 (April): 533-539. Bockstael, N. and Strand, I. Feb. 1987. "The Effect of Common Sources of Regression Error on Benefit Estimates", Land Economics 63 (Feb.): 11-20. Bockstael, N., Strand, I. and Hanemann, W. 1987. "Time and the Recreational Demand Model", American Journal of Agriculture Economics 69 (May): 293-302. Bowes, M. and Loomis, J. 1980. "A note on the use of travel cost models with unequal zonal populations", Land Economics 56 (Nov.): 465-470. Brown, G. and Mendelsohn, R. 1984. "The hedonic travel cost method." Review of Economics and Statistics 66 (Aug.): 427-433. Cameron, T. 1988. "A New Paradigm for Valuing Non-Market Goods Using Referendum Data: Maximum Likelihood Estimation by Censored Logistic Regression", Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15 (Sept.): 355-379. Cesario, F. 1976. "Value of time in recreation benefit studies", Land Economics 52 (Feb.): 32-41. Cicchetti, C. and Wilde, L. 1992. "Uniqueness, Irreversibility and the Theory of Nonuse Values", American Journal of Agriculture Economics 74 (Dec): 1121-1125. Cooper, L. 1994. The pursuit of untracked powder: The interaction of winter recreation activities in the Revelstoke area of British Columbia unpublished M.Sc. thesis. Department of Resource Management and Environmental Studies U.B.C. Mimeograph. Forthcoming. Corrigan, B. (Operator of CMH Revelstoke: Heli-Skiing) 1994. Personal Interview. 56 Fletcher, J., Adamowicz, W. and Graham-Tomasi, T. 1990. "The Travel Cost Model of Recreation Demand: Theoretical and Empirical Issues", Leisure Sciences 12 (Jan.-March): 119-147. Gunton, T. 1991. "Economic Evaluation of Forest Land Use Tradeoffs", Forest Economics and Policy Analysis Research unit Working Paper 157, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Harvard Law Review, 1992. "vAsk a Silly Question...': Contingent Valuation of Natural Resource Damages", 105 (June): 1981-2000. Johansson, P. 1987. The economic theory and measurement of environmental benefits. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Kealy, M. and Bishop, R. 1986. "Theoretical and Empirical Specifications Issues in Travel Cost Demand Studies", American Journal of Agriculture Economics 68 (Aug.): 660-667. Kliskey, A. 1993. "A Socio-Economic Evaluation of Recreational Snowmobiling in the Revelstoke/Golden Region, British Columbia". Interim Project Report, Department of Resource Management and Environmental Studies, University of British Columbia. Mimeograph. 31 pp. Kristrom, B. 1993. "Comparing Continuous and Discrete Contingent Valuation Questions", Environmental and Resource Economics 3 (Feb.): 63-71. Krutilla, J. 1967. "Conservation Reconsidered", American Economic Review 57(Sept.): 777-786. Luzar, J., Hotvedt, J. and Gan, C. 1992. "Economic Valuation of Deer Hunting on Louisiana Public Land: A Travel Cost Analysis", Journal of Leisure Research 24 (Second Quarter): 99-113. Parsons, G. 1991. "A Note on Choice of Residential Location in Travel Cost Demand Models", Land Economics 67 (Aug.): 360-364. Pearse, P. 1989. "Evaluating Forest Benefits: Multiple Techniques for Multiple Products", The Thirteenth Commonwealth Forestry Conference. Rosenthal, D. 1987. "The Necessity for Substitute Prices in Recreation Demand Analysis", American Journal of Agriculture Economics 69 (Nov.): 828-837. 57 Rosenthal, D., Loomis, J. and Peterson, G. 1984. "The Travel Cost Model: Concepts and Applications", Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station General Technical Report RM-109. Seller, C , Stoll, J. and Chavas, J-P. 1985. "Validation of Empirical Measures of Welfare Change: A Comparison of Nonmarket Techniques", Land Economics 61 (May): 156-174. Ski Consultants, 1980. "A Study of the British Columbia Helicopter Skiing Industry", Resort Planning Group Vancouver, B.C. Smith, K. 1988. "Selection and Recreation Demand", American Journal of Agriculture Economics 70 (Feb.): 29-36. van Kooten, G.C. 1993. Land Resource Economics and Sustainable Development: Economic Policy and the Common Good. Vancouver: UBC Press. Weisbrod, B. 1964. "Collective-Consumption Services of Individual Consumption Goods", Quarterly Journal of Economics 78 (Aug.): 471-477. White, K., Wong, D., Whistler, D. and Haun, S. 1990. SHAZAM User's Reference Manual Version 6.2. McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-069857-3. 58 APPENDIX A: Heli-skier Survey The University of British Columbia SURVEY HELICOPTER SKIING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA This survey is being conducted by the University of British Columbia Resource Management Science Department and the Forest Economics and Policy Analysis Research Unit. The purpose of the survey is to: • identify interactions among different resource-based activities in the Revelstoke/Golden area, including heli-skiing, backcountry skiing, snowmobiling, logging and wildlife conservation • determine the extent to which different uses are compatible or conflicting • evaluate the actual and potential economic contributions of these activities to the regional and provincial economies. Additional questions are asked about your background in order to allow the researchers to determine the representativeness of the sample as well as to allow for generalizations to be made about the participants in different activities. Please answer all questions to the best of your ability. Seal the completed survey in the envelope provided and return it to the he/i-ski operator. ANSWERS PROVIDED WILL BE KEPT IN STRICT CONFIDENCE 59 HELICOPTER SKIING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA SECTION 1: BACKGROUND In this first section, we would like to find out a little about your skiing experience. l.How many years have you been skiing? Years 2. What is the average number of days which you downhill ski each year (excluding heli-skiing)? _ _ _ _ _ Days per Year 3. How would you describe your skiing ability? I INTERMEDIATE BEGINNER I ADVANCED 4. If you have been heli-skiing before, where have you gone on previous trips? And how many times have you heli-skied in each location? LOCATION British Columbia Elsewhere in Canada fOF TRIPS LOCATION United States Europe «OF TRIPS LOCATION New Zealand Other #OF TRIPS 5. If you have been helicopter skiing in BRITISH COLUMBIA on previous occasions, which heli-skiing operators) have you skied with IN THE PAST? And bow many times have you visited each area? 6PERAT6R CMH Adamants CMH Bobbie Bums CMH Bugaboos CMH Cariboos CMH Galena CMH Gothics • OF TRIPS OP£RAT6R CMH Monashees CMH Revelstoke CMH Valemount Great Canadian Heliskiing Kootenay Heliskiing Mike Wiegele Heliskiing • OF TRIPS OPERATOR Purcell Helicopter Skiing R. K. HeliSkiing Selkirk Tangiers HeliSkiing Tyax HeliSkiing Tyax Lodge HeliSkiing Whistler HeliSkiing • OF TRIPS 60 6. How important were the following factors in your choice of THIS AREA on this trip? FACTORS Type of accommodations Type of terrain Safety record of the operator Size of ski groups Price of the package Proximity to your place of residence Desire to be in a wilderness setting Desire to visit British Columbia Access to business services (phone, fax) Qualifications of the guides Recommendation from friend Advertising or promotional materials Other (specify) Extremely Important 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Not At All Neutral Important 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. What was (is) the total length of your suy in this heli-ski area? And how many days did you (will you) actually heli-ski? Days in the Area Days Spent Heli-Skiing 8. How many vertical feet have you skied, or will you ski, during your stay? '000 Vertical Feet 9. Besides heli-skiing, which of the following activities did you participate in during your stay in this area? And how many days did you spend on each activity? •ACTrvTTT Backcoumry Skiing Snowmobiling #OF DAYS — A C T I V I T T — Downhill Skiing Viewing Wildlife #OF DAYS • • ACTIVITY'" • Cross Country Skiing Other (specify) #OF DAYS 61 SECTION 2: OPINION QUESTIONS In this section, we would like to get your personal opinion about some of the features which affect the quality of your heli-ski experience in British Columbia. 1. How important to you are the following features of your heli-skiing vacation experience? (Please circle the number that best represents the importance of each feature.) FEATURES Skiing untracked powder Skiing above the treeline Skiing in the trees Skiing steep slopes Skiing long runs Skiing in small group (less than 6 people) Opportunity to view wildlife Meeting people/socializing Enjoying the natural setting Opportunity to relax/get away from work Improving your physical condition » 'Flying in a helicopter Sense of adventure Exposure to risk Remoteness of the lodge (if applicable) .Access to telephones, faxes etc. Other (specify) Other (specify) Extremely Important 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Neutral 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 Jot At All important 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 2. Conflicts over the use of hdi-skiing areas by other users are bound to arise. To obtain some idea of your impressions about these conflicts, please circle the response which best describes your impresseion of the degree of impact the following activities have on the QUALITY of heli-skiing in this area. (Please indicate whether an activity has POSITIVE impact, NEGATIVE impact or no impact (NEUTRAL).) Backcountry Skiing Snowmobilmg Logging Wildlife Conservation Positive Negative Impact Neutral Impact +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3 +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3 + 3 + 2 + 1 0 -1 -2 -3 + 3 + 2 + 1 0 -1 -2 -3 3. Currendy, heli-slti operators pay $4 per day for each skier in order for you to have the right to ski on government lands. If this amount was increased, what is the MAXIMUM amount you would be willing to pay PER DAY (in addition to your package price) to enable you to heli-ski in this region? (Please check the amount you would be willing to pay per day.) Would pay $25 - $50 per day Would pay $50 - $100 per day Would pay more than $100 Would not pay more (Would ski somewhere else.) Would pay less than $10 per day Would pay $10 - $25 per day 4. How much MORE would you be willing to pay per day if the following statements were true? (Please circle the ADDITIONAL amount you would be willing to pay.) No logging is permitted in the heli-skiing area. No snowmobiling is permitted in the ski area. No backcountry skiing is permitted in the ski area. More wildlife is seen while skiing. More wildlife habitat is protected. AtM1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 <$10 <$10 <$10 <$10 <$10 ONAL AMOUNT WI $ 10-525 $10-$25 $10-$25 510-$25 $10-$25 $25-$50 $25-$50 $25-$50 $25-$50 $25-$50 .LW6 To PAY $50-$100 $50-$100 $50-$100 $50-$100 $50-5100 >$100 >$100 >$100 >$100 >$100 63 5. . We would like to have an idea about the importance of wildlife to heli-skiers. If you had control of the government's budget for wildlife preservation, bow do you think the budget should be divided among the following categories in terms of percentage? (The numbers should add up to 100%.) BENEFITS Preserve large mammals (deer, bear, etc.) and their habitats Preserve small mammals (squirrels, marmots, etc.) and their habitats Preserve birds and their habitats Preserve other species and their habitats TOTAL BUDGET %OF BUDGET % % % % 100% 6. Given a budget for the preservation of large mammals and their habitats, what percentage of the budget should be allocated to the following species. (The sum should add up to 100%.) SPECIES Caribou (which requires untagged forests) Grizzly Bear Elk/Deer/Moose (hunted species) All other large mammals (e.g. goats, lynx, etc.) TOTAL %OF BUDGET % % % % 100% 64 SECTION 3: WHAT ARE YOUR EXPENSES? We are interested in knowing how valuable heliskiing and other outdoor recreational activities are to those who participate in these activities and make use of publicly-owned land. In this section, we are attempting to determine how much you spent on these four categories of costs: (1) the purchase cost of your ski equipment, (2) transportation and living costs to get to the heli-ski area, (3) on-site costs incurred while heli-siding, and (4) the expenses which you would have incurred had you stayed home. How much did you spend on each of the following categories? Please provide the best answer you can, even if these are approximate estimates of the actual expenses you incurred. 1. What was your approximate purchase price of: Ski equipment Ski clothing Other equipment related to heli-skiing $ $ S 2. How often do you purchase the following items for downhill skiing? •Ski equipment (skis, boots, poles) - Every •Ski clothing - Every Years Years 3. Travel Expenses for Heli-Ski Vacation Airfare Ground transportation (e.g. car, bus, train) Private automobile (gasoline, oil, reparis) Accommodation (enroute to destination) Food and beverages Miscellaneous (e.g. film, souvenirs etc $ S $ $ $ 65 2. While in the heli-skiing area, how much did you spend on each of the following items over and above the price you paid for your heli-ski package? EXPENSES Accommodation Food and beverages Entertainment Ski equipment rental or purchases Souvenirs, camera supplies etc. Purchase of extra vertical footage Other (specify) SPENT W HELI-SKI AREA $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3. How much do you normally spend on food, beverages and enteruinment (e.g. going out for the evening) when you are at home? 4 . Approximately how much will this heli-ski trip cost you INCLUDING EVERYTHING? SECTION 4: PERSONAL INFORMATION In this section, we would like to find out more about people who go heli-skiing. so we would like to know more about you.. 1. How old are you? 2. Are you: Male j | Female • 3. Including yourself, how many people are there in your household? Are you: Single Married or Common-law Divorced 66 5. How many people came with you on this trip? J_ 6. How many years of school have you completed? (Please circle the number of years.) Grade School High School College/University Graduate School 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21+ 7. Near what city or town do you presently reside? Town/City Province/State Country 8. What was the approximate gross (before tax) income of your household in 1992? Less than $20,000 $20,000 - $40,000 $40,000 • $60,000 $60,000 • $100,000 $100,000 • $140,000 $140,000 • $180,000 More than $180,000 SECTION 8: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS If you have any comments about this survey or if you feel mere are some issues which we have not addressed, please use the space on this page and on the back of this page to make your comments. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COMPLETE THIS SURVEY. 67 APPENDIX B: Commercial Backcountry Skier Survey The University of British Columbia SURVEY COMMERCIAL BACKCOUNTRY SKIING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA This survey is being conducted by the University of British Columbia Resource Management Science Department and the Forest Economics and Policy Analysis Research Unit The purpose of the survey is to: • identify interactions among different resource-based activities in the Revelstoke/Golden area, including backcountry skiing, heii-skiing, snowmobiling, logging and wildlife conservation • determine the extent to which different uses are compatible or conflicting • evaluate the actual and potential economic contributions of these activities to the regional and provincial economies. Additional questions are asked about your background in order to allow the researchers to determine the representativeness of the sample as well as to allow for generalizations to be made about the participants in different activities. Piease answer all questions to the best of your ability. Seat the completed survey in the envelope provided and return it to the backcountry ski operator. ANSWERS PROVIDED WILL BE KEPT IN STRICT CONFIDENCE 68 BACKCOUNTRY SKIING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA SECTION 1: BACKGROUND In this first section, we would like to find out a little about your backcountry skiing experience. 1. How many years have you been participating in backcountry skiing? I 1 Years 2. How would you describe your skiing ability? (Please mark choice.) BEGINNER INTERMEDIATE I ADVANCED 3. Whatis the average number of days which you backcountry ski each year ? Days per Year 4. How many times per year do you go on a multi-day trip? I Times per Year 5. What is the average length of a typical multi-day nip? I Days 6. In the past, where have you gone on multi-day backcountry trips? And how many trips have you made to each location? L M A T O N T " " Revelstoke/Golden area Elsewhere in B.C Elsewhere in Canada i 6F "' TRIPS 1 " •LMATI6N United States Europe Other (specify) TRIPS . 69 7. How important were the following factors in your choice of THIS AREA on this trip? FACTORS Return trip/ been here before Type of accommodations available Type of terrain Proximity to your place of residence Desire to be in a wilderness setting Desire to visit British Columbia Recommendation from friend Advertising or promotional materials Weather and snow conditions Other (specify) Extremely Inportent 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 Not At All Neutral Important 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 [ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8. What was (is) the total length of your stay in the Revelstoke/Colden area? Days 9. How many days were (will be) actually spent backcountry skiing? Days 10. What percentage your skiing will be done OUTSIDE of Mount Revelstoke National Park and Glacier National Park? 10. On average, how many kilometres do you ski each day ? Kilometres 11. How many vertical feet have you skied, or will you ski. during your stay? J TOO Vertical Feet 70 12. Besides backcountry skiing, which of the following activities did you participate in during your stay in this area? And how many days did you spend on each activity? ACTIVITY Cross Country Skiing Other (specify) #OF DAYS ACTIVITY— Heli-Skiing Snowmobiling DAYS —ACTIVITY Downhill Skiing Viewing Wildlife 1ST DAYS SECTION 2: OPINION QUESTIONS In this section, we would like to get your personal opinion about some of the features which affect the quality of your backcountry ski experience in British Columbia. 1. How important to you are the following features of your backcountry skiing vacation experience? (Please circle the number that best represents the importance of each feature.) FEATURES Skiing untracked powder Skiing above the treeline Skiing in the trees Skiing steep slopes Skiing long runs Skiing in a small group (less than 6 people) Opportunity to view wildlife Meeting people/socializing Enjoying the natural setting Opportunity to relax (get away from work) Improving your physical condition Sense of adventure Exposure to risk Access to telephones, faxes etc Other (specify) Other (specify) Extremely Important 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 Neutral 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 tot At All Important 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 Conflicts over the use of wilderness areas by different recreational users are bound to arise. To obtain some idea of your impressions about these conflicts, please circle the response which best describes your impresseion of the degree of impact the following activities have on the QUALITY of backcountry skiing in this area. (Please indicate whether an activity has POSITIVE impact. NEGATIVE impact or no impact (NEUTRAL).) Helicopter Skiing Snowmobiling Logging Wildlife Conservation Positive Impact +3 +2 +3 +2 +3 +2 +3 +2 Neutral +1 0 +1 0 +1 0 +1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 Negative Impact -2 -3 -2 -3 -2 -3 -2 -3 Currently, some resource users pay a fee for the right to use government lands for commercial recreation purposes. For example, heli-ski operators pay $4 per day for each skier who uses their area. If a similar system was put in place to charge backcountry skiers a user fee. what is the MAXIMUM amount you would be willing to pay PER DAY to enable you to ski in this region? (Please check the amount you would be willing to pay per day.) Willing to pay $25 - $50 per day Willing to pay $50 - $100 per day Willing to pay more than $100 Would not pay (Would ski somewhere else.) Willing to pay less than $10 per day Willing to pay $10 - $25 per day How much MORE would you be willing to pay per day if the following statements were true? (Please circle the ADDITIONAL amount you would be willing to pay per day) No logging is permitted in the area. No snowmobiling is permitted in the area. No beli-skiing is permitted in the area. More wildlife is seen while skiing. More wildlife habitat is protected. ADDITIONAL AMOUNT PER DAY $0 $0 $0 so $0 <$10 <$10 <$10 <S10 <$10 $10-525 $10-$25 $10-$25 S10-S25 S10-J25 $25-$50 S25-S50 $25-$50 S25-J50 $25-$50 $50-$100 $50-5100 S50-S100 $50-$100 $50-5100 >$100 >$100 >S100 >5100 >$100 72 5. We would like to have an idea about the importance of wildlife to backcountry skiers. If you had control of the government's budget for wildlife preservation, how do you think the budget should be divided among the following categories in terms of percentage? (The numbers should add up to 100%.) BENEFITS Preserve large mammals (deer. bear, etc.) and their habitats Preserve small mammals (squirrels, marmots, etc) and their habitats Preserve birds and their habitats Preserve other species and their habitats TOTAL BUDGET %OF BUDGET % % % % 100% 6. Given a budget for the preservation of large mammals and their habitats, what percentage of the budget should be allocated to the following species. (The sum should add up to 100%.) SPECIES Caribou (which requires unlogged forests) Grizzly Bear Elk/Deer/Moose (hunted species) All other large mammals (eg. goats, lynx, etc.) TOTAL %OF BUDGET % % % % 100% 73 SECTION 3: WHAT ARE YOUR EXPENSES? We are interested in knowing how valuable backcountry skiing and other outdoor recreational activities are to those who participate in these activities and make use of publicly-owned land. In this section, we are attempting to determine how much you spent on these four categories of costs: (1) the purchase cost of your ski equipment, (2) transportation and living costs to get to the ski area, (3) on-site costs incurred while backcountry skiing, and (4) the expenses which you would have incurred had you stayed home. How much did you spend on each of the following categories? Please provide the best answer you can. even if these are approximate estimates of the actual expenses you incurred. 1. What was your approximate purchase price of: Ski equipment Ski clothing Camping equipment (if applicable) Other equipment e.g. pieps, probe etc. $ $ S 2. How often do you purchase the following items? •Ski equipment (skis, boots, poles) • Every •Ski clothing • Every •Camping equipment - Every •Backcountry safety equipment - Every 3. Travel Expenses for Backcountry Ski Vacation Airfare Ground transportation (e.g. car, bus, train) Private automobile (gasoline, oil, repairs) Accommodation (enroute to destination) Food and beverages Miscellaneous (e.g. film, souvenirs etc) $ S $ $ $ 74 Years Years Years Years While m me baclccountry slaing area, how much did you spend on each of the following items? EXPENSES Accommodation Food and beverages Entertainment Ski equipment rental or purchases Souvenirs, camera supplies etc. Other (specify) SPENTW SKI AREA How much do you normally spend on food, beverages and entertainment (e.g. going out for the evening) when you are at home? 0 Per Week Approximately how much will this backcountry ski trip cost you INCLUDING EVERYTHING? Is 75 SECTION 4: PERSONAL INFORMATION In this section, we would like to find out more about people who go backcountry skiing. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. How old are you? [_ Are you: Male I I Female | | Including yourself, bow many people are there in your household? Are you: Single Married or Common-law Divorced How many people came with you on this trip? L How many years of school have you completed? (Please circle the number of years.) Grade School 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 High School College/University Graduate School 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21+ 7. Near what city or town do you presently reside? Town/City Province/State Country What was the approximate gross (before tax) income of your household in 1992? Less than $20,000 520.000 • $40,000 $40,000 - $60,000 $60,000 • $100,000 $100,000 - $140,000 $140,000 - $180,000 More than $180,000 SECTION 8: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS If you have any comments about this survey or if you feel there are some issues which we have not addressed, please use the space on this page and on the back of this page to make your comments. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COMPLETE THIS SURVEY. 76 APPENDIX C: Snowmobiler Survey SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. How many years have you been snowmobiling? year(s) 2. How would you describe your snowmobiling ability? (Please mark one) _____ beginner intermediate experienced 3. On average, how many snowmobi.'ing trips do ycu take each year? trips trips How many of these are in the Revelstoke/Golden area? 4. Are you a member of a snowmobile club? (Please circle one) YES NO 5. What other forms of outdoor recreation do you participate in? (Please check categories) . backcountry skiing . cross-country skiing . hunting . trail biking . day-hiking . boating . Others (Please specify. . downhill skiing . heli-skiing . fishing . four-wheeling . back-packing . kayaking . snowboarding . mountaineering . horseback riding . climbing . mountain biking . canoeing 77 SECTION 2: SNOWMOBILING IN THE REVELSTOKE/GOLDEN AREA Please answer the following questions based on your snowmobiiing trips in the Revelstoke/Golden area. 1. Who else do you usually snowmobile with? (Please mark one or more) no one else your friends your family members of your club 2. If you snowmobile with others, how many other people do you usually ride with, and how many other snowmobiles are in your group ? people snowmobiles 3. What is the usual duration of your snowmobile visit in the Revelstoke/Golden area, or else, please indicate if you live in the area? (Please mark one.) 1 day or less 2 days 3 days more than 3 days (please specify how many: days) live in the area 4. What length of time do you usually snowmobile for? (Please mark one.) 1/2 a day or less a full day 2 days more than 2 days (please specify how many: days) 78 5. What distances do you usually cover when snowmobiling ? a) On your usual type of trip (i.e. round trip)? km or miles b) The maximum distance you would venture on a snowmobile from your point of entry (i.e. nearest road) ? km or . miles c) The total distance covered in a full season ? km or miles 6. What proportion of your snowmobiling trips are done in the following types of outdoor recreation areas? (these areas are recreation opportunity categories used by the BC Forest Service) PRIMITIVE: more than 8 km (5 miles) from a road on which a highway vehicle can be driven; a natural environment; minimal evidence of human use. % SEMI-PRIMITIVE: less than 8 km (5 miles) from a road on which a highway vehicle can be driven; a natural appearing environment; some evidence of human use. % ROADED RESOURCE: accessible by a highway vehicle but with a natural environment and no more than moderate evidence of human use. _____ % RURAL: accessible by a highway vehicle, a substantially modified environment and extensive evidence of human use. % TOTAL 100 % 79 7. How desirable or undesirable, to you, are the following features of snowmobiiing in the Revelstoke/Golden area ? (Please circle the number that best represents your response to the statement indicated) Desirable Neutral Undesirable Close to home Challenging conditions Wildlife viewing Scenic views Solitude Hunting opportunities Wilderness experience Amenities (e.g. cabins) Variety of terrain Steep slopes Snow conditions Access to snowmobile area Logging roads Forested environments Open alpine environments Groomed trails Unploughed roads Untracked snow Remote from civilization Commercial snowmobiiing 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 SECTION 3: WHAT IS YOUR EXPENDITURE ON SNOWMOBILING ? 1. If you had to travel to the Revelstoke/Golden area for snowmobiling please answer the following question, otherwise go directly to the next question (question 2). How much did you spend travelling to the area ? $ Transportation (gas, oil, car rental, bus fares, etc.) S Food en route $ Accommodation en route 2. How much do you usually spend on the following items during your average snowmobiling trip? $ Food (groceries, meals, beverages) $ Accommodation (campgrounds, lodges, motels) $ Transport to snowmobile area or trail (gas, oil) $ Running costs of snowmobile (gas, oil, repairs, snowmobile rental) $ Other (Please specify: ) What do you normally spend on food, beverages and entertainment (e.g. go out for an evening) if you are at home? $ per week 81 3. For the following items of equipment could you please indicate whether you own one, what year it is, when you purchased it, its approximate purchase price, and the proportion of its use which is for snowmobiling ? Own Year of Years Purchase Proportion machine Owned Price of use for snowmobiling Snowmobile YES NO 19 $ Truck YES NO 19 $ % Camper YES NO 19 $ % Trailer YES NO 19 $ % 4. How much do you spend on other equipment used for your snowmobiling trips? $ Maintenance of machine (per year) $ Special clothing (per year) $ Ski equipment (per year) e.g. skis, poles. $ Camping equipment (per year) e.g. tent, pack, cooker. $ Other (Please specify: ) 82 5. Given the recent restrictions on snowmobiling in other parts of Canada, a possible mechanism to ensure access to snowmobiling in the Revelstoke/Golden area at existing levels of use is through the purchase of permits (similar to hunting permits). The revenue from permits would go into a snowmobiling enhancement fund for the purpose of maintaining snowmobiling facilities. What is the MAXIMUM amount you would be willing to pay PER SEASON for such a permit? (please mark the amount you would be willing to pay per season) $0 per season $1 per season $5 per season $10 per season $25 per season $50 per season $100 per season $250 per season $500 per season $1000 per season over $1000 per season 6. Please rank from 1 to 7 each of the following statements in terms of their importance to your snowmobiling activity. Rank the most important statement 1 and the least important statement 7. a) No logging was permitted b) No heliskiing was permitted c) No backcountry skiing was permitted d) More wildlife was visible e) More logging roads were developed f) More wildlife habitat is protected g) No user fee was charged 83 We would like to have an idea about the importance of wildlife to snowmobilers. If you had control of the government's budget for wildlife preservation how do you think the budget should be divided among the following categories in terms of percentage ? BENEFITS: % of budget Preserve large mammals (deer, bear, etc.) and their habitats % Preserve small mammals (squirrels, marmots, etc.) and their habitats % Preserve birds and their habitats % Preserve other species and their habitats % TOTAL BUDGET 100 % Given a budget for the preservation of large mammals and their habitats, what percentage of the budget should be allocated to the following species. (The numbers should add up to 100%.) EITHER: All species should be given equal treatment OR: I would allocate the budget as follows: (The numbers should add to 100%.) SPECIES % of budget Caribou (which require old growth forest) Grizzly Bear Ellc/Deer/Moose (big game species) All other large mammals (e.g. goats, lynx, etc) TOTAL 100 % 84 

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.831.1-0087513/manifest

Comment

Related Items