UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Camping on Vancouver Island : assessing demand and supply for planning of new facilities Bigo, Andre George 1970

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1970_A6_7 B53.pdf [ 7.72MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0102089.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0102089-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0102089-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0102089-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0102089-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0102089-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0102089-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0102089-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0102089.ris

Full Text

CAMPING ON VANCOUVER ISLAND: ASSESSING DEMAND AND SUPPLY FOR PLANNING OF NEW FACILITIES by ANDRE GEORGE BIGO Doctorat d'Universite, Mention Lettres, Universite d'Aix-Marseille A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE i n the School of Community and Regional Planning We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1970 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u lfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s t h e sis f o r scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of iOtqciIA^AHC &U.clAes> The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date ABSTRACT This study has the objective of assessing the present outdoor recreation demand in a given area to ju s t i f y for a local developer, private or public, the establishment of a new outdoor recreation unit. It i s hypothesized that the demand exceeds the supply, making the establishment financially feasible. The case study has been limited to camping as an outdoor recreation a c t i v i t y for which reasonable amount of data i s available. Only the present demand w i l l be assessed and no projection w i l l be attempted. The reason for this i s that a local developer bases his action on present trends and eventually on rough short term projections which would be easy to derive from the results of this study. It i s also a personal choice to study a part of the problem in depth rather than surveying a much larger piece of work including assessement of the present demand and i t s projection into the future. Although the term 'local' appears in the objective of the study, this does not mean that the new recreation unit w i l l not attract a distant population. Therefore the demand i s the 'World demand" and in the particular case means the demand generated by a North American population. The supply of campgrounds does not have to be examined on such a scale since only the existing campgrounds competing with the new campground w i l l be considered. In the case study, the new eampground i s located in the v i c i n i t y of Ladysmith at Cassidy, on Vancouver Island, and the competing supply, according to the methodology adopted, w i l l be half of the existing campgrounds of Vancouver Island. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I - . INTRODUCTION .. 1 Statement of the Problem. 1 Importance of the Problem 2 Purpose of the Study.. 3 Scope of the Study Compared With Classic Outdoor Recreation Studies 4 Hypothesis of the Study... 6 Methodology 7 Critique of the Methodology 11 Organisation of the Study...... 12 II - OUT-OF-BRITISH COLUMBIA CAMPERS CAMPING ON VANCOUVER ISLAND 14 Propensity to Camp Among Tourists 17 Non-Canadian Campers Camping on Vancouver Island 20 Out-of-British Columbia Canadian Campers Camping on Vancouver Island 25 Summary. 30 III - MAINLAND BRITISH COLUMBIA CAMPERS CAMPING ON VANCOUVER ISLAND 32 Number of Campers Generated by Mainland British Columbia 32 Geographic Distribution of the Campers Generated by Mainland British Columbia 39 IV - VANCOUVER ISLAND CAMPERS CAMPING ON VANCOUVER ISLAND 47 Concentration of The Population Into Four Points 47 Number of Campers Generated by This Population 51 Geographic Districution of Campers Based on Vancouver Island 53 CHAPTER PAGE V - GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION ON VANCOUVER ISLAND OP OUT-OF-VANCOUVER ISLAND CAMPERS 6l Search for Distribution Models .... 62 Testing the Models With Existing Data 64 Comparison With Classic Models. 67 Selection and Use of Two Models 69 VI - ASSESSEMENT OF THE SUPPLY 73 Average Summer Capacity of Existing Campsites....... 73 Number of Private and Public Campsites... 75 VII - CONCLUSION: DEMAND VERSUS SUPPLY 79 Planning Implications 84 < BIBLIOGRAPHY 86 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE ' PAGE' I Ferry routes to Vancouver Island....;............. 15 I I Caraping-vehicle-nights spent on Vancouver Island by Out-of-British Columbia campers during the summer 19^ 9 per* port of entry 31 I I I Census d i v i s i o n No. 4 of B r i t i s h Columbia 37 TV Camping-vehicle-nights spent on Vancouver Island by mainland B r i t i s h Columbia campers during the summer 19&9 P e r port of entry. 46 V Census d i v i s i o n No. 5 - 1966 population 48 VI Theoretical population centres 49 VII Camping-vehicle-^nights generated by the population centres during the summer..... 52 J V I I I D i s t r i b u t i o n of campers according to one-way t r a v e l time 54 IX Travel time zones to Cassidy campground from: Black Creek (2 to 3 hours) Ladysmith (0 to 1 hour) 58 FIGURE PAGE X Travel time zones to Cassidy campground from:. -Port Alberni (1 to 2 hours) Victoria (l to 2 hours) 59 XI Models distributing campers according to one-way travel time.. 65 XII Models distributing campers according to one-way travel time 66 XIII Travel time zones to Cassidy campground from: Victoria (1 to 2 hours) Nanaimo (0 to 1 hour) Sidney ( l to 2 hours) 72 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I Participation days in camping in North America.. 35 II Summer capacity of private and public campgrounds competing with Cassidy campground 78 III Demand and supply matrix 81 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to thank Dr . C ra i g Davis and Dr. Peter Oberlander f o r t h e i r advice and c r i t i c i s m . A s p e c i a l g r a t i f i c a t i o n to my wi fe who d i d not get jea lous of t h i s absorbing commitment. 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM As population, urbanization and standard of l i v i n g increase, the needs for outdoor recreation increases. At the same time, more money and more time i s becoming available for many individuals to f u l f i l l these needs. As a r e s u l t , new recreation f a c i l i t i e s have to be planned i n order to meet the growing volume of demand. "The major socio-economic factors underlying t h i s s h i f t i n demand for outdoor recreation have been (a) population changes, p a r t i c u l a r l y growth i n t o t a l population but perhaps also changing age d i s t r i b u t i o n and growing urbanization; (b) increased r e a l income per capita; (c) improved t r a v e l f a c i l i t i e s and increased t r a v e l ; and (d) increased l e i s u r e time, p a r t l y through a reduced work week but also through an increase i n the number of r e t i r e d persons and other persons not in the labor force, and growth of the paid vacation."'' ^Marion Clawson, Issues of Public P o l i c y i n Outdoor Recreation, Resources for the Future, Inc., Washington D.C., V/ater Resources Conference, 1964, p. 3. 2 Therefore, planners are confronted with two major tasks: to analyse a l l aspects of the demand for and supply of facilities, and to recommend action according to the results of the analysis. This thesis focuses on the analytical part of the problem and will consist of an attempt to quantify demand and supply in a given area to assess whether or not the establishment of new outdoor recreation facilities in a given area is economically viable. IMPORTANCE OP THE PROBLEM The problem may be encountered by two types of recreation developers. 1 - The first type is the public planner confronted with public recreation facilities which do not need to be operated under user-charges. Such a planner may or may not have a region-wide recreation study with which to orient his action for a particular area. On the one hand, i f he has this region-wide recreation study, he will know roughly, for wide areas, what the demand is and what the supply i s . Planners might not require a recreation study focussing on the area to be developed. The broad information from the region-wide recreation survey might be enough. On the other hand, recreation planners may not have this region-wide study to guide their action, or, having this study, they might want to base their action on a more specific study in order to meet more accurately the demand. In that kind of situation, the present recreation study, which requires less work than any region-wide recreation study, can be the answer. 2 - The second case is the one of recreation planners, often private but sometimes public, confronted with recreation facilities which have to be operated exclusively through user-charge resources. The present study is more oriented toward this type of situation. The developers can be either private or public. Most of the time they will be private, but public developers, in the absence of available public funds, might want to satisfy a specific recreation demand by establishing recreation facilities on a user-charge basis. Another situation in which public developers can be tempted to charge the users is encountered when the recreation operation indicates possible good future profits, and they wish to keep these profits public for redistribution or for capital improvements at the recreation site. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of the study is to examine the possibility of operating a particular recreation site on the basis of user-charge resources. Answering this question requires a knowledge of the demand in terms of participation days and a knowledge of the supply in terms 4 of number of existing fa c i l i t i e s . It also requires the knowledge of the amount of money that each user is willing to pay for using the facility, as well as the knowledge of the expected capital and operat-ing expenses necessary to create and operate the given facility. The present study will deal only with the first and more general aspect, that is to say the analysis of the demand in terms of participation days and that of the supply in terms of number of fac i l i t i e s . SCOPE OF THE STUDY COMPARED WITH CLASSIC OUTDOOR RECREATION STUDIES Outdoor recreation should almost always be considered within a National, Regional, Provincial or State framework. It generally cannot be handled at city or county levels. The demand for any out-door recreation facility is regional in most cases. The supply of outdoor recreation, in a comprehensive study should also be, therefore, considered at the regional level. Most of the planning for outdoor recreation is handled by regional agencies or state agencies, and 2 among their work are found the most advanced methods and applications. The State of Michigan in the Technical Report No. 12 of the Department of Conservation, "The Practical Application of Program RECSYS and SYMAP", Outdoor Recreation Planning in Michigan by a System Analysis  Approach Part III, December, 1967, begins with a general overall "Review of Recreational Planning Techniques" applied before 1967, explaining for state wide or nation wide recreation study the methodology used. The latest California Outdoor Recreation Studies, probably the most advanced, are not analysed in this critique, pp. 19-61. A study such as the one which is developed here has some common characteristics with a region-wide recreation study. Both must consider the demand generated by the whole region and out-of-region population in a comprehensive way. The main differences lie in the way the two studies take the supply into account. In the region-wide study, both comprehensive supply and demand are considered, but neither is localised or i f so, in very broad units. In this study only the supply really competing with the site being considered wil l be examined, that is to say, only the part of the supply surrounding the recreation site which is under study is relevant; and i f the demand to be considered is the one generated by the whole region and out-of-region population, in fact only the users who are likely to go to the sub-area where the recreation site i s , need to be known. A limitation of the present study as compared with most region-wide recreation studies is that the approach is limited to the actual demand, without making any projection, so that this study can be considered as the first stage of a larger study including both the evaluation of the actual demand and the projection of this demand into the future. To forecast the demand is very important in a region-wide recreation study, since action has to be taken in advance to make sure of meeting the overall demand of the future population of the 6 region to its maximum satisfaction. In the case of local public planners or a private developer, their action is more short-term oriented for meeting the actual needs, and for them the current demand is more important than the long-term one. Therefore, whatever the planners' needs are, a way is open in this study for further development toward future demand. Precautions will be taken to keep track of the factor varying through time in the evaluation of the demand. This makes possible an extension of the study which would include long-term demand analysis. Essentially, account is made of the country or region of origin of the campers, so that socio-economic characteristics and rate of growth of the corresponding population can be introduced into the analysis. HYPOTHESIS OF THE STUDY Considering the fast rate of growth of outdoor recreation in general, i t is anticipated that the demand for summer type of outdoor recreation facilities in any given area will exceed the existing supply during the months of June, July and August for any specific recreation activity. Camping will be treated as an example in this study, since i t is an activity for which fairly coherent and regular data can be found. Camping, generally associated with park use, encompasses the same features as many other outdoor recreation activities. 7 Therefore, more specifically, one will try to find out whether or not the demand for camping in the Ladysmith area, in a site called Cassidy, on Vancouver Island, will exceed the existing camping supply during the months of June, July and August treated as a case study. By camping is meant "living out of doors using for shelter a bed r o l l , sleeping bag, trailer, tent, or a hut open on one or more sides, i f the person takes his bedding, cooking equipment, food with him. It does not include formal camp for teenagers, such as Boy Scout » 3 camps . METHODOLOGY The emphasis of this study will be on the methodology rather than on the findings. The demand for campsites at any given point on Vancouver Island is generated by the world population which can be broken down into 1 - Out-of-British Columbia population. 2 - The remainder of British Columbia population. 3 - Vancouver Island population. Each of these sub-populations has to be handled in a different way. 'ORRRC Study Report No. 19, p. 108, op. c i t . 8 1 - Out-of-British Columbia Population From statistics formulated by the Department of Travel Industry of British Columbia and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics of Canada, the number of out-of-British Columbia tourists coming to Vancouver Island can be evaluated at the B.C. Ferries arrival points and at the border ports Sidney and Victoria on Vancouver Island. Those tourists being evaluated at the ferry arrival points, and then converted into campers, will be spread over Vancouver Island. This will be done according to a function in which the distance factor appears as the denominator. This function will be different from that used for the distribution of the campers generated by the Vancouver Island population. Vancouver Island residents have to get away from home to feel as though they are enjoying camping while non-Vancouver Island residents arriving on Vancouver Island are already away from home. These two types of campers will generate two distinct types of geographic distribution models over Vancouver Island. 2 - The Remainder of British Columbia Population This population will be broken down into two different regions: the Lower Mainland Region and the rest of Mainland British Columbia. A provincial survey of the recreation behaviour of people living in British Columbia, i.e. where they go, how often, for bow long, would be of great help. Not having such a survey, the p a r t i c i p a t i o n rate i n camping i n B r i t i s h Columbia w i l l be derived from the estern United States p a r t i c i p a t i o n rate (as refined by the State of Washington i n 1963 by the means of a recreation study of the Puget Sound region). This p a r t i c i p a t i o n rate w i l l be used to estimate the p o t e n t i a l number of campers of the B r i t i s h Columbia population. Among them, the number of campers going to Vancouver Island from the mainland w i l l be derived from t o u r i s t surveys made by the Department of Travel Industry i n B r i t i s h Columbia. At t h i s stage, the whole out-of-Vancouver Island camper's population w i l l be known at the f e r r y a r r i v a l points on Vancouver Island, namely Nanaimo, V i c t o r i a and Sidney. Once on Vancouver Island at the f e r r y a r r i v a l points, the campers w i l l be d i s t r i b u t e d over Vancouver Island i n the same way as the campers coming from o u t - o f - B r i t i s h Columbia, according to a function inversely proportional to distance. Only the camping-nights f a l l i n g into the t r a v e l time zones including the chosen campground w i l l then be retained and matched with the competing e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s to make apparent a shortage or a surplus of f a c i l i t i e s . . ' 3 - Vancouver Island Population * The population of Vancouver Island i s assumed to be concentrated geographically i n four d i f f e r e n t points, each point corresponding to the centre of grav i t y of the population of a different sub-region. Here again, the number of p o t e n t i a l campers generated by t h i s population should be derived from an in-depth household survey, but such a survey has not been undertaken as yet In B r i t i s h Columbia. Lacking t h i s basic information, the p a r t i c i p a t i o n rate i n camping has to be borrowed from United States and Puget Sound studies. The application of p a r t i c i p a t i o n rate to the Vancouver Island population w i l l give the number of po t e n t i a l campers. These campers w i l l be d i s t r i b u t e d over the isla n d according to a certain function of the distance from home which w i l l be described i n the study. Only the number of camping-nights f a l l i n g into the t r a v e l time zone including the case recreation s i t e w i l l be retained and matched with the number of e x i s t i n g campsite f a c i l i t i e s In the same area. This process w i l l be repeated for each of the four chosen population centres of Vancouver Island. Once a l l campers have been assigned geographical destinations on Vancouver Island, t h e i r numbers can then be matched with the capacities of e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s to determine whether or not there i s a shortage of camping f a c i l i t i e s , and thus, i f a new campground i s desirable or not. An Inventory of the supply of campsites, i n the region where the new f a c i l i t y Is proposed, obviously must be made before any comparison between demand and supply can be drawn. 11 CRITIQUE OP THE METHODOLOGY By concentrating the population of Vancouver Island in four geographic points, an approximation is made which wil l influence the geographic distribution of the demand. The remedy would be to multiply the number of population-origins so that the reality would be best represented. The time alloted for this study imposed this oversimplification. . Once the population of Vancouver Island and mainland British Columbia is determined quantitatively and geographically, the next step is to apply to this population some participation rate in camping to find out the potential number of camping-nights one can expect from this population. The participation rates used in this study are ratios from the Western States of the United States as defined by the Puget Sound Region study and as readjusted arbitrarily for the Lower Mainland Region. To be more accurate an in-depth household survey of British Columbia should be done, covering the participation rates in a l l recreation activities. This survey would have two purposes: to yield participation rates and to find out where people go in terms of broad regions such as Vancouver Island or the Cariboo. Thus the participation rate in camping would be reliable and, for our particular case study focussing on camping on Vancouver Island, the number of camping-nights spent on Vancouver Island by the population of British Columbia would be known. ( 12 A t o u r i s t survey made i n 1966 by the Department of T r a v e l . Industry w i l l be used to determine the pattern of t r a v e l of B r i t i s h Columbia t o u r i s t s within B r i t i s h Columbia. The geographic d i s t r i b u -t i o n of campers over Vancouver Island i s an easier task once the number of campers coming to Vancouver Island i s known. A f i n a l aspect i n which the study could be strengthened by improved data i s the inventory of resources. The p u b l i c resources and t h e i r attendance f i g u r e s are w e l l known f o r each year, but very l i t t l e i s known about the private resources, apart from a l i s t of addresses given i n the B r i t i s h Columbia T o u r i s t Directory, and sometimes the capacity of the campsites. A survey made by a student i n 1970 about pr i v a t e campgrounds operators i n B r i t i s h Columbia w i l l provide some complementary information on the pr i v a t e side of the market. i ORGANISATION OF THE STUDY The f i r s t part of the study, which includes Chapter II and I I I , generates the camping demand of the out-of-Vancouver Island population (the o u t - o f - B r i t i s h Columbia population i n Chapter I I and the Mainland B r i t i s h Columbia population i n Chapter I I I ) and sorts out the number of campers w i l l i n g to go camping on Vancouver Island. This camping demand i s only c a r r i e d up to the f e r r y a r r i v a l points on Vancouver Island i n t h i s f i r s t p a r t . 1 3 Chapter IV generates the camping demand of the Vancouver Island population and d i s t r i b u t e s i t geographically over Vancouver Island. Chapter V takes again the out-of-Vancouver Island camping demand and di s t r i b u t e s i t geographically over Vancouver Island. In Chapter VI an assessment i s made of the f a c i l i t i e s competing with those of the Cassidy campground. In the l a s t chapter, l o c a l i s e d demand and supply are compared and conclusions drawn. Although attention i s focussed upon camping in t h i s study, hopefully the methodology could be extended to other recreational a c t i v i t i e s . OUT-OF-BRITISH COLUMBIA BASED CAMPERS CAMPING ON VANCOUVER ISLAND Campers can be either from the United States or from parts of Canada other than British Columbia. They can be screened at two levels: i -the British Columbia boundaries including the International border. ii-the ferry passages from the mainland to Vancouver Island. (Figure I) The Washington State Ferries from Anacortes to Sidney, the Canadian Pacific Steamships from Seattle to Victoria and the Black Ball Transport from Port Angeles to Victoria are at the same time ferry passages and international boundaries. Most of the data known at these screening levels are usually the number of cars crossing the screen and, for the international boundary, the number of non-commercial foreign cars coming from the United States to Canada as well as their length of stay in Canada. F I G U R E I FERRY ROUTES TO VANCOUVER ISLAND BRITISH CCLUH3Ifl TOURIST DIRECTORY 1359. DEPRRTfSNT OF TRAVEL INDUSTRY. P . 11. • 16 Here, the cars are the right demand unit to be considered since one car requires one campsite and the campsite is also the supply unit. People travelling by car from out-of-British Columbia to Vancouver Island can be on a pleasure or business trip and no study seems to have been done on the proportion of tourist travel versus business travel by automobile from out-of-British Columbia to British Columbia. In the absence of such a study, two assumptions are made. i -no people travelling by car from other provinces of Canada, going to Vancouver Island are exclusively on business, ii-no non-Canadian residents travelling in non commercial vehicles and staying one or more nights in British Columbia are exclusively on business. Not being on business implies being a tourist and having recreational activities in the following range: -city activities -enjoying scenery -outdoor activities -visiting specific sites -relaxation -visiting friends and relatives. 17 The justification of these two assumptions are that people are very unlikely to travel by car to Vancouver Island exclusively for business from Alberta or Quebec- since the time involved ranges from two days to more than six days round trip. If they are non-Canadian residents the length of stay in British Columbia is known and the same reasoning applies to those who stay one and more nights in. British Columbia. . . PROPENSITY TO CAMP AMONG TOURISTS . Once the number of tourist cars coming from out-of-British Columbia to Vancouver Island is known, the problem of determining the propensity to camp among these tourists remains. An extensive Study of Visitors to British Columbia in the  Summer of 1963^ made by the government of British Columbia deals with these questions. Among the visitors staying one or more nights, 45$ stay in motels 25$ stay in campgrounds ^Visitors '63, a Study of Visitors to British Columbia in the Summer  of 1963, Government of British Columbia, Department of Recreation and Conservation, Travel Bureau, pp. 64-65. 18 18^ stay with r e l a t i v e s or friends 1% stay i n hotels k% stay i n t r a i l e r parks \% own summer homes \% stay elsewhere T r a i l e r parks and campgrounds gathered 29% of the over-nighter t o u r i s t s . This figure i s seven years old and has probably changed since then, but i n the absence of any other data on t h i s subject, t h i s figure w i l l be applied to t h i s study. \ One shortcoming of t h i s figure, i s that i t does not d i f f e r -entiate between the propensity of a Canadian to camp and the propensity of an American to camp i n B r i t i s h Columbia while the data published o i n the Annual Report 1966 of the Department of Recreation and Conservation shows a difference. In 1966, 20.1^ of the camping done i n B r i t i s h Columbia was done among 1,936,973 t o t a l Canadian v i s i t o r s and an equal amount of 20.1^ among 2,905,697 t o t a l United States v i s i t o r s . In other words, Canadian and United States v i s i t o r s , while d i f f e r e n t i n number, did an equal amount of camping. Annual Report 1966, Department of Recreation and Conservation, B r i t i s h Columbia, V i c t o r i a Queen's Printer 1966, p. 48 and 53. Thus, the propensity of Canadian visitors to British Columbia to camp is obviously higher to that of the United States visitors to British Columbia. To find out what the percentage of campers is among those two populations, two relationships can be established. If x stands for the percentage of Canadian visitors who camp and y the percentage of United States visitors who camp while 29/6 has been established as the percentage of Canadian and United States visitors who camp, i t can be stated that l,936,973x +- 2,905,697y = 0.29 x 4,842,670 x Knowing that the number of Canadian visitors camping is equal to the number of United States visitors camping, i t can also be stated that l,936,973x = 2,905,697y These two equations with two unknowns can be solved and the system yields the following result: x = 0.36 y = 0.24 These two figures wil l be used for the out-of-British Columbia visitors coming to Vancouver Island, broken down into United States and Canadian visitors. THE NON-CANADIAN CAMPERS GOING TO VANCOUVER ISLAND Two screenings w i l l be used here, the fe r r y and the i n t e r -national border. The Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , each month gives the number of non-resident vehicles other than commercial trucks, staying one or more nights i n Canada, entering Canada by province at Canadian border ports. Two border ports are located on Vancouver Island and r e f l e c t the t r a f f i c of the three f e r r y l i n e s : -Anacortes to Sidney, for the border port Sidney -Seattle to V i c t o r i a and Port Angeles to V i c t o r i a , for the border port of V i c t o r i a Vehicles entering and leaving the same day at those border ports are i n s i g n i f i c a n t compared with those staying one or more nights i n Canada: about 3% during the year 1969. ^Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Catalogue No. 66-001. Monthly  Travel Between Canada, the U.S. and Other Countries, 1969, pp. 16 and 27. 4 I b i d . During the months of June, Ju l y and August, 1 5 , 9 2 9 United States t o u r i s t vehicles came to Vancouver Island through Sidney and 2 8 , 6 1 2 United States t o u r i s t vehicles came to Vancouver Island through 5 V i c t o r i a for a length of stay of one or more nights. The other alternatives by which United States vehicles come to Vancouver Island are the B r i t i s h Columbia Ferries from Tsawwasen to Swartz Bay, from Horseshoe Bay to Nanaimo and from Alaska via Prince Rupert to Kelsey Bay; the Canadian P a c i f i c Steamships from Vancouver to Nanaimo, the B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Highways f e r r y from Powell River to Comox, as shown i n Figure I . Among those f e r r i e s , the B.C. Ferries from Horseshoe Bay to Nanaimo and from Tsawwassen to Swartz Bay carry the major part. A questionnaire survey mailed out by the T r a f f i c Department of the B.C. Ferries got 1 , 0 0 0 r e p l i e s i n 1 9 6 9 . I t has been calculated from these unpublished data that 6k-% of people using f e r r i e s to go to Vancouver Island t r a v e l on B.C. Ferries and 4 . 5 $ on the Canadian P a c i f i c Steamships from Vancouver to Nanaimo. Another survey made by the Department of Travel Industry, Government of B r i t i s h Columbia, each year since 1 9 6 4 on a monthly basis, gives the out-of-province motor vehicle loadings on each of I b i d . 22 the three following B.C. f e r r i e s : -Tsawwassen to Swartz Bay -Horseshoe Bay to Departure Bay -Prince Rupert to Kelsey Bay These data are based on licence plate counts at the f e r r y departure points. A d i s t i n c t i o n i s made between United States and Canadian as w e l l as between the p r i n c i p a l states of the United States and provinces of Canada i n terms of number of cars t r a v e l l i n g on the f e r r i e s . During June, July and August 1969, 18,436 United States vehicles were carried from Horseshoe Bay to Nanaimo, 21,977 United States vehicles were carried from Tsawwassen to Swartz Bay and 103 vehicles from Alaska were carried from Prince Rupert to Kelsey Bay. According to the B.C. Ferry survey Q\fo of the t r a v e l i s done on B.C. Ferries and 4.5J& i s done on the Canadian P a c i f i c Steamships from Vancouver to Nanaimo, which makes 40,413 x 4.5/64 = 2,841 United States vehicles entering Vancouver Island by t h i s f e r r y . No data seems to be available concerning the fe r r y between Powell River and Comox. I t s low carrying capacity of twenty-six cars arid i t s inconvenience (three f e r r i e s have to be taken before getting on to Vancouver Island) minimizes the importance of t h i s f e r r y i n the o v e r a l l picture of United States t r a v e l to Vancouver Island. Therefore the number of United States t o u r i s t vehicles a r r i v i n g on Vancouver Island during the months of June, July and August 1 9 6 9 are; V i c t o r i a : 2 8 , 6 1 2 (from border counts) Sidney : 1 5 , 6 1 2 (from border counts) Sidney -Swartz Bay: 2 1 , 9 7 7 (from B.C. fe r r y counts) _ Nanaimo : 1 8 , 4 3 6 (from B.C. f e r r y counts) 2,841 (from B.C. f e r r y counts and survey) TOTAL 8 7 , 4 7 8 Among these United States t o u r i s t vehicles, 24$ are accumulated i n campgrounds or t r a i l e r parks. The number of United States vehicles intending to camp on Vancouver Island i s consequently: V i c t o r i a : 6 , 8 6 7 Sidney : 3 , 7 4 7 Sidney -Swartz Bay: 5 , 2 7 4 Nanaimo : 6 8 2 TOTAL : 2 0 , 9 9 5 To know the demand i n campsites one should now know the average length of stay of the United States t o u r i s t vehicles i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics gives for each year the number of United States automobiles entering Canada, classified by length of visit and province of exit.^ Using from these statistics only the vehicles staying two days, i.e. one or more nights, a total of 2,324,352 nights were spent for 439,802 vehicles or a mean of 5.28 nights per vehicle. This length of stay will be applied to the number of United States campers arriving on Vancouver Island during the months of June, July and August except for: 1 - those taking the ferry at Horseshoe Bay who might have stayed one night or more between the border and Horseshoe Bay. To them, the mean length of visit applied wi l l be 4.28 nights. 2 - some are obviously crossing Vancouver Island to go to Prince Rupert and Alaska by the Northern Ferries since 1376 non-Alaskan United States vehicles left Vancouver Island to Prince Rupert in June, July and August 1969. (0.24 x 1376 = 330 campers) This number will be deducted from the United States vehicles arriving in Victoria and will be presumed to spend only half of their visit on Vancouver Island, that is to say 2.64 nights. Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Catalogue No. 66-201, Annual Travel  Between Canada and Other Countries, 1967, p. 49. 25 Therefore the number of nights spent by the United States camper s vehicles is estimated to be: Totals Victoria: 6867 - 330 = 6,537 x 5.28 330 x 2.64 34,515 871 35,386 Sidney . 3,747 x 5.28 19,784 Sidney-Swartz Bay 5,274 x 5.28 27,847 97,631 Nanaimo 4,425 x 4.28 682 x 4.28 18,939 2,919 21,858 THE OUT-OF-BRITISH COLUMBIA CANADIANS CAMPING ON VANCOUVER ISLAND Different approaches can be used to estimate this demand. A first approach consists of using the presently known estimate of the number of American vehicles entering Vancouver Island. The Origin of tourist by British Columbian regions and by country of origin outside British Columbia, has been evaluated in the study 7 Visitors '63. For the Vancouver Island region, 23$ of the visitors are from Canada other than British Columbia and 77$ are from the United States. These percentages might have changed, but as a matter of fact, the overall percentage of Canadian visitors versus United States visitors to British Columbia did not change from 1963 to 1966. Visitors '63, op. cit., pp. 60-61. The Visitors '63 study states that 6l# were Americans and 39# out-of-British Columbia Canadians, while.the Department of Recreation and Conservation in its Annual Report 1966 states that British Columbia had 2,905,697 visitors from United States 1,936,973 visitors from Canada or 6C# from United States and 40$ from Canada other than British Columbia. The consistency of this proportion through time works in favor of the consistency of the Canadian and American proportion of vehicles going to Vancouver Island through time. That is to say, i f this percentage is s t i l l true in 1969 the American vehicles entering Vancouver Island during the summer months, having been estimated previously at 87,478 vehicles, the Canadians from outside British Columbia going to Vancouver Island would represent 87,478 x 23/77 - 26,129 vehicles The ports of entry in Vancouver Island of those 26,129 Canadian vehicles wi l l obviously be different from the ports of entry of the American vehicles; the Canadian out-of-British Columbia visitors can be expected to come to Vancouver Island nearly exclusively by the m ferry routes originating in British Columbia; that is to say Horseshoe Bay, Vancouver and Tsawwassen. This comment suggests a second way to look at the Canadian v i s i t o r s coming to Vancouver Island, since the B.C. Ferry annual s t a t i s t i c s make available the number of out-of - B r i t i s h Columbia Canadians t r a v e l l i n g from Horseshoe Bay and Tsawwassen to Vancouver Island. During June, J u l y and August of 1969, 17,515 Canadian vehicles loaded at Tsawwassen, l4,08l loaded at Horseshoe Bay.. Knowing that the Canadian P a c i f i c Steamships handled 4.5$ of the t r a f f i c from Vancouver to Nanaimo while B.C. Ferries handled 64$ In I969 (B.C. Ferries s t a t i s t i c s ) , presumably 31,596 x 4.5/64 = 2,222 Canadian vehicles went to Vancouver Island via the Canadian P a c i f i c Steamships. This brings to Vancouver Island: Nanaimo 14,08l Out-of-British Columbia Canadian Vehicles 2,222 Out-of-British Columbia Canadian Vehicles Swartz Bay 17,515 Out-of-British Columbia Canadian Vehicles TOTAL 33,8l8 Out-of-British Columbia Canadian Vehicles This t o t a l of 33,8l8 o u t - o f - B r i t i s h Columbia Canadian vehicles going to Vancouver Island during the months of June, J u l y and August 1969 has been evaluated under the assumption that no one would go from Alberta, Saskatchewan or Eastern Canada to Vancouver Island through Anacortes, Seattle or Port Angeles. 28 This l a s t number i s close to the one computed i n the f i r s t approach: -26,129 by the f i r s t method -33,8l8 by the second method Nevertheless, the second approach, based only on direct count and on 1969 data w i l l be retained. Two questions remain: how many campers are among those t o u r i s t s and what i s t h e i r average length of stay? For the f i r s t question, the percentage of Canadian v i s i t o r s who are camping has already been computed. I t i s 36$. Thus, 36$ of these 33,8l8 Canadian v i s i t o r s are w i l l i n g to camp. That i s to say, i n t h i s case 12,174 vehicles are di s t r i b u t e d as follows: Nanaimo 5,869 Swartz Bay 6,305 The second question relates to the length of stay of the Canadian v i s i t o r s . This matter i s rather d i f f i c u l t to deal with since the Canadian v i s i t o r s to Vancouver Island spend some nights i n B r i t i s h Columbia on t h e i r way to and from Vancouver Island. I f studies l i k e V i s i t o r s '63 deal with the length of stay of Canadian v i s i t o r s i n B r i t i s h Columbia, they do not deal with the length of stay on Vancouver Island i t s e l f . 8 In V i s i t o r s '63 i t has been stated that the United States and the Canadian v i s i t o r s altogether including those who do not stay overnight in B r i t i s h Columbia,- spent an average of 4.5 nights i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The United States v i s i t o r s i n B r i t i s h Columbia including those not staying overnight spent an average of 2.63 nights i n B r i t i s h Columbia i n 1967..9 As both the t o t a l number of United States and Canadian v i s i t o r s i n 1966 are known, the following equation can be set up to f i n d out z, the average number of nights spent i n B r i t i s h Columbia by the Canadian v i s i t o r s : 2,905,695 x 2.63 + l,936,973z = 4,842,670 x 4.5 which yields z = 7.3 nights This r a t i o w i l l be applied to Canadian v i s i t o r s entering Vancouver Island although these v i s i t o r s must also have spent two nights i n B r i t i s h Columbia out of Vancouver Island on t h e i r way to and from Vancouver Island. The reason for which t h i s number of nights i s not reduced by two nights for these people i s that, i f they come as far as Vancouver Island, they are probably on a vacation t r i p of over a week and I b i d , p. 44. DBS Catalogue No. 66-201 Annual, 1967, op. c i t . , p. 49. 30 therefore in the highest range in terms of length of stay in British Columbia. For those visitors, the average figure 7.3 nights is certainly below the real one. Consequently, the number of campnights spent on Vancouver Island by the 12,174 Canadian visitors willing to camp on Vancouver Island in 1969 i s : Nanaimo 5,869 x 7.3 = 41,844 camping-vehicle-nights Sidney-Swartz Bay 6,305 x 7.3 - 46,026 camping-vehicle-nights TOTAL 88,870 camping-vehicle-nights SUMMARY Figure II summarizes the number of camping-vehicle-nights spent on Vancouver Island during the months of June, July and August 1969 by the American and the Canadian visitors per port of entry onto Vancouver Island. Nanaimo 63,702 camping-vehicle-nights Sidney 93,657 camping-vehicle-nights Victoria 35,386 camping-vehicle-nights The next step concerning the out-of-British Columbia population camping on Vancouver Island w i l l be to spread i t over Vancouver Island according to a function inversely proportional to the distance from the point of arrival on Vancouver Island. F I G U R E I I CAMPING-VEHICLE-NIGHTS SPENT ON VANCOUVER ISLRND BY OUT-OF-BRITISH COLUMBIA CAMPERS DURING THE SUMMER 1969 PER PORT OF ENTRY Mainland to Vancouver Island Ferry Routes J. BRITISH C O L U M B I A F E R R Y S Y S T E M 2. C A N A D I A N PACIFIC STEAMSHIPS 3. BRITISH C O L U M B I A D E P A R T M E N T O F H I G H W A Y S 4. W A S H I N G T O N S T A T E FERRIES 3. B L A C K B A L L T R A N S P O R T Superintendent of Ferries, Department of Highways, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, British Columbia. 32 CHAPTER III MAINLAND BRITISH COLUMBIA CAMPERS CAMPING ON VANCOUVER ISLAND This part of the study involves two specific steps. The fi r s t consists of deriving the number of camping-nights spent by this population during the months of June, July and August. The year of reference will be 1966 since the last census count for British Columbia has been made for that year. The second consists of distributing geographically this camping population in order to obtain the percentage of i t going to Vancouver Island. NUMBER OF CAMPERS GENERATED BY MAINLAND BRITISH COLUMBIA POPULATION The number of camping-nights generated by the population of mainland British Columbia is calculated by means of a ratio giving the average number of camping-nights spent per person. Thus, this ratio, applied to the overall population, allows prediction of the potential number of camping-nights this population will spend. 33 The province of B r i t i s h Columbia has not conducted any study providing t h i s information, for any recreation a c t i v i t y at a l l , therefore, the only alternative i s to borrow t h i s r a t i o from the United States. The o v e r a l l population of the United States camped 0.86 day per person during 1960-1961 and 0.46 day per person during the months of June, J u l y and August I960; therefore, 53$ of the camping-nights 1 were spent during summer time. The population of the Western States of United States camped 2.00 days per person during I96O-I96I and 1.05 days per person during the months of June, July and August I960; therefore, 52$ of the camping-2 nights were spent during summer time. Closer to B r i t i s h Columbia, the same r a t i o has been computed for the Puget Sound Region i n the State of Washington. This has been done through a household survey representative of 1,512,929 persons l i v i n g i n the Puget Sound Region. The 600 households sampled were c a r e f u l l y selected to be representative of the population of t h i s region. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, National Recreation  Survey, O.R.R.R.C., Study Report 19, Washington: Government Pr i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1962, p. 31. 2 I b i d . 3 Northwood L.K., Robert K. Leik and Robert Reid, Outdoor Recreation i n the Puget Sound Region, 1963, A Research Report, Seattle: Puget -Sound Governmental Conference, 1964, pp. 6, 16 and 80. 3 4 This population camped 4.62 days per person during the year , 4 ending September 1963. „A breakdown by a c t i v i t y and by season has been made in t h i s study. I t appeared that 62$ of camping was made during June, Ju l y and August. Therefore, i t can be assumed that the population of Puget Sound Region spent 2.86 camping nights per person during the summer of 1963. Table I summarizes the days of p a r t i c i p a t i o n per person during the year and during summer time i n the different regions of the United States, and shows the estimation made from those figures 5 by the Lower Mainland Region Planning Board i n i t s parks plan study. The percentage of the camping-nights spent per person during the summer months i n B r i t i s h Columbia l i e s probably somewhere between 50$ and 60$. As i t has been shown, i t i s : - 53$ for the United States during June, Ju l y and August. - 52$ for the western United States during June, July and August. - 62$ for the Puget Sound Region during J u l y , August and September. H I b i d -^A Regional Parks Plan for the Lower Mainland Region, Vancouver, Fraser Park D i s t r i c t , 1966, p. 63. 35 TABLE I PARTICIPATION DAYS IN CAMPING IN NORTH AMERICA REGION ANNUAL JUNE JULY PERCENT DONE IN AUGUST JUNE JULY AUGUST United States 0.86 0.46 53 Western United States 2.00 1.05 52 Puget Sound Region 4.62 2.86 62 Lower Mainland Region 3.30 1.816 557 Estimates from the Lower Mainland Region Planning Board, I b i d . A r b i t r a r y estimate from the previous figures. From these r e s u l t s , i t i s very l i k e l y that the percentage .of camping done by the B r i t i s h Columbia population during the months of June, J u l y and August should not be far from 55$, and t h i s number w i l l be a r b i t r a r i l y retained for the p r o v i n c i a l population. As to the p a r t i c i p a t i o n rate i n camping during summer, the estimates of the Lower Mainland Planning Board w i l l be r e l i e d upon for the Lower Mainland Region, that i s to say, 1.8l. The population to which t h i s r a t i o w i l l be applied i s not exactly that of the Lower Mainland Region, but that of the fourth census d i v i s i o n shown i n Figure I I I . I t includes the Lower Mainland Region plus the Hope area to the East and Squamish to the North. The reason for t h i s i s that the screens of a 1966 t r a v e l survey which w i l l be used l a t e r for the geographical d i s t r i b u t i o n of the B r i t i s h Columbia t o u r i s t s are very close to the fourth census 8 d i v i s i o n . This fourth census d i v i s i o n population was of 1,021,791 9 people i n 1966 versus 1,005,824 people i n the Lower Mainland Region i n 1966. Application of a r a t i o of 1.8l for the number of camp-nights spent per person during the months of June, July and August yie l d s 1,849,442 camping-nights generated by the Lower Mainland Region. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , 1966 Census of Canada, Population  Divisions and Subdivisions, Western Provinces, Catalogue No. 92-606, Volume 1, June 1967, pp. 60-62. 9 Lower Mainland Region Planning Board, Population Trends i n the Lower  Mainland, 1921-1986, Technical Report, 1968, p. 17. FIGURE III CENSUS DIVISION NO 4 OF BRITISH COLUMBIA DEPORTMENT Of LflNOS. FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES. VICTORIA BC. CORRECTED TO 1957 38 For the remainder of British Columbia population including Vancouver Island, the participation rates summarized in Table I can be interpreted in the following manner. The two last participation rates in camping, 4.62 and 3.30, are high and about double the others, 0.86 and 2.00, and both 4.62 and 3.30 apply to urbanized areas. Therefore, i t is possible that an urbanized population has a higher propensity to go camping than a non-urbanized population. Besides, the two first figures, 0.86 and 2.00, show a distinct higher propensity to go camping in the Western States than in the Eastern States in North America. Consequently, It is proposed to apply to the population of British Columbia other than the Lower Mainland Region since i t is a western population and not highly urbanized, the ratio for the western United States, 2.00 for the whole year. A percentage of 55$ of this yearly ratio yields a summer ratio of 1.10. The mainland British Columbia had a total population of 1,539,683 in 1966 and the 10 mainland other than the Lower Mainland Region a population of 517,892. From the participation rate of 1.10 day per person, the number of camping-nights spent by this population can be estimated at 569,681. Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 1966 Census of Canada Population,  Divisions and Subdivisions, Western Provinces, op. cit., pp. 60-62 ....... ~ . • 39 Summarizing, the mainland B r i t i s h Columbia population generates the following number of camping-nights: - fourth census d i v i s i o n (Lower Mainland) 1,849,422 - remainder 1 5^ 9,681 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE CAMPERS GENERATED BY MAINLAND BRITISH COLUMBIA In 1966 the B r i t i s h Columbia Travel Bureau undertook a Study of Automobile Travel i n B r i t i s h Columbia for the months of July and 11 August. The basic purposes of t h i s study were: (1) To determine how.many v i s i t s are made between defined t o u r i s t regions within the province during the months of J u l y and August. (2) To determine the numbers of out-of-province vehicles - v i s i t i n g the province and each t o u r i s t region, by state or province of o r i g i n . (3) To determine for each of a number of highway points^ the percentage of vehicles having one, two, three, four, etc., axles. Regional Marketing Surveys Ltd.,prepared for James Lovick Ltd., on behalf of B r i t i s h Columbia Travel Bureau, A Study of Automobile Travel  ~ i n B r i t i s h Columbia, unpublished report, Vancouver, December 1966. 4o ( 4 ) To determine the extent of use of campers and t r a i l e r s . (5) To provide base data from the above for more accurate •narketlng .„a researching t o u r i ^ . 1 2 '. As l i m i t a t i o n to the study, the counts have been made between 8 : 0 0 a.m. and 8 :00 p.m., the sampling was admitted to be on a lim i t e d basis and estimates of t o t a l t r a f f i c were based on past trends. Nevertheless, t h i s study i s the only one allowing for a d i s t r i b u t i o n of t o u r i s t s between regions of B r i t i s h Columbia and i s relevant for geographic d i s t r i b u t i o n i n spite of i t s weak points. 1 - Camping-nights generated by the population of the fourth census d i v i s i o n . Most of t h i s population i s located i n Vancouver and i n the municipalities surrounding Vancouver. To leave the fourth census d i v i s i o n , which extends as far as Squamish, Hope and the United States border, the campers have to t r a v e l for one hour or more. Within t h i s d r i v i n g time they can already f i n d camping f a c i l i t i e s such as Cultus Lake, Garibaldi or A l i c e Lake campgrounds. The people using these f a c i l i t i e s are not screened by the study of automobile t r a v e l i n B r i t i s h Columbia. StaHard G. Master's t h e s i s , The Projection of Tourism; A Case  Study of B r i t i s h Columbia, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, January 1968, p. 43-44. 41 To take them into account i t can be assumed that the behaviour of the Lower Mainland Region campers i s the same as that of the campers of the Puget Sound Region of whom 10$ camp within one hour 13 t r a v e l time from t h e i r home. Therefore the percentage of people going out of the fourth census d i v i s i o n , which can be computed from the Study of Automobile Travel i n B r i t i s h Columbia , accounts only for 90$ as far as the campers are concerned. 15 These percentages dealing with vehicles are: 6.8$ going to Vancouver Island 61.9$ going to the rest of B r i t i s h Columbia 3.9$ going to the other provinces of Canada .17.4$ going to the United States and as mentioned, 10.0$ staying i n the fourth census d i v i s i o n . The above percentages are for the o v e r a l l t r a v e l population during the months of Jul y and August, and i t must be determined whether or not the camper population i s di s t r i b u t e d geographically i n the same way as i s the o v e r a l l population. This might be s p e c i a l l y questionable as far as people going to the United States from Vancouver are concerned. ^Outdoor Recreation i n the Puget Sound Region, 1963, op.cit., pp. 113-115. '^Study of Automobile Travel i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 1966, op.cit., p. 9, Table I . 1 5 I b i d . On the one hand, the Dominion Bureau.of S t a t i s t i c s recorded during the months of June, Ju l y and August 1966, 65,886 Canadian resident non-commercial vehicles returning to the' Lower Mainland Region through the border ports of the fourth census d i v i s i o n after having spent one or more nights i n the United States. The average length of stay of B r i t i s h Columbia vehicles staying one or more nights i n the United States was 6.5 nights i n 17 1966. I t has also been seen that among the v i s i t o r s to B r i t i s h Columbia, 29$ were camping. Applying those figures to the 65,886 Lower Mainland Region residents, non-commercial vehicles spending one or more nights i n the United States, t h i s yields 124,195 camping-vehicle-nights. On the other hand, the number of campers going to the United States from the fourth census d i v i s i o n , i f i t i s admitted that camping and tourism d i s t r i b u t e the same way, represents 17.4$ of the 1,849,422 camping-nights that i s to say 560,431 camping-nights. V i s i t o r s '63 calculated that the v i s i t o r s to B r i t i s h Columbia were 18 t r a v e l l i n g by average parties of 3.3. Using t h i s figure leads to a number of camping-vehicle-nights of 97,515. 'D.B.S. Catalogue No. 66-001, Monthly 1966, op. c i t . , p. 16. D.B.S. Catalogue No. 66-201, Annual 1966, op. c i t . , p. 75. V i s i t o r s '63, op. c i t . , pp. 34-35. 43 This tends to show that the 17.4$ would be too low a percentage. Nevertheless the difference of camping-vehicle-nights not being important when computed by the two methods, this percentage will be accepted. Another source of error in the application of these percentages to the study is that they do not include the month of June the pattern for which might be different. Nevertheless, far less travel is done in June than in August or July and any distortion of the month of June should not show too much in percentages taking the three months into account. Thus, 6.8$ of the 1,849,422 camping-nights based in the fourth census division are expected to be spent on Vancouver Island. The counts show that 55$ took the Tsawwassen-Swartz Bay ferry and 45$ the Horseshoe Bay-Nanaimo ferry. This entails 69,168 camping-nights at Swartz Bay and 56,592 camping-nights at Nanaimo from the fourth census division to Vancouver Island. 2 - Camping-nights generated from the population of mainland British Columbia other than the fourth census division. This part of British Columbia has been divided into seven sub-regions in the Study of Automobile Travel in British Columbia. This means that each region is relatively small and its inhabitants should not need, on the average, more than one hour travel time to cross the boundary. . 44 Therefore, i t can be assumed that 10$ of the camping i s done within each of the seven regions and that the counts of the Study of  Automobile Travel i n B r i t i s h Columbia account only for 90$ of the camping (referring again to the study on Outdoor Recreation i n the  Puget Sound Region, which shows that 10$ of the camping i s done within one hour t r a v e l time from home). Thus, adding up the counts for the seven subregions of B r i t i s h Columbia mainland, i t can be calculated that 1.1$ went to Vancouver Island. 73.6$ went to the rest of B r i t i s h Columbia. 7.5$ went to other provinces of Canada. 7.7$ went to the United States, and as mentioned 10.0$ stayed i n t h e i r own subregion for camping. Thus, 1.1$ of the 569,681 camping-nights based In B r i t i s h Columbia mainland other than the Lower.Mainland Region are expected to be spent on Vancouver Island. Here again the proportions taking the f e r r i e s to Swartz Bay and Nanaimo are 55$ and 45$. This yi e l d s 3,446 camping-nights at Swartz Bay and 3,820 camping-nights at Nanaimo from B r i t i s h Columbia mainland except Lower Mainland to Vancouver Island. Using an average of British Columbia visitors number of camping-vehicle Columbia (Figure IV): Nanaimo Sidney-Swartz Bay 3.3 persons per vehicle, based on the 19 survey in 1963 , this yields the following •nights generated by mainland British 18,004 camping-vehicle-nights 22,003 camping-vehicle-nights ^Visitors '63, Ibid., pp. 3 4 - 3 5 . F I G U R E I V CRMP1NG-VEHICLE-NIGHTS SPENT ON VANCOUVER ISLRND BY MfllNLRND BRITISH COLUMBIA CRMPERS DURING THE SUMMER 1969 PER PORT OF ENTRY CHAPTER IV VANCOUVER ISLAND BASED CAMPERS CAMPING ON VANCOUVER ISLAND As suggested in the methodology, the population of Vancouver Island, 333,951 people in 1966 , will be concentrated into four points of Vancouver Island, its camping population wi l l then be computed and distributed geographically over Vancouver Island. CONCENTRATION OF THE POPULATION INTO FOUR POINTS OF VANCOUVER ISLAND Figure V shows the population of Vancouver Island according to the six census divisions 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e and 5f. The geographic distribution of the population by census 2 division and a look at the population of the major cities and towns suggests the regrouping shown in Figure VT. *DBS 1 9 6 6 Census of Canada, Catalogue No. 9 2 - 6 o 6 , Vol. 1, op. c i t . , p 2Ibid. FIGURE V CENSUS DIVISION NO 5 - 1966 POPULATION FIGURE VI THEORETICAL POPULATION CENTRES CAMPBELL RIVER 35628 A BLOCK CREEK ( <M)LRDYSMITH DUNCAN) VANCOUVER ISLAND SCALE OF MILES 0.0 32.0 64.0 _J 1 8 2 5 6 L T ICTORIA 50 1- Regrouping in Victoria of 5a census subdivision. Victoria, Saaraish, Esquimault and Oak Bay, a l l grouped within 10 miles from Victoria represent 80$ and this metropole area seems more or less at the center of gravity of 5e census division. 2- Regrouping in Ladysmith of 5b and 5c census subdivisions. Ladysmith is right in the middle of the coastal populated fringe expanding from Nanaimo to Duncan and containing: Nanaimo 15,188 people Ladysmith 3,410 people North Cowichan " 10,384 people Duncan 4,299 people TOTAL . . 33,281 people that is to say 44$ of the two subdivisions together. Besides, Ladysmith is also in the middle of the two equally populated districts. 3- Regrouping in Port Alberni of 5d census subdivision. Port Alberni and Alberni are very close to each other and represent 64$ of the population of their subdivision. 4- Regrouping in Black Creek of 5e census subdivision. Black Creek is in between Campbell River and Courtenay-Comox-Cumberland along the coastal populated fringe. Those four localities represent 47$ of the population of the subdivision. Census subdivision 5 f, not being connected by road with the rest of Vancouver island, and therefore, not generating any camping on Vancouver Island, has been disregarded. NUMBER OP CAMPERS GENERATED BY THIS POPULATION The participation rate in camping applying to the Vancouver Island population has already been discussed in Chapter III. The camping-nights spent during the months of June, July and August wi l l be 1.10 per person. Applying this rate to the population grouped as shown on Figure VI, one gets the number of camping-nights spent during the summer months by this population: Victoria 200,816 camping-nights Ladysmith 8 2 , 9 8 7 camping-nights Port Alberni 31,868 camping-nights Black Creek 3 9 , 1 9 1 camping-nights Therefore, the number of camping-nights In terms of vehicle-nights generated by the population of Vancouver Island, assuming 3 . 3 persons per vehicle as previously stated are (Figure VII) Victoria 6 0 , 8 5 3 vehicle-nights Ladysmith 25,147 vehicle-nights Port Alberni 9,657 vehicle-nights Black Creek 11,876 vehicle-nights F I G U R E V I I CAMPING-VEHICLE-NIGHTS GENERATED BY THE 4 POPULATION CENTRES DURING THE SUMMER 60853 VICTORIA GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF CAMPERS BASED ON VANCOUVER ISLAND The geographic d i s t r i b u t i o n of camping t r i p s from home i s dif f e r e n t from that of the whole outdoor recreation t r i p s and outings. There have been two studies made i n the Western United States which have dealt with the geographic d i s t r i b u t i o n of t r i p s and outings for outdoor recreation. The f i r s t was for the C a l i f o r n i a state-wide 3 recreation study by the Standford Research I n s t i t u t e i n 1965. The d i s t r i b u t i o n was based on observed t r a v e l patterns of Ca l i f o r n i a r e c r e a t i o n i s t s . The i n s t i t u t e estimated that the relationship between t r a v e l time and recreation p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s as follows: One way t r a v e l time Percent t o t a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n 0 to 1 hour 50.7$ 1 to 2 hours 17.7$ 2 to 3 hours 10.0$ 3 to 4 hours 6.8$ 4 to 5 hours 5.2$ 5 to 6 hours 4.2$ more than 6 hours 5.1$ This relationship i s shown graphically i n Figure VTII. J S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a , Department of Parks and Recreation, Resources Agency, Outdoor Recreation Outlook to 1980, Monograph No. 2, Parks and Recreation Information System, "Paris", 1968, pp. 16-19. F I G U R E V I I I DISTRIBUTION OF CAMPERS ACCORDING TO ONE WAY TRAVEL TIME W 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 °- TRAVEL TIME (HOURS) _f 1 ~I 1 ~ 1 1 1 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 TRAVEL TIME (HOURS) DISTRIBUTION OF OVERFILL OUTDOOR RECREATION TRIPS ACCORDING TO ONE WHY TRAVEL TIME " T 1 1 1 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 TRAVEL TIME (HOURS) •• 55 In the same California recreation study, the geographic distribution of camping participation was determined by the staff of the Department of Parks and Recreation after analysis of data from the United States Bureau of the Census and various department records. This analysis shows the following relationship between the percentage of camping participation and the amount of one-way travel time involved: One-way travel time Percent camping participation 0 to 1 hour 13.8$ 1 to 2 hours 32.7$ 2 to 3 hours 24.3$ 3 to 4 hours 12.3$ more than 4 hours 17.8$ illustrated in Figure VIII. 4 The second study has been done for the Puget Sound Region. An analysis of the tables produced in this study allows for the computation of the relationship between travel time and camping participation. The result Is as follows: 4 Outdoor Recreation in the Puget Sound Region, 1963, op. cit., pp. 23-24, pp. 113-115. 56 One-way travel time Percent camping participation 0 to 1 hour 10.0$ 1 to 2 hours 20.0$ 2 to 3 hours 20.6$ 3 to 4 hours 15.0$ 4 to 5 hours 9.4$ 5 to 10 hours 12.0$ more than 10 hours 13.0$ also illu s t r a t e d in the same Figure VIII. The three graphs in Figure VIII show that, while the geographic distribution of the whole outdoor recreation outings and trips i s a function in the order of "the closer the f a c i l i t y the more participants i t gets", the geographic distribution of the camping population shows a growing attractiveness as distance increases up to two to three hours drive and, from three hours and up, the attractiveness decreases as distance increases. Campers presumably desire to get away from home before enjoying their a c t i v i t y while for recreationists interested in other outdoor a c t i v i t i e s the closer the s i t e , the seemingly more desirable i t i s . If the two camping distributions in the Puget Sound Region and in California are now compared, i t can be seen that there i s a propensity of campers from the northern region to go camping further away from home than campers from the southern region. It would be 57 tempting to attribute this difference in behaviour to the northerner's quest of warraness and sun. The amount of sunshine certainly contributes to the enjoyment of camping. Because of geographic location, the behavioural pattern of Vancouver Island based campers presumably resembles that of the Puget Sound Region rather than that of the Californians, and the Puget Sound pattern w i l l be retained for the campers of Vancouver Island. It w i l l be assumed that the average travel speed on Vancouver Island i s 40 miles per hour. This w i l l permit the isochronous travel time lines to be drawn for each fraction of an hour from each of the four theoretical population centers of Vancouver Island and w i l l permit allocation of the camping-nights spent within each of these zones. There i s no need to figure out more than two isochronous lines, the one before the chosen site and the one beyond the chosen s i t e , since only the camping-nights that can be attracted by the chosen recreational site are relevant to the study. Thus, the case site located close to Ladysmith, in Cassidy i s within: 1 and 2 hours travel time from Victoria 0 and 1 hour travel time from Ladysmith 1 and 2 hours travel time from Port Alberni 2 and 3 hours travel time from Black Creek, as shown in Figures IX and X. FIGURE IX TRAVEL TIME ZONES TO CflSSIDY CAMPGROUND FROM* BLRCK CREEK (2 TO 3 HRS) i LRDYSMITH (0 TO 1 HR) FIGURE X TRAVEL TIME ZONES TO CflSSIDY CAMPGROUND FROM: PORT ALBERNI U TO 2 HRS) *- VICTORIA 11 TO 2 HRS) 60 This r e s u l t , combined with the geographic d i s t r i b u t i o n pattern previously decided upon i n Figure V I I I for the camping population of Vancouver Island, indicates that: 20$ of the 60,853 camping-vehicle-nights ori g i n a t i n g from V i c t o r i a , 10$ of the 25,14-7 camping-vehicle-nights ori g i n a t i n g from Ladysmith, 20$ of the 9,657 camping-vehicle-nights originating from Port Alberni, 20.5$ of the 11,876 camping-vehicle-nights ori g i n a t i n g from Black Creek, can be considered as p o t e n t i a l demand for the Cassidy campground during the months of June, J u l y and August 1966 from the Vancouver 5 Island campers. That i s to say: 12,170 camping-vehicle-nights from V i c t o r i a 2,515 camping-vehicle-nights from Ladysmith 1,931 camping-vehicle-nights from Port Alberni 2,996 camping-vehicle-nights from Black Creek An inventory of the e x i s t i n g supply i n each of the t r a v e l time zones which include the chosen s i t e , i s the l a s t step which has s t i l l to be done to assess the demand for the Cassidy campgrounds as f a r as the campers of Vancouver Island are concerned. 5lt can be observed that within the t r a v e l time involved above, the campers from the four d i f f e r e n t o r i g i n s do not have the time to go out of Vancouver Island, so that no "evasion" has had to be considered. 61 CHAPTER V GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION ON VANCOUVER ISLAND OP OUT-OF-VANCOUVER ISLAND CAMPERS In Chapters I I and I I I , the out-of-Vancouver Island based campers coming to Vancouver Island were 'evaluated as to t h e i r port of a r r i v a l on Vancouver Island. There were from out of B r i t i s h Columbia: - 63,702 vehicle-nights at Nanaimo - 35,386 vehicle-nights at V i c t o r i a - 93,657 vehicle-nights at Sidney and from mainland B r i t i s h Columbia: - 18,004 vehicle-nights at Nanaimo - 22,003 vehicle-nights at Sidney Altogether, the out-of-Vancouver Island camping demand to be dis t r i b u t e d over Vancouver Island i s : - 81,706 vehicle-nights from Nanaimo - 35,386 vehicle-nights from V i c t o r i a -115,650 vehicle-nights from Sidney SEARCH FOR DISTRIBUTION MODELS Those campers are already away from home once they are on Vancouver Island, that i s to say, on the decreasing part of the curve relating percent participation In camping to travel time (Figure VIII). From this observation i t w i l l be assumed that the distribution of those campers over Vancouver Island Is a function inversely proportional to a certain power of travel time - distance. In equation form, this would be written: P = K/D* (1) where P stands for percent participation in camping, D for the travel time-distance, x for a certain power of travel time-distance and K for a constant. Such an equation produces values smaller and smaller as distanc increases, but never reaches the value zero. In the particular case study, a l l the participation must be accounted for within a limited driving distance from Nanaimo, Victoria or Sidney. A l l campers from Nanaimo w i l l be accommodated within 4.0 hours drive and a l l campers from Victoria and Sidney w i l l be accommodated within 6.0 hours drive since there is no destination further than this driving time. In other words, D varies from 0 to 4 or 6 instead of from 0 to i n f i n i t y . Thus, the curves generated by this equation in the general case, where an infinite driving time is theoretically possible and in the case of Vancouver Island have only their general shape in common. The difference will be that, in the general case where infinite driving time is theoretically possible, the first 4 or 5 hours wil l collect only a certain proportion of the campers, while In the case study where only 4 and 6 hours driving time are possible, these 4 or 6 hours driving time have to collect a l l of the campers. Therefore, for each hour, the values of the participation rate in camping will be higher in the case study than in the general model where no driving time limitation exists. This special condition of limited driving distance can be represented by the following equation: K/1X +- K/2X K/3X-f- K/4X =1 (2) for people arriving at Nanaimo and K/1X + K/2X +• K/3X - h K/4X - f K/5X -f- K/o* = 1 (2) for people arriving at Sidney or Victoria. This means that the percent participation in camping within 0 and 1 hour, up to 3 to 4 hours or 5 to 6 hours must add up to a 100$. Equation (2), for given values of x determine the value of K. . 1 Using the computer, 10 values of x were tried. The curves Values of x ranging from 0.5 to 4 were decided upon the knowledge of classical model of this type, the x value of which ranges between 1 and 2. 64 corresponding to the f i r s t f i v e : x = 0.5, 2/3, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 are displayed i n Figures XI and X I I . The problem i s now: how to choose among those f i v e models. Two approaches can be made. TESTING THE MODELS WITH EXISTING DATA " The outdoor recreation t r i p s and outings follow the same type of law, where p a r t i c i p a t i o n decreases as distance increases. > The Californians behaviour i n that respect shows i n Figure V I I I that 50$ of the p a r t i c i p a t i o n occurs within.the f i r s t hour driv e , 18$ within the second hour and 10$ within the t h i r d , while the Puget Sound Region outdoor r e c r e a t i o n i s t s ' behaviour shows a lower f i r s t hour percentage and a higher second hour percentage: 35$ within the ^ 2 f i r s t and 22$ within the second. Bearing i n mind that each of these values have to be raised i n order to be compared with the computed , 1 .5 values, the Californians behaviour f i t very w e l l the models P = K/D for D = 1 to 6 hours which yie l d s 55$ for the f i r s t hour, 19$ f o r the second and 11$ for the t h i r d hour. On the contrary the Puget Sound data for the whole range of outdoor recreation a c t i v i t i e s f i t f a i r l y w e l l the model P = K/D0*5 for D = 1 to 4 hours which yie l d s 39$ for the f i r s t hour and 22$ for the second. Outdoor Recreation i n the Puget Sound Region, 1963, op. c i t . , p. 24. FIGURE XI jr. MODELS DISTRIBUTING CAMPERS ACCORDING TO ONE WAY TRAVEL TIME FIGURE XII MODELS DISTRIBUTING CAMPERS ACCORDING TO ONE WAY TRAVEL TIME 67 These results are a mere indication that the answer lies probably somewhere between the two values of x, 2/3 and 3/2. COMPARISON WITH CLASSIC MODELS In order to decide which model would best simulate camping behaviour, the following study can be looked at: Measuring National 3 Park Attractiveness. This study is an attempt to uncover the connection between park values and park popularity. The major variable which has been taken into account is park location (distance from the centres of population). It is noted in the study that a higher proportion of the people residing nearby visit a park in a given time period and a lesser proportion of those living further away from i t visit i t during that time. This observation suggested to the author that the rate of visitation should be of the form: x c P » K/D where P stands for the rate of visitation, D for the distance from population centres and K for the attractiveness of the park. The authors tried two values of x: 1-x = 1.0, using "George K. Zipf's P^ xPg/D formula for inter-city migration, which says that the amount of interaction between any Measuring National Park Attractiveness, William R. Catton, Institute for Sociological Research, University of Washington, 1966. 68 pair of human aggregates wil l tend to be proportional to the product of their population divided by the distance between themn. This is known as a "gravitational" model, insofar as P for population is analoguous to M for mass. This model tried out by Catton on 1940 data (rates of visitation at 12 parks in 19^0) accounted for 68.7$ of the variance. 2-x = 3/2, using "Kepler's third law of planetary motion which in turn follows from Newton's law of gravity", that Is to say, P = K / D 3 , 2 . This model tried out on the same 1940 data accounted for 91.8$ of the variance. While here, parks visitors is the unit that Catton tried to predict from their travel time distance from the park to their home state, in the case study, the amount of camping done is the unit one tries to predict from travel time from the ferry arrival point on Vancouver Island where the campers are i n i t i a l l y concentrated to the campgrounds. Both cases are analogous to the extent that they are dealing with the geographic distribution of masses of people from a point of concentration to a given destination. In the case of this thesis, the analogy stops where the attractiveness of the park 0 Is concerned. It wil l be assumed that the attractiveness of each campground does not influence the distribution of campers. 69 To take the attractiveness of each campground into account would lead to a rather cumbersome situation with as many distortions In the model as campgrounds. Instead of having a smooth curve decreasing as distance increases, the new curve would be of the general shape but with small peaks and troughs caused by the relative attractions of given campgrounds at given travel time distances. In that case, one would better apply the Intervening opportunity model which is designed to take this aspect into account. This latter model faces the limitation, however, of an x-value confined to unity. SELECTION AND USE OF TWO MODELS ". The practical approach for the curves P = K/Dx by calibration with Puget Sound and California data as outdoor recreation behaviour, suggested a value of x of 0.5 for the four hours drive model and of 1.5 for the six hours drive model. The Catton study favors x = 1.5 without rejecting x • 1.0 since the formula with 1.5 accounts for 91.8$ of the variance versus 68.7$ for x = 1.0. Therefore, x • 1.5 will be retained for Victoria and Sidney (6 hours drive model) and those campers distributed according to the curve P = K/D1*5 and x = 1.0 wi l l be retained for Nanaimo (4 hours drive model) and those campers distributed according to the curve -P = K/D 70 I f D v a r i e s from 1.0 to 6.0 hours, which i s the case f o r people a r r i v i n g at S idney or V i c t o r i a , the percent camping p a r t i c i p a t i o n by t r a v e l time i s : 55$ camping w i t h i n 0 and 1 hour 19$ camping w i th in 1 and 2 hours 11$ camping w i th in 2 and 3 hours ' 7$ camping w i th in 3 and 4 hours ' 5$ camping w i th in 4 and 5 hours 4$ camping w i th in 5 and 6 hours I f D ,var ies from 1.0 t o 4.0 hours," which i s the case f o r people a r r i v i n g at Nanaimo, the camping p a r t i c i p a t i o n by t r a v e l time i s : 48$ camping w i th in 0 and 1 hour '24$ camping w i th in 1 and 2 hours 16$ camping w i th in 2 and 3 hours . 12$ camping w i th in 3 and 4 hours The two curves are shown i n red i n F igures XI and X I I . These two, curves are app l i ed to campers going to Vancouver I s land from Nanaimo, V i c t o r i a and S idney. Cass idy i s w i th in one hour d r i ve from Nanaimo t h e r e f o r e , the f i r s t t r a v e l time zone i n c l u d i n g Cass idy w i l l have to accommodate 0.48 x 81,706 = 39,219 camping-vehic le-n ights from Nanaimo. 71 From V i c t o r i a and Sidney, two hours drive are necessary to reach Cassidy, thus the 1 to 2 hours t r a v e l time zone w i l l have to accommodate 0.19 x 35,386 - 6,723 camping-vehicle-nights from V i c t o r i a and 0.19 x 115,650 = 21,973 camping-vehicle-nights from Sidney. Those three t r a v e l time zones including Cassidy from Nanaimo, V i c t o r i a and Sidney are displayed i n Figure X I I I . FIGURE XIII TRAVEL TIME ZONES TO CRSSIOY CAMPGROUND FROM- VICTORIA (1 TO 2 HRS) s NRNAIMO (0 TO 1 HR) i SIDNEY U TO 2 HRS) CHAPTER VI ASSESSMENT OF THE SUPPLY In the two previous chapters, the demand for campsites has been distributed over Vancouver Island and each time a travel time zone of one hour did not include the Cassidy campground It was dis-carded. Conversely, each time a travel time zone included Cassidy campground It was retained. f Within the travel time zones retained, public and private campgrounds exist and can accommodate part or a l l of the present corresponding demand. One has to look at the present summer capacity of the existing campgrounds within the travel time zones retained to be able to assess a shortage or an excess of facilities competing directly with Cassidy campground. AVERAGE SUMMER CAPACITY OF EXISTING CAMPSITES Experience has shown that demand fluctuates through time and i t would not be reasonable to assume that the carrying capacity of one campsite during June, July and August is 90 vehicle-camping-nights. This would be disregarding the peak nature of demand. A questionnaire survey sent out to the 7 9 private campground operators of Vancouver Island listed in the British Columbia Tourist 1 2 Directory of 1 9 6 9 received 3 9 responses. From this survey, i t appears that most of the operators had their campgrounds used at 8.5$ of f u l l capacity during the months of May and June, at 3 6 . 8 $ of f u l l capacity during July and at 3 7 . 1 $ of f u l l capacity during August. This does not mean that their campgrounds were never f u l l but rather that the weekly and seasonal fluctuation does not allow for a use of private campground exceeding around 3 1 $ of the f u l l capacity during the entire summer months period under the present pattern of demand. As far as public campgrounds are concerned, yearly attendance figures and capacity figures per campground for 1 9 6 9 were obtained from the Parks Branch Department, Government of British Columbia. Assuming as previously, that 5 5 $ of camping was done during June, July and August those statistics lead to a summer use of 46.3$ of the f u l l capacity. , -British Columbia Tourist Directory, 1 9 6 9 , Government of British Columbia Department of Travel Industry, pp. 1 7 - 3 6 . James D. Anderson, Government Policy Towards Private Recreation  Enterprises, M.A. thesis, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, 1 9 7 0 . Effectively, in 1969, 1,212 public campsites accommodated 370,000 campers by party of four. Since 55$ of the camping is under-taken during the summer, this means that 55$ of 370,000/4 parties or vehicles were accommodated in 1,212 campsites during the 90 summer days. In other words, 50,375 vehicles used a f u l l capacity of 90 x 1,212 = 109,080 campsites. This leads to an usage coefficient of 50,575/109,080 - 46.3$ throughout the summer. This capacity is higher than that of the private campgrounds, which can be explained by a lower price in public campgrounds and also by the fact that a public campground is usually surrounded by a better natural and recreational environment for the outdoor recreationist. r NUMBER OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC CAMPSITES Knowing the percentage of the capacity at which private and public campgrounds are operated, the knowledge of the number of camp-grounds and campsites will indicate the capacity of the existing supply during the summer months. Figures regarding the public capacity can be found in un-published annual statistics produced by the Parks Branch, Department of Recreation and Conservation, Government of British Columbia. The private capacity is not so well defined. The British Columbia 3 Tourist Directory of 1969 gives a l i s t of 79 private campgrounds operator on Vancouver Island, but scarcely mentions the number of campsites each operator runs. Among them 36 are earning their living •^British Columbia Tourist Directory 1969, op. cit., pp. 17-36. exclusively from their campgrounds and 43 offer at the same time 4 housekeeping cottages. James Anderson's survey, which got 39 returns from Vancouver Island out of the 7 9 listed operators, relates the capacity of the campgrounds to whether or not the operators own house-keeping cottages. It appears from this computation that the operators without housekeeping cottages have, on Vancouver Island, an average of 5 0 . 7 campsites each and those without cottages average 5 5 campsites. That yields a total number of private campsites on Vancouver Island of 3 6 x 5 0 . 7 = 1 , 8 2 5 campsites plus 4 3 x 55 = 2 , 3 6 5 campsites TOTAL 4 , 1 9 0 campsites As the number of campsites each operator runs is not known, two ways seem possible to distribute this supply over Vancouver Island. 1 ) by attributing to each operator without housekeeping cottages 5 0 . 7 campsites and to each operator with housekeeping cottages 5 5 camp-sites, one may look through 7 9 addresses and locate them on a map. 2 ) by assuming that the private campsites are distributed geographically in the same way as are the public campsites, one may easily distribute the former accordingly. Government Policy Towards Private Recreation Enterprises, op. c i t . The second method, less accurate, but probably sufficient for the purpose of the study was chosen. As the number of public campsites on Vancouver Island i s 1,212, and the number of private campsites 4,190, to one public campsite correspond 3.46 private campsites. Therefore, each time one public campsite w i l l be considered, i t s capacity w i l l be that of i t s e l f plus that of the corresponding 3.46 private one. The public campgrounds competing with Cassidy campground are given in Table I I . The summer capacity considered in this table i s 90 days multiplied by the percentage of use during summer months previously computed: 31$ for private campsites and 46.3$ for public campsites. This leads to a summer capacity of 41,67 days for the public campsites and of 28 days for the private campsites. 78 TABLE I I SUMMER CAPACITY OP PRIVATE AND PUBLIC CAMPGROUNDS COMPETING WITH CASSIDY CAMPGROUND 5 6 PUBLIC ^  SUMMER PRIVATE SUMMER TOTAL SITE CAMPSITES CAPACITY • CAMPSITES CAPACITY CAPACITY ADDED L i t t l e QuaIleum 100 4167 346 9688 13855 Englishman 100 4167 346 9688 13855 Strathcona 28 H67 97 2761 3883 Rathrevor 100 4167 346 9688 13855 Stamp F a l l s • 20 833 69 1932 2765 Newcastle Island 18 750 62 1736 2486 Ivy Grenn 51 2125 176 4928 7053 Mouat 15 625 52 1456 2081 Beaumont Marine 49 2042 170 4760 6802 P r i o r Centennial 10 417 35 980 1397 Montague Harbour 31 1292 107 2996 4288 Sproat Lake 40 I667 138 3864 5531 Sidney Spit 6 250 21 588 838 Miracle Beach 189 7&76 654 18312 26188 Bamberton 50 2083 173 4844 6927 S t a t i s t i c s 1969, from the Parks Branch Department, V i c t o r i a , Government of B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Recreation and Conservation. 6 B r i t i s h Columbia Tourist Directory, 1969, op. c i t . , pp. 17-36. 79 CHAPTER VTI CONCLUSION: DEMAND AND SUPPLY The campers are assumed t o be concentrated i n s i x o r i g i n s throughout the study: Nanaimo, V i c t o r i a and Sidney f o r those coming from outs ide-of -Vancouver I s land and V i c t o r i a , Ladysmith, Port A l b e r n i and Black Creek f o r those o r i g i n a t i n g from w i th in Vancouver I s l and . From each o f these o r i g i n s , a t r a v e l time zone of one hour i n dimension which inc ludes Cass idy campground has been drawn and a l together s i x t r a v e l time zones are d e f i n e d . These s i x t r a v e l time zones obv ious ly over lap l a r g e l y i n the Cass idy campground r e g i o n . In other reg ions o f Vancouver I s l and, very l i t t l e over lapping occur s . The demand generated from the s i x o r i g i n s i s not i n t e r e s t e d i n a l l the supply l i s t e d at the end of the prev ious chapter . Some campgrounds such as Strathcona w i l l meet on ly the demand generated by Black Creek whi le Ivy Green, very c lose to Cass idy, w i l l meet the demand from a l l s i x o r i g i n s . This point brings up the problem of the distribution of the demand among the campgrounds. This problem will be solved in order to achieve the maximum efficiency of the supply. In the example above, this means that before Black Creek campers are sent to Ivy Green, which can profit from campers from other origins, they will be sent to Strathcona campground since they are the only ones who can reach i t within the considered travel time hours. In other words the campsites meeting the demand of the fewest origins wi l l be fi l l e d f i r s t and those meeting the demand of a l l six origins will be f i l l e d last. Table III is a matrix showing which campgrounds are competing with Cassidy for each of the six origins of campers. The supply appears in the extreme right-hand column and the demand in the bottom row. Both are expressed in campsite units and are evaluated for June, July and August 1963. The analysis of Table III will be done origin by origin. BLACK CREEK The 2,446 camping-vehicle-nights generated by Black Creek can be accommodated by Strathcona, Stampfalls, Sproat Lake and Ivy Green. The three first campgrounds do not meet any other demand in the Table and have a summer camping capacity of 12,179 campsites. Therefore, these 2,446 camping-vehicle-nights will be easily accommodated without utilizing the capacity of Ivy Green which meets the demand of the six origins. TABLE II I DEMAND AND SUPPLY MATRIX (THE CROSSES INDICATE THE APPORTIONMENT OF DEMAND OVER EXISTING FACILITIES) SITE NAN. VICT. SIDN. LADY. ALB. BL.C. SUPPLY Strathcona - X 3883 L i t t l e QuaIleum 13855 Englishman 13855 Rathrevor X X 13855 Stamp ..Falls X 2765 Newcastle I s land 2486 Ivy Green 7053 Mouat 2081 Beaumont 6820 P r i o r Centennia l 1397 Montague Harbour 4288 Sproat Lake X 5531 Sidney Sp i t X X 938 Mirac le Beach X 26188 Bamberton X 6927 DEMAND 39219 18893 21973 2515 1931 2446 \111,822 86,977 ,NAN.: Nanaimo VICT.: V i c t o r i a SIDN.: Sidney LADY.: Ladysmith 'ALB.: Port A l b e r n i B L . C : B lack Creek PORT ALBERNI Miracle Beach campground meets only the Port Alberni demand i n the Table. The summer camping capacity of t h i s campground i s 26,188 campsites which w i l l absorb the 1,931 carrrping-vehicle-nights of Port Al b e r n i . LADYSMITH Bamberton Campground i s also the. only one meeting the demand of t h i s o r i g i n i n the Table and the 2,515 camping-vehicle-nights o f Ladysmith w i l l be l a r g e l y accommodated by the 6,927 campsites of Bamberton. NANAIMO Usable only from the Nanaimo o r i g i n on the Table, L i t t l e Quallcum, Englishman and Rathevor with 41,565 campsites accommodate more than the entire demand from Nanaimo which i s 39,219 camping-vehicle-nights. VICTORIA Newcastle Island, Ivy Green, Mouat, Beaumont and Pr i o r Centennial add up to 19,820 campsites for a demand of 18,893 carrrping-vehicle-nights from V i c t o r i a , leaving a surplus of 927 campsites i n Pr i o r Centennial. SIDNEY This l a s t o r i g i n represents a demand of 21,973 carrrping-vehicle-nights f o r a remaining capacity of 6,153 campsites represented by Sidney S p i t , Montague Harbour and the remainder of Pr i o r Centennial. Consequently, the surplus of summer demand i n the t r a v e l time 0 range of Cassidy campground represents 15,820 campsites v e r i f y i n g the hypothesis with a substantial margin. A global approach taking a l l the demand and a l l the supply-on Vancouver Island shows a summer capacity, public and private of l8l,452 campsites for a demand in the neighbourhood of 250,OCX)'" camping-vehicle-nights . This gap lends support to the foregoing conclusion. More generally, based on the case study, outdoor recreation demand for summer outdoor recreation activities exceeds the supply during the months of June, July and August. In other words, in the continuously growing field of outdoor recreation, supply is very likely to be permanently less than the demand. There seems likely to be a perpetual attempt by planners to overcome the deficiency in supply. The percentage of campers originating from Vancouver Island and leaving the Island has not been computed. Hence an exact figure of the demand on Vancouver Island cannot be advanced. 84 PLANNING IMPLICATIONS I n this particular study, the large margin by which the hypothesis has been verified quantitative can raise some doubts: the present demand as computed throughout the study is largely above the present consumption. Therefore, a factor prevents people from going camping at the level assessed in the study. Hopefully, i t is the lack of supply, i f so the hypothesis is verified but i t could also be some-thing else that may interfere with the basic willingness to go camping. I n this case, the participation rate in camping used in this study, 3.3 days per person, would be too high and 2.5 or 3 would be more realistic. The results could also be due to an overestimation of the percentage of nights spent in camping vis-a-vis those spent in hotels: the figure relied upon was 2 9 $ of nights spent in camping by the visitors to British Columbia in 1963 according to surveys. This figure might have dropped slightly. The distribution of the campers over Vancouver Island does not seem too questionable, since the local gap for Cassidy campground between demand and supply is nearly proportional to the global gap for the whole island. 85 I t must be stressed that t h i s study has been carried out i n a r e l a t i v e l y pragmatic way due to a severe lack of data. Better data could be provided through a comprehensive p r o v i n c i a l outdoor recreation study which Is urgently needed i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Therefore, the method was conceived i n such a way as to be suitably f l e x i b l e to incorporate the various data a v a i l a b l e . The methodology adopted Is p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant to our s p e c i f i c case study because: 1 - The universe was an Island and screening data are r e a d i l y available and r e l a t i v e l y accurate around an i s l a n d . 2 - Camping was considered and I t i s one of the best organised and known outdoor recreation a c t i v i t i e s . While the method might be extended to other regions and other outdoor a c t i v i t i e s i t would probably not be as accurate as i n the case study which had the benefit of the two above features. Very often, planners are faced with problems for which inadequate data applying d i r e c t l y to the problem are available and neither the time nor the money a l l o t t e d f o r the study allows f o r a special survey to c o l l e c t the appropriate data. The methodology developed i n t h i s study demonstrates how to treat such a matter i n order to proceed with the planning process and provide a reasonable basis for decision and a c t i o n . T. 86 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Catton, R. William, Measuring National Park Attractiveness, I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i o l o g i c a l Research, University of Washington, 1966. Clawson, M and Knetsch, J . L., Economics of Outdoor Recreation, Resources for the Future, Johns,Hopkins Press, 1969. Clawson, M, Issues of Public P o l i c y i n Outdoor Recreation, Resources f o r the Future Inc., Washington D.C, Water Resources Conference, 1969, p. 3. Department of Recreation and Conservation, B r i t i s h Columbia, Annual  Report 1966, V i c t o r i a Queen's P r i n t e r , 1967. Department of Travel Industry, B r i t i s h Columbia, B r i t i s h Columbia  Tourist Directory 1969* Department of Travel Industry, B r i t i s h Columbia, " V i s i t o r s 1963" -A Study of V i s i t o r s to the Province of B.C. Canada, i n the  Summer of 1963, V i c t o r i a , Queen's P r i n t e r , 1964. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Travel Between Canada^ the U.S. and  Other Countries, Catalogue No. 66-001 Monthly, 1969. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Travel Between Canada and Other Countries, Catalogue No. 66-201 Annual, 1967. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , 1966 Census of Canada, Population, Divisions and Subdivisions, Western Provinces, Catalogue No. 92-606, V o l . 1, June 1967. Graham, V i c t o r StaHard, The Projection of Tourism; A Case Study of  B r i t i s h Columbia, Master's Thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, January 1968. 87 Green, B. L., and Wadsworth, H. A., Campers, What Affects P a r t i c i p a t i o n and What do They Want?, "Research B u l l e t i n " , Purdue University, A g r i c u l t u r a l experiment station Lafayette Indiana No. 823, December 1966, Knetsh, Jack L., A Design for Assessing Outdoor Recreation Demand i n Canada, National and H i s t o r i c Parks Branch Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development, Washington D.C., November 1 9 6 7 . Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, A Regional Parks Plan for the Lower Mainland Region, New Westminster, B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 6 6 . Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, Land for Leisure, New Westminster, 1 9 6 1 . Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, Population Trends i n the  Lower Mainland, 1 9 2 1 - 1 9 8 6 , New Westminster, Technical Report,: 1 9 6 8 . Michigan Department of Conservation, Outdoor Recreation Planning i n Michigan by a Systems Analysis Approach Part I I I , the p r a c t i c a l application of "Program RECSYS and SYMAP", Technical Report No. 1 2 , December 1 9 6 7 . Muro, N., and Duncan, M. A., An I n i t i a l Bibliography on Outdoor Recreational Studies i n Canada with Selected United States  References, Canada Department of Forestry and Rural Development, November 1 9 6 7 . Myron, Katz, P o t e n t i a l for the Recreation and Tourist Industry i n the P a c i f i c Northwest, U. S. Department of the In t e r i o r Bonneville Power Administration, 1 9 6 7 . National Advisory Council on Regional Recreation Planning, NACRRP, A User-Resource Recreation Planning Method, 1 9 5 9 • Northwood, L. K., Robert, K. Leik and Robert, Reid, Outdoor Recreation i n the Puget Sound Region, 1963, A Research  Report, Seattle: Puget Sound Governmental Conference, 1964. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission ORRRC, National , Recreation Survey, Study Report 19, 1962. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission ORRRC, Pa r t i c i p a t i o n  In Outdoor Recreation: Factor Affecting the Demand Among  American Adults, Study Report 20, 1962. Regional Marketing Surveys Ltd., Vancouver, A Study of Automobile  Travel i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 1966, Unpublished Report, December 1967. State of C a l i f o r n i a , The Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation, Outdoor Recreation Outlook to I980, Monograph 2: Park and Recreation Information System, P a r i s , 1966. 

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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0102089/manifest

Comment

Related Items