: ' 76 /// UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES IN TRAVEL RESEARCH A ONE-DAY SEMINAR SPONSORED BY THE TRAVEL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA CHAPTER IN COOPERATION WITH THE UNITED STATES TRAVEL SERVICE X 1 ) >n v. o o a UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES IN TRAVEL RESEARCH A ONE-DAY SEMINAR SPONSORED BY THE TRAVEL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA CHAPTER in cooperation with THE UNITED STATES TRAVEL SERVICE WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1977 at THE WASHINGTON HILTON HOTEL Washington, D.C. PREFACE On October 19, 1977, the Washington Metropolitan Area Chapter of The Travel Research Association in cooperation with the United States Travel Service sponsored a one-day seminar focusing on the Federal Government activities in travel research. Four panels consisting of 14 participants representing 11 different gov- ernment agencies presented an overview of their agencies' tourism re- search programs and focused on some of their more current activities. Dr. Douglas C. Frechtling, Director of the U.S. Travel Data Center, moderated the panel on Domestic Travel Patterns and Expenditures; Beverly D. Shipka, Director, Research and Analysis Division, United State Travel Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, moderated the panel on International Tourism and Travel; Dr. Donald E. Hawkins professor of human kinetics and leisure studies, George Washington University, moderated the panel on Tourist Facilities, Land and Water Resources; and Alan E. Pisarski, Deputy Director, Office of Planning U.S. Depart- ment of Transportation, moderated the panel on Transportation and Energy. n WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA CHAPTER OF THE TRAVEL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1977 Chairperson Donald E. Hawkins George Washington University (202) 676-7087 Vice Chairperson Ronald E. Moitzfield Laventhol & Horwath (202) 585-8200 Secretary-Treasurer Craig Hoogstra Air Transport Association (202) 872-4152 Directors Jeanne Beekhuis Fothergill/Beekhuis Associates (202) 872-8882 Douglas C. Frechtling U.S. Travel Data Center (202) 293-1040 Dayton Jorgenson U.S. Bureau of the Census U.S. Department of Commerce (301) 763-7680 Alan E. Pisarski U.S. Department of Transportation (202) 426-4331 Beverly D. Shipka United States Travel Service U.S. Department of Commerce (202) 377-4028 in TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. DOMESTIC TRAVEL PATTERNS AND EXPENDI- TURES (PANEL I) 2 Moderator: Douglas C. Frechtling, Director, U.S. Travel Data Center 2 Participants: Earle Gerson, Chief, Demographic Surveys Division, Bureau of the Census 3 Marie E. Gillespie, Program Analyst, Research and Analysis Division, United States Travel Service ... 6 II. INTERNATIONAL TOURISM AND TRAVEL (PANEL II) 12 Moderator: Beverly D. Shipka, Director, Research and Analysis Division, United States Travel Service 13 Participants: Don Wynegar, Manager, International Tourism Research, Research and Analysis Division, United States Travel Service 15 John M. Licari, Acting Deputy Director, Air Trans- portation Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation 20 Loren E. Lawrence, Director, Passport Office, De- partment of State 24 III. LUNCHEON 29 Speaker: The Hon. Fabian Chavez, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Tourism 29 Subject: Research Programs and Policy Under the Carter Administration 29 IV. TOURIST FACILITIES, LAND AND WATER RESOURCES (PANEL III) 32 Moderator: Donald E. Hawkins, Professor of Human Kinetics and Leisure Studies, George Washington University . . 33 v TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued Page IV. TOURIST FACILITIES, LAND AND WATER RESOURCES (PANEL III)— Continued Participants: Ira J. Hutchison, Deputy Director, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior 34 Elwood L. Shafer, Principal Recreation Scientist, Forest Environment Research Staff, U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, Forest Service 39 Dale A. Crane, Chief, Recreation Resource Manage- ment Branch, U.S. Army of Corps of Engineers . . 46 William H. Honore, Assistant Chief, Division of Water Resources, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, U.S. Department of Interior 59 V. TRANSPORTATION AND ENERGY (PANEL IV) ... . 70 Moderator: Alan E. Pisarski, Deputy Director, Office of Planning, U.S. Department of Transportation 70 Participants: Carl Rappaport, Director, Policy Development Divi- sion, Office of Conservation Policy, Federal Energy Administration 70 Robert L. Maxwell, Acting Program Manager for Transportation, Office of Technical Assessment, U.S. Congress 70 Dr. Richard R. John, Chief, Energy Programs Research Division, Transportation Systems Center, U.S. Department of Transportation 70 APPENDIX 71 List of Conference Registrants 71 VI PANEL I DOMESTIC TRAVEL PATTERNS AND EXPENDITURES MODERATOR Douglas C. Frechtling, Director, U.S. Travel Data Center PARTICIPANTS Earl Gerson, Chief, Demographic Surveys Division, Bureau of the Census Marie E. Gillespie, Program Analyst, Research and Analysis Division, United States Travel Service Eva Jacobs, Chief, Division of Living Conditions Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics (For a copy of Eva Jacobs' remarks, please contact her directly.) Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation http://www.archive.org/details/unitedstatesgovOOunit THE 1977 NATIONAL TRAVEL SURVEY — PLANS, CONTENT, AND METHODOLOGY (Summary of remarks presented at the Seminar on U.S. Government Activities in Travel Research, October 19, 1977 by Earle J. Gerson, Chief, Demographic Surveys Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census) The 1977 National Travel Survey is the fourth in a series of National Travel Surveys conducted as part of the Census Bureau's quinquennial Census of Transportation. Earlier National Travel Surveys were con- ducted in 1963, 1967 and 1972. The 1977 National Travel Survey is being sponsored jointly by the U.S. Department of Transportation, The U.S. Travel Service and The U.S. Bureau of the Census. The content of the 1977 National Travel Survey has been expanded to include several new items, as well as items that were part of the earlier surveys. Items that were included in earlier surveys are as fol- lows: the socioeconomic characteristics of travelers, the State or county of origin and destination, purpose of trip, whether it was a vacation or weekend trip, transportation mode, duration of trip, type of lodging used and States (or countries) stayed in enroute. New items being intro- duced in the 1977 National Travel Survey include: recreational activities engaged in during the trip, use of a rental car, nights spent at destination, States passed through (for auto/truck), cost of a package tour, cost of lodging, cost of common carrier transportation, prior planning time for vacation and weekend trips, and the use of a travel agent. In addition to the expanded content for the 1977 National Travel Survey, there were some important changes made in the methodology for conducting the survey from that used in the 1972 National Travel Sur- vey. The most significant methodological change from 1972 was switch- ing from a mail survey to a personal visit interview survey. Results from a test conducted by the Census Bureau in April 1976 showed that the number of trips reported was significantly higher using a personal inter- view approach as compared with the number reported through a mail interview technique. Because the 1977 National Travel Survey is using a personal interview approach, in which each adult household member is interviewed personally, it afforded the Bureau the opportunity to ask some additional questions since it is generally true that more information can be obtained through personal-visit interviewing than by mail with- out any loss in cooperation levels. The contributions of the U.S. Depart- ment of Transportation and the U.S. Travel Service, along with increased funding from the U.S. Bureau of the Census made it possible to fund the 1977 program at the same sample size as that used in the 1972 Survey. The second methodological change was in the length of trips the respondents were asked to report. The definition of a trip used in the 1972 National Travel Survey was "each time a person goes to a place at least 100 miles away from home and returns", and respondents were asked to report all such trips. The same definition is being retained for the 1977 Survey. In the 1977 Survey, however, the respondent is being asked to report all trips of 75 miles or more away from home. This change was made to minimize the failure to report a trip of 100 miles or more due to the respondent's misconception of it being less than 100 miles. Trips that are less than 100 miles according to the computer sys- tem used to determine mileage will not be included in the 1977 estimates of trip. The third methodological change was in the computer system used to determine mileage for automobile and truck trips. In 1972 the straight line distance between the origin and destination was computed, and a 25 percent circuity factor to account for the fact that highways and roads do not follow straight lines was applied. In addition, a 25 percent side- trip factor, to account for the fact the people have a tendency to travel a more indirect or scenic route rather than the most direct, was added and all 3 components were summed to determine the total mileage of the trip. The 1977 survey is using basically the same system, but with different circuity factors calculated on the basis of the States of origin and destination. As a result of some research done by the Census Bu- reau, the side-trip factor has been reduced to about 4 percent rather than 25 percent. These changes in the computer system for determining mile- age will improve the accuracy of the estimates of the number of trips of 100 miles or more. The Census Bureau plans to produce four reports covering the 1977 survey. The first report, scheduled for release in February 1978, will be a preliminary report on trips taken during the first quarter (January- March) of 1977. The second report, scheduled for release in April 1978, will be a preliminary report on trips taken during the second quarter (April- June). The third report, scheduled for release in July 1978, will be an advance final report on trips taken during calendar year 1977. These first three reports will contain summary information on the num- ber and selected characteristics of trips and travelers. The fourth report, scheduled for release in September 1978, will be the final annual report which will include detailed annual information plus data for each of the four quarters separately and summary data for each of the fifty States and the District of Columbia. In addition to the publication reports the Census Bureau will prepare a User Computer Data Tape which will in- clude microdata from the survey and, along with the tape documentation, can be purchased for a modest sum. This tape is scheduled to be avail- able in October 1978. In closing, I would like to mention that the U.S. Travel Service is planning to provide funding for an Annual Travel Survey. Current plans are for this survey to begin sometime in 1979 as a supplement to the Consumer Expenditure Survey to be conducted by the Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This planned annual survey will be conducted quarterly in approximately 7,000 households nationally. SELECTED TOURISM RESEARCH PROGRAMS IN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE By Marie E. Gillespie, Manager, Domestic Research Program, Research and Analysis Division, United States Travel Service USTS was created in 1961 to encourage foreign travel to the U.S. In 1976, USTS received funding to develop a domestic tourism program. The development of the domestic program was based on a review of the problems, needs and potential of the industry as it relates to the overall economic social and cultural development of the U.S. The first steps USTS took were: (1) to review the literature on travel and tourism, including the preliminary findings of the National Tourism Policy Study, and the report by the National Tourism Resources, and (2) to obtain input from government and industry travel officials. The review indicated that travel is a significant industry in our society, but is highly fragmented. This is evident on the national as well as, the local level. One of the primary reasons for this fragmentation is the lack of adequate research and planning. The need for uniform, accurate and timely research data was repeatedly discussed. In addition, it was sug- gested that travel research should be comprehensive enough to provide qualitative and quantitative data, state and local data and information which can be used for short and long-term analyses. The review further indicated that the role of the Federal Government in the development of domestic travel should be: — to provide leadership, assistance and data — to act as a clearinghouse — to provide educational and coordination services — to act as a catalyst. Based on our review of the needs in domestic travel research and on the USTS domestic tourism research budget of $600,000, $375,000 and $450,000 in FY '76, '77, and '78, respectively, USTS developed the following goals for the domestic travel research program: 1) to improve the domestic tourism data base for long- and short- term planning and evaluation of government and industry domestic tourism programs, and 2) to encourage and assist in the development of a uniform frame- work for the collection of tourism statistics for use by Federal, state and local officials. The objectives of the USTS domestic tourism research program are to 1) collect, analyze, improve, package and disseminate information ob- tained on the volume, economic impact, characteristics and motivations of the travel market, and 2) to develop and encourage the use of guide- lines for uniform travel definitions. Two programs have been developed to meet these goals and objectives: 1 . The Basic National Data Program A. National Travel Survey B. Travel Pulse C. Consumer Expenditure Survey 2. The Local Tourism Data Development Program A. Travel/Tourism Definitions B. Travel Survey Guidelines C. Travel Planning Guidelines The "Basic National Data Program" is designed to address the critical need for more precise and consistent information with respect to the volume of tourists, their economic impact and the composition of the U.S. travel market. Funding for domestic tourism came at a very opportune time. The Bureau of Census was in the process of planning for the 1977 National Travel Survey. This survey is the primary source of national information on American travel in the U.S. and is only conducted once every five years. We were given the opportunity to participate in this survey, along with the Department of Transportation, and were able to incorporate state, city and industry data needs in the survey, including data on the economic importance of tourism and an analysis of travel data on the state-by-state basis. The results of the survey will be packaged to provide: 1 . Individual state profiles 2. Selected profiles for metropolitan area, and 3. Selected industry segment profiles, such as that for air travelers, weekend travelers, campers, skiers. Based on the feedback which we receive from users of the 1977 Na- tional Travel Survey, USTS will program funds to conduct a smaller scale national travel survey in calendar year 1979. The long-range objec- tive of this program is to provide national travel information on a con- tinuing basis in order to fill the need for more frequent data on U.S. travelers. Also, included in the "Basic National Data Program," is USTS par- ticipation with 29 other organizations in the Travel Pulse survey. The survey monitors key travel indicators and changes in the motivations, attitudes, values and experiences of both travelers and non-travelers which affect the consumer market for travel. The survey also identifies key issues, such as the effects of transportation costs on travel volume, which can serve as an early warning system to detect shifts and changes in the travel market. The third element in the "Basic National Data Program" involves an analysis of the 1972/73 Consumer Expenditure Survey, which is con- ducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics every ten years. This is the primary source of information on U.S. consumer expenditures. The pro- gram is designed to 1 ) provide data on the economic impact of vacation travel, in order to support efforts to raise the priority of tourism and travel, 2) measure the substitutability of travel expenditures for purchases of other consumer goods and services, to determine the major competi- tors for the travel dollar in the family budget, and 3) suggest alternative techniques for measuring travel spending. Lastly, USTS will attempt to work more closely with agencies within the DOC, as well as with other federal agencies, in order to improve the domestic tourism research product. For example, within Commerce, there are possible opportunities for the development or expansion of the do- mestic tourism research data base in such agencies as the Economic De- velopment Administration, the Regional Economic Commissions, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Bureau of Domestic Commerce, the Office of Minority Business Enterprise, and the Maritime Administra- tion. The "Local Tourism Data Development" program complements the "Basic National Data Program" by providing the tools necessary for in- dividuals or organizations to plan, implement and evaluate tourism pro- grams on the local level. USTS is currently in the process of developing guidelines for travel/ tourism definitions, and survey methodologies. These guidelines are be- ing developed in response to the need for more reliable, uniform and local tourism data. They will be based on input from private industry and other government bodies. These guidelines will help regions/states/ cities to identify and describe the dimensions and essential nature of the tourism industry within the context of their specific community needs. It is important that research be conducted on the local, as well as national level. Tourism surveys which are conducted at the national level can provide overall tourism marketing and economic impact data, they can provide data for trend analysis, and they can provide data which states can use to compare travel activity in their state with other states 8 and determine their share of the market. They should not however, be a substitute for local surveys, because research at the local level insures participation in the design and implementation of surveys and programs by persons familiar with the area. For example, an area may want to target their programs on the convention or ski market. Although these markets may have been identified in national studies, chances are that the level of detail obtained from these studies is not sufficient for a local area to develop a comprehensive marketing program to meet the needs of their community. Whether a region/State/or city uses these guidelines will depend on their needs and budget. In order to obtain cost savings, States and cities could join together to conduct surveys on a regional basis and/or dif- ferent portions of the survey could be conducted periodically rather than annually. For example, a State could conduct a non-resident highway survey one year, a non-resident air survey the next year and a resident survey the third year. The non-resident highway survey could be repeated every third year depending on the needs of that particular area. During one of these years, the State may want to conduct a special impact study such as travel to ski areas or Indian reservations, or determine the eco- nomic impact of convention visitors. Similar to the program to develop guidelines for survey methodologies, we will work with regions/States/cities in the development of guidelines on how to plan tourism programs within the context of the other indus- trial, social and environmental needs and programs of a community. The techniques of tourism planning will be identified and tested by West Vir- ginia University. They will develop a planning manual which will have broad applicability to many other regions of the U.S., especially those more rural areas where the industrial/commercial base for travel facilities development does not exist and where there is a need for assistance and guidance. There are five key elements of the program : 1 . Economic Impact Measurement 2. Community/County Information and Coordination 3. Human Resource Evaluation and Development 4. Preparation of a Five- Year Tourism Development plan 5. Environmental assessment In summary, the Federal Government will work with private industry and other government bodies in order to develop a consensus on defini- tions, planning, and survey methodologies to be used by regions/States/ cities. These plans and surveys will assist areas in placing tourism in con- text with the other industrial, social, and environmental needs of that community. It will assist them in determining whether there is a need for a tourism program and whether the opportunity exists for the develop- ment of that program. It will help regions/States/cities to identify and describe the dimensions and essential nature of the tourism industry so that they can develop marketing plans and evaluation surveys which will meet the specific needs of their community. Once guidelines are devel- oped, USTS will serve as an educator and catalyst in this process through publications, workshops and technical assistance. 10 PANEL II INTERNATIONAL TOURISM AND TRAVEL MODERATOR Beverly D. Shipka, Director, Research and Analysis Division, United States Travel Service PARTICIPANTS Don Wynegar, Manager, International Tourism Research, Research and Analysis Division, United States Travel Service John M. Licari, Acting Deputy Director, Air Transportation Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation Loren E. Lawrence, Director, Passport Office, U.S. Department of State PANEL INTRODUCTION BY BEVERLY DEE SHIPKA, DIRECTOR, RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS DIVISION "Tourism appears to be able to withstand crises and economic reces- sions better than most other sectors." This conclusion was recently drawn by the World Tourism Organiza- tion, an inter-governmental tourism body consisting of approximately 100 members of national government tourist offices. The WTO continued to indicate that in developed countries, holidays at home and abroad tend to be the last thing sacrificed in family budgets. A few statistics describing the scope of the international travel market on a global basis are as follows : In 1976, there were 220 million international tourists who spent $40 billion on their trips abroad. (This $40 billion dollar figure represents 5% of total world exports and a good growth rate — about 17 percent — over 1975.) More specifically, looking at where the U.S. is positioned in this in- ternational tourism market; — In 1976 the U.S. recorded an 8 percent share of the world arrival market equalling about 17 Yi million foreign tourists and — A 17 percent share of the global expenditures on international trips. — This 17 percent share means expenditures of about $7 billion — $7 billion of new money pumped into the U.S. economy. This expendi- ture in turn generates nearly 300,000 jobs and $900 million in Federal, State and local taxes. — International tourism is indeed big business and has been growing at a more rapid rate than any other U.S. export. In fact, dollars generated from international tourists in the United States ranks 4th among all U.S. exports of goods (behind only machinery, trans- portation equipment and grain/cereal preparations.) — This year is expected to show continuing growth for international tourism to the United States — in the magnitude of about IVi percent to 8 percent in arrivals (18.6 million arrivals), and about an 11 percent growth in tourist receipts ($7.5 billion). In looking at the outflow of Americans traveling abroad, which is viewed as an import, this sector too is big business. In fact, next to the 13 West Germans, the Americans are the most traveled population interna- tionally. One has only to look at the millions of dollars — $25 million to be exact — which other government tourist offices spend in the U.S. in at- tempting to lure Americans to their countries. When international airline advertising expenditures are included, the figure jumped to $70 million. While this year it is expected that some 23 million Americans will travel abroad, spending in excess of $10 bullion, the travel deficit, which is the difference between what Americans spend abroad and what foreign visitors spend here, will be in deficit by under $3 billion — about $2.4 billion to be more exact. This $3 billion dollar mark is kind of a short- run benchmark or goal. If the forecast of 1977 holds true then this will be the second year in a row that our travel deficit will be under $3 bil- lion. (In 1976, our Bicentennial year, which perhaps had something to do with the 2 percent decline in American travel abroad and 12 percent in- crease in foreign travel to the U.S., the deficit was $2.7 billion.) There are a number of agencies within the Federal Government whose task is to collect data on the important sector of international tourism. In fact, various studies conducted by both the executive and legislative branches estimate that some 50 different agencies have programs which either directly or indirectly relate to tourism. Our panel today consists of representatives from agencies within the three Departments which play a major role in international tourism re- search and policy, the Department of Commerce, Department of Trans- portation and Department of State. Each panel member will focus on the specific tourism activities of his agency or Department. 14 INTERNATIONAL TOURISM RESEARCH PROGRAMS IN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE By Don Wynegar, Manager, International Research Program, Research and Analysis Division, United States Travel Service There are three different agencies within the Department of Commerce which, to varying degrees, carry out research functions relating to inter- national tourism. These agencies are: United States Travel Service (USTS), Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Domestic and Interna- tional Business Administration (DIBA). What I would like to do is to present a brief description of each of these agencies' international tourism research activities, in terms of the programs' overall purpose, structure, and end use of the research intel- ligence obtained. Within the Commerce Department, the most comprehensive interna- tional tourism research program is carried out by the Research and Anal- ysis Division of the U.S. Travel Service. The Division's activities span a broad range of research functions relating to foreign travel markets — from compiling basic tourist flow data to conducting detailed market research surveys to developing sets of leading market indicators and econ- ometric models for forecasting purposes. USTS' research functions, of course, are directly related to the role of the entire agency and the needs of the travel trade. USTS was estab- lished in 1961 by passage of the International Travel Act, with a man- dated mission of promoting tourism to the U.S. from other countries, in an effort to increase foreign exchange earnings from this highly viable source. Our research activities, consequently, are structured to provide USTS marketing decision-makers and the travel trade with up-to-date, reliable market research information on which to base promotional and marketing programs. USTS international research programs, then, are designed to provide the economic, marketing, and statistical data necessary for both the pub- lic and private sectors to effectively plan, develop, and evaluate tourism programs which increase the United States share of the international travel market. The research may be broken down into the following categories: 15 1 . Basic Data 2. Consumer Market Research 3. Evaluation Research 4. Research Library 1 . Basic Data Research The purpose of the basic data program is to provide, on a regular and ongoing basis, data describing the current dimensions of the international travel market to and from the United States and the U.S. position in the global market. Basic data is generally collected and extracted from sec- ondary data such as existing Government forms and published docu- ments and includes such information as monthly foreign visitor arrival figures, quarterly travel receipt and expenditure data, analyses of gov- ernment entry forms and U.S. citizen departure information. A significant part of the basic data research program is the detailed analysis of the Government entry forms 1-94. The 1-94 form, of course, is filled out by foreign visitors — exclusive of Canadian travelers — upon entry to the United States, with the first part of the card collected at the point of entry and the second part collected upon the visitors' departure. By a random sampling of these forms, USTS is able to provide a detailed analysis of foreign visitors' U.S. destination patterns, with visitor profile data tailored and published for each of the nine U.S. tourist regions and 15 major cities, as well as by 13 regions and/or countries of residence and several special categories. The reports, entitled "The Patterns of Foreign Travel in the United States" are published annually and provide profile information concerning port-of-entry, point of contact in the United States, port-of-departure, length of stay, age, mode of transport, and flag of carrier. Another important aspect of USTS' basic data research program is our continuing efforts to work with other U.S. Federal agencies and govern- ment tourist offices of other nations in exchanging and improving the reliability of international travel information. For example, USTS pro- vides considerable input into international tourism policy decisions and research standardization efforts through the World Tourism Organiza- tion. We have established direct communications and regularly exchange travel data with tourism officials of several foreign countries, and we work closely with the Canadian Government Office of Tourism in not only basic data exchange, but also co-sponsoring an annual market sur- vey of the Canadian vacation travel market. Additionally, USTS has begun to work with the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Statistics Canada in developing improved methodologies for collecting data con- cerning travel between the U.S. and Canada. 16 2. Consumer Market Research USTS's consumer market research program is designed to provide the agency and the travel trade with in-depth marketing intelligence con- cerning pertinent characteristics of the current and potential travel markets to the U.S. The program basically consists of market research surveys implemented in selected major tourist generating countries. Each study is designed to investigate those characteristics of the particular country travel market which have implications for development of mark- eting strategies and plans. A good example of our market research efforts is a set of comprehen- sive market studies recently completed in 11 countries — Mexico, Japan, the United Kingdom, West Germany, France, Australia, Venezuela, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Belgium. Utilizing personal, in-house in- terview survey techniques, the studies were designed to investigate the international travel market for residents of these countries, including: — demographic characteristics — travel and trip patterns — trip expenditure patterns — consumer sources and usages of travel information — the U.S. travel image and competitive positioning — trip activities — motivational/psychographic characteristics, and — the effects of the U.S. Bicentennial on travel planning Significantly, these 1 1 international travel market studies represent the first set of such studies ever conducted on a concurrent, comparable basis. Additionally, their comprehensive scope of coverage exceeds that of any such surveys conducted in the past. We are working now to get the data fully analyzed and published — making it available to the travel trade. USTS research surveys such as these are designed to provide USTS marketing managers and members of the travel trade with a valuable tool — a tool to be used in formulating and operating effective, properly- oriented marketing programs in each market country. Toward this end, we structure the data output in such a way that we can examine the marketing implications of particular market segments as they relate to such programs as consumer advertising, public relations, tour develop- ment, trade development, and consumer information systems. As you all know, it is accepted marketing practice to break down a consumer market into its individual components; to look at the different parts in detail; and to target marketing efforts toward the specific seg- ment which is determined to possess the greatest potential for purchasing the product. Promotional efforts are subsequently structured to meet the 17 needs of the target market segment, based on its particular set of char- acteristics. In our studies, we have segmented the country markets in several ways. As this visual indicates, we have for each country, broken down the total international travel market into its components. International travelers and, in the case of Mexico, domestic travelers, who do not visit the United States, of course, represent the as-yet uncaptured market for which we must compete. While we analyze in-depth the travel market to the U.S., we realize that it is also important to take into account the characteristics of this non-U.S. market. In the case of the travel market to the United States, we have disected this group in much greater detail. As illustrated here, we are able to individually analyze specific market segments, and in doing so, we should be able to develop and implement appropriate and properly-targeted marketing programs. For example, if a market is made up predominantly of vacation travelers to the United States, we can analyze that segment individually and structure and design advertising and PR programs to meet the needs of that particular segment. In addition, our tour develop- ment program managers can work more efficiently with the travel trade to develop saleable tour itineraries by studying the characteristics, prefer- ences and needs of the inclusive tour market in detail. And likewise, we can improve our system of supplying promotional materials and other travel information to support our trade development program abroad by using information gleaned from analyzing the market segment which uses travel agents in arranging travel to this country. 3. Evaluation Research USTS' evaluation research program primarily serves an in-house func- tion, providing basic program feedback to determine the degree to which selected USTS programs meet their stated goals. A computerized meas- urement/reporting system is maintained which allows us to compare pro- gram goals to results achieved. The research program also involves ad hoc evaluation studies of specific USTS program activities — such as advertising campaigns — to determine the programs' effectiveness and ef- ficiency. 4. USTS Research Library The Research and Analysis Division of USTS maintains an extensive research library. Publications and research reports from numerous public, private, and international firms and agencies are on file. Domestically, we maintain a travel research file for each of the States and U.S. ter- ritories, including the most recent State travel surveys. The same is true for each major country of the world. In each country file, we try to maintain current economic and travel environment data. Travel research 18 reports from other international travel organizations such as PATA, the World Tourism Organization, and Statistics Canada are available. Re- ports concerning special segments of the travel industry are kept up to date — such as the domestic and international lodging industry, the air transportation sector, and the travel agency industry. And, of course, a full stock of available USTS research reports are maintained. This concludes a very capsulized overview of the U.S. Travel Service's international research activities. While it is by no means inclusive, it does reflect our overall program emphases. The second Department of Commerce agency which carries out re- search functions relating to international tourism is the Bureau of Eco- nomic Analysis (BE A). The specific office operating in this field is the Balance of Payments Division of the Office of the Associate Director for International Economics. BEA supplies quarterly and annual data con- cerning international travel receipt and expenditure accounts between the U.S. and other countries and regions of the world. The figures determine the U.S. travel dollar balance of payments, which has historically been in deficit. These travel spending data are issued in the BEA publication, "Survey of Current Business." BEA compiles data concerning U.S. international travel receipts and expenditures by a sampling survey of foreign visitors departing the U.S. and American citizens returning to this country. The survey is conducted for 1 week each quarter, with mail-back questionnaires being distributed to international travelers. The Industry and Trade Administration (IT A) is the other agency within the Commerce Department which carries out research activities relating to international tourism. ITA's involvement in this field of study is, however, quite limited. The agency's primary tie-in for this type of research came in the form of a special study and report prepared by the Office of Business Research and Analysis, entitled "Service Industries in World Markets." The purpose of this study was to examine and meas- ure the extent to which U.S. service industries have expanded to over- seas areas and to analyze the feasibility of continued expansion in these areas. Naturally, many of the service industries analyzed, such as the transportation and hotel/ accommodations industries, were directly or indirectly related to or part of the international tourism infrastructure. This concludes my portion of the presentation, addressing the U.S. Department of Commerce's involvement in international tourism re- search. If there are questions concerning these operations or the research output, I will be happy to try and answer them. 19 STATEMENT OF JOHN M. LICARI, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AIR TRANSPORTATION POLICY STAFF, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION It is a real pleasure for me to appear before you today to present an overview of the Department of Transportation's policies concerning the promotion of international air travel and tourism. International air transportation is essential in a world whose countries have become economically interdependent. For the businessman, inter- national aviation has opened up broad new markets; for the tourist, one can now sample life in far-off exotic lands that a mere decade ago was too expensive a vacation to consider. In the U.S. transatlantic market alone, passenger travel has almost trippled since 1967. This growth re- flects a rapidly changing scene in international aviation. Many foreign flag carriers now provide fast, safe, and efficient international air service. Convenient schedules are now available to many international markets from the United States. Air fares have increased at a rate lower than the general inflation level; in other words, real air fares, adjusted for in- flation have actually declined in recent years. While the airlines themselves deserve the credit for taking the industry to where it is today, the U.S. Government has played a leadership role in the development of today's international aviation regulatory system. At the heart of the U.S. Government's policy is the recognition that the most efficient airline system is one that is privately-owned and operated and subject to competitive pressures. Unfortunately, this government policy is somewhat unique in the world of international aviation today. In fact, a 1975 Civil Aeronautics Board Study on Government Owner- ship, Subsidy, and Economic Assistance in International Commercial Aviation indicates that only 8 of the 55 foreign airlines examined were privately owned firms. The remaining 47 are owned either wholly or in part by their host government. This Government involvement results in some form of subsidy that frequently causes U.S. flag carriers to be placed at an unfair competitive disadvantage when competing with foreign car- riers. In September 1976, responding to this situation as well as other issues in international aviation, the White House issued a new statement of international air transportation policy. This new policy redirection has five principal objectives: (1) to rely on competitive market forces to the 20 greatest extent possible; (2) to ensure for the transportation of people, mail, and goods wherever a substantial need exists, at as low a price as economically justifiable; (3) support of a private U.S. international air transport system that is economically viable and efficient, and that will generate sufficient earnings to attract private capital and provide job op- portunities; (4) to be consistent with, and contribute toward, U.S. na- tional objectives in defense and security, foreign policy, and international commerce; and (5) to encourage a safe and efficient system of airports and airways, and protection of the U.S. environment. In pursuing these policy objectives, the U.S. Government must weigh the interests of both traveling public and shippers against the needs and capital requirements of the U.S. air transport industry. These objectives are not as mutually exclusive as they might appear to be, especially if one believes in free enterprise and the capitalist system. Therefore, our overall premise is that the promotion of efficient low-cost air transporta- tion can best be realized by providing, to the extent possible given inter- national restraints, for an unrestricted competitive international environ- ment. Since most foreign governments have different ideas as to how inter- national aviation should be regulated, the only way in which the United States Government can attempt to provide a sound competitive market- place for U.S. carriers is through bilateral negotiations. These negotia- tions and subsequent agreements cover a wide spectrum of issues which must be resolved before international aviation to and from the United States can take place. I would like to spend the remainder of this presen- tation discussing a problem that I believe will be the topic of many bilateral and multilateral discussions the United States will conduct over the next several weeks: The problem of foreign government restrictions imposed on the charter operation of the U.S. supplemental industry. President Carter has recently stated, with the full support of DOT, his commitment to low-cost, competitive international air service. Since it has been the U.S. supplemental industry that has consistently served as the competitive spur in the transatlantic market, he is especially interested in continuing to promote competition between the U.S. charter specialists and the scheduled carriers. Nowhere can this competition be better seen than in the N.Y.-London market which is not only the biggest international charter market, but now supports the Laker "Skytrain" service as well. In response to Mr. Laker's innovative service, the U.S. and British scheduled carriers immediately proposed three innovative price/service options of their own: (1) the budget fare; (2) the stand-by fare; and (3) the Super-APEX fare. An immediate result of these low-cost fares in the 21 N.Y.-London market has been not only the generation of new traffic, but the diversion of U.S. tourists from other European cities. Well, the re- maining European carriers were not about to sit idly by and watch "their" traffic divert to the U.S.-U.K. market, so they began filing for Super- APEX fares of their own. In fact, 16 tariffs of foreign flag carriers, including the Soviet carrier, Aeroflot, are now awaiting CAB action. I believe if there were no complicating factors, the U.S. Government would have welcomed the barrage of low-fare filings — especially since the fares were formulated outside of the I ATA rate-making process. However, nothing seems to come easy in international aviation. The complication is this: most of the foreign governments whose flag carriers have proposed their own version of Super- APEX follow restrictive charter policies. These restrictions can take many forms: refusal of landing rights, inac- cessibility to convenient airports, discriminatory charges, equipment re- strictions, price restrictions, and excessive paperwork requirements to name a few. What these foreign flag scheduled carriers are asking for is to offer a charter level scheduled fare while their host government makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the U.S. supplemental industry to effec- tively compete. And, I might add, these restrictions are being imposed at a time when certain charter carriers are in a strained financial position and facing the winter season. The dilemma the U.S. Government now faces is whether to deny con- sumers the opportunity of taking advantage of the proposed Super-APEX fares, or, placing the U.S. supplemental industry at a competitive dis- advantage. The best solution would obviously be to secure liberal charter agreements with foreign governments and allow their carrier's Super- APEX fare to go into effect. I am happy to report that negotiations were concluded last night with the Government of Belgium. While I have not seen the agreement, I understand that it is one that reflects liberal charter operating rights for the U.S. supplemental industry. It just so happens that the Belgian air- line, Sabena, is one of the foreign carriers which has a Super-APEX fare under consideration by the CAB. I cannot say for sure, but I would ex- pect that given last night's agreement, Sabena's tariff will eventually be approved. If the fare is approved, this will place increased pressure on other European governments to accept U.S. charter flights. Unrestricted charter operations in Europe could, in turn, place pressure on other gov- ernments, such as Japan, to open up their markets to the U.S. supple- mental industry. Unrestricted charter operations hold the key to an unprecedented level of competition in international aviation. And this is the surest way to maintain an efficient international air transport system which will produce consumer responsive price/service options for the international traveler. 22 This concludes my prepared remarks. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have during the Question and Answer Period or during our lunch break. Thank you. 23 SPEECH BY MR. LOREN E. LAWRENCE, DIRECTOR, PASSPORT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE I appreciate the opportunity to meet with you today to discuss actions being taken by the Department of State's Passport Office in an effort to meet the demands of ever increasing international travel and tourism. As you know, I am new as the Director of the Passport Office. I have, however had some experience in the arena of passports and travel. I have had considerable overseas service as a consular officer and as a consular manager, as well as assignment to the Bureau of Consular Affairs, the parent governing Bureau of the Passport Office. As such, I have a very deep appreciation of the role the passport plays in facilitating interna- tional travel. I think perhaps a major problem area for the bureaucrat interacting in the field of international travel is that many of us institutionally, or indi- vidually have set out to understand associated problems and to grasp solutions in terms of our static understanding of today and yesterday. We have frequently, too late, come to realize that the dynamics of the future are the controlling instrument for our perception. The line workers in Government and in industry have not always been in tandem in under- standing the value, the earning potential, and the opportunity, massive movements of people can and will more and more represent. Too often the traveler has been viewed as the adversary, the cause for work. That I am pleased to say, has not been the historical situation in the Passport Office. I would hope to guard against that phenomenon developing dur- ing my present role in Government. The problems the Passport Office faces in meeting its obligations to the public are very real. Except for the years 1974 and 1975, which were affected by the general economic recession, the volume of passport issu- ances has grown at sometimes phenomenal rates. In 1976, we experi- enced an increase of 15.8 percent over 1975. Thus far in 1977, we have experienced a 16 percent increase over 1976. A recent marketing sur- vey, prepared for the State Department at the request of the Passport Office by Arthur D. Little, Inc., projects continued increases in passport volume for the foreseeable future. The fact is that even these projections may be conservative because the study was prepared before the proposed "air bus" fares to London were taken seriously. 24 The cost of issuing passports for the past decade has increased at an alarming rate of 10 percent per year and present issuing equipment, essentially put into operation in the mid 1950's, is obsolete and no longer made in the United States. In addition, the international community, through a panel of passport experts of the International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO, has expressed their desire to improve and, where possible, to automate in- spection procedures in order to facilitate the movement of people across international frontiers. The United States has had representation partici- pating in this panel to achieve these types of objectives. How do we in the Passport Office plan to deal with these problems? Do we intend to equip ourselves to provide the kind of service the Ameri- can public deserves? The kind of service which it demands, and for which it pays? That, I believe, is what we should talk about today. The Passport Office has not been idle. Under the leadership of my predecessor, it launched an ambitious and far reaching program to find solutions to many of these problems. The program has been developed and is known by the acronym TDIS, which stands for Travel Document and Issuance System. What is TDIS and how will it solve the problems facing the Passport Office? The TDIS program is the result of over 6 years of intensive research performed both in and outside of the Passport Office. Reduced to its simplest terms, it has two basic objectives: ( 1 ) To provide the United States with a new, improved passport which meets the needs of the American traveling public and, by complying with the recommendations of the ICAO Panel for Standardization and Ma- chine-readability, achieves their objectives of facilitation of travel. (2) To replace the existing obsolete passport issuing equipment with a modern electronic issuance system which, by permitting increased pro- ductivity, will provide better service to the American public at less cost to the American taxpayer. The essential features of TDIS designed to meet these objectives are: (1) A smaller passport measuring 88mm by 125mm or 3.47 inches by 4.92 inches. The smaller document is easier to carry, and we believe from our studies, meets the expressed wishes of a majority of the Ameri- can public; it is less likely to be lost or stolen; and complies with the standard size recommended by the ICAO panel. (2) Concentration of all identifying data on one page of the passport in the standard format recommended by the ICAO panel thus making it easier for both U.S. and foreign officials to inspect. 25 (3) Lamination of the identification page, which not only protects the data from normal wear and tear but through the use of various security techniques, makes it more difficult to alter for fraudulent purposes. « (4) The potential for inclusion of machine-readability in the passport. The exact method of how this will be achieved has yet to be resolved. The ICAO panel originally recommended a magnetically encoded stripe. The Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Visa Office are ex- perimenting with Optical Character Reading. We will work closely with both these elements and resolve this question in the light of all available information. (5) Replacement of the present mechanical paper tape issuing equip- ment with modern electronic equipment such as cathode ray tube input terminals, mini-computers and high speed printers. It is anticipated that the use of this new equipment will result in an increase in productivity from the present limit fo 3,000 passports per man year of employment to 10,000 passports per man year. (6) Increased efficiency resulting in decreased man power require- ments which will permit the Passport Office to meet the increasing volume of passport workload at less cost to the Government. The alarming in- crease in cost to produce a passport can be reduced from over $7.00 per passport to approximately $4.00 per passport. It is conservatively esti- mated that even with no growth in volume, TDIS can save the Govern- ment, and the taxpayer, over $3.8 million dollars per year. (7) New, more flexible concepts of passport issuing facilities designed for the modern TDIS equipment, and located, through the use of objec- tive marketing criteria, where they are required to best meet the needs of the American public. This includes what we call a Master Control Facility in the Washington area, which will be designed to thoroughly test all equipment and simulate all functions before they are put into the field. These are the answers that TDIS provides to the problems of the Pass- port Office in the modern age of international travel and tourism. Where is TDIS now? Initial funds to begin implementation of TDIS were provided in the Fiscal Year 1977 budget. Much of the refinement studies have been completed and are being carried out this year, but a system as large and complex as TDIS takes time and much work remains to be done. Barring any setbacks, current estimates are that TDIS will be issuing passports to you in early 1981. This may seem like a long time to some of you, but it is more important that we produce a system that works than one that fails simply for the sake of meeting unrealistic dead- lines. I assure you that where we can shorten the time required, we will — but we will not sacrifice quality for speed. 26 Other areas currently being examined are in the social/legal/legisla- tive areas. For example, a U.S. passport is valid for use for five years. The United States and an increasing number of other nations believe five years is about the right validity period for valid identification. But we are be- ginning to believe that the meaning of the word "validity" perhaps needs some further examination. We need to find ways of accommodating a number of U.S. citizens whose professional needs require them to travel extensively thus exhausting rapidly the same passport which accommo- dates the majority of U.S. citizens satisfactorily. Should a passport appli- cation therefore cover one passport valid for five years, or should it cover 5 years regardless of the number of passports the citizen needs? And how do these questions juxtaposition themselves with the requirements of the statutes that the passport be a revenue producing procedure for the U.S. Government? Another area — how does a government agency cope with the increasing number of immensely clever fraudulent identification documents we are uncovering? How do we continue to insure the passport document's veracity as a positive proof of identity without slowing the rate of issu- ance or otherwise inconveniencing the citizen traveler? Thus with the implementation of TDIS underway, and with the other areas of inquiry we are undertaking on the non-technical side, we believe that we are preparing to face the future in a way which will not only mini- mize inconveniencing the traveler, but hopefully will even be helpful to him. Thank you. 27 LUNCHEON RESEARCH PROGRAMS AND POLICY UNDER THE CARTER ADMINISTRATION SPEAKER THE HONORABLE FARIAN CHAVEZ, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR TOURISM LUNCHEON SPEECH The Honorable Fabian Chavez, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Tourism, discussed two research projects currently being conducted at the United States Travel Service. One project under contract to the Council of State Governments is designed to develop an educational pack- age for State Tourism officials to convey the growing significance and im- portance of tourism to decision-makers, and to explain the potential of tourism as a tool for economic development. The other project under a grant to the University of Missouri was designed to facilitate the develop- ment of a similar educational package chiefly for cities. Mr. Chavez noted that in some cities tourist attractions have been developed by using urban renewal funds. For example, he pointed out that the Albuquerque and St. Louis Convention Centers were built to and did successfully revitalize areas in those cities. Mr. Chavez further remarked that we can use tourism as an economic development tool and at the same time enjoy the use of the facilities which are generating increased economic benefits. He continued on the note that research is a major item in USTS' bud- get and said that "without it, we can't function; without it, we can't sell," the United States. Mr. Chavez concluded by noting that "tourism funding is an invest- ment, not an expenditure — an investment which attracts more money into the state or locality thereby improving the economic base." 29 PANEL III TOURISM FACILITIES, LAND AND WATER RESOURCES MODERATOR Donald E. Hawkins, Professor of Human Kinetics and Leisure Studies, George Washington University PARTICIPANTS Ira J. Hutchison, Deputy Director, National Park Service Elwood L. Shafer, Principal Recreation Scientist, Forest Environment Research Staff, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Dale A. Crane, Chief, Recreation Resource Management Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers William H. Honore, Assistant Chief, Division of Water Resources, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation ROLE OF U.S. GOVERNMENT IN TRAVEL RESEARCH (SESSION ON LAND, WATER RECREATION RESOURCES) INTRODUCTION Chairperson: Donald E. Hawkins, The George Washington University The travel industry and outdoor recreation resource managers in the United States share a common concern: Tourism Development. The tourism product in non-urban areas is closely related to the public's demand for outdoor recreation and wilderness activities. Agencies presenting their research programs today are continually studying visitor satisfaction, origin-destination patterns, and direct/ indirect benefits associated with the use of their facilities. We are fortu- nate to have far-sighted management of our non-renewable resources which attempts to balance the travel industry's "Discover America" mar- keting approach with the carrying capacity of these valuable resources. Exemplary planning and development actions have characterized the last decade for the Army Corps of Engineers, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and other re- source agencies providing recreation for an increasingly leisure society. Some economists are now linking affluence with the availability of leisure time, thus deserting the traditional money standard. We need to be prepared for the increasing number of travelers who will demand addi- tional outdoor recreation development of our natural resources. In the next decade, hopefully, we will see more cooperative efforts in- volving the travel industry and outdoor recreation managers. Effective tourism development requires comprehensive planning and management efforts. Policy decisions at the present time vary widely — and often con- flict. The research activities described in the session are expected to con- tribute to improving management practices and legislative actions. 33 REMARKS OF IRA J. HUTCHISON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Ladies and Gentlemen: It was suggested that I begin by telling you what the National Park Service really is. Too often, people believe we are simply the caretakers for those 37 properties scattered around the nation which are called "National Parks." We are that, but we are much more as well. America's National Park System includes 294 areas. We are found in 47 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Our properties range from little Thaddeus Kosciuszko National Memorial in Philadelphia to two national monuments in Alaska covering nearly three million acres apiece. They are as world-famous as the Grand Can- yon and the Statue of Liberty or as little-known as the New Hampshire home of the great American sculptor, Augustus Saint-Gaudens. We have, over the years, been seen as a barometer of trends in the travel industry. Some polls have been taken by other organizations and agencies to find out what the most popular attractions in America are. They usually show the National Park Service to be the manager of the lion's share. Of the most popular natural attractions, we are responsible for Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Yellowstone, the Redwoods of California, the Everglades of Florida — in fact, the only high-ranking natural wonder not in our care is Niagara Falls. Of the leading man-made attractions, most are again our responsibility. Included are the Washington Monument, the Statue of Liberty, and the remarkable Gateway Arch in the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial on the St. Louis waterfront. We are not a tourism agency. We are not in the business of promoting travel. We are here to preserve pieces of a priceless heritage. But that heritage which we preserve includes scenic wonders, historic treasures, and recreational lands to which millions of travelers come each year. Your business is to promote travel. Ours is the preservation of most of the renowned landmarks of the nation. We cannot work separately. Our basic statistics on public use of the National Park System are an excellent measure of short-term travel patterns. We compile monthly 34 records of public use throughout the system. From them it is an easy task to seek out specific types of parks which may reflect trends important to your clients. If, for example, you want to know how rural sites are drawing as opposed to urban sites, you can extract figures which will demonstrate these trends. If you are more interested in the trends for a specific region of the country, that too can be done. One of your clients in nearby Virginia might wish to know what our experience is with such natural attractions as Shenandoah National Park or the historic properties, at Fredericksburg, Petersburg, and Yorktown. Or they may be interested in the trends at some of the landmarks of black history like Booker T. Washington National Monument or the site of John Brown's famous raid in neighboring Harpers Ferry, W. Va. Clearly, the size and diversity of the National Park System works to provide an information base from which you can draw for a variety of reasons. Last year, as most of you know, we experienced a boom in public use tied to the Bicentennial celebration. Our visitor figures leaped 1 2 percent above 1975 levels to 267.8 million nationwide. That has now leveled off. With our figures now complete through August, we anticipate only 264 million visits to the National Park System this year. It would appear we are now back into a normal pattern of growth from previous years. As you would expect, the biggest drops came in the areas of the National Park System most closely associated with the Bicentennial, but they were not alone. Grand Canyon, which topped three million last year for the first time, will be well below that figure this year. The same is also true of other parks which experienced major increases last year. The monthly reports, which you can obtain from our Statistical Re- search Division in Denver, give comparison figures for the current and previous years, both for the most recent month and for the year through the reporting month. As you can see, since I am quoting August figures in October, there is some lag time, but the monthly figures are usually available by the end of the succeeding month. What else are we doing, besides keeping this bare record of visits to each of our areas? We are doing research in selected areas. Most of our travel research is done in conjunction with planning for individual park areas. Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act requires, in our regulations, an assessment of the impact of visitor activities on the economic and sociological patterns of the region surrounding a particular park. You will find remarkable parallels between this research and the types of market research which are commonly done in the travel industry. A few examples might point up the kind of work we have done and the value it might have. At Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks, we have undertaken a regional transportation study to examine possible 35 alternatives to the continuation or expansion of the Jackson Hole Airport within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park. For this study we have had to look at present and potential users of air service in the region. We have studied different groups of people in the region. We have looked at hunters, winter sports activists, park users, commercial travelers and others who travel to or through this region. We are also working with a variety of research tools. For example, our "Project for Public Spaces" is basically a photographic research method. Using concealed cameras taking rapid-sequence still pictures, we are able to develop some concepts of visitor use habits in park areas. This has been employed in urban parks and is planned in others. Another tool we call FOG. Essentially, FOG is intended to dispel some of the information fog we face in our planning. Rather than directly quizzing visitors about themselves and their plans, we leave our public contact personnel to gather appropriate facts from individuals through their routine conversations and discussions. They then return to fill our forms based on the information gathered in the course of the conversa- tion. We believe it helps reduce some of the sense of confrontation some visitors feel when they encounter more traditional question-and-answer surveys. This, in turn, may help us gather more useful information for planning. FOG, to us, is our Field Observation Guide. We are undertak- ing an experimental FOG research effort in conjunction with the planning for John Day Fossil Beds National Monument in Oregon. John Day is an interesting case. It includes geographically separate par- cels, some of which were state parks before we acquired them. We are just completing our second season of operation there and are developing a General Management Plan as a blueprint for the future use and devel- opment of the park. Tied to that planning effort is our FOG research which will examine the impact of the park and our management on the neighboring towns and landowners. It may also give us an opportunity to further refine our FOG so that our planning can be done with greater clarity not only at John Day, but elsewhere in the National Park System. We are also presently engaged in an intensive study of our data use and collection in the southeastern United States. We will be examining both our methods of collection and our methods of evaluation. This, too, should help us refine our research techniques. On a broader scale, I feel obliged to tell you that we are not presently engaged in any broad, nationwide studies. We are of course, contributing to the research which underlies the monumental Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plan being prepared by our sister agency in the Interior De- partment, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. When the nationwide plan is complete, it will carry many messages, some of which may funda- 36 mentally change the concepts many of us have. It has a potential for presenting a thorough evaluation of information and research drawn up for a variety of apparently unrelated reasons. It may draw together, for the first time, resources which will affect the future of everyone in this room today. Though this study is not a primary responsibility of the National Park Service, its findings may well be crucial to our future plan- ning in lots of ways and in lots of places. We in the National Park Service are proud of what we have done in this field and hope to do much more in the future. In the meantime, we must manage those 294 park areas I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks. Your suggestions and comments will always be welcome. Perhaps you will have ideas affecting our park planning processes, the operation of concession facilities in the parks, and the effectiveness of public transpor- tation systems in the park. You may have thoughts which will help us deal with the development of the urban parks which have become a major consideration in our plans in recent years. I wouldn't want to close without reminding you that, although we expect a drop in attendance this season from the crush of the Bicenten- nial year, this does not mean we expect the trend to continue downward. Next year the figure will most certainly climb again, though possibly not as rapidly as it did over the decade leading up to the Bicentennial when use of our parks doubled. Remember us. We may not promote travel and tourism, but we serve the same customers that you do. Our National Park System is large and growing. Last spring, our latest addition, the Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site in Hyde Park, New York, was authorized. It may not be open to the public next year, but it will soon become another popular attraction. Our research, because it ties so closely to our planning efforts, tends to focus on resource needs of the parks and the specific problems of various groups of potential park users. Much of what we are doing will scrutinize the special needs of disadvantaged groups, that is, they look to the needs of urban residents with limited resources and little access to conventional transportation, at the special needs of the handicapped, and similar concerns. Now, I would like to ask what your commitment is. We know, from the research we have done, that our average park visitor is an unhandicapped, mobile, middle-class citizen. We also know that the bulk of park use occurs in the brief summer season. Finally, we know that there are prob- ably five Americans who would love to visit parks for everyone who does. We have been doing our studies and conducting our research. We are beginning to come to grips with some ways in which more people can gain 37 access to our parks. What we need from you is a similar commitment. Are you prepared to actively seek our groups who can benefit from group tour packages, using parks in the off-season times when they are less crowded? Or are you willing to just ride with the status quo, marketing your programs to those same unhandicapped, mobile, middle-class citi- zens who already comprise the bulk of our park users? The National Park Service will continue to be your barometer. We will continue to preserve, protect, and present to the visitor most of the primary tourist attractions of our Nation. We want to be a catalyst for expanding the segment of the public which has access to these attractions. Until you can make the needed commitment to help, we cannot make a significant change in the character of the typical park visitor. That is a job we can only achieve working together. We will be happy to share much of our knowledge with you just as we share the beauties of the parks. 38 URBAN FORESTRY RESEARCH: ITS SCOPE AND COMPLEXITY By Elwood L. Shafer, Principal Recreation Scientist, Forest Environment Research, USDA, Forest Service ABSTRACT — Every State in the Nation, particularly throughout densely populated urban environments, is currently involved in an en- vironment-energy crisis. Yet, man's misuse of forest, water, soil, and wildlife resources in and around our cities has caused detrimental envi- ronmental impacts that reflect a lack of concern for the basic underlying needs of society for ecological support systems. Urban forestry offers a means to help meet this challenge and to help improve the quality of life for a large proportion of the American public. Urban foresters need to know the benefits of urban forests, factors that influence the benefits, and means to manage vegetation to provide those benefits; as well as know how to integrate urban forestry with the total urban planning and devel- opment process. What is the best use of natural forest and water resources that inter- twine and separate the great metropolitan complexes of the Nation? What is the optimum mix of manmade communities and natural environ- ments? What should go where? Are certain areas already so overloaded with commercial and transport activity as to constitute ecological disaster zones? Should some urban forest areas be retained in an undeveloped state? Have we considered the importance of visual order and excellence of design in creating ecologically and aesthetically stable conditions in communities that people can be proud of? Just to raise these types of questions is to realize that society's use of forest and water resources throughout many of our urban areas is in chaos. We are in danger of creating a regional kaleidoscope of conditions that are so lacking in concern for the basic underlying needs of society for ecological support systems as to make land use planning an exercise in futility. The idea that unlimited, uncontrolled growth is good is no longer un- questioned dogma. Indeed, quite the contrary, communities across the land are alarmed by pollution, congestion, ugliness, sprawl, decaying neighborhoods. The problems are tied inexorably to the destruction of 39 open space, forest conditions, and water resources that are required for community enhancement and basic necessities of life. The forestry profession recognizes that, although a significant part of America's forest wealth is found in rural or wildland areas, urban forests are vital assets in soil and water conservation and in upgrading the quality of life in urban environments. Open spaces, greenbelts, buffer strips, roadsides, community parks, wooded residential and industrial zones, ex- panding urban areas and new communities — these are new target areas of forestry concern. The potential benefits are many — energy conserva- tion, pleasant and serene environments, increased natural beauty, cooling shade, recreational environments, better air to breathe, less street noise, protection from winds, and more birds and wildlife. MANY INTERESTS ARE INVOLVED Many different disciplines relate to human forest issues, and historically each discipline has looked at its problem of "urban forestry" from its own professional perspective. Private urban-tree companies are in busi- ness to increase the amenities of urban environments while making a profit (Chevron Chemical Company). Utility companies strive to provide energy but at the same time improve the quality of the urban environment (Georgia Power Company). The landscape architect is concerned with enhancing the natural beauty of urban landscapes (American Society of Planning Officials 1968). The regional planner is involved with integrating urban forest values within the total urban- development process (Zube, et al 1975). The horticulturist is concerned with the ecological and physiological aspects of individual trees and shrubs (Forest Service 1976). The municipal watershed manager is faced with providing quality water on a watershed that is valued for many other uses ranging from parking lot to riding trails (Forest Service 1976). The urban forester looks at the long term management and valuation of the urban vegetative system (University of Massachusetts 1971). The wildlife manager seeks to integrate wildlife in an urbanizing environ- ment (University of Massachusetts 1971), and invite wildlife to your backyard (Thomas, et al 1973). The recreation professional attempts, among other things, to use natural environments to improve the quality of life for urban children (Forest Service 1977). And so it goes. Each of these and other professions has something to contribute to the use or management of ecological systems in or near urban areas, so as to increase the benefits that these systems produce. In the past, each of these professions, in effect, has been working somewhat independently of the other — resulting in different approaches to the use or management of trees, soil, water, wildlife, and open space in urban areas. 40 Urban forestry, therefore, has emerged as a concept from a wide-range of disciplines that may sometimes disagree on the exact meaning of the term "urban forestry," but that have found a great deal of common in- terest in related problems. Urban forestry has come of age and is recognized by the Society of American Foresters as a distinct branch of the forestry profession. In addition, the need for urban forestry programs has been recognized in Congress, and several State foresters have initiated aggressive urban for- estry management programs. The Forest Service commitment and con- cern for urban forestry issues is evident in the Human and Community Development Element of the Resources Planning Act, and in the urban forestry research effort of the Pinchot Institute for Environmental For- estry Research, at the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station (Forest Service 1973; Riddle et al 1976). Because of the many and diverse professional interests involved, a precise definition of urban forestry, and the associated resources, has been difficult to develop. As a result, various terms have evolved: urban forestry, metro forestry, environmental forestry, community forestry; and others. Basically, however, as "urban forestry" has evolved, its underlying premise involved delivering benefits to people through management of forest resources in and near the city. An urban forest, therefore, is that portion of the urban ecosystem that consists of forest vegetation, water, soil, and wildlife in densely populated areas and adjacent lands. Urban forest management is the process through which these urban forests are manipulated to provide multiple, long-term benefits to urban society. And, finally, urban forestry research tries to find a balance between people's needs and nature's capabilities. How big, or small, can an urban forest be; how far does its influence extend? The answers depend on what kind of urban forest management situation is involved. For example, if the situation deals with mainte- nance of natural forest stands in a 10-acre city park, then obviously the urban forest is defined by the boundary of the park. On the other hand, if a city is spraying urban waste water over large areas of nearby public forest lands, then the urban forest could comprise hundreds or thousands of acres. FOUR MAJOR AREAS OF INTEREST Basically, urban forest management and research involves at least four major areas of interest: human benefits from urban forests; the basic biological processes where urban forests influence the urban environ- ment; methods to breed, select, establish, maintain, and protect urban forest resources; and strategies to integrate sound urban forestry plan- ning and management into the urban planning and development process. 41 Human Benefits from Urban Forests. — Urban foresters manage com- ponents of the urban forest (such as vegetation, water, soil and wildlife) to produce human benefits. Ideally, the urban forester would like to know how, and to what degree components of the urban forests relate to human benefits such as: — Physical health — Mental health — Property values — Employment stability and growth — Conservation of energy — Knowledge, through environmental education, about ecological proc- esses At the same time, the urban forester realizes that the benefits derived from urban forests may not always be positive ones. In some urban for- ests, the most immediate and pressing question may be the effect of the vegetation on the population of rats or stray dogs, rather than on enjoy- able birds and wildlife. Likewise, rather than being pleasant and serene, some wooded urban areas may be foreboding and threatening to many city dwellers who see them as hangouts for muggers and derelicts — places of terror. Nonetheless, whenever possible, it is important to establish qualitative or quantitative values (either + or — ) for the benefits that trees provide to urban residents. For instance, consider the urban forester who is trying to convince a developer to save trees around a proposed apartment complex. The de- veloper says it is cheaper to remove the trees. The forester must be able to compare two apartment complexes — equal, except one has no trees, and the other has mature, desirable, healthy trees in proper locations. He needs to show how preserving the vegetation will mean more dollars in the developer's pocket. He must be able to show the builder that the trees may save dollars by supporting a higher rental rate per unit, reduc- ing the vacancy time between rentals, reducing the tenant turnover rate, and reducing vandalism. Management of Urban Forests to Enhance the Urban Environment. — To manage the components of the urban forests so as to produce or in- crease human benefits, urban forest managers and planners must under- stand the biological and physical interrelationships among various com- ponents of the urban forests. That is, the urban forester must be able to understand the basic proc- ess through which urban forests can be managed to help achieve desired qualities of the urban environment. Human benefits from urban forests are produced or increased by managing urban forest resources to affect: 42 — Visual quality — Climatic conditions — Home energy conservation — Noise reduction — Air quality — Water quantity and quality — Wastewater disposal systems — Opportunities to view urban wildlife — Recreation opportunities — Utilization of urban wood For example, a city may be interested in using urban forest land for recycling municipal wastewater and sludge. The urban forester must know the effects of such a disposal system on ground water quality, vegetation, soils, soil moisture, litter composition, nutrient recycling, micro- and macro-organisms, insects and disease, and timber production. Growth, Maintenance, Reproduction, and Management of Urban For- est Systems. — The process of managing vegetation in urban forests un- derlies the whole concept of urban forestry. These activities concentrate on the management processes required to: — Select and develop trees that tolerate the rigors of urban elements. — Produce quality nursery stock. — Plant, grow, improve, protect, maintain, and replace urban forests. — Develop rotation criteria and management strategies. For instance, when a new shopping center is being developed and large groups of natural vegetation are being preserved to enhance the landscape quality, the urban forester is faced with the task of suggesting ways to protect the vegetation from undue compaction during the construction phase, and methods to maintain the vegetation after the area is developed. Integrating Urban Forestry with Urban Planning and Development. — Urban forestry issues and management solutions ultimately must mesh successfully with other regional-planning, development, and management processes. Of major importance here are such items as: — Strategies for incorporating urban forest management and protec- tion procedures into a more comprehensive urban planning process. — Information exchange systems and methods to insure public in- volvement in urban forestry management decisions. — Monitoring technology and social change to evaluate their impacts on future urban forestry programs. — Large scale applications to test ways of integrating urban forest man- agement technology into community planning systems that empha- size natural ecological processes. 43 LITERATURE CITED American Society of Planning Officials, 1968. Trees in the city. Rpt. No. 236, Chicago, 111., 44 p. Chevron Chemical Company. Trees for a livable environment. San Francisco, Calif. 20 p. Forest Service, 1973. The Pinchot Institute system for environmental forestry studies. General Tech. Rpt. NE-2, Northeast. Forest Expt. Sta., Upper Darby, Pa. 60 p. Forest Service, 1975. Municipal watershed management symposium proceedings. General Tech. Rpt. NE-13, Northeast. Forest Expt. Sta., Upper Darby, Pa. 196 p. Forest Service, 1976. Better trees for metropolitan landscapes symposium pro- ceedings. General Tech. Rpt. NE-22, Northeast. Forest Expt. Sta., Upper Darby, Pa. 256 p. Forest Service, 1977. Children, nature, and the urban environment: proceedings of a symposium-fair. General Tech. Rpt. NE— 30, Northeast. Forest Expt. Sta., Upper Darby, Pa. 261 p. Georgia Power Company. Planting the right tree in the right place. 15 p. Riddle, J.R., G. H. Moeller, and W.H. Smith, 1976. Breaking new ground in urban America. American Forests, Nov. Issue, 8 p. Thomas, J.W., R.O. Brush and R.M. DeGraaf, 1973. Invite wildlife to your back- yard. National Wildlife, April-May Issue, 11(3), p. 5-16. University of Massachusetts, 1971. Trees and forests in an urbanizing environ- ment. Planning and Resource Develop. Series No. 17, Amherst, Mass. 168 p. University of Massachusetts, 1974. Wildlife in an urbanizing environment. Plan- ning and Resource Develop. Series No. 28, Amherst, Mass. 182 p. Zube, E. H., R. O. Brush, and J. G. Fabos, 1975. Landscape assessment. Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, Pa. 367 p. 44 9J U *T3 *o "33 3 PQ o3 a e £ C3 00 o u Ph S2 2 H.£ "3 in a) "43 43 •— * c o bo C '5 s Ph c a Ph d *C PQ .9 o £2 . d CO 03 03 j-j d 03 5 * 03 0> £>PQ < »H £ *J »H «o «o O 0) VO f» u 4j »— 1 1—4 Proj num pi lA £ z § ** d 8.2 Ph h — 53 c "3 cd .5 •S E £) T3 8) 43 &0 d o +- O o> o 43.2 o o o 03 d d b -i— > -i— i s «h u O Ph Ph d d 03 03 •P hO >< hJ fc t-H w c CO o 3 60 o 03 03 O 2 i/2 u a) ■% S.SP 8 < HH PQ Pi J XTl Ph 1 T3 &0 '53 43 43 H 45 RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, LAND AND WATER RESOURCES AVAILABLE AT CORPS PROJECTS BY D. A. CRANE Chief, Recreation-Resource Management Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tourism differs from most other services. To the potential consumer there is much more involved then merely the decision to purchase the service. Factors such as availability of leisure time, income, historic traveling patterns, product appeal and other personal preferences are all components of the final decision. Travel agents must supply those serv- ices required to meet and satisfy the vacation (leisure- time) demands of their consumer. However, oftentimes the consumer is not aware of all the options open to him in the tourism market, and unless these options are made available to him by an agent of the travel industry, his scope of choice will remain limited. It is the growing consensus among providers of outdoor recreation fa- cilities that, either through lack of knowledge or inaccessibility, there lies in this area, a vast market of untapped leisure-time resources. If these suppliers of outdoor recreation could adequately provide the tourism industry with information concerning the availability and extent of this market, it could rapidly become one of the most popular vacation attrac- tions in the world. When an individual makes the decision to take a vacation, whether it be for two months or two days, there are certain elements which he looks for: a break from routine, a change of setting, relaxation, and for the majority, an escape from the pressures of their daily metropolitan sur- rounding. Many seek areas where nature, especially water or woodlands, are prevalent. Were it convenient to slip away to a nearby lake or to camp out rather then stay at a motel, many would choose to do so if they realized these options were available. Several Federal agencies and departments, of which the Corps of En- gineers is one, provide thousands of recreation areas throughout the coun- try with facilities for both day and overnight use. Recreational activities of every nature are available. We, at the Corps of Engineers, emphasize a wide diversification in recreation planning in order to satisfy as many 46 users as possible, while simultaneously preserving the natural resource which was the initial source of attraction. Corps sponsored activities range from exhibits of archaeological collections of pottery in the Tulsa District to a display of how grain is made into meal and flour in Kentucky to hydroplane regattas in Seattle. The Corps is the largest "purveyor" of recreation services within the Federal Government, though it manages only 1.5 percent of all federal lands available for outdoor recreation. Corps water-based recreation projects attract over 40 percent of all Fed- eral recreation users. Contributing to these statistics is the fact that 70 percent of the American people live in urban areas and two-thirds of the Corps lakes are within 50 miles of an SMSA (urban area). Since 1960, attendance at Corps of Engineers recreation areas has more than tripled. In 1976 alone, visitation at Corps projects totaled over 390 million re- creation days of use, while other Federal agencies reported a combined total of well over 1.7 billion, not inclusive of state recreation areas. It is evident therefore, that a demand exists, is continually increasing, and should be met in a way most satisfying to the tourist. The Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over 1 1 million acres of land and water throughout the United States including some 436 lakes. The attraction of water as a backdrop for participation in outdoor recreation activities cannot be overemphasized. Such water-dependent sports as waterskiing, boating, and fishing are enjoying unprecedented popularity, as well as those activities enhanced by the presence of water such as camping, hiking, picnicking and sightseeing. Below many of the Corps' project dams there are excellent tailwater and stream fishing oppor- tunities. At certain lakes, water discharge is occasionally regulated to provide optimum conditions for existing downstream white-water canoe- ing and kayaking for example on the Youghiogheny River in the Pitts- burgh District. However, water itself does not create recreational activity. Water must be close to people and clean enough for reasons of health and aesthetic appeal. Natural resources which enhance the recreation experience must be preserved and cared for to prevent damage through neglect or overcrowding. This calls attention to the issue of Resource Management which I will address shortly. Recreation at Corps' lakes does not stop with the summer months. Where project location and budget permit, efforts are made to provide year-round recreation use. In winter months there is ice-fishing, snow- mobiling and skiing. Winter hiking and camping are also growing in popularity. The Corps has also installed special features which aid the handicapped and enhance their enjoyment of recreation areas. In addi- tion to typical handicapped features such as ramps and overlook railings, several Corps' lakes provide terraced walks adjacent to boat launching ramps, gently sloping railed walks leading to fishing areas and at Lake Oahe in the Omaha District a Braille nature trail is offered. 47 The type of recreation facilities provided depend on public demands which vary according to geographic features, lake size and location. A large windy lake encourages sailing, mountainous terrain encourages hiking, and rugged shoreline and appropriate water levels encourage fresh-water fishing. The Corps of Engineers provides recreation facilities in all of these environmental settings plus many more at their various projects located across the U.S. Specific examples of sights or events offered at Corps projects which serve as visitor or tourist attractions are: Seth Myers Interpretative Nature Trail at Shenango Lake, Pittsburgh District — this nature trail gives a detailed, step-by-step description of the many facets of nature which occur on the project; Bonneville Fish Hatch- ery located at Bonneville Lock and Dam, North Pacific Division — visitors are welcome to view the spawning and feeding of superb game fish and other species; Ceasars Creek, Ohio — restoration of a pioneer village; Conway, Arkansas — site of the original Cadron settlement established as a French trading post in 1770 now being turned into an 80 acre park; Lake Shelbyville Waterfowl Refuge, Illinois — entices waterfowl for both consumptive (hunting) and non-consumptive (bird-watchers) uses, as well as the site of a very complete and informative interpretative pro- gram; Grenada Lake, Vicksburg District — presents a living history pro- gram on national Holidays where, for 2 days, participants re-enact the lives of soldiers and battles of the Civil War complete with authentic dress, food and lifestyles; Cheatham Lake, Nashville District — fishing and hunting jamborees are held with certificates and awards for the winners; Lake Quchita and DeGray Lake — Vicksburg District — bass tournaments. These are but a few of the varied recreational options available to tourists from the Corps of Engineers. As a matter of fact, during the past 3 months or so there has been a concerted effort at all Corps projects to develop programs that would best utilize each project's re- sources in order to "Improve Visitor Enjoyment" at the project. For a number of years, the Corps has had a policy whereby they enter into lease agreements with various state and local agencies and private concessionaires giving those agencies the managing authority of the area with the stipulation that recreational facilities in the best interest of the public will be provided. Specialized facilities which may be provided under this type of agreement are guest houses, tennis courts or golf courses. A similar program implemented by the Corps in 1974 known as Code 710 states that the Corps will cost share on a 50-50 basis with the state and local governments in the development of recreational facilities at com- pleted lakes. An excellent example of this kind of coordinated effort between the Federal Government and private concessionaires is seen at Lake Sidney Lanier Island in Georgia. Together they have created a type of "Outdoor Recreation Paradise" complete with resort hotels, lodge- convention centers, family camping areas, golf courses, village complexes, 48 service stores, swimming pools, tennis courts, playing fields, bridle paths, provisions for music and drama presentations, aquatic entertainment, etc; anything a vacationer could desire. The Lake Sidney Lanier Island Au- thority is a great success, and the Corps is ready and willing to enter into other cooperative agreements for similar recreational developments. We have a wealth of natural resources available for these purposes, how- ever, an important point must be made — under no circumstances are the provisions of the recreational facilities more important than the preserva- tion of the natural resource which makes it all possible. As public use of Corps projects continues to increase, maintenance of the balance between the recreational needs of the people and the ecological integrity of the land must be achieved. In 1965 the Director of Civil Works authorized the Sacramento Dis- trict to conduct a series of studies to ( 1 ) evaluate existing Corps recrea- tion use data collection procedures, (2) develop a methodology for recreation use prediction, (3) develop recreation facility load criteria, and (4) develop a methodology for the determination of recreation bene- fits. Upon the completion of this work, two studies were conducted to evaluate the economic efficiency and operational effectiveness of the de- velopment and management of Corps recreation areas. The Sacramento District's final effort was an analysis of supply and demand of urban oriented non-reservoir recreation. With the termination of the Sacramento District's R&D efforts in June of 1976, the increasing significance of recreation area development and operation associated with Corps of Engineers' existing and planned proj- ects, and the need for improved methodology in the planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operation of Corps-controlled recreation areas, the Director of Civil Works initiated a Recreation Research Pro- gram in FY 1977, with the Waterways Experiment Station assigned the responsibility for program management. The program is a flexible one designed to solve immediate problems in a relatively short time, make that information available to the field in a usable form, and to accom- modate unforeseen mission changes or the identification of additional research needs. The current program of research consists of work on the "Evaluation and Testing of a Use Prediction Model for Non-Reservoir Recreation," "The Development of a Decision-Oriented Recreation User Informa- tion System," "The Selection of Research and Demonstration Areas and the Development of Baseline Data," and "Design, Carrying Capacity and User Behavior." Recreation-Resource management requires a knowledge of basic con- servation policies, an appreciation of recreation use as an important project function, and foresight in planning to meet the increasing de- 49 mands for water-oriented recreation. For this reason, the Corps employs personnel from many varied disciplines — biologists, landscape architects, outdoor recreation planners, economists and engineers. The Corps policy is that recreation areas on its project lands should be creative examples of maximum utilization of the resource base without destruction of the same resources by the people who spend their leisure time there. The public desire for recreation is not going to diminish, nor is the attractive- ness of water as a stage for outdoor recreation. As a segment of the na- tion's recreation base, the acreage confined within the limits of Corps lake area boundaries will become more valuable with time. Whatever use patterns the future brings, demands for new types of recreation facilities can be anticipated. It is believed that by 1985, Recreation-Resource Management will have become the largest program the Corps of En- gineers has. RESEARCH PROGRAM NARRATIVE RATIONALE RECREATION RESEARCH PROGRAM FY 77-FY 82 1. Introduction. The purpose of this rationale is to discuss current and planned research uncjer the Civil Work R&D Program for Recreation, and to recommend the future level of effort for such work. 2. Background. The increasing significance of recreation area develop- ment and operation associated with Corps of Engineers' existing and planned projects has focused attention on the need for improved meth- odology in the planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operation of Corps-controlled recreation areas. This need was identified in a 28 May 1975 letter from the Deputy Director of Civil Works to the Director, Institute of Water Resources (IWR), requesting assistance in the identifi- cation and definition of research needs for the proposed establishment of a formalized program of research and development to support the Corps' recreation functions. In response to the above request, a Corps Advisory Group — consisting of 16 persons representing OCE, IWR, and various field elements and encompassing virtually all functional aspects of the Corps' recreation/ natural resources management program — was established. This group formulated an initial list of recreation and related natural resource prob- lems and provided assistance in preparing final program recommenda- tions. An Ad Hoc Panel of Consultants — consisting of nine persons repre- senting the academic community, private industry, and organized environ- mental interests — was retained by IWR. Tlv c ^^\z\ reviewed the problem 50 statements prepared by the Corps Advisory Group and submitted a com- pilation of individual research proposals and a suggested plan for the development and implementation of a comprehensive Recreation Re- search Program. The culmination of the above effort was a report to the Deputy Direc- tor of Civil Works, "Recreation Research for the Civil Works Program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," May 1976, prepared by IWR with the assistance of the Corps Advisory Group and in coordination with the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. The report presents ( 1 ) documentation for the need for a formalized Recrea- tion Research Program to support the Corps' recreation functions, (2) the identification and priortization of researchable problems, (3) alter- native program proposals (minimum, optimal, and maximum), and (4) recommendations for the implementation and assignment of management responsibility (the Waterways Experiment Quation). Since submittal of the IWR Report, the Director of Civil Works has approved initiation of the Recreation Research Program; Mr. Dale Crane (DAEN CWC-R) has been assigned Technical Monitor, and the WES has been assigned re- sponsibility for program management. 3. Description of Program. The Recreation Research Program pre- sented herein is based on the optimal program recommended in the IWR May 1976 Report. It is a compendium of 21 primarily independent but interrelated research topics. Although many can be investigated sepa- rately, efficiency in data collection, effective coordination of the overall program, and the timely dissemination of research results can best be achieved through centralized management. Research results from this program will be directly applicable to all Corps' Civil Works elements engaged in planning, design, construction, maintenance or operation of recreation areas or programs. In the proposed program, most of the work units are organized so that their planned duration is relatively short and so that they can be altered, deferred, or terminated as required to accommodate unforeseen mission changes, changes in priorities or technology, or the identification of addi- tional research needs. The objectives and a brief summary of the Current (FY 77-79) and Proposed (FY 80-82) Research are presented in the following para- graphs. 4. Current Research. a. Evaluation and Testing of Use Prediction Model for Non-Reservoir Recreation. There is an immediate need for credible recreation use and benefit estimating procedures for evaluating non-reservoir and on-struc- tural water resource development alternatives. The purpose of this re- 51 search is to test one such procedure developed by the Sacramento Dis- trict and to validate and calibrate or to reject the general applicability of their use prediction models. b. Development of Decision-Oriented Recreation User Information System. All who participated in the preparation of the IWR May 1976 Report were in agreement that the effectiveness of recreation management and planning could be improved with a better flow of the right kinds of information and more reliable data pertaining to the use of Corps recrea- tion areas. The objective of this research is to develop and make rec- ommendations for the implementation of a high quality user information system to support the Corps' recreation planning management and re- search needs. Although such a system would greatly enhance the research program by enabling more efficient data collection, its implementation is a prerequisite for only one other of the research topics currently sched- uled as Proposed Research. c. Selection of Research and Demonstration (R&D) Areas and Devel- opment of Baseline Data. One effective tool identified for use in a com- prehensive program of recreation research is the establishment of a system of R&D Areas. Among the advantages of such a system would be ( 1 ) the enhancement of both the quality and timeliness of research; (2) the op- portunity to test design and management alternatives in a controlled but quasi-experimental setting; (3) an improved basis for integrating research findings into the Corps' recreation/natural resources management pro- gram; (4) a more efficient system for cumulative data collection, and (5) the realization of important training, demonstration and public relations benefits. The objective of this research effort is the establishment of a system of R&D areas with associated data systems to support the overall Recreation Research Program. Maintenance of the data system would continue throughout the duration of the overall program. d. Cost Effectiveness of Fewer but Larger Public Use Areas. Eco- nomics of scale has not been a criterion for determining the size or loca- tion of Corps' recreation areas. Consideration of this criterion could result in more efficient and effective allocations of limited resources dur- ing both the development and the operation and maintenance of these areas. The purpose of this research is to determine the cost effective op- timal size of recreation areas and to describe the inefficiencies in invest- ments where other criteria determine the size. e. Design, Carrying Capacity and User Behavior. This research would address problems of access, facility and open space design, in relation to impacts on the natural and man-made environs. Objectives would be to develop design criteria for so-called "carrying capacity" related to the nature of the site, demand characteristics, and variations of design of access, facilities and open space. Information and analysis from this study 52 would be basic to much associated research and would contribute to the cumulative data base at the research and demonstration areas. The work unit has, therefore, been scheduled during the early stages (FY 78 and 79) of the program. f. Recreation Planning Design and Management for Law Enforce- ment. Previous research has concluded that the security and safety, both real and perceived, of visitors at recreation areas is an important ingredi- ent of the recreation experience. The objective of this research is to develop specific recreation planning, design, and management criteria per- taining to visitor safety and to test their effectiveness in the Corps' recrea- tion program. Development of such criteria is currently scheduled to be initiated in FY 79, with testing and evaluation scheduled for FY 80-82. g. Relation of Recreation Preferences to Resources and Use. The re- lationship between what people say they would do and what they actually do is problematic. Also, preferences tend to be influenced by available opportunities. The purpose of this research is to develpp and test a pref- erence instrument for use in the Corps' recreation planning, design and management functions. Such an instrument would be extremely valuable in ascertaining the use-potential of proposed recreation development and to identify and assess barriers to current non-users. h. Development of Criteria and Policies for the Integrated Manage- ment of Project Lands. The Corps of Engineers currently administers public land and water resources with a total area in excess of 1 1 million acres. The Corps has traditionally taken a custodial management posture with respect to these resources in light of its "action orientation" as a major civil works construction agency. However, given trends of ( 1 ) in- creasing demand for public use of water based resources, (2) pressures to devote limited public land to private development and management, and (3) pressures to increase numerous resource outputs, the Corps will be increasingly faced with serious policy decisions which could radically alter its resource management, personnel and budgetary operations. The purpose of this research is to do a comprehensive systems analyses of the present and potential policies and criteria for integrated resources man- agement to assist in identifying the possible impacts of such decisions. Extensive research is proposed on multiple-use management as opera- tionalized by the Corps, other Federal agencies, and state and private land managers. i. Methodolgy to Determine Concessionaire Opportunity. As noted above, there is increasing public interest in potential recreation oppor- tunities available at Corps administered land and water areas. However, with this interest comes increasing pressure for additional investments in recreational facilities and related services. One way the Corps has re- 53 sponded to this growth in public recreational interest while faced with limitations in the availability of public funds is by soliciting private in- vestment for facility and service development. The purpose of this re- search is to improve the Corps' ability to attract private investment for needed facilities and services while maintaining desired levels of resource quality. Research objectives include the identification and evaluation of alternative concession marketing strategies and the examination of the interrelationships between such strategies and Corps' management prac- tices. As with the preceeding work unit this effort will require extensive and intensive management research. The proposed three-year effort is scheduled for initiation in FY 79. 5. Proposed Research. a. Lake Recreation Use Prediction and Economic Evaluation. During the past decade, research studies have developed improved recreation use prediction and benefit evaluation procedures. However, little success has been achieved in assimilating the results of this research into planning and evaluation procedures. One reason for this is increased, unmet data requirements of the improved procedures. The purpose of this research is to develop more precise use prediction functions and to incorporate improved evaluation procedures into plan formulation. This work unit is scheduled later in the research program (to be initiated in FY 80) since as presently proposed it requires implementation of the user information system (as discussed in paragraph 4b) or some other source of user data prior to initiation. b. Planning and Design Standards for Recreation Area Roads. Re- cently published research by the Construction Engineering Research Laboratory principally concerned itself with the development of geo- metric designs and aesthetic standards for use in the design of road sys- tems. Likewise cost effective construction standards for roads considering traffic intensity; soil, topography and drainage conditions; and corre- sponding maintenance requirements are well-researched areas. However, none of this research has been directly concerned with the critical prob- lems of the high costs entailed in the development and maintenance of roads at Corps recreation areas. The purpose of this research is to de- velop cost effective planning criteria for recreation area roads, based on: (1) access requirements, (2) the size and distribution of recreation sites, (3) interconnecting off-project road system, and (4) the impacts of alter- native road types on user perceptions of the quality of the recreation experience. c. Criteria and Procedures for Recognizing Limitations in Natural Resource Use. Overuse and misuse of recreation areas can cause gross and irrevocable damage to vegetation, soils, and other natural features. This is of critical concern to the Corps' recreation and resource managers 54 faced with the pressures of increasing visitation and the current emphasis on environmental considerations. The purpose of this research is to develop planning, design, and management criteria for the detection, prevention, and correction of environmental damage at recreation areas. d. Measuring the Results of Design Alternatives. Design of land-use sites, including access, walks and roads, parking, scenic openings, and barriers, etc., determine to some extent the human use of an area. At the same time users both adapt their behavior to the design and adapt the design to their behavior. Understanding the interrelationships between design and behavior is crucial to planning recreational facilities and developing management strategies. The purpose of this research is to compare determined, adaptive, and reconstituting behaviors, in relation to design alternatives. e. Cost Effective Design for Sanitary Facilities. Sanitary facilities have been the subject of considerable research and development activity, but because this is such a high cost element, additional research is required. Some specific problems which need to be addressed are ( 1 ) determination of basic facility types that should be provided considering the wide varia- tion in the kind and level of recreation use and in the size and configura- tion of Corps' project areas, and (2) determination of user demands and perceptions concerning the type, number and distribution of sanitary facil- ities. The objective of this research is to attempt to delineate between sanitation as a matter of necessity and as a matter of luxury. f. Multiple Measures of Recreation Value. Basic to the decision of financing and planning recreation resources is the question of the value of the experience to participants. The purpose of this research is to go beyond the surrogate measures of willingness-to-pay which is currently used, and to develop a more comprehensive set of measures. Relative values assigned by participants, perceptions of the personal benefits in self-development, self-expression, and social relationships are possible dimensions of the value of recreation that should be examined. The ob- jectives of this work include the development and analysis of alternative measures of the value of outdoor recreation experiences and the projec- tion of implications for recreation planning and programming. g. Characteristics of User Groups. Previous research has indicated that family status, age of children at home, cultural expectations, and circles of regular association may be more determinative of leisure pat- terns than just age, sex, and socio-economic status. Lack of income and health barriers may filter out some in considering certain kinds of recrea- tion, but income alone does not determine what is chosen out of all the possibilities. For example, use of a particular resource is determined partly by the natural environ, access and facility design, characteristics of user groups and social interactions that develop. The purpose of this 55 research is to describe the characteristics of user groups, to describe the impacts of recreation environments, design features, social conventions, and group interaction on these characteristics, and to determine whether or not current fee or access policies are in effect subsidizing those who are able to pay. h. Regional and National Economic Impacts. A large percentage of discretionary income is spent for goods and services in pursuit of water and water-related land recreation activities. The Water Resource Coun- cil's Principles and Standards require a discussion of the impacts of such expenditures in the evaluation of alternative water resource development projects. Such a discussion could also be used to describe regional benefits to potential local sponsors of recreation developments at these projects. However, the data to quantify and demonstrate the enormity of these im- pacts are fragmented at best. The purpose of this research is to identify and document the economic impact of recreation-associated expenditures on various sectors of regional and national economies in terms of em- ployment, income and output of goods and services. i. Impact of Fee Collection at Corps' Recreation Areas. It is the ap- parent intent of the Administration and the Congress that identifiable beneficiaries share the cost of providing recreation opportunities at Corps' projects. Fee programs, in addition to returning costs, can be used to control visitor activities. However, past fee collection policy in the Corps has been inconsistent, inefficient, and controversial. The objective of this research is to develop better understanding of the economic, managerial, and social implications of alternative fee schedules and policies. j. Local and Regional Social Impacts. Meeting the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Principles and Standards for Water Resources Development, and negotiating with state and local agen- cies over cost-sharing require reasonably accurate predictions of the im- pacts of recreation developments on the social systems of the area. While interrelated with environmental and economic impacts, social impact on the family, culture, government, etc., and on such special population groups as children, the aged, and the poor should be specifically assessed. The purpose of this research effort would be to determine the local and regional social impacts of recreational development through a systematic set of comparable assessments that could be replicated at other areas. k. Sociological Approach to Demand Estimation. Recreation user pre- dictions based on current participation rates and on population projec- tions by age, income, and socio-economic status have a number of short- comings. Most serious is that present rates of participation for such groups are assumed to remain unchanged. However, opportunity stuctures and expectations of salient communities such as children, friends, and kin networks may change. The purpose of this research is to develop recrea- 56 tion models based on comprehensive sociological and psychological anal- ysis of user and non-user groups, which considers such networks, social and cultural orientations, and leisure histories. 1. Environmental Baseline/ Monitoring Studies. The primary purpose for this research is to improve planning procedures for reducing detri- mental environmental consequences of Corps of Engineer water develop- ment projects and of associated recreational development, management and use. The secondary purpose is to discharge statutory and administra- tive obligations under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, the Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, the National Envi- ronmental Policy Act of 1969, the Water Quality Improvement and En- vironmental Acts of 1970, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the new Army Corps of Engineer regulations requiring the development of alter- native solutions to water and related land use planning projects published in the 10 November Federal Register. A tertiary benefit would be the es- tablishment of an objective, documented demonstration of the Corps' success in achieving sound environmental quality objectives, assuming it were in fact successful in this area. 6. Coordination and Information Transfer. The purpose of the Recreation Research Program is to expand knowledge and understanding of problems encountered in order to improve the effectiveness and effi- ciency of the Corps in providing recreation opportunities at its w^ater resource development projects. Research in this case is considered pri- marily as a service function to the resource manager; its function is to make knowledge accessible to the management process. Its success should be measured in the use of knowledge rather than the production of reports or other publications. For the research to be responsive to real needs of resource managers, research problems must be properly identified. As previously described, the research problems that form the basis for the initial recreation re- search planning effort were identified and prioritized in coordination with representatives from all levels and encompassing virtually all functions of the Corps' recreation/natural resource management program. Reevalua« tion of scheduled research work and priorities will be a continuing proc- ess. In addition to future field identification of problems (i.e., through Mission Problems) the Recreation-Resource Management and the Plan Formulation and Evaluation Branches of OCE are in unique positions to assess field problems and develop reactions to ongoing research. To ac- complish orderly and timely pursuit of the recreation research objectives, the responsible laboratory (WES) and these OCE branches maintain essentially constant communication for informally reporting research progress and feeding back the field's reaction to the progress. Finally, implementation of the Research and Demonstration Area system will 57 provide a unique and valuable opportunity for further identification of field needs. Equally as important to the success of the research program as the identification of field problems is the dissemination of research results in a form amenable to field implementation. Research results will gen- erally be either improved and standardized procedures or data for use by personnel involved with planning, design, construction, maintenance, or operation of Corps' recreation projects. The knowledge will normally be transmitted to the field by way of technical reports, ETL's, seminars, and training courses. The importance of the user of training courses to insure successful information transfer should be emphasized. Existing training programs, such as the OCE Short-Term Training Program, will be used to support the information transfer when appropriate. It should also be noted that implementation of the Research and Demonstration Area sys- tem will provide a vehicle for directly testing and demonstrating the im- plementability of many research efforts. External coordination with the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and other Federal and state agencies has been initiated and will be maintained throughout the research efforts. Involvement and participation in activ- ities of professional recreation and associated societies and organizations will be used to identify research information from other agencies, indus- tries, and universities and to disseminate research information from this program to them. 58 COMMENTS BY WILLIAM H. HONORE, BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION I. Introduction Thank you for the opportunity of meeting with you to discuss such a vital issue as recreation research. Our new Director, Chris Delaporte is on board and has some clear thoughts about this area. I understand sev- eral of you met with him recently and you exchanged some ideas. Aside from being conducted and sponsored by a great many Federal agencies, "research" occurs in many guises — fact-finding, data gathering, feasibility assessment, "demand" studies, impact studies, and cost-benefit comparisons. "Impacts" on tourism may be direct or indirect, positive or negative, recognized or ignored. Tourism, far from being a readily definable and identifiable subject includes a vast array of public and private endeavors. Millions of dollars are spent annually by the Federal Government on formal programs of outdoor recreation research (one agency alone has spent more than $1 million in each of the past several years). However, the total expenditure is small when compared to other Federal research programs, and it is miniscule in comparison to the Federal outlay for outdoor recreation planning and management. Of the Federal outdoor recreation research dollar, only a small amount could be easily charged directly to tourism programs. The greater part of that dollar is earmarked for solving specific agency planning and management problems. Informal recreation research activities of Federal agencies involve ad- ditional millions and may have far-reaching consequences for Tourism. For example, the forest ranger who sets his camping fees for the season by first calling half-a-dozen local private camp-grounds to see what their rates are going to be, is doing recreation research! The district agents of the Soil Conservation Service and NACD collecting inventory data on the numbers and types of private recreation enterprises in their counties are doing recreation research! The State outdoor recreation planner, op- erating on a Land and Water Conservation Fund grant from the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, is doing recreation research as he attempts to determine trends in tourist demands! The linkages between these "re- search" activities and specific Tourism impacts may be difficult, if not impossible, to trace. 59 What I would like to do today is: 1. Highlight what we think some Federal agencies are doing. 2. List briefly some significant research BOR has sponsored in the past. 3. Discuss and describe in a little more detail, some of the more sig- nificant research recently completed by BOR. 4. Review some "research being conducted as part of BOR's urban study which might give us a clue of things to come in BOR, and 5. Provide a challenge for researchers and decision-makers. II. Existing Federal Recreation Research Programs More than two dozen Federal agencies currently conduct, or sponsor, outdoor recreation research. Expectedly, the majority of this research is conducted within the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. Other agencies and departments include: Health Education and Welfare, Com- merce, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Defense (US Army Corps of Engineers), the Tennessee Valley Authority Economic Development Administration, Labor, and the Federal Power Commission. Following are some about which you haven't heard today: The Soil Conservation Service (Department of Agriculture) assembles data on commercial recreation enterprise development and success rates. With the National Association of Conservation Districts, SCS has developed the most authoritative national inventory of private sector recreation de- velopments available. The Federal Highway Administration (Department of Transportation) supports studies of the trends in recreational travel, recreational vehicle usage, and the operational and safety aspects of recreational vehicles. Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of the Interior) conducts a small recreation research program which includes a periodically updated "National Survey of Hunting and Fishing." The Cooperative State Research Service (Department of Agriculture) provides research funds to State Agricultural Experiment Stations for approved research projects. CSRS has supported numerous studies of outdoor recreation enterprise economics and marketing. An example is the recent series of studies entitled "Analysis of the Campground Market in the Northeast." The Cooperative Extension Service (Department of Agriculture) spe- cialists in recreation have done several rate-structure management-cost and other types of studies to have information to work with commercial enterprises providing leisure and tourist services to the public. The Ex- tension Service has the responsibility of teaching research and interpreting it for utilization. Finding out just what does exist is very important in 60 making suggestions to future investors. While it is their job to distribute research information for educational purposes, demonstrations of research methods and basic fact-finding in the private sector are a prerequisite to effectively working with managers of small recreation and tourism devel- opments. The Economic Research Service (Department of Agriculture) is in- volved in developing methodology to estimate the value of recreational benefits and how these values are impacted by changes in environmental quality. A current project includes estimation of recreational benefits at various Wisconsin lakes with differing degrees of water quality. Also some research is underway on impacts of pollution controls on recreation firms. The Office of Water Research and Technology (Department of the Interior) provides funds to State Water Resources Research Institutes for approved research projects. Typical water-related study areas in re- creation receiving OWRT support are: Effect of recreation development on water quality, hydrologic impacts in recreational use planning and activity weightings, and effects on estuarine and river-based recreation of intensification of agriculture. The Small Business Administration conducts occasional studies in the private recreation area. Research studies or reports on recreation busi- nesses are prepared only when special problems or issues are of such magnitude to adversely affect small firms or when requested by Congress. Research studies in the private sector recreation area are also conducted to determine the magnitude and/or need for financial, technical or man- agerial assistance. III. Listing of BOR sponsored research in the past. Following are some Research Contracts conducted by Bureau of Out- door Recreation since 1962. Title Date Private Sector Outdoor Recreation Study (Chilton) FY 1965 New England Vacation Home Study FY 1966 The Demand and Supply of Outdoor Recreation FY 1967 Survey on participation in outdoor recreation activities 1971 Evaluate existing Outdoor Recreation Demand Methodologies . . 1974 Study of Optimum Recreation Resource Carrying Capacity ... 8/27/76 Evaluation of Public Willingness to Pay User Charges for Use of Outdoor Recreation Areas and Facilities 10/30/76 Develop and Test Methods for Determining Minimum Stream Flow Needed for Various Recreation Pursuits 10/30/76 Evaluation of Previous Recreation Surveys and the Design/ Testing of a Nationwide Survey Program 2/29/76 61 IV. Summary of the More Significant Research of BOR A. Carrying Capacity. — Many of the Nation's recreation resources and facilities are experiencing over-use and overcrowding which deteriorates the resource and diminishes peoples' recreation experiences. And, the recreation demands and needs are increasing. This condition requires that greater emphasis be placed on determining the level at which a recrea- tion resource can be used to both protect the resource and preserve the peoples' enjoyment of the resource. Guidelines are needed to help deter- mine these "optimum" recreation carrying capacity levels. This study presented results which contribute to a better understanding of carrying capacity and shows one way of approaching the subject of "optimum recreation carrying capacity." Practical guidelines are provided for use by recreation planners and administrators in determining optimum carrying capacities for their particular recreation activities and under their specific physical and social circumstances. Therefore, one of the values of this study is that it recognizes the folly of recommending a specific standard to be applied "across the board" by everyone, regardless of the situation. This study offers an approach or system for use in tailoring recreation carrying capacities to a wide variety of possible circumstances. B. Willingness To Pay. Public recreation services have long been provided either free or at reduced costs, due to the general belief that the services were justified for the overall social or community good and not directly subject to economic analysis. Consequently, the cost of rec- reation on public lands is widely perceived as free or cheap. This, of course, is a misconception. Providing for such opportunities is costly, and treating it as free leads to potential misapplication of resources. Cog- nizant of the greater need for economic analysis, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation authorized this study to develop base data as to the current fee policies of government agencies (measures of consistency in manage- ment), fee levels in comparable public and private areas (measures of competition), and public willingness to directly pay for recreation serv- ices. The research program generally indicated an overall acceptance of user fees as a reasonable way to support the costs of special facilities and the operations and maintenance budgets for outdoor recreation. Supported by the results of a nationwide citizen survey and interview/ survey responses of over 250 recreation administrators, the research program developed measures of acceptable fee increases, impacts of fees, and public/administrator attitudes toward the role of fees in outdoor recreation. C. Instream Flow. The demand for water-based recreation has grown substantially in the past several decades. It has, in fact, grown faster than population. Generally, this has to do with the increase, since the 62 turn of the century, in the amount of leisure time and disposable income available to individuals. Additionally, many water related activities, such as white water canoeing, have undergone growth of boom proportions. This growth has affected both lake and stream-based activities. There are, however, inherent differences between the two types of activities which must be recognized. Lake activities may be viewed as more activity oriented. That is to say that the activity may be successfully and pleasurably carried out on virtually any relatively large body of water. More to the point, lake en- vironments can, and have been, provided by human works (dams). Thus, it is not a supply-limited resource in any immediate sense. Stream-based activities, on the other hand, are more resource oriented. The availability of the activity and its quality may depend on the par- ticular stream in which it occurs. Additionally, free-flowing water is seldom created by human works; indeed the dam that creates a new lake almost always inundates a stretch of free-flowing stream. Thus, instream recreation depends upon a limited, and shrinking, resource. To com- pound this difficulty, there is intense competition for the waters in a free-flowing stream. The assessment of such a set of activities is necessary if they are to be preserved. In the past, water has been viewed as a consumable re- source with little or no supply limit. This is no longer the case. The need now arises to treat instream water and instream recreation as a non renewable resource and to enter into the competition for what free-flow- ing water remains. However, before trade-off analysis can begin, the range of possible activities must be determined. Different riverine recreational activities impose different physical requirements. D. Review of Principles and Standards Concerning Recreation. Senate Document 97 first sanctioned guidance and discussion of the unit day value for estimating benefits at water projects, the origin of which is lost in antiquity — probably a SCS survey. The guidance pro- vided an interim method while more sophisticated techniques were to be developed. It defined recreation "day, provided a value for specific activ- ities, and gave general criteria for selection of a value. It was probably a good foundation for planning and for improvement of methods. Subsequently, the Principles and Standards (P&S) were published calling for a "simulated willingness to pay." The P&S recognized the existence of a number of methods but only the travel cost method is prescribed. In the interim, a schedule of monetary values were presented but the document did not define the unit day nor give criteria for selection of values. 63 About one year ago the Water Resources Council established a com- mittee to evaluate where we are today and provide a program for im- proving benefit evaluation. The committee served as project manager for an Office of Water Research and Technology contract with the University of Illinois to develop the background. A report "Improved Procedures for Valuation of the Contribution of Recreation to National Economic Development," was just published. The Committee of the WRC has prepared "Proposed Revision of the Principles and Standards, Section II f 2(e) Concerning Recreation" and a "Proposal for Implementing Revised Principles and Standards for Rec- reation Benefit Evaluation." With these efforts completed, the Federal Government is on the threshold of initiating a process which will provide a basis for better planning of water related outdoor recreation. E. Analysis of Previous Nationwide Surveys. As part of the proc- ess of obtaining background information for the preparation of the 1978 Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plan (NWP), the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation contracted with Kirschner Associates Inc. to evaluate the previous nationwide surveys on citizen participation in outdoor recrea- tion activities. This evaluation was prior to any major consideration of a survey program for future research. This Interim Report covers the analysis of five national surveys. For identification, we have labeled them as follows: 1. The 1960 ORRRC Survey, administered by the Bureau of the Census and sponsored by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC) established prior to the creation of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. This is the most comprehensive of the five sur- veys, with personal interviews conducted at the end of each season. 2. 1965 BOR Survey, administered by the Bureau of the Census and sponsored by the newly formed Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Em- phasis was placed on the summer activities; only one wave of interviews were conducted. 3. The 1970 Mail Survey, administered by the Bureau of the Census as additional information added to a survey being conducted for the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Information was obtained on activity participation covering the entire year. 4. The 1971 SRC Survey, administered by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan. This survey collected activity participation data on household members for the past twelve months and explored some motivational factors related to outdoor recreation par- ticipation. 5. The 1972 Audits and Surveys Survey, administered by Audits and Surveys and conducted for the 1972 Nationwide Plan. The survey focused 64 on summer activities. The findings were reported, in part, in Appendix "A" An Economic Analysis of the 1973 NWP. As a result, the evaluation of these surveys had three specific objec- tives: 1. To determine what types of comparisons can be made with these surveys, and with what limitations. 2. To determine if further dissemination should be made of the 1972 Audits and Surveys Survey. 3. To determine what improvements can be made in subsequent sur- veys by examining these past surveys. F. Nationwide Recreation Surveys of the 2nd Nationwide Plan. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation's present Nationwide Recreation Sur- veys are part of an effort to more fully understand the structural patterns and trends of outdoor recreation in the fabric of American life. As such, there are four major reasons why we are involved in our present survey undertakings : 1. The surveys will provide for integrated background data that is needed for the 1978 Nationwide Plan or whatever policy document the Department decides on. 2. They will provide policy, participation, socio-economic and trend data that can be used as tools in Federal recreation policy decisionmaking. 3. They will provide for valuable recreation policy data on nonusers and users of Federal area user information that is collected uniformly across all Federal agencies and sections of the country. 4. The surveys should act as a catalyst for similar State, regional, and local endeavors in order to redirect efforts to understand and commu- nicate with recreation users and nonusers. In order to most effectively achieve these purposes, the Bureau has just recently conducted a nationwide telephone survey to gauge opinions and involvement of the general public and is presently conducting the first-ever National On-Site Survey of users at parks and recreation areas administered by the Federal Government. In particular, these surveys allow comparison between patrons of Federal parks and recreation areas and the general public so that the Federal role in outdoor recreation can more accurately be portrayed. It goes without saying that if we can better define our role, i.e., the Federal role, it is obviously going to help you and your respective departments. The two questionnaires were developed concurrently and can be de- lineated into four sections: (1) outdoor recreation participation, (2) use of and satisfaction with recreation areas, (3) government policy priorities, 65 and (4) demographic information. In the first section on outdoor recrea- tion participation, the respondent is asked not only about the extent of participation in outdoor recreation activities, but also about initiation of new activities and reasons for not participating in other activities. Re- spondents to the on-site survey are asked to describe their visit in terms of activities pursued and length of stay. This provides more context for understanding the respondent's answers regarding satisfaction with rec- reation opportunities. Additionally, the surveys examine citizen satisfaction with recreation areas, in general terms for the telephone survey and in specific terms for the on-site survey. The government policy section explores public opinion priorities in the uses of Federal Government recreation funding, and opinion on the effect that the price of gasoline has had on outdoor recreation activity. The demographic data will be used to cross-tabulate the information obtained in the previous sections to identify sectors of the public whose needs are being met least well and to compare the survey data with Census data for representativeness. G. Research Studies of the National Academy of Sciences. — The National Academy of Sciences has, on two separate occasions, addressed itself to the subject of recreation research. In its 1969, 90-page report, "A Program for Outdoor Recreation Research", the authors outlined a detailed program of research needs in the private sector as an after- thought, in a discussion of recreation and opportunities. The Academy's second excursion in outdoor recreation, the 1975 re- port "Assessing Demand for Outdoor Recreation", is even more cryptic in its treatment of the private sector; stating that little is known about the use of non-publicly provided recreation, and that planners and re- searchers should attempt to meet the data needs of privately provided recreation. V. Urban Study Research Projects We have a number of relatively small contracts underway. These are mostly developing pieces of the urban study. These will be published separately as Technical Reports. Some of these are: Title Date Urban Study (Use of 1977 . Regulatory Powers) Urban Study (Federal 1977 Strategies) Summary Regulatory Powers for open space pre- sentation will be analyzed and Land use or police powers effectiveness in preserving open space and will be as- sessed. Will develop alternative Federal stra- tegies for assisting in conservation of natural resources and open space in and near urban areas as opposed to Federal acquisition. 66 Title Urban Study (Land Acquisition Methods) Urban Study (Real Property Tax Incen- tives) Urban Study (Design of Survey Form) Urban Study (Com- munity Development Block Grants) Urban Study (Compre- hensive Employment & Training Act) CETA Urban Study (Evaluation of Neighborhood) Data) VI. Challenge Date Summary 1977. . . . Will study less than fee simple as well as fee simple methods for space pres- ervation and give advantages and dis- advantages of each. 1977.... Will analyze the effects of tax law on open space preservation in urban areas. Effect on forcing sales and meshing tax with regulatory tools will be discussed. 1977.... Designed survey form for study of neighborhood units and to analyze the data collected. Will determine role of the citizen and recreation opportunity available in neighborhoods. 1977. . . . Study use of block grant funds for recre- ation, parks and open space. Will de- termine purposes of funds and target population constraints. 1977.... CETA personnel are extremely im- portant in urban recreation programs. This study will determine how im- portant. The extent, impact, problems and options will be evaluated. 1977.... Will analyze data collected in urban study to make it more useful for States and urban areas for neighborhood re- vitalization. Sometimes, with all the recreation related research underway, costing millions of dollars and filling innumerable bibliographies, I wonder (a) Why I can't find an answer to a question I have or (b) Why sometimes, after I have searched for an answer without suc- cess, I stumble along with an insufficient answer, and later find the ap- parent appropriate answer or (c) Why I find it easier to redo research than try to find the answer in research already conducted. (d) Why so many studies being conducted by public agencies never appear in scholarly or other journals. Many people need the information. (e) Why scholarly journals don't provide answers in a form and with words I can understand. (f) Why simple minded people like myself aren't beating on BOR's door and Congress' to insist that we do something about it. In FY 78, BOR had $100,000 in the budget for research and educa- tion. Congress struck it out completely. 67 In December of 1972 a special work group, composed of representa- tives of 19 Federal agencies and one university, met under Bureau of Outdoor Recreation auspices to identify the private sector's role in out- door recreation. A total of 13 major problems confronting the private sector were identified, ranging from public competition to tax disincentives and legal liability. Seven specific research tasks were identified along with numerous suggestions for changes in public policy, technical assistance programs, and self-help ideas. The priority research tasks needing atten- tion included marketing studies, developing criteria for potential success of private enterprises, and developing data centers to monitor social trends. The work group's findings were reviewed with representatives of many organizations, and the resulting recommendations strongly stressed a revision of current Federal outdoor recreation research practices, pro- grams, and priorities. In September of 1974, an inter-agency group of 43 scientists and ad- ministrators met at Harper's Ferry, WV, to identify national outdoor re- creation problems and priorities. Of the 23 highest priority research tasks identified, public-private-sector relations in providing recreation was Number 9, and fee inter-relationships between the two sectors was Num- ber 21. Numerous other problems, such as measuring outdoor recreation demand, cut across the needs of both sectors. In August of 1975, a survey of 136 outdoor recreation researchers and administrators in the northeastern states identified private sector problems as one of the top nine priority concerns for research, with the statement that "the potential for profitable private provision (of outdoor recreation) should be under continuous study". A similar survey, conducted in the southern states in 1973-74 ranked "non-government supply of forest rec- reation services" as a "level 4" priority on a scale of 1-5. VII. Summary This should give you an idea of the nature and extent of BOR's re- search efforts. They have not been adequate in my judgement but perhaps with better communications we can solve the problem. Thank You. 68 PANEL IV TRANSPORTATION AND ENERGY MODERATOR Alan E. Pisarski, Deputy Director, Office of Planning, U.S. Department of Transportation PARTICIPANTS Carl Rappaport, Director, Policy Development Division, Office of Conservation Policy, Federal Energy Administration Robert L. Maxwell, Acting Program Manager for Transportation, Office of Technical Assessment, U.S. Congress Dr. Richard R. John, Chief, Energy Programs Research Division, Transportation Systems Center, U.S. Department of Transportation Note: For information about the subjects discussed in this panel, please contact the participants directly. APPENDIX LIST OF CONFERENCE REGISTRANTS Alt, Susan, Acting Director, Tourism and Travel Administration, The New School for Social Research, 66 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10011. Arnold, S., Air Canada, Montreal. Bailey, H.D., Management Consultant Travel Office, National Education Association, 1201 16th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. Barnard, Nancy A., Director, Marketing Administration, Princess Hotels, 1345 Avenue of Americas, New York, N.Y. 10019. Basta, Marion L., Division Planning Analyst, American Express Company, 125 Broad Street, New York, N.Y. 10004. Becker, Lynne, Economic Development Research Assistant, Lake George, N.Y. Beekhuis, Jeanne V. (Seminar Coordinator), Fothergill/Beekhuis Asso- ciates, 1834 Jefferson Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Bevins, Malcolm I., Associate Resource Economist, Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station, 178 South Prospect Street, Burlington, Vt. 05401. Brown, Tommy L., Research Associate, Cornell University, Department of Natural Resources, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853. Cardenuto, Joseph R., Park and Recreation Specialist, Penn State Univer- sity, 1 Weaver Building, University Park, Pa. 16820. Chavez, The Hon Fabian (Speaker), Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Tourism, Washington, D.C. Clarke, Jacqueline L., Office of Financial Management Services, U.S. De- partment of Commerce, Washington, D.C. Cole, Gerald L., Associate Professor, University of Delaware, 212 Agricul- ture Hall, Newark, Del. 19711. Crane, Dale A. (Speaker), Chief, Recreation Resource Management Branch, U.S. Army of Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. Driscoll, Georges, McGill University, 2285 Champlain, #4, Montreal, Que- bec. Doering, Thomas R., Research Economist, Nebraska Department of Eco- nomic Development, Box 94666, 301 Centennial Mall South, Lincoln, Nebr. 68509. 71 Donovan, George A., Research Analyst, State of Vermont, Agency of De- velopment and Community Affairs, Pavillion Office Building, Montepelier, Vt. 05602. Edgell, David L., Office of Financial Management Services, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. Fleming, Jean A., Regional Director, U.S.V.T. Division of Tourism, 1050 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. Fothergill, William R., Fothergill/Beekhuis Associates, 1834 Jefferson Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. Frechtling, Douglas C. (Moderator), Director, U.S. Travel Data Service, Washington, D.C. Funk, Deborah A., Assistant Survey Director, Opinion Research Corpora- tion, 1735 I Street, N.W. Suite 513, Washington, D.C. Gerson, Earle (Speaker), Chief, Demographic Surveys Division, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. Geter, Charles E., Office of Tourism and Promotion, Department of Labor and Industry, John Vitch Plaza, Trenton, N.J. Gillespie, Marie E. (Speaker), Program Analyst, Research and Analysis Divi- sion, United States Travel Service, Washington, D.C. Hanenschild, Gerhard Von, The George Washington University, Business Administration, Washington, D.C. Harrington, Toni, Federal Liaison, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Associ- ation, 1909 K St., N.W. Suite 300, Washington, D.C. Harrison, Philip, Travel and Tourism Consultants International, One Park Ave., New York, N.Y. 10016. Har villa, Rosemary A., Staff Associate, Airline Planning, Pan American World Airways, Inc., 200 Park Avenue, Pan American Building, New York, N.Y. 10017. Hawkins, Donald E. (Moderator) , Professor of Human Kinetics and Leisure Studies, George Washington University, Washington, D.C. Hazen, Philip I., Federal Highway Administration, 400 7th St., S.W., Wash- ington, D.C. Herrmann, Cyril C, Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1735 Eye St., N.W., Washington, D.C. Hock, Kenneth J., Associate Professor, West Virginia University, 2034 Agri- cultural Sciences Building, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506. Honore, William H. (Speaker), Assistant Chief, Division of Water Re- sources, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Washington, D.C. Hurst, Fred, Supervising Economic Analyst, The Port Authority of New York/New Jersey, One World Trade Center, New York, N. Y. 10048. Hutchinson, Ira J. (Speaker), Deputy Director, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. Jackson, Leon F., Manager, Market Research, AMTRACK, 400 N. Capitol St., N.W., Washington, D.C. Jacobs, Eva (Speaker), Chief, Division of Living Conditions Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D.C. 72 John, Richard R. (Speaker), Chief, Energy Programs Research Division, Transportation Systems Center, U.S. Department of Transportation, Wash- ington, D.C. Joline, Daryl L., Economist, U.S. Travel Data Center, 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. Jorgenson, Dayton P., Transportation Industry Analyst, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. Katz, Harvey L., Tourism & Administration, New York Convention and Visitors Bureau, 90 East 42 St., New York, N.Y. 10017. Keady, John, Manager of Consumer Research, American Airlines, 633 Third Ave., New York, N.Y. 10017. Koch, David C, Office of Financial Management Services, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. Kottke, Marvin, Professor, University of Connecticut, Department of Agri- culture Economics, Storrs, Conn. 06268. Krayazhev, V.G., General Manager, Intourist, 45 East 49th St., New York, N.Y. 10017. Lacy, Bert, Travel and Tourism Consultants International, One Park Ave., New York, N.Y. 10016. Lapage, Wilbur F., Project Leader, U.S. Forest Service, P.O. Box 640, Dur- ham, N.H. Lawrence, Loren, (Speaker) Director, Passport Office, U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C. Lehtiniemi Leo, Socio-Economic Research Division, Parks Canada, Ottawa, Canada Licari, John (Speaker), Acting Deputy Director, Air Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. Maceachern, Eldon W., Office of Financial Management Services, U.S. De- partment of Commerce, Washington, D.C. Mannella, Gene (Speaker) , Director, Office of Transportation Conservation, Energy Research and Development Administration, Washington, D.C. Mead, Bernard F., Associate Professor, Temple University, 1594 Neshaminy Valley Dr., Corn wells Heights, Pa. Minor, Ethel H., Student, George Washington University, Washington, D.C. Minowa, Saburo, Japan National Tourist Organization, 45 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, N.Y. 10020. Mitchell, J. A., Manager, Marketing Plans, National Airlines, Box 592955, Airport Mail Facility, Miami, Fla. 33159. Moitzfield, Ron, Laventhol & Horwath, 8630 Fenton St., Silver Springs, Md. 20910. Munson, Karl, Program Leader, Extension Service /U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Muha, Steven L., Senior Research Analyst, U.S. Travel Data Center, 1100 Connecticuit Ave., Washington, D.C. Nelson, John, J., Director, Office of Tourist Development, 1748 Forest Dr., Annapolis, Md. 21401. 73 Newby, Floyd L., Associate Professor, University of Maine, 247 Nutling Hall, Orono, Maine Nowlin, Thomas O. Manager, Tour and Travel, Taft Amusement Park Group, Doswell, Va. Oglesby, Claire Craig, Director of Sales, Hilton Hotels Corporation, 1875 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. Olsen, Richard J., Senior Research Associate, Charles River Associates, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Mass. 02138. Ost, Margaret, Assistant Economist, American Express, New York, N.Y. Owen, Elizabeth, Domestic and International Business Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. Paluzuelos, Emilio, Mexican Tourist Council, 1156 15th St., N.W., Wash- ington, D.C. Peiney, John, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, National Outdoor Recreation Survey Coordinator, Ann Arbor, Mich. Perroni, Carolyn, Office of Financial Management Services, U.S. Depart- ment of Commerce, Washington, D.C. Pisarski, Alan E. (Speaker), Deputy Director, Office of Planning, U.S. De- partment of Transportation, Washington, D.C. Rappaport, Carl (Speaker), Director, Policy Development Division, Office of Conservation Policy, Federal Energy Administration, Washington, D.C. Richard, Fred, Canadian Government, Office of Tourism, 1771 N. St., N.W., Washington, D.C. Riegner, Henry G., Office of Financial Management Services, U.S. Depart- ment of Commerce, Washington, D.C. Roark, Robert E., Recreation Planner, Tennessee Valley Authority, Forestry Building, Norris, Tenn. 37828. Robertson, Philip, Travel and Tourism Consultants International, One Park Ave., New York, N.Y. 10016. Russell, Rosalie, Travel Manager, American Express, 1150 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. Ryan, Bill, Concord College, Athens, W. Va. 24712. Sacks, Lawrence, Assistant Research Manager, East/ West Network, Inc., 488 Madison Ave., New York, N.Y. 10022. Scarato, Russell F., Economic Development Planner, Maryland Department of Economic and Community Development, 2525 Riva Rd., Annapolis, Md. 21401. Shafer, El wood L. (Speaker), Forest Environment Research Staff, U.S. De- partment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Shipka, Beverly D. (Moderator), Director, Research and Analysis Division, United States Travel Service, Washington, D.C. Silver, Michael J., McKinney, Silver, & Rockett, 333 Fayetteville St., Raleigh, N.C. Sinclair, Peg B., Director, Alexandria Tourist Council, 221 King St., Alex- andria, Va. 74 Smith, Stephen L.J., University of Waterloo, Department of Recreation, Waterloo, Ontario Styres, Daniel J., Assistant Professor, Michigan State University, 131 Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, Mich. 48824. Swartz, Gerald B., Marketing Services, Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 900 Old Country Rd., Garden City, N.Y. 11530. Taylor, John, Crossley Surveys, New York, N.Y. Titus, Cynthia, Manager, Travel Leisure, 1350 Avenue of Americas, New York, N.Y. Tuason, Victoria, Economic Analyst, Irving Trust Company, New York, N.Y. Waisle, Jeanne Cullen, Tourism Advisor, Winnetour Concept, P.O. Box" 121, Royal Oak, Md. Weaver, Doug, Assistant Director, Tourist Division, Georgia Department of Industry and Trade, Post Box 1776, Atlanta, Ga. 30301. Weed, Perry L., Counsel Government Affairs, Discover America Travel Organizations, 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. Weeks, Ford A., Research Analyst, South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Edgar A. Brown Building, Columbia, S.C. Williams, D.C, Director, Bureau of Business Research, University of South- ern Mississippi, Box 94, Southern Station, Hattiesburg, Miss. 39401. Wynegar, Don, Manager, International Tourism Research, Research and Analysis Division, United States Travel Service, Washington, D.C. PRESS Joan Goldberg, Medill News Service, Washington, D.C. Roland Leiser, Travel Agent Magazine, Suite 428, 1825 Connecticut Ave., Washington, D.C. Joan Feldman, 1884 Columbia Rd., N.W., Washington, D.C. Don Knoles, Travel Weekly, 1156 15th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 6 U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1978—261-238/77 75 PENN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 11111 ADDDD7D c m371 c i