Historic, Archive Document

Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

United Statl^^^-
Department of
Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range
Experiment Station

Fort Collins
Colorado 80526

Contributions
of Social
Sciences to
Multiple-Use
Management:
An Update

General Technical
Report RM-196

949270

Abstract

The papers in this GTR are revised versions of ones presented at the 1987
National Convention of the Society of American Foresters which had the
theme of Economic and Social Development: A Role for Forestry and For-
estry Professionals. Within that theme, experts representing different social
science disciplines were requested to document specific uses of social sci-
ence knowledge and methodogy in integrating amenity resource values into
multiple-use management of forest lands and/or to raise questions/chal-
lenges for such functionally integrated management.

Holmes Rolston, III begins the report with a call for professional foresters
to be more attentive to the "soft" but "deep" and important amenity values.
John Hunt urges greater understanding of resource-based tourism. Schreyer
and Driver point out that not only do forest policjonakers and managers
need information on the economic value of amenity goods and services;
they also must understand how the use of those goods and services improve
or benefit individuals, groups, and society at large. Long, Purdue, and Allen
report on different attitudes about resource-based tourism and quality of
community life by residents of areas within/near national forests and those
away from such. Walsh explains why tests of economic efficiency through
benefit-cost analyses are needed, and he reviews the considerable recent
progress on estimating not only the economic worth of amenity goods and
services to the on-site users but also to the "appreciative" off-site users who
value the existence of those resources. Watson and Cordell then describe
the important contributions of amenity goods and services to local/regional
income and employment, and they describe the data needed to track these
impacts. Reid and Floyd take a historical perspective and compare the Out-
door Recreation Resources Review Commission of the early 1960s with the
President's Commission on Americans Outdoors (PCOA) of the late 1980s.
They suggest how professional foresters can help implement the recommen-
dations of the PCOA's report. Wargo closes the report with a critique of
how well the USDA Forest Service has achieved truly functionally integrated
planning and management under recent legislation mandating such. He of-
fers recommendations for improvement.

The report does not attempt to document comprehensively the role of
the various social sciences and their many sub-disciplines in assuring better
integration of amenity resource values into forest land planning and man-
agement. Instead, if offers updated "snapshots" of how specific areas of so-
cial science expertise have helped and can help accomplish that goal.

USDA Forest Service

General Technical Report RM-196

October 1990

Contributions of Social
Sciences to Multiple-Use
Management: An Update

B. L. Driver, compiler
Rocicy Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station^

^Headquarters is in Fort Collins, in cooperation with Colorado
State University.

Contents

Page

Amenities in Multiple-Use Management: An
Update of Contributions by Social Scientists

B. L Driver /

Values Deep in the Woods: The Hard-to-
Measure Benefits of Forest Preservation

Holmes Rolston, III 6

The Benefits of Wildland Recreation
Participation: What We Know and Where
We Need To Go

Richard Schreyer and B. L Driver 20

The Significance of Resource-Based Tourism

john D. Hunt 36

impacts of Resource-Based Tourism on Local
Income and Employment

Aian E. Watson and H. Ken Cordell 46

Rural Resident Community Life Satisfaction and
Tourism Development Attitudes: A Comparison
of Forest and Nonforest Community Residents

Patrick T. Long, Richard R. Perdue, and

Lawrence R. Allen 57

Economic Benefits of Wildland Recreation
and Environmental Protection

Richard G. Walsh 76

Implementation of the Recommendations of
the President's Commission on Americans
Outdoors

Leslie M. Reid and Myron F. Floyd 92

Science, Values, Control and Equity:
Foundations of Multiple Use Resource Policy

lohn Wargo 108

Amenities in Multiple-Use
Management: An Update of
Contributions by Social Scientists

B. L/iDriver'

Introduction

Before arrival of the Caucasian settlers, the American Indi-
ans obtained a variety of goods and services from wildlands
including food, shelter, clothes, implements for hunting and
other uses, and spatial/physical defenses from enemies. Al-
though they made multiple uses of the wildlands, the native
Americans practiced little multiple-use management. That con-
|f cept of management grew in prominent only after our na-
tion's natural resources changed from being relatively free to
relatively scarce in terms of the variety and magnitude of com-
peting uses.

Currently, multiple-use management applies to practically
' all privately and publicly owned wildlands; there are few acres

that are managed for a single use, whether in designated wil-
I derness, national parks, or an industrial forest. Most areas
serve as watersheds and produce fish and game while provid-
ing other resource-based products.

i Given the long history and broad practice of realizing mul-
tiple uses from wildlands, the issue then is not whether mul-
tiple-use management will or will not be practiced. Instead,
the tough questions relate to which uses will be emphasized

i and how? For a variety of reasons it has been especially diffi-
cult to integrate and balance the amenity uses with the so-
called commodity uses associated with these wildland prod-

I ucts (timber, ore, cattle) sold in reasonably competitive mar-
kets.

Q}sD/4 Forestjervice, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,
Fort Collins, C6\

1

Viewed narrowly, the amenity goods and services include
those produced from the management of wildlife, fishing, and
outdoor recreation resources. More broadly conceived, as in
this volume, wildland amenities include designated wilderness
and other protected ecological reserves, cultural historic sites,
and air visibility. Thus, amenity resources go beyond those
maintained for outdoor recreation to those that are protected
to promote values related to wise stewardship, appreciation of
cultural heritages (e.g.. Mesa Verda), spiritual development,
and respect for the "rights'' of plant and animal species to live
and survive. Much environmental legislation has been passed
in the United States since 1960 to protect these values. In-
cluded are the 1960 Multiple-Use and Sustained Yield Act,
1964 Wilderness Preservation System Act, 1969 Environmental
Policy Act, several clean air and clean river acts, the 1975 Na-
tional Forest Management Act, and the 1976 Federal Land
Management and Policy Act.

Two basic problems have deterred meeting the intentions of
these acts. One, institutional inertia, has caused the public
land management agencies to be slow in changing their orien-
tations away from past practices, such as primary emphasis on
timber production or mineral development. The other, and
probably more significant, problem is the less tangible nature
of the amenity goods and services. Included are difficulties in
identifying/specifying the amenity goods and services, esti-
mating demand, inventorying supply potential, development
of managerial objectives, designing prescriptions and stan-
dards to guide management, and valuation of the amenity
goods and services. In contrast, precedents exist for managing
to provide the ''commodity'' outputs which are more discrete.

Because of these difficulties, there has been much debate
about multiple-use management of public wildlands during
the past 20 years. Attention in academic/research institutions
has focused on defining the concept of multiple-use manage-
ment and explaining how it should be applied, development
of techniques to estimate the costs and benefits of alternative
uses, and design of optimization models such as linear pro-
gramming. Outside academe, the interest groups have pushed
for more consideration of the values they represent. Although
interest groups have used some objective inquiry (documenta-
tion of contributions of commodities to economic growth,
public opinion surveys, and environmental impact assess-

2

ments), they have relied mostly on application of political
pressure to promote their ends. Their arguments have ranged
from those of the timber industry extolling the social benefits
of harvesting publicly owned timber (e.g., new housing starts,
affordability of home ownership) to those of environmental
groups about the social costs of "below-cost'' timber sales.

Different interests still argue that considerable changes
should be made in the practices of the public management
agencies. Nevertheless, any objective appraisal indicates that
during the past 20 years, those agencies have made consider-
able progress in comprehensively integrating amenity values
into their program and land management planning. This prog-
ress becomes more apparent when cognizance is taken of the
difficulties mentioned above relating to specifying amenity
goods and services, quantifying the demand and supply of
such, estimating the benefits and values of these outputs, and
integrating measures of these values into the planning process
with the measures employed for the nonamenity outputs.

Much of the progress made in practicing multiple-use man-
agement can be attributed to increased public awareness of the
need for well balanced uses of the nation's public natural re-
sources. This is evidenced by the considerable environmental
legislation that has been passed and by the concern about
amenity values in the administrative directives and regulations
of the land management agencies. Each facilitate legal actions
by parties that disagree with particular management actions.

Some of the progress though can be attributed to the contri-
butions of social scientists. Those contributions cover a variety
I of topics including development of better means for making
j economic appraisals; improved techniques for conducting so-
I cial and environmental impact assessments; greater under-
standing of amenity resource users' motivations, expectations
and preferences; and improved planning and management
techniques. Certainly, the states of these arts need further im-
provement, but recent progress has been significant.

The papers presented here update some of the contributions
of social scientists to multiple-use management of wildlands.
They were presented at the technical sessions of the Recreation
I Working Group of the Society of American Foresters at the
1987 National Convention of that Society, which had the
; theme Economic and Social Development: A Role for Forestry
and Forestry Professionals. The topics of these eight papers

3

were selected so the group could stand alone in this volume as
a current reference on some of the important ways social sci-
entists contribute to multiple-use management. Each paper
was selected to illustrate a particular area of contribution with
no intention that all areas would be covered.

The first paper by Rolston summarizes recent thinking in
philosophy (on environmental ethics) about different values of
wildlands. He offers the perspective that the amenity values,
especially those that are viewed as soft, are instead deep, and
the forest is where their roots are. Hunt follows with his dis-
cussion of past and current attitudes within the forestry pro-
fession about resource-based tourism. He points out that be-
cause of misinterpretations and other reasons, past attitudes
have intended to be negative. He explains why much on-site
amenity use is by tourists and discusses future likely trends in
tourism. Schreyer and Driver consider why more knowledge is
needed about the benefits to individuals and society of amen-
ity goods and services. They emphasize that most of what is
known about those benefits is intuitive and inferential. Long,
Perdue, and Allen review the results of some of the studies that
have attempted to quantify the impacts of public wildland-
based amenities on local community satisfaction. Their studies
indicate that many rural residents are forming more positive
attitudes about tourism and the growing emphasis on ameni-
ties in multiple-use management because of the decline in
other economic sectors locally.

Walsh explains why economic efficiency analyses are
needed and how they can help improve multiple-use manage-
ment decisions. He reviews the considerable recent progress
made by economists in estimating the monetary worth of
amenity goods and services, including the economic values de-
termined for some preservation actions. Examples of the mag-
nitude of some of the values are provided. Watson and Cordell
follow with a consideration of relationships between amenity
resource management and local and regional economic devel-
opment, measured in terms of increased income and employ-
ment. Considerable progress has been made in that area both
in improvement in methods and in the data bases.

Reid and Floyd take a different tack and give an overview of
the growth in prominence of wildland recreation in America
since the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission
issued its reports in 1962. Their historical overview leads to a

4

discussion of why the President's Commission on Americans
Outdoors was created and what recreation professionals can do
to help implement the recommendations of that Commission.
Wargo closes with his explanation of the role planning within
the USDA Forest Service has played over time in the allocation
of wildland resources to alternative uses and how the nontim-
ber uses have faired. His conclusion is that although much
progress has been made toward more balanced management,
problems remain because of the diversity of values that exist,
the information gap that persists about the amenity uses, and
"forced democratization'' that has accompanied growth in the
number of interest groups now involved in public allocation
decision processes.

If nothing else, the reader should come away from this set
of papers with the view that the social sciences are now work-
ing on many fairly well-defined fronts and with clearer pur-
poses, better methods, and more explicit directions than they
were 10 years ago. Evidence of continued contribution is clear.

5

Values Deep in the Woods: The
Hard-to-Measure Benefits of Forest
Preservation^^

Holmes(Rolston, HP

Like the sea or the sky, the forest is a kind of archetype of
the foundations of the world. Aboriginally, about 60% of
earth's land surface was forested; historically, forests go back
300 to 400 million years. Humans evolved in forests and sa-
vannas, in which they once had adaptive fitness. Culture and
agriculture supplanted forest life, but traditional cultures often
remained in evident encounter with forests, both circum-
scribed by them and dependent on forest products. In modem
cultures, the growth of technology has made the forest in-
creasingly a commodity, decreasingly an archetype.

That transformation results in profound value puzzlements,
a cognitive dissonance about "the forest.'' Civilized, we are not
yet out of the woods about values there. Indeed, the triumph
of civilization forces the question: What basic values lie in the
forest? An evident answer is that humans want the forest as
resource for civilization; they conserve it for exploitation. A
deeper answer is that humans love the forest for what it
aboriginally is; they want to preserve it from exploitation.
Why go to the woods? A shallow answer is that frustrated with
culture, humans want "to get away from it all." A radical an-
swer is that in probing origins, humans go to get back to it all.

The Forest Primeval

At the archetypal level, the forest is valued because it is pri-
meval. The central "goods" of the biosphere — the elemental
forest processes: hydrologic cycles, photosynthesis, soil fertil-
ity, food chains, genetic codes, speciation and reproduction,
and succession and its resetting — were in place long before

Th/s paper was also published in Proceedings, Society of American Foresters,
1987 National Convention, Bethesda, MD. Society of American Foresters, p. SIS-
SI 9. 1988. ...

^Department of Philosophy,\Colorado Sate University, Fort Collins, CO '805 2 S.

.. -J

6

humans arrived. The dynamics and structures organizing the
forest do not come out of the human mind; a wild forest is
wholly other than civilization. Confronting an artifact or cul-
tural institution, I penetrate something fabricated or func-
tional on human terms, something socially or personally val-
ued. Confronting a primeval forest 1 must penetrate spontane-
ously existing life on its own terms, natural kinds, not goods
of my kind. Humans can see and evaluate phenomena outside
their own sector of interest, as animals cannot. Humans do
this inventing categories with which to discover the world, but
such categories, when successful, represent— make present to
us — the nonhuman, wild world. The genius of forestry as a
pure science helps us to appreciate the biology, ecology, integ-
rity, and dynamic stability of the forest primeval. Foresters get
immersed in a noncivil, nonhuman frame of reference. They
know the elements, raw and pure.

Applied forestry, making a commodity out of an archetype,
is humane and benevolent at risk of prostituting the primeval.
The principles reorganizing the managed forest do come out of
the human mind; humans no longer see outside their own sec-
tor of interest. Seeking goods of their kind, they modify the
natural kinds. The managed forest bears the resemblance to a
wild forest that a cow does to a deer. Silviculture, like agricul-
ture, is culture superposed on nature. A domesticated forest,
like a caged wolf, is something of a contradiction in terms.
There remains what used to be a forest or wolf now reduced to
something less, converted to something else. Urban forestry
must always be a stepchild to pure forestry, just as zoos cannot
really contain wildlife. A woodlot cropped for fuel or timber,
or a tract of pine planted for paper pulp is not deep woods.
The radical values are gone.

The pristine forest, understood by the forester scientifically,
can also be understood experientially — and, hence, the wilder-
ness movement. A person is not really deep in the woods with-
out tracts so large that one cannot get out by dark, that one
cannot cross on foot without forcing a camp, forests so intact
as yet to contain their native flora and fauna, including the
large mammals — ^bears, wolves, cats — with their intolerance of
humans and need for great range. No one can go there, of
course, without importing the skills and protections of culture;
but no one authentically goes there without stepping to the
edge of culture, immersing oneself in the majestic primeval.

7

In the forest itself, there is no time of day; it is not 10:00
a.m. EDT, nor is it Tuesday or July. There are no board-feet of
timber, BTU's, meters, miles, or acre feet of water; the lines of
latitude and longitude and elevation contours do not really ex-
ist. There is no English or German, no literature or conversa-
tion. There are no artifacts and labor is fleeting. There is nei-
ther capitalism nor socialism, neither democracy nor monar-
chy, justice nor charity, science nor religion.

There are trees rising toward the sky, birds on the wing and
beasts on the run, age after age, impelled by a genetic language
almost 2 billion years old. There is struggle and adaptive fit-
ness, energy and evolution inventing fertility and prowess.
There is cellulose and photosynthesis, succession and specia-
tion, muscle and fat, nerve and sweat, sight and sound, smell
and appetite, law and form, structure and process. There is
light and dark, life and death, the mystery of existence.

Values in the Forest
Life Support Value

A forest is a community before it is a commodity; it is objec-
tively a community. Only within the gaze of humans, subjec-
tively, with preferences projected onto it, does it become a
commodity. "Forest products" are secondarily lumber, turpen-
tine, paper, and cellophane; the forest ''produces" primarily
aspen, ferns, warblers, squirrels, and mushrooms. This first or-
der, natural production, precedes and supports any second or-
der, humanistic production.

The forest, primal source, is a place of resources, long before
humans arrive. Life is never self-contained but incessantly
moves through its environment, ingesting and eliminating it,
nutrient source and sink. Rocks attach no value to the environ-
ment; rocks by themselves never constitute an ecosystem, a
community. But trees must photosynthesize and coyotes must
eat. Heterotrophs evidently use resources — for example the
wildlife, mobile and on the hunt through the woods — and this
is equally true of autotrophs, rooted to the soil. The flora, like
the fauna, make resources of soil, air, water, and nutrients;
they are no less embedded in the life support cycles. Towering
high as they project toward the light, trees feed themselves

8

(autotrophs); they store energy from sunlight, but in interde-
pendence with, not independence from, the ecosystems in
which they occupy niches. Were it not for fungal and bacterial
heterotrophs, lowly and inconspicuous, feeding on autotro-
phic materials, recycling nutrients, trees could not long stand.
Each benefits the other in biological community.

A forest is an ecosystem, a home with a contained place for
its member species, each with an evolutionary fitness. That the
forest is a satisfactory place means first that many species have
found life-supporting niches there into which they are well-
fitted. This objective satisfaction (=support) of life occurs with
or without our human experiences. Something of value seems
to be taking place before we arrive to register it. That the forest
is later valuable, able on occasion to satisfy human prefer-
ences, seems a spin-off from its being valuable, able to satisfy
organic needs on its own. The forest supports human life only
as and because it is this larger community.

Endangered Species/Endangered Ecosystem Values

There can no longer be found about 500 faunal species and
subspecies that have become extinct in the United States since
1600, and only rarely found another 500 species that are (offi-
cially or unofficially) threatened and endangered. Even where
not nationally in danger, once frequent species are locally ex-
tinct or rare. Hardly a stretch of forest in the nation is unim-
poverished of its native species — otters and peregrine falcons.
The higher up the species in the arboreal trophic pyramid, the
more likely this is so.

Species are often endangered because their communities are.
Only 2-4% of the American continent is wilderness, and what
little remains is often forested. We have only scraps of undis-
turbed once-common ecosystems, such as hemlock forests,
and no chestnut forests at all. Acid rain is impoverishing the
Adirondacks and the Great Smokies. Tropical rainforests are
being destroyed at the rate of 25-50 acres per minute, annually
an area the size of the state of West Virginia or larger.

All this ought not to be. Rather, forests ought be optimally
rich in native fauna and flora, in community types, and some
forest ecosystems intact enough to support grizzly bears and
wolverines. Some pine forests should be left ("overaged" from
an applied forester's view) to support red cockaded woodpeck-

9

ers and Chapman's rhododendron. When we face any pro-
posal that Americans should sacrifice what relict wildlands re-
main for a little more or cheaper goods like those we already
have in abundance (newsprint, timber, power), many con-
clude that, at both species and system levels, we ought to con-
serve biotic diversity values. In a recently released study, an
Office of Technology Assessment task force recommends that
Congress consider an Endangered Ecosystems Act to comple-
ment the Endangered Species Act.

These species are national treasures of aesthetic, ecological,
educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the
nation and its people, but also valued because of what they are
in themselves. What the forest produces is individuals, but, at
a deeper level; what the forest has produced is species. That is
a bigger event, and extinction shuts down forever life lines
that flowed over the continental landscape long before hu-
mans arrived and that might, apart from us (or together with
us, were we more sensitive) continue for millennia henceforth.
This irreversibly destroys archetypal productive powers.

Natural History Value

A pristine forest is prime natural history, a profound histori-
cal museum, a relic of the way the world was for almost for-
ever. The forest, as a tangible preserve in the midst of a cul-
ture, contributes to the human sense of duration, antiquity,
continuity, and identity. Unlike cultural museums, the forest
continues to be what it was, not simply a museum but a living
landscape. A visit there regenerates the sense of human late-
coming and sensitizes us to our novelty.

The forest is, we first may think, prehistoric; world history
begins with empires and armies, nations and kings. The forest
is timeless, a place of perpetual return, of cyclic successions; by
contrast, civilization progresses century after century. That
limited, local, anthropocentric view is transcended by forest
history. The evolutionary sciences have made us aware of the
depth of such historical change. Though the scope of this ex-
ceeds immediate, local experience, the forest visitor educated
by environmental interpretation becomes aware of it, realizing
the centuries-long scope of forest regeneration, the age of se-
quoias or great oaks, the interplay of ecology and evolution,
erosional, orogenic, and geomorphic processes in rock strata

10

and canyon walls, glacial moraines, or petrified forests. The
Carboniferous Forests were giant club mosses and horsetails;
the Jurassic Forests were gymnosperms — conifers, cycads, gink-
goes, and seed ferns. Tertiary Forests, prior to glaciation, con-
tained different species from present forests. Successions in
Minnesota 10,000 years ago were different from those taking
place this fall. A forest today is yesterday being transformed
into tomorrow.

Each forest is unique. Forest types exist only in forestry text-
books; what exists out there in the world is Mount Monad-
nock, the Dismal Swamp, Tallulah Gorge with its unique colo-
nies of Trillium persistens, Mobley Hollow on Sinking Creek.
This wealth of detail escapes even pure forestry as a lawlike
natural science. Forests with their proper named features and
locales — Grandfather Mountain or Chattahoochee National
Forest — always exist specifically, never abstractly. Especially
when visited by persons with their proper names, the encoun-
ter is valued because it yields distinctive, never-repeated sto-
ries— the biography of John Muir in the Sierras, Henry David
Thoreau at Walden Pond, Aldo Leopold in Wisconsin, or one's
own vacation hiking the Appalachian Trail.

Scientific Study Values

At least half of what there is to be known about forests re-
mains yet undiscovered. A major unfinished agenda lies at the
ecosystem level. Scientists have worked out the genetic code,
worked out how species evolve; but what about the evolution
of ecosystems? Successive levels of biological organization
have properties that cannot be predicted from simpler levels,
and the least known level of organization is that of landscape
ecology, the mosaic of communities that compose a water-
shed, a biome, or a physiographic region, a forest. Do forests
inevitably appear, given a suitable moisture and climatic re-
gime? We are not sure why tree line lies at the elevations it
does, or why the balds in the southern Appalachians are there.
We are beginning to suspect that insect outbreaks convey
benefits to a forest, something like those of fires, and of which
we were long unaware. How did the relict populations of rare
plants get dispersed where they are? How do the nonfruiting
mosses get propagated over long distances?

11

Confronted with the epoches of natural history, there is no
more unsettled question than whether there are escalating
trends over evolutionary history. Does diversity increase over
time? Stability? Do the species at the top of tropic pyramids
rise in complexity? In neural power? All this seems to have
happened, but why we do not know. Biologists are divided
over whether interspecific or intraspecific competition is a
minimal or a major force in evolution. Sizeable natural sys-
tems are the likeliest places to settle such debates. Large wil-
derness areas, including forested ones, provide the best and
perhaps the only locale for studying the kind of landscape
changes and evolutionary history that occurred for millennia
in prehuman times. To destroy the primeval forests — such rel-
ics of them as remain — is like tearing the last pages out of a
book about our past that we hardly yet know how to read.

Aesthetic Values

Like clouds, seashores, and mountains, forests are never
ugly; they are only more or less beautiful; the scale runs from
zero upward with no negative domain. Destroyed forests can
be ugly, whether the cause is natural or human; a burned,
windthrown, diseased, or clearcut forest is not scenic. But even
the ruined forest, when regenerating itself, has yet positive
aesthetic properties; the truncated system of growth presses to
return; trees rise to fill the empty place against the sky.

A forest is filled with organisms that are, in various degrees,
marred and ragged — oaks with broken limbs, a crushed violet,
an insect-eaten leaf, the carcass of an elk, putrid and full of
maggots. These are, in a way, ugly things. But the word "for-
est" (a grander word than "trees" in the plural) enlarges our
scope to comprehend the scene; it forces retrospect and pros-
pect; it invites holistic categories of interpretation. The rotting
elk returns to the humus, its nutrients recycled; the maggots
become flies, which become food for the birds. Fallen giants,
deca5ang on the forest floor, are not debris, trash; they are yes-
terday's forest passing into tomorrow.

One has to appreciate what is not evident. Marvelous things
are going on in dead wood, underground, in the dark, micro-
scopically, or slowly over time; they are not scenic, but an ap-
preciation of them is aesthetic. The usefulness of a tree is only
half over at its death; an old snag or a rotting hulk provides

12

nesting cavities, perches, insect larvae, food for birds, and nu-
trients for the soil. Decay and predation are local disvalues to
individuals but ecosystemic values.

The gnarled spruce at the edge of the tundra is not really
ugly, not unless endurance and strength are ugly; it is presence
and symbol of life pushing on before the winds that blast it.
Every particular must be experienced, not in framed isolation,
but framed by its environment; this softens the ugliness and
sets it in somber beauty. Life is ever renewed in the midst of
perpetual perishing.

''Wild" is often thought to be a negative predicate, as when
we say that a field or a child has gone wild. The wild forest is
of disvalue from the perspective of applied forestry; it is a
waste that must be brought under human control to be any
good to us. But, shifting from a utilitarian reference frame to
one of beauty, wild is no term of disvalue. To the contrary,
when we come to a forested landscape on its own terms — as
pure forestry can help us do— sensitive to stability, integrity,
ecosystemic processes, to the miracle of life, wild is always a
positive predicate. ''Wild'' categorizes how life transcends the
scope of human will and control.

In one sense, a person needs to be detached to appreciate a
< forest; to see it for what it is in itself, not as something good
for me. One needs to stand apart and overlook it — like a great
scenic picture. When breaking out at tree line and turning to
look at the forest below, one admires the scene. But there is
another sense in which a forest is something in which you
must be aesthetically immersed; a forest surrounds you and
mns right up to your feet. You smell the spruce, hear the
wind, cast a wary eye toward a gathering storm. There is a
sense of abyss and presence, an experiential depth not found
when, in culture — outside the frames or in the audience — one
looks at a painting or watches a play.

In the primeval forest, humans know the most authentic of
wilderness emotions, the sense of the sublime. By contrast,
few persons get goose pimples indoors, in art museums, at the
city park, or downtown. We get transported by forces awful
and overpowering, by the signature of time and eternity. We
will not be surprised if the quality of such experiences is hard
to quantify. The purple mountains' majesties do not measure
^ well on a 1-5 thermometer scale. We measure commodities;
but, almost by definition, the sublime runs off scale.

13

Recreation/Creation Values

The word recreation contains the word creation. Recreation in
the forest, like recreation in town, benefits persons because it
re-creates them, rejuvenates them when they are worn from
work. But on a deeper analysis, recreation in the forest takes
place in the context of creation. Humans leave the built, cul-
tured environment and seek the natural environment. They go
outdoors for the repair of what happens indoors, but they also
go outdoors because they seek something greater than can be
found indoors — contact with the natural certainties. Forests
and sky, sunshine and rain, rivers and earth, the everlasting
hills, the cycling seasons, wildflowers and wildlife — these are
superficially just pleasant scenes in which to recreate. They are
the timeless natural givens that support everything else.

Those who recreate here value leisure (watching a sunset,
listening to the loons or the rain) in contrast to work for pay;
they value being in an environment that they do not have to
rebuild or look after, a wild world that runs itself and need not
be labored over. They value work (climbing, setting up camp)
that is not for pay, an environment with zest, in contrast to a
boring or familiar job. They value the Spartan contrasts with
citied comforts. They value an escape, if you like, but they
value also being drawn to roots. They want to know the
weather, protected by minimal enough cover and shelter as to
leave rain or sun close at hand. They want to submit to the
closing day at dusk, to be roused by the rising sun without
benefit of clock. They want to know the passing seasons when
migrants retur or leaves fall, without the benefit of a calendar.

If one insists on the word, these features of the greater out-
doors are resources, but now it seems inadequate to call them
recreational resources. They are the sources that define life.
People like to recreate in the woods because they are sur-
rounded by something greater than anything they find in-
doors. They touch base with something missing on baseball
diamonds and at bowling alleys. They value recreation in the
grandeur of creation. Encounter with creation re-creates.

Character-Building Values

The challenge of self-competence, in teamwork or alone, is
valued together with reflection over skills acquired and one's

14

place in the world. The forest provides a place to sweat, to
push oneself more than usual, to be more on the alert, perhaps
to let the adrenaline flow. The forest is a place to take calcu-
lated risks, to learn the luck of the weather, to lose and find
one's way, to reminisce over success and failure. The forest
teaches one to care about his or her physical condition. One is
getting cold, hungry, or tired. Forests do not care; they are
very unforgiving of mistakes; one really is on his own, forced
to steady personal integration against the disordering tenden-
cies of the woods. Forests demand self-reliance and produce a
sense of humility and proportion. Sometimes we go there not
to change the forest but to be changed by it.

Character cannot be built in the forest alone. Vital com-
plexities and strengths of character must be forged in society
and interpersonal relations. But in culture, one wrestles with a
social self, a role to be played, status to be gained, a reputation
estimated and reflected by others; in the forest one has no role
or status, the self is starkly present without pretense. Alone or
with a few friends, the protocol is simpler; nobody is much or
long deceived, nobody much has to be pleased. Accomplish-
ment and failure are evident. One is free to be himself or her-
self, forced to a penetrating sincerity.

It is no accident that many organizations that seek to form
character use wildlands — Boy and Girl Scouts, Outward Bound,
the National Outdoor Leadership School, and church camps.
Similar growth occurs in individuals independently of formal
organizations.

It is no accident that forestry as a profession has a power-
r fully positive image; we do not expect a forester to be a sissy,
lazy, inept, complaining, naive, arrogant— certainly not one
regularly in the field. In contrast perhaps to the wilderness en-
thusiast, romantic and cock-eyed, we expect the seasoned for-
ester to be down to earth and practical, on the level and re-
s sourceful. Professional life and personal life overlap, and the
probabilities are that a forester is genuine, competent, experi-
enced, patient, and wary. When we discover that a forester,
whatever his or her applied concerns, also has an admiring re-
spect for the woods running beneath (a romantic streak after
I all), we have yet the more evidence of character.

15

Nonhuman Intrinsic Values

Surrounded by politicians, philosophers, economists, and
technicians, even by other foresters at business (surrounded by
the rebuilt environments of culture), one gets lured into an ar-
tificial anthropocentrism: value enters, exists, and exits with
human preference satisfactions. Nothing counts until humans
count it. Nonhuman biological events are value neutral,
merely functional. Surrounded by the forest, the anthropic
conclusion seems superficial, a deeper conclusion irresistible.
The forest is value-laden.

Trees use water and sunshine, insects resourcefully tap the
energy that trees have fixed by photosynthesis, warblers
search out insect protein, and falcons search for warblers.
Apart from any human presence, organisms use other organ-
isms and abiotic resources instrumentally. In a forest, such
phenomena are evidently biologically vital. These food chains
are forms of value capture. Value capture and transformation
propel the ecosystem. Resource use is an archetype, an axiom
of life, an axis around which the forest turns, in which hu-
mans too must participate; and now any value theory (axiol-
ogy) seems arrogant, even silly, to insist that all value rotates
around human preferences.

Continuing this deeper logic, organisms value the resources
they use instrumentally because they value something intrinsi-
cally: their own lives, their form of life. No warbler eats insects
in order to become food for a falcon; the warbler defends her
own life as an end in itself and makes more warblers as she
can. A warbler is not "for" anything else; a warbler is for her-
self. From the perspective of a warbler, being a warbler is a
good thing; a blackpoll tries to be good-of-its-kind. A life is de-
fended intrinsically, without further contributory reference,
unless to defend the species and that still is to defend a form
of life as an end in itself. Such defenses go on whether or not
humans are present. Thus, both instrumental and intrinsic val-
ues are objectively present in the forest. The forest is a system
where loci of intrinsic value are meshed in a network of instru-
mental value.

Biological conservation in the deepest sense is not some-
thing that originates in the human mind, is modeled by
Forplan programs, or written into Acts of Congress. Biological
conservation is innate as every organism conserves its life.

16

Nonconservation is death. From this more objective view-
point, there is something subjective and naive (however so-
phisticated one's technology) about living in a reference frame
where one species takes itself as absolute and values every-
thing else in nature relative to its utility.

That, a biologist may insist, is just what goes on in the
woods; warblers take a warbler-centric point of view, spruce
push only to make more spruce. But no nonhuman organism
has the cognitive power, much less the conscience, to lift itself
outside of its own sector and evaluate the whole. Humans are
the only species who can see the forest for what it is in itself,
objectively, a tapestry of interwoven values. An anthropocen-
tric value system has not gotten out of the woods, in one
sense; in another sense, it has not yet gotten into the woods.

Forestry ought to be one profession that knows better, that
sees further, that gets rescued from this beguiling anthropo-
centrism through its daily contact with the primeval givens. In
one sense, foresters ought to liberate us from a narrow human-
ism, from putting ourselves at the center; in another sense,
foresters ought to help us gain fuller humanity by transcend-
ing merely human interests and helping us to conserve a
value-laden world. Scientific forestry is an empirical and theo-
{ retical study of forests; philosophical forestry goes further to
reform human character in encounter with natural history.

Religious Experience Value

I "The groves were God's first temples'' (Bryant, "A Forest
Hymn"). A forest is a church as surely as a commodity. Trees
piece the sky like cathedral spires. Light filters down, as
through stained glass. In common with churches forests (as do
sea and sky) invite transcending the human world and experi-
encing a comprehensive, embracing realm. Forests can serve as
a more provocative, perennial sign of this than many of the
traditional, often outworn, symbols devised by the churches.
Mountaintop experiences, the wind in the pines, a howling
rainstorm, a quiet snowfall, solitude in a sequoia grove, an
overflight of honking geese, the forest vista that begins at

i one's feet and disappears over the horizon — these generate ex-
periences of "a motion and spirit that impels. ..and rolls
through all things" (Wordsworth, 'Tines above Tintern Ab-

17

bey'O. We feel life's transient beauty sustained over chaos.
There is a music to it all, and not the least when in a minor
key.

A forest wilderness is a sacred space. There we recognize
God's creation, the Ultimate Reality, or a Nature sacred in it-
self. 1 become astonished that the forest should be there, spon-
taneously generated and regenerated on its own, astonished
that I should be there, immersed in it and struggling to come
to terms with it. There are no forests on Mars or Saturn; none
elsewhere in our solar system, perhaps none elsewhere in our
galaxy. But Earth's forests are indisputably here. There is more
operational organization, more genetic history, more of inter-
est going on in a handful of forest humus than in the rest of
the universe, so far as we know. How so? Why? A forest wil-
derness elicits cosmic questions, differently from town.

If we must put it so, the forest is a religious resource, as well
as a scientific, recreational, aesthetic, or economic one. But
now it seems to profane such experiences and nature alike to
see a forest as merely instrumental to human satisfactions and
otherwise devoid of value. The forest is a wonderland, a mir-
acle, standing on its own. No doubt humans bring to it the
experience of wonder; we do not believe that trees or even ani-
mals have the capacity for wonder. But what we are evaluating
is objectively a wonderland; the human experience is gener-
ated in the presence of something worthy enough to induce it.
The forest is presence and sacrament of ultimate sources. Being
among the archetypes, the forest is about as near to ultimacy
as we can come in the phenomenal world, a vast scene of
sprouting, budding, flowering, fruiting, passing away, and
passing life on.

Deep Values

Such values are, it is commonly said, ''soft" beside the
"hard" values of commerce. They are vague, philosophical,
subjective, impossible to quantify, argue for, or demonstrate.
Perhaps; but it does not follow that such values are not real, ei-
ther unreal in human experience or unreal in the forest. What
is really meant is that such values lie deep. The forest is where
the ''roots" are, where life rises from the ground. A wild forest
is, after all, something objectively there — there without benefit

18

of human subjectivity. Beside it, culture with its artifacts is a
tissue of subjective preference satisfactions.

Money, often thought the hardest of values, is nothing in
the wilderness; it is mere cultural convention. A dollar bill has
value only intersubjectively; any who doubt this ought to try
to spend one in the woods. Alleged to have so much objectiv-
ity, dollar values have, in the primeval forest (and therefore in
pure forestry), no significance at all.

What then is objectively significant in the primeval forest?
The phenomenon of forests is so widespread, persistent, and
diverse, appearing almost wherever moisture and climatic con-
ditions permit it, that forests cannot be accidents or anomalies
but rather must be a characteristic, systemic expression of the
aeative process. Forests are primarily an objective sign of the
ultimate sources, and only secondarily, following the arrival of
human preferences, do they become managed resources. The
measure with which forestry can be profound is the depth of
this conviction.

19

y^<> The Benefits of Wildland

Recreation Participation: What We
Know and Where We Need To Ga>

Richard ^hreyer and B. L.[Driver^

Abstract. — The benefits of recreation participation are
appreciated more intuitively than in terms of tangible em-
pirical support. This becomes more a source of concern as
the need for specification of the benefits of all resources
grows in order to make complex resource allocation deci-
sions. Traditional indicators of recreation benefit such as
economic measures, while helpful, cannot capture the
range and depth of such benefits. This paper examines
what we know about the nature of recreation benefits and
issues related to how we can best measure them. Ap-
proaches, such as measuring behavior change following
participation, appear to be the most reliable but also the
most difficult to do. Most of what we do know comes from
studies of recreationists who report on their own perceived
benefits. While much information exists, there are ques-
tions concerning the ability of people to articulate actual
benefits effectively. Examples of the types of information
on benefits learned from previous research are given.

Several recent papers have pointed out why better informa-
tion about how and how much people benefit from recreation
participation would help improve natural resource policy and
management decisions (Driver 1987; Driver et al. 1987; Driver
and Burch, 1988; Schreyer and Driver, 1989). Those papers de-
scribe the difference between monetary and nonmonetary
measures of recreation benefits. Walsh (this volume) describes
results of some of the monetary measures. This paper is con-
cerned with nonmonetary measures, or with how people or
society changes for the better.

^ Department of Forest Resources,\utah State University, Logan, Utahjland USDA
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins,
Colo.

20

Non-Commodity Values and Models of
Resource Decisionmaking

Cultural Evolution and Wildlands

There is irony in the attempt to document empirically how
individuals or society benefits from outdoor recreation. The
irony lies in the fact that the scientific community is essen-
tially trying to quantify something and put it into a form that
fits ongoing models of resource decisionmaking, while the
management community tends to appreciate the benefits of
recreation intuitively. Of course, identification and quantifica-
tion of the benefits of recreation participation would help ad-
vance leisure theory. From an applied perspective though, the
fundamental rationale lies in the attempt to incorporate non-
commodity values into decisionmaking about public lands.
While this effort is no doubt tremendously important, there is
also the need to avoid the trap of the Procrustean bed.

Recreation has been cast as a resource use, as opposed to a
way of thinking about these lands. The significance of what is
happening in recreation is a reflection of the struggle our
country is engaged in, seeking to transform its understanding
of its relationship to the environment. As an urban culture, we
are beginning to be aware of the impacts of our "hi tech" cul-

i ture on our well being. We know rationally that we need ac-
cess to resources, that we will use lands for the production of
goods and services. However, we also see a growing value in
having wildlands. There is a sense that the places ''out there"
are remnants. The places where wildlands exist in abundance
are places that are remote, unpopulated, and, in many ways,

; unknown. But functionally, they are part of a larger picture.
They represent a symbolic connectedness, a belief that we
should be a part of a larger biosphere. This philosophy, while
not actually being articulated in such a direct sense, is func-
tionally manifested in our culture in such behaviors as wilder-
ness advocacy, the passage of the Rare and Endangered Species
Act, the person who finds a special significance in the annual
deer hunt, and in the development of urban wildlife programs.
There is an inherent conflict when these less utilitarian values
confront traditional models of resource management. We are

21

essentially dealing with a "guilty until proven innocent" syn-
drome. By this we mean that resource managers are willing to
accommodate those value expressions, but only within the
parameters of the ''rational" planning and management mod-
els.

The fundamental rationale for our resource models lies in
turn-of-the-century philosophies of scientific rationality being
maximized through Weberian principles of dispassionate, effi-
cient, organizational structures. Fairness has been the underly-
ing dynamic. This fairness in a system of competing demands
and values has been transformed into the need for common
metrics of trade-off. This leads to the need to quantify every
aspect of human endeavor, including the nature of human
consciousness.

The logical flaw centers around the belief that the implied
fairness of quantification can capture the domain of human
experience. Of course, if that were ultimately true, there would
be no Senate and House of Representatives. However, our bu-
reaucratic models require that conflicting demands for re-
source uses be resolved in a 'Tair" way. Unfortunately, the fair
way will not adequately represent the values which appear to
be causing increasing stress in the system.

The Value of Recreation

Resource decisions need to be made through comparisons of
relative value. We have no doubt of the value of recreation to
people. It is just that those values are not expressed in compa-
rable ways. For instance. Hunt (this volume) indicated that
Americans spent $275 billion on travel and tourism in 1986. A
study by the U.S. Travel Data Center (1987) showed that tour-
ism generated $2 billion in income for the state of Utah, and
produced 47,000 jobs. In a financially struggling state, this is a
powerful contribution to economic well-being and develop-
ment. However, we cannot transfer such values to the land
base as easily as we can with units of commodity production.
Publicly provided recreation is at a disadvantage because we
are limited in our ability to charge for it.

The above observations refer specifically to recreation par-
ticipation and do not account for the preservation or existence
value described previously. This represents a double bind.
Managers bemoan the amount of energy they must devote to

22

' the political and value dimensions in making decisions in re-
sponse to non-commodity demands. However, they also can-
not put much publicly provided recreation in the market sec-
tor, where trade-offs might then be seen as more "rational' —
recognizing, of course, that some non-commodity values, such
as maintenance of species diversity, may have little or no
translation to market signals.

The Search for Benefits

I We must look for ways of better expressing the amenity val-
ues of wildlands. One way is to systematically document the
benefits of recreation participation and other non-commodity
uses of natural resources. The peculiar challenge is how to
document something that represents a state of mind or an in-
tangible value. The benefits of recreation may be expressed in
a variety of ways. A benefit may be defined most directly as an
improved condition or desired change in state, or the preven-
tion of a worse condition (Driver and Peterson 1987).

The range of benefit could be extremely wide, from physio-
logical benefits to improved states of mind (Driver et al. 1987).

i It could encompass societal benefits (Driver and Brown 1987),

i as well as other spin-off benefits (Driver and Rosenthal 1982).

' It could also include non-human benefits, such as the benefits
derived from preserving natural ecosystems (Rolston 1985). In
its most generic sense, the concept of benefit may be repre-
sented as the fulfillment of human needs (Tinsley and Tinsley
1988). This underscores the fact that benefits are not produced
by natural resources, so much as they allow humans to attain
the benefits they deem appropriate in the context of behaving
in and/or relating to the environment.

What determines whether something is a benefit or not?
Many factors may affect this. Consider the time element.
Smoking may be a benefit in the short run, but a cost in the
long run. Who is to interpret what is a benefit? Your reading
"Playboy'' may be a benefit to you, but an example of destruc-
tive behavior to me. How do we interpret benefits to one per-
son that represent costs to another, such as the damming of a
free-flowing river? These concerns suggest that there need to
be more formally defined criteria for the identification and
measurement of benefits.

23

The Measurement of Benefits

To measure benefits, we must examine the separate compo-
nents. First, we must be able to identify what the benefits of
recreation participation are. Then, we must be able to measure
the magnitude of those benefits. That is, how much benefit is
produced by a given amount and type of participation. Of
course, this will be primarily a function of the individual, as
opposed to the recreation opportunity itself, but those types of
relationships are the topics of future research. Finally, we need
to measure the value of that particular benefit to the individ-
ual. How much was that increment of benefit worth (Peterson
et al., 1990; Schreyer 1984)?

Currently, most research is directed at identifying and docu-
menting benefits, with some consideration for measuring their
magnitude. Schreyer and Driver (1989) identify a number of
these approaches. One source of identification is to survey ex-
perts familiar with the field of recreation, to draw on their per-
sonal experience. There have been few attempts at such sys-
tematic identification. One example is the group process de-
scribed by Schreyer and Driver (1989). Such ''Delphi" tech-
niques are helpful in guiding research, but must ultimately be
validated through more systematic means.

Another approach is to ask people about their perceptions of
benefit. However, this does not guarantee that people will
make accurate perceptions. I may claim that jogging is a health
benefit when, in reality, it is ruining my knees and putting
undue stress on my heart. However, in large part, we also cre-
ate our own realities. If we believe something to be a benefit,
then it may functionally serve that purpose for us. I may claim
that smoking increases my virility. In an "objective test" to
confirm that, you may conclude that, in fact, my testosterone
level is reduced by nicotine. However, if I believe that benefit
to be the case, then I may engage in sexual behavior more fre-
quently than would be the case otherwise; in a sense, my per-
ception has, in fact, created the reality of the benefit. This is
particularly the case for experiential benefits, which may have
no objective or behavioral referent.

Benefits may be measured in this way by asking people di-
rectly what they perceive the benefits of participation to be.
There have, as yet, been few studies that approach this di-
rectly. Another way to get at such benefits is to make infer-

24

ences about benefits using the results of previous studies
which have attempted to tap visitors' reasons for participation.
Since, as we have noted, benefits generically represent need
fulfillment, then studies which focus on needs, motivations,
etc., can lend some insight into the nature of those benefits.

Such studies have been relatively numerous. Driver and
Brown (1987) summarize the results of over 100 such studies,
involving over 100,000 recreationists. This data base will be
used subsequently as an example of benefit specification.
There are a number of recent papers that review the existing
literature on the benefits of recreation and wilderness (Brown
1981, Driver 1987, Driver and Brown 1987, Driver et al. 1987,
Driver and Peterson 1987, Kelly 1981).

Perhaps the most objective way to measure benefits is to
study changes in behavior resulting from recreation participa-
tion. These could include physiological measures of a person's
health, as well as general population indicators, such as health
statistics, mortality rates, absenteeism, divorce rates, etc. Be-
cause of the difficulty in carrying out such research, few such
studies exist (Driver 1987).

Empirical Benefit Specification

As an example of the nature of benefit specification, we will
describe two attempts to identify benefits through indirect
analysis of the reasons people participate in recreation. As
mentioned above, inferences of benefit may be made through
examining research on people's reasons for participation. Two
approaches to that analysis are reported here. The first in-
volves the interpretation of results from studies using stan-
dardized psychometric scales to measure reasons for participa-
tion. Perhaps the most widely used scales of this nature in rec-
reation are the Recreation Experience Preference scales devel-
oped by Driver (1977) and his associates. The second method
involves the interpretation of open-ended interview data, in
which inferences about benefits are derived.

I Psychometric Scales

The paper cited above by Driver and Brown (1987) identifies
I a list of personal benefits of recreation as a distillation of the

25

results from a large body of research that employed psychom-
etric scales, especially the Recreation Experience Preference
Scales. They listed only benefits that connoted improved or
desired states and purposefully left out some probable benefi-
cial states that were either more causative of a subsequent
benefit (e.g., skill development) or were more abstract (e.g., re-
alization of solitude). Their list is shown in table 1. It repre-
sents a subjective judgment; however, it is drawn from years of
experience with these data.

The benefits are listed as personal benefits. That is, they are
benefits that the individual receives. Many other types of
benefits may derive from recreation participation and non-
commodity resource uses that are realized at the group, com-
munity, and national levels. Examples would be a more pro-
ductive workforce, a greater sense of shared values and har-
mony, and a healthier natural ecosystem (Driver et al. 1987).

Driver and Brown identify eight major categories of benefit.
The most complex has to do with self-development. As a

Table 1. — A taxonomy of some probable personal benefits gained
from use of outdoor recreation opportunities, developed by Driver
and Brown (1987).

A. Personal development

1 . Self-concept

2. Self-actualization

3. Self-reliance

4. Value clarification/introspection

5. Humility

6. Leadership

7. Spiritual growth

8. Aesthetic enhancement

9. Learning

B. Social bonding

1. Family kinship

2. Kinship with significant others

3. Meeting new people

C. Therapeutic/healing

1 . Clinical problems (drug abuse, etc.)

2. Stress/tension mediation

3. Physical rest

D. Physical fitness/health

E. Stimulation

F. Independence/freedom
C. Nostalgic

H. Commodity-related

26

!

manifestation of personal expression, recreation has the capac-
ity to serve as a vehicle for self-definition and personal growth.
Schreyer et al. (1988) illustrate the multiplicity of ways in
which natural environments can maintain and enhance one's
self-concept. There is the possibility that other categories could
be expanded; depending upon the level of analysis desired.
Commodity related benefits have to do with benefits linked to
benefits to other resource uses that result from management
for recreational opportunities (Driver and Brown 1987).

Open-Ended Responses

One of the costs of developing psychometric scales is that
the scales are fixed. Responses can only be made in the context
of the questions that have been asked. Of course, through
time, formats for questions may be modified, improved, and
expanded. However, when exploring a new area of inquiry,
there is often a value in attempting to be more flexible, seek-
ing to find insights in more unstructured ways of gathering
data. The perspective of naturalistic inquiry seeks to under-
stand the perceptions of people in order to develop a richer
and more accurate picture of how people themselves perceive
such phenomena (Lincoln and Cuba 1985). While such infor-
mation is obviously much more subjective, it allows for data
about subjective phenomena and, thus, may be very useful in
characterizing such elements.

To assess the utility of this qualitative information for mak-
ing contributions to the understanding of benefits, an analysis
was carried out on a data set involving recreationists on rivers
in the East. During the summer of 1986, visitors to the Upper
Delaware Scenic and Recreational River in New York State, and

! the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, between
New Jersey and Pennsylvania, were surveyed in an open-ended

; interview. Both areas are administered by the National Park
Service.

The purpose of the survey was to better understand the na-
ture of the recreation experience. Questions were directed to-
ward how the person felt, what he/she perceived, and what
the reasons for participation were. Specific questions concem-
^ ing recreation benefits were not asked. However, the general
jl line of questioning was such that benefit-related information
would likely be obtained. Thus, the data were content-ana-

27

lyzed in order to see what types of information concerning
benefit specification could be derived. One hundred eighty-
nine interviews were analyzed. The sample is not intended to '
be absolutely representative of the users of the area, so much
as it is intended to identify the range of benefits that might be
derived from visiting these areas. The typology of benefits
identified by Driver and Brown was used as a framework for
benefit specification.

Table 2 shows the benefits identified based on analysis of
these interviews. It also shows the frequency with which a cer-
tain benefit was named. Obviously, the classification involved
judgment concerning the identification of benefits. Naturalis-
tic research is intended to elaborate and suggest, rather than to
document empirically. Further, the classification involves an
expansion of the Driver and Brown typology. In this sense, we
cannot claim that these results have no empirical substantia-
tion beyond the limits of this exercise.

Perhaps the most significant point to note is the tremen-
dous range in diversity of the benefits identified. Within these
two environments, and within a relatively narrow range of ac-
tivities (primarily canoeing and fishing), virtually all of Driver
and Brown's categories were mentioned. Further, a number of
new categories were added to the list. Obviously, such addi-
tions represent subjective decisions about categorization, be-
cause some of the categories listed could be subsumed by the
more general benefit themes given by Driver and Brown. How-
ever, the richness of the information provided in the inter-
views supported this effort.

Table 2 shows the relative frequency with which specific
benefits were mentioned, as well as an overall summary for
the major categories. The first category, personal development,
was identified as a benefit on one-fourth of all the interviews.
This type of a survey is not geared toward assessing the relative
importance of these benefits to the person. However, that de-
gree of frequency is notable in itself. Previous studies have
tended to indicate that self-fulfillment motives, while preva-
lent, were not particularly rated as important compared to
more commonly pursued outcomes. However, they are rea-
sons for participation that are widely shared.

The social element of recreation is one of the most consis-
tently important benefits recognized. This is reflected in this
sample, where 57% of the respondents identified social mo-

\

28

Table 2. — Benefits from recreation participation deriving from inter-
views witli respondents at the Delaware Water Cap National Recrea-
tion Area and Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational Rivers.

No. of times

Percent of

Benefit categories

mentioned

total sample'

A. Personal development^

M8

25.4

1 . Self-concept

4

2.1

2. Self-actualization

0

0.0

3. Self-reliance

1

0.5

4. Value clarification/introspection

4

2.1

5. Humility

0

0.0

6. Leadership

3

1.6

7. Spiritual growth

3

1.6

8. Aesthetic enhancement

7

3.7

9. Learning

5

2.6

1 0. Achievement/skill development^

13

6.9

n. Challenge^

8

4.2

B. Social bonding

108

57.1

1 . Family kinship

28

14.8

2. Kinship with significant others

39

20.6

3. Meeting new people

10

5.3

4. Group solidarity^

2

1.1

5. To tell others about the experience^

2

1.1

6. Nuturance^

3

1.6

7. Cultural awareness^

1

0.5

8. Solitude^

19

10.1

9. Escape family^

4

2.1

C. Therapeutic/healing

99

52.4

1 . Clinical problems

0

0.0

2. Stress/tension mediation

31

16.4

a. Quiet/peace^

25

13.2

b. Stress release^

1

0.5

c. To recharge batteries^

5

2.6

3. Physical rest/relaxation

68

36.0

D. Physical fitness/health

34

18.0

1 . Exercise^

11

5.8

2. Getting tan/sun^

23

12.2

E. Stimulation

83

43.9

1. Fun^

35

18.5

2. Excitement^

17

9.0

3. Recreation^

4

2.1

4. Adventure^

2

1.0

5. Exploration^

3

1.6

6. General stimulation^

22

11.6

F. Independence/freedom

8

4.2

G. Nostalgic

7

3.7

(continued)

29

Table 2. — (continued).

no. Of nmcs

Percent cf

Dvsneiii. Categories

■nencionea

total sample'

n. V„UlIllIlULIILy-l claLcLI ^CdLCn lloriy

Q
O

1. CaUczI Ic:! 1 LIcil

/ J

jo.O

1 . vjUUU LIITIt:

1 A

O.J

z.. rcJibiny LI iTic/ leibur e

1 1

1 1

3. New experience^

1 /

Q A

y.o

4. Seeing sights^

3

1 .6

5. Pleasure/enjoyment^

\ U.o

6. Spontaneity^

4

2. 1

7. Fantasy^

z

1 .U

J. ReiaLions wiin naiure

1 1 o

o 1 .4

1 . Enjoyment of nature^

66

34.9

2. To be outdoors/fresh air/water^

24

12.7

3. Temperature/good weather^

4. Scenery^

8

4.2

14

7.4

5. Relationships with place^

4

2.1

^Categories patterned after those developed by Driver and Brown (1987).
^Categories not included by Driver and Brown (1987) in their more restrictive
list.

^N=189.

^Category totals represent summations of all subcategories.

tives. We have also added a significant number of subcatego-
ries in addition to the previous list. Some of these have to do
with anti-social motives (e.g., solitude), but these are very
much of the components of the social dimension. Nurturance
represents the desire to be supportive to a group and feel good
about helping others.

The therapeutic/healing benefit was also mentioned by over
one-half of the sample. This has to do with the more classical
definition of re-creation, represented by stress release, escape,
and relaxation. The "getting tan/getting sun'' benefit was diffi-
cult to classify. Ostensibly, it has the positive health benefits
(and of course more long-term negative health implications) in
being "in the outdoors." However, it could just as easily be in
the social category, in that getting a tan is primarily slanted
toward how one appears to others. But, many of the people
describing it also commented on the experiential benefits of
laying in the sun, sweating, while listening to the sounds of
recreation going on around them.

Stimulation was mentioned by 44% of the sample, suggest-
ing that this a major reason for participation. All of the sub-

30

categories were added from this sample. While these categories
may appear to be very similar, it was apparent from listening
to the conversations that they were, in fact, distinct types of
stimulation.

A new category was added called "experiential.'' This had to
do with what was going on in the person's mind— that is, how
they were feeling. In this sense, it is close to stimulation as a
benefit, but not all of the categories are arousal oriented. The
key here is to recognize that many benefits of recreation may
be experiential, in that the mental states we place ourselves in
can be enjoyable, and that enjoyment enhances our quality of
life.

The other new category, relations with nature, was men-
tioned by over 60% of the sample. There are elements here
that are tied to other categories, such as escape or experiential
benefits; but, there is a significant element in being in nature
itself. It is possible to argue whether nature is necessary for
human well-being. To the extent that people seek nature and
derive satisfaction, the benefits are real. As Schreyer et al.
(1988) suggest, such relationships may tie into a broader no-
tion of self-concept by reaffirming individual connectedness to
our shared biological heritage. Such symbolic behavior can be
forceful, as expressed in patriotic and other community-ori-
ented behaviors.

Discussion and Conclusion

I There is a tremendous range and breadth in the diversity of
reasons why people choose to engage in outdoor recreation.
The results reported here represent a very limited sample of
persons engaged in relatively few activities. However, in spon-
taneous discussions not specifically pointed at benefit identifi-
cation, they named nearly every benefit category listed by
Driver and Brown, as well as a range of other benefits requir-
ing new categories to be developed, including some not cov-
ered by the rather comprehensive Recreation Experience Scale.

These attempts at classification may go a long way in the
development of a standardized typology of benefit. Systematic
research into the magnitude and value of benefits will require
this standardization in order to allow for reliable and general-
izable findings. This has been a shortcoming that has plagued

31

the field of leisure research, as standardized measures of psy-
chological values have been relatively rare. This effort at stan-
dardizing such a typology should be a topic for future re-
search.

The question still remains: recognizing that these benefits
have been identified by recreationists, are they real? The as-
sessment of this will vary with the nature of the benefit. There
are two primary ways benefits may be manifested: during rec-
reation participation and subsequent to the participation.
Benefits during recreation are primarily experiential; they are
states of consciousness that people desire and enjoy. To the ex- f
tent that people say they experience these benefits, they are \
benefits (assuming the person is being honest and is not delu- |
ded). I

The second type of benefit comes afterward, as the result of :
participation. This type may generally be considered in two
classes: changes in states of mind and changes in behavior.
These two are obviously not distinct, as changes of mind will
also many times result in changes in behavior. States of mind
could be similar to the experiential rewards described above
(e.g., the warm glow of reminiscence) or they could be more
long term, such as in an improved self-concept. The linkage of
these to recreation would again depend upon the self report of \
the respondent, although such perceived linkage would not i
necessarily be subjected to serious questions if the person ex-
periences them as such. As mentioned above, they may create '
their own reality.

Behavioral changes may be very diverse and wide ranging.
They may be long term and subtle. They may also be the most , j
difficult to track. While most objective in the long run, they
pose many research problems, as we noted previously. It is
likely that much more progress may be made in the short run
by studying perceptions of benefit, although research on rec- [
reati on-related changes in behavior certainly needs to be pur-
sued, including research using physiological measures.

As indicated in the above discussion, there are many needs
for research in the future. There should be a more systematic [
attempt to develop a standardized typology of benefit that re-
flects its psychological structure. There needs to be more of a
focus on objective measures of benefit, such as behavior
changes. Better controls on data are needed to establish a bet-
ter sense of cause and effect. There is a need to move from the

32

identification of benefit to the determination of the magni-
tude of benefit, that is, how much of a particular benefit is
being provided to the individual. Then the relative worth, or
value assigned, of these benefits (or the goods and services
that produce them) needs to be estimated better (see Walsh,
this volume).

To the extent that our concern for better understanding the
nature of recreation benefits represents a desire to improve the
quality of recreation resource management, we also need to
establish links between settings and benefits. What types of
recreation environments and what conditions in them facili-
tate the attainment of certain benefits and which hinder
them? Finally, we also need to think in terms of building a
broader body of knowledge in carrying out a range of research.
This may help to establish patterns which may lead to future
theory building and the development of future hypotheses
(Driver et al. 1987). The need for more refined theory cannot
be overstated. As Burch (1987) has noted, we often find our-
selves sitting on a mountain of data with a pimple of theory.

No one doubts the existence of recreation benefits. How-
ever, for them to rightfully impact resource allocation and
management processes, they must be more systematically
documented. To do otherwise would be to do disservice to the
American people.

Literature Cited

Brown, Perry J. 1981. Psychological benefits of outdoor recrea-
tion. In: Kelly, J. R., ed. Social benefits of outdoor recrea-

1 tion. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, For-
est Service: 13-17.

Burch, William R. 1987. Ties that bind— the social benefits of
recreation provision. In: A literature review — President's
Commission on Americans Outdoors. Washington, DC:

1 U.S. Government Printing Office: 81-92.

'f)river, B. L. 1977. Item pool for scales designed to quantify
the psychological outcomes desired and expected from rec-

i reation participation. Mimeo. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station. Sip.

33

Driver, B. L. 1987. Benefits of river and trail recreation: the
limited state of knowledge and why it is limited. In:
Seguire, S., ed. Proceedings, First international congress on
trail and river recreation. Vancouver, B.C.: Outdoor Recrea-
tion Council of British Columbia: 44-58.

Driver, B. L.; Brown, Perry J. 1987. Probable personal benefits
of outdoor recreation. In: A literature review — President's
Commission on Americans Outdoors. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office: 63-70.

Driver, B. L.; Brown, Thomas C; Burch, William R., Jr. 1987. A
call for more comprehensive and integrated evaluations of
public amenity goods and services. In: Kaiser, Fred; Brown,
Perry J., comps. Proceedings, 18th lUFRO world congress:
economic value analysis of multiple-use forestry. Corvallis,
OR: Oregon State University, Department of Resource Rec-
reation Management: 204-216.

Driver, B. L.; Burch, William R., Jr. 1988. A framework for mor(
comprehensive valuations of public amenity goods and
services. Iti: Peterson, George L., Driver, B. L.; Brown, Perry
J., eds. Amenity resource valuation: integrating economics
with other disciplines. State College, PA: Venture Publish-
ing Inc.: 31-45.

Driver, B. L.; Nash, Roderick; Haas, Glenn E. 1987. Wilderness
benefits: state of knowledge. In: Lucas, Robert C, ed. Pro-
ceedings, National wilderness research conference. Gen.
Tech. Rep. INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station: 294-319.

Driver, B. L.; Peterson, George L. 1987. Benefits of outdoor rec-
reation: an integrating overview. In: A literature review —
President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. Washing-
ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office: 1-10.

Driver, B. L.; Rosenthal, Donald H. 1982. Measuring and im-
proving effectiveness of public outdoor recreation pro-
grams. Washington, DC: George Washington University,
Department of Human Kinetics and Leisure Studies. 40 p.

Lincoln, Y. S.; Cuba, E. G. 1985. Naturalist inquiry. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage. 416 p.

34

'1

1

Peterson, George L.; Driver, B. L.; Brown, Perry J. 1990. The
benefits of recreation: dollars and sense. In: Johnson, Re-
becca L.; Johnson, Gary V., eds. Economic valuation of
natural resources: issues, theory and applications. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press: 7-24.

Rolston, Holmer. 1985. Valuing wildlands. Environmental Eth-
ics. 7: 23-48.

Schreyer, Richard 1984. The recreation benefit specification
workshop. Logan, UT: Institute of Outdoor Recreation and
Tourism, Utah State University. 43 p.

Schreyer, Richard; Driver, B. L. 1989. The benefits of outdoor
recreation participation. In: Watson, Alan, comp. Proceed-
ings, Benchmark 88: a national outdoor recreation and wil-
derness forum. GTR SE-52. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experi-
ment Station: 472-482.

Schreyer, Richard; Williams, Daniel R.; Haggard, Lois M. 1988.
The role of wilderness in the growth of personal compe-
tence, leadership, and social interaction abilities. In: Freil-
ich, Helen, comp. Proceedings, 1988 National wilderness
colloquium. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station.

rinsley, H. E. A.; Tinsley, Diane J. 1986. A theory of the attrib-
utes, benefits and causes of leisure experience. Leisure Sci-
ences. 8(1): 1-45.

U.S. Travel Data Center. 1987. Utah tourism study. Washing-
ton, DC.

35

The Significance of Resource-Based
Tourism^

John D.[Hunt^

Tourism, as an economic and social activity; is relatively
young. Although people have traveled for thousands of years
for a variety of purposes, tourism, as we know it today, is a
post- World War II phenomenon. It was not until after the war
that a large middle-class emerged in the United States and
other countries with the desire and means to travel. As the
number of travelers increased a variety of opportunities and
problems resulted. The travelers' need for lodging, food, and
other services has spawned a large business opportunity and
economic impact. In many cases, the desire to see and experi-
ence natural, historical, and cultural attractions has promoted
a revitalization and protection of many resources. At the same
time, large volumes of visitors have created a variety of social
and environmental impacts challenging resource managers
and community leaders. Conflict over resource use and preser-
vation has, in part, been fueled by the growth in recreation
and travel.

Tourism Comes of Age in the 1980's

While tourism has experienced a variety of growing pains
over the past 40 years and is yet to be completely accepted as a
credible social and economic activity, it is clearly coming of
age in the 1980's. To most Americans and many other people
of the world, the opportunity to travel for personal enrich-
ment and revitalization is becoming a significant ingredient of
a quality life style. Although the opportunity to travel may be
perceived as a luxury of an affluent society, there is growing
evidence that its relative priority for the use of discretionary
time and income is increasing. Short of major world and na-
tional economic decline, environmental catastrophe, or politi- J

^Department of Hotel^staurant and Travel Admini5tration,jUjiiver5ity of Mas-
sachusetts, Amherst, MaTI

36

cal confrontation, personal travel will undoubtedly continue
to increase.

Tourism as an industry and economic development activity
has grown dramatically in the past 40 years. In 1986, Ameri-
cans and foreign visitors spent more than $275 billion on trips
of 100 miles or more from home in the United States. Billions
of more dollars were spent on short-haul leisure and recreation
trips. Tourism represents the third largest retail activity in the
United States and ranks among the top three employers in
four out of five states.

Tourism is forecast to be the largest business activity in the
world by the turn of the century. Tourism is dependent upon
growth in Gross National Product and increases in disposable
income. Today, nearly 90% of the world travel market comes
from 25% of the world's countries that have reached devel-
oped or newly industrialized status. Some forecasters have esti-
mated that 50% to 60% of the world's countries will reach in-
dustrialized status by the turn of the century, resulting in a
doubling of the world's travel market.

Over the past 10 years, many traditional and established in-
dustries and business activities have experienced significant
changes and, in some cases, major decline. At the same time
other industries, particularly in high technology and the serv-
ices, have remained stable or grown. Among the latter group
of activities are the services critical to supporting travel. Al-
though the growth rate in tourism has slowed in recent years
and has not experienced the rates characteristic of the 1960's
and 1970's, its relative importance in the economic activity of
many states has increased dramatically. It was during the early
1980's that many state and community leaders began to recog-
nize the value of tourism. While other industries faltered or
declined during the recession of the first half of this decade,
tourism remained relatively stable or experienced only minor
declines.

^Resource Managers Discover Tourism

As community and political leaders have recognized the im-
portance and value of tourism, increasing numbers of resource
managers and agencies have also begun to recognize or admit
that they too have a role in tourism. While many resource

37

I

managers long ago recognized their role in providing recrea-
tional opportunities to visitors, there has been a strong resis-
tance or ambivalence to tourism. Some resource managers
have even expressed strong negative attitudes about tourism.
In the mid-1970's, when the U.S. Senate was conducting the
National Tourism Policy Study, which eventually lead to the
creation of the National Tourism Policy Act in 1981, the Na-
tional Park Service leadership was quoted as saying it had little
or no involvement in tourism and, in fact, one of the former
leaders argued that where tourism is concerned, the "public
has been ripped off (U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, 1978, p. 11). Although this atti-
tude remains characteristic of some Park Service managers, the
National Park Service has to be considered one of the major
suppliers of tourism attractions and benefits in the nation.

During the same study, a leader of the now defunct Bureau
of Outdoor Recreation, an agency responsible for planning and
financing a great deal of recreation opportunity during the
1960's and 1970's said, "T can't visualize any interaction with
tourism in the Bureau's past activities and stated emphatically
that it is not part of the Bureaus' mandate" (p. 11). The au-
thors of the study report reacted to this statement by noting,
"this is said in spite of the fact that the vast majority of out-
door recreation areas are utilized almost entirely by 'tourists'
traveling out of their home communities to use such public
recreation areas and facilities" (p. 11). Fortunately, today most
Park Service and other resource managers are recognizing their
role in tourism.

Ironically, most resource-based recreation of the past, as well
as today, was generated by tourists. While resource managers
chose not to call recreation users or visitors tourists, most of
their visitors fit the conventional definition of a tourist. While
there are many different operational definitions of tourists,
such as that used by the U.S. Travel Data Center, which meas-
ures only the activity of people traveling 100 miles from home
or more or staying overnight, the accepted conceptual defini-
tion is people traveling away from their home community for
any purpose other than commuting to or from work or school.
Obviously, most recreational use of natural resource lands has
been by people traveling away from their home community.

Another quote from the National Tourism Policy Study re-
port (p. 11) supports this contention:

38

In a hearing before the Subcommittee on Parks and Rec-
reation of the U.S. Senate Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs, Senator Harrison A. Williams (NJ) stated:
"Today, seven of every ten Americans live in relatively
few large metropolitan areas — on 1.5 percent of our Na-
tion's land area, while only 3 percent of our public rec-
reation lands are within 1 hour's driving time from the
center of the major metropolitan areas." From this
statement it is clear that the remaining 97 percent of
our public lands are utilized almost entirely by tourists
in the sense that nearly all of the persons utilizing these
recreational lands must travel from their homes to do
so.

Thus, "a rose is a rose, and by any other name would smell as
sweet."

Negative Images and Narrow Definitions of
Tourism

Much of the negative or ambivalent attitude toward tourism
expressed by resource managers in the past probably stemmed
from either attaching different connotative meanings to the
word tourist or tourism or defining tourism very narrowly. A
discussion of this problem is found in the National Tourism
Policy Study Final Report (p. 10-12). Parts of this discussion
seem worth repeating here:

...tourism... may connote a number of different mean-
ings to different people, including pleasure versus busi-
ness, sightseeing, adventure, economic opportunity, lei-
sure, change, relaxation, education and expansion of
horizons, as well as congestion, exploitation, energy
consumption, pollution, litter, high prices, and over-
development. Tourism, in particular, however, tends to
have polarized connotations for many, among both the
general public and government officials.

A classic example deals with the terms used to denote
persons who travel. While words like ''traveler," ''visi-
tor," "passenger," and "guest" may connote indifferent,
acceptable or positive meanings, the term "tourist" of-

39

ten connotes a rude, humorously dressed; misbehaving,
unsophisticated oaf tangled in the straps of a camera.
While most people who are traveling to places outside
of their home environments willingly label themselves
as travelers, guests, or visitors, they seldom call them-
selves "tourists," reserving the term for other people.

Unfortunately, while semantic usage may reinforce
negative images or attitudes, many of the semantic
problems associated with tourism and travel are symp-
tomatic of more deep-seated causes. Some of these
causes may be the overt actions of people who travel
and those who service them, while other causes may
simply be conflicts in values. Although the benefits of
travel are vast and varied, including personal, social,
economical, educational and cultural benefits, travel is
also costly. Often these costs are social and environ-
mental. Depending on one's role in travel and tourism,
it is easy to lose sight of either the costs or the benefits.

Although it would be simplistic to believe that benefits
of travel only accrue to the buyer and seller of travel, it
would be equally naive to suggest that the costs are
similarly restrictive. Travel and tourism are complex
and all pervasive. They touch and are touched by many
facets of our lives, our society, and our environment.

While many of the inherent conflicts in values or ef-
fects of tourism activities will not disappear, it is also
true that the tourism and travel industry has frequently
failed to evaluate itself frankly, to understand and at-
tack some of the more deep-seated problems arising out
of tourism and travel activities, and to build lasting
bridges of communications and cooperation with other
interests in the Nation. This has been particularly the
case for tourism and outdoor recreation interests.

Tourism Development is Characterized by a
Variety of Problems

As a relatively young and evolving social and economic phe-
nomenon, tourism has many problems. It has been character-

40

ized as fragmented. In actuality it is comprised of several ma-
jor interrelated components each with many individual, large,
and small organizations and businesses. Although these enti-
ties all have common interests and interrelatedness, each has
its own narrow goals or objectives. For example, the tourism
phenomenon can be divided into at least five components:
tourists, transportation systems, services and accommodations,
attractions, and information linkages. Within the transporta-
tion component are airlines who are primarily interested in
filling seats or service stations desiring to sell gasoline. In the
services and accommodations sector are hotels eager to fill
beds and restaurants desiring to sell meals. Attraction opera-
tors may be concerned with providing visitors with an enrich-
ing or exciting experience while protecting resources against
overuse or abuse. While each has a particular objective and
role, all are affected by the volume of travelers moving from
their homes to and within destinations. Without this travel,
each of the suppliers or providers of these services or products
will be unable to meet their particular objectives. The traveler
requires these services and products and needs information for
finding and choosing among them. This complexity of the
travel phenomenon has resulted in a type of fragmentation
whereby one component, or entity within a component, does
not recognize its interrelationship with other components. Ba-
sically, the phenomenon of tourism is defined too narrowly,
overlooking the fact that it is a holistic one comprised of many
interrelated parts. Components are interdependent and im-
pacts or changes in one component will affect all the others.
Herein may lie another reason that resource managers have
not recognized their role in tourism in the past. Clearly, many
resource managers are responsible for natural and historical at-
tractions critical to the whole system of tourism. These attrac-
tions are the lures which draw people to destinations or pro-
vide them the opportunities to seek the experiences which
help fulfill their needs.

Unfortunately, tourism has been characterized by a lack of
coordination and planning. In many cases, the organizations
most logically suited to assume the role of coordination and
planning have been woefully under funded or have been pre-
occupied with tourism promotion. That is, until recently, most
state or regional tourism development organizations have ei-
ther been legislatively restricted or have interpreted their man-

41

date to be one of primarily promoting, advertising, and pro-
viding information about their destination. In many cases, this
has resulted in a type of "building-a-better-brochure" syn-
drome at the expense of coordination, planning, education, i
research, product development, conflict resolution, and a host
of other activities critical to building a high quality, stable, and
profitable tourism industry. ^

Many regions desiring to become tourist destinations or en-
hance their tourist visitation have believed it is necessary to ;
attract customers or tourists to their region before a high qual-
ity and broad spectrum of services and attractions could be
provided. However, the promise or offer of a tourist experience
must be accompanied with its delivery once the tourist arrives.
Thus, in order to realize the potential for tourism development
and maximize its benefits, while minimizing social, environ-
mental, political, and economic costs, a region must concern
itself with the proper development and management of its
product concurrently with its promotion. Unfortunately, ^
many state and regional tourism organizations have assumed
that they can best concentrate their efforts on promotion and
advertising while leaving service and product development
and delivery to the private sector and other public agencies.
While this approach is understandable, it is difficult to accom-
plish and is usually deficient. The industry's fragmentation or
the unique roles of its varied parts and the fact that tourism
impacts not only those who benefit directly but many other
people and activities within a community, requires industry-
wide coordination, planning, and many other functions diffi-
cult for individual operators to perform.

In the Future the Tourism Industry Must
Coalesce

The future development of tourism is primarily a task of en-
hancing or adding to an existing service and product base.
While new attraction and business opportunities occur as tour-
ism grows, major new developments or the rapid, dramatic
conversion of a community from one industrial base to a tour-
ism economy is very rare. Thus, the challenge to community
leaders and resource managers is not one of approaching tour-
ism as if it was a completely new opportunity but rather one of j

i

improving and adding to what already exists. Unfortunately,
in many cases, the existing tourism activity and industry have
evolved in a haphazard fashion with little guidance and coor-
dination. Today, increasing competition between tourist busi-
nesses and regions, coupled with the growing sophistication of
the traveler, requires that if the tourism industry is to prosper
and contribute to the citizens of a region, its many interests
must coalesce. Concurrently, the industry must refine its prod-
ucts and services through improved planning, coordination,
education, and research.

Worthwhile Tourism Development iVIust be
Guided by Three Basic Goals

While the challenges to the tourism industry and the re-
source manager who chooses to become involved are many, a
critical step must be the recognition of the holistic nature of
tourism and an understanding of the roles all must play to as-
sure that tourism meets a set of socially and economical bene-
ficial goals.

Tourism must be predicated upon at least three goals. First,
it must strive to provide the highest level of visitor or tourist
satisfaction. Any effort that does not deliver a quality product,
service or experience will not succeed. Second, tourism devel-
opment must provide rewards to owners. Private businesses
must be able to make a profit. Public agencies or stewards must
be able to perform a service or provide a product which is re-
garded as socially and politically worthwhile. Finally, tourism
development must be predicated on the protection and wise
use of the basic natural and cultural resources which form the
attractions base. Herein lies the role of the resource manager
1 and the significance of resource-based tourism. While all
i people do not travel to enjoy natural-based attractions, a large
I share of leisure travel involves enjoying the scenic attributes of
America's natural lands. Tourists can be segmented into nu-
merous markets or publics which do many different things.
However, outside of opportunities to visit friends and relatives
and rest and relax, the scenic characteristics of destinations
f rank as the most important consideration among travelers in
choosing a vacation destination. While the traditional outdoor
activities of hunting, fishing, camping, winter sports, and

43

some water sports are of interest to limited groups, the scenic
character of America's lands are almost universally important.
Smart tourism development encourages the preservation and
careful use of unique natural, historical, and cultural environ-
ments. Overuse or abuse of resources can destroy the very
foundation of the tourism activity. While each of the goals for
tourism development is equally important, the latter goal is
one that results in much controversy within and between the
tourism industry and other community interests and indus-
tries. While these controversies will probably never be totally
resolved to the satisfaction of all, a tourism industry which is
professional, coordinated, and well organized will be better
suited to protect its own interests and needs as well as more
logically understand and support those of their community
and other industries.

The Future

The future development and contribution of tourism will
require an increasingly broad array of tasks and functions by
both the public and private sectors. As tourism comes of age, it
will be accepted as necessary for a quality life style and a legiti-
mate social and economic activity. Both those who travel and
the network of private and public organizations which serve
their needs will become more sophisticated, efficient, and ma-
ture.

Communities, businesses, and organizations which expect
to reap the benefits of tourism at minimum economic, social,
political, and environmental costs must respond with well-
thought-out and planned marketing and development strate-
gies. It is critical that resource managers become full partners
in these endeavors. Their management of the resource will
have impact upon those who travel and the nearby communi-
ties which chose to diversify their economies through tourism
development. Although there are many changes occurring in
travel, resource use, and economic development, many com-
munities which were traditionally dependent upon tangible
products of natural resource lands are facing economic decline.
Some of these communities have found that tourism may pro-
vide some economic relief as travelers discover the attraction
of the nearby lands.

44

With an increasingly depersonalized living and work envi-
ronment; more Americans are seeking personally enriching
and "back-to-nature'' leisure activities resulting in a growing
interest in resource-based tourism. Resource-based tourism is
not new. What is new is the recognition that the role natural
resources and resource managers have long played in the lei-
sure pursuits of the public is an integral part of tourism. Yes-
terday's recreation is today's tourism. However, critical to the
resource base and those affected by its management is that the
resource manager must attempt to build bridges with the other
components of the tourism phenomenon much as they have
worked with all aspects of the industries of other resource uses
in the past.

Literature Cited

U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transpor-
tation. 1978. National tourism policy study, final report.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 361 p.

45

Impacts of Resource-Based Tourism ;
on Local Income and Employment/^

1

Alan E.jWatson and H. Ken jCordell'

Abstract. — A relatively new emphasis in resource-
based recreation management and planning is the in- j
creased attention given to the impact of leisure opportuni-
ties on local and regional economies. Communities have
worked hard to attract the spending associated with festi- |
vals and vacations, but state and federal agencies have just |
started to make progress to estimate the economic impact
of proposed or existing resource-based recreation opportu-
nities. There is widespread demand for data and methods |
for estimating the amount and distribution of these eco-
nomic impacts. The Public Area Recreation Visitor Survey '
has been, foremost, a methodology development exercise '
for assessing the economic impact of proposed changes in '
recreation opportunities or demand. The accompanying
data set was built through a nationwide multiagency effort i
and was designed to be adaptable for response to several I
economic impact questions. 1

Resource managers are often faced with evaluating alterna-
tives in making important decisions. For recreation develop-
ment or opportunity modification decisions, they must rely
heavily on information provided to them by recreation plan- |
ners. Recreation planners must be able to adequately explain
the possible effects of alternate strategies or actions. One effect
of recreation resource management decisions which is cur- ;
rently receiving much attention is the potential economic im- \
pacts on local or regional economies. Economic impact is a ,
term in sharp contrast with the more widely used concept of \
economic value. Economic value is typically identified as the
willingness to pay for the opportunity to recreate and, as such,
represents the worth of on-site recreational access (see Walsh, j

^ \

K^SDA Forest Service, Intermountain Experiment Station, Forestry Sciences Labo- 1
ratop/, Missoula, MTjland USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment |
Station, Athens, CA.~^

46

this volume). Economic impact mostly concerns the distribu-
tion of spending and production that results as a by-product of
a recreational visit. It is an effort to estimate the magnitude of
gains or losses which are likely to occur among industries
within the impact area as a result of a change in recreation
visitation. That change in visitation could be the result of a
change in such demand factors as increased population, substi-
tution of activities, or change in socioeconomic conditions, or
the change in visitation could be the result of a change in sup-
ply factors, such as policy, entrance requirements, or capacity.
Impact on the economy can be examined in great detail.
Analysis is intended to go beyond determination of only the
''direct effects,'' which are simply income and employment
changes as a result of sales or services to recreation visitors and
the managing agency. The ''indirect effect" refers to income
received by additional firms selling goods and services to those
impacted directly by consumer spending. "Induced effects" are
derived when earnings from direct and indirect sales are spent
locally, providing income to persons and businesses who may
be neither directly nor indirectly involved in the sale of recrea-
tional products and services. The total economic impact of ex-
penditures related to recreational visits is the sum of direct,
indirect, and induced effects (Walsh 1987).

Although total expenditures often appear high, the net con-
tribution to the economy of recreation-related expenditures is
' usually much less. A large portion of retail sales in rural areas,
such as those surrounding parks and reservoirs, is often sent
out of the area through wholesale purchases of items which
are not produced locally (Bromley 1972). Early examinations
I of economies near federal reserves found that from 10 to 28
; cents of each dollar spent for restaurant meals were worker
and proprietor income (Clawson 1962). In service sectors, such
as lodging, the figure was closer to 50 cents because of the use
lof local labor to generate the expenditure.
' Tourism, or visitation to parks for recreation, generates an
linteresting mix of direct impacts. While reference is often
made to the "tourist industry," there are actually a number of
, industries that generate sales to visitors but who also serve lo-
cal residents and industries as well. It quickly becomes evident
I that appropriate impact analysis needs to look at individual
! sectors of the economy to determine specific effects of expen-
, ditures. Past efforts which highly aggregated expenditures or

47

reported only total expenditures, however specific to indus-
trieS; have been appropriately criticized (Gramman 1983, Li-
chty and Steinnes 1982).

In requesting estimates of economic impact, many planners
and managers are interested in knowing regional multipliers.
"Economic multiplier" is a very important concept, though it
is one that is sometimes difficult to grasp. Walsh (1987) de-
fined the multiplier as the total effects divided by the direct
effects. Multipliers are the result of first and all subsequent
rounds of spending for inputs and consumer products and
services. The multiplier times the direct effect equals the total
effect. The greater the multiplier, the greater is the amount of
economic activity associated with a change in visitor expendi-
tures.

Maintaining information that describes the importance of
shifts in recreation consumption as a component of the econ-
omy and that describes the value of recreation opportunities
to consumers is one of the targets of recreation and tourism
research. An interagency research effort was initiated in 1984
to develop methods to credibly estimate the economic impacts
of recreation and tourism.

Public Area Recreation Visitor Study

In 1982, plans were being formulated for replicating the
1977 Federal Estate Visitor Survey. At the same time, several
state and federal agencies and related national associations, in-
cluding the National Association of State Park Directors
(NASPD) and the Council of State Planning Agencies, were in-
dependently seeking ways to credibly estimate the economic
benefits of recreation and tourism. With the joint leadership of
the USDA Forest Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Na-
tional Park Service, and the NASPD leading economists and sci-
entists working in this area of recreation and tourism, econom-
ics were assembled to develop a system for producing credible
and cost-effective estimates of the various economic parame-
ters related to recreation and tourism.

Currently six federal agencies, 12 states, four national asso-
ciations, and six universities are cooperating to apply a state-
of-the-art system called Public Area Recreation Visitor Study
(PARVS). Data have been collected nationwide since June 1985

48

and will continue. While some data sets are complete, some
additional state agencies are just beginning to collect data.
There have been more than 35,000 contacts made with recrea-
tion visitors. More than 8,000 of those visitors have provided
detailed information about their annual and trip-related ex-
penditures. Expenditure data were collected by all states in-
volved, though federal agencies restricted expenditure data
collection to the Southern Region of the United States (see be-
low).

States and federal agencies currently participating in the
Public Area Recreation Visitor Study

States

Georgia

Indiana

Kansas

Missouri

Minnesota

New Jersey

New Mexico
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia

Federal Agencies

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Park Service

Tennessee Valley Authority

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USDA Forest Service

Data were collected in three phases:

1. On-site: Interviews were conducted during a recrea-
tion trip to describe recreation visitors, their recrea-
tion behavior, and their travel patterns. The method-
ology developed required roadside interviews of visi-
tors as they exited the site. Basic data were collected
on group and individual characteristics and activity
participation. All data elements were designed to be
comparable with Bureau of Census and other na-
tional survey definitions, categories, and standards.

49

2. At home: Selected visitors interviewed at recreation
areas were mailed a follow-up questionnaire after
their trip to obtain information about trip-related ex-
penditures. Information was requested on trip-related
expenditures made at home, before or after the trip; ,
during travel to or from the site; and in the immedi- i
ate vicinity of the site itself. Also, annual expendi-
tures for durable items used on the trip were de-
scribed.

3. About the site: Recreation planners or managers were
asked to provide descriptions of visitation to their

area so that estimates of economic importance can be i
extrapolated to recreation sites with attributes similar i
to the sites actually studied.

I

Analysis j

Trip expenditures made to participate in recreational activi-
ties must be examined in relation to defined impact regions, j
Of primary interest are usually those expenditures made
within the impact region by residents of other regions. These
expenditures represent outside money flowing into the re-
gional economy. It is assumed that without the study park, I
these revenue dollars would not flow into the region. Resident!
expenditures are not typically considered because they repre- |
sent money already in the region. j

The argument has been made, however, that if the park was j
not located in the region, expenditures to participate in re- |
source-based types of recreation by residents would likely oc-
cur at parks in some other region or that this money may be j
spent on items or activities with lower "value-added" percent-
ages. While economic impact usually refers to income changes!
resulting from expenditures by nonresident visitors to a re-
gion, some justification for examination of resident expendi-
tures related to recreation visits is evident.

Expenditure of dollars by residents does not represent new
income to the region. These expenditures may, however, rep-
resent a significant redistribution of income. A look at the "sigj
nificance'' or overall magnitude of expenditures for recreation!
will likely be justified including those spent by both residents I

50

and nonresidents because of their income distribution effects.
The potential problem with including resident spending is
that the results may be misinterpreted as new income in the
region of concern. The proper interpretation is that resident
spending represents the interrelatedness between a park and a
regional economy.

The expenditure items included in the PARVS mail-back
questionnaire were developed specifically to ''bridge" to IM-
PLAN; a state-of-the-art input/output model and data base that
simulates the United States economy based on the 1982 Cen-
sus of Business. IMPLAN provides estimates of the amount of
personal and property income, employment, taxes, value
added, overall production, and spending in a specified county,
group of counties, state, region, or nation. IMPLAN is the
product of the Land Management Planning Division, USDA
Forest Service. The second version of IMPLAN is currently op-
erated from Fort Collins, Colo., where software and the sup-
porting data base reside on the Fort Collins Computing Center
I mainframe computer. Efforts to complete a microcomputer
version of IMPLAN will soon be concluded.

For the revised version of IMPLAN, attributes of the software
system particularly relevant to analyzing recreation and tour-
ism have been emphasized (Alward and Lofting 1985). In addi-
tion to improvement of software for Version II, extensive col-
laboration between the IMPLAN development staff and PARVS
coordinating scientists has provided excellent bridging of
PARVS data. Highly disaggregated commodity and service
groups are used for basic allocation of expenditures (Watson

and Bratcher 1987).

!

^Application

Economic impact information appears to be in high de-
j mand. There are many reasons why this type of information is
idesired by recreation management agencies. With the testing
and intense review of impact assessment methods by the
I PARVS multiagency team of scientists and planners, a tremen-
dous amount has been learned about why this type of infor-
i mation has been requested and how people hope to use it.
I One of the most frequently cited expectations expressed by
j public agency planners is that of improved cooperation be-

I

51

tween public and private concerns. A true understanding of
the distribution of economic benefits resulting from visitation
to recreation sites in a community is very desirable. Many feel
that when the true economic effects are seen by local business
people, a more sincere interest may develop (in cases where it
does not already exist) to form a strong partnership in plan-
ning and providing recreation.

In a recent effort by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TV A),
using PARVS expenditure data, projected changes in use due to
proposed changes in services provided by the agency were esti-
mated to produce up to an additional $257 million annually in
total impact, depending on which proposal is ultimately se-
lected (Cordell et al. 1987a). The employment increases across
the proposed options could be from 44 to more than 4,000
new jobs. Estimates of multipliers varied for various user
groups with different expenditure patterns. Across all user
groups examined, multipliers ranged from 1.75 to nearly 2.3.
TVA officials expressed hope that the region could be enlisted
in a cooperative spirit that would result in a thriving tourism
economy in the 12-county Land Between the Lakes region.
Public response to impact projections was positive (Anony-
mous 1987).

Some very useful information which is expected to result
from economic impact analysis is the extent of the impact of
different activity groups. In weighing planning recommenda-
tions, a better understanding of the different economic effects
of different user groups on a specified economy is highly desir-
able. For instance, the Army Corps of Engineers is actively
working to trace the effects of expenditures by those who par-
ticipate in boating activities compared to those who do not.
Other groups of interest to various agencies are campers, day
users, nature-oriented activity groups, and wilderness visitors.
Early analysis of wilderness visitor expenditures suggests that
impacts derived from this group may more closely approach
those of more development-oriented users than previously ex-
pected (Watson et al. 1986). While wilderness-related recrea-
tion appears to not be expenditure intensive, the socioeco-
nomic class of many wilderness users allows for some previ- i
ously unexamined expenditures in the local region. i

Another need for economic impact analysis results ex-
pressed by planners is for justification of keeping open nonre- |
venue-producing parks. In a time of shrinking budgets, yet

52

stable demand levels, local economic effects of recreation serv-
ices may provide incentives to continue operations which are
not financially self-supporting.

Some specific questions that have been proposed by PARVS
cooperators (Cordell et al. 1987b) include the following:

1. How much business income and employment could
be generated by providing a new recreation area or
expanding opportunities in a rural, economically-de-
pressed county?

Through the use of PARVS methodology, alternative devel-
opment programs can be evaluated. Current research efforts
, are not to determine fixed estimates of impact from various
I types of use, but rather to develop a tool to use to evaluate the
I relative magnitude of impacts expected to result from alterna-
tives proposed.
The PARVS methodology for data collection and bridging,
! teamed with the IMPLAN data set and computer software, al-
I lows the relative impacts to be examined in great detail, as de-
scribed earlier. For example, selected sectors of the 12-county
! Land Between the Lakes region have been listed in table 1. For
each specific sector listed, the total effects of an increase in
visitation due to a proposed development plan are indicated.

It is no surprise to find that the greatest impacts are going to
be in the areas of hospitality and recreation services and retail
1 trade. Of course the relative magnitude of these effects would
' be expected to vary across proposed alternatives. Table 1 also

Table 1. — Selected economic sectors of the 12-county Land Between
the Lakes region and changes to total effects predicted to result
from a proposed addition of major attractions and services.

i Sector

Total gross Employee Proprietor Employ-
output compensation income ment
(mm %) (mm $) (mm $) (Jobs)

i Eating and drinking

' Amusement and recreation

Hotels and lodging

Wholesale trade

Retail trade

Doctors and dentists
j Hospitals

Real estate

3.202
1.874
4.197
1.756
3.719
.770
.726
.737

0.906
.669
.827
.724
.155
.325
.358
.037

0.250
.368
.650
.229
.370
.140
.010
.452

91
57
115
37
123
6
20
4

53

shows the result of examining the induced effects (probably
some direct effects) on nonrecreation-related sectors. Examina-
tion of the total effects on specific sectors of the economy is
now possible.

2. Do some types of recreation areas provide more local
economic stimulation than others?

3. Which businesses are most likely to be affected by
closing a particular recreation area to public use?
Many wilderness allocation decisions remain to be
made. Further clarification of the benefits of wilder-
ness to a local or state economy could greatly influ-
ence public sentiment regarding the allocation deci-
sion. In other decision situations, the economic ef-
fects on specific types of businesses need to be
known by the governing agency and the public who
is being asked to respond to the proposal.

4. What form of consumption and/or business tax
structure would be most appropriate for providing
revenues for operating and maintaining recreation
areas?

Tourist-related industries have contributed substantially to
our Nation's economic recovery and stability. To date, those
businesses who serve the tourists are not taxed in any special
way, which would support the publicly owned and managed
attractant resource. Many discussions over the years have re-
volved around the appropriateness of recreation visitors to
carry more of the recreation management costs of an area
through increased fees. The argument is that visitors most
likely benefit more from the area's existence than do nonvisi-
tors. Similarly, businesses close to the recreation area likely
benefit financially more than those businesses who are not
close to the recreation area. If the beneficial economic effects
of development programs can be documented, those firms
which will benefit from proposed development plans should
be more cooperative in contributing to the costs of develop-
ment through taxes or contributions.

54

Conclusions

Each agency participating in the Public Area Recreation Visi-
tor Survey is motivated by a different set of expectations. To
some agencies the PARVS data collection effort was a pilot test.
Adaptation of the measurement instrument and methodology
will be incorporated into future rounds of data collection. To
others the emphasis is on determining the many applications
possible for an individual agency's current data set. In other
cases, data pooling is occurring to increase the sample sizes for
particular types of areas or for particular types of visitors.

PARVS data and IMPLAN analysis are being used today to
determine the economic effects of recreation planning alterna-
tives. With the widespread application of this single measure-
ment instrument, methodology, bridging methods, and analy-
sis procedures, planners can establish credibility for economic
impact estimates which are made. A packaged economic im-
pact assessment method has been developed and is near wide-
spread publication and availability. Consideration of how the
local, regional, and state economy will be affected as a result of
agency activities is now a real possibility.

Recreation and tourism interests will face both good and
bad times in future years. Since about 1977, there have been
some lean years and many changes have occurred. During
these years of change, there were some who gained and some
who lost. The methodology being finalized by the PARVS
Working Group would have permitted better monitoring and
prediction of the consequences, especially of the budget cuts
of the recent past. For the recreation and parks community,
the tools now exist to monitor actual change and to simulate
proposed change. Lack of ability to show concrete evidence of
effects of decisions has been one of the more crucial issues that
has faced recreation and park interests.

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 1987. Attractions may benefit LBL: study predicts
more jobs. 1987 August 16; Jackson, TN: Jackson Sun,
Jackson: 84.

55

Alward, G. S.; Lofting, E. M. 1985. Opportunities for analyzing
the economic impact of recreation and tourism expendi-
tures using IMPLAN. Thirtieth annual meeting of the Re-
gional Science Association; 1985 November 14-16; Philadel-
phia, PA.

Bromley, D. W. 1972. An alternative to input-output models: a
methodological hypothesis. Land Economics. 48: 125-133.

Clawson, M. 1962. Private and public provision of outdoor rec-
reation opportunity. In: Economic studies of outdoor rec-
reation. Study Rep. 24. Outdoor Recreation Resources Re-
view Commission. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office: 71-96.

Cordell, H. K.; Bergstrom, J. C; Ashley, G.; Watson, A. E.
1987a. Report on estimates of economic impact of pro-
posed recreational development at Land Between the
Lakes. A final report of an Economic Assessment Study pre-
pared for the Tennessee Valley Authority. Golden Pond,
KY.

Cordell, H. K.; Hartmann, L. A.; Watson, A. E.; Fritschen, J.;
Propst, D. B.; Siverts, E. L. 1987b. The public area recreation
visitor survey: a progress report. Proceedings, Southeastern
recreation research conference; 1986 February; Asheville,
NC.

Gramman, J. H. 1983. An ex post facto analysis of the regional

economic impact of expenditures for reservoir recreation.

Journal of Environmental Management. 16(2): 357-367.
Lichty, R. W.; Steinnes, D. N. 1982. Ely, Minnesota: measuring

the impact of tourism on a small community. Growth and

Change. 13(2): 36-39.
Walsh, R. G. 1987. Recreation economic decisions: comparing

benefits and costs. State College, PA: Venture Publishing,

Inc. 638 p.

Watson, A. E.; Bratcher, L. 1987. Public Area Recreation Visitor
Survey: phase III, reporting. Final cooperative research
agreement report to the Southeastern Forest Experiment
Station. Athens, GA.

Watson, A. E.; Hartmann, L. A.; Cordell, H. K. 1986. Unique
characteristics of wilderness users in outdoor recreation as-
sessments. First national symposium on social sciences in
resource management; 1986 May; Corvallis, OR.

56

Rural Resident Community Life
Satisfaction and Tourism
Development Attitudes: A
Comparison of Forest and
Nonforest Community Residents^

Patrick T;\Long, Richard R. jPerdue, and
Lawrence R. |Aiien^

Abstract. — This paper describes the Colorado Rural
Recreation Development Project. The primary purpose of
this project is to contribute to the quality of rural commu-
nity life through the provision of organized recreation serv-
ices and, where appropriate, through technical assistance
in addressing local economic needs through tourism devel-
opment. However, the project also serves as a unique labo-
ratory for research examining resident perceptions of com-
munity services, quality of life, and of the impacts and de-
sirability of tourism development across different types of
rural communities. Second, the paper presents the results
of a comparison of residents of communities located in or
adjacent to national forests with residents of other rural,
primarily agricultural communities. Three observations are
made. The forest community residents had consistently
higher importance scores and lower satisfaction scores on
seven dimensions of community life. When examined from
a resident community life satisfaction perspective, how-
ever, there were no consistent differences between forest
and nonforest community residents. Perhaps of most con-
cern, residents of both community types indicated they did
not feel that the future of their communities was particu-
larly bright. Finally, when compared to nonforest commu-
nity residents, forest community residents tended to have
more positive perceptions of the impacts of tourism and
tended to be more favorable toward tourism development.

^Center for Recreation and Tourism Development, College of Business and Ad-
ministration,\University of Colorado, Boulder, CO^Department of Recreation Re-
sources Administration, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C.; and Depart-
ment of Leisure Studies, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL.

57

Introduction

Since 1981, the staff of the Center for Recreation and Tour-
ism Development; University of Colorado at Boulder, has as-
sisted rural Colorado communities through the Colorado Rural
Recreation Development Project (CRRDP). The primary pur-
pose of this project is to help rural communities establish and
maintain a community recreation and, in many cases, tourism
system. This system is designed to contribute to the quality of
rural community living through the provision of organized
recreation services for residents and, where appropriate,
through technical assistance in addressing local economic
needs through tourism development. Funded by the Mountain
Bell Foundation, the University of Colorado at Boulder, and
the Colorado Office of Rural Job Training, the project involves
the placement of a recreation director in participating commu-
nities over the summer period with the primary responsibility
of developing structured recreation services. Additional techni-
cal assistance services are contracted and coordinated by the
central staff in Boulder (Long and Kraus 1987).

Within the state of Colorado, there are approximately 14.4
million acres of national forest land. Many of the communities
that participate in the CRRDP, due to their proximity to this
national forest land, are impacted both by the timber industry
and, in many cases, by the behaviors of tourists seeking natu-
ral resource-related recreation opportunities. However, very
little empirical information exists concerning these impacts.
As with most rural community research, the existing studies
tend to be case studies which examine the short-term changes
that occur in a specific community as a result of changes in the
local timber and/or tourism industry.

As part of the CRRDP, a resident survey is conducted at the
beginning of each summer. The primary purpose of this sur-
vey is to serve as a needs assessment leading to the develop-
ment of the organized recreation program. Additionally, the
survey is structured to provide basic data on resident percep-
tions of community services, quality of life, and of the impacts
and desirability of tourism development. This paper presents
an analysis of the information collected by this survey, com-
paring communities located in or adjacent to national forest
lands with other rural, primarily agricultural communities.

58

Community Satisfaction and Tourism
Development

Resident Satisfaction with Community Life

Over the past 20 years, the impact of forest resource devel-
opment on the social fabric and quality of life in surrounding
communities has become an important concern of forest plan-
ning. Similarly, public concern for quality of life has become
inaeasingly important, particularly in rural communities
where quality of life is viewed not only as a social issue but
also as a key to economic development (Betz 1987).

Community quality of life is a very difficult concept to de-
fine (Tremblay et al. 1983). Conceptually, we have defined it
as the human conditions within a community setting which
affect the social well-being and the life satisfaction of resi-
dents. In the literature, it has been operationally defined in
terms of both objective and subjective indicators. Objective
indicators focus either on the availability of different services
such as health services or on the percentage of the population
having a given level of income, education, or employment.

Although community development policies have tradition-
ally focused on these objective quality of life indicators, many
researchers maintain that they must be examined in the per-
spective of their effects on the community as perceived by the
residents. Consequently, subjective quality of life indicators
have been developed focusing on resident community life sat-
isfaction (e.g., how residents feel about their community, the
community's future and growth, and their satisfaction with
living in that community) (Tremblay et al. 1983).

From a social impact or community development perspec-
tive, the emphasis of quality of life research must focus on as-
sessing how the physical structure, management, and service
delivery characteristics of a community influence quality of
life, particularly if subjectively operationalized as resident
community life satisfaction (Allen and Beattie 1984, Goudy
1977, Rojek et al. 1975). Allen and Beattie (1984) developed a
likert scale measuring resident satisfaction with seven dimen-
sions of community life: (1) public services, (2) formal educa-
tion, (3) physical environment, (4) leisure and recreation, (5)

59

economics, (6) opportunities for citizen involvement, and (7)
medical services. In their research in a single rural Wyoming
community, they examined community life satisfaction as a
function of these dimensions. Their findings supported a hier-
archical model similar to Maslow's (1954) theory of motiva-
tion. The basic or subsistence concerns of residents focused on
income, housing, employment, education, health, and safety.
Assuming that these basic concerns were reasonably satisfied,
resident community life satisfaction tended to be a function of
leisure and recreation, economics, and the quality of the
physical environment. As with most community quality of life
research, however, the inability to examine differences be-
tween communities limited the theoretical significance of
these findings. Since all of the study participants were mem-
bers of the same community, they all had essentially the same
environment, economic, and leisure opportunities. Thus, the
results could not be used to better understand how basic dif-
ferences in communities lead to differences in either resident
perceptions of the services and opportunities available to them
or in their general community life satisfaction. The CRRDP is
being used as a laboratory to study these differences across a
variety of different communities.

Attitudes Toward Tourism Development

In rural communities throughout the United States, tourism
is receiving increasing recognition as a regional development
tool (Liu and Var 1986). However, local government tourism
planning has been inadequate both in meeting tourist needs
and in optimizing the benefits to the host community (Gunn
1979, U.S. Senate 1977).

Defined as the provision or enhancement of facilities and
services to meet the needs of the tourist (Pearce 1981), tourism
planning should focus on promoting development which opti-
mizes not only economic benefits but also the potential social
and environmental benefits to the community (Murphy 1985).
Unfortunately, most local governments have traditionally fo-
cused only on the perceived economic benefits of tourism
(Pizam 1978). Their tourism planning has been characterized
as economic "boosterism'' without careful or rational consid-
eration of the potential benefits and costs of tourism develop-
ment (Getz 1986).

60

With the increasing recognition of the potential social and
environmental costs of tourism development (Butler 1975,
Jafari 1981, Pizam 1978, Rosenow and Pulsipher 1979, Young
1973), however, the importance of comprehensive tourism
planning, including public participation, is becoming increas-
ingly recognized (Getz 1982, 1983; Haywood 1975; Heenan
1978; Loukissas, 1983; Murphy 1981, 1985; Pearce 1981). As
stated by Murphy (1981, p. 195), "If tourism is to develop
within a community, the hosts of the 'host industry' must be-
come willing partners/' Consequently, numerous studies of
local resident attitudes toward tourism impacts have been con-
ducted over the past few years (Belisle and Hoy 1980;
Brougham and Butler 1981; Cooke 1982; Getz 1977; Liu and
Var 1986; Murphy 1981, 1983; Pizam 1978; Rothman 1978;
Sheldon and Var 1984; Thomason et al. 1979).

With the purpose of identifying the attitudes and concerns
of potential ''publics'' and special interest groups, many of
these studies have focused on identifying differences in atti-
tudes toward tourism among types of local residents identified
on the basis of socio-demographic characteristics (Belisle and
Hoy 1980, Liu and Var 1986, Pizam 1978), place of residence
(distance from the tourism area of the community) (Belisle
and Hoy 1980, Sheldon and Var 1984), and economic depend-
ency on tourism, operationalized both as type of employment
(Pizam 1978) and by comparing local entrepreneurs, public of-
ficials, and other residents (Murphy 1983, Thomason et al.
1979). This research has found very little difference in tourism
attitudes by socio-demographic characteristics that the per-
ceived impact of tourism decreases as the distance between the
individual's home and the tourism sector of the community
increases, and the favorability of attitudes toward tourism in-
creases with the individual's economic dependency on tour-
ism. Concerning the favorability of attitudes toward tourism,
it is generally concluded in an exchange theory perspective
that those people who benefit from tourism will have more fa-
vorable attitudes toward tourism (Murphy 1983, Pizam 1978,
Thomason et al. 1979).

As with the community life satisfaction research, these stud-
ies have typically been case studies examining tourism atti-
tudes in a single community. Almost all of current tourism
planning theory and literature is derived from a canying ca-
pacity perspective. Although such research is fundamentally

61

basic to such a perspective, very little is known concerning the
differences in tourism attitudes across different types of com-
munities. Again, the CRRDP is being used as a laboratory to
examine these issues and concerns.

Methodology

In 1986; survey data were collected in 20 rural Colorado
communities as part of the CRRDP. Prior to beginning their
work in the communities, the directors participated in a 5-day
training program at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
One day of that training was devoted to the procedures for
administration of the community survey.

Self-administered questionnaires were hand-delivered to ap-
proximately 10% of the households in each community by the
director. At a scheduled time, the director or a project youth
employee returned to the household to pick up the completed
questionnaire. Households were selected using systematic sam-
pling with a random starting point. Specifically, the director
was instructed to begin at a particular point in the community
and select every n* household. In the case of multiple family
residences, each living unit was considered a household. The
starting point and the selection interval were assigned by the
project administrator. If a house appeared vacant, the director
was instructed to go to the adjacent house. If the house ap-
peared to be occupied but no one was home, the director re-
turned at another time. If no one was home on the return
visit, the director went to an adjacent house. At each house, an
adult (18 years or older) was asked to participate in the survey.
Those that agreed to participate were given the questionnaire
and a time was scheduled when the director could return to
collect the completed instrument.

Of the contacted households, 80.1% completed the ques-
tionnaire. Overall, 1,062 households were surveyed. Recogniz-
ing that seasonal residents would influence the response, par-
ticularly to the tourism questions, the data collection was con-
ducted between 24 May and 1 June 1985. Of the 20 communi-
ties involved in the project in 1986, 9 were located in or adja-
cent to a national forest and 11 were located in either the east-
ern plains or western slope regions of Colorado. Of the 1,062
survey respondents, 410 (38.6%) lived in forest communities
and 652 (61.4%) lived in nonforest communities.

62

The survey questionnaire included three sections of interest
to this paper. First, community life satisfaction was measured
using a seven-point Likert scale derived primarily from the
work by Allen and Beattie (1984). Second, also using the seven-
point likert scales developed by Allen and Beattie (1984), resi-
dent perceptions of (1) the importance of seven dimensions of
community life to the respondent and (2) his/her satisfaction
with those dimensions of the respondent's community were
measured. The specific items in each dimension are shown in
table 1. Third, a series of tourism perception and attitude ques-
tions, derived primarily from the works by Belisle and Hoy
(1980), Murphy (1981), Sheldon and Var (1984), and Thoma-
son et al. (1980), were asked concerning (1) the respondent's
perception of the impacts of tourism, (2) tourism development
policy and taxes, and (3) the desirability of additional tourism
development in the respondent's community. A seven-point
likert format was also used for these questions.

In addition to standard bivariate statistical analyses, impor-
tance-performance analysis is used to evaluate the combined
importance and satisfaction data concerning the dimensions
of community life. Originally a marketing tool used to evalu-
ate products or services, importance-performance analysis has
evolved to include the evaluation of community services and
outdoor recreation facilities (Crompton and Lamb 1986). As
shown in figure 1, importance-performance analysis examines
the quality of services (satisfaction) as a function of their im-
portance as assigned by respondents. The lower the degree of
importance, the lower the degree of success or failure. Services
rated high in importance and high in satisfaction are consid-
ered major successes, while those rated high in importance
and low in satisfaction are considered major failures. Services
rated low in importance and high in satisfaction are consid-
ered trivial successes. And, services rated low in importance
and low in satisfaction are trivial failures.

Table 2 shows the socio-demographic characteristics of the
respondents to the 1986 survey by type of community. There
were no significant differences between the respondents from
forest and nonforest communities on length of residence, age,
sex, and marital status. The forest community respondents
did, however, tend to have a slightly higher overall education
and a greater tendency to be employed full-time. Importantly,
the forest communities also had a higher unemployment level.

63

The nonforest community respondents were more likely to be
full-time homemakers or retired. On the basis of these results,
the forest community residents do not appear to be substan-
tially different from the nonforest community residents.

Table 1. — Dimensions of community life scales.

Dimension Scale Items

Public service

fire protection

welfare and social services

public transportation to and from other communities
police protection
local government
roads and highways
public health services

Formal education

college/university courses (for credit)
public schools (k through 12 programs)
technical/vocational training

Environment

physical geography or terrain
environmental cleanliness (air, water, soil)
climate and weather
general appearance of your town
general appearance of your area of town

Leisure

private/commercial recreation (clubs, movies, bowling)

publicly funded recreation (social, cultural, sports programs

for youth and adults)

parks and open space

adult education (noncredit courses)

Economics

cost of living
job opportunities
housing (cost and availability)
utilities (water, gas, electric, sewage)
shopping facilities
Citizen involvement and social opportunities

opportunities to be with friends and relatives
citizen input into community decisions
churches and religious opportunities
opportunities in civic and fraternal organizations
opportunities to become familiar with other residents

Medical

hospital and medical facilities
medical doctors/dentists
emergency services

64

fflGH

Major
Success

fflGH

Major
Failure

LOW

PERFORMANCE

Trivial
Success

Trivial
Failure

LOW

IMPORTANCE
Figure 1. — Importance-performance analysis quadrants.

Substantial differences between residents of the two com-
munity types existed, however, on both the importance and
the satisfaction measures for the dimensions of community
life scales (table 3). Generally, the importance scores of the for-
est community residents tended to be higher than those of the
nonforest community residents. Conversely, the satisfaction
scores of forest community residents tended to be lower. The
implications of these results are best reflected when examined
from an importance-performance perspective (fig. 2). For for-
est community residents, formal education, leisure, and eco-
nomics are in the major failures quadrant. By comparison, eco-
nomics was only slightly within the major failures quadrant
for the nonforest community respondents. Both formal educa-
tion and leisure were in the major successes quadrant for non-
forest community residents. Overall, it would appear that for-
est community residents have significantly higher expecta-
tions for community services and substantially lower satisfac-
i tion with those services.

65

Importantly, however, these differences do not appear to
significantly affect community life satisfaction (table 4). Only
two significant differences between forest and nonforest com-
munity residents were observed on the community life satis-
faction items and those differences were contradictory. Non-
forest community residents were more likely than forest com-
munity residents to agree with both the statement that "the
future of this town looks bright" and the statement that "not
much can be said in favor of this town/' Perhaps most impor-
tantly, the mean score for both community types on the item
"the future of this town looks bright" was less than 4.0, the
neutral point on the disagree to agree scale. In other words,
the "average" respondent in both communities was concerned
about the future of his/her town.

Table 2. — Socio-demographic characteristics by type of community.

Socio-demographic Type of community Summary

characteristic Forest Nonforest statistic

(n=410) (n=652)

18.1 16.8 t=1.2

44.0 44.2 t = 0.2

X^=1.4

64.5% 60.7%
35.5 39.3
100.0 100.0

X^=3.0

76.0% 71 .0%

24.0 29.0
100.0 100.0

= 8.8*

10.3% 14.3%
48.3 47.8

19.3 22.4 I

22.1 15.5 i
100.0 100.0

X2=14.4**

67.5% 58.0%

12.2 18.8
12.5 17.6

7.8 5.6
100.0 100.0

* Significant at alpha = .05. j
**Significant at alpha = .01.

— j

66

Mean length of residence (years)

Mean age (years)

Sex

female

male

totals
Marital status

married

nonmarried

totals
Education

less than a high school graduate

high school graduate

some college

college graduate

totals
Employment

employed

retired

full-time homemaker

unemployed

totals

Tourism in the rural areas of Colorado is heavily focused on
the outdoor recreation opportunities in the forested mountain
regions of the state. Still, the residents of the communities in
or adjacent to national forests generally tended to have more
favorable perceptions and attitudes toward tourism develop-
ment (tables 5 and 6). Specifically; forest community residents
tended to have lower perceptions of the potential negative
impacts of tourism and higher perceptions of the potential
positive impacts (table 5). Importantly, of the six negative im-
pact questions, only one had an average score for both groups
greater than 4.0, the neutral point on the seven-point disagree-
agree scale. Both forest and nonforest community residents
tended to agree that tourism increases the traffic problems of
an area. Similarly, the average score on all of the positive tour-
ji ism impact items was greater than 4.0.

1 Table 3. — Mean importance and satisfaction with dimensions of com-
I munity life by type of community.^

Type of community
I Dimensions of community life Forest Nonforest t value

1 Importance

medical

2.00

1.81

3.1**

economics

1.68

1.61

1.2

environment

1.65

1.36

5.1***

public service

1.55

1.42

2.2*

formal education

1.36

1.27

1.3

citizen involvement/social oppor.

1.19

1.18

0.2

leisure

1.15

1.08

1.2

Satisfaction

environment

0.62

0.65

0.6

citizen involvement/social oppor.

0.52

0.60

1.5

medical

0.49

0.50

0.1

public service

0.36

0.35

0.1

formal education

-0.16

0.24

leisure

-0.28

0.02

4.5***

economics

-0.38

-0.04

4.8***

*Significant at alpha = .05.
** Significant at alpha = .01.
*** Significant at alpha = .001.

^Dimension scores for each individual range from -3 to +3, where -3 = extremely
low importance/satisfaction, 4 = neutral, and +3 = extremely high importance/
satisfaction.

67

M

EN PS

M

EN FS
CI

HIGH

EC

LOW raCH ■

SATISPACnON

SATISFACTION

LOW
IMPORTANCE
Forestry Cornmimiries

LOW
IMPORTANCE
Nonforeslry Cunitiiuiiilieii

Figure 2. — Performance results for dimensions of community life by
community type. PS = public service, FE = formal education, EN = en-
vironment, LE = leisure, EC = economics, CI = citizen involvement and
social opportunities, and M = medical.

Table 4. — Mean community life satisfaction by type of community.^

Type of community

Community life satisfaction measure

Forest

Nonforest

t value

1 am satisfied with this town as a place

4.98

4.92

0.6

to live.

1 am satisfied with the quality of life

4.57

4.67

1.1

in this town.

This town is an ideal place to live.

4.31

4.25

0.5

The future of this town looks bright.

3.19

3.51

3.1**

People won't work together to get things

3.94

4.05

1.1

done for this town.

This town has good leaders.

4.14

4.09

0.6

Not much can be said in favor of this

3.09

3.33

2.5**

town.

Residents of this town continually look

3.97

3.92

0.6

for new solutions to problems rather than

being satisfied with things as they are.

Overall, 1 am satisfied with community

4.70

4.60

1.1

life in this town.

**Significant at alpha = .01.

Items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale where 1 = most strongly dis-
agree, 4 = neutral, and 7 = most strongly agree.

68

The forest community residents were also more likely than
nonforest community residents to support additional tourism
development (table 6). Specifically, the forest community resi-
dents were more likely to allow nonresidents to develop tour-
ism attractions in their area and less likely to feel that local
government should restrict tourism development. Further, the
forest community residents were also less likely to support ei-
ther differential fees for nonresidents at outdoor recreation ar-
eas or a lodging tax. Finally, the forest community residents
were significantly more likely to feel their community should
try to attract more tourists to their area.

Table 5. — Mean perceptions

of tourism impacts by type of commu-

nity.'

Type of community

Perception of tourism impacts

Forest Nonforest t value

Negative impacts

Tourism development unfairly increases

3.87

3.89

0.3

real estate costs.

Tourism development reduces the quality

3.42

3.68

3.0-

of outdoor recreation opportunities.

Tourism development increases the amount

3.90

3.99

1.2

of crime in an area.

Ordinary people don't benefit from tourism.

3.33

3.60

2.9

Tourism development increases the traffic

4.48

4.32

1.9

problems of an area.

Tourism development increases property

3.98

4.12

1.7

taxes.

Positive impacts

Tourism development increases the quality

4.35

4.26

0.3

life in an area.

Increasing the number of tourists visiting

5.17

4.86

3.8^

an area improves the local economy.

Tourism development improves the appearance 4.50

4.33

2.2'

of an area.

Tourism development increases the number

4.69

4.61

0.9

of recreational opportunities for local
residents.

*Significant at alpha = .05.
**Significant at alpha = .01.

^ Items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale where 1 = most strongly dis-
agree, 4 = neutral, and 7 = most strongly agree.

69

Conclusions

The existing research on impacts of various developments
on rural communities tends to be case studies which examine
only the short-term changes that occur in a specific commu-
nity as a result of a specific project or development. A substan-
tive need exists to expand on this limited knowledge base by
conducting research over a variety of community types.

To address this need, the Colorado Rural Recreation Devel-
opment Project is being used as a laboratory to study differ-
ences in rural resident perceptions of community services,
quality of life, and of the impacts and desirability of tourism
development across a variety of communities in Colorado. Be-
tween 1981 and 1987, over 100 small, rural communities have
been involved in this project. Beginning in 1984, a resident
survey has been conducted in each project community. While
the primary purpose of this survey is to provide input to local
recreation programming needs, it also provides the opportu-

Table 6. — Mean attitudes toward tourism development by type of
community.^

Type of community

Attitude toward tourism development Forest Nonforest t value

Tourism development policy

Nonresidents should be allowed to develop

4.03

3.86

2.0*

tourism attractions in an area.

Local government should control

4.15

4.20

0.6

tourism development.

Local government should restrict

3.29

3.62

3.8***

tourism development.

Tourism taxes

Tourists should pay more than local

3.54

3.91

3.7***

residents to visit parks and outdoor

recreation facilities

Tourists should pay a special tax on

3.35

3.55

2.3*

hotel and motel room fees.

Desirability of additional tourism development

This community should try to attract more.

5.17

4.34

8.6***

* Significant at alplia = .05.
**Significant at alplia = .01.
*** Significant at alpha = .001.

Items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale where 1 = most strongly dis-
agree, 4 = neutral, and 7 - most strongly agree.

70

nity to collect similar basic data on the perceptions and opin-
ions of rural residents in a variety of different settings.

This paper presents a descriptive analysis of these data, com-
paring residents of communities located in or adjacent to na-
tional forest lands with residents of other rural, primarily agri-
cultural communities. Prior to stating our conclusions, an im-
portant limitation of the project should be acknowledged.
Community participation in the Colorado Rural Recreation
Development Project is self-determined. Eligible communities
are contacted during the year preceding their involvement in
the project. Those wishing to participate are required to pro-
vide housing and office space for the recreation director and a
programming budget. Consequently, a nonrandom sample of
communities participate in the project.

Given this limitation, however, three conclusions seem ap-
propriate to this analysis. First, when compared to residents of
nonforest communities, residents in communities located near
or adjacent to national forest areas in Colorado appear to be
more concerned about the quality of their community serv-
ices. They appear to have both higher expectations and lower
satisfaction. Specifically, the forest community residents had
consistently higher importance scores and lower satisfaction
scores on seven dimensions of community life. When exam-
ined from an importance-performance perspective, the forest
community residents indicated that formal education, leisure,
and economics were major failures of their community. By
comparison, economics was only slightly within the major
failures quadrant for the nonforest community residents.

Second, when examined from a resident community life sat-
isfaction perspective, there were no consistent differences be-
tween forest and nonforest community residents. Perhaps of
most concern, residents of both community types indicated
they did not feel that the future of their community was par-
ticularly bright. As with many rural areas, the declines in the
traditional agricultural, mining, forestry, and energy industries
have created significant economic problems in rural Colorado.
These problems are reflected in the position of the economics
measure in both the forest and nonforest importance-perform-
ance analyses. It would appear that they have also affected
resident perceptions of their communities' futures.

Third, rural residents of Colorado have relatively positive
perceptions and attitudes toward tourism development. Again,

71

this may be the result of the current declines in other eco-
nomic sectors. Tourism, as a rural industry, has not experi-
enced the significant declines suffered by other industries. The
results tend to support the exchange theory perspective of resi-
dent tourism attitudes that is common in the literature. Resi-
dents of those communities most likely to benefit from tour-
ism development in rural Colorado, the forest communities,
tend to perceive both less negative impacts and more positive
impacts than the nonforest residents. They also tend to be
more favorable toward tourism development in general. The
only significant negative impact of tourism development com-
monly perceived by rural Colorado residents is traffic conges-
tion. Given the widely publicized winter tourism traffic prob-
lems of 1-70 west of Denver, this result is easily understood.

In conclusion, the Colorado Rural Recreation Development
Project provides a relatively unique model for conducting re-
search examining rural issues and concerns. We feel it is a sig-
nificant improvement over the existing case study research
models in that it provides the opportunity to examine differ-
ences in rural issues and concerns over a variety of conmiunity
types. Natural resource planning is a particularly appropriate
application of this research model. Forest resource planning is
becoming increasingly system-oriented. Assessing the benefits
and costs of future management decisions will necessarily in-
clude assessing the external impacts of alternative manage-
ment strategies. Research examining those impacts will be sub-
stantially improved if a variety of communities are involved.

Literature Cited

Allen, L. R.; Beattie, R.J. 1984. The role of leisure as an indica-
tor of overall satisfaction with community life. Journal of
Leisure Research. 16(2): 99-109.

Belisle, F. J.; Hoy, D. R. 1980. The perceived impact of tourism
by residents: a case study in Santa Marta, Columbia. The
Annals of Tourism Research. 12(1): 83-101.

Betz, C. J. 1987. The impact of leisure services on community
quality of life by community type in rural Colorado.
Raleigh, NC: Department of Recreation Resources Admini-
stration, North Carolina State University. Unpublished
masters thesis.

72

Brougham; J. E.; Butler, R. W. 1981. A segmentation analysis of
resident attitudes to the social impact of tourism. The An-
nals of Tourism. 13(4): 569-590.

Butler, R. W. 1975. Tourism as an agent of social change. In:
Tourism as a factor in national and regional development.
Occasional Paper 4. Peterborough: Trent University, De-
partment of Geography: 85-90.

Cooke, K. 1982. Guidelines for socially appropriate tourism
development in British Columbia. Journal of Travel Re-
search. 21(1): 22-28.

Crompton, J. L.; Lam, C. W., Jr. 1986. Marketing government
and social services. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Getz, D. 1977. The impact of tourism on host populations: a
research approach. In: Duffield, B. S., ed. Tourism: a tool for
regional development. Edinburgh: University of Ed-
inburgh: 9.1-9.13

Getz, D. 1982. A rationale and methodology for assessing ca-
pacity to absorb tourism. Ontario Geography. 19: 92-102.

Getz, D. 1983. Capacity to absorb tourism: concepts and impli-
cations for strategic planning. The Annals of Tourism Re-
search. 10: 239-263.

Getz, D. 1986. Models in tourism planning: towards integra-
tion of theory and practice. Tourism Management. 7(1): 21-
32.

Goudy, W.J. 1977. Evaluations of local attributes and corrmiu-
nity satisfaction in small towns. Rural Sociology. 42(3):
371-382.

Gunn, C. A. 1979. Tourism planning. New York: Crane, Russak
& Co., Inc.

Haywood, K. M. 1975. Criteria for evaluating the social per-
formance of tourism development projects. In: Tourism as
a factor in national and regional development. Occasional
Paper 4. Peterborough: Trent University, Department of
Geography: 94-97.

Heenan, D. A. 1978. Tourism and the community: a drama in
three acts. Journal of Travel Research. 16(4): 30-32.

Jafari, J. 1981. Limit to tourism development: an AIEST confer-
ence report. Journal of Travel Research. 19(3): 25-26.

Liu, J. C; Var, T. 1986. Resident attitudes toward tourism im-
pacts in Hawaii. The Annals of Tourism Research. 13: 193-
214.

73

Long; P. T.; Kraus, B. E. 1987. Recreation systems development:
a rural communities models. Boulder, CO: Business Re-
search Division, University of Colorado.

Loukissas, P.J. 1983. Public participation in community tour-
ism planning: a gaming simulation approach. Journal of
Travel Research. 12(1): 18-23.

Maslow, A. H. 1954. Motivation and personality. New York:
Harper and Row.

Murphy, P. E. 1981. Community attitudes to tourism: a com-
parative analysis. International Journal of Tourism Manage-
ment. 3(2): 189-195.

Murphy, P. E. 1983. Perceptions and attitudes of decision mak-
ing groups in tourism centers. Journal of Travel Research.
21(3): 8-12.

Murphy, P. E. 1985. Tourism: a community approach. New
York: Methuen.

O'Leary, J. T.; Adams, M. B. 1981. Importance-performance
analysis: a tool for assessing citizen views toward urban
river recreation development. Paper presented at the sym-
posium on leisure research, national recreation and park
association; Minneapolis, MN.

Pearce, D. G. 1981. Tourist development. New York: Longman
Group Limited.

Pizam, A. 1978. Tourism's impacts: the social costs to the desti-
nation community as perceived by its residents. Journal of
Travel Research. 16(4): 8-12.

Rojek, D. C; Clemente, F.; Summers, G. F. 1975. Community
satisfaction: a study of contentment with local services. Ru-
ral Sociology. 40(2): 177-192.

Rosenow, J.; Pulsipher, G. 1979. Tourism: the good, the bad,
and the ugly. Lincoln, NE: Century Three Press.

Rothman, R. A. 1978. Residents and transients: community re-
action to seasonal visitors. Journal of Travel Research.
16(3): 8-13.

Sheldon, P. J.; Var, T. 1984. Resident attitudes to tourism in
North Wales. Tourism Management. 5(1): 40-47.

Thomason, P. S.; Crompton, J. L.; Kamp, B. D. 1979. A study of
the attitudes of impacted groups within a host community
toward prolonged stay tourist visitors. Journal of Travel Re-
search. 17(3): 2-6.

74

Tremblay; K. R.; Walker, F. S.; Dillman, D. A. 1983. The quality
of life experienced by rural families. In: Howard, R. T.;
Smith W. M., eds. Family services: issues and opportunities
in contemporary rural America. Lincoln, NE: University of
Nebraska Press: 26-40.

U.S. Senate. 1977. National tourism policy study: ascertain-
ment phase. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-
ing Office.

Young, G. 1973. Tourism: blessing or blight. Middlesex, Eng-
land: Penguin Books.

75

Economic Benefits of Wildland
Recreation and Environmental
Protection y/

Introduction

Estimating the economic value of wildland recreation and
environmental protection is important and controversial. This
is particularly evident in states where recreation resources have
alternative uses such as for subdivisions, and for agriculture,
timber, mineral, energy, and water development. Public per-
ception of the value of recreation resources in their various
uses influences decisions about alternative development proj-
ects. The scarcity of recreation resources makes it critical that
they be evaluated to assess their contribution to national eco-
nomic development. The purpose of this paper is to review
some important studies of recreation economic demands and
benefits for use in program appraisal.

The problem is complicated by the fact that outdoor recrea-
tion agencies produce both on-site and off-site benefits. There
are benefits that accrue to individuals in addition to the values
they receive from visiting a site or to individuals who may
never visit the site at all. These off-site (i.e., public or external)
benefits have been described as the willingness to pay for: (1)
the option of possibly visiting a site in the future; (2) the value
from simply knowing a site exists; and (3) the satisfaction from
knowing the site will be available to future generations. Our
purpose here is to illustrate the proportion of total recreation
resource benefits that are attributable separately to recreation
use and to protecting the quality of the resource. The guide-
lines of the federal government recommend that recreation
agencies establish programs consistent with the benefits to us-

^ Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics) Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, 80523.

76

ers and the general public. Max Peterson, former Chief of the
U.S. Forest Service, believes that, "First, we must establish the
true value of outdoor recreation to the American people, and
then recognize that value in our planning and our politics.''

The contribution of wildland recreation to national eco-
nomic development is defined as the net willingness to pay by
all of the citizens. Economists use the term "social benefits"
referring to the fact that both internal and external benefits
should be included in the calculation. The output of outdoor
recreation agencies includes both recreation use benefits and
environmental protection benefits to the general public. Rec-
reation use may be classified as an internal or on-site benefit
while much of environmental protection represents an exter-
nal or off-site preservation benefit to the general population
including users and nonusers.

The national economic development objective is to increase
the value of the output of goods and services. Economists of-
ten refer to this as the economic efficiency objective. But we
should keep in mind that it means improving the net benefits
|| or welfare of all of the citizens as expressed by individual will-
I ingness to pay. The purpose of economics is to increase the
||^ well being of individuals to society, and each individual is the
I best judge of how well off he or she is in a given situation.
1 Both of these propositions follow the predominant Western
r moral tradition of recent centuries, which regards individual
ll^ welfare as the ultimate objective of public policy,
[j This paper concerns the measurement of economic welfare
' with demand models as an aid to government recreation and
environmental protection investment and program appraisal.
Review of the issue is prompted by what is perceived to be in-
appropriately large differences in measurement techniques
I among various analyses in the published literature. In particu-
I. lar, it will show that the procedures applied in several esti-
mates of value impart a substantial downward bias to benefit
^ estimates. The number of studies reviewed is relatively small.
1 However, due to the readiness of political decision makers and
! interest groups favoring alternative uses of recreation resources
to take a pessimistic view of the economic importance of out-
! door recreation and environmental protection, they have had
i a disproportionate influence in the public debate on recreation
f resource policy.

77

Conceptual Approach

Measures of the economic benefits of wildland recreation
and environmental protection are applied in comparisons of
benefits and costs to see whether society is better off because
of expenditures by public agencies. Are the social gains greater
than the social losses or less? The comparison is between the
value to the private sector of what it gives up to support a gov-
ernment recreation and environmental protection program
(represented by taxes, user fees, and opportunity costs) and
the value of the output that the government provides with the
resources (represented by the willingness of citizens to pay for
the government-produced opportunities, if they had to). A
public recreation program, for example, can increase the wel-
fare of society if the resources given up by the private sector
are used to produce greater benefits than they would produce
in the absence of the government programs.

Benefit-cost analysis helps public decision makers choose
among alternative recreation programs and projects which
vary in size, design, and purpose. It assists decision makers in:
(1) developing the optimum size program or project; (2) de-
signing it to be of maximum efficiency; and (3) choosing from
the alternative available projects that are expected to contrib-
ute the most to national economic development Qubenville et
al. 1986).

Consider the fundamental recreation economic problem of
governments throughout the world: How large should the
public recreation program be? How much should government
tax and spend for outdoor recreation? To achieve efficiency in
government, spending on public recreation programs should
be increased in each area and in total until the marginal social
benefits of the last recreation visitor day equal its marginal so-
cial costs. This would ensure that the net benefits of public rec-
reation programs to society are maximized.

In figure 1, for example, the upper panel illustrates the total
social benefits of public outdoor recreation in the United
States compared to the total social costs of producing these
recreation opportunities. The lower panel shows the marginal
social benefits and costs derived from the totals in the upper
panel. The marginal curves are simply the changes in value of
the total curves resulting from changes in the amount of pub-
lic recreation opportunities provided. They are the familiar

78

demand and supply curves, with optimum output occurring
where the two intersect, i.e., where supply equals demand.

The total social benefits (TB) curve shows that for the first
dollars the government spends on recreation programs, citi-
zens are willing to pay a great deal because of the scarcity of
recreation opportunities; there are very large social benefits.
However, as more dollars are spent, the value generated by
each additional dollar becomes smaller, i.e., diminishing mar-
ginal benefits. As individual demands for recreation activities

SUPPLY CURVE
N4arginal
Cosis (MO

. y DEMAND CURVE
^ Marginal
Bendlts (MB)

Reaeation Days per Year

I Figure 1. — Optimum size of the public recreation program^ United
! States. Source: Walsh (1986).

79

are fully satisfied, the shape of the TB curve becomes flatter as
more and more dollars are spent on public recreation.

From figure 1, we see that the national economic develop-
ment objective would be best served with recreation programs
at output OA — where the government budget would be AC
and total benefits, AB. The benefit-cost ratio is AB/AC and the
excess of benefits over costs (net benefits) is BC, which is the
greatest vertical distance that exists between these two curves.
If government recreation output were less than OA, there
would be some potential net benefits which would not be real-
ized. If the output were larger than OA, all dollars spent in ex-
cess of AC would entail social costs in excess of the benefits
that they produced. The same result is shown in the lower
panel of figure 1 for the marginal curves associated with the
total curves of the upper panel. There, the familiar economic
proposition is applied to the public sector; net benefits (area B)
are maximized where marginal social benefits (MB) equal mar-
ginal social costs (MC).

Debate over public recreation budgets may be characterized
as addressing the question of whether the agencies involved
produce outputs that are less or greater than optimum. Manag-
ers of public recreation programs, in effect, argue that existing
budgets are insufficient and should be increased to point OA,
but opponents argue that the proposed budgets are excessive
and should be decreased to point OA. No one knows for sure
which view is correct, and citizens have various opinions on
the matter. However, the issue could be better resolved with
more accurate information on the contribution of recreation
to national economic development.

Government expenditures for recreation were estimated at
approximately $8 billion in 1982, when government output
was estimated at 3.1 billion recreation visitor days. On this ba-
sis, government expenditures were equal to about $2.50 per
recreation visitor day. It seems likely that total benefits sub-
stantially exceed government costs based on the limited aggre-
gate U.S. data that are available. Table 1 suggests that benefits
in the same year averaged about $8.50 per recreation visitor
day. In this case, the total benefits of 3.1 billion recreation visi-
tor days would have amounted to $26 billion. Assuming this
represents an approximation of the annual equivalent of the
present value of social costs and benefits, it would be equal to j
a benefit-cost ratio of approximately 3.0. Figure 1 indicates ■

80

that when benefits exceed costs by such a large amount, out-
put is likely to be less than optimum. All budgets to the left of
AC have higher benefit-cost ratios than budgets to the right.

Benefit-cost analysis of the recreation program of a single
government agency is identical to that of the total recreation
program. Consider the U.S. Forest Service, which supplied 233
million recreation visitor days or 7.5% of total public recrea-
tion opportunities in 1982. Expenditures on the recreation
program of the agency were reported at $116 million in the
same year or only $0.50 per recreation visitor day. If benefits
i averaged $5 to $10 per recreation visitor day, the total benefits
of 233 million recreation visitor days would have amounted to
approximately $1.2 to $2.3 billion. This would represent an
excess of benefits over costs (net benefits) of roughly $1.0 to

! Table 1. — Benefits and costs of recreation and paric programs by fed-
I erai, state, and local government. United States, 1982.

Recreation
visitor

Level of government days, RVD

All government, total

Million 3,100

Per household 36

Municipal and county

Million 2,200

Per household 26

State

Million 300

Per household 3
Federal, total

Million 600

Per household 7

Net
economic
value. Government
NED^ expenditures

$26,268

$8,876

$305

$103

$9,363

$6,140

$109

$72

$6,387

$1,362

$74

$16

$10,518

$1,375

$122

$16

* Source: U.S. Census of Government (1 982) and estimates in Walsh and Loomis
1 (1986).

'^Municipal and county, $4.26, unit-day value from Water Resources Council
|i (1983) represents the midpoint (50 points) in the general recreation category, or
' $3.20 times 1.33 to correct for 1 2-hour RVDs. State, $21.29, assumes that about
two-thirds was wildlife related at $22 and one-third was park and recreation use
valued at $20 (Kalter and Cosse, 1969;Cibbs, 1983; Andrews, 1984;Sorgand
Loomis, 1984). Federal, $17.53, assumes that about one-half is wildlife related at
$22, and one-half is park and recreation valued at $9.82 times 1.33 to correct for
I, 12-hour RVDs (Walsh and Loomis, 1986). ^

81

$2.2 billion and a benefit-cost ratio of approximately 10.0 to
20.0. Figure 1 indicates that when benefits exceed costs by
such large amounts, output is likely to be much less than opti-
mum. On this basiS; the Forest Service recreation budget ap-
pears certain to have been to the left of OA, with potential out-
put of recreation opportunities and net benefits not being real-
ized. Apparently, the government could have increased the
welfare of society by allocating more resources to the Forest
Service recreation program in the early 1980's.

Table 1 summarizes existing evidence on the contribution of
recreation and park programs to national economic develop-
ment in 1982. Although the studies report values that are bi-
ased downward, the total estimated benefits exceed agency
expenditures by several times. Of course, these annual expen-
ditures include some intergovernmental transfers and capital
investments which would be treated differently than annual
operation and maintenance costs. Also, the recreation use of
state parks and other recreation sites may omit most of the
hunting and fishing use primarily on private land where the
wildlife is managed by the states. As a result, state recreation
programs may be substantially understated. In addition, mu-
nicipal and county recreation programs may be overestimated
since their output is a residual estimate. Private outdoor recrea-
tion was estimated as 3.5 billion recreation visitor days in
1982, much of which is wildlife related.

There has been a notable lack of knowledge about some rec-
reation activities. Often they are important with millions of
activity days per year. Despite their obvious importance, their
contribution to national economic development has not been
studied. Resources have not been available to study most of
the urban recreation activities such as participation in outdoor
sports, jogging, golf, etc. Also there have been very few studies
of the net economic value of wildlife observation, visiting
beaches, winter sports, organized camps, and camping at pri-
vate campgrounds.

Environmental Protection Benefits

Recently, economists have begun to estimate the total con-
tribution of recreation resources to national economic devel- j
opment. Included in the "total value" concept are the: (1) di-

82

rect consumption benefits of on-site recreation; and (2) indi-
rect consumption of (a) the flow of information about these
activities and resources consumed as indoor recreation, and (b)
preservation benefits, i.e., willingness of citizens to pay for the
knowledge that recreation resources are protected (option, ex-
1 istence, and bequest values). This knowledge may be experi-
li ence-based or education-based. Individuals either have visited
j recreation sites (direct use) or they have learned about them
' (indirect use). Based on this knowledge, individuals report a
willingness to pay an amount roughly equal to the dollar value
of that satisfaction rather than forego it (Boyle and Bishop
1985; Brookshire et al. 1982; Desvousges et al. 1983; Randall et
al. 1974; Walsh, et al. 1978, 1984, 1985).

The preservation value hypothesis appears to be related to
an insight by Clawson and Knetsch (1966). They suggest that
the total consumption of outdoor recreation is more than the
on-site recreation activity. The authors define the outdoor rec-
reation experience to include five phases: anticipation, travel
to the site, on-site recreation activity, return travel, and recol-
lection. The anticipation phase would include the option value
of possible future recreation use. The recollection phase would
i include both the existence value of knowing that the recrea-
! tion resource is protected and the bequest value of endowing
t future generations with the resource.

Attempts to measure the proportion of the population who
; consume preservation values of recreation resources find a
substantial majority of citizens throughout the United States
report that they do so. This is the case for unique recreation
resources such as the Grand Canyon (Brookshire et al. 1982)
and wilderness areas (Walsh et al. 1984). For less unique rec-
reation resources with regional rather than national signifi-
cance, the proportion of the population who hold preservation
values appears to be a declining function of the distance that
they live from the resource (Sutherland and Walsh 1985). In
addition, there are important differences among the three
types of preservation values. Option value appears to be posi-
tively related to income and the probability of direct use of
recreation resources. It is negatively related to the availability
of substitutes. Indications are that existence value is related to
altruistic motivations of individuals to preserve natural scen-
ery and ecosystems. Also, it is related to the knowledge gained
from direct use of recreation sites. Studies have shown that

83

bequest values are higher for retired persons who, motivated
by benevolence, receive satisfaction from the interpersonal
transfer of recreation resources to future generations. Appar-
ently, all income groups value existence and bequest demands
approximately equally.

The "total value" concept represents an important direction
for future research. Recreation economics has traditionally fo-
cused on the benefits of recreation use. Although 1 am also
interested in such benefits, my concern here is to illustrate a
way to measure the preservation benefits to the general public.
Data were obtained from a household survey designed to rep-
resent the population of the state of Colorado. Personal inter-
views were conducted in the homes of a subsample of 198
households in 1983. The results show the benefits of recrea-
tion and resource protection programs to users and to the gen-
eral public. The survey design was based on the federal guide-
lines (U.S. Water Resources Council 1983). The interagency
committee recommended use of the contingent valuation
method in recreation and environmental benefit studies. Thus,
the research method should be acceptable and the results of
this pilot study useful in future research designed to assist ac-
tual policy making by public decision makers.

Figure 2 provides some tentative evidence as to the alloca-
tion of total benefits between recreation use and resource pro-
tection. For example, the pilot study suggests that recreation
use benefits account for only about one-third of the total bene-
fits from the construction and maintenance of recreation fa-
cilities. This suggests that user fees should recover only about
one-third of the costs of their construction and maintenance.
The general public, including both users and nonusers, appar-
ently is willing to pay about two-thirds of the costs of recrea-
tion facilities from general taxes. Most people receive satisfac-
tion from knowing that public recreation facilities are available
and in good condition. Their motivations for payment include
the option of possibly using the facilities in the future, the
knowledge that they exist, and that they will be available to
future generations.

Clearly, the quality of environmental resources contributes
to the benefits of recreation. Figure 2 shows for one state the
recreation use portion of the total benefits of resource protec-
tion programs. Direct recreation benefits accounted for slightly
more than 30% of total willingness to pay for six important

84

environmental resource programs. The lowest recreation use
benefits, as a proportion of total benefits, was reported for wil-
derness areas (25%). They also had the largest proportion of
existence value and bequest value, reflecting the benefits to
the general public of protecting unique natural environments.
The highest recreation use benefits, as a proportion of total
benefits, were reported for air quality (40%) which also had
the lowest proportion of existence value and bequest value.
This may be related to the importance of sightseeing recrea-
tion activity and appreciation of the scenic vista with good air
quality. Also, air quality contributes to user satisfaction from
all recreation activities, especially the physically active outdoor
sports.

The pilot study suggests that households were willing to
pay, on average, a total of $145 per year for the recreation use
value of the seven resources. This includes $18 per year to con-
struct and maintain facilities at recreation sites located in the
states where they live. However, the largest proportion of total
recreation use benefit was attributed to programs that protect
the quality of environmental resources such as the air, water.

$102

Bequest
Value

Existence
Value

Option
Value

On Site
Recreation
Use Value

23.3'-?

14.9^;

20.9^

^,$93

AGGREGATE TOTAL VALUE = $464

• Existence Value = 20.0%

• Bequest Value = 27.6%

• Option Value = 21.2%

• Recreation Use Value = 31.2%

$58

28m

22.6^?

19.9^

29.5":^

$55

\$47 .^-^

29m

2\.l%

2\m

27.4%

29.8^

24.0%

21.7%

24.5%

$54

26.0%

18.5%

22.3%

32.2%

Air Water Wild Fish Forest Wilder-

Quality Quality and and Quality ness

Scenic Wildlife Area
Rivers

Recre-
ation
Facilities

Figure 2. — Average annual willingness to pay per household for rec-
reation use and environmental protection programs in the state of
Colorado. Source: Walsh (1986).

85

forest, fish; and wildlife. These annual household values are
summarized as the following:

Public
Recreation preservation
use value value Total

Recreation facilities $18 $36 $54

Environmental

protection programs $127 $283 $410

Total $145 $319 $464

With approximately 85 million households in the United
States, the pilot study suggests a willingness to pay $12.3 bil-
lion per year for the recreation use value of the seven re-
sources. Of this amount, $1.5 billion would be for recreation
facilities and $10.8 billion for protection of environmental
quality in the states where they reside. These total U.S. values,
in billion dollars per year, are summarized below:

Public
Recreation preservation
use value value Total

Recreation Facilities $1.5 $3.1 $4.6

Environmental

Protection Programs $10.8 $24.0 $34.8

Total $12.3 $27.1 $39.4

This comparison leaves out the benefits of the operation and
maintenance costs of recreation programs to users and the
general public. Even so, it illustrates the need to distinguish
the recreation user benefits of facility management from the
user benefits of the natural characteristics of recreation sites
and other areas in the surrounding forest that are managed
under other environmental protection or multiple-use pro-
grams. Examples of the former include campgrounds, swim-
ming beaches, boating sites, and a portion of access roads and
trails. Examples of the latter include reforestation, fire protec-
tion, insect control, soil conservation, water quality, and wild-
life habitat management.

The values reported should be considered first approxima-
tions subject to improvement with further research. No ap-

86

proach provides the actual benefits associated with environ-
mental quality. All empirical methods provide estimates lim-
ited by their respective assumptions. It is important to ac-
knowledge that judgment affects the CVM approach: in the
questionnaire design, data analysis, and in the specification of
a decision model. The findings of this study could, however,
be of use in the preparation of Regulatory Impact Analyses
mandated by Executive Order 12291, to compare benefits and
costs, particularly if the results were replicated in larger, more
detailed surveys using a sample more geographically represen-
tative of the U.S. population.

There are two additional points that should be made about
this study. First, there may be psychological values associated
with recreation resources that exceed the economic measure of
values reported here. The demand for protection of recreation
resources, and therefore the economic benefit estimate, is con-
strained by limited consumer income, availability of leisure
time, and other variables. However, psychological values may
not be so constrained, i.e., satisfaction from recreation use and
preservation may be worth more than people are willing and
able to pay. Second, there may be long-run ecological values of
protecting recreation resources that are not included here. It is
difficult for biologists to predict what these might be, let alone
measure and incorporate them into psychological and eco-
nomic value. For this reason, it seems that economic values
represent a conservative estimate of the total benefits to soci-
ety from protecting recreation resources. The inability of eco-
nomics to place a dollar value on unknown ecological values
should be recognized in making decisions about recreation
and environmental protection programs.

Conclusions

Attempts to estimate the net economic values of recreation
and environmental protection suffer from fragmentation. No
one agency can afford to fund such studies, and few agencies
have the expertise to analyze large amounts of data. In addi-
tion, many important recreation activities, such as noncon-
sumptive use of wildlife, are overlooked while other activities
like deer hunting are continually studied. There is little or no
effort by federal and state agencies to use their existing data.

87

such as campground fee receipts or wilderness permits, to
regularly estimate the net economic value of recreation.

The National Recreation Survey formerly performed by the
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and the Heritage Conservation
and Recreation Service (now performed by the National Parks
Service) should be augmented to collect more detailed data on
consumption of recreation at site specific locations. Emphasis
on urban recreation is particularly important. Contingent
valuation questions should be asked about willingness to pay
to visit local parks.

The National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Asso-
ciated Recreation should ask more questions related to net eco-
nomic value and reduce the detailed questions on expendi-
tures for equipment. Sample size should be increased to im-
prove accuracy. The survey should ask more location specific
information about trips taken for nonconsumptive use of wild-
life. Contingent valuation questions should be asked about
nonconsumptive use of wildlife. This would help reduce the
very large gaps in our knowledge of economic values.

To facilitate federal and state agency collection and analysis
of data on net economic values, a national interagency center
should be established. It should be staffed by experts in recrea-
tion resource valuation from the National Park Service, Bureau
of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, Army Corps of
Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, Soil Conservation Service,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental Protection
Agency, and Forest Service. In addition to these federal agen-
cies, representatives should be included from state recreation
and park departments and state fish and game departments.

This staff could provide survey design and data analysis ca-
pability for state, federal, city, and county agencies that indi-
vidually cannot fund surveys and analyze data. The National
Center would realize economies of scale in survey design and
data analysis that would provide all agencies with consistently
estimated values of recreation and environmental protection.
This Center could also train agency personnel in the interpre-
tation and use of net economic values in benefit cost analysis.

Acknowledgments

The assistance of the following individuals is gratefully ac-
knowledged: Richard A. Aiken, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.

88

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.; R. Derek Bjon-
back, Head, Planning Division, Inland Waters Directorate, En-
vironment Canada, Regina Saskatchewan; Donald H. Rosen-
thal, Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C.; and John B. Loomis, Division of Environ-
mental Studies, University of California, Davis. This study was
funded, in part, by USDA Forest Service contract 28-K2-258
and by the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station, Western
Regional Project W-133, Benefits and Costs in Resource Plan-
ning. I am grateful for helpful comments by J. R. McKean, R.
A. Young, and G. L. Peterson. Errors and omissions are, of
course, the sole responsibility of the author.

Literature Cited

Aiken, Richard. 1985. Public benefits of environmental protec-
tion in Colorado. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State Univer-
sity. MS thesis.

Andrews, Karen. 1984. Recreation benefits and costs of the
proposed Deer Creek Reservoir. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming
Recreation Commission.

Bishop, Richard; Heberlein, Thomas. 1979. Measuring values of
extramarket goods: are indirect measures biased. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics. 61(5): 926-30.

Boyle, Kevin J.; Bishop, Richard C. 1985. The value of wildlife
resources: conceptual and empirical issues. Workshop on
Recreation Demand Modeling. Boulder, CO: Association of
Environmental and Resource Economics.

Brookshire, David; Randall, Alan; StoU, John. 1982. Valuing in-
crements and decrements in natural resource service flows.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 62: 478-88.

Brookshire, David; Thayer, Mark; Schulze, William; D'Arge,
Ralph. 1982. Valuing public goods: a comparison of survey
and hedonic approaches. American Economic Review.
72(1): 165-77.

Burt, Oscar; Brewer, Durward. 1971. Estimation of net social
benefits from outdoor recreation. Econometrica. 39:
813-27.

Clawson, Marion; Knetsch, Jack. 1966. Economics of outdoor
recreation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

89

Cummings, Robert G.; BrookshirC; David S.; Schulze, William
B. 1986. Valuing public goods: an assessment of the contin-
gent valuation method. Totowa, NJ: Rowan & Allenheld.

Desvousges, William H.; Smith, V. Kerry; McGivney, Matthew
P. 1983. A comparison of alternative approaches for esti-
mating recreation and related benefits of water quality im-
provement. Final Report to the Environmental Protection
Agency by Research Triangle Institute. Research Triangle
Park, N.C.

Donnelly, Dennis; Nelson, Louis. 1985. Net economic value of
deer hunting in Idaho. Res. Bull. Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station.

Gibbs, Debby. 1983. A comparison of travel cost models which
estimate recreation demand for water resource develop-
ment: summary report. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

Haspel, Abraham; Johnson, Reed. 1982. Multiple destination
trip bias in recreation benefit estimation. Land Economics.
58(3): 364-72.

Heberlein, Thomas; Bishop, Richard. 1985. Assessing the valid-
ity of contingent valuation: three field experiments. Paper
presented at the international conference, Man's role in
changing the global environment; October; Milan, Italy.

Jubenville, Allan; Matulich, Scott C.; Workman, William G.
1986. Toward integration of economics and outdoor recrea-
tion management. Bull. 68. Fairbanks, AL: Agricultural and
Forestry Experiment Station, University of Alaska.

Kalter, Robert; Gosse, Lois. 1969. Outdoor recreation in New
York State. Special Cornell Series Number 5. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University.

Mendelsohn, Robert; Brown, Gardner. 1983. Revealed prefer-
ence approaches to valuing outdoor recreation. Natural Re-
sources Journal. 23: 607-618.

Randall, Alan; Ives, Barry; Eastman, Clyde. 1974. Bidding
games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improve-
ments. Journal of Environmental Economics and Manage-
ment. 2(Fall): 132-50.

Sorg, Cindy F.; Loomis, John B. 1984. Empirical estimates of
amenity forest values: a comparative review. Gen. Tech.
Rep. RM-107. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Ex-
periment Station.

90

StoU, J.; Johnson, L. A. 1984. Concepts of value, nonmarket
valuation and the case of the whooping crane. Transactions
of North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Confer-
ence. 49: 382-93.

Sutherland, Ronald J.; Walsh, Richard G. 1985. Effect of dis-
tance on the preservation value of water quality. Land Eco-
nomics. 61(August): 281-91.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1984. Draft, En-
vironmental Impact Statement, 1985-2030 Resources Plan-
ning Act Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1985. 1982 Census of Govern-
ments. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Interior. 1982. 1980 National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Interior. 1983. Federal Recreation Fee Re-
port, 1982. Washington, DC: National Park Service.

U.S. Water Resources Council. 1983. Economic and environ-
mental principles and Guidelines for water and related
land resource implementation studies. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.

Walsh, Richard G. 1986. Recreation economic decisions: com-
paring benefits and costs. State College, PA: Venture Pub-
lishing, Inc.

Walsh, R.; Greenley, D.; Young, R.; McKean, J.; Prato, A. 1978.
Option values, preservation values and recreational bene-
fits of improved water quality: a case study of the South
Platte River Basin, Colorado. EPA Report 600/5-78-001.
Washington, D.C.

Walsh, Richard G.; Loomis, John B. 1986. Contribution of out-
door recreation to national economic development. In: A
literature review. The President's Commission on Ameri-
cans Outdoors. Washington, DC.

Walsh, R.; Loomis, J.; Gillman, R. 1984. Valuing option, exis-
tence and bequest demands for wilderness. Land Econom-
ics. 60(1): 14-29.

Walsh, Richard G.; Sanders, Larry D.; Loomis, John B. 1985.
Wild and scenic river economics: recreation use and preser-
vation values. Denver, CO: American Wilderness Alliance.

91

Implementation of the
Recommendations of the
President's Commission on
Americans Outdoors .

Leslie M.|Reid and Myron F.

At the 1986 SAF Convention, part of the technical session
program of the Recreation Working Group was devoted to the
progress and implications of the soon-to-be-concluded Presi- |
dent's Commission on Americans Outdoors (PCAO). Today, i
the work of the PCAO is complete, its report has been pub- |
lished, and that commission has been disbanded. The PCAO
was created to conduct an 18-month study to determine what
the people of America want in terms of outdoor recreation and \
to recommend measures for providing resources and facilities |
to support these activities.

This paper attempts to provide a summary of the commis-
sion's findings and recommendations. It also provides an over-
view of the genesis of the commission and subsequent organi-
zations. Finally, some of the potential implications that are
likely to emerge as a result of the commission's findings and
recommendations are discussed.

To begin an overview of the beginnings of the PCAO, it is
necessary to first review its primary antecedent — the Outdoor
Recreation Review Commission (ORRRC) of 1958-1962. ]
ORRRC provided an all-encompassing view of American out-
door recreation supply, demand, and policy concerns i
(Knudson 1980). Established by Congressional action (P.L. 85-
470), the commission was a 15-member panel consisting of 8
members of Congress and 7 private citizens. Two U.S. Senators
and two Representatives from each major political party were i
selected by the respective heads of their chambers to serve.
The President appointed the seven private citizens. Laurance S. ;
Rockefeller served as commission chairman. j

jpepartment of Recreation and ParksATexas A&[M University, College Station, \
TX77843; and Department of Recreation and Parks, TAMU, College Station, TX.

92

From a base of information compiled largely through con-
tract research studies, the principal finding in the 1962 report
was that the supply of America's outdoor recreation resources
had not, in the past, and would not, in the future, keep pace
with the population's demand for outdoor recreation opportu-
nities. A burgeoning demand for recreation was being fueled
by increasing population, income, leisure time, and mobility.

Bold and imaginative steps were taken by the commission to
solve this unbalanced equation. These steps have proven to be
I major shapers of outdoor recreation policy in the United States
1 in the past quarter century as they have helped define the role
of the federal government in the provision of outdoor recrea-
I tion. The major results of ORRRC included: (1) the establish-
' ment of a federal Bureau of Outdoor Recreation; (2) creation of
the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) which pro-
vided monies for land acquisition; and (3) designation of a na-
I tional system of wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, and trails.
Perhaps the most notable outgrowth was the establishment
of the LWCF in 1965. The LWCF is the primary source of fund-
ing for acquiring new federal recreation lands. It is also a major
source of funding for state agencies as well. Funds are granted
to states on a 50-50 matching basis for land acquisition, plan-
ning, and facility development for outdoor recreation (Siehl
1987). States are allotted up to 60% of the amount of the fund
during any one fiscal year. The formula for allocation is pri-
marily based on population and the amount of federal land
within a state. The remainder of the fund is apportioned to
U.S. Forest Service, Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and
Bureau of Land Management. By far the largest single user of
the federal portion of the fund is the National Park Service.
According to Knudson (1980:421), the Park Service has "spent
more than two-thirds of the federal share." He cites three rea-
> sons for this. One, the Forest Service receives funds for land
3 acquisition under the Weeks Act. Two, the Fish and Wildlife
1 Service obtains some acquisition monies from the Migratory
I Bird Conservation Act. Finally, the BLM has not been actively

engaged in acquisition of recreation lands.
I The requirements established by the ORRRC for state partici-
pation in LWCF brought about unprecedented change in the
way state outdoor recreation was provided. The main require-
r ment for state participation was a completed comprehensive
i plan for outdoor recreation opportunities. All states now have

93

plans conforming to the ORRRC and are eligible for LWCF
monies.

For a majority of the states, it was the first time that any
comprehensive plan for providing recreation opportunities
had been done. All told, more than $6 billion ($3 billion in
federal funds matched by state and local or private contribu-
tions) has been appropriated through the LWCF, while 31,000
state projects have been funded around the nation (Siehl
1987).

The Case for a New ORRRC

The momentum generated by the ORRRC maintained
strength throughout the 1970's. Much of the environmental
legislation enacted during this time was positively affected by
the commission's report. Outdoor recreation and conservation
continued to be high priorities on the national agenda. How-
ever, the momentum that led to expansion of recreation op-
portunities in the United States began to weaken in the 1980's,
as a result of tough economic times and a new Presidential
administration. In 1981, Ronald Reagan introduced to the Na-
tion his policy of "New Federalism." Where the federal govern-
ment had previously assumed an active role in protecting re-
sources, the Reagan administration advocated "recovering
commodity values" from the public lands (Siehl 1987). Where
previous administrations sought to increase outdoor recreation
opportunities through park expansion, the Reagan administra-
tion opposed new acquisitions. Appropriation levels of the
LWCF also declined. Although appropriation levels for the
LWCF began to decline in the Carter administration, they de-
clined further during the Reagan administration. Appropria-
tion levels of the LWCF reached a peak of $805 million in
1978. In 1982, appropriations fell to under $180 million with
no provision for state grants. For fiscal year 1987, $188 million
was appropriated. The 1988 budget calls for $59 million — ex-
clusively for federal use.

Policy analysts have cited the dramatic gains in acquiring
new parks and wilderness from the National Parks and Recrea-
tion Act (1978) and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conser-
vation Act (1981) as the major reason for retrenchment in land
acquisition.

94

As well as retrenchment in the area of funding, former Inte-
rior Department Secretary James Watt dismantled the Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service (formerly the Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation). The responsibilities of this agency were
transferred to National Park Service personnel within the Inte-
rior Department.

Accompanying changes on the political scene that affected
outdoor recreation were changes on other fronts in American
society. People were becoming ''increasingly concerned about
their health and fitness, taking shorter but more frequent vaca-
tions, and seeking recreation closer to home'' (Siehl 1987).

The private sector was providing a much-expanded share of
recreation opportunities. A recreation industry had developed
which provided new equipment for rock climbing, rappelling,
windsurfing, and Whitewater rafting — opportunities not nearly
as popular at the time of the ORRRC report (Pritchard 1987).

Though actual figures are not available, most recent esti-
mates (those provided by the PCAO report) show that spend-
ing by Americans on leisure-time pursuits totals about $300
billion per year.

To many, these and other changes had obvious implications
for outdoor recreation. Twenty years had gone by since the
ORRRC had submitted its recommendations and made its pro-
jections. And by 1980, many of these predictions, such as in-
creases in demand, had been surpassed (McGowan 1987).
Other variables, such as new technologies, a growing private
sector, the changing face of American values, and social de-
mography, as well as new political climates created the need to
reexamine the state of outdoor recreation in the United States.

Several conservation and recreation interest groups, such as
the American Forestry Association, American Recreation Coali-
tion, and the National Recreation and Park Association, initi-
ated a move to examine the implications of the changes which
had occurred. These groups felt that a national reassessment of
outdoor recreation in America was needed. They and others
associated with outdoor recreation urged Rockefeller, ORRC
chairman, to assemble a group of individuals to undertake a
study of the current status of outdoor recreation and to docu-
ment trends and changes that had occurred since the 1962 as-
sessment. The group addressed three questions in particular:

1. What changes in the demand for outdoor recreation
opportunities have occurred over the last 20 years?

95

2. What changes in the supply of outdoor recreation
opportunities have occurred over the last 20 years?

3. What adjustments in the outdoor recreation system
are needed in the light of changes in supply and de-
mand?

Eight major findings resulted from this study:

1. The two decades since ORRRC have been a period of
great social and economic change.

2. Changes in how and where we live, work, and play
have had a profound effect on outdoor recreation.

3. Despite the changes over the past 20 years, or per-
haps because of them, outdoor recreation is more
important in American life than it was in 1962.

4. Governments in general are doing less for outdoor
recreation than is required to meet the need.

5. The role of the federal government needs to be reas-
sessed, redefined, and revived.

6. The private sector is providing more outdoor recrea-
tion than it did 20 years ago; it could do even more
with government cooperation.

7. There are ways in which outdoor recreation could be
provided to meet increased demands which would
not require huge public expense.

8. There is a need for improved information as the basis
for outdoor recreation planning and management.^

In view of these conclusions, the group recommended a
"new and hard look at outdoor recreation policy." They
strongly urged Congress to create "a new bipartisan commis-
sion, on the model of ORRRC, to re-examine nationwide the
problems and opportunities associated with recreation'' (Siehl
1985). Though the new commission was expected to be mod-

^The complete findings and recommendations are in the report Outdoor Recrea-
tion for America 1983 publislied by Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C

96

eled after ORRRC, it was to be much broader in scope. It
should address overlaps of outdoor and indoor recreation, the
relationship between outdoor recreation, and, the group
stated, "job satisfaction and productivity, family and social
cohesion/' The group also suggested the new commission in-
clude urban recreation and environmental quality issues as
these relate to outdoor recreation.

Efforts to establish a new outdoor recreation review commis-
sion got underway in the 98th Congress. On April 19, 1983,
Senator Malcolm Wallop (R- Wyoming), along with 27 co-
sponsors, introduced S. 1090, a bill to establish a national out-
door recreation review commission (Siehl 1985). On April 28,
1983, Morris Udall and two co-sponsors introduced the House
version of S. 1090, H.R. 2837. Hearings were held on the Sen-
ate bill by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
starting June 28, 1983. Revisions by the committee included
increasing the size of the proposed commission from 15 to 21

I members. Wording describing the interests and organizations
to be represented on the advisory council was changed to in-

! elude academics with special knowledge of ''leisure, recreation,

1 natural resources and the environment'' (Siehl 1985).

After such changes, the bill was referred to the Committee

J on Energy and Natural Resources and was passed favorably

> with some refinements. One noteworthy change was the em-

> phasis placed on outdoor recreation in t)oth urban and non-
urban areas.

When the measure was favorably reported from the com-
mittee for a floor vote, it passed unanimously on November
18, 1983. The bill was sent to the House of Representatives
where it had received overwhelming support. Over 100 co-
sponsors had signed on with Congressmen Udall in sponsor-
!i ingH.R. 2837.

In the House, the bill was referred to the Committee on In-
it terior and Insular Affairs. Hearings were held before the Sub-
i( committee on Public Lands and National Parks. On April 12
and 24, 1984, hearings for administration and public witnesses
were held. A third day of hearings was held later in August for
j governors and their representatives. No further action was
1 taken. The bill died in committee at the end of the 98th Con-
gress. (Some attribute the failure of the bill to make it through
the House to House Democrats. Speculation is that Democratic
I congresspersons did not want to give the Republicans any ad-

97

vantages in the upcoming Congressional election, since Re-
publicans had made gained seats in both the House and Senate
in the two previous elections.)

Creation of the New ORRRC

Despite the unsuccessful attempts by the Congress, Presi-
dent Reagan revived the issue on January 28, 1985, when, by
Executive Order, he created a Presidential Commission on
Outdoor Recreation Resources Review. What many had hoped
Congress would do, the President seized the initiative and did.
Some who were skeptical of a Presidential commission feared
that the President would appoint a commission which would
mirror his views on natural resource issues.

The Executive Order was revised and re-issued on August 15,
1987, and the name of the commission was changed to the
President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. The 15 mem-
bers of the commission were also named. The commission
members are listed at the end of this paper. Tennessee Gover-
nor Lamar Alexander, a widely-respected Republican, was
named chairman. Gilbert Grosvenor, President of the National
Geographic Society, was named vice-chairman. The commis-
sion was given an 18-month period in which to complete its
work.

PCAO Organization and Operation

Although the PCAO was modeled on the ORRRC, the struc-
ture of the PCAO was much different from its predecessor.
Only four members of Congress were selected to serve on the
PCAO while eight had served on the ORRRC. Bipartisanship
was maintained. The eleven remaining members were volun-
teers from the public and private sector.

The commission was assisted by a panel of 20 senior advi-
sors. The panel provided expertise in areas where the commis-
sion members were deficient, such as special populations,
wildlife, and tourism issues. Staff for the commission was pro- ^
vided by federal outdoor recreation agencies. The ORRRC re- j
port, a more ambitious undertaking, was "supplemented by a j
formal advisory council consisting of 15 liaison officers from ,

98

federal agencies having outdoor recreation responsibilities and
25 private citizens providing geographic and interest group
representation" (Siehl 1987).

While the base of information for the ORRRC study was
generated through contract research studies, the PCAO took a
different approach. Information was derived from a number of
different sources, but for the most part, the major source of in-
formation was the American people. Over 20 public hearings
were held in different locales around the nation. Also, Market
Opinion Research, a marketing research consulting firm, was
contracted to poll Americans on outdoor recreation activities
and preferences. Individual states were also requested to pre-
pare assessments of outdoor recreation locally. Some 37 states
responded by creating state outdoor recreation commissions.
The commission invited those unable to attend public hear-
ings to submit "concept papers" to express their views. These
papers were very brief — about five pages — presenting an idea

j and discussing its merits as well as demerits. Several confer-
ences and informal seminars also generated information for
the commission. Senator Malcolm Wallop, a commission
member and member of the Senate Committee on Energy and

^ Natural Resources, and Derrick Crandall, another commission
member and president of the American Recreation Coalition,
co-sponsored a conference on recreational use of private lands.
The PCAO joined the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the City
of Baltimore in sponsoring a conference on urban recreation.
Commission members, on an individual basis, also sought in-
put and information from key reaeation, conservation, and

I natural resource organizations from across the country. The
commission also utilized case studies that showed how actual
problems in recreation provision were resolved.

I

I

I PCAO Findings

i President Reagan charged the commission with reviewing
' "existing public outdoor reaeation policies programs and op-
portunities provided by the federal government, state and lo-
[ cal governments and private organizations and entities'' (from
Executive Order 12503). He requested ''recommendations for
policies and programs to assure adequate outdoor recreation
opportunities for Americans into the next century.'' In this he

99

stressed "fiscal economy" in meeting future outdoor recreation
needS; admonishing the commission to "assess the budgetary
and regulatory cost increases or cost saving" of its findings and
recommendations (Siehl 1987:7). The commission submitted
an executive summary of its findings on December 31, 1986.

Findings and Recommendations

The commission sent its final report to President Reagan on
January 28, 1987. Titled "American Outdoors: The Legacy, The
Challenge," the final report contained complete findings and
spelled out 66 recommendations on how to enhance the pro-
vision of recreation opportunities and outlined a "new" na-
tional policy on outdoor recreation. The adjective "new"
underscores the fact that the commission found the present
policy deficient. The federal government could do more to
protect vulnerable resources, purchase open space, and to pro-
vide national leadership according to the commission. Among
the findings in the report were:

• There is need for continuing federal financial assis-
tance in some amount and on an assured basis.

• Primary needs for funds at the state level and local
level are for the care and restoration of existing re-
sources, especially built facilities, and for new protec-
tion and acquisition of open space.

• There is a need for clear identification of roles among
public and private sectors to determine who is re-
sponsible for doing what in providing recreation op-
portunities.

• Leadership and common voice on recreation issues is
needed.

• There is a need to provide recognition of the benefits
of recreation so that it receives fair funding and pro-
grammatic consideration by elected officials and
agency managers.

• Data on recreation resources, participation, spending,
and trends are incomplete, inconsistent, and often
incompatible from agency to agency.

100

Some feared that the commission report would provide a
document to support administration policies regarding out-
door recreation and resource protection. These skeptics were
quite surprised to find a report that actually echoed their own
viewpoints. Paul Pritchard, President of the National Parks and
Conservation Association, had this to say about the commis-
sion findings: ''Many of the commission's findings come as no
great surprise. Yet they provide documentation and support
for ideas conservationists have been advocating for years. In
some cases they are a welcome repudiation of current admini-
stration policy toward parks and recreation" (Pritchard
1987:11).

Major recommendations made by the commission include:

• The LWCF should be succeeded by a dedicated
trust — providing a minimum of $1 billion a year — to
help pay for federal, state, and local land acquisition,
and state and local facility development and rehabili-
tation. Congress should consider creating an en-
dowed trust which, over time, would be self-sustain-
ing.'

• Communities should establish greenways, corridors
of private and recreation lands and waters, to provide
people with access to open spaces close to where they
live and to link together the rural and urban spaces
in the American landscape.

• A 2000 by 2000 Program, through local initiative,
with state and federal support where appropriate,
should protect 2000 river and stream segments by
the year 2000. Cities and towns should clean up and
revitalize their stream corridors. States should set up
or enhance river protection programs to complement
local action.

• A congressionally-authorized, private, nonprofit out-
door institution should stimulate grassroots leader-
ship and promote innovation and excellence.

Commissioners Wallop and Vucanovich will not support any fixed level of fed-
eral funding, given the state of the federal deficit; funding and the method of fund-
ing, they feel, should be justified in the annual budget process.

101

Visitors fees at federal outdoor recreation areas
should be collected to supplement annual funding.

Local and state governments should create a system
of scenic byways, composed of scenic roadways and
thoroughfares throughout the nation, and take ac-
tion to protect these resources.

Partnerships should be formed among private sectors
for profit and nonprofit entities and public agencies
to enhance recreation resources, services, and facili-
ties.

Strong local, state, and federal environmental quality
law, regulations, and policies should be strictly en-
forced. Recreation should be explicitly recognized as
a beneficiary of clear air, clean water, pleasing land-
scapes, and abundant and diverse wildlife.

Each geographic community and community of
interest should develop an outdoor ethic and work
toward reflecting that ethic in personal and organiza-
tional actions.

Local officials, mayors, governors, and private sector
managers should support volunteering, develop in-
centives, and remove barriers to encourage Ameri-
cans to volunteer in outdoor recreation. The goal is
to double volunteer efforts in conservation and rec-
reation by the year 2000.

Increased cooperative efforts among private, local,
state, and federal interests should be created to pro-
tect and enhance wetlands.

States and the federal government should compile
and publish annual reports on the State of the Out-
doors that describe the condition of our natural re-
sources for recreation.

Private sector, government, and academic interests
should work jointly to establish a National Recreation
Accounts network to facilitate collection, analysis,
and sharing of statistical data and information.

102

Some Implications

The task given to the PC AO has been completed. What ex-
ists is a document pointing the way toward enhancing out-
door recreation opportunities into the 21st century. At the
moment, the PCAO report is only a document. Will it serve as
combustible fuel igniting a "prairie fire'' of concern and ac-
tion? Or will it merely stand as a document of principle?

Before commenting on these questions, again it is appropri-
ate to look retrospectively at the 1962 ORRRC report and its
outcomes. In particular, it is important to focus on the politi-
cal and social climate in which many of the ORRRC recom-
mendations were implemented. The differences between the
political and social environment of the 1960's and now may
give clues to how expediently the PCAO recommendations are
addressed.

Viewing the impressive list of legislative accomplishments
following the 1962 report, George Siehl noted:

They came in an era of active federal legislation regard-
ing natural resources and the beginning of a similar era
for environmental legislation. It v/as an era when active
federal involvement and funding were generally re-
garded by the public as an appropriate, effective means
of resolving many social and economic problems.

At that time, there was a broad consensus among policy
makers about the need for a strong federal role in the provi-
sion of outdoor recreation and among the population at large
as well. Problems were identified and immediately resolved.
Quite a different environment exists today. According to Gal-
lop and Harris polls cited by Siehl (1987:12), Americans have
"less confidence'' in the federal government than they did
some 20 years ago and now view "big government" less fa-
vorably than they did some 20 years ago.

The degree of cooperation among policy makers, outdoor
recreation interest groups, and others with influence is also a
factor to be considered. As mentioned earlier, when the PCAO
was formed, it was tainted with controversy. Most wanted it to
be a congressionally-appointed commission, thereby being ac-
countable to the Congress. And this form of commission
seemed to have widespread support in both the House and
Senate. While the Senate passed legislation to create the com-

103

mission, the House failed to pass the legislation out of com-
mittee. Another episode began when President Reagan took
the initiative and created the commission by executive order.

At the completion of the PCAO report, another point of con-
troversy centered on a lawsuit filed against the PCAO by the
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise for the National In-
holders Association. The association claimed that the PCAO
did not abide by federal open-meeting requirements. A U.S.
District Court ruled against the association, stating that "...had
ample opportunity to make its views heard during the many
public hearings held by PCAO and that any procedural errors
that could have been made would not have substantially
changed the content of the report" (National Parks 1987, p. 6).

Despite the sources of controversy, some action is already
underway in implementing some of the commission's recom-
mendations. Legislation has been introduced in the Congress
to reauthorize the LWCF for 25 years and raise its authorized
appropriation level from $900 million to $1 billion annually.
Senator Bennett Johnson of Louisiana is its main proponent.
Representative Bruce Vento of Minnesota introduced H. R.
1320, which, in addition to reauthorizing the LWCF, calls for a
National Park Service entrance fee program. A bill to create a
conservation corps to provide conservation jobs to "economi-
cally disadvantaged and other youth" was introduced in the
House by Representative Morris Udall of Arizona (Parks and
Recreation 1987, p. 13). Two similar measures have been intro-
duced by Representative Edward Roybal of California and Rep-
resentative Joseph Gaydos of Pennsylvania.

Although some of these initiatives were introduced inde-
pendently of the PCAO effort, they incorporate some of its rec-
ommendations. Further action may be slow in coming for rea-
sons already cited and because of the time factor. Tom Wil-
liams, a staff person with the Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources (commenting at a NRPA session), feels
that the next 5 to 10 years is the probable time-frame for any
real action to occur.

Recommendations for Action

Up to this point, the past has been surveyed so that some
clues about future action on the PCAO findings might be as-

104

certained; some of the findings and recommendations have
also been briefly highlighted. Now the questions remain —
what should we do? What should be our course of action, as
individuals and as a collective body? The following points of
action are offered for discussion as a means of improving the
quality of outdoor recreation for this nation's citizens.

• First, we must be a national voice in support of those
recommendations which directly affect us. We
should join with other groups with common inter-
ests and values. In particular, we should ally our-
selves with groups such as the National Park and Rec-
reation Association (NRPA) and American Forestry
Association (AFA) in efforts to achieve a source of
stable funding for outdoor recreation.

One concrete step is for the Society of American For-
esters' Recreation Working Group to pass a resolution
and submit it to the SAF which calls upon the society
to take a formal position regarding active support of
establishing the $1 billion trust fund.

• Second, we must assume a leadership role at the local
level. We should work alongside local governments
and civic groups to identify goals and develop strate-
gies toward improving outdoor recreation opportuni-
ties. There is a great opportunity for us to promote
PCAO through supplying information to local
groups. This can be in the form of presenting pro-
grams to local service clubs, such as Rotary Interna-
tional, Kiwanis, Lions, Optimist Clubs, Chamber of
Commerce, etc. We should be aggressive in seeking
opportunities to increase the public's awareness of
the issues. Use these opportunities to ''turn up the
music." And the music is that outdoor recreation re-
sources, public and private, contribute greatly to our
local and national economy and, more importantly,
to improving the general welfare of people.

• Third, we must identify discrete items in the PCAO
document to support and promote. Given the cur-
rent political climate, ''big ticket" items are not as at-
tractive as some of the smaller, more practical items

105

found in the report. One area where we have already
assumed leadership is training and educating natural
resource professionals. As Wilbur LaPage stated,
"There needs to be a stronger professional ethic em-
phasizing competency in skills, dedication to conser-
vation, commitment to accountability, information
and education responsibility, and a reduction of con-
flicts" (Douglas and O'Leary, in press). Another could
be to educate and inform local governments and
civic groups of the "greenways concept.'' Much of the
responsibility for this recommendation is at the local
level.

• Fourth, we must promote an "outdoor ethic." As
pointed out at the 1986 SAF convention, the SAF is in
a unique position to spearhead this effort. Having di-
rect relationships with the natural resources puts us
in a highly visible (and enviable) position to assume
leadership in this area.

• Fifth, we must seek to elevate the position of outdoor
recreation on multiple-purpose areas, and we must
also elevate the position of outdoor recreation within
our own organization.

The recreational value of many multiple-use areas equals or
exceeds that of commodity values (Nelson 1982).

The SAF is considered one of the strongest professional or-
ganizations in the country. Although we have much in com-
mon as foresters, we have specialized personal and profes-
sional interests as shown by the diversity of our Working
Groups, each one of which focuses on a central theme.

The theme of the SAF's Recreation Working Group is out-
door recreation. There is nothing on the national agenda to-
day that is more relevant to our collective interests than what
parts of the PCAO's recommendations become incorporated in
American life and society. And nobody inside or outside the
Society of American Foresters is going to be more concerned or
better able to take up the torch than we ourselves.

106

Literature Cited

Douglass, Robert W.; O'Leary, Joseph T. In press. Recreation
working group looks at forestry impacts from the Presi-
dent's Commission on Americans Outdoors. Journal of For-
estry.

Knudson, Douglas M. 1980. Outdoor recreation. New York:
MacMillan Publishing Company.

McGowan, E. 1987. The way Washington sees you. Back-
packer. 15(3): 15.

National Park Service. 1987. Washington scene: an update on
national policy and legislative action. Recreation and Parks.
22(2): 8-13.

Nelson, Robert H. 1982. The public lands. In: Portney, Paul R.,
ed. Current issues in natural resource policy. Washington,
DC: Resources for the Future, Inc.: 14-73.

Outdoor Recreation for Americans. 1983. An assessment
twenty years after the report of Outdoor Recreation Re-
sources Review Commission. Washington, DC: Resources
for the Future, Inc.

Pritchard, Paul C. 1987. Parks and conservation: a vision for
the future. Renewable Resources Journal. 5(2): 10-12.

Pritchard, Paul C. 1987. Americans Outdoors. National Parks.
51(5-6): 12-13.

Siehl, George H. 1985. Outdoor recreation: a new commission
is created. MB83223 ENR. Washington, DC: U.S. Library of
Congress, Congressional Research Service.

Siehl, George H. 1987. Outdoor recreation: a comparison of
two federal commissions. CRS Report 87-61 ENR. Washing-
ton, DC: U.S. Library Congress, Congressional Research
Service.

107

Science, Values, Control and
Equity: Foundations of Multiple
Use Resource Policy^

John(Wargo^

Introduction

This paper explores the science and politics of national for-
est management, particularly the effects of planning on the
production and distribution of U.S. national forest resources.
The Forest Service was established with the primary purpose of
professionally managing the nation's timber resources. There
is little argument regarding the historical dominance of timber
interests in Forest Service resource allocation decisions (Wilk-
inson and Anderson 1987). The organization's budget, distri-
bution of staff expertise, and planning documents all demon-
strate the relative importance of timber production particu-
larly when compared with resources which do not have easily
identifiable market values such as recreation, wilderness, wild-
life, and water.

During the past three decades. Congress has adopted a di-
verse body of law which relies heavily on planning as a vehicle
to encourage the Forest Service to elevate the importance of
noncommodity resources in the Forest Service's land manage-
ment decisions. The effect of these laws on the quality of
analyses conducted by the Forest Service has been extraordi-
nary (Shands 1986). Enormous volumes of data have been gen-
erated, new analytical methods designed, elaborate plans con-
structed, and, perhaps most importantly, there is a heightened
sensitivity among Forest Service employees concerning non-
commodity values and their often inseparable relations to
commodity management. Important methodological advances

^Assistant Professor, Schools of Forestry and Envirorimental Studies and Depart-
ment of Political SciencejYale University\20S Prospect Street,) New Haven, CfT

06511.

108

i

have been made valuing resources such as recreation and wild-
life. Finally, patterns of participation in resource allocation de-
cisionmaking have changed in response to the public involve-
ment requirements of statutes such as the National Environ-
mental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act, and
the Resources Planning Act.

Despite these innovations, by 1988 there appears to have
been little significant shift in the traditional dominance of
timber, minerals, and other commodity resources when com-
pared with recreation, wilderness, wildlife, and water. A recent
Congressional Research Service analysis, for example, suggests
that the Forest Service deviated substantially from the recom-
mendations of the 1980 RPA Program. While "high bound"
production targets for timber and other commodities were
largely exceeded, "high bound" production goals for recrea-
tion, wilderness, wildlife habitat, land acquisition, and human
resources have consistently been unmet (Gorte 1986). The
1985 RPA Program was little different from its predecessor:
short-term investments necessary to ensure long-term resource
sustainability are deferred, a direction essentially the same as
the 1980 Program rejected by Congress (Lyons and Knowles
1988).

j The lesson is that scientifically-based planning does not
seem to significantly influence the mix of resources produced

I on national forest lands. This paper explores possible underly-
ing reasons: some lie embedded within the Forest Service, such
as the choice of analytic methods, while others, such as the ef-
fect of the federal deficit on the budgetary process, or the in-
fluence of politically appointed executives within the Depart-
ment of Agriculture, are "external" to the organization. Three

' trends are examined below which seem crucial to an under-

I standing of the Forest Service's response to Congressional
planning mandates: (1) expanding scientific knowledge, (2)
evolving methods of outcome valuation, and (3) fragmenta-

j tion of decision-making authority.

' The Science of Multiple Use

The concept of sustainability underlies most renewable
1 natural resource law. Biologists have traditionally thought of
i sustainability in terms of the survival requirements of genetic

109

resources; species, or ecosystems. Natural resource managers,
particularly forest and game managers, tend to think of sus-
tainability in terms of production levels: What level of harvest
will ensure a sustained yield? A body of law has evolved over
the past three decades which specifically asks this question for
national forest resources.

The Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA)^
promotes forest management practices which ensure a sustain-
able yield of timber and which do not diminish noncom-
modity resources. This law requires the Forest Service to afford
"due consideration" to other forest-based resources such as
recreation, water, wildlife, range, and fisheries in its manage-
ment efforts.2 The phrase "due consideration" is ambiguous
and has been implemented by the Forest Service primarily
through more intensive planning.

The accurate estimate of what level of cutting will ensure a
sustainable yield of timber is also required by MUSYA. The For-
est Service, by their own admission, has had some difficulty in
achieving this goal, evidenced by their finding in 1974 that
only one-third of cut-over land in Rocky Mountain National
Forests were successfully regenerating (Wilkinson and Ander-
son 1987). Similarly, the Chief of the Forest Service recently
admitted that the 1988 budget calls for the harvesting of more
timber than is scientifically justifiable to ensure sustainable
yields, given the low level of investment in reforestation and
timber stand improvement (Robertson 1987). The reasons are
likely less based upon the failures of scientific prediction than
upon the politics of the budgetary process in concert with
interest group pressure to gain access to commercially valuable
timber stands. This leads one to question whether the thresh-
olds of sustainability or "carrying capacity" are most com-
monly defined by scientific hypothesis-testing or by processes
of social valuation (Burch 1984).

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) rein-
forces the planning requirements of the MUSYA by requiring
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for any
federal action which could have a significant effect on the en-
vironment.^ One of the more interesting effects of NEPA has
been to motivate the Forest Service to prepare detailed natural

^6 U.S.C Sec. 528-531 (1982).

'P.L. No. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (1970) (codified as amended at42 U.S.C
5321-4370 (1982)).

110

resource inventories for each forest as part of their planning
efforts. Soils, hydrology, timber, slope, wildlife, fisheries, and
other resources have been mapped in an effort to provide a sci-
entific foundation for the decisions which require tradeoffs be-
tween conflicting land uses, such as timber harvesting and en-
dangered species protection (Wilkinson and Anderson 1987).

A third statute which has expanded scientific knowledge
available for planning is the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974.* This statute requires
the Forest Service to prepare three planning documents at
regular intervals, all aggregated at the national level. It quickly
became apparent that meeting the national planning require-
ments of RPA demanded a higher level of data consistency
among national forests than had previously existed. RPA has
had the additional effect of stimulating methodological ad-
vance in forecasting ecological and socio-economic effects of
alternative land management strategies.

Amid growing controversy over Forest Service timber cut-
ting practices, particularly the reasonableness of clearcutting.
Congress in 1976 passed the National Forest Management Act
(NFMA), carefully specifying ecological suitability criteria for
timber harvesting.^ A second relevant provision of NFMA re-
quires the Forest Service to ''provide for diversity of plant and
animal communities.''^ Ostensibly, this requirement is de-
signed to prevent our national forests from becoming single-
species plantations while encouraging natural levels of ecologi-
cal diversity and could be considered an important reduction
in the administrative discretion of the Forest Service. Finally,
NFMA requires the development of 10-year interdisciplinary
forest plans for each of the 123 national forest administrative
units. The planning process is forcing the integration of disci-
plinary knowledge from traditionally specialized fields such as
economics, wildlife biology, forestry, hydrology, soil science,
and forestry.

Each of the laws just described has had the effect of broad-
ening the Forest Service's scientific knowledge. Fundamental
resource inventories are crucial to estimations of sustainability
required by MUSYA, estimates of environmental effects re-

'ISU.S.CSec. 1601-1610(1982).

'UU.S.C Sec. 1604(g)(3)(E)(i-iii)(1982). This law originally passed as an
amendment to the Resources Planning Act of 1 974.
n6 U.S.C. Sec. 1604(g)(3)(B) (1982).

Ill

quired by NEPA, estimates of ecologically appropriate levels of
harvest and levels of ecological diversity required by NFMA,
and to planning efforts required by RPA.

Yet, inventories alone are insufficient to meet the predictive
requirements of laws which demand forecasting of ecological
sustainability in response to alternative levels of management.
It is this necessity for prediction which places the greatest
strain upon limited scientific evidence, often forcing technical
experts to make uncomfortable judgments.

While policy-makers presume that scientists can easily es-
tablish ecological and human health thresholds of sustainabil-
ity, scientists know differently. Ecology like medicine is a sci-
ence which seeks to identify subtle interconnections, given
limited evidence of direct cause and effect relationships. Seem-
ingly insignificant stresses in one part of a complex living sys-
tem at one point in time may affect distant components of
that system perhaps far into the future.

The high level of complexity and naturally dynamic charac-
ter of ecological systems make forecasting a tricky business. If
there is one consistent lesson from the discipline of ecology, it
is to expect the unexpected in system response and to
lengthen rather than shorten the time horizon of concern.

For all of these reasons, the Forest Service began exploring
the potential of computer models to reduce the complexity of
developing a nationally aggregated resource management
plan. A linear programming model known now as FORPLAN
Version 2 has evolved over the past decade and is used to
simulate optimal levels of resource production. This program
helps national forest planners forecast the effects of shifting
resource output targets, both spatially and temporally. Forest
Service planners hope that eventually these shifts may be ag-
gregated across forests so that a type of national accounting
system is possible to simulate the National Forest System's re-
sponse to alternative management strategies.

Criticisms of FORPLAN include: (a) the ability to hide as-
sumptions; (b) the level of sophistication required to compre-
hend why a specific management action produced results
which the computer found to be "optimal"; (c) many of the
problems of managing dynamic ecosystems may not be linear
in nature, making a linear modeling technique inappropriate
(Iverson and Alston 1986); (d) since many resources are not
commonly traded on commodity markets, we do not have re-

112

liable measures of their value which frustrates any attempt to
make computerized tradeoffs; (e) the quality of ecological fore-
casts is highly dependent upon the quality of the science
which produces the data employed; and (f) there is currently
no simple method to incorporate and track scientific uncer-
tainty associated with numerous data and assumptions.

Yet, there are clearly some tangible benefits to formal
mathematical modeling of complex systems. The primary
value lies in forcing the modeler to contemplate the causal
linkS; temporal lags, and feedback relationships among impor-
tant variables. Simulations can be run and rerun based upon a
variety of assumptions to forecast system responses (see Mead-
ows and Robinson 1985).

How should resource managers cope with this combination
of limited scientific evidence and the statutory obligation to
forecast effects far into the future? One answer lies in the for-
mal characterization of scientific uncertainty: since the confi-
dence of our estimates diminishes as we attempt to forecast ef-
fects further into the future, we must be exceptionally careful
to identify the limitations of our current knowledge base and
associated estimations. Assumptions and uncertainties are
rarely explicit in most large computer models.

Brewer (1986) suggests that we should approach complex
problems using modeling, simulation, and gaming. He pres-
ents an overview of these approaches which have their histori-
cal roots in the design of military strategies for contexts which
are complex, uncertain, and dangerous. Playing "what if"
games in a sequential process allows one to see more clearly
the implications of behavioral responses to alternative system
"conditions'' (see Brewer and deLeon 1983). Wargo (1988) has
adopted this approach to model uncertainty associated with
risk estimates used to regulate agricultural chemicals. The com-
plexity of the forest planning process seems ideally suited for
the design of small scale modeling and a gaming approach to
, alternative futures estimation, while poorly suited to the type
of linearized optimization modeling process which will natu-
rally favor market-based methods of resource valuation and,
therefore, commodity production.

In summary, the laws just described have had an enor-
mously positive effect on the quality of knowledge available to
Forest Service administrators responsible for planning future
i mixes of forest outputs. This expansion of knowledge has also

113

forced advances in data collection protocols, data management
techniques, and methods of analysis. New positions created
within the Forest Service to translate the data into policy have
in effect institutionalized new expertise.

The simple collection of data, however, does not by itself
ensure improvement in the accuracy of forecasts of sustainable
resource production. More importantly, there may be a great
disparity between the coefficients which modelers assign to
value resources in computer programs and the values held by
concerned and influential members of the public. Problems in
this process of valuation are considered next.

Values: The Dilemma of Quantification

While the original intent of the National Forest System was
largely to protect water supplies for urban residents and farm-
ers, increasing demand for timber during this century has ele-
vated and sustained its dominance over other forest-based re-
sources, such as recreation and wildlife. The statutes described
in the previous section reflect a shift in social values assigned
to national forests. Congress has attempted to elevate the im-
portance of biological diversity and sustainability, recreation,
wilderness, and wildlife relative to commodities such as timber
and minerals.

Value is most often defined in a comparative context, such
as valuing alternative futures. Any specific choice then reflects
a "preferred condition" (Driver and Peterson 1987). We tend
to grasp the concept of value more easily when speaking of
things or commodities such as board feet of timber or barrels
of oil, for which there exist agreed upon monetary measures of
relative worth. Valuing the more subjective characteristics of
life including aesthetics, love, health, knowledge, or security is
more difficult since the units of measure are not standardized.
Although difficult to quantify, these qualities tend to distin-
guish a flourishing culture from one struggling to survive.

Few would attempt to quantify the value of their mate. Even
if one were reasonably confident of capturing this "value" us-
ing shadow prices such as earning potential court awards for
tort claims or insurance company actuarial charts, few would
dispute that the price hardly reflects the richness of one's
"value." Social scientists are developing more sophisticated

114

methods of valuation for qualities of life which we commonly
think of as ''priceless'' or "invaluable/' largely in response to
formal demands to justify specific choices which require diffi-
cult tradeoffs. For example, we may use an individual's "mar-
ginal willingness to pay" for a day of backpacking in the wil-
derness as a reasoned reflection of the value of wilderness (to
that individual for that period of time) so that recreational
value may be compared to other commodity-based uses of for-
est land. Yet, the value of my lingering memories of camping
beside a wilderness lake in the Northern Sierras far exceeds the
$76 I spent per day on gas, food, equipment, maps, and bug
dope. In fact, as I gain experience, I recognize the extraordi-
nary character of that trip and its value to me as a memory in-
creases. And, as Burch (1987) has suggested, the most enduring
value of outdoor recreation may lie in the formation and so-
lidification of social bonds. (I have since married my backpack-
ing companion.) Similarly, West (1987) urges us to consider
the psychological family cohesion and status values of outdoor
recreation, all difficult to quantify but essential components of
most peoples' conceptions of a high quality of life.

One purpose of attempting to quantify the value of re-
sources such as wilderness is clearly political: it enables non-
commmodity interests to compete more effectively with com-
modity interests in choice contexts.^ The assignment of im-
puted market values facilitates the analysis of tradeoff effects
among multiple resources (see Sinden and Worrell 1979). This
strategy is better than nothing yet remains defective in failing
to capture a full sense of how we "value" natural systems.

This recognition led Driver et al. (1987) to distinguish be-
tween a "utility-based" and a "condition-based" approach to
outcome valuation, defining a benefit as any "improved condi-
tion." The utility-based approach requires measurement of the
monetary value of outcomes. The condition-based approach
relies upon both monetary and nonmonetary units of meas-
ure, enhancing analytical and descriptive power in estimating
magnitudes and distributions of gains and losses. This is truly
innovative social science which may not lead to more compre-
hensible computer programs; however, it will facilitate a richer
understanding of the "implications of our choices."

^The Wilderness Society established an economic analysis unit several years ago
which has since become very effective in evaluating the economic efficiency of di-
verse land management plans.

115

We should recognize that we employ nonquantitative meas-
ures of value daily as we try to reach difficult decisions with-
out comparable units of measure at hand. The mind may seek
quantitative comparison, yet finding this often impossible,
proceeds through some combination of rationality and intui-
tion. Our biological parallel processors churn through
enormous volumes of data and uncertainty, considering alter-
natives simultaneously, and we make a choice. One of the
more interesting characteristics of decisionmaking is our ten-
dency to assume that choices have a far higher level of finality
than is realistic. Most choices are not irrevocable: we change
jobs, houses, mates, and resource management plans with a
regularity which suggests high levels of value complexity and
dynamics.

This problem of commensurability among priced and un-
priced values is particularly problematic for resource managers.
For example, a national forest might be thought of as a cluster
of ecosystems. Ecosystems are transformed into resources
through the process of valuation (Burch 1971). Any one tract
of forest might be valued in different ways by one or more in-
dividuals: it may be a wildlife resource to an ornithologist, a
prime wilderness resource to a Sierra Club member, a timber
resource to a commercial logger, or a critical water resource to
urban dwellers several hundred miles away.

The process of rational choice among alternative mixes of
diverse resources demands commensurability of values. The
Forest Service released the 1985 Renewable Resources Program
in which they have proposed two alternatives, a high bound
and a low bound (USDA Forest Service 1986a). Binkley and
Hagenstein (1987) analyze the efficiency of reallocating the
Forest Service's budget among resources by moving from the
low bound to the high bound estimates of output for each re-
source: timber, range, minerals, wilderness, recreation, water,
and wildlife. They asked the question: Is it possible to achieve
a higher output of benefits by shifting investments among
programs without increasing the overall budget? This effort
might be characterized as the pursuit of maximum economic
efficiency. They conclude that budget reallocations should be
made away from the inefficient range program and the mar-
ginal timber program and toward the minerals and noncom-
modity programs such as recreation, wilderness, water, and
wildlife (Wilkinson and Anderson 1987). Binkley and Hagen-

116

stein demonstrate that the method of analysis chosen to com-
pare values could strongly influence political choices among
alternative mixes of resources.

This type of "value reallocation analysis" (my phrase) is pre-
cisely the type of inquiry necessary to make intelligent choices
among competing uses, particularly if sensitivity analyses are
incorporated to test the resilience of efficiency estimates to al-
ternative levels of imputed market value. The utility of any
substitution analysis is dependent upon the quality of the
process of valuation. As Binkley and Hagenstein (1987) con-
cede, there are clearly limits imposed by relying on imputed
market values to estimate the value of noncommodity re-
sources.

Conflict over appropriate mixes of board feet of timber, ani-
mal unit months, recreation visitor days, acre feet of water,
and wilderness acreage has clearly been escalating in recent
decades. This effect might simply be a response to perceived
scarcity or increases in perceived value of individual resources.
This pattern may also result, in part, from the relatively recent
increase in formal organization and professionalism of non-
commodity special interests, particularly in the areas of wilder-
ness and wildlife.

The Forest Service might be thought of as a value broker, sit-
ting in the pivotal position of a variety of possible exchange
relationships among special interests. It is naive to assume that
the Forest Service is a neutral value broker which will quickly
respond to value shifts within its organizational environment.
Shifting public perception of the diversity of values (in addi-
tion to timber) associated with national forests has led to in-
tense conflict over the definition of an appropriate mix of
value outputs or benefits, particularly between the Forest Serv-
ice and those supporting increased protection of noncom-
modity resources.

Planning has sharpened our perception of the limitations
associated with traditional methods of resource valuation.
While great progress has been made by social scientists in de-
veloping innovative methods of resource valuation, significant
problems of value additivity, value commensurability, and
value dynamics remain. Quantitative approaches to valuation
have traditionally favored commodity production, since mar-
ket-derived units of measure have been thought to be most re-
liable. If we choose a computer program as our "value account-

117

ing system/' the disadvantage of non commodity interests is
reinforced.* The dilemma is this: increasing rationalization of
the analytical process seems to adversely affect the perceived
importance of resources which are difficult to quantify.

Planning as Authority Redistribution

Subtle distinctions among the terms control, power, author-
ity, and property seem central to an understanding of the vul-
nerability of planning as a tool to mediate conflict over scarce
resources. The following definitions are offered to avoid se-
mantic confusion. Control is the effective regulation of behav-
ior. Power, by contrast, is the ability to control behavior which
may or may not be exercised. Authority is the right to control
behavior and may be legitimated by law, tradition, and/or cha-
risma, and commonly has associated obligations (Weber 1978).
Finally, property is a type of authority which may be infinitely
fragmented and distributed among combinations of individu-
als and groups. In this sense, property is not a thing but a set
of social relationships which establish rights and obligations
among competing interests with respect to valued and scarce
resources.

Historically, scarcity seems to have been the primary moti-
vation for the formal creation of property relationships. Any
group which defines, allocates, and adjudicates property rights
will be considered to be a "property regime." Political states,
corporations, tribes, and clans are all types of property regimes
which regulate access to scarce resources (Burch 1971, Wargo
1984, West 1975).

Using these definitions, the Forest Service might be thought
of as a property regime which holds the authority to assign
rights and obligations among interests competing for access to
scarce forest resources. The Forest Service's multiple-use plan-
ning efforts constitute a type of zoning of public land re-
sources. This planning process defines and distributes property
rights to national forest resources among competing private

'This disadvantage seems to be directly related to the complexity of the model.
Few of us have the resources or time to learn a complex linear program, let alone
the effort required to run enough simulations to judge the mainframe computers
and complex models concentrates power among experts, but can also result in a
''revolution'' constructed by those who feel disenfranchised.

118

interests. While fee simple rights are rarely privatized, private
interests have succeeded in securing less-than-fee interests
from the federal government, primarily in the form of lease
agreements allowing specified levels of resource use. Managers
of these resource agencies might be thought of as common
property right brokers, planning to allocate rights among com-
peting private interests.'

At any point in time, a specific pattern of property right dis-
tribution among public and private interests may be identi-
fied. The multiple-use planning process is the tool which Con-
gress and the Forest Service have chosen to effect a redistribu-
tion of that pattern. The patterns' stability over time seems to
be related to the magnitude of benefit shifts which would be
effected by redistribution efforts (i.e., the larger the shift in
benefits, the more difficult it will be to effect the change).
Property right stability also seems to be related to the political
influence of those holding the rights at any point in time: it is
much easier to disenfranchise those with no influence.

Unfortunately, planning is a process which may be con-
trolled by interests currently in power. Control may be main-
tained or gained in numerous ways: by the design of data col-
lection protocols; by choice of methods of data analysis; by se-
lection of possible alternatives; by choice of methods of valu-
ing alternative output scenarios; and, perhaps most critically,
by gaining access to those making the choices. Shifting the
balance from commodity resource production to noncom-
modity resource preservation will require insulation of the
planning process from traditional dominant commodity inter-
ests, both within and outside of the Forest Service.

The failure of planning to effect a significant redistribution
of control over forest resources might be explained by the
natural tension between two approaches to resource alloca-
tion: synoptic or comprehensive planning versus strategic de-
cisionmaking, a tension identified by Lindblom (1977) as a
fundamental distinguishing feature between planned and mar-
ket-based economies.

'There are obvious instances where the Forest Service is a broker of rights
among other public interests such as municipalities which hold or desire water
rights to streams and rivers under Forest Service jurisdiction.

^°lt may be no coincidence that the most rigorous private land zoning standards
have been established in remote parts of the country such as the Adirondack Park
in New York State, where year-round residents are politically disenfranchised.

i

119

The synoptic approach requires an idealists' complement of
knowledge, methods of comparative valuation, and uncanny
forecasting ability to carefully plan the allocation of scarce re-
sources far into the future. It relies heavily upon computer-
based modeling to keep track of production volumes and
schedules, and hopes to achieve a level of coordination among
producers and consumers which achieves the most socially de-
sirable mix of benefits, thereby maximizing social welfare (see
Brewer and Asher 1988). It sounds a lot like the RPA process, as
ideally envisioned by its initial drafters.

In response to the vulnerabilities of comprehensive plan-
ning, particularly limits in available analytical resources, Lind-
blom (1977) argues that we are forced to be more strategic. In
a world of limited knowledge, unexpressed or highly dynamic
values, inadequate or nonexistent analytical methods, and di-
verse conceptions of social welfare, we employ the strategy of
making modest changes in behavior to achieve short-term in-
crements in welfare. The strategic approach relieves an
enormous analytical burden associated with synopsism, while
setting the stage for later adjustments of policy following rec-
ognition of the failures of the initial choice.

The historical behavior of the Forest Service is clearly more
strategic than synoptic. In response to more than a decade of
intensive planning, the Forest Service has not significantly
shifted mixes of resource production. The Forest Service Chief
in 1987 presented the 1985 Recommended Renewable Re-
sources Program (USD A Forest Service 1986b) before a House
Subcommittee and was forced to justify support for the 'Tow
bound'' alternative which emphasizes a high level of timber
production in concert with a low level of investment in refor-
estation, recreation, timber stand improvements, land acquisi-
tion, and research:

The high bound represents what we think are wise in-
vestments, a good way to manage the National Forests,
but the Forest Service is part of the Federal Government
and the Federal Government has other priorities, and a
Federal deficit problem. So when you. ..are trying to
eliminate a $200 billion deficit, it gets you down to
looking at the low bound, which really is fairly realistic
because our 1988 budget is actually at or near the low
bound.... It is kind of like a savings account. You invest
in a savings account and you live off the interest. The

120

high bound would be living off a high level of interest
and in the low bound we would be spending some of
the savings account (Robertson 1987).

In this case, short-term strategic decisionmaking favors com-
modity production, while synoptic planning encourages the
production of noncommodity resources and investments in
long-term biological sustainability. Control over the produc-
tion of diverse forest resources remains uninfluenced by so-
phisticated internal synoptic planning efforts. Strategic or in-
cremental decisionmaking is forced by external control over
the budgetary process.

In the previous sections, I have argued that neither an ex-
pansion of our knowledge base nor evolving methods of out-
come valuation hold much promise for shifting patterns of re-
source outputs from national forests. Two opposing concep-
tions of sustainability seem to lie at the core of this failure. To
professionals within the Forest Service, sustainability is defined
by units of natural resource production. To the Office of Man-
agement and Budget, sustainability is defined by the immedi-
ate quantitative relationship between total federal revenues
and expenditures, or in the case of specific agency programs,
the existence of a positive marginal benefit/marginal cost ratio
(see Sample 1988). The shift in control over production targets
from professional resource managers within the Forest Service
to federal budget examiners has clearly overshadowed the sub-
stantial biophysical and social science advances of the Forest
Service within the past decade.

Conclusion: Equity and Resource Allocation

In an arena where land use behavior is governed less by sci-
ence and more by the values and power of traditional control-
ling interests, the potential abuse of science and knowledge by
the powerful is of great concern. Comprehension of the
sources and magnitudes of scientific uncertainty embedded
within estimates of alternative futures often translates directly
into power. While our inventories of national forest resources
have expanded dramatically over the past two decades, our
analytic methods for interpreting data remain primitive. Sce-
nario analyses such as those suggested by Brewer (1986) and

121

Wargo (1987) hold promise for the characterization of uncer-
tainty and testing the sensitivity of limited data to alternative
assumptions. Technological innovation in the design of micro-
computers could facilitate much broader distribution of
knowledge formerly accessible only to specialists in computer
programming. Concentration of knowledge and analytical ex-
pertise within the Forest Service merely increases the potential
for their domination by commodity elites.

Equity in value distribution has long been thought of as a
fundamental goal of political organization particularly the pur-
suit of Bentham's and Pinchot's concept of the "greatest
good." There are at least two problems in the pursuit of the
"greatest good." First is the difficulty we have in coming to
any consensus on how it should be defined. Since "good" is
clearly a value-based term, we tend to fight over appropriate
definitions of value and methods to measure it. Second, to
achieve equity in value distribution we will need to move be-
yond questions of valuation and concern ourselves directly
with special interest group power. Increasing the power of
noncommodity interest groups will not be a simple prospect,
particularly since it often implies decreasing the power of com-
modity interest groups. Equity, in this sense, requires a delib-
erate attempt to balance power relationships among diverse
interest groups so that a sort of "mutual control" is achieved
over the value distribution process (Dahl 1982).

Finally, equity of control over forest resources will never be
achieved. Equity in control is a measure of the democratic
character of the process. It is also a measure of the level of ac-
countability of decisionmakers to the public they purportedly
represent. We will never hold national referenda to determine
the appropriate uses of specific national forests. What we can
achieve is a higher degree of equity in ability to influence re-
source allocation decisions. Public participation in plan devel-
opment and in the selection among alternative futures is an
important mechanism to ensure higher levels of decision-
maker accountability. As Burch (1976) reminds us, the envi-
ronmental movement might be interpreted as an attempt to
effect a fundamental shift in participation rights in natural re-
source allocation decisions. We must struggle to make the
planning process more than an exercise in rhetoric which ra-
tionalizes the choices of a powerful minority. The Office of
Management and Budget clearly has a critical role to play in

122

reducing our federal budget deficit; however, their level of
control over the professional judgments of the Forest Service is
endangering the sustainability of our national forests and se-
verely reducing the democratic character of governance."

Literature Cited

Binkley, Clark; Hagenstein, Perry. 1987. Economic analysis of
the 1985 RPA program: a way to determine efficient alloca-
tions. Journal of Forestry. 85(11): 25-28.

Brewer, Garry. 1986. Methods for synthesis: policy exercises.
In: Clark, W. C; Munn, R. E., eds. Sustainable development
of the biosphere. Cambridge, MA: 455-473.

Brewer, Garry; Asher, William. 1988. Sustainable development
and natural resource forecasting. In: Binkley, Clark; Brewer,
Garry; Sample, V. Alaric, coords. Redirecting the RPA.
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies Bulletin 95.
Yale University: 216-229.

Brewer, Garry; deLeon, Peter. 1983. Foundations of policy
analysis. Chicago: Dorsey.

Burch, William. 1971. Daydreams and nightmares.

Burch, William, Jr. 1976. Who participates? A sociological
interpretation of natural resource decisions. Natural Re-
sources Journal. 16: 41-54.

Burch, William. 1984. Much ado about nothing— some reflec-
tions on the wider and wilder implications of social carry-
ing capacity. Leisure Sciences. 6(4): 487.

Burch, William, Jr. 1987. Ties that bind: the social benefits of
recreation provision. In: A review on outdoor recreation:
President's commission on Americans outdoors: 81-92.

Dahl, Robert 1982. Dilemmas of pluralist democracy: auton-
omy vs. control. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Driver, B. L.; Brown, Thomas; Burch, William, Jr. 1987. A call
for more comprehensive and integrated evaluations of pub-
lic amenity goods and services. In: Kaiser, Fred; Brown,
Perry, eds. Economic value of multiple use forestry: pro-
ceedings of the 18th lUFRO world congress.

"QMS control over agency rulemaking is enormous. EPA's proposals for pesticide
tolerances, for example, are subject to cost-benefit analyses by 0MB prior to prom-
ulgation, regardless of the fact that EPA's proposals are the direct result of profes-
sional risk-benefit judgments within the agency.

123

Driver; B. L.; Peterson; George L. 1987. The values and benefits
of outdoor recreation: an integrating overview. In: A litera-
ture review on outdoor recreation: president's commission
on Americans outdoors: 1-10.

Gorte, Ross. 1986. The Forest Service's 1980 RPA program:
comparison with accomplishments. Report 86-902 ENR.
Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service.

Iverson, David; Alston, Richard. 1986. The genesis of

FORPLAN: a historical and analytical review of Forest Serv-
ice planning models. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-214. Ogden, UT:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermoun-
tain Research Station: 1-31.

Lindblom. 1977. Politics and markets. New York: Basic:
313-329.

Lyons, James; Knowles, Donald. 1988. The Forest and Range-
land Renewable Resource Planning Act: congressional staff
perspectives. In: Binkley, Clark; Brewer, Garry; Sample, V.
Alaric, coords. Redirecting the RPA. School of Forestry and
Environmental Studies Bulletin 95. Yale University:
199-215.

Meadows, Donella; Robinson, J. M. 1985. The electronic oracle:
computer models and social decisions. New York: John
Wiley.

Robertson, Dale. 1987. Hearing testimony before: Subcommit-
tee on forests, family farms, and energy of the committee
on agriculture, house of representatives. Serial no. 100-38.
April 8, 1987: 48-65.

Sample, V. Alaric. 1988. Improving the linkage between the
RPA assessment findings and the RPA program: the view
from the Office of Management and Budget. In: Binkley,
Clark; Brewer, Garry; Sample, V. Alaric, coords. Redirecting
the RPA. School of Forestry and Environmental Studies Bul-
letin 95. Yale University: 161-175.

Shands, William. 1986. RPA. Journal of Forestry. 84(2): 20-24.

Sinden, John; Worrell, Albert. 1979. Unpriced values: decisions
without market prices. New York: John Wiley.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1986a. A rec-
ommended renewable resources assessment and program-
ming: executive summary. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-21.
Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Serv-
ice, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.

124

U.S. Department of Agriculture; Forest Service. 1986b. A rec-
ommended renewable resources program: 1985-2030.
USDA/FS-400: 1-157.

Wargo, John. 1984. Ecosystem preservation policy. Yale Uni-
versity. Ph.D. dissertation.

Wargo, John. 1988. Analytical methodology for estimating on-
cogenic risks of human exposure to agricultural chemicals
in food crops. In: Regulating pesticides for food: the De-
laney paradox. National Research Council: 174-195.

Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and society. Berkeley, CA: Uni-
versity of California Press: 212-301.

West, Patrick. 1975. Social structure and environment: a
Weberian approach to human ecology analysis. Yale Uni-
versity. Ph.D. dissertation.

West, Patrick. 1987. Social benefits of outdoor recreation:
sociological perspectives and implications for planning and
policy. In: A review on outdoor recreation: President's com-
mission on Americans outdoors: 93-102.

Wilkinson, Charles; Anderson, Michael. 1987. Land and re-
source planning in the national forests. Washington, DC:
Island Press.

125

1022239211

102223921

Rocky
Mountains

Southwest

Great
Plains

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station

The Rocky Mountain Station is one of eight
regional experiment stations, plus the Forest
Products Laboratory and the Washington Office
Staff, that make up the Forest Service research
organization.

RESEARCH FOCUS

Research programs at the Rocky Mountain
Station are coordinated with area universities and
with other institutions. Many studies are
conducted on a cooperative basis to accelerate
solutions to problems involving range, water,
wildlife and fish habitat, human and community
development, timber, recreation, protection, and
multiresource evaluation.

RESEARCH LOCATIONS

Research Work Units of the Rocky Mountain
Station are operated in cooperation with
universities in the following cities:

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Flagstaff, Arizona

Fort Collins, Colorado*

Laramie, Wyoming

Lincoln, Nebraska

Rapid City, South Dakota

Tempe, Arizona

'Station Headquarters: 240 W. Prospect Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80526