# Presentation: 403159

## The Virginia Creeper Trail: An Analysis of Use, Economic Impacts, Visitor Characteristics, and Preferences

**J.M. Bowker **
**USDA Forest Service**
** ****John C. Bergstrom & Joshua Gill**
**University of Georgia**
**Abingdon, VA **
**April 28, 2004**

## Partners

**Virginia Creeper Club**
**Creeper Cabins**
**Virginia Trails**
**Virginia Dept Conservation & Recreation**
**Virginia Dept Forestry**
**National Park Service**
**University of Georgia, Dept Ag & Applied Econ**
**USDA Forest Service, Region 8 & SRS**
**Numerous Volunteers**

## Major Objectives

**Measure Annual ****Trail Use**
**Estimate Local ****Economic Impacts**
**Describe ****Trail Users**
**Examine User ****Attitudes / Preferences**** **
**Trail Attributes**
**Management / Policy**
**Benefits**

## Trail Use

## Stratified Random Sampling

**Trail Exits**
**Season**
**Winter 02-03  /  Summer 03****	**
**Day type**
**Sat / Sun, Fri, Hol / Weekday**
**Exit type**
**High / Low**
**Time of day summer**
**Morning / Afternoon / Evening**

## Winter Counts

**Total cells 1629 = 9 (26 + 60 + 95)**
**Cells sampled 77 = 4.7 percent**
**Lots of 0’s Dec – Feb**
**Sat ave = 217**
**Sun / Fri / Hol ave = 177**
**Weekday ave = 77**
**Winter Visits = 23, 614   +/- 2,985**

## Summer Counts

**Total cells 4968**
**Cells sampled 107 = 2 percent**
**Very few 0’s and higher missings Abingdon**
**Sat ave = 1181**
**Sun / Fri / Hol ave = 676**
**Weekday ave = 358**
**Summer Visits = 106,558  +/- 7,282**

## Annual Visits

**Total = 130,172**
**Range 119,905 to 140,439**

## Survey Instruments

**Screener Survey N=**** 1430**
**Systematic random sample **
-  **Detailed Survey N= ****1036**
**Systematic random sample**
**Local **
**Nonlocal A & B**

## Survey Hierarchy

## Screener Survey Content

**Local vs Nonlocal**
**Group size**
**Activity**
**Race**
**Gender**
**Willingness to be surveyed**

## Detailed Survey Content

**Trip characteristics **
**Spending characteristics**
**Travel time and distance to site**
**Trail issues and benefits**
**Area features**
**Household demographics**
**Annual usage**
**Primary purpose**

## Visit Breakdown

**Screener Survey **
**47 percent Washington & Grayson**
**Local visits = 61,503**
** **
** ****53 percent Nonlocals**
**Nonlocal visits = 66,669**

## Nonlocal Visits to Trips

**Detailed Survey**
**Primary purpose****	**
**Day use vs overnight**
**Trail visits per trip to area**

## Nonlocal Visits to Trips

** ****	****	****	****	**_**Visits**_** **
**PP Day Use****	****40,034**
**PP Ovr Nite****	****10,305**
**NP Day Use****	**** 9,473**
**NP Ovr Nite****	**** 8,857**
**   ****	****	****	****	****66,669**

-  **	****	**** **** **_**Person-trips**_
**	****	****	****33,642**
**	****	****	**** ****5,725**
**	****	****	**** ****7,578**
**	****	****	**** ****3,918**
**	****	****	****50,864**

## Economic Impact Analysis

## Expenditures by Locals and Nonlocals

- _Grayson and Washington Counties_
- Local Resident Expenditures Per Person Per Day Trip (example: $10 average)

- Nonlocal Resident Expenditures Per Person Per Day Trip (example: $17 average)

## Slide 18

## Regional Economic Impact Analysis

**Basic steps****:**
**Estimate ****Use**
**Estimate ****recreation expenditures**** per person per trip by ****nonlocals**** for major expenditure categories **
**Define ****Local Impact Region**
**Allocate Local Impact Region expenditures to ****economic sectors**** in the Local Impact Region**
**Use ****IMPLAN**** model to estimate output, jobs and income in the Local Impact Region supported by nonlocal resident expenditures.**

## Overview of IMPLANImpact Modeling for PLANning

**Computer-based, input-output economic model**
**Designed for regional economic impact analysis **
**Developed by the U.S.D.A. Forest Service **
**Provides comprehensive, science-based system for estimating  economic impacts of natural resource related projects**
**Since 1979, it has been used in a multitude of private and public sector applications to estimate the economic impacts of natural resource related and non-natural resource related projects on regional economies **

## Overview of IMPLAN

**IMPLAN has two ****major components****: **
**Nationwide database describing county-level economic activity and a computer model for constructing regional input-output models and estimating economic impacts from changes in economic activity.  **
**The model is based on input-output accounting and analysis procedures used by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and recommended by the United Nations**

## Nonlocal Spending & Impacts

**Detailed Survey****  NLB**
**Group expenditures whole trip**
**Group expenditures Washington & Grayson**
**Spending party size**
**Per-person trip expenditures**
**IMPLAN**** ****Model**
**Economic Impacts per 1,000 person-trips**

## Primary Purpose Day User Exp ProfileAve Spending Party Size = 3.34

|  |  | Whole trip | 25 miles VCT | VCT person/trp |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Priv. Lodg |  | 14.69 |   0.00 |   0.00 |
| Pub. Lodg |  |   0.09 |   0.00 |   0.00 |
| Food In |  | 38.13 | 21.29 |   6.37 |
| Food Out |  |   6.49 |   2.65 |   0.79 |
| Prim. Trans. |  | 18.68 | 11.42 |   3.39 |
| Other Tran. |  |   0.06 |   0.06 |   0.02 |
| Bike Rent |  | 12.98 | 11.68 |   3.50 |
| Shuttle |  | 10.51 |   9.17 |   2.75 |
| Use Fees |  |   0.14 |   0.14 |   0.42 |
| Other |  |   1.42 |   0.89 |   0.27 |
| Total |  | 103.19 | 57.30 | 17.16 |

**Primary Purpose Day User Exp Profile****Ave ****Spending Party Size =**** 3.34**

## Primary Purpose Overnight Exp ProfileAve Spending Party Size = 4.5

|  |  | Whole trip | 25 miles VCT | VCT person/trp |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Priv. Lodg |  | 211.86 | 126.95 |  28.21 |
| Pub. Lodg |  |   29.30 |   22.29 |    4.95 |
| Food In |  | 137.02 |   99.71 |  22.16 |
| Food Out |  |   40.02 |   28.23 |    6.27 |
| Prim. Trans. |  |   61.50 |   36.32 |    8.07 |
| Other Tran. |  |     1.90 |     1.85 |    0.41 |
| Bike Rent |  |   18.44 |   17.28 |    3.84 |
| Shuttle |  |   20.96 |   19.26 |    4.28 |
| Use Fees |  |     0.00 |     0.00 |    0.00 |
| Other |  |   18.32 |   17.57 |    4.39 |
| Total |  | 539.32 | 369.46 | 82.10 |

## Non-primary Purpose Day Use Exp ProfileAve Spending Party Size = 4.3   Time Share = .193

|  |  | Whole trip | 25 miles VCT | VCT person/trp |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Priv. Lodg |  | 165.13 |   0.00 | 0.00 |
| Pub. Lodg |  |   31.18 |   0.00 | 0.00 |
| Food In |  | 154.18 | 51.00 | 3.51 |
| Food Out |  |   23.63 |   5.90 | 0.10 |
| Prim. Trans. |  |   82.18 | 59.00 | 3.98 |
| Other Tran. |  |    72.72 |   0.00 | 0.00 |
| Bike Rent |  |    47.13 | 47.13 | 2.66 |
| Shuttle |  |      3.09 |   3.09 | 0.14 |
| Use Fees |  |      0.18 |   0.00 | 0.00 |
| Other |  |  100.95 | 54.81 | 0.70 |
| Total |  |  680.37 | 161.93 | 11.11 |

## Non-primary Purpose Overnight Exp ProfileAve Spending Party Size = 3.40  Time Share = .04

|  |  | Whole trip | 25 miles VCT | VCT person/trp |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Priv. Lodg |  |   175.53 | 125.17 | 1.74 |
| Pub. Lodg |  |     47.89 |   46.19 | 0.20 |
| Food In |  |   120.51 |   97.32 | 1.31 |
| Food Out |  |     28.19 |   17.23 | 0.13 |
| Prim. Trans. |  |   100.51 |   44.73 | 0.56 |
| Other Tran. |  |     29.19 |     6.80 | 0.01 |
| Bike Rent |  |     17.59 |   17.25 | 0.35 |
| Shuttle |  |       9.03 |     8.50 | 0.15 |
| Use |  |       1.06 |     0.00 | 0.00 |
| Other |  |       3.93 |     3.40 | 0.10 |
| Total |  |   533.43 | 366.59 | 4.55 |

## Nonlocal Expenditures per Person-trip by User Type

**PPDU- **$   31 total   $ 17 in local area
**PPON- **$ 120 total  $ 82 in local area
**NPDU- **$ VCT share  $ 11 in local area
**NPON- **$ VCT share  $  4 in local area
-                             *These numbers have been trimmed for outliers

## Creeper Impacts

| Economic Impact Indicators | Economic Impacts Per 1,000 Person Trips

Primary   Primary     Non Prim  Non Prim
Day Use   Overnight    Day Use  Overnight |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Output | $23,606 | $114,398 | $14,968 | $6,411 |  |
| Employment  | 0.4 | 2.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |  |
| Total Income | $10,270 | $45,944 | $6,014 | $3,200 |  |

**Economic Impacts Per 1,000 Person Trips of VCT Use in Grayson & Washington Counties, VA, 2003 dollars**

## Nonlocal Economic Impacts

**Combined Local Economic Impacts of  Nonlocal VCT Use  Grayson & Washington Counties, VA, 2003 dollars**

| Economic Impact Indicators | Total Economic Impact |
| --- | --- |
| Output | $1,600,000
 |
| Employment | 30
 |
| Total Income | $670,000
 |

## Slide 30

## VCT Users

## VCT User Demographics 

- 					_**Locals**_**   ****	**_**Nonlocals**_
**Household size****	****        ****	****2.6  ****	****            ****	****2.9**
**College education %     ****	****60****	****	****	****66**** **
**Respondent age ****	****	****47****	****	****	****47**
**Full-time employ %       ****58****	****	****	****77**
**House Income  $1000****	****59****	****	****          80.5**
**Gender % Male****	****	****61****	****	****	****65**
**Race % White****	****	****99****	****	****	****99**

## VCT Market

**	****Nonlocal travel one-way miles**
- 		**Ave**				**260.5**
-  		**Max **		  		**2747**
-  	**Nonlocal nights per trip**
**Ave****	****	****	****	****2.95**
**Max****	****	****	****	****73**** **
- 	 **Nonlocal spending party**
**	****	****Ave****	****	****	****	****3.79 **
- 		**Max****	****	****	****	**** 45**

## Primary Activities

- 	     _**Locals    %**_**	****	**_**Nonlocals %**_
- 		**Walking****	****52****	****	****Biking****	****74**
**	****	****Biking ****	****26****	****	****Walking ****	****20**
**	****	****Jogging ****	****13****	****	****Jogging****	****  2**

## On Trail Time & Distance

**	****	****	****	****	**_**Locals**_**	****	**_**Nonlocals**_
**Time on Trail****	****	**** 80 min****	**** ****	****176 min **
**Distance Traveled****	**** 5.5 mi****	**** ****	****16.7 mi**

## Group Size & Trips

- 					_**Locals**_** ****	**_**Nonlocals**_
**Group Size**
**	****ave****	****	****	****  1.9****	****	****	****3.6**
**	****max****	****	****	****  30****	****	****	****45****	**
**Trips per year ****	****	****	****	****      ****	**** ****	**
**	****ave****	****	****	**** 141 ****	****	****	****  6 **
**	****max****	****	****	**** 606****	****	****	****300**

## Trail Benefits

**	****	****	****	****	**_**Locals**_**	**_**Nonlocals**_
- 	**Health****	****	****	****3.87****	****	****   3.64****	**
**	****Nature****	****	****	****3.82              3.70**
**	****Pets****	****	****	****2.31****	****	****   2.00**
**	****Community****	****	****3.41****	****	****   2.94**
- 			High=4, Med=3, Low=2, None=1

## Trail Attributesfor Locals

**	****	****	****	****	**_**Importance**_**      ****	**** **_**Condition**__ _
- 	**Safety****	****	****	****    3.75                      3.42**
**	****Scenery****	****	****	****    ****3.83 ****                     ****3.67**
**	****Surface****	****	****	****    ****3.59                      3.19**
**	****Structure****	****	****    3.72 ****	****	****      3.40**
- 			High=4, Med=3, Low=2, None=1

## Trail Attributesfor Nonlocals

**	****	****	****	****	**_**Importance**_**      ****	**** **_**Condition**__ _
**	****Safety****	****	****	**** ****3.79                       3.54**
**	****Scenery****	****	****	**** ****3.86 ****                      ****3.76**
**	****Surface****	****	****	**** ****3.51                       3.44**
**	****Structure****	****	**** ****3.55 ****	****             3.60**
- 				High=4, Med=3, Low=2, None=1

## Policy Questions

**	****	****	****	****	****         ****	**_**Locals**_**   **_**Nonlocals**_
- 	**Maintenance attract visitors****	****    99         99**
**	****User fee for maintenance       ****	****    ****32****	****        60**
**	****Local taxes for maintenance       ****89         71**
**	****Volunteers for maintenance        61****	****	****62**
**	****Crowding affects trips neg.         40         33**
**	****Paving trail ****	****	****	****             ****6.5****	****13**** **
**	****	****	****	**percent ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’

## Management Issues

**	****	****	****	****            **_**Locals**_		 _**Nonlocals**_
- 					**All   Disabled      All      Disabled**
**	****Electric golf carts****	**** 3****	****44****	****          <1         14**
**	****Gas golf carts****	****	**** 1****	****12****	****	****<1****	****   12**
**	****Motorized bicycles  ****	**** 3****	****12****	****	****  2****	****    9**
**	****Horse carts****	****	****11****	****  9****	****	**** 12****	****   10**
**	****ATV’s****	****	****	****  1****	****  2****	****	****  1****	****    2**
**	****	**percent ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ type of use
- 		is allowed on VCT

## Some Conclusions

## Trail Use

**Over  130,000  visits annually**
**Over 50,000  nonlocal person-trips**
**Majority of nonlocals are day users**
**Primary purpose over nighters  **
** ****15% of primary purpose nonlocal trips**
** ****11% of all nonlocal trips**

## Economic Impact of Nonlocal Spending

**Nonlocal spending supports**
** ****$1.6 million local economic output**
**  ****30 local jobs**
** ****$670 thousand local income**
**  ****40% to accommodation & food service sector**
**  ****20% to recreation & entertainment sector**
**To increase economic impacts**
**  ****Increase share of primary purpose overnighters**
**  ****Induce them to stay another night**

## Trail Users

** ****P****redominantly white**
** ****Majority male**
** ****Above average household incomes**
** ****Average 1+ to 3 hours per VCT visit**
** ****Health & nature most important benefits**
** ****Safety & scenery most important attributes**
** ****Surface & safety biggest impt-cond difference**

## Trail Users

**Maintenance important to attract visitors**
**Locals favor taxes to fund maintenance**
**Locals don’t support user fees **
**Nonlocals support taxes, fees, volunteers  **
**Alternative uses of VCT have very low support**
**But... Locals support elect golf carts for disabled **
**Don’t even think about paving the VCT**

## Stay tuned for the estimated economic benefits of taking a trip to the VCT

## Slide 48