C. Ilter@&@iar is m hsoeate bfessor, Agrieulard md 

 plied Economics Depmment, Univeeity of Georgia, Athens, GA. 

H, Kern Cordell is the Supenrisory Reseaach Forester, Outdoor 

~;r~~re;aedon? md Wildemss; hsessment Cfroup, Soulheatern firest 

ent Sta~on, USDA Forest Service=, Athem, GA. Liada 

LangIZrer is an Economist, Resources Program and Assessment SrafE, 

r-fSDA Eiorest Service, Was&ngton, DC. 

The hmdd SU~~OIQ of tlhe Forest Semiw, UmS, De 

Ag&cul&rrre, Resoures Progrm md hsessment St 

DC, the Forest Semi=, St-ru&estern Forest Expehent Station, 

Outdssr Recreadon md Wilderness hsessment Group, Athens, GA, 

md the Geor@a Aacralwrd Ewdenl Stadon under the W-133 

expressed to AMm Haugbt ancH mmy sher USDA Forest Semice 

pelsome1 who have provided much needed input, advice, md 

cornmen& on tEs n"ep~)bt. ne views expressed in this repa do not 

necessdly reit71ect Fb views OE. positiom of h&Gduds or agezleies 

who cont~buted to tb reporz by providng hn&g or teckcd 

adGm md cornmen@, 

December 1 994 

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station 

P.O. Box 2680 

Asheville, North Carolina 28802 
RPA Assessment 

of Outdoor Recreation: 

Past, Current, 

and Future Directions 

John C. Bergstram 

He Ken Cordell 

Linda Langner 

Abstract 

In f 974, the US. Conpss passed the Forest ad Rangelmd 

Renewable Raources Planning Act (RPA). ?-his legislation 

requiss the Secretary of Agriculture to t\ssess the klemand and 

supply situation for the Nation's forest and rmgeland resources 

every 110 years. The Secretary of Agricullure has designated the 

USDA Forest Semice as the lead agency for the RPA 

Assessntent. The ht RPA Assessment was published in 1975, 

a year after the passage of the 1974 Act. The second was 

publiskd 5 years later in 1980. The third (the 1989 

Assessment) was completed in 1989 and published In 

ornmencing the 10-year internal for publishing fubre 

Assessments. In this paper, the outdoor ~ctvcation sections of 

the WA Assessmnb cotlducbd to date are feviewed. The 

resulb of a survey on cument policy and managernent 

applications of the outdoor recreation results published in 1989 

BPA Assessment are also presented. By and large, it appears 

tlrat these resul~ are providing useful and valuable input into 

natural resource policy and management decisions in the Unitd 

States. The paper concfudes with a discussion of limitations of 

the a984 Assessment and opport.unities for irngrovillg the 

applicabilit)i of the oulc;ioor =creation results to policy and 

managernent decisions. Priori~ issues identified for future WA 

Assessment efforts 'mciude national demmd and supply &ends, 

regional demand and supply trends, units of measure far 

recreation quantity, the esects of qualiq on recreation demand 

and supply, the ef-fects of demographic changes on recteation 

demand and supply, and estimzllion of the net economic value 

and regional economic impacts of outdoor recreation. 

Keywords: Demand and supply analysis, natural resource poticy 

and management, research applications, future research needs. 

Pi. lratsodrrctior~ 

This paper reviews outdoor recreabon demmd and 

supply mdyses conducted for preGous RPA 

Assessments, exmines current applications of the 

11989 Assessment, md presents a Ermework for 

&we marlyses. In Sedan 11, recreation demmd 

and supply mdyses conducited for the 1975, 1980, 

and 1989 RPA Assessments are =viewed bhefly. 

Cunent appEcaliions of the 198WRBA Assessment 

recreation demad artd supply assessment results we 

re~ewed in Secfioam IIT. A generd coaceptkad 

&mework for adQresshg gome 09 the issues md 

pmblems related to the application sf Assessment 

=suits to resource policy and mmagement is 

&seussed in SeeCion IV. ms discussiora leads to 

some gerreral implicaliions, &scussed in Sec~on V, 

for recreeea~on demand md supply malyses 

eondu~ted for future WA assess men^. 

11, Review of Outdoor Recreation 

Demand and Supply Analyses 

Conducted for Previous RPA 

Assessments 

In 19'74, the U.S. Congress passed the Forest md 

Rangeland Renewable Resources 

(RPA). This leg slation requires 

Agricul~re to assess the demand and supply 

situation for the Na~on's forest and rmgeland 

resomces everq- 10 ye=. The RPA was meoded 

. In addition to 

Na~onal krest management, tTne 

menheats officiay fi&ed the WA process and 

products to Nagonal tiiorest mmagement (Shands 

19811). Ad&tiorad mhor menhe&% were added 

to he WA by the Food, Ag~ctilEmre, Coaase;erc.atiorz, 

and Trade Act of f 990, Thse menhen& &reei: 

tkze Secretq of Ag~cufture to assess &e effec~ sf 

global cEmate chmge on forest md smgelarrd 

resowces as panl, of the WA process. 

The Secretany of Ag~eulkure ha designated the 

Forest Service, U.S. Dep enr of AgAcraZt-ure, as 

tlile lead agency for the RPA Assessment. The first 

RPA Assessment was published in 1975, a yeah 

a&es (he passage of the 1974 Act. The second was 

pub~shed 5 yews Patea: in 1980. The t~rd (the 

1989 Assessment) was completed in I989 md 

pubEshed in 1 99&commenehg the l @-yea 

inend for pubgswg &&re Assessmen&, me 

the Assessments published to date are bri,eBy 

re~ewed in the next section, It is hportmt: to note 

that in tkse Assessments, the terns demand md 

supply are used both in a tecKcd sense and a 

broad sense, In the aecwcd seme, the terns refer 

to ecorasmic demajnd arad ecommie supply as bey 

relate to price. In the broad sense, demmd refers to 

over* p~ieipadora or comumpdorn, md sul;rply 

refers to the overdl av&%abiBiity of rieaeaticmal 

sppoau~ties. Ira. this paper, the terns we also used 

in &ese tecKcd and broad senses. 

1975 Assessment 

Demand assessment-In the f 975 Assessment, 

outdoor seereation demmd was assessed using 

e5sting data md repom because lisle ieme hhad 
passed since passage of the RPA Act. The analysis 

used a two-step approach, Fht, parbicipation 

fiunctions were esthated for in&vidual acreation 

activities, and the pmicipation hnctiomf \ere used 

to estimate the propor;ion of the U.S. population 

that participated in each aeliviv. Second, the 

quantity of recreation demanded per participant was 

calculated from estimated participmt demmd 

functions, The total quantity of aclbivity k 

demanded was esbated by multiplying total 

population by the probabLtity of participation in 

activity k by the per-capita quantity of activity k 

demanded by participants (Adams and others 1973; 

Cicchetti and others 1969; Kalter and Gosse 1970). 

The participation fitnctions estimated in the first 

step of the recreation demand assessment were 

specified as: 

where 

Y 

INC 

EDUC 

RlES 

CENRG 

AGE 

RACE 

SEX 

PHYS 

worn 

VAC 

= variable indicating whether individual i 

participated in activity k 

( 1 ==participant; O=nonparticipant), 

= individual family income, 

= individual education level, 

= individual residence (urban or rural), 

= U.S. Bureau of Census region where 

individual resides, 

= ir~dividual age, 

= individual race, 

= individual sex, 

= individual marital status, 

= size of individual" family, 

= variable indicating whether or not the 

in&vidud was physicdly challenged, 

= number of days woked per week by 

the individual, and 

= number of vacation days e&en per 

year by Ihe individual. 

Participation equations corresponding to (1) were 

esthated for outdoor recreational activities using 

data from the 1972 National Remeation Survey. 

Sepmate participation equations were estimated for 

vacations, trips, and outings. "Vacations" were 

defined as "the most recent overnight journey taken 

during the summer quarter of 1972." "Trips" were 

defined as "other ovedght excursions." ""Oubings" 

were defined recreation occasions that occuned 

'"vilhin 1 dayf"fAdms md otltaers 1973). 

The participant demmd hnctions esthated for the 

second step of the demand assessment process were 

specified as: 

where 

Q = average number of activity k days 

demanded by participant i', and 

PRC = average price or cost of an activity 

day, and dl other variables are as 

defined for Equation (1). 

Equation (2) was estimated using data from the 

1972 National Recreation Survey (Adams and 

others 1973). 

Equations (1) and (2) were used to predict the 

number of recreation activity days Americans would 

demand through 1978, First, future changes in the 

independent variables in (1) and (2) were projected, 

These values were then substituted into (1) and (2) 

to estimate future participation rates and quantity of 

days demanded per participant. Expected 

participation rates and quantities demanded per 

participant were combined with projections of future 

population to estimate the total number of activitydays demanded in the future (Adams and others 

1973). For reporting in the 1975 Assessment 

document, the demand projections taken from the 

Adams and others (1973) study were converted to 

indices with 1975 as the base year (USDA 1977). 

Supply assessment-The supply analysis for the 

1975 Assessment was more limited than the demand 

andlysis. A number of secondary sources were used 

to estimate current (1974-75) quantities of resources 

and facilities that supported the rec~ation activities 

considered in the demand analysis. The total 

number of public and private developed campsites, 

An "activity-day" was defied as "one person participating in 

an activity for any part of one calendar day" (Adams and otllers 

1973). 
for exmple, was estimated from pubfished 

cmpground directories (USDA 1977). 

kwssment did not provide a separate quantitative 

or qualitative comparison of future demand and 

supply trends. It briefly atld quatitatively msessed 

oppcsrtu~ties for increasing the su~zply of recreation 

resources and facilities. In certain eases, this 

qualitative supply assessment was combhed with 

the qumtitative demand projections to provide 

gewral observations and insights on the future 

demand and supply situation for outdoor recreation 

(USDA 1977). 

1980 Assessment 

Demr~nd assessment-me first step in the demand 

analysis for the 1980 Assessment was to esthate 

pmihpa\r-ion functions like those of the 1975 

Assessment for havidual remation acdvities. 

These pdcipa~orn iirniletions were specified as: 

where 

PRIC = proxy for the price or cost of 

participation, 

PARKS = the number of p&s within a close 

pro 

FACZL = available recreation resources and 

facilities, an$ all other variables are as 

specified for Quation ( 1). 

Data for estirrrating rihe pmicipa~on betions were 

obt~md from several sources, incfudcing che 1977 

nabonwide Outdoor Recreation Suwey, the 1972 

Bureau of Outdoor Rec~a~on Survey of Public 

Wecrea~on Facgiees, and rk 1973 Nationd 

Association of Consemation Bis~cts Pfivate Sector 

Recrea~on Irrvenrosy (Hof 1979: Hof md K&ser 

1983). 

Next, projected ktrare values for the ~&t-hand-side 

v&ables were substiwted hto %uafion (3) to 

estirnate eqected partiGipalion rates (defmed as tlhe 

percentage of the US. populafion expcted to 

pmicipate in each ac~vity). Tk expected number 

of future p~cipants was then eshated by 

mdtiplying the projected pdcipation rate by tt.re 

projected population. P~cipant projectiom for 

each acfivity were converted to in&ces with 1977 as 

the base year (USDA 1980). 

Supply assessmen$-The supply assssment fbr 

1980 was hited to the cunent quan~ties of 

resomces and fac%ties that suppofled certain 

recreation act_ivilies. These quantities were 

estbated from secondary sources, and long-mun 

projections of supplies of recreation I-esources md 

facilities were not attempted. Compmd with the 

1975 Assessment, the 1980 Assessment contajlmd 

expanded infomation on the quantities of privately 

owned recreation resources and facilities avajlable 

to the public (Cordell and others 1979; USDA 

1 980). 

Dernmd/supply comparisoneL&e the 1975 

Assessment, opportari~ties for increashg lthe 

supplies (cyumiiees) of recreation resources md 

facifi~es were quaIitatively wsessed. mese 

qualitative assessmen& of htm recreation resource 

and facility availability (supply) were combined 

with quan6tative assessments of future pdcipation 

(demand) to compae with future demand and 

supply. The comparisons of recreation demand and 

supply in the 1980 Assessment were more extensive 

and focused than those for the 1975 Assessment, 

but they were still very broad and general (USDA 

1980). 

Dennmd aissesment---In the 1989 Assessment, 

recrea~on &mmd ww modeled at an. aggr;egate or 

commu~~ levelrather than at the irxiividud level. 

The aggregate demand functions estjimated for the 

1989 Assessment were specified as: 

where 

BTRPS =. tot& quanGty sf acbvity k ~ps 

demanded by comrnu~q i,

PRICE == p~ce or cost of an activliry k tGp, 
POPC 

INCC 

unity i population, 

= percent of communify i population 

with income 2 $30,0W per year, 

AGE6 = percent of community i population age 

18 to 32 years, 

Fz?iWMC = gercent of community i population 

SWTC = average suitabitity of sites available to 

community i for activity k, and 

SUBSC = an index of substitute recreational 

oppoaunities available to community i. 

The primary sources of data for estimating these 

equations were the Public Area Recreation Visitors 

Study (PARVS) conducted between 1985 and 1989 

and U.S. Census data (Bergstrom and Cordell 1991; 

Cordell and Bergsbom 1991). 

The estimated demmd functions were used to 

urn prefesred demand1Yor vhous 

outdoor recreation activjtks 

demd was defined as the 

trips hericans would desire to consume in the 

htm if the price or cost of tr@s remained the 

same as in 1987. For repoIZing purposes, m 

preferred demand projections for each activity were 

coweaed to indices with 1987 as the base year. 

Data from the 1982-83 National Recreation Survey 

and the 1985 National Hunting and Fishing Survey 

were used to esaimate the basefine numbers of trips 

reported in the 1989 Assessment (Cordell and others 

1990; USDA 1989). 

Supply assessment-In the 1989 Assessment, 

recreation supply was con~eptualized as having a 

physical component and a human component. The 

fomer encompasses the recreation resources and 

facilities that suppoa recre&on actjvities, The 

latter encompasses what people do with these 

resources and fac2ities-the process by wkch 

people combine recreation resoures and facifities 

with their own equipment, me, taients, and skills 

to produse outdoor recreationaf trips, The 

theoretical basis for this trip "producljion" process is 

household production theory (Cordell and 

Bergstrom 199 1). 

Inventories of recreation resources and facilities, 

such as swhming pools md beaches, available to 

communities were estirnated from v&ous secondary 

sources. These quantities were then weighted by 

population and distance to calculate the effective 

mounts of recreation resources and facilibies 

available to commu~ties (Cordell and otfrers 11990; 

USDA 1989). 

The quantities of recreation trips communities were 

expcted to produrn and consume were calculated 

by first estimating aggregate consumption functions 

of the form: 

IPS = f(POPC:INCC, (5) 

AGEC,FmMC,S 

SLBSC,ROC), 

where 

CmIBS = total quantity of activity k trips 

commed by commu~ty i, and 

ROC = effective amounts of recreation 

resources and facsities avklable to 

community i for activi~ k, md all 

other variables are as defined for 

Equation (4). 

The phar?p souras of data for estiunating Equafion 

(5) were the Public Area Recrea~on Visitors Study 

(PmVS) and U.S. Census data (Cordell and 

Bergstrom 1991). 

After aggregate consumplion hnctions were 

developed for various outdoor recreation activities, 

future changes in the fight-hand-side variables, 

including the effective mounts of recreation 

resources and facilities, were projected. These 

projections were then substituted into the estimated 

consumption functions to calculate the numbers of 

recreation trips communities were expected to 

produce and consume in the future. Following the 

household production theorgr Garnework, the 

projections of expected consumption of rec~atisn 

trips were intefpreted in the 1989 Assessment as the 

future expected supply of recreational tfips. For 

reporting purposes, the p~ojecCions of expected 

supply were converted to indices with 1987 as the 

base yea ((Cordell and others 1990; USDA 1989). 

Demand/supply cornpapisons-me 1989 

Assessment formally and quantitatively compared 

recreation demand and supply. The demand 

assessment projected numbers of recreation trips 

Americans would prefer to take in the future, given 

changes in population size and characteristics but 

holding the price or cost of trips constant. The 
assumptcion of coastant trip price or cost &plies 

that the effective moon& of recreational resources 

and fa&Gties must increase at rates suffieientfy high 

to keep the price or cost of participating in outdoor 

recreational activieies constant. Thus, mdmum 

preferred demand can also be intetpreted as 

unconstrained consumption of trips with respect to 

recreation resoures and facilities. 

The supply iysessment prdected numbers of 

recreation trips hericans would be able to take in 

the httlre, given chmges in population size and 

characteristics, as well as chmges in the effective 

mounts of recreation =sources auxl facilities that 

might cause the pfice or cost of trips to increase (or 

decrease), The expected sul-lply of rec~ational tlrips 

t&es into account expected chmges in effective 

mounts of recreation resources atnd facifihes 

available to communities. Changes in the effective 

amourre of these resources md faciEties, in brn, 

ae exlpeeted to chmge the prim or cost of 

recreationat csips. Expected supply can there Em 

also be interpreted as corntrained consumption of 

trips with respect to avarillable recreation =sources 

and faciEties. 

In the 1989 Assessment, the creation demmd md 

supply proijections were compmd to find apparent 

gaps ktween the Eutufe clemand and supply of 

recreation ~ps for hdividuaia activities. These gaps 

represent the differearn between the quantity of 

trips hericms would prefer or desire to take in 

the %&re (mdmum prekmd demand) and the 

quantity they will be expected to t& (expected 

supply), Expected gaps- for each activity we= 

reposted on a percentage basis (Gor$leH and others 

1990). 

111. Overview of Current Applications 

of the 1989 Assessment Results 

How are the Assessment resuls used? mat issues 

and problems have sen in applications of the 

resuIts to forest policy and management? How can 

the Assessment be more useful to resomce 

managers and poEcym&efs? These and otber 

questiom were adkssed in an infomaf survey of 

individuafs in vat;ious positions who use rrissessment 

results. 

From Jmuary f 992 to April 1993, individuals in the 

USCIA Forest Servim and other organizations listed 

in. Awn& T were interviewed in person or by 

e this list does not repEseat a 

scienlificdly selected rmdom sample of Assessment 

users, it does represent a reasonable cross-section of 

gotenbd users, 

LItlrerviewees were asked to: (1) deseritx: how they 

use the Assessment, results; (2) identi@ pmicular 

issues and problems they have encountered in 

applyhg the resdts; and (3) suggest new analyses 

and information that wodd be useful in futua 

Assessments. Compiled responses ae surnm~zed 

in the ~mainder of this secGon. Because of the 

lhited sample of potential Assessment users 

intedewed, the compsed respsmes should be 

interlp~tecl with caution md not gemdized too 

broadjty . 

Because of hstihbtiond mmgernenrs established by 

the RPA, tfie most extensive user of tk Assessment 

resuits is the USDA Forest Service. Shce tk 

Forest Sewice conducts tk Assessment, many 

individuals in khe agency are fmiliaf with he 

Assessment ;Pnd its ~sulLs. The R%"A dso &eets 

the Fol-est Service to use the results of tlhe 

Assessment to help guide its progms i"os Nal;iond 

Forest Systems, Resemch, State and P~vate 

Forestrgi, and International Forestry. 

The process for integraling the RPA resource 

assessmen& into the Forest Sefvice progrms 

mentioned above is illustrated in. figure 1, In 

addition to requiring the Secretary of Aghculture to 

conduct the Assessment, the RPA legislation 

rrequires that a nadond-level Program be developed 

for tlhe Forest Service. The RPA Progrm is the 

Forest Sewice's sstrategk plan for forest policy and 

management. 

The emers of the RPA envisioned jlflstitutional 

I*ages moag the RPA Assessment, the WA 

Progrm, reaonat-levell data collection and 

g, and forest-level data collection and 

g. As shown on the left side of figure 1, the 

intention of the RPA is hat data collected at the 

forest level be aggregated at the region& level, and 

eventually aggregated at the nationd level. One of 
the potential uses of these data is to provide data 

for the nation& Asse~sment,~ 

The ~ght side of figure 1 2lus@ates tbe htentions 

of the RPA with respect to the applica~on of the 

Assessment resdts. The results of the national 

Assessment provide a basis for the development of 

the national Progrm. The nation& Program is a 

strategic plan that provides long-tern policy and 

management guidmm for National Forest Systems, 

Resewch, State and PAvate Foresq-, and 

International Forestry.. 

Wow have the Linkages illustrated in figure 1 

operated in pracdce? Interviewee responses suggest 

that the 1989 Assessment results were used in the 

development of the 1990 Program but not in a 

&rect, analytical manner. Rather, it appears that 

certain key h&gs of tthe 1989 Assessment were 

used to guide development 

a more in&ect, qualitative 

the 1989 Assessment result t a substantid 

increase in the future demand for recreational trips 

of sho& duration to sites close to home (day 

tfl;ps and pic~cking trips are examples). National 

Foress ~la~vely close to major urbm areas can 

provide many oppoflurrities for recreation trips of 1 

day or Less. The 1990 Program plamd greater 

empfiwis on providing recreational opportuni~es on 

Na~ond Forests near urban areas. 

The 1989 Assessment suggested likely shortages of 

opportunities for many specific activities. It 

appears from interviews that these demand/supply 

projections were used indirectly and 

qualitatively to guide development of the 1990 

Program. One result was a focus in the 1990 

Program on providing a greater _diversity of 

recreational opportunities on National Forests. 

One of the intents of the RPA is to guide regional 

g and management. hterviews 

suggest that the national recreagon gods and 

objectives stated in the Program sometinnes 

contributed to a greater emphasis on providjng 

diverse recreation opportunities in regional and 

forest plhg. Some inte~eweestated that the 

Program helped them to mderstand Agency 

* The national-level Assessment is conducted using data from 

many sources within and outside of the USDA Forest Service, 

prsorities for recrearion management on Nationdl 

Forests, Overall, however, responses suggest that 

the l&ages between the RPA Prog 

recreation and region& and forest p 

mmagement are rather loose. 

Interviewee responses suggest that aside fiom 

information embodlied in the WA Progrm, the 

nadond Assessment results ans: not widely used in 

re8ond md forest pl ng and mmagement. At 

least one region sampled, however, used the 

Assessment recreation deman ejections in 

the development of its region guide. In 

addition, many regional and forest personnel are 

fmiliar with the Assessment results and utilize 

them for other pusposes. For example, a number of 

intedewees reported that they use the Assessment 

rresults as background infomation for p~sentations 

dealhg with Nadond Forest management. Some 

dso repo~ed that allhough they do not &rectly use 

tbe national Assessment results in forest pl 

and mmagement, the results provide them with 

valuable insi@ts about rec~ation demrrndiisupply 

analyses. 

Mmy of the decisions that dictate forest policy and 

management are made within the WBshgton, DC, 

te House, the Congress, the 

Department of Ag~culture, and the Forest Sewice 

Washington Office (W0). For example, these 

entities interact to determine the Forest Service 

annual budget. 

Interviews suggest that the 1989 Assessment results 

have had an important influence on the development 

of resource policy in Wasbgton, DC-p~icularly 

congressional policy. For example, one of the key 

findings of the 1989 Assessment is a growing 

demmd for most forms of outdoor recreation at 

sites located close to home. This finding was used 

by the Forest Service W0 to support requests to 

Congress for adequate funding of Forest Serjice 

recreation programs, 

Because the Assessment contains recreation use and 

trend infomation not readily available elsewhere, 

Assessment results, therefore, are often used to help 

meet information requests. The Assessment 

infomation provided to Congress in this manner 

influences policy decisions in ways that are neither 

traceable nor predictable. 
Many policy decisions that affect forest pogcy ad 

mmagement are made within &e firest Service* 

The Forest Semice has an exterzsive staff of poLicy 

andafyse md resewckrs; who provide idomation 

tfiait fa~ilitllres poficy decisiom. Interviewee 

responses suggest that the Assessment results me 

widely used by Forest Service policy stndysts and 

reseachems. Responses also suggest that upperlevel firest Semi= aclmi&lPxato~ some~mes rase 

ttae Assessment results &ectly when m&ng 

internal policy decisions. 

The Congressional Resewch Service regulmly uses 

the 1%9 Assessment as a reference document when 

respon&ng to SequesaS from Members of Congress 

md their stdfs about &e use of National %rests Eon 

outdoor recreation. Otkr gove 

g~vate resource mmagemetlb interest goups, md 

pfivate consultm& apperar to use the Assessment as 

a generd referenee document on a more limited 

basis. 

Outside t13e jFOrest Service, college md u~vemity 

facul~ and stdf use Assessment results in lheir 

research, wlhich generates journal articles md other 

publica~ons, This literature may be used by the 

Forest Semiice and other agencies to facditate 

ng, and management decisions. The 

extent to which Assessment sesdts suppoa 

recreation resesch progrms is difficult to assess. 

Issues and Problems Rdated to the Applicaeorr 

of the 1989 Assessmmt Results 

Intemiewees indicated a number of issues and 

problems related to the application of the 8989 

Assessment resdts. One problem consistendy 

mentioned was the lack of 

Many seated tfiitl: regload 

ply projections would gready edmce 

the useftlfness of tihe Assessment for regional and 

forest poficy md pl ng, ms hfoma~oa gap 

has been trir lelast pt-i&y mled by the 1993 

Assessment Qdate, tv~cb linciudes limited ~giond 

dernWd/sugplp projections. 

Another consistenlSy men~oned problem was the 

lack of inkmation on &e effects of qu&@ chmges 

on reerearion demmasupply relarions~ps. For 

exmple, the 1989 Assessment &d not address bow 

ebages in conges~on will affect the demand for 

ceaairz creation activities. It also fded to 

cornides the poten~d effects of changes in the 

eondihion of nalurall rescpurces We water qufi~ and 

consmeted JFaciEties (cmgsites, bakooms, @&s, 

etc,) at remation sites on deman@su~lply 

relagonsEps. 

Issues and problems related to u&ts of measure 

were dsa mentioned Ehequently. One specific issue 

is tke la& of consistency in Lhe recrea~on qurn~~ 

measures across the thee Assessmen@ published to 

date, The 1975 Assessmetlt measured recreation 

qumtity in activity-days, me 1980 Assessment 

measured recrea~on qumtity in temls of 

pmicipation. ifbe 1989 Assessment measu~d 

recreation quantity in terns of tnips. mese 

&fferent units of measure m&e it difficuk to 

comgxe and reconcge demm4supply projections 

reported in the 1989 Assessment with hose ~poaecf 

in the 1975 md 1980 Assessmen&. 

Responses suggest that the chmgirng u~ji~s of 

measure across the pubgshed Assessments m&es it 

&fficult to apply Assessment results to nalional 

potLicy decisiczms. DifEerences in measures of 

recreation qumtity also ~nder the application of the 

results to regional and krest pl 

management. At the regonal and forest levels, 

recreation quantity is oftcen measured irt recreation 

visitor-days fRVDs). Because the 1989 Assessment 

measures recreation qumtity in terns of trips, the 

Assessment\ demWsupply projections are not 

compatible with regionat and forest maty ses. 

A number of interviewees also voiced concern 

about the hplicaliom of 

considerabons in applying Assessme& resdts to 

. Spdd preferences for eepl& 

ws of reereallion by people near a Nation& Fo~sl 

may need to be considered. Spedd lwd supfly 

eon&Gons (e.g., avklrabaitity of subs~rutes) also may 

haw major implications on rPBe apgEcabGi@ of 

rsa~ond md region4 projections to a pmieulw 

Nagon& Forest. For exmple, systems tirat ihit 

recreation use, such as wfuite-water r&hg Ihits, 

may res~ck avdable sulpply of wrt& recreation& 

opporlm~t.ies on a Nabond Forest. 

Some sespondents repofied that locd politic$ 

concerns could hder effeclive application of 

Kgher level Assessment results. fir exmpk, the 

Assessment resdts may suggest &;l% a pdeular 
=@on or forest should provide more oppomnities 

for a certain type of recreational activity. However, 

for any number of potentid reasons, local political 

forces may chaenge the decision to kcrese those 

opporlunities, 

Sever& people noted &at the application of 

Assessment results at the forest level is difficult 

because the implications of the pmjections for a 

pasticular forrtst may not be clear, For example, the 

1989 Assessment predicts that a considerable 

shoaage of opportu~ties for day &ng may 

develop. This result may suggest the need to 

develop new day trails in a pdcular 

National Forest . rs and managers, however, 

would still need to deternine exactly how many 

miles of new trails to develop and where to locate 

these br;aifs. The Assessment provides little 

guidance for these prac~cal on-&-ground decisions 

because of its intended broad, national scope. 

Several intervliewees suggested widespread 

application of the Assessment resuf~ is hindered by 

the limited mount of ground-trutbg presented. 

Ground-tmthing analysis would involve comp 

Assessment projections to actual observations. The 

question here is one of c~dibility and believability 

of the Assessment results. For example, are 

projections of increased demand for a certain 

activity, say primitive cmping, consistent with 

actual trends in the issuance of back-country 

camping permits? The more consistent Assessment 

results an: with events observed by resource 

plmers and .xanagers on the ground, the more 

likely that those people will hcorporate Assessment 

results into their pl-g and management, 

A more institutiondl problem consistently given by 

interviewees as a reason why the Assessment results 

are not used more extensively in ~giond and forest 

g and management is the 

Assessment. The 10-year interval between RPA 

Assessments is not always sync with the 

10- to 15-year interval for fores g. Thus, in 

many cases, the Assessment results are not ~mely 

for use in forest management plans. 

Most hterviewees felt that the levels of derd and 

desc~phon in f 989 Assessment publications were 

adequate to document tk Assessment results. 

However, some suggested ways to hprove the 

presentation of results, jncluding pu bfiskng only the 

key demmd /supply results. This document wodd 

be considerably briefer than remnt Assessment 

documents. Det;iiled demantdlsupply statisbcs could 

be made available on computer discs. hobher 

suggeslion was to continue to publish a document 

(as was done in 1990) that describes the GAages 

betcveen the Assessment, the RPA Progrm, and 

regional and forest pi ng and management. 

New Analyses and Idormation 

Zntewkwees suggested some new andyses and 

types of information to include in future 

Assessments. Interviewees would like to see more 

analyses on the effects of site quality, inclucting the 

condition of natural resources on recreation demand 

and demand/supply relationships for specific types 

of settings. 

Desired region-specific infomation inclucfed user 

characterislic promes, expenditure profiles, and 

demmd/supply projections. interest in andyses 

related to &fkrent regions and set~ngs extends to 

examination of urban recreation demand/supply 

relabonships vs. wai recreation demand/suppfy 

reladonskps, An important distinction bemeen 

urban and rural recreation is that a considerable 

mount of urban recreation (e.g,, recreation at local 

neighborhood parks) may involve negfigible trip 

expenditures. Measu~s of economic demand, 

benefits, and impacts like the travel-cost melhod 

and input-output models that rely on observations of 

travel expenditures may not adequately assess the 

contribution and importance of urban recreation to 

society. 

Interviewees consistently mentioned the need for 

new analyses and ihrmation on the economic 

effects of outdoor recreation on regional and local 

economies. The need for more andyses and 

infomation on biistoricat @ends in recreation 

demand and supply was also consistently 

mentioned. Previous Assessments have focused on 

future trends in recreadon demmd md supply, 

Severd inten-iewees mentioned the need for more 

analyses and hfomation on the hpgca~ons of 

increming customer diversit-y for rec~ation and 

wilderness management, For exmple, what are the 

long-tern hplications of the wave of new 

immigrants on recseation demand md supply? 
t other key social and demographic changes 

should public and private org~ations focus on to 

prepare for future changes in recreation demand and 

supply? 

Seved inte~ewees called for new analyses and 

infomation focusing on ecosystem mmgement. 

The Forest Service is placing increasing emphasis 

on managing Nationat Forests on a more holistic, 

sustajnable basis. This emphasis may strongly 

influence the application of recreation demand and 

supply analysis results to resource policy axxi 

mmagement. 

A related need included more and better infomation 

to facilitate tradeoff analysis. Fur exmple, 

managers may be concerned with assessing the 

tradeoff between developing a new mountain bike 

trail and the potential loss of prime wildlife habitat. 

Data on the opportunity costs of alternative 

management actions are needed to perfom tradeoff 

analysis. 

Several intehewees recommended that ex post 

validation studies be colducted to verify the 

accuracy of the Assessment demmd/supply 

projections. The 1989 Assessment provides 

projections of the number of outdoor recreation trips 

hericans are expected to take in the years 2000, 

2010, 2020, 2030, and 2040. The specific steps of 

ex post validation study of these projections follow. 

In the year 2000, a study could be conducted to 

esthate the actual number of recreation trips taken 

by Americans. These estimates could be compared 

with the projections for the year 2000 reported in 

the 1989 Assessment. Any &fferences in the 

esthates could then be atlalyzed to gain insight into 

the accwacy of the 1989 Assessment projections. 

Similar vdidadon studjes could be conducted in 

Eutu-re years. 

Tk need for additional infomation on supply 

functions for recrea~czn oppomIllities was noted by 

sever& intefiewees, These furncGons would 

provide a stabtical rrelationsEp bet-cveen 

management imputs md recreation r>pportuni~ 

output. A pmicular ch&enge fmd in the 

development of recreation supply hnctions is the 

proper specification of &puts and outputs. 

Intemiewees suggested more atldyses and 

infomation may also be useM in the following 

areas: breakdown of demand"supp1y pro~ections by 

ent agency; private-land recreation 

demandfsupply relationships; backlogged work and 

capital invesment; eEects of mbonaf enviromentd 

quaiity on recmation. demanasupply trends; passive 

use of recreation resource and wilderness areas 

(e.g., e~stence vdues); and the use of private land 

for recreation. 

IV. Conceptual Framework for the 

Outdoor Recreation Component of the 

RPA Assessment 

Some suggestions outlined in the previous section 

are within the scope of the Assessrnent as it is 

currently conducted, some probably are not. The 

ot meet all resource policy and 

management needs, but a strategy should be 

izing the rase&lness of the 

Assessment within the constrhts of time, budgets, 

and the legislative intent of the Assessment. 

According to the original RPA legislation, one of 

the primary intents of the Assessment is to provide 

a broad ovehew of recreation (and orher resource) 

demand and supply trends in the U&ted States. 

The three Assessments already completed appear to 

have met this htent reasonably well. Because of its 

national scope and emphasis, built-in data 

collection, data analysis, and administrative 

constraints limit the ability to answer certain, himy 

specific or specialized rec~alion demmd and 

supply questions, Because of the legislative scope 

of the Assessment and practical constrhts hposed 

on conducting the Assessment, there is a need to 

prioritiu: the various recreation demand and supply 

issues that will be adbssed by future Assessments. 

The greatest conmms of the greatest number of 

interviewed Assessment users led to the following 

prio~ties for htme Assessment effoas: (1) nafJond 

recregion demmd md supply trends (historied atad 

future); (2) regional! demmd and supply tsends 

(h_istoPicat and fiutwe); (3) effects of qu~ty chmges 

on recreation &md and supply trends; (4) 

fledbility between unj;@ sf measure for recreation 

quantity; (5) effects of dernograp~~/sod8economic 

chmges on recreafion demmd and supply trends; 

and (6) net economic vdue and region$ economic 

iqact. 
Gcllc~grapS9: Scope of &he Assessment 

The ~sr two pdoktgi issues relate to the geograpEc 

scope of the Assessment recreation dermmd r;md 

supply arrdyses. Much of the Assessment wdysis 

is focused at the nationd level, The use%lness of 

the Assessment resul& for forest pogcy md 

mmagement would be fac2irated by provihg more 

=@on& md subregional dernmd md supply 

malyses. 

As g1ustrated in figure 2, nadonal-level demmd md 

supply Grsnetions for outdoor rec~ation can be 

con~eptudized as being desved from regional-level 

demmd md supply bnctions. mese regional 

dernmd md sqpfy knctioas, in turn, cm be 

cortceptudized as being dehved from subre@onaE. 

demd md supply hnctions. nus, in theory, it is 

possib'he rs dsaggregak nation$ Qemmd llnQ supply 

knctions to region& demmd md supply funcdonsb3 

Fueher &saggregatio-n would result in sub~gond 

demmd md supply hmctions, As itrlustmted in 

figme 2, it is &so possible, in theory, to aggregate 

from subregiond dernmd md supply fi~ncdons to 

regon& demand and supi~ly Eaanetions, and from 

re@oniltl demmd md supply functions lo na~onal 

demmd and supply hnctions. 

In order to &saggrega%e n;;tliond demmd and supply 

hnetisns to he regisnd level, the p&cuLx regons 

of interest must kt be spedfied, 

ahi~stnatively defimd Forest Service regons may 

suit many Forest Sewice raeeds, such a breakdown 

may not be vnekl to other Assessment users such 

as the Natioudl P& Servie and the U.S. 

Corps of Errgheers. Regon& bre&downs codd be 

defimd ph~ly by tenajiiin (Great Pj~rss: 

Mssissippi VaEley, etc.), veous politicd 

boundhes (Sou&eastern States, MQwestern States, 

etc.), or ecoregions. 

Disaggegation from &e region& level to he 

subregionail level. is more proMematic. The 

primw problem its sgeci+ing regions ad 

subregions so &ere is a logicd and consistent 

connection betweerr the region& and subregional 

' For the 1993 Assessment Updale, regional recreation demand 

functions were derivd from the national recreation demiurd 

functions estimated for the 1989 Assessment. 

demmd md supplly hnctions, fir exmple, for the 

1 993 Assessment Updak, regiond rec~ation 

dernmd hnctions were es~mated for 

ahi~stsatively defined Forest Sewice re@ons. In 

zrccodmce with the Assessment objecbves, &ese 

redonzcl demasdd hnegons incoqorated the demand 

for recreation on & p~vate md public tiarnd, not just 

Forest Service land. 

Suppose one wa~ interested in &saggrrzgating the 

demmd functions for a pdcular region to derive 

recreation demand funchons for each National 

Forest in that region. fit would be diEcullt, 

corsceptudly md empi~eally, to sepxate tfie 

demmd for recreation on a gdcular Na~onal. 

&rest Frsm the demmd for recsea~on on all Vpes 

of priivate and pubZic lmd ix~ the region. h 

dtemabve would be to es~mate .irec.rrea~on demand 

hnctions for each h"orest in a region sepxately. 

Tkse Forest demmd Jfimnctions, however, would not 

aggegate to generate the regiond dernmd hnctions 

because hnctions for pdvare Imd would be 

misshg. 

The rielations~ps between recrea&on dennmd and 

supply trends detemjine recreation consrrmp~on 

trends f CordeU ,md Besgstrom 1991 9. Two sets of 

cowurnpaion bend lines are shown in figure 3. On 

the fi@t hand side of figure 3, the Iines labeled 

'WC" represent m unconstrairred consumption. 

Unconst~~ned commp~on isthe mount of 

activi~ trigs he~cans would deslire to tnke if the 

av~Eabaity of recreational oppoau~ties was 

sufficient to keep the cost of an acfivity txip 

conr;tmt* 

The lhes labeled 'CG" on the fight-hmd side of 

figure 3 represent corntrained consump~onr. 

Conswhed consumption is the mount of activiw 

triips he~cms wound take in he future given 

cons~~ts on avktiflabiliq of recreaticm oppoau~ries 

that may cause the price of an activi~ tr?ip to 

inereae. The price or cost of ,m activiq trip would 

increae; ifor exmple, if the demand for recreation 

oppoaunities is increasing faster than the supply of 

opportunities, =creation opportuplities are becoming 

more scarce (CordeU: and Bergstrctm 1991). 

The size of the &fference or gap bemeen 

unconstrdiined consumption and constrained 

consumption represents the relative increase In 

scarcity of a type of =creation opportunity. 
Projected gaps are &e~fo~.~: likely to concern forest 

poficynakers md managers. Gaps can occur at the 

nationd, regional, and subregion& levels. 

Bectjluse of the legislative intent of the Assessment 

md i&erent rmdeEng md data lhitations related 

to aggregation and disaggregarion, the prinnw 

focus of the Assessment is Uefy to remain naGonat, 

However, it appeas to be concepmdly md 

emgihcdly feasible, and hs;@y desirable horn a 

forest poficy and rnaraagemene perspective, to plae 

a kgher priosiv in hture: Assessments on 

impmving md expitilding regional recreaGon 

demmd arzd supply malyses. Conceptual and 

eq"icd problems (p~nndy &e lack of dataj are 

lkely to con~mue to lhit the exted of subregional 

=creation mdyses. 

Some plmers md mmagers strongly desilre 

in~proved md exparaded recrea~on demmd and 

supply infermation at the forest level. Perhaps the 

most practical. solution is for regiond and forestlevel adysls to t&e the lead kn this effoa and to 

reeeive kip from the na~onal RPA Assessment 

team. A coor&ated effiort would facigtate 

coUec~cm of data for andyses at a91 levels. 

Cosr&nation would afso help ensrr~ &at na~onal, 

regonal, and subregoad (e.g., forest level) dternand 

arrd supply analyses are conducted in a tfieoretically 

md ernpiAcally consistent rn r with a m~mum 

of redundancy. 

QuaEty Considerations 

Closely ~lated to the geographic scope of the 

Assessment is tlte issue of the effeclis of qutzli~ 

cbsnges on recrealLion demand and supply. The 

qudi' of rec~ation exprjeraces, for exmple, is 

likely to vq across regions, Tihiis sirnation is 

illustxated in 6gwe 4. In Region A, tlne qu&ity of 

recreation oppo1213m;l~es may be Kgh, resulthg in a 

k& demmd for aceviry trips as shown by DjH). 

The supply af high-qudity ~creationd 

opp~~~u&tlies, however, may by irelatively low as 

shorvn by S(H), In Region B, the rgudity of 

recreation& oppoau~ties may be about me&um, 

resulrhg in a lower demmd for activity trips as 

shown by D(h3). 'The supply of me&um-qudity 

recreation& opportu~ties in Re@on B, hotvever, 

may be greater resultkg in a relatively greater 

supply of activiq t~ps as shown by S(M). Tm 

Region C, the quality of recreationd opp&~ties 

may be low, resulling in a low demfuld for activity 

trips. The supply of low-qu&v ~c~ational 

ol~"po&unlties in &@on 6, however, may be Ihi& 

resulhg in relatively high supply of a~tivity trips! 

Because of (he: effects of quali~ digerences on 

regonaf. recreaeion demd and supply, different 

gaps for a rec~ationd acti~ty maay occur across 

re@ons (fig. 5). For exmple, Region A may k 

chwacterized by an iacresing demand for ~ghqudity recreadontal opportu~Lies, such. as groomed 

Wng &&s, md a comstmt or dec~ashg supply of 

such opportu~lies, In Ufrjis case, a Izge gap 

bemeen unconstr;uined and constr~ned consumpfion 

would occur. Region C may be chmacte~zed by 

increasing demd for lower quafity recreation& 

oppoau~ties, such as p~mitive 

increaing supply of such opporn~ties. In ~s 

case, a small gap bemeen unconstr~ned md 

cot4strAed coirrsurnpl.ion wouid occur. The 

conslurapeion wend lhes shown for Re@on B in 

figw 5 depict a mecliurn gap ease. 

Qualiv &fferences may cause considerable 

difkrences in recl-eationd opporlu~ty gaps across 

redoas, These region& qqudq and gap dffererrces 

are obscused when data are aggregated to esthate 

nadonat consumption trends and gaps. nus, if the 

assessment of regiond qu&ty effecls is an 

imponant issue f;or the RPA Assessment, methods 

for incorporating qualiv eHects into regional 

demand, supply, and commpLion knceioras should 

be hproved. 

Qu~ty differences may also affect recrealLion 

dernmd md supply rela~ons~ps at the subreaontaf 

level. For exmpk, suppose Regon A is composed 

of four subregons (fig. 6). Subregions P and 2 are 

characte~zed by ~gh demand for &gh-qu&ty 

recreatond opportu~ties but low supply of such 

oippolzrrdties, Subregion 4 is cfimcte~zed by a 

low demmd for low-qu&ty recreaiond 

~ualit~ differences across regions do not raeccssarify imply that 

recreationis& consider recreational opportu~~ities across regions as 

~~b~tituk~. For example, for a hiker living in the Southastern 

Ur-rited States, hiking oppodunitier in the Cascade Mouneairtq of 

Wast~ington State may not be viewed as a substituk for hiking 

opportunities in the Appalachian Mounhins sf vvestern North 

Carolina. 
oppoau&ties md a relatively g& supply of such 

opporl-unj,tiesS The &em& md suppl y Planc~ons for 

Sub~gioar 3 depict a me&um or average situation, 

The subregional. demmat and supply refatiorrsKps 

shown in figuse 6 deteminae subregon$ 

corrsump~on wends over time md tihe projected 

gaps &tween a;rncons%r&ned and consks&ed 

coslsmp~on at 21e subregond level omr the, 

Because of dfferenas in dernmd aand supply 

relagonsEps mong suk>regions, gaps in neighbo~mzg 

subregions may be quite &&rent (fig. 7). These 

sutb~gional gap &fferenms rn obscured when 

corssamnp&on &end lhes are agg~gated md repaad 

at the regon& level. 

Inhmation on the effects of qu&ry changes on 

recreational oppoala~ty gaps in subrregiom wodd 

g md managing for expected 

skoaages of p&cu]lill. recreagoe opporlu~~es, 

Thus, it would. be desirable to devote more effort: to 

improvhg me&ods for malyziirag v&ty effec& at 

the subregion& level, Given RPA budget md time 

cortstr&ts, accompgsbent of this task would most 

l&ely require a cooperative effort khveen analysts 

at the subregiond or forest level, the regional level, 

md the naGond level. 

hotbr major q~Eb?lity issue at the nationd, 

re@ondzl, and subreeon$ levels is the effects of 

qudity ehmges over tke on recrea~on demmd md 

supply. For exmple, if public recreabond facifitks 

dete~orate because knbg for rep~r md 

m&ntenanm is tacEng, wh;at w3l be Ihe effect on 

recreation consumption or pmicipadon? 

Addresshg such qtaesfions requires that more effor;e 

be devoted to sneaserag and modelhg the effects 

06 qudiility ehmges on -creation demd atld supply 

over the, as well as gecsgrap~e space* 

Recreation? QuaMiity Measures 

Sailasures of recreation qumtit-ry hclude kps, 

activiv-days, RWs, md numbers of p~ieipants. 

The preferred utlit of measure depends upon the 

forest poiicy or mmagement problem or issue urrder 

considem~on. For some problems or issues, the 

number of tI-lps may be of greatest hte~st. For 

otkr problems or issues, a measurp: of totat 

partieipan~ or difkrent people may be preferred. 

For stlill other problems md issues, acti~ty-dtays, 

activie occasions, or RWs may be meded. 

Brre way to generate reclleaion demand and supply 

intfomation for &fferent quantity meaures is to 

conducr a separasle &rraand/supply malysis for each 

~~r of rrreaure. Because of budget zlnd the 

consdt-;~kas, however, independent andyses far each 

un,it of meaure are not aely to be practicd for the 

WPA Assessme&. A mom fe'easible course is to 

develop conve~sion Pdctors for defiving one uGt of 

measare &om mother, Such a system would allow 

for andyticd "cross-wafing" khveen djrffereat 

u~ts of measure. Ushg simple conversion factors 

to cross-w& between units of measusr: is a 

Ihitation because it may ignore hpoktant sbucturaf 

differences in Ihe sdemand hnctiom for tIj,ps vs. 

days, days vs. acdvity occtlsiotns, etc. 

Even wi& a stmdard conversion system, one u~l: of 

measure needs to be selected as tfie base. The udt 

that seems most consistent with the economic 

theory of demmd and slapply is trips or visits 

(Bskstael rand McComeEl 198 1; McCsmeEf 1975; 

Wwd and Loomis 39863. merefore, we suggest 

that bps serve ac; the base u~t of measwe for 

rtecl-eation qumtity for the RPA Assessment. 

If tdps the meaurc; of recreation qumkity, data 

coUeerjIon md andysis eff0rt.s for tk Assessme& 

should focus on &rect esdmation of recreation-trip 

demmd zand supply reladonskps. Gonceptudly , 

one recreafion dernmd and supply relationsGpls 

have been esthated for recreaQon trips, conversion 

factom can be applied to iLn&recdy esthatil-e 

recreaf on quantity for other dts :sf measure. For 

exmplte, h figme 8, the demmd and supply 

hncrions in ljhe kst column represent hnc~on?s 

esthated from pdw data on recre~gon-tdp 

demmd md supply, h example of ~s ~pe of 

p&mw data would be data collected iin on-site 

inten+ews with secreabon visitors on the number of 

ual tIri.ps t&en to the site for vkous activiges. 

Ushg appirop~ate cont~ersisn factors, activi~ day or 

RW recreation qulwtity measures can be de~ved 

from recreation-~p qumllit-y MteasuEsIn figure g9, the consumption Wnd fines in the 

second column represent uncomrshed and 

consh&ed consumptrion for trips estimated &om 

p~mq data, Once these funcGons have been 

esthated, approp~ate conversion fxtors can be 
apglied to indiredly derive consumption measures 

for acgvity-days or Ems, As glus~ated in fgum 

9, 2ppropfiate eonversion factom couM also be used 

to hdrisecdy derive corrsurnption meaures for the 

numkr of activi~ pmicipmts. 

Assessment of rec~atiton demand and su;ttply 

reladomtzirps for variious types of seeings or 

Imdsc~s may dso be of hrerest for resource 

po&cy aLnd management. As illustrated in fig= 10, 

it is theoseticdly possible to develop eonve~ion 

factors lcor 1Se~vhiolg rneasukss sf ~ps to a pmisulx 

setdng (such as t~ps towgdemess rnw for any 

activi~y.) &om measures of ;t6~vity ~ps (such as 

t~ps for backpacfing, horseblrck h&ng, hmkhg, 

md fis&g), Ad&~oil;jal conversion factors could 

then be used to de~ve setdng-day md setting-Lam 

measures &OM the number of trips to a type of 

set~mg, 

The consumption &enti Shes in the second column 

sf Egure 1 l represent consumption of achvity trips 

esthated &om phq data. 14gps~p~ate 

convenion factors can be used, as iausapated by 

Ggurg: 1 1, to derive consump~on projecfions for 

set~ng f~ps, seghg days, or setGng RWs. 

idagpropziate convefsion kctors can dso be used to 

pro?ject numbem of pmicilpm~ expected to recreate 

at v&ous seaings. 

EiFfects of DemograpMc and Sociwconamie 

Factors 

hother priority issue for the Assessment is 

expmbg md irnprovjlng mdyses of the effec~ of 

demogap~c ajad socioeconomic changes on the 

demmd for recreation. The Anctet.icm population is 

exphencing sever& megachanges - l age, popula~on - 

wide chmges that may be of pmicrafx internst, 

One megachmge is &e fflcreashg mean age of the 

he~cm population caused by &e aging of the 

baby-boom genera~on, hotkr megachange, 

wkz;;cta has ken in process for decades, is the 

decreasing prapoaion of heficans who reside in 

mrd seas or have some sort, of fur2 baclr_ground. 

A more recent, ongoing megachange is the 

incresing propohan of the helr'can poputadon 

whose culard roo@ are phrrrily non-hropazs. 

Megach'wges and loc&zed microchmges in 

Ameficm population ehmcte~sdes may 

siaficantly &feet preferences and demands for 

outdoor recreafion. merr: is a need for conmptuat 

mtxlels &at explain the expcted relatiomkgs 

bemeen cfraatges in popu2aGon cbmr;tctehsti~s and 

ehmges in the demmd for various apes of 

recreation expe~errces, mese conmptud models 

cm be used to &~ve empi~cxt eqra&ions for 

esthathg expected ckmges in =creation demmd 

or ectnsumpim, 

Net mcsnorrric Value and Redanal Economic 

lmpaet 

06 cowidclerable hterest and hgun: nee for ~sourm 

poEcy mcl mmtagement are the net economic value 

and the region& economic hpact of outdoor 

recreadon in the 1J~ted Stales, The net economic 

vdue of recreation refers to &be net bene5ts of 

recreation mea9ureb in terns of csmmer9s ssraq$las, 

Met economic value iconsumer% ssuqS:a;ss] is the 

i",ppaop~ab.e rneaqwe of economic knefiW for 

na~oraali economic deve2opmea;le or economic 

efficiency mabysis. Regional economic impact here 

refen taco the effeca of recreai~on expen&&res on. a 

regon$ economy. Measure of impact should 

include gross ou~ut. employment, md hcome. 

Redonal economic hpact is the qpropdate 

measure of ecotrornie benefi& for re@onat economic 

development or &s~budsnd malysis (Stoll and 

others 1987). 

In the past-, estimates of the net economic value of 

recreation have been generated bubg fornulalion 

, wlbich W;~S lagefy 

independent of he WA Assessment demd md 

supply mdysis. Regional economic impacts of 

recrea~on were generated ia case- by-cse dy ses 

that were sepxate Erorn bo& the RPA Assessment 

and Progrm efforlis. OveraSl esciency and cost 

effecf veness of data eo?lkc~on, mafysis md use 

might be hcre-eased by es~nna~ng neteconomic 

vatlue md regional economic impact of outdoor 

recreation d~ng the WA Assessment-the 

situation in the base year sf he Assessment.. It 

would be most fe'easibfie to gemrake &ese esttk~ates 

for the current sirnation. It might $so be possible, 

though more &f&cu%r, to generate projections of the 

htm net economic vaiiue md segiond economic 

impact of outdoor recrea~on mder dtema~ve htme 

seen~os. 
One of the primary purposes of the RPA 

Assessment is to estimate recreation demand, 

supply, aad consumption trends. Esthation of 

these &en& requlizes recrea~on demand hnctions. 

These recreation demand functions can be used to 

esthate net economic vdue of recreabon (see 

Bergstrorn md Cordell 1991). F'udemore, if 

naliiond. region$, and subregion& demmd 

hrmctions were esthated a$ part of the RPA 

Assessment, these demmd fisrsctions could be used 

to estimate net economic vdue of recreation at the 

ma~snd, regiond, anrd sub~gioarrd levels. Tks use 

of esdmated demmd hnc~om wornEd ccdntGbute to 

the development and apgEcadon of benefies trmsfer 

rechi~s.~ 

EsGmates of regional economic effec& ~quke WjO 

pAmw pieces of data: (1) recreation exlj>en&tures 

per visit, and (2) tot& visits. 11" regional arnd 

subregional demand and consumption functions 

were es~mated as part of the Assessment process, 

these hncfions would pro~de a mems for 

esthathg eotd aegiond or subregional visits. The 

Assessmeazl could dso be eqmded to collect md 

report rec~ation-visit expen<lre profiles for 

redons and subregions. 

From expen&tures per visit and total visits, tot& 

recreation expen&kures in a region or subregion cm 

be esehateb. The economic effects of these 

expn&tu~s on a region& economy cafl be 

esth~ated amring a regisnd input-oupuk araocbel such 

as the fires[ Sefice PIVPE"LA1"6 model, Data on 

re@ond ecormornic effects provide a mews for 

esthathg regional mufkip.nliers9 w&ch summ&ze 

the economic impact of recreation expeirh&hres on a 

regonal economy. Region& ad subregion& 

mdtipliers could be estimated mb ~pofied in he 

Assessment aloeurnen@, nese n~ultipliers, 

csmbhed with hfoma~on on total recsea~onaf 

e~n&tu~s, would provide imight inlr; the 

economic impacts of outdoor recreation, 

For a good introduction and di.rcussion nE cunent research on 

benefits transfer kchniques, see the: special qection on benefits 

rrats.sfefer in d~e Marclr 1992 issue of Water Resources Research. 

V. Implications 

Since the passage of the Renewable Resources 

ng Act @PA) in 1974, three RPA 

Assessnnents have been conducted. The most recent 

rvas completed in 1989, Duhg 1992-93, RPA 

Assessnlent useE were hterviewed md asked to 

desc~be how hey used the ~erea~on demand and 

supply mdyses regoded in the 1989 Assessment. 

Intewiervees rvere &so asked to c~tique the 

Assessme& md suggest needed improvemen& me$ 

exteasions. The resulks of this in6om;ltl sumey have 

a amber of hpgcabonrs for the RPA Assessment. 

One generail implication is that use sf the =creation 

Assessmer;rl results appeas to be f~rly widespread 

inside md outside the USDA Forest Servim. 

Results appear to be used most frequently in a 

broad, qu&tative rn 

imrvieWees h&cate.ed hat they use the Assessme& 

as a source sf besrchzk data on recreadon 

demmd and supply trends for a v&ey sf policy 

mmagemenl puvoses. This use is crsmisteral 

with the pfinnary objective sf the WA Assessment, 

wEch is to suppoa resource po%icym&ng mcf 

mmagemenl. 

Ineerviewees offered mmy suggestisa;ls $or 

incsezing the appEcabaity of the Assessment 

resu'Its. Skce v~esras factors constr~n he scope of 

the Assessment, there is is aneed to pio~dze the 

issues &at hture Assessment efforls might ad&ess. 

Based on hterviewee responses, it is suggested &at 

the recreation demmd and supply section of future 

Assessments focus on the foUokt"hg issues: (1) 

natirmd demmd and supply tP.ends, (2) ~giond 

demasad md supply trends, (3) effects of cjmdity 

chmges on demmd and supply trends, (4) 

der7elupmerzt of factors for comecthg mong unit5 

of mesme for recreation quantity, (5) effects of 

demogr;ag"Mc ,and sociseconomic eibmges on 

dem;md md supply trends, and (6) net economic 

vdue md regiond economic impact. 

Another issue of concern for future RPA 

Assessments is the new interest in ecosystem 

mtmagernent of public land. A move toward 

ecssystem mmagement does not require racficd 

changes in the economic ,umdyses Assessment. 

However, the economic data presented in the 

Assessment be applied to resource policy and 
management decisions in a much different mmer, 

For exmple, the implications of the RPA 

Assessment on fomdafion of the RPA Program 

may be quite &fferertt. 

Intemiewees expressed a desire for more 

infomation on subregion& or forest-level recreation 

demmd an$ sujpply, AjaLlrtzu& subre@snal 

recreation hfosrrra~oas is very importmt for 

poGcwabcing and mmagernent, generatkg such 

inkmation for all subregions in the Nafion is 

probably outside the scope sf the Assessment, h 

ralfiemaGve is for subregionaia mdysks to t&e the 

Lead in conducting subregiond rec~;rtion demand 

and suppiby mdyses with he tecwcal suppor2 md 

assistmce of the Assessment mdys&, 

A flow of data ,and mdysis that hcoqorates more 

assessment work at the subregionid mb ~giommd 

levels is illrzstmted in figure 12, which is a 

mdfication of figure I. The solid ho~zsned 

arrows at the bottom of figure 12 suggest hat it 

array be desirable for subre@on;ta ,md regional 

analysts to generate more of their own recreakion 

denrad md supply infomation directly (for 

exaap~ple, data cslnecdon lmd ,m,alysis needed to 

eseh;lce demmd frrncriorss for speciagzed acdvities 

wkeh occur in u&cpue settings with a Nationd 

Forest mmagement area). Such efforts should be 

cornisrent cmd coor&nated with tihe Assessment 

mdysis and results (as indicated by the ve~cal 

det~ed snows) as well as the pasdcalei WA Program 

pxoess shown on t;lre fight-h'md side of figure 12. 

la? conclusion, the RPA Assessment appeas to 

provide very usehhll infomation to mmy cfients 

who would knave &fficulfy obt 

infomation &om s&er somces. There are many 

issues &at future Assessments could, ,and perhaps 

strsuld, ad&ess in the &lure. There is a need to set 

a resemch agenda for the Assessn~ent which 

inco~omtes and GOO~MB&~S the effofis sf 

reseachers, =alysts, md decision-m,&&:rs involved 

in psgicy and management at ehe nationd, ~gional, 

,and sutPre@on;d levels, 

Literature Citecf 

Adams, R.L.; Lewis, R.C.; Drake, B.H. 1973, 

Outdoor recrea~on: a Iegacy for he~cza: 

Appendix 'AA'"m economic malysis. 

Was~ngon, DC: U.S. Depwntent of tlae 

hte~or, Bu~au ofOu"edoor Recrhtation. 211 pp. 

Bergstrorn, Joh C.; Cordell, H, Ken, 9991. h 

andysis of the demmd md value of outdoor 

recreation in the Udted States, Jomd of' 

Leisure Reseach. 23( 1 j: 67-86, 

Bockstbsrlf, N.E-; McComell, K,E. 198 1. Tta:ory 

and. esth~ation of the househoBc8 prducg011 

&action for -c;vgdEfe., Journd of Enrviromentd 

Ecsnonclics and Mmagement, 8: 199-2 14. 

CicchetG, C.J,; Seneca, J.9,; Davidssn, Pa 1969. 

The demmd md supply of outdoor =creation, 

New Bmnswiek, W: Bureau of Economic 

Reseackr, Wutgers University- 304 pp. 

Cordell, H. Ken; Bergskrom, $oh C, 1991. A 

methdology for a~sesshlag gnationd outdoor 

recreation demmd and supply t~nds. Leisure 

Sciences. 23: 1-28, 

Cordell, H. Ken; Bergstrom, Soh C.: Hangmcm, 

Lawrence A. [and others). 1990. h analysis of 

the outdoor recrea~on and wademess sirnation in 

the U~ted States: 1989-2048. A techcclf 

document SUE;"PBG~~ the 1989 USDA Forest 

Service RPA assessment. Gen, Tech. Rep, RM189. Fort ColEns, CO: Rocky Moomh&n Forest 

md Rmge Expe~me-nt Stadon. 112 pp. 

Cordell- Haold K.; Legg, Michael W.; h4ckBlm, 

Robert We 1979. The private outdoor recreation 

estate, h: The third na&onwide outdoor 

recreation plan, Appendix IV, P~vate sector 

outdoor recrea~on, Waskgton: DC: U,S, 

Dep17Pkmene of the hkerior, He~tage Consewa&on 

and Recreation Sewice: 43-83, 

Hof, J.G. 9979. Projection and vduatican of 

outdoor recrea~sn use 06 forest Ian&, Fort 

Coklia~~ CO: Colomdo State Uiliversity. 209 pp. 

Bissert-ation. 
Hof, John C,; Kaiser, Fil, Fred, 1983. Long-term 

outdoor recreation pdeipation projections for 

pubfic Land management agencies. Journal of 

Leisure Research, IS( 1): I- 14. 

Kdter, Rokrt J.; Gosse, Lois E. 1970. Rec~ation 

demmd fiSncti0~11~ md tk identificagon problem, 

Journal of hbure Researefi, 2(P): 43-53, 

McGomeli, K,E, 1975. Some problems in 

esth;arhg the demmd for outdoor secrealrjron, 

Irszae~cm Jourrnal of Aghc~alrud Economics, 

57: 338-334. 

Sktmcls. W,E,, ed. 1981, A ci~zea's g~de to the 

forest md rmgefmd =newable resources 

g act. FS-365. WsErzgton, DC: U.S, 

Depmmrnt of Aghculture, 1;69rest Semice, in 

~ooperation wi& The Consewation Foundation, 

200 gp* 

U.S, Departmernt of Ag~cuf . 1977. The nation's 

rernewable resources-an assessment, 1975. Forest 

Resources Reporl 21. Wtpsbgton, DC: US. 

C>ep;"rtment of Agficdtwe, Forest Service. 243 

PPU,S, Degastment of Aghcdtme. f 988.. h 

assessment of the forest and rangefmd s;it.uation 

in the Unirred States* Forerst Resources Reporl 

22, Waskngon, DC: U.S. Depmanent of 

GigAcul~re, Forest Sewice. 63 1 gp, 

U.S. Depmment of AgPlicdture. 1989. RPA 

assessment sf the forest and sarageErzrrd situation 

in the U~tetid Stares, 6989. Forest Resour~es 

Wepoa 26- Washgtora, DC: U.S.. Dep 

Ag~cul~ure, Forest Sewice. 72 pp. 

Wad, F.A.; Loomis, 5.B. 1986. The travel cost 

ciemmd mdel as m e~~k~mentd poky 

assessment took a review 06 literatarre, XTestern 

Jourmd of A~~GU%(UI& Ec~nomic~~ J B : 194- 1 78. 

StoU, J.R., Loomis, J.B.; Bergstrom, 9.6. 1987, A 

&mework for identifying economic beneh~ and 

benefiei&es of outdoor recreation, Policy 

Studies Review. 712): 443-452, 
Appendix I 

Intenriewees 

I. USDA F"srest Sewice-Washgton Office 

. A. Na~ond Forest System 

I, Rec~afisn, Culturd, and Wgdemess Management Staff 

1, Deputy Ckef"s Staff 

2. Resource Progrm and Assessment Staff 

I. Deputy @Eed"s Staff 

2, Forest Inventory, Economics, md Recreation Reseach Stdf 

B. State and Prrivate Forestsy 

II. USDA Forest Semite Field OEas 

A. Wadosrd Forest System 

I. ReBond tff6ce - Region i? 

x.. Lmd md Financial P1 

b. Wi;t,bemess, Recreadcra: and Gulturd Resourns St&f 

e. Wjifafe md Fiskehes Staff 

2, Re@onaE Office - Region 2 

a. Recrea~on, Wilderness, Culterr& Aff&ns, md Lmdscape Mmagement Stdf 

b. Plm~ng and Progrm Budget Staff 

3. Re@onaP Office - Region 6 

4. Id&o )-"dm& Nation& Forest 

b. Recrealion Staff 

5. Rout Natiiond E;orest 

6. Recreation Staff 
6. Mt, B-airer-Snoqualmie Nabonal Forest 

7, Mirsarchjle National Forest 

a. Forest Suprvisor9s Office 

ng, Evaluation, md Recrea~sn Staff 

B, Natjiorlrd Forest Resemh 

1. North Genbd hrrzst Exphent Station 

2, Southeastem Forest Expe&ment Station 

A. Cong~ssional Researeh Sewice 

B. U.S. En~romentd Protection Agency 

y Coqs of Engkeers 

D. U.S. Depmment of Commerce, Na~ond d)ce&c md Atmosphe~c AhSstrdtioa 

E, Ma~onaS Park: Servi;ce 

IF. USDA Ecoaomie Resernrcln Service 

G. USDA Soil Conservation Service 

IV. Private Individuals and Org~za~ons 

A. Nabonal WiIdife Federation 

B. W2dlife SocieQ 

63". Ame~cm Fo~stry Association 

D. Waderaregs Society 

E, tnlgfiarn Shmds (p~vatd: constr1t;anl) 

F. Resources for the Future 

C, Doug Tims (p~vate secrea~orrr tour guide and ourfitter) 
National-Level 

Assessment 

National-Level 

Data 

Regional-Level 

Forest-Level 

Data 

Assessment 

Results 

National-Level 

Program 

National-Level 

Regional 

Planning 

Guides 

Forest-Level 

Figure 1-Flow of data and analysis results as envisioned by the RPA le@lation. 







is* 


National -Level 

RPA 

Assessment 

National-Level 

Dala 

Forest-Level 

Assessment 

I 

Results 

National-Level 

Regional 

Planning 

Guides 

Forest-Level 

Figure 12-M-ed flow of assessment data and analysis results. 

@ @REST SERL'cf 

w 116s The Agriculture, Forest Service, is dedicated U.S. Department to the principle of of 

multiple use management of the Nation's 

forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, 

wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, 

cooperation with the States and private forest owners, 

and management of the National Forests and National 

Grasslands, it strives-as directed by Congress-to provide 

increasingly greater service to a growing Nation. 

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Forest Service is a diverse organization committed to equal 

opportunity in employment and program delivery. USDA 

prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national 

origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political affiliation 

and familial status. Persons believing they have been 

discriminated against should contact the Secretary, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, or call 

202-720-7327 (voice), or 202-720- 1127 (TDD).