USDA Forest Service

General Technical Report RM-231

August 1993

Effects of Subdivision and Access Restrictions on Private Land

Recreation Opportunities

H. Ken Cordell, Supervisory Research Forester

Donald B. K. English, Research Social Scientist

Sharon A. Randall, Outdoor Recreation Planner

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station1

‘The authors are with the Station’s Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Assessment Research

Group, in Athens, GA. Station headquarters is in Asheville, NC.
Contents

Page

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1

LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................................................................ 1

METHODS ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3

SECONDARY DATA TO DESCRIBE PRIVATE LAND TRENDS .............................................................................. 3

PRIMARY DATA -THE 1992 LANDOWNER SURVEY ............................................................................................ .4

Sampling Private Land Tracts ......................................................................................................................................... 4

The Survey Instrument .................................................................................................................................................... 4

SPECIFICATION O F A THEORY-BASED CONSUMPTION MODEL ...................................................................... .5

Total Use (Consumption) Model.. .................................................................................................................................. 6

Accessibility Model ......................................................................................................................................................... 7

RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

SECONDARY DATA ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................................... 8

Trends ................................................................................................................................................................................ 8

Homogeneity between Sampled and Unsampled Counties ...................................................................................... 9

DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS FROM THE LANDOWNER SURVEY ................................................................................ 9

Land Uses and Reasons for Ownership ........................................................................................................................ 9

Tract Accessibility .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 0

Tract Size Changes ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 0

Comparisons between the 1985 and 1992 Survey Results ........................................................................................ 11

Land Use Comparisons ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1

Trends in Reasons for Ownership .......................................................................................................................... 1 2

RECREATION CONSUMPTION MODELS .................................................................................................................. 1 3

Noncorporate Landowners ............................................................................................................................................ 1 3

The Total Use Model ................................................................................................................................................. 1 3

Recreation Accessibility Model ............................................................................................................................... 1 3

Corporate Landowners .................................................................................................................................................. 1 3

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................................... 1 3

OVERALL RURAL LAND TRENDS ............................................................................................................................... 1 3

Homogeneity Between Sampled and Non-Sampled Counties ................................................................................ 1 5

Significant Regional Findings ...................................................................................................................................... 1 5

ACCESS O N CORPORATE LANDS ............................................................................................................................... 1 6

Estimated Models of Use and Accessibility .............................................................................................................. .16

IMPLICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 7

FUTURE RESEARCH .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 8

LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 9
Effects of Subdivision and Access Restrictions on Private Land

Recreation Opportunities

H. Ken Cordell, Donald B. K. English, and Sharon A. Randall

INTRODUCTION

The total private, nonindustrial land base in the

United States is approximately 1.3 billion acres, about

two-thirds of the Nation’s total land mass (Resources for

the Future 1983; Hamilton 1989). More than 75% of these

lands are east of the Mississippi River, compared to less

than 5% of federal recreation lands and 80% of the

Nation’s population (Resources for the Future 1983;

Harper, et al. 1990). Cordell and Hendee (1982) estimated that three-fourths of the U.S. population over the age

of 11 yearsiegularly participate in recreational activities

on mostly undeveloped rural lands, and in natural

environments. The demand for most outdoor recreational activities is predicted to continue to rise, especially among activities engaged in close to home (Cordell,

et al. 1990) However, the publicly owned, undeveloped

land base, which provides the primary resource for

many of these activities probably will remain mostly

stable. These trends, combined with the relative geographic distribution of public lands, private lands, and

population, indicate that private lands may be increasingly important in meeting future recreation demand.

The apparent trend toward more restricted recreational access for the public to both nonindustrial and

industrial private lands diminishes this potential

(Cordell, et al. 1985). Some research that looked at trends

in access restrictions has been interpreted to mean that

the increasing frequency of such restrictions will result

in fewer people having rights to use private lands, and

less actual use (Cordell1976; 1992). Virtually none of this

research, however, has examined the effects that increased access restrictions actually has had on the level

of opportunities for and use of private lands for recreation. The primary objective of this study is to examine

the contemporary incidence of, reasons for, and effects

on quantity of recreation accessibility and use that

results from posting, leasing, and other forms of access

restriction. A second objective is to determine if there are

1

relationships between private land access and persistent, long-term private land trends, such as tract subdivision, consolidation, and land use changes.

This study proceeded in three principal phases. First,

using data from the National Resources Inventory (NRI)

and the Census of Agriculture (CENAG), apparent

trends in private rural land subdivision (and consolidation) and land uses were examined and described.

Second, this study used primary data from a landowner

survey, in three eastern states, to update our knowledge

of uses, reasons for ownership, access restrictions, and

tract subdivision on private lands. Third, this landowner survey provided data to explore the relationship of

recreational access to and use of private lands with

factors hypothesized to determine access, including

tract size (a measure of subdivision effects), type and

degree of access restrictions, recreational suitability,

owner characteristics, and selected recreation demand

determinants.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Research indicates that a variety of factors seem to

influence not only the availability of private land for

recreation, but also the amount of recreational use that

occurs on those lands. Leasing, posting, land use practices, and proximity to population centers are among the

variables that have been used to predict the availability

of private lands for public use. Other factors, including

land use conversion, subdivision, and development

have been linked to changes in the level of either availability or use. Considerable concern has been expressed

in recent years that the supply of land on which to

pursue outdoor recreation activities is decreasing at

rapid rates (Brown, et al. 1984; Gyunn and Schmidt,

1984; Wright and Kaiser 1986; Cordell, et. al. 1990). Land

is being permanently converted from an open space

land base to housing and other highly developed uses.
It has been estimated that 1.5 million acres of agricultural land are converted to non-agricultural uses annually

(Kaiser and Wright 1985; Doig 1990). Consequently, the

recreational land base seems to be shrinking at a time

when there are more Americans seeking outdoor opportunities (Kaiser and Wright 1985). Wetlands, often

critical as wildlife habitat, were drained or converted to

other uses at a rate of approximately 400,000 acres per

year (Resources for the Future 1983). Additional amounts

of remaining open land are being closed or posted by

private landowners, thereby seeming to deny access to

the public (Brown 1974; Brown, et al. 1984; Gyunn and

Schmidt 1984; Resources for the Future 1983; Wright

and Kaiser 1986). The current trend toward hobby

farming and exclusive use has magnified this issue

(Gramman, et al. 1985; Sampson 1986).

The impact of these trends on the number of people

allowed to use private lands and on the amount of

recreational use that occurs is unclear. Some research

indicates that, in the future, there will be less access to

private lands for a growing public (Hamilton 1989).

Kaiser and Wright (1985) suggested that the effect of

land closure on opportunities, although different in

process than land conversion, is the same.

Literature shows that many different variables may

be closely related to closure and posting of private lands.

User misconduct and subsequent property damage are

among the most frequently cited reasons for property

closures and posting. However, other causes have also

been cited as having significant effects (Jahn, et al. 1991;

Brown, et al. 1984; Gyunn and Schmidt 1984; Birch and

Dennis 1980; Cordell and Stevens 1984; Wright and

Kaiser 1986). Motivations for owning rural land, fears of

property damage, liability and loss of privacy are the

most prominent reasons given for restricting public

access (Kaiser 1985; Dennis 1990; Colyer, et al. 1989).

Also, landowner characteristics, such as age, sex, and

occupation, as well as the owner’s use of the land for

recreation, have been correlated with both use and

availability of private lands for public recreation (Cordell

et al. 1985; Gramman, et al. 1985; Birch 1982; Brownet al.

1984; Lee and Kreutzwiser 1982).

Gramman, et al. (1985) analyzed the public use policies of nonindustrial forestland owners in Wisconsin,

and found that the probability of posting to control

public access was positively associated with the degree

to which owners themselves used their property for

personal pursuits, the prevalence of having had negative experiences in the past with outside recreational

users, owning a tract encompassing more than 50 acres

of woodlands, being white-collar workers, and describing their land as something other than a farm (Gramman

et al. 1985). Similarly, a 1977 study of Colorado landowners identified problems with vandalism and inappropriate behavior of hunters as the reasons most often

precipitating their decisions to restrict access (Gyunn

and Schmidt, 1984). In a recent survey of east Texas

landowners, Wright and Fesenmaier (1988) found that

attitudes toward hunting as a sport, incentives, and level

of control over the actions of hunters were overwhelmingly the factors best predicting landowners’ access

policies. Generally, rural landowners who work in whitecollar, urban-based occupations, who are female, older,

or who use their land for their own recreational pursuits,

have reported stricter public access policies (Wright and

Fesenmaier, 1988; Wright, et al., 1988; Gramman et al.,

1985; Birch, 1982; Brownet al. 1984; Lee and Kreutzwiser

1982).

A 1972 posting study of private landowners in New

York State showed that almost four-fifths of those landowners who posted their property allowed some hunting (Brown 1974). Nearly three-quarters of those who

allowed hunting permitted only friends and*neighbors

to hunt, while the remaining one-quarter granted access

to anyone who asked permission. Using the same data,

Brown, et al. (1984) attempted to identify which subgroups of landowners had higher propensities for posting. Results indicated that landowners who hunted

posted more often (59%) than those who did not hunt

(41(&).Othersubgroupswhosememberspostedathigher

rates included non-hunting landowners who did not

photograph wildlife, who were in-state absentee ownr-s, and who spent more than 60 days a year on their

property. Another group who relied heavily on posting

consisted of hunting landowners who were participated in at least one forest-related activity and who owned

more than 20 ha (about 50 acres). While all these variables were found to be significant at a level p of I 0.01,

other socioeconomic variables, such as age, sex, education, occupation, and longevity of property ownership,

were not significantly associated with posting.

A similar subgroup identification procedure was

used by Brown, et al. (1984), based on whether or not

landowners permitted hunting on their property upon

request. Study results showed that more than 80% of the

landowners who were hunters also allowed others to

hunt. Also, more than one-half (56%) of the nonhunting

landowners allowed access. Several variables describing landowners, including sex, education, participation

in wildlife-related recreation, and interest in the land

2
management role of hunting all were found to have a

higher statistical probability (at the p I 0.01 level) of

allowing others to hunt on their land.

In another study, Dennis (1990) identified characteristics that influenced the posting of private forest land in

Vermont. A negative relationship found between size of

tract and posting indicated that larger parcels were less

likely to be posted. Also, shorter distances between the

landowner’s residence and the rural tract of land, the

owner’s age, and the owner’s education level, all were

positively and significantly correla ted with an increased

probability of posting. Significance also was shown

between posting and an owner’s employment in a

white-collar, professional occupation. Variables shown

to have no relationship to the probability that land

would be posted included land characteristics, tenure of

ownership, retirement status and place of childhood

residence.

Stricter access policies do not necessarily imply less

total recreational opportunities on private lands. Some

research has suggested that seemingly restrictive land

access policies, such as posting and leasing, under some

circumstances, may have no effect on the overall supply

of rural outdoor recreation opportunities. Past tendencies of researchers to interpret the posting of private

lands as being synonymous with closure to recreational

use may not be an entirely accurate (Brown, et al. 1984).

There is increasing evidence to suggest that many private landowners post, at least in part, only to selectively

control, rather than to totally prohibit access (Carpenter,

et al 1986, Doig 1990; Brown, et al, 1984; Wright, et al.

1988; Wright 1990). What does seem to affect the supply

of rural recreationopportunities, however, are the intentions of the posting landowners and how these practices

are perceived by potential recreationists (Wright 1990).

Also, some evidence exists to suggest that, although

land may be leased to parties outside the owner’s household, hunting privileges often are retained by the landowner, the landowner’s family, and their guests. This

suggests that leasing does not necessarily decrease the

supply of recreational opportunities, or the number of

people who use such land for recreation.

To date, very little definitive research has been done

to examine the availability of private lands for outdoor

recreation and to identify the factors and conditions

which determine the actual amount and kind of access

and use. The purpose of this research is to more closely

examine the issue of private land availability and use, by

looking at the factors which have been hypothesized to

have an effect on avaiiability.

3

METHODS

A combination of secondary and primary data were

assembled and analyzed to examine relationships between subdivision, land and ownership characteristics,

access policies, and recreation opportunity and use of

private lands.

SECONDARY DATA TO DESCRIBE PRIVATE LAND

TRENDS

Two principal national data bases were selected to

examine subdivision or consolidation and land use

trends and to test for homogeneity between sampled

and unsampled counties. These data bases included the

1987 National Resources Inventory (NRI), compiled by

the USDA Soil Conservation Service, and the 1987

Census of Agriculture (CENAG), developed by the

Bureau of the Census. These data were selected for their

comparability across states and regions, and across

years. Both sources include data collected between 1982

and 1987, enabling a trend comparison over a 5-year

period.

The NRI contains estimates of acreage of non-federal

land by type of ownership, use and cover. Cover types

include forest, crop, and pasture land. Estimates of acres

of urban and other built-up land are especially important, because they highlight trends toward development of the private land base. Only farms that produced

and sold at least $1,000 in agricultural products in the

previous year were included in the CENAG. Therefore,

the data in the NRI and CENAG are not totally compatible. CENAG contains county-level data which permitted tracking of trends in average farm size, and proportions of farms by size class and primary use (crop,

pasture, forest, etc.) as indications of subdivision trends.

Data from these two sources also were used to test

whether trends in the private land base, in the counties

and states from which tract samples were drawn, were

different from land base trends in unsampled counties

in the same state and region. Percentage changes in acres

of urban and built-up land; of privately-owned forest,

crop, and pasture land; and in the number and acreage

in farms, from 1982 to 1987, were the primary test

variables. Separate t-tests were performed to compare

mean percentage change between sampled and

unsampled rural counties, within each of the three

states, and within each of the three regions. These

comparisons were developed to determine the degree to
which trends in the private lands and ownership circumstances in the sampled counties were homogeneous with the trends in lands and situations in nonsampled counties. These tests indicated the degree to

which results based on the sampled counties could be

extrapolated to state and regional levels.

PRIMARY DATA -THE 1992 LANDOWNER SURVEY

Sampling Private Land Tracts

The 1992 RPA Private Lands Special Issue Study was

designed to survey samples of owners of both industrial

and non-industrial private rural lands in three regions of

the country - the North, the South, and the Midwest

(fig. 1). One state was selected for study within each

region, and included New York, Georgia, and Indiana.

Using the USDA Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and

Analysis (FIA) physiographic regions within each of the

sampled states, counties were stratified regionally to

ensure representation across state-level geographical

regions. This resulted in five physiographic regions per

state. Because the focus of this study was rural private

lands, counties with high population densities (2 200

people per square mile) were not sampled. After eliminating these high population counties, three counties

from each FIA region were randomly drawn (fig. 2).

District Conservation agents with the USDA Soil

Conservation Service visited the tax office in each of the

sample counties to select a sample of private tracts, and

to tally the total number of tracts within each stratum.

From each county, an interval sample with a random

Midwest

Figure 1 .-States included in each of three analyses regions.

I1 Rural not sampled

II 2 Rural sampled

II 3 Urbari not sampled

Figure P.-Classification of counties within sampled states.

start, each including a sample of 40 eligible tracts, was

chosen from master tax rolls to obtain names and addresses of the owners. Four size strata were defined,

ranging from 10 to 24 acres, 25 to 99 acres, 100 to 499

acres, and 500 acres or more. For each tract, the following

information was obtained: (1) owner’s name and address; (2) tract, map, and parcel number; (3)legal description and any other identifying information about

the tract; (4) number of acres in the tract; (5) assessed

(taxable) value; (6) county millage rate; and (7) telephone number of the owner. A total sample of 1,371

tracts resulted.

The Survey Instrument

The survey was administered as a telephone interview lasting approximately 20 minutes. Of the 1,371

owners in the original sample, 220 had incorrect or no

phone numbers, 16 had recently sold their property, and

12 had recently died. Another 242 owners could not be

reached for reasons such as no answer, busy signal, and

unsuccessful call back upon appointment. This resulted

in 881 actual contacts. Of these, there were 506 completed interviews and 375 refusals. Standard telephone

survey protocols were used to maximize interview
compliance. These included repeated trials on

nonanswering owners, establishment of a call back

appointment for contacts not completed during the

initial contact, and a description of purpose, length, and

use of the survey.

The telephone survey was designed to elicit information describing the tract, recreational access policies, the

history of tract subdivision, and other information about

the owner household. The sample, by design, also included a number of industrial owners. Completion of

the survey was helped by dividing the interview into

sections. Each section concentrated on a different aspect

of private land management and use. Screening questions were established at strategic points within the

survey to route respondents through or around questions and sections, depending on applicability to each

tract in the sample. Interviews were conducted using

data entry screens developed using a widely used data

base management software for microcomputers. Instructions, prompts, and bypasses were built into the

program to guide the interview and to avoid asking

inapplicable questions.

The first two sections obtained descriptions of the

tract, including type of vegetation cover, number of

acres owned, current uses, length and type of ownership, residence on or distance from primary residence to

the tract, and importance of various reasons for owning

the land. The extent to which private lands were being

used for recreation was the focus of Sections III through

VI of the questionnaire. Section III examined specific

land access policies, problems associated with recreational land access, activities permitted, and reasons for

allowing access. Based on the answers to specific land

access questions, the next three sections of the survey

addressed the amounts of recreational use occurring on

the tract. Section IV dealt specifically with land reserved

exclusively for the personal recreational use of the owner, members of her/his household, and any others

known personally, such as relatives, friends, neighbors,

employees, and business associates. Section V examined leased land. In addition to questions on amount of

use, this section looked at the characteristics and terms

of any existing recreation lease, reasons for leasing

activities permitted through the lease, and whether or

not the leased land was posted. The final section in this

category, Section VI, dealt specifically with open lands,

including land available to anyone, whether the landowner knew them or not, and closed land, lands on

which no one may recreate.

Past and expected future land access and posting

practices were examined in Section VII. Specific questions related to the amount of land that was open for

recreation 5 years ago and that is expected to be open in

5 years, as well as the factors that may have influenced

those decisions. Also, questions were asked addressing

the amount of and reasons for posting. Land subdivision and parcel consolidation were the principal topics

of Section VIII. Questions related to the acquisition of

additional acres since 1985, the sale or transfer of title to

any land that was originally a part of the specified tract,

reasons for subdivision, and future plans for the property all were addressed in this section. The final section of

the survey contained demographic questions, including landowner’s age, sex, race, size of household, marital status, income, profession, and education.

SPECIFICATION OF A THEORY-BASED

CONSUMPTION MODEL

The primary goal of this research was to examine the

relationships between recreational use (consumption)

of rural, private lands and both subdivision and access

restrictions. Specifically, the goal was to test the hypothesis that greater access restriction (posting, leasing, and

closure) results in reduced availability of private land

opportunities for recreating households and, subsequently, in reduced total recreational use. Tract availability was operationally defined for this study as the

number of different people who actually have access to

and use a tract during a year. Recreational use was

measured as the product of the average number of

people per month who use a tract and the average

number of days per month the tract was used. This

measure provided an index to the volume of use on each

studied tract.

To test the hypotheses that access policies influenced

access and use, a consumption model was specified

based on the household production model conceptualized by Bockstael and McConnell (1981), and estimated

in a national application for the 1989 RPA Assessment of

outdoor recreation by Cordell and Bergstrom (1991).

Recreation consumption models are the reduced form

of the demand and supply equations for recreation trips

in a household production theoretical context.

Models specified for this study generally are analogous to the community-level recreation consumption

models developed for the 1989 RPA Assessment (Cordell

and Bergstrom 1991, Cordell et al., 1990). The principal

5
difference is that of perspective. For the 1989 models, the

modeling perspective was of trips generated from and

consumed by a community, at public recreation sites.

The perspective of this study is generation of trips from

households, in general, to a specific tract of rural, privately-owned land.

Household demand for recreation trips is easily derived from neoclassical demand theory (Bockstael and

McConnell 1981). The demand for recreational trips to

any tract of private land is determined, in part, by trip

costs facing households (i.e., by distance and time costs

to the tract plus any access fees). Demand for trips also

is determined by the quality or suitability of the private

tract for the recreation, by the price of substitute opportunities (public or private), and by household characteristics (typically including income, age, preferences)

(Cordell et al., 1990, McCollum et al., 1991).

Private land recreational trip supply is a two-stage

process (Cordell and bergstrom 1991). In the first stage,

landowners combine the set of costs they face with their

respective objective functions, the physical attributes of

the their land, skill in land management, and their access

policies, to provide a set of recreational trip opportunities (availability). In the second stage, households combine their time, capital, recreation equipment, knowledge, skills and abilities with the available private land

opportunities and their associated prices and qualities,

to produce recreation trips to those private lands.

Private land opportunities are provided by both individual and corporate ownerships. Although both sets of

owners may face the same costs, their access policies and

the opportunities they provide may be quite different,

because their objectives are typically quite different.

Individual owners strive to maximize their personal

utility functions, while corporate owners seek to maximize corporate profits. Such differences in objective

functions between individual and corporate owners

may result in quite different access policy decisions

regarding otherwise identical tracts of rural lands. For

this reason, data for recreational use of corporately

owned rural lands were not pooled with data for tracts

owned by private individuals.

Total Use (Consumption) Model

Following Cordell and Bergstrom (1991), the demand

function for recreation trips by household ‘5” to participate in recreation on private land tract “j” is specified

generally as:

Ti; = f(P, S, SO, H) (1)

where 7dij = demand for trips by household i to tract j

Pj = average price per trip for households to

recreate at tract j

Sj = recreational suitability of tract j

A. = accessibility of tract j

d = substitute recreational opportunities

available to households

H = household characteristics.

Similarly, the generalized household trip supply

model is:

Tl: = f(P, S, RO, H) (2)

where 15i. = recreation trips supplied by household i

to tract j; Rd = recreational opportunities available to

households; and I’, S, A, and H are as defined previous1Y.

The general reduced forrn of the total use or consumption model for recreational trips by households to

private tract j (~j) is:

Tij = g(H, SO, RO, S) (3)

Our interest was in total recreation consumption on

a tract. That is, summing over households results in a

model that uses aggregate measures of household characteristics. Population and per capita income for the

county in which the tract is located were selected following CordelI and Bergstrom (1991). Suitability of the tract

for recreation was measured by the size of the tract, the

percentage of the tract in forest, and the percentage in

water. A specific hypothesis examined in this model

was the relationship of tract size to total tract use as an

indication of tract subdivision effects. Land cover in

water and forest were selected as suitability measures,

because they represent the land characteristics most

indicative of suitability for two of the primary activities

that occur on private lands - hunting and fishing.

Tract accessibility for recreation (A) was measured by

proportions of the tract in each of four mutually exclusive access categories. These included: (1) lands open to

the general public for recreation; (2) lands reserved for

the exclusive recreational use of the landowner’s household, friends, and family; (3) land leased to groups for

recreational use; and (4) land closed to recreation by

anyone. The landowner survey asked respondents to

list the number of acres in the sampled tract in each of

6
these accessibility categories. Percentage of the tract

open, leased, or closed were the three access variables

included in the model.

Because any or all of the lands in each of the access

categories could be posted, percentage of acres posted

also was included as a regressor. Also, a dummy variable indicating whether or not the landowner lived on

the tract was included. This variable was included to

represent both the accessibility of the tract for the landowners own recreational use and accessibility to other

users by immediate permission from the landowner.

Because the model was specified to estimate total recreation use, not just outside public use, the size of the

landowner’s household also was included to represent

the most immediate set of potential recreation users of

the tract.

The final regressor selected for inclusion in the model

was a measure of the availability of substitute recreation

opportunities. The substitute variable used was an index of the amount of effective recreation opportunities

within a distance recreationists are willing to drive for

recreation. The concept of effectiveness accounts both

for quantity and location of the relevant set of recreation

resources that can be used as substitutes for private land

opportunities and for the number and location of populations that potentially may compete for the use of

these resources. More detailed explanations and theoretical background of the effectiveness concept can be

found in English and CordellU993).

An index of the amount of recreational use on each

tract was calculated as the product of the landowner’s

report of the average number of people per month using

the sampled tract and the reported average number of

days of use per month. Initial examination of the responses on total recreation use of the tracts showed that

nearly one-fourth of the observations had a zero value

for this use measure. As a result, we selected a Tobit

regression to estimate model parameters. Tobit models

use both cases at the limit value (zero, in this case> and

cases above the limit in calculating coefficients. Consequently, coefficients resulting from Tobit analyses account for both the probability of being above the limit

(>zero) as well as predicted changes in dependent

variable values above the limit and associated with

changes in independent variable values (McDonald

and Moffitt 1980).

The final specified model contained 13 regressors,

including a constant term (table 1). Four separate models were estimated, one for tracts with corporate landowners, and one each for tracts in private ownership in

Table 1 .-Regressors used in the tract use and accessibility

explanatory models.

Regressor

H H

EROS3

PERCAPY

LIVELAND

PCTOPEN

PCTPOST

PCTLEAS

PCTCLOS

NUMACRES

PCTFORST

PCTWATER

Size of landowner’s household

Index of the relative availability of comparable

recreation lands for households in the same

countV as tract j. SOURCE: National Outdoor

Recreation Supply Information System (NORSIS),

USDA Forest Service.

Population in the countv of tract j. SOURCE: U.S.

Census Bureau, CitY County Data Book (CCDB).

Per capita income in countY of tract j. SOURCE:

CCDB.

Dummy variable describing whether or not the

landowner lives on the tract.

Percentage of the tract open to the general

public for recreation.

Percentage of the tract posted.

Percentage of the tract leased for recreation.

Percentage of the tract closed to all recreation.

Number of acres in the tract.

Percentage of the tract in forest cover.

Percentage of the tract in lakes, streams, or rivers.

each of the three states representing regions. Regional

models were estimated for the tracts with private individual landowners, to account for any regional differences that may affect either landowner access decisions

or recreation use. Data from only33 corporate landowners were available; therefore, the model was restricted to

fewer regressors: tract size, percent of the tract posted,

and percent open.

Accessibility Model

The dependent variable for this model was directly

available from the landowner survey. The survey asked

landowners to report the number of different people

who use part or all of their tract for recreation. More than

one-fifth of the cases reported a zero value, again indicating that a Tobit specification was appropriate for

estimation of the model. An equal percentage indicated

that only one person was allowed to use the tract. Again,

four models were estimated, one for corporate landowners and one each for private landowners in each of

the three regions. The set of regressors used for these

models were identical to those used in the total recreation consumption models.

7
RESULTS

SECONDARY DATA ANALYSIS

Trends

Results from the 1987 CENAG show that both the

total acreage in farms and number of farms in rural

counties declined over the 198Os, in all three regions

(table 2). The Southern region showed the greatest losses of acres (10.4 MM> and numbers (62,500) of farms

from 1982 to 1987. Although the absolute loss in farm

acres and farm numbers was smallest in the North, at 1.5

million and 9,000, respectively, the percentage loss in

both acres and farms, down 6.8% and 8.4%, respectively,

was greatest in the North. Both the North and South

regions lost cropland, on farms in rural counties, between 1982 and 1987; yet, cropland increased in the

Midwest region, during the same period, by about 3.8

million acres. All three regions saw declines in acres of

woodlands on farms in rural counties. Declines measured as a percentage of the 1982 total (13.0%) and

reduction of acres from 1982 to 1987 (4.9MM) were

greatest in the South.

Average farm size in rural counties increased from

1982 to 1987 in all three regions (table 3). For all regions,

the number of acres in farms between 1,000 and 2,000

acres rose during this period, despite an overall loss in

farm acreage when summed over all size categories.

Acreage in farms larger than2,OOO acres increased slightly

in both the North and Midwest regions. In combination,

these results indicate that more farm acreage, at least in

Table 2.-Change in acreage, number and percentage of acreage

of farms, cropiand and woodland on farms by region, 1982- 1987.

Type of Acreage Region

Midwest North South

Farm acres (MM acres) -3.0 -1.5 -10.4

Percentage change -0.9 -6.8 -3.9

Number of farms (1000s) -61.0 -9.0 -62.5

Percentage change -7.3 -8.4 -8.1

Cropland (MM acres) 3.8 -0.4 -5.9

Percentage change 1.7 -3.6 -5.2

Woodland (MM acres) -1.6 -0.8 -4.9

Percentage change -8.2 -12.5 -13.0

Source: 1987 Census of Agriculture, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

Table 3.-Average farm size and acres in farms in rural counties by

farm size category and region, 1982 and 1987.

Region

Midwest North South

1982 1987 1982 1987 1982 1987

Aver. farm size 403 431 204 207 349 365

Acres (MM) in farms

in size class:

1 - 9 acres 0.31 0.14 0.08 0.02 0.46 0.19

10 - 49 acres 2.97 2.66 0.48 0.45 4.92 4.44

m- 69 acres 2.03 1.82 0.48 0.44 3.86 3.43

70 - 99 acres 5.74 5.15 0.91 0.82 6.62 5.94

100 - 139 acres 7.85 7.05 1.58 1.43 9.23 8.36

140 - 179 acres 12.12 10.87 1.56 1.41 9.19 8.42

180 - 219 acres 9.74 8.71 1.61 1.41 7.78 7.30

220 - 259 acres 11.32 9.92 1.53 1.34 6.90 6.47

260 - 499 acres 59.52 53.01 6.28 5.67 31.31 29.22

500 - 999 acres 74.40 74.37 4.69 4.50 39.79 38.23

1000 - 1999 acres 64.47 69.68 1.92 2.05 39.42 40.01

> = 2000 acres 85.87 89.01 0.63 0.65 110.52 104.99

Source: 1987 Cerlsus of Agriculture, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

rural counties, is becoming concentrated in larger holdings. All other farm size categories showed declining

total acreage. In percentage terms, losses were greatest

in the smallest size group (l-9 acres>, where declines as

large as 55% occurred across all three regions. Acres of

farms of 260 to 499 acres declined more than 6% in the

South, and almost 11% in the Midwest. Losses of acreage

in the smaller tract size categories resulted from both

conversions to other land uses and consolidation of

smaller tracts into larger ones.

For the sampled counties, the number and proportion

of farms in the two largest size categories either increased or stayed the same (table 4). For the Midwest

and North regions, there also was an increase in the

number of farms of the smallest size (less than 10 acres>.

For all regions, the greatest decline in the number of

farms was in the 260- to 499-acre category.

Data from the 1987 NRI concurred with trends found

in the CENAG (table 5). Privately owned cropland in

rural counties increased in the Midwest by more than3.5

million acres, almost a 2% growth. Both forest and

pasture lands, however, declined in this region. Rural

counties in the other two regions experienced declines

in cropland and increases in forested land. In all three

regions, acres of urban or built-up land increased. The

increase was greatest in the South, more than 6%, and

lowest in the Midwest, about 1.5%.

8
Homogeneity between Sampled and Unsampled

Counties

Based on data from the NRI, percentage trends from

1982 to 1987 in acres of cropland, forests, pasture, and

urban or built-up land were computed for comparison

between sampled and unsampled counties, at both state

and regional levels (table 6). None of these comparisons

were statistically significant, indicating that trends in

land uses and cover types across the counties sampled

for this study seemed to be reflective of the broader state

and regional trends in private land use and access. From

this, we concluded that findings from this study associated with use and access trends are likely to be indicative

of statewide and regionwide trends.

DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS FROM THE LANDOWNER

SURVEY

Land Uses and Reasons for Ownership

Corporately owned tracts, on average, have the greatest proportion of acreage in forests (57.4%) and water

(3.9%), and the least in both cropland (21.2%) and

pasture (5.2%) (table 7). Also, more than 45% of corporate tracts are used to grow commercial timber; and

more than one-fourth of the corporate respondents

Table4.-Number of farms (in thousands) in farms in rural counties by

farm size category and region, 1982 and 1987.

Region

Midwest North South

1982 1987 1982 1987 1982 1987

Thousands of farms

in size class:

1 - 9 acres 44.0 44.9 5.7 5.8 55.0 50.3

10 - 4 9 acres 105.6 95.0 17.1 16.0 176.2 158.9

50. 69 acres 34.8 31.1 8.3 7.5 66.4 59.0

7 0 99 acres 70.2 62.9 10.9 0.8 80.1 71.8

100 139 acres 67.1 60.2 13.5 12.3 79.6 72.1

140 - 179 acres 76.7 68.8 9.9 0.0 58.4 53.5

180 - 219 acres 49.3 44.1 8.1 7.1 39.3 36.9

220 - 259 acres 47.6 41.7 6.4 5.6 29.0 27.2

260 - 499 acres 1645 145.9 17.8 16.1 88.0 82.0

500 - 999 acres 108.0 106.9 7.1 6.8 57.6 55.0

1000 - 1999 acres 47.1 50.7 1.4 1.5 28.8 29.2

> = 2000 acres 20.1 21.9 0.3 0.3 17.4 17.4

Source: 1987 Census of Agriculture. U.S. Department of

Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

9

Table B.-Change in millions of acres and percentage of privately

owned land in cropland, forestland, pastureland, and in urban and

built-up land in rural counties, by region, between 1982 and 1987.

Change Region

Midwest North South

Farm acres (MM acres) -3.0 -1.5 -10.4

Cropland 3.6 -0.1 -1.7

Percentage change 1.9 -1.1 -2.0

Forest land -0.1 0.5 0.1

Percentage change -0.2 1.1 0.1

Pasture land -2.4 -0.4 0.0

Percentage change -6.8 -6.3 0.0

Urban and built-up land 0.2 0.1 0.8

Percentage change 1.5 3.5 6,l

Source: 1987 iVationa/ Resources kentory (NRO, USDA- Soil

Conservation Service.

Table 6.-Comparisons of land use change rates between sampled

counties and nonsampled rural counties in the state and in the rest

of the region, by region, 1992.

Region

Percentage

change in

Midwest North South

Mean t-ratio Mean t-ratio Mean t-ratio

Cropland acres:

Sample counties 1.90 0.08 -3.70

Rest of state 2.15 0.09 -4.52 0.95 -4.43 0.12

Rest of region 2.51 0.09 -1.18 0.27 -2.18 0.16

Pasture land acres:

Sample counties -1.62 0.04 10.01

Rest of state 2.16 0.22 -3.93 0.46 2.36 0.57

Rest of region 0.81 0.07 -8.63 1.12 3.50 0.33

Forest land acres:

Sample counties 7.89 -0.58 -0.30

Rest of state 0.46 1.74 -1.60 1.03 0.33 0.49

Rest of region 2.12 0.42 1.41 1.25 -0.34 0.02

Urban and built-up

land acres:

Sample counties 2.91 4.49 8.23

Rest of state 4.50 1.80 4.76 0.37 9.09 0.34

Rest of region 2.13 0.77 4.91 0.41 6.23 1.26

indicated that growing timber is a very important reason for owning the tract. These land use results suggest

that corporately owned tracts generally may be more

suitable for outdoor recreation, especially for hunting

and fishing, than are individually owned tracts. This

assertion is further supported by the finding that for
Table 7.-Comparisons of land uses, activities, and reasons for

owning rural land, for corporate owners and noncorporate owners

by region, 1992.

Noncorporate

Corporate Midwest North South

Average percent

of tract in:

Forests

Water

Crops

Pasture

Other

Percentage of tracts

where landowners:

Grow crops

Grow timber

Graze cattle

Rent a home

Run a nursery

Percentage of landowners

listing as a very

important reason for

owning rural land:

Grow timber

Grow crops

Raise livestock

Live in a rural

environment

Provide recreation

opportunities for

others

Provide wildlife

habitat

Make a profit from

recreation

Sell land for

profit

Personal recreation

opportunities

Own greenspace

57.4 21.7 41.3 52.5

3.9 0.7 2.7 2.1

21.2 58.0 32.5 23.6

5.2 9.8 11.9 16.4

12.3 9.8 11.6 5.4

33.3 75.9 55.3 52.2

45.4 22.3 31.9 33.6

15.2 31.3 29.1 38.8

15.2 17.9 0.2 9.0

3.0 1.8 10.6 1.5

26.3

28.6

11.4

20.0

33.3

14.3

11.4

8.6

25.7

22.9

4.7 0.8 24.5

57.6 17.9 15.9

20.9 13.1 19.1

65.4 67.5 65.4

6.5 16.1 18.5

27.8 33.7 40.1

0.8 1.9 3.3

10.3 8.6 10.0

32.3 46.6 34.2

58.9 63.4 61.4

one-third of corporate landowners, providing recreation opportunities for others is an important reason for

ownership, and further that 11% feel that making money from recreation is important.

On average, individual landowners in the South have

almost as great a proportion of their tract in forest (52%)

as do corporate landowners. Further, almost 25% of

these owners stated that growing timber is an important

reason for owning the tract. However, compared to the

other two regions, noncorporate tracts in thesouth have

the lowest proportion of land in crops, and the lowest

percentage of tracts where any crop use occurs.

A much higher percentage of individually owned

tracts in the Midwest have growing crops for sale as an

important reason for ownership (table 8). Consistent

with this difference, growing timber is a much less

prevalent reason in the Midwest, compared to the South

and North. Owning the land for personal recreational

opportunities is greatest in the North (60%), next greatest in the South (43%) and lowest in the Midwest (33%).

Few owners in the three regions indicated that collecting

revenues by charging fees for access for public hunting

and fishing is an important reason. The highest percentage for charging fees was in the South, at 2.6%.

Tract Accessibilii

Individually owned tracts in the Midwest have the

greatest proportion of acreage closed to all recreation

(28.5%), compared to all other types, including corporatelandowners (table 9). Onaverage,corporatelyowned

tracts differ from noncorporately owned tracts by having a greater percentage of acreage both open to the

public (17.3%) and leased for recreation (9.7%). As might

be expected, a smaller percentage of corporate owners

reserve acreage exclusively for their personal recreation

use (44.4%). Among the noncorporately owned tracts,

those in the North have more of the acreage both open

(10.9%) and leased (5.2%), and less is closed to all

recreation (14.0%). In the North and the South, 10.9%

and 4.0% of acreage, respectively, is open to the public,

and 5.2% and 0.7%, respectively, is leased. Generally,

among individual ownerships about two-thirds of the

total tract acreage is reserved for the exclusive use of the

owner across all three regions. The Midwest is slightly

lower at 63%.

Tract Size Changes

Corporate owners more frequently purchased land

to increase the size of their tract compared to individual

owners. More than 15% of corporate respondents reported purchasing more land in the previous 5 years;

about 9%, however, reported selling some of the land in

the tract sampled (table 9). Individual owners in the

South reported the lowest frequency (4.5%) of purchasing additional land to increase the size of their tract; and

11.2% sold some of the acreage from the sampled tract.

Owners in the North purchased more frequently (almost 10%); but, this region also had the highest percentage to have sold off some of the acreage in the previous

5 years (13.5%). In general, more individual owners sold

some of their land than did purchase additional acreage

across all three regions. The inverse was true of corporate owners.

10
Table 8.-Comparisons of very important reasons for owning the specified tract of land: A comparison of 1985 NPLOS and 1992 RPA

Special Issue Study, for corporate owners and noncorporate owners by region.

Region

Reason

Corporate Midwest North South

1985 1592 1985 1992 1985 1992 1985 1992

Growing Timber

for sale

Raising Livestock for

sale

Growing Crops

for sale

Living in a

rural environment

Making an estate

for heirs

Making money from

fee hunting or

fishing

Selling all or

part of the

tract for a

profit

Personal recreation

30.8

19.4

31.5

17.3

25.6

0.0

59.1

18.3

26.3 4.2

11.4 23.6

28.6 51.5

20.0

19.4

46.1

20.6

11.4

8.6 9.6

25.7 33.1

0.4

4.7 18.7 0.8 26.3

20.9 17.1 13.1 27.1

57.6 21.1 17.9 24.8

65.4 56.4 67.5 41.2

31.3 22.8 25.0 26.9

0.8 0.0 1.9 2.6

10.3 13.7 8.6 14.4

32.3 59.7 46.6 42.9

24.5

19.1

15.9

65.4

47.7

3.3

10.0

34.2

Comparisons between the 1985 and 1992 Survey

Results

Comparisons of survey results estimating percentages by land use were made between the 1985 national

study, NPLOS, which had been weighted using NRI

data, and the 1992 survey of owners in three states. These

comparisons were developed to help identify the degree

to which the states selected for the 1992 survey seemed

to represent their respective regions (table 10). Results of

the two surveys were further compared to indicate

trends in ownership objectives (table 8).

Land Use Comparisons

In general, New York seemed less representative of

its respective region than did Georgia or Indiana. Percentage differences between the 1985 and 1992 surveys

were evident for estimates of percentage forest, crops

and pasture in New York. These differences indicated

that the 1992 survey, conducted in New York, did not

represent the rural land uses in the Northern region as

well as Georgia and Indiana, represented the South and

Midwest, respectively. Estimates for from the 1992 survey in Indiana and especially in Georgia, seemed to

provide good percentage estimates of the dominant

land uses in their respective regions, when compared

with results from the 1985 survey.

Because these comparisons are somewhat confounded by the effects of real trends in land uses within the

three regions, trends indicated by our surveys in 1985

and 1992 were compared with trends indicated by both

the CENAG and the NRI. These comparisons indicated

that trends in land use percentages from the private land

surveys reported here agreed with CENAG and NRIbased trend estimates across approximately 60% of the

cells representing land use by region strata. Also, three

of the five most obvious differences in land use percentages between the 1985 and 1992 survey estimates were

consistent with the temporal trends in those same land

uses as estimated from CENAG and NRI data. This

indicates that some portion of the discrepancies between estimates of land use percentages from the 1985

and 1992 surveys is likely a result of actual land use

trends. While these comparisons do not offer totally

11
Table 9.-Comparisons of tract accessibility, and subdivision and

consolidation trends, for corporate and noncorporate owners by

region.

Noncorporate

Corporate Midwest North South

Average percentage of

tract by access class:

Open

Closed

Leased

Exclusive

Percentage of owners:

Adding land

Selling land

17.3 6.9 10.9 4.0

28.6 28.5 14.0 22.9

9.7 1.2 5.2 0.7

44.4 63.4 69.9 70.4

15.2 6.3 9.9 4.5

9.1 8.9 13.5 11.2

conclusive results, it appears that the estimates of percentage land uses derived from the 1992 state-level

surveys provide a reasonable representation of the uses

of individually owned, private land, in their respective

regions.

Trends in Reasons for Ownership

Because trends in land uses as estimated from the

1985 and 1992 surveys agreed, in general, with trends

estimated from the CENAG and NRI data, it appeared

that an examination of trends in reasons for ownership

also would be reasonably appropriate. Percentages of

owners indicating reasons for owning their land as

estimated from the 1985 and 1992 surveys are shown in

table 8.

In general, trends in reasons for ownership between

1985 and 1992 were consistent among the three states

sampled. These trends are summarized below.

1. A smaller percentage of owners indicated that

growing timber for sale was an important reason for owning land in 1992, except in the Midwest, where timber is a primary purpose for

only about 4% of the owners and the upward

trend was insignificantly small.

2. Smaller percentages of owners indicated that

raising livestock is an important reason across

all regions.

3 . The percentage growing crops for sale declined,

except in the Midwest where a moderate increase was noted.

4. The percentage indicating they owned their

land to live a rural lifestyle increased across all

three regions.

5 . The percentages indicating they are building an

estate for heirs increased across all regions.

6 . The percentage who own land in order to make

money from recreation fees increased in all

regions.

7. The percentage indicating they own their land

to sell for a profit decreased, except in the

Midwest, where the increase was insignificant.

Table 1 O.-Comparisons of land cover and uses (in percentage of tract) between the 1985 national survey and the 1992 regional survey

for noncorporate owners.

Region

Reason

Corporate Midwest North South

1985 1992 1985 1992 1985 1992 1985 1992

Forests 53.6 57.4 26.9 21.7 67.7 42.3 50.8 52.5

Water 0.5 3.9 1.9 0.7 1.2 0.7 1.9 2.1

Crops 32.2 21.2 44.9 58.0 22.9 33.5 20.8 23.6

Pasture 9.4 5.2 11.2 9.8 0.8 11.9 18.7 16.4

Other 4.3 12.3 15.1 9.8 7.4 11.6 7.8 5.4

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 loo.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 10.0

12
RECREATION CONSUMPTION MODELS

Noncorporate Landowners

The Total Use Model

The variables measuring accessibility of the tract

performed with mixed results (table 11). Percentage of

the tract closed to all recreation (PCTCLOS) had the

expected negative sign across all regions; but, the coefficient was not significant in the North model. Percentage of the tract open to the public (PCTOPEN) had a

positive sign for all regions, but was not significant in

any regional model. Neither percentage of the tract

leased (PCTLEAS) nor percentage posted (PCTPOST)

had consistent signs across regions and, except for

percentage leased in the North model, were not significant. Resident landownership (LIVELAND) was positively related to total recreation use, and significantly so

in both the Midwest and South models.

Tract size (NUMACRE?S) did not have a consistent

sign across the regional models, and was only significant in the South model. The other recreation suitability

variables, PCTWATER and PCTFORST, generally were

not significantly related to recreation consumption. The

only exception was for the North model, where

PCTWATER was positively and significantly related to

consumption.

A goodness-of-fit measure (R2> was calculated as the

square of the simple correlation between the actual and

fitted dependent variables. Results indicated relatively

weak fits for all three regional models. In general, the

results of this model do not provide strong evidence of

the relation between recreation consumption on private

lands and either tract subdivision or access restrictions,

other than the negative effect of land closure.

For all regions, percentage of a tract open to the public

is strongly and positively related to the number of

people who have access to the tract (table 12). Consistent

with this relationship, percentage of the tract closed to

all recreation is negatively related to number who have

access and significantly, or nearly so, in all regions.

Percentage of a tract leased for recreation has a positive

sign in all regions and is significant in two of the regions.

However, having a resident landowner on the tract has

a significant relation to number who have access only in

the North model.

Suitability measures also are fairly consistent across

regional models. Tract size is positively and significantly related to number who have access in two of three

models. Percentage of the tract in water has a positive

andsignificantcoefficientinall threemodels. PCTFORST,

however, is not significant in any of the models. In

general, the relations between number having recreation access and both tract access and recreation suitability across the three regions are reasonably consistent

and much stronger in the accessibility models than for

the total consumption model.

Corporate Landowners

On average, the tracts owned by corporate landowners are available to a greater number of people and

accommodate more use than do tracts owned by

noncorporate landowners (table 13). Only 33 corporate

landowners were included in this sample drawn from

county tax roles. Also, the variables indicating owner

residency and household size were not relevant to

corporate owners. Therefore, a subset of the specified

regressors in the models for noncorporate landowners

were selected, including tract size, percentage of acres

closed, and percentage leased for recreation. Results

showed no significant relationships between these variables and either total use or the number of people having

access to the tract. A more definitive analysis to model

corporate land recreation use and accessibility may

require a larger data set than was collected for this study.

Nevertheless, these results add to the knowledge about

the variables potentially important in determining the

relationship between private land access and overall

supply of public recreation opportunity.

An examination of data from the Census of Agriculture indicated that both total acreage in farms and

number of farms in rural counties declined since 1982

(fig. 3). At the same time, average farm size increased,

indicating that overall farm acreage is becoming more

concentrated in larger holdings. Except for number of

farms smaller than 10 acres, number of total acres and

number of farms increased only in farm size categories

of 1,000 acres or more. As farm tracts are becoming
Table 11 .-Results of recreation use model estimation, for noncorporate landowners, by region.

Variable

Midwest North South

Beta t Beta t Beta t

CONSTANT -656.215000 1.51 - 145.436000

LIVELAND 127.697000 2.27’ 141.411000

HH -35.440800 1.14 -23.723600

PCTCLOS -3.355980 4.21”’ -1.732470

PCTLEAS -28.283700 0.05 7.528550

PCTPOST 0.167782 0.28 1.161910

PCTOPEN 1.404390 1.49 2.316670

NUMACRES -0.267858 1.18 0.227475

EROS3 -15.064700 0.80 -9.991730

PERCAPV 0.087842 2.00’ 0.007027

POP85 0.443575 0.17 0.577495

PCTFORST 0.136328 0.13 -0.24939 1

PCWATER 1.268140 0.12 14.754500

N 112 141

R* 0.195 0.242

Dep. Var. Mean 88.800 141.970

cr 230.830 455.073

0.17

1.52

0.68

1.27

3.94”’

1.28

1.60

1.18

0.51

0.09

0.33

0.20

2.44

-34.927900

209.119ml

-60.858700

-2.445370

-0.893057

-0.018961

1.167130

0.126111

-10.081600

0.016024

-1.380680

0.557128

2.588180

134

0.255

92.720

216.333

0.09

4.68”’

2.47”

3.59”’

0.57

0.04

1.14

2.10’

0.69

0.41

0.39

0.83

0.54

l = significant at pe 0.05

*’ = significant at PC= 0.0 J

*‘“= significant at PC= 0.00 J

Table 12.- Accessibility model results, for noncorporate landowners, by region.

Variable

Midwest North South

Beta t Beta t Beta t

CONSTANT

LIVELAND

HH

PCTCLOS

PCTLEAS

PCTPOST

PCTOPEN

NUMACRES

EROS3

PERCAPV

POP85

PCTFORST

PCTWATER

Is

Dep. Var. Mean

a

6.33290

1.75220

0.68216

-0.10528

0.08962

0.10387

0.20993

-000225

-1.81450

0.00126

-0.37444

-0.00519

2.29830

112

0.405

5.540

14.900

0.24

0.51

0.36

2.53’

0.57

2.74”

3.46”’

0.17

1.59

0.46

2.36’

0.08

4.40””

141

0.343

16.580

41.121

-27.50500

2 1.39200

2.95330

-0.20812

0.43492

0.02902

0.42777

0.03614

-0.50859

-0.00198

0.33658

0.14357

1.06900

134

,514

3.310

5.460

0.373

2.612”

0.953

1.743

2.511’

0.366

3.281”’

2.098’

0.293

0.277

2.192’

1.291

1.993’

-3.33040 0.36

0.77227 0.72

1.07970 1.83

-0.07306 4.36”’

0.18828 5.08’“”

-0.00368 0.31

0.12544 4.87’“”

0.00425 2.87”

-0.03888 0.11

0.ooo11 0.11

0.00821 0.09

0.02893 1.76

0.40780 3.46’“”

(I

= significant at PC= 0.05

fl

= significant at PC= 0.0 J

*** = significant at PC= 0.00 J

14
larger, there is proportionately less woodland on them

across all three regions and, in the North and South, less

cropland than in previous years. Land use data from the

National Resources Inventory and comparisons between the 1985 NPLOS and the 1992 regional survey of

private owners generally indicate that these conclusions

hold for non-farm, rural lands as well. The continued

increase of urban or built-up acres on private lands,

across all three of the study regions, also is significant to

recreation opportunities.

Homogeneity Between Sampled and NonSampled Counties

A further examination of the land use data from the

1985 and 1992 landowner surveys provided some insights into the apparent state and region-level representativeness of the counties in which the 1992 survey was

conducted. Comparisons between those counties in

New York, Georgia, and Indiana, that were randomly

included in this recent survey, and those that were not,

indicated that the surveyed and unsurveyed counties at

the state level are largely homogeneous with regard to

land characteristics. These same comparisons between

counties surveyed in the three states, and all other rural

counties in each of their respective regions, also indicated a high degree of homogeneity between sampled and

unsampled counties at the regional level. The results of

these comparisons indicate that findings from this research should be generalizable at both the state and

region levels.

Table 13.-Results of corporate landowner recreation models.

Variable

Total use Availability

Beta T Beta T

CONSTANT -1374.720 1.273 -9.484 0.676

PCTCLOS -196.237 0.388 -4 1.495 0.735

PCTLEAS -26.245 0.908 0.261 0.744

NUMACRES 0.010 0.095 0.002 1.514

s

33 33

0.072 0.209

Dep. Var. Mean 1136.580 18.730

CJ 4290.860 55.158

= significant at PC= 0.05

.*

= significant af p<= 0.0 I

..*

= significant at PC= 0. CO I

50

0 I

Figure 3.--Change in total acreage in farms of less than 1,000

acres in size in the eastern United States.

Significant Regional Findings

Individual owners in the Midwest are oriented more

toward raising crops than individual landownes in

other two regions (fig. 4). Higher proportions of tracts in

use for growing crops in this region seem to have limited

the suitability of these lands for outdoor recreation, as

evidenced by lower use and accessibility rates. Higher

percentages of acreage in crops also may explain the

observed higher rates of total closure and lower rates of

recreational leasing on Midwestern tracts. In addition to

a greater emphasis on using their land for growing

crops, private lands in the Midwest generally have less

area in woodland and water than do tracts in the other

two regions. This seems to make these lands even less

less suitable for many forms of recreation, again contributing to the Midwest’s lower recreation use and accessibility rates. Further research should explore in more

detail the effects of having higher percentages of tracts

in crops, forest, and water, and the relationship of these

uses to landowners’ access restrictions in the Midwest.

Northern landowners reported more frequently than

did owners in the other two regions that a primary

reason why they own their land is to provide recreational opportunities for themselves, as well as for the enjoyment of others. Tracts in this region had lower proportions of acreage completely closed, higher proportions

with open access to the general public, and a higher

incidence of leasing for more exclusive recreational

access. This greater emphasis on using the land for

recreation probably accounts for the greater actual

amount of use on these tracts, compared to individually

owned tracts in the other regions. The finding that a

15
higher percentage of Northern owners have established

residency on their tract, combined with these owners’

greater emphasis on recreation, seems to help explain

why the existence of a resident owner is a significant

determinant of the number of people having recreation

access. Apparently, resident owners are more readily

contacted for permission.

These findings are distinctly different from findings

from the Midwest and South, and signify that ownership in the North is a much more significant indicator of

degree of recreation accessibility. Also significant is the

fact that there is a substantially smaller per capita land

base in the Northern region, either private or public,

relative to the other two regions. Higher future per

capita demand in this region will make access ever more

important in the North, and likely will position leasing

in this region as a more profitable access management

option, compared to the Midwestern and Southern

regions.

For Southern owners, relatively high amounts of

forest land, higher access closure rates, and lower lease

rates combine to create the lowest accessibility and

nearly the lowest use rates among the three regions.

Although Southern owners are interested in providing

recreation opportunities for themselves, they make their

lands available to only a relatively small group of others.

Because much of Georgia remains relatively rural, there

is a relative abundance of alternative outdoor recreation

opportunities, leading to comparatively low recreation

use per private tract. In the South, timber growing and

providing habitat for wildlife were cited more often as

very important reasons for owning land (fig. 5). This

concern for wildlife habitat and the commercial opporIN NY GA

Figure4.-Percentage of owners indicating growing crops for sale as

an important reason for owning rural land in Indiana, New York,

and Georgia, 1992.

30

26.3

4.2

OL

IN NY GA

Figure S-Percentage of owners indicating that growing timber is an

important reason for owning rural land in Indiana, New York, and

Georgia, 1992.

tunities associated with timber growing also offers a

likely explanation for the lower rates of accessibility for

public recreation in this region.

ACCESS ON CORPORATE LANDS

Corporately owned rural lands historically have been

an important source for outdoor recreation. Driven by

continued population growth and people’s quest for

contact with the out-of-doors, this importance is likely to

increase in the future, as demand for opportunities

continues to rise. The 1992 interregional survey reported

here has indicated that corporate owners seem more

interested in providing public recreation opportunities

than noncorporate owners, and that they tend to favor

lease agreements more than individual owners do.

Added to these conditions, corporate lands tend to have

proportionally more acres in forest cover; and corporate

owners are more likely than individual owners to purchase additional land, rather than to sell. Both recreation

use and number of people having access are greater per

average corporate tract, than is the case on noncorporate

tracts.

Estimated Models of Use and Accessibility

As hypothesized, the estimated parameters for the

noncorporate regional accessibility models indicated

that the number of people having been granted access

rights was positively related to the percentage of private

acreage considered by owners to be open for public

16
recreation and, except in the North, negatively related to

the percentage of the tract closed to all recreation. In the

use models, percentage of the tract acreage closed,

except in the North, negatively affected amount of use;

but, percentage of the tract identified as open was

unrelated to total use. Clearly, an owner’s choice to

completely close some or all of a tract has a negative

effect on public recreation opportunities (accessibility

and use). The effects of posting private land, however, is

less clear, and seems to have very little effect on either

accessibility or total recreation use.

Leasing noncorporate private land was significantly

related to both use and accessibility only in the North; to

accessibility in the South; but not related to either use or

accessibility in the Midwest. Overall, it appears that

leasing improves recreational access and use in some

areas of the country, but otherwise is not related (table 14). This is an important finding, because much

previous research has been interpreted to mean that

more leasing means less opportunity to the public.

Leasing seems to be a viable option for controlling who

has access, especially when the alternative may be

closing the land to all recreation.

Tract size was positively and significantly related to

use in one region (South), and to accessibility in two

regions (North and South). For corporate owners, tract

size seemed to have no significant relation to either use

or accessibility. Subdivision of private noncorporate

land, then, could be expected to lead to some reduction

in recreational access and use, if this were to be a trend

in the future. The trend in the 198Os, however, has been

toward consolidation of smaller tracts into larger ones.

The emerging trend of the 1990s seems to be toward both

more subdivision (more tracts of 10 or fewer acres) and

more consolidation (more tracts larger than 1,000 acres).

Tract size may have indirect as well as direct links to

recreation opportunities on private lands. Tract size

may affect landowner decisions of whether to live on the

Table Il.-Sign (+ or -) and signtficance (‘=0.05, ““=O.Ol, “‘=O.OOl)

or selected variables in the recreation accessibility models for the

Midwest, North, and South.

Region

Variable Midwest North South

Percentage leased

Percentage posted

Tract Size

0 is +**”

+** 0 0

0 +* +**

land, and on the proportion of lands open, closed,

leased, or reserved exclusively for the landowner’s personal use. Further, tract size seems closely linked to uses

of the tract, including existence of desirable features,

such as woodland or water. Such relations are not

explicitly examined in this analysis, but should be explored in future research.

Overall, other than complete closure to all recreation

use, the modeling results from this study indicated that

various forms of access restrictions do not appear to

reduce either number of people having recreational

access on private lands or the overall amount of use.

Tract size has a moderate positive relationship to use

and number of people having access, except for corporate owners.

IMPLICATIONS

From 1982 to 1987, rural counties in the states from

which the samples for this study were drawn experienced noticeable increases in conversion of woodland

and cropland to urban and built-up uses. From 1983 to

1988, an equivalent time period, the population in New

York and Indiana increased by about 1.531 and in Georgiaby about 10.6$%.In50years,populationinthesestates

is expected to rise by 8.7(X> in New York, 27.9%) in

Georgia, and 16.7% in Indiana. These population increases are likely to cause continued pressure to convert

rural land from agricultural and open space uses to

urban or other developed uses: Therefore, the suitability

of the private rural land base in these and other states in

the East can be expected to continue to diminish, while

vigorous growth of a more recreationally active population is expected to continue. As a result, pressures for

recreational uses of private rural lands are likely to

increase faster than population growth.

Strong population growth also may create pressures

for conversion of woodlands and similar open spaces on

private land, that are generally viewed as more suitable

for recreation to land uses that meet other needs, such as

for additional food production. If this trend occurs, it

apparently would have an undetermined effect on recreation use or accessibility, according to results from the

estimated accessibility and use models presented in this

study. However, increased cropland at the expense of

woodland is likely to reduce the quality of the recreational opportunities that these tracts represent, as well

as alter the seasonal&y of their availability.

1 7
If population increases also cause further subdivision

of private rural lands, then the recreational availability

of those lands can be expected to decline further. In

general, tract size is negatively related to recreation

accessibility, but less so to total use. It is likely that

smaller tracts are mostly serving the recreational needs

of the owners, their families, and their immediate friends.

In this case, continued subdivision of rural land tracts

may change not only the identity of the people who use

private land, but also that of people who must depend

on public lands for their recreation activities.

Although outright closure has an apparent negative

effect on both recreation use and number of people

having access, except in the North where it had no effect,

the previously held notion that posting or leasing reduces recreational access or use was not supported by the

findings of this research. In fact, in those regions where

leasing significantly affected total recreational use, the

North and South, the relationship was a positive one.

Also, in the North, percentage of land leased was positively correlated with number of people having access.

This suggests that leasing not only does not reduce use

and accessibility, but that in some areas, leasing actually

increases accessibility and use, and that these practices

can provide a meaningful alternative to strict closure,

where owners may wish only to exercise some degree of

control over who may use their land. Based on the

modeling results, neither does posting reduce accessibility or use of rural private lands. Increased posting and

leasing of private lands can be expected to continue as a

means for the public to gain access to private land and

for the owners to both exert some control over who uses

their land and to extract some economic rents from those

who desire such use.

Results of the recreational accessibility models, for each

of the three regions examined in this study, also showed a

strong positive relationship between percentage of the tract

open for public recreation (without a lease) and amount of

use. Conversely, a negative relationship was found to exist

betweenaccessibilityanduseandthepercentageofthetrad

closed to all recreation. Accessibility and use were found to

be positively associated with size of tract and percentage of

the tract that is water. This indicates that all tracts are not

equal to recreation&s seeking quality recreational opportunities.

It is possible that, in the future, recreational use of private

rural land will be more limited to the we&hier segments of

the population. More landowners are indicating that the

reason they purchased their land was for personal recreation or to live on the land. That is, the p~chase was to

provide a place for themselves and their family to recreate.

Those acquiring access through a recreational lease are

doing essentially the same thing by purchasing only the

right of access to the land. Census data point to a bipolarization of the distribution of income in this country, with a

rapidly growing number and percentage of people who are

in the lowest income categories. These people are not likely

to have the ~~~urces to purchase their own land or to

purchase a recreational lease for access to someone e&s

land. Therefore, one might expect that low income households will have public land and parks as their only recreation opportunity in an undeveloped outdoor setting.

Future population growth, according to Ricardian

theory, is likely to put further economic pressure on

farmers and other rural landowners, especially near

metropolitan areas. This will be a problem especially for

lower income owners, as land taxes continue to rise,

given land value escalations in and around urban areas.

Conversion to nonfarm and nonwoodland uses and

subdivision can be expected to be relatively greater in

the counties near growing urban areas. These changes

are likely to lead to a diminishing private land base for

public outdoor recreation. The aa& future effect of the

demise of the rural private land base, of subdivision and

consolidation of tracts, and of leasing, closure, and

development is not clear, and should be a focus of

continuing research.

The most critical implication of the findings of this

3~331~5 seems to be in its challclnge to the conclusions

typically drawn from the continuing trend toward posting,

closure, and leasing. Certainly, complete closure of all or

portions of private tracts reduces use and accessibility.

Leasing and posting however, not only do not reduce

access and use, these practices often are associated with

greater access and use. The implication for recreational

access and use to public lands are that reductions in private

land access will not necessarily add pressure for the use of

public land. Therefore, aside from the continuing loss of

private rural acreage in general, private lands could play a

greater, not lesser, role in the future in meeting recreation

demand pressures.

FUTURE RESEARCH

Few definitive conclusions could be reached in this

study regarding the suitability, accessibility, or use of

corporately owned rural land. However, there were

some indications that these lands may become increasingly important for public recreation. Future studies of
privately owned rural lands should provide a more indepth examination of the lands owned by corporations.

These owners typically have different motivations than

individual owners, and, therefore, are likely to respond

differently to population, demand, andeconomic trends.

This study has contributed to a substantially better

understanding of recreation use of noncorporate private land by providing a conceptual modeling framework by which recreational accessibility issues and

trends may be examined. Additional research is needed

to refine these models, including improving the measurement of recreation consumption. Replication on a

broader geographic scale can further highlight regional

differences.

No attempt was made in this study to examine or

model landowners’ access decisions in the context of

household production theory. For example, the factors

leading an owner to decide to lease or otherwise allow

recreation access are not directly addressed in this analysis. This should be a focus of additional research, so that

considerations important to access policy choices can be

identified, their trends can be followed, and implications for future policies and supply trends can be described and analyzed. For example, variables such as

percentage of the tract in crops seem to negatively affect

a tract’s accessibility and suitability for recreation.

The direct relationship between tract size and recreation consumption was moderate in the models reported here. However, there may be even more significant

indirect relations. For example, tract size may affect a

landowner’s decision of whether to live on the land or

the choice of an access policy. An examination of the

extent to which tract size affects land use choices, such

as timber management, water, agriculture, and grazing,

and of how these uses interact with recreation use and

access, may be very useful in establishing a better understanding of access and use trends.

Considering the factors that seem to affect recreation

accessibility and use of private lands, much work remains to be done to develop an understanding of the net

effects. With some factors, such as residency, leasing,

and posting, use and accessibility generally increase

with increasing acreages under these conditions. Subdivision and conversion to other land uses, especially

development, in contrast, tend to lead to less use and

accessibility. From regional and national perspectives, it

is the net effects on number of people and amount of use

that private lands accommodate that is important. Further study is needed to determine what these net effects

are.

Finally, research to better understand the private land

users is needed. Very little has been done to identify who

these users are and the degree to which they use, lease,

and access private land for recreation. Better understanding the users, what makes private land suitable to

them for recreation, and how they use these lands, will

help to develop forecasts of future demand for outdoor

recreation and to inform land owners of potential revenue opportunities.

LITERATURE CITED

Birch, T. 1982. The forest landowners of Ohio - 1979.

Resource Bulletin NE-74. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern

Forest Experiment Station.

Birch, T. W.; Dennis, D. F. 1980. The forest-land owners

of Pennsylvania. Resource Bulletin NE-66. Broomall,

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.

Bockstael, N. E.; McConnell, K. E. 1981. Theory and

estimation of the household production function for

wildlife recreation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 8:199-214.

Brown, T. L. 1974. New York Landowners’ attitudes

towardrecreationactivities.TransactionsoftheNorth

American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 39:173-179.

Brown, T. L.; Decker, D. J.; Kelley, J. W. 1984. Access to

private lands for hunting in New York: 1963-1980.

Wildlife Society Bulletin. 12(4):344-349.

Carpenter, E. M.; Hansen, M. H.; St. John, D. M. 1986. The

private forest landowners of Minnesota - 1982. Resource Bulletin. NC-95. St. Paul, MN. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central

Forest Experiment Station. 13 p.

Colyer, D.; Ferrise, A.; Grafton, W.; Smith, D. 1989.

Executive summary for the first eastern United States

conference on income opportunities for the private

landowner through management of natural resources and recreational access; 1989 April 9-12; Wheeling,

WV. R.D. #739. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia

University Extension Service, 30 p.

Cordell, H. K. 1976. Substitution between privately and

collectively supplied urban recreational open space.

Journal of Leisure Research. 8(3):160-174.

19
Cordell, H. K.; Hendee, J. C. 1982. Renewable resources

recreation in the United States: Supply, demand and

critical policy issues. Washington, DC: American

Forestry Association.

Cordell, H. K.; Stevens, J. H., Jr. 1984. A national survey

to determine public outdoor recreation opportunities

on nonindustrial private forest and range lands. In:

Proceedings, 1983, nonindustrial private forests: A

review of economic and policy studies; 1983 April

19-20; Durham, NC. Durham, NC: Duke University.

327-333.

Cordell, H. K.; Gramman, J. II.; Albrecht, D. E.; McLellan,

R. W.; Winthrow, S. 1985. Trends in recreational

access to private rural lands. In: National outdoor

recreation trends symposium; 1985; Myrtle Beach,

SC. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of the Interior,

National Park Service. 1:164-184.

Cordell, H. K.; Bergstrom, J. C.; Hartmann, L. A.; English, D. B. K. 1990. An analysis of the outdoor

recreation and wilderness situation in the United

States: 1989-2040. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-189 Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service., Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 112 p.

Cordell, H. K.; Bergstrom, J. C. 1991. A methodology for

assessing national outdoor recreation demand and

supply trends. Leisure Sciences. 13(1):1-20.

Dennis, D. F. 1990. Factors influencing posting of private

nonindustrial forests in the northeast. In: More, T. A.;

Donnelly, M. I’.; Graefe, A. R.; Vaske, J. J., eds. 1990.

Proceedings of the 1990 northeastern recreation research symposium; 1990 February 25-28; Saratoga

Springs, NY. Gen. Tech. Report NE-145, Radnor, PA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 207 p.

Doig, H. E. 1990. Natural resources management needs

for private landowners in the northeast. In: Grafton,

W. N.; Ferrise, A.; Colyer, D.; Smith, D. K.; Miller, J. E.,

eds. Proceedings of the conference on income opportunities for the private landowner through management of natural resources and recreational access;

1989 April 9-12; Wheeling, WV. R.D. #740.

Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Extension Service. 17-24.

English, D. B. K.; Cordell, H. K. 1993. Effective recreation

opportunity set (EROS) index: A computable measure of recreation supply. Res. Pap. SE-286. Asheville,

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 10 p.

Gramman, J. II.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Albrecht, D. E.;

Kurtz, W. B. 1985. Recreational access to private

forests: The impact of hobby farming and exclusivity.

Journal of Leisure Research. 17(3):234240.

GYM, D. E.;Schmidt, J. L. 1984. Managing deer hunters

on private lands in Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 12(1):12-19.

Hamilton, G. T. 1989. Recreation resources in the northern forest lands study area. A report for the northern

forest lands study. 18 p.

Harper, S. C.; Falk, L. L.; Rankin, E. W. 1990. The

northern forest lands study of New England and

New York. A report to the Congress of the United

States on the recent changes in landownership and

land use in the northern forest of Maine, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont. Rutland, VT: : U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Jahn, L. R.; Schenck, E. W.; Williamson, L. L. 1991. The

future of access to private lands. In: Colyer, D., ed.

Rural development through recreation enterprises.

Proceedings of the annual meeting of the American

Association for the Advancement of Science; 1991

February 14-19;Washington, DC. Washington, DC:

American Association for the Advancement of Science. 7-13.

Kaiser, R. A.; Wright, B. A. 1985. Recreational access to

private land: Beyond the liability hurdle. Journal or

Soil and Water Conservation. 40(6):478-481.

Lee, A. G.; Kreutzwiser, R. 1982. Rural landowner attitudes toward sportfishing access along the Saugeen

and Credit Rivers, Southern Ontario. Recreation Research Review. 9:7-14.

McCollum, D. W.; Peterson, G. L.; Arnold, J. R.;

Markstrom, D. C.; Hellerstein, D. M. 1990. The net

economic value of recreation on the National Forests:

twelve types of primary activity trips across nine

Forest Service regions. Res. Pap. RM-289. Fort Collins,

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

McDonald, J. F.; Moffitt, R. A. 1980. The uses of Tobit

analyses. The Review of Economics and Statistics.

62:318-321.

Resources for the Future. 1983. Outdoor recreation for

America. Washington, DC: The John Hopkins University Press. 42 p.

Sampson, N. 1986. Assessing the availability of private

lands for recreation. Parks and Recreation. 21(7):34-

38.

2 0
Wright, B. A. 1990. Toward a better understanding of

recreational access to the Nation’s private lands: Supply, determinants, limiting factors. In: Grafton, W. N.;

Ferrise, A.; Colyer, D.; Smith, D. K.; Miller, J. E., eds.

Proceedings from the conference on income opportunities for the private landowner through management of natural resources and recreational access;

1989 April 9-12; Wheeling, WV. R.D. #740.

Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Extension Service. 17-24.

Wright, B. A.; Fesenmaier, D.R. 1988. Modeling rural

landowners’ hunter access policies in east Texas,

USA. Environmental Management. 12(2):229-236.

Wright, B. A.; Kaiser, R. A. 1986. Wildlife administrators’ perceptions of hunter access problems: A national overview. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 14:30-35.

Wright, B. A.; Kaiser, R. A.; Fletcher, J. E. 1988. Hunter

access decisions by rural landowners: An East Texas

example. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 16 p.

2 1