LOS Army Corps

US Amiy,.r. AD-A235 200

w.le -_R.ouea Spp Cete - 111111 il Willllllhllll

Institute for Water Fesourc

National Economic

Development Procedures

Manual - Recreation

Volume III

A Case Study Application of DTIC

Contingent Value Method for ELECTE

Estimating Urban Recreation A 9 I

Use and Benefits

IDTIC FILE COPY

November 1990 iWR Report 90-R-1 1

91 4 22 168
UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

Form Approved

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMIBNo 0704-0188

______________________________________________Eap Date Jun 30 1986

la7 REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS

UNCLASSIFIED _

2a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

Approved for public release; distribution

2b. DECLASSIFICATION /DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE unlimited

4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) S. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

IWR Report 90-R-11

6a. Water NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b. OFFICE SYMBOL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION Resources Support Center (If applicable)

Institute for Water Resources CEWRC-IWR

6c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code)

Casey Building

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5586

8a. NAME OF FUNDING/SPONSORING 8b. OFFICE SYMBOL 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER ORGANIZATION (if applicable)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CECW-PD

8c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS

PROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK UNIT

Washington, DC 20314-1000 ELEMENT NO. NO- NO. ACCESSION NO

11. TITLE Inl/ude Security Clamsiffication)

National Economic Development Procedures Manual-Recreation Volume III: A Case Study

Application of the Contingent Value Method for Estimating Urban Recreation Use and Benefits

12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S) William J. Hansen, Allan S. Mills, John R. Stoll, Roger L. Freeman, and

Carol D. Hankamer

13a. TYPE OF REPORT 13b. TIME COVERED 14. DATE OF REPORT (Year, Month, Day) 15. PAGE COUNT

1 FROM TO _ 90/11/30 117

16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION 22161

Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA

17. COSATI CODES 18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)

FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP Recreation, Demand, Planning, National Economic Development

Benefits Contingent Valuation Method, Value Estimating

Models

19. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)

The purpose of this report is to illustrate, through a case study description, the practical

application of the CVM method to recreation evaluation in an actual planning study. The

case study description is meant to serve as a practical guide and, therefore, emphasizes what

was done more than the concepts behind the techniques used. It is not intended to be a

detailed guide of the entire planning process, but rather highlights activities or outcomes

from this process that involved the development, conduct, and application of the CVM analysis

Specific objectives of this manual are: to illustrate an urban application of the CVM method

to recreation demand and benefit estimation, to illustrate the development of regional

valuation models, and to describe the potential transferability of the procedures and/or

findings of this case study to other planning applications.

20 DISTRIBUTION/ AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21 ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

0

- 1 UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED rM SAME AS RPT 0] DTIC USERS UNCLASSIFIED l

22a NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b TELEPHONE (Include Area Code)T22c OFFICE SYMBOL

WILLIAM J. HANSEN 1 703) 355-3089 ICEWRC-IWR-R

DD FORM 1473, 84 MAR 83 APR edition may be used until exhausted SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

All other editions are obsolete UNCLASSIFIED
NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES MANUAL - RECREATION

Volume III

A Case Study ADplicatioi of the Contingent Valuation Method

for Estimating Urban Recreation Use and Benefits

by Aooesuion For

by NTIS GRA&I

DTIC TAB

Unannounced 0 Justifioatio

William J. Hansen

Allan S. Mills

John R. Stoll DMstribution/ Roge L.FremanAvailability Codes Carol D. Hankamer AvilCno

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Water Resources Support Center

Institute for Water Resources

Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-5586

November, 1990 IWR Report 90-R-11
ii
PREFACE

The work reported herein was conducted as part of the National

Economic Development (NED) Procedures Manual Work Unit within the

US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Planning Methodologies Research

Program. Mr. William Hansen of the COE Water Resources Support

Center (WRSC), Institute for Water Resources (IWR), manages this

Work Unit under the general supervision of Mr. Michael Krouse,

Chief of the Research Division, Mr. Kyle Schilling, Director of

IWR, and Mr. Kenneth Murdock, Director of WRSC. Mr. Robert Daniel

(CECW-PD) is the Technical Monitor for Headquarters, US Army Corps

of Engineers.

The data collection and analysis that provide the basis for

this case study were conducted as part of the Buffalo Bayou

recreation evaluation component of the COE Galveston District's

Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries Flood Control Study. Mr. Roger

Freeman, of the Galveston District was co-project manager and

responsible for the economic and social aspects of that study,

including the recreation evaluation.

The original work on the Buffalo Bayou recreation evaluation,

as well as much of the work of preparing this manual, was performed

under the terms of a cooperative agreement between the COE

Galveston District, the National Park Service (NPS) Southwest

Regional Office, and through a NPS Cooperative Park Studies Unit

. (CPSU) at Texas A&M University. Dr. Dennis Fenn, currently Unit

Leader of the NPS CPSU at the University of Arizona, was the Unit

Leader at Texas A&M University during the initiation of this

cooperative effort and was instrumental in its development. Dr.

John Stoll, Department of Agricultural Economics, and Dr. Allan

Mills, then with the Department of Recreation and Parks, Texas A&M

University served as co-Principal Investigators for the initial

Buffalo Bayou recreation evaluation.

Upon completion of the original study, Mr. William Hansen at

IWR assembled a five person team of cooperators to produce this

manual. Through a modification to the original cooperative

agreement, Dr. Stoll served as Principal Investigator for this team

effort. Dr. Mills, presently with the Department of Recreation,

Parks and Tourism, Virginia Commonwealth University, was a team

cooperator under terms of an Intergovernmental Personnel Act

Agreement with IWR. Roger Freeman and Carol Hankamer of the

Galveston District Office were also team cooperators.
iv
p TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE .1.1.1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ........ .. ................... 1

BACKGROUND ............ ....................... 1

PURPOSE AND SCOPE .......... .................. 1

CHAPTER II STUDY OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS .... ........ 3

CONCEPTS AND OBJECTIVES ........ ................ 3

DEFINE PROBLEM ........ .. ................. 3

INFORMATION NEEDS ......... ................. 4

RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS ....... ............... 4

DEVELOP SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES ...... ............ 5

WHAT WAS DONE ........... ..................... 5

IDENTIFICATION OF PLANS ....... .............. 8

IDENTIFY STUDY OBJECTIVES ....... ............. 9

WHAT WAS LEARNED .................................... 11

ANNOTATED REFERENCES ....... .................. 12

CHAPTER III QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN ..... .............. 13

CONCEPTS AND OBJECTIVES ...... ................ 13

CATEGORIZATION OF INFORMATION NEEDED . ....... 13

SELECTING APPROPRIATE TYPE OF SURVEY . ....... 13

IDENTIFYING EFFECTIVE QUESTION FORMAT ........ . 18

DESIGNING VALID AND RELIABLE QUESTIONS . ...... 19

WRITING CONTINGENT VALUATION QUESTIONS . ...... 20

FIELD TESTING A CVM QUESTIONNAIRE .. ......... . 21

WHAT WAS DONE ........ ..................... 22

BUFFALO BAYOU INFORMATION NEEDS ... .......... 22

QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT .... ............. 22

WHAT WAS LEARNED ........ .................... 26

ANNOTATED REFERENCES ....... .................. 27

Iv
Table of Contents (continued) Paae

CHAPTER IV SAMPLE DESIGN AND SURVEY ADMINISTRATION ..... . 29

CONCEPTS AND OBJECTIVES ...... ................ 29

IDENTIFYING RELEVANT POPULATION ... .......... 29

CHOOSING APPROPRIATE SAMPLING TECHNIQUE ....... 29

DETERMINING SAMPLE SIZE ..... .............. 31

DRAWING THE SAMPLE ...... ................ 31

ADMINISTERING A MAIL CVM SURVEY ... .......... 32

WHAT WAS DONE ......... ..................... 33

POPULATION SAMPLED ...... ................ 33

DRAWING THE SAMPLE ...... ................ 33

SURVEY ADMINISTRATION ...... ............... 34

WHAT WAS LEARNED .......... .................... 40

ANNOTATED REFERENCES ........ ................. 41

CHAPTER V ANALYSIS AND BENEFIT EVALUATION .. ......... 45

CONCEPTS AND OBJECTIVES .................. 45

WHAT WAS DONE ......... ..................... 45

DATA CODING AND EDITING ..... .............. 45

BIAS CHECKS AND CORRECTIVE DATA ADJUSTMENTS .... 45

RECREATION USE ESTIMATES .... ............. 46

CONTINGENT VALUATION RESULTS ... ........... 51

ESTIMATED ANNUAL VALUE AT PLANNED CAPACITY .... 52

ADDITIONAL SURVEY RESULTS ..... .............. 55

WHAT WAS LEARNED ........ .................... 55

ANNOTATED REFERENCES ....... .................. 56

Ti @
Table of Contents (continued)

CHAPTER VI REGIONAL MODELS . ................ 57

CONCEPTS AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

DEFINITION AND PURPOSE .............. 57

FEDERAL CRITERIA ................. 57

VALUE ESTIMATOR MODELS . . . . . . . ........ 59

WHAT WAS DONE . . . . . . . ... . . . . .. 61

EXPLANATORY VARIABLES . .................. ... 61

OLS EMPIRICAL ESTIMATES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

PREDICTED SAMPLE VALUES . .............. 68

ADJUSTMENT OF MODELS FOR SUBSTITUTE SITE

AVAILABILITY . . . . . . . . . . ......... 69

WHAT WAS LEARNED . . . . . . . . ............... 7 C

ANNOTATED REFERENCES ..................... 70

CHAPTER VII FURTHER APPLICATIONS .................. ... 71

APPLYING MEAN USE AND VALUE ESTIMATES .. ......... 71

5 APPLYING VALUE ESTIMATION MODELS TO OTHER REGIONS . . . 71

REPLICATING BUFFALO BAYOU STUDY PROCEDURES ........ . 73

APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT AND COVER LETTERS .......... .75

APPENDIX B RECREATION ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION, MOTIVATIONS,

AND FACILITY PREFERENCES......... . . . . . . . . 95

S vii
Table of Contents (concluded)

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page Number Number

1. Preliminary Recreation Facility Plan. . . . . . . . . . . 10

2. Selected Comparisons of Face-to-Face and Telephone

Interviews and Mail Questionnaires. . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3. Allocation of Sample Among the Ten Study Bayous . . . . . 35

4. Results of Survey Administration and Response . . . . . . 38

5. Proposed Recreation Facility Developments . . . . . . . . 47

6. Recreation Demand and Carrying Capacity of Proposed

Developments. ........................... 49

7. Sample Means of Annual Willingness-to-Pay . . . . . . . . 53

8. Estimated Use and Value of Proposed Buffalo Bayou

Recreational Facilities ....... ................. .54

9. Variables Considered in Regional Modelling. . . . . . . . 63

10. Ordinary Least Squares Estimated Linear Models. . . . . . 64

11. Ordinary Least Squares Estimated Double Logarithmic

Models .... ............ . . . . . ........... . 66

12. Ordinary Least Squares Estimated Semi-Logarithmic

Models ....... ....................... . . . 67

13. OLS Models Mean WTP Estimates for Recreation Package. . . 68

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Number Number

1. Study Region Within the State of Texas . . . . . . . . . . 6

2. Study Region and Its Ten Bayou Areas ... ............ 7

3. Chronological Display of Survey Response Rate ......... .37

viii
CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

This is the third in a series of manuals written to provide an

expanded description of the recreation evaluation procedures

recommended in the US Water Resources Council's Economic and

Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land

Resources Implementation Studies, (P&G). Volumes I and II of the

three part manual series were published in March of 1986. Volume

I, "Recreation Use and Benefit Estimation Techniques," summarizes

the conceptual basis of procedures for recreation valuation

associated with water and related land resources planning. It

describes the mechanics of acceptable valuation methods and offers

criteria for determining the applicability of various methods to

particular planning situations. Volume II, "A Guide for Using the

Contingent Value Methodology in Recreation Studies," provides

additional information on the basic concepts of the Contingent

Value Method (CVM), as well as detailed guidance for its

application.

The intent of the first two volumes was to provide general,

state of the art guidance to the field on alternative recreation

use and benefit estimation techniques. As a result, examples of

the "how to" and "what to do, if" when facing the vagaries of an

actual field application were limited. In addition, especially in

Volume I, many of the examples used to illustrate the techniques

were dated and limited to lake recreation applications.

This third volume of the recreation manual series was written

to document an application of the CVM method for evaluating the

demand for urban recreation facilities. The Galveston District of

the US Army Corps of Engineers applied the CVM method to the

estimation of recreation benefits associated with its Buffalo Bayou

Flood Control Study in Houston, Texas. In addition to this study

being a unique application of the CVM method, the CVM data were

collected so that regional use estimation and valuation models

could be developed.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this report is to illustrate, through a case

study description, the practical application of the CVM method to

recreation evaluation in an actual planning study. The case study

description is meant to serve as a practical guide and, therefore,

emphasizes what was done more than the concepts behind the

techniques used. It is not intended to be a detailed guide of the

entire planning process, but rather highlights activities or

outcomes from this process that involved the development, conduct,

and application of the CVM analysis.

D1
Specific objectives of this manual are: to illustrate an urban

application of the CVM method to recreation demand and benefit

estimation, to illustrate the development of regional valuation

models, and to describe the potential transferability of the

procedures and/or findings of this case study to other planning

applications. A brief description of the remaining chapters

follows.

Chapters II through V describe the general tasks that were

accomplished in developing urban recreation use and value estimates

for the Buffalo Bayou Flood Control Study. These tasks include:

Identifying Study Objectives and Constraints (Chapter II),

Questionnaire Design (Chapter III), Sample Design and Survey

Administration (Chapter IV), and Analysis and Benefit Evaluation

(Chapter V). Each of these chapters begins with a brief discussion

of concepts and objectives and, what could be considered, a

preferred approach for accomplishing that particular task. This is

followed by a summary of what was actually done in the Buffalo

Bayou Study, including a discussion of how the preferred approach

was modified to accommodate study constraints. A brief discussion

of lessons learned from the Buffalo Bayou case study is then

presented. Most chapters conclude with a selected list of useful

annotated references.

The development of regional value estimation models is

discussed in Chapter VI, Regional Models. This chapter begins with

a discussion of some of the history and objectives of regional

modeling. The Buffalo Bayou application is then described,

including a discussion of model results. Lessons learned and

recommendations for future modelling efforts are then presented.

The chapter concludes with a selected list of useful annotated

references.

The last chapter of the manual, Chapter VII, "Further

Applications," addresses the transferability of the procedures and

findings of the Buffalo Bayou Study to other planning studies.

Several appendices are included to supplement the materials

presented in the main text.

2
CHAPTER II

STUDY OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS

As with other planning studies, it is very important in a

contingent value analysis that study objectives be clearly defined,

and that the necessary resources (primarily funding, personnel, and

time) to accomplish the work be identified. Delineation of study

objectives will help identify data needs as well as the population

from which information might be required. When combined with study

resource constraints, these objectives help determine whether or

not a contingent valuation survey is needed or can be used to

obtain needed information, and, if so, what is the most efficient

and effective survey approach for the particular problem being

analyzed.

CONCEPTS AND OBJECTIVES

DEFINE PROBLEM

As described in the P&G, the planning process consists of the

following steps: specifying the water and related land resource

problems and opportunities; inventorying, forecasting, and

analyzing water and related land resource conditions within the

planning area; formulating alternative plans; evaluating the

effects of the alternative plans; comparing alternative plans and

selecting a recommended plan. The primary goal of a CVM analysis

is to provide an estimate of the NED benefits of alternative .the recreation plans. These benefit estimates are primarily used in

latter steps of evaluating and comparing alternatives and

selecting a recommended plan.

Early in the planning process, the CVM analyst and/or

recreation planner needs to work closely with other members of the

project study team to formulate alternative plans and to develop

descriptions of the with- and without-project conditions for each

plan. The objective of the Corps recreation program is to fully

consider the recreation potential that may be provided at Corps

Civil Works projects. Formulated plans should, therefore, be

responsive to public needs and opportunities while recognizing the

limitations of the project resources, both natural and man-made,

for recreation development. Plan formulation should be coordinated

with other federal, state, and local recreation planning agencies,

and the resulting plans should be consistent with public needs

identified in State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans.

Clear delineation of the with- and without-project condition

for each of the formulated plans is needed to define the evaluation

problem to be addressed. It will also provide insight as to the

most appropriate valuation technique to be used. As noted in

Chapter I, criteria for determining the applicability of the

various recreation valuation techniques to particular planning

situations are provided in Volume I of this NED Procedures Manual

- Recreation series.

S3
INFORMATION NEEDS

The process of formulating alternative plans and describing

with- and without-project conditions will begin to identify

information needs for plan evaluation. Obviously, one of the

primary objectives of the evaluation of alternatives is to estimate

the amount and value of recreation use that would occur under each

of the with- and without-project conditions. If a survey is to be

used to collect this information, then consideration should be

given to other types of planning information (e.g., activity or

facility preferences) that could also be collected to support the

ongoing or future planning studies. Before a decision is made to

conduct a survey however, existing literature and information

sources should be reviewed to determine whether or not the needed

information is already available and, if not, whether or not a CVM

survey is the most efficient and effective means of collecting the

needed information.

As noted in the P&G, one of the first steps in selecting a

recreation valuation procedure is to determine whether or not an

applicable regional model is available. If one is available, it

should generally be used. Usually it will only require information

readily available from secondary data sources. If an applicable

regional model is not available, then recreation management

agencies, universities and other research institutions should be

contacted. They may have data available from which use estimating

and valuation models can be developed. If not, a survey may be

necessary to collect needed data. The CVM technique is often the

most appropriate method for collecting this information. A new CVM

survey should only be considered, however, when existing data are

not available to evaluate the plans being considered.

RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS

Study resources that can be devoted to the evaluation are

important considerations, not only in the selection of an optimal

valuation procedure or benefit estimation technique, but also in

how the study is conducted. The amount of time that can be devoted

to the recreation evaluation is always an important resource

constraint. If the CVM benefit estimation technique is selected,

some type of survey will be needed. If an on-site survey is used,

then sufficient study time is needed to select and collect data

from a representative sample from the appropriate recreation

season(s). Similarly, if a household survey is used, time is

needed for conducting the survey and for possible follow-up

contacts with non-respondents. The amount of time available in the

overall study can sometimes preclude certain valuation procedures

or benefit estimation techniques from being considered.

Another important resource constraint is the amount of study

funds that can be allocated to the recreation evaluation. An

important consideration is not only the total funding available,

but how the total is allocated to the various steps required in the

evaluation. Often too much of the funding is devoted to data

4
collection with insufficient funding for data analysis. In

defining the problem and developing specific evaluation objectives,

the analyst needs to be sure adequate funding is allocated

throughout the evaluation process so that the final product is in

a form that can support the overall planning effort.

A final resource constraint that must be considered when

determining how the study objectives are to be accomplished is the

availability of in-house personnel and expertise. The development

of a CVM analysis will sometimes require expertise in questionnaire

design, survey sampling, and/or survey analysis that is not

available in district offices. Cooperative agreements with other

agencies or contracting can make this expertise available to Corps

district staffs. However, institutional constraints and the

additional time needed to implement cooperative or contracting

arrangements must be considered in selecting the optimal approach

for each particular planning application.

DEVELOP SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

If, based on information needs and resources constraints, a

decision is made to proceed with a CVM study, specific objectives

for the survey and analysis should be developed. The objectives

should identify the information needs, both those specifically

required for the recreation evaluation, as well as secondary

information that could be efficiently collected to support other

planning activities. Both the resource constraints under which the

analysis is to be conducted and the general survey approach to be

used should be specified. The importance to this process of

clearly describing with- and without-project conditions for all

formulated plans cannot be overemphasized.

WHAT WAS DONE

The Buffalo Bayou study area is primarily located in Harris

County and portions of Ft. Bend and Waller Counties, in southeastern

Texas (Figure 1). Buffalo Bayou and its tributaries drain a 1,034

square mile area which includes most of the Houston metropolitan

area. Nearly two million people currently reside in the Buffalo

Bayou watershed. The study region is located in flat coastal

plains. For study purposes the area has been divided into ten

sub-areas (Figure 2).

Historically, frequent flooding has occurred in the Buffalo

Bayou area. A comprehensive study conducted by the Galveston

District was directed toward alleviating this flood problem, with

both structural and non-structural flood damage reduction plans

being considered. In the comprehensive study, the investigation

also addressed other water resource problems and needs in the area,

including recreation. When certain conditions are met, recreation

facilities can be an incremental addition to local flood control

projects.

5
Figure 1. Study Region within the State of Texas

60
0

17
For structural plans these conditions include: the

recreational facilities do not increase the overall costs by more

than 10 percent; the separable costs of the recreation facilities

must be incrementally justified; benefits from the recreational

facilities may not be used to justify the structural flood

prevention measures; and a non-Federal entity must be willing to

provide 50 percent of the separable cost for construction and 100

percent of the operation and maintenance cost for the recreation

facilities. For non-structural flood control plans there is no

limit on the percentage cost increase for the recreational

facilities, and the recreation benefits can be used in the

justification of the non-structural flood control features.

IDZNTIFICATION OF PLANS

Early in the study process, meetings of the Corps planning

team, including the study manager, project designers, economists,

and recreation planners were held. The objectives of these early

meetings were to identify the primary flood control alternatives

that were being considered, the types of recreational facilities

that could be logically incorporated into these plans, and the

constraints, primarily time and money, under which the evaluation

of the recreation facilities would need to be conducted. A

comprehensive flood damage reduction plan was formulated for the

Buffalo Bayou Watershed which included 75.3 miles of stream

enlargements, 7 flood detention basins, and other features. In

addition, environmental features, consisting of revegetation on

project lands, would compensate for fish and wildlife habitat

losses.

Conceptual recreational plans that could be incorporated into

this comprehensive flood damage reduction plan were also

identified. The proposed facilities consisted primarily of

multipurpose trails, picnic sites, open areas for field sports, and

play areas along stream rights-of-way and in proposed detention

areas. Some of these were similar to existing facilities that had

been developed by local park departments in other areas within the

Houston metropolitan region.

Contacts with other recreation agencies were also made early

in this study to identify existing data sources and to coordinate

the formulation of recreation plans. Extensive data were available

on the number and location of existing facilities, but little

information was available on the use of specific facilities.

According to City of Houston and State of Texas agencies, a great

diversity of recreational facilities is available in the study

region, but a substantial deficiency of developed recreation lands

persists in the urban areas.

The 1985 Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan (TORP), identifies

recreation resource needs for 1985 through 1995 for State Planning

Region 16, which is coincident with the Buffalo Bayou Study Area.

Additional facilities are needed to accommodate such activities as:

8
swimming, boating, baseball, football, basketball, soccer,

bicycling, jogging, hiking and walking, fishing, tennis and

picnicking. Many of these activities could be supported by the

types of facilities being considered in the Buffalo Bayou Study.

The land made available by the proposed flood damage reduction

projects provides an opportunity to satisfy a portion of these

recreation needs without affecting the functioning or increasing

the maintenance costs of the flood control projects. Such

facilities would complement the proposed projects. Based on the

types of facilities that could be accommodated with the proposed

flood protection plans, the needs of the Houston area, and other

planning constraints, a potential facility plan was developed

(Table 1).

IDENTIFY STUDY OBJECTIVES

Based upon the early meetings of the Corps planning team, a

set of objectives was formulated for the recreation evaluation

study. An initial objective was to identify the set of potential

recreation facility developments which could be provided in the

Houston study area.

Primary Objectives. There were three primary study

objectives:

" To estimate the annual use of alternative recreation 5 facility developments being considered for implementation.

" To estimate the typical resident's annual economic value

for the recreation facility developments being considered

for implementation, and influences of socio-economic

characteristics on this value.

To estimate the total (aggregate) annual economic value for

the recreation facility developments being considered for

implementation.

The above objectives indicate the types of data necessary to

determine the potential use and incremental values of the potential

recreational facility developments for the flood control plans.

Later chapters of this manual document how contingent valuation

techniques were used to obtain data for addressing these

objectives.

Secondary Objective. The following study objective was

defined to indicate secondary data needs for the recreational

component of the flood control plans:

To identify Houston residents' preferences for recreational

settings, facilities, activities, and experiences within

the Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries region.
- l ( c > C * C C000 c p C>poo

C4l~ C!C!q C

cf q qq q C, ~ coqqoC>

of C; 0. g-,i 

_ ii

co~ N~~a

100
The identification of recreation setting preferences was

needed to compare potential use and value differences for those

Houston residents who prefer developed versus more natural

settings. Preferences for different types of specific recreational

facilities, activities, and experiences or motivation outcomes were

defined as important ancillary data for application later in the

planning process, as well as for use in subsequent urban recreation

planning studies.

WHAT WAS LEARNED

It was learned that recreational studies of this kind should

be fielded (implemented) as early in the comprehensive planning

process as possible. Time must be provided to clearly define the

study problem. This definition stage of the CVM survey and

recreational study must include time for contacts with known

experts, both from within and outside the COE and should allow for

the involvement of various levels of COE management. This is

critical to have the recreation study accepted and understood. If

the planning process is to be maintained on schedule, the manager

also needs to identify needed expertise early and to determine

whether or not the recreation study team will be entirely from

within the COE.

It was also learned that obtaining appropriate data from

secondary sources is a difficult task. Secondary sources of data

often will not provide necessary information for accomplishing the

full objectives of a recreational study. Data from the 1985 TORP

were good for establishing Region 16 as the highest outdoor

recreation deficit area in the State of Texas. However, tne TORP

did not provide sufficient information to evaluate the benefits of

additional recreation facilities. Estimates of use for other

similar, existing recreational facilities would also have been

helpful but were not available.
ANOTATED REFERENCES

1. US Water Resource's Council (1983) Economic and Environmental 0

Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources

Studies, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

The Principles and Guidelines are intended to ensure proper

and consistent planning by Federal agencies in the formulation

and evaluation of water and related land resources

implementation studies. The Federal objective and the water

resources planning process are summarized in Chapter I,

Standards. Chapter II describes the general National Economic

Development (NED) procedures that are to be used, as well as

providing specific guidelines for each of the water resource

development outputs. Section VIII of Chapter II summarizes

the NED evaluation procedures for recreation.

2. US Army Corps of Engineers (1985), Water Resource Policies and

Authorities, Recreation Planning, Development, and Management

Policies, Engineer Regulation 1165-2-400, Washington, D.C.

This regulation defines the objectives, philosophies and basic

policies for the planning, development and management of

outdoor recreation and enhancement of fish and wildlife

resources at Corps of Engineers water resource development

projects. Appendix B provides a checklist of the types of new

facilities which may be provided in recreation developments at

Corps water resource projects. Included in this checklist is

the appropriate percentage of the costs of such facilities

that should normally be provided by non-Federal interests.

Copies of the regulation are normally maintained in Corps

district or division regulation libraries.

3. Sassone, Peter G. and William A. Schaffer (1978) Cost-Benefit

Analysis: A Handbook, Academic Press, Inc., New York.

This is an excellent text describing cost-benefit analysis for

the non-economist. Basic principles, logic, and methods are

described in a clear manner. More complicated procedures are

discussed and illustrated graphically. One noteworthy feature

is the focus on presenting results in a manner which is easily

understood, making project analyses more useful in the

decision-making process.

4. Leedy, Paul D. (1985) Practical Research Planning and Design,

Macmillan Publishing Company, New York.

Chapter 3 of this book, "The Problem: Heart of the Research

Project," is recommend reading for how to approach defining

the research problem for a study. The section entitled "The

Statement of the Problem" is particularly good for someone who

has never had to define a research problem in writing.

12
CHAPTER III 5 QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN

CONCEPTS AND OBJECTIVES

Every study is unique in some way. It is therefore usually

necessary to design a new survey questionnaire for each new

contingent valuation (CVM) study. This is the case even when the

same questions are used, because some special adaptations of the

survey questions are usually necessary to fit each survey

situation. The way in which questions are worded, as well as how

questions are formatted and placed in the questionnaire are a

function of many factors. There are, however, some commonalities

that ideal questionnaire designs share across most CVM studies.

Good questionnaire designs provide for efficient and effective

collection of valid and reliable data needed to adequately address

study objectives.

CATEGORIZATION OF INFORMATION NEEDED

The first step in designing a CVM questionnaire is to develop

an initial list of questions which correspond to each category of

needed information, dictated by the study objectives. At least

three categories of questions usually emerge: 1) ancillary

behavioral and/or attitudinal questions (e.g., participation and

preferences), 2) contingent valuation questions, and 3) sociodemographic questions for profiling sample respondents.

SSELECTING APPROPRIATE TYPE OF SURVEY

Simultaneous with the development of the questionnaire, a

decision must be made as to which type of survey will be best for

the study. This decision is usually based upon general information

needs, the potential population of interest, and study constraints.

A survey may either be administered with personal interviews

(face-to-face or by telephone), or designed as a self-administered

questionnaire (usually sent by mail). Some of the most useful

decision criteria with respect to survey information needs and

constraints are given in Table 2. Some of these criteria are more

important than others for CVM studies, particularly complex CVM

studies of urban area residents to value proposed recreational

developments. As summarized in Table 2, there are strengths and

weaknesses associated with each type of survey.

13
Table 2. Selected Comparisons of Face-to-Face and Telephone

Interviews and Mail Questionnaires

Performance Face-to-Face Mail Telephone

Characteristics Interviews Questionnaires Interviews

I. Likelihood of avoiding

unknown bias from

refusals. High Low High

II. Questionnaire

construction and

question design.

A. Allowable question

complexity. High Medium Low

B. Success with openended questions. High Low High

C. Success with controlling sequence. High Low High

D. Success with tedious

or boring questions. High Low Medium

E. Insensitivity to

questionnaire High Low Medium

construction

procedures.

III. Obtaining accurate

answers.

A. Likelihood that

social desirability

bias can be avoided. Low High Medium

B. Likelihood that interviewer distortion

and subversion can

be avoided. Low High Medium

140
O Table 2, Continued.

Performance Face-to-Face Mail Telephone

Characteristics Interviews Questionnaires Interviews

IV. Administration

requirements.

A. Likelihood that

personnel requirements can be met. Low High High

B. Potential speed of

implementation. Low Low High

C. Keeping costs low.

1. Overall potential

for low per interview costs. Low High Medium

2. Insensitivity of

costs to

increasing

geographical

dispersion. Low High Medium

(Source: Mail and Telephone Surveys. by Don A.Dillman:pp.74-75.)

15
Face-to-face interviews rate highest for complex questions

such as those with CVM scenarios and questions about future

recreation developments and their use. In a face-to-face

situation, the interviewer can show photos or drawings of the

potential developments, and can give detailed answers to questions

about what is being described. Mail questionnaires rate second

best because the photos or drawings can be mailed with the

questionnaire, but no interviewer can be present to answer

respondents' questions about them. Telephone interviews rate

lowest for complex CVM scenarios because it can be difficult to

explain complex scenarios over the telephone without visual aids.

Success with open-ended questions is low by mail as compared

with telephone or face-to-face personal interviews. This is

because in a personal interview the interviewer does the work of

writing down the open-ended responses. These can be lengthy at

times, and it is tiring to those receiving mail questionnaires to

write answers to many open-ended questions. The number of these

kinds of questions should therefore be kept to a minimum for mail

surveys. When the open-ended response requested is just a number,

such as a dollar amount in response to a CVM scenario, not as much

writing is required and response by mail can be quite good,

provided the number of such questions is not too great.

Control over the sequence in which respondents answer

questions is low by mail, as compared with high for telephone or

face-to-face personal interviews. When an interviewer is present,

he or she controls the sequence in which the questions and

supporting material in the questionnaire are read. By mail there

is no way of knowing if the interviewee reads the questions and

supporting material in the order that they are printed in the

questionnaire. With mail CVM questionnaires it is possible that

some respondents may not read the scenario before answering a

willingness-to-pay question.

Success with tedious or boring questions is best with

face-to-face interviews, second best with telephone interviews, and

lowest with mail questionnaires. Particularly long explanations or

CVM scenarios that may be perceived as boring by respondents can be

made more interesting when read by an interviewer. This is

especially true when the interviewer maintains eye contact with the

interviewee so as to pick up non-verbal cues when respondents begin

to lose interest.

Mail questionnaires are the most sensitive to the need for

high quality questionnaire design. The appearance of the

questionnaire and the ease with which the questions can be read and

answered are factors critical to inducing high response rates with

mail questionnaires. In contrast, respondents to personal

interviews often never see the questionnaire because the

interviewer usually reads the questions to them. Therefore

questionnaire appearance and construction is not as important.

16
With personal interviews, however, poor questionnaire construction

does put an added burden upon the interviewer.

Mail questionnaires rate highest for avoiding social

desirability bias. This is the natural human tendency to give

socially acceptable answers to questions asked in the presence of

others. Personal interviews rate low in this regard because an

interviewer is present and the respondent generally is asked to

verbalize some answers which could be perceived as socially

unacceptable. An example would be a willingness to pay a very

large dollar amount to support recreation facilities, but

reluctance to say this in the interviewer's presence for fear that

it would appear to be an abnormally high amount.

Mail questionnaires also rate highest for avoiding interviewer

distortion and subversion, because no interviewer is present.

Personal interview surveys can guard against this by good

interviewer training, but it can still happen with some interviews.

There is less chance of it happening by telephone than

face-to-face, because less influence can be exerted by the

interviewer by phone than when able to make eye contact with

respondents in a face-to-face situation.

Face-to-face surveys generally require hiring and supervising

more personnel for longer periods of time than mail or telephone

surveys. When large numbers of interviewers are hired for

telephone surveys, it is usually for shorter periods of time. Telephone interviewers are also easier to supervise, because there

is no need to travel to interview sites. Interviewers are usually

in one interview room with telephones rather than at field

locations. Mail surveys require fewer personnel because

interviewers are not needed.

Speed of implementation is generally highest for telephone

surveys. The exception is when the survey sample is very large and

telephone survey equipment is limited in quantity. Both

face-to-face and mail surveys rate low on speed of implementation.

Mail surveys rate highest for keeping costs low, telephone

surveys rate second highest, and face-to-face surveys rate lowest.

This is largely due to the fact that interviewers do not need to be

hired for mail surveys, and transportation to field interview sites

is not necessary as with face-to-face surveys.

Resource constraints and/or study needs may preclude one type

of survey and cause the CVM analyst to choose another. Cost is one

such factor that often precludes face-to-face interviews. Time and

the number of personnel available to work on a particular study are

also often scarce resources. Some types of CVM scenarios may also

require that respondents be given considerable time to reflect on

the hypothetical aituation posed by a CVM question. Personnel

limitations can also dictate the type of survey to use. In some

17
cases, only one person is needed to design and carry out a mail

survey. In contrast, interviewers must be trained and supervised

to successfully conduct a face-to-face or telephone interview

survey.

It should also be noted that for some studies it may be most

effective to use some combination of survey techniques. For

example, a face-to-face on site contact with a follow-up mail-back

survey, or pre-mailing of a questionnaire or graphic materials with

a follow-up telephone interview are effective techniques for

increasing survey efficiency and effectiveness and survey response.

IDENTIFYING EFFECTIVE QUESTION FORMAT

After selecting the appropriate survey method, the next step

is to identify the most effective type of question format for each

question. This is done with respect to both the particular types

of questions to be asked and the way in which the survey will be

administered. It is a subjective process that is more art than

science. The most logical way to begin is by examining the formats

of similar questions used in past studies. For Corps CVM studies

this means examining the Office of Management and Budget approved

questionnaires for Corps planning studies (Refer to Annotated

Reference #4 at the end of this chapter). The most similar generic

questions are examined and decisions made as to how they could be

adapted for use in the new CVM study.

Question Placement. Formatting the most effective placement

of questions in the questionnaire is an important design

consideration. The questioning should begin with questions that

are easy to answer and which obviously relate to the expressed

purpose of the study. This does two things. First, it gets

respondents started on the interview with the least possible risk

of stumbling on the first questions. It is important to avoid any

perceived difficulty with answering the first questions, because

this can produce refusals to go any further. Second, questions at

the beginning of the questionnaire that obviously are central to

the study purpose help establish credibility among skeptical

respondents, causing them to take more interest and care in

answering subsequent questions.

The questions most central to the purpose of the study should

be asked next, as soon as possible after the obvious and easy

questions. In CVM studies, the questions most central to the

purpose are those concerning supply, demand, and willingnessto-pay. Open or closed ended formats may be used to obtain the

willingness-to-pay information.

Questions about income, education, occupation, and other

personal characteristics that respondents might be reluctant to

answer should be placed at the end of the questionnaire. It is not

as critical if respondents refuse to answer one or more of these at

the end of the questionnaire. Refusals to answer objectionable

18
questions at the beginning of the questionnaire often result in

refusals to answer subsequent questions. After the majority of the

survey questionnaire has been completed, it is unlikely that a

respondent will change answers to other questions already given.

Mail Format. Design of a mail survey requires considerable

sophistication on the part of the research analyst in laying out

the questionnaire, writing effective cover letters, and

implementing the mail-out in carefully monitored "waves" timed to

maximize response. One recommended design to use is a white 6 1/8"

x 8 1/4" booklet of 16 pound paper for the mail questionnaire.

When folded, this fits into a 7 1/2" x 3 7/8" envelope. Questions

are typed on standard 8 1/2" x 11" paper and reduced 79 percent to

fit the booklet pages and leave adequate margins. No questions

should appear on either the front or back cover of the booklet.

The front cover of the booklet should display an appropriate

graphic illustration to stimulate interest. The front cover should

also contain the title of the study, the name and address of the

sponsor, and any instructions necessary before filling out the

questionnaire. Inside the booklet, questions should be typed in

lower case letters and numbered consecutively on the left side of

the page. Answer categories for the questions should be in upper

case and preceded by numbers which the respondent is instructed to

circle to indicate his or her answer. Answer categories should be

positioned in a vertical line down the center of the page. Ample "white space" should be left between the questions and along the

margins. The back cover of the booklet should contain nothing more

than an invitation to the respondent to make additional comments

and a thank you statement.

DESIGNING VALID AND RELIABLE QUESTIONS

All questions in the survey questionnaire must be both valid

and reliable. Validity means that the CVM survey questions are

measuring the economic value and other types of data in the way

that these data are supposed to be measured. Reliability means

that the same survey questions would consistently elicit the same

answers from the same respondents on repeated occasions, with every

respondent interpreting each question the same way.

Question Wording. One of the most important considerations

for assuring valid and reliable questions is careful question

wording. Each word in a question should be evaluated by the

analyst to assure that it will clearly convey the meaning intended.

Words with many dictionary meanings should be avoided, and

questions should be written in as simple and straightforward a

manner as possible. Words should be chosen which will be easily

understood by respondents with the lowest level of education in the

population to be surveyed.

Practically every word in a question should be examined to see

if different meanings could be attributed to it by different people

(unreliability). Any ambiguous words should be replaced or

19
eliminated. For each question, use both a dictionary and thesaurus

to identify the simplest words possible with the least number of

meanings. Word emphasis can also be used to ensure conveying the

proper meaning of a question. A key word can be emphasized in a

question by underlining it, by typing it in CAPITAL LETTERS, or by

putting "quotation marks" around it.

Ouestion Structure. The way in which questions are structured

can also affect validity and reliability. Anything in the question

structure which biases the respondent's answer can invalidate a

question. The structure of the response categories also can affect

question validity and reliability. Response categories provided

for structured questions should be both exhaustive and mutually

exclusive. If the possible answers provided are not exhaustive,

the question is invalid for those respondents who would like to

answer in a way other than those provided. They will either refuse

to answer or will answer incorrectly. If question response

categories are not mutually exclusive, the questioz, is unreliable

because respondents can legitimately give a different response each

time they are asked the question.

WRITING CONTINGENT VALUATION QUESTIONS

What is the Contingent Valuation Method? The contingent

valuation method (CVM) is defined as "any approach to valuation

that relies upon individual responses to contingent circumstances

posited in an artificially structured market." A wide array of

approaches are included within this definition, but the most common

are bidding approaches.

Iterative Bidding. In the iterative bidding approach,

respondents are confronted with a structured choice situation where

a decision must be made involving a trade. The underlying

justification for this iterative questioning procedure is that it

forces the individual respondent to continuously re-evaluate the

decision and "hone in on" a reliable response. It is essentially

an auction process and has the properties of such processes, when

conducted by a properly trained interviewer.

For example, after determining the cost of an annual waterfowl

hunting license, the following question could be posed: "Would you

continue waterfowl hunting if a license cost 'X' annually?" There

are two choices, hunt or quit hunting. If the response is "yes",

then the cost of the license, X, is increased and the question is

repeated. This procedure is conducted iteratively until a "no"

response is obtained. The "no" response indicates that (1)

waterfowl hunting is not valued any higher than the amount to which

the individual previously responded "yes" and (2) at any higher

amount the individual would quit waterfowl hunting. A "no"

response to the initial question would cause the survey interviewer

to perform the above process in a downward direction.

20
If a "no" response is obtained for all amounts, then the

interviewer would ask the respondent a follow-up question to

determine whether (1) current license fees are at a threshold level

where the hunter would quit ("a little more and I would quit") or

(2) the hunter objects to the idea of increased license fees or

license fees in general. Respondent bids falling in the second

category are usually considered to be protest bids and not

legitimate zero valuations. Thus, in most cases, these responses

are deleted from the data set.

Non-iterative Bidding. In non-iterative bidding the iteration

is removed from the questioning procedure. A non-iterative version

of the previous question is: "Would you continue waterfowl hunting

if a license cost $25 annually?" After obtaining a "yes" or "no"

response the question is judged to have been completely

administered. But a value amount for the question must be

preselected. An alternative to circumvent this problem reads: "I

would not continue waterfowl hunting if a license cost $_

annually." The respondent must then choose an appropriate amount.

The preceding two bidding questions provide a useful

distinction between non-iterative bidding formats: those which use

close-ended and those which use open-ended questions. The former

(close-ended) formats allow the analyst to examine the proportion

of a sample subgroup which responds favorably to a specific Spreselected offer amount. These proportions may be used to derive

a demand schedule reflecting alternative prices. The selection of

analysis routines is extremely important with this close-ended form

of question structure. Individual responses do not indicate the

maximum value of the commodity, only whether the suggested price is

acceptable. In contrast, both open-ended and iterative bidding

seek to find the respondent's actual (or threshold)

willingness-to-pay (consumer's surplus) directly.

FIELD TESTING A CVM QUESTIONNAIRE

Ideally the CVM questionnaire should be field tested and

revised repeatedly until it works well. This ideal of perfection

may never be achieved, but should be conscientiously sought in the

preparation of every CVM questionnaire. The effectiveness and

efficiency of the draft questionnaire should be tested with

respondents similar to those in the population to be surveyed.

This should initially be done face-to-face, even with mail and

telephone questionnaire formats. After each pretest interview, the

respondent should be probed for any difficulty experienced in

understanding or answering the survey questions. If any problems

are discovered with the questionnaire, revisions should be made.

Then the revised questionnaire must be further pretested, both to

see if the revisions have corrected the problems and to continue

searching for other potential problems. It is usually necessary to

revise a questionnaire several times before the analyst feels

S 21
confident that it is an effective and efficient data collection

instrument to use for the study.

In addition to pretesting the questionnaire itself, the method

of administration of the survey should also be pretested. This

involves interviewer procedures for administering personal

interview or telephone surveys, and mail-out procedures for mail

(self-administered) surveys.

WHAT WAS DONE

BUFFALO BAYOU INFORMATION NEEDS

Three general groupings of questions emerged for the Buffalo

Bayou questionnaire: 1) a group of questions concerning outdoor

recreation participation, motivations, and facility/service

preferences; 2) a group of economic questions concerning outdoor

recreation value, quantity demanded, and supply adequacy; and 3) a

group of questions concerning each respondent's socio-economic

characteristics. These were the types of questions needed to

achieve the study objectives.

With respect to the study objectives, economic value of

recreation was the most important information needed. It was

derived through the use of "contingent valuation" questions in the

survey instrument.

QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT

Question Development. A rough draft of the contingent

valuation scenario and questions and each of the other question

types specified in the description of information needs was

prepared. Generic questions of these types from previously

approved Corps questionnaires were identified. Question formatting

and wording changes were then substituted and/or added to

appropriately "shape" the generic questions to the specific needs

of this study.

Decision to Use Mail Survey. A mail survey with selfadministered questionnaire was decided upon as best for this CVM

study, for reasons relating to both the nature of the study and the

time frame. This was a very sophisticated CVM study, and data

collection had to be completed within approximately 6 months time

from when the study was initiated and the design of the

quesionnaire begun. Preliminary results were required within four

months of the initiation of the study and before the entire data

collection effort was completed.

Given the short time frame, a telephone survey was first

considered because it is normally the fastest method of getting

survey results. However, it was ruled out because of the

sophisticated nature of this CVM study. Visual illustrations were

necessary for respondents to understand the kinds of potential

future recreational developments that were being considered.

22
Showing illustrations requires either face-to-face personal

interviews or mailing the illustrations to respondents. Personal

interviews for a region as large as the Houston area of Buffalo

Bayou and tributaries were ruled out as too costly and time

consuming. Mailing the illustrations appeared to be the only

alternative. Thus, a mail survey was selected as the most

appropriate method to efficiently and effectively conduct this CVM

study.

Mail Questionnaire. The mail questionnaire was then

developed. The final survey questionnaire is shown in Appendix A.

It consisted of 11 pages of questions and two pages of

illustrations, in the form of a booklet using 8 1/2 " by 11"

pages, rather than the preferred reduced size booklet referred to

earlier. The amount of detail in the map illustration and the

extensive amount of single spaced instructions needed precluded use

of the smaller booklet size. The cover page had the emblem of

Texas A & M University in the center, with the title "Outdoor

Recreation Survey" above it. The two Departments at Texas A & M

who conducted the study were identified below the emblem. A four

sentence paragraph indicated to respondents that they had been

randomly selected to receive the questionnaire, and that all

information provided would be kept confidential. A final sentence

at the bottom of the page requested respondents to please return

the questionnaire in the self- addressed postage paid (first class)

envelope provided.

After the cover page, the questionnaire was divided into three

general parts. Upon opening the booklet, respondents found the

first question of the first part of the questionnaire on the back

side of the cover page. This question was easy to answer. It also

obviously related directly to the title of the questionnaire, by

asking whether or not respondents and other household members had

participated in 25 popular Texas outdoor recreation activities

during the previous 12 months. The rest of the first section of

the questionnaire followed on the next three pages, each page

having increasingly more difficult questions. After question one

asked about respondents' participation in each of the 25 outdoor

recreation activities, question two asked respondents to recall the

frequency of their participation in outdoor recreation and the

average number of household members participating per occasion. In

contrast to question one, asking about 25 different activities,

question two asked respondents to answer with respect to only five

general activity "packages." These represented the types of

activities for which facilities were being considered. Questions

three and four asked how far household members usually traveled to

participate in each of the five activity "packages," and the

adequacy of the existing supply of outdoor recreation facilities in

the Houston area for each of these five types of activities.

Questions five, six, and seven measured respondent motives and

facility preferences for the one activity package out of the five

that they participated in most often.

S 23
The second section of the questionnaire consisted of a group

of economic questions concerning Houston residents' demand for and S

value attached to proposed recreational developments for Buffalo

Bayou and tributaries. That section of the questionnaire was six

pages long. It began on page five with a three paragraph

explanation of the types of recreational developments being

considered for the Buffalo Bayou project by Corps planners. That

page of the questionnaire referred to drawn illustrations on the

opposite page of "natural" and "more developed" alternatives for

potential bayou detention area parks, and an illustration of a

typical bayou edge trailway for recreational activity. A question

asked respondents to indicate whether they would prefer bayou

detention areas as depicted in the "natural" illustration or as

depicted in the "more developed" illustration. This question (Q-8)

was situated at the bottom of page five.

A map of the Houston area including Buffalo Bayou and its

tributaries was on the back side of the page depicting the

"natural" and "more developed" detention areas and the bayou edge

trailways. This map included the names and locations of Buffalo

Bayou and its Houston area tributaries. It also indicated which

bayous were being considered for potential recreational edge

development and where bayou detention area parks might be located.

Question nine was on the next page facing the map. It asked

respondents to look at the map and to indicate whether or not they

would use each of the proposed bayou and detention area

developments during a typical year. It also asked respondents to

give an estimate of the number of days per year members of their

households would use each of the proposed recreational development

locations.

The next two pages contained the contingent valuation

questions, together with one question to identify substitution

effects and another to identify protest values. Both a dichotomous

choice and an open ended contingent value question (Q-12) were

included. A subsequent question (Q-14) in this economic section of

the questionnaire asked respondents to allocate the total value

they gave in response to the open-ended CVM question among the

thirteen possible development locations.

The last major section of the questionnaire consisted of

socio-economic questions, Q-15 through Q-28. Two more questions

followed the socio-economic items. These questions (Q-29 and Q30) were included to allow respondents to rate how understandable

they found the questions (a reliability issue), and also how

accurate they thought their answers were to the dichotomous choice

CVM questions (a validity issue).

Questionnaire Revisions. The questionnaire presented in

Appendix A was the result of several pretest and revision

iterations. The draft questionnaire was first pretested with

students and colleagues on the Texas A & M University campus who

24
S were familiar with the Houston area. Each was told the purpose of

the study and asked to fill out the questionnaire as if they had

received it in the mail at a Houston residence. They were then

asked if they had any problems understanding or answering any of

the questions. Based on their comments, wording changes were made

to improve the questions.

Next the questionnaire was pretested with several Texas A & M

alumni who were identified as then living and working in the

Houston area. Appointments were made by telephone with those

agreeing to assist in pretesting the questionnaire, and two trips

were made to Houston to interview individuals with the

questionnaire. Again, these individuals were each told the purpose

of the study and asked to fill out the questionnaire as if they had

received it in the mail at their Houston residences. Based on

their comments and suggestions in filling out the draft

questionnaire, revisions again were made.

Next the questionnaire was pretested with weekend picnickers

at a large park on the west side of the Houston area to be included

in the study. It was felt that these recreating Houston residents

were the best pretest representatives of the population to be

surveyed. They were participating in one or more of the activities

the study was addressing. As with the prior pretest interviews,

these individuals were asked to complete the questionnaire as if

they had just received it in the mail at their Houston residences. S Based on their comments and suggestions, the questionnaire again

was revised.

Galveston District and Institute for Water Resources

personnel were sent copies of the original draft questionnaire and

the revised versions as the pretesting progressed. Some revisions

also were also made in the questionnaire as a result of initial

reactions to it by these Corps personnel.

Question number nine was revised several times in an effort to

get more detailed information desired by Corps personnel on

potential future use of the proposed bayou edge developments and

detention area parks. The final version of this question

represents a compromise between the level of detail Corps personnel

requested and objections on the part of pretest respondents to the

level of difficulty posed by such a hypothetical question. What

was desired from question 9 were data on the "average" number of

days per year "per household member." During the pretest,

respondents indicated this wording made the question too complex.

Leaving the wording in the simpler, but less precise format shown

in Appendix A likely compromised the reliability of the data

obtained.

S 25
WHAT WAS LEAPNED

The main thing learned was that design of the survey should

have started much earlier in the planning process. Had design been

initiated several months earlier, the questionnaire probably could

have been refined to the point where the response rate would have

been much higher. In addition to refining the questionnaire, there

also would have been time to pretest different survey procedures.

One which was discussed was to use two questionnaires, an initial

questionnaire to gather data for a recreation development plan and

a subsequent questionnaire to measure the benefits of that plan.

Additional time up front would have allowed testing of this and

other survey design alternatives, with the end result of improved

response and improved quality of data.

Survey design is an art. Questionnaires must be field tested

several times, carefully making indicated revisions after each

field test. Only in this way can the best final questionnaire for

the study be achieved. This is an iterative process which takes

time and care. Its importance cannot be overemphasized.

It also is important to involve all those who intend to use

the final information in the initial questionnaire development and

review processes. This should begin with a meeting of the research

analysts together with all involved Corps personnel. Here the

initial types of questions needed to address study objectives

should be agreed upon. Later, after the analysts have prepared a

first draft of the questionnaire, everyone should again meet

together to jointly review the questions. Revisions can then be

made to ensure that the questions being asked are eliciting the

kind of information desired by the planners and others who will

eventually use that information.

Questions concerning respondents' future intentions are

particularly challenging for the research analyst to write. More

research is needed on the design of these types of questions. No

one can answer with complete certainty about the amount of outdoor

recreation in which they will participate at a particular future

time and place. However, people can give their generalized

intentions. How this translates into real future behavior and the

level of detail about future intentions that respondents can

reasonably be expected to give needs much more research and

documentation.

It was learned from the two check questions included at the

end of the present study questionnaire that most respondents felt

confident that their answers to the questions were reasonably

accurate. Most also felt that their answers to the CVM valuation

questions were consistent with what they would actually be willing

to pay for the future outdoor recreation opportunities they were

being asked to value.

260
ANNOTATZD RhFZRZNCZS

1. Babbie, Earl (1986) The Practice of Social Research, 4th

Edition. Wadsworth Publishing Company; Belmont, CA.,577 p.

This is a very easy to read comprehensive book on social

research methods. Several chapters and appendices in the book

deal specifically with survey research design, implementation,

and analysis.

For questionnaire design, the following chapters are

recommended:

Chapter 4: Research Design

Chapter 5: Conceptualization and Measurement

Chapter 6: Operationalization

Chapter 9: Survey Research

In Chapter 4, the section entitled "How to Design a Research

Project" is particularly relevant for CVM surveys. In Chapter

5, the material on reliability and validity in the section

entitled "Criteria for Measurement Quality" is highly

recommended. In Chapter 6, the section entitled "Guidelines

for Asking Questions" is recommended. All of Chapter 9 is

recommended reading.

2. Dillman, Don N. (1978) Mail and Telephone Surveys, The Total

Desian Method. John Wiley & Sons; New York.325 p.

Dillman does a very good job of packaging much important

detail on survey design in a very systematic and

straightforward manner. This book is an especially good

reference for surveys administered by mail or telephone.

Extensive explanation is given for design and implementation

of surveys using each of these methods. The material on mail

surveys is considered by many researchers to be the best

available. Those who follow the Dillman method of mail survey

administration routinely get relatively high response, often

as high as with other survey methods. This book was the

principal reference for writing the first half of this

chapter.

For questionnaire and mail survey design, the following

chapters are recommended:

Chapter 2: Which is Best, The Advantages and

Disadvantages of Mail, Telephone, and

Face-to-Face Surveys

Chapter 3: Writing Questions

Chapter 4: Constructing Mail Questionnaires

3. Hodgson, Ronald W. (1986). "An Example of a Mailed Contingent

Valuation Survey Method in a Marina Feasibility Study."

S 27
Instruction Report R-86-1, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers

Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi.

This report is similar to the present case study, in that it

describes how contingent valuation data were collected by mail

survey to value recreation resources. It differs by being a

marina example instead of an application to an urban

population. It also places less emphasis upon data analysis

and modeling than the present study. Two chapters (called

"Parts") are particularly relevant to the present study's

chapter on questionnaire design:

Part IV: The Contingent Valuation Questionnaire.

Part V: Organizing the CVM Questionnaire.

Part IV contains three versions of the CVM question used in

the marina study. Part V contains important detail on several

aspects of constructing high quality mail questionnaires.

4. Moser, David A.and C.Mark Dunning (1986). "National Economic

Development Procedures Manual - Recreation, Volume II, A Guide

for Using the Contingent Value Methodology in Recreation

Studies." IWR Report 86-R-5. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers

Water Resources Support Center, Institute for Water Resources.

Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

The following parts of this report are very good supplementary

reading for this chapter of the present manual. 0

Chapter III: Design of the Survey Instrument.

Appendix A: CV Questionnaires for Corps Planning Studies

Moser and Dunning devote most of Chapter III to discussion of

the necessary components of an adequate contingent valuation

section to the questionnaire. This discussion includes

sections on the payment vehicle, iterative bidding, open-ended

willingness-to-pay questions (with an example of a payment

card), closed ended willingness-to-pay questions, option/

existence value, and protest questions. An example is given

of the types of closed ended responses to use for a protest

question. In addition, Appendix A of this manual provides

draft "generic" CV questionnaires that can be used in the

early stages of questionnaire development.

280
CHAPTER IV

SAMPLE DESIGN AND SURVEY ADMINISTRATION

CONCEPTS AND OBJECTIVES

The appropriate population to sample and the appropriate

sampling technique must be determined before a CVM survey sample

can be drawn and the survey administered. These are important

steps in any survey and careful thought should be given to each if

the survey is to provide valid results. If the wrong population is

sampled, or if the sample is not selected so as to appropriately

represent the population, the results may be unusable.

An appropriate survey sampling technique should provide a

representative estimate of the population characteristics and other

information desired for the entire population from which the sample

is drawn. Sample estimates are within a determinable margin of

error, depending upon the size of the sample and the variation in

the characteristics being measured. The key to ensuring a

representative estimate of the characteristics being measured is

random sampling. Representativeness of a random sample can be

further improved by stratifying the population listing(s) from

which the sample is to be selected.

IDENTIFYING RELEVANT POPULATION

It is important to define the appropriate population to sample

for a CVM study. If the population sampled is not the relevant

population, results will not be generalizable as required to

address the study objectives. For valuation of established outdoor

recreation sites, the relevant population would be the actual users

of the sites. For valuation of proposed outdoor recreation sites,

the relevant population would be the people most likely to use the

sites. For proposed urban outdoor recreation sites, the most

likely future users of the sites are the urban area residents.

Before sampling, the relevant population identified must be

more specifically defined. This is commonly called developing a

"sampling frame." The sampling frame must define, for sampling

purposes, exactly which members of the overall population are to be

included in the final population sampling listing. For example, a

population of residents of an urban area may be reduced to a

sampling frame by including only those residents who are adults,

competent to understand and respond to the CVM questionnaire. It

may be further reduced to include only those adult residents with

telephones, if telephone book listings are to be used for drawing

the sample.

CHOOSING APPROPRIATE SAMPLING TECHNIQUE

Choice of the appropriate sampling technique includes both the

choice of how a random sample is to be selected and from what type

of listing(s) the sample is to be selected. How a random sample is

29
to be selected is usually a choice restricted to the alternatives

of a simple random sample with replacement, a random sample without

replacement, or a sequential sample with a random starting point.

The type of listing the sample is to be drawn from includes the

physical nature of the list itself and whether or not the list is

or can be stratified. A commonly available type of listing for

sampling of residential households is the telephone directory. It

can be stratified by telephone exchange, and also geographically by

the listed addresses of telephone subscribers.

Other types of lists commonly available include listings of

metered water customers, electricity customers, and gas company

customers. All of these are biased toward homeowners and residents

who can afford these services. The latter bias is also true for

telephone subscribers. Many telephone subscribers are also

unlisted, and not including them may also introduce some bias.

Random SamplinQ. Sampling is random when all qualifying

individuals in the surveyed population have an equal chance or

known probability of being selected in the survey sample. Random

sampling is most commonly conducted for CVM surveys by using what

is called a random sample without replacement. As each household

or individual is drawn from the population listing being used, they

are deleted from the list and do not have further chances of being

selected. Although this slightly increases the probability that

remaining members of the population will be selected, the effect

upon the overall representativeness of the population is

negligible. For a simple random sample, every qualifying member of

the surveyed population should have a chance of being drawn in the

sample at every draw. However, it usually does not make sense to

interview the same person more than once. Once drawn from the

sampled population, their name is not allowed to be drawn again.

A modification of random sampling that is acceptable is to

randomly select only the starting point for a sequential sample

drawn at equal intervals from a population listing. The size of

the sample desired is determined. This number is then divided into

the size of the qualifying population list. The resulting number

is then used to systematically draw every "n"th person or household

on the list to constitute the sample. Randomization is achieved by

using a random number table or some other acceptable way of

randomly choosing which person or household shall be the first one

on the list to be selected for the survey. Every "n"th person or

household after that is then selected until the population listing

is exhausted. The resulting sample can be called a random sample

if the starting point was randomly selected, and if it can be

assumed that the list is itself randomly constituted. An

alphabetical listing such as found in a phone book is often assumed

to be essentially random.

Stratification. Stratification means dividing the population

listing into several smaller lists corresponding to characteristics

30
of the population being sampled. Place of residence is one such

characteristic used to stratify a population. To stratify an urban

population based upon place of residence, for example, two lists

could be created - one for residents living on the south side of

town and another for those living on the north side of town. The

same type of random sample would then be drawn from each of these

two lists. The result would be to eliminate sampling error with

respect to proportionately representing these two geographic parts

of the city. Stratifying the population list before drawing the

sample will decrease the overall sampling error by eliminating the

error for the characteristic(s) upon which the sampling list is

stratified. Thus, a stratified random sample is often preferable

to a random sample that has not been stratified.

DETERMINING SAMPLE SIZE

Sample size is mainly determined by the amount of error that

will be tolerated in measurement of important study variables.

When stratified random samples are drawn proportionate to the size

of the various population strata, smaller population strata will

have larger sampling error than larger strata. This is because the

amount of sampling error is inversely related to sample size. If

this error becomes intolerably large, the smaller strata must be

oversampled by drawing proportionately larger subsamples from them

than would otherwise be the case. The resulting larger weighting

of the sample estimate for these particular strata must later be

taken into account if the strata are combined for analysis.

SLarger sample sizes may also be required for certain smaller

strata of the population being sampled when these strata are more

important to the study objectives than certain other strata. For

example, if it is known that recreation facilities will be

developed in some parts, of a study region but not in others, it

makes good sense to oversample those particular parts of the

region. Oversampling of these population strata is conducted to

reduce their sampling error and improve the accuracy of sample

estimates for measured characteristics of the households or

individuals comprising these strata.

DRAWING THE SAMPLE

After adequately defining all aspects of the chosen sampling

technique to be used, including size of sample(s) needed, the next

step is to actually draw the sample. The sample can either be

drawn by the research analysts themselves, or this can be

sub-contracted to firms specializing in drawing samples. Firms

with continuously updated computer banks of telephone book listings

for the entire United States are sometimes more cost and time

efficient for researchers to employ than drawing their own sample

using the books themselves. This is not necessarily the case if

listings other than phone books are used.

Drawing the sample for a CVM household survey involves drawing

the number of names and addresses from the sampling frame list(s)

31
necessary to achieve the desired sample size. Once this is

completed the assumption is that a respondent in every household

drawn as part of the sample will be contacted and will provide

answers to the survey questions. This almost never happens,

because some selected household occupants cannot be reached or

refuse to cooperate. It is usually assumed that, over the whole

sample, these refusals are for random reasons and do not materially

affect the representativeness of the final sample estimates.

However, some check on the reasons for this non-response is

necessary to determine whether or not any systematic biases do

exist. If identified, such biases can then be taken into account

in the final data analysis.

Thus, the final step in sample administration is to check on

the reasons for nonresponse and identify any effects of this upon

sample representativeness. This can be done both indirectly and

directly. The most common indirect method is to compare sample

characteristics with the same characteristics reported for the

sampled population by the most recent U.S. Census. A common direct

method of checking for sampling bias for mail CVM surveys is to

conduct a telephone survey of a sample of mail nonrespondents and

ask them their reasons for not responding.

ADMINISTERING A MAIL CVM SURVEY

Administering the Mail-Out. Administration of the mail-out

should be conducted using a "wave" technique of multiple mailings.

This involves timing the various waves or mailings so that they are

both feasible and effective. With a large sample, thousands of

questionnaires and cover letters must be stuffed into envelopes

together with a stamped self-addressed return envelope. This can

take days to prepare and must be coordinated with receipt of the

required number of questionnaires and envelopes. Printed

questionnaires and letters generally are preferable to photocopied

questionnaires, unless desk top computer laser printers or

equivalent quality copying equipment can be used. If sent to a

printing company, questionnaires must be printed with enough

advance lead time to meet mail-out deadlines.

Each wave after the first mailing is mailed only to those who

have not yet responded to the survey. One exception is that a post

card is often mailed to everyone very shortly after the first

mailing goes out. This post card urges everyone to respond to the

first mailing and includes a thank you for those who have already

mailed in their completed questionnaires.

Printing of all questionnaires needed for the study should

generally be done in two or more batches. The amount of

non-response to the first mailing will determine how many

questionnaires should be printed for the next mailing, and so on

for subsequent mailings.

32
Administerina Response. Response to the mail-out also must be

carefully controlled. Each questionnaire mailed out should be

coded with a number which is checked off from a master list when

the completed questionnaire is returned. This requires daily

attention. If not done, some respondents may receive one or more

additional questionnaires after they have completed one and mailed

it back. This is both annoying to the respondent and a waste of

study resources. A computerized sampling list can be updated every

day to delete those who have responded to the survey.

WHAT WAS DONE

POPULATION SAMPLED

The relevant population to sample for the Buffalo Bayou study

was identified as all residents of the city of Houston. This was

more precisely defined as a sampling frame comprised of all Houston

residents with addresses listed either in current Houston telephone

directories or on Houston motor vehicle registrations. This

Houston sample population was further divided into ten geographic

strata (sub-watersheds), based upon the location of Buffalo Bayou

and its tributary bayous. The final definition of these ten

sub-watersheds was determined after consultation with the Galveston

District Office of the Corps and is shown in Figure 2 (page 7).

The study region covered 1,034 square miles of land and had a total

population of over 1,800,000 people in 1980. The largest share of

the study region population resided in Brays, Buffalo, and Sims

Bayous.

Each of the ten bayous were defined in terms of the census

tracts of which they were composed. Criteria for allocation of

census tracts to bayous were as follows:

a) The census tract had to be situated within Harris County.

b) Fifty percent or more of tract had to be within the overall

Buffalo Bayou study region as defined by the Galveston

District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

c) Fifty percent or more of tract had to be within the

watershed to which it was allocated.

d) If more than fifty percent of the tract was within the

study region but less than fifty percent was within any

specific watershed, then the tract was allocated to the

watershed having the largest percent within its boundaries.

DRAWING THE SAMPLE

The geographic strata defined by the ten bayous were used to

draw ten separate population samples, each on the basis of their

1980 Census populations. Fortunately, population and other census

information was available by bayou from previous Corps inventories.

33
A reputable survey sampling firm was subcontracted to draw

random samples without replacement for each of the bayou strata.

The sampling firm has a nationwide data base of names and addresses

which exceeds 74 million households. This data base is compiled

from all existing telephone directories and from auto registration

data for states which treat this latter information as publicly

available. The firm's personnel continually update this data base,

compiling and storing it in a computerized retrieval system. Each

telephone directory household listing and auto registration listing

is carefully compared with households identified from listed

telephone numbers, and duplicate entries are eliminated.

The initial sample size was 6,000 households (Table 3). The

head of each household was to be asked to give information

representing all members of the household. Therefore the ultimate

unit of analysis was all residents of Houston, and the 6,000

households to be sampled were initially allocated proportionately

to the populations of each of the ten bayous. Upon examining the

distribution of the total sample among bayous, the research

analysts decided there should be some additional considerations

governing allocation of the sample among the ten. These were: 1)

No bayou would receive an allocation of less than 300 household

addresses and names, 2) The sample size for Sims Bayou was reduced

from 870 to 500 households because initially no project-related

recreational development was considered for that bayou, 3) The

reduction in sample size for Sims Bayou was allocated to Greens and

Buffalo Bayous. This was because Greens Bayou had the largest

amount of proposed development, and developments are proposed on

all sides of Buffalo Bayou. A larger sample for each of these two

bayous would result in lower sampling error, and it was considered

more important to have lower sampling error for these bayous where

much of the development was being considered.

SURVEY ADMINISTRATION

Procedures for administering the survey followed the

procedures for mail surveys described by Dillman (1978) in his book

on mail and telephone surveys. Three different cover letters and

one post card (Appendix A) were prepared in addition to the mail

questionnaire described in Chapter III. These were used for

carefully controlled repeated mailings to maximize response to the

CVM survey.

34
S Id0T N N mV U) N mV mV m1 N H C) 0

00 00 0 00 00 0j 0

.HO

$14

0)o0

Ol 4

MA .C-4 M1 0 0 0 N1 0 0 0 Ch 0 0o V

0 0 0 W4 0n 0- 0D

U) O.

.,1,01 0 0 c0 N w. 0 0 01 > 0 ) 0)

0 0 0n U) qw 10 0A 0 U) 40 C0o * M4r 0 4 CV 01 V ' C) 01 C) C)4

0

0 $4

N I C14 C4 C1 I I N I C; .rl 0 4 (D 0 a 4 0 0 I 010

~10E 0 0 0 0 0

H O I I I *I :3 4r 

~044

*0 i 0 I 0 I I 03 )N o II 00 0 m to :C, r H CV) ce) I I I CV) mV

r1 0 i 0

oj 0 0 0 0 H - 0 :3>

CId 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 (0 % UUm

(nU in 0- D ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0D 4 $4 4mJ

Q- :3 ft. 0 %. 04 00- ~ 0 0V 1 U

0 w N* N1 W) Hq cV) 01 mV 0 0

04 N -I CV) Ur) to mV) 4 f i.-04-H 

q4~~~~~V NV '110N01 0g 

0 0 >0

$0 N EUI 0 r- c IU 

0i V) z 0) 4)

I~r U d) 134 C'0 

* 0 0- OH 0 k U 04' 

H >1 >1H1N .

0 :~350 0 t
The post card and cover letters were written by the two codirectors of this research project, with the objective of

convincing the recipients to respond to the questionnaires. This

was done by telling them "we need your help" in terms of how they

felt about the availability of outdoor recreation areas within the

Houston area. They were told that, with their response, they would

have the opportunity to influence the planning of recreation

facilities associated with flood control developments in the

Houston area. They were also told that they were selected

randomly, that their response was important to the study, and that

the confidentiality of their responses would be safeguarded. In a

further attempt to induce their response, they were offered the

incentive of a copy of a summary report upon completion of the

study. The post card and all letters mailed were hand signed by

the project co-directors, to personalize the appeal for response.

The chronological sequence of the mailings and responses are

summarized in Figure 3 and Table 4. The initial cover letter and

questionnaire were mailed first class on May 19, 1986 to all

addresses drawn in the sample of 6,000 referred to above. After

approximately one week, a post card follow-up was mailed to thank

those who had already responded and to encourage others to do so

promptly. After two more weeks, on June 9, 1986, a second cover

letter and copy of the questionnaire were mailed to addresses of

those who had not yet responded. The second cover letter

emphasized the importance of the survey responses to recreation

planning for the Houston area.

Four weeks later, on July 7, 1986, the third and final letter

was mailed together with another replacement questionnaire to those

who had not yet responded. This was seven weeks after the initial

mailing. This final effort to persuade non-respondents to respond

again emphasized the critical importance of the data being

collected for outdoor recreation planning to meet the desires of

Houston area residents. In addition, the importance of receiving

a completed questionnaire from everyone contacted was emphasized.

This was emphasized because some respondents had mailed back

written comments earlier saying they did not think they should

respond because they did not use outdoor recreation facilities

themselves. It was important to communicate to them that their

zero-use responses were also important to the accuracy of the

survey results.

36
160

140

120

Nurbeu 10 of 10

60

40

20

May 19, 1966 2nd Ouesuonalrs epomCo ook

Jun 9 19o0 No1,nre4ponden 2 Monit

Postcad Foftwi4p 3rd Ousilonae September 2, 1966 of returns

May 29. 1986 July 7. 19$66

Figure 3. Chronological Display of Survey Response Rate

37
Table 4. Results of Suzvey Administration and Response

Total

Item Number Percent

Questionnaires mailed 6000 100.0

Undeliverable Questionnaires:

a. Not deliverable as addressed,

unable to forward 395

b. Insufficient address 212

c. Moved, left no address 532

d. Forwarding ordered expired 136

e. No such number 41

f. No mail receptacle 3

g. Addressee unknown 95

h. Deceased 31

i. Other 92

Total Undeliverable 1537 25.6

Deliverable Questionnaires1 4463 100.0

Questionnaires Returned 1810 40.52

Unusable Questionnaires3 139 3.1

Usable Questionnaires 1671 37.4

1 Assumes all undeliverable questionnaires were returned to the

research team. Although first class postage was used, it is

still unlikely that all undeliverable questionnaires were

accounted for. This implies that the actual response rate

2 reported here is an underestimate.

3 Percent of deliverable questionnaires.

3 Duplicate responses, blank questionnaires, and miscellaneous

enclosures.

38
Each cover letter and the post card also had a written Spanish

language appeal for response. This was for the portion of the

Houston sample known to be Spanish speaking. The first cover

letter asked those preferring a Spanish language questionnaire to

write their name and address on blanks provided at the bottom of

the page, to tear this part of the page off, and to mail it back in

the self-addressed return envelope enclosed. The follow-up post

card and the second and third cover letters asked those preferring

a Spanish language questionnaire to telephone their request collect

to one of the project co-directors.

Scheduling Questionnaire Printing. The questionnaire itself,

cover letters on Texas A & M letterhead, and addresses on envelopes

were all type set by a printing company. This was done to improve

the appearance of the mail-out package and thereby improve response

to the CVM survey. The printing took time, however, and had to be

carefully scheduled as part of the survey administration process.

It took approximately two weeks for the printer to prepare the

initial batch of questionnaires for the first mailing. This was

because some mistakes by the typesetter had to be corrected before

printing could begin. Delivery of the initial questionnaires and

the postcards was scheduled for ten days prior to the initial

mailout date. This was necessary to allow the research analysts

adequate time to hand sign 6,000 of each (important for maximizing

response), and to stuff the mail out envelopes. Delivery of the

second cover letter, the second batch of questionnaires, and

envelopes for the second mailing was made approximately three weeks

after the first delivery from the printer. The estimate of the

number of questionnaires needed could not be given to the printer

until after one week of returns had been received from the first

mailing. The order for the quantity of questionnaires, letters,

and envelopes needed for the third mailing was not given to the

printing company until two weeks after the second questionnaire

copies were mailed out. They were delivered approximately one week

later, leaving one week to stuff the final mail-out envelopes.

Telephone Samle Check. A sequential sample of 95

nonrespondents was drawn from those households from the original

sample of 6,000 which remained unaccounted for approximately two

months after the final mailing. It was assumed that most of these

households which had not responded to the mail survey could be

reached by telephone to determine reasons for the mail nonresponse.

Hovever, it was only possible to contact 42 of the 95 nonrespondent

households drawn for this telephone sample check, sixteen of which

resulted in refusals to provide any information. Twenty-two of the

95 households had disconnected telephones, and twelve of the 95

telephone numbers were wrong numbers. Twelve of the 95 households

could not be reached by telephone after five call-back attempts.

Four of the 95 nonrespondents contacted claimed they had completed

the mail questionnaire, though it was never received. And the p telephone interviewer could not communicate with the person

39
answering the telephone at two of the 95 households, because of

language barriers.

WHAT WAS LEARWD

Mail Waves are Necessary. The procedure of sending several

different "waves" of questionnaires was confirmed as a very

important consideration in administering mail CVM surveys. Each

wave or mailing produced a flurry of additional response to the

survey.

Spanish LanuaQe Questionnaire. Very few people responded to

the Spanish language requests in the cover letters, which were

intended for Hispanics who could not read the English language

questionnaires. The first cover letter (Appendix A) requested that

they tear off and mail back the bottom part of the letter, checking

a box to indicate they needed a Spanish language questionnaire.

The follow-up post card and the last two cover letters all

requested anyone needing a Spanish language questionnaire to

telephone the principal investigators long distance, collect.

This approach did not seem to work, because less than a dozen

of these requests were received by mail or telephone. In addition

to the extra effort required, perhaps some did not want to admit

that they did not read English. Whatever the reason, almost all

those who could not read English were lost to the sample. The

lesson learned was that those conducting a CVM study must be more

innovative to induce non-English reading households to respond.

One alternative would be to include a duplicate Spanish

language questionnaire and cover letter along with every English

version. This would have to be pretested to judge the possible

negative effect on the responses of English reading respondents.

A few English reading Houston respondents wrote notes when mailing

in their completed questionnaires, complaining about including

Spanish language sentences in the cover letters for non-English

reading residents.

Telephone Sample Check. Implementing the telephone sample

check indicated, that due to the inability to reach many potential

phone respondents, a larger non-respondent sample should have been

drawn if close to 100 telephone contacts were desired. A related

point is that the size of non-respondent checks should be

determined in relation to the size of the sample drawn and the

response rate achieved. Large samples with low response rates

warrant larger nonresponse checks to determine what went wrong.

40
ANNOTATED REFZERNCZS

1. Babbie, Earl (1986) The Practice of Social Research. 4th

Edition. Wadsworth Publishing Company; Belmont, CA. 557 p.

This is a very easy to read comprehensive book on social

research methods. The following chapter and appendices are

particularly recommended as supplementary reading for the

present chapter's sampling component:

Chapter 7: The Logic of Sampling

Appendix D: Random Numbers

Appendix E: Critical Values of Chi Square

Appendix F: Normal Curve Areas

Appendix G: Estimated Sampling Error

Chapter 7 in Babbie's book provides a good overview of the

foundations of survey sampling, with emphasis upon the

different types of probability sampling techniques. Appendices

D through F are what one would normally find in statistics

books. Babbie does the reader a service by including them in

this methods book.

2. Dillman, Don A. (1978), Mail and Telephone Surveys, The Total

Design Method. John Wiley & Sons: New York. 325 p.

This book is an especially good reference for surveys S administered by mail or telephone. Extensive explanation is

given for design and implementation of surveys using each of

these methods. The material on mail surveys is considered by

some researchers to be the best available. Those who follow

the Dillman method of mail survey administration routinely get

relatively high response, often as high as with other survey

methods.

Chapter 5, "Implementing Mail Surveys", should be required

reading for anyone planning to administer a mail survey. This

chapter provides a detailed recipe for exactly how to

administer a mail survey. It includes examples of the optimum

types of cover letters to use, follow-up timing, and other

components which together produce high response rates.

3. Guenzel, Pamela J., Berckmans, Tracy R., and Charles F.

Cannell (1983). General Interviewing Techniques, A

Self-Instructional Workbook for Telephone and Personal

Interviewer Training. Institute for Social Research, The

University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 382 p.

This is a very valuable reference for those who choose to

conduct a telephone or face-to-face contingent valuation

survey. It is a large loose leaf interviewer training manual

* with an accompanying 90 minute audio tape containing examples

41
of proper and improper interviewer performance. The audio

tape examples follow a practice interview schedule of

questions. Particular emphasis is placed upon: 1) the

technique of probing for complete and accurate answers to

questions, and 2) appropriate "feedback phrases" to reward and

motivate respondents to give acceptable answers.

This training manual is set up to be used in one of three

ways. It can be used as a self-teaching home study program in

which the interviewer(s) to be trained take one or two weeks

to read all of the material and complete all of the exercises.

Alternatively, it can be used for classroom training of

interviewers involving two seven hour days of intensive

instruction and two hours of homework each day. It can also

be used for a combination of classroom instruction and home

study.

The manual is accompanied by a 68 page supplement of "Notes to

the Supervisor/Instructor on the Development and Use. . ." of

these materials.

4. Hodgson, Ronald W. (1986) "An Example of a Mailed Contingent

Valuation Survey Method in a Marina Feasibility Study."

Instruction Report R-86-1. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers

Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi.

This report is similar to the present case report in that it

describes how contingent valuation data were collected by mail

survey to value proposed recreation (marina) developments. The

following chapters (called "Parts") from Hodgson's report are

particularly relevant to the present study chapter on sampling

and survey administration:

Part IV: Selecting Respondents.

Part VI: Managing the Survey.

The chapter on selecting respondents (Part IV) presents a

sampling example of a population of registered boat owners

living within a certain distance of a lake. He explains how

this population was stratified into three groups by boat

length. Each stratum was then sampled proportionate to size.

The chapter on managing the survey (Part VI) refers to the

Dillman book referenced above with respect to the timing of

the different mailings for a mail survey. Hodgson also

recommends an added telephone survey of non-respondents if

response is below 80 percent after all mailings. This

requires a complete telephone version of the mail CVM survey

instrument.

5. Moser, David A.and C.Mark Dunning (1986) "National Economic

Development Procedures Manual - Recreation, Volume II, A Guide

for Using the Contingent Value Methodology in Recreation

42
Studies." IWR Report 86-R-5. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers

Water Resources Support Center, Institute for Water Resources.

Ft.Belvoir, Virginia.

Their report is Volume II of the current three volume manual

series. The following chapter in their report is highly

recommended supplementary reading for the sampling component

of the present chapter of the present case study report:

Chapter II: Sampling for Contingent Value Estimates.

This chapter is very well written, using an example of a

random sample of 235 from a population of 1200 boaters.

Measurement error in samples is explained in terms of how both

the amount of variance, or homogeneity, and the sample size

determine the amount of error. A correction factor is

explained for finite populations when the sampling fraction is

larger than five percent. Selecting a representative sample

is explained in terms of five steps: 1) Identify the

population, 2) Determine required precision, 3) Determine

sample design, 4) Determine sample size, and 5) Select the

sample. A good example is given of how to stratify and random

sample the strata. An excellent detailed presentation is also

included on how to draw a multistage cluster sample in a

medium sized city.

6. Kish, Leslie (1965) Survey §ampling, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. SNew York.

This is an excellent book in terms of both depth and

readability. The following chapters are particularly

recommended:

Chapter 2: Basic Concepts of Sampling

Chapter 3: Stratified Sampling

Chapter 4: Systematic Sampling; Stratification

Techniques

Chapter 13: Biases and Nonsampling Errors

S 43
44
CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS AND BENEFIT EVALUATION

CONCEPTS AND OBJECTIVES

Empirical analysis must naturally follow any major effort at

data collection. Initially, data must be coded and checked to see

whether they are representative of the population from which they

were collected. To the extent possible, sources of potential bias

must be examined. Preference information elicited from respondents

is often useful both for explaining economic values reported as

well as for the revision of project designs to more appropriately

reflect public preferences. Finally, valuation results are of

particular interest for the purpose of providing information

specific to estimation of overall project recreation benefits.

This recreation benefit information can then be used in a

comprehensive benefit-cost analysis of the feas:bility of adding

the recreation component to the overall water resource development

project.

WHAT WAS DONE

DATA CODING AND EDITING

After coding the data into computer files, analysis was

initiated. Data coding was performed interactively with the use of

microcomputers and the STATPAC software package. Data were then

debugged and transferred to a mainframe computer for analysis.

Statistical Analysis System (SAS) software was used for analysis of

data on the mainframe computer. Results reported in this chapter

are in the form of simple statistics, e.g., means and frequency of

response.

BIAS CHECKS AND CORRECTIVE DATA ADJUSTMENTS

Data from the telephone sample of nonrespondents were compared

to data from the mail survey respondents for seven different

variables: whether respondents owned their homes, whether or not

they planned to move from the Houston area, their annual household

income, their race, whether or not they were retired, mean

household size, and the mean amount of money their household spent

on outdoor recreation in an average week. This analysis indicated

that the nonrespondents were fairly similar to the respondents in

terms of the first three of these variables. Differences between

nonrespondents and respondents were identified for the other four

variables. Nonrespondents appeared to represent proportionately

fewer high income households, fewer white race households, and

fewer retirees; and nonrespondents had more persons per household.

These results provided a preliminary indication that the mail

survey may have been biased in these respects. However, only 26 of

the 95 nonrespondent households sampled could be interviewed.

Thus, these results can not be regarded as conclusive and only

45
present "indications" of similarities and differences,

respectively, between study respondents and nonrespondents.

Because the nonresponse check was inconclusive a further

analysis was conducted. The selected sample characteristics were

compared to data from the U.S. Census for 1980. These data

indicated that the respondent households came from higher income

categories than the population of Houston as a whole. The sample

also was more educated and had a lower proportion of black

respondents than the population. The renter population also

appeared to be underrepresented. The finding of differences is

consistent with the follow-up telephone survey of nonrespondents

described earlier. For this reason, the variablas upon which these

differences occurred were examined in the statistical modeling, for

which results are presented in a later section.

In addition to the later reported statistical modeling

examination of other socioeconomic variable influences, the data

were adjusted for the difference between sample income category

representation and that of the census figures. Weighting was

proportional to the census population figures with weights for

particular categories as follows:

Income Group Weight

Less than $10,000 4.4565

$10,000 - $19,999 3.0795

$20,000 - $29,999 1.5811

$30,000 - $39,999 .8181

$40,000 - $49,999 .4207

$50,000 - $79,999 .2078

$80,000 or more .1951

This weighting process attempts to correct for potential bias which

results from the distribution of responses among income categories.

For example, the proportion of the survey sample with incomes in

the $10,000 to $19,999 range was about one third of what it should

have been, based on the 1980 census data. Therefore data from

those who did respond in that category were multiplied by a factor

(weight) of 3.0795 to compensate for this sampling bias. Since

income categories also reflect educational status, types of

occupational categories, and often other population parameters,

use of this variable for the adjustment process is an improvement

over the unweighted version of the data set. Differential

responses among income categories in mail surveys is not an

uncommon problem and adjustment processes are commonly performed.

RECREATION USE ESTIMATES

Proposed Facilities. Based on the resource capabilities of

the project area, an initial facility development plan was

prepared. Recreation facilities were proposed for seven of the 10

bayou areas. The types and amounts of facilities tor each of these

areas is presented in Table 5. 46

46
41-)

to

0

00 OD W ID~ OD V

0,4

0

00101

00

$4H

L-

*g4

13 C: 0~ C 0 49

4J- 4 ) 4 0 0ME

r- Id' :30 o V)0 '

0 O 0 4)EE EUI OEEUUE 4 4)EU4) 0 >1r 4) 0) r 4) C 044 a )

10 10> >00 0t~ >0000 0:% > W m.I OH H).- H, r -4 H,- 00 HEUH4 

N. 00 104 0 Q 4. ~ 34 J - J: 4)4 4) 0 ECs- EU0) 9OOO 0 V4 0 3> :C:9 d -

41 4JM ' 4) 0 ( 4) *r4 4)4)4.)4.rM V)044V4V

(d 094 P00m O~~ o w EU 4 w

*) OH 4) m 0 02 "'1 HH- $4) 0 4 02 ) H 4.) 4. :> (a 1 ) r- H a .)

4) $UI4 *rl $4 to 3 f.4

P 0 W) w~ P

47
Facility Need. The study area was designated in the Texas

Outdoor Recreation Plan (TORP) as having a basic shortage of parks,

open space, greenbelts, and neighborhood parks. Deficits

determined from TORP facility needs estimates for 1995 and an

inventory of currently existing facilities were compared to the

numbers of facilities planned for each bayou. In each case the

deficit exceeded the number of facilities planned, indicating a

need for the proposed facilities. For example, below is the

comparison for Carpenters Bayou.

TORP Number Number

Facilities Planned Needs Existing Deficit Planned

Trails (miles) 3 0 3 1.3

Picnic Tables 186 4 182 6

Recreation Demand. Estimates of total recreation demand for

the proposed developments were derived from responses to Question

9 on page 8 of the questionnaire. In this question, respondents

were asked to indicate which, if any, of the proposed developments

their households would use, and then to estimate the annual

household use of each of the developments they indicated they would

use. Although most respondents were able to indicate whether or

not they would use specific developments, many were unable to

provide estimates of the number of days of future household use.

There was also some uncertainty as to whether respondents were

indicating total household use or the number of days of use per

household member (an issue of question "reliability" discussed in

Chapter III).

Because of the low response rate, the entire survey sample was

used to derive an average household use rate for each detention

basin and edge development, rather than deriving separate use rates

for each sample stratum (i.e., bayou of residence). Multiplying

these average household rates by the total number of study area

households yields an estimate of total demand for each development

(columns A - C of Table 6). The total number of households was

derived by dividing the 1980 census population of the study area

(1,824,081). by the weighted mean number of persons per household

(2.72) derived from the survey questionnaire.

48
044- %0 C'IC'4r 0 (n I4C' w 0 0 vn o NO 0

to rl rl r- N(t' ) n ~ o4 IlNV r n Orqy ( 4)

w ' a rO~l-I : flU)l00 (DN C:

.4 M, H~ OD w. H. r- qw LO , N- ai w V 4) 4) Ula Y) ( ifR )1- Y) r .I 0) 0)m

0iI 04 NC $4l~fl ,-r-q'n- C' Idg 4)4

4) J 0i 4-)

0 Lo o~v rv2 co H- vo 40q r e AV

Q D VC)% - 4 . V C)MM O %D % - 4)I 0:

0 a) r'NN cov)(hC -I cn 1 )U O ( 1-4 t- 41-

4) Ml U) %04 OD N m4) LO c) 1d C

No .%% , 4 01~4

0

0) Or )1 11 11

04 0 0 C> o % 0 LOn r- cn nu o O t r- 0%H

0 '- u1~am~ £01 m1 Cv)1C)Cmv N N N H-ICO2$4

ON 4)4 (d 34 .

rq w 4)00

$44

4 )

10 H d:

4.) 4) '0 0 044-) '0 0 q C 0 000 000 O oO 00 OD 00 co0

14)~ >I 1W 101.01010%.1.10.101%.1 014

4)0 0 % ID 00 1 0 % 010%D 0 D 1 0 0

V).a:I 4I$-

v-INC1 (Y) IT LOk0r 0204) 41 41 1* 1* s 4 1 1)* ft41C9*a 4) 4)04) 4) 4-4

C 0C:C 0 >1c 0 9) 4) o >,o 0 4)0 Id to000d 00to( 4) 4)0rd4) r-4 0,0 41 4)pq R 4) 4) 4) 0)4) 4)4) 0 0 m 0 V40 4) ~ .r 94 04 444 4 44444 0 04 0 4) 0.

0 rI O- Or- H4 0 0.t if~c H v-I H1-H P 002

4 00 >14 1 l C : 4) 4)04) '0H

to 04 fd >~~0 ~0O 0 > 0 0 00> >: A(

4 ~ 4) ) 4)0Q4)4ri:3 4) .)i- - 1 > 00 )4 4)4 02 0) :304 4 J0Q 4J J4)4. 3 > C) * 4)Q ) :0

04). 0 $4>44 0 r 0 : 10 C: C:0 0 to>i4)m)44)10) 0 4) w0 >1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000~ >19 10 4 oE-4

4 4)1 4) 10m 04)40 0 0 0 0 0 0 m0 '02(

4) H 4) 02 02 dr H- :

H 44 102 4) H- 41 4 4 0

f 1 * r $4 0 3 -5 .i 0 C t

P4 C4 im Qt 44-

49
As indicated in Table 6, the total demand for the proposed

developments is almost 22 million days of use. The 95% confidence 0

interval is 15.5 million to 28.4 million days of use. The

interpretation of this confidence interval is that, if an infinite

number of samples of the same size were taken, the aggregate use

estimate would lie in this range 95% of the time. (See Volume II

of the Recreation Manual Series for a more detailed discussion of

the calculation and interpretation of confidence intervals.) It is

unlikely that the proposed facilities could support this amount of

use, and it was, therefore, necessary to estimate their recreation

carrying capacity.

Carrying Capacity of Facilities. The maximum capacity of the

proposed facilities was determined by use of TORP capacity

standards. Shown below is a list of recreation (participation) day

standards for the different facilities planned, adapted from pages

6 and A-12 of the 1985 Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan (TORP). These

standards are for Texas Outdoor Planning Region 16, which includes

the Houston study area.

Recreation Days Annually

Activity Per Facility Unit

Picnicking 1,137 per table

Playgrounds 17,667 per acre

Jogging Trails 74,432 per mile

Bicycling Trails 11,507 per mile

Walking Trails 26,274 per mile

Baseball 12,801 per field

Softball 18,516 per field

Football 11,572 per field

Soccer 43,908 per field

Boat/Canoe Ramp 5,141 per lane

The following adjustments to the above standards were made for

the Houston analysis. The TORP standards for jogging, bicycling,

and walking trails were combined into one weighted average standard

for trail use, based upon the expected proportions of each of these

three types of use for the trails planned (62.4% Jogging, 14.8%

Bicycling, 22.7% Walking). The resulting average standard for the

trails planned was 54,113 recreation days per mile, annually.

Similarly, the TORP standards for use of playing fields for

baseball, softball, football, and soccer were combined into one

weighted average standard for field sports. This weighting was

again done by multiplying the TORP standards by the expected

proportions of use for each of the four types of sports fields

1These estimates assume that the responses to Question 9

were for total use per household. If the responses were use per

household member, the estimate of total demand would be

approximately 59 million days of use, with a 95% confidence

interval of approximately 46 million to 72 million days of use.

50
being planned for (20.2% baseball, 41.0% softball, 5.3% football,

33.5% soccer). The resulting average standard for field sports was

25,486 recreation days per acre, annually.

The appropriate standards were multiplied by the number of

respective facility item units planned for each bayou. The result

was total annual additional recreation days, at capacity, to be

added by the proposed recreation facility developments. The

following example illustrates this process for Carpenter's Bayou,

where only additional picnic tables and trails were proposed:

(6 Picnic Tables) * (1,137 Recreation Days per Table) = 6,822

(1.3 Miles of Trails) * (54,113 Recreation Days per mile) = 70,347

Total Recreation Days Added to Carpenter's Bayou = 77,169

The results of these calculations are summarized in column D of

Table 6. They indicate the carrying capacity of the proposed

facilities is approximately 4 million recreation days, or about one

fifth of the total estimated recreation demand of approximately 22

million recreation days. These results are not unusual for urban

areas where the supply of recreation facilities is often much less

than the existing demand. The results also support the needs

projected in the TORP, and indicate the proposed facilities should

be used at or near their capacity levels. Some substitution of use

to new facilities from old facilities is possible, but is not

likely to have a substantial net effect. Only 33.3 percent of the

sample respondents indicated that they would reduce their use of I other Houston area recreation facilities if the proposed recreation

facilities are constructed. Some of the respondents to the survey

may actually increase their use of recreation facilities in total.

CONTINGENT VALUATION RESULTS

Both the weighted (by income category to account for sampling

bias) and unweighted results are presented below. As previously

noted, the weighted results will provide more accurate population

estimates and should be used. The unweighted results are only

presented to illustrate the error that can result when biases in

survey responses are not addressed.

UnweiQhted Results. Mean willingness-to-pay estimates for the

entire recreation facility package as well as for inlividual

components are reported in the first column of Table 7. Each

respondent was asked for a facility package value (Question 12,

Appendix A) and also for an allocation of this value by project

component (Question 14, Appendix A). The overall facility package

2Mean willingness-to-pay estimates for the entire facility

package and individual components were also made by stratum

(bayou of residence). These estimates are reported in the

Galveston District Buffalo Bayou & Tributaries. Texas Feasibility

Report.

B 51
value was $123.93 annually, with a 95% confidence interval of

$114.90 to $132.96. When divided by the mean number of household

members (2.93 from unweighted responses to Question 15, Appendix

A), this amounts to $51.77 per household member. Mean estimates

for individual components ranged from $4.10 annually (for Detention

Area #6 in Greens Bayou) to $24.27 annually (for the Brays Bayou

Edge Development).

Weighted Results. The same information was estimated using

the income weighted sample responses and is presented in column 2

of Table 7. This adjustment reduced the overall mean value of the

recreation facility package to $93.76 per year, with a 95%

confidence interval of $85.37 to $102.15. Except for the Hunting

Bayou Edge Development, similar reductions also result in the

weighted estimates of mean values for individual facility

components. For the Hunting Bayou Edge Development, the mean

willingness-to-pay increased from $8.52 to $9.17 with weighting.

In all cases, these weighted values are considered better estimates

of the total population's mean values and are used in the remainder

of the analysis.

ESTIMATED ANNUAL VALUE AT PLANNED CAPACITY

Facility capacity constraints limit the value from the

previous CVM analysis that can be attributed to the proposed

developments. That is, the respondents' total annual willingnessto-pay estimates are based on their perception of how often their

households would be using the proposed facilities. As previously

noted, the respondents estimated use of (demand for) the facilities

greatly exceed the proposed facility carrying capacities. People

would not be able, because of carrying capacity constraints, to use

the facilities as often as they thought they could when estimating

their "total willingness-to-pay." Therefore, rather than using the

total willingness-to-pay estimates, a constrained benefit estimate

must be derived. As described below, this constrained estimate was

based on the proposed facility carrying capacities and the

respondents' average willingness-to-pay per recreation day for each

development component.

52
Table 7. Sample Means of Annual Willingness-to-Pay (Standard

Irror of Mean) (in June 1986 prices)

Total Sample Mean

Facility Location - Component Unweighted Weighted

Carpenters Bayou - Edge Development $ 6.05 $ 4.18

(0.72) (0.52)

Brays Bayou - Edge Development 24.27 14.50

(1.64) (1.37)

- Detention Area #1 23.04 14.38

(1.40) (1.37)

- Detention Area #2 18.10 10.92

(2.45) (1.39)

Sims Bayou - Detention Area #3 5.90 5.03

(0.60) (0.57)

Greens Bayou - Edge Development 9.50 9.00

(0.92) (0.97)

- Detention Area #4 7.88 7.28

(0.81) (0.83)

- Detention Area #5 4.91 4.52

(0.47) (0.49)

- Detention Area #6 4.10 3.74

(0.37) (0.43)

- Detention Area #7 7.92 5.80

(2.70) (1.79)

Hunting Bayou - Edge Development 8.52 9.17

(2.89) (2.67)

Little White Oak - Edge Development 12.64 9.06

Bayou (2.83) (1.98)

Total Package Mean $123.93 $93.76

(4.61) (4.28)

Mean Number of Household Members 2.93 2.72

(0.05) (0.05)

WTP per Household Member $51.77 $41.49

(2,95) (2.06)

53
Using the Carpenters Bayou edge development as an example, the

average willingness-to-pay per recreation day is estimated as

follows. The average weighted annual willingness-to-pay for the

Carpenters Bayou edge development is $4.18. This value is from the

last column of Table 7 for the Carpenters Bayou edge development

component. Dividing this value by the weighted mean number of

persons per household (2.72 also from last column of Table 7) and

the weighted mean number of recreation days of use per person per

year these facilities would be used (1.40 from Table 6), yields

an average value per recreation day of $1.10. The carrying

capacity of the Carpenters Bayou edge development facilities was

previously estimated to be 77,169 recreation days (Table 6).

Multiplying the carrying capacity by the average value per

recreation day (77,169 x $1.10) yields the annual value of the

Carpenter Bayou edge development, or $84,885.90. These results, as

well as the results for the other development components are

summarized in Table 8.

Table 8. Estimated Use and Value of Proposed Buffalo Bayou

Recreational Facilities (in June 1986 prices)

Recreation Value Per

Recreational Facility Days Use Recreation Annual

Development Location Per Year Day of Use Value

Carpenters Bayou

Edge Development 77,169 $ 1.10 $ 84,886

Brays Bayou

Edge Development 390,708 $ 0.79 $ 308,659

Detention Area #1 411,352 $ 1.33 $ 547,098

Detention Area #2 388,612 $ 1.13 $ 439,132

Sims Bayou

Detention Area #3 360,380 $ 0.94 $ 338,757

Greens Bayou

Edge Development 551,953 $ 0.99 $ 546,433

Detention Area #4 175,366 $ 1.37 $ 240,251

Detention Area #5 248,531 $ 1.23 $ 305,693

Detention Area #6 350,732 $ 1.02 $ 357,747

Detention Area #7 175,366 $ 1.10 $ 192,903

Halls Bayou

Edge Development 742,720 $ 1.22 $ 906,118

Hunting Bayou

Edge Development 93,950 $ 2.65 $ 248,968

Little White Oak Bayou

Edge development 65,483 $ 1.45 $ 94,950

Totals: 4,032,322 $4,611,595

3 Assuming here that the response to Question 9 was the

number of days of use per person, rather than per household,

provides a more conservative benefit estimate.

54
The results in Table 8 indicate an estimated value of about

$4.6 million annually. This is based upon approximately four

million recreation days of additional use to be provided by the

planned facilities, at capacity. The 95% confidence interval is

approximately $2.4 to $9.1 million, including the standard error of

the estimates of person per household and use per person, as well

as, for mean willingness-to-pay.

ADDITIONAL SURVEY RESULTS

As discussed in Chapters II and III, a secondary objective of

the Buffalo Bayou survey was to identify Houston residents'

preferences for recreational settings, facilities, activities, and

experiences within the Buffalo Bayou Tributaries region. Some of

this information was not needed specifically for the Buffalo Bayou

benefit evaluation, but was collected to support other recreation

planning efforts. This information included: respondent and

household participation percentages for 25 outdoor recreation

activities, the preferred psychological outcomes (motives) and the

facility/service preferences for five different activity packages,

and "other" facility/service preferences obtained from write-in

responses. This additional planning information is summarized in

Appendix B.

WHAT WAS LEARNED

Resource capability for facility development and facility

capacities are key elements in calculating benefits. Existing

capacity information for urban parks is limited and in need of

future research. For this study, a secondary data source, the 1985

TORP Report was used. The TORP carrying capacity standards are for

all of Region 16, and it is acknowledged that these could vary by

Bayou sub-areas within the region. Many factors may enter into the

determination of carrying capacities of these outdoor recreation

facilities in an urban setting. Research should be directed toward

a more thorough understanding of carrying capacity determination

for outdoor recreation facilities.

The 1985 TORP Report was also used to estimate the needs for

recreational activities in the Buffalo Bayou and its tributaries.

However, the needs for particular subset populations can vary

significantly from the total population. Different socio-economic

conditions and characteristics of a given population of a

particular stream can significantly influence the needs assessment

for this subset population of the study area. The survey conducted

in the study helped to establish these differences, but further

research needs to be directed toward improved methods and ways to

identify needs data in a timely, reasonable, and inexpensive

manner. A survey questionnaire could include additional questions

which will assist in development of more accurate needs assessment

data for the specific study area.

Research is also needed to improve reliability of future

intentions questions, such as those measuring potential use of

55
proposed facilities. This point was also raised in Chapter III,

but the importance of it did not become as apparent until these

data were used in the analyses described in this chapter.

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

1. US Water Resource's Council (1983) Economic Environmental

Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources

Studies, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

The P&G provides a general discussion of alternative use and

benefit estimation techniques. This includes a discussion of

the "capacity" use estimation technique which is based on

facility carrying capacities.

2. Moser, David A. and C. Mark Dunning (1986) "National Economic

Development Procedures Manual - Recreation, Volume II, A Guide

for Using the Contingent Value Methodology in Recreation

Studies." IWR Report 86-R-5. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers

Water Resources Support Center, Institute for Water Resources.

Ft. Belvoir, Virginia.

This report includes an excellent discussion of analyzing

survey data, especially for contingent value surveys. Chapter

II (Sampling for Contingent Value Estimates) which includes a

discussion of computing means and confidence intervals from

survey data and Chapter V (Analysis of Contingent Value Survey

Data) are especially relevant.

3. Henry, Gary T. (1990), Practical Samling, "Applied Social

Research Methods Series, Volume 21," Sage Publications,

Newbury Park, California.

This is an excellent text on sampling, especially for the nontechnical reader. Chapter 8, Postsampling Choices, includes

a discussion of poststratification and other weighting

procedures.

56
CHAPTER VI

REGIONAL MODELS

CONCEPTS AND OBJECTIVES

DEFINITION AND PURPOSE

Regional use estimation models are defined in the P&G as

statistical models that relate recreation use to the relevant

determinants (i.e, factors affecting use) based on data from

existing recreation sites in the study area. Similarly, value

estimation models are defined as statistical models of the

relationships between the willingness to pay bid and selected

characteristics of the site(s) and user populations. The primary

purpose of these models is to explicitly test the effect of such

factors as site attributes, substitutes, and population

characteristics on individuals' demand for and value of alternative

recreational opportunities. This is accomplished by collecting and

analyzing cross sectional data from a series of existing or

proposed sites, rather than from an individual site, as in a site

specific application. (Note: Volume I, Recreation Use and Benefit

Estimation Techniques, of this NED Procedural Manual - Recreation

series, provides more detailed descriptions of the development and

application of site specific and regional use estimation models.)

FEDERAL CRITERIA

As noted in the P&G, the application of regional models can P provide for a more analytical evaluation and can economize on

resources that would be required for site specific studies. The

P&G not only encourages the development of regional models, but

further states that if an applicable model has already been

developed for a region in which a proposed project is to be

located, it should be used.

The U.S. Water Resources Council (WRC) intended to develop,

publish, and periodically update a list of available regional

models that could be used to evaluate proposed projects. Because

of organizational changes, the WRC has been unable to undertake

these tasks. It has, however, provided guidelines and criteria

that should be considered in model development and application.

The WRC guidelines, originally published in the WRC Reference

Handbook for fiscal year 1982, are provided below.

Introduction or Purpose

The purpose of these guidelines for recreation models is to

encourage development of meaningful regional use and benefit

estimating models consistent with the intent of the Procedures

for Evaluation of National Economic Development Benefits and

Costs (18 CFR 713, Part K). These guidelines should foster

interagency cooperation in model development by providing a

common set of criteria and characteristics of desirable

regional models.

57
Nature of the Criteria

The criteria are based on the planning and evaluation

information that models should provide rather than their

detailed structural characteristics. This emphasis on model

performance will permit innovation and flexibility in model

design, choice of variables, data collection strategies, and

development of recreation use estimates. Good estimating

models, in general, are based on statistically sound

methodologies, incorporate relevant variables, are replicable,

and have predictive power. Specifically, regional recreation

models should yield an empirical estimate of demand applied to

the particular project or site based on: (1) socioeconomic

characteristics of market area population; (2) qualitative

characteristics and uniqueness of the recreation resources;

and (3) costs and characteristics of substitute recreation

opportunities. Models should permit generation of recreation

use projections over time that vary with underlying

determinants of demand, and allow for evaluation of gains and

losses in the study area.

The model should reflect the effects of site congestion on the

users' willingness to pay for the recreation opportunity and

then be able to evaluate the possible long term effects of

congestion on site characteristics.

Concept of the Region

The region must be determined by a combination of factors

based on relevant activities (functional), types of recreation

resources, geographical boundaries (spatial), geographic

distribution of prospective recreation users, etc. A helpful

step is to take into account existing or future sites that may

be significant substitutes for the proposed site(s). Thus,

the concept of the region, as defined in the NED Procedures,

is not to use pre-established areas, but to define regions

iteratively during the study as planners develop parameters

for a cross section of sites and determine which are relevant

to water related activities of the proposed sites. Planners

should choose a sample containing a representative number of

sites so that the variables will have predictive power.

Application of the Model

The model should be able to be applied to sites rather than to

market areas because water resource planning is designed to

produce changes at specific locations rather than to abstract

area-wide markets of recreation goods and services. The

estimates of value to be obtained from the model should be

consistent with and of a level of precision similar to the

estimates of value derived for other goods and services

produced by a plan.

58
The procedures should be readily applicable to evaluating

proposed changes on the availability of the specific

recreation opportunities affected by the plans. For example,

can the model estimate the benefit of an additional

opportunity of a recreation activity at a particular location?

Have questions concerning the relevant resources and sites

been included in the household or similar surveys?

When meaningful to the resource situation being evaluated, the

consideration of substitution should account for choices among

(a) recreational and non-recreational activities, (b)

alternative recreational activities, and (c) alternative sites

for identical activities.

By following these guidelines, the regional recreation models

developed by planners and researchers should be realistic in

terms of their applicability to the water based recreation

setting being evaluated.

VALUE ESTIMATOR MODELS

Value Estimator Models (VEM's) relate net economic value of a

resource to changes in specific characteristics of a nonmarket

commodity or to changes in user population characteristics. VEM's

can be developed using ordinary least squares regression analysis

or more sophisticated modelling techniques for close-ended CVM

formats. In addition to models for annual value of recreation use,

marginal willingness-to-pay values can be estimated for

recreational activities.

Rearessors. As argued elsewhere, regressors (or independent

variables) selected for CVM bid functions and VEM's should be

consistent with economic theory. Potential classifications of

regressors include: (1) changes in nonmarket commodities; (2) cost

variables; (3) household technology variables; (4) attitude and

value variables; and (5) individual information set variables.

Recreationists combine variable and fixed inputs to "produce"

recreational days. This production process is constrained by cost

and household technology variables. Cost variables include the

monetary cost and time cost of producing recreation days. The

monetary costs of producing days are generally measured by the

variable expenditures which are directly related to a recreation

occurrence (e.g., day or trip). A large portion of these variable

expenditures typically are travel costs. Because variable

expenditures act as constraints on the household production

process, variables which measure these expenditures, such as travel

costs, may be relevant arguments for CVM bid functions (especially

when use quantities are excluded from these funtions).

In addition to monetary costs, household production processes

for recreational days are constrained by time costs. That is, time

costs represent an opportunity cost from engaging in outdoor

59
recreation. Time costs are typically measured by travel time.

Both out-of-pocket costs and the opportunity costs of time are

potential regressors for CVM bid functions.

Attitudes and values impact CVM bid functions by causing

systematic changes in tastes and preferences. Tastes and

preferences impact the relative weight that consumers place on

different characteristics of produced recreational activities and,

therefore, willingness-to-pay for recreational activities. In some

instances, it may be possible to measure attitudes and values by

direct questioning. By and large, however, proxies have been used

as indicators of attitudes and values. A commonly used indicator

of attitudes and values (in addition to being a constraint) is

income. For example, as income increases, leisure time may also

increase. Also, as income increases, support (e.g., preference)

for natural resource conservation may increase. Attitudes which

are related to a general preference for outdoor recreational

activities may be reflected in a number of variables. Such

variables identified in previous studies include total days spent

in all kinds of outdoor recreation per season or year, total

variable expenditures on all kinds of outdoor recreational

activities per season or year, total recreation days as a

proportion of vacation days, and total recreation expenditures as

a proportion of income.

The production processes for recreation days are constrained

also by information. Differences in information across

recreationists may lead to variations in willingness-to-pay.

Recreationists obtain information from a number of sources which

impacts the production of recreation days. These information

sources include past experience, other recreationists, and

literature. It is therefore conjectured that variables such as

total years of participation, membership in outdoor clubs, and

subscriptions to outdoor magazines may be relevant regressors for

CVM bid functions and value estimator models(VEM's) for outdoor

recreation facilities.

VEX Model Development. The primary objective of VEM function

estimation is to obtain stable, reliable estimates of the

structural parameters (i.e., regression coefficients). A stable

coefficient is defined as a coefficient which remains relatively

constant across alternative model specifications. That is, as the

model is specified to include alternative variables, the estimated

coefficients for key, policy related variables do not vary

significantly.

For theoretical reasons, all model specifications should

include quantity indicators (e.g., days), quality indicators, and

income. Theory also suggests that VEM functions should include

regressors which measure attitudes and values and information.

From a conceptual standpoint, it is argued that the effects on

willingness-to-pay of variables within each of these major

60
classifications are similar. Thus, alternative specifications can

be tested using different combinations of variables from the

quantity/quality, attitude and values, and information regressor

categories. Alternative specifications should be evaluated on the

basis of the stability of coefficients associated with proposed

policies, theoretical plausibility of coefficient signs, t-values,

and measures of goodness-of-fit. These criteria should be used to

select a VEM specification which appears to estimate the most

reliable relationship between willingness-to-pay and changes in

policy related variables.

VEX Estimation. The dependent variable in a value estimating

model is willingness-to-pay, measured by either a close-ended or

open-ended question in the CVM questionnaire. At the present time,

the superiority of the close-ended models versus open-ended models

is unresolved in the literature, although the general tendency

seems to be towards the former. Some have argued that close-ended

bidding questions provide proper incentives for revelation of

maximum willingness-to-pay. It has also been argued that

close-ended bidding questions are more familiar to respondents

because they closely resemble actual market bidding situations

where consumers are faced with a "take it or leave it" valuation

choice. Open-ended bidding questions, on the other hand, may be

quite unfamiliar to recreationists. Hence, they may have

difficulty providing accurate responses.

WHAT WAS DONE

As previously described, both an open-ended bid format and a

close-ended (or dichotomous choice) approach were used in the

Buffalo Bayou contingent valuation questionnaire. For the purpose

of this study, the analysis of the open-ended bid format data

produced the most appropriate results. A description of this

analysis and the results obtained follows.

EXPLANATORY VARIABLES

The explanation of the actual variables considered and their

expected relationships to willingness-to-pay are presented in Table

9. Each variable considered is described and grouped in the table

according to the conceptual construct (i.e., the regressor

category) it is intended to measure and the expectation regarding

the direction of its influence upon willingness-to-pay. Each

variable is also related back to the survey instrument (Appendix A)

question from which it is derived. For example, the first three

variables in Table 9 are measures of the perceived adequacy of

existing facilities (the conceptual construct). The average miles

now traveled for outdoor recreation (AVGTRAV) in the Houston area

was requested in Question #3. It was hypothesized that the further

people now have to travel the more they would be willing-to-pay for

the proposed facilities, which might reduce their travel, and thus

61
the hypothesized, positive sign. Similar information is summarized

in Table 9 for the remaining variables.

OLS EMPIRICAL ESTIMATES

A variety of ordinary least squares multiple regression models

were estimated using the variable groupings presented in Table 9.

Two models (based on different combinations of explanatory

variables) were selected as the most appropriate based upon

statistical fit and correspondence of estimated parameters with

economic theory. Three functional forms (linear, double

logarithmic, and semi-logarithmic) were estimated for each of these

models. In all cases, these models were estimated using ordinary

least squares statistical techniques and with the open-ended bid

response for the entire proposed Recreation Facility Package as the

dependent variable. The models are also based on the weighted

sample data as previously discussed.

The linear functional form (Table 10) was very consistent in

performance across both model specifications, both in terms of the

stability of the regression coefficients and the variation

explained. There was little variation in the coefficients of the

four variables common to both models which were measures of: income

(INCOME), education (SCHOOL), the perceived adequacy of existing

facilities (AVGADEQ), and the close-ended offer from the question

sequence (OFFR). All four variables were positively correlated

with willingness-to-pay in both models. This positive relationship

was expected for all of these variables. The perception of

adequacy of existing facilities variable, AVGADEQ, has a positive

coefficient, implying that the greater the perceived in-adequacy of

existing facilities, the greater the willingness-to-pay for the

proposed developments, which is an expected relationship.

Additional variables in model 1 include measures of the total

estimated days the proposed facilities would be used (DAYS), the

amount of recreation use that occurred in the Houston area in the

previous year (RECDAYS), and whether or not the respondent was

retired (RETIRED). In the linear functional form of this model

(column 1 of Table 10), all of these variables were positively

correlated with the willingness-to-pay measure. This was

anticipated for the first two variables which are, respectively,

measures of demand for the proposed facilities and an indicator of

outdoor recreation preference or participation. However, it was

anticipated that respondents who were retired would not be willingto-pay as much as other individuals, which is not reflected by the

positive coefficient. The RETIRED variable was, however, the only

variable in the linear functional form of model 1 whose coefficient

was not significant at least at the .10 level. 4

4Significance at the .10 level indicates 90% confidence that

the regression coefficient is statistically different than zero.

62
P Table 9. Variables Considered in Regional Modelling

Variable Variable Questionnaire Conceptual Hypothesized

Name Definition Questions Construct Sign

AVGTRAV Average miles traveled for outdoor

recreation in the Houston area Q-3 Adequacy of +

AVGADEQ Average adequacy of outdoor recreation existing

facilities in the Houston area Q-4 facilities

SUBSTI Whether respondent would decrease

use of other recreation areas Q-10

DAYS Total estimated days of use for

proposed recreation package facilities Q-9 Use of new +

TOTLOC Total number of proposed recreation facilities

facilities which will be used Q-9 +

SCHOOL Years of education Q-21 Socioeconomic +

ETHNIC 1 Black race defined as a minority Q-19 status and -

ETHNIC 2 All races other than caucasian ability to

defined as minority Q-19 pay

INCOME Household income Q-27 +

SPENDING Outdoor recreation spending per week

for household Q-26 Outdoor +

PSPENDIN Annual outdoor recreation expenditures recreation

as proportion of household income preferences +

RECDAYS Outdoor recreation days per person in

the Houston area during the past year Q-2 +

RETIRED Whether household respondent is retired Q-23

NATDEV Preference for more developed Willingness to

detention park areas Q-8 pay for developed

type facilities +

NOTMOVE Household respondent expects to live Ability to use

in Houston area 5 years from now Q-25 future facilities +

ACCUR Respondent confidence in willingness- Decision task

to-pay response Q-30 investment time +

OFFR Income reduction in close-ended bidding Package cost for

format Q-I1 close-ended format

and suggested +

value range for

open-ended format

63
Table 10. Ordinary Least Squares Zatimated, Linear Models

(Standard Zrror)

Independent

Variable Model 1 Model 2

INTERCEPT -148.1402 -167.2258

(26.8906)*** (25.2153)***

INCOME3 .0006 .0008

(.0002)*** (.0002)***

SCHOOL 9.3264 9.4280

(1.4952)*** (1.5178)***

AVGADEQ 7.8674 9.4078

(4.6427)* (4.7353)**

OFFR .3312 .3314

(.0335)*** (.0346)***

DAYS .3255

(.1099)***

RECDAYS .1734

(.0679) ***

RETIRED 3.5815

(10.5835)

PSPENDIN 469. 6022

(132.2845) ***

SUBSTI 16.2816

(8.9863) *

ACCUR 13.4987

(9. 8616)

Number Observations 1115 1085

F-value 30.513*** 28.327***

R2.16 .16

R2 (Adjusted) .16 .15

64
Additional variables in model 2 include measures of annual

outdoor recreation expenditures as a proportion of household income

(PSPENDIN), whether respondents would decrease use of other

recreation areas with development of the proposed facilities

(SUBSTI), and the respondents confidence in their willingness-topay responses (ACCUR). In the linear functional form of this model

(column 2 of Table 10), these variables were, again, all positively

correlated with the willingness-to-pay measure. This result was

anticipated for the spending and perceived accuracy variables, but

not for those transferring use from existing facilities. Except

for ACCUR, all variables were significant at least at the .10

level.

As measured by the coefficient of determination (R2 ), the

linear models were also very consistent in terms of statistical

fit, or explanatory power. The coefficient of determination

indicates the amount of variation in the dependent variable, in

this case willingaess-to-pay, explained by the regression equation.

The "adjusted" R is a more precise measure accounting for the

degrees of freedom lost by the number of variabls in the

regression equation. As measured by the adjusted R , the two

linear models, respectively, explained 16 and 15 percent (Table 10)

of the variation in the willingness-to-pay measure.

The double logarithmic functional form models are presented in

Table 11. In this functional form, the dependent variable (annual

household willingness-to-pay) and all continuous independent

variables are specified in logarithmic form. The double

logarithmic specification of model 1 had the best overall

statistical fit (an adjusted R2 of .24) of any of the models and

specifications tested. The statistical fit of the double

logarithmic functional form of model 2, however, was not quite as

good as the two linear models. The significance of the overall

regression equation and of the included variables is similar to the

linear madels presented in Table 10, and there is no clear reason

for finding it to be preferable to the linear form specification.

The semi-logarithmic functional form models are presented in

Table 12. In this functional form only the dependent variable is

represented in logarithmic form. These models were less well

fitting than the linear functional form models reported in Table

10, but only slightly so for model 1. Except for the ACCURATE

variable in model 2, the signs of the variables were consistent

with the other two functional forms. Again, there appears no

strong reason for preferring this functional form over either of

the other two.

65
Table ll. Ordinary Least Squares Zatimated Double

Logarithmic Models (Standard Xrror)

Independent

Variable Model 1 Model 2

INTERCEPT -14.1014 -17.9762

(1.7297)*** (l.8207)***

Ln(INCOME) .8976 1.4146

(.1624)*** (.1643)***

Ln(SCHOOL) 1.6933 2.1986

(.4619)*** (.4919)***

Ln(AVGADEQ) 1.0674 1.3201

(.2964)*** (.3127)***

Ln(OFFR) .0889 .0792

(.1220) (.1316)

Ln(DAYS) .2638

(.0322)***

Ln(RECDAYS) .1956

(.0404)**

RETIRED .5137

(.2909) *

Ln (PSPENDIN) .4401

(.1212)***

SUBSTI .6726

(.2373) ***

ACCUR .0247

(.2594)

Number Observations 1115 1085

F-value 51.886*** 24.795***

R2.25 .14

R2 (Adjusted) .24 .13

66
Table 12. Ordinary Least Squares Estimated SemiLogarithmic Models (Standard Error)

Independent

Variable Model 1 Model 2

INTERCEPT -6.0233 -4.2116

(.7172)*** (.6838)***

INCOE .00002 .00003

(.000006)*** (.000006)***

SCHOOL .2115 .2427

(.0399)*** (.0408)***

AVGADEQ .3705 .4628

(.1238)*** (.1272)***

OFFR .0008 .0009

(.0009) (.0009)

DAYS .0104

(.0029)***

RECDAYS .0039

(.0189)**

RETIRED 1.6626

(.2895) ***

PSPENDIN 9.8766

(3.7857) ***

SUBSTI .6886

(.2414) ***

ACCUR -. 0632

(.2650)

Number Observations 1115 1085

F-value 28.320*** 17.787***

R2.15 .10

R2 (Adjusted) .15 .10

67
Overall the signs of most variables meet the a priori

expectations indicated in Table 9. Although none of these models

fit the data exceptionally well, all models are highly significant

and also in the range of fit often encountered in nonmarket

valuation work using individual observations as data points. The

linear functional form (Table 10) is most consistent in terms of

statistical fit, and, as described below, most accurately estimates

the mean willingness-to-pay of the survey data.

PRZDICTZD SAMPLE VALUES

The models were used to provide estimates of annual value for

the Recreational Facility Package for the typical household in the

study region. This was done by substituting the weighted average

survey response for each of the independent variables in the

regression equations presented in Tables 10 - 12 and solving for

the estimated willingness-to-pay. The results are presented in

Table 13 for all three functional forms of the two models

previously described along with their 95% confidence intervals.

Table 13. OLS Models Mean WTP Estimates for Recreation Package

(in June 1986 prices)

Mean WTP 95% Confidence Interval

Model Estimate Lower Bound Upper Bound

Model 1:

Linear $106.73 $84.59 $128.87

Double Log 30.23 18.47 50.17

Single Log 47.99 13.94 256.58

Model 2:

Linear $107.57 $84.07 $131.07

Double Log 20.60 11.04 38.97

Single Log 25.11 10.61 65.67

The values in Table 13 for the linear functional form are

$106.73 and $107.57. The confidence intervals for these two

estimates are within a range of $84 to $131. This compares with

the weighted mean survey response of $94 which had a 95% confidence

interval of approximately $85 to $102. The double logarithmic and

semi-logarithmic functional forms result in significantly lower

estimates of mean household value for the recreation facility

package and also values which are considerably different from the

means of the survey data. This leads to suspicion regarding the

accuracy of the two logarithmic functional forms for estimating the

annual household value of the proposed recreation facility package.

The linear, weighted specifications are, therefore, considered more

68
appropriate, regardless of which is chosen, for estimating the

annual household value for the facility package.

ADJUSTMENT OF MODELS FOR SUBSTITUTE SITE AVAILABILITY

A variety of variables were used in an attempt to measure the

relative abundance of current park supply and its effect upon

willingness-to-pay for recreation in the bayou areas. It was

hypothesized that the availability of recreation opportunities

would have an inverse relationship with the public's

willingness-to-pay for additional provision of such areas. That

is, the more park facilities currently available, the less the

willingness-to-pay for the proposed developments. The variables

used as candidates in an attempt to identify such an influence

were:

1. Bayou park acreage as a percent of total bayou acreage:

Bayou park acreage was determined from secondary sources and

expressed as a percent of total bayou acreage. The data were

obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers planning

documents for the Buffalo Bayou Project region.

2. Log of Bayou park acreage as a percent of total bayou acreage:

This variable is identical to #1 above except that the natural

logarithm was used to allow for a nonlinear relationship

between willingness-to-pay for recreation and current

availability of recreation opportunities.

3. Distance weighted bayou park acreage as percentage of total

bayou park acreage:

This variable includes a distance weighted measure of the

substitute recreation areas available in the adjacent bayou.

The weight is a measure of distance from the center of the

bayou of concern to the center of the nearest alternative

bayou.

4. Bayou park acreage per capita in the bayou:

Bayou park acreage was determined from secondary sources and

divided by the population of the bayou. The data were

obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers planning

documents for the Buffalo Bayou Project region.

5. Log of Bayou park acreage per capita in the bayou:

This variable is identical to #4 above except that the natural

logarithm was to allow for a nonlinear relationship between

willingness-to-pay for recreation and current availability of

recreation opportunities.

69
The results of these estimations were judged unsuitable for

use. In those few cases where any of the measures of the

availability of substitutes were significant, the signs were

opposite to those which one would expect. Generally it was

concluded that, given the evidence of undersupply of recreation

relative to population in the entire study region for which the

original data had been collected, the supply measures were largely

reflecting "noise" in the data set and not reflective of robust

substitute recreation facility measures. In other study areas,

variables of the type listed above should be considered in project

analysis and recreation benefit measurement.

WHAT WAS LEARNED

The regional value estimating model effort was not very

successful in terms of the amount of variation explained in the

annual, household willingness-to-pay bids. This could have

partially resulted from the relatively poor response rate received

from the questionnaire, or the quality of the willingness-to-pay

bids received.

Further studies are also needed to develop regional value

estimating models which are better specified. This includes

developing more and better measureo of the conceptual constructs

(types of variables) considered as independent variables in this

modelling effort. Additional types of variables that might

influence the value of urban recreation facilities should also be

incorporated into future modelling efforts.

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

1. US Water Resource's Council (1983) Economic Environmental

Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources

Studies, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

The document provides a detailed discussion of value

estimating models and their development. It serves as a

useful starting point from which to initiate the development

of such models for urban recreation area benefits.

2. US Army Corps of Engineers (1986) National Economic

Development Procedures Manual-Recreation, Volumes I and II,

Institute for Water Resources, Reports 86-R-4 and 86-R-5,

Water Resources Support Center, Casey Building, Fort Belvoir,

Virginia.

These reports provide a detailed discussion of procedures for

estimating recreation benefits. The discussion includes basic

issues relating to economics, benefit estimation, and value

estimator models.

70
CHAPTER VII

FURTHER APPLICATIONS

There are three outputs from this case study description that

planners may want to consider using in other applications: the

mean use and value estimates that were estimated for Buffalo Bayou;

the regional value estimation models; and the general data

collection and analysis procedures. Following is a brief

discussion of when the use of these outputs may be appropriate for

other planning applications, as well as some of the constraints and

qualifications that should be considered.

APPLYING MEAN USE AND VALUE ESTIMATES

Buffalo Bayou mean use and value estimates could be used for

other urban recreation studies in the Houston area, or to other

study areas similar to the Buffalo Bayou watershed. Caution should

be used in doing this, however, particularly if the population of

interest is obviously different from the Buffalo Bayou population.

In these situations, the Buffalo Bayou mean values could be

considered initial "unit day values" to be adjusted based on

professional judgement using a point system similar to that

provided in the P&G. Adjustments in price levels, using a

Consumer's Price Index, should also be made to account for Pdifferences in price levels between the time of the Buffalo Bayou

Study and the proposed application.

APPLYING VALUE ESTIMATION MODELS TO OTHER REGIONS

The regional value estimating models developed in the Buffalo

Bayou study are shown and described in Chapter VI. These models

may be applied in similar regional settings for estimating the

annual value of similar activity packages for planning purposes.

It must be remembered, however, the resulting household value

estimates would be unconstrained, that is not limited by proposed

facility capacities. If the anticipated demand (use) for the

proposed facilities would exceed their carrying capacities, then

similar adjustments, as used in the Buffalo Bayou Study would be

required to derive a benefit estimate for planning purposes.

Variables included in the models can be used to statistically

account for differences between the proposed regional and Buffalo

Bayou settings, as opposed to just using professional judgement.

For example, consider the linear model 2, previously presented in

Chapter VI:

WTP = -167.2258 + .3314 (OFFR) + 9.4078 (AVGADEQ)

+ 469.6022 (PSPENDIN) + 9.428 (SCHOOL)

+ 16.2816 (SUBSTI) + 13.4987 (ACCURATE)

+ .0008 (INCOME)

771
where, OFFR - Closed-ended offer amount preceding open-ended willingness-to-pay questionnaire question.

AVGADEQ - The average adequacy rating, on a 5

point scale, of the Buffalo Bayou

region's existing facilities.

PSPENDIN = Annual outdoor recreation

expenditures as a proportion of

household income.

SCHOOL - Years of Education

SUBSTI - Whether Buffalo Bayou respondents

would stop use, decrease use, or not

change use of other areas because of

proposed developments.

ACCURATE = Buffalo Bayou respondents' WTP

accuracy rating, on a 5 point scale.

INCOME = Annual Household Income

Two variables in the above model that could almost always be

changed to account for differences in the new region of application

are SCHOOL and INCOME. The mean number of years of education and

the mean household income of the population of adults in the region

to which the model is applied could be substituted for the means

for the Buffalo Bayou region. Means for the other variables could

also be changed to account for differences in the new region, if

appropriate information was available. Otherwise the following

means obtained with the study questionnaire from the Buffalo Bayou

sample would be used.

Variable Mean Value

OFFR 193.659

AVGADEQ 2.815

PSPENDIN 0.027

SCHOOL 14.202

SUBSTI 0.405

ACCURATE 0.728

INCOME 27815.346

Mean estimated household annual willingness-to-pay for the

proposed facility package in the region of application is obtained

by plugging into the model the appropriate means for each

independent variable, multiplying by the model's regression

coefficients, and summing all products and the regression constant.

Total annual value for the region is then obtained by dividing this

mean estimate by mean number of persons per household, and

72
.multiplying the result by the total population for the region.

Again, it must be remembered that the resulting estimate would be

an unconstrained estimate of the willingness-to-pay for a facility

package, similar to those proposed for Buffalo Bayou.

REPLICATING BUFFALO BAYOU STUDY PROCEDURES

As described above, there may be some situations where

planners could directly use the findings or models from the Buffalo

Bayou Study in other planning studies addressing urban recreation

developments. There are, however, many other potential

applications where a new CVM study will be required. For these

other applications, the discussions of the tasks completed for the

Buffalo Bayou Study (Chapters II-V) and for regional modelling

(Chapter VI) provide general guidance for the development and

conduct of a CVM survey and analysis. Especially useful in these

chapters are the discussions of how planning constraints can be

addressed and accommodated and the listings of annotated references

which provide sources for additional information.

When a CVM analysis is being considered for a particular

study, information needs for other on-going or anticipated studies

in the district or study area should be reviewed. It may be

possible to combine study efforts or to identify some additional

information needs that could be efficiently incorporated into the

data collection and analysis. In some cases, expanding the study

area and/or the types of resource settings being considered

provides an opportunity to develop regional use and/or value

estimation models. As previously noted, such models can provide,

not only more precise and defensible use and value estimates, but

also an analytical resource for future planning applications. In

addition, combining study resources may make it possible to

overcome specific study constraints, resulting in more efficient

and effective data collection and analysis.

The process of conducting a CVM analysis and regional

modelling is summarized in Chapters II-V and VI, respectively. As

stated explicitly in several of these chapters and implicitly in

others, the early and continued involvement of individuals other

than the CVM analysts in this process is critical to its successful

completion. In managing the overall effort, the study manager

helps identify the types and timing of information needs and

resources that can be devoted to the CVM analysis, and facilitates

coordination with other members of the study team. Project

designers help identify the types of natural and project resources

that are being considered in the formulation of alternatives.

Environmental resource and recreation planners help in identifying

specific recreation and related natural resource developments (both

existing and proposed), sources of needed data, and potential

recreation related needs of the study area. Finally, other

federal, state and local agencies can help in identifying

recreation needs and opportunities, especially the types of

73
recreation developments that may obtain needed local support, and

can serve as useful information sources in describing probable

with- and without-project conditions.

Being a survey technique, successful application of the CVM

method requires experience and expertise in such areas as survey

design, sampling procedures for data collection, and statistical

analysis such as regression procedures (especially for regional

modelling) for data evaluation. Most Corps Districts have some

expertise and experience in these areas. For example, partially

because of their training, Corps sociologists are often a valuable

resource for developing or reviewing survey questions. When

additional expertise in these areas is required, it is usually

readily available through cooperative agreements or contract

resources.

What is unique about the CVM method is the development of the

"contingent market" portion of the questionnaire. This portion of

the questionnaire normally includes three parts: a scenario; a

payment vehicle (method of payment); and, the payment question(s).

The scenario is a careful and detailed description of the "good"

(e.g., change in number or quality of recreation facilities) that

the respondent is being asked to evaluate, and, therefore, the need

for clear delineation of with- and without-project conditions. The

payment vehicle is how the respondent will be charged,

hypothetically, for the good (e.g., an entrance fee or a reduction

in disposable income). Finally, a question or series of questions

is asked to elicit how much the respondent is willing to pay for

the good in question.

The importance of the design of the contingent market

scenarios and questions to the overall success of the evaluation

cannot be overemphasized. Districts which have not had experience

with this type of questionnaire design are strongly encouraged to

obtain some assistance when first undertaking a CVM analysis.

Sources of such experience within the Corps include staff at the

Institute for Water Resources, (preparers of the original Corps CVM

Recreation Studies Guide, Volume II of this NED Manual Series),

and Corps Districts which have successfully completed CVM studies.

Sources outside the Corps include other agency and university

personnel involved in CVM research and application.

74
APPENDIX A

SURVEY INSTRUMENT AND COVER LETTERS

The cover letters, post card, and questionnaire which are

displayed in this appendix are not presented as a definitive model

to be used for other studies. They represent the exact

instrumentation used for the Buffalo Bayou survey, but, as stated

in the "What Was Learned" section of Chapter III, more time should

have been allowed for better development and testing of this

questionnaire and accompanying letters and post card. The reader

is referred to the discussion of questionnaire design principles in

Chapter III, and to the annotated references at the end of that

chapter for more detail and guidance.

7

75 m mimmm mm mmmmmmm~
76
WZT7Z4L EETTER

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

COLLEGE STATION. TEXAS 77843-2124

Dear Citizen:

We need your help. We would like to know how you feel about the availability of outdoor recreation areas within the Houston area. In most

instances, you have little opportunity to influence the character of these

facilities prior to their provision. With this letter, we are giving you that

opportunity. We would like to find out how you feel about several possible outdoor recreation alternatives.

Our focus, as researchers at Texas A&M University, is upon what types of

outdoor recreational facilities you would like to see in the Houston area. We

have been contracted by the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the National Park

Service to perform an independent study to provide information for planning

recreation facilities associated with flood control developments.

In an effort to provide useful high quality research, we ask you to

please respond to the enclosed questionnaire. You were selected randomly from

a list of Houston households. The reliability of this study depends upon you and others completing and returning this questionnaire. If you are unable to

complete the entire questionnaire, please answer all the questions you can to

the best of your ability and return the questionnaire.

If you would like a copy of a summary report when this study is complete, please write your name and address on a separate sheet of paper. Then enclose

it in the return envelope along with your questionnaire, or send it separately if you desire. Confidentiality of your responses will be safeguarded. Completed questionnaires will be reviewed only by the research team at Texas A&M

University. The number printed on the back of the questionnaire is only to

eliminate your name from our mailing list when you respond.

Sincerely,

Allan Mills John R. Stoll

Project Co-Director oject Co-Director

Dept. of Recreation and Parks Dept. of Agricultural Economics

Si usted habla espafiol y no se siente comodo con el ingl's, favor regresar

este formulario en el sobre adjunto para nuevamente enviarle uno escrito en

espaiiol.

Nombre

Direccion

* College of Agriculture

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Texas Agricultural Extension Service

77
FOLLOW-U POSMARD

Last week a questionnaire seeking your opinion about the

provision of recreation facilities in the Houston area was

mailed to you.

If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire,

please accept our sincere thanks. If not, I would appreciate

it if you would do so today. Because this questionnaire has

only been sent to a sample of Houston area households, it

is extremely important that yours also be included in the

study. We would like our results to accurately reflect the

viewpoint of Houston area households and provide reliable

information for planning.

If by some chance you did not receive the questionnaire, or

it got misplaced, please call collect (409-845-2335) and I

will arrange to get another one in the mail to you today.

(Si prefiere una copia en espaiol, favor llamar por cobrar

al (409-845-2335) para asi enviarle hoy otral.

Sincerely,

John R. Stoll

Associate Professor and

Project Co-Director

78
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

PvMS DRP ARMNT OF AGRCULTURAL ECONOMICS

FOLLOW-UP LE77ER COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS fl43-21A April 11, 1984

Dear Citizen:

About three weeks ago we sent your household a questionnaire in an

effort to learn more about your preferences for recreational facilities in

Houston. As of today, we have not received your completed questionnaire.

We are conducting this study in order to obtain information about citizen

desires for outdoor recreation facilities in the Houston area. Little information of this type is available at the present time. This means that

recreation planners may be seriously misinformed about the desires of citizens

for outdoor recreational facilities. If so, this could lead to poor decisions

regarding the provision of new and management of existing Houston area

recreation facilities.

We are writing to you again because, if our results are to be reliable

and useful, it is important that each questionnaire be completed and returned.

In the event that your questionnaire has been misplaced, a replacement is

enclosed. (La razdn por la cual le estamos escribiendo nuevamente es porque

si queremos que los resultados sean dtiles y confiables, es importante que

cada cuestionario sea llenado completamente y regresado. Si por alguna razdn

su cuestionario se ha extraviado, adjunto encontrari otro.

If you would like a copy of a summary report of this study when it is

completed, please tear off the form below and fill it out. Then enclose it

along with your questionnaire or send it in a separate envelope to Dr. John R.

Stoll. Regardless of how you return this form, your name will never be used

to identify your responses. Confidentiality of all responses will be strictly

maintained.

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

John R. Stoll

Associate Professor and

Project Co-Director

Si usted prefiere Is copia de este cuestionario en espafiol, favor de

llamar a cobrar al telifono 409-845-2335.

Yes, I would like to receive a copy of a summary report for the

outdoor recreation facility study.

Name

Address

79
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

SECOM DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

FOLLOW-Vup T7 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77843-2124 April 11, 1986

Dear Citizen: 0

About six weeks ago we sent you a questionnaire asking for your help in

an effort to learn more about outdoor recreation in the Houston area. We have

not yet received your completed questionnaire.

So far the number of questionnaires returned is encouraging. But to

accurately describe citizen desires, we need information from you and the

others who have not yet responded. Our past experience suggests that people

who have not yet responded may represent significantly different portions of

the population than those who have already responded.

We are conducting this study in order to determine how to better satisfy

the outdoor recreation desires of Houston area citizens. Because little

information is available, recreation planners may be seriously misinformed

about the desires of citizens for recreation facilities and opportunities in

the Houston area. This could lead to decisions which inadequately consider

your preferences. For this reason, I am sending this by certified mail to

insure delivery. In case our other correspondence did not reach your household, a replacement questionnaire is enclosed. Please complete this

questionnaire and return it in the enclosed postage-paid envelope.

If you would like a copy of a summary report, please tear off the form on

the bottom of this sheet and fill it out. Then send it with your questionnaire or in a separate envelope to Dr. John R. Stoll. Regardless of how you

return this form, your name will never be used to identify your responses.

Confidentiality of all responses will be strictly maintained.

Your cooperation in making this study a success is appreciated.

Sincerely,

John R. Stoll

Associate Professor and

Co-Project Director

Hace como seis semanas le enviamos un cuestionario pidiendole su ayuda

para aprender un poco mas sobre el entretenimiento al aire libre en el area de

Houston. Hasta el momento no hemos recibido su cuestionario. Si usted prefiere que la copia de este cuestionario sea en espanol, favor de llamar por

cobrar al te~efono number 409-845-2335.

Yes, I would like to receive a copy of the summary report of this

outdoor recreational facility study.

Name

Address

80
a-6 #0702-001.6

Approval expires 10/31/86

* OUTDOOR RECREATION

SURVEY

.7.

CONDUCTED BY

Texas A&M University

Department of Agricultural Economic

and

Department of Recreation and Parks

You have been randomly selected to receive this questionnaire.

All information is confidential. The questionnaire has an

identification number for mailing purposes only. This is

so that we may check your name off our mailing list when your

questionnaire is returned. Your name will never be placed on

the questionnaire.

Please return the completed questionnaire to Dr. John R. Stoll

in the self-addressed envelope provided.

81
In this first section of the questionnaire we would

like to ask you scie questions about the outdoor

recreation activities your household participated

in during the past 12 months. Please include only

activities which took place away from your home.

Q- 1 For each of the recreational activities listed below, please indicate

in section A whether you did or did not participate in it during the

previous 12 onths. Then, in section B indicate whether any other

member of your household participated in it during the previous 12

months. (Circle one response for each row of sections A and B)

SBL1ION A SKrION B

OTHER

REETIO , AcTrviTy YOU HOUSEHOLD

PERSONALLY MEMBER

PARTICIPATED PARTICIPATED

Visited a park? YES NO YES NO

Used a playground? YES NO YES NO

Swan in a pool? YES NO YES NO

Went jogging/running/walking? YES NO YES NO

Participated in outdoor nature programs? YES NO YES NO

Bicycled for pleasure or exercise? YES NO YES NO

Used facilities for handicapped individuals? YES NO YES NO

Visited art or historical facilities? YES NO YES NO

Used exercise equipment? YES NO YES NO

Played basketball outdoors? YES NO YES NO

Played tennis? YES NO YES NO

Played baseball? YES NO YES NO

Played softball? YES NO YES NO

Played volleyball? YES NO YES NO

Played football? YES NO YES NO

Played soccer? YES NO YES NO

Played golf? YES NO YES NO

Went bird watching? YES NO YES NO

Went picnicking? YES NO YES NO

Went horseback riding? YES NO YES NO

----------------------------------------------------------------

Went boating or canoeing on rivers or lakes? YES NO YES NO

Went fishing? YES NO YES NO

Went skateboarding? YES NO YES NO

Visited outdoor scenic places? YES NO YES NO

Used undeveloped open space for activities? YES NO YES NO

82
Now we would like to ask you for same specific information about

your participation in outdoor recreation within the Houston

area. Please take a moment to think about each questionand

Th--respond as accurately as you can.

Q- 2 Please tell us the average number of days that you or members of your

household participated in each of the following five types of activities

in or around the Houston area during the past 12 months. (Please provide

the best estimate you can and write "0" in blans when no one participated in a specific type of recreation)

AVERAGE NUMBER OF AVERAGE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD

DAYS PER PERSON MEMBERS PER OCCASION

DAYS PICNICKING HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

DAYS USING PLAYGROUNDS HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

DAYS USING TRAILS HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

DAYS PLAYING FIELD SPORTS HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

DAYS USING UNDEVELOPED HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

OPEN SPACE

Q- 3 How far did members of your household usually travel to participate in

each recreation activity in the Houston Area? (Specify to nearest 1/4 mile,

_MILES FOR PICNICKING (one-way distance)

MILES FOR USING PLAYGROUNDS (one-way distance)

MILES FOR USING TRAILS, e.g., jogging, running,

or walking (one-way distance)

MILES FOR FIELD SPORTS, e.g., football, softball,

or soccer (one-way distance)

MILES FOR USING UNDEVELOPED OPEN SPACE, e.g., watching

wildlife, observing nature, and enjoying scenic

views (one-way distance)

Q- 4 How adequate do you feel the supply of facilities is for each type of

recreation in the Houston area? (Circle one response for each row)

VERY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT VERY

ADEQUATE ADEQUATE NEUTRAL INADEQUATE INADEQUATE

PICNICKING VA SA N SI VI

USING PLAYGROUNDS VA SA N SI VI

USING TRAILS VA SA N SI VI

PLAYING FIELD SPORTS VA SA N SI VI

p USING OPEN SPACE VA SA N SI VI

83
Q- 5 Look back at your responses to question 0-2. In which of the five types

of recreational activities was the average number of days per person highest during the previous 12 months? (If two or more activities are

tied for the most days, write the name of the one you prefer most.)

TYPE OF RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY

Q- 6 In this question we would like to know how IMPORTANT you feel each of

the following reasons are for you personally when making your

decision whether to participate in the type of recreation within

the Houston area which you wrote on the blank above for

questiionQ-57.(Please circle one response for each item)

-A e

To be close to nature VI SI N SU VU

To experience new and different things VI SI N SU VU

To experience tranquility VI SI N SU VU

To help release or reduce some built

up tensions VI SI N SU VU

To have a change from your daily routine VI SI N SU VU

To do something with your family VI SI N SU VU

To feel your independence VI SI N SU VU

To have thrills VI SI N SU VU

To improve your skills VI SI N SU VU

To feel isolated VI SI N SU VU

To relax physically VI SI N SU VU

To be where things are fairly safe VI SI N SU VU

To take risks VI SI N SU VU

To get exercise VI SI N SU VU --------------------------------------------

To be away from crowds of people VI SI N SU VU

To be near others who could help if you

need them VI SI N SU VU

To get away from the heat VI SI N SU VU

To get over feeling depressed or unhappy VI SI N SU VU

84
Q- 7 In this question we would like to know how NECFESARY you feel each of

the following facility items are to u prsonally when making you

decision about where to participate in the type of recreational

activities win-e-ouston area which you wrote on the blank

for question Q-5. (Please circle one response for each item)

FACILITY ITEMS -4 -0

Picnic tables VN SN N SU VU

Water fountains VN SN N SU VU

Grills or barbecue pits VN SN N SU VU

Refuse dump (garbage) containers VN SN N SU VU

Electrical outlets VN SN N SU VU

S~ -------------- -- - - - - - -

Gate attendant VN SN N SU VU

Parking lot VN SN N SU VU

Night lighting VN SN N SU VU

Paved access roads VN SN N SU VU

Nature hiking trails VN SN N SU VU

Restrooms VN SN N SU- VU

Trees and natural vegetation VN SN N SU VU

Canoe or small boat facilities VN SN N SU VU

Playground equipment VN SN N SU VU

Concessions VN SN N SU VU

Bicycle trails VN SN N SU VU

Skateboard paths VN SN N SU VU

Exercise/fitness equipment VN SN N SU VU

Facilities for handicapped people VN SN N SU VU

S---------------------------------------- -

Information/route signs VN SN N SU VU

Grass/open turf areas VN SN N SU VU

Trails for walking VN SN N SU VU

Jogging/running trails VN SN N SU VU ---- ------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Benches to sit on VN SN N SU VU

Flowers VN SN N SU VU

Fencing/safety fencing VN SN N SU VU

Other (Please specify) VN SN N SU VU

VN SN N SU VU

85
I In this section we would like to ask you about a specific I

set of recreational facilities which is being considered I

Flood control is a concern in the Houston area because of land subsidence (sinking over time) and drainage problems in this relatively flat

but highly developed urban area. A variety of proposals are currently

being considered for prevention of flood damages in the Houston

region. If these proposals are approved, there will be opportunities

for federal, state, and local authorities to provide new recreational

facilities while carrying out the proposals. But to do so, they will

need to know where and what types of recreational facilities should

be supported.

Different recreational activities require development of different types

of facilities. Some facility developments may include ballparks, soccer

fields, and tennis courts while others may be used more often for trail

walking, wildlife observation, and bicycling. There are two types of

recreational developments which are possible additions to Houston area

flood control projects; bayou-edge trailways and flood detention areas.

Detention areas are large land areas next to a specif(c bayou. The

detention areas would be designed to allow portions of their land area

to be flooded during periods of heavy rainfall. This means that during

some portions of the year, usually short periods after heavy rains,

parts of these areas may be partially flooded. But during the remainder

of the year a variety of recreational activities could be supported,

e.g., baseball softball, soccer, tennis, etc. In addition to these

field sport activities, a variety of other activities would be possible.

Thus, the proposed detention areas in the Houston area would actually be

a type of urban park. These parks would range in size from 52 to 312

acres. Each would be suitable for a variety of recreational activities

but a major distinction could be made between those that are essentially

natural (see Figure A in the foldout on the next page) and those that

are more highly developed (see Figure B in the foldout on the next

page).

Bayou-edge trailways development could include such things as picnic

tables, benches, trees and playgrounds. Their primary characteristic,

however, would be that each would have some sort of trail (see Figure C

in the foldout on the next page) for bicycling, jogging, or walking.

Q- 8 For your household, if detention park areas like those shown in Figures

A and B were to be provided, would you prefer they be: (Circle nunber)

1 MORE NATURAL AS IN FIGURE A

2 MORE DEVELOPED AS IN FIGURE B

86
87Z
41/

400

88
Q- 9 Notice, on the foldout at the left, there is a map of the Houston area.

This map shows highways as well as the major bayous included in the

Houston region. Along some of the Houston area bayous on the map there

are heavily dotted lines. These lines show the location of potential

recreation trailways h could be built along with planned flood

control developments. Along each bayou there are also boxes with

numbers in thae. These numbers show the potential locati orsven

flood detention areas (or urban parks) which would also support recreational activities if the flood control plans currently being

considered are in fact adopted. SKRlCN B

In Section A, please circle YES MANY YS

or NO for eaci of the Bayou-edge PER YEAR AT

and Detention Park area locations

listed to indicate whether members

of your household would likely use

it for recreation during a typical

year. Then, for each YES, in

Section the number B write in your estimate of of days per year your 0 o

household would use each of the two 0

types of potential recreation SEMlO A

developments. WOUL YOUR

HOUSEHOLD

USE EAC?

LOCATION (circle) #

__DAYS DAYS

Brays Bayou

Bayou-Edae Development YES NO

Detention Area Number 1 (312 Acres) YES NO

Detention Area Number 2 (190 Acres) YES NO

Carpenters Bayou

Bayou-Edge Development YES NO

Greens Bayou

Bayou-Edge Development YES NO

Detention Area Number 4 (80 Acres) YES NO

Detention Area Numbwr 5 (163 Acres) YES NO

Detention Area Number 6 (53 Acres) YES NO

Halls Bayou

Bayou-Edge Development NO

Detention Area Number 7 (52 Acres) NO

Hunting Bayou

Bayou-Edge Development YES NO

Little White Oak

Bayou-Edge Development YES NO

Sims Bayou

Detention Area Number 3 (296 Acres) YES NO

89
Q-10 If you or your household members began using one of these recreation

areas, would they be likely to change their use of another area they

currently use? (Circle number)

1 STOP USING ANOTHER AREA

2 DECREASE USE OF ANOTHER AREA

3 NO CHANGE IN USAGE OF OTHER AREAS

Q-11 As you know, all packages of recreational facilities cost money to

provide. Often the costs of providing these facilities are difficult

to recognize. But whether you see them clearly or not, these costs

are paid by you. Scmetimes there are direct fees for use of

recreation areas and other times you may pay indirectly through

increases or reallocation of the tax dollars you contribute to

local, state, and federal entities or through changes in prices of

certain goods and services. In the end, you and other citizens

do pay for these facilities. In one way or another, your household's

annual income is reduced.

Suppose the entire package of bayou-edge trailways and detention park

areas shown in the map could be provided, if your household's income

were reduced by $ 7, per year. Would you approve of this new

reduction in your annual income rather than not have these outdoor

recreation facilites provided? (Circle number)

1 YES

2 NO

Q-12 %bat is the highest amount you would allow your household's annual

income to be reduced in order to obtain these outdoor recreation

facilities, rather than do without them?

DOLLARS PER YEAR

0-13 If your answer to Q-12 above was "0", please choose the statement below

which best describes your reason for not allowing a reduction in your

household's annual income. (Circle only one number)

1. THERE ARE CURRENTLY PLENTY OF OTHER

RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN HOUSTON

2 I OBJECT TO PAYING FOR RECREATION FACILITES

3 THAT IS WHAT THESE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

ARE WORTH TO ME

4 NOT EOUGH INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO

MAKE A DECISION

90
Q-14 In question Q-12 you stated the highest income reduction your household would accept rather than do without the Houston area recrea- tion facility package. There are 7 bayous in the package described,

6 of which would have bayou-edge trailways development; and 7 detention park areas are along these bayous. How would you allocate (divide up)

your monetary response to question Q-12 among each of these parts of the

recreation package?

AMOUNT ALLOCATED

Brays Bayou:

Bayou-Edge Development ..................... $

Detention Area Number 1 (312 Acres) ........ $

Detention Area Number 2 (190 Acres) ........ $

Carpenters Bayou: Bayou-Edge Developnent ..................... $

Greens Bayou:

Bayou-Edge Development ..................... $

Detention Area Number 4 (80 Acres) ......... $

Detention Area Number 5 (163 Acres) ........ $

Detention Area Number 6 (53 Acres) ......... $

S Halls Bayou:

Bayou-Edge Developnent ..................... $

Detention Area Number 7 (52 Acres) ......... $

Hunting Bayou:

Bayou-Edge Developnent ..................... $

Little White Oak:

Bayou-Edge Development.... ................. $

Sims Bayou:

Detention Area Number 3 (296 Acres) ........ $

NOTE: Total allocated should

equal response to Q-12. $

91
In order to analyze the responses we get from people responding to tis

survey, we need to ask a few questions about you and your household.

Your answers will be kept ccoletely confidential.

0-15 How many people live in your household, including yourself? (Please

specify)

PEOPLE

0-16 How many of the household members identified in Q-15 are children, 17

years old or younger? (Please specify)

CHILDREN 17 AND UNDER

-17 What is your present age? (Please specify)

_YEARS

0-18 When did you first begin living in Texas? (Circle one number)

1 I WAS BORN HERE

2 BEFORE 1974

3 DURING 1974 - 1979 PERIOD

4 DURING 1980 - 1986 PERIOD

0-19 Which of the following race/ethnic groups describes you best? (Circle

only one number)

1 ASIAN

2 BLACK

3 HISPANIC

4 WHITE

5 OTHER (Please specify)

-20 I ea:

1 FEMALE

2 MALE

0-21 What was the last year of school you completed? (Circle one number)

Grade School High School College/Technical Graduate School

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21+

0-22 Which of the following statements best describes you? (Circle one number)

1 SINGLE AND NOT HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD

2 SINGLE AND HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD

3 MARRIED AND NOT HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD

4 MARRIED AND HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD

92
Q-23 Are you retired?

2NO

0-24 Where you now live, do you:

1 RENT

2 OWN

3 OTHER

0-25 Do you plan to live somewhere in or near Houston five years from now? (Circle one number)

1 YES

2 NO

0-26 About how much money would you estimate that your household spends on

all kinds of outdoor recreation, in an average week? (Please

specify dollar amount)

DOLLARS PER WEEK

0-27 Please circle the one number below which best describes your total

household income. Think of total income before taxes for you and for

all mbers of your household during the previous 12 months. Note: If

you are uncertain, what is your best guess? (Circle only one number)

1 Less than $10,000

2 $ 10 000 - $ 19,999

3 $ 20,00 - $ 29,999

4 $ 30,000 - $ 39,999

5 $ 40p,000 - $ 49,999

6 $ 50,00 - $ 59,999

7 $ 60,000 - $ 69,999

8 $ 70,000 - $ 79,999

9 $ 80,000 - $ 89,999

10 $ 90,000 - $ 99,999

11 $100,000 - $109,999

12 $110,000 - $119,999

13 $120,000 - $129,999

14 $130,000 or more

0-28 Was your household income during the previous 12 months: (Circle one

number)

1 Pbout the same as in other recent years?

2 Much higher than in other recent years?

3 Much lower than in other recent years?

9

93
To help us in the design of future questionnaires and in assessing the

quality of our data for this study, could you please take a minute to

coplete the following:

Q-29 Overall, how understandable did you find the wording of the questions?

(Circle one number on the following scale)

VERY VERY

CLEAR CLEAR MODERATE UNCLEAR UNCLEAR

2 0 -I -2

Q-30 How accurate do you feel your answers were to the questions about your

willingness to allow inccme reductions in return for recreation

facilities? (Questions Q-11 and Q-12)

VERY VERY

ACCURATE ACCURATE MODERATE INACCURATE INACCURATE I . . I . . . . . I . . . . It . . . I

2 1 0 -1 -2

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!

We weIcome your comments concerning recreational activities, the

availability of recreation facilities in the Houston area, or this

questionnaire. Feel free to write below or on the back of this questionnaire

booklet.

94
APPBN1DIX B

RECREAT1ION ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION, XOTIVATIONS,

AND FACILITY PRBFNRBNCUB

I 95
96
APPENDIX B

RECREATION ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION MOTIVATIONS,

AND FACILITY PREFERENCES

One purpose of the Buffalo Bayou recreation survey was to

collect information on activity participation, motivations for

activity participation, and desired facilities and services

associated with these activities. This information was collected

not only for the Buffalo Bayou application, but also to assist

Galveston District recreation planners in designing appropriate

activity settings and developments for other planning studies.

Although the data were collected from the Houston area, they may

also provide insight into motivation and facility/services

preferences for other areas.

ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION

Question # 1 in the questionnaire asked respondents whether or

not they or other members of their households had participated in

each of 25 different outdoor recreation activities during the

previous twelve months (Table B-l). The 25 types of activities

included in this question were selected on the basis of preliminary

meetings with all members of the Corps study team.

Activity participation was indicated by a majority of the

Houston respondents for both themselves and other household members

*for visiting a park (80.2%), visiting outdoor scenic places

(74.5%), jogging/running/walking (71.9%), picnicking (64.0%), and

visiting art or historical facilities (62.6%). Less than fifty

percent of the respondents indicated that they themselves

participated in each of the other twenty activities listed.

However, for three of these other activities, over 50% of the

respondents indicated that other members of their households did

participate. These three other activities were using a playground

(56.7%), bicycling for pleasure or exercise (53.6%), and swimming

in a pool (53.3%).

S 97
Table B - 1. Percentages of "YES" Responses to Items in Question

# 1 Asking About Participation in 25 Activities by

the Respondents Themselves and by Other Members of

Their Households (Items Ranked by "YES" Percents)

Other

ITEMS Respondent Household

Percentage Members

Visited a park 80.2% 81.5%

Visited outdoor scenic places 74.5% 70.9%

Went jogging/running/walking 71.9% 68.4%

Went picnicking 64.0% 65.9%

Visited art or historical facilities 62.6% 61.2%

Went fishing 49.2% 48.6%

Bicycling for pleasure or exercise 44.9% 53.6%

Swam in a pool 44.6% 53.5%

Went boating/canoeing on river or lake 44.3% 47.1%

Used exercise equipment 43.0% 44.1%

Used a playground 42.8% 56.7%

Used undeveloped open space for activity 39.2% 38.9%

Played tennis 23.7% 29.2%

Played softball 23.7% 28.6%

Played golf 22.9% 16.6%

Played volleyball 20.8% 27.5%

Played basketball outdoors 20.0% 31.6%

Participated in outdoor nature program 19.6% 25.9%

Went bird watching 18.5% 16.9%

Played baseball 13.3% 23.2%

Played football 10.2% 19.0%

Went horse riding 10.0% 17.1%

Played soccer 4.6% 13.6%

Used facilities for handicapped people 2.6% 2.9%

Went skate boarding 2.1% 15.9%

0

98
MOTIVATIONS AND FACILITY PREFERENCZS

Questions 6 and 7 in the questionnaire elicited respondents'

ratings of preferred psychological outcomes (motivations) and

preferences for different kinds of outdoor recreation facilities

which could be included in planned bayou developments. The ratings

responses were coded as follows for both of these questions:

1 = Very Important Motives, or

Very Necessary (Preferred) Facilities.

2 = Somewhat Important Motives, or

Somewhat Necessary (Preferred) Facilities.

3 = Neutral Motives, or

Neutral Facility Preferences.

4 = Somewhat Unimportant Motives, or

Somewhat Unnecessary (Not Preferred) Facilities.

5 = Very Unimportant Motives, or

Very Unnecessary (Not Preferred) Facilities.

Most of the 18 motive items included in question # 6 were

selected from an item pool developed by Beverly Driver, a

U.S.Forest Service recreation researcher at the Rocky Mountain

Forest Experiment Station, and his associates. Items were selected

which Driver had found to be quite important in other studies for

the kinds of activities being considered for the recreational

component of the Corps flood control plans. Driver has found that

similar groups of motive items tend to be rated consistently high

in importance for some of the same activities in different

settings.

The 28 facility items included in question # 7 were selected

on the basis of discussions held with the members of the Corps

planning team during preliminary meetings held in the early phase

of the study. Only facilities which would be feasible for the

Corps to provide as part of the flood control plans were included

in the list for question # 7.

The motivations and preferences :atings data were analyzed

descriptively by first calculating means and standard deviations

for each item. The means were then used to compile rank orderings

of both the motives and the facility preference items. It is known

that motives and preferences may vary by activity type. Therefore,

respondents were asked to rate each motive and preference item with

respect to the one type of activity package (of five given) for

which the number of days of participation per person for their

household was the highest. The five activity packages were

picnicking, playground activities, trail activities, field sports,

and undeveloped open space (activities). If two or more activities S were tied for the most days of participation, respondents were

99
asked to base their ratings on the one of the five activity

packages that they preferred the most. Motives and preferences

were then ranked on the basis of mean ratings from respondents.

Results of the ranking of motive and preference means were

interpreted, respectively, in terms of the "bundles" of motives and

preferences that were top ranked for each particular type of

activity package. The results of this analysis for the motivation

items from question # 6 in the questionnaire are presented in Table

B-2. The results for the preference items from question # 7 in the

questionnaire are shown in Table B-3.

Picnicking. For the picnicking activity package, the three

top ranking motives shown in Table B-2 were: to have a change from

your daily routine, to do something with your family, and to relax

physically. Each had a mean of 1.4. The next highest ranking

motives for picnicking were: to experience tranquility, to help

release or reduce some built up tensions, and to be where things

are fairly safe (each with means of 1.6). Next highest was: to be

close to nature with a mean of 1.7, and to be away from crowds of

people with a mean of 1.9. Each of these item means were below

2.0. This would indicate that, on the average, respondents

considered each of these motives as more than somewhat important

reasons for picnicking.

The three most preferred (necessary) facilities for picnicking

were: restrooms, refuse dump (garbage) containers, and trees and

natural vegetation (Table B-3). Each had a mean of 1.3. Picnic

tables were also highly preferred, with a mean of 1.4. Next most

preferred for picnicking (mean of 1.7) were: benches to sit on,

trails for walking, grass/open turf areas, and water fountains.

Next highest in preference (need) were information/route signs with

a mean of 1.8, parking lot (mean of 1.9), and paved access roads

(mean of 1.9). Each of these item means were below 2.0, indicating

that, on the average, respondents considered each of these

facilities as more than somewhat necessary for picnic area use.

Playground Use. For playground use the highest ranked motive

was "to do something with your family", with a mean of 1.3 (Table

B-2). Next highest was the motive "to experience tranquility",

with a mean of 1.4. Next highest was "to be where things are

fairly safe", with a mean of 1.6. Next highest were "to have a

change from your daily routine", "to relax physically", and "to

help release or reduce some built up tensions", each with means of

1.7. The next highest motive was "to get exercise", with a mean of

1.8. The means for these items were all below 2.0, indicating that

Houston respondents, on the average, considered each to be more

than somewhat important for using playgrounds.

100
p LUI

CC&

2c U) ) -0 ( - 0 -0 0 - l- -0(

CJ C Q C es 0 V) 0j

ON0. N N 0 0 ( ' -

CD (0 ~ )0) 00 )0 N A - -N N ON N A

C C ~ C C ~ C C C4w C CiCO M "

I IIjuC1

101
-or ClC ow L I R

0~ -- - - i i w- - 0 -- - -~ --

-00~~ -- - -- . -7 ~ ---

P C

IL ~ --. 2J- c-c~ CJ A - dCJ J 4cjd co c c v t

- 7--- 41 - - -: I z% - - - - ----

(000 0 0 (a00( (0007 onONC38 ' " &A0 (00

assesO asses~O SSO a SSSSS asses

see a se ss - - WS - - -

0 (0((0 (000 50(000 0 0888 __AO

0) m% coC) m C l c

'I- q R0 --- -- 

um oaIhLI

102
The most preferred (necessary) facility for playground use was

playground equipment, with a mean of 1.3 (Table B-3). The three

next most preferred facilities for playground use were: restrooms,

refuse dump (garbage) containers, and trees and natural vegetation.

Each had mean ratings of 1.4. The next most preferred facility for

playground use was water fountains, with a mean of 1.5. Next most

preferred were benches to sit on (mean of 1.6), picnic tables and

grass/open turf areas, both with means of 1.7. Next were trails

for walking (mean of 1.8), information/route signs (mean of 1.9),

and paved access roads (mean of 1.9). These item means below 2.0

indicate that each of these facilities were considered more than

somewhat necessary by Houston residents for their use of

playground areas.

Trail Use. For trail use, the highest ranked motive was to

get exercise, with a mean of 1.4 (Table B-2). Next highest in

average importance for trail use were the motives to be close to

nature, to experience tranquility, and to help reduce or release

some built up tensions. All three had means of 1.6. Next highest

in importance was the motive to have a change from your daily

routine, with a mean of 1.7. Next highest in importance were the

motives to relax physically and to be where things are fairly safe,

both with means of 1.8. All these item means are below 2.0,

indicating that these motives were more than somewhat important to

respondents.

The most preferred (necessary) facilities for trail use were

trees and natural vegetation and trails for walking, both with

means of 1.3 (Table B-3). The next highest preferences were for

nature hiking trails and jogging/running trails, both with means of

1.6. The next most preferred facility for trail use was restrooms,

with a mean of 1.7. Next most preferred (necessary) facilities

were refuse dump (garbage) containers, grass/open turf areas, and

water fountains, each with a mean of 1.9. These mean values, below

2.0 for all of these items, indicate that Houston residents

consider each to be more than somewhat necessary for trail use.

Field Sports. The most important motives, on the average for

Houston residents participation in field sports were to get

exercise and to have a change from your daily routine, both with

means of 1.6 (Table B-2). Next most important was the motive to

help release or reduce some built up tensions, with a mean of 1.7.

Next most important were to do something with your family (mean of

1.8) and to relax physically (mean of 1.9). These item means below

2.0 indicate that these motives were each more than somewhat

important as motives for Houston residents participation in field

sports.

The most preferred (necessary) facility for field sports was

rest rooms, with a mean of 1.3 (Table B-3). Next most preferred

(necessary) was refuse dump (garbage) containers, with a mean of

1 1.5. Next most preferred for field sports were water fountains

103
(mean of 1.6) and grass/open turf areas (mean of 1.7). Next most

preferred were trees and natural vegetation, benches to sit on, and

paved access roads. Each had means of 1.8. Next most preferred

were parking lot and night lighting, each with means of 1.9. These

means below 2.0 indicate that the corresponding items were

considered more than somewhat necessary by Houston residents for

their participation in field sports.

Open Spaco. The most important motives for Houston residents

use of undeveloped open space were to relax physically and to be

close to nature, both with mean ratings of 1.4 (Table B-2). Next

most important motives for use of undeveloped open space were to

have a change from your daily routine and to experience

tranquility, both with mean ratings of 1.5. Next most important

were the motives to help release or reduce some built up tensions

and to be away from crowds of people, both with means of 1.6. Next

most important were to do something with your family (mean of 1.7)

and to experience new and different things (mean of 1.9). These

means below 2.0 indicate the above items were all considered to be

motives of more that somewhat importance for use of undeveloped

open space.

The most preferred (necessary) attribute of undeveloped open

space was trees and natural vegetation, with a mean of 1.3 (Table

B-3). Next most preferred were restrooms and refuse dump (garbage)

containers, both with mean ratings of 1.6. Next most preferred

(necessary) were trails for walking (mean of 1.8) and grass/open

turf areas (mean of 1.9). These means below 2.0 indicate that, on

the average, the above items were considered more that somewhat

important by Houston residents for use of undeveloped open space

areas.

OTHER FACILITY PREFERENCZS

In addition to the 26 different kinds of facilities,

respondents were asked to rate in terms of preference (necessity),

question #7 also allowed respondents to write in "other" types of

facilities and services not included in our list. The different

kinds of "other" necessary facilities specified by respondents for

each of the five types of activity packages are presented in Tables

B-4 to B-8. The "other" preference response given most frequently

for each of the five activity packages was some form of security or

police protection. The "other" preference listed either second,

third, or fourth most often for each of the five activity packages

was for cleanliness and/or maintenance of facilities.

1040
Table B-4. Other Picnicking Facilities Needed.

Number of Times

Mentioned Facility Type

24 Security; vehicle security; police patrol;law

protection.

11 Neatness; cleanliness of grounds/restrooms

7 Shelters for changing clothes; out of rain & sun;

Covered tables; pavilion

4 Shaded areas; Shade trees

4 Emergency phones; phones

4 Peace; low noise; prohibit radios/noise

3 Preventing crowding; crowd control

3 Accessible w/minimum traffic; traffic control

3 Safety fencing; safety

3 warning signs; brochures; maps; information

3 Family camping; safe camping facilities; tent

camping areas

3 First aide; rescue services

3 Nature photography both plants & animals; ducks

2 Small pond/lake

2 Somewhat landscaped; # of flowers to trees

1 Mosquito control

1 Sport fields

1 Gun range 1 Sanded safe swimming areas

1 White water river canoeing w/livery service

1 Good boat ramps

1 Places closer to home

1 Fountains

1 Sculptures

1 Prohibit off-road vehicles

1 Prohibit guns

1 Lectures/programs

1 Ability to drink beer

1 Few pets

1 Water outlets

1 Handicapped Facilities

1 First aid facilities

1 Inexpensive

1 105
Table B-5. Other Playground Facilities Needed.

Number of Times

Mentioned Facility Type

5 Police;Security; Night watch; Park rangers; Park

patrol

5 Pools for swimming

4 Fishing pier/Stocking lakes; lighted fishing pier

3 Proper maintenance/upkeep

3 Basketball Courts

3 Clean areas

2 Phone booths; Phone

2 Playground equipment; safe playground equipment

2 First Aid Station

2 Water (bayou, ponds)

1 Covered swimming area

1 Traffic Noise

1 Life guards

1 Reservation system for facilities

1 Golf/Tennis Courts

1 Safety crosswalk

1 Kite Flying areas

1 Well maintained drinking fountains

1 Areas for swimming in a lake

1 Pavilions

1 Camping facilities

1 Natural Bodies of water

1 Clean restrooms

1 Shade Trees

1 Trees for shade

1 Some undeveloped parks

1060
Table B-6. Other Trail Facilities Needed. I

Number of Times

Mentioned Facility Type

9 Security; vehicle security; police patrol;law

protection; Crime control

2 Telephones/maps

2 Clean areas

2 Quiet area/ no children/ no pets

1 Club facilities, exhibition educational facilities

1 Areas where children will not get hurt

1 More lakes

1 More flowers

1 Showers/boar/canoe/rentals

1 Bike paths

1 Names of trees & Vegetation

1 Good running surface

1 Fishing Piers

1 Shelters for camping

1 Wilderness areas

1 Wild game

1 Trees

1 Well maintained areas

1 Clean ponds

1 Telephones on trails

1 Motorcycle trails

1 Wildlife safety

1 Equal public access

1 Horseback riding trails

1 Uncommercialized beach with few people

1 Strict anti-littering enforcement

1 Traffic Control

1 Regular control of poison hazards, ivy, stinging

insects

1 Par course trails

1 Grass cut on routine basis

1 Natural environment

1 Weather shelters

1 Paths in good condition

1 Walk bridges over ravines

1 Tennis areas

1 107
Table B-7. Other Field Sports Facilities Needed. 4

Number of Times

Mentioned Facility Type

18 Security patrols; Police;

6 Clean area; Well maintained area

5 Soccer facilities

5 Basketball facilities

4 Clean swimming area; Public Swimming pool

4 Tennis courts; Tennis court maintenance

3 Telephones; Public phone

3 Water area; Water front area

2 Concessions; Food places

2 Group shelter; A place to get out of the rain

2 Room to spread; Open space areas

1 Attendance

1 Custodian

1 First aid station

1 Backstops

1 Fishing pier; Boat docking facilities

1 Pest control; Mosquitoes

1 Shelter area; to get out of the rain

1 Bicycle/walking/jogging trails

1 Golf course

1 Clean water

1 Signs

1 Fishing area

1 Baby sitting

108
Table B-8. Other Undeveloped Open Space Facilities Needed.

Number of Times

Mentioned Facility Type

6 Security patrol; Safety; Law enforcement

2 Clean area; Well maintained area

2 Boat ramps/improved boat ramps

2 Fishing pier

2 Natural area/left alone

2 Clean water

2 Fishing area; Suitable area for fishing

1 Small church

1 Proper supervisors/guides

1 Easy access

1 Road Signs

1 Horseback riding areas

1 Water area; natural waterways

1 Swimming area

1 Information center with guides

1 Free or reasonable price for families

1 Camping areas

1 Small lake for canoeing

1 Fish stocking programs

109