Research an essential foundation: chapter 14. (Outdoor Recreation in America).

NEED FOR KNOWLEDGE

The need for recreation research has been highlighted by two findings which have been emphasized in this report. First, pressure on the nation's natural resources will increase sharply over the next decades both for outdoor recreation and for other requirements. Second, there is land available for outdoor recreation, but it is not being effectively used in many cases. The nation's outdoor recreation demands will be met only through wise decisions on resource allocation, sound planning and effective development of facilities. These all require the support of thorough knowledge and extensive data--the product of research.

Recommendation 14-1: A systematic and continuing program of research is needed to provide the basis for wise decisions and sound management.

Increased pressure on the nation's resources will require their more efficient use. Recreation will be only one of the claimants for these resources. Policy makers and planners will have to choose among a number of competing uses. Research is needed to provide the factual background for making these choices among alternative uses for the same scarce resources. Unless both the tangible and the intangible values of outdoor recreation are supported by a bulwark of factual knowledge other, possibly less essential, uses may well preempt present and potential recreation resources. This will be particularly true in areas near large centers of population where recreation needs will be the greatest.

Outdoor recreation is a major land use involving a quarter of a billion acres of public land and perhaps as much private land. Over 90 percent of the population participates. It is a $20 billion a year industry with an annual government investment of an additional $1 billion. Yet, there is no systematic coordinated research program in outdoor recreation as there is in other fields which involve fewer people, acres and dollars.

Perhaps no other activity involving so many people and so basic a part of our life has received less attention from qualified investigators and scientists. This is not to belittle the efforts which have been made. The surveys and studies made for this commission, and the writings and publications of interested persons and agencies, indicate a live and growing interest in the field. These efforts represent a good beginning on a large task.

It is a tribute to the recreation leaders of the past that they were able to accomplish so much without the support of systematic research. Most of the recreation research that was done was directed toward solving specific, and often local, problems of management. Though limited in scope, these studies have improved conditions in many recreation areas, and they have yielded valuable information at the practical level of recreation management. Yet, as a major activity in contemporary social life, and as a broad field of public and private enterprise, outdoor recreation has had relatively little systematic study.

CATEGORIES OF RESEARCH

There are three related but distinct categories of recreation research that will require greater and continuing attention.

Data Collection, Inventory and Fact Finding

The need for current basic statistical information is fundamental. The Commission's inventory of nonurban designated public recreation areas, its National Recreation Survey, and its associated studies have provided much essential information. These constitute a framework upon which continuing research can build. Background data are needed to establish and maintain information on past and developing trends. Periodic inventories of the nation's recreation resources and surveys of participation in major outdoor recreation activities must be made to reflect changing conditions and to provide the facts needed for sound planning.

Applied Management Research

There is a need for problem-solving research to establish general principles and techniques essential for efficient management. For example, what factors should be considered in establishing the carrying capacity of a recreation area? What are the problems of determining the "carrying capacity" of a high-density (Class I) area on the one hand and of a primitive (Class V) area at the other extreme?

What portion of the total need can be met in urban areas? Answers to questions of this type are needed before recreation development and acquisition programs can move forward with full efficiency. Applied research efforts in the social as well as in the biological and physical sciences will be required.

Fundamental Research

Still another kind of research is urgently needed--research aimed not directly at solving specific problems but at providing information on a wide range of topics, some relating directly, and others only indirectly, to recreation. Basic and comprehensive research efforts dealing with recreation values of all kinds are imperative. Where, for example, does recreation fit into the social values of our society? What, if any, are the substitutes for outdoor recreation?

The move to urban living over the last half century and the prospect that it will continue for the next represent one of the major currents of American life; much needs to be learned about the effects of this trend upon the future need for, and availability of, adequate opportunities for outdoor recreation.

There is growing evidence that many decisions relating to resource use must in the final analysis be value judgments. Rather than obviating the need for research this makes it all the more necessary that the decision maker be provided with all possible factual information as a basis for judgment. In short, it helps to remove value judgments from the realm of guesswork and increases the likelihood that the correct choice will be made.

A PROBLEM IN ECONOMICS

One of the most urgent research needs is for more knowledge about the direct benefit that individuals derive from outdoor recreation. Something is known about the indirect effects or impact of expenditures by those seeking recreation, but little is known about the direct benefit to the individual who participates. Information of this nature is important, for it should play an important part in decisions allocating resources to outdoor recreation.

Public outdoor recreation is not generally sold for a price. Therefore, since there is no adequate dollar measure of the worth of recreation experiences at public sites, there is great difficulty in judging the primary direct benefits that accrue to people engaging in outdoor recreation, and hence in knowing how to allocate resources among competing uses. In the past, this problem has arisen most critically in connection with federal multipurpose water impoundments.

If the benefits which will accrue directly to recreation seekers from a specific proposal for investment cannot be measured, how can it be known that there are not superior alternatives, e.g., as among several alternative recreation developments and as between recreation and other uses of some of the resources? What assurance is there that decisions will result in a reasonably efficient use of resources?

In view of these questions, federal agencies and others have sought for a number of years to devise methods for measuring the value to the individual of publicly provided outdoor recreation.

Proposals have been made to value more or less arbitrarily all visits to federal water impoundments at 50 cents per day, $1 per day or $ 1.60 per day. A schedule of values for days of fishing under different conditions has also been considered. The principal objection to these fixed-value proposals is that the estimates derived from them vary directly with visitation. Consequently, the resulting estimates of benefits do not measure differences in quality or in activities at the site. In any event, the estimated value per unit rests almost entirely on a "judgment value."

Another method, which has attracted some attention, is that of developing schedules of demand based on cost of travel at varying distances from the recreation area. But this method involves the assumption that the benefit is the same to all users, while costs increase with distance. Thus, the entire estimate of benefit rests on the location of the recreation area and not on the amount or quality of the opportunity it provides.

Still another method is to value a recreation resource in terms of its highest alternative use. The objection to this method is that some of the best recreation areas, like the Grand Canyon, might have no value in an alternative use, while some of the poorest recreation areas, such as perfectly flat land with highly fertile soil, might be very productive in an agricultural use.

In some respects the most promising method of measuring the economic value of outdoor recreation is afforded by market area surveys. People could be asked to select among several suggested prices that might be charged for admission to a proposed recreation site, located within stated distances and offering a specified combination of activities. Detailed investigations could also be made of charges for use of private recreation facilities in the area. The interviews would be costly and would involve other relatively expensive procedures for the tabulation and interpretation of the data.

Recently developed methods, in which market situations are simulated in controlled laboratory experiments, might be applied to outdoor recreation. There is no reason to believe that a series of realistic choice situations could not be artificially constructed to evaluate the subjective value to consumers of a service presently priced at zero.

In order to provide a guide to the kinds of data needed to solve problems of outdoor recreation benefit-cost analysis, one of the commission studies developed an analytical framework to assist in the orderly planning and development of recreation facilities. The study first defines the conditions of supply. Thus, a certain volume of development costs (land and capital) and certain annual operating costs are combined to produce a planned capacity of recreation service at selected levels of intensity of use. Consumer demand is inversely related to the price of a recreation service, intensity of use, and distance.

Essentially the problem is to estimate the number of people and the per capita charges necessary to provide a surplus over costs, to equal costs, or to provide recreation below cost. This same method can be used to suggest choices between potential recreation sites. The study states that the kinds of information most needed are as follows: rated capacity, the amount of recreation activity for different sizes and kinds of development, and the associated costs; the estimated number of user-days of use of the recreation area and of each facility within the area under several alternative conditions; the intensity of use under varying conditions; the changes in costs as more or less capacity is provided; the extent of use under different price levels; and the relative attractiveness of the site.

Such an analysis will require time and money, particularly in the collection of detailed information to describe the "recreation setting" of each proposed project. However, the same justification exists for applying highly detailed investigative methods for measuring recreation benefits as applies to justification for the expenditures of hundreds of thousands of dollars for soil surveys, agricultural economic studies, and hydrologic and engineering surveys that precede the construction of any other resource development project. Hence, if recreation is to be considered a purpose of resource development, similar effort, time and money must be devoted to studies which will make possible intelligent judgments in each particular case.

Each of the methods for measuring the direct benefit of outdoor recreation discussed has serious shortcomings when applied across the board. Indeed, it seems quite likely that the principal error in all these proposals for evaluating outdoor recreation is that of seeking a single uniform solution to a number of highly specialized individual problems. It may very well be the case that each proposal for recreation investment must be investigated as a unique situation and that the origin of benefits may differ widely from one situation to another.

Regardless of the technique employed, it is clear that no single value can be assigned to the wide variety of recreation activities. Any value--such as dollars per recreation day--derived from judgment that is applied universally is almost certain to lead to a poor approximation of the real benefits for any given project. The net benefits of recreation, like those of irrigation and flood control, vary with time, place and origin. With the present state of knowledge, it appears that the best procedure for measuring the value of recreation is a detailed analysis of each individual project.

THE BREADTH OF RECREATION RESEARCH

Since research on outdoor recreation must cover a broad spectrum, the use of many talents will be required. Many areas of human behavior need to be considered, for an adequate understanding of outdoor recreation depends upon a study of people and their society as well as a study of natural resources and their use. The investigation and understanding of outdoor recreation extend far beyond the realm of any one specialized field. Much of the research yielding important insights might not at first appear to be "recreation research," since it is carried out by economists, sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists, demographers, psychologists, land-use specialists and geographers, to mention only a few. Yet there is ample evidence that the types of research carried out by these and other disciplines could greatly increase knowledge of outdoor recreation and its values. Unfortunately, the analysis and interpretation of the research in these fields have only rarely been related to recreation. Thus, there is much factual material already available for recreation research if placed in the proper context.

CARRYING OUT THE TASK

One of the principal functions of the proposed Bureau of Outdoor Recreation should be to act as the central clearinghouse of information on outdoor recreation. Where there is a lack of knowledge, the bureau should stimulate or sponsor research on a particular topic. Universities, nonprofit research organizations, or other federal agencies could be called upon. The commission has found them to be invaluable in its own research program.

There are presently many excellent research organizations within the federal and state governments, in educational institutions, and in private enterprises. Closer working relationships should be established between state colleges and universities and public recreation agencies. With the bureau stimulating and coordinating their work in the field of outdoor recreation, the total effects of these efforts could be great. For instance, if one state is carrying out extensive research on a particular problem, the bureau could encourage other states to turn their efforts to other topics.

In addition to providing important insights to outdoor recreation, an effective research effort will also develop a large reservoir of trained professional men and women capable of administering, managing and further studying recreation and its associated problems. This important byproduct could fill a major need.

The Research Advisory Committee that is proposed for the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation could play an important function in this process. Through the inclusion of representatives of private organizations and universities as well as federal and state officials, the scope of the unified effort could be further broadened.

In essence, a capable research potential currently exists in the federal government, the states, universities and private business. What is needed is stimulation to turn the attention of these organizations to the problems of outdoor recreation and coordination of their efforts. This can be done. In initiating its own program, the commission found that it stimulated research efforts far beyond those that it was able to finance directly. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and its Research Advisory Committee can accomplish this on a broad and continuing basis.

(1.) Ivan M. Lee (University of California, Berkeley), "Economic Analysis Bearing on Outdoor Recreation Development," Economic Studies of Outdoor Recreation, ORRRC Study Report 24.