PART I
TECHNICAL AND REVIEW PAPERS (Contd.)

DEVELOPMENT OF MARINE RECREATIONAL FISHERIES IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES: PROBLEMS AND SOME SOLUTIONS (Contd.)

Problems to be Overcome

As a first step towards achieving development of Southeastern marine recreational fisheries, Branch personnel set out to identify problems that would have to be resolved before full benefits could be realized from the region's marine recreational fisheries. Discussions with sport fishing organizations, meetings with state fishery personnel and general research have revealed a number of issues that must be addressed. These issues are identified and briefly discussed in the following paragraphs.

Lack of a Comprehensive and Reliable Data Base

While much progress has been made toward improving the marine recreational fishing data base, there is still a scarcity of reliable information in many subjects areas. It is absolutely necessary to improve this data base if effective marine recreational fisheries management and development is to occur in the Southeast. Data needs fall into two major categories.

First, additional data is needed concerning the nature and extent of saltwater sport fishing. Improved participation, catch, effort and economic data are priority items. A better understanding of the preferences and fishing patterns of saltwater anglers is needed along with geographical/seasonal fishing pressure data. This data would make it possible to determine supply/demand situations for sport fishing opportunities and to more effectively deal with pressures on fishery resources. Further, the present understanding of the economic aspects of marine recreational fishing is inadequate.

The second major category of data needs involves biological/environmental data relative to recreationally significant fishery stocks and their habitat requirements. Generally speaking, data limitations are much less severe in this category as compared to the first. However, there is still considerable room for improvement in stock assessment, bioprofile, predator-prey and habitat requirement data bases. Specific data needs for both categories need to be identified and addressed.

Lack of Organizational Unity in Marine Recreational Fishing Community

Any development program will require strong cooperative relationships and effective communication between government sectors and the marine recreational fishing community. However, at this time, the majority of the South-eastern saltwater sport fishing population cannot be identified and is not organized.

No region-wide system exists for licensing or registration of saltwater anglers. While a number of sport fishing organizations exist, they account for a small portion of the region's total angler population and they tend to represent specialized sport fishing interests. For example, many clubs, like the Greater Chaleston (South Carolina) Shark Fishing Club, or the Miami Sport-fishing Club specialize in a particular type of fishing or are tied to a local area. Furthermore, most clubs are socially oriented and are not actively involved in fishery management or development activities of the government sector. The sport angling community will have to become much better organized and involved before meaningful marine recreational fishery development can occur in the Southeast.

Fisheries Habitat Protection and Enforcement

Coastal and estuarine areas in the Southeast are productive but limited in supply. Growing coastal populations in the region are placing increasing development and use demands on these coastal resources. As a result, fishery habitat continues to be threatened by dredging, filling, coastal construction, waste disposal and other human activities. Efforts must be continued to minimize loss and pollution of fish habitat, and where possible, to restore and enhance it.

Fishery Allocation, Management and Conservation

Development of marine recreational fisheries in Southeast requires effective management and conservation of recreationally important marine fishery resources to avoid overexploitation of the stocks and to ensure that an adequate supply of fishery resources is available to saltwater anglers. In the Southeast, there are two broad fishery management issues that must be addressed (in addition to routine activities) if marine recreational fisheries are to be promoted.

First, because most of the important marine species in the Southeast support both recreational and commercial fisheries, efforts must be made to reduce tension and conflict between sport and commercial fishermen and to ensure equitable treatment of both groups in the management process. Equitable treatment of sport fishing interests requires that the marine recreational data base be improved and that steps be taken to obtain greater involvement of sport anglers in the management process.

Second, while passage of the FCMA has established a means to manage and conserve recreationally important species in offshore waters (4,8 km to 370 km off the coast) there is a perceived need to improve management of recreationally important species found in inshore territorial waters. As previously indicated, a major share of marine recreational fishing effort and catch occurs in inshore areas of the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Special attention also needs to be given to migratory species, like the mackerels, that require cooperative management efforts by coastal states.

Need to Improve Access to Coastal Waters and Fishery Resources

Marine recreational fishing cannot be promoted in the Southeast if saltwater anglers do not have adequate access to coastal waters and fishery resources. Access is already a limiting factor to saltwater angling participation in some Southeastern areas. If demand for, and participation in, saltwater sport fishing increases as expected in the Southeast, the access problem will become even more critical. Based on discussions with state fishery personnel and sport fishing organizations, the following specific access issues need to be resolved.

1. Competition with other shoreline users often precludes public access to coastal waters.

2. Government regulations aimed at protecting coastal resources often make construction of shoreline access facilities difficult.

3. There is an inadequate number of access facilities (piers, boat ramps, marinas, shore fishing areas, etc.) in some areas. In other areas, facilities are overloaded, poorly designed, inadequately maintained, or are not located where they effectively respond to local fishing pressure.

4. Coastal access planning is not integrated in outdoor recreation and tourism planning to the extent it should be.

5. The national energy situation requires coastal access facilities to be used to bring fishing opportunities to people thereby reducing travel requirements. Artificial fishing reefs have a role here.

Need for Improved User Information/Communication

Increased marine recreational fishing activity in the Southeast precipitated by development efforts may raise a variety of issues relating to the conservation management and use of marine fishery resources. Problems may develop if anglers are not properly informed of resource conservation measures, opportunities for use of traditionally non-target species, potential seafood contamination problems, and procedures for catching, handling, storing and preparing seafood. At present, much of the information needed is either non-existent or is not in a readily usable form. Lack of organization in the sport fishing community makes distribution of information a difficult task in itself.

Lack of Coordination Between Government Programs

The two major requirements of healthy marine recreational fisheries include a sufficient supply of fish to catch and adequate access to fishing locations. For the most part, supply questions must be dealt with in the context of state and federal fishery management programs. Access requirements must be dealt with by working through city, county, state, federal and private outdoor recreation planning and development programs. The point is that a host of private and governmental programs must be dealt with to promote marine recreational fisheries in the Southeastern United States. To a large degree, these programs are not well coordinated. As a result, original coordination approaches are required to plan and accomplish priority development projects.

Increased Potential for User Conflict

Because many of the species found in South Atlantic and Gulf waters support both commercial and recreational fisheries, there are already heated controversies arising from real or perceived user conflicts. Examples include gear conflicts between commercial gill-netters and recreational anglers fishing for king mackerel and between recreational spear fishermen and sport anglers over the catch of reef fish (snappers and groupers). In addition to fishing conflicts, there are conflicts between fishermen and other shoreline users.

Increased marine recreational fishing activity precipitated by development efforts will increase the potential for gear, time, space and resource conflicts between recreational and commercial fishermen. Conflicts may also intensify between the various subsectors of the recreational fishing community. Effective action will have to be taken to avoid or minimize these conflicts.

Difficulties in Measuring Program Success

While some of the results or products of a marine recreational fisheries development program such as increased economic activity, participation, or catch rates for certain species can be identified and priced for purposes of measuring program effectiveness, other important products, such as increased satisfaction of fishermen in their fishing experience, are not easily measured. This may present a problem in justifying expenditures of scarce public funds for marine recreational fishery development projects when these funds are allocated in a competitive environment. Greater participation of the marine recreational fishing community in fiscal planning and budgeting programs will be necessary to assist the government sector in its budgetary decision process.

A Program for Development of Marine Recreational Fisheries in the Southeastern United States

In view of the impediments that were identified, the following have been adopted by the Recreational Development Services Branch as working objectives for the National Marine Fisheries Service Marine Recreational Fisheries Development Program in the Southeast:

1. To improve and maintain a sound statistical and scientific data base in support of recreational fisheries conservation, management and development efforts.

2. To encourage and facilitate organization of the marine recreational fishing community in the Southeast.

3. To identify, protect and where possible enhance and restore habitat areas of importance to recreationally significant marine species.

4. To improve opportunities for participation in marine recreational fishing in the Southeast by promoting increased access to shorelines, coastal waters and fishery resources.

5. To develop and maintain a vigorous program of information and communication with the saltwater sport fishing community.

6. To promote equitable consideration of marine recreational fishing concerns in government (federal, state and local) and private programs dealing with fishery management, coastal management, habitat protection and outdoor recreation development.

To achieve these objectives, the Branch has developed and implemented a recreational fisheries development program having four basic subprograms:

1. Data base enhancement.

2. Habitat protection and enhancement.

3. Fisheries conservation and management.

4. Recreational fisheries development.

Before describing each of these subprograms, a few comments regarding program definitions and operating assumptions are in order. First, for purposes of the program, marine recreational fishing is defined as any fishing activity for marine species of fish, shellfish or crustaceans in which pleasure, enjoyment and relaxation are the principal objectives. Food, barter and money may be derived from the catch, but income and livelihood are not primary incentives. Second, in constructing and implementing the program, the major organizational premise has been to integrate recreational concerns into existing program thrusts of the National Marine Fisheries Service whenever possible. This approach is being used to avoid creation of “separate but equal” recreational and commercial fishery programs within the agency. Third, it is not intended that the Recreational Development Services Branch or even the National Marine Fisheries Service has sole responsibility for implementing and accomplishing all program activities. Indeed, it is recognized that other federal and state agencies, as well as the private sector, will have to be involved and/or take lead roles to achieve program objectives. However, the Branch will be involved in all activities, even if only as a facilitator.

Recreational Fisheries Data Base Enhancement

As the title indicates, the objective of this subprogram is to acquire information needed for the conservation, management and development of marine recreational fisheries in the Southeast. Three basic areas of need that are being addressed include: catch/effort/participation data; social/economic data relative to recreational fishermen and their expenditures; and, basic biological data concerning recreationally significant species and their habitat requirements. Specific examples of activities include:

1. Regional coordination of the NMFS National Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey.

2. Special rare event surveys for billfish and other oceanic pelagics.

3. Assistance in design and implementation of a national marine recreational fisheries socio-economic survey.

4. Bio-profile studies on recreationally important species such as billfish, the snapper-grouper complex and king mackerel.

It must be noted that the Southeast Fisheries Center, located in Miami, Florida, has lead responsibility for the NMFS data base enhancement subprogram. The Southeast Fisheries Center is the data collection and research arm of the National Marine Fisheries Service in the South-east Region. The Center is currently developing a cooperative regionwide statistical collection program to help coordinate and tie together the data collection efforts of NMFS, the states, academic institutions, and other research organizations in the region. When completed, this program will help identify specific marine recreational fisheries data needs and appropriate mechanisms for meeting those needs.

Habitat Protection and Enhancement

Habitat protection is an ongoing activity of the National Marine Fisheries Service. In the Southeast Region, the Environmental and Technical Services Division is responsible for planning, organizing and implementing NMFS environmental and technical services programs. The Division, through its Environmental Assessment Branch, works to protect and enhance marine fisheries through conservation of essential aquatic habitat. This goal is met by investigating, evaluating and commenting upon proposed alterations to the Region's coastal/estuarine/marine habitat, reviewing and commenting upon environmental impact analyses for federally conducted/sponsored projects and through participation in the development and implementation of state coastal management programs.

Habitat protection efforts of the Division are currently conducted on behalf of all users of Southeastern marine fisheries resources. However, improved data concerning marine recreational fisheries will enable habitat protection activities to more effectively accommodate sport angling concerns. For example, more precise information concerning the geographical distribution of catch and effort as well as improved understanding of the habitat requirements of recreationally important species, will enable habitat protection personnel to predict and minimize impacts of environmental alterations on recreational fisheries. Further, marine recreational fishing interests will be better represented in cost/benefit analyses for coastal development projects as improved saltwater sport fishing expenditure and economic impact data becomes available.

Fisheries Conservation and Management

Existing U.S. law divides the authority and responsibility for marine fishery management between federal and state government. Coastal states have primary fisheries management authority in their inland waters and in ocean waters extending 4,8 km seaward from their shores. The two exceptions to this rule are Texas and the west coast of Florida where state jurisdiction extends three marine leagues into the Gulf of Mexico. Pursuant to the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, the U.S. Department of Commerce has fishery management authority in the Fishery Conservation Zone (FCZ) which extends from the edge of state jurisdiction to a distance of 370 km off the coast of the United States. NMFS efforts to conserve and manage marine recreational fisheries in the Southeast must recognize and build upon these differences in fishery management authority and responsibility.

A mechanism for management of U.S. marine fisheries in the FCZ was created by the FCMA of 1976. Simply put, the Act divided the U.S. into regions and created a Fishery Management Council for each region. The composition of the Councils, which is prescribed by law, includes representatives of federal and state agencies, the fishing community and the public at large. While Fishery Management Councils were created to prepare fishery management plans, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce has ultimate authority for approval, implementation and enforcement of the plans. The NMFS acts on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce in the fishery management plan development and implementation process.

In the Southeast region, there are three Regional Fishery Management Councils—one each for the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean areas. The Regional Director and the Fisheries Management Division (Southeast Region, NMFS) represents the Secretary of Commerce in the Southeast fishery management process. Equitable treatment of Southeastern marine recreational fishery interests in the Federal fishery management process is not a matter of discretion—it is required by law. Tools being used by NMFS to ensure that all fishing interests are fairly considered include:

1. Guidelines for plan development.

2. Participation in and monitoring of plan development.

3. Technical assistance to Councils.

4. Detailed plan reviews prior to plan approval by the Secretary of Commerce to ensure adherence to the seven national standards contained in the FCMA.

Because of the importance of recreational fisheries in the Southeast, special efforts are being made to encourage and facilitate participation of the marine recreational fishing community in the federal fishery management planning process. Recreational fisheries data base improvements are also being made in support of fishery management efforts.

Recognizing that a majority of marine recreational fishing effort and catch occurs in state waters, the NMFS is encouraging and assisting coastal states in the the Southeast to take whatever action needed to effectively manage recreationally important species in their jurisdictions. Most of the assistance provided is in the form of data, technical assistance, and/or financial support for priority fishery research projects. In the future, particular emphasis needs to be given to management of inshore migratory species which frequent the waters of several states and pose interjurisdictional management problems.

Recreational Fishery Development

The fourth and final subprogram focuses on user oriented issues rather than the fisheries data and resource concerns addressed by the three previous subprograms. The Recreational Development Services Branch, located in the NMFS Southeast Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida, has primary responsibility for initiating and coordinating these development activities which fall into three major categories: constituency relations, information services, and fishing access. Assistance from other NMFS, federal, state and private program personnel will be needed to accomplish these activities.

The objective of constituency relation activities is to develop and maintain effective communication with the Southeastern saltwater sport fishing community to promote maximum involvement in all marine recreational fishery development activities of the region. Examples of specific activities include:

1. Development and maintenance of a regional saltwater sport fishing mailing list that includes charter and headboat operators, sport-fishing organizations, outdoor/fishing writers and other key contacts.

2. Participation in national, regional, state and local meetings and workshops dealing with marine recreational fishing topics.

3. Liaison with state fishery personnel.

4. Investigation of options for improving organization of the marine recreational fishing community.

Timely and accurate user information can play an important role in recreational fisheries development by promoting conservation and management of fishery resources and habitat, improving knowledge of sport fishing opportunities and increasing satisfaction and enjoyment of sport anglers. Consequently, the objective of the information services task is to identify and provide for public information needs relative to recreational fisheries development. Representative information service activities that are planned or in progress include:

1. Constituency meetings to identify information needs.

2. Informational meetings and conferences on the status of recreational fishing stocks; artificial reef planning, construction and management; and, nature and extent of Southeastern marine recreational fisheries.

3. Improvement of weather service reports and broadcasts to meet saltwater sport fishing needs.

4. Development of a series of fishing maps which identify landside and water features of interest to fishermen (both recreational and commercial).

5. Development and distribution of information designed to promote efficient use of recreationally caught species. Subjects to be addressed include the catch, handling, storage and preparation of target and non-target species.

The third category of development activities focuses on projects designed to improve recreational fishing access to coastal waters and fishery resources. Specific activities that are planned or are currently underway include:

1. Participation in state and federal outdoor recreation planning and development programs to identify and address recreational fishing access needs.

2. Identification of federal funding programs that can be used for fishing access improvement projects (access surveys, land acquisition, facility construction, etc.)

3. Technical assistance to government and private entities concerning access development projects (artificial reef construction information, fisheries and habitat data for siting decisions, etc.)

4. Vessel construction and loan guarantee programs for charter and party boats.

5. Research projects to determine utility of artificial reefs in enhancing fishery habitat and increasing recreational fishing opportunities.

CONCLUSION

This paper has demonstrated that marine recreational fishing in the Southeastern U.S. is an activity of growing popularity, economic significance and consequence to the region's fishery resources. Furthermore, the paper described programs being developed and implemented by the National Marine Fisheries Service to overcome problems impeding the development of Southeastern marine recreational fisheries.

Of the many problems cited in the text, there are two that appear most critical to the success of the marine recreational fisheries development program in the Southeast. First, priority must be given to improving the marine recreational fishing data base. Reliable catch, effort, social/economic and biological data are, and will continue to be, absolutely essential if commercial and recreational fisheries are to be managed and developed in an effective and meaningful manner.

Second, given that most of the important marine fish in the Southeast support growing recreational and commercial fisheries, and that substantial competition and some conflict already exist between the two groups, it is imperative that federal and state fishery management and development agencies take necessary steps to depolarize the fishing community and minimize user conflicts. Original approaches are needed to help engender the realization that recreational and commercial fishermen have equally legitimate rights to utilize the region's marine fishery resources. Furthermore, the government sector has a responsibility to help commercial and recreational interests to identify and resolve problems of mutual concern and to minimize conflicts.

Marine fishery development in the Southeastern U.S. will not occur in a controlled and effective manner until and unless these two critical issues are resolved.

LITERATURE CITED

Centaur Management Consultants, 1977 INC. Economic activity associated with marine recreational fishing. Washington D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office 206p.

HARGIS, W.J. JR. 1978 Recreational fishery conservation and management. Marine recreational fisheries—3. Washington D.C., Sport Fishing Institute. 176p.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1973 NOAA/NMFS. 1970 salt-water angling survey. Washington D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office. 54p.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1980 NOAA/NMFS. Unpublished preliminary results of 1979 national marine recreational fisheries statistics survey. Washington D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1962 The 1960 salt-water angling survey. Washington, D.C., Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 36p.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1968 The 1965 salt-water angling survey. Washington, D.C., Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 51p.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1972 The 1970 survey of fishing and hunting. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office. 108p.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1977 1975 national survey of hunting, fishing and wildlife—associated recreation. Washington, D.C., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 91p.

U.S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. 1962 National recreation survey—study report no. 19. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office.

ESTIMATION OF THE BENEFITS OF FISHING ON U.K. CANALS: SOME PROBLEMS OF METHOD

M. J. Stabler

Amenity Waterways Study Unit, Department of Economics, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, England.

ABSTRACT

It is difficult to evaluate the benefits of U.K. canal fishing because it is supplied at nominal prices. As part of a wider study of the recreational value of the 3 200-km canal system in the U.K., indirect methods of identifying and assessing demand were tested and an attempt made to construct a socio-economic profile of the typical canal angler. Because of the linear characteristics and small catchment area of canals and low travel costs of participants, and for theoretical reasons, it was found that the Clawson method was inappropriate. The expenditure method was reconsidered to establish the opportunity cost of canal fishing, and direct respondent evaluation techniques were applied. These two approaches proved fruitful and worth developing, in their own right, as validity checks on other estimation methods and as part of more comprehensive models. It is argued that user evaluation is particularly important where resources, such as those for canal fishing, are at risk. It was estimated that total willingness to pay for canal fishing in the U.K., depending on the value of time, was between £16,5 million and £43 million at 1974 prices. The most significant socio-economic variables were sex, age, occupational class and car ownership. Canal fishing is virutally an all-male pursuit; on average he is age 29, has fished 8 years, undertakes 30 trips per year, spends between £50 and £100 per year (1974 prices), travels 13–16 km per trip, spends 6 hours on site and is in a skilled manual occupation.

RÉSUMÉ

Il est difficile d'évaluer les bénéfices de la pêche dans les canaux britanniques parce que celle-ci est supplée à des prix nominaux. En temps que partie d'une étude plus earge de la valeur des 3 200 km du système de canaux du Royaume Uni pour les loisirs, des méthodes indirectes d'identification et d'assessement de la demande ont été testées et une tentative a été faite d'étabir un profil socio-économique du pêcheur à la ligne typique en canal. En raison des caractéristiques linéaires et de la petite surface de captation des eaux des canaux et des faibles coûts de transport des participants, et pour des raisons théoriques, il a été trouvé que la méthode Clawson était inappropriée. La méthode des dépenses a été reconsidérée afin d'établir le coût occasionnel de la pêche en canal, et des techniques directes d'évaluation y correspondant ont été appliquées. Ces deux approches se sont avérées fructueuses et valant la peine d'être développées de parelles-mêmes, en temps que contrôles de la validité d'autres méthodes d'estimation et en temps que partie de modèles plus étendus. Il est dénoté que l'évaluation des usagers est particulièrement importante dans le cas où les ressources sont en péril, comme sont celles de la pêche en canal. Il a été estimé que le consentement global à payer pour la pêche en canal au Royaume Uni, en fonction du facteur temps, se situe entre £16,5 millions et £43 millions aux prix 1974. Les variables socio-économiques les plus significatives ont été le sexe, l'âge, le groupe professionel et la possession d'une voiture. La pêche en canal est virtuellement une activité totalement masculine; le pêche est âgé de 29 ans en moyenne, pêche depuis 8 ans, entreprend 30 excursions par an, dépense entre £50 et £100 par an (prix 1974), voyage 13–16 km par excursion, passe 6 heures sur le site et a une profession manuelle qualifiée.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years a number of reasons have been given for evaluating the benefits of recreational fishing. At a strategic level it is argued that to allocate resources to it should be no different from the basis on which resources are devoted to the supply of any other commodity or form of recreation; its provision involves the input of scarce land and capital which could have been used elsewhere. At a lower level of generality it is suggested that it is necessary to determine if the benefits of fishing justify the cost of provision, and at a tactical level, an evaluation is required, for example, where management wishes to establish or review the price charged for an existing or new facility.

However, in many cases fishing is enjoyed by consumers at zero or nominal prices. This raises problems not only of the identification and evaluation of its costs and benefits but also that its provision may be ‘crowded out’ if resources are allocated through the market. For example, the market does not necessarily reflect the value to society of fishing amenities which possess aesthetic visual qualities or that people may wish to exercise an option to use such resources at some future date. Even where a charge for fishing is made it often does not represent either the cost of provision or the total willingness to pay. Thus it is very likely that a substantial consumers' surplus accrues.

Fishing on the canals in the U.K. is essentially a nominally or non-priced recreational activity and therefore exemplifies the problems of evaluation referred to. Additionally, parts of the canal system have deteriorated over a number of years; indeed large stretches which are considered operational have not been maintained to the accepted statutory standard (Fraenkel 1975). This raises questions as to whether the costs of restoring and bringing the system up to the required standard for fishing is justified. Moreover, as amenity demand for boating and informal use has grown rapidly during the 1960s and early 1970s, canal maintenance and management problems, particularly with regard to safeguarding fishing, have been exacerbated.

Only two studies of note, Lett (1972) and Dartington Amenity Research Trust (1972), were carried out on canals before the research project which is the subject of the present paper. Neither of these studies made any attempt to estimate the benefits of fishing, being more concerned with constructing a socio-economic profile of anglers and ascertaining the quality of the fishing experience. In the national participation studies, Angling Times (1961, 1964, 1969) and the National Angling Survey (1971) which covered game, sea and coarse fishing, little more than passing reference was made to canal anglers. The surveys concentrated on establishing the level and pattern of anglers' expenditure for both holiday and day fishing. Insufficient economic analysis was made of expenditure from which an evaluation of benefits might have been achieved.

Researchers who have attempted to estimate economic benefits have investigated fishing on lakes, reservoirs or rivers. Smith and Kavanagh (1969) analysed fishing on Graffham Water, Gibson (1972) considered the River Trent, Lewis and Whitby (1972) reservoirs in the north of England and Flegg (1976) Llandegfedd in Wales. In these studies the benefits were estimated by applying the Clawson (1959) travel cost approach, a widely used method, considered in more detail below.

In the research undertaken by the author, an estimation of the benefits of fishing formed part of a wider study of the recreational value of inland waterways.

THE SURVEY OF THE AMENITY USE OF CANALS

Outline of the Approach to the Survey

The inland waterways in the U.K. comprise both rivers and canals, many of which form an interconnected system. Most rivers are under the control of regional water authorities while virtually the whole of the canal network, which has a total length of 3 200 km is under one national authority. For administrative reasons, and because it was in greater danger of being lost by neglect as an amenity resource, the study begun in 1974 and completed in 1978, covered only the canal system.

The purpose of the study was to:

1. estimate the recreational benefits derived from and evaluate the amenity use of canal resources,

2. identify the main determinants of demand and construct a socio-economic profile of users to consider the effect of additional explanatory variables on demand functions as a basis for forecasting the recreational use of canals.

3. obtain information on users' attitudes to the canal system,

4. test and develop existing methods and indicate the data and analytical requirements for further work in the field.

For the sake of convenience, and as a reflection of the predominant types of activities, the project was divided into two parts. One concerned the investigation of short stay, i.e., half or whole day pursuits, and the other a study of holiday use, specifically cruising in hired craft. Of the short stay recreation, three fairly well defined activities were identified: angling, boating and informal use; informal use included such pursuits as walking, picnicking and nature study.

For the short stay activities interview and observational techniques were employed while holidaymakers were surveyed by use of a selfcompleted questionnaire.

The survey covered the whole of England but since there is a marked concentration of canals in the Midlands (about 30% lie in the counties of Cheshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire) due weight was given to this area in the selection of sampling points. So that the diverse nature of different locations and canals could be represented, consideration was given to the land-use characteristics adjacent to canals and a classification on an industrial, urban, semi-urban, rural continuum was adopted. A broad division of canals into navigable and unnavigable was also made. (Definitions of navigable/unnavigable and industrial, urban, semi-urban and rural can be found in Stabler and Ash (1977)). Thus a 4 × 2 matrix of site type resulted for each of which it was likely that significant and observable differences would arise.

By their very nature it is possible to gain access to canals at many points so that on any length there would be many possible survey sites. To maintain consistency and compatibility with the previous studies, these sites were identified as 1-km lengths either side of major access points. A major point of access was defined as one which allows vehicular traffic to reach and park a distance of not more than 400 meters from the canal.

To allow for seasonal variations fieldwork was conducted on Sunday dates which corresponded roughly to the four seasons. Because of the coarse fishing closed season between March and June no fishing respones were obtained for the spring survey.

Data Collected

Questions on the features common to all forms of short stay canal recreation fell into four main groups.

1. The journey: point of origin; distance travelled; transport mode; time of departure from point of origin and arrival time at the canal; number and length of time of stops made on the journey; attitude to journey.

2. Expenditure: capital and recurrent on equipment and travel.

3. Canal recreation: activities undertaken; attitude to other visitors; knowledge of canal; frequency of visit; subjective evaluation of the canal and attitude to entry fees.

4. Socio-economic characteristics: party size and composition; age; sex; occupation; education; income.

Information on the journey and expenditure was required to test the Clawson travel cost and other methods for evaluating canal recreation benefits; these methods are examined below. Data on canal recreation was collected to assess the relative importance of canals as recreation resources and through the incorporation of questions on socio-economic characteristics, it was hoped to extend the range of feasible explanatory demand variables.

There were some variations in the data collected because of differing a priori assumptions and hypotheses about activities. Anglers and boaters were assumed to be interested only in their respective canal-based pursuits, so were not questioned on their attitudes to the journey or whether stops were made enroute. Informal visitors were not asked about expenditure, other than on travel since their activities did not involve the purchase and maintenance of equipment. However, as they incurred no access costs whatsoever they were requested to state their willingness to pay for entry should a charge be made.

RESULTS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR EVALUATING FISHING BENEFITS

The total sample size for all short stay canal visitors was 902 of which 137 were anglers. In this subsample there were three reinterviews so that its effective size was 134. This in itself precluded the analysis of variation between different sites and seasons, but it was also found, not unexpectedly, that no responses were obtained at certain locations, which can be explained by high levels of pollution, a shallow and weedy section or undue disturbance by other users.

Of greater significance for the methods of evaluating recreational benefits, however, was that: (a) on any day the level of usage of canal sites is low, (b) anglers travel short distances (90% of the sample travelled less than 30 km: Table 1), (c) the canal catchment area is rectangular rather than circular, (d) a substantial number of anglers (22%) incur no travel costs (Table 2).

Other problems arise because it has been established that a significant proportion of anglers (24%) indulge in competition fishing and 5% may fish at more than one site on the canal on any one day (Table 3). Thus the catchment area for specific canal sites can be distorted. It was also difficult to ascertain the number and relative attractiveness of other fishing sites with which canal survey sites are in competition.

Table 1. Distance travelled by anglers to canals in the U.K.^a

^a Source: Stabler and Ash (1977), Table 17.

Table 2. Angler's mode of transport to canals in the U.K.^a

^a Source: Stabler and Ash (1977), Table 16.

Table 3. Reasons for fishing canal at survey point on day of the interview.

Source: Stabler and Ash (1977), Table 9.

It is in the light of these problems that an examination of fishing benefits is now made, in particular to consider how far the Clawson travel cost approach is applicable.

METHODS OF EVALUATING RECREATIONAL BENEFITS

Of the methods proposed to derive monetary measures of the benefits of non-priced recreational resources, those based on consumers' expenditure and the cost of supply have been rejected as theoretically unacceptable; other methods, such as that based on the capitalization of recreational benefits of a site in land values surrounding it, or those which attempt to estimate the level of income and employment generated as a result of recreational provision in an area, have proved to be too complex if not impossible to operate. Until recently only the Clawson method has been given the imprimatur of being theoretically and operationally simple.

The Clawson Method

Clawson's method rests on the concept of consumers' surplus whereby the travel costs of visitors to a recreation site are considered to represent the willingness to pay for that site. Thus to apply the method in its basic form requires data on the number of visitors and the distance travelled. By expressing the distance of the journey by each visitor as the cost of travel, a demand curve for what Clawson and Knetsch (1966) called the ‘whole recreational experience’ can be constructed. This experience is the anticipation, journey, site experience and recall of the outing.

As concentrations of population within the catchment area of a site are likely to distort the number of visitors from given distances, the data can be assigned to distance zones and a visit rate calculated per so many thousand of population.

The demand curve for the site can be derived by assuming indifference between travel costs and real or hypothetical entry fees so that the decline in the visit rate for each zone, in response to an increase in these hypothetical entry charges, can be inferred from the decline in visit rate as travel costs increase. The area under the demand curve so constructed constitutes the consumers' surplus or net willingness to pay for the site. (For zero priced recreation sites there is some controversy as to whether the willingness to pay is the total area under the given demand curve or the maximum revenue that could be obtained; Smith 1975).

The size of the consumers' surplus will vary for different sites, and may do so for one site over the year and under different weather conditions.

The Clawson method has been criticized on a number of grounds; it has been asserted that its assumptions are faulty, insufficient explanatory variables are included, the level of benefits is sensitive to the form of the demand function, indirect benefits are ignored and that it is too aggregative. Common (1973), Vickerman (1975), Flegg (1976) and Cheshire and Stabler (1976) have questioned the assumptions underlying the method and the functional forms most often used. Many writers have argued that the applications have been oversimplified and among the more important variables which should be included are income, car ownership, other recreational opportunities and their prices and travel and on site time (Stoevener and Brown 1967; Pearse 1968; McConnell 1975; Cicchetti and Smith 1976; Cesario and Knetsch 1976; and Stabler and Ash 1977, 1978). Brown and Nawas (1973), Gum and Martin (1975), Cesario and Knetsch (1976) and Cesario (1976) all advocate the disaggregation of data to improve the explanatory power of the models. Very useful and comprehensive reviews of the Clawson method have recently been published in the U.K. by Gibson (1978) and Baxter (1979).

Here, lack of space precludes even a summary of the problems which have arisen and the developments which can be made in applying Clawson's method. However, reference is made to the implications for the method of the results of the canal fishing study.

The Clawson method assumes that it is possible to divide the catchment area into enough distance zones to give a sufficient number of observations to derive a demand curve. Assuming indifference between travel costs and entry fees also presupposes that the population within each zone is homogeneous with respect to preferences and tastes, and implies uniformity in the socio-economic characteristics of the catchment area population.

In the present study the small samples at each site, and for each type of activity, the short distances travelled and the significant number of respondents who incurred no travel costs, a create problems in applying the Clawson method (Tables 1 and 2). At only three of the nine sites surveyed did the number of anglers exceed 10 on any one day, nearly three-quarters travelled less than 20 km and of the total sample a fifth incurred no travel costs. Moreover, as a quarter of respondents were fishing in a competition (Table 3), two thirds of whom were from the same location on a particular survey day, undue distortion is introduced into the derivation of the demand curve. Elimination of such data reduces the sample size by a half and therefore raises questions concerning the appropriateness of the method.

Evidence from the survey of the socio-economic characteristics of respondents and the population of the catchment area indicates that their distribution is far from homogenous which again casts doubts on the efficacy of such as assumption.

It was also found that the type of canal site affected the configuration of catchment areas Rural sites tended to have a concentric zonal system, whereas urban sites were affected by the size of the population and its distribution, and the transport network. Though it could not be established unequivocally, there is a strong possibility that urban catchment areas are rectangular, reflecting the linear nature of canals.

Canal anglers were not asked about their attitude to the journey, as following the Clawson approach, it was assumed that they did not derive any benefit from it, i.e., travel was viewed as a cost necessary to undertake a resource-based activity. If, however, some anglers do derive utility from the journey, as was found in the study by Cheshire and Stabler (1976) and for informal canal visitors, Stabler and Ash (1978), then inclusion of expenditure for these would lead to an overestimation of the benefits.

Since the greatest demand for canal recreation is near or in urban areas, within which many other opportunities exist, the attributes and use of these other resources ought to be incorporated into the analysis. Certainly if anglers visit more than one site and undertake other activities on a single outing (Table 3 shows that they do), then the difficulty arises of not only assessing the impact of other sites on demand for canal fishing, particularly if new fishing resources are introduced, but also of apportioning travel costs over the sites visited on that outing.

Other Methods of Evaluating the Benefits of Canal Fishing

The nature of the canal system and the pattern of fishing on it highlight the shortcomings of the Clawson method. A number of these findings were anticipated prior to the research project and therefore the investigation of other methods of evaluating benefits was considered. Some methods were rejected for the same reasons given by other researchers, but two—the direct assessment of willingness to pay, and the expenditure or total outlay approach—appeared to be worth pursuing. For informal activities the method of establishing direct willingness to pay, based on research by such researchers as Davis (1963), Bohm (1972) and Meyer (1979), was used, and for boating and fishing the expenditure method was re-examined. Recently, in an as yet unpublished paper, Harrison and Stabler (1980) have considered the use of a distance and time exceedance model, using disaggregated data from the original canal project undertaken by the author.

The Expenditure Approach

The idea of equating the near benefits derived from an activity or facility to the expenditure incurred by participants has been heavily criticized, and thus it is necessary to examine objections to it before indicating the justification for reconsidering it.

Trice and Wood (1958) rejected the method on the grounds that much recreational expenditure is normal spending made under different circumstances; for example, purchases of meals outside the home and accommodation could be construed as being of this type. This criticism can be met by eliminating such purchases from estimates of expenditure. However, very many recreational activities do not involve the need to purchase meals or use overnight services. In the case of canal fishing there is little evidence that anglers take holidays purely to fish the canal and they also tend to take their own food and drink.

Trice and Wood also argue that even expenditure which can be identified as being over and above that normally incurred does not necessarily measure recreational enjoyment but only the price paid for certain goods for which there are established market values. Presumably what is meant by this assertion is that expenditure on ancillary services only shows the benefit derived from those services, not that derived from a specific recreation activity or facility. The response to this criticism is that it is not the expenditure on services which is relevant anyway, but only that associated with a specific activity or facility. For many forms of recreation it is necessary to buy equipment and incur expenses related specifically to each; activities such as golf, tennis, sailing, cruising and fishing come into this category. If capital equipment, or a portion of it is used for more than one activity for different types of resources, as occurs with anglers who undertake sea, coarse and game fishing, the sum involved can be apportioned according to the life of the equipment and frequency of use for each type of fishing and resource. This problem is no different than that encountered in the Clawson method where pleasure is derived from the journey or more than one site is visited on an outing.

It is further alleged that the expenditure method leads to absurd results because logic would suggest that to maximize benefits, users of a resource ought to be put into a position where they maximize expenditure. Such a view implies total inelasticity of demand with respect to price and thus denies the possibility of diminishing marginal utility. Such an argument also suggests that if users incur no expenditure then benefits would be zero. This, however, is precisely the same problem encountered in the study of canal fishing applying the Clawson method. Those who live near a site incur no travel costs so presumably enjoy no benefits whatsoever, while locating a site as far as possible from population centers, thus imposing high travel costs, would increase net benefits.

Another major criticism of the expenditure method is that it only represents the opportunity cost of other forms of recreation, sites or services. For instance, if a fishing resource were to be closed and no substitutes were available, then what was spent on it would be distributed over other goods and services or diverted to other activities or sites. However, substitution between goods and services, if purchase of a specific commodity is denied, is a normal feature of consumer behaviour.

It would appear, therefore, that what are cited as fundamental flaws in the expenditure approach are equally relevant to other methods.

Nevertheless, the question remains as to what are the shortcomings of the expenditure method. Firstly, unlike the Clawson approach which attempts to evaluate the net benefits associated with recreation resources, it measurely only the gross benefits or total willingness to pay which economists argue is not a reflection of the value of those resources. As such it represents users' evaluation of a particular activity. However, if expenditure is site specific as well as activity specific there is no reason why it cannot be used to evaluate recreational sites, provided the outlay related to each can be identified. Secondly, where little or no expenditure is involved in using a site, for example, informal canal actitivities, it has the same drawbacks as the Clawson method unless some measure of expenditure on travel time and on site time is attempted. (The evaluation of on site and travel time has been advocated by those using the Clawson approach, Baxter (1979). Thirdly, it involves the collection of detailed data on capital and recurrent purchases and recreation patterns to identify the expenditure associated with specific activities or sites. Fourthly, the accuracy of data so collected relies on recall by respondents.

In applying the expenditure method it is possible to devise means of mitigating its shortcomings.

Justification for reconsidering it stem largely from its practical attributes. Firstly, data for many activities, but particularly fishing, are readily available in a suitable form. Secondly, the method is readily understood by planners and managers. Thirdly, it is the basis on which supply price in more comprehensive models can be derived (Talhelm 1972). Fourthly, it represents the opportunity cost in terms of money and time of undertaking an activity. Fifthly, it can be used in conjunction with other methods as a validity check; for example, direct assessment of willingness to pay. Finally, it can be used in its own right as an evaluation of user benefits; if outlays are viewed as necessary costs to undertake an activity, the approach is equivalent to methods, such as those based on travel costs, but overcomes some of the problems associated with them.

Application of Expenditure Methods

The essence of the expenditure method is that money and time spent in undertaking a particular form of recreation can be identified and measured for each individual or consuming unit, and that it represents the total willingness to pay for that activity. By aggregating the expenditure by each consuming unit an estimate of the total benefits derived can be made. This procedure is equivalent to the case of a perfectly discriminating monopolist, which Clawson (1959) argued was the effect of applying his method of estimating recreational benefits, except that he was attempting to establish the net benefits rather than the gross. The extent to which the method resembles the Clawson approach depends very much on what is measured. For activities such as fishing and boating, the expenditure method includes the fixed and variable costs of travel and on site time. As such it embodies the Clawson method. For informal recreation the two methods are identical if on site time is incorporated into the Clawson approach. However, unlike the latter, the expenditure approach does not flounder in circumstances, such as canal fishing, where expenditure is necessary to undertake the activity but for some participants no travel costs are incurred. Consequently, an advantage of the method is that it covers a wider range of cases, involving the need to discard fewer observations, than Clawson's.

The Estimates of Expenditure on Canal Fishing

In the survey, total expenditure by anglers was found to vary widely and therefore an estimate of the total benefit of canal fishing in the U.K. was made by taking the average and multiplying it by the total number of canal anglers, calculated to be 170 000 in 1974. A sensitivity analysis was carried out to ascertain the effect of taking different values for travel and on site time. The results were:

Total expenditure on canal fishing

Studies (e.g., Heggi 1976) of the value of nonworking travel time indicate that it is about 20% of household income or 25% of average earnings. This suggests that the total willingness to pay for canal recreation is between £7,55 and £16,5 million, excluding any secondary benefits. Therefore, in considering the cost of maintaining the canal system for fishing a measure of benefit can be set against this cost.

Distance and Time Exceedance Method

Because of the difficulties, to which reference has been made, in applying the Clawson method to canal recreation and doubts over the theoretical acceptability of the expenditure method, with regard to site evaluation, as opposed to the user or activity benefit estimation, Harrison and Stabler (1980) are currently developing a disaggregated demand model in which additional explanatory variables are being incorporated with distance and time exceedances. The advantage of this approach is that individual responses for different travel modes and activities form the observations from which a demand curve can be derived. The use of individual responses overcomes the problem of small samples encountered in canal surveys and obviates the need to devise distance/population zones. (To avoid the need to calculate visit rates a uniform population density has been postulated, a not unrealistic assumption for many canal sites with narrow catchment areas). Furthermore, comparisons of the effect on demand for canal recreation of those using different transport modes can be made. Another advantage of using observations of journey time as well as distance in the exceedance method, as opposed to the Clawson approach, is that fewer need to be discarded.

Preliminary results suggest that for a given mode of transport, mean distance travelled varies only slightly with the canal activity pursued and is independent of expenditure on that activity. Income appears to be a significant explanatory variable in determining the type of canal activity undertaken and the distance travelled.

CONCLUSIONS

It is clear that a number of difficulties encountered in the investigation of the amenity use of canals are common to the evaluation of the benefits of recreation resources in general. Both Gibson (1978) and Baxter (1979) emphasize that many unresolved problems remain and that the development of other methods is desirable. However, three factors in particular have emerged during the course of the present study which have an important bearing on the estimation of canal recreation benefits:

1. the characteristics of canals as recreation resources,

2. the nature of demand for canal recreation,

3. the appropriateness of existing estimation methods.

Being linear, with many access points, and located near or in urban concentrations, the majority of canals are equivalent to urban parks. The evidence from this study is that they are indeed used as such. Many visitors perceive them as suitable for short stay informal activities, conveniently near their homes to which they can walk. There is also some indication that anglers view canals in much the same way.

Data indicate that the narrow and rectangular catchment area, low visit rate and predeliction for visitors to reach the canal by foot, undermines the Clawson method. Even if travel and on-site time are valued to overcome the problem of zero monetary costs of travel, the other two features lead to the conclusion that Clawson's approach should be rejected. In any event as fundamentally “urban style” amenity resources it is possible that urban demand models are more appropriate and this raises many more problems to which Baxter (1979) refers.

The expenditure approach which has been reviewed and applied in this paper, is theoretically suspect, but may have practical application. It has the advantage of obviating the need to construct distance zones. Also if it is considered as representing the opportunity cost of expenditure in money and time on specific recreation activities, it can be used to overcome the problem of valuing the recreation of those who incur no monetary costs but do suffer time costs. The disadvantages of the method are that the data requirements can be extensive and it may be difficult to relate certain expenditures to specific activities, sites or facilities.

Use of the expenditure method raises the question as to the purpose of benefit estimation. Since the method measures gross benefits, it is probably best suited to considering the justification for providing or maintaining recreation resources in the public sector for particular activities rather than specific sites for which it is difficult to establish a recreational value; canals can be classed as such resources. Problems with the expenditure approach arise when two or more projects need to be compared, unless all are valued on a gross benefit basis. For the method to be practical, those who hold responsibility for public recreational resources need to collect data on the numbers of visits, origin of visitors, time spent on site and expenditure on specific activities. The British Waterways Board, who controls the majority of the canal system in the U.K., obtains a certain amount of this kind of data as part of the normal process of its operations. Additional data can be collected from time to time by sample surveys as required.

It is too early to appraise the exceedance method now being tested, which is an attempt to devise a theoretically acceptable approach and to overcome the shortcomings of the Clawson method, but initial results seem to be fruitful.

Overall the canal fishing study was useful in pinpointing some of the problems associated with existing methods of estimating recreation benefits. However, the quality of some of the data and its validity was not as high as it might have been. There is a need for more careful specification of questions to obtain accurate measures of journey distance and times, ascertain whether anglers derive utility from their journey and establish directly from them what value they place on canal fishing as was done for other informal activities as part of the same study.

In any future research on canals it would be desirable to explore methods which are only now beginning to gain favour. Direct evaluations by recreationalists themselves are increasingly being tried and are particularly appropriate where resources, such as canals, are at risk because the value placed on them in these circumstances can be many times greater than willingness to pay. Urban demand models may also usefully be applied given the location of the canal system on the population likely to use it.

APPENDIX: PROFILE OF THE CANAL ANGLER

The information presented here summarizes that contained in Stabler and Ash (1977).

The average canal angler is 29 years of age, male, and has been fishing for a total of 12 years, 8 years on the canal. He makes 30 1-day fishing trips a year, of which 20 are on the canal. He spends between £50 and £100 per year on his pastime, having initially invested between £70 and £100 on his equipment (1974 prices). Distance travelled to the canal is approximately 14 km, and over 6 hours are spent at it on each occasion, which represents about 60% of the total time devoted to fishing.

For nearly 60% of anglers the canal is the site nearest their home and for 55% it is the resource fished most often. Less than 30% use the canal for other activities and 7% were fishing on the canal for the first time when interviewed.

Nearly two thirds of anglers are in full time work (the other third are students or at school). Over half of the anglers are in social class II and III (non-manual, supervisory and skilled manual) and 60% left school at 15 years of age or less. Average income is just below the national average.

About a third of the anglers feel that canal fishing could be improved by better maintenance. With regard to their attitudes to other canal users, the same proportion of anglers were disturbed, mainly by those boating.

The main determinants of demand for canal fishing are sex, age, car ownership and income.

LITERATURE CITED

Angling Times. 1961 The readership of the Angling Times. London, Research Services Ltd. 24p.

Angling Times. 1964 Anglers and their reading habits. London, Research Services Ltd. 23p.

Angling Times. 1969 Anglers and angling. London, Associated Industrial Consultants. 21p.

Baxter, M.J. 1979 Measuring the benefits of recreational site provision: a review of techniques related to the Clawson method. London, Sports Council. 47p.

Bohm, P. 1972 Estimating demand for public goods: an experiment. European Economic Revue, 3:111–130.

Brown, W. G. and F. Nawas. 1973 Impact of aggregation on the estimation of outdoor recreation demand functions. A. J. Agric. Econ., 55:246–249.

Cesario, F.J. 1976 Value of time in recreation benefit studies. Land Econ., 52:32–41.

Cesario, F.J. and J.L. Knetsch. 1976 A recreation site demand and benefit estimation model. Regional Studies, 10:97–104.

Cheshire, P.C. and M.J. Stabler. 1976 Joint consumption benefits in recreational site surplus: an empirical estimate. Regional Studies, 10:343–352.

Cicchetti, C.J. and V.K. Smith. 1976 The costs of congestion: an econometric analysis of wilderness recreation. New York, Ballinger, 112p.

Clawson, M. 1959 Methods of measuring the demand for and value of outdoor recreation. Washington, Resources for the Future, Reprint No. 10. 36p.

Clawson, M. and J.L. Knetsch. 1966 Economics of outdoor recreation. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press. 328p.

Common, M.S. 1973 A note on the use of the Clawson method for the evaluation of recreation site benefits. Regional Studies, 7:401–408.

Dartington Amenity Research Trust. 1972 Canals around Braunston. London, Sports Council, 99p.

Davis, R.K. 1963 The value of outdoor recreation: an economic study of the Maine Woods. Harvard. Ph.D. dissertation. 171p.

Flegg, A.T. 1976 Methodological problems in estimating recreational demand functions and evaluating recreational benefits. Regional Studies, 10:353–362.

Fraenkel, P. and Partners. 1975 The waterways of the British Waterways Board: a study of operating and maintenance cost. London, Fraenkel. 334p.

Gibson, J.G. 1972 The River Trent recreation study, pages 14–20 in Recreation cost benefit analysis. London, Countryside Commission.

Gibson, J.G. 1978 Recreation land use, pages 65–96 in D.W. Pearce, ed. The valuation of social cost. London, Allen and Unwin.

Gum, R.L. and W.E. Martin. 1975 Problems and solutions in estimating the demand for and value of rural outdoor recreation. Am.J.Agric.Econ., 57:558–566.

Harrison, A.J.M. and M.J. Stabler. 1980 The effect of income on travel to canal recreation sites. (In draft). Reading, University of Reading.

Heggie, G., (ED.). 1976 Modal choice and the value of travel time. Oxford, Clarendon. 190p.

Lett, J.R.B. 1972 A note on the recreational uses of canals in north west England. Liverp. Geogr., 10:57–64.

Lewis, R.C. and M.C. Whitby. 1972 Recreation benefits from a reservoir. Agricultural Adjustments United Research Monograph No. 2, Newcastle, University of Newcastle. 52p.

McConnell, K.J. 1975 Some problems in estimating the demand for outdoor recreation. Am.J.Agric. Econ., 57:330–334.

Meyer, P.A. 1979 Publicity vested values for fish and wildlife: criteria in economic welfare and interface with law. Land Econ., 55:223–235.

National Angling Survey. 1971 London, NOP Market Research Ltd.

Pearse, P.H. 1968 A new approach to the evaluation of non priced recreational resources. Land Econ., 44:87–99.

Smith, R.J. 1975 Problems of interpreting recreation benefits from a recreation demand curve, pages 62–74 in G.A.C. Searle, ed. Recreational analysis and economics. London, Longman.

Smith, R.J. and N.J. Kavanagh. 1969 The measurement of the benefits of trout fishing. J. Leisure Res., 1:316–332.

Stabler, M.J. and S.E. Ash. 1977 The amenity demand for inland waterways: angling. Amenity Waterways Study Unit. Reading, University of Reading. 115p.

Stabler, M.J. and S.E. Ash. 1978 The amenity demand for inland waterways: informal activities. Amenity Waterways Study Unit. Reading, University of Reading. 82p.

Stoevener, H.H. and W.G. Brown. 1967 Analytical issues in demand analysis for outdoor recreation. J. Farm Econ., 49:1295–1304.

Talhelm, D.R. 1972 Analytical economics of outdoor recreation: a case study of the Southern Appalachian trout fishery. North Carolina State University, Ph.D. dissertation. 202p.

Trice, A.H. and S.E. Wood. 1958 Measurement of recreation benefits. Land Econ., 34:195–207.

Vickerman, R. 1975 The economics of leisure and recreation. London. Macmillan. 229p.