Social and economic benefit study

Year three component: Final report

Prepared for: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Ontario Parks
Prepared by: Engel Consulting Group (Phil Shantz) in association with Dr. Kim Rollins, Lorne Johnson and Will Wistowsky

1.0 Introduction

The Study of the Economic and Social Benefits of the Nine Ontario Living Legacy Signature Sites has been one of the most comprehensive socio-economic studies undertaken by the Ministry of Natural Resources over the last several years. The Project was awarded in August 2001 and commenced shortly thereafter. The initial Request for Proposal identified three principal components to this project:

• An analysis of the economic and demographic trends in each MNR district with signature sites and in local communities surrounding or within signature sites;
• A detailed case of the following three protected areas and associated communities: Woodland Caribou - Red Lake; Great Lakes Heritage Coast - Killarney; Kawartha Highlands – Peterborough, Bancroft, Buckhorn, Bobcaygeon, Catchacoma, Lakefield, Apsley and Burleigh Falls; and,
• An estimate of the value of the social and economic benefits associated with the nine signature sites.

The project involved work on all nine of the signature sites:

• Kawartha Highlands Signature Site;
• Killarney Signature Site;
• Spanish River Valley Signature Site;
• Nagagamisis Central Plateau Complex;
• Lake Nipigon Basin;
• Algoma Headwaters;
• St. Raphael;
• Woodland Caribou; and,
• Great Lakes Heritage Coast. ^{footnote 1[1]}

This Final Report provides:

• A summary of all the major project components over all three years of the project;
• An economic reporting framework (known as the FPPC or Federal Provincial Parks Council) for each of the signature sites;
• Some observations on the usefulness of the survey data for upcoming management planning in the Kawartha Highlands; and,
• Summary Observations and Conclusions.

2.0 Project components

All of the project components identified in section 1 have been delivered upon and within the 2001-2004 timeframe initially established in the RFP. However, given the need to produce products and reports within specific fiscal years, the various project components were delivered as a series of one-year components. Furthermore, some additional work was identified in our proposal, which we viewed as necessary in or order to successfully complete the project. As well, one of the initial objectives of the consultant team in our proposal was to not only meet MNR’s project objectives, but moreover create products and datasets that would be useful to the Ministry in a variety of different planning and management applications over several years. To as much an extent as possible, tasks throughout the project were tailored to meeting specific research and planning requirements at the signature sites.2

2.1 Component #1: Workplan

A workplan was developed in the first year that laid out the various deliverables over the course of the three year period.

Year 2001-2002

The project commenced in September 2001 and was abbreviated by the public sector strike in 2002, however all project components were successfully completed.

• Three-year Workplan: A workplan was developed to meet MNR specifications.
• Analysis of Economic and Demographic Trends associated with Each Signature Site Region: 118 communities geographically associated with the nine signature site regions were profiled and analyzed according to their demographic and economic trends from 1986 – 1996.
• Background Information Collection on Eight of the Signature Sites: Background and planning material for all eight of the signature sites was collected, reviewed and synthesized. This information was essential in the team developing a comprehensive understanding of the signature sites for the purposes of survey design, benefits transfer and other methodological issues.
• Review of Recreational Trends Associated with Protected Areas: This reports consisted of three reports, a Park Trends Report, Demography and Outdoor Recreation Report and an analysis of Recreational Boating in Ontario. This analysis was useful in understanding the demand and supply for outdoor recreational use in Ontario. This data also proved to be a useful input for other project components.
• Draft Non-Market Valuation Methodology: As a result of the late awarding of the project in 2001, no pilot study was initiated rather a draft non-market valuation methodology was prepared that outlined the methodology that would be used for recreational survey and the overall estimation of benefits associated with the signature sites. ^{footnote 2[2]}

Year 2002-2003

• Case Studies on Killarney Provincial Park and Spanish River Valley: All three case studies had similar components including a description of the protected area and the recreational/tourism industry associated with it; a review of the demographic, economic and local business composition; detailed user statistics by user group; economic analysis by user group; and, conclusions and recommendations on economic opportunities associated with the area
• Identification of Economic Opportunities Associated with the Signature Sites: The objective with this component was to make suggestions and recommendations on how economic opportunities associated with signature sites could be capitalized on by local communities and businesses. This included a literature review, three case studies on communities in North America that have developed economically in association with protected areas; interviews with outfitters and lodge managers across the Province and a review of conclusions and recommendations from other planning processes in the Province.
• Pilot Survey Implementation and Results, Revision of Non-Market Valuation Methodology and User Statistics from Signature Sites: The principal task in this component was to pilot test the recreational survey instrument in Killarney Provincial Park and Spanish River Valley Signature Site. This involved at least ten drafts of the survey instrument. The survey achieved over a 70% response rate. Based on the pilot survey, the survey was further edited for year three. The methodology for the project was also revised and user statistics from the other signature sites was collected.

Year 2003-2004

• Case Study on Kawartha Highlands: This case study was similar to the other two case studies.
• Recreational Survey: 5000 recreational surveys were printed and distributed to Killarney Provincial Park, Kawartha Highlands Signature Site and the Spanish River Valley Signature Site. The component involved all facets of survey printing, packaging, training, field implementation, data entry, analysis and report writing.
• Benefits Transfer: The benefits transfer report is focused on using values from the three primary sites and applying them to the non-studied sites while taking account for the different attributes unique to each site. This component also included an analysis of user statistics in the non-surveyed sites and,
• Final Report (this report).

2.2 Component #2 – Economic and demographic baseline analysis

One of the principal objectives of the Study of the Social and Economic Benefits Associated with the Nine Ontario Living Legacy Signature Site was to provide the Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) and Ontario Parks with a baseline analysis of the economic and demographic trends of the communities associated with each of the Signature Site regions. This information was provided to OMNR in order to allow for long-term monitoring of the regions and communities associated with each Signature Site region. As well, this information was useful for management planning for each of the signature sites and in turn can be used by communities, regional development authorities and other government agencies for the preparation of economic development strategies, strategic plans and other local planning and economic development initiatives.

Ontario’s Living Legacy (“OLL”) identified nine signature sites from across the Province, varying from very remote sites in the north to highly used sites in central Ontario. The Lands for Life planning exercise demonstrated that the communities surrounding each signature site were strongly interested in the long-term land use direction for these areas. Public concerns varied widely across the Province and included: concerns about the loss of economic opportunities associated with resource extractive industries; providing long-term tourism opportunities; ensuring the completion of the provincial park system; and, providing local recreational opportunities. The local community concerns varied from community to community and this analysis has demonstrated that there is a diversity of demographic and economic conditions in the regions associated with each signature site.

OLL identified nine different signature sites: Algoma Headwaters, Kawartha Highlands, Killarney, Nagagamisis Central Plateau Complex, Nipigon Basin, St. Raphael, Spanish River Valley, Woodland Caribou and the Great Lakes Heritage Coast. A single profile was prepared for each signature site region, except for the Great Lakes Heritage Coast where three were prepared. Given that the Great Lakes Heritage Coast stretches over 2,000 kilometres of coastline and there are diverse economic and social conditions along it, it was identified that separate profiles should be prepared for the Lake Superior, North Shore & Manitoulin Island and Georgian Bay regions of the Coast.

A total number of 118 communities were profiled (referred to as “census subdivisions” by Statistics Canada) consisting of a diversity of cities, towns, townships, villages, unorganized territories and first nations. This assessment not only effectively assesses the demographic and economic trends associated with the nine signature site regions, but also provides an insight into trends across central and northern Ontario. The assessment include assessing data from the 1986, 1991 and 1996 census together with the 1996 Employed Labour Force Data. ^{footnote 3[3]}

The communities range from small northern Ontario communities such as Pickle Lake to larger northern regional centres such as Sudbury to more southerly communities such as Peterborough, which has demographic and economic characteristics more similar to Southern Ontario than Northern Ontario.

While it is difficult to summarize trends between the various regions, a few key points should be noted. The two southerly regions, Kawartha Highlands and Great Lakes Heritage Coast Georgian Bay Region differ significantly from the other nine more northern regions.

The nine northerly signature site regions: Woodland Caribou, St. Raphael, Nipigon Basin, Nagagamisis Central Plateau Complex, Spanish River Valley, Algoma Headwaters, Killarney, Great Lakes Heritage Coast Lake Superior Region and Great Lakes Heritage Coast North Shore & Manitoulin Island are characterized by stagnant population growth or a very minor population loss. In contrast, both the Kawartha Highlands and Georgian Bay Region of the Great Lakes Heritage Coast are characterized by population growth rates, which more closely mirror the provincial population growth rates.

Within these regions the greatest population loss appears to be in the smaller highly resource-industry dependent communities (e.g. Hearst, Red Lake, Nipigon, Red Rock) while larger regional centres such as Sudbury have experienced stagnant or minor population growth. Population data for Indian Reserves is sporadic owing to a variety of reasons (e.g. samples are too small, lack of participation, mobile populations), however overall demographic projections in Canada with respect to First Nations have demonstrated that the aboriginal population will continue to grow significantly through 2010. Migration from rural areas and small urban areas to reserves and large urban areas is projected to continue (Research and Analysis Directorate, INAC, 1997).

In terms of mobility and migration the nine northern signature site regions can be characterized as having significantly lower rates of migration to the regions, whereas the Kawartha Highlands and Great Lakes Heritage Coast Georgian Bay region again more closely mirror the provincial averages over all census periods.

In general, many of the economic characteristics are consistent across all of the signature site regions and the vast majority of the communities. Higher unemployment levels, an increased reliance on government transfer payments, a lower reliance on “other income”, lower average incomes and lower dwelling values than the provincial population as a whole characterize these regions. At the same time, it should be recognized that there are diverse economic conditions across Northern Ontario communities. Some communities compare very favourably with the provincial averages on many economic indicators, however many communities particularly smaller towns and townships, unorganized territories and aboriginal reserves have significantly lower family and individual incomes, high and chronic unemployment rates and show a much higher reliance on government transfer payments.

The seven northerly signature site regions are characterized by a narrow economic base that is largely dependent on employment and income from resource-based industries and the government services sector. The primary resource industries include the forest products, mining and tourism industries. The tourism industry in and around the signature sites is strongly associated with the natural resource base whether it is for remote fishing and hunting or for more general highway based tourism. It is widely accepted that the most of the other economic sectors in Northern Ontario such as wholesale and retail trade, transportation, construction and business services industries are largely dependent on resource industries, the forest products, mining and tourism and to a lesser extent energy and agricultural industries. However, it should also be recognized that public sector employment and spending across all three tiers of government often provide equal to or higher levels of employment and income than the forest products or mining industries in many communities. While the resource industry and government service sectors dominate the Northern Ontario economy there are a few anomalies. A particular example is Algoma Steel, which is the cornerstone of the Sault Ste. Marie and North Shore economy and is perhaps the largest single site employer in Northern Ontario.

While the three resource based industries (forest products, mining and tourism) are dominant throughout Northern Ontario the level of dependency within a community can vary greatly. Some communities such as Hearst or Red Rock remain highly dependent on the forest products industry while other communities such as Red Lake or Marathon are more dependent on the mining industry. Other communities such as Killarney and Parry Sound located in Central Ontario have developed local economies heavily dependent on tourism.

In general, of the nine northerly signature site regions, the communities and areas that face the most difficult economic conditions are the First Nation communities, unorganized areas and communities the lack major forest products mills and mining operations.

In 1986, the Province of Ontario’s Advisory Committee on Resource Dependent Communities in Northern Ontario stated that the economy of Northern Ontario is resource based and will continue to be resource based on the foreseeable future. In the analysis of the economic composition of the nine northerly signature site regions and other broader regional studies (Northwestern Ontario Development Network, 2000) there is little evidence to suggest these trends have shifted.

What is becoming increasingly apparent however is that total employment opportunities in the resource extractive industries have at best stagnated and there is some evidence of overall decline. ^{footnote 4[4]} At the very least, resource dependent industries cannot create employment opportunities to match natural population increase. Furthermore, resource extractive companies operate in continental and global markets and must remain competitive to compete. This often results in substituting technology for labour and Canadian resource based companies (and foreign owned companies with Ontario mills) are increasingly challenged by producers in regions that have cheaper sources of raw materials and labour. Over the long-term the overall competitiveness of these operations will be challenged and many of them may not be maintaining their competitive edge (Porter and Monitor Company, 1991; Martin and Porter, 2001). The economic sustainability of the majority of Northern Ontario communities remains linked to the competitiveness of these resource-based mills.

The population stagnation and minor decline in most communities is evidence of the lack of economic opportunities in Northern Ontario communities. Community leaders and much of the general public in Northern Ontario have rightly expressed concern about these trends and are interested in opportunities that can expand the narrow economic base of communities and provide new employment opportunities. Despite the initial reticence on the part of many individuals in Northern Ontario to major industrial landbase withdrawals through Lands for Life there is a strong interest in seeing how these signature sites can create new tourism related economic opportunities.

In contrast to the nine northerly signature site regions, the Kawartha Highlands and the Great Lakes Heritage Coast Georgian Bay regions have very little economic dependency on resource extractive industries. The Great Lakes Heritage Coast Georgian Bay region is heavily dependent on the tourism industry and government services and the Kawartha Highlands region has a diverse economy (centered around Peterborough) that includes manufacturing, government services and tourism.

In many respects the differing economic characteristics between the nine northerly signature site regions and the two southerly regions is a function of geography. The nine northerly signature site regions and in general all of Ontario north of the French River remains highly dependent on natural resources. South of the French River, areas such as the Kawartha Highlands and Great Lakes Heritage Coast Georgian Bay Region are linked to and dependent on the Southern Ontario economy, whether it is for tourists, cottagers and/or proximity to other manufacturing areas and consumer markets.

2.3 Component #3: Trends in park use and outdoor recreation in Ontario

In order to better understand how the nine Ontario Living Legacy Signature Sites could be impacted by trends in demand for outdoor recreation an analysis was undertaken of both park use and demographic and outdoor recreation trends in the Province. This information also helped us to gain a better understanding of the demand system for outdoor recreation in the Province.

Park trends report

The first report for this component was an analysis of the growth and demand for parks and recreational uses associated with parks in Ontario. More specifically, in order to help characterize trends in park use in recent years, 13 years of parks statistical summaries were analyzed for trends in camping, day-use and interior use between the years 1988 and 2000. Of the 278 parks shown in the annual data summaries, 74 were selected for detailed analysis here based on their having complete or nearly complete records of visitation. Due to incomplete or absent digital data on visitation and use in these parks, annual visitation data for each park over the last 13 years was manually entered and analyzed on spreadsheet files.

The variables analyzed were Total Visitors, Day Use Visitors, Camper Nights, and Length of Stay. Interior Camper Nights was only available for a subset of nine parks where interior camping is a major activity. To control for changes in the numbers of developed campsites and to provide a standardized measure of user pressure by which to compare parks, we also calculated and developed a derived variable, “Camper nights per Developed Camp Site”.

From a parks planning perspective, one of the most interesting outcome of our analysis is the increase in all variables relating to camping over the 13-year period. From 1988 to 2000 total visitation grew 18%, camper nights grew 32%, camper nights/developed campsite grew 33%, interior camper nights 33% and average length of stay 24%.

Furthermore, the 2000 summary numbers for total visitors and camper nights were the lowest since 1997 and therefore may understate the significant growth in use. An evaluation of Environment Canada records reveals that the year 2000 was one of the coldest and wettest in years. This poor weather in 2000 is likely the primary reason for the low visitation and camping numbers. 1992 was also an extremely wet year when low visitation was recorded.

It should be pointed out that while total camper nights grew by 33%, the increase in average length of stay of 24% suggests that most of the increase in camp site use is simply due to people staying in the parks longer rather than an increase in the number of recreationists.

In contrast to camping, day-use visitation showed no growth over the 13 year period and in fact dropped 5% between 1988 and 2000. Day use visitation leveled off over the 13 year period and dropped recently in 2000 for a total decrease of 5.1% since 1988. In fact, as shown in the Report almost 70% of the parks assessed had decreases in day use visitation. Top amongst those parks experiencing drops in day use visitation were Craigleath (-69%), Chutes (-79%), Finlayson Point (-83.5%) and Windy Lake (-85%). Parks experiencing substantial gains in days use visitation included Algonquin (149%), Restoule (521%), Samuel de Champlain (175%), Killarney (999%) and Ferris (307%). While the overall drop in day-use visitation was only 5%, a review of the data indicates that if you remove the numbers from Algonquin Park, the total decline across the whole park system in day use visitors is actually 12%.

While the system wide trends are interesting and shed light on recreational demand at the provincial level, the regional and park level trends are perhaps more revealing. As highlighted in Table 5, both North Eastern Zone and North Western Zone had the highest or next highest percentage of parks experiencing declines in Total Visitors, Camper Nights, Length of Stay, Camper Nights per Developed Campsite and Interior Camper Nights (NE Zone only). In contrast, the study demonstrated that Algonquin, South Eastern and South Western Zones account for 8 out the 10 Park Zones identified as having the highest or second highest increases in the visitation variables. While there are individual exceptions, in general, parks in the Northwest and Northwest are struggling relative to their more southern counterparts.

While most of the parks across the system have shown an increase in total visitation, certain parks have experienced dramatic growth. These include: Algonquin (68.0%), Awenda (93.2%), Restoule (92.9%), Samuel de Champlain (130.3%), Fushimi Lake (92.9%), Marten River (74.7%), Frontenac (90.3%), Selkirk (191.7%) and Rainbow Falls (70.7%). In contrast, several parks, primarily in the Northeast and Northwest Zones, have seen significant decreases in use: The Shoals (-55.4%), Chutes (-33.8%), Windy Lake (-65.8%) and Sioux Narrows (-54.3%). While a number of factors are likely behind these trends, some of the major contributing likely include: proximity to large populations; proximity to major travel corridors; number and significance of features/attractions; and management factors.

An analysis of interior statistics was carried out for the 9 parks, which maintain interior use information. An analysis of interior statistics was carried out for the 9 parks which maintain interior use information. These nine parks and their respective zones are: Algonquin in the Algonquin Zone, Bon Echo and Frontenac in the Southeast, Killarney, Lake Superior, Missinaibi Lake and The Shoals in the Northeast Zone and Quetico and Woodland Caribou in the Northwest Zone. It should be noted that Algonquin Park tends to skew the overall summary statistics as it represents over half of the total interior camper nights and despite the fact that parks with new interior opportunities have been added to the system since 1988 (e.g. Woodland Caribou, Bon Echo and Missinaibi Lake) Algonquin has consistently accounted for approximately 60% of the total nights in the system.

Overall, interior camper nights have grown from 340,128 in 1988 to 452,617 in 2000, representing a 33.1% increase in use. However, there has been only minor growth since 1993, when there were 445,685 interior camper nights recorded. Seven of the nine parks in the system have demonstrated positive growth: Woodland Caribou at 938.4%, Frontenac at 142.2%, Killarney at 71.6%, Bon Echo at 49.2%, Algonquin at 31.9% and Quetico at 6.5%. The two Parks that have shown negative growth have been Missinaibi Lake at –44.1% and The Shoals at –75.4%. While a definitive explanation of these trends at the specific park level is beyond the scope of this report, a few observations can be made.

We would suggest that interior camping in Ontario can be viewed within three different supply/demand systems. The demand for interior camping in Central Ontario (Southern Edge of the Canadian Shield to the French River) is dominated by the large and growing populations of Southern Ontario (GTA, Southeastern, and Southwestern Ontario). Parks in Central Ontario offering interior camping opportunities provide both shorter (weekend) and longer (week) stays. While the larger parks in this region such as Killarney and Algonquin are capable of offering truly “remote backcountry” experiences, these opportunities are likely declining as congestion within these parks increases and demand starts to meet available supply. Due to the projected increases in population in southern Ontario, we expect parks in Central Ontario offering interior campsites to see continued high and growing demand for interior camping experiences.

Interior camping in the southern part of Northeastern Ontario is also likely strongly influenced by the large populations of Southern Ontario. As congestion on interior campsites increases in Central Ontario parks, it is likely that southern recreationists seeking more “remote backcountry” experiences are turning increasingly to the Northeast. Given the driving times involved, you would expect that recreationists from Southern Ontario are more likely looking for trips of longer duration. Regions or parks that are in the more southerly reaches of Northeastern Ontario and that offer more “remote backcountry” experiences and longer trips will likely see the highest demand and use in the upcoming years. Parks such as Lady Evelyn, and the Spanish River Signature Site that are still within a reasonable drive of the population centers of Southern Ontario likely fall into this category.

While this prediction for growth in demand for interior campsites in Northeastern Ontario may be at odds with observed trends for parks such as The Shoals and Missinaibi which have seen a decrease of –75.4 and –44.1% respectively, it may be that these two parks are simply too small, lacking in sufficient routes and features and too far to attract significant number of canoeists from Southern Ontario. As well, for Northern Ontario residents, crown land camping offers a less expensive and less regulated substitute than interior camping in provincial parks.

Finally, we would suggest that the Northwest Region is a much different demand system. The driving distances and transportation costs associated with travel from Southern Ontario to Northwestern Ontario would severely limit the participation of this population. Rather, demand for backcountry opportunities in Northwestern Ontario backcountry is likely more driven by a market area that includes the Midwest and north central states, along with the population of Northwestern Ontario and perhaps some prairie province users.

In Northwestern Ontario there are only two parks where interior camping statistics are maintained, Woodland Caribou and Quetico. Quetico has a long history of interior camping use and consistently there are over 100,000 interior camping nights on an annual basis. However, use has only grown slightly since 1988 (6.5%). We are unsure as to whether the lack of growth in use at Quetico is a result of stagnating demand, capacity constraints and/or other factors such as publicity and promotion.

The interior visitor statistics across the provincial park system may offer several lessons for the planning of the nine OLL Signature Sites. First, we predict there will continue to be a strong demand for backcountry opportunities in Central Ontario. Areas that provide remote and semi-remote opportunities such as the Kawartha Highlands, Killarney Provincial Park and the Georgian Bay areas along the Great Lakes Heritage Coast should see continued interior campsite demand. Parks planners for these sites will be confronted with the challenge of maintaining the resource base and “quality of the opportunity” in order to meet demand and where possible provide more opportunities as a result of consumer and economic demand.

In order to differentiate between growth in camper nights resulting from increases in the number of developed campsites offered and increases in demand per camp site available, the Camper Nights per Developed Campsite variable was calculated. As was shown in the report, camper nights per developed campsite increased from 205 in 1988 to 273 in 2000, a gain of 33%. These increases parallel those seen in total camper nights. A full 77% of the parks experienced gains in this variable. Parks with the largest gains included Selkirk (22%), Fushimi (152%), Kettle Lakes (117%) and Samuel de Champlain (111%). Parks experiencing the largest declines in this variable included Sioux Narrows (46%), The Shoals (63%) and Bass Lake (36%).

This comparable increase in camper nights per developed campsite indicates that the growth in total camper nights is not due to simple increases in the number of developed campsites but rather reflects an increase in a combination of demand for camp sites and length of stay.

Demographic and recreational use report

This report investigated trends in both demographic and recreational demand trends and discussed their implications for parks management in Ontario. This information was used to inform and frame our ongoing efforts to estimate both economic values and site visitation.

The population of Ontario is both growing and aging and these trends are projected to increase considerably over the next 26 years. Under Statistics Canada’s reference scenario, Ontario’s population is projected to grow by 34 percent from approximately 11.5 million in 1996 to almost 15.4 million in 2028. During this period there will be 7.6 percent fewer people between the ages of 15 and 44 (prime recreation years), and the proportion of people aged 60 or over will increase by 10.6 percent from 16.6 to 27.1 percent of the population. Moreover, 75 percent of the total population increase will accrue because of international immigration, not births.

The vast majority of this growth will be concentrated in southern urban regions. Populations in Northeastern and Northwestern Ontario are expected to remain stagnant over the next 26 years. The combination of zero population growth and an increasing population age in the north may have impacts on park use in the north, particularly where parks primarily serve local markets. Aside from the larger wilderness parks that tend to draw their visitation from more urban centers, northern parks in Ontario may see declining visitation as an aging population seeks more passive and less physical pursuits.

Conversely, with the bulk of the population growth occurring near Southern and Central Ontario urban centers, based on demographics alone, parks such as Algonquin, Killarney, Frontenac and the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site should also see increased visitation in the coming years.

The other factor that will affect park visitation and the types of recreational experiences that will be demanded is trends in peoples demand for outdoor recreational activities. While there are several studies that have documented demand for outdoor recreation in Canada and the USA, there are few Canadian or Ontario specific studies reporting trends in demand through time, and virtually no data on demand for recreation among immigrants or different ethnic groups. As a result, we collected the few trend data that we could locate, summarized existing data sets that broke demand down by age groups, and generated some simple projections of potential future demand based on Statistics Canada’s population projections for Ontario.

Overall demand for outdoor recreation in Ontario has increased since 1981. However, unlike the US, according to the Study on the Importance of Nature to Canadians (“SINC”) data, overall participation rates have declined. There is some indication that non-consumptive activities, such as wildlife viewing, continue to increase in popularity in Ontario, while more consumptive uses such as hunting and fishing continue to decline. These trends are consistent with detailed data from the US. In the US, hunting declined by 12.3 percent, and fishing by 3.8 percent between 1982-83 and 1994-95. In contrast, all other activities measured registered increases in participation rates that ranged from 1.6 percent for bicycling through to 155.2 percent for bird-watching. Wilderness outdoor activities registered some of the most substantial increases. Participation in backpacking, primitive campsite camping and hiking increased 73%, 58% and 94% respectively over the 12-year period.

When participation was broken down by age-group, data from the US and from the 1996 SINC provided some interesting but not surprising results. Predictably, active lifestyle pursuits such as downhill skiing, climbing and hiking ranked more highly among younger age groups in both countries. Similarly, participation rates in hunting and fishing were higher in older age-groups in both countries, seeming to characterize these activities as “old-timers’” pursuits. Bird watching and wildlife viewing were also preferred pastimes for older people. In both countries, sedentary activities, such as sightseeing, were most popular among all age groups.

Due to expected future population growth, projections for potential future participation in Ontario showed continued increases in numbers of participants in all pursuits over the next 20-26 years, even under constantly declining participation rates. Participation curves followed similar hyperbolae for all pursuits, tending to level off or decline at about 2020 – 2026. These curves were probably the result of declining participation with age becoming increasingly important as the population ages.

It should be pointed out that the projections calculated in this study were contingent only upon population growth and changes in the age characteristics of the Ontario population. Other characteristics that will change over time, such as the overwhelming concentration of population growth in urban areas, and the fact that much of that growth will be through immigration from countries that may lack outdoor recreation traditions, could not be accounted for. Unfortunately, there is a no reliable data on how these variables will change demand for recreation in combination with each other. Caution should also be exercised in drawing comparisons between the US and Canadian populations. The USA data show that overall participation rates as well as numbers of participants have risen over 12-years from 1983 to 1995, while the SINC data indicates that Canadian participation rates fell over a similar time period. Given the similarity in the populations and cultures of Canada and the US, these results are somewhat counter-intuitive.

The data analysis was broken down into three parts: 1) the preparation of population projections for Ontario to 2028 by 15-year age groups, 2) summary and qualitative comparison of age-related SINC and American surveys, and 3) modelling the possible uptake of recreation using population projections, current participation rates and a simple sensitivity analysis. Interested readers should examine the full report.

Overall, our results suggest that the demand for most outdoor recreation activities will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. Our analysis also shows that the available data on recreation is inadequate to produce refined projections of future participation.

2.4 Component #4: Background data collection

While the Study of the Economic and Social Benefits of the Nine Ontario Living Legacy Sites was limited to undertaking three field work case studies it was also important to collect information and data on eight of the signature sites in order to develop the non- market valuation methodology, survey instrument and properly undertake the “Benefits Transfer”. The “Benefits Transfer” is contingent on knowing enough about the un- surveyed sites to make assumptions as to what data can be transferred with validity. Furthermore, the background information collection was a necessary precursor to the three case studies.

The information collected on each of the nine signature sites included:

• Site Descriptions;
• Basic geographical, biological and physiological characteristics and features;
• Land-use designations;
• Existing Uses;
• Access;
• Recreational Activities
• Use levels;
• Economic Goods and Services;
• Status of Management Planning; and
• Local and Regional Community & Socio-Economic Issues.

As the eight signature sites were in different stages of management planning the data collected varied widely in its scope, currency and relevancy. Personal interviews were also held with key individuals involved in planning each of the signature sites.

A separate summary of the Great Lakes Heritage Coast was not prepared as the size of the linear nature of the Coast makes it impractical for the non-market valuation component of the study, although some coastal uses in specific locations will be examined in other components of the project.

Along with the write-up of the most relevant information, major data gaps for this study were noted. These data gaps were addressed in Year 2 of the study through primary or secondary sources. The major data gap recognized in this work and that had to be addressed in future years of the project was the need to collect visitor data on all the signature sites.

In a closing section of this report are a series of tables identifying the signature sites and recreational activities that occur in each. These tables form the practical foundation of the non-market valuation methodology.

These summaries were developed for the internal use of the consulting team and as they are based on secondary sources of information already collected for signature site planning are unlikely to be helpful in management planning for the signature sites themselves. The documents are also working documents and will be updated as more information is collected and data gaps are filled.

2.5 Component #5a and #5b: Non-market valuation methodology, pilot surveyand user numbers for the signature sites

The development of the non-market valuation methodology, pilot survey, survey refinement and the collection of user numbers on all the signature sites was carried out as two separate components in the first two years of the study. But for the purposes of this report has been organized in one section.

Introduction

The concept of “value” can be expressed in terms of the trade-offs people are willing to make to avoid an undesirable outcome or to achieve a desirable outcome. In economics, these trade-offs are often measured in terms of willingness to pay (WTP) for well-defined units of change. The usefulness of these valuation estimates lies in their expression in a common unit – a dollar metric. This ability to produce a common unit of comparison is the fundamental contribution of valuation of non-market resources for public policy decision-making. However, when there are no obvious market transactions to estimate value (e.g. wilderness use), trade-offs might be left in incomparable units (backcountry recreational benefits versus timber revenues), or worse, left out of an analysis altogether. To address this, economists have developed a suite of “non-market” valuation methods that either directly or indirectly estimate WTP where there are no obvious market prices.

Non-market valuation methods are especially useful to inform the decision-making processes that involve changes in the quality, quantity and uses of publicly owned resources and natural assets. Research has demonstrated that estimates from properly designed valuation studies are consistent and comparable with economic values as derived from market data. To date, the economic literature contains several types of valuation methods and many variations on these methods. The purpose of this document is to, in practical terms, describe the rationale for the valuation methodology produced for the OLL Signature Site Team - not educate the reader in the theoretical underpinnings of economic valuation. ^{footnote 6[6]} The appendices included provide an example of a non-market valuation method and outputs used for Ontario wilderness parks in 1993.

While thousands of studies have been conducted to improve and refine a number of different valuation methods, it is not possible to claim that one method is superior to others. Often, an appropriate methodology may involve combinations of techniques. The most appropriate methodology for a given valuation scenario depends on how the estimates will be used within a specific policy context.^{footnote 6[6]} A policy context consists of (1) a set of objectives, (2) criteria and constraints for the objectives, (3) a set of feasible options available to decision-makers, (4) the associated management variables that they have control over, (5) a specific population of individuals whose well-being would be affected by the policy options, (6) a well-defined set of activities and values that would be affected, (7) the feasible ranges for these changes, and (8) the budget available for the analysis.

The methodology developed for the Study of the Social and Economic Benefits involved a combination of valuation techniques. Planning decisions surrounding the OLL Signature Sites comprise the policy context for the development of this valuation methodology. An objective of the policy was to delineate which Crown lands would be designated as protected areas. Criteria for the management of the lands that were set aside are outlined in the OLL strategy. These criteria include managing these lands for the enjoyment of present and future Ontario residents, and to manage with special attention to activities whose benefits are not easily measured via market transactions (e.g. recreational use). Constraints include restricting uses of the OLL signature sites to be consistent with ecosystem protection, and restricting management activities to a given budget allotment.

The feasible options for managers include managing these areas in a manner that is unchanged from how the areas have been used in the past, or to manage these areas in ways that anticipate future trends and demands. Management variables could include setting user quotas for numbers of permits per season, limiting uses of motorized watercraft, implementing fish and game enhancing strategies for hunting and angling, developing front country car camping and /or backcountry opportunities, and other specific management activities. The population of individuals with standing would include all Ontario residents, current and future. The benefits to non-residents are important inasmuch as the proportion of these benefits that contribute to the well-being of Ontario residents.

The activities that would be affected include all activities that currently or could occur on the subject lands that would result in some change in well-being for Ontario residents. These include hunting, fishing, boating, canoeing, hiking, snowmobiling, camping, snowshoeing, kayaking, and other recreational activities. The feasible ranges of changes in these activities are defined to be from the current baseline levels to levels that are consistent with the objectives, criteria and constraints for objectives and attainable with the available management tools.

A goal of valuation methodology design is to associate units of physical measurement with the specific management variables that are feasible for managers to use to achieve policy objectives. For example, an estimate of the “total value” of a park, while interesting, is of limited use for management purposes where the landbase and its associated uses has already existed; the policy objective is to accommodate multiple use; and the relevant management variables are the number of backcountry campsites, whether to allow motorized watercraft, or whether to impose a quota on the number of user days per season. In these cases, the physical units valued might be the incremental value of an additional campsite, the change in value of a recreational user day with and without motorized watercraft, and the cost of congestion as the dollar valued loss per additional group encountered per backcountry canoe day.

This notion of incremental value is at the center of economic analysis of trade-offs between alternatives. In economics jargon, incremental value is referred to as ‘marginal value’. Marginal values typically vary with the starting, or base level that the increment is measured from. It is also generally the case that marginal values decrease as the base level of provision increases. Thus the marginal value of one more campsite for car camping will be less the more campsites that are already available. On the other hand, marginal values tend to increase as demand increases. Thus, these two different effects, the quantity available and the demand together determine the marginal value of a given good or service. This is as true for recreational services as it is for any market good. This underlying relationship between quantity and demand is the basis for non- market valuation methods. Individual willingness to pay for a given change in quantity (or quality) is a measure of the marginal value of that change to a given person. Then techniques are used to aggregate this individual WTP over a relevant population, to calculate the overall societal change in well-being for a well-defined change in provision.

The choice of valuation methods is constrained by the trade-off between precision of the estimates, the cost of achieving them, and the cost of making a wrong decision based on imprecise data. The objective is to match as well as possible, the valuation method with the management decisions. In the case of this study, the key valuation questions to be considered are: (1) what additional value accrued to each Signature Site as a result of the OLL designation? to each Signature Site? (2) What are the potential values associated with management options for future planning of these Sites?

The OLL policy context and implications for methodology

Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy is the result of an extensive planning process that was carried out from February 1997 to May 1999. The Strategy outlines the intended strategic direction for the management of 39 million hectares of Crown lands and waters in a planning area covering 45 percent of the Province. The Strategy focuses on four specific objectives that were established at the beginning of the planning process:

• Completing Ontario’s system of parks and protected areas;
• Recognizing the land use needs of the resource-based tourism industry;
• Providing forest, mining and other resource industries with greater land and resource use and certainty; and,
• Enhancing angling, hunting and other Crown land recreational opportunities.

Given the resultant allocation of Crown land, the question arises, how best to manage the new additions to the Ontario Provincial Parks System and other newly protected areas?

The Crown lands that have been added to the protected areas system are located throughout the Province. Nine of these sites have been selected as Signature Sites. These represent the range of uses for the complete set of new sites and a focus on these sites is expected to provide a basis for developing management strategies for all of the new protected areas. An Ontario Parks policy objective is to develop a framework to evaluate management options for the Nine OLL Signature Sites. One evaluation criterion is to manage these sites to optimize societal net benefits that accrue to Ontario residents, specifically taking into account the variety of benefits from these sites that are not transmitted through markets. These benefits accrue from activities such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, wildlife viewing, and other recreational activities. Some other uses such as forestry and mineral exploration will be permitted in Enhanced Management Areas that may comprise part of a Signature Site; however standard market-based approaches can be used to estimate these values, and they will not be considered here. Other criteria are to develop management strategies that are consistent with protection of non-use values and ecosystem features. These criteria can be considered as constraints that limit the range of choice over management options.

The benefits generated by non-market uses are of particular importance. This is because the changes in allowable land-uses that are consistent with OLL Signature Site designation restrict some commercial uses of the sites, which were allowable prior to the OLL designation. The methodology developed here focuses on the non-market benefits generated by the changes in quantity and quality of uses of the Signature Sites. For the purposes of this study, these will be referred to simply as use values.

Other categories of benefits associated with the OLL strategy include non-use values, option values, and the associated benefits that accrue to the industrial users of non-OLL Crown lands. ^{footnote 7[7]} The methodology described in this document does not explicitly deal with these other categories of benefits, but does caution that a full evaluation of the options available to decision-makers may be incomplete without taking these into account. A study to measure non-use values would be a valuable addition or follow-up to the current study.

The OLL strategy suggests two closely related types of policy analysis scenarios. The first is an evaluation of the net change in economic value associated with the decision to adopt the OLL land use strategy. Estimation of use values is a necessary step in accounting for all costs and benefits resulting from the policy change over time, and converting the net change in to a lump sum present value. Non-market valuation would be required to account for changes that are not easily estimated using market data.

The second type of policy analysis is a continuous evaluation of decisions regarding management options for one or more individual sites. In this type of analysis, the estimates of net changes in benefits are used as part of the criteria for on-going management support. Examples of such management options include: choosing to manage for backcountry use versus hunting; choosing to develop front country camp- sites versus managing for backcountry use; or choosing to develop one area exclusively for backcountry use while developing another exclusively for remote fishing.

The latter type of policy analysis is best served by an approach that lends itself to interactive use by managers including regular updates to reflect changes in site management activities. This approach recognizes managerial flexibility and attempts to adapt to changing circumstances. As a result, the types of non-market valuation data required for increasing levels of precision and changing circumstances may be indicated over time in an iterative process. ^{footnote 8[8]} The methodology developed for the Social and Economic Benefits Study will be designed to facilitate the latter type of active management use.

Relevant population

Most valuation methods produce estimates for the dollar valued net benefits associated with changes in the provision of a good or service. These estimates reflect the change in welfare to a single individual. The individual valuation estimates are then aggregated over the relevant population. The definition of the relevant population is a policy decision, and in general should reflect who has standing in the outcome of allocation of net benefits. In the OLL policy context, we assume that the relevant population is the entire population of Ontario.

There may be issues that arise in the case of areas that are used predominantly by non- Ontarians. The methodology will provide estimates for individual benefits, and wherever is necessary, the proportion of Ontarian and non-Ontarian users will be determined. How the overall benefits will be aggregated will remain open until a later date. It may be reasonable to apportion the total benefits that accrue to Ontarians to an estimate of the total benefit of the OLL Signature Sites, while the benefits that accrue to non-Ontarians are reduced by a proportion to reflect the net transfer of cash into Ontario from elsewhere.

We explicitly assumed that all Ontario residents receive equal weight, whether they live in an urban or rural setting. In some policy situations, there may be reasons for weighting one group’s welfare differently from another group’s welfare. This may be the case, if it is determined that for equity reasons, people who live in less affluent areas, or who are below a given income level should benefit more from a government policy. However, the increase in welfare to those who are favored in a weighting scheme cannot be considered as new benefits, since they are simply transfers from one part of a population to another. Whatever the potential equity issues that may be under consideration for local residents who make their livelihoods in communities surrounding the OLL Signature Sites; the valuation estimates themselves are measured in units that reflect the status quo distribution of income within the Province. Similarly, user fees paid to the Province by provincial residents who visit the sites are not considered as benefits – since these would already be counted as costs to the individuals who must pay them. These too are transfers of wealth that do not count as net benefits.

Activities affected, management variables, physical units, and ranges of change

Although most of the study areas have supported a variety of recreational uses in the past, Signature Site designation implies that these areas may now be eligible for more intensive management to enhance the net benefits produced. This means that simply valuing the past uses of these areas would not be consistent with estimating the values of these areas as OLL Signature Sites.

There are two possible approaches to estimating the contribution of the OLL designation to the value of the study areas. The first is to ‘adjust’ the results of current valuation estimates by use of variables that are assumed to be changing in the near future as a result of the OLL management scenarios. Such adjustment factors may be as basic as allowing for varying numbers of user days, or as complex as anticipating how changes in one area may affect the uses of nearby substitute sites which had previously been operating at full capacity. In the latter case, an increase in the use of the new site is not completely attributable to a creation of new value because of the transfer of users from one area to another. This could imply that the number of user days stays the same between the two sites, but that the quality of a user day is greater overall due to reduced congestion. Thus, one of the variables necessary for adjustment factors would be changes in the values associated with reduced congestion. ^{footnote 9[9]} In order to anticipate the net gain or loss in benefits associated with future changes in management variables, current valuation estimates need to be regressed with other variables that are most likely to change over time. Thus, for future estimation, the new levels of these variables can be used to re-estimate the same functions for use benefits.

A second approach to estimating the contribution of the OLL designation to the value of the study areas would use hypothetical valuation methods. In this approach, current users are asked to respond to questions about the probability of their continued use contingent on future management changes. For example, respondents might be presented with a hypothetical scenario in which their costs of using an area might increase, but they would be guaranteed that the quality of fishing will be enhanced (perhaps through user or catch quotas that reduce the pressure on the fish populations). Each respondent might be asked to respond to a given set of values with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. By experimentally varying the quality variable and the cost variable over a large number of respondents, a relationship between these variables can be determined. The marginal value of increases in fishing quality can then be inferred from this relationship and used to predict future values of site use. This would result in: sets of benefits measures for the same individuals; current benefit estimates from current levels of provision; and marginal values for changes in provision levels - based on variables under management control.

Another example in which two sets of measures (current and responses to hypothetical changes in a management variable) can be used to illustrate how “option” values might be incorporated into a user survey. Option values are the benefits that accrue to people who know that an area is being managed in such a way as to preserve their option to use an area in the future. Option values accrue to people who currently use a site and also to those who do not currently use a site, but wish to keep the opportunities open for future use. Depending upon the circumstances, benefits of current management regimes would accrue from both current values as well as option values. As an example, consider an area that currently contains no timber harvesting (which is potentially allowable in the EMA portion of OLL Signature Sites). Current activities might include hiking, snowmobiling, canoeing, fishing and wildlife viewing. An approach that values simply the marginal per day user benefits from these activities may not fully reflect the value of current management decisions. Consider the option to permit timber harvesting, and suppose that there are at least some individuals who receive greater welfare knowing that in the future the site will not include harvesting. They may or may not currently use the site, but might want to use the site in the future, and their benefits from doing so would be greater without the extractive activity. By not including their option value to preserve their option to enjoy the site in the future at its current level of provision, current management activity will be undervalued.

Marginal values

Rarely does a policy context indicate that total values are appropriate. Marginal value is generally the basic unit of economic analysis. Total values are typically of less use and therefore of less interest in analysis, because feasible choices rarely include adding or subtracting something for which there had been demand but absolutely zero supply. ^{footnote 10[10]} More typically, policy options and management variables are defined over changes in values from one well-defined base level to some other level as defined by the policy context. This is especially true for the OLL Signature Site study. The reason for the focus on marginal changes has to do implicitly with the quantity and quality of goods and services that already exist to partially satisfy demand. For example, if there are few areas that provide recreational camping in Ontario, then the marginal contribution of an additional campsite is likely to be very great. But if there are already many campsites available, then the additional campsite is likely to produce a smaller contribution, as an incremental unit added to the amount that was already available. The methodology for this study will lend itself to valuing marginal changes in use, rather than total values for the use of a given area since this approach provides the most useful information for management decisions.

A marginal value is the value associated with a well-defined change in a given management variable. Well-defined means that (1) the change is defined over the initial starting, or base level of provision of a specific good or service, and (2) the change itself is defined in quantifiable terms in the same units of measurement as the base level. Thus, if one option for a site is to increase the number of backcountry campsites on interior canoe routes, the units could be “camper nights” and a well-defined change would be from a base level of 5 sites on an interior lake to 10 sites on the lake. The simple quantity of 5 camper nights means little without the baseline. For example, the lake may have started with zero campsites and the addition of 5 may increase the capacity of the area substantially with little loss in congestion costs. But if the base level were 15 campsites on the lake, the increase of 5 would likely be of much lower value, relatively speaking. Similarly, the use of average values, or a simple value per camping night, would be imprecise and obscure the difference in value from the increase in campsites between a low baseline and a higher baseline.

Benefits transfers between signature sites

Marginal values are also important for development of a benefits transfer approach that allows for valuation results obtained from one Signature Site to be applicable to other sites. In practice, benefits transfers tend to be imprecise. This is because policy contexts, attributes, baseline levels of use, relevant marginal changes and demographic contexts typically are very different, and studies that produce primary valuation data are generally not developed specifically for transfer to other contexts. The practice of transferring valuation functions from one site to another is generally preferable to transferring the actual values.

The approach for the OLL Signature Sites uses benefits transfer in a highly circumscribed manner. The approach will include at least one primary valuation study at one or more of the Signature Sites. The primary valuation functions that will be estimated will be developed specifically for transfer to the other Signature Sites. This approach requires that appropriate baseline data be collected at the Sites where the primary valuation study is not implemented. This data would then be used in the valuation functions to produce estimates of the values of changes in quality or quantity of use at the other Signature Sites. In addition, the primary valuation study will necessarily involve collection of data that might not normally be required in a valuation study of one site only. The purpose of this additional data is to determine how sensitive the estimates are to other variables that might differ between the primary valuation site and the benefits transfer target sites.

Benefits transfers between the Signature Sites would take the form of adjusting mathematically valuation functions from a primary site where the data were originally collected to accommodate different features of the sites that the valuation results are to be transferred to. For example, suppose that a valuation study at a given site indicated that the value for a management action that would change the probability of catching fish would result in an increase of $4 per fishing day at the site. Suppose that the methods that produced that result included a variety of variables about the features of the site, such as the base level of fishing quality, other types of uses at the site, and proximity to substitute sites and to population centers. The resulting values are mathematical functions of these other variables. Therefore the values themselves are not actually applied directly to other sites, rather, the functions are transferred and the features of the new site are used in the equations to determine the value of the increase in fishing quality as a function of the levels of the other features that also significantly affect an individual’s valuation of a fishing experience.

The methodology will be developed to lend itself to valuation by attribute, so that the attributes can be used for benefits transfers between and among the OLL signature sites. For the purposes of this study, the attributes are the individual uses, physical features, and specific management variables that would affect benefits that are generated by the OLL Signature Sites. The main criteria for choosing the policy-relevant attributes to include in the methodology are those that managers can actively influence (congestion, portages, numbers of campsites on a lake, catch limits, presence or absence of motorized vehicles, maximum number of days on a backcountry permit, quotas, winter cross country trail grooming). These are the choice variables available to managers and the goal is to evaluate the effect of specific changes of combinations of these variables.

Not all sites support all uses, and not all sites have the same physical features. The physical attributes of interest will be limited to those that are expected to have a significant influence on the benefits generated. For example, for backcountry canoeists, the presence of whitewater, the presence of motorized boats and the number of portages - are relevant attributes that may affect an individual’s marginal value of a canoeing day. An attribute might be simply the maximum number of days allowed on a given permit. For example, Rollins, Wistowsky and Jay (1997) determined that for three Ontario Provincial Parks, the value of a canoe day decreased as the number of days per trip increased. That is, the value of a user day for the seventh day of a trip is less than the value of the third day. They determined a mathematical relationship through regression analysis of the non-market valuation data from backcountry canoe trips of varying lengths. In this way, they showed that the marginal value of a trip day decreases as trip lengths increase. An average value for a trip day, or for a trip as a whole, would not reveal the ways in which the value is sensitive to management variables such as the maximum number of days on a permit.

The presence or absence of an attribute would be expected to shift the value of a recreational user day by a given amount. Similarly, the presence or absence of a given use would be expected to change the value of an area by some amount. A goal of the methodology is to develop systematic relationships between these attributes, so that potential changes in these attributes, as measured in one site, can be adjusted to fit the combinations of base-level attributes and proposed changes at another signature site. This is a limited form of benefits transfer.

Economic benefits of the OLL signature sites

The unit of analytical interest for policy analysis is the net change in economic value as a result of a given policy or management action. Before the action, individuals experience one level of well-being, which may be positive and substantial. The level of well-being may be expected to change as a result of a proposed policy action. The change in value may involve some additional benefits of a variety of types, and a reduction of benefits of other types. For example, the decision to prohibit motorized boating on a body of water would reduce the flow of benefits to people who would have participated in this activity. But this policy action may increase benefits for those who participate in backcountry hiking, camping and canoeing on the same body of water. Similarly if a management action increases the costs to individuals, then these increased costs would be netted from the gross benefits that they receive.

The goal is to estimate incremental values as changes from baseline benefits. As a starting point, the state of the world if there had been no OLL policy provides a base line in terms of uses, numbers of users, attributes of sites that affect use values and so forth. The baseline needs to include the level of use for all categories of uses before the OLL designation. The marginal valued changes in those uses then start from the baseline. Under most circumstances, it is not necessary to actually estimate the value of the sites without the OLL designation. A large number of proven valuation techniques are designed explicitly to measure the incremental change in value.

In the case of the OLL Signature Sites, the change in land-use status means that the Province may choose to invest in enhanced management at these sites to generate additional benefits. Since the Sites differ in terms of their physical attributes, distances from human population centers, and distances from other sites that might provide similar services, it is not likely that the best management strategies will be identical for each site. However, a common criterion for choosing among management strategies across sites can be identified. This criterion would be to manage these so as to produce the greatest net benefits consistent with their land-use designation.

Two elements to consider are (1) amount and quality of the different uses at each site, and (2) the demand for these uses. The net economic benefits to society for any given level of use are measured as the monetized value of the demand that is satisfied, less the costs of achieving that level of use. Some of the costs are borne by the users. These are the costs of such things as travel to and from the site, guides, food and lodging, licenses, tackle and bait, fuel, and supplies. In many non-market valuation studies, the benefits are often measured on a per unit of use basis, for an individual, net of individual costs. It is assumed that management costs are easily retrieved. For the purposes of the approach developed here, we will focus on the monetized value of demand satisfied and assume that the costs have been netted out.

It important to note that the items and activities that economists consider to be costs, are transfers from one part of the economy to another. The money that a visitor spends in a local community as a result of a visit to an OLL Site is not technically a benefit, because much of it would have been spent elsewhere. The net benefit (to the province) is the new value generated over and above the expenditures. However, these transfers can be very important in terms of equity implications, because they may stimulate economic activity in areas that have been targeted for attention due to sluggish local economies. The alternative locations that could have received the expenditures, such as urban areas where the visitors reside, may feel little as a result of the loss in activity, but the marginal impact of the activity may be relatively large in a small resource-dependent economy. This will be discussed in a later part of the final report, in conjunction with the implications of the economic activity.

Primary valuation study sites

Three primary valuation study sites have been chosen for survey implementation, based on the criteria that the combination of site characteristics and user activities is representative of those in the eight signature sites. The rationale for this approach is to facilitate a benefits transfer approach that would compute values for each of the eight signature sites as a function of the characteristics of sites, users, activities, as well as proximity to population centers and other variables that prove to be statistically significant predictors of recreational value. The primary valuation will result in economic values for incremental changes in these characteristics and activities, as functions of other variables that affect users’ demands for these recreational activities. These marginal values will then be used to estimate recreational demand for the other signature sites, where primary surveys where not conducted. The chosen sites are Killarney Provincial Park, Spanish River Valley Signature Site (SRVSS) and Kawartha Highlands Signature Site (KHSS). The most important site characteristics and uses of the other signature sites are represented among these three sites. As well, at least two of these sites (Kawartha Highlands and Killarney Provincial Park) are intensively used sites with access points that make it reasonable to intercept users for survey distribution.

The first year report did not specifically indicate Kawartha Highlands or Spanish River as potential study sites, but did mention each as potentially providing a broader array of users and characteristics than Killarney alone. The decision to include Kawartha Highlands was made in part to incorporate the marginal values of activities of cottagers and local property owners, as well as the characteristics of a site that offers a large variety of activities, in relatively close proximity to large urban populations. Due to the combination of activities, accessibility and site characteristics, it appeared that marginal values at Kawartha Highlands might be different in nature from those at the other sites. Similarly, it was decided that Spanish River provided different enough characteristics and uses from either Killarney or Kawartha Highlands, to merit including it as a primary valuation study site. In particular, two primary activities, fishing and hunting do not occur at Killarney.

Development of the pilot survey instrument

A pilot survey was developed for implementation in the SRVSS and Killarney during the summer of 2002. A pilot survey was not developed for the Kawartha Highlands primarily because of the political and planning issues that were occurring over the past year.

The pilot was developed as a ‘final draft’ of the main survey to be conducted during the summer of 2003. The survey was somewhat similar to the survey designed by Rollins and Wistowsky and implemented in 1993 at Killarney, Quetico and Algonquin.

Development of the pilot version was conducted in a series of iterations, with feedback from groups that include users, site managers and academicians familiar with valuation methods. The questions for the valuation study are of the basic types.

First are questions about the trip on which the person received the survey – the main purpose of the trip, the number of days, the members of the group, the primary purpose of the trip, and the location. This part of the survey also asks about expenditures related to the trip and where they were incurred, both by type of establishment and by proximity to the site. The second type of questions focused on personal attitudes and preferences for recreational experiences. These questions queried participants’ about attitudes toward congestion, types of preferred activities, and their willingness to take a similar trip if certain attributes of the trip were to change. These attributes included the dollar cost of the trip, as well as other attributes, such as the number of other groups encountered while portaging, camping, hiking, etc. The answers to these first two groups of questions provide the core of the data needed for economic valuation. The third set of questions asks about demographic information for the individuals on the trip. These include profession, income, age, residence and similar data, also used in the valuation model.

Preliminary results from the pilot are to be used to develop the final survey instrument, due to be in the field by the May long weekend 2003. Summary and comprehensive statistics for the pilot data are also provided in the report.

Additional survey questions designed to address management needs

The Spanish River Valley Signature Site staff had planned to implement a survey of their own during the summer of 2002. However, in discussions with the Spanish River Valley staff it was felt that having two surveys in the field simultaneously might overburden respondents, and reduce the response rates to each survey. Also, the duplication of resources necessary for two separate surveys was considered inefficient. Therefore, management questions that would otherwise not have been included in the primary in valuation survey were incorporated, in order to combine the two surveys. Normally this would be considered quite risky, as it resulted in an extremely long survey instrument, leading to a lower response rate, and potentially biased results in terms of what types of users are most likely to respond. But upon weighing the advantages and disadvantages of combining the surveys, it was felt to be better to have only one in the field. This did result in considerable extra work for the consulting team, but we think this collaborative approach has enhanced the overall value of the products.

With regard to the final primary valuation survey, to be conducted in 2003, we want to omit the majority of the management questions thereby shortening the instrument and increasing the response rate. The response rate for the pilot could be considered a lower bound for the final version.

These questions were designed in close consultation with the site managers. The starting point was a draft version of the survey questions mangers were to have asked. The research team worked with managers to redevelop questions to fit into the context and flow of the primary valuation pilot. The process resulted in a fairly streamlined, if very lengthy, survey instrument.

Pilot survey

The pilot survey was implemented during 2002. One thousand surveys were prepared with 500 surveys sent out at Killarney and Spanish River each. Not all the surveys printed were distributed in the field and the balance of the surveys were used as follow- up surveys. Overall a response rate of about 75% was obtained. The goals of the pilot was to test implementation, the survey instrument itself, to provide a first approximation of resource use values, and to gather participation data for developing a sampling plan for the final valuation survey in 2003. In all respects the pilot was successful.

The successes of the pilot, in terms of response rates and procedures, as well as the problems have been recorded and analyzed for developing the final survey implementation procedures. The most important problem to address is consistency among the trained staff that has first contact with the survey participants. A lack of consistency can contribute to non-response rates that are difficult to analyze, as well as statistically biased valuation and demographic data. One way that will be addressed in 2003 is by using staff that are trained specifically for this task, instead of individuals who are attempting to complete their regular work responsibilities as well as the added burden of the survey. This will be especially important, as the final survey will be at least 4 times larger than the pilot.

In order to address the staffing issue, MNR is making preparations to give us additional budget to handle the survey work in the Kawartha Highlands and to provide more supervision and implementation at Killarney and Spanish River. Spanish River staff are also looking at obtaining additional student assistance. For Kawartha Highlands we intend on hiring a student directly to work on user counting and survey distribution from May-October 2003. This individual will be supervised and assisted by the consultant team.

Signature site user numbers

Valid user numbers are an essential component in determining overall use values. The process of process of collecting use values was carried over both the second and third year of the project.

Determining levels of use at the various signature sites was a significant challenge and the methods to determine use varied from site to site and from user group to user group. The easiest site to determine levels of use for various groups is Killarney Provincial Park where Park statistics provide an excellent base of information. However, even Killarney’s data is limited to the Park and does not include important OLL expansion areas along the Coast and there are some anomalies in the day-user information. As well, determining the populations of some user groups is easier than others. For example, in the St. Raphael Signature Site every remote tourism outfitter except for one has provided fishing, hunting and canoeing data for all their outposts and lodges in and adjacent to the Signature Site. In this respect, the user information for St. Raphael is actually quite precise. User group information for the eight signature sites (not including the Great Lakes Heritage Coast) was determined through the following methods:

• Park Statistics;
• Field Records by MNR staff;
• Field Records of Access Point Managers (lodges);
• Interviews with Lodge and Outpost Owners and Managers;
• Interviews with Outfitters;
• Interviews with OMNR staff;
• Creel Surveys;
• Previous studies and counts;
• Hunting Tag Return Surveys; and,
• Best estimates based on experience in the area and standard occupancies and seasons.

Most of the data provided to the consultants is public information; however there are some minor concerns around publishing the individual use levels associated with some of the lodge and outpost owners. With respect to this issue the name of the lodge/outpost is not given in the final in order to alleviate outfitters around any particular data confidentiality concerns.

The intention of this project is to obtain the best possible use information for the final valuation estimates and a number of the signature sites are only starting or are in the middle of planning. Throughout Year 3 of the project it is important that as new or better data (e.g. revised creel surveys) arises, it be incorporated into this project. Therefore, this report will be an “in progress” report over the next year.

Component #6: Case studies

In Year 2 of the study, case studies on Killarney and Spanish River Valley were carried out. In Year 3 a case study on the Kawartha Highlands was carried out. These case studies described the signature site, identified its major recreational activities, profiled their expenditure patterns, interviewed key local business people and stakeholders and assessed the overall economic impact of the activities associated with the signature site.

Killarney Provincial Park Signature Site

Killarney Provincial Park was established in 1964 to protect a significant portion of the La Cloche Mountains and to provide wilderness recreation opportunities. Killarney is considered the smallest and most accessible wilderness park in Ontario owing to its proximity to Southern Ontario. Killarney Provincial Park is located five hours driving time from Toronto and two hours driving time from Sudbury.

Through Ontario’s Living Legacy (“OLL”) several different land areas adjacent to the Park have been designated for protection. Along with the existing park at 48,500 hectares, two park additions of 1,900 hectares, two new park areas of 28,366 hectares, two forest reserves of 2,837 hectares and three enhanced management areas of 60,064 hectares have been designated. These are depicted below.

The Killarney Provincial Park Signature Site is located at the west end of Highway 637, approximately 60 kilometres west of Highway 69 in the northeast corner of Georgian Bay. Killarney Provincial Park is relatively isolated and primarily associated with only one community, Killarney, which lies in the Township of Rutherford and George Island. The nearest regional centre is Sudbury, which is approximately 1.5 hours drive to the northeast. Killarney Provincial Park is also associated with a few resource tourism lodges located outside the northern perimeter of the park near Willisville. This area will become increasingly important as a result of the new OLL additions in this area.

The Killarney Signature Site was selected as a case study because as an established operating park for over 30 years, there is a wealth of information, data and experience associated with this site. As well, the community of Killarney has changed significantly in its socio-economic dependency since the establishment of the original park and the building of the Highway 637 in the 1960s. Finally, many of the OLL additions and the community of Killarney are situated along the Georgian Bay Coast and therefore form an integral part of the Province’s Great Lakes Heritage Coast planning initiative.

Outlined below is a summary of the provincial economic impact of backcountry canoeing, frontcountry camping and backpacking at Killarney.

As stated in the table, it was estimated that the total expenditures from all three activities are $3.8 million associated with their trips to Killarney. The expenditure pattern results in total gross sales of $9.3 million and value added (or income) output of $4.2 million and person years of employment.

The total economic impact of these activities underestimates the contribution of the Park in at least a few ways. First, day-use activities are not currently included in the assessment and are discussed in somewhat more detail in the next section. Second, some Park related activities such as the Junior Ranger Camp and the research projects on acidification are not included. Third and most importantly is our contention that the day-users are often staying in the local accommodations and spending large sums of money for inn related activities. Many of these guests are coming to the community of Killarney primarily to visit the Park and the Coast although their actual visit may only be for limited day-use activities.

Having undertaken this case study research a number of observations and suggestions are made with respect to the relationship between the park and the community, the continuing economic development of Killarney and its dependency on the Park and OLL landbase and the lessons that can learned in Killarney for other communities situated near protected areas and particular along the Great Lakes Heritage Coast.

The economy of Killarney has shifted over the two centuries from fur trading to logging and commercial fishing, to mining and finally to tourism. In many respect, Killarney has been a microcosm of Canadian economic development as described by Harold Innis’s staples economy. The staples economy theory postulated that the economy became captured by a “staples trap” and with a “truncated industrial structure”. The corollary of the stapes trap was that future of hinterland economies was decided in powerful foreign metropoles. All the major resource-based industries that have occurred at Killarney – fur, fish, timber, mineral extraction have been largely driven by external national and international business decisions along with government decisions made in the provincial centres (e.g. Highway 637, park and OLL additions).

Interestingly, the type and scale of tourism development in Killarney has somewhat bucked this trend. The small-scale and low-investment nature of tourism investments in Killarney has meant that the residents of Killarney control the majority of the local industry. Some of these residents were not from the founding families but there has been a strong commitment from many of them to maintain local control. Unlike other resource industries where commodity prices are determined in international markets and the local producers must be therefore “price-takers”, the relative uniqueness of the Killarney tourism experience and products allows the producers (business owners) to identify the price. Whether or not future business owners and investors in Killarney businesses are long-time residents or not of the community in Killarney may not be as important as a long-term future commitment to improving the livelihood and viability of the community.

Outlined in the case study are a varied of suggestions intended to increase the flow of economic and social benefits to the community. These include:

• Marketing Killarney as a Major Eco-Adventure Travel Node in Eastern Canada;
• Need to Promote Better Communication and Understanding of Park, Community and OLL; and,
• Creating Economic Opportunities within the Community.

It is recommended that interested readers go directly to the case studies to learn more about these suggestions.

Spanish River Valley Signature Site

The Spanish River Valley Signature Site (SRVSS) is a 98,634-hectare area that comprises two Provincial Parks and three Enhanced Management Areas. The Spanish River Valley Signature Site is located almost exclusively in the District of Sudbury, approximately 80 kilometers (straight-line) northwest of Sudbury. The Site currently caters to a mixed tourism market that includes white-water canoeists, high quality lodge- based fishing and opportunities for a wilderness experience is an accessible yet relatively remote setting.

The area around the Spanish River Valley is largely uninhabited with no organized municipalities in the vicinity of the signature site. The townsite of Biscotasing, once a thriving community due to the transcontinental rail line passing through the territory, is today primarily a hamlet and not an incorporated municipality. Sudbury is the major community associated with the Spanish River Valley Signature Site.

Outlined below are the major findings from the case study.

• The two main census subdivisions adjacent to or encompassing the SRVSS (the Regional Municipality of Sudbury and Sudbury Unorganized North Territory) have two very distinct economies.
• The Regional Municipality of Sudbury has a stable population, a diverse economy and socio-economic indicators that are in-line with provincial averages.
• In contrast, the rural economy of the Sudbury Unorganized North Territory has higher levels of unemployment and dependence upon government transfer payments and declining population.
• Land use planning decisions for the SRVSS have the potential to more significantly impact the communities in Sudbury Unorganized North Territory as they are substantially more reliant upon the forestry and tourism related industries.
• The two dominant recreational uses on the Spanish River are canoeing and fishing. Recreational fishing use on Lake Biscotasi is high with an estimated 3,200 anglers and 18,080 angling days in 2002. In contrast, canoeing use is estimated at 1,625 paddlers and 8,076 canoeing days in 2002.
• The average expenditures of canoeists were $42 per person per day in 2002 and of which slightly less than half is spent within a 1-hour drive of the SRVSS. At 8,076 canoeing days, canoeists’ total expenditures in 2002 were $343,000.
• Anglers’ average expenditures were $106 per person per day of which almost 60% is spent within a 1-hour drive of the SRVSS. At an estimated 18,080 angling days in 2002, this represents a total expenditure of almost $1.9 million.
• With the multiplier effect, canoeist expenditures are estimated to generate direct and indirect impacts of $867,000 in Gross Sales, $226,000 in Wages & Salaries and almost 7 person years of employment.
• In contrast, angler expenditures are estimated to generate direct and indirect impacts of $4.9 million in Gross Sales, $1.3 million in Wages & Salaries and 48 Person Years of employment.
• Efforts were made to estimate both demand-side (recreational user) and supply- side (business) expenditure data associated with these two user groups. Supply- side data was sourced through interviews with most of the major lodges and outfitters servicing the Site. Demand-side data was derived from user-surveys that were distributed in the summer of 2002 to both canoeists and anglers. Interestingly, the total estimated expenditures of both the demand and supply side approaches in this study were surprisingly similar. While both the supply and demand side expenditures are only estimates, the fact that they are similar gives us some degree of confidence that we have a workable picture of the scale of expenditures associated with canoeing and angling use within the Site.

It is recommended that interested readers go directly to the case studies to learn more about these suggestions.

Kawartha Highlands Signature Site case study

The Kawartha Highlands was already a major natural recreational playground for tens of thousands of individuals prior to the area be designated a provincial park. The designation of the area as a provincial park confirms that the area will continue to play that role. Results from the 2003 visitor survey indicated that the one-way travel distance to the KHSS for respondents was approximately 186km (based on 571 observations). The KHSS lies just over a two-hour drive from most parts of the Greater Toronto Area and the resource base will continue to feel the pressure of the fastest growing region in Ontario together with an increasingly limited supply of semi-wilderness opportunities within reasonable proximity of Southern Ontario.

The user statistics generated through this project indicate that by far the greatest economic benefits and likewise the greatest pressure on the resource will come from cottagers. The estimated number of cottager days (defined as those in or adjacent to the site – slightly over 500) is approximately 183,000 user days or ten times the canoer user day number of approximately 18,000. In turn the next largest user groups are hunters and fishermen at approximately 3,000 and 2,500. The local communities have already become “cottager economies”. As investment continues in these properties this will only continue. The populations of the local communities have already adapted their skills to serving a tourist market and can build on this capacity to further increase the benefits as more economic opportunities are presented.

The existing economic impact of these recreational activities is significant. Based on survey results and using the Ministry’s Socio-Economic Impact model we have projected the following economic impacts.

Cottagers spent an estimated $7.5 million in 2003 resulting in direct, indirect and induced value added impact of $7,372,214, 117 person years of employment and approximately $4 million in wages and salaries. Canoers spent an estimated $1.18 million in 2003 resulting in $1.1 in value added, $2.8 million in total gross sales and 18.5 person years of employment. Anglers spend $0.23 million resulting in $0.23 in value added, $0.6 million in total gross sales and 4.5 person years of employment. Hunters spend $0.17 million resulting in $0.17 million in value added, $0.41 million in total gross sales and 3.3 person years of employment. The initial expenditure of other activities was $0.05 million, resulting in $0.05 value added, 0.8 person years of employment and gross sales of $0.13.

As described throughout the case study, the number of canoers in the Kawartha Highlands already rivals similar densities in established wilderness and natural environment parks such as Algonquin and Killarney. At the same time results from the visitor survey (reported in the survey results report) indicate that there is an extremely high tolerance for encountering other users within the signature site. Clearly, visitors to the Kawartha Highlands are expecting a high-density of use. While many canoe purists may not see this congestion as an ideal wilderness environment, it does demonstrate that the Kawartha Highlands provides enough of a wilderness experience to meet their needs.

In this respect Ontario Parks and MNR may want to plan and manage the Kawartha Highlands with different objectives than how parks such as Algonquin, Quetico, Killarney or other wilderness parks have been planned. The Kawartha Highlands could be planned to meet the increasing numbers of Southern Ontario residents who may be seeking a more modest wilderness experience – fewer portages, reserved campsites, shorter paddles, smaller lakes. Ontario is rapidly becoming a more urban and mutli- ethnic population with less connection to the landbase. Many new, urbanized and older Canadians lack the experience and physical skills to undertake ardous wilderness trips, but may be inclined to wanting a quasi-wilderness experience more fitting with their skills. At the same time, this population is likely to require more rental, guiding and/or purchase other local goods and services – creating more economic opportunities for local businesses.

In our interviews with local business people, officials and members of the Kawartha Highlands Stakeholder Committee it became clear that most individuals were concerned with “not killing the goose that laid the golden egg”. The establishment of the Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park provides a legal, planning and management opportunity to create objectives and strategies that could lead to enhancing the positive economic and social benefits of the area while ensuring the protection of the resource.

The data collected through the 2003 survey in the Kawartha Highlands provides the best social and economic data source available to any park planning team at the outset of a new park planning process in Ontario. This represents a unique opportunity to create a management plan for a protected area that reflects the aspirations of the local populations and the increasing public demands the Kawartha Highlands will face in the coming decades.

Component #7: Recreational survey methodology and results report

This report describes the development, implementation and analysis of a Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Method Survey (DCCVM) designed to determine the net economic benefits of outdoor recreation in select Ontario Signature Sites. The empirical analysis proceeded in three steps. First, the parameters of the survey are established. Second, the context specific questions and versions of the survey are developed. Third, the survey instrument is pre-tested and implemented.

Survey design

Definition of the good

The non-market “good” valued in this study is one day of outdoor recreation in one of the following three Signature Sites: Killarney Park, Spanish River Valley and the Kawartha Highlands. Since economic theory does not offer guidelines on either the form of the utility function or the measures of the outdoor recreation experience that is important to visitors, this survey collects other user data to check economic theory and lend credibility to the estimates obtained. The survey also included questions to estimate a random utility model and zonal travel cost model.

Survey population

The study was limited to non-winter outdoor recreationists including hikers, hunters, front country campers, cottagers, day users, canoeists, sea kayakers, fishermen, lodge guests and other visitors to the select Signature Sites. One challenge problem with this broad approach is that recreation trips of different duration may offer the user a different quality of wilderness experience and may be reflected in the respondent’s willingness to pay (WTP) function. Therefore, to compare WTP values for recreation trips of different types and lengths, the marginal value (or per day value) for each type of trip was estimated.

The study was conducted during May 17^th, 2003 through October 13, 2003. This time period corresponds with the Signature Sites peak visitation period. In the case of Killarney Park, these are also the only months in which interior access points are open and staffed.

Sampling frame

A list of the target population from which the sample is drawn is called the “sampling frame”. The sample frame was defined by the number of days during the survey period between the May 24^th weekend and October 13, 2003. The sample frame were days during the survey period during which persons were available to deliver surveys.

The sampling rate for each park was based on visitor statistics compiled from the previous two years of the Study, including the 2002 Pilot Survey. Given that this was the first attempt at formally collecting visitor information for all user groups in some of these Sites, a census approach was taken and all visitors were sampled. All cottagers, land use permit (LUP) holders, and hunt camps whose property or activity whose activity was defined as being within or adjacent to the Signature Site boundary were surveyed via a direct mail survey instead of at access points. This was done to minimize survey sampling redundancy and ensure complete coverage of these user groups.

From May through October of 2003, trained staff handed out the survey to approximately 3,000 visitors taking to the Kawartha Highlands, Spanish River and Killarney Park Signature Sites. Visitors received the survey at Site access or departure points. The sample was stratified by Site to identify any systematic differences of visitors in these categories.

The sampling plan was based on a 70 percent response rate and a 5 percent level of statistical error. Sampling size calculations were determined by sampling for proportions of population necessary for expressing results with a 5% level of statistical error. On October 13, 2003 (Thanksgiving Day), the field sampling period ended because the summer/fall visitor season ended. In the case of Killarney Park, it would have been impossible to continue to administer the survey, since entry stations were no longer staffed. Direct mail surveys to cottagers, LUP holders and hunt camps was done during the fall and early winter.

Survey format

Due to the large survey population, survey length and complexity and limited human and financial resources, the survey used a mail-back format. As much as possible, this survey mirrored Dillman’s (1978, 1994) mail-out survey design and implementation recommendations. The respondents also had the option of completing the survey on-line (through a designated website) instead of completing the paper version and returning it by mail to the University of Guelph. The advantage of this combined approach was that data input costs were reduced, respondent convenience was increased and the time lag between survey delivery and completed survey input was minimized. This was critical, since the non-market survey approach used required that WTP values in the survey had to be reviewed and updated for each successive mailout of surveys. This was necessary to ensure the bid values specified in the survey reflected the range of WTP values of the respondents. To facilitate this requirement, ongoing data entry of the return mail surveys during the survey timeframe was done by staff at the University of Guelph - thus, permitting statistical analysis of the growing database at any time.

The survey instrument

Survey question purpose and design

The survey question order and design paralleled the recommendations of Dillman (1978) and U.S. Department of the Interior (1993). The Spanish River, Kawartha Highlands and Killarney surveys consisted of 42 identical questions from which 384 variables were obtained. The questionnaire was designed to enable analysis by travel cost, contingent valuation and random utility models. Most importantly, the survey was also designed to facilitate the benefits transfer framework. In total six different surveys were implemented two for each of the sites because of the nature of the willingness to pay questions. All six of the surveys appear in Appendix A. The various questions and their purposes are described below.

The questions Q-1 to Q-4 pertained to the activities, purpose accommodation and group size and age. Given that this single survey instrument was used to capture all user groups and that visitors may perform multiple activities on a given trip (i.e. hike and fish as part of a canoe trip), Q-1 tried to identify into which user group the respondent identified with most closely for the particular trip on which they received the survey. This question is key for parsing the Site users by activity and allowing comparisons between and across user groups and Sites.

Question 2 identified whether the visit to the Signature Site was the primary purpose of the trip. This is important, since only for trips for which the Site was the primary destination could trip expenditures be completely attributed to the visit. For multi-purpose trips, only a proportion of the expenditures could be attributed to the Site visit. Questions 8 to 10 helped determine this proportion.

Question 3 determined the type and location of the visitor accommodation. It also indicated whether respondents could identify the boundaries of the Signature Site. If most respondents were unsure of whether they were staying in a given Signature Site, responses to the questionnaire would be dubious.

Question 4 simultaneously examined group size and the age of persons within the group. It is a useful question to examine demographic trends within user groups and across Sites.

Questions 5 to 7 are useful for determining distance and time factors for incorporation into a zonal travel cost model. The time variable is used to assign a 'cost' to the effort and time required to get to and from the Site.

As mentioned previously, Q-8 to Q-10 helped determine whether the respondent’s trip to the Site was part of a multi-purpose or single destination trip. Only in the latter case, could all stated trip expenditures (Q-12) be assigned to the Site visit. These series of questions teased out how much time was spent on Site versus travelling, and what proportion of expenditures could be assigned to the Site visit.

Questions 11 and 12 elicited the personal and group trip costs necessary for travel cost model and economic impact analysis. The trip expenses were broken down by category to help respondents recall their costs. They were also further broken down to identify what amount of which expenditures were done locally. This information is useful for determining the local impact of Site users to surrounding communities. It may also facilitate tailoring local tourism products and services more closely to revealed visitor expenditure patterns. The trip expense amounts could either be expressed in either American or Canadian dollars. In both manual and website-based data entry, the trip cost totals were checked for calculation errors.

After a brief definition of “crowding”, question Q-13 asked the respondents to identify how important crowding was to them at specific locations while planning this trip. This question approximated visitors expectations for crowding at potential points of their trip within the Site.

Questions Q-14 to Q-21 elicited both a qualitative and quantitative estimate of the extent to which respondents felt crowded during various parts of their trip. In combination with Q-23 to Q-27, these questions can form the basis for a random utility model for congestion (see Boxall, Rollins and Englin, 2002) that values the changes in congestion experienced during different segments of an outdoor recreation trip.

The questions Q-23 to Q-27 were structured in a Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation Method (DCCVM) format to elicit maximum willingness to pay values for overall trip costs and crowding issues. The payment vehicle for these questions was trip expenses. Since these are the actual methods of payment for a recreation trip in a Signature Site, the problem of payment vehicle was minimized.

The design of Q-23 to Q-27 implies a “with or without the Site” situation. Thus, respondents were being asked: “If this were the price, would you have still visited this Signature Site for an identical trip as the one for which you received this survey?” The objective of these questions was to determine the surplus value of their recreation experience in a particular Signature Site. Respondents were not given an opportunity to change the number of trips they would make to the Site, only to use or not use the Site at the higher specified trip cost.

From an economic theory perspective, the welfare measure being estimated from the willingness to pay questions Q-23 to Q-27 is the compensating variation (CV). It is defined as the amount of money that, when taken away from an individual after an economic change, leaves the person as well off as before (Just, Heuth and Schmitz, 1982). Since these are “current condition” questions, the survey respondents may assume that their property rights lie in the initial state of the 2003 conditions and costs (Mitchell and Carson, 1989; Lyke, 1993). Thus, the CV values derived from this study represent a measure of the “net benefits” received by individuals from various recreation user groups at a specified Signature Site.

Before asking the DCCVM questions, the respondent was reminded that the results would only be used to estimate the value society places on outdoor recreation, not to recommend changing fees. They were also asked to provide realistic answers that reflected their present income and priorities. The purpose of these reminders was to encourage credible answers and avoid strategic bias.

After asking each DCCVM question, the respondents reasoning for their answer to each valuation question was determined. This further questioning helps increases the confidence in the hypothetical responses and understand what the underlying motivation for a given response.

Question 23 was used a “double-bounded” approach to calculate the average value of a given recreational activity in a stated Signature Site by estimating the maximum WTP for an identical, but with an increase in costs. The double-bounded approach was used to reduce the standard error of the estimated willingness to pay (WTP) estimates.

Solitude, in a wilderness recreation context, can be described as freedom from encounters with other parties. It is one of the most important attributes of outdoor recreation (Lucas, 1964; Stankey, 1971; Lime, 1972; Fisher and Krutilla (1972); Cicchetti and Smith, 1973; Bourque, 1988). The results of Stankey, (1972) and Cicchetti and Smith, (1973, 1976) suggest that intrusions upon solitude, adversely affected the satisfaction and WTP for wilderness experiences. Since solitude is an important attribute of the types of outdoor recreation identified by this study, more precision in predicting and managing for crowding is desirable. For example, knowledge of the marginal costs of crowding at various parts of a recreation trip could allow managers to more efficiently determine and allocate visitor quotas within Signature Sites. Considering these findings, the questions Q-24 to Q-27 investigated the respondents’ maximum WTP for a qualitative increase or decrease in the level of crowding experienced at different locations of their recreation trip. Such reasoning suggests a hypothesis that encounters are an effective measure of the reduction in solitude associated with increased use of the Signature Site. Accordingly, it was further hypothesized that encounters will affect an individual’s WTP for their trip. The locations specified in Q-24 to Q-27 correspond to those specified in Q-13 and Q-17 to Q-21. Thus, these survey questions would allow testing of the hypothesis that group size, the number of groups encountered and the location of their meeting are important determinants of WTP.

The surveys for each Signature Site were divided equally into two versions to investigate how the expressed WTP values for Q-24 to Q-27 would be affected by a qualitative change in the level of crowding. In the “half” version, participants were asked to respond to Q-24 to Q-27 if they were to encounter “half as many groups” on an identical trip.

This version corresponded to an increase in the quality of the recreation trip because the level of solitude was assumed to increase if the number of encounters with other groups was halved. The “twice” version, asked respondents to answer Q-24 to Q-27 if they were to encounter “twice as many groups” on an identical trip in the Site. This version implied a decrease in the quality of the recreation trip because the level of solitude was assumed to decrease as encounters with other groups increased. These surveys are hereafter called the “twice” and “half” versions respectively.

It should be noted that encounters with other Site visitors might reflect more than disruptions of solitude. The visitor may find certain other conditions, such as litter on portage trails or at campsites, ATV trails, sounds of aircraft and trains, etc. reduce the feeling of solitude. This study does not examine the influence of these variables on respondents WTP values.

Question 28 reminds respondents that their expressed additional WTP in Q-24 to Q-27 would reduce their expenditures for private and other goods. Question 29 asked the respondents to reflect on the categories of items listed in Q-28 that the respondents said they would spend less on. It then asked if the respondents would change their answers to Q-24 to Q-27. Thus, this question tried to make sure that the respondent understood and accepted their WTP estimates in spite of alternative expenditure possibilities.

The purpose of Q-30 was to determine the key attributes, which motivated the respondent to visit the Site for this trip. These attributes were also essential for the development of the benefits transfer equations.

Question 31 was used to elicit substitute activities and locations for this trip. Since Ontario Parks is managed as a park system, it is useful to know where visitors will likely go as capacity constraints or specific land use management policies are achieved. This question also explores the potential of crown land as a substitute for designated parks and protected areas.

Question 32 uses the same criteria as Q-30 to determine the key attributes of the best alternative location for this trip. This question is important to identify congruence among primary and alternative site attributes to facilitate the use of the benefits transfer framework. It may be that the best alternative location may offer a different recreational experience and hence be valuing a different economic good. For example, instead of substituting one whitewater river for another, a flatwater canoe trip in the Temagami area might be stated as the best alternative canoe destination to a whitewater trip on the Spanish River.

Question 33 looks at how disturbed the respondent was with a variety of human use impacts that could be perceived observed during their Site visit. The list of impacts was drawn up specifically for these Signature Sites and previously tested in the 2002 Pilot Survey. The responses to this question may be used by Site managers to better target resources and management plans to improve the quality of visitor experience. While not explored in this survey analysis, the response to these questions may help explain stated WTP values.

Question 34 and Q-35 quantified the previous trip experiences of the respondent both in the Signature Site for which they received the survey and across the other Signature Sites and substitute locations in the past three years. This information provides Site managers with a starting point for estimating the recent trend in overall usage by user type and by location. This data is also useful for further data analysis using an economic random utility model.

It is commonly accepted that an outdoor recreation experience may provide both physical and psychological health benefits to visitors. If that is the case, these benefits may indirectly reduce costs elsewhere in the health care system. As starting point to explore this potential, the extent to which a variety of these health benefits were achieved by the respondent was quantified in Q-36.

Questions Q-36 to Q-41 elicited demographic details including age, education, household size income and currency of income. This information is useful for comparing how user groups differ among each other and with the general Ontario population for these characteristics. Also, this data can be used to develop “bid equations” that examine how WTP is affected by the social and economic characteristics of the survey respondents. This study does not present the results of this form of empirical inquiry.

Finally, Q-42 invited respondents to make additional comments on the blank page provided at the end of each survey. These comments are especially useful to identify visitor concerns and observations that may have been missed or not sufficiently expanded upon by the survey instrument. This is a reasonable possibility, given the diversity of user groups and landscapes.

Selection of offer amounts for the dichotomous-choice contingent valuation (dccvm) questions

The set of offer amounts used in the dichotomous-choice and referendum questions were initially based on the median of the 2002 Pilot Survey results and a review of similar non-market studies for hunters. The offer amounts were selected so there would be roughly an equal split of respondents voting yes and no over the full range of the bids. Depending on the user group, these bid amount values were updated up to 3 times over the June to October survey period, based on the previous responses to these questions. This ensured that a representative distribution of participants’ willingness to pay values was obtained. All dollar values are expressed here in Canadian funds. The offer amounts are presented in the full Report.

In summary, each Signature Site received two versions of the survey, one half were the “twice” version, the other half were the “half” version. The offer amounts were entered randomly into the surveys and periodically updated according to median estimates obtained from cumulative results from returned surveys. This was done to ensure that a representative distribution of participants’ willingness to pay values was obtained thereby improving the statistical efficiency of the WTP estimates.

Survey delivery

Survey pretesting

A “pretest” or “pilot” survey was developed and implemented in the Spanish River and Killarney Signature Sites during the summer of 2002. The main purpose of the pilot survey was to pretest the questionnaire design, survey implementation and sampling strategy in preparation for a broader application and more extensive survey period in 2003. This has been shown to be the single most effective way to explore the survey instrument’s weaknesses before taking it into the field and thereby enhances a study’s reliability (Mitchell and Carson, 1989). A pilot survey was not developed for the Kawartha Highlands, primarily because of ongoing political and planning issues. The pilot survey was also designed to collect specific field level information to facilitate management plans in both the Spanish River and Killarney Signature Sites. Additional input was solicited from Signature Site managers and experienced practitioners in survey methods from the Ontario Parks, University of Nevada-Reno and the University of Guelph. The design of the pretest survey and plans for its administration were significantly altered due to the constructive criticism of all those involved in appraising the study.11Through this iterative process, the survey instrument was revised and improved until we were confident it met the desired research objectives.

Survey implementation

Survey package and delivery

Either trained park or hired staff handed out the surveys at Site access points or, in the case of Killarney Park, at the visitor center where recreationists could purchase the required camping or parking permits. Over the course of the season, surveys were delivered to each Signature Site in 2-3 staggered delivery “waves” to allow WTP value updates and other changes. Also included were Visitor Record sheets to keep track of both surveyed and non-surveyed visitor populations, vehicle numbers and other activities at each access point. The Visitor Records provided a more complete picture to estimate visitor numbers by access point.

Follow-up phone calls were made bi-monthly to the Sites to insure proper survey delivery and implementation. During the study period, all parks were visited between 1 to 5 times to encourage and assist staff to administer the survey correctly and to ascertain the adequacy of the survey design. All unused surveys were returned to the University of Guelph from the Signature Sites and reprocessed for use in follow-up mailings.

The survey was handed out in a regular business-sized envelope with a waiver form stapled to it. Only individuals who had completed the waiver form were given a survey. The completed waiver forms were retained by Site survey technician or park entry stations and collected and mailed to us weekly. The waiver form had a threefold purpose. First, it was required by the parks to meet their obligation to Ontario’s Freedom of Information Act. Second, it allowed identification of the mailing and email addresses of non-respondents for follow-up reminder notifications. Third, the completed waiver form numbers were used as ticket proxies for a prize-winning lottery for the survey participants. The lottery was created to provide an incentive for respondents to complete and return the survey and to extend our appreciation of their efforts.

Inside the survey envelope was a double-hand signed letter explaining the purpose and importance of the questionnaire, a stamped return envelope and one of the various versions of the survey. For the direct mail-outs to cottagers, LUP holders and hunters the cover letter was tailored to address their unique concerns and thereby encourage a higher response rate.

To improve response rates, up to 4 reminder cards and 4 reminder emails were sent to each non-respondent. If the subject still did not return their survey, they were issued another survey with a cover letter explaining the importance of their participation in this survey. A maximum of 3 follow-up mail contacts were issued to non-respondents. The pattern of contacts was a further extension of the Total Design Method suggested by Dillman (1978) and is intended to increase response rates.

The respondent had the option of completing the survey on-line or completing the paper version and returning it in the stamped returned envelope. The returned surveys were entered into a database using personal computers. All statistical analysis was done at the University of Nevada-Reno using Stata® and Microsoft Access® computer programs.

Survey implementation timeline

Below is a brief summary of the 2003 survey implementation activities. Survey WTP values were examined and adjusted for each survey delivery.

• April, 2003 - survey revisions
• May, 2003 - site visits, sampling strategy, survey delivery (276 Killarney, 288 Spanish), staff training, and visitor counting (Kawartha Highlands)
• June, 2003 - survey delivery (250 Kawartha Highlands), Kawartha access point trips (2)
• July, 2003 - Kawartha Highland canoe trips (2), survey delivery (Killarney, 735), Spanish concerns, non-respondent email
• August, 2003 - survey delivery (309 Kawartha Highlands, staff training (Bancroft), Kawartha canoe trip, non-respondent email and reminder card, Killarney canoe and hiking trips.
• September, 2003 - survey delivery (1,026 Killarney, 296 Spanish (includes 90 cottagers), 169 Kawartha cottagers), non-respondent email and reminder card.
• October, 2003 - non-respondent email and reminder card, non-respondent follow-up survey (123 Kawartha cottager surveys), Killarney canoe trip,
• November / December, 2003 - reprocessing of returned surveys, non-respondent follow- up survey (1,300 surveys), survey delivery (327 ^{footnote *[*]}
• Kawartha cottagers)
• January, 2004 - survey delivery (174 ^{footnote *[*]}
• Kawartha hunters), reminder card, follow-up email.

Survey implementation timeline description

The initial round of surveys was delivered to the Spanish River Valley and Killarney Signature Sites in mid-May. Enough surveys were sent to both sites to cover them until early in July (in the case of the Spanish, it was enough until late August).

Also in May, Will Wistowsky visited both Killarney and the Spanish (including spending several days with the summer student) to deliver surveys and to provide training on survey implementation. In April and May, Phil Shantz and Will Wistowsky also refined the visitor count methodology and access points for the Kawartha Highlands in co- operation with MNR staff and observations from outfitters and marina operators.

In May, a student was hired by Ontario Parks for the Kawartha Highlands work and directed by both Dan Mulrooney and the consultants. The student had two primary responsibilities, collect visitor use information and distribute the surveys. In May and in June both Phil Shantz and Will Wistowsky spent a combined total of approximately 5 days with the student to make her familiar with the visitor counting methodology, access points to the signature site and implementation of the survey. Over the course of the summer both Phil and Will maintained weekly contact with the student by phone, e-mail and in person. An additional benefit is that the student has provided field level observation on recreational use that has been useful for the Kawartha Highlands Project Office.

As previously discussed, surveys were sent out in periodic batches to the signature sites. This was done in order to update and refine the values that are within each survey. The more options to refine the values in the survey the more valid the ultimate results are.

Killarney Provincial Park Signature Site

Killarney received a second batch of surveys at the end of July and a third and final batch of surveys towards the end of August. In total approximately 2,037 surveys were sent to Killarney. Will Wistowsky made several trips and regular phone and e-mail contact with Killarney in order to ensure proper implementation of the survey. Even with continual monitoring, the survey was not passed out as quickly as planned. Continual on Site monitoring may have ensured that a larger volume of surveys was handed out.

Kawartha Highlands

The first round of surveying in the Kawartha Highlands was initiated in early June (but the student had been counting visitors since the May long weekend). The student targeted canoers and fishermen as cottagers were being directly mailed. In June, the total number of surveys distributed was lower than expectations. May and June were particularly poor weather months, but the numbers were still lower than expectations.

The total number of users surveyed in July and August increased significantly from May and June. While weather most likely played some role, qualitative evidence suggested that use in the Kawartha Highlands is concentrated in the summer months. The student was surveying approximately 4 days per week and almost exclusively on weekends in order to capture high visitation. On a busy weekend, the student was able to distribute up to 50 surveys and 25-30 per day. The student was kept on until Thanksgiving (working weekends only in the fall) in order to capture fall use.

Junior Rangers who were doing campsite and portage work in July and August also distributed the surveys. Two of the consultants on the project (Shantz and Wistowsky) also made trips over the course of the summer into the Kawartha Highlands to distribute surveys, make anecdotal observations and check assumptions and hypotheses (these trips were done gratis for MNR).

Cottagers located within and adjacent to the site were being mailed surveys in the fall and winter. Hunters (specifically hunt camps) also received mail surveys in the winter following the deer and moose season.

Based on interviews with Kawartha Highlands staff, local business owners and hunters, it was identified that the majority of hunting pressure (estimated at over 95%) is from the approximately 59 hunt camps located in the signature site (day hunting is considered to be a limited activity in the site because the hunt camps socially discourage other users). As such, the consultant team obtained the mail and phone numbers of each hunt camp and proceeded to call them individually and ask them how many surveys they would be willing to fill out. To improve response rates from this group, enough surveys were sent to each camp to cover half of their membership. This amounted to a total of 174 hunter surveys. Given that we were unable to contact and deliver a survey to each hunter, this responsibility was delegated to a volunteer contact person within each hunt camp. The survey packages were sent to the designated hunt camps in early January.

Spanish River Valley Signature Site

A summer student was hired in the Spanish River Valley Signature Site to work part-time in user counting and survey of visitors. Unfortunately, the total number of surveys distributed in the field fell short of our expectations by a significant degree. It should be noted that the sheer size of the Spanish River Valley Signature Site and somewhat remote nature makes it difficult to distribute large numbers of surveys; furthermore both park staff and outfitters acknowledged that 2003 was a poor tourist season. These problems were compounded with the lack of supervision for the field student as two of SRV project staff were not on contract during the summer and operational issues in the Ontario Parks Region created problems for the balance of the SRV staff. Furthermore, we understand that surveys were distributed to outfitters later than what we had designed and some of the outfitters were new to their business in 2003.

SRV staff that returned in the late summer and early fall were able to improve the survey distribution, but total returns were lower than desired. As many surveys as possible were made available to SRV staff to increase distribution in any way possible (e.g. LUP mailing lists, outfitters, hunters) but some opportunities were clearly lost in the summer.

Summary

Given the resource constraints, complexity and size and scope of the project, the survey design, pretest, distribution and implementation was carried out as thoroughly and extensively as possible. A pre-tested, unique and user-friendly survey design, numerous email and telephone contacts, electronic and postcard reminders, follow-up and replacement surveys, prizes and the choice of either web-based or hard copy survey response options were used to increase response rates. Short of having consultants or senior field staff from MNR in each of the field locations on a semi-permanent or permanent basis, all reasonable efforts were extended to try and ensure the creation of a major recreational data set that fulfilled the expectations established at the outset of the project in 2001.

Component #8: Economic benefits of protected areas for local communities

During public consultation across Northern Ontario during the Lands for Life process, many Northern Ontario residents and communities expressed concerns about the establishment of more protected areas. A sentiment expressed by many northerners was “if Southerners want protected areas, then they should be willing to pay for them!”. In fact, it is a common perception across much of rural Ontario that provincial parks not only provide little in the way of economic benefits, they actually curtail economic development by limiting growth where the real jobs are – namely logging, mining and hydroelectric development.

This report, entitled “Economic Benefits of Protected Areas for Local Communities” is part of a larger study that has been commissioned to help better understand the magnitude and distribution of the socio-economic benefits of Ontario’s provincial parks with a particular emphasis on the newly established OLL signature sites. To this end, the report contains and presents several distinct subsections each of which shed light on ways in which communities can economically benefit from parks and protected areas. The report is largely qualitative in nature and is intended to complement the more quantitative nature of the broader study.

The report presented and summarizes the following subsections:

• Interviews with lodge, outpost and outfitter owners and managers with extensive experience working in and adjacent to protected areas.
• A review of recommendations from the Lands for Life Roundtables and the Great Lakes Heritage Coast Technical Report.
• Three case studies on communities that are benefiting from protected areas (Ely, Minnesota – Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Area; Gwaii Haanas and Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve; and Tofino, B.C. – Pacific Rim).
• An annotated bibliography on academic and professional articles on economic opportunities, tourism development and protected areas.

This work was done two serve primary uses: It will provide Ontario Parks and the Government with an indication of the extent to which provincial parks currently benefit local businesses and communities; and, It will provide park planners with insight into ways in which parks planning and management can be designed to increase the benefits that flow to local businesses and communities.

The major findings from research are described below.

The beneficial relationship between protected areas and local communities and businesses

Research from the case studies, literature review and interviews within tourism based businesses all confirmed that there are significant socio-economic benefits from protected areas (in similar climates to Ontario) that accrue to local communities and businesses. Within Ontario, a number of communities are already benefiting from parks and protected areas, although there are clearly opportunities to increase this flow of benefits.

Ontario’s system of provincial parks and conservation reserves includes over 600 areas and more than 9.5 million hectares of the province’s most outstanding landscapes and waterways. While not widely known by Ontario residents, this network of protected areas is considered to be globally outstanding. Increasingly, a number of entrepreneurs and a few community leaders in Ontario are recognizing the tourism economic opportunities associated with this resource base. The expansion of the province’s protected area system through OLL has represented an opportunity to capitalize on the outstanding natural heritage of Ontario.

A study entitled, “Ontario Resource-Based Tourism Diversification Opportunities Report” was completed Economic Growth Solutions Inc. in December of 2002 for the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (“MNDM”). The purpose of the study was to identify alternative resource-based tourism product development opportunities beyond the traditional fishing and hunting markets. This study complements the Province’s Ontario Resource-Based Tourism Diversification Program which was announced in October of 2000 and allocated a $6.3 million fund to help resource-based tourism operations that use crown land and resource to grow, diversifying the economy of rural Ontario.

The report authors noted that:

“Fishing and hunting have been highly successful flagship products for Ontario’s resource-based tourism sector. However, there is considerable potential to diversify into non-consumptive resource-based tourism market segments, many of which have higher participation level than fishing and hunting.” (p. xiv)

The study included a survey of tourism operators and noted a significant percentage of operators were very interested in more eco-tourism and adventure travel ^{footnote 12[12]} options including: wildlife/birdwatching/photography; canoe outfitting/kayaking and backpacking/hiking/trekking/walking tours. The study went on to note that:

“Ontario is already nationally and internationally significant in terms of the fishing and hunting product offered by the resource-based tourism operators. It has a relatively low profile, however, on the national and international stage with respect to other outdoor adventure products, nature tourism and eco-tourism – yet the potential is enormous.” (p. 1-5)

While this was an excellent study that should be useful reading for parks managers, outfitters, tourist operators and local economic development officials, it did not identify specific areas of the Province that offer significant potential for resource-based tourism diversification. It is our opinion that Ontario Living Legacy signature sites and other significant parks and protected areas in the Province (e.g. Algonquin, Quetico, Lady- Evelyn Smoothwater, Wabikimi, etc.) should be considered as the cornerstones of regionally resource-based tourism diversification opportunities. All three of the case studies in this report, confirmed that the local protected area and its international recognition not only offer the tourism product (the resource base for activities such as canoeing, kayaking, hiking etc.), but also are essential in branding and marketing the region.

Through various research activities it is clear that Ontario’s protected areas and in particular the OLL signature sites possess the following strengths:

• World-class canoe camping opportunities in many protected areas and across the Canadian Shield;
• World-class freshwater kayaking opportunities concentrated along key sections of the Great Lakes Heritage Coast and Lake Nipigon;
• World-class freshwater fishing (which has been known for and developed for many decades);
• Some significant landscapes and natural resources such as the La Cloche Mountains, the Lake Nipigon Palisades, north shore of Georgian Bay, Slate Islands and the Lake Superior Archipelago, which can and have the potential to attract a wide variety of market segments (e.g. eco-tourism, adventure travel, cultural heritage tourism, etc.).
• Potential for aboriginal tourism in association with the natural heritage of these areas.

Many of the outstanding protected areas in the province are located significant distances from markets and economic opportunities associated with these areas may be limited to summer and perhaps limited shoulder seasons, however there is the opportunity in these areas to market the experience to a more limited but higher-paying consumer. This may produce as many economic benefits as areas catering to larger volumes of visitors. There is not yet an example in Ontario of a more remote area that has fully developed nature-based tourism opportunities (although a community such as Temagami is in this transition).

While most of the major tourism opportunities associated with protected areas in Ontario have been in communities located in Central Ontario (e.g. Killarney and Algonquin Provincial Parks) and near the US border (e.g. Quetico Provincial Park) that have location advantages to Southern Ontario and the U.S. northeast, the Gwaii Haanas Case Study in this report highlights how a very remote area can build on the opportunity of a major protected area.

There are also newly protected areas in the Province such as Kawartha Highlands, which while not globally significant are geographically accessible to huge regional markets where eco-tourism and outdoor opportunities can be offered in a semi- wilderness setting. Correctly positioned, businesses in these areas can capitalize on the limited wilderness opportunities in Central Ontario and a market of several million people within a three to four hour drive.

The Ely, Minnesota and the Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Area (“BWCWA”) case study describes how the BWCWA has helped Ely move from an economically depressed former resource industry community to a new diversified tourism, retail and light manufacturing based community. The Tofino case study provides another example of a former resource-based community that has undergone a transition to a tourism economy centered on Pacific Rim National Park and Clayquot Sound.

While the research identifies many positive examples of how communities have benefited from protected areas, many parks and protected areas in Ontario are simply too far from markets, too undifferentiated or simply lacking attractions to serve as a basis for tourism and economic development. Local communities and businesses must carefully analyze their “product” (the local protected area) in relation to opportunities throughout the Province, to see where they could be positioned.

Areas where tourism has flourished in association with protected areas often become recognized by the name and image of the protected area and not by the name of the community. People will recognize the names of protected areas such as Yosemite, Yellowstone or Gros Morne but few will know the names of the communities associated with these area. While this is sometimes interpreted as a slight on communities, economic opportunities will accrue to those communities that can capitalize on the perceptions of consumers. In the case of Ely Minnesota the community publicizes itself as “the Gateway to the Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Area”.

Nevertheless, even with strong growth rates in tourism, the employment and income opportunities from resource-based tourism are unlikely to match the historical contributions of the forest products and mining industries in northern Ontario. However, employment in these primary industries is declining for a number of reasons including mechanization, loss of competitive advantage and declines in profitability due to global resource commodity prices. Protected areas and resource-based tourism have the potential to diversify northern Ontario economies, add to their stability and create a new class of entrepreneurs in the North.

Ways to improve benefits for local communities and businesses

A major challenge to the MNR and Ontario Parks is developing an effective relationship with traditionally resource-based local communities and businesses. In many communities throughout central and northern Ontario, there are major misperceptions about park and protected policies that limit existing human use activities. Many local people and officials have publicly questioned the socio-economic benefits of park and protected area establishment. Many local business people and economic development officials don’t fully recognize the tourism opportunities associated with some of the more outstanding protected areas in Ontario’s system. On the other hand, some local outfitters and business people interested in eco-tourism and adventure travel opportunities associated with protected areas along with some economic development officials see the potential for opportunities with protected areas but feel there are a lack of opportunities to engage with officials on capitalizing on them. While not systemic there appears in some cases a lack of co-ordination and consultation among local business people, economic development officials (local and provincial) and protected area authorities that prevents these communities and businesses from capitalizing on broader economic opportunities from protected areas.

While most parks and protected areas in the Province are too small and have operations of limited latitude, many larger protected areas can significantly affect local economies and there is the potential to capitalize on opportunities by increasing the level of consultation between protected area authorities and local communities. In order to address this concern, MNR and Ontario Parks may want to consider establishing formal avenues for ongoing public and business involvement in park planning, management and operations. By establishing and maintaining dialogue - issues, concerns and misperceptions can be addressed before becoming larger problems.

The OMNR’s Local Citizens Committees provide one working model that has been relatively effective in securing public input into forest management planning while increasing the level of public education on resource management issues. At the same time, Ontario Parks with conservation as its primary mandate must balance off the interest of local stakeholders whose objectives may not always be compatible with park policy and objectives.

OLL confirms the legitimacy and importance of resource-based tourism within designated protected areas and speaks to the notion of enhanced tenure for these businesses. In consultation with relevant interested parties, Ontario Parks should review its policies with respect to LUPs in parks and consider increasing the security of resource-based LUP holders in parks. This would create a more stable environment for capital investment and allow for the long-term planning and commitment needed to make these businesses and surrounding communities succeed. Increases in tenure security could be combined with revised tenure criteria, performance requirements, licensing, codes of practice and LUP pricing.

In order to create new economic opportunities, MNR and Ontario Parks may want to consider increasing the number of visitor management systems in some of the new OLL protected areas. There are a number of new OLL areas most of which are signature sites that offer tremendous visitor use potential but where the level of park usage may not be sufficiently high to warrant Ontario Parks investment of infrastructure and staff time. In these areas, the Province could consider alternative service delivery mechanisms. This could include arrangement for the delivery of such services as permitting, monitoring, campsite maintenance, cleanup, etc. Partners with OMNR and Ontario Parks could include local businesses, First Nations, not-for-profit groups, etc. The benefit of establishing visitor managements systems goes beyond issues of carrying capacity, environmental impacts and safety. Visitor management systems that have been established in Ontario Parks have provided a more formal tourism opportunity for visitors. In fact, the most highly used provincial parks for wilderness use are all operating parks with fees and reservations. The formal visitor management system increases the level of certainty, safety and quality of experience for visitors (e.g. customized maps, patrols, marked campsite and portages, reserved sites). This is a particularly important attribute for foreign visitors but also for rapidly urbanizing and new immigrant Canadian population that knows little about crown land use, canoe camping and other outdoor activities. While some outfitters may have concerns around fees for use, the historical reality in Ontario is that wilderness operating parks have provided the “wilderness infrastructure” for the development of these tourism businesses. The need for this can only be expected to increase in the future. Local businesses have and can continue to capitalize on the opportunities that operating parks can provide and visitor management systems can provide local employment and contracting opportunities depending on the service delivery system.

Related to the issue of visitor management, the Province could consider investigating feasibility of implementing policy requiring all non-residents campers to use the services of a licensed tourist operator. This would be similar to the current policy of requiring non-resident hunters to go through a licensed outfitter for bear, moose or other hunting activity. Similar policies are in place in many international eco-tourism destinations. If implemented, such a policy would have the benefit of increasing the flow of economic benefits to local businesses and resource-dependent communities. It may also provide an incentive for tourism operators to get licensed and raise the overall quality of the resource-based tourism product across Northern Ontario.

Aboriginal issues

The majority of existing and newly proposed provincial parks in Ontario are located near Aboriginal communities or within their traditional territories, however the interaction between the aboriginal community and protected area managers in planning and operations have been fairly limited.

Lands for Life and OLL were not well received by the aboriginal community, much of the concern owing to the pace of decision-making, which outstripped aboriginal communities’ ability to deal with it. However, aboriginal communities share many of the same conservation aims that parks and protected areas also try to achieve and aboriginal cultural tourism opportunities are not only a natural link with eco-tourism opportunities associated with protected areas, but represent potentially viable economic opportunities for aboriginal entrepreneurs. In many respects, parks and protected areas may represent a more compatible economic and social venture for Aboriginal peoples than involvement in resource industries such as logging. While it is not currently the case in Ontario, aboriginal peoples could be a potentially a significant supporter of protected areas.

The Gwaii Haanas case study in this report, describes the involvement of the Haidi Gwaii people with the establishment of Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve. It focuses on the question of how a protected area can be established and managed in a way that maximizes social and economic benefits to local Aboriginal communities. This case study is interesting in that it is an example of co-management. In 1993, after the signing of the South Moresby Agreement, Parks Canada and the Haida Nation signed an agreement to establish the Park (the “Gwaii Haanas Agreement”). The Agreement established the Archipelago Management Board, which is responsible for the operations and management of the park. The Board is comprised of two members of the Haida Nation Council and two members of the Government of Canada (Parks Canada). There continues to be disagreement between the Government of Canada and the Council of the Haidi Nation about the ownership of the Park. However, in the mutual interest of the two parties, ongoing discussion about land title has been kept separate from park management.

Co-management of a protected area, while being laudable is not necessarily always a realistic or desirable objective for either parks authorities or First Nations. The Gwaii Haanas case study demonstrated that significant financial costs, legal issues and sharing of risk are involved. Both parties need to have not only the common objectives, but moreover the resources and capacity to accept many of these challenges. Most of these conditions are not in place in Ontario at this time, however there is potentially benefit for both park authorities and First Nations to identify ways in which they can perhaps work closer together.

There are currently examples in Ontario of how MNR, Ontario Parks and Aboriginal peoples have started to do this. At Petroglyphs Provincial Park, the Curve Lake First Nation has been involved in some of the operations of the Park and given the spiritual significance of the petroglyphs themselves, some members of the aboriginal community are consulted on particular matters of religious importance. In Quetico Provincial Park, there is an Agreement of Co-existence between the Province and the Lac de Milles Lac First Nation. In Hearst District, MNR has diligently worked with the Constance Lake First Nation on an ambitious native interpretation centre associated with the Nagaagamisis Central Plateau Complex Signature Site.

These examples, while limited provide an opportunity for MNR and Ontario Parks to learn more about the particular concerns and desires of Aboriginal peoples while at the same time communicating to them the importance of the conservation mandate of the government. In the future small steps that both Government and Aboriginal peoples could take to enhance their relationship could include:

• First nations and aboriginal peoples taking on contracting operations in parks around conservation and operations.
• First nations and aboriginal peoples involved in formal consultation and collaboration on resources of aboriginal spiritual and religious significance.
• Employment opportunities for aboriginal peoples in parks and protected areas.
• Explore building flexibility into staff training and certification and related requirements when working with Aboriginal communities in a park setting. While standards for park visitor safety should not be compromised, in some cases local or traditional knowledge could be substituted for knowledge gained by formal training.
• Seeking out mutual objectives, such as preservation of ecological integrity and identification and protection of cultural heritage and traditional land use.
• First nations and aboriginal peoples having access to protected areas for cultural tourism opportunities.
• Taking consultation on parks and protected areas with First Nations to Reserves.
• Governments and specifically parks planners and managers, attempt to build an ongoing relationship with local Aboriginal groups.

Where possible it is important to set aside major disputes over interpretations of Treaty rights or land ownership (in other words agree to disagree) pending their resolution in order to make progress on issues that can be addressed. Even if it requires more time to accomplish task, provincial government staff should try to build flexibility into schedules involving Aboriginal communities, to demonstrate a willingness to accommodate Aboriginal culture, allowing more time for decision to be made if there is a consensus decision-making structure. While this may frustrate government timelines and goals, it can allow potentially divisive issues to be fully resolved.

One of the most practical reasons for encouraging a greater collaboration between protected area managers and Aboriginal peoples is that tourism research indicates that there is a large and untapped demand for Aboriginal focused cultural tourism. These opportunities include services and products such as guiding, interpretation, accommodations, event and festival and crafts. There is also a high degree of compatibility in developing tourism packages that combine eco-tourism and adventure travel opportunities with Aboriginal tourism opportunities.

In many of the new OLL protected areas (particularly along the Great Lakes Heritage Coast but also in other sites such as the Nagaagamiss Central Plateau Complex) there are numerous Aboriginal archaeological, historical, cultural and spiritual resources, sites and areas of significance. These resources, sites and areas of significance could become major tourism draws and Aboriginal communities could economically benefit form them if the various parties could agree on how these areas are to be protected and interpreted. Many of these tourism opportunities would be generally low-capital intensive investments and are a natural complement to adventure based travel destinations in protected areas such as signature sites. Without question, public access to these areas could only be done with the full co-operation and involvement of the local Aboriginal peoples; however it may represent a beneficial opportunity for both First Nations and protected area authorities

Ontario’s Living Legacy was rolled out by the Province in a fashion that indicated that it would have significant economic benefits for resource-based communities, including aboriginal peoples. However, unlocking the potential of these areas particularly the aboriginal opportunities will take significant time and commitment on the part of Government and Aboriginal peoples. Small and incremental steps starting with meaningful consultation that would benefit both protected area managers and Aboriginal peoples should be encouraged.

Component #9: Benefits transfer report

Data collected from a random sample of recreational users at three of the Signature sites are used to calculate benefits for users of those sites by recreational activity. The sites for which actual valuation data were obtained are referred to as primary valuation sites. The benefits measures from the primary sites are then combined with use data and recreational characteristics from the other signature sites that were not primary valuation sites to derive benefits measures for these sites as well. This process is referred to as benefits transfer.

Killarney, Kawartha Highlands and the Spanish River Valley were chosen as the three primary valuation sites, based on how well they represented the mix of site characteristics and recreational activities over all of the signature sites during the data collection period. The Table below summarizes the signature sites and activities included in the primary valuation and benefits transfer.

Primary valuation data were collected through a set of survey instruments distributed over the course of an entire season, from June to November 2003. The sampling strategy was intended to ensure that all major recreational user groups were included in the proportions that they represent in the population over that period. Descriptive statistics for these data are presented elsewhere in this report. A copy of the complete set of survey instruments is included as an appendix to the Benefits Transfer Report.

The data were used in regression models to estimate parameters for calculating monetary values for benefits that accrue to recreational users. The regression models also provide the mechanism to determine how trip benefits differ by site and by type of recreational activity. Differences by recreational activity and site characteristics are then used to modify benefits calculations for the other signature sites not included in the primary valuation study.

Trip benefits for the three primary valuation sites

Three regression models were estimated for primary site valuation and benefits transfer. The first estimates coefficients to calculate WTP for trips to the three primary sites, and the means to test whether the coefficients are the same, or are different among these sites. This model excludes observations for people who stayed at cottages.

The second model is similar to the first, except that only data for people who indicated they stayed at private cottages during their trips were included. As the last row in Table 1.2 below indicates, the data for all three sites include people who listed cottages as their accommodation type during their trips. Cottagers are also included in Table 1.2 rows to describe main activity while on site. People staying at cottages tend towards trips of longer duration and tend to indicate ‘rest and relaxation’ as their main activity.

Since many own cottages, or visit cottages owned by friends or relatives, their choice of what site they visit during recreation trips may be influenced by factors that are different from other site visitors. This may in turn influence their trip benefits from these sites.

The third model incorporates dummy variables for different recreational activities. Table 1.2 summarizes how respondents characterized the main activity of their trips. Individuals who chose ‘rest and relaxation as their main activity may have participated in a number of activities during their trips, but when given the option to select only one activity as their main activity, they chose ‘rest and relaxation’. Activity dummies are given a value of 1 if the respondent stated that the activity was the main activity during the trip, and a 0 otherwise. This regression included data from the Kawartha Highlands and Killarney Signature Sites. The Spanish River Signature site is by its nature a destination for white water river canoeing, and therefore the per day user values for this site are considered to be values associated with this activity alone.

The same set of valuation questions provided data for all three models. Respondents were asked whether they would choose to take the same trip if the conditions were the same as the trip on which they received the questionnaire, but the cost to them was increased by a given amount, $X. This format is known as a dichotomous choice format, and trip value is assumed to be equal to the respondents’ maximum willingness to pay (WTP) for the trip. The amounts of the increase in trip costs were varied and assigned to respondents on a random basis. Each person was asked this question twice, with two different dollar amounts. The ‘yes’ or ‘no’ responses to these two questions for each respondent is the dependent variable in a random effects probit regression (see Boxall, Rollins and Englin, 2003 for details) that provides the basis for estimating WTP per trip. ^{footnote 13[13]}

The dependent variables are cross terms that represent increase in trip costs for each site, cross terms representing the duration of the trip by site, cross terms allowing household income per household member to differ by site, a dummy variable indicating whether children under the age of 14 were included in the trip, activity dummies as described above, and a constant.

The resulting regression coefficients are used to predict the probability that a typical person would be willing to pay a given amount for a trip. The area under the cumulative probability distribution of ‘yes’ responses is the expected value of a ‘yes’ – or the average willingness to pay per person. The dollar amount that is associated with a 50% probability of a ‘yes’ response is the median value for willingness to pay.

The economic value of each of the signature sites by user group is summarized in the Benefits Transfer Report and summaries of total expenditures and consumer surplus are included in this report in the Federal-Provincial Parks (FPPC) tables for each signature site.

3.0 Application of the economic and social benefits study to the Federal Provincial Parks Council economic framework

In 2000 the Federal Provincial Parks Council (FPPC) released a report by the Outspan Group entitled, “Benefits of Parks and Protected Areas”. ^{footnote 14[14]} The major objective of that study was to develop a commonly agreed upon framework for assessing the benefits derived from parks and protected areas. The Framework, entitled: a “Generalized Framework of the Total Benefits of Protected Areas”, is depicted below.

• Benefit category: Personal
  • Definition: Benefits accruing to stakeholders (users and nonusers)
  • Benefits components:
    • Use values
      • direct use
      • indirect use
    • Non-use Values
      • Option value
      • Existence value
      • Bequest value
• Benefit category: Commercial
  • Definition: Economic impacts derived from the redistribution of commerce from one area to another
  • Benefits components:
    • Impacts from spending by stakeholders and by location management for development and operations, from sources outside the area of assessment (as measured by increases in GDP, labour income, employment and tax revenue)
• Benefit category: Societal
  • Definition: Benefits accruing to stakeholders (users and non- users)
  • Benefits components:
    • Ecological Functions:
      • primary production, sequesteringcarbon dioxide, soil formation, herbivory, carnivory, oxygen production, population moderation, nutrient transport, moderation of macro& microclimate, decomposition, maintenance of genetic diversity and others
    • Resource Integrity: maintenance of existing benefits; ameliorate effects of human changes
    • Health Effects – physical, mental, spiritual
    • Worker Productivity
    • Educational Benefits
    • Scientific Benefits
    • International responsibilities/agreements: NAWMP, CBD, RAMSAR, CITES, MAB, etc.
    • Business location decisions (quality of life/business),
    • Community cohesion

This type of framework is not new as economists, planners and foresters have for many years attempted to not only depict but attempt to quantify the wide range of benefits that flow from natural areas, but it does represent a current example of a framework specifically focusing on protected areas.

The Outspan report goes into some detail defining, describing and discussing methodologies on how to assess these various benefits. The purpose of this report however is to describe how the data collected as part of the Economic and Social Benefits Study fills in part of the benefits categories and describe the challenges associated with quantifying the remainder.

This study focused on determining the economic value direct users of the signature sites apply to their visits. Within the context of the FPPC Framework, the economic value that a users places on their visit to a signature site (or the sum total of all visitors) is expressed in both the personal and commercial benefit component columns. The commercial column represents all expenditures made by the user or users associated with the trip. ^{footnote 15[15]} The personal column as defined by the Outspan Group represents the consumer surplus – which is the difference between the total value a user has placed on their experience versus what their actual expenditure was.

The next group of benefits are the non-use benefits including option, bequest and existence values. This group of benefits describes the value that the public holds for these protected areas but may never actually visit. There is a wide ranging exceptance within the resource economics field that non-use benefits do exist and public opinion pools do give some indication that Canadians value nature for nature’s sake, however studies to quantify these values are complex and expensive. In our original proposal we stated that within the confines of the proposed budget but more importantly given the many uncertainties about the signature sites, their attributes and values we did not think it was possible to quantify the non-use values at that time.

One of the particular challenges with the non-use values is that the majority of non-use studies have focused on a one of a few protected areas and to our knowledge not across a system of protected areas. However, the establishment of protected areas in Ontario has been an application of a systems approach ensuring representation of the Province’s landform and ecological diversity. While non-use values studies of individual parks and protected areas could be done that would be of limited use in demonstrating the total non-use value citizens of Ontario place on these protected areas. We do not think it is acceptable to use benefits transfer with non-use values. MNR and Ontario Parks have indicated some interest in this issue and we would suggest that the most logical way of moving forward with it would be to hold a discussion group on the topic with several academics and practitioners in the field. Another way to initiate this discussion would be to have a few questions inserted into the MNR bi-annual survey (what is this called?) that would merely ask citizens Ontario if they do value these areas. If it can be confirmed that the value clearly exists, the next step would be to identify the approach to quantifying that value.

With respect to the societal values the most obvious one is ecological functions. These were defined by Outspan as: “those natural ecosystem goods and services necessary for man’s (human) survival are many: primary production, soil formation, herbivory, carnivory, oxygen production, sequestering carbon dioxide, etc.” The main issue with respect to the valuation of the ecological functions is how to characterize the change on the margin. Ecological functions are perpetuated in protected areas within the Province, but they are also by and large perpetuated on general crown land. Outside of protected areas the primary planning process influencing ecological change is the forest management planning process and it is difficult to quantitatively assess how these ecological functions would contrast between the two different management regimes. Furthermore, it is not possible to assess the economic benefit of protected area versus non-protected area with respect to ecological functions unless the change in ecological function can be measured in some way (e.g. increase in carbon sequestration).

The Outspan study notes that:

Societal benefits are considered those benefits that go beyond those obtained by individuals or businesses and are societal in breadth or contribute to the overall public good. As mentioned in the personal benefits section, there may be some overlap between these benefits and the personal benefits” Clear distinctions between categories are difficult to enunciate, in some cases. In addition, although some benefits may have a personal component, there may also be societal benefits.”

Outspan goes on to note that:

Assessing the actual value of the benefits of many of these components may be difficult. That they are beneficial is not in doubt, and that they are mostly benefits which accrue to all of society is clear.”

With respect to some of the other societal benefits such as health benefits, it could be argued that these benefits accrue to the individual already (e.g. their economic values captures the diversity of benefits they received from the protected area, whether they are spiritual, social, etc. benefits).

Outlined on the next several pages are the FPPC table replicated for each signature site and identifying the personal and commercial benefits associated with each site.

Signature site: Killarney Provincial Park Signature Site

• Benefit category: Personal
  • Definition: Benefits accruing to stakeholders (users and nonusers)
  • Benefits components:
    • Consumer Surplus
      • $3,264,738
    • Non-Use Values
      • Option value
      • Existence value
      • Bequest value
• Benefit category: Commercial
  • Definition: Expenditure pattern
  • Benefits components: Expenditures
    • $5,361,289
• Benefit category: Societal
  • Definition: Benefits with “public good” characteristics and tending to be societal in scope.
  • Benefits components:
    • Ecological Functions:
      • primary production, sequestering carbon dioxide, soil formation, herbivory, carnivory, oxygen production, population moderation, nutrient transport, moderation of macro& microclimate, decomposition, maintenance of genetic diversity and others.
    • Resource integrity: maintenance of existing benefits; ameliorate effects of human changes
    • Health effects – physical, mental, spiritual
    • Worker productivity
    • Educational benefits
    • Scientific benefits
    • International responsibilities/agreements: NAWMP, CBD, RAMSAR, CITES, MAB, etc.

Signature site: Spanish River Valley Signature Site

• Benefit category: Personal
  • Definition: Benefits accruing to stakeholders (users and nonusers)
  • Benefits components:
    • Consumer surplus
      • $1,074,519
    • Non-Use Values
      • Option value
      • Existence value
      • Bequest value
• Benefit category: Commercial
  • Definition: Expenditure pattern
  • Benefits components: Expenditures
    • $1,359,762
• Benefit category: Societal
  • Definition: Benefits with “public good” characteristics and tending to be societal in scope.
  • Benefits components:
    • Ecological Functions:
      • primary production, sequestering carbon dioxide, soil formation, herbivory, carnivory, oxygen production, population moderation, nutrient transport, moderation of macro& microclimate, decomposition, maintenance of genetic diversity and others.
    • Resource integrity: maintenance of existing benefits; ameliorate effects of human changes
    • Health effects – physical, mental, spiritual
    • Worker productivity
    • Educational benefits
    • Scientific benefits
    • International responsibilities/agreements: NAWMP, CBD, RAMSAR, CITES, MAB, etc.

Signature site: Kawartha Highlands Signature Site

• Benefit category: Personal
  • Definition: Benefits accruing to stakeholders (users and nonusers)
  • Benefits components:
    • Consumer surplus
      • $3,244,785
    • Non-Use Values
      • Option value
      • Existence value
      • Bequest value
• Benefit category: Commercial
  • Definition: Expenditure pattern
  • Benefits components: Expenditures
    • $9,125,189
• Benefit category: Societal
  • Definition: Benefits with “public good” characteristics and tending to be societal in scope.
  • Benefits components:
    • Ecological Functions:
      • primary production, sequestering carbon dioxide, soil formation, herbivory, carnivory, oxygen production, population moderation, nutrient transport, moderation of macro& microclimate, decomposition, maintenance of genetic diversity and others.
    • Resource integrity: maintenance of existing benefits; ameliorate effects of human changes
    • Health effects – physical, mental, spiritual
    • Worker productivity
    • Educational benefits
    • Scientific benefits
    • International responsibilities/agreements: NAWMP, CBD, RAMSAR, CITES, MAB, etc.

Signature site: Algoma Headwaters Signature Site

• Benefit category: Personal
  • Definition: Benefits accruing to stakeholders (users and nonusers)
  • Benefits components:
    • Consumer surplus
      • $195,974
    • Non-Use Values
      • Option value
      • Existence value
      • Bequest value
• Benefit category: Commercial
  • Definition: Expenditure pattern
  • Benefits components: Expenditures
    • $717,091
• Benefit category: Societal
  • Definition: Benefits with “public good” characteristics and tending to be societal in scope.
  • Benefits components:
    • Ecological Functions:
      • primary production, sequestering carbon dioxide, soil formation, herbivory, carnivory, oxygen production, population moderation, nutrient transport, moderation of macro & microclimate, decomposition, maintenance of genetic diversity and others.
    • Resource integrity: maintenance of existing benefits; ameliorate effects of human changes
    • Health effects – physical, mental, spiritual
    • Worker productivity
    • Educational benefits
    • Scientific benefits
    • International responsibilities/agreements: NAWMP, CBD, RAMSAR, CITES, MAB, etc.

Signature site: Nagagamisis Central Plateau Complex Signature Site

• Benefit category: Personal
  • Definition: Benefits accruing to stakeholders (users and nonusers)
  • Benefits components:
    • Consumer surplus
      • $964,403
    • Non-Use Values
      • Option value
      • Existence value
      • Bequest value
• Benefit category: Commercial
  • Definition: Expenditure pattern
  • Benefits components: Expenditures
    • $1,459,526
• Benefit category: Societal
  • Definition: Benefits with “public good” characteristics and tending to be societal in scope.
  • Benefits components:
    • Ecological Functions:
      • primary production, sequestering carbon dioxide, soil formation, herbivory, carnivory, oxygen production, population moderation, nutrient transport, moderation of macro & microclimate, decomposition, maintenance of genetic diversity and others.
    • Resource integrity: maintenance of existing benefits; ameliorate effects of human changes
    • Health effects – physical, mental, spiritual
    • Worker productivity
    • Educational benefits
    • Scientific benefits
    • International responsibilities/agreements: NAWMP, CBD, RAMSAR, CITES, MAB, etc.

Signature site: Nipigon Basin Signature Site

• Benefit category: Personal
  • Definition: Benefits accruing to stakeholders (users and nonusers)
  • Benefits components:
    • Consumer surplus
      • $184,275
    • Non-Use Values
      • Option value
      • Existence value
      • Bequest value
• Benefit category: Commercial
  • Definition: Expenditure pattern
  • Benefits components: Expenditures
    • $967,103
• Benefit category: Societal
  • Definition: Benefits with “public good” characteristics and tending to be societal in scope.
  • Benefits components:
    • Ecological Functions:
      • primary production, sequestering carbon dioxide, soil formation, herbivory, carnivory, oxygen production, population moderation, nutrient transport, moderation of macro & microclimate, decomposition, maintenance of genetic diversity and others.
    • Resource integrity: maintenance of existing benefits; ameliorate effects of human changes
    • Health effects – physical, mental, spiritual
    • Worker productivity
    • Educational benefits
    • Scientific benefits
    • International responsibilities/agreements: NAWMP, CBD, RAMSAR, CITES, MAB, etc.

Signature site: St. Raphael Signature Site

• Benefit category: Personal
  • Definition: Benefits accruing to stakeholders (users and nonusers)
  • Benefits components:
    • Consumer surplus
      • $273,614
    • Non-Use Values
      • Option value
      • Existence value
      • Bequest value
• Benefit category: Commercial
  • Definition: Expenditure pattern
  • Benefits components: Expenditures
    • $1,848,800
• Benefit category: Societal
  • Definition: Benefits with “public good” characteristics and tending to be societal in scope.
  • Benefits components:
    • Ecological Functions:
      • primary production, sequestering carbon dioxide, soil formation, herbivory, carnivory, oxygen production, population moderation, nutrient transport, moderation of macro & microclimate, decomposition, maintenance of genetic diversity and others.
    • Resource integrity: maintenance of existing benefits; ameliorate effects of human changes
    • Health effects – physical, mental, spiritual
    • Worker productivity
    • Educational benefits
    • Scientific benefits
    • International responsibilities/agreements: NAWMP, CBD, RAMSAR, CITES, MAB, etc.

Signature site: Woodland Caribou Signature Site

• Benefit category: Personal
  • Definition: Benefits accruing to stakeholders (users and nonusers)
  • Benefits components:
    • Consumer surplus
      • $873,432
    • Non-Use Values
      • Option value
      • Existence value
      • Bequest value
• Benefit category: Commercial
  • Definition: Expenditure pattern
  • Benefits components: Expenditures
    • $4,832,723
• Benefit category: Societal
  • Definition: Benefits with “public good” characteristics and tending to be societal in scope.
  • Benefits components:
    • Ecological Functions:
      • primary production, sequestering carbon dioxide, soil formation, herbivory, carnivory, oxygen production, population moderation, nutrient transport, moderation of macro & microclimate, decomposition, maintenance of genetic diversity and others.
    • Resource integrity: maintenance of existing benefits; ameliorate effects of human changes
    • Health effects – physical, mental, spiritual
    • Worker productivity
    • Educational benefits
    • Scientific benefits
    • International responsibilities/agreements: NAWMP, CBD, RAMSAR, CITES, MAB, etc.

4.0 Major challenges and decisions

A few key issues arose during the course of the study that represented major challenges. These are described in detail below in order to inform the readers on the continuing challenge of undertaking this work in Ontario.

4.1 Lack of recreational use data in non-operating parks

In order to carry out economic valuation or economic impact studies it is essential to know how many people visit an area and what was their primary activity or motivation (e.g. lodge based anglers). One of the major challenges recognized in our initial proposal was the lack recreational data on crown land use in Ontario. Within a few months of commencing the project it became clear that this data not a priority within field offices of the Ministry as none of the signature site planning teams identified a determination of total use as a necessary information and planning requirement.

Recognizing this challenge early in the process, it required our team to be much more directly involved in data collection at the individual Signature Site level than originally contemplated. While this was extra work it did provide our team with an intimate understanding of the Signature Sites, which proved valuable throughout the study. The “Benefits Transfer Report” produced in the 2003-2004 year, identifies the various approaches and sources of data that were used to collect the user statistics.^{footnote 16[16]}

MNR staff have noted that the approaches employed in this study can serve as a basis for developing methodologies for MNR field work in the future. There are several reasons why our team thinks it is important for MNR to collect this information:

• It is not possible to undertake economic valuation or economic impact analysis without having this type data.
• User data represents the “demand” side of protected area planning and can serve as the basis for user management systems.
• User data would be useful for budgeting. If one area receives ten times the amount of visitation, shouldn’t that be useful for determining planning and management budgets?
• This data could be useful to report to the Government and the public on the number of recreational opportunities provided by crown land and protected areas.

As part of signature site planning, some planning teams did implement user surveys but there seems to be a reticence to want to quantify overall levels of use, whether it be for lack of methodological approaches, concern over the level of uncertainties or complexity. Moreover, the lack of requirements to collect this data together with stretched human resources probably ensures that this information is rarely collected.

Through the dataset prepared in this project Ontario Parks and OMNR now has economic values for a wide range of recreational activities. This dataset could be used in other benefits transfer exercises, however the major data gap in undertaking this exercise is determining the level of use in these other areas.

Suggestion: MNR put together a guide on how to collect recreational user data that can be distributed to field offices. The guide could be useful in a wide variety of resource planning exercises (e.g. forest management, protected area, watershed).

4.2 Need to expand the recreation survey to three signature sites

Both the RFP and the proposal identified that the recreational survey would be implemented in one Signature Site for the purposes of a benefits transfer exercise. However, after an intensive review of the Signature Sites and the wide array of activities and given the lack of Ontario studies on recreational values it was recommended that the survey be extended to three signature sites in order to capture a fuller range of recreation activities and a broader segment of users. An added benefit of this approach was that it would provide economic expenditure data for three case studies in the project.

The three Signature Sites that were selected: Killarney Provincial Park, Kawartha Highlands Signature Site and Spanish River Valley Signature Site were selected to represent a broad segment of users and also to better understand use associated with parks versus general crown land. As an operating park Killarney provided the project with a park with significant levels of use ensuring us an opportunity to distribute large numbers of surveys. Kawartha Highlands provided us with an area characterized by significant use ensuring us an opportunity to intercept a large number of users. Finally, the Spanish River Valley provided us with an area typical of more northern protected areas.

Using all three of these signature sites for the Recreation Survey was a wise decision and except for some resourcing issues in the Spanish River Valley the sites provided us with a few thousand potential survey recepients.

Future MNR survey work at the field level will need to carefully balance off the desire to get information on certain uses together with adequate population sizes that can be reached by either intercept or mail survey. The greater use of benefits transfer in the future can address many future research questions.

4.3 Lack of local level resources to assist in this type of research

This issue has already been raised above. There was a significant lack of professional staff time available to assist in research activities associated with the project. MNR staff were very helpful at providing context, advice and directing us to important sources of information, but there are few spare staff resources that could be set aside to assist with this project. In particular, there is limited expertise in the social sciences at the local or regional levels.

The field resources for the Kawartha Highlands survey implementation and user counting came from the Ontario Parks office. That funding was absolutely essential to the findings of this project.

5.0 Future use of Kawartha Highlands Signature Site survey data

One of the recommendations that the OMNR Social and Economic Benefits Team has identified is that the consultant team identify how user and survey data collected in 2003 could be used for future management of the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site Park. The questions or groups of questions are described below with some directions on how the data could be used for visitor management in the Kawartha Highlands.

5.1 Uses of visitor count data

The most significant dataset for the Kawartha Highlands is the visitor count data that is described in some detail in the Kawartha Highlands case study. The count data is broken down by user group and by access point (both public and private).

The data provides the overall numbers, which are useful in understanding the scale of the visitor use challenge in the Kawartha Highlands. In the case study, comparisons on interior use were made between Killarney and Algonquin Provincial Parks.

For comparison purposes, we decided to compare the 18,380 canoer days in the Kawartha Highlands with canoer statistics from two operating provincial parks – Killarney and Algonquin. In the Kawartha Highlands we identified 18,380 canoer days within a protected area of approximately 36,000 hectares. This also does not include any canoeing associated with cottagers (where this would be defined as a secondary activity). This calculates out to 0.51 canoer days/hectare/year.

Data from the 2002-2003 Campsite Accommodation Management Information System (“CAMIS”) reported that Killarney had 36,969 canoer days on 48,500 hectares or 0.76 canoers/hectare/year. Data from our analysis of Park Trends completed in Year 1 of the project is that in 2000 Algonquin had 269,510 interior nights (small proportion of these would be backpacking) and that the park is 772,300 hectares, representing a density of 0.35 interior nights/hectare/year (please note a day calculation would moderately increase the density calculation).

While these types of comparisons can be misleading as large portions of these protected areas may not be viable for canoeing (i.e. no lakes or interconnected lakes), it does indicate that the canoeing pressure is already significant and comparable to arguably the two most important parks in the Province providing interior camping opportunities.

The count data is important for more than just understanding current levels of use. The data can be used to better understand which access points (and which lakes) are receiving pressure). It also can be useful for making projections in terms of parking and road requirements and infrastructure provision (privies at campsites). Finally, the count data is important in recognizing what user groups will continue to apply the most pressure on the resource, based on sheer numbers.

5.2 Results from the dataset question by question

Question 1 – Primary recreational activity

Given that this single survey instrument was used to capture all user groups and that visitors may perform multiple activities on a given trip (i.e. hike and fish as part of a canoe trip), Q-1 tried to identify into which user group the respondent identified with most closely for the particular trip on which they received the survey. This question is key for parsing the Site users by activity and allowing comparisons between and across user groups and Sites.

Both survey data and anecdotal evidence conclude that visitors are coming to the Kawartha Highlands to engage in a primary activity. Initial analysis of the dataset would indicate that specific recreational user groups will have specific characteristics. It is recommended that the Kawartha Highlands undertake a series of cross-tabulations by primary recreational activity for a number of different variables in this survey.

Question 2 – Primary reason to visit or stop along the way

Question 2 identified whether the visit to the Signature Site was the primary purpose of the trip or a stop along the way on a larger trip. This is important, since only for trips for which the Site was the primary destination could trip expenditures be completely attributed to the visit. For multi-purpose trips, only a proportion of the expenditures could be attributed to the Site visit. Questions 8 to 10 helped determine this proportion.

Data from this question could be useful for tourism and economic planning in the Kawarthas. If the data for particular user groups indicates that the primary reason for the visit is to go into the Kawartha Highlands local tourism planners may want to identify ways to encourage tourists to make further stops in the area or consider using the Kawartha Highlands as a centerpiece for tourism development in the area.

Question 3 – Accommodation type

Question 3 determined the type and location of the visitor accommodation. It also indicated whether respondents could identify the boundaries of the Signature Site. If most respondents were unsure of whether they were staying in a given Signature Site, responses to the questionnaire would be dubious.

It is recommended that a cross-tabulation of primary recreational activity by accommodation type be done for users in the Kawartha Highlands.

Question 4 – Group size by age group

Question 4 simultaneously examined group size and the age of persons within the group. It is a useful question to examine demographic trends within user groups and across Sites.

Group size is a particularly important piece of information for the development of a visitor management system. Data from Kawartha Highlands overnight visitors (e.g. canoeists) on party size should be compared to groups in operating provincial parks. It is possible that there are groups larger in the Kawartha Highlands than in operating parks and are selecting Kawartha Highlands in order to have no restrictions on party size.

Questions 5-10 – Postal code, distance traveled and length of stay

Questions 5 to 7 are useful for determining distance and time factors for incorporation into a zonal travel cost model. The time variable is used to assign a 'cost' to the effort and time required to get to and from the Site.

Postal code (or just Forward Sortation Area data) and distance traveled data is useful information to pinpoint the origin of visitors to the Kawartha Highlands. Length of stay data would be useful in identifying broad visitor objectives for the visitor management system. This data would also be of interest to local tourism and economic planning officials

Question 12 – Trip costs

Questions 11 and 12 elicited the personal and group trip costs necessary for travel cost model and economic impact analysis. The trip expenses were broken down by category to help respondents recall their costs. They were also further broken down to identify what amount of which expenditures were done locally. This information is useful for determining the local impact of Site users to surrounding communities. It may also facilitate tailoring local tourism products and services more closely to revealed visitor expenditure patterns. The trip expense amounts could either be expressed in either American or Canadian dollars. In both manual and website-based data entry, the trip cost totals were checked for calculation errors.

This data divided by average party size provides individual trip costs including those spent locally (within one hour of the signature site) and in total. Local economic development officials and tourism businesses may be interested in comparing the proportion of local to total expenditures in the Kawartha Highlands with results from Killarney and Spanish River Valley. If few expenditures are made locally local officials and businesses may want to identify ways to target visitors who may be more inclined to spend more locally or identify policy mechanisms that would encourage more local spending (e.g. a friendly interior user management system may attract more beginning canoers who will require more outfitting and guiding services).

Questions 13-21 – Crowding

After a brief definition of “crowding”, question Q-13 asked the respondents to identify how important crowding was to them at specific locations while planning this trip. This question approximated visitors expectations for crowding at potential points of their trip within the Site. Questions Q-14 to Q-21 elicited both a qualitative and quantitative estimate of the extent to which respondents felt crowded during various parts of their trip.

Interior management systems in Ontario have been based to some extent on the social carrying capacity concept of providing some type of remote experience. It is possible that visitors to Kawartha Highlands are less likely to feel crowded than visitors to Killarney or Algonquin simply because they are either accustomed to or are fully expecting a high degree of crowding. Planners for the Kawartha Highlands should consider examining the crowding questions and comparing it to data from Killarney Provincial Park. It is possible that users in the Kawartha Highlands may be far more willing to accept more crowding than in other sites, this would allow park planners to consider establishing a higher density of campsites per lake and per hectare than in these other sites.

Questions 22-29 – Trip valuation

Questions 22-29 are trip valuation questions which are essential to the Economic and Social Benefits Study in identifying the overall economic value individuals assign to the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site. The questions Q-23 to Q-27 were structured in a Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation Method (DCCVM) format to elicit maximum willingness to pay values for overall trip costs and crowding issues. The payment vehicle for these questions was trip expenses. Since these are the actual methods of payment for a recreation trip in a Signature Site, the problem of payment vehicle was minimized.

The valuations questions are also asked under a variety of different crowding scenarios. If park planners and managers decide to do so the dataset from these questions could be used to design an interior management system that would optimize the economic value of users.

Question 30 – Reasons for choosing the Kawartha Highlands

The purpose of Q-30 was to determine the key attributes, which motivated the respondent to visit the Site for this trip. These attributes were also essential for the development of the benefits transfer equations.

Question 30 asks users to identify the importance of a variety of attributes. These attributes include resource, location, management (or lack thereof), infrastustrucutre and other attributes. Data from this question will help planners identify what attributes are most important to users and what attributes are of little significance.

Questions 31 & 32 – Alternative protected areas and reasons for choosing them

Question 32 uses the same criteria as Q-30 to determine the key attributes of the best alternative location for this trip. This question is important to identify congruence among primary and alternative site attributes to facilitate the use of the benefits transfer framework. It may be that the best alternative location may offer a different recreational experience and hence be valuing a different economic good. For example, instead of substituting one whitewater river for another, a flatwater canoe trip in the Temagami area might be stated as the best alternative canoe destination to a whitewater trip on the Spanish River.

Question 31 was used to elicit substitute activities and locations for this trip. Since Ontario Parks is managed as a park system, it is useful to know where visitors will likely go as capacity constraints or specific land use management policies are achieved. This question also explores the potential of crown land as a substitute for designated parks and protected areas.

Questions 31 and 32 ask users to identify what their preferred alternative would be to Kawartha Highlands and the reasons for choosing that alternative. This question will be useful for park system planners to understand what alterantive protected areas act as substitutes to the Kawartha Highlands. The attributes of the alternative will also point to the basic characteristics users are looking for in a recreational area.

Question 33 – Human use impact

Question 33 looks at how disturbed the respondent was with a variety of human use impacts that could be perceived observed during their Site visit. The list of impacts was drawn up specifically for these Signature Sites and previously tested in the 2002 Pilot Survey. The responses to this question may be used by Site managers to better target resources and management plans to improve the quality of visitor experience. While not explored in this survey analysis, the response to these questions may help explain stated WTP values.

Question 34 – Different trips to the Kawartha Highlands 2000-2003

Question 34 and 35 quantified the previous trip experiences of the respondent both in the Signature Site for which they received the survey and across the other Signature Sites and substitute locations in the past three years. This information provides Site managers with a starting point for estimating the recent trend in overall usage by user type and by location. This data is also useful for further data analysis using an economic random utility model.

Question 34 asks users to identify the number of trips and the type of trips they have taken for the years 2000 through 2003. This question will be useful in identifying what user groups are characterized by multiple trips. This would also indicate what uses local people are most likely to engage in.

Question 35 – Alternative site trips 2000-2003

Question 35 is the same as question 34 except it asks users how many times they have visited these other signature sites. This question will be more useful for park system planners in identifying the level of repeat visitation and substitute sites within Ontario.

Question 36 – Health and well-being

It is commonly accepted that an outdoor recreation experience may provide both physical and psychological health benefits to visitors. If that is the case, these benefits may indirectly reduce costs elsewhere in the health care system. As starting point to explore this potential, the extent to which a variety of these health benefits were achieved by the respondent was quantified in Q-36.

Question 31-41 – Demographic variables

Questions Q-36 to Q-41 elicited demographic details including age, education, household size income and currency of income. This information is useful for comparing how user groups differ among each other and with the general Ontario population for these characteristics. Also, this data can be used to develop “bid equations” that examine how WTP is affected by the social and economic characteristics of the survey respondents. This study does not present the results of this form of empirical inquiry.

It is recommended that demographic data be assessed in a series of cross-tabulations with user types. As well, park planning staff but also local economic development officials and business people may be interested in comparing the demographic and income profile of Kawartha Highland visitors with visitors to Killarney Provincial Park or Spanish River Valley Signature Site.

References

Advisory Committee on Resource Dependent Communities in Northern Ontario, Ontario Government. Final Report and Recommendations of the Advisory Committee onResource Dependent Communities in Northern Ontario. Ontario Government: Toronto. 1986.

Bateman, I.J. and K.G. Willis (editors). Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theoryand Practice of Contingent Valuation Method in the U.S., E.U. and Developing Countries. Oxford University Press: New York. 1999.

Boxall, Peter, Kimberly Rollins and Jeffery Englin. “Heterogeneous Preferences for Wilderness Congestion” accepted for publication and forthcoming in Resource and Energy Economics.

Cicchetti, C.J. and Smith, V.K. (1973). “Congestion Quality Deterioration and Optimal Use: Wilderness Recreation in the Spanish Peaks Primitive Area”. Social Science Research, vol.2. pp.15-30.

Economic Growth Solutions Inc. Ontario Resource-Based Tourism DiversificationOpportunities Report. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. 2002.

Freeman, A. Myrick III. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values:Theory and Methods, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. 1993.

Herriges, J.A. and C.L. Kling, (editors), Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice, Aldershot, Edward Elgar, 1999

IBI Group, et al. Great Lakes Heritage Coast Technical Report. 2003.

Loomis, John and Gloria Helfand, Environmental Policy Analysis for Decision-making, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, 2001.

Loomis, John. Integrated Public Lands Management: Principles and Applications to National Forests, Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and BLM Lands, Columbia University Press, New York, 1993.

Martin, Rodger L. and Michael E. Porter. Canadian Competitiveness: A Decade afterthe Crossroads. University of Toronto: Toronto. 2001.

McCollum, D.W., Peterson, G.L. and Gilbert, A.H. (1990). “The Net Economic Benefits of Day Use Cross Country Skiing in Vermont: A Dichotomous Choice Valuation Approach”. Journal of Leisure Research. Vol.22 pp.341-352.

Northwestern Ontario Development Network. Presentation to Dr. Doug Galt MPP, Chair Premier’s Task Force on Rural Economic Renewal. 2000

Outspan Group. Benefits of Parks and Protected Areas. Federal Provincial Parks Council Economic Framework Project. 2000.

Perman, R.J., Ma, Y., McGilvray, J., and Common, M. Natural Resource and Environmental Economics, (2^nd Edition). Longmans, 1999.

Porter, Michael E. and Monitor Company. Canada at the Crossroads. Business Council on National Issues: Ottawa, 1991.

Reid, Roger and Michael Stone. (1994). “Economic Value of Wilderness Protection in British Columbia”. Unpublished Paper. Presented at the Forestry and the Environment: Economic Perspectives II Conference. Banff, Alberta. October 12-15, 1994.

Research and Analysis Directorate, Indian & Northern Affairs Canada. Implications of First Nations Demography. 1997.

Rollins, Kimberly, William Wistowsky and Michael Jay. “Wilderness Canoeing in Ontario: Using Cumulative Results to Update Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Offer Amounts.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol.: 45(1997), 1-16.