[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Resource Anal, -tics INCORPORATED Practical Solutions for Managing Resources Northampton County Sustainable Development Initiative TheCFeasibility and Economi 'c. Potential of Sustainable Development. for Northampton County, Virginia December 14, 1993 Prepared f or: Northampton County Board of Supervisors- Sustainable Development Task Force. by L. Steven Smutko. Leon E. Danielson Resource Analytics, Inc. Thomas G. Jo hnson Blacksburg, VA t04 Glenwood Ave. P.O. Box 5010 Raleigh, NC 27650 (919) 833-7008 FAX (919) 833-8088 Northampton County Sustainable Development Initiative The Feasibility and Economic Potential of Sustainable Development for Northampton County, Virginia December 14, 1993 Prepared for: Northampton County Board of Supervisors Sustainable Development Task Force by L. Steven Smutko Leon E. Danielson Resource Analytics, Inc. Thomas G. Johnson Blacksburg, VA A report of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's Coastal Resources Management Program pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. NA270ZO312-01. This paper is funded by a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its sub-agencies. 00 ATM E OF Preface This study was conducted by Resource Analytics, Inc., of Raleigh, North Carolina, under contract to the County of Northampton through its Sustainable Development Initiative. The Initiative is funded by Northampton County, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's Coastal Resources Management Program, and the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. The SDI effort is aimed at developing an understanding of the links between economic activity and natural resources and to seek ways to maximize economic potential without diminishing the integrity of the ecological base on which this activity occurs and depends. The preservation of the rural character of the county and other time-honored characteristics of the county's culture, are another aspect of this initiative. Production of this report would not have been possible without the assistance and cooperation of many Northampton County residents. When documenting the economy of any local area, it is best to consult with those who know it best. The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance provided by the members of the SAMP management team, the members of the Sustainable Development Task Force, and the numerous citizens of Northampton County who helped us out in so many ways toward a fuller understanding of Northampton economy. We would also like to express our thanks to the people who contributed their knowledge and insight to this report including Gene Brothers, John Chazal and Ernie Wade. Finally, thanks to Jill Listowich for searching out hard to find data and interviewing dozens of Northampton residents to gather information on sustainable development activities occurring in the county. Atc-Awacutive Summafy Setting Northampton County, part of Virginia's Eastern Shore, is rich in natural and cultural resources. Its chain of seaside barrier islands, a World Biosphere Reserve, is one of the most important ecosystems in the eastern U.S. Its Chesapeake shoreline, characterized by coastal bluffs and dunes, is largely undeveloped. Every year the county plays host to more than 260 migratory bird species as they move along the Atlantic flyway. The county, settled during the early colonial period, is rich in heritage. Dozens of historic structures still dot the landscape. Northampton's economy is based on farming and, to a lesser extent, fishing. Agricultural productivity has been remarkably steady through the years. Seafood production, however, has declined with the diminution of fish stocks. Vegetable and seafood processing, once a mainstay of the economy, has nearly disappeared, leaving many unemployed and underemployed. This, together with a general lack of economic opportunities for many county residents, leaves the county with one of the highest poverty rates in Virginia. Opportunities Northampton County can begin to capitalize on its natural and cultural assets to build and strengthen its economy while preserving and enhancing its resources. Agriculture, seafood, nature-based and heritage tourism, ecological research, and indigenous arts and crafts all offer opportunities for sustainable economic development. Nature/Heritage Tourism Nature-based tourism can play a major role in economic development given the quality and variety of natural and heritage resources of the county. Boating and fishing are the most predominant nature-based tourism activities taking place in the county today. However, Northampton can potentially capitalize on its unique wildlife resources and capture a large share of the wildlife observation and birding market in the metropolitan areas of Virginia, Maryland, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania. There were an estimated 70,300 recreation party-trips made by residents and non- residents in 1992 for fishing, boating, sightseeing, observing wildlife, and other travel activities. Lodging unit occupancy averaged below 25% in 1992, with a maximum monthly occupancy rate of 67 percent in July. People engaged in recreation, travel and tourism in the county spent a total of $9.916 million on lodging, restaurants, retail groceries, fuel and oil, and other goods and services. This initial spending generated direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts throughout the county's economy. These impacts are given below: Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page iiv Executive Summary Total Economic Impacts of Travel and Tourism, 1992 t1990 dollars) Impact Category Value M Total Industrial Output 14,297,200 Total Compensation and Property Income 7,808,300 Total Value Added 9,461,900 Employment 454 Contributions to Tax Revenue 51,000 Net Fiscal Benefit 232,000 J1 Travel and tourism is a rapidly growing industry nationally, and it is likely that Northampton County can capture a share of this market if the proper steps are taken. To understand the potential impacts of an enhanced travel and tourism industry in Northampton County, we developed four tourism growth scenarios. These are: (1) Doubling the level of boating activities estimated for 1992 while holding other activities constant; (2) Doubling the level of non-boating activities estimated for 1992 while holding other activities constant; (3) Increasing the combined yearly motel and inn occupancy rate in the county to 50% and campground occupancy rate to 40%; (4) Increasing the combined yearly motel and inn occupancy rate in the county to 75%, campground occupancy rate to 40%, and increasing the number of motel and inn units by 25% while maintaining the higher occupancy rate. Total Economic Impacts of AftematiVe Travel and Toudsm Scenarios, (1990 dollars/. Total Not Total: Fiscal :Andustrial:: :Total Valuer ..... . .... W. ax QUIP . .... ... @A b T Benefits 'Scenarjd:::::.,,:..': (4:400OVI Q) W000. *00 (No.), ($1000) (41.000) 1. Double Boating 20,106.6 10,956.1 13,272.7 639 72 326 Activity 2. Double Non-Boating 17,213.0 9,395.9 11,399.5 549 62 279 Activity 3. Increase 21,073.9 11,481.3 13,926.7 673 138 346 Occupancy Rates 4. Add New Lodging 28,209.5 18,690.9 899 181 Units Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Executive Summary Page V Research and Education The importance of Northampton County and the Eastern Shore for resident and migrating birds has generated much interest among researchers at nearby universities and research institutions. The unique hydrogeology of the Eastern Shore has also generated research activity in the county. In. 1992, there were seven research groups active in the county spending over 5,900 research days. Total research expenditures in the county in 1992 was estimated to be approximately $377,500. The total (direct, indirect, and induced) impacts of ecological research in Northampton County in 1992 are described below: Total Economic Impacts of Ecological Research, 1992 1`1990 dollars) Impact Category Value ($) Total Industrial Output 691,200 Total Compensation and Property Income 396,200 Total Value Added 474,400 Employment 25 Contributi ns to Tax Revenue 2,000 Net Fiscal Benefit 12.000 Old Dominion University, in cooperation with the Nature Conservancy, announced this year its intentions to establish a research facility in Northampton County dedicated to the study of sustainable development. At the time of this writing it was not yet known the size and scope of such a facility, and hence its total affect on the county's economy. If the research facility evolves into a large center sponsored by a consortium of universities and other research concerns, its impact on the community could be substantial. This is especially true if it becomes large enough to employ several people, and provides a large throughput of research days. Much of the impact now felt from research activities in the county is from associated spending by researchers during their stay in the county. Arts and Crafts Production and sales of indigenous arts and crafts, often referred to as folk art, can add significantly to a rural economy, particularly if the craftspeople in the area are known for their skills. Although several craftspeople live and ply their trade in Northampton County, there is little in the way of an organized system for production and distribution of arts and crafts on such a scale as to have a significant economic impact. Because of the small and scattered nature of this activity, we did not attempt to model the impacts of folk art production on the economy. To understand how a strong and thriving crafts "industry" might affect the county's economy, we investigated successful arts and crafts guilds and cooperatives in other communities to learn what they were doing. One such cooperative, the Watermark Association of Artisans based in North Carolina served as our model. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page vi Executive Summary The contribution of an expanded arts and crafts sector to the economy of Northampton County is summarized below: Total Economic Impacts of an Expanded Arts and Crafts Industry (1990 dollars) Impact Category Value M Total Industrial Output 939,900 Total Compensation and Property Income 435,700 Total Value Added 476,400 Employment (full-time equivalents) 19 Contributions to Tax Revenue 2,000 Net Fiscal Benefit 14,000 Agricultues Agriculture has throughout the county's long history been a mainstay of the economy, even as agriculture in general has declined around in the state and country as a whole. The amount of cropland harvested in Northampton County has remained between about 36,000 acres and 50,000 acres throughout most of this century. Northampton is one of Virginia's largest producers of commercial vegetables, even though the trend has been to diversify into small grains soybeans, and nursery production. Agriculture is by far the largest component of the county's economy. With total output exceeding $68 million in 1990, this sector drives the rest of the local economy. The total impacts of agriculture in Northampton County are described below: Total Economic Impacts of Agriculture, 1990. Impact.orCategory Value:40 Total Industrial Output 68,311,200 Total Compensation and Property Income 13,941,200 Total Value Added 15,979,000 -Employment (full-time equivalents) 899 Contributions to Tax Revenue 218,000 Net Fiscal Benefit 411,000 To estimate the potential impacts of agriculture on Northampton's economy, we identified five scenarios where producers switched to low-input, sustainable agricultural practices to produce their usual mix of crops. We then measured the potential economic impact of each scenario on Northampton County. The scenarios are described below: Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Executive Summary Page W Scenario 1: 40% Loading Reduction Scenario. This scenario assumes a 40 percent reduction in chemical percolation to groundwater from existing practices. Scenario 2: Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Scenario. The CRP is a federal program designed to reduce soil erosion through retirement of highly erodible soils from cropping. Federal payments in the amount of $70 per acre are made to the farmer to retire his land. Scenario 3: Buffer Strip Scenario. Require that 100 feet on each side of a perennial stream be taken out of cropland production. No financial payments were assumed to be made to the farmer in lieu of production. Scenario 4: Green Manure Crops. Green manure crops added as winter cover are beneficial for preventing soil loss and absorbing residual chemicals over the winter season. This scenario assumed that a clover/rye mix was used as a winter crop and as a green manure source. Scenario 5: Chicken Litter. In this scenario, chicken litter is substituted for inorganic nitrogen. The effects of these sustainable agriculture scenarios on the county's economy are summarized below: Total Economic Impacts of Alternadve Sustainable Agricultural Practice Scenarios, 7990. ... ....... .... t ots" '''To. 61 V, F I 5 Ism, Induitt' I T t Isca 0 .. ....... . . .. . ..... 0 @::[email protected]*:@ ftnefits 0 0 001, 90 Scenario 14 At: 1.40% Loading" Reduction 68,390,400 14,026,200 16,069,900 922 220,000- 411,000 2. CRP 67,200,900 13,338,200 15,285,300 866 216,000 -319,000 3. Buffer Strips 68,234,700 13,928,300 15,959,600 896 --- ---- 4. Green Manure Crops 1 68,777,600 14,417,100 16,494,100 910 218,000 427,000 5. Chicken Litter 68,403,700 14,034,100 16,080,100 901 --- - Food Processing Food processing is closely tied to agriculture and seafood production in Northampton County. Changes in activity in this sector have been found to strongly effect output in the seafood and agricultural sectors. Food processing plants were major employers in the county through 1988. However, by 1992, employment dropped from 846 jobs to 202. Vegetable and seafood processing still had a significant impact on the Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page viii Executive Summary county's economy as late as 1990. The total (direct, indirect, and induced) impacts of food processing on Northampton's economy in 1990 were: Total Economic Impacts of Vegetable and Seafood Processing, 1990 Impact Category Value M Total Industrial Output 45,787,600 Total Compensation and Property Income 9,549,000 Total Value Added 10,706,00 Employment (full-time equivalents) 617 Contributions to Tax Revenue 92, Net Fiscal Benefit 276,000 000 The total potential impacts of regaining 1988 levels of food processing capacity on Northampton's economy (in 1990 dollars) are relatively large. About four times the income would be made in the county under this scenario than what was made in 1990. These impacts are summarized as follows: Total Economic Impacts of Vegetable and Seafood Process0g, 1990 -Imparct: Category Value: MY Total Industrial Output 184,320,400 Total Compensation and Property Income 38,440,000 Total Value Added 43,068,000 -Employment 2,490 ontributions to Tax Revenue 1,338,000 Net Fiscal Benefit 1,278,000 Seafood The fishery and related industries on the Eastern Shore of Virginia is second only to agriculture in the area in terms of employment and personal income generated. Throughout its history, Northampton County fishermen have harvested vast quantities of fin and shellfis h from the Chesapeake Bay and seaside area of the Eastern Shore peninsula. In 1990 the direct, indirect and induced affects of the seafood industry in Northampton County produced approximately $20.8 million dollars in income and 478 jobs. The total economic impacts of seafood production sector on the county in 1990 are summarized below: Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Executive Summary Page ix Total Economic Impacts of Seafood Harvesting and Production, 1990 Impact Category Value ($) Total Industrial Output 20,759,700 Total Compensation and Property Income 6,804,100 Total Value Added 7,558,000 Employment 478 Contributions to Tax Revenue 49,000 Net Fiscal Benefit 190,000 The potential impacts of seafood harvesting and production were estimated using a scenario that assumes employment in seafood processing in some other county to increase by 750 more people, the number of employees lost in the food processing sector since 1988. If fishing levels by Northampton-based boatmen increased to meet the demand, the following total economic impacts would be observed: Total Economic Impacts of Seafood HervesUng and Producdon, 1990 Impact Category Value 1$11 Total Industrial Output 42,858,200 Total Compensation and Property Income 14,047,000 Total Value Added 4,748,000 Employment 987 Contributions to Tax Revenue 100,000 Net Fiscal Benefit -393,00011 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................. 1 Purpose ................................................... 2 2. NORTHAMPTON'S ECONOMY ....................................... 3 Demographics ................................................ 3 Labor Force .................................................. 4 Income and Poverty ............................................ 4 Sectoral Employment and Income .................................. 7 Economic Linkages and Leakages ................................. 11 Economic Impact Analysis ...................................... 14 Fiscal Impact Analysis ......................................... 14- 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ......... 18 Trade-offs between Income/Jobs and Environmental Degradation .......... 18 Sustainability ................................................ 19 Indicators of Sustainability ..................................... 19 Evaluating sustainability based upon input use .................... 20 Evaluating sustainability based upon production of output ............ 20 Ecosystem Threats in Northampton County ............... .......... 21 Threats, Stressors and Sources ............................... 21 Ecosystems, Stresses and Threats in Northampton County ........... 21 Summary: Sustainable Development Indicators ....................... 22 4. IMPACTS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN NORTHAMPTON COUNTY ..... 27 Nature/Heritage Tourism ....................................... 27 Current Conditions ........................................ 27 Current Impacts .......................................... 33 Potential Impacts ......................................... 39 Research and Education ....................................... 42 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page xii Table of Contents Current Conditions ........................................ 42 Potential Impacts ......................................... 44 Arts and Crafts ............................................. 46 Current Conditions ........................................ 46 Potential Impacts ......................................... 46 Agriculture ................................................ 49 Current Conditions ........................................ 49 Potential Impacts ......................................... 52 Food Processing ............................................ 54 Current Conditions ........................................ 54 Potential Impacts ......................................... 56 Seafood, Finfish and Shellfish ................................... 57 Current Conditions ........................................ 57 Potential Impacts ......................................... 59, References Cited .............................................. 61 Appendix 1 Definitions of Terms Used ...................................... 63 Appendix 2 The Models Employed ........................................ 67 Appendix 3 Impacts by Sector of Selected Development Scenarios ................. 71 Appendix 4 Selected Bibliography .......................................... 75 List of Tables 1. Selected Demographic and Economic Characteristics, Virginia, Northampton County, Eastern Shore, and Nearby Cities, 1990 ................................ 3 2. Household Income, Northampton County, VA, 1989 ....................... 6 3. Employment by Sector, Northampton County, VA, 1988 - 1990 ............... 8 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Table of Contents Page XM 4. Input-Output Multipliers for Northampton County, VA, 1990 Base Year . ........ 12 5. Regional Purchase Coefficients for Selected Commodities, Northampton County, VA . ...................................................... 13 6. Ecosystems, Stresses and Threats in the Virginia Eastern Shore .............. 24 7. General Threats in the Virginia Eastern Shore .......................... 25 8. Employment in the Hotel and Lodging Sector, Northampton County 1988 - 1992. 28 9, Lodging Tax Revenues Collected in Northampton County, VA, 1989 - 1992 ..... 28 10. Overnight Lodging Facility Unit-Nights Rented, Northampton County, VA, 1992. . 28 11. Monthly Occupancy, All Lodging Units, Northampton County, VA, 1992 . ...... 29 12. Frequency Distribution of Length of Stay by Type of Overnight Accommodation, Northampton County, VA, 1992 . ............................... I ... 30 13. Estimate of Launches from Boat Ramps, Northampton County, VA, March 1992 . through November 1992 ......................................... 30 14. Travel Party-Trips by Lodging Facility, Northampton County, VA, 1992 ........ 31 15. Day-Use Party-Trips by Activity and/or Destination, Northampton County, VA, 1992 ....................................................... 32 16. Party-Trips by Segment Share, Northampton County, VA, 1992 . ............ 33 17. Average Expenditures per Party-Trip by Market Segment, Northampton County, VA, 1992 . .................................................. 35 18. Average Travel and Tourism Expenditures per Party-Trip and Total ........... 37 19. Total Economic Impact of Travel and Tourism on the Economy of Northampton County, VA, 1992, (1990 dollars ................................... 38 20. Summary of Total Economic Impacts of Alternative Travel and Tourism Scenarios, Northampton County, VA 0 990 dollars) .............................. 41 21. Estimation of Research Days Spent in Northampton County, VA by Research Group, 1992 . ................................................ 43 22. Total Research Expenditures in Northampton County, VA by Accommodation Category, 1992 . .............................................. 43 23. Total Economic Impact of Ecological Research Activities on the Economy of Northampton County, VA, 1992 (1990 dollars) ......................... 44 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page Av Table of Contents 24. The Potential Impacts of an Expanded Arts and Crafts Industry in Northampton County, YA (1990 dollars) ........................................ 48 25. Market Value of Agricultural Goods Sold & of Selected Crops Sold . .......... 50 26. Total Impact of Agriculture on the Economy of Northampton County, VA, 1990. . 51 27. Summary of Total Economic Impacts of Alternative Sustainable Agricultural Practice Scenarios, Northampton County, VA, 1990 . .................... 53 28. Total Impact of Vegetable and Seafood Processing on the Economy of Northampton County, VA, 1990 . .................................. 55 29. Commercial Finfish and Shellfish Landings and Estimated Value for Selected Years, Virginia and Northampton County, VA . ......................... 57 30. Total Impact of Seafood Production on the Economy of Northampton County, VA, 1 E190 ....................................................... 59 List of Figures 1 - Median Age, Virginia, Northampton County, Eastern Shore, and Nearby Cities, 1990 4 2. Percent Persons 16 Years Old and Older Participating in the Labor Force, Virginia, Northampton County, Eastern Shore, and Nearby Cities, 1990 ................ 5 3. Percent Unemployment by Sector, Northampton County, Virginia, Northampton County, Eastern Shore, and Nearby Cities, 1990 . ......................... 5 4. Per Capita Income, Northampton County, Virginia, Northampton County, Eastern Shore, and Nearby Cities, 1990 ...................................... 6 5. Percent of Households Below Poverty Level, Northampton County, Virginia, Northampton County, Eastern Shore, and Nearby Cities, 1990 . ............... 7 6. Employment by Sector, Northampton County, VA, 1988 - 1992 .............. 8 7. Income by Sector, Northampton County, VA, 1988 - 1992 ................ 10 8. Example of Sustainable Development Indicators for Hypothetical Economic Activity "A" in the Coastal Estuarine/Lagoon Ecosystem, Northampton County, VA ....................................................... 25 9. Example of Sustainable Development Indicators for Hypothetical Economic Activity "B" in the Coastal Estuarine/Lagoon Ecosystem, Northampton County, VA ........................................................ 25 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Table of Contents Page XV 10. Example of Sustainable Development Indicators for Hypothetical Economic Activity "A" in the Terrestrial Mainland Ecosystem, Northampton County, VA ... 26 11. Total Lodging Unit-Nights Rented by Month, Northampton County, VA, 1992 .... 29 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia 1. INTRODUCTION Northampton County, Virginia, part of Virginia's Eastern Shore, comprises one of the most important natural ecosystems in the eastern United States. The Eastern Shore's chain of barrier islands, largely owned by the Nature Conservancy, and its seaside system of marshes and bays, has been designated a World Biosphere Reserve by the United Nations in recognition of its great ecological value. The barrier islands and surrounding waters support a great variety of fish and birds. The Chesapeake shoreline in Northampton County is characterized by coastal bluffs and dunes, creeks and inlets. The southern tip is an extremely important habitat for raptors and songbirds migrating along the eastern flyway. With more than 260 bird species passing through, Virginia's Eastern Shore has the highest concentration of migratory songbirds and shore birds in the eastern U.S. The county's economy has been driven by agriculture, and to a lesser degree seafood production, since it was settled during colonial times. From early settlement times up through the mid-20th century, the regional demand for agricultural products and the relative abundance of marketable marine life buoyed Northampton's economy. However, in recent years, as fish stocks have ebbed and agricultural processing has become regionalized closer to metropolitan centers, the county has experienced a serious economic decline. Major agricultural and seafood processing plants, as well as many small businesses, have closed, resulting in the loss of hundreds of jobs. Northampton's citizens have met these economic challenges head on. Understanding that the natural and cultural resources of Eastern Shore form the basis for a sustainable economy, Northampton began a strategic process to improve local economic conditions. Beginning with the development of the Northampton County Comprehensive Plan, citizens have worked together over the last few years to define a desired future for the county and strategies to reach their goals. The goals specified in the Comprehensive Plan are to: � conserve the county's natural resources; � preserve the county's rural character; � pursue economic self-sufficiency for all citizens; � provide adequate public services for all citizens; � pursue and establish a diversified economic base by supporting agriculture, seafood production, tourism and industry compatible with the goals and objectives of Northampton County's Comprehensive Plan. Following the comprehensive plan, in 1992, the Northampton Economic Forum, an independent group of citizen leaders developed A Blueprint for Economic Growth. The Blueprint further articulates goals and development strategies that preserve and capitalize on the county's natural and cultural heritage. The Comprehensive Plan and the Blueprint call for the development of tourism, agriculture and seafood production as the foundation of the local economy. The Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page Introduction development of indigenous arts and crafts products and markets, and educational products regarding the World Biosphere Reserve and compatible community development have also been discussed. Yet, the specific economic value and potential of these industries are not known. Purpose The overall objective of this study is to provide the citizens of Northampton County with the information necessary to revitalize the local economy through careful and thoughtful development of the county's natural and cultural resources. This study focuses on three major objectives: 1. document the current economic contributions of sustainable industries; 2. document the potential economic contributions of sustainable industries; 3. document the feasibility for development of the most promising industries. Through the comprehensive planning process and the economic forum, five broadly defined industries were identified as ones that could be labeled "sustainable." These are namely: 1 .Nature/heritage tourism: birding; recreational/sports fishing; visits to reserves, parks, and refuges; farm/country inn vacations; canoeing; hiking; bicycling; and hunting. 2. Fishery production: finfish and shellfish harvesting; processing; value-added products; aquaculture; and special products. 3. Sustainable agriculture: traditional crops, grains, nursery products, and specialty "niche" markets. 4. Arts and crafts. 5. Research and education. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton- County, Virginia 2. NORTHAMPTON'S ECONOMY Demographics Northampton County's demographics say a lot about the economy. Age and sex composition change slowly as births, deaths and migration add to and subtract from the population. Demographic composition determines the makeup of the labor force, the demand for goods and services produced locally, and the demands on local social services. Figure 1 compares the median age of the population of Northampton residents with the median age of populations in nearby counties in Virginia and Maryland. The median age of the residents of Virginia Eastern Shore counties is significantly greater than that of the nearby Virginia counties and Maryland counties on the Shore. The median age of the population of residents in both Northampton and Accomack counties is 37.4. The median age of the Virginia population is 32.9, and in Norfolk it is 27.2 (Table 1). Table 1. Selected Demographic and Economic Charecteristf6s, Virginia, Northampton County, Eastern Shore, and Nearby Cides, 1990. in -Percent., PerCapita A:- @Pover@::.@, Percent ocation .1 Median:Age Labor:Force:: Income L":' Virginia 32.9 68.9 4.5 15,713 10.2 .... ... ... .:Northampton 37A 55.2 Accomack 37.4 59.8 6.8 10,506 19.6 Chesapeake 31.3 70.9 4.5 13,817 9.0 Norfolk 27.2 68.8 8.8 11,643 19.3 Va. Beach 28.9 76.8 4.7 15,242 5.9 Portsmouth 31.6 62.0 7.8 11,158 17.7 Dorchester, MD 36.9 63.8 5.9 12,437 14.2 Somerset, MD 33.7 51.1 8.4 10,232 16.0 Wicomico, MD 33.2 67.6 4.7 13,425 11.6 Worcester, MD 37.4 64.8 4.8 14,341 11.0 Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1990 Census of Population and Housing. A high median age is usually indicative of a problem common to many rural areas. Young people with the best education and health and the most marketable skill and abilities leave the area to realize their earning potential. With them go some of the area's future leaders, innovators, and entrepreneurs. Taxes collected in the county, to invest in the education of the county's youth, are now earning dividends for people and economies in other counties and states. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 41 Northampton's Economy Median Age 40 30 Bon 20 10 0 Virghda Accoxisok Norlbik V Bea 51- mr- A WWM KD Nor0mingyton Cheupeaiw Portwaouth Dad"w, 110112ftomlco, MD Figure 1. Median Age, Virginia, Northampton County, Eastern Shore, and Nearby Cities, 1990. Labor Force The size of the labor force relative to the total population are indicators of the size and strength of a local economy. A large labor force with a high degree of participation is usually correlated with a strong economy. The labor force is defined as the population of individuals at least 16 years old who are willing and able to work. Persons not participating in the labor force can be out of work or otherwise occupied, such as in school. Figure 2 shows participation in the labor force for Virginia, Northampton County, other eastern shore counties, and nearby cities. Among the cities and counties compared, Northampton County's is the smallest labor force with 10,095 persons 16 years old and above. Just more than half (55.2%) of those were in the labor force in 1990. Only Somerset County, Maryland, an Eastern Shore bayside community, has a lower labor force participation rate. Unemployment in Northampton County in 1990 was moderately high in comparison to neighboring counties and cities (Figure 3). This figure has fluctuated up and down since the time that the census was taken, particularly after the food processing plant closings in 1990 and 1991. Income and Poverty Per capita income is a meaningful measure of economic strength and can be used for comparing economies among geographically similar areas. Northampton ranked lowest in 1990 of all the geographical areas compared, with a per capita income of $10,176 nilij -111 nili (Figure 4). The average per capita income for the state was $15,713 in 1990. Although Northampton's income rate is lowest among those compared, it is comparable to other eastern shore communities in Virginia and Maryland. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Northampton's Economy Page 5 Percent 100 so 60 1 ssss@ .1 40 o L Argir" I com- Norfolk 1-ma I So -root -star'll) Norftmpton Chesapeake VA.Beach DorcheaterWwwomoo,MD Figure 2. Percent Persons 16 Years Old and Older Participating in the Labor Force, Virginia, Northampton County, Eastern Shore, and Nearby Cities, 1990. Percent 10 8 6 4 ::19 "H 2 0 "Ift" I onm-ek Norfolk Porternouth Sowareek MD We star III) NorthaMPton Chesapeake Va. Bew* Dorchester, MD Wwwwoo, IM Figure I Percent Unemployment, Virginia, Northampton County, Eastern Shore, and Nearby Cities, 1990. n Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page f, Northampton's Economy Dollars 20,000 15,000 10,000- 5,000- 0 virgir" Accomwk Norfolk Porlamouth SWWrM 1110ft ID Nordmmqftn Chompeake Va-Besch Dordw*WMWloomkoUD Figure 4. Per COPit-9 Income, Virginiff, Northampton County, Eastern Shore, and Nearby Cities, 1990. Poverty in Northampton County, measured by the proportion of families with incomes below the poverty level, is a serious issue. Over 26 percent of all households in the county are impoverished compared with 10.2 percent for the state and 19.6 percent in Accomack County (Figure 5). The seeming inconsistency between a moderate unemployment rate, a per capita income rate that is not significantly lower than others in the area, and a very high poverty rate can explained by examining income distribution in the county. Roughly 42% of households had 1989 incomes below $15,000 (Table 2). Table Z Household Income, Northampton County, VA, 1989. Income Range Households Proportions < 5,000 726 14% 5,000 - 9,999 782 15% 10,000 - 14,999 657 13% 15,000 - 24,999 1042 20% 25,000 - 34,999 722 14% 35,000 - 49,999 569 11% 50,000 - 74,000 364 7% 74,000 - 99,999 98 2% 100,000 or more 128 3% Total g; nAA Source: opt. of Commerce, 1990 Census of Population and7o-usmg. - Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Northampton's Economy Page 7 Percent 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Virginia Acoomack Norfolk Portsmouth Somerset, MD Worcester, MD Northampton Chesapeake Va. Beach Dorchester,MD Wicomloo,MD Figure 5. Percent of Households Below Poverty Level, Virginia, Northampton County, Eastern- Shore, and Nearby Cities, 1990. Sectoral Employment and Income Figure 6 and Table 3 show employment by major industrial sector in Northampton County between 1988 and 1992. The construction, transportation, and financial sectors are quite small employers. Agriculture (which includes fisheries), manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, services, and government are the largest employers. Manufacturing has declined significantly since 1988, reflecting closings of agricultural and seafood processing plants. Employment in manufacturing dropped from 1,144 in the 3rd quarter 1988 to 783 in the 3rd quarter 1990. Total employment also has dropped by 6% from 4,799 in the 3rd quarter 1988 to 4,519 in the 3rd quarter 1992 with most of that loss coming from the manufacturing sector. Agriculture employment grew during this time. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia page 19 Northampton's Economy Employment SpOIDO 4901DO 390430 - 29000 - 190()0- 01 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 L 0 Agriculture, FisherleAM Construction N ManufacturinglM Transportatiorkill) Wholesale Trade E3 Retall Trade a Finance, insurance, Real EstatG Services M Government race ornplaymem wr Vw arc quww of "on yew Figure 6. Employment by Sector, Northampton County, VA, 1988 - 1992. Table 3. Employment by Sector, Northampton County. VA, 1988 - 1990. ... ... .. ....... Sector 1988 1989 1990 199f:@ Agriculture, Fisheries 419 514 485 734 656 Construction 127 141 150 132 149 Manufacturing 1,144 858 783 487 392 Transportation 89 52 61 63 62 Wholesale Trade 332 323 321 318 323 Retail Trade 570 1 738 753 665 654 Finance, Insurance, Real 84 76 82 72 73 Estate - Services 1,137 1,182 1,179 1,165 1,184 EO @Governrnent 897 928 1,000 1,019 1,026 Total 4,799 4,812 4,814 4,655 4,519 SOL ployment commission, 1993. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton CountY, V'"r9inia Northampton's Economy Page 9 in 1988, most wages were earned in the manufacturing, service, and government sectors (Figure 7 and Table 4). In the 3rd-quarter of that year, nearly one-fourth of all wages earned were made in the manufacturing sector, and slightly more in the government sector. By 1992, only 9% of all wages were earned in manufacturing. Also, as the manufacturing sector has declined between 1988 and 1992, so have real wages. Total 3rd-quarter wages paid in Northampton County (in 1992 dollars) dropped from $19,135,024 in 1988 to $17,306,925, a decrease of 11 %. The drop in manufacturing income spurred related drops in real wages in the wholesale trade and transportation sectors. Transportation wages decreased in real value by nearly half between 1988 and 1989 from $639,332 to $297,813. Wages paid in the wholesale trade sector decreased by a lesser amount. Real wages have increased since 1988 in agriculture and fisheries, and the service sector. In the agriculture and fisheries sector, 3rd-quarter wages increased by over 68% between 1988 and 1992 from $980,029 to $1,647,602. In the service sector, wages increased by 20% during that time, from $4,475,834 in 1988 to $5,353,184 in 1992. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page -'FO Northampton's Economy Total Adjusted Wages 2094)OOvOOO 159()00900 1 Op()009000 5POO09000 0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 0 Agriculture, Flaherled3l Construcdon U ManufacturlngEO Transportationl[l) Wholesale Trade E3 Retail Trade 0 Finance. insurance, Real Estat49 Services 0 Government rage Ow wag" toe ww 3rd quarter at *acn "ar Figure .7. Total Wages by Sector, in 1992 Dollars, Northampton County, VA, 1988 - 1992. Table 4. Total Wages by Sector, in 1992 Dollars, Northampton County, VA, 1988 - 199Z 9" :991:: Sector 1988 .1. 990::: Agriculture, Fisheries 980,029 1,157,807 1,168,694 1,255,856 1,647,602 Construction 613,466 590,872 708,246 598,956 481,867 Manufacturing 4,536,027 2,868,974 2,453,376 1,831,594 1,608,346 Transportation 639,332 297,813 301,262 321,713 375,263 Wholesale Trade 1,012,162 890,923 922,331 701,194 837,009 Retail Trade 1,830,673 2,114,184 2,171,589 1,849,207 1,833,224 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 419,223 377,000 391,790 372,640 401,601 Services 4,475,834 4,570,377 4,503,899 5,116,352 5,353,184 Go vernment 4,628,278 4,904,824 5,108,521 4,978,534 4,768,829 Total 1 19,135,024 1 17,772,775 1 17,Zj!,708J 17,026,047 1 17,306,925 11 hou='@C'-- tirginia Employment Commission, 1991-. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Northampton's Economy PagFe I I Economic Linkages and Leakages The economic importance of an industry is described in terms of its total industrial output, final demand, income, value added, and total employment. Total industrial output is the dollar value of goods and services produced to satisfy inter-industry input final demands. Final demand is the dollar value of purchases from producing industries for final consumption. Income is the amount paid in wages and to property owners from rent. Value added is equivalent to gross regional product (payments to labor and capital, and- taxes), or the value of total industrial output less input purchases. Thus, value added is always less than total industrial output, but greater than income. An input-output model describing the economic structure of Northampton County was formulated to measure current and potential sectoral economic impacts of sustainable industries. The input-output model is expressed as: X = AX + F where: X is total sectoral outputs, A is a technical coefficient, AX is interindustry demand, and F is final demands (goods and services purchased for final consumption by households, governments and/or for export). The sectors which characterize X are presented in Tables 2,3, and 4 as well as 1992 base year information pertaining to wages and employment. Solving for X yields the following supply and demand balance equation, by which total economic effects can be measured on a sector by sector basis: X = WAY'F, where I is an n x n identity matrix. In general, a change in the final demand M for an existing or newly established sector's output is expected to exert direct, indirect, and induced effects on the local economy, in terms of total output (X), personal income, and total employment. The direct effect of a one dollar change in final demand is that one dollar of initial spending. The indirect effect is of the output of other local businesses needed to support the production of sector i, while the induced effect is the impact of spending by households.'Total economic effects of a change in final demand (direct, indirect, and induced) for a sector's output is determined by calculating input-output multipliers. Table 4 lists multipliers for output, total income, value added, and employment, and 1992 base year output levels for an aggregated list of industries in Northampton County. These multipliers are used to assess the regional economic contribution of a given industry at the margin. For instance, if the demand for agricultural crop products increases by $ 1, then the value of total output generated throughout the region would rise by $1.56 ($1 produced by the crop producing sector and $0.56 produced by all other sectors) to satisfy the one dollar increase in final demand for crop products. If final demand for crop products sector increases by $1, then the amount of additional income generated Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page Y2 Northampton's Economy throughout the local economy would be $0.32. And, if final demand for crop products increases by $1 million, then 20 new jobs would be created locally. The magnitude of these multipliers can also be used to assess the strength of economic linkages between sectors of the local economy. Based on the output multiplier, the retail trade industry, particularly hotels and lodging places, is strongly linked with other industries in Northampton County, the agricultural sector is moderately linked, and the construction industry is weakly linked. Service industries account for a relatively large share of regional output, and changes in their final demands will result in significant economic impacts in the region. Table At. Input-Output Multfpfiers for Northampton County, VA, 1990 Base Year. Industry Total Value Output Income Added Employment of income @of VA per $1 Wof J$ of 10 job Sector per $1 FD1 per $1 FD) FD) $1 mifflonTD) LIVESTOCK' 1.40 0.42 0.49 24.03 CROPS 1.56 0.32 0.36 20.43 Commercial Fishing 1.41 0.46 0.51 32.58 MANUFACTURING 1.30 0.70 0.74 21.54 CONSTRUCTION 1.37 0.50 0.54 23.43 FOOL) PROCESSING 1.54 0.32 0.36 20.66 Boat Building & Repair 1.29 0.71 0.74 21.68 TRANSPORTATION 1.50 0.81 0.89 31.73 COMMUNICATIONS 1.30 0.78 0.85 15.03 UTILITIES 1.19 0.54 0.62 6.82 WHOLESALE & RETAIL TRADE 1.73 1.00 1.27 62.43 FINANCE 1.36 0.72 0.77 24.27 INSURANCE 1.72 0.92 1.06 34.85 REALESTATE 1.19 0.65 0.87 6.00 Hotels & Lodging Places 1.81 0.94 1.15 62-32 MEDICAL SERVICES 1.63 1.05 1.12 50.40 EDUCATION 1.88 1.06 1.15 67.19 OTHER SERVICES 1.58 0.81 0.88 40.89 MISCELLANEOUS 1.59 -0.94 -0.85 44.41 GOVE RNMENT 1.66 1.30 1.38 58.41 Household Industry 3.69 2.48 1 2.79 248.04 *Sectors indicated by capital letters are aggregated. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Northampton's Economy Page 13 The IMPLAN input-output model uses these multipliers to estimate total economic impacts on an annual basis (industry by industry), in 1990 dollars. Based on the structural characteristics of the local economy, the model determines how many new jobs will be created, and how much additional sectoral output will be necessary economy-wide to accommodate the creation or expansion of an industry. New economic activities usually involve changes in final demand for several industries. Depending on the change considered and expenditure patterns of the population, economic impacts may operate on several multipliers and may be positive or negative. The input-output multipliers describe and quantify the linkages between economic sectors. The higher the value of the multiplier, the greater the interdependence between that sector and the entire economy. High multipliers signify strong economic linkages, and low multipliers weak linkages. Weak linkages are indicative of leakages in the economy. In other words, sales and income are leaving the county. Another way of measuring leakages in the economy is to estimate Regional Purchase Coefficients (RPCs) for each commodity. An RPC is a unique value calculated for each commodity based on the population and land area in the region, and regional employee compensation and employment figures. A commodity's RPC represent the proportion of locally produced good or service that is used to meet local demand. RPCs can take on a value between 0 and 1. An RPC value of 1 means that all units of a commodity purchased locally are produced locally. The lower the RPC, the greater is the leakage in that sector. Table 5 lists selected goods and services produced in Northampton County with low RPC values. These indicate where leakages in the economy are occurring that are significant to the sustainable development activities under study. Table 5. Regional Purchase Coefficients 1RPCs) for Selected Commodities, Northampton County, VA. -Commodity RPC Commodity FOG: Boat building & repair 0.0021 Wholesale trade 0.3711 General merchandise stores 0.1942 Commercial photography 0.0013 Apparel & accessory stores 0.1491 Equipment rental & leasing 0.2030 Furniture & home furnishings 0.1744 Car repair & services 0.4195 Banking 0.3139 Misc. repair shops 0.5490 Credit agencies 0.3944 Amusement & rec. services 0.0755 Beauty and barber shops 0.1191 Legal services 0.4017 Misc. personal services 0.1676 Other educational services 0.1460 Advertising 0.1656 Accounting, & bookkeeping 0.4188 Commodities for which RPC values are relatively high in Northampton County include miscellaneous crops (.9082), landscape and horticultural services (0.7949), new construction (0.8947 for new industrial and commercial construction), hotels and lodging places (0.9504), and eating and drinking places (07976). One aspect of economic development that is often overlooked by supporters of one type of industry or another, is Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 14 Northampton's Economy the economic boost that a region can gain by simply "plugging leaks." The fewer the leaks in the existing economy, the greater will be the net impact of a new industry introduced into the region. As a local economy grows and diversifies, more of the dollars generated by each sector will be retained and recirculated within the region. The net impact is positive and ever increasing. Economic Impact Analysis Economic impact analyses estimate the effects of independently changing economic activities on economic indicators such as employment, industrial output, income, contribution to the gross domestic product, etc. Regional economic impact analyses provide such information within a geographic area such as a county or group of counties, or of a state. Input/Output (1-0) analyses are widely used in the conduct of regional economic analysis. An 1-0 model describes the flows of transactions, in dollars, between the various producing sectors in a region and also across the regional boundary, thus specifying the economic interrelationships between industries (or sectors) and the fact that a change in any industry will have ripple effects throughout the entire regional economic system. The total economic impact of an industry (or sector) on a regional economy consists of direct, indirect and induced impacts. When the demand for the output of any sector increases, it must purchase inputs which produces an indirect impact on the input-supply industries. Both the direct and indirect impacts influence the flow of dollars to the community's households. As a result of the direct and indirect impacts, households earn more income and increase consumption accordingly. The effect of the increased household consumption upon businesses in a community is referred to as an induced impact. The sum of these direct, indirect, and induced impacts is referred to as the multiplier for a given industry. In the case of tourism for example, the primary sectors are the hotels, restaurants, and recreational services. These businesses purchase inputs from suppliers of many products and thus sectors. Accordingly, in order to analyze tourism an activity description is created. This activity description describes the fractions of total expenditures by tourists that go to the various commodity sectors and that which goes to trade margins. The activity description is then associated with a level of expenditures and the regional input/output model for the region being studied (Northampton County in this example) to construct the scenario and to perform the impact analysis. The regional model for this analysis is constructed using the IMPLAN input/output software. The economic impacts of tourism extend throughout the County and beyond according to where commodities for retail sale are purchased. In studying the economic impacts of tourism or any of the other scenarios, the magnitude of the impacts will differ greatly depending on whether we define the region of analysis as the County alone, or the entire Eastern Shore region, or the state. Generally speaking, as the region analyzed gets wider, the impacts get larger since flows that would otherwise be "leakages" become internalized as "linkages". Leakages are the dissipation of economic activity due to the payment of wages to in-commuters, and purchases of other inputs and consumer goods from industries outside the region of analysis. As the region analyzed gets wider, Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Northampton's Economy Page 15 however, more of these commuters and industries become part of the region, thus reducing leakage and increasing linkages. Again, we chose to demonstrate our analysis with the tourist sector. The base tourism expenditure patterns are listed in Table 18. The typical tourist spends money on lodging in hotels and campgrounds, food on and off the vendors premises, gas and oil, auto rental, parts and repairs, and various other goods and services. Each of these activities involves purchases from a different sector, sometimes through a retail outlet and sometimes direct from the producing sector (most services for example). These activity descriptions are organized into a scenario called BASEREC. The scenario refers to one visitor day. By scaling the scenario up to reflect the expected number of visitor days the scenario is complete. The impact procedure is initiated and the IMPLAN model calculates the impacts. These results are then used along with information about the direct impacts to estimate changes in the demand for local public services and in local government revenues projected over time. Fiscal Impact Analysis A fiscal impact model highlights the direct and indirect fiscal relationships between industry and government revenues and services. The purpose of fiscal impact analysis is to compare project-induced increases in the demand for (and thus expenditures on) local public services and the increase in local government revenues. Direct fiscal relationships include real property, personal property, and sales taxes paid by the industry, and expenditures by the county governments on infrastructure and public services required by the industry. Indirect fiscal relationships include new expenditures on education and other public services and new taxes paid by employees and other sectors. To analyze the fiscal impacts of the various scenarios considered, the Virginia Impact Projection (VIP) Model was used. The VIP Model has different versions for counties and cities and is calibrated with specific economic, fiscal, social and demographic data for each jurisdiction. The first step in using the VIP Model is calculation of a "baseline" for.the locality which predicts future fiscal and economic conditions based on extrapolation of current conditions. This baseline is then stored for comparison with the conditions predicted under the alternate scenarios being studied. The impacts of alternate scenarios are predicted by running the model with the economic changes predicted by the input-output model. Regional economic and fiscal impacts are linked through their mutual "dependence" on regional employment and income data. As such there are linkages between the data and results of the IMPLAN input-output and VIP fiscal impact models. In the case of tourism, the predicted annual employment and personal income generated by tourists are entered as direct changes in the VIP model. The VIP model generates two measures of fiscal impacts. The "cash flow" measure indicates the expected improvement in revenues relative to expenditures. "Net Public Service Benefits" is a measure of the net benefits that citizens of Northampton County can expect in terms of public services and/or lower taxes as a result of tourism. The public service benefits can be negative or positive and are in addition to employment, income, and other economic benefits. More elaborate explanation of these terms are given in the appendix. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Traditionally, benefits of economic growth have been reported in terms of employment and income generated, and property taxes paid to the local government. However, today there is increased interest in incorporating information about the level of environmental effects that accompany growth and development. incorporation of such effects, including both environmental damage and enhancement, provides information that is useful in at least three ways. First, employment, income and other economic measures are revised to include estimates of environmental damages and enhancements that occur with development of economic activities. Such "green" accounting provides better estimates of net social welfare than do current accounting procedures that ignore depletion and use of natural resources and the degradation of environmental amenities. Second, strategic benefit-cost analyses of a wide range of policy alternatives allows for the development of a package of local policies that set the general agenda for enhancing economic well-being in an environmentally sound manner. Third, project-level, site-specific assessment of benefits and costs allows comparisons of specific projects on both environmental and economic grounds. Decisions using these three types of analyses form the basis for movements toward more sustainable, environmentally sound economic development. At a minimum, the process of evaluating environmental costs and benefits helps a local community in at least three ways: (1) it helps them define and balance their own economic and environmental priorities; (2) it helps stimulate the development and implementation of site-specific technology that potentially can improve efficiency of resource use and reduced environmental degradation; and (3) it sets the stage for development of institutional responses that provides incentive for adoption and implementation of the improved technology by local public and private resource users. Trade-offs between Income/Jobs and Environmental Degradation Conservation assets such as habitat provided by fields and forests, groundwater, estuaries and streams, and economic assets such as stores, machines and equipment are productive capital that provides for a flow of goods and services over time. Yet, private or public investment in conservation assets seldom receives the priority and attention as does investment in economic assets. This occurs for several reasons. First, the system of local income and employment accounts ignores costs of using conservation assets or destroying their capacity to produce. On the other hand, economic assets are fully costed. Under these circumstances natural assets are underpriced, the income and employment accounts are overstated, and natural assets are used in excess. Second, there is no incentive to make investments that maintain the quality of their stock and productive capacity declines. In addition, individuals often have little incentive to conserve natural assets. First, returns to investments such as soil and water conservation on their land may occur over too long a planning horizon to "pay off" for the individual. Second, costs of overuse, that Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 18 Environmental Implications of Sustainable Development lead to environmental degradation, often are not considered because they occur offsite. Examples include sedimentation of lakes and streams, and nutrient and chemical contarnination'of estuaries and groundwater. In this case, other persons or the general public bear the costs rather than the person making the decision. The bottom line is that environmental degradation often occurs with traditional economic development. In fact, it is often assumed that a region cannot have economic .development while at the same time preserving or enhancing the quality of the environment. Under this scenario, there is a tradeoff, namely, jobs and income for the quality of the environment. To the extent such a scenario reflects reality, development is not sustainable. But many regions are finding opportunities for achieving economic growth without degrading the environment. Ecotourism is one example where communities are attempting to capitalize on environmental quality to attract tourists, yet do so in a sustainable, environmentally sound manner. But to accomplish development that preserves the environmental integrity of a community requires: (1) an understanding of the linkage between economics and the environment; (2) identification of environmental, social and cultural effects in addition to the economic effects of development activities; and (3) sound planning to carry it out. Sustainability Early in the planning and development process there must be agreement and understanding of the meaning of sustainability. By sustainable economic development we mean "development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". Thus, sustainability means more than a simple "preservation of natural resources." It allows for and recognizes that substitution possibilities exist between nonrenewable and renewable resources; that overuse of one natural resource can be offset by enhancement or increased efficiency in use of another natural resource; and that investments in natural resources today can yield increased benefits to future generations. For example, use of nonrenewable resources, such as mining of sand and gravel, may be consistent with sustainability if the depletion enables investments to be made in renewable natural resources such as estuaries that produce oysters, scallops or fihfish. More generally, investment in natural resources such as soil and water conservation or improved wastewater treatment can reduce degradation of the environment. By so doing, short or long run net benefits to the community are enhanced. Indicators of Sustainability As implied above, indicators of sustainability must encompass environmental, social and cultural effects as well as economic effects. Economic effects primarily will be based upon employment and income generated, or upon other economic characteristics of the growth and development activities being considered. Environmental effects are based upon Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Environmental Implications of Sustainable Development Page 19 underlying factors related to the rate at which inputs (resources) are used, or the rate at which waste products are produced. Evaluating sustainability based upon input use For use of renewable resources as an input, sustainability depends upon the relationship between harvest rates and regenerative capacity of the natural system that generates them. Sustainability in the use of nonrenewable resources depends upon the relationship between the rate of depletion and the rate at which renewable substitutes are developed through innovation and investment. In this case, it is understood that, if nonrenewable resources are used (the stock diminishes), sustainability requires that the economic returns generated by that use be invested rather than consumed such that productivity is enhanced sufficiently to offset the loss of nonrenewable resources. Evaluating sustainability based upon production of output Waste products are an output of commerce and industry along with production of goods for sale to consumers. Production and sale of products gives rise to employment and income opportunities, but required disposal of associated waste products is costly and can have a negative environmental impact. Indicators of sustainability related to waste production are a function of the amount and characteristics of the waste products of the economic activity relative to the assimilative capacity of the environment in which they are disposed. If degradation of the environment occurs, or the future waste absorptive capacity of the natural resource declines, and this negative impact is not offset elsewhere, then the activity is not sustainable. Measuring sustainability There is no single best measure of sustainability for all geographical areas. Many alternative economic, social, cultural and environmental or ecological indicators could be chosen depending upon resources available and resource limitations locally, the economic activities being considered and local preferences. Close involvement of local citizens and officials insures the relevance of the indicator to the region. In general, it is more feasible to work with a small number of indicators than a large number. These measures can be highly specific, such as concentration of nitrates in groundwater, or more general, such as depletion of groundwater, loss of wildlife habitat, quantity of wastewater discharged in comparison to the assimilative capacity of the receiving land or water body and and amount of solid waste generated. Economic indicators of sustainability can be based upon income and employment expected to be generated, or upon characteristics of that income and employment. For example, studies have identified the following three indicators of sustainability based upon output: (a) job creation and income generation. This refers to the magnitude of employment and income expected to be generated by the economic activity. Generally, more is preferred to less; (b) local income and employment retention. If economic development activity results in increased employment and income, and most of that impact occurs inside the region, then the activity is more sustainable than one where the impacts occur more heavily outside the region. This is referred to as the amount of Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 20 Environmental Implications of Sustainable Development "leakage" that occurs in the local economy. The extent or degree of leakage is dependent upon the particular economic activity being considered, the resource endowments of the area, and the characteristics of the local economy; and (c) business diversity. Economies with greater diversity are more sustainable over time than economies that are heavily dependent upon a small number of industries or industry sectors because they are less exposed to fluctuations of the overall economy. Measures of industry concentration can be developed. Ecosystem Threats in Northampton County Threats, Stressors and Sources The Nature Conservancy has developed procedures for conducting a "threats" analysis whereby the most important threats are identified for attention. The process involves identifying: (1) the major ecosystem(s) being evaluated; (2) the major stresses in each ecosystem; and (3) the cause of the stress. Different ecosystems are identified because they differ in characteristics but can individually be defined homogeneously, they respond differently to categories of stress common to the region, and, because of their location, may face different causes of stress, even if the stress itself is the same (e.g. nutrients might be causing stress in two ecosystem, but the sources could be agriculture in one! case and residential development in the other). Ecosystems, Stresses and Threats in Northampton County For the Virginia Eastern Shore, the Nature Conservancy identifies five ecosystems and the main stresses and threats being faced in each (Tables 6,7). The most detailed discussion is for "The Coastal Estuarine/Lagoon System," with six stresses and six causes of stress being identified. Development of a sustainability indicator for an economic activity will require additional information for most of the ecosystems, although the discussion of stresses is fairly complete. The system of sustainability indicators for each of these ecosystems would incorporate, at a minimum, economic and environmental components for each economic activity being evaluated. The indicators would be tailored to each ecosystem, to allow stresses and causes to vary from area to area in the county. Thus, an economic activity may have different indicator values depending on the ecosystem it would impact (which usually would depend on the ecosystem in which it would be located). The economic activities being considered as possible sustainable activities in Northampton county include: (1) nature/heritage tourism; (2) fishery production; (3) agriculture; (4) arts and crafts; and (5) research and education. Sustainability indicators (with environmental and economic components) would be estimated for each. The economic indicator components are discussed elsewhere in this study, and include'estimates of value added and employment for each of the five "sustainable" economic activities. Various measures of value added and employment could be incorporated, such as contribution to diversity of the local economy, retained income, local employment, etc. The exact form of the indicator would need to be determined locally. Based upon the stresses and threats for the particular ecosystem that would be affected Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Environmental Implications of Sustainable Development Page 21 by the activity, the key environmental indicator components are next specified. For example, for the Coastal Estuarine/Lagoon Ecosystem three environmental indicators might be nutrient enrichment by nitrogen and phosphorus, and soil sedimentation. These would be used to evaluate all the economic activities within that ecosystem. The final step is to estimate qualitatively or quantitatively the impacts of the activity on the environmental indicators for that ecosystem so that the overall economic-environmental indicator can be evaluated. The same procedure would then be followed for all relevant economic activities and ecosystems. We have then for the Coastal Estuarine/Lagoon Ecosystem the following sustainability components: Indicator Component TvDe 1. Income Economic 2. Employment Economic 3. Nutrient enrichment-nitrogen Environmental 4. Nutrient enrichment-phosphorus Environmental 5. Soil sedimentation Environmental Figures 8 and 9 show examples of how these indicators might be displayed for two hypothetical economic activities developed in the Coastal Estuarine/Lagoon Ecosystem. Estimation of the indicators would be plotted for all five economic activities, and their. effects upon the five components compared. In the Terrestrial Mainland Ecosystem, there might be two environmental indicators: habitat destruction and conversion, and groundwater depletion. Measures of these indicators would have to be developed, but examples could be habitat acreage lost with development of the activity, and groundwater use in millions of gallons per day. The economic indicator components would again be income and employment. In summary, for the Terrestrial Mainland Ecosystem: Indicator Component im 1. Income Economic 2. Employment Economic 3. Habitat destruction Environmental 4. Groundwater depletion Environmental Figure 10 shows an example of how the indicators might be displayed for a hypothetical economic activity. Estimation of the indicators would be plotted for all five economic activities, and their effects upon the four components compared. Summary: Sustainable Development Indicators The sustainability of Northampton county's five alternative economic development activities requires evaluations related to both economic and environmental characteristics of those activities. An outline of a system for estimating such a sustainable development indicator was presented based upon the five ecosystems for the Eastern Shore, and their most important stresses, each as identified by the Nature Conservancy. Because the stresses in each ecosystem vary, the set of components in the indicator also will vary between ecosystems. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 22 Environmental Implications of Sustainable Development Within each ecosystem, all economic activities being evaluated will be compared using the same sustainability indicator components. This allows an evaluation of economic activities according to the actual ecological stresses that exist in that area and provides a more realistic assessment of sustainability. It should be remembered that several decisions must be made during actual construction of the sustainability indicators. These include the.set of stresses to be included in the indicator for each ecosystem, how each will be measured, the characterization of the economic activities that are being evaluated, and the methods for making qualitative or quantitative assessments of each economic activity with respect to the set of components of the indicator. The process will be a learning exercise, with later generation models an improvement upon the initial model. However, from the outset, it is expected that the development and analysis of sustainability indicators for Northampton County will provide new insights into the relevance of both economics and environmental characteristics of development activities, the existence of trade-offs between the two, and the importance of planning and policy decisions that will provide incentives and/or guide development and thereby determine many of the environmental effects that go into the components of the sustainable development indicators. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Environmental implications of Sustainable Development Page 23 Table 6. Ecosystems, Stresses and Threats in the Virginia Eastern Shore A. The Atlantic Marine System 1. Stresses a. Nutrient enrichment b. Sediments c. Contaminants d. Large-scale petroleum inputs e. Depletion of forage fish f. Marine debris 2. Threats (sources) B. The Coastal Barrier Islands 1. Stresses a. Destruction of habitats b. Disturbance of beach and dunes c. Impeded barrier island migration d. Invasive plant species e. Disturbance of wetlands/a Iteration of water regimes f. Sea level rise 2. Threats C. The Coastal Estuarine/Lagoon System 1. Stresses a. Nutrient enrichment (nitrogen, phosphorus) b. Sedimentation c. Contaminants d. Large-scale petroleum inputs (oil spills) e. Destruction of salt marshes f. Stratospheric ozone depletion 2. Threats a. Human wastewater, agricultural runoff, animal wastes, acid deposition (nutrients) b. Development, agriculture (sediment) c. Industrial and municipal point source discharge, nonpoint discharge (urban stormwater, atmospheric deposition, agriculture, groundwater contaminants) d. Oil spills from offshore oil development or ship collisions or groundings (large-scale petroleum inputs) e. Development (destruction of salt marshes) f. CFCs and related compounds (stratospheric ozone depletion) D. The Terrestrial Mainland System 1 . Stresses a. Habitat destruction and conversion b. Groundwater depletion 2. Threats E. The Chesapeake Bay Shoreline & Nearshore Estuarine System 1 - Stresses (same as seaside marine and terrestrial mainland systems) Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 24 Environmental Implications of Sustainable Development Table 7. General Threats in the Virginia Eastern Shore Very hioh priority 1. High-density mainland development Medium-to-high priority 1. Agricultural practices 2. Off road vehicles on barrier islands 3. Commercial fishing 4. Barrier island development 5. Island recreational use Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Environmental Implications of Sustainable Development Page 25 Ecorwmic Acdylty A. Coe" En*AAgoon Ecosystell Employment Income Sed1mentellon 0 AIM= MP NIVog*n I Phoafhorous Figure 8. Example of Sustainable Development Indicators for Hypothedcal Economic Activity "A" in the Coastal EstuadnelLagoon Ecosystem, Northampton County, VA. Eomomk Ac" B. CowN En%ksgoon Econyoftm Empkyym@M income + Phosphorous Nitrogen Sedimontoon 0 AMM 1111111112 AIR= I r I Figure 9. Example of Sustainable Development Indicators for Hypothedcal Economic Activity 'B" in the Coastal EstuarinelLegoon Ecosystem, Northampton County, VA. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 26 Environmental Implications of Sustainable Development Eoonaaft Adlft A. TwT*s&IW MalnhuW Ecoeyebm Employment + Habkd LOSS Groundwow Depledon 0 Figure 10. Example of Sustainable Development Indicators for Hypothetical Economic Activity 'A' in the Terrestrial Mainland Ecosystem, Northampton County, VA. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia 4. IMPACTS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN NORTHAMPTON COUNTY Nature/Heritage Tourism One of the six economic strategies identified in the Economic Forum is to develop and promote tourism "activities, attractions and amenities that are compatible with the local environment, Northampton's rural character and its existing natural resource-based industries" (Northampton Economic Forum, p. 13). Nature-base tourism can play a major role in economic development given the quality and variety of natural and heritage resources of the county. Boating and fishing are the most predominant nature-based tourism activities taking place in the county today. However, Northampton can potentially capitalize on its unique wildlife resources and capture a large share of the wildlife viewing and birding market in the metropolitan areas extending from Baltimore south to Virginia Beach. Moreover, Northampton may be in good position to attract other recreation and leisure markets for such activities as long-distance on-road bicycling and heritage tourism. Current Conditions The travel and tourism industry has been fairly steady in Northampton County over the past several years. Employment in hotels and motels as reported by the Virginia Employment Commission has remained roughly between 170 and 250 since 1988 with a decreasing trend (Table 8). Table 8. Employment in the Hotel and Lodging Sector, Northampton County, VA, 7988 - 1992. Year Employment*,. 1988 213 1989 247 1990 211 1991 172 1992 177 Average employment in the 3rd quarter of each year. Source: Virginia Employment Commission, 1993. Revenues from the 2% lodging tax collected in Northampton County show a similar trend between 1989 (the first year the tax was collected) and 1992 (Table 9). Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 28 Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Table 9. Lodging Tax Revenues Collected in Northampton County, VA, 1989 - 199Z Year Revenue M 1989 39,126.57 1990 45,957.37 1991 43,857.72 1992 43,383.69 Sour -.a: Northampton CountV Treasurer, 1 193. Table 9 shows a slight downward trend in lodging tax revenues between 1990 and 1992. The tax was collected for only part of 1989 and is therefore less than the amounts collected in the succeeding years. A survey of operators of inns, motels, and campgrounds in the county was undertaken in September, 1993 to collect data on lodging activity during 1992. Survey results indicate a total of 97,215 unit nights were rented in Northampton County in 1992. Most (64,121) unit nights were rented in Cherrystone Campground, a 700-site campground complex on the bayside (see Table 10). Table 10. Overnight Lodging Facility Unit-Nights Rented, Northampton County, VA, 1992. Lodging Facility Rented Cape 1,925 Edgewood 713 Rittenhouse 1,363 Sunset Beach 8,494 Holiday 9,700 Peacock 2,097 Anchor 4,509 Bed & Breakfast Inns 1,800 CherrVstone 64,121 Kiptopeke 3,506 Source: Estimated from survey responses by lodging facility operators. Survey administered September, 1993. Occupancy rate varies considerably between seasons, with summer season reaching a high of 66.5% in July, to a low of 3% in the winter months. (Table 11, Figure 11). Capacity is defined as number of lodging units times available days. Overall, the occupancy rate for lodging facilities in the county is quite low. All units together averaged 23.9% in 1992. Even removing Cherrystone and Kiptopeke campgrounds from the analysis (since camping is highly seasonal), average yearly occupancy at motels and inns remains at 26.8%. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Page 29 Table 11. Monthly Occupancy, A# Lodging Units, Northampton County, VA, 1992. Month Units Rented Capacity % Occupancy -January 899 34,875 3 -February 949 31,500 3 March 1,799 34,875 5 April 4,579 33,750 14 -May 9,464 34,875 27 June 13,288 33,750 39 -July 23,193 34,875 67 -August 20,948 34,875 60 September 9,651 33,750 29 October 5,318 34,875 15 November 1,374 33,750 4 ecember 1,833 34,875 5 TOTAL 93,295 410,625 1 23 Source: Estimated from survey responses by lodging facility operators. Survey administered September, 1993. Unit-Night& 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 giiiii 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Doc Figure 11. Total Lodging Unit-Nights Rented by Month, Northampton County, VA, 1992 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page :30 Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Nationally, a 65% yearly occupancy rate is considered the point at which hotel and motel operations realize a sufficient return to investment (M. V. Brown, 1993). Although lodging units in Northampton County are generally not encumbered with high capital and operating costs that they need to keep their facilities nearly full to stay in business, such low rates do not spur management to undertake facility improvements and upgrades. The lodging operators surveyed were asked to estimate the average length of stay of their overnight guests. Most visitors staying in motels stayed one night only (Table 12). Overnight visitors staying at Cherrystone Campground were reported to have stayed an average of 8 days. Table YZ Frequency DisWbudon of Length of Stay by Type of Overnight Accommodation, Northampton County, VA, 199Z Motel/inn Campground Length of Stay (percent) (percent) 1 night 71.9 14.4 2 nights 18.8 34.4 3 nights 4.7 4.4 4-6 nights 2.6 3.4 7 nights 1.9 35.8 8 or more nights 0.1 7.8 AVERAGE 1.5 nights 4.3 nights Source: Estimated from survey responTes -bylodg;ng facility operators. Survey administered September. 1993. Estimates of day-visits were made from figures supplied by management staff from Kiptopeke State Park, and marina operators' estimates of boat ramp use. Kiptopeke State Park reported a total of 10,411 day-visitors in 1992, with approximately 27% being from out of the county. From interviews with operators at Cape Charles and Quinby public marinas we used an estimate of 10 users per weekday and 30 users per weekend day at each ramp between March and November (Table 13). Table 73. Estimate of Launches from Boat Romps, Northampton County, VA, March 7992 through November 7992. Launches per Launches per - Total Ramp1ocation Weekday Weekend Use Cape Charles Harbor 10 30 3,300 Kiptopeke State Park 5 28 2,430 Morely's Wharf Boat Ramp 10 30 3,300 Oyster Boat Ramp 10 30 3,300 Red Bank Boat Ramp 10 30 3,300 West, J.H. 10 30 3,300 TOTAL 18,930 gource: estimated from survey responses by marina facility operators. Survey administ-ared 9-eptember, 1993. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Page 31 The Eastern Shore Wildlife Refuge reported a total visitor count of 12,268 between November 1, 1992 and September 1, 1993. According to managers at the site, most visitors are passing through with a very short visit duration (Alvaez, 1993). The most common activity reported among refuge visitors is wildlife observation along a self-guided trail. Other uses of the refuge include educational tours and organized birding tours. Bird and deer hunting is a popular activity in the county. in 1992, 2,258 resident, and 141 non-resident hunting permits of all types were sold in the county (Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries, 1993). Due to the limitations of this study, the amount of hunting activity in the county is not known. However, to include this group we assumed a combined rate of wildlife observation and hunting equal to the 1993 rate of visitation to the wildlife refuge. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, we estimated a total of 14,000 visitor days spent in wildlife observation and use. Average party size for overnight visitors also was provided by the lodging operators. Party size averaged 2.0 persons per party at motels and inns, 3.1 persons per party at campgrounds, and 2.2 persons overall. A party size of 3.2 persons, a national standard for persons per motor vehicle, was used for day visitors. Using the estimates of visit duration and party size, visitor-day figures were converted to party-trips, to control for variations in spending patterns over a single trip. Distribution of party-trips among the overnight accommodations in Northampton County is shown in Table 14, and among day-visit destinations in Table 15. Table 14. Tra vel Party- Trips b y L odging Facifty, Northamp ton Coun ty, VA, 1992. Lodging Facility Party-Trips Cape 1,336 Edgewood 512 Rittenhouse 874 Sunset Beach 5,801 Holiday 6,623 Peacock 1,375 Anchor 3,048 Bed & Breakfast Inns 1,385 Cherrystone 10,043 Kiptopeke 2,366 TOTAL 33,363 Source: Estimated from survey responses by lodging facility operators. Survey administered September, 1993. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page-32 Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Table 15. Day-Use Party-Trips by Activity andlor Destihadon, Northampton County, VA, 1992. Activity/Destination Party-Trips Kiptopeke State Park 10,411 Wildlife observation & use 4,375 Boat ramps and docks 22,194 TOTAL 36,980 To estimate activity participation rates, operators were asked to estimate the percentage of their guests whose primary activity was either: (1) visiting nature reserves, birding, wildlife observation and photography; (2) boating and fishing; (3) sightseeing; (4) just passing through; (5) other. These values are reported in Table 16. Table 16. Toutist AcMty Pardbioadon by Lodging Fac6lity, Northampton County, VA, 199Z Visiting Lodging Passing Reserves Facility Through Fishing/Boating Wildlife Obs. Sightseeing Other M (No.) M (No.) M (No.) M (No.) (No.) Cape 40 524 47 615 1 39 5 65 7 92 Edgewood 75 377 20 100 1 15 4 20 0 0 Rittenhouse 80 752 10 1 94 1 28 0 0 9 85 Sunset Beach 89 5,215 4 234 1 176 3 176 3 176 H liday 89 5,954 4 268 1 201 3 201 3 201 Peacock 40 580 47 680 1 43 5 72 7 101 Anchor 75 2,333 20 622 1 93 0 0 4 124 Cherrystone 0 0 90 8,861 1 295 492 4 394 Kiptopeke 10 176 70 1,230 15 791 5 88 0 0 ff B&B 0 0 5 1 46 25 692 70 646 0 0 T6:rAL 15,909 12,751 2,374 1,761 1,172 Source: Estimated from survey responses by lodging facility operators. Survey administered September, 1993. Current Economic Impact The impact of travel and tourism on Northampton County's economy was estimated for 1992. Two fundamental information components are needed to perform an impact estimation: (1) the population of travelers and tourists divided into easily identified, reasonably homogeneous market segments; and (2) spending profiles of each segment. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Page 33 Most of the systematic variation in spending can be explained by length of stay in the area, party size, lodging type, transportation mode, distance traveled, and primary activities (Stynes and Propst, 1992). Ideally, the tourism market should be segmented by all these variables. Due to the limitations of this study, we were not able to establish a complete set of expenditure profiles by visitor activity. Instead, we segmented the market into 12 segments representing type of lodging (camping, motel/inn, or no lodging), whether they were boaters or not, and resident status (County resident vs. non-resident). In doing so, we aggregated our estimates of all non-boating activities (just passing through, visiting nature reserves, sightseeing, and other) into a single category. Variation in spending due to party size and length of stay can be handled partially by the choice of units of analysis (visitor day, visit, or party trip). Table 17 lists the segments identified in this study, and the distribution of party-trips among them. Table 16. Party-Trips by Segment Share, Northampton County, VA, 1992. Segment Resident Nonresident Overnight Boating 0 2,660 Not boating 0 18,294 Camping Boating 185 9,908 Not boating 79 2,236 Day Use Boating 11,592 13,638 ot boating 7,144 4,606 Total 18,999 51,343 In order to get a true picture of visitor spending, one would need to survey a randomly drawn sample of travelers and tourists throughout the year. This was beyond the scope of this study, however. In the absence of a source of primary expenditure data, we used travel and tourism expenditure data gathered from a large sample of visitors to 12 Corps of Engineers projects across the country (Stynes and Propst, 1992). These data were adjusted where values were either known or considered to be inconsistent with circumstances in the county. For example, data on lodging rates in the county have been collected during the course of the study and were used to average lodging expenditures by market segment. These values were substituted for those in the Corps of Engineers study. Also, expenditures on retail clothing and other outlets were adjusted downward, reflecting the lack of many types of retail facilities in the county. Table 17 lists average expenditures by party-trip for each market segment. Expenditures by market segment were aggregated in proportion to number of party- trips taken by each of the 12 market segments and averaged. The values and categories used in the IMPLAN model are given in Table 18. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Table 17. Average Expenditures per Party-Trip by Market Segment, Northampton County, VA, 1992. SEGMENT Residents Nonresidents Day Day er.npwo CanOarii@: Matallkm I Mal.subin Day Nanboaten 84114141110 Boatem CATEGORY Boatem I I C.W. Ce IWO Motab4m Motatfbin Nododatere Boaters Alanboutwo Boatwe Nanbowters hotel/motel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.10 42.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62.31 62.31 camping fees 0.00 0.00 59.50 59.92 5.75 1.57 0.00 0.00 186.77 186.77 0.00 0.00 grocery 12.91 6.52 58.61 35.63 51.81 24.91 6.47 6.37 41.21 33.80 49.50 13.36 restaurant 2.41 2.37 5.35 5.37 44.55 29.56 3.96 14.12 17.89 15.69 46.09 39.36 auto gas & oil 9.04 4.39 20.93 13.89 15.23 10.48 6.03 4.52 22.15 22.60 25.35 16.63 auto rental 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.71 0.00 auto repair 0.40 0.11 0.49 2.14 0.00 0.20 0.19 1.45 0.92 4.84 0.91 0.02 tires 1.45 1.04 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.91 2.82 0.23 1 16.89 auto parts 0.23 0.00 0.93 1.36 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 7.29 0.77 0.03 parking & tolls 0.35 0.17 0.24 0.94 3.92 0.26 0.17 0.18 1.07 0.71 0.47 0.18 boat gas 10.66 0.00 19.48 0.00 31.64 0.00 6.80 0.00 29.45 0.00 41.39 0.00 boat rental 0.32 0.00 1.17 0.00 14.08 0.00 1.79 0.00 3.67 0.00 10.47 0.00 boat repair 5.62 0.00 2.70 0.00 16.99 0.00 0.12 0.00 8.27 0.00 7.24 0.00 boat parts 5.14 0.00 2.00 0.00 5.46 0.00 1.35 0.00 3.70 0.00 4.71 0.00 launch/slip fees 2.59 0.00 1.68 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.92 0.00 8.98 0.00 boat fares 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.17 .0.00 fish licenses 0.11 0.08 0.10 0.23 0.46 0.00 0.49 0.00 1.62 0.35 2.70 3.98 charter fees 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.18 fish bait 1.36 0.73 5.38 1.40 3.52 2.96 0.95 0.14 3.47 1.48 5.77 1.35 huntlicenses 0.00 0.03 0.00' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ammunition 0.35 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 7.89 equip rental 0.19 0.75 0.00 0.00 1.21 3.48 0.24 0.00 0.34 0.20 3.46 2.34 guide fees 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 1.16 11.55 sport adm. 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.26 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.26 0.15 0.06 tourist attract's 0.23 0.34 0.71 0.39 0.31 3.48 0.58 0.32 1.23 5.46 2.65 1.17 recreation adm. 1.43 0.59 0.27 1.60 1.17 3.48 0.00 0.00 1.51 1.82 3.19 2.79 film 0.84 0.83 2.74 1.88 2.25 4.65 0.30 0.26 2.80 1.43 2.38 1.33 Table 17. Continued SEGMENT Residents Nonresidents Day Day COMPON Campos motwlkw motallb"I Day Day Campars CO.Wo motallim motalibm CATEGORY Boaters Nonboatera som Nonboatees Boaters Nonbcoters 110001 Nahboatere 110mare Manboatem Boaters Nanbowere am film developing 0.56 0.54 2.46 1.50 1.88 3.96 0.06 0.20 0.75 0.98 0.81 0.16 souvenirs 0.09 0.39 0.48 0.76 1.90 0.00 0.31 0.04 4.01 3.05 6.34 4.85 footwear 1.13 3.41 2.40 1.42 1.42 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.97 2.69 2.61 0.00 men's clothing 1.60 1.35 2.21 0.48 0.85 0.00 0.17 1.35 2.29 1.70 2.57 0.72 women's clothing 0.80 0.59 1.77 1.04 1.84 3.26 0.00 0.64 1.86 0.97 2.12 0.95 other 3.52 1.72 3.79 9.45 17.58 3.26 0.14 0.61 3.52 1.85 2.61 4.47 -TO'al 63.65 26.29 195.38 j 148.39 1 267.43 1 137.86 1 30.11 31.10 343.30 298.21 299.74 192.56 Page .36 Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Table 18. Average Travel and Tourism Expenditures per Party- Trip and Total Expenditures by Spending Category, Northampton County, VA, 1992. Spending Category Average Total hotel 18.56 1,305,639 camping 32.47 2,283,972 food on site 17.35 1,220,313 food off-site 16.88 1,187,502 gas & oil 21.43 1,507,713 auto rental/repairs 1.00 70,421 tires 4.98 350,026 auto/RV parts 0.42 29,582 boat rental 5.42 380,947 boat repairs 2.39 168,465 boat parts 1.81 127,524 boat launch/slip 1.04 73,232 boat fares 0.02 1,655 fish bait 1.61 113,368 ammunition 2.15 150,965 spec. & attr. fees 1.03 72,110 recreation fees 1.42 99,576 film purchase 1.18 83,318 film developing 0.39 27,323 footwear 0.92 64,586 men's clothing 1.19 83,649 women's clothing 0.86 60,563 souvenirs 4.94 347,389 fish & hunt licenses 1.50 105,513 TOTAL 139-96 9,915,669 The total (direct, indirect, and induced) impacts of travel and tourism on Northampton County's economy are described below: � Total Industrial Output (T10): $14,297,200 � Wage and Property Income: $7,808,000 � Total Value Added: 9,461,900 � Jobs 454 � Contributions to Tax Revenue $51,000 � Net Fiscal Benefit $232,000 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Page 37 The economic impact of travel and tourism results from non-resident and resident recreationists' spending on lodging ($1,305,639 on motels and inns, $2,283,972 on camping), restaurants ($1,220,313), retail groceries (($1,187,502), fuel and oil ($1,507,713), and other goods and services totaling $9.916 million. Economic impacts on each sector are presented in Table 19. In relative terms, the hotel and lodging sector and the aggregate of the wholesale and retail trade sectors realize the largest impact. The fiscal impacts of the travel and tourism industry on county government indicate a contribution to county revenues of $51,000. The "Net Public Service Benefit" of this industry is $232,000 captured in a combination of the provision of public services spurred by this industry, and a reduction in taxes. Table 19. Total Economic Impact of Travel and Tourism on the Economy of Northampton County, VA, 199Z (1990 dollars. Total Total Value T110 Income Added Employment Sector W000) 0,000) 0,000) (No. of Jobs) LIVESTOC 15.1 3.4 3.9 0 CROPS 99.8 9.5 10.0 1 Commercial Fishing 20.2 4.8 5.0 0 MANUFACTURING 1,084.9 577.3 597.0 16 CONSTRUCTION 195.8 59.2 59.7 3 FOOD PROCESSING 105.1 10.5 10.7 1 Boat Building & Repair 747.3 411.4 414.1 11 TRANSPORTATION 212.4 115.1 121.3 4 COMMUNICATIONS 205.4 129.4 138.3 2 UTILITIES 308.9 138.0 159.5 1 WHOLESALE & RETAIL TRADE 4,519.7 2,699.1 3,559.7 200 FINANCE 186.0 96.5 99.2 3 INSURANCE 102.0 53.3 61.3 2 REAL ESTATE 1,364.8 783.5 1,062.8 3 Hotels & Lodging Places 3,358.9 1,685.4 2,115.9 144 OTHER SERVICES 580.6 288.6 293.4 15 MEDICAL SERVICES 711.3 501.8 506.3 25 EDUCATION 54.8 32.7 32.7 3 MISCELLANEOUS 87.1 -110.5 -108.2 3 GOVERNMENT 312.0 294.2 294.2 13 Household Industry 25.1 25.1 25.1 5 TOTAL 14,297.2 7,808.3 9,461.9 454 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page .38 Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Potential Economic Impacts Travel and tourism is a rapidly growing industry nationally, and it is likely that Northampton County can capture a share of this market if the proper steps are taken. The county is rich in natural and cultural resources that can easily form a strong base for attracting travelers and tourists from a wide area. One important feature of this richness is the annual migration of birds through the county. For reasons that are not fully understood Northampton County is an important conduit and depot for an exceptionally large number of migrant species, both in terms of variety of species and absolute numbers. The Delmarva Peninsula may act as a funnel for many birds moving south during their Fall migration, concentrating them near the southern tip as they prepare for crossing the mouth of Chesapeake Bay. Another contributing factor to the large bird migration could be the diversiity and integrity of most of the county's ecological zones, which in close proximity include high quality examples of coastal barrier island, estuarine marshes, forests, fields and bayside beaches and wetlands. The importance of this area for both resident and migrating birds has generated much interest among researchers and among recreational birders (or bird watchers). This common denominator between birding and formal research interests could be a viable opportunity for nature-based tourism, in which the observation of ecological resources, natural history studies and interpretation, and similar activities become the primary object of.tourism. For instance, one on-going research activity, the long-standing raptor (birds-of- prey) and songbird banding project at Kiptopeke State Park, was made one of the showcase activities of the First Annual Eastern Shore Birding Festival held in October of 1993. The historical aspects of the county are also significant from a tourism perspective. The county contains the oldest continuous court records of any county in the nation, housed in Eastville. The county has a large number of old structures dating from historic times. The County Comprehensive Plan lists over 180 such structures, each with its own story to tell. According to the World Travel and Tourism Council, tourism is now the world's largest industry (Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates, 1991) In the U.S. over $350 billion was generated in 1989 by foreign and domestic tourists traveling in this country, up 6 percent from 1988 (Weaver, 1991). In that same year, U.S. travelers spent $16 billion on domestic trips over 100 miles (Weaver, 1991). A Stanford Research Institute study projected an estimated 8 percent growth in world tourism overall, with 10 to 15 percent growth expected in adventure/cultural tourism, and 25 to 30 percent growth in nature-based tourism K Brown, 1993). This growth is being fueled, in part, by the aging of the baby boom generation. This demographic cohort, born between 1946 and 1964, accounted for 48 percent of all trips in 1987-(Goeldner, 1992). They are typically in their high-income years and like to travel. Other trends that will influence tourism in the years to come are rising education levels, increasing role of women in the household, the rising expectation of quality experiences by travelers, and declining leisure time K Brown, 1993). Higher levels of education is the single most significant factor that influences cultural participation, an important factor in the growth of Northampton County's heritage tourism industry. The increasing economic role of women will mean that more families will be likely to engage in Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Page 39 a heritage-tourism experience, particularly as an educational experience for children. The rising expectation of quality travel experiences will place significant pressure on the recreation and tourism providers and host communities to improve and maintain tourism infrastructure. Finally, decreases in leisure time will mean more trips closer to home and fewer long vacations to far off places. Northampton County may be able to capitalize on this factor, being within a one-half day's drive from several large urban centers. Growth in nature-based tourism, also called ecotourism, is moving toward more active pursuit of the nature experience rather than merely sightseeing in a natural setting such as a national park. For example, Americans purchased approximately 90,000 canoes .in 1988, a 14 percent increase over purchases in 1985 (Ingrassia, 1989). The U.S. Travel Data Center determined that nearly seven percent of U.S. travelers, or eight million Americans, report having taken an "eco-trip" (M. Brown, 1993). Observing wildlife is a rapidly growing recreation activity. Over 3.1 million people in Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania reported taking a trip of one mile or more for the primary purpose of observing, feeding, or photographing fish and wildlife (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993). Nationally, people who travel to view, feed or photograph wildlife are typically older (60% are 35 and up), have higher incomes (64% have household incomes greater than $35,000), and well educated (56% had attended college). Interest in wildlife viewing should continue to increase over the next decade in areas where urbanization, education, and income levels continue to rise (U.S. Park Service, 1992). Sport fishing is one of the most popular outdoor recreation activities in the U.S. A steady increase in fishing has been occurring nationwide, from 17.6 percent of the U.S. population in 1955 to 25.4 percent in 1988. The number of anglers doubled in this period and the days spent fishing increased 21/2 times. (U.S. Park Service, 1992). Bicycling is also a market that Northampton might be able to capitalize on. Seaside Road, stretching the length of the county offers excellent road touring opportunities.. According to a study of greenway corridor use, the rate of participation in bicycling in the U.S. tripled since the early 1960's (U.S. National Park Service, 1992). The report goes on to say that as of 1988, bicycling has been one of the most popular and rapidly growing outdoor sports in America. Twelve million bicycles were sold in 1987, more than the number of cars sold that same year. There are several large bicycling clubs in the Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C. area that specialize in road touring. To capitalize on its natural and cultural assets, the county should identify its opportunities and strengths related to nature-based and heritage-based tourism, target a particular segment of the tourist population that is most likely to to use these resources, and develop a marketing strategy to attract them and keep them coming back. The size of the potential nature-based and heritage-based tourism market that Northampton County could attract is unknown at this time. Additional research is required to identify the size and characteristics of the potential market that would be willing to travel to Northampton County for these opportunities. Northampton's market potential is also a function of management actions taken at the county level to attract and maintain visitors. Hence the total potential market is defined by the combination of tourism demand Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 40 Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County (the number of potential visitors) and the supply of adequate services to attract and accommodate visitors. With respect to tourism infrastructure, namely motel and inn accommodations, Northampton County has excess capacity. As shown in Figure 11, lodging unit occupancy averaged below 25% in 1992, with a maximum monthly occupancy rate of 67 percent in July. The county can easily accommodate more tourists without first investing in additional lodging establishments. To understand the potential impacts of an enhanced travel and tourism industry in Northampton County, we developed four tourism growth scenarios. These are: (1) Doubling the level of boating activities estimated for 1992 while holding other activities constant; (2) Doubling the level of non-boating activities estimated for 1992 while holding other activities constant; (3) Increasing the combined yearly motel and inn occupancy rate in the county to 50% and campground occupancy rate to 40%; (4) Increasing the combined yearly motel and inn occupancy rate in the county to 75%, campground occupancy rate to 40%, and increasing the number of motel and inn units by 25% while maintaining the higher occupancy rate. The model results are shown in Table 20. Additional tables illustrating the impacts of these alternative scenarios on each economic sector are contained in Appendix 3. Table 20. Summary of Total Economic Impacts of Alternative Travel and Tourism Scenarios, Northampton County, VA f1990 dollars). Total Not Total Value Fiscal TIO Income Added Jobs Taxes :-Behefds .'00 Scenario ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) (No.) ($0000) 0: 0): Model 7,808.3 9,461.9 51 Bast, 14,297.2 454 232 1 .Double Boating 20,106.6 10,956.1 13,272.7 639 72 326 Activity 2. Double Non-Boating 17,213.0 9,395.9 11,399.5 549 62 279 Activity 3. Increase 21,073.9 11,481.3 13,926.7 673 138 346 Occupancy Rates Adid New Lodging 28,209.5 15,409.2 18,690.9 899 181 466 Un ts The results of the first two scenarios, (1) increasing boating activity by 50%, and (2) increasing non-boating activity by 50%, illustrate the relative economic impacts of participants in each major activity group. Boaters typically spend more money to sustain their recreational activity. In our model, boaters on average spent $168.08 per party trip, Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Page 41 while non-boaters spent $149.75 per party trip. This is due in part to the longer visit duration of boating parties. A large proportion of boaters remain in the county for more than 5 days, while most non-boating groups remain in the county for fewer than three. Also, average spending by boaters is higher since boaters incur more costs on such things as fuel and repairs. Scenario 3, increasing average motel, inn, and campground occupancy has an obvious positive impact on the economy. At a yearly occupancy rate of 50% in motels and inns, and 40% at campgrounds, total industrial output increases by nearly one-third from $14.3 million to$21 million, value added increases by nearly 50% from $9.5 million to $13.9 million, and number of jobs generated in the economy increases by 219. Adding new lodging units (Scenario 5) increases the numbers further still (the associated impacts of constructing the new units is not included in this analysis). In each of these scenarios, individual sectors of the economy are affected differently depending on spending patterns and linkages (see Tables in Appendix 3). It should be noted here that the boat building and repair sector lags significantly behind other sectors in indirect and induced effects of tourism spending. This indicates a significant leakage.in this sector. As county leaders take steps to increase the number of tourists visiting Northampton, they should also investigate ways to enhance this sector and plug the leak. With proper planning, marketing and management, it is reasonable to assume that any one of these scenarios may occur. Northampton's strong natural and heritage resource base, and an identifiable and reachable market of travelers within a five-hour drive from the county combine to make tourism a potentially strong component of the county's economy. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 42 Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Research and Education Current Conditions The importance of Northampton County and the Eastern Shore for resident and migrating birds has generated much interest among researchers at nearby universities and research institutions. The unique hydrogeology of the Eastern Shore has also generated research activity in the county. In 1992, there were seven research groups active in the county spending over 5,900 research days (Table 21). Research activity generates income in a community in two ways: (1) establishing a research facility brings jobs, and maintaining the facility involves expenditures of dollars in the community; and (2) visiting researchers spend money on food and accommodations, and make miscellaneous retail purchases. The larger the research facility, and the higher the volume of research traffic, the greater will be the economic impact. Northampton County is home to the Eastern Shore Wildlife Refuge which generates the greatest number of research days - days spent by researchers in the county - over 2,600 days in 1992. Another facility, the Center for Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) generated approximately 1,800 research days in 1992. Table .2 1. Estimation of Research Days Spent in Northampton County, VA by Research Group, 1992. Overnight @110-yemlght--. ... ....... ... . . @Da Ar p Motel/Inn .rivate::: Ty 'Y _pe::of' ::.::.'Research::::Gro p:::. Rschi-d ys: Rsch-days u a Old Dominion Univ. 148 20 358 house (2) 526 Long Term Eco. Rsrch Ctr. 1,795 house 1,795 Va. 'rech. 204 refuge 204 Marine & Estuarine Envrio. 578 -578 Studies Ctr. Va. Society of Ornithology 28 motelAnn 28 US FWS Wildlife Refuge 2,670 refuge 2,670 SAMP Bird Study 876 house 876 TOTAL 726 48 5,903 6,677 To estimate the economic impact of research on the county, we estimated two economic inputs: (1) expenditures by researchers while in the county: and (2) costs of maintaining a research facility. Since overnight accommodation is the largest in-county expense, we segregated research-days spent in the county by type of overnight accommodation. We then estimated average daily expenditures for each category (Table 22). Also, from an interview with the LTER station manager, we estimated a yearly expense of $100,000 to cover salaries and maintenance for the station. Our estimate of total research expenditures in Northampton County in 1992 was $377,540 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Page 43 Table 22. Total Research Expenditures in Northampton County, VA by Accommodatfon Category, 1992. Units Expenditure Total Expense Type per Unit Expenditures Day-Trip Research 726 days 24.84 18,035.20 Overnight in Motel/Inn Days 48 days 95.45 4,581.59 Overnight in Private Lodging 5,903 days 53.35 314,923.37 Maintenance of Housing Units 4 houses 10,000.00 40,000.00 =TOTAL 377,540.15 The total (direct, indirect, and induced) impacts of ecological research in Northampton County are described below: � Total Industrial Output: $691,200 � Wage and Property Income: $396,200 � Total Value Added: $474,400 � Jobs 25 � Contributions to Tax Revenues: $2,000 � Net Fiscal Benefit $12,000 Economic impacts on each sector are presented in Table 23. Wholesale and retail trade realize the greatest impact. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 44 Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Table 23. Total Economic Impact of Ecological Research Actfvities on the Economy of Northampton County, VA, 1992 (1990 dollars). Total Total Value TIO Income Added Employment Sector ($1000) ($1000) 0,000) (No. of Jobs) LIVESTOCK 0.8 0.2 0.2 0 CROPS 5.0 0.6 0.5 0 Commercial Fishing 1.9 0.5 0.5 0 MANUFACTURING 62.8 33.5 34.6 1 CONSTRUCTION 15.2 4.6 4.6 0 FOOD PROCESSING 10.4 1.0 1.1 0 Boat Building & Repair 25.0 13.7 13.8 0 TRANSPORTATION 11.0 6.0 6.3 0 COMMUNICATIONS 8.9 5.6 6.0 0 UTILITIES 14.9 6.6 7.7 0 WHOLESALE & RETAIL TRADE 291.2 173.9 229.4 13 FINANCE 9.7 5.0 5.2 0 INSURANCE 5.7 3.0 3.4 0 REAL ESTATE 85.2 48.9 66.4 0 Hotels & Lodging Places 10.2 5.1 6.4 0 OTHER SERVICES 39.2 19.5 19.8 1 MEDICAL SERVICES 39.8 28.0 28.3 1 EDUCATION 3.1 1.8 1.8 0 MISCELLANEOUS 5.3 -6.7 -6.5 0 GOVERNMENT 9.5 9.0 9.0 0 Household Industry 36.4 36.4 36.4 7 TOTAL 691.2 396.2 474.9 25 Potential Impacts Old Dominion University, in cooperation with the Nature Conservancy, announced this year its intentions to establish a research facility in Northampton County dedicated to J M' C( FFC the study of sustainable development. At the time of this writing it was not yet known the size and scope of such a facility, and hence its total affect on the county's economy. If the research facility evolves into a large center sponsored by a consortium of universities Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Page 45 and other research concerns, its impact on the community could be substantial. This is especially true if it becomes large enough to employ several people, and provides a large throughput of research days. Much of the impact now felt from research activities in the county is from associated spending by researchers during their stay in the county. Without some indication of size and scope of the proposed research facility, it is not possible to enumerate its potential affects on the local economy. However, we ran the model again using a ten-fold increase in the number of research days and expenditures on research facility maintenance. As expected, the economic impacts increased proportionately. However, the fiscal impacts increased more than tenfold. If 60,600 research-days were spent in the county, the tax benef it would increase f rom, $ 2,000 to $19,000, and the net fiscal benefit would increase from $12,000 to $123,000. The natural resource base which attracts and supports researchers and their activiti 'as is the same one that could become a popular site among recreational birders. This common denominator between birding and formal research interests could be a viable opportunity for ecotourism, in which the observation of ecological resources, natural history studies and interpretation, and similar activities become the primary object of tourism. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 46 Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Arts and Crafts Current Conditions Production and sales of indigenous arts and crafts, often referred to as folk art, can add significantly to a rural economy, particularly if the craftspeople in the area are known for their skills. Production and sales of rural folk art is usually organized through craft guilds and cooperatives. Although several craftspeople live and ply their trade in Northampton County, there is little in the way of an organized system for production and distribution of arts and crafts on such a scale as to have a significant economic impact. According to one knowledgeable source, there are 12 people who derive their sole income from the sale of their art work, and 19 people who support their incomes in a large part from art sales (Miller, 1993). There are: 0 10 "designer craftspeople" whose full income is derived from their art. These include painters, wood carvers, potters, etc.; N 2 full-time photographers; x 12 part-time artisans who support their incomes through art sales. These include carvers, spinners, and weavers; 0 5 teacher/artists who supplement their teaching incomes by selling art; 0 2 part-time quilters who produce quilts as fund raisers for churches and other concerns. Because of the small and scattered nature of this activity, we did not attempt to model the impacts of folk art production on the economy. Potential Impacts To understand how a strong and thriving crafts "industry" might affect the county's economy, we investigated successful arts and crafts guilds and cooperatives in other communities to learn what they were doing. One such cooperative, the Watermark Association of Artisans based in North Carolina served as our model. The Watermark cooperative is large association of 750 member-artisans (350 who are actively producing) that produces, markets, and distributes large volumes of hand-made baskets, quilts, decorative wooden items, dolls, wreaths, and other items. The artisans, all rural women, hale from a 1 5-county region in eastern North Carolina. Women without craft skills are trained through the cooperative's education program. Watermark produces items for wholesale through a catalog outlet, and retail sales at their own storefront. In 1992, its 1 5th year in production, Watermark sales totaled $664,000. Nearly all sales, $590,000 were through their wholesale outlet, while $74,000 worth of craft goods were sold in the retail facility 4McKecuen, 1993). We used Watermark's sales figures and production line in our model for Northampton County. This might be an extreme example of what might be possible through the organized production and sales of local arts and crafts. However, of interest in this study is the way the earnings are cycled through Northampton's economy. If a large-scale crafts cooperative is ever launched in the county, it is important to understand how each sector of the economy will benefit. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Page 47 To model a crafts cooperative we assumed a producer margin of six percent for all goods sold on the wholesale market and a 25 percent margin for goods sold retail. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 24. The contribution of an expanded arts and crafts sector to the economy of Northampton County is summarized below: � Total Industrial Output: $939,900 � Wage and Property Income: $435,700 � Total Value Added: $476,400 � Jobs 19 � Contributions to Tax Revenues: $2,000 � Net Fiscal Benefit $14,000 Outside of the sectors that produce the crafts goods, and the trade sectors that sell them, the service and real estate sectors gained the most because of their strong linkages with the rest of the economy. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 48 Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Tabl&24. The Potential Impacts of an Expanded Arts and Crafts Industry in Northampton County, VA fl.990 dollars). Total Total Value TIO Income Added Employment Sector ($1000) ($1000) ($,000) (No. of Jobs) LIVESTOCK 0.6 0.1 0.2 0 CROPS 3.2 0.3 0.3 0 Commercial Fishing 0.3 0.1 0.1 0- MANUFACTURING 6.3 3.3 3.5 0 CONSTRUCTION 7.3 2.2 2.2 0 FOOD PROCESSING 1.2 0.1 0.1 0 Fabricated Textile Products 207.8 84.1 84.6 2 Furniture and Fixtures 148.9 74.6 74.9 1 Stationery Products 54.5 18.4 18.5 1 Pottery Products 199.9 76.1 77.1 6 Boat Building & Repair 0.1 0.0 0.0 0 TRANSPORTATION 20.7 11.2 11.8 0 COMMUNICATIONS 8.9 5.6 6.0 0 UTILITIES 16.2 7.2 8.4 0 WHOLESALE & RETAIL TRADE 120.9 72.2 95.2 5- FINANCE 7.8 4.0 4.1 0 INSURANCE 4.3 2.3 2.6 0 REAL ESTATE 56.7 32.5 44.1 0 Hotels & Lodging Places 6.8 3.4 4.3 0 OTHER SERVICES 22.0 10.9 11.1 1 MEDICAL SERVICES 29.8 21.0 21.2 1 EDUCATION 2.3 1.4 1.4 0 MISCELLANEOUS 3.6 -4.6 -4.5 0 GOVERNMENT 8.5 8.0 8.0 0 Household Industry 1.0 1.0 1.0 0 Sta FE 11 t Pott kB oal TRA Coh TOTAL 939.6 435.4 476.2 19 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Page 49 Agriculture Current Conditions Excellent overviews of agriculture in Northampton County can be found in the Northampton County Comprehensive Plan: Information and Analysis, and U.S. Soil Conservation Service Soil Surveys for Northampton County. The review here is focused mainly on general trends in agriculture, but some other background information is briefly reviewed as well. Major trends are described in terms of acreage harvested for various types of production. This is done to alleviate significant problems in interpreting changes in number of farms, production figures, sales, etc. Acreage harvested is a simple measure that integrates changes in technology, the use of labor, and other factors that affect production decisions and the overall economic impacts of agriculture. Northampton County enjoys goods soils and a relatively mild climate tempered by the large bodies of water surrounding it. Much of Northampton County's area lies in extensive estuarine zones that are unsuitable for farming, but a high proportion of uplands in the county are well-drained and fertile. The majority of upland areas in the county are level or gently sloping. Over half of the county's soils are classified as prime farmland, meaning that they are among the best suited in the region for producing food and fiber. Prime farmland is also relatively unhindered by rocky soils, poor or excessive drainage, inadequate sources of water, excessive slopes, etc., and so they are areas that allow good yields without high inputs of chemicals, labor, water, and other inputs. Agriculture has throughout the county's long history been a mainstay of the economy, even as agriculture in general has declined around in the state and country as a whole. The amount of cropland harvested in Northampton County has remained between about 36,000 acres and 50,000 acres throughout most of this century. There have been significant fluctuations in these acreage figures (and the data are not entirely consistent over this long period; for instance, definitions used in surveys have changed) but over the long term there has been a remarkable stability in the areal extent of crop-based agriculture. This stability is relatively uncommon in the Eastern U.S. Northampton County's agriculture in the early part of this century was dominated by potatoes, which covered 33,400 acres or nearly three-fourths of all harvested cropland. Since then the extent of the potato crop has dropped steadily, down to 13,000 acres in 1940, to 9,200 acres in 1964, and to under six thousand acres by 1982. Vegetables became the dominant agricultural product in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. The county's relatively long growing season and good soils have since made it an important producer of vegetable crops. Though in the 1920s vegetable crops were harvested from only 1,300 acres (about 3% of all cropland harvested), this acreage increased to around 26,000 in the 1940s (or about 63-65% of cropland harvested). In more recent decades this acreage has fallen somewhat in response to numerous forces (drop in available labor and increased labor costs, among others). Today, Northampton is one of Virginia's largest producers of commercial vegetables, even though vegetable production as a proportion of cropland harvested has fallen to around one-fourth (8,400 acres) of the county total (36,000 acres). Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page @50 Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County The main trend in the county's agriculture over the last two decades has been to diversify away from vegetables. Like farmers in many other parts of the Southeastern U.S., Northampton County farmers began to plant soybeans, often double-cropped with small grains such as winter wheat and barley, on a large scale. In the 1960s, soybeans accounted for around 25% of the cropland harvested. Through the 1 980s, in contrast, this percentage rose to the 55%-62% range. Another component of this trend in diversification is the increase in nursery production. Receipts from nursery and greenhouse crops in Northampton County rose from $1.7 million in 1982 to $3.5 million in 1987. Table 25. Market Value of Agricultural Goods Sold & of Selected Crops Sold.' (thousands of dollars, not adjusted) Total Value of Potatoes & Sweet- Nursery oo es:: OY eans: o 'Ya .0 ds: 61 :00tatoes: 'Vegetabi .'S 0 b Pr ducts 19,59 10,794 4,761 4,150 1974 19,474 7,149 6,417 --- --- 1978 24,813 7,753 9,647 - 1,179 1982 22,151 4,981 5,563 5,905 1,702- 1987 19,820 5,708 7,253 1,743 3, 534 i: U.S. Department of Agriculture & U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. Agriculture is by far the largest component of the county's economy. With total output exceeding $68 million in 1990, this sector drives the rest of the *local economy. The total impacts of agriculture in Northampton County are described below: � Total Industrial Output: $68,311,200 � Wage and Property Income: $13,941,200 � Total Value Added: $15,979,000 � Jobs 899 � Contributions to Tax Revenues: $218,000 � Net Fiscal Benefit $411,000 Agriculture's effects on the economy are most strongly felt in the trade, real estate, construction, and service sectors (Table 26). Agricultural production spurs demand for wholesale and retail goods by $3.5 million, real estate by $4 million, construction by L 9 9 19. 19. @ir c9il, 1these figures are not adjusted for inflation and therefore should only be compared with other categories in the same year. They may not be directly comparable with data from other sources due to data gathering methods. See text for description of general trends. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Page 51 $1 million, and medical and other services by over $3 million. About 900 jobs are attributable to the direct, indirect, and induced effects of agricultural production. Table 26. Total Impact of Agriculture on the Economy of Northampton County, VA, 1990. Total Total Value TIO Income Added Employment Sector ($'000) ($10001 0,000) (No. of Jdbs). LIVESTOCK 849.1 193.2 219.2 13 CROPS 51,085.0 4,840.7 5,121.5 512 Commercial Fishing 5.8 1.4 1.4 0 MANUFACTURING 114.1 60.5 62.5 2 CONSTRUCTION 1,072.4 32.4 326.9 15 FOOD PROCESSING 16.6 1.7 1.7 0 Boat Building & Repair 0.1 0.0 0.0 0 TRANSPORTATION 703.0 380.9 401.4 14 COMMUNICATIONS 458.9 289.0 308.9 4 UTILITIES 1,118.4 499.7 577.4 4 WHOLESALE & RETAIL TRADE 3,545.4 2,117.3 2,792.4 157 FINANCE 677.2 351.5 361.3 11 INSURANCE 280.6 146.8 168.8 5 REAL ESTATE 4,008.0 2,301.0 3,121.1 10 Hotels & Lodging Places 415.3 208.4 261.6 18 OTHER SERVICES 1,705.9 848.0 862.2 45 MEDICAL SERVICES 1,408.6 993.7 1,002.5 49 EDUCATION 108.6 64.7 64.7 5 MISCELLANEOUS 171.8 (217.9) (213.3) 5 GOVERNMENT 516.6 487.1 487.1 22 Household Industry 49.6 49.6 49.6 9 TOTAL 68,311.2 13,941.2 15,979.0 899 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton CountV. Virginia Page 52 Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Potential Impacts Agriculture is a "price taking industry." This means that the mix of crops planted and the amounts of each produced is largely dependent on the expected price of the crop at harvest time. As such, to identify agriculture's potential impact on the local economy given some change in final demand would involve considerable speculation on which prices might change and by how much. It is doubtful that the outcome of such an exercise would be of much use. Instead, to look at the potential impacts of agriculture on the econoirny, we focused on changes in the cost of supplying agricultural products. Specifically, we identified five scenarios where producers switched to low-input, sustainable agricultural practices to produce their usual mix of crops. We then measured the potential economic impact of each scenario on Northampton County. The scenarios are described below: Scenario 1: 40% Loading Reduction Scenario. This scenario assumes a 40 percent reduction in chemical percolation to groundwater from existing practices . Scenario 2: Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Scenario. The CRP is a federal program designed to reduce soil erosion through retirement of highly erodible soils from cropping. It is assumed that Federal payments in the amount of $70 per acre are made to the farmer to retire his land. Scenario 3: Buffer Strip Scenario. Require that 100 feet on each side of a perennial stream be taken out of cropland production. No financial payments were assumed to be made to the farmer in lieu of production. Scenario 4: Green Manure Crops. Green manure crops added as winter cover are beneficial for preventing soil loss and absorbing residual chemicals over the winter season. This scenario assumed that a clover/rye mix was used as a winter crop and as a green manure source. Scenario 5: Chicken Litter. In this scenario, chicken litter is substituted for inorganic nitrogen. Each of the sustainable agriculture scenarios assumes that 20,000 acres in the county are converted from the current practice to the practice in question. This would constitute just under half of all agricultural acres in the county. In the case of the Buffer Strip scenarios this implies that one half of the farm acreage with streams would be affected. In the Conservation Reserve Program scenario this acreage assumption is somewhat unrealistic. This program is limited to 25 percent of cropped acreage in a county. Since the CRP program is unlikely to be expanded, this scenario is included as an example of what would happen if a similarly structured program were to be offered at the state or local level to retire delicate lands from intensive crop production. The effects of these sustainable agriculture scenarios on the county's economy are summarized in Table 26. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Page 53 Table 26. Summary of Total Economic Impacts of Alternative Sustainable Agricultural Practice Scenarios, Northampton County, VA, 1990. Net Total Total Value Fiscal TIO Income Added Jobs Taxes Benefits Scenario ($1000) 0,000) ($1000) (No.) ($1000) ($1000) Base 63,311,200 13,941,200 15,979,000 899 218,000 411,000- 1 .40% Loading Reduction 68,390,400 14,026,200 16,069,900 922 220,000 411,000 2. CRP 67,200,900 13,338,200 15,285,300 866 216,000 319,000 3. Buffer Strips 68,234,700 13,928,300 15,959,600 896 --- --- 4. Green Manure Crops 68,777,600 14,417,100 16,494,100 910 218,000 427,000 5. Chicken Litter 68,403,700 1 14,034,1 OOJ 16,080,100 9011- Much of the differences between the scenarios depends on the level of subsidy and/or taxation incorporated into the incentive structures. Chemical Taxation for instance (not included in the full impact analysis) had very harsh economic disincentives and thus would have led to significantly negative economic impacts. For this very reason, it is not an attractive sustainable development strategy. Increased CRP acreage has a slightly depressing economic impact itself. However, it is important to note that both it and the Buffer Strip scenario are complementary with tourism strategies because they increase wildlife habitats. Estimates for Virginia suggest that the small negative impacts of reduced agricultural output can be more than offset by increases in hunting and other recreational activities. Another interesting observation is that because the sustainable agriculture strategies often substitute chemical or other inputs with labor, there are discernable distributional effects. Employment is enhanced considerably by the Run-off Reduction scenario while income is only marginally increased. This is because the increased income from the jobs generated by the more labor intensive agriculture are almost offset by the reduced income to farm operators. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 54 Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Food Processing Current Conditions Food processing is so closely tied to agriculture and seafood production in Northampton County, that we included it in our analysis even though it was not initially identified as a sustai@nable activity. Moreover, changes in activity in this sector have been found to strongly effect output in the seafood and agricultural sectors. Food processing plants were major employers in the county through 1988. In the 3rd quartor of that year, about 846 county residents were employed in this sector. However, by 1991., years over 500 jobs were lost, nearly 10% percent of the total labor force (Table 27). In the 3rd quarter of 1991 only 257 people were employed in food processing in Northampton County. In the same quarter of 1992 employment in the food processing sector had dropped to 202 jobs. Table 27. Employment in the Food Processing Sector, Northampton County, VA, 1988 - 1992. Year. Employment 1988 846 1989 619 1990 531 1991 257 1992 202 Source: Virginia Employment Commission, 1993. Vegetable and seafood processing still had a significant impact on the county's economy as late as 1990. The total impacts of food processing on Northampton's economy in 1990 are described below. Sectoral impacts are described in Table 28. � Total Industrial Output: $45,787,600 � Wage and Property Income: $9,549,000 � Total Value Added: $10,706,000 � Jobs 617 � Contributions to Tax Revenues: $92,000 � Net Fiscal Benefit $276,000 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Page 55 Table 28. Total Impact of Vegetable and Seafood Processing on the Economy of Northampton County, VA, 1990. Total Total Value TIO Income Added Employment Sector 1$1000) 1$,000) 0,000) (No. of Jobs) LIVESTOCK 23.4 5.5 6.3 0 CROPS 1,504.1 142.5 150.8 15 Commercial Fishing 5,127.9 1,221.6 1,258.6 113 MANUFACTURING 20.1 10.5 10.8 0- CONSTRUCTION 283.3 85.6 86.4 4 FOOD PROCESSING 29,739.6 2,956.1 3,038.9 246 Boat Building & Repair 0.3 0.1 0.1 0 TRANSPORTATION 564.0 305.5 322.0 11 COMMUNICATIONS 319.3 201.1 214.9 3 UTILITIES 625.7 279.6 323.0 2 WHOLESALE & RETAIL TRADE 2,679.5 1,600.2 2,110.4 119 FINANCE 283.0 146.9 151.0 4 INSURANCE 169.7 88.8 102.0 3 REAL ESTATE 1,858.4 1,066.9 1,447.2 5 Hotels & Lodging Places 225.8 113.3 142.2 10 OTHER SERVICES 868.0 431.5 438.7 23 MEDICAL SERVICES 967.1 682.2 688.3 34 EDUCATION 74.6 44.4 44.4 3 MISCELLANEOUS 118.8 050.7) 047.4) 3 GOVERNMENT 300.3 283.1 283.1 13 Household Industry 34.1 34.1 34.1 6 TOTAL 46,787.6 1 9,549.0 10,706.0 617 There are many reasons why the food processing industry left Northampton County. With respect to vegetable processing, the chief cause was competition from large processing concerns, especially in California. Vegetable marketing and product development changed substantially in the 1980's as new products took hold requiring strong marketing efforts and alternative distribution networks. Also, processing technology changed, making older facilities obsolete. Retooling to accommodate modern technologies would have involved a large capital investment, a difficult and risky venture in Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 56 Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County such ai rapidly changing market. Moreover, environmental compliance requirements in place at the federal and state levels increased the cost of production at a time when profit margins were already thinning. Seafood processing was also affected by environmental compliance costs as well as compliance with new food safety regulations imposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Increasing costs as well as changes in processing technology have led to consolidation into larger plants, some of which are located in the Tidewater area of Virginia. This, tied with reduced catch of most seafood species, has resulted in most seafood processing being done outside of Northampton County. Potential Impacts In both the seafood and vegetable processing sectors the chances of development in Northampton County are probably quite limited. The greatest potential in the county is in speciafty foods. If Eastern Shore tourism expands, specialty foods with significant added value may be directly marketed to tourists, and possibly wholesale as well through mail- order at4tiets. Targeting specialty markets would allow for higher production costs that cannot be accommodated in conventionally processed food markets. To market in traditional channels, an option might be for a producer to buy a nationally recognized label, or entice a national brand producer to the area. We looked at the potential for food processing in the county a little differently however. The scenario we used assumes that the losses of employment in the food processing sector in the last decade (about 750 jobs from the sector's peak to its recent low) are regained. For this to occur the sector would require a major infusion of new technology and capital. While the scenario assumes that the technology and labor intensity would be typical of other firms in the industry, it is much more likely that new entrants into this sector would have much higher output per laborer, and much higher capital per laborer. Furthermore, this scenario would only be possible if the supply of raw material (vegetables and seafood) were available. Given current supply conditions this may not be realistic. The economic impacts of this scenario are given below. The total potential impacts of regaining 1988 levels of food processing capacity on Northampton's economy (in 1990 dollars) are relatively large. About four times the income would be made in the county under this scenario than what was made in 1990. These impacts are summarized as follows: � Wage and Property Income: $38,440,000 � Total Value Added: $43,068,000 � Jobs 2,490 � Contributions to Tax Revenues: $1,338,000 � Net Fiscal Benefit $1,278,000 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Page 57 Seafood, Finfish and Shellfish Current Conditions The fishery and related industries on the Eastern Shore of Virginia is second only to agriculture in the area in terms of employment and personal income generated. Throughout its history, Northampton County fishermen have harvested vast quantities of fin- and shellfish from the Chesapeake Bay and seaside area of the Eastern Shore peninsula. Drastic changes have occurred over the past century in the quantity and species of fish and shellfish harvested by Virginia from the Chesapeake Bay and Eastern Shore seaside. Illustrating this point is the case of the oyster fishery. Prior to 1925 Virginia produced 4 - 7 million bushels of oysters annually. Between 1931 and 1960 production decreased to 1.3 - 3.5 million bushels per year, but still Virginia was the foremost producer of oysters on the east coast. In 1959 the serious disease MSX took its toll on the population, and less than 1 million were harvested that year. MSX continues to be a problem all along the Mid-Atlantic coast. Though some species have declined significantly, the commercial landings for Virginia continue to stay at approximately the same level as in the 1980's. In 1986, over 460 plants involving seafood processing were in operation in the state, ranking Virginia first nationally for such production. Northampton County had 770 full and part time watermen at that time, with 25 seafood businesses in the county. A negative effect was felt with the closing of several major seafood industry plants in 1989. A shortage of sufficient semi-skilled labor has been linked to the lack of growth in this industry on the Shore. Table 29. Commercial Rnfish and Shellfish Landings and Esemated Value for Safected Ymrs, Virginia and Northampton County, VA. Virginia Northampton County Year Pounds Landed Estimated:Value Pounds Landed Estimated Value 1973 630,744,000 $40,857,000 41,973,077 $5,211,028 1978 538,310,000 $60,667,000 14,419,387 $5,800,765 1983 750,443,000 $84,538,000 13,280,009 $5,843,365 1988 650,852,000 $104,336,000 20,737,462 $7,746,735 1992 630,521,000 $90,500,000 2,574,629 $1,461,547 Source: Virginia Marine Resources Cornrnission, 1993. As can be seen from the above table, commercial landings in the county have decreased drastically within the last 20 years. The very large change in landings between 1988 and 1992 is primarily due to the relocation of processing capacity out of the county. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 58 Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County Fluctuations in the actual harvest and the value of that harvest are also dependent on natural variation, climate changes, predators, disease, and destructive acts of man. According to information contained in the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, Northampton County is home to largest clam aquaculture farm in North America, Cherrystone Aqua Farms. Cherrystone currently produces about 40 million seed clams annually, which they to plant"' themselves, sell, or rent out to co-ops around the Shore. They expect to reach a goal of producing 50 million market-size clams annually (Pierson, 1993), valued over 7 million dollars. There are several other smaller clam hatcheries on the shore, including a long history of bay scallop aquaculture research at VIMS in Wachapreague. Hybrid striped bass, catfish, rainbow trout, soft shell crabs, and crawfish are all being farmed currently in the state, a few of which may have potential on the Eastern Shore in Northampton County. The location, climate, and unique estuary features of Northampton County make it well suited for such endeavors. In 1990 the direct, indirect and induced affects of the seafood industry in Northampton County produced approximately $20.8 million dollars in income and 478 jobs (Table 30). Outside of the commercial fishing sector, most of the impact was centered in wholesale and retail trade. The total economic impacts of seafood production sector on the county in 1990 are summarized below: � Total Industrial Output: $20,759,700 � Wage and Property Income: $6,804,100 � Total Value Added: $7,558,000 � Jobs 478 � Contributions to Tax Revenues: $49,000 � Net Fiscal Benefit $190,000 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County page 59 Table 30. Total Impact of S"food Production on the Economy of Northampton County, VA, 799a Total Total Value TIO Income Added Employment Sector ($,000) ($1000) ($,000) (No. of Jobs) LIVESTOCK 14.7 3.3 3.8 0 CROPS 107.8 10.2 10.8 1 Commercial Fishing 14,690.3 3,499.7 3,665.7 322 MANUFACTURING 12.5 6.6 6.8 0 CONSTRUCTION 190.0 57.4 57.9 3 FOOD PROCESSING 8.9 0.9 0.9 0 Boat Building & Repair 0.7 0.4 0.4 0 TRANSPORTATION 184.2 99.8 105.2 4 COMMUNICATIONS 137.8 86.8 92.8 71 UTILITIES 180.7 80.8 93.3 -1 WHOLESALE & RETAIL TRADE 1,486.5 887.7 1,170.8 66 FINANCE 185.7 96.4 99.1 3 INSURANCE 174.8 91.4 105.1 3 REAL ESTATE 1,387.1 796.4 1,080.2 4 Hotels & Lodging Places 202.9 101.8 127.8 9 OTHER SERVICES 691.6 343.8 349.6 18 MEDICAL SERVICES 749.4 528.7 533.4 26 EDUCATION 57.8 34.4 34.4 3 MISCELLANEOUS 91.8 167.7 167.7 7 GOVERNMENT 177.9 167.7 167.7 7 Household- industry 26.4 26.4 26.4 5 TALk 20,759.7 , 6,804.1 J 7,558.0 1 478 Potential Impacts The scenario we used to project potential impacts from an enhanced seafood sector is tied closely to food processing capacity. In this scenario we assume that the demand for seafood rises enough to employ the same 750 employees as in the food processing scenario above, but in an economy other than Northampton. Even though processing occurs elsewhere, our model has Northampton's commercial fishermen supplying their Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County; VZrginle Page 130 Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County typical share of this expanded market. Thus this scenario assumes the fishing levels that occurred in the food processing scenario without the food processing increase. Again this is possible only if the supply conditions permit. A summary of the economic impacts from this scenario are presented below: � Wage and Property Income: $14,047,000 � Total Value Added: $4,748,000 � Jobs 987 � Contributions to Tax Revenues: $100,000 � Net Fiscal Benefit $393,000 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia References Cited Ashby, Lowell. cl 965. Growth Patterns In Employment by County - 1940-1950 and 1950-1960. Washington, DC: Office of Business Economics, U.S Department of Commerce. Brown, K. 1993. "Tourism Trends for the 90's." History News. 48(3):14-17. Brown, M. 1993. "Planning for Ecotourism." Environment and Development. April, 1993. Chicago: American Planning Association. Brown, M. V. 1993. Research Manager, VA Dept. of Econmic Development, Tourism Development Group, Richmond, VA. Personal communication, October, 1993. Cobb, Phillip, and David Smith. c 198 1. So# Survey of Northampton County, Virginia. Washington, DC: Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Goeldner, C. 1992. "Trends in North American Tourism." American Behavioral Scientist. 36(2):144-154. Ingrassia, P. July 24, 1989. "Today it is Possible to Sail a Freighter and Call it a Canoe." Walf Street Journal. McKecuen, C. 1993. Manager, Watermark Association of Artisans, Camden, NC. Personal communication, November, 1993. Northampton County Dept. of Planning and Zoning. 1989. Information andAnalysis: Comprehensive Plan Background. Eastville, VA: Northampton County Dept. of Planning and Zoning. Northampton Economic Forum. 1992. The Northampton Economic Forum: A Blueprint for Economic Growth. Eastville, VA: Northampton Economic Forum. Pierson, M. 1993. Manager, Cherrystone Aqua Farms, Chariton, VA. Personal communication, September, 1993. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce. 1993. 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Washington D.C.: U.& Government Printing Office. U.S. Natidft6&,-,Park Service. 1992. Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors. A Resource Book. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Park Service, Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance. Weaver, G. 199 1. Tourism U.S.A.: Guidelines for Tourism Development, 3rd Edition. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce. Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates. 199 1. The WTTC Report. Travel and Tourism in the World Economy. New York: World Travel and Tourism Council. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia APPENDIX 1 DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia References Cited Page 65 The multiplier effect refers to the following process: a new firm or activity creates jobs which provide income to previously unemployed and underemployed person, those persons spend much of their income on goods and services bought within the county, this increase in demand for goods and services purchased in the local economy eventually results in the creation of other new jobs in the region (in retail establishments, service industries, suppliers of raw materials to the new company, producers of new products using the new firms output as input, etc.), and the cycle continues with more income being spent, creating increased demand and more new jobs. This effect does eventually end since at each stage some of the newly employed persons' incomes will be used to purchase goods and services outside the region. This loss is known as leakage. Once the value of all new income has leaked out of the County, there is no more driving force behind the multiplier effect, and the cycle ends. The sum of all activity that has occurred during the cycle is the output multiplier. The multiplier is calculated by distinguishing direct effects from indirect effects and total effects. The direct effects are those associated with the facility itself-its output, employment, and income. The indirect effects are all those effects that occur to other firms in the county and state. The total effects are the sum of the direct and indirect effects. Thus the multiplier is the total effect divided by the direct effect. Input-output models distinguish between output, income, and gross state prodbct. Output, sometimes called economic activity, includes all sales from all firms. This is the most commonly used measure of impact but is not the best measure because it includes a lot of intermediate products produced in other regions. Gross state product (GSP) is a better measure since it nets out the part of output not produced locally. Income measures the portion of GSP which becomes the gross income of individuals. Fiscal cash flow refers to the net change in local government revenues and expenditures. It is a very important concern of local governments since it affects their ability to balance the budget. The term net public service benefits, on the other hand, measures the effects of changes in the value of public services and changes in the cost of providing them. Changes in expenditure levels mask a complicated combination of changes in unit costs of service, changes in the quantity of services provided, and changes in the quality of services. Despite the importance of fiscal cash flow projections, it is the net benefit projections which ultimately determine the desirability of a local government alternative. This latter measure, then, is generally the most appropriate bottom line. sini*- costs and benefits occur over many years and commonly continue infinitely, it is sometimes desirable to express them in present value terms. The present value of a stream of hit benefits is similar to the purchase price of an annuity or the principal of an amortized loan which can be collected or paid for over a given period or even infinitely. The present value is calculated by discounting future values and expressing them in today's equivalents. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia APPENDIX 2 THE MODELS EMPLOYED Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Appendix 2 Page 69 IMPLAN was used to generate a series of economic multipliers for Northampton. IMPLAN is what is known as an input-output, or intersectoral, model. Industries within an economy are interdependent in the sense that goods and services are traded among firms. An increase in the demand for an existing sector's output, or the location of a new firm in the region will result in increased output in many other sectors of the economy. These additional effects are quantified by calculating input-output multipliers. The IMPLAN system provides the data necessary to construct an input-output model of any county, or grouping of counties, in the country. It provides multipliers for any of the 528 sectors which happen to exist in the region under study. When a new firm is anticipated in a sector for which there are no current firms, the IMPLAN system can be adjusted to include the new firm. In this study the IMPLAN model was used to estimate multipliers for Northampton County. Since the leakages from the state are much lower that the leakages from the regional economy, the state multipliers are generally higher. The difference between the two multipliers is the economic activity which occurs in other regions of the state. Local governments in Virginia have had access to the Virginia Impact Projection Models since 1984. The VIP models are based on cross-sectional, time-series econometric analysis of the cities and counties of Virginia. The relationships between public service expenditures, revenues, and various socioeconomic factors were identified and estimated. As the influencing variables in these equations change in response to population growth, changes in employment, etc., per capita expenditures are expected to change according to the statistically estimated relationships. By calculating the expenditure levels projected by these relationships, the impact of various types of economic scenarios are estimated. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia APPENDIX 3 IMPACTS BY SECTOR FOR SELECTED DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia BOATX2 Double Boating Activities Total Sector TIO Total Income Value Added Employment ($,000) ($1000) ($,000) (No. of Jobs) LIVESTOCK 21.1 4.8 5.5 0 CROPS 140.4 13.3 14.1 1 Commercial Fishing 23.8 5.7 5.8 1 MANUFACTURING 1,546.9 823.2 851.2 22 CONSTRUCTION 279.5 84.4 86.2 4 FOOD PROCESSING 121.4 12.1 12.4 1 Boat Building & Repair 1,011.8 557.1 560.7 15 TRANSPORTATION 291.2 157.8 166.3 6 COMMUNICATIONS 292.6 184.3 196.9 2 UTILITIES 440.9 197.0 227.6 1 WHOLESALE & RETAIL TRADE 6,075.1 3,628.0 4,784.8 269 FINANCE 262.8 136.4 140.2 4 INSURANCE 143.5 75.1 86.3 3 REAL ESTATE 1,922.3 1,103.6 1,496.9 5 Hotels & Lodging Places 5,056.9 2,537.5 3,185.6 217 OTHER SERVICES 819.6 407.4 414.2 22 MEDICAL SERVICES 1,001.3 706.4 712.7 35 EDUCATION 77.2 46.0 46.0 4 MISCELLANEOUIS 122.6 -155.6 -152.3 4 GOVERNMENT 420.4 396.3 396.3 18 Household Industry 35.3 35.3 35.3 6 TOTAL 20,106.6 10,956.1 13,272.7 639 NOTBOATX2 Double Non-Boating Activities Total Sector TIO Total Income Value Added Employment ($,000) ($1000) ($,000) (No. of Jobs) LIVESTOCK 18.2 4.1 4.7 0 CROPS 121.6 11.5 12.2 1 Commercial Fishing 25.9 6.2 6.4 1 MANUFACTURING 11207.3 642.4 664.3 17 CONSTRUCTION 236.9 71.6 72.2 3 FOOD PROCESSING 135.8 13.6 13.9 1 Boat Building & Repair 856.6 471.6 474.7 12 TRANSPORTATION 255.9 138.6 146.1 5 COMMUNICATIONS 248.7 156.6 167.4 2 UTILITIES 372.1 166.3 192.1 1 WHOLESALE & RETAIL TRADE 5,440.0 3,248.7 4,284.6 241 FINANCE 225.2 116.9 120.1 4 INSURANCE 123.4 64.6 74.2 2 REAL ESTATE 1,652.4 948.6 1,286.7 4 Hotels & Lodging Places 4,143.5 2,079.2 2,610.2 178 OTHER SERVICES 700.3 348.1 354.0 18 MEDICAL SERVICES 861.2 607.5 612.9 30 EDUCATION 66.4 39.6 39.8 3 MISCELLANEOUIS 105.5 -133.8 -131.0 3 GOVERNMENT 385.8 363.7 363.7 16 Household Industry 30.3 30.3 30.3 5 TOTAL 17,213.0 9,395.9 11,399.5 549 DBL OCCUPANCY Qccupancy: Motel/Inn 50%, Campgrounds = 40% Total Sector TIO Total Income Value Added Employment ($1000) ($1000) 0,000) (No. of Jobs) LIVESTOCK 22.3 5.1 5.7 0 CROPS 148.5 14.1 14.9 1 Commercial Fishing 26.6 6.3 6.5 1 MANUFACTURING 1,513.6 805.5 832.9 22 CONSTRUCTION 293.5 88.7 89.5 4 FOOD PROCESSING 136.7 13.6 14.0 1 Boat Building & Repair 1,010.3 556.2 559.8 15 TRANSPORTATION 305.3 165.4 174.3 6 COMMUNICATIONS 307.8 193.8 207.2 3 UTILITIES 461.6 206.2 238.3 2 WHOLESALE & RETAIL TRADE 6,419.0 3,833.4 5,055.8 284 FINANCE 276.7 143.6 147.6 4 INSURANCE 151.2 79.1 90.9 3 REAL ESTATE 2,025.3 1,162.7 1,577.1 5 Hotels & Lodging Places 5,361.9 2,690.5 3,377.7 230 OTHER SERVICES 863.3 429.1 436.3 23 MEDICAL SERVICES 1,055.1 744.3 750.9 37 EDUCATION 811.@ 48.5 48.5 4 MISCELLANEOUS 129.2 -163.9 -160.4 4 GOVERNMENT 447.5 421.9 422.0 19 Household Industry 37.2 37.2 37.2 7 TOTAL 21,073.9 11,481.3 13,926.7 673 NEWUNITS Occupancy: Motel/Inn 75%. Campgrounds = 40%; Add 25% Now Units Total Sector TIO Total Income Value Added Employment ($1000) ($1000) 0,000) (No. of Jobs) LIVESTOCK 29.8 6.8 7.7 0 CROPS 198.3 18.8 19.9 2 Commercial Fishing 40.9 9.8 10.0 1 MANUFACTURING 1,997.2 1,062.8 -1,099.0 29 CONSTRUCTION 387.7 117.1 118.2 5 FOOD PROCESSING 213.3 21.2 21.8 2 Boat Building & Repair 1,443.5 794.7 799.8 21' TRANSPORTATION 416.5 225.7 237.8 8 COMMUNICATIONS 406.7 256.1 273.7 3 UTILITIES 608.7 272.0 314.3 2 WHOLESALE & RETAIL TRADE 8,958.2 5,349.7 7,055.6 396 FINANCE 368.6 191.3 196.6 6 INSURANCE 202.1 105.7 121.6 4 REALESTATE 2,705.9 1,563.5 2,107.1 7 Hotels & Lodging Places 6,715.3 3,369.7 4,230.4 288 OTHER SERVICES 1,143.8 568.5 578.0 30 MEDICAL SERVICES 1,410.3 994.9 1,003.8 49 EDUCATION 108.7 64.8 64.8 5 MISCELLANEOUS 172.7 -219.1 -214.5 5 GOVERNMENT 631.6 585.5 595.6 27 Household Industry 49.7 49.7 49.7 9 TOTAL 28,209.5 15,409.2 18,690.9 899 APPENDIX 4 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY I Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Appendix 4 Page 7 7 Economic Impact Modeling Broomhall, David, and Thomas G. Johnson. 1990. "Regional Impacts of the Conservation Reserve Program in the Southeast with Conversion to Trees: An Application of Input-Output Analysis." Review of Regional Studies 20 (Spring): 76-85. Halstead, John M., F. Larry Leistritz, and Thomas G. Johnson. 1991. "The Role of Fiscal Impact Models in Impact Assessments." Impact Assessment Bulletin 9 (Fall):43-54. Johnson, Thomas G. 1990. "Measuring Economic Impacts of Transportation Investments." SP-90-13, Department of Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, May. 28 pp. Johnson, Thomas G. 1986. "Virginia Impact Projection (VIP) Modeling Series: An Extension Tool," pp. 380-385. In Proceedings of the International conference on Computers in Agricultural Extension Programs, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Johnson, Thomas G. 1988. "Fiscal Impact Models for Virginia Communities." Government Finance Review 4:1 (December): 36-38. Johnson, Thomas G., Brady J. Deaton, and Eduardo Segarra, ads. 1988. Local Infrastructure Investment Decisions in Rural America. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 295 pp. Johnson, Thomas G., and Johns T. Lawson. 1987. "The Estimated Impact of a State Prison Facility on the Economy of Buchanan County Virginia. " SP-87-13, Department of Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, August, 16 pp. Johnson, Thomas G., and S. Murthy Kambhampaty. 1988. "The Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Alternative Mined-Land Uses." in Powell River Project Symposium and Progress Reports, 30-35. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Johnson, Thomas G., and S. Murthy Kambhampaty. 1990. "The Closing of AT&T's Fairlawn Plant: Fiscal and Economic Impact in the New River Valley." Community Resource Development, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, March. 27 pp. Johnson, Thomas G., and S. Murthy Kambhampaty. 1992. "Virginia Tech and the Community: A Summary of the University's Economic Impacts." Department of Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, December. 9 pp. Johnson, Thomas G., Ernest W. Wade, and Michael R. Evans. 1989. "Using An Input- Output Model to Measure the Economic Impact of the Explore Project on Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton." Department of Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, December. 19 pp. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 78 Appendix 4 Kambhampaty, S. Murthy, Thomas G. Johnson, and M. Sexton Burkett. 1990. "The Impacts of a Proposed State Prison at Red Onion Mountain in Wise County, Virginia." SP-90-21, Department of Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, June. 38 pp. Kambhampaty, S. Murthy, Paul B. Siegel, and Thomas G. Johnson. 1990. "The Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Pulaski Community Hospital." SP-90-20, Department of Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, june. 13 pp. Otto, Daniel M., and Thomas G. Johnson, eds. 1993. Microcomputer Based Input-Output Modeling: Application to Economic Development. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 228 pp. Persons, Robert L., and Thomas G. Johnson. 1992. "The Economic Impact of the Use of bST by the Virginia Dairy Industry." SP-92-18, Department of Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, December. 13 pp. Siegel, Paul B., and Thomas G. Johnson. 1991. Impacts of the Conservation Reserve Program on the Virginia Economy. Publication 448-201/REAP R002, Virginia Cooperative Extension Service, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 14 pp. Swallow, Brent, and Thomas G. Johnson. 1987. "A Fiscal Impact Model for Virginia Counties." Review of Regional Studies 17:1 (Spring): 67-74. Wade, Ernest W., Thomas G. Johnson, Randall L. Austin, and Mark E. Crawford. 1992. "The Economic Impacts of a Proposed Federal Prison in Lee County, Virginia." Impact Modelling Research Institute, February. 12 pp. Zipper, Carl E., Howard Friedman, Thomas G. Johnson, and S. Murthy Kambhampaty. 1992. "the In-state Economic Impacts of Virginia Coal.". Virginia Coal and Energy Journal Number 4, pp.1-20. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Appendix 4 Page 79 Eco-Tourism Anton, J., C. Davis, C.Teller, and E. Bergman. 1993. Eco-tourism in Tyre# County. Boo, E. 1990. Ecotourism: potentials and pitfalls. World Wildlife Fund 2v. Farquharson, M. 1992. Ecotourism: a dream diluted. Business Mexico. 2:8 11 Je '92 Fisher, A. B. 1990. What consumers want in the 1990s: aging is in, fitness fanaticism is going out, and with casual sex on the wane, people are looking for other kinds of thrills; have you tried ecotourism? Fortune. 121:108 10+ Ja 29 '90 Lindberg, K. 199 1. Policies for Maximizing Nature Tourism's Ecological and Economic Benifits. World Resources Institute, United States of America. Misch, A. 1992. Can wildlife traffic be stopped? World Watch. 5: 26 33 SIO '92 Southworth, A. D. 1989. The environmental tourist: a new plan to protect Latin America lands. Environmental Forum. 6:32 5 AlAg '89 Warner, E. 1989. Ecotourism: can binoculars, cameras and daypacks be the rainforest's new hope? Environmental Action. 21:18 21 SIO '89 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 80 Appendix 4 Environmental Accounting 19138. Western European Tourism in Perspective. Williams, Allan M., ed; Shaw, Gareth, ed. Tourism and economic development: Western European experiences. London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press, distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, pages 12 38 1988. Changing Patterns and Structure of European Tourism. Goodall, Brian, ed, Ashworth, Gregory, ed. Marketing in the tourism industry: The promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney: Croom Helm; distributed by Methuen, New York, pages 18 38 1992. Perspectives on tourism policy. New York and.London: Cassell, Mansell, pages xiv, 240 Ashworth, G., and M. J. Stabler. 1988. Tourism Development Planning in Languedoc: Le Mission Impossible? Goodall, Brian, ed; Ashworth, Gregory, ed. Marketing in the tourism industry: The promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney: Croom Helm, distributed by Methuen, New York, pages 187 97 Ashworth, G., and B. Goodall. 1988. Tourist Images: Marketing Considerations. Goodall, Brian, ed; Ashworth, GregoM ed. Marketing in the tourism industry. The promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney. Croom Helm, distributed by Methuen, New York, pages 213 38 Ashworth, G. Marketing the Historic City for Tourism. 1988. Goodall, Brian, ed; Ashworth, Gregory, ed. Marketing in the tourism industry: The promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney: Croom Helm, distributed by Methuen, New York, pages 162 75 Ashworth, G., and B. E. Goodall. 1990. Marketing tourism places. New York and London: Routledge, pages xxii, 284 Bakkal, I., and A. Scaperlanda. 1991. Characteristics of U.S. Demand for European Tourism: A Translog Approach. Weltwirtschaftfiches Archiv; 12 7(l), pages 119 37 Bakkal, 1. 199 1 Characteristics of West German Demand for International Tourism in the Northern Mediterranean Region. Applied Economics, 23(2), pages 295 304 Bell, F. W., and V. R. Leeworthy. 1990. Recreational Demand by Tourists for Saltwater Beach Days. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management; 18(3), pages 189205 Bergsma, J. R. 1988. Planning of Tourists Routes: The Green Coast Road in the Northern Netherlands. Goodall, Brian, ed, Ashworth, Gregory, ed. Marketing in the tourism industry: The promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney: Croom Helm, distributed by Methuen, New York, pages 89 100 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Appendix 4 Page 81 Bergstrom, J. C. E. A. 1990. Economic Impacts of State Parks on State Economies in the South. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics; 22(2), pages 69 77 Bird, R. M. 1992. Taxing Tourism in Developing Countries. World Development, 20t, pages 1145 58 Blank, U. 1989. The community tourism industry imperative: The necessity, the opportunities, its potential. State College, Pa.: Venture, pages xvi, 200 Booth, A. 1990. The Tourism Boom in Indonesia. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies; 26(3), pages 45 73 Bowes, S. 1988. The Role of the Tourist Board. Goodall, Brian, ed, Ashworth, Gregory, ed. Marketing in the tourism industry: The promotion of destination regions. .London and Sydney: Croom Helm; distributed by Methuen, New York, pages 75 88 Bozkurt, Y. D., and U. Cagli. 1991. Uluslararasi Turizm Piyasasinda Ulkelerin Pazarlanmasi: Cok Boyutlu Olcekleme Yontemi ile Ulke Imaji Saptanmasina Dayali Bir Yaklasim. (Country Marketing in the International Tourism Market: An Empirical Study of Country Image Based on Multidimensional Scaling Approach. With English summary.). Middle East Technical University Studies in Development, 18(l 2), pages 143 63 Braun, B. M., and A. Milman. 1991. Localization Economies in the Theme Park Industry. Review of Regional Studies, 20(3), pages 33 37 Brown, B. J. H. 1988. Developments in the Promotion of Major Seaside Resorts: How to Effect a Transition by Really Making an Effort. Goodall, Brian, ed, Ashworth, Gregory, ed. Marketing in the tourism industry: The promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney: Croom Helm, distributed by Methuen, New York, pages 176 86 Buck, M. 1988. The Role of Travel Agent and Tour Operator. Goodall, Brian, ed; Ashworth, Gregory, ed. Marketing in the tourism industry: The promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney: Croom Helm; distributed by Methuen, New York, pages 67 74 Carey, K. 1991. Estimation of Caribbean Tourism Demand: Issues in Measurement and Methodology. Atlantic Economic Journal; 19(3), pages 32 40 Cater, E. 1988. The Development of Tourism in the Least Developed Countries. Goodall, Brian, ed; Ashworth, Gregory, ed. Marketing in the tourism industry. The promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney: Croom Helm; distributed by Methuen, New York, pages 39 66 Charles, K. R. 1 992.Career Orientation and Industry Perceptions of Caribbean Hotel and Tourism Management Students. Social and Economic Studies, 41 (1), pages 1 19 Copeland, B. R. 1991. Tourism, Welfare and De industrialization in a Small Open Economy. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page E12 Appendix 4 Economica, 58(232), pages 515 29 Domingo, J. 0. 1989. Employment, Income and Economic Identity in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Review of Black Political Economy; 18(1), pages 37 57 Erasmus, G. J. A 1990. Structural Profile of the Hotel Trade in South Africa 1980 to @ 1988. Journal for Studies in Economics and Econometrics; 14f2), pages 57 75 Felton, M. V. 1992. On the Assumed Inelasticity of Demand for the Performing Arts. Journal of Cultural Economics, 16(l), pages 1 12 Fish, M., and J. D. Gibbons. 1991. Analysis of Tourism Receipts: A Turkish Case Study That Refutes Prevailing Patterns. Middle East Technical University Studies in Development, 18(1 2), pages 165 74 Fritz, R. G. 1989. Strategic Planning with a System Dynamics Model for Regional Tourism Site Development. Review of Regional Studies, 19(l), pages 57 71 Gibbons, J. D., and M. Fish. 1991. Real Exchange Rate Indexes Applied to Mexico's International Tourism Receipts. Social and Economic- Studies, 40(3), pages 177 85 Gilg, A. W. 1988. Switzerland: Structural Change within Stability. Williams, Allan M., ed; Shaw, Gareth, ed. Tourism and economic development. Western European experiences. London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press, distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, pages 123 44 Goodall, B. 1988. How Tourists Choose Their Holidays: An Analytical Framework. Goodall, Brian, ed; Ashworth, Gregory, ed. Marketing in the tourism industry. The promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney. Croom Helm; distributed by Methuen, New York, pages 1 17 Healy, K., and E. Zorn. 1988. Lake Titicaca's Campesino Controlled Tourism. Annis, Sheldon, ed, Hakim, Peter, ed. Direct to the poor.- Grassroots development in Latin America. Boulder, Colo. and London: Rienner, pages 45 57 Heilbrun, J. 1992. Art and Culture as Central Place Functions. Urban Studies, 29(2), pages 20515 Hof, J. G., and D. A. King. 1992. Recreational Demand by Tourists for Saltwater Beach Days: Comment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management; 220, pages 281 91 Hugo, M. A. 1992. Quantification of the Role of Foreign Tourism in the South African Economy. Journal for Studies in Economics and Econometrics, 16(2), pages 41 51 Inhaber, H. 1976. Environmental Indices. New York: Wiley and Sons, Inc. Johnson, P., and B. E. Thomas. 1992. Choice and demand in tourism. London and New Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Appendix 4 Page 83 York: Cassell, Mansell, pages xR, 226 Johnson, P., and B. Thomas. Measuring the Local Employment Impact of a Tourist Attraction: An Empirical Study. Regional Studies, 24(5), October 1990, pages 395 403 Kammas, M., and E. H. Salehi. Tourism and Export Led Growth: The Case of Cyprus, 1976 1988. Journal of Developing Areas; 26(4), July 1992, pages 489 506 King, R. Italy: Multi faceted Tourism. Williams, Allan M., ed, Shaw, Gareth, ed. Tourism and economic development: Western European experiences. London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press, distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 1988, pages 58 79 Kosters, M. J. Changing Tourism Requires a Different Management Approach. Goodall, Brian, ed, Ashworth, Gregory, ed Marketing in the tourism industry: The promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney: Croom Helm, distributed by Methuen, New York, 1988, pages 198 212 Law, C. M. Urban Tourism and Its Contribution to Economic Regeneration. Urban Studies, 29t3 4), May 1992, pages 599 618 Leibold, M. Market Measurement in South African Tourism: Problems, Needs and Challenges. Journal for Studies in Economics and Econometrics; 16(2), August 1992, pages 29 39 Leontidou, L. Greece: Prospects and Contradictions of Tourism in the 1980s. Williams, Allan M., ed, Shaw, Gareth, ed. Tourism and economic development. Western European experiences. London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press, distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 1988, pages 80 100 Levin, H. J. Regulating the Global Commons: A Case Study. Zerbe, Richard 0., ed Research in law and economics. Volume 12. Greenwich, Conn. and London: JAI Press, 1989, pages 247 66 Lewis, J., and A. M. Williams. Portugal: Market Segmentation and Regional Specialisation. Williams, Allan M., ed, Shaw, Gareth, ed Tourism and economic development: Western European experiences. London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press, distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 1988, pages 10122 Loomis, J., M. Creel, and T. A. Park. Comparing Benefit Estimates from Travel Cost and Contingent Valuation Using Confidence Intervals for Hicksian Welfare Measures. Applied Economics; 23(11), November 1991, pages 1725 31 Louviere, J. J., and H. J. P. Timmermans. Using Hierarchical Informatiori Integration to Model Consumer Responses to Possible Planning Actions: Recreation Destination Choice Illustration. Environment and Planning A; 220, March 1990, pages 291 308 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 84 Appendix 4 Mamoozadeh, A., and D. L. McKee. Development through Tourism. Tijdschrift voor Economie en Management; 35(2), May 1990, pages 147 57 Messonier, M. L., and E. J. Luzar. A Hedonic Analysis of Private Hunting Land Attributes Using an Alternative Functional Form. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, 220, December 1990, pages 129 35 Mitchell, C. J. A., and G. Wall. The Arts and Employment: A Case Study of the Stratford Festival. Growth and Change, 20(4), Fa# 1989, pages 31 40 Oakes, B. Workers in the British Virgin Islands: The Complexities of Residence and Migration. Social and Economic Studies,* 4 1 (1), March 1992, pages 67 87 Ourn, T. H., and N. Lemire. An Analysis of Japanese International Travel Destination Choices. International Journal of Transport Economics, 180, October 1991, pages 289307 Pinder, D. The Netherlands: Tourist Development in a Crowded Society. Williams, Allan M., ed, Shaw, Gareth, ed. Tourism and economic development: Western European experiences. London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press; distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 1988, pages 214 29 Poon, A. Flexible Specialization and Small Size: The Case of Caribbean Tourism. World Development, 18(l), January 1990, pages 109 23 Prais, S. J., V. Jarvis, and K. Wagner. Productivity and Vocational Skills in Services in Britain and Germany: Hotels. National Institute Economic Review; OfI30), November 1989, pages 52 74 Quiggin, J. On the Optimal Design of Lotteries. Economica, 58(229), February 1991, pages 1 16 Repetto, R. 1990. Wasting assets: the need for national resource accounting; by ignoring natural resources, statistics such as GNP can record illusory gains in income and mask permanent losses in wealth. Technology Review. p 38 44 Ja '90 Ryan, C. Recreational tourism: A social science perspective. London and New York: Routledge, 199 1, pages xi, 22 7 Schnell, P. The Federal Republic of Germany: A Growing International Deficit? Williams, Allan M., ed; Shaw, Gareth, ed. Tourism and economic development. Western European experiences. London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press, distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 1988, pages 196 213 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Wryinia Appendix 4 Page 85 Shaw, G., J. Greenwood, and A. M. Williams. The United Kingdom: Market Responses and Public Policy. Williams, Allan M., ed, Shaw, Gareth, ed. Tourism and economic development: Western European experiences. London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press, distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 1988, pages 162 79 Shogren, J. F., and C. Nowell. 1992. Economics and Ecology: a comparison of experimental methodologies and philosophies. Ecological Economics 5: 101-126. Sinclair, M. T., and A. Tsegaye. International Tourism and Export Instability. Journal of Development Studies, 26(3), April 1990, pages 487 504 Sinclair, M. T., and C. Sutcliffe. The Economic Effects on Destination Areas of Foreign Involvement in the Tourism Industry: A Spanish Application. Goodall, Brian, ed, Ashworth, Gregory, ed. Marketing in the tourism industry. The promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney: Croom Helm; distributed by Methuen, New York, 1988, pages 111 32 Smith, P. G. R., and J.B. Theberge. 1987. Evaluating Natural Areas Using Multiple Criteria: Theory and Practice. Enviromnmental Management 11:447-460: Sutter 11, G. W. 1990. Endpoints for Regional Ecological Risk Assessments. Environmental Management 14:9-23: Spiller, C., G. Tondini, and M. G. Totola. L'impatto ambientale dell'attivita turistica. (The Impact of Tourism on Environment. With English summary.). Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali, 370, March 1990, pages 269 82 Stabler, M. J. The Image of Destination Regions: Theoretical and Empirical Aspects. Goodall, Brian, ed; Ashworth, Gregory, ed. Marketing in the tourism industry. The promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney. Croom Helm; distributed by Methuen, New York, 1988, pages 133 61 Swanson, T. M., and E. B. . E. Barbier. Economics for the wilds: Wildlife, wildlands, diversity and development. London: Earthscan, 1992, pages xi, 226 Tansel, A. Economic Impact of and Demand for Tourism: A Survey. Middle East Technical University Studies in Development, 18(3), 1991, pages 255 81 The Global Tomorrow Coalition. 1990. The Global Ecology Handbook: What You Can Do About the Environmental Crisis. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Townsend, A. New Directions in the Growth of Tourism Employment?: Propositions of the 1980s. Environment and Planning A; 24(6), June 1992, pages 821 32 Tuppen, J. France: The Changing Character of a Key Industry. Williams, Allan M., ed, Shaw, Gareth, ed. Tourism and economic development: Western European experiences. London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press; distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 1988, pages 180 95 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 136 Appendix 4 Turgeon, N., and F. Colbert. The Decision Process Involved in Corporate Sponsorship for the Arts. Journal of Cultural Economics; 16(l), June 1992, pages 41 51 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Ocean Service. January 1987. Volume 2: Land Use Characteristics. National Estuarine Inventory Data Atlas. U.S. Department od Commerce, Leon Danielson, his office. Valenzuela, M. Spain: The Phenomenon of Mass Tourism. Williams, Allan M., ed; Shaw, Gareth, ed. Tourism and economic development. Western European experiences. London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press, distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 1988, pages 39 57 Van, 1). K. . E. C., and J. Oosterhaven. Optimizing Tourist Policy: A Linear Programming Approach. Regional Studies, 24(l), February 1990, pages 55 64 Vaughan, D. R., and P. Booth. The Economic Importance of Tourism and the Arts in Merseyside. Journal of Cultural Economics, 130, December 1989, pages 21 34 Williams, A. M., and G. Shaw. Tourism and Development: Introduction. Williams, Allan M., ed, Shaw, Gareth, ed. Tourism and economic development. Western European experiences. London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press; distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 1988, pages I I I Williams, A. M., and G. Shaw. Tourism Policies in a Changing Economic Environment. Williams, Allan M., ed, Shaw, Gareth, ed. Tourism and economic development. Western European experiences. London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press; distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 1988, pages 230 39 Williams, A. M., G. Shaw, and J. Greenwood. From Tourist to Tourism Entrepreneur, From Consumption to Production: Evidence from Cornwall, England. Environment and Planning A; 21(12), December 1989, pages 1639 53 World Resources Institute. 1992. World Resources 1992-93. New York: Oxford University Press. Zimmermann, F. Austria: Contrasting Tourist Seasons and Contrasting Regions. Williams, Allan M., ed, Shaw, Gareth, ed. Tourism and economic development. Western European experiences. London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press; distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 1988, pages 145 61 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Appendix 4 Page 87 Fishing 1969. On Models of Commercial Fishing. Journal of Political Economy; 77(2):181-98. Alexander, P. 1989. Lessons for the Pacific Technology Transfer and Fishing Communities: The Sri Lankan Experience. Couper, A. D., ed. Development and social change in the Pacific islands. Ocean Management and Policy Series, London and New York: Routledge, pages 63- 73. Anderson, L. G. 1983. The Demand Curve for Recreational Fishing with an Application to Stock Enhancement Activities. Land Economics, 590, pages 2 79-86. Anderson, E. E. 1988. Relative Efficiency of Charges and Quantity Controls in Fisheries with Continuous Stock Growth and Periodically Fixed Instrument Levels. Marine Resource Economics; 50, pages 215-30. Bishop, R. C., and K. C. Samples. 1980. Sport and Commercial Fishing Conflicts: A Theoretical Analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 70, pages 220-33. Bodvarsson, 0. B. 1987. Monitoring with No Moral Hazard: The Case of Small Vessel Commercial Fishing. Eastern Economic Journal, 13(4), pages 421-34. Buerger, R., and J. R. Kahn. 1989. New York Value of Chesapeake Striped Bass. Marine Resource Economics, 6(l), pages 19-25. Campbell, H. F. 1991. Estimating the Elasticity of Substitution between Restricted and Unrestricted Inputs in a Regulated Fishery: A Probit Approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 20(3), pages 262-74. Campbell, H. F., and R. K. Lindner. 1990. The Production of Fishing Effort and the Economic Performance of Licence Limitation Programs. Land Economics; 66(l), pages 56-66. Charles, A. T. 1988. Fishery Socioeconomics: A Survey. Land Economics, 640, pages 276-95. Cheng, K. S., C. J. Lin, and A. Y. Wang. 1981. Analysis of Modified Model for Commercial Fishing with Possible Extinctive Fishery Resources. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 8(2), pages 151-55. Diaz, D. L. - A., and J. C. Seijo. 1992. A Multi-Criteria Non-linear Optimization Model for the Control and Management of a Tropical Fishery. Marine.Resource Economics, 7(2), pages 23-40. Dupont, D. P., and S. A. Phipps. 1991. Distributional Consequences of Fisheries Regulations. Canadian Journal of Economics, 24(l), pages 206-20. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 88 Appendix 4 Dwyer, J. F., and M. D. Bowes. 1978. Concepts of Value for Marine Recreational Fishing. American Journal of Agricultural Economics; 60(5), pages 1008-12. Edwards, S. F., and C. Carlson. 1989. On Estimating Compensation for Injury to Publicly Owned Marine Resources. Marine Resource Economics, 6(l), pages 27-42. Fullenbaum, R. F., E. W. Carlson, and F. W. Bell. 1972. On Models of Commercial Fishing: A Defense of the Traditional Literature. Journal of Political Economy, 80(4), pages 761-68. Gates, J. M. 1984. Principal Types of Uncertainty in Fishing Operations. Marine Resource Economics, 1 (1), pages 31-49. Hanna, S. S. 1987. The Structure of Fishing Systems and the Implementation of Management Policy. in Vincent, Thomas L., et al., eds. 1985. Modeling and management of resources under uncertainty: Proceedings of the Second U.S. Australia Workshop on Renewable Resource Management held at the East West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, December 9-12, 1985. Lecture Notes in Bibmathematics series, vol. 72. New York; Berlin; London and Tokyo: Springer, pages 264-73. Hannesson, R. 1991. From Common Fish to Rights Based Fishing: Fisheries Management and the Evolution of Exclusive Rights to Fish. European Economic Review, 35(2 3), pages 397-407. Hannesson, R. A .1978. Note on the Welfare Economic Consequences of Extended Fishing Limits. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management; 5f2), pages 187-97. Hansen, L. T., and J. A. Hallam. 1990. Single Stage and Two Stage Decision Modeling of the Recreational Demand for Water. Journal of Agricultural Economics Research; 42(l), pages 16-26. Jordan, P. G., and K. R. 1988. Polenske. Multiplier Impacts of Fishing Activities in New England and Nova Scotia. Ciaschini, Maurizib, ed. Input Output analysis: Current developments. International Studies in Economic Modelling series, London and New York: Routledge, pages 325-66. Kaoru, Y. 1989. Valuing Improvements in Estuarine Quality for Marine Recreational Fishing: A Discrete Choice Benefit Analysis. Vanderbilt University, Ph.D. Karpoff, J. M. 1989. Characteristics of Limited Entry Fisheries and the Option Component of Entry Licenses. Land Economics; 65(4), pages 386-93. Leung, A., and A. Y. Wang. 1976. Analysis of Models for Commercial Fishing: Mathematical and Economical Aspects. Econometrica, 44(2), pages 295-303. Levhari, D., R. Michener, and L. J. Mirman. 1981. Dynamic Programming Models of Fishing: Competition. American Economic Review, 71(4), pages 649-61. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Appendix 4 Page 89 Lipton, D. W., and 1. E. Strand. 1992. Effect of Stock Size and Regulations on Fishing Industry Cost and Structure: The Surf Clam Industry. American Journal of Agricultural Economics; 74(l), pages 197-208. McConnell, K. E. 1979. Values of Marine Recreational Fishing: Measurement and Impact of Measurement. American Journal of Agricultural Economics; 61t5), pages 921-25. McConnell, K. E., and J. G. Sutinen. 1979. Bioeconomic Models of Marine Recreational Fishing. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management; 612), pages 127- 39. Meuriot, E., and J. M. Gates. 1983. Fishing Allocations and Optimal Fees: A Single and Multilevel Programming Analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65(4), pages 711-21. Morey, E. R., W. D. Shaw, and R. D. Rowe. 1991. A Discrete Choice Model of Recreational Participation, Site Choice, and Activity Valuation When Complete Trip Date Are Not Available. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management; 20(2), page! 181-201. Onal, H. E. A. 1991. A Bioeconomic Analysis of the Texas Shrimp Fishery and Its Optimal Management. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73W, pages 1161-70. Platteau, J. P., and J. Nugent. 1992. Share Contracts and Their Rationale: Lessons from Marine Fishing. Journal of Development Studies; 28(3), pages 386-422. Plourde, C., and J. B. Smith. 1989. Crop Sharing in the Fishery and Industry Equilibrium. Marine Resource Economics; 6(3), pages 179-93. Plourde, C., and D. Yeung. 1989. Harvesting of a Transboundary Replenishable Fish Stock: A Noncooperative Game Solution. Marine Resource Economics; 6(l), pages 57-70. Prescott, A. C., and A. R. Prescott. 1986. Wild species in the North American economy: The first resource. New Haven and London: Yale University Press in cooperation with the World Wildlife Fund. Rockel, M. L., and M. Kealy. 1991. The Value of Nonconsumptive Wildlife Recreation in the United States. Land Economics, 67(4), pages 422-34. Rodrigues, A. G. 1990. E. Operations research and management in fishing. NATO Advanced Science Institute Series E. Applied Sciences, vol. 189, Norwell, Mass.; Dordrecht and London: Kluwer Academic in cooperation with NA TO Scientific Affairs Division. Russell, C. S., and W. J. Vaughan. 1982. The National Recreational Fishing Benefits of Water Pollution Control. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management; 9(4j, pages 328-54. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 90 Appendix 4 Scott, A. 1988. Development of Property in the Fishery. Marine Resource Economics, 5(4), pages 289-311. Segerson, K., and D. Squires. 1990. On the Measurement of Economic Capacity Utilization for Multi product Industries. Journal of Econometrics; 44(3), pages 347-61. Smith, V. L. 1972. On Models of Commercial Fishing: The Traditional Literature Needs No Defenders. Journal of Political Economy; 80(4), pages 776-78. Smith, V. K., R. B. Palmquist, and P. Jakus. 1991. Combining Farrell Frontier and Hedonic Travel Cost Models for Valuing Estuarine Quality. Review of Economics and Statistics; 73(4), pages 694 99 Squires, D. 199-2. Productivity Measurement in Common Property Resource Industries: An Application to the Pacific Coast Trawl Fishery. Rand Journal of Economics; 23(2), pages 221-36. Squires, D. 1987. Fishing Effort: Its Testing, Specification, and Internal Structure in Fisheries Economics and Management. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management; 14(3), pages 268-82. Squires, D. 1987. Public Regulation and the Structure of Production in Multiproduct Industries: An Application to the New England Otter Trawl Industry. Rand Journal of Economics, 18(2), pages 232-47. Steinnes, D., and R. Raab. 1981. The Economics of a "Happening": Spring Smelt Fishing on Lake Superior. Regional Science Perspectives, I 1 (1), pages 32-4 1. Taylor, T. G., and F. J. Prochaska. 1985. Fishing Power Functions in Aggregate Bioeconomic Models. Marine Resource Economics, 2tl), pages 87-107. Terkla, D. G., P. B. Doeringer, and P. 1. Moss. 1988. Widespread Labor Stickiness in the New England Offshore Fishing Industry: Implications for Adjustment and Regulation. Land Economics, 64M, pages 73-82. Townsend, R. E. 1992. A Fractional Licensing Program for Fisheries. Land Economics; 68(21, pages 185-90. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1993. 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1992. Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, 1990-1991. U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, MD. Vaughan, W. J., and C. S. Russell. 1982. Valuing a Fishing Day: An Application of a Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Appendix 4 Page 91 Systematic Varying Parameter Model. Land Economics; 58(4), pages 450-63. Wang, A. Y., and K. S. Cheng. 1978. Dynamic Analysis of Commercial Fishing Model. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management; 5(2), pages 113-2 7. Wang, A. Y., and K. S. Cheng. 1978. Dynamic Analysis of Commercial Fishing Model. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management; 5(2), pages 113-27. Wieland, T. April 1981. An Economic Analysis of the Ocean Fishing Industry of Chincoteague, Virginia. Delmarva Advisory Council, Salisbury, MD. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 92 Appendix 4 Outdoor Recreation 1975. Some Problems in Estimating the Demand for Outdoor Recreation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics; 57(2), pages 330 34 Anderson, T. L., and D. R. Leal. 1991. Free market environmentalism. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy; Boulder and Oxford: Westview Press, pages xii, 192 Bechte-r, D. M. 1970. Outdoor Recreation. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Monthly Review; pages 15 20 Bergstrom, J. C. et. al. 1990. Economic Impacts of State Parks on State Economies in the South. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics; 22t2), pages 69 77 Bondurant, J. H., and J. D. Wright. 1970. Some Factors Influencing Family Expenditures for Outdoor Recreation. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 180, pages 3540 Braat, L. C., and Van, Lierop, Wal. F. J. - eds. Van. 1987. Economic ecological modeling. Studies in Regional Science and Urban Economics series, no. 16. Amsterdam, New York, Oxford and Tokyo: North Holland, pages x, 329 Brewer, D., and G. A. Gillespie. 1969. Effects of Nonprice Variables upon Participation in Water Oriented Outdoor Recreation: Reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics; 5 1 (1), pages 194 95 Bright, J. W., and M. Sagan. 1987. Beaches, Islands, Marshes, and Woodlands: Outdoor Recreation Plan on Virginia's Eastern Shore. United States Department of the Interior, Denver, CO. Brown, W. G., and F. Nawas. 1973. Impact of Aggregation on the Estimation of Outdoor Recreation Demand Functions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics; 55(2), pages 246 49 Burt, 0. R., and D. Brewer. 1971. Estimation of Net Social Benefits from Outdoor Recreation. Econometrica; 39(5), pages 813 2 7 David, E. J. L. 1969. Effects of Nonprice Variables upon Participation in Water Oriented Outdoor Recreation: Comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51(4), pages 942 45 Deyak, T. A., and V. K. Smith. 1978. Congestion and Participation in Outdoor Recreation: A Household Production Function Approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 5(l), pages 63 80 Deyak, T. A., and V. K. Smith. 1978. Congestion and Participation in Outdoor Recreation: A Household Production Function Approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management; 5(l), pages 63 80 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Appendix 4 Page 93 Duffell, J. R. 1986. The Car Excursion to Informal Outdoor Recreation Sites: Comparative Studies in the West Midlands Region in 1966 to 1978. Regional Studies, 20(6j, pages 505 21 Frederick, K. D., and Sedio, R.A. eds. 1991. America's renewable resources: Historical trends and current challenges. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, pages xiv, 296 Gum, R. L., and W. E. Martin. 1975. Problems and Solutions in Estimating the Demand for and Value of Rural Outdoor Recreation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics; 57(4J, pages 558 66 Gum, R. L., and W. E. Martin. 1977. Structure of Demand for Outdoor Recreation. Land Economics, 53(l), pages 43 55 Johnson, H. A. 1970. Characteristics of Supply and Demand in Outdoor Recreation. Agricultural Economics Research; 22(l), pages 18 23 Knetsch, J. L., and F. J. Cesario. 1976. Some Problems in Estimating the Demand for Outdoor Recreation: Comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics; 58, pages 596 97 Knetsch, J. L. 1972. Interpreting Demands for Outdoor Recreation. Economic Record; 48f123J, pages 429 32 Krutilla, J. V., and J. L. Knetsch. 1970. Outdoor Recreation Economics. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science; 389, pages 63 70 Leeworhty, V. R., N. F. Meade, K. Drazek, and D. Schruefer. 1989. A Socioeconomic Profile of Recreationists at Public Outdoor Recreation Sites in Coastal Areas: Volume 3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD. Leeworthy, V. R., and N. F. Meade. 1989. Volume 1.,A Socioeconomic Profile of Recreationists at Public Outdoor Recreation Sites in Coastal Areas: Volume 1. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, MD. Leeworthy, V. R., and D. Schruefer. 1990. A Socioeconomic Profile of Recreationists at Public Outdoor Recreation Sites in Coastal Areas: Volume 4. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Departmetn of Commerce, Rockville, MD. Leeworthy, V. R., N. F. Meade, K. brazek, and D. Schruefer. 1989. A Socioeconomic Profile of Recreationists at Public Outdoor Recreation Sites in Coastal Areas. Volume 2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Rockville, MD. Matulich, S. C., W. G. Workman, and A. Jubenville. 1987. Recreation Economics: Taking Stock [Problems and Solutions in Estimating the Demand for and Value of Rural Outdoor Recreation]. Land Economics; 630, pages 310 16 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 914 Appendix 4 McClellan, K., and E. A. Medrich. 1969. Outdoor Recreation: Economic Consideration for Optimal Site Selection and Development. Land Economics,- 450, pages 174 82 McConnell, K. E. 1985. The Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Kneese, Allen V., ed., Sweeney, James L., ed. Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics. Volume 2. Amsterdam and Oxford.- North Holland, distributed in North America by Elsevier Science, New York, pages 677 722 McConnell, K. E. 1976. Some Problems in Estimating the Demand for Outdoor Recreation: Reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 580, pages 598 99 Mendelsohn, R. 1987. Modeling the Demand for Outdoor Recreation. Water Resources Research, 23(5), pages 961 67 Mendelsohn, R., at al. 1983. Revealed Preference Approaches to Valuing Outdoor Recreation. Natural Resources Journal, 23(3), pages 607 18 Menz, F. C., and J. K. Mullen. 1981. Expected Encounters and Willingness to Pay for Outdoor Recreation. Land Economics; 57(11, pages 33 40 Norton, G. A. 1970. Public Outdoor Recreation and Resource Allocation: A Welfare Approach. Land Economics, 46N), pages 414 22 Pigram, J. J. 1981. Outdoor Recreation and Access to Countryside: Focus on the Australian Experience. Natural Resources Journal; 2 1 (1), pages 10 7 23 Ranken, R. L., and J. A. Sinden. 1971. Causal Factors in the Demand for Outdoor Recreation. Economic Record, 47(119), pages 418 26 Schuster, E. G., and H. H. Webster. 1971. Costs of Outdoor Recreation Land Use Controls. Land Economics,- 48(4), pages 392 96 Shabman, L. A., and R. J. Kalter. 1969. Effects of Public Programs for Outdoor Recreation and Personal Income Distribution. American Journal of Agricultural Economics; 51(5), pages 1516 19 Stevens, J. B. 1969. Effects of Nonprice Variables upon Participation in Water Oriented Outdoor Recreation: Comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51fl), pages 192 93 Ulph, A. M., and 1. K. Reynolds. 1979. An Activities Model of Consumer Behaviour with Special Reference to Outdoor Recreation. Scottish Journal of Political Economy; 26(l), pages 33 60 Van, D. P. . S. W. Floris ad. 1987. Economic-ecological modeling. Studies in Regional Science and Urban Economics series, no. 16. Amsterdam; New York; Oxford and Tokyo: North-Holland, pages 149-65. Models for Outdoor Recreation. Braat, Leon C., ed an- Lierop,-Wal-F.-J: Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Appendix 4 Page 95 Walsh, R. G., D. M. Johnson, and J. R. McKean. 1992. Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Demand Studies, 1968 1988. Water Resources Research; 280, pages 707 13 Walsh, R. G., D.M. Johnson, and J.R. McKean. 1989. Nonmarket Values from Two Decades of Research on Recreation Demand. JAI Press Inc, Greenwich CT. Wiedner, D., and P. Kerlinger. 1990. Economics of Birding: A National Survey of Active Birders. American Birds vol.44, Number 2: p.209-213. Willis, K. G., and G. D. Garrod. 1991. An Individual Travel Cost Method of Evaluating Forest Recreation. Journal of Agricultural Economics; 42fl), pages 33 42 Wilman, E. A. 1988. Pricing Policies for Outdoor Recreation. Land Economics; 640, pages 234 41 Wrigley, J. C., H. H. Fullerton, and E. B. Wennergren. 1974. Empirical Estimation of Quality Values for Outdoor Recreation Land Use. Intermountain Economic Review, 5(l), pages 58 71 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 96 Appendix 4 Sustainability 1987. Environmental protection and sustainable development: legal principles and recommendations; with a foreward by Nagendra Singh. Graham xxi + 196p. 1987. Environmental management and economic development: special edition. Annals of Regional Science: an internationaljournal of urban, regional and environmental research and policy. 21:1 123 N '87 1991. Natural resources of Sri Lanka: conditions and trends. Keells Business Systems Ltd., 130 Glennie St., Colombo 2, Sri Lanka xi + 280p. 1991. Philippine Strategy for Sustainable Development: an overview. Philippine Development 17:15 25 XlAg '91 1992. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development; Rio de Janeiro, June 3 14, 1992. International Legal Materials. 31:814 87 X '92 Ahmad, Yusuf J., Salah El Serafy, and Ernst Lutz, ads. 1989. Environmental Accounting for Sustainable Develggment. Washington: World Bank. Amir, S. 1992. The Environmental Cost of Sustainable Welfare. Discussion Paper, OE92-17-REV. Washington: Resources for the Future. Angell, D. J. R. 1990. Sustaining earth: response to the environmental threat. Macmillan (L ondon) xvi i + 2 2 6 p. Archibugi, F., and P. Nijkamp, ads. 1989. Economy and Ecology: Towards Sustainable Develor)ment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Barbier, E.B. 1989. Economics. Natural Resource Scarcity and Develol2ment. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Bartelmus, Peter. 1993. "Towards a System of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounts." Paper presented to the Resource Policy Consortium Symposium "Integrating Economic and Ecological Indicators." Washington, May 17-18, 1993. Berkes, F. and A. Shaw. 1986. Ecologically sustainable development: a Caribbean fisheries case study. Canadian Journal of Development StudieslRevue Canadienne d'Etudes du Developpement. 7:175 96 Summer '86. Birgeles, J. J. and D. Berkovits. 1992. Environmental considerations for port operations and development. Industry and Environment 15:45 8 dal Je '92 Blauert, J. and M. Guidi. 1992. Local initiatives in Southern Mexico. Ecologist. 22:284 88 NID '9 2 Boyer, W. W. and B.M. Ahn. 1991. Rural development in South Korea: a sociopolitical Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Appendix 4 Page 97 analysis. Associated Univ Presses 155p. Bromley, Daniel W., ed. 1992. Making the Commons Work. San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies. Butz, D. 199 1. Why international development neglects indigenous social reality. Canadian Journal of Development StudieslRevue Canadienne dEtudes du Developpement. 12:143 57 no 1 '91 Cabe, Richard and Stanley R. Johnson. 1990. "Natural Resource Accounting Systems and Environmental Policy Modeling." Journal of Soil-and Water Conservation. Sept- Oct. 1990. pp. 533-39. Cabe, Richard. 1990. Natural Resource Accounting Systems and Environmental Policy Modelling. Working Paper 90-WP 65. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University. Carr, M., ed. April 1987. Sustainable Industrial Development. New York: Intermediate Technology Development Group of North America. Chircop, A. E. 1992. The Mediterranean Sea and the quest for sustainable development. Ocean Development and International Law. 23:17 30 JalMr '92 Clark, N. and Juma, C. 1991. Biotechnology for sustainable development: policy options for developing countries. Acts Press, African Centre for Technology Studies, P.O. Box 45917, 4th Floor, St. George's House, Parliament Rd., Nairobi, Kenya viii + 1 17p. Costanza, Robert, ed. 1991. Ecolo-oical Economics. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991. Court, T. D. L. 1990. Beyond Brundtland: green development in the 1990s. Zed #ks Counc# Internat and Public Affairs 139p. Cowan, J. J. H., and R.E.Turner. 1988. Modeling Wetland Loss in Coastal Louisiana: Geology, Geography, and Human Modifications. Environmental Management 12:827-838: d'Arge, Ralph C. 1991. "Economic Growth, Sustainability, and the Environment." Contgmporary Policy Issues. 9(l):1-23. Daly, Herman, and Kenneth Townsend, eds. 1993. Valuing the Earth: Economics. Ecology. Ethics Cambridge, MA: MIT. Press. Di, P. M. 1992. Sustainable development in Argentina. Environment and Urbanization. 4:37 52 Ap '92 Douglas, D. J. A. . ed. 1989. Rural planning. Plan Canada. 29:8 67+ Mr '89 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 98 Appendix 4 Dover, M. J. and Talbot, L. M. 1988. Feeding the earth: an agroecological solution. Technology Review. 91:26 35 FlMr '88 El Serafy, Salah. 1993. Country Macroeconomic Work and Natural Resogrces. World Bank Environment Working Paper No. 58. Washington: World Bank. Engel, J. R. and Engle, J. G. 1990. Ethics of environment and development: global challenge, international response. Belhaven Press, 25 Floral St., London, WC1E 9DS, Eng xv+264p. Erdmann, P. B. . ad. 1992. Focus issue: Corporate environmentalism. Columbia Journal of World Business. 2 7:12 50 + FaIllWinter '92 Esteva, G. and Prakash, M. S. 1992. Grassroots resistance to sustainable development: lessons from the banks of Narmada. Ecologist. 22:45 51 MrIAp '92 Hammond, A. L. . ed. 1992. World resources, 1992 93: a report. Oxford Univ Pr xiv+385p. Hannon, Bruce. 1989. "Accounting in Ecological Systems." The Ecological Economics of Sustainability. Washington: World Bank. Harrison, P. 1992. The third revolution: environment, population and a sustainable world. Tauds St Martin's A + 3 5 9 p. Harrison, Anne. 1989. "Environmental Issues and the SNA." Review of Income and Wealth Series 35, no. 4, pp. 377-388. Housman, R. and Zaelke, D. 1992. Trade, environment, and sustainable development: a primer. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review. 15:535 612 Summer '92 Jacobs, M. 1990. Sustainable development: greening the economy. Fabian Soc 28p. Jacobs, M. 1991. The green economy: environment, sustainable development and the politics of the future. Pluto Pr xxii + 31 2p. Kirschenmann, F. May 1991. Fundamental Fallicies of Building Agricultural Sustainability. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 165-68: Kopp, Raymond J. 1992. "The Role of Natural Assets in Economic Development." Resources. No. 106. Washington: Resources for the Future. Kuik, Onno and Harmen Verbruggen, eds. 1991. In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Develor)ment. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Lele, S. M. 199 1. Sustainable development: a critical review. World Development.- the multi disciplinary in terna tional journal de vo ted to the study and promo tion of world development. 19:607 21 Je '91 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Appendix 4 Page 99 Lutz, E. and Young, M. 1992. Integration of environmental concerns into agricultural policies of industrial and developing countries. World Development: the multi disciplinary internationaljournal devoted to the study and promotion of world development. 20:241 53 F '92 Martinez-Alier, 1987. Ecolooical Economics. Oxford: Basil- Blackwell. Mikesell, R. F. 1992. Economic development and the environment: a comparison of sustainable development with conventional development economics. Cassell viii + 15 2p. Norgaard, Richard B. 1989. "Three Dilemmas of Environmental Accounting." Ecological Economics 1:303-314. 1989. Northampton County Department of Planning and Zoning, and Northampton County Joint Local Planning Commission. July 1989. Information and Analysis: Comprehensive Plan Background. Eastville, VA. Northampton County Joint Planning Commission. Comprehensive Plan for Nothampton County, Virginia. Org. For Econ. Coop.. Nicolaisen, J. 1990. Economics and the environment: a survey of issues and policy options. Org Econ Coop and Development 76p. Pearce, David, Edward Barbier, and Anil Markandya. 1990. Sustainable Development: Economics and Environment in the Third World. Brookfield, VT: Gower Publishing Company. Perrings, Charles. 1991. "Reserved Rationality and the Precautionary Principle: Technological Change, Time, and Uncertainty in Env *ironmental Decision Making." in Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability. New York: Columbia University Press. Perrings, C. 1987. Economy and Environment; A Theoretical Essay on the Interdependence of Economic and Environmental Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pezzey, J. 1989. Economic Analysis of Sustainable Growth and Sustainable Development. Environment Working Paper no. 15. Washington: World Bank. Pottier, J. 1993. Practising Develpoment. London: Routledge. Repetto, R., W. Magrath, M. Wells, C. Beer, and F. Rossini. 1989. Wasting Assets; Natural Resources in the National Income Accounts. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Schmidheiny, S. 1992. Changing course: a global business perspective on development and the environment. MIT Pr xvii + 374p. Schoenbaum, T. J. W., and Edith Brown. 1992. Agora: trade and environment. American Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 1100 Appendix 4 Journal of International Law. 86:700 35 0 '92 Sigal, L. 1993. The Evolution of Environmental Impact Assessment from Projects to Policy to Sustainable Development. in Current and Future Priorities for Environmental Management; NAEP 18th Annual Conference Proceedings, May 24-26, 1993, Raleigh, North Carolina. National Association of Environmental Professionals,Washington, DC: National Association of Environmental Professionals. Silverman, M. H. at al. November 1977. Feasibility Study of a Seafood Industrial Port for Virginia. Dapartment of Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University. RAI, property of Tim Hayes, Nothampton County, VA. Simonis, U. E. 1990. Beyond growth: elements of sustainable development. Sigma 151 p. Smit, 13. and Brklacich, M. 1989. Sustainable development and the analysis of rural systems. Journal of Rural Studies. 5.-405 14 no 4 '89 Smith, E. E. 1990. Sustainable development through Northern conservation strategies. Univ Calgary PY xxviii + 1 88p. Solow, Robert M. 1992. "An Almost Practical Step Toward Sustainability." Invited Lecture at Resources for the Future, Washington, October 8, 1992. Solow, R.. 1992. An Almost Practical Step Toward Sustainability. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Tomal-ty, R. and S. Handler. 1991. Green planning: striving towards sustainable development in Ontario's municipalities. Plan Canada. 31:27 8+ My '91 Toman, Michael. 1992 . Economics and "Susta inability": Balancing Tradeoffs and Imperatives. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper ENR91-05 Rev. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Turner, R.K., ad. 1988. Sustainable Environmental Management. Boulder: Westview Press. United Nations Environmental Programme. 1988. The state of the environment, 1988: the public and environment. U N Environment Programme 43p. United Nations Dept. Of Economics. 1992. Poverty alleviation and sustainable development: goals in conflict? views and recommendations of the Committee for Development Planning. U N Agent viii + 69p. World Com. On Environment, Brundtland, Grottarlem, Chm. 1987. Our common future. Oxford Univ Pr xv + 383p. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Appendix 4 Page 101 Tourism 1981. Tourism: managing regional assets [four articles]. Environmental Comment. p 3 14 D '81 1981. Cultural tourism and industrial cities (preservation of obsolete industrial districts as tourist attractions; three articles]. Environmental Comment. p 3 15 Ja '81 1982. World tourism still going places. Economist. 285:118 19 0 16 '82 1985. Managing resort communities. Management Information Service Report. 17:1 15 J/ 185 1987. -Interrelationships of leisure, recreation, and tourism: special issue. Annals of Tourism Research: a social sciences journal. 14:314 429 no 3 '8 7 Adams, J. W. 1985. Travel in Alabama: the economic impact. Alabama Business. 54:2+ Je '85 Aldskogius, H. A. 1977. Conceptual Framework and a Swedish Case Study of Recreational Behavior and Environmental Cognition. Economic Geography; 53(2J, pages 163 83 Arbel, A., and S. A. Ravid. 1985. On Recreation Demand: A Time Series Approach. Applied Economics, 17(6), pages 9 79 90 Ashworth, G., and B. E. Goodall. 1990. Marketing tourism places. New York and London: Routledge. Balkan, E., and J. R. Kahn. 1988. The Value of Changes in Deer Hunting Quality: A Travel Cost Approach. Applied Economics, 20(4), pages 533 39 Bar, 0. R. 1989. Travel and tourism data: a comprehensive research handbook on the world travel industry. Euromonitor ix + 366p. Baty, B. and R. Templeton. 1991. Tourism and the tourist industry in 1990. Employment Gazette. 99:491 500 S '91 Bell, F. W., and V. R. Leeworthy. 1990. Recreational Demand by Tourists for Saltwater Beach Days. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 180, pages 189205 Benington, J. 1988. The future of leisure services. Longman xi+272p. Berbecaru, 1. 1977. The Management of Touristic Activity. Management Training Review, 0:42 48 Bergstrom, J. 1990. Economic impacts of State Parks on State Economias in the South. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics,, 22(2), December 1990, pages 69 77 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 102 Appendix 4 Blank, U. 1989. The community tourism industry imperative: The necessity, the opportunities, its potential. State College, Pa.: Venture, 1989., pages xvi, 200 Bond, M. E., and J. R. Ladman. 1972. Tourism: A Strategy for Development. Nebraska Journal of Economics and Business; 11 (1):3 7 52 Bondurant, J. H., and J. D. Wright. 1970. Some Factors Influencing Family Expenditures for Outdoor Recreation. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics; 18(2), July 1970, pages 35 40 Boo, E. 1990. Ecotourism: potentials and pitfalls. World Wildlife Fund 2v. Booker, H. M. 1978. Museums: The Heart of the Town Aesthetic Pulse of the People or Epitome of Economic Inefficiency? Journal of Cultural Economics; 2(2), pages 65 71 Bottomley, A., M. Hartnett, and V. Evans. 1976. Is Tourist Residential Development Worthwhile? The Anegada Project. Social and Economic Studies, 25(l), pages 1-33. Bouquet, M. and M. Winter. 1987. Who from their labours rest? conflict and practice in rural tourism. Ashgate viii + 1 58p. Bowes, M. D., and J. B. Loomis. 1980. A Note on the Use of Travel Cost Models with Unequal Zonal Populations. Land Economics; 56(4), pages 465 70 Brownrigg, M., and M. A. Greig. 1975. Differential Multipliers for Tourism. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 22(3), pages 261 75 Burt, 0. R., and D. Brewer. 1971. Estimation of Net Social Benefits from Outdoor Recreation. Econometfica; 39(5), pages 813 27 Chartrand, H. H. 1988. The Crafts in the Post modern Economy. Journal of Cultural Economics; 12(2), pages 39 66 Christensen, J. B., and C. Price. 1982. A Note on the Use of Travel Cost Models with Unequal Zonal Populations: Comment. Land Economics, 580, pages 395 99 Cohen, E. E. 1985. Tourist guides: pathfinders, mediators, and animators [4 articles). Annals of Tourism Research: a social sciences journat 12:5 95 no 1 '85 Combs, J. P., and B. W. Elledge. 1979. Effects of a Room Tax on Resort Hotel/Motels. National Tax Journal; 32(2), June 1979, pages 201 07 Converse, R. S. Machlis, Gary E. 1986. Energy and outdoor recreation: a review and assessment of the literature. Leisure Sciences: an interdisciplinary JournaL 8:391 416 no 4 '86 Cooper, C. P., and A. Lockwood. 1992. Progress in tourism, recreation and hospitality Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Appendix 4 Page 103 management. Pinter Halsted Pr xvii + 281 p. Cooper, C. P. 1981. Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Tourist Behaviour. Regional Studies; 15(5), 1981, pages 359 71 Dailey, R.T. 1984. An update on Montana's travel and tourism industry. Montana Business Quarterly. 22:2 4 Winter '84 Daly, A. 1984. Cost Saving Methods in Travel Demand Forecasting. Pittield, D. E., ed, Discrete Choice Models in Regional Science. London Papers in Regional Science series, no. 14. London: Pion; distributed in the U.S. by Methuen, New York, pages 10213 Delaware. Agric. Exp. Sta. Cole, G. L. 1984. Impact of tourism on public services in selected Delaware shore communities. Newark, DE 19717 1303 v+48p. Diamond, J. 1976. Tourism and Development Policy: A Quantitative Appraisal. Bulletin of Economic Research; 28(l), pages 36 50 Diamond, J. 1977. Tourism's Role in Economic Development: The Case Reexamined. Economic Development and Cultural Change; 25(3), pages 539 53 Durham, F. 1977. An Exploration of Some of the Causes of a Developing Painters' Colony in Fort Worth, Texas. Journal of Cultural Economics, 1(2), pages 25 34 Dykeman, F. W. , ed. 1988. Integrated rural planning and development. Rural and Small Town Research and Studies Programme, Department of Geography, Mount Allison University, Sack ville, Ne w Bruns wick, EOA 3CO xi + 2 9 7 p. Edwards, F. E. 1988. Environmentally sound tourism in the Caribbean. Univ Calgary Pr xxiii + 143p. Felton, M. V. 1992. On the Assumed Inelasticity of Demand for the Performing Arts. Journal of Cultural Economics, 16(l), pages 1 12 Fritz, R. G. 1989. Strategic Planning with a System Dynamics Model for Regional Tourism Site Development. Review of Regional Studies, 19(l), pages 57 71 Fritz, R. G. 1982. Tourism, Vacation Home Development and Residential Tax Burden: A Case Study of the Local Finances of 240 Vermont Towns. American Journal of Economics and Sociology; 41(4), pages 375 85 Fujii, E. T., M. Khaled, and J. Mak. 1985. An Almost Ideal Demand System for Visitor Expenditures. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 190, pages 161 71. Gallagher, M. 1988. How the visitors are counted. Business and Finance. 24:14 15 Ag 25 '88 Gapinski, J. H. 1980. The Production of Culture. Review of Economics and Statistics; Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 104 Appendix 4 62(4), pages 578 86 Gartner, W. C. et al. 1983. Economic impact of an annual tourism industry exposition [estimated impact of the 1980 Greater Michigan Boat and Fishing Show on metropolitan Detroit]. Annals of Tourism Research: a social sciences journal. 10:199 212 no 2 '83 Getz, D. 1983. Capacity to absorb tourism: concepts and implications for strategic planning. Annals of Tourism Research: a social sciences journal. 10:239 63 no 2 '83 Giarini, 0. E. 1987. The emerging service economy. Services Worldeconomy series. Oxford, New York, Sydney and Toronto: Pergamon Press. Goodall, B., and G. E. Ashworth. 1988. Marketing in the tourism industry: The promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney: Croom Helm, distributed by Methuen, New York., pages 244 Goodall, B. 1988. How Tourists Choose Their Holidays: An Analytical Framework. Goodall, Brian, ed, Ashworth, Gregory, ed. Marketing in the tourism industry: The promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney: Croom Helm, distributed by Methuen, New York., pages 1 17 Grigalunas, T. A. et al. 1986. Estimating the Cost of Oil Spills: Lessons from the Amoco Cadiz Incident. Marine Resource Economics, 2(3), pages 239 62 Guiducci, G. 1984. Turismo postindustriale. Lavoro 78p. Guskind, R. 1987. Bringing Madison Avenue to main street: whether it's for tourism or economic development, marketing states and cities has become big business; but do the results warrant all the expense? Planning. 53:4 10 F '87 Haulot, A. 1977. Coastal belt tourism, economic development and. environmental impact. International Journal of Environmental Studies. 10., 161 72 Mr '77 Hay, M. J., and K. E. McConnell. 1979. An Analysis of Participation in Nonconsumptive Wildlife Recreation. Land Economics, 55(4), pages 460- 71 Hay, M. J., and K. E. McConnell. 1981. An Analysis of Participation in Nonconsumptive Wildlife Recreation: Reply. Land Economics, 57(2), pages 288 92 Hendon, W. S. 1983. Admission Income and Historic Houses: Higher Revenue Is Associated with Price Policy, More Services and Less Education. American Journal of Economics and Sociology; 42(4), pages 473-82. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Appendix 4 Page 105 Hensher, D. A., and J. J. Louviere. 1984. Towards an Approach to Forecasting Attendance at Unique Events Using a Discrete Choice Model and Experimental Design Data. Pittield, D. E., ed. Discrete Choice Models in Regional Science. London Papers in Regional Science series, no. 14. London: Pion; distributed in the U.S. by Methuen, New York, pages 67-87. Hodgson, A. E. 1987. The travel and tourism industry: strategies for the future. Pergamon. Janiskee, R. L. 1990. Resort camping in America. Annals of Tourism Research: a social sciences Journal. 17:385-40 7 no 3 '90 Jobes, P. C. 1984. Old timers and now mobile lifestyles [full time recreational vehicle travel by retirement age Americans]. Annals of Tourism Research: a social sciences Journal. 11: 181 98 no 2 '84 Johnson, P., and B. Thomas. 1990. Measuring the Local Employment Impact of a Tourist Attraction: An Empirical Study. Regional Studies; 24(5), October 1990, pages 395 403 Johnson, T. G. 1983. Measuring the Cost of Time in Recreation Demand Analysis: Comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65(l), February 1983' , pages 169-71 Johnson, P., and B. E. Thomas. 1992. Choice and demand in tourism. London and New York: Cassell, Mansell. Keogh, B. 1990. Public participation in community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research: a social sciences Journal. 17:449 65 no 3 '90 Knetsch, J. L. 1972. Interpreting Demands for Outdoor Recreation. Economic Record, 48(123), September 1972, pages 429 32 Kosters, M. J. 1988. Changing Tourism Requires a Different Management Approach. Goodall, Brian, ed; Ashworth, Gregory, ed. Marketing in the tourism industry: The promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney: Croom Heim; distributed by Methuen, New York, 1988, pages 198 212 Leepson, M. 1984. Tourism's economic impact. Editorial Research Reports. p 331 48 My 4184 Levin, J. 1986. Virginia Beach/Tidewater area: "hot spot" market cools down as national developers discover it; only small hotel projects continue as tourism enters third soft year. National Real Estate Investor. 28.149 50 + D '86 Lichty, R. W., and D. N. Steinnes. 1982. Ely, Minnesota: Measuring the Impact of Tourism on a Small Community. Growth and Change, 13(2), April 1982, pages 36 39 Liu, J. C. et al. 1986. Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts in Hawaii. Annals of Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 1106 Appendix 4 Tourism Research: a social sciences journaL 13:193 2 14 no 2 '86 Livengood, K. R. 1983. Value of Big Game from Markets for Hunting Leases: The Hedonic Approach. Land Economics, 59(3), pages 287 91 Loomis, J., M. Creel, and T. A. Park. 1991. Comparing Benefit Estimates from Travel Cost and Contingent Valuation Using Confidence Intervals for Hicksian Welfare Measures. Applied Economics; 23(11), pages 1725 31 Louviere, J. J., and H. J. P. Timmermans. 1990. Using Hierarchical Information Integration to Model Consumer Responses to Possible Planning Actions: Recreation Destination Choice Illustration. Environment and Planning A; 220, pages 291 308 Lovel, H at al. 1992. Tourism and community development. Community Development Journah an in terna tional forum. 2 7.-*353-4 10. Martin, C. A., and S. F. Witt. 1989. Forecasting Tourism Demand: A Comparison of the Accuracy of Several Quantitative Methods. International Journal of Forecasting, 5(l), 1989, pages 7-19. McConnell, K. E., and 1. E. Strand. 1983. Measuring the Cost of Time in Recreation Demand Analysis: Reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65(l), pages 172-74. McConnell, K. E., and 1. Strand. 1981. Measuring the Cost of Time in Recreation Demand Analysis: An Application to Sportfishing. American Journal of Agricultural Economics; 63(l), pages 153-56. McConnell, K. E. 1979. Values of Marine Recreational Fishing: Measurement and Impact of Measurement. American Journal of Agricultural Economics; 61(5), pages 92 1- 25. McKercher, B. 1992. Tourism as a conflicting land use. Annals- of Tourism Research: a social sciences journal. 19.46 7 81 no 3 '92 Meganck, R. A. 1991. Coastal parks as development catalysts: a Caribbean example. Ocean and Shoreline Management. 15:25 36 no 1 '91 Miller, M. at al. 1991. Coastal zone tourism: a potent force affecting environment and society. Marine Policy. the internationaljournal of ocean affairs. 15:75 99 Mr '91 Miller, J. R., and M. J. Hay. 1981. Determinants of Hunter Participation: Duck Hunting in the Mississippi Flyway. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63t4), pages 677-84. Miller, M. et al. 1986. Travel, tourism, and marine affairs. CoastalZone Management Journah environment, resources and law. 14:1 19 nos 1 (2): '86. Mitchell, C. J. A., and G. Wall. 1989. The Arts and Employment: A Case Study of the Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Appendix 4 Page 107 Stratford Festival. Growth and Change; 20(4), pages 31-40. O'Boyle, S. 1985. "Selling" South Carolina overseas. Business and Economic Review. 32:25 9 0 '85 O'Hagan, J., and D. Mooney. 1983. Input Output Multipliers in a Small Open Economy: An Application to Tourism. Economic and Social Review, 14(4), pages 273-79. O'Riordan, T. 1973. An Analysis of the Use and Management of Campgrounds in British Columbia Provincial Parks. Economic Geography; 49(4), pages 298-308. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1980. The impact of tourism on the environment: general report. Org Econ Coop and Development 148p. Patton, S. G. 1985. Tourism and Local Economic Development: Factory Outlets and the Reading SMSA. Growth and Change; 160, pages 64-73. Pizam, A. 1980. The benefits of farm tourism to rural communities: the Massachusetts case. Purinton, B. et al. 1991. Planning and design issues for scenic byways. Transportation Quarterly: an independent journal for better transportation Ryan, C. 1991. Recreational tourism: A social science perspective. London and New York: Routledge, 199 1, pages xi, 22 7 Saliba, L. J. 1990. Coastal land use and environmental problems in the Mediterranean. Land Use Policy. 7:217 30 J1 '90 Simmons, M. 1991. Tourism: a comprehensive approach. Management Information Service Report. 23.1 15 My '91 Sinclair, M. T., and C. M. S. Sutcliffe. 1982. Keynesian Income Multipliers with First and Second Round Effects: An Application to Tourist Expenditure. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 44t4), pages 321-38. Smith, V. K., and R. J. Kopp. 1980. The Spatial Limits of the Travel Cost Recreational Demand Model. Land Economics, 56fl), pages 64-72. Stabler, M. J. 1988. The Image of Destination Regions: Theoretical and Empirical Aspects. Goodall, Brian, ed, Ashworth, Gregory, ed Marketing in the tourism industry: The promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney: Croom Helm; distributed by Methuen, New York, 1988, pages 133 61 Stringer, P. F. . E. 1984. The social psychology of tourism: special issue. Annals of Tourism Research: a social sciences journal. 11:5 166 no 1 '84 Sutcliffe, C. M. S., and M. T. Sinclair. 1980. The Measurement of Seasonality within the Tourist Industry: An Application to Tourist Arrivals in Spain. Applied Economics; Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 108 Appendix 4 12(4), pages 429-4 1. Swanson, L. D. 1990. Montana's natural resource industries: past and emerging trends in the state's economic base. Montana Business Quarterly. 28:19 29 Spring '90 Throckmorton, H. B. 1981. A Bibliographical Note on Energy Conservation and Historic Preservation. Journal of Cultural Economics, 5(2), pages 91-94. U.S. Travel Data Center. [annual] Outlook for travel and tourism: proceedings of the annual Travel Outlook Forum. U.S. Travel Data Center Washington, DC. United States. House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 1981. National tourism programs and policies: hearing, February 18, 1981, on H.R. 1311 and S. 304, bills to establish a national tourism policy and an independent government agency to carry out the national tourism policy. Washington, DC 20515 iii + 1 84p. United States Federal Highway Admin. 1990. An analysis and summary of the 1990 National Scenic Byways Study Inventory. Washington, DC 20590 vi + 137p. United States Senate Com. On Commer. , Science. 1989. Federal poliby on tourism: hearing, October 26, 1989. Supt Docs iii + 145p. United States Senate Com. On Commer. , Science. 1989. Importance of scenic byways to travel and tourism: hearing, April 14, 1989. Supt Docs iii + 90p. United States Senate Com. On Commer. , Science. 1982. Economic impact of tourism: hearings, February 24 25, 1982, on economic importance of the travel and tourism industry. Washington, DC 205 10 iv + 151 p. Van, S. A., and P. Kooreman. 1987. A Micro econometric Analysis of Vacation Behaviour. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 2(3), pages 215-26. Vaughan, D. R., and P. Booth. 1989. The Economic Importance of Tourism and the Arts in Merseyside. Journal of Cultural Economics, 13(2), pages 21 34 Vaughan, W. J., and C. S. Russell. 1981. An Analysis of Participation in Nonconsumptive Wildlife Recreation: Comment. Land Economics; 57(2), pages 279 87 Vining, J. E. 1990. Social science and natural resource recreation management. Westview xix + 330p. Ward, F. A. 1983. Measuring the Cost of Time in Recreation Demand Analysis: Comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics; 65(l), February 1983, pages 167 68 Waters, S. R. [annual]. Travel industry world yearbook: the big picture Child & Waters Inc., 516 5th Av., New York, NY 10036 155p. Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Appendix 4 Page 109 Webster, D. 1987. Tourism and economic growth. Crown Agents Review. p 8 15 no 3 '87 Wiener, L. W. 1980. Cultural Resources: An Old Asset A New Market for Tourism. Journal of Cultural Economics, 4(l):1-7. Wilkinson, P. F. 1978. Environmental impact of outdoor recreation and tourism: a bibliography. Vance Bibliographies. Williams, A. M., and G. Shaw. 1988. Tourism and economic development: Western European experiences. London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press, distributed by Columbia University Press, New York. Williams, A. M.. and G. Shaw. 1988. Tourism: candyfloss industry or job generator? Town Planning Review. 59:81-103. Williams, A. M., and G. Shaw. 1992. Tourism: trends and research issues. American Behavioral Scientist. 36.133-256. Wilman, E. A. 1980 The Value of Time in Recreation Benefit Studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management; 70, pages 2 72-86 Witt, S. F. 1983. A Binary Choice Model of Foreign Holiday Demand. Journal of Economic Studies; 10(l), 1983, pages 46-59 Witt, S. F. 1980. An Abstract Mode Abstract (Destination) Node Model of Foreign Holiday Demand. Applied Economics; 120, June 1980, pages 163 80 World Tourism Organization. 1989. Compendium of tourism statistics, 1984-1988. World Tourism Org. World Tourism Organization. 1990. Compendium of tourism statistics, 1985-1989. World Tourism Org. World Tourism Organization. 1992, 1991. 1989. Yearbook of tourism statistics. World Tourism Org. World Tourism Organization. 1992. Compendium of tourism statistics, 1986-1990. World Tourism Org. Zelinsky, W. 1990. Coming to America: tourists from other lands are a large, affluent, and growing market for U.S. businesses. American Demographics. 12:44 7+ Ag '90 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia Page 110 Appendix 4 Wildlife and Natural Resources- Ascher, W., and R. Healy. 1990. Natural Resource Poficymaking in Developing Countries. Duke University Press, Durham. 1980. An assessment of the forest and range land situation. in the United States. Washington, DC 20250 xxvi + 631 p. Bockstael, N. E., and K. E. McConnell. Theory and Estimation of the Household Production Function for Wildlife Recreation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management; 80, September 1981, pages 199 214 Bowes, M. D.,and J. V. Krutilla. 1989. Multiple use management: the economics of public forestlands. Johns Hopkins Univ Pr xxiii + 357p. Hay, M. J., and K. E. McConnell. Harvesting and Nonconsumptive Wildlife Recreation Decisions. Land Economics; 60(4), November 1984, pages 388 96 Hay, M. J., and K. E. McConnell. An Analysis of Participation in Nonconsumptive Wildlife Recreation. Land Economics, 55M, November 1979, pages 460 71 Hay, 10. J., and K. E. McConnell. An Analysis of Participation in Nonconsumptive Wildlife Recreation: Reply. Land Economics, 57(2), May 1981, pages 288 92 Mangun, W. R., and Shaw, W. W. 1984. Alternative mechanisms for funding nongame wildlife conservation fbased on data from the 1980 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation]. Public Administration Review. 44:407 13 SIO '84 Milon, J. W., and R. Clemmons. Hunters' Demand for Species Variety. Land Economics; 67(4), November 1991, pages 401 12 Rockel, M. L., and M. Jo. Kealy. The Value of Nonconsumptive Wildlife Recreation in the United States. Land Economics; 67(4), November 199 1, pages 422 34 United States Fish. 1982. National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife associated recreation, 1980. Supt Docs viii + 156p. United States Forest Service. 1981. An assessment of the forest and range land situation in the United States. Supt Docs xviii + 352p. Vaughan, W. J., and C. S. Russell. An Analysis of Participation in Nonconsumptive Wildlife Recreation: Comment. Land Economics; 5 7(2), May 198 1, pages 2 79 8 7 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY I 3 6668 4111973 7