Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Quantifying Recreational Use of an Estuary: A Case Study of Three Bays, Cape Cod, USA

Abstract

Estimates of the types and number of recreational users visiting an estuary are critical data for quantifying the value of recreation and how that value might change with variations in water quality or other management decisions. However, estimates of recreational use are minimal and conventional intercept survey methods are often infeasible for widespread application to estuaries. Therefore, a practical observational sampling approach was developed to quantify the recreational use of an estuary without the use of surveys. Designed to be simple and fast to allow for replication, the methods involved the use of periodic instantaneous car counts multiplied by extrapolation factors derived from all-day counts. This simple sampling approach can be used to estimate visitation to diverse types of access points on an estuary in a single day as well as across multiple days. Evaluation of this method showed that when periodic counts were taken within a preferred time window (from 11 am–4:30 pm), the estimates were within 44% of actual daily visitation. These methods were applied to the Three Bays estuary system on Cape Cod, USA. The estimated combined use across all its public access sites is similar to the use at a mid-sized coastal beach, demonstrating the value of estuarine systems. Further, this study is the first to quantify the variety and magnitude of recreational uses at several different types of access points throughout the estuary using observational methods. This work can be transferred to the many small coastal access points used for recreation across New England and beyond.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Notes

  1. 1.

    The types of access defined in this article are based on the town’s recognized public access points. Boat use includes the town dock and boat ramps, designated by the town of Barnstable. A landing is defined as foot access to the water for small boats and launching of canoes or kayaks. “Ways to water” is the term used to define any other points of public access.

  2. 2.

    Zoning maps might be different when counting cars and recreational users because some access points had parking spaces farther away from the site or we found that people would park their car but not use the public access point for recreation. These zones allowed us to differentiate between recreational users and non-recreational users.

  3. 3.

    Similarly, we could have translated the total visits from car to people terms using a fixed ratio found from our observations. However, by estimating an extrapolation factor for each hour as we do above, it allows for differences in the car to people ratio by hour.

  4. 4.

    As noted in the methods section, the all-day counts are adjusted to represent the day from sunrise to sunset based on the visitation across time.

  5. 5.

    This difference is mainly because we did not count people who parked at the access point, but did not get out of their car (possibly because it was a rainy day).

References

  1. Banks-Leite, Cristina, Renata Pardini, Danilo Boscolo, Camila Righetto Cassano, Thomas Püttker, Camila Santos Barros, and Jos Barlow. 2014. Assessing the utility of statistical adjustments for imperfect detection in tropical conservation science. Journal of Applied Ecology. 51:849-859.

  2. Cape Cod Commission. 2017. Implementation report: Watershed Report, Mid Cape Three Bays.

  3. Da Silva, Carlos Pereira. 2002. Beach carrying capacity assessment: how important is it? Journal of Coastal Research. 36: 190–197.

  4. Dalton, Tracey, Robert Thompson, and Di Jin. 2010. Mapping human dimensions in marine spatial planning and management: an example from Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. Marine Policy. 34: 309–319.

  5. De Cantis, Stefano, Anna Maria Parroco, Mauro Ferrante, and Franco Vaccina. 2015. Unobserved tourism. Annals of Tourism Research. 50: 1–18.

  6. Deacon, Robert T., and Charles D. Kolstad. 2000. Valuing beach recreation lost in environmental accidents. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management. 126: 374–381.

  7. Dwight, Ryan H., Mitchell V. Brinks, Gajapathi SharavanaKumar, and Jan C. Semenza. 2007. Beach attendance and bathing rates for Southern California beaches. Ocean & Coastal Management. 50: 847–858.

  8. English, Donald B.K., Susan M. Kocis, Stanley J. Zarnoch, and J. Ross Arnold. 2000. Forest Service national visitor use monitoring process: research method documentation. General Technical Report SRS-57. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 14pp.

  9. English, Eric, Roger H. von Haefen, Joseph Herriges, Christopher Leggett, Frank Lupi, Kenneth McConnell, Michael Welsh, Adam Domanski, and Norman Meade. 2018. Estimating the value of lost recreation days from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 91: 26-45.

  10. Fesenmaier, Daniel R., Lonnie Jones, U.M. Soeho, and Teofilo Ozuna Jr. 1989. Assessing the economic impact of outdoor recreation travel to the Texas Gulf Coast. Journal of Travel Research. 28 (1): 18–23.

  11. Freeman, A. Myrick. 1995. The benefits of water quality improvements for marine recreation: a review of the empirical evidence. Marine Resource Economics. 10 (4): 385–406.

  12. Garcia, Anthony, and Jayson R. Smith. 2013. Factors influencing human visitation of southern California rocky intertidal ecosystems. Ocean & Coastal Management. 73: 44–53.

  13. Greene, Gretchen, Charles B. Moss, and Thomas H. Spreen. 1997. Demand for recreational fishing in Tampa Bay. Florida: a random utility approach. Marine Resource Economics. 12: 293–305.

  14. Hankey, Steve, and Greg Lindsey. 2016. Facility-demand models of peak-period pedestrian and bicycle traffic: comparison of fully specific and reduced-form models. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2586: 48–58.

  15. Harada, Scott Y., Ralph S. Goto, and Andrew T. Nathanson. 2011. Analysis of lifeguard-reported data at Hanauma Bay. Hawaii. Wilderness & Environmental Medicine. 22: 72–76.

  16. Hayes, Karen M., Timothy J. Tyrell, and Glen Anderson. 1992. Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements in the upper Narragansett Bay. Marine Resource Economics. 7: 75–85.

  17. Horsch, Eric, Michael Welsh, and Jason Price. 2017. Best practices for collecting onsite data to assess recreational use impacts from an oil spill. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OR&R 54. Silver Spring, MD: Assessment and Restoration Division, NOAA. 121 pp. https://doi.org/10.7289/V5/TM-NOS-ORR-54. Available at ftp://ftp.library.noaa.gov/noaa_documents.lib/NOS/ORR/TM_NOS_ORR/TM_NOS-ORR_54.pdf. Accessed 30 Oct 2019.

  18. Johnston, Robert J., Thomas A. Grigalunas, James J. Opaluch, Marisa Mazzotta, and Jerry Diamantedes. 2002. Valuing estuarine resource services using economic and ecological models: the Peconic Estuary System study. Coastal Management. 30: 47–65.

  19. Keeler, Bonnie L., Spencer A. Wood, Stephen Polasky, Catherine Kling, Christopher T. Filstrup, and John A. Downing. 2015. Recreational demand for clean water: evidence from geotagged photographs by visitors to lakes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 13 (2): 76–81.

  20. King, Philip, and Aaron McGregor. 2012. Who’s counting: an analysis of beach attendance estimates and methodologies in southern California. Ocean & Coastal Management. 58: 17–25.

  21. Kline, Jeffrey D., and Stephen K. Swallow. 1998. The demand for local access to coastal recreation in southern New England. Coastal Management. 26 (3): 177–190.

  22. Kreitler, Jason, Michael Papenfus, Kristin Byrd, and William Labiosa. 2013. Interacting coastal based ecosystem services: recreation and water quality in Puget Sound, WA. PLOS ONE. 8 (2): 1–9.

  23. Leeworthy, Vernon R., and Peter C. Wiley. 2001. Current participation patterns in marine recreation. Silver Spring: U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Ocean Service. Special Projects.

  24. Leggett, Christopher G. 2017. Sampling strategies for on-site recreation counts. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology. 5: 326–349.

  25. Leggett, Chris and Mark Curry. 2011. Assessment of visitor activities at six sites within Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Report prepared for National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Available at https://www.nps.gov/goga/learn/management/upload/GGNRA-Visitor-Activities-Report-12-20-11-FINAL.pdf. Accessed 30 Oct 2019.

  26. Lepesteur, Muriel, Aggie Wegner, Susan A. Moore, and Arthur McComb. 2008. Importance of public information and perception for managing recreational activities in the Peel-Harvey estuary. Western Australia. Journal of Environmental Management. 87: 389–395.

  27. Lipton, Douglas W., and Robert Hicks. 1999. Linking water quality improvements to recreational fishing values: the case of Chesapeake Bay striped bass, p. 105-110. In Pitcher, Tony J. (ed.) Evaluating the benefits of recreational fisheries centre reports. 7(2): 105-110.

  28. Lipton, Douglas, and Robert Hicks. 2003. The cost of stress: low dissolved oxygen and economic benefits of recreational striped bass (Morone saxatilis) fishing in the Patuxent River. Estuaries. 26 (2A): 310–315.

  29. Lotze, Heike K. 2010. Historical reconstruction of human-induced changes in U.S. estuaries. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review. 48: 267–338.

  30. Lyon, Sarina F., Nathaniel H. Merrill, Kate K. Mulvaney, and Marisa J. Mazzotta. 2018. Valuing coastal beaches and closures using benefit transfer: an application to Barnstable, Massachusetts. Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics 5 (1) Article 1.

  31. Morgan, Damian. 2016. Development of a method to estimate and predict beach visitation. Tourism in Marine Environments. 12 (1): 69–77.

  32. NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration). 2019. Types of recreational fishing surveys. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/recreational-fishing-data/types-recreational-fishing-surveys#access-point-angler-intercept-survey. Accessed 20 Feb 2019.

  33. Nordback, Krista, Wesley E. Marshall, Bruce N. Janson, and Elizabeth Stolz. 2013. Transportation research record. Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2339: 90–97.

  34. Palm-Forster, Leah H., Frank Lupi, and Min Chen. 2016. Valuing Lake Erie beaches using value and function transfers. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review. 45 (2): 270–292.

  35. Patrolia, Emily, Robert Thompson, Tracey Dalton, and Porter Hoagland. 2017. The influence of weather on the recreational uses of coastal lagoons in Rhode Island, USA. Marine Policy. 83: 252–258.

  36. Pendleton, Linwood. 2008. The economic and market value of America’s coasts and estuaries: what’s at stake. Washington, DC: Coastal Ocean Values Press 182 pp.

  37. Rasmussen, Paul W., Michael D. Staggs, T. Douglas Beard Jr., and Steven P. Newman. 1998. Bias and confidence interval coverage of creel survey estimators evaluated by simulation. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 127 (3): 469–480.

  38. Smale, Bryan. 2011. A comparison of selected systematic sampling procedures in accurately estimating recreation participation. Leisure/Loisir. 35 (4): 471–480.

  39. Soupir, Craig A., Michael L. Brown, Cliff C. Stone, and John P. Lott. 2006. Comparison of creel survey methods on Missouri River Reservoirs. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 26 (2): 338–350.

  40. Spencer Banzhaf H.. 1996. Estimating recreational use levels with periodic counts. Triangle Economic Research Technical Working Paper: T-9602.

  41. State of Massachusetts. 2013. Massachusetts Year 2012 Integrated List of Waters: Final Listing of the Condition of Massachusetts’ Waters Pursuant to Sections 305(b), 314 and 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Available online: http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/water/resources/07v5/12list2.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.

  42. Tourangeau, Roger, Eric English, Kenneth E. McConnell, David Chapman, Ismael Flores Cervantes, Eric Horsch, Norman Meade, Adam Domanski, and Michael Walsh. 2017. The Gulf recreation study: assessing lost recreational trips from the 2010 Gulf Oil Spill. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology. 5 (3): 281–309.

  43. Vølstad, Jon H., Kenneth H. Pollock, and William A. Richkus. 2006. Comparing and combining effort and catch estimates from aerial-access designs as applied to a large-scale angler survey in the Delaware River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 26: 727–741.

  44. Wallmo, Kristy. 2003. Assessment of techniques for estimating beach attendance. Beach Sampling Report of NOAA. 33 pp.

  45. Zarnoch, Stanley J., Eric M. White, Donald B.K. English, Susan M. Kocis, and Ross Arnold. 2011. The national visitor use monitoring methodology and final results for round 1. General Technical Report SRS-144. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 83 pp.

Download references

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Zenas Crocker and the Barnstable Clean Water Coalition, Suzanne Ayvazian, Walter Berry, Marnita Chintala, Ryan Furey, Mo Howard, Tim Gleason, David Martin, Justin Michelson, Emily Santos, Mary Schoell, Marilyn ten Brink, and Talya ten Brink for their field assistance. We are also grateful to Suzanne Ayvazian, Rick McKinney, Casey Tremper, Marnita Chintala, and Wayne Munns for helpful comments on early versions of the manuscript. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This contribution is identified by tracking number ORD-027134 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Atlantic Coastal Environmental Sciences Division, 27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, RI 02882, USA. The EPA does not endorse any commercial products, services, or enterprises.

Author information

Correspondence to Nathaniel H. Merrill.

Additional information

Communicated by Just Cebrian

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mulvaney, K.K., Atkinson, S.F., Merrill, N.H. et al. Quantifying Recreational Use of an Estuary: A Case Study of Three Bays, Cape Cod, USA. Estuaries and Coasts 43, 7–22 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-019-00645-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Estuarine recreational use
  • Coastal access
  • Cape Cod
  • Water quality benefits
  • Visitation