draft report shell · the project surveys; we specifically thank michelle dewey, who prepared a...

August 2015

CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report has been prepared with the assistance of many people, to all of whom we extend sincere thanks. Particular appreciation is due to James DeSalvo and Danica Ready of Methow Trails, and Julie Muyllaert of the Winthrop Chamber of Commerce, for their assistance and local knowledge essential to this study.

We are indebted to the Methow Trails volunteers that provided many hours preparing and distributing the project surveys; we specifically thank Michelle Dewey, who prepared a wealth of survey data.

Finally, we thank the many individuals and Methow Valley businesses that responded to the project surveys who generously gave of their time to share their views and experiences with us. Their input is vital to understanding the many dimensions of resource-based recreation in the Methow Valley. Resource Dimensions Team: Julie Ann Gustanski, Ph.D., LLM1 David Scarsella, M.S.

1 Project principal / corresponding author

Resource Dimensions| i

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures _____________________________________________________________________ iii List of Tables _____________________________________________________________________ iii Table of Acronyms ___________________________________________________________________ vi Executive Summary ________________________________________________________________ ES-1

The Big Picture ___________________________________________________________________ ES-1 The Analysis ___________________________________________________________________ ES-5

Section One: INTRODUCTION ___________________________________________________________ 1 1.1 Scope and Limitations __________________________________________________________ 1 1.2 Background: Methow Trails and its Trail Network ____________________________________ 3 1.3 Purpose _____________________________________________________________________ 7

Section Two: METHOW VALLEY’S REGIONAL ECONOMIC SETTING ________________________________ 9 2.1 Demographics ________________________________________________________________ 9 2.2 Employment and Labor Force ___________________________________________________ 11 2.3 Industries and Occupations _____________________________________________________ 13 2.4 Outdoor Recreation Trends in Washington ________________________________________ 19

Section Three: METHODOLOGY _________________________________________________________ 21 3.1 Introduction _________________________________________________________________ 21 3.2 Concepts ___________________________________________________________________ 21 3.3 Approach & Assumptions ______________________________________________________ 22

3.3.1 Survey Approach __________________________________________________________________ 22 3.3.2 Survey Distribution ________________________________________________________________ 23 3.3.3 Method for Estimating Composition of Visits ___________________________________________ 25

3.4 Steps & Data Inputs ___________________________________________________________ 25

Section Four: SURVEY FINDINGS – RESIDENTS AND TRAIL USERS _______________________________ 26 4.1 Introduction _________________________________________________________________ 26 4.2 Demographics & Respondent Characteristics _______________________________________ 26 4.3 Attitudes, Values & Perceptions _________________________________________________ 34

Section Five: SURVEY FINDINGS – METHOW VALLEY BUSINESSES _______________________________ 63 5.1 Introduction _________________________________________________________________ 63 5.2 Regional Business Demographics & Characteristics __________________________________ 63 5.3 Dependence on Resource-Based Tourism _________________________________________ 69 5.4 Attitudes, Values & Perceptions _________________________________________________ 72

ii │Resource Dimensions

Section Six: Economic Impact Analysis _____________________________________________ 78 6.1 Overview___________________________________________________________________ 78 6.2 Economic Impact Methodology _________________________________________________ 79

6.2.1 Imports and Exports________________________________________________________________ 82 6.2.2 Basic Sectors _____________________________________________________________________ 82

6.3 Economic Impacts in Context ___________________________________________________ 83 6.4 Direct Economic Impacts ______________________________________________________ 84

6.4.1 Employment Impacts _______________________________________________________________ 84 6.4.2 Tax Impacts ______________________________________________________________________ 84 6.4.3 Property Values ___________________________________________________________________ 87

6.5 Indirect Economic Impacts _____________________________________________________ 92 6.5.1 Amenity Values ___________________________________________________________________ 92 6.5.2 Environmental and Economic Health __________________________________________________ 93 6.5.3 Active and Passive Recreational Use Values _____________________________________________ 93 6.5.4 Quality of Life Factors ______________________________________________________________ 94

6.6 Cumulative Economic Impacts __________________________________________________ 95

References ____________________________________________________________________ 97

Appendices ___________________________________________________________________ 100 Appendix A: Methow Valley Resident and Trail User Survey & Letter _______________________ A-1 Appendix B: Methow Valley Business Survey & Letter ___________________________________ B-1 Appendix C: Hedonic Pricing Model & Model Variables (by category) _______________________ C-1

Resource Dimensions| iii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Methow Valley Region ............................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2. Communities within Study Area ................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 3. Methow Trail Network ............................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 4. Spectrum of Potential Benefits Generated by Trails and Protected Lands .............................................. 8 Figure 5. Factors bringing newer residents to the Methow Valley ....................................................................... 28 Figure 6. Characteristics influencing decisions by group ....................................................................................... 30 Figure 7. Comparison of respondent groups on importance of recreational resources ...................................... 35 Figure 7. Comparison of respondent groups on importance of recreational resources (cont.) ........................... 36 Figure 8. Recreation resources important for maintenance or development, trail users .................................... 39 Figure 9. Recreation resources important for maintenance or development, residents ..................................... 40 Figure 10. Breakdown of total activity-days for trail users .................................................................................... 49 Figure 11. Breakdown of total activity-days for residents ..................................................................................... 50 Figure 12. Months respondents typically use Methow Valley trails ...................................................................... 51 Figure 13. Plot of months typically use Methow Valley trails ................................................................................ 52 Figure 14. Days most likely to spend on a visit to the Methow Valley .................................................................. 54 Figure 15. Breakdown of typical travel parties ....................................................................................................... 56 Figure 15. Breakdown of typical travel parties (cont.) ........................................................................................... 57 Figure 16. Important of trail network to average visit ........................................................................................... 59 Figure 17. Shares of respondent businesses by location ....................................................................................... 64 Figure 18. Total respondent businesses by type .................................................................................................... 66 Figure 19. Length of time in business in the Methow Valley ................................................................................. 67 Figure 20. Peak season(s) dependency on visitors ................................................................................................. 70 Figure 21. Perceptions of trail-related visitor growth ............................................................................................ 71 Figure 22. Relative importance of revenue generating groups to businesses ...................................................... 72 Figure 23. Relative importance of recreation-related revenue generating groups .............................................. 74 Figure 24. Revenue bands, seasonal average annual gross revenues ................................................................... 77

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. History of Skier-Days by Season (2005-2015) ............................................................................................. 5 Table 2. Select Demographic Statistics for Methow Valley, Okanogan County and Washington ........................ 10 Table 3. Historic and Projected Population for State, County and Study Area ..................................................... 11 Table 4. Annual Average Rate of Change in Population for Okanogan County and Washington ........................ 11 Table 5. Okanogan County Civilian Labor Force ..................................................................................................... 12 Table 6. Wage and Income, Washington and North Central Counties.................................................................. 12 Table 7. Methow Valley Establishments, Employees and Payroll ......................................................................... 13 Table 8. Workforce by Industry, Methow Valley .................................................................................................... 14 Table 8. Workforce by Industry, Methow Valley (cont.) ........................................................................................ 15 Table 9. Workforce by Occupation, Methow Valley .............................................................................................. 16 Table 10. Recent and Projected Job Growth in Select Occupations, North Central Region ................................. 17

iv │Resource Dimensions

Table 10. Recent and Projected Job Growth in Select Occupations, North Central Region (cont.) ..................... 18 Table 11. Outdoor Recreation Participation Rates, 2012 ...................................................................................... 19 Table 12. Participation Interest Rates in Outdoor Recreation Activities, 2012 ..................................................... 20 Table 13. Distribution of respondents by gender .................................................................................................. 27 Table 14. Distribution of respondents by age groups ............................................................................................ 27 Table 15. Distribution of respondents by length of residency ............................................................................... 27 Table 16. Characteristics influencing decisions to live in or visit the Methow Valley ........................................... 29 Table 17. Respondents by distance from the Methow Valley ............................................................................... 31 Table 18. Primary residence not in Methow Valley ............................................................................................... 32 Table 19. Breakdown of primary residences outside of the Methow Valley ........................................................ 32 Table 20. Methow Valley resident status ............................................................................................................... 33 Table 21. Proximity of residence to Methow Trails .............................................................................................. 34 Table 22. Importance of recreational resources in the Methow Valley ................................................................ 35 Table 23. Perceived recreational needs of the Methow Valley community ......................................................... 36 Table 24. Importance of recreation resources for maintenance or development ............................................... 38 Table 25. Ranked importance of recreation resources .......................................................................................... 42 Table 26. Ranked importance of public benefits provided by trails and trail corridors ........................................ 44 Table 27. Funding of Methow Valley trails ............................................................................................................. 45 Table 28. Purchased a Methow Trails pass of any kind in the past 12 months .................................................... 46 Table 29. Methow Trails pass types purchased ..................................................................................................... 46 Table 30. Amounts spent on Day Passes over the past 12 months ....................................................................... 47 Table 31. Member of or made donation to Methow Trails ................................................................................... 47 Table 32. Use of Methow Valley trails .................................................................................................................... 48 Table 33. Activity-days trail users and their families participate in ....................................................................... 48 Table 34. Activity-days residents and their families participate in ........................................................................ 49 Table 35. Average number of days per visit to the Methow Valley ...................................................................... 53 Table 36. Average number of trips per year to the Methow Valley ...................................................................... 53 Table 37. Days most likely to spend on a visit to the Methow Valley ................................................................... 54 Table 38. Preference ranking for accomodations in the Methow Valley .............................................................. 55 Table 39. Distribution of typical travel parties ....................................................................................................... 56 Table 40. Expenditures on goods and services during a typical visit ..................................................................... 58 Table 41. Importance of trail network to average visit .......................................................................................... 59 Table 42. Considered purchasing real estate in the Methow Valley ..................................................................... 60 Table 43. Importance ranking of trail network to consideration of real estate purchase .................................... 60 Table 44. Taken advantage of Kids Ski for Free program ....................................................................................... 61 Table 45. Kids Ski for Free program a motivating factor for trip ........................................................................... 61 Table 46. Change in spending habits when taking advantage of Kids Ski for Free program ................................ 62 Table 47. Participation in organization special events on Methow Valley trails ................................................... 62 Table 48. Respondent businesses by location ........................................................................................................ 64 Table 49. Respondent businesses by type .............................................................................................................. 65 Table 50. Length of time in business in the Methow Valley .................................................................................. 67 Table 51. Business organization status ................................................................................................................... 68 Table 52. Numbers of FTEs and PTEs reported by season ..................................................................................... 69

Resource Dimensions| v

Table 53. Dependence of peak business season(s) on visitors .............................................................................. 70 Table 54. Growth in trail-related visitors over time in business ............................................................................ 71 Table 55. Importance of revenue generating groups to businesses ..................................................................... 72 Table 56. Levels of importance of revenue generating groups ............................................................................. 73 Table 57. Importance of recreation-related revenue generating groups to businesses ...................................... 73 Table 58. Levels of importance of recreation-related revenue generating groups .............................................. 75 Table 59. Proportions of average annual revenues attributable to all visitors ..................................................... 75 Table 60. Seasonal average annual gross revenues attributed to non-motorized recreation users ................... 76 Table 61. Willing to contribute toward a Business Membership .......................................................................... 77 Table 62. Economic Impacts of Methow Trails and Related Business Activities ($2014) ..................................... 81 Table 63. Examples of Basic and Non-basic Sectors ............................................................................................... 82 Table 64. Summary of Estimated Employment Impacts ($2104) .......................................................................... 84 Table 65. Distributions of State-Shared Hotel/Motel Taxes (2% rate) .................................................................. 86 Table 66. Distributions of Additional Local Hotel/Motel Taxes ............................................................................. 86 Table 67. Estimated change in real estate price by distance from miscellaneous amenity lands........................ 90 Table 68. Average estimated change in sale price by distance from Methow

Valley amenity lands (1/1/09-12/31/12) ............................................................................................... 91 Table 69. Cumulative estimated economic impacts of Methow Trails and trail network .................................... 96

vi │Resource Dimensions

TABLE OF ACRONYMS

AARC Average annual rate of change

AARG Average annual rate of growth

B&O Business & Occupation

DNR Department of Natural Resources, Washington

ESD Employment Security Department, Washington State

FTE Full-time equivalent

IMPLAN IMpact analysis for PLANning

I/O Input/output

MVSTA Methow Valley Sport Trails Association

PTE Part-time

RCO Recreation and Conservation Office, Washington State

USCB United States Census Bureau

USFS United States Forest Service

USFWS United States Fish & Wildlife Service

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Resource Dimensions| ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This economic impact analysis of the Methow Valley recreational trail network and appurtenant land resources has been prepared for Methow Trails. The intent of the 2015 study is to update a 2005 study and broadly assess the range of economic impacts of the trail network on the local and regional economy.

Key to the report are the findings of two surveys conducted in winter 2015 with three groups: Methow Valley residents, trail users (local and non-local), and area businesses. In sum, 504 respondents participated in the resident/trail user survey, and 93 businesses responded to the business survey. Additional methods were used to define the range of economic impacts, direct and indirect, related to Methow Valley trail lands and activities they offer.

THE BIG PICTURE

Trail User Expenditures

• Nearly $6.7 million dollars in direct expenditures are made annually (in 2014 dollars) to the Methow Valley economy by local and non-local trail users.

• Trail user (local, resident, non-local) expenditures average $1,793 per trip.

• Trail user spending is heavily concentrated in the service sector. Lodging remains the top spending category, at about 28.3% of all expenditures. Restaurant/food/grocery expenditures has a combined average share of about 38.4%, and purchase/rental of sporting goods and recreational equipment has a combined average share of about 12.9%.

• More than 72% of business survey respondents indicated a peak season dependence on visitors, with 48.4% ‘highly dependent’ on visitors and 23.7% ‘somewhat dependent’.

• Business survey respondents indicated that the number of visitors who came to the Methow Valley to take advantage of its trail network had increased significantly (23.7%) or increased somewhat (28.0%) while they have been in business.

• Business survey respondents indicated that summer is the season in which the greatest average percentage of revenues for area businesses (39.0%) are generated by visitors using the trail network for non-motorized recreation, followed by winter (35.9%).

ES-2 │Resource Dimensions

Indirect Economic Impacts

• Over $5.7 million dollars of induced (secondary) expenditures within the Methow Valley’s economy can be attributed to the Methow trail network, and related natural resource-based recreation opportunities unique to the Methow Valley.

• The Methow trail network plays strongly into respondents’ real estate purchasing decisions. 89.7% of the 185 respondents who addressed the question had considered buying real estate in the Methow Valley. Of those, 99.4% indicated that the trail network was either ‘most important’ (71.8%) or ‘important’ (27.6%) in their purchasing deliberations.

• People buying homes and real estate in the Methow Valley are willing to pay an average of 9.02% ($19,412) more per acre for properties near trails and particular environmental/amenity characteristics (0 to ¼ mile) than for properties without these characteristics (e.g. scenic vistas, open space, agricultural lands, parks, forest lands, trails, etc.). For properties between ¼ to ½ mile

from amenity lands, buyers are willing to pay 6.12% ($13,182) more per acre, on average. Overall, property value impact is attenuated for land and homes further away from regional trails and open space. This suggests that greater tax revenues are produced by sales of real estate with, or proximate to, lands with particular environmental amenities.

• Revenue generation for area businesses, by group, was highest for ‘Nature Enthusiasts, Wildlife Viewers and Birders’, ‘Hikers and Trail Runners’ and ‘Cyclists’, at 81.3%, 80.0%, and 79.9%, respectively.

• The combined active and passive use benefit for the network of lands supporting Methow trail lands was estimated to be $21.8 million per year for the region.2

2 Non-market benefits have value as indicated by measures of consumer surplus applied through travel-cost models and other methods; however, their accounting is applied here only in terms of estimates of active and passive recreation use values. Active and passive use non-market valuation studies require significant time and resources, and are outside the scope of this study.


Employment Impacts

• While the Methow Valley region comprises about 16.3% of the county’s total population, it provides about 19.2% of all employment on average across all industries.

• By industry, the Methow Valley provides nearly 40% of all employment in the county in the ‘arts, entertainment, and recreation and accommodation and food services sector. The second largest employment sector is ‘professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services’, which provides almost one-third (32.2%) of all sector related employment in Okanogan County. Other sectors contributing a significant proportion of jobs against county total employment include wholesale trade (22.6%), construction (20.2%), finance, insurance, and real estate (20%), and manufacturing (19.2%).

• By occupation, those employed in service industries in the Methow Valley region represent 21.6% of Okanogan County’s civilian workforce. The second largest segment, as a percent of the county total, is management, business, science, and arts occupations at 20.4%.

• Overall, Okanogan County experienced an annual rate of employment growth of -3.58% from 2005 to 2014. The Methow Valley region fared somewhat better with a -1.46% annual employment growth rate for the period. Of interest for the 10-year period is the 11% increase in full-time jobs for the Methow Valley region. Compared to the 2005 business survey, 32% fewer businesses participated in the 2015 study. Extrapolation of current study data reflects an annualized average of 877 jobs for 2014, or about 580 FTE and 297 PTE jobs, which represents about 30.2% of the total 2,900 jobs estimated for the region (1,917 FTE and 983 PTE).

Methow Trails, through its trail system, programs and related recreation-based activities generated the following economic impacts for the local and regional economy in 2013:

• An estimated 183.8 jobs (121.5 full-time jobs and 62.3 seasonal full-time and/or part-time jobs), or 152.7 FTEs can be directly accredited to the Methow trail system and the network of related recreation and supporting activities. Purchases of goods and services made by these individuals supported an additional 25.8 induced jobs in the region.

• 30.2 indirect jobs were supported by $11.4 million of local purchases made by businesses supplying services to Methow Trails and related recreation-, services-, and tourism-related businesses.

• $5.7 million of direct wages and salaries were received by the 183.8 directly employed by Methow Trails and the Valley’s related recreation-, services-, and tourism-related businesses. Re-spending of this income created an additional $871,536 of income and consumption expenditures in Washington, principally in Okanogan County. Those holding indirect jobs received $982,444 in indirect income.

ES-4 │Resource Dimensions

• Businesses providing services to Methow Trails and the region’s recreation-, services-, and tourism-related businesses received some $22 million of revenues.

Tax Impacts

• In the period between 2012 and 2014, visitors to the Methow Valley spent an estimated average of $49.7 million annually in direct travel spending in the region. Of this, approximately $18.6 million annually can be attributed to trail users and other visitors attracted to the area’s natural resources and outdoor recreation opportunities.

• Expenditures by all trail users (resident, local, and non-local) for the period between 2012 and 2014 generated an estimated annual average of $292,740 in local (city and county) tax revenues, $94,391 in state-shared transient lodging taxes, $97,269 in additional hotel/motel taxes, and $211,896 in state taxes.

• Tax receipt distributions for Twisp and Winthrop alone, attributable to all trail users and other visitors attracted to the Methow Valley’s open space and outdoor recreation opportunities over the 2012-2014 period, represent an average 24.1% of Okanogan County’s regular state-shared lodging tax, and about 31.3% of the county’s additional special lodging taxes collected. Similarly, tax receipt distributions for other areas of the Methow Valley region within unincorporated Okanogan County represents an average of 8.5% of the County’s regular state-shared lodging tax, and 7.7% of the County’s additional lodging taxes. The Methow Valley region’s combined lodging tax contributions from 2012-2014 represent an average of 71.6% of those taxes collected by Okanogan County.

Resident / Trail User Views & Values

• Almost 91.9% of both resident and trail user survey respondents indicate that access to and provision of public and private recreational facilities in the Methow Valley is very important (79.6%) or important (12.3%).

• 84.3% of trail users and 76.0% of resident respondents say the Methow trail network was the most important factor to their average visit, with another 14.5% and 20.0%, respectively, indicating the trail network was an important factor.

• Trail users reported peak trail months, in order of use/visits, as February, January, and December, with 90.2%, 85.6% and 68.4% of trail users reporting use in these months, respectively. Similarly, the 2005 and 1998 studies reported February, January and December as the primary months for trail use. There were slight increases in visitation in August, September, October and November over 2005, but slight decreases in April and May.

• Resident and trail user respondents feel strongly about the protection of open space and aesthetic beauty in the Methow Valley. A combined average of 83.0% of all respondents stated that they felt it was either ‘extremely important’ or ‘very important’ to preserve the area’s


undeveloped open space. Further, a combined average of 84.1% of all respondents reported that the area’s natural beauty was ‘extremely important’ or ‘very important’.

• As in 2005, resident and trail user respondents indicated the top three reasons or characteristics influencing their decisions to move to or visit the Methow Valley are, in order of magnitude, 1) proximity to natural resources, 2) natural beauty and 3) rural character.

• The median length of non-local trail user visitor stays in the Methow Valley is about 6 days. These visitors report spending an average of $298 locally per day, while local trail users/residents (largely second homeowners) stay an average of 11.7 days per visit, with average daily expenditures of $228.3

THE ANALYSIS The above-summarized findings are based on a combination of comparative, statistical, and economic analyses. Each section of the study focuses on a different set of economic rationales, broadly defined as the following: resident and non-local trail user (tourist-visitor) views, values and expenditures; area business and employment impacts; and related local and regional economic impacts. Each of these broad categories hosts a diverse and interrelated set of variables that include expenditures both inside and outside the region, as well as major environmental and social impacts.

Resource Dimensions of Gig Harbor, Washington, was commissioned in October 2014 to evaluate the above-mentioned economic impacts, which are grounded in the complex question: “What are the costs, benefits and contributions of Methow Trails lands to the Methow Valley region?” The study approach addressed both this question and those embedded in related issues as:

• Assessment of benefits generated beyond direct expenditures and revenues; • Assessment of costs accrued beyond direct management costs; and, • Assessment of local and regional impacts, which takes into account sector-specific

information.

3 Appropriately addressing expenditures related to trail use/visits requires inclusion of all trail users (local, non-local, resident) within the analysis; thus, all are “visitors”. Attribution of “visits” or “per trip” terms related to discussion of residents takes into account the spectrum of the resident population, which consists of a substantial number of second home owners, rental property owners, landowners who camp on their lands, and others with residential arrangements in Methow Valley. This framework simplifies the discussion and adheres to convention for recreation resource studies.

Resource Dimensions| 1

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS This study of the economic impacts of the Methow trail network in the Methow Valley has been prepared for Methow Trails, in partnership with the Winthrop Chamber of Commerce.

The study area is generally defined and referred to throughout the report as the Methow Valley region. Located in the Northern Cascade Mountains of Okanogan County, Washington, the Methow Valley is about four hours northeast of Seattle or four and a half hours northwest of Spokane (Figure 1). This study reviews the current economy, forecasts attributes likely to affect near-term economic conditions, and estimates the economic impacts directly and indirectly related to the Methow Trails network on the local economy.

Figure 1. Methow Valley Region

Source: Resource Dimensions, 2015

2 |Resource Dimensions

The major communities of the study region comprise an area of about 1,835 square miles (1,174,651 acres) and include Carlton, Mazama, Methow, Pateros, Twisp and Winthrop (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Communities within Study Area



Please note that this investigation, analysis, and report are subject to important conditions and assumptions that affect the findings and conclusions. As applicable, data gaps or lack of supporting documentation are identified throughout the report. The reader should review all limiting conditions and assumptions in this report before utilizing or relying upon the conclusions and findings.

1.2 BACKGROUND: METHOW TRAILS AND ITS TRAIL NETWORK The opening of the North Cascades Highway (Highway 20) in 1972 enhanced the potential for a range of tourism and related outdoor activities in the Methow Valley. The setting of the Methow Valley is inimitable, lending both a perfectly scaled geography and a diversity of resource attributes for a thoroughly integrated natural resource recreation-based community.

Seeing this unique opportunity as a catalyst for the region’s economic base while maintaining the spectacular natural attributes of the area, area residents John Hayes and John Sunderland inspired cooperation among private landowners and various agencies to form the Methow Valley Family Sports Club in 1977 and the Methow Valley Community Trail (a/k/a Community Trail). By 1980, the organization changed its name to the Methow Valley Ski Touring Association and shortly after hired its first staff. In 1995, the organization changed its name to the Methow Valley Sport Trails Association (MVSTA), and in 2014 renamed itself Methow Trails.

Since its humble beginnings, the non-profit organization has grown and facilitated the development of the nation’s largest cross-country ski trail system; transforming a once disconnected series of trails within the Methow Valley into an elaborate network of over 200 kilometers of all-season trails surrounded by more than a million acres of national wilderness and forest lands. As the region has grown with an increasing number of second homes and lodging facilities, the trails have become a central attraction and contributed to the economic stability of the valley.

The trail network is generally contained within a system of federal, state, and private lands. Some 52% of the trail system is on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands with another 0.02% on U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) lands. Of the remaining lands, 2.1% is on Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) land, and another 1.7% is on Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) lands with 20-year permits (Methow Trails, 2015b). The remainder of the trail network runs over a complex of private lands on which Methow Trails has entered into long-term agreements with more than 170 landowners.

The four main trail systems include Mazama, the Methow Community Trail, Rendezvous, and Sun Mountain. The 32-kilometer Methow Community Trail is the central corridor through the valley and connects Mazama and Rendezvous with Winthrop and Sun Mountain Lodge. Today, there are dozens of individual trails within the trail system. Figure 3 provides an overview map of the trail network’s four main trail systems.


Figure 3. Methow Trails Trail Network

Source: Methow Trails, 2014


Primary winter uses of the trails include Nordic (cross-country) skiing, snow/fat biking and snowshoeing. In the summer, the trails become a mountain biker and hiker mecca. Other trail uses include walking and running, dog walking, nature observation, horseback riding, and access to fly fishing areas. In addition to building and maintaining the trail system, Methow Trails sponsors ski races, trail runs, clinics and a variety of family oriented trail-based events.

Table 1 presents total skier-day estimates for the 2005-2006 through 2014-2015 seasons. These estimates reflect both paid skier-days and estimated unpaid skier-days. The paid skier-days group includes Day Pass Adult, Multi Day Pass Adult, Annual Pass, Lifetime Pass and Weekday Pass skier-days and all user groups (skiing, snowshoeing, dog walking, snow/fat biking, etc.). The annual average number of paid skier-days over this time period is 28,201.

It was assumed that between the 2005-2006 season and the 2011-2012 season an additional 20% of unpaid skier-days occurred. These unpaid skier-days are attributed to “All Ski Free Days”, a program that encourages families, youth and underserved communities onto the trail network, and the “Seniors 75 and up ski free” access program. Further, it was assumed that for the 2012-2013 season an additional 25% of unpaid skier-days occurred. The additional estimate (added to the “All Ski Free Days”) is attributed to the “Kids Ski for Free” program, introduced in the 2012-2013 season. The actual number of unpaid skier-days reported for the 2013-2014 season was 8,723, and the actual number of unpaid skier-days reported for 2014-2015 season was 15,520. The average number of estimated unpaid skier-days over the ten seasons is 6,487, for an annual average of 34,688 total estimated skier-days. The annual average rate of growth (AARG) in skier-days over these ten seasons was 12.0%.

Table 1. History of Skier-Days by Season (2005-2015) Season Paid Skier-Days Estimated Unpaid Skier-Days Total Estimated Skier-Days2005-2006 26,281 5,256 31,5372006-2007 24,215 4,843 29,0582007-2008 24,750 4,950 29,7002008-2009 21,410 4,282 25,6922009-2010 18,250 3,650 21,9002010-2011 23,900 4,780 28,6802011-2012 26,650 5,330 31,9802012-2013 30,150 7,538 37,6882013-2014 31,453 8,723 40,1762014-2015 54,948 15,520 70,468Average 28,201 6,487 34,688

Sources: Methow Trails, 2014; Methow Trails 2015a, 2015c


Methow Trails members are comprised of Annual Pass holders, Lifetime Pass holders, landowners, Service Program participants, Business Membership holders, and donors (those contributing over $50 annually to the organization). Historically, individual memberships have been granted for a $50 donation; increasing membership by 30 to 50 individuals in an average year. Board members (12) and ski school instructors (15) are also required to be members at the $50 level. As of November 2014 Methow Trails had more than 1,200 members (Methow Trails, 2014).

Lifetime Pass holders are considered members for 20 years following the purchase of a lifetime pass. As of November 2014, there were 423 Lifetime Pass holders (Methow Trails, 2014).

The Methow Trails Service Program allows Methow Valley residents to receive an Annual Pass for free in exchange for 20 hours per year of service as a ski patrol or event volunteer (a $50 membership fee is required for Service Program participants). In 2005, the Service program had over 200 participants. In a 2010 program evaluation, Methow Trails determined that the number of program participants exceeded the number of meaningful positions the organization could offer, and capped the number of participants at 150. As of November 2014, the program had 140 participants. About half of the participants’ service time is allocated to supporting Methow Trails’ four signature events and programs. The remainder is dedicated to winter trail presence and patrols (Methow Trails, 2014).

To illustrate the intensity of the Methow Trails trail network use and the variety of Methow Trails’ programs, total skier-days for the 2014-2015 winter season was estimated to be 70,468. The breakdown of skier-days is described below.

Paid skier days from individual pass sales (including: adult one-day passes, adult multi-day passes, additional days added to adult-multi-day passes, one-day snowshoe passes, and one-day dog passes), totaled 26,868 (Methow Trails, 2015c).

Other paid skier-days totaled 25,290, and is comprised of:

• Annual Pass holders (7,980 skier-days) • Lifetime Pass holders (6,675 skier-days) • Weekday Pass holders (810 skier-days) • Landowner Pass holders (7,650 skier-days) • Dog Walking Season Pass holders (2,175 user-days)

Annual Pass and Lifetime Pass skier-days are calculated by the industry standard equivalent of 15 skier-day per year (Methow Trails, 2015a).

Service/volunteer skier-days totals 2,790 ($50 membership is required), and is comprised of:

• Service Program participants (2,250 skier-days) • Board Members (180 skier-days) • Ski School Instructors (360 skier-days)

Unpaid or free skier-days, all part of Methow Trails’ Access Program, totaled 15,520, and is comprised of:


• Kids 17 and under Ski Free (includes Ski Team Members) (8,000 skier-days) • Ski Team parents (55 skier-days) • Seniors 75 and up Ski Free (2,000 skier-days) • Fire relief vouchers – Season Passes (465 skier-days) • Backyard Free Ski days (two days per year) (1,000 skier-days) • Big Valley Free Trail Skier days (4,000 skier-days)

In 2012, Methow Trails initiated a Business Membership program. Business Memberships cost $100; $50 of this fee is allocated to a long-term endowment fund. The balance is allocated to the annual operating fund. As of November 2014, 30 businesses hold Business Memberships (Methow Trails, 2014).

Summer trail user-days are difficult to estimate as access is free and no pass is required. Conservatively, Methow Trails uses double the number of total skier-days as a proxy for summer trail use (Methow Trails, 2015a).

1.3 PURPOSE The primary intent of this study is to update and expand on the 2005 “Economic Impacts of MVSTA Trails and Land Resources in the Methow Valley”, conducted by Resource Dimensions.4 The ensuing analysis uses various methods to evaluate the full range of direct, indirect, and cumulative economic impacts attributable to the Methow trails network. This includes assessment of use and non-use benefits that flow to and through the communities in the region.

Thus, within the confines of resources and access to reliable data, the question: “What are the economic impacts and contributions of the Methow trail network on Okanogan County’s economy?” was examined.

The stream of benefits that flow to and through the communities in the Methow Valley include a spectrum of use and non-use values derived from goods and services provided by recreational trails, greenways, and protected areas (Figure 4). For example, the Methow Trails system provides the Methow Valley with a range of recreational opportunities, cultural and historical attributes, improved environmental quality, nutrient cycling, biological controls, habitat, water supply, and particular amenity values that contribute to the area’s quality of life.

4 The 2005 study was an update of a 1998 study – MVSTA Trail Users: Economic Impacts and Characteristics – conducted for MVSTA by RJR & Associates of Wenatchee, Washington.


Figure 4. Spectrum of Potential Benefits Generated by Trails and Protected Lands

Source: Gustanski, 2003

Use benefits or values are both direct and indirect. Direct use benefits include expenditures on lodging, food, and clothing, recreation-related equipment purchases and rentals, fuel, and regional gifts. Indirect use benefits are functional in nature and include goods and services such as flood control, water filtration, the provision of wildlife viewing and recreational opportunities, amenity values, cultural resources, viewsheds, and other passive use benefits.5 Option value is the value society places on having such things as land and other natural resources available for possible future uses, as opposed to current uses.

Non-use benefits are typically defined as the bequest value attached to the ability to bequeath, for example, a network of recreational trails and protected lands to future generations. Existence value is typically defined as the value society places on having such resources in reserve, whether or not people use the area for human activity.

Given the far-reaching network of benefits provided by the Methow trails, and their important role in future decision-making for communities of the Methow Valley, we examine and quantify such benefits, where possible, in monetary terms.

5 These are typically referred to ‘ecosystem services’. Studies conducted to date on the value of ecosystem services produced by nature (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat in Washington) indicate that such habitat is producing services worth many billions of dollars annually.

Potential benefits of trails and appurtenant lands

Use Values

Direct Use Values

Indirect Use Values

Option Values

Non-use Values

Existence Values

Bequest Values


SECTION TWO: METHOW VALLEY’S REGIONAL ECONOMIC SETTING

2.1 DEMOGRAPHICS Demographic trends for Methow Valley communities, Okanogan County, and Washington are briefly explored in this section. This data has significant bearing on the local economy, and it is included in the background of the economic modeling software – informing some of the calculations made by the users and the system.

Table 2 presents statistics in several demographic categories for these geographies. Please note that zip code area data is used for the Methow Valley communities.

The population density of the Methow Valley is lower than that of Okanogan County; the population densities of both geographies are significantly lower than that of Washington. As estimated in the 2010 United States Census, the median age of Methow Valley residents is notably higher than the median ages of County residents and Washington residents. Further, the average household size and the average family size as reported for the Methow Valley are considerably lower than that of Okanogan County and Washington.

The median household income, median family income, and per capita income for Methow Valley exceed that of Okanogan County but lag behind Washington.

Methow Valley communities and Okanogan County report significantly higher rates of housing units for seasonal, recreational or occasional use than Washington. The rate of seasonal, recreational or occasional use of housing units in the Methow Valley is more than ten times that of Washington. Median home values in Methow Valley are significantly higher than median home values in Okanogan County, and slightly higher than median home values in Washington.

With respect to educational attainment for the population 25 years old and older, the rate of the population with bachelor’s degrees in Methow Valley is substantially higher than that of the County population. The Methow Valley population lags behind the state population in rates of graduate or professional degrees and bachelor’s degrees. The Methow Valley has lower rates than the County population of residents with less than a 9th grade education and a 9th to 12th grade education, with no diploma.


Table 2. Select Demographic Statistics for Methow Valley, Okanogan County and Washington Population characteristics Methow Valley Okanogan County WashingtonPopulation 6,710 41,120 6,724,540

Population density (per sq. mile) 5.1 7.8 101.2Percent male 50.9% 50.5% 49.8%Percent female 49.1% 49.5% 50.2%Median age (years) 50.1 42.9 37.3Average household size 2.15 2.45 2.51Average family size 2.64 2.96 3.06Economic characteristicsMedian household income $49,772 $40,294 $59,374Median family income $56,467 $49,360 $71,939Per capita income $25,523 $20,976 $30,661Housing characteristicsOccupied housing units 3,126 16,519 2,620,076

Owned-occupied 2,318 11,300 1,673,920Renter-occupied 808 5,219 946,156

Vacant housing units 2,041 5,726 265,601For seasonal, recreational or occasional use (percent of total housing units)

1,764 (37.1%) 4,048 (18.2%) 89,907 (3.1%)

Median home value $287,400 $167,100 $272,900Educational Attainment (Population 25 and older)Less than 9th grade 5.5% 8.0% 4.1%9th to 12th grade, no diploma 5.4% 9.1% 5.9%High School graduate (includes equivalency) 29.3% 32.4% 23.6%Some college, no degree 23.5% 23.5% 25.3%Associate's degree 10.7% 9.4% 9.5%Bachelor's degree 18.9% 10.6% 20.2%Graduate or professional degree 6.7% 7.0% 11.4%

Sources: USCB 2010a, 2010b, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c


The Washington State Employment Security Department (ESD) estimates that the population of Okanogan County will grow by 1,847 from 2010 to 2020, shown in Table 3. The state population is estimated to grow by 712,486 over the same time period. ESD does not project populations at granularities finer than county level.

Table 3. Historic and Projected Population for State, County and Study Area Geographic Area 1990 2000 2010 2015 2020 2030Washington 4,866,663 5,894,143 6,724,540 7,045,932 7,437,026 8,181,751

Okanogan County 33,350 39,564 41,120 42,038 42,967 44,417Unincorporated 19,294 23,647 24,780 N/A N/A N/AIncorporated 14,056 15,917 16,340 N/A N/A N/A

Twisp 872 938 919 N/A N/A N/AWinthrop 302 349 394 N/A N/A N/AMazama n/d 96* 150* N/A N/A N/ACarlton n/d 567* 446* N/A N/A N/AMethow n/d 262* 239* N/A N/A N/APateros n/d 643* 667* N/A N/A N/A

Sources: USCB 2000, 2010a; ESD, 2014c Notes: N/A – no known estimates or projections; n/d – data not reported; * - unincorporated area zip code data

Average annual rates of change (AARC) in population are estimated to hover around 0.3%-0.5% (in five-year increments) for Okanogan County from 2011 through 2030, whereas that of Washington range from 0.9% to 1.1% for the same time period, as projected by ESD (Table 4).

Table 4. Annual Average Rate of Change in Population for Okanogan County and Washington Period Washington Okanogan CountyAARC, 1990-2000 1.94% 1.74%AARC, 2001-2005 1.46% 0.41%AARC, 2006-2010 1.06% 0.27%Projected AARC, 2011-2015 1.03% 0.48%Projected AARC, 2016-2020 1.07% 0.45%Projected AARC, 2021-2025 0.99% 0.36%Projected AARC, 2026-2030 0.89% 0.28%

Source: ESD, 2014c

2.2 EMPLOYMENT AND LABOR FORCE From 2008 to 2013 the total Okanogan County civilian labor force has ranged from a low of 18,230 (2013) to a high of 21,950 (2008), and the unemployment rate has ranged between 8.7% (2012) and 10.7% (2009) over the same time period (Table 5). The County’s total civilian labor force was reduced about 3,630 people from 2008 to 2013; however the unemployment rate decreased about 0.4% over that time.


The average annual rate of growth (AARG) in the total labor force was 1.57% from 2003 to 2008, and the AARG of the employed labor force was 1.21% over the same time period. From 2008 to 2013, the AARG of the total labor force was -3.73%, and the AARG of the employed labor force was -3.65% over the same time period.

Table 5. Okanogan County Civilian Labor Force Year/Time Period Total Employed Unemployed* Unemployment Rate1993 22,470 20,240 2,230 9.9%2003 20,260 18,660 1,600 7.9%2008 21,950 19,850 2,100 9.6%2009 21,680 19,370 2,310 10.7%2010 20,850 18,730 2,120 10.2%2011 20,680 18,760 1,920 9.3%2012 20,110 18,370 1,740 8.7%2013 18,320 16,640 1,680 9.2%AARG, 1993-2003 -1.15% -0.94%AARG, 2003-2008 1.57% 1.21%AARG, 2008-2013 -3.73% -3.65%AARG, 2003-2013 -1.08% -1.22%

Source: ESD, 2014c Note: * - average for the year

In 2012, residents of Okanogan County reported a lower annual wage than the other North Central Washington counties (Chelan, Douglas and Grant). Okanogan County residents, however, reported the second highest personal income per capita among the four counties. Annual wage in Okanogan County was about 52% that of Washington in 2012. Total personal income in Okanogan County in 2012 exceeded $1.5 billion (Table 6).

Table 6. Wage and Income, Washington and North Central Counties

Geographic Area Annual Wage (2012)Personal Income Per Capita

(2012)Total Personal Income

(2012) (in $1,000s)Washington $51,964 $46,045 $324,458,394

Chelan County $33,735 $39,797 $2,932,513Douglas County $30,373 $31,954 $1,257,408Grant County $34,482 $32,342 $2,966,473Okanogan County $26,994 $37,674 $1,554,989

Sources: BEA 2014; ESD 2014a, 2014b, 2014c


2.3 INDUSTRIES AND OCCUPATIONS Methow Valley communities were reported by the United States Census Bureau (USCB) to have 349 establishments in 2012.6 The majority of establishments were concentrated in Winthrop (161) and Twisp (120). Establishments in the Methow Valley employed 1,899, and had a total payroll exceeding $52 million in 2012 (Table 7). Data by sector is not reported by USCB at granularities finer than county level.

Table 7. Methow Valley Establishments, Employees and Payroll

Geographic AreaNumber of

Establishments Number of EmployeesAnnual Payroll (in

$1,000s)Methow Valley (Total) 349 1,899 52,508

Carlton 12 11 280Mazama 20 113 1,823Methow 4 n/r 323Pateros 32 571 19,439Twisp 120 425 11,905Winthrop 161 779 18,738

Source: USCB, 2014 Note: n/r – data not reported

The industry that employs the highest percentage of the workforce in the Methow Valley is the Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services industry (18.4%) (Table 8). Educational services and health care, and social assistance (16.0%) and Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining (14.9%), employ the next higher percentages of the workforce.

6 Data is current as of June 26, 2014.


Table 8. Workforce by Industry, Methow Valley

# % # % # % # %Civilian employed population, 16 years and over 2,900 203 118 119

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting and mining 433 14.9% 41 20.2% 0 0.0% 12 10.1%Construction 222 7.7% 33 16.3% 7 5.9% 0 0.0%Manufacturing 113 3.9% 4 2.0% 0 0.0% 3 2.5%Wholesale trade 61 2.1% 14 6.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Retail trade 243 8.4% 0 0.0% 8 6.8% 33 27.7%Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 122 4.2% 7 3.4% 0 0.0% 28 23.5%Information 53 1.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Finance and insurance, and real estate 87 3.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services 286 9.9% 18 8.9% 63 53.4% 4 3.4%Educational services, and health care and social assistance 464 16.0% 4 2.0% 24 20.3% 24 20.2%Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accomodation and food services 533 18.4% 68 33.5% 16 13.6% 5 4.2%Other service, except public administration 136 4.7% 5 2.5% 0 0.0% 7 5.9%Public administration 147 5.1% 9 4.4% 0 0.0% 3 2.5%

IndustryMethow Valley Carlton Mazama Methow

Source: USCB, 2012a


Table 8. Workforce by Industry, Methow Valley (cont.)

# % # % # % # %Civilian employed population, 16 years and over 2,900 565 743 1,152

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting and mining 433 14.9% 200 35.4% 82 11.0% 98 8.5%Construction 222 7.7% 7 1.2% 95 12.8% 80 6.9%Manufacturing 113 3.9% 8 1.4% 57 7.7% 41 3.6%Wholesale trade 61 2.1% 29 5.1% 0 0.0% 18 1.6%Retail trade 243 8.4% 60 10.6% 75 10.1% 67 5.8%Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 122 4.2% 62 11.0% 13 1.7% 12 1.0%Information 53 1.8% 9 1.6% 13 1.7% 31 2.7%Finance and insurance, and real estate 87 3.0% 4 0.7% 3 0.4% 80 6.9%

Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services 286 9.9% 40 7.1% 70 9.4% 91 7.9%Educational services, and health care and social assistance 464 16.0% 108 19.1% 110 14.8% 194 16.8%Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accomodation and food services 533 18.4% 27 4.8% 169 22.7% 248 21.5%Other service, except public administration 136 4.7% 11 1.9% 12 1.6% 101 8.8%Public administration 147 5.1% 0 0.0% 44 5.9% 91 7.9%

IndustryTwisp WinthropMethow Valley Pateros

Source: USCB, 2012a

Of the civilian employed population (16 years and over), the highest rate of Methow Valley residents are employed in Management, business, science and arts occupations (37.8%), followed by Service occupations (22.2%) and Sales and office occupations (19.6%) (Table 9).


Table 9. Workforce by Occupation, Methow Valley

# % # % # % # % # % # % # %Civilian employed population, 16 years and over 2,900 203 118 119 565 743 1,152

Management, business, science and arts occupations 1,095 37.8% 74 36.5% 82 69.5% 33 27.7% 97 17.2% 280 37.7% 529 45.9%Service occupations 644 22.2% 53 26.1% 16 13.6% 22 18.5% 100 17.7% 220 29.6% 233 20.2%Sales and office occupations 567 19.6% 47 23.2% 20 16.9% 52 43.7% 114 20.2% 117 15.7% 217 18.8%Natural resources, construction and maintenance occupations 384 13.2% 29 14.3% 0 0.0% 12 10.1% 195 34.5% 83 11.2% 65 5.6%Production, transportation and material moving occupations 210 7.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 59 10.4% 43 5.8% 108 9.4%

OccupationWinthropMethow Valley Carlton Mazama Methow Pateros Twisp

Source: USCB, 2012a

ESD projects occupational job growth for a ten-year period from the most current occupational data (2012). Occupational job growth is projected by region – Okanogan County resides in the North Central region (regions are based on state Workforce Development Councils). Thus, data for the Pacific Mountain region includes Adams, Chelan, Douglas, Grant and Okanogan Counties (Table 10).

By AARG, from 2012-2017, the highest rates of growth are in Construction and Extraction Occupations (3.2%; 175 average annual openings due to growth), Healthcare Support Occupations (2.4%; 65 average annual openings due to growth), and Production Occupations (2.2%; 151 average annual openings due to growth). Healthcare Support Occupations are projected to have the leading AARG, from 2017-2022, at 2.0%, or 60 average annual openings due to growth.


Table 10. Recent and Projected Job Growth in Select Occupations, North Central Region

Occupational title

Estimated employment

2012


2017


2022Total, All Occupations 127,594 137,230 143,906

Management Occupations 4,656 5,028 5,267Community and Social Service Occupations 1,396 1,487 1,570Education, Training, and Library Occupations 6,926 7,648 8,322Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports and Media Occupations 1,454 1,601 1,726Healthcare Support Occupations 2,613 2,946 3,258Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 7,616 8,453 9,082Sales and Related Occupations 11,683 12,673 13,328Office and Administrative Support Occupations 12,199 13,094 13,738Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations 29,102 29,950 30,178Construction and Extraction Occupations 5,237 6,122 6,535Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 5,455 5,870 6,169Production Occupations 6,803 7,574 7,968Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 9,604 10,087 10,399

Source: ESD, 2014c


Table 10. Recent and Projected Job Growth in Select Occupations, North Central Region (cont.)

Occupational title AARG,

2012-2017 AARG,

2017-2022

Average annual

openings due to growth 2012-2017

Average annual

openings due to growth 2017-2022

Average annual total

openings 2012-2017

Average annual total

openings 2017-2022

Total, All Occupations 1.5% 1.0% 1,898 1,304 5,262 4,748Management Occupations 1.5% 0.9% 71 48 163 163Community and Social Service Occupations 1.3% 1.1% 16 16 50 54Education, Training, and Library Occupations 2.0% 1.7% 142 131 288 308Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports and Media Occupations 1.9% 1.5% 29 23 65 67Healthcare Support Occupations 2.4% 2.0% 65 60 112 126Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 2.1% 1.4% 169 124 502 381Sales and Related Occupations 1.6% 1.0% 198 130 638 496Office and Administrative Support Occupations 1.4% 1.0% 178 125 441 405Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations 0.6% 0.2% 168 45 1,040 899Construction and Extraction Occupations 3.2% 1.3% 175 81 263 187Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 1.5% 1.0% 80 57 212 210Production Occupations 2.2% 1.0% 151 78 300 241Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 1.0% 0.6% 96 61 322 299

Source: ESD, 2014c


2.4 OUTDOOR RECREATION TRENDS IN WASHINGTON This section briefly describes recent outdoor recreation trends in Washington. The residents of Washington are very active outdoor recreationists. The Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) conducted a survey of state residents’ participation in outdoor recreation activities in 2012. The activity category having the greatest percentage of Washington State residents participating was ‘Picnicking, barbequing or cooking out’ (80.9%), followed by ‘Walking without a pet’ (71.3%) and ‘Wildlife viewing/photography’ (59.0%).

State resident participation rates for activities present on the trail network include: cross-country skiing (4.5); snowshoeing (6.7%); walking with a pet (51.6%); freshwater fishing from a bank, dock or jetty (17.3%) and bicycling riding on rural trails (10.8%). Table 11 presents participation rates in select outdoor recreation activities.

Table 11. Outdoor Recreation Participation Rates, 2012

Outdoor Activity% State Residents

ParticipatingATV riding on snow or ice 2.4%Bicycle riding - mountain or forest trails 8.0%Bicycle riding - rural trails 10.8%Boating - canoeing, kayaking, rowing, manual craft - freshwater 9.0%Camping - backpacking/primitive location 8.3%Climbing or mountaineering - alpine areas/snow or ice 3.6%Fishing from a bank, dock or jetty - freshwater 17.3%Hiking - mountain or forest trails 36.4%Hiking - rural trails 18.5%Horseback riding - trails 3.9%Ice skating - outdoors 1.7%Jogging or running - mountain or forest trails 4.9%Jogging or running - rural trails 7.8%Skiing, cross-country 4.5%Skiing, downhill 10.4%Sledding, inner tubing or other snow play 15.5%Snowboarding 7.1%Snowmobiling 2.7%Snowshoeing 6.7%Walking with a pet 51.6%Walking without a pet - park or trail setting 35.3%Wildlife viewing / photography - birds 34.1%Wildlife viewing / photography - land animals 40.4%

Source: RCO, 2013


Growth rates of participation in outdoor recreation activities were not calculated by RCO. Survey respondents, however, were asked about outdoor activities that they do not currently participate in, but would like to (in Washington). 1.4% of respondents indicated they would like to participate in cross-country skiing, 1.3% would like to participate in snowshoeing, and 2.9% would like to visit parks or natural areas. Participation interest rates for pertinent outdoor recreation activities are presented in Table 12.

Table 12. Participation Interest Rates in Outdoor Recreation Activities, 2012 Outdoor Activity % State ResidentsHiking 8.1%Skiing 6.9%Fishing / shellfishing 6.2%Canoeing / kayaking 5.9%Camping 5.7%Horseback riding 4.9%Mountaineering / rock climbing 3.6%Bicycling 3.2%Visiting parks or natural areas 2.9%ATV riding 2.5%Snowboarding 2.2%Cross-country skiing 1.4%Walking 1.4%Snowshoeing 1.3%

Source: RCO, 2013


SECTION THREE: METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION Trails and greenways contribute to the quality of life in our communities. They foster economic growth, reduce congestion, improve the environment, contribute to personal health, and provide community identity. Yet most trails do not reach their full potential in all of these areas. To make the most of this resource trail stewards need to understand their audience. Surveys are valuable tools for accomplishing this goal. By understanding users, their motivations, and how they are changing, trail stewards can better manage today and better anticipate the needs for the future.

This study was designed to assess the same or similar topics to those assessed in the 2005 and 1998 surveys, and to pose new questions for analysis, with the goal of providing trail managers and other interested parties a current perspective on the Methow Trails user base.

3.2 CONCEPTS Factors such as location, weather, amenities, and regional demographics influence the attendance on a trail system. Statistical regression was used to combine these diverse factors and derive an estimate for trail use. Regression analysis, combined Methow Trails season passes data, and draw counts for particular events provide a fairly accurate year-round trail use estimate.

Estimated trail use is of interest for several reasons in estimating local use versus users traveling to the Methow Valley, primarily for understanding the magnitude of out-of-area financial inputs into the local economy. Additionally, this estimate aids in understanding the complexities and extent of year round trail use, as well as potential implications of future trail development decisions.

Historical visitor attendance data at Washington state parks combined with the Methow Trails ski-days estimate was used to develop the independent variable in the regression model. Miscellaneous variables are used to explain expected visit characteristics. These variables were classified into three categories: 1) demographic, including population, length of residency, and income of the region; 2) location, including proximity to an interstate highway, colleges, parks, resource-based activities; and 3) capacity and amenities, including variables such as size and whether there is river/lake access, boating, and camping facilities, etc.

Regression results show that most variables behave as expected. While there is a significant portion of visitors from more than 100 miles away, local population impacts on trail use is also important. Proximity to an interstate highway can boost visitor use by making a trail or other resource amenities more accessible to non-local visitors. The range of amenities such as camping and boating facilities can also attract more people and families with varied interests and different needs for trail


use. The size of the trail system also matters, as larger networks can typically accommodate more visitors than smaller ones.

Based on the location and amenities of the Methow Valley, trail system use data, data on average length of stay, group size, lodging occupancy rates, regional population and other socioeconomic data, we estimate the annual average visitor trips associated with the Methow Trails and regional trail-based amenity areas to be about 62,740, resulting in an estimated 202,462 visitor-days. A few factors appear to work against the trail network, such as the lack of immediate access to an interstate highway, and lack of camping and water access facilities along the trail. Yet, even in winter months when Highway 20 is closed, access from Seattle-Tacoma, Tri-Cities and Spokane metropolitan areas is relatively easy. The resident population also provides a good local visitor/user base. Additionally, the communities of Twisp and Winthrop offer a range of alternative activities to visitors that likely contribute to increased trip duration and expenditures.

3.3 APPROACH & ASSUMPTIONS The study sought to examine economic impacts of the Methow trails network. Particular focus was given to three distinct groups:

• Methow Valley residents, • Methow trail users, and • Methow Valley area businesses.

To address the range of economic impacts, a variety of methods were used to elicit value estimates relative to the scope, purpose and objectives identified in Section 1. Below the approach implemented in Sections 4, 5 and 6 is explained.

3.3.1 Survey Approach Following the method of previous trail research, two surveys were designed to address issues relative to particular population subgroups — residents and trail users (local and non-local), and Methow Valley businesses. Areas of importance include trail use/visits, estimated expenditures and perceptions of recreation resources in the Methow Valley. The principal objectives for the Methow Valley business survey were to identify peak periods of business activity, whether these are related to peak periods of trail use, and to estimate the range of goods and services and primary and secondary expenditures attributable to trail visitation.

The resident/trail user survey was divided into four sections (Appendix A). The first sought to obtain general information on location and use of residences and the proximity of these residences to the Methow Trails network. The second was directed toward learning more about resident and trail user views and preferences on level of service, trail and maintenance of trail and recreation resources in the Methow Valley, Methow Trails pass purchasing behavior, trail funding, and relative importance of trails and trail corridors in providing various public benefits. The third section focused on frequency and temporal characteristics of Methow Trails network use, length and types of visits by


non-local users and residents with second homes in Methow Valley, visitor expenditures, real estate purchasing decisions, and the new ‘Kids Ski for Free’ program. The final section sought demographic information on the respondent population.

Similarly, the business survey was divided into three main parts (Appendix B). The first sought to obtain general business demographic and characteristics information on location, size, business activities, business structure, and length of time in business, etc. The second centered on discovering relationships between various business activities identified by respondents and the level of importance ascribed to the trail attributes of the Methow Valley. The third sought to understand the distribution of annual gross revenues across seasons and attribution to visitors, both generally and those specifically using the trail network.

Two primary question techniques were used for both resident/trail user and business surveys:

• Direct closed-ended questions employing simple multiple-choice options (Robson, 1993; Fink and Kosekoff, 1998), and

• Short-answer, open-ended questions. This approach was used to reduce problems that may arise with narrative type questions, while allowing the participant an opportunity to expand on their views and provide opinions (Mitchell and Carson, 1989; Robson, 1993; Fink and Kosekoff, 1998).

Reliability and validity is core to determining the quality of information obtained through the survey process. Determining data reliability and validity, a technical undertaking, is fundamental to assessing the adequacy of the information garnered. Consistency across survey respondent subsets is essential for making general statements about survey findings. As with the 2005 survey data, validity of the survey was evaluated and t-tests were conducted to establish reliability of results. The t-test examines whether the sample sets are different and is commonly used when the variances of two normal distributions are unknown and when the sample size is small.

To ensure statistical reliability of results, a confidence interval goal of 95% was established. This means there is only a 5% chance that the differences observed among groups surveyed are due to chance. The return ratios secured for all groups surveyed surpassed the valid response rate required to infer results at a 95% level of confidence for the population, thus ensuring the validity and reliability of results.

Once data sets were cleaned, verified, and organized for analysis, t-test correlation and regression were conducted to assess resident and non-resident survey response variables.

3.3.2 Survey Distribution

Resident Sample The resident / trail user survey was created electronically using research.net. Web links to the resident / trail user survey were emailed in December 2014 to a random sample of 194 Methow


Valley residents from zip codes 98814 (Carlton), 98833 (Mazama), 98834 (Methow), 98856 (Twisp), 98846 (Pateros) and 98862 (Winthrop). One email reminder was sent in January 2015.

The random sample population completed 167 surveys. With one opt out, and two non-deliverable email addresses, 98.45% of the random sample is assumed to have successfully received the survey. This is consistent with open rate statistics. Of the 191 surveys delivered, 167 were completed or partially completed (87.43%). Following assessment for completeness and accurate use of response mechanisms a total of 160 surveys were verified for a 95.8% validity rate for this random sample population.

Trail User Sample Methow trail users were randomly selected to participate in the survey onsite at locations along the trails during President’s Day weekend 2015 (February 14-16). On agreement to participate, skiers were handed a survey to complete at their leisure and return in the attached postage paid envelope.

For the 200 printed surveys distributed randomly at various trail points during Presidents Day weekend 2015, a total of 87 were returned by mail by the requested deadline of March 1, 2015, for a return rate of 43.5%. Following assessment for completeness and accurate use of response mechanisms, a total of 84 surveys were verified for a 96.5% validity rate for this random sample population.

Given the third survey distribution mechanism, which included making area residents and trail users aware that the survey was available to take online via email link postings on the Methow Trails website and social media sites such as Facebook, it is not possible to test for random sample reliability. Statistically, this group had the highest incomplete survey rate. A total of 110 unique connections to the survey elicited 80 completed (72.7%) and 30 (27.3%) partially completed surveys. Following assessment for completeness and accurate use of response mechanisms, a total of 101 surveys were verified for a 91.8% validity rate.

Business Sample The business survey was created electronically using surveymonkey.com, under the research.net domain. Web links to the business survey were emailed to a list of approximately 311 area businesses in the communities of Carlton, Mazama, Methow, Pateros, Twisp, and Winthrop; a total of six were undeliverable. The business sample frame was developed through that provided by the Winthrop Chamber of Commerce and a composite of Pateros and Twisp area businesses. Of the total 305 survey links distributed via email, 93 valid surveys were returned, a 30.49% response rate.

The USCB reported 349 businesses operated in the Methow Valley in 2012 (USCB, 2014). The survey was distributed to roughly 87.4% of all businesses within the region; thus, the approach did not employ a bona fide census method. As in the 2005 study, religious and educational institutions were not surveyed.


3.3.3 Method for Estimating Composition of Visits While not an explicit objective of the study, an estimate of annual Methow Trails use is necessary to derive the economic impacts of the trail network. Project limitations precluded conducting a probabilistic sampling procedure to determine a statistically valid count of trail users. Therefore model estimates for annual visits (local and non-local) were determined using an averaged estimate based on available visitation data for other resource-based recreation and amenity areas in the region together with Methow Trails pass data and model coefficients calculated for the project area (see Section 6).7

As explained in Section 3.2, statistical regression yields an estimated 202,462 annual visitor days to the Methow Trails system. The economic impacts related to Methow Trails are intrinsically tied to visitor spending, as discussed in this report. To define the economic impact model, visitors were classified into two categories based on spending patterns: local and non-local users.

3.4 STEPS & DATA INPUTS The study process consisted of three phases: 1) background investigation and secondary data collection, 2) survey and interview design and implementation, and 3) data input, analysis and reporting. Within these phases, tasks were conducted to ensure the integrity of project design and the quality of data obtained from primary data and secondary sources.

Key steps included:

1. research and secondary data collection

2. survey design and development

3. acquisition of survey sample(s) and survey distribution

4. data sorting, validity testing, and completeness assessment

5. data input of qualitative and quantitative information

6. data cleaning and coding

7. data analysis using SPSS and Microsoft Excel®

8. interpretation of results and preparation of written report

The accuracy of economic impact analysis results is largely dependent on the reliability of the data inputs used to generate benefit and /or impact estimates. Primary inputs for the various impact analyses conducted for this study were determined from the surveys.

7 Visitor use/visitation information used to estimate total visitor days included that from USFS Region 6, Okanogan National Forest, Pasayten Wilderness Area, Wenatchee National Forest, North Cascades National Park, and Loomis State Forest, together with Methow Trails pass data (USDA, 1989, 1990, 2001 and 2002; US DOI 1988; OCOPD, 2000; and Methow Trails, 2014).


SECTION FOUR: SURVEY FINDINGS – RESIDENTS AND TRAIL USERS

4.1 INTRODUCTION 211 valid surveys for the Methow Valley trail user population and 153 valid surveys for the Methow Valley resident population were completed. To delineate between trail users and resident respondents, valid surveys were sorted by responses to question 1: “Please tell us the Zip/Postal Code of your primary residence”. Those indicating that their primary residence was in one of the Methow Valley’s zip codes (i.e. 98814, 98833, 98856, and 98862), were considered Methow Valley residents. The remainder of respondents was considered to be non-resident trail users.

To validate any unique features that may set trail users and the Methow Valley resident population apart, segregated databases were maintained, and the following analysis is reported as such.

Due to the various survey distribution techniques, not all responses were completely random. This can result in oversampling of certain populations and thus introducing bias into results. However, given the size of the sample return rate against the Methow Valley population, and statistical evaluation, this factor is not expected to have a significant impact on survey findings.

Overall unpaired t-test results for statistical significance indicate that while there are differences between the resident and non-resident trail user populations, with regard to responses for questions 4 through 6 the averaged two-tailed P value equals 0.6420. By conventional criteria, this difference is considered not statistically significant. Similarly, for this same group of questions the measure of the variability between mean resident respondents and non-resident respondents ranges between 0.054 and 0.0846. The 95% confidence interval of this difference is -0.13 to 0.08.

4.2 DEMOGRAPHICS & RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS The representativeness of responses received from the two respondent groups was assessed against several demographic characteristics of the population from which they were drawn. As shown in Table 2, the respondent population has a slightly higher proportion of female respondents reporting than does the population for the region (49.7% male, 50.3% female). Across resident and trail user respondents, an average of 13.3% did not report on this demographic.

Generally, we would not expect this factor to have a significant impact on results. This disparity between the accessible sample and the population at large presents a problem only if males and females respond in significantly different ways to the questions posed. An assessment of response patterns was conducted on selected characteristics; no weighted adjustment were required or made for the gender factor.


Table 13. Distribution of respondents by gender

Respondent Group Male% Valid Male

Female% Valid Female

No Response

% No Response

Total Valid

Methow Trail Users 82 38.9% 84 39.8% 45 21.3% 211Methow Valley Residents 68 44.4% 77 50.3% 8 5.2% 153Cumulative Totals / Averages 150 41.7% 161 45.1% 53 13.3% 364 Source: Resource Dimensions, 2015

Although dispersal of the survey was not controlled by gender, age, education or other socioeconomic profile data, representation across the spectrum for the Methow Valley appears good. Distribution of respondents by age group is reported in Table 14. There were no respondents between the ages of 16 and 39. The median age estimated for the respondent population is 51.23, compared to 50.1 years for the Methow Valley (Table 2).

Table 14. Distribution of respondents by age groups

# % # % # % # % # %Methow Trail Users 66 31.3% 62 29.4% 34 16.1% 7 3.3% 42 19.9% 211Methow Valley Residents 37 24.2% 32 20.9% 63 41.2% 16 10.5% 5 3.3% 153Cumulative Totals / Averages 103 27.7% 94 25.1% 97 28.6% 23 6.9% 47 11.6% 364

Total Valid

Respondent Group 70+60-6950-5940-49 No Response


Table 15 presents a distribution of the length of residency for Methow Valley respondents.

Table 15. Distribution of respondents by length of residency

# % # % # %Methow Trail Users 4 1.9% 12 5.7% 13 6.2% 211Methow Valley Residents 2 1.3% 32 20.9% 34 22.2% 153Cumulative Totals / Averages 6 1.6% 44 13.3% 47 14.2% 364

Less than 1 YearRespondent Group

Total Valid

6 to 10 Years1 to 5 Years

# % # % # %Methow Trail Users 9 4.3% 7 3.3% 166 78.7% 211Methow Valley Residents 44 28.8% 35 22.9% 6 3.9% 153Cumulative Totals / Averages 53 16.5% 42 13.1% 172 41.3% 364

Respondent GroupTotal Valid

No ResponseOver 20 Years11 to 20 Years


Newer residents to the Methow Valley (i.e. those that have lived in the Methow Valley five years or less), were asked what brought them to the area. Respondents were provided space for a write-in answer. Responses were received from 36 residents and 24 trail users. Often, responses


incorporated more than one factor. Each factor was placed into a group (community, employment, family/friends, nature, recreation, weather or other).

Resident respondents reported recreation (45.8%), community (23.7%) and nature (13.6%) as the top three factors for moving to the Methow Valley (Figure 5). Trail user respondents indicated that recreation (55.6%), nature (19.4%) and weather (8.3%) were the primary factors bringing them to the area.

Figure 5. Factors bringing newer residents to the Methow Valley

Community, 23.7% Employment,

0.0%

Family/Friends, 6.8%Nature, 13.6%

Other, 6.8%

Recreation, 45.8%

Weather, 3.4%

Methow Valley Residents

Community, 5.6%

Employment, 2.8%

Family/Friends, 5.6%

Nature, 19.4%

Other, 2.8%

Recreation, 55.6%

Weather, 8.3%

Trail Users


Respondents were asked to identify the particular characteristic that was most important to their decision to live in or visit the Methow Valley. To ensure the range of characteristics or reasons for moving to the area were not limited; respondents could provide their own write-in answer.


Trail user and resident respondents indicated that the most influential characteristic in their decision to live in or visit the Methow Valley was the proximity to recreational resources, followed by natural beauty and rural character (Table 16). The three same reasons, in the same order, were provided by both sets of respondents in 2005.

As in 2005, there is greater equity in the distribution of characteristics for resident respondents compared to trail user respondents; however, the equity in distribution for resident respondents is not as pronounced.

21 responses in the ‘Other’ category were offered. All 21 of these responses were actually combinations of the listed categories that were cited as ties. For example, one resident explained their ‘Other’ response as “Recreation and beauty but we would not have come without employment”.

Figure 6 illustrates the breakdown of characteristics influencing decisions by group.

Table 16. Characteristics influencing decisions to live in or visit the Methow Valley

CharacteristicsRespondent Group

Total by Group

% of Total

Cumulative Total

Cumulative Rank

Trail Users 75 61.5%Residents 70 48.3%Trail Users 23 18.9%Residents 32 22.1%Trail Users 10 8.2%Residents 11 7.6%Trail Users 1 0.8%Residents 10 6.9%Trail Users 0 0.0%Residents 7 4.8%Trail Users 2 1.6%Residents 5 3.4%Trail Users 11 9.0%Residents 10 6.9%Trail Users 122Residents 145

Total Valid

Other

Proximity to Family 7 6

Proximity to Recreational Resources

Natural Beauty

Rural Character

Employment Opportunities

145

Community 11 4

1

21 3

55 2

7 5

21



Figure 6. Characteristics influencing decisions by group

Proximity to Recreational Resources,

48.3%

Natural Beauty, 22.1%

Rural Character,

7.6%

Community, 6.9%

Other, 6.9%

Employment Opportunities,

4.8%Proximity to Family, 3.4%

Residents

Proximity to Recreational Resources,

61.5%

Natural Beauty, 18.9%

Other, 9.0%

Rural Character,

8.2%

Proximity to Family, 1.6%

Community, 0.8%

Employment Opportunities,

0.0%

Trail Users


To determine how far respondents’ primary residences are from the Methow Valley, respondents were asked to report their zip code or Canadian postal code. The city represented by each zip code was identified, and the distance from each city to the nearest town in the Methow Valley (i.e. Mazama or Pateros) was approximated.


Results are presented in Table 17. 61.6% of the primary residences of trail user respondents were between 151 to 200 miles from the Methow Valley, followed by 12.3% of primary residences located more than 200 miles from the Methow Valley (but in Washington).

Table 17. Respondents by distance from the Methow Valley

Distance from Methow Valley

Trail Users ResidentsCumulative

Totals / Averages

Live in Methow ValleyNumber 0 152 152% of Total 0.0% 99.3% 41.8%

25-50 milesNumber 3 0 3% of Total 1.4% 0.0% 0.8%




More than 200 milesNumber 26 0 26% of Total 12.3% 0.0% 7.1%

Outside WashingtonNumber 15 0 15% of Total 7.1% 0.0% 4.1%

No responseNumber 4 1 5% of Total 1.9% 0.7% 1.4%

Total Valid 211 153 364 Source: Resource Dimensions, 2015

Tables 18 and 19 present the places of primary residences for trail user respondents whose primary residence is not in the Methow Valley. The vast majority of trail user respondents primarily reside in Western Washington (75.4%). 15 trail user respondents primarily reside in other states.


Table 18. Primary residence not in Methow Valley Geographic Area Trail Users % of TotalEastern Washington 33 15.6%Western Washington 159 75.4%Alaska, California, Oregon 12 5.7%Other State 3 1.4%Not Applicable / No Response 4 1.9%Total Valid 211 Source: Resource Dimensions, 2015

Table 19. Breakdown of primary residences outside of the Methow Valley No response

Respondent Group Eastern Western AK CA MN NY OR PAMethow Trail Users 33 159 3 2 1 1 7 1 4Methow Valley Residents 152 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Cumulative Total Valid 185 159 3 2 1 1 7 1 5

Washington Other States


Respondents were then asked to report, if they live in the Methow Valley area, how they use their residence (Table 20). 98.7% of resident respondents indicated it is their primary residence; 47.4% of trail user respondents reported it is their second home. Second home residents reside in the Methow Valley in all seasons, but winter residence is most common. 28.4% of trail user respondents do not live in the Methow Valley.


Table 20. Methow Valley resident status

Use of Residence Trail Users ResidentsCumulative

Totals / Averages

Primary ResidenceNumber 3 151 154% of Total 1.4% 98.7% 42.3%

Second HomeNumber 100 2 102% of Total 47.4% 1.3% 28.0%

Used as a RentalNumber 0 0 0% of Total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

UnoccupiedNumber 1 0 1% of Total 0.5% 0.0% 0.3%

Number 60 0 60% of Total 28.4% 0.0% 16.5%

OtherNumber 0 0% of Total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

No ResponseNumber 47 0 47% of Total 22.3% 0.0% 12.9%

Total Valid 211 153 364

Don't live in Methow Valley


To better understand the relationship between respondents and potential correlations between survey answers, question 3 asked those who live in and/or own a residence in Methow Valley to identify the proximity of the nearest Methow trail to their property. 27.7% of respondents indicated that the nearest Methow trail is one mile to five miles from their property, 24.5% indicated that the nearest trail is less than one mile from their property, and 7.4% indicated that their property is bounded by a Methow trail (Table 21).


Table 21. Proximity of residence to Methow Trails

Proximity of Property to Trail Trail Users ResidentsCumulative

Totals / Averages

Number 19 6 25% of Total 9.0% 3.9% 6.9%

Number 19 8 27% of Total 9.0% 5.2% 7.4%

Number 40 49 89% of Total 19.0% 32.0% 24.5%

Number 34 67 101% of Total 16.1% 43.8% 27.7%

Number 3 20 23% of Total 1.4% 13.1% 6.3%

Number 14 2 16% of Total 6.6% 1.3% 4.4%

Number 0 0 0% of Total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Number 16 0 16% of Total 7.6% 0.0% 4.4%

Number 66 1 67% of Total 31.3% 0.7% 18.4%


Methow Trails trail on property

Methow Trails trail along property boundary

Nearest Methow Trails trail < 1 mile

Nearest Methow Trails trail 1 - 5 miles

No Response

Nearest Methow Trails trail 6 - 15 miles

Don't live in the Methow Valley

Nearest Methow Trails trail > 15 miles

Don't know if property is near Methow Trails trail


4.3 ATTITUDES, VALUES & PERCEPTIONS Part II of the survey, questions 4 through 13, focused on learning more respondents’ attitudes, values and general perceptions toward recreation and trail resources in the Methow Valley.

In question 4, respondents were asked to indicate the importance of recreational resources in the Methow Valley. 81.0% of resident respondents indicated that recreational resources are ‘extremely important’ and 17.0% of respondents indicated that recreational resources are ‘very important’ (Table 22). Further, 78.2% of trail user respondents indicate that recreational resources are


‘extremely important’, and 7.6% of trail user respondents indicate that they are ‘very important’. A sizeable portion of trail user respondents did not report (11.8%).

Recognizing the similarity in responses between the two population samples, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient test was conducted to examine correlation more closely. A very strong correlation across all grouped responses was found (r = 0.9247). While outliers certainly occurred, the majority of respondents were found to express similar feelings as to the general importance of recreational resources in the Methow Valley.

Table 22. Importance of recreational resources in the Methow Valley

Respondent GroupExtremely Important

Very Important

ImportantSomewhat Important

Not Important

Don't KnowNo

ResponseMethow Trail Users 165 16 3 1 0 1 25Methow Valley Residents 124 26 1 0 0 0 2Cumulative Total Valid 289 42 4 1 0 1 27


Figure 7 provides a graphic comparison of responses. As was the case in 2005, the two respondent groups have strong and comparable opinions on the matter.

Figure 7. Comparison of respondent groups on importance of recreational resources

Extremely Important, 78.2%

Very Important,

7.6%

Important, 1.4%

Somewhat Important, 0.5%

Not Important,

0.0% Don't Know/No Opinion, 0.5%

No response, 11.8%

Trail Users



Figure 7. Comparison of respondent groups on importance of recreational resources (cont.)

Extremely Important, 81.0%

Very Important, 17.0%

Important, 0.7%

Somewhat Important, 0.0%

Not Important, 0.0%

Don't Know/No Opinion, 0.0%

No response, 1.3%

Residents


When asked in the next question “Do you believe that the Methow Valley has enough trails and other outdoor recreation resources to meet the Methow Valley community’s needs?” resident respondents and trail user respondents reported ‘Yes’ at about the same frequency (53.6% and 52.6%, respectively). However, 35.3% of residents responded ‘No’ versus 15.2% of trail user respondents. Trail users were twice as likely to respond ‘Don’t Know’ than were residents. Again, a sizeable portion of trail users (15.2%) did not respond to question 5 (Table 23).

Table 23. Perceived recreational needs of the Methow Valley community

(#) (%) (#) (%) (#) (%)Yes 111 52.6% 82 53.6% 193 53.0%No 32 15.2% 54 35.3% 86 23.6%Don't Know 36 17.1% 13 8.5% 49 13.5%No Response 32 15.2% 4 2.6% 36 9.9%Total Valid 211 153 364

Trail Users Residents Cumulative Totals / AveragesPerception


Respondents were provided a list of 11 trail-related and recreational resources in question 6, and were asked to indicate the importance of maintaining and developing each for the community. Summary results are presented in Table 24. Figures 8 and 9 provide graphic illustration on the relative importance of various recreation resources identified for maintenance or development.


Maintaining and developing cross-country skiing trails was most frequently cited as ‘extremely important’ by both resident respondents and trail user respondents, echoing the results of the 2005 survey. Walking, running and hiking trails was second-most frequently cited as ‘extremely important’ by both groups.

Mountain biking trails and in-town pedestrian trails were third-most frequently cited as ‘extremely important’ by resident respondents, compared with mountain biking trails only as third-most cited by trail users. In-town pedestrian trails were cited fourth-most as ‘extremely important’ by trail users.


Table 24. Importance of recreation resources for maintenance or development

Recreational Facility TypeRespondent Group

Extremely Important

Very Important


Not Important

Don’t KnowTotal

ResponsesTrail Users 173 10 2 0 0 1 186Residents 125 18 8 0 0 0 151Trail Users 111 53 15 0 2 1 182Residents 100 33 13 2 0 1 149Trail Users 10 24 35 46 47 12 174Residents 12 23 21 39 43 4 142Trail Users 23 36 39 28 24 25 175Residents 32 38 28 21 12 7 138Trail Users 66 58 42 8 7 2 183Residents 56 46 33 6 3 2 146Trail Users 29 63 60 22 4 2 180Residents 32 36 31 38 7 0 144Trail Users 12 40 63 39 20 4 178Residents 15 23 42 39 23 4 146Trail Users 28 36 49 27 34 6 180Residents 32 41 28 23 20 4 148Trail Users 32 51 42 32 16 4 177Residents 56 31 30 17 8 2 144Trail Users 17 30 47 26 22 33 175Residents 22 25 36 31 24 5 143Trail Users 9 4 1 1 2 19 36Residents 16 6 3 1 2 3 31

Cross-country Skiing trails

Walking/Running/Hiking trails

Commuter trails

Mountain Biking trails

Snow/Fat Biking trails

Trailhead improvements

Snowshoe trails

Dog-friendly trails

Community Recreation Center

Other

In-town Pedestrian trails



Figure 8. Recreation resources important for maintenance or development, trail users

17

32

28

12

29

66

23

10

111

173

30

51

36

40

63

58

36

24

53

10

47

42

49

63

60

42

39

35

15

26

32

27

39

22

8

28

46

22

16

34

20

4

7

24

47

2

33

4

6

4

2

2

25

12

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Community Rec Center


Dog-friendly trails

Snowshoe trails



Commuter trails




Trail Users

Extremely Important

Very Important

Important

Somewhat Important

Not Important

Don't Know



Figure 9. Recreation resources important for maintenance or development, residents

22

56

32

15

32

56

32

12

100

125

25

31

41

23

36

46

38

23

33

18

36

30

28

42

31

33

28

21

13

8

31

17

23

39

38

6

21

39

2

0

24

8

20

23

7

3

12

43

0

5

2

4

4

0

2

7

4

0

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Community Rec Center


Dog-friendly trails

Snowshoe trails



Commuter trails




Residents

Extremely Important

Very Important

Important

Somewhat Important

Not Important

Don't Know



While some separation on importance of particular recreation resources occurred between the resident and trail user groups for those respondents who completed the ‘Other’ category, the majority of respondents were similar, as in 2005. Suggestions for new ski trails, an ice rink and a swimming pool were commonly cited. Below are the five most common ‘Other’ responses by group and total counts:

Residents

1. Horseback riding trails 2. Suggestions for new ski trails 3. Ice rink 4. Swimming pool 5. Tennis court / athletic field

Trail Users

1. Suggestions for new ski trails 2. Swimming pool / river access 3. Ice rink 4. Rock climbing 5. Off-road vehicle access roads

In question 7, respondents were asked to rank the three recreation resources in the Methow Valley they consider most important, with #1 being the most important resource. Table 25 enumerates, in rank order, those recreation resources identified by respondent groups. Rank order preferences for the three most frequently selected recreation resources are: 1) cross-country skiing trails, 2) walking, running and hiking trails, and 3) mountain biking trails.

As in 2005, there appear similar values and interests between residents and non-local visitors relative to their views and preferences for specific recreation resources.


Table 25. Ranked importance of recreation resources

Recreational Facility TypeRespondent Group

1Cumulative Rank Total



Total Responses

Cumulative Totals

Trail Users 171 11 2 184Residents 95 35 9 139Trail Users 9 89 49 147Residents 25 51 29 105Trail Users 0 2 5 7Residents 0 5 5 10Trail Users 0 4 10 14Residents 4 7 17 28Trail Users 2 55 40 97Residents 12 30 34 76Trail Users 0 8 29 37Residents 2 4 14 20Trail Users 0 2 6 8Residents 0 2 1 3Trail Users 0 8 16 24Residents 3 4 11 18Trail Users 2 3 21 26Residents 5 11 21 37Trail Users 0 3 4 7Residents 0 1 4 5Trail Users 2 1 4 7Residents 1 2 6 9

Dog-friendly trails 3 12 27 42

11

63

12

16




Commuter trails



323

252

17

42

Snowshoe trails


173

57

Community Recreation Center

Other

266

34

0

4

14

2

0

7

0

3

46

140

7

11

85

12

4

14

8

10

4

3

43

7

42

11

78

10

27

74


In question 13 respondents were asked to consider a list of various public benefits that trails and trail corridors may provide to surrounding communities. Respondents were then asked to rank (5 = extremely important to 1 = not at all important) the extent to which they feel Methow Valley trails are important in providing the public benefits listed to the region. Scale attributes are such that the higher the score,


the higher the level of importance. Rank averages provide an estimate as to how the respondent groups generally view and value contributions made by the various attributes.

Resident (4.44) and trail user (4.29) respondents ranked ‘Tourism and related economic development’ as the most important service provision, followed by ‘Preserving undeveloped open space’ with resident and trail users averages of 4.11 and 4.52, respectively. The third most highly ranked was ‘Aesthetic beauty’ at a resident average score of 4.15 and 4.39 for trail users. Table 26 presents the results for both respondent groups.


Table 26. Ranked importance of public benefits provided by trails and trail corridors Public Benefits of Trails & Trail Corridors

Respondent Group

Extremely Important

Very Important


Not At All Important

No Opinion

Total Responses

Average Scale Rank

Trail Users 132 31 15 1 1 3 183 4.52Residents 79 32 22 8 5 1 147 4.11Trail Users 112 48 18 3 0 3 184 4.39Residents 72 44 15 10 1 2 144 4.15Trail Users 65 56 39 13 1 8 182 3.77Residents 49 52 34 9 1 3 148 3.85Trail Users 101 52 24 4 1 2 184 4.29Residents 90 37 17 0 2 0 146 4.44Trail Users 26 53 41 38 16 7 181 3.04Residents 25 41 32 25 17 7 147 3.03Trail Users 94 41 35 6 0 4 180 4.15Residents 77 52 13 3 0 1 146 4.34Trail Users 22 45 62 35 6 10 180 3.03Residents 17 41 48 22 13 4 145 3.07Trail Users 44 53 52 28 1 5 183 3.50Residents 37 44 38 20 2 4 145 3.53Trail Users 52 52 46 28 0 5 183 3.60Residents 36 35 44 23 2 3 143 3.47Trail Users 21 19 42 55 32 10 179 2.48Residents 13 19 45 38 25 6 146 2.55Trail Users 94 50 26 7 0 3 180 4.21Residents 86 31 21 5 0 3 146 4.26

Quality of life for children or the next generation

Aesthetic beauty

Preserving undeveloped open space

Community pride

Tourism and related economic development

Traffic reduction and transportation alternatives

Opportunities for health and wellbeing

Access for persons with disabilities

Public recreation opportunities / locations for special events

Public education about nature and the environment

Increasing nearby property values



In 2005, respondents ranked ‘Preserving undeveloped open space’ as the most important service provision, followed by ‘Opportunities for health and fitness’ (ranked fourth by 2015 respondents), and ‘Aesthetic beauty’. ‘Tourism and related economic development’ was ranked the fourth-most important service provision by respondents in 2005 (Resource Dimensions, 2005).

When asked, “In what ways do you feel trails in the Methow Valley should be funded?” the majority of trail user respondents indicated winter user fees (32.8%), followed by lodging tax (24.7%) and summer user fees (18.0%). Resident respondents also indicated that Methow Valley trails should be funded via winter user fees (32.0%), followed by lodging tax (26.4%) and summer user fees (12.6%) (Table 27).

Table 27. Funding of Methow Valley trails

Funding mechanism Trail Users ResidentsCumulative

Totals / Averages

Winter user feesNumber 175 137 312% of Total 32.8% 32.0% 32.4%

Summer user feesNumber 96 54 150% of Total 18.0% 12.6% 15.6%

Property taxNumber 64 48 112% of Total 12.0% 11.2% 11.6%

Lodging taxNumber 132 113 245% of Total 24.7% 26.4% 25.5%

Real Estate sales taxNumber 57 53 110% of Total 10.7% 12.4% 11.4%

OtherNumber 10 23 33% of Total 1.9% 5.4% 3.4%


Several questions asked respondents to consider their purchasing history of Methow Trails passes. 66.8% of trail users or other members of their families have purchased a Methow Trails pass of any kind in the past 12 months, compared with 69.3% of resident respondents (Table 28).


Table 28. Purchased a Methow Trails pass of any kind in the past 12 months

Respondent Group Yes% of Total

No% of Total

Don't Know

% of Total

No Response

% of Total

Total Valid

Methow Trail Users 141 66.8% 41 19.4% 0 0.0% 29 13.7% 211Methow Valley Residents 106 69.3% 40 26.1% 2 1.3% 5 3.3% 153Cumulative Totals / Averages 247 68.1% 81 22.8% 2 0.7% 34 8.5% 364 Source: Resource Dimensions, 2015

Respondents indicating that they (or a family member) had purchased a Methow Trails pass of any kind in the past 12 months were asked to report all types of passes purchased. The majority of trail users purchased a Day Pass (60.5%), whereas the majority of residents (57.8%) purchased an Individual Annual Pass (Table 29).

Table 29. Methow Trails pass types purchased

# % # % # % # %Trail Users 95 60.5% 41 26.1% 4 2.5% 17 10.8% 157Residents 29 25.0% 67 57.8% 4 3.4% 16 13.8% 116Cumulative Totals / Averages 124 42.8% 108 41.9% 8 3.0% 33 12.3% 273

Respondent Group

Day Individual Annual Midweek Season Individual Lifetime Total Passes


In the next question, directed toward those purchasing Day Passes, respondents were asked to estimate the amounts spent by them and their household on Day Passes over the past 12 months. 83.2% of trail user respondents spent between $50 and $499 in the past 12 months (compared with 75% of resident respondents) (Table 30).


Table 30. Amounts spent on Day Passes over the past 12 months

Amount in past 12 months

Residents Trail UsersCumulative

Totals / Averages

$0 to $49Number 4 9 13% of Total 16.7% 9.5% 10.9%





$500 to $1,000Number 2 5 7% of Total 8.3% 5.3% 5.9%


Respondents were then asked whether they are a member of Methow Trails, or if they made a donation to the organization. 62.1% of resident respondents indicated they are a member or had made a donation, compared with 47.4% of trail user respondents (Table 31).

Table 31. Member of or made donation to Methow Trails

# % # % # % # %Trail Users 71 33.6% 100 47.4% 11 5.2% 29 13.7% 211Residents 95 62.1% 36 23.5% 15 9.8% 7 4.6% 153Cumulative Totals / Averages 166 47.9% 136 35.5% 26 7.5% 36 9.2% 364


Yes No Don't Know No Response


Part III of the survey, questions 14 through 29, pertained to use of the Methow Valley trail network. Although the majority of this section of the survey was directed to visitors and part-time visitors, all respondents could complete questions within the section, as applicable. Thus, the total number of respondents providing answers to any given question in the section is variable. Results from this portion of the survey are therefore discussed and shown for this subsample of respondents.


In question 14, respondents were asked whether they use Methow Valley trails. 96.7% of resident respondents indicated they do use Methow Valley trails, compared with 81.0% of visitor respondents (Table 32). 18.5% of trail users did not respond.

Table 32. Use of Methow Valley trails

% # % # % #Trail Users 171 81.0% 1 0.5% 39 18.5% 211Residents 148 96.7% 1 0.7% 4 2.6% 153Cumulative Totals / Averages 319 88.9% 2 0.6% 43 10.5% 364


Yes No No Response


Question 15 asked respondents to estimate the number of days in the past 12 months that they/their family had participated in various recreation activities in the Methow Valley. Tables 33 and 34 present the median, average and total activity-days by activity for trail users and residents, respectively.

Trail user respondents reported the highest median, average, and total activity-days for cross-country skiing, followed by hiking and walking, and mountain biking. In contrast, resident respondents reported the highest median, average and total activity-days for hiking and walking, followed by cross-country skiing, and mountain biking.

Table 33. Activity-days trail users and their families participate in

Trail UsersCross-country

skiingHiking, walking

Trail running

Snow/Fat biking

Trail-based race/event

Median Days 12 9 2 0 1Average Days 16 13 7 1 1Total Days 2,598 1,791 712 69 125

Trail UsersRoad

cyclingMountain

bikingHorseback

ridingSnow

shoeingBirding Other

Median Days 3 5 0 1 0 5Average Days 7 7 3 3 7 7Total Days 779 857 220 245 679 103



Table 34. Activity-days residents and their families participate in

ResidentsCross-country

skiingHiking, walking

Trail running

Snow/Fat biking

Trail-based race/event

Median Days 38 45 5 0 0Average Days 43 82 31 3 2Total Days 6,248 11,562 3,127 305 192

ResidentsRoad

cyclingMountain

bikingHorseback

ridingSnow

shoeingBirding Other

Median Days 12 15 0 3 2 20Average Days 26 27 10 7 21 24Total Days 3,137 3,324 1,026 845 2,061 335


Total activity-days by activity were summed for both trail users and residents. Trail users reported a total of 8,178 activity-days in the Methow Valley region for the past 12 months. Cross-country skiing represented 31.8% of activity-days, followed by hiking and walking (21.9%) and mountain biking (10.5%). The breakdown of activity-days by activity for trail users and their families, as a percent of all activity-days is presented in Figure 10.

Figure 10. Breakdown of total activity-days for trail users

Cross-country skiing, 31.8%

Hiking, walking, 21.9%

Trail running, 8.7%

Snow/Fat biking, 0.8%

Trail-based race/event, 1.5%

Road cycling, 9.5%

Mountain biking, 10.5%

Horseback riding, 2.7%

Snow shoeing, 3.0%

Birding, 8.3%

Other, 1.3%

Trail Users


Residents reported a total of 32,162 activity-days in the Methow Valley region for the past 12 months. Hiking and walking represented 35.9% of activity-days, followed by cross-country skiing


(19.4%) and mountain biking (10.3%). The breakdown of activity-days by activity for residents and their families, as a percent of all activity-days is presented in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Breakdown of total activity-days for residents

Cross-country skiing, 19.4%

Hiking, walking, 35.9%Trail running,

9.7%

Snow/Fat biking, 0.9%

Trail-based race/event, 0.6%

Road cycling, 9.8%

Mountain biking, 10.3%

Horseback riding, 3.2%

Snow shoeing, 2.6%

Birding, 6.4%

Other, 1.0%

Residents


Residents reported a total of 335 activity-days engaging in other forms of recreation in the Methow Valley, most commonly rock climbing, fly fishing, tennis, and backcountry camping. Trail users reported a total of 103 activity-days participating most commonly in off-road vehicle use, canoeing, fly fishing, rock climbing, and hunting.

Question 16 asked respondents to identify the months they have typically used Methow Valley trails, on average over the past five years. As with other questions in this section of the survey, this question aimed to get a better understanding of trail use and visitation period for winter visitors. As no similar survey has been conducted for summer visitors, it is difficult to imply the full complement for all visitors to the Methow Valley; however, we are able to draw some general conclusions.

As seen in Figure 12 the pattern of visits combined with trail use is relatively similar across both respondent groups with the exceptions of January and February. Non-resident trail users use the trails more intensely in these months than the rest of the year; residents have more equal distribution of use year-round.


Figure 12. Months respondents typically use Methow Valley trails


Figure 13 provides monthly use estimates for each respondent group.


Figure 13. Plot of months typically use Methow Valley trails

January, 12.4%

February, 13.0%

March, 6.4%

April, 3.6%

May, 7.5%

June, 8.0%July, 8.8%

August, 9.1%

September, 8.9%

October, 7.6%

November, 5.0%December, 9.9%

Trail Users

January, 9.4%

February, 9.4%

March, 8.0%

April, 6.4%

May, 8.1%

June, 8.6%July, 8.6%

August, 8.6%September,

8.7%

October, 8.2%

November, 6.8%

December, 9.3%Residents


To gain a better understanding of visit duration, question 17 was directed to respondents whose primary residence is not in the Methow Valley. Question 17 asked “How many days, on average are you likely to spend on a visit to the Methow Valley?” Trail users reported a median of six days per visit, and an average of 17.4 days per visit to the Methow Valley (Table 35). Trail users reported a total of 2,924 days visiting the Methow Valley. The question, however, did not require respondents to identify a specific timeframe, by month or otherwise, for visits.


Table 35. Average number of days per visit to the Methow Valley Trail Users #Total number respondents 168Average number of days per visit 17.4Median number of days per visit 6Total days spent visiting by all respondents 2,924


Similarly, respondents were asked to report the average number of trips per year they and their family typically had taken to the Methow Valley over the past five years. The majority of trail user respondents had taken 8 or more trips per year on average (34.6%), followed by 2 to 3 trips per year (16.6%). As would be expected, the vast majority (92.8%) of residents did not respond to the question (Table 36).

Table 36. Average number of trips per year to the Methow Valley

Average trips/year Trail Users ResidentsCumulative

Totals / Averages

1 trip per yearNumber 18 0 18% of Total 8.5% 0.0% 4.9%

2-3 trips per yearNumber 35 1 36% of Total 16.6% 0.7% 9.9%

4 to 5 trips per yearNumber 29 2 31% of Total 13.7% 1.3% 8.5%

6 to 7 trips per yearNumber 16 0 16% of Total 7.6% 0.0% 4.4%

8 or more trips per yearNumber 73 8 81% of Total 34.6% 5.2% 22.3%

Number 0 0 0% of Total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

No ResponseNumber 40 142 182% of Total 19.0% 92.8% 50.0%


Do not use/visit Methow Valley trails



In question 19 respondents were asked to indicate which day(s) of the week they were most likely to spend in the Methow Valley on a visit to the area. Results are shown in Table 37 and presented graphically in Figure 14. Saturday and Sunday are peak days for both trail users and residents.

Table 37. Days most likely to spend on a visit to the Methow Valley

Respondent Group Sun Mon Tues Wed Thu Fri SatCumulative

TotalsTrail Users 161 107 51 45 84 147 211 806Residents 14 14 13 13 12 14 15 95Totals 175 121 64 58 96 161 226 901


As seen in Figure 14, the curve for the trail user sample is generally concave. A likely explanation is that non-local trail users are more likely to visit at the weekend given work and family obligations at home that would typically preclude frequent extended weekend trips, for example. A similar curve was also observed in the 2005 survey.

The resident curve is limited by the small response sample. As resident responses are segregated into those reporting that the Methow Valley is their primary residence, it is expected that there is low variability in the specific days of the week residents spend there.

Figure 14. Days most likely to spend on a visit to the Methow Valley



For those visitors who stay overnight in the Methow Valley, question 20 asks respondents to identify up to three accommodation types they typically use, in preference order from a list of eight accommodation types most commonly found in the region. Table 38 reflects respondent preferences for overnight accommodation type by rank order. The most frequently selected accommodation types were a second home, a cabin or lodge rental, or a hotel or motel. In 2005, the most frequently selected accommodation types were (in order): a cabin or lodge rental, an inn or a bed & breakfast, or a hotel or motel (Resource Dimensions, 2005).

The ‘Other’ alternative provided respondents an opportunity to identify an accommodation type not listed. For trail users selecting ‘Other’ the most frequently provided responses were Rendezvous hut (4), hostel (3), and primitive camping on public land (3).

Table 38. Preference ranking for accomodations in the Methow Valley

Accomodation TypeRespondent Group




Total ValidCumulative

TotalTrail Users 13 10 24 47Residents 0 0 1 1Trail Users 12 15 10 37Residents 0 1 2 3Trail Users 79 2 2 83Residents 3 0 0 3Trail Users 8 15 21 44Residents 1 3 0 4Trail Users 0 4 4 8Residents 0 2 0 2Trail Users 20 29 9 58Residents 1 0 1 2Trail Users 29 34 19 82Residents 4 1 1 6

48

Inn/Bed & Breakfast 12 16 12 40

Hotel/Motel 13 10 25

86

Public Campground 9 18 21 48

Second Home 82 2 2

10

Family/Friends Home 21 29 10 60

Private Campground 0 6 4

88Cabin/Lodge Rental 33 35 20


Answers to question 21 provided additional information about respondents’ typical travel to the Methow Valley. This information helps explain unique features of the sample population that affects factors as the length of trip and the nature of activities, and expenditures made while in the area. As in the 2005 survey, the majority of trail users ‘Travel as a couple’ (52.9%), followed by ‘Travel as a family’ (27.0%) in 2015. Table 39 presents distribution statistics on travel party types for each respondent group, while Figure 15 provides graphic representation.


Table 39. Distribution of typical travel parties Residents No. of Respondents % of TotalTravel alone 1 8.3%Travel as a couple 8 66.7%Travel as a family 3 25.0%Travel on business 0 0.0%Travel with an organization 0 0.0%Travel with friends 0 0.0%Travel with other families 0 0.0%Other 0 0.0%Trail Users No. of Respondents % of TotalTravel alone 5 2.9%Travel as a couple 92 52.9%Travel as a family 47 27.0%Travel on business 0 0.0%Travel with an organization 5 2.9%Travel with friends 14 8.0%Travel with other families 1 0.6%Other 10 5.7%


Figure 15. Breakdown of typical travel parties

Travel alone, 2.9%

Travel as a couple, 52.9%

Travel as a family, 27.0%

Travel on business, 0.0%

Travel with an organization, 2.9%

Travel with friends, 8.0%

Travel with other

families, 0.6%

Other, 5.7%

Trail Users



Figure 15. Breakdown of typical travel parties (cont.)

Travel alone, 8.3%

Travel as a couple, 66.7%

Travel as a family, 25.0%

Travel on business, 0.0%

Travel with an organization,

0.0%

Travel with friends, 0.0%

Travel with other families,

0.0%Other, 0.0%

Residents


Information provided by respondents to question 23 presents critical data on the range of goods and services purchased, or expected purchases, on a typical visit to the Methow Valley. This data allows us to make some inferences about interests and needs of non-local visitors, thus facilitating estimates necessary for the economic impact analysis. Results are presented in Table 40.


Table 40. Expenditures on goods and services during a typical visit

Item/Category of Goods & ServicesRespondent Group

No. Reporting

Total $ per average visit

Avg. $ spent per average visit

Trail Users 98 38,390$ 392$ Residents 4 1,030$ 258$ Trail Users 160 22,795$ 142$ Residents 8 3,600$ 450$ Trail Users 155 25,650$ 165$ Residents 8 1,300$ 163$ Trail Users 109 11,675$ 107$ Residents 8 2,540$ 318$ Trail Users 74 3,455$ 47$ Residents 7 250$ 36$ Trail Users 140 9,680$ 69$ Residents 9 1,925$ 214$ Trail Users 90 4,258$ 47$ Residents 6 715$ 119$ Trail Users 166 2,378$ 14$ Residents 16 4,375$ 273$ Trail Users 54 250$ 5$ Residents 6 1,200$ 200$ Trail Users 70 1,305$ 19$ Residents 6 455$ 76$ Trail Users 23 1,835$ 80$ Residents 2 150$ 75$ Trail Users 104 121,671$ 1,175$ Residents 7 17,540$ 2,412$

139,211$ 3,587$ Total reported combined for average Methow Valley visit

Entertainment (e.g. videos, concerts, cinema/theatre, events, etc.)

Other

Accomodations/Lodging

Total respondent reported expenditures

Fuel (gas, oil, other)

Gifts/ Souvenirs (e.g., arts, crafts, regional specialties, etc.) Medical/Dental/Other Professional services

Auto repair

Groceries/Beverages/Snacks

Food – Restaurant meals/Fast-foods/BarPurchase of Recreational Equipment/Supplies (e.g., skiing, Rental of Sports Equipment (e.g., skis, boats, bikes, etc.)


Analysis of reporting respondent expenditures reflects expected differences in expenditure patterns between the two respondent groups with an average trail user (local, resident, non-local) per party per trip expenditure of $1,793 per trip ($1,175 non-resident users and $2,412 resident users).

In 2005, trail user respondents reported spending an average of $1,475 ($2005 dollars) per average visit to the Methow Valley, whereas residents reported spending an average of $1,462 ($2005 dollars) on an average visit (Resource Dimensions, 2005).

Question 23 asked respondents “How important is the network of ski / bike / hiking / running / horse /dog trails to your average visit to Methow Valley?” 79.7% and 16.3% of all trail user respondents and resident respondents, respectively, answered this question.

84.3% of trail users and 76.0% of residents responding indicated the trail network was the ‘most important’ factor to their average visit to the Methow Valley, with another 14.5% and 20.0%,


respectively, indicating the trail network was ‘very important’ (Table 41). Figure 16 presents views by respondent group on the importance of the trail network to their average visit.

Table 41. Importance of trail network to average visit

# % # % # % # %Trail Users 140 84.3% 24 14.5% 2 1.2% 0 0.0% 45 166Residents 19 76.0% 5 20.0% 0 0.0% 1 4.0% 128 25Cumulative Totals / Averages 159 83.2% 29 15.2% 2 1.0% 1 0.5% 173 191

Respondent Group No Response

Total Valid

Most Important Very Important Somewhat Important Not Important


Figure 16. Important of trail network to average visit

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Most Important

Very Important

Somewhat Important

Not Important

No.

of r

espo

nden

ts

Trail Users

Methow Valley Residents


The importance of the trail network to visiting the area seems to be more important in 2015 than in 2005. 74.2% of trail users reported the trail network was ‘most important’ to their average visit in 2005; 71.7% of residents reported that the trail network was ‘most important’ (Resource Dimensions, 2005).

Questions 24 and 25 explore the nature of the relationship between Methow Valley trails and real estate purchasing decisions. Question 24 asks respondents if they have ever considered purchasing real estate in the Methow Valley. 24.2% of trail users and 16.3% of residents answered this question. Of this, 88.8% of trail users and 96.0% of residents had considered purchasing real estate in the Methow Valley, a combined 89.7% of respondents (Table 42). This compares to 82.0% of the 2005 study respondents indicating that they had considered buying real estate in the Methow Valley (Resource Dimensions, 2005).


Table 42. Considered purchasing real estate in the Methow Valley

Respondent Group Yes % of Total No % of TotalNo

ResponseTotal Valid

Trail Users 142 88.8% 18 11.3% 51 160Residents 24 96.0% 1 4.0% 128 25Cumulative Totals / Averages 166 89.7% 19 10.3% 179 185


Next, question 25 asked, for those respondents answering ‘Yes’ to question 24, “how important is the network of ski / bike / hiking / running / horse / dog trails to your interest in purchasing real estate in the Methow Valley?” This question was designed (both in 2005 and in 2015) to reveal a relationship between those who have considered purchasing real estate in the Methow Valley, and the values they hold regarding the importance of the region’s trail network.

As shown in Table 43, for the total set of respondents that indicated “Yes” to question 24, there is a strong positive relationship between their interest and the network of Methow Valley trails.

We found that an average of 71.8% of all respondents indicated that the trail network was ‘most important’ in their considerations over purchasing real estate in the Methow Valley. Another 27.6% indicated that the trail network was ‘very important’ in their considerations. To test this, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient test was run on the relationship. Spearman’s coefficient is r = 0.84031, indicating a very strong correlation.

Table 43. Importance ranking of trail network to consideration of real estate purchase

# % # % # %Trail Users 109 72.7% 41 27.3% 0 0.0%Residents 16 66.7% 7 29.2% 0 0.0%Cumulative Totals / Averages 125 71.8% 48 27.6% 0 0.0%

# % # %Trail Users 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 150Residents 1 4.2% 0 0.0% 0 24Cumulative Totals / Averages 1 0.6% 0 0.0% 2 174

Don't Know No Response Total Valid

Respondent Group

Respondent Group Most Important Very Important Somewhat Important

Not Important


In 2005, an average 65.0% of all respondents reported that the trail network was ‘most important’ in their considerations of purchasing real estate in the Methow Valley. 27.6% of 2005 respondents (the same as in 2015) indicated that the trail network was ‘very important’. The Spearman’s coefficient in 2005 was r = 0.92387, which indicated “a very strong correlation” (Resource Dimensions, 2005).


Several questions pertained to the Kids Ski for Free program. Question 26 asked respondents whether they have taken advantage of this program. 56.4% of trail user respondents indicated they did not take advantage of the Kids Ski for Free program; 45.8% of resident respondents indicated the same (Table 44).

Table 44. Taken advantage of Kids Ski for Free program


No% of Total

No Response

% of Total

Total Valid

Trail Users 47 22.3% 119 56.4% 45 21.3% 211Residents 21 13.7% 70 45.8% 62 40.5% 153Cumulative Totals / Averages 68 18.7% 189 51.9% 107 29.4% 364 Source: Resource Dimensions, 2015

Question 27 was directed toward those reporting they had taken advantage of the Kids Ski for Free program, respondents were asked whether the program helped motivate their family to take their trip. 4.7% of trail users indicated that the program did, compared with 19.0% of residents (Table 45). 51.1% of trail users reported that the program did not help motivate them to take their trip; 42.9% of residents reported the same.

Table 45. Kids Ski for Free program a motivating factor for trip

Respondent Group Yes % of Total No % of TotalNo

Response% of Total

Total Valid

Trail Users 21 44.7% 24 51.1% 2 4.3% 47Residents 4 19.0% 9 42.9% 8 38.1% 21Cumulative Totals / Averages 25 36.8% 33 48.5% 10 14.7% 68


Those who reported that the Kids Ski for Free program helped motivate to take their trip were asked to continue to the next question, which asked if their family changed its spending habits when taking advantage of the Kids Ski for Free program. Respondents were asked to select all applicable statements.

The majority of trail user respondents indicated that they spent more freely on goods and services they typically purchase (38.3%). The number of respondents reporting on question 28 limits drawing broader conclusions (Table 46).


Table 46. Change in spending habits when taking advantage of Kids Ski for Free program Change Trail Users Residents Total % of TotalSpent more time in Methow Valley than would typically 10 2 12 25.5%Spent more freely on goods and services than normal 18 0 18 38.3%Visited Methow Valley more frequently than normal 8 2 10 21.3%Did not change spending habits 6 1 7 14.9%Total Valid 42 5 47 Source: Resource Dimensions, 2015

Question 29, the final question of Part III, asked respondents to indicate if they have ever participated in any organized special events on Methow Valley trails, such as a Nordic ski race, a trail run, or ski clinics. 48.3% of trail user respondents indicated they had, compared with 59.5% of resident respondents (Table 47).

Table 47. Participation in organization special events on Methow Valley trails


No% of Total

No Response

% of Total

Total Valid

Methow Trail Users 102 48.3% 64 30.3% 45 21.3% 211Methow Valley Residents 91 59.5% 33 21.6% 29 19.0% 153Cumulative Totals / Averages 193 53.0% 97 26.6% 74 20.3% 364


Participation in special events by both respondent groups was markedly higher in 2015 than 2005. In 2005, 35.6% and 33.5% of trail users and residents, respectively, reported that they participated in organized special events on Methow Valley trails (Resource Dimensions, 2005).


SECTION FIVE: SURVEY FINDINGS – METHOW VALLEY BUSINESSES

5.1 INTRODUCTION This section reports the results of the Methow Valley business survey. Additionally, this section describes changes in business activities that have occurred since the 2005 study. The study team employed a survey protocol similar to those used in the 2005 and 1998 studies; however, the question set was refined to align with current conditions and interests.

The business survey provided a format for area businesses to impart invaluable information and express their views on the relationships between the trails network and related recreation, and various dimensions of the local economy. Allowing the exchange through a confidential and anonymous survey ensures higher response rates and candid and sincere responses.

Several survey questions asked respondents to consider visitors to Methow Valley. A visitor was defined on the survey as ‘a person who does not consider the Methow Valley their primary place of residence’.

5.2 REGIONAL BUSINESS DEMOGRAPHICS & CHARACTERISTICS The first question of the survey asked respondents to report where their business is located within the Methow Valley. Given area demographics (Table 2) and the extent of the built environment and infrastructure across the Methow Valley, the distribution of businesses shown in Table 48 fairly reflects the dispersal of area businesses.

64 │Resource Dimensions

Table 48. Respondent businesses by location No. of

respondents1

1.1%6

6.6%0

0.0%2

2.2%27

29.7%46

50.5%5

5.5%4

4.4%91

Twisp

Winthrop

Other

Total Valid

% of Total

% of Total

% of Total

% of TotalUnincorporated Okanogan Co.

Business Location

Carlton% of Total

% of Total

% of Total

Mazama

Pateros% of Total

Methow


The breakdown of respondents is graphically depicted in Figure 17 to emphasize the variation in business density across the Methow Valley.

Figure 17. Shares of respondent businesses by location

Carlton, 1.1% Pateros, 2.2% Other, 4.4% Unincorporated County, 5.5%

Mazama, 6.6%

Twisp, 29.7%

Winthrop, 50.5%


In question 2, respondents were asked to identify the type of business they manage or own from a list of 18 business classifications. Respondents were asked to identify all applicable classifications. Where a business fit under more than one classification, respondents were asked to report the


classification that best describes the business they manage or own. The majority of reporting businesses are identified as being within the service sector, as were the majority of reporting businesses in the 2005 study (Table 49).

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) generally defines the service sector as encompassing all workers not involved in agriculture, mining, construction, and manufacturing (goods production) activities. The only respondent businesses falling outside the service sector includes those ‘Construction and related trades’ at 5.1% and agricultural and manufacturing industry respondents located within the composite 8.5% ‘Other’ classification.

Table 49. Respondent businesses by type

1° 2° 3° 4°

Restaurant 5 2 7Lodging/Accommodations 15 1 16Campgrounds 4 1 5Grocery Store/Convenience Store 2 2 1 5Recreation Equipment/Supplies 4 1 1 6General Merchandise 3 1 1 5Equipment Rental 1 1 2Tours & Outfitters 1 2 1 4Gas Station 3 1 4Art, Gifts, Souvenirs, Crafts 3 7 1 11Technology 1 1Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 10 1 11Health Care and related businesses 6 6Social Assistance 2 1 3Construction and related trades 5 1 6Auto Repair and Maintenance 1 1Entertainment 6 2 8Real Estate 4 2 6Other 10 10Total Valid 83 23 4 7 117

Business Type/Classification# of Businesses Reporting by

Primary ActivitiesTotal Reporting

Businesses by Activity


Figure 18 illustrates the total shares of respondent businesses, by type. Where a business reported two business classifications, shares for both types are represented.


Figure 18. Total respondent businesses by type



Question 3 asked respondents to report the length of time they has been in business in the Methow Valley; results are reported in Table 50, and graphically in Figure 19. 63.4% of respondents reported that they had been in business 10 years or more; 33% of respondents report that they have been in business 20 years or more. This compares to an average length of time in business of 8.28 years (standard deviation of 2.64 years) from the 2005 study, and average of 6.8 years as reported by 53 area businesses in the 1998 study (Resource Dimensions, 2005; RJR & Associates, 1998)

Table 50. Length of time in business in the Methow Valley

Year(s) in BusinessNo. Business Respondents

% of Total Respondents

Less than 1 year 3 3.2%1 to 2 years 5 5.4%3 to 5 years 14 15.1%6 to 9 years 12 12.9%10 to 14 years 15 16.1%15 to 19 years 13 14.0%20 years or more 31 33.3%Total Valid 93


Figure 19. Length of time in business in the Methow Valley

Less than 1 year, 3.2%

1 to 2 years, 5.4%

3 to 5 years, 15.1%

6 to 9 years, 12.9%

10 to 14 years, 16.1%

15 to 19 years, 14.0%

20 years or more, 33.3%


In question 4, respondents were asked to identify the status of their business organization from the list provided, and/or to provide their own if not indicated. Responses (Table 51) were relatively similar to those in the 2005 study. However, sole proprietorships constitute a lesser share in 2015, while limited liability partnerships and limited liability companies constitute a greater share.


As reported in Section 2.1 (Table 2), Methow Valley residents in general have high education levels and significant work experience. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the Methow Valley exhibits a preponderance of human capital.8 Another indicator of this is the high number of small businesses and sole proprietors. Human capital is important when discussing a region’s economy and related economic impacts given the dimensions of entrepreneurial activities, and therefore, jobs within a geographic area.

Table 51. Business organization status

Business Organization# of Businesses

Reporting% of Businesses

ReportingSole Proprietorship 28 30.4%

General Partnership 2 2.2%

Limited Partnership 1 1.1%

Non-Profit 9 9.8%

Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) or Company (LLC)

27 29.3%

Corporation 21 22.8%

Other 4 4.3%Total Valid 92


Questions 5 and 6 centered on employment, asking respondents to provide the number of their full-time equivalent (FTE) employees and part-time equivalent (PTE) employees employed by season. Summer is peak season for both full-time and part-time employment in the Methow Valley, consistent with the 2005 study.

Based on the summer season, 47.3% of the respondents report one to four FTEs and 41.9% of respondents report one to four PTEs. Sole proprietors made up 30.1% of the sample (Table 52).

There are shifts in employment as compared to the 2005 study. The average number of FTEs per employer is the same in both the 2005 and 2015 studies; however, 2015 respondents report full-time employment is significantly higher in the summer and fall seasons than the spring and winter seasons. 2005 respondents reported similar levels of FTEs in the fall, winter and spring seasons, and less of a spread between those seasons and summer.

Part-time employment was reported by 2015 respondents to average 2.4 PTEs per employer, a decrease of 1.6 PTEs as reported in the 2005 study. Winter part-time employment and fall part-time employment decreased by 2.6 PTEs and 2.4 PTEs, respectively.

8 Human capital is a term used to quantify a person or community’s productivity level, and is measured by one’s level of skill, education, and work experience.


Survey respondents report an annualized average total of 664 jobs, equating to 439 FTE and 225 PTE jobs.

Table 52. Numbers of FTEs and PTEs reported by season

SeasonFTEs Seasonal

Total% of Total Annual

FTEsAvg. FTEs per

Employer 2015Avg. FTEs per

Employer 2005Winter 262 14.9% 2.8 4.3Spring 360 20.5% 3.9 4.3Summer 620 35.3% 6.7 5.7Fall 514 29.3% 5.5 4.6Annual average 439 4.7 4.7

SeasonPTEs Seasonal

Total% of Total Annual

PTEsAvg. PTEs per

Employer 2015Avg. PTEs per

Employer 2005Winter 192 21.4% 2.1 4.7Spring 235 26.1% 2.5 3.5Summer 269 29.9% 2.9 3.2Fall 203 22.6% 2.2 4.6Annual average 225 2.4 4.0


While the above does not represent a full accounting of all jobs and employment in the Methow Valley, it does provide a solid core sample, which allows for the development of well-reasoned estimates relative to economic impacts for the region.

5.3 DEPENDENCE ON RESOURCE-BASED TOURISM Question 7 asked respondents about the extent to which their business’ peak season(s) depend on visitors. As reported in Table 53, over 48.4% of respondents indicated that their peak business season(s) are ‘highly dependent on visitors’, while another 23.7% indicated that their peak business seasons are ‘somewhat dependent on visitors’ (totaling 72.1%). In the 2005 study, 41.6% of respondents indicated their peak business season(s) were ‘dependent on tourists’, and 34.3% of respondents indicated their peak business season(s) were ‘somewhat dependent on tourists’ (Resource Dimensions, 2005).


Table 53. Dependence of peak business season(s) on visitors

Dependence on visitors# of

Businesses Reporting

% of Businesses Reporting

Highly dependent 45 48.4%Somewhat dependent 22 23.7%Not dependent 15 16.1%Don’t know 1 1.1%No Response 10 10.8%Total Valid 93


Figure 20 graphically illustrates the information presented in Table 53.

Figure 20. Peak season(s) dependency on visitors

Highly dependent ,

48.4%

Somewhat dependent,

23.7%

Not dependent,

16.1%

Don’t know, 1.1%

No Response, 10.8%


Question 8 asked respondents to indicate whether over the course of their time in business in the Methow Valley they perceived the number of visitors who came to the Methow Valley to take advantage of its trail network had generally increased, stayed the same or declined. 23.7% of respondents indicated that the number of trail-related visitors had ‘increased significantly’, and 28.0% indicated that the number of trail-related visitors had ‘increased somewhat’ (Table 54). As seen in Figure 21, nearly 51.6% of respondents indicate that there has been growth of trail-related visitors over the course of time they have been in business in the Methow Valley. 23.7% of respondents reported that they ‘don’t know’.


Table 54. Growth in trail-related visitors over time in business Methow Valley recreational trail users and resource-based tourism over period in business has:

# of Businesses reporting

% of Businesses reporting

Increased significantly 22 23.7%Increased somewhat 26 28.0%Stayed the same 9 9.7%Declined somewhat 2 2.2%Declined significantly 1 1.1%Don’t know 22 23.7%No Response 11 11.8%Total Valid 93


Figure 21. Perceptions of trail-related visitor growth

Increased significantly,

23.7%

Increased somewhat,

28.0%Stayed the same, 9.7%

Declined somewhat,

2.2%

Declined significantly,

1.1%

Don’t know, 23.7%

No Response, 11.8%


In the 2005 study, 50.4% of respondents indicated that ‘the number of people who come to the area to take advantage of recreational trails and the natural beauty of the Valley’ had generally ‘increased significantly’ over their time in business, and 37.2% indicated that number had ‘increased somewhat’ over their time in business (Resource Dimensions, 2005).

The difference in question wording between the 2005 and 2015 surveys may have contributed to the shift in responses. The 2015 survey question wording specifies ‘the number of visitors’ whereas the 2005 survey specifies ‘the number of people’. It is possible that 2005 survey respondents construed ‘the number of people’ to consist of visitors and new full-time and part-time residents of the Methow Valley.


5.4 ATTITUDES, VALUES & PERCEPTIONS Question 9 asked respondents to identify the importance of various groups in generating revenue for their business. Table 55 reflects the aggregate of responses, while Figure 22 illustrates the relative distribution. As in the 2005 study, ‘Recreational Visitors’ received the highest percentage of ‘Very Important’ responses among these groups. Overall, ‘Part-time Valley Residents’ were considered relatively less important than the other three groups.

Table 55. Importance of revenue generating groups to businesses

Visitor Types/Groups Very Important Important

Somewhat Important

Not Very Important


Total Respondents

Recreational Visitors 41 18 8 8 7 82General Visitors / Non-recreational Visitors

34 18 12 9 9 82

Full-time Valley Residents 37 14 13 11 8 83Part-time Valley Residents 31 17 15 10 10 83


Figure 22. Relative importance of revenue generating groups to businesses



Table 56 reports responses for the categories ‘Very Important’, ‘Important’ and ‘Somewhat Important’. 81.7% of respondents indicated ‘Recreational Visitors’ have some level of importance. Respondents reported aggregated importance levels of 75.9% and higher for all groups.

Table 56. Levels of importance of revenue generating groups

Revenue GroupsVery

Important% Important %

Somewhat Important

%Total

Responses% of

Respondents

Recreational Visitors 41 50.0% 18 22.0% 8 9.8% 67 81.7%General Visitors / Non-recreational Visitors

34 41.5% 18 22.0% 12 14.6% 64 78.0%

Full-time Valley Residents 37 44.6% 14 16.9% 13 15.7% 64 77.1%Part-time Valley Residents 31 37.3% 17 20.5% 15 18.1% 63 75.9%Source: Resource Dimensions, 2015

Similarly, question 10 asked respondents to identify the importance of various recreation-related groups in generating revenue. Table 57 reflects the aggregate of responses, while Figure 23 illustrates the relative distribution graphically. ‘Hikers and Trail Runners’ received the greatest number of ‘Very Important’ selections (29), followed by ‘Cross-Country skiers’ (28) and ‘Cyclists’ (27). In the 2005 study, ‘Cross-Country Skiers’ received the greatest number of ‘Very Important’ selections (46), followed by ‘Mountain bikers’ and ‘Nature enthusiasts’ (39) and ‘Mountain bikers’ (38) (Resource Dimensions, 2005). The recreation activities included in each group changed in the 2015 survey, which may have contributed to differences reported in the two studies, preventing a direct comparison.

Table 57. Importance of recreation-related revenue generating groups to businesses

Visitor Types/GroupsVery

ImportantImportant

Somewhat Important

Not Very Important


Total Respondents

X-Country skiers 28 16 15 11 9 79Hikers and Trail runners 29 23 12 9 7 80Cyclists (all) 27 20 16 9 7 79Recreational event participants 21 19 21 10 7 78Nature enthusiasts; Wildlife viewers; Birders

20 18 27 8 7 80

Anglers and Hunters 14 13 28 12 11 78Campers and Backpackers 11 18 23 16 10 78Motorized recreationists 18 18 19 12 12 79



Figure 23. Relative importance of recreation-related revenue generating groups

Source: Resource Dimensions, 2015 ¹/Recreational events; ²/Includes wildlife viewers and birders.


Table 58 reports responses for the ‘Very Important’, ‘Important’ and ‘Somewhat Important’ categories. The percentage of respondents identifying recreation-related revenue generating groups at some importance was highest for ‘Nature enthusiasts, Wildlife Viewers, Birders’, ‘Hikers and Trail Runners’ and ‘Cyclists’ categories at 81.3%, 80.0% and 79.7%, respectively. Respondents reported aggregated importance levels of 66.7% and higher for all groups.

In comparison, ‘Mountain Bikers’ (83.2%), ‘Hikers’ and ‘Nature enthusiasts’ (81.8%) and ‘Participants in recreational events’ (79.6%) were reported to have the highest levels of importance as recreation-related revenue generating groups in the 2005 study. 2005 respondents reported aggregated importance levels of 70.8% and higher for all groups (Resource Dimensions, 2005).

Table 58. Levels of importance of recreation-related revenue generating groups

Revenue Groups Very Important

% Important % Somewhat Important

% Total Responses

% of Respondents

X-Country skiers 28 35.4% 16 20.3% 15 19.0% 59 74.7%Hikers and Trail runners 29 36.3% 23 28.8% 12 15.0% 64 80.0%Cyclists (all) 27 34.2% 20 25.3% 16 20.3% 63 79.7%Recreational event participants 21 26.9% 19 24.4% 21 26.9% 61 78.2%Nature enthusiasts; Wildlife viewers; Birders 20 25.0% 18 22.5% 27 33.8% 65 81.3%Anglers and Hunters 14 17.9% 13 16.7% 28 35.9% 55 70.5%Campers and Backpackers 11 14.1% 18 23.1% 23 29.5% 52 66.7%Motorized recreationists 18 22.8% 18 22.8% 19 24.1% 55 69.6%


In question 11, respondents were asked to estimate the percentage of their average annual gross revenues attributable to all visitors, over the time that they have been in business in the Methow Valley. 35.5% of respondents indicated that at least 75% of their business’ annual gross revenues are attributable to visitors (Table 59), indicating a local economy significantly dependent on visitors. This proportion declined slightly from that reported by the 2005 study (40.2%).

Table 59. Proportions of average annual revenues attributable to all visitors Percentage of annual gross revenues estimated from ALL visitors

# of Respondents

% of Respondents

0-20% of gross 25 26.9%21-49% of gross 9 9.7%50-74% of gross 9 9.7%75-90% of gross 6 6.5%91-100% of gross 27 29.0%No Response 17 18.3%Total Valid 93



Respondents were asked to estimate the percentages of average annual gross revenues, by season, attributable to those visitors that use the Methow Valley trail network for non-motorized recreation. These types of users include hikers, runners, cyclists, skiers, birders, and those attending special recreational events.

The breakdown of average annual gross revenues by season attributable to non-motorized recreation users is reported in Table 60. The greatest revenue generating season attributable to these users was reported to be summer (39.0% of annual gross revenues), followed by winter (35.9%). In the 2005 study the greatest revenue generating season attributable to non-motorized recreational users was reported to be winter (44.1%), followed by summer (41.5%) (Resource Dimensions, 2005).

Table 60. Seasonal average annual gross revenues attributed to non-motorized recreation users

Winter Spring Summer FallTotal 71 72 74 72

0-20% 38 43 28 4121-40% 7 9 9 1041-60% 4 10 20 961-80% 7 9 11 1081-100% 15 1 6 2

Avg. % Gross Revenue 35.9% 25.3% 39.0% 28.1%

No. of Reporting BusinessesRevenue Band


Figure 24 presents the distribution of businesses by revenue bands by season.


Figure 24. Revenue bands, seasonal average annual gross revenues

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%

No.

of r

espo

nden

ts

Revenue Bands / Percent of Seasonal Income

Winter

Spring

Summer

Fall


The final question asked respondents to consider the level that business would be willing to contribute on an annual basis toward a Methow Trails Business Membership. 22.4% of respondents indicated they were willing to contribute at the $51 to $100 level, and 19.7% of respondents would be willing to contribute at the $1 to $50 level (Table 61). 23.7% were unsure whether they would contribute, are already Business Membership holders, or require more information.

Table 61. Willing to contribute toward a Business Membership

Annual contribution# of

Respondents% of

Respondents$1 to $50 15 19.7%$51 to $100 17 22.4%More than $100 5 6.6%Other 18 23.7%Not interested 21 27.6%Total Valid 76



SECTION SIX: ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

6.1 OVERVIEW The purpose of this study is to evaluate the economic impacts of the Methow trail network on the communities of the Methow Valley. Analysis of local and/or regional economic impacts relative to resource-based activities within a particular region requires an assessment of expenditures within the region; specifically those expenditures by users of the resource-based activity or those drawn to the region by certain characteristics.

For example, many visitors to national parks are ‘day trippers’ – that is visitors who typically come for visual experiences, short nature-based walking opportunities, wildlife viewing, photography, or picnics. By virtue of the fact that these visitors have commuted to that particular park from their residences, visitors are expected to make certain local and regional expenditures; whether related specifically to their use of the resource (direct) — or not (indirect). The influence of such expenditures on specific sectors of the local and regional economy (e.g., business activities, employment, tax base, etc.), can be profound.

In this case, expenditures by Methow trail users, or on trail development, construction, or maintenance, circulate within the local and regional economies, multiplying the effects of the expenditures on overall economic activity. This process is referred to as the economic multiplier effect. It operates at several levels:

• Initial trail user and operational expenditures on goods and services, wages, materials and other trail-related expenditures are typically referred to as direct costs of operation, and their effects are referred to as direct impacts.

• Consequent purchases made by suppliers of materials and services to sustain the initial expenditures are referred to as indirect impacts.

• Expenditures by workers in the industry sectors stimulated by these initial and consequent expenditures spend their additional incomes on consumer goods and services, causing induced impacts.

The study authors have sought to distinguish expenditures between local residents and non-local visitors, to the extent possible. This aids in evaluating the levels of expenditures made by non-local visitors (an indication of ‘new money’ in the local economy), and those made by residents relative to trail use, which may or may not be new money or purchases in the local economy. The study employs a total economic impacts analysis approach; thus, both local and non-local trail user expenditure impacts are included.

The total economic impacts generated by trail users have a greater influence on the local economy than the size of the initial expenditures. Over the past several decades the Methow Valley economy


has shifted from one that is predominantly extractive (dominated by agriculture and timber industries) to one fueled by recreation-based activities and tourism. This shift has resulted in changes in the types of businesses within the region to support the generation of successive economic activity. Not only are the direct businesses important, but so are their suppliers. Businesses that are able to buy and hire locally increase secondary benefits, while those that buy and hire outside of the community decrease the magnitude of secondary benefits.

Jobs and payroll in the industry directly affected (recreation, outfitters, equipment, etc.) will not reflect the total contribution of the industry to the local economy. The extent that an industry purchases goods and services from local suppliers and businesses determines the total.

For example, the extent to which recreation-related businesses depend on wages they receive as profits to carry on their businesses are direct impacts. Purchases made by these businesses create wages and profits for the employees of suppliers of these businesses. These are indirect impacts. As workers and owners receive wages, salaries, and profits from these expenditures, they spend money for a variety of goods and services in the general economy. The resulting consumer sector income amounts are the induced impacts. The direct, indirect, and induced impacts sum to the total impacts.

6.2 ECONOMIC IMPACT METHODOLOGY Objectives of the economic impact analysis include:

• Estimation of the level of local and regional expenditures by Methow Trail users and on trail management and operations;

• Estimation of the average daily expenditures per individual; • Estimation of the sales in specific business sectors that can be attributed to Methow Trail

users and on trail management and operations9; • Estimation of the total tax revenues related to these expenditures; • Estimation of the annual impact on local and regional employment; and, • Evaluation of trail-user related expenditures and the impact on the local and regional

economies.

To accomplish these objectives, an existing economic input/output (I/O) model was used to provide applicable multipliers and coefficients and changes in local business activity to show total impacts. I/O models are used to estimate the impact of business activity changes or to calculate the contributions of an industry to a regional economy. The basic premise of the I/O framework is that each industry sells its output to other industries and final consumers and in turn purchases goods and services from other industries and primary factors of production. Therefore, the economic

9 Given the population base and relatively small number of business establishments in the study region, the availability of data for specific business categories was limited. While this does not invalidate study findings, it does constrain moving the analysis to a finer granularity with regard to identification of particular business sector impacts.


performance of each industry can be determined by changes in both final demand and the specific inter-industry relationships. I/O tables assist in calculating overall changes in the flow of money in the local and regional economy, including direct, indirect, and induced effects.

In this case, the effects are those associated with income and expenditures related to active and passive recreation on the Methow trail network. The outputs are shown as estimates of changes in employment, personal income, business output, and gross regional product (value added).10 Due to the nature of interactions between recreation elements, caution has been exercised to avoid double-counting potential benefits.

The approach used by Resource Dimensions, joins that of an I/O survey model, which involved obtaining data on the sectorial distribution of local sales for each sector, together with that of IMPLAN, an input-output economic modeling system developed for the USFS, which uses secondary data to construct estimates of local economic activity. IMPLAN can be used to construct zip code, county or multi-county I/O models for any region in the United States.11 The regional models are derived from technical coefficients of a national I/O model and localized estimates of total gross outputs by sectors. IMPLAN adjusts the national level data to fit the economic composition and estimated trade balance of a chosen region. I/O models have been constructed for Washington and each of the state’s counties.

The model based on year 2013 economic activity data for the state was customized by the six zip code areas to derive spending response coefficients for the Methow Valley. The affected expenditures and net revenues were used to reflect “representative” spending. This is called the “disaggregated” approach, because as budget line items change, overall economic impacts will

10 Employment figures represent the total jobs generated by the initial expenditures, measured in person-years. Personal Income represents the impact measure of employee wages and salaries, not including benefits, received by individuals directly employed by Methow Trails, outdoor recreation, equipment, supporting industries, and related activities. Re-spending, in turn, generates induced employment impacts (additional jobs). Direct earnings are a measure of the local impact as those directly employed in the associated activities receive the wages and salaries. Business Output (revenue impacts) are the activities of those employed in the region’s service industries (food, lodging, personal services), support services for outdoor recreation, agriculture and forestry (e.g., equipment, education, tourism, scientific research, consulting, etc.) and other activities that generate business revenue for firms that provide services. This revenue is circulated throughout the economy in several ways (e.g., to hire service providers, to purchase goods and other services, to pay facility rents, and to make tax payments). For the purpose of this study, we limit the interpretation of business revenue impacts to that which can be identified as staying within Washington (e.g., wages paid, local purchases by individuals and businesses directly dependent on the relevant operations, and contributions to state, local and federal taxes. Value added figures represent the total value of the production of goods and services in the economy resulting from the direct expenditures under analysis (valued at market prices). 11 The IMPLAN (IMpact analysis for PLANning) system was developed by the University of Minnesota for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service in cooperation with other federal agencies to assist in land and resource management planning. IMPLAN is a computerized database and modeling system that is used for constructing regional economic accounts and I/O tables. In 1993, its founders incorporated as Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. (MIG) and have expanded and improved the original system. Software and data sets are available through IMPLAN Group LLC, Huntersville, NC.


change. Calculations derived from this data were then put into IMPLAN. The IMPLAN model included appropriate multipliers at the county level to provide accurate data for total direct, indirect, and induced spending inputs.

The final step in the analysis was to apply all tabulations from the I/O model to the Methow Trails 2013-14 operating budget. In summary, expenditures to maintain and operate Methow Trails, including trail network management for the year totaled approximately $866,398. Attributable economic benefits to the state and region are represented in three forms (goods sold, tax revenue and jobs created/supported). The estimated benefits generated include, but are not limited to:

• Nearly $6.7 million dollars in direct expenditures are made annually (in 2014 dollars) to the Methow Valley economy by local and non-local trail users.

• Over $12.4 million dollars of indirect secondary expenditures made annually. • $388,551 in state, local, hotel/motel and state-shared transient lodging taxes annually. • 183.8 direct jobs generated by Methow Trails and related recreation, nature-based tourism,

retail equipment, outfitters, etc. Purchases made by these entities supported an additional 25.8 induced jobs in the region.

• The 183.8 directly employed received nearly $5.7 million of direct wages and salaries. Re-spending of this income created an additional $871,536 of income and consumption expenditures in Washington, principally in Okanogan County. Those holding indirect jobs received $982,444 in indirect income.

• 30.2 indirect jobs were supported by nearly $12.5 million of local purchases made by businesses supplying services to these firms.

• Businesses providing services to these firms received $22.1 million of revenues.

Table 62 summarizes the total economic impacts generated by the IMPLAN model related to Methow Trails operations and trail-system for the local and regional economies in 2013 (in $2014):

Table 62. Economic Impacts of Methow Trails and Related Business Activities ($2014) Methow Valley Region Jobs

Personal Income

Local Purchases

Business Revenue

Direct 183.8 5,683,299$ 8,296,142$ 14,543,969$ Indirect 30.2 982,444$ 2,252,750$ 4,321,453$ Induced 25.8 871,536$ 1,921,111$ 3,272,303$

Total 239.9 7,537,278$ 12,470,004$ 22,137,725$ Source: Resource Dimensions, 2015


6.2.1 Imports and Exports A local economy has exports and imports similar to state or national exports and imports. Exports from the local economy stimulate local economic activity. Recreational activities are called exports when they bring in ‘outside’ money from areas external to the local economy. The Methow trail network functions as an export when trail users from western Washington, for example, visit and use the trails for cross-country skiing, spending their ‘outside’ money in Methow Valley establishments.

However, the money brought into a local economy does not all stay in the local economy. This is particularly true for the smaller regional economies that are not economically self-sufficient. Many goods and services consumed in the local economy must be brought in from the outside. They are the imports to the local economy. The money that flows out of the local economy to pay for these imports is referred to as ‘leakage’.

In larger, more industrially diverse economies, there are fewer “leakages” of economic activity due to purchases from outside the region. As a result, the multiplier effects are larger. In smaller, less diverse economies where more goods and services are purchased outside the region, multiplier effects are smaller.

6.2.2 Basic Sectors Since imports take money out of the economy, it is important for smaller economies to have some exporting sectors. In I/O jargon, these are called ‘basic sectors’. The basic sectors stimulate a local economy, originating the multiplier effect by bringing in outside money. When people talk about a change in the economic base of an area, they are referring to a change in the basic business sectors.

Sectors other than basic sectors generally do not generate "new dollars," but rather operate on the circulation of dollars already present in the economy. Therefore, non-basic sectors do not initiate a multiplier effect themselves, but instead contribute to the multiplier effect of basic sectors by preventing leakage. For communities in rural Washington, the basic sectors are often resource-based. Table 63 cites some examples of basic and non-basic sectors (no order of importance is assigned).

Table 63. Examples of Basic and Non-basic Sectors Basic Sectors Non-basic SectorsRanching Medical servicesLogging and timber processing Movie theatersTourism and recreation Grocery storesTransfer payments Banking services


Transfer payments include: social security payments, retirement payments, and non-local government salaries. Activities such as fishing, for example, being a form of resource-based


recreation, would be considered a basic sector industry for that portion of expenditures made by anglers whose residence is other than in the area they are fishing.

6.3 ECONOMIC IMPACTS IN CONTEXT The Methow Trails network is clearly recognized by residents and visitors as an asset for the region, supported by the survey findings reported in Sections 4 and 5. The diverse attendance segments of the trail network have had significant impacts on the growth of tourism in the region over the past several decades, in addition to providing an active and passive recreation resource used extensively by local residents.12 Consequently, there has been both growth and diversification of establishments to capture tourism dollars throughout the Valley.

With regard to user expenditures detailed earlier in Section 4 of this report, trail users (local, non-local, resident) who had purchased goods and services within the Methow Valley on their visit spent an average of $299 per person per day.13 This compares to an estimated average of $244 per person per day in 2005 (Resource Dimensions, 2005).

In addition, expenditures by trail users result in multiplier effects – indirect and induced impacts. Indirect impacts occur as firms purchase materials from local suppliers who in turn employ workers and purchase materials. Induced impacts typically occur when wages paid to workers in supporting industries are spent on locally produced goods and services.

The magnitude of indirect and induced impacts depends on many factors, including:

• Where workers live and spend their income; • Where supplies, material and equipment needed for projects are purchased; and, • The extent to which organizational support, trail development and maintenance, and

related projects are funded by out-of-region sources.

When local funds are used, residents and businesses will have that much less income to spend on other goods and services in the regional economy, thus representing a shift in the local economy’s product mix rather than net new economic activity. At the local and regional level, Methow trails and related resource-based recreation activities result in net positive economic benefits, which increase the extent that out-of-area funding is received.

12 Passive recreation typically refers to low-impact recreation such as hiking, nature study areas, wildlife viewing, scenic vistas and areas of natural beauty. Active recreation generally includes activities with higher impact, including organized sports, mountain biking, equestrian riding, camping, boating, etc. 13 The median stay for all visiting trail users (non-local, non-resident/second home visitors) to the Methow Valley is about 6 days, during which they spend $1,793 locally on average. Given the limitations of the study, these figures exclude travel time to/from the Methow Valley and other pre/post destination related expenditures.


6.4 DIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACTS Direct impacts are those economic impacts that occur as a consequence of outdoor recreation services and related tourism services provided by the natural environment that supports the trail network. These impacts principally represent expenditures by Methow Trails and other firms or organizations that carry out related activities and governmental agencies that provide a range of related support services.

6.4.1 Employment Impacts Table 64 presents a summary of direct economic impacts of the trail network. The total direct employment impacts result in about 184 jobs, which generate an estimated $5,823,299 in personal income impact for the region.

As the goods and services provided by natural systems are different in character to those of a proposed development or transportation project, for example, employment impacts typically remain fairly stable. Additionally, the types of labor required for a significant proportion of both full-time and part-time jobs include a more specialized workforce than is typical of many economic generators.

Total annual earnings (employee compensation) are estimated at $7,537,278. Total contribution to the local economy (value-added) is estimated at $12,470,004; supported by about 199 jobs.

Table 64. Summary of Estimated Employment Impacts ($2104) Direct

Jobs 183.8 30.2 25.8 239.9Personal Income 5,683,299$ 982,444$ 871,536$ 7,537,278$ Local Purchases 8,296,142$ 2,252,750$ 1,921,111$ 12,470,004$

Total EffectInducedIndirect


6.4.2 Tax Impacts The State of Washington, Okanogan County, and the communities of the Methow Valley experience increases in sales tax revenue from expenditures made by trail users and other visitors involved in resource-based recreation in the Methow Valley. Business and Occupation (B&O) taxes are collected by the state on gross receipts of firms/businesses involved in enterprises related to travel, tourism and recreation-based activities. From totals generated by IMPLAN and other methods, we estimate that an annual average B&O tax contribution of $208,356 is directly or indirectly attributable to the trail network.

Okanogan County and the communities of the Methow Valley also experience increases in local sales tax revenues from taxes collected on the sale of goods and services generated by a range of purchases that may be attributed in whole or in part to trail user (non-local, local and/or resident) and other resource-centered recreational user spending. As shown in Section 4, a large proportion of these expenditures are on lodging, food, and services. These expenditures and resulting increases


in sales tax revenues include those related to professionals providing a range of specialized services centered on the development and maintenance of trails.

Okanogan County is the recipient of transient lodging tax receipts and additional local option taxes collected from lodgings in the unincorporated areas of the Methow Valley. Tax receipt distributions, for Twisp and Winthrop alone, attributable to all trail users and other visitors attracted to the Methow Valley’s open space and outdoor recreation opportunities over the 2012-2014 period, represent an average 24.1% of Okanogan County’s regular state-shared lodging tax, and about 31.3% of the county’s additional special lodging taxes collected. Similarly, tax receipt distributions for other areas of the Methow Valley region within unincorporated Okanogan County represent an average of 8.5% of the county’s regular state-shared lodging tax, and 7.7% of the county’s additional lodging taxes collected. Combined, from 2012-2014, the Methow Valley region’s lodging tax contributions represent an average of 71.6% of those taxes collected by Okanogan County.

Table 65 provides the breakdown of hotel/motel taxes collected between 2010 and 2014 for Twisp and Winthrop; an average of 20.4% of Okanogan County’s total for the five-year period.


Table 65. Distributions of State-Shared Hotel/Motel Taxes (2% rate) Average

$ % $ % $ % $ % $ % %Okanogan County (Total) $333,278 $366,838 $370,879 $396,110 $412,638

Twisp $ 4,206 1.3% $ 9,984 2.7% $ 9,573 2.6% $ 15,085 3.8% $ 16,842 4.1% 2.9%Winthrop $ 70,514 21.2% $ 69,284 18.9% $ 76,508 20.6% $ 79,059 20.0% $ 87,798 21.3% 20.4%

2014Geography

2010 2011 2012 2013

Source: DOR, 2015

Conservatively estimating the total transient lodging tax revenues attributable to trail users for the period, we calculate an annual average of $86,702 for the Methow Valley (incorporated and unincorporated areas) inclusive of disclosable records.

Additional local option tax distributions to Okanogan County and the cities of Twisp and Winthrop are shown in Table 66. On average for the period, Winthrop averaged 27.7% and Twisp averaged 2.7% of Okanogan County’s total local option taxes collected from all municipalities between 2010 and 2014.

Table 66. Distributions of Additional Local Hotel/Motel Taxes Average Rate

$ % $ % $ % $ % $ % % %Okanogan County (Total) 372,293$ 400,916$ 409,665$ 434,556$ 456,614$

Twisp 4,206$ 1.1% 9,984$ 2.5% 9,777$ 2.4% 15,085$ 3.5% 17,332$ 3.8% 2.7% 2.0%Winthrop 105,771$ 28.4% 103,925$ 25.9% 115,081$ 28.1% 118,532$ 27.3% 131,673$ 28.8% 27.7% 3.0%

2014Geography

2010 2011 2012 2013

Source: DOR, 2015


Over the five-year period, we conservatively estimate an annual average of $111,451 of additional local hotel/motel tax distributions attributable to trail users in the Methow Valley (incorporated and unincorporated areas).

In addition, an estimated $190,398 in state taxes (excluding lodging tax revenues) is collected from various activities related to recreation-based tourism associated with use of the trail network.

6.4.3 Property Values To analyze the relationship between local property values and proximity to various protected land resources, trails, forest and other resource-based amenity areas in the Methow Valley, a hedonic model was developed (as in 2005). This model assists in understanding the economic impacts of unique resource-based amenities on the marginal implicit prices of housing in the Methow Valley. Generally, we measure the marginal increase in property values that result from unit increases in particular property characteristics, holding all else constant.

The basic model is based on the hedonic price function and a set of assumptions. They are:

• That the study area can be treated as a single market for housing services, • That consumers have full information on the housing alternatives available and are able to

freely select their optimal choice of housing commodity, and • That the market for housing (property) is in equilibrium.

The hedonic model developed is represented by a dependent variable (sales price of properties 2009-2013) and a set of independent variables intended to reflect factors that influence the variability in the sales price of property. Independent variables in a hedonic pricing model are commonly organized into structural, neighborhood, and environmental/amenity variables. Data for the analysis were obtained from the Okanogan County Tax Assessor’s office and Terra Scan, Inc. through its Tax Sifter Parcel Search service for Okanogan County. Tax Sifter is a database containing comprehensive assessor information for properties. In addition to providing data on a range of structural characteristics, this database provides data on sales prices of properties based on transfer tax information. Because the data are derived directly from county assessor information, which represents a comprehensive and updated record of the characteristics and sales of all properties within a particular jurisdiction, it is considered the best available information for use in this study. The study authors considered and tested a wide range of potential independent variables for inclusion in the model.14

The results reflect the best-fitting model for explaining the relationship between local property values and proximity to protected land resources, trails, forest, and other resource-based amenity areas in the Methow Valley, which is linear in its functional form (with selective independent

14 Estimation of the hedonic property-pricing model is conceptually straightforward. A dependent variable representing the value of a property is regressed on all of the characteristics (independent variables) that have the potential to influence its value. However, identifying the appropriate independent variables to include in the final model involves extensive testing of various model specifications that are characterized by multiple definitions and combinations of variables and functional forms.


variables in non-linear form). The dependent variable is sales price adjusted to 2014 dollars using the CPI index. The independent variables fall into three main categories: structural, neighborhood/economic, and environment/amenity variables. Breakdown of model variable categories are found in Appendix C.

The selection of a preferred model for this study was based on criteria that gauge the robustness of regression-based models. These criteria include adjusted R-square, which measures the overall ‘fit’ of the model, and p-values, which measure the confidence level at which the coefficient estimate can be interpreted. The adjusted R-square for the preferred model indicates that about 82% of the variability in adjusted sales price is explained by the explanatory variables and the constant value.

The final two variables in the model, which are key variables of interest for the study and represent the amenity-based characteristics of properties in the Methow Valley, are distance to trails, public land resources (e.g. forests, wilderness areas, parks, etc.) and other amenity lands, and the nature of amenity (e.g. view, waterfront, recreation, public access, buffer to park, forest, etc.). As expected, there is a negative and statistically significant relationship between distance to trail lands and other amenity lands and property values; as the distance between a property and amenity lands increases, the lower the property value will be, holding all else constant. Conversely, properties located nearer such lands are valued higher, on average, than those properties located further away.

The hedonic price function is derived by maximizing an individual’s utility function u (X, Si, Ni, Qi), subject to income constraints given by M - Pi - X = 0, where M is income of the individual and the price of the composite commodity, X, is scaled to $1. It is assumed that preferences are weakly separable for housing and its characteristics, which allows the demand for these characteristics to be independent from the prices of other goods. Then, the first-order condition for the choice of the jth environmental amenity (qj) is:

∂ u /∂ qj ∂ Pi

∂ u / ∂ X ∂ qj

The partial derivative, ∂ Pi / ∂ qj, is the marginal implicit price of the characteristic qj. The marginal implicit price for any characteristic is the additional amount that must be paid for an additional unit of that characteristic, all else equal.

Analysis reveals a positive marginal willingness-to-pay, on average, 7.57% (or $16,297) more for properties located between 0 (on property) and 0.5 miles from particular environmental/amenity characteristics, than properties without these characteristics. For properties located between 0.5 and 1.0 miles the marginal average willingness-to-pay drops to 5.02%, or about $10,810 more, for properties near particular amenity characteristics, than for properties located further from such amenity lands.


Changes in sale price for real estate near Methow Trails and other Methow Valley amenity lands are shown in Table 67; dollar estimates are based on an estimated mean sales price of $215,228 for sales from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2013.


Table 67. Estimated change in real estate price by distance from miscellaneous amenity lands

Source: Resource Dimensions, 2015 Note: * and ** denote significance at the 1% and 5% levels, respectively.

Amenity type Distance from propertyEstimated

change in real sale price (%)

Estimated change in real sale price ($)

Amenity type Distance from propertyEstimated

change in real sale price (%)

Estimated change in real sale price ($)

on-site/adjacent to .25 mile 10.01% $21,545 on-site/adjacent to .25 mile 11.10% $23,891.26 to .5 mile 4.97% $10,691 .26 to .5 mile 6.93% $14,924.6 to 1 mile 2.70% $5,813 .6 to 1 mile 5.22% $11,2261.1 mile to 2.0 miles 0.84% $1,808 1.1 mile to 2.0 miles 2.13% $4,5942.1 mile to 3 miles 0.09% $196 2.1 mile to 3 miles 0.90% $1,930

on-site/adjacent to .25 mile 11.79% $25,378 on-site/adjacent to .25 mile 8.02% $17,260.26 to .5 mile 7.93% $17,068 .26 to .5 mile 7.02% $15,102.6 to 1 mile 3.71% $7,985 .6 to 1 mile 6.29% $13,5281.1 mile to 2.0 miles 0.67% $1,442 1.1 mile to 2.0 miles 3.68% $7,9202.1 mile to 3 miles 0.34% $732 2.1 mile to 3 miles 1.01% $2,183

on-site/adjacent to .25 mile 9.12% $19,623 on-site/adjacent to .25 mile 9.01% $19,392.26 to .5 mile 5.10% $10,984 .26 to .5 mile 4.95% $10,650.6 to 1 mile 3.05% $6,563 .6 to 1 mile 3.70% $7,9731.1 mile to 2.0 miles 0.52% $1,113 1.1 mile to 2.0 miles 0.92% $1,9842.1 mile to 3 miles 0.07% $145 2.1 mile to 3 miles 0.25% $532



National Park/Forest*

Local/Community Park**

Trail*

Open space*

Agricultural lands/Range**

Viewshed/Scenic Vista*

Recreation area*Lake/River/Stream*

Greenway/Buffer**

Wildlife/Habitat/Natural Area*


Table 68 reflects the computed average increase in real sales price, by distance, for real estate/homes near various amenity lands in the Methow Valley (e.g. protected lands, parks, trails, open space, forest, viewsheds, greenways, etc.) for the period 2009-2013.

Table 68. Average estimated change in sale price by distance from Methow Valley amenity lands (1/1/09-12/31/12)

Distance from propertyEstimated change in

real sale price (%)Estimated change in

real sale price ($)

on-site/adjacent to .25 mile 9.02% $19,412.26 to .5 mile 6.12% $13,182.6 to 1 mile 3.92% $8,4381.1 mile to 2.0 miles 1.30% $2,8032.1 mile to 3 miles 0.33% $709

Average (all amenity lands)


The composite relative average increase in sales price for properties between 0 (on property) and 0.5 miles from trails and other amenity lands is $16,297 or 7.57% of the mean property value; using the average lot size of 5.2 acres for properties sold over the five year period, the average per acre increase estimated for the sample is $15,286. The direct economic impact is higher tax revenues produced from sales of real estate with, or located proximate to, lands with particular environmental amenities.

In 2005, a similar effort was made to understand changes in sale price for real estate near the Methow trails network and other amenity lands of the Methow Valley. Dollar estimates were based on an estimated mean sales price of $158,360 for sales over the period January 1999 to December 2003 (Resource Dimensions, 2005).

Resource Dimensions found that “The composite relative average increase in sales price between 0 (on property) and 0.5 miles from trails and other amenity lands is $18,237 or 11.52% of the mean property value; using the average lot size of 0.938 acre for properties sold within the same period, the average per acre increase estimated for the sample is $17,106.” (Resource Dimensions, 2005). It is worth noting that the Methow Valley real estate market hit its recession period low in 2009. By 2013 the market began recovery, though has yet to regain market volume and depth of its peak in 2007. The effects of the recession and related decline in real estate sales, particularly larger and higher-end properties, are expected to have played a significant role in the differences between our 2005 findings and the subject study.

These findings are well supported by dozens of similar studies conducted that have used hedonic-price models to estimate land values based on proximity to natural resources and resource-based activities (Pate, et al. 2009; White and Leefers, 2007; Pincetl, et al., 2003; Irwin, 2002; Espey and Owusu-Edusei, 2001; Rameker 2000; Spahr and Sunderman, 1998).


Although our hedonic-price study is confined by the scope of the project, Resource Dimensions’ general findings indicate that real estate prices for the Methow Valley can be explained by the type and level of environmental amenities. Sales transactions for the period indicate buyers had a higher willingness to pay for lands with scenic and recreational attributes, open space, wildlife habitats, and other resource-based amenities.

6.5 INDIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACTS Indirect economic impacts include the purchases of goods and services made by businesses stimulated by direct economic impacts. Model outputs show that the professional services sector has the greatest indirect economic impact, with an estimated total indirect economic impact of $2,834,605. Other sectors with significant indirect impacts on the local and regional economy are TIPU (transportation, information, power, and utilities), retail trade, and government sectors, generating total economic impacts of $594,881, $449,233, and $279,191 respectively. All sectors combined create an estimated $4,321,453 in indirect economic impact throughout the region’s economy and a total of $22.1 million in revenue to local to state businesses (Table 62).

Indirect economic impacts also include those stemming from the benefits provided by the diverse range of goods and services generated by the natural environment (known as ecosystem services). Such goods and services include wildlife viewing, improved environmental quality, open space, wildlife habitat, educational opportunities, quality of life, hunting and fishing, and other active and passive resource-based recreation uses.

Subsequent sections explore some of the primary indirect economic benefits provided by the Methow Trails network.

6.5.1 Amenity Values Amenity values are the attributes of an area, including natural, cultural and recreational resources, which contribute to people’s enjoyment and appreciation of it. The concept of amenity value is inherently tied to what economists call ‘non-use value’. People place monetary values on natural resources that are independent of their present use of those resources. For example, some people may gain utility simply from knowing that a natural area or a species is preserved for the future (this sense of stewardship is known as ‘existence value’). Some people may gain utility from bequeathing certain environmental attributes and resources to future generations (known as ‘bequest value’).

Today, it is widely accepted that these non-use values in aggregate can be very large. For example, it is estimated that over $3.1 billion was spent in passive-use recreation for wildlife watching activities in Washington in 2011 (USFWS, 2014). As reported earlier in Sections 4 and 5, this is money spent locally on food, lodging, recreation equipment, transportation, and a range of other goods and services.


6.5.2 Environmental and Economic Health There is a range of environmental amenity values associated with the Methow Trails network, including (Resource Dimensions, 2005):

• Environmental and ecological (e.g. open space, wildlife, biodiversity, health, etc.) • Aesthetic (e.g. beauty, scenery, landscape, etc.) • Recreational access and opportunities • Educational and scientific (e.g. research, training, nature experience, K-12 opportunities) • Historical and cultural, and • Spiritual (e.g., reflection, spiritual enrichment, cognitive development).

Implicitly these environmental amenity values contribute to economic health of the local and regional economies (e.g., amenity migration or in-migration, increased tourism and related spending, community diversification, growth of the creative class, etc.). Environmental amenities have long been a factor of rural population change. However, where natural resources once attracted people seeking wealth, they now attract people in search of a pleasant environment in which to recreate and live, as is the case in the Methow Valley.

The values local residents and trail users place on the Methow Trails network for environmental amenity values cannot be readily quantified given the scope of this study. However, as reported throughout Sections 4, 5 and 6 of this study there is a strong positive relationship between trail users (local and non-local) use, experience and visits to the region, business success, and property values and proximity to various amenity lands (Tables 67 and 68).

6.5.3 Active and Passive Recreational Use Values Outdoor recreation is big business for rural economies. Outdoor recreation participant days in Washington are estimated at 446 million, resulting in nearly $22 billion dollars in annual expenditures (RCO, 2013). Methow trail network users include a diverse set of active and passive recreation activities, including cross-country skiing, mountain biking and horseback riding. Developing a dollar-value estimate is not possible under the scope of the study despite general records kept for ski passes sold annually. However, several studies have been conducted on willingness to pay for recreation and related benefits.

Today, wildlife viewing is the number one outdoor activity in the United States, and the fastest growing form of recreation, exceeding hiking, skiing and golfing (Outdoor Foundation, 2013). Among the state’s most valued and economically valuable natural resources is its diverse wildlife. Wildlife viewing and associated visits to Washington’s rural areas, such as the Methow Valley, which provide habitat to the majority of these wildlife populations, have a profound economic impact on rural communities. A recent WDFW report shows that over $1.7 billion is spent annually on wildlife viewing in Washington. Key spending categories are food, lodging, transportation and equipment, with the majority of such spending in rural communities.


Deloitte & Touche LLP estimated the non-market dollar value of active use pertaining to lands held by the DNR using surveys to apply contingent valuation and travel cost-benefit methods. Annual active non-market benefits and non-use values were estimated to equal $6.60 per household per thousand acres, or roughly $13,200 per acre (Deloitte & Touche, 1996). This translates to $9.34 per household per thousand acers, or about $18,672 per acre in real 2015 dollars.

Rameker (2000) reports a model developed in Colorado that tested for the influence of 36 attributes of open space. The model indicates that an open-space parcel with access to or including a water body increases the value per acre by nearly 70%; carbon sequestration potential more than doubles the value per acre, while capacity as a working farm/ranch adds nearly $11,000 to the average price per acre; or $14,590 in real 2015 dollars.

Applying a benefits-transfer approach15, these results suggest a range of $14,590 to $18,672 per acre is a reasonable dollar amount to apply in developing a conservative estimate for the active and passive recreation activities that occur on the Methow trails.

Active and passive use non-market valuation studies require significant time and resources, and are outside the scope of this study. However, using a conservative estimate of $14,590 per acre, we find an aggregate estimate of about $14.9 million per year of active and passive use benefits provided by the Methow trail system annually.

6.5.4 Quality of Life Factors Another indirect economic benefit provided by the Methow Valley’s unique setting is a robust quality of life. In a sense, quality of life factors provide area residents a ‘second paycheck’. This second paycheck provides a quality of life above and beyond what is earned and spent: access to beautiful natural areas, stable and safe communities, outdoor recreation opportunities, and proximity to wildlife.

The ability to obtain a second paycheck helps Methow Valley communities attract and retain qualified labor essential for business growth. A major reason people move to the Methow Valley is the opportunity to enjoy the abundant opportunities provided by its lands and natural resources (Table 43). Thus, the values of these second paychecks, though difficult to measure, are essential to the area’s economic well-being.

15 Benefit transfer involves using statistical methods to apply a monetary benefit value per unit estimate (e.g., per visitor day, per household, per acre) from existing study sites to an unstudied area for which a per unit benefit value is needed.


6.6 CUMULATIVE ECONOMIC IMPACTS Total estimated gross economic benefits of the Methow Trails system include those impacts attributable to increases in regional final demand (value added)16; labor income; tax revenues; and amenity values. Regional final demand is the total value added to the regional economy from direct, indirect, and induced expenditures by trail users and purchases associated with Methow Trails activities (as reported in Table 64). In other words, it is the sum of the demand for inputs (e.g., materials, goods and services), required by Methow Trails (direct purchases) to supply its output to meet consumer demand (e.g., functioning trail systems, events, etc.); the demand for inputs required by businesses supporting purchases by Methow Trails (indirect purchases); and the demand for consumer goods purchased by those employed by businesses providing goods and services to Methow Valley Trails (induced purchases).

Induced economic impacts represent increases in regional final demand (value added) of $12,470,004. These increases, however, do not represent total economic impact. The multiplier effect was found to be 1.73% and comprises the local value of money as it circulates through the local economy as trail users and workers directly or indirectly associated with the trail network buy goods and services in the local economy. Fundamentally, this means for every dollar spent in the area it causes indirect expenditures of $0.73.

We estimate the net cumulative economic impacts provided by the Methow trail system and appurtenant lands, natural resource and recreation-based activities to be at least $32 million annually (Table 69). This is a conservative figure, as the estimation of the total values of ecosystem services provided by the trail network is beyond the scope of this study. Job values, tax impacts, and amenity values summarize findings from Section 6.4, the sum of which added to the increase in regional final demand is the total estimated gross benefit. The net cumulative benefit of $32 million is the sum of benefits minus the annual costs of providing trails and related services. Presentation in Table 69 is narrowed to those total impacts of regional or local significance within the context of potential cumulative economic impacts on the Methow Valley related to those goods and services provided by the trail system and supporting lands, and those who use them.

16 Value added is the total value of the production of goods and services in the regional economy resulting from direct expenditures under analysis (valued at market prices).


Table 69. Cumulative estimated economic impacts of Methow Trails and trail network

Commodity/Market Total estimated impact ($)

Increase in regional final demand (value added) 12,470,004$ Provide/Create Jobs (# of jobs)

Direct (184) 5,683,299$ Indirect (30) 982,444$ Induced (26) 871,536$

Fiscal/Tax impactsState tax receipts (travel induced spending) 190,398$ Local, Hotel/Motel, and Transient Lodging 86,702$ Business & Occupation 111,451$

Amenity ValueActive and Passive recreation related (non-market) 12,948,865$

Environment/Resource health & stewardship improvements to land (protection, preservation, rehabilitation, maintenance, etc.)

Total estimated gross benefit (direct & indirect ) 33,344,698$ Total estimated costs $1,303,587Total estimated net cumulative benefit (direct & indirect ) 32,041,111.28$

Estimated Economic Benefits (annualized)


Note: Costs estimated reflect those of current management and expenditures related to improvements and potential opportunity costs (use of capital for other, more productive uses).


REFERENCES

Deloitte & Touche LLP. 1996. Washington State Public Lands Economic Analysis. For the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. June 1996.

Espey, M. and K. Owusu-Edusei. 2001. Neighborhood Parks and Residential Property Values in Greenville, South Carolina. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Clemson University. 6 pp.

Fink, A. and J. Kosekoff. 1998. How to Conduct Surveys: a step-by-step guide, 2nd edition. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Irwin, E. G. 2002. The effects of open space on residential property values. Land. Econ. 78(4):465–480

Methow Trails. 2014. Personal communication with D. Ready. November 19, 2014.

Methow Trails. 2015a. Personal communication with D. Ready. February 20, 2015.

Methow Trails. 2015b. Personal communication with J. DeSalvo. March 6, 2015.

Methow Trails. 2015c. Personal communication with D. Ready. April 22, 2015.

Mitchell, R.C. and R.T. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.

Outdoor Foundation. 2013. Outdoor Participation Report 2013. 64 pp.

Pincetl, S., et al. 2003. Toward a Sustainable Los Angeles: A “Nature’s Services” Approach. A second year report to the John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation. Center for Sustainable Cities, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 53 pp.

Rameker, V. 2000. Valuing open space attributes in Colorado: evidence from a hedonic analysis of market transactions. Master’s Degree Thesis. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Colorado State University: Fort Collins, Colorado.

Resource Dimensions, 2005. Economic Impacts of MVSTA Trails and Land Resources in the Methow Valley. Prepared for the Methow Valley Sport Trails Association. 134 pp.

RJR & Associates. 1998. MVSTA Trail Users: Economic Impacts and Characteristics.

Robson, C. 1993. Real World Research: a Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner Researchers. Blackwell: Oxford. pp. 139, 510.

Spahr, R.W. and M.A. Sunderman. 1998. Valuation of agricultural property surrounding a resort community. Unpublished manuscript. University of Wyoming: Laramie. 26 pp.

United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2000. 2000 United States Census. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics. For zip code incorporated areas 98814, 98833 and 98834; Pateros (city). Retrieved November 11, 2014. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2010a. 2010 United States Census. 2010 Demographic Profile Data. For zip code incorporated areas (98814; 98833; 98834; 98846; 98856; 98862); Okanogan

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml


County, Washington; Washington. Retrieved November 11, 2014. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2010b. 2010 United States Census. 2010 Census Summary File 1. Population, Housing Units, Area, and Density: 2010-State—County/County Equivalent. For Washington. Retrieved November 11, 2014. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2012a. 2008-2012 5-Year American Community Survey. Selected Economic Characteristics. For zip code incorporated areas (98814; 98833; 98834; 98846; 98856; 98862); Okanogan County, Washington; Washington. Retrieved November 11, 2014. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2012b. 2008-2012 5-Year American Community Survey. Selected Housing Characteristics. For zip code incorporated areas (98814; 98833; 98834; 98846; 98856; 98862); Okanogan County, Washington; Washington. Retrieved November 11, 2014. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2012c. 2008-2012 5-Year American Community Survey. Selected Social Characteristics. For zip code incorporated areas (98814; 98833; 98834; 98846; 98856; 98862); Okanogan County, Washington; Washington. Retrieved November 11, 2014. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2014. 2012 Business Patterns. Zip Code Business Statistics: Total for Zip Code (98814; 98833; 98834; 98846; 98856; 98862). Data dated June 26, 2014. Retrieved November 11, 2014. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2014. SA1-3 Personal income summary, 2011-2013. For Washington. Retrieved November 11, 2014. http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_regional.cfm

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014. 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Washington. Revised January 2014. 82 pp. Retrieved November 18, 2014. https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/fhw11-wa.pdf

Washington Department of Revenue (DOR) (2015). Local Sales Tax Distributions. Retrieved February 13, 2015. dor.wa.gov/content/aboutus/statisticsandreports/TID/StatisticsReports.aspx?query=localall

Washington State Employment Security Department (ESD). 2014a. County Data Tables, Chelan and Douglas Counties Profiles 2014. Retrieved November 11, 2014. https://fortress.wa.gov/esd/employmentdata/reports-publications/regional-reports/county-profiles/chelan-and-douglas-counties-profile

Washington State Employment Security Department (ESD). 2014b. County Data Tables, Grant County Profile 2014. Retrieved November 11, 2014. https://fortress.wa.gov/esd/employmentdata/reports-publications/regional-reports/county-profiles/grant-county-profile

Washington State Employment Security Department (ESD). 2014c. County Data Tables, Okanogan County Profile 2014. Retrieved November 11, 2014. https://fortress.wa.gov/esd/employmentdata/reports-publications/regional-reports/county-profiles/okanogan-county-profile








Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO). 2013. Outdoor Recreation in Washington. The 2013 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Full Report. 176 pp. Retrieved November 11, 2014. http://www.rco.wa.gov/documents/rec_trends/2013-2018SCORP-FullRpt.pdf

White, E. M., & Leefers, L. (2007). Influence of natural amenities on residential property values in a rural setting. Society & Natural Resources, 20(7), 659-667.


APPENDICES

Resource Dimensions| A-1

APPENDIX A: METHOW VALLEY RESIDENT AND TRAIL USER SURVEY & LETTER

A-2│Resource Dimensions

February 2015

Dear Methow Valley residents and visitors: Methow Trails is conducting a study to assess the range of economic impacts of our trails in the Methow Valley. Results of this study will be used for future trail planning projects in the region. This study will also serve to update and expand on a study conducted in 2005, in which you may have participated. Your help is critical in providing an accurate assessment of our trail system and other recreational resources in the Methow Valley. Participation is strictly voluntary, and your responses are completely confidential; you will remain anonymous and no names will be associated with any of the results. The survey is designed to be completed in about 15 minutes. If you prefer to complete the survey on-line, please go to www.research.net/s/MethowTrails-survey or you can complete this paper copy and either drop it off at Methow Trails office located at 309 Riverside Ave, Winthrop, WA 98862 or drop it in any U.S. mailbox. We hope that you will take the few minutes needed to help us out. Please complete the survey by March 1, 2015. If you have any questions about this survey, please contact us either at (509) 996-3287 or via e-mail at: [email protected].

Thank you again for participating in this survey. Your views are important to us!

Sincerely, James DeSalvo Executive Director, Methow Trails NOTE: All who complete and return the survey may enter to win a 3-day trail pass. Simply

provide your name and contact email address in the area provided at the end of the survey.

REMINDER: Please complete your survey by March 1, 2015.

THANK YOU for assisting with this study!

If you have decided to provide your responses on this copy, please place your completed survey in the

envelope provided and drop in any mailbox.

http://www.research.net/s/MethowTrails-survey


Part I GENERAL QUESTIONS: 1. Please tell us the Zip/Postal Code of your primary residence.

2. If you live in the Methow Valley region, please tell us which of the following most accurately describes how you use your residence? (Please check one)

____ It is my primary residence ____ It is my second home (If so, what season(s) do you typically reside there? ____________________) ____ I rent to a tenant, and do not occupy the residence ____ It is unoccupied ____ Other (Please describe______________________________________________) 3. If you stated that you live in and/or own a residence in the Methow Valley, please tell us the proximity of the nearest Methow Trails (formerly MVSTA) trail to your property. (Please check one)

a. ____A Methow Trails trail runs through my property b. ____A Methow Trails trail runs along the edge of my property c. ____The nearest Methow Trails trail is less than 1 mile from my property d. ____The nearest Methow Trails trail is between 1 and 5 miles from my property e. ____The nearest Methow Trails trail is between 6 and 15 miles from my property f. ____The nearest Methow Trails trail is more than 15 miles from my property g. ____I don’t know the proximity of my property to the nearest Methow Trails trail

Part II COMMUNITY RECREATION NEEDS: 4. How important are recreational resources in the Methow Valley? (Please check one)

____Extremely Important ____Very Important ____Important ____Somewhat Important

____Not Important ____Don’t Know 5. Do you believe that the Methow Valley has enough trails and other outdoor recreation resources to meet the Methow Valley community’s needs? (Please check one) ____Yes ____No ____Don’t Know 6. What trail related and recreation resources do you believe are most important to be maintained and/or developed for the community? (Please check choices by level of importance to you)

Extremely Important

Very Important Important

Somewhat Important

Not Important

Don’t Know

Cross-country skiing trails Walking/Running/Hiking trails Snow/Fat Biking Trails Commuter trails Mountain bike trails Trailhead improvements (parking, kiosks, trail maps, bathrooms) Snowshoe trails Dog-friendly trails In-town pedestrian trails Community Rec Center Other (specify):____________________

A-4 │Resource Dimensions

7. Of these resources, which three do you believe are most important? (Rank in order with "1" being the most important.)

1 2 3 Cross-country skiing trails Walking/Running/Hiking trails Snow/Fat Biking Trails Commuter trails Mountain bike trails Trailhead improvements (parking, kiosks, trail maps, bathrooms) Snowshoe trails Dog-friendly trails In-town pedestrian trails Community Rec Center

Other (as you specified in Question 6):____________________________ 8. Have you or other members of your immediate family purchased a Methow Trails (MVSTA) pass, of any kind, in the past 12 months? (Please check one)

____Yes ____No ____Don’t Know 9. If you answered “Yes” to the above question, what type of pass(es) was/were purchased? (Please check all that apply)

_____Day Pass ____Individual Annual Pass ____Midweek Season Pass ____Individual Lifetime Pass

10. If you use a Day Pass to ski, please estimate the amounts spent by you, or by you and your household, on Methow Trails (MVSTA) Day Passes over the past 12 months. ________($) 11. Are you a supporting Member of or have you made a donation to Methow Trails (MVSTA)? (Please check one)

____Yes ____No ____Don’t Know 12. In what ways do you feel trails in the Methow Valley should be funded? (Please check all that apply)

____Winter user fees ____Summer user fees ____Property tax ____Lodging tax ____Real Estate sales tax ____Other


13. Below is a list of public benefits that trails and trail corridors may provide for surrounding communities. To what extent do you feel that Methow Valley trails are important in providing the following benefits to the surrounding region? (Please check the importance rating that best indicates how you feel about each item, or select no opinion.)

Public Benefits of Trails & Trail Corridors Extremely Important


Somewhat Important

Not at all important

No Opinion

Preserving undeveloped open space

Aesthetic beauty

Community pride

Tourism and related economic development

Traffic reduction and transportation alternatives

Opportunities for health and wellbeing

Access for persons with disabilities

Public recreation opportunities/location for special events

Public education about nature and the environment

Increasing nearby property values

Quality of life for children or the next generation.

Other (specify ____________________)

Part III. YOUR METHOW VALLEY TRAIL USE: 14. Do you use the Methow Valley trails? (Please check one) ____Yes ____No

15. About how many days in the last 12 months did you/your family undertake each of the following activities in the Methow Valley region? No. of Days Cross Country Skiing ________ Hiking / Walking ________ Trail running ________ Snow/Fat Biking ________ Participated in trail based race or event. ________ Road Cycling ________ Mountain Biking ________ Horseback riding ________ Snow Shoeing ________ Birding ________ Other ________ If “Other” please explain: 16. Which months of the year do you/your family typically use the trails of the Methow Valley, on average, over the past 5 years? (Check all that apply)

____Jan ____Feb ____Mar ____Apr ____May ____June

____July ____Aug ____Sept ____Oct ____Nov ____Dec

A-6 │Resource Dimensions

17. If your primary residence is NOT in the Methow Valley, how many days, on average are you likely to spend on a visit to the Methow Valley? ______ (total number of days) 18. How many trips per year, on average, do you/your family typically take to visit the Methow Valley, over the past 5 years? (Please check one)

____ 1 trip per year ____ 2 to 3 per year ____ 4 to 5 per year ____ 6 to 7 per year ____ 8 + trips per year

____ I/we do not visit/use the trails of the Methow Valley

19. Please tell us which days of the week you are most likely to spend in the Methow Valley on a visit to the area. (Please check all that apply)

____Sunday ____Monday ____Tuesday ____Wednesday ____Thursday ____Friday ____Saturday 20. If you stay overnight in the Methow Valley, what type of accommodations do you typically use? Choose up to three and rank by preference.

First Preference Second Preference Third Preference Hotel/Motel Inn/Bed & Breakfast 2nd Home Public Campground Private Campground Family/Friends Home Cabin/Lodge rental Other (please identify)

21. When traveling to the Methow Valley do you typically travel: (Please check one)

Alone As a couple As a family

On business With an organization With friends

With other families Other (please define)

22. What types of services and/or goods do you, your family, or your group purchase, or expect to purchase, while in the Methow Valley? Please enter the total dollars spent during a typical visit for each item or category of goods and services.

Item/Category of Goods & Services Total Dollars per average visit Accommodations/Lodging $ Groceries/Beverages/Snacks $ Food – Restaurant meals/Fast-foods/Bar $ Purchase of Recreational Equipment/Supplies (e.g., skiing, cycling, hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, etc.) $

Rental of Recreational Equipment/Supplies (e.g., skis, boats, bikes, etc.) $ Fuel (gas, oil, propane, other) $ Gifts/ Souvenirs (e.g., arts, crafts, regional specialties, etc.) $ Personal services (e.g., hair, spa, massage, etc.) $ Medical/Dental/Other health related services $ Other Professional services (e.g., legal, real estate, tax, etc.) $ Auto repair $ Entertainment (e.g. videos, concerts, cinema/theatre, events, etc.) $ Other (please indicate) $

23. How important is the network of ski/bike/hiking/running/horse/dog trails to your average visit to the Methow Valley?


____Most Important ____Very Important ____Somewhat Important ____Not Important 24. Have you ever considered purchasing real estate in the Methow Valley? (Please check one) ____Yes ____No 25. If you answered “Yes” to the question above, how important is the network of ski/bike/hiking/running/horse/dog trails to your interest in purchasing real estate in the Methow Valley? (Please check one)

____Most Important ____ Very Important ____Somewhat Important ____Not Important ____Don’t Know 26. Recently Methow Trails (MVSTA) initiated a Kids Ski For Free program. Have you taken advantage of this

program? (Please check one) ____Yes ____No 27. If you answered “Yes” to the question above, did the Kids Ski For Free program help motivate your family to take

your trip? (Please check one) ____Yes ____No 28. If you answered “Yes” to the previous question, did your family change its spending habits when taking advantage of the Kids Ski For Free program? (Please check all that apply)

____ My family spent more time in the Methow Valley than we would have typically ____ My family spent more freely on goods and services we typically purchase ____ My family visited the Methow Valley more frequently than we typically do ____ My family did not change our spending habits when taking advantage of the Kids Ski For Free offer 29. Have you ever participated in any organized special events on Methow Valley trails? (e.g., Nordic Ski race, trail run,

clinics, etc.). (Please check one) ____Yes ____No

Part IV DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS: 30. If you are a resident of the Methow Valley, how long have you been a resident? (Please check the appropriate length of time)

____ Less than 1 year ____ 1 to 5 years ____ 6 to 10 years ____ 11-20 years ____ Over 20 years 31. If you are a newer resident to the Methow Valley (have lived here five years or less), what brought you to the area? 32. Which of the following characteristics was most important in your decision to live in or visit the Methow Valley? (Please check one)

Proximity to recreational resources Natural beauty Rural character

Employment opportunities Community Other (please identify)

33. What is your age? (Please check the group that includes your age)

16-19 years ___ 20-29 ___ 30-39 ___ 40-49 ___ 50-59 ___ 60-69 ___ 70 or over ___

34. Gender: ____ Female ____ Male If you would like to enter the drawing for a Methow Trails (MVSTA) 3-day pass, please provide your name and email address.

Name: ____________________________ Email: _____________________________________

THANK YOU for assisting with this study! Please place your completed survey in the envelope provided and drop in any mailbox.

Resource Dimensions| B-1

APPENDIX B: METHOW VALLEY BUSINESS SURVEY & LETTER

B-2 │Resource Dimensions

December 22, 2014

Dear Methow Valley Business Owner or Operator: Methow Trails together with our local Chamber of Commerce is conducting a study to evaluate the nature and range of local and regional economic impacts of our Valley’s trail system. This study will also update and expand on studies conducted in 1998, and 2005, in which you may have participated. We want to include as many businesses as possible within the Methow Valley region, roughly from Mazama to Pateros, to ensure that we accurately reflect the extent of related business activities and economic impacts generated. Your help is critical in providing an accurate assessment of the business-related impacts made by our trail system. We hope that you will take the few minutes needed to help. Participation in the survey is strictly voluntary, and your responses are completely confidential; you will remain anonymous and no names will be associated with any of the results. The survey is designed to be completed in about 10-15 minutes. Here is a link to the survey: A unique link was automatically inserted by the email system when surveys were sent to the list of area businesses. This link is uniquely tied to this survey and your email address. Please do not forward this message. We will also be conducting a related random sample survey of area residents and visitors to guarantee that our study gives us true measures of impacts and indicators for the Valley. Therefore, if you also live in the Methow Valley or use the trails, you may also receive a resident/visitor survey. Please complete the survey by December 31, 2014. If you have any questions about this survey, please contact us either at (509) 996-3287 or via e-mail at: [email protected].

Thank you again for participating in this important survey. Your views are important to us!

James DeSalvo Executive Director, Methow Trails


1. Where is your business located within the Methow Valley? (Please check one) _____ Winthrop _____ Methow _____ Twisp _____ Pateros _____ Mazama _____ Unincorporated Okanogan County _____ Carlton _____ Other (please identify) 2. What type of business do you manage or own? (Please check all that apply) ____ Restaurant (sit down meals, bar, coffee shop, etc.) ____ Lodging/Accommodations (hotel, motel, bed & breakfast, inn, etc.) ____ Camping, campground ____ Grocery store, convenience store ____ Recreation equipment/supplies (skiing, hiking, bicycling, camping, kayaking, canoeing, fishing,

hunting, etc.) ____ General Merchandise (clothing, shoes, drugs, etc.) ____ Equipment Rental (skis, snowshoes, bikes, kayaks, etc.) ____ Tours and Outfitters (educational, outdoor adventure/activities, etc.) ____ Gas Station (gas, oil) ____ Art, Gifts, Souvenirs, Crafts ____ Technology (computers, web site design services, internet services, information technology consulting) ____ Professional, scientific and technical services (legal, accounting, engineering, design, architecture) ____ Health care and related businesses (medical, dental, physical therapy, massage, acupuncture, naturopathy, yoga, etc.) ____ Social assistance (individual and family services, community/food services, emergency/relief services, child day care) ____ Construction (related trades, building materials, etc.) ____ Auto repair/maintenance ____ Entertainment (music, concerts, theatre/plays, video, etc.) ____ Real estate ____ Other (Please describe______________________________________________)

If you checked more than one classification above, please tell us which one best describes your business ___________________

3. How long have you been in business in the Methow Valley? (Please check one)

____ Less than 1 year ____ 1 to 2 years ____ 3 to 5 years ____ 6 to 9 years ____ 10 to 14 years ____ 15 to 19 years ____ 20 years or more

4. Which of the following best identifies the organization of your business?

____ Sole Proprietorship ____ General Partnership ____ Limited Partnership ____ Non-Profit ____ Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) or Company (LLC) ____ Corporation ____ Other (please specify below)

_______________________ 5. In an average year, how many people do you employ full-time at your business by season? (Please specify number)

______Winter ______Spring ______Summer ______Fall 6. In an average year, how many people do you employ part-time at your business by season? (Please specify number)

______Winter ______Spring ______Summer ______Fall

B-4 │Resource Dimensions

The next several questions ask about visitors to the Methow Valley. A visitor is defined as a person who does not consider the Methow Valley their primary place of residence.

7. During the time that you have been in business in the Methow Valley, would you say your peak season(s) are generally: (Please check one)

____Highly dependent on visitors ____Somewhat dependent on visitors

____Not dependent on visitors ____Don’t know

8. During the time that you have been in business in the Methow Valley, would you say the number of visitors who come to the area to take advantage of recreational trails in the Valley has generally: (Please check one)

____Increased significantly ____Increased somewhat ____Stayed the same ____Declined somewhat ____Declined significantly ____Don’t know 9. Below is a list of revenue (sales) generating groups. How important is each group in terms of generating revenues for your business? (Please check choices by level of importance)


Somewhat Important

Not Very Important


a) Recreational visitors to the Valley b) General visitors / Non-recreational visitors to the Valley (e.g. tourists and pleasure drivers) c) Full-time residents of the Valley d) Part-time residents of the Valley

10. Below is a list of recreation user groups. How important is each group in terms of generating revenues (sales) for your business? Please consider the total contribution of full-time residents of the Valley, part-time residents of the Valley, and visitors to the Valley. (Please check choices by level of importance)


Somewhat Important

Not Very Important


a) X-Country skiers b) Hikers and Trail runners c) Cyclists (including mountain, fat/snow, cross-country bikers, and road bikers) d) Participants in recreational events (e.g., ski, foot, bike races, etc.) e) Nature enthusiasts, Wildlife viewers and Bird watchers f) Anglers and Hunters g) Campers and Backpackers h) Motorized recreationists (e.g., snowmobilers, motorcyclists, etc.) i) Other (specify):_______________

11. Over the time that you have been in business in the Methow Valley, what percentage of your average annual gross revenues would you estimate coming from ALL visitors to the Methow Valley? (Please check answer that most closely approximates this value)


____0% to 20% of gross ____21% to 49% of gross ____50% to 74% of gross ____75% to 90% of gross

____91% to 100% of gross

12. What percentage of your average annual gross revenues, by season, would you estimate comes from solely those visitors who come to use the local network of trails for non-motorized recreation? (These types of recreational users might include hikers, runners, bicyclists, skiers, bird watchers, and those who attend special recreational events.)

______Winter % ______Spring % ______Summer % ______Fall %

13. Methow Trails offers business memberships that support trail maintenance and operating costs of the organization. How much would your business be willing to contribute on an annual basis toward a business membership to Methow Trails? (Please check one)

____$1 – $50 ____$51 – $100 ____More than $100

____My business would not be interested in a business membership

THANK YOU for assisting with this study! Results will be available in spring, 2015.

Resource Dimensions| C-1

APPENDIX C: HEDONIC PRICING MODEL & MODEL VARIABLES (by category) The basic model is based on the hedonic price function and a set of assumptions. They are:

• the study area can be treated as a single market for housing services.

• consumers have full information on the housing alternatives available and are able to freely select their optimal choice of housing commodity

• the market for housing (property) is in equilibrium.

Generally, the utility function of an individual who occupies house i can be written as:

u = u (X, Si, Ni, Qi )

Under the assumptions, the price of a house (property) can be described as a function of the structural (S), neighborhood (N), and environmental/amenity (Q) attributes of the property location. The general equation is:

Pi = Pi (Si, Ni, Qi)

Where:

Pi = the price of the ith property location (community/neighborhood).

Si = a vector of the ith property’s structural attributes.

Ni = a vector of the ith property’s neighborhood attributes.

Qi = a vector of the ith property’s environmental/amenity attributes.

Structural Attributes (Si)

• Number of bathrooms • Number of bedrooms • Size of structure • Fireplace • Lot size • Pool • Quality of building/structure

• Condition of structure • Age of structure • Air conditioning • Central heating (type) • Parking type (garage, on-street, carport,

etc.)

Neighborhood / Economic Attributes (Ni)

• Year (trend variable) • Land value • Tax amount • Site influence • Neighborhood location (situs zip) • Unemployment rate

• Interest rate • Dow Jones Industrial Average • Housing price indices • Sale data • Seasonal demand for housing • Other economic or social trends

C-2 │Resource Dimensions

Environmental / Amenity Variables (Qi)

• Distance to greenway/buffer • Distance to water body • Distance to open space • Distance to trail/linear park • Distance to local/community park • Distance to National Park/Forest • Distance to agricultural/range lands

• Distance to wildlife/habitat area • Distance to recreation area • Presence of scenic views/viewshed

(based on information from local realtors)

• Zoning

draft report shell · the project surveys; we specifically thank michelle dewey, who prepared a...

Documents