Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU

Reports Utah Water Research Laboratory

January 1982

Energy Impacts of Water Based Recreation

J. Clair Batty

David A. Bell

E. Bruce Godfrey

Craig Howell

J. Paul Riley

Thomas C. Stoddard

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/water_rep

Part of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons

Recommended Citation Batty, J. Clair; Bell, David A.; Godfrey, E. Bruce; Howell, Craig; Riley, J. Paul; and Stoddard, Thomas C., "Energy Impacts of Water Based Recreation" (1982). Reports. Paper 608. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/water_rep/608

This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Utah Water Research Laboratory at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ENERGY IMPACTS OF WATER BASED RECREATION

by

J. Clair Batty David A. Bell E. Bruce Godfrey Craig Howell J. Paul Riley Thomas C. Stoddard

The work on which this report is based was supported with funds provided by the State of Utah and by the U.S. Department of the Interior under Project No. B-171-Utah, Grant No. 14-34-0001-9137. Investigation Period March 1, 1979, to August 31, 1981.

WATER RESOURCES PLANNING SERIES

UWRL/P-82/09

Utah Water Research Laboratory College of Engineering Utah State University Logan, Utah 84322

December 1982 Contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U. S. Department of the Interior, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute their endorsement or recommendation for use by the Uo S. Government. ABSTRACT

The overall object ive of the study reported here was to determine to what extent energy accounting could supplement and/or complement economic benefit/cost analyses of water manage­ ment projects and to specifically examine the energy impacts of water based recreation. The energy accounting literature was carefully reviewed and an energy accounting methodology appli­ cable to water management was devised. Data pertaining to recreation at five reservoirs in Utah were assembled from visitation records and on-site surveys. Energy requirements for site construction, travel to and from the recreation site, and recreation at the site were estimated. It was determined that energy devoted to water based recreation is not inconsequential. As much energy is devoted to recreation at Lake Powell alone as is required for all of production agriculture in Utah. It is suggested that while the models developed in this study could be used with confidence in the preparation of energy impact state­ ments the authors are not persuaded energy accounting provides additional information to water use planners beyond that obtain­ able from traditional economic analysis.

iii ACKNOWL EDGMENTS

The work on which this report is based was supported with funds provided by the State of Utah and by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Project B-171-Utah, Grant No. 14-34-0001-9137. Investigation Period March 1, 1979, to August 31, 1981.

The principal investigators on this project were J. Clair Batty J Professor· of Mechanical Engineering; E. Bruce Godfrey, Associate Professor of Economics; and J. Paul Riley, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, all at Utah State Univer­ sity. Other investigators included David A. Bell, Research Associate Mechanical Engineering; Craig Howell, candidate for the M.S. degree in Economics; and Thomas C. Stoddard, candidate for the M.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering at Utah State University.

Special thanks are extended to the following: Bureau of Reclamation of the United States Department of the Interior and to the Utah Department of Parks and Recreation for cooperation in helping acquire the data on which part of this report is based.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

1 INTRODUCTION 1

The Rise of the Concept of Energy Accounting 2 Objectives of the Study • 3 Research Procedure 3

2 CURRENT ENERGY ACCOUNTING TECHNIQUES 5

The Concept of Net Energy 5 The Importance of Energy Form • 5 Energy Accounting Terms and Techniques • 6

Direct inputs 7 Indirect inputs • 7 Combining energy inputs 7

3 DEVELOPMENT OF ENERGY ACCOUNTING METHODOLOGY FOR WATER-BASED RECREATION • 9

Multiple Purpose Projects and the Allocation of Energy Expenditures • 10 Methodology Outline • 10

Evaluating construction energy • • 10 Evaluating travel and on-site energy. • 11

4 ENERGY ACCOUNTING--CASE STUDIES . · 13

Site Selection • • 13 Construction Energy Expenditures • · 13 Travel Energy Expenditures . · 17 Example of computation · 17 Procedure generalization • · 21

On-Site Energy Expenditure • • 22

Example of computation • 22 Procedure generalization • · 25

5 ENERGY ACCOUNTING AS A PREDICTIVE MECHANISM . • 27

v TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

Chapter Page

Development of a Preproject Energy

Model o 27

Travel energy • 27 On-site energy • 27 Estimate of attendance · 29

Water Recreation Response to Fuel Price • 29

6 ENERGY ACCOUNTING AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS • 33

Techniques • 33 Methodology/Assumptions . • 33 Prediction • 34

7 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS • 35

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY • 37

APPENDIX. • 43

vi LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Energy accounting may be useful in helping planners optimally deploy basic resources 4

2 Locations of the recreation sites investigated as part of this study • • 14

3 Typical resources devoted to construction of a dam · 15

4 Energy inputs to cement (Bell 1977) • 16

5 Recreators travel to the site in various kinds of vehicles • 19

6 Travel energy assumption for Lake Powell · 22 7 Representative plots of motor fuel consumption from manufacturer tests on standard boat sizes • 23 8 Average fuel consumption rate (liter/hr) as a function of horse-power rating for outboard motors • • 24 9 1979 fuel prices and Lake Powell attendance as percentage of the same month the previous year • 30 10 Attendance 1979-1980 at Willard Bay, Rockport Reservoir, and Hyrum Dam as percentage of previous year's attendance for the same month. • 31

11 Comparison of average Rockport Reservoir attendance on 3-day weekends (B) vs regular weekends (A) • · 32 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Calculated values of various energy forms based on assumptions shown 6

2 Energy inputs to major materials or processes on

a raw material basis (Bell 1977) o 15

3 Energy investment by society in a kilogram of aluminum (Bell 1977) • 15 4 Difference between energy required to manufacture the indicated product from raw material and from recycled material • 17

5 Sample computation of construction energy cost expressed in fossil fuel equivalents for Glen Canyon Dam and Flaming Gorge Dam (Batty et al. 1976) • 18

6 Annual construction energy input • 19

7 Calculation of vehicle kilometers by recreators sampled in this study to Willard Bay . • 20

8 Estimated annual energy expenditure (1978) for six reservoirs in Utah • 21 9 Energy used on Utah farms for crop and livestock production including field operations, irrigation, crop drying, mechanized feeding, space heating, farm business, truck and auto use • • 25

10 Energy expenditures per visitor for five reser­ voirs in Utah • 28 11 Most probable activity at site according to origin • 28

12 Recreator reaction, by percent of sample, to increased fuel costs · 32

viii CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

This report deals with a form of prudent and essent ial component of technology assessment. In its broadest national policy. The 1974 Non-nuclear sense, technology assessment provides Energy Research and Deve lopment Ac t the deci s ion maker with informa t ion stipulates that the Department of Energy which may go far beyond conventional conduct a "net energy analysis" for each engineering and cost/benefit studies to non-nuclear project supported by public look at what else might happen in funds (Burness et al. 1980). Imple­ achieving an immediate goal. The mentation of effective energy conserva­ assessment addresses the full range of tion strategies requires awareness of social costs, including impacts on: the the energy use associated with a wide family; legal, political, and social variety of activities, including those institutions; and the environment. associated with water. Some authors Thus, technology assessment might be have indicated that energy impact regarded as an analysis of the total statements, similar to or an extension impact of a technology on a society of environmental impact statements, will (Coates 1974). be required prior to the construction of publically funded water projects. Traditionally, multipurpose water Certainly the energy use implications of resource development projects are millions of people being attracted assessed on the basis of an economic hundreds and even thousands of miles for analysis in which the costs and benefits recreation on major man-made reserV01rs associated with the projects are com­ should not be ignored. pared. Usually, both direct and indirect costs and benefits are included in these Two fundamental approaches to analyses. In addition, recent efforts asses sing energy imp ac t s have been have been made to address the environ­ advocated. The first appr~ach is to mental and, to some extent, the social express energy costs in traditional impacts of the developments. However, monetary terms that are used in economic to this point assessments may not have benefit/cost analyses. This approach included consideration of project assumes the market place captures or impacts on the energy resources of reflects the value of energy. The the nation. This report addresses the second approach is to express energy question of how to apply energy impact costs in units of energy. Th is energy assessment to water resource development accounting approach requires the de­ projects, particularly those involving velopment of an acceptable methodology flat-water recreation. What use can be for tracking the quantity and forms of made of energy impact assessments? What the myriad flows of energy associated additional information would be provided with a particular endeavor. Many dif­ by energy impact assessment? What ferent energy accounting methodologies techniques are most appropriate for have been proposed in the past few flat-water recreation projects? years. Clearly if an energy accounting' Energy conservation is being approach is to be adopted to assess the inc rea sing 1 y a d v 0 cat e d as bot h a energy impacts of water projects one

I must be ident ified that is widely ac­ f ic iencies wi th wh ich various power ceptable and will achieve credibility in producing options convert basic re­ the national water management community. sources into a commodity such as elec­ tric power or gasoline. One apparent The principal investigators in this advantage of the energy accounting study did not as sume a pr iori that approach is that the magnitude and energy accounting was inherently supe­ impact of these energy flows are clearly rior to economic benefit/cost analysis delineated. Many who consider them­ in comparing alternative water projects. selves friends of the environment are The proposition to be tested is, act ively promoting wind and solar power "does energy accounting provide infor­ as being abso lu te ly po 11u t ion free mation that would complement and/or having little or no environmental supplement economic analysis"? An impact. The usual image of these evaluation of the worth of this addi­ systems excludes soot, smog, heat, and t ional information, however, may find grime. The immense quantities of that it is not worth the cost of its materials that must be manufactured and estimation. assembled to implement wind or solar power production on a significant scale The Rise of the Concept of are often forgotten or ignored. A Energy Accounting material and energy flow analysis would perhaps show that the environmental Within the last few years, as impact associated with deployment of public awareness of the energy crisis such systems will not be zero, and it is has spread, significant interest has not inconceivable that the production become manifest in energy accounting as of electricity via windmills or solar possibly providing a useful supplement generators could resul t in greater to traditional economic analysis. An environmental degradation than the example of the need for supplemental production of electricity via tradi­ analysis is found in the controversy tional coal-fired steam generating surrounding the development of oil p 1 ant s • Wh e n t 0 1 d t hat a sol arc 0 1- shale. Using traditional economic lector will cost so many dollars, some analysis, various estimates have been tend to shrug and think of the cost as made concerning the economic feasibility being only money. However, if more coal of oil shale development. According to would have to be mined and burned to various analysts, when the price of oil manufacture the collecting systems reaches $3.73/bbl (Dinnen and Cook than would be required to produce the 1972), or $6.80/bbl (Adelman et al. power by burning the coal directly, the 1974), or $15.00/bbl (Rothfield 1975), preconceived environmental gain might or $21.00/bbl (McCormick 1976), or not exist. $25.00/bbl (Wiser 1976) oil shale deve lopment wi 11 become a real i ty. Thus, one possible advantage of These analyses seem to suggest that the energy accounting may include dollar values provide an unstable bench educational value in improving public mark on which to base policy decisions. awareness of the technical realities of The dollar value of a given form of nature. For example, the energy method energy is dependent upon many factors, of accounting has brought a realization including the vagaries of political that American agriculture owes its bodies and foreign cartels, and thus can awesome productivity to energy inputs on vary over a wide range especially when a vast scale, and that in terms of food rates of inflation vary over time. energy produced per unit of energy input we are relatively inefficient. We learn The energy accounting approach on further through energy accounting the surface seems to provide a basic that energy inputs to food production method of comparing the relative ef- are commonly only a sma1l fraction of

2 the energy inputs to the total food water management, and specifically to system. It appears, for example, that describe its usefulness as a supplement more energy is often used to transport to traditional economic benefit/cost food from the supermarket to the home analysis. than is needed to produce the food (Brown and Batty 1976), Research Procedure Those who are responsible for formulating long range water management In order to meet the above objec­ policy must constantly assess the tives, the following specific tasks were relevance of information in the decision accomplished. making process. The extent to which the information derivable from energy 1. The various approaches to ener­ accounting supplements and/or comple­ gy flow analysis were carefully evalu­ ments economic analysis needs to be evaluated. For example, by carefully ated by both engineers and economists. tracing the energy flows associated with recreation at existing man-made impound­ 2. An energy accounting method­ ments (Figure 1), can a better perspec­ ology was developed that seemed ap­ t ive of the impacts of future similar propriate for water based recreation. developments be obtained? 3. Relevant data pertaining to Objectives of the Study recreation at two major Utah reservoirs (Flaming Gorge and Lake Powell) and four The following are specific objec­ smaller Utah reservoirs (Willard Bay, tives of this study: East Canyon, Rockport, Hyrum Dam) were \ assembled. 1. To devise a workable method­ ology for energy accounting as a supple­ 4. Questionnaires and on-site ment to economic benefit-cost analysis surveys were made where necessary to su itab Ie for eva luat ing the energy supplement data from existing records. impact of recreat ion at man-made flat­ These surveys were designed primarily to water sites. provide information regarding the energy associated with travel to and from the 2, To study the hypothes is that recreation site (El) and the energy relationships exist among certain expended while at the recreation site parameters pertaining to recreation, (E2) for activities such as boating. such as the distance from major popula­ tion centers to the recreation area, the kind of act ivity at the area, and the 5. Information relating to a third amounts and kinds of energy devoted energy category (E3), namely that asso­ ciated with the construction and mainte­ to recreat ion. nance of the site, was derived from con­ struction plans and other official 3. To develop a general predictive model for estimating energy use at records. man-made flat-water recreation areas from relevant parameters. 6. Suggestions for writing energy impact statements based on the predic­ 4. To suggest guidelines for ener­ tive model were made. gy impact statements based on the pre­ dictive model developed in objective 3. 7. The validity of energy account­ ing in water recreat ion management was 5. To carefully assess the validi­ scrutinized based on the experience ty of energy accounting in the area of gained in this study. 3 NATURAL COAL OIL GAS LABOR WATER

MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS

.j:::-

.....:::~ "'-

Flatwater recreat _.--...... Flat":Jlt,,, recreat.ion near population centers far from populatIon c W!~lt-

Figure 1. Energy accounting may be useful in helping planners optimally deploy basic resources. For exam­ ple, constructing more water recreation sites closer to population centers may help conserve the nations energy resources. CHAPTER 2

CURRENT ENERGY ACCOUNTING TECHNIQUES

The Concept of Net Energy investment taken from current stock is replaced and the process shows a gain of If one were to single out a pioneer an additional barrel of available energy in energy accounting methods, H. T. Odum supply. Operations with negative net would probably be first mentioned. It energy require more input energy than is was Odum who defined many of the key produced. concepts accepted today in attempting to develop a consistent energy accounting A second term used in energy procedure (Odum 1971). accounting is the energy yield ratio. It is defined as a project I s useful The starting point in understanding energy production (or savings) divided energy account ing or energy flow analy­ by required inputs. The reciprocal of s is is the not ion of net energy. Odum this ratio is termed the energy invest­ defined this quantity as the amount of ment ratio. energy available for consumer use after the energy cost of finding, producing, Quantity of energy obtained Energy yield ratio refining, transporting, and so forth, Quantity of energy spent has been subtracted (Odum 1973). For example, each barrel of gasoline re­ quires an input of energy in the extrac­ The energy yield ratio can be tion and refining processes. Thus, each thought of as a coefficient of perfor­ unit of energy resource output requires mance, where a larger value suggests a a certain quantity of energy input. The preferred choice. net energy is the difference between the two, expressed as follows: The Importance of Energy Form

Quantity of energy Quantity of energy Net It is obvious that net energy and obtained from the - spent in develop­ energy the energy yield ratio must be expressed developed resource ing the resource in terms of a specified form of energy, otherwise the concept would have little meaning. Society is usually willing to Energies summarized in the above maintain processes that have a negative equation must all be in the same form or net energy or an energy yield rat io of numeraire (e.g., barrels of oil or tons less than unity if the market value of of coal). Though net energy can be a the energy form produced is greater than negat ive number, it should normally be the market value of the energy inputs positive for a project to warrant regardless of the quantities of energy further consideration. Spending involved. For example, a coal fired one barrel of oil to operate machinery electrical generating plant uses about which, in turn, generates two barrels of three times as' much energy in the form usable oil for the marketplace is an of coal as- is typically produced by the example of positive net energy. The plant in the form of electricity.

5 Representative monitary values of Energy Accounting Terms various forms of energy are shown in and Techniques Table 1. This table emphasizes the importance of specifying the energy form A major challenge in energy ac­ in order to give meaning to energy counting is to first identify and accounting concepts. Furthermore, there then to quantify all the significant are large variations of value within energy flows that cross the project each form of energy listed in Table 1. control boundary. Definition of the High sulfur coal is less valuable than scope and significance of energy flows low sulfur coal for example. It is not is a major source of disagreement in the uncommon in energy accounting reports to various existing energy accounting see energy in the form of human labor methodologies. added directly to energy in the form of fossil fuels and electricity and the In the Odum model, for example, a total referred to as units of "energy," "holistic" approach is suggested. Odum

Table 1. Calculated values of various energy forms based on assumptions shown.

Value Assumptions ($/106 kJ)

Fossil Fuels Natural Gas 33 750 kJ/m3,$0.08/m3 $ 2,40 Coal 22 000 kJ/m3, $0.05/m3 $ 2.40 Diesel 39 000 kJ/L, $0.26/L $ 6.60 Gasoline 34 800 kJ/L, $0.3l/L $ 8.90 Animal Feeds , Alfalfa Hay 9 670 kJ/kg, $0.09/kg $ 9.30 Grain Corn 14 550 kJ/kg, $0.15/kg $ 10.30 Electricity Residential $0. 06/kl.;r. h $ 16.60 Foods Rice 15 140 kJ/kg, $0.75/kg $ 48.70 Potatoes 25 700 kJ/kg, $0.20/kg $ 77.80 Bread 11 215 kJ/kg, $0.88/kg $ 78.50 Turkey 10 400 kJ/kg, $1.50/kg $144.20 Beef 10 700 kJ/kg, $3.30/kg $194.10 Mechanical Energy Farm Tractor $20 000/6000 hr, 7.6 L/hr, $ 56.00 20% efL Automobile $0.20/km, 10 km/L, 15% eff. $380.00 Human Labor Manual Labor 0.30 kW, $4.00/hr $ 27,800 . Skilled Labor 0.10 kW, $10.00/hr $138,900 Professional 0.05 kW, $15.00/hr $416,700

6 reasons that energy flow is the driving reservoir would show not only energy force of all systems and as such should inputs for manufacturing materials and be accounted for wherever an energy performing construction operations, but transfer is accomplished. In his very also would include the potential photo­ detailed procedure, energy inputs are synthetic energy of the foliage that was defined as being either direct or in­ removed because of the construction direct. They are fu~ther subdivided project. Sunlight is diffuse and cannot as natural subsidies or social sub­ be captured and used as readily as a sidies. For an impoundment project, concentrated fuel such as coal. Con­ examples of these energy categories are sequently, Odum defines a "quality described below. factor" for each form of energy flow which is intended to convert all inputs Direct inputs to a standard fossil fuel equivalent (SSFE). Odum proposed the energy Direct inputs are those energy concentration of bituminous coal to sources applied directly to the project. serve as such a standard and this has Social subsidies of a direct nature are met with wide theoretical acceptance. those energy flows over which man has The practical problem of quantifying control such as the fuel used to operate differences in quality and form however project equipment and the energy spent remains as one of the significant in processing the materials going disadvantages pointed out by energy to construct the project. Natural accounting critics as being difficult subsidies are those over which humans and clearly subjective. Even though one have, as yet, exerted no control such as could accept any energy form as a solar energy irradiating the earth's standard and express all energy flows in surface, potential and kinetic energy terms of the selected standard, the associated with river systems, and criticism of subjectivity in conversion energies associated with biological still applies. phenomena such as photosynthesis and chemical potentials. To account for indirect inputs, Indirect inputs such as labor, a factor that converts dollars to kilojoules is often estab- 1 ished us ing gros s nat ional product Indirect energy inputs constitute a catch-all category for everything that and the total energy use. This con­ version ratio is usually standardized by 1S not a material or process expendi­ a price index ratio to a base year to ture. Typically, this category includes correct for the influence of inflat ion energy required for labor, engineering, maintenance, and personnel services. on gross national product (Bayley et al. There are also reasons why intermediate 1977). In a similar manner, Odum expresses all energy flows associated products need to be counted as indirect inputs. For example, energy is needed with a project in kilojoules of coal to process the materials used in build­ (Odum 1973). ing the earth-moving equipment employed in the construction of a dam. The Since the inception of Odum's energy used for the fabrication of these methodology, others have tried to kinds of intermediate products is develop energy accounting procedures. classified as indi rect energy input to As indicated earlier, the major criti­ the project development. cism of Odum's model is the complexity in determining energy flows. Virtually Combining energy inputs every succeeding attempt at an energy accounting methodology has tried to make Following the holistic approach, an energy flows eas ier to calculate. An energy budget analysis for a typical obvious procedure is to restrict the

7 energy flows considered, taking only Only a few of the energy ac­ the primary inputs, for example, and counting methodologies reviewed as ignoring indirect inputs. Other methods part of this study are summarized consider indirect inputs but attempt to here. Our conclusions from the review resolve the issue of which indirect in­ are that the information gained from puts have a significant impact and which energy accounting does not warrant ones should not be counted for an ap­ a complex procedure that could reduce proximate analysis. Another approach the credibility of applying the con­ considers the various sectors of the cept to water resource projects. There­ economy as defined by the Department of fore, the energy account ing me thods Commerce and for a particular project used in water resources management correlates those sectors interfacing problems should be simple, straight­ with each other in the process. Energy forward, and unencumbered by undue flows between the various economic complexity, specialized jargon, or sectors are traced and arranged in a nomenclature. As suggested previously matrix configuration. Net energy (Otto 1975), the first of several values are then derived from the matrix criteria for applying energy accounting (Herendeen and Bullard 1974). One to water resources planning is the advantage of this scheme is that an methodology must be simple enough iteration procedure can be used, with for routine work. The validity of additional inputs being included for energy accounting and the specific each interation until a desired level of kinds of information it provides to accuracy is achieved in the analysis managers of water resources systems result. This input-output approach is are further discussed later in this interesting but is complex in practice. report. However, a simple methodology Extensive computation is required and is firs t proposed and demonstrated by the procedure cannot compensate for a applying it to water recreation in lack of basic data on energy flows. Utah.

8 CHAPTER 3

DEVELOPMENT OF ENERGY ACCOUNTING METHODOLOGY

FOR WATER-BASED RECREATION

The three principal energy con­ only these inputs involve a change 1n suming activities involved in developing resource availability.l and using a reservoir for recreation are: 1) facility construction, 2) 3. Indirect energy inputs will not recreation activities such as boating at be exhaustively sought and included. It the site, and 3) travel to and from is realized that indirect energy inputs major population centers that are are commonly expended but like secondary generally some distance from the reser­ benefits and costs, their order of voir. Estimates of the amount of energy magnitude is probably small in most used in these three activities are based cases. For example, labor is one of the on the following assumptions: most common indirect inputs on a typical project. As a result, energy accounting 1. Energy flows are expressed in proposals have often used economic mea­ petroleum fuel equivalents. This repre­ sures to determine how many fossil fuel sents a departure from many method­ equivalents a day's wages represent. To ologies. The energy spent for recreation illustrate the effects of this approach, is primari ly in the form of petroleum consider a strong person who can produce products used in travel and for opera­ 1/20 hp (0.0373 kW) continuously. At tion of recreational vehicles. As a this rate, the total energy produced result, the difficulty of determining during one 8-hour working day amounts to conversion factors is mitigated if not 0.4 hp-hr or about 0.3 kW·hr. If the avoided for direct input energy flows same work were done with electricity, because this is the form in which the costing 6¢/kW-hr, the value of the day's largest share of the energy is consumed. labor would be roughly 2 cents. The Furthermore, it 1S likely that the typical laborer is paid more than 2500 political and psychological impact of times that amount for an energet ically measuring energy for recreation will be equivalent quantity of work. greater upon planners and recreators when expressed in terms of liters or gallons of gasoline because the public lSome energy accounting models 1S familiar with this form of energy. include the loss of vegetation and its photosynthetic potential as an energy 2. Natural energy inputs will be loss, or cost, chargeable against a ignored. For the most part, society 1S project. For water projects in the concerned with expenditures that must be West, these losses would often be from incurred to satisfy its needs. Natural sagebrush and other plants adapted energy inputs have little direct social to steep, rugged and arid land that cost in most instances. As a result, would generally require greater energy only those' inputs which represent a e xp end i t u res to call e c t the s tor e d societal allocation of controlled energy energy than these plants yield (Litter­ resources need be considered because man et al. 1978).

9 All this leads to the question of distribution of energy costs without how to appropriately include labor and having to deal with such vagaries as other similar indirect energy inputs in relative energy intensiveness and ef­ an energy accounting methodology. ficiencies of various project objectives Furthermore, indirect inputs can be or the quality of different input energy summed Had infinitum" and someone must forms. It should be noted that of the ul t ima tely de termi ne where to draw three main energy inputs considered in the line. An attempt to itemize and this study, only construction energy prioritize the multitude of indirect need be allocated among different pur­ inputs quickly entangles the analyst in poses. The on-site and travel energy a web of complexity and judgment bias expenditures are directly associated not unlike those encountered in esti­ with recreation. mating secondary benefits and costs (Eckstein 1958, Prest and Turvey 1965, Methodology Outline James and Lee 1971). Thus, we suggest indirect inputs be neglected unless Based on the foregoing assumptions, specific condit ions make them s,ignifi­ an approach for evaluating energy cant or particularly relevant. expenditures for water recreat ion areas is developed in this section. Multiple Purpose Projects Evaluating construction energy and the Allocation of Energy Expenditures Construction energy is evaluated by estimating and summing energy inputs re­ In water-resource management, a quired to convert construction materials project will generally provide many from a raw state to their final position goods and services. For example, a dam and function in the project. Previous may be built to provide flood control, studies (Batty et al. 1976) have quanti­ irrigation for nearby farmland, culinary fied and summarized component values water for neighboring cities, hydro­ with a fair level of agreement. For electric power, flat-water recreation, example, a kilogram of concrete aggre­ or any combination thereof. Recreation gate requires approximately 46 kilo­ has historically not been a major reason joules of process energy for extraction, for constructing reservoirs but current transportation, crushing, batching, policy includes recreation-related costs screening, and delivery. Similar and benefits. One of the major problems calculations are made for most common associated with mult iple purpose proj­ construction components (as shown in ects involves the allocation of costs Chapter 4). For a given impoundment that are not a direct funct ion of a then, the procedure can become quite particular purpose (James and Lee 1971, routine. One would consider the total Chapter 23), The standard approach mix of construction materials by weight, involves the estimation of the costs multiply each quantity by the estimated associated with and without the inclu­ energy value it represents, and sum to sion of each single purpose (e.g. obt a i n the tot al energy expended 1. n recreation), The joint costs are construction. then allocated in some manner (Water Resources Council (1973). An important issue 1.n the construc­ tion energy calculation is the matter of Energy accounting methodologies replacement and maintenance of com­ offer few guidelines for allocating ponents over the life of the project. joint energy costs amoung the services As various components are replaced at of mUltiple-purpose water projects. different times, additional energy is Furthermore, it 1. s doubt ful that a needed. In a recycle analysis Bell procedure could offer a realistic (1977) estimated the "energy content" of

10 the scrap materials taken out of the ness and its reputation for being structure as the energy required to crowded during peak recreat ion periods. recycle and use them elsewhere. The Clearly, op1.n1.ons and preferences vary difference between the energy cost of on these matters from person to person. the raw material and the energy cost of It is therefore difficult to accurately such products from this recycled predict a site's drawing capacity. For scrap represented an energy savings example, if scenic beauty were of prime which he credited to the project. This importance, many recreators would enter procedure yields a reasonably realistic a site in spite of the number of people value for the total social allocation of already there. However, at some point a energy to the project. The total less crowded or less scenic or more construction energy was then divided by remote site might become preferable to the 1 He of the project (50 years) to arriving recreators. reflect an annual energy expenditure for construction (Water Resources Council To compound the difficulty asso­ 1973). It should be noted that this ciated with assessing subjective procedure ignores the question of variables, one need look no further than the time value of energy/resource use current political trends where a pseudo­ and assumes a zero discount rate--a demand parallels real demand for de­ procedure used by all energy accountants velopment of areas for recreational use that may not be valid from a social and environmental protection (Milstein perspective. 1977). Many who support water develop­ ment projects might never personally Evaluating travel and avail themselves of ensuing recreational on-site energy opportunities but base their support on the assurance of knowing that the A different procedure is needed to opportunity for recreation exists. An predict the energy used on-site and in exhaustive treatment of these factors is travel to a particular water recreation beyond the scope of the study. However, site. The greatest uncertainty 1.n the complexity of the situation and the energy calculation comes from unpre­ impact it has on accurate energy ac­ dictable human behavior. Research has counting can be appreciated. shown that there is often little or no correlation between a person's stated If energy accounting is to provide recreational desires and the recre­ a useful supplemental planning tool to ational activities actually undertaken evaluate the impact of a proposed water (Hancock 1972). Actual variables such management project, it is essential to as the price of fuel, diversity of assess potential recreational trends, activities at the site, and availability and the associated energy use before the of services often do not affect atten­ project is initiated. It seems appro­ dance at a particular site nearly as priate therefore to: 1) study trends in much as does public perception of these recreation at selected impoundments, 2) variables, as distorted as that percep­ exami ne energy use as a func t ion of tion may be. Following the gasoline site, geography, attendance, types of shortages of 1974 and 1979 tourism available activities, and types of advertising efforts emphasized IIplenty vehicles, and 3) develop some empirical of gas," and being able to lido it all in formulation that might reasonably one place, II in order to influence public approximate the energy consumption. percept ion. Given the physical and aesthetic parameters for a proposed water-based Another problem relat ing to pre­ recreation project, energy use could dicted attendance at the site involves then be extrapolated for project evalua­ variables of a subjective nattlre such as tion and some guidelines could be the site's degree of scenic attractive- developed to aid planners in considering

11 the energy-related ramifications of a cons idered such factors as mul t iple proposed project. trips and extended vacations. Data for total attendance, total The methodology for this study, number of boats, campers, and construc­ then, was to select a number of im­ t ion plans for each reservoir were ob­ poundments having diverse character­ tained from the administering agencies istics. A field survey of actual (State Department of Parks and Recre­ recreators was chosen as the best ation and the Bureau of Reclamation). way to obtain data for energy ex­ All this informat ion provided a basis penditures at the sites and for travel. for es timating the energy required to A follow-up, end of the season, sur­ construct the facility, the energy vey of these same water recreators required to transport recreators and was used to obtain data on their their equipment to and from the site, recreat ional habi ts over the ent ire and the energy devoted to recreation at year. Thus, data were obtained which the site.

12 CHAPTER 4

ENERGY ACCOUNTING--CASE STUDIES

The above energy accounting con­ for cement. Summing these inputs cepts were used to estimate the energy resul ts in an approximate energy input expended by recreators at six reservoirs per installed kilogram of material. in Utah. By repeating this analysis for the Site Selection mul tipl icity of construct ion materials, reference input values are calculated Each site chosen offers a different for the components included in the mix of attractions. The largest recre­ construction of a water recreation site. ation site studied was Lake Powell in Bell (1977) has summarized approxi­ Southern Utah. The other sites were mations for material process energy. also in Utah but vary in size and These are shown in Table 2. proximity to population centers. Those selected were Flaming Gorge, Willard The energy inputs associated with Bay, Rockport Reservoir, East Canyon recycling as proposed by Bell (1977) are Dam, and Hyrum Dam (see Figure 2). The estimated and portrayed in Table 3 for a most significant common feature of each kilogram of aluminum. Note that the site is regular, established recre­ savings of energy attributable to ational traffic with developed and recycling are deducted from the energy maintained recreational facilities. expense to the raw material and remain with society in terms of available Data for this study were based on energy to do something else. For this 1978 information. In 1979, rising fuel example of three installations (one prices and other extraneous factors original and two replacements with disrupted recreational traffic and the recyling of old parts), the saving to ensuing unsettled condition suggested society is 829 623 kJ minus 449 423 kJ 1979 or later data would restrict or 335 200 kJ. This is about 40 percent generality. Impacts of price increase of the energy expenditure required for on recreation can be inferred from a installation of a kilogram of aluminum comparl.son of the 1978 data with that three times. Similar extension of this from 1979. a n a 1y sis for a lIma t e ria 1 s t hat can potent ially be recyc led results in the Construction Energy Expenditures recycle values shown in Table 4.

The construction of dams often re­ The construction energy for a quires a vast array of resources, some certain site can then be estimated if of which are depicted in Figure 3. the quantity (mass) of each material in the structure is known, given the energy As indicated earlier, the issues of inputs shown in Table 4. An example of ene rgy input s into ma terial proces sing this estimation process is shown in have been fairly well resolved. For Table 5 for Glen Canyon Dam (Lake example, Figure 4 shows the types of Powell) and Flaming Gorge Dam. (Note energy inputs that need to be considered that in each case the values used

13 FLAM'NlGORGE 1.....-____•

--~.------,

Figure 2. Locations of the recreation sites investigated as part of this study.

14 Table 2. Energy inputs to major materi­ als or processes on a raw material basis (Bell 1977).

Reference Material Input Value (kJ/kg)

Steel cast 33 520 Steel rebar 41 900 Carbon steel 58 660 Stainless steel 67 040 Aluminum 276 541 Copper 142 461 Cement 12 570 Excavation and fill 29 Aggregates 46 Diesel fuel 155 031 Gasoline 129 891 PVC 108 941 Polyethylene 125 700 Glass plate 46 090 Electric motors 83 800 - 419 002 Generators 83 800 Hydro-turbines 87 990 Steam turbines 104 750 Pumps 83 800 Figure 3. Typical resources devoted to Engines 83 800 - 14 146 068 construction of a dam.

Table 3. Energy investment by society in a kilogram of aluminum (Bell 1977).

Debt Credit Balance Action Taken (Owed Society) (Returned to Soc.) (Society) kJ kJ kJ

Initial install. 276 541 276 541 take out, scrap 167 600 108 941 replace with new part 276 541 385 482 . take out, scrap 167 600 217 882 replace with new part 276 541 494 423

15 MINING and TRANSPORTATION I 257 kJ kg

\\\l\

~/

.;a ~§

KILN DRYING MIXING and PACKAGING 8 380 kJ I 257 kJ kg kg

Figure 4. Energy inputs to cement (Bell 1977).

16 Table 4. Difference between energy re­ investment as shown in Table 6. This quired to manufacture the indi­ is done to allow summation and compari­ cated product from raw material son with travel and recreational and from recycled material. (See on-site energy computed annually and Table 3 for example.) assumes a kilojoule today has the same value as a kilojoule yesterday Energy or some time in the future. Thus, none Product Difference of these values are discounted to (kJ/kg) reflect a positive rate of social time preference. Steel case 16 760 Steel rebar 20 950 Obviously, not all of the energy Carbon steel 29 330 . devoted by society to the construction Stainless steel 33 520 of a water project should logically be Aluminum 108 940 charged to recreation. It seems reason­ Copper 83 800 able to assign the same fraction of Cement not applicable construction energy inputs to recreation Excavation and fill not applicable as are construction costs in an economic Aggregates not applicable benefit/cost analysis. However, for Diesel fuel not applicable analysis purposes, the total construc­ Gasoline not applicable tion energy is shown in Table 6 with PVC not applicable the realization that this overestimates Polyethylene not applicable the amount of construction energy attributable to recreation. Glass plate not applicable Electric motors 62 850 Travel Energy Expenditures Generators 62 850 Hydro-turbines 41 900 The next energy expendi ture to be Steam turbines 62 850 estimated is the energy cost associated Pumps 188 550 with travel to and from the impoundment Engines 41 900 by recreators. The procedure selected to estimate travel energy utilized on-site surveys (see Appendix for questionnaires used). A team of research assistants was sent to each of the study sites. This team ascertained the orl.gl.n of the recreators and represent fossil fuel equivalent in took preliminary data for on-site energy terms of oil). These estimates show use including types of vehicles (see that the construction of Glen Canyon Dam Figure 5), size and types of boats, and and the associated products of power kinds of activities pursued. A post production, flood control, irrigation, season questionnaire was also sent to and recreation represent ed by Lake users to obtain additional data (see Powell, required an investment by Howell 1981) for an evaluation of society of 1.82 x 1016 joules. these data).

Iterations of this algorithm were Example of computation routinely accomplished to find the construction .energy for each of the To illustrate the application of other selected sites. Values found this methodology, the computation of through this exercise were then divided ~ravel energy to Willard Bay will be by 50 years (estimated life of the dam used as an example. The survey data by Water Resource Council recommenda­ upon which these calculations are based tion) to represent an annual energy are summarized by Stoddard (1981).

17 Table 5. Sample computation of construction energy cost expressed in fossil fuel equivalents for Glen Canyon Dam and Flaming Gorge Dam (Batty et al. 1976).

(a) (b) (c) (d) ---bxd+c (bxd+c) Installed Energy Energy a c Mean c c Mass Or Inv. Raw Inv. Replacement Evaluation Net Mat. Quantity Mat. Recycled Energy Invest. Schedule Factor (Million kg) 106 joules/kg Mat. TJ 1eP joules (kg) (1012 joules)

PROJECT: Glen Canyon Dam (Lake Powell) Steel Rebar 12.998 0.0 41 900 20 950 1.0 544.606 Steel Carbon 46.392 0.0 58 660 29 330 1.0 2 721. 372 Aluminum 0.950 1.1 276 541 108 940 1.433 376.494 Copper 0.250 1.3 142 461 83 800 1. 765 62.754 Cement 969.834 0.0 12 570 12 570 1.0 12 191. 206 t-' 00 Aggregate 9 298.408 0.0 46 46 1.0 428.564 Excavation & Fill 11 997.946 0.0 29 29 1.0 351. 526 Turbines Hydro. 4.426 1.2 87 990 41 894 1.6 612.028 Generators 5.625 1.3 83 800 62 840 2.0 931. 018 Total Energy Investment 18 219.652

PROJECT: Flaming Gorge Dam Steel Rebar 2.300 0.0 41 900 20 950 1.0 96.354 Steel Carbon 6.699 0.0 58 660 29 330 1.0 392.957 Aluminum 0.005 1.1 276 541 108 940 1.433 1.982 Copper 0.005 1.3 142 461 83 800 1. 765 1.257 Cement 179.969 0.0 12 570 12 570 1.0 2 262.225 Aggregate 1 699.709 0.0 46 46 1.0 78.341 Excavation & Fill 1 399.760 0.0 29 29 1.0 41. 054 Turbines Hydro. 0.550 1.2 87 990 41 894 1.6 76.036 Generators 0.680 1.3 83 800 61 840 2.0 112.523 Total Energy Investment 3 062.730 Investigators found that during is the one-way distance from the point evaluation periods, the recreators of origin to the site. Multiplying entering Willard Bay State Park resided these two values gives the one-way at various nearby communities in the vehicle kilometers in travel from proportion shown in Table 7. Also shown each location and this is summed to one-way vehicle kilometers trave led by the s am p leg r ou p tor e a c h the sit e • Doub ling this amount accounts for the Table 6. Annual cons true tion energy input. return trip and represents total vehicle kilometers traveled. GJ (l09 Joules Oil The distances used are point to Equivalent) point mileage figures from standard highway road maps. Some of the re­ Lake Powell 364 393 spondents live either closer or further Flaming Gorge 61 244 from the site than the mileages indi­ Rockport Res. 12 252 cated. However, this variat ion will Willard Bay 9 143 generally be averaged out with a large East Canyon Res. 7 919 population. As a result this should be Hyrum Dam 1 827 a reasonable approximation of the actual mileage traveled.

Figure 5. Recreators travel to the site in various kinds of vehicles.

19 Table 7. Calculation of vehicle kilometers by recreators sampled in this study to Willard Bay.

No. of Approx. Vehicle- Point of Origin Vehicles Distance of Kilometers From Origin Site from Origin

Cache Co. (Logan) 18 48.3 869.0 Salt Lake City 1216 73.5 89 433.2 Ogden 1023 19.3 19 756.3 Provo 13 157.6 2 048.2 Brigham City 334 10.5 3 493.9 S.W. Utah a 0.0 S.E. Utah 4 381.6 1 526.3 Northern Utah 0 0.0 a Out of state 78 112.0 8 736.0 "' Total One-Way Vehicle Kilometers 125 913.9 x 2 for Return Trip 251 827.9

~istance to nearest significant community across nearest state line, in this case, Pr~ston, Idaho.

It was assumed that out-of-state the sample, the overall total 1n vehicle users were from the nearest out of state kilometers is community of significant size. The slightly increased accuracy of further subdividing out-of-state points of (251 827.9 vehicle-kms) x (116 537/2686) origin does not appear to justify the increased complexity of computation. It 10 925 011 vehicle kilometers is recognized that this procedure may underestimate the actual energy expendi­ Data obtained from the question­ tures but it is doubtful that the naires were used to compute a weighted differences would be large given the average fuel consumption rate for the relatively small number of users from vehicles. For example, 13 percent of out of state that use most of the study the vehicles using Willard Bay were sites. The major exceptions may include classified as small cars. These cars Flaming Gorge and Lake Powell where out were assumed to obtain a mileage of 11 of state users represent a major portion kilometers per liter (26 mpg). Other of the use at these sites (the degree of mileage rates were assumed for four­ bias is not known), wheel drive vehicles (5.5 km/L or 13 mpg), mid-sized cars C7 .65 km/L or 18 State Parks and Recreation records mpg), pickUps (5.95 km/L or 14 mpg), were used to extrapolate the sample to motor homes (5.53 km/L or 13 mpg), vans the total recreation visits. For (5.1 km/L or 12 mpg), and cycles example, the sample included 2686 (14.88 km/L or 35 mpg). Dividing vehicles, and state agencies report average fuel consumption into vehicle­ some 116 537 vehicles traveling to kilometers gives total liters which is Willard Bay in 1978. Assuming the same easily converted into joule equivalents geographic distribution in visitors as as follows:

20 Vehicle regional recreation site while Willard Type: Bay is primarily used by local resi­ dents. Most of the data collected from Small Intermed. the questionnaires were from Utah 0.133 (11.05) + 0.073 (7.65) residents. As a result, Utah Parks and Recreation personnel provided Large Pickup estimates of the origin of users + 0.181 (6.38) + 0.384 (5.95) from other states for Lake Powell. Van 4-W.D. These estimates indicate that 35 percent oft h e vis ito r s are from Utah, 25 + 0.052 (5.10) + 0.105 (5.53) percent from California, 20 percent from Motorhome Cycles Arizona, and 20 percent from Colorado. To simplify the calculations involved, + 0.057 (3.40) + 0.006 (14.88) it was as sumed that recreators res ided 6.61 km/liter at the most concentrated metropolitan area of the state--Phoenix, Arizona; 10 967 011 km Salt Lake City, Utah; Denver, Colorado; 1 652 952 Ii ters 6.61 1 ter and Los Angeles, California. Obviously, more data would improve these estimates (1 652 952 liters) x (33 316 615 J/liter) but the metropolitan points-of-origin assumed would dominate because more 13 recreation visitors will be from these = 5.507 x 10 J areas. Furthermore, people coming from farther away will tend to balance those from points nearer so the average dis­ Similar calculations were performed tances from the metropolitan centers may for the other sites to result in the be a reasonable estimate (see Figure 6). travel energy approximations for each as summarized in Table 8. Complications associated with multipurpose travel and stopping Procedure generalization at more than one site are ignored in t his a n a 1 y sis be c au set he d a t a from The impoundments studied vary users indicated that most recreators are significantly with respect to size and single purpose and site visitors. Thus, distances traveled by visiting recre­ travel to and from the site is all that a tor s • For ex amp 1 e L a k e P owe 11 i s a LS considered in the first attempt to

Table 8. Estimated annual energy expenditure (1978) for six reservoirs in Utah.

TJ (1012 Joules)

Construction Travel On-Site

Lake Powell 364.4 2927.9 976.0 Flaming Gorge 61. 2 a Willard Bay 9.1 55.1 55.3 Rockport 12.3 38.0 27.9 East Canyon 7.9 23.6 30.4 Hyrum Dam 1.8 57.3 26.1

alnsufficient data.

21 I SALT LAKE CITY

I I I DENVER I ! I I I I

LOS ANGELES

PHOENIX• Figure 6. Travel energy assumption for Lake Powell. quantify this energy account. Resulting Example of computation travel energy values are summarized in Table 8. On-s ite energy for the Rock port Reservoir will be presented to il­ On-Site Energy Expenditure lustrate the procedures used. Data were first sought to quantify the amount of Estimation of the on-site energy energy used by a typical recreat ion was based on questionnaires. The re­ craft. Fuel conservation in boat sponses from those returning a question­ motors, as with automobiles, is cur­ naire on the followup survey of ac­ rent ly a major concern. Consequently, tivities actually undertaken paralleled motor fuel economy test data such as very closely the responses given by the plots in Figure 7 are obtainable recreators quizzed at the site. This from manufacturers. indicated these recreators have a concept of the costs of recreation and It was futile to ask recreators consciously make those decisions to abou t the fue 1 economy consumpt ion of spend the amount of energy, money, and the ir boat motors. Host do not know how time to pursue their chosen activities many gallons of fuel their craft consume wi th an awarenes s 0 f the t r ade-o ff s per hour. The survey was successful in involved. Thus, the data from the determining the horse power rating of survey were considered to be sufficient­ the motor and the length of time the ly accurate to reflect energy usage recreators spent at the site. Thus, the on-s ite. t ask was to relate power rat ing of the

22 --'----I mpg

10 15 20 25 30 35 BOAT SPEED (mph)

Figure 7. Representative plots of motor fuel consumption from manufacturer tests on standard boat sizes (Mecury 1979).

motor to average fuel consumption rate From the recreator responses to the and multiply this rate by the amount of questionnaire at Rockport Reservoir we time on the water. calculated an average boat motor rating of 167.4 hp on the average and an A collection of motors were average fuel consumption rate per boat investigated, representing trade at that site of 16.1 L/h. names commonly available in Utah. The horse-power rating of these motors was A distinction was needed between plotted versus their average fuel con­ day-recreators and overnight campers. sumption rate in liters per hour in According to the survey data, virtually Figure 8. no one stayed between 12 and 20 hours. A natural break of 12 hours was taken For outboard motors the average for analysis purposes. Those who spent fuel consumption rate in liters per hour less time at the site were cons idered 1S estimated as: day-recreators and were given credit for spending most (90 percent was assumed) FCR (L!h) 0.084 hp - 3.36 of their time operating the boat. Those spending more time were assumed to also And for inboard motors we estimate camp, sleep, eat, etc., during the day and to spend only a fract ion (25 per­ FCR (L!h) 0.158 hp - 5.05 cent was assumed) of their site time 23 -..c 19 ...... J -o t:t 0:: oz 15 b: :?E :::> (/) z 8 I I .....J W :::> I.l... 150 200 250 300 BOAT MOTOR RATING (horsepower)

Figure 8. Average fuel consumption rate (liter/hr) as a function of horse-power rating for outboard motors. boating. These fract ions can be made then more exact by further observation, but, for a firs t a pproxima t ion, they seem adequate. We then extrapolated the Total number of boats brought to survey sample results to estimate the Boat hours Total boat site during year total annual energy devoted to boat ing in survey hours at site Number of boats at Rockcreek. sample during year in survey Hours spent at Hours spent by site by survey or groups staying 0.25 + survey groups 0.90 staying less longer than 12 than 12 hours 463 (10 947) 52 252 total boat hours at site hours ( 97) during year

Boat hours Fuel consumption is calculated as: in survey sample or (52 252 boat hours) (16.1 l/h) 841 257 L of fuel

{1672) (0.25) + (50) (O.g) 463 or 13 = estimated boat hours from survey sample (841 257 L) (33 316 000 J/L) 2.802 x 10 J

24 Cons iderat ion should be given, of tion. The results shown 1n Table 8 course, to other on-s ite energy ex­ suggest that approximately 30 million penses. Fuel to cook meals, to heat gallons of liquid fuels are expended water or illuminate a lantern are all each year for recreation at Lake Powell legitimate energy accounts. These including travel to and from the site amounts are sma 11 compared to the boat but excluding construction energy. In operation energy expenditures. Further­ comparison, the Economic Research more, it may be argued that cooking food Service of the U.S. Department of and lighting lamps would still occur if Agriculture estimated the amount of the recreators were home and so probably energy used on Utah farms for ctop and should not be included in a net ex­ livestock production including field penditure analysis exclusively for operations, irrigation, crop drying, recreation. mechanized feeding, space heating, farm business, truck and auto use, etc. The Similar procedures were followed reported values are shown in Table 9. for the other sites. The results are shown in Table 8 along with the con­ Comparison of the values shown in struction and travel energies for each Table 9 with those of Table 8 suggest site. that the liquid fuel energy devoted to Procedure generalization recreation [(2927.9 + 976) x 1012 joules = 39 0 3 x 1 0 1 2 j 0 u 1 e s ] a t L a k e P owe 11 Lake Powell is a major attract ion alone (not counting the construction located a considerable distance from energy) is roughly equivalent to the population centers. As might be ex­ total liquid fuel energy required for pected, the energy devoted to travel by all of agricultural production [(1960 recreators at Lake Powell greatly + 1760 + 400) x 1012 joules = 4120 x exceeds the construction energy and the 1012 joules] in Utah. The on site and energy expended on site. At the smaller travel energy [(55.1 + 55.3 + ••• + 57.3 sites located closer to population + 26.1) x 1012 joules = 313.7 x 1012 centers, the energy devoted to travel is joules] for the four small reservoirs, comparable to the energy expended at the h ow eve r , rep res e n t son 1 y abo uti 0 site. percent of the energy expended at Lake Powell. This is also approximately To ga1n a perspective of the equal to the LP gas used in agricultural energies shown in Table 8, it may production in Utah. These figures sug­ be helpful to compare the amount of gest that remote recreation sites may energy devoted to recreation at the five be heavy users of energy and that energy sites for which we have data with expenditures for travel generally repre­ another major energy using activity in i sent the largest portion of the energy the State of Utah--agricultural produc- associated with using impoundments.

Table 9. Energy used on Utah farms for crop and livestock production including field operations, irrigation, crop drying, mechanized feeding, space heating, farm business, truck and auto use. (Economic Research Service, USDA, 1977).

Gasoline Diesel & Fuel Oil L P Gas

1000 gal 1012 joules 1000 gal 1012 joules 1000 gal 1012 joules 14 831 1960 11 817 1760 3014 400

25

CHAPTER 5

ENERGY ACCOUNTING AS A PREDICTIVE MECHANISM

A second objective of this research hour of driving time. Hypothetically was to evaluate energy accounting assuming a relation between distance methodologies as a mechanism for pre­ and energy, take the Rockport value of dicting the energy impacts of water 76.30 (MJ/visitor per hour driving time) development alternatives. This evalua­ and consider that the distance from the t ion is based on the analysis and data dominant population center (Salt Lake outlined in Chapter 4. City) to Hyrum Dam represent s approxi­ mately a 2-hour drive. Development of a Preproject Energy Model (76.30 MJ/visitor-year/hour)

Construction of a water development x (2 hours driving time) = 152.60 project may be based on actual or per­ ceived demands for flat-water recre­ This value is very close to the value of a t ion) irriga t ion) power) and flood 150.59 from Table 10. control or other purposes. However) it is not always obvious to planners that The Lake Powell figure would the expenditures needed to obtain these represent about a 10 hour drive, which benefits can be justified. If energy is not very far off the actual, further analysis can help clarify these impacts, support ing such a correlat ion. Herein then it may become an important tool for is the justification for computation of water planners. travel energy for Lake Powell as was done in Chapter 4. Geographic distance A first step for development of a tot he sit e from pop u 1 at ion c e n t e r s general energy strategy is to predict appears to be a definite factor in the per capita energy use for a site. It recreation. Smaller facilities located is interesting to examine the per capita close to population centers would seem energy expendi tures for the five sites to be more energy efficient for provid­ evaluated. ing the same recreation.

Travel energy For development of a predictive model, some relationship would have to The order of listing in Table 10 is be accepted and used. We are suggesting intentional. One can look at the top that relationship could be: three numbers in the travel energy column and observe that they fall Annual Travel Energy 75 r~J/visitor'hr within a narrow envelope and are lower Driving time No. of visitors than the others. Of greater importance x in hours per year ~s the fact that these three water recreat ion sites are geographically On-site energy closest to the Salt Lake City-Ogden population center. Travel to any of the It is observed from Table 10 that three would represent only about one the on-site energy per capita for

27 Willard Bay, Rockport Reservoir, and oriented to sight-seeing and visitors Hyrum Dam falls within a ± 10 percent stay longer. Though this may not explain span 023, Ill, and 137 MJ/visitor, the total extent of the figure it pro­ respectively). The data in this column vides a reasonable rationale for the on­ are influenced heavily by the type of site energy expenditure at Lake Powell activity in which the recreators engage. being greater than at the other sites. At the three mentioned sites, a similar mix of fishing, waterskiing, and plea­ Development of an on-s ite factor sure boating is reported. for the ensuing model is, at best, imprecise. It can be concluded that The exceptional figures for East activities of the recreators do play a Canyon Dam and Lake Powe 11 are part ially significant role in energy account ing. explained in the same context. The long However, this relates to the attractions straight shape of East Canyon Reservoir of the site and the public perception makes it popular for hydroplanes and (real or imagined) of those attractions. power boat racing. The motors of boats at East Canyon typically were rated at There appears to be a relationship higher horsepower than at the other between distance traveled and the sites and this accounts for the greater predominant recreation activity at a per capita on-site energy. In the site (Table 11). For example, sites instance of Lake Powell, larger pleasure that are close to the origin of users crafts (yachts, cruisers) are found in appear to be used most heavily for high greater numbers and the activity is more energy activities such as waterskiing,

Table 10. Energy expenditures per visitor for five reservoirs in Utah.

Travel On Site Visitors (May-Nov. ) MJ Liters of Fuel a MJ Li ters of Fuela Visitor Visitor Visitor Visitor

Willard Bay 447 318 61.22 1.84 123.52 3.71 East Canyon 170 389 69.26 2.08 178.49 5.36 Rockport Res. 248 727 76.30 2.29 111. 79 3.36 Hyrum Dam 190 190 150.59 4.52 137.01 4.11 Lake Powell 1 816 514 805.74 24.18 537.58 16.14

a 1 gallon = 3.7854 liters.

Table 11. Most probable activity at site according to origin.

SLC Ogden Cache Brigham Morgan Provo

Willard Bay Ski Ski Ski Ski Fish Boat Hyrum Dam Ski Ski Ski Ski East Canyon Ski Fish Fish Ski Fish Rockport Ski Fish Other Boat Flaming Gorge Fish Fish Fish Fish Fish Fish Lake Powell Boat Boat Boat Boat Boat

28 while more distant sites appear to be in estimating the amount of energy that used most heavily for boating. However, will be used must include an estimation speci:fic characteristics of some sites of the visitation to the site. Numerous make some uses dominant (e.g., fishing studies (Boyet and Tolley 1966; Dyer and at Flaming Gorge, skiing at Hyrum Dam, Whaley 1968; Kalter and Gosse 1969; and boating at Lake Powell). Gillespie and Brewer 1969; Myles 1970; Cicchett i 1973; Dyer, Kelly, and Bowes Planners involved in preparing an 1977; Wetzstein, Green, and EIsnor 1981) energy impact statement for a proposed have developed procedures that can be recreation site must estimate the mix of used in estimating the level of visita­ act ivities that will probably occur at tion. Therefore, this issue will not be the proposed water impoundment and discussed in this report although an rela te this to the energy per visitor interesting correlation between surface assessed to the project by on-s ite ac­ area and visitation was developed by SL. counts. Once these probable activities have been identified, the energy It 1S seen then, that energy converS10n factors outlined below accounting principles can be used can be used to estimate the fuel that to extrapolate energy expenditures into will be used in recreating at a parti­ the future. The utility of this result cular site. For example, for water is that energy usage can be forecast skiing: even before the project is init iated. The informa t ion gathered f rom these energy account ing exercises will make On site MJ) (Expected comparisons possible between water 130 . . of visitorsno) energy VIsItor ( per year recreation options as well as comparison with other kinds of recreation which may be in competition for the same energy For speed boating and racing activities: commitment.

Water Recreation Response Expected no» On site to Fuel Price 200 .M! of visitors energy VISItor ( ) ( per year After 1978, the year for which the data used in this study were obtained, major disruptions in traditional recre­ For larger boats, cabin cru etc. : ational patterns at flat-water sites were evident. The plot of Figure 9 shows the 1979 monthly attendance at On site EXpe~t~d no» 500 . MJ) . of VIsItors Lake Powell as a percentage of the 1978 energy • VIsItor ( ( per year attendance for corresponding months. Superimposed on this is the national monthly average price for various grades Estimate of attendance of fuels. Although a number of factors may cause variances, the general down­ The above outlines how the pre­ ward trend in visitation suggests ceding analysis can be used to estimate rising fuel prices tend to dampen the amount of energy that wi 11 be used recreat ional act 1V1 ty. Th is conf irms per capita at a particular site. other studies suggesting recreational However, it is necessary to estimate the act ivity at relatively remote sites is total number of people that will utilize inversely related to the price of fuel a part icul.ar water deve lopment project (Burke and Williams 1974). before the total amount of energy that will be expended by recreators can be A plot of 1979 and 1980 attendance estimated. Therefore, the second step as a percentage of attendance of the

29 same month in the previous year at three lation centers may be needed if fuel of the smaller sites is shown in Figure prices escalate. 10. Faced with higher costs for recre­ ation, enthusiasts apparently chose to As part of the survey and in this forego a long trip to Lake Powell, study, recreators were asked what their opting instead for shorter trips to responses would be to increased recre­ closer sites. These results seem to ation costs. Their responses are tabu­ substantiate the thesis that more water lated in Table 12. It is clear that recreation areas closer to urban popu- some changes would be made. It is not

120 Leaded Premo full serve -c self serve 120 W 0 - Unleaded Reg. full serve :c 0 self serve I- 0> ...... 0::: .....en 0 c I.J.... Q) 100 0::: (,) 100 Z 0 W - ..J- CJ) ..J ~ 0::: ~ « W W => CJ) I.J.... 80 5 0::: 0::: 80 / --- I.J.... « W g / 0 >- 0 W W 2 / Z I ~ W / t:= 0 S:2 60 60 Z :c 0::: / w I- a.. () Z .-----' 0::: ..J 0 - ,-' ---' W 2 ~ 0- W CJ) W 0::: 40 40 « 2 Leaded Reg, « W Z (j) (!) full serve 0 « self serve - 0::: Heating Oil ~ W ~ (j) ~ 0 > Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jon Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 1978 1979

Figure 9. 1979 fuel prices and Lake Powell attendance as percentage of the same month the previous year.

30 ::'. ,.. . :c: .. I­ , . Z · . 160 · . o · , :2: , .." w .." :2: ..:: : : : ... ., '. <{ 140 ·· . . CJ) . w ,...... :c: ,, ...... , I- . , , , 0::: 120 .. I I ~. . ~ : ~ :. 0::: .' I ZW , \, :. p O...J 100.....l.:.··~ \ : \1 ~o::: \ I: I I \ t I ~L5 \ I CJ) f. J I I \ : I I I \ ~ -0::: I, : I I I ><{ \ I: I 80 \ " I , lJ..W /­ '.: I I \ ,: . ' I 0>- I ,: '.: I \ I I I - ,: I ww I . r I \ <'!)z I \ : ,: , I \ / -, , I / \ : ,: I ~O 60 I \ I I "'X': ' \ Z I, .. I ' I W .. I ' I , ' '_H1r.!:!r:!2 .9.9.1!'.. I .' I ' U I .: 0::: I W , I := " I 40 \ a.. I " \ I CJ) I <{ I I Z \ J o 20 I I I I I , ~ I ~ CJ) "

> I J FMAMJ JASONDJ FMAMJJ 1979 1980

Figure 10. Attendance 1979-1980 at Willard Bay, Rockport Reservoir, and Hyrum Dam as percentage of previous year's attendance for the same month.

31 clear, however, what other recreational water recreation for example, with ener­ activities would be substituted. It gy costs of golf, hunting, motorcycle would be interesting to compare energy racing, etc., because water related costs of different activities, comparing activities (e.g., boating, fishing) may be a more or less intensive user of Table 12. Recreator reaction, by per­ energy than would be the alternative cent of sample, to increased recreational activities. This suggests fuel costs. that more work is needed to estimate the net energy use of particular activities; % 1. e., what are the energy expendi tures with versus without the activity being Not go as often 41 considered. Furthermore, policies can Not go 21 be formulated and evaluated as to their Go closer to home 16 potential energy impacts. For example, Fewer trips but with longer stays 13 3-day weekends tend to encourage water oriented recreation (and increased Restrict boat use 4 energy consumption) as indicated by data No response 5 plotted in Figure 11.

3000

2751

2500 B

2000 (f) g0: u; > 1500

1375 /, '" "- '" "- / .... , 1202 '/1173 '\ I \ I \ 1099 1000 / \ ;' \A I \ I \ / \ __ - - _.I 739 \ 7QQ __ 675 ------673 626 500~------THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED DAYS OF THE WE EK - Figure 11. Comparison of average Rockport Reservoir attendance on 3-day weekends (B) vs regular weekends (A). 32 CHAPTER 6

ENERGY ACCOUNTING AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

One of the primary object ives of accepting the medium of exchange that this study was to devise an energy exists in the area being studied, but accounting methodology that would energy accountants continue to argue "supplement economic benefit-cost over which is the "best" numeraire. (B/c) analysis." The major reason why this study was undertaken stemmed from a Methodology/Assumptions perce ived weakness, by some people, of B/C analysis that energy impacts were Each of the methodological assump­ not correctly or fully evaluated. The tions outlined in Chapter 3 can be preceding analysis outlines the energy related to similar issues that have been accounting methodology developed but it resolved in Blc analysis. The selection does not evaluate this methodology with of a numeraire (petroleum fuel equi­ respect to the similarities and dif­ valents) is troublesome but resolvable. ferences it has with B/C analysis. Many However, whatever numeraire chosen will of these similarities and differences involve some problems when energy are suggested in the previous analysis equivalents of different resources must but are not made explicit. The follow­ be estimated (e.g., coal vs gas vs ing explicitly outlines similarities and hydro). The decision to ignore natural di fferences between B/C and energy energy impacts and indirect energy accounting methodologies. inputs is essentially analogous to the decision to ignore secondary and Techniques tertiary monetary costs. This does not mean that these inputs or cos ts don 1 t Essentially every energy accounting exist, it only suggests that their technique outlined in Chapter 2 has an order of magnitude is such that the analogous parallel in Blc analysis. For information provided by including example, net energy is simi lar to net them is not worth the effort required benefits where the energy (costs) needed for their determination. to develop a resource is subtracted from the energy (benefits) obtained from that Perhaps the one area where B /C resource. Another important area in­ analysis and energy accounting differ is volves the "holistic" approach suggested .the evaluation of construction inputs. by Odum. This approach would count This stems from two basic differences in all energy inputs and is essentially the methodologies. First, the numeraire analogous to counting all pecuniary and chosen (e.g., dollars vs petroleum technical externalities (Prest and equivalents) would tend to weight the Turvey 1965). However, the most trouble­ various inputs differently. For example, some issue for both Blc analysis and energy account ing account s for the e ner gy account ing generally invo 1 ve s energy inputs of a resource while Blc the subjective selection of a numeraire; analysis weights inputs according to dollars vs fran.cs vs pesos or oil vs gas their relative scarcity. Th is illus­ vs coal equivalents. This issue 1.S trates a basic philosophical difference commonly solved in B/c ana ly s is by between the two approaches. Energy

33 accounting assumes that energy is the methodology one would use in B/C analy­ most limiting input form while B/C sis to determine the benefits of provid­ analysis does not make this assumption. ing recreation at some water development There are some logical reasons why except in the interpretation of results. energy could be the limiting input form (Georgescu-Roegen 1975) but if this In estimating economic benefits position is taken to the extreme it from outdoor recreation the cost yields an "energy theory of value" that of travel to a reservoir and for on-site is subject to the same weaknesses as the activities is usually regarded as a "labor theory of value" suggested by surrogate of willingness to pay for the Karl Marx (Blaug 1968). experience and hence becomes a tool for estimating benefits of a water project The methods used to estimate the rather than cost. According to this energy expended in traveling to/from and interpretation, recreation at more at a recreation site are essentially distant reservoirs might tend to be equivalent to the methodology used to accounted a higher benefit than re'cre­ estimate the expenditures incurred by ation at not so distant sites. Thus the recreators (Howell 1981). This suggests process of maximiz ing net economi c that essentially every step used in this benefits tends to increase energy use. study to determine the energy traveling Energy analysis on the other hand and on site is equivalent to the pro­ accounts for energy inputs to travel and cedures used in B/C analysis except a for on-site activities as a cost rather different numeraire is emphasized. than a benefit. Thus, one could take the energy expendi­ tures shown in Table 11, multiply them Another difference seems to be that by the cost per joule or unit volume of energy account ing reflects only the fuel and find the costs spent by recre­ energy costs of activities while ignor­ ators. Similarly, expenditures per ing other costs (time, satisfaction capita that are available from other foregone, etc.) while economic analysis studies could easily be converted at least in part incorporates these to energy equivalents. factors. Furthermore, energy accounting does not provide a mechanism for evalu­ Prediction ating whether the expenditure of these energies is beneficial in the aggregate The predictive mechanism outlined because these decisions must involve in this study ~s equivalent to the social rather than physical evaluations.

34 CHAPTER 7

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In summary the following accomp­ The energy requirements to sustain lishments were made as part of this recreation at the sites studied is not project. inconsequential. About as much energy is devoted to recreation at Lake Powell 1. A large amount of energy alone as is devoted to all of production accou nt i ng literature was care fully agriculture in Utah. This helps place reviewed by an interdisciplinary team in perspective the impact that water that included both economists and based recreation has on our energy thermodynamicists. A simple workable resources but does not suggest that me thodo logy was devi sed for energy these expenditures cannot be justified. accounting. The models used to predict the 2. Relevant data pertaining to travel and on-site energy expenditures recreation at Lake Powell, Willard per visitor should be reasonably re­ Bay, East Canyon Reservoir, Rockport liable and could be used with some Reservoir, and Hyrum Reservoir were confidence in the preparation of energy obtained from visitation records and impact statements. questionnaires and on-site surveys. The perceived need for energy accounting appears to be based almost 3. Values for the energy asso­ entirely on the suspicion that current ciated with travel to and from the market prices do not reflect the value recreation site, the energy expended of future energy inputs and that future at the recreation site, and the energy energy prices will shift dramatically associated with construction and u pwa rds re la t i ve to other goods and maintenance of the site were estimated. services. For example, it appears to have a greater emotional impact to say 4. A tentative model was developed that as much 1 iquid petroleum fuel is that can be used to predict the amount burned annually in pursuit of recreation of energy that would be expended in at Lake Powell as is used by all of recreation activities at a proposed Utah IS agricul ture than to compare the water development project. dollars devoted to fueling those two activities. Yet precisely the same A number of interesting conclusions information is implied in both state­ may be drawn from the study. Even ments. Certainly that information could though the societal energy inputs to the be derived from an economic analysis as construction of water impoundments such well as an energy analysis. as Glen Canyon Dam are large, that energy input is generally relatively We, therefore, recommend to the small compared to the energy devoted to water management community that energy recreation at the site over the expected accounting analyses need not be deliber­ life of the project. ately called for in connect ion with

35 proposed water projects. If energy associated with a particular project can impact analysis is imposed by legis­ be obtained from traditional economic lative mandate then every effort should analysis simply by careful delineation be made to keep that analysis simple and and interpretation of the costs asso­ understandable. The guidelines developed ciated with energy use. Energy account­ in this study are recommended. ing clearly assigns energy inputs to recreation as a "cost" rather than a The complex "holistic" energy "benefit" whereas traditional economic accounting methodologies should be Blc analysis sometimes does just the rejected on the grounds that they opposite depending on interpretation. distort the basic issues. These kinds Thus energy analysis could help provide of analyses are subject ive in general a countering factor ~n considering and thus reflect the part icular biases whether construction of additional of the investigators. Because they are recreation facilities at large distant so difficult to understand and have an reservoirs is really in the nation's associated esoteric jargon there seems best interests. to be a certain mystic that implies they are conveying more information than they Furthermore, energy accounting does really do. We have seen no real evidence tend to li ft the leve I of energy con­ that environmental impacts, for example, sciousness which is desirable in a are more realistically assessed by society that must become more energy energy accounting than by economic conservative. Certainly society in analysis. general and water use planners in par­ ticular must be aware of the demands on We further suggest that a suitable basic resources generated by activities perspective of the energy impacts such as water based recreation.

36 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adelman, M. A., et a1. 1974. Energy Batty, J. C., J. P. Riley, W.J. Grenney, self-sufficiency: An economic and D. A. Bell. 1976. An energy evaluation. Technology Review, accounting evaluation of several 76(45) • a It ernat ives for hyd ropower and geothermal development. Final Adelson, P. D., Ed. 1974. Energy: Use Report Project A-031, Utah Water conservation and supply. American Res ear c h Lab 0 rat 0 ry, Utah S tat e As so ci at ion for Advancement of University, Logan, Utah. Science, Washington, D.C. Bayley, S., et a1. 1977. Energet ics Ayres, R. U., and M. Narkus-Kramer. and systems modeling: A framework 1976. An assessment of method­ study for energy evaluation of ologies for estimating national alternative transportation modes. energy efficiency. ASME 76-WA/TS-4. Engineering and Industrial Ex­ periment Station, University of Banks, William F. 1977. An energy Florida. (Available from NTIS.) study of pipeline transportation systems. Systems Science and Software, La Jolla, California. Bell, D. A. 1977. The development of a thermodynami c energy account i ng system and its application to power Baron, S. 1980. The economic vs. energetic techniques of forecasting project evaluation. Master's thesis, Utah State University, the true cost of solar energy. ASME Logan, Utah. publication 80-CZ/Sol-24, presented at Century 2 Solar Energy Con­ ference, San Franciso, California. Berry, R. S. 1972. Recycling - thermo­ dynamics and environmental thrift. Barton, John A., and Thomas J. Lutton. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 1979. Energy accounting in the 28:9-15. food processing industry. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Eco­ Berry, R. S. 1973. Recycling - thermo­ nomics, Statistics, and Cooperative dynamics and environmental thrift. Services, Washington, D.C. Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 29:11-17, 58-60. Batty, J. C., et a1. 1975. Energy inputs to irrigation. Irrigation Berry, B. R., and M. F. Fels. 1973. and Drainage Division, Journal of The energy cost of automobiles. ASCE, Vol. 101, No. IR4, Prog. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Paper 11810. 29:10-11-17 and 58-60.

Batty, J. C., D. A. Bell, and B. C. Berry, B. R., and H. Makino. 1974. Jensen. 1976. Energy account ing Energy thrift in packaging and perspect ives and guidelines. Utah marketing. Technology Review, State University, Logan, Utah. 76(4) :33-43.

37 Blaug, Mark. 1968. Economic theory 1.n Agriculture and University of retros pect. Irwin. California, Davis.

Boyet, Wayne E., and George S. Tolley. Cicchetti, Charles J. 1973. Fore- 1966. Recreation projection casting recreation in the United based on demand analysis. Journal States: An economi c review of of Farm Economics 48(4,part 1):484- methods and applications to plan 1002. f or the req uired envi ronment al resources. Lexington Books, D. D. Brown, Richard E., and William J. Heath and Company, Lexington, Hansen. 1978. (r) Evaluation of Massachusetts. operational effectiveness of recreation sites and II investment Clark, W. 1974. It takes energy to get analysis of recreation facility energy: the law of diminishing development. IWR78-R3. Report returns is in effect. Smi thsonian submitted to U.S. Army Engineer 5(9):84-91. Institute for Water Resources, Kingman Building, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Coates, J. F. 1974. Technology assess- ment. Yearbook of Science and Brown, S. J., and J. C. Batty. 1976. Technology. Energy allocation in the food system: A microscale view. Connor, Larry J. 1976. Agricultural Transactions of ASAE, 19:758-761. policy implications of changing energy prices and supplies. Report Bullard, C. W., P. S. Penner, and D. A. prepared for National Science Pirati. 1976. Energy analysis: Foundation by Michigan State Handbook for combining process and University, East Lansing. i nput-ou tput analy s is. Energy Research Group, University of Cornwell, B., and C. Sullam. 1978. Illinois. Energy efficient recreation travel, energy conservation: Policy Burke, James F., and Peter W. Williams. issues and fuel-use scenarios of 1979. Gasoline prices and availa­ savings potential, Part 4. Lawrence bility: What do they mean for Berkeley Laboratory, University of tourism? Volume 8, No.3. California, Berkeley. Institute for the Study of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Utah State University, Logan. Dinnen, G. U., and L. Cook. 1972. Oil shale and the energy crisis. Burness, Stuart, et al. 1980. Thermo­ Paper presented at the Winter dynamics and economic concepts as Annual Meeting of American Society related to resource-use policies. of Mechanical Engineers, New Land Economics, 56(1). York.

Carlson, T. C. G., and W. P. Gos·s. Dwyer, John F., John R. Kelly, and 1980. OTEC-A comprehensive Michael D. Bowes. 1977. Improved energy analysis. Mechanical procedure for valuat ion of the Engineering, p. 32. January. contribution of recreation to national economic development. Cervinka, V., et a1. 1974. Energy UILU-WRC-77-0l28, Research Report requir<::lments for agriculture in No. 128, Department of Fores try, California. Joint study: Cali­ Lei sur eSt u die s , and E con om i c s • fornia Department of Food and University of Illinois, Champaign.

38 Dyer, A. Allen, and R. S. Whaley. 1968. Gilliland, M. W. 1975. Energy analysis Predicting use of recreation sites. and public policy. Science, Bullet in 477. Utah Agricul tural 189:1051-1056. Experiment Station, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. Gramm, W. P., and R. R. Davison. 1973. The common sense way to more oil. Eckstein, Otto. 1958. Water resource Wall Street Journal. deve lopment. Harvard University Press. Greaves, M. J. 1975. Merchant iron plants: The case for importing Economic Research Service. 1977. Energy energy 1n the form of direct and U.S. agriculture 1974 data reduced iron. Engineering and base, FEA/D-77/140. U.S. Depart­ Mining Journal. McGraw-Hill, Inc. ment of Agriculture. U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Hancock, H. K. 1972. There is a Energy and U.S. Agriculture. 1974. Data difference between saying and base volume 2. Commodity series of doing. Utah Science, p. 1-6. energy tables (977). U.S. Dept. Hannon, B. 1972. System energy and of Agriculture, Economic Research recycling: A study of the container Service. Supt. of Documents, U.S. industry. The American Society of Government Printing Office, Mechanical Engineers, publication Washington, D.C. 20402. No. 72-WA/Ener-3. Finney, J. P., F. J. Miller, and D. B. Mill s • 1972 • Ge 0 the rma 1 power Hannon, B. 1972. System energy and project of Pacific Gas and Electric recycling: A study of the beverage Company at Geysers, California. industry. Center for Advanced Paper submitted for presentation at Computation Document No. 23. summer meeting of IEEE Power University of Illinois, Urbana. Engineering Society. Hannon, B. 1974. Options for energy Frabetti, Alton J., et al. 1977. Appli­ conservat ion. Technology Review, cation of net energy analysis to 63:2531. consumer technologies. Development Sciences Incorp., East Sandwich, Hannon, B. 1975. Energy conservat ion Mass. and the consumer. Science, 189:95-101. Gardner, B. D. 1975. Energy models and market prices. Paper presented at Harl, Neil E. 1980. The energy cr1S1S: the annual meeting of the Opera­ The adequacy of economic models. t ions Research Society of America, National Forum LX(4):42-43. Chicago, Illinois. Georgescu-Roegen, N. 1975. Energy and Heichel, G. H. 1976. Agricultural economic myths. Southern Economic production and energy resources. Journal, 41:347-381. American Scientist, 64:64-72. Gillespie, Glenn A., and Durward Brewer. Henderson, H. as quoted by C. Holden. 1969. An econometric model for 1975. Hazel Henderson: Nudging predicting water-oriented outdoor society off its macho trip. recreation demand. EOS 402, Agri­ Science, 190:862-864. cultural Economist, Natural Re­ source Economics Division, Economic Herendeen, R., and J. Tanaka. 1975. Research Service in cooperation Energy cost of living, (CAC-17l). with Missouri Agriculttiral Experi­ Center for Advanced Computation, ment Station. University of Illinois.

39 Herendeen, R. A., and C. W. Bullard III. Lounsbury, Margaret, Sandra Hebenstreit, 1974. Energy costs of goods and and R. Stephen Berry. 1978. services, 1963 and 1967, (CAC-140). Resource analysis: Water and Center for Advanced Computation, energy as linked resources. University of Illinois. Report No. 134, Water Resources Center, Univers ity of I IIi nois Heuttner, D. 1976. Net energy analy­ at Urbana-Champaign. sis: An economic assessment. Science 4235:101-106. McCormick, M. 1976. Proceedings of the Technology Subcommittee. Energy R Hirst, Eric. 1973. Energy intensiveness & D, Speech, Washington, D.C. of passenger and freigh t transport modes. Oak Ridge National Labora­ Makhijani, A., and A. Poole. 1974. tory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830. Energy and agriculture in the third world. Ballinger, Cambridge, Howell, C. S. 1981. An ecnomic analy­ Massachusetts. sis of energy accounting. Master's thesis, Utah State University, McCool, Stephen F., et a1. 1974. The Logan. energy shortage and vacation t ravel. Tourism and Recreat ion Hunt, John D. 1976. What direction Review, 3(2), Utah State Univer­ tourism? A plea for planning. sity, Logan. Tourism and Recreation Review Vol. 5, No.3, Institute for the Mercury Outboard Motor Division Testing Study of Outdoor Recreation and Center. 1979. Fuel conservation Tourism, Utah State University, tests. Pamphlet. Logan, Utah 84322. Milstein. J. S. 1977. Energy conser­ Hurst, E. 1974. Food related energy vation and travel behavior. requirements. Science, 184:134-138. Department of Energy.

James, L. Douglas, and Robert R. Lee. Mitchell, E. J. 1972. U.S. Energy 1971. Economics of water resources Policy: A primer. Enterprise In­ planning. McGraw Hill. stitute for Public Policy Research.

Kemp, N. B. 1971. The flow of energy Myers, C. D. 1977. Energetics: in an agricultural society. Systems analysis with appl icat ions Scientific American, 224(3). to water resources planning and decision-making. U.S. Army Lavine, Mitchell J., and Arnim H. Engineering Institute for Water Meyburg. (No date). Highway Resources, Kingman Building, planning with energy flow analysis. Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060. A report submitted on National Cooperative Highway Research Myers, J. G., et a1. 1974. Energy Program Project 20-1lA to the consumption in manufacturing. Bal­ Transportation Research Board of linger Publishing Co., Cambridge, the National Research Council, Massachusetts. Cornell University. Myles, George A. 1970. Effect of Li tterman, Mary, Vernon Edman, and quality factors on water based Harold Jensen. 1978. Economics recreation in Western Nevada. of gasahol. Dept. of Agriculture Desert Research Institute, No. and Appl ied Economics, University 3E, Progress Report Series, Reno, of Minnesota, ER 78-10. Nevada.

40 Non-Nuclear Energy Research and Develop­ the 1978 Summer Computer Simula­ ment Act of 1974 (PL 93-577), tion Conference, Newport Beach, 93rd Congress. 1974. California.

Od um , H. T. 19 71 • Environment, power, Pimentel, D., et al. 1973. Food and soc iety. John Wiley Inter- production and the energy crisis. science. Science, 193-434-949.

Odum, H. T. 1973. Energy, ecology, and Pimentel, David, and Marcia Pimentel. economics. Ambio 2:220-227. 1979. Food, energy and society. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Odum, Howard T., and Chester Kylstra. 1976 . E ner gy mode Is for envi ron­ Pimentel, D. 1974. Energy use conser­ ment, power, and society. A Report vation and supply. P. H. Albelson, to U. S. Energy Re search and De­ Ed. (AAAS, Washington, D.C.) velopment Administration, Univer­ sity of Florida, Gainesville. Pimentel, D., et al. 1974. Workshop on research methodologies for studies Odum, H. T., and E. C. Odum. 1976. of energy, food, man and environ­ Energy basis for man and nature. ment. Cornell University, Phase I, McGraw-Hi 11. June 18-20, Phase II, November 11.

Office of the State Planning Coordi­ Prest, A. R., and Ralph Turvey. 1965. nator. 1974. Some effect s of Benefit cost analysis: A survey. the fuel shortage on travel and Economic Journal, 75(300):683-705. recreation in Utah. February. Revelle, R. 1976. Energy use in rural Oser, Jacob. 1963. The evolution of India. Science, 192:969-974. e con om i c tho ugh t. H arc 0 u r t , Brace and World Inc., New York. Rothfield, L. B. 1975. Waste and energy requirements for the Otto, A. C., 1979. Energetics: A oil shale industry. Proceedings at propos 1. t 1.on for 'ch ange. Wa ter the Conference on Water Require­ Spect rum. 6 (1) :42-46. ments for Lower Co lorado River Basin Energy Needs. Tucson, Outdoor Recreation Action. 1974. Arizona. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, Rotty, R. M., A. M. Perry, and D. B. D.C. Report #31. Reister. 1975. Net energy from nuclear power. Institute for Pacific Gas and Electric. Information Energy Analysis, Oak Ridge, supplied on their Geyser units Tenn. 5 and 6 power plant per letter and booklet received. Shechter, Mordechai, and Robert C. Lucas. 1978. Simulation of Pigman, J., J. A. Deacon, and L. R. C. recreational use for park and Deen. 1972. Characteristics wilderness management. Published of outdoor recreation travel, for Resources For The Future by the Kentucky. Department of Research, Johns Hopkins University Press, report for Kentucky Highways. Baltimore and London.

Pilat i, David, and Richard Rosen. 1978. Shipka, Beverly D. 1974. Tourism and Energy use modeling of the iron and energy. Office of Research steel industry. Paper presented at and Analysis, U.S. Travel Service.

41 Shurr, Sam H., and Joel Darmstadter. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 1976. The energy connection. of Reclamation. 1969. Replacement Resources for the Future. No. factors and depreciation rates. 53. Office of Chief Engineer.

Simonson, Ernst. 1971. Physiology of U.S. Travel Data Center. 1974. Energy work capacity and fatigue. shortage impact survey. Summary Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Report 1150. Washington, D.C. Illinois. Utah State Tax Commission. 1978. Staff, Chauncey, and Chris Whipple. Report of gasoline tax refunds for 1978. Applicat ion of the ri sk/­ agricu 1 tural off-road veh ic les. benef it approach to the energy / Utah State Printing Office. environment conflict. Paper presented at the Conference on Water Resources Council. 1973. Water Environmental Risk/Energy Benefits and related land resources­ and the Implications for Education, establishment of principles and Lake George, New York. standards for planning. Federal Register, 38, Part III. Steinhart, John S., and Carol E. Stein­ hart. 1974. Energy use in Watson, D. S. 1972. Price theory and the U.S. Food System Science, Vol. its uses. 3rd Ed., Houghton 184, April. Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts.

Stoddard, Thomas C. 1981. Energy Wens ink, Robert B., John W. Wo I fe, accounting as a tool for evaluating Michael A. Kizer. 1976. Simulating man-made water recreation. M.S. farm irrigation system energy thesis, Dept. of Mechanical requirements. Water Resources Engineering, Utah State University, Research Institute, Oregon State Logan. University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Tien, J. K., et al. 1975. Reducing the Wetzstein, Michael E., Richard D. Green, energy investment 1n automobiles. and Gary Elsner. 1981. Estimation Technology Review. of wilderness use functions for Californian analysis of covariance Union Oil's Geothermal Division. 1976. approach. A paper presented at the Information concerning their steam annual meeting of the Western Ag field adjacent to the geyser's Econ Assn. Held at Lincoln, power plant. Per letter received Nebraska. February 13. Wiser, W. H. 1980. College of Science United Nations. 1965. The use of gas Distinguished Guest Lecture Series, in the cement industry. No. Address, Utah State University, St/EZE/GAS/13, New York. Logan.

42 APPENDIX

~------~-. .~ UTAH STATE DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION AND f?J{E ~ UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY: USER SURVEY ********************************************************** Name: Address: Phone: Boat #: Type of Vehicle (circle): Car (small, intermediate, full), Pickup, Van, 4-Wheel Drive, Motor Home Camping Equipment (circle): Tent, Camper, Trailer, Other Type & Size of Boat and Motors: inboard, inboard/outboard, jet, sail, paddle size of boat: ize of motors: No. in party: Time spent on site: Percent of time spent: fishing, skiing, boating camping, - ORV, other Were other sites visited on this trip? Yes, No. If so, where

What could we do to make your stay more enjoyable? (use back)

43

I. RECREATION ACTIVITIES 1. Approximately how many days will (did) you spend in recreation activities associ ated with 1akes and reservoi rs duri ng 1979? ______l. In what other major recreational activities do you or your family participate?

3. Has or will the current energy situation alter your participation in any of the recreation activities listed in 1 or 2 above? If so, briefly explain.

4. How many free nours do you have, on the average for outdoor recreation on each day of the week: Sunday, Honday, Tuesday, Wednesday, __ Thursday, _ Friday, -saturday, --Holidays.-- II. RECREATION EQUIPMENT 1. What types and size of boats and motors did you own and use during 1979? (e.g. 20 foot 120 horse outboard) ______

L. What primary vehicles were used to transport your boat (e.g. 3/4 ton pickup and camper)1 ______3. What other recreation vehicles are owned (e.g. snowmobile, Jeep)? ____

III. USER CHARACTERISTICS 1. City or town of residence: 2. Occupation of head of home: spouse: ------3. Annual family income before taxes (circle closest amount): over $40,00U $18,000 - $19,999 $10,000 - $11,999 $30,00U - $39,~~~ $16,000 - $17,999 $ 7,000 - $ 9,999 ~25,0uU - $29,999 $14,000 - $15,999 $ 5,000 - $ 6,999 $20,000 - $24,999 $12,000 - $13,999 below $5,000 4. Education of (circle highest year completed): Head of house: less than 8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17, more than 17 Spouse: less than 8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17, more than 17 5. How many children are livi~g at home: __ pre-teen __ teenagers -- other IV. BOATING 1. Which, if any, of the following sites were visited by members of the family during 1979 (circle): Bear Lake, Deer Creek Reservoir, East Canyon, Fish Lake, Flaming Forge Reservoir, Gunnison Reservoir, Hyrum Reservoir, Otter Creek ' Reservoir, Pine View Reservoir, Lake Powell, Rockport Reservoir, Great Salt Lake, Starvation Reservoir, Steinaker Reservoir, Strawberry Reservoir, Utah Lake, Willard Bay, Reservoirs in Idaho. 2. Which of the above sites were most often used:

45 3. Please describe the average or typical trip taken to the sites listed below during 1979.

Tra ve 1 When were most time Approximate percent visits made (hrs. ) of time spent: Cost Number I(Pl ease check) one of gas in Weekend & Week- Site way Fishing Skiing Boating Other & 0; 1 party Holiday days Comments on site, if any

East Canyon

Flaming Gorge

! I .J::'- 0'\ I ! ~- ! Lake Powell I

) Rockport

Willard Bay I