Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Agricultural Experiment Station Reports LSU AgCenter 1973 Toledo Bend Reservoir: a study of user characteristics, patterns, preferences Alvin Lee Bertrand Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/agexp Part of the Agriculture Commons Recommended Citation Bertrand, Alvin Lee, "Toledo Bend Reservoir: a study of user characteristics, patterns, preferences" (1973). LSU Agricultural Experiment Station Reports. 308. http://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/agexp/308 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the LSU AgCenter at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Agricultural Experiment Station Reports by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. itterns, Preference Ivin L. iBertran lames G.Hoov^^^^^i^ ^^BulletinNo.67$J ij^m)UISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND GRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL C GRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION )OYLE CHAMBERS. DIRECTOR Table of Contents Page Introduction 5 Objectives of the Study 5 Historical Background 6 Description of Toledo Bend Reservoir 8 Methodological Procedure 8 Demographic Characteristics of Toledo Bend Users 9 Occupation 9 Age and Sex U Education 14 Family Income 16 Residence 18 Characteristics of Recreation Expeditions 19 Distance Traveled I9 Day of Arrival and Length of Stay 23 Nature of Trip 24 Type of Accommodations Used 25 Boats and Motors Transported to Toledo Bend 26 Recreation Activities 27 Expenditures for Toledo Bend Expeditions 29 Group Nature of Recreation Experience 30 Size of Party 30 Types of Groups 31 Users' Opinions and Preferences Regarding Toledo Bend Facilities . 32 Opinions Regarding Toledo Bend as a Tourist Attraction 32 Opinions Regarding Facilities Available at Specific Toledo Bend Sites 33 Opinions Regarding the Toledo Bend Development as a Whole 34 Preferences Regarding Control of Toledo Bend Facilities 36 Opinions Regarding Funding Sources for Toledo Bend Type Developments 36 Conclusions 37 2 List of Tables Page users in sample population 10 1. Occupations of Toledo Bend characteristics in sample 2. Distribution of age and sex population of Toledo Bend groups 12 Toledo Bend users in 3. Age comparison of male and female 1^ sample population users in sample 4. Educational attainments of Toledo Bend population and white Louisiana 5. Family income of white respondents 17 respondents compared with income of white Louisiana residents in Toledo Bend 6. Size of place of residence of respondents 1970 user sample and Louisiana sub-sample as compared with U.S. Census data for Louisiana 1^ residence 19 7. Size of respondents' childhood place of Bend 20 8. Distance traveled by respondents to get to Toledo of visits per 9. Distance traveled to Toledo Bend and number year by respondents, excluding persons who were first-time users 24 10. Respondents' day of arrival at Toledo Bend 24 11. Respondents' length of stay at Toledo Bend recreationists 25 12. Nature of trips as reported by Toledo Bend recreationists 25 13. Type of accommodations used by Toledo Bend 26 14. Number of boats brought per group to Toledo Bend 26 15. Types of boats used by Toledo Bend recreationists 16. Number of outboard motors brought to Toledo Bend, per group ^'27 3 17. Sizes of motors used by Toledo Bend recreationists 27 18. Principal types of fish sought by Toledo Bend recreationists .28 19. Ownership vs. rental of accommodations by Louisiana and non-Louisiana residents 29 20. Trip costs reported by Toledo Bend recreationists 30 21. Responses to question on whether costs reported were typical for a trip to Toledo Bend 30 22. Sizes of groups of Toledo Bend users 31 23. Characteristics of types of recreationist groups at Toledo Bend 31 24. Users' opinions regarding Toledo Bend as a tourist attraction . 32 25. Toledo Bend users' assessment of needed improvements at the particular sites at which they stayed 33 26. Users' opinions regarding needed improvements for the Toledo Bend development as a whole 35 27. Funding source preferences for Toledo Bend type developments as expressed by Toledo Bend users 37 List of Figures Page 1. Parish of residence of Louisiana respondents 21 2. Parish of residence of Louisiana respondents per 100,000 population 22 3. Toledo Bend area, showing zones of decreasing frequency of visits 23 4 Toledo Bend Reservoir A Study of User Characferisfics, Pafferns, Preferences Alvin L. Bertrand and James G. Hoover^ Introduction Within recent years the evolving social climate in the United States recrea- has made it increasingly clear that more opportunities for outdoor tion are needed. Two trends have been noted especially. On the one hand, more and more Americans are engaging in outdoor recreation activities as a result of increased leisure, and on the other hand existing natural resources suitable for recreation purposes are rapidly diminishing. The latter relates to matters of alternative uses of resources or failure to follow proper conservation practices.^ In light of the above and in keeping with the current emphasis on rural development, the opening in a rural area of a new facility with a large recreation potential has research relevance. Toledo Bend Reservoir presents such a phenomenon. Although it was designed as a multipur- pose facility, it has attracted a large number of recreationists in its first few years. This study was designed to provide benchmark data on those using Toledo Bend for recreation at an early point in its existence. Objectives of the Study The study made of Toledo Bend users had three general objectives. The first was to provide basic information of interest to planners in various state and other agencies concerned with the past and future development of Toledo Bend Reservoir as a recreation facility. In this regard, it was considered that information on characteristics of users of Toledo Bend Reservoir would be most helpful to planners. *Pro£essor, Departments of Sociology and Rural Sociology, and Research Asso- ciate, Department of Rural Sociology, respectively, Louisiana State University. This study is part of an overall project, aspects of which are being conducted in the School of Forestry- and Wildlife Management and the Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, as well as the Department of Rural Sociology Research, lit is appropriate to note that many government and private agencies are aware of these problems and have established policies and programs to deal with them. See for example: Resources in Action: Agriculture 2000 (Washington, D.C., U.S. De- 14-17; Environmental Quality (Washington, D.C., partment of Agriculture, 1967) , pp. First Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality, 1970), and Recreation Symposium Proceedings (Upper Darby, Pa., Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, USDA, 1971) , pp. 186-200. 5 The second major objective was to determine the relationships be- tween usage patterns and user characteristics. It was considered of rele- vance to relate recreation behavior to such variables as age, occupation, income, education, and place of residence. Information of this type will be of predictive value to those interested in developments such as Toledo Bend. A third objective was to contribute to the sociology of natural re- sources development and outdoor recreation. This objective is inherent in the disciplinary nature of the research project. Historical Background Agitation for a dam and reservoir on the Sabine River border of Texas and Louisiana began as far back as 1949. However, it was not until 1958 that both the Texas and Louisiana legislatures granted au- thority to issue bonds for development and building of such a facility. In 1960, Louisiana voters passed a constitutional amendment authorizing the Toledo Bend Dam project. Texas already had this authority. Ground- breaking ceremonies were held in 1961 and flooding was completed by May of 1968. The dam and powerhouse were dedicated in October of 1969. The dam and lake were built entirely through a cooperative effort be- tween Texas and Louisiana, with no permanent federal funding.^ Over- all control policies and programs were agreed on by both states, with each state being responsible for development of its own shoreline. The final cost of the project was over $65 million. At a cost of $15 per acre- foot of water stored, this is well below the national average of $30 to S60 per acre-foot for such facilities. The Toledo Bend Dam project was designed as a multipurpose fa- cility.3 The stated purposes were for hydroelectric power, water conser- vation, improvement of navigation, and recreation. The operation of Toledo Bend Reservoir is complicated by the need to satisfy these di- verse and conflicting needs. A high stage is important for power genera- tion, a low stage is important for flood control, and a near constant stage is important for recreation. Although the Toledo Bend project was planned so that its cost would be largely met by the sale of hydroelectric power, the greatest long-term economic benefit could well be in the recreation area. This possibility was one of the reasons for the present study. Some 24 public sites for recrea- tion facilities were set aside in the initial planning. Twelve were in Lou- 2For a full account of this rather unusual cooperative endeavor, see: R. Douglas Morgan, "Toledo Bend—Example of Bi-State Cooperation." Paper prepared for ASCE Annual Meeting and National Meeting on Water Resources Engineering, New Or- leans, La.. 1969." 3See: Report on feasibility of Toledo Bend Reservoir on the Sabine River of Texas and Louisiana, prepared for the Sabine River authorities of Texas and Louisiana, Forest and Cotton, Inc., Consulting Engineers, Dallas, Texas. 6 north end of the lake lying isiana and 11 in Texas, with one site at the sites for a total of 18.^ in both states. Louisiana has since added six more various stages of development The sites on the Louisiana side were in there were with none completed as of January 1, 1973.
Details
-
File Typepdf
-
Upload Time-
-
Content LanguagesEnglish
-
Upload UserAnonymous/Not logged-in
-
File Pages41 Page
-
File Size-