Out of any given population, the number of people who will be skiers will be determined by these variables and the relative cost of skiing in the region studied.

More people have skiing as their primary winter recreation activity in Aspen, Colo., than in Tampa, Fla., due to the relative cost of skiing in the two areas.

Changes in the demand for skiing will be the result of changes in the variables. Skiing demand is often projected to increase as a result of projected increases in income and leisure. In fact, the relationships are more complex. In fact, the relationships-while skiing is a function of leisure, it does not follow that any increase in leisure will result in an increased skiing demand.

An increase in summer vacation length will have little or no effect, nor will a shortening of the work day, nor will earlier retirement. On the other hand, a shift toward three-day weekends will probably result in a demand increase. The kind of leisure increase is critical in determining the magnitude of the increase in the demand of skiing services.

Similar considerations prevail with regard to income. Although it is true that skiing is four times more popular with families of $10,000 income than with families of $3,000 income, it does not follow that a general rise in incomes will result in a proportional rise in skiing demand. To be effective in increasing demand, an increase in income must result in increased discretionary income in the hands of that segment of the population which can and will use the money for skiing. The elderly may have increased incomes without lengthening ski towlines. Though this is a special case without large importance, another special case exists for low-income families.

Typically, low-income groups have many wants which are normally filled before they turn to skiing. A general rise in income will frequently result in a porportionally greater rise in the income of low-income groups. Such rises in income will not greatly influence the demand for skiing.

Available information indicates that skiing is a recreation activity found most frequently among young, high income, highly educated individuals. These people, and their children, are the consumers of skiing services. In general, those changes, and only those changes, which enable, in time and money, these people to consume more skiing services will result in an increase in the demand for skiing.

The demand for the type of recreation which can take place onlyor best-in a wild area is subject to many of the same considerations pertinent to skiing demand. With regard to the two variables already discussed, income and leisure, certain differences ought to be mentioned. Due to the extended season for wilderness activities, the use of the wild area is more responsive to leisure increases.

Fishing, hiking, hunting can be, and are, carried out over a longer season, and by a more diverse population than skiing.

Any increase in leisure, with the exception of shorter working days, will result in an increased wilderness demand. Income considerations too, are different. Forest Service surveys indicate that the distribution of wild area users income conforms more closely to normal income distributions.

This means that there are more low-income hunters and fishermen than skiers. Further, wilderness users appear to be more income elastic than skiing. The demand for wilderness responds to general income increases more readily than does the demand for skiing. Reasons for this are not wholly known, but may lie in the fact that lower income groups have a more immediate demand for hunting and fishing.

It is more difficult to characterize the users of the wild area than it is skiers. By and large, sampling has drawn a picture of the user which is not significantly different than-in most characteristics— than the general population.

The implication for wilderness demand are twofold. First an element of uncertainty is introduced into predictions about the demand since demand factors are not isolated. Second, in the face of uncertainty, the best predictions are made by recourse to historical correlation.

Historically, wilderness demand has increased in proportion to income and leisure at a steadily increasing rate.

THE SUPPLY OF SKIING SERVICE

Economic theory states that when demand shifts in favor of an industry, and profits in the industry go up, new capital will be attracted into the industry and the supply of industry services will increase.

The provisions of skiing facilities follows this general model. As the demand for skiing facilities increases, more will be constructed. Skiing, as an industry, is more capital intensive than most people realize. Given only minimal climate conditions and sufficient demand, skiing facilities can be constructed. In the Midwest the absence of slopes would seem to have been an extreme disadvantage. The rather sizable ski complex in the Midwest, particularly around Chicago, where hills were built almost from scratch, indicates that demand, and not natural endowment, is in the important factor. The absence of heavy or reliable snowfall is by no means crucial. Given frequent low temperatures-and the mountains of southern California have these snow machines can supply the "basic" ingredient. Skiing as an industry in the South is almost wholly dependent on snow making. The supply of skiing facilities can expand. It will expand when it is profitable to earn a sufficient return on expansion capital.

Expansion can take the form of new ski areas or additions to existing areas. Profit is the indicator of demand. The market mechanism works through profits. The presence of profits will signal to the businessman that expansion is in order.

It will then be in his, and the community's, best interest to expand, and he will do so.

Expansion not prompted by profits is often questionable. The absence of profits indicates that supply at current prices is in excess of demand. Existing firms are operating at reduced efficiency. An expansion of capacity will result in one of several paths. Either the new enterprise will fail, in which case existing firms will be affected only slightly, probably by being forced to lower prices.

Or, if the new enterprise does not fail, lower prices for all firms, and the failure of marginal firms, will probably be the cost of success.

In either case, income to the community will not be greater as a result of the expansion. Community income may suffer a net loss as a result of premature expansion.

The supply of facilities for wilderness recreation is somewhat different in nature from the supply of skiing facilities. Capital costs, with few exceptions, are borne by the government. While such areas are profitable to the community, they are not, due to the absence of entry fees, profitable to the government; they are outside the market and unresponsive to market forces.

New wild areas can be created, but they will not necessarily be created near regions which have excess demand for them. As far as Southern California is concerned, the supply may be considered fixed at or near current levels. Any increase in demand at current prices will result in more intensive use of existing facilities. Income to the community will rise as use increases.

INTERACTION OF DEMAND AND SUPPLY

Nearly all projections of income and leisure point toward an increase in both quantities over the next decades. Most recreation planners have taken this to mean that the demand for all types of recreation will increase. Outdoor recreation will be no exception.

But, the purpose of this paper is to compare the relative growth rates of two forms of outdoor activity-skiing and wilderness.

Sophisticated projections on the course of income and leisure (see work of "Resources for the Future-Land for the Future") indicate that the demand for wilderness recreation will increase faster than the demand for skiing.

Analysis already presented hints at the reasons. Most income projections point to more rapid growth in the incomes of nonskiing groups than in the skiing groups. Increases in leisure point in the same direction. The length of season, the greater age distribution of users, and overlap considerations lead to this conclusion.

On the supply side, it has been pointed out that ski areas can and will expand to meet increased demand. This expansion is independent of the presence or absence of wild areas.

As long as there are some lands which can, by the application of capital, be made into ski areas, demand will continue to be satisfied through the action of the market. The supply of wilderness is inelastic to all price levels under consideration.

Those communities which have them will benefit in much the same way a monopolist profits from his monopoly. As use becomes more intensive, income and value will grow.

To accurately assess the contribution of a recreation asset is difficult. The National Park Service has sponsored some research on the impact of parks on a region, and a few other empirical studies have been conducted.

But, as of now, no general model exists and each have divided the outdoor recreation experience into five phases. They are: "planning," "travel to", "on site", "travel back," and "recollection."

Market transactions in the "on site" phase are estimated to amount to less than half of the total expenditure for the recreation experience.

"On site" skiing purchases include lift fees, parking, meals and lodging.

"On site" wild area purchases-or, fishing and hunting supplies, unprepared food, camping supplies. Both skiing and wilderness recreation generate considerable income in the "planning" stages, but these purchases are most often made in the community of residence. Travel expenses are an important part of the community income generated by a recreation asset; gas and food are the main items, but there are numerous others.

Skiing income tends to be concentrated and abrupt. The community experiences a large income influx at peak times. Wild areas income is spread most evenly over a longer season. It is also more diffuse and hence difficult to measure. The two assets produce different kinds of income, received by different factors, though there. may be some overlap.

It is tempting to look at the huge expenditures made in a ski community on the "big ski weekend" and project into favorable net terms. But, this gross is depreciated over the whole year by expenses which do not respect the season. As a result, net skiing income is as difficult to measure as is wilderness income. Few communities can subsist on skiing income alone. No southern California community

can.

Big Bear, which receives the largest skiing income in southern California, is a developed recreation area. Facilities built for skiing can, and do, receive year-round use. If the San Gorgonio wild area is opened to mechanized skiing, but all other development is held in keeping with the spirit of the wilderness bill, it is difficult to see how year-round expenses will be partially offset by year-round income, as is done in Big Bear.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SKIING AND WILDERNESS

The demand for southern California skiing is determined by all of the factors previously discussed, and by the cost of the readily available substitute, northern California skiing. As southern California ski operators view it, the number of people who will ski at their establishments is a function of the income and leisure of southern California, and the price of skiing at Mammouth Mountain and other northern California resorts.

Southern California operators can-well, they are the recipients of the decisions that skiers make regarding the costs and benefits of skiing locally and skiing in northern California.

To a southern Californian, a trip to Mammoth implies relatively high transportation costs, meal costs, lodging costs, and lift fees.

Further, 350 miles means 14 hours will be spent in transportation, and the skier will be faced with making at least a 2-day commitment of time; these are also costs.

The benefits he is likely to receive include longer ski runs, more challenging slopes, better snow, and some intangibles inherent in Sierra skiing. On the other hand, the relative cost of a southern California trip is much less. Roundtrip mileage is 100 miles or less. He need not incur any lodging or meal costs. Lift fees may well be less and the time commitment may be shortened to 1 day. Bene

58-133-67-16

fits are different. The runs are not as long, and slopes generally are less challenging. Snow conditions are not as good.

Now, different skiers value the benefits and costs differently.

Some people will feel that the benefits of Sierra skiing exceed the costs. Costs are all relative. Others, particularly beginners and intermediate skiers, and families, will feel that local skiing conditions are quite satisfactory, and they will arrive that the costs of Sierra skiing exceed the benefits. There will also be a class between these two extremes.

They ski at both areas frequently, and evaluate conditions as they change over the season. For convenience, let us call the three groups serious, intermediate, and recreational.

The serious skier will be pleased if his income and leisure increase, but will not spend more on local skiing as a result. The recreational skier will likely increase his consumption of local skiing services if his income and leisure increase.

He will not respond to small price declines in Sierra skiing relative to local skiing, for he is more satisfied with the local product.

The intermediate skier is different. For them, local skiing represents an inferior good. If the price of Sierra skiing declines relative to local skiing-a decline in transportation or lodging costs would accomplish this-they will shift toward Sierra skiing. In economic jargon, each of these three groups represents a different market.

Each group has a different demand function, and each will respond differently to changes in variables which affect local skiing decisions. There are said to be 70,000 skiers in southern California. Serving them are 12 local ski areas. Between them they have 14 chair lifts and 12 other mechanical lifts-Pomas and T-bars. When all the areas are operating this results in a capacity to lift 21,000 skiers per hour. In addition to the mechanical lifts, there are over 50 rope tows, these tows double the lift capacity.

It would seem that by most measures, skiing capacity of local mountains is in step with demand. Profits in local skiing are not high. They are in fact marginal, with several areas in constant financial difficulty. Local skiing can expand when profits rise. Plans have been made by government and operators to double capacity.

As stated before, the different classes of skiers have different demand functions. Economic theory would lead us to expect different prices aimed at the separate markets. In fact, this is so. In 4 of the 12 ski areas the highest price, for services most comparable to Sierra skiing, for lifts is near the Mammoth price, $5 in 1963-64.

But, even these areas have other services aimed at the recreational and intermediate market. The next price level ($4.00) is found at all areas, and is the highest price at six areas. Seventy-five percent of the chair and mechanical lift capacity can be purchased for this price- -all rope tow capacity can be purchased for this or less.

It would appear that the local skiing industry is aimed at the recreational market primarily. The path of expansion in the industry is also directed toward this market. Expansion will be capital intensive and include such things as snow making and slope culture and improvement in lodges, et cetera, without the addition of San Gorgonio, local skiing will expand as the market for the service it provides expands.