[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]


            Resource
           Anal, -tics
                             INCORPORATED  Practical Solutions for Managing Resources





                  Northampton County Sustainable Development Initiative
            TheCFeasibility and Economi                         'c. Potential
                       of Sustainable Development.
                 for Northampton County, Virginia



                                      December 14, 1993






                                          Prepared f or:
                         Northampton County Board of Supervisors-
                            Sustainable Development Task Force.



                                               by



                                       L. Steven Smutko.
                                       Leon E. Danielson
                                   Resource Analytics, Inc.

                                      Thomas G. Jo   hnson
                                        Blacksburg, VA





  t04 Glenwood Ave.   P.O. Box 5010    Raleigh, NC 27650    (919) 833-7008  FAX (919) 833-8088












                      Northampton County Sustainable Development Initiative
                 The Feasibility and Economic Potential
                          of Sustainable Development
                      for Northampton County, Virginia




                                         December 14, 1993

                                             Prepared for:
                             Northampton County Board of Supervisors
                                Sustainable Development Task Force

                                                  by


                                          L. Steven Smutko
                                          Leon E. Danielson
                                       Resource Analytics, Inc.

                                         Thomas G. Johnson
                                           Blacksburg, VA

               A report of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's Coastal Resources
                    Management Program pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                                Administration Award No. NA270ZO312-01.


                 This paper is funded by a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
               Administration. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not
                      necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its sub-agencies.
                                              00 ATM








                                                E OF








                                                          Preface


                         This study was conducted by Resource Analytics, Inc., of Raleigh, North Carolina,
                 under contract to the County of Northampton through its Sustainable Development
                 Initiative. The Initiative is funded by Northampton County, the Virginia Department of
                 Environmental Quality's Coastal Resources Management Program, and the National Ocean
                 and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management.
                 The SDI effort is aimed at developing an understanding of the links between economic
                 activity and natural resources and to seek ways to maximize economic potential without
                 diminishing the integrity of the ecological base on which this activity occurs and depends.
                 The preservation of the rural character of the county and other time-honored
                 characteristics of the county's culture, are another aspect of this initiative.

                         Production of this report would not have been possible without the assistance and
                 cooperation of many Northampton County residents. When documenting the economy of
                 any local area, it is best to consult with those who know it best. The authors would like
                 to acknowledge the assistance provided by the members of the SAMP management team,
                 the members of the Sustainable Development Task Force, and the numerous citizens of
                 Northampton County who helped us out in so many ways toward a fuller understanding of
                 Northampton economy.

                        We would also like to express our thanks to the people who contributed their
                 knowledge and insight to this report including Gene Brothers, John Chazal and Ernie Wade.
                 Finally, thanks to Jill Listowich for searching out hard to find data and interviewing dozens
                 of Northampton residents to gather information on sustainable development activities
                 occurring in the county.








                                               Atc-Awacutive Summafy


                 Setting
                        Northampton County, part of Virginia's Eastern Shore, is rich in natural and cultural
                 resources. Its chain of seaside barrier islands, a World Biosphere Reserve, is one of the
                 most important ecosystems in the eastern U.S. Its Chesapeake shoreline, characterized by
                 coastal bluffs and dunes, is largely undeveloped. Every year the county plays host to more
                 than 260 migratory bird species as they move along the Atlantic flyway. The county,
                 settled during the early colonial period, is rich in heritage. Dozens of historic structures
                 still dot the landscape.

                        Northampton's economy is based on farming and, to a lesser extent, fishing.
                 Agricultural productivity has been remarkably steady through the years. Seafood
                 production, however, has declined with the diminution of fish stocks. Vegetable and
                 seafood processing, once a mainstay of the economy, has nearly disappeared, leaving
                 many unemployed and underemployed. This, together with a general lack of economic
                 opportunities for many county residents, leaves the county with one of the highest poverty
                 rates in Virginia.


                 Opportunities
                        Northampton County can begin to capitalize on its natural and cultural assets to
                 build and strengthen its economy while preserving and enhancing its resources.
                 Agriculture, seafood, nature-based and heritage tourism, ecological research, and
                 indigenous arts and crafts all offer opportunities for sustainable economic development.


                 Nature/Heritage Tourism
                        Nature-based tourism can play a major role in economic development given the
                 quality and variety of natural and heritage resources of the county. Boating and fishing are
                 the most predominant nature-based tourism activities taking place in the county today.
                 However, Northampton can potentially capitalize on its unique wildlife resources and
                 capture a large share of the wildlife observation and birding market in the metropolitan
                 areas of Virginia, Maryland, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania.

                        There were an estimated 70,300 recreation party-trips made by residents and non-
                 residents in 1992 for fishing, boating, sightseeing, observing wildlife, and other travel
                 activities. Lodging unit occupancy averaged below 25% in 1992, with a maximum
                 monthly occupancy rate of 67 percent in July. People engaged in recreation, travel and
                 tourism in the county spent a total of $9.916 million on lodging, restaurants, retail
                 groceries, fuel and oil, and other goods and services. This initial spending generated
                 direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts throughout the county's economy. These
                 impacts are given below:









                 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







           Page iiv                                                                                           Executive Summary




                               Total Economic Impacts of Travel and Tourism, 1992 t1990 dollars)

                                                Impact Category                              Value M

                                Total Industrial Output                                          14,297,200

                                Total Compensation and Property Income                            7,808,300

                                Total Value Added                                                 9,461,900

                                Employment                                                                454

                                Contributions to Tax Revenue                                          51,000

                                Net Fiscal Benefit                                                  232,000
                                                                                                              J1


                    Travel and tourism is a rapidly growing industry nationally, and it is likely that
           Northampton County can capture a share of this market if the proper steps are taken.

                    To understand the potential impacts of an enhanced travel and tourism industry in
           Northampton County, we developed four tourism growth scenarios. These are:
                    (1)  Doubling the level of boating activities estimated for 1992 while holding other
                         activities constant;
                    (2)  Doubling the level of non-boating activities estimated for 1992 while holding
                         other activities constant;
                    (3)  Increasing the combined yearly motel and inn occupancy rate in the county to
                         50% and campground occupancy rate to 40%;
                    (4)  Increasing the combined yearly motel and inn occupancy rate in the county to
                         75%, campground occupancy rate to 40%, and increasing the number of motel
                         and inn units by 25% while maintaining the higher occupancy rate.


                    Total Economic Impacts of AftematiVe Travel and Toudsm Scenarios, (1990 dollars/.

                                               Total                                                                    Not
                                                                             Total:
                                                                                                                       Fiscal
                                            :Andustrial::    :Total         Valuer
                                      ..... . ....
                                                                                                                   W.
                                                                                                            ax
                                              QUIP                              . .... ...
                                                                                           @A b          T            Benefits
                      'Scenarjd:::::.,,:..':  (4:400OVI            Q)       W000.
                                                                *00                         (No.),       ($1000)       (41.000)
              1. Double Boating               20,106.6      10,956.1       13,272.7            639            72          326
                 Activity
              2. Double Non-Boating           17,213.0      9,395.9        11,399.5            549            62          279
                 Activity
              3. Increase                     21,073.9      11,481.3       13,926.7            673           138          346
                 Occupancy Rates
              4. Add New Lodging              28,209.5                     18,690.9            899           181
                 Units









                                            Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







                   Executive Summary                                                                               Page V




                   Research and Education
                           The importance of Northampton County and the Eastern Shore for resident and
                   migrating birds has generated much interest among researchers at nearby universities and
                   research institutions. The unique hydrogeology of the Eastern Shore has also generated
                   research activity in the county. In. 1992, there were seven research groups active in the
                   county spending over 5,900 research days. Total research expenditures in the county in
                   1992 was estimated to be approximately $377,500. The total (direct, indirect, and
                   induced) impacts of ecological research in Northampton County in 1992 are described
                   below:


                                    Total Economic Impacts of Ecological Research, 1992 1`1990 dollars)

                                                   Impact Category                        Value ($)

                                      Total Industrial Output                                    691,200

                                      Total Compensation and Property Income                     396,200

                                      Total Value Added                                          474,400

                                      Employment                                                       25

                                      Contributi ns to Tax Revenue                                 2,000

                                      Net Fiscal Benefit                                          12.000



                           Old Dominion University, in cooperation with the Nature Conservancy, announced
                   this year its intentions to establish a research facility in Northampton County dedicated to
                   the study of sustainable development. At the time of this writing it was not yet known
                   the size and scope of such a facility, and hence its total affect on the county's economy.
                   If the research facility evolves into a large center sponsored by a consortium of universities
                   and other research concerns, its impact on the community could be substantial. This is
                   especially true if it becomes large enough to employ several people, and provides a large
                   throughput of research days. Much of the impact now felt from research activities in the
                   county is from associated spending by researchers during their stay in the county.




                   Arts and Crafts
                           Production and sales of indigenous arts and crafts, often referred to as folk art, can
                   add significantly to a rural economy, particularly if the craftspeople in the area are known
                   for their skills. Although several craftspeople live and ply their trade in Northampton
                   County, there is little in the way of an organized system for production and distribution of
                   arts and crafts on such a scale as to have a significant economic impact. Because of the
                   small and scattered nature of this activity, we did not attempt to model the impacts of folk
                   art production on the economy.

                               To understand how a strong and thriving crafts "industry" might affect the
                   county's economy, we investigated successful arts and crafts guilds and cooperatives in
                   other communities to learn what they were doing. One such cooperative, the Watermark
                   Association of Artisans based in North Carolina served as our model.


                   Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







          Page vi                                                                               Executive Summary



                 The contribution of an expanded arts and crafts sector to the economy of
          Northampton County is summarized below:

                    Total Economic Impacts of an Expanded Arts and Crafts Industry (1990 dollars)

                                          Impact Category                        Value M

                            Total Industrial Output                                    939,900

                            Total Compensation and Property Income                     435,700

                            Total Value Added                                          476,400

                            Employment (full-time equivalents)                                 19

                            Contributions to Tax Revenue                                   2,000

                            Net Fiscal Benefit                                            14,000




         Agricultues
                 Agriculture has throughout the county's long history been a mainstay of the
         economy, even as agriculture in general has declined around in the state and country as a
         whole. The amount of cropland harvested in Northampton County has remained between
         about 36,000 acres and 50,000 acres throughout most of this century. Northampton is
         one of Virginia's largest producers of commercial vegetables, even though the trend has
         been to diversify into small grains soybeans, and nursery production.

                 Agriculture is by far the largest component of the county's economy. With total
         output exceeding $68 million in 1990, this sector drives the rest of the local economy.
         The total impacts of agriculture in Northampton County are described below:


                                      Total Economic Impacts of Agriculture, 1990.

                                         Impact.orCategory                       Value:40

                            Total Industrial Output                                 68,311,200

                            Total Compensation and Property Income                  13,941,200

                            Total Value Added                                       15,979,000
                          -Employment (full-time equivalents)                                899
                            Contributions to Tax Revenue                               218,000

                            Net Fiscal Benefit                                         411,000


                 To estimate the potential impacts of agriculture on Northampton's economy, we
         identified five scenarios where producers switched to low-input, sustainable agricultural
         practices to produce their usual mix of crops. We then measured the potential economic
         impact of each scenario on Northampton County. The scenarios are described below:



                                      Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







                    Executive Summary                                                                                 Page W




                            Scenario 1: 40% Loading Reduction Scenario. This scenario assumes a 40 percent
                            reduction in chemical percolation to groundwater from existing practices.
                            Scenario 2: Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Scenario. The CRP is a federal
                            program designed to reduce soil erosion through retirement of highly erodible soils
                            from cropping. Federal payments in the amount of $70 per acre are made to the
                            farmer to retire his land.
                            Scenario 3: Buffer Strip Scenario. Require that 100 feet on each side of a perennial
                            stream be taken out of cropland production. No financial payments were assumed
                            to be made to the farmer in lieu of production.
                            Scenario 4: Green Manure Crops. Green manure crops added as winter cover are
                            beneficial for preventing soil loss and absorbing residual chemicals over the winter
                            season. This scenario assumed that a clover/rye mix was used as a winter crop
                            and as a green manure source.
                            Scenario 5: Chicken Litter. In this scenario, chicken litter is substituted for
                            inorganic nitrogen.

                            The effects of these sustainable agriculture scenarios on the county's economy are
                    summarized below:



                    Total Economic Impacts of Alternadve Sustainable Agricultural Practice Scenarios, 7990.

                    ... ....... ....
                                                                                                                      t
                                                               ots"      '''To.   61
                                                                                V,                                F     I
                                               5  Ism,
                                          Induitt' I
                                                             T t                                                   Isca
                                                                            0
                                              .. ....... . . ..                  . .....
                                                               0                                  @::[email protected]*:@
                                                                                                                  ftnefits
                                                                  0
                                                                                                                       0
                                                001,                            90
                         Scenario          14              At:

                     1.40%
                         Loading"
                         Reduction        68,390,400      14,026,200      16,069,900        922      220,000-    411,000
                     2.  CRP              67,200,900      13,338,200      15,285,300        866      216,000    -319,000

                     3.  Buffer
                         Strips           68,234,700      13,928,300      15,959,600        896             ---          ----
                     4.  Green
                         Manure
                         Crops         1  68,777,600      14,417,100      16,494,100        910     218,000 427,000

                     5.  Chicken
                         Litter           68,403,700      14,034,100      16,080,100        901             ---          -





                    Food Processing
                            Food processing is closely tied to agriculture and seafood production in
                    Northampton County. Changes in activity in this sector have been found to strongly effect
                    output in the seafood and agricultural sectors. Food processing plants were major
                    employers in the county through 1988. However, by 1992, employment dropped from
                    846 jobs to 202. Vegetable and seafood processing still had a significant impact on the


                    Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







         Page viii                                                                             Executive Summary




         county's economy as late as 1990. The total (direct, indirect, and induced) impacts of
         food processing on Northampton's economy in 1990 were:



                          Total Economic Impacts of Vegetable and Seafood Processing, 1990

                                         Impact Category                        Value M

                           Total Industrial Output                                  45,787,600

                           Total Compensation and Property Income                   9,549,000

                           Total Value Added                                        10,706,00

                           Employment (full-time equivalents)                               617

                           Contributions to Tax Revenue                                 92,

                           Net Fiscal Benefit                                          276,000
                                                                                            000





                 The total potential impacts of regaining 1988 levels of food processing capacity on
         Northampton's economy (in 1990 dollars) are relatively large. About four times the
         income would be made in the county under this scenario than what was made in 1990.
         These impacts are summarized as follows:

                         Total Economic Impacts of Vegetable and Seafood Process0g, 1990

                                        -Imparct: Category                      Value: MY

                           Total Industrial Output                                184,320,400

                           Total Compensation and Property Income                   38,440,000

                           Total Value Added                                        43,068,000
                         -Employment                                                      2,490
                            ontributions to Tax Revenue                             1,338,000

                           Net Fiscal Benefit                                       1,278,000





         Seafood
                 The fishery and related industries on the Eastern Shore of Virginia is second only to
         agriculture in the area in terms of employment and personal income generated.
         Throughout its history, Northampton County fishermen have harvested vast quantities of
         fin and shellfis h from the Chesapeake Bay and seaside area of the Eastern Shore peninsula.

                 In 1990 the direct, indirect and induced affects of the seafood industry in
         Northampton County produced approximately $20.8 million dollars in income and 478
         jobs. The total economic impacts of seafood production sector on the county in 1990 are
         summarized below:


                                      Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







                    Executive Summary                                                                                Page ix




                                    Total Economic Impacts of Seafood Harvesting and Production, 1990

                                                    Impact Category                         Value ($)

                                      Total Industrial Output                                  20,759,700

                                      Total Compensation and Property Income                    6,804,100

                                      Total Value Added                                         7,558,000

                                      Employment                                                        478

                                      Contributions to Tax Revenue                                  49,000

                                      Net Fiscal Benefit                                           190,000



                            The potential impacts of seafood harvesting and production were estimated using a
                    scenario that assumes employment in seafood processing in some other county to increase
                    by 750 more people, the number of employees lost in the food processing sector since
                    1988. If fishing levels by Northampton-based boatmen increased to meet the demand, the
                    following total economic impacts would be observed:


                                    Total Economic Impacts of Seafood HervesUng and Producdon, 1990

                                                    Impact Category                         Value 1$11

                                      Total Industrial Output                                  42,858,200

                                      Total Compensation and Property Income                   14,047,000

                                      Total Value Added                                         4,748,000

                                      Employment                                                        987

                                      Contributions to Tax Revenue                                 100,000
                                      Net Fiscal Benefit                                        -393,00011











                    Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia








                                                   Table of Contents



                  1. INTRODUCTION        .................................................                        1


                         Purpose     ...................................................                          2



                  2. NORTHAMPTON'S ECONOMY              .......................................                   3


                         Demographics      ................................................                       3

                         Labor Force   ..................................................                         4


                         Income and Poverty     ............................................                      4

                         Sectoral Employment and Income        ..................................                 7

                         Economic Linkages and Leakages        .................................                11

                         Economic Impact Analysis       ......................................                  14

                         Fiscal Impact Analysis   .........................................                     14-



                 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT                        .........      18


                         Trade-offs between Income/Jobs and Environmental Degradation           ..........      18

                         Sustainability  ................................................                       19

                         Indicators of Sustainability   .....................................                   19
                            Evaluating sustainability based upon input use       ....................           20
                            Evaluating sustainability based upon production of output        ............       20

                         Ecosystem Threats in Northampton County        ...............         ..........      21
                            Threats, Stressors and Sources       ...............................                21
                            Ecosystems, Stresses and Threats in Northampton County            ...........       21

                         Summary: Sustainable Development Indicators        .......................             22



                 4. IMPACTS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN NORTHAMPTON COUNTY                           .....    27


                         Nature/Heritage Tourism     .......................................                    27
                            Current Conditions    ........................................                      27
                            Current Impacts     ..........................................                      33
                            Potential Impacts     .........................................                     39

                         Research and Education      .......................................                    42


                 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







        Page xii                                                                           Table of Contents




                    Current Conditions    ........................................                      42
                    Potential Impacts   .........................................                       44

                Arts and Crafts    .............................................                        46
                    Current Conditions    ........................................                      46
                    Potential Impacts   .........................................                       46

                Agriculture    ................................................                         49
                    Current Conditions    ........................................                      49
                    Potential Impacts   .........................................                       52

                Food Processing      ............................................                       54
                    Current Conditions    ........................................                      54
                    Potential Impacts   .........................................                       56

                Seafood, Finfish and Shellfish    ...................................                   57
                    Current Conditions    ........................................                      57
                    Potential Impacts   .........................................                       59,

        References Cited         ..............................................                         61

        Appendix 1
                Definitions of Terms Used     ......................................                    63

        Appendix 2
                The Models Employed       ........................................                      67

        Appendix 3
                Impacts by Sector of Selected Development Scenarios          .................          71

        Appendix 4
                Selected Bibliography   ..........................................                      75





                                             List of Tables



        1. Selected Demographic and Economic Characteristics, Virginia, Northampton County,
            Eastern Shore, and Nearby Cities, 1990        ................................                3

        2. Household Income, Northampton County, VA, 1989              .......................            6

        3. Employment by Sector, Northampton County, VA, 1988 - 1990               ...............        8



                                   Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







                 Table of Contents                                                                   Page XM




                 4. Input-Output Multipliers for Northampton County, VA, 1990 Base Year      . ........    12

                 5. Regional Purchase Coefficients for Selected Commodities, Northampton County,
                        VA . ......................................................                        13


                 6.   Ecosystems, Stresses and Threats in the Virginia Eastern Shore   ..............      24

                 7.   General Threats in the Virginia Eastern Shore  ..........................            25

                 8.   Employment in the Hotel and Lodging Sector, Northampton County 1988 - 1992.          28

                 9,   Lodging Tax Revenues Collected in Northampton County, VA, 1989 - 1992        .....   28

                 10.  Overnight Lodging Facility Unit-Nights Rented, Northampton County, VA, 1992.      .  28

                 11.  Monthly Occupancy, All Lodging Units, Northampton County, VA, 1992      . ......     29

                 12.  Frequency Distribution of Length of Stay by Type of Overnight Accommodation,
                      Northampton County, VA, 1992    . ...............................             I ...  30

                 13.  Estimate of Launches from Boat Ramps, Northampton County, VA, March 1992          .
                      through November 1992    .........................................                   30

                 14.  Travel Party-Trips by Lodging Facility, Northampton County, VA, 1992   ........      31

                 15.  Day-Use Party-Trips by Activity and/or Destination, Northampton County, VA,
                      1992  .......................................................                        32


                 16.  Party-Trips by Segment Share, Northampton County, VA, 1992      . ............       33

                 17.  Average Expenditures per Party-Trip by Market Segment, Northampton County,
                      VA, 1992  . ..................................................                       35

                 18.  Average Travel and Tourism Expenditures per Party-Trip and Total    ...........      37

                 19.  Total Economic Impact of Travel and Tourism on the Economy of Northampton
                      County, VA, 1992, (1990 dollars   ...................................                38

                 20.  Summary of Total Economic Impacts of Alternative Travel and Tourism Scenarios,
                      Northampton County, VA 0 990 dollars)    ..............................              41

                 21.  Estimation of Research Days Spent in Northampton County, VA by Research
                      Group, 1992  . ................................................                      43

                 22.  Total Research Expenditures in Northampton County, VA by Accommodation
                      Category, 1992  . ..............................................                     43

                 23.  Total Economic Impact of Ecological Research Activities on the Economy of
                      Northampton County, VA, 1992 (1990 dollars)     .........................            44


                 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







        Page Av                                                                      Table of Contents



        24. The Potential Impacts of an Expanded Arts and Crafts Industry in Northampton
             County, YA (1990 dollars)  ........................................                 48

        25.  Market Value of Agricultural Goods Sold & of Selected Crops Sold  . ..........      50

        26.  Total Impact of Agriculture on the Economy of Northampton County, VA, 1990. . 51

        27.  Summary of Total Economic Impacts of Alternative Sustainable Agricultural
             Practice Scenarios, Northampton County, VA, 1990    . ....................          53

        28.  Total Impact of Vegetable and Seafood Processing on the Economy of
             Northampton County, VA, 1990    . ..................................                55

        29.  Commercial Finfish and Shellfish Landings and Estimated Value for Selected
             Years, Virginia and Northampton County, VA   . .........................            57

        30.  Total Impact of Seafood Production on the Economy of Northampton County, VA,
             1 E190  .......................................................                     59




                                          List of Figures

        1 -  Median Age, Virginia, Northampton County, Eastern Shore, and Nearby Cities, 1990 4

        2.   Percent Persons 16 Years Old and Older Participating in the Labor Force, Virginia,
             Northampton County, Eastern Shore, and Nearby Cities, 1990      ................     5

        3.   Percent Unemployment by Sector, Northampton County, Virginia, Northampton
             County, Eastern Shore, and Nearby Cities, 1990  . .........................          5

        4.   Per Capita Income, Northampton County, Virginia, Northampton County, Eastern
             Shore, and Nearby Cities, 1990  ......................................               6

        5.   Percent of Households Below Poverty Level, Northampton County, Virginia,
             Northampton County, Eastern Shore, and Nearby Cities, 1990    . ...............      7

        6.   Employment by Sector, Northampton County, VA, 1988 - 1992         ..............     8

        7.   Income by Sector, Northampton County, VA, 1988 - 1992        ................       10

        8.   Example of Sustainable Development Indicators for Hypothetical Economic
             Activity "A" in the Coastal Estuarine/Lagoon Ecosystem, Northampton County,
             VA   .......................................................                        25


        9.   Example of Sustainable Development Indicators for Hypothetical Economic
             Activity "B" in the Coastal Estuarine/Lagoon Ecosystem, Northampton County,
             VA  ........................................................                        25


                                 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







                Table of Contents                                                                  Page XV




                10. Example of Sustainable Development Indicators for Hypothetical Economic
                     Activity "A" in the Terrestrial Mainland Ecosystem, Northampton County, VA    ...  26

                11. Total Lodging Unit-Nights Rented by Month, Northampton County, VA, 1992      ....   29




















































                Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia








                                               1. INTRODUCTION




                        Northampton County, Virginia, part of Virginia's Eastern Shore, comprises one of
                 the most important natural ecosystems in the eastern United States. The Eastern Shore's
                 chain of barrier islands, largely owned by the Nature Conservancy, and its seaside system
                 of marshes and bays, has been designated a World Biosphere Reserve by the United
                 Nations in recognition of its great ecological value. The barrier islands and surrounding
                 waters support a great variety of fish and birds.

                        The Chesapeake shoreline in Northampton County is characterized by coastal bluffs
                 and dunes, creeks and inlets. The southern tip is an extremely important habitat for
                 raptors and songbirds migrating along the eastern flyway. With more than 260 bird
                 species passing through, Virginia's Eastern Shore has the highest concentration of
                 migratory songbirds and shore birds in the eastern U.S.

                        The county's economy has been driven by agriculture, and to a lesser degree
                 seafood production, since it was settled during colonial times. From early settlement times
                 up through the mid-20th century, the regional demand for agricultural products and the
                 relative abundance of marketable marine life buoyed Northampton's economy. However,
                 in recent years, as fish stocks have ebbed and agricultural processing has become
                 regionalized closer to metropolitan centers, the county has experienced a serious
                 economic decline. Major agricultural and seafood processing plants, as well as many small
                 businesses, have closed, resulting in the loss of hundreds of jobs.

                        Northampton's citizens have met these economic challenges head on.
                 Understanding that the natural and cultural resources of Eastern Shore form the basis for a
                 sustainable economy, Northampton began a strategic process to improve local economic
                 conditions. Beginning with the development of the Northampton County Comprehensive
                 Plan, citizens have worked together over the last few years to define a desired future for
                 the county and strategies to reach their goals. The goals specified in the Comprehensive
                 Plan are to:
                        ï¿½  conserve the county's natural resources;
                        ï¿½  preserve the county's rural character;
                        ï¿½  pursue economic self-sufficiency for all citizens;
                        ï¿½  provide adequate public services for all citizens;
                        ï¿½  pursue and establish a diversified economic base by supporting agriculture,
                           seafood production, tourism and industry compatible with the goals and
                           objectives of Northampton County's Comprehensive Plan.

                        Following the comprehensive plan, in 1992, the Northampton Economic Forum, an
                 independent group of citizen leaders developed A Blueprint for Economic Growth. The
                 Blueprint further articulates goals and development strategies that preserve and capitalize
                 on the county's natural and cultural heritage.

                        The Comprehensive Plan and the Blueprint call for the development of tourism,
                 agriculture and seafood production as the foundation of the local economy. The



                 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







         Page                                                                                 Introduction



         development of indigenous arts and crafts products and markets, and educational products
         regarding the World Biosphere Reserve and compatible community development have also
         been discussed. Yet, the specific economic value and potential of these industries are not
         known.



                                                   Purpose
                The overall objective of this study is to provide the citizens of Northampton County
         with the information necessary to revitalize the local economy through careful and
         thoughtful development of the county's natural and cultural resources. This study focuses
         on three major objectives:
                1. document the current economic contributions of sustainable industries;
                2. document the potential economic contributions of sustainable industries;
                3. document the feasibility for development of the most promising industries.

                Through the comprehensive planning process and the economic forum, five broadly
         defined industries were identified as ones that could be labeled "sustainable." These are
         namely:
                1 .Nature/heritage tourism: birding; recreational/sports fishing; visits to reserves,
                   parks, and refuges; farm/country inn vacations; canoeing; hiking; bicycling; and
                   hunting.
                2. Fishery production: finfish and shellfish harvesting; processing; value-added
                   products; aquaculture; and special products.
                3. Sustainable agriculture: traditional crops, grains, nursery products, and specialty
                   "niche" markets.
                4. Arts and crafts.
                5. Research and education.
































                                   Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton- County, Virginia








                                     2. NORTHAMPTON'S ECONOMY




                                                          Demographics
                         Northampton County's demographics say a lot about the economy. Age and sex
                  composition change slowly as births, deaths and migration add to and subtract from the
                  population. Demographic composition determines the makeup of the labor force, the
                  demand for goods and services produced locally, and the demands on local social services.
                  Figure 1 compares the median age of the population of Northampton residents with the
                  median age of populations in nearby counties in Virginia and Maryland. The median age of
                  the residents of Virginia Eastern Shore counties is significantly greater than that of the
                  nearby Virginia counties and Maryland counties on the Shore. The median age of the
                  population of residents in both Northampton and Accomack counties is 37.4. The median
                  age of the Virginia population is 32.9, and in Norfolk it is 27.2 (Table 1).

                  Table 1. Selected Demographic and Economic Charecteristf6s, Virginia, Northampton County,
                  Eastern Shore, and Nearby Cides, 1990.


                                                                 in    -Percent.,       PerCapita  A:-  @Pover@::.@,
                                                        Percent
                         ocation
                        .1               Median:Age    Labor:Force::                    Income           L":'
                   Virginia                    32.9           68.9              4.5        15,713             10.2
                                                                                                           .... ... ...
                  .:Northampton                37A            55.2
                   Accomack                    37.4           59.8              6.8        10,506             19.6
                   Chesapeake                  31.3           70.9              4.5        13,817             9.0
                   Norfolk                     27.2           68.8              8.8        11,643             19.3
                   Va. Beach                   28.9           76.8              4.7        15,242             5.9
                   Portsmouth                  31.6           62.0              7.8        11,158             17.7
                   Dorchester, MD              36.9           63.8              5.9        12,437             14.2
                   Somerset, MD                33.7           51.1              8.4        10,232             16.0
                   Wicomico, MD                33.2           67.6              4.7        13,425             11.6
                   Worcester, MD               37.4           64.8              4.8        14,341             11.0


                  Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1990 Census of Population and Housing.



                         A high median age is usually indicative of a problem common to many rural areas.
                  Young people with the best education and health and the most marketable skill and
                  abilities leave the area to realize their earning potential. With them go some of the area's
                  future leaders, innovators, and entrepreneurs. Taxes collected in the county, to invest in
                  the education of the county's youth, are now earning dividends for people and economies
                  in other counties and states.






                  Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







         Page 41                                                                   Northampton's Economy




                          Median Age
                          40
                          30                                    Bon

                          20




                          10




                           0
                             Virghda Accoxisok  Norlbik  V  Bea   51- mr- A WWM     KD
                                Nor0mingyton Cheupeaiw Portwaouth Dad"w, 110112ftomlco, MD
        Figure 1. Median Age, Virginia, Northampton County, Eastern Shore, and Nearby Cities, 1990.



                                                 Labor Force
                The size of the labor force relative to the total population are indicators of the size
        and strength of a local economy. A large labor force with a high degree of participation is
        usually correlated with a strong economy. The labor force is defined as the population of
        individuals at least 16 years old who are willing and able to work. Persons not
        participating in the labor force can be out of work or otherwise occupied, such as in
        school. Figure 2 shows participation in the labor force for Virginia, Northampton County,
        other eastern shore counties, and nearby cities. Among the cities and counties compared,
        Northampton County's is the smallest labor force with 10,095 persons 16 years old and
        above. Just more than half (55.2%) of those were in the labor force in 1990. Only
        Somerset County, Maryland, an Eastern Shore bayside community, has a lower labor force
        participation rate.

                Unemployment in Northampton County in 1990 was moderately high in comparison
        to neighboring counties and cities (Figure 3). This figure has fluctuated up and down since
        the time that the census was taken, particularly after the food processing plant closings in
        1990 and 1991.



                                            Income and Poverty
                Per capita income is a meaningful measure of economic strength and can be used
        for comparing economies among geographically similar areas. Northampton ranked lowest
        in 1990 of all the geographical areas compared, with a per capita income of $10,176
                                                          nilij
                                 -111 nili














        (Figure 4). The average per capita income for the state was $15,713 in 1990. Although
        Northampton's income rate is lowest among those compared, it is comparable to other
        eastern shore communities in Virginia and Maryland.



                                   Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







                  Northampton's Economy                                                                   Page 5




                              Percent
                               100



                               so
                               60                                  1 ssss@ .1
                               40





                                o L
                                   Argir"    I com-      Norfolk     1-ma I So -root       -star'll)
                                       Norftmpton Chesapeake VA.Beach DorcheaterWwwomoo,MD
                  Figure 2. Percent Persons 16 Years Old and Older Participating in the Labor Force, Virginia,
                  Northampton County, Eastern Shore, and Nearby Cities, 1990.


                               Percent
                               10



                                8



                                6
                                4                           ::19       "H

                                2



                                0
                                   "Ift"     I onm-ek    Norfolk  Porternouth Sowareek MD We star III)
                                       NorthaMPton Chesapeake Va. Bew* Dorchester, MD Wwwwoo, IM
                  Figure I Percent Unemployment, Virginia, Northampton County, Eastern Shore, and Nearby Cities,
                  1990.
                                        n
















































                  Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







            Page f,                                                                                            Northampton's Economy




                              Dollars
                               20,000



                               15,000




                              10,000-



                               5,000-



                                     0
                                        virgir"    Accomwk        Norfolk    Porlamouth SWWrM 1110ft               ID
                                           Nordmmqftn Chompeake Va-Besch Dordw*WMWloomkoUD
            Figure 4. Per COPit-9 Income, Virginiff, Northampton County, Eastern Shore, and Nearby Cities,
            1990.



                     Poverty in Northampton County, measured by the proportion of families with
            incomes below the poverty level, is a serious issue. Over 26 percent of all households in
            the county are impoverished compared with 10.2 percent for the state and 19.6 percent in
            Accomack County (Figure 5). The seeming inconsistency between a moderate
            unemployment rate, a per capita income rate that is not significantly lower than others in
            the area, and a very high poverty rate can explained by examining income distribution in
            the county. Roughly 42% of households had 1989 incomes below $15,000 (Table 2).

                               Table Z Household Income, Northampton County, VA, 1989.

                                             Income Range                    Households         Proportions
                                      < 5,000                                        726                 14%
                                      5,000 - 9,999                                  782                 15%
                                      10,000 - 14,999                                657                 13%
                                      15,000 - 24,999                               1042                 20%
                                      25,000 - 34,999                                722                 14%
                                      35,000 - 49,999                                569                 11%
                                      50,000 - 74,000                                364                    7%
                                      74,000 - 99,999                                  98                   2%
                                      100,000 or more                                128                    3%

                                         Total                                    g; nAA
                               Source:       opt. of Commerce,   1990 Census of Population and7o-usmg.         -




                                               Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







                  Northampton's Economy                                                                    Page 7




                                Percent
                                30


                                25


                                20



                                15


                                10


                                 5


                                 0

                                    Virginia      Acoomack      Norfolk       Portsmouth  Somerset, MD   Worcester, MD                                         Northampton      Chesapeake    Va. Beach       Dorchester,MD Wicomloo,MD
                  Figure 5. Percent of Households Below Poverty Level, Virginia, Northampton County, Eastern-
                  Shore, and Nearby Cities, 1990.



                                            Sectoral Employment and Income
                         Figure 6 and Table 3 show employment by major industrial sector in Northampton
                  County between 1988 and 1992. The construction, transportation, and financial sectors
                  are quite small employers. Agriculture (which includes fisheries), manufacturing,
                  wholesale and retail trade, services, and government are the largest employers.
                  Manufacturing has declined significantly since 1988, reflecting closings of agricultural and
                  seafood processing plants. Employment in manufacturing dropped from 1,144 in the 3rd
                  quarter 1988 to 783 in the 3rd quarter 1990. Total employment also has dropped by 6%
                  from 4,799 in the 3rd quarter 1988 to 4,519 in the 3rd quarter 1992 with most of that
                  loss coming from the manufacturing sector. Agriculture employment grew during this
                  time.






















                  Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia
 






          page 19                                                                          Northampton's Economy



            Employment
            SpOIDO


            4901DO


            390430 -


            29000     -


            190()0-


                 01        1988              1989            1990            1991             1992
           L
            0 Agriculture, FisherleAM Construction              N ManufacturinglM Transportatiorkill) Wholesale Trade
            E3 Retall Trade      a Finance, insurance, Real EstatG Services   M Government
             race ornplaymem wr Vw arc quww of "on yew
         Figure 6. Employment by Sector, Northampton County, VA, 1988 - 1992.





                 Table 3. Employment by Sector, Northampton County. VA, 1988 - 1990.

                                                                                                   ... ... .. .......
                         Sector                    1988         1989         1990          199f:@

             Agriculture, Fisheries                419          514           485          734          656
             Construction                          127          141            150         132          149
             Manufacturing                        1,144         858           783          487          392
             Transportation                          89            52           61           63           62
             Wholesale Trade                       332          323           321          318          323
             Retail Trade                          570   1      738           753          665          654
             Finance, Insurance, Real                84            76           82           72           73
             Estate                                                           -

             Services                             1,137        1,182        1,179         1,165        1,184
            EO





            @Governrnent                           897          928         1,000         1,019        1,026
                  Total                           4,799        4,812        4,814        4,655         4,519
         SOL             ployment commission, 1993.




                                      Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton CountY, V'"r9inia







                Northampton's Economy                                                            Page 9



                       in 1988, most wages were earned in the manufacturing, service, and government
                sectors (Figure 7 and Table 4). In the 3rd-quarter of that year, nearly one-fourth of all
                wages earned were made in the manufacturing sector, and slightly more in the government
                sector. By 1992, only 9% of all wages were earned in manufacturing. Also, as the
                manufacturing sector has declined between 1988 and 1992, so have real wages. Total
                3rd-quarter wages paid in Northampton County (in 1992 dollars) dropped from
                $19,135,024 in 1988 to $17,306,925, a decrease of 11 %.

                       The drop in manufacturing income spurred related drops in real wages in the
                wholesale trade and transportation sectors. Transportation wages decreased in real value
                by nearly half between 1988 and 1989 from $639,332 to $297,813. Wages paid in the
                wholesale trade sector decreased by a lesser amount.

                       Real wages have increased since 1988 in agriculture and fisheries, and the service
                sector. In the agriculture and fisheries sector, 3rd-quarter wages increased by over 68%
                between 1988 and 1992 from $980,029 to $1,647,602. In the service sector, wages
                increased by 20% during that time, from $4,475,834 in 1988 to $5,353,184 in 1992.







































               Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







           Page -'FO                                                                                   Northampton's Economy



             Total Adjusted Wages
             2094)OOvOOO



             159()00900



             1 Op()009000



               5POO09000



                             0
                                       1988             1989             1990              1991             1992


              0 Agriculture, Flaherled3l Construcdon                    U ManufacturlngEO Transportationl[l) Wholesale Trade
              E3 Retail Trade         0 Finance. insurance, Real Estat49 Services        0 Government
                rage Ow wag" toe ww 3rd quarter at *acn "ar
          Figure .7. Total Wages by Sector, in 1992 Dollars, Northampton County, VA, 1988 - 1992.




          Table 4. Total Wages by Sector, in 1992 Dollars, Northampton County, VA, 1988 - 199Z

                                                                   9"                                   :991::
                    Sector                       1988             .1.                990:::

             Agriculture,
             Fisheries                     980,029         1,157,807         1,168,694         1,255,856          1,647,602
             Construction                  613,466           590,872           708,246            598,956           481,867
             Manufacturing               4,536,027         2,868,974         2,453,376         1,831,594          1,608,346
             Transportation                639,332           297,813           301,262            321,713           375,263
             Wholesale Trade             1,012,162           890,923           922,331            701,194           837,009
             Retail Trade                1,830,673         2,114,184         2,171,589         1,849,207          1,833,224

             Finance, Insurance,
             Real Estate                   419,223           377,000           391,790            372,640           401,601
             Services                    4,475,834         4,570,377         4,503,899         5,116,352          5,353,184

             Go
                vernment                 4,628,278         4,904,824         5,108,521         4,978,534          4,768,829
                 Total               1   19,135,024     1  17,772,775     1  17,Zj!,708J       17,026,047     1   17,306,925 11
          hou='@C'-- tirginia Employment Commission, 1991-.



                                            Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







               Northampton's Economy                                                      PagFe I I



                                      Economic Linkages and Leakages
                      The economic importance of an industry is described in terms of its total industrial
               output, final demand, income, value added, and total employment. Total industrial output
               is the dollar value of goods and services produced to satisfy inter-industry input final
               demands. Final demand is the dollar value of purchases from producing industries for final
               consumption. Income is the amount paid in wages and to property owners from rent.
               Value added is equivalent to gross regional product (payments to labor and capital, and-
               taxes), or the value of total industrial output less input purchases. Thus, value added is
               always less than total industrial output, but greater than income.

                      An input-output model describing the economic structure of Northampton County
               was formulated to measure current and potential sectoral economic impacts of sustainable
               industries. The input-output model is expressed as:

                                                  X = AX + F


               where:
                      X     is total sectoral outputs,
                      A     is a technical coefficient,
                      AX    is interindustry demand, and
                      F     is final demands (goods and services purchased for final consumption by
                            households, governments and/or for export).

                      The sectors which characterize X are presented in Tables 2,3, and 4 as well as
               1992 base year information pertaining to wages and employment. Solving for X yields the
               following supply and demand balance equation, by which total economic effects can be
               measured on a sector by sector basis:

                                                   X = WAY'F,

               where I is an n x n identity matrix. In general, a change in the final demand M for an
               existing or newly established sector's output is expected to exert direct, indirect, and
               induced effects on the local economy, in terms of total output (X), personal income, and
               total employment. The direct effect of a one dollar change in final demand is that one
               dollar of initial spending. The indirect effect is of the output of other local businesses
               needed to support the production of sector i, while the induced effect is the impact of
               spending by households.'Total economic effects of a change in final demand (direct,
               indirect, and induced) for a sector's output is determined by calculating input-output
               multipliers.

                      Table 4 lists multipliers for output, total income, value added, and employment, and
               1992 base year output levels for an aggregated list of industries in Northampton County.
               These multipliers are used to assess the regional economic contribution of a given industry
               at the margin. For instance, if the demand for agricultural crop products increases by $ 1,
               then the value of total output generated throughout the region would rise by $1.56 ($1
               produced by the crop producing sector and $0.56 produced by all other sectors) to satisfy
               the one dollar increase in final demand for crop products. If final demand for crop
               products sector increases by $1, then the amount of additional income generated



               Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







            Page Y2                                                                                        Northampton's Economy




            throughout the local economy would be $0.32. And, if final demand for crop products
            increases by $1 million, then 20 new jobs would be created locally. The magnitude of
            these multipliers can also be used to assess the strength of economic linkages between
            sectors of the local economy. Based on the output multiplier, the retail trade industry,
            particularly hotels and lodging places, is strongly linked with other industries in
            Northampton County, the agricultural sector is moderately linked, and the construction
            industry is weakly linked. Service industries account for a relatively large share of regional
            output, and changes in their final demands will result in significant economic impacts in
            the region.

            Table At. Input-Output Multfpfiers for Northampton County, VA, 1990 Base Year.
                                                                 Industry          Total              Value
                                                                  Output         Income              Added           Employment
                                                                                  of income         @of VA per $1      Wof
                                                                 J$ of 10                                                   job
                                 Sector                         per $1 FD1      per $1 FD)               FD)          $1 mifflonTD)
             LIVESTOCK'                                             1.40               0.42                0.49             24.03

             CROPS                                                  1.56               0.32                0.36             20.43
             Commercial Fishing                                     1.41               0.46                0.51             32.58

             MANUFACTURING                                          1.30               0.70                0.74             21.54

             CONSTRUCTION                                           1.37               0.50                0.54             23.43

             FOOL) PROCESSING                                       1.54               0.32                0.36             20.66
             Boat Building & Repair                                 1.29               0.71                0.74             21.68
             TRANSPORTATION                                         1.50               0.81                0.89             31.73

             COMMUNICATIONS                                         1.30               0.78                0.85             15.03

             UTILITIES                                              1.19               0.54                0.62               6.82

             WHOLESALE & RETAIL TRADE                               1.73               1.00                1.27             62.43

             FINANCE                                                1.36               0.72                0.77             24.27

             INSURANCE                                              1.72               0.92                1.06             34.85

             REALESTATE                                             1.19               0.65                0.87               6.00
             Hotels & Lodging Places                                1.81               0.94                1.15             62-32
             MEDICAL SERVICES                                       1.63               1.05                1.12             50.40

             EDUCATION                                              1.88               1.06                1.15             67.19

             OTHER SERVICES                                         1.58               0.81                0.88             40.89

             MISCELLANEOUS                                          1.59               -0.94               -0.85            44.41

             GOVE RNMENT                                            1.66               1.30                1.38             58.41
             Household Industry                                     3.69               2.48    1           2.79             248.04

                    *Sectors indicated by capital letters are aggregated.






                                             Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







                    Northampton's Economy                                                                        Page 13




                           The IMPLAN input-output model uses these multipliers to estimate total economic
                    impacts on an annual basis (industry by industry), in 1990 dollars. Based on the structural
                    characteristics of the local economy, the model determines how many new jobs will be
                    created, and how much additional sectoral output will be necessary economy-wide to
                    accommodate the creation or expansion of an industry. New economic activities usually
                    involve changes in final demand for several industries. Depending on the change
                    considered and expenditure patterns of the population, economic impacts may operate on
                    several multipliers and may be positive or negative.

                           The input-output multipliers describe and quantify the linkages between economic
                    sectors. The higher the value of the multiplier, the greater the interdependence between
                    that sector and the entire economy. High multipliers signify strong economic linkages, and
                    low multipliers weak linkages. Weak linkages are indicative of leakages in the economy.
                    In other words, sales and income are leaving the county.

                           Another way of measuring leakages in the economy is to estimate Regional
                    Purchase Coefficients (RPCs) for each commodity. An RPC is a unique value calculated for
                    each commodity based on the population and land area in the region, and regional
                    employee compensation and employment figures. A commodity's RPC represent the
                    proportion of locally produced good or service that is used to meet local demand. RPCs
                    can take on a value between 0 and 1. An RPC value of 1 means that all units of a
                    commodity purchased locally are produced locally. The lower the RPC, the greater is the
                    leakage in that sector. Table 5 lists selected goods and services produced in Northampton
                    County with low RPC values. These indicate where leakages in the economy are occurring
                    that are significant to the sustainable development activities under study.

                           Table 5. Regional Purchase Coefficients 1RPCs) for Selected Commodities, Northampton
                           County, VA.
                                   -Commodity                  RPC                Commodity                  FOG:
                         Boat building & repair               0.0021    Wholesale trade                     0.3711
                         General merchandise stores           0.1942    Commercial photography              0.0013
                         Apparel & accessory stores           0.1491    Equipment rental & leasing          0.2030
                         Furniture & home furnishings         0.1744    Car repair & services               0.4195
                         Banking                              0.3139    Misc. repair shops                  0.5490
                         Credit agencies                      0.3944    Amusement & rec. services           0.0755
                         Beauty and barber shops              0.1191    Legal services                      0.4017
                         Misc. personal services              0.1676    Other educational services          0.1460
                         Advertising                          0.1656    Accounting, & bookkeeping           0.4188



                           Commodities for which RPC values are relatively high in Northampton County
                    include miscellaneous crops (.9082), landscape and horticultural services (0.7949), new
                    construction (0.8947 for new industrial and commercial construction), hotels and lodging
                    places (0.9504), and eating and drinking places (07976). One aspect of economic
                    development that is often overlooked by supporters of one type of industry or another, is



                    Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







        Page 14                                                                Northampton's Economy



        the economic boost that a region can gain by simply "plugging leaks." The fewer the
        leaks in the existing economy, the greater will be the net impact of a new industry
        introduced into the region. As a local economy grows and diversifies, more of the dollars
        generated by each sector will be retained and recirculated within the region. The net
        impact is positive and ever increasing.

        Economic Impact Analysis
               Economic impact analyses estimate the effects of independently changing economic
        activities on economic indicators such as employment, industrial output, income,
        contribution to the gross domestic product, etc. Regional economic impact analyses
        provide such information within a geographic area such as a county or group of counties,
        or of a state. Input/Output (1-0) analyses are widely used in the conduct of regional
        economic analysis.

               An 1-0 model describes the flows of transactions, in dollars, between the various
        producing sectors in a region and also across the regional boundary, thus specifying the
        economic interrelationships between industries (or sectors) and the fact that a change in
        any industry will have ripple effects throughout the entire regional economic system. The
        total economic impact of an industry (or sector) on a regional economy consists of direct,
        indirect and induced impacts. When the demand for the output of any sector increases, it
        must purchase inputs which produces an indirect impact on the input-supply industries.
        Both the direct and indirect impacts influence the flow of dollars to the community's
        households. As a result of the direct and indirect impacts, households earn more income
        and increase consumption accordingly. The effect of the increased household
        consumption upon businesses in a community is referred to as an induced impact. The
        sum of these direct, indirect, and induced impacts is referred to as the multiplier for a
        given industry.

               In the case of tourism for example, the primary sectors are the hotels, restaurants,
        and recreational services. These businesses purchase inputs from suppliers of many
        products and thus sectors. Accordingly, in order to analyze tourism an activity description
        is created. This activity description describes the fractions of total expenditures by
        tourists that go to the various commodity sectors and that which goes to trade margins.
        The activity description is then associated with a level of expenditures and the regional
        input/output model for the region being studied (Northampton County in this example) to
        construct the scenario and to perform the impact analysis. The regional model for this
        analysis is constructed using the IMPLAN input/output software.

               The economic impacts of tourism extend throughout the County and beyond
        according to where commodities for retail sale are purchased. In studying the economic
        impacts of tourism or any of the other scenarios, the magnitude of the impacts will differ
        greatly depending on whether we define the region of analysis as the County alone, or the
        entire Eastern Shore region, or the state. Generally speaking, as the region analyzed gets
        wider, the impacts get larger since flows that would otherwise be "leakages" become
        internalized as "linkages". Leakages are the dissipation of economic activity due to the
        payment of wages to in-commuters, and purchases of other inputs and consumer goods
        from industries outside the region of analysis. As the region analyzed gets wider,




                                 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







                 Northampton's Economy                                                                 Page 15




                 however, more of these commuters and industries become part of the region, thus
                 reducing leakage and increasing linkages.

                        Again, we chose to demonstrate our analysis with the tourist sector. The base
                 tourism expenditure patterns are listed in Table 18. The typical tourist spends money on
                 lodging in hotels and campgrounds, food on and off the vendors premises, gas and oil,
                 auto rental, parts and repairs, and various other goods and services. Each of these
                 activities involves purchases from a different sector, sometimes through a retail outlet and
                 sometimes direct from the producing sector (most services for example). These activity
                 descriptions are organized into a scenario called BASEREC. The scenario refers to one
                 visitor day. By scaling the scenario up to reflect the expected number of visitor days the
                 scenario is complete. The impact procedure is initiated and the IMPLAN model calculates
                 the impacts. These results are then used along with information about the direct impacts
                 to estimate changes in the demand for local public services and in local government
                 revenues projected over time.


                 Fiscal Impact Analysis
                     A fiscal impact model highlights the direct and indirect fiscal relationships between
                 industry and government revenues and services. The purpose of fiscal impact analysis is
                 to compare project-induced increases in the demand for (and thus expenditures on) local
                 public services and the increase in local government revenues. Direct fiscal relationships
                 include real property, personal property, and sales taxes paid by the industry, and
                 expenditures by the county governments on infrastructure and public services required by
                 the industry. Indirect fiscal relationships include new expenditures on education and other
                 public services and new taxes paid by employees and other sectors. To analyze the fiscal
                 impacts of the various scenarios considered, the Virginia Impact Projection (VIP) Model
                 was used. The VIP Model has different versions for counties and cities and is calibrated
                 with specific economic, fiscal, social and demographic data for each jurisdiction. The first
                 step in using the VIP Model is calculation of a "baseline" for.the locality which predicts
                 future fiscal and economic conditions based on extrapolation of current conditions. This
                 baseline is then stored for comparison with the conditions predicted under the alternate
                 scenarios being studied. The impacts of alternate scenarios are predicted by running the
                 model with the economic changes predicted by the input-output model.

                        Regional economic and fiscal impacts are linked through their mutual "dependence"
                 on regional employment and income data. As such there are linkages between the data
                 and results of the IMPLAN input-output and VIP fiscal impact models. In the case of
                 tourism, the predicted annual employment and personal income generated by tourists are
                 entered as direct changes in the VIP model. The VIP model generates two measures of
                 fiscal impacts. The "cash flow" measure indicates the expected improvement in revenues
                 relative to expenditures. "Net Public Service Benefits" is a measure of the net benefits
                 that citizens of Northampton County can expect in terms of public services and/or lower
                 taxes as a result of tourism. The public service benefits can be negative or positive and
                 are in addition to employment, income, and other economic benefits. More elaborate
                 explanation of these terms are given in the appendix.





                 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia








                                  3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
                                     OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT




                  Traditionally, benefits of economic growth have been reported in terms of employment and
                  income generated, and property taxes paid to the local government. However, today there
                  is increased interest in incorporating information about the level of environmental effects
                  that accompany growth and development.

                          incorporation of such effects, including both environmental damage and
                  enhancement, provides information that is useful in at least three ways. First,
                  employment, income and other economic measures are revised to include estimates of
                  environmental damages and enhancements that occur with development of economic
                  activities. Such "green" accounting provides better estimates of net social welfare than do
                  current accounting procedures that ignore depletion and use of natural resources and the
                  degradation of environmental amenities. Second, strategic benefit-cost analyses of a wide
                  range of policy alternatives allows for the development of a package of local policies that
                  set the general agenda for enhancing economic well-being in an environmentally sound
                  manner. Third, project-level, site-specific assessment of benefits and costs allows
                  comparisons of specific projects on both environmental and economic grounds. Decisions
                  using these three types of analyses form the basis for movements toward more
                  sustainable, environmentally sound economic development.

                          At a minimum, the process of evaluating environmental costs and benefits helps a
                  local community in at least three ways: (1) it helps them define and balance their own
                  economic and environmental priorities; (2) it helps stimulate the development and
                  implementation of site-specific technology that potentially can improve efficiency of
                  resource use and reduced environmental degradation; and (3) it sets the stage for
                  development of institutional responses that provides incentive for adoption and
                  implementation of the improved technology by local public and private resource users.


                          Trade-offs between Income/Jobs and Environmental Degradation
                          Conservation assets such as habitat provided by fields and forests, groundwater,
                  estuaries and streams, and economic assets such as stores, machines and equipment are
                  productive capital that provides for a flow of goods and services over time. Yet, private or
                  public investment in conservation assets seldom receives the priority and attention as does
                  investment in economic assets. This occurs for several reasons. First, the system of local
                  income and employment accounts ignores costs of using conservation assets or destroying
                  their capacity to produce. On the other hand, economic assets are fully costed. Under
                  these circumstances natural assets are underpriced, the income and employment accounts
                  are overstated, and natural assets are used in excess. Second, there is no incentive to
                  make investments that maintain the quality of their stock and productive capacity declines.

                          In addition, individuals often have little incentive to conserve natural assets. First,
                  returns to investments such as soil and water conservation on their land may occur over
                  too long a planning horizon to "pay off" for the individual. Second, costs of overuse, that


                  Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







        Page 18                                        Environmental Implications of Sustainable Development



        lead to environmental degradation, often are not considered because they occur offsite.
        Examples include sedimentation of lakes and streams, and nutrient and chemical
        contarnination'of estuaries and groundwater. In this case, other persons or the general
        public bear the costs rather than the person making the decision.

               The bottom line is that environmental degradation often occurs with traditional
        economic development. In fact, it is often assumed that a region cannot have economic
        .development while at the same time preserving or enhancing the quality of the
        environment. Under this scenario, there is a tradeoff, namely, jobs and income for the
        quality of the environment. To the extent such a scenario reflects reality, development is
        not sustainable.

               But many regions are finding opportunities for achieving economic growth without
        degrading the environment. Ecotourism is one example where communities are attempting
        to capitalize on environmental quality to attract tourists, yet do so in a sustainable,
        environmentally sound manner. But to accomplish development that preserves the
        environmental integrity of a community requires: (1) an understanding of the linkage
        between economics and the environment; (2) identification of environmental, social and
        cultural effects in addition to the economic effects of development activities; and (3)
        sound planning to carry it out.


                                              Sustainability
        Early in the planning and development process there must be agreement and understanding
        of the meaning of sustainability. By sustainable economic development we mean

               "development that meets the needs of the present generation without
               compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".

        Thus, sustainability means more than a simple "preservation of natural resources." It
        allows for and recognizes that substitution possibilities exist between nonrenewable and
        renewable resources; that overuse of one natural resource can be offset by enhancement
        or increased efficiency in use of another natural resource; and that investments in natural
        resources today can yield increased benefits to future generations.

               For example, use of nonrenewable resources, such as mining of sand and gravel,
        may be consistent with sustainability if the depletion enables investments to be made in
        renewable natural resources such as estuaries that produce oysters, scallops or fihfish.
        More generally, investment in natural resources such as soil and water conservation or
        improved wastewater treatment can reduce degradation of the environment. By so doing,
        short or long run net benefits to the community are enhanced.


                                      Indicators of Sustainability
               As implied above, indicators of sustainability must encompass environmental, social
        and cultural effects as well as economic effects. Economic effects primarily will be based
        upon employment and income generated, or upon other economic characteristics of the
        growth and development activities being considered. Environmental effects are based upon



                                  Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







                Environmental Implications of Sustainable Development                               Page 19




                underlying factors related to the rate at which inputs (resources) are used, or the rate at
                which waste products are produced.


                Evaluating sustainability based upon input use
                       For use of renewable resources as an input, sustainability depends upon the
                relationship between harvest rates and regenerative capacity of the natural system that
                generates them. Sustainability in the use of nonrenewable resources depends upon the
                relationship between the rate of depletion and the rate at which renewable substitutes are
                developed through innovation and investment. In this case, it is understood that, if
                nonrenewable resources are used (the stock diminishes), sustainability requires that the
                economic returns generated by that use be invested rather than consumed such that
                productivity is enhanced sufficiently to offset the loss of nonrenewable resources.


                Evaluating sustainability based upon production of output
                       Waste products are an output of commerce and industry along with production of
                goods for sale to consumers. Production and sale of products gives rise to employment
                and income opportunities, but required disposal of associated waste products is costly and
                can have a negative environmental impact. Indicators of sustainability related to waste
                production are a function of the amount and characteristics of the waste products of the
                economic activity relative to the assimilative capacity of the environment in which they are
                disposed. If degradation of the environment occurs, or the future waste absorptive
                capacity of the natural resource declines, and this negative impact is not offset elsewhere,
                then the activity is not sustainable.


                Measuring sustainability
                       There is no single best measure of sustainability for all geographical areas. Many
                alternative economic, social, cultural and environmental or ecological indicators could be
                chosen depending upon resources available and resource limitations locally, the economic
                activities being considered and local preferences. Close involvement of local citizens and
                officials insures the relevance of the indicator to the region. In general, it is more feasible
                to work with a small number of indicators than a large number.

                       These measures can be highly specific, such as concentration of nitrates in
                groundwater, or more general, such as depletion of groundwater, loss of wildlife habitat,
                quantity of wastewater discharged in comparison to the assimilative capacity of the
                receiving land or water body and and amount of solid waste generated.

                       Economic indicators of sustainability can be based upon income and employment
                expected to be generated, or upon characteristics of that income and employment. For
                example, studies have identified the following three indicators of sustainability based
                upon output: (a) job creation and income generation. This refers to the magnitude of
                employment and income expected to be generated by the economic activity. Generally,
                more is preferred to less; (b) local income and employment retention. If economic
                development activity results in increased employment and income, and most of that
                impact occurs inside the region, then the activity is more sustainable than one where the
                impacts occur more heavily outside the region. This is referred to as the amount of


                Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







         Page 20                                        Environmental Implications of Sustainable Development



         "leakage" that occurs in the local economy. The extent or degree of leakage is dependent
         upon the particular economic activity being considered, the resource endowments of the
         area, and the characteristics of the local economy; and (c) business diversity. Economies
         with greater diversity are more sustainable over time than economies that are heavily
         dependent upon a small number of industries or industry sectors because they are less
         exposed to fluctuations of the overall economy. Measures of industry concentration can be
         developed.


                             Ecosystem Threats in Northampton County

         Threats, Stressors and Sources
                The Nature Conservancy has developed procedures for conducting a "threats"
         analysis whereby the most important threats are identified for attention. The process
         involves identifying: (1) the major ecosystem(s) being evaluated; (2) the major stresses in
         each ecosystem; and (3) the cause of the stress. Different ecosystems are identified
         because they differ in characteristics but can individually be defined homogeneously, they
         respond differently to categories of stress common to the region, and, because of their
         location, may face different causes of stress, even if the stress itself is the same (e.g.
         nutrients might be causing stress in two ecosystem, but the sources could be agriculture
         in one! case and residential development in the other).


         Ecosystems, Stresses and Threats in Northampton County
                For the Virginia Eastern Shore, the Nature Conservancy identifies five ecosystems
         and the main stresses and threats being faced in each (Tables 6,7). The most detailed
         discussion is for "The Coastal Estuarine/Lagoon System," with six stresses and six causes
         of stress being identified. Development of a sustainability indicator for an economic
         activity will require additional information for most of the ecosystems, although the
         discussion of stresses is fairly complete.

                The system of sustainability indicators for each of these ecosystems would
         incorporate, at a minimum, economic and environmental components for each economic
         activity being evaluated. The indicators would be tailored to each ecosystem, to allow
         stresses and causes to vary from area to area in the county. Thus, an economic activity
         may have different indicator values depending on the ecosystem it would impact (which
         usually would depend on the ecosystem in which it would be located).

                The economic activities being considered as possible sustainable activities in
         Northampton county include: (1) nature/heritage tourism; (2) fishery production; (3)
         agriculture; (4) arts and crafts; and (5) research and education. Sustainability indicators
         (with environmental and economic components) would be estimated for each.

                The economic indicator components are discussed elsewhere in this study, and
         include'estimates of value added and employment for each of the five "sustainable"
         economic activities. Various measures of value added and employment could be
         incorporated, such as contribution to diversity of the local economy, retained income, local
         employment, etc. The exact form of the indicator would need to be determined locally.
         Based upon the stresses and threats for the particular ecosystem that would be affected


                                   Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                 Environmental Implications of Sustainable Development                                Page 21



                 by the activity, the key environmental indicator components are next specified. For
                 example, for the Coastal Estuarine/Lagoon Ecosystem three environmental indicators might
                 be nutrient enrichment by nitrogen and phosphorus, and soil sedimentation. These would
                 be used to evaluate all the economic activities within that ecosystem. The final step is to
                 estimate qualitatively or quantitatively the impacts of the activity on the environmental
                 indicators for that ecosystem so that the overall economic-environmental indicator can be
                 evaluated. The same procedure would then be followed for all relevant economic activities
                 and ecosystems. We have then for the Coastal Estuarine/Lagoon Ecosystem the following
                 sustainability components:

                        Indicator Component                               TvDe
                        1. Income                                         Economic
                        2. Employment                                     Economic
                        3. Nutrient enrichment-nitrogen                   Environmental
                        4. Nutrient enrichment-phosphorus                 Environmental
                        5. Soil sedimentation                             Environmental


                 Figures 8 and 9 show examples of how these indicators might be displayed for two
                 hypothetical economic activities developed in the Coastal Estuarine/Lagoon Ecosystem.
                 Estimation of the indicators would be plotted for all five economic activities, and their.
                 effects upon the five components compared.

                        In the Terrestrial Mainland Ecosystem, there might be two environmental indicators:
                 habitat destruction and conversion, and groundwater depletion. Measures of these
                 indicators would have to be developed, but examples could be habitat acreage lost with
                 development of the activity, and groundwater use in millions of gallons per day. The
                 economic indicator components would again be income and employment. In summary, for
                 the Terrestrial Mainland Ecosystem:

                        Indicator Component                               im
                        1. Income                                         Economic
                        2. Employment                                     Economic
                        3. Habitat destruction                            Environmental
                        4. Groundwater depletion                          Environmental

                 Figure 10 shows an example of how the indicators might be displayed for a hypothetical
                 economic activity. Estimation of the indicators would be plotted for all five economic
                 activities, and their effects upon the four components compared.


                                   Summary: Sustainable Development Indicators

                        The sustainability of Northampton county's five alternative economic development
                 activities requires evaluations related to both economic and environmental characteristics
                 of those activities. An outline of a system for estimating such a sustainable development
                 indicator was presented based upon the five ecosystems for the Eastern Shore, and their
                 most important stresses, each as identified by the Nature Conservancy. Because the
                 stresses in each ecosystem vary, the set of components in the indicator also will vary
                 between ecosystems.


                 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






         Page 22                                      Environmental Implications of Sustainable Development



               Within each ecosystem, all economic activities being evaluated will be compared
         using the same sustainability indicator components. This allows an evaluation of economic
         activities according to the actual ecological stresses that exist in that area and provides a
         more realistic assessment of sustainability.

               It should be remembered that several decisions must be made during actual
         construction of the sustainability indicators. These include the.set of stresses to be
         included in the indicator for each ecosystem, how each will be measured, the
         characterization of the economic activities that are being evaluated, and the methods for
         making qualitative or quantitative assessments of each economic activity with respect to
         the set of components of the indicator.

               The process will be a learning exercise, with later generation models an
         improvement upon the initial model. However, from the outset, it is expected that the
         development and analysis of sustainability indicators for Northampton County will provide
         new insights into the relevance of both economics and environmental characteristics of
         development activities, the existence of trade-offs between the two, and the importance
         of planning and policy decisions that will provide incentives and/or guide development and
         thereby determine many of the environmental effects that go into the components of the
         sustainable development indicators.




































                                  Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                    Environmental implications of Sustainable Development                                                Page 23




                    Table 6. Ecosystems, Stresses and Threats in the Virginia Eastern Shore
                    A. The Atlantic Marine System
                             1. Stresses
                                 a.  Nutrient enrichment
                                 b.  Sediments
                                 c.  Contaminants
                                 d.  Large-scale petroleum inputs
                                 e.  Depletion of forage fish
                                 f.  Marine debris
                             2. Threats (sources)


                    B. The Coastal Barrier Islands
                             1. Stresses
                                 a.  Destruction of habitats
                                 b.  Disturbance of beach and dunes
                                 c.  Impeded barrier island migration
                                 d.  Invasive plant species
                                 e.  Disturbance of wetlands/a Iteration of water regimes
                                 f.  Sea level rise
                             2. Threats


                    C. The Coastal Estuarine/Lagoon System
                             1. Stresses
                                 a.  Nutrient enrichment (nitrogen, phosphorus)
                                 b.  Sedimentation
                                 c.  Contaminants
                                 d.  Large-scale petroleum inputs (oil spills)
                                 e.  Destruction of salt marshes
                                 f.  Stratospheric ozone depletion
                             2. Threats
                                 a.  Human wastewater, agricultural runoff, animal wastes, acid deposition (nutrients)
                                 b.  Development, agriculture (sediment)
                                 c.  Industrial and municipal point source discharge, nonpoint discharge (urban
                                     stormwater, atmospheric deposition, agriculture, groundwater contaminants)
                                 d.  Oil spills from offshore oil development or ship collisions or groundings (large-scale
                                     petroleum inputs)
                                 e.  Development (destruction of salt marshes)
                                 f.  CFCs and related compounds (stratospheric ozone depletion)

                    D. The Terrestrial Mainland System
                             1 . Stresses
                                 a. Habitat destruction and conversion
                                 b. Groundwater depletion
                             2. Threats


                    E. The Chesapeake Bay Shoreline & Nearshore Estuarine System
                             1 - Stresses
                                 (same as seaside marine and terrestrial mainland systems)








                    Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







          Page 24                                             Environmental Implications of Sustainable Development




          Table 7. General Threats in the Virginia Eastern Shore


                                                     Very hioh priority


                  1. High-density mainland development



                                                  Medium-to-high priority


                  1. Agricultural practices
                  2. Off road vehicles on barrier islands
                  3. Commercial fishing
                  4. Barrier island development
                  5. Island recreational use

















































                                      Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                    Environmental Implications of Sustainable Development                                            Page 25





                                          Ecorwmic Acdylty A. Coe" En*AAgoon Ecosystell




                                                           Employment



                                              Income


                                                                                         Sed1mentellon







                                        0                           AIM=
                                                                    MP
                                                                    NIVog*n
                                                                       I      Phoafhorous

                                    Figure 8. Example of Sustainable Development Indicators for
                                    Hypothedcal Economic Activity "A" in the Coastal EstuadnelLagoon
                                    Ecosystem, Northampton County, VA.




                                           Eomomk Ac" B. CowN En%ksgoon Econyoftm


                                                           Empkyym@M







                                                income





                                         +                                     Phosphorous
                                                                       Nitrogen           Sedimontoon
                                         0                           AMM           1111111112 AIR= I


                                            r    I

                                    Figure 9. Example of Sustainable Development Indicators for
                                    Hypothedcal Economic Activity 'B" in the Coastal EstuarinelLegoon
                                    Ecosystem, Northampton County, VA.





                    Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







         Page 26                                             Environmental Implications of Sustainable Development






                               Eoonaaft Adlft A. TwT*s&IW MalnhuW Ecoeyebm


                                                  Employment










                             +                                  Habkd LOSS    Groundwow
                                                                               Depledon

                             0





                        Figure 10. Example of Sustainable Development Indicators for
                        Hypothetical Economic Activity 'A' in the Terrestrial Mainland
                        Ecosystem, Northampton County, VA.



































                                     Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia








                      4. IMPACTS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
                                    IN NORTHAMPTON COUNTY




                                              Nature/Heritage Tourism
                      One of the six economic strategies identified in the Economic Forum is to develop
                and promote tourism "activities, attractions and amenities that are compatible with the
                local environment, Northampton's rural character and its existing natural resource-based
                industries" (Northampton Economic Forum, p. 13). Nature-base tourism can play a major
                role in economic development given the quality and variety of natural and heritage
                resources of the county. Boating and fishing are the most predominant nature-based
                tourism activities taking place in the county today. However, Northampton can potentially
                capitalize on its unique wildlife resources and capture a large share of the wildlife viewing
                and birding market in the metropolitan areas extending from Baltimore south to Virginia
                Beach. Moreover, Northampton may be in good position to attract other recreation and
                leisure markets for such activities as long-distance on-road bicycling and heritage tourism.



                Current Conditions
                      The travel and tourism industry has been fairly steady in Northampton County over
                the past several years. Employment in hotels and motels as reported by the Virginia
                Employment Commission has remained roughly between 170 and 250 since 1988 with a
                decreasing trend (Table 8).

                                           Table 8. Employment in the Hotel and Lodging
                                          Sector, Northampton County, VA, 7988 - 1992.
                                                 Year        Employment*,.
                                              1988                   213

                                              1989                   247

                                              1990                   211

                                              1991                   172

                                              1992                   177


                                            Average employment in the 3rd quarter of each year.
                                          Source: Virginia Employment Commission, 1993.

                      Revenues from the 2% lodging tax collected in Northampton County show a similar
                trend between 1989 (the first year the tax was collected) and 1992 (Table 9).










                Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







         Page 28                                    Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County




                                      Table 9. Lodging Tax Revenues Collected
                                      in Northampton County, VA, 1989 - 199Z

                                               Year       Revenue M

                                            1989          39,126.57
                                            1990          45,957.37
                                            1991          43,857.72
                                            1992          43,383.69
                                      Sour -.a: Northampton CountV Treasurer, 1 193.

                Table 9 shows a slight downward trend in lodging tax revenues between 1990 and
         1992. The tax was collected for only part of 1989 and is therefore less than the amounts
         collected in the succeeding years.

                A survey of operators of inns, motels, and campgrounds in the county was
         undertaken in September, 1993 to collect data on lodging activity during 1992. Survey
         results indicate a total of 97,215 unit nights were rented in Northampton County in 1992.
         Most (64,121) unit nights were rented in Cherrystone Campground, a 700-site
         campground complex on the bayside (see Table 10).

                Table 10. Overnight Lodging Facility Unit-Nights Rented, Northampton County, VA, 1992.


                                       Lodging Facility            Rented

                                  Cape                                   1,925

                                  Edgewood                                 713

                                  Rittenhouse                            1,363

                                  Sunset Beach                           8,494

                                  Holiday                                9,700

                                  Peacock                                2,097

                                  Anchor                                 4,509

                                  Bed & Breakfast Inns                   1,800

                                  CherrVstone                           64,121

                                  Kiptopeke                              3,506


                Source: Estimated from survey responses by lodging facility operators. Survey administered September, 1993.


                Occupancy rate varies considerably between seasons, with summer season
         reaching a high of 66.5% in July, to a low of 3% in the winter months. (Table 11, Figure
         11). Capacity is defined as number of lodging units times available days. Overall, the
         occupancy rate for lodging facilities in the county is quite low. All units together averaged
         23.9% in 1992. Even removing Cherrystone and Kiptopeke campgrounds from the
         analysis (since camping is highly seasonal), average yearly occupancy at motels and inns
         remains at 26.8%.


                                   Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                     Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County                                                Page 29




                              Table 11. Monthly Occupancy, A# Lodging Units, Northampton County, VA, 1992.
                                               Month         Units Rented         Capacity     % Occupancy
                                           -January                      899      34,875                3
                                           -February                     949      31,500                3
                                            March                    1,799        34,875                5
                                            April                    4,579        33,750                14
                                           -May                      9,464        34,875                27
                                            June                    13,288        33,750                39
                                           -July                    23,193        34,875                67
                                           -August                  20,948        34,875                60
                                            September                9,651        33,750                29
                                            October                  5,318        34,875                15
                                            November                 1,374        33,750                4
                                              ecember                1,833        34,875                5
                                              TOTAL                 93,295       410,625    1           23

                              Source: Estimated from survey responses by lodging facility operators. Survey administered September, 1993.



                          Unit-Night&
                          40,000




                          30,000




                          20,000




                          10,000




                                                                                                                giiiii
                                   0
                                         Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Doc
                           Figure 11. Total Lodging Unit-Nights Rented by Month, Northampton County, VA, 1992











                    Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






          Page :30                                         Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County



                   Nationally, a 65% yearly occupancy rate is considered the point at which hotel and
          motel operations realize a sufficient return to investment (M. V. Brown, 1993). Although
          lodging units in Northampton County are generally not encumbered with high capital and
          operating costs that they need to keep their facilities nearly full to stay in business, such
          low rates do not spur management to undertake facility improvements and upgrades.

                  The lodging operators surveyed were asked to estimate the average length of stay
          of their overnight guests. Most visitors staying in motels stayed one night only (Table 12).
          Overnight visitors staying at Cherrystone Campground were reported to have stayed an
          average of 8 days.

                           Table YZ Frequency DisWbudon of Length of Stay by Type of Overnight
                           Accommodation, Northampton County, VA, 199Z

                                                               Motel/inn     Campground
                                        Length of Stay         (percent)      (percent)
                                      1 night                        71.9             14.4
                                      2 nights                       18.8             34.4
                                      3 nights                        4.7               4.4
                                      4-6 nights                      2.6               3.4
                                      7 nights                        1.9             35.8
                                      8 or more nights                0.1               7.8
                                       AVERAGE                1.5 nights       4.3 nights
                           Source: Estimated from survey responTes -bylodg;ng facility operators. Survey administered September.
                           1993.


                  Estimates of day-visits were made from figures supplied by management staff from
          Kiptopeke State Park, and marina operators' estimates of boat ramp use. Kiptopeke State
          Park reported a total of 10,411 day-visitors in 1992, with approximately 27% being from
          out of the county. From interviews with operators at Cape Charles and Quinby public
          marinas we used an estimate of 10 users per weekday and 30 users per weekend day at
          each ramp between March and November (Table 13).

                       Table 73. Estimate of Launches from Boat Romps, Northampton County, VA, March
                       7992 through November 7992.
                                                          Launches per      Launches per   -     Total
                                Ramp1ocation                 Weekday          Weekend            Use
                        Cape Charles Harbor                     10               30              3,300
                        Kiptopeke State Park                    5                28              2,430
                        Morely's Wharf Boat Ramp                10               30              3,300
                        Oyster Boat Ramp                        10               30              3,300
                        Red Bank Boat Ramp                      10               30              3,300
                        West, J.H.                              10               30              3,300
                           TOTAL                                                                18,930
                       gource: estimated from survey responses by marina facility operators. Survey administ-ared 9-eptember,
                       1993.


                                        Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                   Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County                                        Page 31




                           The Eastern Shore Wildlife Refuge reported a total visitor count of 12,268 between
                   November 1, 1992 and September 1, 1993. According to managers at the site, most
                   visitors are passing through with a very short visit duration (Alvaez, 1993). The most
                   common activity reported among refuge visitors is wildlife observation along a self-guided
                   trail. Other uses of the refuge include educational tours and organized birding tours.

                           Bird and deer hunting is a popular activity in the county. in 1992, 2,258 resident,
                   and 141 non-resident hunting permits of all types were sold in the county (Virginia Dept.
                   of Game and Inland Fisheries, 1993). Due to the limitations of this study, the amount of
                   hunting activity in the county is not known. However, to include this group we assumed a
                   combined rate of wildlife observation and hunting equal to the 1993 rate of visitation to
                   the wildlife refuge. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, we estimated a total of
                   14,000 visitor days spent in wildlife observation and use.

                           Average party size for overnight visitors also was provided by the lodging
                   operators. Party size averaged 2.0 persons per party at motels and inns, 3.1 persons per
                   party at campgrounds, and 2.2 persons overall. A party size of 3.2 persons, a national
                   standard for persons per motor vehicle, was used for day visitors.

                           Using the estimates of visit duration and party size, visitor-day figures were
                   converted to party-trips, to control for variations in spending patterns over a single trip.
                   Distribution of party-trips among the overnight accommodations in Northampton County is
                   shown in Table 14, and among day-visit destinations in Table 15.

                               Table 14. Tra vel Party- Trips b y L odging Facifty, Northamp ton Coun ty, VA, 1992.
                                                        Lodging Facility       Party-Trips
                                                     Cape                         1,336
                                                     Edgewood                        512
                                                     Rittenhouse                     874

                                                     Sunset Beach                 5,801
                                                     Holiday                      6,623
                                                     Peacock                      1,375

                                                     Anchor                       3,048
                                                     Bed & Breakfast Inns         1,385
                                                     Cherrystone                  10,043
                                                     Kiptopeke                      2,366
                                                       TOTAL                       33,363


                               Source: Estimated from survey responses by lodging facility operators. Survey administered September,
                               1993.











                   Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






            Page-32                                                    Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County



                                          Table 15. Day-Use Party-Trips by Activity andlor
                                          Destihadon, Northampton County, VA, 1992.

                                                       Activity/Destination               Party-Trips
                                                  Kiptopeke State Park                          10,411
                                                  Wildlife observation & use                    4,375
                                                  Boat ramps and docks                          22,194
                                                    TOTAL                                       36,980




                      To estimate activity participation rates, operators were asked to estimate the percentage of
            their guests whose primary activity was either: (1) visiting nature reserves, birding, wildlife
            observation and photography; (2) boating and fishing; (3) sightseeing; (4) just passing through; (5)
            other. These values are reported in Table 16.

            Table 16. Toutist AcMty Pardbioadon by Lodging Fac6lity, Northampton County, VA, 199Z

                                                                                   Visiting
                 Lodging               Passing                                     Reserves
                 Facility              Through           Fishing/Boating         Wildlife Obs.         Sightseeing             Other
                                   M          (No.)       M          (No.)       M         (No.)       M        (No.)                (No.)
              Cape                 40           524       47         615         1           39        5          65       7            92
              Edgewood             75           377       20         100         1           15        4          20       0             0
              Rittenhouse          80           752       10    1      94        1           28        0            0      9            85
              Sunset
              Beach                89       5,215         4          234         1         176         3        176        3          176
              H liday              89       5,954         4          268         1         201         3        201        3          201

              Peacock              40           580       47         680         1           43        5          72       7          101

              Anchor               75       2,333         20         622         1           93        0            0      4          124
              Cherrystone          0              0       90        8,861        1         295                  492        4          394
              Kiptopeke            10           176       70        1,230        15        791         5          88       0             0
            ff
              B&B                  0              0       5     1      46        25        692         70       646        0             0
                T6:rAL                      15,909                 12,751                2,374                  1,761               1,172

            Source: Estimated from survey responses by lodging facility operators. Survey administered September, 1993.





            Current Economic Impact
                     The impact of travel and tourism on Northampton County's economy was
            estimated for 1992. Two fundamental information components are needed to perform an
            impact estimation: (1) the population of travelers and tourists divided into easily identified,
            reasonably homogeneous market segments; and (2) spending profiles of each segment.




                                                Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                   Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County                                       Page 33



                           Most of the systematic variation in spending can be explained by length of stay in
                   the area, party size, lodging type, transportation mode, distance traveled, and primary
                   activities (Stynes and Propst, 1992). Ideally, the tourism market should be segmented by
                   all these variables. Due to the limitations of this study, we were not able to establish a
                   complete set of expenditure profiles by visitor activity. Instead, we segmented the market
                   into 12 segments representing type of lodging (camping, motel/inn, or no lodging),
                   whether they were boaters or not, and resident status (County resident vs. non-resident).
                   In doing so, we aggregated our estimates of all non-boating activities (just passing
                   through, visiting nature reserves, sightseeing, and other) into a single category. Variation
                   in spending due to party size and length of stay can be handled partially by the choice of
                   units of analysis (visitor day, visit, or party trip). Table 17 lists the segments identified in
                   this study, and the distribution of party-trips among them.

                                   Table 16. Party-Trips by Segment Share, Northampton County, VA, 1992.

                                                  Segment          Resident        Nonresident
                                              Overnight
                                                       Boating               0          2,660
                                                  Not boating                0         18,294
                                              Camping
                                                       Boating             185          9,908
                                                  Not boating               79          2,236
                                              Day Use
                                                       Boating         11,592          13,638
                                                   ot boating           7,144           4,606
                                                Total                  18,999          51,343



                           In order to get a true picture of visitor spending, one     would need to survey a
                   randomly drawn sample of travelers and tourists throughout the year. This was beyond
                   the scope of this study, however. In the absence of a source of primary expenditure
                   data, we used travel and tourism expenditure data gathered from a large sample of visitors
                   to 12 Corps of Engineers projects across the country (Stynes and Propst, 1992). These
                   data were adjusted where values were either known or considered to be inconsistent with
                   circumstances in the county. For example, data on lodging rates in the county have been
                   collected during the course of the study and were used to average lodging expenditures by
                   market segment. These values were substituted for those in the Corps of Engineers study.
                   Also, expenditures on retail clothing and other outlets were adjusted downward, reflecting
                   the lack of many types of retail facilities in the county. Table 17 lists average
                   expenditures by party-trip for each market segment.

                           Expenditures by market segment were aggregated in proportion to number of party-
                   trips taken by each of the 12 market segments and averaged. The values and categories
                   used in the IMPLAN model are given in Table 18.





                   Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia



         Table 17. Average Expenditures per Party-Trip by Market Segment, Northampton County, VA, 1992.

                                                                                                                                                 SEGMENT
                                                                                          Residents
                                                                                                                                                                                                       Nonresidents
                                                Day                Day                er.npwo         CanOarii@:        Matallkm          I Mal.subin                             Day
                                                                Nanboaten           84114141110                         Boatem
                 CATEGORY                      Boatem      I                                                                                                                                I     C.W.              Ce IWO             Motab4m            Motatfbin
                                                                                                                                                                               Nododatere         Boaters           Alanboutwo         Boatwe            Nanbowters
            hotel/motel                            0.00              0.00               0.00               0.00            42.10               42.10              0.00              0.00               0.00              0.00             62.31             62.31
            camping fees                           0.00              0.00               59.50            59.92               5.75              1.57               0.00              0.00            186.77            186.77                0.00              0.00
            grocery                               12.91              6.52               58.61            35.63             51.81               24.91              6.47              6.37             41.21             33.80              49.50             13.36
            restaurant                             2.41              2.37               5.35               5.37            44.55               29.56              3.96             14.12             17.89             15.69              46.09             39.36

            auto gas & oil                         9.04              4.39               20.93            13.89             15.23               10.48              6.03              4.52             22.15             22.60              25.35             16.63

            auto rental                            0.18              0.00               0.00               0.00              0.00              0.00               0.00              0.00               0.00              0.42               1.71              0.00

            auto repair                            0.40              0.11               0.49               2.14              0.00              0.20               0.19              1.45               0.92              4.84               0.91              0.02
            tires                                  1.45              1.04               0.00               9.00              0.00              0.00               0.00              0.00               0.91              2.82               0.23    1       16.89
            auto parts                             0.23              0.00               0.93               1.36              0.36              0.00               0.00              0.00               0.78              7.29               0.77              0.03
            parking & tolls                        0.35              0.17               0.24               0.94              3.92              0.26               0.17              0.18               1.07              0.71               0.47              0.18
            boat gas                              10.66              0.00               19.48              0.00            31.64               0.00               6.80              0.00             29.45               0.00             41.39               0.00

            boat rental                            0.32              0.00               1.17               0.00            14.08               0.00               1.79              0.00               3.67              0.00             10.47               0.00

            boat repair                            5.62              0.00               2.70               0.00            16.99               0.00               0.12              0.00               8.27              0.00               7.24              0.00
            boat parts                             5.14              0.00               2.00               0.00              5.46              0.00               1.35              0.00               3.70              0.00               4.71              0.00
            launch/slip fees                       2.59              0.00               1.68               0.00              0.54              0.00               0.00              0.00               1.92              0.00               8.98              0.00

            boat fares                             0.05              0.00               0.00               0.00              0.00              0.00               0.00              0.00               0.07              0.00               0.17            .0.00

            fish licenses                          0.11              0.08               0.10               0.23              0.46              0.00               0.49              0.00               1.62              0.35               2.70              3.98

            charter fees                           0.00              0.02               0.00               0.00              0.00              0.00               0.00              0.00               0.00              0.60               0.60              0.18

            fish bait                              1.36              0.73               5.38               1.40              3.52              2.96               0.95              0.14               3.47              1.48               5.77              1.35
            huntlicenses                           0.00              0.03               0.00'              0.00              0.00              0.00               0.00              0.00               0.00              0.00               0.00              0.00

            ammunition                             0.35              0.26               0.00               0.00              0.12              0.00               0.00              0.00               0.00              0.00               0.31              7.89

            equip rental                           0.19              0.75               0.00               0.00              1.21              3.48               0.24              0.00               0.34              0.20               3.46              2.34
            guide fees                             0.00              0.00               0.00               0.00              0.00              0.00               0.00              0.00               0.00              0.44               1.16            11.55

            sport adm.                             0.07              0.05               0.00               0.00              0.52              0.26               0.00              0.02               0.12              0.26               0.15              0.06

            tourist attract's                      0.23              0.34               0.71               0.39              0.31              3.48               0.58              0.32               1.23              5.46               2.65              1.17

            recreation adm.                        1.43              0.59               0.27               1.60              1.17              3.48               0.00              0.00               1.51              1.82               3.19              2.79

            film                                   0.84              0.83               2.74               1.88              2.25              4.65               0.30              0.26               2.80              1.43               2.38              1.33










         Table 17. Continued

                                                                                                                                         SEGMENT

                                                                                      Residents                                                                                            Nonresidents
                                              Day               Day            COMPON           Campos           motwlkw          motallb"I           Day               Day            Campars          CO.Wo             motallim         motalibm
                 CATEGORY                   Boaters          Nonboatera         som             Nonboatees        Boaters         Nonbcoters        110001           Nahboatere        110mare          Manboatem         Boaters         Nanbowere
                                                                                    am
           film developing                      0.56              0.54              2.46            1.50              1.88             3.96             0.06              0.20             0.75              0.98             0.81            0.16
           souvenirs                            0.09              0.39              0.48            0.76              1.90             0.00             0.31              0.04             4.01              3.05             6.34            4.85
           footwear                             1.13              3.41              2.40            1.42              1.42             0.00             0.00              0.86             0.97              2.69             2.61            0.00
           men's clothing                       1.60              1.35              2.21            0.48              0.85             0.00             0.17              1.35             2.29              1.70             2.57            0.72
           women's clothing                     0.80              0.59              1.77            1.04              1.84             3.26             0.00              0.64             1.86              0.97             2.12            0.95
           other                                3.52              1.72              3.79            9.45             17.58             3.26             0.14              0.61             3.52              1.85             2.61            4.47
                -TO'al                         63.65             26.29           195.38   j       148.39     1     267.43     1      137.86    1        30.11            31.10           343.30           298.21           299.74           192.56







           Page .36                                          Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County





                            Table 18. Average Travel and Tourism Expenditures per Party- Trip and Total
                            Expenditures by Spending Category, Northampton County, VA, 1992.

                                      Spending Category            Average             Total
                                    hotel                              18.56        1,305,639
                                    camping                            32.47        2,283,972
                                    food on site                       17.35        1,220,313
                                    food off-site                      16.88        1,187,502
                                    gas & oil                          21.43        1,507,713
                                    auto rental/repairs                  1.00           70,421
                                    tires                                4.98          350,026
                                    auto/RV parts                        0.42           29,582
                                    boat rental                          5.42          380,947
                                    boat repairs                         2.39          168,465
                                    boat parts                           1.81          127,524
                                    boat launch/slip                     1.04           73,232
                                    boat fares                           0.02             1,655
                                    fish bait                            1.61          113,368

                                    ammunition                           2.15          150,965
                                    spec. & attr. fees                   1.03           72,110
                                    recreation fees                      1.42           99,576
                                    film purchase                        1.18           83,318
                                    film developing                      0.39           27,323
                                    footwear                             0.92           64,586
                                    men's clothing                       1.19           83,649
                                    women's clothing                     0.86           60,563
                                    souvenirs                            4.94          347,389

                                    fish & hunt licenses                 1.50          105,513

                                       TOTAL                          139-96        9,915,669



                  The total (direct, indirect, and induced) impacts of travel and tourism on
         Northampton County's economy are described below:

                  ï¿½    Total Industrial Output (T10):               $14,297,200
                  ï¿½    Wage and Property Income:                     $7,808,000
                  ï¿½    Total Value Added:                              9,461,900
                  ï¿½    Jobs                                                   454
                  ï¿½    Contributions to Tax Revenue                      $51,000
                  ï¿½    Net Fiscal Benefit                              $232,000



                                         Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







                   Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County                                      Page 37




                           The economic impact of travel and tourism results from non-resident and resident
                   recreationists' spending on lodging ($1,305,639 on motels and inns, $2,283,972 on
                   camping), restaurants ($1,220,313), retail groceries (($1,187,502), fuel and oil
                   ($1,507,713), and other goods and services totaling $9.916 million. Economic impacts on
                   each sector are presented in Table 19. In relative terms, the hotel and lodging sector and
                   the aggregate of the wholesale and retail trade sectors realize the largest impact.

                           The fiscal impacts of the travel and tourism industry on county government indicate
                   a contribution to county revenues of $51,000. The "Net Public Service Benefit" of this
                   industry is $232,000 captured in a combination of the provision of public services spurred
                   by this industry, and a reduction in taxes.

                           Table 19. Total Economic Impact of Travel and Tourism on the Economy of Northampton
                           County, VA, 199Z (1990 dollars.

                                                                                           Total
                                                                              Total        Value
                                                                  T110       Income        Added       Employment
                                       Sector                   W000)        0,000)        0,000)     (No. of Jobs)
                        LIVESTOC                                   15.1           3.4          3.9                 0

                        CROPS                                      99.8           9.5        10.0                  1

                        Commercial Fishing                         20.2           4.8          5.0                 0
                        MANUFACTURING                           1,084.9       577.3        597.0                 16

                        CONSTRUCTION                              195.8         59.2         59.7                  3

                        FOOD PROCESSING                           105.1         10.5         10.7                  1

                        Boat Building & Repair                    747.3       411.4        414.1                 11

                        TRANSPORTATION                            212.4       115.1        121.3                   4

                        COMMUNICATIONS                            205.4       129.4        138.3                   2

                        UTILITIES                                 308.9       138.0        159.5                   1

                        WHOLESALE & RETAIL TRADE                4,519.7      2,699.1       3,559.7              200

                        FINANCE                                   186.0         96.5         99.2                  3

                        INSURANCE                                 102.0         53.3         61.3                  2

                        REAL ESTATE                             1,364.8       783.5        1,062.8                 3
                        Hotels & Lodging Places                 3,358.9      1,685.4       2,115.9               144

                        OTHER SERVICES                            580.6       288.6        293.4                 15

                        MEDICAL SERVICES                          711.3       501.8        506.3                 25

                        EDUCATION                                  54.8         32.7         32.7                  3

                        MISCELLANEOUS                              87.1       -110.5       -108.2                  3

                        GOVERNMENT                                312.0       294.2        294.2                 13

                        Household Industry                         25.1         25.1         25.1                  5
                          TOTAL                                 14,297.2     7,808.3       9,461.9              454





                   Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






         Page .38                                   Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County




         Potential Economic Impacts
                Travel and tourism is a rapidly growing industry nationally, and it is likely that
         Northampton County can capture a share of this market if the proper steps are taken. The
         county is rich in natural and cultural resources that can easily form a strong base for
         attracting travelers and tourists from a wide area. One important feature of this richness
         is the annual migration of birds through the county. For reasons that are not fully
         understood Northampton County is an important conduit and depot for an exceptionally
         large number of migrant species, both in terms of variety of species and absolute numbers.
         The Delmarva Peninsula may act as a funnel for many birds moving south during their Fall
         migration, concentrating them near the southern tip as they prepare for crossing the mouth
         of Chesapeake Bay. Another contributing factor to the large bird migration could be the
         diversiity and integrity of most of the county's ecological zones, which in close proximity
         include high quality examples of coastal barrier island, estuarine marshes, forests, fields
         and bayside beaches and wetlands.

                The importance of this area for both resident and migrating birds has generated
         much interest among researchers and among recreational birders (or bird watchers). This
         common denominator between birding and formal research interests could be a viable
         opportunity for nature-based tourism, in which the observation of ecological resources,
         natural history studies and interpretation, and similar activities become the primary object
         of.tourism. For instance, one on-going research activity, the long-standing raptor (birds-of-
         prey) and songbird banding project at Kiptopeke State Park, was made one of the
         showcase activities of the First Annual Eastern Shore Birding Festival held in October of
         1993.


                The historical aspects of the county are also significant from a tourism perspective.
         The county contains the oldest continuous court records of any county in the nation,
         housed in Eastville. The county has a large number of old structures dating from historic
         times. The County Comprehensive Plan lists over 180 such structures, each with its own
         story to tell.

                According to the World Travel and Tourism Council, tourism is now the world's
         largest industry (Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates, 1991) In the U.S. over
         $350 billion was generated in 1989 by foreign and domestic tourists traveling in this
         country, up 6 percent from 1988 (Weaver, 1991). In that same year, U.S. travelers spent
         $16 billion on domestic trips over 100 miles (Weaver, 1991). A Stanford Research
         Institute study projected an estimated 8 percent growth in world tourism overall, with 10
         to 15 percent growth expected in adventure/cultural tourism, and 25 to 30 percent growth
         in nature-based tourism K Brown, 1993).

               This growth is being fueled, in part, by the aging of the baby boom generation.
         This demographic cohort, born between 1946 and 1964, accounted for 48 percent of all
         trips in 1987-(Goeldner, 1992). They are typically in their high-income years and like to
         travel. Other trends that will influence tourism in the years to come are rising education
         levels, increasing role of women in the household, the rising expectation of quality
         experiences by travelers, and declining leisure time K Brown, 1993). Higher levels of
         education is the single most significant factor that influences cultural participation, an
         important factor in the growth of Northampton County's heritage tourism industry. The
         increasing economic role of women will mean that more families will be likely to engage in


                                   Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







                 Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County                            Page 39




                 a heritage-tourism experience, particularly as an educational experience for children. The
                 rising expectation of quality travel experiences will place significant pressure on the
                 recreation and tourism providers and host communities to improve and maintain tourism
                 infrastructure. Finally, decreases in leisure time will mean more trips closer to home and
                 fewer long vacations to far off places. Northampton County may be able to capitalize on
                 this factor, being within a one-half day's drive from several large urban centers.

                        Growth in nature-based tourism, also called ecotourism, is moving toward more
                 active pursuit of the nature experience rather than merely sightseeing in a natural setting
                 such as a national park. For example, Americans purchased approximately 90,000 canoes
                 .in 1988, a 14 percent increase over purchases in 1985 (Ingrassia, 1989). The U.S. Travel
                 Data Center determined that nearly seven percent of U.S. travelers, or eight million
                 Americans, report having taken an "eco-trip" (M. Brown, 1993).

                        Observing wildlife is a rapidly growing recreation activity. Over 3.1 million people
                 in Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania reported taking a trip of one mile or more for the
                 primary purpose of observing, feeding, or photographing fish and wildlife (U.S. Fish and
                 Wildlife Service, 1993). Nationally, people who travel to view, feed or photograph wildlife
                 are typically older (60% are 35 and up), have higher incomes (64% have household
                 incomes greater than $35,000), and well educated (56% had attended college). Interest
                 in wildlife viewing should continue to increase over the next decade in areas where
                 urbanization, education, and income levels continue to rise (U.S. Park Service, 1992).

                        Sport fishing is one of the most popular outdoor recreation activities in the U.S. A
                 steady increase in fishing has been occurring nationwide, from 17.6 percent of the U.S.
                 population in 1955 to 25.4 percent in 1988. The number of anglers doubled in this period
                 and the days spent fishing increased 21/2 times. (U.S. Park Service, 1992).

                        Bicycling is also a market that Northampton might be able to capitalize on. Seaside
                 Road, stretching the length of the county offers excellent road touring opportunities..
                 According to a study of greenway corridor use, the rate of participation in bicycling in the
                 U.S. tripled since the early 1960's (U.S. National Park Service, 1992). The report goes on
                 to say that as of 1988, bicycling has been one of the most popular and rapidly growing
                 outdoor sports in America. Twelve million bicycles were sold in 1987, more than the
                 number of cars sold that same year. There are several large bicycling clubs in the Virginia,
                 Maryland and Washington, D.C. area that specialize in road touring.

                        To capitalize on its natural and cultural assets, the county should identify its
                 opportunities and strengths related to nature-based and heritage-based tourism, target a
                 particular segment of the tourist population that is most likely to to use these resources,
                 and develop a marketing strategy to attract them and keep them coming back.

                        The size of the potential nature-based and heritage-based tourism market that
                 Northampton County could attract is unknown at this time. Additional research is required
                 to identify the size and characteristics of the potential market that would be willing to
                 travel to Northampton County for these opportunities. Northampton's market potential is
                 also a function of management actions taken at the county level to attract and maintain
                 visitors. Hence the total potential market is defined by the combination of tourism demand



                 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







          Page 40                                         Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County




          (the number of potential visitors) and the supply of adequate services to attract and
          accommodate visitors.


                  With respect to tourism infrastructure, namely motel and inn accommodations,
          Northampton County has excess capacity. As shown in Figure 11, lodging unit occupancy
          averaged below 25% in 1992, with a maximum monthly occupancy rate of 67 percent in
          July.   The county can easily accommodate more tourists without first investing in
          additional lodging establishments.

                  To understand the potential impacts of an enhanced travel and tourism industry in
          Northampton County, we developed four tourism growth scenarios. These are:

                  (1) Doubling the level of boating activities estimated for 1992 while holding other
                      activities constant;
                  (2) Doubling the level of non-boating activities estimated for 1992 while holding
                      other activities constant;
                  (3) Increasing the combined yearly motel and inn occupancy rate in the county to
                      50% and campground occupancy rate to 40%;
                  (4) Increasing the combined yearly motel and inn occupancy rate in the county to
                      75%, campground occupancy rate to 40%, and increasing the number of motel
                      and inn units by 25% while maintaining the higher occupancy rate.

                  The model results are shown in Table 20. Additional tables illustrating the impacts
          of these alternative scenarios on each economic sector are contained in Appendix 3.



          Table 20. Summary of Total Economic Impacts of Alternative Travel and Tourism Scenarios,
          Northampton County, VA f1990 dollars).

                                                                   Total                                 Not
                                                       Total       Value                                Fiscal
                                          TIO         Income       Added        Jobs         Taxes    :-Behefds
                                                                                                         .'00
                    Scenario            ($1000)       ($1000)     ($1000)       (No.)       ($0000)    0: 0):

                  Model                               7,808.3     9,461.9                        51
            Bast,                       14,297.2                                   454                     232


            1 .Double Boating           20,106.6     10,956.1    13,272.7          639           72        326
               Activity
            2. Double Non-Boating       17,213.0      9,395.9    11,399.5          549           62        279
               Activity
            3. Increase                 21,073.9     11,481.3    13,926.7          673          138        346
               Occupancy Rates
               Adid New Lodging         28,209.5     15,409.2    18,690.9          899          181        466
               Un   ts



            The results of the first two scenarios, (1) increasing boating activity by 50%, and (2)
          increasing non-boating activity by 50%, illustrate the relative economic impacts of
          participants in each major activity group. Boaters typically spend more money to sustain
          their recreational activity. In our model, boaters on average spent $168.08 per party trip,

                                        Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                 Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County                              Page 41



                 while non-boaters spent $149.75 per party trip. This is due in part to the longer visit
                 duration of boating parties. A large proportion of boaters remain in the county for more
                 than 5 days, while most non-boating groups remain in the county for fewer than three.
                 Also, average spending by boaters is higher since boaters incur more costs on such things
                 as fuel and repairs.

                    Scenario 3, increasing average motel, inn, and campground occupancy has an obvious
                 positive impact on the economy. At a yearly occupancy rate of 50% in motels and inns,
                 and 40% at campgrounds, total industrial output increases by nearly one-third from $14.3
                 million to$21 million, value added increases by nearly 50% from $9.5 million to $13.9
                 million, and number of jobs generated in the economy increases by 219. Adding new
                 lodging units (Scenario 5) increases the numbers further still (the associated impacts of
                 constructing the new units is not included in this analysis).

                    In each of these scenarios, individual sectors of the economy are affected differently
                 depending on spending patterns and linkages (see Tables in Appendix 3). It should be
                 noted here that the boat building and repair sector lags significantly behind other sectors in
                 indirect and induced effects of tourism spending. This indicates a significant leakage.in
                 this sector. As county leaders take steps to increase the number of tourists visiting
                 Northampton, they should also investigate ways to enhance this sector and plug the leak.

                    With proper planning, marketing and management, it is reasonable to assume that any
                 one of these scenarios may occur. Northampton's strong natural and heritage resource
                 base, and an identifiable and reachable market of travelers within a five-hour drive from
                 the county combine to make tourism a potentially strong component of the county's
                 economy.


































                 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






          Page 42                                         Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County




                                               Research and Education


          Current Conditions
                  The importance of Northampton County and the Eastern Shore for resident and
          migrating birds has generated much interest among researchers at nearby universities and
          research institutions. The unique hydrogeology of the Eastern Shore has also generated
          research activity in the county. In 1992, there were seven research groups active in the
          county spending over 5,900 research days (Table 21).

                  Research activity generates income in a community in two ways: (1) establishing a
          research facility brings jobs, and maintaining the facility involves expenditures of dollars in
          the community; and (2) visiting researchers spend money on food and accommodations,
          and make miscellaneous retail purchases. The larger the research facility, and the higher
          the volume of research traffic, the greater will be the economic impact.

                  Northampton County is home to the Eastern Shore Wildlife Refuge which generates
          the greatest number of research days - days spent by researchers in the county - over
          2,600 days in 1992. Another facility, the Center for Long Term Ecological Research
          (LTER) generated approximately 1,800 research days in 1992.

          Table .2 1. Estimation of Research Days Spent in Northampton County, VA by Research Group,
          1992.

                                                             Overnight    @110-yemlght--.
                                                                                                    ... ....... ... . .
                                              @Da Ar p       Motel/Inn       .rivate:::   Ty
                                                'Y                                          _pe::of'
                ::.::.'Research::::Gro p:::. Rschi-d ys:     Rsch-days
                                u                   a

            Old Dominion Univ.                      148             20           358     house (2)            526

            Long Term Eco. Rsrch Ctr.                                           1,795    house              1,795

            Va. 'rech.                                                           204     refuge               204

            Marine & Estuarine Envrio.              578                                                       -578
            Studies Ctr.

            Va. Society of Ornithology                              28                   motelAnn              28

            US FWS Wildlife Refuge                                             2,670     refuge             2,670

            SAMP Bird Study                                                      876     house                876

              TOTAL                                 726             48         5,903                        6,677



                  To estimate the economic impact of research on the county, we estimated two
          economic inputs: (1) expenditures by researchers while in the county: and (2) costs of
          maintaining a research facility. Since overnight accommodation is the largest in-county
          expense, we segregated research-days spent in the county by type of overnight
          accommodation. We then estimated average daily expenditures for each category (Table
          22). Also, from an interview with the LTER station manager, we estimated a yearly
          expense of $100,000 to cover salaries and maintenance for the station. Our estimate of
          total research expenditures in Northampton County in 1992 was $377,540


                                        Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                   impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County                                      Page 43




                   Table 22. Total Research Expenditures in Northampton County, VA by Accommodatfon Category,
                   1992.

                                                                      Units        Expenditure        Total
                                      Expense Type                                  per Unit       Expenditures

                             Day-Trip Research                       726 days            24.84       18,035.20

                             Overnight in Motel/Inn Days              48 days            95.45        4,581.59

                             Overnight in Private Lodging          5,903 days            53.35     314,923.37

                             Maintenance of Housing Units            4 houses       10,000.00       40,000.00
                           =TOTAL                                                                  377,540.15


                           The total (direct, indirect, and induced) impacts of ecological research in
                   Northampton County are described below:

                           ï¿½   Total Industrial Output:                $691,200
                           ï¿½   Wage and Property Income:               $396,200
                           ï¿½   Total Value Added:                      $474,400
                           ï¿½   Jobs                                            25
                           ï¿½   Contributions to Tax Revenues:             $2,000
                           ï¿½   Net Fiscal Benefit                        $12,000

                           Economic impacts on each sector are presented in Table 23. Wholesale and retail
                   trade realize the greatest impact.





























                   Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







          Page 44                                         Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County




          Table 23. Total Economic Impact of Ecological Research Actfvities on the Economy of
          Northampton County, VA, 1992 (1990 dollars).

                                                                                       Total
                                                                         Total         Value
                                                             TIO         Income       Added       Employment
                               Sector                       ($1000)      ($1000)      0,000)     (No. of Jobs)

              LIVESTOCK                                         0.8          0.2          0.2                  0

              CROPS                                             5.0          0.6          0.5                  0

              Commercial Fishing                                1.9          0.5          0.5                  0

              MANUFACTURING                                   62.8          33.5        34.6                   1

              CONSTRUCTION                                    15.2           4.6          4.6                  0

              FOOD PROCESSING                                 10.4           1.0          1.1                  0

              Boat Building & Repair                          25.0          13.7        13.8                   0

              TRANSPORTATION                                  11.0           6.0          6.3                  0

              COMMUNICATIONS                                    8.9          5.6          6.0                  0

              UTILITIES                                       14.9           6.6          7.7                  0

              WHOLESALE & RETAIL TRADE                        291.2        173.9       229.4                13

              FINANCE                                           9.7          5.0          5.2                  0

              INSURANCE                                         5.7          3.0          3.4                  0

              REAL ESTATE                                     85.2          48.9        66.4                   0

              Hotels & Lodging Places                         10.2           5.1          6.4                  0

              OTHER SERVICES                                  39.2          19.5        19.8                   1

              MEDICAL SERVICES                                39.8          28.0        28.3                   1

              EDUCATION                                         3.1          1.8          1.8                  0

              MISCELLANEOUS                                     5.3         -6.7        -6.5                   0

              GOVERNMENT                                        9.5          9.0          9.0                  0

              Household Industry                              36.4          36.4        36.4                   7

                TOTAL                                         691.2        396.2       474.9                25




          Potential Impacts
                  Old Dominion University, in cooperation with the Nature Conservancy, announced
          this year its intentions to establish a research facility in Northampton County dedicated to
            J
              M'

              C(
             FFC


































          the study of sustainable development. At the time of this writing it was not yet known
          the size and scope of such a facility, and hence its total affect on the county's economy.
          If the research facility evolves into a large center sponsored by a consortium of universities

                                       Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                     Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County                                               Page 45



                     and other research concerns, its impact on the community could be substantial. This is
                     especially true if it becomes large enough to employ several people, and provides a large
                     throughput of research days. Much of the impact now felt from research activities in the
                     county is from associated spending by researchers during their stay in the county.

                              Without some indication of size and scope of the proposed research facility, it is not
                     possible to enumerate its potential affects on the local economy. However, we ran the
                     model again using a ten-fold increase in the number of research days and expenditures on
                     research facility maintenance. As expected, the economic impacts increased
                     proportionately. However, the fiscal impacts increased more than tenfold. If 60,600
                     research-days were spent in the county, the tax benef it would increase f rom, $ 2,000 to
                     $19,000, and the net fiscal benefit would increase from $12,000 to $123,000.

                              The natural resource base which attracts and supports researchers and their
                     activiti 'as is the same one that could become a popular site among recreational birders.
                     This common denominator between birding and formal research interests could be a viable
                     opportunity for ecotourism, in which the observation of ecological resources, natural
                     history studies and interpretation, and similar activities become the primary object of
                     tourism.






































                     Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







       Page 46                              Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County




                                        Arts and Crafts


       Current Conditions
              Production and sales of indigenous arts and crafts, often referred to as folk art, can
       add significantly to a rural economy, particularly if the craftspeople in the area are known
       for their skills. Production and sales of rural folk art is usually organized through craft
       guilds and cooperatives. Although several craftspeople live and ply their trade in
       Northampton County, there is little in the way of an organized system for production and
       distribution of arts and crafts on such a scale as to have a significant economic impact.

              According to one knowledgeable source, there are 12 people who derive their sole
       income from the sale of their art work, and 19 people who support their incomes in a large
       part from art sales (Miller, 1993). There are:

              0  10 "designer craftspeople" whose full income is derived from their art. These
                 include painters, wood carvers, potters, etc.;
              N  2 full-time photographers;
              x  12 part-time artisans who support their incomes through art sales. These
                 include carvers, spinners, and weavers;
              0  5 teacher/artists who supplement their teaching incomes by selling art;
              0  2 part-time quilters who produce quilts as fund raisers for churches and other
                 concerns.


              Because of the small and scattered nature of this activity, we did not attempt to
       model the impacts of folk art production on the economy.


       Potential Impacts
              To understand how a strong and thriving crafts "industry" might affect the county's
       economy, we investigated successful arts and crafts guilds and cooperatives in other
       communities to learn what they were doing. One such cooperative, the Watermark
       Association of Artisans based in North Carolina served as our model. The Watermark
       cooperative is large association of 750 member-artisans (350 who are actively producing)
       that produces, markets, and distributes large volumes of hand-made baskets, quilts,
       decorative wooden items, dolls, wreaths, and other items. The artisans, all rural women,
       hale from a 1 5-county region in eastern North Carolina. Women without craft skills are
       trained through the cooperative's education program. Watermark produces items for
       wholesale through a catalog outlet, and retail sales at their own storefront.

              In 1992, its 1 5th year in production, Watermark sales totaled $664,000. Nearly all
       sales, $590,000 were through their wholesale outlet, while $74,000 worth of craft goods
       were sold in the retail facility 4McKecuen, 1993). We used Watermark's sales figures and
       production line in our model for Northampton County.

              This might be an extreme example of what might be possible through the organized
       production and sales of local arts and crafts. However, of interest in this study is the way
       the earnings are cycled through Northampton's economy. If a large-scale crafts
       cooperative is ever launched in the county, it is important to understand how each sector
       of the economy will benefit.


                             Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                   Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County                                      Page 47



                           To model a crafts cooperative we assumed a producer margin of six percent for all
                   goods sold on the wholesale market and a 25 percent margin for goods sold retail. The
                   results of the analysis are presented in Table 24.

                           The contribution of an expanded arts and crafts sector to the economy of
                   Northampton County is summarized below:


                           ï¿½   Total Industrial Output:                 $939,900
                           ï¿½   Wage and Property Income:                $435,700
                           ï¿½   Total Value Added:                       $476,400
                           ï¿½   Jobs                                             19
                           ï¿½   Contributions to Tax Revenues:              $2,000
                           ï¿½   Net Fiscal Benefit                         $14,000


                           Outside of the sectors that produce the crafts goods, and the trade sectors that sell
                   them, the service and real estate sectors gained the most because of their strong linkages
                   with the rest of the economy.






































                   Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







          Page 48                                       Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County




          Tabl&24. The Potential Impacts of an Expanded Arts and Crafts Industry in Northampton County,
          VA fl.990 dollars).


                                                                                      Total
                                                                       Total          Value
                                                           TIO         Income        Added       Employment
                             Sector                       ($1000)      ($1000)       ($,000)    (No. of Jobs)

            LIVESTOCK                                         0.6          0.1          0.2                  0

            CROPS                                             3.2          0.3          0.3                  0
            Commercial Fishing                                0.3          0.1          0.1                  0-
            MANUFACTURING                                     6.3          3.3          3.5                  0

            CONSTRUCTION                                      7.3          2.2          2.2                  0

            FOOD PROCESSING                                   1.2          0.1          0.1                  0

            Fabricated Textile Products                    207.8          84.1         84.6                  2

            Furniture and Fixtures                         148.9          74.6         74.9                  1

            Stationery Products                             54.5          18.4         18.5                  1

            Pottery Products                               199.9          76.1         77.1                  6

            Boat Building & Repair                            0.1          0.0          0.0                  0

            TRANSPORTATION                                  20.7          11.2         11.8                  0

            COMMUNICATIONS                                    8.9          5.6          6.0                  0

            UTILITIES                                       16.2           7.2          8.4                  0
            WHOLESALE & RETAIL TRADE                       120.9          72.2         95.2                  5-
            FINANCE                                           7.8          4.0          4.1                  0

            INSURANCE                                         4.3          2.3          2.6                  0

            REAL ESTATE                                     56.7          32.5         44.1                  0

            Hotels & Lodging Places                           6.8          3.4          4.3                  0

            OTHER SERVICES                                  22.0          10.9         11.1                  1

            MEDICAL SERVICES                                29.8          21.0         21.2                  1

            EDUCATION                                         2.3          1.4          1.4                  0

            MISCELLANEOUS                                     3.6         -4.6         -4.5                  0

            GOVERNMENT                                        8.5          8.0          8.0                  0

            Household Industry                                1.0          1.0          1.0                  0
            Sta
          FE
          11    t

            Pott
          kB
              oal

            TRA

            Coh



























              TOTAL                                        939.6         435.4        476.2                19






                                      Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                 Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County                              Page 49



                                                         Agriculture

                 Current Conditions
                        Excellent overviews of agriculture in Northampton County can be found in the
                 Northampton County Comprehensive Plan: Information and Analysis, and U.S. Soil
                 Conservation Service Soil Surveys for Northampton County. The review here is focused
                 mainly on general trends in agriculture, but some other background information is briefly
                 reviewed as well. Major trends are described in terms of acreage harvested for various
                 types of production. This is done to alleviate significant problems in interpreting changes
                 in number of farms, production figures, sales, etc. Acreage harvested is a simple measure
                 that integrates changes in technology, the use of labor, and other factors that affect
                 production decisions and the overall economic impacts of agriculture.

                        Northampton County enjoys goods soils and a relatively mild climate tempered by
                 the large bodies of water surrounding it. Much of Northampton County's area lies in
                 extensive estuarine zones that are unsuitable for farming, but a high proportion of uplands
                 in the county are well-drained and fertile. The majority of upland areas in the county are
                 level or gently sloping.

                        Over half of the county's soils are classified as prime farmland, meaning that they
                 are among the best suited in the region for producing food and fiber. Prime farmland is
                 also relatively unhindered by rocky soils, poor or excessive drainage, inadequate sources of
                 water, excessive slopes, etc., and so they are areas that allow good yields without high
                 inputs of chemicals, labor, water, and other inputs.

                        Agriculture has throughout the county's long history been a mainstay of the
                 economy, even as agriculture in general has declined around in the state and country as a
                 whole. The amount of cropland harvested in Northampton County has remained between
                 about 36,000 acres and 50,000 acres throughout most of this century. There have been
                 significant fluctuations in these acreage figures (and the data are not entirely consistent
                 over this long period; for instance, definitions used in surveys have changed) but over the
                 long term there has been a remarkable stability in the areal extent of crop-based
                 agriculture. This stability is relatively uncommon in the Eastern U.S.

                        Northampton County's agriculture in the early part of this century was dominated
                 by potatoes, which covered 33,400 acres or nearly three-fourths of all harvested cropland.
                 Since then the extent of the potato crop has dropped steadily, down to 13,000 acres in
                 1940, to 9,200 acres in 1964, and to under six thousand acres by 1982.

                        Vegetables became the dominant agricultural product in the 1930s, 1940s and
                 1950s. The county's relatively long growing season and good soils have since made it an
                 important producer of vegetable crops. Though in the 1920s vegetable crops were
                 harvested from only 1,300 acres (about 3% of all cropland harvested), this acreage
                 increased to around 26,000 in the 1940s (or about 63-65% of cropland harvested). In
                 more recent decades this acreage has fallen somewhat in response to numerous forces
                 (drop in available labor and increased labor costs, among others). Today, Northampton is
                 one of Virginia's largest producers of commercial vegetables, even though vegetable
                 production as a proportion of cropland harvested has fallen to around one-fourth (8,400
                 acres) of the county total (36,000 acres).


                 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







          Page @50                                     Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County



                  The main trend in the county's agriculture over the last two decades has been to
          diversify away from vegetables. Like farmers in many other parts of the Southeastern
          U.S., Northampton County farmers began to plant soybeans, often double-cropped with
          small grains such as winter wheat and barley, on a large scale. In the 1960s, soybeans
          accounted for around 25%      of the cropland harvested. Through the 1 980s, in contrast,
          this percentage rose to the 55%-62% range.

                  Another component of this trend in diversification is the increase in nursery
          production. Receipts from     nursery and greenhouse crops in Northampton County rose
          from $1.7 million in 1982 to $3.5 million in 1987.



          Table 25. Market Value of Agricultural Goods Sold & of Selected Crops Sold.'
          (thousands of dollars, not adjusted)

                       Total Value of      Potatoes &
                                             Sweet-                                              Nursery
                          oo                                         es::        OY eans:          o
               'Ya      .0 ds: 61           :00tatoes:      'Vegetabi         .'S
               0                                                                   b             Pr ducts

               19,59           10,794             4,761             4,150

               1974            19,474             7,149             6,417                 ---             ---

               1978            24,813             7,753             9,647                 -           1,179
               1982            22,151             4,981             5,563             5,905           1,702-
               1987            19,820             5,708             7,253             1,743           3, 534
                i: U.S. Department of Agriculture & U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census.




                  Agriculture is by far the largest component of the county's economy. With total
          output exceeding $68 million in 1990, this sector drives the rest of the      *local economy.
          The total impacts of agriculture in Northampton County are described below:

                  ï¿½  Total Industrial Output:            $68,311,200
                  ï¿½  Wage and Property Income:           $13,941,200
                  ï¿½  Total Value Added:                  $15,979,000
                  ï¿½  Jobs                                           899
                  ï¿½  Contributions to Tax Revenues:          $218,000
                  ï¿½  Net Fiscal Benefit                      $411,000

                  Agriculture's effects on the economy are most strongly felt in the trade, real estate,
          construction, and service sectors (Table 26). Agricultural production spurs demand for
          wholesale and retail goods by $3.5 million, real estate by $4 million, construction by
          L
               9

               9

               19.

               19.
          @ir c9il,




               1these figures are not adjusted for inflation and therefore should only be compared with other
          categories in the same year. They may not be directly comparable with data from other sources
          due to data gathering methods. See text for description of general trends.

                                      Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                   Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County                                       Page 51



                   $1 million, and medical and other services by over $3 million. About 900 jobs are
                   attributable to the direct, indirect, and induced effects of agricultural production.



                   Table 26. Total Impact of Agriculture on the Economy of Northampton County, VA, 1990.

                                                                                              Total
                                                                                 Total        Value
                                                                    TIO        Income         Added        Employment
                                      Sector                      ($'000)      ($10001        0,000)     (No. of Jdbs).

                     LIVESTOCK                                      849.1         193.2        219.2                13

                     CROPS                                       51,085.0      4,840.7        5,121.5             512

                     Commercial Fishing                                 5.8          1.4           1.4               0

                     MANUFACTURING                                  114.1          60.5          62.5                2

                     CONSTRUCTION                                 1,072.4          32.4        326.9                15

                     FOOD PROCESSING                                  16.6           1.7           1.7               0

                     Boat Building & Repair                             0.1          0.0           0.0               0

                     TRANSPORTATION                                 703.0         380.9        401.4                14

                     COMMUNICATIONS                                 458.9         289.0        308.9                 4

                     UTILITIES                                    1,118.4         499.7        577.4                 4

                     WHOLESALE & RETAIL TRADE                     3,545.4      2,117.3        2,792.4             157

                     FINANCE                                        677.2         351.5        361.3                11

                     INSURANCE                                      280.6         146.8        168.8                 5

                     REAL ESTATE                                  4,008.0      2,301.0        3,121.1               10

                     Hotels & Lodging Places                        415.3         208.4        261.6                18

                     OTHER SERVICES                               1,705.9         848.0        862.2                45

                     MEDICAL SERVICES                             1,408.6         993.7       1,002.5               49

                     EDUCATION                                      108.6          64.7          64.7                5

                     MISCELLANEOUS                                  171.8        (217.9)      (213.3)                5

                     GOVERNMENT                                     516.6         487.1        487.1                22

                     Household Industry                               49.6         49.6          49.6                9

                       TOTAL                                     68,311.2      13,941.2      15,979.0             899








                   Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton CountV. Virginia






        Page 52                                  Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County




        Potential Impacts
               Agriculture is a "price taking industry." This means that the mix of crops planted
        and the amounts of each produced is largely dependent on the expected price of the crop
        at harvest time. As such, to identify agriculture's potential impact on the local economy
        given some change in final demand would involve considerable speculation on which prices
        might change and by how much. It is doubtful that the outcome of such an exercise
        would be of much use. Instead, to look at the potential impacts of agriculture on the
        econoirny, we focused on changes in the cost of supplying agricultural products.
        Specifically, we identified five scenarios where producers switched to low-input,
        sustainable agricultural practices to produce their usual mix of crops. We then measured
        the potential economic impact of each scenario on Northampton County. The scenarios
        are described below:


               Scenario 1: 40% Loading Reduction Scenario. This scenario assumes a 40 percent
               reduction in chemical percolation to groundwater from existing practices .
               Scenario 2: Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Scenario. The CRP is a federal
               program designed to reduce soil erosion through retirement of highly erodible soils
               from cropping. It is assumed that Federal payments in the amount of $70 per acre
               are made to the farmer to retire his land.
               Scenario 3: Buffer Strip Scenario. Require that 100 feet on each side of a perennial
               stream be taken out of cropland production. No financial payments were assumed
               to be made to the farmer in lieu of production.
               Scenario 4: Green Manure Crops. Green manure crops added as winter cover are
               beneficial for preventing soil loss and absorbing residual chemicals over the winter
               season. This scenario assumed that a clover/rye mix was used as a winter crop
               and as a green manure source.
               Scenario 5: Chicken Litter. In this scenario, chicken litter is substituted for
               inorganic nitrogen.

               Each of the sustainable agriculture scenarios assumes that 20,000 acres in the
        county are converted from the current practice to the practice in question. This would
        constitute just under half of all agricultural acres in the county. In the case of the Buffer
        Strip scenarios this implies that one half of the farm acreage with streams would be
        affected. In the Conservation Reserve Program scenario this acreage assumption is
        somewhat unrealistic. This program is limited to 25 percent of cropped acreage in a
        county. Since the CRP program is unlikely to be expanded, this scenario is included as an
        example of what would happen if a similarly structured program were to be offered at the
        state or local level to retire delicate lands from intensive crop production.

               The effects of these sustainable agriculture scenarios on the county's economy are
        summarized in Table 26.












                                 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                     Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County                                          Page 53




                     Table 26. Summary of Total Economic Impacts of Alternative Sustainable Agricultural Practice
                     Scenarios, Northampton County, VA, 1990.

                                                                                                                     Net
                                                               Total        Total Value                             Fiscal
                                               TIO            Income          Added          Jobs      Taxes        Benefits
                          Scenario           ($1000)         0,000)           ($1000)        (No.)    ($1000)       ($1000)
                       Base                63,311,200      13,941,200       15,979,000        899     218,000     411,000-
                       1 .40%
                          Loading
                          Reduction        68,390,400      14,026,200       16,069,900        922     220,000      411,000

                       2. CRP              67,200,900      13,338,200       15,285,300        866     216,000      319,000

                       3. Buffer
                          Strips           68,234,700      13,928,300       15,959,600        896             ---         ---

                       4. Green
                          Manure
                          Crops            68,777,600      14,417,100       16,494,100        910     218,000 427,000

                       5. Chicken
                          Litter           68,403,700    1 14,034,1 OOJ     16,080,100        9011-


                       Much of the differences between the scenarios depends on the level of subsidy and/or
                     taxation incorporated into the incentive structures. Chemical Taxation for instance (not
                     included in the full impact analysis) had very harsh economic disincentives and thus would
                     have led to significantly negative economic impacts. For this very reason, it is not an
                     attractive sustainable development strategy.

                       Increased CRP acreage has a slightly depressing economic impact itself. However, it is
                     important to note that both it and the Buffer Strip scenario are complementary with
                     tourism strategies because they increase wildlife habitats. Estimates for Virginia suggest
                     that the small negative impacts of reduced agricultural output can be more than offset by
                     increases in hunting and other recreational activities.

                       Another interesting observation is that because the sustainable agriculture strategies
                     often substitute chemical or other inputs with labor, there are discernable distributional
                     effects. Employment is enhanced considerably by the Run-off Reduction scenario while
                     income is only marginally increased. This is because the increased income from the jobs
                     generated by the more labor intensive agriculture are almost offset by the reduced income
                     to farm operators.









                     Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







       Page 54                           Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County



                                     Food Processing

       Current Conditions
         Food processing is so closely tied to agriculture and seafood production in Northampton
       County, that we included it in our analysis even though it was not initially identified as a
       sustai@nable activity. Moreover, changes in activity in this sector have been found to
       strongly effect output in the seafood and agricultural sectors.

         Food processing plants were major employers in the county through 1988. In the 3rd
       quartor of that year, about 846 county residents were employed in this sector. However,
       by 1991., years over 500 jobs were lost, nearly 10% percent of the total labor force (Table
       27). In the 3rd quarter of 1991 only 257 people were employed in food processing in
       Northampton County. In the same quarter of 1992 employment in the food processing
       sector had dropped to 202 jobs.

                Table 27. Employment in the Food Processing Sector, Northampton
                County, VA, 1988 - 1992.

                                   Year.      Employment

                                 1988                846

                                 1989                619

                                 1990                531

                                 1991                257

                                 1992                202


                        Source: Virginia Employment Commission, 1993.



         Vegetable and seafood processing still had a significant impact on the county's
       economy as late as 1990. The total impacts of food processing on Northampton's
       economy in 1990 are described below. Sectoral impacts are described in Table 28.

            ï¿½   Total Industrial Output:   $45,787,600
            ï¿½   Wage and Property Income:   $9,549,000
            ï¿½   Total Value Added:         $10,706,000
            ï¿½   Jobs                               617
            ï¿½   Contributions to Tax Revenues:  $92,000
            ï¿½   Net Fiscal Benefit            $276,000













                           Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                   Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County                                      Page 55



                   Table 28. Total Impact of Vegetable and Seafood Processing on the Economy of Northampton
                   County, VA, 1990.

                                                                                              Total
                                                                                Total         Value
                                                                   TIO        Income          Added      Employment
                                     Sector                      1$1000)      1$,000)         0,000)    (No. of Jobs)

                     LIVESTOCK                                      23.4            5.5           6.3                0

                     CROPS                                       1,504.1        142.5         150.8               15

                     Commercial Fishing                          5,127.9      1,221.6         1,258.6            113
                     MANUFACTURING                                  20.1          10.5         10.8                  0-
                     CONSTRUCTION                                  283.3          85.6         86.4                  4

                     FOOD PROCESSING                            29,739.6      2,956.1         3,038.9            246

                     Boat Building & Repair                            0.3          0.1          0.1                 0

                     TRANSPORTATION                                564.0        305.5         322.0               11

                     COMMUNICATIONS                                319.3        201.1         214.9                  3

                     UTILITIES                                     625.7        279.6         323.0                  2

                     WHOLESALE & RETAIL TRADE                    2,679.5      1,600.2         2,110.4            119

                     FINANCE                                       283.0        146.9         151.0                  4

                     INSURANCE                                     169.7          88.8        102.0                  3

                     REAL ESTATE                                 1,858.4      1,066.9         1,447.2                5

                     Hotels & Lodging Places                       225.8        113.3         142.2               10

                     OTHER SERVICES                                868.0        431.5         438.7               23

                     MEDICAL SERVICES                              967.1        682.2         688.3               34

                     EDUCATION                                      74.6          44.4         44.4                  3

                     MISCELLANEOUS                                 118.8        050.7)        047.4)                 3

                     GOVERNMENT                                    300.3        283.1         283.1               13

                     Household Industry                             34.1          34.1         34.1                  6
                       TOTAL                                    46,787.6   1 9,549.0       10,706.0              617


                          There are many reasons why the food processing industry left Northampton
                   County. With respect to vegetable processing, the chief cause was competition from large
                   processing concerns, especially in California. Vegetable marketing and product
                   development changed substantially in the 1980's as new products took hold requiring
                   strong marketing efforts and alternative distribution networks. Also, processing
                   technology changed, making older facilities obsolete. Retooling to accommodate modern
                   technologies would have involved a large capital investment, a difficult and risky venture in

                   Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







        Page 56                                   Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County




        such ai rapidly changing market. Moreover, environmental compliance requirements in
        place at the federal and state levels increased the cost of production at a time when profit
        margins were already thinning.

                Seafood processing was also affected by environmental compliance costs as well
        as compliance with new food safety regulations imposed by the U.S. Food and Drug
        Administration. Increasing costs as well as changes in processing technology have led to
        consolidation into larger plants, some of which are located in the Tidewater area of
        Virginia. This, tied with reduced catch of most seafood species, has resulted in most
        seafood processing being done outside of Northampton County.


        Potential Impacts
                In both the seafood and vegetable processing sectors the chances of development
        in Northampton County are probably quite limited. The greatest potential in the county is in
        speciafty foods. If Eastern Shore tourism expands, specialty foods with significant added
        value may be directly marketed to tourists, and possibly wholesale as well through mail-
        order at4tiets. Targeting specialty markets would allow for higher production costs that
        cannot be accommodated in conventionally processed food markets. To market in
        traditional channels, an option might be for a producer to buy a nationally recognized label,
        or entice a national brand producer to the area.

                We looked at the potential for food processing in the county a little differently
        however. The scenario we used assumes that the losses of employment in the food
        processing sector in the last decade (about 750 jobs from the sector's peak to its recent
        low) are regained. For this to occur the sector would require a major infusion of new
        technology and capital. While the scenario assumes that the technology and labor
        intensity would be typical of other firms in the industry, it is much more likely that new
        entrants into this sector would have much higher output per laborer, and much higher
        capital per laborer. Furthermore, this scenario would only be possible if the supply of raw
        material (vegetables and seafood) were available. Given current supply conditions this
        may not be realistic. The economic impacts of this scenario are given below.

                The total potential impacts of regaining 1988 levels of food processing capacity on
        Northampton's economy (in 1990 dollars) are relatively large. About four times the
        income would be made in the county under this scenario than what was made in 1990.
        These impacts are summarized as follows:

                ï¿½ Wage and Property Income:         $38,440,000
                ï¿½ Total Value Added:                $43,068,000
                ï¿½ Jobs                                      2,490
                ï¿½ Contributions to Tax Revenues: $1,338,000
                ï¿½ Net Fiscal Benefit                  $1,278,000










                                 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







                 Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County                              Page 57



                                              Seafood, Finfish and Shellfish

                 Current Conditions
                        The fishery and related industries on the Eastern Shore of Virginia is second only to
                 agriculture in the area in terms of employment and personal income generated.
                 Throughout its history, Northampton County fishermen have harvested vast quantities of
                 fin- and shellfish from the Chesapeake Bay and seaside area of the Eastern Shore
                 peninsula.

                        Drastic changes have occurred over the past century in the quantity and species of
                 fish and shellfish harvested by Virginia from the Chesapeake Bay and Eastern Shore
                 seaside. Illustrating this point is the case of the oyster fishery. Prior to 1925 Virginia
                 produced 4 - 7 million bushels of oysters annually. Between 1931 and 1960 production
                 decreased to 1.3 - 3.5 million bushels per year, but still Virginia was the foremost producer
                 of oysters on the east coast. In 1959 the serious disease MSX took its toll on the
                 population, and less than 1 million were harvested that year. MSX continues to be a
                 problem all along the Mid-Atlantic coast.

                        Though some species have declined significantly, the commercial landings for
                 Virginia continue to stay at approximately the same level as in the 1980's. In 1986, over
                 460 plants involving seafood processing were in operation in the state, ranking Virginia
                 first nationally for such production. Northampton County had 770 full and part time
                 watermen at that time, with 25 seafood businesses in the county. A negative effect was
                 felt with the closing of several major seafood industry plants in 1989. A shortage of
                 sufficient semi-skilled labor has been linked to the lack of growth in this industry on the
                 Shore.



                 Table 29. Commercial Rnfish and Shellfish Landings and Esemated Value for Safected Ymrs,
                 Virginia and Northampton County, VA.

                                               Virginia                       Northampton County

                      Year       Pounds Landed      Estimated:Value     Pounds Landed     Estimated Value

                      1973          630,744,000        $40,857,000          41,973,077        $5,211,028

                      1978          538,310,000        $60,667,000          14,419,387        $5,800,765

                      1983          750,443,000        $84,538,000          13,280,009        $5,843,365

                      1988          650,852,000        $104,336,000         20,737,462        $7,746,735

                      1992          630,521,000        $90,500,000            2,574,629       $1,461,547


                 Source: Virginia Marine Resources Cornrnission, 1993.



                        As can be seen from the above table, commercial landings in the county have
                 decreased drastically within the last 20 years. The very large change in landings between
                 1988 and 1992 is primarily due to the relocation of processing capacity out of the county.



                 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







          Page 58                                   Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County




          Fluctuations in the actual harvest and the value of that harvest are also dependent on
          natural variation, climate changes, predators, disease, and destructive acts of man.

                According to information contained in the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, Northampton
          County is home to largest clam aquaculture farm in North America, Cherrystone Aqua
          Farms. Cherrystone currently produces about 40 million seed clams annually, which they
          to plant"' themselves, sell, or rent out to co-ops around the Shore. They expect to reach a
          goal of producing 50 million market-size clams annually (Pierson, 1993), valued over 7
          million dollars. There are several other smaller clam hatcheries on the shore, including a
          long history of bay scallop aquaculture research at VIMS in Wachapreague. Hybrid striped
          bass, catfish, rainbow trout, soft shell crabs, and crawfish are all being farmed currently in
          the state, a few of which may have potential on the Eastern Shore in Northampton
          County. The location, climate, and unique estuary features of Northampton County make
          it well suited for such endeavors.


                In 1990 the direct, indirect and induced affects of the seafood industry in
          Northampton County produced approximately $20.8 million dollars in income and 478 jobs
          (Table 30). Outside of the commercial fishing sector, most of the impact was centered in
          wholesale and retail trade. The total economic impacts of seafood production sector on
          the county in 1990 are summarized below:

                ï¿½  Total Industrial Output:           $20,759,700
                ï¿½  Wage and Property Income:           $6,804,100
                ï¿½  Total Value Added:                  $7,558,000
                ï¿½  Jobs                                        478
                ï¿½  Contributions to Tax Revenues:          $49,000
                ï¿½  Net Fiscal Benefit                    $190,000





























                                   Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                  Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County                                    page 59




                  Table 30. Total Impact of S"food Production on the Economy of Northampton County, VA, 799a

                                                                                           Total
                                                                             Total        Value
                                                                 TIO         Income       Added        Employment
                                    Sector                      ($,000)      ($1000)      ($,000)    (No. of Jobs)

                    LIVESTOCK                                      14.7          3.3          3.8                  0

                    CROPS                                        107.8          10.2         10.8                  1
                    Commercial Fishing                         14,690.3      3,499.7      3,665.7              322

                    MANUFACTURING                                  12.5          6.6          6.8                  0

                    CONSTRUCTION                                 190.0          57.4         57.9                  3

                    FOOD PROCESSING                                  8.9         0.9          0.9                  0

                    Boat Building & Repair                           0.7         0.4          0.4                  0

                    TRANSPORTATION                               184.2          99.8        105.2                  4

                    COMMUNICATIONS                               137.8          86.8         92.8                  71

                    UTILITIES                                    180.7          80.8         93.3                  -1

                    WHOLESALE & RETAIL TRADE                    1,486.5       887.7        1,170.8                 66

                    FINANCE                                      185.7          96.4         99.1                  3

                    INSURANCE                                    174.8          91.4        105.1                  3

                    REAL ESTATE                                 1,387.1       796.4       1,080.2                  4

                    Hotels & Lodging Places                      202.9        101.8         127.8                  9

                    OTHER SERVICES                               691.6        343.8         349.6                  18

                    MEDICAL SERVICES                             749.4        528.7         533.4                  26

                    EDUCATION                                      57.8         34.4         34.4                  3

                    MISCELLANEOUS                                  91.8       167.7         167.7                  7

                    GOVERNMENT                                   177.9        167.7         167.7                  7
                    Household- industry                            26.4         26.4         26.4                  5
                         TALk                                  20,759.7  , 6,804.1   J 7,558.0     1           478


                  Potential Impacts
                          The scenario we used to project potential impacts from an enhanced seafood sector
                  is tied closely to food processing capacity. In this scenario we assume that the demand
                  for seafood rises enough to employ the same 750 employees as in the food processing
                  scenario above, but in an economy other than Northampton. Even though processing
                  occurs elsewhere, our model has Northampton's commercial fishermen supplying their


                  Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County; VZrginle







          Page 130                                      Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County



          typical share of this expanded market. Thus this scenario assumes the fishing levels that
          occurred in the food processing scenario without the food processing increase. Again this
          is possible only if the supply conditions permit. A summary of the economic impacts from
          this scenario are presented below:

                 ï¿½   Wage and Property Income:             $14,047,000
                 ï¿½   Total Value Added:                     $4,748,000
                 ï¿½   Jobs                                            987
                 ï¿½   Contributions to Tax Revenues:            $100,000
                 ï¿½   Net Fiscal Benefit                        $393,000


















































                                     Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







                                              References Cited

                Ashby, Lowell. cl 965. Growth Patterns In Employment by County - 1940-1950 and
                       1950-1960. Washington, DC: Office of Business Economics, U.S Department of
                       Commerce.


                Brown, K. 1993. "Tourism Trends for the 90's." History News. 48(3):14-17.

                Brown, M. 1993. "Planning for Ecotourism." Environment and Development. April, 1993.
                       Chicago: American Planning Association.

                Brown, M. V. 1993. Research Manager, VA Dept. of Econmic Development, Tourism
                       Development Group, Richmond, VA. Personal communication, October, 1993.

                Cobb, Phillip, and David Smith. c 198 1. So# Survey of Northampton County, Virginia.
                       Washington, DC: Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

                Goeldner, C. 1992. "Trends in North American Tourism." American Behavioral Scientist.
                       36(2):144-154.

                Ingrassia, P. July 24, 1989. "Today it is Possible to Sail a Freighter and Call it a Canoe."
                       Walf Street Journal.


                McKecuen, C. 1993. Manager, Watermark Association of Artisans, Camden, NC.
                       Personal communication, November, 1993.

                Northampton County Dept. of Planning and Zoning. 1989. Information andAnalysis:
                       Comprehensive Plan Background. Eastville, VA: Northampton County Dept. of
                       Planning and Zoning.

                Northampton Economic Forum. 1992. The Northampton Economic Forum: A Blueprint for
                       Economic Growth. Eastville, VA: Northampton Economic Forum.

                Pierson, M. 1993. Manager, Cherrystone Aqua Farms, Chariton, VA. Personal
                       communication, September, 1993.

                U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce. 1993. 1991 National
                       Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Washington D.C.:
                       U.& Government Printing Office.

                U.S. Natidft6&,-,Park Service. 1992. Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and
                       Greenway Corridors. A Resource Book. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Park
                       Service, Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance.

                Weaver, G. 199 1. Tourism U.S.A.: Guidelines for Tourism Development, 3rd Edition.
                       Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce.

                Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates. 199 1. The WTTC Report. Travel and
                       Tourism in the World Economy. New York: World Travel and Tourism Council.




                Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia



























                                                               APPENDIX 1

                                                  DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED
































                   Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                  References Cited                                                                       Page 65



                         The multiplier effect refers to the following process: a new firm or activity creates
                  jobs which provide income to previously unemployed and underemployed person, those
                  persons spend much of their income on goods and services bought within the county, this
                  increase in demand for goods and services purchased in the local economy eventually
                  results in the creation of other new jobs in the region (in retail establishments, service
                  industries, suppliers of raw materials to the new company, producers of new products
                  using the new firms output as input, etc.), and the cycle continues with more income
                  being spent, creating increased demand and more new jobs. This effect does eventually
                  end since at each stage some of the newly employed persons' incomes will be used to
                  purchase goods and services outside the region. This loss is known as leakage. Once the
                  value of all new income has leaked out of the County, there is no more driving force
                  behind the multiplier effect, and the cycle ends. The sum of all activity that has occurred
                  during the cycle is the output multiplier.

                         The multiplier is calculated by distinguishing direct effects from indirect effects and
                  total effects. The direct effects are those associated with the facility itself-its output,
                  employment, and income. The indirect effects are all those effects that occur to other
                  firms in the county and state. The total effects are the sum of the direct and indirect
                  effects. Thus the multiplier is the total effect divided by the direct effect.

                         Input-output models distinguish between output, income, and gross state prodbct.
                  Output, sometimes called economic activity, includes all sales from all firms. This is the
                  most commonly used measure of impact but is not the best measure because it includes a
                  lot of intermediate products produced in other regions. Gross state product (GSP) is a
                  better measure since it nets out the part of output not produced locally. Income measures
                  the portion of GSP which becomes the gross income of individuals.

                         Fiscal cash flow refers to the net change in local government revenues and
                  expenditures. It is a very important concern of local governments since it affects their
                  ability to balance the budget. The term net public service benefits, on the other hand,
                  measures the effects of changes in the value of public services and changes in the cost of
                  providing them. Changes in expenditure levels mask a complicated combination of
                  changes in unit costs of service, changes in the quantity of services provided, and changes
                  in the quality of services. Despite the importance of fiscal cash flow projections, it is the
                  net benefit projections which ultimately determine the desirability of a local government
                  alternative. This latter measure, then, is generally the most appropriate bottom line.
                         sini*- costs and benefits occur over many years and commonly continue infinitely,
                  it is sometimes desirable to express them in present value terms. The present value of a
                  stream of hit benefits is similar to the purchase price of an annuity or the principal of an
                  amortized loan which can be collected or paid for over a given period or even infinitely.
                  The present value is calculated by discounting future values and expressing them in
                  today's equivalents.









                  Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia


































                                                              APPENDIX 2


                                                     THE MODELS EMPLOYED
































                   Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







                 Appendix 2                                                                        Page 69



                        IMPLAN was used to generate a series of economic multipliers for Northampton.
                 IMPLAN is what is known as an input-output, or intersectoral, model. Industries within an
                 economy are interdependent in the sense that goods and services are traded among firms.
                 An increase in the demand for an existing sector's output, or the location of a new firm in
                 the region will result in increased output in many other sectors of the economy. These
                 additional effects are quantified by calculating input-output multipliers. The IMPLAN
                 system provides the data necessary to construct an input-output model of any county, or
                 grouping of counties, in the country. It provides multipliers for any of the 528 sectors
                 which happen to exist in the region under study. When a new firm is anticipated in a
                 sector for which there are no current firms, the IMPLAN system can be adjusted to include
                 the new firm.


                        In this study the IMPLAN model was used to estimate multipliers for Northampton
                 County. Since the leakages from the state are much lower that the leakages from the
                 regional economy, the state multipliers are generally higher. The difference between the
                 two multipliers is the economic activity which occurs in other regions of the state.

                        Local governments in Virginia have had access to the Virginia Impact Projection
                 Models since 1984. The VIP models are based on cross-sectional, time-series econometric
                 analysis of the cities and counties of Virginia. The relationships between public service
                 expenditures, revenues, and various socioeconomic factors were identified and estimated.
                 As the influencing variables in these equations change in response to population growth,
                 changes in employment, etc., per capita expenditures are expected to change according to
                 the statistically estimated relationships. By calculating the expenditure levels projected by
                 these relationships, the impact of various types of economic scenarios are estimated.






























                 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia


































                                                              APPENDIX 3


                                                    IMPACTS BY SECTOR FOR
                                           SELECTED DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS





























                  Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia











              BOATX2
              Double Boating Activities
                                                                                 Total
              Sector                                  TIO      Total Income Value Added    Employment
                                                    ($,000)       ($1000)        ($,000)   (No. of Jobs)
              LIVESTOCK                                  21.1           4.8            5.5            0
              CROPS                                     140.4          13.3           14.1            1
              Commercial Fishing                         23.8           5.7            5.8            1
              MANUFACTURING                           1,546.9        823.2          851.2           22
              CONSTRUCTION                              279.5          84.4           86.2            4
              FOOD PROCESSING                           121.4          12.1           12.4            1
              Boat Building & Repair                  1,011.8        557.1          560.7           15
              TRANSPORTATION                            291.2        157.8          166.3             6
              COMMUNICATIONS                            292.6        184.3          196.9             2
              UTILITIES                                 440.9        197.0          227.6             1
              WHOLESALE & RETAIL TRADE                6,075.1      3,628.0        4,784.8         269
              FINANCE                                   262.8        136.4          140.2             4
              INSURANCE                                 143.5          75.1           86.3            3
              REAL ESTATE                             1,922.3      1,103.6        1,496.9             5
              Hotels & Lodging Places                 5,056.9      2,537.5        3,185.6         217
              OTHER SERVICES                            819.6        407.4          414.2           22
              MEDICAL SERVICES                        1,001.3        706.4          712.7           35
              EDUCATION                                  77.2          46.0           46.0            4
              MISCELLANEOUIS                            122.6        -155.6         -152.3            4
              GOVERNMENT                                420.4        396.3          396.3           18
              Household Industry                         35.3          35.3           35.3            6
                TOTAL                                20,106.6      10,956.1      13,272.7         639




              NOTBOATX2
              Double Non-Boating Activities
                                                                                 Total
              Sector                                  TIO      Total Income Value Added    Employment
                                                    ($,000)       ($1000)       ($,000)    (No. of Jobs)
              LIVESTOCK                                  18.2           4.1            4.7            0
              CROPS                                     121.6          11.5           12.2            1
              Commercial Fishing                         25.9           6.2            6.4            1
              MANUFACTURING                           11207.3        642.4          664.3           17
              CONSTRUCTION                              236.9          71.6           72.2            3
              FOOD PROCESSING                           135.8          13.6           13.9            1
              Boat Building & Repair                    856.6        471.6          474.7           12
              TRANSPORTATION                            255.9        138.6          146.1             5
              COMMUNICATIONS                            248.7        156.6          167.4             2
              UTILITIES                                 372.1        166.3          192.1             1
              WHOLESALE & RETAIL TRADE                5,440.0      3,248.7        4,284.6         241
              FINANCE                                   225.2        116.9          120.1             4
              INSURANCE                                 123.4          64.6           74.2            2
              REAL ESTATE                             1,652.4        948.6        1,286.7             4
              Hotels & Lodging Places                 4,143.5      2,079.2        2,610.2         178
              OTHER SERVICES                            700.3        348.1          354.0           18
              MEDICAL SERVICES                          861.2        607.5          612.9           30
              EDUCATION                                  66.4          39.6           39.8            3
              MISCELLANEOUIS                            105.5        -133.8         -131.0            3
              GOVERNMENT                                385.8        363.7          363.7           16
              Household Industry                         30.3          30.3           30.3            5
                TOTAL                                17,213.0      9,395.9       11,399.5         549












                 DBL OCCUPANCY
                 Qccupancy: Motel/Inn        50%, Campgrounds = 40%
                                                                                         Total
                 Sector                                     TIO       Total Income Value Added      Employment
                                                          ($1000)         ($1000)        0,000)     (No. of Jobs)
                 LIVESTOCK                                      22.3            5.1             5.7              0
                 CROPS                                         148.5           14.1            14.9              1
                 Commercial Fishing                             26.6            6.3             6.5              1
                 MANUFACTURING                              1,513.6          805.5           832.9            22
                 CONSTRUCTION                                  293.5           88.7            89.5              4
                 FOOD PROCESSING                               136.7           13.6            14.0              1
                 Boat Building & Repair                     1,010.3          556.2           559.8            15
                 TRANSPORTATION                                305.3         165.4           174.3               6
                 COMMUNICATIONS                                307.8         193.8           207.2               3
                 UTILITIES                                     461.6         206.2           238.3               2
                 WHOLESALE & RETAIL TRADE                   6,419.0        3,833.4         5,055.8          284
                 FINANCE                                       276.7         143.6           147.6               4
                 INSURANCE                                     151.2           79.1            90.9              3
                 REAL ESTATE                                2,025.3        1,162.7         1,577.1               5
                 Hotels & Lodging Places                    5,361.9        2,690.5         3,377.7          230
                 OTHER SERVICES                                863.3         429.1           436.3            23
                 MEDICAL SERVICES                           1,055.1          744.3           750.9            37
                 EDUCATION                                      811.@          48.5            48.5              4
                 MISCELLANEOUS                                 129.2         -163.9          -160.4              4
                 GOVERNMENT                                    447.5         421.9           422.0            19
                 Household Industry                             37.2           37.2            37.2              7
                    TOTAL                                  21,073.9       11,481.3       13,926.7           673



                 NEWUNITS
                 Occupancy: Motel/Inn        75%. Campgrounds = 40%; Add 25% Now Units
                                                                                         Total
                 Sector                                     TIO      Total Income Value Added       Employment
                                                          ($1000)        ($1000)         0,000)     (No. of Jobs)
                 LIVESTOCK                                      29.8            6.8             7.7              0
                 CROPS                                         198.3           18.8            19.9              2
                 Commercial Fishing                             40.9            9.8            10.0              1
                 MANUFACTURING                              1,997.2        1,062.8         -1,099.0           29
                 CONSTRUCTION                                  387.7         117.1           118.2               5
                 FOOD PROCESSING                               213.3           21.2            21.8              2
                 Boat Building & Repair                     1,443.5          794.7           799.8            21'
                 TRANSPORTATION                                416.5         225.7           237.8               8
                 COMMUNICATIONS                                406.7         256.1           273.7               3
                 UTILITIES                                     608.7         272.0           314.3               2
                 WHOLESALE & RETAIL TRADE                   8,958.2        5,349.7         7,055.6          396
                 FINANCE                                       368.6         191.3           196.6               6
                 INSURANCE                                     202.1         105.7           121.6               4
                 REALESTATE                                 2,705.9        1,563.5         2,107.1               7
                 Hotels & Lodging Places                    6,715.3        3,369.7         4,230.4          288
                 OTHER SERVICES                             1,143.8          568.5           578.0            30
                 MEDICAL SERVICES                           1,410.3          994.9         1,003.8            49
                 EDUCATION                                     108.7           64.8            64.8              5
                 MISCELLANEOUS                                 172.7         -219.1          -214.5              5
                 GOVERNMENT                                    631.6         585.5           595.6            27
                 Household Industry                             49.7           49.7            49.7              9
                    TOTAL                                  28,209.5       15,409.2       18,690.9           899




































                                                              APPENDIX 4


                                                    SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY





























    I
                   Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







                Appendix 4                                                                      Page 7 7



                                             Economic Impact Modeling


                Broomhall, David, and Thomas G. Johnson. 1990. "Regional Impacts of the Conservation
                       Reserve Program in the Southeast with Conversion to Trees: An Application of
                       Input-Output Analysis." Review of Regional Studies 20 (Spring): 76-85.

                Halstead, John M., F. Larry Leistritz, and Thomas G. Johnson. 1991. "The Role of Fiscal
                       Impact Models in Impact Assessments." Impact Assessment Bulletin 9 (Fall):43-54.

                Johnson, Thomas G. 1990. "Measuring Economic Impacts of Transportation
                       Investments." SP-90-13, Department of Agricultural Economics, Virginia
                       Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, May. 28 pp.

                Johnson, Thomas G. 1986. "Virginia Impact Projection (VIP) Modeling Series: An
                       Extension Tool," pp. 380-385. In Proceedings of the International conference on
                       Computers in Agricultural Extension Programs, University of Florida, Gainesville,
                       Florida.


                Johnson, Thomas G. 1988. "Fiscal Impact Models for Virginia Communities."
                       Government Finance Review 4:1 (December): 36-38.

                Johnson, Thomas G., Brady J. Deaton, and Eduardo Segarra, ads. 1988. Local
                       Infrastructure Investment Decisions in Rural America. Boulder, CO: Westview
                       Press. 295 pp.

                Johnson, Thomas G., and Johns T. Lawson. 1987. "The Estimated Impact of a State
                       Prison Facility on the Economy of Buchanan County Virginia. " SP-87-13,
                       Department of Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
                       University, Blacksburg, August, 16 pp.

                Johnson, Thomas G., and S. Murthy Kambhampaty. 1988. "The Economic and Fiscal
                       Impacts of Alternative Mined-Land Uses." in Powell River Project Symposium and
                       Progress Reports, 30-35. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

                Johnson, Thomas G., and S. Murthy Kambhampaty. 1990. "The Closing of AT&T's
                       Fairlawn Plant: Fiscal and Economic Impact in the New River Valley." Community
                       Resource Development, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
                       Blacksburg, March. 27 pp.

                Johnson, Thomas G., and S. Murthy Kambhampaty. 1992. "Virginia Tech and the
                       Community: A Summary of the University's Economic Impacts." Department of
                       Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
                       Blacksburg, December. 9 pp.

                Johnson, Thomas G., Ernest W. Wade, and Michael R. Evans. 1989. "Using An Input-
                       Output Model to Measure the Economic Impact of the Explore Project on Roanoke
                       County and the Town of Vinton." Department of Agricultural Economics, Virginia
                       Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, December. 19 pp.


                Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







         Page 78                                                                                  Appendix 4




         Kambhampaty, S. Murthy, Thomas G. Johnson, and M. Sexton Burkett. 1990. "The
                 Impacts of a Proposed State Prison at Red Onion Mountain in Wise County,
                 Virginia." SP-90-21, Department of Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnic
                 Institute and State University, Blacksburg, June. 38 pp.

         Kambhampaty, S. Murthy, Paul B. Siegel, and Thomas G. Johnson. 1990. "The Economic
                 and Fiscal Impacts of Pulaski Community Hospital." SP-90-20, Department of
                 Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
                 Blacksburg, june. 13 pp.

         Otto, Daniel M., and Thomas G. Johnson, eds. 1993. Microcomputer Based Input-Output
                 Modeling: Application to Economic Development. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
                 228 pp.

         Persons, Robert L., and Thomas G. Johnson. 1992. "The Economic Impact of the Use of
                 bST by the Virginia Dairy Industry." SP-92-18, Department of Agricultural
                 Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
                 December. 13 pp.

         Siegel, Paul B., and Thomas G. Johnson. 1991. Impacts of the Conservation Reserve
                 Program on the Virginia Economy. Publication 448-201/REAP R002, Virginia
                 Cooperative Extension Service, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
                 14 pp.

         Swallow, Brent, and Thomas G. Johnson. 1987. "A Fiscal Impact Model for Virginia
                 Counties." Review of Regional Studies 17:1 (Spring): 67-74.

         Wade, Ernest W., Thomas G. Johnson, Randall L. Austin, and Mark E. Crawford. 1992.
                 "The Economic Impacts of a Proposed Federal Prison in Lee County, Virginia."
                 Impact Modelling Research Institute, February. 12 pp.

         Zipper, Carl E., Howard Friedman, Thomas G. Johnson, and S. Murthy Kambhampaty.
                 1992. "the In-state Economic Impacts of Virginia Coal.". Virginia Coal and Energy
                 Journal Number 4, pp.1-20.



















                                    Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                Appendix 4                                                                       Page 79




                                                     Eco-Tourism



                Anton, J., C. Davis, C.Teller, and E. Bergman. 1993. Eco-tourism in Tyre# County.

                Boo, E. 1990. Ecotourism: potentials and pitfalls. World Wildlife Fund 2v.

                Farquharson, M. 1992. Ecotourism: a dream diluted. Business Mexico. 2:8 11 Je '92

                Fisher, A. B. 1990. What consumers want in the 1990s: aging is in, fitness fanaticism is
                       going out, and with casual sex on the wane, people are looking for other kinds of
                       thrills; have you tried ecotourism? Fortune. 121:108 10+ Ja 29 '90

                Lindberg, K. 199 1. Policies for Maximizing Nature Tourism's Ecological and Economic
                       Benifits. World Resources Institute, United States of America.


                Misch, A. 1992. Can wildlife traffic be stopped? World Watch. 5: 26 33 SIO '92

                Southworth, A. D. 1989. The environmental tourist: a new plan to protect Latin America
                       lands. Environmental Forum. 6:32 5 AlAg '89

                Warner, E. 1989. Ecotourism: can binoculars, cameras and daypacks be the rainforest's
                       new hope? Environmental Action. 21:18 21 SIO '89

































                Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







         Page 80                                                                        Appendix 4



                                     Environmental Accounting

           19138. Western European Tourism in Perspective. Williams, Allan M., ed; Shaw,
               Gareth, ed. Tourism and economic development: Western European
               experiences. London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press, distributed by
               Columbia University Press, New York, pages 12 38

           1988. Changing Patterns and Structure of European Tourism. Goodall, Brian, ed,
               Ashworth, Gregory, ed. Marketing in the tourism industry: The promotion of
               destination regions. London and Sydney: Croom Helm; distributed by Methuen,
               New York, pages 18 38

            1992. Perspectives on tourism policy. New York and.London: Cassell, Mansell, pages
               xiv, 240

        Ashworth, G., and M. J. Stabler. 1988. Tourism Development Planning in Languedoc: Le
               Mission Impossible? Goodall, Brian, ed; Ashworth, Gregory, ed. Marketing in the
               tourism industry: The promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney:
               Croom Helm, distributed by Methuen, New York, pages 187 97

        Ashworth, G., and B. Goodall. 1988. Tourist Images: Marketing Considerations. Goodall,
               Brian, ed; Ashworth, GregoM ed. Marketing in the tourism industry. The
               promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney. Croom Helm, distributed by
               Methuen, New York, pages 213 38

        Ashworth, G. Marketing the Historic City for Tourism. 1988. Goodall, Brian, ed; Ashworth,
               Gregory, ed. Marketing in the tourism industry: The promotion of destination
               regions. London and Sydney: Croom Helm, distributed by Methuen, New York,
               pages 162 75

        Ashworth, G., and B. E. Goodall. 1990. Marketing tourism places. New York and London:
               Routledge, pages xxii, 284

        Bakkal, I., and A. Scaperlanda. 1991. Characteristics of U.S. Demand for European
               Tourism: A Translog Approach. Weltwirtschaftfiches Archiv; 12 7(l), pages 119
               37


        Bakkal, 1. 199 1 Characteristics of West German Demand for International Tourism in the
               Northern Mediterranean Region. Applied Economics, 23(2), pages 295 304

        Bell, F. W., and V. R. Leeworthy. 1990. Recreational Demand by Tourists for Saltwater
               Beach Days. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management; 18(3), pages
               189205


        Bergsma, J. R. 1988. Planning of Tourists Routes: The Green Coast Road in the Northern
               Netherlands. Goodall, Brian, ed, Ashworth, Gregory, ed. Marketing in the tourism
               industry: The promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney: Croom Helm,
               distributed by Methuen, New York, pages 89 100



                                 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                 Appendix 4                                                                            Page 81




                 Bergstrom, J. C. E. A. 1990. Economic Impacts of State Parks on State Economies in the
                         South. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics; 22(2), pages 69 77

                 Bird, R. M. 1992. Taxing Tourism in Developing Countries. World Development, 20t,
                         pages 1145 58

                 Blank, U. 1989. The community tourism industry imperative: The necessity, the
                         opportunities, its potential. State College, Pa.: Venture, pages xvi, 200

                 Booth, A. 1990. The Tourism Boom in Indonesia. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies;
                         26(3), pages 45 73

                 Bowes, S. 1988. The Role of the Tourist Board. Goodall, Brian, ed, Ashworth, Gregory,
                         ed. Marketing in the tourism industry: The promotion of destination regions.
                         .London and Sydney: Croom Helm; distributed by Methuen, New York, pages 75 88

                 Bozkurt, Y. D., and U. Cagli. 1991. Uluslararasi Turizm Piyasasinda Ulkelerin Pazarlanmasi:
                         Cok Boyutlu Olcekleme Yontemi ile Ulke Imaji Saptanmasina Dayali Bir Yaklasim.
                         (Country Marketing in the International Tourism Market: An Empirical Study of
                         Country Image Based on Multidimensional Scaling Approach. With English
                         summary.). Middle East Technical University Studies in Development, 18(l 2),
                         pages 143 63

                 Braun,  B. M., and A. Milman. 1991. Localization Economies in the Theme Park Industry.
                         Review of Regional Studies, 20(3), pages 33 37

                 Brown, B. J. H. 1988. Developments in the Promotion of Major Seaside Resorts: How to
                         Effect a Transition by Really Making an Effort. Goodall, Brian, ed, Ashworth,
                         Gregory, ed. Marketing in the tourism industry: The promotion of destination
                         regions. London and Sydney: Croom Helm, distributed by Methuen, New York,
                         pages 176 86

                 Buck, M. 1988. The Role of Travel Agent and Tour Operator. Goodall, Brian, ed;
                         Ashworth, Gregory, ed. Marketing in the tourism industry: The promotion of
                         destination regions. London and Sydney: Croom Helm; distributed by Methuen,
                         New York, pages 67 74

                 Carey, K. 1991. Estimation of Caribbean Tourism Demand: Issues in Measurement and
                         Methodology. Atlantic Economic Journal; 19(3), pages 32 40

                 Cater,  E. 1988. The Development of Tourism in the Least Developed Countries. Goodall,
                         Brian, ed; Ashworth, Gregory, ed. Marketing in the tourism industry. The
                         promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney: Croom Helm; distributed by
                         Methuen, New York, pages 39 66

                 Charles, K. R. 1 992.Career Orientation and Industry Perceptions of Caribbean Hotel and
                         Tourism Management Students. Social and Economic Studies, 41 (1), pages 1 19

                 Copeland, B. R. 1991. Tourism, Welfare and De industrialization in a Small Open Economy.


                 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







        Page E12                                                                      Appendix 4



               Economica, 58(232), pages 515 29

        Domingo, J. 0. 1989. Employment, Income and Economic Identity in the U.S. Virgin
               Islands. Review of Black Political Economy; 18(1), pages 37 57


        Erasmus, G. J. A 1990. Structural Profile of the Hotel Trade in South Africa 1980 to
             @ 1988. Journal for Studies in Economics and Econometrics; 14f2), pages 57 75

        Felton, M. V. 1992. On the Assumed Inelasticity of Demand for the Performing Arts.
               Journal of Cultural Economics, 16(l), pages 1 12

        Fish, M., and J. D. Gibbons. 1991. Analysis of Tourism Receipts: A Turkish Case Study
               That Refutes Prevailing Patterns. Middle East Technical University Studies in
               Development, 18(1 2), pages 165 74

        Fritz, R. G. 1989. Strategic Planning with a System Dynamics Model for Regional Tourism
               Site Development. Review of Regional Studies, 19(l), pages 57 71

        Gibbons, J. D., and M. Fish. 1991. Real Exchange Rate Indexes Applied to Mexico's
               International Tourism Receipts. Social and Economic- Studies, 40(3), pages 177 85

        Gilg, A. W. 1988. Switzerland: Structural Change within Stability. Williams, Allan M., ed;
               Shaw, Gareth, ed. Tourism and economic development. Western European
               experiences. London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press, distributed by Columbia
               University Press, New York, pages 123 44

        Goodall, B. 1988. How Tourists Choose Their Holidays: An Analytical Framework. Goodall,
               Brian, ed; Ashworth, Gregory, ed. Marketing in the tourism industry. The
               promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney. Croom Helm; distributed by
               Methuen, New York, pages 1 17

        Healy, K., and E. Zorn. 1988. Lake Titicaca's Campesino Controlled Tourism. Annis,
               Sheldon, ed, Hakim, Peter, ed. Direct to the poor.- Grassroots development in Latin
               America. Boulder, Colo. and London: Rienner, pages 45 57

        Heilbrun, J. 1992. Art and Culture as Central Place Functions. Urban Studies, 29(2), pages
               20515


        Hof, J. G., and D. A. King. 1992. Recreational Demand by Tourists for Saltwater Beach
               Days: Comment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management; 220,
               pages 281 91

        Hugo, M. A. 1992. Quantification of the Role of Foreign Tourism in the South African
               Economy. Journal for Studies in Economics and Econometrics, 16(2), pages 41 51

        Inhaber, H. 1976. Environmental Indices. New York: Wiley and Sons, Inc.

        Johnson, P., and B. E. Thomas. 1992. Choice and demand in tourism. London and New


                                Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







                 Appendix 4                                                                          Page 83




                        York: Cassell, Mansell, pages xR, 226

                 Johnson, P., and B. Thomas. Measuring the Local Employment Impact of a Tourist
                        Attraction: An Empirical Study. Regional Studies, 24(5), October 1990, pages 395
                        403

                 Kammas, M., and E. H. Salehi. Tourism and Export Led Growth: The Case of Cyprus,
                        1976 1988. Journal of Developing Areas; 26(4), July 1992, pages 489 506

                 King, R. Italy: Multi faceted Tourism. Williams, Allan M., ed, Shaw, Gareth, ed. Tourism
                        and economic development: Western European experiences. London and New
                        York: Pinter, Belhaven Press, distributed by Columbia University Press, New York,
                        1988, pages 58 79

                 Kosters, M. J. Changing Tourism Requires a Different Management Approach. Goodall,
                        Brian, ed, Ashworth, Gregory, ed Marketing in the tourism industry: The
                        promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney: Croom Helm, distributed by
                        Methuen, New York, 1988, pages 198 212

                 Law, C. M. Urban Tourism and Its Contribution to Economic Regeneration. Urban Studies,
                        29t3 4), May 1992, pages 599 618

                 Leibold, M. Market Measurement in South African Tourism: Problems, Needs and
                        Challenges. Journal for Studies in Economics and Econometrics; 16(2), August
                        1992, pages 29 39

                 Leontidou, L. Greece: Prospects and Contradictions of Tourism in the 1980s. Williams,
                        Allan M., ed, Shaw, Gareth, ed. Tourism and economic development. Western
                        European experiences. London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press, distributed by
                        Columbia University Press, New York, 1988, pages 80 100

                 Levin, H. J. Regulating the Global Commons: A Case Study. Zerbe, Richard 0., ed
                        Research in law and economics. Volume 12. Greenwich, Conn. and London: JAI
                        Press, 1989, pages 247 66

                 Lewis, J., and A. M. Williams. Portugal: Market Segmentation and Regional Specialisation.
                        Williams, Allan M., ed, Shaw, Gareth, ed Tourism and economic development:
                        Western European experiences. London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press,
                        distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 1988, pages 10122

                 Loomis, J., M. Creel, and T. A. Park. Comparing Benefit Estimates from Travel Cost and
                        Contingent Valuation Using Confidence Intervals for Hicksian Welfare Measures.
                        Applied Economics; 23(11), November 1991, pages 1725 31

                 Louviere, J. J., and H. J. P. Timmermans. Using Hierarchical Informatiori Integration to
                        Model Consumer Responses to Possible Planning Actions: Recreation Destination
                        Choice Illustration. Environment and Planning A; 220, March 1990, pages 291
                        308




                 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







         Page 84                                                                           Appendix 4




         Mamoozadeh, A., and D. L. McKee. Development through Tourism. Tijdschrift voor
                Economie en Management; 35(2), May 1990, pages 147 57

         Messonier, M. L., and E. J. Luzar. A Hedonic Analysis of Private Hunting Land Attributes
                Using an Alternative Functional Form. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics,
                220, December 1990, pages 129 35

         Mitchell, C. J. A., and G. Wall. The Arts and Employment: A Case Study of the Stratford
                Festival. Growth and Change, 20(4), Fa# 1989, pages 31 40

         Oakes, B. Workers in the British Virgin Islands: The Complexities of Residence and
                Migration. Social and Economic Studies,* 4 1 (1), March 1992, pages 67 87

         Ourn, T. H., and N. Lemire. An Analysis of Japanese International Travel Destination
                Choices. International Journal of Transport Economics, 180, October 1991, pages
                289307


         Pinder, D. The Netherlands: Tourist Development in a Crowded Society. Williams, Allan
                M., ed, Shaw, Gareth, ed. Tourism and economic development: Western European
                experiences. London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press; distributed by Columbia
                University Press, New York, 1988, pages 214 29

         Poon, A. Flexible Specialization and Small Size: The Case of Caribbean Tourism. World
                Development, 18(l), January 1990, pages 109 23

         Prais, S. J., V. Jarvis, and K. Wagner. Productivity and Vocational Skills in Services in
                Britain and Germany: Hotels. National Institute Economic Review; OfI30),
                November 1989, pages 52 74

         Quiggin, J. On the Optimal Design of Lotteries. Economica, 58(229), February 1991,
                pages 1 16

         Repetto, R. 1990. Wasting assets: the need for national resource accounting; by ignoring
                natural resources, statistics such as GNP can record illusory gains in income and
                mask permanent losses in wealth. Technology Review. p 38 44 Ja '90


         Ryan, C. Recreational tourism: A social science perspective. London and New York:
         Routledge, 199 1, pages xi, 22 7

         Schnell, P. The Federal Republic of Germany: A Growing International Deficit? Williams,
                Allan M., ed; Shaw, Gareth, ed. Tourism and economic development. Western
                European experiences. London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press, distributed by
                Columbia University Press, New York, 1988, pages 196 213







                                  Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Wryinia






                Appendix 4                                                                      Page 85




                Shaw, G., J. Greenwood, and A. M. Williams. The United Kingdom: Market Responses and
                       Public Policy. Williams, Allan M., ed, Shaw, Gareth, ed. Tourism and economic
                       development: Western European experiences. London and New York: Pinter,
                       Belhaven Press, distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 1988, pages
                       162 79


                Shogren, J. F., and C. Nowell. 1992. Economics and Ecology: a comparison of
                       experimental methodologies and philosophies. Ecological Economics 5: 101-126.

                Sinclair, M. T., and A. Tsegaye. International Tourism and Export Instability. Journal of
                       Development Studies, 26(3), April 1990, pages 487 504

                Sinclair, M. T., and C. Sutcliffe. The Economic Effects on Destination Areas of Foreign
                       Involvement in the Tourism Industry: A Spanish Application. Goodall, Brian, ed,
                       Ashworth, Gregory, ed. Marketing in the tourism industry. The promotion of
                       destination regions. London and Sydney: Croom Helm; distributed by Methuen,
                       New York, 1988, pages 111 32

                Smith, P. G. R., and J.B. Theberge. 1987. Evaluating Natural Areas Using Multiple Criteria:
                       Theory and Practice. Enviromnmental Management 11:447-460:

                 Sutter 11, G. W. 1990. Endpoints for Regional Ecological Risk Assessments. Environmental
                Management 14:9-23:

                Spiller, C., G. Tondini, and M. G. Totola. L'impatto ambientale dell'attivita turistica. (The
                       Impact of Tourism on Environment. With English summary.). Rivista Internazionale
                       di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali, 370, March 1990, pages 269 82

                Stabler, M. J. The Image of Destination Regions: Theoretical and Empirical Aspects.
                       Goodall, Brian, ed; Ashworth, Gregory, ed. Marketing in the tourism industry. The
                       promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney. Croom Helm; distributed by
                       Methuen, New York, 1988, pages 133 61

                Swanson, T. M., and E. B. . E. Barbier. Economics for the wilds: Wildlife, wildlands,
                       diversity and development. London: Earthscan, 1992, pages xi, 226

                Tansel, A. Economic Impact of and Demand for Tourism: A Survey. Middle East Technical
                       University Studies in Development, 18(3), 1991, pages 255 81

                The Global Tomorrow Coalition. 1990. The Global Ecology Handbook: What You Can Do
                       About the Environmental Crisis. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

                Townsend, A. New Directions in the Growth of Tourism Employment?: Propositions of the
                       1980s. Environment and Planning A; 24(6), June 1992, pages 821 32

                Tuppen, J. France: The Changing Character of a Key Industry. Williams, Allan M., ed,
                       Shaw, Gareth, ed. Tourism and economic development: Western European
                       experiences. London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press; distributed by Columbia
                       University Press, New York, 1988, pages 180 95


                Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







        Page 136                                                                      Appendix 4



        Turgeon, N., and F. Colbert. The Decision Process Involved in Corporate Sponsorship for
               the Arts. Journal of Cultural Economics; 16(l), June 1992, pages 41 51

        U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and
               National Ocean Service. January 1987. Volume 2: Land Use Characteristics.
               National Estuarine Inventory Data Atlas. U.S. Department od Commerce, Leon
               Danielson, his office.

        Valenzuela, M. Spain: The Phenomenon of Mass Tourism. Williams, Allan M., ed; Shaw,
               Gareth, ed. Tourism and economic development. Western European experiences.
               London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press, distributed by Columbia University
               Press, New York, 1988, pages 39 57

        Van, 1). K. . E. C., and J. Oosterhaven. Optimizing Tourist Policy: A Linear Programming
               Approach. Regional Studies, 24(l), February 1990, pages 55 64

        Vaughan, D. R., and P. Booth. The Economic Importance of Tourism and the Arts in
               Merseyside. Journal of Cultural Economics, 130, December 1989, pages 21 34

        Williams, A. M., and G. Shaw. Tourism and Development: Introduction. Williams, Allan M.,
               ed, Shaw, Gareth, ed. Tourism and economic development. Western European
               experiences. London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press; distributed by Columbia
               University Press, New York, 1988, pages I I I

        Williams, A. M., and G. Shaw. Tourism Policies in a Changing Economic Environment.
               Williams, Allan M., ed, Shaw, Gareth, ed. Tourism and economic development.
               Western European experiences. London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press;
               distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 1988, pages 230 39

        Williams, A. M., G. Shaw, and J. Greenwood. From Tourist to Tourism Entrepreneur, From
               Consumption to Production: Evidence from Cornwall, England. Environment and
               Planning A; 21(12), December 1989, pages 1639 53

        World Resources Institute. 1992. World Resources 1992-93. New York: Oxford University
               Press.


        Zimmermann, F. Austria: Contrasting Tourist Seasons and Contrasting Regions. Williams,
               Allan M., ed, Shaw, Gareth, ed. Tourism and economic development. Western
               European experiences. London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press; distributed by
               Columbia University Press, New York, 1988, pages 145 61













                                Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







                Appendix 4                                                                     Page 87



                                                       Fishing


                   1969. On Models of Commercial Fishing. Journal of Political Economy; 77(2):181-98.

                Alexander, P. 1989. Lessons for the Pacific Technology Transfer and Fishing
                      Communities: The Sri Lankan Experience. Couper, A. D., ed. Development and
                      social change in the Pacific islands. Ocean Management and Policy Series, London
                      and New York: Routledge, pages 63- 73.

                Anderson, L. G. 1983. The Demand Curve for Recreational Fishing with an Application to
                      Stock Enhancement Activities. Land Economics, 590, pages 2 79-86.

                Anderson, E. E. 1988. Relative Efficiency of Charges and Quantity Controls in Fisheries
                      with Continuous Stock Growth and Periodically Fixed Instrument Levels. Marine
                      Resource Economics; 50, pages 215-30.

                Bishop, R. C., and K. C. Samples. 1980. Sport and Commercial Fishing Conflicts: A
                      Theoretical Analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 70,
                      pages 220-33.

                Bodvarsson, 0. B. 1987. Monitoring with No Moral Hazard: The Case of Small Vessel
                      Commercial Fishing. Eastern Economic Journal, 13(4), pages 421-34.

                Buerger, R., and J. R. Kahn. 1989. New York Value of Chesapeake Striped Bass. Marine
                      Resource Economics, 6(l), pages 19-25.

                Campbell, H. F. 1991. Estimating the Elasticity of Substitution between Restricted and
                      Unrestricted Inputs in a Regulated Fishery: A Probit Approach. Journal of
                      Environmental Economics and Management, 20(3), pages 262-74.

                Campbell, H. F., and R. K. Lindner. 1990. The Production of Fishing Effort and the
                      Economic Performance of Licence Limitation Programs. Land Economics; 66(l),
                      pages 56-66.

                Charles, A. T. 1988. Fishery Socioeconomics: A Survey. Land Economics, 640, pages
                      276-95.


                Cheng, K. S., C. J. Lin, and A. Y. Wang. 1981. Analysis of Modified Model for
                      Commercial Fishing with Possible Extinctive Fishery Resources. Journal of
                      Environmental Economics and Management, 8(2), pages 151-55.

                Diaz, D. L. - A., and J. C. Seijo. 1992. A Multi-Criteria Non-linear Optimization Model for
                      the Control and Management of a Tropical Fishery. Marine.Resource Economics,
                      7(2), pages 23-40.

                Dupont, D. P., and S. A. Phipps. 1991. Distributional Consequences of Fisheries
                      Regulations. Canadian Journal of Economics, 24(l), pages 206-20.



                Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






        Page 88                                                                          Appendix 4



        Dwyer, J. F., and M. D. Bowes. 1978. Concepts of Value for Marine Recreational Fishing.
               American Journal of Agricultural Economics; 60(5), pages 1008-12.

        Edwards, S. F., and C. Carlson. 1989. On Estimating Compensation for Injury to Publicly
               Owned Marine Resources. Marine Resource Economics, 6(l), pages 27-42.

        Fullenbaum, R. F., E. W. Carlson, and F. W. Bell. 1972. On Models of Commercial Fishing:
               A Defense of the Traditional Literature. Journal of Political Economy, 80(4), pages
               761-68.


        Gates, J. M. 1984. Principal Types of Uncertainty in Fishing Operations. Marine Resource
               Economics, 1 (1), pages 31-49.

        Hanna, S. S. 1987. The Structure of Fishing Systems and the Implementation of
               Management Policy. in Vincent, Thomas L., et al., eds. 1985. Modeling and
               management of resources under uncertainty: Proceedings of the Second U.S.
               Australia Workshop on Renewable Resource Management held at the East West
               Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, December 9-12, 1985. Lecture Notes in Bibmathematics
               series, vol. 72. New York; Berlin; London and Tokyo: Springer, pages 264-73.

        Hannesson, R. 1991. From Common Fish to Rights Based Fishing: Fisheries Management
               and the Evolution of Exclusive Rights to Fish. European Economic Review, 35(2 3),
               pages 397-407.

        Hannesson, R. A .1978. Note on the Welfare Economic Consequences of Extended
               Fishing Limits. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management; 5f2), pages
               187-97.


        Hansen, L. T., and J. A. Hallam. 1990. Single Stage and Two Stage Decision Modeling of
               the Recreational Demand for Water. Journal of Agricultural Economics Research;
               42(l), pages 16-26.

        Jordan, P. G., and K. R. 1988. Polenske. Multiplier Impacts of Fishing Activities in New
               England and Nova Scotia. Ciaschini, Maurizib, ed. Input Output analysis: Current
               developments. International Studies in Economic Modelling series, London and New
               York: Routledge, pages 325-66.

        Kaoru, Y. 1989. Valuing Improvements in Estuarine Quality for Marine Recreational
               Fishing: A Discrete Choice Benefit Analysis. Vanderbilt University, Ph.D.

        Karpoff, J. M. 1989. Characteristics of Limited Entry Fisheries and the Option Component
               of Entry Licenses. Land Economics; 65(4), pages 386-93.

        Leung, A., and A. Y. Wang. 1976. Analysis of Models for Commercial Fishing:
               Mathematical and Economical Aspects. Econometrica, 44(2), pages 295-303.

        Levhari, D., R. Michener, and L. J. Mirman. 1981. Dynamic Programming Models of
               Fishing: Competition. American Economic Review, 71(4), pages 649-61.



                                 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                Appendix 4                                                                       Page 89



                Lipton, D. W., and 1. E. Strand. 1992. Effect of Stock Size and Regulations on Fishing
                       Industry Cost and Structure: The Surf Clam Industry. American Journal of
                       Agricultural Economics; 74(l), pages 197-208.

                McConnell, K. E. 1979. Values of Marine Recreational Fishing: Measurement and Impact of
                       Measurement. American Journal of Agricultural Economics; 61t5), pages 921-25.

                McConnell, K. E., and J. G. Sutinen. 1979. Bioeconomic Models of Marine Recreational
                       Fishing. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management; 612), pages 127-
                       39.

                Meuriot, E., and J. M. Gates. 1983. Fishing Allocations and Optimal Fees: A Single and
                       Multilevel Programming Analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
                       65(4), pages 711-21.

                Morey, E. R., W. D. Shaw, and R. D. Rowe. 1991. A Discrete Choice Model of
                       Recreational Participation, Site Choice, and Activity Valuation When Complete Trip
                       Date Are Not Available. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management;
                       20(2), page! 181-201.

                Onal, H. E. A. 1991. A Bioeconomic Analysis of the Texas Shrimp Fishery and Its Optimal
                       Management. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73W, pages 1161-70.

                Platteau, J. P., and J. Nugent. 1992. Share Contracts and Their Rationale: Lessons from
                       Marine Fishing. Journal of Development Studies; 28(3), pages 386-422.

                Plourde, C., and J. B. Smith. 1989. Crop Sharing in the Fishery and Industry Equilibrium.
                       Marine Resource Economics; 6(3), pages 179-93.

                Plourde, C., and D. Yeung. 1989. Harvesting of a Transboundary Replenishable Fish Stock:
                       A Noncooperative Game Solution. Marine Resource Economics; 6(l), pages 57-70.


                Prescott, A. C., and A. R. Prescott. 1986. Wild species in the North American economy:
                       The first resource. New Haven and London: Yale University Press in cooperation
                       with the World Wildlife Fund.


                Rockel, M. L., and M. Kealy. 1991. The Value of Nonconsumptive Wildlife Recreation in
                       the United States. Land Economics, 67(4), pages 422-34.

                Rodrigues, A. G. 1990. E. Operations research and management in fishing. NATO
                       Advanced Science Institute Series E. Applied Sciences, vol. 189, Norwell, Mass.;
                       Dordrecht and London: Kluwer Academic in cooperation with NA TO Scientific
                       Affairs Division.


                Russell, C. S., and W. J. Vaughan. 1982. The National Recreational Fishing Benefits of
                       Water Pollution Control. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management;
                       9(4j, pages 328-54.



                Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






        Page 90                                                                         Appendix 4




        Scott, A. 1988. Development of Property in the Fishery. Marine Resource Economics,
               5(4), pages 289-311.


        Segerson, K., and D. Squires. 1990. On the Measurement of Economic Capacity Utilization
               for Multi product Industries. Journal of Econometrics; 44(3), pages 347-61.

        Smith, V. L. 1972. On Models of Commercial Fishing: The Traditional Literature Needs No
               Defenders. Journal of Political Economy; 80(4), pages 776-78.

        Smith, V. K., R. B. Palmquist, and P. Jakus. 1991. Combining Farrell Frontier and Hedonic
               Travel Cost Models for Valuing Estuarine Quality. Review of Economics and
               Statistics; 73(4), pages 694 99

        Squires, D. 199-2. Productivity Measurement in Common Property Resource Industries: An
               Application to the Pacific Coast Trawl Fishery. Rand Journal of Economics; 23(2),
               pages 221-36.

        Squires, D. 1987. Fishing Effort: Its Testing, Specification, and Internal Structure in
               Fisheries Economics and Management. Journal of Environmental Economics and
               Management; 14(3), pages 268-82.

        Squires, D. 1987. Public Regulation and the Structure of Production in Multiproduct
               Industries: An Application to the New England Otter Trawl Industry. Rand Journal
               of Economics, 18(2), pages 232-47.

        Steinnes, D., and R. Raab. 1981. The Economics of a "Happening": Spring Smelt Fishing
               on Lake Superior. Regional Science Perspectives, I 1 (1), pages 32-4 1.

        Taylor, T. G., and F. J. Prochaska. 1985. Fishing Power Functions in Aggregate
               Bioeconomic Models. Marine Resource Economics, 2tl), pages 87-107.

        Terkla, D. G., P. B. Doeringer, and P. 1. Moss. 1988. Widespread Labor Stickiness in the
               New England Offshore Fishing Industry: Implications for Adjustment and Regulation.
               Land Economics, 64M, pages 73-82.

        Townsend, R. E. 1992. A Fractional Licensing Program for Fisheries. Land Economics;
               68(21, pages 185-90.

        U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of
               Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1993. 1991 National Survey of Fishing,
               Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. U.S. Government Printing Office,
               Washington, DC.

        U.S. Department of Commerce. 1992. Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey,
               Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, 1990-1991. U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver
               Spring, MD.

        Vaughan, W. J., and C. S. Russell. 1982. Valuing a Fishing Day: An Application of a


                                 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                  Appendix 4                                                                                    Page 91



                          Systematic Varying Parameter Model. Land Economics; 58(4), pages 450-63.

                  Wang, A. Y., and K. S. Cheng. 1978. Dynamic Analysis of Commercial Fishing Model.
                          Journal of Environmental Economics and Management; 5(2), pages 113-2 7.

                  Wang, A. Y., and K. S. Cheng. 1978. Dynamic Analysis of Commercial Fishing Model.
                          Journal of Environmental Economics and Management; 5(2), pages 113-27.

                  Wieland, T. April 1981. An Economic Analysis of the Ocean Fishing Industry of
                          Chincoteague, Virginia. Delmarva Advisory Council, Salisbury, MD.
















































                  Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






        Page 92                                                                       Appendix 4




                                         Outdoor Recreation


            1975. Some Problems in Estimating the Demand for Outdoor Recreation. American
               Journal of Agricultural Economics; 57(2), pages 330 34

        Anderson, T. L., and D. R. Leal. 1991. Free market environmentalism. San Francisco:
               Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy; Boulder and Oxford: Westview Press,
               pages xii, 192

        Bechte-r, D. M. 1970. Outdoor Recreation. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Monthly
               Review; pages 15 20

        Bergstrom, J. C. et. al. 1990. Economic Impacts of State Parks on State Economies in the
               South. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics; 22t2), pages 69 77

        Bondurant, J. H., and J. D. Wright. 1970. Some Factors Influencing Family Expenditures
               for Outdoor Recreation. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 180, pages
               3540


        Braat, L. C., and Van, Lierop, Wal. F. J. - eds. Van. 1987. Economic ecological modeling.
               Studies in Regional Science and Urban Economics series, no. 16. Amsterdam, New
               York, Oxford and Tokyo: North Holland, pages x, 329

        Brewer, D., and G. A. Gillespie. 1969. Effects of Nonprice Variables upon Participation in
               Water Oriented Outdoor Recreation: Reply. American Journal of Agricultural
               Economics; 5 1 (1), pages 194 95

        Bright, J. W., and M. Sagan. 1987. Beaches, Islands, Marshes, and Woodlands: Outdoor
               Recreation Plan on Virginia's Eastern Shore. United States Department of the
               Interior, Denver, CO.

        Brown, W. G., and F. Nawas. 1973. Impact of Aggregation on the Estimation of Outdoor
               Recreation Demand Functions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics; 55(2),
               pages 246 49

        Burt, 0. R., and D. Brewer. 1971. Estimation of Net Social Benefits from Outdoor
               Recreation. Econometrica; 39(5), pages 813 2 7

        David, E. J. L. 1969. Effects of Nonprice Variables upon Participation in Water Oriented
               Outdoor Recreation: Comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51(4),
               pages 942 45

        Deyak, T. A., and V. K. Smith. 1978. Congestion and Participation in Outdoor Recreation:
               A Household Production Function Approach. Journal of Environmental Economics
               and Management, 5(l), pages 63 80

        Deyak, T. A., and V. K. Smith. 1978. Congestion and Participation in Outdoor Recreation:
               A Household Production Function Approach. Journal of Environmental Economics
               and Management; 5(l), pages 63 80


                                Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                Appendix 4                                                                        Page 93




                Duffell, J. R. 1986. The Car Excursion to Informal Outdoor Recreation Sites: Comparative
                       Studies in the West Midlands Region in 1966 to 1978. Regional Studies, 20(6j,
                       pages 505 21

                Frederick, K. D., and Sedio, R.A. eds. 1991. America's renewable resources: Historical
                       trends and current challenges. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, pages
                       xiv, 296

                Gum,  R. L., and W. E. Martin. 1975. Problems and Solutions in Estimating the Demand
                       for and Value of Rural Outdoor Recreation. American Journal of Agricultural
                       Economics; 57(4J, pages 558 66

                Gum,  R. L., and W. E. Martin. 1977. Structure of Demand for Outdoor Recreation. Land
                       Economics, 53(l), pages 43 55

                Johnson, H. A. 1970. Characteristics of Supply and Demand in Outdoor Recreation.
                       Agricultural Economics Research; 22(l), pages 18 23

                Knetsch, J. L., and F. J. Cesario. 1976. Some Problems in Estimating the Demand for
                       Outdoor Recreation: Comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics; 58,
                       pages 596 97

                Knetsch, J. L. 1972. Interpreting Demands for Outdoor Recreation. Economic Record;
                       48f123J, pages 429 32

                Krutilla, J. V., and J. L. Knetsch. 1970. Outdoor Recreation Economics. Annals of the
                       American Academy of Political and Social Science; 389, pages 63 70

                Leeworhty, V. R., N. F. Meade, K. Drazek, and D. Schruefer. 1989. A Socioeconomic
                       Profile of Recreationists at Public Outdoor Recreation Sites in Coastal Areas:
                       Volume 3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of
                       Commerce, Rockville, MD.

                Leeworthy, V. R., and N. F. Meade. 1989. Volume 1.,A Socioeconomic Profile of
                       Recreationists at Public Outdoor Recreation Sites in Coastal Areas: Volume 1.
                       National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, MD.

                Leeworthy, V. R., and D. Schruefer. 1990. A Socioeconomic Profile of Recreationists at
                       Public Outdoor Recreation Sites in Coastal Areas: Volume 4. National Oceanic and
                       Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Departmetn of Commerce, Rockville, MD.

                Leeworthy, V. R., N. F. Meade, K. brazek, and D. Schruefer. 1989. A Socioeconomic
                       Profile of Recreationists at Public Outdoor Recreation Sites in Coastal Areas.
                       Volume 2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Chamber of
                       Commerce, Rockville, MD.

                Matulich, S. C., W. G. Workman, and A. Jubenville. 1987. Recreation Economics: Taking
                       Stock [Problems and Solutions in Estimating the Demand for and Value of Rural
                       Outdoor Recreation]. Land Economics; 630, pages 310 16


                Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







        Page 914                                                                           Appendix 4




        McClellan, K., and E. A. Medrich. 1969. Outdoor Recreation: Economic Consideration for
                Optimal Site Selection and Development. Land Economics,- 450, pages 174 82

        McConnell, K. E. 1985. The Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Kneese, Allen V., ed.,
                Sweeney, James L., ed. Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics.
                Volume 2. Amsterdam and Oxford.- North Holland, distributed in North America by
                Elsevier Science, New York, pages 677 722

        McConnell, K. E. 1976. Some Problems in Estimating the Demand for Outdoor Recreation:
                Reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 580, pages 598 99

        Mendelsohn, R. 1987. Modeling the Demand for Outdoor Recreation. Water Resources
                Research, 23(5), pages 961 67

        Mendelsohn, R., at al. 1983. Revealed Preference Approaches to Valuing Outdoor
                Recreation. Natural Resources Journal, 23(3), pages 607 18

        Menz,   F. C., and J. K. Mullen. 1981. Expected Encounters and Willingness to Pay for
                Outdoor Recreation. Land Economics; 57(11, pages 33 40

        Norton, G. A. 1970. Public Outdoor Recreation and Resource Allocation: A Welfare
                Approach. Land Economics, 46N), pages 414 22

        Pigram, J. J. 1981. Outdoor Recreation and Access to Countryside: Focus on the
                Australian Experience. Natural Resources Journal; 2 1 (1), pages 10 7 23

        Ranken, R. L., and J. A. Sinden. 1971. Causal Factors in the Demand for Outdoor
                Recreation. Economic Record, 47(119), pages 418 26

        Schuster, E. G., and H. H. Webster. 1971. Costs of Outdoor Recreation Land Use
                Controls. Land Economics,- 48(4), pages 392 96

        Shabman, L. A., and R. J. Kalter. 1969. Effects of Public Programs for Outdoor
                Recreation and Personal Income Distribution. American Journal of Agricultural
                Economics; 51(5), pages 1516 19

        Stevens, J. B. 1969. Effects of Nonprice Variables upon Participation in Water Oriented
                Outdoor Recreation: Comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51fl),
                pages 192 93

        Ulph, A. M., and 1. K. Reynolds. 1979. An Activities Model of Consumer Behaviour with
                Special Reference to Outdoor Recreation. Scottish Journal of Political Economy;
                26(l), pages 33 60

        Van, D. P. . S. W. Floris ad. 1987. Economic-ecological modeling. Studies in Regional
                Science and Urban Economics series, no. 16. Amsterdam; New York; Oxford and
                Tokyo: North-Holland, pages 149-65. Models for Outdoor Recreation. Braat, Leon
                C., ed an- Lierop,-Wal-F.-J:



                                  Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                Appendix 4                                                                     Page 95




                Walsh, R. G., D. M. Johnson, and J. R. McKean. 1992. Benefit Transfer of Outdoor
                       Recreation Demand Studies, 1968 1988. Water Resources Research; 280, pages
                       707 13


                Walsh, R. G., D.M. Johnson, and J.R. McKean. 1989. Nonmarket Values from Two
                       Decades of Research on Recreation Demand. JAI Press Inc, Greenwich CT.

                Wiedner, D., and P. Kerlinger. 1990. Economics of Birding: A National Survey of Active
                       Birders. American Birds vol.44, Number 2: p.209-213.


                Willis, K. G., and G. D. Garrod. 1991. An Individual Travel Cost Method of Evaluating
                       Forest Recreation. Journal of Agricultural Economics; 42fl), pages 33 42

                Wilman, E. A. 1988. Pricing Policies for Outdoor Recreation. Land Economics; 640,
                       pages 234 41

                Wrigley, J. C., H. H. Fullerton, and E. B. Wennergren. 1974. Empirical Estimation of
                       Quality Values for Outdoor Recreation Land Use. Intermountain Economic Review,
                       5(l), pages 58 71




































                Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







        Page 96                                                                 Appendix 4



                                         Sustainability


        1987. Environmental protection and sustainable development: legal principles and
              recommendations; with a foreward by Nagendra Singh. Graham xxi + 196p.

        1987. Environmental management and economic development: special edition. Annals of
              Regional Science: an internationaljournal of urban, regional and environmental
              research and policy. 21:1 123 N '87

        1991. Natural resources of Sri Lanka: conditions and trends. Keells Business Systems Ltd.,
              130 Glennie St., Colombo 2, Sri Lanka xi + 280p.

        1991. Philippine Strategy for Sustainable Development: an overview. Philippine
              Development 17:15 25 XlAg '91

        1992. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development; Rio de Janeiro, June
              3 14, 1992. International Legal Materials. 31:814 87 X '92

        Ahmad, Yusuf J., Salah El Serafy, and Ernst Lutz, ads. 1989. Environmental Accounting
              for Sustainable Develggment.   Washington: World Bank.

        Amir, S. 1992. The Environmental Cost of Sustainable Welfare. Discussion Paper,
              OE92-17-REV. Washington: Resources for the Future.

        Angell, D. J. R. 1990. Sustaining earth: response to the environmental threat. Macmillan
              (L ondon) xvi i + 2 2 6 p.

        Archibugi, F., and P. Nijkamp, ads. 1989. Economy and Ecology: Towards Sustainable
              Develor)ment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.


        Barbier, E.B. 1989. Economics. Natural Resource Scarcity and Develol2ment. London:
              Earthscan Publications Ltd.


        Bartelmus, Peter. 1993. "Towards a System of Integrated Environmental and Economic
              Accounts." Paper presented to the Resource Policy Consortium Symposium
              "Integrating Economic and Ecological Indicators." Washington, May 17-18, 1993.

        Berkes, F. and A. Shaw. 1986. Ecologically sustainable development: a Caribbean
              fisheries case study. Canadian Journal of Development StudieslRevue Canadienne
              d'Etudes du Developpement. 7:175 96 Summer '86.

        Birgeles, J. J. and D. Berkovits. 1992. Environmental considerations for port operations
              and development. Industry and Environment 15:45 8 dal Je '92

        Blauert, J. and M. Guidi. 1992. Local initiatives in Southern Mexico. Ecologist. 22:284 88
              NID '9 2


        Boyer, W. W. and B.M. Ahn. 1991. Rural development in South Korea: a sociopolitical


                              Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






               Appendix 4                                                                  Page 97



                     analysis. Associated Univ Presses 155p.

               Bromley, Daniel W., ed. 1992. Making the Commons Work. San Francisco: Institute for
                     Contemporary Studies.

               Butz, D. 199 1. Why international development neglects indigenous social reality. Canadian
                     Journal of Development StudieslRevue Canadienne dEtudes du Developpement.
                     12:143 57 no 1 '91


               Cabe, Richard and Stanley R. Johnson. 1990. "Natural Resource Accounting Systems
                     and Environmental Policy Modeling." Journal of Soil-and Water Conservation. Sept-
                     Oct. 1990. pp. 533-39.

               Cabe, Richard. 1990. Natural Resource Accounting Systems and Environmental Policy
                     Modelling. Working Paper 90-WP 65. Center for Agricultural and Rural
                     Development, Iowa State University.

               Carr, M., ed. April 1987. Sustainable Industrial Development. New York: Intermediate
                     Technology Development Group of North America.

               Chircop, A. E. 1992. The Mediterranean Sea and the quest for sustainable development.
                     Ocean Development and International Law. 23:17 30 JalMr '92

               Clark, N. and Juma, C. 1991. Biotechnology for sustainable development: policy options
                     for developing countries. Acts Press, African Centre for Technology Studies, P.O.
                     Box 45917, 4th Floor, St. George's House, Parliament Rd., Nairobi, Kenya
                     viii + 1 17p.

               Costanza, Robert, ed. 1991. Ecolo-oical Economics. New York: Columbia University
                     Press, 1991.

               Court, T. D. L. 1990. Beyond Brundtland: green development in the 1990s. Zed #ks
                     Counc# Internat and Public Affairs 139p.

               Cowan, J. J. H., and R.E.Turner. 1988. Modeling Wetland Loss in Coastal Louisiana:
                     Geology, Geography, and Human Modifications. Environmental Management
                     12:827-838:


               d'Arge, Ralph C. 1991. "Economic Growth, Sustainability, and the Environment."
                     Contgmporary Policy Issues. 9(l):1-23.

               Daly, Herman, and Kenneth Townsend, eds. 1993. Valuing the Earth: Economics.
                     Ecology. Ethics Cambridge, MA: MIT. Press.

               Di, P. M. 1992. Sustainable development in Argentina. Environment and Urbanization.
                     4:37 52 Ap '92

               Douglas, D. J. A. . ed. 1989. Rural planning. Plan Canada. 29:8 67+ Mr '89



               Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







         Page 98                                                                       Appendix 4



         Dover, M. J. and Talbot, L. M. 1988. Feeding the earth: an agroecological solution.
               Technology Review. 91:26 35 FlMr '88

         El Serafy, Salah. 1993. Country Macroeconomic Work and Natural Resogrces. World
               Bank Environment Working Paper No. 58. Washington: World Bank.

         Engel, J. R. and Engle, J. G. 1990. Ethics of environment and development: global
               challenge, international response. Belhaven Press, 25 Floral St., London, WC1E
               9DS, Eng xv+264p.

         Erdmann, P. B. . ad. 1992. Focus issue: Corporate environmentalism. Columbia Journal of
               World Business. 2 7:12 50 + FaIllWinter '92


         Esteva, G. and Prakash, M. S. 1992. Grassroots resistance to sustainable development:
               lessons from the banks of Narmada. Ecologist. 22:45 51 MrIAp '92

         Hammond, A. L. . ed. 1992. World resources, 1992 93: a report. Oxford Univ Pr
               xiv+385p.

         Hannon, Bruce. 1989. "Accounting in Ecological Systems." The Ecological Economics of
               Sustainability. Washington: World Bank.

         Harrison, P. 1992. The third revolution: environment, population and a sustainable world.
               Tauds St Martin's A + 3 5 9 p.

         Harrison, Anne. 1989. "Environmental Issues and the SNA." Review of Income and
               Wealth Series 35, no. 4, pp. 377-388.

         Housman, R. and Zaelke, D. 1992. Trade, environment, and sustainable development: a
               primer. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review. 15:535 612 Summer
               '92

         Jacobs, M. 1990. Sustainable development: greening the economy. Fabian Soc 28p.

         Jacobs, M. 1991. The green economy: environment, sustainable development and the
               politics of the future. Pluto Pr xxii + 31 2p.

         Kirschenmann, F. May 1991. Fundamental Fallicies of Building Agricultural Sustainability.
               Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 165-68:


         Kopp, Raymond J. 1992. "The Role of Natural Assets in Economic Development."
               Resources. No. 106. Washington: Resources for the Future.

         Kuik, Onno and Harmen Verbruggen, eds. 1991. In Search of Indicators of Sustainable
               Develor)ment. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers.


         Lele, S. M. 199 1. Sustainable development: a critical review. World Development.- the
               multi disciplinary in terna tional journal de vo ted to the study and promo tion of world
               development. 19:607 21 Je '91


                                 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                Appendix 4                                                                      Page 99



                Lutz, E. and Young, M. 1992. Integration of environmental concerns into agricultural
                      policies of industrial and developing countries. World Development: the multi
                      disciplinary internationaljournal devoted to the study and promotion of world
                      development. 20:241 53 F '92

                Martinez-Alier, 1987. Ecolooical Economics. Oxford: Basil- Blackwell.

                Mikesell, R. F. 1992. Economic development and the environment: a comparison of
                      sustainable development with conventional development economics. Cassell
                      viii + 15 2p.

                Norgaard, Richard B. 1989. "Three Dilemmas of Environmental Accounting." Ecological
                      Economics 1:303-314. 1989.

                Northampton County Department of Planning and Zoning, and Northampton County Joint
                      Local Planning Commission. July 1989. Information and Analysis: Comprehensive
                      Plan Background. Eastville, VA.

                Northampton County Joint Planning Commission. Comprehensive Plan for Nothampton
                      County, Virginia.

                Org. For Econ. Coop.. Nicolaisen, J. 1990. Economics and the environment: a survey of
                      issues and policy options. Org Econ Coop and Development 76p.

                Pearce, David, Edward Barbier, and Anil Markandya. 1990. Sustainable Development:
                      Economics and Environment in the Third World. Brookfield, VT: Gower Publishing
                      Company.

                Perrings, Charles. 1991. "Reserved Rationality and the Precautionary Principle:
                      Technological Change, Time, and Uncertainty in Env *ironmental Decision Making."
                      in Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability. New
                      York: Columbia University Press.

                Perrings, C. 1987. Economy and Environment; A Theoretical Essay on the Interdependence
                      of Economic and Environmental Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

                Pezzey, J. 1989. Economic Analysis of Sustainable Growth and Sustainable
                      Development. Environment Working Paper no. 15. Washington: World Bank.

                Pottier, J. 1993. Practising Develpoment. London: Routledge.

                Repetto, R., W. Magrath, M. Wells, C. Beer, and F. Rossini. 1989. Wasting Assets;
                      Natural Resources in the National Income Accounts. Washington, DC: World
                      Resources Institute.


                Schmidheiny, S. 1992. Changing course: a global business perspective on development
                      and the environment. MIT Pr xvii + 374p.

                Schoenbaum, T. J. W., and Edith Brown. 1992. Agora: trade and environment. American


                Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







          Page 1100                                                                                      Appendix 4




                  Journal of International Law. 86:700 35 0 '92

          Sigal,  L. 1993. The Evolution of Environmental Impact Assessment from Projects to Policy
                  to Sustainable Development. in Current and Future Priorities for Environmental
                  Management; NAEP 18th Annual Conference Proceedings, May 24-26, 1993,
                  Raleigh, North Carolina. National Association of Environmental
                  Professionals,Washington, DC: National Association of Environmental Professionals.


          Silverman, M. H. at al. November 1977. Feasibility Study of a Seafood Industrial Port for
                  Virginia. Dapartment of Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnical Institute and
                  State University. RAI, property of Tim Hayes, Nothampton County, VA.

          Simonis, U. E. 1990. Beyond growth: elements of sustainable development. Sigma 151 p.

          Smit, 13. and Brklacich, M. 1989. Sustainable development and the analysis of rural
                  systems. Journal of Rural Studies. 5.-405 14 no 4 '89

          Smith, E. E. 1990. Sustainable development through Northern conservation strategies.
                  Univ Calgary PY xxviii + 1 88p.

          Solow, Robert M. 1992. "An Almost Practical Step Toward Sustainability." Invited
                  Lecture at Resources for the Future, Washington, October 8, 1992.

          Solow, R.. 1992. An Almost Practical Step Toward Sustainability. Washington, DC:
                  Resources for the Future.


          Tomal-ty, R. and S. Handler. 1991. Green planning: striving towards sustainable
                  development in Ontario's municipalities. Plan Canada. 31:27 8+ My '91

          Toman, Michael. 1992       . Economics and "Susta inability": Balancing Tradeoffs and
                  Imperatives. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper ENR91-05 Rev.
                  Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

          Turner, R.K., ad. 1988. Sustainable Environmental Management. Boulder: Westview Press.


          United Nations Environmental Programme. 1988. The state of the environment, 1988: the
                  public and environment. U N Environment Programme 43p.

          United Nations Dept. Of Economics. 1992. Poverty alleviation and sustainable
                  development: goals in conflict? views and recommendations of the Committee for
                  Development Planning. U N Agent viii + 69p.

          World Com. On Environment, Brundtland, Grottarlem, Chm. 1987. Our common future.
                  Oxford Univ Pr xv + 383p.






                                       Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                Appendix 4                                                                    Page 101




                                                      Tourism



                1981. Tourism: managing regional assets [four articles]. Environmental Comment. p 3 14
                      D '81


                1981. Cultural tourism and industrial cities (preservation of obsolete industrial districts as
                      tourist attractions; three articles]. Environmental Comment. p 3 15 Ja '81

                1982. World tourism still going places. Economist. 285:118 19 0 16 '82

                1985. Managing resort communities. Management Information Service Report. 17:1 15 J/
                185

                1987. -Interrelationships of leisure, recreation, and tourism: special issue. Annals of
                      Tourism Research: a social sciences journal. 14:314 429 no 3 '8 7

                Adams, J. W. 1985. Travel in Alabama: the economic impact. Alabama Business. 54:2+
                      Je '85
                Aldskogius, H. A. 1977. Conceptual Framework and a Swedish Case Study of
                      Recreational Behavior and Environmental Cognition. Economic Geography; 53(2J,
                      pages 163 83

                Arbel, A., and S. A. Ravid. 1985. On Recreation Demand: A Time Series Approach.
                      Applied Economics, 17(6), pages 9 79 90

                Ashworth, G., and B. E. Goodall. 1990. Marketing tourism places. New York and London:
                      Routledge.

                Balkan, E., and J. R. Kahn. 1988. The Value of Changes in Deer Hunting Quality: A
                      Travel Cost Approach. Applied Economics, 20(4), pages 533 39

                Bar, 0. R. 1989. Travel and tourism data: a comprehensive research handbook on the
                      world travel industry. Euromonitor ix + 366p.

                Baty, B. and R. Templeton. 1991. Tourism and the tourist industry in 1990. Employment
                      Gazette. 99:491 500 S '91


                Bell, F. W., and V. R. Leeworthy. 1990. Recreational Demand by Tourists for Saltwater
                      Beach Days. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 180, pages
                      189205


                Benington, J. 1988. The future of leisure services. Longman xi+272p.

                Berbecaru, 1. 1977. The Management of Touristic Activity. Management Training Review,
                      0:42 48

                Bergstrom, J. 1990. Economic impacts of State Parks on State Economias in the South.
                      Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics,, 22(2), December 1990, pages 69 77


                Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







        Page 102                                                                          Appendix 4



        Blank, U. 1989. The community tourism industry imperative: The necessity, the
               opportunities, its potential. State College, Pa.: Venture, 1989., pages xvi, 200

        Bond, M. E., and J. R. Ladman. 1972. Tourism: A Strategy for Development. Nebraska
               Journal of Economics and Business; 11 (1):3 7 52

        Bondurant, J. H., and J. D. Wright. 1970. Some Factors Influencing Family Expenditures
               for Outdoor Recreation. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics; 18(2), July
               1970, pages 35 40

        Boo, E. 1990. Ecotourism: potentials and pitfalls. World Wildlife Fund 2v.

        Booker, H. M. 1978. Museums: The Heart of the Town Aesthetic Pulse of the People or
               Epitome of Economic Inefficiency? Journal of Cultural Economics; 2(2), pages 65
               71

        Bottomley, A., M. Hartnett, and V. Evans. 1976. Is Tourist Residential Development
               Worthwhile? The Anegada Project. Social and Economic Studies, 25(l), pages 1-33.


        Bouquet, M. and M. Winter. 1987. Who from their labours rest? conflict and practice in
               rural tourism. Ashgate viii + 1 58p.

        Bowes, M. D., and J. B. Loomis. 1980. A Note on the Use of Travel Cost Models with
               Unequal Zonal Populations. Land Economics; 56(4), pages 465 70

        Brownrigg, M., and M. A. Greig. 1975. Differential Multipliers for Tourism. Scottish
               Journal of Political Economy, 22(3), pages 261 75

        Burt, 0. R., and D. Brewer. 1971. Estimation of Net Social Benefits from Outdoor
               Recreation. Econometfica; 39(5), pages 813 27

        Chartrand, H. H. 1988. The Crafts in the Post modern Economy. Journal of Cultural
               Economics; 12(2), pages 39 66

        Christensen, J. B., and C. Price. 1982. A Note on the Use of Travel Cost Models with
               Unequal Zonal Populations: Comment. Land Economics, 580, pages 395 99

        Cohen, E. E. 1985. Tourist guides: pathfinders, mediators, and animators [4 articles).
               Annals of Tourism Research: a social sciences journat 12:5 95 no 1 '85

        Combs, J. P., and B. W. Elledge. 1979. Effects of a Room Tax on Resort Hotel/Motels.
               National Tax Journal; 32(2), June 1979, pages 201 07

        Converse, R. S. Machlis, Gary E. 1986. Energy and outdoor recreation: a review and
               assessment of the literature. Leisure Sciences: an interdisciplinary JournaL 8:391
               416 no 4 '86


        Cooper, C. P., and A. Lockwood. 1992. Progress in tourism, recreation and hospitality


                                 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                Appendix 4                                                                    Page 103



                      management. Pinter Halsted Pr xvii + 281 p.

                Cooper, C. P. 1981. Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Tourist Behaviour. Regional
                      Studies; 15(5), 1981, pages 359 71

                Dailey, R.T. 1984. An update on Montana's travel and tourism industry. Montana
                      Business Quarterly. 22:2 4 Winter '84

                Daly, A. 1984. Cost Saving Methods in Travel Demand Forecasting. Pittield, D. E., ed,
                      Discrete Choice Models in Regional Science. London Papers in Regional Science
                      series, no. 14. London: Pion; distributed in the U.S. by Methuen, New York, pages
                      10213


                Delaware. Agric. Exp. Sta. Cole, G. L. 1984. Impact of tourism on public services in
                      selected Delaware shore communities. Newark, DE 19717 1303 v+48p.

                Diamond, J. 1976. Tourism and Development Policy: A Quantitative Appraisal. Bulletin of
                      Economic Research; 28(l), pages 36 50

                Diamond, J. 1977. Tourism's Role in Economic Development: The Case Reexamined.
                      Economic Development and Cultural Change; 25(3), pages 539 53

                Durham, F. 1977. An Exploration of Some of the Causes of a Developing Painters'
                      Colony in Fort Worth, Texas. Journal of Cultural Economics, 1(2), pages 25 34

                Dykeman, F. W. , ed. 1988. Integrated rural planning and development. Rural and Small
                      Town Research and Studies Programme, Department of Geography, Mount Allison
                      University, Sack ville, Ne w Bruns wick, EOA 3CO xi + 2 9 7 p.

                Edwards, F. E. 1988. Environmentally sound tourism in the Caribbean. Univ Calgary Pr
                      xxiii + 143p.

                Felton, M. V. 1992. On the Assumed Inelasticity of Demand for the Performing Arts.
                      Journal of Cultural Economics, 16(l), pages 1 12

                Fritz, R. G. 1989. Strategic Planning with a System Dynamics Model for Regional
                      Tourism Site Development. Review of Regional Studies, 19(l), pages 57 71

                Fritz, R. G. 1982. Tourism, Vacation Home Development and Residential Tax Burden: A
                      Case Study of the Local Finances of 240 Vermont Towns. American Journal of
                      Economics and Sociology; 41(4), pages 375 85

                Fujii, E. T., M. Khaled, and J. Mak. 1985. An Almost Ideal Demand System for Visitor
                      Expenditures. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 190, pages 161 71.

                Gallagher, M. 1988. How the visitors are counted. Business and Finance. 24:14 15 Ag 25
                      '88

                Gapinski, J. H. 1980. The Production of Culture. Review of Economics and Statistics;


                Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






        Page 104                                                                      Appendix 4



               62(4), pages 578 86

        Gartner, W. C. et al. 1983. Economic impact of an annual tourism industry exposition
               [estimated impact of the 1980 Greater Michigan Boat and Fishing Show on
               metropolitan Detroit]. Annals of Tourism Research: a social sciences journal.
               10:199 212 no 2 '83


        Getz, D. 1983. Capacity to absorb tourism: concepts and implications for strategic
               planning. Annals of Tourism Research: a social sciences journal. 10:239 63 no 2
               '83

        Giarini, 0. E. 1987. The emerging service economy. Services Worldeconomy series.
               Oxford, New York, Sydney and Toronto: Pergamon Press.

        Goodall, B., and G. E. Ashworth. 1988. Marketing in the tourism industry: The promotion
               of destination regions. London and Sydney: Croom Helm, distributed by Methuen,
               New York., pages 244

        Goodall, B. 1988. How Tourists Choose Their Holidays: An Analytical Framework. Goodall,
               Brian, ed, Ashworth, Gregory, ed. Marketing in the tourism industry: The
               promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney: Croom Helm, distributed by
               Methuen, New York., pages 1 17

        Grigalunas, T. A. et al. 1986. Estimating the Cost of Oil Spills: Lessons from the Amoco
               Cadiz Incident. Marine Resource Economics, 2(3), pages 239 62

        Guiducci, G. 1984. Turismo postindustriale. Lavoro 78p.

        Guskind, R. 1987. Bringing Madison Avenue to main street: whether it's for tourism or
               economic development, marketing states and cities has become big business; but
               do the results warrant all the expense? Planning. 53:4 10 F '87

        Haulot, A. 1977. Coastal belt tourism, economic development and. environmental impact.
               International Journal of Environmental Studies. 10., 161 72 Mr '77


        Hay, M. J., and K. E. McConnell. 1979. An Analysis of Participation in Nonconsumptive
               Wildlife Recreation. Land Economics, 55(4), pages 460- 71

        Hay, M. J., and K. E. McConnell. 1981. An Analysis of Participation in Nonconsumptive
               Wildlife Recreation: Reply. Land Economics, 57(2), pages 288 92

        Hendon, W. S. 1983. Admission Income and Historic Houses: Higher Revenue Is
               Associated with Price Policy, More Services and Less Education. American Journal
               of Economics and Sociology; 42(4), pages 473-82.








                                Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                Appendix 4                                                                    Page 105



                Hensher, D. A., and J. J. Louviere. 1984. Towards an Approach to Forecasting
                      Attendance at Unique Events Using a Discrete Choice Model and Experimental
                      Design Data. Pittield, D. E., ed. Discrete Choice Models in Regional Science. London
                      Papers in Regional Science series, no. 14. London: Pion; distributed in the U.S. by
                      Methuen, New York, pages 67-87.

                Hodgson, A. E. 1987. The travel and tourism industry: strategies for the future. Pergamon.

                Janiskee, R. L. 1990. Resort camping in America. Annals of Tourism Research: a social
                      sciences Journal. 17:385-40 7 no 3 '90

                Jobes, P. C. 1984. Old timers and now mobile lifestyles [full time recreational vehicle
                      travel by retirement age Americans]. Annals of Tourism Research: a social sciences
                      Journal. 11: 181 98 no 2 '84

                Johnson, P., and B. Thomas. 1990. Measuring the Local Employment Impact of a Tourist
                      Attraction: An Empirical Study. Regional Studies; 24(5), October 1990, pages 395
                      403

                Johnson, T. G. 1983. Measuring the Cost of Time in Recreation Demand Analysis:
                      Comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65(l), February 1983' ,
                      pages 169-71

                Johnson, P., and B. E. Thomas. 1992. Choice and demand in tourism. London and New
                      York: Cassell, Mansell.


                Keogh, B. 1990. Public participation in community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism
                      Research: a social sciences Journal. 17:449 65 no 3 '90

                Knetsch, J. L. 1972. Interpreting Demands for Outdoor Recreation. Economic Record,
                      48(123), September 1972, pages 429 32

                Kosters, M. J. 1988. Changing Tourism Requires a Different Management Approach.
                      Goodall, Brian, ed; Ashworth, Gregory, ed. Marketing in the tourism industry: The
                      promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney: Croom Heim; distributed by
                      Methuen, New York, 1988, pages 198 212

                Leepson, M. 1984. Tourism's economic impact. Editorial Research Reports. p 331 48 My
                      4184


                Levin, J. 1986. Virginia Beach/Tidewater area: "hot spot" market cools down as national
                      developers discover it; only small hotel projects continue as tourism enters third
                      soft year. National Real Estate Investor. 28.149 50 + D '86

                Lichty, R. W., and D. N. Steinnes. 1982. Ely, Minnesota: Measuring the Impact of
                      Tourism on a Small Community. Growth and Change, 13(2), April 1982, pages 36
                      39

                Liu, J. C. et al. 1986. Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts in Hawaii. Annals of


                Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







          Page 1106                                                                                         Appendix 4



                   Tourism Research: a social sciences journaL 13:193 2 14 no 2 '86

          Livengood, K. R. 1983. Value of Big Game from Markets for Hunting Leases: The
                   Hedonic Approach. Land Economics, 59(3), pages 287 91

          Loomis, J., M. Creel, and T. A. Park. 1991. Comparing Benefit Estimates from Travel
                   Cost and Contingent Valuation Using Confidence Intervals for Hicksian Welfare
                   Measures. Applied Economics; 23(11), pages 1725 31

          Louviere, J. J., and H. J. P. Timmermans. 1990. Using Hierarchical Information
                   Integration to Model Consumer Responses to Possible Planning Actions: Recreation
                   Destination Choice Illustration. Environment and Planning A; 220, pages 291 308

          Lovel, H at al. 1992. Tourism and community development. Community Development
                   Journah an in terna tional forum. 2 7.-*353-4 10.


          Martin, C. A., and S. F. Witt. 1989. Forecasting Tourism Demand: A Comparison of the
                   Accuracy of Several Quantitative Methods. International Journal of Forecasting,
                   5(l), 1989, pages 7-19.

          McConnell, K. E., and 1. E. Strand. 1983. Measuring the Cost of Time in Recreation
                   Demand Analysis: Reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65(l), pages
                   172-74.


          McConnell, K. E., and 1. Strand. 1981. Measuring the Cost of Time in Recreation Demand
                   Analysis: An Application to Sportfishing. American Journal of Agricultural
                   Economics; 63(l), pages 153-56.

          McConnell, K. E. 1979. Values of Marine Recreational Fishing: Measurement and Impact
                   of Measurement. American Journal of Agricultural Economics; 61(5), pages 92 1-
                   25.

          McKercher, B. 1992. Tourism as a conflicting land use. Annals- of Tourism Research: a
                   social sciences journal. 19.46 7 81 no 3 '92

          Meganck, R. A. 1991. Coastal parks as development catalysts: a Caribbean example.
                   Ocean and Shoreline Management. 15:25 36 no 1 '91

          Miller,  M. at al. 1991. Coastal zone tourism: a potent force affecting environment and
                   society. Marine Policy. the internationaljournal of ocean affairs. 15:75 99 Mr '91

          Miller, J. R., and M. J. Hay. 1981. Determinants of Hunter Participation: Duck Hunting in
                   the Mississippi Flyway. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63t4), pages
                   677-84.


          Miller, M. et al. 1986. Travel, tourism, and marine affairs. CoastalZone Management
                   Journah environment, resources and law. 14:1 19 nos 1 (2): '86.

          Mitchell, C. J. A., and G. Wall. 1989. The Arts and Employment: A Case Study of the


                                        Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                Appendix 4                                                                         Page 107



                        Stratford Festival. Growth and Change; 20(4), pages 31-40.

                O'Boyle, S. 1985. "Selling" South Carolina overseas. Business and Economic Review.
                        32:25 9 0 '85


                O'Hagan, J., and D. Mooney. 1983. Input Output Multipliers in a Small Open Economy:
                        An Application to Tourism. Economic and Social Review, 14(4), pages 273-79.

                O'Riordan, T. 1973. An Analysis of the Use and Management of Campgrounds in British
                        Columbia Provincial Parks. Economic Geography; 49(4), pages 298-308.

                Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1980. The impact of tourism on
                        the environment: general report. Org Econ Coop and Development 148p.

                Patton, S. G. 1985. Tourism and Local Economic Development: Factory Outlets and the
                        Reading SMSA. Growth and Change; 160, pages 64-73.

                Pizam, A. 1980. The benefits of farm tourism to rural communities: the Massachusetts
                        case.


                Purinton, B. et al. 1991. Planning and design issues for scenic byways. Transportation
                        Quarterly: an independent journal for better transportation

                Ryan, C. 1991. Recreational tourism: A social science perspective. London and New
                        York: Routledge, 199 1, pages xi, 22 7

                Saliba, L. J. 1990. Coastal land use and environmental problems in the Mediterranean.
                        Land Use Policy. 7:217 30 J1 '90

                Simmons, M. 1991. Tourism: a comprehensive approach. Management Information
                        Service Report. 23.1 15 My '91

                Sinclair, M. T., and C. M. S. Sutcliffe. 1982. Keynesian Income Multipliers with First and
                        Second Round Effects: An Application to Tourist Expenditure. Oxford Bulletin of
                        Economics and Statistics, 44t4), pages 321-38.

                Smith, V. K., and R. J. Kopp. 1980. The Spatial Limits of the Travel Cost Recreational
                        Demand Model. Land Economics, 56fl), pages 64-72.

                Stabler, M. J. 1988. The Image of Destination Regions: Theoretical and Empirical
                        Aspects. Goodall, Brian, ed, Ashworth, Gregory, ed Marketing in the tourism
                        industry: The promotion of destination regions. London and Sydney: Croom Helm;
                        distributed by Methuen, New York, 1988, pages 133 61

                Stringer, P. F. . E. 1984. The social psychology of tourism: special issue. Annals of
                        Tourism Research: a social sciences journal. 11:5 166 no 1 '84

                Sutcliffe, C. M. S., and M. T. Sinclair. 1980. The Measurement of Seasonality within the
                        Tourist Industry: An Application to Tourist Arrivals in Spain. Applied Economics;


                Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






         Page 108                                                                       Appendix 4



                12(4), pages 429-4 1.

         Swanson, L. D. 1990. Montana's natural resource industries: past and emerging trends in
                the state's economic base. Montana Business Quarterly. 28:19 29 Spring '90

         Throckmorton, H. B. 1981. A Bibliographical Note on Energy Conservation and Historic
                Preservation. Journal of Cultural Economics, 5(2), pages 91-94.

         U.S. Travel Data Center. [annual] Outlook for travel and tourism: proceedings of the annual
                Travel Outlook Forum. U.S. Travel Data Center Washington, DC.

         United States. House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 1981. National tourism
                programs and policies: hearing, February 18, 1981, on H.R. 1311 and S. 304, bills
                to establish a national tourism policy and an independent government agency to
                carry out the national tourism policy. Washington, DC 20515 iii + 1 84p.

         United States Federal Highway Admin. 1990. An analysis and summary of the 1990
                National Scenic Byways Study Inventory. Washington, DC 20590 vi + 137p.


         United States Senate Com. On Commer. , Science. 1989. Federal poliby on tourism:
         hearing, October 26, 1989. Supt Docs iii + 145p.

         United States Senate Com. On Commer. , Science. 1989. Importance of scenic byways to
                travel and tourism: hearing, April 14, 1989. Supt Docs iii + 90p.

         United States Senate Com. On Commer. , Science. 1982. Economic impact of tourism:
                hearings, February 24 25, 1982, on economic importance of the travel and tourism
                industry. Washington, DC 205 10 iv + 151 p.

         Van, S. A., and P. Kooreman. 1987. A Micro econometric Analysis    of Vacation
                Behaviour. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 2(3), pages 215-26.

         Vaughan, D. R., and P. Booth. 1989. The Economic Importance of Tourism and the Arts
                in Merseyside. Journal of Cultural Economics, 13(2), pages 21 34

         Vaughan, W. J., and C. S. Russell. 1981. An Analysis of Participation in Nonconsumptive
                Wildlife Recreation: Comment. Land Economics; 57(2), pages 279 87

         Vining, J. E. 1990. Social science and natural resource recreation management. Westview
                xix + 330p.

         Ward, F. A. 1983. Measuring the Cost of Time in Recreation Demand Analysis:
                Comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics; 65(l), February 1983,
                pages 167 68

         Waters, S. R. [annual]. Travel industry world yearbook: the big picture Child & Waters
                Inc., 516 5th Av., New York, NY 10036 155p.



                                 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







               Appendix 4                                                                    Page 109



               Webster, D. 1987. Tourism and economic growth. Crown Agents Review. p 8 15 no 3 '87


               Wiener, L. W. 1980. Cultural Resources: An Old Asset A New Market for Tourism.
                      Journal of Cultural Economics, 4(l):1-7.

               Wilkinson, P. F. 1978. Environmental impact of outdoor recreation and tourism: a
                      bibliography. Vance Bibliographies.

               Williams, A. M., and G. Shaw. 1988. Tourism and economic development: Western
                      European experiences. London and New York: Pinter, Belhaven Press, distributed by
                      Columbia University Press, New York.

               Williams, A. M.. and G. Shaw. 1988. Tourism: candyfloss industry or job generator?
                      Town Planning Review. 59:81-103.

               Williams, A. M., and G. Shaw. 1992. Tourism: trends and research issues. American
                      Behavioral Scientist. 36.133-256.


               Wilman, E. A. 1980 The Value of Time in Recreation Benefit Studies. Journal of
                      Environmental Economics and Management; 70, pages 2 72-86

               Witt, S. F. 1983. A Binary Choice Model of Foreign Holiday Demand. Journal of
                      Economic Studies; 10(l), 1983, pages 46-59

               Witt, S. F. 1980. An Abstract Mode Abstract (Destination) Node Model of Foreign
                      Holiday Demand. Applied Economics; 120, June 1980, pages 163 80

               World Tourism Organization. 1989. Compendium of tourism statistics, 1984-1988. World
                      Tourism Org.

               World Tourism Organization. 1990. Compendium of tourism statistics, 1985-1989. World
                      Tourism Org.

               World Tourism Organization. 1992, 1991. 1989. Yearbook of tourism statistics. World
                      Tourism Org.

               World Tourism Organization. 1992. Compendium of tourism statistics, 1986-1990.
                      World Tourism Org.

               Zelinsky, W. 1990. Coming to America: tourists from other lands are a large, affluent, and
                      growing market for U.S. businesses. American Demographics. 12:44 7+ Ag '90










               Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia







        Page 110                                                                         Appendix 4



                           Wildlife and Natural Resources-


        Ascher, W., and R. Healy. 1990. Natural Resource Poficymaking in Developing Countries.
        Duke University Press, Durham.

           1980. An assessment of the forest and range land situation. in the United States.
               Washington, DC 20250 xxvi + 631 p.

        Bockstael, N. E., and K. E. McConnell. Theory and Estimation of the Household Production
               Function for Wildlife Recreation. Journal of Environmental Economics and
               Management; 80, September 1981, pages 199 214

        Bowes, M. D.,and J. V. Krutilla. 1989. Multiple use management: the economics of public
               forestlands. Johns Hopkins Univ Pr xxiii + 357p.

        Hay, M. J., and K. E. McConnell. Harvesting and Nonconsumptive Wildlife Recreation
               Decisions. Land Economics; 60(4), November 1984, pages 388 96

        Hay, M. J., and K. E. McConnell. An Analysis of Participation in Nonconsumptive Wildlife
               Recreation. Land Economics, 55M, November 1979, pages 460 71

        Hay, 10. J., and K. E. McConnell. An Analysis of Participation in Nonconsumptive Wildlife
               Recreation: Reply. Land Economics, 57(2), May 1981, pages 288 92

        Mangun, W. R., and Shaw, W. W. 1984. Alternative mechanisms for funding nongame
               wildlife conservation fbased on data from the 1980 National Survey of Fishing,
               Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation]. Public Administration Review. 44:407
               13 SIO '84


        Milon, J. W., and R. Clemmons. Hunters' Demand for Species Variety. Land Economics;
               67(4), November 1991, pages 401 12

        Rockel, M. L., and M. Jo. Kealy. The Value of Nonconsumptive Wildlife Recreation in the
               United States. Land Economics; 67(4), November 199 1, pages 422 34

        United States Fish. 1982. National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife associated
               recreation, 1980. Supt Docs viii + 156p.

        United States Forest Service. 1981. An assessment of the forest and range land situation
               in the United States. Supt Docs xviii + 352p.

        Vaughan, W. J., and C. S. Russell. An Analysis of Participation in Nonconsumptive Wildlife
               Recreation: Comment. Land Economics; 5 7(2), May 198 1, pages 2 79 8 7








                                 Economic Impacts of Sustainable Development in Northampton County, Virginia






                                                                                                                            NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY
                                                                                                    I

                                                                                                                           3 6668 4111973 7