Laserfiche WebLink
<br />b. <br /> <br />001333 <br />Policy Sciences Associates <br /> <br />1906 13th street, suite 101 <br />boulder, colorado 80302 <br />(3 43-7812 <br /> <br />February 24, 1981 <br /> <br /> <br />. . <br />".'ill') <br />'/i, 03 <br />~81 <br /> <br />':'...i,', <br />'" lr'<.." <br />") <br />, I' <br />.' / <br />II <br /> <br />Director, Colorado Water Conservation <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br /> <br />Board <br /> <br />j <br />lbl\t <br /> <br />Dear Sir: <br /> <br />Policy Sciences Associates has completed its review of the computerized <br />water-based recreational activity allocation program (COWRISM) called <br />for in contract number C153239, dated September 1, 1980. This letter, <br />together with its appended materials constitutes our final report under <br />this contract. <br /> <br />We have run the subject program on both the University of Colorado and <br />Colorado State University computer systems. The program runs adequately <br />on both systems. Minor technical difficulties which did not affect the <br />validity of output were discovered, and we have contracted with the <br />Colorado State University Computer Center to correct these difficulties. <br />This discharges our responsibility under item l.a. of the contract. <br /> <br />We have evaluated the empirical non-hydrologic data base available for <br />use with the program. This data base is, in general, relevant with one <br />exception, but is severely limited with respect to precision and <br />completeness. <br /> <br />The data file on potential recreational demand is the one part of the <br />data base which is not relevant. It represents an historical record of <br />actual recreational activity, not of potential demand. The effect of <br />employing this data file is to introduce a systematic bias in the opera- <br />tion of the program. In all cases it will cause underestimates in ac- <br />tual recreational activity when the program is run. One option to cor- <br />rect this difficulty would be to survey potential recreationists in an <br />attempt to estimate how many recreational visits they would choose to <br />make if not constrained by distance from recreation sites, by unfavor- <br />able streamflow levels, and by crowding. We believe this option to be <br />both unreasonably costly and of dubious reliability. A superior option <br />would involve revising the program to derive estimated demand from his- <br />torical use statistics. This option will be discussed subsequently <br />under model revisions. <br /> <br />We found the data base to be generally lacking with respect to prec1s1on. <br />The recreational demand estimates are based upon a survey of 6,000 re- <br />spondents conducted by the Colorado Division of Parks and Recreation in <br />1971. The sample size appears to be adequate, but the data are now a <br /> <br />applied social science research and public policy analysis <br />