National Visitor Use
Monitoring Results
August 2001
USDA Forest Service
Region 2
RIO GRANDE NATIONAL
FOREST
Scope and purpose of the National Visitor Use
Monitoring project
CHAPTER 1:
SAMPLE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
The NVUM Process and Definition of Terms 4
Constraints On Uses of the Results 5
The Forest Stratification Results 5
CHAPTER 2:
VISITATION ESTIMATES
Table 2.
Annual recreation use estimates by forest for region 2. 1/
Table 3.
Gender distribution of Rio Grande National Forest visitors. 8
Table 4.
Age distribution of Rio Grande National Forest visitors. 8
Table 5.
Race/ethnicity of Rio Grande National Forest visitors. 9
Table 6.
Zip codes of Rio Grande National Forest recreation visitors. 10
Average number of people per vehicle and
average axle count per vehicle in survey
CHAPTER 3: WILDERNESS VISITORS. 11
Table 7.
Age distribution of Wilderness visitors on Rio Grande National Forest. 11
Table 8.
Race/ethnicity of Rio Grande National Forest Wilderness visitors. 11
Table 9.
Zip codes of Rio Grande National Forest Wilderness visitors. 12
Table 10.
Satisfaction of visitors at designated Wilderness on Rio Grande National
Forest.
CHAPTER 4: DESCRIPTION OF THE VISIT. 14
Table 12.
Rio Grande National Forest site visit length of stay (in hours) by
site/type.
Table 13.
Activity participation and primary activity for the Rio Grande National
Forest.
Use of constructed facilities and designated
areas
Table 15.
Substitute behavior choices of visitors on Rio Grande National Forest. 17
Average yearly spending on outdoor recreation. 17
Visitors average spending on a trip to Rio
Grande National Forest
Visitor Satisfaction Information. 18
Table 17.
Satisfaction of visitors at Day Use Developed Sites on the Rio Grande
National Forest.
Table 18.
Satisfaction of visitors at Overnight Developed Sites Rio Grande
National Forest.
Table 19.
Satisfaction of visitors in General Forest Areas on Rio Grande National
Forest.
Other comments from visitors 22
The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) project was implemented as a response to the need to better understand the use of, importance of and satisfaction with national forest system recreation opportunities. National forest plans, Executive Order 12862 (Setting Customer Service Standards), and implementation of the National Recreation Agenda require this level of understanding. The agency’s Strategic and Annual Performance Plans require measuring trends in user satisfaction and use levels to be able to improve public service. It will assist Congress, Forest Service leaders, and program managers in making sound decisions that best serve the public and protect valuable natural resources by providing science based, reliable information about the type, quantity, quality and location of recreation use on public lands. The information collected is also important to external customers including state agencies and private industry. NVUM methodology and analysis is explained in detail in the research paper entitled: Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring Process: Research Method Documentation; English, Kocis, Zarnoch, and Arnold; SE Experiment Station; May 2001 (http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/recuse/recuse.shtml).
In conjunction with guidelines and recommendations from the Outdoor Recreation Review Commission, the USDA-Forest Service has estimated recreation use and maintained records since the 1950s. Many publications on preferred techniques for estimating recreation use at developed and dispersed recreation sites were sponsored by Forest Service Research Stations and Universities. Implementation of these recommended methodologies takes specific skills, a dedicated work force, and strict adherence to an appropriate sampling plan. The earliest estimates were designed to estimate use at developed fee recreation facilities such as campgrounds. These estimates have always been fairly reliable because they are based upon readily observable, objective counts of items such as a fee envelope.
Prior to the mid-1990s,
the forest Service used its Recreation Information Management (RIM) system to
store and analyze recreation use information.
Forest managers often found they lacked the resources to both manage the
recreation facilities and simultaneously monitor visitor use following the
established protocols. In 1996, the RIM
monitoring protocols were no longer required to be used.
In 1998 a group of research and forest staff were appointed to investigate and pilot a recreation sampling system that would be cost effective and provide statistical recreation use information at the forest, national, and regional level. Since that time, a permanent sampling system (NVUM) has been developed. Several Forest Service staff areas including Recreation, Wilderness, Ecosystem Management, Research and Strategic Planning and Resource Assessment are involved in implementing the program. A four-year cycle of data collection was established. In any given year, 25 percent of the national forests conduct on-site interviews and sampling of recreation visitors. The first 25 percent of the forests included in the first four-year cycle completed sampling in December of 2000. The last 25 percent of the first, four-year cycle forests will complete their sampling in September 2003. The cycle begins again in October 2004. This ongoing cycle will provide quality recreation information needed for improving citizen centered recreation services.
NVUM has standardized definitions of visitor use measurement to ensure that all national forest visitor measurements are comparable. These definitions are the same as established by the forest Service since the 1970s, however the application of the definition is stricter. Visitors must pursue a recreation activity physically located “on” Forest Service managed land in order to be counted. They cannot be passing through; viewing from non-Forest Service managed roads, or just using restroom facilities. The NVUM basic use measurements are national forest visits and site visits. In addition, information about the visitor’s trip is also collected. Along with these use measurements basic statistics, which indicate the precision of the estimate, are given. These statistics include the confidence level, and error rate. The definitions of these terms follow.
National forest visit - the entry of one person upon a national forest to participate in recreation activities for an unspecified period of time. A national forest visit can be composed of multiple site visits.
Site visit - the entry of one person onto a national forest site or area to participate in recreation activities for an unspecified period of time.
Recreation trip – the duration of time beginning when the visitor left their home and ending when they got back to their home.
Confidence
level and error rate - used together these two
terms define the reliability of the estimated visits. The confidence interval defines the range of values around the
estimated visits with a specified level of certainty. The error rate (which is never a bad thing like making an error
on a test) is the upper and lower bounds of the confidence interval. The lower the error rate and the higher the
confidence level the better the estimate.
An 80 percent confidence interval is very acceptable at a broad national
or forest scale. The two terms are used
to statistically describe the estimate.
For example: At the 80 percent
confidence level there are 209 million national forest visits plus or minus 17
percent. In other words we are 80
percent confident that the true number of national forest visits lies between
173.5 million and 244.5 million.
To participate
in the NVUM process, forests first categorized all recreation sites and areas
into six basic categories
called “site types”: Day Use Developed
Sites (DUDS), Overnight Use Developed Sites (OUDS), Wilderness, General Forest
Areas (GFA), On-Forest Viewing Corridors (OFVC), and Off-Forest Recreation
Activities. Only the first four
categories are considered “true” national forest visits and were included in
the estimate provided. Within these
broad categories every open day of the year for each site/area was rated as
either high, medium or low exiting recreation use. Sites and areas that were closed or had “0” use was also
identified. Each day on which a site or
area is open is called a site day and is the basic sampling unit for the
survey. Results of this forest
categorization are shown in Table 1.
A map showing all General Forest Exit locations and On-Forest Viewing
Corridors was prepared. Both the
categorization and the map are archived with the NVUM data for use in future
sample years. NVUM also provided
training materials, equipment, survey forms, funding, and the protocol
necessary for the forest to gather visitor use information.
NVUM terms used in the site categorization framework are defined below:
Site day - a day that a recreation site or area is open to the public
for recreation purposes.
Site types -- stratification of a forest recreation site or area into one
of six broad categories as defined in the paper: Forest Service National
Visitor Use Monitoring Process: Research Method Documentation, May 2001,
English et al. The six categories are
Day Use Developed sites (DUDS), Overnight Use Developed Sites (OUDS), General
Forest Areas (GFA), Wilderness (WILD), On-Forest View Corridors (OFVC), and
Off-Forest Recreation Activities (Off Forest).
Proxy –
information collected at a recreation site or area that is related to the
amount of recreation visitation received.
The proxy information must pertain to all users of the site, it must be
an exact tally of use and it must be one of the proxy types allowed in the NVUM
pre-work directions (fee receipts, fee envelopes, mandatory permits, permanent
traffic counters, ticket sales, and daily use records).
Nonproxy – a
recreation site or area that does not have proxy information. At these sites a 24-hour traffic count is
taken to measure total use for one day at the sample site.
Use level strata - for either
proxy or nonproxy sites, each day that a recreation site or area was open for
recreation, the site day was categorized as either high, medium or low exiting
recreation traffic, or closed. Closed
was defined as either administratively closed or “0” use. For example Sabino Picnic Area (a DUDS
nonproxy site) is closed for 120 days, has high exiting use on open weekends
(70 days) and medium exiting recreation use on open midweek days (175
days). This accounts for all 365 days
of the year at Sabino Picnic area. This
process was repeated for every developed site and area on the forest.
The information presented here is valid and applicable at the forest
level. It is not designed to be
accurate at the district or site level.
The quality of the visitation estimate is dependent on the preliminary
sample design development, sampling unit selection, sample size and
variability, and survey implementation.
First, preliminary work conducted by forests to classify sites
consistently according to the type and amount of visitation influences the
quality of the estimate. Second,
visitors sampled must be representative of the population of all visitors. Third, the number of visitors sampled must
be large enough to adequately control variability. Finally, the success of the forest in accomplishing its assigned
sample days, correctly filling out the interview forms, and following the
sample protocol influence the error rate.
The error rate and coefficient of variation will reflect all these
factors. The smaller the error rate,
the better the estimate. Interviewer
error in asking the questions is not reflected in this error rate.
Some forest visitors were counted and included in the total forest use
estimate but were not surveyed. This
included visitors to recreation special events and organization camps.
The results of the recreation site/area categorization and accomplished
sample days done by this forest are displayed in Table 1. This table describes the population of
available site days open for sampling.
This information was obtained from work done by the forest prior to the
actual surveys. Every site and area on
the forest was categorized as high, medium, low, or closed exiting recreation
use. This categorization was then used
to randomly select sampling days for this forest. The project methods paper listed on page 1 describes the sampling
process and sample allocation formulas in detail. Basically, at least eight sample days per stratum are randomly
selected for sampling and more days are added if the stratum is very
large. Also displayed on the table is
the percentage of sample days per stratum accomplished by the forest.
|
Nonproxy
|
Proxy |
||
Strata |
Total
days in nonproxy population |
Days
sampled # percent |
Total
days in proxy population |
Days
sampled # percent |
OUDS H |
299 |
10 3.3 |
|
|
OUDS M |
628 |
8 1.3 |
2891 |
8 0.3 |
OUDS L |
1742 |
7 0.4 |
|
|
DUDS H |
165 |
10 6.1 |
|
|
DUDS M |
710 |
11 1.5 |
481 |
4 0.8 |
DUDS L |
3842 |
4 0.1 |
|
|
Wild H |
775 |
14 1.8 |
|
|
Wild M |
1351 |
14 1.0 |
|
|
Wild L |
4811 |
9 0.2 |
|
|
GFA H |
2152 |
18 0.8 |
|
|
GFA M |
3577 |
7 0.2 |
96 |
2 2.0 |
GFA L |
24106 |
11 0.04 |
|
|
TOTALS |
44158 |
123 |
3468 |
14 |
Nationally there were 209
million national forest visits plus or minus 17 percent error rate at the 80
percent confidence level. These visitors
participated in 257 million site visits that included 14.3 million Wilderness
visits. Additionally, another 258
million people enjoyed viewing national forest scenery from non-Forest Service
managed travel ways. A national report
with additional information is available (http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/recuse/recuse.shtml).
Region 2, the “Rocky Mountain Region” includes national forest system lands in Colorado, South Dakota, Nebraska, and parts of Wyoming. It received 37.7 million national forest visits +/-43.1 at the 80 percent confidence level. As shown in Table 2, three national forests in Region 2 were sampled in the first year of the project. The results from these forests were then expanded to estimate total regional recreation use.
The Rio Grande National Forest participated in the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) project from January 1 through December 31, 2000. The main contact person was Greg Thompson. The forest accomplished the interviews using 8 forest service employees. The interviewers felt the traffic counters were accurate about 75 percent of the time. The forest was assigned 213 sample days and accomplished 149 of them (missed 30 percent of the days assigned). Most missed days were from one district. The forest and national team have not been able to determine what happened to the missed days. Some were truly missed and others were either lost in the mail or never sent in.
|
National
Forest Visits |
Site
Visits |
Wilderness
Visits |
|||
Forest |
Visits (millions) |
Error Rate |
Visits
(millions) |
Error
Rate |
Visits (millions) |
Error Rate |
Rio Grande |
1.3 |
32.3 |
1.8 |
28.2 |
0.06 |
27.1 |
Arapaho Roosevelt |
6.2 |
14.9 |
7.8 |
14.0 |
0.4 |
50.2 |
San Juan |
1.9 |
9.6 |
2.2 |
9.4 |
0.1 |
20.7 |
R2 expanded use
estimate for CY 2000 2/ |
37.7 |
43.1 |
47.5 |
42.7 |
2.3 |
49.7 |
1/ Region 2,
the “Rocky Mountain Region” includes national forest units in Colorado,
Nebraska, South Dakota and parts of Wyoming.
2/ Calendar year
Recreation use on the Rio
Grande National Forest for calendar year 2000 at the 80 percent confidence
level was 1.3 million national forest visits +/- 32.3 percent. There were 1.8 million site visits, an
average of 1.4 site visits per National Forest visit. Included in the site visit estimate are 58,548 Wilderness visits.
A total of 477 visitors were contacted on the Rio Grande National
Forest during the sample year. Of
these, 12 percent refused to be interviewed.
Of the 421 people who agreed to be interviewed, about 9 percent were not
recreating, including 0.2 percent who just stopped to use the bathroom, 2.1
percent were working, 4.8 percent were just passing through, and 1.7 percent
had some other reason to be there.
About 91 percent of those interviewed said their primary purpose on the
forest was recreation and 93 percent of them were exiting for the last
time. Of the visitors leaving the
forest agreeing to be interviewed, about 85 percent were last exiting
recreation visitors (the target interview population).
Basic descriptors of the forest visitors
were developed based upon those visitors interviewed then expanded to the
National Forest visitor population.
Eighty-nine percent of the Rio Grande National Forest visitors were male
and 11 percent were female (Table 3).
About seventeen percent of the visitors were under age 16 and not
interviewed. About 2 percent of the
visitors were over 70 years old and the 51-60 year old age group comprised 23
percent of the visitors. See Table 4
for a complete age group breakout.
Gender |
88.9 percent males |
11.1 percent females |
Age Group |
Percent in group |
Under 16 |
17.3 |
16-20 |
5.2 |
21-30 |
9.6 |
31-40 |
14.6 |
41-50 |
19.6 |
51-60 |
23.4 |
61-70 |
8.2 |
Over 70 |
2.1 |
Visitors categorized themselves into one of 7
race/ethnicity categories. 80.2 percent
of the visitors were ethnically white and 19.4 percent were Hispanic. Table 5 gives a detailed breakout by category.
Category |
Total percent national forest visits |
Black/African American |
0 |
Asian |
0 |
White |
80.2 |
American Indian/Alaska Native |
.4 |
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander |
0 |
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino |
19.4 |
Other |
0 |
About 11.2 percent of forest visitors were from another country. The survey did not collect country
affiliation. Visitors most frequently
reported zip codes are shown in Table 6.
The forest can determine what percent of local visitor use they have by
comparing the local Forest zip codes to those listed. The zip code data for the forest will also soon be available on a
database. There were 224 different zip
codes reported. This information can be
used with programs such as “fipzip” for more extensive analysis.
Zip Code |
Frequency |
Percent |
81101 |
18 |
5.4 |
81144 |
17 |
5.1 |
81147 |
16 |
4.8 |
81130 |
8 |
2.4 |
81120 |
7 |
2.1 |
81154 |
7 |
2.1 |
81132 |
4 |
1.2 |
81140 |
4 |
1.2 |
53405 |
3 |
0.9 |
77652 |
3 |
0.9 |
78624 |
3 |
0.9 |
80232 |
3 |
0.9 |
81149 |
3 |
0.9 |
81301 |
3 |
0.9 |
87505 |
3 |
0.9 |
87520 |
3 |
0.9 |
68048 |
2 |
0.6 |
74006 |
2 |
0.6 |
78232 |
2 |
0.6 |
80209 |
2 |
0.6 |
80210 |
2 |
0.6 |
80510 |
2 |
0.6 |
80904 |
2 |
0.6 |
80918 |
2 |
0.6 |
81125 |
2 |
0.6 |
81141 |
2 |
0.6 |
83303 |
2 |
0.6 |
85351 |
2 |
0.6 |
87015 |
2 |
0.6 |
87109 |
2 |
0.6 |
87110 |
2 |
0.6 |
87112 |
2 |
0.6 |
87124 |
2 |
0.6 |
87401 |
2 |
0.6 |
87571 |
2 |
0.6 |
There was an average of 2.6 people per vehicle on the forest with an average of 2.1 axles per vehicle. This information in conjunction with traffic counts was used to expand observations from individual interviews to the full forest population of recreation visitors. This information may be useful to forest engineers and others who use vehicle counters to conduct traffic studies.
Several questions on the NVUM survey form dealt directly with use of designated Wilderness. Wilderness was sampled 37 days on the forest. There were 72 percent male and 28 percent female visitors to Wilderness on the forest. See Table 7 for the age distribution.
Age Group |
Percent
in group |
Under 16 |
18.5 |
16-20 |
1.5 |
21-30 |
1.8 |
31-40 |
37.3 |
41-50 |
13.3 |
51-60 |
14.8 |
61-70 |
10.3 |
Over 70 |
2.5 |
The majority of the Wilderness visitors were
ethnically white (90.8 percent) and almost 9 percent were Hispanic. See Table 8 for race/ethnicity
distribution.
Category |
Total
percent national forest visits |
Black/African American |
0 |
Asian |
0.1 |
White |
90.8 |
American Indian/Alaska Native |
0 |
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander |
0 |
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino |
9.1 |
Other |
0 |
The Wilderness visitors were from a wide
variety of zip codes. The distribution
of Wilderness visitor zip codes is shown in Table 9. There were 115 different zip codes reported.
Zip Code |
Frequency |
Percent |
81101 |
6 |
4.6 |
81120 |
4 |
3.1 |
53405 |
2 |
1.5 |
68408 |
2 |
1.5 |
74006 |
2 |
1.5 |
80210 |
2 |
1.5 |
80918 |
2 |
1.5 |
81144 |
2 |
1.5 |
83303 |
2 |
1.5 |
109 other zip codes |
1 each |
0.8 each |
The average length of stay in Wilderness on
the forest was 15.1 hours. In addition,
all visitors were asked on how many different days they entered into designated
Wilderness during their national forest visit even if we interviewed them at a
developed recreation site or general forest area. Of those visitors who did
enter designated Wilderness, they entered 3.9 different days.
Almost 2 percent of those interviewed in
Wilderness said they used the services of a commercial guide.
Table 10 gives detailed information about how
the Wilderness visitors rated various aspects of the area. An example of how to interpret the
information: Visitors rated the importance of the condition of forest roads a
3.8 (important) and they rated their satisfaction with the condition of forest
roads a 2.9 (somewhat satisfied). This means the forest could increase visitor
satisfaction on the value for the fee paid.
Nine percent of visitors said the condition of forest roads was poor and
36 percent said the condition was fair.
Item Name |
Item by percent response category by* P F A
G VG |
Mean ** Satisfaction Of visitors |
Mean** Importance To visitors |
Scenery |
0 0 0 24 76 |
4.7 |
4.5 |
Available parking |
0 30 14 23 33 |
3.6 |
3.3 |
Parking lot condition |
0 31 16 31 22 |
3.4 |
3.0 |
Cleanliness of restrooms |
0 0 23 60 17 |
3.9 |
3.9 |
Condition of the natural environment |
0 0 3 39 58 |
4.5 |
4.7 |
Condition of developed recreation facilities |
0 0 29 71 0 |
3.7 |
3.8 |
Condition of forest roads |
9 36 21 22 12 |
2.9 |
3.8 |
Condition of forest trails |
2 3 3 79 13 |
4.0 |
4.1 |
Availability of information on recreation |
7 10 43 26 14 |
3.2 |
3.9 |
Feeling of safety |
0 0 13 52 35 |
4.2 |
4.1 |
Adequacy of signage |
7 13 42 23 15 |
3.2 |
4.0 |
Helpfulness of employees |
0 0 5 56 39 |
4.3 |
3.6 |
Attractiveness of the forest landscape |
0 0 12 12 76 |
4.6 |
4.9 |
Value for fee paid |
0 0 0 34 66 |
4.7 |
4.8 |
* Scale is: P = poor F = fair
A = average G = good VG = very good
** Scale is: 1= not very
satisfied /important 2 = somewhat
satisfied/ important 3 = moderately
satisfied/ important 4 = satisfied/ important 5 = very satisfied/ important
Wilderness visitors on the average rated
their visit 4.0 (on a scale from 1 to 10) concerning crowding, meaning they
felt there were few people there. Less
than two percent said the area they visited was overcrowded (a 10 on the scale)
and 10 percent said there was hardly anyone there (a 1 on the scale).
The Wilderness visitors on the forest spent
an average of $1,041.18 within 50 miles of the Wilderness. They also spend an average of $3,182.23
annually on all outdoor recreation related expenditures (see Table11).
Expenditure category |
Average expenditure $00.00 |
|
Government owned lodging |
0.11 |
|
Privately owned lodging |
371.19 |
|
Food/drink at restaurants and bars |
95.12 |
|
Other food and beverages |
237.11 |
|
Gasoline and oil |
122.43 |
|
Other transportation (plane, bus, etc.) |
0 |
|
Activities (including guide fees and equipment
rental) |
0 |
|
Entry, parking, or recreation use fees |
15.37 |
|
Souvenirs/ clothing |
127.63 |
|
Any other expenses |
0 |
Through the interview process a description of what visitors did during
their national forest visit was also developed. This basic information includes participation in various
recreation activities, length of stay on the national forest and at recreation
sites, visitor satisfaction with national forest facilities and services, and
economic expenditures.
The average length of stay on Rio Grande National Forest for a national
forest visit was 145 hours. Eleven
percent of visitors stayed overnight on the forest.
In addition, visitors reported how much time they spent on the specific
recreation site at which they were interviewed. Average time spent varied considerably by site and is displayed
in Table 12.
Site visit Average |
DUDS |
OUDS |
Wilderness |
GFA |
13.8 |
3.9 |
27.5 |
15.1 |
16.1 |
The average Rio Grande National Forest visitor went to 1.4 sites during
their national forest visit. Forest visitors
sometimes go to just one national forest site or area during their visit. For example, downhill skiers may just go the
ski area and nowhere else. Seventy-five
percent of visitors went only to the site at which they were interviewed.
During their visit to Rio Grande National Forest the top five
recreation activities of the visitors were viewing scenery, viewing
wildlife/nature, driving for pleasure, OHV travel, hiking/walking, and
bicycling (see Table 13). Each visitor
also picked one of these activities as their primary activity for their current
recreation visit to the forest. The top
primary activities were viewing scenery, viewing wildlife, hiking/walking,
hunting, driving for pleasure and OHV travel (see Table 13). Please note that the results of the NVUM
activity analysis DO NOT identify the types of activities visitors would like
to have offered on the national forests.
It also does not tell us about displaced forest visitors, those who no
longer visit the forest because the activities they desire are not
offered.
Activity |
Percent participation |
Percent who said it was their primary activity |
Camping in
developed sites (family or group) |
5 |
1 |
Primitive camping |
3 |
1 |
Backpacking, camping in unroaded areas |
4 |
2 |
Resorts, cabins and other accommodations on Forest
Service managed lands (private or Forest Service run) |
4 |
0 |
Picnicking and family day gatherings in developed
sites (family or group) |
27 |
12 |
**Viewing wildlife, birds, fish, etc on national
forest system lands |
75 |
56 |
**Viewing natural features such as scenery, flowers,
etc on national forest system lands |
78 |
68 |
Visiting historic and prehistoric sites/area |
6 |
0 |
Visiting a nature center, nature trail or visitor
information services |
6 |
0 |
Nature Study |
7 |
0 |
General/other- relaxing, hanging out, escaping noise
and heat, etc, |
30 |
6 |
Fishing- all types |
14 |
11 |
Hunting- all types |
18 |
18 |
Off-highway vehicle travel (4-wheelers, dirt bikes,
etc) |
52 |
17 |
Driving for pleasure on roads |
57 |
17 |
Snowmobile travel |
17 |
9 |
Motorized water travel (boats, ski sleds, etc) |
0 |
0 |
Other
motorized land/air activities (plane, other) |
0 |
0 |
Hiking or walking |
59 |
52 |
Horseback riding |
32 |
0 |
Bicycling, including mountain bikes |
35 |
0 |
Non-motorized water travel (canoe, raft, etc.) |
3 |
0 |
Downhill skiing or snowboarding |
10 |
10 |
Cross-country skiing, snow shoeing |
11 |
1 |
Other non-motorized activities (swimming, games and
sports) |
16 |
0 |
Gathering mushrooms, berries, firewood, or other
natural products |
4 |
0 |
*
less than 1 percent participation
** first
version of survey form used October through March had these two viewing categories
combined as viewing scenery
Twenty-five percent of the last exiting recreation visitors interviewed
were asked about the types of constructed facilities and special designated
areas they used during their visit. The
most used facilities were: forest roads, developed campgrounds, hiking trails,
and interpretive sites. The most used specially designated areas were scenic
byways and Wilderness. Table 14
provides a summary of facility and special area use.
Facility/ Area Type |
Percent who said they used (national forest visits) |
Developed campground |
33 |
Swimming area |
2 |
Hiking, biking, or horseback trails |
30 |
Scenic byway |
45 |
Designated Wilderness |
29 |
Visitor center, museum |
19 |
Forest Service office or other info site |
7 |
Picnic area |
16 |
Boat launch |
12 |
Designated Off Road Vehicle area |
18 |
Other forest roads |
56 |
Interpretive site |
20 |
Organization camp |
1 |
Developed fishing site/ dock |
8 |
Designated snowmobile area |
0 |
Downhill ski area |
0 |
Nordic ski area |
0 |
Lodges/Resorts on National Forest System land |
0 |
Fire Lookouts/Cabins Forest Service owned |
0 |
Designated snow play area |
0 |
Motorized developed trails |
15 |
Recreation residences |
5 |
* less than 1 percent participation
Twenty-five percent of visitors interviewed
were asked about the primary destination of their recreation trip. Since some people may incorporate a visit to
the national forests as only part of a larger trip away from home, not all
visitors chose the national forest as their primary destination. Of the 60
percent of visitor that went to other sites, 15 percent said this forest was
their primary trip destination.
Visitors were asked to select one of several
substitute choices, if for some reason they were unable to visit this national
forest. Their responses are shown in
Table 15. Thirty-seven percent of the
visitors would have gone somewhere other than this forest to pursue the same
activity, while 14.5 percent would have come back to this forest another time.
The average recreation visitor on the forest was away from home on their trip for 916 hours. Forty percent of the visitors went only to this national forest on their trip and 60 percent said they had gone to other places such as other national forests, parks or recreation areas.
In the 12 months prior to the interview the visitors had come to this
forest 2.5 times to participate in there identified main activity.
Substitute Choice |
Percent who would
have… |
Gone
somewhere else for the same activity |
36.9 |
Gone
somewhere else for a different activity |
2.3 |
Come
back another time |
14.5 |
Stayed
home |
3.2 |
Gone
to work at their regular job |
1.1 |
None
of these |
42.0 |
In a typical year, visitors to this forest
spent an average of $3,805.86 on all outdoor recreation activities including equipment,
recreation trips, memberships, and licenses.
Visitors estimated the amount of money spent they spent within a 50
mile radius of the recreation site at which they were interviewed during their
recreation trip to the area (which may include multiple national forest visits,
as well as visits to other forests or parks).
Table 16 shows average estimated expenditures by ten categories. These expenditures are higher than the true average
spending per person per national forest visit.
To obtain a correct average spending per national forest visit, these
figures would have to be reduced to account for spending that is attributable
to visits to other areas, and for visitors who make several separate national
forest visits during their stay in the area.
It is recommended that forests work with economists in their forest and
region to obtain the correct spending profiles and estimate the economic
impacts of this spending.
Expenditure Category |
Average expenditure $00.00 |
Government owned lodging |
1.00 |
Privately owned lodging |
566.93 |
Food/drink at restaurants and bars |
122.24 |
Other food and beverages |
197.20 |
Gasoline and oil |
159.32 |
Other transportation (plane, bus, etc.) |
9.12 |
Activities (including guide fees and equipment
rental) |
22.88 |
Entry, parking, or recreation use fees |
3.66 |
Souvenirs/ clothing |
33.66 |
Any other expenses |
21.13 |
Twenty-five percent of
visitors interviewed on the forest rated their satisfaction with the recreation
facilities and services provided.
Although their satisfaction ratings pertain to conditions at the
specific site or area they visited, this information is not valid at the site-specific
level. The survey design does not allow
enough responses for every individual site or area on the forest to draw these
conclusions. Rather, the information is
generalized to overall satisfaction with facilities and services on the forest
as a whole.
Visitors’
site-specific answers may be colored by a particular condition on a particular
day at a particular site. For example,
a visitor camping in a developed campground when all the forest personnel are
off firefighter and the site has not been cleaned. Perhaps the garbage had not been emptied or the toilets cleaned
during their stay, although the site usually receives excellent
maintenance. The visitor may have been
very unsatisfied with the cleanliness of restrooms.
In addition to how satisfied visitors were with facilities and services they were asked how important that particular facility or service was to the quality of their recreation experience. The importance of these elements to the visitors’ recreation experience is then analyzed in relation to their satisfaction. Those elements that were extremely important to a visitor’s overall recreation experience and the visitor rated as poor quality are those elements needing most attention by the forest. Those elements that were rated not important to the visitors’ recreation experience need the least attention.
Tables 17 through 19 summarize visitor satisfaction with the forest facilities and services by site type. In Table 19 note that visitors said the adequacy of signage was very important (4.8) to the quality of their recreation experience in general forest areas and they rated their satisfaction with the adequacy of signage as moderately satisfactory (3.7). The item by response category column in the second column of the table gives more information about how visitors answered the satisfaction question. For example, for adequacy of signage in general forest areas 24 percent of visitors rated their satisfaction with signage as poor, and 51 percent rated signage as very good. This may indicate that improving the signage in general forest areas can enhance visitor satisfaction.
Table 18 summarizes information about visitor satisfaction with Overnight Developed sites such as campgrounds and resorts on the forest and Table 19 summarizes the visitor’s satisfaction with the general forest areas. Wilderness satisfaction is reported in Table 10.
Item Name |
Item by percent response category by* P
F A G VG |
Mean ** Satisfaction Of visitors |
Mean** Importance To visitors |
Scenery |
0 0 0 11 89 |
4.9 |
4.7 |
Available parking |
0 0 24 35 41 |
4.2 |
3.6 |
Parking lot condition |
0 0 3 51 46 |
4.4 |
3.7 |
Cleanliness of
restrooms |
0 37 20 34 9 |
3.2 |
3.8 |
Condition of the
natural environment |
0 15 3 20 62 |
4.4 |
4.7 |
Condition of developed
recreation facilities |
0 0 33 42 25 |
3.9 |
3.8 |
Condition of forest
roads |
0 0 40 43 17 |
3.8 |
4.1 |
Condition of forest
trails |
0 10 0 54 36 |
4.1 |
3.6 |
Availability of
information on recreation |
0 7 48 18 27 |
3.6 |
3.9 |
Feeling of safety |
0 15 0 52 33 |
4.0 |
4.4 |
Adequacy of signage |
0 12 27 43 18 |
3.7 |
4.1 |
Helpfulness of
employees |
0 6 31 32 31 |
3.9 |
3.5 |
Attractiveness of the
forest landscape |
0 0 0 20 80 |
4.8 |
4.8 |
Value for fee paid |
8 0 18 4 70 |
4.3 |
3.1 |
* Scale is: P= poor F = fair
A = average G = good VG = very good
** Scale is: 1= not very satisfied
/important 2 = somewhat satisfied/
important 3 = moderately satisfied/
important 4 = satisfied/ important 5 = very satisfied/ important
Item Name |
Item by percent response category by* P
F A G VG |
Mean ** Satisfaction Of visitors |
Mean** Importance To visitors |
Scenery |
0 0 0 1 99 |
5.0 |
3.9 |
Available parking |
0 0 0 79 21 |
4.2 |
3.0 |
Parking lot condition |
0 0 22 71 7 |
3.8 |
2.1 |
Cleanliness of
restrooms |
0 0 22 10 68 |
4.5 |
2.2 |
Condition of the
natural environment |
0 0 0 38 62 |
4.6 |
2.1 |
Condition of developed
recreation facilities |
0 0 1 21 78 |
4.8 |
3.0 |
Condition of forest
roads |
0 0 61 22 17 |
3.6 |
3.0 |
Condition of forest
trails |
0 0 0 100 0 |
4.0 |
3.0 |
Availability of
information on recreation |
0 0 22 18 60 |
4.4 |
2.1 |
Feeling of safety |
0 0 22 17 61 |
4.4 |
2.2 |
Adequacy of signage |
0 0 10 90 0 |
3.9 |
2.1 |
Helpfulness of
employees |
0 0 0 30 70 |
4.7 |
3.0 |
Attractiveness of the
forest landscape |
0 0 0 28 72 |
4.7 |
1.2 |
Value for fee paid |
0 0 8 30 62 |
4.5 |
3.0 |
* Scale is: P= poor F = fair
A = average G = good VG = very good
** Scale is: 1= not very satisfied /important 2 = somewhat satisfied/ important 3 = moderately satisfied/ important 4 = satisfied/ important 5 = very satisfied/ important
Item Name |
Item by percent response category by* P
F A G VG |
Mean ** Satisfaction Of visitors |
Mean** Importance To visitors |
Scenery |
0 0 0 7 93 |
4.9 |
4.8 |
Available parking |
0 0 49 49 2 |
3.5 |
3.7 |
Parking lot condition |
0 78 8 8 6 |
2.4 |
2.7 |
Cleanliness of
restrooms |
0 23 39 38 0 |
3.1 |
3.3 |
Condition of the
natural environment |
0 0 4 82 14 |
4.1 |
4.1 |
Condition of developed
recreation facilities |
0 10 18 44 28 |
3.9 |
4.0 |
Condition of forest
roads |
5 0 48 26 21 |
3.6 |
4.8 |
Condition of forest
trails |
0 0 7 78 15 |
4.1 |
4.6 |
Availability of
information on recreation |
0 52 6 39 3 |
3.0 |
4.4 |
Feeling of safety |
0 0 3 87 10 |
4.1 |
4.8 |
Adequacy of signage |
24 2 4 19 51 |
3.7 |
4.8 |
Helpfulness of
employees |
0 0 3 77 20 |
4.2 |
4.5 |
Attractiveness of the
forest landscape |
0 0 0 4 96 |
4.9 |
4.6 |
Value for fee paid |
72 0 14 0 14 |
4.1 |
4.4 |
* Scale is: P= poor F = fair
A = average G = good VG = very good
** Scale is: 1= not very satisfied
/important 2 = somewhat satisfied/
important 3 = moderately satisfied/
important 4 = satisfied/ important 5 = very satisfied/ important
Visitors rated
their perception of how crowded the site or area they were recreating in felt
to them. This information is useful
when looking at the type of site the visitor was using since someone visiting a
designated Wilderness may think 5 people is too many while someone visiting a developed
campground may think 200 people is about right. Table 20 summaries mean perception of crowding by site type on a
scale of 1 to 10 where 1 means hardly anyone was there, and a 10 means the area
was perceived as overcrowded.
Perception of crowding |
Overnight
Developed Sites |
Day Use Developed Sites |
Wilderness |
General Forest Areas |
10 Over crowded |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
69 |
20 |
24 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
40 |
18 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
2 |
3 |
8 |
12 |
32 |
15 |
2 |
0 |
22 |
5 |
72 |
1 hardly anyone there |
21 |
3 |
10 |
5 |
Visitors were asked if there were any accommodations or assistance that the forest could offer that would be helpful to the visitor and anyone in their group to improve their recreation experience. If the forest received any responses, they are summarized below.
Table 21. List of comments received from visitors on the Rio Grande National Forest.
Site Name |
Is there any other accommodation or assistance we could offer? Comments |
S. Crestone/ Willow TH- Wilderness |
Mileage indicator |
Rev 19 Sept 2001
Rev 8 Feb 2002 (wilderness demographics)