Definition of Terms

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.

CHAPTER 1: SAMPLE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

The NVUM Process and Definition of Terms

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.

Constraints On Uses of the Results

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 Forest Stratification Results

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 one 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.

Table 1. The population of available site days open for sampling and the percentage of days sampled within each stratum on the Kaibab National Forest.

	Nonproxy		Proxy
Strata	Total days in nonproxy population	Days sampled # percent	Total days in proxy population	Days sampled # percent
OUDS H	0	0	2,501	12 0.5
OUDS M	0	0
OUDS L	244	8 3.3
DUDS H	188	10 5.3	620	5 0.8
DUDS M	755	11 1.5
DUDS L	5,401	11 0.2
Wild H	132	9 6.8
Wild M	80	8 10.0
Wild L	1,288	8 0.6
GFA H	312	10 3.2
GFA M	1,415	16 1.1
GFA L	4,479	10 0.2
TOTALS	14,294	101	3,121	17

CHAPTER 2: VISITATION ESTIMATES

Visitor Use Estimates

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 3, the “Southwestern Region” includes national forest system lands in Arizona and New Mexico. It received 19.5 million national forest visits +/-41.2 percent at the 80 percent confidence level. As shown in Table 2, three national forests in region 3 were sampled in the first year of the project. The results from these forests were then expanded to estimate total regional recreation use as explained in the project methods paper listed on page 1.

Table 2. Annual recreation use estimates by forest for region 3. 1/

	National Forest Visits		Site Visits		Wilderness Visits
Forest	Visits (millions)	Error Rate	Visits (millions)	Error Rate	Visits	Error Rate
Cibola	2.88	18.75	3.17	17.90	707,858	37.43
Coconino	1.89	15.35	2.42	14.01	204,872	41.93
Kaibab	0.56	26.67	0.69	29.10	6,545	41.49

1/ Region 3, the “Southwestern Region” includes national forest units in Arizona and New Mexico.

The Kaibab National Forest participated in the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) project from January 1 through December 31, 2000. The main contact person was Charlotte Minor. The surveys were accomplished using eleven different Forest Service employees, including 4 seasonals. The forest was assigned 130 sample days and accomplished 98 percent of these (missed 3 days). The forest coordinator estimates the traffic counters were accurate at least 75 percent of the time for pneumatics but less than half the time for infrareds. The Kaibab National Forest experienced an unusually low snow year for the first winter of the survey and felt use was below normal. During the mid-May, the General Forest Area was closed for 3 weeks due to fires that also reduced overall forest visitation.

Recreation use on the Kaibab National Forest for calendar year 2000 was estimated at 0.56 million national forest visits +/- 26.7 percent at the 80 percent confidence level. There were 0.69 million site visits, an average of 1.24 site visits per national forest visit. Included in the site visit estimate are 6,545 Wilderness visits.

A total of 1326 visitors were contacted on the forest during the sample year. Of these, 8 percent refused to be interviewed. Of the 1219 people who agreed to be interviewed, about 43 percent were not recreating, including 4 percent who just stopped to use the bathroom, 10 percent who were working, 21 percent who were just passing through and 8 percent citing some other reason. About 57 percent of those interviewed said their primary purpose on the forest was recreation and 76 percent of them were exiting for the last time. Of the visitors leaving the forest that agreed to be interviewed, about 43 percent were last exiting recreation visitors (our target interview population).

Description of Visitors

Basic descriptors of the forest visitors were developed based upon those visitors interviewed then expanded to the national forest visitor population. Sixty-eight percent of the national forest visitors were male and 32 percent were female (Table 3). Nineteen percent of national forest visits were by children under age 16 who were not interviewed. About 6.0 percent of the visitors were over 70 years old and the largest age group was 41-50. See Table 4 for a complete age group breakout.

Table 3. Gender distribution of Kaibab National Forest visitors.

Gender

68 percent males

32 percent females

Table 4. Age distribution of Kaibab National Forest visitors.

Age Group	Percent in group
Under 16	18.6
16-20	0.5
21-30	7.8
31-40	17.7
41-50	19.1
51-60	14.8
61-70	15.5
Over 70	6.0

Visitors categorized themselves into one of 7 race/ethnicity categories. Eighty-eight percent of visitors were ethnically white. Table 5 gives a detailed breakout by category.

Table 5. Race/ethnicity of Kaibab National Forest visitors.

Category	Total percent national forest visits
Black/African American	0.0
Asian	1.4
White	88.3
American Indian/Alaska Native	0.2
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0.0
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino	4.1
Other	6.0

About thirteen 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. This information can be used with programs such as “fipzip” for more extensive analysis.

Table 6. Zip codes of Kaibab National Forest recreation visitors.

Zip Code	Frequency	Percent
86001	28	6.4
86018	18	4.1
86004	17	3.9
86046	16	3.7
86401	10	2.3
86334	8	1.8
86314	7	1.6
86023	5	1.2
86301	5	1.2
85028	4	1.9
86303	4	1.9
86323	4	1.9
86402	3	0.6
85044	3	0.6
85051	3	0.6
85225	3	0.6
85310	3	0.6
85345	3	0.6

Average number of people per vehicle and average axle count per vehicle in survey

There was an average of 2.21 people per vehicle on the forest with an average of 2.34 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.

CHAPTER 3: WILDERNESS VISITORS

Several questions on the NVUM survey form dealt directly with use of designated Wilderness. Wilderness was sampled on the forest on 25 days. There were 83 percent male and 17 percent female visitors to Wilderness on the forest. See Table 7 for the age distribution.

Table 7. Age distribution of Wilderness visitors on Kaibab National Forest.

Age group	Percent in group
Under 16	7.1
16-20	0.1
21-30	3.9
31-40	31.5
41-50	23.4
51-60	33.9
61-70	0.1
Over 70	0.0

The majority of the Wilderness visitors were ethnically white (87 percent). See Table 8 for race/ethnicity distribution.

Table 8. Race/ethnicity of Kaibab National Forest Wilderness visitors.

Category	Total percent national forest visits
Black/African American	0.0
Asian	1.3
White	86.9
American Indian/Alaska Native	10.1
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0.0
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino	0.0
Other	1.7

The Wilderness visitors were from a wide variety of zip codes. The distribution of Wilderness visitor zip codes is shown in Table 9.

Table 9. Zip codes of Kaibab National Forest Wilderness visitors.

Zip Code	Frequency	Percent
86001	16	22.2
86004	10	13.9
85201	2	2.8
85258	2	2.8
85382	2	2.8
86303	2	2.8
86314	2	2.8

The average length of stay in Wilderness on the forest was 6.7 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 1.1 different days during their visit.

Just over twenty 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 their satisfaction with the availability of recreation information at 3.9 (moderately high) but they rated the importance of this aspect at 4.6 (very high). This means the forest could increase satisfaction of wilderness visitors on the availability of recreation information. Six percent of Wilderness visitors rated this aspect as average and 84 percent said it was good. Three percent said it was poor, and seven percent said it was very good.

Wilderness visitors on the average rated their visit 5.3 (on a scale from 1 to 10) concerning crowding, meaning they felt somewhat crowded. No one said the area they visited was overcrowded (a 10 on the scale) although only 10 percent said there was hardly anyone there (a 1 on the scale). Half of visitors rated crowding in Wilderness at 8 (getting crowded).

Table 10. Satisfaction of visitors at designated Wilderness on Kaibab National Forest.

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 10 90	4.9	4.9
Available parking	0 0 7 36 56	4.5	2.2
Parking lot condition	0 0 8 47 45	4.4	2.1
Cleanliness of restrooms	0 44 0 22 34	3.5	3.4
Condition of the natural environment	0 0 36 14 50	4.1	4.7
Condition of developed recreation facilities	0 0 0 50 50	4.5	3.0
Condition of forest roads	0 0 8 50 42	4.3	3.0
Condition of forest trails	0 0 0 51 49	4.5	3.4
Availability of information on recreation	0 0 21 66 12	3.9	3.0
Feeling of safety	0 0 4 55 41	4.4	3.8
Adequacy of signage	0 0 0 60 40	4.4	3.9
Helpfulness of employees	0 0 0 50 50	4.5	4.0
Attractiveness of the forest landscape	0 0 13 38 50	4.4	4.8
Value for fee paid		N/a	N/a

* 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

The Wilderness visitors on the forest spent an average of about $14 each within 50 miles of the Wilderness. They also spend an average of $828 annually on all outdoor recreation related expenditures (see Table 11).

Table 11. Average per person national forest trip expenditures within 50 miles of recreation site for Wilderness visitors to Kaibab National Forest.

Expenditure category	Average expenditure $00.00
Government owned lodging	56.69
Privately owned lodging	3.55
Food/drink at restaurants and bars	35.96
Other food and beverages	29.66
Gasoline and oil	34.97
Other transportation (plane, bus, etc.)	0.00
Activities (including guide fees and equipment rental)	0.00
Entry, parking, or recreation use fees	9.00
Souvenirs/ clothing	0.38
Any other expenses	0.00

CHAPTER 4: DESCRIPTION OF THE VISIT

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 Kaibab National Forest for a national forest visit was about 42.0 hours. Almost 48 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.

Table 12. Kaibab National Forest site visit length of stay (in hours) by site/type.

Site Visit Average	DUDS	OUDS	Wilderness	GFA
37.2	15.7	36.7	6.7	65.7

The average Kaibab National Forest visitor went to 1.24 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. Ninety percent of visitors went only to the site at which they were interviewed.

During their visit to Kaibab National Forest the top five recreation activities of the visitors were viewing wildlife and natural features, camping, general relaxation, and hiking or walking (see Table 13). Each visitor also indicated which of these activities was their primary activity for their current recreation visit to the forest. The top primary activities were developed camping, hiking/walking, and viewing wildlife. 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.

Table 13. Activity participation and primary activity for the Kaibab National Forest.

Activity	Percent participation	Percent who said it was their primary activity
Camping in developed sites (family or group)	26	25
Primitive camping	11	5
Backpacking, camping in unroaded areas	1	0
Resorts, cabins and other accommodations on Forest Service managed lands (private or Forest Service run)	17	13
Picnicking and family day gatherings in developed sites (family or group)	26	1
**Viewing wildlife, birds, fish, etc on national forest system lands	60	15
**Viewing natural features such as scenery, flowers, etc on national forest system lands	64	2
Visiting historic and prehistoric sites/area	0	0
Visiting a nature center, nature trail or visitor information services	19	1
Nature Study	4	0
General/other- relaxing, hanging out, escaping noise and heat, etc,	47	6
Fishing- all types	5	2
Hunting- all types	14	11
Off-highway vehicle travel (4-wheelers, dirt bikes, etc)	7	0
Driving for pleasure on roads	23	3
Snowmobile travel	0	0
Motorized water travel (boats, ski sleds, etc)	0	0
Other motorized land/air activities (plane, other)	0	0
Hiking or walking	44	16
Horseback riding	12	9
Bicycling, including mountain bikes	1	1
Non-motorized water travel (canoe, raft, etc.)	0	0
Downhill skiing or snowboarding	1	0
Cross-country skiing, snow shoeing	0	0
Other non-motorized activities (swimming, games and sports)	4	4
Gathering mushrooms, berries, firewood, or other natural products	12	2

* less than 1 percent participation

** first version of survey form used October through March had these two viewing categories combined as viewing scenery

Use of constructed facilities and designated areas

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: roads, trails, and developed campgrounds. Table 14 provides a summary of reported facility and special area use.

Table 14. Percentage use of facilities and specially designated areas on the Kaibab National Forest.

Facility/ Area Type	Percent who said they used (national forest visits)
Developed campground	27
Swimming area	0
Hiking, biking, or horseback trails	27
Scenic byway	12
Designated Wilderness	11
Visitor center, museum	13
Forest Service office or other info site	4
Picnic area	6
Boat launch	0
Designated Off Road Vehicle area	1
Other forest roads	63
Interpretive site	5
Organization camp	0
Developed fishing site/ dock	4
Designated snowmobile area	0
Downhill ski area	0
Nordic ski area	0
Lodges/Resorts on National Forest System land	20
Fire Lookouts/Cabins Forest Service owned	1
Designated snow play area	0
Motorized developed trails	0
Recreation residences	0

Economic Information

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. Sixty-two percent of national forest visitors said the 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. Fifty-nine percent of the visitors would have gone somewhere other than the forest to pursue the same activity, while nine percent would have come back to the forest another time.

The average recreation visitor on the forest was away from home on their trip for 142 hours. Two-thirds went to just the national forest on their trip and one-third said they had gone to other places such as other national forests, parks or recreation areas.

In the 12 months prior to their interview the visitors had visited the forest 2.5 times to participate in their identified main activity.

Table 15. Substitute behavior choices of visitors on Kaibab National Forest.

Substitute Choice	Percent who would have…
Gone somewhere else for the same activity	59
Gone somewhere else for a different activity	3
Come back another time	9
Stayed home	26
Gone to work at their regular job	2
None of these	1

Average yearly spending on outdoor recreation

In a typical year, visitors to the forest spent an average of $2,075 on all outdoor recreation activities including equipment, recreation trips, memberships, and licenses.

Visitors average spending on a trip to Kaibab National Forest

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.

Table 16. Average per person national forest trip expenditures on the Kaibab National Forest within 50 miles of recreation site.

Expenditure Category	Average expenditure $00.00
Government owned lodging	13.41
Privately owned lodging	14.28
Food/drink at restaurants and bars	53.31
Other food and beverages	20.10
Gasoline and oil	29.22
Other transportation (plane, bus, etc.)	4.51
Activities (including guide fees and equipment rental)	11.72
Entry, parking, or recreation use fees	2.19
Souvenirs/ clothing	9.58
Any other expenses	4.06

Visitor Satisfaction Information

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 17 you can see that visitors said the importance of the availability of recreation information (4.2) to the quality of their recreation experience was moderately high and they rated their satisfaction with the condition of trails on the forest equally highly (4.2). 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 availability of recreation information 5 percent rated their satisfaction with trail condition as poor, 2 percent as average, and 53 percent as very good.

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.

Table 17. Satisfaction of visitors at Day Use Developed Sites on the Kaibab National Forest.

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 12 88	4.9	4.8
Available parking	1 0 7 53 39	4.3	3.1
Parking lot condition	0 4 25 48 23	3.9	3.1
Cleanliness of restrooms	1 0 3 61 36	4.3	4.2
Condition of the natural environment	6 1 5 22 66	4.4	4.8
Condition of developed recreation facilities	1 1 0 27 71	3.8	4.6
Condition of forest roads	2 4 13 32 49	4.2	4.4
Condition of forest trails	0 0 51 29 20	3.7	4.4
Availability of information on recreation	15 5 6 29 45	3.8	3.8
Feeling of safety	0 0 12 6 82	4.7	4.1
Adequacy of signage	6 5 10 32 47	4.0	4.2
Helpfulness of employees	0 0 0 15 85	4.8	4.5
Attractiveness of the forest landscape	0 0 11 4 85	4.7	4.7
Value for fee paid	0 4 1 27 68	4.6	4.5

* 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

Table 18. Satisfaction of visitors at Overnight Developed Sites Kaibab National Forest.

Item Name	Item by percent response category by* P F A G VG	Mean Satisfaction Of visitors**	Mean Importance To visitors**
Scenery	0 1 5 15 79	4.7	4.5
Available parking	3 2 16 49 30	4.0	4.1
Parking lot condition	0 0 4 68 28	4.2	3.1
Cleanliness of restrooms	2 8 10 46 34	4.0	4.3
Condition of the natural environment	0 0 1 42 57	4.6	4.6
Condition of developed recreation facilities	2 0 0 42 46	4.5	3.9
Condition of forest roads	0 2 0 48 50	4.5	2.5
Condition of forest trails	0 0 3 69 27	4.2	3.6
Availability of information on recreation	5 4 4 50 37	4.1	4.1
Feeling of safety	0 0 0 41 59	4.6	4.3
Adequacy of signage	8 5 10 39 37	3.9	4.3
Helpfulness of employees	0 9 2 13 76	4.6	4.3
Attractiveness of the forest landscape	0 0 0 12 88	4.9	4.6
Value for fee paid	0 6 6 26 62	4.5	4.2

* 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

Table 19. Satisfaction of visitors in General Forest Areas on Kaibab National Forest.

Item Name	Item by percent response category by* P F A G VG	Mean Satisfaction of visitors**	Mean Importance to visitors**
Scenery	0 1 1 61 37	4.3	3.9
Available parking	42 0 2 8 48	3.2	2.3
Parking lot condition	3 0 4 8 85	4.7	1.4
Cleanliness of restrooms	0 4 41 9 46	3.9	2.6
Condition of the natural environment	22 22 9 39 8	2.9	4.5
Condition of developed recreation facilities	4 0 0 96 0	3.9	3.1
Condition of forest roads	0 22 35 17 26	3.5	2.5
Condition of forest trails	0 1 3 35 61	4.5	2.9
Availability of information on recreation	3 0 14 77 6	3.8	3.3
Feeling of safety	1 1 5 51 42	4.3	3.1
Adequacy of signage	0 2 17 50 31	4.1	2.3
Helpfulness of employees	4 0 0 56 40	4.3	3.7
Attractiveness of the forest landscape	3 21 7 56 13	3.6	4.5
Value for fee paid	4 81 10 0 4	2.2	2.6

* 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

Crowding

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.

Table 20. Perception of crowding by visitor on the Kaibab National Forest by site type (site visits).

Perception of crowding		Overnight Developed Sites	Day Use Developed Sites	Wilderness		General Forest Areas
10 Over crowded	3				7	1
9			6
8	7		5			1
7	10		1
6	15		1		26	1
5	20		7		7	24
4	19		10		7	1
3	10		21		29	24
2	9		44		13	34
1 hardly anyone there	7		5		11	14

Other comments from visitors

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 Kaibab National Forest.

Site Name	Is there any other accommodation or assistance we could offer? Comments
Apache	Better description of Horse Ride or event

Dogtown Lake	Clean the bathrooms - chemicals
	Charge 1/2 price for 2nd vehicle @ same site.

LeFevre	Cabins

Oak Hill Snowplay Area	Detailed map of rec experience - topo maps @ CG

Scholz Lake Fishing	Less developed areas, no restrooms, etc, put fish in tanks

Whitehorse Lake Fishing	No forest fires
	Boat rental, rental store, fishing supply, Ramada IN day use area, expand day use area.
	Trash Cans
	Improve / grade FR l09 & FR 110
	Stock the lake, drive thru campsites
	Improve / Grade FR 109 & FR 110
	More drinking water available at sites

141/66/Park Store	Cut the trees & close more roads (secondary rds), more law enforcement.
	More logging - forest is unhealthy condition

141/66/park store	Have FS clean up slash surrounding private property
	Signage for trails here excellent. Showers in campground will pay more.

171	Remove all livestock on public lands. Reduce road densities.

328 Long Jim Canyon	Provide Forest Info for new residents

310	Better signage
	Better signage

Dogtown Lake CG - Proxy	Garbage dumps, marked recycle, Information on Nature trail (with map)
	More maps of area on web site
Kaibab Lake CG	Build better restrooms

Kaibab Lake CG - Proxy	Put fish in lake
	Near Grand Canyon N.P. disappointing
	Water fill up / free dump station/ phone
	Better water supply / access

Moqui Lodge	Air conditioning

Whitehorse Lake Campground - Proxy	Info on surroundings, other recreation in area

Sycamore Falls	Showers @ campground
	No further development
	Keep Clean, More interpretive history info

29 August 2001

Rev 8 Feb 2002 (wilderness demographics)

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1: SAMPLE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

Table 2. Annual recreation use estimates by forest for region 3. 1/

Crowding