National Visitor Use
Monitoring Results
August 2001
USDA Forest Service
Region 4
CARIBOU-TARGHEE NATIONAL
FORESTS
Scope and purpose of the National Visitor Use
Monitoring project
CHAPTER 1:
SAMPLE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
The NVUM Process and Definition of Terms 3
Constraints On Uses of the Results 4
The Forest Stratification Results 4
CHAPTER 2:
VISITATION ESTIMATES
Table 2.
Annual recreation use estimates by forest for region 4. 1/
Table 3.
Gender distribution of Caribou-Targhee National Forests visitors. 7
Table 4.
Age distribution of Caribou-Targhee National Forests visitors. 7
Table 5.
Race/ethnicity of Caribou-Targhee National Forests visitors. 7
Table 6.
Zip codes of Caribou-Targhee National Forests recreation visitors. 8
Average number of people per vehicle and
average axle count per vehicle in survey
CHAPTER 3: WILDERNESS VISITORS. 9
Table 7.
Age distribution of Wilderness visitors on Caribou-Targhee National
Forests.
Table 8.
Race/ethnicity of Caribou-Targhee National Forests Wilderness visitors. 9
Table 9.
Zip codes of Caribou-Targhee National Forests Wilderness visitors. 10
Table 10.
Satisfaction of visitors at designated Wilderness on Caribou-Targhee
National Forests.
CHAPTER 4: DESCRIPTION OF THE VISIT. 12
Table 12.
Caribou-Targhee National Forests site visit length of stay (in hours) by
site/type.
Table 13.
Activity participation and primary activity for the Caribou-Targhee
National Forests.
Use of constructed facilities and designated
areas
Table 15.
Substitute behavior choices of visitors on Caribou-Targhee National
Forests.
Average yearly spending on outdoor recreation. 15
Visitors average spending on a trip to
Caribou-Targhee National Forests
Visitor Satisfaction Information. 16
Table 18.
Satisfaction of visitors at Overnight Developed Sites Caribou-Targhee
National Forests.
Table 19.
Satisfaction of visitors in General Forest Areas on Caribou-Targhee National
Forests.
Other comments from visitors 20
Table 21.
List of comments received from visitors on the Caribou-Targhee National
Forests.
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 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.
|
Nonproxy
|
Proxy |
||
Strata |
Total
days in nonproxy population |
Days
sampled # percent |
Total
days in proxy population |
Days
sampled # percent |
OUDS H |
26 |
8 30.8 |
|
|
OUDS M |
284 |
9 3.2 |
4452 |
15 .3 |
OUDS L |
5315 |
10 .2 |
|
|
DUDS H |
854 |
14 1.6 |
|
|
DUDS M |
858 |
11 1.3 |
431 |
8 1.9 |
DUDS L |
2395 |
9 .4 |
|
|
Wild H |
64 |
6 9.4 |
|
|
Wild M |
713 |
7 1.0 |
|
|
Wild L |
2654 |
9 .3 |
|
|
GFA H |
444 |
6 1.4 |
|
|
GFA M |
1991 |
19 .9 |
|
|
GFA L |
109932 |
44 .04 |
|
|
TOTALS |
125530 |
152 |
4883 |
23 |
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 4, the “Intermountain Region” consists of national forest units in Utah, Nevada, and parts of Idaho and Wyoming. It received 21.5 million national forest visits +/-21 percent at the 80 percent confidence level. As shown in Table 2, four national forests in region 4 were sampled in the first year of the project. The results from these forests were then expanded to estimate total regional recreation use.
|
National Forest
Visits |
Site
Visits |
Wilderness
Visits |
|||
Forest |
Visits (millions) |
Error Rate |
Visits
(millions) |
Error
Rate |
Visits (millions) |
Error Rate |
Boise |
1.1 |
13.1 |
1.2 |
12.6 |
.009 |
40.9 |
Caribou-Targee |
2.2 |
18.2 |
2.4 |
17.3 |
.021 |
27.9 |
Sawtooth |
.8 |
9.2 |
1.0 |
10.0 |
.033 |
26.8 |
Humboldt- Toiyabe |
2.5 |
16.8 |
2.7 |
15.9 |
0.3 |
20.4 |
R4 expanded use
estimate for CY 2000 2/ |
21.5 |
21.0 |
23.9 |
19.6 |
1.3 |
66.6 |
1/ Region 4, the
“Intermountain Region” consists of national forest units in Utah, Nevada, and
parts of Idaho and Wyoming.
2/ Calendar Year
The
Caribou-Targee National Forest participated in the National Visitor Use Monitoring
(NVUM) project from January 1 through December 31, 2000. The main contact person was Dennis
Duehren. The forest was assigned 188
sample days and accomplished 182 (97 percent) of them. Twenty Forest Service employees conducted
the interviews. The forest coordinator
reported that the K-Hill pneumatic tube counters undercounted about 15 percent
of the time and the Cuesta Infrared counter over counted about 25 percent of
the time. Windy, snowy, and cold
weather would affect counts. Fire
season had an impact on the forest recreation use. From August 1 through September 15 the visitor use pattern was
unusual. It was low in developed
recreation sites because campfires were not allowed. However, the forest Coordinator also observed that the Caribou-Targee
received visitors from other forests that were completely closed to
recreation. Dispersed use was lower
than usual because of fire restrictions and closures. Fall hunting season (rifle) was not affected but fall archery
season was.
Recreation use on the
Caribou-Targee National Forest for calendar year 2000 at the 80 percent
confidence level was 2,212,963 national forest visits +/- 18.2 percent. There were 2,410,995 site visits, an average
of 1.1 site visits per national forest visit.
Included in the site visit estimate are 21,273 Wilderness visits.
A total of 1201 visitors were contacted on the Caribou-Targee National
Forest during the sample year. Of
these, 8.9 percent refused to be interviewed.
Of the 1094 people who agreed to be interviewed, about 10.5 percent were
not recreating, including 2.1 percent who just stopped to use the bathroom, 1.6
percent were working, 4.8 percent were just passing through, and 2.7 percent
had some other reason to be there.
About 89.5 percent of those interviewed said their primary purpose on
the forest was recreation and 87 percent of them were exiting for the last
time. Of the visitors leaving the
forest that agreed to be interviewed, about 78 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.
Over seventy-eight percent of the Caribou-Targee National Forest
visitors were male and 21.6 percent were female (Table 3). About thirteen percent of the visitors were
under age 16 and not interviewed. About
0.3 percent of the visitors were over 70 years old and the 41-50 year old age
group comprised 22.5 percent of the visitors.
See Table 4 for a complete age group breakout.
Gender |
78.4 percent males |
21.6 percent females |
Age Group |
Percent
in group |
Under 16 |
13.0 |
16-20 |
3.7 |
21-30 |
22.0 |
31-40 |
19.5 |
41-50 |
22.5 |
51-60 |
12.3 |
61-70 |
6.7 |
Over 70 |
0.3 |
Visitors categorized
themselves into one of 7 race/ethnicity categories. 98.2 percent of the visitors were ethnically white. Table 5 gives a detailed breakout by
category.
Category |
Total
percent national forest visits |
Black/African American |
0.0 |
Asian |
0.1 |
White |
98.2 |
American Indian/Alaska Native |
1.5 |
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander |
0.0 |
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino |
0.0 |
Other |
0.2 |
About 0.3 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 277 different zip
codes reported. This information can be
used with programs such as “fipzip” for more extensive analysis.
Zip Code |
Frequency |
Percent |
83201 |
123 |
15.1 |
83202 |
46 |
5.7 |
83204 |
44 |
5.4 |
83422 |
28 |
3.4 |
83252 |
24 |
2.9 |
83401 |
23 |
2.8 |
83440 |
23 |
2.8 |
83404 |
18 |
2.2 |
83402 |
16 |
2.0 |
83263 |
14 |
1.7 |
83455 |
11 |
1.4 |
83221 |
10 |
1.2 |
83445 |
10 |
1.2 |
84337 |
10 |
1.2 |
83420 |
9 |
1.1 |
83442 |
9 |
1.1 |
84404 |
9 |
1.1 |
83014 |
8 |
1.0 |
84037 |
8 |
1.0 |
84067 |
8 |
1.0 |
83274 |
7 |
0.9 |
84302 |
7 |
0.9 |
84321 |
7 |
0.9 |
252 other zip codes |
1-6 each |
|
There was an average of 2.2 people per vehicle on the
Forest with an average of 2.5 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 22 days on the forest. There were 74 percent male and 26 percent female visitors to Wilderness on the forest. See Table 7 for the age distribution.
Age group |
Percent
in group |
Under 16 |
9.3 |
16-20 |
1.0 |
21-30 |
14.0 |
31-40 |
8.6 |
41-50 |
45.9 |
51-60 |
12.0 |
61-70 |
9.2 |
Over 70 |
0.0 |
The majority of the Wilderness visitors were ethnically
white (93 percent). See Table 8 for
race/ethnicity distribution.
Category |
Total percent national forest visits |
Black/African American |
0.0 |
Asian |
0.0 |
White |
93.1 |
American Indian/Alaska Native |
1.3 |
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander |
0.0 |
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino |
0.0 |
Other |
5.6 |
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 42 different zip codes reported.
Zip Code |
Frequency |
Percent |
83422 |
7 |
9.1 |
83402 |
6 |
7.8 |
83440 |
6 |
7.8 |
83455 |
6 |
7.8 |
83404 |
4 |
5.2 |
83002 |
3 |
3.9 |
83204 |
3 |
3.9 |
83401 |
3 |
3.9 |
84321 |
3 |
3.9 |
83014 |
2 |
2.6 |
83428 |
2 |
2.6 |
83442 |
2 |
2.6 |
The average length of stay in Wilderness on
the forest was 34.8 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 1.3 different days.
One-tenth of one 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 value for fee paid a 4.7
(very important) and they rated their satisfaction with the value for fee paid
a 4.2 (satisfied). This means the forest could increase visitor
satisfaction on the value for the fee paid because 36 percent of visitors said
it was just average.
Wilderness visitors on the average rated
their visit 5.0 (on a scale from 1 to 10) concerning crowding, meaning they
felt there were few people there. None
said the area they visited was overcrowded (a 10 on the scale) and 15 percent
said there was hardly anyone there (a 1 on the scale).
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 15 85 |
4.8 |
4.7 |
Available parking |
0 0 15 64 21 |
4.1 |
2.6 |
Parking lot condition |
0 0 15 64 21 |
4.1 |
2.6 |
Cleanliness of restrooms |
35 11 11 43 0 |
2.6 |
2.2 |
Condition of the natural environment |
0 0 0 29 71 |
4.7 |
4.1 |
Condition of developed recreation facilities |
0 0 58 21 21 |
3.6 |
1.9 |
Condition of forest roads |
0 27 28 39 6 |
3.2 |
2.9 |
Condition of forest trails |
0 0 33 43 24 |
3.9 |
3.9 |
Availability of information on recreation |
15 27 24 21 13 |
2.9 |
3.0 |
Feeling of safety |
0 0 22 28 50 |
4.3 |
3.9 |
Adequacy of signage |
0 22 11 42 25 |
3.7 |
3.6 |
Helpfulness of employees |
0 0 0 11 89 |
4.9 |
4.0 |
Attractiveness of the forest landscape |
0 0 0 24 76 |
4.8 |
4.7 |
Value for fee paid |
0 0 39 0 61 |
4.2 |
4.7 |
* 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 $66.76 within 50 miles of the Wilderness. They also spend an average of $1,407.87 annually on all outdoor recreation related expenditures (see Table 11).
Expenditure category |
Average expenditure $00.00 |
Government owned lodging |
0.00 |
Privately owned lodging |
0.00 |
Food/drink at restaurants and bars |
27.55 |
Other food and beverages |
5.64 |
Gasoline and oil |
15.01 |
Other transportation (plane, bus, etc.) |
0.00 |
Activities (including guide fees and equipment
rental) |
0.00 |
Entry, parking, or recreation use fees |
6.90 |
Souvenirs/ clothing |
9.02 |
Any other expenses |
0.00 |
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 Caribou-Targee National Forest for a
national forest visit was 26.9 hours.
Twenty-two 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 |
24.8 |
5.0 |
62.8 |
34.8 |
26.0 |
The average Caribou-Targee National Forest visitor went to 1.1 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-three percent of visitors went only
to the site at which they were interviewed.
During their visit to Caribou-Targee National Forest the top five
recreation activities of the visitors were viewing scenery, viewing wildlife,
snowmobiling, general relaxation, and hunting.
The visitor picked one of these activities as their primary activity for
their current recreation visit to the forest.
The top primary activities were snowmobiling, hunting, fishing, OHV
travel and viewing nature (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) |
9 |
6 |
Primitive camping |
8 |
3 |
Backpacking, camping in unroaded areas |
2 |
1 |
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) |
3 |
1 |
**Viewing wildlife, birds, fish, etc on national
forest system lands |
43 |
8 |
**Viewing natural features such as scenery, flowers,
etc on national forest system lands |
48 |
2 |
Visiting historic and prehistoric sites/area |
0 |
0 |
Visiting a nature center, nature trail or visitor
information services |
2 |
1 |
Nature Study |
2 |
0 |
General/other- relaxing, hanging out, escaping noise
and heat, etc, |
18 |
5 |
Fishing- all types |
10 |
8 |
Hunting- all types |
16 |
16 |
Off-highway vehicle travel (4-wheelers, dirt bikes,
etc) |
13 |
8 |
Driving for pleasure on roads |
15 |
6 |
Snowmobile travel |
28 |
26 |
Motorized water travel (boats, ski sleds, etc) |
1 |
0 |
Other
motorized land/air activities (plane, other) |
0 |
0 |
Hiking or walking |
7 |
1 |
Horseback riding |
1 |
0 |
Bicycling, including mountain bikes |
3 |
1 |
Non-motorized water travel (canoe, raft, etc.) |
1 |
0 |
Downhill skiing or snowboarding |
6 |
6 |
Cross-country skiing, snow shoeing |
3 |
2 |
Other non-motorized activities (swimming, games and
sports) |
0 |
0 |
Gathering mushrooms, berries, firewood, or other
natural products |
0 |
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, motorized trails, and developed
campgrounds. The most used specially
designated area was designated off-highway vehicle area. Table 14 provides a summary of reported
facility and special area use.
Facility/ Area Type |
Percent who said they used (national forest visits) |
Developed campground |
15 |
Swimming area |
2 |
Hiking, biking, or horseback trails |
23 |
Scenic byway |
1 |
Designated Wilderness |
1 |
Visitor center, museum |
0 |
Forest Service office or other info site |
0 |
Picnic area |
3 |
Boat launch |
3 |
Designated Off Road Vehicle area |
6 |
Other forest roads |
36 |
Interpretive site |
7 |
Organization camp |
0 |
Developed fishing site/ dock |
2 |
Designated snowmobile area |
2 |
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 |
0 |
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. Seventy-nine percent of visitors went just
to this national forest. Of the 21
percent visitors that went to other area, 62 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. Almost 55 percent of the
visitors would have gone somewhere other than this forest to pursue the same
activity, while 14.1 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 59.5 hours. Seventy-nine percent of the visitors went only to this national forest on their trip and 21 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 2.7 times to participate in their identified main activity.
Substitute Choice |
Percent who would
have… |
Gone
somewhere else for the same activity |
54.7 |
Gone
somewhere else for a different activity |
4.5 |
Come
back another time |
14.1 |
Stayed
home |
17.5 |
Gone
to work at their regular job |
3.2 |
None
of these |
6.0 |
In a typical year, visitors to this forest spent
an average of $2,442.02 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 |
0.34 |
Privately owned lodging |
13.13 |
Food/drink at restaurants and bars |
20.29 |
Other food and beverages |
13.06 |
Gasoline and oil |
25.36 |
Other transportation (plane, bus, etc.) |
0.37 |
Activities (including guide fees and equipment
rental) |
12.39 |
Entry, parking, or recreation use fees |
24.23 |
Souvenirs/ clothing |
5.90 |
Any other expenses |
25.44 |
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 note that visitors said the cleanliness of restrooms is very important (4.6) to the quality of their recreation experience and they rated their satisfaction with the cleanliness of restrooms as good (3.9). 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 cleanliness of restrooms, 1 percent rated their satisfaction with the cleanliness of restrooms at day use developed sites as poor, 3 percent as fair, 32 percent as average,.35 percent as good, and 29 percent as very good. On an item that is very important to visitors such as clean restrooms, having cleaner restrooms could increase 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 3 6 91 |
4.8 |
4.7 |
Available parking |
0 0 3 17 80 |
4.8 |
3.4 |
Parking lot condition |
0 4 0 64 32 |
4.2 |
3.9 |
Cleanliness of
restrooms |
1 3 32 35 29 |
3.9 |
4.6 |
Condition of the
natural environment |
0 0 0 25 75 |
4.7 |
4.8 |
Condition of developed
recreation facilities |
0 0 4 41 55 |
4.5 |
4.4 |
Condition of forest
roads |
1 5 23 37 34 |
4.0 |
4.4 |
Condition of forest
trails |
0 3 1 47 49 |
4.4 |
4.7 |
Availability of
information on recreation |
0 8 20 9 63 |
4.2 |
4.4 |
Feeling of safety |
0 0 2 19 79 |
4.8 |
4.7 |
Adequacy of signage |
1 13 14 40 32 |
3.9 |
4.2 |
Helpfulness of
employees |
0 0 0 0 100 |
5.0 |
4.3 |
Attractiveness of the
forest landscape |
0 0 1 9 90 |
4.9 |
4.8 |
Value for fee paid |
23 0 0 6 71 |
4.0 |
3.3 |
* 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 1 22 77 |
4.7 |
4.7 |
Available parking |
0 2 11 19 68 |
4.5 |
4.2 |
Parking lot condition |
0 0 1 22 77 |
4.8 |
3.7 |
Cleanliness of
restrooms |
1 2 9 17 71 |
4.6 |
4.6 |
Condition of the
natural environment |
0 0 39 24 37 |
4.0 |
4.5 |
Condition of developed
recreation facilities |
0 1 1 67 31 |
4.3 |
4.1 |
Condition of forest
roads |
0 0 63 35 2 |
3.4 |
3.4 |
Condition of forest
trails |
0 0 3 16 81 |
4.8 |
4.6 |
Availability of
information on recreation |
0 10 51 36 3 |
3.3 |
3.9 |
Feeling of safety |
0 0 3 14 83 |
4.8 |
4.5 |
Adequacy of signage |
0 2 7 59 32 |
4.2 |
4.0 |
Helpfulness of
employees |
0 2 30 8 60 |
4.3 |
4.4 |
Attractiveness of the
forest landscape |
0 0 1 3 96 |
5.0 |
4.8 |
Value for fee paid |
0 0 0 17 83 |
4.8 |
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
Item Name |
Item by percent response category by* P
F A G VG |
Mean ** Satisfaction of visitors |
Mean** Importance to visitors |
Scenery |
0 0 25 27 48 |
4.2 |
3.7 |
Available parking |
0 3 27 67 3 |
3.7 |
3.7 |
Parking lot condition |
0 46 3 49 2 |
3.0 |
3.5 |
Cleanliness of restrooms |
0 0 94 5 1 |
3.1 |
2.1 |
Condition of the
natural environment |
0 0 12 29 59 |
4.4 |
3.7 |
Condition of developed
recreation facilities |
0 20 11 39 30 |
3.8 |
2.1 |
Condition of forest
roads |
0 23 2 60 15 |
3.7 |
3.5 |
Condition of forest
trails |
0 3 2 52 43 |
4.4 |
3.8 |
Availability of
information on recreation |
16 43 37 3 1 |
2.3 |
2.3 |
Feeling of safety |
0 0 19 23 58 |
4.4 |
3.5 |
Adequacy of signage |
20 1 36 40 3 |
3.0 |
3.2 |
Helpfulness of
employees |
0 0 26 23 51 |
4.2 |
2.5 |
Attractiveness of the
forest landscape |
0 7 8 9 76 |
4.6 |
3.9 |
Value for fee paid |
0 0 0 1 99 |
5.0 |
3.4 |
* 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 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
2 |
3 |
18 |
0 |
7 |
2 |
1 |
22 |
1 |
6 |
2 |
8 |
5 |
2 |
5 |
12 |
13 |
11 |
35 |
4 |
32 |
7 |
16 |
1 |
3 |
6 |
19 |
13 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
15 |
0 |
8 |
1 hardly anyone there |
40 |
34 |
15 |
50 |
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.
Site Name |
Is there any other accommodation or assistance we could offer? Comments |
Big Spring Bridge- Day Use |
Let us catch a fish! Strongly against user fees! Fishing pole rental Better railing |
Crystal Summit Play & Parking area- Day Use |
Better signing separation of snow play area Snowmobiling |
Upper Mesa Falls Interp Day Use |
More signs A campground at Mesa Falls Shovel the walkways |
C916 General forest area |
Parking which is graveled, heated toilets Surfaced parking lot, signing, heated toilets More & better parking, heated rest rooms Heated toilets, you are here sign and maps, more signs Larger surfaced parking lot, trails great Larger parking lot, more snow, groomed snowmobile trails Better parking, more parking, heated restrooms More parking area Need more snow this year, FS doing best with what they have, groom snowmobile trails |
C915 General Forest Area |
More snow |
C9181 General Forest area |
More and better access, better signing |
C921 General Forest Area |
Trails cleaned, better signing Trails brushed back Clean out trails |
Mesa Falls- General Forest Area |
Better signs |
Porcelein Pot X-country Ski Complex TH- General Forest area |
Maps to take with you Maps, more directional signing |
T445 General Forest area |
More snow |
T501 General Forest area |
Keep dogs to a limit of 1 pet per person, more dogs than people here Restroom at parking lot (port-a-potty) |
T505 General Forest area |
Continued access Assurance access |
Curlew Campground Overnight sites |
7 comments wanting more trees and greener grass and shade More boat docks |
Scout Mtn Campground- overnight site |
No duty host Toilet needs paper Camp host (2 comments on this) |
Summit Campground- overnight site |
Need host and drinking water (4 comments on this) |
Warm River Cabin- overnight site |
Cabin dirty- suggests a cleaning deposit etc. to monitor cleaning after group departure- check |
Teton Canyon TH- Wilderness |
Water head |
Rev 12 Sept 2001
Rev 8 Feb 2002 (wilderness demographics)