INTRODUCTION

Scope and purpose of the National Visitor Use Monitoring project

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.

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 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.

Table 1. The population of available site days open for sampling and the percent of days sampled within each stratum on the White Mountain National Forest. NVUM 2000

	Nonproxy		Proxy
Strata	Total days in nonproxy population	Days sampled # percent	Total days in proxy population	Days sampled # percent
OUDS H	0		10,803	32 0.3
OUDS M	0
OUDS L	0
DUDS H	715	14 1.9	1,789	13 0.7
DUDS M	632	12 1.9
DUDS L	2,334	9 0.4
Wild H	139	9 6.5
Wild M	1,212	14 1.2
Wild L	5,056	10 0.2
GFA H	3,169	36 1.3
GFA M	6,566	38 0.6
GFA L	22,413	18 0 .1
TOTALS	42,236	160	12,592	45

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 9, the “Eastern Region” includes national forest units in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Maine, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin. It received 34.2 million National Forest visits +/-29.4 percent at the 80 percent confidence level. As shown in Table 2, four national forests in the Eastern Region 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.

The White Mountain National Forest participated in the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) project from January 1 through December 31, 2000. The main contact person was Gary Davis. The surveys were accomplished using 27 Forest Service employees. The forest was assigned 206 sample days and accomplished 100 percent of these. The forest coordinator estimates the traffic counters were accurate at 100 percent of the time with the pneumatic counters and at least 75 percent accurate with the infrared counters.

Recreation use on the White Mountain National Forest for calendar year 2000 at the 80 percent confidence level was 2.7 million national forest visits +/- 25.4 percent. There were 3.5 million site visits, an average of 1.3 site visits per national forest visit. Included in the site visit estimate are 74,118 Wilderness visits.

A total of 995visitors were contacted on this forest during the sample year. Of these, 14 percent refused to be interviewed. Of the 858 people who agreed to be interviewed, about 11 percent were not recreating, including 3.7 percent who just stopped to use the bathroom, 1.6 percent were working, 4.2 percent were just passing through and 1.7 percent had some other reason. About 89 percent of those interviewed said their primary purpose on the forest was recreation and 91 percent of them were exiting for the last time. Of the visitors leaving the forest agreeing to be interviewed, about 81 percent were last exiting recreation visitors (our target interview population).

Table 2. Recreation use estimates by forest for Region 9 1/

	National Forest Visits		Site Visits		Wilderness Visits
Forest	Visits (millions)	Error Rate	Visits (millions)	Error Rate	Visits (millions)	Error Rate
Superior	2.4	14.3	4.3	13.3	0.3	0
Hiawatha	0.7	13.3	0.8	12.3	0.01	48.9
White Mountain	2.7	25.4	3.5	23.3	0.07	30.7
Green Mtn & Finger Lakes	3.4	13.1	3.5	12.9	0.05	16.5
R9 2/ expanded use estimate for CY2000	34.5	22.3	45.8	22.3	1.6	49.4

1/ Region 9, the “Eastern Region” includes national forest units in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Maine, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

2/ Calendar year

Description of Visitors

Basic descriptors of forest visitors were developed based upon those visitors interviewed then expanded to the NF visitor population. Sixty-five percent of the national forest visitors were male and 35 percent were female (Table 3). Eleven percent of visitors were under age 16 and not interviewed. About one percent of visitors were over 70 years old and the 41-50 year old age group contained 43 percent of the visitors. See Table 4 for a complete age group breakout.

Table 3. Gender distribution of White Mountain National Forest visitors.

Gender

65 percent males

35 percent females

Table 4. Age distribution of White Mountain National Forest visitors.

	Age group	Percent in group
Under 16		10.7
	16-20	1.1
	21-30	10.0
	31-40	18.4
	41-50	42.6
	51-60	10.2
	61-70	5.9
	Over 70	1.1

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

Table 5. Race/ethnicity of White Mountain National Forest visitors.

Category	Total percent national forest visits
Black/African American	2.1
Asian	2.4
White	93.4
American Indian/Alaska Native	2.1
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino	0
Other	0

About two percent of the 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 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 White Mountain National Forest visitors.

Zip Code	Frequency	Percent
02134	3	2.4
02478	3	2.4
03264	3	2.4
01880	2	1.6
02338	2	1.6
02421	2	1.6
02780	2	1.6
03584	2	1.6
03820	2	1.6
04038	2	1.6
105 other zip codes listed	1 each

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

There was an average of 2.3 people per vehicle on this forest with an average of two 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 is useful to forest engineers and others who use vehicle counters to conduct traffic studies.

Wilderness Visitors

Several questions on the NVUM survey form dealt directly with use of designated Wilderness. Wilderness was sampled on the forest on 33 days. There were 93 percent male and 7 percent female visitors to Wilderness on the Forest. See Table 7 for the age distribution.

Table 7. Age distribution of Wilderness visitors on White Mountain National Forest.

Age group	Percent in group
Under 16	1.5
16-20	19.4
21-30	12.0
31-40	25.1
41-50	35.4
51-60	2.3
61-70	4.3
Over 70	0

The majority of Wilderness visitors were ethnically white (98.6 percent). See Table 8 for race/ethnicity distribution.

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

The average length of stay in Wilderness on this forest was 117 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 1.2 different days.

2.5 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 adequate signage as a 4.7 (important) and they rated their satisfaction with signage in the area as 3.5. This means this forest could increase visitor satisfaction on signage. Sixty-one percent of visitors said signage was average and 24 percent said signage was good.

Wilderness visitors on the average rated their visit 2.9 (on a scale from 1 to 10) concerning crowding, meaning they found the crowds about average. None said the area they visited was overcrowded (a 10 on the scale) and 29 percent said there was hardly anyone there (1 on the scale). Thirty-three percent of visitors rated crowding in Wilderness a 3 (some people there).

The Wilderness visitors on this forest spent an average of $162.84 within 50 miles of the Wilderness. They also spend an average of $1,242.82 annually on all outdoor recreation related expenditures (see Table 11).

Table 8. Race/ethnicity of White Mountain National Forest Wilderness visitors. NVUM 2000

Category	Total percent national forest visits
Black/African American	0
Asian	0.8
White	98.6
American Indian/Alaska Native	0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino	0.2
Other	0.4

Table 9. Zip Codes of White Mountain National Forest Wilderness visitors. NVUM 2000.

Zip Code	Frequency	Percent
03570	18	2.3
03581	7	1.1
03584	7	1.1
03755	7	1.1
03818	7	1.1
03860	6	1.0
03038	5	0.8
03264	5	0.8
03574	5	0.8
03582	5	0.8
03595	5	0.8
03838	5	0.8
01880	4	0.6
02139	4	0.6
03561	4	0.6
03820	4	0.6
04106	4	0.6
422 other zip codes listed	3,2, or 1 each

Table 10. Satisfaction of visitors at designated Wilderness on White Mountain 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 7 93	4.9	4.5
Available parking	0 0 0 38 62	4.6	3.4
Parking lot condition	0 0 0 9 91	4.9	3.6
Cleanliness of restrooms	0 12 3 0 85	4.8	4.1
Condition of the natural environment	0 0 0 71 29	4.3	4.9
Condition of developed recreation facilities	0 0 0 4 96	4.9	3.5
Condition of forest roads	0 0 0 35 65	4.6	3.1
Condition of forest trails	0 0 15 41 44	4.3	4.1
Availability of information on recreation	0 0 17 57 26	4.1	3.9
Feeling of safety	0 0 0 10 90	4.9	3.2
Adequacy of signage	0 1 61 24 14	3.5	4.7
Helpfulness of employees	0 0 0 30 70	4.7	2.6
Attractiveness of the forest landscape	0 0 0 30 70	4.7	4.7
Value for fee paid	0 0 6 2 92	4.9	4.0

* 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

Table 11. Average per person national forest trip expenditures within 50 miles of recreation site for Wilderness visitors to White Mountain National Forest. NVUM 2000

Expenditure Category	Average expenditure $00.00
Government owned lodging	9.76
Privately owned lodging	25.59
Food/drink at restaurants and bars	29.61
Other food and beverages	28.63
Gasoline and oil	23.44
Other transportation (plane, bus, etc.)	0
Activities (including guide fees and equipment rental)	0
Entry, parking, or recreation use fees	30.37
Souvenirs/ clothing	8.88
Any other expenses	0

Visit Information

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 White Mountain National Forest for a national forest visit was 27.5 hours. Thirty-three 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. White Mountain National Forest site visit length of stay (in hours) by site/type.

Site visit Average	DUDS	OUDS	Wilderness	GFA
19.6	2.8	39.5	117	23.6

The average White Mountain National Forest visitor went to 1.3 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. Eighty-six percent of visitors went only to the site at which they were interviewed.

During their visit to White Mountain National Forest the top five recreation activities of the visitors were viewing wildlife and natural features, general sightseeing, hiking and walking, general relaxation, driving for pleasure on forest roads, cross-country skiing, and developed camping (see Table 13). Each visitor also picked on of these activities as their primary activity for their current recreation visit to this forest. The top primary activities were cross-country skiing, developed camping, downhill skiing, picnicking, general relaxing, and hiking/walking (see Table 13). 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 White Mountain National Forest.

Activity	Percent participation	Percent who said it was their primary activity
Camping in developed sites (family or group)	31	23
Primitive camping	1	0
Backpacking, camping in unroaded areas	12	5
Resorts, cabins and other accommodations on FS managed lands (private or FS run)	5	2
Picnicking and family day gatherings in developed sites (family or group)	25	18
Viewing wildlife, birds, fish, etc on NFS lands*	61	11
Viewing natural features such as scenery, flowers, etc on NFS lands*	78	11
Visiting historic and prehistoric sites/area	4	2
Visiting a nature center, nature trail or VIS	12	2
Nature Study	9	3
General/other- relaxing, hanging out, escaping noise and heat, etc,	39	16
Fishing- all types	1	0
Hunting- all types	1	0
Off-highway vehicle travel (4-wheelers, dirt bikes, etc)	4	0
Driving for pleasure on roads	32	2
Snowmobile travel	1	1
Motorized water travel (boats, ski sleds, etc)	0	0
Other motorized land/air activities (plane, other)	1	0
Hiking or walking	48	16
Horseback riding	1	0
Bicycling, including mountain bikes	3	1
Non-motorized water travel (canoe, raft, etc.)	1	0
Downhill skiing or snowboarding	21	21
Cross-country skiing, snow shoeing	32	28
Other non-motorized activities (swimming, games and sports)	5	3
Gathering mushrooms, berries, firewood, or other natural products	5	1

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; visitor centers and museums, forest roads, and developed campgrounds. The most used specially designated areas were Nordic and non-motorized trails, scenic byways and Wilderness. Table 14 provides a summary of facility and special area use.

Table 14. Percent use of facilities and specially designated areas on the White Mountain National Forest.

Facility/ Area Type	Percent who said they used (national forest visits)
Developed campground	8
Swimming area	5
Hiking, biking, or horseback trails	60
Scenic byway	21
Designated Wilderness	13
Visitor center, Museum	16
FS Office or other info site	2
Picnic Area	4
Boat launch	0
Designated Off Road Vehicle area	1
Other Forest roads	13
Interpretive site	1
Organization camp	0
Developed fishing site/ dock	1
Designated Snowmobile area	0
Downhill Ski area	1
Nordic Ski area	55
Lodges/Resorts on FS land	5
Fire Lookouts/Cabins FS owned	0
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 this national forest as their primary destination. Ninety-three percent of national forest visitors 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. Over 45 percent of the visitors would have gone somewhere else for the same activity if this forest were not available to them.

The average recreation visitor on this forest was away from home on their trip for 56 hours. Eighty-three percent went to just this national forest on their trip and 17 percent 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 this forest 4.3 times to participate in their identified main activity.

Table 15. Substitute behavior choices of visitors on White Mountain National Forest. NVUM 2000

Substitute Choice	Percent who would have….
Gone somewhere else for the same activity	45.7
Gone somewhere else for a different activity	24.6
Come back another time	15.4
Stayed home	1.6
Gone to work at their regular job	1.2
None of these	11.5

Average yearly spending on outdoor recreation

In a typical year, visitors to this forest spent an average of $4,714.46 on all outdoor recreation activities including equipment, recreation trips, memberships, and licenses.

Visitors average spending on a trip to this 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 within 50 miles of recreation site.

Expenditure Category	Average expenditure $00.00
Government owned lodging	2.24
Privately owned lodging	442.49
Food/drink at restaurants and bars	156.93
Other food and beverages	19.76
Gasoline and oil	33.75
Other transportation (plane, bus, etc.)	6.31
Activities (including guide fees and equipment rental)	24.96
Entry, parking, or recreation use fees	6.47
Souvenirs/ clothing	35.19
Any other expenses	3.80

Visitor Satisfaction Information

Twenty-five percent of visitors interviewed on the forest were asked about 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 this forest to draw these conclusions. Rather, the information is generalized to overall satisfaction with facilities and services on this forest as a whole. Visitor’s site-specific answers could be colored by a particular condition on a particular day at a particular site. For example, the visitor was camping in a developed campground and all forest personnel were off fighting wildfires. 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 we asked them how important that particular facility or service was to the quality of their recreation experience. The importance of these items to the visitors’ recreation experience is then analyzed in relation to their satisfaction. Those items that were both extremely important to a visitor’s overall recreation experience and the visitor rated as poor quality are those items needing the most attention by this forest. Those items that were rated not important to the visitors’ recreation experience need the least attention.

Tables 17 through19 summarize the visitor’s satisfaction with forest facilities and services by site type. In Table 18 you can see that visitors said the condition of developed facilities at overnight developed sites was important to them (4.4) and they rated the condition of developed facilities as average (3.7). The item by response category column in the second column of the table gives more information about how visitors answered the satisfaction rating. For example, 38 percent of visitors rated their satisfaction as average, 56 percent as good, and 6 percent as very good. This means you can increase visitor satisfaction by improving the condition of the developed facilities at overnight sites.

Table 18 summarizes information about visitor satisfaction with Overnight Developed sites such as campgrounds and resorts on this 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 - White Mountain 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 12 14 74	4.6	4.5
Available parking	1 0 13 42 44	4.3	3.9
Parking lot condition	0 0 29 20 51	4.2	3.3
Cleanliness of restrooms	0 0 17 78 5	3.9	3.4
Condition of the natural environment	0 0 0 13 87	4.9	4.9
Condition of developed recreation facilities	0 0 1 45 54	4.5	4.1
Condition of forest roads	0 0 0 46 54	4.5	3.4
Condition of forest trails	0 0 0 23 77	4.8	4.4
Availability of information on recreation	0 0 1 51 48	4.5	4.0
Feeling of safety	0 0 1 15 84	4.8	4.3
Adequacy of signage	0 0 1 58 41	4.4	4.2
Helpfulness of employees	0 0 1 14 85	4.8	4.4
Attractiveness of the forest landscape	0 0 1 13 86	4.8	4.7
Value for fee paid	0 1 14 14 71	4.6	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

Table 18. Satisfaction of visitors at Overnight Developed Sites - White Mountain 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 21 79	4.8	4.8
Available parking	0 0 26 4 70	4.4	3.2
Parking lot condition	0 5 32 12 51	4.1	2.8
Cleanliness of restrooms	0 0 19 30 51	4.3	4.6
Condition of the natural environment	0 0 0 33 67	4.7	4.8
Condition of developed recreation facilities	0 0 38 56 6	3.7	4.4
Condition of forest roads	0 0 51 25 24	3.7	3.3
Condition of forest trails	0 0 0 65 35	4.3	4.4
Availability of information on recreation	29 0 29 21 21	3.1	3.4
Feeling of safety	0 0 29 35 36	4.1	4.4
Adequacy of signage	0 0 19 62 19	4.0	3.8
Helpfulness of employees	0 0 0 17 83	4.8	4.3
Attractiveness of the forest landscape	0 0 14 19 67	4.5	4.8
Value for fee paid	0 0 0 11 89	4.9	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 19. Satisfaction of visitors in General Forest Areas - White Mountain 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 2 1 19 78	4.7	4.8
Available parking	0 0 10 27 63	4.5	3.7
Parking lot condition	0 0 12 38 50	4.4	3.3
Cleanliness of restrooms	0 0 20 36 44	4.2	4.1
Condition of the natural environment	0 0 0 17 83	4.8	4.8
Condition of developed recreation facilities	0 0 0 38 62	4.6	4.2
Condition of forest roads	0 0 10 38 52	4.4	3.9
Condition of forest trails	0 0 11 27 62	4.5	4.6
Availability of information on recreation	1 5 10 35 49	4.3	4.4
Feeling of safety	0 0 0 26 74	4.7	4.2
Adequacy of signage	0 2 16 26 56	4.3	4.5
Helpfulness of employees	0 0 1 31 68	4.7	4.7
Attractiveness of the forest landscape	0 0 3 9 88	4.8	4.8
Value for fee paid	0 0 5 26 69	4.6	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

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 while a 10 means the area was perceived as overcrowded.

Table 20. Perception of crowding by visitors on the White Mountain National Forest by site type (percent site visits).

Perception of crowding	Overnight Developed Sites	Day Use Developed Sites	Wilderness	General Forest Areas
10 Over crowded	0	0	0	3
9	0	0	0	0
8	14	0	1	4
7	0	13	2	4
6	19	1	10	5
5	38	39	1	18
4	8	32	13	19
3	19	1	34	7
2	2	13	10	11
1 hardly anyone there	0	1	29	29

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 this forest received any responses, they are summarized in Table 21.

Table 21. List of comments received from visitors on the White Mountain NF. NVUM 2000

Site Name	Is there any other accommodation or assistance we could offer? Comments
Bretton Woods DUDS	Lunch facility
Covered Bridge CG DUDS	Get rid of required parking pass
Ellis Falls Scenic Area- DUDS	More trail information Keeping gated roads open
Lincoln Woods- DUDS	Reflective lettering on CG signs
Wildcat Ski Area- DUDS	Elimate user fee
Sabbaday Brook Trail GFA	Do away with fee demo
Great Gulf TH- GFA	Bear boxes at campsites
Pinkham Notch Camp GFA	Watershed protection
Beaver Bk X-C- GFA	One sticker for all forest fee systems
Old Bridge Path- GFA	Unclear signage on fee pilot program. Make it easier More information on recreation opportunities
Zealand Road FR 16 GFA	Shower facilities at Zealand Hot
Campton Group OUDS	Showers too expensive for duration, need trailhead info
Fourth Iron Walk in CG OUDS	More information on bears
Tripoli Road OUDS	More website information

Rev 12 Sept 2001

Rev 8 Feb 2002 (wilderness demographics)

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1: SAMPLE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

Table 1. The population of available site days open for sampling and the percent of days sampled within each stratum on the White Mountain National Forest. NVUM 2000

Table 2. Recreation use estimates by forest for Region 9 1/

Wilderness Visitors

Table 8. Race/ethnicity of White Mountain National Forest Wilderness visitors. NVUM 2000

Table 9. Zip Codes of White Mountain National Forest Wilderness visitors. NVUM 2000.

Table 11. Average per person national forest trip expenditures within 50 miles of recreation site for Wilderness visitors to White Mountain National Forest. NVUM 2000

Use of constructed facilities and designated areas

Table 15. Substitute behavior choices of visitors on White Mountain National Forest. NVUM 2000