National Visitor Use Monitoring Results
August 2003
Region 8
Prepared by:
Susan M. Kocis
Stanley J. Zarnoch
Ross Arnold
Larry Warren
Scope
and purpose of the National Visitor Use Monitoring project
CHAPTER
1: SAMPLE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
The
NVUM Process and Definition of Terms
Constraints
on Uses of the Results
The
Forest Stratification Results
Table
1. Population of available site days for
sampling and percentage of days sampled by stratum
CHAPTER
2: VISITATION ESTIMATES
Table
2. Annual Daniel Boone National Forest
recreation use estimate
Table
3. Number of last-exiting recreation
visitors by site type and form type 1/
Table
4. Gender distribution of Daniel Boone
NF recreation visitors
Table
5. Age distribution of Daniel Boone NF
recreation visitors
Table
6. Race/ethnicity of Daniel Boone NF
recreation visitors
Table
7. Zip codes of Daniel Boone NF
recreation visitors
Average
number of people per vehicle and average axle count per vehicle in survey
CHAPTER
3: WILDERNESS VISITORS
Table
8. Age distribution of Daniel Boone NF
Wilderness visitors
Table
9. Race/ethnicity of Daniel Boone NF
Wilderness visitors
Table
10. Zip codes of Daniel Boone NF
Wilderness visitors
Table
11. Satisfaction of Daniel Boone NF
Wilderness Visitors.
CHAPTER
4: DESCRIPTION OF THE VISIT
Table
12. Site visit length of stay (in hours)
by site/type on Daniel Boone NF
Table
13. Daniel Boone NF activity
participation and primary activity
Use
of constructed facilities and designated areas
Table
14. Percentage use of facilities and
specially designated areas on Daniel Boone NF.
Table
15. Substitute behavior choices of
recreation visitors
Average
yearly spending on outdoor recreation.
Visitors’
average spending on a trip to the forest
Visitor
Satisfaction Information
Table
16. Satisfaction of Daniel Boone NF
recreation visitors at Developed Day Use sites
Table
17. Satisfaction of Daniel Boone NF
recreation visitors at Developed Overnight sites
Table
18. Satisfaction of Daniel Boone NF
recreation visitors in General Forest Areas
Table
20. List of comments received from
Daniel Boone NF recreation visitors
The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) project was implemented as a response to the need to better understand the use and importance of and satisfaction with national forest system recreation opportunities. This level of understanding is required by national forest plans, Executive Order 12862 (Setting Customer Service Standards), and implementation of the National Recreation Agenda. To improve public service, the agency’s Strategic and Annual Performance Plans require measuring trends in user satisfaction and use levels. 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; Southern Research Station; May 2002 (http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum).
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 simultaneously manage the recreation facilities and 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, regional, and national 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 second group of forests completed sampling September 2001. The third group of forests began sampling in October 2001 and completed sampling September 2002. 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.
This
data can be very useful for forest planning and decision making. The information provided can be used
in economic efficiency analysis that requires providing a value per National
Forest Visit. This can then be compared
to other resource values. The
description of visitor characteristics (age, race, zip code, activity
participation) can help the forest identify the type of recreation niche they
fill. The satisfaction information can
help management decide where best to place limited resources that would result
in improved visitor satisfaction. The
economic expenditure information can help forests show local communities the
employment and income effects of tourism from forest visitors. In addition, the credible use statistics can
be helpful in considering visitor capacity issues.
NVUM has standardized definitions of visitor use measurement to ensure that all national forest visitor measurements are comparable. These definitions are basically 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. Along with these use measurements basic statistics, which indicate the precision of the estimate, are given. These statistics include the error rate and associated confidence intervals at the 80 percent confidence level. 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
level provides a specified level of certainty for a confidence interval
defining a range of values around the estimate.
The error rate (which is never a bad thing like making an error on a
test) is expressed as a percent of the estimate and can be used to obtain 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 level is very acceptable for social science
applications at a broad national or forest scale. The two terms are used to describe the estimate. For example:
At the 80 percent confidence level there are 240 million national forest
visits plus or minus 15 percent. In
other words we are 80 percent confident that the true number of national forest
visits lies between 204 million and 276 million.
To participate in the NVUM
process, forests first categorized all recreation sites and areas into five
basic categories called “site
types”: Day Use Developed Sites (DUDS),
Overnight Use Developed Sites (OUDS), Wilderness, General Forest Areas (GFA),
and View Corridors (VC). Only the first
four categories are considered “true” national forest visits and were included in
the estimate provided. Within these broad
categories (called site types) every open day of the year for each site/area
was rated as high, medium or low last exiting recreation use. Sites/areas that are scheduled to be closed
or would have “0” use were 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 View
Corridors was prepared and 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 five broad categories as defined in the paper: Forest Service National Visitor
Use Monitoring Process: Research Method Documentation, May 2002, English et
al. The categories are Day Use Developed
sites (DUDS), Overnight Use Developed Sites (OUDS), General Forest Areas (GFA),
Wilderness (WILD), and View Corridors (VC).
Another category called Off-Forest Recreation Activities (OFRA) was
categorized but not sampled.
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 site 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 last 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 last
exiting recreation use on open weekends (70 days) and medium last 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 will reflect all these factors.
The smaller the error rate, the better the estimate. Interviewer error in asking the questions is
not necessarily reflected in this error rate.
Large error rates (i.e. high variability) in the
national forest visit (NFV), site visit (SV) and Wilderness visit estimates is
primarily caused by a small sample size in a given stratum (for example General
Forest Area low use days) where the use observed was beyond that stratum’s
normal range. For example, on the
The descriptive information about national forest
visitors is based upon only those visitors that were interviewed. If a forest has distinct seasonal use
patterns and activities that vary greatly by season, these patterns may or may
not be adequately captured in this study.
This study was designed to estimate total number of people during a
year. Sample days were distributed based
upon high, medium, and low exiting use days, not seasons. When applying these results in forest
analysis, items such as activity participation should be carefully
scrutinized. For example, although the
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 stratification and sample days accomplished by this forest are displayed in Table 1. This table describes the population of available site days open for sampling based on forest pre-work completed prior to the actual surveys. Every site and area on the forest was categorized as high, medium, low, or closed last exiting recreation use. This stratification 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.
Visitor use estimates are available at the national, regional, and
forest level. Only forest level data is
provided here. For national and regional
reports visit the following web site: (http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum).
Table
2.
|
National
Forest Visits |
Site
Visits |
Wilderness
Visits |
|||
|
Visits |
80%
Confidence Interval Width (%) |
Visits |
80%
Confidence Interval Width (%) |
Visits |
80% Confidence Interval Width (%) |
|
25.1 |
2,663,100 |
23.4 |
25,752 |
44.5 |
|
The
Recreation use on the forest for fiscal year 2002 at the 80 percent
confidence level was 2.355 million national forest visits +/- 25.1
percent. There were 2.7 million site
visits, an average of 1.14 site visits per
national forest visit. Included in the
site visit estimate are 25,752 Wilderness visits.
A total of 1,219 visitors were contacted on the forest during
the sample year. Of these, almost twelve
percent refused to be interviewed. Of
the 1,078 people who agreed to be interviewed, about eighteen percent were not
recreating, including 1 percent who just stopped to use the bathroom, 4 percent
were working, 9 percent were just passing through, and 4 percent had some other
reason to be there. About 82 percent of
those interviewed said their primary purpose on the forest was recreation and 86
percent of them were exiting for the last time.
Of the visitors leaving the forest agreeing to be interviewed, about 73
percent were last exiting recreation visitors (the target interview
population). Table 3 displays the number
of last-exiting recreation visitors interviewed at each site type and the type
of interview form they answered.
Table 3. Number of last-exiting recreation visitors by site type and form type 1/
|
Form Type |
Day Use |
Overnight |
|
Wilderness |
|
Basic |
54 |
140 |
40 |
|
|
Satisfaction |
44 |
43 |
112 |
26 |
|
Economics |
43 |
48 |
113 |
29 |
1/ Form type means the
type of interview form administered to the visitor. The basic form did not ask either economic or
satisfaction questions. The Satisfaction
form did not ask economic questions and the economic form did not ask satisfaction
questions.
Basic descriptors of the
forest visitors were developed based upon those visitors interviewed then
expanded to the national forest visitor population. Tables 4 and 5 display gender and age
descriptors.
Table 4. Gender
distribution of Daniel
|
Gender |
Female
20.8% |
Table 5. Age distribution of Daniel
|
Age Group |
Percent in
group |
|
Under 16 |
|
|
16-20 |
2.9 |
|
21-30 |
13.3 |
|
31-40 |
27.6 |
|
41-50 |
22.9 |
|
51-60 |
17.2 |
|
61-70 |
6.4 |
|
Over 70 |
3.7 |
Visitors categorized themselves into one of
seven race/ethnicity categories. Table 6
gives a detailed breakout by category.
Table 6.
Race/ethnicity of Daniel
|
Category |
Total percent national forest
visits |
|
Black/African American |
|
|
Asian |
0.0 |
|
White |
99.9 |
|
American Indian/Alaska Native |
0.0 |
|
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander |
0.0 |
|
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino |
0.0 |
|
Other |
0.1 |
None of the visitors
surveyed indicated they were from another country. Visitors most frequently reported zip codes
are shown in Table 7. 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 about 290 different zip codes reported. This information can be used with programs
such as “zipfip” or census data for more extensive analysis.
Table 7. Zip codes of Daniel Boone NF recreation visitors
|
Zip Code |
Frequency |
Percent |
|
41.0 |
6.3 |
|
|
40701 |
17.0 |
2.6 |
|
40741 |
17.0 |
2.6 |
|
40391 |
16.0 |
2.5 |
|
40353 |
15.0 |
2.3 |
|
40744 |
13.0 |
2.0 |
|
40475 |
10.0 |
1.5 |
|
40502 |
10.0 |
1.5 |
|
40322 |
9.0 |
1.4 |
|
40447 |
8.0 |
1.2 |
|
40505 |
8.0 |
1.2 |
|
40962 |
8.0 |
1.2 |
|
40517 |
7.0 |
1.1 |
|
42501 |
7.0 |
1.1 |
|
40220 |
6.0 |
0.9 |
|
40360 |
6.0 |
0.9 |
|
40361 |
6.0 |
0.9 |
|
40371 |
6.0 |
0.9 |
|
40380 |
6.0 |
0.9 |
There
was an average of 1.5 people per vehicle with an average of 2.2 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 twenty-three days on
the forest and 95 interviews were obtained.
There were 90.0 percent male and 10.0 percent female visitors to
Wilderness on the forest. Tables 8 and 9
display the age distribution and race/ethnicity of Wilderness visitors.
Table 8. Age distribution of Daniel Boone NF Wilderness visitors
|
Age Group |
Percent
in group |
|
Under 16 |
|
|
16-20 |
5.1 |
|
21-30 |
52.9 |
|
31-40 |
18.5 |
|
41-50 |
13.3 |
|
51-60 |
8.1 |
|
61-70 |
0.0 |
|
Over 70 |
0.0 |
Table 9.
Race/ethnicity of Daniel Boone NF Wilderness visitors
|
Category |
Total
percent national
forest visits |
|
Black/African American |
|
|
Asian |
3.3 |
|
White |
92.7 |
|
American Indian/Alaska Native |
0.0 |
|
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander |
0.0 |
|
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino |
0.0 |
|
Other |
0.7 |
The Wilderness visitors were from a wide variety of zip
codes. The distribution of Wilderness
visitor zip codes is shown in Table 10.
There were about 70 different zip codes reported.
Table
10. Zip codes of Daniel Boone NF
Wilderness visitors
|
Zip Code |
Frequency |
Percent |
|
40220 |
4.0 |
4.3 |
|
40505 |
3.0 |
3.2 |
|
40517 |
3.0 |
3.2 |
|
41042 |
3.0 |
3.2 |
|
41091 |
3.0 |
3.2 |
|
45205 |
3.0 |
3.2 |
|
45219 |
3.0 |
3.2 |
|
45220 |
3.0 |
3.2 |
|
40205 |
2.0 |
2.1 |
|
40206 |
2.0 |
2.1 |
|
40475 |
2.0 |
2.1 |
|
40502 |
2.0 |
2.1 |
The average length of stay in Wilderness on the forest was 12.1
hours. In addition, all visitors were
asked on how many different days they entered into designated Wilderness during
their national forest visit even if we interviewed them at a developed
recreation site or general forest area. Of those visitors who did enter
designated Wilderness, they entered 1.1 different days.
None of those interviewed in Wilderness said they used the
services of a commercial guide.
Table 11 gives detailed information about how the Wilderness
visitors rated various aspects of the area.
A general example of how to interpret this information: If the visitors
had rated the importance of the adequacy of signage a 5.0 (very important) and
they rated their satisfaction with the adequacy of signage a 3.0 (somewhat
satisfied) then the forest might be able to increase visitor satisfaction. Perhaps twenty-nine percent of visitors said
the adequacy of signage was poor. The
forest could target improving this sector of visitors for increased
satisfaction by improving the signage for Wilderness.
Wilderness visitors on the average rated their visit 4.0 (on a
scale from 1 to 10) concerning crowding, meaning they felt there were few
people there. Zero percent said the
area they visited was overcrowded (a 10 on the scale) and 16.3 percent said
there was hardly anyone there (a 1 on the scale).
Table 11. Satisfaction of Daniel Boone NF Wilderness
Visitors.
|
Item Name |
Item by Percent response by * P
F A G VG |
Mean ** Satisfaction Of visitors (n) |
Mean ** Importance To visitors |
||||
|
Scenery |
0.0 |
3.8 |
34.6 |
61.5 |
4.6 (26) |
4.5 |
|
|
Available parking |
0.0 |
12.5 |
4.2 |
54.2 |
29.2 |
4.0 (24) |
3.8 |
|
Parking lot condition |
0.0 |
4.3 |
17.4 |
60.9 |
17.4 |
3.9 (23) |
3.4 |
|
Cleanliness of restrooms |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
- - |
-- |
-- |
|
Condition of the natural environment |
3.8 |
3.8 |
3.8 |
69.2 |
19.2 |
4.0 (26) |
4.2 |
|
Condition of developed recreation facilities |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
- - |
-- |
-- |
|
Condition of forest roads |
0.0 |
0.0 |
8.3 |
70.8 |
20.8 |
4.1 (24) |
3.8 |
|
Condition of forest trails |
4.0 |
8.0 |
20.0 |
36.0 |
32.0 |
3.8 (25) |
4.0 |
|
Availability of information on recreation |
5.6 |
5.6 |
33.3 |
50.0 |
5.6 |
3.4 (18) |
3.3 |
|
Feeling of safety |
0.0 |
0.0 |
15.4 |
46.2 |
38.5 |
4.2 (26) |
4.2 |
|
Adequacy of signage |
0.0 |
18.2 |
13.6 |
40.9 |
27.3 |
3.8 (22) |
3.7 |
|
Helpfulness of employees |
0.0 |
0.0 |
9.1 |
45.5 |
45.5 |
4.4 (22) |
4.0 |
|
Interpretive Services |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
- - |
-- |
-- |
|
Value for fee paid |
0.0 |
18.2 |
13.6 |
31.8 |
36.4 |
3.9 (22) |
3.7 |
*Scale is: P = poor F =
fair A = average G = good
VG = very good
** Scale is: 1= not important
2= somewhat important
3=moderately important 4=
important 5 = very important
n= number of
responses on which rating is based.
Note: for
items where there was insufficient response (less than 10 interviews) the item
is not rated
A description of visitor activity during their national forest
visit was 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 this forest for a national forest
visit was 16.8 hours. About 26 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. Site visit length of stay (in hours) by site/type on Daniel Boone NF
|
Site Visit Average |
DUDS |
OUDS |
Wilderness |
GFA |
|
2.4 |
55.2 |
12.1 |
15.2 |
The average recreation visitor went to 1.1 sites during their national
forest visit.
During their visit to the forest, the top five recreation
activities of the visitors were viewing wildlife, relaxing, viewing natural
features, hiking/walking, and fishing (see Table 13). Each visitor also picked one of these activities
as their primary activity for their current recreation visit to the
forest. The top primary activities were motorized
water travel, fishing, hunting, hiking, and other nonmotorized activities (see
Table 13). Please note that the results
of the NVUM activity analysis DO NOT identify the types of activities visitors
would like to have offered on the national forests. It also does not tell us about displaced
forest visitors, those who no longer visit the forest because the activities
they desire are not offered.
Table 13. Daniel Boone NF
activity participation and primary activity
|
Activity |
Percent participation |
Percent who said it was their primary
activity |
|
Camping in developed sites (family or
group) |
3.1 |
|
|
Primitive camping |
4.6 |
0.2 |
|
Backpacking, camping
in unroaded areas |
1.7 |
1.3 |
|
Resorts, cabins and
other accommodations on Forest Service managed lands (private or Forest
Service run) |
6.3 |
0.0 |
|
Picnicking and family
day gatherings in developed sites (family or group) |
7.2 |
2.7 |
|
**Viewing wildlife,
birds, fish, etc on national forest system lands |
44.7 |
0.9 |
|
**Viewing natural
features such as scenery, flowers, etc on national forest system lands |
25.7 |
2.5 |
|
Visiting historic and
prehistoric sites/area |
2.3 |
0.2 |
|
Visiting a nature
center, nature trail or visitor information services |
5.7 |
0.1 |
|
Nature Study |
3.2 |
0.0 |
|
General/other-
relaxing, hanging out, escaping noise and heat, etc, |
30.7 |
6.5 |
|
Fishing- all types |
23.7 |
17.2 |
|
Hunting- all types |
18.0 |
16.8 |
|
Off-highway vehicle
travel (4-wheelers, dirt bikes, etc) |
7.8 |
6.3 |
|
Driving for pleasure
on roads |
16.9 |
5.6 |
|
Snowmobile travel |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Motorized water travel
(boats, ski sleds, etc) |
22.6 |
17.3 |
|
Other motorized land/air activities (plane,
other) |
0.3 |
0.3 |
|
Hiking or walking |
27.6 |
11.4 |
|
Horseback riding |
0.8 |
0.7 |
|
Bicycling, including
mountain bikes |
2.9 |
2.5 |
|
Non-motorized water
travel (canoe, raft, etc.) |
1.9 |
0.3 |
|
Downhill skiing or
snowboarding |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Cross-country skiing,
snow shoeing |
0.2 |
0.0 |
|
Other non-motorized
activities (swimming, games and sports) |
18.6 |
10.3 |
|
Gathering mushrooms,
berries, firewood, or other natural products |
2.6 |
0.2 |
* This
column totals over 100% because some visitors selected more than one activity.
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 five most used
facilities/areas were: other forest
roads, nonmotorized trails, boat launches, fishing sites, 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 Daniel Boone NF.
|
Facility
/ Area Type |
Percent who said they used (national
forest visits) |
|
Developed campground |
|
|
Swimming area |
6.8 |
|
Hiking, biking, or horseback trails |
20.2 |
|
Scenic byway |
6.5 |
|
Designated Wilderness |
2.4 |
|
Visitor center, museum |
0.8 |
|
Forest Service office or other info site |
4.0 |
|
Picnic area |
7.9 |
|
Boat launch |
16.1 |
|
Designated Off Road Vehicle area |
0.5 |
|
Other forest roads |
23.0 |
|
Interpretive site |
1.2 |
|
Organization camp |
0.0 |
|
Developed fishing site/ dock |
11.3 |
|
Designated snowmobile area |
0.0 |
|
Downhill ski area |
0.0 |
|
Nordic ski area |
0.0 |
|
Lodges/Resorts on National Forest System land |
0.1 |
|
Fire Lookouts/Cabins Forest Service owned |
0.0 |
|
Designated snow play area |
0.0 |
|
Motorized developed trails |
3.3 |
|
Recreation residences |
0.0 |
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. Of the 15
percent of visitors that went to other areas than just this national forest, 99.8
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.
The average total length of time that recreation visitors on the forest were away from home on their trip was about 19 hours. In the 12 months prior to the interview the typical visitor had come to this forest 7.9 times per year for all activities, and about 5.3 times to participate in their identified main activity.
Table 15. Substitute behavior choices of recreation visitors
|
Substitute Choice |
Percent who would have… |
|
Gone somewhere else for
the same activity |
|
|
Gone somewhere else for
a different activity |
4.8 |
|
Come back another time |
17.0 |
|
Stayed home |
22.7 |
|
Gone to work at their
regular job |
5.0 |
|
None of these |
5.3 |
In a typical year, visitors to this forest spent an average of
$1,292 on all outdoor recreation activities including equipment, recreation
trips, memberships, and licenses.
Visitors
estimated the amount of money spent per person 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). This
information is available in a separate report and data file that can be used
for planning analysis.
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 usually have 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 firefighting 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 16 through 18 summarize visitor satisfaction with the forest facilities and services at Day Use Developed sites, Overnight Developed sites and General Forest areas. Wilderness satisfaction is reported in Table 11. To interpret this information for possible management action, one must look at both the importance and satisfaction ratings. If visitors rated an element a 1 or 2 they are telling management that particular element is not very important to the overall quality of their recreation experience. Even if the visitors rated that element as poor or fair, improving this element may not necessarily increase visitor satisfaction because the element was not that important to them. On the other hand, if visitors rated an element as a 5 or 4 they are saying this element is very important to the quality of their recreation experience. If their overall satisfaction with that element is not very good, management action here can increase visitor satisfaction.
Table
16. Satisfaction of Daniel
|
Item Name |
Item by Percent response by * P F A G VG |
Mean ** Satisfaction Of Visitors (n) |
Mean ** Importance To Visitors |
||||
|
Scenery |
0.0 |
0.0 |
29.5 |
70.5 |
4.7
(44) |
4.3 |
|
|
Available parking |
2.3 |
2.3 |
4.7 |
39.5 |
51.2 |
4.3
(43) |
3.9 |
|
Parking lot condition |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
53.5 |
46.5 |
4.5
(43) |
3.7 |
|
Cleanliness of restrooms |
0.0 |
2.9 |
14.7 |
44.1 |
38.2 |
4.2
(34) |
4.6 |
|
Condition of the natural environment |
0.0 |
0.0 |
4.5 |
36.4 |
59.1 |
4.5
(44) |
3.9 |
|
Condition of developed recreation facilities |
0.0 |
2.3 |
2.3 |
46.5 |
48.8 |
4.4
(43) |
4.2 |
|
Condition of forest roads |
0.0 |
0.0 |
9.5 |
45.2 |
45.2 |
4.4
(42) |
3.8 |
|
Condition of forest trails |
0.0 |
6.7 |
6.7 |
50.0 |
36.7 |
4.2
(30) |
3.7 |
|
Availability of information on recreation |
0.0 |
5.1 |
15.4 |
35.9 |
43.6 |
4.2
(39) |
3.8 |
|
Feeling of safety |
0.0 |
2.3 |
2.3 |
31.8 |
63.6 |
4.6
(44) |
4.7 |
|
Adequacy of signage |
2.4 |
9.5 |
11.9 |
38.1 |
38.1 |
4.0
(42) |
3.9 |
|
Helpfulness of employees |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
32.5 |
67.5 |
4.7
(40) |
4.0 |
|
Interpretive displays, signs, and exhibits |
0.0 |
5.3 |
10.5 |
84.2 |
0.0 |
3.8
(19) |
3.5 |
|
Value for fee paid |
2.6 |
12.8 |
5.1 |
25.6 |
53.8 |
4.2
(39) |
4.4 |
*Scale
is: P = poor F = fair A = average
G = good VG = very good
**
Scale is: 1= not important 2= somewhat
important 3=moderately important 4= important 5 = very important
n= number of responses on which rating is based.
.Note: for items where there was
insufficient response (less than 10 interviews) the item is not rated.
Table 17. Satisfaction of Daniel
|
Item Name |
Item by Percent response by * P F A G VG |
Mean ** Satisfaction Of Visitors (n) |
Mean ** Importance To Vsitors |
||||
|
Scenery |
0.0 |
0.0 |
38.3 |
61.7 |
4.6
(47) |
4.5 |
|
|
Available parking |
0.0 |
6.4 |
4.3 |
36.2 |
53.2 |
4.4
(47) |
4.1 |
|
Parking lot condition |
0.0 |
2.2 |
6.5 |
34.8 |
56.5 |
4.5
(46) |
3.7 |
|
Cleanliness of restrooms |
4.5 |
4.5 |
18.2 |
36.4 |
36.4 |
4.0
(44) |
4.5 |
|
Condition of the natural environment |
2.1 |
0.0 |
2.1 |
57.4 |
38.3 |
4.3
(47) |
4.4 |
|
Condition of developed recreation facilities |
2.1 |
2.1 |
2.1 |
51.1 |
42.6 |
4.3
(47) |
4.3 |
|
Condition of forest roads |
0.0 |
2.3 |
7.0 |
55.8 |
34.9 |
4.2
(43) |
3.9 |
|
Condition of forest trails |
2.7 |
8.1 |
13.5 |
48.6 |
27.0 |
3.9
(37) |
3.9 |
|
Availability of information on recreation |
0.0 |
2.4 |
24.4 |
46.3 |
26.8 |
4.0
(41) |
4.1 |
|
Feeling of safety |
0.0 |
0.0 |
6.4 |
36.2 |
57.4 |
4.5
(47) |
4.7 |
|
Adequacy of signage |
0.0 |
8.7 |
8.7 |
50.0 |
32.6 |
4.1
(46) |
4.0 |
|
Helpfulness of employees |
0.0 |
2.4 |
2.4 |
50.0 |
45.2 |
4.4
(42) |
4.4 |
|
Interpretive displays, signs, and exhibits |
0.0 |
0.0 |
31.3 |
68.8 |
0.0 |
3.7
(16) |
3.6 |
|
Value for fee paid |
0.0 |
6.8 |
6.8 |
38.6 |
47.7 |
4.3
(44) |
4.4 |
*Scale
is: P = poor F = fair A = average
G = good VG = very good
** Scale is: 1= not important 2= somewhat important 3=moderately important 4= important 5 = very important
(n) = number of responses upon which this rating is
based
Note:
for items where there was insufficient response (less than 10 interviews) the
item is not rated
Table 18. Satisfaction of Daniel Boone NF recreation
visitors in General Forest Areas
|
Item Name |
Item by Percent response by * P F A G VG |
Mean ** Satisfaction Of Visitors (n) |
Mean ** Importance To Visitors (n) |
||||
|
Scenery |
2.5 |
2.5 |
32.9 |
60.8 |
4.5
(79) |
4.5 |
|
|
Available parking |
0.0 |
2.8 |
19.4 |
43.1 |
34.7 |
4.1
(72) |
4.1 |
|
Parking lot condition |
0.0 |
0.0 |
18.6 |
49.2 |
32.2 |
4.1
(59) |
3.8 |
|
Cleanliness of restrooms |
0.0 |
2.0 |
7.8 |
51.0 |
39.2 |
4.3
(51) |
4.6 |
|
Condition of the natural environment |
0.0 |
5.1 |
12.7 |
44.3 |
38.0 |
4.2
(79) |
4.4 |
|
Condition of developed recreation facilities |
0.0 |
1.9 |
9.4 |
49.1 |
39.6 |
4.3
(53) |
4.2 |
|
Condition of forest roads |
2.9 |
7.1 |
7.1 |
51.4 |
31.4 |
4.0
(70) |
3.9 |
|
Condition of forest trails |
0.0 |
4.9 |
4.9 |
53.7 |
36.6 |
4.2
(41) |
4.1 |
|
Availability of information on recreation |
3.2 |
9.7 |
17.7 |
45.2 |
24.2 |
3.8
(62) |
3.9 |
|
Feeling of safety |
0.0 |
5.2 |
3.9 |
44.2 |
46.8 |
4.3
(77) |
4.6 |
|
Adequacy of signage |
5.6 |
4.2 |
11.3 |
52.1 |
26.8 |
3.9
(71) |
4.0 |
|
Helpfulness of employees |
0.0 |
1.6 |
4.9 |
39.3 |
54.1 |
4.5
(61) |
4.2 |
|
Interpretive displays, signs, and exhibits |
6.5 |
6.5 |
19.4 |
67.7 |
0.0 |
3.5
(31) |
3.9 |
|
Value for fee paid |
3.8 |
13.5 |
7.7 |
32.7 |
42.3 |
4.0
(52) |
4.4 |
*Scale
is: P = poor F = fair A = average
G = good VG = very good
** Scale is: 1= not important 2= somewhat important 3=moderately important 4= important 5 = very important
(n) = number of responses upon which this rating is based
Note: for items where there was insufficient
response (less than 10 interviews) the item is not rated
Visitors rated their perception of how
crowded the recreation site or area 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 19 summarizes 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.
|
Overnight
Developed Sites |
Day Use Developed Sites |
Wilderness |
|
|
|
10 Over
crowded |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.4 |
|
|
9 |
0.7 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
|
8 |
7.9 |
9.3 |
17.9 |
14.6 |
|
7 |
9.0 |
7.0 |
6.8 |
2.0 |
|
6 |
17.2 |
16.3 |
2.0 |
7.4 |
|
5 |
21.3 |
22.6 |
4.8 |
6.7 |
|
4 |
11.9 |
15.5 |
15.9 |
7.7 |
|
3 |
11.2 |
5.0 |
18.3 |
18.8 |
|
2 |
2.7 |
18.1 |
17.9 |
15.5 |
|
1 Hardly
anyone there |
18.1 |
6.2 |
16.3 |
25.7 |
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. Responses are summarized in Table 20.
Table 20. List of comments received from Daniel Boone NF recreation visitors
|
Site Name |
Is there any other accommodation or assistance we could
offer? Comments |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||