National Visitor Use
Monitoring Results
August 2001
USDA Forest Service
Region 3
KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST
Scope and purpose of the National Visitor Use
Monitoring project
CHAPTER 1:
SAMPLE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
The NVUM Process and Definition of Terms. 3
Constraints On Uses of the Results. 3
The Forest Stratification Results. 3
CHAPTER 2:
VISITATION ESTIMATES
Table 2.
Annual recreation use estimates by forest for region 3. 1/
Table 3.
Gender distribution of Kaibab National Forest visitors. 7
Table 4.
Age distribution of Kaibab National Forest visitors. 7
Table 5.
Race/ethnicity of Kaibab National Forest visitors. 7
Table 6.
Zip codes of Kaibab National Forest recreation visitors. 7
Average number of people per vehicle and
average axle count per vehicle in survey
CHAPTER 3: WILDERNESS VISITORS. 8
Table 7.
Age distribution of Wilderness visitors on Kaibab National Forest. 8
Table 8.
Race/ethnicity of Kaibab National Forest Wilderness visitors. 9
Table 9.
Zip codes of Kaibab National Forest Wilderness visitors. 9
Table 10.
Satisfaction of visitors at designated Wilderness on Kaibab National
Forest.
CHAPTER 4: DESCRIPTION OF THE VISIT. 10
Table 12.
Kaibab National Forest site visit length of stay (in hours) by
site/type.
Table 13.
Activity participation and primary activity for the Kaibab National
Forest.
Use of constructed facilities and designated
areas
Table 14.
Percentage use of facilities and specially designated areas on the
Kaibab National Forest.
Table 15.
Substitute behavior choices of visitors on Kaibab National Forest. 14
Average yearly spending on outdoor recreation. 14
Visitors average spending on a trip to Kaibab
National Forest
Visitor Satisfaction Information. 15
Table 17.
Satisfaction of visitors at Day Use Developed Sites on the Kaibab
National Forest.
Table 18.
Satisfaction of visitors at Overnight Developed Sites Kaibab National
Forest.
Table 19.
Satisfaction of visitors in General Forest Areas on Kaibab National
Forest.
Other comments from visitors. 18
Table 21.
List of comments received from visitors on the Kaibab National Forest. 18
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 |
0 |
0 |
2,501 |
12 0.5 |
OUDS M |
0 |
0 |
|
|
OUDS L |
244 |
8 3.3 |
|
|
DUDS H |
188 |
10 5.3 |
620 |
5 0.8 |
DUDS M |
755 |
11 1.5 |
|
|
DUDS L |
5,401 |
11 0.2 |
|
|
Wild H |
132 |
9 6.8 |
|
|
Wild M |
80 |
8 10.0 |
|
|
Wild L |
1,288 |
8 0.6 |
|
|
GFA H |
312 |
10 3.2 |
|
|
GFA M |
1,415 |
16 1.1 |
|
|
GFA L |
4,479 |
10 0.2 |
|
|
TOTALS |
14,294 |
101 |
3,121 |
17 |
Nationally there were 209
million national forest visits plus or minus 17 percent error rate at the 80 percent
confidence level. These visitors
participated in 257 million site visits that included 14.3 million Wilderness
visits. Additionally, another 258
million people enjoyed viewing national forest scenery from non-Forest Service
managed travel ways. A national report
with additional information is available (http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/recuse/recuse.shtml).
Region 3, the “Southwestern Region” includes national forest system lands in Arizona and New Mexico. It received 19.5 million national forest visits +/-41.2 percent at the 80 percent confidence level. As shown in Table 2, three national forests in region 3 were sampled in the first year of the project. The results from these forests were then expanded to estimate total regional recreation use as explained in the project methods paper listed on page 1.
|
National
Forest Visits |
Site
Visits |
Wilderness
Visits |
|||
Forest |
Visits (millions) |
Error Rate |
Visits
(millions) |
Error
Rate |
Visits |
Error Rate |
Cibola |
2.88 |
18.75 |
3.17 |
17.90 |
707,858 |
37.43 |
Coconino |
1.89 |
15.35 |
2.42 |
14.01 |
204,872 |
41.93 |
Kaibab |
0.56 |
26.67 |
0.69 |
29.10 |
6,545 |
41.49 |
1/ Region 3, the “Southwestern Region” includes national forest units in Arizona and New Mexico.
The Kaibab
National Forest participated in the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM)
project from January 1 through December 31, 2000. The main contact person was Charlotte Minor. The surveys were accomplished using eleven
different Forest Service employees, including 4 seasonals. The forest was assigned 130 sample days and
accomplished 98 percent of these (missed 3 days). The forest coordinator estimates the traffic counters were
accurate at least 75 percent of the time for pneumatics but less than half the
time for infrareds. The Kaibab National
Forest experienced an unusually low snow year for the first winter of the
survey and felt use was below normal.
During the mid-May, the General Forest Area was closed for 3 weeks due
to fires that also reduced overall forest visitation.
Recreation use on the Kaibab
National Forest for calendar year 2000 was estimated at 0.56 million national
forest visits +/- 26.7 percent at the 80 percent confidence level. There were 0.69 million site visits, an
average of 1.24 site visits per national forest visit. Included in the site visit estimate are
6,545 Wilderness visits.
A total of 1326 visitors were contacted on the forest during the sample
year. Of these, 8 percent refused to be
interviewed. Of the 1219 people who
agreed to be interviewed, about 43 percent were not recreating, including 4 percent who just stopped to use
the bathroom, 10 percent who were working, 21 percent who were just passing
through and 8 percent citing some other reason. About 57 percent of those interviewed said their primary purpose
on the forest was recreation and 76 percent of them were exiting for the last
time. Of the visitors leaving the
forest that agreed to be interviewed, about 43 percent were last exiting
recreation visitors (our target interview population).
Basic descriptors of the forest visitors were
developed based upon those visitors interviewed then expanded to the national
forest visitor population. Sixty-eight
percent of the national forest visitors were male and 32 percent were female
(Table 3). Nineteen percent of national
forest visits were by children under age 16 who were not interviewed. About 6.0 percent of the visitors were over
70 years old and the largest age group was 41-50. See Table 4 for a complete age group breakout.
Gender |
68 percent males |
32 percent females |
Age Group |
Percent
in group |
Under 16 |
18.6 |
16-20 |
0.5 |
21-30 |
7.8 |
31-40 |
17.7 |
41-50 |
19.1 |
51-60 |
14.8 |
61-70 |
15.5 |
Over 70 |
6.0 |
Visitors categorized
themselves into one of 7 race/ethnicity categories. Eighty-eight percent of visitors were ethnically white. Table 5 gives a detailed breakout by
category.
Category |
Total
percent national forest visits |
Black/African American |
0.0 |
Asian |
1.4 |
White |
88.3 |
American Indian/Alaska Native |
0.2 |
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander |
0.0 |
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino |
4.1 |
Other |
6.0 |
About thirteen percent of forest visitors were from another
country. The survey did not collect
country affiliation. Visitors most
frequently reported zip codes are shown in Table 6. The forest can determine what percent of local visitor use they
have by comparing the local forest zip codes to those listed. The zip code data for the forest will also
soon be available on a database. This
information can be used with programs such as “fipzip” for more extensive
analysis.
Zip Code |
Frequency |
Percent |
86001 |
28 |
6.4 |
86018 |
18 |
4.1 |
86004 |
17 |
3.9 |
86046 |
16 |
3.7 |
86401 |
10 |
2.3 |
86334 |
8 |
1.8 |
86314 |
7 |
1.6 |
86023 |
5 |
1.2 |
86301 |
5 |
1.2 |
85028 |
4 |
1.9 |
86303 |
4 |
1.9 |
86323 |
4 |
1.9 |
86402 |
3 |
0.6 |
85044 |
3 |
0.6 |
85051 |
3 |
0.6 |
85225 |
3 |
0.6 |
85310 |
3 |
0.6 |
85345 |
3 |
0.6 |
There was an average of 2.21 people per vehicle on the
forest with an average of 2.34 axles per vehicle. This information in conjunction with traffic counts was used to
expand observations from individual interviews to the full forest population of
recreation visitors. This information
may be useful to forest engineers and others who use vehicle counters to conduct
traffic studies.
Several questions on the NVUM survey form dealt directly with use of designated Wilderness. Wilderness was sampled on the forest on 25 days. There were 83 percent male and 17 percent female visitors to Wilderness on the forest. See Table 7 for the age distribution.
Age group |
Percent
in group |
Under 16 |
7.1 |
16-20 |
0.1 |
21-30 |
3.9 |
31-40 |
31.5 |
41-50 |
23.4 |
51-60 |
33.9 |
61-70 |
0.1 |
Over 70 |
0.0 |
The majority of the Wilderness visitors were
ethnically white (87 percent). See
Table 8 for race/ethnicity distribution.
Category |
Total percent national forest visits |
Black/African American |
0.0 |
Asian |
1.3 |
White |
86.9 |
American Indian/Alaska Native |
10.1 |
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander |
0.0 |
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino |
0.0 |
Other |
1.7 |
The Wilderness visitors were from a wide
variety of zip codes. The distribution
of Wilderness visitor zip codes is shown in Table 9.
Zip Code |
Frequency |
Percent |
86001 |
16 |
22.2 |
86004 |
10 |
13.9 |
85201 |
2 |
2.8 |
85258 |
2 |
2.8 |
85382 |
2 |
2.8 |
86303 |
2 |
2.8 |
86314 |
2 |
2.8 |
The average length of stay in Wilderness on
the forest was 6.7 hours. In addition,
all visitors were asked on how many different days they entered into designated
Wilderness during their national forest visit even if we interviewed them at a developed
recreation site or general forest area.
Of those visitors who did enter designated Wilderness, they entered 1.1 different days during their visit.
Just over twenty percent of those interviewed in Wilderness said they used the
services of a commercial guide.
Table 10 gives detailed information about how
the Wilderness visitors rated various aspects of the area. An example of how to interpret the
information: Visitors rated their satisfaction
with the availability of recreation information at 3.9 (moderately high) but
they rated the importance of this aspect at 4.6 (very high). This means the forest could increase
satisfaction of wilderness visitors on the availability of recreation
information. Six percent of Wilderness visitors rated this
aspect as average and 84 percent said
it was good. Three percent said it was
poor, and seven percent said it was very good.
Wilderness visitors on the average rated
their visit 5.3 (on a scale from 1 to 10) concerning
crowding, meaning they felt somewhat crowded.
No one said the area they visited was overcrowded (a 10 on the scale)
although only 10 percent said there was hardly anyone there (a 1 on the
scale). Half of visitors rated crowding
in Wilderness at 8 (getting crowded).
Item Name |
Item by percent response category by* P F A G VG |
Mean ** Satisfaction Of visitors |
Mean** Importance To visitors |
Scenery |
0 0 0 10 90 |
4.9 |
4.9 |
Available parking |
0 0 7 36 56 |
4.5 |
2.2 |
Parking lot condition |
0 0 8 47 45 |
4.4 |
2.1 |
Cleanliness of restrooms |
0 44 0 22 34 |
3.5 |
3.4 |
Condition of the natural environment |
0 0 36 14 50 |
4.1 |
4.7 |
Condition of developed recreation facilities |
0 0 0 50 50 |
4.5 |
3.0 |
Condition of forest roads |
0 0 8 50 42 |
4.3 |
3.0 |
Condition of forest trails |
0 0 0 51 49 |
4.5 |
3.4 |
Availability of information on recreation |
0 0 21 66 12 |
3.9 |
3.0 |
Feeling of safety |
0 0 4 55 41 |
4.4 |
3.8 |
Adequacy of signage |
0 0 0 60 40 |
4.4 |
3.9 |
Helpfulness of employees |
0 0 0 50 50 |
4.5 |
4.0 |
Attractiveness of the forest landscape |
0 0 13 38 50 |
4.4 |
4.8 |
Value for fee paid |
|
N/a |
N/a |
* Scale is: P = poor F = fair
A = average G = good VG = very good
** Scale is: 1= not very
satisfied /important 2 = somewhat
satisfied/ important 3 = moderately
satisfied/ important 4 = satisfied/
important 5 = very satisfied/
important
The Wilderness visitors on the forest spent an average of about $14 each within 50 miles of the Wilderness. They also spend an average of $828 annually on all outdoor recreation related expenditures (see Table 11).
Expenditure category |
Average expenditure $00.00 |
Government owned lodging |
56.69 |
Privately owned lodging |
3.55 |
Food/drink at restaurants and bars |
35.96 |
Other food and beverages |
29.66 |
Gasoline and oil |
34.97 |
Other transportation (plane, bus, etc.) |
0.00 |
Activities (including guide fees and equipment
rental) |
0.00 |
Entry, parking, or recreation use fees |
9.00 |
Souvenirs/ clothing |
0.38 |
Any other expenses |
0.00 |
Through the interview process a description of what visitors did during
their national forest visit was also developed. This basic information includes participation in various recreation
activities, length of stay on the national forest and at recreation sites,
visitor satisfaction with national forest facilities and services, and economic
expenditures.
The average length of stay on Kaibab National Forest for a national
forest visit was about 42.0 hours.
Almost 48 percent of visitors stayed overnight on the forest.
In addition, visitors reported how much time they spent on the specific
recreation site at which they were interviewed. Average time spent varied considerably by site and is displayed
in Table 12.
Site Visit Average |
DUDS |
OUDS |
Wilderness |
GFA |
37.2 |
15.7 |
36.7 |
6.7 |
65.7 |
The average Kaibab National Forest visitor went to 1.24 sites during
their national forest visit. Forest
visitors sometimes go to just one national forest site or area during their
visit. For example, downhill skiers may
just go the ski area and nowhere else.
Ninety percent of visitors went
only to the site at which they were interviewed.
During their visit to Kaibab National Forest the top five recreation
activities of the visitors were viewing wildlife and natural features, camping,
general relaxation, and hiking or walking (see Table 13). Each visitor also indicated which of these
activities was their primary activity
for their current recreation visit to the forest. The top primary activities were developed camping,
hiking/walking, and viewing wildlife.
The results of the NVUM activity analysis DO NOT identify the types of
activities visitors would like to have offered on the national forests. It also does not tell us about displaced
forest visitors, those who no longer visit the forest because the activities
they desire are not offered.
Activity |
Percent participation |
Percent who said it was their primary activity |
Camping in
developed sites (family or group) |
26 |
25 |
Primitive camping |
11 |
5 |
Backpacking, camping in unroaded areas |
1 |
0 |
Resorts, cabins and other accommodations on Forest
Service managed lands (private or Forest Service run) |
17 |
13 |
Picnicking and family day gatherings in developed
sites (family or group) |
26 |
1 |
**Viewing wildlife, birds, fish, etc on national
forest system lands |
60 |
15 |
**Viewing natural features such as scenery, flowers,
etc on national forest system lands |
64 |
2 |
Visiting historic and prehistoric sites/area |
0 |
0 |
Visiting a nature center, nature trail or visitor
information services |
19 |
1 |
Nature Study |
4 |
0 |
General/other- relaxing, hanging out, escaping noise
and heat, etc, |
47 |
6 |
Fishing- all types |
5 |
2 |
Hunting- all types |
14 |
11 |
Off-highway vehicle travel (4-wheelers, dirt bikes,
etc) |
7 |
0 |
Driving for pleasure on roads |
23 |
3 |
Snowmobile travel |
0 |
0 |
Motorized water travel (boats, ski sleds, etc) |
0 |
0 |
Other
motorized land/air activities (plane, other) |
0 |
0 |
Hiking or walking |
44 |
16 |
Horseback riding |
12 |
9 |
Bicycling, including mountain bikes |
1 |
1 |
Non-motorized water travel (canoe, raft, etc.) |
0 |
0 |
Downhill skiing or snowboarding |
1 |
0 |
Cross-country skiing, snow shoeing |
0 |
0 |
Other non-motorized activities (swimming, games and
sports) |
4 |
4 |
Gathering mushrooms, berries, firewood, or other
natural products |
12 |
2 |
*
less than 1 percent participation
** first version of survey form used October through
March had these two viewing categories combined as viewing scenery
Twenty-five percent of the last exiting recreation visitors interviewed
were asked about the types of constructed facilities and special designated
areas they used during their visit. The
most used facilities were: roads, trails, and developed campgrounds. Table 14 provides a summary of reported
facility and special area use.
Facility/ Area Type |
Percent who said they used (national forest visits) |
Developed campground |
27 |
Swimming area |
0 |
Hiking, biking, or horseback trails |
27 |
Scenic byway |
12
|
Designated Wilderness |
11 |
Visitor center, museum |
13 |
Forest Service office or other info site |
4 |
Picnic area |
6 |
Boat launch |
0 |
Designated Off Road Vehicle area |
1 |
Other forest roads |
63 |
Interpretive site |
5 |
Organization camp |
0 |
Developed fishing site/ dock |
4 |
Designated snowmobile area |
0 |
Downhill ski area |
0 |
Nordic ski area |
0 |
Lodges/Resorts on National Forest System land |
20 |
Fire Lookouts/Cabins Forest Service owned |
1 |
Designated snow play area |
0 |
Motorized developed trails |
0 |
Recreation residences |
0 |
Twenty-five percent of visitors interviewed were
asked about the primary destination of their recreation trip. Since some people may incorporate a visit to
the national forests as only part of a larger trip away from home, not all
visitors chose the national forest as their primary destination. Sixty-two percent of national forest visitors said the forest was
their primary trip destination.
Visitors were asked to select one of several
substitute choices, if for some reason they were unable to visit this national
forest. Their responses are shown in
Table 15. Fifty-nine percent of the
visitors would have gone somewhere other than the forest to pursue the same
activity, while nine percent would have come back to the forest another time.
The average recreation visitor on the forest was away from home on their trip for 142 hours. Two-thirds went to just the national forest on their trip and one-third said they had gone to other places such as other national forests, parks or recreation areas.
In the 12 months prior to their interview the visitors had visited the
forest 2.5 times to participate in their identified main activity.
Substitute Choice |
Percent who would
have… |
Gone somewhere
else for the same activity |
59 |
Gone
somewhere else for a different activity |
3 |
Come
back another time |
9 |
Stayed
home |
26 |
Gone
to work at their regular job |
2 |
None
of these |
1 |
In a typical year, visitors to the forest
spent an average of $2,075 on all outdoor recreation activities including
equipment, recreation trips, memberships, and licenses.
Visitors 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 |
13.41 |
Privately owned lodging |
14.28 |
Food/drink at restaurants and bars |
53.31 |
Other food and beverages |
20.10 |
Gasoline and oil |
29.22 |
Other transportation (plane, bus, etc.) |
4.51 |
Activities (including guide fees and equipment
rental) |
11.72 |
Entry, parking, or recreation use fees |
2.19 |
Souvenirs/ clothing |
9.58 |
Any other expenses |
4.06 |
Twenty-five percent of
visitors interviewed on the forest rated their satisfaction with the recreation
facilities and services provided. Although
their satisfaction ratings pertain to conditions at the specific site or area
they visited, this information is not valid at the site-specific level. The survey design does not allow enough
responses for every individual site or area on the forest to draw these
conclusions. Rather, the information is
generalized to overall satisfaction with facilities and services on the forest
as a whole.
Visitors’
site-specific answers may be colored by a particular condition on a particular
day at a particular site. For example,
a visitor camping in a developed campground when all the forest personnel are
off firefighter and the site has not been cleaned. Perhaps the garbage had not been emptied or the toilets cleaned
during their stay, although the site usually receives excellent
maintenance. The visitor may have been
very unsatisfied with the cleanliness of restrooms.
In addition to how satisfied visitors were with facilities and services they were asked how important that particular facility or service was to the quality of their recreation experience. The importance of these elements to the visitors’ recreation experience is then analyzed in relation to their satisfaction. Those elements that were extremely important to a visitor’s overall recreation experience and the visitor rated as poor quality are those elements needing most attention by the forest. Those elements that were rated not important to the visitors’ recreation experience need the least attention.
Tables 17 through 19 summarize visitor satisfaction with the forest facilities and services by site type. In Table 17 you can see that visitors said the importance of the availability of recreation information (4.2) to the quality of their recreation experience was moderately high and they rated their satisfaction with the condition of trails on the forest equally highly (4.2). The item by response category column in the second column of the table gives more information about how visitors answered the satisfaction question. For example, for availability of recreation information 5 percent rated their satisfaction with trail condition as poor, 2 percent as average, and 53 percent as very good.
Table 18 summarizes information about visitor satisfaction with Overnight Developed sites such as campgrounds and resorts on the forest and Table 19 summarizes the visitor’s satisfaction with the general forest areas. Wilderness satisfaction is reported in Table 10.
Item Name |
Item by percent response category by* P
F A G VG |
Mean ** Satisfaction Of visitors |
Mean** Importance To visitors |
Scenery |
0 0 0 12 88 |
4.9 |
4.8 |
Available parking |
1 0 7 53 39 |
4.3 |
3.1 |
Parking lot condition |
0 4 25 48 23 |
3.9 |
3.1 |
Cleanliness of
restrooms |
1 0 3 61 36 |
4.3 |
4.2 |
Condition of the
natural environment |
6 1 5 22 66 |
4.4 |
4.8 |
Condition of developed
recreation facilities |
1 1 0 27 71 |
3.8 |
4.6 |
Condition of forest
roads |
2 4 13 32 49 |
4.2 |
4.4 |
Condition of forest
trails |
0 0 51 29 20 |
3.7 |
4.4 |
Availability of
information on recreation |
15 5 6 29 45 |
3.8 |
3.8 |
Feeling of safety |
0 0 12 6 82 |
4.7 |
4.1 |
Adequacy of signage |
6 5 10 32 47 |
4.0 |
4.2 |
Helpfulness of
employees |
0 0 0 15 85 |
4.8 |
4.5 |
Attractiveness of the
forest landscape |
0 0 11 4 85 |
4.7 |
4.7 |
Value for fee paid |
0 4 1 27 68 |
4.6 |
4.5 |
* Scale is: P= poor F = fair
A = average G = good VG = very good
** Scale is: 1= not very satisfied
/important 2 = somewhat satisfied/
important 3 = moderately satisfied/
important 4 = satisfied/ important 5 = very satisfied/ important
Item Name |
Item by percent response category by* P
F A G VG |
Mean ** Satisfaction Of visitors |
Mean** Importance To visitors |
Scenery |
0 1 5 15 79 |
4.7 |
4.5 |
Available parking |
3 2 16 49 30 |
4.0 |
4.1 |
Parking lot condition |
0 0 4 68 28 |
4.2 |
3.1 |
Cleanliness of
restrooms |
2 8 10 46 34 |
4.0 |
4.3 |
Condition of the
natural environment |
0 0 1 42 57 |
4.6 |
4.6 |
Condition of developed recreation
facilities |
2 0 0 42 46 |
4.5 |
3.9 |
Condition of forest
roads |
0 2 0 48 50 |
4.5 |
2.5 |
Condition of forest
trails |
0 0 3 69 27 |
4.2 |
3.6 |
Availability of
information on recreation |
5 4 4 50 37 |
4.1 |
4.1 |
Feeling of safety |
0 0 0 41 59 |
4.6 |
4.3 |
Adequacy of signage |
8 5 10 39 37 |
3.9 |
4.3 |
Helpfulness of
employees |
0 9 2 13 76 |
4.6 |
4.3 |
Attractiveness of the
forest landscape |
0 0 0 12 88 |
4.9 |
4.6 |
Value for fee paid |
0 6 6 26 62 |
4.5 |
4.2 |
* Scale is: P = poor F = fair
A = average G = good VG = very good
** Scale is: 1= not very satisfied
/important 2 = somewhat satisfied/
important 3 = moderately satisfied/
important 4 = satisfied/ important 5 = very satisfied/ important
Item Name |
Item by percent response category by* P
F A G VG |
Mean ** Satisfaction of visitors |
Mean** Importance to visitors |
Scenery |
0 1 1 61 37 |
4.3 |
3.9 |
Available parking |
42 0 2 8 48 |
3.2 |
2.3 |
Parking lot condition |
3 0 4 8 85 |
4.7 |
1.4 |
Cleanliness of
restrooms |
0 4 41 9 46 |
3.9 |
2.6 |
Condition of the
natural environment |
22 22 9 39 8 |
2.9 |
4.5 |
Condition of developed
recreation facilities |
4 0 0 96 0 |
3.9 |
3.1 |
Condition of forest
roads |
0 22 35 17 26 |
3.5 |
2.5 |
Condition of forest
trails |
0 1 3 35 61 |
4.5 |
2.9 |
Availability of information
on recreation |
3 0 14 77 6 |
3.8 |
3.3 |
Feeling of safety |
1 1 5 51 42 |
4.3 |
3.1 |
Adequacy of signage |
0 2 17 50 31 |
4.1 |
2.3 |
Helpfulness of
employees |
4 0 0 56 40 |
4.3 |
3.7 |
Attractiveness of the
forest landscape |
3 21 7 56 13 |
3.6 |
4.5 |
Value for fee paid |
4 81 10 0 4 |
2.2 |
2.6 |
* Scale is: P = poor F = fair
A = average G = good VG = very good
** Scale is: 1= not very
satisfied /important 2 = somewhat satisfied/
important 3 = moderately satisfied/
important 4 = satisfied/
important 5 = very satisfied/
important
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 |
3 |
|
7 |
1 |
|||
9 |
|
6 |
|
|
|||
8 |
7 |
5 |
|
1 |
|||
7 |
10 |
1 |
|
|
|||
6 |
15 |
1 |
26 |
1 |
|||
5 |
20 |
7 |
7 |
24 |
|||
4 |
19 |
10 |
7 |
1 |
|||
3 |
10 |
21 |
29 |
24 |
|||
2 |
9 |
44 |
13 |
34 |
|||
1 hardly anyone there |
7 |
5 |
11 |
14 |
|||
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 |
Apache |
Better description of Horse Ride or
event |
|
|
Dogtown Lake |
Clean the bathrooms - chemicals |
|
Charge 1/2 price for 2nd vehicle @ same
site. |
|
|
LeFevre |
Cabins |
|
|
Oak Hill Snowplay Area |
Detailed map of rec experience - topo
maps @ CG |
|
|
Scholz Lake Fishing |
Less developed areas, no restrooms, etc,
put fish in tanks |
|
|
Whitehorse Lake Fishing |
No forest fires |
|
Boat rental, rental store, fishing
supply, Ramada IN day use area, expand day use area. |
|
Trash Cans |
|
Improve / grade FR l09 & FR 110 |
|
Stock the lake, drive thru campsites |
|
Improve / Grade FR 109 & FR 110 |
|
More drinking water available at sites |
|
|
141/66/Park Store |
Cut the trees & close more roads (secondary
rds), more law enforcement. |
|
More logging - forest is unhealthy
condition |
|
|
141/66/park store |
Have FS clean up slash surrounding
private property |
|
Signage for trails here excellent. Showers in campground will pay more. |
|
|
171 |
Remove all livestock on public
lands. Reduce road densities. |
|
|
328 Long Jim Canyon |
Provide Forest Info for new residents |
|
|
310 |
Better signage |
|
Better signage |
|
|
Dogtown Lake CG - Proxy |
Garbage dumps, marked recycle,
Information on Nature trail (with map) |
|
More maps of area on web site |
Kaibab Lake CG |
Build better restrooms |
|
|
Kaibab Lake CG - Proxy |
Put fish in lake |
|
Near Grand Canyon N.P. disappointing |
|
Water fill up / free dump station/ phone |
|
Better water supply / access |
|
|
Moqui Lodge |
Air conditioning |
|
|
Whitehorse Lake Campground - Proxy |
Info on surroundings, other recreation
in area |
|
|
Sycamore Falls |
Showers @ campground |
|
No further development |
|
Keep Clean, More interpretive history
info |
29 August 2001
Rev 8 Feb 2002 (wilderness demographics)