National Visitor Use
Monitoring Results
December 2004
Region 10
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
CHAPTER
2: VISITATION ESTIMATES
Table
2. Annual Chugach National Forest
recreation use estimate
Table
3. Number of last-exiting recreation
visitors by site type and form type on Chugach NF 1/
Table
4. Gender distribution of Chugach NF
recreation visitors
Table
5. Age distribution of Chugach NF
recreation visitors
Table
6. Race/ethnicity of Chugach NF
recreation visitors
Table
7. Most common zip codes of Chugach NF
recreation visitors
Average
number of people per vehicle and average axle count per vehicle in survey
CHAPTER
3: WILDERNESS VISITORS
CHAPTER
4: DESCRIPTION OF THE VISIT
Table
12. Site visit length of stay (in hours)
by site/type on Chugach NF
Table
13. Chugach NF activity participation
and primary activity
Use
of constructed facilities and designated areas
Table
14. Percentage use of facilities and
specially designated areas on Chugach NF.
Table
15. Substitute behavior choices of
Chugach NF recreation visitors
Average
annual outdoor recreation activity
Table
16. Annual recreation spending for
visitors to the Chugach NF
Visitor
Satisfaction Information
Table
17. Satisfaction of Chugach NF
recreation visitors at Developed Day Use sites
Table
18. Satisfaction of Chugach NF
recreation visitors at Developed Overnight sites
Table
19. Satisfaction of Chugach NF
recreation visitors in General Forest Areas
Table
21. List of comments received from
Chugach 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:
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.
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 timeframe of data collection was established for the first sampling cycle, and a five-year timeframe for succeeding cycles. The first sampling cycle was completed in September 2003. The second sampling cycle begins October 2004. This ongoing monitoring effort 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 -- defines the degree of certainty that a range of values contains the true value of what is being estimated. For example, an 80% confidence level refers to the range of values within which the true value will fall 80% of the time. Higher confidence levels necessarily cover a larger range of values.
Confidence interval width (also called error rate) -
these terms define the reliability of the visit estimates. The confidence level defines the desired
level of certainty. The size of the
interval that is needed to reach that level of certainty is the confidence
interval width. The confidence interval
width is expressed as a percent of the estimate and defines the upper and lower
bounds of the confidence interval. The
smaller the confidence interval, the more precise is the estimate. An 80 percent confidence level is very
acceptable for social science applications at a broad national or forest
scale. For example: There are 205 million national forest visits
plus or minus 3 percent at the 80 percent confidence level. In other words we are 80 percent certain that
the true number of national forest visits lies between 198.85 million and
211.15 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 proxy or nonproxy sites, each day that a recreation site or area was open for recreation, the site day was categorized as 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.
TYPE |
SAMPLING STRATUM |
# DAYS SAMPLED |
# DAYS IN POPULATION |
SAMPLING RATE |
|
DUDS |
NONPROXY |
HIGH |
10 |
107 |
9.4 |
DUDS |
NONPROXY |
MEDIUM |
6 |
191 |
3.1 |
DUDS |
NONPROXY |
LOW |
10 |
1766 |
.6 |
DUDS |
PROXY |
DUR4 |
4 |
101 |
3.9 |
DUDS |
PROXY |
FR2 |
1 |
114 |
.9 |
DUDS |
PROXY |
TB3 |
4 |
368 |
1.1 |
GFA |
NONPROXY |
HIGH |
22 |
824 |
2.7 |
GFA |
NONPROXY |
MEDIUM |
22 |
1,729 |
1.3 |
GFA |
NONPROXY |
LOW |
16 |
8,591 |
.2 |
GFA |
PROXY |
TB3 |
4 |
222 |
1.8 |
OUDS |
NONPROXY |
LOW |
8 |
143 |
5.6 |
OUDS |
PROXY |
DUR4 |
8 |
1,773 |
.5 |
OUDS |
PROXY |
FE4 |
4 |
127 |
3.2 |
OUDS |
PROXY |
RE4 |
10 |
7,733 |
.1 |
OUDS |
PROXY |
SUP2 |
4 |
26 |
15.4 |
OUDS |
PROXY |
TB3 |
4 |
153 |
2.6 |
TOTAL |
|
|
137 |
23,968 |
|
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).
VISIT TYPE |
VISITS |
80 % CONFIDENCE
INTERVAL |
SITE
VISITS |
903,505 |
30.0 |
|
630,531 |
31.9 |
The
Recreation use on
the forest for fiscal year 2001 was 630,531 national forest visits. The 80 percent confidence interval width was +/-
30.0 percent. There were 903,505 site
visits, an average of 1.25 site visits per
national forest visit. This forest has
no designated Wilderness.
A total of 802 visitors were contacted on the forest during the sample year. Of these, 9 percent refused to be interviewed. Of the 728 people who agreed to be interviewed, about 18 percent were not recreating, including 7 percent who just stopped to use the bathroom, 3 percent were working, 6 percent were just passing through, and 1 percent had some other reason to be there. About 82 percent of those interviewed said their primary purpose on the forest was recreation and 93 percent of them were exiting for the last time. Of the visitors leaving the forest agreeing to be interviewed, about 76 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.
FORM TYPE |
DEVELOPED DAY USE |
DEVELOPED
OVERNIGHT |
GENERAL |
WILDERNESS |
BASIC |
141 |
29 |
117 |
NA |
ECON |
64 |
14 |
53 |
NA |
SATIS |
67 |
13 |
60 |
NA |
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.
Descriptions of forest visitors were developed based upon the characteristics of interviewed visitors and expanding to the national forest visitor population. Tables 4 and 5 display the gender and age distributions for national forest visits.
MALE |
FEMALE |
73.7 |
26.3 |
AGECLASS |
PERCENT |
UNDER
16 |
12.26 |
16
TO 19 |
2.02 |
20
TO 29 |
16.79 |
30
TO 39 |
28.42 |
40
TO 49 |
18.16 |
50
TO 59 |
13.06 |
60 TO 69 |
5.32 |
70
PLUS |
3.96 |
Visitors categorized themselves into one of seven race/ethnicity categories. Table 6 gives a detailed breakout by category.
WHITE |
HISPANIC OR LATINO |
NATIVE AMERICAN |
AFRICAN AMERICAN |
ASIAN |
PACIFIC ISLANDER |
OTHER |
90.9 |
2.1 |
1.3 |
0.4 |
2.3 |
2.1 |
0.6 |
Two percent of forest visitors were from another country. The survey did not collect country affiliation. The most common visitor zip codes are shown in Table 7. 254 zip codes were recorded. This additional zip code information is available upon request. This information can help determine the forest’s primary market area.
COUNT |
PERCENT |
|
99574 |
35 |
7.7 |
99516 |
14 |
3.1 |
99504 |
9 |
2.0 |
99508 |
9 |
2.0 |
99587 |
9 |
2.0 |
99501 |
8 |
1.8 |
99517 |
8 |
1.8 |
99577 |
7 |
1.5 |
99669 |
7 |
1.5 |
884*7 |
6 |
1.3 |
99503 |
6 |
1.3 |
99507 |
6 |
1.3 |
99515 |
6 |
1.3 |
99611 |
6 |
1.3 |
55904 |
5 |
1.1 |
884*6 |
5 |
1.1 |
88404 |
5 |
1.1 |
88476 |
5 |
1.1 |
99502 |
5 |
1.1 |
99664 |
5 |
1.1 |
There was an average of 3.9 people per vehicle with an average of 2.1 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.
The
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 10.7 hours. Almost twelve (11.8) 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 |
Developed Day Use |
Developed
Overnight Use |
|
Wilderness |
National Forest
Visit |
6.9 |
1.8 |
33.3 |
7.0 |
NA |
10.7 |
The average recreation visitor went to 1.25 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 driving for pleasure (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 viewing wildlife, hiking/walking, viewing natural features, relaxing and fishing (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.
Activity |
% Participating |
% as Main Activity |
Developed
Camping |
12.12 |
1.49 |
Primitive
Camping |
2.67 |
0.22 |
Backpacking |
4.56 |
0.88 |
Resort
Use |
2.48 |
0.04 |
Picnicking |
21.42 |
3.11 |
Viewing
Natural Features |
53.54 |
13.89 |
Visiting
Historic Sites |
11.90 |
0.35 |
|
24.33 |
3.91 |
Nature
Study |
23.34 |
0.14 |
Relaxing |
56.37 |
11.80 |
Fishing |
18.11 |
11.52 |
Hunting |
4.95 |
3.66 |
OHV
Use |
2.07 |
0.00 |
Driving
for Pleasure |
28.05 |
4.05 |
Snowmobiling |
3.55 |
3.53 |
Motorized
Water Activities |
3.07 |
0.00 |
Other
Motorized Activity |
0.62 |
0.00 |
Hiking
/ Walking |
45.84 |
15.51 |
Horesback
Riding |
0.12 |
0.00 |
Bicycling |
3.28 |
2.33 |
Non-motorized
Water |
6.19 |
4.14 |
Downhill
Skiing |
0.51 |
0.00 |
Cross-country
Skiing |
2.24 |
2.17 |
Other
Non-motorized |
3.69 |
0.36 |
|
6.03 |
0.34 |
Viewing
Wildlife |
60.69 |
16.89 |
Note: this column may
total more than 100% because some visitors chose more than one primary
activity.
One-third 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: forest trails, scenic byways, visitor center/museums, developed fishing sites, and forest roads. Table 14 provides a summary of reported facility and special area use.
FACILITY |
PERCENT |
Developed
Campground |
6.64 |
Developed
Swimming Site |
2.82 |
Forest
Trails |
38.02 |
Scenic
Byway |
28.80 |
Wilderness |
1.80 |
Visitor
Center/Museum |
17.54 |
Picnic
Area |
10.70 |
Boat
Launch |
7.08 |
Designated
OHV Area |
0.55 |
|
11.06 |
Interpretive
Displays |
8.46 |
Information
Sites |
2.12 |
Organization
Camps |
4.75 |
Developed
Fishing Site |
11.86 |
Snowmobile
Area/Trails |
2.75 |
Downhill
Ski Area |
0.02 |
Nordic
Trails |
0.02 |
FS
Lodge |
0.56 |
FS
Fire Lookout |
1.07 |
Snowplay
Area |
1.12 |
Motorized Trails |
0.99 |
Recreation
Residence |
2.70 |
About one-third of visitors interviewed were asked a series of questions that enabled economic analyses. Several questions focused on the trip away from home that included their visit to the national forest, and others about their annual visits to the forest and annual spending on all outdoor recreation.
While away from home, some people just go to
the forest, while others incorporate a national forest visit as part of a
larger trip away from home. On this forest, 62.4 percent said that recreating
on this forest was their primary trip destination. Of those who visited more than one place,
only fifteen percent said this forest was their primary recreation
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. Visitors
estimated the amount of money spent during their trip within 50 miles of the
recreation site at which they were interviewed (the trip may include multiple
national forest visits, as well as visits to other forests or parks). This information will be available in a
separate report and data file that can be used to estimate the local jobs and
income that are generated by recreation visits to this forest.
Substitute response |
Percent
who would have: |
Come back another time |
8.1 |
Stayed at Home |
12.8 |
Gone elsewhere for the Same activity |
54.5 |
Gone elsewhere for a Different activity |
19.4 |
Gone to Work |
2.3 |
Had some other substitute |
2.8 |
In the 12 months prior to the interview the typical visitor had come to this forest 28.1 times for all activities, including 9.5 times to participate in their identified main activity. Visitors were also asked about the amount of money they spent in a typical year on all outdoor recreation activities including equipment, recreation trips, memberships, and licenses. Just under ten (9.4) percent said they spent $500 or less per year, and 3.4% said they spent over $10,000 per year (Table 16).
$$
spent each year on outdoor recreation |
Percent
of Total |
UNDER 500 |
9.43 |
500 - 999 |
25.3 |
1000 - 1999 |
22.5 |
2000 - 2999 |
17.2 |
3000 - 3999 |
0 |
4000 - 4999 |
3.7 |
5000 - 9999 |
18.5 |
OVER 10000 |
3.4 |
About one-third 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 17 through 19 summarize visitor satisfaction with
the forest facilities and services at Day Use Developed sites, Overnight
Developed sites and
ITEM |
Poor |
Fair |
Average |
Good |
Very Good |
Average Rating * |
Mean Importance ** |
N obs |
Restroom
cleanliness |
0.0 |
2.7 |
1.1 |
34.5 |
61.7 |
4.6 |
4.5 |
48 |
Developed
facility condition |
0.0 |
0.0 |
2.2 |
36.8 |
61.0 |
4.6 |
4.1 |
56 |
Condition
of environment |
0.0 |
0.0 |
14 |
15.6 |
83.0 |
4.8 |
4.3 |
65 |
Employee
helpfulness |
0.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
20.7 |
77.4 |
4.7 |
4.3 |
61 |
Interpretive
display |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
0 |
Parking
availability |
0.0 |
0.9 |
1.8 |
42.4 |
54.9 |
4.5 |
3.8 |
66 |
Parking
lot condition |
1.1 |
1.1 |
2.9 |
25.1 |
69.8 |
4.6 |
3.8 |
64 |
Rec.
info. Available |
1.1 |
2.0 |
8.2 |
43.7 |
45.1 |
4.3 |
4.0 |
56 |
Road
condition |
0.0 |
1.4 |
8.3 |
32.7 |
57.6 |
4.5 |
3.6 |
46 |
Feeling
of safety |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.9 |
22.5 |
76.6 |
4.8 |
4.5 |
64 |
Scenery |
1.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
27.2 |
71.8 |
4.7 |
4.6 |
66 |
Signage
adequacy |
1.4 |
1.1 |
5.0 |
56.0 |
36.4 |
4.2 |
3.8 |
63 |
Trail condition |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
52.5 |
47.5 |
4.5 |
4.3 |
32 |
Value
for fee paid |
0.0 |
0.0 |
3.0 |
35.7 |
61.3 |
4.6 |
3.7 |
40 |
*Scale
is: Poor = 1 Fair = 2
Average = 3 Good = 4 Very good = 5
**
Scale is: 1= not important 2= somewhat
important 3=moderately important 4= important 5 = very important
N obs means the number of
visitors who responded to this item.
Note: For items with less
than 10 responses the data was not reported
ITEM |
Poor |
Fair |
Average |
Good |
Very Good |
Average Rating * |
Mean Importance ** |
N obs |
Restroom
cleanliness |
0.0 |
0.0 |
19.5 |
35.9 |
44.7 |
4.3 |
4.5 |
11 |
Developed
facility condition |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
9 |
Condition
of environment |
0.0 |
0.0 |
4.1 |
4.1 |
91.9 |
4.9 |
5.0 |
13 |
Employee
helpfulness |
5.5 |
0.0 |
5.5 |
11.0 |
78.1 |
4.6 |
4.2 |
10 |
Interpretive
display |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
0 |
Parking
availability |
0.0 |
4.1 |
0.0 |
12.2 |
83.8 |
4.8 |
3.9 |
13 |
Parking
lot condition |
0.0 |
4.2 |
0.0 |
30.1 |
65.7 |
4.6 |
3.5 |
12 |
Rec.
info. Available |
0.0 |
0.0 |
4.2 |
53.0 |
42.8 |
4.4 |
4.1 |
12 |
Road
condition |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
7 |
Feeling
of safety |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
12.7 |
87.3 |
4.9 |
4.3 |
12 |
Scenery |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
5.0 |
5.0 |
13 |
Signage
adequacy |
0.0 |
0.0 |
4.1 |
12.2 |
83.8 |
4.8 |
3.9 |
13 |
Trail condition |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
43.0 |
57.0 |
4.6 |
3.7 |
12 |
Value
for fee paid |
0.0 |
0.0 |
4.2 |
27.1 |
68.7 |
4.6 |
4.0 |
12 |
*Scale
is: Poor = 1 Fair = 2
Average = 3 Good = 4 Very good = 5
**
Scale is: 1= not important 2= somewhat
important 3=moderately important 4= important 5 = very important
N obs means the number of visitors who responded to this item.
Note: For items with less than 10 responses the data was not reported
ITEM |
Poor |
Fair |
Average |
Good |
Very Good |
Average Rating * |
Mean Importance ** |
N obs |
Restroom
cleanliness |
0.5 |
2.3 |
11.2 |
32.5 |
53.5 |
4.4 |
4.2 |
27 |
Developed
facility condition |
0.0 |
6.2 |
7.4 |
48.5 |
37.9 |
4.2 |
4.2 |
30 |
Condition
of environment |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.1 |
19.2 |
79.7 |
4.8 |
4.9 |
47 |
Employee
helpfulness |
0.0 |
2.6 |
0.9 |
78.5 |
18. |
4.1 |
4.0 |
31 |
Interpretive
display |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
0 |
Parking
availability |
0.0 |
2.0 |
6.8 |
57.6 |
33.7 |
4.2 |
3.8 |
40 |
Parking
lot condition |
1.4 |
1.6 |
8.5 |
39.4 |
48.9 |
4.3 |
3.6 |
39 |
Rec.
info. Available |
1.5 |
5.4 |
7.4 |
58.4 |
27.2 |
4.0 |
4.1 |
36 |
Road
condition |
1.5 |
3.5 |
35.6 |
39.2 |
20.2 |
3.7 |
3.9 |
26 |
Feeling
of safety |
0.0 |
1.1 |
12.1 |
43.2 |
43.6 |
4.3 |
4.3 |
45 |
Scenery |
1.1 |
0.0 |
1.2 |
24.9 |
72.9 |
4.7 |
4.9 |
47 |
Signage
adequacy |
2.4 |
2.6 |
27.2 |
44.8 |
22.9 |
3.8 |
3.8 |
43 |
Trail condition |
0.0 |
2.7 |
4.6 |
74.3 |
18.3 |
4.1 |
4.1 |
40 |
Value
for fee paid |
0.0 |
6.0 |
0.0 |
10.0 |
83.9 |
4.6 |
4.7 |
18 |
*Scale
is: Poor = 1 Fair = 2
Average = 3 Good = 4 Very good = 5
**
Scale is: 1= not important 2= somewhat
important 3=moderately important 4= important 5 = very important
N obs means the number of visitors who responded to this item.
Note: For items with less than 10 responses
the data was not reported.
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 20 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.
Developed
Day Use |
Overnight
Use |
|
Wilderness |
|
10 Overcrowded |
1.8 |
0.0 |
1.0 |
NA |
9 |
0.9 |
8.1 |
1.0 |
NA |
8 |
0.0 |
4.1 |
1.3 |
NA |
7 |
4.2 |
0.0 |
2.9 |
NA |
6 |
25.8 |
4.1 |
4.0 |
NA |
5 |
6.7 |
53.8 |
12.9 |
NA |
4 |
15.4 |
8.1 |
1.3 |
NA |
3 |
17.8 |
21.9 |
8.2 |
NA |
2 |
12.0 |
0.0 |
21.6 |
NA |
1 Hardly anyone there |
15.2 |
0.0 |
45.8 |
NA |
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 21.
Site Name |
What Accommodation could be made |
Williwaw
Fish View Platform |
Limit
where dogs can go |
|
More
mile markers |
|
More
sign that says glacier |
|
Less
people |
|
Little
development |
|
More
hiking trails, longer trails |
|
Clean
trash/ new restroom |
Byron
Glacier TH GFA |
Ban
RVs |
|
Maps |
|
Make
it easier on internet for cabins |
|
More
wheelchair accessible trails |
|
Better
map |
|
Larger
parking, more parking to be available for trailhead use |
One
Eyes Pond Day Use |
Open
up more motorized vehicle usage in PWS |
Russian
River CG |
Cut
out reserved campground |
|
Electricity |
|
Easier
availability |
Carter
|
Fix
the bridge |