Use Patterns And Visitor Characteristics, Attitudes, And .
TThis file was created by scanning the printed publication.Errors identified by the software have been corrected;however, some errors may remain.USE PATTERNS AND VISITOR CHARACTERISTICS,ATTITUDES AND PREFERENCES INNINE WILDERNESS AND OTHER ROADLESS AREASRobert C. LucasUSDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-253INTERMOUNT AIN FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATIONU.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOREST SERVICE
USDA Forest ServiceResearch Paper INT-253July 1980USE PATTERNS AND VISITOR CHARACTERISTICS,ATTITUDES, AND PREFERENCES IN NINE WILDERNESSAND OTHER ROADLESS AREASROBERT C. LUCASINTER.MOUNTAIN FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATIONU. S. Department of AgricultureForest ServiceOgden, Utah 84401
THE AUTHORROBERT C. LUCAS is a Principal Research Social Scientist and ProjectLeader of the Wilderness Management Research Work Unit, locatedat the Forestry Sciences Laboratory on the University ofMontana campus at Missoula.He has been in this position since1967. Before 1967 he was with the North Central Forest Experiment Station in Minnesota.Dr. Lucas received his B.S. insecondary education-social science (1957) and his M.A. (1959)and Ph.D. (1962) in geography from the University of Minnesota.He has authored numerous publications dealing with wildernessmanagement.
RESEARCH SUMMARYA comparison of use patterns and visitor characteristics amongnine wilderness and other roadless areas showed similarities formany characteristics and sharp differences for others. Differenceswere most pronounced for use patterns, such as length of stay,method of travel, and activities, and were least noticeable forvisitors' attitudes and preferences. Overall, satisfaction washigh, but many visitors felt that conditions were deteriorating.Use controls and only minimal levels of development were supported.Visitors to the heavily-used California study area showed someadjustment of preferences for solitude levels compared to visitorsto the relatively lightly-used Northern Rocky Mountains areas.Theoverall pattern of responses suggests a need for a range of dispersedrecreation opportunities outside wilderness, and for wildernessmanagement that emphasizes managing use.
CONTENTSINTRODUCTION . . .Page1.BASELINE SURVEY CONCEPT1STUDY AREAS2SizeUseAttractions .National Reputation . . . . .Location Relative to Population .34444STUDY METHODSSource of SamplesSPECIAL REGISTRATION STATIONSDIRECT CONTACTS AT TRAILHEADSDIRECT CONTACTS ON ROADS .OUTFITTER GUEST LISTSWILDERNESS PERMITS . . .Group and Individual Frames of Reference.Sample Des gn .Analysis . . . . .USE--THE TRIP EXPERIENCE .Types of Use9. . 11.12131313. 14. 14. 14. 16. 16. 16LENGTH OF STAY.PARTY SIZE . . . .METHOD OF TRAVEL . OUTFITTER USE. .ACTIVITIES . . . .FIRE USE . . . .WILDLIFE OBSERVATION AND HUNTING ACTIVITY . .TIMING OF USE. . .Use DistributionENTRY POINT USEROUTES OF TRAVEL AND TRAIL USE .ExpensesTRAVEL EXPENSESOTHER EXPENSES .Importance of Day Users1618202121232428. . 28. 2831. . 41. . 41. . 42. 43
Page43USER CHARACTERISTICSResidence . . .Urban/Rural Residence .Types of Groups . . .Sex . .Age . . . . .Education . .OccupationsIncomeVacations . .Previous Experience .Information Sources . . . Club Membership . . . . . .Comparison to Other StudiesUSER ATTITUDES .General Attitudes .4344464848505252535456575757.59Carrying Capacity .61SATISFACTION .NUMBER OF PARTIES ENCOUNTERED AND VISITORREACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . .CAMPSITE SOLITUDE . . . . . . . . .PERCEIVED CHANGES IN AREA QUALITY.RATIONING AND USE CONTROL.FACILITIES AND STRUCTURES.REGULATIONS . . . .MANAGEMENT POLICIES. .SOURCES OF INFORMATION . ACCEPTABLE VISITOR BEHAVIOR61646567686870717172SUMMARY. 72MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS. 74PUBLICATIONS CITED .76APPENDIX . .79
INTRODUCTIONWilderness is intended to preserve natural conditions and outstanding opportunitiesfor solitude. For areas classified under the Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577) this isa legal requirement.Sustained, rapid growth in the recreational use of wilderness lands threatens thepreservation of both naturalness and solitude. Many, if not most, areas have locationswhere impacts on soil and vegetation are severe and where visitors sometimes are crowdedbeyond any possible definition of solitude.Visitor management is increasingly essential in this situation. Within the wilderness system, extensive development of structures and facilities to handle growing usepressures is inappropriate. The main approach must be through management of use,including such things as modifying numbers of visits, lengths of stay, timing of use,geographical distribution of use, party size, method of travel, activities, and visitorbehavior (Lucas 1973).Knowledge of visitors and their use of wilderness is essential for management. Thisis especially true if management attempts to be as light handed and unobtrusive aspossible. In contrast, authoritarian regulations could be imposed without much knowledgeof visitors' activities and desires. For example, a manager could determine the maximumnumbers of campers at each camping location and just assign visitors to camp at particular places to match the established capacities. If managers, however, seek to preserveas much visitor freedom as possible--a basic principle of wilderness management (Lucas1973)--then understanding visitors becomes more necessary. For example, the managersmight establish the same camping capacities mentioned, but try to influence and encouragevisitors to shift use patterns by providing them with information on congestion, onalternative places to camp, and on other times to visit the area. To make this type ofwilderness management work, knowledge of use patterns, timing of use, and of attractionsthat draw visitors would be necessary. This information might indicate that controlswould still be needed at some times and places, but regimentation would not be imposedexcept where it was unavoidable.Thus, better knowledge can increase the professionalism of wilderness management andraise the quality of the services that wilderness provides the public.Knowledge of wilderness use, however, has been sketchy. Information has been available only for a few areas and for widely separated time periods. Most use surveys coveronly summer use. Much of the data on wilderness visitors has been based on small samples,often with weak or undefined sampling designs. Some studies have described individualvisitors and others, groups. Comparability has been further reduced by wide variation inkinds of data collected, definitions used, and categories for classifying responses. Forexample, almost every study has reported data on visitor incomes, but each has useddifferent income categories (Stankey 1970).BASELINE SURVEY CONCEPTThe shortcomings in needed wilderness-user information just described led to theplanning of this baseline visitor survey. The objective of the survey was to collectcomprehensive, comparable data on visitors to a number of wildernesses and to some similar areas not classified as wilderness.Information to be collected included:1. Types of use--characteristics of the visit itself, including such factors asactivities, methods of travel, season of use, length of stay, distance traveled, andcamping practices.1
2. Characteristics of visitors--for example, types of groups, previous experience,residence, and socioeconomic descriptions.3. Visitor attitudes, such as reasons for wilderness visits, satifaction andrelated factors, and desirability of various policies and management actions.The survey was intended to serve five purposes:1.To aid managers in planning for each study area;2. To help develop overall management policies for wilderness based on knowledgeof differences and similarities between areas;3.To establish a base for future measurement of trends;4.To aid in the selection of research problems and study areas; and5. To help guide the application of results of future, more specific studies fromthe areas studied to other, similar areas.These five objectives also are guiding plans for a similar survey of visitors toa nationwide sample of areas in the wilderness system, probably in 1983. Most of theareas that were included in this study will be studied again to capitalize on theinformation base that has been developed.STUDY AREASThe baseline survey has been completed on nine areas (table 1), all of which arewithin National Forests. Seven of the areas are now classified as Wilderness under theWilderness Act--the Desolation, Bob Marshall, Cabinet Mountains, Selway-Bitterroot,Mission Mountains (a Primi ive Area when the study was conducted), Great Bear, andScapegoat. The last two were unclassified areas when they were studied, but werelater designated as Wilderness. The Spanish Peaks, a Primitive Area, is awaiting possible classification as Wilderness. The Jewel Basin Hiking Area is a roadless recreationarea classified by the Regional Forester under the Scenic Area authority.Table 1.--Size and recreational use of baseline survey study areasAreaSizeRecreational use( 1, 000 acres)Visitordays/acre(l,000 visitor-days) 1Desolation Wilderness (California)642994.67.Jewel Basin Hiking Area (Montana)15100.67Mission Mountains Wilderness(Montana)7447.64Spanish Peaks Primitive Area(Montana)5115.29Cabinet lountains Wilderness(Montana)9420. 21Selway-Bitterroot goat Wilderness (Montana)24041.17Great Bear Wilderness (Montana)228626.07Bob larshallWilderness(Montana)luse figures are for 1976 and are from annual Forest Service wilderness use reports, exceptuse figures for the Great Bear Wilderness, which are for 1974 and are from the Forest Service'sNorthern Region (Region 1) files.2 tJse data are bcio;cd on a 374 ,000-acre study cireci.2
All of the areas are in the Northern Rocky Mountains, except the Desolation Wilderness, which is in the Sierra Nevadas in California (fig. 1).JEWEL BASIN----------------CA BINETMTNS. IWASH /GREAT BEAR\'9 BOB MARSHALLMISSION MTNS:-\'''SCAPEGOATfl·/SPAN I SH LO.CALIF.ARIZ.N.MEX.1NMiles1000IIII200II0 100 200 300KilometersFigure 1. --The nine study areas.SizeThe areas vary greatly in many ways. In size, they range from two of the largestwildernesses in the system, to quite small (table 1). The Selway-Bitterroot and BobMarshall are both around a million or more acres (about 400 000 hectares). Five areasare under 100,000 acres (about 40 000 hectares) and the Jewel Basin Hiking Area is onlyabout 15,000 acres (6 000 hectares or less than 24 mi 2 ). Three areas--the Bob Marshall,Great Bear, and Scapegoat--are contiguous and together total over 1,475,000 acres(600 000 hectares).3
UseThe intensity of recreational use varies enormously, from over one-third of amillion visitor-days in the Desolation Wilderness down to 10 to 20 thousand visitor-daysin several other areas. Because of the large variation in size between areas, total useper area is not a comparable figure; therefore, visitor-days per acre are presented toachieve comparability (table 1). Smaller areas have more use per acre than largerareas. The five most intensely used areas are all under 100,000 acres, whereas the fourleast intensely used are all over 200,000. The range of variation in use intensity isover 65 to 1. This is a tremendous range, even when differences in other factorsbetween the areas, such as level of development of trail systems, numbers of campingsites per unit of area, and abundance of lakes, are taken into account. If intensityof use is related to types of use, characteristics of visitors, or visitors' attitudes,a comparison of these areas with their sharply varying use intensities should reveal it.The type of use also varies considerably among the areas.in detail; but, for example, horse users are in the majority inin several other areas, and are absent in one area. Some areasday-use basis; others are used for longer trips. Several areasgrounds but several others have very little hunting.This will be discussedone area, are commonare used mainly on aare major huntingAttractionsAll of the areas contain high mountains and beautiful scenery. Figures 2 through 10show fairly typical scenes of attractions in each area. All areas have lakes; they arecommon in the Desolation Wilderness, the Mission Mountains Wilderness, and the JewelBasin Hiking Area and fairly common in the Spanish Peaks Primitive Area and CabinetMountains Wilderness. Lakes are found in large numbers in several parts of the SelwayBitterroot Wilderness; but, in most of that area, as in most of the Bob Marshall,Scapegoat, and Great Bear Wildernesses, lakes are scarce. Good-sized rivers with someriver-floating recreation are found in the Selway-Bitterroot, Bob Marshall, and GreatBear Wildernesses.Nat ion al ReputationNational awareness and recognition also varies widely. The Bob Marshall Wildernessprobably is the most widely known of the nine study areas. It, along with the BoundaryWaters Canoe Area, is one of the best known of all National Forest Wildernesses. TheSelway-Bitterroot Wilderness probably is the next most widely recognized Wilderness,followed by the Desolation. At the other extreme, the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness andthe Jewel Basin Hiking Area are not well known even in their own region. The other areasseem to be intermediate in national reputation.Location Relative to PopulationThe Desolation Wilderness is within a 3- or 4-hour drive of millions of people inthe San Francisco Bay area of California, and so has a potential for heavy use. TheMontana-Idaho areas are far from population concentrations. Most of these areas areclose to small cities (with populations of about 50,000) and to smaller towns. TheSelway-Bitterroot is accessible to the Spokane, Washington, metropolitan area (with apopulation over 200,000).4
,.", .,-\JI. / I,,.,.-\, ,,#"""1Jt:. /\vii ·it -'Fi gur e 2 .- - The Desol a tion Wilde rne s s has muc h bare rock and open l andscapes t hat makec ro sscountry travel relatively easy .Figure 3. --The Selway - Bitterroot Wi l derness !m s per jpheral areas with attractive l akes,such as Big Creek Lakes seen here from near the Ida ho - Montana border.s
Figure 4 . --Th e Bob r s h a ll Wi l derness includes l ow e l evat ion val leys , such as theSo uth Fork of t he Fl athead River s hown here , as we ll as hi gh mountain pea ks .Figure 5.--The Cabinet untain s Wildernes s cons ists mainly of h igh mountain country ,with lake s suc h as \\'anl ess Lake , featured here .6
Fi gure 6 . - -The Scape goat Wild e rn ess ad j oi ns th e Bob Mar s hall Wi ld e rn ess and has s imilarland scapes .Fi gure 7. - -Thc l iss ion bu nt a in s Wi l dern ess is l arge l y r ugged , hi gh mount a in country ,with many lak es , suc h as Turquo i se La ke i n th is pl1oto .7
Figure 8. --The Spanis h Peaks Primiti ve Area has much steep, hi gh country a nd a numb e rof l akes .Fi gure 9 .--The Great Bear Wil derness i s centered on th e Middl eFork of t he Flath ead River .8
Figure 10 . --The Jewel Bas in Hik i ng Arca conta ins numer ous high mountain l akes . (Partof the Great Bear Wilderness is shown i n t he d i stance , to the east of t he hiking area . )STUDY METHODSThe baseline study relies on s urvey resear ch met hods specially adapted to thewilderness situat ion . The st udy covered summer and fa ll u se , except in the DesolationWilderness where the ent ire year was samp l ed. Except i n Desolation, samp l ing beganabout the third week i n J une a nd cont inued unti l l a t e November . The Deso l ation Wi l derness was stud ied i n 1972 , t he Se lway- Bit t err oot i n 197 1, and a ll ot her areas in 1970.A copy of t he questionnaire used i n all areas is i nc l uded i n t he appendix . Therewere on ly sma ll c hanges in th e quest i onnaire used in di f f er e nt areas . Th e t erm '' hackcountry" replaced " ll'ilder ness " in re f ere nces t o areas not c l assif i ed as \\I i 1 derness orPrimi t ive Area; a map o f t he specific area was used; and a f ew questions were added ordeleted in the sect i on that i nvestigated at t itudes about management practices and poli cies . For exampl e , in tl1e Jewe l Basin Hi ki ng Ar ea no hor se use i s a l lowed; so questions about horses wer e de l eted. I n the Selway - Bitte r roo t , where there are severa lpublic airpla ne l andin g fie l ds , a question about them ·as added.Mail quest i onnair es were c hosen for t his study. !ai l questionnaires have severaladvantages and one major d i sadvant age . Advantages i nc l ude larger samples at less cost;avoidance of demands fo r large amounts of respondents ' t i me in the fie l d when people areoften tired and behind sc hedule and the weat her may be uncomfortable; elimination ofinterviewer bias ; bett er contro l of sample size than wi t h field interviewing , and statist i cal effic i ency because cluster samp ling can be avoided or contro l l ed (Lucas m1d Oltman1971) .9
The one major disadvantage that afflicts most surveys using mail questionnaires isthe low rate of return of questionnaires. Pretests in 1969 indicated that high rates ofreturn (about 90 percent) could be attained in surveys of wilderness visitors (Lucas andOltman 1971) and our experience in this study confirmed this (table 2). Rates of return,based on questionnaires delivered to persons who were part of the target population(that is, 16 years or older and who actually entered a study area), varied among areas from87 to 95 percent (table 2). The overall average rate of return was 91 percent. Includingundeliverable questionnaires and those returned by people outside the target populationonly lowered the rate of return to 89 percent.Table 2.--Rate of return of mail questionnaires and sample sizeNumber ofquestionnairesmailedAreaNumberundeliverable olation Wilderness3501129587Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness4661039887Bob Marshall Wilderness143412590Cabinet Mountains Wilderness266424493Scapegoat Wilderness325429993Mission Mountains Wilderness3751234194Spanish Peaks Primitive Area477224199284078932915271952, 777722,47091Great Bear WildernessJewel Basin Hiking AreaTOTAL1 Questionnairesreturned by post office.Up to five mailings were sent if a response was not received earlier, but the firstmailing produced returns from 59 percent of the sample visitors (table 3). Successivemailings contributed smaller and smaller additions to the response, but in total yieldedreturns from another third of the sample (table 3). Although the returns of the fourthand fifth mailings were small, they helped reduce bias caused by nonresponse. Thisseems to be particularly true because late respondents gave different answers to somequestions than early respondents. For example, respondents to the final mailing wereless well satisfied and less highly educated than earlier respondents. Whether thissmall reduction in bias is worth the added costs cannot be objectively determined, butat least three mailings seem to be desirable.10
Table 3.--Questionnaire returns by number of mailings required, all study areas combinedMailingNumberdelivered 1NumberreturnedReturn asa percentof mailingReturn asa percentof first 7197835882063588643828221389530065222911 Questionnairesreturned by the post office are omitted.Source of SamplesObtaining a list of wilderness visitors from which to draw a sample for a mailsurvey is difficult. At least five approaches can be used, but each has problemsdiscussed below.1. Self-registration stations on trails can be used, but they are ignored bymany visitors and particularly by horse travelers; so an incomplete and biased listresults (Lucas 1975). Thus, nonregistrants should be sampled in some way. Furthermore,one person registers for the entire group. Group leaders differ from other party membersin many ways (for example, age,
Table 1.--Size and recreational use of baseline survey study areas Visitor-Area Size Recreational use days/acre ( 1, 000 acres) (l,000 visitor-days)1 Desolation Wilderness (California) 64 299 4.67 .Jewel Basin Hiking Area (Montana) 15 10 0.67 Mission Mountains Wi
LLinear Patterns: Representing Linear Functionsinear Patterns: Representing Linear Functions 1. What patterns do you see in this train? Describe as What patterns do you see in this train? Describe as mmany patterns as you can find.any patterns as you can find. 1. Use these patterns to create the next two figures in Use these patterns to .
Visitor Visa Guide INZ 1018 A guide to applying for a visitor visa For further information on immigration visit www.immigration.govt.nz April 2013 Information about this guide This guide will help you to complete the form Visitor Visa Application (INZ 1017). It will give you information about coming to New Zealand as a visitor and help you to
situations where excessive visitor use has impaired wil - derness character. Policy (Appendix A) suggests that (1) use should be limited if necessary to avoid impair-ment, (2) any limits on visitor use should be based on estimates of visitor capacity, and (3) capacity should be based on concerns regarding protection of both the
1. Transport messages Channel Patterns 3. Route the message to Routing Patterns 2. Design messages Message Patterns the proper destination 4. Transform the message Transformation Patterns to the required format 5. Produce and consume Endpoint Patterns Application messages 6. Manage and Test the St Management Patterns System
Visitor use management is fundamental for maximizing benefits for visitors while achieving and maintaining desired resource conditions and visitor experiences on federally managed lands and waters. By using this Visitor Use Management Framework, managers collaboratively develop long-term strategies for providing
Creational patterns This design patterns is all about class instantiation. This pattern can be further divided into class-creation patterns and object-creational patterns. While class-creation patterns use inheritance effectively in the instantiation process, object-creation patterns
Visitor attractions Iconicity heritage abstract This paper aims to explore the relationships between place attachment and perceived authenticity of major visitor attractions. The empirical study was conducted with a sample of international tourists to major visitor attractions in two capital cities, Helsinki, Finland and Jerusalem, Israel.
USING INQUIRY-BASED APPROACHES IN TRADITIONAL PRACTICAL ACTIVITIES Luca Szalay1, Zoltán Tóth2 1Eötvös LorándUniversity, Faculty of Science, Institute of Chemistry, Pázmány Pétersétány1/A, H-1117 Budapest, Hungary, luca@chem.elte.hu 2University of Debrecen, Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Inorganic and Analytical Chemistry,, Egyetem tér1., H-4010 Debrecen, Hungary,
