# Presentation: 805305

## Wilderness & Primitive Area Recreation Participation & Consumption: An Examinationof Demographic & Spatial Factors

**Danielle Murphy, John C. Bergstrom, Gary T. Green**
**University of Georgia**
** ****J.M. Bowker, Carter Betz, **
**H. Ken Cordell, D.B.K. English, **
**USDA Forest Service**
**Presentation at the 27****th**** Annual SERR Conference**
**February 27****th****- March 1****st****, 2005, Savannah, GA **

## Purpose

**Model individual participation & use for wilderness & other primitive area recreation**
**Examine influence of socio-demographic & spatial factors on participation & use**
**Forecast participation and use for NWPS and primitive recreation areas through 2050**

## Background

**Use of original 54 Wilderness areas increased 86% from 1965 to 1994 (Cole 1996)**
**Wilderness use growing faster than general outdoor recreation (Watson et al. 1989)**
**Other estimates show increased use & users  who want a Wilderness opportunity (Cordell et al. 1999)**
**15.7 – 34.7m Wilderness trips and 1.4m visitors in 1995 (Cordell & Teasley 1998)**

## Data 1

**2000 National Survey on Recreation & the Environment (NSRE)**
**RDD telephone survey**
**Version 8 (of 18), n=5000+/-**
**Post sample weighted by 5 strata according to census**

## Data 2

**US Census 2004**
**Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race, & Hispanic Origin**** **
**Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2003**
**Metropolitan Population Projections**
** **
**National Visitor Use Monitoring Project (NVUM)**
**FS Wilderness Days & FS Wilderness Visitors**

## Methods

**Logistic regression model**
**Negative binomial model**
**Simulation with Census projections **

## Logistic Regression Model

**Probability of participation is a function of various explanatory variables:**
**	****	****Probability participate= 1/(1+*****e****** ******XB*****)**
**	****	****B****  ****= Parameter coefficients **
**	****	****X = explanatory variables**

## Dependent Variable

**NSRE -- (During the past 12 months)**
**	****Did you visit a wilderness or other primitive, roadless area? **
**	****	****	****1=Yes**
**	****	****	****0=Otherwise**

## Explanatory Variables

**Socio-Demographic: Age, gender, race, immigration status, education, urban/rural status, household income**
**Environmental awareness: Membership in an environmental organization**
**Distance: Zip code**** to NPWS **

## Distance

**Studies indicate visitors are generally from the state the Wilderness area is located in & from the closest region in that state (Roggenbuck & Watson 1988)**
**Negative correlation btw race & visitation could be due to geographic distribution of Black populations (Johnson et al. 2004)**
**Distance or proximity factor could mitigate some influence of race & ethnicity**

## Distance

**ArcView 8.3**
**Matched zip codes with U.S. Zip Code Points (ESRI Data & Maps 2000)**
**Wilderness Areas of the United States (USGS 2004)**
**Calculated the distance - between each zip code point & the closest Wilderness area**

## Weighted & Un-weighted Means

| Variable | Weighted | Raw |
| --- | --- | --- |
| AGE | 42.8 | 43.7 |
| GENDER |   0.474 |   0.438 |
| BLACK |   0.138 |   0.076 |
| HISPANIC |   0.152 |   0.067 |
| OTHER |   0.048 |   0.038 |
| BORNUSA |   0.882 |   0.945 |
| MEMBER |   0.229 |   0.259 |
| INCOME |   6.92 |   7.09 |
| EDUCATION |   0.208 |   0.320 |
| URBAN |   0.793 |   0.658 |
| MILES | 75.7 | 76.7 |

## Past Studies

**Typical participant in O.R. white, male, able-bodied, well-educated, & above avg income (Cordell et al. 1999; Johnson et al. 2004)**
**Avg age of Wilderness visitors increasing  (Watson & Cole 1999; Watson et al. 1995) **
**For general population, likelihood of participating in Wilderness recreation decreases with age (Johnson et al. 2004)**

## Past Studies

**Proportion of female participants increasing (Watson & Cole 1999; Watson et al. 1995)**
**Women still less likely to visit (Johnson et al. 2004; Johnson et al. 2005)**
**Blacks, Latinos, & Asian are less likely than whites to say ever visited a Wilderness (Johnson et al. 2004; Johnson et al. 2005)**

## Logistic Estimates (N=4400    PPC=69%)

| Variable
(Weighted) | Parameter | Std Error | Pr>ChiSq | Change in Probability |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intercept | -1.99 | .291 | .0000 | -.386 |
| AGE | -.019 | .002 | .0000 | -.003 |
| GENDER | .634 | .070 | .0000 | .122 |
| BLACK | -.986 | .122 | .0000 | -.19 |
| HISPANIC | -.824 | .176 | .0000 | -.159 |
| OTHER | -.585 | .182 | .0013 | -.113 |
| BORNUSA | 1.31 | .211 | .0000 | .254 |
| MEMBER | .768 | .078 | .0000 | .148 |
| INCOME | .088 | .021 | .0000 | .017 |
| EDUCATION | .101 | .086 | .2363 | .019 |
| URBAN | -.139 | .085 | .1039 | .026 |
| MILES | -.002 | .0006 | .0003 | -.0004 |

## Negative Binomial Model

**Parameterization within NB specification**
**Ln Y = XB + e**
**Dependent variable: Number of days a person visited a wilderness or other primitive area**
**Same explanatory variables**

## Negative Binomial Results (N=4357)

| Variable | Parameter
Estimate | Std. Error | P-Value |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intercept | .046 | .280 | .0939 |
| AGE | -.009 | .002 | .0000 |
| GENDER | .42 | .071 | .0000 |
| BLACK | -1.39 | .085 | .0000 |
| HISPANIC | -1.40 | .189 | .0000 |
| OTHER | .037 | .171 | .8269 |
| BORNUSA | 1.72 | .151 | .0000 |
| MEMBER | .751 | .088 | .0000 |
| INCOME | .057 | .018 | .0015 |
| EDUCATION | -.359 | .100 | .0003 |
| URBAN | -.721 | .079 | .0000 |
| MILES | -.003 | .0004 | .0000 |

## Logistic & Neg Binomial Results

**Race (black), ethnicity (Hispanic), immigrant status, distance, & urban dwelling ******** negative effect Wilderness participation & days**
**Income, age, gender (male), & education ******** positive effect Wilderness participation & days**
**Other & education ******** some ambiguity**

## Projection Methods 2005-2050

**Population projections estimate total population & means for age, gender, race (Black), ethnicity (Hispanic), Other, Urban**
**Means used in logistic regression model for each year**
**Number of participants based on model predictions & total population**

## Projection Methods 2005-2050

**Base - 2002 population values**
**Index based on rhs projections and model parameters**
**Estimated 3.5 M unique NWPS visitors **
**Estimated 26.6 M days of NWPS use annually (Bowker et al. 2005)**

## Participation Index   2002 - 2050

## Participants

**	****	****	****	****	**_**2002**__**	**_**	****	**_**2050**_
**FS Wilderness****	****2.9m****	****	****	****3.66m**
**All NWPS****	****	****3.5m****	****	****	****4.46m**
**All Wild & Prim****	****56.6m****	****	****71.4m**

## Wilderness Days Index   2002 - 2050

## Wilderness Days

- 	**	****	****	****	**_**2002**__**	**_**	****	**_**2050**_
**NF Wilderness****	****21.3m****	****	****25.8m**
**All NWPS****	****	****26.6m****	****	****31.5m**
**All Wild & Prim****	****741m****	****	****897m**

## Bottom Line

**Population increase 49%**
**Demographics mitigate pop growth  **
**NWPS participants increase 26%**
**NWPS days increase 20%**
**Issues/limitations**
**Acculturation**
**Changing preferences**
**Wilderness fringe settlement**
**Crowding**