Table 18.—Percent response by convenience preferred and ROS score

ROS score

Urban = <—_________-> _ Primitive

Convenience mec" All -19to-5 -4to-1 Oto3 4t08 9t025

Convenience (n=571) — (n=130)— (n=109)_ (n=124) (n=98)— (n=110)
Drinking water 461 69 88 81 68 63 42
Map of trails and roads 6 BL 55 55 52 51 42
Garbage collection 386 47 67 54 44 49 25
Flush toilets 564 45 12 60 47 29 12
Grocery store nearby 488 44 66 59 42 31 16
Electric hook-ups or outlets 559 40 70 46 46 22 10
Pit toilets .262 25 25 28 31 32 9
Hot water 421 25 44 26 29 15 5
Organized activities B05 18 30 17 22 14 5
Few or no conveniences 595 26 7 15 16 35 64

“Tests of significance performed on ROS score categories by preference and lack of preference for each listed

convenience. Except where noted, P(X2) <.000.
P(X?) <.245, contingency coefficient not applicable.

NUMBER

ol n n n mn L
URBAN <————_______________» primitive

Figure 6.—Average number of conveniences preferred (-, +2 stand-
ard errors) by ROS category.

EXTREMELY (°°
OISLIKE
isp we Ae aorties, nusreo cans
TRASH, OARDA
of
Losoie activity
a Mf" me
sof
cueancut ancas
ssh
crazing activiTy
sof
NOT AT ALL
oisuike 480
MORE DISLIKE 207°
AVERAGE OF ALL
asp pa iNT AUBIONS
Less oie sob

a
URBAN 4 PRIMITIVE

Figure 7.—Average rating of human intrusions by ROS category.
Category means that differ by more than 0.3 are signifi-
cantly different at the 95 percent confidence level.

rounded by older persons (e.g. those in retirement
communities) will receive limited direct use and
will receive less support from that segment of the
population.

2. Water-based activities are the most common and
most frequent leisure activities associated with
forested areas. Areas adjacent to water bodies
have the most use, regardless of user preferences.
Most use occurs near roads and far from urban
areas and within one hour of one’s residence.

3. Half of the use associated with forested areas
occurs inside forests, in mixed pine-hardwood
stands, and in large forest stands. More use oc-
curs in stands with limited screening, and of mod-
erate age.

4. Forests with conveniences and without negative
intrusions (such as old bottles and rusted cans)
are preferred by more than half of the users.

5. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) prefer-
ences represented in this study can be translated
into forest recreation user preferences ranging
from individuals interested in conveniences and
direction, to those interested in freedom, and to
those interested in isolation. User activities are
aligned along the ROS as well: picknicking at the
urban-end and hunting at the primitive-end of
the spectrum.

Table 19.—Average rating” (+2 SE) of dislike of human intrusions

by type of intrusion

Average

Intrusion Sample size (+ 28E)
Old bottles, rusted cans 573
Trash, garbage 569
Logging activity 565
User fees 563
Grazing by livestock 569
Clearcut areas 561
All intrusions 541

Scale: 1=extremely dislike, 2=very much dislike, 3=dislike

somewhat, 4=dislike a little, 5=do not dislike.

17


Rudis, Victor A. Recreational use of forested areas by Alabama
residents. 1987. Research Paper SO-237. New Orleans, LA:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern
Forest Experiment Station; 37 p.

Findings are presented from a 1983-84 survey of forest
recreation use by Alabama residents. Relationships are ex-
plored among demographics of forest users and nonusers.
Suggested are hypotheses for use in classifying regional
forest inventory data in terms of recreation use and user
categories associated with a range of preferences.

Keywords: recreation opportunity spectrum, forest invento-
ries, forest user demographics, outdoor recreation, leisure
activities, nonusers.



For the following, THINK OF A PLACE YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO to pursue your
MOST FREQUENT LEISURE ACTIVITY (Question 2a).
21. HOW IMPORTANT ts having EACH OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES OR FACILITIES IN THE
VICINITY? (NOT necessarily at your site, but in the general area.)
LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE
{CHECK ONE FOR EACH ROW OF BOXES)
very some a not
extremely much what. little at all
Superviston and protection. ... +++ +L] t] 0) 0 t)
Mixing with persons not traveling
with you, but engaged in similar
activities. see eee eee ee ee EY 0} im} i] a

Large natural area far from human
settlements, 2. eee eee eee eo LI 0 {] 0} is)

Small natural area near human
settlements, 22 ee eee ee eee L] 8) ] q a]

Well-marked area, signs directing
users to facilities and activities . . [] ia) 0 ia a

Area free from human restrictions or

controls. eee eee reece ee ee L] ia} ia 0 0
Being far from sights and sounds

of other people* . eeee ee O 0] 0} a {1

Area where motorized travel is possible . [] {] 1 8] 0

Area with no evidence of human use... . [] 1 a ia qQ

Area where motorized travel is not
permitted. 6. ee eee eee eee  L] 0 i} 0 0]

Being near sights and sounds of
other people*s . see eee eee LI] 0) () is) 0]

* Other people - persons not directly associated with you or your activities.

22, WHICH of the following conveniences would you PREFER to have at this place?
(Check all that apply)

Garbage collection. ...[] Pit toilets... .[] Grocery store
nearby... -. C]
Electrical hook-ups Map of the trails
or outlets. ....- TL) and roads. . . . [] Organized activities
for outdoor
Drinking water. .....{] Hot water, «.. +f] appreciation. . . 0

Very few or no conveniences ..+.++++-+--(L[] Flush toilets... {]

23. HOW MUCH would you DISLIKE having EACH OF THE FOLLOWING IN THE VICINITY?

(CHECK ONE FOR EACH ROW OF BOXES)
very dislike dislike
extremely much some- a do not
dislike dislike what little dislike
User fees... ee eee eee eee ee L] ia) im) ia) is)

Trash, garbage. 2. eee ee ee ee ee ia) ia) 0 ia]
Logging activity... 2. ee eee ee e LJ i] im} t a)
Grazing by cattle, other livestock. . . . [J is) 3) ia) 18)
Clearcut areas. eee ee eee ee ee EI 0 (1 i) {]

Old bottles, rusted cans... 2.1.46 [J } qa q 0


sor
eo
> aok
2 of
oS 2 sop
3
wg sor ] 3 ee ee oe re 20 18, 23)
gs = 20r— n= $70
Sq sof —4—--]--—=—-|--4-* = 50145, 56) T
sé | * 10h i
Sw sof
5S ol
sol or
o =
907 oF {
& ts se % *0-8 (0.7, 0.9)
Seok 7 3... F-E-T-F- nese
of Qos-
3 10
Hz o”-
4S i we 407
Ze °° s 3
g re so -—-}-—-P-— =} X 254 (48, 61) 2 sof } _ ae 26 (24, 29)
Sk i an t a= 544
32 WW 20b a
Id i Q
*8 & woh 7
S sob ~
URBAN<«———> PRIMITIVE So

Figure 3.—Average willingness to support outdoor leisure facilities

associated with forested areas among supporters (—, +2

standard errors) by ROS category (sample size =488).

Figure 4.—Average distance traveled from

URBAN <——> PRIMITIVE

residence in miles,

hours, and miles per hour (~, +2 standard errors) by

ROS category. (n=sample size).

Table 10.—Percent response* by major mode of transportation and ROS score (P(X?)<.000,
mec = 284)

Urban <———————————> Primitive
AR -19to -5 -4to~-1 Ot3 4t08 9 t025
(n=579)  (n=132) — (n=109) (n=127) (n=102) (n=109)
Auto 60 70 61 60 58 48
‘Truck, van or motor home 25 22 28 28 20 28
On foot 6 2 1 3 14 13
Other> 9 6 9 9 8 12

“Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
*Includes motorcycle, train or bus, boat, airplane, bicycle, and no major mode indicated.

Table 11.—Percent response* by ease of travel and ROS score (P(X?) <.026, mec =.209)

ROS score
Urban + <———_——__——__ Primitive
Ease of travel All -19to-5 -4to~1 Oto3 4t08 9t025
(n=580)  (n=134) (n= 106) (n=127) (n=103)  (n=110)
8 3 4 13 9 ov
Somewhat easy 31 26 34 31 29 34
Very easy 62 n 62 56 62 55

*Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

11


Table A2.—Percent response* by demographic characteristics and time period returned—Continued

Time period returned

Characteristic Statistics First 10 days Second 10 days Remaining days
Number in household P(X?) <.032 (n=817) (n=669) (n=607)
1 mec=.098 17 17 22
2 32 34 27
3 20 20 18
4 21 17 19
5 8 8 10
6 or more 3 4 4

Average 2.8 28 28
Urban/rural residence P(K?)<.002 (n=849) (n=705) (n=627)
SMSA? county mec=.109 69 60 67
Not in SMSA county 31 40 33
Occupation P(X2)<,000 (n=841) (n=685) (n=616)

Professional/technical/ mec=.167

managerial 32 23 22
Factory/service worker 10 12 13
Craftsperson/mechanic 7 11 9
Salesperson/buyer 5 6 3
Student 3 5 5
Clerical/secretarial 4 4 5
Farmer 2 2 2
Laborer 1 2 1
Homemaker 5 8 10
Retired 29 26 26
Disabled or unemployed 1 2 3

Household income

(before taxes, 1982) P(X?)<.000 (n=753) (n=618) (n=529)

Under $10,000 mec=.188 20 25 36

10,000-19,999 23 27 26

20,000-29,999 23 21 18

30,000-39,999 16 15 8

40,000-49,999 8 6 6

50,000-59,999 4 3 2

60,000 or over 5 3 4
Average $25,700 $22,600 $19,400

Number of outdoor leisure

magazine subscriptions P(X2)<.000 (n=797) (n=648) (n=593)

None mec=.150 47 55 62

1 27 28 23

2 14 10 7

3 7 4 4

4 or more 4 3 3
Average 10 07 06

*Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
>SMSA=Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, U.S. Census 1980.


evidence of human intrusions. Classifying recreation
areas based on evidence of the type and intensity of
human intrusions restricts assessments to judgment
of activities and individuals that leave evidence,
rather than actual recreational uses. The frequency of
evidence on sampled plots can also vary widely among
regions, suggesting differences in judgment by field
personnel (Rudis 1983), or differences in users or re-
source attributes (Saunders 1982).

The focus of this study is to begin to address the
above needs. Basic information is presented on the
socioeconomics of forest use and nonuse in Alabama,
the importance of several leisure activities and prefer-
ences, and the relative value of several offsite and
onsite forest attributes to ROS preferences. At-
tributes in this study include distance from residence,
forest land ownership, distance from other land uses,
size of the nearby water body, restrictions to access
(i.e. signs and fences), forest type, size, age, vegetative
screening, conveniences, and human intrusions.

This study examines where respondents go to pur-
sue leisure activities. As such, conclusions from this
examination will more likely be suited to assessing
attributes of forest areas used, rather than preferred
attributes of forested areas.

Measures appropriate to sample-based extensi‘e
timber inventories, and to the relatively dense forests
typical of Alabama are discussed. Since developed
recreation areas usually are excluded from timber
surveys, emphasis in this study is on distinguishing
attributes at the “primitive-end” of the recreation op-
portunity spectrum.

METHODS

The approach in this study questioned household
individuals about their leisure activities in forested
areas. Sociodemographic information gathered was
assessed as to importance in characterizing nonuse,
forest use, and forest user preferences. Detailed infor-
mation was gathered about the most frequent forest-
associated leisure activities. Offsite and onsite at-
tributes of the area visited refer to the location where
that activity was most recently pursued. Rated prefer-
ences for recreation opportunities (based on ROS
qualitative descriptions) were used to categorize the
spectrum of recreation users. Preferences were based
on places where respondents would like to go to pur-
sue their most frequent leisure activity. Comparisons
were made between preferences and the areas visited.

The universe consisted of individuals listed in Ala-
bama telephone directories. A total of 2,700 names
and addresses were selected at random by county from
the latest available telephone directories in propor-
tion to the number of households in each county. Mail
was addressed to persons listed in phone directories;
respondents were assumed to be heads of households.

2

No attempt was made to sample households without
telephones or those with unpublished numbers. The
range of responses for leisure activity participation in
forested areas by sampled households, coupled with
sociodemographic information, was assumed to be
similar to households not surveyed. To reduce sea-
sonal bias, 900 names and addresses were selected
and survey forms were mailed at three separate
times: April 4, 1983; September 6, 1983; and Janu-
ary 2, 1984.

To help assure a large response, a $1 remuneration
was included with the initial mailing. Half of the
households also received a recent Alabama highway
map. Postcard reminders were sent after one week;
nonrespondents were mailed a second form after 2
weeks. Where possible, phone calls were made to
households if mail was returned “undeliverable as ad-
dressed,” or if a response was not received after 3
weeks. Individuals were interviewed by phone if
forms were returned blank, or if a response was not
received after 4 weeks. Attempts to contact nonre-
spondents were terminated at the end of 5 weeks.

Of the 2,700 households selected, 155 (6 percent)
could not be reached by mail or by telephone. A total
of 2,181 completed responses was received, represent-
ing a return rate of 86 percent out of 2,545 reached (81
percent of 2,700 selected). Due to greater efficiency in
contacting potential nonrespondents and selection of
households from more recently updated telephone di-
rectory listings during the course of the study, re-
sponse rate improved with each new phase of the sur-
vey:

Date of Number Percent Number No Unable

survey selected completed completed answer to reach
April 4, 1983 900 74 664174 62
September 6,

1983 900 82 738 = «101 61
January 2,

1984 900 87 719 89 32

Total 2700 81 z18t «0364s

Considerable effort was made to obtain responses
from all households selected. Nevertheless, there
were 519 nonrespcnses. The potential bias of this out-
come was examined with the assumption that re-
sponses from those slow to respond—i.e. respondents
whose completed forms were received after the first 20
days of each survey phase—represented the views of
nonrespondents. Differences in demographics by time
of response suggested that nonrespondents were gen-
erally nonusers of forested areas (Appendix A).

All respondents were asked about their recent par-
ticipation in outdoor leisure activities in or near
forested areas, their willingness to pay or volunteer
time to support related facilities, and their socioeco-


9. About HOW FAR were you FROM a ROAD? (Check one. If engaged in activities
on foot, check the MAXIMUM distance traveled from a known road.)

100 feet.» eee eee ee ee [] W2mile.. eee
100 yards. 2 ee ee ee ee eG lor 2miles...
VWamile se eevee eee e ET 3 miles or more.

Don't know. 2 6

About HOW FAR AWAY were you FROM the following land forms (Questions 11-13):
10. FARMS, or OTHER CULTIVATED FIELDS? (Check one)
100 feet see eee i VW2mile...-2-e
7

100 yards. ee ee eee lor 2miles...
V4mile see ee ee ee 3 miles or more. «
Don't know... ee

11. URBAN, or BUILT UP LAND? (Check one)
(A concentration of shops, stores, a residential subdivision, or factories.
NOT farm buildings, powerlines, or roadways.)

100 feet... 2

seiiitff Vemesriiiiiiit#&
100 yards. 2 ee eee eens lor 2miles see eee eee
Wamilen.. eee ee eee OY 3 miles or mores... +s EJ

Don't know. see eee eee LY

12, A BODY OF WATER? (Check one}

(e.g. stream, river, pond, lake or coastal bay)

100 feet... rriiiit VU2mile.. . -f]

100 yards ss ee Lor 2miles .. tie.
W4mile see eee eee ee L] 3miles or mre, ...---- C]
Don't know. see eee ee o LY

13. If you were near a water body, about HOW LARGE was it? (Check one)

Smal) stream or creek no wider than 100 feet... ee eee eee LI
Pond (no larger than a football field)... eee eee eee ee ee LD
smal] river or lake

(no more than 1/4 mile at its widest point). ....e. eee CL
Large river or lake wee ee ee ee ee ee eee ee twee eee L]

Coastal waters (salt water) os eee eee ee eee eee eee ee L]

14. WHERE did you do MOST of your leisure activities IN RELATION TO A FOREST?

(Check one
Outside (e.g. ina field, along the forest edge)... ee ee eee

Inside (e.g. along a wooded trail)... eee eee eee eee ee LI

15. DID YOU NOTICE any indication that the land was restricted from public use?

(Check one) Yes [J]. .No [] . .Don't know []

If YES, what did you notice?
(Check a1 that apply)

Fences. we eee ee eee eee ee L]
Signs ss eee eee eee eee eee L)
No Hunting, "Posted". ......---E)
Hunt club-members only... .-s. +L)
i]

No trespassing or keep out.


6. Primitive recreation opportunities are preferred
more by younger individuals, males, and those
with more schooling; urban recreation opportuni-
ties are preferred more by older individuals, fe-
males, and those with less schooling. As
demographic-related changes (increased leisure
time, declining health) occur within society, so
too will the use of forested areas for different
recreation opportunities.

Forests near residences receive more use by
primitive-oriented individuals, who substitute
slower modes of travel or other forest attributes
to achieve the sense of getting away from it all.
Urban-oriented individuals use forests farther
from their residences.

8. Given the nature of Alabama’s public forest land
(i.e., a limited land area, generally with adjacent
resort facilities, conveniences, signs directing
users, etc.), forests with urban-oriented users are
more likely to be public forests. Private land is
more likely to be used by primitive-oriented indi-
viduals.

9. Forests with primitive-oriented users are con-
centrated at 3/4 mile or more from roads and 2.5
miles or more from urban areas, and predominate
at smaller water bodies. More of the forest
acreage with primitive-oriented users predomi-
nate inside forest stands and in stands with inter-
mediate screening.

10. More of the primitive-oriented users prefer few
or no conveniences and are more negative about
human intrusions than are urban-oriented users.
The magnitude of the differences are less than
expected, however, suggesting some conve-
niences and intrusions are not strictly tied to the
recreation opportunity spectrum.

Further examination of the data and comparison
with forest user and nonuser studies are needed to
establish more quantifiable, predictive relationships
between areas used frequently and those used infre-
quently. Previous reports of sample-based extensive
forest inventory data (Rudis 1983, Saunders 1979,
1982) have shown that the proportion of forests with
evidence of use are positively associated with near-
ness to water, roads, populated areas, and limited veg-
etative screening for selected regions. Reexamination
of this data may provide one way of corroborating
findings.

Forests used by Alabama residents represent the
direct value of areas used for recreation. Forests not
used have indirect recreation value, as some provide
essential needs for wildlife and aesthetics or represent
preferred but rarely experienced opportunities. As
such, these classification guidelines should be used
with caution. One should recognize also that standard
guidelines, whether those suggested above or those in

_

18

the ROS Users Guide (U.S. Forest Service 1982), favor
certain segments of the population, recreation activi-
ties, and landscapes. Modification of standards is
needed to account for the different mix of users, activ-
ities, and physical resources in a given region.

LITERATURE CITED

Boteler, R. N. 1986. Eastern/western wilderness use
and users. In: Kulhavy, D. L., and Conner, R. N.,
eds. Wilderness and natural areas in the eastern
United States: a management challenge. 1985 May
13-15; Nacogdoches, TX. Nacogdoches, TX: Center
of Applied Studies, School of Forestry, Stephen F.
Austin University: 212-217.

Brown, P. J.; Driver, B. L.; Berry, J. K. 1980. Use of
the recreation opportunity planning system to in-
ventory recreation opportunities on arid lands. In:
Arid land resource inventories: developing cost effi-
cient methods. Gen. Tech. Rept. WO-28. Washing-
ton, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service: 123-128.

Brown P. J.; Driver, B. L.; McConnell, C. 1978. The
opportunity spectrum concept and behavioral infor-
mation in outdoor recreation resource supply inven-
tories: background and application. Jn: Integrating
inventories of renewable natural resources: Pro-
ceedings of the workshop. Gen. Tech. Rept. RM-55.
1978 January 8-12; Tucson, AZ; Ft. Collins, CO:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Exp. Stn.: 73-
84.

Brown, T. C.; Daniel, T. C. 1984. Modeling forest
scenic beauty: concepts and application to pon-
derosa pine. Research Paper RM-256. Ft. Collins,
CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Serv-
ice, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Exp. Stn.
35 p.

Buist, L.; Hoots, T. A. 1982. Recreation opportunity
spectrum; approach to resource planning. J. For. 80:
84-86.

Burnett, G. W.; Conklin, D. G. 1979. Inventorying
recreation potentials on dispersed tracts. J. For. 77:
765-768.

Clark, R. N. 1982. Promises and pitfalls of the ROS in
resource management. Australian Parks and
Recreation; May issue: 9-13.

Clark, R. N.; Stankey, G. H. 1979. The recreation
opportunity spectrum: a framework for planning,
management, and research. Gen. Tech. Rept. PNW-
98. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Exp. Stn. 32 p.

Cordell, H. K.; Hendee, J. C. 1982. Renewable re-
sources recreation in the United States; supply, de-


24

Table B2.—Average value of the quality, variety, and willingness to support (develop, improve, or
maintain) outdoor leisure facilities associated with forested areas by completion of ROS

section
ROS section
Opinion All respondents Not completed Completed

Quality® (-, +2SE) 2.22 (2.16, 2.29) 2.14 (2.01, 2.26) 2.26 (2.18, 2.34)

(sample size) (213) (548)
Variety® (—, +2SE) 2.51 (2.44, 2.58) 2.40 (2.27, 2.53) 2.55 (2.47, 2.63)

(sample size) (187) (539)
Percent willing

to support” 86 86

(sample size) (142) (488)
Dollars* (~, +2SE) 48 (38, 47) 27 (21, 35) 48 (43, 54)
Hours* (—, +2SE) 18 (15, 22) 10 (7, 15) 22 (18, 27)

(sample size) (122) (420)

‘Scale: 1=excellent; 2= good; 3=fair; 4=poor; 5=absent.

P(X?) < 964.

Average only of those indicating support. Log transformations used in computations.

Table B3.—Percent response® by most frequent leisure activity and completion of
ROS section (P(X?) < .000, mee = 211)

ROS section
Sampie All
Activity size respondents Not completed Completed
Picnicking 4 9 8 9
(100) (30) (70)
Camping 87 10 8 11
(100) (25) (75)
Fishing 194 23 24 22
(100) (33) (67)
Sightseeing 161 19 17 20
(100) (29) mm
Boating 62 7 2 10
(100) 6) (94)
Other? 120 “4 20 11
(100) (44) (56)
Hunting 158 18 21 17
(100) (35) (65)
Column total 866 100 100 100
(Row total) (100) @b (69)

*Rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
bObserving nature, gathering and collecting, and miscellaneous activities,
including no one most frequent leisure activity indicated.


Appendix A~—Hard to Reach Responses

Respondents whose forms were completed and re-
ceived within 10 days of each survey phase are pre-
dominantly forest users. With additional time, re-
sponses from nonusers of forested areas increased
(table A1). Hard-to-reach respondents, those whose
forms were received after the first 20 days of each
survey phase, are more likely to be of lower socioeco-
nomic status (fewer years of education completed,
fewer in professional occupations, and lower incomes),
female, and less likely to subscribe to outdoor leisure
magazines (table A2). Forms received between 10 and
20 days are somewhat less likely to be from SMSA
counties, but forms from hard-to-reach respondents

are as likely to come from SMSA counties as the ear-
liest returns.

If one views the 519 nonrespondents as similar to
hard-to-reach respondents, then responses from those
of higher socioeconmic status, males, and those who
subscribe to outdoor leisure magazines are over-
represented. Greater weight given to the hard-to-
reach respondents (to have them represent all nonre-
spondents) results in a 1 percent decline in overall
forest use, and similarly minor changes in percent
participation by activity. The differences among ROS
categories by time of response are not significant
(P(X?) <.408).

Table Al.—Percent response by forest users, nonusers, and time period returned

(P(X?) <.000, mee =.181)

Time period returned

Type of respondent First 10 days Second 10 days Remaining days
(sample size) (849) (705) (627)
Forest users 85 82 73
Nonusers 15 18 27

Table A2.—Percent response* by demographic characteristics and time period returned

‘Time period returned

Characteristic Statistics First 10 days Second 10 days Remaining days
Age class P(X?) <.052 (n=842) (n=696) (n=622)
16-19 1 1 3
20-24 3 6 6
25-29 7 10 11
30-34 10 11 10
35-39 12 12 12
40-49 17 16 14
50-59 16 15 16
60-69 16 14 12
70 or over 16 16 16

Average age 49.8 418 472
Sex P(X?)<.000 (n=834) (n=692) (n=614)
Female mee=.198 31 33 4
Male 69 67 53
Education (years completed) P(X2)<,000 (n=820) (n=675) (n=604)
less than 6 mec=.153 1 3 4
6,7,8 8 9 n
9, 10, 11 ll 13 18
12 31 32 28
13,14 17 19 16
15, 16 17 16 4
17 or more 15 9 9

Average years 13.1 12.6 121

20


Now, I would like for you to THINK ABOUT WHAT THE FOREST LOOKED LIKE. If you don’

know or can't remember - DON'T GUESS! - Check the “don't know" box,

16. KIND OF FOREST VEGETATION (Check one)
1. OPEN, few shrubs or tree branches at eye level. EASY TO SEE
other persons or wildlife, e.g., at 50 feet. EASY TO WALK through
the forest, on or off trails... ee ee eee eee ee ee ee LT)
II. DENSE, NOT EASY TO SEE, NOT EASY TO WALK through the

forest, except on trails... eee ee ee ee ee ee eee

INTERMEDIATE, between I, and Il, 2 eee eee ee ee ee ee ee ee L]

Don't KNOW. we ee ee ee ee ee te ee we we ee ew eee ee LI]

17. TYPE OF FOREST (Check one)
MAINLY PINES ~ evergreen, with needle-like leaves... .....-+- CJ
MAINLY HARDWOODS - generally deciduous (without leaves in winter) . . []
MIXTURE OF PINES AND HARDWOODS. 2. 2 ee ee eee eee eee eee L)

Don't know. 2 ee ee ee ee ee et ee ee ee eee eee ee L]

18. IF HARDWOODS, what was the ground like? (Check one)
Bottomlands - usually WET, often flooded in Spring... ee eee LE)
Uplan@S - usually DRY, rarely flooded. 2... ee eee eee eee CL]

Don't know. se ee eee ee ee eee eee ee ee eee eee ee L]

19. FOREST SIZE {Check one)
Small, EASY TO REACH OPPOSITE FOREST EDGES, less than 10 acres... . []
Large, NOT ABLE TO REACH OPPOSITE FOREST EDGES, 40 acres or more. . . []
Intermediate in size, between 10 and 40 acres... eee ee ee ee [J]

Don't KNOW. we ee ee ee ee ee ee eee eee eee eee ee eo LI]

20. TREE SIZE/FOREST AGE

At chest level, THE SIZE (DIAMETER) of the MAJORITY OF TREE TRUNKS WERE:
(Check one)

SMALLER than your WRIST, ee ee eee ee eee ee eee eee LI
ABOUT as wide as your WRIST. «2 ee eee ee eee ee eee ee L]
HALF as wide as your SHOULDERS... eee eee eee eee eee LI]
ABOUT as wide as your SHOULDERS. 2... eee eee ee ee ee
WIDER than your SHOULDERS. . 2. ee ee ee eee ee ee ee ee LI

Don't KNW. ee ee eee ee ee ee ee ee eee eee ee ee L]


Table 15.—Percent response* by size of water body near most recent site visited and ROS score

(P(X?) <.005, mee = 256)

ROS score
Urban <——______—____» Primitive
Size of water body All -19to-5 -4to-1 Oto3 4t08 9t025
(n=545) (n=125) (n= 104) (n=120) (n=92)-— (n=104)
Stream or creek
(100 feet wide or less) 24 4 7 30 27 33
Pond
(1 acre or less) 10 13 9 5 8 14
Small river or lake
(100 feet - 1/4 mile wide) 17 14 18 20 18 16
Large river, lake, or
coastal waters
(greater than above) 49 59 56 45 47 37

Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Table 16.—Percent response® by restriction from public use of most recent site visited and ROS score

ROS score
Urban = <—_________——_» Primitive
Restriction P(X?) Al -19to-5 -4to-1 O0to3 4to8 91025
Notice anything? 337 (n=567) — (m=130)— (n=106)— (n=118) (n=102) (n= 111)
Yes 35 33 31 34 33 34
No 58 58 58 60 62 53
Don't know 7 9 10 6 5 4
Restriction noticed (n=198) (n=43) (n=33) (n=40) (n=34) (n=48)
Signs 362 51 63 42 55 47 46
Fences 002 47 51 24 35 50 67
Posted, no hunting 052 43 23 52 45 53 46
No trespassing or
keep out A6L 33 33 21 30 38 40
Hunt club—members only .644 25 19 30 25 32 23

*Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
bmee = .399.

Service 1982) have postulated that screening can
alter the recreation experience. Forests with limited
screening, those with a wider field of view, are more
convenient to walk through, and are therefore more
likely to be used by people with urban-oriented prefer-
ences. Forests with more dense vegetation limit the
perception of human noise (Mulligan and others 1982)
and the visibility of human intrusions. Such forests
are more isolated from the sights and sounds of man
and are, therefore, more likely to be used by individu-
als at the primitive-end of the spectrum.

ROS Categories and Other Preferences

Forest users were questioned about other prefer-
ences to examine the relative importance of selected
conveniences and human intrusions, and to assess the
consistency of ROS categories against the desire for
conveniences and dislike of human intrusions. Re-
sults are as follows:

Conveniences. —More than half of the users prefer
to have drinking water available (69 percent) and a
map of the trails and roads (51 percent). As expected,
the majority of urban-oriented users prefer to have
several conveniences: drinking water, flush toilets,
electric hook-ups or outlets, a grocery store nearby,
and garbage collection; pit toilets, hot water, and or-
ganized activities are of lesser importance (table 18).
Two-thirds of the primitive-oriented users (64 per-
cent) prefer few or no conveniences. The number of
.conveniences desired by ROS categories declines with
urban-to-primitive orientation of users (fig. 6).

Human Intrusions. —Most of the forest users dis-
like the presence of old bottles and rusted cans. Other
dislikes, in order of importance, are trash or garbage,
logging activity, user fees, grazing by livestock, and
clearcut areas (table 19). As expected, urban-oriented
users are not as negative about their dislikes of

15


is “somewhat” important and each of the other
opportunities is “a little” important. No clear
preferences are discernible.

(4) Isolation, but with some direction: “Very much”
important is an area far from the sights and
sounds of others, a large natural area far from
human settlements, a well-marked area with
signs directing users to facilities and activities,
and having supervision and protection.

(5) Isolation: “Very much” important is an area
with no evidence of human use, being far from the
sights and sounds of others, an area where motor-
ized travel is not permitted, a large naturai area
far from human settlements, and an area free
from human restrictions or controls.

It is likely that the range of scores represents one

dimension of an array of behaviors. Table 6 lists the

40 URBAN <——————_ > PRIMITIVE

Figure 1—Number of responses (frequency) by Recreation Opportu-
nity Spectrum scores. Each symbo! marks a category
representing 20 percent of responses.

FREQUENCY
8 3

5

TRA

% 20 28

okt
f
+20

ROS SCORE

Table 5.—Average importance® of preferred recreation opportunites by primitive and urban descrip-
tions and response clusters, Alabama forest users

Response cluster

Recreation opportunity 1 2 3 4 5
(sample size) (689) 479) (100), (401), (117) (92)
Primitive
Area with no evidence of human use 472 331 431 331 1.95
Being far from the sights and sounds of others 3.98 283 3.60 240 1.0
Area where motorized travel is not permitted 463 344 4.29 313 2.32
Large natural area far from human settlements 3.71 266 365 218 2.11
Area free from human restrictions or controls 4.42 214 3.73 424 219
Urban
Well-marked atea, signs directing users 183 184 «3.58 21E 3.88
Area where motorized travel is permitted 199 214 3.30 295 3.74
Supervision and protection 196 «183 «= «3.94. 2.11 3.80
Small natural area near human settlements 314-2620 3.79 3.548.738
Mixing with others engaged in similar activities 3.10 263 412 368 4.25
Being near the sights and sounds of others 3.00 290 405 419 4.42

Scale: 1=extremely, 2=very much, 3=somewhat, 4~a little, 5=not at all.

Table 6.—Percent response* by ROS scores and response clusters, Alabama forest

users (n =589)
ROS score
Response cluster Urban mm ———_ Primitive
(#) cluster -19to-5 -4to-1 Oto3 4t08 9 to 25

(1) Convenience and

direction 9 46 rrr errs s
(2) Freedom/convenience

and direction 8 29 33 Wee eee
(3) Indeterminate 1 12 31 38 8
(4) Direction/isolation = ......... 14 32 41 16
(5) Isolation ee eeeeee tee eee sete 7 76
(Sample size) (135) (112) (127) (108) (112)

Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding.


Appendix C—dauestionnaire

The following questionnaire is the long form used
for the January 1984 survey. The short form con-
tained Part A: question 1, Part B, and Part C. The
phrase “other than fishing” in Part A question 2a was
omitted in the April 1983 and September 1983 phases.

PART A - OUTDOOR LEISURE ACTIVITIES

(Note: Part A: questions 2b and 2c were used with
the short form to assess frequency of participation by
season. The short form also contained questions on
the frequency of participation by distance from resi-
dence and counties visited by season. Results are not
available at this time.)

MB, No, 0596-0077
Expires 3-31-84

1. Which of the following do you do currently*

IN OR NEAR FORESTED AREAS?

Birdwatching, observing other wildlife
Picnicking. 2. eee eee eee ee

Hunting waterfowl (geese, ducks, etc.)

(Check ai] that apply)
ae ©

or plants

Camping at developed sites (motorized access)... +++ eee eee ree im)

Non-motorized boating {canceing,

kayaking, sailing, tubing, etc.) . .

Backcountry camping (non-motorized access)... eee eee eee eee t]

Hunting big game (deer, etc.) 2... +
Motorized boating, . 6. ee ee eee

0]

wee eee eee eee ee ee LI

Hunting small game (turkey, other upland birds, rabbits,

squirrels, etc.) . 52. eevee
Fishing 2. 2 eee ee eee eee
Gathering and collecting activities

(mushrooms, berries, nuts, firewood,
Sightseeing (viewing scenery, natural,
Staying overnight at a resort lodge or
Nature study or photography. ... . -
Other (specify)

CS er ere |
historic sites, man-made features). []
caine. eee eee eee ee ee CJ

IF YOU DO NOT CURRENTLY* DO ANYTHING IN OR NEAR

FORESTED AREAS, WRITE IN YOUR MOST FREQUENT

LEISURE ACTIVITY

AND SKIP TO PART B.

“Currently - in the past 2 years.

2. (a) Other than fishing, WHICH ONE OF THE ABOVE is your

MOST FREQUENT LEISURE ACTIVITY?
Please specify

(>) ABOUT HOW MANY TIMES (OCCASIONS) did you do this activity

between Labor Day and New Year's Day

(September 6, 1983 and January 1, 1984)?

(c) When was the LAST TIME you participated in this

activity, oe ee ee ee ee ee ee ew © Month Year.

30


Table B10.—Percent reponse" by size of water body near most recent site visited
and completion of ROS section (P(X2) <.126

an ROS section
Size of water body respondents Not completed Completed

Stream or creek (n=727) (n= 182) (n=545)

(100 feet wide or less) 24 24 2
Pond

(1 acre or less) a0 16 10
Small river or lake

(100 feet - 1/4 mile wide) 7 14 17
Large river, lake, or

coastal waters

(greater than above) 48 46 48

Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Table B11.—Percent response“ by restrictions from public use of most recent site visited and comple-

tion of ROS section
All —__ROSsection
Restriction P(X2) respondents «Not completed Completed
Notice anything? 127 (n=758) (n=191) (n=567)
Yes 33 29 35
No 59 61 58
Don't know 8 10 1
Item noticed (n=253) (n=56) (n=198)
Signs 004 46 29 BL
Fences 247 45 38 47
Posted, no hunting “566 “4 47 43
No trespassing or keep out 811 33 35 33
Hunt club, members only 806 25 24 25

“Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
bmee=.256.

27


Table 1.—Percent response by demographic characteristics, forest users, and nonusers®

Characteristic mec® Respondents Forest users Nonusers
Age class 492 (n=2,160) (n=1,746) (n=414)
16-19 2 2 1
20-24 5 6 0
25-29 9 10 5
30-34 10 12 5
35-39 12 4 5
40-49 16 18 6
50-59 16 15 7
60-69 14 13 21
70 or over 16 10 40
Average age 48.4 45.6 60.2
Sex 308 (n=2,140) (n=1,723) (n=417)
Female 36 31 58
Male 64 69 42
Education (years completed) 361 (n=2,099) (n=1,720) (n=379)
less than 6 3 2 7
6, 7,8 9 T 20
9,10, 11 14 13 19
12 30 31 27
13, 14 18 19 12
15, 16 16 17 10
17 or more ll 12 5
Average years 12.6 13.0 10.9
Number in household 342 (n=2,093) (n=1,714) (n=379)
1 18 14 35
2 31 30 37
3 20 22 10
4 19 21 10
5 8 9 5
6 or more 4 4 3
Average 28 2.9 2.2
Urban/rural residence b (n=2,181) (n=1,755) (n=426)
SMSA county 65 65 66
Not in SMSA county 35 35 34
Occupation 416 (n=2,142) (n=1,735) (n=407)
Professional/technical/
managerial 26 30 12
Factory/service worker 12 13 9
Craftperson/mechanic 9 10 3
Salesperson/buyer 5 5 2
Student 4 5 2
Clerical/secretarial 4 4 3
Farmer ® 2 2 1
Laborer 1 1 1
Homemaker 8 7 10
Retired 28 22, 53
Disabled or unemployed 2 2 3

Household income (before

taxes, 1982) 451 (n=1,900) (n=1,569) (n=331)
Under $10,000 26 20 58
10,000-19,999 25 26 20
20,000-29,999 21 23 10
30,000-39,999 13 15 6
40,000-49,999 7 8 2
50,000-59,999 3 4 1
60,000 or over 4 4 2

Average $22,700 $24,600 $13,800


nomic status. Half! of the questionnaires contained
questions about the most frequent forest-related
leisure activity, the most recent location where that
activity was pursued, and ROS preferences. An analy-
sis of responses from those who did not complete the
section on ROS preferences is presented in Ap-
pendix B.

Many respondents reported “fishing” as their most
frequent forest-related leisure activity in the first two
phases. To increase sample size among other activi-
ties, information about respondents’ most frequent
forest-related activity other than fishing was sought
in the third phase. Appendix C contains a copy of the
questionnaire.

The analyses consist of cross-tabulation of variables
and comparison of selected categories. Chi-square
tests of significant differences were performed to test
the hypothesis of no association among categories at
the 0.05 probability level. Where the hypothesis of no
association was rejected, the contingency coefficient
with Sakota’s modification for table dimensions
(Liebetrau 1983) was used to indicate the degree of
association. Values of the modified contingency coeffi-
cient, mcc, range between 0 (no association) and 1
(perfect association).

Averages have been caiculated for selected vari-
ables with numerical values (e.g. miles from resi-
dence). Where possible, statistical significance of dif-
ferences was obtained by comparing averages + or —2
standard errors. Cluster analysis (FASTCLUS,
Statistical Analysis System 1982) was used to assess
the pattern in the rating of ROS preferences.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Forest Users and Nonusers

Demographic information about forest users and
nonusers is presented in table 1. Differences between
forest use by urban or rural county of residence are
not significant (P(X?)<.75). All other differences are
significant (P(X)<.01). The degree of the association
is greatest between forest use and age class
(mec=.492).

Most respondents (1,755 or 80 percent) participate
in one or more outdoor leisure activities in or near
forested areas. The typical forest users are members
of a three-person household with a median 1982 gross
family income between $20,000 and $29,999 and sub-
scribe to at least one magazine containing outdoor
leisure articles. Forest users are usually males (69
percent), in their 40’s, have completed 13 years of
schooling, and are employed in skilled or semi-skilled

‘The other half included a map of the State and respondents were
asked to indicate the county and number of times they recreated in
a particular county. Preliminary analyses suggest most respond-
ents traveled to counties adjacent to their county of residence.

positions. Fishing, sightseeing, and picnicking are
commonly listed as their most frequent leisure activ-
ity associated with forested areas.

Nonusers (426 or 20 percent of the respondents) are
typically members of a two-person household with a
median 1982 gross family income under $10,000, and
do not subscribe to magazines containing outdoor
leisure articles. Nonusers are predominantly females
(58 percent), in their 60’s, have completed 11 years of
schooling, and are retired. Watching television and
reading are commonly listed as their most frequent
leisure activity.

Both forest users and nonusers consider the quality
and variety of outdoor recreation facilities in or near
forested areas to be good. Support for outdoor leisure
facilities in or near forested areas among respondents
is common (80 percent). Those indicating support are,
on average, willing to spend $33 and willing to volun-
teer 15 hours per year. More forest users indicate sup-
port (82 percent) than nonusers (40 percent). Other
differences between forest users and nonusers are not
significant (table 2).

Studies that specifically address forest users vs
nonusers in the United States are not known. In Swe-
den, underrepresentation of forest users among older
age groups has been noted (Kardell 1985). Underrep-
resentation of older age groups, females, those with
fewer years of education, and lower household income
have been noted elsewhere for Alabama residents in a
study of fish and wildlife-associated recreation (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of the Cen-
sus (USFWS/BC) 1980). The current study suggests
these findings apply as well to recreation use in or
near forested areas.

Nonusers of forested areas are more likely to be
older. Many nonusers are also retired, are in one or
two person households, have less education and
household income, and less are willing than forest
users to support outdoor facilities in forested areas.
Assessments of the recreation use and potential of
forested areas should take into account the sociodemo-
graphics of the nearby user population. One can con-
clude that population shifts affect forest use. A shift
toward older ages, retirement, and smaller house-
holds—related to unmeasured variables (e.g., declin-
ing health)—will result in a decline in forest use. A
rise in income, professional occupations, or education
levels—related to increases in money or time for
recreational pursuits—could reduce or reverse this
decline.

Leisure Activities
Half of all respondents participate in fishing, sight-
seeing, and picnicking in or near forested areas.
Hunting, boating, and observing nature in or near
forested areas are each listed by a third of the re-
spondents. Camping, gathering and collecting activi-
ties, and staying overnight at a resort lodge or cabin
3


Table 17.—Percent response* by onsite forest attributes of most recent site visited and ROS score

ROS score
Urban tM ——— Primitive
Attribute/subcategory Statistics All -19to-5 -4to-1 Oto3 4t08 91025
Location relative (n=558) (n=127) (n=103)  (n=123) — (n=97) (n=108)
to a forest P(X2)<.004
Outside mece=.231 47 54 52 48 48 31
Inside 53 46 48 52 52 69
Vegative screening P(X?2)<.000  (n=582) (n=133) (n=111) (n=126) (n=101)  (n=111)
Limited mec=.339 36 47 42 35 31 22
Intermediate 30 20 22 26 43 A3
Abundant 21 16 20 23 16 32
Don’t know 13 17 16 16 1l 3
‘Type of forest
vegetation P(X?)<.023 (n=582) (n=132) (n=111)) (m=127)) (@m=101)) (m=111)
Mostly pines mec=.245 17 19 21 15 9 20
Pine/hardwood mix 52 4g 50 50 64 45
Mostly hardwoods or
upland hardwoods 8 8 5 1 8 7
Bottomland
hardwoods 15 poi 13 16 14 24
Don’t know 8 13 iW 8 5 4
Forest size P(X2)<,000  (n=576) (n=131) (n=109) (n=124) (n=101) (n=111)
Less than 10 acres mec=.299 soy 8 10 13 16 9
10-40 acres 18 18 18 17 20 17
Greater than
40 acres 51 40 50 48 53 68
Don't know 20 34 22 22 11 6
Diameter of
majority of trees (n=580) = (n=133) (n=111)  (=125) (n=101)  (n=110)
Wrist or smaller 7 6 5 8 7 9
1/2 shoulder width . 41 38 38 42 41 47
Shoulder width 25 19 21 23 33 30
Larger or mixed 9 14 13 5 3 10
Don't know 18 23 24 22 17 4

Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

human intrusions. Urban-oriented users are less neg-
ative about the presence of trash or garbage, logging
activities, and user fees, and somewhat more negative
about grazing activity (fig. 7). Dislikes of clearcut
areas are inconsistent in direction relative to ROS
categories, suggesting the word “clearcut” has conno-
tations that vary with user preferences.

Findings above suggest that the direction of the
association between ROS categories and preference
for conveniences and dislike of human intrusions are
generally consistent with the logic of the standards in
the ROS Users Guide (U.S. Forest Service 1982). The
magnitude of the differences is less than one would
expect, however, which suggests that preference for
some conveniences (e.g., a map) and dislike of some
intrusions (e.g., old bottles, rusted cans) may not di-
rectly correspond with ROS preferences.

16

CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY

Recreational use of forested areas is limited to a
particular segment of society. Among forest users,
ROS preferences have been shown to be related to the
age, sex, and schooling of respondents; to the respond-
ent’s most frequent leisure activity; to forest at-
tributes of the most recent site visited associated with
that activity; to preferences for conveniences, and to
dislikes of human intrusions.

Tentative classification guidelines or hypotheses
generated from this study of Alabama residents are
provided to help assess a forest’s recreation value in
terms of frequency of use:

1. Forest use depends on the younger individuals in

the population. Support for facilities is less
among nonusers than among users. Forests sur-


Table 3.—Percent participation in outdoor leisure activities in or near forested areas (all respond-
ents, sample size=2, 181)

Activity Group activity Individual activity
Fishing 56
Sightseeing 52
Picnicking 48
Hunting 35
Small game 31
Big game 23
Waterfowl 10
Boating 34
Motorized 2
Nonmotorized 14
Observing nature 30
Watching birds, other wildlife,
or plants 26
Nature study or photography 14
Camping 28
Developed, motorized access 25
Backcountry, nonmotorized access 9
Gathering and collecting activities 28
Staying overnight at a resort lodge or cabin 23
Other 3

‘Table 4.—Percent Alabama forest usera by most frequent outdoor leisure activity in or near forested

areas*
All All activities April 1983 and Except for fishing
Activity respondents September 1983 January 1984°
(n = 856) (n = 567)
Fishing 23 32
Sightseeing 19 16
Hunting 18 13
Camping 10 9
Picnicking 9 8
Boating 7 6
Observing nature 6 7
Gathering-and collecting 2 2
Miscellaneous 8 7

*Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding; n=sample size.
»An additional 10 respondents indicated that fishing was their only activity associated with

forested areas.
spectrum by pulling out underlying “clusters” of indi- sion and protection, and where motorized travel
viduals with similar answers. Five clusters have been is permitted, “Not at all” important is an area
chosen for comparison with the five ROS categories. where motorized use is not permitted or an area
Suggested behavior is identified on the basis of simi- with no evidence of human use.
lar rating (table 5). These response clusters are de- (2) Freedom, but with convenience and direction:
scribed below: “Very much” important is an area free from
Behavior: Rated preferences of recreation opportuni- human restrictions or controls, a well-marked
ties area with signs directing users to facilities and
(1) Convenience and direction: “Very much” impor- activities, having supervision and protection, and
tant is a well-marked area with signs directing where motorized travel is permitted.
users to facilities and activities, having supervi- (3) Indeterminate: An area where motorized travel


Appendix B—incomplete ROS

Responses

A total preference score could not be computed for
267 respondents (31 percent of the 856 respondents)
who did not complete the section on ROS preferences.
Thirty-nine percent of the 267 respondents were hard-
to-reach (responses received after the first 20 days of
each survey phase). Many of these respondents failed
to complete other parts of the questionnaire as well. A
few individuals (about 30) were interviewed by tele-
phone, were extremely reluctant to respond, and were
not pressured to respond to this section or to other
detailed questions on forest characteristics, prefer-
ences, or opinions about facilities.

Those who did not complete the section on ROS
preferences (ROS “incompletes”) are, on average, 9
years older, have one-year’s less schooling, and earn
$6,000 less than those who completed this section.
Occupational status is more likely to be retired (35
percent), and less likely to be professional/technical/
managerial (15 percent), than those who completed
this section (16 percent retired, 33 percent profes-
sional/technical managerial). ROS incompletes are
also most likely to be from one and two person house-
holds and female respondents (table B1). Differences
among ROS categories by quality and variety of out-
door leisure facilities are not significant. The propor-
tion of support for outdoor leisure facilities is about
the same (86 percent); however, the amount of support
is significantly lower for ROS incompletes (table B2).
More of the ROS incompletes are engaged in “other”
activities, i.e. observing nature, gathering and col-
lecting activities, etc.; less are engaged in boating
(table B3).

22

Data are examined by characteristics of the most
recent site visited (tables B4-B12). Significant differ-
ences are found between completion of the ROS sec-
tion and characteristics of the site, principally dis-
tance from nonforest land uses and onsite forest
attributes (tables B9, B12). A larger proportion of
ROS incompletes have responded with “don’t know” to
many of these questions. Of those who notice restric-
tions, ROS incompletes are less likely to notice signs
(table B11).

Comparison of preferences for conveniences sug-
gests fewer ROS incompletes are interested in a map,
and they are more interested in having some conve-
niences than those who completed the ROS section
(table B13). ROS incompletes are slightly more sensi-
tive to grazing by livestock (table B14).

The finding that most ROS incompletes prefer some
conveniences suggests that their ROS preferences are
somewhere in the middle of urban and primitive set-
tings. If one ean assume that older age, being female,
and completion of fewer years of schooling are associ-
ated with more urban-oriented preferences, then ROS
incompletes score closer to the urban end of ROS pref-
erences.

Not including ROS incompletes may create a bias in
the analysis. Addition of ROS incompletes is likely to
increase differences in the same direction along the
ROS spectrum regarding sociodemographics and sup-
port for outdoor leisure facilities. Except as noted
above, the bias in conclusions regarding ROS associa-
tions with characteristics of the site visited is believed
to be negligible. (Imputation of ROS categories from
answers to other sections of the questionnaire—e.g.,
preference for conveniences—would add to the com-
plexity of computations without significantly altering
conclusions:)


ea Recreational Use of

Agriculture

Foes! Service Forested Areas by

Southern Forest

esperar Ssion Alabama Residents

New Orleans,
Louisiana

Research Paper

Victor A. Rudis



Table 8.—Percent response* by demographic characteristics and ROS score

ROS score
Urban + ———>_ Primitive
Characteristic Statistics All -19to-5 -4to-1 Oto3 4to8 9 to 25
Age class P(X?) <.000  (n=587) (n=135) (n=111) (n=126)  (n=103) = (n=112)
16-24 mec = .344 9 4 5 11 8 18
25-29 13 8 8 i 16 21
30-34 13 13 pat 14 9 16
35-39 16 15 20 17 16 14
40-49 21 18 27 21 23 15
50-59 4 19 12 13 4 13
60-69 10 14 13 8 12 3
70 or over 5 10 5 6 4 0
Average age 42.2 46.9 44.0 414 42.5 35.1
Sex P(X?) <.025  (n=579) — (n=138). (n=109)  (n=123) (n=102)  (n=110)
Female mec = .194 29 36 36 24 28 21
Male 7 64 64 16 72 79
Education P(K?)<.017 (n=581) (n=135) (n=108) (n=125) (n=102)  (n=111)
(years completed) mec = .268
8 or less 6 7 6 8 4 3
9, 10, 11 11 19 7 14 6 5
12 29 29 37 28 28 25
13, 14 21 1g 22 18 17 27
15, 16 19 16 14 18 27 21
17 or more 14 10 14 13 18 19
Average years 13.5 12.9 13.3 13.1 14.2 14.2
Number in household P(X?) <.616  (n=582) (n=134) (n=108) (n=125) (n=103) (n=112)
1 12 13 7 12 il 14
2 27 31 25 25 31 22
3 21 21 19 26 17 23
4 24 22 31 20 23 27
5 or more 16 13 7 v 18 13
Average 3.1 3.0 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.1
Urban/rural residence P(X?) <.895  (n=589) (n=135) (n=112)  (n=127)  (n=103) (n=112)
SMSA? county 66 67 68 65 68 63
Not in SMSA county 34 33 32 35 32 38
Occupation P(X?) <.102  (n=585) (n=135) (=111) (n=126)  (n=102)  (n=111)
Professional/technical/
managerial 33 32 28 31 32 41
Factory/service worker 14 13 12 17 10 14
Craftsperson/mechanic il 10 13 1 ll 9
Salesperson/clerical 10 11 9 9 11 9
Student 7 2 7 7 5 4
Homemaker 8 10 10 6 9 4
Retired 16 21 16 17 18 6
Other 3 1 5 2 5 4
Household income (n=542) (n=127) (n=99) (n=117)  (n=94) (n=105)
(before taxes, 1982) P(X?) < .687
Under $10,000 14 13 15 18 13 9
10,000-19,999 27 26 28 29 22 27
20,000-29,999 25 26 15 27 27 28
30,000-39,999 18 20 18 15 7 18
40,000-49,999 7 6 10 3 7 9
50,000-59,999 5 5 6 4 5 4
60,000 or over 6 4 7 3 9 7

Average $26,800 $26,200 $28,200 $23,400 $28,600 $28,300


proportion of suggested behavior types associated
with the categories grouped in this study.

Not surprisingly, the clusters in table 6 loosely cor-
respond with categories described in the ROS Users
Guide (U.S. Forest Service 1982): 1-urban, 2-rural,
3-semi-primitive motorized or roaded natural, 4-semi-
primitive nonmotorized, 5-primitive. The principal
distinction for both the clusters and ROS categories is
between users interested in convenience and direction
(urban-oriented) and those interested in isolation
(primitive-oriented).

Average ROS scores vary with the activity; picnick-
ing is at the urban end of the spectrum and hunting at
the primitive end. While differences among some ac-
tivities are not significant (e.g. among picnicking,
camping, fishing, sightseeing, and boating), signifi-
cant differences are apparent for other activities (e.g.,
between picnicking and hunting, picnicking and
other activities, hunting and sightseeing) (fig. 2). Re-
sponse frequency for a particular activity varies with
ROS category (table 7). Each ROS category contains
several respondents from every activity, however.

The relationship between ROS scores and activities
is appealing intuitively; hunting more frequently oc-
curs in isolation from people than does picnicking or
camping. Management and activity constraints aside,
the designation of an area as having a primitive recre-
ation opportunity means that hunting activity is more
likely to occur there than camping or picnicking. Re-
gional classification, monitoring, and analyses should
bear in mind that isolated areas, although relatively
scarce, will be used frequently for only a few activi-
ties.

ROS Categories and Demographics

Significant differences exist among ROS categories
when classed by age, sex, and education. Individuals
with urban-oriented preferences are generally older

PICNIC CAMP FISH SIGHTSEE BOAT OTHER HUNT

Hepat

Figure 2.—Average Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Score (—,+2
standard errors) by most frequent activity (sample
size =589, X = overall mean ).

and have completed fewer years of schooling than
those with primitive-oriented preferences. While the
majority of respondents are males, more of the urban-
oriented are females (36 percent) than are the
primitive-oriented (21 percent females). In other re-
spects, no significant differences exist among ROS
categories by income, occupation, number of persons
per household, urban/rural county residence, and
magazine subscriptions (table 8). As stated earlier,
most forest users consider the quality and variety of
facilities to be good (table 9). Differences are not sig-
nificant in the proportion willing to support, or in the
level of support of outdoor leisure activities (table 9,
fig. 3).?

Other studies have shown that young adults, males,
and those with some college education form the major-
ity of users in wilderness—i.e., primitive—settings
(Boteler 1986). Results in this study regarding prefer-
ences are consistent. Primitive recreation opportuni-

2Note, however, the limitations of the questionnaire and sample
design. The survey was aimed at heads of households and ROS
preferences of their most frequent leisure activity; the person who
filled out the questionnaire could have been another individual.
Variability within ROS categories could be different if all individu-
als in a household are sampled.

Table 7.—Percent response* by ROS scores and most frequent leisure activity, Alabama forest users

(P(X?) < 000, mec = .176)

ROS score

Sample Urban’ 4“————_———_. Primitive
Activity size All -19t0-5 —4to-1 Oto3 408 gto95
Picnicking 52 9 (100) 9(23) 12 (25) 13 (88) 6 (12), 4 (48)
Camping 65 11 (100) _—21 (43) 8(14) 714) 8 (2)—:10 (17)
Fishing 130 22(100)--22.(28) = 23 (20) 2928): 17(13) 18 (15)
Sightseeing 115 20(100) 21 (24) 21 (20) 22 (24) 1817) 15 (15)
Boating 58 10100), (1024), 1222), 716) 1017) 1121)
Other? 67-11 (100) 713) 1821) 918) 14(21)_—16 (27)
Hunting 102 -17(100) 104) :13 (14) :12(05)- 28 (28) 27 (29)
Column total 589 100 (100) 100(23) 10019) 100 (22) 100(17) 100 (19)

(Row total)

“Rows and columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Observing nature, gathering and collecting, and miscellaneous activities, including no one most

frequent activity.


Table B14.—Average rating * (+2 SE) of dislike of human intrusions by type of intrusion and comple-

tion of ROS section

an ROS section
Intrusion respondents Not completed Completed

Old bottles, rusted cans (sample size) 1.5.1 (725) 1.6+.2 (152) 1.5.1 (573)
Trash, garbage 2.2.1 (711) 2,2+.1 (569)
Logging activity 2.6.1 (700) 2.6+.1 (565)
User fees 3.0.1 (695) 2.9.1 (563)
Grazing by livestock 3.4.1 (706) 3.5.1 (569)
Clearcut areas 3.5.1 (691) 3.52.1 (561)
All intrusions 2.7+.1 (648) 2.7+.1 (541)

*Scale:
not dislike.

=extremely dislike, 2=very much dislike, 3=dislike somewhat, 4=dislike a little, 5=do

29


28

Table B12.—Percent response" by forest attributes of most recent site visited from land features and
completion of ROS section

All ROS section

Attribute/subcategory Statistics respondents  Notcompleted Completed

Location relative to a

forest P(K?)<,391 (n=716) (n=158) (n=558)
Outside 48 51 47
Inside 52 49 53

Vegetative screening PCK?)<.000 (n=779) (n=197) (n=582)
Limited mec=.207 36 36 36
Intermediate 27 17 30
Dense 21 21 21
Don’t know 16 26 13

‘Type of forest

vegetation P(K?2)<,000 (n=781) (n=199) (n=582}
Mostly pines mec=.181 17 17 17
Pine/hardwood mix 49 43 52
Mostly hardwoods

or upland hardwoods 9 ca 8

Bottomland hardwoods 14 1 15
Don’t know u 19 8

Forest size P(K?)<,001 (n=771) (n=195) (n=576)
Jess than 10 acres mee=.169 12 13 i
10-40 acres 17 13 18
Greater than 40 acres 49 41 51
Don’t know 23 33 20

Diameter of majority ,

of trees P(X?)<.006 (n=773) (n=193) (n=580)
Wrist or smaller mec=.153 7 8 7
1/2 shoulder width 39 31 41
Shoulder width 24 21 25
Larger or mixed 9 10 9
Don’t know 21 30 18

@Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Table B13.—Percent response and average number of conveniences preferred by completion of ROS

section
ROS section
All re
Convenience preferred P(X?" respondents ©“ Not completed Completed
Convenience (n=732) (m=161) (n=671)
Drinking water 363 68 65 69
Map of trails and roads 005% 48 39 51
Garbage collection 827 AT 46 47
Flush toilets 552 46 48 45
Grocery store nearby -183 45 50 44
Electric hook-ups or outlets 383 40 37 40
Pit toilets 428 26 28 25
Hot water 347 24 21 25
Organized activities 953 18 18 18
Few or no conveniences .001¢ 23 14 26
Average number of
conveniences +2 SE 3.64.2 3.54.2 3.64.2

SE=Standard error of the estimate.
Chi-square test performed on ROS section completed and not completed by preference and lack

of preference for each listed convenience. ~

148.

mec=.178.



Table 1.—Percent response by demographic characteristics, forest users, and nonusers*—Continued

Characteristic Tice® Respondents Forest users Nonusers
Number of outdoor leisure

magazine subscriptions 330 (n=2,038) (n=1,660) (n=378)

None 54 48 8

1 26 29 16

2 11 12 4

3 5 6 1

4 or more 3 4 1
Average 08 0.9 03

@Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding; n=sample size. P(X?) < .010 except where noted.
»P(X?) < .750, SMSA = Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, U.S. Census 1980.
mec = modified contingency coefficient. Values range from 1 (perfect association) to 0 (no association).

Table 2—Average value of the quality, variety, and willingness to support (develop, improve, or
maintain) outdoor leisure facilities associated with forested areas for forest users and

nonusers
Opinion All Forest users Nonusers
Quality? (—,+2SE) 2,20(2.16, 2.24) 2,19(2.15, 2.23) 2.31(2.11, 2.51)
(sample size) (1613) (1496) (117)
Variety® (-, +2SE) 2.43(2.38, 2.48) 2.43(2.38, 2.48) 2.56(2.33, 2.76)
(sample size) (1502) (1397) (105)
Percent? willing
to support 80 82 40
(sample size) (1272) (1200) (72)
Amount? (~, +2SE) 33(30, 36) 33(30, 36) 24(17, 34)
Time® (-, +2SE) 15(13, 17) 15(13, 18) 4, 21)
(sample size) (1013) (984) (29)

Scale: 1=excellent, 2=good, 3=fair, 4=poor, 5=absent. SE = standard error of the estimate.

P(X?) < .000, mee = .338

‘Average only of those indicating support. Log transformations used in computations.

associated with forested areas are common among
one-fourth of the respondents. Further details by
specific activity are listed in table 3.

One-third of the forest users list fishing as their
most frequent leisure activity. Other more traditional
forest-related activities, such as hunting and camp-
ing, are less frequently listed. Forest users’ most fre-
quent leisure activities other than fishing are hunting
and sightseeing (table 4).

That water-based activities, primarily fishing, are
among the most common recreation activities as well
as the most frequent leisure activities associated with
forested areas is surprising. Dispersed land-based ac-
tivities, such as hunting, traditionally are the recre-
ation activities closely associated with forested areas.
However, few people hunt; more are involved in fish-
ing (USFWS/BC 1980). Less than 5 percent of Ala-
bama’s forests are within 100 yards of permanent
water sources (Rudis and others 1984). Apparently
the few forested areas near water bodies receive at-
tention from the majority of forest recreation users.

ROS Scores

Forest user preferences for urban to primitive recre-
ation opportunities were derived from respondents’
rating of 5 primitive and 6 urban-oriented descrip-
tions. Each description was rated by respondents with
a 5-level scale of importance. Answers were assigned
values from 1, extremely important, to 5, not at all
important. A total preference score was computed
only for respondents who rated all descriptions listed.
Scores ranged from ~19 (—5 for each primitive set-
ting, +1 for each urban setting) to +25 (-1 for each
primitive setting, +5 for each urban setting). Scores
were grouped into one of five ordered categories, each
comprising 20 percent of the responses. Figure 1 illus-
trates the frequency of scores along the recreation
opportunity spectrum, and the divisions made to
group individuals into categories.

The scores and categories arrange individual pref-
erences along an established spectrum. Cluster analy-
sis of rated opportunities helps one to understand the

5


mand, and critical policy issues. Washington, D.C.:
American Forestry Association. 88 p.

Doman, A.; Ennis, R.; Weigel, D. 1981. North Central
Forest Experiment Station: Renewable resource
evaluation field manual. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central
Forest Exp. Stn.: 20-21.

Green, D. F. 1979. Can potential recreation areas be
inventoried in the office? J. For. 77: 670-672, 691.

Hancock, H. K. 1973. Recreation preference: its rela-
tion to user behavior J. For. 71: 336-337.

Jackson, R. M.; Peyton, B. 1986. The developmental
impact of age and years of experience on recre-
ational values and behaviors. Jn: First national
symposium on social science in resource manage-
ment: program abstracts. CPSU/OSU 86-4. 1986
May 12-16; Corvallis, OR; Corvallis, OR: National
Park Service and Department of Resource Recre-
ation, Oregon State University: 226.

Kardell, L. 1985. Recreation forests-a new concept?
Ambio 14(3): 139-147.

Labau, V. J. 1984. A review of nontimber data collec-
tion and information reported by the Forest Inven-
tory and Analysis Projects in the United States. In:
Schlatterer, E. and Lund, H.G.; eds. Proceedings of
the inventory integration workshop, 1984, October
15-19; Portland OR; Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Range and
Timber Management Staffs: 59-63, 153-165.

Lee, M. E.; Brown, P. J.; Manfredo, M. J. 1983. User
utilization of planning criteria for inventorying and
monitoring recreation resources. In: Bell, J. F. and
Atterbury, T., eds. Renewable resource inventories
for monitoring changes and trends. 1983 August
15-19; Corvallis, OR; Corvallis, OR: Oregon State
University; College of Forestry: 318-322.

Liebetrau, A. M. 1983. Measures of association. Bev-
erly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 95 p.

McCool, S. F.; Stankey, G. H.; Clark, R. N. 1985.
Choosing recreation settings: processes, findings,
and research direction. In: Gen. Tech. Rept. INT-
184. Proceedings-Symposium on recreation choice
behavior. 1984 March 22—23; Missoula, MT. Ogden,
UT: Intermountain Forest and Range Exp. Stn.:
1-8.

McClure, J. P.; Cost, N. D.; Knight, H. A. 1979. Mul-
.tiresource inventories—A new concept for forest
survey. Research Paper SE-191. Asheville, NC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Southeastern Forest Exp. Stn. 68 p.

Mulligan, B. E.; Goodman, L. S.; Faupel, M.;
Lewis, S.; Anderson, L. M. 1982. Interactive effects
of outdoor noise and visible aspects of vegetation on
behavior. In: Southeastern Recreation Research
Conference 1980-81 Proceedings. Asheville, NC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Southeastern Forest Exp. Stn.: 265-280.

Northeastern Forest Inventory and Analysis Unit.
1984. Field instructions for Southern New England.
Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Exp. Stn.: 59—
61.

Rudis, V. A. 1983. Dispersed recreation inventory on
commercial timberland. Jn: Bell, J. F. and Atter-
bury, T., eds. Renewable resource inventories for
monitoring changes and trends. 1983 August 15—
19; Corvallis, OR. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State Uni-
versity; College of Forestry: 214-218.

Rudis, V. A. 1986. Emerging patterns in the distribu-
tion of roadless forested areas in the Midsouth. In:
Kulhavy, D. L., and Conner, R. N., eds. Wildernesss
and natural areas in the eastern United States: a
management challenge. 1985 May 13-15; Nacog-
doches, TX. Nacogdoches, TX: Center for Applied
Studies, School of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin Uni-
versity: 265-270.

Rudis, V. A.; Rosson, J. F.; Kelly, J. F. 1984. Resource.
Bull. SO-98. Forest resources of Alabama. U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture, Forest Service, New Or-
leans, LA: Southern Forest Exp. Stn. 55 p.

Saunders, P. R. 1979. Results of a multiresource in-
ventory: analysis of undeveloped rural recreation
sites in South Carolina. In: Selected reprints from
the 1979 workshop on forest resource inventories;
1979 July 22-27, Fort Collins, CO; Washington,
D.C.; Government Printing Office: 43-51.

Saunders, P. R. 1982. Characteristics of nondeveloped
forest recreation from multiresource inventory
plots in South Carolina. In: Southeastern Recre-
ation Research Conference 1980-1981 Proceedings.
Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Exp. Stn.: 13—
26.

Stankey, G. H.; Brown, P. J.; Clark, R. N. 1983. Mon-
itoring and evaluating changes and trends in recre-
ation opportunity supply. Jn: Bell, J. H. and Atter-
bury, T. eds. Renewable resource inventories for
monitoring changes and trends. 1983 August 15—
19; Corvallis, OR; Corvallis, OR: Oregon State Uni-
versity; College of Forestry: 227-230.

Statistical Analysis System. 1982. FASTCLUS. In:
SAS user’s guide: Statistics, 1982 Edition. Cary,
NC: SAS Institute Inc.: 433-448.

Tuan, Y. F. 1977. Space and place. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press. 235 p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of the
Census (USFWS/BC). 1980. 1980 National survey
of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recre-
ation: Alabama. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart-
meni of the Interior. 75 p.

U.S. Forest Service. 1982. ROS Users Guide. Wash-
ington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service. 38 p.

19


36

PART C = DEMOGRAPHICS

Now I would like to ask you a few questions to help statistically compare your

responses with the general population.

THESE QUESTIONS WILL NOT BE USED TO IDENTIFY YOU PERSONALLY IN ANY WAY,

Into which AGE GROUP do you fall?
eee ee 016-19 []
wee ee 020-24 []
eee ee 225-29 []

What is your sex? (Check one) .. 2 se eee eee eee

30-34
35-39
40-49

]
ia)
]

50-59. . -[]
60-69. . .[]

70 or over .[]

+++ Female []

ee eee ee ee ee ww ew male []

Circle the highest grade (or year) of schooling you have completed.

Elementary less than 6 6

College 1203 4 5 6

7
7

8

8 or more

9 10 11 12

Including yourself, HOW MANY PERSONS are there in your household?

(Circle one) 1 2 3004

WHERE DO YOU LIVE?
State

5

6

8 or more persons

County

What is your primary OCCUPATION?
Retired. 2. ee eee eee eens
Homemaker, 2 2 ee eee ee ee ee
Craftsperson/mechanic, . 2... 2 es

Clerical/secretarial ».. eee ee

Professional /technical /managerial. .
Factory or service worker... . = «
Farmer sw ee ee ee eee eee
Student. «2 ee ee eee eee ne

Salesperson/buyer. . 2s eee eee

Other (please specify)

(Check one)

ween ee Ol

eee eee Lf]
eee eee LY
eee eee ef]



7.

Do you or members of your household
magazines? (Check all that apply)

National Wildlife...

Sports Afield . .
Florida Wildlife.
Outdoor Life...
Backpacker...

Audubon Magazine,

Another magazine similar to

No, do not subscribe to any

those

7/0
+0)
7/0
fC]
»-O)
0

above (specify)

Subscribe to any of the following

Mississippi Game and Fish
Camping Journal...
Southern Outdoors... «
Alabama Conservation. . .
Field and Stream... .

Southern Living... 2

7 O
7/0
7-0
7-0
--
»-C]

of the above, 2. eee ee ee eee ee eee LJ

Which best describes your family's total income for 1982? (Please check

approximate amount before
Under $10,000 .....
$10,000 - 19,999. . 2.
$20,000 - 29,999... .
$30,000 - 39,999 . . «

deductions for taxes, bonds, dues, etc.)
weeeee L

= + + THAT'S

my

»-f
++]
20

$40,000 - 49,999. ....
$50,000 - 59,999. ....
$60,000 - 69,999. ....
$70,000 or over»...

THANK YOU VERY MUCH! = - -

--]

37


Table B4.—Average distance traveled from residence by completion of ROS section

ROS section

All ees

Unit of measure* respondents Not completed Completed

Miles (Sample size) 19 (n=765) 15 (n=195) 20 (n=570)
(-, +2SE) (17, 21) (12, 19) (18, 23)

Hours (Sample size) 0.8 (n=753) 0.8 (n=191) 0.8 (n=562)
(-, +2SE) (0.7, 0.9) (0.7, 0.9)

Miles per hour (Sample size) 25 (n=725) 26 (n=544)
(-, +2SE) (23, 27) (19, 27) (24, 29)

“Logarithmic transformation used in computations.
SE = standard error of the estimate.

Table B5.—Percent response* by major mode of transportation and completion of
ROS section (P(X*) <.179)

aul ROS section
Mode of transportation respondents Not completed © Completed
(n=784) (n=205) (n=579)
Auto 60 61 60
Truck, van or motor home 26 27 25
On foot 7 8 6
Other> 8 4 9

*Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
bincludes motorcycle, train or bus, airplane, bicycle, and no major mode
indicated.

Table B6.—Percent response* by ease of travel and completion of ROS section
(P(X?) <.730)

an ROS section
Ease of travel respondents Not completed Completed
(n=787) (n=207) (n=580)
Difficult or somewhat difficult 8 9 8
Somewhat easy 30 28 31
Very easy 62 64 62

Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Table B7.—Percent response* by ownership of most recent site vis-
ited and completion of ROS section (P(X2) <.168)

ROS section
All
Ownership respondents Not completed Completed
(n=778) (n=200) (n=578)
Public agency 46 40 48
Farmer u 12 u
Other private 29 35 28
Don't know 14 13 15

*Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

25


Recreational Use of Forested Areas
by Alabama Residents

Victor A. Rudis

INTRODUCTION

Periodic surveys of forested areas have been con-
ducted by USDA Forest Service since the 1930’s. The
surveys at first only monitored the status and trends
of the Nation’s timber supplies. Regional estimates
served as bases for National reports and were derived
largely from sample-based measures of both private
and public forest resources. Legislation in the 1970’s
mandated further that the Forest Service make com-
prehensive assessments of forest resources, including
recreation.

To use these ongoing timber-oriented surveys for
monitoring forest recreation resources, procedures
are needed to classify sampled areas in terms relevant
to recreation assessments. One established classifica-
tion scheme is the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
(ROS). It has been developed to aid public land man-
agers and planners inventory available recreation op-
portunities for a parcel of land (Clark and Stankey
1979). The system classifies areas into 5 or 6 settings
ranging from those that provide a primitive experi-
ence to those that provide a modern or urban experi-
ence. The ROS guidelines have been used to make
assessments of the range of recreation resources on
many Forest Service landholdings and on some other
federal lands (Buist and Hoots 1982).

Standard criteria are used to make the ROS guide-
lines operational for particular landscapes (Brown
and others 1980). Suggested standards with examples
largely drawn from the Rocky Mountain region have
been incorporated in the ROS Users Guide (U.S.
Forest Service 1982) for land and management plan-
ning within the National Forest System. The stand-
ards consist of a series of qualitative descriptions and
quantitative measures designed for complete enumer-
ation of agency lands, or in-place inventories. These
standards have also been used in extensive area
sample-based inventories by some Forest Service In-
ventory and Analysis (FIA) units to categorize recre-
ation resources of private as well as public forested
areas (Doman and others 1981, Labau 1984, North-
eastern FIA Unit 1984).

While the concepts of the ROS for assessing recre-
ation resources are widely recognized, application is
not straightforward (Clark 1982). The ROS guidelines
provide a framework for inventories; their use for
monitoring supplies has not been fully developed
(Stankey and others 1983). Human values and percep-
tions play a major role in assessing recreation re-
sources and decision making; knowledge about users
and nonusers of forested areas is essential. For this
reason, ROS guidelines favor local evaluation by
those informed about resource conditions and users.
Validation and refinement of the classification stand-
ards for particular landscapes are needed to adjust for
differences in resource characteristics and the people
who use them (Lee and others 1983). Also, standards
appropriate to southern forest users, and to the dense
vegetation and relatively level terrain of southern
landscapes are not known.

Other approaches to recreation resource assess-
ment have concentrated on aerial photo interpreta-
tion, field observation, and field evaluation suggested
by managers, researchers, and the literature (Burnett
and Conklin 1979, Green 1979, McClure and others
1979, Rudis 1983, Saunders 1979). Several of these
measurements have been adapted for use with
sample-based inventories of forested areas. Objective,
replicable measures that can be applied consistently
over extensive areas appear cost-effective. One way.is
to couple measurements from aerial photos with maps
and experienced interpreters (Green 1979). Lacking,
however, are classification procedures based on these
measures that can be tied to a range of recreation
opportunities.

Regional assessments drawn from qualitative de-
scriptions and comparisons of field evaluation data
can be misleading. Temporal and spatial consistency
in judgment is difficult to maintain in extensive area
surveys. “Remoteness,” an ROS standard based
largely on a quantifiable distance from roads, has
been favored over other more qualitative descriptions
where ROS guidelines have been applied (Neal Kings-
ley, Northeastern FIA Unit, personal communication,
1981). Knowledge about users is generally limited to

Victor A. Rudis is research forester, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service—USDA, Starkville, MS.



take more time to reach their destination (17 miles
per hour) than urban-oriented users (ROS score —5 or
less), with 31 miles and 33 miles per hour, respec-
tively (fig. 4). One plausible hypothesis is that urban-
oriented users place greater importance on being
physically distant from one’s residence to achieve the
sense of “getting away from it all” or “timelessness”
(Tuan, 1977:122) desired by vacationers. Primitive-
oriented users may place greater importance on being
temporally distant—i.e., using slower modes of trans-
portation (table 10) and somewhat more difficult
travel routes (table 11)—or may place greater impor-
tance on other attributes to achieve the sense of
“getting away from it all.”

Ownership. —Forested areas in public ownership
are not used as much by primitive-oriented users (36
percent) as by urban-oriented users (52 percent) (table
12). In Alabama, only 5 percent of the forests are
publicly owned (Rudis and others 1984); only 10 per-
cent of all Midsouth forests (Alabama, Arkansas, Lou-
isiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, east Oklahoma, and
east Texas) are publicly owned (Rudis 1986). With
public forests one is more likeiy to encounter the di-
rections and conveniences desired by individuals at
the urban-end of the spectrum—signs directing users,
adjacent resort development, etc.—than forests in pri-
vate ownership.

On private land, 43 percent of forest users pursue
leisure ac es on land owned by themselves,
friends, or relatives; 27 percent use land owned by
someone else, and 29 percent do not know the owner.
Differences by ROS categories are not significant
(table 13).

Distance from Nonforest Land Uses.— Respondents
indicate that the majority of use occurs near roads (59
percent within 1/4 mile of roads), near water bodies
(58 percent within 100 yards of water bodies), far from

farms (58 percent 1/2 mile or more from farms), and
farms (53 nt 1/2 mile or more from farms), and

quite far from urban areas (51 percent 3 miles or more
from urban or built-up land) (table 14).
Roads.—The median distance from roads for
primitive-oriented users is 1/2 mile, while for others
the distance is shorter. If midpoints are used to com-
pute average values, separation of other categories

from the “most primitive” is achieved at 3/4 mile (fig.
5a). (Note that “3 miles or more” = 3.5 miles, and
“don’t know” = no answer.)

This distance is considerably shorter than that sug-
gested in ROS studies in the western United States.
There are several reasons for this. Other studies
(Brown and others 1978; Lee and others 1983) use the

X +.61 (52,69)

bpp te

25h
b. URBAN OR BUILT-UP LAND
3. oor

2.7 r
Qzsor

MILES
i :

2 —-—-f—-—-—]|—- —-7-——-+] --—— Dae as
32.25 T nT age

a Se

®
8
3 1s0F
=

d. WATER BODIES
Looe

URBAN <——__—_—_—_——> PRIMITIVE

Figure 5.—Average distance from nonforest land uses ( -, +2 stand-

ard errors) by ROS category (n =sample size).

Table 12.—Percent response® by ownership of most recent site visited and ROS score (P(X2) <.001,

mec =.266)
ROS score
Urban +—___—_——_——. Primitive
Ownership All -19t0-5 -4to-1 O0to3 4toB 9 to 25
(n=578) — (n=133) (n=109) (n=125) (n=102) (n=109)
Public agency 48 52 54 59 36 36
Farmer 11 7 8 9 14 19
Other private 28 29 23 18 36 34
Don’t know 13 13 16 4 14 pay

*Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

In
i)


and comparatively level topography characteristic of
Alabama’s forests (Rudis 1983) is more likely to re-
quire a shorter distance to achieve a sense of isolation
from the sights and sounds of man.

Recreation site selection is a complex process based
not only on user preferences but on familiarity and
importance of activities desired, knowledge or skill
held by the user, and available opportunities (McCool
and others 1985). User familiarity may provide an
additional reason for finding a shorter distance from
roads in the current study. For Alabama forest users,
personal knowledge of pristine environments and the
range of available opportunities that provide primi-
tive recreational experiences may be more limited
than that for recreation users in Colorado (Brown and
others 1978) or Oregon (Lee and others 1983). In the
Midsouth, 0.6 percent of the forests are 3 miles or
more from roads (Rudis 1986). Less than 10 percent of
Alabama’s forested land is 1/2 mile or more from
roads; less than 4 percent is 1 mile or more from roads
(Rudis and others 1984).

Farms.—The median distance from farms is 1 or 2
miles for all forest users, regardless of preferences.
More of the urban-oriented users are unaware of the
location of farms, compared with primitive-oriented
users. Without the “don’t know” response, a plot of
average distances suggests no significant differences
by ROS categories (fig. 5c).

Urban or Built-Up Land.—The median distance
from urban or built-up land is 3 miles for users at the
primitive-end of the spectrum and 1 or 2 miles for
users at the urban-end of the spectrum. With compu-
tation of midpoints, distinguishing several of the ROS
categories is relatively weak. Separation of the ex-
tremes is achieved at 2.5 miles (fig. 5b).

Forests distant from urban or built-up land are used
more by primitive-oriented users than urban-oriented
users. The ROS Users Guide (U.S. Forest Service
1982) does not distinguish primitive opportunities on
the basis of a distance from urban or built-up land.
The amount, distribution, and degree of evidence of
man-made structures are important ROS criteria,
however. A fixed distance from urban and built-up
land can provide a more simplified, logical basis for
distinguishing primitive use areas for sample-based
inventories in the South.

Water. —Most forest users visit sites within a short
distance of water; 81 percent visit sites within 1/2
mile of water bodies. Water is a focal point of outdoor
recreation activities in general (Cordell and Hendee
1982), so one should not be surprised that activities in
or near forested areas are also associated with water.
Alabama forests near water bodies constitute a small
percentage of the total forest land resource, however.
Only 11 percent of forests are within 900 feet of water
sources 1/8 acre or more in size or 40 feet or more in
width (Rudis and others 1984). Differences by ROS

14

categories are not significant (fig. 5d). Apparently the
limited forest area near water is used extensively for
leisure activities, regardless of preferences.

Size of Nearby Water Body.— Associated with ROS
categories is the size of the nearby water body. Thirty-
seven percent of the primitive-oriented users are near
large rivers, lakes, or coastal areas, compared with 59
percent of urban-oriented users. More of the
primitive-oriented users (33 percent) use areas near
small streams or creeks, than do urban-oriented users
(14 percent) (table 15).

Forests near large water bodies are relatively
scarce—less than 5 percent of forested land is within
900 feet of water bodies 1 acre or more in size, or 120
feet or more in width. Such areas require a greater
distance to reach but are more likely to have the direc-
tions and conveniences desired by urban-oriented
users—e.g., resort development, signs directing users,
etc.—than forests near smaller water bodies.

Restrictions.— The majority of respondents do not
notice any restrictions to public use on the land they
use. Most frequently noted are signs (51 percent), fol-
lowed by fences (47 percent) (table 16). Fences are
noticed less frequently by those that score in the mid-
dle ROS category (35 percent) than those at the
urban-end (51 percent) or primitive-end (67 percent)
of the spectrum.

Onsite Forest Attributes.—The majority of users
pursue leisure activities inside forests (53 percent), in
mixed pine-hardwood stands (52 percent), and in
stands greater than 40 acres in size (51 percent).
Users predominate in stands with limited vegetative
screening (36 percent) and in moderately-aged stands
(majority of trees 1/2 shoulder width, 41 percent)
(table 17).

More primitive-oriented users (69 percent) seek
recreation inside the forest than urban-oriented users
do (46 percent). The association between ROS cate-
gory and forest size and tree diameter is due to the
proportion of “don’t know” anwers. Perhaps because
fewer urban-oriented users pursued activities inside
forests, more responded with “don’t know” answers
regarding forest size and the diameter of trees.

Forest type and vegetative screening are interre-
lated: more pine stands have limited screening, while
more bottomland stands have abundant screening. Of
the two attributes, the one most significantly associ-
ated with the ROS is vegetative screening
(mcc=.339). A plurality of urban-oriented users seek
areas in stands with limited vegetative screening (47
percent), while a plurality of primitive-oriented users
seek areas in stands with intermediate vegetative
screening (43 percent).

The amount of vegetative screening has been shown
to affect user selection of campgrounds (Hancock
1973), and in rating scenic quality (Brown and Daniel
1984). Others (Brown and others 1978, U.S. Forest


CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION
METHODS ............+-++
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............0+seeeseeeee
Forest Users and Nonusers . :
Leisure Activities ........
ROS Scores .....-...ssseeee eee
ROS Categories and Demographics ..
ROS Categories and Forest Attributes .
ROS Categories and Other Preferences
CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY ....
LITERATURE CITED ..............0+20eeeees
APPENDIX A—HARD TO REACH RESPONSES ..
APPENDIX B—INCOMPLETE ROS RESPONSES . .
APPENDIX C—QUESTIONNAIRE .............-.00065



Part B - OUTDOOR LEISURE FACILITIES

Now I would like to ask you about OUTDOOR LEISURE FACILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH
FORESTED AREAS.

1, What is YOUR OPINION of THESE FACILITIES?
excellent | good | fair | poor | absent

The QUALITY is (check one) (] ia) 0 C 0
The VARIETY is (check one) [] 0 0 a} 0

I would like YOUR OPINION of OUTDOOR LEISURE FACILITIES IN OR NEAR
FORESTED AREAS you would like to see developed, improved, or maintained.

2. PLEASE CIRCLE, OR WRITE IN, the annual amount of money you would be willing to
Spend and amount of time you would be willing to volunteer for EACH OF THE
FOLLOWING FACILITIES:

(FOR EACH ROW, INDICATE AN AMOUNT IN DOLLARS AND IN HOURS.)

Annual amount Annual volunteer time
Facilities IN OR NEAR FORESTED AREAS (dollars) (hours)

Bicycle or jogging trails ...... $0$1$5$25 $_ 0 4 8 40 __ hours
Fishing areas... eee ee eee O15 B 048 4 _
Nature tratls 2... eee ee eee OF 1 5 BH _ 048 40
Greenbelts along roadways... ..+ O 1 5 25 _ 048 40
Woodlands, nature preserves. .... 0 1 5 25 04 8 40 _
Camping areas with limited facilities

(drinking water and pit toflets).. 0 1 5 2 __ o 4 8 40
Hunting areas (game management

areas). wee ee eee eee eee O15 BG 04 8 40
Camping areas with full facilities

(electrical hookups, hot water,

flush toilets, etc.)......-- 015 2 — 048 40
Hiking trails see. ee eee eee O15 8 048 4 _
Public access to lakes, rivers. ... 0 1 5 25 _ o 48 40
Picnic areas. ee ee ee ee ee ee O15 BH _ 04 8 4 _
Camping areas with no facilities... 0 1 5 25 8 0 4 8B 40 _
Wildlife refuges... 2.2 .2---- 015 2% ~ O08 4 8 4 _
Other (specify)

$ hours.

35


Table B1.—Percent response® by demographic characteristics and completion of ROS section

ROS section
All
Characteristic Statistics respondents Not completed Completed
Age class P(K2}<.000 (n=851) (n=264) (n=587)
16-24 mec=.406 8 7 9
25-29 u 6 13
30-34 12 9 13
35-39 15 ll 16
40-49 18 PS) 21
50-59 15 1 14
60-69 12 v7 10
70 or over 10 20 5
Average age 44.9 50.9 42.2
Sex P(X*)<.002 (n= 839) (n=260) (n=579)
Female mec=.151 33 40 29
Male 67 60 1
Education (years completed) — P(X2)<.000 (n= 840) (n=259) (n=581)
8 or less mce=.291 8 13 6
9,10, 11 12 16 li
12 32 37 29
13, 14 19 14 21
15, 16 17 12 19
17 or more 13 8 4
Average years 13.1 12.2 13.5
Number in household P(X?)<,002 (n=837) (n=255) (n=582)
1 mec=.199 4 19 12
2 29 34 27
3 20 18 21
4 23 19 24
5 or more 14 11 16
Average 3.0 27 3.1
Urban/rural residence P(X2}<.251  (n=856) (n=267) (n=589)
SMSA? county 65 62 66
Not in SMSA county 35 38 34
Occupation P(X?)<.000 (n=847) (n=262) (n=585)
Professional/technical/ mee=.380
managerial 27 15 33
Factory/service worker 14 15 14
Craftsperson/mechanic 10 9 11
Salesperson/clerical 9 7 10
Student 6 3 7
Homemaker 8 9 8
Retired 22 35 16
Other 4 7 3
Household income
(before taxes, 1982) P(X?)<.000 — (n=762) (n=220) (n=542)
Under $10,000 mec=.332 19 33 14
10,000-19,999 27 27 27
20,000-29,999 22 18 25
30,000-39,999 16 13 18
40,000-49,999 6 4 7
50,000-59,999 5 4 5
60,000 or over 5 5 6
Average $25,200 $21,100 $26,800
- Number of outdoor leisure
magazine subscriptions P(X2)<.124 (n= 825) (n=255) (n=570)
None 46 51 44
1 28 29 28
2 14 i 15
3 or more 12 9 13
Average 10 0.9 1.0

Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
>SMSA-=Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, U.S. Census 1980.

23


= Recreational Use of
= Forested Areas
= Alsbama Residents

a
E
Front Cover D

Forested areas can be classified as having certain characteristics, e.g.
(A) large diameter trees, (B) limited screening or open and parklike, (C) near
roads, (D) adjacent to water bodies, (E) dense vegetative screening, and (F) near
farms. The importance of forested areas ag a recreation resource differs with
respect to forest characteristics and the leisure activities and preferences of
users,

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many thanks to the scientists and colleagues who
offered encouragement and guidance in obtaining Of-
fice of Management and Budget approval and in car-
ryingout the survey, and who provided critical re-
views of the questionnaire and earlier versions of this
paper.

October 1987


Now I would like some information about the LOCATION WHERE YOU LAST DID

your MOST FREQUENT leisure activity (QUESTION 2a).

3. ABOUT HOW MANY MILES was it

4, HOW DID YOU GET THERE?

Bicycle. see eae

Automobile. . .
Motorcycle. . «
Truck or van.

Boat.» +. ee

5. HOW LONG does it take to travel

(if

FROM YOUR HOME? » 2 we eee eee

miles

more than one, put an "x" by major one.)

+e OT
oe
+e]
oe ef]
ee

Camper or motor home... +o

On foot. we eee eee eens

Train, bus, streetcar ,or

other surface transportation. .

Airplane. we ee eee eee

the major type of transportation listed in question

6. In your opinion, HOW EASY is it for you to get there?

Very difficult... 6.6
Somewhat difficult... .

7. WHO WAS IN CHARGE of the land?

U.S. Forest Service (e.9.

Other public agency (e.g.

Service organization

“0
~O

from your home directly to this area by the

18)
ia)

J
0

AM ee ee ee hours.

(Check

Somewhat easy. . » «
Very easy... +s

National Forest Land) .

TVA, State Park, etc.). +. eee

(e.g. Church, YMCA, Boy Scouts, other non-profit agency).

Farmer, group of farmers.

Private industry or other

individuals... ee ee

Don't kKnOW, ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ees

IF YOU DON'T KNOW, who would you GUESS was in

Public agency. see ee eee eee

Private industry... eee ee ee

Other private landowner, 2 ee eee

8. If this land was PRIVATELY OWNED, who owned

charge of the

it?

Yourself, friend, neighbor, or relative... .

Timber or other wood products company... + +

Company or individual whose business 1s supplying

one)

leisure .

facilities (e.g. private campgrounds, Alabama Power Company

Private company whose business is not supplying

leisure facilities or wood products

oo

one)

ia)
ia)

is)
ie)
{7
1

is)
f)
is

(Check one)
seeeee I]

Areas).

(e.g. employer-sponsored recreation areas). «2 eee ee ee ee ee

Someone else. se ee ee ee ee ee ew ee ee eer eee tenes

Don't KNOW, we ee ew eee ee eee eer nee rere nn ecne

18]

t]

3

ia
]

31


Table B8.—Percent response® by type of association with private
owner of most recent site visited and completion of ROS

section (P(X?) <.406)
_ ROS section
Private owner All
association respondents Not completed Completed
(n=410) (n=114) (n=296)

Self, friend, or relative 44 46 43

Someone else 26 21 27

- Don’t know 30 33 29

*Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Table B9.—Percent response* by distance from nonforest land uses and completion of ROS section

= alt ROS section
= Land feature/distance Statistics respondents  Notcompleted © Completed
Roads P(X%)<.019 — (n=758) (n=192) (n=566)
100 feet mec=.158 22 17 24
100 yards 18 17 19
1/4 mile 17 20 16
1/2 mile 15 17 14
1 or 2 miles 15 11 16
3 miles or more 6 7 6
Don’t know 6 rN 5
Farms PX2)<.011 — (n=753) (n=184) (n=569)
100 feet mec=.165 9 PT 8
100 yards 8 9 8
1/4 mile 11 14 1
1/2 mile 10 10 i
1 or 2 miles 17 18 17
3 miles or more 22 12 25
Don’t know 22 27 20
Urban or built-up land = P(X?)<.035 = (n=783) (n=173) (n=560)
100 feet or 100 yards mec=.143 8 6 8
1/4 mile 9 10 9
1/2 mile 7 6 8
1 or 2 miles 14 19 13
3 miles or more 48 40 51
Don’t know 14 19 12
Water bodies P(X2)<.021  (n=724) (n=179) (n=545)
100 feet mec=.160 40 34 42
100 yards 15 13 16
1/4 mile 14 12 14
12 mile 10 12 9
1 or 2 miles 7 8 6
3 miles or more 6 1 6
Don’t know 8 14 6

"Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding.


Table 8.—Percent response* by demographic characteristics and ROS score—Continued

ROS score
Urban =-<———__——_—_» Primitive
Characteristic Statistics All -19to-5 -4to-1  O0to3 4t08 = 9 0 25
Number of outdoor (n=570)  (n=127) — (n=109)- (n=125) (n=99) (n= 110)
leisure magazine
subscriptions P(X?) < .136
None 44 45 41 54 36 42
1 28 34 26 20 33 28
2 15 10 15 18 16 15
3 13 ll 18 9 14 15
Average 1.0 0.9 12 09 12 Ll

*Columns within each characteristic may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
®SMSA = Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, U.S. Census 1980.

Table 9.—Average value (+2 standard errors) of the quality, variety, and willingness to support
(develop, improve, or maintain) outdoor leisure facilities associated with forested areas by

ROS score
ROS score
Urban mm x7“ Primitive
Opinion. All -19to -5 -4to-1 0to3 408 9 to 25
Quality* 2.34.1 214.2 234.2 21+ .2 24+ .2 244.2
(Sample size) (548) (123) (99) 21) (97) (108)
Variety* 262.1 2422 254.2 244.2 2742 2722
(Sample size) (539) (122) (100) (114) (97) (106)
Percent willing
to support 86 84 86 84 87 89
(Sample size) (488) (106) (87) (109) (83) (103)

Scale: 1=excellent, 2=good, 3=fair, 4=poor, 5=absent

>P(X?) < 811

ties are preferred by a plurality of younger individu-
als, males, and those with more schooling; urban
recreation opportunities are preferred by a plurality
of older individuals, females, and those with fewer
years of schooling.

The degree of recreation activity specialization is
correlated with age (Jackson and Peyton 1986). Indi-
viduals less experienced and specialized in a particu-
lar activity—generally younger individuals—are
goal-oriented (e.g., the trophy buck, the highest
mountain peak) (Jackson and Peyton 1986). The soli-
tude and survival experience of primitive recreational
opportunities may be more suited to their desires.
Those more experienced and specialized in an activ-
ity—generally older individuals—are interested in
companionship and in the participation experience.
With reduced physical abilities at advanced ages,
older, more experienced individuals may be more in-
terested in the convenience and direction of urban
opportunities.

10

ROS Categories and Forest Attributes

Findings reported here reflect a typical outing to
pursue one’s most frequent leisure activity. Ideas for
classifying forest areas used by a spectrum of user
types are explored as alternatives to the ROS stand-
ards (U.S. Forest Service 1982) that may not apply in
Alabama. Areas where less frequent leisure activities
are pursued, or where preferred opportunities exist
may be much farther away and more difficult to
reach. Ownership, distance from nonforest land uses,
and onsite forest attributes may be different as well.

Distance from Residence. —Users travel about 20
miles from their residence, or slightly less than 1 hour
away, and at an average speed of 26 miles per hour
(fig. 4). The majority of users travel mostly by car (60
percent) (table 10), and consider the area very easy to
reach (62 percent) (table 11).

Primitive-oriented users (ROS score 9 or greater)
travel an average of 12 miles from their residence and


distance identified by planners or recreation users at
on near a selected site. The distance in this study
represents an average of the maximum distance trav-
eled and reported by users for a site recently visited.
The preferred distance for any given site could very
well be different.

Another reason is that vegetative screening and
landscape conditions in Alabama are unlike those in

the West. Brown and others (1978) suggested three
miles as a minimum road distance standard to obtain
a primitive recreation experience for backcountry
areas in Colorado. This suggestion has also been in-
corporated into the ROS Users Guide (U.S. Forest
Service 1982). In Oregon, Lee and others (1983) rec-
ommended 2 miles for semi-arid and sparsely vege-
tated mountain areas. The more densely vegetated

Table 13.—Percent response by type of association with private owner of most recent site visited and

ROS score (P(X?) <.127)

ROS score
Urban + Primitive
Private owner association All -19to-5 -4to-1 0to3 4008 9 to 25
(n=296) — (n=66) (n=49)  (n=52) (n=63) (n= 66)
Self, friend or relative 43 38 31 42 49 53
Someone else 27 27 35 19 27 29
Don’t know 29 35 35 38 24 18
*Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
Table 14.—Percent response* by distance from nonforest land uses and ROS score
ROS score
Nonforest land Urban =<———_——__———_ Primitive
use/distance Statistics All -19t0-5 -4to-1 O0to3 4to8 9025
Roads P(X2)<,005  (n=566) = (n=128) ~— (n=106) - (n=124) (n=99)_—(n=109)
100 feet mee=.306 24 33 22 29 22 n
100 yards 19 19 25 19 7 14
1/4 mile 16 13 17 19 18 7
1/2 mile 14 13 16 uw 16 17
1 or 2 miles 16 14 u 12 14 27
3 miles or more 6 5 3 4 6 13
Don’t know 5 3 6 6 6 3
Farms P(X?)<.009  (n=569) = (n=128) (n=108) (n=123) (n=101) (n=109)
100 feet mee=.297 8 9 4 i 8 9
100 yards 8 6 11 8 8 8
1/4 mile nu 1 13 7 9 13
1/2 mile 11 9 10 i 15 10
1 or 2 miles 17 9 15 18 19 25
3 miles or more 25 24 26 20 29 28
Don’t know 20 32 21 24 13 7
Urban or built-up land P(X?)<,.008 = (n=560) (n=125)— (n=104)  (n=121) (n=100)_— (n=110)
100 feet or 100 yards mec=.283 8 i 8 11 T 3
1/4 mile 9 7 5 13 iat 6
V/2 mile 7 ul 9 8 3 5
1 or 2 miles 13 12 18 10 13 13
3 miles or more 51 43 45 44 56 67
Don’t know 12 15 15 14 10 5
Water bodies P(X?)<.368 (n=545) = (n= 126) (n=100) (n=115)  (n=97) (n=107)
100 feet 42 46 39 47 38 40
100 yards 16 15 21 17 By 15
1/4 mile 4 13 12 13 12 21
1/2 mile 9 10 8 7 10 1.
Lor 2 miles 6 6 6 6 7 6
3 miles or more 6 4 7 2 12 5
Don’t know 6 6 7 8 8 3

#Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

13